CinisterCee said:

I could never make the transition to downloadable files. No.

VoicesCarry said:

Yeah, if you wanna talk about CDs as a compilation of 44,100 snapshots per minute of analog musical data, I wonder how much is lost in encoding an mp3?

I love my Vinyl.

I love history too so I think by listening to the music the way it was issued means something to me. Liner notes and albun covers are cool too but I think digital files have had little clicks and amp hums cleaned off that I hear on vinyl. Love that squeek of a kick drum peddle on most old Zeppelin and James Brown albums.

u2prnce said:

Ok, im going to get a mp3 out and the record out of the same song and see which one sounds better.

ILL BET U the Vinyl will sound like magic

CinisterCee said:

An MP3 is to a CD track much like a CD track is to a vinyl track. It's really just an approximation. If you really listen closely, you can hear some distortion in the high end of an MP3 track, particularly in cymbals or vocals. But i think that most people dont really care about stuff like that. I know I dont' and I'm a musician. I just want the best sound quality I can get be it vinyl or CD.

The only thing is that the upkeep on not only the records, but the turntable itself is a hassle (and I grew up listening to vinyl!)

If vinyl really has a superior, more appealing sound why don't all bands just downmix their recordings on vinyl and transfer that to CD? The end result would be exactly the same, and no "warmth" or "character" could be lost by any sensible logic. But people don't buy into even that, because there's very little rationality behind the logic of favouring the vinyl format.

Yeah, I too love the sound of an overplayed vinyl LP of some 70s/80s records, but that's about it. However, it's merely an effect these days, not the way they were intended to sound. Vinyl LPs belonged to a whole different era - let go. That's just retroactive behaviour. I wish most underground artists would accept that too, as there are still loads of labels who only release vinyls. It's a fetish.

- or if Vinyl really has such a great sound, transfer a vinyl downmix on CD and sell that to your customers instead. It should make perfect sense.

Novabreaker said:

Wouldn't the same limitation discussed in the article linked by Dewrede earlier in this thread apply?


Specifically I'm referring to this quote:

These snapshots are
then converted to digital information with a certain precision. For a
CD recording this precision is 16 bits which means that every one of
the 44,100 snapshots needs to be converted into one of the 65,536
(2^16) possible values.

You can probably see where I am going: by definition a digital
recording doesn't include all the sound information.


As I understand it, the problem does not lie with the root recordings, but rather how they are represented by the format used to play them back. CD and vinyl pressings use the same source masters, don't they? I'm uncertain of that point - I do seem to recall reading that vinyl pressings often require unique masters, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me given that such a thing would entail a fairly significant cost incurred for a very limited market.
[Edited 5/15/06 3:37am]

damosuzuki said:

Within the analog realm there are myriad factors that mar the sound quality, so the information hardly stays the same. There are a number of other factors that further colour the sound on vinyl - and get real, this is what people prefer about the vinyl format. For instance, I sometimes just for fun listen to records through my tube compressor / preamp unit, and it's a bit different sound naturally, altough the preamp itself is quite clean. But to say that the analog sound is better because it'd be more "hi-fi" is a bit thick. The same should apply to the recording process as well, and most of those so-called "superior" sounding vinyl releases of today were recorded to HD anyway. And as far as any mortal's hearing capacity goes the CD-quality sampling method shouldn't introduce any "ear fatigue". That's a huge amount of snapshots, and the converters they are using for professional level CDs are of course top level. Actually that should matter a jack squat at that stage anyway, realistically speaking.



Well - some record labels that specialize in dance music make separate masters for the vinyl releases. That is basically done in order to add bass boosts to the material, because one of the main demographic of their buyers are DJs who play LPs at clubs. Unfotunately a lot of individuals mix this up as "warmth" adding up more fuel to the claim that "vinyl is superior". Other than that, I think some mastering houses do indeed take into account the differencies on the target format, but I'm quite doubtful that it'd be that common a practice.

JOIN THE FORCE !
.
.
.
[Edited 5/15/06 9:45am]

Novabreaker said:

Mastering for Vinyl and CD are 2 different processes. Taking one format and applying to another wouldn't make a lot of sense.

superspaceboy said:

You've completely missunderstood me.

I understood you Novabreaker.

Did vinyl go away?

Vinyl sounds better and a lot of the stuff I dig has not been and never will be released on CD.

"The Vinyl Sound" is a fetish. Some people have a cassette fetish too.

Novabreaker reminded me of a friend of mine who programmed his album then dumped it to cassette to add hiss.

To correct myself I have to say though that I really don't wish the vinyl LPs to go away completely - there is still a marketplace for various different formats on a smaller scale. It's all fun and I too love that sound on many occasions, but if it really is that desireable then thre are other means to achieve it like I described above.

