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


One common theme I read on forums here and elsewhere is the view by many that there is a pecking order in quality:

Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital

I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?

High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two.  Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?

This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
roberttdid

Showing 5 responses by looscannon

There is no pecking order. Unless you are recording, tape machines are pretty worthless due to lack of software. Yes they can sound fabulous. Otherwise, it all depends on the mastering. If you switch back and forth between analog and a 24/192 copy it is unlikely you will be able to label the two versions reliably. I have duplicate copies of many albums in vinyl and Hi Res digital. In comparing them it can go either way and I'd guess that it is pretty close to 50/50.

I do not care for streaming. The drop outs drive me crazy. I have tried several wireless routers and systems and I still get them. I suppose once you have a huge collection of music you are not as interested? My daughters (who I trained well) turn me on to new artists. They filter out the mountains of really bad stuff out there now. You use to have to be tolerably good to get a recording contract. Them days are over. In the jazz world it is nowhere near as bad. You have to have at least some mastery of your instrument for admission.
Having made numerous digital copies of vinyl albums I am inclined to agree will cleeds. As I mentioned above it is difficult to tell which is which.
However in comparing a vinyl album with it's digital download  is another issue. It is very easy to distinguish the versions even with a very clean record. As to which one sounds better it is a toss up. I will say there is a consistent quality that the vinyl has across several cartridges that distinguishes it from the digital download and these are all 24/96 or better. The vinyl sounds a bit more distant and (this is hard to describe) you get the sense of an echo or perhaps air around voices and instruments. The digital is more up front with less going on in the background. Given that there is much more going on in the analog signal path to get to the vinyl copy one would have to believe there is additional harmonic distortion added which many of us like. You get this even with vinyl versions of digital recordings. With digital recordings played back digitally you are in numbers immediately and stay there all the way to your DAC. You can do pretty much anything to a digital file without unintentionally adding distortion. Certainly we all try to minimize distortion in our own systems but there is nothing we can do about the process that produced the software. In short, vinyl adds something to the music that is missing in Hi Res Downloads. Call it whatever you want. Sometimes it sounds better. Sometimes not. If I had to guess I would think analog tape and Hi Res downloads have more in common than any comparison with vinyl. 
If I did not have a huge vinyl collection would I get started now? You bet. Turntables are cool devices and a tinkerer's dream. A turntable is a record playing tool. I love tools. You can never have enough of them. Holding on to a record cover is so much more fulfilling than a CD box. It is artwork. But as an early adapter I also have 2 terabytes of music on my hard drive. One can never have enough music. Music is a tool for happiness. People who listen to a lot of music live longer. That is an association and not necessarily causation.  

Wow, three turntables and $160k in digital hardware? Do you mind me asking what you do for a living Mike? I care to differ a little. I was busy typing my last post when yours was added. It is not that digital is missing something. It is that something is added to vinyl. I have several direct to disc albums and it is interesting to note that they sound more like Hi Res digital files than other records. 
I certainly agree that digital is more convenient. How could you not? I can't listen to classical playlists streaming or otherwise. I just can't enjoy it as background music. I have to sit in front of the system for classical. 
Ideally digital and analog should sound exactly the same. If they don't something is happening in the signal path or master to alter the original recording. What sounds better I suspect is a matter of taste more than anything.
A 15 ips copy of a master tape is an incredible thing to hear. I do not think any turntable could match it. 
I think Mike just had a mine burp but cleeds is correct cassettes are 1/8"
There were auto reversing cassette decks but alignment certainly would have been a problem in rather inexpensive transports. I believe it was even a problem in decks that were not auto reversing. Dad worked on reel to reel machines but would not touch a cassette deck.