• 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

What do you think about original analog LPs being remastered digitally?

DougMac said:
[EDIT] OK, It may not be a good test, but I just bought "With the Beatles" on new LP as well as the CD. I'll compare it to original releases. This isn't fair, because Capitol buggered up the sound.
Click to expand...
Well, I ordered the LP and CD on Saturday and they were sitting on my porch Monday afternoon! Great job Amazon!

I have three items to compare:
1- My first pressing of "Meet the Beatles" I bought when I was in the 7th grade. It is the earliest pressing with no publisher information and a "3" in the lower right back cover.

2- The new "With the Beatles" LP, sourced from the same remaster as the CD.

3- The remastered CD.

I started with the new LP. The record and cover are pristine. The record is nice and thick and ruler flat. I played it on my SL-1500 MK II using my newly acquired Shure M97 that seems to be breaking in nicely. I was initially disappointed because there were some clicks, especially in the run in grooves. A gentle application of my anti-static brush cured it. The surface is very quiet, but there's still a very small amount of noise between cuts. (I had it turned to "audition" level). I found out that the distortion in the acoustic guitar in the opening of "Till There Was You" was damage to my original. It turns out the distortion is in the master.

Two things struck me immediately. Paul's bass and Ringo's kick drum had more authority - it was subtle, but it sounded more natural than I remembered. Also, the cymbals were much more clear than I remembered.

Next, I played my original "Meet the Beatles" LP. I was immediately struck by how clean it sounded. Remember, I was a 7th grader when I bought it! It's now nearly 50 years old! It's been played on a number of turntables, starting with an Elac Miracord 10h, a Dual 1228 and a Garrard in a portable unit.

The grooves seem to be in great shape, an the Shure did a great job tracking. As expected, the bass was weaker, although I'm beginning to really like the mid bass of the Shure. I found out that the cymbal smearing I've been hearing is a result of the reverb added by the folks at Capitol.

Lastly, the CD sounds great. It is better than the remastered LP, but not by much. Highs are a little crisper, especially compared to the relatively dark Shure sound. Ringo's bass drum has more authority. It sounds far better than an earlier CD I own. They have done a little clean up of the edits.

Verdict - I'm glad I bought both the LP and CD. I'm pleased with both. I plan to buy more Beatles LP's, maybe even the box set. These records hold such great memories for me. As for other LP's derived from digital masters, I don't know. I think I'm more likely to buy the CD (or better yet, the SACD or even blu ray if available).

I have a better idea of newly released LP's. If I was new to analog and just wanted the music on LP's, I'd suggest buying new pressings instead of paying far more for the originals. I found this LP has excellent quality.

Happy listening!

[Edit] I just stared playing side 2 on my Technics SP-25 outfitted with a Stanton 681EEE. Cymbals are brighter. I still prefer the bass of the Shure. It's quiet and is tracking well. The Stanton has a little more forward sounding. It is a great sound for rock and roll. I just heard the toms in "Hold Me Tight". I'll have to give the Stanton a little more credit, the toms were deep, nice and tight.
 
Last edited:
This thread is depressing and hilarious at the same time.

Almost nobody records in the analogue domain these days.
Tape is simply too expensive.
To state that you`d rather record on an old cassette multitrack than a modern digital one is a little silly.

I recently bought a zoom r16.
To do what it can do in the analogue domain would take a number of large flight cases full of gear.
It can record in 24 bit at 48hz.
You`d be hard pressed to hear the difference between that an higher resolution recordings.

Lots of digital music is recorded at 96hz or higher these days.
The resolution is so great that you simply will not get the sort of digital artefact associated with early digital recording.

In theory , transfer to vinyl should give you higher res than cd, with a good turntable.
In practice , the major difference to my ear is the way it is mastered for vinyl , at least by those who care enough to do vinyl only masters.


Vinyl records are loved not only for their sonics (lets face it, a DVD audio or bluray is always going to be better quality than any album) but for their artistic merit - nothing like a high quality gatefold as a piece of art.

I love both - currently listening to No Man , Together we`re stranger on DVD, on a bluray player, connected to the digital input on my onkyo a9050

I love the past, but I will happily embrace the future and am just happy that so much new music is being produced on vinyl these days.


Russian Circles, Sigur Ros, Instrument, Nihiling, Caspian, all examples that I have bought on vinyl in the last year.
 
Spin it anyway you want to. I choose to keep it real. I choose to keep my vinyl Analogue. Happy listening. :D
 
Nothing like letting dogma get in the way of facts.


The current resurgence in vinyl simply wouldnt happen if people could only record, mix and master in analogue.

