|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 15, 2015 14:49:27 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree with Geebo on this one... I'm one of those people who, back when I owned and played vinyl, would flinch every time there was a tick or pop (usually followed by stopping the record, giving it a good cleaning, then crossing my fingers that the pop wasn't really a permanent scratch). I would also usually buy a second copy of any album I really liked - just as a backup in case my first copy got damaged. I also used to worry about records getting worn, and the possibility that two different pressings of the same album might be slightly different because one was from the beginning of a pressing run and the other was from the end (masters and mothers also wear as they're used, and so change slightly). To me, the biggest single benefit of digital audio is verifiable consistency and reliability. I can make a backup copy of any digital audio file I own; and I can store a checksum and later use that checksum to confirm with 100% certainty that the file hasn't changed or become damaged. In fact, with a few mouse clicks, I can have my computer verify that every single digital audio file on my entire music server is still perfect. (When I RIP a CD, I can even confirm, with an online database, that my RIP is absolutely positively perfect... so I never have to wonder.) Even beyond that, no playback system is perfect, so even a great digital playback system may have the rare tick or dropout... but, unlike with vinyl, I don't have to worry that my original has been damaged. (Since digital files rarely become corrupted, and are easy to verify, and I have a backup copy anyway, I can relax knowing that it was just a transient occurrence and not a scratch or other permanent damage that will be there every time I play that song.) Once thing to remember, though, is that, because of the limitations of vinyl production, there will always necessarily be at least slight differences between vinyl pressings and digital files made from the same master (at the very least, high level high frequencies will have to be limited to protect the cutting lathe). It's not just a matter of feeding exactly the same signal into a different type of recording device. And there's also the possibility that more deliberate changes will be made to make sure that the vinyl version sounds different (perhaps because the artist believes that "vinyl should be a different experience" or because the mastering engineer or producer believes that customers have slightly different expectations). As such, it's not at all surprising that the vinyl version might sound different - for better or worse. However, notwithstanding "artistic choices", a 24 bit digital file is capable of much flatter frequency response, lower THD, and wider dynamic range than vinyl - if the mastering engineer chooses to take advantage of them. I'm not new at this. Listening to vinyl is like having someone snap their fingers randomly in one ear and hiss in the other while you're trying to enjoy some music. And it gets worse as the album gets played more and more. No, I've listened to vinyl for a long time and I'm so glad to be past it now. A quick thought after reading this post,, perhaps that we value and cherish the vinyl disc, music, artist and experience a little more BECAUSE of the fragile medium itsself. Savoring its complexity, state, and the feel of its physical being. It's unparalleled and unequaled sound. Distinct, full and lovely.With the occational sound of our own weak, even frail existence embodied in our LPs. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 15, 2015 18:44:36 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I just have to call you on this one..... So, we're going to start with vinyl, presumably because we believe that a digital file would somehow not sound as good.... Then we're going to turn that analog audio into a digital file or a digital audio stream so we can process it with Izotope RX.... That sure sounds to me like we're going to be adding together all of the flaws of vinyl and the flaws of digital - rather than avoiding either.... (Then, of course, doing our best to fix any we notice - digitally.) If we're going to go through an ADC, and then do digital processing to repair some flaws anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to save the output after we fix it with Izotope RX, and simply play that digital file directly next time? In fact, assuming that what we're listening to was mastered digitally, then wouldn't it just make sense to get a copy straight from there - and so avoid introducing flaws that we then must fix? I'm just sayin.....  