@seventies - what appears to be something that may be "quite achievable", certainly from a technical perspective
- I think that it would be a considerable undertaking for any record label to setup yet another "stream" of source material to package and store (if on CD), distribute and market.
And that’s before you factor in which sample rates to provide
So what appears to be a relatively simple undertaking, may actually may turn out to be something few labels would even consider.
Generally - Record Exec’s are there to make money - fast!
- and today, spinning of a vinyl stream of business from a digital source is relatively easy
Spinning off a digital source from a vinyl replay would probably be considered as - NOT required, NOT profitable or even sensible, by those same Record Exec’s - just to cater to "a few" audiophiles
Jeton is a very specialized company and provide highly specialized product to a select few - not the mode of operation of your more normal record companies
High-res digital audio, well above 24/192, is readily available from many sites and the trend will continue to even higher rates. But even so, the companies thqt offer high res digital are not so "mainstream" - I'm thinking apple here :-)
I think higher-res digital may probably satisfy the vast majority of audiophiles
I also think for the "kids of today" the more recent "allure of vinyl" has far more to do with it being unique, as opposed to sounding superior
- they just like to have something different to show off to their friends
- they also like those other traits of vinyl, such as the artwork and the sleeve content.
- and - most vinyl today comes with a convenient digital download - best of both worlds
At least - that is my own personal view of this particular line of thought.
Cheers - Steve
|
Cleeds,
My intent in this thread was to ascertain and discuss the validity of vinyl sound achieved without vinyl.
Increased measurable distortion and decreased dynamic range inherent in vinyl playback are, I believe, hard to dispute.
Various explanations have been offered as to why some prefer the sound of playback from vinyl.
I had no intent of adding to those explanations.
If for you, Cleeds, high quality (with all that implies) music reproduction with and reproduction without intermediary of vinyl are indistinguishable or nearly so, "read no further"....
If, conversely, they are quite DISTINGUISHABLE, and if high quality digital reproduction of vinyl playback is sonically INDISTINGUISHABLE from direct vinyl playback, why not let music companies do the playback, purchase the digital result, and sidestep the expense and hassle of direct vinyl playback ?
This approach risks financial compromise of the resurgent vinyl production and home vinyl playback components of the music reproduction industry.
May I quite genuinely ask if you or other readers of this 'thread' are aware of letters to audiophile magazines or websites voicing similar thoughts ?
I appreciate your input and your helping me to verbalize these ideas.
Seventies |
seventies I’m not sure we’re on different pages ... I am talking about a sonic characteristic, a sonic ’signature’ if you wish, which is achieved only through the intermediary of vinyl. That’s where we disagree. I don’t think vinyl has any such inherent magic, special sonic signature. |
Cleeds there is additional dynamic compression that takes place during the process of cutting a record. The noise floor of digital is much lower.
As far as accuracy and low distortion is concerned high resolution digital is far superior. This does not mean that it sounds better in all cases.
I was discussing one particular case in direct comparison. Unless you have done the same thing you are making assumptions and in reality have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your latin is also a bit rusty. You can criticize me all you want. Have fun. |
Cleeds,
I'm not sure we're on different pages.
I am not talking about 'quality' connoting 'accuracy' of reproduction of a performance.
I am talking about a sonic characteristic, a sonic 'signature' if you wish, which is achieved only through the intermediary of vinyl.
Once that cutting to/reading from vinyl is accomplished the analog result can be converted to digital with preservation of that characteristic.
Were the case otherwise, why would one chose 'vinyl' or digitized playback from vinyl over high resolution digital recordings processed without intervention of vinyl ? |
seventiesDo
you agree that the audio result of initial digital recording, tape
recording, and 'direct to disc' analog recording (via vinyl lathe
cutting or lacquer to 'stamper' to vinyl) is distinct (and to many
'euphonic') so long as the music is played back from vinyl, whether or
not that analog playback signal is converted to hi resolution digital ? No, I don't. The very best quality LP playback is very, very close to the best quality digital playback.
Of course, some people like LP distortion and will go out of their way to maximize it. They'll use warm-sounding phono cartridges, tube phono sections with gobs of distortion and their alignment geometry will often be out of spec. But they like the euphonic result, which is fine. But that's not my approach - I want sound as close to neutral as I can get, regardless of the source. I want whatever distortion is inherent to be as little as possible.
|
Steve and cleeds and others,
So studios do sell digital 'copies' of vinyl sources.
