Digital Has Helped Records Sound Better

[4-2-7]

Im in full agreement with you,you have made a very interesting and valid post.

Yeah the whole point of it, there is a balance and one can't say a record made with some digital is no good. Or the other argument that is one might as well get the CD, but then you don't get the RIAA EQing curve and the mastering they use for the record. It's also not to say a all analogue record is bad either.

I just think it's more recycling of music, here buy this copy now because we use all analogue, no no wait this ones better it's digitally remastered. I think they all have there place and digital is a huge part of making some very nice records that should not be over looked.

 

[Djcoolray]

Truthfully it depends on the style of the music....

Since your speaking of eighties music I agree completely in that regard. You take “Love Shack” from the Go-Go’s and I completely agree based on that type of venue. But you take an album from an earlier style of music that added slight amounts of reverb like psychedelic or soul music where the artists slowed the tempo down and used the decay of musical notes inciting emotional response like Iron Butterfly “In-a-god-a-da-vida”, Issac Hayes album “Hot Buttered Soul” or George Harrison’s “Come Together” a hundred percent of the frequencies are not recorded when a digi-mix is utilized. Groups like War, the Commodores or Earth, Wind and Fire sound sterile when digitized compared to the original six eye Columbia recordings.

I myself feel that only doing anything one way as in the recording of mediums serves the recording industry best, that there is a lack of creativity and involvement to do things differently. Billy Joel re-released his “Glass House” album where the album was completely recorded from the beginning creating a master tape at an archaic studio in Nashville Tennessee using the old microphone mixers and Ampex Tube R2R’s and the sound is full and dynamic, they created a clean recording without any over dubbing...didn’t have to lay any tracks. So digital cleans up the consequences of over dubbing and can create a full dynamic clear clean sound as long as it’s a quick tempo that is being recorded. Great for heavy metal. The group Chicago did all their recordings using microphone mixers and tube R2R’s....no splicing...no dicing and there is a comparable difference between their original recordings and what is released now.

The problem is the overdubbing in creating layers of sound instead of just recording all the vocals and instrumentals at the same time. So digital is included to clean up the mess caused by overdubbing. But everything has its benefits to include adding digital to the mix when recording as in the recording of the group U2 and most Metal bands. Digital-mixing overdubbed recordings is just the easiest method and going for the easiest quickest method is how so many things happen these days. Like what would be best for children in schools.....adding psychiatrists to schools supervising counselors at schools identifying and helping problem children to handle their problems differently or making guns illegal. This is not about guns.....it’s about involvement in how details create a result.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Kind of an unusual thread here, to start one which would be debated by many (analogue purist) but then refuse to allow any opposing debate.

 

[4-2-7]

Kind of an unusual thread here, to start one which would be debated by many (analogue purist) but then refuse to allow any opposing debate.

Not at all, the dead horse debate I mentioned in the top of my thread was formats. Not how a record was made be it had digital along the proses or analgue. See this is the confusion I think people don't get, there is opportunity for a facet of the production to utilize a digital component to make the end result, that doesn't turn a record into a CD or sound like one.

 

[4-2-7]

I bring this up because of myth and what seems to be in Vogue today trying to say all analogue is better and anything with a hint of digital in the chain is a bad thing. I'v also been wanting to start a thread on how a record is produced from studio to mastering of the record because reading comments all the time people don't seem to know and or use the wrong terminology for various steps

Truthfully it depends on the style of the music....

Since your speaking of eighties music I agree completely in that regard. You take “Love Shack” from the Go-Go’s and I completely agree based on that type of venue. But you take an album from an earlier style of music that added slight amounts of reverb like psychedelic or soul music where the artists slowed the tempo down and used the decay of musical notes inciting emotional response like Iron Butterfly “In-a-god-a-da-vida”, Issac Hayes album “Hot Buttered Soul” or George Harrison’s “Come Together” a hundred percent of the frequencies are not recorded when a digi-mix is utilized. Groups like War, the Commodores or Earth, Wind and Fire sound sterile when digitized compared to the original six eye Columbia recordings.

