Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Gregm]

are you saying there is an example of using the same master tape and then a measurable difference between analog and digital reproduction of the same tape?

I don't think it's a matter of reproducing the same tape, as it is a matter of the mastering of the same tape.
It would seem that, in certain cases, different masters are used for digital & analogue, the digital being more compressed than the analogue...

A few examlpes that I remember (off the top of my head) Rumours (Fleetwood Mac), Graceland (P Simon), or Middle Man (Boz Scaggs) sound more dynamic (not subtle) on the old vinyl than on the CD.

I can't offer a rigorous measurement unfortunately; the only attempt at actually measuring was with a dB metre at a friend's house: we set a metre on a tripod and proceeded to compare the measured dynamic peaks of either medium (amateur appraoch )

When it comes to dynamic squashing in digital content, "remastered" / "anniversary" / "gold - platinum - etc" digital editions are notorious: they seem to uniformly perform worse than the earlier editions, with very few exceptions

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I don't think it's a matter of reproducing the same tape, as it is a matter of the mastering of the same tape.
It would seem that, in certain cases, different masters are used for digital & analogue, the digital being more compressed than the analogue...

i have many examples of times where i set the volume level for the same recording for digital and the vinyl, and it plays back at the same SPL's 'apparently', yet my amplifier read out on my dart mono's might show peaks at 30+ watts RMS higher. and it's easy to hear and feel the difference too.

this is because digital smears the peaks. it cannot reproduce them exactly like the source tape or vinyl from that source tape. this is nothing unusual. especially on drum 'hits'.

this smearing effect is especially evident audibly with big complicated music. the digital cannot sort it out like analog. however; i still very much enjoy big music digitally especially with the Wadax this issue is reduced.

there is also differences in this between analog sources. it's an objective thing where normally we have only the subjective.

 

[PYP]

I don't think it's a matter of reproducing the same tape, as it is a matter of the mastering of the same tape.
It would seem that, in certain cases, different masters are used for digital & analogue, the digital being more compressed than the analogue...

A few examlpes that I remember (off the top of my head) Rumours (Fleetwood Mac), Graceland (P Simon), or Middle Man (Boz Scaggs) sound more dynamic (not subtle) on the old vinyl than on the CD.

I can't offer a rigorous measurement unfortunately; the only attempt at actually measuring was with a dB metre at a friend's house: we set a metre on a tripod and proceeded to compare the measured dynamic peaks of either medium (amateur appraoch )

When it comes to dynamic squashing in digital content, "remastered" / "anniversary" / "gold - platinum - etc" digital editions are notorious: they seem to uniformly perform worse than the earlier editions, with very few exceptions

Thanks. Pop is more typically compressed in the studio and I wonder if part of what you are hearing is that processing. But it seems impossible to know with certainty. At any rate, it is the enjoyment that counts, no matter the medium.

 

[PYP]

this is because digital smears the peaks. it cannot reproduce them exactly like the source tape or vinyl from that source tape. this is nothing unusual. especially on drum 'hits'.

this smearing effect is especially evident audibly with big complicated music. the digital cannot sort it out like analog. however; i still very much enjoy big music digitally especially with the Wadax this issue is reduced.

Thank you. This is exactly what I've been trying to understand in the difference between analog and digital.

Getting digital closer to a realistic portrayal of high frequencies has been the challenge I've been addressing for some time. Currently, to my ears, my setup comes close enough that I am not distracted by the HF. I hear and enjoy music. Case closed. Well almost. There remains the problem of perfectionism. But we all know that story. It is why sites like WBF exist.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thanks. Pop is more typically compressed in the studio and I wonder if part of what you are hearing is that processing. But it seems impossible to know with certainty. At any rate, it is the enjoyment that counts, no matter the medium.

some of these examples are the dsd128 rips i referenced earlier from my own vinyl. so no place to hide as far as compression. the rip can't cut it. back in 2008 i had three pro audio guys in my room with Winston Ma with some heavy hitter pro digital recorders, they could not get digital to equal my turntable then either.

