[jp11801]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wang228 jon l: "The quality of recording matters SO MUCH more than hardware, it's not even funny. " so true ....

while this is absolutely true and it starts with the quality of the recording and mastering you can compare a recording from the same master engineer.

I have found generally LPs mastered well into the digital era from major record companies to be not as good as their digital counterpart. Albums produced in the 50s, 60s and 70s however typically shine on LP.

 

[Revliskciuq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jp11801 I have found generally LPs mastered well into the digital era from major record companies to be not as good as their digital counterpart. Albums produced in the 50s, 60s and 70s however typically shine on LP.

I believe that to truly take advantage of a format and recording has to be mastered with the format in mind. So taking your example into consideration, many current release LP's are simply pressed from a master that was intended for RedBook. To begin with I'm not a big advocate of taking something that's entirely in the digital domain, and then pressing it to an LP; it was never meant to be analog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz Each has it's own signature, but neither can really be considered superior to the other, only that people can state their preference to one.

I agree with Garbz and stand by my original point that the pinnacle of digital audio is not to emulate its analog peer.

 

[Garbz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revliskciuq So taking your example into consideration, many current release LP's are simply pressed from a master that was intended for RedBook. .

The end result of this process would be almost unlistenable. They would go through some kind of processing, most likely compressors. That said the result of that is probably worse

 

[Duckspeak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revliskciuq Who ever said the purpose of digital audio was to emulate analog audio?

You could argue that there isn't any other purpose to digital audio than to emulate analog audio, as sound waves themselves are analog. No speaker drivers actually play zeros and ones; they move in a physical, continuous, analog, non-discrete manner.

Hypothetically, a perfect analog circuit (and recording process) would provide a flawless translation from the original sound waves to your speakers, whereas even a perfect digital process would have some amount of error. Of course, because there is no such thing as a perfect circuit, microphone, record, or speaker, approximating sounds by ones and zeros is not really any worse than approximating it using analog storage. (e.g. vinyl) In fact, it's a much more promising technology because it allows for robustness and error correction that you can't get with analog--there's no easy way to tell when a record has started to wear, but you can easily tell if a single bit has been misplaced.

To be clear, I am a strong supporter of the concept of digital audio. It makes things much easier. To the extent that there is a digital "signature", (I don't know if this is true) it will vanish as storage becomes cheaper and cheaper--ultimately, I think that the greatest transparency will come from digital.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz What I was trying to say here, digital can't "Catch up" with analoge at all. This used to be a logical idea back when digital sucked, but nowadays the formats sound different because of the different process used to create them. Each has it's own signature, but neither can really be considered superior to the other, only that people can state their preference to one.

When I do a straight transfer of an LP to CD, it sounds exactly like the record. If there's a difference between analogue and digital, it isn't bits and bytes you're hearing... it's the choices of the mastering engineer.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jp11801 I have found generally LPs mastered well into the digital era from major record companies to be not as good as their digital counterpart. Albums produced in the 50s, 60s and 70s however typically shine on LP.

That's because of the poor quality of vinyl blank pucks in the late 70s and 80s. During the oil crisis, record companies were trying to keep costs down by recycling old records. These melted down LPs had dirt and other contaminants that created pits in the surface of the records pressed with the recycled material.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revliskciuq I believe that to truly take advantage of a format and recording has to be mastered with the format in mind. So taking your example into consideration, many current release LP's are simply pressed from a master that was intended for RedBook. To begin with I'm not a big advocate of taking something that's entirely in the digital domain, and then pressing it to an LP; it was never meant to be analog.

The reason you can't take a master intended for CD release and use it "as is" for mastering an LP is because the cutting head of the lathe has a certain amount of error. You need to EQ and balance the dynamics to correct for the error in the disc cutting process. Whether or not the master tape is digital or analogue makes no difference.

See ya
Steve

 

[Comrade Penguin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot When I do a straight transfer of an LP to CD, it sounds exactly like the record. If there's a difference between analogue and digital, it isn't bits and bytes you're hearing... it's the choices of the mastering engineer. See ya Steve

You've said a lot of wise things but I'd have to question you on that one. Just putting to one side the difference btween CD and vinyl there is the changes made both by the inaccuracies of signal running through a wire but mostly the difference between the way your CD player sounds and the way your record player sounds so surely it is impossible to judge?

Whilst a mastering engineer is obviously a huge influence on the overall sound the inherant flaws in both systems result in a certain sound for both. Bits and bytes are not what causes the differences in sound but the way that information is processed. That's not to say the master engineer couldnt engineer a record to sound like a CD and vice versa they probably could.

