Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Blumlein 88]

This guy contradicts himself at various points and is surprisingly vague about gross differences in the zoomed-in waveforms, significantly different measurements, and the change in sound character--the last bit exhibiting obvious differences even on my Macbook Pro's speakers.

He concedes there may be many factors (which he seems unfamiliar with and unconcerned about) between his mastered file and the end product but then dismisses them as irrelevant because they came from the same file--as if the fault lies in the measurement method when there is (to me) a clear difference in how they sound.

Unless he can, using math, show why the measurements are wrong I am not inclined to believe his wholly unsupported assertions.

It's weird that he didn't use a spectrum vs time comparison or subtract one from the other to come up with a residual signal. Hand-waving at tracks and then talking over the A/B swaps so we can't get a clear shot at the contrasts is bad practice and tells me he's not very experienced at doing tests like these.

Edit: some of the comments on the video say the same thing!

So do you believe that the whole trip thru vinyl land creates additional dynamics not in the original recording? If so it would be a form of distortion, but also a bit odd to be happening.

 

[Robin L]

OK, great. Now I can’t sleep.

My work is done.

 

[J.M. Noble]

So do you believe that the whole trip thru vinyl land creates additional dynamics not in the original recording? If so it would be a form of distortion, but also a bit odd to be happening.

I'm saying we have a set of differences that can't be dismissed.

To take just one thought exercise, consider what would happen if a low frequency shelving EQ was applied: you'd see higher peaks on kick drums, which would make it both measurably and subjectively more dynamic.

Now one must recall that a very strong RIAA tilt EQ is applied before cutting the lacquer, and that an opposite tilt EQ is applied upon playback. What if those don't match perfectly?

What does the guy running the cutting lathe need to do with this insanely squished track to make it physically possible to cut the lacquer? How does the playback rig's various parts interact with all of this?

This mastering engineer raises some of these points but then drops them on the floor. He surely has a lot more analysis tools at his disposal but doesn't use them. I don't have enough data to draw any conclusions about the track in question, but that's partly because this fellow doesn't give us much to work with.

 

[goat76]

This guy contradicts himself at various points and is surprisingly vague about gross differences in the zoomed-in waveforms, significantly different measurements, and the change in sound character--the last bit exhibiting obvious differences even on my Macbook Pro's speakers.

Do you find the vinyl rip playback sounding more dynamic?

He concedes there may be many factors (which he seems unfamiliar with and unconcerned about) between his mastered file and the end product but then dismisses them as irrelevant because they came from the same file--as if the fault lies in the measurement method when there is (to me) a clear difference in how they sound.

No, there is absolutely not the fault of the measuring method, it only shows that the waveform has changed by the usual processing done to the file to make it suitable for the vinyl, avoiding possible problems for both the cutting process and the playback of the finalized vinyl record. But as the actual dynamic of the music was already cut out by a limiter making the master, we can conclude that the additional dynamics seen in the vinyl rip doesn't contain any actual music information.

Unless he can, using math, show why the measurements are wrong I am not inclined to believe his wholly unsupported assertions.

Again, the measurement is not what is wrong here, it's the assumption that vinyl records are always more dynamic because if the higher reading of the dynamic range. But it's just the way the waveform has changed, adding dynamic peaks that the digital measuring tools can see but will not add any dynamics to what is actually heard.

It's weird that he didn't use a spectrum vs time comparison or subtract one from the other to come up with a residual signal. Hand-waving at tracks and then talking over the A/B swaps so we can't get a clear shot at the contrasts is bad practice and tells me he's not very experienced at doing tests like these.

Edit: some of the comments on the video say the same thing!

That video was made some years ago, and was probably just meant to be a short video to show that DR measurements can’t be trusted for vinyl rips, which is pretty clear as the original master was amputated of both the arms and legs, and was miraculously grown back in the analysis of the vinyl rip.

When listening to the sound clips in the video, I don't hear the vinyl rip sounding more dynamic than the digital master. Do you?

 

[Galliardist]

This guy contradicts himself at various points and is surprisingly vague about gross differences in the zoomed-in waveforms, significantly different measurements, and the change in sound character--the last bit exhibiting obvious differences even on my Macbook Pro's speakers.

