CD-sourced vinyl — myth or reality?

If they specialize in garage rock, it's really not going to make much difference whether they source their LPs from 16 bit digital or high rez digital. Their choice of releasing to LP is clearly an aesthetic and marketing decision, not one based on sound quality.

 

Looks like your friend was dealing with a small plant that does a cheap job and probably wanted the vinyl for aethetic or promo reasons. He also appears to lack an understanding of the vinyl manufacturing process. All the major plants deal with hi-rez files and a few can deal with analogue sources. If he wanted quality mastering there are facilities in the UK that can cut the laquers. Also sending hi-rez files introduces extra processing and work for the mastering facility. This is clear if you look at Cohearant Audio's site. Files over the Internet do not appear to be a desirable format !

http://cohearent.com/index.cfm?go=files

Can I add that in my experience I have purchased few albums that are fairly obviously cut from 16/44.1 (or the CD). Even going back to early digital a vinyl album usualy bests the CD. The earliest commercial digital sysyems using 16 bit recording were likely 48Khz or better and earliest DAT sources are 16/48. The sampling rates for recording soon progressed to 18bit +. With data loss and jitter reproduced by CD players it is logical in most instances that vinyl better resolved most digital recordings. Even before hi-rez was introduced. In my view the main culprits in using CD resolution to press vinyl have been certain reissue labels selling a phoney 180g audiophile product.

 

Yep, my friend rarely masters for vinyl- it was just on this occasion he was asked to.

I was just using the process he encountered as an example that CDs are still used for vinyl masters sometimes.

I'm assuming that the major pressing plants would have the facilities and more often than not use Hi Rez where available.

 

This is why I'm waiting for reviews of the forthcoming Beatles vinyls for which so many are salivating.

 

Such as? We want names!

 

I have older copies. Let me check and I will post the deadwax later. WG/NRP is Wes Garland/Nashville Record Press and U is United Pressing. My copies do not have these in the deadwax. I have some of Wes's work and he does a good job when given a good source.

I always wondered about these reissues, I just figured they'd used the same stampers for some reason.

Aquemeni is one of my favorite records every as well.

 

This is certainly a refreshing post and what I have noticed about vinyl produced in recent years.

 

This is not the industry standard. Why would we assume this. Different artists and labels make different decisions. Most competent pressing plants can press from high rez or analog files (RTI, Pallas, Furnace, United, Record Industry, GZ, etc.). I'm sure Joe's backyard pressing may have problems and shouldn't be pressing anyways.

In saying this, many will just press from a cd master and this is bad if there is a better source available. Also, there are many who use the best master possible (analog or high rez).

As we know there a great mastering engineers out there as well and it's refreshing when you see their initials in the deadwax. Damn, I've become a vinyl nerd.

 

Interesting. That's unusual - from what I've been through at least. Everywhere I've checked and/or done business with, sending files via FTP was encouraged.

It's also unusual (again, from my experience) for a mastering facility to charge an extra fee for submitting anything better than a Red Book CD. Usually it's the other way around - most cutting engineers discourage (some actually refuse) Red Book CD submissions. They want the files.

 

Chicago mastering does a great job. I have a few lps in my collection that have been mastered by Jason Ward. Two that come to mind are the Walkmen's Lisbon and Miles Benjamin Anthony Robinson's Summer of Fear. Both have a great 'analog' sound but I'm pretty sure they are high rez masterings. He did a great job on both, especially considering that the Walkmen title is rather long for one lp.

 

Looks like GZ.

 

If it's GZ they would have GZvinyl.com in the deadwax. GZ can do hi-rez mastering. Could there be some confusion in relation to asking for files on a CD/DVD disc instead of by FTP rather than just 16/44.1 ?

 

Jason cut my band's first LP. He was awesome.

I brought my 24/96 master in person, on a thumb drive. While I was there, he made a few test cuts (just a minute or two of a few tracks) on a scrap test lacquer that we checked in their main listening room, just to make sure that the sound was right. All this, for a flat unsupervised fee - no ups, no extras.

When URP screwed up and damaged one of the lacquers, Jason did it over and overnight shipped the re-cut - all free of charge (side one of the final release has a nice "r2" added in the deadwax). A very classy guy, I think.

Now that Pirates Press accepts lacquers from outside sources I may consider going with Chicago Mastering again. They made our first LP (and my first attempt at mastering a vinyl release) sound much better than I hoped for.

 

Nice! Sounds like a real class guy. I've tried to promote his name on here a bit just for appreciation of the sound. Chicago mastering just sounds like a straight up cool place but I've always had an affinity for the City of Chicago.

So, Pirates Press is an ok pressing plant? Oddly enough, the first Miles Benjamin album I have was pressed and mastered there I believe and this one sounds more like a cd master was used. The other was mastered at CM and pressed at RTI. CM cuts all analog too right? I want to say they master Steve Albini's bands records?

Where can your album be heard/purchased? I'd like to give it a listen. Your studio is pretty nice a well.

 

Pirates Press doesn't press anything; they are a middleman, a broker, or whatever you want to call it. The Pirates Press records I have I think are pressed at GZ.
(in fact, the last time I looked, I think Pirates Press stated on their website that they use GZ)

 

I'm not sure if they cut for Steve Albini, but it wouldn't surpise me, as one of their mastering engineers is the bass player for Shellac. And yes, they LOVE working with analog tape over there...

As mentioned before, Pirate's Press is basically the US office for GZ. Their mastering is not to everyone's tastes (they cut strictly digital to DMM), but their vinyl is dead quiet and they never press anything off-center (that seems to be a sore point with URP).

I had Pirates Press do our second LP, start to finish: lacquers, pressing, packaging. Their customer service is unmatched, in my opinion. Everything was done quickly, and correctly. Personally, I was well satisfied with the DMM cut of our second LP, but I did miss the in-person experience of having the lacquers done locally.

 

Atliens - Cat # 73008-26029-1 - Dead wax Disk 2 (HFM '96 CSB)
Aquemini - Cat #73008-26053-1 - No deadwax mastering credit/Mastered by Brain Gardner on the Cover
Speakerboxx/Love Below - United and GEO in the deadwax. Liner notes Brian Gardner
Greatest Hits - Bernie Grundman Mastering but no initials in deadwax

I'm reading now that Neal Pogue was/is an analog guy was this way all the way up until "Speakerboxx/The Love Below" and this may mean that that everything before this was tracked and mixed analog. From what I'm reading that what it appears to be. Has has seen been impressed by ProToolsHD.

All the albums sound good but Aquemini is the best. It was recorded so well.Kind of like the way music used to be recorded. This is music you can turn up louder than most well mastered rock without being fatiquing.

Something I never thought before but Outkast may have recorded and mixed analog all the way up until SB/TLB.

 

This is explains why the Witchdoctor 'A S.W.A.T. Healin' Ritual' sounds so good. This same guy tracked and mixed it as well. It appears he worked at Larrabee studios early on for what it is worth.

The detail on this lp is crazy and is a southern hip-hop classic but really only well known in ATL.

Due to a little research I learned some refreshing things tonight.

 

GZvinyl.com in deadwax is only when the lacquers or mothers are sent to GZ.

 

I don't recall exactly what he said and don't have tim eto search, but forum member GeorgeZ works at GZ. I recall in the past mentioning a release that didn't have an obvious GZ reference in the deadwax but George replied that they pressed it. In that discussion and others, I've seen him mention that often they have nothing to do with the mastering other than preparing digital files for cutting to analog (which I know technically falls under the traditional definition of "mastering"). I also recall discussing the Black Crowes Croweology vinyl, which had a reference to a company in Vancouver, BC, which actually prepared the lacquers and then sent them to GZ for pressing. In fact, there's a recent thread relevant to this one here: Is new vinyl mostly digital? There's an interesting stat in there that GeorgeZ gives regarding digital versus vinyl sources at GZ. In the past year out of 12,000 plates only in about 10 case were they given analog sources, so it's simply not cost effective for them to invest in the equipment required to go all analog.

To get back to the subject of this thread, another thing comes to mind that I don't think has been mentioned. Consistency of sound. I recall reading about the 2003 Stones Abkco remasters, where they archives all the analog master tapes to 30ips copies and originally considered these as a source for cutting the 2003 LP versions but decided to use the DSD masters used for the SACDs and CDs to ensure consistency among all three formats. Now granted the source was hires digital (DSD) but the principle remains the same, making sure the same mastering moves for EQ, edits, compression, noise reduction (I know those last two are dirty words to some here, but Bob Ludwig has mentioned using both for that project), etc. Now, with all due respect to Steve and his point that mastering from a CD is "bad" but a digital file is ok, if the source file is only available in 16/44.1, I don't see the problem. Yes, mastering from realtime playback of a CD could cause issues due to optical reading of disc errors (the whole argument for SHM-based discs is based on this), equipment, etc., but if the ME ripped the CD to 16/44.1 digital files then use pro equipment to cut them to LP, making appropriate moves to deal with the limitations of vinyl (and again I know this is technically mastering), the results could be fine. After all, I recall that we have another thread around here in which Steve and others have made the observation that vinyl provides the truest representation of the master tape, so would it not follow that vinly would also provide the truest representation of the digital 16/44.1 files? (I'm not debating that hires could be better, just that whatever is in the source will be best represented by vinyl).

Here's a purely hypothetical yet practical example. Steve's new CSN CD for AF is garnering rave reviews and rightly so. The article over at musicangle.com provides some great insight into the mastering moves Steve put into that. I know that perhaps a vinyl version sourced from the original tape could sound better, but what if someone cut an LP from the analog tape but didn't make the same moves as Steve, which many of us think really brought the album to life? The resulting LP might be "all analog" but it still wouldn't necessarily provide the same magic on playback.

Another aspect might be approvals. I'm thinking of the Beatles here. It's been suggested that should Apple ever get those long-rumored vinyl editions of the Beatles remasters out, they will have to be sourced from the same masters used for the CD (well actually the 24/44.1 masters used for the USB release) simply because these are the only version of those masters that have been approved by Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia. To go back to the analog masters would require a whole new round of approvals.

Again, these would technically not be the same as popping a CD in a player and cutting directly from that, but is that really done or is it more common for a master to be sent as files?

 

Yes.

 

I've read this thread and have been thinking of it on and off for a few weeks. My conclusion is this: I'd be stupid by buy any new vinyl. The better sound from vinyl likely comes from, among other things, subtle harmonics in the audio chain. Harmonics are why a C major on f flute sounds difference from a C major on a clarinet. Digital processing cannot pick up harmonics; they are lost. I can't believe major record companies are going to the trouble to keep the whole chain analog...it would cost too much. I hope someone can convince me otherwise. Meanwhile I'm going to play my old vinyl from the days before the digital age.
Jeff B.

 

That's why you can't tell from a digital recording if it's a flute or a clarinet playing. I've always wondered.

 

If you pass up on it, you are passing up on the best master many times of some modern music whether mastered from analog or high rez. If you don't like new music then I understand I guess.

I buy a lot of new vinyl and it really has changed my listening experience of music. Yes, there are a few that come from less than desirable sources but these are the minority and if I love the music, it's not such a big deal. Most new vinyl sounds great. This goes for remasters and new releases. I do my best to weed through the garbage though.

The new Ryan Adams is all analog by the way. Cut by Doug Sax.

 

If that were true digital music would be unrecognizable. It wouldn't even sound like music.