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
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,217 posts
 
I do not think there is any argument that analog signals on magnetic tape deteriorate over time. What I hear most is that high frequencies start to roll off. These can always be EQed up I suppose. Once the music is digitized it is immortal as long as the hard drive isn't destroyed. My understanding is that most music has now been digitized in computer libraries and as long as there are sufficient back-ups there is no better way to warehouse it at this time. Does it matter if the path to your ears is all analog or all digital or a mix of the two? If it is good music and it sounds good? Well Scarlet, frankly, I could not give a.......
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
Seventies,

Analog tape is surprisingly robust for storage. It is usage that degrades it.  The biggest concern is break down of the underlying binder for the magnetic materials and the plastic substrate. If really old it is acetate and very prone to mechanical failure.   You can get some layer to layer bleedthrough on thin cheap tape.  You don't lose high frequency from storage but you may add noise.  The plastic in records can also slowly decay albeit slowly.
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
So if you don't think analog tape is the bees knees you are not astute? I would argue most astute audiophiles have never heard unmixed and unprocessed audio on analog tape or high resolution digital but that is not what the topic thread is about.
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

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.


seventies OP
67 posts
 
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 ?
  
More to discover