Lies about vinyl vs digital

[fas42]

5 hours ago, hifitommy said:

I know what I hear and it's in agreement with other veteran listeners with a litany of high end components.  RBCD has it's distinct limits and LP allows us to settle into the Music at hand and is more convincing  and satisfying just as is live music.  

 

Go back to DBT while I go LIE to myself.  Arguing the point is superfluous.  

 

Tom savage, I believe you made the choice for a good reason and I know how rattling it is to snag off a stylus on a prized cartridge.

 

It's a shame, that you're depriving yourself of the chance of experiencing what CDs can deliver. "Litanies of high end components" mean nothing, unless the person who assembled the rig really understood what care and attention is needed to get Redbook sounding as it should.

 

Over 30 years ago I heard probably the best vinyl setup in Sydney - and his CD player. The LPs at their best hit a very good peak, but his CD replay fell well short - loss of low level detail was shocking. But I had not the slightest interest after that in pursing LP ... .

 

The "limits" of RBCD you hear are the 'standard' distortion characteristics of the medium when playback is not well implemented - they are the "snap, crackle, pop" of that method of music storage - and are just as hard to completely eliminate, as is vinyl "noise".

 

[The_K-Man]

On July 4, 2018 at 4:28 AM, esldude said:

It ain't the rig sucking here.  

 

D_mn straight:  It's the MASTERING that sucks!

[The_K-Man]

On July 4, 2018 at 4:28 AM, esldude said:

It ain't the rig sucking here.  

 

D_mn straight:  It's the MASTERING that sucks!

[The_K-Man]

Most of the differences I've heard mention of in the latest two pages of this thread are related to differences in MASTERING, not differences in the formats.

 

CD, and digital audio itself, is far more tolerant and accommodating of the abuses of overly 'hot'/loudness processing than would be vinyl or any other analog format.

 

'Digital' by itself 'does' absolutely nothing to recorded sound or a finished album or single download file - unless we're talking less than 8bit with a sample rate of 20kHz(less than half of Red Book's).  The Nyquist theorem and other studies have convincingly proven that decades ago.

 

Some mastering engineer has to have really fu@&*d up the CD release of something also available on vinyl in order for it to sound 'inferior' to the vinyl!  Probably at the behest of some loud-head producer or artist who wanted the loudest release on the charts.

[John Dyson]

I couldn't read the entire subject -- but there is one area that I know about the odd history of the quality of CD sound (and sometimes compared with vinyl.)  I remember early in the days -- and with evidence just gathered in the last few years -- that CD's sometimes sounded 'wrong', sometimes 'harsh'.  That led to an industry associated with 'keeping pure analog/vinyl sound".   There has been a problem with digital mastering, with material even being sold today with the flaw (material mastered/created before the 1990s'.)   This is a bit part of the solution about the 'harshness', and I do have existence proof if anyone is interested anymore.

 

This 'solution' to recovering the sound from early digital masters is NOT de-emphasis, even though that IS a partial/incomplete solution.  Very often, the problem has been left-over/undecoded DolbyA encoding.  Contrary to many popular rumors -- much undecoded (DolbyA) material doesn't sound crazy bad, but just a little bad.  The ears can be made to tolerate the material a little better once a bit of de-emphasis is applied (maybe minus 3-6dB at 3k-9k, depending on material.)   The real solution is doing the proper DolbyA decoding that the music distributor didn't do.

I didn't plan a big set of demos, but per a discussion elsewhere, I have some short snippets of Howard Jones which came to me DolbyA encoded (alas -- only mp3, but still is tolerable), and decoded versions.  The encoded versions have 'orig' in the filenames, while the decoded versions have 'DHDA' in the filenames.

In a little while, I'll upload a few more examples that might be more insightful.  However, the Howard Jones examples (and you might have to do a quick A/B on the corresponding 45second segments -- I provided 3 for two songs.)  The 'orig' versions might sound brighter, but they are fairly aggressively compressed at HF, which is the main activity of DolbyA at normal signal levels.  The 'DHDA' versions are decoded, and actually sound more 'natural'.

I do have a massive amount of DolbyA encoded ABBA (and some others) material as ripped from numerous CDS (In fact, about 1/2 of my CDs have latent DolbyA encoding on them.)  I'll upload a few more examples with the clear 'ORIG' and 'DHDA' designators in the filenames for your own comparison.

