The truth about vinyl.vinyl vs digital

[microstrip]

I have read people stating preferences for direct to disk over master tape. Perhaps in rare cases both were made of the same performance.

I own a few DD I appreciate a lot and other people hate ... What is your opinion on the DD's, particularly on the Shefield's?

Anyway DD recordings are in a very limited number, IMHO they are not relevant to this thread.

 

[DonH50]

So far I have Meddle, Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here as new remastering, from which I know that they all were mastered by James Guthrie and Joel Plante.

James Guthrie has been involved with the band as engineer since 1978:

James Guthrie (record producer) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first two mentioned are on Pink Floyd Records, released in 2016 (but mastered in 2011 I believe), WYWH is on Capitol Records, also released in 2016.

It is obvious that these remasterings are a labor of love and care. Not only are the dynamics and resolution very good, the masterings also have satisfying mid-bass, which is obviously important particularly for rock.

I just ordered Obscured by Clouds and Animals from Amazon:

Amazon.com

(Obscured by Clouds)

Amazon.com

(Animals)

These are also on Pink Floyd Records, 2016, so I assume that the same mastering engineers did the job.

I checked and most of mine are 1992 remasters by Doug Sax "under the supervision of James Guthrie". I think these are the second versions I purchased when updating my collection after a move and was hoping Doug Sax would do a better job than the original CD releases. No idea if the newer ones are better... I do have the 2011 Meddle remaster.

Part of the problem is that I got tired of paying for new remasters without knowing if they would be better or worse than what I already had.

 

[DonH50]

AFAIK Sheffield Labs (Doug Sax, Lincoln Mayorga) ran tape along side the DD, and also used one of the early (cabinet-sized!) ADCs to create digital recordings.

 

[wil]

AFAIK Sheffield Labs (Doug Sax, Lincoln Mayorga) ran tape along side the DD, and also used one of the early (cabinet-sized!) ADCs to create digital recordings.

I heard an interview with Bill Scheee, who wants to replicate DD in the digital realm in 192/24, with live performances, and no digital limiting.

 

[Gregadd]

Well even later analog reissues were nowhere close to originals. Equipment and engineers were the main reason. But then this will lead to those with laptops and mobiles saying how can new recordings be worse, windows 10 is an improvement over windows from 1986

Yeah but analog never offered recording quality as a defense.
Equipment and engineers (recording?)
I think equipment did get better.
You will need to be more specific abput recording technique. What was wrong and how did it improve?
You are younger than I
Once there was only silver discs.

 

[Ian B]

IMHO the number of pure DSD recordings available in the market is not enough to support such statement. According to my consumer perspective I do not see anything miraculous in DSD when compared with HiRez, although many times general I preferred the SACD to the CD of a recording.

Also the mastering is such a complex and diverse process that in can't be summarized in a single word in audio discussions. As far as I know pure DSD limits significantly the possibilities of mastering. Can I ask how you carried it in your recordings?

The DSD market doesn't mean much about sound quality. The fact that it still exists 20 years later after being totally abandoned by Sony and major labels tells you something, however. The problem DSD had was that it is very limited in editing and processing function (no autotune for instance) and SACD came out as the public was abandoning discs and hifi for mp3s and earbuds. It required a new workflow and workstations and when Sony dropped it the financial incentive to justify the new technology dried up.

Mastering with DSD is not really difficult. I'm not an ME, but I've sat in on a few mastering sessions, including a DSD project with Bruce Brown. Unless you require very specific digital tools to fix a glaring problem, almost everything in mastering is done on analog anyway, save for the final digital limiter. Skip the limiter at the end, and the process is essentially the same as it would be for analog tape or PCM. DSD detractors hype the difficulty a lot. It's true, you can't really mix and heavily edit DSD inside the computer, use plugin effects, or make a modern dance or hiphop record, but you can do at least as much as you could with analog tape.

In my case, songs were recorded on multitrack tape, mixed down to two channels on a DSD recorder at 5.6mhz, then in mastering played off the Merging Horus DAC, through analog compression, EQ and width processing, and back into the Horus ADC. Silences were removed in Pyramix, and a few millisecond edits were done as DXD and one fade-out as well.

To my ears, DSD is still closer to the source audio, but it's really the double and quad rates that are transparent. SACD used a sample rate that was too low and loses some high frequency clarity and dynamics. High Res PCM can sound excellent too, and RedBook as well depending on the recording, though I think it really takes a world class DAC to get it sounding right.

