DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl

[K3RMIT]

When the day comes anyone has a system that can reproduce a real sounding non amplified piano , sax or guitar I then say they are here. I do feel analog is more natural to real but still pale in comparison. I thought even new stuff was done in both analog tape and digital ?
lastly if tape is not up to the task of matching or bettering digital why is tape sourced from 40/50/ 60 converted to vinyl still the holy grail ?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

it's fair for me to agree that converting analog signals to digital is currently being done effectively. i'm well invested in listening to digital. as much as anyone on WBF. i love me some digital music listening.
'
but "effectively" is a different concept than "optimally". and while huge budgets have been focused on the video side of digital media capture and transmission, and digital video performance is thus remarkable and maybe superior to even optimal film, digital sound is still the same as 20 years ago other than dsp multi-channel advances. and so analog continues to be better. music files can now be larger and so the delivery side and streaming does result in access advantages......but not performance advantages. and god knows i've chased the best possible digital music performance.

will a sufficiently large business opportunity motivate someone to throw big budgets at advancing digital audio focused on performance advancements and not just delivery? at this point it does not seem to be happening. i hope it does in my lifetime.

 

[Joe Whip]

Around, around we go, where are we going to stop….I think we all know.

 

[Al M.]

Yes, at this stage the resolution of the modern analog to digital process far exceeds the resolution and signal to noise ratio of microphones.

Ok, let's not overdo the defense of digital here. There is nothing like "no corruption", no altering of the signal, in any process if conversion.

Yet that brings me again to the argument of "unnecessary conversions" when it comes to analog mastertape as the source, and the dual digital conversion (A/D, D/A) process in transmission and reproduction in the digital chain. Nobody can sell me to the myth that the conversion of analog tape to a vinyl master and pressing, as well as again electromechanical conversion from vinyl through a cartridge, are without corruption compared to the analog mastertape. Compared to the digital chain these elements in the vinyl playback chain are no less "unnecessary conversions".

 

[Al M.]

Around, around we go, where are we going to stop….I think we all know.

Sure, but compared to the heated analog vs digital "wars" of yesteryear the debates around this topic on WBF have become more sophisticated lately, in my view.

 

[dan31]

I thought digital needs to get closer to 768 pcm to be closer to analog. I believe this is more driven by our hearing sensitivity. Analog is sound format most of us prefer. I’m in the camp that digital has the potential to exceed analog regardless of my preference. I’m interested in the Chord higher tap digital concept, but I need to rebuild my cartridge soon so that’s where I will spend my money.

 

[microstrip]

(....) As the late great Harry Pearson of the absolute sound said, to enjoy digital you need to stay away from vinyl.

Can you tell us at what time HP made this statement?

 

[Gregadd]

Can you tell us at what time HP made this statement?

No!

 

[microstrip]

it's fair for me to agree that converting analog signals to digital is currently being done effectively. i'm well invested in listening to digital. as much as anyone on WBF. i love me some digital music listening.
'
but "effectively" is a different concept than "optimally". and while huge budgets have been focused on the video side of digital media capture and transmission, and digital video performance is thus remarkable and maybe superior to even optimal film, digital sound is still the same as 20 years ago other than dsp multi-channel advances. and so analog continues to be better. music files can now be larger and so the delivery side and streaming does result in access advantages......but not performance advantages. and god knows i've chased the best possible digital music performance.

will a sufficiently large business opportunity motivate someone to throw big budgets at advancing digital audio focused on performance advancements and not just delivery? at this point it does not seem to be happening. i hope it does in my lifetime.

Mike,

I will repeat myself - stereo sound reproduction is an extremely variable process and our definition of better depends strongly on the system being used for playback. Analog and digital are technically very different, that results in significant objective and subjective differences.

IMHO optimum playback of both media needs different systems - and probably you disagree with me, but DartZeel will always sound better with analog than with with digital.

What do you exactly mean when you say that digital sound is the same as 20 years ago? IMHO it changed a lot!

 

[PeterA]

As the late great Harry Pearson of the absolute sound said, to enjoy digital you need to stay away from vinyl.

I’m sure the hope is that if he said this a
long time ago, it’s no longer true because digital has improved. However, some people do not think digital has gotten much better and some people think vinyl is continuing to improve.

Perhaps it doesn’t really matter when Harry Pearson made this comment. Some will still think it resonates.

 

[Al M.]

Mike,

I will repeat myself - stereo sound reproduction is an extremely variable process and our definition of better depends strongly on the system being used for playback. Analog and digital are technically very different, that results in significant objective and subjective differences.

IMHO optimum playback of both media needs different systems - and probably you disagree with me, but DartZeel will always sound better with analog than with with digital.

What do you exactly mean when you say that digital sound is the same as 20 years ago? IMHO it changed a lot!

Well, in those 20 years Mike has changed at least 5 times from one top level DAC to the next, IIRC saying that with the MSB Select II DAC the sound of digital has changed beyond what he thought was possible. So yes, the sound of digital has changed for him a lot, too, in those 20 years.

If on the other hand Mike means that digital will never "reach" analog -- well, that's exactly how it is supposed to be. Digital never wanted to emulate analog. As you say:

"Analog and digital are technically very different, that results in significant objective and subjective differences."

Also, given that people change vinyl playback cartridges for different flavors, how could digital ever emulate the ever changing flavors of vinyl playback?

Mike has three turntables. Which one of these should digital emulate?