The sound of vinyl records doesn't have noticeable clicks or pops if you 1. thoroughly clean the records by using the right cleaning method, and 2. manually post-process the remaining clicks and pops in iZotope RX 5. On top of that, on a good turntable setup the hiss is usually subliminal. EDIT: The latest album from Keith Richards sounds more dynamic on vinyl. Yes, of course it makes more sense to play the file after it's been fixed in iZotope RX. That's obviously the whole point of doing it in the first place, as it also means that you have to play the record only once (or twice in the event that you later decide to redo it after having upgraded your turntable setup). So it keeps both your records and your stylus from wearing out. And, yes, of course it just makes sense to get a copy straight from there if the digital release and the vinyl release were mastered exactly the same. The vinyl doesn't make it sound better. It just keeps the mastering engineers from being able to squish the dynamic range beyond toothpaste, which I consider a good thing. Moreover, in a fair number of cases a 40 years old vinyl record that has been kept in good shape will sound better than any attempt to digitally rescue what's still left currently of the 40 years old analog studio master tape. By comparison, a 30 years old CD that was made from this same tape (i.e., a CD that was made at the time when this tape was still only 10 years old, and assuming this tape was still in relatively good shape back then) will suffer from the shortcomings of early digital technology. Whereas a 22 years old CD might not suffer from these particular shortcomings as much, but a 15 years old CD might have a dynamic range that will give you the creeps like it's already Halloween. I never said the vinyl will *always* sound better. That's why you have to listen first, judge the quality second... NOT the other way round. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 16, 2015 13:32:08 GMT -5
There is a very simple and still concise way to phrase that: Upsampling and oversampling do not improve the sound quality, because they cannot create additional information that wasn't there to begin with. What they do is to make it easier to minimize the damage that might otherwise be caused by other steps in the digital-to-analog conversion process. Perhaps the paper that is still easiest to read and understand for someone with limited knowledge regarding this topic is the one linked below. www.ayre.com/pdf/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdfTo summarize, to be able to use an anti-alias filter that has a slower roll-off, you need to increase the sampling frequency because if you don't increase it, then audible aliasing artifacts will result from using this slower roll-off filter. The slower roll-off is what makes it technically possible for "ringing" (i.e., both pre-ringing and post-ringing) to be significantly reduced. By replacing Linear Phase filters with Minimum Phase filters, pre-ringing can be reduced to almost zero, albeit at the expense of adding more post-ringing (...and at the expense of introducing another artifact, called phase distortion). By combining Minimum Phase filter behavior *and* slower roll-off filter behavior, well... I think you get the picture. That said, increasing the sampling frequency *deteriorates* accuracy of the individual sampled values. It means there exists an optimum tradeoff between this type of deterioration and the improvement that results from the slower roll-off. However, due to how a Sigma Delta Modulator works (it being inherently noise-shaped), an additional improvement can be obtained from the use of ultra high sampling rates. This also helps to explain why, for example, the SABRE ES9018 chip uses (after upconverting everything to 32-bit first) 8 × upsampling. While what you wrote may be true, that's still your apples to my oranges. The issue is does the simple act of upsampling a file improve the sound. Your above explanation indicates it does but that involves doing things in the process that are in addition to a simple upsampling. Now maybe a company like HD Tracks does that or maybe they don't, but what Mark Waldrep was talking about were instances in which companies simply upsample something then slap an HD or hi-res label on the result. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 16, 2015 13:35:28 GMT -5
Actually, if you dig into all the details, it's the exact opposite..... Virtually all modern DACs already perform oversampling internally, and so already have the benefit of being able to use gentler filters to avoid excessive signal damage - so, by upsampling the file beforehand, all you're doing is adding a second - and unnecessary - upsampling process to the one already being performed - quite adequately - by the DAC itself. It does. Because the difference between a 16bit 44.1kHz file and an upsampled version of this same file is very real in that it can be measured at the analog outputs of a DAC unit. The human-audible effect, although not necessarily always significant nor necessarily always bigger than zero, depends on a fairly huge variety of factors some of which are assumed to be reasonably understood, are very poorly understood, are not at all understood, or remain fully undiscovered to date. These factors may include (or be related to) the presence, the characteristics, and the magnitude, or abscence, of countless different types of errors, such as artifacts caused by the filter used in the ADC stage that produced the original file, the filter used by the upsampler in question, the filter used for 44.1kHz input in