Right now (also) I have some snippets of a vinyl copy of an ABBA song 'Me And I' exactly as digitally distributed, a vinyl copy, and some DHDA decoded versions (carefully done.)

 

Again -- a big part of the digital 'sound' issue had been caused by improper EQ and ALSO improper handling of the masters by skipping the DolbyA decoding step.  The only reasons why the decoding didn't happen is that the process is cumbersome, and the DISTRIBUTORS COULD GET AWAY WITH IT!!!   In the end, the bean counters win.

 

The WWW site with short examples is: https://spaces.hightail.com/space/yDG3L339Rn

 

(Again, I'll add some more substantial examples later on today.)

John

 

[fas42]

Such encoding may be on the CD, but a sorted out rig won't present problems in the presentation of such. I listened regularly to a Howard Jones CD back in the 80's, and it came across very well. Also have an original release CD of the first ABBA album, and this is superb to listen to - demonstration quality in terms of the sound scape thrown up.

[sandyk]

15 hours ago, John Dyson said:

The 'DHDA' versions are decoded, and actually sound more 'natural'.

 

 Yes, the decoded Abba versions sound far more natural, especially " Day Before You Came",  but why are they 48K ?

Were they taken from Video ?

[John Dyson]

They did not come from the video.  The clarity comes from using DolbyA decoding on good quality and appropriate commercially distributed digital and CD material..

I have several digital recording sources for ABBA recordings (all available commercially, none proprietary.)  My ABBA sources include the first Japanese CD releases (which are leaked DolbyA encoded.)  Also I have some ABBA Gold and more ABBA Gold (Japanese again), which are DolbyA encoded.  I alos have lots of other material like Eric Clapton, Anne Murray, Petula Clark, Carpenters, Simon & Garfunkel, etc.  All DolbyA encoded.  One item that can still easily be purchased (with a high probability of it still being DolbyA encoded) is available from HDtracks, the Carpenters album.   (Cannot tell before purchase if material is DolbyA encoded or not.)   Some material is 192k/96k at 24bits, but most is typical CD 44.1k/16bits.

When DolbyA decoding, the SNR is improved, and so there are more bits of music that can be extracted.  So, there IS a benefit when starting with 16bits to go ahead and expand the result into floating point or 24bits.  (My DolbyA decoder does the math correctly so the noise reduction is very effective.)

The reason why the decoder output is 48k, 96k or even 192k is that 1) the decoder works much better at 48k or even 96k especially because the distortion sidebands are easier to deal with.  2) At 44.1k, the distortion sidebands come too close to the audio range, so the results become a little metallic.  Since also at 44.1k there is no frequency detail above 22k, there is little sense in producing results above 48k sample rate.  However, if I plan to use the results for subsequent processing, then I leave the material at 96k.

The DHDA (or more formally, DHNRDS -- I am working with a moderately well known audio engineer) is a gain control device, and as such, produces distortion sidebands (many fewer than a real DolbyA by virtue of the wonders of DSP).  These distortion sidebands are a simple mathematical necessity (almost), and it is important that those sidebands never encroach into the audio band, and that is why I almost never use the decoder at 44.1k.  There are distortion sidebands that remain in the audio range, and those are handled by two seperate proprietary techniques.  (There ARE specific distortion cancelling mechanisms  inside the DHDA -- very very advanced algorithms -- there are patents on similar techniques -- but at 44.1k, the damage is done too severely to recover...  Still sounds better than a cat22/361 type DolbyA though.)

This is one of the few times that it IS mathematically beneficial to use sample rates well above 44.1k in order to reproduce audio up to 20kHz.  The DHNRDS actually processes audio up to about 40kHz if being used at higher sample rates.  At lower sample rates, it is limited to about 21.5kHz.  (I implemented decoding up to 40kHz so that HD audio distributors would be happy.)

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Such encoding may be on the CD, but a sorted out rig won't present problems in the presentation of such. I listened regularly to a Howard Jones CD back in the 80's, and it came across very well. Also have an original release CD of the first ABBA album, and this is superb to listen to - demonstration quality in terms of the sound scape thrown up.

Some of the original release CD's of ABBA (and other material) are DolbyA encoded.  If THAT sounds good to anyone, then I'd worry.   I simply find vinyl to be distant and muddy sounding -- not enough transient capability to provide good time relationships.  Digital (with the use of linear phase filters -- unless necessary to meet a spec) maintains precise timing and structure of the signal.   (Simple analog filter equivalents (IIR) need not apply unless they are used for meeting specifications, sound effects or 'bass boost/cut' or 'treble boost/cut.')  'Normal' filters play with phase too much to maintain any kind of accuracy.  Nowadays, there is no excuse for using processing that modifies phase/timing relationships unless being used for artistic, tweaking, or simply for sounding the way that one wants.  Users need to know that when a signal is modified -- it just isn't an accurate representation anymore -- BUT THAT IS OKAY.

I don't argue against tweaking a signal in a certain way because it sounds nice to someone.  It just isn't very accurate to go around tweaking a signal unless you are doing it for a very precise technical reason.  Nothing wrong with being inaccurate.

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Also I have some ABBA Gold and more ABBA Gold (Japanese again), which are DolbyA encoded. 

 John

 After hearing yours, I searched around for the same from commercial CDs of Abba Gold encoded in .flac.

 I presume what you posted came from Japanese releases as they sound markedly better than a couple of the normally available " Gold" CDs even before being decoded to .wav before playback ?

 

Alex.

[John Dyson]

Many  CDs of older material  (including US versions) are either hyper compressed or in DolbyA form.  I used the Japanese versions because I had gone through enough verification to know that they were DolbyA.   The recent CD/digital 'defects' are not just DolbyA encoding, but also sometimes incredibly aggressive compression.   (I was going to write a long story as to how I ended up with all of the various CDs, but suffice to say -- it was a long and boring story about the destruction of my interest in listening to music on expensive audio systems back in the early 1990s.)

I have a big collection of CDs (fancy, imported ones)  in storage, and recently found  some nice Japanese CDs -- noticing that they sounded better than the 'new' one, much less compressed but too 'tinny' sounding.

Making a very long story short -- I figured out that DolbyA encoding was part of the problem with the 'tinny' sounding CDs (part of the reason for my loss of the listening hobby.)   Lots of CDs seemed to have a similar defect -- DolbyA encoding.

 

So -- the defects that you might hear are 1) DolbyA encoding, 2) hyper compression, 3) just poor mastering.

Here is an example of hyper compression:  On the Complete Studio Recordings, Waterloo/'Sitting In The Palmtree' has a peak-RMS ratio of approx 15dB and a crest factor of about 6.  That indicates very, very processed/compressed/limited.  My cleanest copy of 'Sitting In The Palmtree' still DolbyA encoded has peak-RMS of about 22dB and crest factor of about 11.  When decoded (where DolbyA doesn't really affect the indicators of waveshape that much): peak-RMS of 21dB and crest factorcloser to 11.5.  A vinyl version of 'Palmtree' has a peak-RMS of 20.6dB and crest factor of about 11.5.

 

The numbers above show that the 'vinyl' version was likely processed a little bit.  Simple compression doesn't affect the peak-RMS and crest factors all that much, so even a small difference in those numbers does show some kind of processing or EQ.   I suspect that my best copy of 'Waterloo' (where Palmtree resides) is probably close to a master tape in quality, but is also DolbyA encoded as a bonus (for me), but a frustrating matter for most other people who like ABBA and want to hear the best.  (By the time that you read this -- I'll put 30seconds of the beginning of 'My Mama Said' from the compressed "Complete Studio' and a part of the very raw version with little compression. 

for 'My Mama Said' on TCSR:  Peak-RMS=13dB, Crest=4.5, the 'good' DHNRDS  (DolbyA compatible) copy: Peak-RMS=21dB, Crest=10.   I also added a more 'responsibly' compressed version, using the DHNRDS version as a start and my 3 band compressor (source/binary on the same site) to tighten up the sound a little bit.

 

Filenames: ABBA-MyMamaSaid-TCSR.flac, ABBA-MyMamaSaid-DHDA.flac, ABBA-MyMamaSaid-DHDAcompressed.flac

 

(The raw DHDA/DHNRDS version is NOT 'sweetened', but is a raw decode meant to represent original sound character.)

IN IS AMAZING THAT BOTH VERSIONS HAVE THE SAME PEAK LEVEL!!!   Compression can make material sound A LOT louder.

 

Repository: https://spaces.hightail.com/space/yDG3L339Rn

 

Frankly, the heavly compressed version might sound better to some people!!

