I think that all you accomplish by going to vinyl from a digital recording is imposing all of the inherent noise problems associated with vinyl on top of the sound issues associated with digital recordings. A well recorded (and played back) CD can sound as good, if different, from a well recorded vinyl record. I'd have both playback systems. Don't do 'streaming' so I can't comment on that.
32 responses Add your response
it’s just not that simple to paint all vinyl from digital with a broad brush. or even that simple to view redbook disc or file with a broad brush. it really depends on the original recording, and the digital and vinyl mastering’s. some digital recordings lend themselves more to a great vinyl transfer than others. jazz and classical seem to be more likely to have live and ambient simpler recording processes, more meat on the bones. so the vinyl from those types of music is quite satisfying comparatively. my experience is about 60% to 70% of the time, i enjoy the vinyl more. but i’m not buying too much commercial pop/rock digital sourced vinyl, with lowest common denominator recording pedigrees. when i do the best recordings transfer the best to vinyl. some surprisingly really satisfy. over time you can identify the labels and artists that tend to do a better job with their vinyl. obviously this question also involves the quality of your sources, both vinyl and digital.....is the vinyl playback capable of revealing the best of the pressing? |
It depends who cut the lacquer disc, pressing plant is also very important. Your cartridge and the whole analog rig are very important. In other words you don’t know what you’re listening to. I hate digital, but everything is much simpler with digital, you’re always listening to the master (if it was originally recorded in digital format). If you want ANALOG just don’t buy digitally remastered reissues and don’t buy new records if they are recorded digitally (it's not the analog, not even close). |
Back in the day, I had vinyl and early CDs of the same album from the same recording and time period. I'm guessing these were AAD CDs. Tape hiss was readily apparent on the CDs. Anyway...They both sounded very similar but the CDs lacked the pops and ticks. I'm going to say that today there is a vinyl mix and a CD mix, so there is no telling what you will get. Different but maybe not better or worse. |
To be more specific about my own conundrum. I generally prefer vinyl. I have a number of recordings on both CD and vinyl where the analogue is so obviously better, it's almost a joke (compare, for example, the 2019 Blue Note/Solid State vinyl rendering of Chick Corea's "Now He Sings, Now He Sobs" v. the CD version). That said, I find that so many vinyl pressings these days are marred in some way (especially pressings of Blue Note recordings, unfortuantely), and it's a pain to send so many LPs back. Plus, they cost more. Plus, the uncertain benefits of vinyl pressings from digitally recorded and mastered albums, i.e., the vast majority of recordings these days. Plus the fact that vinyl requires extra TLC. I just wonder whether it's worth bothering with vinyl, unless I already possess good information about the recording and pressing. |
I know just what you mean. It is why I hardly ever mess with modern pressings. If you want to listen to a lot of different music, especially new, give up and stream it. If you want to listen to really good music, really good recordings, and with the very best sound quality, then search out the best vintage vinyl and accept that used is the tradeoff for better. I don't play music for background while puttering around doing other stuff, all my listening is high quality sit and do nothing but. So this is an easy one for me, and I go even further and buy a very few Hot Stampers because the sound is to die for even though I could easily buy five or ten perfectly decent records for the cost of one Hot Stamper. Last night listening to the 1812 I know I made the right choice. I also no there is no new music out there can touch it. But there is plenty of "new to me" old music that good. So why mess with new? |
Unless the mastering is radically different between the vinyl and digital release, the vinyl version will always be worse than the digital version. First, you are listening to a recording of whatever DAC they happen to use in the pressing process. It may be a decent pro dac (who knows?) but it may not be as good as many of the dacs used by members of this forum. It then goes through a preamplifier, is EQ'd to apply the RIAA curve, further EQ'd to manage bass overload, stamped into a record blank, reverse EQ'd using the RIAA curve in your phono preamp, played back with wow and flutter, inner groove distortion, surface noise and tracking error from your stylus. Every one of those steps introduces exponentially more distortion. There is no way that playback of the same digital file without any of those additive distortions on a decent DAC will not sound better. Let me be clear. I love vinyl - it seems to be the best way we have to preserve analog recordings in a durable commercial format, and it sounds remarkably good given its inherent limitations. I also prefer vinyl to digital for analog recordings. It seems to retain a greater sense of "presence" and realism than digital, despite these obvious limitations. Vinyl is probably 80% of my listening. But for digital recordings, going straight to the source will always sound better. |
Yes, there is. or should i way, there are.For one thing, and some will rail at this, it will have analog colorations that many may like. Second,it will have had its digital-to-analog conversion done in a professional studio, in theory with very good and well set up (grounding , powering, proper impedances, whatever) rather than whatever you bought and hooked up. Third, its not inconceivable that it will have been re-equalized somewhat. Vinyl these days are specialty products, aimed to two groups - the "retro" group and audiophiles who are not happy with digital for whatever reason. So sure. Whether it is more accurate (but what measure we could fill many pages) is a totally different question, but not one you asked. |
