LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  March 2015

ARSCLIST March 2015

Subject:

Re: Another vinyl fad

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:19:39 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (195 lines)

By the way ...

1. It's worth checking out Better Records website. I'll be the first to say they charge more than 
I'd pay for most of those LPs and their descriptions are a bit overboard, but what they noted in 
their listening tests, for titles that I own, tend to agree with what I hear and listen for. Their 
descriptions with the notoriously varied Steely Dan records, for instance, are correct based on my 
own experiences. Also their descriptions of Rolling Stones pressings. Now, whether ANYONE should pay 
hundreds of dollars for the musically mediocre "Emotional Rescue" is another matter!

2. You'd think, in the age of high-resolution downloads, that you'd pay your money and be assured of 
always getting a high quality remaster. This is not always the case for two reasons. First and most 
important is that lousy remastering sounds lousy in high-def like it sounds lousy in 128kbps MP3. 
More bits don't make better sound, better remastering makes better sound. Most high-def titles seem 
to be less-crunched versions of the latest CD reissue, so they were still mastered with the 
aesthetics of the mainstream CD market. The relatively few exceptions really are a different beast. 
Bernie Grundman and his guys have done by and large a great job on the Blue Note catalogs, and 
credit to Don Was for telling them to go for quality over mass market aesthetics. Bernie has worked 
with enough Rudy Van Gelder titles over the years to know Rudy's somewhat strange tonal colors, and 
he's mitigated the worst harshness but kept important aspects like punch drums and interesting 
reverb/room tone (Rudy had all kinds of tricks combining room mics and echo chambers and reverb 
machines).

The second thing, about most or all commercial downloads, is the fact that the file quality is only 
as good as the downloading protocols. I don't know of any download seller that uses checksum 
verification to make sure files arrive bit-perfect to how they are sent. In theory, this shouldn't 
be a problem in the vast majority of cases. In my experience, I'd say it probably isn't a problem 
based on what I hear with my own ears, but I don't know for a fact because no download I've ever 
received from a retail seller offered checksum verification. Meanwhile, if I upload a CD master to a 
plant of any repute today, they want a checksum-verifiable DDP archive. So I have to assume that 
over-internet transmission is not perfect nor failsafe. Consider that most downloads are either 
super-dense lossy formats like MP3 or AAC, or they are non-lossy dense-compressed formats like ALAC 
or FLAC. So stray bits or lost bits theoretically matter more. This all might be a phantom menace, 
but since there is not bit-perfect verification going on, we don't really know one way or the other.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Another vinyl fad