Some may have stopped listening to anything new after 1979, but I still love new music and new bands, even though I`m on the wrong side of 45
 
u know mr billy joel got how i feel on this subject so long ago with just this verse:

It's the next phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways
It's still rock and roll to me
Everybody's talkin' 'bout the new sound
Funny, but it's still rock and roll to me

its all music n it here for us to enjoy no matter on what source we chosse to play it on. i like both cuz It's still rock and roll to me.
 
How many can afford to? It costs money to do all analog. Priced 2" tape to track on? Priced a used top end 16 or 24 track machine? Priced the cost of heads for one? Not cheap, they weren't cheap new either.
 
hobbit said:
Nothing like letting dogma get in the way of facts.


The current resurgence in vinyl simply wouldnt happen if people could only record, mix and master in analogue.

Some may have stopped listening to anything new after 1979, but I still love new music and new bands, even though I`m on the wrong side of 45
Click to expand...

Thank you. My point made for me.
 
Nice report, DougMac. I wouldn't be inclined to buy the complete Beatles set on vinyl — the new 2012 set, I mean — but I did spring for both the Stereo and Mono CD sets when they came out in 2009. Given the improvement in the new CDs, I think it's fair to expect the new vinyl would be an improvement over at least some of the originals.



DougMac said:
Well, I ordered the LP and CD on Saturday and they were sitting on my porch Monday afternoon! Great job Amazon!

I have three items to compare:
1- My first pressing of "Meet the Beatles" I bought when I was in the 7th grade. It is the earliest pressing with no publisher information and a "3" in the lower right back cover.

2- The new "With the Beatles" LP, sourced from the same remaster as the CD.

3- The remastered CD.

I started with the new LP. The record and cover are pristine. The record is nice and thick and ruler flat. I played it on my SL-1500 MK II using my newly acquired Shure M97 that seems to be breaking in nicely. I was initially disappointed because there were some clicks, especially in the run in grooves. A gentle application of my anti-static brush cured it. The surface is very quiet, but there's still a very small amount of noise between cuts. (I had it turned to "audition" level). I found out that the distortion in the acoustic guitar in the opening of "Till There Was You" was damage to my original. It turns out the distortion is in the master.

Two things struck me immediately. Paul's bass and Ringo's kick drum had more authority - it was subtle, but it sounded more natural than I remembered. Also, the cymbals were much more clear than I remembered.

Next, I played my original "Meet the Beatles" LP. I was immediately struck by how clean it sounded. Remember, I was a 7th grader when I bought it! It's now nearly 50 years old! It's been played on a number of turntables, starting with an Elac Miracord 10h, a Dual 1228 and a Garrard in a portable unit.

The grooves seem to be in great shape, an the Shure did a great job tracking. As expected, the bass was weaker, although I'm beginning to really like the mid bass of the Shure. I found out that the cymbal smearing I've been hearing is a result of the reverb added by the folks at Capitol.

Lastly, the CD sounds great. It is better than the remastered LP, but not by much. Highs are a little crisper, especially compared to the relatively dark Shure sound. Ringo's bass drum has more authority. It sounds far better than an earlier CD I own. They have done a little clean up of the edits.

Verdict - I'm glad I bought both the LP and CD. I'm pleased with both. I plan to buy more Beatles LP's, maybe even the box set. These records hold such great memories for me. As for other LP's derived from digital masters, I don't know. I think I'm more likely to buy the CD (or better yet, the SACD or even blu ray if available).

I have a better idea of newly released LP's. If I was new to analog and just wanted the music on LP's, I'd suggest buying new pressings instead of paying far more for the originals. I found this LP has excellent quality.

Happy listening!

[Edit] I just stared playing side 2 on my Technics SP-25 outfitted with a Stanton 681EEE. Cymbals are brighter. I still prefer the bass of the Shure. It's quiet and is tracking well. The Stanton has a little more forward sounding. It is a great sound for rock and roll. I just heard the toms in "Hold Me Tight". I'll have to give the Stanton a little more credit, the toms were deep, nice and tight.
Click to expand...
 
libertycaps said:
Thank you. My point made for me.
Click to expand...

You don't have a point. You have some silly arbitrary dogma that doesn't in any way stand up to the reality of sound quality on the ground. If it makes you happy, knock yourself out, but there aren't facts to back up your assumptions and generalizations.
 