He concedes there may be many factors (which he seems unfamiliar with and unconcerned about) between his mastered file and the end product but then dismisses them as irrelevant because they came from the same file--as if the fault lies in the measurement method when there is (to me) a clear difference in how they sound.

Unless he can, using math, show why the measurements are wrong I am not inclined to believe his wholly unsupported assertions.

It's weird that he didn't use a spectrum vs time comparison or subtract one from the other to come up with a residual signal. Hand-waving at tracks and then talking over the A/B swaps so we can't get a clear shot at the contrasts is bad practice and tells me he's not very experienced at doing tests like these.

Edit: some of the comments on the video say the same thing!

The problem for me is that any alternative to his position is actually impossible - except when there actually is a more dynamic master in use.

Generally, we don't know what we are dealing with in practice. One quote I saw a couple of variations of when browsing the subject, though, and I don't know the provenance, was to the effect that "the only purpose of DR is for audiophiles to moan about a lack of dynamics".

I also suspect that everything that people here have said is, for some recording or other, correct. So aggregators (I'm not sure what the are, but they seem to be clearing houses to place tracks on different services) require multiple masters. Clearly, multiple masters are used. On the other hand, I found mastering engineers and people self-mastering making clear that they have one production master for everything.

While the price list posted earlier shows an extra cost for MP3 and Apple/AAC mastering, indicating that that is sometimes required, it appears that a single streaming master for most services (checked with each LUFS normalisation level) is the general case where multiple masters are used. Also, where do you think Tidal/Qobuz lossy files come from? They at least are generated by or for the companies.

And what do we know if vinyl rip has a DR of 12-14? We cannot tell just from the number whether the master it was cut from had a DR of 8-9, or 12-14, or even higher. Better analysis is needed. I don't honestly believe that we can always tell what may be measured as the loudness of a recording until it hits actual brickwall levels.

And if several different methods of production mastering are in use, as it appears, the argument that it happens one way or another way is itself pointless. The only thing we can do after the fact is look at each recording on a case by case basis, and the only time to worry about it is when a result is unlistenable for your purpose.

The other thing I found out from trawling through articles is that mastering engineers pay a lot of attention to intended genre. Woe betide anyone who calls their music "pop", "rock", or "metal" and who expects any dynamics to survive a modern day mastering service, it seems. That may explain why so much music on streaming services is what is classified on Qobuz as "Alternative and Indie" because the genre is allowed, well, to be slightly more dynamic...

 

[MatrixS2000]

Wait what?
It’s not the digital measuring tools that are unreliable, it’s the vinyl rips that can’t be trusted as the preparation of them will add a higher dynamic range when and if the original masters had a brick wall limitation to begin with, and this is close to impossible to know if we don’t know what the digital master actually looked like.

<SNIP>

The higher Crest factor and dynamics of 6 dB in favor to this vinyl rip is in other words just caused by processes like applying a HPF, mono:ing the bass, using D-esser, and other things done in the preparation to avoid problems with both making the vinyl and playing the vinyl. But the music itself will not sound more dynamic because of those changes, it will just affect the waveform and how it look in the measurements.

OK now that we agree that the tools are not the problem, we can make progress on the vinyl DR numbers can’t be trust claim which is still unproven. What I am showing you is that it is not It is not impossible to know whether the same masters are used in both.

If we move down to your bolded statement after my snip.

Doing this introduces a 3rd waveform into the discussion and it is not the waveform coming off the record. All the DR gains are due to the HPF inserted, so the other items can be ignored as they did not impact the DR score. If you don’t believe me you can apply them individually or all together but without the HPF and prove it to yourself.

Waveform A = digital with DR=x
Waveform B = vinyl with DR=y
Waveform C = digital with HPF applied now with DR=y

The problem is that waveform C does not equal waveform B. They just happen to have the same DR value because you engineered it to have that outcome.

This can be demonstrated several different ways. If we stick to your example:

Remove the HPF from waveform A and re-measure it. It will be back to DR=x. To be expected, it is just math.

Now apply the same process to waveform B. It will remain at DR=y. To be expected since waveform C is not the same as waveform B.

