[SOM]

Not sure if this has been discussed here or not. This was raised on another music forum and I thought it would be interesting to post here:

Buying new releases on vinyl these days can be somewhat expensive -
for instance, the last Mars Volta album is $39.99 on vinyl vs. $12.99
on CD.  I was discussing with a friend today about new vinyl
releases, and I want to see if I'm right here.

Old vinyl records supposedly sound better than CD because the vinyl
better represents the analog recording - right?

And some modern purists, like Jack White, record their albums on tape
analog equipment and release them to vinyl so that the fans can hear
the closest thing possible to the master recording.  In Jack's case,
he'll release an album as a 2-LP set so that each side is less than
18 minutes long because a side longer than 18 minutes pushes the
grooves closer together and lowers the sound quality, according to
Jack.

But, suppose a band that records to a digital format in the first
place - straight to a hard drive - no tapes involved, and then
releases that album on vinyl - it's just not the same, right?
Converting a digital recording to analog for vinyl is not going to
make it sound better than a CD, is it?  And I wouldn't doubt that
some bands that do use tape sometimes convert to digital for editing
and producing.

So, wouldn't buying modern vinyl releases be almost a waste of money,
unless you knew the pure lineage straight from a controlling artist,
like Jack White?  I guess, overall, I'm trying to decide if buying
Fear Of A Blank Planet on vinyl is worth the expense, or should I
just go and buy the DVD-A version.

[TheChairGuy]

The question has been raised in  pieces before...I think the quasi-general consensus is that even 'digitally' 16/44.1 recorded albums on vinyl sound a bit (pun intended ) better than their equivalent CD (disc) counterparts.

The issues with CD/Redbook are a two-way street...at both the recording and playback side.  If you get a good transfer from the original digital event to a record, you then use the slightly-easier-on-the-ears (some here say superior...I tend to agree) old needle and groove for playback. 

At least you cut out one nasty side of the redbook equation 

You probably get much the same half-whit improvement by buying the DVD-A of the redbook recording....it's a serious step-up in both recording (which precious few mass recordings are) and the playback side.  But, as like using vinyl for your playback end....you're a bit of a prisoner of the original recording 

John 

[Wayner]

If your listening to music recorded in the mid-eighties, chances are it's digital. I have extreme examples of both good and bad from the digital and analog master tape onto the LP format. I'll bet almost no-one could tell if a good digital to analog LP was from either source.

Wayner

[blakep]

If your listening to music recorded in the mid-eighties, chances are it's digital. I have extreme examples of both good and bad from the digital and analog master tape onto the LP format. I'll bet almost no-one could tell if a good digital to analog LP was from either source.

Wayner

I would take that bet. I'm prepared to admit that I might not nail it 100% of the time but I bet I'd be around the 75-80% level pretty consistently. Digital on vinyl has some pretty distinctive sound qualities and the dead giveaway is a general lack of spatial info, particularly front to back "depth" in soundstage.

[Wayner]

That may be due to artificial reverb used by many recording studios. Not a digital effect, but a studio effect IMHO.

Wayner

[blakep]

That may be due to artificial reverb used by many recording studios. Not a digital effect, but a studio effect IMHO.

Wayner

Possible with some studio recordings I suppose but that would not be the case with live recordings and/or very simply miked jazz recordings from, say, the late 50's/early 60's which have been remastered digitally and repressed on vinyl like some of the later OJC's which definitely sound "thinner" and have much less sense of the acoustic than earlier non-digital OJC's for example.

[Wayner]

Hey, maybe you can. I really can't tell, just 'cause I know there is so much tinkering in the studio. Yes, I love off the mike, into the reel-to-reel recordings, too. I made enough of live recordings in my times as well. I also have a Tascam DA-30MK II digital recorder that can make some damn fine recordings.

That all said, I think one of the reasons LPs sound pretty good from a digital master is that the master lathe cutting room and equipment probably never changed when digital started to take over. They probably had the same tube mixers, and cutter drives. That probably smoothed out some kinks. I think Telarc tried a few direct cut LPs of some classical and jazz/acoustic that might sway my opinion, but like in my earlier post, I've heard so many good and bad examples of both analog and digital, that, to me, it's not that cut and dried. Of course, lots of the music recorded today has lots of redline distortions, which can make it obvious which medium was used in the recording and mastering process. I do tip my hat to the recording engineer that can pull of a good recording in either domain, as it is not an easy task.

Wayner 

[doctorcilantro]

There's a BIG discussion on REC.AUDIO.PRO usenet (inherent colorations) with lots of smart cats chiming in. I love vinyl but when you get down to it the costs of some of these new albums on vinyl makes the SNR, distortion, wow and flutter arguments bear more weight for me. That said, most music has been cut to vinyl not CD. This discussion can get real deep into subjective vs. objective, abstract vs empirical real quick so I'm suggesting the usenet discussion because they are running the gamut with it.

I picked up Wilco's "Sky Blue Sky" dual-LP the other day. Sounds great to me.


DC