The analog apology

[Muckelroy]

How often have you purchased a CD, and opened the case, and began thumbing through the booklet, only to see an entire page dedicated to an "analog apology?"

I've purchased a few classic albums on CD format, and they just have to say that the record was recorded using analog equipment, and is therefore subject to the limitations of the medium....................so, am I supposed to expect it to be a digital album if it was recorded in 1969?

I just don't understand why the record companies decide to make it a point to print that on the CD inserts.

 

[RRuskin]

How often have you purchased a CD, and opened the case, and began thumbing through the booklet, only to see an entire page dedicated to an "analog apology?"

I've purchased a few classic albums on CD format, and they just have to say that the record was recorded using analog equipment, and is therefore subject to the limitations of the medium....................so, am I supposed to expect it to be a digital album if it was recorded in 1969?

I just don't understand why the record companies decide to make it a point to print that on the CD inserts.

Just a guess but it might be because of some audible tape hiss the label is less than proud of.

 

[jjones1700]

Just a guess but it might be because of some audible tape hiss the label is less than proud of.

True, however, CDs weren't out in the 60s and 70s. Do they honestly think that a master could be "improved" by simply changing the media that the music is distributed on? Now if they were mastering from vinyl, I could see the point in the disclaimer since there would most likely be the inherent pops and crackles. I have always wondered the same as Muckelroy.

 

[121234...]

How often have you purchased a CD, and opened the case, and began thumbing through the booklet, only to see an entire page dedicated to an "analog apology?"

I've purchased a few classic albums on CD format, and they just have to say that the record was recorded using analog equipment, and is therefore subject to the limitations of the medium....................so, am I supposed to expect it to be a digital album if it was recorded in 1969?

I just don't understand why the record companies decide to make it a point to print that on the CD inserts.

Not sure why they feel the need to apologise. Perhaps there are still CDs around that were not digitally remastered from the original studio tapes, or that couldn't be brought up to standards with the modern process? I recall back in the 1970s there was some sneaky cutting back in the reproduction mediums, like cheaper than normal cassette/8-track quality and poorly reproduced records. If the original master tapes were lost for an album (as has been the case for some albums) sadly, those poor quality reproductions would have had to suffice.

But overall, there is no reason to expect a 1960-1985 recording to be anything comparable to the modern pristine sounding digital repros. It seems odd to have such a disclaimer when there is so much downloading in the industry.

 

[RRuskin]

True, however, CDs weren't out in the 60s and 70s. Do they honestly think that a master could be "improved" by simply changing the media that the music is distributed on?

From an overall noise perspective, the sound would be improved but the tape hiss that was masked by the lp surface noise would/could somewhat audible on a CD. Hence, the disclaimer.

 

[SteveM]

If they find limitations in the transferring it's because of digital's inferiority.
Seeing as they sound so much better in their original analog formats.

 

[cjacek]

I, for one, don't think it's as tame as it sounds. It's just another shot at analogue by the recording industry, hyping digital. The more times a lie is spread, it becomes the truth.

 

[pehjott]

I know that this sentence is printed on Cpt. beefhearts Trout Mask Replica and one could think that the whole record is full of distortion and hiss.....i mean, it wouldn't misfit on the 1st velvet underground record ^^

 

[famous beagle]

I think they also do that because there are plenty of idiots and/or young punks that don't realize it's a classic album reissued on CD. They think "this is a CD, so it's supposed to sound all pristine like other CDs do."

It's really amazing to witness the ignorance when I talk to non-musicians about audio. I'm not belittling anybody; I'm sure I'm ignorant on plenty that they're experts on. But we take for granted a lot about the general public when it comes to music.

The "digital is better" fallacy has completely brainwashed over 99% of the general public, and it's truly a shame.

 

[Beck]

They’re making excuses for a poor product by pointing a finger at the original analog masters. In truth, the old vinyl and even cassette releases of the same album sound better. They don’t expect the reader to be informed… to know enough about the technologies involved to be able to discern whether they’re hearing analog or digital artifacts.

Tape hiss was conquered long ago. Even if the original masters didn’t use traditional companding noise reduction like Dolby or dbx, the advances in single-ended noise filtering have made tape noise a non-issue.

And since many of the original analog masters don’t even exist it’s more likely that the early digital formats they were transferred to are the weak links.

 

[famous beagle]

And since many of the original analog masters don’t even exist it’s more likely that the early digital formats they were transferred to are the weak links.

That's probably the biggest misconception the general public has about digital. They think "digital = digital = better." They don't realize how truly bad early digital sounded.