Even with digital recordings and/or mastering, vinyl CAN sound much more analog than the same recording / mastering. And just because a record was "mastered from the original analog tapes" doesn't mean that it will sound more natural (can we agree that that's what "more analog" basically means?). I recently reviewed a recent reissue of Big Star's debut, remastered from the OG tapes right in Memphis, and I compared it to my 80's European digitally remastered. The 80's digitally remastered version was head and shoulders better (although still not great). So much for 2 of the biggest "rules" in vinyl (that would be the country of origin rule and the "must be from an analog tape source" rule). If you're interested you can check out the review here. |
with respect to others, i think that many newer recordings can sound great on vinyl, in some cases superior to the digital master. there are so many factors (the master, the remaster in some cases, who cut it, this or that piece in your setup etc) that sometimes it's hard to pin down what, exactly, might be "off" about a given recording. but when it sounds really good, you don't think about source too much. it just works. only my .02c |
Unless I missed it no one mentioned that no matter how well mastered the vinyl is there are further stages that can affect the sound of vinyl versus digital and that is the record playing gear, the turntable, the arm and especially the cartridge each have their won characteristics which will affect the sound. Plus change to another record playing component, especially changing the cartridge can have profound sonic affects. |
Want analog from digital? Feed the output of a DAC into tube amplification. I changed from a solid state Yamaha A-S501 - a pretty good integrated amplifier - to a Quicksilver Integrated amp. It doesn't make a lousy digital stream into a good sound; it just gives a great rendition of a good digital file. |
@Charles7, your comments and those before it lead to the rational conclusion that what we are really talking about is our preferred form of distortion. For some it is the phonograph needle for others it is the dac, Speakers, cable, etc.. I agree with Anthony Cordesman that what we are really missing in these discussions is the pedigree or provenance of the recording. If there was a uniform method of reporting the history of a given recording I think we would be much more involved in discussing those choices rather than the few that are open to us at playback. My experience tells me that those choices make much more difference than those that are most commonly the subject of audio file discussions. A good recording makes even crappy equipment shine. |
Hi, interesting thread here. It's interesting to know that a lot of the vinyls out there are created from digital recordings these days. That just seems stupid to me. I can't see how such vinyls can beat the digital products created from the same source, assuming your analog and digital equipments are of equal quality. I think I'm going to stop buying new modern days vinyls. Anyway, I have a couple of questions: - First, how do I know if a vinyl is created from digital recordings? - Secondly, from what year on are vinyls start to be pressed from digital source? Thanks. |
Hello, I asked a friend recently how many records does he have. He said 1000. He keeps 200 of his favorites in the room and the rest in another area. I am up to 100 plus albums. Some albums have more plus box sets of artists not included. I have about 2-3 hours at most in one day to listen. That might be a lot for some of you. I know I am going to get some sarcastic answers which is ok. How many is too many for listening not collecting? Or better yet, how many records for listening do you have that you have not touched in a year? Are we holding on to our “bell bottom jeans or parachute pants of albums” too long? I’m thinking yes. Plus, I like the idea of someone else being able to enjoy that music and you can make some extra money for new albums or gear you have been wanting. |
Back in the day (1981 or so) the 3-letter nomenclature was introduced for recording, mixing and mastering. It's known as the SPARS code: A is for analogue, D for digital. Thus an ADA record was recorded on analogue tape, mixed digitally, and mastered with analogue. By the mid 1980's just about everything was recorded digitally, so much good music is unrecoverable. |
It can go both ways. You can have a cd that was original analog recording. Most cd’s have a stamp on the jewel box that will tell you. DDD mean it was digital at every step. AAD analog recorded, analog mixed, digital to make cd. ADD analog recorded, digital mix and digital cd. My thought is to record digital and to press on album it would come down to the dac used as to how the album would sound. Just going through dac conversations here I would like you could have endless options |
@sandthemall I believe the RIAA curve is only applied during retrieval and not when cutting the record. No, that is not correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization |
I also see no point now in buying any new vinyl. It’s almost all digitized now and notice the vagueness where most new pressings now never say it’s all analogue. This is because I have found out that the cutting lathes are driven digitally. So even if great care was taken keep it all analogue the final “mile” of the signal going to the lathe is often digital. the sound of most new vinyl including reissues is antiseptic, loud, and flat. The original analogue vinyl may not be as in-your-face loud with every instrument overhyped as with the new digitized pressings. But I typically find the older original pressings are more liquid with depth, warmth, and ambiance dacs have improved greatly and continue to improve. Buying new or new reissue vinyl means you are stuck with whatever digital converter they used at the cutting lathe. I continue to buy original vinyl but will no longer spend money on new pressings. Been disappointed too many times with loud antiseptic flat grainy sound. |
