DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
The whole process is extremely complex. What are you exactly calling a "direct stream of the original recording"? We had a report that when listening to a single instrument - a piano - people preferred the sound going through a tape loop to the direct stereo mic feed.
Paul always pushed digital over analogno. don't agree at all in any way, shape or form......that performances that are dsd sourced make better vinyl pressings than analog sourced vinyl pressings.
also don't agree with his ranking of (1) direct to disc (2) dsd sourced vinyl, and (3) analog sourced vinyl.
i do think that digital recordings can make very fine vinyl pressings. that is true. i also believe that the actual performance and overall recording process has the majority of responsibility to do with the performance of vinyl pressings. so a minimalist approach to the music and recording results in the best sounding pressings.....analog, digital or direct to disc.
i have a number of dsd sourced vinyl albums. they are fine. but generally i prefer the dsd source files. although not always. same with PCM. it's a mixed result. probably comes down to the process variables. not any ultimate truth.
and i think it's silly to somehow favor dsd over PCM as the better digital format for a vinyl pressing.
so Paul's dsd sourced vinyl 45 rpm pressings might sound excellent.......but that proves absolutely nothing. he is just posting stuff to get attention from his fans. like previous shots he has taken. and this thread is proof it's working.we are talking about it.
remember his phono thing.
BTW, regardless, my argument was independent of sound quality. I even conceded, while making the argument, that depending on circumstances, LP may be preferred. It was about "unnecessary conversions" and, implied, complexity of conversions. I just don't see how the dual electromechanical conversions in the vinyl process are any less complex than the dual conversions in the digital process, both related to the analog mastertape.
i base my viewpoint on the experience of these various formats and subsets of formats. we can always debate why things are how they are. but diving into the actual experience leaves no doubt.
specifically when i hear thousands of digital mastering's of tape and thousands of analog mastering's of tape, the vinyl is much more complete....if imperfect. the digital has the outlines down quite competently, but misses the level of content. like something lost in translation. exactly like that.
which is why you need to listen to much more vinyl. that's not lame. that's truth.
Actually there is a misconception like cd is exact equivalent of a digital recording when original recording was made at 44.1/16 but it’s not. What is stored on cd in binary is not anything like original wave or aiff file.
Pressing a cd incorporates EFM encoding and Reed-Solomon coding of digital file and writing on glass master. When you play a cd it also involves decoding of those codes. Which means a lot of conversion. If it’s implemented very very well then you’ll have a cd which sounds close to the original digital file of the recording.
Similar kind of encoding/decoding and processes are required with streaming too. Which makes streamed music being not exactly the same with original digital recording either. Of course if you mathematically compare they will look the same but soundwise not. Again if it’s implemented very well and with the help of good streaming gear you’ll get a sound very close to original digital file.
Instead of a poorly implemented cd or streamed file a very carefully cut vinyl from original digital file of the recording taken from the computer which it was created may sound better.
There will always be people who prefer the LP, others the CD, still others high rez PCM, DXD and even DSD 1024 which is now actually a thing. Check out the zoom meeting I hosted with Patricia Barber, Jim and Ulrike Schwarz Anderson for the new Clique album. While recorded at 32/352.8, NativeDSD wanted all flavors of DSD, including 1024. Ulrike didn’t see the point but you do what people want. As for LPs, I have heard the master analog tape transferred at 24/192 and it was a mirror of the tape. The LP cut from the tape did not sound exactly like the tape. Some may prefer the sound. To each his own I say. Whatever floats your boat. The great thing is that we have choices.
In the recording/mixing/mastering worlds there are a variety of methods the artists and engineers may choose to attempt to make a 'great record'. While it may be easier than ever to create a decent recording the best examples are a minor miracle of efforts and should be celebrated no matter how they are 'delivered'!
Let me qualify the following opinion by saying I am not an expert, do not work in the industry and can not even begin to comprehend how current moving through wire of a coil on one side of a transformer causes current to flow in another wire coil adjacent to it in the transformer, let alone be able to explain how to specifically decrease voltage and increase amperage by changing ratios of those windings. However, I have spent many years in this hobby and am fairly certain of the following: the more stuff you apply to the signal in the reproduction-of-the-sound-event process, the worse the sound.