 

[analogkid]

Honestly the real problem with Early CDs was that they were in most cases NOT mastered for CD (I'm talking the entire MCA catalog here). That plus the fact that many, many 1970s recordings were made on 8 and 16 track machines that simply sounded like crap - I know we are all analog fans here but there were some real BAD recordings made in the 1970s. Like everything Clapton recorded in that decade - listen to tape, LP or remastered CDs, the story is the same: Excessive noise, muffled bass, tape hiss, you name it. No amount of re-mastering or digital trickery can fix bad Master tracks. That's where the 'apology' comes in, because digital highlights and magnifies these problems.

AK

 

[Dr ZEE]

Digital recording neither highlights nor magnifies a thing.

And, If the original recordings were sh*ty crap - it has nothing to do with analog recording per say.
The "note" on cd could be like:
"Dear Music Lover. Thank You for purchasing this Compact Disc from Evergreen DigiRecords International Inc.. We hope you enjoy the convinience of your new New CD. However the quality of the original recordings of this album were made years before we were born and were pretty shitty and there was not a damn thing we could do about it. For questions or comments contact us at www.evergreendigi.com or at www.e-greendigi.org[/B]"

BTW, there is nothing "special" about that "...subject to the limitations..." note on CDs, on the contrary it's rather a generic meaningless thing - one of those notes ala "Keep Refrigerated after opening" that you find on a pack of Oscar Mayer or similar product at your nearest hometown store. Actually the "keep refrigerated" one makes sense

 

[cjacek]

I agree that it has nothing to do with the actual gear used but rather the way it was recorded and then pressed for the listening public. I wonder how many generations were used, off of the original masters, to press the vinyl and dub to 4 track tape. But the way the recording companies explain it away is to take direct shots at analogue, which is less than genuine.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Even if the original masters didn’t use traditional companding noise reduction like Dolby or dbx, the advances in single-ended noise filtering have made tape noise a non-issue.

QUOTE]

I wish that were true. Many hissy recordings, whether digital or analog could then be "cleaned up" or "enhanced'.

But the reality is they mostly cant. Single ended "after the fact" noise filtering cant do the impossible and unscramble eggs. Unwanted noise of the same frequency content as the program cant normally be separated. Put more simply you cant "restore' information that was never captured in the first place.

By contrast, double ended Dolby and dbx did their essential work at the encode end, pushing program well above system noise when there was the chance to do it. At playback is too late.

A huge amount of program these days is put through the "denoising" wringer and mostly you just lose the ambience and quiet sounds. Everything sounds like a low bitrate mp3. Much of this is due to the easy availability of denoising algorithms and the lack of skill with which they are applied.

This is sadly one of the "digital restoration" myths that should be exposed, in my view.

OTOH as you say, a good clean original recording will transfer well to another format because it was good in the first place.

 

[Beck]

Yep Tim, I agree with you about the digital "restoration" methods.

I was thinking about the single-ended analog solutions, like the Behringer (Made in Germany) Studio Denoiser MK-III (AKA NR-202). The MK-III was still used by Lucasfilm in the late 90’s. I have the NR-202, which is the same on the inside.

But, I suppose most people are using digital solutions for after-the-fact noise reduction, which as you said would be another part of the problem.

 

[mastercontrolme]

They should have a disclaimer on some of the new recordings they are trying to sell today...

 

[sweetbeats]

Yeah...there's music I really like, but the dynamics get so squashed which brings out the preamp or line amp that got pushed...and fer cryin' out loud, can we lay off the pitch correction??? Is it just me or can others hear those things working away (and I'm not talking about when it is being used as an effect)? They're not that hard to use/set so that they operate transparently...

 

[Farview]

How often have you purchased a CD, and opened the case, and began thumbing through the booklet, only to see an entire page dedicated to an "analog apology?"

I've purchased a few classic albums on CD format, and they just have to say that the record was recorded using analog equipment, and is therefore subject to the limitations of the medium....................so, am I supposed to expect it to be a digital album if it was recorded in 1969?

I just don't understand why the record companies decide to make it a point to print that on the CD inserts.

I think that it is an artwork hold-over from when CD's first came out. There used to be big talk about how much clearer CD's sounded, they felt it necessary to point out that the CD can only be as clean as the original recording.

 

[cjacek]

They should have a disclaimer on some of the new recordings they are trying to sell today...

Yeah, like "Warning, some people may experience Tinnitus or a perceived ringing in the ears as the result of being exposed to digital audio over an extended period of time. Seek the approval of your physician prior to exposure."