DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl

[Lampie519]

I've yet to find a recording that required compression

I haven't any for you either, sorry.

Phase issues are in general underestimated during recordings (multimiking) i guess...

How to mic a classical symphony orchestra with multiple mics (dpamicrophones.com)

 

[Rensselaer]

Ralph well stated.



The only meaningful datum for your system’s performance is your ideal of what musical sound reproduction should sound like; it helps if you are a musicIan, are familiar with the sound of acoustic un-amplified instruments or record your own source material. As your system‘s performance converges or approaches your ideal sound or “personal preferences“ your enjoyment of the system increases and you enjoy, focus and get immersed in the music to a greater degrees and no longer listen for areas for improvement. System enjoyment is a key performance indicator of system performance. The more you enjoy your system, the more the ”audiophile nervousa“ fades into the background or disappears all together.

I am one of those who believes that the more exposure to high-performance precision systems that you experience or listen to, will develop a greater understanding of what is possible in this hobby and how far you can expect to take your system. While I find that the differences between top systems more subtle than most make them out to be, the systems that sound best to you will be the ones that best aligns with your “personal preferences” because you will enjoy those systems more.

The only fly in the ointment with listening and experiencing the more capable systems is that when you hear another system that best or betters your system at it’s own game = your “personal preferences“ and then you will not be able to get that experience out of your head and ”audiophile nervousa“ will set back in in full effect.

A word of advise, if your Primary objective or desire is for a physically immersive sound experience, then you may want to consider assembling a high-performance home theater system for music playback as you will find that the synthesized 9 to 17 channels can provide an experience beyond what I have found the highest performing two channel systems can deliver. I came to this personal understanding due to the current COVID pandemic; since my wife and I have been spending more time at home because of the current state of affairs, I went “whole hog” in redoing our home theater system for my wife with some of my highest caliber electronics and speakers, including Orpheus Labs, BSC, Genesis Technologies, LampizatOr, Mark Levinson, Plinius and Electron-Kinetics electronics with Wilson Audio and Verity Audio speakers and subwoofers. I assembled this system to stream movies and shows with my wife, but when my wife was not available or interested in watching I began watching Blu-Ray and DVD concert videos and ultimately streaming Tidal and playing CD’s, DVD-Audio, SACD and Blu-Ray Audio discs and testing the music with the different synthesized sound profiles and to my surprise the experience has been not only high-quality, not unexpected given the high caliber of gear used, but the immersive experience definitely adds to the overall enjoyment of the music as there is just not only a frontal image to focus on or video to be distracted by. It is a more casual and enjoyable listening experience as opposed to the more formal critical listening approach with my two-channel high-end systems. it has turned out to be a fun project that is more inclusive, with the wife and family, than my reference 2-channel systems will ever be. I know that years ago this would have been blasphemy and utter heresy, but I have nothing to prove and no one to impress.

“Nothing can stop me now,
as I don’t care anymore.......
nothing can stop me now as I just don’t care
nothing can stop me now I don’t care anymore
nothing can stop me!!!!”

Just another poem and this one is also not mine. Just another song that I listen to in my head when I read some of these posts.

I am no sound engineer and am unable to even list the capabilities of analogue tape, DSD, or any other modern replay system, however, I do have an opinion on which I like better and would like to share an analogy to show what and why.

Lets look at what Carlos269 has put together during lock down, a definitely high-end home theatre system (music and picture digitally produced) and compare that with what we used to see at the theatre on film (music and picture analogue produced).

To make things especially clear, let's stop "analogue" before the "improvements" of colour film set in and use the black and white film "My Darling Clementine" as our example of "analogue", and lets use "Star Wars" for our "digital" example.

Analogue, "My Darling Clementine", is limited to a vary narrow band of the visible light spectrum, just white, black and shades of grey; whereas Digital "Star Wars" includes all the colours of the visible spectrum, greater bandwidth by far.

Sound from our Analogue film "My Darling Clementine" is a simple two channel affair, X & Y that gives the viewer a decent impression of where a voice or gunshot came from, but certainly can not reproduce the thundering sub-woofer-enhanced surround-sound simulation of an imaginary Star Cruiser seemingly flying over your head.

