Vinyl-Era References - Is It Better to Listen to Them From Vinyl?

[ITHertz]

Hi Folks,

For the last few days I've been putting together a mixing reference CD. I have fairly wide musical tastes so I'm happy to include things from "ancient", pre-digital times

So I'm interested in peoples' thoughts about the following. Do you think it's preferable to listen to vinyl-era recordings from the original medium, as opposed to digitally re-mastered versions? I guess that this mostly depends on what was done during the re-mastering process, that is, was the tonal balance changed for the new format. Or do you think that it doesn't matter, and that you should go with the best available source?

I'm not going all "audiophile" here and don't want to start a vinyl vs. digital war - what I'm interested in is whether the re-mastering process changes the original recording in ways that work against the intention of the original mix.

Cheers,

Chris

[zenguitar]

Short answer... Go for the best available source.

Slightly longer answer... Given that you recognise that not all Digitally Remastered sources are created equal; what, exactly, constitutes the best available source?

And the honest answer is that it is different for every vinyl LP and the associated, various digital remasters for each LP.

All you can do is listen to the vinyl and the range of digital remasters and decide which one sounds best to you.

I disposed of the vast bulk of my vinyl a couple of decades ago. But I retained a few albums, and have subsequently acquired and inherited a bunch more vinyl LPs in the interim. And that inheritance also included a Pioneer PL12D turntable, so as part of my Eurorack modular I invested in a phono to Eurorack module to play and record those albums.

Andy

[James Perrett]

I don't think I'd choose vinyl as a reference medium because there are so many unknowns. How good is your cartridge? Does it have a flat frequency response and is it set up properly?

Vinyl often suffers from distortion which some people think adds to the sound but it could take you the wrong way when it comes to mixing decisions.

By all means compare the vinyl and CD versions of a song but I'd rather go for the CD as a reference if it was well mastered.

[Tim Gillett]

Vinyl was mostly a release format rather than a direct recording format. It suited mass duplication for public consumption. In that era most studio recordings and mixes were made to tape. Then the mix could be processed in sometimes quite sophisticated ways for transfer to the master disc. This processing for the vinyl was a set of trade offs rather than necessarily a final statement as to how the recording should ideally sound. Even good mix engineers would have been aware that the final public release may not sound exactly how they would have liked it to sound.

As an example, very long playing vinyls often had to be mastered with reduced bass to fit the long groove onto the disc. Listen to an original 7" 45 RPM of The Beatles Hey Jude which unusually for a 45 runs to around 7 minutes. Or Macarthur Park by Richard Harris also on 7" 45. Should we take that bass light release as the "definitive version" and the producers' original intention? Of course not. They knew they had to work with the release formats they had at the time which often meant making trade offs to the sound. Even the original mixdown tape often was a compromise but not as much as the vinyl release.

[ITHertz]

Vinyl was mostly a release format rather than a direct recording format. It suited mass duplication for public consumption. In that era most studio recordings and mixes were made to tape. Then the mix could be processed in sometimes quite sophisticated ways for transfer to the master disc. This processing for the vinyl was a set of trade offs rather than necessarily a final statement as to how the recording should ideally sound. Even good mix engineers would have been aware that the final public release may not sound exactly how they would have liked it to sound.

As an example, very long playing vinyls often had to be mastered with reduced bass to fit the long groove onto the disc. Listen to an original 7" 45 RPM of The Beatles Hey Jude which unusually for a 45 runs to around 7 minutes. Or Macarthur Park by Richard Harris also on 7" 45. Should we take that bass light release as the "definitive version" and the producers' original intention? Of course not. They knew they had to work with the release formats they had at the time which often meant making trade offs to the sound. Even the original mixdown tape often was a compromise but not as much as the vinyl release.

That's interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way.

[Sam Spoons]

The point of a reference track is to be something that you want to emulate* (as a mix at least). You can only decide which are good reference tracks by listening critically to them. I don't think the medium is relevant*, if it is a sound you want to emulate then it's good.

* You are not likely to be playing your reference tracks off vinyl during the session even if that's where you chose to source them, they'll surely have been transferred to a digital format for that job?

** If you are trying to emulate a specific '60s producer/engineer then which version is right, did he produce a mix intended to sound best on the bass reduced vinyl version or straight off the master tape?

[ITHertz]

* You are not likely to be playing your reference tracks off vinyl during the session even if that's where you chose to source them, they'll surely have been transferred to a digital format for that job?

The issue I was thinking about is more like (1) a digital dub from vinyl that I do myself vs (2) a digitally remastered version.

I have a good quality vinyl setup that I inherited.

[ITHertz]

I actually think I'm getting closer to answering my own question - it's mostly to do with the quality of the remaster. Apparently there are quite a few examples in the rock and metal category of badly remastered albums, that is, they were made as loud as possible (hello Loudness Wars!).

[Hugh Robjohns]

As Sam says, the point here is that you choose a reference because you want to emulate some aspect of that source's sound character.

So if you like a 'digitally remastered' vintage track's sound, then use that. Or if you like the original vinyl sound, digitise and use that.

I think Tim's comment above about reduced bass might have got slightly lost in translation: the issue of the day was actually three-way trade-off between side duration, overall replay volume, and strength of bass. More level and more bass both required wider grooves which inherently reduced the total playing time. So if you wanted to cut a longer record you either had to reduce the overall level or the strength of the low end, or both -- such was the task of the cutting engineer.

As for the differences between original vinyl and 'digitally remastered' versions: it is pretty much inevitable that each 'digitally remastered' version will have less dynamic range than the original, or than the previous generation of 'digitally remastered'.