 

[PeterA]

I own a few DD I appreciate a lot and other people hate ... What is your opinion on the DD's, particularly on the Shefield's?

Anyway DD recordings are in a very limited number, IMHO they are not relevant to this thread.

I only brought up direct to disk recordings because you said that tapes are your reference for analog. Perhaps you meant master tapes. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a master tape in my life but I’ve heard plenty of direct to disc LPs. Sure they are rare but master tapes I think are even more rare.

I have heard tapes in peoples systems and I often prefer vinyl records. In some direct comparisons an owner preferred an old Led Zeppelin record it to a Led Zeppelin tape he had. I also heard Darkside of the moon on a tape in a well regarded system and I preferred vinyl record of the same in a less accomplished system. I’ve heard few really good tapes in systems, and even though one guy who abandoned the format, but I admit my experience is limited.

I suppose it all depends on how close to the original source the copy is. But if you use tapes as your reference to analog I’ve never heard you discuss your tape player only the various turntables and tonearms and cartridges you’ve had. Even though direct desk records are rare do you have any or have you heard any? Many people think they’re pretty good. I like the Sheffield Thelma Houston. I like the Ray brown Almeda moonlight serenade. I like an RCA solo piano of Beethoven’s Apassionata. Those are just three that are pretty good recordings. I also have the Sheffield drum track and even though I like it it’s not really a reference because it is so close mice’s that it doesn’t really sound like a drum kit to me. It’s pretty fun to crank it though and one side is quite dynamic.

 

[Gregadd]

As long as we want to debate too general and ambiguous terms there is little to be told than misinformation. It is an intrinsic problem of short post or videos.

Analog and digital , Inferior and superior, necessary and unnecessary. Unless we carefully express what we are really wanting to say our sentences can be arbitrary interpreted as right or wrong.

I generally agree. As I have said I have already learned more about digital than I care know. Still my knowledge lacking.
As an end consumer just how much am suppose to know? m I beta tester?

 

[Mikem53]

What difference would a woman or two make in this gathering of opinionated males ? If anything there would be another reason to show of !

Lol.. All kinds of measurements would be popular again.

 

[Robh3606]

Lol.. All kinds of measurements would be popular again.

I can think of 3!

 

[Robh3606]

I generally agree. As I have said I have already learned more about digital than I care know. Still my knowledge lacking.
As an end consumer just how much am suppose to know? m I beta tester?

Well we all are when a new technology is introduced and you are an early adaptor. It depends on how in depth you want to go. I really enjoy my HT set up and it is heavily biased expense wise for the audio portion. That's where my roots are back with RTR and Vinyl. So on the video side I don't have anywhere near the technological understanding or interest. Just pop in a blueray and enjoy! I am sure many people feel the same way about their audio systems not in it for the technology just the enjoyment.

Rob

 

[DonH50]

I think everyone has their own idea (perception) of what "the source" is. My experience on stage and in studio leads me to believe most folk do not know what the actual source sounds (or sounded) like. I still remember working with a highly-regarded mastering engineering when he read a review of one of his records saying how well it captured the venue. He rather dryly (no pun intended) commented "that was all added in the studio". Even live recordings with a known hall sound different when recorded; too much variance introduced by mic model and placement, etc. I gave up worrying about how close it was to the original "live" sound decades ago and settle for achieving a sound I like to hear. Which of course may not match what anyone else likes to hear.

Toole's "circle of confusion" comes to mind, something I heard many years after discovering it on my own.

 

[microstrip]

I only brought up direct to disk recordings because you said that tapes are your reference for analog. Perhaps you meant master tapes. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a master tape in my life but I’ve heard plenty of direct to disc LPs. Sure they are rare but master tapes I think are even more rare.

Master tapes are closer to original recording than vinyl. It is why I use them. Direct discs are interesting, but considering the many processes involved in vinyl cutting and playback we can't be sure how far they are from the original signal. Because of the constraints of the process only some types of music are recorded in DD.

I have heard tapes in peoples systems and I often prefer vinyl records. In some direct comparisons an owner preferred an old Led Zeppelin record it to a Led Zeppelin tape he had. I also heard Darkside of the moon on a tape in a well regarded system and I preferred vinyl record of the same in a less accomplished system. I’ve heard few really good tapes in systems, and even though one guy who abandoned the format, but I admit my experience is limited.

