View Full Version : "Your old records rescued. Brand new records made."
Link shamelessly stolen from pfm:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/198744309/your-old-records-rescued-brand-new-vinyl-records-m
Does anyone think that this process is actually solving something worthwhile? Me thinks not...
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
24-03-2014, 10:48
Whilst it doesn't seem so, maybe the proof will be in the pudding. As I assume that most modern vinyl starts out as a digital file before its cut, it may be OK. Depends on the quality of the software and the cutting machine presumably. It looks as if it just another added layer to introduce some distortion though.
I won't be one of those backing him although anything that seeks to encourage the use of vinyl should be lauded.
Audioman
24-03-2014, 11:29
There is nothing new here. In fact reissue labels have been digitizing and cleaning up LPs and acetates for years were this is the only surviving source. Problem is that you end up with a digitally sourced vinyl so the all analogue purity of the original is lost. Now if someone could fix scratches in an all analogue chain that would be groundbreaking. For 'one off' restorations this is going to be expensive and only economic for rare collectables - even then collectors will pay more for the scratched original than the fixed copy.
Rothchild
24-03-2014, 12:32
Sketchy,
They don't specify the source turntable / arm / cart combo, they don't specify what A/D they're using, nor mention what sample rate or bit depth they're going to use. £300 for specialist software seems ambitious; as to do it really well they're going to need some Cedar gear (not cheap last time I looked), there's no justification as to why there's a valve stage being chucked in there (it's meant to be a repair not a remaster ie the focus should be on sonic purity not 'character' - I know 'good valve gear' blah blah, it's still an unneccessary stage of processing).
Now fair enough the project seems to be more concentrated on the lathe but GIGO at the end of the day.
...there's no justification as to why there's a valve stage being chucked in there (it's meant to be a repair not a remaster ie the focus should be on sonic purity not 'character' - I know 'good valve gear' blah blah, it's still an unneccessary stage of processing).
That presumes (wrongly in my considerable experience), Marc, that valve gear possesses no other sonic function than to superimpose its "character" on the music signal. What if the recording engineer considers instead that the use of valves helps preserve sonic (more importantly musical) purity, rather than dilute it?
The fact is, some of the finest (read as most real/lifelike sounding) recordings of music I've ever heard were produced without a single piece of silicon or digital equipment in sight! ;)
Marco.
Seems to me that if you have a record that is rare but unplayable it won't be worth much because of poor condition and although this process will make a playable copy of it the copy will not be worth anything like the value of a playable original. Or anything like what it costs to make it.
Plus it is going through an A-D loop so if 'analogue purity' is your concern that is shot too.
So you might as well just buy a replacement vinyl copy or just get the CD and have done with it. Either will be a lot cheaper than this method and just as effective.
And for those reasons, I'm out.
The fact is, some of the finest (read as most real/lifelike sounding) recordings of music I've ever heard were produced without a single piece of silicon or digital equipment in sight! ;)
Marco.
O/T I know but you are assuming that these recordings would have been worse if they were made on purely solid state equipment and there are no grounds to make that assumption since no solid state version exists to compare. If it did you might consider it to be more musically realistic than the recording that used valves. I suspect the reason those recordings sound so realistic is nothing to do with the valves.
Rothchild
24-03-2014, 13:02
You have an amp that inverts the phase of it's signal, and this is good because fewer stages are necessarily better than more stages (at least that's how it was justified when we discussed it). How is this any different? I did acknowledge the 'valves dont' distort' argument*, but I fear you've missed my point - For a restoration and preservation project the fewer stages the better.
*My view may be skewed by the particular picture they've used to illustrate it, that UA box is known as a character device (butto be fair there are very few pro-audio valve devices that are pitched on being clean and transparent) so they may have something else in mind but it doesn't.
I would be surprised if you could confidently find a record made after about 1972 that you can be sure has no silicon in the signal path and (apart from niche recordings such as those made at Toerag) much made after about 1983 that didn't have some aspect of digital in it.
You have an amp that inverts the phase of it's signal, and this is good because fewer stages are necessarily better than more stages (at least that's how it was justified when we discussed it). How is this any different? I did acknowledge the 'valves dont' distort' argument*, but I fear you've missed my point - For a restoration and preservation project the fewer stages the better.
Yes, the fewer stages the better, *providing* that the ones employed fulfil the desired criteria....
I fully understood your point, Marc, but unfortunately within it I could sense a distinct negative connotation that 'valves automatically = euphonic coloration', and when I sense that type of misinformation is being portrayed, I will always seek to stamp it out...
*My view may be skewed by the particular picture they've used to illustrate it, that UA box is known as a character device (butto be fair there are very few pro-audio valve devices that are pitched on being clean and transparent) so they may have something else in mind but it doesn't.
I would only ever advocate the use of valves in the recording or playback chain when doing so is advantageous (in terms of preserving sonic/musical purity), never merely to apply a 'euphonic bandage'.
I would be surprised if you could confidently find a record made after about 1972 that you can be sure has no silicon in the signal path and (apart from niche recordings such as those made at Toerag) much made after about 1983 that didn't have some aspect of digital in it.
Sure, and so it's no coincidence then that the majority of my best sounding records were either produced before that date or were recorded after that using top-notch valve/analogue technology from a previous era! ;)
Marco [who's currently listening to a 1958 vinyl recording of Dvorak's 'New World' Symphony (Scherzo Capriccioso), by the Berlin Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, on EMI, that sounds simply stunning - and in a way, in terms of achieving musical realism, that no digital recording I own, or those in my collection produced from recording equipment using transistors, can emulate].
Hi Martin,
O/T I know but you are assuming that these recordings would have been worse if they were made on purely solid state equipment and there are no grounds to make that assumption since no solid state version exists to compare. If it did you might consider it to be more musically realistic than the recording that used valves. I suspect the reason those recordings sound so realistic is nothing to do with the valves.
Of course no-one can prove whether or not if solid-state equipment existed then that it would've improved the results obtained. However, based on my considerable experience to date of comparing the best of recordings using either technology, experience suggests SS equipment is unlikely to have improved matters - at best merely made it different.
That the recordings I'm referring to sound so realistic will have been primarily to do with the process, rather than the equipment used to make the recordings, not to mention the skills of the engineers at the time. However, valve microphones and mixing desks have a way of recording music that, in my opinion, contributes significantly to how realistic that recorded music sounds.
Marco.
Its taking an analogue source, all be it in crap condition and turning it into digitaly processed sound.
Surely that is not what folks want.
You may as well buy the CD. :D
Its taking an analogue source, all be it in crap condition and turning it into digitaly processed sound.
Surely that is not what folks want.
You may as well buy the CD. :D
yes, if there is a CO!
You might be surprised by how good he result of sympathetic 'digital restoration' can be. I do this whenever I rip vinyl, and the results usually are very good. The won't be able to cope with worn source material, but scratch removal and surface noise reduction can and do work very effectively.
The bit I don't really get is the cutting of a new LP - is this an acetate or a cut straight to vinyl?. If the former then it won't last well at all - as with Dr 'dub plates'. Either way generational losses from the digital copy are inevitable.
Cheers,
Alex
Once the tracks are in the digital medium why cut to vinyl?
You have lost the analogue sound so may as well rip to CD or use FLAC.
There is no longer an acoustic reason to keep to the original format and the copy will have no collectable value.
As for filters, they all degrade the sound to a degree.
I remember the days of Dolby - it didn't matter which version you used, it cleaned up the back ground mush at the expense of clarity and dynamics. I allways switched it off and prefered the sound that way warts and all.
This process might be a way of cleaning up rare recordings to a listenable level on a digital format but the vinyl cutting part seems a bit of overkill pampering to the renewed intrest in the medium. I didn't read too far into the detail of the artical but I can't imagine the whole wax cut, plated, positive/negative, pressed process is being used. It must be cut straight to a blank vinyl disk as a one off. Isn't this method of cutting inferior quality anyway?
Once the tracks are in the digital medium why cut to vinyl?
I agree.
Rothchild
25-03-2014, 19:04
I would only ever advocate the use of valves in the recording or playback chain when doing so is advantageous (in terms of preserving sonic/musical purity), never merely to apply a 'euphonic bandage'.
You must hate Sly and the Family Stone then, especially 'There's a Riot Goin on' it's as much about the way it was made and the euphonic artifacts (particularly of the mic pre distorting on the vocals) as it is about the songs or arrangements.
Lol... That's different. If the euphonic artefacts are intentional, and part of the music/artist's creative process, then I want to hear them in all their glory! :yesbruv:
However, what I certainly don't want is any such euphonic artefacts added by the playback equipment, or deliberate coloration applied during the recording process that isn't part of the music :nono:
Maximising musical integrity and realism is what it's all about for me with hi-fi.
At the end of the day, I want to replicate, as closely as possible, via my hi-fi system, the sound that the artist(s) and recording engineers created in the studio.
Marco.
Its taking an analogue source, all be it in crap condition and turning it into digitaly processed sound.
Surely that is not what folks want.
You may as well buy the CD. :D
+1
sounds like a marketing scam/load of bollocks to me.
Once the tracks are in the digital medium why cut to vinyl?
You have lost the analogue sound so may as well rip to CD or use FLAC.
There is no longer an acoustic reason to keep to the original format and the copy will have no collectable value.
As for filters, they all degrade the sound to a degree.
I remember the days of Dolby - it didn't matter which version you used, it cleaned up the back ground mush at the expense of clarity and dynamics. I allways switched it off and prefered the sound that way warts and all.
This process might be a way of cleaning up rare recordings to a listenable level on a digital format but the vinyl cutting part seems a bit of overkill pampering to the renewed intrest in the medium. I didn't read too far into the detail of the artical but I can't imagine the whole wax cut, plated, positive/negative, pressed process is being used. It must be cut straight to a blank vinyl disk as a one off. Isn't this method of cutting inferior quality anyway?
I've archived a lot of vinyl to computer, mainly for playback in the car and on the squeezebox but I've always kept the original recording. If recorded using 32 bit floating point at say 96Khz even after manipulation to remove rumble, surface noise and clicks the resulting file retains the signature of the original turntable sound. Its quite uncanny...the file can then be converted to say Red book CD or 320Kbs MP3 with dither applied and the turntable signature is still present.
I agree, apart from the romance side of having a new LP cut it would be better to just retain it as a file or CD....and it would make sense only if the recording is rare, unobtainable on the same or alternative format.
Gordon Steadman
26-03-2014, 09:47
I've archived a lot of vinyl to computer, mainly for playback in the car and on the squeezebox but I've always kept the original recording. If recorded using 32 bit floating point at say 96Khz even after manipulation to remove rumble, surface noise and clicks the resulting file retains the signature of the original turntable sound. Its quite uncanny...the file can then be converted to say Red book CD or 320Kbs MP3 with dither applied and the turntable signature is still present.
I agree, apart from the romance side of having a new LP cut it would be better to just retain it as a file or CD....and it would make sense only if the recording is rare, unobtainable on the same or alternative format.
Every time I have transferred vinyl to digits I've found the same. I consistently prefer those CDs to commercially produced ones. Where I have the original CD as well, there is a clear improvement in 'naturalness', 'musicality' whatever you want to call it. How to explain it?? Don't know, don't care.
Rothchild
26-03-2014, 15:10
If recorded using 32 bit floating point at say 96Khz even after manipulation to remove rumble, surface noise and clicks the resulting file retains the signature of the original turntable sound. Its quite uncanny...the file can then be converted to say Red book CD or 320Kbs MP3 with dither applied and the turntable signature is still present.
Interesting, do you think it would work the other way round, if you recorded a digital file to vinyl would the same transparency be apparent? If not then we have an answer to the 'which is most accurate' thread ;-) (ie if digital is able to capture analogue accurately but analogue can't capture digital accurately (and there are clear and easy conditions we can generate where it won't) then digital is by definition more accurate)
Interesting, do you think it would work the other way round, if you recorded a digital file to vinyl would the same transparency be apparent? If not then we have an answer to the 'which is most accurate' thread ;-) (ie if digital is able to capture analogue accurately but analogue can't capture digital accurately (and there are clear and easy conditions we can generate where it won't) then digital is by definition more accurate)
I suspect not but there would only be one way to tell! :)
In the end, you hear what you hear, or not, as the case may be! ;)
Marco.
Haselsh1
26-03-2014, 15:58
The very best vinyl recordings I possess are all 100% pure analogue as indicated on the sleeve. They are quite noticeably better than ADD or AAD recordings.
Indeed... Incidentally, Shaun, what's your view, as a professional, on film versus digital photography? ;)
Marco.
Rothchild
28-03-2014, 10:36
Sorry, I've still not worked out this multiquote thing, but to pick up a point here Marco,
what I certainly don't want is any such euphonic artefacts [/I]added by the playback equipment, or deliberate coloration applied during the recording process that isn't part of the music.
And
At the end of the day, I want to replicate, as closely as possible, via my hi-fi system, the sound that the artist(s) and recording engineers created in the studio
The thing is 99 times in a 100 these postitions are mutually exclusive. What the artist hears in the studio is the product of a series of (normally) deliberate choices about colouration (euphonic or otherwise) many of which will be applied after the event (ie they are part of the music but not necesarily part of the 'performance' (particularly in the UK the tradition is to record 'dry' and then process from the 'tape' whereas our american friends are more inclined to process to 'tape'))
What's the boundary of 'deliberate colouration', I'll presume it's ok to conciously select a particular microphone for a particular task, what abou the judgement about what the best (nicest) recording chain is? Are recordists allowed to use EQ (a very deliberate colouration).
I think we're in complete agreement about the desire for some sort of 'transparent wall' in terms of reproduction (by whatever mechanism, valves, chips, hampsters in wheels whatever) but I think conflating that with the belief that the recording process is concerned with the same transparency is wrong, recording is all about using 'tricks' to make stuff sound better, it's fundamenatally 'dishonest' (if you will) where as HiFi (IMO) is a desire for more 'honesty' as you say, the hifi should replicate the source closely, however in my view the source is a law unto itself and should not be constrained by the same standards.
Hi Marc,
We're essentially in agreement, especially with this bit:
I think we're in complete agreement about the desire for some sort of 'transparent wall' in terms of reproduction (by whatever mechanism, valves, chips, hampsters in wheels whatever...
...and I take the rest of your points on board.
I'm just very 'hot' on debunking the myth that as soon as valves or tape are introduced into the recording (or playback) chain, it automatically results in less 'accuracy' (remember that I'm only interested in genuine 'musical accuracy', not merely deficient readouts on test equipment), and more coloration introduced, which dilutes musical purity, any more than happens necessarily with the use of their transistor or digital counterparts.
In my considerable experience, that is FAR from the reality, especially when the former analogue devices are of the highest quality and judiciously implemented by an expert in his or her field - and if you're honest, I'm sure you'll admit that there was somewhat of an anti-valve/analogue sentiment in your previous post, which is why it got the respose that it did... ;)
At the end of the day, as you inferred in your last post, every device or cable that we introduce into the signal path is coloured, sonically, to some degree, so in terms of the music signal and determining that which is most 'accurate', it's simply a matter of choosing one's 'favoured flavour' of coloration, as a result of how said coloration/distortion is imparted onto the signal by our chosen recording or playback equipment - and ultimately, in that respect, what sounds most 'accurate' to OUR ears.
Just because something appears to test more accurately on a piece of measurement apparatus, doesn't automatically follow that in the real world, it will sound more lifelike to the listener, which at the end of the playback or recording chain, is ultimately all that matters.
That's it in a nutshell.
Marco.
P.S I fixed the quotes in your post for you :)
I've archived a lot of vinyl to computer, mainly for playback in the car and on the squeezebox but I've always kept the original recording. If recorded using 32 bit floating point at say 96Khz even after manipulation to remove rumble, surface noise and clicks the resulting file retains the signature of the original turntable sound. Its quite uncanny...the file can then be converted to say Red book CD or 320Kbs MP3 with dither applied and the turntable signature is still present.
