Vinyl Records from a Digital Source - Do I Care?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Depending on whom you ask, digital sources have no place in the vinyl record process. Is that true?
🔥 Check out the Joy Of Vinyl website (articles, newsletter, and more!) ➡️
JoyOfVinyl.com
⭐️Support the show at the Joy Of Vinyl Shop here!:
www.amazon.com...
Some product links are affiliate links, which means if you buy something, I'll receive a small commission. (Which will help keep the show running!)
More about me and my portfolio at RickCoste.com
=============================
More ways to support the show!
=============================
Shop the Joy of Vinyl Store ➡️
www.amazon.com...
Buy a Joy of Vinyl t-shirt ➡️
www.etsy.com/s...
Videos You Might Enjoy ➡️
• The Surprising Shift B...
===========================
Connect with me!
=============================
IG: ➡︎
/ joyofvinylrecords
===========================
My mission here at the Joy of Vinyl is to bring together a community of vinyl record enthusiasts and to introduce a new generation to the "joy of vinyl".
#VinylCommunity #VinylCollection #RecordCollection
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
Totally agree, it’s the mastering that makes the difference. The fact the the loudness wars doesn’t translate to vinyl mastering is also a plus here.
I second that, Jon!
My argument for buying digitally sourced vinyl is simple:
I suspect that record companies have much better equipment for converting digital to analog than I have in my budget system. My equipment doesn’t have to do any converting. It’s simply amplifying an analog source. And they sound fantastic to my ears, and that’s really all that matters to me.
🎶🎶🎶
And that really is all that matters 🍺
This may have been true 20-30 years ago, but modern DACs have become incredibly transparent at very low cost. I doubt that the studio DACs are meaningfully better, at least when the resulting music is played back in a budget home system.
As long as the record is mastered well, from the digital source, you are always going to get an inherently better sounding result. Most people just don't understand digital recordings...
Hi Rick, I don’t think I disagreed with a single comment. At 70+ I have, for the first time in my life, a very good vinyl system and I love it. It has a good CD player and a streamer included, this covers music that I can’t find on vinyl. I have done my own unscientific comparison of a CD digitally recorded and then later reproduced on vinyl. I can hear the difference, I am quite clear in my own mind that the vinyl, whatever the source, is preferable to my ears. I agree that mastering is the key issue. A recent purchase, Streisand’s Live at the Bon Soir is an analogue recording with all the faults of early live recordings of instrument sounds bleeding into the vocal channel. It has been remastered using technology I can’t comprehend, to produce a thoroughly modern copy of her first recording. I don’t know whether it was converted to digital then back to analogue. All I know and hear is a beautiful copy of the earliest Streisand recording. God bless science and technology for making this possible. Best Pat
Cheers, Pat! And however the Streisand was remastered, all that matters is you have a beautiful copy to listen to 😎
Totally agree. When a DSD file is pressed onto vinyl it somehow absolutely does sound better then the CD or even SACD version (although SACDs are darn close). Another point is that analog tape has a finite life. Too keep playing it over and over to make new pressings is irresponsible in my opinion. Much better to make a good, well mastered DSD copy and work from that going forward.
Going DSD to vinyl is the best of both worlds 🍺
Oh, but then all the AAA snobs will simply insist that "there is NO POINT in even pressing it to vinyl if the ANALOG TAPES are not usable anymore", those morons! Seriously....Whatever you do, don't EVER try to change their minds. They'll always insist that only their logic matters, and the rest of us are "stone-ears" who don't matter.
Adding HISS POP CLICKS, music which is OUT OF KEY cause its playing slightly in the WRONG SPEED (wow and flutter), sound better to you than the original digital???
@@xprcloud Obviously you have never listened to even a moderately good turntable. I hearn no such issues with mine.
@@donb722 anyone listening to DIGITAL files ENGRAVED into plastic must be bonkers. I was born before anything else existed and listened to more LPs everything than you ever will, an LP\EP without HISS POPS and CRACKLES simply does not exist even when new out of the pressing machine, a RIAA pre-amp with better 80db S/N DOES NOT EXIST, these pre's HISS BEFORE the needle even hits the record surface, (with exception to high output ceramic pickups, but then those are terrible for other reasons). get the original DIGITAL source they cut the record from.
Neumann introduced digital delay into their disc cutting lathes in the 1970s ...so chances are that most vinyl has been digitaly processed..... Vinyl is purely lossy mechanical
Like many have said on here, if it sounds good I do not care where it was sourced from, i will listen.
You said it so I don't need to. You are Right On 👍🏻
🍺🍺
The best digital recording I've ever heard was made by me. It's because it wasn't mastered for volume wars and I simply was trying to get the most dynamic range as I could out of the digital recording medium.
And it's a simple recording where I was hanging out at the music store in the town that I moved to from Seattle in kentucky. Several really good local musicians would meet every Saturday and jammed together. One beautiful day they pulled all the equipment out on the front porch of the store and just jammed on upright bass and mandolin and guitar and banjo in a semicircle. I simply put my zoom H4 in the middle of that group and they played and sang.
When I put headphones on and close my eyes I'm literally there. At least, my brain is there. 🤣
I am a vinyl collector, I love the physical media aspect, the sound, and bigger poster like cover I can relate to more than any other media. Helps me deep dive into the artist and album when I’m listening to it.
I still throughly enjoy that aspect of it
Love your umami analogy! Totally agree. Also the mastering is absolutely crucial.
I listen about 60% vinyl, 40% streaming. With digital it’s background or jumping around. However when I play vinyl (analog or digitally sourced) it’s immersive. I need to sit down and savor that umami!
😀 love that
I have a bunch of late 70’s and early 80’s vinyl that are digital. As it says on my George Benson album,it’s digitally mastered. I really don’t care. Music after 84, I buy the CD because the technology matured. Hey, “perfect sound forever”, right? As you said, listening is subjective.
Anyone trying to completely avoid digitally sourced music today would have to limit themselves to music recorded no later than the early to mid 70s and only listen to original releases . It makes no sense to be anti digital, it’s a wonderful technology that eradicates many limitations of analogue recording and mastering.
Where people make the mistake is blaming digital for brick wall mastering. It’s not because it’s digital that it sounds bad it’s because it’s poorly mastered and sadly the technical benefits of digital makes brick walling possible and easy. Basically digital technology is abused by record companies. The audiophile is in a very small minority.
Coming from an engineering background I fully believe in objective scientific technical data. However for some unexplainable reason I still enjoy playing vinyl records. I enjoy CDs and digital also, but I wouldn’t want to give up my turntable. To me a stereo component system is incomplete without a turntable, a CD player and a Network player. All have their benefits, but there is definitely a certain something about dropping the needle so to speak.
Great video!
Thanks Michael - I appreciate that! And yes - I'm glad you brought that up - the brick wall mastering. It has led many to believe that's inherent in digital engineering - which of course it isn't.
Why is it based on a lie ?? that's a stupid thing to say and misguided, probably these people never even heard a record
yes but you don't need the dynamic range in most music only classical and if it's been produced and compressed what is about 95% of music the dynamic range is gone anyway out the window, some digital doesn't even have as much as a record, you don't need that much dynamic range it's not necessarily. and actually if you have the dbx process record and decoder which is actually more than CD over 120 decibels dynamic range and it's not digital
I like your analogy of cooking, Yes the vinyl is like properly seasoned digital is missing the seasoning. Another thing it changes it's harmonic characteristics, digital has awful third fourth and fifth harmonics vinyl doesn't have that and is a bit more higher in the second harmonic what is preferred in music
Ahhhh - yes - never thought to mention the harmonics. Thank you for doing that!
