Is vinyl pressed from a digital source defeating the purpose?

[devoidzer0]

I know vinyl has seen a resurgence in recent years. Being born at the tail end of the '70s myself, I never purchased my music in the format the first time around (when I first started buying albums at age 11 or 12 it was on cassette, and shortly after CD). I am now intrigued with what I missed, and being a connoisseur of the warm, analog sounds of early '70s prog, it seems only fitting that I experience that music on its original format. So, I'm delving into vinyl at this late stage, but it has me wondering...

There are lots of new albums being released on vinyl that were recorded in ProTools, encoded to little 1s and 0s on hard drives (the new echolyn, for example). Isn't taking that digital information and pressing it to vinyl defeating the purpose of the analog medium? I'm actually not asking rhetorically, I'm really not sure if I'm missing something. I know that when recording to digital you are taking samples of the original analog waveform. Do the high sampling rates used now (96 and 196 kHz) negate this concern, or is there still a difference? Would listening to a digitally recorded album on vinyl vs. a high bitrate FLAC file really sound any different?

[Toka]

Digital recording has been around since the dawn of the '80's...I wouldn't worry about it too much. As for your last question the answer is yes (due to more variables entering the picture, ie. different cartridges, phono stages, etc).

[JKL2000]

Some people claim to like hearing some pops and crackling, so you might be enhancing the sound with some of that.

[devoidzer0]

Surprised there haven't been more people chiming in. Seems like many progheads would also be into vinyl collecting. To those who are, what are your thoughts on buying new release vinyl recorded digitally? Does anyone just stick with vinyl mastered from analog tapes? Just wondering what the consensus is. I suppose as long as the sampling rate is sufficiently higher than a CD it would be worth it to get on vinyl.

I know there are some vinyl releases where corners are cut to save money and they are essentially just transfers from a CD. In that case I really don't see the point, other than to have nice artwork and revel in the novelty of the format. I suppose that some purists will contend that no matter how high the sampling rate, it still isn't the same as a pure analog source. I wonder if the ear can actually tell the difference though, or if there is no discernible difference (all things being equal, and taking the variables Toka mentioned out of the picture).

As for the pops and crackling, to me that doesn't enhance the sound, it distorts and detracts from it. Maybe that's because I grew up on cassette and CD and don't have any nostalgia about hearing it. That's one undeniable positive about digital, it will sound the same on the 1st play as the 10,000th, and won't degrade over time.

[JeffCarney]

With reissues, I tend to buy only analog sourced vinyl, but I will sometimes buy digitally sourced vinyl if I determine that the source used to make the digital master was excellent and/or mastered to my taste.

With newer albums, almost never. But there can be times when there is a benefit. With Heaven and Hell's The Devil You Know, for example, the CD was mastered quite hot, but when I tried the vinyl I noticed it was better and had more dynamics and better, smoother tonality. Despite that album being recorded on Pro-Tools (which I don't care for as a recording medium), it turned out in that specific case that the digital master used to cut the vinyl had not been treated to the mastering the CD had been. In other words, it was probably cut from a pre-mastered source. I found it superior to the CD for that reason.

[Adm.Kirk]

Everyone has complained about Rush's Vapor Trails and how hot it is and how it sounds terrible on CD. I don't know what the vinyl version was sourced from, but it sounds quite good as an LP.

I admit I don't pay much attention to the source of vinyl releases. I just prefer the format over any other. I've heard some terrible sounding vinyl too, as well as some great sounding CD releases. All that aside, if vinyl is available it is vinyl I get.

Bill

[squ1ggle]

Well, adding an analog stage at the end of a digital process certainly does changes things a bit.
The one place where there is a key difference between current vinyl, and 70s recorded vinyl, is in the mastering of mixed material. So, it's not in the recording of the instruments on Pro-Tools per se, but in the kind of extreme pseudo-loudness the digital medium offers at the mastering stage. This impacts vinyl recordings because the nature of the waveform being translated into a vinyl groove is different. Since the dynamic range of a vinyl groove is limited by its physical dimensions, the translation of brickwall limited digital recording onto vinyl can reportedly have the (counterintuitive) effect of making the record sound quieter.
In theory, good results are possible if a digitally recorded album is mastered specifically for a vinyl release, with a minimum of overall dynamics controlling.

