2. analog
  3. 160855-86984

vinyl versus digital redux

Has anyone compared the sound of vinyl with the sound of digital converted from a vinyl intermediary ?

I am referring to 'rips' of vinyl made with high end, high quality vinyl playback systems, with
conversion to high resolution digital.
I find it nearly impossible to distinguish the two results.
The digital rip of a vinyl record sounds identical...or very nearly so...to direct playback of the vinyl.

If one has 'experienced' the foregoing, one might question why digital made without the intermediary of vinyl sounds so different from vinyl.   A detective story ?

We are talking about vinyl made by ADC (analog to digital conversion) of an amplified microphone signal and re-conversion to analog for output to the record cutting lathe, or from analog tape recording of an amplified microphone signal, and then....as above...via ADCl and back to analog for output to the cutting lathe.

Of course vinyl can be and is 'cut' (pressings made from 'stamper' copies the 'master' cut in lacquer) without digital intermediary.  Such practice is apparently uncommon, and ?? identified as such by the 'label' (production)

Has anyone compared vinyl and high resolution digital (downloads) albums offered by the same 'label' of the same performance ?  Granted, digital versus vinyl difference should diminish with higher digital resolution.   Sound waves are sine waves....air waves do not 'travel' in digital bits.    A digital signal cannot be more than an approximation of a sine wave, but a closer approximation as potential digital resolution (equating to bit depth times sampling frequency) increases.

If vinyl and digital well made from vinyl intermediary sound almost identical, and If vinyl and digital not made via vinyl intermediary sound quite different, what is the source of this difference ? 

Could it reside....I'll skip the sound processing stages (including RIAA equalization)...in the electro-mechanical process imparting the signal to the vinyl groove ?

Is there analogy with speaker cone material and the need for a degree of self-damping ?
Were self-damping not to some extent desirable, would not all speaker cones, from tweeter to sub-woofer, be made of materials where stiffness to weight ratio was of sole importance ?

Thanks for any comments.
seventies

Showing 12 responses by audio2design

audio2design
1,351 posts
 
Atmosphere, the op was referring to master tapes which in general will be stored properly for any media company of note and for which my comment applied.  Note my next sentence.

The biggest concern is break down of the underlying binder for the magnetic materials and the plastic substrate.


If they are stored properly which major media companies generally do, then they are rather robust. 40khz bandwidth is of little use when the mastering media can't match it. That's also 40khz with effectively noise reduction, i.e. RIAA equalization at high frequencies. 
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
.... 3rd harmonic.


No, the 3rd harmonic was just the convenient harmonic to measure when setting levels as you can readily hear it on test tones. There were other harmonics in there as well when the tape starts to compress.

Then there is the common mid band frequency anomalies that varied machine to machine, sibilance from pre-emphasis, wow, flutter, scrape, and of course the loss of high frequencies and dynamics from simply playing the tape.
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
Mijostyn, you don't need a fortune or a perfect room for critical listening. Differences in source material are typically more evident with headphones and a good headphone amp.  $3-4K in that area would be more "revealing" than just about anything with speakers in a room < $50-100K
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
Many a recording engineer and many an audiophile would disagree with that comment on DSP. The recording engineer because he uses it to emulate analog sound and the audiophile who raves over the result not knowing why ... They just like it.

Orpheus the topic is can digital capture and playback vinyl such that it is indistinguishable.  Many with very good systems, and even with very experienced listening skills would argue yes if done right.   There is no audiophile magic in this.
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
Headphones are not for mixing, at least not ideal. They are for fine work, determining issues, etc.
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
I am just some random dude on the web, so I would not expect anyone to take my word as gospel, but like the person I link to, the concepts are familiar.

Nothing like my first post to jump into the fire.

It is easy to dismiss out of hand that one does not agree with the premise that records cannot be digitized and played back with no detectable degradation. However, if the difference cannot be discerned then it does not exist. Claiming it is something that can be felt over time sounds nice, but it has never been the case where extended listening increased the chance of noticing a change. I don’t think anyone can provide any evidence to support that. There is evidence of the opposite.


It is hard to let go of emotional attachment. Turntables are cool. Streaming is not cool. My turntable is art, it is engineering, it is freaken cool. I am under no illusions it is accurate and having heard what comes directly from a microphone, what goes into a digitization system and out, and what comes via vinyl on great systems, I say that confidently.
But listening to music is not about accuracy for most, it is about what you like. While I understand the psychology to elevate what you like to being somehow better, is it helpful when you are out for the best sound for you, and you personally?

So that link, from an extended colleague, Dave McNair. You may not like or believe what he says, but it is in my experience accurate.
https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/10/17/hi-fi-why-do-records-sound-better-the-ivory-tower/

Without applying DSP, I find I usually prefer a rock or pop studio release better on vinyl. Orchestra I usually prefer a good quality digital. Small venue recordings is a mix but usually I lean towards digital if the background is quiet and the processing is minimal.

Ifyou are recording and playing back your vinyl with digital, be very careful with your DAC. Expensive does not mean better for this use case. A DAC designed for accuracy (Benchmark) may outperform a euphonic DAC like MSB, and unless you are sampling at a high rate, a non oversampling DAC would be a poor choice as you would be stacking colorations. Then again, you may like it, but if you already love your vinyl setup, then go for an accurate DAC.
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
A master clock only attempts to compensate for design deficiencies that may exist in a playback system. With USB DACs or networked DACs, and half decent electronics, there is little requirement for them in most cases.