Or simply null B and C. This shows that the masters are different.

Now do the reverse.

Take a vinyl rip that you think was created from a loud digital master. Apply the above to the vinyl rip this time - so EQ the vinyl rip to the digital equivalent. The vinyl rip will now show a lower DR value if it used the same master.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Took me awhile to find a piece of music that I have on both CD and vinyl that shows the use of a limter, but I finally found one.

Foo Fighters - This Is A Call. CD first, vinyl second.



Izotope RX shows the DR to be virtually the same. A 0.3 difference in favour of the vinyl.

Now put both through MasVis.



MasVis accurately showing limiter used on both so I feel completely comfortable saying these are from the same master with the negligible gain in DR in the vinyl due to the LP cutting process.

Comments?

 

[deweydm]

Took me awhile to find a piece of music that I have on both CD and vinyl that shows the use of a limter, but I finally found one.

Foo Fighters - This Is A Call. CD first, vinyl second.

View attachment 419371 View attachment 419372

Izotope RX shows the DR to be virtually the same. A 0.3 difference in favour of the vinyl.

Now put both through MasVis.

View attachment 419373View attachment 419374

MasVis accurately showing limiter used on both so I feel completely comfortable saying these are from the same master with the negligible gain in DR in the vinyl due to the LP cutting process.

Comments?

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...lain-the-vinyl-renaissance.32420/post-2009001:

Came across this recently, from https://gearspace.com/board/showpost.php?p=1706712&postcount=20, regarding the cutting of a Foo Fighters LP: “I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received from Bob Ludwig for the most part had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from.”

 

[MatrixS2000]

Thanks deweydm.

Here are the DR Traces.



The ripped vinyl is this release.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

There’s also the issue that many of us listening to vinyl, like myself, are listening via loudspeakers. I think that could cover up for some sins. I suspect I’d probably hear more artefacts if I was listening via really high-quality headphones.

Oh yeah, I actually tried "for fun", to listen to some LPs through my headphones and I really felt like a fool. So many of the issues proper to vinyl are magnified with headphones...

 

[Robin L]

Oh yeah, I actually tried "for fun", to listen to some LPs through my headphones and I really felt like a fool. So many of the issues proper to vinyl are magnified with headphones...

But it's the best way to find out if you've got a really clean copy.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

But it's the best way to find out if you've got a really clean copy.

Oh yeah, I bet, you're right

 

[Smaestro]

So aggregators (I'm not sure what the are, but they seem to be clearing houses to place tracks on different services) require multiple masters. Clearly, multiple masters are used. On the other hand, I found mastering engineers and people self-mastering making clear that they have one production master for everything.

What are Aggregators
Aggregators are distributors, transporting music, metadata and artwork from the Master right owners, to 150+ Streaming Services (Apple, Spotify, etc..).
Master right owners are record labels or individuals, who are either also the copyright owners, or have a license agreement to the copyright. I'm going to call Masterright owners "the Artist" for brevity.
Aggregators are paid by the Artist for this distribution service.

Spoiler: More info on aggregators - only for die-hard fans of this topic

Aggregators exist to make it easier for The Artist to distribute music and for services to recieve it. There are over 200 streaming platforms, and Aggregators push your music to each one of them. There also used to be a time where anyone could upload their song to Spotify, but Spotify and other services didn't want to deal with the massive influx of music delivered in the wrong format, with inapproriate artwork etc, so Aggregators are basically a quality control gate for the streaming services.

This is a little pedantic from me, but they are not a clearing house in the sense that a clearing house manages funds and products between two parties. In this case, it's a one way street, no money or product flows from the streaming service back to the aggregator or master right owner. There are some aggregators who do offer to collect mechanical royalties and performance rights, but that's them taking the role of a Publisher and is seperate.
Inb4 someone claims I've used the wrong terminology, the whole system of music rights differs immensely per country so I chose the most country agnostic terms.

Multiple masters?
Aggregators do not require multiple masters, ever. Streaming services do:

• Apple doesn't demand Atmos mixes, but greatly encourages the Artist to do so, giving those songs more preference in their music discovery algorithms.
• Qobuz accepts and offers up to 192kHz 24bit files.
• Yet Spotify doesn't accept higher sample- and bitrates than 44.1kHz 16bit.

