CD-sourced vinyl — myth or reality?

Id add, in addition to it being about the mastering, its even more about how good the actual original sessions were captured to begin with.

Recording quality at the time of creation can vary far more than any change in resolution or sampling rate, can vary, by magnitudes.

 

Yes, one title White Blood Cells was cd sourced and Elephant was analog sourced. In addtion, White Blood Cells received an all analog release just a year or so later and it sounded much better than redbook sourced vinyl of the same title. Same recording, same mixing, different source for mastering. It was like comparing the cd to the vinyl release for lack of better description. One was ok but the other was much better.

The source makes a big difference from my experience. If an analog or high rez master is available and they master from the redbook, there will be a difference.

I agree that the original recording and mastering play much more significant role than anything else. 16/44 can be mastered well and sound great but if a better master is available the final mastering job it will sound better. This is at least what I've read from interviews from several mastering engineers. I'm not an expert though, I use my ears and then get some information from research from those with knowledge beyond my years and experience.

 

Okay, the ambiguity about the vinyl source for "Ashes & Fire" by Ryan Adams has been bugging me and I emailed Mastering Lab. Here is an excerpt of the response:

"The "Ashes & Fire" was a completely analog project, cut to vinyl from the original 1/4" 30 ips analog tapes with EQ. These were cut *on the same lathes that Doug has been using since opening The Mastering Lab in 1967; the same lathes that have cut Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Eagles, Pantera, Slayer (and the list goes on)."

I was very pleasantly surprised by the info provided. I guess you just have to ask the source if you really want to know. Now I need to figure out how to contact Plain Records...

 

wow good on them for responding and with a bit of detail too! impressed. Would be great if this sorta info was posted on the artist website

 

Common sense to you perhaps. To me that sounds like nonsense.

IMO, too many people obsess over whether something is digital or analog, while to me "common sense" is to focus on how it sounds.

Just one example. I have two copies of the Feelies' Good Earth on LP: an original, all analog version on Twin/Tone and a reissue cut from 192/24 digital on Bar None. Which one sounds better? If I go by audiophool ideology, I would be forced to say the all analog original. But my ears tell me the reissue sounds better by a good bit. There are so many other factors that affect whether or not an LP will sound good or not: who mastered it; what equipment did they use, etc., etc.

IMO, most people couldn't tell the difference between analog tape and a 192/24 digital dub of said tape made with good equipment if their life depended on it. I know for a fact I can't.

 

Yes. It can be done properly. Kudos to Ryan Adams and all involved for the extra effort in producing a truly analogue lp issue in the modern nu-vinyl era!

 

Three things:

1) Like the Ryan Adams/Mastering Labs info above, it’s refreshing and cool when the provenance of a recording is public knowledge and not treated like something to hide. Transparency in mastering is a good thing, and clamming up makes labels and artists look dumb.

2) Your observations about the digitally mastered Feelies album matching or surpassing the all-analog version matches several examples in my experience too. The Analog-or-Death stance on vinyl is a kind of fanaticism, although happily there’s no law against that kind of craziness.

3) The Feelies are so great; The Good Earth is a fantastic record; as is their 2011 album, Here Before — it made my personal top ten.

 

Oh, definitely, transparency is a good thing. I would not have known the Feelies album was cut from 192/24 digital if Steve at Bar-None didn't tell me so. I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. I just get tired of people talking as if digital/analog is all that matters. But really the key thing with the Feelies LP is that it was mastered by Andreas Meyer from Tangerine Mastering. He does good work.

The Feelies are awesome. Saw them at Bell House in Brooklyn a few months ago. They're still a great live act. One of my all-time favorite bands.

 

Sorry, but i'm no fanatic. I just don't buy lp's with street dates post-1983. But even with taking that simple step, i'm sure a few digitally mixed/mastered lps are in the collection. I'm sure those sound just fine. An example i'm aware of: Fleetwood Mac's Tusk was digitally mixed and i still own and enjoy it. But that said, i'm sure at least 95% or better of my lps are true AAA analogue lps. I don't consider that nonsense, crazy or fanatical at all. I think it's common sense. Analogue provenance is important to me. I'm know i'm not alone in that. Very glad to know that there are a handful of artists, producers, studios and labels who put in the extra effort to make AAA lps. No cause for this topic to get heated/closed by admin at all from my point of view. Live and let live, etc.

 

I just picked up a second copy of Aquemini a few days ago (my favorite album of all time!) brand new in the store and only listened to a couple tracks but wasn't really impressed with it.

I'm going to have to sit down with my two copies more closely and compare the two (a used copy which, if not original, is at least an older pressing). I haven't listened to my reference track (Liberation) on the new copy yet.

I don't know anything about the pressing history of these, but they're definitely different. The labels are different on the LPs, and the writing in the middle between the grooves is different (sorry, don't know what that area is called, I'm a noob!).

But it makes me curious about the provenance of the new copy I have. Now it makes me a little worried about my new copy of ATLiens which didn't blow me away either. :/ Neither sounded bad (of what I've listened to so far), they just weren't the "holy ***** this is way different and amazing!" kind of reaction I had the first time I spun the older used copy of Aquemini.

This album has been one of my audiophile references for years on CD before I more recently started a foray into vinyl.

Anyway, do you have information/reason to believe, or are you assuming that the new pressing is sourced from the CD? In a way it wouldn't surprise me, on the other hand I just don't know...