Early recording engineers adjusted the balance of sound by moving microphones closer or further away from each source, not by sliding variable resistors on a sound board. In those early days of recording, reverb was done by recording in a room that had a deep open tank several stories down behind the musicians, not by digital machines that manufacture "effects". Single ended class A triode amplifiers sound so good because they are so simple, little done to the signal and the signal path as short as possible. Even the wire, 99.9999 pure copper (or silver) drawn through a heated die to prevent micro cracks forming, wrapped in silk to prevent capacitance, voodoo to some but go listen to a Kondo system and reconsider.
First sound engineers became lazy, left the recording area so that they could just sit behind some huge console playing with switches, wires everywhere. Some actually believe that it is they who make the recording a big seller, not the band, and that their name should be on the label in as big letters (or bigger) than the artist(s). Then, to push sales, record producers pressured recording engineers to ignore the dynamic range available on digital format and compress everything to the top, so that it is all loud (to catch peoples attention when the song comes on the radio).
For someone to run the sound produced from a master tape, convert it to a digital format for easy manipulations, run it through a console in order to fiddle with levels so that it no longer sounds as it was recorded, pump up the volume, then convert that abortion back into analogue in order to press it onto vinyl ? How can anyone believe that such would sound as good as, or better than, a direct cut in analogue from master tape to mother stamper?
Early recording engineers adjusted the balance of sound by moving microphones closer or further away from each source, not by sliding variable resistors on a sound board. In those early days of recording, reverb was done by recording in a room that had a deep open tank several stories down behind the musicians, not by digital machines that manufacture "effects". Single ended class A triode amplifiers sound so good because they are so simple, little done to the signal and the signal path as short as possible. Even the wire, 99.9999 pure copper (or silver) drawn through a heated die to prevent micro cracks forming, wrapped in silk to prevent capacitance, voodoo to some but go listen to a Kondo system and reconsider.
First sound engineers became lazy, left the recording area so that they could just sit behind some huge console playing with switches, wires everywhere. Some actually believe that it is they who make the recording a big seller, not the band, and that their name should be on the label in as big letters (or bigger) than the artist(s). Then, to push sales, record producers pressured recording engineers to ignore the dynamic range available on digital format and compress everything to the top, so that it is all loud (to catch peoples attention when the song comes on the radio).
For someone to run the sound produced from a master tape, convert it to a digital format for easy manipulations, run it through a console in order to fiddle with levels so that it no longer sounds as it was recorded, pump up the volume, then convert that abortion back into analogue in order to press it onto vinyl ? How can anyone believe that such would sound as good as, or better than, a direct cut in analogue from master tape to mother stamper?
You obviously did not understand the premise of the original post, which was about the original capture, recording of the event, in analog versus digital, and not about conversions down the chain.
To address the mighty all analog chain: an all analog chain leads to losses of the original signal, i.e. low level details, throughout the chain, elementary electronics 101; and that is why you want to convert the signal to digital as soon as possible to preserve the signal through the mixing and mastering processes.
Last edited:
Well said. Which is why recording engineers were eager to implement digital as soon as they were able to. According to credible historical accounts, they truly, honestly wanted to have a technically superior solution to the entire recording chain, not to speak of better signal/noise ratio due to getting rid of tape hiss (that there were hiccups along the way, in the early days, is a different matter). The idea that recording engineers wanted digital because they were "lazy" is really just a lazy audiophile myth.
Again, this is not to claim that all early implementations of digital were smooth -- that would be yet another myth. Yet at the same time I am struck at how good some early digital recordings can sound once they are presented through good modern D/A conversion.
This is also not to claim that digital recordings are automatically superior to the many great analog recordings -- that is certainly not the case. One thing is recording engineers embracing digital as a technically superior solution, another their skills and intentions in implementation.
Certainly, the digital loudness wars in pop/rock are an example where intentions went wrong; in classical and jazz loudness wars are not an issue.
