Thread: Vinyl [unscrupulously] cut from CD masters

For newer vinyl pressings, how does one do the research before buying vinyl to determine if the vinyl is cut from a CD master versus the high-resolution master?

Originally Posted by Steve

I wish there was full disclosure on master recordings and master transfers also.

From another forum a few moments ago, I was given a tip:

"Read reviews when available because sometimes the label lists this info as part of the promo effort. However reviews are not always consistent.Also, to check Discogs because they often list a lot of information, though not always what one is looking for."

I’ve been asking this question too, just for curiosity as I can't really afford new records.

For what I listen to mostly in this medium, I feel it’s better to stick with original pressings or original first reissues from back in the day for now, at least as far as I'm concerned.
I'd love to learn more about this, specifically what reissue labels are generally consistently good for future reference if nothing else.

Originally Posted by Mike

+1.

Since the vast majority of new recordings are digital, we can assume new vinyl pressings are cut from the digital masters. Blasphemy!

Will I forever be held in purgatory for saying, I appreciate both platforms?

Originally Posted by Mike

+1.

Since the vast majority of new recordings are digital, we can assume new vinyl pressings are cut from the digital masters. Blasphemy!

The one thing about that is when working with the master file, it often sounds better than a CD might, simply because its in a robust format and these days often at a higher scan frequency or word length as well. I much prefer to get the analog tape when doing LP mastering, but they are few and far between.

David- what I do is read the online articles published by mix magazine or similar publication , read about the engineers involved with the recording, and read music reviews.

Lots of research that points to facts. There are no hard and fast rules, i.e. "After the CD was born.." Or the idea that digital has never touched any part of the art of music in the last 40 years.

Then in the end, the LP could be sourced from 24bit / 48Khz master that's been dithered and truncated into a 16bit/44Khz... and it still enjoyable. Vinyl has a euphonic sound. Coming from Generation Y, I also find the ritual of putting on a record a unqiue thing. In the end it is a preference. That is unless someone can come up with a study and a report that has facts that it is unscrupulous to transfer CD to Vinyl.

Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o

Then in the end, the LP could be sourced from 24bit / 48Khz master that's been dithered and truncated into a 16bit/44Khz... and it still enjoyable. Vinyl has a euphonic sound. Coming from Generation Y, I also find the ritual of putting on a record a unqiue thing. In the end it is a preference. That is unless someone can come up with a study and a report that has facts that it is unscrupulous to transfer CD to Vinyl.

Having cut a fair number of masters on our lathe at this point I can't agree with that 'euphonic sound' thing. I see a lot of people with that idea, but when you actually play with the equipment you find that its just neutral. Compared to digital, I expect if you use digital as a reference, the LP will sound 'euphonic', but that is not due to a fault in the LP so much as digital, as it improves and looses some of its unique artifact, will become more 'euphonic'.

One of the reasons the LP seems to sound better has to do with bandwidth. Any LP cutter made since 1958 can record 30KHz with no worries, and nearly any magnetic phono cartridge and equalizer can reproduce the 30KHz tone without a lot of distortion (we can do it with a Technics SL-1200, Grado Gold cartridge and an H/K 430 receiver made in the 1970s). Our system has filters that have a -3db point at 42KHz; they are there just to protect the cutter head from stupid mistakes as the RIAA pre-emphasis curve puts a lot of energy into the system at that frequency and above.

This is just one area that LP has an advantage and there are others, all of which I expect digital to erode in coming years. But format has been a problem for digital and that will have to get solved as scan frequencies and word length increase.

Have to agree with Ralph, nail dragging still has its qualities, in the past I have done cuts to disc straight from the master tapes and was very surprised at what can be achieved. Bad LP pressings and mastering is why some feel LP's are deficient or euphoric , a bad pressing can sound so bad compared to MP3 much less red book ...

Whoops! Sorry- I'll define the adjective "Euphonic" as it relates to "Euphony" -agreeableness of sound; pleasing effect to the ear, especially a pleasant sounding. for example: The needle drop- a short lived event, has a unique sound that I find pleasing and it's generally found on Vinyl playback systems. It "announces" the beginning of the recording. But that's my opinion.