I myself feel that only doing anything one way as in the recording of mediums serves the recording industry best, that there is a lack of creativity and involvement to do things differently. Billy Joel re-released his “Glass House” album where the album was completely recorded from the beginning creating a master tape at an archaic studio in Nashville Tennessee using the old microphone mixers and Ampex Tube R2R’s and the sound is full and dynamic, they created a clean recording without any over dubbing...didn’t have to lay any tracks. So digital cleans up the consequences of over dubbing and can create a full dynamic clear clean sound as long as it’s a quick tempo that is being recorded. Great for heavy metal. The group Chicago did all their recordings using microphone mixers and tube R2R’s....no splicing...no dicing and there is a comparable difference between their original recordings and what is released now.

The problem is the overdubbing in creating layers of sound instead of just recording all the vocals and instrumentals at the same time. So digital is included to clean up the mess caused by overdubbing. But everything has its benefits to include adding digital to the mix when recording as in the recording of the group U2 and most Metal bands. Digital-mixing overdubbed recordings is just the easiest method and going for the easiest quickest method is how so many things happen these days. Like what would be best for children in schools.....adding psychiatrists to schools supervising counselors at schools identifying and helping problem children to handle their problems differently or making guns illegal. This is not about guns.....it’s about involvement in how details create a result.

Thanks for proving my point above

You can think you like something and the way it was produced but your post was talking points that are generalized and when you tried to be specific it's clear you not knowing what you want to put down as a belief.

Groups like War, the Commodores or Earth, Wind and Fire sound sterile when digitized compared to the original six eye Columbia recordings.

So these bands sound sterile when digitized compared to the original six eye Columbia recordings I would imagine so, since none of them have ever been pressed on a 6 eye Columbia record, at least the common look known of that label for collectors. Records like that where made in the 50s till early 60s.

Then the fact

War's record label was,United Artists Records, Blue Note, RCA, MCA for the most part, and put their first record out in 1970

The Commodores label was mostly Motown and then some Polydor, they put their first single out in 1969 and a LP record out in 1974

Earth, Wind and Fire was on Columbia and CBS but put their first record out in 1970.

I guess I could go on with the rest of the inaccuracies but will stop there as your helping my point.

Oh one more thing, Love Shack is from the B-52s

 

[Vinylmasters]

I can agree here, I'v recorded very nice records to 24bit WAV and they sound just like the record. However the mastering is different than the CD or files and I think it sound more balanced. This comes down to the preference of the RIAA mastering over the digital mastering.

More than agree. It's positively a preference.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Well I know of one record company that thinks otherwise, and every record I have ever purchased from them has been wonderful. They make a point, and go to great extremes in this current market to remain faithful to their analogue promise. If someone was to tell them that introducing a digital process into their product it would be an improvement, they would probably differ with your opinion.

Personally It is hard to know what effect that introducing some digital into a analogue product because each process of making a record has a small part to play, and without having examples of the same product and then introducing some digital in the stream and then listening to the results one wouldn't know because they don't have a side to side comparison. Where would you find the most differences, and who is it that is judging those differences.

And would your same theory go to tube amps? Having some SS in the stream be an improvement. Could one make that statement in all cases?

Are your records completely analogue?
Yes! This we guarantee!
As a matter of principle, only analogue masters are used, and the necessary cutting delay is also analogue. All our cutting engineers use only Neumann cutting consoles, and these too are analogue. The only exception is where a recording has been made – either partly or entirely – using digital technology, but we do not have such items in our catalogue at the present time. Please read the article “Truly analogue?”.