Do you agree that the audio result of initial digital recording, tape recording, and 'direct to disc' analog recording (via vinyl lathe cutting or lacquer to 'stamper' to vinyl) is distinct (and to many 'euphonic') so long as the music is played back from vinyl, whether or not that analog playback signal is converted to hi resolution digital ?
If so, returning to the start of this 'thread', what imbues 'vinyl' with that sonic characteristic ?
I suspect by the process of elimination....which contributors to this thread greatly aided....that it is the electro-mechanical disc cutting and disc reading process, to which RIAA equalization is integral.
Is it the electro-mechanical cutting process ? Is it the electro-mechanical reading process ? These cannot be separated.
The result of those two electro-mechanical processes can as you affirmed be rendered digitally and as such "indistinguishable from the lp source".
So why bother with lp's, turntables, cartridges and phono pre-amps ? Why not await more from companies like Jeton Audiophile Legends ?
One may, of course, wish to digitize an lp collection. One may even feel that high frequencies (in particular) are far better preserved on lp's made 3 to 5 decades ago than on 'master tapes' of the same performances.
Respondents to this thread appreciate that such 'lp rips' must be done very well...or not done at all.
Again thanks |
mijostynThank you cleeds. But euphonic would mean "true sound" which it is not. The definition of euphonic is "pleasing to the ear" not "true sound." In fact, euphonic reflects a deviation from accuracy. I’m not sure why you seek to apply your own, conflicting definition to such a simple word. There are a host of distortions that are inherent in the analog process that are not present in digital. Of course. That’s why digital was invented. It’s also true that many of those inherent analog distortions can be reduced to levels that can be below audibility, just as the potentially superior specs of digital don’t always yield a better sounding result. This is easy to demonstrate playing exactly the same master of Dylan’s Desire in 24/192 digital download and 45 rpm analog at the same time, in sync so you can switch back and forth between the two. The digital has a wider dynamic range as you would expect and is more detailed. You can hear this particularly in the violin. In spite of this every last person I have done this for prefers the vinyl. If the digital has a wider dynamic range than the LP, then it’s most likely the two are not cut from the same exact master. The digital recording may have wider DR, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the higher quality transfer, especially if it was made from an old master and you’re comparing it to something like an original pressing or early Mo-Fi release. So this test of yours proves nothing by itself. In any event, I’ve done similar comparisons with similar results, but also find that sometimes the digital version sounds better. And that’s the point: Sometimes, the best available version of a recording is on LP, and sometimes it’s on digital. The Mercury Living Presence LPs are good examples of this - the best version is always one of the early LPs. Although a lot of effort went in to the digital transfers, the original master tapes have aged to the point that they just can’t compete with the sonics of the LPs. And returning to the thread topic - it is possible to make digital transfers of those old Mercury LPs that are indistinguishable from the LP itself. On this, @mijostyn, we seem to agree. |
Thank you cleeds. But euphonic would mean "true sound" which it is not.
There are a host of distortions that are inherent in the analog process that are not present in digital. This is easy to demonstrate playing exactly the same master of Dylan's Desire in 24/192 digital download and 45 rpm analog at the same time, in sync so you can switch back and forth between the two. The digital has a wider dynamic range as you would expect and is more detailed. You can hear this particularly in the violin. In spite of this every last person I have done this for prefers the vinyl. The violin's details are rounded over giving a smoother presentation. The music and Dylan's voice are recessed, farther away giving one a sense of the third dimension where as the Digital is up front. Having said all this it is impossible to blind this experiment because the vinyl has occasional tics on the quiet parts that can not be hidden. But I would bet that played apart people would have a harder time deciding on a preference.
Nelson Pass admits adding harmonic distortion to his amps because it makes audiophiles happier. Certainly a preference can be based on different masters but this may not be just a digital to analog comparison. I have all the original Roxy Music Albums and just got the remastered box set. The remasters are so much better that people who never liked Roxy
are now collecting their music (two friends of mine). If you were to compare these new masters in digital to the old vinyl there would be no competition. I have many digital remasters that are superior to the original vinyl. Led Zeppelin One is a good example another would be Bowie's Aladdin Sane. |
@seventies - WRT...
One method, already mentioned, is to induce a 'label' to digitally transcribe into high resolution digital their vinyl offerings....whether or not the 'offerings' were 'cut' from sound wave to tape to acetate or from sound wave to digital to acetate.
This may be cost-effective for the listener, but can it be profitable for the studio ?
I believe it is profitable - here are a couple of examples that I know of... Take a look at the Jeton Audiophile Legends albums - on one album I have, they reproduced tracks from Jeton direct to disc masters via a Clearaudio Master Reference turntable. - I have one album by Acker Bilk on vinyl that was created by playing and recording direct to disk archive copies of tracks, but I am not sure if this is their standard production method I believe Audiophile Legends markets both vinyl and digital formats, so the digital formats may well offer what you are seeking. Considering the effort they go to - their albums are reasonably priced Another company that offers superbly recorded analogue masters is Tacet. They do offer both digital and vinyl formats. They are a "little anal" about the process of recording, most everything they do goes onto analogue tape Unfortunately on many of the vinyl pressings I own, whilst providing excellent sound quality, they do suffer from "ghosting" - where the groove following the groove currently being played can be heard due to distortions introduced by the cutting head. This is only an issue where the currently played groove is a quiet passage and the following groove is much louder. I thought it strange that they went to such lengths during the recording of the music and then did not follow through with the vinyl format by using more space between the grooves on the master. So in this case - the digital format would actually sound better than the vinyl In both cases - the process is very specialized and driven by people with "audiophile tendencies" - but the more mainstream labels these days use a digital masters, so they would see no "value" in such processes. Regards - Steve |
Just recently, I upgraded my analog rig; I bought NOS tubes for the phono, and a new more expensive cartridge. In order to enjoy these upgrades without futzing with the TT and record each time I wanted to enjoy this improvement; I downloaded to the PC (for the third time)
Presently, I'm enjoying the incredible improvement in nuance these improvements have made. (when "nuance" is improved, so is everything else)
|
mijostynVinyl adds euphoric distortions that digital conversion has no problem capturing. Wow, if you’re experiencing euphoric distortion, you must be smoking something. Perhaps you mean euphonic. No matter. Distortion has nothing inherently to do with it. There are many explanations for why an LP might sound better than its digital equivalent (or vice versa), including different mastering. The simple answer is that when the LP sounds better, it can be faithfully transferred to digital. |
You are absolutely correct. |
Seventies, Vinyl adds euphoric distortions that digital conversion has no problem capturing. I will even make digital recordings of two cartridges reading the same record for comparison's sake.
If I played a 24/192 digital file of my turntable playing whatever, any experienced audiophile would think he was listening directly to the turntable. |
Someone asked an extremely dumb question on the internet "Why do records sound better"?
Back in the day, my record player cost $200, plus $150 for the Shure cartridge, and that was quite common, When CD came along, it sounded much better, which is why everybody went to CD.
People who had "high end" analog rigs said hold on a minute. We "commoners" didn't even know about high end analog rigs. Now to the bottom line, analog sounds better if, and only if, you have a high end analog rig; there is no mystery to that, the bottom line is MONEY.
|
"how might we as audiophiles enjoy the convenience and cost savings of vinyl sound without vinyl ?
Short answer; vinyl is cheap as it gets.
Long answer to vinyl without vinyl; you could download master tapes to your PC, that would require pockets deeper than a country well, but it would be even better.
|
Dgarretson, willewonka and others...
I cannot disagree with your last posts.
So....if for whatever reason vinyl offers euphonic sound reproduction that is preserved on highly competent transfer from vinyl to digital format, how might we as audiophiles enjoy the convenience and cost savings of vinyl sound without vinyl ?
One method, already mentioned, is to induce a 'label' to digitally transcribe into high resolution digital their vinyl offerings....whether or not the 'offerings' were 'cut' from sound wave to tape to acetate or from sound wave to digital to acetate.
This may be cost-effective for the listener, but can it be profitable for the studio ?
Another method is to transcribe to digital from the acetate template, whether or not the template is 'cut'...."ditto"....without the intermediary of the metal 'stamper' and of vinyl
Acetate will, apparently, hold up for a few dozen playbacks via phonograph cartridge.
Playback from acetate has been done. Does it sound the same as vinyl made via the intermediary of a 'stamper'...a metal plated inverse copy of the lacquer master ?
Note that conversion from acetate to digital is not what has been merchandized as 'direct to disk' recording, where tape and digital intermediaries are bypassed, and with them editing capability.
Again, a fun subject.
More thoughts ?
|
Without reading through your entire post, I can tell you that with the right equipment, there is positively, absolutely, no difference in the sound of vinyl being played on your TT, and vinyl that has been ripped to your PC that is being played back.
Some years ago, this debate was raging, and what I just stated was concluded. But you have to have the right equipment.
Not favoring analog or digital, I listened to the PC people and the digital people, as well as "Stereophile", and I got it right. Everyday I listen to my vinyl that has been ripped to PC, with the confidence that it is no difference from listening to my TT through my analog rig.
As a matter of fact, when I upgrade my cartridge, or anything else, I have to do the recording process all over if I want to enjoy the upgrade.
I hope this answers your question.
|
I have many red-book cd duplicates of my vinyl records. I like to think that my vinyl set-up is pretty good (TNT, all tube phono pre). Generally the digitals can sound as good as the vinyls, but without the usual vinyl artifacts of noise and inner groove distortion. Occasionally the vinyls sound better where sufficient care seems not to have been made in the digital mastering. Given the variations in analog pressings, the digital often has better SQ. It took me some years and some $$ to come to this conclusion. Also, I don’t think it requires better than red-book digital to do as well as vinyl as LPs, generally, do not exceed red-book specs.
IMO the reason that some believe that the digital cannot be as good as the vinyl is that they have expensive vinyl set-ups and think that by buying a DAC with the right chip they are doing justice to digital. Fact is, you have to spend a good bit of cash and take considerable care to know how well digital can do. A bit is not a bit is not a bit.
In digital I think of the bit delivery system, that is what comes before the DAC, as the digital turntable and cartridge. As with analog, it needs to be done well for if it is lost there it can never be recovered. All bits are not equal. I think of the DAC as the phono pre which can only do as well as what its input is. As with a pre, simply putting out an analog signal does not necessarily make for a great pre. |
Given all the effort involved to make and sequence a recording of an LP, it's worth the added step to first clean the LP and get rid of as many of those clicks and pops as possible. For me that means ultrasonic cleaning followed by a VPI 16.5.
|
@seventies - what I said was - I cannot tell the difference between the vinyl and the digital AS PLAYED & RECORDED on MY system
Let's not forget the many nuances of musical reproduction...
From a piece of vinyl.
- the details of the master cutting and subsequent pressing
- the sound of te actual cartridge
- the mounting of the cartridge - impacts sound/tone
- VTA - Toe-up or down, changes the sound to suit a person's hearing
- the cables/connectors involved
- the phono stage
From a digital source file.
- how the data is transferred to the DAC
- the cables used
- the abilities of the DAC
- the abilities of the DAC's analogue stage
Even before you posted - I listened to an album that I have in both formats from the record company - the digital download was 16/44
- from a "fidelity" perspective, I could NOT hear any difference.
But that is NOT the case with ALL albums
- e.g. for some reason my Peter Gabriel album, SO, sounds much better on vinyl. Again, the cutting/pressing process may account for this.
Some Albums are exquisitely recorded in analogue and then reproduced in digital
- in this case the vinyl has 100% of the signal
- whereas the digital does not really have 100%
- doesn't it stand to reason the vinyl should sound more "complete"?
The Nyquist Rate, whilst providing significant scientific evidence as to why digital should work, does not really factor in everybody's hearing abilities.
The ear is an extremely sensitive "instrument" and is different, person to person - in some cases NOT so sensitive :-)
Also, don't forget the "romantic" allure of vinyl. The pops and crackles that add to the "charm" of older recordings
AND those readable vinyl covers
- you get great artwork, sometimes words and thoughts of the artist
- you may get them on a CD, but you need microscope to read them
- not very "appealing".
Also, if you attend a live performance - there is crowd & venue noise, artist/band mistakes and ad-libs
- with vinyl there are the pops and crackles to add "COLOR"
- with digital there is just "perfect music"
- which actually sounds a bit too clinical for many ears..
