Do you buy digital recordings on vinyl or only analogue?

I don't have the hi rez files, only the Redbook cd and vinyl. Since the cd is 16bit redbook, this is why for me the vinyl sounds best as it is done from 24bit.

 

I have no problem buying a record mastered from a digital source. The concurrent CD issue may sound inferior, just the opposite of what common logic may suggest, the vinyl produces greater dynamics, better imaging, more true timbre. That's just my subjective observation. On the tech side, I am not a digital guru, so I may be incorrect or partially incorrect.. I think the CD resolution problem is not as much the format, as it is by the bit depth/rate conversion (downsampling) that results in lossy sound. If the original digital master is 20/44.1, (24/96, etc) and run through its own proper DA converter at the studio to the cutting lathe, all is well. But if that 20 bit master is resampled to 16/44.1 compatible master, then we lose some 1's and 0's. Maybe someone could help clarify or correct me on this pls?

I have quite a few CD-R's made back in the 2000's from a Pioneer CD recorder. I hear no difference between the CD and the source, provided CD-R is recorded and played back at the same rate.

 

Digital steps in vinyl mastering exist since the late 70's, and the same goes for the recording stage.

Given the same source, mastering is by far the most important factor for sound quality, the media or format is a far away second.

For pure analog sources, I believe keeping the mastering chain in the strict analog domain is a determining factor for the best sound quality.

I've also found that, usually, cutting from tape sounds better, even when the recording is digital... and that's interesting, I'm sure it's somehow related to mastering options.

Sure, I have loads of vinyl that were cut from digital source, or containing music that involved some kind of digital process in recording, mixing or editing. Usually sounds great, or even exceptional!

Here's a few reasons why:

Blog.VinylGourmet.com: The case for Vinyl in the Digital Age... or: Why does it sound better? »

 

I must say that my recent investigations of pre Redbook digital LPs has somewhat modified my views. These are LPs that were sourced from digital recordings in the period between 1972 and 1981, prior to the development of Redbook recorders . There were two main systems and associated labels Denon PCM and Telarc's Soundstream digital recorders plus systems from 3M and Mitsubishi..

More thoroughly sampling these LPs in the past month, I am struck by how much better they are than any Redbook sourced digital LP from the 1980s. They sound more natural and the midrange has body and reality to it although they are not exactly analogue sounding. I fear that a major wrong turn in digital occurred with Redbook. I have added about a dozen of these pre Redbook digital LPs so far to my collection and likely will add more. I have sampled classical and jazz albums. Very few pop albums were done digitally in this period. For the first time I can understand why serious music biz insiders had enthusiasm for digital recording prior to the CD.

 

Both. Most recording from the 80's were digital to begin with; DAA.

 

Possibly if redbook was decided at the studio standard, 16/48? This would have eliminated resampling of two incompatible bit rates, and all the associated jitter and lack of ambiance and nuance. What's in back of the mix really does add body and depth and warmth to the sound. Adding more compression helps this deficit, but at the expense of dynamic range and realistic presentation.... which the CD was supposed to be all about. I have found many redbook CD's mastered AAD sound really good.

 

Bit depth alone isn't a deciding factor for sound quality when it comes to digitally sourced vinyl. Vinyl is incapable of containing 16 "bits" of dynamic range, let alone 24!

 

Why does a record sound better than redbook CD from the same digital master? This is why, (see link below) an excellent discussion from this forum back in 2006... answers my question. The conversion from a non-evenly divisive bit rate alters the sound, alters timbre, alters dynamics and noise. However when the mastering engineers cut a record from a studio digital source, (ie: 16/48) there is no bit rate conversion.. just run the master via DA conversion straight to analogue. Let's say a sound recording was made at 16/44.1, then all digital copies at 16/44.1 would be lossless. (or supposed to be) In this case, the CD copy would sound just as wonderful as the master, and very likely better than the same vinyl pressing. Bit rate conversion is the enemy, downsampling not upsampling. Apparently, making a vinyl record without bit rate conversion is a more accurate copy of the master, vs the making of a redbook CD with bit rate conversion.
Best way to convert 24/96 to 16/44.1? »

 

This was true back in the 80s and 90s but apparently the newest rate converters are transparent based on my reading of the literature and analyses by listener. (TAS had one such review.) It is perplexing though why these early pre Redbook PCM recorders produce much betrer sounding LPs compared with Redbook converters. The small difference in sample rates should not make much difference per se..

I agree but would extend it to CDs as well based on the results with these pre Redbook digital recordings. The Denon had 14-15 bit resolution with 47k sampling between 1972 and 1979 and sounds much better than the Sony PCM recordings. The Soundstream did have 16 bit at 50k and also sounds better. So bit rate while important is not the decisive factor by itself. However CDs because of the problem of digital overload end up with more restricted dynamics than advertised.

