Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

Renowned mastering engineer Steve Hoffman apparently did a direct comparison a while back between the master, an acetate, CD and DSD files with surprising conclusions.

He went on to write an update last year confirming that he feels that with better converters DSD is now closer to the master than CD. The record acetate also seems to acquit itself well in all cases.

However, due to inevitable losses in manufacturing and production of a physical copy, if Steve is right, wouldn't a direct DSD stream, be the closest to the original master?

If so, maybe DSD streaming is the next big thing for audiophiles?

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/what-sounds-just-like-the-analog-master-tape-cd-vinyl-sacd-or...

roberttdid,

You're right, it was more of an anecdotal impression of the various formats from Steve Hoffman than any clearly defined conclusion. Still interesting in itself.

I tend to respect his work because he claims his mission is to restore rather remix historic recordings, rather like an art restorer approaching period masterpieces.

Anyway, damn it! It seems as if DSD is no better than PCM, especially when it's not DSD all the way, which it hardly ever is.

On the other hand, it could equally be argued that in practice PCM is just as good as DSD but that's not what most of us were hoping for is it?

According to the Ben Zwickel's Mojo Audio article (linked below) it's still the recording that counts the most.

Just as it ever was.

As for the odd one out between tape, digital and vinyl, it's not tape, and it's not digital, so...

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/#:~:text=DSD%20recordings%20are%20commercia....

mikelavigne,

"so if you compare the golden age of 2 channel analog it’s mid 50’s to around 1970. you have the relative purity of the process and the gear. those recordings are hard for digital to compete with. plus in many ways the expectations to make ’live’ recordings were much greater on the artists. and more resources were devoted to the process by the labels. the best of this era can’t be touched by the digital era."



I would tend to agree. All of that cramming more and more tracks onto the same tape (ofen 1/4 inch) can’t have helped things, nor the bouncing down that was regularly employed increasingly throughout the late 60s/70s. Nor the loss of that ’live’ sound after innumerable takes. No wonder the lo-fi Nebraska sounds so fresh.

I think the main issue is whether the industry has even ever cared about sound quality? All the evidence I’ve seen suggests that sound quality was always a minor, maybe even a trivial concern for them. And it wasn’t all Phil Spector’s fault.

What about the artists themselves?
Certain bands like Pink Floyd and Steely Dan seem to have cared about their sound, maybe a few others like Dylan and Kate Bush too, but how many of the others? Obviously, not too many.

Apparently a new Dylan album is out soon. Should be interesting to see how it sounds / was recorded etc.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/culture/2020/06/bob-dylan-rough-rowdy-ways-album-review.amp

As an aside, I think you were quite brave on taking that controlled cable (or was it messing with your mind?) challenge. Especially with the results posted online.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/941184-observations-controlled-cable-te...

mikelavigne,

"what did you learn from those moments?"

Ha! I don't really know to be honest, other than its fascinating to read about such scenarios. 

I mean I'd love to try something like the Harman blind speaker test, but yeah, there would be a considerable amount of trepidation beforehand. 

Putting yourself and your preconceptions to a public test must be daunting for anyone. It's hardly surprising that reviewers persistently shy away from such tests. 

However in their case, it's not really an excuse as it's their job. Something they signed up for and something they get paid for.

So yeah, it was good of you to do it, and share the results.

rauliruegas,

An excellent attempt to navigate what can be a confusing pathway.

There has always been an immediate divergence in the differing paths followed by audiophiles, namely that vital decision of whether to discover what was actually recorded or to follow whatever pleases you most.

I suspect many audiophiles follow the latter and always will. If they admit it, that's great. It's when they claim it's better, more accurate etc that problems begin.

This is the infamous objectivist v subjectivist dichotomy. This schism exists not only due to personal choice of the listener but also due in part to the existence of the circle of confusion on audio that Toole and Olive talk about.

Hardly anyone can know what the recording is supposed to sound like.

Audiophiles are notorious for casual dismissing of what others say, including producers, engineers, and musicians who were actually involved in the recording! They are often equally dismissive of technical data accumulated over decades.

Yet they will readily listen what some reviewers may have written. Reviewers who have no more qualification in knowing what was recorded than they have.

Reviewers whose opinions immediately disintegrate once the object they're reviewing is hidden from plain sight!

Needless to say that cable merchants, snake oil doctors, magic pebble peddlers etc all tend to all be firmly on the subjectivist side.

No surprises there.

So are we at an eternal impasse or is there a way forward?

Is reconciliation even possible between those who want accurate sound and those who want a sound they like?

I suspect not.

I'm prepared to acknowledge that digital is a more accurate recording medium than tape, at least in theory.

As for playback, again in theory, digital holds a measurable advantage over tape and vinyl. In fact I'd argue that a vinyl record can never sound better than the mastertape it was taken from.

In practice though things are not so clear due to all the futzing around with the sound the recording industry is notorious for.

Certain period albums still sound best on vinyl and will always remain that way due to industry indifference and sometimes the ravages of time inflicted upon the original tapes.

https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html?m=1

Reel to reel original master tape is still the highest quality source for most of the world's back catalogue. Elvis, Beatles, Dylan, Eagles, Pink Floyd etc. Basically almost everything between 1945 and 1990 was recorded on reel to reel tape.

Even digital recording was initially done on tape until they realised how fragile digital recordings were when put on tape.

It is still those original tape masters that are used whenever albums are to be reissued whether in standard resolution or high resolution, vinyl or Cd.

As far as I'm aware there is still no way to improve upon the sound quality of the actual tape although remixes and re-edits are certainly possible.  

It therefore stands to reason that all downloads, CDs, vinyl records will be a subsequent downgrade.

Just how much of a downgrade each one is, is the question.

roberttdid,

So not only is there this distinction between what we seek from a recording, ie accuracy or pleasure (objectivist v subjectivist), not only is there great confusion for the consumer regarding what the recording was intended to sound like (audio's circle of confusion), there's also this issue of how an individual brain processes the sound. 

Signal processing is an entirely separate issue and a no less complex one. A 2009 study even indicated that some Stanford students preferred lower bitrate recordings to higher bitrate ones (192kbps to 320kbps).  


"Reduced total information can allow easier processing of the remaining information."


For the purposes of this post it's fairly safe to conclude that digital does hold more data than tape.

Tape can sound wonderful no doubt, but it's fairly obvious that successive generations of tape recording (bouncing down) have far more serious implications for its sound quality than digital copying ever does. 

The 1960s, especially the latter half, saw many recordings following in the footsteps of Phil Spector/Joe Meek etc with dubbing and overdubbing and bouncing down repeatedly. Daniel Lanois often used these techniques to great effect.

Some of those recordings as works of art hold up well, but sonic masterpieces they're not, ie the background is often a load of mush. Pleasant mush, but mush nonetheless.

As any fan of the Mamas and the Papas can tell you. 

mahgister,

Interesting comments, as ever


"Information data is not perceived sounds, purely objective perceived sounds are not musical sounds, and musical sounds are never subjectively evaluated and perceived in exactly the same manner by all individuals in any environments...."

No one’s arguing with that, are they?



"Subjectivity versus objectivity is an obsolete scientific false debate for almost a century now....Immmanent participation of all consciousness is the new paradigm in science...."

Since when?



"Like in many audio forum debates about cables for example, the analog/digital debates, defenders and opponents are like 2 cats reading the other’s grin with a replicating grin, and the 2 cats disapearence at the end let only their 2 grins mimicking one another, without any cats anymore like the Cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll...."

Yes, but one cat is armed with measurable data which stands up to repeated testing. The other isn’t. If progress isn’t built upon technology and science, then what is it built upon?
Some vague notions of consumerist faith, belief and superstition?



"The repudiation of subjective perception has no scientific meaning at all, and reduction of subjective perception to a "so called" objective one no ultimate meaning....Only a dialogue is meaningful but on the basis of the ultimate irreducibility of individual perception to any numbers there is...."

Yes we’re both free to perceive and interpret any way we want to, but we’re discussing the differing merits of tape, digital and vinyl playback (and recording). Or are we not?



"I will repeat myself, " In a word, i value all the very interesting informations in the last post of rauliruegas and if i think about it i think that he is right....BUT i trust the impressions of mikelavigne, the testimonies of his friends, and his long time dedication on his very refined audio system.... THEN...." :)"


If you wish to trust individual testimonies ahead of data then that’s your prerogative, but how does that help us decide which format is the most accurate?



"Dialogue between people not pretending to be right and others wrong is the only interesting way....."

In this instance, since a question was posted, dialogue must involve acknowledging other opinions before making a judgement, must it not?


Best wishes to you my friend

geoffkait,

23,271 largely useless and obnoxious posts to get to THIS?