Does vinyl only make sense if they're pressed from analog tapes?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Remote Control Triangle, Jun 13, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AFCBRINGWOOD

    AFCBRINGWOOD Forum Resident

    Of course it's been mentioned, which is why it's annoying that some people still keep posting about how many great digitally sourced LPs they have. If we're talking from a sound quality point of view (which is what I thought this thread was about) then I don't see any advantage to a digitally sourced LP over a digital file with the same mastering. The sad reality is the music business seldom releases the same masterings as digital files. Those Pink Floyd reissues are a good example.
     
    Slick Willie likes this.
  2. libertycaps

    libertycaps Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR, USA
    A digital step in the rare 80's LP? Never a big deal. It prolly would have sounded even better mastered, produced and cut 100% AAA analog digital. One can always dream and imagine.
     
  3. The FRiNgE

    The FRiNgE Forum Resident

    Does vinyl make sense from a digital source? Sometimes! Back in the early days of Telarc, they used the 20 bit Digital Soundstream System. It made sense to purchase the Lp, that the record was cut via a 20 bit DAC, directly from the master. Consider by contrast, the CD which had to go through a bit depth/sampling rate change to 16/44.1. There is nothing wrong with 16/44.1 in my opinion. However, the rate change introduces some degree of change in the waveform, plus perhaps jitter, that some say is audible. In my experience with Telarc, the LP's sound incredible, the CD somewhat "glossed over".

    Take another scenario, an analog master tape archived to digital, let's say for argument 24/96 back in 2002. Who is to say that tape would play today as it did in 2002? The digital archive preserves as closely as possible the tape as it sounded when it was in better condition. Which Lp would be preferred? An Lp cut from an aged analog tape, or one cut from a digital copy made from a fresher master? If the master is in pristine condition, then the analog source may be better.

    The mastering engineer and care in mastering weighs in a lot. Whenever a master tape is played on a different deck than it was recorded on, the deck must be aligned to the tape. The care which this is done, will determine how well the finished product will sound. The LP or CD can sound only as good as the mastering.

    Does vinyl impose a sonic property of its own? I think certainly it does. There will be always some loss in the pressing operation, making of the stamper, plating, etc (addressed by improved DMM, direct metal mastering technology) ... whether or not these losses offset the losses in digital sampling rate conversion could be debated. The cartridge will have its own sonic signature. The smoothness of vinyl could be attributed to its non-digital nature, reproduction in a non-incremental format. Maybe we do not hear the digital increments, but maybe we do?

    Finally, I have archived some of my vinyl to WAV file. I am happy that I have. This removes a lot of "worry factor", cleanliness of the record, stylus condition, etc. Do I hear a difference? Yes and no! Very recently, I discovered from my less than pristine records, the digital copy sounded "better" than the vinyl itself, slightly less distortion from slight wear, slightly less background "crackle". (highly critical listening but not measurable since this is subjective) So this bears the question, how much less would a pristine record sound? (upon listen I hear no obvious difference) However.. So far, I have not not checked this out critically, but very curious.... thoughts please?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    SandAndGlass, eschorama and chervokas like this.
  4. Bananas&blow

    Bananas&blow It's just that demon life has got me in its sway

    Location:
    Pacific Beach, CA
    I'm sorry that's simply not true. Plenty of new releases sound fantastic and are sometimes better than the original issue. There were plenty of garbage pressings and poor quality vinyl pressed in the 60's and 70's. Motown and MCA to name two were labels with poor quality vinyl issues. I can't fathom why some feel that only original issues are the best, when it just isn't true. Sometimes it is. But it certainly is not always true. It is a case by case basis. I"ll use two examples:

    The original 1975 Kendun release of Fleetwood Mac self-titled is considered the best pressing.
    The very next release Rumours, the best pressing is the SH/KG from 2009 I believe.
    Same label. Same band. Different results.
     
    wgriel, The FRiNgE, andybeau and 2 others like this.
  5. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Digital source ?
    Pointless.
    May as well get cd.
     
