What do you hear for when you suspect a vinyl mastering is from a digital source?

Easy, just listen to "Aphrodites Child" - Four Horseman, when the drum kicks in on any analogue press vs digital.

 

I bet in a blind A/B, no one could pick out AAA vs Digital at any rate better than chance. Everything you read in reviews is hyperbole and nothing more. If the reviewer (or average listener) didn't know the source in advance, they'd be completely unable to correctly select the source better than 50/50.

 

1's & 0's

 

Years and years ago I posted my thoughts on a comparison of a dub done simultaneously from vinyl to a Type IV metal cassette and a CDR. The results were similar to what you two posed above and were kind of interesting. I found that I far preferred voice and acoustic guitar on a cassette (because of the illusion of realism), but rock bass guitar and sometimes drums seemed better on digital. In particular bass guitar seemed sharpened or more focused on the digital dub.

I used a

Nakamichi CR-7A cassette deck (pretty much 'high end' for cassette)
and a
Tascam CD player/recorder the model number of which I've forgotten

This was kind of an unequal comparison -- the cassette deck is in reality a far higher quality component than the CDR was (don't have it anymore). Still, my results echo what was posted above. And, I find that they generally apply to new records I buy. To the extent it's mastering and not source, I don't know. But somehow when I get a record that sounds dead I immediately think I got something digital. That might not be fair, but that somehow got imprinted into my brain.

 

I usually hear a hint of old men bickering on a forum.

 

Play only CD's for 3 weeks.
After that play only your vinyl for a while.
Then decide which makes the most musical impact.
For me it is vinyl. Can't describe it. It is like the difference between a real piano and a digital piano.

 

I’m not convinced it’s just mastering. It could be for some random bands where not a lot of resources is put into the reissue but for example, look at Pink Floyd’s reissues, they are done by Bernie Grundman. I have no proof but I’m pretty sure Floyd are not trying to save a few quid and not do the best job possible and yet with all the resources and using the best of the best in the industry they can’t cut new reissues that sound as good as the AAA originals.

 

The key word here is "suspect." If you don't "know" immediately, it's all confirmation bias from that point forward.

 

Tests like these have been around since the early 80's, people swearing something sounded "organic" and "warm" so it had to be vinyl. Yet it was a CD. And vice versa. Here we are some... what.... 40 years later and people are still claiming they could always hear the difference between digital and analogue.

 

What else could it be? Obviously we are now at a point in time where some original tapes have started to deteriorate but in general mastering and manufacturing are the most important things. Still the former is dependent on a decent source.

And don't forget: Labels like MFSL are still putting out quality stuff. Albeit at a certain price.

 

Lack of air

 

This is a good point.
One of the best mastering engineers, top quality mastering chain equipment. Better than any random old cutting house could do in the 70s. Yet I too found the 2016s bland. Was it simply the digital step? Compared to a 2x generation copy of the master used for original US pressings?

granted, BG was using digitally mastered files that (I think the 24/192 releases this year are the sources BG used?) have since been released in full and they do indeed sound bland too. It might have been the digital transfer at fault, not just the fact that it was digitally sourced.

 

You should not hear anything different from the fact that it is sourced from digital. The advantage of an all-analogue chain for an older album is that it replicates what was done for the first release so it is more authentic.

Tim

 

Little green humanoids whispering cold unfeeling sounds all at the same volume and tone.

 

Double "like". It's all in the mind.

 

Compression/bumped up EQ both ways from modern remastering and lack of soundstage is what I've noticed from run of the mill one's.
dB compression on an already compressed recording sucks

 

Literally the only fair comparison for this would be if a mastering engineer were to cut a AAA version, as well as a digitally transferred version of that same analog master on the same day (transferred using the same tape machine as it’s been setup to run that day etc…), and using the same mastering moves through exactly the same chain. Then sending both of those versions to the same pressing plant. (Even then you would still possibly have manufacturing variables). A blind listening test of that would be at least close to a fair comparison.

To say that the original analog pressing, or a recent AAA pressing, usually beats a digital like is comparing apples and oranges. It may very well often be the case, but it doesn’t necessarily point to the reason for that as being digital verses analog. Even if a mastering engineer was trying to replicate the original pressing - which is most often not the case anyway - there’s an endless number of variables that can potentially stand in the way of that happening, well beyond the digital factor.

That’s my 2 cents on it anyway. I don’t consider myself a hardcore audiofile but I definitely get more enjoyment from hearing a more open master than one that’s been squashed, regardless of whether I’m listening to digital or analog. And at the end of the day, it’s all about the music!!

 

Everything matters to put out a quality record
The quality of the recording
The quality of the source mastered from
The quality work of a mastering engineer
The quality of the mastering equipment
The quality of the plating work
The quality of the vinyl mix
The quality of the pressing
The quality of the packaging and handling
Then on top of all that, the quality of the system playback in our homes.

If the source is a quality tape or digital file they both can sound great if all the above is also done to a high level to make the record. Conversely if they are both bad sources, or if steps above fall short in quality your going to have a bad sounding or just not a great record.

If it was only a case of analog tape automatically sounds better when making a record opposed to using a digital file I have an argument for that. How come back in the day (Pre Digital) we had so many bad sounding records that where all analog? Conversely how come we had some very outstanding sounding records after 1979 that were digitally mastered or recorded?

As far as quote un quote what do people "Hear" on a digitally mastered sourced or recording on a vinyl record in playback? It's not what they hear, it's what they are reading or not about the record. I'll sit anyone down in front of my system and play records for them without them knowing the source, they will not be able to pick the records that were analog or digital sources.

People need to stop with hyping the myths.............

 

I agree 100%.

 

Even Michael Fremer made that mistake, when he reviewed the 2019 Beatles Collection. He thought the singles were digitally sourced because he didn't like the sound of the singles.

 

Ahhh, this is a symptom, but not a cause. The cause is that most modern digital masterings are V (smiley faced) shaped. But I do agree with you. Especially when it's simply the typically crap CD mastering put on vinyl. But I also think it will sound a tad better than the CD itself too.

 

Less tape noise. More ticks and pops.

 

This will only be valid if you know definitively that the CD and vinyl come from the same master.

 

yep. confirmation bias be thy name.