• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Are Re-Mastered Vinyl true Analog?

ClayTune

ClayTune

Well-Known Member
This may (Or may not) be an absurd question but, I was wondering if remastered vinyl could be considered true analog since some parts of the 'remaster' are done digitally?

I have noticed some original pressings sound quite amazing, when in NM condition and on a decent turntable and Cart. And I know there has been some debate on certain records, whether the original pressings or remasters sound better.

So in examining this, I have recently started to wonder if, when buying albums that came out in the Era of vinyl, I should try to stick with NM or EX copies of original pressings or if the audiophiles give the go ahead to grab the remasters?

Specifically I want the full Analog experience to the greatest degree possible.

What's everyone's thoughts?
 
Register to hide this ad
Well, if looking for the Full Analog Experience, then stick with older vinyl where the masters were recorded using analog equipment only.

All new recordings and remastered releases are engineered or re-engineered using digital equipment. What you're hearing isn't actually digital as vinyl isn't playing 1's and 0's. But what you ARE hearing is a digital recording converted to analog and cut into grooves on the vinyl.

Some reissues/remasters sound great, some don't.
 
I agree with the above. And I am all for buying Vinyl of new releases that are mastered via modern standards, as even these sound better than the digital copies to me, but for originals I thought I was delusional when I noticed a 'wider' sound field when listening to, for example Kraftwek Electric Cafe (original sounds so amazing) or Judas Priest Defenders of the Faith and Screaming for Vengeance.

Another concern is Jazz albums. I have some Thelonious Monk original pressings that sound superb but i'm afraid to buy the remasters because i'm scared they will sound like little more than CD's on Vinyl (if that makes any sense).

And i'm in this for the sound experience not the novelty of playing records.
 
Not all recordings companies do the same thing....

You could get a Mobile Fidelity or Parlophone Beatles 50th Anniversary Edition St. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band recording and they aren’t going to sound alike. It’s about finding the right recording company for what you like and certain recording companies specialize in certain styles of music. Then certain countries enjoy certain kinds of music more so buying a recording where that style is more popular means you save money.

Then if you like analog, go with a country like the U.K. that prefers analog....and the many record companies there that ship to the states. There is a problem here in the States to sell as many great sounding records to the average consumer as possible. There is a recording company here in the US that has great analog but it’s a smaller company that specializes in sixties R&R and R&B......sandazed records
 
ClayTune said:
Can you expand on this?
Click to expand...

It's quite an expansive topic, so you'll need to research. Googling "AAA vinyl" will get you started. Note AAA was originally a CD designation and is oft misapplied in the vinyl world: If an analog master is cut with a digital delay rather than a preview head for the pitch computer, as example.

There's a lot of misinformation out there and not all vinyl thought to be all-analog actually is, but there are absolutely new albums and remasters that are.
 
I don't know a great deal about the subject, but wasn't that goofy stylus destroying version of Jack White's "Lazeretto" trumped up as being completely recorded and mastered using only analog equipment? It seems like an overtly pretentious way of doing things, but I guess some people like it.

"ULTRA LP FEATURES:

- 180 gram vinyl
- 2 vinyl-only hidden tracks hidden beneath the center labels
- 1 hidden track plays at 78 RPM, one plays at 45 RPM, making this a 3-speed record
- Side A plays from the inside out
- Dual-groove technology: plays an electric or acoustic intro for “Just One Drink” depending on where needle is dropped. The grooves meet for the body of the song.
- Matte finish on Side B, giving the appearance of an un-played 78 RPM record
- Both sides end with locked grooves
- Vinyl pressed in seldom-used flat-edged format
- Dead wax area on Side A contains a hand-etched hologram by Tristan Duke of Infinity Light Science, the first of its kind on a vinyl record
- Absolutely zero compression used during recording, mixing and mastering
- Different running order from the CD/digital version
- LP utilizes some mixes different from those used on CD and digital version"
 
Remasters to me are akin to George Lucas's attempts to 'fix' Star Wars. In most cases, all they serve to do is wreck the memories and legacy of the original.

I went to see Star Wars in its very first run. The theatre had been rebuilt for Dolby Surround. We queued up around the block in central Melbourne city to see it in 1977 in the school holidays. It was amazing and perfect and seared into my memory. Sure, with hindsight, the effects were cheesy, but to a 9yo in 1977 they were incredible. In fact, to everyone in 1977, they were amazing. It was groundbreaking chit.

Music is like that. An artist releases his masterpiece into the wild and it becomes a line in the sand. You can't come back and f#ck with that line in the sand, decades later- that is disrespecting your audience and customers. If it was so flawed back then, it shouldn't have seen the light of day.

With vinyl, the absolute best technical releases occurred when the source was a digital recording or cut direct to a metal master (late 70s, early 80s) Generational loss wasn't an issue, but unless you bought product early in the stamper's life, the quality variable.

Personally, I wouldn't touch modern vinyl with a 20ft barge pole- there's no guaranteed provenance. Of course there is digital somewhere in the chain, and that's certainly not bad. It's likely completely transparent, but it isn't original.
 
Last edited:
I have a mix of old and new pressings in my collection of about 2500 LPs - some stuff is remastered and I have yet to find anything I really don't like. I was following a thread last week on Led Zeppelin III - how bad this pressing was, how good this pressing was. I have 4 copies including an original 70's US and the 2015 remasters from digital. I actually preferred the new press but mostly because it's so quiet. I bought all the new Beatles LP's AND the box set - love em. Stones box set - great! There are some slight differences in the way instruments are brought forward or laid back - vocals played with a bit but mostly its subtle enough that I don't pay a ton of attention. In regards to quality, I think it's all really good. I have been really pleased with most of the new releases. I have a ton of old and new MoFi - and while I find it fun to collect - I don't see it as a holy grail. Original pressings are like NOS tubes anymore, I just can't justify the expense. I would love a 3000 LP collection of all original pressings in mint condition but really? I find myself getting less picky about the mix and more interested in the quality of the pressing and the final product. I'm not a huge jazz collector (yet) and my acoustic stuff is limited as well. In terms of classic rock and metal - I've been pretty happy. Does anyone have any specific "bad" pressings or mixes from digital to vinyl? I would like to see if I can compare for myself.

PS - I remember waiting something like 30 weeks (1977) before the lines died down enough to get in to see Star Wars, it was really an experience. It was still selling out every show ... watching it on DVD will never have that level of anticipation or excitement but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy it every Christmas.
 
ClayTune said:
This may (Or may not) be an absurd question but, I was wondering if remastered vinyl could be considered true analog since some parts of the 'remaster' are done digitally?

I have noticed some original pressings sound quite amazing, when in NM condition and on a decent turntable and Cart. And I know there has been some debate on certain records, whether the original pressings or remasters sound better.

So in examining this, I have recently started to wonder if, when buying albums that came out in the Era of vinyl, I should try to stick with NM or EX copies of original pressings or if the audiophiles give the go ahead to grab the remasters?

Specifically I want the full Analog experience to the greatest degree possible.

What's everyone's thoughts?
Click to expand...

I really don't care, as long as the end result is good. I've heard some digitally-mastered and digitally-remastered stuff that's excellent. The Rolling Stones DSD remasters, for example. On the other hand, a lot of popular music from the Sixties through the Eighties is all analog but sounds like the mix down engineer had nothing but contempt for the record buyer.
 
olddude55 said:
I really don't care, as long as the end result is good. I've heard some digitally-mastered and digitally-remastered stuff that's excellent. The Rolling Stones DSD remasters, for example. On the other hand, a lot of popular music from the Sixties through the Eighties is all analog but sounds like the mix down engineer had nothing but contempt for the record buyer.
Click to expand...

Not so much contempt as they had to crank that **** out as fast as possible.

It's fair to day that most LPs made today have some part of the stream that's digital. Only a few manufacturers like Analogue Productions and others mentioned actually use analog equipment the whole way through the chain. And they make a big deal about it on the covers.
 
olddude55 said:
I really don't care, as long as the end result is good. I've heard some digitally-mastered and digitally-remastered stuff that's excellent. The Rolling Stones DSD remasters, for example. On the other hand, a lot of popular music from the Sixties through the Eighties is all analog but sounds like the mix down engineer had nothing but contempt for the record buyer.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
Depends on the company who's making it. Some are all analog, some are not. Not all titles can be cut to LP all analog either. Even though cut analog. The tapes must be able to be played through to cut an LP, levels and azimuth must be consistent. Analog Productions, Mobile Fidelity, Analog Spark are known to be all analog.
 
In the past couple weeks I have acquired about a dozen new and used albums. A couple has stood out as really good. Also a couple were below expectations. Oddly the disappointing ones were on the Columbia label or their affiliates. In the old days bad Columbia records were very rare. Janis Joplin and Stevie Ray Vaughn did not fare well. They sound a lot thin for the JJ, and the Stevie Ray lacks gusto. Not a huge fan of either artist, so not totally let down.

A couple of standouts were the Analogue Prod reissue of Joe Walsh's "The Smoker You Drink" and The Doors mono reissue of "Strange Days". A mono reissue of Kind of Blue pressed by RTI is VVVG and only $20.

A REALLY nice feature of all these records was the lack of surface noise. All were flat and on center.
 
I have quite a few 180gm reissues and there are a few that say all analog but it isn't many. The one's that are all analog usually brag about it on a hype sticker. The one's that aren't quite often say they are digitally remastered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom