A possible quantification strategy to better understand the digital vs analog question

[Another Johnson]

I’m starting this thread because I think the idea will be lost in the existing related threads. Heck, it might get lost here too, but we’ll have to wait and see.

When Bob Carver was trying to prove that he could replicate the sound of anyone else’s amp, he basically processed the same signal through his amp and the candidate amp, and then subtracted one amp’s output signal from the other’s.

When he’d tweaked his amp to the point where the difference was 0, he had cloned the candidate.

This same idea could be applied to the subject problem in the following way.

Play what you consider to be the best digital copy of a recording and capture the file that represents the voltages that present at the speaker’s terminals. Play what you consider to be the best vinyl copy of the same performance and capture the file that represents the voltages that present at the speaker terminals.

Then compare these files in the frequency and time domains. The differences give you something to specifically discuss. And they’re room and listener, though not system, independent.

Of course the differences are probably due to mastering and retrieval issues, but from a very practical point of view, a family of these differences files should allow you to judge how close the digital presentation is to the vinyl presentation.

Has someone already done this?

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

I’m starting this thread because I think the idea will be lost in the existing related threads. Heck, it might get lost here too, but we’ll have to wait and see.

When Bob Carver was trying to prove that he could replicate the sound of anyone else’s amp, he basically processed the same signal through his amp and the candidate amp, and then subtracted one amp’s output signal from the other’s.

When he’d tweaked his amp to the point where the difference was 0, he had cloned the candidate.

This same idea could be applied to the subject problem in the following way.

Play what you consider to be the best digital copy of a recording and capture the file that represents the voltages that present at the speaker’s terminals. Play what you consider to be the best vinyl copy of the same performance and capture the file that represents the voltages that present at the speaker terminals.

Then compare these files in the frequency and time domains. The differences give you something to specifically discuss. And they’re room and listener, though not system, independent.

Of course the differences are probably due to mastering and retrieval issues, but from a very practical point of view, a family of these differences files should allow you to judge how close the digital presentation is to the vinyl presentation.

Has someone already done this?

It's basically as you mentioned: vinyl and digital have different mastering techniques used. E.g. loudness war was impossible when vinyl was the main way of transferring music. It was the high dynamic range of digital audio that allowed that.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Then compare these files in the frequency and time domains. The differences give you something to specifically discuss. And they’re room and listener, though not system, independent.

Thank you for sharing this thread.

Will the analysis of frequency and time domain reveal the sonic characteristics which cause some listeners subjectively to object to the sound of digital (digitalitis sufferers)?

 

[Another Johnson]

Thank you for sharing this thread.

Will the analysis of frequency and time domain reveal the sonic characteristics which cause some listeners subjectively to object to the sound of digital (digitalitis sufferers)?

It would certainly give an objective answer to the question “what’s different about the digital copy and the vinyl copy of some loved performance?”

Some people are heavily invested in the idea that they, and they alone (or their group of like minded golden ears) are always right. They have trouble escaping their inward focused reality.

As a referee in a two person argument the other day, I asked the rhetorical question “Would you rather be right? Or happy. “ One party didn’t miss a breath. “I am right!!” she screeched. OK then …

 

[mtemur]

I’m starting this thread because I think the idea will be lost in the existing related threads. Heck, it might get lost here too, but we’ll have to wait and see.

When Bob Carver was trying to prove that he could replicate the sound of anyone else’s amp, he basically processed the same signal through his amp and the candidate amp, and then subtracted one amp’s output signal from the other’s.

When he’d tweaked his amp to the point where the difference was 0, he had cloned the candidate.

This same idea could be applied to the subject problem in the following way.

Play what you consider to be the best digital copy of a recording and capture the file that represents the voltages that present at the speaker’s terminals. Play what you consider to be the best vinyl copy of the same performance and capture the file that represents the voltages that present at the speaker terminals.

Then compare these files in the frequency and time domains. The differences give you something to specifically discuss. And they’re room and listener, though not system, independent.

Of course the differences are probably due to mastering and retrieval issues, but from a very practical point of view, a family of these differences files should allow you to judge how close the digital presentation is to the vinyl presentation.

Has someone already done this?

I did it a couple of years ago when I was still mastering music for vinyl. I compared CD and vinyl versions of Gerry Mulligan meets Ben Webster, Thriller, Good Old Broadway, LA4 Just Friends, Boss Tenor, Brazilian Soul, Paul Mauriat etc. In FFT analysis almost always vinyl was open, extended, harmonically rich but noisier in the low frequencies below 200 Hz. Besides FFT graphs, vinyl versions sounded more natural and detailed to my ears.

First pressing Thriller Lp was a little bit more compressed than first pressing Cd but still sounding better. Gerry Mulligan meets Ben Webster Cd was very close or better in terms of detail because it was sourced from three track session tape while vinyl was sourced from a generation later two track master tape.

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

I did it a couple of years ago when I was still mastering music for vinyl. I compared CD and vinyl versions of Gerry Mulligan meets Ben Webster, Thriller, Good Old Broadway, LA4 Just Friends, Boss Tenor, Brazilian Soul, Paul Mauriat etc. In FFT analysis almost always vinyl was open, extended, harmonically rich but noisier in the low frequencies below 200 Hz. Besides FFT graphs, vinyl versions sounded more natural and detailed to my ears.

First pressing Thriller Lp was a little bit more compressed than first pressing Cd but still sounding better. Gerry Mulligan meets Ben Webster Cd was very close or better in terms of detail because it was sourced from three track session tape while vinyl was sourced from a generation later two track master tape.

Thank you for that, it's very interesting indeed! I was assuming, that there would be big differences in FFT.

 

[bonzo75]

Has someone already done this?

Post in thread 'Do Mobile Fidelity Vinyl Re-issues Have a Digital Step in the Process?'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...digital-step-in-the-process.35221/post-817555


yes and have documented that before example above.

However pointless exercise as best analog recordings were before the digital era so like for like compare of modern recordings is suboptimal

 

[Republicoftexas69]

It would certainly give an objective answer to the question “what’s different about the digital copy and the vinyl copy of some loved performance?”

Some people are heavily invested in the idea that they, and they alone (or their group of like minded golden ears) are always right. They have trouble escaping their inward focused reality.

As a referee in a two person argument the other day, I asked the rhetorical question “Would you rather be right? Or happy. “ One party didn’t miss a breath. “I am right!!” she screeched. OK then …

I would rather be happy, and still be friends.