Valuable Singles

[Marco]

Lol... The only bit I really disagree with is this:

And the cd is the closest you'll get to the master-tape or file, way more so than even the fanciest audiophile pressing.

Perhaps, but whilst also superimposing a 'digital signature' onto the sound... NO form of audio replay equipment is 100% neutral or without 'character'. That's a fact, even if it may not be measurable... If it's not measurable, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; simply that we haven't yet discovered how to measure it!

I can easily hear [and readily identify] the sonic signature that the digital recording or playback process imposes on the sound of any analogue recording.

Therefore I'd contend, if the recording has been made using an all-analogue process (as many superb pieces of music were, pre-1970s), then the closest sound to the master-tape will be achieved by replaying it on a reel-to-reel tape recorder, or vinyl.

You certainly won't hear it, by fucking it up with a data conversion process into the digital domain

Marco.

[Macca]

Lol... The only bit I really disagree with is this:



Perhaps, but whilst also superimposing a 'digital signature' onto the sound... No form of audio replay equipment is 100% neutral or without 'character'. That's a fact, even if it isn't measurable...

And I'd contend, if the recording has been made using an all-analogue process (as many superb pieces of music were, pre-1970s),then the closest sound to the master-tape will be achieved by replaying it on a reel-to-reel tape recorder, or vinyl.

Marco.

See I don't agree that there is such a thing as a 'digital signature', at least not inherent in the medium. Obviously the digital playback equipment will have a signature to an extent, that's unavoidable. Digital encodes the waveform perfectly, tape and vinyl don't. If you listen to an analogue recording on CD then you get character from the playback equipment (true of any medium) but it will still be an exact copy of the master tape that you are starting with. Any added character beyond that is from the R2R machine they used to make the digital copy.

When you look at what they have to do to produce a vinyl record from the master tape (or file mostly these days) you can see that it inherently strays some distance away from being an exact copy. Regardless of whether or not it was an analogue recording.

When the character of each different recording you play dominates the sound over the character of the replay equipment that's when you know you are close to accuracy - now don't get me wrong, you can get that with vinyl too, but at a level of expense and hassle that I don't really want, not when there's an easier, cheaper option.

[Marco]

See I don't agree that there is such a thing as a 'digital signature', at least not inherent in the medium.

Yes, but you can't hear the medium itself without involving the use of the necessary replay equipment - and *that* is what generates the 'signature'.

Obviously the digital playback equipment will have a signature to an extent, that's unavoidable.

Exactly! As I've just said, you can't hear any digitally recorded music without the use of the associated playback equipment. That's my point (and the leveller) - and in that respect, I can hear the resulting 'signature' that ANY CD player, or streaming system, playing a digital music file, imbues onto the sound.

Digital encodes the waveform perfectly, tape and vinyl don't.

Yet it didn't stop some of the finest music recordings ever produced from happening, made in an all-analogue and valve domain, from mike to desk and onto tape. Quite simply, the best of those recordings, sonically BLOW AWAY anything produced in modern times since - and I could easily demonstrate it!

Therefore, that strongly suggests to me that not only is digital not 'perfect'/'neutral', 'accurate' (ultimately where it matters most, in terms of what the human ear hears), or whatever other term you wish to use to portray its supposed superiority, but that something else is happening in the overall process, which is REAL (and a genuine part of the musical information, not coloration), but that isn't being accounted for in the judgement process.

However, that's a discussion for another day...

When the character of each different recording you play dominates the sound over the character of the replay equipment that's when you know you are close to accuracy...

As you say, if your vinyl set-up is good enough, then you can easily achieve the above, but I can tell you that most of that is down to experience and know-how, than money!

now don't get me wrong, you can get that with vinyl too, but at a level of expense and hassle that I don't really want, not when there's an easier, cheaper option.

Yes, but it'll always sound like digital, and every piece of music played will intrinsically be 'tainted' accordingly. Yes, that also occurs with vinyl, so the reality is that you simply have to 'suck your favourite flavour', as I'm afraid any notion that one or the other is 'perfect', or 100% faithful to anything, when part of a music replay system, is totally misguided. You simply have to choose your compromises.

Plus, and this is another thing, if when vinyl is done at its absolute best [and I've already mentioned what that constitutes as], there was a significant (and notable) difference in the accuracy of the resulting music signal (i.e. the sound that you end up listening to), then it would ably reveal itself when ripping vinyl onto CD (or creating a digital file from a vinyl recording).

And any time I've done that, aside from some occasional slight surface noise, which is inevitable even with the cleanest and best condition records, it's almost impossible to tell one from the other [or crucially also a commercially produced CD of the same music] - indeed, I've blindfolded myself and also friends (and Del) and asked them to identify the original recording from the rip (or said commercial CD). All so far have struggled, and therefore inevitably get it wrong!

Quite simply, that happens because the sounds/recordings replayed are sonically near-indistinguishable.

So, if in the final analysis [i.e. the sound that we actually hear through our speakers] there is little (almost nothing) to sonically separate two identical pieces of music, recorded respectively in either the digital or analogue domain, then how can vinyl intrinsically be so inferior or less 'accurate' than digital - because ultimately in the circumstances I've just described you'd hear it, wouldn't you?

Think about that....

Marco.

[Macca]

Plus, and this is another thing, if when vinyl is done at its absolute best [and I've already mentioned what that constitutes as], there was a significant (and notable) difference in the accuracy of the resulting music signal (i.e. the sound that you end up listening to), then it would ably reveal itself when ripping vinyl onto CD (or creating a digital file from a vinyl recording).

And any time I've done that, aside from some occasional slight surface noise, which is inevitable even with the cleanest and best condition records, it's almost impossible to tell one from the other - indeed, I've blindfolded myself and also friends (and Del) and asked them to identify the original recording from the rip, and all so far have struggled, and therefore inevitably get it wrong!