You can have a single master, and it'll have to be 44.1kHz 16bit WAV, as that is the one format every service accepts. However, it is clear that you cannot have just one master if you want an optimal release of the music. In this case the Artist would supply the three different master formats to the Aggregator, who then sends the right version to the streaming services.

Spoiler: Additional info about mastering formats, only for the die-hards

Both the Qobuz and the Spotify master are the same music, apart from the sample- and bitrate. Legally they must be the same thing, yet in practice they can differ. An Aggregator is not going to listen to the files to see if they are the same, as long as they are the same length it gets a pass. A 24-bit master for Qobuz could be mastered in a more dynamic way than the general purpose 16-bit master, but I don't know if that is common practice.

Lower quality versions (of the master) are handled by the Service, ie. Spotify transfers the WAV to an OGG and reduces the bitrate, not the Aggregator or the Artist.

 

[Galliardist]

What are Aggregators
Aggregators are distributors, transporting music, metadata and artwork from the Master right owners, to 150+ Streaming Services (Apple, Spotify, etc..).
Master right owners are record labels or individuals, who are either also the copyright owners, or have a license agreement to the copyright. I'm going to call Masterright owners "the Artist" for brevity.
Aggregators are paid by the Artist for this distribution service.

Spoiler: More info on aggregators - only for die-hard fans of this topic

Aggregators exist to make it easier for The Artist to distribute music and for services to recieve it. There are over 200 streaming platforms, and Aggregators push your music to each one of them. There also used to be a time where anyone could upload their song to Spotify, but Spotify and other services didn't want to deal with the massive influx of music delivered in the wrong format, with inapproriate artwork etc, so Aggregators are basically a quality control gate for the streaming services.

This is a little pedantic from me, but they are not a clearing house in the sense that a clearing house manages funds and products between two parties. In this case, it's a one way street, no money or product flows from the streaming service back to the aggregator or master right owner. There are some aggregators who do offer to collect mechanical royalties and performance rights, but that's them taking the role of a Publisher and is seperate.
Inb4 someone claims I've used the wrong terminology, the whole system of music rights differs immensely per country so I chose the most country agnostic terms.

Multiple masters?
Aggregators do not require multiple masters, ever. Streaming services do:

• Apple doesn't demand Atmos mixes, but greatly encourages the Artist to do so, giving those songs more preference in their music discovery algorithms.
• Qobuz accepts and offers up to 192kHz 24bit files.
• Yet Spotify doesn't accept higher sample- and bitrates than 44.1kHz 16bit.

You can have a single master, and it'll have to be 44.1kHz 16bit WAV, as that is the one format every service accepts. However, it is clear that you cannot have just one master if you want an optimal release of the music. In this case the Artist would supply the three different master formats to the Aggregator, who then sends the right version to the streaming services.

Spoiler: Additional info about mastering formats, only for the die-hards

Both the Qobuz and the Spotify master are the same music, apart from the sample- and bitrate. Legally they must be the same thing, yet in practice they can differ. An Aggregator is not going to listen to the files to see if they are the same, as long as they are the same length it gets a pass. A 24-bit master for Qobuz could be mastered in a more dynamic way than the general purpose 16-bit master, but I don't know if that is common practice.

Lower quality versions (of the master) are handled by the Service, ie. Spotify transfers the WAV to an OGG and reduces the bitrate, not the Aggregator or the Artist.

Thanks. I’m at a Summer School right now and so not going into the detail I normally would…

 

[goat76]

OK now that we agree that the tools are not the problem, we can make progress on the vinyl DR numbers can’t be trust claim which is still unproven. What I am showing you is that it is not It is not impossible to know whether the same masters are used in both.

I just want to point out that I have never had any distrust in the digital measuring tools, so there is really nothing new to agree on about that. If you think the discussion has been about that, you have missed the point all along.

Again, the problem is not the tools themselves, the tools just happen to see the higher peaks the vinyl-specific preparations has caused, and the phase shifts that come with that.