    12" 45rpm likes this.
  6. Nielsoe

    Nielsoe Forum Resident

    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
    No
     
    Stefan likes this.
  7. Chris Schoen

    Chris Schoen Rock 'n Roll !!!

    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.A.
    I have found that the record has better tone, even if it's cut from the cd master. Probably due to the resonance that kind of softens the digital "edginess".
     
    SandAndGlass and dkmonroe like this.
  8. enfield

    enfield Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex UK
    I think the analogue process softens the sound generally.The edginess is how many recordings (and instruments) naturally sound..In my experience digital will play a recording back faithfully and accurately.Vinyl/Analogue will gently colour the sound of the recording in a pleasant way.
     
  9. Chris Schoen

    Chris Schoen Rock 'n Roll !!!

    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.A.
    Yes, and "pleasant" is the key word, right? :agree:
     
    xfilian and dkmonroe like this.
  10. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Enjoy.
     
    Chris Schoen likes this.
  11. Chris Schoen

    Chris Schoen Rock 'n Roll !!!

    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.A.
    In my experience, a AAA vinyl will sound more accurate than a digital recording of the same. The turntable is an instrument, and can relay the sound of an instrument more realistically (imo).
    For whatever reasons though, when I play a record that has piano, drums, acoustic guitar, etc. it is more impressive to my ears.
     
    dkmonroe likes this.
  12. Chris Schoen

    Chris Schoen Rock 'n Roll !!!

    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.A.
    Yes, I do.
     
    dkmonroe likes this.
  13. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    :cheers:
     
    Chris Schoen likes this.
  14. chervokas

    chervokas Senior Member

    Sure, there's a maximum limit level for CD or for digital recording that a signal can't go over without distortion, but you don't need to use compression to avoid hitting that level. An engineer could just record at a lower level, or the engineer could just ride the faders. And furthermore, there's no requirement that the compression that is used be digital. CD has a much wider available dynamic range than vinyl, in fact you're far less likely to need to use compression to get a wide dynamic source to "fit" on a CD than on an LP. And digital recording has a much lower noise floor than analog recording, so it's much easier to recorded at a lower average level and have tons of headroom for dynamic peaks without problems with digital recording vs. analog.

    Vinyl and analog also has a maximum level limit before distortion, but again one doesn't necessarily need to use compression to get a signal to fit on analog tape or on an LP without distortion, however, LP is more likely to call for a compressed master than CD, because of LP's higher noise floor, narrower dynamic range, and because trying to cut very dynamic bass onto vinyl might cause problems with cartridge tracking so more compression of the bass is required than might be on CD.

    This thread -- including someone else's incorrect assertion that a separate master is required for LP vs. CD -- suggests that there are a lot of misconceptions about what is and isn't possible, and what is and isn't common practice when it comes to LP and CD.

    If there are a lot of brickwall-compressed, average level boosted masters out there -- and most contemporary non-specialty LPs are cut from the same production master that's used for the CD, so if it's been brickwalled, it's been brickwalled -- it's not because the CD format requires it, it's because engineers and artists and producers have chosen a particular hot sound they want for their release.

    There may be things done at the cutting stage to alter the average level if the master being used it particularly hot, or to alter the dynamic range (ie, add more compression), if the master problematically dynamic bass, and that may lead to a somewhat different sounding LP than CD, even when the same master is used. Just as there may be a step down to 44.1/16 from some higher sampling rate/greater bit depth master in making the CD. But there's not necessarily a different master that is the source.

    A lot of things that seem to be presumed as rules -- CD is always compressed, and always compressed more than LP or compressed differently than LP master; LP requires a different master than CD, etc. -- aren't rules that can just be presumed always to be true.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    The FRiNgE, enfield and Robert C like this.
  15. chervokas

    chervokas Senior Member

    I don't know about new records, because other than the rare purchase of a specialty pressing, I don't buy new records anymore. But in the 1980s, pressings tended to be horrible, especially in the late '80s as CD started to displace vinyl. And even in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, vinyl surfaces could be noisy, or full of pressing flaws, etc. I mean, there's no end to it: I have '50s shaded dog RCA Living Stereo classical record with bumps in the vinyl, I have a '60s Columbia Boulez Conducts Debussy album with a surface so hissy the music is unlistenable, I remember my first pressing of Remain in Light when it came out was so off center, playing the inner tracks on the LP would cause my tonearm to cross whatever threshold was there to set of the record-end stop function in the middle of "The Overload." There were good pressings out there too, even in the '80s -- the OJC jazz reissues on vinyl in the early '80s were great. But there's not assurance that a record cut in the heyday of vinyl was well pressed.
     
