Vinyl Reissues

Over on the music board I monitor, there's a guy in Brasil who posted a list of 1970s albums which are being re-released on vinyl.  He wanted to know which, if any, were "dubbed from the original masters, as opposed to being simply dubbed from CD."

I replied that obviously irony wasn't his native language.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I replied that obviously irony wasn't his native language.

If I may borrow from the other board: "I'm sorry, maybe I didn't get what you meant exactly."

The man's question seems, to me, to express a perfectly valid concern.

I also bounce around on that other board from time to time. I noticed that the "elaboration" quote in your post here was not made in response to the remastering question, but was in a "mono vs stereo" thread, in which the gentleman from Brasil did not participate.
.

True. I probably should have created a new thread rather than conflating.

Yes. Considering that the quote had precious little to do with the original subject.

Okay fine.

_Howard wrote:

The man's question seems, to me, to express a perfectly valid concern.

How so?  These old 1970s LPs should be pressed from an old deteriorating analog master tape (accepting that the pre-master multi-tracks would NEVER be used as source without mixdown), incorporating all of the limitations of 1970s tape recorders and the compression and frequency response limitations which had to be imposed in the seventies in order to press a record?  As opposed to starting with a cleaned-up, maxed out/opened up digital remaster which removed all of the limitations because Compact Discs could reproduce the full range of what was recorded on the multi-tracks (and more)?

In other words, why intentionally make a 2015 LP sound as bad as a 1970 LP?

And what do you suppose they used as a source for creating those wonderful CDs?

I have a bunch of 1970s (and 1960s) mono LPs that sound just fine, thank you very much.

_Howard wrote:

And what do you suppose they used as a source for creating those wonderful CDs?

How about "a cleaned-up, maxed out/opened up digital remaster which removed all of the limitations because Compact Discs could reproduce the full range of what was recorded on the multi-tracks (and more)"? When CDs first came out they were taken from the analog master tapes created for LP releases, with all of the limitations and filtering LPs required. It wasn't until a few years later that we started to get "digital remasters" where engineers went back to the original multi-tracks and created a new master tape -- digital this time -- without all the compromises. There has been an endless stream of reissues to prove the superiority of digital remastering -- even in treasured old mono recordings (if they're well recorded, like Rudy Van Gelder).

_Howard wrote:

I have a bunch of 1970s (and 1960s) mono LPs that sound just fine, thank you very much.

Sure, and they'll continue to sound fine for the rest of our lives. There's nothing wrong with them. Our 60 and 70 year old ears aren't that discerning anymore, and most 45 year old recordings aren't going to be full of that many surprises anyway.

But sometimes, a digital remaster can sweep away the cobwebs from the sound and a new CD of it -- even an old mono recording half a century old -- will be revelatory.

NoCoPilot wrote:

How about "a cleaned-up, maxed out/opened up...blah, blah, blah.

And what did they use as the source for this? They used "an old deteriorating analog master tape."

NoCoPilot wrote:

But sometimes, a digital remaster can sweep away the cobwebs from the sound and a new CD of it -- even an old mono recording half a century old -- will be revelatory.

A remaster cannot ADD anything to the original. It can modify it, if that's what you want.

Most digital remasters are at least a generation closer to the source, often right off the multi-tracks.

And yes, by artful application of noise gating and dynamic range expansion, it is often possible to improve on a master.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Most digital remasters are at least a generation closer to the source, often right off the multi-tracks.

For what it's worth, I have tapes that are nearly fifty years old, which haven't been carefully stored, and they still play just fine.

NoCoPilot wrote:

And yes, by artful application of noise gating and dynamic range expansion, it is often possible to improve on a master.

Whether a recording is improved is up the the individual listener. Generally speaking, you are safer using the word modified in regard to what the engineers have done.

Mr. Brasil has now stated that some of the best sounding recordings he knows of are 1970s LPs.

So I asked him "why buy the reissues then?"  Seems like he'd be better served cruising used LP stores.

_Howard wrote:

Whether a recording is improved is up the the individual listener. Generally speaking, you are safer using the word modified in regard to what the engineers have done.

Very, very few sane people would argue that lowering the noise floor is not an unqualified improvement.

Of course there's always a few insane contrarians.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Mr. Brasil has now stated that some of the best sounding recordings he knows of are 1970s LPs.

So I asked him "why buy the reissues then?"  Seems like he'd be better served cruising used LP stores.

Just a wild guess, but maybe he doesn't want used LPs. They do wear, you know.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Very, very few sane people would argue that lowering the noise floor is not an unqualified improvement.

True. But that is not the only parameter on which you remarked. When it comes to diddling with the musical components of the recording, that is primarily a subjective matter.

My latest jab in the ribs:

NoCoPilot wrote:

Facelift wrote:

Here's a good, honest primer about vinyl collecting.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/perpetua/thi...ion#.yr3NPNXk5

Generally a pretty accurate summary, thanks for posting.