NB to others: I started a thread a short while ago on this subject:Denon PCM Encoding in 1970s. Is it different than Sony CD PCM? »

and also an LP Discography of these pre redbook LPs from 1972 to 1981:PRE Redbook Digital LP Discography 1972-1981 »

 

Think you are being very hard on the CD format.Overall it is far less flawed in both production techniques and reproduction than Vinyl.Never heard 16/44.1 called 'lossy' before.And it is almost certainly nearer the master (if the master is 24/96),than most vinyl set-ups can re-produce.Certainly in terms of stability,wow & flutter,degradation..etc.
Am not having a go at the vinyl format.I am a big fan and it can sound wonderful and i have been hooked by the almost magical allure of it a few times over the decades.But no format is faultless.Just think its a bit harsh to criticize one that is far less flawed than your format of choice.

 

I try to buy well-pressed, good sounding LP's whether or not they are from analog or digital sources. If they sound good to me, that's all that matters. I have several LP's that were made from digitally recorded sources and they sound terrific, and often sound better to me than their CD or other digital equivalent. I'm a hedonist when it comes to music - it's all about what gives me pleasure.

 

The OT Star Wars original albums from 1977, 1980 and 1983 have been remastered and released as digital download at 192 Khz/24 bit and 96 Khz/24 bit and LPs, which were sourced from the HiRes digital files. I have the 192/24 digital download and the three albums on LP (two LPs for Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, one LP for Return Of The Jedi) and both versions sound good on their own right. I don't hear any sign of "digititis" on the vinyl versions and at the same time the 192/24 versions sound like analog to me. I must say NO, I don't mind buying LP records sourced from digital if it's from a HiRes digital source. Sometimes they are preferable to the CD version. One example, the soundtrack for Star Wars The Force Awakens, which was tracked and mixed-down to 192 Khz/24 bit. The double LP release sounds closer to the 192/24 digital download than the CD.

 

The cherished "sound of vinyl" is the sum total of many parts. Tone arm, cartridge, platter, preamp, etc. So vinyl will always sound like vinyl, regardless of the source recording. So if it's from a digital source, no big deal. Not for me, anyway.

 

I think the apt comparison is high-res downloads vs. digitally sourced vinyl. More likely the same mastering and source.

 

I buy both, but try always to get fully analog releases only, usually as they sound far superior on my setup. And i generally go by who mastered them..

 

I only buy cd's now...and would rather those be sourced from an original mastertape...analog tape that is.

But...I don't mind terribly if it was a digital recording initially (the last 35 years or so), but if I bought vinyl...I'd prefer and might only buy, analog sourced recordings. I'd be pickier as a vinyl nut than I am in this regard, as a cd nut.

Go figure.

 

Ditto.

 

Very true...regardless in my A/B tests it seems the CD is not in the same sonic quality as the vinyl version. This is where I say the media makes the difference, not that one is better than the other, but just makes a difference......and that difference is what my ears prefer.
I like to think that what I hear is the 8-12 bits that are on the vinyl are portrayed in a more accepting, soothing, enjoyable non fatiguing manner than the 16 bits on the CD. I suppose less can be more......

I buy records because I like to spin records and that sound is preferable, it has a winning percentage over the CD easily.

 

If the vinyl is the best available mastering then yes

 

Bigger all recordings use 16 bits. Non issue.
Particularly rock stuff.

 

Maybe I said this earlier or someone else did, but I think a big winning factor is the particular setup for vinyl each person has. If you have hand-picked components that color the sound, you end up with a customized sound that is to your liking and it imparts that particular signature to anything you run through it. CD players tend to be robotically identical (yes, I know, some are better than others etc) and therefore, the output is much more standard across the board. Some people like that consistency, some people like a custom sound that their vinyl rig brings to the table, no pun intended.

 

To me it sounds like you prefer the mastering on the vinyl records you've compared to CD. It's the mastering that makes the difference, not so much the format. Then again, vinyl does impart a distortion upon the music so maybe it's that you're preferring.

 

Mastering is king.

That being said, I usually find the best mastering on vinyl

 

It seems to me that, in some cases, modern cds and lps are being produced for different audiences. If you look at the DR numbers for Random Access Memories and Adele's most recent, you'll see that the lps are more dynamic than the cd version. This makes me believe that the cds are being marketed as a mobile media, where background noise is an issue. For a listening environment with background noise, a little less dynamic range is a good thing.

 

I don't even check anymore. It never did seem like a useful indicator of whether a record will sound good or not - how could it be?

If you have a digitally-sourced LP that sounds bad, I can guarantee you the culprit isn't digital technology.