Are your records cut from the original masters?
In our re-releases it is our aim to faithfully reproduce the original intentions of the musicians and recording engineers which, however, could not be realised at the time due to technical limitations.
Faithfulness to the original is our top priority, not the interpretation of the original: there is no such thing as a “Speakers Corner Sound”. Naturally, the best results are obtained when the original master is used. Therefore we always try to locate these and use them for cutting. Should this not be possible, – because the original tape is defective or has disappeared, for example – we do accept a first-generation copy. But this remains an absolute exception for us.

Who cuts the records?
In order to obtain the most faithful reproduction of the original, we have the lacquers cut on the spot, by engineers who, on the whole, have been dealing with such tapes for many years.
Some are even cut by the very same engineer who cut the original lacquers of the first release. Over the years the following engineers have been and still are working for us: Tony Hawkins, Willem Makkee, Kevin Gray, Maarten de Boer, Scott Hull, Rainer Maillard, and Ray Staff, to name but a few.

 

[Djcoolray]

Thanks for proving my point above

You can think you like something and the way it was produced but your post was talking points that are generalized and when you tried to be specific it's clear you not knowing what you want to put down as a belief.



So these bands sound sterile when digitized compared to the original six eye Columbia recordings I would imagine so, since none of them have ever been pressed on a 6 eye Columbia record, at least the common look known of that label for collectors. Records like that where made in the 50s till early 60s.

Then the fact

War's record label was,United Artists Records, Blue Note, RCA, MCA for the most part, and put their first record out in 1970

The Commodores label was mostly Motown and then some Polydor, they put their first single out in 1969 and a LP record out in 1974

Earth, Wind and Fire was on Columbia and CBS but put their first record out in 1970.

I guess I could go on with the rest of the inaccuracies but will stop there as your helping my point.

Oh one more thing, Love Shack is from the B-52s

My implied belief that you sidelined was that adding the digital process to recording analog is done so just to clean up added noise due to overdubbing. That not all styles of music can benefit from this process and that there should be more than one way to do anything. So many people are not involved enough to make improvements over time and the cost of doing business sets the precedence of how things are done. Then not all recordings studios prior to 1980 were laying multiple recordings on top of each other to create a song. To say that dubbing took precedence in the early sixties is an inaccurate statement. Also, digital can not completely record slow decaying frequencies like the song Susie Q from Credence. Sorry if I didn’t look stuff up prior to responding, but Apple records never dubbed anything...manipulation of sound frequencies yes, dub no !!!

Sorry, I meant anything digitized sounds sterile compared to any Columbia six-eye recording...

 

[illinoisteve]

I listen to 78rpms, to 33.3rpm lps, cassettes tapes, reel-to-reel tapes, CDs, not many mp3s but a few, I even finally added 8-track tapes to my collection of recordings to listen to. I have some digitally recorded/mixed/mastered LPs and they sound pretty good. I have a few really pristine LPs that sound as good as CDS (on my system) when I use my best cart/stylus combo, and a few, but not all, of them might have involved some digital processing in their creation. Most of my CD re-releases of material that was once only available on 78s have a considerable amount of digital work in their extraction from worn originals and in their remastering. I'm not a purist. I'm not an enemy of the digital. On the other hand the recordings I have that have no digital fingerprints in their creation never strike me in any way as inferior on that account. Then there is the bottom line -- whatever the source and process, it has to sound good to my analogue ears.


.

 

[WaynerN]

I've recorded digitally for a couple of decades now, being a convert from reel to reel. In my analog life, I had recorded many events, including live orchestras and choirs. MIc types, mic placement (and proximity) to sources, improved with each session. One evening I recorded Handle's Messiah played by a local orchestra. Returning home, I listened to the entire concert 3 times before I crashed. The recording was absolutely magic.

IN 1995, I ventured into the digital realm, purchasing a state of the art computerr/card and a professional version of Cakewalk. At the time, I was one of the few that was recording on the computer. Of course, I had to learn MIDI and that was an ongoing process. Eventually, the system had an input mixer, and output mixer, several process machines and a fabulous Alesis reverb box, all injected into the mix at the master.

