Why Audiophiles Are Shopping for Vintage Turntables

[sergeauckland]

Simply word games in a attempt to support using a 1950s technology over modern SOTA digital.


It's easy enough to cherry pick a couple outlying examples using your $10k vinyl gear and $100 pressings against a poorly mastered CD, I've heard some very impressive 78 demos at shows too.
But for 99.9% of all vinyl ever pressed, a near deaf man can hear all the noise, speed irregularities and other technical limitations of vinyl immediately. For those simply interested in listening to the music they love in the best possible manner, promoting putting $ into vinyl is right up their with expensive cables and power cords, a huge waste of available funds.

Maybe it's because I'm not a 'near deaf man' but I can't hear all the noise, speed irregularities and other technical limitations of vinyl for perhaps 99% of my LPs. Yes, a few are noisy, and a few are completely silent (to my ears) but most have the occasional tick and pop somewhere on a side. This used to drive me nuts when LPs was all there was, but now, if I want silent, I use digital. If I want to play that particular LP, I can accept the occasional tick.

As an example, last night I was playing a vintage Bud Clayton LP followed by a new reissue John Coltrane LP, and in both cases, I had to check that the turntable was working as there was none of the noise in the run-in groove, silence until the music started. That's not unusual with my LPs as they are clean, and I don't put the stylus down on the moving record, so don't get the 'thump' of the stylus hitting the vinyl to give me a hint.

S.

 

[Sal1950]

For decades, vintage recordings were mixed and mastered with the intent that they would be played on vinyl.

YES, I'm sure
Right, the pressing master was manipulated to all sort of alterations to the sound captured on the master tape to make it acceptable
for the weakness of the vinyl technology.

Mastering For Vinyl Records | Gotta Groove Records Gotta Groove Records

Tips for vinyl mastering - preparing digital masters for vinyl pressing.

www.gottagrooverecords.com

What is Mastering for Vinyl?

Mastering for vinyl is the process of creating a separate master that can be cut into a vinyl record without added unwanted distortion.

www.sageaudio.com

The Truth About Vinyl Records

The year is 1877 and Thomas Edison presents his “Phonograph” to the world. It wasn’t the only device able to reproduce recorded sound but it was the most reliable. The medium in this early machine was the “Brown Wax” cylinder, which was not actually composed of wax but made of a metal soap...

www.audiosciencereview.com

BUT, the sound the mic's heard, and the sound the artists/mixing engineer WANTED you to hear is on the original archived master.
Thankfully most going all the way back to the 40s still exist and can be transferred to digital form, letting us now hear a much cleaner, closer reproduction
of the original performances.

Maybe it's because I'm not a 'near deaf man' but I can't hear all the noise, speed irregularities and other technical limitations of vinyl for perhaps 99% of my LPs. Yes, a few are noisy, and a few are completely silent (to my ears) but most have the occasional tick and pop somewhere on a side. This used to drive me nuts when LPs was all there was, but now, if I want silent, I use digital. If I want to play that particular LP, I can accept the occasional tick.

Come on brother, be honest. I know what all those pressing sounded like, I owned tons of them and was totally anal about care and cleaning, etc.
It drove me nuts for decades using near SOTA gear of the early 70s and beyond. If you were around back then and read the publications of the day (Audio, Stereo Review, High Fidelity) all we enthusiasts did was complain about the poor sound quality and noise problems of the products we bought. Companies like Mo-Fi and a bunch of others were started (and made millions) in a attempt to address the issues and complaints. I owned stacks of them too, some more successful than others. CD and beyond was an answer to a prayer we had made for decades.
If vinyls sonic issues, not to mention it's absolute inconvenience, doesn't bother you, be my guest. But this is ASR and let's not repeat the BS being spread by the "High End" print and web medium here. That's just snake-oil, lets stick to the facts.

As an example, last night I was playing a vintage Bud Clayton LP followed by a new reissue John Coltrane LP

As an example last night I was playing the new Steven Wilson remix of Yes - Fragile and James Guthrie's remix Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here on BluRay.
The discs have choices of 2, 4, 5.1, and Atmos mixes in totally silent, clear, clean copies of what the mics heard in the 70s. Totally awesome sound and immersive listening experience.
Why would I want to mess about with 100 year old technology?

 

[levimax]

As an example last night I was playing the new Steven Wilson remix of Yes - Fragile and James Guthrie's remix Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here on BluRay.
The discs have choices of 2, 4, 5.1, and Atmos mixes in totally silent, clear, clean copies of what the mics heard in the 70s. Totally awesome sound and immersive listening experience.
Why would I want to mess about with 100 year old technology?

While many of the Steve Wilson MC re-mixes are interesting and can sound great they have absolutely nothing to do with what the original mics heard or what the original artists intent was.

 

[Sal1950]

While many of the Steve Wilson MC re-mixes are interesting and can sound great they have absolutely nothing to do with what the original mics heard or what the original artists intent was.

Wrong

 

[levimax]

Wrong

I am not arguing that many of the new re-mixes aren't nice to listen to but they certainly are not what the artists intended to release as MC was not even invented yet and they chose to mix the original tapes the way they did for their own artistic reasons at the time. It is like "colorized" movies, they are a revisionist versions of the original that appeals to many people but they are certainly not the original art. I think there is plenty of room in the world for both the revisions and the original but claiming the revisionist version of a recording is better and therefore there is no reason to listen to the original makes no sense on a scientific forum. It is just one persons opinion not a fact.

 

[mhardy6647]

Wrong

Why do you say that? He wasn't there, was he? Were you?
I do think it is safe to assume the engineer and producer (etc.) mic'd, set levels, EQ, compression, recorded, mixed and mastered as they saw fit for someone's vision of what it should sound like for the end-user. They likely weren't thinking of Steven Wilson as that someone (nor, heck, Rick Beato, for that matter!).

 

[mhardy6647]

With respect to @levimax's comment (which popped up as I was typing) and @Sal1950's terse assessment of an earlier comment -- early stereo was often and perhaps typically recorded to three channels and ultimately mixed to two... so the notion of "multichannel" recording (i.e., not expressly in service to overdubbing and de facto creation of a performance ab initio from a bunch of individually recorded tracks) dates back into the 1950s -- and, of course, "quad" (as a consumer format) to the late 1960s... so multichannel isn't exactly a new kid on the block.

count the number of preamps (channels) on Frank's home Ampex in the posed, but real, photo above.

It's more like electric power for automobiles -- back after a long hiatus and/or a painful gestation.

(1899)
source: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g43480930/history-of-electric-cars/

I think of multichannel's long and painful commercial development with the same motto some employees gave, decades ago, to a then-struggling biotechnology company: Bringing you yesterday's technology tomorrow.
That company, today, is still extant and - after a long, slow gestation, doing rather well, as things turned out.
Not sure that's true for any multichannel consumer format, though.

 

[tineared]

I am not arguing that many of the new re-mixes aren't nice to listen to but they certainly are not what the artists intended to release as MC was not even invented yet and they chose to mix the original tapes the way they did for their own artistic reasons at the time. It is like "colorized" movies, they are a revisionist versions of the original that appeals to many people but they are certainly not the original art. I think there is plenty of room in the world for both the revisions and the original but claiming the revisionist version of a recording is better and therefore there is no reason to listen to the original makes no sense on a scientific forum. It is just one persons opinion not a fact.

I would submit that your categorically stating that you know the intention of the artists is purely subjective
How can you know they would have chosen b&w if color was available?
How can you know they would have chosen stereo if mc was available?
Does it really matter? We are free to choose what we listen to or watch, as it should be.
I submit the artists intended to entertain their audience and hopefully make some money in the process.

 

[egellings]

What is the ultimate middle finger, I wonder.

I call middle fingers "birdies".

 

[levimax]

I would submit that your categorically stating that you know the intention of the artists is purely subjective
How can you know they would have chosen b&w if color was available?
How can you know they would have chosen stereo if mc was available?
Does it really matter? We are free to choose what we listen to or watch, as it should be.
I submit the artists intended to entertain their audience and hopefully make some money in the process.

I have no idea what the artists intended beyond knowing they did not intend to release something that did not exist (commercially) at the time. Art has a historical and technological context to it and the art as originally released is of interest to some people. The revised versions can be fun as well and most people don't really care. Getting back to the subject of this thread I have been buying some of the new Rhino Blu-Rays which contain multiple versions of an album including stereo, remastered stereo, remixed stereo, and multiple remixed and remastered MC versions. In some cases there are large differences between the different versions. For context I like to go back to the original LP so see what that sounded like.

 

[mhardy6647]

Also in fairness to multichannel mania... Early stereo LP pickings were rife with "ping-pong" stereo, bouncing from left channel to right. Ca 1959, that might have well been the bongo player's artistic vision.

 

[Sal1950]

While many of the Steve Wilson MC re-mixes are interesting and can sound great they have absolutely nothing to do with what the original mics heard or what the original artists intent was.

Are you sure? Say what you will about the multich mixes but this is what the bands website says.

"The Definitive Edition. It doesn’t get better than this. All the mixes are presented in better-than-CD-quality Audiophile 24-96 HD Audio and have been approved by the band. Both editions include a 20 page booklet featuring previously unseen artwork by Roger Dean, an essay by Sid Smith and additional photos and memorabilia. Available at Amazon on BluRay+CD (with more extras) or DVD-A+CD.

This is the only version of Fragile to have been completely remixed from the original multitrack tapes since 1971. In keeping with all the other releases in this series, Steven Wilson’s approach for new stereo & 5.1 mixes is to faithfully retain the spirit & sounds of the original album mix, while applying modern mix techniques to bring further clarity to the individual instrument, vocal & overdubs for each track. The songs, instantly familiar to a multitude of YES fans, remain so, with the new mixes – especially in 5.1 form – providing a greater sense of space for each voice to be heard. Anderson’s voice seems to join the listener in the room, Howe & Wakeman’s solos glisten with clarity and Bruford & Squire remind all that they were unmatched as a rhythm section during that period."

https://www.yesworld.com/discography/fragile/

 

[tineared]

Are you sure? Say what you will about the multich mixes but this is what the bands website says.

The Definitive Edition. It doesn’t get better than this. All the mixes are presented in better-than-CD-quality Audiophile 24-96 HD Audio and have been approved by the band. Both editions include a 20 page booklet featuring previously unseen artwork by Roger Dean, an essay by Sid Smith and additional photos and memorabilia. Available at Amazon on BluRay+CD (with more extras) or DVD-A+CD.

This is the only version of Fragile to have been completely remixed from the original multitrack tapes since 1971. In keeping with all the other releases in this series, Steven Wilson’s approach for new stereo & 5.1 mixes is to faithfully retain the spirit & sounds of the original album mix, while applying modern mix techniques to bring further clarity to the individual instrument, vocal & overdubs for each track. The songs, instantly familiar to a multitude of YES fans, remain so, with the new mixes – especially in 5.1 form – providing a greater sense of space for each voice to be heard. Anderson’s voice seems to join the listener in the room, Howe & Wakeman’s solos glisten with clarity and Bruford & Squire remind all that they were unmatched as a rhythm section during that period.

https://www.yesworld.com/discography/fragile/

I have the 5.1 DVD-A version done by Tim Weidner in 2002
I wonder how the Wilson mix differs?

 

[levimax]

Are you sure? Say what you will about the multich mixes but this is what the bands website says.

"The Definitive Edition. It doesn’t get better than this. All the mixes are presented in better-than-CD-quality Audiophile 24-96 HD Audio and have been approved by the band. Both editions include a 20 page booklet featuring previously unseen artwork by Roger Dean, an essay by Sid Smith and additional photos and memorabilia. Available at Amazon on BluRay+CD (with more extras) or DVD-A+CD.

This is the only version of Fragile to have been completely remixed from the original multitrack tapes since 1971. In keeping with all the other releases in this series, Steven Wilson’s approach for new stereo & 5.1 mixes is to faithfully retain the spirit & sounds of the original album mix, while applying modern mix techniques to bring further clarity to the individual instrument, vocal & overdubs for each track. The songs, instantly familiar to a multitude of YES fans, remain so, with the new mixes – especially in 5.1 form – providing a greater sense of space for each voice to be heard. Anderson’s voice seems to join the listener in the room, Howe & Wakeman’s solos glisten with clarity and Bruford & Squire remind all that they were unmatched as a rhythm section during that period."

https://www.yesworld.com/discography/fragile/

I have the original LP and original CD and the Steve Wilson remix of Fragile, I also had the 8 track back when it first came out. If you never heard this album before I would guess most people would prefer the new remix and I think Fragile is one of the better Steve Wilson remix efforts. For me since I have heard the original version of this album hundreds of times over the years sometimes the differences in the remix are kind of "jarring" because it is different not because it is better or worse. I like both versions and am glad they both exist. If I were a new Yes fan I would be interested to hear the original version as well as the remix but can see why not everyone would be interested.

