2. analog
  3. 1183295043

Does digital mastering/remastering "ruin" LP's?

I'm fairly new to the audio world, and looking at getting into vinyl. I've read, of course, of the benefits that analogue proponents cite, i.e. a more organic and natural sound, and about some of the downsides of CD's, i.e. a harsh or metallic presentation (at least for early digital). I know that companies like Telarc started recording in digital in the late 70's, and then did some sort of D/A conversion to press their LP's. I would imagine other labels did so through the mid-80's. I've noticed some 80's DG LP's that proclaim on the label that the recording was "digitally remastered".

So my question is this. If digitizing music introduces undesirable artifacts, has the music on such LP's been "ruined". That is, do these records sound like early 80's CD's? Or do they still sounds like analogue recordings (if so, why?). Just curious about this, and wondering if I should stay away from such records as I start to buy used LP's. Thanks!

John
john_adams_sunnyvale
r_f_sayles's avatar
r_f_sayles
872 posts
 
Basically... to my ear, YES.
But the newer remastering of the Rolling Stones ABKCO records with DSD were very fine indeed and few of us own a full set of minty fresh UK originals.

What I also find curious is how a home recorded CD from a good vinyl, off a solid TT sounds better than a store bought red book CD everytime!

Happy Listening! 0100101101010001111011011010100110101010101000011000
emailists
923 posts
 
An interview with Bob ludwig (I think) mentioned that there is a full extra octive of upper end info on LP's cut from 96K digital sources compared with the CD version.

Also many new LP's signal path becomes digitized in the lathe, even is fuly analog before that, which is a bummer.
mothra
110 posts
 
the 80's would be a bad way to judge anything digital.

Your answer is that it depends. Like analog mastering you can get something that sounds great or terrible. there is no hard rule. The best way for people to judge this is if they don't know how the material was sourced and mastered.

Sometimes you get a mixed bag. The soul-jazz label reggae issues certainly seem digitally mastered and god knows where the masters are from. They are enjoyable enough though as the originals are often quite muddy and distorted. So, you trade one evil for another.
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
I agree with Mothra, there's no simple rule about it all. I have some LPs that were originally digitally recorded, and they sound really good. They're maybe not quite as warm and mellow as a full analog chain, but they are very musically satisfying. To paraphrase Michael Fremer, with a digitally recorded LP, you're hearing an analog master made from a pro-quality ($20K and up) D/A converter working from the original sampling rate and word length. With a CD the digital master has been dithered down to 16/44.1. The LP sounds better, period.

As to digital RE-mastering, I'm not sure. Some probably make things sound clearer, some may make them sound thinner. I have little experience in LPs made from digital remasters.

But I have a few digitally recorded LPs and I like them. These include the soundtrack to O Brother, Where Art Thou?, a digital Angel direct-metal-mastered LP of The Planets, and a Fantasy jazz LP of Hank Crawford and Jimmy McGriff. All sound fabulous with the warmth of LP AND the sparkle of digital.
More to discover