vinyl versus digital redux

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.

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.

I do not think there is any argument that analog signals on magnetic tape deteriorate over time. What I hear most is that high frequencies start to roll off. These can always be EQed up I suppose. Once the music is digitized it is immortal as long as the hard drive isn't destroyed. My understanding is that most music has now been digitized in computer libraries and as long as there are sufficient back-ups there is no better way to warehouse it at this time. Does it matter if the path to your ears is all analog or all digital or a mix of the two? If it is good music and it sounds good? Well Scarlet, frankly, I could not give a.......

Seventies, in regard to preservation of music, it has been unanimously decided by the most astute audiophiles that reel to reel tape is ultimate audio for "music lovers" .


In regard to computer storage, I use WAV and the difference between the playback of the reel to reel and the playback of reel to reel tape that I've stored on computer files is "minute".

I'm of that age, which could be questioned in regard to my hearing, but I think it's still pretty good; however, since I am of that age, the allegation that I don't have perfect hearing would have some merit. Never the less, I can distinguish the difference between LP playback, reel to reel playback, or CD playback from my computer.

There are some differences between my computer and stock computers in regard to cards, there is one card for sure that was recommended for analog transfer, but I don't remember which one it is. That information might be on the PC forum. I know for sure that if you do everything right, whatever you store on your computer will be practically indistinguishable from the original.


I used hi-res for awhile, but not every record was perfect; it was hit and miss so I quit, but that was when they first started.

Headphones are not for mixing, at least not ideal. They are for fine work, determining issues, etc.

Orpheus10 and others,

I again seek input regarding preservation  ("archival") of music recorded prior to the hi res digital era.
Does playback (with or without digitization) of lp's made, say 40 years ago, from audio tape offer advantage over hi res digital transfers made today from those 40-year-old tapes ?

Is there better preservation of high frequency information on the lp's ?

Mijostyn >I never evaluate music with the headphones- -  Me too. I like the staging and feeling of music better through my speakers. Using phones only for reference e g when recording from vinyl. Recently I’ve considered, maybe I should give headphones another chance, and have ordered a used Audioquest Nightowl, supposed to sound quite organic and "analog".

I should add, re: "blew away". This was the result using the Lyra Atlas cart with the Aesthetix Io phono preamp - costing much more than the Teac, so in those terms the playing field is not even in my system.

I am not sure, who is this listener what hears exactly what is "objectively better" - ? And I am sceptical to such claims regarding digital. It is not as if I have not tried. I played analog for many years, until I switched to digital, naively thinking "a bit is a bit". It wasn't. I had to reinvest in my analog chain, to get better sound. I think some of the confusion here is due to differences in the quality of the analog chain. It has to be fairly good (but not outrageously expensive) to compete with the best digital.
Now, I've recently invested in a Teac NT-505. It does raise the digital sound quality quite a lot, in my case, going from a Squeezebox. Very enjoyable. So I've been listening to streaming (masters from Tidal) and to hi-res recording over the home network. The Teac is a bit polite maybe not fully burned in, but very nice. Then, last night, I put on the latest Blue Oyster Cult, The symbol remains. 2 x LP. Sorry folks, but it blew away the digital! Even if this is by no means an "audiophile" recording (rather the opposite). Why is this? Why do I find myself "listening" to digital, while I become "immersed" in the analog sound? Don't know. Maybe, some conditioning is at work, I am used to playing LPs, but I don't think that is the whole story.

audio2design, I think in relation to most systems you are probably right except for the evaluation of very deep bass. Apparently you have not looked at my system. What I have is essentially very large electrostatic headphones except the perspective of the soundstage is correct. Headphones can be a good reference for tonal balance. I have Grado Ref2 headphones. The system sounds just like the headphones from a tonal perspective. I never evaluate music with the headphones and I would think mixing/mastering recordings by headphones would be a big no no. They have special systems set up for this. The perspective of the music is wrong and setting up a proper stage would be more difficult. I greatly prefer the stage I get on my system and the visceral sensations you get with live music. This is all missing on headphones.  But, I am no recording engineer so if I am wrong please tell me. I just know what I am looking for in my own system.

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

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.