But whenever a group I like puts out a new limited adition release on vinyl exclusively I just download it from soulseek. My LP player is broken and I foolhardedly gave away my other one to a friend before my own broke down (and don't dare to ask it back) I'm not planning to buy a new one though. And I have even contributed myself to a number of records that have been released / will be released only on vinyl. I can't play them, but whatever.
[Edited 5/15/06 10:16am]

Novabreaker said:

The main problem as I see it (and I have heard a few theories because I work in a recording studio) is not the 44100 samples per second sampling rate, but in the mastering.

Basically the process of a recording is:
Tracking: recording the instruments/vocals etc
Mixing: Balancing the levels and applying any desired processing to the recorded tracks.
Mastering: Applying overall processing to the mixed song.

So a recording will have the same mix for vinyl and cd. But the mastering is different. Over the last few years, mastering engineers have been pushing the volume levels of cds higher and higher using a process called "limiting". It appears that this has been motivated by record label execs and a&r people who want their latest acts cd to sound the loudest on the block.

From what I understand about vinyl is that, technically it's not possible to apply heavy limiting to the music and still have a playable record, therefore the vinyl master (containing the exact same mix of the song as the cd) will have far less limiting applied so it will sound a much more natural and dynamic than the cd. This is exactly why some people are saying they can listen to vinyl for a lot longer than cds. Heavily limited music is definately fatiguing to our ears!

If you pull out a cd that was manufactured in the 80's it will definately sound closer to the vinyl. Some cd's that have been REmastered have had this same overblown limiting applied and I prefer to find the original cd release from a 2nd hand store.

The immediate noticable difference between vinyl and cds is you have to turn your stereo up more with the vinyl to get the same apparent volume. But once you turn that volume up, it's usually plain to see that the vinyl is much more dynamic, natural and exciting.

In conclusion I think if the same master as the vinyl was used for the cd they would sound pretty similar (and cds more pleasing to the ear).

_

Personally, I think this is great news and great thread, Stax. It would be a joy to have this album that I have coming out to be pressed on wax.

nd33 said:

Ok. This is a good point - this view hasn't crossed my mind before. A very good observation on the limiting practices, though. But I don't think too many of the smaller labels take these kind of issues into consideration, as they're not that keen on applying that extra few desibels to the music anyway, and it's still the grass-root labels that put out the most vinyls (and I'm not referring to the above article especially). This might be the case with bigger labels like MUTE and such, but that's already way above my own radar these days.

[Of course, by masters I'm still referring to something that these days reside on the HD. You can carve that straight to plate (pardon me for possibly not knowing the exact terminology for the production process of vinyl recordings), whilst the actual "master" as so to speak with CDs is the glass master (which I believe is supposed to be completely identical what's on the HD anyway). It's actually strange to think the terminology hasn't been updated to correspond the change in technology as well. We really don't have "masters" as such anymore. Just to clarify a few points for other readers of this threads who might have interest on the topic.]

However, I hope you too understood what I meant by the comment of mine that you happened to also quote on yours for some reason. I meant using the vinyl sound rather as an effect on some records, much like the FX plug-ins that attempt to simulate the real deal, but actually you could also do it in real domain. This would mean that just the colouring and the slight compression that takes place on vinyl could be authentically transferred for CD playback as well. "If it really is such a desireable sound" (hell I'd do it if I could afford it). The aspects concerning limiting and other dynamic factors do not really concern this procedure as they would have to be performed later on the bounced recording once more in order to make a "CD with a vinyl sound". The only difference would be that the physical format wouldn't detoriate over time.

I have actually bought some CD reissues in which they did not have the masters on hand and transferred from the best available vinyl. They do sound great.

CinisterCee said:

Yes, sometimes they must do this when they don't have the master tapes. Some of the tracks on The Complete Motown Singles box sets have been transferred this way.

http://download.yousendit...271F79696C

The difference in "Weak At The Knees" by Slave...

CD & Vinyl
sample

blackguitaristz said:

Do it. I want one.


[Edited 5/15/06 19:40pm]

I've heard the manufacturing of vinyl is bad for the environment, anyone know anything about that?

nd33 said:

Thanks for that explanation. I've wondered what's been going on.

Here are some articles explaining exactly what you are talking about.
http://www.cdmasteringser...crange.htm
http://www.cdmasteringser...cdeath.htm



1983 - Byan Adams - Cuts Like a Knife



1987 - George Michael - Faith



1991 - Amy Grant - Heart In Motion



1995 - The Rembrants - I'll Be There For You



1999 - Ricky Martin - Livin' La Vida Loca



It makes my ears hurt just looking at it.
[Edited 5/15/06 20:54pm]

I have found that some of those 20th century masters compilations has boosted the sound so much that the peaks are distorting.

When will the VPod (Vinyl Pod) be released?

well digital clipping is not a worry with vinyl