GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by Alex:[..]
    If someone wants to produce a CD from an existing old recording, the quality of the result depends basically on two things.

    First question is what you use as source for your CD. An old vinyl record could be a source if it's mint - that's what anyone could do: Run his turntable through his HIFI amp using "Phono In" and "Line out" into the "Line In" of his soundcard. Another possible source for a CD could be the original master tapes - but don't forget that tapes can sometimes get bad with age. Another source could be the original multi- track tapes, then you could even do a new mix. As far as I know the source tracks for most of these CDs are taken from original master tapes - but not always. So the new CD would use the same source as the old vinyl record.

    Second question is what you do with the source tracks before burning and releasing them. If you just burn and release the result wil most likely be unsatisfying - I've even heard tape hiss(!) on the CD of Atomic Rooster's "Headline News" album. So it's most likely better to put the tracks through some denoising, eq- ing and dynamics processing - we would call this a "remaster" CD. Having a pro mastering engineer can make a massive difference in sound.

    Conclusion: A properly remastered CD from a good source will sound as good as or better than the old vinyl record. Wishbone Ash's 1972 album "Argus" for example is available in a great remastered CD version that just smokes the vinyl record - by faaar.

    Alex


    Sorry, I meant for new albums like NLOTH, will the vinyl release be higher fidelity than the CD release.

    I thought the only reason people bought vinyl copies of new albums was because they're nostalgaic, collectors or DJs.

  2. No. How could this be? The whole recording, mixing and mastering process of a modern album is completely done digitally - so the source data is already digital. The audio CD is now burnt lossless contaning the full master source data. So the only possible audio quality loss can happen in the D/A converter of your home CD player (a CD player basically consists of a laser and a D/A converter). If you instead transfer the digital master signal to analog vinyl you'll inevitably have some loss because of the mechanical scanning with a needle and the quality of your phono preamp (yes, every HIFI amp has a built in special preamp behind the phono input).

    The only possible ways for the vinyl to sound better than the CD would be:
    - The CD has a production fault.
    - The Vinyl is audio compressed / limited / eq- ed differently than the CD.
    - Your turntable and phono input are much better than the D/A converter in your CD player.

    Everything else just happens in your mind.


    I thought the only reason people bought vinyl copies of new albums was because they're nostalgaic, collectors or DJs.

    Plus the "Vinyl Voodoo" believers who think of themselves as extremely audiophile. That's just the way I see it, too. But there's nothing wrong with being nostalgic, a collector or a DJ. I have a 300- record vinyl collection, and I like it. I just don't like "Vinyl Voodoo".

    Alex
  3. Originally posted by Alex:[..]
    No. How could this be? The whole recording, mixing and mastering process of a modern album is completely done digitally - so the source data is already digital. The audio CD is now burnt lossless contaning the full master source data. So the only possible audio quality loss can happen in the D/A converter of your home CD player (a CD player basically consists of a laser and a D/A converter). If you instead transfer the digital master signal to analog vinyl you'll inevitably have some loss because of the mechanical scanning with a needle and the quality of your phono preamp (yes, every HIFI amp has a built in special preamp behind the phono input).

    [..]
    Plus the "Vinyl Voodoo" believers who think of themselves as extremely audiophile. That's just the way I see it, too. But there's nothing wrong with being nostalgic, a collector or a DJ. I have a 300- record vinyl collection, and I like it. I just don't like "Vinyl Voodoo".

    Alex


    I thought as much, certainly CD>Vinyl makes logical sense.

    I was confused by SCD's post, who was making big talk on mastering and mixing etc. so I was intrigued by this comment:

    On the positive side: they also put out a vinyl version of the album which will give the best audio experience if you are after that (assuming you have some good gear to play it)

  4. Not sure why Alex describes me as vinyl voodoo. I have exactly the same attitude towards vinyl as he does.

    Because most home cd players have not very good D/A convertors, and a lot of old days vinyl records are very badly transferred to cd (as he already explained) there is a group of people that stayed or went back to vinyl.
    Though in popmusic less relevant: there is quite a difference when listening to very soft passages from a 16 bit/44.1 recording compared to a good vinyl recording for instance.
    But this discussion is going not the way I intended. Main thing was to point out the stuff you can hear in the recordings, the used instruments, mixing tricks etc.
    All I said was that it is nice of U2 to bring NLOTH out on vinyl as well. Who knows with an alternative mix even.

    I disagree with Alex opinion that a good mp3 can't be heard from 16bits/44.1 audio quality. The compression of the file certainly leads to loss of quality (of course the amount depends on the bitrate).

    Stating that every modern album is recorded on digital gear is a strange one too. Many artists record on tape till this very day.
  5. Originally posted by scd:Not sure why Alex describes me as vinyl voodoo. I have exactly the same attitude towards vinyl as he does.

    Sorry - no offence intended. I don't even know you. Maybe my use of English is not getting all the subtexts. I just wanted to point out that some people have an irrational affection towards vinyl and try to find rational reasons for it. Obviously you don't belong to these. I apologize. Sorry.

    Because most home cd players have not very good D/A convertors, and a lot of old days vinyl records are very badly transferred to cd (as he already explained) there is a group of people that stayed or went back to vinyl.

    That's completetly understandable and agreeable. But most modern recordings are done digitally, and there are CD players with great DA convertors on the HIFI market available. So for a modern digital recording or a carefully done remaster a CD would be the proper way - plus a decent CD player of course.

