Thoughts about remastering old tunes

Much like it did when the loudness wars started with CDs, when I see a 90s Jungle/DnB record is about to be reissued in a remastered form, a shudder goes down my spine.

The DnB of today (which I personally have no interest in) is so different in production style to the stuff of the 90s. Granted, this may be because of better equipment, but the slightly gritty sound of 90s DnB is a part of its soul - if you remove it, then you remove that soul. When I hear a new reissue, perhaps remastered by a 25-30yr old who has no memory of what the originals sound like, and it is ultra clean with every bit of grit/soul (delete as appropriate) removed from the music, leaving a somewhat overprocessed sound, well.....it's just not the same. So some tips, if I may:

Please do not compress old tunes to oblivion (I don't want to hear lack of dynamics or audible pumping)
Please don't remove every rough edge (it is Jungle, the rough edge is half of the point)
Please don't mess with the balance of different elements in the track, so that it almost sounds like a different track

Don't get me wrong, remastering can definitely be done right, but I feel there needs more erring towards caution. It is a bit like when someone takes their antique silver, which they have been lovingly polishing every week, to the antique roadshow and they say 'oh no, why did you polish it so much'. The same can happen with tunes too. A little goes a long way, but if you go too far you just ruin the end product.

Like all these things, it depends. It can be done well, or simply pushed way too far. There's a degree of subjectivity involved too. If you grew up listening to the original mastering or even pressing, you might have some nostalgia around that. And I guess every repress is, in effect, a remaster to some degree unless it's done from the original metalwork.

Subjectivity, the MPS/Sound Entity repressing of Kev Bird's - This is a Trip sounds much better than the original for example. On the other hand, I dislike the treatment of Tic Tac Toe. It was always a muddy sounding mess, but the remaster makes some of the noises unnecessarily harsh or too loud that were buried in the mix before. I'm sure others will disagree!

Then there's the quality of the actual vinyl pressing of course...

....and then there are the labels that say "Remastered" but omit that it was remastered from vinyl. It's understandable that in some cases the masters are now lost, but I think always best to be transparent.

pointblnk
And I guess every repress is, in effect, a remaster to some degree unless it's done from the original metalwork.

Good point. I suppose in most cases the metalwork is long gone.

pointblnk
....and then there are the labels that say "Remastered" but omit that it was remastered from vinyl. It's understandable that in some cases the masters are now lost, but I think always best to be transparent.

and one or two, that shall remain unmentioned, who obviously used mp3s from dubious sources (like Youtube).

I'm not an expert on metalwork, but it also wears out after a certain number of pressings.

I know big labels go through a more complex process to mass produce vinyl at massive quantities, than say a 500 run of jungle records.

Audiophile labels have devised ways to improve quality by bying some of those steps as shown here:

https://mofi.com/pages/technologies#one-step

Although for crusty old jungle and hardcore, this isn't really of much use!

There are any amount of sins being committed under this catch-all phrase of 'remastered'.

pointblnk
And I guess every repress is, in effect, a remaster to some degree unless it's done from the original metalwork.

Exactly this. It's a point I've been making several times recently myself.

What exactly is it supposed to mean? At best, it is a wholly redundant marketing term. At worst it is an indicator to say "we've done something really ghastly to the audio"

I agree with the comment about 25-30yr olds being behind this

I agree with the original post. The new reissue/remastered stuff just isn’t the same in my opinion. The sound isn’t as good and also in most cases the pressings are too glossy and have no character. They just seem tacky somehow.

"Remastered" is just marketing nonsense. The tunes were fine in the first place. The rest is just louder mastering from tapes that really did not improve with age since that's physically impossible.

Of course there are exceptions, but they are extremely rare. I can only think of the "Dubnobasswithmyhean" album from Underworld and the 2008 reissue of the "Black Secret Technology" album from A Guy Called Gerald.

the idea that all original 90s pressings were perfect is a bit silly. never mind mastering - I can think of a few that don't even play through without jumping, including one where the final A side track skips into a locked groove midway through (which was then corrected on a later repress). so the idea that there might be some that could sound better (without sacrificing the original sound's character) isn't that strange to me.

obviously there's always a subjective element to this - but I do also think some people are down on recent reissues almost on principle, because 90s always beats anything modern. I do wonder how they'd do with a blind test...

ornsman
I agree with the comment about 25-30yr olds being behind this

i do think there has been a shift in who represses are aimed at. I think they used to be remastered so they could be played alongside more contemporary tunes, hence why they often sounded too artificially loud and compressed.

but now labels know their audience is old skool nerds who aren't playing their tunes alongside ultra-loud upfront bangers, so i think the remastering is more about salvaging tunes from imperfect sources. obviously there are still some cutting corners (Ibiza) but I honestly don't think some of the complaints above really apply to that many newer reissues that I've heard at least.

ornsman
I agree with the comment about 25-30yr olds being behind this

I dunno where this idea comes from because as far as I'm aware, the majority of label owners re-issuing 90s jungle & hardcore, as well as the majority of mastering engineers being used to restore these tracks are all 40+.

I don't think it's down to a lack of expertise/experience in the process (which is unrelated to the age of the person involved imo), but moreso down to not having access to the best quality sources for the audio to use for the release (no longer in possession of DATs/CD quality audio and having to remaster dubplate/vinyl/cassette rips), as well as going into mastering with the intention of maximising the loudness (based around 2024 standards) moreso than choosing to respect the dynamics of the original track.

Plus, I think it also depends on the tastes of the customers, as a lot of complaints about bad presses aren't always about the quality of the track/pressing, but also related to it being too quiet/having to crank the gains and that can become something that labels/mastering engineers will factor in when going into a re-issue.

You can get really good results, depending if you care enough to try.

I really agonized over Crimewatch project on my label as my master source was an unplayed vinyl copy
I got a near perfect rip of that, and sent a 32bit wav to Beau Thomas
And I got an amazing sounding repress due to Beau's mastering

I found out from Smokey Joe that Crimewatch Project was never mastered before going to press originally, so the mastering on my repress was better than the original pressing, thankfully

TimReaper
I dunno where this idea comes from because as far as I'm aware, the majority of label owners re-issuing 90s jungle & hardcore, as well as the majority of mastering engineers being used to restore these tracks are all 40+.

In that case, have they had a hearing test? Maybe their hearing is shot to bits from decades of loud clubs and raves. This might explain the excess highs I have heard on a number of reissued tracks.

TimReaper
I don't think it's down to a lack of expertise/experience in the process (which is unrelated to the age of the person involved imo), but moreso down to not having access to the best quality sources for the audio to use for the release (no longer in possession of DATs/CD quality audio and having to remaster dubplate/vinyl/cassette rips), as well as going into mastering with the intention of maximising the loudness (based around 2024 standards) moreso than choosing to respect the dynamics of the original track.

Maybe, but all I know is that from about 95/96 through to 2000 (when I stopped buying) the sound quality of Moving Shadow, Reinforced, Ram Records, Good Looking...you name it, was universally high quality and similar sounding to each other.

I think most of these tunes went through the same few pressing plants and engineers (Porky, Simon @ Exchange). I can't help but think this had something do with the consistent quality.

Sample rates, samplers affordability and sound quality around 95/96 took a real step up with Akai S-3000 and EMU6400, people putting money into their desks and gear generally. It went from 30 seconds sample time in the bedroom to a few minutes and zip disks in more established studios.
Most of the modern re pressing and re mastering is from 91-94 period where it was Roland samplers, Akai S950, S1000 and Amigas. Sped up samples to get in as much as possible, low sample rates. And some of those records sound like shit, don't forget that. Turd polishing is very much a modern idea, as alluded to in the modern loudness war. It was less so then.
BITD there were very few professionals, people taught themselves or if lucky had someone take them under their wing or let them access proper studios. The sound Reinforced, Steve Gurley, Pete Parsons, Legend crew, 2 Bad Mice, Tango and a few others leading the way in 93 is the exception to the majority, but we hold up to those big and classic tunes forgetting how poor or makeshift most other production was. Analogue gear has changed and now we mix and master or re master digitally, everything will sound completely different. If I want to make something that sounds old I don't overprocess it, I leave it as it is, with authentic scud, don't band the dirt or cut all of the air out of it and compress to death. It's noticing that difference when approaching how to handle something to sound authentic in my opinion.

This is a really interesting topic that I’ve been geeking out about for years. It isn’t a problem exclusive to the old skool scene, a lot of people dislike how modern reissues of classic records of all genres sound almost like a CD pressed on vinyl.

There are a lot of different variables that can change a lot depending on the quality of the source, but assuming you start with a perfect DAT source, all of the mastering is now done in the digital realm, so the only analogue process is the cutting itself. This results in a really clean, but digital sounding cut that doesn’t sit well alongside OG cuts. Back in the day, someone like Porky would run your DAT though an analogue desk, a Fairchild analogue compressor / limiter on its way to the lathe. It’s this step that gives those original pressings analogue warmth. Also, I think that these days, engineers are using waveforms in the software to make their mastering decisions resulting in something that sounds too bright whereas back in the day an experienced engineer would go purely by ear.

It’s something we’ve tried to compensate for with our tracks and use OG pressings for reference tracks when mixing, but making all our tracks in a modern DAW we still can’t quite replicate that original sound.

rage
Back in the day, someone like Porky would run your DAT though an analogue desk, a Fairchild anaglog compressor / limiter on its way to the lathe. It’s this step that gives those original pressings analogue warmth. Also, I think that these days, engineers are using waveforms to make their mastering decisions resulting in something that sounds too bright whereas back in the day an experienced engineer would go purely by ear.

To add to this, I saw a video where Porky said he uses big speakers (main monitors) to hear what is going on in the mix. One thing that always struck me with older tunes is how well balanced things are. He says you can't really hear what you're doing on small monitors. I bet few people have these large monitors any more.

Definitely! His whole setup was perfect as well as his decades of experience mastering music of all kinds, knowledge like that is not replaced easily.

All that said, we can be grateful that most labels are doing their best with what they have and not cutting corners like DMM which has become very common with mainstream reissues to save money.

Thread's come to life again, ok

ornsman 　I agree with the comment about 25-30yr olds being behind this

I dunno where this idea comes from because as far as I'm aware, the majority of label owners re-issuing 90s jungle & hardcore, as well as the majority of mastering engineers being used to restore these tracks are all 40+.

I can't say for certain, but I certainly get the impression that with some of the larger labels they have been 'delegating' duties out to the younger inductees of the scene - like, those who came up during the 2000s. Who are inevitably coming at the entire thing from a radically different perspective.

People who came up in the CDJ / digital era and have not a single innate understanding of the sound or aesthetic of rave/hardcore/jungle. Perhaps '35yr olds' might be a better estimate

　

sonarsghost
Sample rates, samplers affordability and sound quality around 95/96 took a real step up with Akai S-3000 and EMU6400, people putting money into their desks and gear generally. It went from 30 seconds sample time in the bedroom to a few minutes and zip disks in more established studios. Most of the modern re pressing and re mastering is from 91-94 period where it was Roland samplers, Akai S950, S1000 and Amigas [...] BITD there were very few professionals, people taught themselves [...] we hold up to those big and classic tunes forgetting how poor or makeshift most other production was. Analogue gear has changed and now we mix and master or re master digitally, everything will sound completely different.

The question is not about production but whether new releases are doing justice to the original material or not. Whatever the 'sound aesthetic' is now, which I could pontificate on for any amount of time, is not what I want my old releases to sound like. There were 'errors' that were made, that from a critical perspective we could analyse, but at the same time many were very intentional choices - Formation's overblown mastering during 1993-95 could be a good example

　

rage
All that said, we can be grateful that most labels are doing their best with what they have and not cutting corners like DMM which has become very common with mainstream reissues to save money.

DMM (direct metal mastering) isn't cutting corners but a completely different pressing technique, that may have its pros or cons depending on your perspective - complaints on it tend to be in the realm of sounding overly 'bright'. It's certainly nothing new - there are old school releases that were pressed using this method

ornsman
Formation's overblown mastering during 1993-95 could be a good example

Does anyone know whether the distortion on a number of the classic mid 90s Formation releases was part of the vinyl mastering process, or do the digital versions of those tracks sound similar?

I guess Black and MA2 come to mind as immediate examples.

Yeah I’ve got a few DMM cuts. I can’t see much benefit to them other than cost and convenience. In my view it’s borderline acceptable for an LP where gain isn’t an issue, but not for a dance music single. Nowadays they will get your audio, load it into a PC that will apply the EQ, push a button and make the cut, the person operating the equipment needs no mastering experience whatsoever. When we already have the problem of music sounding too digital, why take such a critical step away from talented mastering engineers who understand the music and know how to bring the best out of it.

I find they all share the same problem, sounding weak AF when trying to mix them with a standard cut. You can see it just by looking at the grooves, especially when there’s just one tune cut to the side. There’s hardly any modulation, the grooves are very shallow and look almost straight. I understand it means less steps in the process but cutting into metal vs soft lacquer, you’re never going to get the same depth of cut on a 12” single.

Anyway, to be fair to the 25-30 year olds the guy who’s remastering all of the stuff coming from the biggest reissue label was definitely around in the 90s, but he is mastering to modern standards which have evolved a lot since the 90s. If you think our generation grew up with cassettes, they topped off at about 17-18k on an average deck, I the vinyl of the 80s generally had similar EQ to cassettes. Then CDs came along in the mid 80s, the first thing I noticed was how much extra dynamic range there was compared to cassettes and my then pretty standard turntable. The first CD players dialled down the treble too, I have a Technics from 1987 that has an almost cassette like EQ. Then in the 90s people started using the full dynamic range of the CD for sharper sound just like TV evolved to have a sharper image. The 25-30 year olds of today will have grown up listening to that full dynamic range and sharper treble has become the norm in every other part of our lives from music to TV and YouTube so it’s understandable that they might want to make their music sound as sharp as everything else we hear in our everyday lives. I guess you can’t win either way, if you try and make something sound authentic 90s it means you have to purposely limit your frequencies and will get other people complaining that it sounds dull.

I also think it's a mistake to think that everyone who was around in the 90s has the same understanding or feeling of the aesthetic of the sound. or to be more specific: to assume that the people who were making the music, have the same feeling as the die-hard fans.

maybe the most obvious example of what i mean is the crunchy lo-fi sound heard in a lot of early hardcore. many old skool fans (myself included) would consider this as something they actively like - adding a raw edge that's an important part of the sound. to the extent that there are contemporary producers deliberately using 90s equipment like Akai samplers to recreate that.

but of course, this wasn't a stylistic choice back in 1993 - it was out of necessity. and it's notable that when technology progressed beyond it being a necessity - very few producers maintained this aesthetic. really only people like Alec Empire or DJ Scud, who were pushing it further into an entirely new area.

so what I'm saying is - I think it's entirely possible that someone with a genuine 90s pedigree might want to use modern technology to get closer to how they *wanted* their tracks to sound - more so than the old skool listener who just wants to stay close to the original.

(equally - some of the producers who are now actively aiming to create an early 90s aesthetic by using amigas & akais are in that 25 to 30 age range, or close...)

pointblnk
Does anyone know whether the distortion on a number of the classic mid 90s Formation releases was part of the vinyl mastering process

I suppose the obvious clue would be to compare against SS productions on other labels...offhand I don't know!

my suspicion is certainly that it wasn't a deliberate choice, any more than the horrific key clashes in some of SS's tunes :)

traffic_cone

maybe the most obvious example of what i mean is the crunchy lo-fi sound heard in a lot of early hardcore. many old skool fans (myself included) would consider this as something they actively like - adding a raw edge that's an important part of the sound. to the extent that there are contemporary producers deliberately using 90s equipment like Akai samplers to recreate that.

So true mate and it’s very difficult to replicate, the fun thing is trying to work out what equipment (or combination of components) gave the music that unique sound. Not every cut would have come from somewhere like Porky’s with top end vintage equipment. I love the sound of a lot of JTS records for example and I always imagined their equipment to be more basic but with monster speakers as they were sound system guys.

Ultimately I think it just needs to flow through some analogue circuits, I assume you could easily take the digital edge off a track by running the audio into a nice old amplifier and recording the output.

there's also the point when hardware got cheap enough to enable bedroom producers - which is also key to that rougher sound, due to producers relying on samples instead of synths (and lower sample rates for more limited equipment too).

i think that must have happened in 92 at some point, because that's when the more lo-fi sound really emerges. not just in breakbeat hardcore either, later 92 is when the harder side of techno was kicking off.

I've heard a similar thing about acid house, developing not when the 303 was released, but a few years later when you could get one cheap...

Re. 'DMM' :

rage
Nowadays they will get your audio, load it into a PC that will apply the EQ, push a button and make the cut, the person operating the equipment needs no mastering experience whatsoever. When we already have the problem of music sounding too digital, why take such a critical step away from talented mastering engineers who understand the music and know how to bring the best out of it.

Ahh. Right, so I see what you mean now by cutting 'costs' (corners). However -
in an ideal world, this is in fact an ideal process. There's no mystery or magic inherent to the vinyl duplication process per se, what is really trying to be done is transfer the source as transparently as possible to the medium. If the mixdown is top quality - say one of the plethora of classic studio albums from the mid-late 70s, then there isn't really anything to be done. When you say EQ i'm assuming you're essentially talking an RIAA curve being automated, maybe a stock low-end mono (though again if a top quality mixdown, this likely already is done down to how us humans perceive bass tones)

Where the 'mystery' comes in is, if the mixdown isn't of top quality, or you're trying to for other things not directly related to the above - such as people's hi-fi systems at home not being the best money can buy. This then, is where the role of mastering engineer comes in, to try and get the very 'best' out of the material & limitations of the medium itself. Here is where it can start to become a very subjective matter.

Obviously, someone like Porky (Savile Row in that mentioned video) had not only an inherent grasp of the medium but of what different artists might be trying to achieve. I'm not aware of a single 'A Porky Prime Cut' in my collection that I can point to of being unhappy with in any way.

Clearly, the positives of DMM is going to be that two of the steps involved in plating are removed, and hence less possibility for pops & clicks or any degradation otherwise of the waveform (from the acetate to the metal father to the metal mother) to end up in the finished product. But yes, the shortcomings oft mentioned are that they can sound overly bright, and I guess - like you are alluding - that there is not an engineer involved in really getting the very best that the medium can offer.

Thinking now... I'm wondering if all those numerous Matrix (20) - The Vengeance E.P.
I'll try comparing it to some of those EMI pressings to see if there is a commonality with them, like the 'straight' & 'unmodulated' grooves that you mention.

　

rage
If you think our generation grew up with cassettes, they topped off at about 17-18k on an average deck, I the vinyl of the 80s generally had similar EQ to cassettes. Then CDs came along in the mid 80s, the first thing I noticed was how much extra dynamic range there was compared to cassettes and my then pretty standard turntable. The first CD players dialled down the treble too, I have a Technics from 1987 that has an almost cassette like EQ. Then in the 90s people started using the full dynamic range of the CD for sharper sound

Right, so going back to my initial point on the duplication process (in general), the whole point of it in the first instance - regardless of what might be thought - is to have a transparent-as-possible transfer of the source on to the chosen medium. The very first generation of CDs / 'compact disc digital audio' released were very likely the master tapes dumped straight into 44.1khz without any mastering at all - now, this is why they are held up by music enthusiasts as some of the very best versions of these releases you can get (that, and with some of the japan variants also)

The very first cd players, which cost thousands of pounds or dollars to purchase, no doubt gave great results - but as costs decreased and began being rolled out to the wider market, the next generation of cd players weren't so good. Many of them are recognised as sounding brittle or harsh. I pouring endlessly over hi-fi magazines in my mid teens and reading about the new generation of 'one-bit' or bitstream cd players that were far superior to the '16-bit' players of before. Hence, in regards the Technics player you mention, it's very likely some of those later devices of the 80s had high-end filters to counteract the harshness of the D-A converters - and I guess potentially overdoing it in some cases.

With the earlier CD audio releases themselves, what's noticeable is the amount of headroom on them - sometimes -3dB peak or more - very likely matching the original master tapes exactly. No doubt, amplifier manufacturers calibrated the 'cd-in' to match the volume hence of the 'phono-in' gain stage. Once you got into the 90s however, CDs started being actually mastered, and were no longer coming with the headroom of before - being rendered nearer 0dB peak instead. Suddenly, CDs were inherently louder than vinyl. So it's not so much that CDs became 'sharper', or started using 'more' dynamic range than before, but that player technology improved and that CDs began being mastered without the overly generous headroom they had prior.

In other words, CD audio / digital was always superior to vinyl - there is no getting around that. The fact is, there are limitations to the level of audio quality you can achieve with vinyl. We love vinyl, of course we do, but for its secondary qualities - the tactile experience, the full-size sleeves, the clearly delineated 'a' and 'b' sides, and to some extent because we have that shared memory of CD audio being 'louder' & 'harsher', and vinyl being 'warmer' and more 'refined'.

Anything on top of that, is us basically expressing a preference for whatever it is the mastering engineer has added to the equation, which may or may not have a close correspondence to the source material in question.

　

rage
The 25-30 year olds of today will have grown up listening to that full dynamic range and sharper treble has become the norm in every other part of our lives from music to TV and YouTube so it’s understandable that they might want to make their music sound as sharp as everything else we hear in our everyday lives. I guess you can’t win either way, if you try and make something sound authentic 90s it means you have to purposely limit your frequencies and will get other people complaining that it sounds dull.

well, no because what happened was CDs continued having successive mastering 'standards' applied to them, due to different reasons - perhaps people not having full hi-fi systems of before, but midi or mini systems, or other reasons besides - and becoming ever more louder and ever more compressed than before, leading to what became recognised as 'the loudness wars' in the early 00s.

This is what they've grown up listening to and this is what they understand, and this is why we're in the state we're currently in - not because there's some sort of inherent 'problem' with digital

　

traffic_cone
maybe the most obvious example of what i mean is the crunchy lo-fi sound heard in a lot of early hardcore. many old skool fans (myself included) would consider this as something they actively like - adding a raw edge that's an important part of the sound. to the extent that there are contemporary producers deliberately using 90s equipment like Akai samplers to recreate that. [...]
so what I'm saying is - I think it's entirely possible that someone with a genuine 90s pedigree might want to use modern technology to get closer to how they *wanted* their tracks to sound - more so than the old skool listener who just wants to stay close to the original.

I feel that you're equivocating on this subject some what, and adding in a bunch of stuff that's not really related to the matter at hand... If people want to make lo-fi sounding hardcore today, then by all means go for it. But don't go adding it to where it wasn't already present - like that person on facebook who seemed to think that "subtle aliasing" was some how intrinsic to CD audio who I had to call out (they still haven't replied to me)

Unless the artist has access to the original 'multi-track recordings' - which is not going to be the case for this particular field of music, there isn't going to be the possibility for them to 're-mix' (in the original sense of the word) to make it more like they wanted. It's basically attempting to compensate for obvious errors or shortcomings in the mixdown, with a view to what the artist was trying to achieve at the time à la Porky [youtube], and that's it.

ornsman
'DMM'

Well done, was thinking of posting something very similar. Seams some posters here need to find out a little more about how you make records.

While I'm here for the record Tubbys studio (JTS) had average size speakers & Roland only made the 303 from 81 to 84. It was designed to be a Bass Guitar emulator & was a huge flop. No one wanted it. The acid sound envovled when 'someone' realised you could make the silver box make that sound. I only had one that was cheap and it was only cheap compared to what you would off had to pay for one by the mid 90s.
That little box did change my life though.