I'm actually kind of surprised that so many people don't have a problem with digital vinyl. I was under the impression that most record collectors did it because we were unimpressed with the flat listless sound of digital and wanted to keep hearing live-sounding music on our stereos. I'm not trying to judge anybody else's listening tastes, but it just seems to me that digital becomes accepted because of it's cheapness and convenience, and then the listener convinces his/herself that it sounds just as good.
Believe me, I'm tired of being stuck in the past as far as my listening habits are concerned, but I just have yet to hear a digital recording that compares to analog (even taking into account bad analog recordings - to me, my old 78's, scratches and all, still sound more live than digital vinyl.
Again, to each his own, and I'm not trying to put down anybody's musical tastes, but this is a relevant topic, and it MUST be if analog recording is to survive, expensive as it may be.
 
deeezy said:
I'm actually kind of surprised that so many people don't have a problem with digital vinyl. I was under the impression that most record collectors did it because we were unimpressed with the flat listless sound of digital and wanted to keep hearing live-sounding music on our stereos. I'm not trying to judge anybody else's listening tastes, but it just seems to me that digital becomes accepted because of it's cheapness and convenience, and then the listener convinces his/herself that it sounds just as good.
Believe me, I'm tired of being stuck in the past as far as my listening habits are concerned, but I just have yet to hear a digital recording that compares to analog (even taking into account bad analog recordings - to me, my old 78's, scratches and all, still sound more live than digital vinyl.
Again, to each his own, and I'm not trying to put down anybody's musical tastes, but this is a relevant topic, and it MUST be if analog recording is to survive, expensive as it may be.
Click to expand...

Based on your comments, my guess is that you have never heard how good top flight digital can sound nowadays. Digital has improved so dramatically, that the only sound quality difference between it and analog would come from the way it was engineered, not the technology used to make it.
 
Bigerik said:
Based on your comments, my guess is that you have never heard how good top flight digital can sound nowadays. Digital has improved so dramatically, that the only sound quality difference between it and analog would come from the way it was engineered, not the technology used to make it.
Click to expand...

I can't help but admit that I know you are right, Erik. Each of us has his own motivation for making the decisions we do about our listening likes and dislikes, and I can understand how some can attach such significance to one format or the other. I was just that way ~ 30 years ago when the initial wave of digitized records hit the streets. In fact, I can recall some music reviewer entitling his article on the first batch something like, "These digits are all thumbs."

In my own case, though, the important thing is that I have almost 2000 records that my wife exiled to the storage room about 20 years ago, and each time I go back there, I look at them longingly. I pulled my old turntable out of the closet, bought a new tonearm for it and installed my old V15 cartridge on it. When I rediscovered how much fun it was, I started looking at a few records I might want to buy — my first vinyl purchase in more years than I can remember. But I was alarmed by the fact that some I was looking at mentioned this digital remastering, and that was the provocation to join AK... just so I could ask this vital, to me, question.

Thank y'all for making my first query here such a success. Happy listening. :)
 
If you ever get a chance to hear digital in a studio setting- it really puts the mind at ease about the quality potential. I think a lot of people are being bothered by issues completely unrelated to something being digital or not. Recording digitally has the potential for the best sound you could imagine. Unfortunately, it's also easier and so you have a lot of people doing it, that probably wouldn't have been behind a console 40 years ago. But when you combine digital with talent and competence there's nothing wrong with it.

Unfortunately you also have a bunch of misinformed people who thing all ADCs and DACs are the same (the "it's ones and zeros!" simplifiers) so you'll have people hearing some of the worst digital proclaiming it to be the equal of all of it. The better studios spend a LOT on getting digital conversion right. It's just like vinyl in that you have to put effort into getting the best digital sound.
 
I will leave myself open to the possibility that there is decent digital recording being made out there; my experience thus far has proven otherwise. So, let me pose a new question: what is a new digital recording that sounds great (on vinyl, I don't own digital playback equipment)? Maybe I'll check it out and like it, who knows? I have my doubts, though.
 
deeezy said:
I will leave myself open to the possibility that there is decent digital recording being made out there; my experience thus far has proven otherwise. So, let me pose a new question: what is a new digital recording that sounds great (on vinyl, I don't own digital playback equipment)? Maybe I'll check it out and like it, who knows? I have my doubts, though.
Click to expand...

I can't answer that, but I can say that I would like someone here to rave about the Beach Boys' That's Why God Made The Radio.
 
KeninDC said:
Depends on how it sounds.
Click to expand...


Yeah I agree with this. I've heard people say that don't by the LP version of a modern digital recording cause it will sound exactly like the CD. And then on the other hand these same people tout different cartridges having different sounds. So if a cartridge can manipulate a different sound out of a recording I would think the LP version of a CD would have to have a different sound that could be better or worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom