Topic: Is vinyl really better? I mean really, in reality, actually better?

Well, I can definitely expand on Bob's quote from the PPH article with my own mastering experiences.

Virtually all of the vinyl made of new records that I have mastered are being cut from a digital version of the mastering I made. In a perfect world, I master the album high resolution digital (higher res. than CD), then send those mastered/edited files to the engineer cutting the master lacquers for vinyl pressing. That engineer's job is to then translate my already mastered digital audio to disc, maintaining as much of the integrity of my master to vinyl. (BTW: I would do this all myself, but we no longer have a cutting lathe at GW). Then a test pressing would be made at the vinyl plant, which would be sent to me for quality control purposes. Theoretically the vinyl would sound very close to the CD, and hopefully better given that it was made from the high resolution files, going to an analog medium (the CD is also made from the high res. files, brought down to regular CD quality).

This is in a perfect world!

Possibly some of these steps are skipped, especially the QC of the test pressing, which is most concerning to me. If a good cut wasn't made to disc, the vinyl could very well sound worse than the CD, or at least not as how it was intended to sound by myself, the producer, and most importantly: the artist.

So...did I answer the question at hand? Probably not :)

It all comes down to this - CD can sound really great, vinyl can sound really great, even higher res MP3's and AAC files can sound good - if proper care is taken in production.

When I read about CODE a month or two ago, I wasn't sure how different it would be than DVD-Audio. I haven't tried to keep up. I will see what I can dig up. I have not had personal experience with music video on Blu-Ray. Everything I am aware of are live DVDs. Adam may know something assuming that Springsteen's Live in Dublin was done at Gateway.

Re: Sam's point about classic rock on LP vs. CD, I wonder if part of the issue is the difference in mastering styles in 1970 vs 1990.

I still can't find any real tangible info about the CODE 'process'. For it to exist on a traditional DVD-Video disc, it technically can't be as high resolution as a DVD-Audio disc has the ability to be, though it can still be higher resolution than an audio CD - a step in the right direction IMO. Basically, it is either 48 khZ/24 bit stereo audio, or it is less than that, encoded with some lossy compression. My bet is on it being 48k/24 bit. DVD-Audio can go as high as 192 kHz/24 bit for stereo, though the sample rate differences can be negligible.

Blu-Ray is also a hopeful new format for both hd video, and the possibility of doing high resolution audio only type releases. I do know of a few Blu-Ray music video/concert disc to hit the market soon...though I probably shouldn't say just yet :)

Chris & Sam - in regards to the question about classic albums (those originally released on vinyl before CD) sounding better than their CD counterparts...I'm sure that is true in at least some cases. The difference in mastering styles could be part of it, though I really think that the main reason is that early CD releases (especially those of catalog releases) were victim of early digital technology. Low resolution digital technology, and early analog to digital conversion technology was a big part of the problem. Not to mention the fact that some were made from poor transfers of safety tapes simply transferred to digital. On a few occasions when remastering I have found that just doing a better transfer of the master tapes using my better analog and digital gear already beats the original CD release sonically...then I add some more mastering magic to make a huge difference :)

Hey, Adam
I ran a record store in Burlington Vermont in the 80's. Every so often a couple customers special-ordered Japanese pressings of classic rock - Dark Side of the Moon, for example - insisting that "they sound better".

The debate raged often at the store between those who felt it was the equipment that mattered - high quality cabling, say - and the Japanese record geeks. I admit they seemed twice the weight and sounded really clean, but where would you weigh in on that question, and what method did Japanese producers use to achieve the "Better" quality, beyond perhaps, just a better pressing environment?

Great forum!
JD

Hi JD,

Sorry I haven't responded to your question sooner...

I think there could be several answers to your question, and yes the weight/grade of the vinyl does make a big difference, and will produce a quieter record. I think this would be the reason for the better Japanese pressings, though it is of course also possible that the masters for those vinyl releases were done by a different engineer than the US release. I think that could be the case for some vinyl releases, as the master lacquer cut to make the pressing of a vinyl record can only be used so many times before cutting a new one, and shipping the lacquer a great distance could cause problems too.

Hard to say exactly, but also remember that "better" is subjective!

I can't speak to the current state of cd quality vs Vinyl, but I can tell you categorically, every single one of you would be blow away by the difference in quality if you listened side by side to one of the early '80's Mobile Fidelity Limited half speed Mastered vinyl releases against the same recordings cd releases. Dark Side of the Moon and Little Feat's Waiting for Columbus are two good examples. Of course if you don't have a fairly high end cartridge on your turntable and high quality (likely component)audio gear, that difference will be greatly diminished. But with a great HiFi the difference in both overall tonal balance but even more in three dimensionality are striking.

I defer to Adam on today's technology, but if the mastering is now being done with higher digital resolution, and the vinyl is pressed from that same digital master while the cd pressing is done at a lower sampling rate, then the Vinyl could possibly sound considerably better I would think. Of course at least until it gets worn, warped or scratched!