Are Re-Mastered Vinyl true Analog?

[Condorsat]

IMHO & experience ... most analog albums that came out in the Vinyl era (let's say prior to 80's CD era) have a signature sound (house sound of that era). Unless the a mastering engineer was tasked to change the sound to "modern standards" (loudness wars) ... they usually sound really good. "Good" in this case being defined as the house sound of that era.

Keep in mind that much depends on the re-mastering that was done ... if you want to retain that
"sound" or experience.

 

[Hajidub]

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?
What's everyone's thoughts?

Why limit yourself to just NM/EX, if properly graded there's nothing wrong with a VG+ (sometimes even a VG) copy of an album. VG+ is defined as some visible scuffs/scratches that are not audible during playback.

 

[hbucker]

The skill with which the original was engineered and produced matters more to me than whether it's a digital source or not. These are what make recordings special to me. As was mentioned, there are plenty of all analog recordings from the good old days that were (for several reasons) terrible. Conversely, there are lots of all digital recordings through the subsequent years that have been much better. So stopping at one is better than the other simply falls short of explaining the quality of a recording.

In the context I'm referring to, this conversation would be more about buying recordings produced/mastered by specific people more than dissecting what analog/digital channels the recordings actually followed to get to our turntables. The art of recording, mixing, and mastering good recordings seems to rarely be considered. It is truly an art with infinite variables and nuances. The people who are truly good at doing this are literally artists. It simply isn't as easy as throwing a mic in front of a musician and hitting record.

As for remasters - my biggest exposure to these is through Spotify. I almost universally prefer listening to the original recording to the remastered version of the same song. And this is even my opinion of remasters of stuff that was originally digital. Sure the remaster is different, but I don't usually like it better. It usually just doesn't sound quite right. That's obviously personal preference though.

 

[4-2-7]

All new recordings and remastered releases are engineered or re-engineered using digital equipment

That's a totally false statement.

 

[4-2-7]

What's everyone's thoughts?

A good record is a good record, they come in all forms and fashion and trying to put a criterion on it like this IMHO is absurd and limiting.

 

[olddude55]

A good record is a good record, they come in all forms and fashion and trying to put a criterion on it like this IMHO is absurd and limiting.

Bingo.

 

[WaynerN]

Almost all remastered dead wax is brought into the digital domain so that computers can properly space the distance between record grooves. Sorry, but when they cut the dead wax, the "virgin" analog music has lost its cherry.

 

[Condorsat]

Recent personal experience of mine. I read the following customer review of Neil Young's Harvest Moon pressing on Amazon.

This 120-gram 2018 vinyl release was mastered for vinyl by the talented Chris Bellman at Bernie Grundman Mastering. However, even someone with the talent of Bellman is handicapped when he has to work from the 44/16 CD-quality digital files, which this LP was sourced from. Never the greatest-sounding NY album, the recording seems somewhat two-dimensional and flat (exactly like the CD). It's not unlistenable, it's just not very different from my early-90s compact disc, without any of the added warmth and air of Young's earlier re-releases, which were recorded on analog tape. For what it's worth, the vinyl was totally silent, flat, and devoid of ANY surface noise whatsoever. This is a great album - the "three stars" are for the sound. BTW - the fourth side is an etching of the front-cover image.

Seen this album at Best Buy this weekend .. $24 and almost did not buy it. Walked out of the store and while the wife was shopping "Oh what the hell .. always wanted that album on Vinyl anyway" ... went back and bought it for a collectable.

Spun the album and ... ... never heard it sound any better, really enjoyed it. Guess it just all depends on your taste and/or audio rig configuration.

I would agree that the earlier era Neil Young albums sound different or better to some. But this album sounds good in it's own right to me.

 

[Ken Boyd]

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.

I don't think that is the case!

Almost all remastered dead wax is brought into the digital domain so that computers can properly space the distance between record grooves. Sorry, but when they cut the dead wax, the "virgin" analog music has lost its cherry.

A good majority are as most companies now use digital in the some of the process and almost all use digital in the Cutter lathe delay.

I know of one company, Speakers Corner, that is still all analogue as they make a big point about it. Their entire catalogue is all analogue thru the entire process, and of the records I have purchased I have always been happy with them.

I have purchased plenty from other sources as well, and have been happy with most of it, including those that make point of it being digital, sounds good to me. I use tube pre amps, and my main amp uses tubes as well, so for me its all good as I guess I have plenty of analogue distortion to keep me happy.

 

[elcoholic]

I don't care. I'd rather have the record and enjoy it than be holding out for unobtainium I can't afford. Besides how pure and faithful is analog? That depends on a whole bunch of factors all along the process. I'll suggest the Sheffield Labs King James Version is as pure as it gets. One mic, cable, & cutting lathe.

 

[WaynerN]

I don't think that is the case!



A good majority are as most companies now use digital in the some of the process and almost all use digital in the Cutter lathe delay.

I know of one company, Speakers Corner, that is still all analogue as they make a big point about it. Their entire catalogue is all analogue thru the entire process, and of the records I have purchased I have always been happy with them.

I have purchased plenty from other sources as well, and have been happy with most of it, including those that make point of it being digital, sounds good to me. I use tube pre amps, and my main amp uses tubes as well, so for me its all good as I guess I have plenty of analogue distortion to keep me happy.

It doesn't bother me either. If it sounds good, its good. I have lots of records that were digitally recorded and many of them are top notch. (example: Thomas Dolby-Astronauts and Heretics).

Wayner

 

[DesertTwang]

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?

Why do you need the approval of the "audiophiles?" Especially considering that the answer to your question translates into potentially spending lots of money. NM copies of original vintage recordings can be VERY expensive.

