CDs, Vinyl, High-Res files, Oh My.

I look at it this way: Some things sound best on vinyl and other things sound best on CD and I'm pretty sure some things sound best in Hi-Rez etc. Much of it has to do with source and mastering.
Personally, I don't care for Hi-rez, nor do I think things sound all that great streaming and what have you. I prefer vinyl and CD for listening. Streaming has it's place though for discovery and research, no question there.
As with all things audio, it's in the ear of the beholder.

I've been reading our man Neil Young's notes and his auto-biography and I get it (ok, not everyone likes the guy, but I have much respect for the guy. Ok, I don't get that whole Darryl Hanna thing, but whatever). I also can take a pretty good guess at why some things he says seem to contradict. His heart is in the right place though and that's what matters. I'm trying to find a way to ask him about the mother project he has been working on since the 70s = Puretone. It seems Pono is a product of it, but I wonder if it is the final result or just a part.
 
loved reading the comments...Mikey Fremer was all over the commentary section as @grooves :D
 
Hmm. I don't care for this article. It takes a handful of sound engineers who believe that digital is more honest and accurate than vinyl - and then asserts that the people who feel that vinyl sounds more accurate than digital are wrong, and are simply drawn to the formats idiosyncrasies. If I'm interpreting the tone of this article correctly, then I'm gunna have to call BS on some of it.

Besides, at the end of the day, none of this talk really matters. Not to me at least. I have a bangin' digital system, and sometime later this year, I'm going to piece together a bangin' vinyl system as well. I could honestly give a flying F about what is "better" by whatever metrics some jackhole decides to strum up. If the musics good and if the sound is good - that's all I really care about. So excuse me while I happily enjoy both formats. :)
 
It's the users preference to what recordings or versions of the music they like.

Technically CDs are superior, low signal to noise and variabilty from disc to disc to name a few. Those are the facts.

There is much more that is not measured, such as holding a record and dropping the needle. How to does someone quantify and qualify that?

This article's premise comes a goes, the answer is put your money into what you love. If it's both, hooray!
 
Adding to Bill's excellent points, my question is, how do you even begin to quantify the variables that go into an honest vinyl or digital experience? Where's the standard?
 
I've never understood the the whole argument of which is better, who cares, just let everyone enjoy what they enjoy. I love both formats.
 
Zero said:
Adding to Bill's excellent points, my question is, how do you even begin to quantify the variables that go into an honest vinyl or digital experience? Where's the standard?
Click to expand...

The standard for music listening may be found in the Producers and Engineers Wing here. Tools, Tips, Guidelines and Recommendations | GRAMMY.org

However, the The P&E Wing of Grammy says this are recommended guidelines. You may find more information in AES Papers are ITU specification/standards.
 
MusicDirector said:
I look at it this way: Some things sound best on vinyl and other things sound best on CD and I'm pretty sure some things sound best in Hi-Rez etc. Much of it has to do with source and mastering.
Click to expand...

I've yet to find anything that sounds better on CD; when we are recording we will generally make a digital recording as well as the analog master. The digital has yet to sound right compared to the analog. Fortunately nowadays analog tape is easy to find (Full Compass Systems for example).

We master to LP from any source- on the lacquers its really easy to tell what sort of source has been used.

I have found some hirez stuff that was pretty close to the LP, but it still has a ways to go.
 
MusicDirector said:
I look at it this way: Some things sound best on vinyl and other things sound best on CD and I'm pretty sure some things sound best in Hi-Rez etc. Much of it has to do with source and mastering. .
Click to expand...

That's the way I look at it not to mention a persons music taste and their equipment be it speakers, amps, dacs, TT, CD players etc.. and then comes the music choice, some sound oh so nice, or marginal some sound like well, crappy and make you question your setups, like what the heck happen to my stuff :dunno: .


I hear people mention how nice this "group sounds, I get the LP, CD or download and go, man that sucks. So on my gear it sucks or its not my taste of music but someone else on their equipment it could sound great.

I really think it's all how we individually perceive music.
 
atmasphere said:
I've yet to find anything that sounds better on CD; when we are recording we will generally make a digital recording as well as the analog master. The digital has yet to sound right compared to the analog. Fortunately nowadays analog tape is easy to find (Full Compass Systems for example).

We master to LP from any source- on the lacquers its really easy to tell what sort of source has been used.

I have found some hirez stuff that was pretty close to the LP, but it still has a ways to go.
Click to expand...

It really depends on how the recording was mastered and mixed. I can't stand digital recordings mastered/mixed for CD pressed to vinyl. I also said "some" never "all". Some examples: Jethro Tull on CD is horrid to my ears, lifeless, thin, tinny... Another example in the opposite direction is try to find a good copy of U2's Joshua tree on vinyl. The albums before Joshua Tree, especially the early stuff is at it's finest on vinyl. For some reason Joshua Tree on vinyl is severely clipped and the vocals and guitar are mixed wrong and just unpleasant to listen to. On the other hand the CD of that LP is fine, no issues. (I went through several new copies of Joshua Tree on vinyl before I just went and got it on CD). I think the album was strictly mixed for CD and of course the loudness wars were in full swing which could be the reason.

