Analord recordings and playback media

I can't pull up the quote because the sc account is down, but I remember rdj commenting that most of analord was recorded to mini-disc (plus we know some of it was from DAT, etc. because of the descriptions on the old rephlex site). I found this kind of shocking (mini-disc is basically 320 mp3 quality) and it really gave me insight into the whole vinyl vs. digital thing. When I first got the Analord vinyls I thought the sound quality was top notch--superior to damn near everything else I'd heard. Since it was called Analord, I assumed everything was meticulously recorded in analog and transferred from tapes to vinyl--hence the very 'real' sound of the albums. Then the WAV came up on Rephlex and, to me, didn't sound as great at all as the vinyl--so I chalked it up to the 'inferiority of digital'. Come to find out damn near the whole lot of it was recorded digitally, so I assume the WAV files are truer to the original recordings/are the original recordings. I guess the vinyl makes the music sound more realistic??? Those recordings on vinyl were the closest I'd heard to real equipment playing straight through a mixer/monitoring system--can't wrap my head around it...Anyone got any insight or observations to share, I'd love to hear them. It'd be great to hear from someone who recorded digitally and heard their stuff on vinyl later as to what this does to the sound.

it's called mastering!

  On 3/9/2016 at 9:49 PM, fenton said:

it's called mastering!

Yep, I know what mastering is/does. I've spent extensive amounts of time comparing various masters of music. If you play back on your computer multiple mastered versions of a song, one doesn't sound more 'realistic' than another, they just sound different (flatter, punchier, warmer, different eq, etc.) I don't think that's all that's going on here. This issue gives me insight into what well-pressed vinyl (I remember reading somewhere that a lot of quality control went into the production of the vinyl) does to the music. I think maybe the key is 'well-pressed' vinyl, as I've gotten a lot of bad versions of music on vinyl lately, where the digital version seems to be considerably better. Anyway, just wondering if there was some article or interview out there about this I hadn't seen, something like that.

Anyone out there with a drum machine, even a digital one like a Boss, try this--play the drum machine through mixer/monitors. Then, record it digitally and play that recording back, and a/b it with the drum machine itself. So, you've got computer/interface playback-->mixer-->monitors, drum machine-->mixer-->monitors. Even with high-end interfaces, the sound gets a bit artificial sounding with the recording. Maybe the vinyl playback somehow alleviates this issue?? My point was that I thought Analord was "all analog" in its recording--turns out it's not, so it brings up a lot of questions as to why those original vinyl versions are probably the best sounding music I've heard and truest to what I've heard real gear sound like in person (not recorded). Mastering itself doesn't account for this issue. Just interested in understanding anything I can about what I consider to be the best collection of music I've heard (regardless of format).

It's called "your brains" "your perception" and "your expectations"

Of course mastering plays a big role, but foremost I think your expectations of "all analog" made it sound to you that way. Mostly your brain should be to blame. Our brains can do so much crazy things...

  On 3/10/2016 at 10:20 AM, Test Fforet said:

It's called "your brains" "your perception" and "your expectations"

 

Of course mastering plays a big role, but foremost I think your expectations of "all analog" made it sound to you that way. Mostly your brain should be to blame. Our brains can do so much crazy things...

It still sounds that way to me and many people I know, even knowing what we know now. On the other hand, I know of music that was recorded all-analog and the cd version sounds better to me than the vinyl, so maybe it has to do with the quality of the pressing, who knows.

Additionally, regarding the recording experiment I detailed above--I and friends of mine have done this blind (leaving room, walking back into it with music playing back) on multiple setups--real machine wins every time. For people who really love the sounds of these synths, drum machines, etc. it's interesting for us to do these kinds of experiments, if for nothing else than to learn a bit. None of us have the means for analog recording presently, so I don't know if this would change anything or not.

i thought it was said somewhere when analord was first released that it was all analog signal path all the way to the vinyls.

and it seems like it would be pretty silly to use all analog synths, and everything else, for what was then a vinyl only release, but then actually record to something like minidisc. so needlessly contrary when i'm sure he has several reel decks. why do that

  On 3/10/2016 at 10:36 AM, MisterE said:

i thought it was said somewhere when analord was first released that it was all analog signal path all the way to the vinyls.

and it seems like it would be pretty silly to use all analog synths, and everything else, for what was then a vinyl only release, but then actually record to something like minidisc. so needlessly contrary when i'm sure he has several reel decks. why do that

I thought I had read that somewhere too, but thought I was just making it up after reading rdj's comment on sc about minidisc. Plus the rephlex site said some recordings may be from "premastered encodings direct from tape, DAT, drive or Elcassette etc." (got that from discogs now, but I remember reading it on the site years ago)--so the DAT, drive seems digital.