Jun Fukamachi At Steinway (Take 2) - Toshiba-EMI Direct Disc!/First Impression Music

The first audiophile CD originated from a direct disc played on a turntable.

www.audaud.com

 

[Gregm]

some of these examples are the dsd128 rips i referenced earlier from my own vinyl. so no place to hide as far as compression. the rip can't cut it. back in 2008 i had three pro audio guys in my room with Winston Ma with some heavy hitter pro digital recorders, they could not get digital to equal my turntable then either.

Jun Fukamachi At Steinway (Take 2) - Toshiba-EMI Direct Disc!/First Impression Music

The first audiophile CD originated from a direct disc played on a turntable.

www.audaud.com

This is an interesting experiment, indeed! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Gregm]

BTW, here is an example of engagingly mastered digital file: Alan Parsons' quadraphonic DSOTM. An friend has it on DVD-A It's a bright exception to the 'flat' rule

I listened to it down-mixed to 2-channel 24-96 pcm and it was nothing short of amazing!
Clarity, energy, and dynamic contrast were engagingly present..

Uncanny. I wish I could listen to some Mahler on my digital at this quality level

 

[adrianywu]

i have 1000 DSD128 vinyl rips from Lps i own, and can easily hear the difference on each one. vinyl always better, even though i like the dsd 128 files. on some of those files i also own PCM tape transfers which i prefer to the dsd 128 rips. that result varies.

i have DSD 256, 15ips 1/2" tape, and 30ips 1/2" tape from the same mic feed from this recording. i play the DSD 256 file often (really enjoy it) and have on multiple times compared the dsd to the tape. not close, the tape more than slightly better.....30ips better than the 15ips.

these results have been consistent whether MSB Select II, Taiko Extreme, or Wadax Ref dac and server, and also either Studer A-820/King Cello or ATR-102 w/MR-70.

honestly hard to imagine that you truly cannot hear a difference from the dsd 128 transfer to the source tape. but respect that's how you hear it. maybe your digital is better than mine. or my tape better than yours.

The quality of the tape should not matter, because we are comparing direct tape playback with DSD recording from the same tape playback. Therefore, just purely judging the change introduced by the A2D - D2A process. Before I changed to the PS Audio Directstream, there was a significant difference between the tapes and the playback of the DSD files from those tapes. So much so that I hardly ever listened to the DAC. I was quite shocked when I first heard the PS Audio. I have not really heard the very expensive DACs such as the Wadax, as I have never been serious about digital. I have concert recordings I made simultaneously with my Nagra IV-S and DSD64 using the older TASCAM recorder. I will do some comparison later but I have to set my preamp to Nagramaster EQ first.

 

[adrianywu]

Some folks can't tell the difference between mofi digitally sourced vinyl and AAA vinyl either. Its more likely they just don't hear so well in general.

You have to first overcome confirmation bias. i.e. Analogue always better than digital. I have always been an analogue guy, and I have been making recordings on Nagra recorders for 25 years. But I keep an open mind.

 

[adrianywu]

some of these examples are the dsd128 rips i referenced earlier from my own vinyl. so no place to hide as far as compression. the rip can't cut it. back in 2008 i had three pro audio guys in my room with Winston Ma with some heavy hitter pro digital recorders, they could not get digital to equal my turntable then either.