I gave some lectures back when the idea loudness-normalisation was first proposed, and amongst the demo material I used were a number of tracks where I compared the dynamic range and overall character of some tracks from the original vinyl, through two or three generations of remastered re-releases spanning over 20 years. Inevitably, through the ear of the loudness wars, each new re-issue was squashed more, and not only did the R128 numbers confirm that, but it was obvious visually on the DAW with waveforms in the DAW that went from almost Himalayan to virtual flat bricks across the 20 year span. And the sound character and quality -- at least to my ears -- degraded dramatically with it.

In our newly loudness-normalised world, vinyl style dynamics are welcomed back with open arms... so if that's the sound you prefer, use those vintage originals rather than flattened CD remasters.

But as James and Tim have both mentioned, beware the vagaries of vinyl replay as different decks, arms, cartridges, and RIAA preamps can all sound quite different, and then there are all the effects of misalignment of the cartridge, the VTA, the tracking/bias weights, and so on...

All of which means vinyl is usually far more about a sound you like (or not) rather than an accurate, absolute reference sound mirroring what came out of the studio -- that's where CD/digital could have been so much more accurate... if it weren't for those pesky loudness wars!

[ITHertz]

I think Tim's comment above about reduced bass might have got slightly lost in translation: the issue of the day was actually three-way trade-off between side duration, overall replay volume, and strength of bass. More level and more bass both required wider grooves which inherently reduced the total playing time. So if you wanted to cut a longer record you either had to reduce the overall level or the strength of the low end, or both -- such was the task of the cutting engineer.

Was this something that would have been considered at the mixing stage, or even prior to that at the recording stage? Or would the idea have been to make the recording sound how they wanted and then let the mastering engineer do whatever was needed for the release format?

[Hugh Robjohns]

Was this something that would have been considered at the mixing stage, or even prior to that at the recording stage?

Not normally. The aim of all those in the studio was simply to record and mix a great-sounding track. At the writing/pre-production stage they would have been aware that the a single was usually 3-4 minutes long, and that if their song was going to be substantially longer there could be some practical issues... but that wouldn't normally get too much in the way of their creative direction.

Or would the idea have been to make the recording sound how they wanted and then let the mastering engineer do whatever was needed for the release format?

This... and the producers and mastering engineer would work together to arrive at what they felt was the best compromise of level, bass and duration.

If you wanted strong bass you couldn't have it so loud, and it would potentially lose out on the jukebox selections, but if you wanted it loud to compete on the juke boxes you'd lose some of the low-end weight which would reduce its popularity on the dance floors. Decisions, decisions!

[The Elf]

During recording/mixing I would already be avoiding any heavy bass content in stereo - that was the biggest no-no I knew of.

[Hugh Robjohns]

During recording/mixing I would already be avoiding any heavy bass content in stereo - that was the biggest no-no I knew of.

Like FM radio, vinyl records are very dependent on the Mid-Sides view of a stereo signal!

Wide stereo inherently means a large Side signal component, and in a record the Side component directly controls the depth of the groove. So the risk of a wide stereo bass (bass requiring a greater groove excursion, as well) is that the groove can become so shallow that the needle can skip tracks.

That's why almost all vinyl mastering employs the so-called 'elliptical filter' -- a high-pass filter in between a pair of MS matrices, to remove all low-end content from the Sides channel. That restricts low bass to the Mid channel only -- which is also why we have the continuing convention of bass and kick drums panned to in the centre of the mix.

[The Elf]

The story I relate in connection with this was when I first bought Genesis' 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' to find that the needle on my player would jump all over the place during 'Back in New York City' - a song with a particularly heavy bass pedal part.

I took it back to the record store, thinking maybe I'd just got one rogue copy - to see hundreds of the same album lined up along the 'returns' shelves!

[Hugh Robjohns]

Those pesky Taurus bass pedals...

I remember another famed 'problem vinyl' was Judie Tsuke's Stay with Me Till Dawn in 1979. The bass on that track has a strong stereo flanging effect and I remember getting the single and trying to play it on the stereo system we had in the 6th form common room... sounded great for the first 50 seconds until the bass started, when the stylus was kicked right out of the groove and went bouncing across the disc! The label quickly released a tweaked pressing!

[The Elf]

Those pesky Taurus bass pedals...

I can forgive them ANYTHING!

[Hugh Robjohns]

[DC-Choppah]

One of my mix references is Entre Nous by Rush. Guitar, Bass, Drums, Vocals. Every musical part is simultaneously loud and clear but doesn't step on each other musically or sonically.

Here is the remastered version from Rush's Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiYXj8j2Mus

And here is a fan who loves the vinyl version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=951NQT40lGE

To me there is no comparison. The digital version is a vast improvement sonically. The vinyl sounds like a compromise and I would not want to emulate it.

[Zukan]

Those pesky Taurus bass pedals...

I can forgive them ANYTHING!

We need a Taurus Pedal appreciation thread. Elf and I be disciples.

[Hugh Robjohns]

To me there is no comparison. The digital version is a vast improvement sonically. The vinyl sounds like a compromise and I would not want to emulate it.

Sorry... but to form qualitative opinions of these two versions purely from YouTube postings is muppetry!

[DC-Choppah]

I do miss the muppets and vinyl records.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEDoweeD5o4

[MOF]

Peter Gabriel’s SO was released on CD with the running order the way he had originally wanted it, the vinyl version had some tracks swapped to make best use of the beginning of each side to keep tracks loud and/or bass heavy.
Check out the Classic Albums series, he explained how he would spend ages editing just the beginnings and endings of each song to work out the final sequence.

In answer to the OP, forget vinyl in my opinion.