Forum - View topic

INTEREST: Sony Hops on the Vinyl Bandwagon After 29 Years

This is false. I actually work for Sony Music in the US, where my primary job is to oversee the manufacturing of vinyl and CDs (yup, people still buy them believe it or not, myself included!). I don't know where you're getting your info from that the veteran engineers are all dead or retired, but that just isn't the case. I've personally worked with many extremely talented engineers who have been in the business for over 30 years, and are extensively knowledgeable about mastering for vinyl. The art was never lost, it was just dormant until the recent boom.

Also, as far as remasters go, many of the masters we use are actually the exact same masters we used back in the day. All of our masters are stored in a high-tech, temperature and humidity-controlled facility specifically designed to preserve them. We use those same masters to make the highest quality reissues we can.

Think of it this way. The highest quality audio we typically listen to digitally has a sample rate of 48kbps. Flac and wav can get up to 96k but that's pretty rare. Vinyl, however, technically has a sample rate of infinity because it's not sampled at all - you're listening to the real thing.

McDoogle wrote:

This is false. I actually work for Sony Music in the US, where my primary job is to oversee the manufacturing of vinyl and CDs (yup, people still buy them believe it or not, myself included!). I don't know where you're getting your info from that the veteran engineers are all dead or retired, but that just isn't the case. I've personally worked with many extremely talented engineers who have been in the business for over 30 years, and are extensively knowledgeable about mastering for vinyl. The art was never lost, it was just dormant until the recent boom. Also, as far as remasters go, many of the masters we use are actually the exact same masters we used back in the day. All of our masters are stored in a high-tech, temperature and humidity-controlled facility specifically designed to preserve them. We use those same masters to make the highest quality reissues we can.

While Sony and the like may be getting back into the vinyl game, most of it is being pressed in clapped out factories in the former Soviet block. Quality isn't a priority.

McDoogle wrote:

Think of it this way. The highest quality audio we typically listen to digitally has a sample rate of 48kbps. Flac and wav can get up to 96k but that's pretty rare. Vinyl, however, technically has a sample rate of infinity because it's not sampled at all - you're listening to the real thing.

This sounds a lot like the arguments people used to make for why analog cameras were better than digital cameras, and we know that's just not true.

Just Passing Through wrote:

The only good thing about vinyl is the sleeve art. I fully expect that each vinyl record will come with a free download of all the tracks, and that people will listen to the digital files while putting the record in a frame and hanging it from a wall. The problem is that even with all the presses and vinyl factories in the world, all the decent audio engineers who knew how to master vinyl (or indeed audio cassette and CD) are now either dead or retired. For the last 20 years CDs have been a race to the loud, which is why collectors try and find the first press CD of an album, rather than buy a new pressing. And given that most new vinyl will be pressed from digital masters, so much for the warmth of analog sound. It's a fake industry for hipsters that know no better, and have nothing but an inferior modern turntable plugged into a digital amp to listen to their 'new' records.

This is false. I actually work for Sony Music in the US, where my primary job is to oversee the manufacturing of vinyl and CDs (yup, people still buy them believe it or not, myself included!). I don't know where you're getting your info from that the veteran engineers are all dead or retired, but that just isn't the case. I've personally worked with many extremely talented engineers who have been in the business for over 30 years, and are extensively knowledgeable about mastering for vinyl. The art was never lost, it was just dormant until the recent boom.

Also, as far as remasters go, many of the masters we use are actually the exact same masters we used back in the day. All of our masters are stored in a high-tech, temperature and humidity-controlled facility specifically designed to preserve them. We use those same masters to make the highest quality reissues we can.

You are right though that vinyl is only as good as the weakest link in the chain. Even the finest vinyl is going to sound like dirt on a cheap Crosley turntable. However, people with decent equipment will be able to hear a difference. Analog sound is always going to be richer and warmer than digital because it's being produced live in front of you rather than digitally recreated.

Think of it this way. The highest quality audio we typically listen to digitally has a sample rate of 48kbps. Flac and wav can get up to 96k but that's pretty rare. Vinyl, however, technically has a sample rate of infinity because it's not sampled at all - you're listening to the real thing.

@McDoogle

It is not just a question of the weakest link. If you spend the money for a really good turntable and are obsessive about cleaning and storing your vinyl records the sound still degrades with every use. With care that can be kept to a minimum but it happens. Treat the records as casually as most people do and the sound goes to hell rather rapidly. Of course those people think the scratches, pops and clicks are retro.

As to the superior sound, possibly in theory. I never could hear it myself. I replaced my vinyl albums with CDs as soon as possible. I got rid of my turntable when I realized I hadn't used in in a couple of years.