As to remastering old tunes, there are some excellent engineers out there still & some crap ones, its always been like that, the 70s, 80s, 90s etc were not differnet. Same with the issuing labels some of them care about QC whilst others just want your money. Your cash your call.

I guess my interest here is as a producer, not a label owner. My Static Imprints release on Okbron the bass was WAY over the top on the DAT rip. I was pretty sure it was unreleasable but it sounds nicer on vinyl than in digi. So many variables...I can't recall who mastered it but it took a few goes for sure.
Talking of metal, the other day one of my old music house plates the laquer just FELL OFF and I could see the bare metal. WTF??? Has anyone ever seen that? Is it from cold/heat/age? Wasn't a prized one but was certainly a shock.

sonarsghost acetates are a thin disc of aluminium covered with lacquer & are heat sensitive so keep them low in the racks. Sometimes the aluminium can corrode in random places (possibly due to a speck of contaiminate on the ali disc b4 the lacquer layer) that can lift a chunk of lacquer off the disc. Sometimes the lacquer just dries out and chips off or if around moisture can mold & rot.

Great post ornsman (Hi btw, haven’t seen you seen b2vos days!)

The Basement / Vinyl Distribution stuff was mostly cut at Copymasters. Aside from the thin vinyl being a pain I think the EMI records sound pretty good, there are some that have too much high end and the treble sounds blown out like you say but generally I think they’re pretty decent, always thought it was a cool bit of history that they came from the same factory that pressed The Beatles.

A DMM I have that I find really noticeable is Dopeski & Jakes Snowstorm. Absolutely killer EP with a cut as weak as a kitten, it is nice and clear at least so a bit of EQ and gain works wonders.

panoptikon

Seams some posters here need to find out a little more about how you make records.

Care to elaborate?

rage
Great post ornsman (Hi btw, haven’t seen you seen b2vos days!)

Hi, yeah I see there is a few of us B2VOS alumni in these parts. How are you?

　
A couple of corrections with my previous post -

it seems the very first cd players released were in the region of several hundreds of pounds, the Sony CDP-101 being equivalent ~$730 and the Philips CD100 was £499 from what I can find, though in today's money that indeed would be thousands of pounds. The wikipedia article doesn't say if there were devices first rolled out to the professional sector or not. For sure though, there were players throughout the 80s & 90s that did cost thousands of pounds, in particular those separated transport mechanism & digital converter set-ups.

Looking up on those 'one-bit' / bitstream players I mentioned, it seems it wasn't that they were necessarily superior but that they performed better at a lower cost, apparently '16-bit' or even '20-bit' requires additional chips/circuitry to properly perform the conversion, which drove the cost up. There is some debate over which approach is better.

　

rage
A DMM I have that I find really noticeable is Dopeski & Jakes Snowstorm. Absolutely killer EP with a cut as weak as a kitten, it is nice and clear at least so a bit of EQ and gain works wonders.

Right, so I dug out that Matrix - Vengeance EP release I mentioned.

I hadn't realised the Snowstorm EP release was a direct metal master cut but looking at them both, I see both of them are M' - and each with the legend "DMM" etched in the run-out just under "PR-M"

Looking at them closely I see what you mean about the very straight grooves without any modulation - though I am not sure if 'modulated' grooves are a good thing, it would seem to me the cutting head or motorised arm not being quite stable enough for that to happen.

Also, yes, indeed they are very shallow - with a regular pressing now, I see the grooves are considerably deeper and indeed seem to weave in & out all over the place, and interestingly when held up to the light, are refracting the rays quite significantly.

However, I'm confused about what you say about the cut of the Snowstorm EP sounding weak - that is not an adjective I'd use to describe it at all, lots of tight low-end and quite a forward overall sound in my opinion.

Whereas the Vengeance EP does sound a little on the thin and bright side - though in this instance I think it has more to do with Neil Dunkley finishing off the mixdown with Alan Jakoby at an external studio, as production quality is quite a bit different to others on the label or on Kemet.

Both are four-trackers, so it might be helpful if I could identify some DMM two-trackers to really compare, but as a quick comparison the Snowstorm EP seemed to hold up well against a regular cut whereas the Vengeance EP was a little low in the mix.

　

rage
Aside from the thin vinyl being a pain I think the EMI records sound pretty good, there are some that have too much high end and the treble sounds blown out like you say but generally I think they’re pretty decent

In regards with the EMI pressings -
I was about to state previously that to the best of my knowledge, I couldn't think of any that have hand-etchings besides the stamped-in matrix, but a double check showed this to be wrong - though in general I think this does tend to be the case with them.

As a quick counter, the first three-ish releases on Congo Natty - SM001 has the look & feel of an EMI pressing but no stamped matrix at all.

All the ones I looked at, whether with hand-etchings or not, did not resemble DMM cuts at all, so I guess that theory about EMI is out the window. In regards their "'thin' & bright sound" as I put it, this doesn't seem to really be the case either, though for some reason it was an impression I'd formed about them... there are a few that do come to mind on this, maybe I'll come back to it later.

　
　
So I guess in summary, I guess I'm finding the cutting method per se isn't having much impact on what we are trying to examine. Can you point to some other DMM examples that you feel are sub optimal? It doesn't appear that the depth of the groove is affecting the overall loudness, though for sure our intuition on it might suggest otherwise.

The wikipedia article on it seems to indicate that DMM pressings now might actually be less common than thought, stating on it, "few plants were able to process DMM masters"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_metal_mastering

Alright thanks mate I hope you are too! Apologies to MusicalMania as we’ve derailed his thread completely but I’ve always found this stuff interesting. My understanding of the physics is the deeper the cut and wider you can space the grooves apart the bigger you can make the vibrations picked up by the stylus and the more signal can be retrieved. If you are cutting an LP, the grooves are going to need to be fine and shallow no matter in order to fit all the music on, but with a 12” single you have a ton of space enabling a deep cut, creating bigger vibrations and making it much easier for the stylus to retrieve a powerful signal.

The problem with DMM in this situation is you can still space the grooves apart, but the cutting head can’t cut a groove as deep as it’s cutting into metal, so also can’t cut a wavy / modulating groove as that would cause one channel to be louder than the other. So you’re not using the full potential of the extra space and end up with a signal thats not only quieter than the potential volume of a lacquer cut, but loses that low end ‘comin atcha’ sound that Porky describes so well in his vid.

I gave my Snowstorm record a spin and I was a bit harsh, but mixing it with other records from the era it is noticeably weaker, another DMM record I have from the time thats a single track is Erogenous Zone - Zone Of Love (riddim!) its actually not bad sound wise but the shallow grooves are very easily visible and once again just sounds a bit weak, especially compared to some of the thunderous cuts of the time.

So all that said, what’s wrong with using DMM for an LP, like you pointed out it has many benefits and is used a lot in modern commercial reissues. It’s cheaper, easier and less can go wrong. From my limited experience I noticed the same thing, I bought the VMP reissue of Snoop Doggystyle, they went to the effort of getting the original tapes for that reissue but cut it DMM and its really nice, quiet and clear but to me its missing that aggressive edge that I want to hear on it. To be fair I’m comparing it to my 2002 Simply Vinyl version which was cut especially for DJs to be as loud and thumping as possible so maybe I’m being unfair. It’s crazy the difference between the two. I don’t have any other examples I can compare so ittedly that’s not very scientific! It may be really beneficial in genres where you want a quiet noise floor such as classical.

Nice to see this thread has legs.

I have listened to a relatively recent reissue of a track from 93/94 from a mastering engineer with a lot of experience and, for me, it suffers similar "flaws" to many recent reissues, so maybe we can't blame 25-30 year olds after all.

I would like to give a comparison of what the original record sounds like (recorded through high quality equipment) compared to the recent reissue.