I agree, apart from the romance side of having a new LP cut it would be better to just retain it as a file or CD....and it would make sense only if the recording is rare, unobtainable on the same or alternative format.
Hi Neal,
I wanted to agree with what you wrote here - I have found myself that the essential balance and character of the original vinyl and the turntable survive the digitisation process quite clearly, even after some sympathetic processing to remove clicks etc. In direct comparison with a CD of the same material, the vinyl rip still sounds like an 'analogue' presentation and doesn't suddenly take on what many would describe as a 'digital' quality. Sure, there are always going to be some generational losses through ADC/DAC, but I have been suprised by how slight and innocuous they are in my own experiments.
I think the art of the mastering and cutting engineer in terms of EQ for treble or bass reduction, level adjustment or fixing errors in the master mix (out of phase sounds, excessive high treble) that allow a record to be 'playable' and listenable quite often sounds different to the unmastered master tape. There are often a lot of basic problems with the studio master that a good mastering engineer will HAVE to fix to for Vinyl to work, but these just get passed through onto the CD master as a flat transfer.
Given that a lot of these characteristics are retained when you archive vinyl, I can't see what cutting a new impression would add to the process other than more noise and distortion apart from preferring to handle LPs.
Regards,
Alex
Rothchild
28-03-2014, 16:51
In my considerable experience, that is FAR from the reality, especially when the former analogue devices are of the highest quality and judiciously implemented by an expert in his or her field - and if you're honest, I'm sure you'll admit that there was somewhat of an anti-valve/analogue sentiment in your previous post, which is why it got the respose that it did... ;)
Honestly, no. I think it's a fair misunderstanding that you thought that, but it's not what I meant. It was more that I was acknowledging that there is that argument but didn't feel it was actually wholly relevant to the context at hand, and, as a follow on to my more general point about the vageries of what they're actually doing, the image (of a well known 'colour box' processor) and absense of a positive reason for the inclusion of another stage (valve or otherwise) led me to determine that they elected to put it in there to appeal to the naive 'valves are necessarily better' mentality than due to a seriously considered and researched position. Of course I stand to be proven wrong on this, but given that the list of uncoloured valve boxes pales in to insignificance against the number of coloured ones makes me feel relatively safe in my view.
In this context, valves are part of the effects chain, and so can't be transparent as they are adding 2nd harmonic distortion, soft compression etc. to add euphoric colouration. If they weren't adding something to the sound rather than preserving it, they wouldn't be in the circuit.
Honestly, no. I think it's a fair misunderstanding that you thought that, but it's not what I meant. It was more that I was acknowledging that there is that argument but didn't feel it was actually wholly relevant to the context at hand, and, as a follow on to my more general point about the vageries of what they're actually doing, the image (of a well known 'colour box' processor) and absense of a positive reason for the inclusion of another stage (valve or otherwise) led me to determine that they elected to put it in there to appeal to the naive 'valves are necessarily better' mentality than due to a seriously considered and researched position. Of course I stand to be proven wrong on this, but given that the list of uncoloured valve boxes pales in to insignificance against the number of coloured ones makes me feel relatively safe in my view.
I would go with that, although as I've said before, everything is coloured, to some degree: valves, transistors, analogue and digital equipment - all exhibit their own inherent colorations. No audio device is truly transparent.
Therefore, again, as I've said before, all we can ultimately do is choose which form of coloration is least offensive and/or what dilutes musical purity the least, to our ears. It's really as simple as that :)
Marco.
Hi Alex,
In this context, valves are part of the effects chain, and so can't be transparent as they are adding 2nd harmonic distortion, soft compression etc. to add euphoric colouration. If they weren't adding something to the sound rather than preserving it, they wouldn't be in the circuit.
Like I said before, I would never advocate the use of valves as 'effects devices'; indeed, given how believable and lifelike they can make music sound, when implemented correctly, I find the whole idea abhorrent.
The finest, most realistic sounding music recordings I own, from the late 1950s, were produced with a large use of valves throughout the recording chain, and imbued with euphonic coloration they are not ;)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.