View Full Version : Digital recordings on vinyl
magiccarpetride
06-03-2017, 23:38
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
07-03-2017, 00:44
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
07-03-2017, 05:25
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
07-03-2017, 06:49
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.
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
07-03-2017, 08:09
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
07-03-2017, 08:21
...... 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.
:eek:
What was the CDP :scratch:
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.:)
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'.
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'.
:eek:
What was the CDP :scratch:
The CD player was a Rotel R965Bx. Dont think you have seen that at my house Alan as it is locked away in a dungeon and for good reason.:lol:
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'.
I agree with the last sentence Martin. It is all about what you prefer or what sounds good to your ears. All the technical mumbo jumbo gets us nowhere apart form ever more elaborate ways of trying to prove one technology is better than another when simply all you have to do is sit down and listen and then the truth will be revealed.
I agree with the last sentence Martin. It is all about what you prefer or what sounds good to your ears. All the technical mumbo jumbo gets us nowhere apart form ever more elaborate ways of trying to prove one technology is better than another when simply all you have to do is sit down and listen and then the truth will be revealed.
Exactly, but I don't want to see incorrect technical information and illogical conclusions presented without challenge, for the sake of balance and accuracy if nothing else. If it was just us in a room talking then no big deal but this is on the internet where anyone can read it.
Essentially, the reasons people prefer vinyl are not the reasons that are usually trotted out, that digital is 'missing information' that it is compromised by the simple fact of 'being digital', and so forth. If people read this stuff and believe it they are likely to make compromised decisions when it comes to their hi-fi.
Rothchild
07-03-2017, 08:44
Funny how the little metal stick and rock sounds sooo much better. I can only comment on what I hear.:)
Yup and I'm not trying to deny you that right, indeed I celebrate it and encourage it (all the time it's not used as a reason to demean anyone else's experience or knowledge).
But, what we hear and why we hear it is way more complex and, experience shows, unresolvable on an internet message board.
I'd add to Martin's point, if you want to hear the master tape it needs to be on the same machine (configured the same) as it was tracked on, through the same speakers in the same room as the mix was made on - That Bob Ludwig interview has some interesting stuff about the range of tape machines he uses and the work he does to set them up before doing a transfer as it all has an effect.
Simon_LDT
07-03-2017, 08:46
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.
While that should be true, what seems to happen so much these days is the final mix gets brickwalled for the CD/digital releases and then the vinyl gets a different master, usually much more dynamic. Tough to say for sure whether the artist intended it either way really. Digital done right sounds fine to me and as you say, it carries all the audio information just fine.
Rothchild
07-03-2017, 08:53
As a small aside, all the Mark Ronson stuff on BTB was recorded with the Dap Kings at their studio in Brooklyn, if you're not aware of it check it out on youtube, deep analogue; it's all tape machines, vintage mics, valve compressors and old school recording chops (one mic drums etc).
I don't know what point it got bounced to digital for mixing / remixing / distribution but most of the core aspects as tracked are fully analogue.
Yup and I'm not trying to deny you that right, indeed I celebrate it and encourage it (all the time it's not used as a reason to demean anyone else's experience or knowledge).
But, what we hear and why we hear it is way more complex and, experience shows, unresolvable on an internet message board.
.
Agree 100% - I've no issue with what people prefer, indeed I'd agree from a subjective point of view that high quality vinyl replay is 'better'. It is when the reasons given for this being the case are wrong that I feel compelled to contribute.
Bigman80
07-03-2017, 09:07
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'.
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
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Rothchild
07-03-2017, 11:06
AFAICT No one records, mixes or masters in MQA it's a distribution format (and proprietary at that) 1.6gig of an MQA could be 'packing' and we wouldn't know because we're not allowed to take it apart and the technical specs aren't published.
You are right in one sense, yes there is more data in a 24/96 recording than a 16/44 one, the bit that's missing from the latter is the difference in volume between 'unbearable' and 'dangerous' and in frequency between 'dog' and 'bat'.
As to how many angels anyone needs on the head of their pin is a matter of personal choice and budget.
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.
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.
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
sorry this was inaccurately posted!:)
Stop rebuking yourself Jim ;)
cheers grant, I should not keep beating myself up about this.:lol:
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'.
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
07-03-2017, 13:37
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. :doh:
Just choose what you prefer and enjoy it. Fabulous. :thumbsup:
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.
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.
And there we are in agreement. What you're written is pretty much what I've just said to Jim :)
Marco.
Clive197
07-03-2017, 14:12
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. :doh:
Just choose what you prefer and enjoy it. Fabulous. :thumbsup:
At last, a man who makes total sense.
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.
What is recorded digitally may be quite different to what is mastered down to the CD. Digital recording is a fantastic way of capturing audio but when it is then mastered and messed around with after this can result in a very poor approximation of the original recording when it is on CD. It may well be far from what the artist intended the listener to hear.
To be clear what is recorded digitally may be very different from what the CD sounds like for many reasons. Where as if the same digital recording is mastered onto vinyl it may well sound better than the CD and may well be closer to what the artist intended.
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'.
If the recording is digital then the CD is the same as the master. The master is what the mixdown becomes so it can be sold as a commercial product. So for a 16.44.1 KHz recording the CD is the master, there is no difference.
if the recording was made with a more extended bandwidth and dynamic range than 16/44.1 then you will not have exactly the master on CD but you will arguably have something so close as to be irrelevant.
If the recording was made on analogue tape then the CD will not exactly resemble the master, and neither will vinyl, and neither will a copy of the master tape on RTR since with tape every time you copy you degrade the quality, hence what 'generation' of the master was used to cut the vinyl record is relevant to quality with pre-digital recordings.
If the recording is digital then the CD is the same as the master. The master is what the mixdown becomes so it can be sold as a commercial product. So for a 16.44.1 KHz recording the CD is the master, there is no difference.
if the recording was made with a more extended bandwidth and dynamic range than 16/44.1 then you will not have exactly the master on CD but you will arguably have something so close as to be irrelevant.
If the recording was made on analogue tape then the CD will not exactly resemble the master, and neither will vinyl, and neither will a copy of the master tape on RTR since with tape every time you copy you degrade the quality, hence what 'generation' of the master was used to cut the vinyl record is relevant to quality with pre-digital recordings.
The original digital recording may go through a whole load of processing before it is mastered for CD, as you well know being an expert. So what actually gets transferred to the CD may be quite different from the original digital recording. Once that shiny disc is put in a CD player it is then once again mangled by the DAC and you are at it mercy as to what you hear.
This may not be what the artist intended you to hear when it finally reaches your lug holes.
Ask any recording engineer and they will tell you what they hear in the studio on the original digital recording may be quite different to what you hear and that's not just because of the digital playback equipment.
dimkasta
07-03-2017, 15:49
I have CDs that sound good and CDs that sound bad.
I also have vinyl that sounds good and vinyl that sounds bad.
Some of my CDs sound better than the corresponding vinyl and some of my vinyls sound better than the corresponding CD.
To further mix it up, both my CDs and my records were produced on different factories, with different masters by different engineers, for different artists and under different standards.
I also have a CD player that plays through a DAC. Both can sound better than some others, and worse than some third ones. And a turntable that has a tonearm, a cart and a phono stage. And each of them sound and are setup better than some other setups, and worse than some third ones.
Why would I ever try to get any conclusions about the superiority of one technology in comparison to the other, based on how they sound with the versions of the music that I have bought?
And why would I ever think that if any such superiority objectively exists, it actually matters for my music?
And now to further confuse you, I prefer vinyl :) Why? Because it tends to sound better for me, my setup and my music, and probably because I also enjoy the ritual and owning the big physical media with the nice artwork :D
I also enjoy showing off my vinyl skills to the ladies :)
Good luck coming to any objective conclusions about the two technologies :)
Rothchild
07-03-2017, 16:51
I also enjoy showing off my vinyl skills to the ladies :)
:lol:
This thread has now crossed the line from the sublime to the ridiculous, all responses beyond this point have been rendered moot. Dimitris wins!
:youtheman:
magiccarpetride
07-03-2017, 17:06
Wow, so many interesting points in this discussion. I for one am learning a lot :)
So as a layman, I have the following imaginary experiment in my mind: suppose I have a record cutting and record printing facility in my basement. I could hypothetically use Amy Winehouse CD (or any CD for that matter) to play it and use the electrical signal produced by the DAC to drive the record cutting machine. I could (hypothetically again) print the newly minted LP from that matrix. So if I were then to play that LP on my turntable, it will sound different than the CD from which the LP was cut, right?
