older LPs with technical data

[vheintz]

having inherited record collections from grandparents and parents then looking through them I noticed the technical data displayed on the back of the record jacket and sometimes on the front. growing up in the eighty's I bought a lot of records and never once noticed the records having any mention of the fidelity of the recordings or any technical data at all. Just wondering if this was a fad from earlier generations or was there a drop in quality and interest in sound quality.

 

[Doug G.]

As time passed, the record companies just stopped putting that information on the jackets. I guess they didn't feel the need to sell the microgroove advantages, anymore, or it was no longer a novel thing to do.

No real reflection on quality.

Doug

 

[ripblade]

When a technology is new or novel it's not unusual to have a technical description included in the liner notes. This was true when stereo and multitrack recordings were introduced, as well as direct to disk and early digital recordings. The notes sometimes included the speakers and amps used to monitor the recording in the studio, cabling, mixing board, mics and recorder.

 

[vheintz]

yes, now that you mention it, I've noticed on old cd's mostly from the 80's the liner notes containing the mention of fully digital and 44.1 khz /16 bit.

 

[vheintz]

for a long time, I assumed those early vinyl recordings were of better quality. any opinions on the new 180-gram marketing and hi res digital. I've read plenty on both technologies and in theory it makes sense but is this a case of the point of diminishing returns?

 

[ripblade]

The problem with today's records is that they're cut from masters intended for CD. You might actually prefer them outright, but they don't sound as good on vinyl, IMO.

 

[vheintz]

this sounds awfully similar to the process of selling up sampled cd masters as hi res audio. nothing more than marketing ingenuity, for the uninformed anyway.

 

[pfcs49]

Back in the 50s, there were several equalization curves. (RIAA, Columbia, Decca, 78s,etc) for recording/playback. Early preamps usually had a rotary switch that selected the one for the disc being played.
Later, the RIAA curve was pretty much adopted and EQ selectors pretty much disappeared.

 

[vheintz]

the nature of technology. It's interesting to see this play out over time. a new technology brings in many players and one or two take the prize. I remember the video laser discs from the nineties, the ones the size of an L.P. I'm glad those never took off.

 

[vheintz]

As far as new recordings go, I do have vinyl specifically recorded for vinyl on analog tape and put to vinyl (whatever). The recording sounds very good, Imo. however, the record is brand new and without a blemish. I don't know if these are sonically better than a digital recording would be because I have no reference point - the recording is only available on vinyl. are today's vinyl recordings better than digital, sonically speaking? After all music is analog in the end.

 

[spark1]

the nature of technology. It's interesting to see this play out over time. a new technology brings in many players and one or two take the prize. I remember the video laser discs from the nineties, the ones the size of an L.P. I'm glad those never took off.

To what new technology are you referring?

As for hi-res digital audio...have you listened to a good recording in 24/96? If not, I suggest that you do so, and come to your own conclusions regarding this format.

As for vinyl; the vast majority of it produced since the mid-80s is/was from recordings captured and engineered in the digital domain.

Just as when the recordings were captured and engineered using analog tape, quality varies.

BTW, no one cuts vinyl using CD masters. Vinyl requires mastering unique to the medium. RIAA and all that jazz.

 

[vheintz]

Most of my music library is hi res digital 24/96 and 24/192 and it sounds fantastic. I am referencing one specific recording that I own on vinyl, Simon Phillips "studio live session". the recording was specifically recorded for the vinyl format. modern day recording technology for the vinyl format. and is not available in any other format. So, I was just throwing out the question if recordings like this one are going to rival digital formats. again, I'm referencing modern recording technology for vinyl (analog) compared to modern recording technology for digital. or another way to put it - music is analog in the end and would having an analog source be better than a digital source in contemporary recording technology.

 

[spark1]

Opinions vary.

There are many threads here, and elsewhere, regarding analog vs digital. A new one starts just about every day, it seems. Peruse them to get any variety of opinions.

I see no reason why capturing a performance using digital recording technology - especially at the bitrates used - would implicitly limit the quality of the final product, be it vinyl, CD, or data file.

Others disagree.

 

[ripblade]

BTW, no one cuts vinyl using CD masters. Vinyl requires mastering unique to the medium. RIAA and all that jazz.

All what jazz? Inverse RIAA can be applied to any master. What distinguishes a vinyl master from a CD master is a higher crest factor and lower RMS used for vinyl so the stylus can track properly. Digital has no such restriction, which raises the question of why recording volumes are increasingly clipped at 0dB. Take that same digital master, cut it to vinyl, and you wind up with a record that sounds loud, gritty and lifeless.

this sounds awfully similar to the process of selling up sampled cd masters as hi res audio. nothing more than marketing ingenuity, for the uninformed anyway.

Remove the brick wall filtering normally used to prevent alias distortion and you wind up with all kinds of ultrasonic hash that sounds 'airy' when played through a hi-rez media player. Then cut that same file to lacquer and no stylus will ever be able to trace the hash, resulting in a distortion that renders cymbals sounding like tearing paper or shattering glass, etc.

 

[spark1]

All what jazz? Inverse RIAA can be applied to any master. What distinguishes a vinyl master from a CD master is a higher crest factor and lower RMS used for vinyl so the stylus can track properly. Digital has no such restriction, which raises the question of why recording volumes are increasingly clipped at 0dB. Take that same digital master, cut it to vinyl, and you wind up with a record that sounds loud, gritty and lifeless.

Yes...all that.

And while RIAA can be applied to any master, there is no reason to do so except on the the vinyl master.

In any case none of this really relates to the OP's hypothesis that because output is ultimately analog, recordings will be better if captured and (assumedly) maintained in analog form throughout the engineering and production process.

Overuse of dynamic range compression has done no favor to modern recordings, unless listening via earbuds, computer speakers or in a car.

 

[Doug G.]

Getting back to the original inquiry re analog LP recording quality, before the thread morphed into a discussion about digital, CD's, and digital resolution, the earliest microgroove disks really don't sound that great. I have several orchestral recordings, on the big labels, that sound compressed and distorted.

the engineers were still learning how to do it. Later LP's sound much better, some of them incredible.

Doug

 

[Djcoolray]

In the beginning, the audio hobby was made up of those that were involved in the hobby to build and repair. Few people besides those that could easily afford audio equipment owned such. The technical aspect of being involved to the point of knowing everything about the specifications of ones equipment and sources of audio medium was a standard of excellence to be considered before purchasing a product. It was the same way with automobiles. The terminology used for a person that was aware of the differences in equipment was known as the informed buyer. People had not started buying audio equipment based upon cost at bargain department stores yet.