Analogue, "My Darling Clementine", had black shadows where no detail could be discerned and the available light (which often was no more than an actual kerosine lantern or two) would only illuminate part of the faces in the room (causing this viewers concentration to hone in on the subjects and their words easier, also the textures of clothing, wood, the dirt, though in black and white shades only, seemed real to life).

Digital, "Star Wars" could make black "space" but it was never completely black. Detail, with every pixel is coloured and lit and enough pixels to certainly cover as much screen (and more) as analogue, and much more sharply defined details (whether recorded with digital cameras or added later by computer animation) than is possible with analogue film as well.


Which do I prefer? I think it is obvious:

"Oh my Darling, Oh my Darling, Oh my Darling Clementine,
You are lost and gone forever, Dreadful sorrow Clementine."

 

[Lampie519]

I think we should not compare audio with video in any way as audio has far more hurdles to overcome then video even if it has a much wider bandwith.
Video is relativily simple .... from black to white and all in between (can be easily handled using 10bits per color only), plus our eyes are very forgiving. Not so our ears...
Audio has no "ceiling" as video does....

 

[Rensselaer]

I think we should not compare audio with video in any way as audio has far more hurdles to overcome then video even if it has a much wider bandwith.
Video is relativily simple .... from black to white and all in between (can be easily handled using 10bits per color only), plus our eyes are very forgiving. Not so our ears...
Audio has no "ceiling" as video does....

I think you missed the point.

 

[Lampie519]

I think you missed the point.

No problem, it happened before.

 

[Rensselaer]

Paul McGowan of PS Audio embarked some time ago upon the incredibly impressive project of making new recordings of singers and musicians employing audiophile recording techniques and what Paul believes is the highest sound quality DSD digital recording process. I think any effort to record new music using audiophile techniques is an extremely laudable effort which should be applauded and supported!

In Paul's blog post today he wrote that the SACD of Paul's Octave Records' release, Temporary Circumstances, is already more than half sold. Congratulations to Paul and to Octave Records!

In Paul's post today he discussed that he is also releasing a limited edition LP:

We do plan on releasing a limited run of virgin vinyl 45rpm pressings—probably 500 pieces—sometime next month if we’re able. Gus and our engineering team have struggled to get a clean cut from the DSD masters. Seems the extended bandwidth and the nature of DSD are upsetting the cutting lathes.​

Last week Paul wrote on his blog an essay titled "Audio Pedigree" in which he discussed his dismay at the confusion sometimes surrounding vinyl releases of digital masterings.

In response to Paul's post today announcing the vinyl release effort I wrote:

Dear Paul,​

​

Congratulations on your release! That is very exciting! I am impressed and delighted that you are making new recordings using audiophile recording techniques!​

​

But in your recent “Audio Pedigree” post you wrote:​

​

“If you’re hoping to purchase an analog recording, it’s not genuine if it was first recorded digitally. Which is why there’s often so much confusion around modern LPs or even remasters. I shake my head when I learn a particular vinyl released remaster was first digitally transferred from analog tape. That’s a mutt.”​

​

Doesn’t cutting an LP from your digital recording create another type of “mutt”? What is your sonic playback objective of a vinyl release of your digital recording?​

​

Does this suggest you are going to resuscitate your vinyl front-end at PS Audio?​

​

Thank you.​

​

Best wishes,​

​

Ron​

Paul kindly and comprehensively replied:

It’s a great question and one I love. The perfect vinyl purebred is a direct to disc on the cutting lathe. The way Sheffield used to do it with live musicians playing while a cutting engineer made the vinyl master. That’s an art beyond what we can do, especially since we do not even own a cutting lathe.​

​

The next best purebred which, is typical, would be to have recorded the tracks on an analog tape machine and then transferred over to vinyl. That’s pure analog. But, here’s the thing. It’s not as good as DSD to vinyl. DSD isn’t “digital” as PCM is. It’s as close to analog as you can get and sounds better than tape.​

​

So yes, it’s a “mutt” but a mutt that’s better sounding than the purebred in my second example.​

​

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think Paul is correct?

Do you agree with him that a DSD recording of a performance which is released on vinyl ultimately sounds better and more realistic (i.e., provides a greater suspension of disbelief) than an analog tape recording of that same performance which is released on vinyl?

