Details about pressing the re-issues

PJ_Soul

fluff4u said:

I don't understand why they won't just tell us what we want to know? It comes up every time they release vinyl. What's the big secret? Why not be transparent? 

It is a very good question. 10C likes to make sure its members are rather poorly informed a lot of the time.

Dr. Delight

Ignorance is bliss....
Spin spin....spin the mp3 - sourced circle

Zod

They'll probably make a new master that stores the music in high resolution digital files (way more high res than a cd) and they use the new master to press the vinyl.   I think that's the common way to do it now.   A lot of the original analog masters from the early 90s are hard to come by, so usually they need to make a new one?

If the Avacado vinyl sounds alot better after the remix/remaster, I hope they release a cd/digital version of it too.

darthvedder

2-feign-reluctance said:

fluff4u said:

Why is it worthless?

They've never released those kind of details.

They released (some of) those details for Vault 7. Shocked the hell out of me.

fluff4u

Zod said:

They'll probably make a new master that stores the music in high resolution digital files (way more high res than a cd) and they use the new master to press the vinyl.   I think that's the common way to do it now.   A lot of the original analog masters from the early 90s are hard to come by, so usually they need to make a new one?

If the Avacado vinyl sounds alot better after the remix/remaster, I hope they release a cd/digital version of it too.

Yes, I agree they are probably Hi-res files pressed to vinyl. It's a less costly way of pressing vinyl VS all analog. I not even sure it was originally recorded to analog. But, still it would be nice not to guess or assume. 

Nick Namenone

  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.

PJ_Soul

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.

fluff4u

As said yes there are bands, artists and companies that do straight analog and or care about the chain. These two companies right off the top of my head MFSL.com and http://www.interventionrecords.com/. But there are more. My point in this thread is not to debate analog vs digital or anything in between I just would like to know how Pearl Jam does their releases. and I would guess PJ decided to go with a process that keeps price reasonable for people.

Nick Namenone

cool.  good to know.  I will check them out.  I am not debating analog or digital either.  Just not sure how much is made without digital being involved.  Makes sense with Neil.  Interventionrecords lists about ten artists as their complete collection.  I like Joe Jackson but not really anything else. MFSL is interesting.  Hard to tell how many releases are vinyl (unless they do everything in CD and vinyl.  The vinyl sale was the only specific thing I found.  Still, fairly limited.  It would be groovy if everybody did it but as it says on MFSL's page it is difficult and expensive. Edit to add-I now see tons of LPs.  cool.  Mostly seems like older "classic" stuff but at least someone is doing it.

PB11041

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.  

Nick Namenone

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.

mrussel1

Nick Namenone 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.    

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

Nick Namenone 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

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Nick Namenone 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 Simmons

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.. 

mace1229

Tim Simmons 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.

mrussel1

Tim Simmons 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 agree.. Chris Bellman is fantastic.  But I would prefer not to have to make that choice!  

2-feign-reluctance

So clearly sharing these details would really only please a handful of audiophiles, vs. those that don't give a shit about the details?

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons 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!!!"

RoleModelsinBlood31

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons 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!!!"

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.