Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Bonesy Jonesy]

I agree completely with you Tima, and would like to add something to consider, that we are comparing apples and oranges.

The pure analogue recording and playback process to/from vinyl is very low tech. Forgetting about cylinders and 78's that established/formed the process used, if we just look at commercially available long-play (33RPM) vinyl records the technology has been pretty much the same since 1930, when RCA Victor released the first examples, and the best-sounding examples of pure-analogue records made today are made in pretty much the exact same way as then.

Digitally-processed music, whether on CD, MPV, hard drive or stream, uses much higher (newer) technology than analogue recordings and that technology is constantly improving. Digitally-processed music sounds unique and is loved by many. It sounds different to pure-analogue because it is different.

A primitive analogue recording to magnetic tape, or direct to disc, is capturing the actual sound waves (all of them) from the musicians/singers in real time, then playing it back by reversing the process and amplifying the output.

The more technical digital process (beyond my ability to convey fully, but generally) is a conversion of the most dominant sound waves (those that would not be heard because of louder waves are by algorithm cut to save on processing and storage) into a series of measurements of the sound waves, and it is those measurements which are then recorded as on/off codes (bitstream) or groups (eg. 20-bit bytes) that must be decoded and converted back into the frequencies segments that were recorded (not those cut) and played back as an interpretation of those original sound waves. Sort of like trying to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. Consider the difference of sound between SET and Push Pull amplification. Push Pull divides the signal and then recombines it in order to achieve greater power, but in the process looses something in comparison to SET.

IMHO, the process involved in converting analogue to digital and then back to an analogue rendition will always give a character to the sound that is discernible by many (usually those who prefer pure analogue) and will never sound the same a pure analogue.

My earlier posting on this subject said similar regarding vinyl being a different beast to digital (in the physical, reality and theoretical world) !

 

[Lee]

I have another observation…

In 1991, we recorded McCoy Tyner’s New York Reunion at RCA studios in midtown NYC on both digital at 16/44 and analog tape. The photo of McCoy wearing Stax headphones is him listening to the tape machine which I ran during the session.

When the CD came out, it became an audiophile sensation due to sonics and Joe Henderson’s incredible sax solo…however it never captured the ambiance and feel of the great RCA studio.

Later when the SACD came out the transfer was done from the tape. The analog source and the extra resolution of DSD really created the sound we achieved those three days.

There is an LP too but I am not sure what they used for that.

 

[PeterA]

I think it's kind of easy for digital to sound relatively good on vintage loudspeakers, because, I think, the high frequency roll-off of vintage loudspeakers tends to suppress any edgy artifacts of digital playback.

I do not think this is the reason. I’m describing an experience that was not “relatively good“. I’m describing the best digital I’ve ever heard from any system.

Digital and analog are different across-the-board, not just high frequencies or edgy artifacts. IMHO.

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

I didn’t want to sound negative. I just wanted to add a reality check. I have invested heavily in both digital and analog, for the simple reason that it enhances my ability to listen to all types of music with the widest possible reach. I have bought over the past two to three years a large collection of mono jazz vinyl albums that might never make it to Roon. The only way to listen to a lot of great jazz from the 1930s to the 1950s is on vinyl in mono. It sounds splendid to my ears, even though it’s obviously not very faithful to the real live sound. When I listen to the sound of a big band from the 1930s or 1940s in mono vinyl, I can only imagine how thrilling it must have been to hear the great jazz performers live! I can’t do that, sadly, without time travel. So, mono vinyl is the best I can do. For example, the wonderful Time-Life Jazz series has incomparable liner notes written by music lovers who knew the jazz classics. This series is worth acquiring for just the liner notes with the fabulous black and white photographs. To me, no streaming album compares to this level of liner notes and the dedication required in producing this series.

Streaming provides a great source of enjoyment for me for listening to modern classical music to a wide range of composers with a simple swipe. That’s amazing in and of itself. Roon is a great boon to music lovers like me, and I was one of the earliest lifetime members of Roon, the best $500 I have ever spent in the last 35+ years in high end audio.

But, getting back to the main point. Here’s an analogy. We all take pictures with our digital cameras, from humble smartphones to fancy medium format cameras. I have bought virtually every type of camera format there is, from Nikon film cameras, to Leica rangefinders and 100 mega pixel Hasselbad medium format cameras (that cost a bundle!). You know what? Compared to the real world, all digital cameras simply suck! There’s a simple reason. The CCD sensor used in every digital camera does not see color! It’s not like the human eye in any way at all. CCD sensors (or CMOS sensors) only see grayscale! Color is an illusion created by the Bayer filter (https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/introduction-to-bayer-filters).

That is, an algorithm examines the gray scale pixels and synthesizes color. It’s remarkable that it works at all, but of course, it is no match for the human eye. Even with my fancy 100 megapixel Hasselblad, I can go out into my garden, see a lovely rose in bloom (in the Bay Area, we have an ideal weather for growing roses) with my naked eyes, take a very high resolution image that takes up hundreds of megabytes, look at it on my fancy 8K Dell monitor, and boy, does it suck! I mean, it’s not remotely close to what my eye sees in my garden. So, all this fancy camera technology is great, but it does not come close to the human visual experience.

That’s exactly the analogy I wanted to make with high fidelity recordings. The great violinist Jascha Heifetz called hifi “High Phooey and Hystereo”!. He had a point. It is so far removed from what instruments sound like in the concert hall, and recording live music is like trying to reach the moon by climbing the tallest mountain. Yes, on Mount Everest, you are closer to the moon, but it is still a long ways away!

