If you can't dig me, you can't dig nothin' Member since Nov 2013 2282 Points
Like many of you I still buy new and old records but have been disappointed with claims by the "new" record industry that they are producing a superior product. More often than not I find these claims i.e. 180 gr vinyl produces better sound and less noise to be completely baseless. Even more infuriating is the trend to re-issue vinyl from digital rather than analogue masters - the latest batch of Beatles releases for instance. I can't help but think it is all a cynical marketing ploy to keep LP prices higher than CD prices but when CD's were introduced they were much dearer than supposedly sub-standard LP's. My point is an old album from an analogue master is (nearly) always superior to new one from a digital source no matter how good the rest of the production is. Bells and whistles don't necessarily make a better product.
I too don't understand digitally remastered LPs. Once it's been digitised, you might as well keep it in that medium. Isn't it like buying a CD that has been converted to vinyl?
Glad to see it's not just me wondering about that then. When the Beatles' albums were remastered a couple of years back, it made sense - source material analogue, transfered to digital masters for use with CD. But then to use the digital masters to press to vinyl again seemed bizarre. Surely the original analogues could be used directly to vinyl, thereby cutting out a whole extra generation of copying? I'm no expert, but it just seems odd to me.
No picture 'cos I'm not into 45rpm :( Member since Jan 2013 3429 Points Moderator
Depends what we mean by 'analogue masters'. If that means magnetic tape then its liable to wear, stretch, crinkle, etc and is decomposing all the time. Digitising that is a way to stop things getting worse as time passes.
Isn't it like buying a CD that has been converted to vinyl?
No. CDs are a lot less accurate reproduction - they are only made to 16bit resolution. A digital remaster will be made to 32 bit resolution, and that's about 64,000 times as accurate.
Depends what we mean by 'analogue masters'. If that means magnetic tape then its liable to wear, stretch, crinkle, etc and is decomposing all the time. Digitising that is a way to stop things getting worse as time passes.
Nevertheless, introducing a newly-made digital stage can't improve the fidelity, surely. Maybe in 50 years the tape will have deteriorated, but the digital remasters are taken from the tape as it is now. They already have the polished up digital rematers anyway, for the CD releases - so it's all preserved for the future.
No picture 'cos I'm not into 45rpm :( Member since Jan 2013 3429 Points Moderator
TopPopper wrote:
Nevertheless, introducing a newly-made digital stage can't improve the fidelity, surely.
The noise and distortion in a digital implementation of the same "source to record process" will be less than that of the original analogue implementation. So the answer is that fidelity can be improved in the final product.
Our knowledge and understanding of the limitations of recording equipment is growing all the time, so improved source fidelity is a future possibility.
TopPopper wrote:
Maybe in 50 years the tape will have deteriorated ....
Er... Many of the recording tape masters are already around 50 years old. Think Beatles, Stones, etc.
a happy disposition is an omnious sign.... Member since Feb 2010 1707 Points Moderator
Re: about the actual tape,
without naming names or such - a very major league record company has been routinely remaking master tapes for more than ten years now. The problem with old tape is that not only does the iron magnetic track deterioate with age but the actual tape itself decays. As a result many major bands have had their original master tapes archived and have new master tapes dubbed from the originals.
Obviously we've all heard about disappearing master tapes, the usual reason for disposal is because they simply fell to bits.
Its a similar problem the BFI deal with old film, the tape literally falling to bits with age.
Amusingly digital archives arent future proof either, so the whole dubbing process will repeated everytime computer technology moves into a new chipset.
Edited by carryonsidney on 15th Jan 2014, 10:47 PM
If you remember early 80s / 90s Cds used to have that AAD or DDD symbols on the back. Analogue used in recording , Analogue used in Mastering , Digital used in Transcription. Its not so much a case of quality of the Master Tape, its the care taken in Converting it to Digital (ie CD) playback.
As for recent vinyl, I've been aghast at some of the quality. 'Back to Black' Counting Crows 'August & Everything After' was the worst thing I ever heard in my life. Then I checked some forums and it was taken from a CD Master and then got withdrawn by the label due to non-fill.
Sundazed 'Fantastic Expedition Of Dillard & Clark' sounded ok , but then I got the original brown A&M and it blew my mind how much better it sounded.
No picture 'cos I'm not into 45rpm :( Member since Jan 2013 3429 Points Moderator
carryonsidney wrote:
... Amusingly digital archives arent future proof either, so the whole dubbing process will repeated everytime computer technology moves into a new chipset.
Where did you get this from?? That's totally incorrect - we're using the same formats and resolution as we did 15 years ago for audio archives. It's not related to chipset.
A girl who looks good in vinyl Member since Dec 2012 1544 Points Moderator
Something just 'feels' wrong about these modern vinyl pressings. There is a certain fakeness about them. Can't really explain it -- but they just don't feel right. Maybe its this attitude of 'let's put it out on vinyl just to be cool', especially as practiced by Jack White.