Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks Toolman, that's not what I was hoping.I compared the song on the 2017 "MIA" LP vs. my copy of the original album. The four descending synth notes were clearly audible on the original. I don't hear them on the 2017 version.
Sounds like this LP was sourced from the Remastered Classics tapes, or Richard insisted on the change.I compared the song on the 2017 "MIA" LP vs. my copy of the original album. The four descending synth notes were clearly audible on the original. I don't hear them on the 2017 version.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that a lot of information is lost in the analog-to-Digital process. I work with a lot of videotape, and when I’m digitizing from analog tapes (like U-Matic or Video-/Hi-8mm) there is no loss in quality, or if there is signs of loss, it’s due to it being a copy or another issue beyond my control. And if there is a dropout, a lot of times just a rewind through that section allows for the section to be played just fine. Also in the case of some video formats (not entirely sure if there are audio versions), like 8mm and Betacam, there were Digital versions released that were backwards compatible and digitize the signal right at the playback head, with no analog connections. And with other analog formats, unless you are going through a lot of analog connections, then you are capturing the highest quality signal. And even when the signal passes through a digital time base corrector, you still end up with the same generation-quality signal. I’ve transferred videos from U-Matic, over the past 5 years, that dated back to the early-70’s, and aside from having to clean the heads a couple of times before getting a clean transfer, the transfer was nearly-flawless, and the customer told me that he never remembered the videos looking so good.There is information lost when converting analog to digital, which is why some of us are hoping the LPs were cut from analog masters (and hopefully the original masters, although that is not how UMe tends to do things...only the audiophile labels bother to do it correctly). With UMe's history of "archiving" some of their masters to 44.1kHz/16-bit digital (which is far, far away from "high resolution"), I definitely would not want an LP cut from that. In that case, might as well buy one of those dull-sounding Remastered Classics CDs.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that a lot of information is lost in the analog-to-Digital process. I work with a lot of videotape, and when I’m digitizing from analog tapes (like U-Matic or Video-/Hi-8mm) there is no loss in quality, or if there is signs of loss, it’s due to it being a copy or another issue beyond my control. And if there is a dropout, a lot of times just a rewind through that section allows for the section to be played just fine. Also in the case of some video formats (not entirely sure if there are audio versions), like 8mm and Betacam, there were Digital versions released that were backwards compatible and digitize the signal right at the playback head, with no analog connections. And with other analog formats, unless you are going through a lot of analog connections, then you are capturing the highest quality signal. And even when the signal passes through a digital time base corrector, you still end up with the same generation-quality signal. I’ve transferred videos from U-Matic, over the past 5 years, that dated back to the early-70’s, and aside from having to clean the heads a couple of times before getting a clean transfer, the transfer was nearly-flawless, and the customer told me that he never remembered the videos looking so good.
One thing to remember with analog is that it could hide a multitude of sins, so a lot of times you’ll think your hearing or seeing something that wasn’t there in the analog world, but really it was there all the time, and the digital just exposes those flaws. And as long as you have a good sound or video technician, you can get a transfer that features no information loss.
So with the Remastered Classics transfers, or even transfers made in the 80’s (the Sony PCM-601 had a S/PDIF out allowing for digital-to-Digital transfers from early Betamax, U-Matic & VHS PCM recordings) a good technician would be able to get you a really good 1st digital generation transfer from the analog tapes. This may explain why Richard was doing all those remixes (besides re-recording his piano in stereo)—-the analog hid most of the flatness that only showed up on digital. I know that I find, especially with the early Beach Boys stuff that was mixed in mono the LPs have more “presence” on my stereo system, and seem to play fully out of both speakers, whereas the CD version is rather centered and doesn’t give that expansion.
@tomswift2002
I'm not sure how video was brought into this but we are talking about audio formats.[\quote].
I’d disagree with you there. The earliest method of digitally mastering audio was done on 3/4 U-Matics when Sony introduced the PCM 1601 in the late-1970’s. Up until the DAT recorder was introduced in 1987, any digital audio masters had to be put onto videotape, as the video portion of a video signal was the only thing big enough to allow the recording of digital audio at the time. Not to mention, but studios could also use the analog audio tracks to make an analog backup of the audio at the same time on the same videotape. And in the early-80’s Sony brought out the PCM-F1 that recorded its digital signal to Betamax. Sure these only recorded at 16-bit and were the reason for the 44,1 kHz selection (as that was what was needed to record on PAL/SECAM machines, with NTSC models clocking in at 44.096), and even well into the 2000’s for sending audio masters to CD replication plants, you could only send the master on U-Matic or Betamax, as the plants were only setup to accept videotape as the source. I believe that in the late-90’s a few plants started to accept CD-R masters and other higher quality, but the majority still required tape.
Sorry I have to disagree with you there. While the digitizations is not a true copy of the analog signal, it does have a much higher resolution than analog. Thus, when you are copying the tape, you do not lose information. Which is why when you go analog-to-Digital-to-analog you are getting the same quality. And with analog circuitry, unless you are running miles of cable, the amount of loss in a short run is neglible with heavily shielded cables. Also nowadays all digital recorders, both video and audio still have one analog connection—-the mic.I respectfully beg to differ on some of your points. Rudy is correct when he said converting analog to digital loses information. An analog signal is manifested as a pure continuous waveform, like a sideways S. When you digitize any signal you have to sample that waveform in slices. For CD that is 44100 slices or 22050 per channel for a stereo pair. The part of the wave between those slices is lost. And given that it's only 16 bit limits the range of dynamics it can have as well. That is why highs sound brittle and the sound can lose some of the delicate ambience of the recording.
