If CDs are the most faithful approximation of how master tapes sound...

[magiccarpetride]

...then I don't think I'm a big fan of listening to master tapes. Vinyl (decently produced vinyl, that is) definitely sounds different than CD playback. And being the one who prefers the way good vinyl sounds, I'd be reluctant to invest in tape playback system.
Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe master tapes sounds nothing like CDs? I don't have enough first hand listening experience to make a definitive conclusion.

So how different does good vinyl sound when compared to the master tape used for producing the stamper?

[Audio Al]

Proper tape playback from master tapes is astonishing :eek: I heard Stewarts Studer on several occasion ( RIP Stew ) :(

[Pigmy Pony]

I would expect that the vinyl's lower frequencies would not be as deep, in order to keep the stylus in the groove. And being further along the production chain, the vinyl would I suppose have something added and something taken away, bit like taking a photograph of a copy of a photo. Whether this would make the sound more 'listenable' is down to personal taste.

[Jac Hawk]

Have you ever thought, that a master is made with what it's going to be recorded on in mind, in the same way old black and white movies had the actors wearing wierd shades of makeup so it looked natural when the recording was viewed, so a master is made so that when it's pressed into vinyl it sounds right

[Pigmy Pony]

On a modern recording, surely there aren't two masters made (one for vinyl and one for digital)? So any changes would be further along the chain, wouldn't they? Feel free to shoot me down, it's been a hard day and my brain's a bit worn out :(

[AJSki2fly]

On a modern recording, surely there aren't two masters made (one for vinyl and one for digital)? So any changes would be further along the chain, wouldn't they? Feel free to shoot me down, it's been a hard day and my brain's a bit worn out :(

I think you will find there are two mixes form the original master, one used for vinyl and another for digital, in fact there may be multiple mixes done for digital for different compression, MP3 levels, cd, Flac etc. The vinyl may come from the original master but not guaranteed.

[Bigman80]

If you want R2R solidity and timing, the best format is File based.

Sorry, but CDs sound better when ripped to a lossless format and replayed via a streaming device/DAC of sufficient quality.

[Barry]

Proper tape playback from master tapes is astonishing :eek: I heard Stewarts Studer on several occasion ( RIP Stew ) :(

Were they master tapes or safety copies, or copies of copies .... ?

[magiccarpetride]

Have you ever thought, that a master is made with what it's going to be recorded on in mind, in the same way old black and white movies had the actors wearing wierd shades of makeup so it looked natural when the recording was viewed, so a master is made so that when it's pressed into vinyl it sounds right

Sort of similar to how one might prepare lithograph for printing? If an art admirer likes the printed graphics, and now wants to take it one step further and is asking to be shown how does the art look on the stone that the artist prepared for printing? Well, the graphic on paper is the end product, that's how the artists intended to deliver it (for sale or otherwise).

To my mind, vinyl record is the final product; everything upstream from it is a string of just half-baked preparatory stages.

[Pigmy Pony]

I think you will find there are two mixes form the original master, one used for vinyl and another for digital, in fact there may be multiple mixes done for digital for different compression, MP3 levels, cd, Flac etc. The vinyl may come from the original master but not guaranteed.

Hey, look at that, I was half right! Well maybe a third.

[Pigmy Pony]

If you want R2R solidity and timing, the best format is File based.

Sorry, but CDs sound better when ripped to a lossless format and replayed via a streaming device/DAC of sufficient quality.

Now this confuses me. How does a copy of a CD get to be better than the original?

[walpurgis]

Now this confuses me. How does a copy of a CD get to be better than the original?

Magic? :)

[Bigman80]

Now this confuses me. How does a copy of a CD get to be better than the original?No idea, to be frank but I suspect it's all to do with how the information is lifted from a CD and transferred to the DAC compared to how it's done on file based audio.

Other than that, I'm out of idea but I can say its a repeatable example.

[AJSki2fly]

No idea, to be frank but I suspect it's all to do with how the information is lifted from a CD and transferred to the DAC compared to how it's done on file based audio.

Other than that, I'm out of idea but I can say its a repeatable example.

I don’t quite understand what you are saying?

However I think an explanation for what happens is this from my understanding, at risk of being shot down in digital flames.

If a high quality cd ripping program is used to copy the data from the cd then it will read the data on the cd many times to validate it gets everything right and will perform as accurate error correction as is possible when necessary. Then when you replay the copied data files to the DAC you are getting as much of the original data as is possible to the DAC as you can. Conversely when you play the same files from a cd and to the same DAC the level of re-read and error correction is minimised, so if there are read errors or data validation issues then there will be more error correction involved, which I presume will degrade the end sound quality. To most people they probably would not notice the difference.

In my experience if a high quality CD transport/player is used to send the data to the DAC then the playback difference becomes quite difficult to tell from the playback of the ripped datafile of the same.

[Bigman80]

I don’t quite understand what you are saying?

However I think an explanation for what happens is this from my understanding, at risk of being shot down in digital flames.

