"Your old records rescued. Brand new records made."

[Qwin]

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.

[AlexM]

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.

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

[Qwin]

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?

[Tim]

Once the tracks are in the digital medium why cut to vinyl?

I agree.

[Rothchild]

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.

[Marco]

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!

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

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.

[guy]

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.

+1
sounds like a marketing scam/load of bollocks to me.

[NRG]

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]

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.

[Marco]

+1.

Marco.