As long as the record sounds good, I don’t necessarily really care about what the source is. As you described, there’s just a certain almost indescribable sound quality that vinyl has and which I prefer. And, no…it’s not distortion, but there’s almost a certain timbre and tonality that it has.
I’ve got zero problem with digital playback via a CD or streaming, and I listen to both. But…, when I really want to relax with my preferred medium, I’ll put on a record. That said, a bad mastering job can mess up any recorded format.
So true, Nick. I've heard some very bad mastering on record.
Vinyl version from digital is a scam!
The "it" factor that makes vinyl so much more appealing...Your involvement is so much more immersed than any other medium. Yes, this is subjective, but after 30 decades, it is what got me back into vinyl. And what I really miss is the shopping experience that we had back in the 70s and 80s, even into the early 90s...
I really miss that too, Jerry. I spent so many hours in the mall record stores
Yes. It appears that for many of us older people, nostalgia for certain good experiences that we have enjoyed over a long period of time, doesn't just disappear with passing years and trends. Despite what younger people would call, "old people reliving historical activities from a bygone era", we still remember how it felt to play our favourite music on our outmoded vintage or new replacement stereo hifi gear. For me, that includes playing my wonderful CD collection as well as records but subscription music streaming be damned, I'm not falling for that crap. Jerry, you do realize that 30 decades is 300 years. You are not that old.
The Alan Parsons Project was using at least one digital step from 1982's Eye in the Sky album on. Anyone who claims the Eye in the Sky or Vulture Culture LPs "sound bad" because of that can be safely ignored for any of these conversations because they obviously don't know what they are talking about or how to listen.
😎 love that
mastering engineers need to compress the bass and limit dynamics because LPs and even EPs grooves cant contain them, so much for the wonders of mastering.
OTOH if the mastering engineer brick walls compresses the CD so it sounds louder, something you can't do on vinyl, then he/she are NOT engineers, more like SOUND BUTCHERS.
Great analogy, master sound engineer likened unto an alchemist, totally agree. Michael B. Tretow was a great sound engineer alchemist. I recently listened to my original pressing of Carol Kings LP in flawless condition and sounded great, reminded what a truly stellar album ! Also listened to all of the new Judas Priest LP and Wow ! impressive, one of their best I say from the front runners of heavy metal. Cheers Rick !
Cheers Bobby! And that Priest album is simply incredible. They can still deliver!
New subber! I agree with using DSD for vinyl. As a user of reel to reel tape the more you play a tape it will start to degrade. I just want the best sound possible from recordings I enjoy.
Hi Max! And welcome to the channel 🍺🍺🍺
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Thank you! Glad to be here! 🔊
Generally I agree to what you are saying. But I have some vinyl produced by a new start up company in a fully analog process and I repeat that... Full analog process all the way from recording to cutting to pressing... And the sound is deeper and warmer that vinyl produced with a digital step along the way. Keep the vinyl alive!!!
Hi Tomáš! Is it ok to provide the name of the company? I'd love to check them out.
What backs this up and is also amusing is that the "all-analog" pundits and AAA audiophiles will showcase how great sounding certain albums are--all of which are digitally sourced: The Dire Straits you show, the Analogue Productions' "Wonderful Sounds..." series of LP's they sell, the Nils Lofgren "reference sounding" live album, and on and on. Both camps--the "all analog" and the digital only for digital playback are off. Great video. The analog lathe can take any source to higher ground. The format 'limitations' sometimes makes for a better product---controlling loudness wars, bloated albums etc.. And it all comes down to the mastering (and the recording / mixing quality, and, finally, the artist performance before that).
🍺🍺🍺
I really enjoy your *fireside chat* technique! The only real reason to object to a digital step on an LP is provenance. One could find a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Aire that looks beautiful, as if it came from the showroom, and yet pass it up because the fenders have been replaced by ones custom crafted in to look like the originals in 2010. I don't think I would do that though!
I completely get that too, pat. The car analogy works great here.
Not wrong, you just might as well buy the cd & save yourself $40 in that case, IMHO.
Why not buy a cd burner and record the vinyl record (AAA) onto a cd. I do that and it’s great, it’s fun and I know where my cd was sourced from because I recorded it. 😅😅😅
you sir, have lost all credibility with this post. and to the people who think a digital source sounds better on vinyl..are you nuts? you lose all the advantages of both formats (while retaining all the disadvantages)?! oh well, no one ever said audiophiles were rational.
Very thought-provoking question/topic. I listen to vinyl for nostalgic reasons. So as a non-audiophile, it wouldn't bother me at all. Excellent and enjoyable video. Thank you.
Thank you for watching!
Even the multitrack tapes of Brother in Arms were digital. The whole album was. There are no analog versions of that album (They could have simultaneously recorded an analog safety, but I doubt it would still exist). There’s quite a few records from the 80’s that were quietly recorded to a PCM machine then released on vinyl
I read somewhere that it was put through an analog mixing desk. They recorded the multitrack onto a Sony 24-track digital deck, then converted it to analog through the mixing desk and fed the mix out to a Prism digital converter for the digital master. Some people claim that means the CD isn't truly DDD, but since it was never transferred onto analog tape at any point, it doesn't carry the sonic signature of analog tape. You might as well complain that it's not "truly digital" because the connection between your amp and speakers is analog. :)
Hi, I totally agree. I have 'audiophile' friends who swear they wouldn't touch a digital sourced LP with a 10ft pole. Such was their attitude to the 2012 Beatles Remastered Stereo LP box for example. Me? I don't really care. If it sounds good/great then all the better. My ears aren't good enough to pick the difference anyway. I do care about sound quality but I don't buy into the 'it's a CD on an LP' argument. Heck, the reality is a lot of records were made/mixed digitally from around the mid-80's onwards. There were prior experiments with direct-to- disc recording in the 70's. The technology has changed. While it's nice to have an 'all analogue' record, as others have said, its all in how its recorded, mixed and pressed. I don't worry about analog vs digital. It only annoys when the music itself is tampered with (for example whoever the lamebrain was that added strings to raw Buddy Holly originals such as "Rave On" & "That'll Be The Day" as I heard on Spotify this past week 🙄🙄). Love the videos. Easter Cheers from Sydney Australia 👍👍
Cheers, Sydney! Someday I want to get there.
I havent heard ther Buddy Holly remix with the strings but I agree - great example of a bad or misguided effort.
Agree 100% with this. I think where a lot of people get side tracked is thinking they are just taking the CD form of a record and cutting it to vinyl. Raw digital masters for the past 20+ years are insanely smooth wavelength due to their 24 bit+ 96khz+ mastering technique. Not to mention the fact that people tend to think a CD at 14100 samples per second can't be as "warm" as analog vinyl. The inherent qualities of vinyl come from other things, mostly the setup and equipment choices. I see nothing wrong with digital as a source, we've been recording to ultra high res digital for a long time and it would probably shock people how many of their favorite albums are from a digital source. Subscribed.
Thank you @Kaspurr84 ! Cheers!
Such real world problems eh? 😊. If it sounds good no matter the medium where's the beef?🤗. Those KLH 5s looking good 👍
I'll never understand folks who argue about where a piece of great sounding music was sourced from to the point of name calling.