 

[Gregadd]

He did say it.
He wrote me a personal note suggesting his failure to endorse early digital cost him financially. He openly lamented that digital had caused us a generation of music.
He later found a product by Mark Levinson (the company) that changed his mimd.
While he did later embrace digital, as far as I know he never recanted that statement.
DON'T MAKE DO RESEARCH

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

I will repeat myself - stereo sound reproduction is an extremely variable process and our definition of better depends strongly on the system being used for playback. Analog and digital are technically very different, that results in significant objective and subjective differences.

i guess if i had dCS digital i might feel that way too (just kidding....a little )

IMHO optimum playback of both media needs different systems - and probably you disagree with me, but DartZeel will always sound better with analog than with with digital.

i've very much had an agenda to acquire digital that is seamless in presentation to my analog; that i can go back and forth and it not be disruptive to my musical flow. i've moved away from some digital that did not 'fit' (GG1.5). and am as advanced with both formats together as anyone and really disagree. but i am familiar with your opinion on this and respect that we don't feel the same.

almost 100% of my room tweaking and system set-up is using a few hundred digital files. those are the best tools to use as they are quick and easiest to keep my focus. so my system and room are strongly complementary to my digital playback. i use analog as confirmation then. but the main time of listening and adjusting is with digital.

and yes i disagree with your silly darTZeel comment. i've had multiple alternative amps on hand over the years for long periods and much prefer darTZeel for digital to any of those. but again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. and my new (18 months ago) 468 dart mono's are a different presentation than other darts and even more tube like in the right ways.

What do you exactly mean when you say that digital sound is the same as 20 years ago? IMHO it changed a lot!

20 years ago what did we have? PCM and dsd. today we have higher sampling rates and greater bit depth for PCM. the execution of the hardware is better. but not enough to equal the best analog from 20 years ago, let alone today's best analog.

there are no new digital media formats. why would there be? there is no compelling reason to change it. delivery and access is now amazing. and that is where the revenue and progress has been focused.

many still prefer spinning CD's or SACD's to files. what has changed?

it's fair to say that the performance floor for good digital has advanced a long ways. those nasties are mostly behind us; the biggest adance is how great modest priced digital can get. but the ceiling has not moved that far. it's still adc and dac.....and it's consequences and challenges.

 

[microstrip]

i guess if i had dCS digital i might feel that way too (just kidding....a little )

Well , listening to dCS had helped me and many people to properly valuate digital versus analog. This surely does not mean we should all value it the same way or that I expect to be buried with it ...

i've very much had an agenda to acquire digital that is seamless in presentation to my analog; that i can go back and forth and it not be disruptive to my musical flow. i've moved away from some digital that did not 'fit' (GG1.5). and am as advanced with both formats together as anyone and really disagree. but i am familiar with your opinion on this and respect that we don't feel the same.

almost 100% of my room tweaking and system set-up is using a few hundred digital files. those are the best tools to use as they are quick and easiest to keep my focus. so my system and room are strongly complementary to my digital playback. i use analog as confirmation then. but the main time of listening and adjusting is with digital.

and yes i disagree with your silly darTZeel comment. i've had multiple alternative amps on hand over the years for long periods and much prefer darTZeel for digital to any of those. but again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. and my new (18 months ago) 468 dart mono's are a different presentation than other darts and even more tube like in the right ways.

Well, considering what I read about your many versions of analog pretending to acquire digital that is seamless in presentation to analog is an impossible mission and the fact that you use digital as a tool does not prove anything. My general comment on Dartzeel was carried after long experience with the brand, even hosting the top units for a month, and direct comparisons with other brands. I do not find it silly, but consider such wording on people comments on high-end just childish and inadequate. But its me, I am not a fan boy of any particular brand, although I have current preferences and I was listening to a CTH8550 during the hot days.

20 years ago what did we have? PCM and dsd. today we have higher sampling rates and greater bit depth for PCM. the execution of the hardware is better. but not enough to equal the best analog from 20 years ago, let alone today's best analog.

there are no new digital media formats. why would there be? there is no compelling reason to change it. delivery and access is now amazing. and that is where the revenue and progress has been focused.

many still prefer spinning CD's or SACD's to files. what has changed?

it's fair to say that the performance floor for good digital has advanced a long ways. those nasties are mostly behind us; the biggest adance is how great modest priced digital can get. but the ceiling has not moved that far. it's still adc and dac.....and it's consequences and challenges.

Well, IMHO the biggest advance is that top digital played through current systems that have better synergy with digital brings us a new realism, even with redbook (44.1/16). And many new recordings carried in digital format have an astonishing quality.

Many people in the speaker industry who were reticent concerning the capabilities of digital are now clearly stating both analog and digital are on par.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

I also believe digital is on par with vinyl and in some aspects even better.both have there strengths.

 

[Atmasphere]

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

Or putting digital on a CD surface... or cutting an LP from the direct microphone feed. IME the media is the problem. If you record to actual digital (memory) it works quite well if all your ducks are in a row. But if you compare to the direct microphone feed any media is where the biggest loss of fidelity occurs.

 

[Solypsa]

In the case of digital streaming would the 'server' or 'servers and routers' become the variable like the 'media'?

 

[Atmasphere]

Certainly! And then some- when using them you have no idea of the provenance of the source file...

 

[microstrip]

In the case of digital streaming would the 'server' or 'servers and routers' become the variable like the 'media'?

I think no. Servers and routers should be bit exact - the same way as CD's. IMHO the variable link exists in the DAC, that unfortunately seems to sensitive to the streaming flow. Although we can´t be sure if it is the DAC that is sensitive to it or just our whole system!

We can buy Hi-rez downloads from Qobuz. As far as I know they are bit exact to the streamed version - but I never could get a confirmation on it.

 

[Solypsa]

If 'servers' are bit exact why are there so many different price levels with such a reported SQ difference? Seems like with streaming routers, switches, and servers become more costly as a group, and perhaps as important as the dac. I'm vinyl only so I am mostly curious about all this but I have many clients that are knee deep in digital upgrades in front of the dacs...