Digitally Re-Mastered vinyl

[floppybootstomp]

Two albums I've been wanting to get hold of on vinyl are the Rolling Stones' Beggars Banquet & Let It Bleed.

They're on Amazon at a tenner each but I noticed both had been 'Digitally Re-Mastered'.

This made me pause and think - isn't that rather negating the very reason you buy vinyl for? To get away from the somewhat clinical sound of digitally processed audio?

I'd always held the view that older analogue recordings on vinyl generally speaking were the best sound source.

Which then made me wonder about digital recordings on vinyl in general.

The two Rolling Stones albums I mentioned are reasonably priced for new vinyl as second hand copies of both usually sell for between 15 and 40 from dealers.

So - Digitally re-mastered vinyl - worth buying? Or better seeking original all analogue vinyl?

Let It Bleed

[Ali Tait]

I'd guess it depends on the remaster and who did it. Most are indeed worse than the original in my experience, though occasionally you get a good'un.

[Mike H]

Hopefully it's just confined to suppressing the tape hiss of the master tape, and the circuits that recorded it, if they're sensible.

If done properly it can (I say can) lower the noise floor, making it bit more dynamic and the treble crisper.

The danger then however is the tempation to fiddle with it in ways you can't get away with in analogue, in theory you can't bugger up the end result because "it's digital", actually, you can. And surprisingly easily too

[IslandPink]

I would proceed very cautiously with re-issue 'Audiophile' LPs if you don't like throwing away £20 regularly . I've had several that were markedly inferior to the original analogue pressings despite looking very nice and being well-presented .
My general recommendation would be - buy an original - even a 2nd or 3rd-pressing - unless the originals are stupidly expensive ( Nick Drake stuff being an example of the latter ) .

The problem I find repeatedly with duff ones is that the soundstage depth ( reverb and space ) is lacking, and the tone is greyer. Hardly what you want if you appreciate fine music.

I can certainly recommend anything done by 'Sundazed' but avoid anything with a gold '180 gram' sticker on the front .

Classic Records used to be great, but I've heard bad things recently. Their 'Kind of Blue' was sensational , I also have 'Blue Train' and I think a Stravinsky .

[floppybootstomp]

Well, the album I specified doesn't claim to be an 'audiophile' pressing and neither does it cost £20.00. It claims to be 'digitally remastered' and costs a tenner.

A tenner for a new vinyl album is probably a fair price so I think I may take a chance and order 'Let It Bleed', I'm curious.

I've seen poor used copies of this album selling for a fiver and good used copies selling for up to £50.00 so a tenner seems ok.

I've only ever bought one so called 'audiophile' vinyl album, back in 1979 or 1980 - The Beatles' Abbey Road. To my ears it didn't sound any different to a vanilla pressing and the volume level was decidedly lower so that kind of soured my experience of them.

I've actually picked up a fair few bargains for a quid each lately, from charity shops and a local record shop. Amongst them The Waterboys' Fisherman's Blues and the double Frankie Goes To Hollywood album Welcome To The Pleasure Dome.

Both are in very good condition and the FGTH album, though sounding a little dated now, gives out some nice little sonic treats over it's four sides.

[Ali Tait]

Ah, Fishermen's Blues. Great album.

[simon]

Yeah, haven't listenend to it in ages, must dig the record out again. Saw The Waterboys on the tour of that album at the refectory at Leeds Uni, seems like a long, long time ago now.

[Ali Tait]

It was!

[floppybootstomp]

I think The Waterboys has been the act I've seen the most at the Glastonbury Festivals, must be at least five times, though it wasn't planned that way, just happened.

I saw Christy Moore perform at Greenwich Town Hall in February 1986 and I too experienced a few goosebump moments, the man is intense, somehow.

At the time, our emerald troubadour was drying out and so had ordered the closure of the bar at the back of the hall. Selfish bastid, lol

Some six months earlier I had seen Fairport Convention at the same venue where the bar was open.

This was interesting. Fairport's gig was fun, drunken, boisterous, smiles all round.

Christy's gig was intimate, quiet, moving and almost spiritual.

I'm still not sure what was best but I must confess to having a few pints of Youngs Bitter in the pub up the road before the Christy Moore gig

[simon]

It was!

I know, 22 years I think.

[simon]

I saw Christy Moore perform at Greenwich Town Hall in February 1986 and I too experienced a few goosebump moments, the man is intense, somehow.

Absolutely spot on, remarkable how a man with a guitar can be so powerful. I saw him in Doncaster about 15 years ago and he just couldn't get going, but I thought it was an amazing performance.

[Cyclopse]

I have a copy of Kate Bush The Hounds of Love.

This is an all digital recording and you can tell. Its very hard sounding. Analogue replaying an analogue recording is the best of both worlds.

[Nick]

I sometimes wonder if the hard sound of early digital releases was intentional to highlight the wonderful new digitalness of it all. I remember hearing the early CD players in shops playing Dire Straits and the overwhelming memory of the sound was how different it sounded, not how good it sounded.

[Dave the bass]

I sometimes wonder if the hard sound of early digital releases was intentional to highlight the wonderful new digitalness of it all.

Its only with hindsight we call it 'hard' in a derogatory sense IMO. 'Hard' then was 'exciting' and 'zesty'.

Not wanting to start a fight or nuthin'...buuuuuttttt the way I recall it... it wasn't 'hard' at the time. It was 'new'. Exciting. Like wow! Yeah! These genuinely were new sounds being recorded and manipulated that we'd never been exposed to before. It was just 'new' and 'now' ala '83-'86.

I remember hearing 'World Machine' for the 1st time (being a Level 42 fan) and Simply Reds 'Men and Women' CD (being a fan of half baked daft cod-soul) and saying to a mate "wheres all the bass gone?" as we drove home from the pub after a night out on the yellow fizz pop of the moment. The bands core sound was still there, it's just that it was different. It was shiny, buffed and new. It sold bucketloads too, maybe it was done to sell the digital as as a whole as you proffered.

It wore off quickly for me, this novelty of 'the digital new'. I started craving singer/songwriter'ness' and listening to tunes again very quickly. Almost as if it was a sonic fad which I think is what you were saying.

DTB

[Nick]

Yes, thats what I was meaning, I agree hard is a term applied only with hindsight. My main point was that the sound we now call hard and associate with early digital recordings was intentionally done that way to make it stand out.

It seems to be the common idea that they didnt know what they were doing in the studio with the new kit. I dont think the engineers went to bed one night with one set of ears, and woke up the next day with a new set that had lost their analytical facility.

I remember in the day that everything from headphones in the supermarket up had "digital ready" on the pack. Same as when the introduction of colour TV's allowed a whole new set of aerials to be sold. I still remember walking down the street with my mum, and she noticed all the new aerials and commenting that they all had the new colour aerials.