    Though in popmusic less relevant: there is quite a difference when listening to very soft passages from a 16 bit/44.1 recording compared to a good vinyl recording for instance.

    Assumed that the original tracks and the master weren't done 16bit/44.1. The analog vinyl / needle / turntable combo can add nothing that wasn't there in the first place except mechanical noises. I wouldn't notice a difference anyway. Maybe I should try again on high end equipment. I have a good HIFI system, but not high end. I'm not that audiophile.

    But this discussion is going not the way I intended. Main thing was to point out the stuff you can hear in the recordings, the used instruments, mixing tricks etc.

    Thank you very much for your observations. I promised myself to check what was written on thread page 1.

    All I said was that it is nice of U2 to bring NLOTH out on vinyl as well. Who knows with an alternative mix even.

    That would be great. Alternative mixes and masters are always an addition to the fans. For example, the Guitar Hero (video game) version of Metallica's "Death Magnetic" has undergone a completely different mastering which leads to a much less "brick- walled" sound. It's good to have an additional choice.

    I disagree with Alex opinion that a good mp3 can't be heard from 16bits/44.1 audio quality. The compression of the file certainly leads to loss of quality (of course the amount depends on the bitrate).

    That's fine. We can disagree here. Let me stay at my opinion that most listeners are unable to A/B the difference between a CD and a 320K mp3. One of the reasons is of course the fact that most HIFI systems aren't good enough to make those subtle differences noticeable. On a high end HIFI system some will indeed notice the difference - but many more will claim that they hear one.

    Stating that every modern album is recorded on digital gear is a strange one too. Many artists record on tape till this very day.

    This depends what you mean with "many". I dare to say that at least 95% of all professional recordings are done completely digital today. The other few are done by traditionalists and retro- lovers. U2 are definitely completely digital. In some booklets they even give credit to their "Pro Tools Operators". You might know that "Pro Tools" is the name of a professional recording / mixing / mastering software.

    Peace and Love

    Alex
  6. Listened to it again trough headphones and the mastering is piss poor. Listen to the start of Crazy on CX300 Sennheiser: clipping everywhere...really hope the original album is better. And did these Walmart-clips have clipping?
  7. Originally posted by MWSAH:Listened to it again trough headphones and the mastering is piss poor. Listen to the start of Crazy on CX300 Sennheiser: clipping everywhere...really hope the original album is better. And did these Walmart-clips have clipping?


    What do you mean by clipping?

  8. I can understand some people preferring the sound of vinyl over cd's.

    They can have a bassier sound to them, where's a cd is crystal clear, if you don't have a great stereo, they can sound somewhat tinny.

    I used to DJ, still have my 1200's & 6 crates of records, and some records just sound better, not all, but some.

  11. The only reason I buy vinyl is because I love the package, and they're fun to play. I also like cd's, as I can tell the bitrate and know the quality.Cd's just can't beat vinyl packaging
  12. Originally posted by Alex:[..]
    Sorry - no offence intended. I don't even know you. Maybe my use of English is not getting all the subtexts. I just wanted to point out that some people have an irrational affection towards vinyl and try to find rational reasons for it. Obviously you don't belong to these. I apologize. Sorry.

    [..]
    That's completetly understandable and agreeable. But most modern recordings are done digitally, and there are CD players with great DA convertors on the HIFI market available. So for a modern digital recording or a carefully done remaster a CD would be the proper way - plus a decent CD player of course.

    [..]
    Assumed that the original tracks and the master weren't done 16bit/44.1. The analog vinyl / needle / turntable combo can add nothing that wasn't there in the first place except mechanical noises. I wouldn't notice a difference anyway. Maybe I should try again on high end equipment. I have a good HIFI system, but not high end. I'm not that audiophile.

    [..]
    Thank you very much for your observations. I promised myself to check what was written on thread page 1.

    [..]
    That would be great. Alternative mixes and masters are always an addition to the fans. For example, the Guitar Hero (video game) version of Metallica's "Death Magnetic" has undergone a completely different mastering which leads to a much less "brick- walled" sound. It's good to have an additional choice.

    [..]
    That's fine. We can disagree here. Let me stay at my opinion that most listeners are unable to A/B the difference between a CD and a 320K mp3. One of the reasons is of course the fact that most HIFI systems aren't good enough to make those subtle differences noticeable. On a high end HIFI system some will indeed notice the difference - but many more will claim that they hear one.

    [..]
    This depends what you mean with "many". I dare to say that at least 95% of all professional recordings are done completely digital today. The other few are done by traditionalists and retro- lovers. U2 are definitely completely digital. In some booklets they even give credit to their "Pro Tools Operators". You might know that "Pro Tools" is the name of a professional recording / mixing / mastering software.

    Peace and Love

    Alex


    No appologies needed Alex. You're description of some aspects of recording techniques were way more clear than mine

    Many great classical records from the past have definately more in the master tapes than a cd can reveil. And I meant those old tape recorded records. But all this has not much to do anymore with this thread

    Most listeners don't hear the mp3/aiff or wav difference indeed (Grrr!!!) But I do, and that's enough for me

    95% might be recording digitally. I think a bigger group than 5% uses analog tape in the process to warm up tracks, to slow down or speed up tracks etc.

    Back on topic:
    The box of the GOYB single states "keyboards by Terry Lawless"
    But I don't hear any keyboards on that single. Anyone else? Or it might be the sound FXs in the tune? Weird.

Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.