My overview is this:

1. Reissue has more clarity compared to original (more mid/high frequency presence), but perhaps too much clarity, in that when you turn up the volume there is too little bass and the sound 'coherence' falls apart. The original has a somewhat muffled sound at lower levels, but as you turn up the volume from quieter to moderate/louder levels (not nosebleed levels, but loud enough for enjoyable home listening) the muffled aspect mostly fades away and the balance is better and more coherent than the recent reissue. There is less stress on the ears, as the bass comes to the fore and the mids/highs are not overbearing.

2. The reissue is obviously compressed. Quieter sections are louder and louder sections are quieter, it hasn't just been eq'd. You can see where the peaks of the waveform has been chopped off in Audacity.

3. Because of the compression of the waveforms, there is a more linear sound to the reissue. There is less difference between quiet and loud sounds and it has a more 'forward presentation', but nothing really stands out. It has a somewhat flat affect and the stereo quality on the sounds is altered (panning back and forth between left and right channels effect is far less noticeable).

In summary:

I can see how the reissue would be good for headphone listeners or maybe a Sonos or some other limited playback scenario (out in public space with background noise), but on a decent home hi-fi and particularly a PA system, the original sounds better (more balanced, not mid/high forward) beyond low to moderate volume levels.

I think the sound of the original could have been improved with minor EQ, rather than compression/limiting, which to my ears has removed the 'essence' of the track and made it less suitable for playback on high quality systems.

musicalmania68
I have listened to a relatively recent reissue of a track from 93/94 from a mastering engineer with a lot of experience and, for me, it suffers similar "flaws" to many recent reissues, so maybe we can't blame 25-30 year olds after all.

this is kind of what I was getting at earlier, that age may not be the determining factor.

it doesn't seem that unlikely that someone involved in mastering or production since the early 90s, might have a different feeling about what the optimum sound for a track would be, to a dedicated listener of the same age. even from the perspective of personal taste, ignoring any other considerations.

not to mention the subjectivity inherent even just in knowing which version is the original. that's definitely a factor that comes in when you get into high end audiophile territory, but that's a whole other topic :D

musicalmania68
less suitable for playback on high quality systems.

I do think that's an interesting difference for these reissues: in that the original releases would probably be played on quite cheap home set ups, but also loud at actual raves.

whereas the target audience for the reissues is probably just playing them at home - but on a much more high end system :)

I do wonder if that's a consideration at all for mastering?

traffic_cone
it doesn't seem that unlikely that someone involved in mastering or production since the early 90s, might have a different feeling about what the optimum sound for a track would be, to a dedicated listener of the same age. even from the perspective of personal taste, ignoring any other considerations.

This is an engineer who has been involved since that time. Many tracks he mastered in the 90s and early 00s (I stopped listening to DnB after this), I have found excellent with regards to sound quality and balance.

So...what is going on here, it could be many things:

A different target audience (maybe/maybe not)
A different understanding of how music should be mastered, coming from the angle of more modern and heavily compressed tracks (more likely)
A different type of equipment being mastered for, like headphones and other limited systems (quite probable)
Different equipment being used for the mastering, more digital compared to analogue? (likely)
Perhaps even some hearing damage, although Porky was mastering well into his 60s and there is little evidence of extra high frequencies being added to his tracks to compensate. (possibly, but maybe dubious)
Something else I might have missed?

When fiddling with the tracks in Audacity, I had to reduce the reissue by about 5 or 6db to have it sound, by ear, the same volume as the original, which had been normalized to 0.1db (removing all extraneous clicks from vinyl). This is a significant difference in volume as a result of compression.

I don't think it can be put down to just individual tastes; there is obviously a trend at work, when you compare how these records sounded in the 90s to how they sound when reissued today.

I take your point, but I think this is beyond questions of taste (like a touch more or less highs), as the changes are not particularly subtle ones.

i don't get why individual tastes means only subtle differences...two people's personal preference can still be radically different.

after all the same is true for the actual production of the tracks, no reason why that wouldn't also be true for the mastering

Most tunes put out on say Good Looking, Moving Shadow, Reinforced (add more big name labels here) sounded similar enough, that even if there was some discrepancy regarding loudness of the pressing, they could be mixed without changing EQ much, if at all. The balance of these tunes (bass/mid/highs) did not sound radically different, except for edge cases. Listen to mixtapes from the time and you can hear for yourself.

I understand what you are saying, but it just doesn't hold true. You are talking about potentials, but in reality most tunes (from say late 93 onwards) were much of a muchness regarding sound quality.

We are not talking about differences from release to release, but rather an obvious change in many (most?) reissued releases, so that they sound quite different from the original release, but do typically sound similar to each other.

The compression applied in my example above is more common than not. This seems to be a trend, not the individual creative impulses of different engineers given free rein AFAICS.

i was really just refuting the suggestion that it would be an age thing. the trend could just reflect a difference between the preferences of any mastering engineer and a casual listener (who mostly listens to old releases).

I've certainly always noticed a difference in taste between my friends who produce music, and those who don't...

rage
Alright thanks mate I hope you are too! Apologies to MusicalMania as we’ve derailed his thread completely but I’ve always found this stuff interesting. My understanding of the physics is the deeper the cut and wider you can space the grooves apart the bigger you can make the vibrations

Thanks for the reply on this, I'll look up on that Doggystyle release, some good info. Have you tried comparing your Erogenous Zone 12" to on here Jungle Vibes Vol. 1, as it appears it's the same two tracks.
　
To be fair, this is still kind of on topic, as we are examining what role the cutting or plating/pressing can have on the finished product:
　

pointblnk
Then there's the quality of the actual vinyl pressing of course...

Whether this could have an effect on overall sound quality, as opposed to simply resulting in a 'fault', is unclear. Many will know of those pressings that have an audible 'dip' heard on each turn of the record, this particular release here is one such notable example... that would be a fault. Can a record end up sounding dull, or otherwise, just from problems at the plating or pressing stage?

With the cutting, more likely a source of problems, we know there are general limits to how 'hot' the signal can be whether DMM or acetate. Which may inherently involve compression if talking about an LP, I don't know if this is the case for a 12". However, when we see Porky's use of a Fairchild '50s-era valve compressor (model 670 ?) during mastering, it's worth noting he talks more in the video of using in compensation for something missing from the mixdown, rather than something used as routine.

So when we talk about 'analogue warmth', or sounding more 'digital', it's not clear that this is really something determined by the audio running through analogue desks or compressors on its route to the cutting lathe.

A more crucial part of the cutting process is ensuring high-end on the transients is brought under control to avoid overloading the cutting head, this being in respect also of the RIAA curve which operates to boost the high-end overall.

musicalmania68
Maybe their hearing is shot to bits from decades of loud clubs and raves. This might explain the excess highs I have heard on a number of reissued tracks.

This is not something I would say I've generally noted with newer reissues - from the above, a vinyl pressing might actually be expected to have less upper high-end overall than the original source. Can you describe this in any more detail?

Question: What is it that causes some vinyl pressings to become unusually distorted as the needle nears the centre. I know all vinyl does this to some degree, but there are a few records where I've owned multiple copies and it's noticeable bad.

One of the pressings of Zincs Fugees or not is an example:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/1520078-Fugees-Ready-Remix

As the groove nears the centre it loses volume so the engineer has to apply gain sometimes as much as 6db to 8db. Maybe with some cuts it gets pushed into distortion which transfers to the press.

VibrationCrew
As the groove nears the centre it loses volume so the engineer has to apply gain sometimes as much as 6db to 8db. Maybe with some cuts it gets pushed into distortion which transfers to the press.

Interesting. Makes sense!

In answer to Ornsman (hello all from B2vos and before) when I mentioned vinyl pressing quality I was thinking of labels like Trax that used poor quality/recycled vinyl. Less common by the 90s I hope.

pointblnk
Less common by the 90s I hope.

well, from the stuff I collect, the worst pressings I've encountered by far are many of the east German hardcore/speedcore releases from the late 90s. obviously that style is already quite raw by design - but some sound really terrible, in a way that doesn't suit the sound at all - like it's playing several feet underwater. and I have noticed how shallow the grooves on those pressings are, to the extent that they are way more prone to needle skips - and more sensitive to light marks too.

now I always heard that the reason was they were pressed at GZ Media in Czech Republic, who were known to be particularly shit in the 90s (i would guess having only recently come out of communism being a factor). But I am curious now as to what exactly made their pressings poor.

although that does remind me of this video, showing a record in that style being mastered by legendary Detroit engineer Ron Murphy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgjAyic2rt4 - I do think it speaks to the unique skills involved in mastering, to see a guy with this background in Motown working on that total racket :D

What a racket indeed!

https://www.discogs.sie.com/master/1026398-Davros-Food-For-The-Gods

i do really love that EP, the B2 in particular. exterminate the doctor!

but it is very much the definition of "not for everyone".

pointblnk
Question: What is it that causes some vinyl pressings to become unusually distorted as the needle nears the centre. I know all vinyl does this to some degree, but there are a few records where I've owned multiple copies and it's noticeable bad.

That’s inner groove distortion and is caused by a combination of things, as you get towards the centre of the record the grooves become shorter so for every revolution you have to pack the music in more tightly causing the sound to deteriorate. At the same time due to the fixed pivot point of the tonearm, as it moves towards the centre the stylus moves beyond its optimal angle in the groove, causing further deterioration.

You can fix the second problem with a linear tracking turntable which works the same way as a cutting lathe, it doesn’t have a fixed pivot point so can always be at the optimal angle, you can also have a super long fixed tonearm with the pivot further away which is why you see some posh turntables with longer arms.

You obviously can’t do either of these with a 1200, so they have a S shape tonearm which is a compromise to cause the stylus to be at the correct angle for most of the record at least.

On top of those two things, as it’s not at the correct angle, the stylus causes more wear in the groove so it becomes more noticeable after you’ve played it a lot and the record gets worn.

So much nerd knowledge, it's like a bloody library in here! I love it.

traffic_cone

Detroit engineer Ron Murphy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgjAyic2rt4 - I do think it speaks to the unique skills involved in mastering, to see a guy with this background in Motown working on that total racket :D

Such a legend, RIP. The KMS story is fascinating.

He could cut records from the inside out on that lathe, not really a good idea but fun to watch them play. DJ Tone - Insanity is a Hardcore record cut by him.

I've had a few records cut that way...in fact the first that comes to mind is the original press of "Skelechairs" by Doormouse...I'd have to dig it out to check but I'm guessing he was involved in that one then, being a midwest US production.

Most of the inside out pressings I've had have been techno, which is tricky - when you cue it up it's not as obvious whether you're at the start or the end :D Even worse, sometimes you get two tracks on one side, but cut in opposite directions :D

Although that pales next to one Italian 12" I had where the record had two tracks cut in parallel grooves, so it was almost luck which one played when you dropped the needle. I've heard of that being used as a novelty (I think there's a Monty Python LP that did it) but for a DJ record it's a nightmare :D

That parallel groove vinyl sounds nuts! I mean which groove do you pick & fingers crossed you pick the right one.

One of the earliest techno tracks that I playing backwards is this:

https://www.discogs.sie.com/master/18350-Cybersonik-Backlash

Not sure who engineered it tho.

rage
This results in a really clean, but digital sounding cut that doesn’t sit well alongside OG cuts. Back in the day, someone like Porky would run your DAT though an analogue desk, a Fairchild analogue compressor / limiter on its way to the lathe. It’s this step that gives those original pressings analogue warmth.

ornsman
However, when we see Porky's use of a Fairchild '50s-era valve compressor (model 670 ?) during mastering, it's worth noting he talks more in the video of using in compensation for something missing from the mixdown, rather than something used as routine.

rage I've just had a thought on this -
It might be worth checking out this release here, which is the exact same track both sides but one is labeled 'Unfair Cut'...
Nico (4) Featuring Makai - Omen [NNU2004, 1997]

By the run-out etchings, it explains " (UNFAIR SIDE ) THIS CUT NOT FEATURING MODEL 670 FAIRCHILD " which I never understood what that was about at the time (1997) but now knowing the Porky video interview with Nico it all suddenly falls into place.

I couldn't determine a difference at the time and seemed all a bit much of a muchness, but now I am curious to see what effect the compressor unit is having on the mastering stage. Not sure I have this 12" anymore - maybe you have it to check?

I'll take two please:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/185906926838

sonarsghost
So much nerd knowledge, it's like a bloody library in here! I love it.

Loving this thread, thanks to all throwing in the amazing knowledge.

sonarsghost
So much nerd knowledge, it's like a bloody library in here! I love it.

Love your image you updated to bro! Hoping that is a new logo for an upcomimg release?!?!?

There is another anomaly that can happen when engineering a cut and that is ringing, I think it's called that but it's like a future echo of sound being cut to the acetate b4 there's any sound produced.
My vinyl copy of Dextrous - The Dreamer:

https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/460955-Dextrous-The-Ultimate-Vibes-EP

has the drop (1.20mins) audible b4 the drop comes in but it's really quiet but still there. It's a known anomaly in vinyl production as the ringing on the master will translate to the press. Wish I could the actual term but as I said the Dextrous track has it on my copy but funnily enough it's not present on an acetate of the track. Probably cut different.

VibrationCrew
There is another anomaly that can happen when engineering a cut and that is ringing, I think it's called that but it's like a future echo of sound being cut to the acetate b4 there's any sound produced.

Let's call it 'Ghost Drop' or 'Dropelganger'

Hahaha it's definitely spooky & ruins the drop.
I think it's to do with the operating frequency of the cutting head whether that's electrical frequency or mechanical I can't . It's a whole science behind cutting a stereo or quadraphonic groove into lacquer that's a complete rabbit hole. Funnily enough I think DMM eliminates the 'ringing' problem as it's a harder material to cut than lacquer.

VibrationCrew
Wish I could the actual term

Pre echo :)

Ornsman I didn’t even know that Nico record existed! I would love to hear it, seems they’ve done it as an experiment to hear what the Fairchild does to the sound. I wonder what the story is behind it.

rage
Pre echo :)

I was hoping someone would pick up on the Red Dwarf reference "future echoes" but it past everyone by..... :(

I have the Nico/Makai - Omen release. I haven't played it in a while but felt they were slightly different versions of the tune. I do see the runout etching about the compressor so will find it and give it a rinse.

But i could have sworn the songs were not identical in production. What i do is those tunes were MADE for a warehouse soundsystem. They need to be played on a massive system with a ton of room for sound to travel.

VibrationCrew
I'll take two please:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/185906926838

Blimey. $300,000 for an original. The replica itself which I linked about earlier is going for £35,995
　
　

rage
Ornsman I didn’t even know that Nico record existed! I would love to hear it, seems they’ve done it as an experiment to hear what the Fairchild does to the sound. I wonder what the story is behind it.

From what I of it, one of the sides was louder than the other, and the other side maybe was a bit flat in comparison... It wasn't one of my favourite releases ever so I don't think I kept hold of it.

From a quick check it looks like all the No U-Turn releases up to Nico/Makai was 1997 Nico must have been happy with whatever it was he was doing.

At the end of the day however that was Porky, using a piece of vintage gear potentially as a unique 'selling point' to add a little extra oomph to his masterings. Not everyone was going to be having access to a priceless (valve-based) antique from the '50s to be doing this.

And neither do I think he was the most prolific in our sphere, someone like Simon @ Exchange was far more common likely using only default stuff - running maybe through a more standard (transistor) compressor if it needs it, a de-esser / acceleration limiter to guard against the transients, graphic equaliser etc.

When I listen to something like New Blood "Worries In The Dance" on 12" and then listen to it from cd (let's say, Spectrum), i think to myself: oh, that's nice, a bit more clarity over all, not so much distortion in the mix. I don't think to myself "oh my godddd it sounds so digital"

So there has to be something else we're talking about, when we talk about older releases sounding more 'analogue' and newer ones more 'digital'.

We all have different ears so this is only my opinion but I listen to a lot of vinyl recorded to digital thru a half decent system (48khz 32/24bit) and the digi files I play via an old htc m8 which at it's time was regarded as a music phone being one of the first with a 24bit dac and supposidly audio quality component's on the headphone out.
Over the last year I've been listening to mostly wav digi files (44.1khz 24bit) of tunes purchased and have noticed that:

A) I've had to turn the volume down
&
B) there seems to be less separation in the sound on digital compared to the vinyl rips.

With digital you have this big uplift within the upper bass, middle, & treble, which makes the tracks sound a lot clearer and louder in some cases but I would like to argue that it doesn't always sound a lot cleaner. Having both vinyl & digital recordings I've noticed that some of the digital recordings kind of tend to crush, maybe that's too strong a word, tend too get a little confused in complex sections of the music where as the vinyl version sounds more open and and more controlled thru the same sections. Maybe it's just my ears or maybe I'm just too use to vinyl not being normalized so that bass, mid, & treble are all the same volume? Maybe it's how the digital file has been mastered (if it has) compared to the vinyl, etc.

I'm totally in Rage's camp when he mentioned that older tracks were mastered on analogue desks using voltage sliders, uv meters, and an experienced ear instead of todays zero' & one's, & software preset curves. And I believe that makes a difference.

I have noticed a difference between the two and on a side note, for me I find over longer periods of listening to music I find the digital copies more fatiqing than the vinyl copies. I can turn up the volume with the vinyl recordings and bounce along all day where as the digital is loud all the way thru and for me become tiring after a few hours.

Again this could be due to years of Walkman abuse with event cassettes.

VibrationCrew
With digital you have this big uplift within the upper bass, middle, & treble, which makes the tracks sound a lot clearer and louder in some cases but I would like to argue that it doesn't always sound a lot cleaner. Having both vinyl & digital recordings I've noticed that some of the digital recordings kind of tend to crush, maybe that's too strong a word, tend too get a little confused in complex sections of the music where as the vinyl version sounds more open and and more controlled thru the same sections.

This is not so much a digital problem as a compression/limiting the waveform problem. Like you say, if you record a digital copy of an original pressing with high quality equipment it will sound pretty much like the vinyl.

VibrationCrew
I'm totally in Rage's camp when he mentioned that older tracks were mastered on analogue desks using voltage sliders, uv meters, and an experienced ear instead of todays zero' & one's, & software preset curves. And I believe that makes a difference.

This is probably a factor in the sound of older stuff, but I don't think it is impossible for digital equipment to put out a sound we all recognise and enjoy. It is more the way this equipment being used that is the problem.

VibrationCrew
I have noticed a difference between the two and on a side note, for me I find over longer periods of listening to music I find the digital copies more fatiqing than the vinyl copies. I can turn up the volume with the vinyl recordings and bounce along all day where as the digital is loud all the way thru and for me become tiring after a few hours.

This is too much compression. It makes the track sound more forward/exciting in the moment, but turn up the volume and listen for longer time and this what you get, listener fatigue.

ornsman
So there has to be something else we're talking about, when we talk about older releases sounding more 'analogue' and newer ones more 'digital'.

Unless anybody has any other suggestions, as far as I can tell it is almost entirely far more compression being used.

Forgot to mention that 99% is headphone use over hi fi.

With my recording equipment broken at the moment it's nice to get the digital copies of tracks of recently purchased tunes but I think when things get back to normal I'll record the vinyls to digital and use them to listen too. I don't do digital mixing but the purchased digi's I'll set up for background hi fi use more so than headphones.

musicalmania68
This is probably a factor in the sound of older stuff, but I don't think it is impossible for digital equipment to put out a sound we all recognise and enjoy. It is more the way this equipment being used that is the problem.

yes - analogue equipment does still ultimately produce a signal of zeroes and ones in the end, same as digital. And of course, I would think most 90s records were being pressed from DAT...My understanding is: modern technology allows you to create a sound with digital that you couldn't with analogue (by cutting out very specific frequencies for example), but I don't think the reverse is true in theory. But in actual practice...

One other thing that could be a factor in all of this is cost. I suspect that going to a dedicated mastering expert with a studio full of expensive equipment is now the "high end" option, so to speak - I a small label owner on here saying they used an online mastering service, knowing it might not be optimum, due to price. Especially with all the other costs of pressing records having increased significantly. Whereas back in the 90s I guess that would be the only option (and possibly more affordable, with vinyl being more prevalent).

I reading an article about an Abbey rd engineer moaning about how artists today wanted a more analogue sound when the equipment they were making the track on was digital & when they brought it to an engineer it was on digital audio tape so it wasn't analogue to begin with.
Analogue to this engineer mean't live instruments recorded to reel 2 reel and then mastered to vinyl.

Random info, there are four analogue amplifiers that provide the signal to the cutting head of a lathe when producing the master lacquer. Think it's the same with DMM cutting.

rage
Nowadays they will get your audio, load it into a PC that will apply the EQ, push a button and make the cut, the person operating the equipment needs no mastering experience whatsoever. When we already have the problem of music sounding too digital, why take such a critical step away from talented mastering engineers who understand the music and know how to bring the best out of it.

Is that happening with just DMM stuff or all stuff? It staggers me that someone can just press a button and assume the computer will make the sound optimal, without any listening to check output.

musicalmania68
It staggers me that someone can just press a button and assume the computer will make the sound optimal, without any listening to check output.

i don't think the people using services like that are under the impression it gives perfect results, more just what's affordable. that being said, it does seem like exactly the sort of technical process that could be automated in a way that wasn't possible in the past...

however, the not checking part is a different issue, and some labels have problems with more than just mastering in that department...for example, on my copy of the reissue of "The Fire" by Noise Factory, you can hear a Windows alert sound on one of the tracks. On the vinyl. :D

(and - apparently not all of the copies have that problem either. which means they must have fixed it at some point but decided to sell the affected copies anyway...)

traffic_cone
i don't think the people using services like that are under the impression it gives perfect results, more just what's affordable.

Are these records somehow cheaper, I don't see the saving being ed on. If it is was my music, I wouldn't want to cut corners, unless it was just throwaway (novelty stuff?)

traffic_cone
that being said, it does seem like exactly the sort of technical process that could be automated in a way that wasn't possible in the past...

It could be, but should it? I wonder how well a computer can decide these things compared to a human.

Analogue is a kind of catch all term for outboard or hardware. It might still have been digital, but the relative warmth from an S950 as sample rates increase up through hardware samplers to where we are now is audible. A real mixing desk with faders up with nothing going through them or crappy old jack to jack leads, or jack to phono leads in some cases all carried a hum that became an intrinsic build up of accidental sound you couldn't pick out by ear, but could probably sonically remove or filter out nowadays. So even if you ran your s950 and your korg m1 via your Atari sequencing straight onto a digital audio tape via a mixer, the mixer was analogue. I think this is the key. From 96-2001 people started using digital desks like Yamah 01V and O2R that could mixes. And then when it all went in the computer all of the noise from the old gear vanished.

musicalmania68
Are these records somehow cheaper, I don't see the saving being ed on. If it is was my music, I wouldn't want to cut corners, unless it was just throwaway (novelty stuff?)

easy to say when it's not your money on the line - i think it's still something of a labour of love for the smaller labels. and given how much the costs have shot up in the last couple of years it's more a case of practicality than cutting corners. but i can't speak from experience.

musicalmania68
It could be, but should it? I wonder how well a computer can decide these things compared to a human.

to be clear, i don't mean deciding what an ideal mix should sound like - more automating the processes used to arrive at that result.

Sorry to sound like a broken record (geddit?), but another tune I would have like to have bought (to the artist) has been reissued by a well known label and it sounds like a hot mess. The original was slightly distorted already, but the extreme compression applied (all dynamic balance between sounds removed) completely alters and decimates what was a somewhat pleasant distortion into an unlistenable assault on the ears. Well known mastering engineer too....do they listen or are they just pressing a preset button, as someone else alluded to?