I suppose it all depends on how close to the original source the copy is. But if you use tapes as your reference to analog I’ve never heard you discuss your tape player only the various turntables and tonearms and cartridges you’ve had. Even though direct desk records are rare do you have any or have you heard any? Many people think they’re pretty good. I like the Sheffield Thelma Houston. I like the Ray brown Almeda moonlight serenade. I like an RCA solo piano of Beethoven’s Apassionata. Those are just three that are pretty good recordings. I also have the Sheffield drum track and even though I like it it’s not really a reference because it is so close mice’s that it doesn’t really sound like a drum kit to me. It’s pretty fun to crank it though and one side is quite dynamic.

I referred several times in this forum to my tape system and experiences - I own two Studer A80's, one with standard electronics, the other with a Bottlehead tube tape amplifier. About twenty DD's - very enjoyable but not challenging for a system and hard to use in system evaluation.

 

[microstrip]

I think everyone has their own idea (perception) of what "the source" is. My experience on stage and in studio leads me to believe most folk do not know what the actual source sounds (or sounded) like. I still remember working with a highly-regarded mastering engineering when he read a review of one of his records saying how well it captured the venue. He rather dryly (no pun intended) commented "that was all added in the studio". Even live recordings with a known hall sound different when recorded; too much variance introduced by mic model and placement, etc. I gave up worrying about how close it was to the original "live" sound decades ago and settle for achieving a sound I like to hear. Which of course may not match what anyone else likes to hear.

We sometimes read the same in WBF - people reporting how natural some specific ECM recordings sound or how natural Kind of Blue sounds. But when we have access to documentation on the recording and mastering we find that most of it was masterly added using tools and tricks.

It is one of the reasons why I always like to know about specific recordings clearly identified when reading someone describing how a system sounds.

Toole's "circle of confusion" comes to mind, something I heard many years after discovering it on my own.

Yes, it is also why if we evaluate a system with just a few recordings we risk getting the wrong idea and show going is a lottery.

 

[DaveC]

Dave, these are examples of what I'll call "judgemental arrogance". You regularly proclaim to others about 'objective truth' and 'logical fallacies' as if you are positioned to pass judgement on the great unwashed. For myself and (I speculate) others here do not appreciate continually being told that people have "little to no technical understanding" and "draw incorrect conclusions." Perhaps you don't see it this way but these frequent comments come across as lecturing. This not the first thread.

In my second post in this thread I decided to poke a little fun asking if one of your judgements about coming to "questionable conclusions" might apply to something you wrote. That actually is a question of logic. Broad premises sometimes lead to broad conclusions. Rather than seeing the logical issue, possible humor, or at least irony, you were triggered, in effect saying no, your judgement did not apply to yourself. Now, calling me "a child" and I "should know better" and saying some rather rude things in a private post. Then you instruct me on how to repond to you. There it is. As my friend at work liked to say in his '90's vernacular: cop a chill, dude.

No.

I'm not going to let you frame me this way, it's a LIE. This is despicable behavior on your part because you don't like what I'm saying. However, it's the truth.

I NEVER excluded myself from coming to incorrect conclusions. I'm also human and I make mistakes. So your statement about "pass judgement on the great unwashed" is simply a LIE. I understand why you want to frame me this way but I reject it.

You're also now backpedaling and you have to use the tired old trope about calming down. Everyone can see right through that!

As far as your previous posts, it's also obvious what you were trying to do. You're trying to fight for status. It's boring, because I'm not an ape and I don't care who is ALPHA... I get tired of this crap because fighting for status is child-like, ape-like behavior. That's why I called you a child and what you posted was a temper tantrum.

Just own it. It's obvious to everyone what you're doing and it makes you look silly to backpedal like this. "poke a little fun"? Nope, that's NOT what you were doing.

Sorry, but I call a spade and spade even if it's dressed up as fancy silverware.

So chill dude! Don't get so offended by the suggestion that we may make mistakes and come to incorrect conclusions about complicated systems that NOBODY fully understands.

 

[Al M.]

No.

I'm not going to let you frame me this way, it's a LIE. This is despicable behavior on your part because you don't like what I'm saying. However, it's the truth.

I NEVER excluded myself from coming to incorrect conclusions. I'm also human and I make mistakes. So your statement about "pass judgement on the great unwashed" is simply a LIE. I understand why you want to frame me this way but I reject it.

You're also now backpedaling and you have to use the tired old trope about calming down. Everyone can see right through that!