Yet, that’s the best we have, and I enjoy it (both cameras and hifi), since it does enrich my life But it is no substitute for real human experience in the aural or visual worlds. The human eye and the human ear are miracles of evolution. Cherish and enjoy them.

A++

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I have another observation…

In 1991, we recorded McCoy Tyner’s New York Reunion at RCA studios in midtown NYC on both digital at 16/44 and analog tape. The photo of McCoy wearing Stax headphones is him listening to the tape machine which I ran during the session.

When the CD came out, it became an audiophile sensation due to sonics and Joe Henderson’s incredible sax solo…however it never captured the ambiance and feel of the great RCA studio.

Later when the SACD came out the transfer was done from the tape. The analog source and the extra resolution of DSD really created the sound we achieved those three days.

There is an LP too but I am not sure what they used for that.

"We"????..........wondered what you meant? just checked out my SACD jacket. “Production Assistants: Lee Scoggins....."

Very cool, Lee!

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Yes. And those who poopoo it should be asking themselves, why hasn't this outdated technology gone the way of the buggywhip?

Completely agree and why is so many modern musicians/producers/engineers covet the analog gear from old. They all want that sound!

Two Music Documentaries That Will Expand Your Views On Recording

Both the documentaries "Sound City" and "Muscle Shoals" offer an inside glimpse into how some of the most iconic records of the analog age were produced, along with stories surrounding the formation of two legendary studios.

www.sageaudio.com

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/08/173823162/dave-grohl-finds-musics-human-element-in-a-machine

Legendary Consoles and Their Impact on Music History - inSync

What do Muscle Shoals, Abbey Road, Sound City, and Ocean Way have in common? Check out four legendary analog boards that impacted the sound of modern music.

www.sweetwater.com

 

[Joe Whip]

Just wondering but if those consoles so great why did those studios replace them?

 

[Al M.]

Just wondering but if those consoles so great why did those studios replace them?

I am just waiting for the predictable standard answer of the analog crowd. Hint: it starts with the third letter of the alphabet.

 

[Lee]

Just wondering but if those consoles so great why did those studios replace them?

One reason was to get more channels. Another was to add digital.

There are two approaches…get the mic placement right or put a mic on everything and use the console to adjust. The former usually leads to better sound.

 

[Joe Whip]

I had a client who bought the console from Abbey Road. It did sound good but even they eventually sold it,o, I believe, been too long to recall,

 

[Bartolo]

I think it's kind of easy for digital to sound relatively good on vintage loudspeakers, because, I think, the high frequency roll-off of vintage loudspeakers tends to suppress any edgy artifacts of digital playback.

I've never been able to reconcile this with the high-frequency roll-off of my ears as I age.

 

[Lee]

"We"????..........wondered what you meant? just checked out my SACD jacket. “Production Assistants: Lee Scoggins....."

Very cool, Lee!

View attachment 113921

Yeah, I have worked on over 200 professional recordings, a few dozen at Chesky and much of the rest with Atlanta Symphony Orchestra musicians in small ensembles. It’s given me more appreciation for recordings and performances. And a different perspective on sound quality. One reason I love MQA is that Peter McGrath has been an advisor on many of our recordings.

 

[Joe Whip]

Had to bring up MQA.

 

[hopkins]

Are you sure it was that album? I think he
was listening to this album which is a rare high quality digital transfer:
View attachment 113911
As i've said before, good recordings sound good even on budget equipment. So the recording quality comes first.

It's the same album.

 

[JackD201]

Just wondering but if those consoles so great why did those studios replace them?

I'm sure automation or the lack thereof was a big part. Time is money so only those with lots of pull with their labels could ever afford to get the green light for parallel recording onto a big ol' analog board and 2" tape and into a DAW.

It is also not so uncommon now to run mics into channel strips by these legendary board manufacturers and run those into DAWs these days so an entire board and the associated expenses isn't required anymore. The phase shift in analog eqs can sound very good to the ear so these channel strips are not just for gain but also eq along with sends and returns pre and post fader.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

I am just waiting for the predictable standard answer of the analog crowd. Hint: it starts with the third letter of th

Just wondering but if those consoles so great why did those studios replace them?

No if you read the articles or watched the documentaries, they closed, independently owned with no succession plans and the estates sold the equipment. The Muscle Shoals studio is now a Bank I think or a Taco Bell. The consoles have been moved to new studios and are still in use.

 

[ScottK]

Paul McGowan uses an analog board he bought from Neil Young at Octave Records.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

I am just waiting for the predictable standard answer of the analog crowd. Hint: it starts with the third letter of the alphabet.

No the second, Bankruptcy.

 

[Bartolo]

Just wondering but if those consoles so great why did those studios replace them?

I thought that they got tired of Scotch taping mylar together to "edit."

 

[Hi-FiGuy]

I rarely comment on music choice… but I think many conflate greatest recording with greatest performance or greatest music… when they’re really just listening to the recording… hmmm like Jazz at the Prawn Shop feeling validated by all those clinking glasses and atmos

100% I was excited to get my copy (vinyl) and sat down to listen and two minutes in my thought was great, I am sitting in a smokey club listening to very average non inspiring music. I have listened to it exactly that one time and put it away forever. Much of the same can be said about a whole lot of these said audiophile recordings I gathered up a few years ago, one time listen and there they sit, including many of the faves here.
It does however reinforce source is king.

Beth Hart Front and Center, to me is an amazing performance and recording.

Has anyone here bought the Audio Nautes Reference tape series of JATPS 1/1 copies of the master tapes?

To wrap it up, come on guys freekin hug it out and move on!