I know nothing about lacquers except maybe how to apply them to wood. I don't have any lacquer records.

Anyway, it's all different to different ears. The whole topic is individually subjective at the end of the day. I find Hi-Rez too harsh personally from what I have heard to date, but I also have not heard much of it yet.

I think you are wise to do two masterings/mixes, one for vinyl and one for CD. That way they can both sound good to their potentials. I also at times record some vinyl to CD (lossless) and it actually sounds fairly good, less harsh to me. I think it may be because even though I'm turning it into "1"s and "0"s it is still an analog source and just a recording medium like the cassette was and no compression beyond what little there was done in the original mastering has been added. Like I said, if you went the other direction with that, the result would be a disaster. It's like cooking, you can only go one direction. If you put too much of something in the recipe it doesn't turn out well or taste very good and you can't take the extra ingredient out. Whereas if you add a little at a time like with a spice and it doesn't quite taste where you want, you can add a little more. Again though as well, with things culinary what might be too little of a ingredient to one person may be too much to another because we all have different tastes.
 
CPP said:
That's the way I look at it not to mention a persons music taste and their equipment be it speakers, amps, dacs, TT, CD players etc.. and then comes the music choice, some sound oh so nice, or marginal some sound like well, crappy and make you question your setups, like what the heck happen to my stuff :dunno: .


I hear people mention how nice this "group sounds, I get the LP, CD or download and go, man that sucks. So on my gear it sucks or its not my taste of music but someone else on their equipment it could sound great.

I really think it's all how we individually perceive music.
Click to expand...

Music is total perception and subjective indeed! For instance, I don't like The Eagles, but they are a fav of many other folks. I just don't resonate with that group, nothing more and nothing less. We all resonate with different music. Music is food for the soul and that is why it is so personal with each of us.
 
MusicDirector said:
It really depends on how the recording was mastered and mixed. I can't stand digital recordings mastered/mixed for CD pressed to vinyl.
I know nothing about lacquers except maybe how to apply them to wood. I don't have any lacquer records.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that! When you master for CD, you have to apply more compression as there is more intent that the CD might get played in a car. With an LP there is no such intention so they usually exhibit more dynamic range. I've heard a few LP reissues where it sounded like the producer crammed the project through Protools on a laptop just to get the project out. Compared to the original such were dry and lifeless. Yet the CD of the same thing seemed to sound just fine. I wonder if there is something to do with our expectations or if there is more to it than that....
 
Gents,

A master file is the final copy ready for distribution?

I thought Engineers "Master" (verb) the audio file by adjusting the technical properties (EQ, levels,etc..) in order to prepare for production delivery?


So a CD requires different Mastering than an LP. Apple does this with their mastered for iTunes program. https://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/


I can't stand The Eagles too.

~Bill
 
o0OBillO0o said:
Gents,

I thought Engineers "Master" (verb) the audio file by adjusting the technical properties (EQ, levels,etc..) in order to prepare for production delivery?


~Bill
Click to expand...

This is what I am talking about when I say "master".
I took sound engineering courses and ran live sound boards a few times (got roped into it), often re-EQ stuff when needed and so on and so I also wrongfully assume that everyone else is thinking it from the same direction. Sorry, my bad.:)
 
^^ If a CD the master file is modified so that the peak level on any track is no more than 0 VU. This is called normalization. Nearly all CDs are normalized so that any CD will play at the same volume as any other. The file is also compressed to make it easier to hear in a car. EQ may or may not be added according to the taste or lack thereof of anyone in the production chain.

Hopefully if an LP is made it is made from the master file rather than the mastered CD version. I've found that if you are careful with the project that very little processing is needed to put it on the LP- but quite often simply for expedience the file might be compressed slightly, but I've yet to run into a case where it was mandatory.
 
atmasphere said:
I'm with you on that! When you master for CD, you have to apply more compression as there is more intent that the CD might get played in a car. With an LP there is no such intention so they usually exhibit more dynamic range. I've heard a few LP reissues where it sounded like the producer crammed the project through Protools on a laptop just to get the project out. Compared to the original such were dry and lifeless. Yet the CD of the same thing seemed to sound just fine. I wonder if there is something to do with our expectations or if there is more to it than that....
Click to expand...

Why don't you comment on the fact that the analog and digital mixes released are often totally different so comparing the mediums is fruitless? :( Unless like you are doing with the analog and digital masters.

Take the much ballyhooed Daft Punk recording. The analog release was totally different than the digital CD. Scarily, the CD sounded better than the LP when I did the comparison. As a matter of fact, there was zero low end on the LP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top