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
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....
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

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

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

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





seventies OP
67 posts
 
Guys,
Thanks to all.
For me, certainly, a learning experience.
I do find high end playback of vinyl made from analog tape preferable to16/44.1 versions of the same albums, to high definition tape transfer of old master tapes, and to  'remastered' (hiss filtering with treble augmentation) analog tape recordings, but not to high definition digitally recorded music.
Digitalization of those voluminous lp collections is, if the sonic result is to approximate direct lp playback, tedious, time consuming, and demands (as in part johnss mentioned) expensive equipment.
I would like to see 'labels' offer high end' digital conversions of 'master' vinyl pressings as opposed to the tape transfers they sometimes market without stating the source of such offerings.
Do some offer digitalization of sometimes 'historic' vinyl pressings, perhaps 'master pressings' made at the outset of the commercialization of a performance  ? 
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,575 posts
 
Hm. One thing I don't see mentioned here is the issue of bandwidth. Any LP made since the dawn of the stereo era (1958) has potential bandwidth to over 40KHz. Bandwidth during playback has been in that realm for a while too- most phono preamps have bandwidth on the RIAA de-emphasis curve that goes well beyond 20KHz! We spec ours to 100KHz. Most phono cartridges made since about 1970 or so have no worries going to 40KHz and MC cartridges can go much higher. In a nutshell the LP is apparently the widest bandwidth format available.


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


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



audio2design
1,351 posts
 
A master clock only attempts to compensate for design deficiencies that may exist in a playback system. With USB DACs or networked DACs, and half decent electronics, there is little requirement for them in most cases.

Analog tape is not a panacea. Just like vinyl, it significantly colors the sound.I think part of the problem is that even though so many audiophile talk about "real" or "natural" sound, very few have heard what most instruments sound like not when not colored by the environment, absent of the influence of other instruments, when recorded closely, etc. Even musicians who play regularly are sometimes surprised to hear how they sound recorded. Live orchestra is heavily influenced by seating position and hall design and mood. Perhaps what most audiophiles, most of who are older, consider natural or realistic, is not natural or realistic, but familiar?

A nice discussion of tape, and tape plug ins for digital work flows that emulate tape sound:https://www.uaudio.com/blog/analog-tape-recording-basics/

Most digital is oversampled on recording and upsampled on playback. Phase shift will be minimal in the audio band and much less than vinyl. Historically magnetic tape either had bandwidth on the top end or bass on the bottom end. Those classic vinyl releases off analog tape were based on a source with limited bandwidth themselves no matter what a playback system was capable. If people could hear anything past 20Khz, I suspect poor channel matching in vinyl setups would drive them batty.  I notice the difference too between analog sources and digital. One done in a reasonable fashion sounds exactly what is coming off the microphones. One does not.
More to discover