    Vinyl Archaeologist likes this.
  16. chervokas

    chervokas Senior Member

    Two good scenarios.
     
  17. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    Sorry, I don't adjust my opinion because of the area I am in. If you give a group of random members here a CD and a digitally sourced LP from the same source and ask that they choose what's the better one, you will not get consensus. If people enjoy the LP, that's reason enough for its existence. That's the sonic benefit. Ultimately it's a matter of taste and preference.
     
  18. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    It is a simplistic position that does not account for preference and taste. And if "there is some loss when mastering analog to digital", then bye-bye CDs of pre-digital music - they are mastered from analog to digital.
     
    Stefan likes this.
  19. KT88

    KT88 Senior Member

    Well, format sonic justifications aside, my point is that I find it practical to collect one type of media rather than two for many reasons. So because I have a much larger Lp collection, it makes sense for me to buy more Lps rather than new formats. They slide right into my existing and expandable Lp storage shelving and the larger graphics are more pleasing to me. I have a separate area for CD storage but it feels clumsy and in a corner. I have also invested more into Lp playback equipment and so they sound very good. So for simplicity and without noticeable sonic penalty, I'll take a digital mastered or sourced Lp any day. I have some going way back and they sound great. I also have some AAD CDs that sound good. I don't find the format to be a sonic end-all, rather just a vehicle for the recording quality, good or bad. We can all cite very good and quite poor sounding examples of both.
    -Bill
     
    wgriel, dkmonroe and Dubmart like this.
  20. chervokas

    chervokas Senior Member

    I agree with you about the format not being the be-all and end-all. I'm format agnostic. I listen to vinyl, I listen to CD, I listen (very rarely) do downloaded digital files, I stream music for casual listening and social listening and listening in the car. But for me, storing vinyl is anything but convenient. I've run out of room for more physical stuff, vinyl or CDs actually. And it's problem.
     
  21. KT88

    KT88 Senior Member

    Buy a house for them. Done.
    :cheers:
    -Bill
     
  22. TheIncredibleHoke

    TheIncredibleHoke Dachshund Dog Dad

    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Have purchased hundreds of AAA vinyl albums in the 10s. Not everything is digital.
     
    dkmonroe likes this.
  23. jupiterboy

    jupiterboy Forum Residue

    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    I think you are generally right, but look into Soundstream process. It was the first digitization and they used analog tapes to record the binary information. It was ultimately 16-bit, and those records sound fantastic! I attribute the sound to the fact that the recording engineers and artists worked hand-in-hand for mic selection/placement, etc.
     
  24. norliss

    norliss Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cardiff, Wales
    Hundreds? Really? Care to share a list?
     
    12" 45rpm likes this.
  25. Dennis0675

    Dennis0675 Hyperactive!

    Location:
    Ohio
    A big reason it makes sense for me is that I'm better at listening to records. Call it a personality disorder or a weak mind but I much less frequently play an album from start to finish when its a digital format. When I put an expensive stylus in a groove I'm making a commitment that I won't so easily give up on. The need to flip also brings me back to the cover or label and previews the side that is to come. All of it helps keep my head in the game. Call it ADD but the need to physically get up and walk over to the table is a distraction from listening that keeps me listening. The need to change something and be busy while keeping a commitment to an album side.

    If I have a remote in my hand and 20,000 songs that can be randomly accessed, I tend to randomly access more often. The best way for me to discover a new artist and give their music enough time to burn into my head is to buy the LP.

    I know this hobby is making a big deal out of subtle differences, many that most people can't hear or relate to and I do enjoy that aspect. But fundamentally its about listening to music, the extent that your format of choice accomplishes that counts for something.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine