cmsdrums
Is it possible that the original gig would have been recorded in analogue? (Or were digital mixing desks and recording gear already the norm back in '86?)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Adam Baboolal
I'm not quite sure I agree with all this, "if it ain't analog to digital, what's the point?", talk. Let's put it this way, Innuendo was recorded digitally and released on vinyl. I'll bet no-one has thought about that being a problem before!
As an aside, I was quite lucky to listen to The Show Must Go On, playing off a vinyl. It was rather nice and somehow (can't describe it), it was better than any cd master I've heard.
To me, the source does means something, but in no way, does it dictate what is being talked about here, i.e. release media. Vinyl, in this case. What definitely matters, is the end result (sonically) and, believe it or not, vinyl can have an effect on that.
Just to throw something out there, did you know that the majority of records are still mixed with analog hardware? Not just a few pieces here and there either. Some studios love their analog consoles (mixing desks), tape machines (recording and/or mastering), various effect boxes, etc. etc.
There's a reason that most (if not all) plugin producing companies have been releasing a variety of analog based device emulations, lately. Including, pretty much all the above mentioned devices!
Finally, I've never heard of any instance where the source, being digital, stopped it from being on vinyl.
Put simply...
TL:DR: Regardless of the source, various analog and digital devices are used in the production of a record/concert release. And the final release media is simply a choice for the band, label, etc. etc.
Adam.
P.s. Now that I think about it... I have heard of people recording digitally and then seeking out vinyl for a release.
As an aside, I was quite lucky to listen to The Show Must Go On, playing off a vinyl. It was rather nice and somehow (can't describe it), it was better than any cd master I've heard.
To me, the source does means something, but in no way, does it dictate what is being talked about here, i.e. release media. Vinyl, in this case. What definitely matters, is the end result (sonically) and, believe it or not, vinyl can have an effect on that.
Just to throw something out there, did you know that the majority of records are still mixed with analog hardware? Not just a few pieces here and there either. Some studios love their analog consoles (mixing desks), tape machines (recording and/or mastering), various effect boxes, etc. etc.
There's a reason that most (if not all) plugin producing companies have been releasing a variety of analog based device emulations, lately. Including, pretty much all the above mentioned devices!
Finally, I've never heard of any instance where the source, being digital, stopped it from being on vinyl.
Put simply...
TL:DR: Regardless of the source, various analog and digital devices are used in the production of a record/concert release. And the final release media is simply a choice for the band, label, etc. etc.
Adam.
P.s. Now that I think about it... I have heard of people recording digitally and then seeking out vinyl for a release.
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]Adam Baboolal wrote:[/b]
I'm not quite sure I agree with all this, "if it ain't analog to digital, what's the point?", talk. Let's put it this way, Innuendo was recorded digitally and released on vinyl. I'll bet no-one has thought about that being a problem before![/QUOTE]
Back in the 80's it was a merit of some sort when an album had the DDD label on it. It meant that the latest technology was used on it throughout the process, and you got the "best" possible soundquality.
Surely the opposite must be true for extreme audiophiles today?
The more A's you have in the process, the closer the sounds are to what was heard in the studio.
At least in theory.
I'm not quite sure I agree with all this, "if it ain't analog to digital, what's the point?", talk. Let's put it this way, Innuendo was recorded digitally and released on vinyl. I'll bet no-one has thought about that being a problem before![/QUOTE]
Back in the 80's it was a merit of some sort when an album had the DDD label on it. It meant that the latest technology was used on it throughout the process, and you got the "best" possible soundquality.
Surely the opposite must be true for extreme audiophiles today?
The more A's you have in the process, the closer the sounds are to what was heard in the studio.
At least in theory.
A Word In Your Ear
Agreed, a digital recording is way better than an analogue recording, but that's not the point of collecting vinyl. I collect Queen vinyl & don't even own a turn table any more. You don't actually play it, you buy the cd version for that.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]queenboot wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Well I still can't understand why would somebody want an analogue version of an album which has been mastered digitally. [/QUOTE]
i think you are too young to understand.... :-)
[/QUOTE]
Or maybe you're missing the point of a recording process which is analogue in every step.
Digital mastering will ALWAYS reduce the "infinite" sampling rate and frequency of the original recording and pressing of the album.
If you're old enough to remember the meaning of the old AAD to DDD labels on the back of the compact discs, you'll know what it's about.[/QUOTE]
An analogue recording does not have an "infinite" sampling rate and/or frequency range. Sampling is not the right term for an analogue recording, but when you get down to the microscopic level, you'll find that the limitations of the source tape do create something very similar to a sampling rate. The frequency spectrum on analogue recordings varies tremendously, but the main thing about it is that it doesn't have a hard cut-off at either the high or the low end, but rather a gradual roll-off.
In fact, many analogue recordings cover a much narrower frequency band than digital recordings, but psycho-acoustically they might reproduce the bias of the human ear more effectively, resulting in a more 'natural' sound.
[QUOTE] [b]queenboot wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Well I still can't understand why would somebody want an analogue version of an album which has been mastered digitally. [/QUOTE]
i think you are too young to understand.... :-)
[/QUOTE]
Or maybe you're missing the point of a recording process which is analogue in every step.
Digital mastering will ALWAYS reduce the "infinite" sampling rate and frequency of the original recording and pressing of the album.
If you're old enough to remember the meaning of the old AAD to DDD labels on the back of the compact discs, you'll know what it's about.[/QUOTE]
An analogue recording does not have an "infinite" sampling rate and/or frequency range. Sampling is not the right term for an analogue recording, but when you get down to the microscopic level, you'll find that the limitations of the source tape do create something very similar to a sampling rate. The frequency spectrum on analogue recordings varies tremendously, but the main thing about it is that it doesn't have a hard cut-off at either the high or the low end, but rather a gradual roll-off.