Either way, it looks like I might have to go hunting for some used original copies of my other Outkast albums I picked up on LP which are all new...

And is there a way to tell what pressing I'm looking at as far as the mastering engineer? Does the cited Brian Gardner write his initials on there or something, (or never write his initials)?

On the A-side of the NEW copy it says (along with the number/side identification which is the same on both):

wg/nrp

And then there is a lowercase 'u ' inside a circle like an @ almost.

On my OLD (original? I don't know) copy there are no notes, besides the numbers.

 

Don’t get me wrong, there’s not an ounce of hostility in what I said. Crazy can be good, fanaticism can be great — I say embrace your craziness, own it and stand up for it, if that’s the way you want to roll. Nobody gets hurt because you or I are batty. This is music we’re talking about, where everybody is allowed to be nuts and and peculiar and loyal to their madness in their own way. I certainly am.

 

As long as you're not hurting anyone, then go nuts. What's best for me isn't necessarily best for everyone, and vice versa.

 

If i have any hostility it's towards a music industry that habitually cuts corners for the sake of profit.

Towards music fanatics/Audiophiles of any ilk? None.

 

G'day,

+1 ... and I cannot tell the difference between my vinyl and a 16/44 rip of that vinyl sometimes (must be the ears fizzling out in my dotage).

To me it's not a question of "vinyl or CD", it's "was this music produced from a well-mastered source of sufficient resolution?". A lot of CDs do not meet this standard, nor vinyl produced from such CDs. A lot of analog vinyl meets this standard, as does 24/192 digital (or even lower-res, depending on yer ears) and vinyl produced from it. I'm wondering if we'll get to the stage that 24/192 becomes the industry standard and it's so trivial to obtain and play back that the demand for vinyl may slow down ...

--Geoff

 

I use to worry if a new LP I wanted was sourced from CD, but after a while I realized that if it was pressed from squashed 16/44.1 CD files, the LP would still not be as loud and fatiguing as the CD. You can't cut vinyl at those volume levels. It won't sound much better than the CD due to the poor mastering choices that were made before the cutting stage, but at least the overall volume level assault has been dialed back a bit.

This whole idea that most new LPs are made from 16/44.1 CD files is exaggerated IMO. I'm familiar with what high-rez PCM and DSD sounds like, and most new LPs I bought during the last couple of years have the same sonic signatures that lead me to believe that I'm not just listening to a big black CD. It actually seems like more vinyl releases are being made from higher than CD rez sources then they were 5 to 10 years ago. This is most likely because of the growing interest in the format during the last decade.

 

What? If you source from a CD the best you can do is put a equalizer and the inherent alinearities of vinyl into the chain. The greatest mastering engineer on the planet can't fix that.

 

It would be great if 24/192 was the industry standard, but it doesn't look like that will be happening anytime soon. 24/96 or even just 24/48/44.1 seems to be good enough for most. This is a shame because going up to 4x sampling rates can really produce better sounding results. There are A-D/D-A converters that can do 24/176/192 justice, so what's with the reluctance to use them for that purpose? Maybe the quality standards within the industry have really fallen that much over the last few decades.

If 24/192 were to become the standard, I don't think that this would reduce the demand for vinyl. There will always be some demand for physical product, and hopefully a general move to 4x sampling rates within the industry will result in better sounding vinyl made from these high-rez files.

 

Why would it be great if 24/192 was the industry standard?

I mean, I get it that 192 is twice as much as 96 - but what does that translate to with actual listening? I have a hard time believing anyone here has a signal path (turntable>>>>speakers) that goes higher than 48kHz...

or 24kHz for that matter...


not to mention the limits of adult human hearing

 

My good friend is a producer and he sent some Hi Rez files to a vinyl pressing plant in Europe, and they wrote back to him asking for a CD copy of the album, because their equipment couldn't press from the Hi Rez files.

I was gob-smacked when he told me the story, and the LP in question sounds terrible.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that is the current industry standard for vinyl issue masters. Kinda sad.

 

Well this was for an indie label that releases garage rock, and I'm not sure whether it was a large pressing plant or backyard type operation.

Either way, the label in question put their releases out ONLY on vinyl, so you'd think that if they were such vinyl fans, they'd actually want to make proper use of the format.

 

They should be able to cut master from files on an optical disc no matter what the resolution. Did he send files over internet? Why didn't he send the files to a mastering facility and then have the laquer sent on to the plant for plating and pressing ?

 

Do you know which European company this was? GZ gladly accepted my 24/96 files - in fact they prefer it: http://www.piratespress.com/cms/documents/specs_form.pdf

My previous LP was cut at Chicago Mastering, which strongly discourages 16 bit masters: http://www.chicagomasteringservice.com/preparation.html

I did quite a bit of shopping around for LP mastering recently, and I can't recall a single place that was unable to accept high resolution digital files.

 

He first sent Hi Rez wav files over the net, then they requested CD quality wavs. Maybe he was dealing with the label and not the plant direct, but that was what was asked of him, and he was specifically told that they couldn't press from the Hi Rez.

Like I said, I have no idea which plant it was. The numbers in the run out groove are typed (not handwritten) and just finish with 1/A and 2/C, and the vinyl is a clear red with marble type black spots - the kind of coloured vinyl you often see on the pirate copies of hard to find 90's albums that have been coming out of Europe the past few years.