Sound quality of new vinyl recordings.


I would like to get back to vinyl. I have not heard any new vinyl yet but I question the sound quality and I hope someone can help as I have not yet found the answer to my question. Are new vinyl recordings from original analog source or are they just copying digital onto vinyl. If there are both out there what do I look for to tell the difference before I buy

128x128randym860

To answer viridian i was looking to go back to vinyl because i remember the rich sound of my old vinyl from the 70's. I fear i may not get that if they are copying digital to vinyl then i might as well stay with cd's or streaming.

Post removed 

"99% or more of new pressings are sourced from digital files." "Only a few specialist companies like Classic Records will use all analog tape."

Let’s take care of the simple one first: Classic records has been out of business for about 15 years.

Chad Kassem of Analogue Productions (record company) /Acoustic Sounds (distribution) / Quality Record Pressing (LP manufacturing) bought the inventory (metal parts---from which LP stampers are made) and intellectual property (the rights to the name UHQR) when Classic closed down. Almost all his very excellent LP releases are made directly from analogue tape sources, and the few that aren’t are clearly labelled as being not. AP has hundreds of great titles in their catalogue, many of them the best versions of specific titles ever manufactured. There are plenty of comparisons between various pressing of LP titles available for viewing on YouTube, made by serious record collectors.

The German company Speakers Corner is another superior reissue label. I have about a dozen of their LP’s, all excellent, all made from analogue tapes. Vinyl Me Please is another company doing all analogue reissues, and there are a couple dozen more (one being Intervention Records, others Acony, Light In The Attic, Jackpot Records here in Portland, plenty of others) doing the same. Anyone who is unaware of them is not to be taken seriously when making statements about the percentage of LP’s made from digital files.

So how about new albums, not reissues? You’ll notice guys making the claim that 99% or more of LP’s use digital files as their source material never back up that statement with solid evidence. Do they frequent recording studios, and/or know any professional musicians, recording and/or mastering engineers? Upon what is the statement based? Source, please, with examples and numbers.

The great studio here in Portland where Bill Frisell records a lot (Flore Recording And Playback) does so on a 2" 24-track analogue machine (I’ve recorded there), as does the other studio in town I’ve been in. When I recorded with Emitt Rhodes he had an Otari 2" 24-track analogue machine, and well known recording engineer Tchad Blake (Los Lobos, T Bone Burnett, Elvis Costello) was taping onto a 2" 24-track Ampex when I recorded with him in the old RCA studio on Santa Monica Blvd. (in the huge room in which The Stones recorded "Satisfaction"!), as did engineer Jeff Bakos when I recorded with Evan Johns in Atlanta, Georgia.

Lots of people say lots of things; not all of them know what they’re talking about.

OP,

Your last comment really brings up a lot of subjects.

On my system, digital and analog sound “the same”. Very, very close. To verify this it has taken all sorts of tests, attempting to get the exact same masters… etc. it gets really complicated. For one thing, vinyl masters deteriorate very quickly, so the pressing number in the series has an impact… not so in digital. But I listen to music about three hours a day and switch among streaming and vinyl… I have long since given up CDs and stored files as streaming is equal or better. But it is really clear that with the right equipment… digital can equal analog in sound quality. Unless we are talking about really good systems… greater than $250K… where analog wins because of its greater resolution.

 

So, here is the point. If you are constrained… let’s say to a system less than $20K… then vinyl can constitute a really compelling case… it can sound better than digital. But as your system gets better… digital can sound as good for the same amount of money. So, now the dilemma. If you are building a better system over time… then you will quickly reach better quality by investing in only digital… since spreading your investment into two technologies reduces the sound quality in both.

My analog end and digital end were about exactly equal at $45K digital and $42K analog. I am not sure why, but I have increased my investment by about $12K in $3K increments over the last year and a half. So, my analog rig sounds a little bit better… but, it depends on the recording. I just have to stop doing this!

 

This relates to recording quality in that what you hear is highly effected by the quality of the equipment you use to reproduce it. 

to me, digital would win, based on "average" sound quality. It varies a lot less than vinyl. I don’t have money for expensive albums, so half of my collection is pretty poor quality. But about 10% of my LPs is way better than any CD, as it has been described many times: it has a soul, ambience, nostalgia, authenticity, it’s natural and has no digital characteristics (on my system, it’s brightness, unnatural highs, "scratchiness")

It also has to do with the type of music, soon after CDs surpassed vinyl, I think digital became preferred and both our ears and producing music adapted to digital. I have no vinyl from the 90s and most of my CDs are pretty flawless. (e.g. Dylan vs U2)