The advantage of digital was the dynamic range. The disadvantage of digital is that you can't go into the red.....no, not at all. With analog, a little slight bump, maybe 1 or 2db and it wasn't any problem. Because of this, it made recording digital without any kind of compression a very intense exercise in frustration and re-do. Recording multiple tracks was a breeze and they were fully and completely sync'd.

The real headache was at mix down time, when it was time to take all of the channels and turn them into a stereo mix. This was done on DAT (digital audio tape) at the time, and it took many, many tries to get the mix right. When things were done, the next process was to take the mixdown and play it thru as many stereo systems as possible. The best recordings sounded almost the same regardless of the system.

Some of my most favorite recordings on vinyl were digitally mastered (DDA). There are a few classics that were anaolog all the way like the Moody Blues-Days of Future Passed. It was when I heard my first DDA compared to an AAA that I knew it wasn't the format, rather the recording artist and engineer that make the music shine.

'ner

 

[4-2-7]

Well I know of one record company that thinks otherwise, and every record I have ever purchased from them has been wonderful. They make a point, and go to great extremes in this current market to remain faithful to their analogue promise. If someone was to tell them that introducing a digital process into their product it would be an improvement, they would probably differ with your opinion.

Yes and this is a reissue of something that was originally recorded with tape. They are not producing music from start to finish. They have the opportunity to pick and choose from a source they want to make more records from. Titles they would like to do they can't because of inferior tape, tape damage, or the label will not allow it out of the vault. Many records are out today and have benefited with restoration work of the master tape that could only be done digitally.

Personally It is hard to know what effect that introducing some digital into a analogue product because each process of making a record has a small part to play, and without having examples of the same product and then introducing some digital in the stream and then listening to the results one wouldn't know because they don't have a side to side comparison. Where would you find the most differences, and who is it that is judging those differences.

Well if you put on an old record, and then you put on the same title digitally remastered you can listen and pick what sounds good to you. In the case the artist recorded digitally, you can still switch into analogue at the mastering point of making a record.

 

[4-2-7]

I'm not a purist. I'm not an enemy of the digital. On the other hand the recordings I have that have no digital fingerprints in their creation never strike me in any way as inferior on that account. Then there is the bottom line -- whatever the source and process, it has to sound good to my analogue ears.

Hey I'm in the camp if it sounds good I like it. You can have the best recording and mastering work done digitally or from all analogue, give it to the pressing plant and get a crapy record out of it. However if everything is done good throughout the chain of events we get good SQ at the consumer end.

 

[4-2-7]

It was when I heard my first DDA compared to an AAA that I knew it wasn't the format, rather the recording artist and engineer that make the music shine.

Bingo, thanks for the post and some in site.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Yes and this is a reissue of something that was originally recorded with tape. They are not producing music from start to finish. They have the opportunity to pick and choose from a source they want to make more records from. Titles they would like to do they can't because of inferior tape, tape damage, or the label will not allow it out of the vault. Many records are out today and have benefited with restoration work of the master tape that could only be done digitally.


Well if you put on an old record, and then you put on the same title digitally remastered you can listen and pick what sounds good to you. In the case the artist recorded digitally, you can still switch into analogue at the mastering point of making a record.

Their policy is they wouldn't want to produce it if they can't keep the standards up to what they think are a superior product, and that is all Analogue for vinyl. They, Speakers Corner won't do any alterations because it changes what the artist intended for it to sound like as quoted from their webpage.

"Faithfulness to the original is our top priority, not the interpretation of the original: there is no such thing as a “Speakers Corner Sound”. Naturally, the best results are obtained when the original master is used. Therefore we always try to locate these and use them for cutting. Should this not be possible, – because the original tape is defective or has disappeared, for example – we do accept a first-generation copy. But this remains an absolute exception for us."​

In most cases the first pressings, all analogue are by far the most wanted by audiophiles and collectors. Is it for the speculation for collecting value or is it because the listeners don't want the re-issues that have been changed due to digital processes I couldn't tell you. I guess you would have to ask each one individually, but in most all cases those early first releases are the most valued.