As for your second comment--I completely agree.

Minidisc is not inherently MP3 quality. It can be, depending on recording modes and such, but it can also be a high quality medium. That's all I have to contribute, carry on.

There are so many factors to consider, some of which were already mentioned (psychoacoustics, mastering, signal chain, medium format, etc.).

The fact that it sounds better to you isn't easy to quantify for others. You say a drum machine playing on it's own through monitors sounds better than a digital recording of it playing through the same monitors. There's a large amount of possible error in that experience, so it's impossible to tackle why you hear it the way you do compared to explaining your listening experience.

Whether things sounds more real or not is also very subjective. An all analog signal chain to vinyl, technically, is more of a facsimile of the original sound than an all high quality digital signal chain. The digital chain would be more 'real' to the original sound because of the high resolution and the lack of artifacts in the recording compared to analog. But that 'real' sound doesn't necessarily mean it's more pleasing.

There's so much involved in molding the original sound of an instrument and sometimes imperfections of analog chaining, or emulations of analog chaining, play a big role in enhancing aspects we find pleasing (warm bottom, harmonic distortions) and degrading aspects we find displeasing (too much hiss, lack of highs).

Listening to a really good vinyl pressing of a recording can sound better than a digital one, but it has little to do with realism since realism is usually colouress and transparent. However, that realism is a good base to being able manipulate easier, to add colour and saturation or to remove blemishes.

Good points--One more thing I find much much better on the vinyl editions is the reverb--trails seem to be really deep and going on forever (Pitcard--Analord 7 the beginning has a loud sort of modular-produced snare treated with reverb at the beginning that really shows this off). On the digital version, the reverb seems to just kind of come and go, if that makes sense. Seems like the limitations of the vinyl medium would mask the reverb trails even more rather than the opposite?? but not sure... By the way, I've been using pretty top notch turntables/cd player/dacs for comparison, so not a case of really good turntable vs. crap cd player,etc. The mysteries of sound...

As for the realism issue, I guess what I'm trying to say is that, to me and others I've done this test with, the sound of the Analord vinyl (underneath the surface noise,etc) is closer to a real source than the recordings on the Analord WAVs or recordings of equipment that I/friends have done. Not that I have most or any of the equipment used on Analord, but if you've heard real modular or analog drum machines, it kind of gives you the idea. I'm not even really making an argument for analog gear/recording, digital synths and DAWs are great too--it just seems counter-intuitive to me that what should be a transparent and mostly distortion free medium (digital) often sounds somewhat artificial compared to vinyl (again, underneath surface noise, etc.). I don't know why that is. I'm not sure its really bias because I REALLY WANT the digital to be perfect--its relatively inexpensive and extremely convenient.

It could be that the digital masters were manipulated more than the vinyl masters? I really can't say, I can't do a valid comparison.

Probably just a lazy rip from DAT to digital, hence the supposedly "inferior" sound.

It seems some of those WAVs are unmastered (any that are 48kHz according the notes on Rephlex), so for those I would guess the mastering issue doesn't come into play.

Regardless, it's really top notch music--I just kind of obsessively want to know everything about my favorite music--there's a lot of info out there on the recording of, for example, Jimi Hendrix albums and subsequent remasters/digital versions, but of course rdj's secrecy means this stuff will forever remain a mystery. Hope to hear some more insights into this. Thanks all!

In a somewhat related note, I heard an interview with the guy at pitchfork who interviewed rdj around the time of Syro. He said something along the lines of "Richard just wanted to keep talking about gear and recording methods, but that stuff isn't interesting, so I had to try to steer him away from it" (not a direct quote). The article he ended up writing for pitchfork didn't contain much info at all in this area. I wanted to beat my head against my desk when I heard this--I can't really imagine what would be more important/relevant to include in an interview about a musician than how he/she made the music...Instead we get a lot of useless info on what they do in their free time, their opinions on things, etc...okay rant over

Tech talk would be good for an audio engineering mag like Sound On Sound. Pitchfork don't care about tech.

  On 3/10/2016 at 4:44 PM, KingR said:

It seems some of those WAVs are unmastered (any that are 48kHz according the notes on Rephlex), so for those I would guess the mastering issue doesn't come into play.

 

For the record, that live/recorded drum machine experiment is a bit of a fallacy imo. If you have a good signal path and good recording equipment it should sound pretty much identical to the source.

  On 3/14/2016 at 2:16 AM, modey said:

 

  On 3/10/2016 at 4:44 PM, KingR said:

It seems some of those WAVs are unmastered (any that are 48kHz according the notes on Rephlex), so for those I would guess the mastering issue doesn't come into play.

It most certainly would be an issue. Mastering can make recordings sound so much more lively, and probably accounts for the 'realness' you speak of.