Jun Fukamachi At Steinway (Take 2) - Toshiba-EMI Direct Disc!/First Impression Music

The first audiophile CD originated from a direct disc played on a turntable.

www.audaud.com

15 years is a lifetime in terms of digital technology development.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

15 years is a lifetime in terms of digital technology development.

i had the same experience with the other recording i referenced, this one using the Merging (Pyramix 11.2 DSD Recorder). which is current state of the art for ADC's. and playback on my Wadax.

and agree that certainly over 15 years while digital is now better, so is tape and vinyl playback improved.

however you cut it, dsd is not able to be transparent to a tape source or vinyl source, and with a direct mic feed also not equal to the best tape capture. that's my experience. i'm familiar with the PS Audio Directstream dac, it's designer is a long time local friend and i've heard it, maybe not the latest version. it's not in the realm of my analog.

yet i love digital playback and am not trying to knock it. it's 70% of my listening. but it is what it is. and that's not top analog. but respect you have a different viewpoint.

could some tapes transferred to dsd and played back equal the source tape, to some ears? sure, it's possible. but that result would be an outlier.

 

[Audiohertz2]

How

i had the same experience with the other recording i referenced, this one using the Merging (Pyramix 11.2 DSD Recorder). which is current state of the art for ADC's. and playback on my Wadax.

and agree that certainly over 15 years while digital is now better, so is tape and vinyl playback improved.

however you cut it, dsd is not able to be transparent to a tape source or vinyl source, and with a direct mic feed also not equal to the best tape capture. that's my experience. i'm familiar with the PS Audio Directstream dac, it's designer is a long time local friend and i've heard it, maybe not the latest version. it's not in the realm of my analog.

yet i love digital playback and am not trying to knock it. it's 70% of my listening. but it is what it is. and that's not top analog. but respect you have a different viewpoint.

could some tapes transferred to dsd and played back equal the source tape, to some ears? sure, it's possible. but that result would be an outlier.

What has really improved in analog LP playback over the last 15 yrs Mike ?

Is it the TT, arms , carts or phono stages ?


Regards

 

[tima]

What has really improved in analog LP playback over the last 15 yrs Mike ?

Is it the TT, arms , carts or phono stages ?

Our ability to minimize noise from a record by keeping it clean. Modern record cleaning technology has revitalized countless LPs from the past 60+ years.

 

[adrianywu]

i had the same experience with the other recording i referenced, this one using the Merging (Pyramix 11.2 DSD Recorder). which is current state of the art for ADC's. and playback on my Wadax.

and agree that certainly over 15 years while digital is now better, so is tape and vinyl playback improved.

however you cut it, dsd is not able to be transparent to a tape source or vinyl source, and with a direct mic feed also not equal to the best tape capture. that's my experience. i'm familiar with the PS Audio Directstream dac, it's designer is a long time local friend and i've heard it, maybe not the latest version. it's not in the realm of my analog.

yet i love digital playback and am not trying to knock it. it's 70% of my listening. but it is what it is. and that's not top analog. but respect you have a different viewpoint.

could some tapes transferred to dsd and played back equal the source tape, to some ears? sure, it's possible. but that result would be an outlier.

What you are saying is different from what I said. You are saying you prefer tape recordings to digital ones. What I said is that DSD recording and playback has got to the stage of being almost completely transparent. One of my partners has a Merging Horus, which we sometimes use it to make multi-track recordings in DXD. I actually prefer my realtime stereo mix recorded directly to DSD128. There will be a difference between recording onto tape and onto digital. The tape adds hiss, third order harmonic distortion and a bump in the LF response. Some people prefer these, especially if they are used to having these effects. That's why there are tape emulation plug-ins. Tape hiss can give an increased sense of space. The LF bump can add warmth. I admit I like these effects, and often prefer the tape recording to listen for pleasure.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

How

What has really improved in analog LP playback over the last 15 yrs Mike ?

Is it the TT, arms , carts or phono stages ?


Regards

yes. all of the above. and i've invested more too as higher performance vinyl gear was introduced and added turntables.

and i had a constant reference.

15 years ago 80% of my tapes were better than my Lp's, then over a decade little by little it got to only 30% of my tapes were better than my Lp's with my tape playback staying the same. last year i added/invested in the 'AK' hot rodded ATR-102's with the MR-70 and now 50% of my tapes are better than my Lp's. so both have improved but net, the vinyl more. tape did not have as far to go to the ceiling. vinyl might still be getting better.

