vinyl versus digital redux

4trackmind

... The characteristic upper bass/lower-mid bloat peakiness OF VINYL sounding like a phase-distorted bathtub affect is the thing I, personally, have never been able to stand about "vinyl sound"...

That "characteristic" isn’t inherent to LP playback, although it’s surely common with cheap and/or poorly aligned equipment.

The wild-eyed claims of vinyl’s frequency abilities also prey-upon the uninformed (and: always seem to be spoken by snake-oil hucksters selling $20k turntables!) ...

Please tell us what $20K turntable you think represents "snake oil."

If one is NOT talking about the obsolete tech of quadraphonically-encoded records neccessitatingly played back with a Shibata stylus, then all of vinyl’s far-flung frequency specs are totally irrelevant and a moot point. Vinyl, for one, is THE WORST for Classic Rock in STEREO. Much too hollowed-out. The 1969 Ampex 3 3/4ips reel of Led Zepp II, for example, is the next best vintage source to the Ludwig first pressing(!).

Those tapes sound awful. In addition to the limitation imposed by the slow tape speed, those commercial releases were dubbed at high speed, so any high frequencies that might otherwise have survived tape saturation don’t even have a chance. Even a 7.5 ips commercial tape can usually be pretty easily outperformed by a decent LP and turntable.

Don’t get me wrong - I like tape. But just as with LP, its performance potential is often not realized. And tape has its inherent challenges - including properly aligning bias to tape when recording, and of course HF saturation, EQ and tape head alignment.

Raulirugas, 4trackmind and others, I appreciate your comments and....unless I 'missed something'....agree. 
1. 4trackmind, could you please clarify: in stating that "24 bit and dsd re-mastered cd's come a lot closer to sounding like an original 1960's copy of a quarter track....", do you mean that they sound as did the tape recordings when whey were
new, before time and playback had taken their toll of the sonic information ?
2. Regarding DSD vs PCM, and in the context of 'DSD re-mastered CD's, and assuming that DSD-PCM differences hugely diminish at the highest available digital 'throughputs', are you tempted to broach another subject:  Do DSD 64 (not 128 or 256) and ?? RSR 'ladder' DAC's smooth lower resolution digital sound such that it, like vinyl' is more palatable even if less 'realistic' ?
Thanks again for your thoughts.

To my own ears of having always been around, for instance, REEL TO REEL tape; IMHO:  24-bit and DSD remastered cds come A LOT closer to sounding like an original 1960s copy of a quarter-track, 7 1/2ips vintage commercial tape (in terms of: capturing soundstage width as well as bass response, especially) than vinyl ever could.  The characteristic upper bass/lower-mid bloat peakiness OF VINYL sounding like a phase-distorted bathtub affect is the thing I, personally, have never been able to stand about "vinyl sound".  Of course, someone restricting the debate to records vs.: (badly mastered) 16-bit cds, computer audio, streaming, mp3's, etc. won't recognize that and therefore think vinyl (beholden, by default, to being a "component grade" audio medium) is the top-of-the-heap....BUT: it's a disingenious argument when the buyer DOESN'T know what was considered above LP playback when there was no digital (and, too: when records were a mass-market $5 item and not a $40-up boutique novelty).

The wild-eyed claims of vinyl's frequency abilities also prey-upon the uninformed (and: always seem to be spoken by snake-oil hucksters selling $20k turntables!).  Truth is: THOSE specs came from JVC's parameters for reproducing Discrete Quadraphonic records in the 70s; requiring a Shibata stylus and an outboard demodulator to "unscramble" a 30khz subcarrier pilot signal containing rear channel matrixed information (which, as a sidebar: if anyone ever experimented with such arcane gear for fun, even a quality rtr deck was able to register the quad beacon "birdie" while recording at 15ips....even the single motor Panasonic/Technics model RS-736 rtr I had from my father in 1972).

If one is NOT talking about the obsolete tech of quadraphonically-encoded records neccessitatingly played back with a Shibata stylus, then all of vinyl's far-flung frequency specs are totally irrelevant and a moot point.  Vinyl, for one, is THE WORST for Classic Rock in STEREO.  Much too hollowed-out.  The 1969 Ampex 3 3/4ips reel of Led Zepp II, for example, is the next best vintage source to the Ludwig first pressing(!).

