Details about pressing the re-issues

2

Comments

  • But Neil has remastered all of his material recently and PJ_Soul says he is still having his albums cut to lacquer from the analog source.  That is dedication.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,567
      Is anybody still cutting from a purely analog source?  It seems like as soon as someone came up with a digital delay mastering and cutting places put it in line so they could execute eq and compression changes required when cutting vinyl without worrying as much about missing a change and messing  them up and having to redo them.  It seems likely that for a lot of  re-mastering where available analog mix tapes existed they probably were used those to master the album then created hi-res digital files to send to the people cutting the vinyl.  Cutting directly from a half inch mix tape to a lacquer is neat and an art but is anybody doing it?  
        Analog to digital conversion has come a very long way.  It seems that higher end convertors are essentially transparent.  I would guess most people cutting vinyl would rather work from a  sequenced digital file that has been mastered for vinyl (mastering engineers do separate masters for vinyl than they do for digital because of the limitations of vinyl) rather than a sequenced analog tape that they have to do "live" changes on.  If they mess that up they have to start over.   It might be that some Pearl Jam albums had analog masters, some had analog and digital masters and some had strictly digital masters.  
       It is almost certain that recordings from the mid 2000's if not earlier ended up in something like Pro Tools even if it was then dumped back to analog tape.  Tchad Blake was a big proponent of the SADIE system (a DAW similar to Pro Tools)  so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Binaural went back and forth.  Pro Tools was in most major studios so it probably got used on most albums since then as well.  Check out the wiki on the RIAA Eq curve to see what your records go through while they are getting made and playing back. 
         It would be interesting to know for some people but I think most don't really care or don't understand everything involved.  They just want to buy the record and they like the way the records sound or the packaging, the ritual of playing them, the way you only spend about 20 minutes playing before you get a little break.
    Dave Matthews Crash reissue a few years ago was analog and cut by Chris Bellman.  And it is ridiculously good.    
  • mrussel1 said:
      Is anybody still cutting from a purely analog source?  It seems like as soon as someone came up with a digital delay mastering and cutting places put it in line so they could execute eq and compression changes required when cutting vinyl without worrying as much about missing a change and messing  them up and having to redo them.  It seems likely that for a lot of  re-mastering where available analog mix tapes existed they probably were used those to master the album then created hi-res digital files to send to the people cutting the vinyl.  Cutting directly from a half inch mix tape to a lacquer is neat and an art but is anybody doing it?  
        Analog to digital conversion has come a very long way.  It seems that higher end convertors are essentially transparent.  I would guess most people cutting vinyl would rather work from a  sequenced digital file that has been mastered for vinyl (mastering engineers do separate masters for vinyl than they do for digital because of the limitations of vinyl) rather than a sequenced analog tape that they have to do "live" changes on.  If they mess that up they have to start over.   It might be that some Pearl Jam albums had analog masters, some had analog and digital masters and some had strictly digital masters.  
       It is almost certain that recordings from the mid 2000's if not earlier ended up in something like Pro Tools even if it was then dumped back to analog tape.  Tchad Blake was a big proponent of the SADIE system (a DAW similar to Pro Tools)  so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Binaural went back and forth.  Pro Tools was in most major studios so it probably got used on most albums since then as well.  Check out the wiki on the RIAA Eq curve to see what your records go through while they are getting made and playing back. 
         It would be interesting to know for some people but I think most don't really care or don't understand everything involved.  They just want to buy the record and they like the way the records sound or the packaging, the ritual of playing them, the way you only spend about 20 minutes playing before you get a little break.
    Dave Matthews Crash reissue a few years ago was analog and cut by Chris Bellman.  And it is ridiculously good.    
    Third Man Records
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,567
    mrussel1 said:
      Is anybody still cutting from a purely analog source?  It seems like as soon as someone came up with a digital delay mastering and cutting places put it in line so they could execute eq and compression changes required when cutting vinyl without worrying as much about missing a change and messing  them up and having to redo them.  It seems likely that for a lot of  re-mastering where available analog mix tapes existed they probably were used those to master the album then created hi-res digital files to send to the people cutting the vinyl.  Cutting directly from a half inch mix tape to a lacquer is neat and an art but is anybody doing it?  
        Analog to digital conversion has come a very long way.  It seems that higher end convertors are essentially transparent.  I would guess most people cutting vinyl would rather work from a  sequenced digital file that has been mastered for vinyl (mastering engineers do separate masters for vinyl than they do for digital because of the limitations of vinyl) rather than a sequenced analog tape that they have to do "live" changes on.  If they mess that up they have to start over.   It might be that some Pearl Jam albums had analog masters, some had analog and digital masters and some had strictly digital masters.  
       It is almost certain that recordings from the mid 2000's if not earlier ended up in something like Pro Tools even if it was then dumped back to analog tape.  Tchad Blake was a big proponent of the SADIE system (a DAW similar to Pro Tools)  so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Binaural went back and forth.  Pro Tools was in most major studios so it probably got used on most albums since then as well.  Check out the wiki on the RIAA Eq curve to see what your records go through while they are getting made and playing back. 
         It would be interesting to know for some people but I think most don't really care or don't understand everything involved.  They just want to buy the record and they like the way the records sound or the packaging, the ritual of playing them, the way you only spend about 20 minutes playing before you get a little break.
    Dave Matthews Crash reissue a few years ago was analog and cut by Chris Bellman.  And it is ridiculously good.    
    Third Man Records
    Yes and he was smart enough to go straight from analog to vinyl from probably...Elephant forward?  The 90's albums are the ones where it is a bit more difficult to get the masters I believe.  
  • Tim SimmonsTim Simmons Posts: 2,514
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,416
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
    I can't tell a difference between a good quality mp3 and flac, no matter how good the speakers are.
    I'm guessing I'll be fine with the vinyl.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,567
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
    I agree.. Chris Bellman is fantastic.  But I would prefer not to have to make that choice!  

