buying lp's and cassettes - true analog listening ?

I

IronWine

Member
hi you guys
this question came up in my mind while shopping for cassettes and lp's on Ebay.
So,some labels reissuing cassettes, lp's are reissued like crazy, and a lot of "new" music coming out on lp's too.
But, if we put aside the fun of just playing cassettes and lp's, if it has been produced from digital recordings or digital copies back in the studio, that wouldn't be considered true analog isn't it? i mean, it has already been digitized to "10111001", putting it back to analog formats won't bring the lost sound from the deads isn't it?

let's take for example rhcp's BSSM album.
I guess it was recorded on a STUDER reel to reel of some sort (or did the digital equipment already took over the studios in 91'?) ?
so buying an original cassette from back then, that would be a true analog experience..but what about a 2016 reissue of a cassette or lp that they might have used their digital copies to reproduce?or "worse" 2010's music that was definItley recorded digitally and then they issued it on lp's.

i can just copy FLAC version of the album from my PC to a cassete using a cassete deck, and that would be pretty much the same.. digital info on an analog format.

or isn't it? :confused:

YES i am confused as hell and i might confused you too

thanks !
 
Hey,
I don't know for certain but I saw an interview where Brendan O'Brien said
"We were working with tape back then so you fixed by editing and did pieces. Some songs we did all the way through, some we did pieces, so we edited later to make the song sound better."

If you're talking about 'lost sound', it depends where/why it was lost.
Wether something was recorded to protools or tape doesn't really matter if compromises, mistakes, or bad decisions were made in the mix down or mastering process.

On the other hand I'd bet there are plenty of albums which were recorded on early digital systems and released on cassette and/or LP, but could benefit massively from being revisited with modern technology.
The problem with that is a lot of original sessions (tied to outdated versions of software) just won't exist now.

IronWine said:
i can just copy FLAC version of the album from my PC to a cassete using a cassete deck, and that would be pretty much the same.. digital info on an analog format.
Click to expand...

That be the same if that's what the people releasing are doing.
Chances are they're doing more than that.
 
I read a while back, on some post here, in an article that mentioned something about the fact that they've been using some type of digital delay since the early 80s (maybe even the late 70s?) during the mastering process to correct some .... something to do with pressing vinyl. I can't remember the particulars.

But I remember a digital proponent saying something to the effect of "See! All you analog nuts claiming about the superior sound of 80s albums have been listening to digital all along and you didn't even know it!"

I wish I could provide more info, but I can't remember the particulars. Maybe someone else does?
 
Whatever is happening before it gets to vinyl is whatever it is and may or may not contribute to the sound of vinyl.
But the record itself has it's own sound that many find pleasing. I know I do. :)

I saw an interview with Eddie Kramer, anf he pointed out that listening to records gets you away from the mp3/earbud disease.

Think about it. Most people listening to records have good stereo systems by today's standards. Some have excellent stereo systems by any standards.
 
Yeah I don't really care too much about it. I like listening to vinyl because it's a different mindset. It's not this one-song-short-attention-span mentality that so many young people have today. When you put on an album (at least when I do), I listen to the whole thing, and it's just a pleasant experience all the way around.
 
famous beagle said:
I read a while back, on some post here, in an article that mentioned something about the fact that they've been using some type of digital delay since the early 80s (maybe even the late 70s?) during the mastering process to correct some .... something to do with pressing vinyl. I can't remember the particulars.
Click to expand...

AFAIK it's to do with the cutting, specifically the groove spacing. The simplest way is to have the cutting head move in towards the centre at a constant rate. However, you can get more time on the record by dynamically varying the speed at which the cutting head moves inwards, allowing you to pack more grooves together if there's not much bass or that part of the song is quiet or something.
The problem is you need to be able to see what the song is about to do one revolution in advance. Originally this was done by adding an extra head on the playback deck so that it's delayed. That means the control system can listen to the main playback head and the record itself is cut from the delayed head.
Once digital delays started to come along, they used those instead. But of course, that means that the signal being cut onto lacquer is the one from the digital delay. IIRC Slugbug's 'Truck Month' was cut by bypassing the delay and just using the constant-rate method so it would be all-analogue.
 
famous beagle said:
Yeah I don't really care too much about it. I like listening to vinyl because it's a different mindset. It's not this one-song-short-attention-span mentality that so many young people have today. When you put on an album (at least when I do), I listen to the whole thing, and it's just a pleasant experience all the way around.
Click to expand...