In fact, many analogue recordings cover a much narrower frequency band than digital recordings, but psycho-acoustically they might reproduce the bias of the human ear more effectively, resulting in a more 'natural' sound.
Micrówave
Good post, TQ.
Which is actually why they won't release it. The average "fan" hasn't the equipment, the knowledge, or the care to be concerned about any of this.
We live in a different world now, where processors and EQs are just used to make the music louder, not clearer.
Hollywood or whoever wants to sell mass quantities of product. Best Buy still has plenty of The Cosmos Rock box sets. They just don't sell well.... even though we all probably have it.
Which is actually why they won't release it. The average "fan" hasn't the equipment, the knowledge, or the care to be concerned about any of this.
We live in a different world now, where processors and EQs are just used to make the music louder, not clearer.
Hollywood or whoever wants to sell mass quantities of product. Best Buy still has plenty of The Cosmos Rock box sets. They just don't sell well.... even though we all probably have it.
eddykoster
I've got all the 3lps (Queen on fire, Rock Montreal & Return of the champions) and I''m waiting for a long time they will release Wembley on 3LPs, I hope someday. (it's a longer concert than the previous shows, on 2 lps!!) But Budapest on vinyl, would be perfect to complete my vinyl Queen-collection! I hope they also release it on vinyl.
The next LP I will buy is probabyly Roger Taylor 5th album in november :D
The next LP I will buy is probabyly Roger Taylor 5th album in november :D
TyphoonTip
When you look at the basic facts, vinyl has the potential to sound better than CD. The primary reason is the undulating unstepped nature of an analogue sound wave, rather than the digital sampled wave of a CD,
However, and it's a BIG however, to reach this potential is difficult, and sometimes impossible. The variables for a great sounding vinyl are great. The turntable/type of tone arm, the cartridge/stylus, the pre-amp and it's capacitance relationship with the cartridge, all have a huge baring on the sound.
.....And we haven't even got to the vinyl itself! It has to be perfectly flat, centered, no non-fill issues, CLEAN and free from surface noise.
So the obstacles are huge, and sometimes insurmountable, BUT when it's all right, it sound WILL sound better than the same mastering presented on a CD.
As for why you would buy a vinyl press of a digital source, well on the surface it sounds stupid, but it can be a good thing. It depends on the digital source.
CDs work with a 16bit depth, while digital masters are often 24bit (occasionally 32). So If the pressing is of good quality, then that added information can be pressed onto vinyl, where as it's lost on a CD when stepped down from 24 to 16bit. A good example of this is comparing the 2009 Beatles CD remasters to the 2012 EU vinyl pressings. Aside from the obvious lack of limiting, the vinyl also benefits from being derived from a higher quality source than that of the CD, even though it shares the same mastering.
However, and it's a BIG however, to reach this potential is difficult, and sometimes impossible. The variables for a great sounding vinyl are great. The turntable/type of tone arm, the cartridge/stylus, the pre-amp and it's capacitance relationship with the cartridge, all have a huge baring on the sound.
.....And we haven't even got to the vinyl itself! It has to be perfectly flat, centered, no non-fill issues, CLEAN and free from surface noise.
So the obstacles are huge, and sometimes insurmountable, BUT when it's all right, it sound WILL sound better than the same mastering presented on a CD.
As for why you would buy a vinyl press of a digital source, well on the surface it sounds stupid, but it can be a good thing. It depends on the digital source.
CDs work with a 16bit depth, while digital masters are often 24bit (occasionally 32). So If the pressing is of good quality, then that added information can be pressed onto vinyl, where as it's lost on a CD when stepped down from 24 to 16bit. A good example of this is comparing the 2009 Beatles CD remasters to the 2012 EU vinyl pressings. Aside from the obvious lack of limiting, the vinyl also benefits from being derived from a higher quality source than that of the CD, even though it shares the same mastering.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]queenboot wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Well I still can't understand why would somebody want an analogue version of an album which has been mastered digitally. [/QUOTE]
i think you are too young to understand.... :-)
[/QUOTE]
Or maybe you're missing the point of a recording process which is analogue in every step.
Digital mastering will ALWAYS reduce the "infinite" sampling rate and frequency of the original recording and pressing of the album.
If you're old enough to remember the meaning of the old AAD to DDD labels on the back of the compact discs, you'll know what it's about.[/QUOTE]
Just to be clear: analogue recordings don't actually have an infinite sampling rate and/or frequency range. They have an extended frequency range compared to 44.1kHz cd's (though some vinyl releases actually have a far smaller spectrum, it all depends on a number of factors in the recording and mastering processes), and the 'sampling rate' (although the word would be a bit of an anachronism) is not infinite, but a direct result of the 'grain' size of the vinyl used, i.e. how fine the texture of the grooves is.
[QUOTE] [b]queenboot wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Well I still can't understand why would somebody want an analogue version of an album which has been mastered digitally. [/QUOTE]
i think you are too young to understand.... :-)
[/QUOTE]
Or maybe you're missing the point of a recording process which is analogue in every step.
Digital mastering will ALWAYS reduce the "infinite" sampling rate and frequency of the original recording and pressing of the album.
If you're old enough to remember the meaning of the old AAD to DDD labels on the back of the compact discs, you'll know what it's about.[/QUOTE]
Just to be clear: analogue recordings don't actually have an infinite sampling rate and/or frequency range. They have an extended frequency range compared to 44.1kHz cd's (though some vinyl releases actually have a far smaller spectrum, it all depends on a number of factors in the recording and mastering processes), and the 'sampling rate' (although the word would be a bit of an anachronism) is not infinite, but a direct result of the 'grain' size of the vinyl used, i.e. how fine the texture of the grooves is.