1. Home
  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
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

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.
jeffvegas
372 posts
 
Blasphemy!!! Keep analog as far away from digital as you can!!! 
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
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. 
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

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.
o_holter
993 posts
 
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". 
More to discover