When I started in this hobby there was no digital
- when it came out I switched - I liked the cleaner sound
- my vinyl rig was not very good and the CD player was much better than the TT
- then I started to improve the analogue rig
Today - I can listen to either - if not for the pops and crackles, they both [provide about the same level of "fidelity" and enjoyment
My older pressings - going back to around 1954 will always sound better on vinyl - complete with pops and crackles.
The newer albums sound great in digital - better dynamics and imaging
The ones in between? - depends on MY mood and whether there is a a glass of scotch in play :-)
One album I have is Annie Lennox singing some oldies
- it has some pops and crackles and it adds to the charm.
- It definitely would NOT sound as nice in digital
- this is album I recorded WITH pops and crackles, as mentioned above
- sounds great anywhere I play it.
No real answer to your post, but hopefully some insight into the more "human" side of vinyl
Regards - Steve
|
The answer is that vinyl contains euphonious distortions and artifacts that are accurately captured and passed through a hi-res digital recording. I’m saying this as someone who records vinyl to DSD128, and generally prefers these recordings to HD Tracks hi-res digital downloads of the same material.
I do differ with others insofar as my DSD128 vinyl recordings do not quite equal the vinyl source played entirely in the analog domain. But they are close enough.
|
willewonka and cleeds and others,
1. I am gratified to hear that audiophiles like yourselves with high end equipment cannot discern the difference between vinyl played 'directly' and vinyl converted to hi resolution digital....as has been my experience.
So why does vinyl sound different (I would say very different) from digital without intermediate conversion of a digital signal to vinyl ?
2. Regarding the Nyquist theorem, sampling at the 'Nyquist rate' can capture 100% of the information contained in a sine wave.
But we are talking about digital encoding of that signal, a very different matter. With one-bit encoding, for example, DSD employs a sampling rate of 64 times the 'Nyquist' frequency, and on up to quadruple that number.
3. So why purchase a lp from, for example. Presto Classical (the British vendor) as opposed to a 24/192 version pf the same album ?
Why don't the 'labels' offer ultra high end digital conversions of
those lp's....to DSD, DXD, your choice ?
I see huge savings in postage, storage space, and of course ease of playback.
So why ???
Regards to all, 'seventies'. |
I’ve also made several digital 16/44 copies of vinyl albums. I keep it simple - each digital copy has two tracks Side A and Side B. I do no need to have a digital recording of each track On playback on my audio system I am unable to discern and difference between the the two sources. My reason for doing this is so I can enjoy the digital version of the album in any other part of the house/garden on a streaming device and NOT have to setup a more elaborate solution. I use a Behringer UCA222 - comes with Audacity software https://www.behringer.com/product.html?modelCode=P0A31But you will need a pre-out (or tape out) on your amp Regards - Steve |
seventies 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. This is a widely shared belief but it is a misnomer. Provided the signal is within bandwidth to satisfy Nyquist Theorem, the sine wave can be reproduced exactly. Remember that Nyquist isn’t a theory - it’s a theorem. If you can’t get your head around the math, this guy offers a pretty good visual demonstration. mijostynMy phono stage runs through an ADC into 24/192 digital to digital processor ... Conversion back and forth into and out of 24/192 digital is invisible (inaudible). Like @mijostyn, I can make outstanding quality digital files from LP that I think are indistinguishable from the LP source. It requires good equipment and it’s a tedious process, but it’s do-able. |
Mijostyn,
Aha !, and thanks.
I assume we are 'on the same page', that transcription of an audio signal to vinyl imparts unique sonic quality, one that your high end system
duplicates by conversion of the vinyl 'signal' to high resolution digital.
So what in your opinion is the source of that quality ?
|
Seventies, I do this every day. My phono stage runs through an ADC into 24/192 digital to digital processor along with all other sources. You can run back and forth between the output of the phono stage and the output of the DAC and you would never know which one you were listening to.
You can check my system out on it's page. Conversion back and forth into and out of 24/192 digital is invisible (inaudible) |
Ok
No
No
Don't know and
Yes, different materials sound different, The best has no sound at all, I haven't found that material yet, CLOSE but not perfect...
That's the reason for small planars and ribbons..
Regards |