Here's my humble suggestion: Rather than asking for permission or disapproval of the "audiophiles," why not listen to the different recordings and let your own ears decide?

 

[ClayTune]

Why limit yourself to just NM/EX, if properly graded there's nothing wrong with a VG+ (sometimes even a VG) copy of an album. VG+ is defined as some visible scuffs/scratches that are not audible during playback.

Ah, Because in my experience ebayers are much poorer at grading vinyl than Discog users, unless the Ebay Sellers happen to be store owners.
But that's usually not the case, it's usually someone selling estate bought merchandise or their own forgotten about collection. I often think they know the play grade of the vinyl but pretend to only do a visual grade on them. Often VG+ looking vinyl plays worse than VG+ should.

 

[reydelaplaya]

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"

Did you just make this stuff up, or does this actually exist? Though I suppose I could google to find out. I'd kinda be interested in just seeing this thing just to see it. LOL

EDIT: Just googled, well I'll be damned!

 

[elcoholic]

Did you just make this stuff up, or does this actually exist? Though I suppose I could google to find out. I'd kinda be interested in just seeing this thing just to see it. LOL

EDIT: Just googled, well I'll be damned!

Yup it's real. The licorice pizza equivalent of the everything bagel.

 

[jeremyjustic]

A good record is a good record, they come in all forms and fashion and trying to put a criterion on it like this IMHO is absurd and limiting.

^^^^ THIS! ^^^^

4-2-7 dropping truth bombs!

 

[Hajidub]

Ah, Because in my experience ebayers are much poorer at grading vinyl than Discog users, unless the Ebay Sellers happen to be store owners.
But that's usually not the case, it's usually someone selling estate bought merchandise or their own forgotten about collection. I often think they know the play grade of the vinyl but pretend to only do a visual grade on them. Often VG+ looking vinyl plays worse than VG+ should.

Good reason to get an AK membership. Usually undergraded. imo

 

[DavidF]

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?

Good question but so difficult to answer. What a web of variables has been created in the process.

First, it helps to remember that "mastering" in this sense is the signal processing required to get the material in form to make a lacquer as part of the process of vinyl pressing. Mastering the cutting of the lacquer is an art form since the cutting was so critical in how the final product will sound given a multitude of compromises required.

In theory, the abilities of tape to preserve a better facsimile of the original performance was far better than vinyl when vinyl was the primary means of delivery. At least under the commercial requirements of the music business. So, there was typically the need by the mastering engineer to significantly manipulate the sound on the tape coming out of the tracking/mixing process before use in cutting the lacquer.

Does it then follow that an all-analog chain will be better in sound quality than a process that has some A-to-D-to-A link in the chain? I say no.

Recordings in the 50's and into the 60's on mono, or 2/3 channel recorders, were often mixed and processed "live" meaning that the balances were set prior to tracking of the individual cuts live in the studio. Maybe vocals could be punched in over the instrumental track. As time moved on producers and engineers became more creative in the ability to virtually add recording channels by recording bits of the performance and then record that performance down to one channel of new recording reserving the other 2 or 3 channels to record additional performances.

I recently read where the process of recording at Motown Records started with basic rhythm tracks. There was no equalization or processing at all in the tracking process. Then this "A" tape would be recorded down to a channel on tape "B" with any signal processing added along the way. This would continue to tapes C, D, E, F etc, as needed. So, with each iteration there is some amount of taping the noise and distortion elements into the next mix. The point is by the time the final mix is achieved you are working on 5 or more generations of re-recorded tracks going into the vinyl master tape. Is this final mix up to the potential of audiophile expectations for analog sound? No, but this is not to denigrate the engineers efforts which was more focused on getting out a viable commercial product.

Digital sources used for mastering a vinyl record- that is digital recording of the original performance- may seem totally contrary to the purpose of making an analog source for us to use. I get that. Why go to the trouble to convert digital source to vinyl? Or is it just taking advantage of audiophiles who want to justify the need to spin a disc. On the other hand, digital material can be manipulated and processed to an extent not allowed with analog without the kind of degradation you might find in the production of all-analog back in the day. Especially going well into the 70's when saved time meant saved dollars and the price of oil was playing havoc with vinyl costs.

So, as mentioned repeatedly already, we just can't assume all-analog will always be the better outcome.

 

[DesertTwang]

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.

Pretentious? Jack White?

 

[ClayTune]

The skill with which the original was engineered and produced matters more to me than whether it's a digital source or not. These are what make recordings special to me. As was mentioned, there are plenty of all analog recordings from the good old days that were (for several reasons) terrible. Conversely, there are lots of all digital recordings through the subsequent years that have been much better. So stopping at one is better than the other simply falls short of explaining the quality of a recording.

In the context I'm referring to, this conversation would be more about buying recordings produced/mastered by specific people more than dissecting what analog/digital channels the recordings actually followed to get to our turntables. The art of recording, mixing, and mastering good recordings seems to rarely be considered. It is truly an art with infinite variables and nuances. The people who are truly good at doing this are literally artists. It simply isn't as easy as throwing a mic in front of a musician and hitting record.

As for remasters - my biggest exposure to these is through Spotify. I almost universally prefer listening to the original recording to the remastered version of the same song. And this is even my opinion of remasters of stuff that was originally digital. Sure the remaster is different, but I don't usually like it better. It usually just doesn't sound quite right. That's obviously personal preference though.

So what was the Genesis of the argument that Analog mastering sounds inherently better than Digital mastering?

And is it true that records from 30 years ago sound better today than they did 30 years ago, due in part to the imperfect turntables they were using then as well as the lack of normal cartridge alignment procedures being placed into practice?