I have often wondered (and perhaps it has been tried) is to generate an IR of the cartridge/arm/TT/RIAA eq and simply convolve with the digital recording and see whether the analog bliss is present. I have certainly listened to FLAC recordings on You Tube of favorite albums played back through HI-Rez gear. Left me unmoved, but I can't rule out that there was something amiss in the process.
More like three decades since the Meridian DSP/active was released.
Could it be argued that « same source material » do not mean same mastering? Even if the reel to reel tapes are just transfered unprocessed, which is rare, could it be argued that the simple transfer from one medium to the next is also part of what constitue mastering? It’s not made with the same electronic chain, without the same physical restrrictions. I also think they never fully sound the same but is there really such a thing as a digital « original master » ? Just thinking out loud even if a cd is theoretically capable of reproducinh 100% of what has been cut to vynil, I do feel that if the output where to be rerecorded, the two files would not be the same, further more than with vinyl, different cartridges and tables already sound different between them. So in the end, even if the mastering is claimed to have been left untouched. you are not listening to the same thing.The funny thing is that I'd quickly opine that the LP sounds different (as opposed to better or worse) relative to a CD made from the same source material... but that's a whole can of worms, too, isn't it?
Round about way of saying the whole analog disk chain is not capable of even consistent fidelity. Various tables etc vary from each other much more so than various bits of digital gear.
Yes, of course. but my point is that what’s consistent in all that, it consistently don’t sound the same. Mastering in vinyl days was quite an art, and for the mastering engineers of the time where doing their thing toward a work of art. that was to be enjoyed on that medium, and it could sound very good with proper « hifi » gear of the time. When listening the same work transfered to digital, it don’t sound the same. what you are experiencing can sound very good, but there is no such thing as « objectively sounding better ». Obviously more high fidelity, yes, but fidel to what? That would be fidel to what the artist wanted you to hear no? When you can demonstrate that there is difference, rigorously there can also be preference.
(yes I probably am cutting this quote out of context, sorry)
So much "mastering" was simply to work around the limitations of vinyl. In fact that is what invented mastering. You had to alter the tape source so it could produce a master disk. And the input to most mastering was just whatever the mastering engineer thought best.
There is no doubt about the superiority of digital reproduction. That's sorted, but if we forget that for a second, just for kicks and we talk art for a second. Mastering engineers of the time, had to make up for the limitations of the medium. Yes, the form it would take was influenced by that and they where hoping to reach some people with superior gear to be able to get the experience as close as possible.
Earlier mastering guys had to have it translate over 5 inch or 6x9 car speakers with maybe 2 wpc, or little mono earphones on pocket transistor radios. Or alarm clock tabletop radios or other small audio devices. So no big difference vs now.
You bring some good point, but no, no mastering engineers worthy of that name whether they are Hit oriented or not, only care about reaching the mass and don't care of all the subtelties Hi fidelity brings. None. Also no reproduction systems of the time was rolling off at about 400Hz like a phone speaker does.
You think this baby had heavy low end response and sparkling highs from its 3 inch full range paper speaker? These GE's or similar Zeniths were everywhere at one time I mean just everywhere.
Got you, I agree I was the one taking this side track, ok yes the masters where also tested trough shit boxes, I give it to you. But people actually buying vinyls where listening trough good (for the time) audio system. That’s all I’m saying. There was people that cared abouut fidelity and good sound.You think this baby had heavy low end response and sparkling highs from its 3 inch full range paper speaker? These GE's or similar Zeniths were everywhere at one time I mean just everywhere.
View attachment 158884
And if you were young or wanted portable music, which of course everyone did, maybe you'd have one of these pocket transistor radios which also were just everywhere at the time. Complete with 1 and 3/4 inch speaker.
No, they weren't. You are missing part of what I'm describing. Records were popular because they were cheap, and convenient above all else at the time. The tremendous overwhelming majority of the LP buying public has an all in one multi-disc player or maybe an actual separate, but low quality TT feeding an all in one console stereo or maybe even the big home stereo furniture consoles with a record player built into them.
Yep, audiophiles where a niche then as they are a niche now. Not all audiophile now purchase DSD content. Not all audiophiles then purchased reel to reel. Matter of dedication, money and many more factors. Audiophile just means caring about good sound.
You couldn't master from the same source if you wanted to get the best possible results from both media. The master for the vinyl lathe needs to be fairly severely compromised to not cause issues with the cutting gear.
music.tutsplus.com