I also see no point now in buying any new vinyl. It’s almost all digitized now and notice the vagueness where most new pressings now never say it’s all analogue. This is because I have found out that the cutting lathes are driven digitally. So even if great care was taken keep it all analogue the final “mile” of the signal going to the lathe is often digital. the sound of most new vinyl including reissues is antiseptic, loud, and flat. The original vintage vinyl may not be as in-your-face loud with every instrument overhyped as with the new (digitized) pressings. But I typically find the older vintage pressings are more liquid and musical with depth, warmth, and ambience dacs have improved greatly and continue to improve. Buying new or new reissue vinyl means you are stuck with whatever digital converter they used at the cutting lathe. I continue to buy vintage vinyl but will no longer spend on new pressings. Been disappointed too many times with loud antiseptic flat grainy sound. |
I feel that it is not really relevant what the source of the new recording was, digital or analog (leave aside extreme cases like direct to disc). The real difference is in home replay. Digital studios (all studios nowadays?) generally use excellent clocks and most listeners (in my opinion, all listeners) would not be able to tell the difference between the two types of masters in the studio - if anyone ever made that experiment. Digital signal reconstruction is difficult to time and without a high accuracy clock (even a good TCXO wont cut it) in the digital stream prior to conversion in home systems, analog is going to win most times. The fact that digital mastering makes sense in so many other ways is neither here nor there. Give psychoacoustics its credit - it was only in its implementation in the home digital process over the last 40 years where things went wrong, i.e. market considerations and the belief that all consumers are idiots. But now very good quality digital clocks for home systems are cheap. How long before this permeates into the audiophile collective unconscious? Best wishes Aubrey |
@mikelavigne I agree. I have 28,700 LPs/7,000 CDs/7,000 78s. I stopped purchasing jazz LPs (so many great but expensive recordings) and substituted CD versions. So many are absolutely wonderful. I have good quality audio gear and a great room so that's my advantage. I intend to eliminate about 8,000 LPs and 2,000 78s over time (I've sold 18,000 records over the years) as I am a listener and not a collector (hence like @millercarbon, I listen to music almost always absent doing chores, just in the listening room). |
Like it or not most analogue vinyl records are made from digital files. I have always tried where possible to buy LPs that came from tape - ie closer to the source. On the whole they just sound better and not in a hifi way just more immediate and musical. I read this podcast from 'the Part Time Audiophile' about how LPs are made and was shocked when the expert guy said 'it was easier' (for him) to use digital files than tape to make the LP. This attitude will be prevalent imho in this dumbed down world we inhabit https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2021/10/14/how-records-are-made-the-occasional-podcast/ |
Digital transfers are done in High Res, 24/192 or better. This is invisible. Nobody that I have done that AB testing with has been able to repeatedly identify the vinyl or it's 24/192 copy that I made with the Pure Vinyl program. But, since I can not make a record I can not go the other way. All I can do is compare commercial Vinyl and digital versions of the same piece but as Mike L indicated you are now dealing with different masters so all bets are off. Here are some very recent examples. Little Feat, The Last Record Album, the vinyl sounds positively dull with too much bass and no treble. It does not even out at high volumes. It is obviously a terrible mastering job. The Digital is gorgeous in comparison. I chucked the record. Next is Jethro Tull, Heavy Horses. Vinyl is excellent the digital has almost no bass. Another obviously terrible mastering job. I chucked the file. Next is Stevie Wonder's Hotter than July. The vinyl is a MoFi release. These two are close. The MoFi is a little more dynamic but the digital has these beautiful black spaces between the instruments and voices. They are both good in their own way but I lean towards the digital. It is impossible for me to know if the vinyl was from a digital master but my intuition is that vinyl sounds like vinyl and that a record from a digital master is going to sound like vinyl. I have many recent recordings that I know were recorded digitally and the records are great as long as the pressing is decent and an unfortunate number of them are not, even the 180 gm "Audiophile" versions. That is certainly one thing you do not have to worry about with digital files. |
Enjoyed Bruce19's thoughts. My source for new music is digital these days now that I'm older and simplicity, cost and convenience are important. I have built my current system out to bias toward an "analogue sound" and yes, coloration is built in with my chain of tube gear, but what matters is how it sounds to me. Most of what I seek in recording/mastering excellenceI I find in music from independent studios. Big Name labels, to me, are full of things like getting overly happy with recording software and what sounds like ham handed compression. The smaller producers just seem to care more about the sound and the process being the avenue to a stellar listening experience, with the added benefit that it's easier to learn about their methods, production people and artists. I find a lot of good music that way as well. |
