Vinyl that's been mastered from digital sources

[Paul L.]

I'm wondering what vinyl lovers on this forum think about LPs compared to CDs when the situation is that both have been mastered from a digital source.

So I'm not talking about an open reel master being used to make a record, I'm talking about something recorded on multitrack digital and mixed down to DAT, and then CDs and LPS being made from that DAT.

Do you still prefer the LP in that kind of case?

[PsychFan]

It still depends on the mastering, and also the quality of the LP pressing. In some of those cases, the CD and LP versions can sound awfully close, or the LP can be cut too "hot" or otherwise be subpar ... In those cases I'll usually opt for the convenience of CD.

But I have heard digitally made music that sounds better on LP. A recent example would be Bruce Springsteen's Live in New York City. Another: Donald Fagen's The Nightfly is a full digital recording. But I think the Warner CD sounds like garbage ... My favorite version is the MoFi LP.

[Sckott]

.....What Jeff said. ;) ^
|

[TSmithPage]

Originally posted by Jeff Partyka
But I have heard digitally made music that sounds better on LP. A recent example would be Bruce Springsteen's Live in New York City. Another: Donald Fagen's The Nightfly is a full digital recording. But I think the Warner CD sounds like garbage ... My favorite version is the MoFi LP. [/B]

OK, this I don't understand at all. Why does a full digital recording (Fagen's Nightfly) sound good on MFSL LP but suck on CD? Remastering? Compression? Naively, I always assumed that for a digital CD recording, they would just transfer the master, as dynamic range is not the problem on CD that it is on LPs.

Along the same lines, has anyone heard the MFSL LP of Gerry Rafferty's City to City? I've never been able to find the DCC gold CD at a reasonable price, but have found this LP used for $10. I am wondering if it would be an improvement over the domestic CD, which is how I have it now.

[Sckott]

Originally posted by TSmithPage


OK, this I don't understand at all. Why does a full digital recording (Fagen's Nightfly) sound good on MFSL LP but suck on CD? Remastering? Compression?


Not exactly. It was how the mastering engineer steered the controls to make THAT specific vinyl copy sound the way it does. The artist sometimes has time/say to approve the cutting. I would say in this case, even for the 80's, it MIGHT have happened. Ironic though, since the bare-boned product is Digital PCM at the multi-track level, the master is possibly a 10" 1/4" running at 30IPS.

Thus, it goes back to analogue.

That being said, Stan could easilly cut a MFSL at 1/2 speed just like the rest of his work.

Now, I agree with Jeff, however maybe not as strongly. I thought the common WB pressing of "Nightfly" was actually good, but the product, much like John Fogerty's "Centerfield" is sonic madness. Lots of wierded out EQ moves to make things sound punchy and all high-end crazy. Everything beyond 12K is crankin, esp. for the Nightfly record.

This must have been a nightmare for Stan to cut? Donno. That man can turn goat pee into gasoline. He'll never tell !!

But yes, mastering the record is an individual process. Anyone behind the cutter can totally mess up or improve the sound to his or her liking. Usually, it comes out OK. The mastering engineer's job is to make the LP sound like the master tape as much as possible.... Or.... well... maybe NOT...!

Originally posted by TSmithPage
Along the same lines, has anyone heard the MFSL LP of Gerry Rafferty's City to City? I've never been able to find the DCC gold CD at a reasonable price, but have found this LP used for $10. I am wondering if it would be an improvement over the domestic CD, which is how I have it now.

The DCC gold is highly recommneded. Sounds wonderful for a sound that defined adult contemporary radio. The MFSL sounds wonderful as well, but try and get like a CDR of the DCC. The EMI CD didn't sound all that bad either, but occasionally, the high-end got a little too much.

[Ronflugelguy]

How about that great pressing of Eric Clapton's "UNPLUGGED" on German vinyl -ALL DIGITAL!!!!!

[Grant]

In cases where the LP and CD both come from a digital master of a digital recording, I opt for the CD everytime. In those cases the CD would be the most accurate representation of what's on the master. The LP would add distortions inherent to the vinyl medium. This is all assuming the CD was mastered correctly.

The best thing to do in those cases where the digital master sounds bad, as with Stevie Wonder's "Hotter Than July" would be to doctor up the master for CD.

[Ronflugelguy]

Actually in this case both are great ,but I still prefer the LP.:p

[trhunnicutt]

To add to the group responses...

One main reason why vinyl should sound better than a CD sourced from the same DAT:

CD (standard redbook) = 16/44kHz

Vinyl = minimum of 16/44, all the way up to 24/192kHz

Basically, what you can get on vinyl is the digital tape decoded at a much higher sample rate. Let's say it was encoded on DAT at 24/48kHz, which happened a lot in the late 80's, early 90's. When that gets cut to vinyl, it is decoded at 24/48.