As far as your previous posts, it's also obvious what you were trying to do. You're trying to fight for status. It's boring, because I'm not an ape and I don't care who is ALPHA... I get tired of this crap because fighting for status is child-like, ape-like behavior. That's why I called you a child and what you posted was a temper tantrum.

Just own it. It's obvious to everyone what you're doing and it makes you look silly to backpedal like this. "poke a little fun"? Nope, that's NOT what you were doing.

Sorry, but I call a spade and spade even if it's dressed up as fancy silverware.

So chill dude! Don't get so offended by the suggestion that we may make mistakes and come to incorrect conclusions about complicated systems that NOBODY fully understands.

Thanks for your strong statement, Dave. I am sick of this nonsense, too.

 

[DaveC]

DaveC made some strong assertions early in the thread. I asked him twice to share examples of these incorrect conclusions reached by the subjectivists but he declined to do so. Without further clarification or examples to support his assertions, it becomes easier to dismiss them and move on.

It is a shame because in ddk’s response to Dave, there were some pretty provocative questions which if discussed might lead to a better understanding of the analog and digital formats, their differences, and why some prefer one or the other.

I think this is another one of those lost opportunities to further the discussion of an interesting topic.

I think it's unfortunate as well. But I'm also not here to take abuse, snark and fight for ranking in a social hierarchy. I'm tired of it and want to avoid it. This is why I've declined to give specific examples.

I do think the digital vs analog debate is rife with misguided conclusions and incorrect understanding of the technical details of both formats though, and it's weaponized and used for the kinds of videos this thread is about.

I'm not sure I want to take a deep dive into the subject right now though, it's getting late and I'm hungry. I also am not sure it's going to really help much, these debates have been ongoing for decades.

 

[Al M.]

Wish I could double-like @microstrip's post. Without reading the rest of the thread, nor seeing the video (is there a link to it someplace?), it is easily demonstrable that digital has greater dynamic range and resolution (though CDs have less bandwidth) than something like tape or an LP, and equally as easy to show how much better many LPs sound and why. IME it is not the media (or medium? Grammar ain't my thang...) but is most often the recording, including the mastering and all that jazz. Look up "loudness wars" for one of the big reasons many LPs sound better than comparable CDs. I have a few copies of both, and in some cases 2 or 3 different CD versions, and it is very obvious listening and measuring to them that a lot of CDs are just badly recorded, (re)mastered, or whatever.

CD has more limited frequency bandwidth than analog tape and LP, indeed. But what is often forgotten in the debate is that recordings on analog tape and LP are frequency bandwidth limited as well. The reason is microphones. If I am not mistaken, many of the great mics from the, by some alleged, "golden age" of recording of the 1950s and 60s had a sharp roll-off after about 15 kHz -- not even CD bandwidth to speak of. Also today, at least as far as I know, mics with more or less sharp roll-off after 20-25 kHz are the norm. Knowing this, a few years ago some touted "high-res" ready mics that went more or less linearly to 50 kHz -- not sure about wide industry adoption of those devices.

Not that it would make a difference. There is only anecdotal evidence from very few sporadic papers (some with clear methodological flaws) published in scientific journals that humans can perceive beyond 20 kHz, and of course some cling to that. Yet the broad scientific consensus does not support that. And no, bone conduction or such extreme stuff under non real-world conditions does not count.

 

[Al M.]

I think it's unfortunate as well. But I'm also not here to take abuse, snark and fight for ranking in a social hierarchy. I'm tired of it and want to avoid it. This is why I've declined to give specific examples.

I do think the digital vs analog debate is rife with misguided conclusions and incorrect understanding of the technical details of both formats though, and it's weaponized and used for the kinds of videos this thread is about.

Indeed.

I'm not sure I want to take a deep dive into the subject right now though, it's getting late and I'm hungry. I also am not sure it's going to really help much, these debates have been ongoing for decades.

Yes, people perceive what they want to perceive, and they choose the information they want to hear. There is rarely open-mindedness to actual facts. I have no particular fish to fry on these issues. I have been happy to correct misperceptions over the years on both analog and digital, and to come to the defense of either medium, at least with the limited knowledge that I have. My system is digital only, but I very much enjoy analog in friends' systems and will continue to do so.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . .

I keep thinking I should get my old TT out of the box and set it up again, but these days rarely have time to sit and listen as I did way back when. . .

Please set it up tomorrow!