Digital recordings on vinyl

[Jimbo]

What was the CDP

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.

[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'.

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.

[Macca]

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.

[Macca]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Macca]

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]

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]

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.