I do find that the playback is neutral overall and several recordings from the late 80's and mid 90's are more enjoyable on the Vinyl release than their Tidal Streaming and CD release.

I have never cut Vinyl. I am listener. You both have a unique insight and I respect your opinions. I do want to know about "digital eroding", because that comment is almost laughable. scan frequencies? Do you mean sample rate? word length? Do you mean bit-depth?

The other part is that 30Khz comment, what does this ultra sonic frequency have to do with this topic? Isn't 30Khz outside the natural limits of human hearing and perception?

Here is a company that largely does digital to Vinyl cutting. About Us - Music On Vinyl
"Which masters do you use?
We use the best audio available to cut our records. We receive and use different kinds of masters: analogue tapes, original metal parts, lacquers cut from analogue tapes and high res digital files 192/96khz/24 bit. Music On Vinyl does not use CD's as masters."

Here is a comment from another forum.

There has always been a tendency for many to equate digital audio with "perfection" partially because of the whole Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem (our sampling theorem which art in textbooks, hallowed be thy name...). Taking the theorem in isolation without considering all the conditions is pointless. Filtering, jitter, etc., these all play a role, an audible role. I believe it's true that an LP sourced from digital in a pro studio using pro gear **can** sound better than a CD, but there are so many factors at play here that it's impossible to give a definitive "one size fits all" answer. As Kevin Gray has documented very well in his articles quoted around here somewhere, there are techniques and characteristics of vinyl creation and playback that are completely different from digital. For example, there are physical limitations that impact on the sound. Without those limitations when mixing and/or mastering for CD, too many bad decisions are being made, usually for loudness war reasons. Take Alicia Key's current rado hit, No One. On CD, it's got this huge kick drum sound that's so obnoxiously overboosted that it overloads virtually any consumer level playback device and only sounds clean tame when Optimoded for FM radio. I imagine the signal level would have been too much for vinyl because on the vinyl copy of the LP I picked up a couple of weeks ago, that horrible sounding kick is nicely balanced and the song is the pleasant classic pop love song it should be.

Then take Springsteen's Magic. I didn't buy the CD. I borrowed it from one of my family members when it first came out and then almost puked at all the fuzz, buzzsaw noise and grunge from insane levels used on the recording or mastering. I heard the music on radio a lot and thought it was strong, so I picked up the album hoping it would be better. I got it home, put on Devil's Arcade hoping for the best, the whole thing started nicely, but then the band came in and it was a fuzzy sonic mush on the cymbals. I feel like writing Bob Ludwig, Bruce Springsteen or whatever a#$hole record exec who's responsible for that massacre of beautiful music and demanding my money back! Of course they'll have to wait until I get around to demanding my money back for Memory Almost Full. That LP was a big improvement, but it still sounds like there were a few transistors burnt in some mixing or mastering console somewhere along the line. (For the love of God, do NONE of these idiots remember what a CLEAN signal sounds like?)

So to get back to the topic at hand, it's hit and miss. vinyl records of digitally recorded albums **can** and often **do** sound better than the equivalent CD release, but it depends 1. on the mastering, and 2. on the source.