Last edited:
Well, although I am not an expert or work in the industry I have experience with physics electronics and instrumentation. Probably it why I have more faith than you in modern techniques.
An opinion that we should respect, although I disagree. In the high-end we want to manipulate the signal during the reproduction to please our preference. IMHO what matters is the result, and according to my experience and preference, minimalism does not bring us better results, although it can please some kinds of music and preferences.
You are introducing sound recording, a process that is completely different from sound reproduction. Even so, I would note that these early recording engineers changed the way the music was played just for the recordings. Moving microphones changes the balance, not just the level. The influence of the recording industry on the sound of jazz is well known. And yes, we have fabulous stories on ways of getting reverb, that some people love and others hate, as they consider it an unacceptable manipulation of the real sound.
Little done to the signal? From a type of amplifier that significantly modifies the signal? OK, voodoo can't be debated!
My favorite recordings were made by engineers that probably sit behind some console. Surely we have different music preferences. As always, in WBF I address what I find as being the best in each category, not the failures and poor or average recordings.
Again, why just addressing the poor practices of a few to document a process?
Some might argue that converting the original analog signal to digital, whether as soon as possible or not, does not in fact preserve that signal but rather corrupts it.
The question it seems to me is whether a digital or analog recording best captures the original event and then we can discuss losses down the chain.
agree. how can we judge the performance potential of media formats or recording approaches unless we do the work to find examples of high level results? we need to do investigations over time to come up with useful conclusions.
isolated anecdotal results don't help us much. hard to really know cause and effect in individual listening situations.
Wow! If that was the case, the world as we now know it would have collapsed a long time ago. You do realize that video capture and telecommunications depends on the fact that converting analog signals to digital can be done effectively. Look at the world around you, just about everything operates in the digital domain with exceeding precision. To think that science and technology would misstep at taking a humble audio signal and converting it to digital is really a head scratcher for me. You live in the Boston area, lots of fine universities there with some of the brightest minds and leading edge technical explorations, so if you are not convinced that an analog signal can be converted to digital without corruption, may I suggest that you seek confirmation from one of the many scholars in the area.
Last edited:
Almost all music is captured on harddrives these days.
( A select few albums may be captured onto multitrack tape...even less captured straight to 2 track tape.)
A very large selection of these 'digital albums' will see one or more DA/AD conversions because analog processing is still in fashion ( compression, certain eq etc ) for mixing and mastering.
My point? The extra 'trips' from digital to analog and back are not considered to cause significant damage. Of course yes with 'decent' convertors but lets not go into what is considered decent conversion in a mastering studio vs wbf
I am a vinyl only sort of guy and I love it that some artists release AAA vinyl but I listen to too much music to limit or even overly concern myself with this point academically. I'll say it again: Superb sounding records are a minor miracle of efforts, including the cherished golden age vinyls.
( A select few albums may be captured onto multitrack tape...even less captured straight to 2 track tape.)
A very large selection of these 'digital albums' will see one or more DA/AD conversions because analog processing is still in fashion ( compression, certain eq etc ) for mixing and mastering.
My point? The extra 'trips' from digital to analog and back are not considered to cause significant damage. Of course yes with 'decent' convertors but lets not go into what is considered decent conversion in a mastering studio vs wbf
I am a vinyl only sort of guy and I love it that some artists release AAA vinyl but I listen to too much music to limit or even overly concern myself with this point academically. I'll say it again: Superb sounding records are a minor miracle of efforts, including the cherished golden age vinyls.
world collapsing? Sure this iPhone is adaquate even excellent. So is my TV. I’m simply asking if digital recording is in fact superior to analog at capturing the original event. Are you suggesting there is zero corruption in the conversion to digital?
...to each his own may sound like an option.
In thi state of mass production someone else has to pick a standard. It is rarely the comsumer.
In thi state of mass production someone else has to pick a standard. It is rarely the comsumer.
As the late great Harry Pearson of the absolute sound said, to enjoy digital you need to stay away from vinyl.
Yes, at this stage the resolution of the modern analog to digital process far exceeds the resolution and signal to noise ratio of microphones.