If a high quality cd ripping program is used to copy the data from the cd then it will read the data on the cd many times to validate it gets everything right and will perform as accurate error correction as is possible when necessary. Then when you replay the copied data files to the DAC you are getting as much of the original data as is possible to the DAC as you can. Conversely when you play the same files from a cd and to the same DAC the level of re-read and error correction is minimised, so if there are read errors or data validation issues then there will be more error correction involved, which I presume will degrade the end sound quality. To most people they probably would not notice the difference.

In my experience if a high quality CD transport/player is used to send the data to the DAC then the playback difference becomes quite difficult to tell from the playback of the ripped datafile of the same.That's sounds about right.

[AJSki2fly]

That's sounds about right.

Do I get a gold star [emoji93]

[magiccarpetride]

I don’t quite understand what you are saying?

However I think an explanation for what happens is this from my understanding, at risk of being shot down in digital flames.

If a high quality cd ripping program is used to copy the data from the cd then it will read the data on the cd many times to validate it gets everything right and will perform as accurate error correction as is possible when necessary. Then when you replay the copied data files to the DAC you are getting as much of the original data as is possible to the DAC as you can. Conversely when you play the same files from a cd and to the same DAC the level of re-read and error correction is minimised, so if there are read errors or data validation issues then there will be more error correction involved, which I presume will degrade the end sound quality. To most people they probably would not notice the difference.

In my experience if a high quality CD transport/player is used to send the data to the DAC then the playback difference becomes quite difficult to tell from the playback of the ripped datafile of the same.

Sounds like a reasonable explanation, although in practical terms I'd say it may be a moot point. Of course, how moot would depend on the CD player, but I'd venture out to say that most modern players come with a large enough memory buffer to allow the player to read the spinning CD at its leisure. So in effect, not much different from the leisure time the CD ripper takes to read every bit properly.

[Bigman80]

Do I get a gold star [emoji93][emoji294]

[AJSki2fly]

Sounds like a reasonable explanation, although in practical terms I'd say it may be a moot point. Of course, how moot would depend on the CD player, but I'd venture out to say that most modern players come with a large enough memory buffer to allow the player to read the spinning CD at its leisure. So in effect, not much different from the leisure time the CD ripper takes to read every bit properly.

Yes that is right, but if a cd has light scratches or a not a great pressing then it may impact just how much the cd can do. As I understand it a CD player spins at one high speed when playing a disk, whereas a transport being used to rip a cd can slow the spin speed down as well to try and get a more accurate read from the cd surface. Maybe someone on here that has more knowledge can advise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pigmy Pony]

Yeah, I'm going to go with Geoff's explanation in post #12 :D

Although Adrian's comments about different spin speeds sounds believable too.

[magiccarpetride]

Yes that is right, but if a cd has light scratches or a not a great pressing then it may impact just how much the cd can do. As I understand it a CD player spins at one high speed when playing a disk, whereas a transport being used to rip a cd can slow the spin speed down as well to try and get a more accurate read from the cd surface. Maybe someone on here that has more knowledge can advise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. I once had a scratched CD (so much for the myth how CDs are indestructible). It refused to play. I then attempted to rip it using the most strict setting. It took almost the entire afternoon for the burner to read the CD properly, but in the end it succeeded! So the burned CD now plays nicely :)

I would assume that a typical CD player can read the spinning CD ahead and load the bytes into its memory. It then streams the bytes into the DAC while continuing to read ahead. Any problematic areas of the CD would then get a chance to be re-read and re-read again, while the player is simultaneously streaming the already read valid bytes into the DAC. Modern processors excel at this kind of parallel processing, so I'd be surprised if CD players are not equipped with such algorithms.

[Audio Al]

Were they master tapes or safety copies, or copies of copies .... ?

Ex BBC masters

[topoxforddoc]

It depends on what you call the master tape. You can have a) the original multitrack recording (often 24 track), b) the first generation stereo mix down master, c) a second generation distribution master copied from b) by the record company to send out to pressing plants or d) copies (or copies of copies...) 3/4/5/6th... generation thereafter. So called "safety masters" could be anything from a proper record company copy of a distribution master to a cheap poorly duplicated rip off from anything.

In days gone by, duplicating tapes was usually done accurately by record companies, accepting that one can lose a tiny bit of dynamic range on each duplication. Nowadays, there are fewer and fewer people, who can do this properly, with both the repro and recorder machines cleaned, demagged if need, lined up properly, repro azimuth checked on the master tape against the repair machine, and new tape bias set up correctly on the recorder. Ideally if you are copying, using Dolby SR helps to minimise any loss of S/N ratio in the new copy.

Stewart (Lodgesound) did indeed have a number of BBC masters, as well as some 1/2 inch stereo mic down masters from Sear Sounds in NYC. Audio Al is indeed correct in saying that they sounded fabulous in Stew's old house in Oxted.

Going back to the OP, a close generation tape will sound way better than even the most pristine first pressing LP. Mastering to CD involves further manipulation with compression etc, which can reduce the dynamic range significantly (hence the "loudness wars"). A well made digital master can sound every bit as good as proper analogue recording on multitrack tape. Like everything in life, it's not what you use, it's how you use it.