Vinyl Records (LP s) of Digitally Recorded albums

Or here on another forum

Lots of fundamentalist opinions in this discussion. Fundamentalists are mostly wrong, also here.
First, about recording technologies. Ever since mid-80's when the DAT tape was introduced most studio masters have been digital. The digital studio master, however, carries much more information than a CD file. For example a 192 kHz, 24 bit master is 6,5 times more dense than a 44,1 kHz, 16 bit CD. No technology ever will be able to capture the sound as is 'really is'; there are serious limits in the bandwidth of the analogue magnetic tape (dictated by the size of the particles, etc.) and to claim that the analogue recording made by Edison on a tin drum with a metal needle was "the most accurate" is pure nonsense. Hardly any information from the original performance was captured there.
However, 192 kHz digital studio master comes pretty close to cathing it all. As a comparison, you could think of images - current highest resolution digital technologies beat the analogue film in accuracy, resolution and color depth, even the 70 mm film. The claim that digital is "jagged" of "fragmented" sound is not correct. All the information which the capture medium resolution allows is there, same as with analogue tape. When a digital file is converted back to analogue during playback, the original waveform is restored.
So, ever since the 80's the vinyl and CD versions have been mastered from the same files. The mastering is different, thou, as the delivery medium is different. CD and vinyl versions always sound different. CD is mastered to meet the 44,1 kHz / 16 bit limits, vinyls are mastered to follow the RIAA correction and physical limitations of the disc. Personally, I prefer the sound of vinyl, despite the shortcomings of the medium (distortion, limited frequency range, sloppy bass reproduction etc.). But I do not claim that I dig the vinyl sound because it is technically superior. That is just simply not true.
So, the problem with the digital vinyl remasters is not in it being digital, the problem is in the current lack of engineering skills. As was mentioned before, especially CD masters are regularly compressed to death. Unfortunately the same is often true with vinyl masters. Also bass boost and other dirty tricks are used. So, remasters often sound like c**p, because the emastering engineer made it sound like that. The other problem with remasters is the poor quality of the master tapes; magnetic tape deteriorates over time, and even though record companies do try to protect them, often the current version are several generations old copies. Therefore vinyl-to-vinyl reissues are often a safer bet than remasters; and for older albums, the best bet is a near-mint original. Then again, for example 70's sloppy oil crisis vinyls can be pretty lousy.
The other problem with new vinyls (not just remasters) is lack of quality in the printing process. Vinyl is a rarity, and most plants are cottage industries using old equipment. Both the skills and the quality control have been lost during the "dark years".
So, I would claim that the biggest reason for old vinyls often sounding superior to anything published these days, despite the superior studio tehcnologies, is the skill level of the people in the process. Until the current umpteen-track studios there were always borders to work in; limited time in the studio, meaning that the performers had to rehearse well to succeed - leading to tight playing and real band sound; limited equipment, which the engineers knew as well as their own pockets ,often creating unique signature sounds (think of Sun, Motown...); limited playback equipment, meanign that the whole process of performance, recording, mixing, mastering, printing and playback created a holistic entity.
Which is not to say that "all good music was done before 1980". But it is much easier to record and publish BS nowadays, as we can easily hear by listening to the radio. Finding the nuggets takes some effort.

http://www.discogs.com/groups/topic/358440#3353811


In conclusion, It may be worthwhile dissecting a single recording that supports your point. The topic is too broad to generalize and there isn't any evidence of unscrupulousness. Still, if we narrow down to a list of really crappy digital transfers, think we can put this out in the clear for everyone to be warned about. Right now, I am not convinced, but I am open minded and willing to listen to your points.

Bill

Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o

Whoops! Sorry- I'll define the adjective "Euphonic" as it relates to "Euphony" -agreeableness of sound; pleasing effect to the ear, especially a pleasant sounding. for example: The needle drop- a short lived event, has a unique sound that I find pleasing and it's generally found on Vinyl playback systems. It "announces" the beginning of the recording. But that's my opinion.

I do find that the playback is neutral overall and several recordings from the late 80's and mid 90's are more enjoyable on the Vinyl release than their Tidal Streaming and CD release.

I have never cut Vinyl. I am listener. You both have a unique insight and I respect your opinions. I do want to know about "digital eroding", because that comment is almost laughable. scan frequencies? Do you mean sample rate? word length? Do you mean bit-depth?

The other part is that 30Khz comment, what does this ultra sonic frequency have to do with this topic? Isn't 30Khz outside the natural limits of human hearing and perception?

Bill

Sounds like we are mostly on the same page....

30K is indeed outside of human hearing, but the effects of bandwidth limitation well outside the audio band are not. So even though we can't hear so high (or so low) to eliminate phase shift (which can be heard by the ear if in a spectrum of frequencies) the bandwidth of the recorders and reproducers must extend well beyond the range of human hearing.

The 'digital eroding' comment is simply that as time goes by and digital technology improves, it will slowly erode the advantage that vinyl currently seems to possess.