Dear friends/ @seventies : ""   is way superior to the analog one no matters what.  ""

Wrong what I posted. What I wanted to say is that that proves that digital records/plays exactly the information we recorded.

So, it's really an accutared medium. @dgarretson  confirmed it when he posted that in his system he can listen tiny differences in what was recorded in digital medium because it's imposible that can sounds the same as the vinyl direct sound due to the converters ( ADC/DAC ) in the digital domain and the cable used to transmit from vinyl play to digital device. 

R.

Dear @seventies : " So vinyl to high resolution digital retains the ’magic’ that many associate with vinyl sound. What other than an electro-mechanical groove-cutting process underlies that ’magic’ ?

First than all non-exist that " magic " we audiophiles " like " to think and just do not accept is not " magic ".

@dgarretson at the very first page of your thread posted:

""" The answer is that vinyl contains euphonious distortions and artifacts that are accurately captured and passed through a hi-res digital recording. """

Other than the cutting/pressing process the recorded LPs came with a huge developed distortions developed through the nigthmare overall LP playback process. The " magic " are only every kind of developed distortions you can imagine not music information and these non-music information is captured with accuracy for the digital medium that with this fact proves that digital medium is way superior to the analog one no matters what.

I think you agree with when posted:


"" By high resolution bit rate I mean bit depth times sampling frequency. As that rate increases, format differences diminish. DAD 256 verses PCM 24/192 ? Take your pick.

Recording standard is evolving to PCM 24/352, because PCM allows editing that DSD does not.

Music recorded at that resolution has no peer in the ’history’ of sonically preserving performances. Prefer the ’magic’ of vinyl ? No problem. Such is available. But the ’master tape’ is now a master hi res digital file, now a huge upgrade over the ’DDD’ lp’s touted a few decades ago. ""

Absolutely rigth !.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Btw, you posted:

"""" one might question why digital made without the intermediary of vinyl sounds so different from vinyl. A detective story ?

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

No detective story: both are way different mediums, so today : why any one could thinks that both mediums should sounds alike when that is just impossible ?

The analog deffenders likes all those high euphonic distortions against way lower distortions in the digital medium. Yes it's not that digital do not like to them as medium but that digital has not those euphonic distortions all of us are accustom to: go figure ! !

.... 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.

Analog tape is not a panacea. Just like vinyl, it significantly colors the sound.

To be clear, analog tape colors the sound more than the LP, owing to the fact that a properly functioning tape machine will exhibit a 3rd harmonic, which contributes to 'bloom' and apparent detail.

Love the redux.

I think that was one gummy to many. 

@atmasphere,load up Pure Vinyl on a Mac laptop and record all your demo songs as a playlist in 24/192 AIFF. Until you can verify that very few if any can tell the difference between the two, continue to carry both systems. Once you can honestly face anyone and tell them they can't hear the difference you can ditch the analog demo gear and keep those special LPs where they belong, at home under lock and key.
Now you have another problem. Anybody buying a tube amp is going to prefer analog. So, now you have to design an output transformerless solid state amp. If Mcintosh can do one with transformers it should be a walk in the park. 

o_holter
As time passes, I appreciate more your response.
Have you or others reading this purchased 'high definition tape transfers' as download files ?
Have any of you found a single example of such transfers (from 'classic recordings) that retains more than a 'semblance' of high frequency detail ?
Indeed, vinyl retains the high frequency and other detail 'extant' at the time of the 'pressing', at least during our lifetimes.
And those pressings were made from newly recorded high speed tape.
Meanwhile, the high resolution digital era has arrived, and it is possible to experience 'vinyl' sound as transfer from vinyl to high resolution digital...it seems that 24/192 or dsd 128 is required.
So vinyl to high resolution digital retains the 'magic' that many associate with vinyl sound.  What other than an electro-mechanical groove-cutting process underlies that 'magic' ?
With such transfer made from lp's 'cut' from high speed tape 'masters' shortly after the initial recording much of the high frequency detail is preserved.
With such transfer made from 'vintage' high speed tape recordings....going back 30-50 years...the magic cannot be retrieved.
'Meanwhile'...in this high resolution digital era...achievable bit rates have erased digital 'glare' without loss of detail.  By high resolution bit rate I mean bit depth times sampling frequency.  As that rate increases, format differences diminish.   DAD 256 verses PCM 24/192 ?  Take your pick.
Recording standard is evolving to PCM 24/352, because PCM allows editing that DSD does not.
Music recorded at that resolution has no peer in the 'history' of sonically preserving performances.   Prefer the 'magic' of vinyl ?  No problem.  Such is available.  But the 'master tape' is now a master hi res digital file, now a huge upgrade over the 'DDD' lp's touted a few decades ago.  

