What this thread is not, it's not a format vs. thread, it's all about making a vinyl records and the use of digital in the chain and a awareness how it's contributed and hindered the process in some cases.
Be it Computerized Instruments, Digital Recording, Digital Mixing, Digital Mastering, Digitally Remastered.
Again do not disrespect this thread with a media format VS. dead horse augments as your post will be reported and asked to be deleted.
I bring this up because of myth and what seems to be in Vogue today trying to say all analogue is better and anything with a hint of digital in the chain is a bad thing. I have been filling a record order for another member who wanted a lot of 80s music and it got me thinking again. I'v also been wanting to start a thread on how a record is produced from studio to mastering of the record because reading comments all the time people don't seem to know and or use the wrong terminology for various steps.
I had grown up in the time of the gradual switching and the progressing use of digital in the record industry. It never started out as a sales pitch that I remembered but the records started sounding better. As such, old records started to be Digitally Remastered, and where advertised that way. Guess what they sounded better at that time and still do today.
This doesn't mean all records sound better with some digital in the mix, just like not all analogue records sound good. One thing I have found with records they are all different depending on who did the work, what country they are from and on and on. But to dismiss a record because of digital used in the chain is absurd.
Recording
Without question recording digitally is far far quieter than a tape machine and the tape it's self, and can capture a larger dynamic range. A lot of the dynamics a studio digital recording captures will not even make it on to the final vinyl record because it can't handle it but it's good to have all of it to start with. At this very first step of recording the artist before anything else has been done to it, if recorded simultaneously to tape and digital, the digital copy will sound better do to dynamic rang and a low noise floor.
Production
The step that the band is working with the production engineer in the studio, recording tracks, adding effects, mixing all the sounds and tracks together to form a song. Think about this, a 16 track tape, and some of the tracks that got nailed down first might run through the machine 100s of times before the last track is complete. This is the working tape for recording and not the end result of the mixed mastered tape. When it comes to timing and overlaying track, splicing and removing odd things the mics picked up, the accuracy can not be beat when working with digital. If you think a human with a razor blade can pin prick a two second run of tape I don't know what to tell you. Anyway the artist and production engineer now have a presentable master tape but it's not done yet because it's still laced with sound you don't want on the record and needs some golden ears to get it as best as it can be.
The following is where everything starts to change and where I think people get lost and just don't understand the difference in the mastering for records and CDs/Files. That a Analogue tape or digital file recorded can be used to make an outstanding record. However I'll still give the quality of the recording to digital at this point, due to timing accuracy, dynamic range, and a low noise floor. This right here is the "Source" and the master tape/file.
Mastering Lab & Mastering Engineer
Takes the Master "Source" Tape or File and EQs it for it's respective format be it a CD or Vinyl Record.
These two formats are EQed differently from the master recording. The record mastering goes though a RIAA EQ curve for starters, and we all know that CDs and digital files tend to get boosted from fighting in the loudness wars. The mastering engineer takes the recording and fixes things like sibilance, balances out the stereo, tremble, bass until they are happy. They then rip a file to make CDs to cover that format, and that might be a different engineer doing the digital work. The master tape or file will also get mastered for a lacquer cutting lathe to make a record from. As I said this will be EQed with RIAA curve and all the othere aspects to make the final record mastering sound as good as it can. This lacquer will then go on to be used to press records.
It looks like I ended up bringing in some of the steps in making a record to talk about how awesome records sounded around 1979 and up because of digital. We are listening to some great records that where made digitally, we even think of them as reference work when we test our systems out.
The Nightfly : Donald Fagen < RL Mastering
Peter Gabriel: Security < RL Mastering
Brothers in Arms : Dire Straits <RL Mastering
Eliminator a & Afterburner : ZZ Top <RL Mastering
Genesis: Invisible Touch <RL Mastering
There is a reason these records just smack you in the face and leave you gasping for air when played loud.
Go look and see if you have Genesis: Invisible Touch mastered by Robert Ludwig, look in the dead wax for RL, play it loud and hold on to your hat and ready your self for a sensory overload.
There is a reason that Telarc was doing all reissue digital mastering, and why we test our turntable setup with the 1812
While there was a lot of reference records prior to digital in the mix I think digital really started a wave in "Audiophile" records. But today we, some look down their nose at digital used to make a record. Well while a crapy record can be made using a MP3 file and RIAA EQed to cut the lacquer for a cheap $17 reissue. It's just not representative to what digital really contributed to the making of a record.
