When we issued both of our albums we did do digital backups, but the actual master tapes were analog. We did all the mixing analog as well. Now since I am an audiophile and the like you would think that it was me that influenced the band to do this but that is not the case. There was no CD.
I know for sure that we are not the only band recording that way although its probably a little unusual. But here in the Twin Cities I know of a number of very small recording studios; they tend to offer analog or digital. One artist in particular, Paul Metzger, has released all of his work on 180 gram LP and all of it has been recorded analog. A lot of the bands here in town have released LPs- its the cool thing to do.
So you can't count on all things 21st century to be digital. You just have to listen to the LP and see if its worth it or not. |
the limiting factor for the most part is the CD medium itself and not the mastering.
On the other hand, vinyl is merely -capable- of achieving great sound. The consistency of the audio quality of vinyl ranges from worse-than-CD to mind blowing. Hmm. I have an LP mastering system and a CD mastering system. I'm probably arguing nuances, but FWIW here are my experiences. The biggest limitation in CD is indeed in the media itself and not the mastering. The same is not true of the LP. Here, the limitation has to do with the arm and cartridge. The mastering side of the LP is by any comparison the most unlimited thing in audio. LP cutters can do things in terms of dynamic range that are simply not possible with any other part of the audio system except for perhaps a microphone. It is the limitations of playback that define how the LP is to be cut, not the limitations of the cutter. And the limitation of the LP has to do with the ability of the arm/cartridge to reproduce what is in the groove. The cutter itself, and the resulting vinyl, has abilities way beyond any digital system. But the cartridges and tone arms do have limitations and it is those limitations that the mastering engineer has to be cognizant of; this is the difference between a good LP and an excellent one. |
Then the signal is trasfered to vinyl with all imperfections where does not exist a perfect cutting system, here there is several kind of signal loses: certainly what is in the recording was not what was recorded before all that proccess. Raul, I would invite you to spend some time with a mastering lathe sometime. It may change your opinion! The lathe can cut anything! It has dynamic range that must be very much in the range of the human ear itself- certainly far beyond that of any digital. It is this unlimited quality about them that makes them tricky to work with, as the cartridges and tone arms are the area where you have severe limited imposed- bandwidth, dynamic range, distortion and the like. The ability of the engineer to understand what can be reproduced is the mark of a good engineer. But in general, the processing done by an LP mastering machine is minuscule compared to the damage done by an analog to digital converter, and all the digital process that follows. There are those that say its a miracle that the LP system works, but its not a miracle, its simple engineering and an understanding of the nuances. |
Hi Mapman, I can't agree with you on the 'laboratory experiment' comment. We have a cutting lathe that we set up with the stock electronics, then we substituted a variety of amplifiers and did the same cut with each of them.
You can take that lacquer and thus hear the difference between the amps on any system. We are now using our own amps that we modified for this purpose (the mods were only to make the amplifier easier to use with the cutter and were very slight).
It was easy! And also an advancement- we now have the world's first transformer-less vacuum tube cutting system.
If you were to talk to Acoustic Sounds, you would find that they have found a variety of ways to improve the pressing machines as well. These are all easy changes, the only reason you don't see more people doing them at various plants is that they are too busy to take the gear out of service! |
but there is no chance of vinyl winning the race over the long term, right? Not sure about that, and right now, I'm not sure that the major labels think that either. I think they are tired of putting out CDs and then not being able to sell their stock as the download thing has really hurt them. So they have been turning to LPs as something they can sell that has a little more immunity. Its funny, in 1985 most of the labels were saying that they would be done doing vinyl by 1987; here we are 25 years later... So as a result finding music on vinyl these days is the easiest its been in years. BTW 1993 was the year of the least vinyl production. Now if they can come up with a digital format that denies duplication we might see digital experience a resurgence. But right now the LP industry is a growth industry and any player in it has as much work as they can handle. I had arguably the best digital system made (Stahltek, $72,000) in our room at RMAF. The designer was there. I played him a cut on both the digital (192KHz 24-bit) and LP. He simply turned to me and said 'Digital has such a long way to go...' He was not mad- he loves analog, and I think its that pragmatic approach that is why he makes the best digital. |