Quite simply, that happens because both sounds/recordings are near-indistinguishable.

So, if in the final analysis [i.e. the sound that we actually hear through our speakers] there is little (almost nothing) to separate the two, sonically, then how can vinyl intrinsically be so inferior or less 'accurate' - because ultimately in the circumstances I've just described you'd hear it, wouldn't you?

Think about that....

Marco.

This last bit about copying your vinyl doesn't make sense to your argument. You have the recording on vinyl, with all the inherent flaws, you say you copy it to a CD and then play the CD and they are virtually indistinguishable.

All this shows is that a digital recording is 100% accurate to the source and that it adds nothing of its own to the sound. Of course it sounds like the vinyl, it's a perfect copy of it! But the vinyl LP you are starting with is far from a perfect copy of the master tape

Consider:

basic noise floor of -70dB (A-weighted) if we’re lucky – stylus scraping along a groove in plastic, vinyl has finite grain size
pops and clicks: scratches and dust
electrical hum and noise: cartridge produces a tiny signal, and high gain pre-amplification is needed
rumble: bearings, motor
warped records cause various problems
stylus wear
stylus contamination: dust, dirt, vinyl particles
stylus misalignment – may vary as arm moves across record
record wear – the Decca test disc for measuring cartridge frequency response was specified for only 5 plays for the tracks with frequencies above 10 kHz!
record contamination: dust, dirt, vinyl particles
fundamental limitations in linearity of vinyl cutting/replay system
diameter loss: speed of groove decreases throughout LP, increasing noise and distortion and reducing upper frequency response
pre-echo: adjacent groove modulation
microphony: sound from speakers feeds back into the pickup
Channel separation: varies with frequency and typically only 20-30 dB at maximum
Record may be pressed towards end of life of the stamper, resulting in increased levels of various distortions
compression (raises the quietest sections in volume to make them audible above the background noise, reduces the loudest sections to economise on groove spacing)
de-essing (reduce treble response for high amplitude, high frequency sounds)
mixing stereo bass to mono (otherwise the needle jumps out of the groove)
off-centre pressing
motor speed, belt, etc.
RIAA record and/or playback curves are often only approximate
cumulative effect of factors above causes imprecise frequency response (arbitrary processing when mastering, diameter loss, etc.)

None of which means it won't 'sound good' but it is going to be some distance away from playing the master tape on an RTR. Whereas the CD has none of those drawbacks. Not a one. And you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from the master tape playing, the same as you can't with your vinyl to CD copy.

[Marco]

This last bit about copying your vinyl doesn't make sense to your argument. You have the recording on vinyl, with all the inherent flaws, you say you copy it to a CD and then play the CD and they are virtually indistinguishable.

All this shows is that a digital recording is 100% accurate to the source and that it adds nothing of its own to the sound. Of course it sounds like the vinyl, it's a perfect copy of it! But the vinyl LP you are starting with is far from a perfect copy of the master tape

You missed the bit about the vinyl rip sounding near-identical to a commercially produced digital recording of the same music!!

And THAT is the reality. If you don't believe me, I'll let you hear it yourself next time you're up. I've got loads of albums that were released on both vinyl and CD, and own both. If anything, the vinyl rip is often better than the digital original, simply because one can take more care optimising the recording process (with levels, etc)....

Consider:

basic noise floor of -70dB (A-weighted) if we’re lucky – stylus scraping along a groove in plastic, vinyl has finite grain size
pops and clicks: scratches and dust
electrical hum and noise: cartridge produces a tiny signal, and high gain pre-amplification is needed
rumble: bearings, motor
warped records cause various problems
stylus wear
stylus contamination: dust, dirt, vinyl particles
stylus misalignment – may vary as arm moves across record
record wear – the Decca test disc for measuring cartridge frequency response was specified for only 5 plays for the tracks with frequencies above 10 kHz!
record contamination: dust, dirt, vinyl particles
fundamental limitations in linearity of vinyl cutting/replay system
diameter loss: speed of groove decreases throughout LP, increasing noise and distortion and reducing upper frequency response
pre-echo: adjacent groove modulation
microphony: sound from speakers feeds back into the pickup
Channel separation: varies with frequency and typically only 20-30 dB at maximum
Record may be pressed towards end of life of the stamper, resulting in increased levels of various distortions
compression (raises the quietest sections in volume to make them audible above the background noise, reduces the loudest sections to economise on groove spacing)
de-essing (reduce treble response for high amplitude, high frequency sounds)
mixing stereo bass to mono (otherwise the needle jumps out of the groove)
off-centre pressing
motor speed, belt, etc.
RIAA record and/or playback curves are often only approximate
cumulative effect of factors above causes imprecise frequency response (arbitrary processing when mastering, diameter loss, etc.)

Yes, but you're missing the point... All of that means HEE-HAW, if ultimately it doesn't translate into a significantly audible difference - and if your vinyl set-up is good enough, it doesn't. That's my point!

That's the problem with fixating too much on measurements, many of which in the real world are largely meaningless, because the final arbiter is a human pair of ears, not a piece of test equipment.

Quite simply, if all of what you've stated *really nattered*, in the final analysis, then a commercially produced digital recording, of any piece of music, would automatically sound better than ANY vinyl rip of the same, wouldn't it, with all the flaws of vinyl (as you've indisputably outlined) readily apparent and therefore easily heard?

Yet that's not what happens if the T/T (and set up thereof) is good enough, together with the vinyl ripped being in pristine condition...

You need to get your head round that notion, and the reason you're struggling is because (and I don't mean this in a bad way) you've neither owned a T/T good enough to level the playing field in that way, nor have any (or much) experience of ripping vinyl to digital.

Marco.