It's the same experience with a CD if you listen to it in its entirety.

What ruined that type of listening experience is the single song downloads and the whole playlist mentality.
Granted, playlist may provide the same type of listening experience, allowing you to tailor a hour or two or three of continuous music in some order that appeals to you.
I think you only miss out on the "whole album" experience where artists recorded the albums with some sort global theme from start to finish, but how many were really done that way?
I think most were just a bunch of song that got placed in some order during mastering, and it is we, the listeners who imagined a more global album theme because back in the day, when you played an album, you usually sat down and played the whole thing front to back....and that's what was burned in your memory...that "magic" from the specific order of the songs. However, you often hear/read about the recording process of many classic albums, and you find out that songs were sometimes thrown together to form the album, and not so much a focused per-production plan.
That said...all the vinyl and CD albums that I know well, I would find it odd if the order of the songs was changed around.
 
miroslav said:
It's the same experience with a CD if you listen to it in its entirety.

What ruined that type of listening experience is the single song downloads and the whole playlist mentality.
Granted, playlist may provide the same type of listening experience, allowing you to tailor a hour or two or three of continuous music in some order that appeals to you.
I think you only miss out on the "whole album" experience where artists recorded the albums with some sort global theme from start to finish, but how many were really done that way?
I think most were just a bunch of song that got placed in some order during mastering, and it is we, the listeners who imagined a more global album theme because back in the day, when you played an album, you usually sat down and played the whole thing front to back....and that's what was burned in your memory...that "magic" from the specific order of the songs. However, you often hear/read about the recording process of many classic albums, and you find out that songs were sometimes thrown together to form the album, and not so much a focused per-production plan.
That said...all the vinyl and CD albums that I know well, I would find it odd if the order of the songs was changed around.
Click to expand...

You're right that you can have that same experience with a CD, but I specifically remember that "one-song" phenomenon starting with CDs. I remember people saying "play track 8!" and not even knowing what the song was called. I think this was because it became so easy to instantly pull up any track (especially if your home CD player had a remote). In a car, everyone would do that: Insert the CD ... then skip, skip, skip, jam.
 
I have a lot of albums, but my favorite medium is the CD. Man, albums were a pain, pops and clicks, using a cleaner to reduce it, having to handle them on the sides to keep fingerprints of of them, using and anti-static gun. I still throw one on every now and again, but I think the CD is still the best.

Now for sound, I thought the CD sounded better as well, I now try to listen to my music in a wave file. The car stereo I purchased supports the 16/44 waves. Just seems like it has the best of all worlds.
 
DM60 said:
I have a lot of albums, but my favorite medium is the CD. Man, albums were a pain, pops and clicks, using a cleaner to reduce it, having to handle them on the sides to keep fingerprints of of them, using and anti-static gun. I still throw one on every now and again, but I think the CD is still the best.

Now for sound, I thought the CD sounded better as well, I now try to listen to my music in a wave file. The car stereo I purchased supports the 16/44 waves. Just seems like it has the best of all worlds.
Click to expand...

I thought/think CDs/DVDs are too prone to scratching. Although I take care of mine, I don't know how many times I saw other people's die because of it. I came across it much more than scratched LPs; maybe that was just my experience. And when I was first a member of Netflix when it was a just a by-mail DVD service, holy crap. It would literally be that every third or every other DVD was scratched and wouldn't play correctly.
 
Cd and dvd tip of the day.

Get some toothpaste on your finger and rub in a circular motion. Thin it out on the next polish with some water. Rinse it all off and dry with a soft preferably microfiber cloth.
Bingo the media works again. :D

In my shop however, I go full out. I take fine grit buffing compound and buff them on the same buffing wheel I use for polishing lacquer.

Both methods do the same thing, which is to take the scratches out of the plastic. The buffer just works faster.
:D

Edit: @ beagle. I think why you've seen more scratched cds and dvds has to do with a lack of 'take care of it' ethic.

Back in the day ones parents taught you how to properly handle a record before they ever let you touch their stereo.
Nowadays? Who cares? Cds/dvds are layed out. Scattered around. They're put in different cases so you can't find them All kind of shit.
Lazy bastards :)
 
I think CDs were treated much worse than LPs. But I also was under the impression that the scratches making a problem in the playing had to do with the quality of the reading head in the player. Maybe that was just the stereo guy up-selling me ;)

I treated my CDs like I treated my LPs, kept my fingers off of them, kept them in the caddy. But I do think they were more robust than an LP. Could be why I didn't have issues.
 
I like Vinyl partly because many of my favorites are out of print. Even some Elvis stuff, Try finding the out of print "Fool" album from 1973.. Elvis demanded it deleted because it wasn't named and people were referring the album by on single from it the song Fool.
Some of the Movie soundtracks and pre remastered albums.. And NO remixing isn't always better, just a different opinion as background vocal, instrument mixes can be changed even overdubs cut. SO THERE!.....lol
My Stereo is a vintage Marantz 2230 completely restored, Pioneer CD player and turntable, rebuilt Sherwood cassette, and Akai 4000DS Reel to Reel, Advent (real Walnut) Bullnose Gen 1 Speakers. It simply sounds superb with clean highs an Silky Lows that go subsonic, mids that add clarity without the piercing edge.
I have a Complete Marantz Quad system with matching Decoder and early CD Deck and Reel to Ree, German turn tablel that someone
GAVE to me, it is all still in the factory boxes All power up but need work, I just need money to do the work correctly......
 
I know this has nothing to do with the subject, but a skip on a Blood, Sweat, and Tears album is the ultimate mood breaker.........
 
I find the idea of digital processing losing some analogue "magic" laughable, more likely the other way around!

If we allow the VERY best tape machine a 70dB dynamic range* that only comes out to some 11 and a bit "bits". Any "magic" is lost in noise whereas a digital recording, even at the then 16bit limit, would likely capture far more information (quite what that information would BE and WTF good it would do you I don't know!) .

VERY well cut vinyl has a noise floor a little better than tape so a digital master to vinyl would be better.

*And that, don't forget, at a THD of maybe 2-3% when for digital they probably did not have good enough test gear to MEASURE the THD at -1dBFS!...But then it is probably the distortion that the vinyl junkies think is "magic"! Also, very, very few home repro systems get close to playing a black disc optimally both mechanically and electronically.

Yes, CD was not as scratch proof as often claimed although I rarely had trouble. The playback device has a lot to answer for. I have an original 2nd gen' Philips CD player and that does not tolerate scratched discs nearly so well as most of the drives in my computers.

Dave.
 
What you trying to do? Ruin the mood?

That's like trying to destroy our image of the beautiful woman we're in love with by providing a chemical breakdown of what the love of our life's physical form is actually made out of.
:D
 
RFR said:
What you trying to do? Ruin the mood?

That's like trying to destroy our image of the beautiful woman we're in love with by providing a chemical breakdown of what the love of our life's physical form is actually made out of.
:D
Click to expand...

#"When you're in love with a beautiful woman..." #.

Dave.
 
Dave stops by in the analog forum once in a while to try and "ruin the mood"

Statements like the 70dB range "for the VERY best tape machines" are mis-informative. A battery powered Nagra beats that number handily. Specs for a tape machine coupled with Dolby SR are about 110dB, so again...

THD at 3%, hogwash. Im staring at a manual for one of my Tascams, THD < .5% (off by a factor of 6)

Dave used to come into the analog section more often trying to talk up just how bad tape is/was. But ultimately he admitted that his experience with tape machines was limited to one consumer deck.

Don't get me wrong, Dave goes out of his way to help folks, especially in the Newbie section. Analog, particularly tape, not so much :cool:
 
Last edited:
mdainsd said:
Dave stops by in the analog forum once in a while to try and "ruin the mood"

Statements like the 70dB range "for the VERY best tape machines" are mis-informative. A battery powered Nagra beats that number handily. Specs for a tape machine coupled with Dolby SR are about 110dB, so again...

THD at 3%, hogwash. Im staring at a manual for one of my Tuscans, THD < .5% (off by a factor of 6)

Dave used to come into the analog section more often trying to talk up just how bad tape is/was. But ultimately he admitted that his experience with tape machines was limited to one consumer deck.

Don't get me wrong, Dave goes out of his way to help folks, especially in the Newbie section. Analog, particularly tape, not so much :cool:
Click to expand...

Guilty as! But I was talking about old tape machines used in the heyday of vinyl. Dolby A was very good but a lot of people did not trust it.

Half a bloody percent THD? There are speakers better than that at 85dSPL!

I still stand by my assertion that VERY few people have the means to retrieve the best out of vinyl.

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top