Anyways the argument is incredibly academic. As you have said LPs have to be mastered differently to CDs. So whether that difference in sound comes from the vinyl system or the different mastering process that is required, if the sound that comes from it is more pleasing then why worry? I will admit there are some albums which I prefre on CD however the vast majority I prefre the vinyl version even those made well into the digital age. Be that difference caused by my record player, the vinyl format, the mastering Engineer or even my imagination doesn't matter a great deal. What matters is the music effects me more because of it.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade Penguin You've said a lot of wise things but I'd have to question you on that one. Just putting to one side the difference btween CD and vinyl there is the changes made both by the inaccuracies of signal running through a wire but mostly the difference between the way your CD player sounds and the way your record player sounds so surely it is impossible to judge?

Well I can't tell if a CD used to master an LP would sound the same, because I don't have the ability to cut and press vinyl records... But it is possible to judge whether an LP used to master a CD sounds the same. I've done that test, and there is absolutely no difference.

It is important to think about these sorts of things and to analyze to determine what makes sound good. If you assume that vinyl sounds better than LP, you're in for a rude surprise if you buy a David Bowie Dynaflex LP of Diamond Dogs instead of picking up the CD release. The same is true if you buy Led Zeppelin II on CD because you assume it sounds better than the original LP release... because it doesn't.

Format, age of the transfer, and price are not accurate ways to guarantee good sound. The only way to find the best sound is to research the various pressings, re-releases and remasters... and understand how records and CDs are mastered and manufactured.

See ya
Steve

 

[Comrade Penguin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Well I can't tell if a CD used to master an LP would sound the same, because I don't have the ability to cut and press vinyl records... But it is possible to judge whether an LP used to master a CD sounds the same. I've done that test, and there is absolutely no difference.

I'm not necessarily questioning you on that what I'm saying is how do you know there is no difference? My point is how can it sound the same if your not using the same equipment which is clearly impossible. In the same way that any given record will sound different of my Project Debut II than on my father's Linn Sondek. I just can't follow how your able to say that not that what you saying is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Format, age of the transfer, and price are not accurate ways to guarantee good sound. The only way to find the best sound is to research the various pressings, re-releases and remasters... and understand how records and CDs are mastered and manufactured.

Very true. If you did use those things the digital remasters of Led Zepplin should sound fantastic on CD when actually there are many many analog masters for CD which are far better. Also I doubt there is one "best recording". For example I find many audiophile recordings that are rated by magazines to have excellent sound quality sound bass heavy on my system as I can't adjust the tracking height easily. I can imagine there are things such as synergy between certain master and certain systems. For example my system is bass light, my fathers a bit bass heavy. As such masters with slightly boosted bass sound lovely on my system where as on his can sound awful. (This is obviously hilariously simplified but you get the idea) Also it's about prefrence. I favour a slightly more analytical sound than my father and he likes it a bit warmer. As such other peoples opinions can only tell you so much jsut like with hi-fi and music, ultimately you have to hear it yourself.

I also agree that the mastering engineer has a greater influence than format, as does your source, amp and speakers. All I'm saying is that 95% of the time I find when I compare a CD version and a vinyl version on many different systems the vinyl version sounds better to me. That may not be due to the format but the point is thats my safe bet. I can do all the research I like but unless I hear all the different pressing, and versions I can't judge. I don't have the time or the funds to do that so I'll stick with what most of the time sounds better to my ears. However if the vinyl version sucks I'll go out and buy a CD version. I found the CD version of Silent Alarm by Bloc Party much better. I also went out and bought the CD version fo the Arcade Fire album though soon returned it as I discovered it was nought to do with the difference between versions but the fact whoever had produced it hadn't quite acheived a shound I like.

Just as a side note. I actually agree with you for the most part bigshot, I'm just trying to show a practicalish side. As much as anyone who dabbles in hi-fi can be called practical.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade Penguin I'm not necessarily questioning you on that what I'm saying is how do you know there is no difference? My point is how can it sound the same if your not using the same equipment which is clearly impossible. In the same way that any given record will sound different of my Project Debut II than on my father's Linn Sondek. I just can't follow how your able to say that not that what you saying is wrong.

If the analog signal produced by the LP is taken and digitized then assuming a perfect digitization process the CD would have the same information as would be recovered from the LP on playback. The only 2 confounding factors are the phono-preamp stage and the CD playback.

If the preamp used to generate the analog signal for digitization is the same as the preamp used for vinyl playback (via an intemediary line level input) then the RIAA eq is the same for both and so it would theoretically be possible to make a digital copy with the same analog properties of the LP original - once you use different RIAA eq all bets are off. The RIAA eq is the vinyl legerdemain that allows LPs to sound good and not terrible

Then the only remaining issue s whether the CD playback faithfully recovers all the information recorded on the CD - theoretically speaking.

