When a single vinyl album costs more than your DAC ...

[Paperdragons]

Don't get me wrong: I own a turntable + some vinyl, and I enjoy the listening experience via my vintage Harman/Kardon amp. And I'm guessing the engineering, precision, and dedication of the folks at this company are pretty remarkable.

But making vinyl albums at this price point -- "at a cost of $400 to $600 for each LP" -- is crazy. I'd say more than half of my albums I plucked out of garage sales and bargain bins for $1-$2.

Here's the article:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/arts/music/electric-recording-co-vinyl.html

Some of the high(low?) lights:

Seems a bit much. I like vinyl. More for the ritual at this point. Just throw it on and clean for a bit or that kinda thing, but 400$? Half the fun of vinyl is combing through the 1-2$ bins to find weird stuff I wouldn't on Tidal.

 

[scott wurcer]

Except this anthropologist is studying what life was like in the 1950s.

I don't understand the concept of producing "authentic 1950's" recordings on equipment from 1965. As for Furtwangler he should be doing 78's.

 

[mhardy6647]

Ahhhh... the Horrortones

So, the Lowest Common Denominator issue with pop music production values is (for lack of a better word) a trope -- and like most stereotypes (heh, see what I did there?) isn't without basis in fact.

but...

What about the many, many really well arranged, recorded, produced, mixed and mastered albums (past and present) that were/are not aimed at the pure-play audiophile market, but are just meant to be good records?

Here're a couple of relatively modern (and basically random) examples:

-- and here's a single, not-so-randomly chosen example from the Analog Age.

There are, of course, plenty of counter-examples, but there is still hope for 'pop' music recordings even in 2020 AD.

 

[hellboundlex]

I buy vinyl on Bandcamp, and it's mostly just a way for me to give money to artists.

 

[dmac6419]

vinyl don't have to be expensive,we still have records stores.Also check the thrift store.

 

[Robin L]

View attachment 62224
Ahhhh... the Horrortones

So, the Lowest Common Denominator issue with pop music production values is (for lack of a better word) a trope -- and like most stereotypes (heh, see what I did there?) isn't without basis in fact.

but...

What about the many, many really well arranged, recorded, produced, mixed and mastered albums (past and present) that were/are not aimed at the pure-play audiophile market, but are just meant to be good records?

Here're a couple of relatively modern (and basically random) examples:

View attachment 62225
View attachment 62226

-- and here's a single, not-so-randomly chosen example from the Analog Age.

View attachment 62227

There are, of course, plenty of counter-examples, but there is still hope for 'pop' music recordings even in 2020 AD.

Oh sure. But the reality is that these recordings are the exception. One could just as easily come up with examples of pop productions that sold well in spite of recorded sound quality. Like the current remaster of Off the Wall, crushed with excessive brickwalling.

 

[mhardy6647]

Oh sure. But the reality is that these recordings are the exception. One could just as easily come up with examples of pop productions that sold well in spite of recorded sound quality.

Oh -- I own more than a few of those, too.

 

[Tks]

Philosophical question: do you think it would be fair to say the "accurate" sound is what matches the mixing engineers' monitors?

I have suggested as much as a defense for studio monitors and been attacked by audiophiles before...

I'd actually say no to that question (if we're in the mood to be formulating dictionaries). The sort of accurate I am concerned with, is the one with the least amount of artifacts (distortions or noise for example) imparted on the final frequency response. Now if you are going to raise issue with how such response is determined by measurement metrics, that's fine, and would require rethinking of how things need to be measured. For instance, even if we could reproduce a literally flat response from recording to transducer transmission eventually, would it be fair to call something "accurate" if the recording was done binuarally, yet played back on a set of stereo speakers? Seems like a category error in that sense.

So my usage of accurate doesn't relate to "true to life" in strictly all senses of the notion. Accurate to me is simply a term I would employ on a technical level when evaluating if the transmission processes maintains signal fidelity. Totally irrespective of the sort of listening setup being used. There's far too many moving parts when considering the eventual final wave output (simply turning your head away from the listening position instantly tosses accuracy out the door in a speaker setup), while in a headphone setup, without personalized HRTF's it would also toss accuracy notions out the door.

Other viable way I see of establishing "accurate" sound would be a preference subjectivity evaluation. Meaning you would have to establish what accuracy would even mean definitionally yourself. The benchmark I feel would be basically involving taking listeners, placing them at a venue with live instruments playing, and then swapping the instruments for listening devices (all while blindfolding the listener of course). The moment a sizable pool of people are completely unable to distinguish between actual instruments, and listening devices being played, is the moment we can truly have the benchmark for accurate in my opinion. The only problem with this, is it would only work for that one venue (if it's speakers especially), and would only work with those strict parameters. The moment you take someone out of the room, and start doing something in another room, it can potentially present enough 'tells' for listeners to discern between fake and real.

So the benchmark is unrealistic in expectation due to pragmatic issues. Which is why I would avoid using the term accurate for anything (unless it's just vague general diction to describe, "yeah the sound is pretty good because it sounds probably what it would sound like if I was there listening to the live studio recording").

Thus, no, I would not consider studio monitors anymore accurate than I would someones monitors at home; save from doing away with things tangential to the monitors themselves, that mainly being the listening room's treatment that does away with the artifacts I spoke about before that relate to true fidelity that I spoke about earlier.

But the mixing engineer also faces a disastrous issue pertaining to accuracy.. I'd be willing to bet literally any money, that their signal chain is plagued with horrendous colorations of the initial recording, to the final signal being played. the entire workstation and the multitude of devices they use for mixing will all impart their contribution of degrading the signal. One device possibly adding distortion in the high end, another with horrid mains noise, etc.. etc... So FOR SURE what the person doing the mixing is hearing, simply isn't what you would hear if you just took the raw recording and played it back to a simple DAC and then Amp.

So this notion of accuracy in the studio falls flat pretty quick from my take on the word. But that's okay, seeing as how there aren't currently ways around it unless these music companies want to contract people like Benchmark/RME/THX in collaborations to create the best performing consoles possible, and emulation of the recording room, and a person at a fixed position in such room. The point where accuracy matters, isn't necessarily "the sound as if I were listening in the recording room myself", as that's just not going to happen, nor could you verify the sound differences even if you could be there and memorize the sound. The point at which accuracy matters, is from the finished audio product, then being sent to consumers. And there, is where you want "accuracy" (which is really just fidelity, and the stuff I talked about like room treatment, or just high performance gear to do away with artifacts). So if your interest is to hear what the mics are "hearing" up in the recording room. Forget it, no one is getting that accuracy, not even the guy at the console. But if your interest is to hear what the engineer is hearing, then yes, accuracy can be something you could try chasing, and is what I think what people are actually attempting to do without literally have to elaborate as much as I have all aspects of this notion.

None of this stuff actually matters at the end of the day, since rooms/listening devices are always seemingly going to be the factor that removes notions of "complete accuracy" out the window anyway. And verifying you are hearing something live vs something pre-recorded is practically too demanding for every single instance when listening is conducted.

 

[hellboundlex]

None of this stuff actually matters at the end of the day, since rooms/listening devices are always seemingly going to be the factor that removes notions of "complete accuracy" out the window anyway. And verifying you are hearing something live vs something pre-recorded is practically too demanding for every single instance when listening is conducted.

Thank you for your response and thoughts!

I have been thinking about "accuracy" a lot lately while listening, like everyone else, to Fiona Apple's new album. On the one hand, the album sounds closterfobic as of recorded in a tiny home studio (it was), on the other this gives it a definite sense of space. On the one hand, it was mixed in garage band, on the other hand it is a masterpiece of mixing. It sounds terrible. It sounds amazing. It is, a joy to listen to on nice headphones or speakers, but at the same time it is a critique in its own way of nice speakers and headphones.

Back on topic, I really appreciate your take and response, and it helps me keep perspective in this hobby.

 

[levimax]

I'd actually say no to that question (if we're in the mood to be formulating dictionaries). The sort of accurate I am concerned with, is the one with the least amount of artifacts (distortions or noise for example) imparted on the final frequency response. Now if you are going to raise issue with how such response is determined by measurement metrics, that's fine, and would require rethinking of how things need to be measured. For instance, even if we could reproduce a literally flat response from recording to transducer transmission eventually, would it be fair to call something "accurate" if the recording was done binuarally, yet played back on a set of stereo speakers? Seems like a category error in that sense.

So my usage of accurate doesn't relate to "true to life" in strictly all senses of the notion. Accurate to me is simply a term I would employ on a technical level when evaluating if the transmission processes maintains signal fidelity. Totally irrespective of the sort of listening setup being used. There's far too many moving parts when considering the eventual final wave output (simply turning your head away from the listening position instantly tosses accuracy out the door in a speaker setup), while in a headphone setup, without personalized HRTF's it would also toss accuracy notions out the door.

Other viable way I see of establishing "accurate" sound would be a preference subjectivity evaluation. Meaning you would have to establish what accuracy would even mean definitionally yourself. The benchmark I feel would be basically involving taking listeners, placing them at a venue with live instruments playing, and then swapping the instruments for listening devices (all while blindfolding the listener of course). The moment a sizable pool of people are completely unable to distinguish between actual instruments, and listening devices being played, is the moment we can truly have the benchmark for accurate in my opinion. The only problem with this, is it would only work for that one venue (if it's speakers especially), and would only work with those strict parameters. The moment you take someone out of the room, and start doing something in another room, it can potentially present enough 'tells' for listeners to discern between fake and real.

So the benchmark is unrealistic in expectation due to pragmatic issues. Which is why I would avoid using the term accurate for anything (unless it's just vague general diction to describe, "yeah the sound is pretty good because it sounds probably what it would sound like if I was there listening to the live studio recording").

Thus, no, I would not consider studio monitors anymore accurate than I would someones monitors at home; save from doing away with things tangential to the monitors themselves, that mainly being the listening room's treatment that does away with the artifacts I spoke about before that relate to true fidelity that I spoke about earlier.

But the mixing engineer also faces a disastrous issue pertaining to accuracy.. I'd be willing to bet literally any money, that their signal chain is plagued with horrendous colorations of the initial recording, to the final signal being played. the entire workstation and the multitude of devices they use for mixing will all impart their contribution of degrading the signal. One device possibly adding distortion in the high end, another with horrid mains noise, etc.. etc... So FOR SURE what the person doing the mixing is hearing, simply isn't what you would hear if you just took the raw recording and played it back to a simple DAC and then Amp.

So this notion of accuracy in the studio falls flat pretty quick from my take on the word. But that's okay, seeing as how there aren't currently ways around it unless these music companies want to contract people like Benchmark/RME/THX in collaborations to create the best performing consoles possible, and emulation of the recording room, and a person at a fixed position in such room. The point where accuracy matters, isn't necessarily "the sound as if I were listening in the recording room myself", as that's just not going to happen, nor could you verify the sound differences even if you could be there and memorize the sound. The point at which accuracy matters, is from the finished audio product, then being sent to consumers. And there, is where you want "accuracy" (which is really just fidelity, and the stuff I talked about like room treatment, or just high performance gear to do away with artifacts). So if your interest is to hear what the mics are "hearing" up in the recording room. Forget it, no one is getting that accuracy, not even the guy at the console. But if your interest is to hear what the engineer is hearing, then yes, accuracy can be something you could try chasing, and is what I think what people are actually attempting to do without literally have to elaborate as much as I have all aspects of this notion.

None of this stuff actually matters at the end of the day, since rooms/listening devices are always seemingly going to be the factor that removes notions of "complete accuracy" out the window anyway. And verifying you are hearing something live vs something pre-recorded is practically too demanding for every single instance when listening is conducted.

. Accurate, when it comes recorded pop music , is hard to define as you explain very well. One of the appeals of LPs to me is that the original pressings were often mastered by a skilled crafts person like Bob Ludwig. The good mastering engineers were not trying for accurate but rather working with mater tapes and the limited capability of LPs they just tried to make it sound good on a wide variety playback equipment. Sometimes they suceeded quite well and subsequent remasters decades later may be more accurate to the master tape but less satisfying than the original.

 

[hellboundlex]

. Accurate, when it comes recorded pop music , is hard to define as you explain very well. One of the appeals of LPs to me is that the original pressings were often mastered by a skilled crafts person like Bob Ludwig. The good mastering engineers were not trying for accurate but rather working with mater tapes and the limited capability of LPs they just tried to make it sound good on a wide variety playback equipment. Sometimes they suceeded quite well and subsequent remasters decades later may be more accurate to the master tape but less satisfying than the original.

Bob Ludwig's reputation is deserved. I love the remaster of Bright Eyes' Wide Awake.

 

[Chrispy]

Personally could care less about current cost of vinyl as I ain't buying, haven't for many years (but still have my collection and a good tt/cart setup). See no reason to. Maybe if I had some odd requirements it could be attractive but....

 

[Tks]

Thank you for your response and thoughts!

I have been thinking about "accuracy" a lot lately while listening, like everyone else, to Fiona Apple's new album. On the one hand, the album sounds closterfobic as of recorded in a tiny home studio (it was), on the other this gives it a definite sense of space. On the one hand, it was mixed in garage band, on the other hand it is a masterpiece of mixing. It sounds terrible. It sounds amazing. It is, a joy to listen to on nice headphones or speakers, but at the same time it is a critique in its own way of nice speakers and headphones.

Back on topic, I really appreciate your take and response, and it helps me keep perspective in this hobby.

No problem, I am also on the same spectrum with you there. Some mixes evidently show there is no way in hell any of this stuff actually sounded as it did in the recording room. For me personally, as long as the engineer can keep it calm and avoid compressing the heck out of tracks (this is just a no starter for me, as my head literally begins to tire from the constant barrage of sound and lyrics that are battling one another), and avoid too much distracting distortions like inter-modulation/jitter (noise is okay and far less offensive).

I know I could never be in that recording room, so I'll settle for whatever the mixing engineer artistically decides he wants to set the tone of in an album for example. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they nail it. Regardless of how "accurate" it is with respect to "true to life".

Accurate, when it comes recorded pop music , is hard to define as you explain very well. One of the appeals of LPs to me is that the original pressings were often mastered by a skilled crafts person like Bob Ludwig. The good mastering engineers were not trying for accurate but rather working with mater tapes and the limited capability of LPs they just tried to make it sound good on a wide variety playback equipment. Sometimes they suceeded quite well and subsequent remasters decades later may be more accurate to the master tape but less satisfying than the original.

Absolutely agree with engineers that have varying approaches for instance based on genre (aside from what I told hellboundlex, having insanely compressed music with a Dynamic Range rating of sometimes 2-3 or something disgusting like that, I feel that ruins nearly all music). And yeah, I agree with the whole "later remasters sound more accurate, but they sound silly". While they could be more "realistic" they just sound dull perhaps.

There are some that try to take for instance, mono recordings and try to "stereo" them. That's just usually complete ASS in nearly all cases. While some, somehow sound okay with the various effects and edits done to them.

One thing I won't budge on with respect to editions.. Any that are trying to do "remasters", I feel in all cases should have access to the master recordings (unless there are recordings that are simply cleaned up versions of older, and artifact ridden original recordings). Otherwise, give these folks the clean slate they need. And not try to recreate the original sound from an already existing remaster simply because he doesn't have access to the master tapes.

As for trying to make music sound good on a wide variety of playback devices. I'm on the fence about this. Like for instance, if there is a binaural recording done. I don't want some final edit, when done, to somehow sound equally as good on headphones, as it does on speakers. That just defeated the purposes of such a high quality recording technique potentially.

Or the horseshit you see these days where an artist walks up the engineer, who hands him a pair of headphones to listen to the work he just did on his music, and he refuses, and instead plugs in a pair of iPhone stock earbuds, or takes a disc to play in the car, to see how it sounds there. That's almost always a musical approach I have no appreciation for. Imagine making movies and not care to put it on Blu-Ray, instead worry about if it can fit on a DVD properly, just so it can be played back on silly car drop-down screens. To hell with that, and music that shows hints of that sort of stuff. I'm simply against this sort of thing on a principle level, and isn't something I want to see proliferated, so I try avoiding in any instance I could. Thankfully this stuff is pretty evident in many instances (it shares the same "sin" of insanely compressed music that I already have issue with even without this whole issue of trying to make stuff sound good everywhere under the sun).

 

[Wombat]

I purchased singles and LPs starting in the early '60s, CDs from their early days. I avoided most 'pop' for most of that time. Some of my discs are now worth $$$s. Unless I go through something like the Discogs valuation process, it will all be disposed of for pennies in the dollar when I depart this mortal coil.
Values often change as quickly as fashions so valuation is a repetitive task for most items. You may have a rare recording and then someone re-releases it - sink.

 

[Cbdb2]

They all use a bunch of different "monitors", like the car stereo or auratone standard along with those studio monitors. The standard often is "is this brickwalled enough for FM?". Philosophically, there's no there there, just the hope the recording moves units.

Studio monitors can be fine or bad, all depends on application and what you want. But with pop recordings, if you like what you're hearing, stick to it.[/QUOTE

They all use a bunch of different "monitors", like the car stereo or auratone standard along with those studio monitors. The standard often is "is this brickwalled enough for FM?". Philosophically, there's no there there, just the hope the recording moves units.

Studio monitors can be fine or bad, all depends on application and what you want. But with pop recordings, if you like what you're hearing, stick to it.

Spend any time in a mix? Yes most will listen on various speakers at various volumes but the most important thing is the experiance of working/listening to many different types of speakers in many different rooms and being able to recognise what the speakers your using right now do to the music. The first thing an engineer will do is listen to a new room with music he knows, like something hes mixed elsewhere. As far as moving units, thats the producers job. Unfortunately the engineer usualy has to do what the producer wants.

 

[Robin L]

Yes, I've spent time "in a mix", playing back post-production work on many different systems. I was dealing with classical 2 channel recordings. A little reverb, a little compression, many small eq adjustments. Really careful, attempting to get to the sound of the group in an idealized concert setting. Sounds good, but really doesn't sound like "the real thing" if you're being honest.

But get to a classic "mix", like Michael Jackson's "Off the Wall", there's thousands of variables to contend with. The original CD was impressive, albeit surreal. The current iteration is brickwalled to death. Thanks "Q".

 

[HammersRocco]

Hrm...

I think we already had this conversation in another thread... and I got a bit thin skinned... and apologized for it... well... again, apologies...

I mean, from reading this forum I see we all share the same sickness - Dunning-Kruger galore!
Each and everyone of us seem to think we are smarter than everyone else... in this forum and probably in life!

All I ask is that you extend the same courtesy to me that you extend to yourselves - Please don't assume stupidity or ignorance - I UNDERSTAND THAT DIGITAL IS OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR TO VINYL. I understand it and please, do not call me stupid by assuming I do not know why. It is, and if forced ( I am also very lazy) I could write a bit explaining it. Yet, I like vinyl not because I am stupid... I like it... because I like it.

1.- I assume some of you own luxury cars. I think that is EXTREMELY stupid, given that any car will take you from A to B, why expend $80,000 or more on a car?. Yet, I know you are not stupid. You just like your Beemer... I won't start a thread about it.

2.- I assume some of you own sports cars yet live in a congested city. I think that is EXTREMELY stupid, given that most of the time you will be stuck doing 10 mph if lucky on the 405 (or whatever highway is hell on earth to you). Yet I know you are not stupid. You just like your Lambo... I won't start a thread about it.

And I could go on re: motorcycles, golf and other things I believe are extremely stupid. If you like any of those... well, you just like them... I know, given that you are here, that you are smarter than anyone else and know the shortcomings and cons and that you are not kidding yourself. You just like to own/do it.

However I am and will be an skeptic at heart - another reason I am here! To bring it back the thread to the subject, I believe that all things being equal, an Analogue Productions pressing is just a good or better than an Electric Recording Company pressing. Because, at some point, the brains kick in...

Let's save the hostility for UpTone - now that is something we can all agree!

v

 

[Wombat]

Hrm...

I think we already had this conversation in another thread... and I got a bit thin skinned... and apologized for it... well... again, apologies...

I mean, from reading this forum I see we all share the same sickness - Dunning-Kruger galore!
Each and everyone of us seem to think we are smarter than everyone else... in this forum and probably in life!

All I ask is that you extend the same courtesy to me that you extend to yourselves - Please don't assume stupidity or ignorance - I UNDERSTAND THAT DIGITAL IS OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR TO VINYL. I understand it and please, do not call me stupid by assuming I do not know why. It is, and if forced ( I am also very lazy) I could write a bit explaining it. Yet, I like vinyl not because I am stupid... I like it... because I like it.

1.- I assume some of you own luxury cars. I think that is EXTREMELY stupid, given that any car will take you from A to B, why expend $80,000 or more on a car?. Yet, I know you are not stupid. You just like your Beemer... I won't start a thread about it.

2.- I assume some of you own sports cars yet live in a congested city. I think that is EXTREMELY stupid, given that most of the time you will be stuck doing 10 mph if lucky on the 405 (or whatever highway is hell on earth to you). Yet I know you are not stupid. You just like your Lambo... I won't start a thread about it.

And I could go on re: motorcycles, golf and other things I believe are extremely stupid. If you like any of those... well, you just like them... I know, given that you are here, that you are smarter than anyone else and know the shortcomings and cons and that you are not kidding yourself. You just like to own/do it.

However I am and will be an skeptic at heart - another reason I am here! To bring it back the thread to the subject, I believe that all things being equal, an Analogue Productions pressing is just a good or better than an Electric Recording Company pressing. Because, at some point, the brains kick in...

Let's save the hostility for UpTone - now that is something we can all agree!

v

Summary - personal preference.

 

[Robin L]

I don't understand the concept of producing "authentic 1950's" recordings on equipment from 1965. As for Furtwangler he should be doing 78's.

Wilhelm Furtwängler happened to be one of the first major artists in classical music to be regularly recorded to magnetic tape. Furtwängler's wartime recordings are much better served by CDs or digital files.

Same rule applies to all music: the wrong note played on the right instrument is always more wrong than the right note played on the wrong instrument.