I'm still thoroughly enjoying the KLHs 😎
I can’t tell a difference but I also don’t taste all the subtle flavors in wine, I just don’t do it enough
I prefer original vinyl from 60’s70’s to vinyl to today. Like Wish you were here by Pink Floyd. 70’s analogue pressing better than 2016 digital source. I buy CDs and records. IMO.
I do tend to prefer the original pressings myself, Trevor.
I could be wrong, but I think most NEW vinyl coming out now are digitally sourced. Unless you are recording onto analogue tape (not done much these days) your source is recorded onto a hard drive and mixed and Mastered in Pro Tools or some other DAW and saved as a Wave file that ia then used to ct the vinyl. I would even go so far as to say old analogues tapes are remastered into digital files and those are used for vinyl creation. So.... I don't know. If it sounds good, what does it matter? And as I've said before, vinyl listening experience is more than just the sound coming out, it's the tactile touching and placing, reading the album cover and linter notes. etc. My 2 cents.
And your 2 cents are worth a dollar. I agree - many analog masters are preserved as a high resolution digital file. It's much cheaper to reproduce (and also easier to drop on a file share than ship across the country in tape form).
Don’t you find it ironic that although digital has a greater dynamic range, today’s digital masters are often so over limited they destroy that advantage. I could cite you dozens of classic rock recordings both analog and digital that I find new remasters to be unlistenable to because of the loudness wars. (Off subject I bought the original MFSL Abbey Road when it came out. Counter to other purists I still like it) So any A/A/A recording I have on vinyl destroys 99% of current digital masters in dynamic range and most importantly…emotional impact. It’s about the industry’s choices and if they can be trusted to treat these works of art respectfully, more than any technological restraints.
You nailed it in my opinion. I have nothing at all against digital. In fact I really think it can sound just as good and better than vinyl if mastered properly. I enjoy because I love the sound, the ritual, and it's what I grew up with. It's comforting and a constant learning journey when it comes to equipment.
I disagree, but not because of some of the things you said. Sure, digital is an excellent source for the audible listening experience, but humans do not hear 0110001110101010111000110101011..... we hear in ~~~~~ waves. Up and down. The digital spaces are absent with no continous lines. Our ears- or more appropriatly, brains, fill in the spaces naturally to make sence of the missing information. Analog is best because it is the more natural of the two. But analog with a crappy version of vinyl is not as prefered as a digital format of same recording. (Sorry for the mispellings, my spell check is not working for some reason and I have dyslexia.)
Hi Natan! I think you'll appreciate an essay I'm posting on the site later today or tomorrow that gets a bit deeper into this-specifically, the way we hear, etc. It'll be at https:JoyOfVinyl.com.
I personally do not care for digital sourcing. However, I do acknowledge that those MoFi One-Steps do use super-high-resolution files. I admit that saying that those are no better than 16-bit/44.1kHz CD files is inaccurate. (And you cover all this, obviously.) There are some people who use this to claim "See, we were right about CDs all along!" But CDs never had those specs. (Not to get into another cliché "vinyl-versus-CD" thing. Both have their places. I like 90s music more on CD.)
Again, I am not a digital fan, but I do not begrudge anyone for liking the sound they like since we all have different ears and process sound differently in our brains!
Funny thing, though. The first vinyl record I ever owned as a young kid was Brothers In Arms! My mom gave me her old copy when I was like five. It was actually one of my parents' records I heard as a young kid that got me into vinyl (I never had a chance at a normal life, haha). I still have it. I think the main argument for that on CD is that it has the longer versions of a few songs. I admit I do not know which ones Knopfler considers the definite edits, though (I assume the longer ones).
One other thought: If the digital recording was in super high resolution, it will also be degraded on a CD. CDs are nowhere near the best digital format and haven't been for decades. The argument that the digital recording is best heard in, like, a compression-free stream or whatnot is valid. But it is really getting dumbed down quite a bit to go on a format that launched in 1982!
Can you believe it been over 40 years. That still floors me. I don't feel that old.
Your CD fidelity is wholey dependent on the quality of your cd player's DAC (or reciever DAC if you connect with fiber optic or digital coax). All cd players are not equal.
Hey Rick - I was noticing those concert photos on the wall behind you. Did you take those or were you too young for that? I'm asking because I used to be a concert photographer through the 1970's.... As for vinyl v digital, I think vinyl can sound better, but sometimes digital sounds better; to me, size matters - I like the 12" size for looking at the art, reading the notes, etc. If vinyl was CD-sized and digital came in the size of 12" LP's, I'd be all over digital.
Maybe a bit too young (I'm 56). My wife's all about photographs and has a small collection of vintage cameras in her scrapbook room. She framed the pictures for me that you saw there.
Is your work collected anywhere, Lars?
Hmm…
Many years ago I worked as a (pre-)mastering engineer.
We had both digital and analog equalizers and compressors.
The good thing with the digital was that they were “clean”. I mean that they didn’t have any “personality”. They didn’t color the sound.
Whilst the analog colored the sound. Added “a flavor”. Umami.
The difference in price between CD:s and records on new produced music is too high to be worth the money.
The only “new” records I buy nowadays are those where the (pre-)mastering engineer has crushed the music with compressors so it’s nearly impossible to listen to the CD. I’s not possible to compress the music as much to a vinyl record as to a CD.
Greetings from Sweden 🙂
(I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. My English is not that good)
Hi Staffan - your English was great. Thank you for offering a perspective from a mastering engineer. I appreciate that!
I applaud digital, but it doesn't translate well on the "re-vamp" vinyl experience. My original Fleetwood Mac Dreams sounds quite different from the digital source printed one. Sorry, but it seems we are buying CDs on a vinyl format.
I do agree that remasters should be "vinyl" remasters and not simply CD masters slapped on vinyl.
Hey there I’m new to vinyl. I just inherited my parent 200 plus vinyl records from 70’s to the 80’s. I’m no audiophile but I have done many digital recordings on a DAW. I have a really nice Neuman 2.1 monitor setup for my bedroom studio that is acoustically treated so I know a little bit about audio and sound. What I’ve noticed is that on my OG recordings are that they are very dynamic. I love digital but I feel that mastering engineers today are compressing more and putting there stamp on todays sound. I picked a AAA remaster of Stevie Ray Vaughn and is sounds amazing.
Sounds like you have a great start! Having a background in audio is also a plus. Glad to have someone like yourself also comment on the sound quality of those older recordings. It's what keeps me on the vinyl path (and has for decades). Cheers, Ben! 🍺
Bottom line: to each their own. Live and let live. I like vinyl for artwork and a bit of nostalgia. I also like synth-pop/electronica and there the "digital step outcry" becomes unintentionally funny. Yes, there are analog synths, but certainly today, most of that sound is generated in the digital domain. First and foremost for me, it's the music. I prefer it on vinyl for artwork consideration, but if it is only available on CD, cassette (gasp!), or digital-only release, I still enjoy it. And that is the reason I have not bought a single MOFI UHQR or similar record: none of that music speaks to me. I rather spend that money on art releases such as Volcan's "Chanson pour le néant".
You always have great insights, Daniel 🍺
The video is just 7 hours old and already got 129 comments. It is good and it is polarizing. 👍
My 2 cents: I have a quite high quality digital chain, and a really nice analog chain. Both can sound amazing with the right recording, and I like both. I listen to classics and jazz mainly. It always depends on the album, typically analog got the edge, often because it is all analog. Digital can sound good, when done right. Back in the days the mastering guys did not have all these digital filters, which destroy the real sound, they had to work precisely, place the microphones properly and so on. Today they record on multiple tracks, then in the digital domain they literally "destroy" the original sound. This is one of the reasons, why DSD got popular, they just could not manipulate that much and suck all life out of the music.
I had an idea for an experiment, but I do not have an AD converter: I guess (with good quality equipment) one will not realize, when the signal from a turntable is getting converted AD and then back DA - without further modifications.
Some newer recordings suffer from dynamics in the digital domain (loudness war) where the vinyl preserves the dynamics. This is true, but kind of a different story I would say.
Hi Bernhard! I would like to "hear" that experiment played out as well.
Hi Rick,
I disagree with a portion of what you said. I also have the Carole King MoFi Tapestry which is a fine sounding record. No complaint with that one. But Mofi's process which employs DSD at a very high sampling rate (not sure that is the correct terminology) is not your garden variety digital LP. I am not technologically savvy as you are, but I have two comments.
1. I wish there was a standard system of identifying how the record was pressed. What components are analog and what are digital and, if digital, a way to understand where it stands in the digital chain (I am assuming the MOFi process would be at the top of the heap), but how about other ways of employing digital within the record making process. There is not way of knowing if "all digital records are created equal."
2. I have the Beatles Red and Blue collections which were issued in 2014 in Europe and are all analog. I also have a pressing of the Beatles Please Please Me which was sourced from the same digital source as the 2009 Beatles CDs. For my ears at 72, there is a clear difference with the analog pressings that are so much more sonically enjoyable than the digital LP. The Digitally sourced LP is not bad, but it does not match the 2014 all analog pressings of Red and Blue.
In summary, if we had a standardized way to judge new pressings, the consumer would be better served and it may force some of the record companies to step up the quality of their digital sourcing to attract more consumers who now have a a way to make an informed choice before purchase. Joe
And on that we are in complete agreement. I would LOVE a standard system that would offer more information on how and where an album was pressed.
What are your thoughts on
Quadraphonic records? Made in the early 70's. I have a 2000 record collection. Started in the 60's. I think vinyl has the best bass sound quality. And I discovered cleaning that small square felt piece improved the sound quality of cassette tapes.
To be honest, I was buying records when Quadraphonic records were introduced, but I never actually heard one. Maybe someday!
Interesting. When I bought my 1st new CD player, a hifi dealer said to bring in my own headphones and a cd I knew well to listen to directly.....
I did and was immediately surprised to find big differences between the players I was looking at! I remember thinking that the Yamaha was smoother, the Denon was bright, and the Pioneer was somewhat in the middle. I have the Pioneer beside me.
Then the amp and speakers made a difference.
So with all things being equal..... same recording process, same amp, same speakers. Do those things level out the CD and vinyl mediums?
And if you were doing an A-B comparison, do you hear a difference, and if so could you change the physical components to subjectively make them sound the same??
Cheers 😁🖖
That brings up so many other variables - glad you brought that up. It was called out by another commenter as well - even room dynamics can completely change the sounds. Take the exact same components and place them in a different room and the sound may be horrible - or could even be better.
If you have the privilege to go to the studio to listen to the final result, what source would you be listening to? And would you ask them to pull out a record as it's your preference.
If you like what was called coloration then buy the vinyl version. Perhaps you should explore what the cartridge is doing to change the sound from what one would have heard from the mixing desk to what one would hear from the turntable. I once owned a Linn LP12, but now prefer the digital experience. It's amazing that we have all generally accepted digital photography, although there are exceptions, without so much fuss. Cheers.
Hi Andrew! I have zero problem with digital sources. In many instances they are better
Something I haven't really heard mentioned here that comes into play, sometimes in a positive way, and sometimes negative, is the limitation of the vinyl medium. As an example, I have recently started a project where I found lost digital hi-res masters of a CD I did years ago. Total length of the CD was about 1hr, 20 mins. Vinyl, if you want to. optimize for dynamics, really can only handle about 20 mins or so per side, and since budget constrained me to keep to a single disc, I had to make some tough decisions about what songs to cut and which to keep. The end result? The vinyl version of that album is much stronger than the CD version because I was forced to separate the wheat from the chaff!
This is an issue I have with recording artists and mixing engineers today in the digital realm. Yes, digital can sound incredible, yes if you have tons of hard drive space and processing power you can create 367 stems per song, yes the dynamic range is larger than vinyl. However, removing all constraints for the artist and the mixing engineer (digital mastering engineers as well) means nobody has to make any decisions! If you're not forced to make decisions you're not forced to be creative, meaning your filter for what is good gets skewed. I realize this means more latitude and freedom for creativity as well, but I contend that the earlier in the process you are forced to "print" or "commit" something to not be changed, the more it forces the creativity to happen. I will cite a certain superstars' latest album that has 31 songs on it. IMHO. it's not their best work. Why not 10 amazing songs instead of 31 ok songs? Probably because they could.
All this said, sometimes the more constraining environments yields the best art. I don't' really care what domain the master comes from, if the vinyl sounds good to me, then the vinyl sounds good to me!
Feel free to disagree, just my opinion. Love your channel, please keep it up!
This is an amazing bit of insight I hadn't considered, Mark. You're really onto something there (and of course you're speaking from experience which adds more weight). Adversity or having to deal with a constraint often does lead to innovation and a better product (or piece of art). I'm really glad you brought it up this way.
Sound is to the individual. That is why digital & analog can co-exist. Analog has it's limitations, but digital may have different limitations. A digital source has a wider frequency range that is true. But could it be possible the higher & lower frequencies of digital affect the way the ear hears the common range frequencies? Maybe when analog sound recordings came along, they tweaked the sound to the levels the human ear hears best. This may be why vinyl sounds great to some. My opinion.
Mobile Fidelity - They did nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned. They accessed the first generation master recording & copied it in a super, super high sampling rate to get the best copy in a digital form. They then used the hi-res digital file to mass produce a super deluxe vinyl LP.
Now I'm going to try to explain in a different way. The baking company got all of the best ingredients & put it into a mixing bowl. They used a high end blender & mixing bowl to produce a premium batter with no lumps or air bubbles to produce a premium quality cake.
In a nutshell, we shouldn't be worried about the procedures if a company is known for high quality. We should really just look forward to the end result. Do we need to know what tubing & equipment Coke uses to make their soda? Do we need to know what stampers Hershey uses to stamp their name on a chocolate bar? The records sound great, the cake is delicious & the chocolate is tasty... The end results!
Exactly. Never peek to see how the sausage is made - just enjoy.
I love how this digital issue is such a huge turn off for collectors. And what's probably the hilarious part is just how many digital albums from the 80s they probably have in their collections.
I tried looking it up to get the correct title. But no luck. Anyways, London Records did a 2 lp box set in Im pretty sure 1979 that was a classical recording. Inside the big silver box was a huge 12x12 4 page sheet explaining the entire digital process they used for recording the entire preformance.
And it seems strange that they never added the Digital Recording sticker on that Dire Straits album. Every cassette i seen here in Canada has it in the upper right corner. Since I have never owned the album. I wonder if it is even mentioned on it.
I checked and pulled out the original inner sleeve to look. No mention at all of it being digitally sourced. Might speak to the fact that folks didn't seem to care as much about that back then.
