DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
I respect your point of view on your use of your time.
Your conclusion that "sound recording and reproduction is science" suggests that you don't understand, or that you choose not to acknowledge, the objective/technical versus subjective dichotomy embedded in that phrase, and which I outlined in Post #15. If it truly were "science," like gravity, I doubt we would be debating it.
Last edited:
Ron,
What is the purpose of this post? To remember that stereo can not recreate the sound of the original event and that all we can say about this matter is just our individual preference? That IMHO digital recording recreates better some types of music and the quality of many analog recordings is amazing?
Yes, we should not rely on others on this matter - listen for yourself and tell us what you think. And remember that tape sound is very different from direct cut vinyl.
Anyway I find that vinyl pressings or tapes made from digital are only of interest to those who do not own a decent digital playback system, or exceptionally when the vinyl is a remastering of superior quality.
Ron,
You failed to note that subjective findings, when properly handled, can be science. Sound recording and reproduction is science. But surely we should not limit our experience just to what science can currently explain in this hobby!
There are many technical reasons for the differences between digital and analog sound. Fortunately the net is large enough to allow us to pick notable examples that agree with our preferences in one minute!
BTW, the dichotomy only exists because both fields are sometimes very closed minded ...
DSD isn’t digital Paul, really? No point in arguing over subjective preferences. He thinks DSD sounds better. I do not, but to say it isn’t digital is nuts. Sorry Paul.
“You take a mortal man
And put him in control
Watch him become a god
Watch people's heads a'roll
A'roll, a' roll
Just like the Pied Piper
Led rats through the streets
We dance like the marionettes
Swaying to the symphony
Of destruction
Acting like a robot
Its metal brain corrodes
You try to take its pulse
Before the head explodes
Explodes, explodes
Just like the Pied Piper
Led rats through the streets
We dance like marionettes
Swaying to the symphony
Just like the Pied Piper
Led rats through the streets
We dance like marionettes
Swaying to the symphony
Swaying to the symphony
Of destruction
The earth starts to rumble
World powers fall
A'warring for the…”
As it relates to dan31's compliment of Mike's practical experience, I think this poem is more appropriately located in the WBF humor and joke thread.
In fairness, I think Paul means that there is something less inherently digital (and more inherently "analog-like") about the one bit sampling system of DSD than tne sampling system of PCM -- not that DSD literally is not digital.
I don't understand Paul's point myself, because I don't know enough about the technical differences between DSD and PCM. To me, sampling, even at DSD's one bit, is inherently digital. Once one is involved in sampling and conversion to 0s and 1s I do not understand the notion of distinguishing between different degrees of "digital."
Last edited:
Francisco, when you write that sound recording and reproduction is science, are you saying there’s no art involved in the mastering studio? Are there no subjective decisions about where to place microphones, which microphone to use when making a recording, how many microphones to use? Are you claiming that everything in the recording chain is just science and there is no art or subjectivity to it?
If that is the case, why do so many recordings sound so different. Would they not sound the same if it were only science?
I think this thread would be well served if Someone could somehow connect the dots from Carlos’s claim that the recording process is science, The DSD is the best way to capture the information from the live event, through the process of capturing and making the recording, all the way to our subjective impressions about which process sounds the most realistic.
Mike is surely positioned to offer His subjective opinion, because his system is complete enough and he has a complete enough recording collection to make some of these subjective judgments. However, this is only one opinion and data point and will not provide sufficient evidence of Carlos‘s claim.
I think Ron asks a very interesting question but so far I don’t see people willing or able to connect all the dots and provide a convincing argument for which capturing format is the best.
Mike is surely positioned to offer His subjective opinion, because his system is complete enough and he has a complete enough recording collection to make some of these subjective judgments. However, this is only one opinion and data point and will not provide sufficient evidence of Carlos‘s claim.
I think Ron asks a very interesting question but so far I don’t see people willing or able to connect all the dots and provide a convincing argument for which capturing format is the best.
Surely there is art - fortunately a lot of it. Using other people words, sound reproduction is science in the service of art. They are not exclusive.
Curiously it is well explained in the link posted in post #32 of this thread. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/dsd-to-vinyl-versus-analog-tape-to-vinyl.31537/post-681047 . A very interesting article, surely deserving some discussion.
Remember that "which process sounds more realistic" is also a listener form of preference. Not an absolute reference at all.
Thank you for confirming what I already knew. From Carlos‘s post, I thought it was much more absolute, with science being the recording part and the listening being the subjective part. Clearly there is art in the recording process, and there is art in the designing Of reproducing gear. There’s also art in the set up process As well as science.
I still don’t see how Ron‘s question is going to be answered unless someone joins the discussion to connect all of the dots.
Assuming there's a choice, I would always prefer analog to vinyl, with some kind of tubed recording chain, to DSD. That being said, I have samples of superb digital and DSD to vinyl pressings.
I have some paper buried somewhere in a computer archive of a test, using the same sound feed to different recorders using 15 ips tape, DSD, hi rez digital, and standard Redbook. Almost invariably, playing the stuff back, the preference in sound quality was in just that order with the 15 ips tape 'winning', but some listeners also admired the DSD and thought it was close(without the transfer to vinyl, of course).
The test was a while ago, and we have much better digital now, so it would be an interesting experiment to repeat.
I have some paper buried somewhere in a computer archive of a test, using the same sound feed to different recorders using 15 ips tape, DSD, hi rez digital, and standard Redbook. Almost invariably, playing the stuff back, the preference in sound quality was in just that order with the 15 ips tape 'winning', but some listeners also admired the DSD and thought it was close(without the transfer to vinyl, of course).
The test was a while ago, and we have much better digital now, so it would be an interesting experiment to repeat.
Rephrase:
I do think Mike is in a great position to pass along a subjective assessment based on evaluation on high level gear.
I don’t know about a “test” but Steve Hoffman did this comparison himself and posted his opinion at the SHForums. He actually preferred LP to tape, and each to DSD, with PCM formats least preferred. However, that opinion was orginally posted many years ago (2014?) and opinions would likely differ today
