[acidbasement]

I've read numerous comments over time that say there's no point in buying a vinyl record instead of a CD if it was recorded digitally in the studio, because the digital damage has been done, and cannot be undone by fully analogue playback. I admit that I don't know everything about this, but I thought I'd start an argument anyway.

Why? Because I want to record high-quality music in a digital home studio, that I can press onto vinyl without shame. I turn to you, head-fi'ers, either to support or crush my dream, as you see fit.

The way I see it, the high bitrate and high sampling rate recording devices available now (32+ bit, 384 KHz) should be able to capture everything audible that 2" analogue tape could capture. The warmth of tape recording is something many people crave (me included), but if I recorded certain instruments where warmth is important (would depend on the recording) onto 1/4" tape, because a reel-to-reel stereo recorder is a good deal cheaper to purchase and easier to maintain than a 24-channel tape recorder, then recorded it onto digital from the tape for easier editing/mixing, it should be okay, shouldn't it? It gets warmth from the tape, and the details are preserved through high bitrate digital recording. Okay?

Beyond the question of whether or not digital recording can preserve fidelity as much as analogue recording can is the issue of playback equipment. My turntable sounds way better than my admittedly cheaper CD player, even when I compare identical recordings from (I assume) digital studios. I suspect the vinyl wins for two reasons: a) unlike the CD version, the vinyl version was not re-sampled to 16 bit/44.1 KHz in the mastering studio, and b) (most important I think) the DACs employed by people who press vinyl for a living are substantially better than the DAC in my CD player, and arguably better than most people's here as well.

So, head-fi'ers, when I have set up my home studio, can I continue to wear my audiophile badge if I make vinyl from digital recordings?

I thought of making this a poll, but I decided against it because I want people to elaborate on their reasons for saying aye or nay.

 

[trains are bad]

They have a bad rap? I was unaware. I don't care about digital anything, I just care about records. I like buying records because I like the physicality of the format and I like the large album art. I don't care if it was recorded digitally, actually I hope it was, because it probably sounds better due to less generation loss in mixing. It's entirely dependent on the actual mastering. Just because some digital recordings are overcompressed or artificial sounding doesn't mean it's the digital process that makes them sound that way.

A CD release is generally a different mastering than a vinyl release. It's not likely that they two sound the same unless the CD is an actual recording of a needledrop. Thus, for albums that were originally released on vinyl, the vinyl version is the "original" version and any CD re-release I consider just that, a remastering and re-release. For modern music, I suppose the opposite could be argued, but I still consider the vinyl to be the definitive version, for example, for me, OK computer means the vinyl version. The CD version is fine, but if the vinyl exists I always tend to consider that the original.

Often the vinyl mastering sounds better because of its target audience or because of the limitations of the format being taken into consideration. Not always however, I have multiple times bought the vinyl version of a CD hoping it was mastered better, only to find that it was no better at all, or worse.

Quote:

It gets warmth from the tape, and the details are preserved through high bitrate digital recording. Okay?

Absolutely. If the tape is imparting some essential sound that you like, consider it an instrument all its own. Nothing wrong with recording that to digital for mixing, where it won't suffer generation loss. Then you can have the best of both worlds, and this would in my opinion be far better than trying to digitally mimic the sound you feel that tape is giving you.

This IMO is what digital is best at, straight I/O with no sound or flavor of its own (as long as you are following good practices of high bitrates, noise shaping, etc.) It's to the point that for CD releases of albums originally released on vinyl, I would rather they find a pristine example pressing and simply record that digitally, from a good turntable. I don't see how you could get more authentic than that, unless the record actually needs a remastering for technical reasons (and there are plenty that did).

 

[wovenhand]

Myself I love an analogue sounding production, but if we are talking pure performance, digital is better. You have a more linear (and more extended) frequency response as well as a better S/N ratio. Provided you have good AD/DA converters that is.

