Skip to main content
Topic: Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl? (Read 5418 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #25
No blowhards here.

I was referring to myself as a blowhard as well as one other nameless individual who is neither you nor mzil. 

I've uploaded samples of a more clipped section, later in the song: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110034

Thanks.  I look forward to analyzing them at my earliest convenience.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #26
uncommon today in modern LPs made in recent years

years -> decade plus

Bingo.

You guys should really have a look at the relevant discussions which have already been had.

I've linked them so many times before that it's gotten well beyond old.

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=98199
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=102895

Thanks. Opinions of bloggers and forum posts don't interest me, unless they contain third party links to LP industry people discussing mono-izing bass, and so far the first one I found from your first thread did:

"STEREO BASS MATERIAL:

A cutting stylus moves from side to side to cut material that is in-phase or mono. This makes for a groove of a relatively standard depth, which is easy to track. When low-frequency material contains a good deal of out of phase content (panned bass synthesizers or bass guitars perhaps), the groove must begin to make each wall of the groove do different things, which it can only do by cutting up and down rather than side to side. Excessive vertical motion makes for a groove that can be difficult for many turntables to track during playback and is usually compensated for for in a couple of different ways. One is the use of an elliptical equalizer, which uses an adjustable frequency, below which all frequencies (the bass material) are summed together into mono. This takes care of vertical groove cutting problems, but may do things to the program material that were not intended or desired. The other method is to split the signal into its mono and stereo components and then to use a limiter on the stereo portion to reduce movement in the out-of-phase portion of the signal. Both of these processes can be made to work, but ultimately, the best solution is to avoid the problem during mixing by keeping bass instruments more or less in mono when vinyl is a possible release format."

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #27
Cherry-picked 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend trident for their patients who chew gum.

Like I said, samples showing vinyl didn't come from the same clippressed master or go home.  Sure you'll find a few if you look long enough and hard enough; just don't then pretend they are representative of typical practice.  Of course you'll have to the heaving lifting to find them instead of simply relying on the testimonials from engineers who actually do follow best practices, then again maybe they don't.

But sure, let's talk conceptually rather than dirty our hands with actual evidence (which I have done and am more than happy to do, mind you).  Have another read from the previous post by xnor.  I can take a clippressed master, filter the lows and highs, collapse the lows and sum them back together.  Does this somehow magically change the fact that this new version came from the same master?  I didn't think so.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #28
I was referring to myself as a blowhard as well as one other nameless individual who is neither you nor mzil. 


Gee, I wonder who that could be, then

Like I said, samples showing vinyl didn't come from the same clippressed master or go home.  Sure you'll find a few if you look long enough and hard enough; just don't then pretend they are representative of typical practice.


Well, you've shown that my samples originate from the exact same master, so those are out.

One album that is widely claimed to be made with different masters for the CD and LP is "Californication" by Red Hot Chili Peppers, where the CD version is incidentally also one of the worst victims of the Loudness War. Unfortunately, I only own the CD version, so I cannot provide samples.

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #29
I haven't checked the vinyl version, so I can't say.  We're having to go back 16 years for that one, though, aren't we?
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #30

Just for the record, I'm not quite sure what your stand is regarding mono-ized low bass for LPs. Unlike me, you think it exists on some, but is uncommon, or at least is uncommon today in modern LPs made in recent years?

years -> decade plus

Bingo.

Sorry, I still don't understand. By "Bingo" and "decade plus" you mean you think mono-izing the low bass for LPs, either electrically or via purposefully placing all the bass instruments centrally in the original mix is nowadays uncommon [although you agree there may have been some use of it a decade plus ago]. Did I get that right?

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #31
I haven't checked the vinyl version, so I can't say.  We're having to go back 16 years for that one, though, aren't we?


Yeah, that's probably too old by now.

I looked through my record shelf and found "VII: Sturm und Drang" by Lamb of God. The LP version claims "special vinyl mastering 45 RPM" on the cover. Oddly enough the labels on the records themselves say 33 RPM, but they do actually play at 45 RPM. What attention to detail 

Both versions sound significantly better than most other modern metal (at least from my collection), and there seems to be more dynamic range on the LP, specifically in the snare drum.

I've uploaded samples here: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=906461

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #32

Just for the record, I'm not quite sure what your stand is regarding mono-ized low bass for LPs. Unlike me, you think it exists on some, but is uncommon, or at least is uncommon today in modern LPs made in recent years?

years -> decade plus

Bingo.

Sorry, I still don't understand. By "Bingo" and "decade plus" you mean you think mono-izing the low bass for LPs, either electrically or via purposefully placing all the bass instruments centrally in the original mix is nowadays uncommon [although you agree there may have been some use of it a decade plus ago]. Did I get that right?
I thought I addressed that in the last part of my post which you omitted.
Are you suggesting that mono-izing bass necessitates a separate master?
I doubt it, but I honestly don't know. My objection to blanket claims that vinyl is free from horrid compression found on CD titles doesn't require my knowing it.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #33
Quote


Just for the record, I'm not quite sure what your stand is regarding mono-ized low bass for LPs. Unlike me, you think it exists on some, but is uncommon, or at least is uncommon today in modern LPs made in recent years?

years -> decade plus

Bingo.

Sorry, I still don't understand. By "Bingo" and "decade plus" you mean you think mono-izing the low bass for LPs, either electrically or via purposefully placing all the bass instruments centrally in the original mix is nowadays uncommon [although you agree there may have been some use of it a decade plus ago]. Did I get that right?
I thought I addressed that in the last part of my post which you omitted.
Are you suggesting that mono-izing bass necessitates a separate master?


I explained my beliefs on mono-ized bass in post #77 and I stand by them. I can also think of at least four examples where there is no need to mono-ize the low bass for a master used for an LP, although there could be more:

- the recording in the groves is made at an unusually low level which consumers would be upset about ["I hate that I have to crank my volume up and hear my phono preamp hiss whenever I play this LP! Argh." -not a real quote]
- the entire recording is mono
- the recording has no bass content, for example an LP record of solo flute
- the mix is prepared such that all of the instruments which contain bass are panned away from the sides to the center, from the get go, despite the musical group's actual positioning on stage, say in an acoustical setting

I also explained the reason why this is done:
(to be more tracking friendly to needles)

You seem to be dubious of my claim, dismissing the first link I provided as:
Quote
Anecdotes aren't evidence
, the one to Custom Records which asked engineers to submit masters that:

"•Blend or mono-ize the bass frequencies. Do not pan low bass frequencies left or right."

Later I linked to a more detailed one from Chicago Mastering Service which explains why this is done, also backing what I wrote:

"Excessive vertical motion makes for a groove that can be difficult for many turntables to track during playback and is usually compensated for in a couple of different ways. One is the use of an elliptical equalizer, which uses an adjustable frequency, below which all frequencies (the bass material) are summed together into mono. This takes care of vertical groove cutting problems, but may do things to the program material that were not intended or desired. The other method is to split the signal into its mono and stereo components and then to use a limiter on the stereo portion to reduce movement in the out-of-phase portion of the signal. Both of these processes can be made to work, but ultimately, the best solution is to avoid the problem during mixing by keeping bass instruments more or less in mono when vinyl is a possible release format."

I'm not sure why you think this all ended a decade or so ago.

Here's also yet another quote from Recording Magazine regarding recommended practices when mastering for vinyl, said to be making a "comeback" [let's hope not]:

"The number one thing to remember when you are mixing down for vinyl is that the L-R and L+R signals are being separated off, and you want to keep as little unneeded information on the L-R channel as possible. This means you want to try and keep everything identical between channels...

...The number two rule is always try to mix sources with heavy bass content into the middle. If there is a difference between channels on a signal with a lot of bass, you get bass in the L-R channel and the groove on the record becomes very shallow at points. It will have a tendency to pop out of the groove, unless the mastering engineer either limits the bass or reduces the level. If you want the disc loud, keep all the bass in the center.

Remember that if there is a loud bass sound in the L+R signal, the mastering engineer can just reduce the pitch of the record at that point so there is more room between grooves and more space for that sound. But he cannot do anything about large bass signals in the L-R signal other than just turning everything down."

Quote
My objection to blanket claims that vinyl is free from horrid compression found on CD

I've never said a single word about compression. My topic in post#77 is regarding how LP recordings vary from CD "at the very least" in regards to having some form of mono-ized low bass for the vinyl version. That's all I'm talking about (although there can be other differences). Perhaps you are confusing me with some other person?

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #34
By far the majority of modern releases on vinyl use the exact same master as the CD or download version, so there's no real difference in sound quality apart from what the LP format itself imparts.

My understanding was the exact opposite, that nearly every single LP made has the deep bass blended to mono (to be more tracking friendly to needles) at the very least. High frequency attenuation I thought was also common but not as nearly as universal as mono-ized deep bass.

I've not seen much evidence in the way of samples that supports your understanding of the exact opposite of what KozmoNaut said, regardless of whatever reasons you're providing.  Perhaps the majority of modern releases already have deep bass collapsed.  Perhaps it can be done with simple processing of the existing master during cutting, I really don't know.  You seem to be quite sure of yourself, however.  Realizing that I'd like to see some actual examples.  If the majority of modern releases on vinyl come from a different master you should easily be able to demonstrate it.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #35
Come on, so you never heard of mastering?

Recordings are generally remastered for cutting the LP master.