As for "a lot of analog connections", even one analog link in the chain will lose quality, and that includes analog circuitry as well.
I think it has to do with weight against the turntable platter the heavier the vinyl is the better because it helps eliminate any vibration and your stylus and tone arm supposedly work better with much less movement and is suppose make it much quieter in play. At least that is what I'm thinking. I think the way the record is cut is all the same regardless what the weight of the vinyl. I also think the mastering of the project is more important than the weight of the LP.
To my ears, the analog recordings of the original pressings are going to sound better even though there pressed on thinner vinyl. I can only imagine what it could have sounded like with the original analog recordings on 180 gram vinyl. It would have been a match made in heaven. I don't think we will ever get that again (analog recordings) with any Carpenters LPs hence why the original LPs are going up and up in price for a sealed copy.
@tomswift2002
I'm not sure how video was brought into this but we are talking about audio formats.[\quote].
I’d disagree with you there. The earliest method of digitally mastering audio was done on 3/4 U-Matics when Sony introduced the PCM 1601 in the late-1970’s. Up until the DAT recorder was introduced in 1987, any digital audio masters had to be put onto videotape, as the video portion of a video signal was the only thing big enough to allow the recording of digital audio at the time. Not to mention, but studios could also use the analog audio tracks to make an analog backup of the audio at the same time on the same videotape. And in the early-80’s Sony brought out the PCM-F1 that recorded its digital signal to Betamax. Sure these only recorded at 16-bit and were the reason for the 44,1 kHz selection (as that was what was needed to record on PAL/SECAM machines, with NTSC models clocking in at 44.096), and even well into the 2000’s for sending audio masters to CD replication plants, you could only send the master on U-Matic or Betamax, as the plants were only setup to accept videotape as the source. I believe that in the late-90’s a few plants started to accept CD-R masters and other higher quality, but the majority still required tape.
I respectfully beg to differ on some of your points. Rudy is correct when he said converting analog to digital loses information. An analog signal is manifested as a pure continuous waveform, like a sideways S. When you digitize any signal you have to sample that waveform in slices. For CD that is 44100 slices or 22050 per channel for a stereo pair. The part of the wave between those slices is lost. And given that it's only 16 bit limits the range of dynamics it can have as well. That is why highs sound brittle and the sound can lose some of the delicate ambience of the recording.
As for "a lot of analog connections", even one analog link in the chain will lose quality, and that includes analog circuitry as well.
Click to expand...
Sorry I have to disagree with you there. While the digitizations is not a true copy of the analog signal, it does have a much higher resolution than analog. Thus, when you are copying the tape, you do not lose information. Which is why when you go analog-to-Digital-to-analog you are getting the same quality. And with analog circuitry, unless you are running miles of cable, the amount of loss in a short run is neglible with heavily shielded cables. Also nowadays all digital recorders, both video and audio still have one analog connection—-the mic.
Well...if I was you I would hold on to those sealed copies....had I not bought this box set I probably would have bought a sealed copy of every Carpenters original LP just to keep sealed in my collection. While I have opened originals that sound excellent for playing...just owning a sealed copy with all the hype stickers is very cool as a collectable. It's going to become harder and harder to find sealed copies of the originals for a decent price. As someone said before, if I could go back in time I would have bought an extra copy of every LP at $7.00 to $10.00 and kept them sealed.
Or you could sell them to me. lolI most likely will keep them sealed for posterity. Not sure who will appreciate them when I'm gone, however! ;-/
With the resolution, you have to remember that the original tapes were made in the 60’s and 70’s on tapes that, while good for their time, were recorded on 60’s and70’s era sound and mixing boards. Fast forward to even 1998 and there have been great advances in audio recording technology. In the 70’s a lot of amplifiers were still using vacuum tubes, whereas by 98 that had been replaced with the more efficient microchip that could give you better sound and could, even on analog audio recordings, give a much higher resolution of audio than they could get in the 70’s.@tomswift2002
Tom, I did not know about the digital masters using video tape. That is amazingly cool information to know. I need to study up on this more. I still disagree on the resolution aspect and that you lose information. You even said it's not a true copy of the analog signal. That is why we want and listen to analog in the first place is because we get the pure analog signal.
Thank you for the great discussion here. I have learned a lot.
Weight has nothing whatsover to do with sound quality. It is only a marketing term that newer vinyl buyers have fallen for big time. I have thousands of vinyl albums and I can tell you if anything, the thinner pressings (especially 70's pressings) sound better than the thicker. My assumption is back in the day, thicker vinyl had a lot of regrind within the mfg process. But, all things being equal, it should not effect sq. Unfortunately, I have plenty of new releases pressed on thick vinyl that are terrible pressings. Look no further than some of the new Carpenter pressings. Audiophile pressings from the likes of MFSL in the 80's were always pressed beautifully on thin vinyl. 180g would not have made a difference.I think it has to do with weight against the turntable platter the heavier the vinyl is the better because it helps eliminate any vibration and your stylus and tone arm supposedly work better with much less movement and is suppose make it much quieter in play. At least that is what I'm thinking. I think the way the record is cut is all the same regardless what the weight of the vinyl. I also think the mastering of the project is more important than the weight of the LP.
To my ears, the analog recordings of the original pressings are going to sound better even though there pressed on thinner vinyl. I can only imagine what it could have sounded like with the original analog recordings on 180 gram vinyl. It would have been a match made in heaven. I don't think we will ever get that again (analog recordings) with any Carpenters LPs hence why the original LPs are going up and up in price for a sealed copy.