This being said, for the human ear, the coloration analogue tape produces is highly favourable/pleasureable and sounds a lot nicer than digital. It's distortion, and distortion we like. It isn't just about the tape though. While tape both produces a warmer sound (which varies with what IPS you're using) and helps "glue" together a mix, using an actual analogue console also contributes to the whole "analogue experience" we all love. You can of course emulate this to a certain degree in the digital realm, but it isn't the same.

And to answer, and agree with previous poster, yes - if you first record to tape and then record that to digital you indeed get the tape sound.

And to answer your original question, pressing vinyl from digital is perfectly okay. If I was doing something that I knew was gonna be primarily listened to on vinyl I'd go for 96kHz/24-bit recording and bounce to the same sample rate/bit depth to keep that high fidelity for the mastering engineer. 192kHz and above is pure overkill.

Also, you would be surprised if you knew how many vinyls being pressed actually have a 44.1kHz/16-bit cd-r as the master. Mostly indie releases who can't afford 2 separate masterings.

More important than tape in this matter is the quality of your microphones/preamps though. If you use low quality mics/pres, recording to tape won't "save it".

 

[acidbasement]

Great, thanks for the validation guys.

Wovenhand, in your professional experience, what's a good 24/96 ADC? I've got an M-Audio Delta 1010 right now.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wovenhand /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, you would be surprised if you knew how many vinyls being pressed actually have a 44.1kHz/16-bit cd-r as the master. Mostly indie releases who can't afford 2 separate masterings.

I for one was aware of that, which is why I don't bother with indie releases on vinyl. But I think it is safe to say that there aren't any audiophile LPs comming out of Classic Records or Analogue productions that are doing this.

--Jerome

 

[wovenhand]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great, thanks for the validation guys. Wovenhand, in your professional experience, what's a good 24/96 ADC? I've got an M-Audio Delta 1010 right now.

Do you just want a good converter, or a good preamp as well? What are you going to record?

 

[wovenhand]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif I for one was aware of that, which is why I don't bother with indie releases on vinyl. But I think it is safe to say that there aren't any audiophile LPs comming out of Classic Records or Analogue productions that are doing this. --Jerome

I too think it's pretty safe to assume this.

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wovenhand /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you just want a good converter, or a good preamp as well? What are you going to record?

I want to start with a good converter, and probably build my own mic preamps. I'm using a Behringer 2642 Eurorack mixer with direct outs as my main mic preamps right now, and they sound okay but I know that as I upgrade my microphones I'll want to upgrade the pre's as well.
I'll be recording acoustic and electric instruments, and vocals. I'm a drummer, which is why I got the Delta 1010 - it records 8 channels at once.

 

[cwell2112]

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this subject, but...

It's my understanding the those who prefer the sound of vinyl do so (generally) for two reasons:

1. The sample rate for a redbook CD is too low at 44.1 kHz

2. Vinyl playback produces harmonic distortion, which gives it its characteristic "warm" sound.

I'm under the impression that to many vinyl enthusiasts, SACD and other high-res audio formats solved problem #1 by vastly increasing the sample rate over regular redbook playback, as a side note.

So, if you have a serious digital source (i.e. not a CD) I don't see any problem. For these reasons, it also confuses me when record companies advertise "all-analogue recording process" or when people avoid vinyl that was sourced digitally.

 

[wovenhand]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif I want to start with a good converter, and probably build my own mic preamps. I'm using a Behringer 2642 Eurorack mixer with direct outs as my main mic preamps right now, and they sound okay but I know that as I upgrade my microphones I'll want to upgrade the pre's as well. I'll be recording acoustic and electric instruments, and vocals. I'm a drummer, which is why I got the Delta 1010 - it records 8 channels at once.

Okay, if you're using a Behringer pretty much anything will be a step up.

I'd go for a good mic pre/mics before upgrading my converter. Upgrading those two will make a more audible difference. And of course, it all depends on how much dough you wanna fork out. When it comes to audio, that old saying "sky's the limit" doesn't really apply unless you mean the absolute lowest limit.