Digital recordings on vinyl

[magiccarpetride]

I've recently switched to listening to vinyl, after decades of playing only digital formats. Upon switching, I found my listening enjoyment improved in a very significant way, despite the inconveniences of putzing around the turntable, LPs, etc.

Last weekend I purchased Amy Winehouse on LP ("Frank" and "Back to Black") and spent several very enjoyable hours listening to her amazing songs. Last night a buddy of mine came over for a listen, and got really excited about the sound quality of those LPs. He then asked me if I could play the same albums on CDs. I did that, we sat back and listened, comparing side-by-side the vinyl and the digital sound. We both agreed that vinyl beats the CD, as it offers more coherent presentation, warmer, fuller, more liquid sound, less glaring highs and deeper, firmer, more rounded bass.

But then, after my friend left, I came to the realization: wait a minute, we are comparing a recording that was taped, mixed and mastered digitally. How much can a digital recording improve when it gets transferred to the analog medium?

To my mind, it would only make sense to compare an old school LP, something that was recorded before we had digital technology. For example, a Beatles LP. Comparing the sound of the Beatles LP to the sound of the Beatles CD would make sense. But I'm not sure if comparing the sound of a digitally recorded and produced track to the sound of that track pressed on vinyl could make any sense.

This then made me question our perception -- did we really hear an improvement of Amy Winehouse music on LP, or were we just imagining things?

[Bigman80]

What happens more often these days is the master tapes are converted to digital, like the Beatles remastered in stereo. They are done digitally but the amount of detail in the digital conversion is usually too much for a standard CD. So they compress it. Meaning they remove frequencies they think can't be heard. I disagree and can usually tell.

As long as the LP was cut from the original Digital Masters and not the CD version (which does happen) then you'll notice the difference.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Haselsh1]

A similar comparison can be drawn with digital photography when working with black and white. Even a scanned negative produces a depth and character of image that a fully digital image never does. Digital black and white is truly awful in appearance even when shot using 24mp and full frame sensors whereas a silver halide negative converted to digital still possesses all of those stunning characters that photographers who continue to work in a darkroom strive for.

My personal view is that there is something about the actual vinyl replay mechanism that captures the essence of analogue even when taken from a digital file. Yes, I know that vinyl has limitations when compared to compact disc especially in the lower frequencies but vinyl has a quality that I doubt digital will ever compete with.

[Rothchild]

Weren't we all here not so long ago?

Anyway, the answer is no one really knows but there are a wealth of theories (some of them rather dubious) to back it up.

I did find this last time it came up http://tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig/ which provides a really interesting window in to the world of mastering and re-mastering by someone who actually knows their tape head from the DAC, it might provide some insight.

[Jimbo]

Vinyl playback of digitally recorded material does not go through further digital reconstruction ie a DAC or any of the other electronic processes that try to make something musical out of digital. Both vinyl and tape sound far better for the playback of digital material than any digital system a have heard,bit of a conundrum that for the digital boys

I converted back to vinyl 3 years ago and last weekend put a CD player back into my system just to hear where I had come from. It was absolutely f@&£##ing SH1t.

[Rothchild]

Vinyl playback of digitally recorded material does not go through further digital reconstruction ie a DAC or any of the other electronic processes that try to make something musical out of digital.

No, instead it goes through a little metal stick with a stone on the end of it, via an electromechanical transducer (some wire wobbling near a magnet) and a reconstructive eq (RIAA) with all the accordant phase issues that EQ generates (not to mention needing to be perfectly matched to the pre-emphasis eq) before reaching the amplifier, wow such purity....

Seems to me that the connundrums are reserved for the zealots of either sub or obj camps, many of the rest of us can reconcile logic and experience pretty well.

[Firebottle]

...... and last weekend put a CD player back into my system just to hear where I had come from. It was absolutely f@&£##ing SH1t.

What was the CDP

[Jimbo]

No, instead it goes through a little metal stick with a stone on the end of it, via an electromechanical transducer (some wire wobbling near a magnet) and a reconstructive eq (RIAA) with all the accordant phase issues that EQ generates (not to mention needing to be perfectly matched to the pre-emphasis eq) before reaching the amplifier, wow such purity....

Seems to me that the connundrums are reserved for the zealots of either sub or obj camps, many of the rest of us can reconcile logic and experience pretty well.

Funny how the little metal stick and rock sounds sooo much better. I can only comment on what I hear.

[Macca]

Oh man where to start? So much misinformation in this thread already and there's only been a few posts.

What happens more often these days is the master tapes are converted to digital, like the Beatles remastered in stereo. They are done digitally but the amount of detail in the digital conversion is usually too much for a standard CD. So they compress it. Meaning they remove frequencies they think can't be heard. I disagree and can usually tell.

As long as the LP was cut from the original Digital Masters and not the CD version (which does happen) then you'll notice the difference.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

I'll start here - read up on how what an audio signal is and how it works. There is no issue with fitting all the 'detail' onto a CD, it is a very simple concept, voltage varying with time. No different from when Edison recorded 'Mary Had A Little Lamb'.

You want the master tape? Then for an analogue recording you need the master tape and a good RTR. For a digital recording the CD. The vinyl version is a step removed from both.

Compression: Don't confuse lossy compression where dynamic range and frequency response are curtailed to make a smaller file size (MP3 etc) with dynamic compression that is applied to all recordings, and parts of those recordings to make it sound subjectively 'better' or in extreme cases to make it sound loud and punchy.

Not the same thing at all.

Digital audio has nothing to do with digital video or photography. Entirely different technology, comparisons only serve to obfuscate.

I have both the Winehouse albums discussed, Both digital recordings so the CD will be closest to the master, i.e the closest thing to what the artist intended you to hear. 'Frank' is very good mastering, 'BIB' is mastered hot to sound punchy. I can understand the latter sounding more pleasant to listen to on vinyl.

And that really is the nub of it. Confusing 'I prefer' with 'technically better' or 'more truthful to the original'.

[Macca]

Oh man where to start? So much misinformation in this thread already and there's only been a few posts.

What happens more often these days is the master tapes are converted to digital, like the Beatles remastered in stereo. They are done digitally but the amount of detail in the digital conversion is usually too much for a standard CD. So they compress it. Meaning they remove frequencies they think can't be heard. I disagree and can usually tell.

As long as the LP was cut from the original Digital Masters and not the CD version (which does happen) then you'll notice the difference.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

I'll start here - read up on how what an audio signal is and how it works. There is no issue with fitting all the 'detail' onto a CD, it is a very simple concept, voltage varying with time. No different from when Edison recorded 'Mary Had A Little Lamb'.

You want the master tape? Then for an analogue recording you need the master tape and a good RTR. For a digital recording the CD. The vinyl version is a step removed from both.

Compression: Don't confuse lossy compression where dynamic range and frequency response are curtailed to make a smaller file size (MP3 etc) with dynamic compression that is applied to all recordings, and parts of those recordings to make it sound subjectively 'better' or in extreme cases to make it sound loud and punchy.

Not the same thing at all.

Digital audio has nothing to do with digital video or photography. Entirely different technology, comparisons only serve to obfuscate.

I have both the Winehouse albums discussed, Both digital recordings so the CD will be closest to the master, i.e the closest thing to what the artist intended you to hear. 'Frank' is very good mastering, 'BIB' is mastered hot to sound punchy. I can understand the latter sounding more pleasant to listen to on vinyl.

And that really is the nub of it. Confusing 'I prefer' with 'technically better' or 'more truthful to the original'.