I don’t know why people have to vilify digital so much. You always run in to Mr. Super ears, well I can hear the difference. As you know Brothers in Arms is always the example I use. It is such a great recording, I will admit, I have never heard it on vinyl only have the CD of it, but still wow. Umami that is a good phrase for it. I do like the sound of vinyl better, but you know that is what I grew up with, so to me that Umami is suppose to be there. But still Classical music, on CD is a much better experience, no loud record noises during the softer passages.
Cheers, Greg!
Thank you for the video. I am not tethered to any format. So this is not a pro or against analogue or digital. I want what represents the music in the best light. Ill stay away from the temptation to go into a Mofi tirade ;), I will say though that it is misunderstood by many as to what Mofi actually does in the process. The last steps are analogue. Ill leave that alone though.
However, there are limits to what the vinyl format can do as far as dynamically as compared to digital. Digital simply has a higher ceiling that vinyl due to physics for one. Which in an age where albums are still being brickwalled vinyl can sort of govern that ceiling.
We in the vinyl community are always focused on mastering. I include myself as a “Who mastered this reissue?” clan member also. After having hung out for awhile with a recording and mastering engineer my thinking has been adjusted somewhat. Yes, mastering is important. It can do damage or enhance good in a recording in that end stage. But what is even more important is the actual recording of the album itself. If the recording was slammed quite a bit in the mix, then the mastering engineer can do only so much. And Dynamic Range values only tell us so much. For instance the DR of Hackney Diamonds is 6 or so DR on all digital versions save for Atmos. The lp is 11-12 DR. Now according to some the vinyl should sound miles above the cd and show have a non-compressed open heavenly sound. Yet, it is really only marginally better on vinyl in many aspects such as equalization, soundstage, tonally and separation/air between instruments. Keith still sounds like he is hiding behind a bit of a wall of sound even on the vinyl?
Mastering unfortunately may not be able to do much for that. Why? Because if that Stones album is recorded that way then it is what it is.
Of course we do not know how the Hackney Diamonds master sounds, but we probably can guess. Then it becomes whether going back to the multis would improve things. Perhaps the multis are not compromised with too much compression.
Sorry I dont mean to drag on with this but I think in the topic of “why our records sound the way they sound?” what is actually laid to tape is overlooked.
To quote that same mastering engineer with the mystery of why does vinyl have that “sound” we like?
“It is still a headscratcher as to how amazing it is that a tiny sliver of a diamond sits down into a wavy plastic groove and out comes this remarkable lifelike sound”
And it is quite amazing. The umami as you say.
Digital has came so far. I mean it is still 1 and 0’s but the processing, equipment, methods to get the translation of that information or to preserve the information in such an indistuishable manner is quite remarkable. Convertors/eq limitations of the day compared to the mastering/transfer capabilities of today which are most likely giving us the truer sound of the tapes. 4XDSD is simply as about as pure a transfer method as one can get and has no tainting of the sound and so many advantages that gives mastering engineers a limitless window as compared to have to baby a tape. Which gives more time to review eq etc.
Digital to vinyl is not the enemy. The enemy of bad sound is usually going to start with the artist decisions and influence, the recording engineers choices and finally the mastering.
Digital has came so far that it is the least of the issues. In fact, as you say, digital is the underdog hero.
Lastly, if you get a chance and are not aware of his stream, the recording/masterinf engineer’s channel name is “George Borden”. He usually talks shop the first hour or so and then its open to whatever. Just folks hanging out and talking. But he is very open to questions and knows his stuff.
Thanks again for the effort and time. Much appreciated 👍🏻
This was a great comment, John. You also highlighted something I'm sure many miss when saying a recording sounds bad - who then may blame the mastering engineer when, in fact, the recording itself left alot to be desired that mastering may have a hard time with.
I'll look up George Borden's channel. Sound right up my alley. Cheers!
I could not care less about the source. If I enjoy the recording and pressing that's all that matters to me. I can be happy with an LP I bought on Amazon for $20 in most cases and don't need to spend $150 for the same album from MoFi. I don't understand why some people get so bent about vinyl. I get the impression that they are the kind who own a Tesla and want to take away all of our ICE vehicles for our own good.
I'll never understand arguing over something that, in the end, everyone enjoys... music.
Music, albeit directed to only one sense (hearing) always is very much rich if reaches other senses. That is why we need to see (the band, the disc turning, the tape rolling, the movement of the cone of the wooffer...), we need to touch, we need the vibrations over our bodies (the propioception), and so on. The more we feed our senses, the more fulfilling the experience.
Actually is the ABUSE of the digital capabilities what lead to the loudness war. A good mastering "magician" could make our CDs sound celestial.
I agree completely, Pablo 🍺
Digital source is converted to analogue to be recorded on vynil. If done wright - what is the problem? Brothers in Arms is the first album that was recorded on the Sony's first digital platform back in the day so it's kind of history piece. I have a '85 pressing from UK and it sounds great too.
Exactly my point 🍺🍺
It's hard to get a truly analog source. Even records are cut with the lathe digitally calculating the groove spacing . I'm no engineer simply an enthusiast. I get annoyed over buying a 90 dollar record with very high levels of background noise. Results may vary ofcourse. Every good recording should have clarity and dynamics . At last Dire Straits On Every Street is now on Sacd. It's great and very long overdue. The original Brothers In Arms is great. I buy both vinyl and cd for the reasons you mention. I like putting a record on too. But a cd is fine too being a different experience.
Exactly! There's no "better". It's what the listener finds pleasing.
5 decades collecting . However it is all about the music. Also fraud is fraud MD has stained their image. Yes Digital albums do sound good and some great.The Venus Jazz label is a great example. Nothing is worse than trying to fool an audiophile about his music.
So true, Dan
Another solid episode! Great explanation about a misunderstood subject!
Thanks my friend! Cheers! 🍺
If it sounds good, does it really matter? I was a teenager in the 70’s. I had a K-mart special stereo. I bought records when I could and never thought beyond the music. If it sounds good to your ear, relax and enjoy it. Too many channels with snobbery hosts (is that a word 😁). I enjoy your channel because you don’t judge, you state your opinion and leave ours to us.
If "snobbery" wasn't a word let's make it one now. 🍺🍺
Digital recording has been around for over 40 years now so everyone is going to have to deal with vinyl coming from digital sources if they want to keep enjoying it. It's all about the mastering and for about the last 25 years, virtually everything you listen to comes from something that has digital elements in the mastering of that work. And that includes re-releases/remasters of stuff from the analog age. Vinyl has its own "special sauce" that exists outside of whatever elements were used to create it. And (get ready for blasphemy) that "special sauce" may actually a degradation of sorts to the source. But it doesn't matter. That "degradation" is pleasing to us for some reason. There's no explanation needed. Everyone just needs to stop trying to overthink it - just enjoy your music.
You are so right. Overthinking has ruined many hobbies and enjoyable times.
In 1982 when I purchased Donald Fagen’s the Nightfly, this was not even a question.
Exactly!
Two words: loudness war. The vinyl records sound better because digital mastering is done for music on the go. Whether it’s CDs in the car or streamed files for earpods, it’s all brick wall mastered with a true dynamic range of about 5db. The earliest CDs created before 1990 didn’t suffer this fate but anything other than specialist audiophile recordings after this are awful. The vinyl version is invariably better because more of the original dynamic range is preserved.
The loudness wars really did digital a HUGE disservice that it still suffers from (at least perceptually)
Technically Digital is the most accurate, but I agree considering who vinyl records are created I am constantly maized at how great they sound and as you put it it is an experiance like going to a resteraunt - it still food and good quality ingrediance but its the experiance too.