Meaning, it's the sonic signature of my TT that is adding coloration/sugar coating and thus producing a different sonic impression.
I hope I got this correct (at least in theory), but I'm open to be loudly ridiculed for such a heathen way of looking at the arcane art of sound reproduction.
Firebottle
07-03-2017, 18:06
..... 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'.
I'm going to be totally pedantic here (please note Idlewithnodrive), but the sonic signature surely is when the playback process is done, i.e. when converted back to analogue so our ears can hear it.
The original digital recording may go through a whole load of processing before it is mastered for CD, as you well know being an expert. So what actually gets transferred to the CD may be quite different from the original digital recording. Once that shiny disc is put in a CD player it is then once again mangled by the DAC and you are at it mercy as to what you hear.
This may not be what the artist intended you to hear when it finally reaches your lug holes.
Ask any recording engineer and they will tell you what they hear in the studio on the original digital recording may be quite different to what you hear and that's not just because of the digital playback equipment.
I agree it is possible that the production process may change the raw recordings that make up a track. If the artist has no say in this then I agree it may not sound how they wanted. But this is can happen in both digital and analogue recording and production. If the artist is not bothered then it is moot anyway. Even if they are bothered about how it sounds there could always be problems with the hardware too such as happened with 'Katy Lied'. But all of this is still the original recording from our point of view as end users, it is all part and parcel of it.
I'm going to be totally pedantic here (please note Idlewithnodrive), but the sonic signature surely is when the playback process is done, i.e. when converted back to analogue so our ears can hear it.
You could record the same performance simultaneously in digital and analogue. They won't sound exactly the same due to the varying sonic sig of the recording equipment. The playback kit is simply putting another layer of signature on top of that.
Bigman80
07-03-2017, 18:48
You know this is a contentious subject when all the big guns pipe up 😨
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
I think it is only contentious because 90% of the time we are arguing at cross purposes.
Consider this if you will:
A man has both analogue and digital playback options in his system, he has the same albums on both formats. He plays the album on both formats, the digital version is clearly inferior sounding to the analogue, no question about it.
He concludes that digital is a clearly inferior medium to analogue.
Why? Why jump to this conclusion when there are dozens of other reasons why analogue could be so surpassing digital in his system? It is one of the most unlikely of them to be true.
Jumping to conclusions about what is wrong is the bane of the enthusiast. Many blind alleys are gone up because of this. I've done it and bought the t shirt. I did my own comparisons of vinyl vs CD back in 1990 on 2 entirely different systems, vinyl massacred digital, it wasn't even close.
I jumped to the conclusion that digital was not worth the bother and held that view for almost 2 decades. I was badly wrong. And before anyone jumps to another conclusion, that I now think analogue is shit, I don't. Done properly, the differences between them are not big enough to be of any serious concern.
walpurgis
07-03-2017, 19:29
You know this is a contentious subject when all the big guns pipe up
:guns:
I jumped to the conclusion that digital was not worth the bother and held that view for almost 2 decades. I was badly wrong. And before anyone jumps to another conclusion, that I now think analogue is shit, I don't. Done properly, the differences between them are not big enough to be of any serious concern.
Took me a while to embrace CD. The early players I listened to (Philips CD100, and CD101) were awful compared to vinyl, and it wasn't until the advent of the CD104 that I felt I could live with CD. Now that might have been because I had a very good vinyl playback system at the time, and vinyl technology overall (although crude) was 'mature', whereas CD playback was, even in the '90s still maturing.
But now I'm happy with both replay methods and thoroughly concur with your final sentence.
julesd68
07-03-2017, 20:19
I haven't heard the latest Abbey Road half-speed mastered 'Back to Black' but I've heard the original as I offered to clean it for a friend - I found it very compressed and quite difficult to listen to at any decent volume. Personally I couldn't hold this up as an example of digital recordings done well on vinyl ... But it may well sound better than the cd!
I would quite like to hear the new Abbey Road version as I thought they did a superb job on Simple Minds 'New Gold Dream'.
I'm going to be totally pedantic here (please note Idlewithnodrive), but the sonic signature surely is when the playback process is done, i.e. when converted back to analogue so our ears can hear it.
Yes that's ultimately when we hear it in its entirety, but as Macca says, both the recording *and* playback equipment are contributing their respective sonic signatures to proceedings well before that point.
You should know Alan, from designing equipment, that any time a music signal is passed through an electrical component, it *never* comes out the other end 100% intact; integrity is always compromised to some small degree, and the cumulative (adverse) sonic effect of that loss of integrity, occurring throughout the circuit of any piece of equipment, will be audible and translated as the 'sonic signature' you hear on playback.
And the above applies to ANY equipment, digital or analogue, although the respective sonic signatures created are different. That's certainly my personal view, based on the experience I've had in that area.
Marco.
Rothchild
07-03-2017, 20:40
This is where the significant proportion of Back to Black was recorded
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/high-end/423638d1412890499-just-8-tracks-1-tape-you-brave-enough-daptone-gabriel_daptone.jpg
It's not very digital.
Rothchild
07-03-2017, 20:55
To be fair, it looks like there are some cds on the shelf next to this monster rack of (mostly) valve recording equipment, so it's not completely analogue
http://www.tube-tech.com/filer/images/Studiebilleder/Daptone/rack.jpg
Edit: there it is, second down right hand rack, semi-pro HHB CD recorder - they probably went straight from the studer to that for the cd master, hence all the issues.
Consider this if you will:
A man has both analogue and digital playback options in his system, he has the same albums on both formats. He plays the album on both formats, the digital version is clearly inferior sounding to the analogue, no question about it.
He concludes that digital is a clearly inferior medium to analogue.
Then he'd be both a fool and also wrong to arrive at that conclusion so quickly, *unless* the analogue and digital playback options in his system were of comparable quality and sonic ability. Only then, could the results of any such comparison be considered as valid.
That's often why folk arrive at erroneous conclusions, when carrying out comparisons between analogue and digital (vinyl and CD), simply because they don't have the required standard of benchmark (reference point) from which to make proper judgements, in respect of which format or associated equipment is capable of the superior results.
The fact is, the only folk who are properly qualified to comment on such matters are those whose analogue and digital sources are equally as good as each other, otherwise the superior source will always have the advantage. In the case of analogue (vinyl) especially, these days it's always going to cost more to get a turntable to match (or better) the sound quality of even a budget digital source.
Marco.
magiccarpetride
07-03-2017, 22:25
Done properly, the differences between them are not big enough to be of any serious concern.
Hmm, while that certainly sounds reasonable, it hinges on the definition of 'done properly'. What does it mean to do analog or digital properly? I did another experiment earlier today: played Dave Liebman's "Drum Ode" (https://ecmreviews.com/2010/11/09/drum-ode/) on LP, then on CD. What was plainly noticeable was how much denser, thicker, full bodied the LP sounds. Is that because the digital transfer hasn't been done properly? Why on earth would ECM engineers (who are quite famous for being into high quality sound engineering) not be arsed to do the transfer properly?
Hmm, while that certainly sounds reasonable, it hinges on the definition of 'done properly'. What does it mean to do analog or digital properly??
That's the 64,000 dollar question. :)
I'd say "done properly", in any context, is where, for a given budget, judicious attention has been paid to optimising *every* aspect of whatever it is that's being judged, in order that performance (the end result) is maximised to the best of available ability.
No avoidable cop-outs or shortcuts - *whatever it is*, has been produced to be as good as it possibly can be, by those responsible for creating it.
Marco.
dimkasta
08-03-2017, 08:53
No avoidable cop-outs or shortcuts - *whatever it is*, has been produced to be as good as it possibly can be, by those responsible for creating it.
Unfortunately for a business "done properly" means done following a min standard, according to the experience and expertise of the engineer, and up to a certain budget. And this can vary highly within a business, between different products, or even between deliverables of the same project.
Oh and you need both software and hardware done properly :)
Yes, but you're missing the point... It's about having the right mindset (always striving to achieve the *best possible* result [within a given budget], rather than merely settling for 'adequate'), not about following any set process :)
As the saying goes: "When you reach for the stars you may not quite catch one, but you won't come up with a handful of mud either."
Marco.
I'm going to be totally pedantic here (please note Idlewithnodrive), but the sonic signature surely is when the playback process is done, i.e. when converted back to analogue so our ears can hear it.
I have to agree with this point and take it further, there is something about the analogue process and reproduction that sits well with our brains perception of what sounds right or at least pleasurable, which is not always the same thing.
When 337alant trots out his superb Tascam Reel to Reel at NEBO meetings, it is always received with oo's and aah's, "can't beat analogue". Yet Alan has told me, he often puts the music together as a digital play list on his file based system and just hits record. Whatever is happening in this process, we like the end result, so there was nothing wrong with the original digital mastering. If the changes effected by the insertion of the analogue device could be identified and reproduced as a filter in the digital domain this long running argument might go away. :)
Good subject for a student to do a PhD study.
I have to agree with this point and take it further, there is something about the analogue process and reproduction that sits well with our brains perception of what sounds right or at least pleasurable, which is not always the same thing.
When 337alant trots out his superb Tascam Reel to Reel at NEBO meetings, it is always received with oo's and aah's, "can't beat analogue". Yet Alan has told me, he often puts the music together as a digital play list on his file based system and just hits record. Whatever is happening in this process, we like the end result, so there was nothing wrong with the original digital mastering. If the changes effected by the insertion of the analogue device could be identified and reproduced as a filter in the digital domain this long running argument might go away. :)
Good subject for a student to do a PhD study.
I said much the same back in an earlier posting on this subject.
'Vinyl playback of digitally recorded material does not go through further digital reconstruction ie a DAC or any o'f 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 said much the same back in an earlier posting on this subject.
'Vinyl playback of digitally recorded material does not go through further digital reconstruction ie a DAC or any o'f 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
Hasn't the digitally recorded material already gone through a DAC so as to be able to cut the laquer in the first place?
Hasn't the digitally recorded material already gone through a DAC so as to be able to cut the laquer in the first place?
Appreciate what your saying there Barry and that is true but if you look at the highlighted bit you have posted you will see i was talking about playback from Vinyl not how vinyl is mastered in the first place.
Vinyl does not on playback go through a DAC, it may go through a ADC if you want to record it digitally, but it does not go through a DAC as all other digital sources have too.
So, who digitizes their vinyls then, and what do they use? And more importantly, how does it compare?
Hasn't the digitally recorded material already gone through a DAC so as to be able to cut the laquer in the first place?
I think Jimbo is talking about any additional digital processing after the recording is captured on the tape/vinyl play back medium and through the play back process/equipment.
However...........
Just to add to the confusion, Ali's very nice turntable at the MiBO meet went through a minidsp digital crossover and sounded great.
So you have an ADC then a DAC in the chain, downstream of the TT.
It's not a straightforward topic at all.
I personally wish music was available on Blue Ray, fabulous quality available, but it ain't going to happen. There are a few live recordings, where they make use of the picture side of the concert, but for music alone, an album would only use a very small part of the disk.
In any case, the mass market has moved on to file based and streaming, where the later means you don't own a copy and just listen in on the tracks over the internet for a monthly fee. Means a major re think on how royalties are collected for the music publishing companies and begs the question as to whether they are even needed these days.
EDIT: Beat me to a reply James.
So the ADC and DAC are in different positions in the recording and playback chain. That can be the only reason why you, and others, prefer analogue storage of digital recordings.
I believe this has been tested many times and it requires about 10 passes of a signal through ADC/DAC before any degredation is audible. You could sneak into someone's house, insert an ADC/DAC between their phono stage and amp and they would never notice.
You can also test this by measuring or listening for the difference signal. Again, this has been done many times. A single ADC/DAC loop is transparent.
Not challenging what anyone hears, but look again for the reasons.
So the ADC and DAC are in different positions in the recording and playback chain. That can be the only reason why you, and others, prefer analogue storage of digital recordings.
To be honest Barry, I think some or should I say a lot of the digital recordings I have on vinyl sound fantastic.
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?
In the same way that recording a CD or vinyl, yes vinyl onto tape does.
I have Dave Gilmours Rattle That Lock on vinyl and it sounds fabulous, but recorded onto my Revox A77 Mk IV and played back, it sounds even better.
So want to make your CDs sound better and or even your vinyl, get them onto tape.
I have no idea of the science behind this and the improvement is so much better it cannot be a case of thinking it sounds better, it actually does.
Put the vinyl on, put the recorded vinyl on then switch between the two, you can hear the difference in the whole sound, bass, treble, middle,
soundstage, everything.