Atmasphere! I have two original copies of It's a Beautiful Day! I loved it so much I bought another copy worried I would play the one to death.

Finding the original Columbia of that is no easy task. It sounded great, and people played them to death. I found an original European copy that is excellent; never found the original American in decent condition. I stopped looking years ago- the European press is far better than any of the later American pressings. I usually have this LP with me when I do shows, since so many people have heard it.  I've been accused of cheating by playing LPs like this, but heck, if your software doesn't sound good neither will your stereo.

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...

Audio2design argued that analog tapes suffer from use, not (proper) storage.My experience is different. Storage, over time, means more dull sound. Most notable on poor tapes, after 15-20 years especially. Judging from the nearly 1000 tapes I recorded on the Revox A77, in the 70s 80s.

I also love Its a Beautiful Day. I have a promo copy of the LP that plays very well indeed. Must play it - thanks for reminding me! I remember White Bird, is just mesmerizing.

Seventies - thank you - I think the issue here is that magnetic tapes detoriate over time, while vinyl records don't, unless you bring them to parties, everyone dances on them - or, more seriously speaking, they have been played with a very poorly setup cartridge, something you cannot see when visually examining the record. All this happens - as every vinyl collector knows. The LP may look pristine but it sounds grungy since the actual groove has been harmed. But - apart from such problems - vinyl is "true to the moment", as far as I know. Comparable to bread fresh from the bakery, versus something re-heated ten years after.. Take your pick. I have a lot of cases, now, in my LP collection, where I have bought more recent remasters, and yes, they are sometimes very well done, but they aren't as fresh-sounding as the originals. The sense of air and treble bite is usually where I hear this most clearly. It should be said, with the best of the remasters, it is not so clear, like with the recent Vanilla Fudge first album on Mofi. It is 45 rpm, which helps "lift" the treble a bit, even if its doesn't fully substitute for the original.

So, the remaster may sound better than the original (like the Mofi Vanilla Fudge), but it is very seldom that I sell my original or early reprint LPs due to buying a new remaster. The remasters often sound a bit "civilized" compared to the unruly originals, with all their grunge and so on. The sound is maybe updated for a new audience used to streaming. But the music from this period wasn't meant to be "civilized" or "nice". It was meant to be awakening, unruly, and even revolutionary. If in doubt, listen to Spirit, Twelve dreams of dr Sardonicus. Preferably the LP.

I must admit, it is time consuming and a bit tedious, but well worth the effort.


Enjoy the music.

@orpheus10  As I have said, recording albums is tedious work. I like playing records. It is tradition, I have thousands of them, I like it.
I have thousands of files on the hard drive. There is always something I want to hear in either format so I do not have to spend a lifetime recording records. If you only had a few records and a few files it might make sense. For me, not.

Mijostyn,

"Playing vinyl I prefer it right off the diamond."

Why would you prefer it right off the diamond if you could hear the same thing off the hard-drive?

Wouldn't it be easier to relax in the "sweet spot" and not have to get up at the end of side 1 to flip the record over, and repeat that for each record.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying you don't hear the same thing when you load up a digital playlist and let the computer go at it?


Anyone who is not getting the same thing "off-the hard-drive" as "off the diamond" is not doing something right, because I am getting the same thing "off the hard-drive" as "off the diamond".


Is this a case of the "fox and the grapes"?