If everyone will permit me, I would like to share with you how overjoyed I am with the improvements in my rig; same TT but new cartridge and NOS tubes for the phono. Of course these same improvements are heard on computer playback, but let's disregard that for the moment.


Records that I was neutral on, and hardly played for many years, now sound quite interesting. Sorry, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, just my elated joy with the improvement from something less than a monumental cost.

When you go to a movie, can you tell that you are looking at separate frames of a still picture?

Do lp's made contemporaneously with analog tape recordings, in the decades before availability of digital recording at resolutions exceeding 16/44.5, offer better sound on playback than high resolution transfers made from those analog tapes ?

Thanks for any opinions and answers.

This is sort of laughable. I have the equipment and use it everyday. Works fine. I would think with the system I have problems or differences would be as obvious as they can get. Of course, depending on the hearing of one person (in this case me) to make an evaluation on anything is dangerous. But I think it is safe to assume that a record and a 24/192 file of that record are close enough in sound quality such that there are not glaring differences and a large percentage of us can't hear the difference. 

This is just downright comical; "old farts" saying it couldn't be done, and now it can't be done because the equipment to do it is no longer available.

I'm an old fart, but I realized that digital and computers eluded me; I don't understand the stuff, that's why I sought a computer "Guru" who has a college degree in the stuff.

In the beginning when I asked him questions in an effort to learn, he tried to explain, but each time he noted that totally blank look on my face, that's when he decided it was hopeless. Now he just asks what it is that I want done, indicating; "Please don't waste my time by asking questions". That works for both of us.


Maybe the computer train done come and gone for all the "old farts", but you will get a lot more out of this hobby if you find a computer Guru.

"I find this statement suspect and can only assume a mistake in the setup."

Too funny, thanks for the humor. As you noted correctly, clocks are used to sync all the gear, but that is only one function. The other function is to reduce drift. Look at all the high end gear from DCS, most have a clock input. Even on file playback, all you have to do is listen to a DAC, then listen to same DAC with the clock. Focus is improved, dimensionality is better in the sound stage, etc.

I have been doing live to 2 track for 25+ years. so have listened to hours and hours of mic feeds. once digital got good enough, I shelved most of my analogue gear and switched to 24/192 digital since its much less weight to carry around a cart load of digital gear.

 
audio2design, no, there is no magic, but you must have the right equipment; this plus I changed a card in my computer to enable a smooth conversion of the analog to digital process.


https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-adc1-usb-audio-converter


The people who would benefit from doing what I have done were too busy saying it could not be done instead of doing it. Now it's possible that they are correct, because it can not be done if what's needed to do it is no longer available.

How sweet it is to lay in bed and enjoy your vinyl collection in all it's glory, the same as if you were dropping the needle on the LP, at 3:00 in the morning (I sleep sporadically)


Enjoy the music.

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.

Atmasphere, what is wrong with digital signal processing assuming it is used correctly? I know it is easy to screw things up, done correctly.

That is why those of use who are true audio....connoisseurs drive a manual.

It seems that the latest posts are from technicians or engineers, as opposed to "high end" music lovers.


The reason I specified "high end" is because most of the qualities pertaining to high end audio gear can not be measured; as a matter of "fact", after the engineers finish with Audio Research amps, they give them to audiophiles who don't even know Ohms law for final tuning based on their educated ears.

I have earned a living as an electronics technician, and I am a devotee of high end audio equipment. We begin where specifications end; that is in the subconscious audio realm in regard to the subjective evaluation of the music.

Presently, I'm listening to a new noiseless record that has me in a state of quiet euphoria. Were I to compare it to a CD, I already know the difference; "some of the emotional component would be missing"; we call that "musicality". The only meter qualified to measure such a quality resides in the mind, which is located somewhere in the brain.

Like many of the finer things in life, this love for high end analog is left for the connoisseurs of such things to enjoy, while those with less sophisticated taste look on.

@mijostyn   Its funny how much better a master digital file is than one that's been exposed to DSP!

For kicks last night I decided to do something I had not done before. I recorded my Mo Fi 45 rpm copy of Santana's 1st record to the hard drive then played both back  synchronized as close as possible. After matching volume I spend the better part of 30 minutes trying to tell the difference between the two switching by remote from my recliner. There were times when I thought the treble may be a little recessed on the digital side but I could not make up my mind if it was real or not. I probably should have had my wife do the switching. 