  • So clearly sharing these details would really only please a handful of audiophiles, vs. those that don't give a shit about the details?
    www.cluthelee.com
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,013
    edited September 13
    mace1229 said:
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
    I can't tell a difference between a good quality mp3 and flac, no matter how good the speakers are.
    I'm guessing I'll be fine with the vinyl.
    me neither. I have read a LOT of articles on this subject, and the consensus seems to be that it's actually pretty rare for people to be able to tell the difference without being told beforehand. 

    "it's analog"
    "damn right it is! you can SO tell with the WARM SOUND!"
    "actually, it's digital"
    "can't be! I'm an audiophile!!!"

    :lol:
    Gimli 1993
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 2,905
    mace1229 said:
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
    I can't tell a difference between a good quality mp3 and flac, no matter how good the speakers are.
    I'm guessing I'll be fine with the vinyl.
    me neither. I have read a LOT of articles on this subject, and the consensus seems to be that it's actually pretty rare for people to be able to tell the difference without being told beforehand. 

    "it's analog"
    "damn right it is! you can SO tell with the WARM SOUND!"
    "actually, it's digital"
    "can't be! I'm an audiophile!!!"

    :lol:
    Totally agree-  that's why my stance on 2 vs 1 lp's for an album is what it is.  If I was ever able to discern any difference I would always opt for the better sound, but to me on my system, it's the same album just with 3 songs per side instead of 6.
    I had a false belief I thought I came here to stay. We're all just visitors.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,567
    mace1229 said:
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
    I can't tell a difference between a good quality mp3 and flac, no matter how good the speakers are.
    I'm guessing I'll be fine with the vinyl.
    me neither. I have read a LOT of articles on this subject, and the consensus seems to be that it's actually pretty rare for people to be able to tell the difference without being told beforehand. 

    "it's analog"
    "damn right it is! you can SO tell with the WARM SOUND!"
    "actually, it's digital"
    "can't be! I'm an audiophile!!!"

    :lol:
    I don't believe that for a second.  In fact, I do A/B tests between digital files and vinyl all the time with people.  What I've determined is that first, you have to adjust for volume.  People will naturally like the "louder" version better, so you have to normalize that.  But when you have a good record and compare it to FLAC, people tend to pick the vinyl.  There are some where you can't tell a lick of difference.  For example, any PJ record sounds the same as the 24 bit High Rez one  And the 24 bit doesn't sound any better than 16.  

    But play any song off Aja by Steely Dan vs even the SACD, and I find that people pick the original vinyl every time.  

    And people tease on the "warm" thing.  I don't know if it's warmer or not.  But what I find is that I have less listening fatigue with a good vinyl vs digital.  Maybe it's because you have to get up and change side and that gives you a break, but that's not very long.  I just don't feel the audio in my head at louder levels on most records, like I do digital.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 36,749
    edited September 13
    PB11041 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Yes, there are artists who make a big point of using their analog source. Neil Young is a good example of someone who thinks it's important.
    Yes but most of Neil's stuff, particularly that which he has re-issued was recorded purely when there was only analog source material.  
    I didn't know you were talking about only new artists. Well there are others who are still recording using analog at least some of the time, depending on the project (I think Neil Young still does too). Over time I've read that RHCP, Ryan Adams, Wilco, Tom Petty, Jack White, Spoon, Bob Dylan... and I think maybe I read that Radiohead still is sometimes at least, but I'm not too sure. I'm sure there are still plenty of artists doing it, but obviously it's not the norm. Seems it's making a bit of a relative come back in recent years though.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,567
    BTW - when I say "I don't believe that for a second", I guess I should say is that I don't believe that if you have a high end chain (not just speakers) that there isn't a difference.  There absolutely is a difference.  But you can't just throw some B&W diamonds on a Sony AVR and expect to hear a difference.  
  • lolobugglolobugg BLUE RDGE MTNSPosts: 5,913
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
    I can't tell a difference between a good quality mp3 and flac, no matter how good the speakers are.
    I'm guessing I'll be fine with the vinyl.
    me neither. I have read a LOT of articles on this subject, and the consensus seems to be that it's actually pretty rare for people to be able to tell the difference without being told beforehand. 

    "it's analog"
    "damn right it is! you can SO tell with the WARM SOUND!"
    "actually, it's digital"
    "can't be! I'm an audiophile!!!"

    :lol:
    I don't believe that for a second.  In fact, I do A/B tests between digital files and vinyl all the time with people.  What I've determined is that first, you have to adjust for volume.  People will naturally like the "louder" version better, so you have to normalize that.  But when you have a good record and compare it to FLAC, people tend to pick the vinyl.  There are some where you can't tell a lick of difference.  For example, any PJ record sounds the same as the 24 bit High Rez one  And the 24 bit doesn't sound any better than 16.  

    But play any song off Aja by Steely Dan vs even the SACD, and I find that people pick the original vinyl every time.  

    And people tease on the "warm" thing.  I don't know if it's warmer or not.  But what I find is that I have less listening fatigue with a good vinyl vs digital.  Maybe it's because you have to get up and change side and that gives you a break, but that's not very long.  I just don't feel the audio in my head at louder levels on most records, like I do digital.

    ditto
    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
    1995- New Orleans, LA
    1996- Charleston, SC
    1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
    2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
    2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
    2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
    2006- Cincinnati, OH
    2008- Columbia, SC
    2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Ved- Atlanta, GA x 2
    2010- Bristow, VA
    2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Ved- Chicago, IL
    2012- Atlanta, GA
    2013- Charlotte, NC
    2014- Cincinnati, OH
    2015- New York, NY
    2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA: Raleigh, NC: Columbia, SC: Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
  • PB11041PB11041 Posts: 111
    PJ_Soul said:
    PB11041 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Yes, there are artists who make a big point of using their analog source. Neil Young is a good example of someone who thinks it's important.
    Yes but most of Neil's stuff, particularly that which he has re-issued was recorded purely when there was only analog source material.  
    I didn't know you were talking about only new artists. Well there are others who are still recording using analog at least some of the time, depending on the project (I think Neil Young still does too). Over time I've read that RHCP, Ryan Adams, Wilco, Tom Petty, Jack White, Spoon, Bob Dylan... and I think maybe I read that Radiohead still is sometimes at least, but I'm not too sure. I'm sure there are still plenty of artists doing it, but obviously it's not the norm. Seems it's making a bit of a relative come back in recent years though.
    I understand that artists do this, and I can see the allure to it even if some dismiss the difference as negligible.  All I was saying is that Neil's flood of reissues, going back to the "archive" project and then the individual album reissues/repressings of those releases over the last few years, basically there was no other option than an analog source master for that material.

    Neil is very meticulous about his releases, and much of that had to do with how flat the original CD issues of his early material sounded.  That is why he got big into HDCD among other things during the digital era.

    Hard pressed to tell what is playing with a record like On the Beach if the HDCD is played blind in reference to the archive series vinyl edition, especially if you have a good turntable.


    His eminence has yet to show. 
    http://www.livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3652
  • ZodZod Posts: 5,004
    I think one of the other issues was that analog master's weren't needed once vinyl dropped in popularity.  Once they made a CD release, it was super easy to clone, so a big issue is often finding the original analog masters.  I think the 90s and early 00's are the worst era for that :(
  • buck502000buck502000 Birthplace of GIBSON guitarPosts: 7,042
    I will keep playing my original records....
    Cork-Eddie-17 Chicago 1&2-16 Miami-16 Ft. Lauderdale-16 New York City(Colbert,Sound Check,Show)-15 Moline-14 Detroit-14 Amsterdam 1&2-14 Chicago-13 Noblesville-10 Grand Rapids-06 Grand Rapids-04 Auburn Hills-00 Auburn Hills-98 Toledo-96

    NO SAMPLES, KEYBOARDS OR SYNTHESIZERS USED IN THE MAKING OF THIS RECORDING....
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 2,905
    I will keep playing my original records....
    No you SHANT!
    I had a false belief I thought I came here to stay. We're all just visitors.
  • PB11041PB11041 Posts: 111
    Zod said:
    I think one of the other issues was that analog master's weren't needed once vinyl dropped in popularity.  Once they made a CD release, it was super easy to clone, so a big issue is often finding the original analog masters.  I think the 90s and early 00's are the worst era for that :(
    That is very true.  
    His eminence has yet to show. 
    http://www.livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3652
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,416
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
    I can't tell a difference between a good quality mp3 and flac, no matter how good the speakers are.
    I'm guessing I'll be fine with the vinyl.
    me neither. I have read a LOT of articles on this subject, and the consensus seems to be that it's actually pretty rare for people to be able to tell the difference without being told beforehand. 

    "it's analog"
    "damn right it is! you can SO tell with the WARM SOUND!"
    "actually, it's digital"
    "can't be! I'm an audiophile!!!"

    :lol:
    I don't believe that for a second.  In fact, I do A/B tests between digital files and vinyl all the time with people.  What I've determined is that first, you have to adjust for volume.  People will naturally like the "louder" version better, so you have to normalize that.  But when you have a good record and compare it to FLAC, people tend to pick the vinyl.  There are some where you can't tell a lick of difference.  For example, any PJ record sounds the same as the 24 bit High Rez one  And the 24 bit doesn't sound any better than 16.  

    But play any song off Aja by Steely Dan vs even the SACD, and I find that people pick the original vinyl every time.  

    And people tease on the "warm" thing.  I don't know if it's warmer or not.  But what I find is that I have less listening fatigue with a good vinyl vs digital.  Maybe it's because you have to get up and change side and that gives you a break, but that's not very long.  I just don't feel the audio in my head at louder levels on most records, like I do digital.
    What I originally said is I cant tell a difference between a good mp3 and Flac.
    I can tell a difference with vinyl and mp3 though. However, I am not convinced I could say which is better. They are obviously being played through 2 different sources so there is a slight difference. Just like if you play a CD on 2 different CD players you can hear a slight difference with just the default settings on each.
    So even though I can hear a difference with vinyl over a CD, I'm still not convinced I could tell you which is "better." I'm not an audio expert, but I have some equipment I feel is pretty good and have a CD/mp3 player and my turn table hooked up to the same receiver and speakers. But the needle will pick up the music differently than the CD player does, so it relays it differently. Heck, even a different needle could sound different for the same reason. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,567
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
    I can't tell a difference between a good quality mp3 and flac, no matter how good the speakers are.
    I'm guessing I'll be fine with the vinyl.
    me neither. I have read a LOT of articles on this subject, and the consensus seems to be that it's actually pretty rare for people to be able to tell the difference without being told beforehand. 

    "it's analog"
    "damn right it is! you can SO tell with the WARM SOUND!"
    "actually, it's digital"
    "can't be! I'm an audiophile!!!"

    :lol:
    I don't believe that for a second.  In fact, I do A/B tests between digital files and vinyl all the time with people.  What I've determined is that first, you have to adjust for volume.  People will naturally like the "louder" version better, so you have to normalize that.  But when you have a good record and compare it to FLAC, people tend to pick the vinyl.  There are some where you can't tell a lick of difference.  For example, any PJ record sounds the same as the 24 bit High Rez one  And the 24 bit doesn't sound any better than 16.  

    But play any song off Aja by Steely Dan vs even the SACD, and I find that people pick the original vinyl every time.  

    And people tease on the "warm" thing.  I don't know if it's warmer or not.  But what I find is that I have less listening fatigue with a good vinyl vs digital.  Maybe it's because you have to get up and change side and that gives you a break, but that's not very long.  I just don't feel the audio in my head at louder levels on most records, like I do digital.
    What I originally said is I cant tell a difference between a good mp3 and Flac.
    I can tell a difference with vinyl and mp3 though. However, I am not convinced I could say which is better. They are obviously being played through 2 different sources so there is a slight difference. Just like if you play a CD on 2 different CD players you can hear a slight difference with just the default settings on each.
    So even though I can hear a difference with vinyl over a CD, I'm still not convinced I could tell you which is "better." I'm not an audio expert, but I have some equipment I feel is pretty good and have a CD/mp3 player and my turn table hooked up to the same receiver and speakers. But the needle will pick up the music differently than the CD player does, so it relays it differently. Heck, even a different needle could sound different for the same reason. 
    Good points.  "Different" is pretty objective, "better" is subjective.  I know I prefer the vinyl sound to the digital sound.  I can tell a difference, generally speaking, but not always.  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,013
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    People still cut all analog, but there arent alot of facilities that still do. So I get why most new records are digital masters.

    Though I'm willing to bet most people cant tell the difference between an analog master pressing and a digital master pressing (as long as the digital pressing is of a high resolution). What a great pressing comes down to is the facility where its pressed (I think MPO is great, but for the most part PJ doesn't press in great facilities, but they have gotten good pressings at those facilities) and the skill of the person who cuts the record. 

    I'll take an all digital pressing cut by Chris Bellman and pressed at RTI over an all analog cut pressed at URP every time.. 
    I can't tell a difference between a good quality mp3 and flac, no matter how good the speakers are.
    I'm guessing I'll be fine with the vinyl.
    me neither. I have read a LOT of articles on this subject, and the consensus seems to be that it's actually pretty rare for people to be able to tell the difference without being told beforehand. 

    "it's analog"
    "damn right it is! you can SO tell with the WARM SOUND!"
    "actually, it's digital"
    "can't be! I'm an audiophile!!!"

    :lol:
    I don't believe that for a second.  In fact, I do A/B tests between digital files and vinyl all the time with people.  What I've determined is that first, you have to adjust for volume.  People will naturally like the "louder" version better, so you have to normalize that.  But when you have a good record and compare it to FLAC, people tend to pick the vinyl.  There are some where you can't tell a lick of difference.  For example, any PJ record sounds the same as the 24 bit High Rez one  And the 24 bit doesn't sound any better than 16.  

    But play any song off Aja by Steely Dan vs even the SACD, and I find that people pick the original vinyl every time.  

    And people tease on the "warm" thing.  I don't know if it's warmer or not.  But what I find is that I have less listening fatigue with a good vinyl vs digital.  Maybe it's because you have to get up and change side and that gives you a break, but that's not very long.  I just don't feel the audio in my head at louder levels on most records, like I do digital.
    that's my point though. how many people who claim to be audiophiles and that they know the difference between digitally sourced or analog sourced vinyl actually have the equipment that would allow for such determination? I'd bet a very low number. same with FLAC vs mp3. Unless you have very high end system or $400 Beatz headphones, I'm guessing most people can't tell shit. 
    Gimli 1993
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,013
    if people could get the same vinyl sound out of a digital file, on a digital device, would they? my guess is no. look at the failure of the pono as your proof. half the draw of vinyl is the romanticism to it. people picture themselves by a raging fire in their den, sitting in a high-back chair in their robe and their feet swishing on a bear skin rug, sipping expensive whiskey and dropping the needle.

    in reality, they are sitting in their sweats and chugging from a pabst on their dorito-cheese-powder-stained couch. oops, "chesterfield". 

    admittedly, I got caught up in it a while back and spent a lot of money on records I bought for the wrong reasons. I realized at this point in my life I simply do not have the time to really appreciate listening to vinyl. I will when my kids are a bit older, but not now. 

    and it annoys the shit out of me when I buy vinyl with no digital download code. seriously, I don't ONLY want to listen to this at home! 
    Gimli 1993
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,416
    if people could get the same vinyl sound out of a digital file, on a digital device, would they? my guess is no. look at the failure of the pono as your proof. half the draw of vinyl is the romanticism to it. people picture themselves by a raging fire in their den, sitting in a high-back chair in their robe and their feet swishing on a bear skin rug, sipping expensive whiskey and dropping the needle.

    in reality, they are sitting in their sweats and chugging from a pabst on their dorito-cheese-powder-stained couch. oops, "chesterfield". 

    admittedly, I got caught up in it a while back and spent a lot of money on records I bought for the wrong reasons. I realized at this point in my life I simply do not have the time to really appreciate listening to vinyl. I will when my kids are a bit older, but not now. 

    and it annoys the shit out of me when I buy vinyl with no digital download code. seriously, I don't ONLY want to listen to this at home! 
    The only thing wrong with your post is....whats wrong with PBR?
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 2,905
    I don't think I've ever used one of the download codes lol, I am a physical only guy I guess.  Too much going on to figure out the digital stuff perhaps, or maybe I'm too old to care to learn.  I just huck em all in the trash
    I had a false belief I thought I came here to stay. We're all just visitors.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 36,749
    I don't think I've ever used one of the download codes lol, I am a physical only guy I guess.  Too much going on to figure out the digital stuff perhaps, or maybe I'm too old to care to learn.  I just huck em all in the trash
    Whoa. Next time go over to the Random Acts of Kindness thread and give those codes to someone who would want them. :)
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 2,905
    PJ_Soul said:
    I don't think I've ever used one of the download codes lol, I am a physical only guy I guess.  Too much going on to figure out the digital stuff perhaps, or maybe I'm too old to care to learn.  I just huck em all in the trash
    Whoa. Next time go over to the Random Acts of Kindness thread and give those codes to someone who would want them. :)
    Ok will do.  I've done a few here and there, didn't think anyone used them or cared
    I had a false belief I thought I came here to stay. We're all just visitors.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,013
    mace1229 said:
    if people could get the same vinyl sound out of a digital file, on a digital device, would they? my guess is no. look at the failure of the pono as your proof. half the draw of vinyl is the romanticism to it. people picture themselves by a raging fire in their den, sitting in a high-back chair in their robe and their feet swishing on a bear skin rug, sipping expensive whiskey and dropping the needle.

    in reality, they are sitting in their sweats and chugging from a pabst on their dorito-cheese-powder-stained couch. oops, "chesterfield". 

    admittedly, I got caught up in it a while back and spent a lot of money on records I bought for the wrong reasons. I realized at this point in my life I simply do not have the time to really appreciate listening to vinyl. I will when my kids are a bit older, but not now. 

    and it annoys the shit out of me when I buy vinyl with no digital download code. seriously, I don't ONLY want to listen to this at home! 
    The only thing wrong with your post is....whats wrong with PBR?
    nothing. but it also ain't a fine whiskey. 
    Gimli 1993
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,567
    PJ_Soul said:
    I don't think I've ever used one of the download codes lol, I am a physical only guy I guess.  Too much going on to figure out the digital stuff perhaps, or maybe I'm too old to care to learn.  I just huck em all in the trash
    Whoa. Next time go over to the Random Acts of Kindness thread and give those codes to someone who would want them. :)

    Great idea!  I have a bunch of them sitting around because I typically already have the digital in FLAC.  I'll post some up there.  
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,416
    mace1229 said:
    if people could get the same vinyl sound out of a digital file, on a digital device, would they? my guess is no. look at the failure of the pono as your proof. half the draw of vinyl is the romanticism to it. people picture themselves by a raging fire in their den, sitting in a high-back chair in their robe and their feet swishing on a bear skin rug, sipping expensive whiskey and dropping the needle.

    in reality, they are sitting in their sweats and chugging from a pabst on their dorito-cheese-powder-stained couch. oops, "chesterfield". 

    admittedly, I got caught up in it a while back and spent a lot of money on records I bought for the wrong reasons. I realized at this point in my life I simply do not have the time to really appreciate listening to vinyl. I will when my kids are a bit older, but not now. 

    and it annoys the shit out of me when I buy vinyl with no digital download code. seriously, I don't ONLY want to listen to this at home! 
    The only thing wrong with your post is....whats wrong with PBR?
    nothing. but it also ain't a fine whiskey. 
    PBR only tastes expensive.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.