the DAC stage, and the filter used for the higher than 44.1kHz input in this same DAC stage. Most modern DACs and ADCs are using not just one, but multiple, complex filters. Which DAC filter is in use during operation of the DAC also affects DAC performance in areas of the DAC other than filter performance. On top of that, I can take a speaker that has certain, even gross defects and I can make subtle changes in the digital domain of what's feeding that chain, and we hear it very clearly because it's on a different dimension than all the other errors the system makes (i.e., it's separate). An unimagined difference that, when measured, looks to be negligibly small, can have a profound impact on how we perceive sounds, especially how we perceive (certain specific types of) music, and how we emotionally respond to music. And all that is somehow an argument that upconverting, and *nothing else*, makes a 44.1/16 file sound better? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 16, 2015 13:51:32 GMT -5
See... there you have it... the difference between subjectivism and objectivism... in one neat phrase.  What I want when I play music is for it to sound exactly like it's supposed to... or the closest I can get to that - which is exactly as it was recorded. That way I can decide what music I like based on what it actually sounds like. I love Maggie Reilly's voice, and I'm not especially fond of Elvis - but, if I play an Elvis CD on my system, I want it to sound like Elvis - and not like Maggie. To me, it's up to the artist and the producer to produce a recording that sounds exactly the way they think it should sound. And it's up to my audio system to reproduce what the artist and producer gave me as accurately as possible. And it's then up to me to decide whether I like it or not. I see using vinyl, or vacuum tubes, to add coloration to alter the sound as being pretty much the same thing as doing any sort of other processing to deliberately alter the sound. I see it as a CREATIVE act - rather than as an act of REPRODUCING an original. (I can play a Mozart symphony backwards at half speed - and perhaps end up with something interesting - but it ain't Mozart any more.) And, when I listen to music, I'm generally more interested in hearing exactly what the artist and producer intended than I am in creating something new that I find pleasant. Please note that I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being creative, and I even like being creative sometimes - just not when I listen to music. But that's just me... But if i's great sound you want........ |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Oct 16, 2015 13:57:10 GMT -5
Good thoughts.
The real issue here is the poor recording quality of much available music.
I used to, but no longer view this as a science project but a lens into music.
As a musician, I listen for those cues that let me hear and feel what another musician intended to convey emotionally.
That, for me is what. "sounds good".
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 16, 2015 14:01:03 GMT -5
Well put. And it sort of leads to where I was going.... If you really specifically like the colorations added by vinyl, and acknowledge that a digital recording, when made at some arbitrarily "good enough" sample rate, sounds audibly exactly like the original, then the only sensible way to proceed is to cut the original master onto vinyl, and so add whatever "vinyl sound" you're aiming for, then make a perfect digital recording of that analog album, which, since its a digital file, can be reproduced perfectly, and guaranteed never to change one iota from its original perfect state. (In other words, treat "recording to vinyl and playing back" as just another form of audio processing to be applied during the mastering process.) I've always wondered why nobody has thought to create a cottage industry doing just that.... If, somewhere out there, there's some $100k turntable, and some $10k cartridge, and a $20k phono preamp, that are so good that everyone just swoons over how wonderful they make every record sound, then someone should play a perfect copy of each album through them - once - and then make a perfect quality digital recording of it so everyone else can experience the exact same sound without spending all that money. Yes, of course it makes more sense to play the file after it's been fixed in iZotope RX. That's obviously the whole point of doing it in the first place, as it also means that you have to play the record only once (or twice in the event that you later decide to redo it after having upgraded your turntable setup). So it keeps both your records and your stylus from wearing out. And, yes, of course it just makes sense to get a copy straight from there if the digital release and the vinyl release were mastered exactly the same. The vinyl doesn't make it sound better. It just keeps the mastering engineers from being able to squish the dynamic range beyond toothpaste, which I consider a good thing. Moreover, in a fair number of cases a 40 years old vinyl record that has been kept in good shape will sound better than any attempt to digitally rescue what's still left currently of the 40 years old analog studio master tape. By comparison, a 30 years old CD that was made from this same tape (i.e., a CD that was made at the time when this tape was still only 10 years old, and assuming this tape was still in relatively good shape back then) will suffer from the shortcomings of early digital technology. Whereas a 22 years old CD might not suffer from these particular shortcomings as much, but a 15 years old CD might have a dynamic range that will give you the creeps like it's already Halloween. I never said the vinyl will *always* sound better. That's why you have to listen first, judge the quality second... NOT the other way round. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 16, 2015 14:04:44 GMT -5