I’m sure you can see the brick-wall limitation in the vinyl rip in the picture below, and that it is perfectly time-alined with the same brick-wall limitation in the CD version. This means without any doubt that the same brick-walk limited master was used also for the vinyl version, but you would never know that just by just looking at the DR numbers everyone is looking at on the DR database website, and that is what makes it untrustworthy. No one except a few people like you and me will ever go beyond that and analyze it further, which is needed to know for sure if the master used were the same or not for the vinyl release as it was for the digital release.

If we move down to your bolded statement after my snip.

Doing this introduces a 3rd waveform into the discussion and it is not the waveform coming off the record. All the DR gains are due to the HPF inserted, so the other items can be ignored as they did not impact the DR score. If you don’t believe me you can apply them individually or all together but without the HPF and prove it to yourself.

Waveform A = digital with DR=x
Waveform B = vinyl with DR=y
Waveform C = digital with HPF applied now with DR=y

The problem is that waveform C does not equal waveform B. They just happen to have the same DR value because you engineered it to have that outcome.

This can be demonstrated several different ways. If we stick to your example:

Remove the HPF from waveform A and re-measure it. It will be back to DR=x. To be expected, it is just math.

Now apply the same process to waveform B. It will remain at DR=y. To be expected since waveform C is not the same as waveform B.

Or simply null B and C. This shows that the masters are different.

Now do the reverse.

Take a vinyl rip that you think was created from a loud digital master. Apply the above to the vinyl rip this time - so EQ the vinyl rip to the digital equivalent. The vinyl rip will now show a lower DR value if it used the same master.

None of that will be something anyone else except a very few would do, it doesn't matter much if you or me will figure out a somewhat complicated way to analyze if a vinyl release used the same or a different master than the digital release, as everyone else will keep on making comparisons just based on the numbers they see on the DR loudness-war database. So no, the DR numbers can’t be trusted when looking at the larger picture.



P.S. Right now I’m sitting on a beautiful beach in Thailand far far away from any analyzing tools, so I can’t test anything at the moment.

 

[MatrixS2000]

I just want to point out that I have never had any distrust in the digital measuring tools, so there is really nothing new to agree on about that. If you think the discussion has been about that, you have missed the point all along.

I am not missing the point, I am walking you to my point. So I have snipped off everything below because I understand what you are saying and agree with you in a larger context. I will come to where we diverge in a moment.

First, DAMN I am jealous of your location right now! It is -17C feeling like -27C here in the great white north.

None of that will be something anyone else except a very few would do, it doesn't matter much if you or me will figure out a somewhat complicated way to analyze if a vinyl release used the same or a different master than the digital release, as everyone else will keep on making comparisons just based on the numbers they see on the DR loudness-war database. So no, the DR numbers can’t be trusted when looking at the larger picture.

Agreed! This is complete nerd stuff! But where we diverge is that I know I can trust the tools even for vinyl rips. What I keep pointing out to you is that using a HPF to simulate what happens in the vinyl cutting process is flawed because it has attenuated the bass thus creating a 3rd waveform that will never be on any record. So you spoofed the DR # but you didn’t spoof what the cutting lathe put on the vinyl.

Ian describes the proper way to simulate this in the comments section of that video. Here is a screen capture of that comment:

So you need to re-run your simulation without the HPF inserted and use a digital APF. The outcome is already known however, the DR value will remain at the original DR number because all of the DR gains shown in your simulation are due to the HPF, not the vinyl cutting process.

As for the last sentence in that screenshot - very carefully chosen words in my opinion. If he had used any of the tools that measure DR based on PSR, such as his own Dynameter, the vinyl DR numbers would match the CD DR numbers when the same masters are used, as I have shown with the Foo Fighters example. So we should all use the better tools to measure DR. Izotope RX, Adaptr Audio and Dynameter are all examples of those tools.

PS. Just so we are clear, if we were in the same room I would still hand you a cold beer at any point throughout this conversation - for me it is about getting to the bottom of this. I am comfortable that I am there but welcome the scrutiny in case I am not.

 

[MattHooper]

This sound engineer produced another video about vinyl, this time potshots at analogue purists.