Atmasphere! I have two original copies of It's a Beautiful Day! I loved it so much I bought another copy worried I would play the one to death. 
Orpheus, you need to check out Channel D's website. I use their Pure Vinyl program which will library and store records on Apple computers.
It will even supply digital RIAA EQ but you have to have a phono stage with a flat output. I only use it for comparison's sake. As cleed opines recording albums in real time is a PITA. If I'm feeling lazy I just load up a digital playlist and let the computer go at it. I have just as many albums on the hard drive if not more. Playing vinyl I prefer it right off the diamond. 
I have heard many fine remasters of old stuff. As a matter of fact right now I am listening to a remaster of Seven Steps to Heaven. Granted I do not have an original to compare it to. Ignorance is bliss. If the music is OK, I'm OK. 

o_holter and others,
I thank particularly o_holter for his comments concerning deterioration of sound 'stored' on tape, on the sound becoming dull.
The subject has been of particular interest to me.
'Dull', truncated high frequency sound has been my experience with 're-mastered classic classical recordings and 'high definition tape transfers', a reason to avoid...or avoid purchasing...digital conversions of older tape recordings, however 'high resolution' the conversion. 
So 'unresolved' questions are: 1. Do lp's last much longer, and 2. can and need 'digital deterioration' be addressed, some type of lossless fault tolerant storage ?

What is wrong with electricity? If it were not for electricity we would not be having this conversation.
 I think you lightly dismiss digital storage. With digital storage backups are always a necessity.

:) My objection is having to use electricity to maintain the recording itself. Its nice that the recordings can sit on the shelf and sound the same ten years from now as they do now. Having worked for a while in the computer industry (albeit a long time ago) I do admit that I'm a bit distrustful of digital storage. But don't mistake that for being dismissive- I really appreciate the physical space and convenience. Digital has gotten good enough that if I had to start over, I'd probably not be so concerned about having vinyl. But OTOH have some LPs that simply won't ever get to be reissued from the masters as they are gone (ex.: Its A Beautiful Day famously burned the master tape to their best LP during a dispute with the label).

It's quite similar to recording on a reel to reel; you have to make sure the level is not too high or too low; some records are hot (high level) while others are soft, so you have to make sure that's adjusted properly on each record, but it's as easy as recording to a reel.

In regard to setting up the programming, I have someone who has a degree in computer science to assist me, I must confess, I don't  really understand computers, but he does.

orpheus10

Cleeds, first I relax in the recliner that’s in the sweet spot and listen for the needle to drop on the first LP that I’ve programmed on my play-list. Then I began to spiral into the holographic soundscape that’s presented before me ... In regard to the process, it’s no more tedious than playing a record.

I think making a high quality digital file from LP is a very tedious process, and that’s why I don’t do it more often. But I can imagine that some people might enjoy the undertaking.

Cleeds, first I relax in the recliner that's in the sweet spot and listen for the needle to drop on the first LP that I've programmed on my play-list. Then I began to spiral into the holographic soundscape that's presented before me.

Since I don't have to jump up like a jack rabbit at the end of each LP, I wait for side 2 and get deeper into the music; the same music that's coming out is the same music that went in, including every nuance.

Each LP takes me deeper into the music, music that I've accumulated over many years and all the memories associated with that music.

In regard to the process, it's no more tedious than playing a record.

orpheus10

In the beginning, hardware was made available to down-load LP’s to hard drive ...

Strictly speaking, you can’t "download" an LP to a hard drive. "Downloads" are for digital files and can be transferred at high speed. To get a digital file from an LP, the disc has to be played in real time, then run through an ADC on its way to a computer.

Eventually new computer cards came on line, and Benchmark made a new analog to digital converter (which they no longer make), also the audiophile computer cards are no longer available.

There are still plenty of high quality digital audio cards for computers, such as the Asus that records up to 24/192. Another option is an outboard ADC - of which there are many such as the Amari - or something like the M2Tech Joplin, which is an ADC that will apply RIAA eq in the digital domain. And of course there are still standalone digital recorders that include an ADC, such as the Denon DN-900R.

They said it couldn’t be done (we believers did it). They didn’t believe us, now it can’t be done because what’s needed to do it is no longer available due to lack of demand.

Nah, there’s still lotsa gear that can be used to digitize an LP. It’s just that - for the most part - people just don’t want to be bothered. After all, it is a tedious process. But it’s do-able.

I recorded 1000 or so albums on the Revox A77 1970-90, fully analog, to tape. I have great respect for tape detoriation, over time. With time, tapes lose magnetic bounding, or whatever is the term for this, and you can hear this especially in the treble - they become "dull". So, in my system, an original recording often wins out, compared to a remastering using old tapes, in terms of musical enjoyment, even if it is only from a scratchy LP - it was made there and then, it is "fresh from the bakery". 