What a condescending question.


I get 'em all the time, and if I react am told to chill.

Quote
If you go speak to the people who put out modern LP releases, and particularly those who do the re-releases of older albums that were originally on LP, you'll find that the basic master is the same as the CD version.


So how many times are you going to have to told that there is more to LP recording than doing a mixdown? You just called me condescending for one gentle reminder, and here you go again!

Quote
They do a little bit of massaging like cutting out subsonic content and making sure all low bass is mono, but that's about it. If you're really lucky, they'll tweak the EQ a little towards the inner grooves.


That's known in the debating trade as elevating an unattributed anecdote to something that is well above scientific fact.  If you understood the relevant technologies well you might smile and recall that one man's "little bit" is another man's mountain.

If you want to understand just a few of the painful facts, compare the well-known and validated Shure trackability curves to the totally flat spectral capabilities of the CD format.

Shure LP seminars

Many missing graphics here: Shure V15 guide

Quote
It's extremely rare that a completely different master is made for an LP release, like with some of RHCP's albums, where for instance the LP of 'Californication' sounds much better than the CD. But that's mostly because the CD version is very badly mastered. And remastering costs money, so it's easier to just throw a CD master with a few token tweaks to the LP plant and leave it at that.

Quote
Since when has this forum been ruled by LP bigots who habitual gloss over the bad audible consequences of their favorite analog media?


And who would that be?


Ahem. ;-)

Quote
If you had bothered to read my posts,


and that's not the least bit condescending! ;-)

Quote

you would see that I specifically point out the limitations of the format, but that I like it for the physical aspect and large cover art, as well as less tangible benefits such as the enticement to play entire albums instead of shuffling random tracks. The sound quality is not perfect, but it's good enough. Certainly with a lot of badly mastered music, it's not like the digital version is much better, not to me anyway.
Quote


In combination with the patently false claims as already noted, that might be called "lip service" ;-)

As one of my trial lawyer associates says: People read what they want to read and hear what they want to hear, and his professional success is based on managing that fact. Congratulations my friend, you have been managed! ;-)

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #36
Are you suggesting that mono-izing bass necessitates a separate master?


It may not, because the bass mixing is usually hard wired into the rack with the cutting electronics.

Neumann white paper about vinyl cutting

"
Up until around 1953, Neumann built disk-cutting lathes for phonograph records with a constant groove pitch. Between 1953 and 1955, Neumann developed a method of varying the groove pitch depending on the recorded amplitude. To this end, an additional playback head was mounted on the tape deck. This additional playback head determined the groove amplitude to be recorded approximately one half-rotation of the turntable in advance and fed this value to the cutting lathe as a control signal via a corresponding drive amplifier. Of course, this also required a separately variable pitch drive. For the first time, this made it possible to extend the playing time of an LP phonograph record to approx. thirty minutes.
"

Quote
I doubt it, but I honestly don't know. My objection to blanket claims that vinyl is free from horrid compression found on CD titles doesn't require my knowing it.


The technical limitations of vinyl are well known and pretty restrictive. That's why the mainstream dumped it about 30 years ago.  The CD format spec's are actually as good or better than almost every power amp.  IOW a ton better. What people do with vinyl is restricted by those well known unimprovable limitations. What people do with the CD format is up to them.

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #37
In combination with the patently false claims as already noted, that might be called "lip service" ;-)

As one of my trial lawyer associates says: People read what they want to read and hear what they want to hear, and his professional success is based on managing that fact. Congratulations my friend, you have been managed! ;-)


You still haven't really made your point, and I very strongly object to being called an "LP bigot who habitual glosses over the bad audible consequences of his favorite analog media". It's as if you haven't read a single word in any of my posts about LPs. I like them because they're objectively worse than digital, for personal nostalgic reasons. I also use a fully manual turntable, because it's less convenient than a full-auto model. It's about the experience and ritual of music playback, which makes it feel more special than cueing up another FLAC file in Foobar.

I am saying that in the vast majority of modern LP production, the exact same master is used as for the CD version, with only the bare minimum changes made to put it within the physical limitations of an LP.

How is that patently false in any way?

I have uploaded several samples that show identical masters being used for both CD and LP production, with clipping and compression intact. In the grand scheme of things, a subsonic filter and summing of low bass frequencies is a very minor change.

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #38
I am saying that in the vast majority of modern LP production, the exact same master is used as for the CD version, with only the bare minimum changes made to put it within the physical limitations of an LP

How is that patently false in any way?


It ignores what modern cutting lathes and their associated electronic suites are well-documented to do as a matter of course.

LP disk cutting is a well-documented swamp with well-documented roaming hungry reptiles. It was all so well known and so well-documented that decades ago bridges were built across the swamp. you can if you wish pretend that is not a swamp and there are no reptiles, and it is probable that nothing bad will happen. That does not erase the fact that we are walking on bridges, and vinyl is still vinyl.