[spacefreak]

To the sound engineers that digitally record the bands we collaborate as a label, we ALWAYS request specific mastering for vinyl format (according to written specifications). This is the proper way to cut vinyl nowadays...

[Jubal]

Two of the first digital recordings I ever purchased were only available in vinyl when they first were released. They were the Telarc Robert Shaw & Atlanta Symphony Orchestra album with Stravinsky's Firebird, and William Ackerman's album "Passage". I have since purchased them both on CD. They represented the best dynamic range possible on vinyl. They were also mastered well for CD, which allowed even better dynamics.
I've heard analog sourced vinyl that sounds better than digital sourced CDs, simply because the digital recordings were not properly mastered. I've also heard new vinyl that sounds like crap not because of the recording of mastering, but because the pressing was impure and had excessive surface noise/pops/crackles.
I recently started collecting vinyl again, though not nearly as much as my early adult life. Two recent purchases absolutely blow away the original pressings. They are both 180G virgin vinyl. Yes - Close To The Edge and Alice Cooper - Love It To Death are stunning. While I wouldn't say the CTTE vinyl is better than the recent Hoffman mastering and even less do than the HD tracks 96/24 files, it is very pleasing nonetheless. I will flat out state that the Alice Cooper vinyl is much better than the old CD I have.
Since we're comparing formats here, I would much rather here a flat transfer 96/24 file of a digital recording than a CD or vinyl of the same. They are much more expensive, but certainly worth it for music I value highly.

[Trane]

Everyone has complained about Rush's Vapor Trails and how hot it is and how it sounds terrible on CD. I don't know what the vinyl version was sourced from, but it sounds quite good as an LP.

Bill

I didn't know it was ever released on vinyl back then... especially in those years, when vinyl mania was at its lowest point... you sure it's not a recent remaster?

-------------

as for the subject itself... I'd say yes, without actually delving in the technicalities (or the user-friendliness arguments)

If you're going vinyl, than it makes sense that it always stays analog and no digital intermediate step

tas soon as you go digital, keep with it until the end product... Going back to analog sounds counter-productive to me


Remember those AAD ADD and DDD signs during the early days of Cds?

How does DDA or DAA on vinyls would make sense to you??

[Smörgåsbord]

In theory, good results are possible if a digitally recorded album is mastered specifically for a vinyl release, with a minimum of overall dynamics controlling.

If this is the case for any specific LP, we will never know.

When I bought classical vinyl in the early and mid 80s new releases were mostly advertised as digitally recorded. Deutche Grammophone had their DDD label. (Digitally recorded, mastered, printed?)

[Yeswave]

The most recent example I have of this is the Rick Wakeman Six Wives at Hampton Court release. I bought the cd on the night of the gig and it sounds fine. I also bought the recently released vinyl version. This would have been taken from same source as the CD, but the vinyl sounds far superior.

[strawberrybrick]

My two cents, let's see what it's worth....
As long as it's mastered properly for the final listening format, how it was recorded, is just how it was created. There's been a lot of digital recording since the 80s, and lot of that ended up on vinyl as well as CD. Obviously people have preferences between tape and digital, and if it's poorly recorded, then it's just poorly recorded, and if it's improperly mastered, then it's improperly mastered, no matter what the format!

There will certainly be differences in playback between the analog and digital format of a same-source, because of a) mastering process to get to the final format, and b) the playback process of each format (laser/d-a vs. cartridge/preamp).

BTW, the new MBV album is offered in a variety of formats, including a 100% analog version for vinyl release.