Exactly!
Well, you're right. I guess it should be said that the MoFi records still sound the same as they did before the "digital step" was revealed. Is that obvious? It oughtta be. Still, MoFi was wrong not to acknowledge it sooner, because people have a right to know what they're buying.
Archivists have said that, in the interest of preserving delicate original analog master tapes (most recordings made before the 1980s), it has been common practice to make hi-res digital backups that could be used for making new pressings, internationally or domestically. And every step in mixing and editing can audibly degrade an analog recording. A digital copy, on the other hand, is "bit-perfect" -- absolutely identical to the digital original. Some high-quality record lathes REQUIRE digital conversion as the very last step before cutting a lacquer. My feeling is that sound quality really depends on so many things (what if it was originally made with vintage tube equipment instead of solid state?) that a "digital step" alone doesn't necessarily mean anything. Every signal, digital or analog, HAS to become analog before human ears can hear it. And unless the recording was made in a single take using one or two microphones (if stereo) and preserved direct to media (vinyl, CD, whatever), it's going to be mixed, mastered, EQed, edited and otherwise processed to some extent in many ways before it ever gets to YOUR system in YOUR room -- which unavoidably makes a whole host of other "custom" alterations to the original signals picked up by the microphones. For most recordings, there is no "pure" original sound or performance, but tracks and tracks and tracks of them, all painstakingly adjusted in innumerable ways before you ever get the chance to reproduce it.
A "whole hearted" yes to everything you just said. Especially the last step for playback - the room itself. That changes everything that went before.
I’ve heard some trash analog records and some amazing digital source records. And vice versa. I listen with an open mind and don’t have an agenda or a personal confirmation bias.
I’m a big DMB fan and their records sound outstanding to me so far. Like legitimately some of the best in my collection. If I found out tomorrow there was a digital step (even though the hype sticker says remastered from original flat analog tapes) it wouldn’t change my opinion on them. If I can’t tell, and it just sounds awesome… then oh well.
I feel like many who were upset with the Mofi controversy were made more angry and emotional because they had egg on their face after toting how amazing all analog was vs digital only to discover they had been unknowingly hyping something with a digital source and they were fooled by a placebo effect.
Hi Andrew! I was just commenting on this last night to your point. I was listening to an album reissue that I know was digitally sourced and it sounds amazing.
I have both the original vinyl and the MOFI 45 version of Brothers In Arms and the MOFI is way better. Also the MOFI restores the cuts that had to be shortened to fit on the vinyl.
Also I think you left out an important factor which affects the sound of vinyl and that is the equipment it's played on. I really believe this important ingredient is what turns a lot of people off. They just don't want to invest that much into the system. Some just listen with headphones on their phones.
I'm glad you brought that up, Donald. One of the things I haven't done enough on with this channel is talk about affordable, but quality, systems for playback. I plan to correct that.
I don't buy records from this century as I would just buy the CD - assuming the same material was transferred to either vinyl or a digital media - what would be the point of the album? For me vinyl is a time capsule from an are when CDs were not available or perfected.
Cheers! 🍺🍺🍺
I think honesty has to be the best policy. I'm not very technically minded but some years back i purchased Free's Fire and Water album which was pressed at Abbey Road Studio. All their releases contain information on the processes utilised to create the vinyl version but, at the time, i chose not to read it. However after playing the album it sounded too clinical and with little reverb. I therefore read the notation and, to be honest, i was none the wiser. I investigated further and those with greater knowledge confirmed that a digital process was included. The difference in price between vinyl and c.d versions is quite pronounced here in the U.K and, as such, if the vinyl product is digitised then i will turn to the c.d option unless the packaging is such that the vinyl edition becomes more appealing. At the end of the day it is all about your audio system in conjunction with your ears and i totally concur with your final analysis.
Thank you, Barrie. It's partly why I usually search out the OG pressing (or close to it). Fire and Water is a great example. My OG version is wonderful.
If it sounds good it sounds good. Lets stop over thinking it.
Almost every recording from the past 40 years is digital. That's why I just bite my lip whenever someone tells me they love records because of the analog nature of them.
Aren’t records still an analog format, regardless of how they were made?
The only question I have is does it sound good!! My One Steps with the digital step sound wonderful I own CDS that sound great!! I find it funny that the people who hate anything that is digital are the ones who got rid of their LPs in the 80s when CDS were introduced and are now preaching about how bad digital music sounds Analog sounds good and digital sounds good also
Cheers to that Dave!
Dire Straits in itself is just plain wrong. Mediocrity with a head band !
😂😂😂
Its all about the music for me,i have some amazing analogue pressings and also some amazing digital pressings,if it sounds awesome im good to go,i have been gradually purchasing the Jimmy Page remasters of the Led Zeppelin back catalogue,i was hesitant at first as they got slated online for been so much worse than the OGs and the digital step has ruined them etc etc, i think they sound awesome and certainly compare in sound quality to the OGs i have,and dare i say even sound better in most cases,the led Zep 111 is far superior in sound quality than my OG as is 1 and Houses of the Holy ,and the others are as good if not better and certainly quieter, now i dont have the elusive Ludwig pressing lol but these sound fantastic to me and at a great price compared to finding a near mint Original
Hi David! I really like those Page remasters too! I have them all with the exception of CODA and Zep III. My Zep III copy is a Japanese pressing which is amazing.
In the early 1980s lots of classical albums advertised and were celebrated for their digital mastering. The whining about digitally mastered records is only a recent thing.
It does seem like that to be honest. I don’t recall hearing any complaints back in the day.
The Dire Straits record was first recorded digitally and mark knopfler hated the sound so much he ran it through a DAC a dozen times trying to smooth it out. IMO and Bernie Grundman's, the big problem is computer desk mastering which sucks the life out of music. Mr. Grundman says if you have the original high res digital file (not the cd master), and the record company will pay for a proper job, he'll drop the digital file onto his analogue mastering desk and the sonic difference will be very noticeable. In most cases he says they don't want to pay and will hand over the cd master and ask for a fast/cheap transfer to a vinyl lacquer - that's what most people are buying in record stores today, cd masters dropped onto vinyl. No wonder modern records suck.
That's really sad. And by the way - great to hear from you - I'm a subscriber to your channel 😎
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords yes it is really sad, but the industry is, what it is, we just need find the records that are quality. As a Jazz and Classical lover (with a smattering of the music of my youth) I've learned to follow the people and labels. For example, CTI made great sounding records, and CTI was started by Creed Taylor, who was very involved in every aspect of producing good records. Well follow Mr. Taylor back to his previous label, which was Impulse and wow those are some amazing sounding Jazz records - no one today talks about those records. BTW I like your approach and perspective on your Channel - it's like a breath of fresh air!
Good morning from Montreal… I jut listened your whole show this morning, very interesting once again. Science was never my “Forte” in school and appreciate your output today. Having been in the music business on the management side, am fully aware of the Mastering aspect in the process and agree that it is key into bringing the recording to another level.
In my case today, am far from being an audiophile, am happy with older analog recordings played on my “Vintage” system but will appreciate a digital recording transferred to vinyl as I think Judas Priest did with their last album as it sounds absolutely amazing… At the end of the day, the vinyl experience for me is not only about sound, it is all of the little things around it that you
Mentioned in this video… Have a great weekend, until next time ✌🏼🎶 th-cam.com/video/GueS_OzHFJM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=4g3pStNsNcJersUB
Thanks for the link! Watching as I type this and just subscribed 🍺
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Until the next science lesson 😎✌🏼🎶
Totally agree with ingredients. It's like to add tube preamp to you solid state amp and got the best of both worlds (which I did).
