Vinyl Records and Turntables Are Gaining Sales. - Page 2

No. That's why I said "for classic era material". I haven't come across much of anything recorded in the last 20 years that's worth buying, let alone investing in a new turntable setup to play. Nearly everything in my music collection dates from the late 1950's to the mid-80's, when nearly all studio masters were recorded on analog tape. I hope these tapes are being used to master new vinyl releases of this material.

Analog or digital recordings can be great or complete shit. Little has to do with a format 90% has to do with mastering sound engineer and microphone placement .
Example of old -school horrible records would be Queen :"News of teh world" vinyl or anything released by "Slade".
So be careful out there.

I would not say 90% is mastering. It's really three components in my opinion:

1. Original recording quality.
2. Mastering quality (freshness of and use of original tapes, good converters, light hand on EQ, etc.)
3. Format's inherent resolution.

In my experience, the best formats are LP and hirez digital, especially SACD and 24/192 DVD-Audio. Reel is way up there too. Next is CD/Lossless and AAC/MP3 follows distantly.

Generally yes as most audiophiles shy greatly from buying any digital-sourced LPs. All the APO and MusicMatters and MFSL vinyl is from analog tapes. For newer music, much is digital but often in 24/96 sampling or 24/88.2. At that sampling rate, an LP is still preferable to a CD as there will be more detail and the recording acoustic will be captured (assuming a good original recording and decent or better mastering of course). There is much speculation around the announced Beatles LP reissues. If they use the new 24/192 digital remasters then we audiophiles will be in heaven.

That's the info I was looking for, thanks.

You are welcome.

As more engineers, unfortunately, work in ProTools there is an understanding that mastering in hirez and downconverting to "redbook" or 16/44.1 CD wav files is the best sonically.

I say unfortunate with respect to ProTools because it can fix problems in the original performance and is often used to create "loud" recordings where the dynamic range is sucked out of the recording.

Invoice Sheila for use of the pic! She'd invoice you.

Great pic, mate. Do you know the story (acronym) behind the JMW? Outstanding arm in all iterations.

At the height of the LP, there were 20 or 25 high end turntable manufacturers. Now it's at least double that. There's a reason for that.

Long live the turntable and the LP.

Not really. Often, CDs are mastered differently than LPs for the same source material, because companies know that the LP buyer often cares about sound quality, whereas the CD is squashed for radio playback. On an apples-to-apples comparison between LP and CD, it comes down to one's preference for LP's euphony and artifacts, which is nothing to be ashamed about.

--Andre

Is that you Mike? Ha, don't get me going!


This is not an easy issue to explain or understand. My understanding of it is this:

A stereo system/speakers convert electrical wavelengths into sound. While a CD has a larger dynamic range than wax it is still a binary code (0s and 1s) that must be converted to electrical current. The problem with (even lossless) binary code is that it doesn't contain enough information to completely render the attack and decay of each note (how fast the note starts and how long the note lingers). So with CDs (or any binary format) you will not be getting the full effect of each individual note...but with analog you will not be getting the full dynamic range (highs and lows) of the original mastered recordings.

This is why early CDs sound like shit on a good system. The early CDs were mastered off of the vinyl masters and not the original (reel-to-reel) masters. So here you had neither the dynamic range capable of digital nor were you playing back all of the information on the original wax.

The ideal system and what is happening now/where this is going is the remastering of the original 8-track/12-track/24-track recordings (reel-to-reel) in a digitized lossless format like FLAC. Once you have all of this information and it's ALL there you must convert it to analog (electrical current). What makes a good DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) is the sampling rate and bit rate. The bit rate designates the amount of information the DAC can convert (resolution) and the sampling rate designates how fast the unit can process information. Obviously the higher those #s the better. It is in the DAC where the greatest advances in music playback are coming from.

Granted, this is a very simplified explanation but the bottom line is that if you put garbage in (like an MP3) you will get garbage out. The weakest link in the chain right now is the processing power of the DAC which is just about even with good wax and will only get better.

I'm not sure how to say this without offending you, but you should refrain from trying to explain either analog or digital recording processes, because basically almost everything you said is wrong.

--Andre

I don't want to get into another pissing contest Andre as we have clear differences on this point.

In my recording experience, I have worked on albums that had both an analog tape and a digital recording. The LP produced from the analog tape trounces the CD in terms of detail, instrument separation and "hall" ambience. A Super Audio CD was then created which beat the CD.

So I respectfully disagree.

This is unfortunately not accurate. Here are some simple rules to keep in mind. **When things are recorded in analog, staying in the analog domain, ie. tape and LP, is best. **The amount of information stored is a function of both bit rate and sampling rate. The best is currently 24/192. There is 24/352 and 32/352 but they are rare. Epiphany Recordings uses 32 bit. **Many early CDs sound great in fact due to the lack of "loudness" in the mastering and the freshness of the analog tapes which can, driven largely by brand/type, degrade over time unless meticulously cared for. **There is arguably more problems in jitter (time distortion) and the analog output section, than there is in DACs currently. Most current DACs from Burr-Brown or Wolfson are superb. The implementation is key. **CDs technically have more dynamic range but most people understand the great dynamic range of analog tape. **CD's weakness is high frequency response. It can only go to 22khz. While beyond most people's hearing, this affects frequencies in the audible band. This is another reason why hirez digital like 24/96 and higher is much better. It is very noticeable on acoustic recordings. **A suggestion for a view on formats: I have found that modern digital systems are just as good as analog systems (my team records in 24/176 on a Sound Devices machine for commercial classical recordings). However, a good analog system will beat a very good 16/44.1 recording system (I've tried the best from Weiss to Meitner). Overall though I find it best to be agnostic. **The quality of microphone placement and engineer's knowledge is still the main determinant of final sound quality.

OK, I know I'm going to sound hard-headed here but WTF? Am I really wrong about everything? I'm no sound engineer but the bottom line is:

1) Analog does not have the dynamic range of Digital and so therefore does not reach the highest and lowest frequencies.

2) Digital does not contain all of the information of Analog and therefore individual notes are "sharper" or "muted", lacking attack and decay.

No?

And if these statements are true, as digital formats become better and processing power continues to increase (and DACs are more capable of handling information), is it not probable that Digital will eventually negate any advantages of staying in the Analog realm?

My answers:

1. Analog can get all of the practical dynamic range needed in a recording.

2. Some digital (CD or 16/44, AAC, MP3) does not contain all of the information of analog. Higher resolution (24/88.2, 24/96, 24/176, and 24/192) does contain all of the information of analog.

As for future improvements, there is expected processing speed advantages like a normal digital tech learning and cost curve and we are seeing that iPod storage capacity for instance...HOWEVER, the music labels are very limited in what hirez digital files they share. Blu-Ray may change that a little but I doubt it as I see physical formats being limited and downloading as becoming ever more common. So there are practical limitations there.

My friends at www.hdtracks.com are showing the way for building a popular platform for the downloading of higher resolution FLAC files at 24/96. Even then bandwidth considerations come into play.