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.

emrofsemanonm audio2design, atmasphere and others
Hard to disagree with any of your statements.
Regarding phase shift and other 'distortions' more prevalent in vinyl than digital recording, electro-mechanical lathing/playback (with RIAA equalization) seems of central importance.
Regarding potential frequency response with vinyl, again no argument.
This frequency response....higher frequency reproduction...is I would argue better preserved by playback (with or without subsequent digitalization) of vinyl pressings contemporaneous with the original recording than by 'master tapes' of those recordings, because of time-dependent degradation of the tapes. 

The other comment I forgot to add, is regardless of the digital sampling freq. and bit depth,  most commercial recordings released on digital use quite a bit of compression in the signal chain, which is sad. One of the main advantages of digital, especially hi rez files is super wide dynamic range. If you need proof, just play your favorite CD or digital file, while feeding the signal to a set of VUs and watch for the minimum and max change in level.  With most digital recordings, there is not much there. It is a shame since with higher rez formats, the dynamic range available is seldom used. 

The comments about  master clocks not needed if the electronics are done correctly is mis-information; or not correct. All you need to do is step into any modern studio and you will find most of the A to D devices and recorders are run by a master clock of some sort. Same applies to playback. But most have not heard the improvement a clock can make since majority of consumer oriented DACs do not have an external clock input.

All of the above applies to 24/96 and higher rez. If you are listening to 16/44.1 files, even inexpensive analog will usually blow these data rates away.

Several years ago, I was asked to do a recording for a major suburban audiophile club to allow them to hear the analog/digital comarison. They had 2 performers, a singer/ guitar player and bass player.

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 have never, even on megabuck equipment, heard the best specimen LPs sound subjectively and objectively "better" [less distorted/changed greater dynamic and frequency range], than i have on the best digital. that said, i've heard lots of bad digital. and lots more of bad analog. furthermore i never understood how some reviewers of Lp recordings can describe "silent surfaces" as i ALWAYS hear some surface noise even on a virgin pressing. 

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.

Hm. One thing I don't see mentioned here is the issue of bandwidth. Any LP made since the dawn of the stereo era (1958) has potential bandwidth to over 40KHz. Bandwidth during playback has been in that realm for a while too- most phono preamps have bandwidth on the RIAA de-emphasis curve that goes well beyond 20KHz! We spec ours to 100KHz. Most phono cartridges made since about 1970 or so have no worries going to 40KHz and MC cartridges can go much higher. In a nutshell the LP is apparently the widest bandwidth format available.


Now I know there isn't anything up there but probably noise and distortion. But there is also the issue of phase shift, and that is interpreted by the ear as a tonality. Phase shift exists whenever there is a filter; over the broadest spectrum if 6db per octave (going to 10x or 1/10 the frequency of the cutoff, depending on whether its a low frequency or high frequency cutoff) and less spectrum with increasing orders, although more phase shift as you approach the cutoff frequency.


I notice the difference between analog and digital right away; so does my girlfriend; its not hard to hear. I've not done research but I suspect that bandwidth thing has been ignored in this ongoing...  - thing.

Guys,
Thanks to all.
For me, certainly, a learning experience.
I do find high end playback of vinyl made from analog tape preferable to16/44.1 versions of the same albums, to high definition tape transfer of old master tapes, and to  'remastered' (hiss filtering with treble augmentation) analog tape recordings, but not to high definition digitally recorded music.
Digitalization of those voluminous lp collections is, if the sonic result is to approximate direct lp playback, tedious, time consuming, and demands (as in part johnss mentioned) expensive equipment.
I would like to see 'labels' offer high end' digital conversions of 'master' vinyl pressings as opposed to the tape transfers they sometimes market without stating the source of such offerings.
Do some offer digitalization of sometimes 'historic' vinyl pressings, perhaps 'master pressings' made at the outset of the commercialization of a performance  ? 

Although it's been stated a dozen times, some people don't believe it because they have not, or can not achieve it. That is, duplication of a vinyl LP to the hard-drive on a computer to the extent that even the most devoted vinyl enthusiast can not tell the difference between the computer playback and the record being played on the turntable.

Some years ago, when this argument was raging, they (analogers) said it couldn't be done. The PC and the digital people said it could. I knew very little about PC at that time so I listened. There are cards that you have to change in your computer, plus have the proper analog to digital conversion equipment that's compatible with your computer. "Benchmark" came out with the conversion unit. (There was none available when I began, so I had to buy one of lesser than audiophile quality and rebuild it, I'm an electronics technician)

I'm not sure if you can purchase the Benchmark new any more because I think they quit making it. But no one is saying the LP is not special; I am saying that I capture every nuance that it delivers, and enjoy the exquisite sound of each LP on my computer play-back.

@seventies, this topic has been beat to death over the years; many claiming digital is more pure than analogue and analogue has so many colorations that don't exist in digital. If you are simply ripping your LPs for ease of use, that is one thing. But if you really get serious with this you need to consider using a master clock.

24/96 files with a master clock sound much better than 24/192 files w/o a master clock.

and 24 / 192 files with a master clock begin to sound more like high speed analog tape.

so while both formats have their advantages and drawbacks, digital does not out do real analogue....

Seventies, no argument from me except there is something special about the LP. Somehow it blends with the human psyche. I do not think it will disappear so fast. Eventually maybe as supplies of oil dry up.
Cleeds, that is exactly what I mean and my point. Vinyl is like cat nip. We are drawn to it for reasons that go beyond just the sound.. There is something about digital that disturbs the minds of many of us and it is not the sound as that can be excellent. There are several here that have expressed a hatred of digital that is unfounded. Why? What is it about the format that bothers them. They will say that it sounds bad but that is not the reason unless they truly have not been exposed to the better digital sources. All modern music is captured as digital files. I guess if they don't see it or rather hear it directly it does not matter? As long as it finishes up on vinyl? 

Gentlemen, as the dust settles and more information, some recently 'published' as in 'Positive Feedback', becomes available, I find it hard to dispute that:

1. Analog tape is 'gone' save for a few 'boutique' studios.
2. Almost all digital and vinyl commercial recordings are made from digital encoding and recording of  the analog audio signal.
3. The 'magic'....if there is such magic...of vinyl resides in the electro-mechanical 'cutting' and replaying process, and this characteristic is reproducible by high resolution digitalization of vinyl playback.

As digital technology advances the foregoing comments become moot.
With availability of quad DSD, 'DXD' or still higher resolution, record players will go the way of Edison devices. 

'Meanwhile', I suspect that 'vintage' LP's retain sonic information, particularly high frequency information, longer and better than audio tape, which is subject to different forms of time-related degradation.

That may be the best reason to hold on to those expensive record players.

Benchmark also makes the best vinyl transfer to digital, on your hard-drive.

Presently I'm working on my third time down-loading my vinyl to hard-drive. After purchasing a more expensive cartridge and NOS tubes for the phono-pre, in order to enjoy the improvements on playback from the computer, this has to be done.

It wasn't easy to get identical results from just spinning a record and computer playback, but many of us have it.

The advantages are many; I can program my play-list and listen all night long in the bedroom rig without getting out of bed.

My old records are clean and like new because I seldom handle them.

I think you enjoy records more when you program the playlist for mood, and select LP's that generate that mood.


Enjoy the music.

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.

@rossb,

I agree with your first point.  I take it as a given that subjecting a signal to yet another process, especially in the home environment, would necessarily degrade it tp some extent.  It may sound superficially unchanged, but in the low level and spatial details that we, audiophiles, crave it will change IMO.

I do disagree with your second point.  HW of VPI measures the success of his TTs by how close their sound comes to master tapes.  Any difference has to be called distortion, whether by having the tape altered so that it is ready for the cutting process, or by all the cutting plating and duplication implicit in the disk production process.  

Consider the difference between an analog master tape and the first disk to come out of production (and they deteriorate as production continues) played on an excellent set-up.  Consider also the difference between that master tape and a digital copy made by the best available professional ADC equipment and played back on an excellent set-up.  I's only a surmise but I suspect the digital copy would be "virtually" indistinguishable from the original.  The vinyl would be fairly easy to distinguish; I'm not saying which would be "better."

I have a pretty good analog set-up and am building a good digital one.  Lots of learning here, especially about what comes before the DAC.  I like them both though it is hard to argue with the ease of dealing with the digital.  I just press an icon on my phone to hear anything in my digital collection.  It may be strange, compared to what I have written, but I tend to judge changes in my digital set-up to my analog sound.--specially spatial things.  Of course, some digital sounds DIGITAL.  And some analog sounds lousy.  But some digital stereo sounds as good as anything.  At the moment I am thinking of new Shostakovich/Nelsons recordings.  But some old old, originally analog, recordings (RCA, Decca for ex.) sound just great and no worse than the original disks that I have--some really better.

So at the moment I do not prefer one medium over the other (convenience notwithstanding).  Just my $.02.

mijostyn

There is more to vinyl than just the sound. There is the collection and handling of records. There is no way to duplicate this digitally even if you can duplicate the sound digitally. Those of you who do not think you can have obviously not tried it. Don’t believe me. Michael Fremer has commented on this subject numerous times and uses the process for demonstration all the time.

Some will disagree, but not me. It is incredible how digital can capture the sound of an LP, especially if you’re not confined to 16/44.1

Personally, I do not record my records to the hard drive. It takes way to much time and effort. I’m just fine with playing my records the old fashioned way.

Same here - it’s tedious process to dub an LP to digital. I have done it with just a handful of exceptional or rare recordings that I also wanted to be able to have in a digital playlist but otherwise, when I want to play an LP, I just play an LP.

Buy the way Cleeds, all vinyl playback systems are sonically colored and euphORic. Reality is sometimes a hard pill tp swallow.

I am sorry if reality is so difficult for you to accept that you seek relief through euphoria. I hope it is not drug-induced, because that’s a slippery slope.

Here is the definition of euphoria:
yoo-fawr-ee-uh, -fohr- noun 1. A state of intense happiness and self-confidence: She was flooded with euphoria as she went to the podium to receive her Student Research Award.Psychology.
2. a feeling of happiness, confidence, or well-being sometimes exaggerated in pathological states as mania.
(Obviously, your inanimate turntable cannot have, "A state of intense happiness and self-confidence.")

Just recently on another Forum I visit but am not a Member.
There has been Needle Drops carried out to present a Vinyl System with a Particular Device added.

There was a suggestion made on how to listen to the needle drops using a Digital Set Up, and a few who followed the information were quite impressed with what they were perceiving.

To get this correct does seems to make sense as a Cartridge today is quite a expensive consumable and if a Digital Recording of any Vinyl Album can satisfy a owner/user, and be used as a Substitute for the Vinyl, then the Cartridge might get used a little less and lengthen it usable life.

Removing the TT Set Up from the equation and a DAC,
what is the projected outlay to acquire the Devices required to produce a Recording of a Analogue to Digital Conversion.

   

To the above, that is correct, any form of recorded music is, recorded. It is not live, and has whatever coloration the recording may add. However, if a live show was recorded flat, no EQ, or any other fix, effect etc... IMO that recording would sound better on vinyl vs. digital. Perhaps it is a personal preference, but I too think vinyl has the edge on SQ over digital. 

rossb,  I hate to tell you this, but vinyl sounds artificial too.  Anyone can tell the difference between a vinyl record playing in the room and people performing in the room.

You like vinyl and that's great, but it's just a substitute for the real thing.  When we get to the point where you can't tell the difference between a live performance and a reproduction someday, it will be digital or some not yet developed form of information storage and playback.

rossb
Your statement "digital recordings played back as lp's still sound digital"
is a great point for discussion.
Remember records marketed as 'digital' recordings ?  I still have a few.
I should retrieve and play them.
Meanwhile, what proportion of newly produced lp's are made without intervention of digital....from tape I presume ?
All answers appreciated.

@rossb It would be helpful for you to disclose the ADC and DAC on which you base this conclusion. It's all relative to the level of equipment.

I disagree with the basic premise of this thread.

First, I don’t agree that digital recordings of LPs sound indistinguishable from the originals in all respects.

Second, I don’t agree that the reason LPs often sound better than digital recordings is euphonic distortions or colorations.