Why does Paul believe that "DSD isn't 'digital' as PCM is"?

Dear Ron,

I listen to digital (via streaming) only at meal times from a nice-sounding Naim unit, and from it I can not tell the difference between DSD and PCM. My other system, which I enjoy most, plays vinyl LPs only and is, I would think, high-end (Classic Turntable, Panzerholz plinth, Phasemation PP-2000 MC cartridge on Reed 5A pivoted tangential tonearm, Phasemation T-2000 SUTs, Ypsilon VPS-100 phono stage, Ayon Spitfire single ended class A triode amplifier and Thrax Lyra loudspeakers).

Top quality LPs, with digital in the processing like "Chasing the Dragon", sound different to purely analogue mastered LPs to me on that system, and do not please. And never before today have I ever heard a digital to analogue recording on that system that I could not easily discern. That is, until today. Today I sat down to listen to an Audio Nautes limited Edition (039/500) half speed pressing of New York Blue (by Valerie Joyce) and it sounded ... lovely. Problem is, this LP was mastered from a Chesky 24bit/96KHz master (DSD/PCM?) ...and I couldn't discern it. Not easily like the others. Fabio Camorani of Audio Nautes has succeeded in marrying the two and I am not certain how he did it but would suggest those in the business might want to contact him because records made in this manner could please even us older jaded audiophiles enough to step out of buying only LPs made before 1984.

 

[Catcher10]

Does anyone find Paul's studio name contradictory to what he is claiming.....Octave RECORDS. You might think he would have named it Octave DIGITAL....
My interest lies in records only, I just can't get past the artificial bits that cloud the digital world and the clinical sounding music. Over and over I have compared same songs and I keep going back to records, I really do not have the patience to try and put together an uber digital front end nor do I want to lay out the uber cash to do that, as well rebuy my whole musical catalog. I will agree that to capture music in the recording studio the digital medium might be the best as well cheapest way to do this. If the technology for tape capture improves and becomes lesser cost to use well we might have a clear winner in this age old debate.

Paul is going to record soloists and small 3-4pc groups within the chamber or jazz genre, and I am sure that will sound great!! But are we buying that music simply because we wanna hear what it sounds like and we really have little interest in that music style? We buy Miles Davis~KoB, Fleetwood Mac~Rumours, Steely Dan~Aja, Supertramp~Crime/Century and many others because its great music, historical music and ohh by the way it was recorded in the analog world on tape as some of the best recordings we know of that spins on our turntables.....I don't think Paul will be creating the next Steely Dan~Aja....his recordings will be digital.

If any of you will be jumping ship from your records for Octave Records, you can send me your LPs.....I'll spin them till I die and smile every minute doing it.
Cheers

 

[Al M.]

Does anyone find Paul's studio name contradictory to what he is claiming.....Octave RECORDS. You might think he would have named it Octave DIGITAL....

The word "records" may very well stand in for "recordings" -- nothing to do with LP records.

My interest lies in records only, I just can't get past the artificial bits that cloud the digital world and the clinical sounding music.

I enjoy LP records too, but cannot in any way find my digital playback the least bit "clinical sounding". I love how my digital presents emotionally engaging music. But to each pair of ears their own.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Ron,

I listen to digital (via streaming) only at meal times from a nice-sounding Naim unit, and from it I can not tell the difference between DSD and PCM. My other system, which I enjoy most, plays vinyl LPs only and is, I would think, high-end (Classic Turntable, Panzerholz plinth, Phasemation PP-2000 MC cartridge on Reed 5A pivoted tangential tonearm, Phasemation T-2000 SUTs, Ypsilon VPS-100 phono stage, Ayon Spitfire single ended class A triode amplifier and Thrax Lyra loudspeakers).

Top quality LPs, with digital in the processing like "Chasing the Dragon", sound different to purely analogue mastered LPs to me on that system, and do not please. And never before today have I ever heard a digital to analogue recording on that system that I could not easily discern. That is, until today. Today I sat down to listen to an Audio Nautes limited Edition (039/500) half speed pressing of New York Blue (by Valerie Joyce) and it sounded ... lovely. Problem is, this LP was mastered from a Chesky 24bit/96KHz master (DSD/PCM?) ...and I couldn't discern it. Not easily like the others. Fabio Camorani of Audio Nautes has succeeded in marrying the two and I am not certain how he did it but would suggest those in the business might want to contact him because records made in this manner could please even us older jaded audiophiles enough to step out of buying only LPs made before 1984.