> Hi John:
>
> Regarding Reiner's "Sheherazade," I agree the SACD is good, but I have to say I prefer the latest 
> LP rendering from Analogue Productions (Chad Kassem). Ryan Smith at Sterling Sound did a "live" 
> 3-2 mix and cut the LP at the same time, no digital involved. It sounds way better than my first 
> edition Living Stereo LP, which has a washed out sound due to 50-year-old disk-cutting technology 
> and the fact that they used a second-generation "cutting master" to make their LPs. I don't care 
> for messing with 3-channel playback on that SACD, I actually prefer the 2-channel stereo image. 
> The new LP has more presence and a more natural bottom end, to my ears. The bigger issue for me 
> is, I don't really love the piece of music (but anyone who collects classical recordings has heard 
> it _many_ times because everyone and their uncle has recorded a version).
>
> In general, some of the reissuers are making better vinyl records than originals, some aren't. 
> Playback chain, mastering taste and cutting the actual lacquers are all crafts, very much 
> dependent on taste. Some listeners just prefer CDs or other digital media. It's senseless to wage 
> that "war" here -- it's totally a matter of personal taste. If one listened only to test tones, 
> the "argument" would be simpler. I still listen to a lot of LP records, some of them dubbed into 
> my digital library (which analog jihadists would say defeats the whole purpose).
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Another vinyl fad
>
>
>> Interesting article and response by Tom.  There are a great many variables
>> and factors that go into the process of creating a recording as well as
>> remastering it, and you cannot escape the "personal" ones such as the taste
>> and even the hearing of the people who are doing the work.  The equipment
>> is one thing, but the judgment of the people using it is even more
>> important.
>>
>> I wish that the listeners for the not-so-blind test of the RCA Living
>> Stereo Scheherazade (presumably Reiner's fantastic 1960 recording with the
>> Chicago Symphony Orch.) could have added to their test the fantastic
>> three-channel Living Stereo SACD version, taken right off the original
>> three channel master tapes.  I know you are not such a fan of SACD's in
>> general, Tom, but this one is so great that I can't imagine ever wanting to
>> listen to a vinyl version of this recording again after hearing it, either
>> original vinyl or as repressed.  I think at least in this case, the vinyl
>> versions are probably rendered superfluous.  You simply cannot get this
>> kind of sound quality from vinyl, any of it, period.  As I recall, the SACD
>> cost $11.
>>
>> Best,
>> John Haley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The premise of this guy's business model is not BS at all. Every cut
>>> (lacquer) definitely sounds different and there are audible differences in
>>> stampers, for instance with early RCA Living Stereo LPs. In the case of
>>> Mercury, about which I can speak first hand, the original stereo pressings
>>> (designated with an "I" and something like "A1" in the deadwax) are VAST
>>> superior-sounding to later pressings because the early ones were pressed by
>>> RCA at the same Indianapolis plant that was doing the superb Living Stereo
>>> vinyl. After Philips took control of Mercury, they forced all pressing to
>>> the company-owned plant at Richmond IN, which was inferior. However, under
>>> strict orders to put quality above cost and carefully monitored, Richmond
>>> did produce some good-sounding cuts in the early "RFR" pressings. But, by
>>> the mid-60's, quality was awful across the board. The same is true of
>>> Command Classics. The original pressings were quite good, but late MCA/ABC
>>> pressings done out in California are terrible. In the case of RCA, most
>>> people say anything pressed with the Dynagroove system is inferior to
>>> previous cuts. RCA then went to paper-thin vinyl, which was also noisy at
>>> first but got quieter over time.
>>>
>>> In the pop/rock world, in almost all cases, the first pressing with a
>>> verified cut by the listed mastering engineer is almost always superior to
>>> subsequent pressings. In the case of a huge hit, several very good
>>> mastering engineers may have cut lacquers, and there will be debate over
>>> which sounds the best. Also, in the case of mega-hits like for instance
>>> Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours," the same 2-track tape was used to cut _many_
>>> lacquers. Even though Ken Perry at Capitol cut most of those lacquers, the
>>> earlier pressings sound better because the tape had been run through the
>>> machine fewer times. This is even more true with digital masters, for
>>> instance Bruce Springsteen "Born In the USA." If you believe in such things
>>> as "clones" in the U-Matic days, then theoretically there should be no
>>> differences, but there are because "cloning" added jitter and
>>> error-correction and thus the U-Matic tapes got to sounding worse as they
>>> went down the line.
>>>
>>> I also see a lot of record-club dreck out in the used vinyl market, and
>>> you have to be careful to spot it. Some is clearly labelled on the sleeve,
>>> "Manufactured for the Columbia Record Club" and the like. But much is more
>>> subtle. One has to look closely at the deadwax and know the cutting marks
>>> of the various mastering engineers.
>>>
>>> Bottom line, if you can afford a house-priced LP playback system, you're
>>> not going to flinch at paying top dollar to a guy who will hunt down the
>>> very best pressings in the very best conditions.
>>>
>>> And by the way, there are differences in CD editions because different
>>> glass-master machines add more or less jitter (this shouldn't be a problem
>>> under modern conditions, but it was in the 1990s), and different component
>>> materials mean different discs behave mechanically differently in various
>>> players, adding error-correction and jitter in some cases. People forget
>>> that CD manufacturing and playback are mechanical processes, and bits may
>>> well be bits going in but they can get mangled in the mechanics.
>>>
>>> Finally, in the age of remastering and reissuing, there are HUGE sonic
>>> differences in playback and transfer chains when analog sources are
>>> involved. Almost nothing from the pre-transistor era gets remastered using
>>> similar equipment to what produced it, and I hear errors with playback EQ
>>> curves all the time. Furthermore, a modern CD reissue will have very
>>> different EQ in the remastering chain from most LPs. Those of us who deal
>>> with old tapes often see cutting EQ notes on the boxes. There were
>>> regularly large (+/-5 or 6dB) cuts and boosts at various frequencies, in
>>> order to make records sound louder and to make them more trackable. This
>>> was less that case with classical, but compromises often needed to be made
>>> in low frequencies to allow trackability, and a low-pass filter was often
>>> in the cutting chain to prevent blowing out the cutterhead with the steep
>>> HF boost in the RIAA curve. This is why a competently-produced CD reissue
>>> should always sound more similar to the master tape (for better or worse)
>>> than "golden era" vinyl.
>>>
>>> People who can't hear these kinds of differences wouldn't be interested in
>>> high-quality used vinyl and can stick to earbuds and all you can eat
>>> streaming. People with the ability and equipment to listen carefully do
>>> tend to care about sound quality and seek out their favorite versions of
>>> old gems.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Bishop" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 7:56 AM
>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Another vinyl fad
>>>
>>>
>>>  http://www.wired.com/2015/03/hot-stampers/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager