-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?
- Thread starter carewser
- Start date
Of the several hundred original LP's I have compared to later re-mastered digital versions RUSH by far has the biggest variation between the original LP and later digital versions. I have read that in the US at least the original LP's were mastered with lots of EQ on Geddy Lee's voice in order for it to "stand out" on the radio. Later remastered releases have trended toward less EQ. This brings up an old discussion on this thread of "what is original" the master tape or the released version which sold millions of copies and made the song famous. I always like to hear the "original" LP version both because it is the version I grew up listening to so it "sounds right" and to gain some historical and artistic context of what sound made the song famous in the first place.
Check out linked original Rush 2112 LP version vs Qobuz version. If you never heard the original version it may be a shock.... but to me it sounds "right" and the modern toned down version sounds "wrong".
While not a large reason for the renaissance "hearing the original" is part of the appeal for me and others as I see this discussed quite a bit on some forums (mostly SH).
Box
app.box.com
After adjusting the loudness to the same -14 LUFS, I listened to your sound files and I also prefer the LP version, in direct comparisons the version from Qobuz sounds pretty muffled and boring. But it's quite easy to equalize it to sound very close to how the LP version sounds, well, except for that last bit of transient response in the drums that is missing in the Qobuz version, which makes them sound a little bit more natural in the LP version.
Here are the files I adjusted to the same loudness level of -14 LUFS.
LP version:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/plhm...ey=m6u8r99n08falc6sue5a7pcum&st=jfm4ue9i&dl=0
Qobuz version:
Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
Qobuz version equalized to match LP version:
Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
So both are the same source ? Only your copy cleand up the (Click Repair probably or Audacity?) original source probably the YouTube source? Than that is a excellent job.
The jazz album is not the same copy as that in the Youtube; that was done by someone having the same LP. I found my LP when catalogued it in Discogs, never played it before but it is a gift from a friend who got rid of his LP jazz collection many years ago. So it it an old and used copy. I washed it by ultrasonic cleaning and gave it a mild click-repair. (I think it needs multiple washes to get rid of the pops and ticks.) I think it is quite listenable, although some distortion can be heard. Piano is not the easiest for LP playback.
Ah ok so the YouTube source can't be verified regarding quality (wornout bit depth etc etc) your LP probably also without ciick Repair sounds prestine.
Hiromi - Temptation 100% digital (recorded on the Sonoma DSD Workstation with EMM Labs Converters) But as YouTube source. When i compare the Telarc cd version can't hear a big difference. For that matter any cd or lossless high resolution source i even convert to mp3 320 you can fool me.
Last edited:
I had a copy of Rush 2112 growing up and played it often and it was also in heavy rotation on the radio so the original mastering is burned into my brain and is going to sound "right" to me. If I never heard it before I am not sure which version I would prefer, the original certainly changes the vocals and while it is a unique sound they are not what I would call "natural" or "accurate". None the less this is the "sound" that sold millions of records and made Rush famous so why did they change the sound? If you check the DR it also dropped from 13 to 8 but that is much less noticeable than the EQ changes.After adjusting the loudness to the same -14 LUFS, I listened to your sound files and I also prefer the LP version, in direct comparisons the version from Qobuz sounds pretty muffled and boring. But it's quite easy to equalize it to sound very close to how the LP version sounds, well, except for that last bit of transient response in the drums that is missing in the Qobuz version, which makes them sound a little bit more natural in the LP version.
Here are the files I adjusted to the same loudness level of -14 LUFS.
LP version:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/plhm...ey=m6u8r99n08falc6sue5a7pcum&st=jfm4ue9i&dl=0
Qobuz version:
Dropbox
Qobuz version equalized to match LP version:
Dropbox
View attachment 421765
View attachment 421766
View attachment 421767
To me it seems that the albums that are the most changed from their original "sound" are the most famous and Iconic. I guess that makes sense as they are the ones that they are trying to "resell" over and over so they have to change them so people won't be disappointed is they don't hear a difference. Some of the most egregious example to me are Frank Sinatra "For Swingin Lovers", Fleetwood Mac "Rumours", and some of the Beatles remasters / remixes. There are many more to lesser or greater degrees.
For me I never buy "new" vinyl and just buy "Original Pressings" of some of my famous old music to get some historical and artistic context. I doubt this is a big factor in the renaissance but the "connection with history" is at least part of the appeal for many vinyl enthusiasts.
MatrixS2000
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2023
- Messages
- 268
- Likes
- 179
Are you sure they didn’t hold Geddy Lee underwater for the Qobuz version?Of the several hundred original LP's I have compared to later re-mastered digital versions RUSH by far has the biggest variation between the original LP and later digital versions. I have read that in the US at least the original LP's were mastered with lots of EQ on Geddy Lee's voice in order for it to "stand out" on the radio. Later remastered releases have trended toward less EQ. This brings up an old discussion on this thread of "what is original" the master tape or the released version which sold millions of copies and made the song famous. I always like to hear the "original" LP version both because it is the version I grew up listening to so it "sounds right" and to gain some historical and artistic context of what sound made the song famous in the first place.
Check out linked original Rush 2112 LP version vs Qobuz version. If you never heard the original version it may be a shock.... but to me it sounds "right" and the modern toned down version sounds "wrong".
While not a large reason for the renaissance "hearing the original" is part of the appeal for me and others as I see this discussed quite a bit on some forums (mostly SH).
Box
I also preferred the LP version.
sa
The Youtube version seems rather clean with respect to clicks/pops, it suffers more from background noise. I am quite sure it will be more silent after a good clean•decent playback system.Ah ok so the YouTube source can't be verified regarding quality (wornout bit depth etc etc) your LP probably also without ciick Repair sounds prestine.
Hiromi - Temptation 100% digital (recorded on the Sonoma DSD Workstation with EMM Labs Converters) But as YouTube source. When i compare the Telarc cd version can't hear a big difference. For that matter any cd or lossless high resolution source i even convert to mp3 320 you can fool me.
It's of course way more than the vocals that are affected by the large differences between the masters for this song. To get the digital version to match the vinyl version you have, there are pretty drastic changes needed for the full range as can be seen in the picture below.
While I prefer the vinyl version to the version found on Qobuz, I still think the vinyl version sounds unnaturally thin and lacks "body".
I made a modified version where I added back about 1.5 dB of energy to that carved-out area you see in the picture above (80 Hz to 700 Hz), and I think it now sounds better than both the vinyl version and the Qobuz version. What do you think?
Modified version:
Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
.
Yeah, I started out with vinyl (mostly along with my parents), then cassettes came into the picture and pretty much dominated, then into CD's (which for all intents and purposes, killed cassettes off).Yeah I didn't think most turntables were as mechanically intricate as your Duals. I really don't have much experience with turntables like those one. I seemed to remember most young people like myself at the time were using cassettes in the early 80s for the mobility factor.
It's partly my fault it drifted into cars, but I do think it's analogous to the interest in vintage records and turntables. I enjoyed the pics. I think we have similar interests and good tastes in machines
When they started with the mp3's I started to loose interest in "re-buying" all my music again for a 4th time just so I could drag it around in Steve Jobs money making machines (that whole limewire fiasco aside).
I generally just enjoy music in whatever format I find it in now, since I've got the enough gear hanging around to play any of it.
I'll even buy compact cassettes if I find something I like. I keep a Pioneer CT-F750 for that:
Certainly not a "high water mark" for cassette players, but it was bought for pretty much peanuts and another fun teardown/rebuild. The transport is pretty much all metal components, which appealed to me like the mechanisms under the Dual turntables. The 750 sounds fine to me (for what it is), which is all I generally worry about. Compact cassettes are only ever going to sound so good anyways....no need to waste even more money on a... "desirable"...deck.
Most of my cassettes are ones I bought back in the 80's and have just kept them around all this time:
Most people seemed to dump their physical media when the next format came out back then. I'd toss them in a box and keep them in the closet or something like that. Did the same with CD's also. heck, I've even got some of Dad's old 8 tracks in storage. Kinda learned from my parents that if you paid money for something, make sure you can't use it anymore if you are going to throw it out.
I'll even still pick one up if I run across something I'll listen to. They're certainly still inexpensive enough in the thrift stores and such here. You can pick up 3 or 4 for less than a cup of coffee. Not too much risk there even if it turns out they are totally ruined.
Cassettes certainly have their limitations, but are fun to mess with all the same. Oddly enough, they've having a "mini renaissance" of sorts. Nothing like vinyl has, but prices are going up on old decks, especially anything considered "top end" like Nakamichi....those are getting silly prices. Not sure why, but they're getting it all the same. Maybe the "cassette generation" is coming around to wanting to recapture some of that old nostalgia for the medium. No real way to explain nostalgia, it's just something that seems happen for it's own reasons....
Last edited:
I think the first master/first release is obviously the "original" for various reasons, and any later remasters are not the original. No end users ever hears the premaster right? So how would an end user really know if a remaster sounds more like the unmastered recording than the original master does? Apologies if I'm misconstruing the recording process which I don't know much aboutOf the several hundred original LP's I have compared to later re-mastered digital versions RUSH by far has the biggest variation between the original LP and later digital versions. I have read that in the US at least the original LP's were mastered with lots of EQ on Geddy Lee's voice in order for it to "stand out" on the radio. Later remastered releases have trended toward less EQ. This brings up an old discussion on this thread of "what is original" the master tape or the released version which sold millions of copies and made the song famous. I always like to hear the "original" LP version both because it is the version I grew up listening to so it "sounds right" and to gain some historical and artistic context of what sound made the song famous in the first place.
Check out linked original Rush 2112 LP version vs Qobuz version. If you never heard the original version it may be a shock.... but to me it sounds "right" and the modern toned down version sounds "wrong".
While not a large reason for the renaissance "hearing the original" is part of the appeal for me and others as I see this discussed quite a bit on some forums (mostly SH).
Box
. Anyway I don't usually think I like remasters that noticeably change the first release's sound.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Messages
- 2,789
- Likes
- 4,545
You are correct. This is the famous "circle of confusion". Some people here have had access to original master tapes, however.I think the first master/first release is obviously the "original" for various reasons, and any later remasters are not the original. No end users ever hears the premaster right? So how would an end user really know if a remaster sounds more like the unmastered recording than the original master? Apologies if I'm misconstruing the recording process which I don't know much about
Looks like nice vintage cassette decks. I guess I'm a mostly cassette generation. I wouldn't think most from that era would have nostalgia for cassettes but the younger streaming generation might. I'm not sure. CDs were such an improvement over cassettes, other than recording at least initially, I'm stuck in the CD era lol. For me you can't go home again with cassettes. When I used cassettes back in the day, it wasn't for sound quality not really better than FM but because I wanted to be able play the same song or album over and over again. I'm still listening to the same 70s and 80s music, and have no interests in playing the same songs and albums repeatedly, besides CD or streaming is much better for that.Yeah, I started out with vinyl (mostly along with my parents), then cassettes came into the picture and pretty much dominated, then into CD's and when they started with the mp3's i started to loose interest in "re-buying" all my music again for a 4th time just so I could drag it around in Steve Jobs money making machines (lime wire aside..ugh, talk about crappy sound).
I generally just enjoy music in whatever format I find it in now, since I've got the enough gear hanging around to play any of it.
I'll even buy compact cassettes if I find something I like. I keep a Pioneer CT-F750 for that:
View attachment 421863
Certainly not a "high water mark" for cassette players, but it was bought for pretty much peanuts and another fun teardown/rebuild. The transport is pretty much all metal components, which appealed to me like the mechanisms under the Dual turntables. The 750 sounds fine to me (for what it is), which is all I generally worry about.
Most of my cassettes are ones I bought back in the 80's and have just kept them around all this time:
View attachment 421868
Most people seemed to dump their physical media when the next format came out back then. I'd toss them in a box and keep them in the closet or something like that. Did the same with CD's also. heck, I've even got some of Dad's old 8 tracks in storage. Kinda learned from my parents that if you paid money for something, make sure you can't use it anymore if you are going to throw it out.
I'll even still pick one up if I run across something I'll listen to. They're certainly still inexpensive enough in the thrift stores and such here. You can pick up 3 or 4 for less than a cup of coffee. Not too much risk there even if it turns out they are totally ruined.
Cassettes certainly have their limitations, but are fun to mess with all the same. Oddly enough, they've having a "mini renaissance" of sorts. Nothing like vinyl has, but prices are going up on old decks, especially anything considered "top end" like Nakamichi....those are getting silly prices. Not sure why, but they're getting it all the same. Maybe the "cassette generation" is coming around to wanting to recapture some of that old nostalgia for the medium. No real way to explain nostalgia, it's just something that happens....
So I'm guessing for the younger generations they are not only hearing the music on a new to them vintage source, cassette or records, but maybe hearing new to them music too and the way it was originally played back. Us older generations already been there done that.
It's good to see you're putting that vintage gear to use and not just leaving it in storage
.
Last edited:
I don't really listen to cassettes that much. I usually play LP or CD's.Looks like nice vintage cassette decks. I guess I'm a mostly cassette generation. I wouldn't think most from that era would have nostalgia for cassettes but the younger streaming generation might. I'm not sure. CDs were such an improvement over cassettes, other than recording at least initially, I'm stuck in the CD era lol. For me you can't go home again with cassettes. When I used cassettes back in the day, it wasn't for sound quality not really better than FM but because I wanted to be able play the same song or album over and over again. I'm still listening to the same 70s and 80s music, and have no interests in playing the same songs and albums repeatedly, besides CD or streaming is much better for that.
So I'm guessing for the younger generations they are not only hearing the music on a new to them vintage source, cassette or records, but maybe hearing new to them music too and the way it was originally played back. Us older generations already been there done that.
It's good to see you're putting that vintage gear to use and not just leaving it in storage
But I do play a tape now and then to keep the mechanisms "lubricated" and the belts pliable. Would be a waste to let it all deteriorate again after the effort (and $$) to rebuild it.
It's usually the Alanna Myles tape you see in the picture. I saw her live in my university pub the year she released that album. I bought the cassette off a table of merch they had setup in the back. I think they had CD's there too, but I was still "fighting the industry switch" at the time....
So it's an nice trip down memory lane now and then. The tape is even not that bad.....all things considered.
MatrixS2000
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2023
- Messages
- 268
- Likes
- 179
This is the reason why I EQ all of my needle drops.
Did you base your eq off the qobuz version? You can see the compression in play in the attached video. You can hear it particularly in the drumming.
Here is a link to the same segment of my EQ’d needle drop based off the 2015 remaster. Also included 3 vector scope captures to show the compression differences between each version.
Dropbox link
Robin L
Master Contributor
I found the all-digital 16/44.1 version on Tidal, compared the LP transfer of the finale to the all-digital version. My takeaway is that the LP transfer has treble issues, a veiled quality that might be in part due to distortion, or it might be due to a different frequency response from the phono cartridge/mastering. In either case, the all-digital version sounds better to these ears.Regarding the Spivakov;
I found a digital remaster on Youtube, please have a listen from 6:18 on the orchestra violins::
My vinyl copy:
Dropbox
Well I am not suprised about that, Do you have any more info of the Tidal version? Is it transferred directly from the master tape or ”remastered”?
I do like your remaster better than either.... kind of the best of both worlds. I also have a MSFL CD of this album and I just listened to it and it sounds just like the Qobuz version. While I agree the original LP version sounds "unnatural" (as well as exciting) from what I have read that was the sound they (record company / mastering engineer) wanted in order to "stand out" on the radio. Since 2112 was Rush's "break out" album you have to wonder if the LP was mastered with less EQ if it would have been able to as successful. Of course that is a question that can never be answered.It's of course way more than the vocals that are affected by the large differences between the masters for this song. To get the digital version to match the vinyl version you have, there are pretty drastic changes needed for the full range as can be seen in the picture below.
View attachment 421862
While I prefer the vinyl version to the version found on Qobuz, I still think the vinyl version sounds unnaturally thin and lacks "body".
I made a modified version where I added back about 1.5 dB of energy to that carved-out area you see in the picture above (80 Hz to 700 Hz), and I think it now sounds better than both the vinyl version and the Qobuz version. What do you think?
Modified version:
Dropbox
.
When I listen to the various digital versions of this recording I have to wonder if any of the re-mastering engineers even listened to the original LP mastering that made this album famous or just heard the master tape in a vacuum. The later seems to be the case. I don't think the compression and the way they applied the compression helps either.
Yes, it is the Qobuz version that I had already EQ-matched to the vinyl, I just lessened the reduction in the lower midrange to get some "meat and body" back which were a bit too much recessed in both the vinyl version and the EQ-matched version.
I made a quick comparison between my equalized version and yours. Your version is a bit softer sounding while there is a bit more "bite" in mine, maybe we should send the files to the band and ask them which one of us will be their next mastering engineer.
As we seem to have a couple gents capable of some playback analysis on the thread, I was wondering if I could ask someone to have a look at the studio album of "Clockwork Angels" by RUSH?
I have nothing but my ears to critique it, some empirical data supporting or refuting my subjective impression would be welcome.
The "story":
My wife bought me the "Clockwork Angles Tour" LP's as a gift a while back. I'm more of a studio album guy, but I threw it on the turntable and gave it a listen. It was bought as a gift after all, so I did owe the missus at least a once through listen through it. As expected, tour recordings will only ever be so good (at least to my ears) but the basic music and lyrics sounded ok, so I bought the Studio album. It was Peart's last album after all.....
On to the turntable it goes and......ugh.
What...is...this?
Muddy, muddled, sounding like everything piled on top of everything else...just sounded like a mess. I did something I usually don't have to do with vinyl and turned on the 12 band EQ in my little system. After a little fiddling, I could get Geddy's voice a little clearer and Alex's guitar a bit "out of the mud". Even Peart's druming came out a little better.
Is this the way the album was engineered or is it something else? Because I like the album, but it seems like just a big mess when listening to it.
If it's the way the album was mixed/engineered, I may take a chance on it again if they release a remix, like they did with "Vapor Trails". The remix of VT sounds much better than the original release to me, so I bought it and quite enjoy it.
I'm hoping "Clockwork Angels" is another one of those types of things (where someone in the booth c@ck#d it up) because I'd really like to be able to sit down and enjoy Peart's last album/writings without wondering "what the heck happened here?"
I have nothing but my ears to critique it, some empirical data supporting or refuting my subjective impression would be welcome.
The "story":
My wife bought me the "Clockwork Angles Tour" LP's as a gift a while back. I'm more of a studio album guy, but I threw it on the turntable and gave it a listen. It was bought as a gift after all, so I did owe the missus at least a once through listen through it. As expected, tour recordings will only ever be so good (at least to my ears) but the basic music and lyrics sounded ok, so I bought the Studio album. It was Peart's last album after all.....
On to the turntable it goes and......ugh.
What...is...this?
Muddy, muddled, sounding like everything piled on top of everything else...just sounded like a mess. I did something I usually don't have to do with vinyl and turned on the 12 band EQ in my little system. After a little fiddling, I could get Geddy's voice a little clearer and Alex's guitar a bit "out of the mud". Even Peart's druming came out a little better.
Is this the way the album was engineered or is it something else? Because I like the album, but it seems like just a big mess when listening to it.
If it's the way the album was mixed/engineered, I may take a chance on it again if they release a remix, like they did with "Vapor Trails". The remix of VT sounds much better than the original release to me, so I bought it and quite enjoy it.
I'm hoping "Clockwork Angels" is another one of those types of things (where someone in the booth c@ck#d it up) because I'd really like to be able to sit down and enjoy Peart's last album/writings without wondering "what the heck happened here?"
Similar threads