In a rather famous article Ivor Tiefenbrun (Linn) was spectacularly unable to tell the difference between an original analog signal and a A-D-A converted signal.

 

[Comrade Penguin]

I'd be rather intrested in reading that article. However that doesnt suprise me too much. If the equipment is of very high quality then digitalization and the conversion to analog would have been near enough to perfect make little odds. My point is the perceived differences between vinyl and CD are caused by things going wrong as most of us own equipment that isn't that good. The likely errors with each system are different hence the different sounds that seem to be somewhat common to all players of that system.

I can see how it is theoretically possible. My point is that even if digitlization was perfect we can all tell the difference between two different sources. As such I was a bit flumoxed as to how bigshot couldn't tell any difference as presumably the "charachter" of the CD player as a source would be shown? I'm not questioning his conclusion just can't follow how he reached it. I'm young, I need educating.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade Penguin I'm not necessarily questioning you on that what I'm saying is how do you know there is no difference?

I A/Bed the record on the turntable with the CD transfer of the same record.

I apologize, but you're wording things in ways I can't understand... I don't know how bass heavy recordings relate to tracking height, or how it's a safe bet to assume that vinyl sounds better than CDs. Perhaps it's like Oscar Wilde said, "America and England share many things... except of course the language."

See ya
Steve

 

[Yikes]

Has digital caught up with analog*? Interesting question. The new high-resolution digital formats SACD and DVD-A (although DVD-A is pretty much dead in the water) offer tremendously high performance. As with any format, a budget (i.e. cheap) player barely glimpses the true performance potential of these formats.

Over the past couple of years the single greatest perk of my job is that I have been able to listen to the original session master tapes of many of the Living Stereo recordings that have been re-issued by BMG. I also have been able to actively compare the original CD issue to the Tape-DCS A/D - DCS D/A output and then the SACD-DCS D/A. First the original CD sounds like crap, even when compared with the CD layer of the new SACD releases. Second and more importantly the DSD when decoded by a world class D/A is all but indistinguishable from the master tape.

I am very familiar with the performance of reference quality vinyl playback systems. Many of my dealers carry (and I have listened extensively to) some of the best cost no object turntable rigs in the world. I have listened to such rigs playing back some of the original RCA Living Stereo LP’s, and to be sure they sounded great, but they do not sound more like the Original Master Tapes than SACD does. With vinyl there are clearly colorations that are induced by any number of components.

Which format is better? It depends on many factors. I absolutely believe that the best SACD playback is truer to the original master tape than any vinyl rig. If the ultimate goal is the reproduction of the original master with as little change as possible then SACD is clearly superior. But that does not always mean that it sounds “better”. The colorations of vinyl can give some pleasurable effects. Ultimately each listener is arbiter of what is best.

If I consider only Sound Quality I feel that the best SACD’s when played back in a world class player clearly outperform the best LP’s when played back on a world class vinyl rig. Factor in the convenience and ergonomic superiority of a digital format and the decision becomes even clearer. One problem is that most popular SACD’s (Rock/Pop) sound like crap. On the other hand the sheer quantity of available (Classical, Jazz, non-popular music) and inexpensive vinyl is an extremely strong argument in favor of going analog.

In the end it depends on what each listener is looking for that determines what is best. Why not have both.




*(I believe that by saying analog you really mean vinyl.)

 

[Garbz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot When I do a straight transfer of an LP to CD, it sounds exactly like the record. If there's a difference between analogue and digital, it isn't bits and bytes you're hearing... it's the choices of the mastering engineer. See ya Steve

My point exactly! The only change in the sound is the CD copy picking up the signature of your turntable, and the signature of your recording equipment and cdplayer. Here you have a master desigend for vinyl played on cd, it works but it won't make the best use of the CD format.

CDs are mastered to be in the top octave of possible dynamic range. THe highest bitrate is available up there, all 16 or em. If you go 6db down you end up with 15 bits of data only. Therefor CDs are mastered, when compressors are used properly i.e. not to squish it all in the top 3db, to make the music take up the highest possible octave without sacraficing (hopefully) dynamic range. Quiet bits on CDs are no problem, the noise floor is down below 80db even for crap equipment.

LPs on the other hand take an entirely different set of requirements. It must produce perfect sound, under the constraint of only about 30-40db noise floor, very little channel separation, and the risk that a sharp rising edge could potentially cause miss-tracking. Compressors are often used to bring the quiet subtelties out of the noise floor and into the track.

The actual details may vary but this is how it was explained as I was watching a local guy master for CD, and a few days later a different guy master the same track for vinyl.

What I was trying to say with this derailment is that LPs can be transfered o CDs, but you won't be taking full advantage of that format, it'll still retain it's sound. The opposite works in theory as well except subtle details will be lost to the noise floor.