 

 

[The_K-Man]

51 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Here is an example of hyper compression:  On the Complete Studio Recordings, Waterloo/'Sitting In The Palmtree' has a peak-RMS ratio of approx 15dB and a crest factor of about 6.  That indicates very, very processed/compressed/limited.  M

 

That seems to suggest it's of a remaster, not an early or initial CD release.

[DuckToller]

26 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

... it was a long and boring story about the destruction of my interest in listening to music on expensive audio systems back in the early 1990s ...

John, I feel with you, having had similar experience after I changed into CD's (around the millenium), even I am not into Abba and Howard Jones. Thank you for the detailed information on the subject!
Is it, in your opinion, safe to assume, that music from digital downloads, if processed correctly and with care from the best available master, may sound better than most of the versions available on CD?
And more generally, that we won't get any additional comfort from the majority of digitized music, apart of not moving the CD tray anymore (formerly: the stylus drop down ;-))?
As the major music industry may not intend to to review their production process of their back catalogs (apart from the infamous MQA machinery  ...), only some audiophile Labels like Analogue Productions/Acoustic Sound will remain as the Gallic villages (Asterix)!
I just looked for some records of my favourite artists issued in the period 2016-2018 with DR >12,  and found that most of them are just slightly better than Metallica (DR3) , having more than halved the DR of their output since the 90ties.
OTOH, just having an excellent DR does not make good and interesting music/recordings,  as well as an impressive live performances ...
Cheers, Tom

[John Dyson]

36 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

That seems to suggest it's of a remaster, not an early or initial CD release.

Oh yes -- I didn't mean to imply that it (TCSRs) wasnt a recent extreme example of compressing an original master.  It was done in the early 2000's timeframe.

Much of the early material (of many bands) has been released (leaked) as DolbyA.   I don't think that TCSR is DolbyA encoded, but a DolbyA decoder can process it because of the extreme compression.  (I mean, really extreme compression -- maybe by one of the processors used in radio stations, rather than an artful, simple compressor.)

 

I was simply giving it as an example/answer about how bad recent CDs can sound (or be over-processed.)  My comments about DolbyA encoding of earlier material (I know -- even recently purchased CDs -- I just got a Queen greatest hits a few years  ago, DolbyA encoded) do still stand :-).

 

John

[John Dyson]

33 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

John, I feel with you, having had similar experience after I changed into CD's (around the millenium), even I am not into Abba and Howard Jones. Thank you for the detailed information on the subject!
Is it, in your opinion, safe to assume, that music from digital downloads, if processed correctly and with care from the best available master, may sound better than most of the versions available on CD?
And more generally, that we won't get any additional comfort from the majority of digitized music, apart of not moving the CD tray anymore (formerly: the stylus drop down ;-))?
As the major music industry may not intend to to review their production process of their back catalogs (apart from the infamous MQA machinery  ...), only some audiophile Labels like Analogue Productions/Acoustic Sound will remain as the Gallic villages (Asterix)!
I just looked for some records of my favourite artists issued in the period 2016-2018 with DR >12,  and found that most of them are just slightly better than Metallica (DR3) , having more than halved the DR of their output since the 90ties.
OTOH, just having an excellent DR does not make good and interesting music/recordings,  as well as an impressive live performances ...
Cheers, Tom

I do think that a good digital download or a mistakenly released DolbyA CD can often be processed into something superior to what is legally available  *anywhere* else.  A simple remaster can be almost the same as taking a DolbyA CD (properly dithered -- not screwed with, of course) and DolbyA decoding it, and doing some subsequent sweetening/EQ to make it more listenable.  A DolbyA master tape vs. a CD produced by playing the DolbyA master tape without manipulation will produce essentially the same results.  (The biggest problem with the CD is the 22kHz frequency cutoff.)   Not all masters are all that 'listenable' without further TLC.  I do have an idea that some of the ABBA stuff (I know you might not be a fan, but they are my example audio 'basket case' -- needs fixing :-)) isn't really meant to be relased with SIMPLE DolbyA decode, but a small amount of compression or EQ seems to be in order.  (I find thatraw DolbyA decoded  ABBA often sounds significantly better with a slight amount of multi-band compression -- they seemed to have planned for the raw, decoded material from master tape to be AGC/compressed.)