That's awesome! 🍺
For me vinyl puts just the right amount of distortion that smooths out the sound and makes a more pleasant listening experience. All digital might be clearer but it is also more piercing that ends up fatiguing my ears.For the longest time I hated jazz because it was just too screechy and hurt my ears. In the last five years I started listening to it on vinyl and couldn't believe how well rounded it was. I began to hear the other instruments better because the horns and the discomfort from them on cd was taken away on vinyl.
Another good point, Matt! The fatiguing aspect of some digital recordings. Not all - but some.
Some say the problem with digital is the stair step of collecting information at precise points in time. Claim is it can make the music less "warm". I doubt the phono needle acts in that stair step way. In otherwords, I suspect the process of moving digital to vinyl smooths out the stairs and brings it back to a ramp. Thoughts?
I really like that analogy. I think it fits in well with the "umami" I mentioned. There's something about the "digital-to-vinyl" transfer that is pleasing to the ears (when done well).
The only thing wrong is when people say they like vinyl records because they love analogue sound, when in fact, the vinyl they listen to has been recorded or converted to digital at some point in the production process of those records. The final format is one thing but the production process can be a varied mixture of digital and analogue. Totally analogue is a rare process nowadays and those records are usually very expensive, unless they are original old second-hand records from before the digital music recording era.
Cheers to that, Don! 🍺
My wife prefers it when I fry the eggs. I prefer it when she frys the eggs. There is an emotion involved in all this and I believe it is love.
And my wife's grilled cheese always tastes better than when I do it - even though we both do it the same way 🍺
One of the first albums recorded digitally....A brilliant digital to vinyl record - Donald Fagan Nightfly, enough said! 😉
That one's come up a number of times in the past - I really need to check it out.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords I believe it was voted in the top ten best ever albums, it's a fantastic album.
Too many collectors are just trying to make a big thing outta something they know little about. I laugh at this argument recently being thrown around on TH-cam because of how truly dumb ppl can be. Who thinks new recordings are still put on analog tape reels 😅?? Music has been recorded on digital format since the late 80’s. Even old 60’s, 70’s recordings have been transferred to digital to clean up and safe storage. New pop music doesn’t even use real musicians anymore, it’s far far too expensive and time consuming, they use digitally rendered recordings of drums, guitar etc etc and place that over vocals. 😮. Last is the format you are listening to, if it’s vinyl being played on a turntable with a needle and stylus THEN ITS ANALOG !! Yes analog recordings from days of glory are best , especially jazz or blues but those days are gone. But plz let’s get smart and use common sense….if it’s a vinyl record you are playing it is an analog source you are listening too. Wow this needs explaining??? 😢😅
Said very well.
some of these sound good now that 192/24 is here ....hope i got these numbers right, i always forget
You got them right 🍺 !
I have two LPs from the 80s recorded in digital and no one made a stink about them back then. Accept's 1985 release Metal Heart states on the back 32-track digital recording that was mastered by Bob Ludwig. Judas Priest's 1986 release Turbo states on the back "This entire album was digitally recorded and mixed exclusively on Sony Digital Tape Machines" and it was mastered by Bernie Grundman. Both albums sound great and I never heard or read anything back then about how bad they were because they were a from a digital source. I have the same Dire Straits LP and didn't realize it was from a digital source, and yes it sounds great as is! Some people need to get a life! 😅
Well said. Someone asked me if "Brothers In Arms" stated the source so I pulled out the inner sleeve and all and there's no mention of it. But the fact is, we simply weren't concerned with that. Nor am I now as long as the mastering is handled the way great engineers do. I think the "loudness wars" causes folks to immediately jump to the wrong conclusions when it comes to digital sources.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords The "loudness" wars came from some artists or groups telling their mastering engineer to make it louder than the other recordings out in the market. I noticed this starting in the late 80s after I had ripped all my CDs to an external hard drive and then saw them in my music app the time (Adobe Audition). So much brick-walling with no realistic dynamics that would normally be heard or seen. I could never understand all of this as it just ruins the music. My question has always been, why? Do artists actually record their music brick-walled like they want it mastered? I believe not! I don't even care for later remastered recordings as some are just ruined. Aerosmith had their library remastered and I listened to it on Qobuz and hated it! All the great dynamic sound was ruined as everything was overdone. Some remasters are done great, but some are worthless to my ears. Yeah, I know this a subject for a whole different video. Love Live Vinyl! 🎸
@@VinylRescue Cheers to that! 🍺
Who ever says they can hear a difference. has spent way too much time eating and cooking from the microwave. Plus the digital music we listen to now on cassettes, CDs or even the Internet is not the same as it was back then.
😂😂 almost spit my coffee out on that Andres!
The color that cartridges and phonostage add make the difference. So regardless of the original source it will never sound the same as the digital source.
Can’t disagree there Erick🍺
When I listen to vinyl it’s all about how it sounds, if it’s a good pressing or not. Whether it’s from an analog or digital source
Cheers to that! 🍺
By the way....are you into photography also? Answer honestly, it will not effect your test score.
My wife is. I can't take a good photograph to save my life 😂
“Cupid and Psyche 85” sounds superb on vinyl to me. But apparently it was Ry Cooder, as early as 1979, who produced the first commercially available digital recording. But that early stuff was AAD recordings - it was mixed and mastered to an analogue source before release.
Later DDD recordings would have been different though - in preparing for vinyl, wouldn’t the digital source need to be converted to analogue before the record is cut? If I understand it right, unless you master with some finesse, wouldn’t you end up with digital artefacts on the record?
Also, however you present it, 80s digital reverb (eg the drum breaks in “In the Air Tonight”) still sound horrible.
That reverb from the 80s... you can tell immediately when you hear the drums can't you?
I believe you are right about the conversion to analog during mastering.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Like Fairlight sequencing and That Orchestral Stab (eg Scritti Politti or Art of Noise), 80s producers just couldn’t stop playing with their new toys! In 40 years, musicologists will look back at the 2020s (if they can bear to) and chuckle at the oppressive kick drum, ubiquitous auto-tune and insidious looping 😆
Mastering is king. It IS frustrating to buy a modern digital recording LP that sounds inferior to a stream or CD of the same title. However, there are plenty of instances where a digitally sourced LP just sounds better- fatter bottom end, smoother top end, better holography. There may less of that 'papery' quality of digital. Surprisingly, one of my favorite genres to listen to on vinyl is Electronica. Perhaps there is greater care in general in regards to mastering and pressings, but I can honestly say I almost always prefer the LP.
Many modern AAA reissues trump the OG in certain aspects, but the OGs tend to have that X factor. Perhaps it's the decades of aging the master tape experiences. Sometimes the mastering engineer (MOFI, I'm looking at you, though others are as guilty) will make the master 'pretty' and 'tempered' sounding. What a disappointment when I heard the MOFI Pretenders cuts. They lack the visceral quality of the OGs. Of course, the also possess a great many strengths in terms of fidelity, but the compression is not to my taste.