Analog tape is not a panacea. Just like vinyl, it significantly colors the sound.I think part of the problem is that even though so many audiophile talk about "real" or "natural" sound, very few have heard what most instruments sound like not when not colored by the environment, absent of the influence of other instruments, when recorded closely, etc. Even musicians who play regularly are sometimes surprised to hear how they sound recorded. Live orchestra is heavily influenced by seating position and hall design and mood. Perhaps what most audiophiles, most of who are older, consider natural or realistic, is not natural or realistic, but familiar?

A nice discussion of tape, and tape plug ins for digital work flows that emulate tape sound:https://www.uaudio.com/blog/analog-tape-recording-basics/

Most digital is oversampled on recording and upsampled on playback. Phase shift will be minimal in the audio band and much less than vinyl. Historically magnetic tape either had bandwidth on the top end or bass on the bottom end. Those classic vinyl releases off analog tape were based on a source with limited bandwidth themselves no matter what a playback system was capable. If people could hear anything past 20Khz, I suspect poor channel matching in vinyl setups would drive them batty.  I notice the difference too between analog sources and digital. One done in a reasonable fashion sounds exactly what is coming off the microphones. One does not.
audio2design
1,351 posts
 

I set up with both high rez digital, and 30 ips analog tape. Stereo X/Y pair fed to microphone preamps. The signal from the preamp was split, one side went to A to D, the other side to the analog tape inputs. I could feed any of the three signals to the headphone amp and 2 pairs of Senn HD800s. The listener could select between the live mic feed, the signal coming off the tape, or the output from the A to D/ D to A converter. Most were shocked they could not hear a difference between the live feed and the signal off the tape, but could hear a difference between the live mic feed and the output from the converter.


I find this statement suspect and can only assume a mistake in the setup. For far too many hours of my life, I have heard what has come off the microphones, what has come off digital and what has come off tape. If you have a good quality digital system, the direct feed and digital feeds are indistinguishable, assuming levels are set the same. Tape on the other hand, especially if you know what to listen for, absolutely will have a distinctive sound, even, since I would assume this is portable, 30ips - 1/2" - 2 track. Even with 30ips, in what I assume is a very quiet environment, you would notice, with headphones, subtle tape hiss not evident on the digital feed. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that at 30ips you were not using noise reduction, since that has a distinctive sound all on its own. If these results occurred, I would go with, poor digital chain, or digital chain levels not matched.

On the master clock front, studios use a master clock for synchronization, not for ultimate quality. Transmitting that clock around the studio and decoding it will impart more jitter than an internal good quality clock. In a studio where you can have multiple ADC, and digital processors, it is advantageous if not essential to have the sampling synchronized. That would apply even more so if you need to have sample accurate synchronization with video. Good studio ADC will have better specs using their own internal clocks than with the master clock generated in the studio. As studios modernize and move to IP (ethernet) networks, master clock domains get smaller and smaller being limited to only local equipment. IEEE1588 over Ethernet provides enough synchronization accuracy for most usages.


For consumer DACs, an external master clock has no practical purpose. It is relatively easy, and inexpensive to generate an internal clock in a DAC, and that will not be susceptible to noise on an interface to an external clock. That also does not handcuff the consumer DAC to a set of arbitrary external clock frequencies that may not be ideal for that equipment.
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
The drift reduction again is for sync. The clock input on a modern DAC is marketing. The part cost for a clock suitable for 145db+ SNR is 10's of dollars into the low 100's in low volume integrated into a unit and less high volume. USB or networked DAC has no need of synchronization.  Just like in the studio there is more potential for noise and jitter on the clock I/F than using an external master clock.

Generally 1/2 two track is remote work in small settings. Even concert and concert hall we wouldn't use that except for check work.  I have worked with 24 and 16, and all forms of digital in settings and with equipment where nuances are readily apparent. 30 IPS with good track spacing properly setupis very good but still noticeable. Professional 24/192 is transparent. You may not like the sound but it is transparent.

audio2design
1,351 posts
 
So if you don't think analog tape is the bees knees you are not astute? I would argue most astute audiophiles have never heard unmixed and unprocessed audio on analog tape or high resolution digital but that is not what the topic thread is about.
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
Seventies,

Analog tape is surprisingly robust for storage. It is usage that degrades it.  The biggest concern is break down of the underlying binder for the magnetic materials and the plastic substrate. If really old it is acetate and very prone to mechanical failure.   You can get some layer to layer bleedthrough on thin cheap tape.  You don't lose high frequency from storage but you may add noise.  The plastic in records can also slowly decay albeit slowly.
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
No, I said that properly stored tapes (we were discussing stored studio master tapes) hold up very well (they do). Properly stored means temperature and humidity controlled, though primarily humidity. If you don’t store it properly it is toast.


https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2014/36282/93-1817.pdf?sequence=1

https://csumc.wiscweb.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101/2015/10/REPORT-Preservation-and-Storage...
More to discover