2. analog
  3. 160855-86984

vinyl versus digital redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for any comments.
seventies

Showing 4 responses by johnss

johnss
564 posts
 
@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....
johnss
564 posts
 
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. 

johnss
564 posts
 
"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.
johnss
564 posts
 
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.
 
More to discover