FWIW, at around 11:00 minutes he discusses his own approach to engineering for digital versus vinyl releases, in which she discusses why he compresses dynamic range in digital releases, but does not do so for the vinyl versions:

 

[J.M. Noble]

This sound engineer produced another video about vinyl, this time potshots at analogue purists.

FWIW, at around 11:00 minutes he discusses his own approach to engineering for digital versus vinyl releases, in which she discusses why he compresses dynamic range in digital releases, but does not do so for the vinyl versions:

Yep, as I mentioned above: the economics of loudness dictates smashed releases for digital formats.

 

[MattHooper]

apropos of… I dunno….vinyl….

I was trying out an image maker being used by other vinyl enthusiast to show their record collections. It goes through your collection and collects all the cover images and put it all into one zoomable image.

DisCovers

Visualising your Discogs.com collection.

discovers.antisound.net

For some reason, I wasn’t able to get it to make a single image of my whole collection. I just had to make a few images via selecting “ genre.” I’d say the “ genre” orientation seems a bit haphazard.

Still, it’s kind of neat. Especially since you can zoom in towards the covers and while not perfectly clear you can at least get a better look at the covers.

I’ve always felt that if I really hated somebody, I would give them my vinyl collection. It’s where my music devouring is at its most idiosyncratic. I think there’s little in there that many people would like or want or even recognize.

Here’s an image of the covers that the program found under the genre “ stage and screen.”
It seemed to collect many of my soundtrack vinyl, and it’s also completely infested with my Library music records, which makes sense because they were made for movies TV and commercials. The records were made as samples sent to editors to select premade, dramatic, music tracks, and had never been released to the public. Many of which are not found in digital releases.

These were the album covers collected under the genre “Electronic Music.” Again, seems a bit haphazard with quite a bit of guesswork:

 

[goat76]

I am not missing the point, I am walking you to my point. So I have snipped off everything below because I understand what you are saying and agree with you in a larger context. I will come to where we diverge in a moment.

First, DAMN I am jealous of your location right now! It is -17C feeling like -27C here in the great white north.

Where do you live, what city?

Agreed! This is complete nerd stuff! But where we diverge is that I know I can trust the tools even for vinyl rips. What I keep pointing out to you is that using a HPF to simulate what happens in the vinyl cutting process is flawed because it has attenuated the bass thus creating a 3rd waveform that will never be on any record. So you spoofed the DR # but you didn’t spoof what the cutting lathe put on the vinyl.

Ian describes the proper way to simulate this in the comments section of that video. Here is a screen capture of that comment:

View attachment 419606

So you need to re-run your simulation without the HPF inserted and use a digital APF. The outcome is already known however, the DR value will remain at the original DR number because all of the DR gains shown in your simulation are due to the HPF, not the vinyl cutting process.

The pictures I posted of the “My Silver Lining” song isn't from a “simulation”, it shows a real CD release vs a real vinyl rip so there isn't any HPF to turn off.

As for the last sentence in that screenshot - very carefully chosen words in my opinion. If he had used any of the tools that measure DR based on PSR, such as his own Dynameter, the vinyl DR numbers would match the CD DR numbers when the same masters are used, as I have shown with the Foo Fighters example. So we should all use the better tools to measure DR. Izotope RX, Adaptr Audio and Dynameter are all examples of those tools.

PS. Just so we are clear, if we were in the same room I would still hand you a cold beer at any point throughout this conversation - for me it is about getting to the bottom of this. I am comfortable that I am there but welcome the scrutiny in case I am not.

What I call ‘the same master’, is when the same original master was definitely used and that traces of that can be seen in the measurements, the original master as in before the typical things where done to make that original master suit the vinyl release, as is the case with the track “My Silver Lining”. Technically-wise, those things made to suit the vinyl make it of course a new master.

But as I said, it's the traces that shows that the same original master was used for both the releases that I see as the main interesting thing, and as most vinyl-specific mastering processes will contain the use of an HPF which will in most cases give that higher DR reading, there is not much point in finding one of the few vinyl releases where an HPF wasn't used as in the example with the song by the Foo Fighters when speaking in general terms. In general, most vinyl rips show a higher DR than their digital counterpart, and without further investigation it's impossible to know if they are truly more dynamic or not just based on that number, and that's what most people look at.