Addressing the first point, in my experience, digital recordings of LPs can sound extremely good and can be indistinguishable from the original at a superficial level. But over the longer term the digital recording suffers from the same issues as all digital recordings - a slight sense of artificiality, a slight sense of remove from the musical event, and a sense of unease which is so slight as to be almost unfelt. These differences are not apparent on an A/B comparison, but do become apparent if listening over a longer time period. This is not to say that digital recordings of LPs (or digital recordings per se) cannot sound good or be enjoyed over the longer term; they certainly can, but it is a different experience to listening to a purely analog recording.

Second, it is true that LP playback involves many distortions and colorations, introduced by the various stages of equilization, the physical process of playback, including tracking distortions and the mechanical movement of the stylus in the groove, the and the additional gain stages (amongst others). But I believe for most listeners of high end vinyl systems, vinyl remains preferable despite these obvious issues.

The distortions in vinyl are often only too audible, and yet we tolerate them precisely because vinyl does seem to recreate something of the original performance that digital somehow does not capture. It is not that vinyl sounds better because it is adding something; it is that digital is still not yet able to reproduce something essential in the musical experience. It may be timing errors and pre or post-ringing, it may be aliasing artifacts, I don’t really know. Digital has improved remarkably over the last decade or so and is extremely good. At a superficial level it really does sound "transparent" to the source material; but at a deeper level many of us continue to have a sense that there is still something missing. And that is why we still listen to vinyl, despite its obvious limitations, distortions and colorations - we listen through these because it still captures something essential which digital has not quite been able to do yet.

If it were true that people prefer vinyl because of additive distortions and colorations, then this would be relatively easy to demonstrate. Digital recordings on LP would sound just as good as analog recordings. But they don’t. Digital recordings played back as LPs still sound digital - they still have that sense of artificiality, only with LP’s distortions added as well. And it would be possible to add LP-like distortions and colorations to digital files to make them sound like LPs. I have seen many attempts at this and they have all failed - they still just sound like bad digital recordings, and nothing like good analog playback.

If digital recordings of LPs were in fact indistinguishable from the originals, and the reason people prefer LPs is because of additive distortions, then I would agree that this would be a strong argument for the superiority of digital playback. But I do not think those premises are correct, and the reason many - though not all - discerning people with good critical listening skills and good hi fi systems prefer vinyl is the inherent limitations of digital, not the additive distortions of vinyl.

There is more to vinyl than just the sound. There is the collection and handling of records. There is no way to duplicate this digitally even if you can duplicate the sound digitally. Those of you who do not think you can have obviously not tried it. Don't believe me. Michael Fremer has commented on this subject numerous times and uses the process for demonstration all the time. Personally, I do not record my records to the hard drive. It takes way to much time and effort. I'm just fine with playing my records the old fashioned way. There is a mystique in the process. Watching the record spin in wonder that such a crude process could sound so good. 
Buy the way Cleeds, all vinyl playback systems are sonically colored and euphORic. Reality is sometimes a hard pill tp swallow. 

seventies

Increased measurable distortion and decreased dynamic range inherent in vinyl playback are, I believe, hard to dispute.

The potential dynamic range of the LP format exceeds that which most music requires. That was true even before the loudness wars, which have only further reduced dynamic range. If you have any doubts about that, check the dynamic range database.

The distortions that are inherent in LP playback can often be reduced to levels that are essentially inaudible, and that’s why sometimes the best version of a particular recording is the one from LP. At their very best, the results from LP and digital are very, very close. So your wish to obtain the quality of "vinyl playback" without using a turntable doesn’t really make any sense.

As I mentioned previously, some people enjoy the warm, euphonic, tubey distortion they can get by using sonically colored turntables, pickup arms, cartridges and phono sections. Perhaps that’s the sound you’d like to achieve using only digital playback.

Cleeds,
With all those thoughts I largely or entirely agree.
Please let me know if you elsewhere come upon similar discussion, this being a relatively specific discussion.   There are bits and pieces, but where to find a more comprehensive review ?
Meanwhile, my 'own personal view' is focused on DXD as a PCM/DSD 'one format suits all high resolution seekers' solution.
Another topic I'm happy to discuss.
Again thanks,
'Seventies'