Re: [ARSCLIST] From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer

[Jeffrey Kane <jeffkane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think you're being oversensitive at all. As a case in point, I have
a six-eye pressing of Miles Davis' Porgy and Bess and a much later '
digitally remastered' pressing of the same. I realize that it's not exactly
an apples to apples comparison as many many other things happen in
remastering beyond an A/D/A conversion. Still, it's astonishing how lifeless
the remaster sounds compared to the original. It's neigh-on dead. There's a
complete loss of sense of space, the soundstage is collapsed and (not sure
if this is the correct terminology) the notes seem to be 'smeared'. There's
a loss in the sense of timing. The remaster is certainly pleasant to listen
to and it's still Miles, but it's not as engaging nor involving.

I witness the same effect with a performance of the Rachmaninoff Piano
Concert #2 by Vladimir Ashkenazy (w/Kondrashin conducting the MSO). The
original Decca pressing (and even later London pressings from the '70s) are
amazingly involving and convey the emotional fire that went into this
performance. The 'remastered' CD that I recently imported from the UK on
Decca just loses all involvement. Even through the same system, on a
top-flight CD transport, the message conveyed is different. I wish I could
quantify the difference or even describe it more accurately.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of andy kolovos
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:08 AM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] From ProTools to Vinyl? was [ARSCLIST]
> Fred Layn's post on the Studer
>
> Folks,
>
> While we're on the topic of analog v.s. digital here, I just
> want to present something that has vexed me for a while.
>
> What in the world is the point in pressing LPs or 45s from
> digital-source studio recordings and then marketing them as
> "analog"?  I mean, outside of "marketing" that is.  Sure the
> resulting playback format is analog, but if the source
> recording is a born-digital multi-track studio recording,
> then the analog LP has been derived from a digital source.
> It's like after-the-fact-analog or something.  With an
> "audiophile vinyl" markup to boot!  Please correct me if I'm
> wrong here, but the only "analog warmth" (or whatever)
> present would be the result of whatever artifacts got added
> to the signal through the digital-to-analog conversion the
> signal went through to make the disc master, the surface
> noise of the disc, the pre-amp, etc, but not a natural part
> of the recording from the get-go.  Does surface noise add
> "warmth"?--Sure it does.  Is surface noise the source of all
> that people love about analog?--I don't think so. At that
> point I'd rather have my CD player reconstruct the bits and
> feed me the sound.
>
> I understand that DJs (meaning dance club and Hip-Hop DJs as
> opposed to broadcast DJs) have a whole other set of reasons
> (scratching, cueing, complex mixing and other stuff that
> works well in the analog domain) for working with LPs that
> don't generally apply to the home listening environment, and
> I also realize that they are a big market for vinyl pressings
> of born-digital audio.  But for the rest of us it seems kinda
> like an audiophile/nostalgia racket.
>
> When I buy LPs, I always try to make sure that the source
> recording was analog to begin with--otherwise I'd rather buy
> it on CD.  And, from the other side, I prefer to get analog
> source recordings on LP rather than CD. Am I being an
> over-sensitive madman here?
>