Robert C
Member
I meant LP Production Master tapes, not discs.More from 78 shellacs than LP I would venture, just a guess.
I meant LP Production Master tapes, not discs.More from 78 shellacs than LP I would venture, just a guess.
Broadly speaking, if an '80s CD of an analogue era recording had an LP PM that the label could access they would use it.I know it happened. But I know of no one who ever actually tabulated a verified number. That would be a difficult thing to do.
It was a common excuse that record companies used for remastering, starting in the late 80s.
Ah, I thought you were talking about needle drops.I meant LP Production Master tapes, not discs.
Yep, I've definitely come across CDs that were needle drops from vinyl. Seemed to happen a fair bit with compilations - still does!Ah, I thought you were talking about needle drops.
I'm sure some CD's were released from needle drops due to there being no vialbe tapes but
didn't have any first had knowledge to debate what I thought was your statement.
I've got a lot of ancient top 40, quite a few transfers being needledrops from 45's, with the sound as good as it's gonna get. I've made needledrops for others, including transfers of 78s. What I have heard of 78s transferred to CD indicates some miracles are possible, but the same sort of squabbling akin to the Mobil Fidelity controversy applies. Example: the Arthur Schnabel Beethoven sonatas for piano, originally EMI, now absorbed with the rest of EMI classical recordings to Warner Brothers. As far as I can tell, the Warner Brothers transfers are recent, made from commercial copies of the discs and given advanced digital treatment to remove surface noise. Previous attempts either had excessive filtering or excessive surface noise and distortion. I think the most recent transfers---I heard them when I streamed via Amazon---have the best sound overall, with clear treble and little surface noise, But the comments I've seen have a lot of complaints. I guess without the surface noise, the transfers seem "dead" to those used to the clicks and pops of the Naxos transfers or to earlier LP issues.Yep, I've definitely come across CDs that were needle drops from vinyl. Seemed to happen a fair bit with compilations - still does!
Yeah, my apologies. I misread it.Did you miss "when being cut"?
They do an amazing job on those releases!Listening to SOTA noise removal, like the centennial reissue of the Robert Johnson recordings, indicates what is possible:
Agreed! The use of DSD is due to the BS audiophool myth about DSD sounding better than pcm.I'm pretty sure that a transfer of a master tape to a high rez format is the way to go. I don't think DSD is the way to go, considering the limits of that format.
I'm sure some CD's were released from needle drops due to there being no vialbe tapes but
Sure, That's possible enough. Is that really what you want?I suppose what I’m suggesting is including a ‘vinyl sound’ button on a DAC.
I sought after live musicians for years to view and listen to. Never in my mind would I have added clicks and scratches to the sound.So I have a question.
It’s completely clear now that you can make a digital file which is indistinguishable from an analogue master tape.
But it’s also clear that some people ‘prefer the sound of vinyl’.
The inescapable conclusion is that the transfer from either the original master or the high quality digital copy creates distortion which some people like.
So. Could someone take such a high quality source, cut it to vinyl, then digitise the vinyl (okay, yes we already know that part can be done), but then analyse the difference and see exactly what that distortion is, and create a simple digital tweak which can then be made to the original digital file on the fly. Analyse enough vinyl pressings that it becomes clear what vinyl is doing to the sound, and replicate it digitally.
I suppose what I’m suggesting is including a ‘vinyl sound’ button on a DAC.
In any case the folk who might actually be a market for this would never accept it being done digitally.Sure, That's possible enough. Is that really what you want?
To take the pristine sound of the original digital (or analog) master, and add all vinyls distortions, noise, etc???
WHY?
No idea how to decipher thatThat conclusion is not inescapable.
There have been opinions on this forum that the attractive qualities of vinyl involve mastering, mixing, compression and equalization that differ from digital products. I am guessing (and that's all that it is!) that any transfer from either original masters or high-quality digital copies would involve some sort of modification using these techniques. After all, the new-and-improved product must have some way to differentiate itself from the slew of other copies out there, doesn't it?
Like I said .... I'm guessing. Jim
This has already been done. See the Weiss DACs . The manual explains what the "vinyl emulator" does in quite some detail.So I have a question.
It’s completely clear now that you can make a digital file which is indistinguishable from an analogue master tape.
But it’s also clear that some people ‘prefer the sound of vinyl’.
The inescapable conclusion is that the transfer from either the original master or the high quality digital copy creates distortion which some people like.
So. Could someone take such a high quality source, cut it to vinyl, then digitise the vinyl (okay, yes we already know that part can be done), but then analyse the difference and see exactly what that distortion is, and create a simple digital tweak which can then be made to the original digital file on the fly. Analyse enough vinyl pressings that it becomes clear what vinyl is doing to the sound, and replicate it digitally.
I suppose what I’m suggesting is including a ‘vinyl sound’ button on a DAC.
Archimago has an excellent write up on the mofi controversy below
Archimago’s musings regarding the mofigate class action lawsuit here
I'm only really concerned that everything on master tapes has been properly archived to digital.Frankly, most of what 'needs' to be remastered has already been remastered. Fewer people care about legacy recordings and just accept what's already out there as 'the version'.
A vinyl master would have been further EQ'd to insert the RIAA curve if nothing else, when being cut.
The guy with experience makes the point that it was not the backing material of the tape-- the mylar, what we would call 'tape' -- that failed, but the oxide binder on top of it. It's a valid point but the argument as usual went on far too long.Yet another ego clash - member who has been here at ASR for a while but posts infrequently - and apparent has some specific relevant experience - pops up suddenly and has difficulty communicating in a civil manner. Loud pontification leads to clashes. The heart of the matter seems to revolve around definitions and perspectives, and component vs final product performance.
Instead of working towards common ground, or agreeing to disagree, verbal combat ensues. Not the first time I've seen this on internet forums.
Is the 'un-tained' (?) original properly transferred or not? THis is beyond Wilson's purview, since it's not his responsibility.Well, do you want to hear the un-tained original or not? LOL
No ones perfect, but his globe of work shows him to be the best we currently have for doing multich mixing in popular music