In the beginning, hardware was made available to down-load LP's to hard drive. It was not of "Audiophile" quality. I'm a technician, I had the ability to purchase what was available and rebuild it to audiophile standards (easier said than done, had to build a new cabinet, works, but never again)

Eventually new computer cards came on line, and Benchmark made a new analog to digital converter (which they no longer make), also the audiophile computer cards are no longer available.

They said it couldn't be done (we believers did it). They didn't believe us, now it can't be done because what's needed to do it is no longer available due to lack of demand.

Presently, I'm doing what can't be done for the third time because I have what's necessary to do it, but the joke is; they said it couldn't be done and now it can't be done.

Interesting Atmasphere. I do have some Hi Res digital files that sound better than the original album. Led Zepplin One comes to mind. But, this may be due to better mastering. 
What is wrong with electricity? If it were not for electricity we would not be having this conversation.
 I think you lightly dismiss digital storage. With digital storage backups are always a necessity. A record is more likely to be destroyed in a fire than a hard drive and it's backup assuming the backup is kept in a different location. I backup my hard drive every three to four months. Once in numbers there is no way for the quality of the sound to deteriorate in any way. It remains pristine and noise free without any compression over time. 

Blasphemy!!! Keep analog as far away from digital as you can!!! 

I've done so many things that I've forgotten what I've done, but my playback is identical to playing the TT which is why I have to do this thing all over again each time I make an improvement. After I down-load my favorite LP's, I program the play list, and that's the only way I listen to my record collection.

This is the third and last time I'm doing this. I have a Stereophile "A" rated CD player, and my analog rig is head and shoulders above that, so I'm quite satisfied. Although I realize you can always get better, I doubt very seriously if I'll try.

Many others are getting the same results I'm getting so it's not that unusual. But this was back when what we were doing was new, and there were many different ways to do it. I doubt if those computer cards that enabled us to get these results are still available, but all that information is somewhere on this forum, because we had long heated debates that raged back and forth.

Some people get great joy from playing their records, I don't; I only like to enjoy how fantastic they sound after purchasing a better cartridge and NOS tubes in my case that put it all over the top.


Have fun spinning records and enjoy the music.


Thanks for answering my question.

I have made quite a lot of digital recordings of LPs, but mainly for comparison purposes, when trying to compare, say, tonearms or cartridges. I can play the samples over and over without damage to the record or stylus, and it gives me a good basis for comparing the sound of two cartridges, for example.
I also have a few records which I have recorded because they are not otherwise available in digital form.
But for most of my several thousand LPs I just listen to the record. I have a good AD converter from RME and a great DAC (a Lumin X1) but the digital recordings never sound quite as good as playing back the originals on a turntable.

Is anyone else storing their LP's on hard-drive beside myself? To me, that seems like a dumb question, but maybe it isn't.

Anyone got an estimate of the proportion of all masters which have yet to be captured in red book digital quality or higher? I’m guessing, now that Amazon, Qobuz, Tidal, and Spotify are competing on total digital library size, the proportion is small.
If the proportion of non-digitised masters is small, then we can conclude either i) not enough people want to listen to the remaining non-digitised tapes so who cares really, or ii) there should be a crowd-funder effort to complete the capture to achieve the complete permanent preservation of all The artefacts of that extraordinary period of human artistic achievement.

As for tape degradation, the SSS (sticky shed syndrome) was a major problem on Ampex 406/407, 456/457, scotch 226/227, and a few others.

After Quantegy stated they had fixed the binder problem I bought 4 new cases of 456 with the new and improved binder. They were good for the first few years, but after that they slowly degraded into sticky shed just like the earlier stuff. Ended up pulling the flanges off and tossing the balance of the remaining tape into the trash.

I bake tape for about 3 hours at 140-150 degrees if there's any question about age or storage (and these days there usually is). This will cause the moisture to exit the tape and it should be good for a few months. It helps to store the tape in a plastic bag with a packet or two (more if its 1/2" or 1" tape) of silica gel to absorb moisture. Its better to store the tape in the attic rather than the basement! We remastered an LP where the artist ('Spider' John Koerner) did exactly that and the tapes (recorded in the early 1970s) were immaculate- no shedding and no need for baking.

it is my understanding that most of the old tapes have been digitized. Correct me if I am wrong but digital storage is certainly more robust. Once in numbers that "sleepiness" can be corrected with very modest EQ as well as doing neat stuff like getting rid of the tape hiss.

Some tapes have been digitized. Many, possibly most are missing because studios sold them off or sent them to landfill. Digital storage is less robust than LP, unless the digital storage is constantly moved/backed up (which means electricity is involved for the period in which the recording is stored); if analog tape is stored properly (see above) it can last decades, but its rarely treated properly. You can't correct that 'sleepiness' with just EQ; you need a bit of expansion (as opposed to compression) and you can't do anything about the loss of detail. This is all why original LPs are usually the best 'record' (if you'll pardon the term) of an older musical event.

This is according to research done by the Library of Congress when deciding upon their long term archive needs.

That study was done sometime in the 1980s if memory serves. What they found was that laminated media (magnetic media and CD) had lifetimes in decades if stored properly (months or years if not) but amorphous media (LPs and the stampers that made them) could last centuries. The study did not include any kind of solid state media like thumb drives.

master tapes which in general will be stored properly for any media company of note

Are you forgetting about the Universal studio fire in 2008?  Apparently, it's really hard (expensive) to properly store large amounts of media.

If you're considering long term storage, as in 50+ years, vinyl discs are probably the preferred method.  This is according to research done by the Library of Congress when deciding upon their long term archive needs.

Atmasphere, it is my understanding that most of the old tapes have been digitized. Correct me if I am wrong but digital storage is certainly more robust. Once in numbers that "sleepiness" can be corrected with very modest EQ as well as doing neat stuff like getting rid of the tape hiss.
I am totally unfamiliar with DSP as might be used in the recording studio.
My experience is in using it on the reproduction side for correction and bass management. Given the variables involved in speakers, subwoofers and rooms the advantages are significant on this end.  IMHO it is always an advantage to hear and know what "flat" sounds like before modifying things to your liking. It is also a great learning experience hearing what different modifications do to the sound.

Have to side with Atmosphere here. He is correct. Would agree on the minimalist method of doing most things, and most of the major labels do have climate controlled storage conditions for their session masters. That is not to say many production or duplication masters tapes still get tossed.  Can't tell you how many times I have been to the loading dock of a major studio back in the day, and found pallets and pallets of tape waiting for the garbage truck to pick it up.... 

As for tape degradation, the SSS (sticky shed syndrome) was a major problem on Ampex 406/407, 456/457, scotch 226/227, and a few others.

After Quantegy stated they had fixed the binder problem I bought 4 new cases of 456 with the new and improved binder. They were good for the first few years, but after that they slowly degraded into sticky shed just like the earlier stuff. Ended up pulling the flanges off and tossing the balance of the remaining tape into the trash.

The earlier formulations never had this problem. Same with Scotch 206/207. Have 4 cases of 207, from the early 1980s, and it still performs like new.

Losing signal was normally not an issue.
 

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. 

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

Its easy to screw up is all! I prefer a minimalist approach, using as little as I can. The more DSP gets into the mix, the more it seems to harm the final signal. But my experience with DSP is limited to its used in recording applications.

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 ?

@seventies
Of course! Tape degrades from the day it was recorded. If you want the best sounding LP from tape, you cut the LP ASAP. You then have the lacquer plated ASAP- that's how you get a lively vivacious recording. If you wait 40 years, no matter what method you use, the master tape will sound a bit 'sleepy' compared to the day it was recorded!

Analog tape is surprisingly robust for storage. It is usage that degrades it.

@audio2design
This statement is false unless very special care is taken in storage which is quite rare! If the tape is polyester, it is prone to absorbing moisture which leads to shedding; trust me on this if a tape has gone too far you won't even be able to spool it off the reel. Think: goo

I am asking about LP's made decades ago from analog tape...whether these lp's preserve sound...particularly high frequency sound...better than does the tape itself.

Yes. LPs have a lifespan of nearly a century if stored correctly (normal humidity and temperature, upright, not too many on a shelf). Stereo LPs have bandwidth to 40KHz or so, tape does not.

Seventies, there have been many good answers in regard to your questions. I'm curious as to whether or not all your questions were answered to your satisfaction, and what decisions have you made?

How sweet it is! My favorite cut "Singing Winds and Crying Beasts" off of my all time favorite album, "Santana Abraxas" coming to me off of my computer play-list, from my latest LP down-load after new cartridge, plus NOS tubes installed in phono.