It is all so tiresome.

I just had a limited Domu/Dego Broken Beat 12" cut running from inside out as an homage to Ron Murphy!
https://nerolirecords.bandcamp.com/album/on-the-line-ft-lori-dego-remix-vs-just-give-it-a-long-shot-domu-remix-vinyl-only-no-digital-

↑ ]
Question: What is it that causes some vinyl pressings to become unusually distorted as the needle nears the centre. I know all vinyl does this to some degree, but there are a few records where I've owned multiple copies and it's noticeable bad.

https://makingvinyl.com/mastering-for-vinyl-tips-for-digital-mastering-engineers/

"Sound deterioration on the innermost grooves is caused by the slower groove speed as the stylus moves towards the center of the record. Keeping a constant revolution (either 33 ⅓ RPM or 45 RPM), the length of the groove for one revolution varies in relation to where it is on the disc. At 33 ⅓ RPMs, the outermost groove has a groove speed of 20 inches per second while the innermost diameter runs at a mere 8.3 inches per second.

This slow groove speed causes both cutting losses and tracking losses. The cutting stylus ends up having to fit much more sonic information in a shorter, smaller amount of groove space, causing more complex and rapid groove modulations. Because the playback stylus struggles to accurately trace these grooves, you end up compromising the fidelity of your top end."
　
I see answered on this, but thought I'd add the detail from the website.

　
　

rage 　Nowadays they will get your audio, load it into a PC that will apply the EQ, push a button and make the cut [...]

Is that happening with just DMM stuff or all stuff? It staggers me that someone can just press a button and assume the computer will make the sound optimal, without any listening to check output.

I think what is being suggested is, like, this is what's probably happening with some of the more 'large run', commercial released LP reissues in the current era. As my suggestion prior, if this is from master tape of one of the top studios / major labels from the golden age, where the mix down is already of a pristine quality, then this is likely an ideal process.

Whether you would feel that this then is missing 'something', as compared to earlier issues of the same LP from acetate cut, is another question. I would suggest that the automated DMM would, all in all, compare quite favourably to a cd release of the same source... given it is the same source, of course.

I can't imagine this would be the process for 12" releases, not least because DMM facilities are now limited and are probably only serving the major sector; but because 12" cuts have long been aimed at being as pumping as possible. You'd want it to stand up favourably to an entire body of 12"s from across several decades.

It's also not necessarily a 'new' process...
http //www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/109.html [web archive]

"By the mid-1960s, the whole system had become sufficiently sophisticated that it was possible for an engineer to set up a master tape and cutting lathe and just let it run, churning out master discs, stopping only to change the tape and put a fresh lacquer disc on the turntable. Al Kooper has described the Columbia Records mastering suites during this period—a series of cubicles in which the engineers would spend their time reading the newspaper while the lathes cut discs."

ornsman
I think what is being suggested is, like, this is what's probably happening with some of the more 'large run', commercial released LP reissues in the current era. As my suggestion prior, if this is from master tape of one of the top studios / major labels from the golden age, where the mix down is already of a pristine quality, then this is likely an ideal process.

Whether you would feel that this then is missing 'something', as compared to earlier issues of the same LP from acetate cut, is another question. I would suggest that the automated DMM would, all in all, compare quite favourably to a cd release of the same source... given it is the same source, of course.

we are quite deep into this conversation, so apologies if I have you wrong here, but this is not what is happening with recent releases, at least it is not what is creating an 'obviously different' sounding reissue. rage said 'they are pushing a button applying eq and then using the output'.

From what I can see from the waveforms, it is not EQ that is most of the problem, the problem is massive dynamic range compression which completely changes the balance of different elements in the track (quieter sounds become louder and louder ones quieter).

The dynamic range of original issues might have been something like 12db (the difference beween quietest and loudest sound), the same track released today would be much closer to 3db. Older tracks sound quieter because they have less compression, but this is better than when they sound ruined by the 'compress the hell out of it' process, which completely upsets the original balance of elements.

I might put together an example of an original pressing played alongside an overcompressed reissue soon to illustrate the point of how wildly it changes the sound balance.

ornsman
I see rage already answered on this, but thought I'd add the detail from the website.

Yep I'm aware of the details posted. There are some records though where it's abnormally bad - almost a flaw in the pressing/mastering process. The record starts sounding great and ends up like a dog's dinner by the end. It's not a turntable setup problem either.

A couple I can think of from memory are the copy of Zinc Ready or not I own, and Underground Posse Straight up house.

Related to that, one thing I've seen on a few old records, is tracks cut with much wider grooves at certain points (usually breakdowns). I can't think of an example from jungle or old skool off the top of my head - the one that comes to mind is the Dutch hardcore classic, "Jiiieehaaaa". In the tune, there's a short break after the intro, as the sample is coming in before the tune goes mental. You can see it quite clearly on the record - the grooves for that section are about 1 cm apart, and although that bit is just a few seconds it takes up the same space on the vinyl as the whole minute or so of intro.

I'm guessing this is deliberate: Ruffneck was certainly a label that had consistently excellent presses. But is it to make those bits louder? Or is it for better clarity? In the example I mentioned I would think the latter makes sense, because that particular moment is supposed to be quiet compared to the mayhem that follows.

It also makes sense when I compare it to the records i had on the more extreme end of hardcore, which sadly included some of the worst pressings I've encountered in any genre (mostly late 90s GZ Media). Not ideal for a genre where the whole point is how aggressive and heavy it sounds! Anyway - aside from the sound, one thing I notice about those record is how shallow and close the grooves seem. Making them more prone to skip for one thing - and also more easily affected by any minor surface wear.

The most disappointing bit of vinyl I purchase within the last few months has to be Dom & Roland - Darkmaster EP which has such tight grooves that it looks like the mastering studio thought they where doing an album but forgot the rest of the tracks and only cut two tracks per side with loads of space left on the vinyl. The press is extremely quiet for an EP and the grooves are so tight that all the tracks seem to have not been given any space to breathe compared to most other EP’s four trackers.
The music apart from being Dj unfriendly in volume also sounds ultra compressed and has left me in two minds of whether I should take the digitals and get acetates cut of two of the tracks one per side. Interstellar subs sounds awesome on the digitals but the vinyl is well disappointing.
Really not impressed with Stardelta Audio mastering to the point of not purchasing anymore of Doms bits especially if the vinyls are mastered by them.

musicalmania68
we are quite deep into this conversation, so apologies if I have you wrong here, but this is not what is happening with recent releases, at least it is not what is creating an 'obviously different' sounding reissue. rage said 'they are pushing a button applying eq and then using the output'.

No, and I agree - I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what are simply subjective observations, reliant solely on what one 'likes'; and actual, comparative, objective ones. If you've got a DMM cut, and you're complaining it's too 'clean' and 'clinical', and almost cd like, then what you're really complaining about is that there's no additional colouration been added into the sound.

'Colouration' traditionally has been a negative word uttered in the world of hi-fi circles - where the system is making up for what it can't do, by blurring or otherwise filling in the blanks in the representation of the sound (conversely, 'too revealing' was also a term bandied about, but I won't go into that)

rage has made the suggestion that at least people aren't using automated presets, and 'pressing a button' - like with DMM (allegedly) - and that we should be happy about that, but I'm not sure that observation is really one that holds up, and certainly not from your comments on the matter of what you state has been going on.

Interesting to see this come up again, it really got me thinking and learning about how people do things! The lengths some producers go to is amazing.

It was here that I saw about the DMM cuts being prepared, at 9:40 https://youtu.be/MFNhp53xS_U?si=o_KP8MJGF5MN_Ma5

This is a long thread and I have not had time to go through it all. All opinions on the issue are valid but here's mine: the mastering imparts some of the vibe. I would prefer not to change that. That is why I seek out original vinyl releases.