Be it Computerized Instruments, Digital Recording, Digital Mixing, Digital Mastering, Digitally Remastered.
Again do not disrespect this thread with a media format VS. dead horse augments as your post will be reported and asked to be deleted.
I bring this up because of myth and what seems to be in Vogue today trying to say all analogue is better and anything with a hint of digital in the chain is a bad thing. I have been filling a record order for another member who wanted a lot of 80s music and it got me thinking again. I'v also been wanting to start a thread on how a record is produced from studio to mastering of the record because reading comments all the time people don't seem to know and or use the wrong terminology for various steps.
I had grown up in the time of the gradual switching and the progressing use of digital in the record industry. It never started out as a sales pitch that I remembered but the records started sounding better. As such, old records started to be Digitally Remastered, and where advertised that way. Guess what they sounded better at that time and still do today.
This doesn't mean all records sound better with some digital in the mix, just like not all analogue records sound good. One thing I have found with records they are all different depending on who did the work, what country they are from and on and on. But to dismiss a record because of digital used in the chain is absurd.
Recording
Without question recording digitally is far far quieter than a tape machine and the tape it's self, and can capture a larger dynamic range. A lot of the dynamics a studio digital recording captures will not even make it on to the final vinyl record because it can't handle it but it's good to have all of it to start with. At this very first step of recording the artist before anything else has been done to it, if recorded simultaneously to tape and digital, the digital copy will sound better do to dynamic rang and a low noise floor.
Production
The step that the band is working with the production engineer in the studio, recording tracks, adding effects, mixing all the sounds and tracks together to form a song. Think about this, a 16 track tape, and some of the tracks that got nailed down first might run through the machine 100s of times before the last track is complete. This is the working tape for recording and not the end result of the mixed mastered tape. When it comes to timing and overlaying track, splicing and removing odd things the mics picked up, the accuracy can not be beat when working with digital. If you think a human with a razor blade can pin prick a two second run of tape I don't know what to tell you. Anyway the artist and production engineer now have a presentable master tape but it's not done yet because it's still laced with sound you don't want on the record and needs some golden ears to get it as best as it can be.
The following is where everything starts to change and where I think people get lost and just don't understand the difference in the mastering for records and CDs/Files. That a Analogue tape or digital file recorded can be used to make an outstanding record. However I'll still give the quality of the recording to digital at this point, due to timing accuracy, dynamic range, and a low noise floor. This right here is the "Source" and the master tape/file.
Mastering Lab & Mastering Engineer
Takes the Master "Source" Tape or File and EQs it for it's respective format be it a CD or Vinyl Record.
These two formats are EQed differently from the master recording. The record mastering goes though a RIAA EQ curve for starters, and we all know that CDs and digital files tend to get boosted from fighting in the loudness wars. The mastering engineer takes the recording and fixes things like sibilance, balances out the stereo, tremble, bass until they are happy. They then rip a file to make CDs to cover that format, and that might be a different engineer doing the digital work. The master tape or file will also get mastered for a lacquer cutting lathe to make a record from. As I said this will be EQed with RIAA curve and all the othere aspects to make the final record mastering sound as good as it can. This lacquer will then go on to be used to press records.
It looks like I ended up bringing in some of the steps in making a record to talk about how awesome records sounded around 1979 and up because of digital. We are listening to some great records that where made digitally, we even think of them as reference work when we test our systems out.
The Nightfly : Donald Fagen < RL Mastering
Peter Gabriel: Security < RL Mastering
Brothers in Arms : Dire Straits <RL Mastering
Eliminator a & Afterburner : ZZ Top <RL Mastering
Genesis: Invisible Touch <RL Mastering
There is a reason these records just smack you in the face and leave you gasping for air when played loud.
Go look and see if you have Genesis: Invisible Touch mastered by Robert Ludwig, look in the dead wax for RL, play it loud and hold on to your hat and ready your self for a sensory overload.
There is a reason that Telarc was doing all reissue digital mastering, and why we test our turntable setup with the 1812
While there was a lot of reference records prior to digital in the mix I think digital really started a wave in "Audiophile" records. But today we, some look down their nose at digital used to make a record. Well while a crapy record can be made using a MP3 file and RIAA EQed to cut the lacquer for a cheap $17 reissue. It's just not representative to what digital really contributed to the making of a record.
Last edited:
