[Housteau]

More LPs have been available from the standard labels lately.  I was wondering about their quality.  All too often I may pick-up a new CD of something I like only to find that it is compressed all to hell with the gain pumped up with very limited dynamic range left.  These same CDs sometimes have an LP counterpart and I was wondering if more likely than not, the same damaged master is used to master them?  If so, then I see no advantage to those LPs.  The reason I enjoy the ones I have now is because they are free from such radical limitations.  What are your thoughts on this?

[jsaliga]

I suggested you post this here instead of the music forum because I thought you would get more responses.

Most indie labels are not set up to master for vinyl and they typically farm that out.  Even some of the major labels such as Warner will send their vinyl work out to an independent mastering outfit.  While that is not a guarantee of better sound, it does improve your chances assuming the person behind the dials understands how to master for analog.  Of course, there is nothing stopping someone from cutting a lacquer master sourced from a 16/44 CD...but there are limits to what a cutting lathe can handle.  Here's a great paper written by Kevin Gray...

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm

When I am buying new music I always check to see if it is available on vinyl and if so I will buy that instead of the CD.  My experience with buying any new music on CD issued over the past couple of years has not been a good one.  This is why I have a Rhapsody subscription.  For $12.99 per month I can listen to all of the poorly mastered, dynamically crushed CD content I can stomach and not have to get ripped off for $10 to $15 per title along the way.

--Jerome

[Housteau]

I guess the key is knowing which master they are working from.  If it was the master done for CD release, then I would think there is little chance of any improvement with just the added pleasure of some surface noice.  If they so poorly master CD releases, I wonder how much effort, if any, would be given to properly doing a seperate master for vinyl, or to suppling a third party with proper material to work with?

[Wayner]

I just emailed Kevin Gray at RTI with a very interesting question. I will post his answer (if he doesn't mind), if I get one. Thanks for the link Jerome.

The point is, they only have one master and if it is done on a digital format, which most of them are, then the poor cutting engineer has to do some knob twiddling. This is very unfortunate as he is only trying to overcome the limitations of the medium to produce a listenable LP. The more I read about the "remastering process" some of these guys have to go thru to get something to sound decent, the more I can appreciate the hell they must go thru. It certainly has to be a labor of love for these guys or they would all just end up at the bar.

Wayner

[jsaliga]

If it was the master done for CD release, then I would think there is little chance of any improvement with just the added pleasure of some surface noice [sic] .

As a matter of general experience, I find CD mastering so bad these days that vinyl surface noise would seldom if ever be a factor in the sound.  It depends on what kind of music you like and how well it was recorded during the original sessions.

Here is an example of what I am driving at.

The Big Pink - A Brief History of Love







I happen to like the music quite a bit, but then again I am big shoegaze fan.  But the levels are jacked up to the point of clipping and the dynmanics are completely crushed.  Talk about obscene.  If this was put on a vinyl record you would never hear surface noise while the music is playing.  Assuming the original session recordings aren't like this, they could be used to put out a vinyl release that is listenable and doesn't fatigue your hearing after five minutes.

This is really where the last several years of the CD era has led us.  And it greatly disappoints me that once great labels such as 4AD, having brought to our ears a lot of wonderful, innovative recording artists, are now putting out this kind of sh*t product.  The day the music died indeed.

--Jerome

[Wayner]

In Kevin Gray's article, he kind of blamed RAP and electronica "night club" music for all of this. The point was to drive up the source music volume (thru compression or de-essing) and thus making the surface noise "less". Unfortunately, the dynamic range went out the window (as well as the fun) and it became one big long blasting tune from beginning to end.

So sad.

W

[Housteau]

The point is, they only have one master and if it is done on a digital format, which most of them are, then the poor cutting engineer has to do some knob twiddling.

Digital by itself is not pure evil to me, it is digital done wrong by abuse of compression and limiting that has ruined much of the music I used to enjoy.  I have many remasters that sound just fine, but you cannot count on previous good works.  For example, a remaster I have done several years ago sounds just fine, but a song taken from there and remastered a second time for a Greatest Hits collection was completely destroyed by maximum compression. 

How does the mastering process actually work?  I thought there was first a studio master of the final desired mix.  Then, that is sent down the line for eventual release in which different engineers manipulate the studio master to build a product to actually sell.  Is that pretty close?

[Wayner]

By shear cost, they can't master down mixes to suit each type of medium. I also think it's too techincal for the mixing engineer to anticipate what the cutting engineer needs. I think the cutting engineer is the guy that gets the "sows ears" that are now to be made into "silk purses".

 

[jsaliga]

Digital by itself is not pure evil to me

I don't beleive that most true music lovers consider digital in and of itself to be bad.  I have a truckload of CDs, SACDs, and DVD-As that sound amazing.

...it is digital done wrong by abuse of compression and limiting that has ruined much of the music I used to enjoy.

You're quite right.  It has ruined music for everyone who cares about music and sound quality.

How does the mastering process actually work?  I thought there was first a studio master of the final desired mix.  Then, that is sent down the line for eventual release in which different engineers manipulate the studio master to build a product to actually sell.  Is that pretty close?

You're getting warm.  You might find these of interest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

--Jerome

[Wayner]

Here is my email to Kevin Gray:

Hi Kevin,       I enjoy reading your articles and also enjoy many    of the LPs you have mastered. I do have a technical question concerning the    cutting head that you made reference to, in an older FYI release from the RTI    website.       I am a mechanical engineer and really get into    the record geometry. I am confused by a statement you made and perhaps that is    because I haven't seen a cutter head. I do not understand how a stereo groove    can have different information on one side to the other. In your example, you    talked about viewing the groove from the top and that the groove was like "a    river" featuring different "wiggles" translating into the sounds that we hear    from a record.       Here is my question. If the cutter head is a    single element, like the playback stylus, how can it possibly cut different    information on the left, then from the right hand groove? As the record player    stylus is a singular device, it can read the stereo information, but that    field of sound is generated between 2 sets of poles, vibrating between them.    So in my example, looking at the cartridge and groove from head on, rather    then from above, the stylus and generator not only move from side to side, but    up and down, giving a "quasi"effect, hense producing a stereo effect from    a singular featured groove. I hope you get what I mean, can you elaborate a    little on this for me?       Thanks!

_______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________
   
Hi Wayne,   If the groove only moves side to side the  information is mono.  Any difference between left and right causes  vertical motion.  BUT, the left and right groove walls are two totally  independent channels.  The cutting coils are at 90 degrees from one  another, or, each coil is at 45 degrees to the record surface.  They push  on a single armature with stylus attached. If only one channel is producing  sound the other groove wall is not moving at all.  If this doen't make  sense try Googling 45/45 stereo groove or something like that.  There is a  wealth of information on record cutting on the net.   Best,   Kev

[twitch54]

Wayne,

Thanks for sharing your note to Mr Gray and his response ! all good info !!

Oh....and BTW.....things are doing quite fine in the railroad 'biz' !!!

[Wayner]

I do have a problem with his answer. Not that the answer is wrong, I just see some new problems with stylus engagement, that I've never thought about before. The nature of a stylus vibrating in a asymmetrical groove presents some real interesting scenarios, especially a low frequency tone, at high volume on one channel, and nothing else in the other channel.

Well, I'll get over it, but is disturbing.

Wayner 

[twitch54]

The nature of a stylus vibrating in a asymmetrical groove presents some real interesting scenarios, especially a low frequency tone, at high volume on one channel, and nothing else in the other channel.

Well, I'll get over it, but is disturbing.

wayner.......your alcohol consumption is way too low.....pour a double , sit back, relax and enjoy the music !...