 

[levimax]

I have the 5.1 DVD-A version done by Tim Weidner in 2002
I wonder how the Wilson mix differs?

I have not head all the digital versions but the Wilson remix is quite a bit different from the ones I have heard. The best description I can give is that like many remixes (not just remasters) the individual instruments and backing vocals are more prominent in the mix and everything sounds clearer.

 

[DSJR]

YES, I'm sure
Right, the pressing master was manipulated to all sort of alterations to the sound captured on the master tape to make it acceptable
for the weakness of the vinyl technology.

Mastering For Vinyl Records | Gotta Groove Records Gotta Groove Records

Tips for vinyl mastering - preparing digital masters for vinyl pressing.

www.gottagrooverecords.com

What is Mastering for Vinyl?

Mastering for vinyl is the process of creating a separate master that can be cut into a vinyl record without added unwanted distortion.

www.sageaudio.com

The Truth About Vinyl Records

The year is 1877 and Thomas Edison presents his “Phonograph” to the world. It wasn’t the only device able to reproduce recorded sound but it was the most reliable. The medium in this early machine was the “Brown Wax” cylinder, which was not actually composed of wax but made of a metal soap...

www.audiosciencereview.com

BUT, the sound the mic's heard, and the sound the artists/mixing engineer WANTED you to hear is on the original archived master.
Thankfully most going all the way back to the 40s still exist and can be transferred to digital form, letting us now hear a much cleaner, closer reproduction
of the original performances.


Come on brother, be honest. I know what all those pressing sounded like, I owned tons of them and was totally anal about care and cleaning, etc.
It drove me nuts for decades using near SOTA gear of the early 70s and beyond. If you were around back then and read the publications of the day (Audio, Stereo Review, High Fidelity) all we enthusiasts did was complain about the poor sound quality and noise problems of the products we bought. Companies like Mo-Fi and a bunch of others were started (and made millions) in a attempt to address the issues and complaints. I owned stacks of them too, some more successful than others. CD and beyond was an answer to a prayer we had made for decades.
If vinyls sonic issues, not to mention it's absolute inconvenience, doesn't bother you, be my guest. But this is ASR and let's not repeat the BS being spread by the "High End" print and web medium here. That's just snake-oil, lets stick to the facts.


As an example last night I was playing the new Steven Wilson remix of Yes - Fragile and James Guthrie's remix Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here on BluRay.
The discs have choices of 2, 4, 5.1, and Atmos mixes in totally silent, clear, clean copies of what the mics heard in the 70s. Totally awesome sound and immersive listening experience.
Why would I want to mess about with 100 year old technology?

I remember the Universal fire was a disaster for the original studio session tapes of yore that were stored there and many famous artists lost the original tapes. Apparently, the digital album master dubs were stored elsewhere so all was not lost I gather.

 

[tineared]

I have not head all the digital versions but the Wilson remix is quite a bit different from the ones I have heard. The best description I can give is that like many remixes (not just remasters) the individual instruments and backing vocals are more prominent in the mix and everything sounds clearer.

I have the Close To the Edge and The Yes Album Wilson blu-ray mixes and like them very much. Perhaps I'll pick up the Fragile disc if I can find it at a reasonable price

 

[levimax]

I have the Close To the Edge and The Yes Album Wilson blu-ray mixes and like them very much. Perhaps I'll pick up the Fragile disc if I can find it at a reasonable price

It is on many of the streaming services as well.

 

[Sal1950]

I have the 5.1 DVD-A version done by Tim Weidner in 2002
I wonder how the Wilson mix differs?

Yep, The DVD-A 5.1 released in 2002 was done by Tim Weidner. A 2015 DVD-A 5.1 mix was done by Steven Wilson. The new 40th adds a Atmos mix, more goodies, and grabs more of your wallet.
The 2002 5.1 mix got a so-so review, many called it soft or mushy, some say too much reverb was added to Jon's vocals? I have the 2002 but find the 5.1 mix "unimaginative" but that's JMHO, you may love it?
If you have a streamer you can compare for yourself but you need Apple to get the 5.1 mix.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Are you sure?

For decades, vintage recordings were mixed and mastered with the intent that they would be played on vinyl. Is there not something to be said for the original intent of the musicians and sound engineers who were driving towards that medium as their end product (limitations and all)?

No, not really, and there's a whole thread about this.