You do not have to stop and think to make up your mind, ITS BETTER as soon as you switch.
Now where did I put my wallet to buy some more tapes.
In the same way that recording a CD or vinyl, yes vinyl onto tape does.
I have Dave Gilmours Rattle That Lock on vinyl and it sounds fabulous, but recorded onto my Revox A77 Mk IV and played back, it sounds even better.
So want to make your CDs sound better and or even your vinyl, get them onto tape.
I have no idea of the science behind this and the improvement is so much better it cannot be a case of thinking it sounds better, it actually does.
Put the vinyl on, put the recorded vinyl on then switch between the two, you can hear the difference in the whole sound, bass, treble, middle,
soundstage, everything.
You do not have stop and think to make up your mind, ITS BETTER as soon as you switch.
Now where did I put my wallet to buy some more tapes.
There is a theory suggested by one of the worlds top mastering engineers that digital is by its nature a very fast transient medium and vinyl and tape actually slow down some of the transients in the analogue domain. The blurring of the gap between the sampling in digital recordings smooths out some of the transients which are then kinder on the ear and more pleasant to listen too.
So the slowing down of the very fast transient information may be the reason why many of us find analogue systems more enjoyable to listen too.
walpurgis
09-03-2017, 19:05
There is a theory suggested by one of the worlds top mastering engineers that digital is by its nature a very fast transient medium
My intuition says this has to be right. That being the case, the reconstruction of the analogue signal envelope could potentially be faster than pure analogue throughout could achieve. Does that make sense? It's how I picture it.
magiccarpetride
09-03-2017, 19:05
In the same way that recording a CD or vinyl, yes vinyl onto tape does.
I have Dave Gilmours Rattle That Lock on vinyl and it sounds fabulous, but recorded onto my Revox A77 Mk IV and played back, it sounds even better.
So want to make your CDs sound better and or even your vinyl, get them onto tape.
I have no idea of the science behind this and the improvement is so much better it cannot be a case of thinking it sounds better, it actually does.
Put the vinyl on, put the recorded vinyl on then switch between the two, you can hear the difference in the whole sound, bass, treble, middle,
soundstage, everything.
You do not have stop and think to make up your mind, ITS BETTER as soon as you switch.
Now where did I put my wallet to buy some more tapes.
I remember reading an interview with Teo Macero who pretty much claimed that tape is the most superior sound reproduction medium.
My intuition says this has to be right. That being the case, the reconstruction of the analogue signal envelope could potentially be faster than pure analogue throughout could achieve. Does that make sense? It's how I picture it.
Yes that makes sense. Although some folk will deny that transient (time domain) information is not an issue in digital recording, from what I have heard I do believe the timing of transients are critical to how we actual hear.
This transient information is a key area which needs to be resolved in order for us to find digital recording and playback via a DAC a pleasurable satisfying audio experience and not just the lightening quick wham bam approach which may sound exciting initially but eventually becomes a fatiguing listening experience.
Tape and vinyl certainly slow digital recording information down and this as I said is probably the key as to why many find it a superior medium for listening to music. I certainly do!:)
Rothchild
09-03-2017, 20:21
What do people think the difference is between 'transient response' and 'frequency response'?
How does one 'slow' a transient without altering frequency, or are we just saying that we like the sound of tape saturation (which is cool, it does sound good), but it is essentially just dynamic range compression - could just slap a nice vintage compressor on your DAC output right?
walpurgis
09-03-2017, 20:34
What do people think the difference is between 'transient response' and 'frequency response'?
How does one 'slow' a transient without altering frequency, or are we just saying that we like the sound of tape saturation (which is cool, it does sound good), but it is essentially just dynamic range compression - could just slap a nice vintage compressor on your DAC output right?
A transient can be of any frequency. It's the comparative speed to amplitude (rise time) that dictates whether it's a transient. Not sure if there's a formula that defines this though. A square wave is a transient wave, but in music a transient can contain multiple frequencies. I guess digital processing can be directed to slow transients. Can't see why an original signal would benefit from such adulteration theough.
Rothchild
09-03-2017, 21:12
But isn't the rate of rise (and fall) time of a signal simply its frequency? All sound is (fundamentally) amplitude (volume) and frequency (time) isn't it?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.