 

[Lee]

i had the same experience with the other recording i referenced, this one using the Merging (Pyramix 11.2 DSD Recorder). which is current state of the art for ADC's. and playback on my Wadax.

and agree that certainly over 15 years while digital is now better, so is tape and vinyl playback improved.

however you cut it, dsd is not able to be transparent to a tape source or vinyl source, and with a direct mic feed also not equal to the best tape capture. that's my experience. i'm familiar with the PS Audio Directstream dac, it's designer is a long time local friend and i've heard it, maybe not the latest version. it's not in the realm of my analog.

yet i love digital playback and am not trying to knock it. it's 70% of my listening. but it is what it is. and that's not top analog. but respect you have a different viewpoint.

could some tapes transferred to dsd and played back equal the source tape, to some ears? sure, it's possible. but that result would be an outlier.

Mike,

My experience has been a bit different. DSD gets very close to a live music event, even compared to tape. I believe tape has more musical information which gives it an advantage over DSD but DSD in my experience mostly recording acoustic jazz and classical is really, really good. There have been even more recordings where Nick and I have split the mic feed to a PCM box at 24/192 and the DSD into a modded Korg. DSD wins there every time.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

My experience has been a bit different. DSD gets very close to a live music event, even compared to tape. I believe tape has more musical information which gives it an advantage over DSD but DSD in my experience mostly recording acoustic jazz and classical is really, really good. There have been even more recordings where Nick and I have split the mic feed to a PCM box at 24/192 and the DSD into a modded Korg. DSD wins there every time.

dsd has sins of omission. but maybe more accurate. i'd choose DXD 352/24 mostly over dsd, but you need highest level ADC's (Merging Horus) for that.

i have maybe 100 native dsd256 files and double that of native 352/24 and almost every time prefer the DXD to the dsd although they are very close. the dsd files are much smaller, that is a positive.

i choose a bit dirty, but musically complete experience, like vinyl or tape, every time. makes for a better reproduction experience. and more transparent to the source in my mind. dsd cannot capture that completeness, something gets lost at every transfer.

but we can both be correct for what we are saying. i'm only after the best reproduction experience where i feel the it's the most involving and real (complete kicks ass over accurate for this).

 

[microstrip]

dsd has sins of omission. but maybe more accurate. i'd choose DXD 352/24 mostly over dsd, but you need highest level ADC's (Merging Horus) for that. (...)

DXD 352/24 is just a storage/processing/distribution digital format. Do you know exactly what are the current Merging/Horus ADC's? No ADC can have 352/24 resolution!

I am not an expert in such affairs but I know some ADCs that output data in PCM are intrinsically DSD ADCs.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

DXD 352/24 is just a storage/processing/distribution digital format. Do you know exactly what are the current Merging/Horus ADC's? No ADC can have 352/24 resolution!

I am not an expert in such affairs but I know some ADCs that output data in PCM are intrinsically DSD ADCs.

it's been a few years since i got into the weeds on this subject; but back when i was acquiring (investing in) these high rez PCM and DSD files i did look closely and the Merging Horus is capable of native captures for both dsd256 and 352/24.

what is common is PCM sourced dsd256 files. so i was careful once i understood to pursue 'pure' dsd256 native files so i could really hear what they were doing.

can't talk about the theory and reality of 24 bit playback. my understanding was that you did get the full 24 bit performance, it was the 32 bit that was not really 'real'. but i differ to your much higher tech knowledge.

 

[microstrip]

it's been a few years since i got into the weeds on this subject; but back when i was acquiring (investing in) these high rez PCM and DSD files i did look closely and the Merging Horus is capable of native captures for both dsd256 and 352/24.
(...)

What are you calling "native capture"? For me it is a meaningless word for the subject I was addressing - ADC conversion.