McDoogle wrote:

Just Passing Through wrote: The only good thing about vinyl is the sleeve art. I fully expect that each vinyl record will come with a free download of all the tracks, and that people will listen to the digital files while putting the record in a frame and hanging it from a wall. The problem is that even with all the presses and vinyl factories in the world, all the decent audio engineers who knew how to master vinyl (or indeed audio cassette and CD) are now either dead or retired. For the last 20 years CDs have been a race to the loud, which is why collectors try and find the first press CD of an album, rather than buy a new pressing. And given that most new vinyl will be pressed from digital masters, so much for the warmth of analog sound. It's a fake industry for hipsters that know no better, and have nothing but an inferior modern turntable plugged into a digital amp to listen to their 'new' records. This is false. I actually work for Sony Music in the US, where my primary job is to oversee the manufacturing of vinyl and CDs (yup, people still buy them believe it or not, myself included!). I don't know where you're getting your info from that the veteran engineers are all dead or retired, but that just isn't the case. I've personally worked with many extremely talented engineers who have been in the business for over 30 years, and are extensively knowledgeable about mastering for vinyl. The art was never lost, it was just dormant until the recent boom. Also, as far as remasters go, many of the masters we use are actually the exact same masters we used back in the day. All of our masters are stored in a high-tech, temperature and humidity-controlled facility specifically designed to preserve them. We use those same masters to make the highest quality reissues we can. You are right though that vinyl is only as good as the weakest link in the chain. Even the finest vinyl is going to sound like dirt on a cheap Crosley turntable. However, people with decent equipment will be able to hear a difference. Analog sound is always going to be richer and warmer than digital because it's being produced live in front of you rather than digitally recreated. Think of it this way. The highest quality audio we typically listen to digitally has a sample rate of 48kbps. Flac and wav can get up to 96k but that's pretty rare. Vinyl, however, technically has a sample rate of infinity because it's not sampled at all - you're listening to the real thing.

This seems a little bit silly. I have a large collection of 96kHz (not kpbs) music, and there is also the 192kHz sample rate. Now, that translates to being able to accurately reconstruct audio with a bandwidth of 96kHz, or four times the total bandwidth of the human audible range (using sampling theorem, which is essential in any discussion of waveforms, be it electronic (which is my domain of experience), or audio). That is completely different from the bit-rate, as the bit rate is dependent on the sample depth multiplied by the sample rate, modified by the compression efficiency. For uncompressed audio, you would see a minimum bit rate of 8 bits of depth, multiplied by the sample rate of 44.1kHz, or 344kbps.

Your assertion that vinyl has an infinite sample rate is incorrect, as you are ignoring the size of the contact patch of the needle relative to the angular velocity of the record, as that causes it to take a local maximum of the area, as the needle cannot fit into an area smaller than it's contact patch, which while small, is not infinitesimally so. This means that it takes a rolling maximum of the audio waveform. Additionally the equivalent bit depth, due to mechanical stiction (The minimum movement distance effectively possible, due to the force required to overcome the coefficient of static friction, and the inevitably lower coefficient of dynamic friction) , backlash and other errors, is far lower than the 32b and higher floating point depth now available for music production, and doesn't exceed the quality of the 24b available for consumer audio. Especially on older equipment, stiction and backlash are major causes of inaccuracy, with proper backlash compensation requiring a preloaded axis, which causes additional strain against the thrust surface.

Where you are certainly correct, is that analog audio can sound better than something coming off my MP3 player or out of a computer. This is often because gear that is built as analog only has less electrical noise to deal with, and less need to filter it (Which can remove harmonics of the noise being filtered), as well as that honestly, most digitally based audio equipment was not built with maximum audio path integrity in mind. Few have the proper isolation between the digital and analog sides, fewer still will shield and impedance match the entire circuit, and most headsets, earbuds, and computer speakers simply are not as good as the equivalents produced for audio work, instead of some other factor such as cost, size, or compatibility.

So, ignoring the practical aspects of building either system, analog is a superior format qualitatively. When it comes to actual accurate representation of the waveform, it is likely that digital would win, while playback is superior for "analog" systems, largely as a matter of build quality, in that the vast majority of modern digital audio systems have that as effectively an afterthought, instead of the dedicated purpose. Meanwhile, the distortion of waveforms that analog recording and playback provides is to many a positive. However, as any electrical engineer could tell you, or even most electrical technicians, an analog sampling and display system is inferior to modern mid-range and higher options for professional work, if your goal is solely the quality and accuracy of the wave-form, due to deviations from the ideal model of components. See Oscilloscopes for an example of this. I would, without hesitation, buy digital equipment over analog for pretty much any task involving waveforms, be they audio, RF, or merely electrical signaling.

I don't presume to tell you how to master audio, but I do presume that, given your minor-mixup with the sample rate versus bit-rate (an easy mistake to make), that you are primarily a specialist in the sound and audio, instead of someone who works with designing or analyzing this type of equipment, and that you likely are not as fresh on concepts like sample theory, nor trained in the mechanical aspects of the system (as that is someone else's problem, most likely)

Eudemon wrote:

Snip

Woah, nice breakdown! Are you an engineer? You're correct in your assertion in the last paragraph, I'm a specialist in manufacturing oversight and not the actual equipment itself.