 

I'd suspect that more than a few NEW vinyl releases would have been mastered on digital platforms, and even the original tape might be digital (I mean at least 48k/24bit digital, not 44.1k/16bit.)  I doubt that the record companies are interested in doing a run to Iron Mountain (or wherever they keep the family jewels) just to do an audiophile release of something.  So, they likely grab the best (easily available) digital or analog master, do the appropriate TLC (if they are being honest) -- then produce the audiophile CD, or a bit more processing so that it will fit on vinyl.  (Appropriate manipulation to avoid mistracking, keeping grooves a reasonable size, etc.)  Of course, the necessary processing for digital includes an HF rolloff leading to a 22kHz brickwall for CD, or the appropriate processing for other sample rates.

 

I agree about the dynamic range not being the sole determining factor of 'quality'.  There are many aspects to recording quality -- even some subjective ones that are best not argued about -- that the experience actually becomes fragile if too much 'screwing around' is done to the recording.  When I am chatting with one of my RESPONSIBLE 'recording' friends, I find that they tend to be almost paranoid about 'following the rules' because of the troubles that 'too much misguided TLC' can cause.

 

My guess (somewhat educated from talking to people in the industry) is that the distributors make decisions based upon profits and cost (bean counting), and it costs money to take a digital tape which had been directly copied from a master tape and go through a time consuming process of a DolbyA decode.   it is very easy to take the master tape (digital or analog) and apply a broadcasting processor to the material -- easy to do, as the broadcasting processors can be pretty much automatic.  After such processing, the subjective value mostly decreases because of the extreme abuse.  (Again IMO -- not making ANY absolute claims.)  Some people DO like the sound of compression!!!

 

John

 

 

 

 

[hifitommy]

i am not against cd, i have many and enjoy them BUT i have heard an analogy that goes like this:   

 

if you take a steak and put it in a meat grinder, there is no way to put it back together properly.  that may overstate the digital reconstructional damage but it's not entirely wrong either.

 

as for the ticks and pops etc, good quality new records don't have them in mass quantities and properly stored, cleaned and played vinyl is nearly free of those artifacts.  cd otoh has an upper frequency limit of about 19-21.5kHz.  LP is free to play much higher overtones that affect the music quality.  the cd always lets  you feel said limitation.

[diecaster]

10 minutes ago, hifitommy said:

i am not against cd, i have many and enjoy them BUT i have heard an analogy that goes like this:   

 

if you take a steak and put it in a meat grinder, there is no way to put it back together properly.  that may overstate the digital reconstructional damage but it's not entirely wrong either.

 

as for the ticks and pops etc, good quality new records don't have them in mass quantities and properly stored, cleaned and played vinyl is nearly free of those artifacts.  cd otoh has an upper frequency limit of about 19-21.5kHz.  LP is free to play much higher overtones that affect the music quality.  the cd always lets  you feel said limitation.

 

Your analogy is terrible and your facts are wrong.

 

A Redbook CD can playback frequencies up to 22.05 kHz which is the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate.

 

LPs are bass limited compared to CDs.

 

LP dynamic range is limited compared to CDs.

 

Vinyl sounds great. But so do CDs especially with the best masterings. 

[The_K-Man]

6 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

Your analogy is terrible and your facts are wrong.

 

A Redbook CD can playback frequencies up to 22.05 kHz which is the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate.

 

LPs are bass limited compared to CDs.

 

LP dynamic range is limited compared to CDs.

 

Vinyl sounds great. But so do CDs especially with the best masterings. 

 

Or as I like to say - with the least mastering!  

[mansr]

6 hours ago, hifitommy said:

if you take a steak and put it in a meat grinder, there is no way to put it back together properly.  that may overstate the digital reconstructional damage but it's not entirely wrong either.

That is, in fact, entirely wrong.

[John Dyson]

On 1/7/2019 at 6:00 PM, fas42 said:

 

It's a shame, that you're depriving yourself of the chance of experiencing what CDs can deliver. "Litanies of high end components" mean nothing, unless the person who assembled the rig really understood what care and attention is needed to get Redbook sounding as it should.

 

Over 30 years ago I heard probably the best vinyl setup in Sydney - and his CD player. The LPs at their best hit a very good peak, but his CD replay fell well short - loss of low level detail was shocking. But I had not the slightest interest after that in pursing LP ... .

 

The "limits" of RBCD you hear are the 'standard' distortion characteristics of the medium when playback is not well implemented - they are the "snap, crackle, pop" of that method of music storage - and are just as hard to completely eliminate, as is vinyl "noise".