For example, the Sprigsteen Live at NYC was encoded and decoded at a full 24/96 onto vinyl. The CD, by nature of the redbook defitnition, had to be downsampled to 16/44. Information, transients, spatial cues, get lost in that downsampling process.

IMHO, vinyl can be as HI-REZ as DVD-A.

Here's some other great "digitally recorded" LP's which kill the CD version:

Jewel: Pieces of You
Tracy Chapman: Tracy Chapman
Any of the Sting albums

Best,

TRH

[Sckott]

Also agreed, the Tracy Chapman Debut on LP is quite a nice sonic biscuit. Look for a mint one. Because her music is very delicate and her voice has both deep and shallow tones to it, it's not only a great record, but brings you closer to a great vinyl experience without spending a fortune.

Dire Straits debut has also brought good vinyl feelings. $3 can't be too much to pay for that record.

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by Jeff Partyka
Donald Fagen's The Nightfly is a full digital recording. But I think the Warner CD sounds like garbage

Really?! I've always thought it sounded great!

Different tastes?

[GMav]

Dream Street Rose by Gordon Lightfoot

Bop Till You Drop by Ry Cooder.........wasn't this the first digital recording by a pop/rock artist?

Wasn't Tusk by Fleetwood Mac recorded digitally?

[Grant]

Originally posted by GregMav


Bop Till You Drop by Ry Cooder.........wasn't this the first digital recording by a pop/rock artist?


Yes, this is widely regarded as the first pop/rock digital recording. I don't know if this is fact, though.



Wasn't Tusk by Fleetwood Mac recorded digitally?

Yes, it was. Also recorded digitally was Stevie Wonder's "Journey To The secret Life Of Plants", Herb Alpert's "Rise", and Dave Grusin's "Mountain Dance".

And guys, while the LP can in theory reach a higher frequency response than CD, most don't. The frequency response of most LPs die around 17,000 if you are lucky. Even if they could go much higher it is limited by the playback equipment. Let's not forget all the compromises needed just to get a good signal onto vinyl. The CD still can whup an LPs dynamic ranges's butt! Too bad most don't.

[Paul Chang]

Originally posted by Grant
In cases where the LP and CD both come from a digital master of a digital recording, I opt for the CD everytime. In those cases the CD would be the most accurate representation of what's on the master. The LP would add distortions inherent to the vinyl medium. This is all assuming the CD was mastered correctly.

The best thing to do in those cases where the digital master sounds bad, as with Stevie Wonder's "Hotter Than July" would be to doctor up the master for CD.

Bits are bits, right? Not so.

First of all, a CD is not an exact digital copy of its digital original. More than likely, the digital source tape was recorded with higher sampling rate and resolution. OK, even if more the LP and the CD are cut from the same later generation digital master, there are distortions introduced in the production and play back systems of both media.

It is a big assumption that "the CD was mastered correctly". Things can go wrong in the process of making the glass master and the metal stamper. The pits on the stamper have to be transferred to polycarbonate discs. Then the discs are to be metalized with a layer of aluminum (or gold). The reflective metal layer will then be covered and sealed with a lacquer coating. Data errors and jitter be created during the process.

Let's assume that all those steps were executed without defects. Then the play back system come into the picture. Before the bits can get to the inputs of the D/A converter, they have to be read by the laser pick-up from the disc while it is spun at high speed by the transport. It must have a very precise servo system to move the laser and control the speed of the motor to achieve CLV (constant linear velocity). In the mean time a clock signal has to be correctly recovered from the bit stream.

According to some experts, the real killer is jitter as opposed to data errors, which may be corrected depending on the error rate and patterns. It is too general a statement to say the CD would be the more accurate representation.

IMO, it is comparing apples to oranges. The CD is definitely the more high tech medium just be the shear amount of technologies used. But in the real world, the simpler solution may be less error prone. Now you know which one I prefer.

[PsychFan]

Originally posted by Holy Zoo
Really?! I've always thought it (Nightfly CD) sounded great!
Different tastes?

Maybe, but I'm not alone. In my Steely Dan bio by Brian Sweet is this paragraph:

"[Engineer Roger] Nichols first became aware of a problem after Fagen's album was released. Stevie Wonder, of all people, called him and told him that the CD of The Nightfly sounded 'funny.' When Nichols played a copy of the CD he discovered that it sounded inferior to the analogue LP. Comparing Nightfly with a CD of Billy Joel's The Nylon Curtain confirmed Nichols' worst suspicions: third- and even fourth-generation masters were routinely being used to manufacture CDs. Nichols was outraged and wrote a detailed article in the December issue of Recording Engineer and Producer, demanding that record companies tighten up their downright careless attitude to their artists' product and only use original two-track masters to make CDs, especially if they intended to imply to the suspect masses [sic] that digital was superior to analogue."