 

For the record, that live/recorded drum machine experiment is a bit of a fallacy imo. If you have a good signal path and good recording equipment it should sound pretty much identical to the source.

 

That comment was in response to this from a prior post: "It could be that the digital masters were manipulated more than the vinyl masters? I really can't say, I can't do a valid comparison." Sorry I wasn't clearer on this, should've quoted that in my reply.

Pretty much identical--yep, pretty much does, but is just missing something. Some kind of sheen to the sound or something, dunno how else to explain it. I haven't gone beyond a $1000 interface into a high-spec pc for recording, so that could be. However, I have yet to hear playback of anyone's recording through a computer-based setup that sounds as convincing as those analord vinyls...Got some early Ectomorph releases I feel the same way about

To add a bit of clarity to the 'experiment' scenario I posted about previously--monitoring the drum machine output through the DAW or whatever program used for recording vs. the recording itself does sound identical to me...what i'm specifically talking about re: 'realistic sound' is drum machine straight to monitoring vs. recording of drum machine straight to monitoring...again, not really just my individual impressions, I'm kind of writing for a number of people I know who've all had these impressions--and one who really doesn't give a shit one way or the other and wonders why we go on about it...probably the healthier attitude :)

rephlex website, on the analord digital releases ::

"This release may contain 48 kHz Pre-Mastered WAV's.

Actually, I'm comparing the WAV files from Rephlex with the actual vinyl itself, not the vinyl rips that have been floating around for some time (I've got two different versions of those I think). And yes, the digitals from Rephlex sound great, my point is more that the vinyls sound exceptionally great, which is surprising to me because a)it seems most of the recording was digital, hence the WAVs are closer to the original recordings, and b) I generally don't prefer vinyl versions (but when they're good, as is the case here, it's a whole 'nother level of realism)--making me speculate about what the hell is going on with these exceptional records--I have never heard digital anything, regardless of the mastering, sound as real as these.

I would recommend that anyone reading this do the following (given the means) to hear what I'm talking about:

-assuming a digital and vinyl setup that's roughly equal in quality, play, for example, the opening of Pitcard on Analord 7 and compare--I think what I'm talking about will be obvious after doing this--if you have a fair amount of experience with comparing various masters of tracks, I think you'll agree this goes beyond what mastering can do.

mm alrighty, will have another listen when i get the time : >

  On 3/14/2016 at 2:21 PM, KingR said:

I would recommend that anyone reading this do the following (given the means) to hear what I'm talking about:

-assuming a digital and vinyl setup that's roughly equal in quality

Two different types of technology, completely different signal paths, to the point where 'roughly equal' means basically means nothing. Needle, cart, arm, pre stage etc etc all have bearing before we even get to amp and speakers. And the recordings have been mastered differently. And there's also psychological factor that has been touched on, along with rephlex marketing hype regarding the 'analogueness' of the package.

Anyone doing a/b tests you're suggesting will be doing it on totally different gear to you anyway :) too many variables. Glad you're enjoying the analords though, they are wicked :) :)

  On 3/14/2016 at 9:10 PM, Amen Warrior said:

 

  On 3/14/2016 at 2:21 PM, KingR said:

I would recommend that anyone reading this do the following (given the means) to hear what I'm talking about:

-assuming a digital and vinyl setup that's roughly equal in quality

Two different types of technology, completely different signal paths, to the point where 'roughly equal' means basically means nothing. Needle, cart, arm, pre stage etc etc all have bearing before we even get to amp and speakers. And the recordings have been mastered differently. And there's also psychological factor that has been touched on, along with rephlex marketing hype regarding the 'analogueness' of the package.

 

Anyone doing a/b tests you're suggesting will be doing it on totally different gear to you anyway :) too many variables. Glad you're enjoying the analords though, they are wicked :) :)

 

Of course--kind of goes towards my point of the playback mechanism accounting for the sound I'm describing. My point was--don't use some piece of crap turntable with a 20 year old budget cartridge and then a high-end computer interface and compare the two and say--"the files sound way better". The amp and speakers are not a variable here because one would presumably be using the same to compare between the two delivery formats.

Okay, I'm going to bounce out--just agree with many posts that it is all in my head, just a matter of psychology, digital is perfect, I don't understand mastering, I don't understand what goes into audio playback, and I'm having auditory hallucinations. Peace.

It may or may not be psychological. I wonder if you'd be equally impressed if you heard the final masters of the tracks before pressing. Perhaps they were mastered using some high end analog gear and even sounded good before being pressed to vinyl..? That's essentially what I was trying to say in my previous post. Perhaps you're not hearing "awesomeness of vinyl" but instead "awesomeness of good mastering equipment"?