 

[illegalcolor]

Good to know that, but the mastering of it at Masterdisc might have been digital to cut the lacquer.

No. 100% analog mastering.

The Nightfly : Donald Fagen < RL Mastering
Peter Gabriel: Security < RL Mastering
Brothers in Arms : Dire Straits <RL Mastering
Eliminator a & Afterburner : ZZ Top <RL Mastering
Genesis: Invisible Touch <RL Mastering

All 100% analog mastering.

Bob Ludwig did some vinyl record mastering for Telarc in late 70's using Soundstream DAW running on a DEC minicomputer where interface was text terminal, keyboard and oscilloscope.
Other than that Ludwig didn't use digital equipment for mastering prior to 1987.

https://tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig/


'I started working with digital in 1978, when I mastered and cut a recording for Telarc, for vinyl, on the Soundstream digital machine. Until the invention of the Neve DTC-1 digital domain mastering console in 1987, and the Daniel Weiss BW-102, there was no way to master and stay in the digital domain. One always had to play back the digital master through a not-so-great Sony PCM-1610 digital-to-analog converter [DAC], do all the mastering in the analog world, and re-record it back into digital through an even less-good analog-to-digital [ADC] Sony converter for CD — first the Sony PCM-1600, then 1610 and finally the 1630. For a while, as everything was 16-bit — even for post-production and mastering — simple level changes sounded dicey in the digital domain. Digital equalization was initially so horrible and brittle; no one would use it.'

 

[Ken Boyd]

Bingo, thanks for the post and some in site.

Don't put to much stock in one persons opinion, just because it agrees with your opinion. Ask him how many Grammy Awards he has won for outstanding recordings and what albums were they.

 

[4-2-7]

In most cases the first pressings, all analogue are by far the most wanted by audiophiles and collectors. Is it for the speculation for collecting value

I think it's multi faceted.
Some want first pressings because of collect ability and a value. Some are taking a wild swing at trying to buy the best sounding of the title without putting the work in and listening to people online. I know later US stereo pressings sound far better than a first US stereo pressing

or is it because the listeners don't want the re-issues that have been changed due to digital processes I couldn't tell you.

again as above it's multi faceted as to why, that why this thread is here

 

[4-2-7]

rather the recording artist and engineer that make the music shine.

Don't put to much stock in one persons opinion, just because it agrees with your opinion. Ask him how many Grammy Awards he has won for outstanding recordings and what albums were they.

So you can have crappy work done all the way through and as long as it's all analogue it's going to be good, however if it's digitally produced it will still be crappy?

Ken I was pointing out the fact it take good work to have the end result shin be it digital or analogue in the mix.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Your misquoting me. My post was not to just jump on the first poster who did some recording and mastering without even knowing at what level of work they did.

If you were a leading band in the music industry would you hire someone who just said something that you agreed with or would you want to know the extent of the work they did?

You purchase your music equipment because you like the way it sounds. Many of the LPs that we listen to part of the reason they sound the way they do is due to the way they were recorded and the equipment that they were recorded with, the equipment they were mastered on, the lathes and amps they were cut on, the list goes all the way to the final product. To change any of that in the stream, changes the way it sounds. If changing out an analogue piece in the mix made it better, than in fact it made a change. The change is in truth someone trying to touch up an artist work in some manner, which in fact makes in not faithful to the original. And who is going to be the judge to say they improved upon the painters painting? Certianly not the painter.

I really don't know what the effects would be, but I am sure at some point the final product would be different.

 

[4-2-7]

Other than that Ludwig didn't use digital equipment for mastering prior to 1987.

https://tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig/

So I'm assuming he had to make tapes of the digital master, and then do his work?
Ill read the link in a bit and thanks for your input.