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xskk5q1DL6A


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wT1s96JIb0


It's like hearing this for the first time; although I have worn out numerous LP's that I played to death, I never heard it like I'm hearing it now. This music takes me back to the 70's, at my favorite club, the "Fontainebleau" (no, not that one, but another one with the same name)

The color was "hot pink", and ladies wore those stockings that glowed under black lights. When they walked through the club wearing these stockings, the lights from down low made it appear as though there were beautiful glowing legs walking through the club. This music intensifies my memories of those fantastic times.

Looking for a new pipe at a "head shop" was a lot of fun; there were these glowing posters, and always the smell of sweet incense, which was another item on the shopping list. Decisions, decisions; so many different sweet fragrances, which one to choose; jasmine, peach, or wild-flower?

This was the age of "Aquarius";


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajgeaOt_HTQ


Those were the most incredible times in my life, I hope you were there.


         

I am asking about LP's made decades ago from analog tape...whether these lp's preserve sound...particularly high frequency sound...better than does the tape itself.
Regarding possibly 'misleading commercialization', I refer to 'high resolution digital transfer'...ie transfer from tape... and 'digital re-mastering of tapes recorded decades ago....before high resolution digital recording became available.

When I was recording to tape in the 70s to late 80s prior to Digital, our multitrack tape machines were capable of HF response above and beyond 23-24kHz, with SN ratios approaching 70dB, depending on tape format and speed.  

One of the projects I did in the mid-80s was mixed to ½" analogue tape at 30ips as well as DAT tape 48kHz/16bit.  There was NO comparison to the sound and we stuck with the analogue tape, transferring it to DAT once the final mixes were edited & assembled for mastering. 

Many of the early CDs were mastered using what was called an EQ COPY of the master tape, taking into consideration EQ and processing for mastering to vinyl and NOT from the original master tape.  It took several years for companies to REMASTER for CD using the original tapes and not use EQ copies.

That being said, since there was a limitation of HF response on tape, purchasing anything above 96kHz of an original analogue album is a waste of money.  Even finding something at 48k/24bit is going to sound as good as the original tape... the extra 48k sampling (for 96k product) is just leftover, in most cases.  

I was mastering lacquers for vinyl in the late 70s to early 80s and my current turntable is a ReVox B791 tangent tracking system, playing vinyl EXACTLY as it was cut... straight across the middle. No groove distortion or side-to-side phase errors. 
I use a Ortofon VMS20e cartridge I purchased in 1985 and have a store of new styli as needed. 
Preamp is by Graham Slee feeding an RME interface where I transcribe into ProTools at 96kHz/24bit minimum. Conversion is done to 44.1/16bit for my old clients that have lost master tapes, allowing the to do CDs as needed. 
There is something magical that happens between the groove, stylus and preamp that is hard to compare with digital transfers of the master tape. In many cases, I will purchase 96k or higher files of albums even though I have a great vinyl copy... and they do sound different. 
Just my $.02. 

It's hard for me to understand other people's problems because I don't have any.


Just about the time CD's came out, I was buying LP's like crazy. CD's "appeared to be" superior to LP's, so I went exclusively into CD's, leaving all my new LP's going unplayed. (I had the same kind of record player we all had back in the day) A CD and CD player was, and still is clearly superior to that rig.


Not until many years later was "high end" analog revealed to me; it wasn't the record, but the "record player". Back in the day, we spent $200, for TT, and 60 to $150 for cartridge; that was common. You know what's common for our analog rigs now, a lot more than back then, plus they are many times more complex, no wonder records sound better.


"I am asking about LP's made decades ago from analog tape...whether these lp's preserve sound...particularly high frequency sound...better than does the tape itself."

The LP sounds good, but never better than the tape.


As a result of not playing all those old records after purchase, I have many new LP's that were purchased back in the day. Just yesterday, I down-loaded "Azymuth Spectrum", recorded in Rio Brazil 1985, and I must have purchased it about that time; this album is dead silent. That's representative of many of my LP's. I can't answer questions about these new processes.

