Digital recordings on vinyl

[Macca]

So CD is nearer to the original than MQA ?

Can't fit 2.5GB of data on a 700mb disc without compression ?

If I'm wrong then fine but how is it done

Something of a loaded question. Consider that if the recording is analogue it is not possible for it to contain any frequencies above 23KHz and it is unlikely to have much above 18Khz. So the full bandwidth of any analogue recording will comfortably fit on a CD, there will be no need to truncate this.

If the recording is digital and was made on equipment capable of recording higher frequencies than 22KHz then it is true to say the recording will not 'fit' on a CD. What we have to debate then is whether it matters that we have preserved frequencies we cannot hear.

There are 2 arguments for preserving frequencies beyond the range of human hearing:

1) They have an effect on the frequencies that are audible. This is conjecture, there is currently no evidence that this is true, although it is possible that it may be.

2) That it in theory eliminate claimed degredation caused by the filterering at 22Khz, the 'pre and post ringing' which is claimed to cause audible 'timing' issues with 16/44.1 - However it is highly unlikely based on existing research that this is actually audible to humans, but again it 'may' be true.

As I understand it an MQA file is actually larger than a 16/44.1 file but not as large as the 24/192 file it might be taken from.

[Marco]

Here we ago again, lol...

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.

...not so much the artist, unless they've given specific instructions to the sound engineers [unlikely in this instance], but more likely how the record company involved want the recording to be heard, and especially given that this is 'chart music', how it sounds when played on the radio.

Also, undoubtedly as we're talking about a digital recording, a recording on CD will be closest to the master but, and this is the point you always fail to grasp, it will still be imbued with a form of coloration, created as a by-product of the digital recording process, resulting in a sonic signature that some of us can clearly hear and apportion as artifice, simply because no recording (or playback) device so far invented is 'perfect'.

You need to get it out of your head, mate, that digitising anything is 100% accurate and comes without sonic penalty, when in actuality there is no 'free lunch', in that respect, whether recordings are produced either in the digital or analogue domain.

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

And the fact is that none of the above is indisputably showcased or proven by measurements, or what is considered as 'technically superior'.

The reality of the matter is that we can only surmise what is more truthful to the original, as 'technically better' doesn't tell the full story, and at the end of the day choose which forms of coloration/distortion [digital or analogue derived] offend our ears the least, or which format (vinyl or CD) produces recordings that best suit our sonic proclivities.

There is no indisputable 'officially recognised' standard, in this area, for anyone to consider as gospel. All we have that's indisputable are people's individual opinions and preferences.

Marco.

[struth]

And thank god they do colour it. If most live recordings are anything to go by whats produced in studio needs improving . Ive got 1 imperative. If it sounds great to me then thats the way it should be....none of this flat musical less stuff for me...lifes too damn short

[Jimbo]

sorry this was inaccurately posted!

[struth]

Stop rebuking yourself Jim

[Jimbo]

cheers grant, I should not keep beating myself up about this.

[Jimbo]

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






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'.

How do you know the CD is closest to the master, you have not heard the master! A digital recording is one thing - what is mastered onto a CD is another.

How do you know the 'closest thing to what the artist intended you to hear' is the CD version?

You need to understand and think about what you are actually saying before you police a post about digital audio 'for the sake of balance and accuracy'.

[Macca]

Here we ago again, lol...



...not so much the artist, unless they've given specific instructions to the sound engineers [unlikely in this instance], but more likely how the record company involved want the recording to be heard, and especially given that this is 'chart music', how it sounds when played on the radio.

Also, undoubtedly as we're talking about a digital recording, a recording on CD will be closest to the master but, and this is the point you always fail to grasp, it will still be imbued with coloration imposed on it from the digital recording process, which results in a sonic signature that some of us can clearly hear and apportion as artifice, simply because no recording device so far invented is 'perfect'.

You need to get it out of your head, mate, that digitising anything is 100% accurate and comes without sonic penalty, when in actuality there is no 'free lunch', in that respect, whether recordings are produced either in the digital or analogue domain.



And the fact is that none of the above is indisputably showcased or proven by measurements, or what is considered as 'technically superior'.

The reality of the matter is that we can only surmise what is more truthful to the original, as 'technically better' doesn't tell the full story, and at the end of the day choose which forms of coloration/distortion [digital or analogue derived] offend our ears the least, or which format (vinyl or CD) produces recordings that best suit our sonic proclivities.

There is no indisputable 'officially recognised' standard, in this area, for anyone to consider as gospel. All we have that's indisputable are people's individual opinions and preferences.

Marco.

I was using 'artist' in a general sense to mean 'those involved with the recording' as I am aware that many artists are not interested in the production and mastering side.

Your comments re the imperfection of digital recording are noted, however they are not relevant here. The recording has been made and it has been made digitally. Therefore any 'sonic footprint' in the recording as a consequence of this is a part of the recording. If the recording is digital then it is a fact that the digital file, or CD is the recording, and that transferring it onto tape, or vinyl can only move us further away from the original.

Whether we prefer a digital recording once it has been cut to vinyl is a purely personal and subjective thing.

The only occasion when the vinyl will be the closest to the master is if it is a direct to disc recording, which are very rare.

I really do not see that there can be any flaw in this reasoning.

[jandl100]

Next to loudspeakers, it is cartridges that vary most in sound ime & imo.

Ortofon, Koetsu, ADC, Linn, Dynavector, Decca London, etc etc ..... all different, every one of them.

So how anyone can claim that their particular LP replay is definitively correct, or anywhere near it, quite defeats me.

-- and then there's turntables, arms, phonostages; all with their own sonic signatures.

Just choose what you prefer and enjoy it. Fabulous.

[Marco]

How do you know the CD is closest to the master, you have not heard the master! A digital recording is one thing - what is mastered onto a CD is another.

I think what Martin means is that because the Winehouse recording in question was produced entirely in the digital domain (aside of course from the vinyl version, which will have been transferred onto that format at the final stage), then is makes sense that CD, or any other digitally-derived music format, will achieve the most faithful sonic transfer.

All introducing vinyl at that stage would do is imbue the recording with coloration innate in that format. However, the opposite would equally apply if the recording in question had been produced entirely in the analogue domain, and then digitised at the final stage!

If you want to achieve the highest degree of 'accuracy' to the original sound, then the recording process should remain faithful throughout to the origins of the source music format.

Therefore, if that was tape, then the subsequent recording process should be all-analogue, and vice versa for digital - *if* you want to preserve the 'sonic signature' of either format or process, and with it, the sound your ears prefer

The exercise has feck all to do with creating some notion of 'accuracy', in terms of replicating the sound that left the studio, which in reality is a pipe-dream, imagined only in your head, and instead all about creating and preserving the sonic signature you prefer (analogue or digital-derived), which instead is something you have a realistic chance of achieving!

Marco.