Forget all the " problems " during LP playback I posted and think for a moment how you or any one could gives " support " or speak of " superiority " to the LP playback when in this medium we can't even READ WITH ACCURACY WITH PRECISION ANY SINGLE GROOVE IN ANY LP!!!!!!!!!! Raul, this is blatantly false and if you actually believe that then you need to know its not true. Now, it is true that cartridges and arms have certain limits, some being better than others. Like I said before, its the mark of a good mastering engineer to understand those limits so he can produce an LP that can be played but still shows off the master recording (unless its directly to LP...). Now I did comment directly to this issue of traceability above, but the *generalization* that no groove can be tracked by any cartridge is simply too much of a generalization. If that were true LPs would not still be around. Again, you should spend some time around a mastering setup to see what the recording was like before it went into the grooves. Then listening to what the cartridge/arm combo thinks is there, sounds to me like you might be quite surprised at what is possible. Its also helpful to make a recording and then put out an LP and a CD of it. That is perhaps the most telling. I have such recordings- one of the better known ones I have done is Canto General by Mikas Theodorakis (peotry by Pablo Neruda). Its pretty easy to discern that the CD **in no way** is able to keep up with the LP on a decent playback system. I had a guy come into our room at THE Show this last January. He was somewhat notorious on the AudioAsylum.com website for his rants about phase and digital. He did not know that we had a phase switch on our preamp so he had us play a CD and then said that reversing the phase would make it better. I flipped the switch... so there was maybe a very small difference. Then he as insisting about how much better the digital was over analog if it was 'in-phase'... So I put on the LP for him, which instantly smoked the CD (we had a very nice digital system in that room BTW). So then he proclaimed that if there was an analog master tape involved that what he was talking about didn't apply. It was obviously a face-saving comment- he got up and left as fast as he could. I'm afraid we had a good chuckle at his expense. Raul, I was pretty sure that you are making a phono stage and a tone arm. These comments of yours sound to me unlike what I would have expected- have you experienced a change of heart? |
for me the music foundation belongs to the bass low bass and here the LP alternative can't even dream what the digital can do even the redbook is better than the LP compared to live music at 3-4 meters from the source. Boy, the ability to play bass IMO/IME has always been ruled by LP. I have never seen any digital system do as well! I can't agree with this statement at all, it is so false it seems crafted to be inflammatory, but knowing you Raul, I doubt that is the case. Curious. A straight-tracking arm solves the tracking issue you describe if its engineered correctly (I am not a fan of air bearings!). But still I would recommend spending time with an LP cutter- the tracking error of radial tonearms is almost a non-issue relative to the overall picture, as long as the radial arm is built right, and there are a few. This all has to do with the source recording- knowing what that sounds like and then knowing what the resulting CD or LP sounds like! That is why I say the tracking distortion, so long as the arm/cartridge setup is otherwise working correctly, is not important. So I cannot agree that a digital media, at least in its many existing forms, is somehow better- they all impose an audible artifact where the analog does not. Now understand that I listen to a lot of lathe cuts- it is from that perspective that I write this. They just don't make any noise! Yet you can cut a 50KHz carrier tone into one and modulate FM stereo into it... crazy! I cannot over-emphasize this point, apparently. You just have to experience it. |
What you hear are all those LP playback distortions and not what is in the recording. Those playback added distortions never existed in the recording process. All what you are saying happen because those non-existen distortions I repeat: NON EXISTEN DISTORTIONS COLORATIONS DURIN THE RECORDING AND CERTAINLY NEVER IN A LIVE EVENT°!!!!!!!! I've been out of town the last week. Raul, I have to take you to task on this one. Before saying that vinyl is so distorted, especially in the bass, how about compare it and the resulting digital to the original master tape??! If you ever get the chance to do so you may well change your tune. Both the digital and the analog have to be true to the master tape. On even the best digital out there, I can easily show that the superior bass of the LP is not distortion- that in fact that same bass is on the original tape, whereas the digital, while good, does not have the same resolution and fails to convey the same experience. And this is on the best digital out there (IMO/IME the Stahltek converter and transport). So until you do this very sort of comparison, please refrain from such apocryphal remarks as they are patently untrue. |
I'm sorry Raul, maybe its a language thing. I think I stated it several times in this thread but let's be clear:
1) Make a good recording; a good master tape
2) release it on LP and CD
3) compare what you hear to the master tape
Now you should know that there is a 'test' of some sort that is part of the LP or CD release process. This 'test' (as in 'test pressing') is used to see how well the ***LP PLAYBACK*** is able to meet the sound of the master tape!
I emphasized the words 'LP playback' to prevent further misunderstanding.
I have to assume that you must have at least one test pressing somewhere in your collection... if not its something to work on. Test pressings are the first off of the stamper and so can sound better.
Anyway, if the test is approved then the mass production begins. Having been through this process a number of times (and mind you, I am not talking about listening to the lathe cut, instead we are talking about playback of an actual LP) I can tell you that unequivocally, the LP is:
1) not distorted, rather it should sound nearly identical to the master tape and
2) it will have better bass than the digital as well as smoother, more detailed and more dimensional highs.
So I am indeed talking about **playback**! If you are not experiencing the same advantages of vinyl, then adjustment or upgrading of your playback apparatus is indicated. |
It does not matter the master tape. You will find the LP to be the truer playback. If you spend some time in a recording studio you run into these comparisons all the time.
For example, we always record analog with a 24-bit digital backup. The analog tape of course sounds a lot better regardless of the digital recording means. What is interesting though is that the production LP made from the analog tape *also* sounds better than the digital master! If we cut the LP from a digital master it takes on many of the qualities of the CD, although the LP will usually still sound better even though they have the same digital master tape.
If you have ever produced a CD, the biggest degradation occurs between the master tape and the production CD. There is less degradation with the LP. So it should be no surprise that the LP can sound better even though the master tape is digital!
Digital just can't win in its present state. I am hopeful that it will get there, but mostly what I see from digital is a dive to the bottom- mp3s being a great example. But before that the WAV files were a pretty good example too.
IOW, the LP is truer to the recording in all cases. |
In this case, by 'sounds better' I mean that how it sounds with respect to the master tape. For example I hear LP bass sounding very much the same.
Raul was suggesting that the sound of the LP is distorted compared to an analog tape and that is not the case. Further, he was suggesting that the sound of a digital copy of a digital master is less distorted than that of the LP, also not the case.
What is perhaps not understood is that the LP media is one of the lowest distortion and widest bandwidth media ever devised. If there is distortion, its an artifact of playback and as such if done right can be quite low- low enough that the distortion is not audible. There is no way you can do this with digital!
A simple test for anyone with a digital recorder is to record and play back sine wave sweep tones. You will be amazed at what you hear- the distortion digital has can be profound, easily heard, but unlike analog it tends to be related to the scan frequency rather than the musical tones recorded (in case you are curious what you hear, in the digital playback of the sweep tone you will also hear 'birdies', sets of modulation tones that change frequency as the fundamental changes). The distortion is easily heard even if the sweep tones are kept at a low level.
It is these distortions that contribute the brightness many perceive in the digital sound. I've pointed this distortion out to a number of pro-digital 'digi-phile' types in the past that have discounted it as a product of cheap converters, but oddly enough after 20 years (when I first heard it) its still with us. A lot has happened in the digital world since then but getting rid of distortion is not one of them. |
Vinyl is pretty easy to find these days since the CD is dying.
Mapman, It sounds like you did not understand my posts from your responses! I suggest re-reading them, especially the one in which I mentioned the sweep tones (don't think for a second that that has no bearing on actual audio!). |
Mapman, Do you find any digital enjoyable when you hear it played on your gear? How about other gear? Certainly! What do you mean by 'other gear'? Raul: IMHO any single open reel machine ( and I say any. ) has several failures. Yes, it is the best analog source but imperfect too, especially against digital one:
some normal specs on digital recording systems gives us numbers like these:
- flat frequency response from DC!!!, -THD lower than 0.004%, - signal to noise 93db RMS unweighted First, the R2R takes a back seat to the LP; ever hear a direct to disk?? The dynamic range, signal to noise and bandwidth of an LP can far exceed that of R2R. It just happens that often the reel to reel sounds better for other reasons- poor signal chain in the LP, worn stampers, stuff like that. In the THD spec of the digital you did not mention Inharmonic Distortion, which is very high!- enough that anyone can hear it on any kind of equipment without training. Compare that to analog which has none. You will never see the Inharmonic Distortion figure in any digital specs as it is terrible- sort of like the Emperor's New Clothes. Raul: Here is the same: why we like a faulty medium over a truer/accurate medium as digital? Well, to begin with digital is not as accurate. Do I have to keep harping: Spend some time in the studio using direct microphone feeds, compare the digital and analog recordings and don't forget to compare the lathe cuts while we are at it??? The least accurate is digital, 2nd in line is reel to reel and the best is the lathe cut. If the mic feed goes directly to the lathe, the resulting LP will be the best representation of that microphone feed. I should point out that you don't need sophisticated gear to hear what I am talking about; anyone will easily hear the differences, even if the speakers are substandard by high end standards, even if the signal is sent through a cheap amplifier. It is very obvious to the untrained ear. Lacee, have you heard any of Johnny Cash's LPs that he did just before he died? How about some of the recordings of Low on Kranky ('Trust' is a good place to start)? The sound is AAA and amazing! |
Lacee, Low was recording in a studio known locally as 'the Church' because that is what it is... It also has very good acoustics. Low's recordings on Kranky were all done at the Church and have good sound. They sound very laid back, very slow, perhaps a bit somber, but beautiful as well. The LP is on 180 gram vinyl and is all-analog. It been out for a long time but you can still find it. I don't think their later recordings on SubPop are as good.
|
Its unfortunate that direct to disk stuff is so rare. Its the King James Version and For Duke disks that are probably the best-known.
But they are hard to record! For one thing the musician's can't mess up too bad or a whole side is ruined and they have to start over. In addition, the recording engineer has to be really careful not to over-cut! But if everything goes right, its really amazing. |