Cleeds, bluemoondriver, 
Apologize if I did not clarify.
I concur that lp's newly made from tape or high resolution digitalization of an audio source can be 'very close to the master tape' except that 'cutting the spiral groove' (what I termed an electro-mechanical process) changes the 'original sound' in a manner pleasing to some listeners.
I am asking about LP's made decades ago from analog tape...whether these lp's preserve sound...particularly high frequency sound...better than does the tape itself.
Regarding possibly 'misleading commercialization', I refer to 'high resolution digital transfer'...ie transfer from tape... and 'digital re-mastering of tapes recorded decades ago....before high resolution digital recording became available.
One company, 'High Definition Tape Transfers' (HDTT is their logo) offers downloads in a choice of digital resolution.  To my ear 'high resolution' is a specious claim insofar as one is making a high resolution digital copy of a time-degraded source....ie. low resolution in particular respect of lost high frequency information.
Digitally "re-mastered" tapes from that era, also sold as downloads or streamed, and sometimes not identified as 'remastered', are subject to the same loss of initially recorded information.  Resolution is not and cannot be improved by boosting the treble.
Am I misleading ?

bluemoodriver

Well this seems to make sense, but am I oversimplifying?When the artist’s work is prepared for distribution, a vinyl pressing is made and digital streaming files are prepared.

Yes, you have already substantially oversimplified. There are many steps involved in "making a vinyl pressing."

The digital streaming files will be identical to the digital mix prepared for distribution.

Not necessarily. CD is limited to 16/44.1, but streaming from a source such as Qobuz can be in hi-res.

Some listeners really like the changes to the original sound that cutting the spiral groove introduces.

Again, you have substantially oversimplified. It is possible to make an LP that is very, very close to the master tape. That’s why test pressings are part of making an LP.

Digiphiles often chime in here with claims that digital has better s/n and dynamic range than LP can ever have, which is true. But that advantage is often way in excess of the what the music actually requires. That’s a big part of why an LP can sound so close to the master tape.

Well this seems to make sense, but am I oversimplifying?

When the artist’s work is prepared for distribution, a vinyl pressing is made and digital streaming files are prepared. The digital streaming files will be identical to the digital mix prepared for distribution. 
The vinyl pressing will be as close as a skilled cutter of a spiral groove can get to it. Close, but never a duplicate. 
Some listeners really like the changes to the original sound that cutting the spiral groove introduces. So much so, that if they want to listen away from their turntable they would rather have a digital copy of the sound the spiral groove makes than the digital duplicate of the original mix.  
And the quality of that copy of the spiral groove can be so good as to be indistinguishable - showing that the ear can not distinguish a digital copy of an analogue sound. 
Is that right?

seventies 

I raise this issue because of disappointment with older albums re-released as 'high density tape transfers (HDTT's)'

I've never heard of HDTT. Will you please explain what it means?

In both instances the high frequencies are to my ear so compromised as to suspect misleading commercialization...

What is "misleading commercialization"?

 To what extent is that information...particularly high frequency information....lost with time even if tape is of high quality and properly stored ?

There are too many variables to answer this definitively. It really depends on the tape formulation.

Orpheus, Mijostyn and Audio2design, I raise this issue because of disappointment with older albums re-released as 'high density tape transfers (HDTT's)' and 'remastered (? EQ-ed up)' recordings.  In both instances the high frequencies are to my ear so compromised as to suspect misleading commercialization.  Certainly, audio2design, audio tape can chemically deteriorate with time, and magnetic information degrades with repeated playback.  To what extent is that information...particularly high frequency information....lost with time even if tape is of high quality and properly stored ?
  

Seventies, I am a reel to reel and tape enthusiast; as it pertains to your question, disregard it; it's expensive, and there is a better way.


I already have everything stored on "external hard drive". When I get a new CD, I down-load it into the computer, and it goes to the external hard-drive. Very rarely do I pop a CD into the player, I simply add it to the playlist on the computer.


Presently I'm working on my third "down-loading" of LP's onto the external hard-drive. This has to be done whenever you make significant improvements in your analog rig and you want to enjoy them on computer playback.


All of my CD's and my favorite LP's are stored on the "external-hard" drive and no lights have flashed to indicate that I'm running out of space. This is the third time for LP's; in other words, 3 times my collection of LP's are on the hard-drive because this is the third improvement. Now I have to "delete" the first two times I did this in order to free up space on the hard-drive.

This is the computer age. I know very little about the things, but I have a "guru" who does. Fortunately this external hard drive thing is neither expensive or complicated.