Well, a CD master can be wide open - unfiltered if you like. A vinyl master cannot.
Back in the day, basically to save money, when CDs came out, rather than have the mastering process cost twice as much (which it probably should have, but the labels didn't see it quite that way) there was one mastering process (as in EQing / compression etc.) and that was the one for vinyl. So that meant that many early CDs sounded really quiet (because when you make a vinyl master the level is significantly lower than a CD master, and i'm not talking about the loudness wars, I'm just talking about potential target volume for vinyl.)
So, they would run the vinyl master, and at the same time, would run a tape copy in parallel which had all the exact same settings / track by track EQ changes etc for the vinyl mastering.
That way it would be easy to run a CD master. You could do that simply by joining the two tapes together (sides one and two) and running that for CD. So, that way lots of early CDs had much lower levels than was necessary, plus they also had EQ and compression settings that were applied to the vinyl master, including any settings for bass phasing / compression / high end sibilance removal - none of which were even remotely necessary for the CD.
So, basically, early CDs were click and spurious vinyl noise-free versions of the vinyl - audio path-wise.
Pathetic really.
âAnytime that craftsmanship begins to slide out of the picture, so does the fun, because being good at something â being a craftsman â thatâs the fun of life. Thatâs the vinegar."
"People with edges break bones when they fall. Round ones can roll anywhere."
"Audere est Facere"
Back in the day, basically to save money, when CDs came out, rather than have the mastering process cost twice as much (which it probably should have, but the labels didn't see it quite that way) there was one mastering process (as in EQing / compression etc.) and that was the one for vinyl. So that meant that many early CDs sounded really quiet (because when you make a vinyl master the level is significantly lower than a CD master, and i'm not talking about the loudness wars, I'm just talking about potential target volume for vinyl.)
So, they would run the vinyl master, and at the same time, would run a tape copy in parallel which had all the exact same settings / track by track EQ changes etc for the vinyl mastering.
That way it would be easy to run a CD master. You could do that simply by joining the two tapes together (sides one and two) and running that for CD. So, that way lots of early CDs had much lower levels than was necessary, plus they also had EQ and compression settings that were applied to the vinyl master, including any settings for bass phasing / compression / high end sibilance removal - none of which were even remotely necessary for the CD.
So, basically, early CDs were click and spurious vinyl noise-free versions of the vinyl - audio path-wise.
Pathetic really.
âAnytime that craftsmanship begins to slide out of the picture, so does the fun, because being good at something â being a craftsman â thatâs the fun of life. Thatâs the vinegar."
"People with edges break bones when they fall. Round ones can roll anywhere."
"Audere est Facere"