 

I have DolbyA decoded material that will TOTALLY knock anyones socks off.  A lot of the problem is the inprecision of the DolbyA decodes (and other NR systems -- I'd suspect that SR is even more critical.)  I just made several major improvements just in the last few days -- and the decoder was already LIGHTYEARS beyond a real DolbyA to begin with. Gibbs has NOT been my friend (that was part of the problems that I had resolved.)

The problems that you are hearing are not generally CD problems or even 16bit digital problems (because the actual resolution is finer than vinyl because of the total lack of even stats on the vinyl noise.)  44.1k can be a bit of a problem due to Gibbs, but even then -- the amount of energy above 12-15k is pretty small, so the liklihood of significant Gibbs is small most of the time.

Material mastered for digital material is often severely mismastered, and every little flaw shows up.  Vinyl has a nice imprecision -- so that can be nice.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

That is, in fact, entirely wrong.

 

I don't know if I agree/disagree with the OP's post -- but I do have/know and trying to herein explain the facts about digital resolution:

 

It is truly amazing about how misguided the opinions are about the 'stairstepping' or similar issues in digital audio.  I sometimes try to give an analogy that might sometimes help insightful people, as below:...

You know that cell system uses digital receivers.  The needed dynamic range is tremendous, and because of sharing the front-ends, the usage of AGC is necessarily limited.  But, in order to receive the incredibly wide dynamic range, and be able to utilize signals deeply buried in the input to the A/D on the input of the receiver, the amount of resolution has to be MUCH GREATER than the implied resolution of the 12bit/14bit and starting-to-be 16bit A/Ds.

So, how do they do this magic trick?  The answer is effectively similar to 'dithering' as used in audio.  It is specifically a little different, but in the same way as your hearing being able to hear material at/below the implied minimal signal of '16bit stair stepping', the cell receiver can extract very small signal from a bunch of noise.  (Peoples hearing is not quite as aggressive as the very special purpose receivers -- but this makes the point):

Summary:  There is much more resolution available than the 16bit (or even 24bit, if dithered) audio.  (24bits might adequately be effectively 'dithered' because of system noise -- but it is probably best to dither anyway.)

John

[The_K-Man]

58 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Material mastered for digital material is often severely mismastered, and every little flaw shows up.  Vinyl has a nice imprecision -- so that can be nice.

 

As in, what appears in my profile avatar!

 

Digital, with its infinitely flat and noise-free specs, is also unfortunately quite tolerant of the abuses in processing and mis-practices that, back in Geoff Emerich's or Alan Parsons' era, would have gotten one FIRED!

 

All in the name of sheer LOUDNESS.

 

Beyond applying dither during post, and I don't know if pre-emphasis is still done for Red Book release, the same common-sense rules apply to mastering for digital as they did for analog.  

 

Assuming the mix eng. has done all the necessary carving and sculpting and panning, etc. of the elements to provide decent mixes, all the masteing eng. has to do is:

 

1. EQ all the album tracks to have a similar timbre.

2. Dynamically compress to taste, not to blow out someone's tweeters at volume level 1 out of 10!

3. Level all the album tracks so the listener, hurtling down the highway at 60mph, doesn't have to with his/her volume control.

4. Ensure a proper gap between all album tracks.

5. Provide all the proper TOC(table of contents) info, if for a CD: Exact start and end times for each song, and lengths of gaps between.

 

There's really no such thing as "mastering for.." any particular format, besides the low-end band limitations and panning restrictions for vinyl, and the RIAA curve applied at the cutting house.

[diecaster]

4 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Or as I like to say - with the least mastering!  

 

Except that flat transfers are often terrible compared to quality masterings. There is a reason there are mastering artists/engineers and it is not to ruin the music.  Well, at least not until the the 90’s anyway....

[The_K-Man]

9 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

Except that flat transfers are often terrible compared to quality masterings. There is a reason there are mastering artists/engineers and it is not to ruin the music.  Well, at least not until the the 90’s anyway....

 

By "least mastering" I meant least abusive mastering - as represented by the example in my avatar.  If that means mastering as we knew it before the mid-'90s, then I concur.

 

As far as 'flat transfers' are concerned, I prefer those in a reissue context.  I'm generally not a fan of remastering, considering the evident abuse that were sold to the public as 'remastered'.

[hifitommy]

it is amusing to me that the chorus here is all in lock step with the glorification of digits.  the gang is banded together to exclude any variation from the mantra.  regardless, analog sounds more natural than most digital .