One section caught my eye:

Quote :

You should be wary of new reissues of old albums on vinyl. In many cases, the master is made from the most recent CD of the title because the record label does not have access to the original analog master. If you’re into the “warmth” factor, this totally defeats the point of having the recording in this format — you are basically just buying a lesser, imperfect version of a CD.

So, following through on this logic, if the LP is a "lesser, imperfect version of a CD" -- and "original analog master" tapes have a warmth that CD masters do not have -- then this analog warmth which everyone talks about must be in the master tape, not on the LP -- and SHOULD be better reproduced on CDs (taken from these analog master tapes) rather than LPs, since LPs are simply a "lesser, imperfect version of a CD" -- right? Logically, that's what this statement is saying.

Now, if I recall correctly, the first wave of CDs in the early 1980s were taken from analog master tapes created for pressing LPs. People complained that they didn't sound any better -- and in some cases actually sounded worse -- than the LPs. Thus began an industry-wide decades-long program of "digital remastering" where ancient old albums were remixed digitally, to bring out maximum fidelity and detail from the multi-track masters. These remasters, even the ones from analog multi-tracks, generally provide a lot more musical detail and a lot less noise than the original analog 2-track mixes.

So I ask again: Why would you want to make a 2015 LP sound as bad as 1970s LPs sounded?

If you really wanted THE BEST representation of analog warmth, you wouldn't go with LPs -- which are inferior -- or digital remasters -- which have removed the warmth. You should be looking for original 1980s un-remastered CDs. The ones everybody complains about

NoCoPilot wrote:

..."original analog master" tapes have a warmth that CD masters do not have -- then this analog warmth which everyone talks about must be in the master tape, not on the LP...

Actually, it does not say that at all.

Really? How do YOU read this then?

Quote :

In many cases, the master is made from the most recent CD of the title because the record label does not have access to the original analog master. If you’re into the “warmth” factor, this totally defeats the point of having the recording in this format

You know, I have never heard "warmth" offered as a property of vinyl, only applied to tube amps.

But anyway...

Old vinyl masters were created - from the original source tapes - with characteristics required for driving cutters to produce metal masters, as well as properties such as compressed mid-range, deemed necessary for optimal vinyl recordings.

When the original source tape was used to create a master for CDs, manipulation by the engineers resulted in a file in which the sonic characteristics were different than for the vinyl recording master. So, if you subsequently use this CD master (or simply a CD) to record on vinyl, you get a different sound on the LP than was present on the original LP created from the source tapes. Of course, the CD master can be used to create a proper vinyl master, but few shops bother with that because of expense.

This does not mean that the "warmth" was present on the original source tapes, just that it is not present in CDs or CD masters.

Uh, Howard?  The RIAA curve is not encoded at the analog master tape level.  That's done at the cutter.

But you knew that, right?

Yes, I am aware of that. The differences to which I was referring - and I guess my mention of the cutter was superfluous - was the sound level. Today's popular music CDs are essentially lots and lots of noise, with a bit of music trying to sneak through. LPs cannot be recorded at the same high levels, so they lose out in the loudness wars.

Imagine a master with levels of 95 db used to create an LP. The result would be pure shit.

Audio woo (bullshit) has its own vocabulary of words used to describe what so-called audiophiles imagine that they are hearing. Since they cannot use terms that describe real properties of audio (things like frequency response, dynamic range or distortion) to point out what they're hearing which they think is superior (because they're not) they have invented all sorts of new terms for "fuzzy" advantages only they can hear.

"Warmth" is a prime example that means whatever they want it to mean. I've seen it applied to tube amplifiers, LP vinyl, analog tape recorders and even cassettes. It is apparently, so far as anyone can define it, even-order harmonic distortion of a type much beloved by people raised on cheap stereos and crap recordings.

Live music and digital do not have warmth.

I don't know when or why the term "warmth" came into being, but as far as its use to differentiate the sounds created by transistors and vacuum tubes it is easily definable as the soft clipping of vacuum tubes versus the hard clipping of transistors. My first solid state amplifier in the early sixties was typical of the early devices, in that the clipping was noticeable and quite unpleasant at times. Back then, it would have been perfectly reasonable to prefer tube amps. Not so much today.

As for warmth of LPs, I have no idea what the term refers to. An LP is perfectly capable of producing the entire spectrum of frequencies the human ear can perceive. It can also provide a dynamic range sufficient for capturing every musical component of a performance, with the possible exception of some large orchestral pieces.

If the gentleman from Brazil prefers the sound of his 70s LPs to that of a CD - and he has made no claims I saw as to the superiority of one format over the other - why should he be denigrated? And he should not be conflated with the fools who pay $4,000 for a power cord for their amp.

Why should he be denigrated? Because he asked a stupid question: which 2015 LPs are mastered from the original analog master tapes, as opposed to being mastered from CD? That question belies a basic misunderstanding of audio technology which -- unfortunately -- is becoming so commonplace that it's passing into "received wisdom".

Why is it a stupid question? He is apparently looking for new records which are the same as the ones he currently owns. You are assuming that the musical content of the new CDs are exactly the same as his old LPs. I would not make that assumption.