Quote
have uploaded several samples that show identical masters being used for both CD and LP production, with clipping and compression intact. In the grand schemle of things, a subsonic filter and summing of low bass frequencies is a very minor change.


Obviously, you didn't get the memo about "An exception does not disprove the rule"

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #39
I am saying that in the vast majority of modern LP production, the exact same master is used as for the CD version, with only the bare minimum changes made to put it within the physical limitations of an LP

How is that patently false in any way?


It ignores what modern cutting lathes and their associated electronic suites are well-documented to do as a matter of course.

LP disk cutting is a well-documented swamp with well-documented roaming hungry reptiles. It was all so well known and so well-documented that decades ago bridges were built across the swamp. you can if you wish pretend that is not a swamp and there are no reptiles, and it is probable that nothing bad will happen. That does not erase the fact that we are walking on bridges, and vinyl is still vinyl.


But that still doesn't require a substantially different master from the CD version. All of these 'bridges' as you call them are pretty much automatic processes. You feed your slightly-massaged CD master into this process, and the well-known parameters for the cutting lathe are already known and automated, including delay lines for catching highly dynamic passages etc.

My point is, that you can deliver 99% the same master to the cutting plant as you would to the CD production plant.

You make a point that the master is made different right before it gets cut by the lathe, but that's not what we were arguing.

Quote
Quote
have uploaded several samples that show identical masters being used for both CD and LP production, with clipping and compression intact. In the grand schemle of things, a subsonic filter and summing of low bass frequencies is a very minor change.


Obviously, you didn't get the memo about "An exception does not disprove the rule"


If the examples I have given are exceptions, please provide proof that most LPs are produced using substantially different masters from the masters used for CDs.

Obviously, we cannot be 100% sure until we have checked every single modern LP release, but I have another 10-15 albums on both LP and CD that I can upload samples from to show the use of identical master. But it would be much more interesting if someone could actually find a modern album where substantially different masters were used.

"Lazaretto" by Jack White could be an interesting entry, due to the very eclectic nature of the LP edition, and the claims of "no compression used anywhere". Unfortunately, I do not own a copy of that album.

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #40
There's nothing that prevents modern dynamic-range compression from being pressed to vinyl, right?


Wrong. Trying to shoehorn a modern wide-dynamic range or hypercompressed recording designed for CDs or downloads onto a LP is like trying to fit 10 pounds of $#!* into a 1 pound bag.

...yet it happens routinely, so no, Arnold, he isn't wrong; you're the one who's wrong. Moving goalposts and pretending you didn't say this doesn't change anything.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #41
If the examples I have given are exceptions, please provide proof that most LPs are produced using substantially different masters from the masters used for CDs.


I got a chance to take a look at your samples, and my analysis of them says that they destroy your own arguments.

They mismatch each other so badly that any attempt on  my part to time synch them would in my opinion be speculative.

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #42
There's nothing that prevents modern dynamic-range compression from being pressed to vinyl, right?


Wrong. Trying to shoehorn a modern wide-dynamic range or hypercompressed recording designed for CDs or downloads onto a LP is like trying to fit 10 pounds of $#!* into a 1 pound bag.

...yet it happens routinely, so no, Arnold, he isn't wrong; you're the one who's wrong. Moving goalposts and pretending you didn't say this doesn't change anything.



No it doesn't happen routinely, unless you call tons of crap flowing over the outside of the smaller bag a fit.

In my understanding of things, a fit would involving passing an ABX comparison.

I downloaded and compared the CD and LP files and I couldn't find enough similarity to support what I consider (based on ABXing) to be an adequate time synch.

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #43
Moving goalposts again, I see.

This never had anything to do with how well the format preserves the signal.

I also like how your definitive "destroys" becomes a tepid, I can only speculate, in your very next sentence.  You're making yourself out to be a clown.

Do you now want to also contradict all the other instances presented on the forum where a clipped waveform resulting from heavy DRC was identified in vinyl?  How about clipped signals taken from CD and then manipulated to closely resemble their vinyl counterpart through a non-linear phase shift?  Oh, well if it can't be time-synched...

Yes, please keep twisting. This is entertaining.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #44
Moving goalposts again, I see.


No, just affirming where they've always been.

I'm sorry that my standards are too high for some and too low for others but that is the price for actually having any.

Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #45
Where's the popcorn-munching emoticon?


Can the same master used to press a CD be used to press vinyl?

Reply #47
No, just affirming where they've always been.

So now you're telling KozmoNaut (EDIT: and theriverlethe) that what he said wasn't really what he said?!?

Dunning-Krueger.  [SIC]!
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?



 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020