Thank you for this interesting report.

 

[Gregadd]

Loss of fidelity comes from converting the audio signal from one format to another. Putting digital on vinyl requires unnecessary conversions.

 

[thedudeabides]

No-one, to the best of my knowledge, is doing direct to disc anymore. So what's the next best thing? Totally subjective.

 

[Ron Resnick]

No-one, to the best of my knowledge, is doing direct to disc anymore. So what's the next best thing? Totally subjective.

I guess the current best thing is what Jonathan Horwich is doing: reel-to-reel analog tape recording, and making copies of the original master.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Loss of fidelity comes from converting the audio signal from one format to another. Putting digital on vinyl requires unnecessary conversions.

In general, as a starting matter, I think I prefer to listen to digital recordings on a digital playback system. In general, I have not heard a benefit to converting a digital recording to vinyl, and then playing a vinyl record.

Sometimes I think that converting a digital recording to vinyl, and then playing a vinyl record, makes the sound a little bit less clinical/digital, and a little bit warmer, probably at the cost of the loss of a bit of resolution and information and detail. But I am not sure about this.

In general, if I know that music was digitally recorded, and if I am looking at a system whose digital replay system is at the same level as its analog replay system, then my first inclination is to play back the digitally recorded music on the digital system.

 

[Al M.]

Loss of fidelity comes from converting the audio signal from one format to another. Putting digital on vinyl requires unnecessary conversions.

Putting analog tape mechanically to vinyl and then mechanically extracting the signal from the grooves with a cartridge also requires unnecessary conversions, if you will.

Sure, depending on vinyl vs digital setup and particular mastering involved, LP may be preferred. But I don't perceive the argument of unnecessary conversions from analog tape in relation to digital vs vinyl, allegedly playing out on favor of vinyl, as a particularly convincing one.

 

[Gregadd]

Ron there is always ab exception to the rule

e.g
one of my favorite reference rrecordings; Telarc LP recording in dogital and pressed on vinyl. is far superior to the CD version.
The lp is also the subject of a needle drop on you tube; It is still superior to the cd.

.

 

[Gregadd]

Putting analog tape mechanically to vinyl and then mechanically extracting the signal from the grooves with a cartridge also requires unnecessary conversions, if you will.

Sure, depending on vinyl vs digital setup and particular mastering involved, LP may be preferred. But I don't perceive the argument of unnecessary conversions from analog tape in relation to digital vs vinyl, allegedly playing out on favor of vinyl, as a particularly convincing one.

I am not sure I understand you definition of unnecessary. Perhaps you were constrained by my usage thereof

I often think of the movie The Fly starring Jeff Goldblum. When it comes to conversion you never know what you get

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron there is always ab exception to the rule

e.g
one of my favorite reference rrecordings; Telarc LP recording in dogital and pressed on vinyl. is far superior to the CD version.
The lp is also the subject of a needle drop on you tube; It is still superior to the cd.

.

Of course. That's why I wrote "in general" three times in my post.

In this particular example what is your theory as to why you feel the vinyl version sounds superior?

 

[Gregadd]

Ron here is my educated guess.
IIRC no standard was on place for digital recording. I think telarc was free to do whatever was needed.
It would be nice to hear a direct stream of the original recording.

 

[microstrip]

Loss of fidelity comes from converting the audio signal from one format to another. Putting digital on vinyl requires unnecessary conversions.

For the majority of us loss of fidelity is welcome in sound reproduction ...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Putting analog tape mechanically to vinyl and then mechanically extracting the signal from the grooves with a cartridge also requires unnecessary conversions, if you will.

Sure, depending on vinyl vs digital setup and particular mastering involved, LP may be preferred. But I don't perceive the argument of unnecessary conversions from analog tape in relation to digital vs vinyl, allegedly playing out on favor of vinyl, as a particularly convincing one.

you don't listen to enough vinyl.