[Scrotum Scissor]

To the sound engineers that digitally record the bands we collaborate as a label, we ALWAYS request specific mastering for vinyl format (according to written specifications). This is the proper way to cut vinyl nowadays...

Indeed.

[LASERCD]

The OP opened a can of worms. Some of the responses have danced around the issues inherent in cutting vinyl from a digital source.

Things to keep in mind:

1. With respect to vinyl reissues of older analogue recordings, most are taken from a hi-resolution digital source (either 24/96 or 24/192). The major labels will not "lend" out original masters with some exceptions. If an audiophile label is going to reissue an album and have a well known cutting engineer do the work - that the major label approves of - they will let it out. Examples: Bernie Grundman, Doug Sax or Kevin Gray have access to original master tapes. Joe Schmo doesn't. He gets the file. This doesn't necessarily make it a bad reissue. If the cutting engineer is presented with a 24/192 file that doesn't have compression ie. just a flat transfer of the master, the results can be quite excellent. The Music On Vinyl label does a fairly good job of reissuing classic albums. Sometimes they work with original tapes but more often than not they work with hi-res files.

2. With a few exceptions, most current manufacture cutting lathes work with a digital preview head so inevitably the analogue tape is passing through an A/D then D/A stage. Some of the old timers who still work with the old lathes keep everything in the analogue domain. Obviously the later is preferable but not always possible.

3. If the original source is a digital file, once it passes through a D/A the sound characteristics change. It is definitely possible that a vinyl pressing of a digital recording can sound better than the digital version. Case in point - Porcupine Tree "In Absentia". The vinyl edition sounds much better than the CD. Andy Van Dette slammed the shit out of that disc when he mastered it - its way over compressed. I don't know who cut the vinyl but its a lot better sounding and one has to assume it came from the same source.

So basically to answer your question - be a detective and use good judgement. If its a vinyl reissue that you suspect is sourced from 16/44.1 don't bother with it. Its conceivable it could sound better than the CD but not likely. We licensed two of our releases to a vinyl reissue label and they just wanted to work from a CD as a master (I shrugged and have never played them as I suspect they sound like crap). If its a high quality reissue you should be getting good sound regardless of the original source.

[strawberrybrick]

Thanks Ken, insightful as always

[devoidzer0]

I appreciate the edifying replies, especially from those who work in the business and have experience with issues related to vinyl mastering. The whole dynamics issue and "loudness wars" is something I didn't mention, but it is very important to me. I'm dead set against the brick walling and compression, and maxing out of levels. I really respect what someone like Steven Wilson has done with his recent work in going in the other direction, and preserving as much as was recorded in the studio as possible without adding extra EQ and compression.

From what I understand in reading the replies, it's not physically possible to master a vinyl release that is so loud and brick walled, even when the tracks were recorded digitally. Rush's Clockwork Angels is a good example of a release that suffers from the "wall of noise" problem where nuances and subtleties in the mix are totally lost to me. I'm wondering if anyone who has the vinyl release can tell me if there is a significant difference from the CD release and if more dynamics are present?

[JeffCarney]

I appreciate the edifying replies, especially from those who work in the business and have experience with issues related to vinyl mastering. The whole dynamics issue and "loudness wars" is something I didn't mention, but it is very important to me. I'm dead set against the brick walling and compression, and maxing out of levels. I really respect what someone like Steven Wilson has done with his recent work in going in the other direction, and preserving as much as was recorded in the studio as possible without adding extra EQ and compression.

A point of clarification: Steven Wilson does remixing, not remastering. That is not to say that overuse of compression is not employed b some engineers during mixing and that Wilson isn't "one of the good guys" in this respect, but it's really not the same thing. Most "brickwalling" and "maximizing" happens during the mastering stage.

Still, I think Wilson does deserve credit in this regard, as one only need to look at the Genesis remixes to see that massive amounts of compression in remixing can absolutely ruin the original "feel" of a recording before it ever even gets to the mastering stage. He seems to stay true to the original mixes.

[devoidzer0]

A point of clarification: Steven Wilson does remixing, not remastering. That is not to say that overuse of compression is not employed b some engineers during mixing and that Wilson isn't "one of the good guys" in this respect, but it's really not the same thing. Most "brickwalling" and "maximizing" happens during the mastering stage.

Point taken. As someone who is in complete control of his artistic vision, I'm sure SW would make it extremely clear to the mastering engineer about exactly how he wants it done, even if he isn't physically "tweaking the knobs" himself at that stage. Mastering seems like an enigmatic process, you don't hear much about how it's done or what exactly is involved. Is it a very technical and time-consuming process?

[JeffCarney]

Point taken. As someone who is in complete control of his artistic vision, I'm sure SW would make it extremely clear to the mastering engineer about exactly how he wants it done, even if he isn't physically "tweaking the knobs" himself at that stage. Mastering seems like an enigmatic process, you don't hear much about how it's done or what exactly is involved. Is it a very technical and time-consuming process?

I don't think Wilson has that much control over the mastering on the remixes he does. Some of his Crimson remixes had about 3db of compression added which I think had a negative impact, but then I don't care much for his remix work in the first place so I might not be a good "judge."

As regards your last question, I suppose it depends on the engineer. These days, mastering typically comes down to choices of whether or not to employ EQ, compression/limiting, denoising and sometimes stereo widening or narrowing. IMO, the best engineers do nothing in the last three categories, and are probably conservative in the first.

[Adm.Kirk]

[QUOTE=Trane;79537]I didn't know it was ever released on vinyl back then... especially in those years, when vinyl mania was at its lowest point... you sure it's not a recent remaster?

It was released in 2002. Even has the seem Atlantic Cat. # 83531-1 (for lp) 83531-2 (For CD)

It was a fairly limited run of LP's though. I was pleased to find it. There was also vinyl for Roll the Bones and Counterparts but only as imports. Vapor Trails was a US release. Of course, everything since has been on vinyl too, with the exception of some of the live material.

Bill

[Wisdomview]

As regards your last question, I suppose it depends on the engineer. These days, mastering typically comes down to choices of whether or not to employ EQ, compression/limiting, denoising and sometimes stereo widening or narrowing. IMO, the best engineers do nothing in the last three categories, and are probably conservative in the first.

[LASERCD]

Point taken. As someone who is in complete control of his artistic vision, I'm sure SW would make it extremely clear to the mastering engineer about exactly how he wants it done, even if he isn't physically "tweaking the knobs" himself at that stage. Mastering seems like an enigmatic process, you don't hear much about how it's done or what exactly is involved. Is it a very technical and time-consuming process?

Yes its a very technical process and sometimes can be time consuming depending on the quality of the mix that is handed to the mastering engineer. Bad mastering happens frequently. Bands typically don't understand what is involved. The mixing engineer offers them a deal. "For $200 I can master it for you also". The results are always the same = shit. I'm literally going through this right now. I recently signed a new band that had their album mixed and "mastered" by a well known engineer. When I received the finished master IT WAS INCREDIBLY LOUD. I suggested taking a different route. Luckily the band was amenable to the experiment. I was able to get the unmastered 24 bit stereo mix. Bob Katz has just about finished mastering the album. He turned it into something really special. The new mastering is completely transformative. Nuances that were masked by the loss of dynamics were brought out. The band is freakin'. I'm freakin'. You will freak in June.

[strawberrybrick]

I've had the pleasure to spend a few mastering sessions with Denis Blackham at Porky's and then his own place. It's completely an art; not only does it require equipment, but also ears, patience, and a good idea of what the artist wants the final product to sound like. He's had some of the same customers for decades... Around the same time, I had a friend here in the US that did a lot of mastering, mostly with Pro Tools, where basically it was applying a plugin or two.

[gpeccary]

My ears aren't that good anymore, i know for sure I wont hear most of what you guys are talking about. But I'm curious, how do I know if the album was mastered in analogue or digital when buying vinyl?