One would suppose that with these smaller batch reissues we should hear what we usually do- greater care in the product, good pressings, more detail, etc. However, how was it that the OG issues are often just more FUN to listen to? A Police LP may be cut HOT- it's involving, exciting, yeah! Perhaps decades of digital philosophy, where one can scrutinize (eg suck the life out of) every drum hit, each pitch variant from the reference, every dynamic (SSL placed dynamics control on every mix channel- godsend for engineers but overabused).
All to say that I AGREE with the premise of this video. I've never watched this channel previously, but this is a refreshing and honest take. I buy a ton of new vinyl every month. Much is good, some fantastic, some is just plain WRONG! It's more satisfying to go crate digging at a local store or garage sale, particularly when new vinyl may be $40-60 or more. I OCD over little pops, crackles, ticks and other artifacts with new issues in contrast to an OG where my threshold of tolerance is much greater. I have to think the mastering philosophy of the old days makes that possible. Perhaps we gloss over this aspect because a) the cost may be lower b) the music is so engaging through the old mastering ideals.
Gosh, the coffee really is working, and this is a disjointed post. Anyway, great video!
Also, there are instances where cleaning up an old recording (the latest Craft issue of Hot House- the classic Charlie Parker, Bud Powell, Dizzy, Mingus album from Massey Hall) would not be possible in the analog domain. It sounds FANTASTIC! The diehard AAA folks will never get to experience the wonders of this new version, and that's a shame!
At the end of the day- if it sounds good, it is. MOFI-Gate opened my eyes, and I became less of a analog snob as a result.
😂😂😂 Having my coffee this morning too.
Thanks for watching! And the MoFi controversy opened my eyes too, but not in the way I think the detractors wanted it to. Anyway - I have the same intolerance when it comes to any pops or hiss I hear with a new pressing. To me, that's unacceptable, and happens more often than I would expect.
th-cam.com/video/iDNjDnKxAfA/w-d-xo.html
What I thought when I saw you place the record at 0:50.
😂😂😂😂
When I make a CD from a record, it's a perfect copy, warts and all. That gives me the time & luxury to copy later onto tape without generation loss. Or....just keep the CD and move
on. Sometimes I just like the extra volume gain and tape preamp sound through the system from a good deck. I gave up long ago on the idea of taping all my records. Just more stuff to take up space. I'm struggling with the cassette decks though, haven't used them for years to record anything.
A good, seasoned engineer can make beautiful records from a digital source....it's all in his mixing efforts. It's absolutely insane to think engineers are going to have access to masters and trot them out whenever there's a reissue. At best, you're getting to use a master dup anyway.....not the original. Use the digital files already out there and have the engineer work his magic for vinyl. That's all MoFi was doing....they just should have been upfront about it. Just look at the difference in digital recording from the late '80s and early '90s compared to more modern digital efforts.
That's another great point, Kevin. The modern digital efforts that engineer's are able to produce are incredible.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords And I think the exciting thing about that is, perhaps, they're not even done yet....it's still evolving.
I have a tears for fears 1983 re issue in 1985 that was recorded digitally
Bet it sounds great too, Dave!
I love this analogy of umami and vinyl records. It’s definitely hard to explain, and very easy to go down a rabbit hole trying to do so 😂… I concur with the fact that a great mastering is of vital importance, I’ve heard some vinyl records that sound awful because of a bad mastering; however, when done right, once the sound waveforms are pressed on the vinyl record and then played back, magic happens. I’d compare it to the sound of an acoustic guitar versus the pure, unadulterated notes of the strings; the acoustic guitar adds harmonics that are in synchronicity with the fundamental notes (they are multiples of them, not random, which would cause harmonic distortion), and this creates a resonance that we perceive as a fuller, richer, “warmer” sound. Ok, see? I’m going down the rabbit hole, let’s stay with umami 🤣… Great content, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this controversial subject 😊
Hi Joe! I love your analogy to the sound of an acoustic guitar. I might "borrow" that in conversation. Great way to verbalize it.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Thanks! By all means, I’d be honored 😄
Your observing that an lp of a digital studio recording played back on lp, sounds different or better than the same digital recording on cd is correct. Especially the "different" part. Different formats sound different and add their own characteristics or flavor to the sound Analog lps add 2nd order harmonic distortion to the sound which softens the sound, just like playing something through tubes almost always softens the sound. Playing an lp and playing a cd is not the same thing, even if it is the same music. In both instances you get the sound of the music + the sound of the format. So they sound different. Solid state and cds (usually) for best purity of sound; lps and tubes with their pleasant distortions for ultimate (apparent) sweetness of sound. There was a time many decades ago, that I didn't think I liked the sound of cds,(it was my cd players at fault). When I put on a digitally mastered cassette, I liked the sound better, except for dynamics. On my super modded cassette tape deck, it softened the showy edges of the music, compared to my cd reproduction. The sound was sweet, not forced or aggressive or occasionally hard of brash. The cassette format smoothed things over on the digitally mastered cassettes. Just like an lp mastering can do. Anytime you play something, you are not only hearing the music, you are hearing a combination of the music and the characteristics of the format you are using. Most people's cd players are not as sweet as decent vinyl playback.
What Mofi did years ago, not mentioning it was using DSD mastering instead of all analog, was because it knew that digital was a bad word for many collectors, who wrongly thought they knew digital's sound from their incompetent cd players. Rather than divulge, and lose big sales over these people's bad and incorrect inferences, they chose not to mention it. Like if you were selling your house, when a potential buyer came over, very few people would volunteer that there were people next door who were a minority racial ethicity, that a lot of people associate with bad things. Prejudice is an overgeneralization, and Mofi knew that many people overgeneralize about digital sound. They probably thought something like "Why lose sales over the wrong generalizations just because people have less than great cd players". The better players can run with lps, and even better them in many ways. I still prefer lps a tiny bit for sound quality. The good ones, that is!
I am sure that’s exactly why MoFi opted not to reveal the DSD step. Unfortunate only because of the prejudice you mentioned.
I was just playing the circa 1980s Mobile Fidelity Aqualung OMR record lp. It is amazing. So transparent, clear and full of detail. The electric guitars really growl; for some reason they didn't do their suppressing the midrange thing on that one. But through headphones, you can tell ts all analog, especially on piano and the fast strumming of acoustic guitars. Those are two areas where analog still sounds a bit more genuine, and sumptuous. But through speakers, whiich are not as revealing as great headphones, the distinction between the two sounds very slight. If lps were the same price as cds, and I was walking, I don't know that I'd walk an extra 8 blocks to buy the vinyl. I'd have to be feeling pretty energetic that day, and feel like there's a hole burning in my pocket to spend what vinyl collectors spend today.
I have mixed reactions about Mofi's not telling people they were using DSD copies. My main reaction though is "It's not that important!" I wonder how many of these Mofi scandal crybabies, would inform potential buyers of their house that there's a minority family living next door?
I'm an audio engineer. I would say that I completely agree with you but what you're saying isn't just an opinion. It is 1000 percent fact. The reasons are legion.
Digital audio production has come so far even as recently as the last 10 years. "That indescribable something" is called harmonic distortion. It creates transients which makes even the crappiest source, digital or otherwise, more so. My channel just started. I'll be doing a video on this soon. But kudos to you for your channel and this video.
Love the channel title by the way -😂😂😂😂. When you do post it let me know.. Subscribing
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords 😄 Thank you!!
As long as it's not DOL or the like.
What is one to do when the sources were recorded in the digital domain? Brothers in Arms was recorded digitally.
Nothing to be honest - digital sources are wonderful. It's the mastering that counts.