Details about pressing the re-issues

mrussel1

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!!!"

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_Soul

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.

mrussel1

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.  

lolobugg

mrussel1 said:

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!!!"

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

PB11041

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.

Zod

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 :(

buck502000

I will keep playing my original records....

RoleModelsinBlood31

buck502000 said:

I will keep playing my original records....

No you SHANT!

PB11041

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.  

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

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!!!"

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. 

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

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!!!"

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.  

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

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!!!"

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. 

HughFreakingDillon

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! 

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon 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?

RoleModelsinBlood31

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

PJ_Soul

RoleModelsinBlood31 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.

RoleModelsinBlood31

PJ_Soul said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 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

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon 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. 

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 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.  

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.