If your CD sounds good, Zoo, perhaps this is an album that was subjected to "secret remastering" at some point (I wouldn't put that past Nichols). The only copy I've heard was a very early one ... I got rid of it and am quite happy with my MoFi and standard Warner LPs.

[RicP]

Originally posted by trhunnicutt
Vinyl = minimum of 16/44, all the way up to 24/192kHz I'm sorry but that's just silly. It's a pretty well known fact that Vinyl has nowhere near the dynamic range that CD has, and it would be very difficult to put some frequencies on a vinyl lp that would be captured by 192Khz quantization. Low bass is a major problem for vinyl unless the playback system is absolutely top notch.

When that gets cut to vinyl, it is decoded at 24/48. Not really. It gets sent through an analog filter that creates an analog voltage that gets cut to the vinyl. You can't cut a digital signal to vinyl.

IMHO, vinyl can be as HI-REZ as DVD-A. I disagree vehemently. Vinyl can sound great, but it is nowhere near the quality of a well-mastered DVD-A or SACD for that matter. Just listen to the 24/192 Stereo Track on the Eagles - Hotel California DVD-A to hear what vinyl could never deliver.

I understand that there are vinyl zealots here, but let's try to be realistic about the claims ok?

[TSmithPage]

Originally posted by Jeff Partyka



If your [Donald Fagan Nightfly] CD sounds good, Zoo, perhaps this is an album that was subjected to "secret remastering" at some point (I wouldn't put that past Nichols). The only copy I've heard was a very early one ... I got rid of it and am quite happy with my MoFi and standard Warner LPs.

I have a quiex vinyl copy of this one, that I never played because I picked it up about the same time I bought the CD, and at that time, CDs were purported to always sound better. I'll have to pull my vinyl out and give it a comparison listen...

[Beagle]

In cases where the LP and CD both come from a digital master of a digital recording, I opt for the CD everytime. In those cases the CD would be the most accurate representation of what's on the master. The LP would add distortions inherent to the vinyl medium. This is all assuming the CD was mastered correctly In this case, I agree 100%. It sort of defeats the whole purpose to have an LP from a digital master.

BTW I believe Tusk was only mixed digitally, using Soundstream equipment. Lindsey Buckingham hated the results and went back to analog for Mirage.

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by Beagle
In this case, I agree 100%. It sort of defeats the whole purpose to have an LP from a digital master.


Unless you *like* the euphonic distortion that a vinyl playback chain adds.

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by Beagle
In this case, I agree 100%. It sort of defeats the whole purpose to have an LP from a digital master.


Also, here's another thought:

Lets say they get the same digital master that was used for the CD, but Steve adds his magic touch while cutting the LP. Might have some effect, no? Still the same master!

[Grant]

Originally posted by Holy Zoo


Unless you *like* the euphonic distortion that a vinyl playback chain adds.

Exactly! That's what the vinyl zealots like. Nothing wrong with it. But just don't try to say digital is bad purely on the basis of a few poorly mastered CDs.

[Paul Chang]

Originally posted by Grant


Exactly! That's what the vinyl zealots like. Nothing wrong with it. But just don't try to say digital is bad purely on the basis of a few poorly mastered CDs.

By the same token, there is nothing wrong with loving the sound of a "jitter-free";) A/D-D/A chain.

[Beagle]

Unless you *like* the euphonic distortion that a vinyl playback chain adds Of course, just like I enjoy the "euphonic distortion" of real instruments played live. Same as you enjoy the "not euphonic" distortion that jitter and other digital distortions add :D

[SVL]

After reading this thread, I decided to do a little comparison of two albums on CD and LP:

Sting Nothing Like the Sun - was that a fully digital (DDD) recording? I think so. Anyway, I compared just one track (Straight to My Heart) on a reasonably good condition LP (A&M SP6402) and MFSL gold CD. The LP seems to have a better "boogie factor", whatever that means, and sounds a little warmer, as I expected. The CD came up with tighter bass and better overall separation of instruments. All considered, I prefer the MoFi; don't know how a regular CD of the album would stack up against the vinyl.

Cassandra Wilson New Moon Daughter on Blue Note CD vs. unplayed Blue Note double LP. Don't know if it was all digitally recorded. The results were mixed here - for one of the tracks (Death Letter) I clearly preferred the CD - primarily for its more coherent bass. On the other track (Love Is Blindness) the LP had a darker, fuller sound, and a wide soundstage with almost pinpoint location. That was a pleasant surprise; no clear winner in this case.

[Beagle]

What kind of analog front end are you using? (table, cartridge etc.)