I agree that much of modern music is very poorly recorded... or, worse yet, has deliberately been compressed and EQed to death because someone wants it that way. However, since you mentioned a lens, I have to ask you..... Isn't the lens that's going to do the best job the one that is absolutely clear, with no distortion, and no color aberrations? (Do you want the lens that lets you hear/see the music itself the best, just as it really is, or the one that alters it in "pleasing ways"?) Good thoughts. The real issue here is the poor recording quality of much available music. I used to, but no longer view this as a science project but a lens into music. As a musician, I listen for those cues that let me hear and feel what another musician intended to convey emotionally. That, for me is what. "sounds good". |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Oct 16, 2015 14:07:23 GMT -5
I read that with ever increasing sampling rates, the goal of digital is to become analog.
But the convenience of digital way outweighs the perceived benefits of vinyl as an analog medium, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Oct 16, 2015 16:57:35 GMT -5
Well put. And it sort of leads to where I was going.... If you really specifically like the colorations added by vinyl, and acknowledge that a digital recording, when made at some arbitrarily "good enough" sample rate, sounds audibly exactly like the original, then the only sensible way to proceed is to cut the original master onto vinyl, and so add whatever "vinyl sound" you're aiming for, then make a perfect digital recording of that analog album, which, since its a digital file, can be reproduced perfectly, and guaranteed never to change one iota from its original perfect state. (In other words, treat "recording to vinyl and playing back" as just another form of audio processing to be applied during the mastering process.) I've always wondered why nobody has thought to create a cottage industry doing just that.... If, somewhere out there, there's some $100k turntable, and some $10k cartridge, and a $20k phono preamp, that are so good that everyone just swoons over how wonderful they make every record sound, then someone should play a perfect copy of each album through them - once - and then make a perfect quality digital recording of it so everyone else can experience the exact same sound without spending all that money. Yes, of course it makes more sense to play the file after it's been fixed in iZotope RX. That's obviously the whole point of doing it in the first place, as it also means that you have to play the record only once (or twice in the event that you later decide to redo it after having upgraded your turntable setup). So it keeps both your records and your stylus from wearing out. And, yes, of course it just makes sense to get a copy straight from there if the digital release and the vinyl release were mastered exactly the same. The vinyl doesn't make it sound better. It just keeps the mastering engineers from being able to squish the dynamic range beyond toothpaste, which I consider a good thing. Moreover, in a fair number of cases a 40 years old vinyl record that has been kept in good shape will sound better than any attempt to digitally rescue what's still left currently of the 40 years old analog studio master tape. By comparison, a 30 years old CD that was made from this same tape (i.e., a CD that was made at the time when this tape was still only 10 years old, and assuming this tape was still in relatively good shape back then) will suffer from the shortcomings of early digital technology. Whereas a 22 years old CD might not suffer from these particular shortcomings as much, but a 15 years old CD might have a dynamic range that will give you the creeps like it's already Halloween. I never said the vinyl will *always* sound better. That's why you have to listen first, judge the quality second... NOT the other way round. Not really. When you do the analog to digital to analog conversion, you introduce error. (Aside: is dither added in the A-to-D step or in the D-to-A step?) |
|
|
|
Post by jefft51 on Oct 16, 2015 23:23:56 GMT -5
Why not have as neutral equipment as you can so you can reproduce music as close to how it was recorded as you can(hopefully high quality, not compressed) and THEN have a component that you can switch in or not to alter the sound as you like. Maybe a tube buffer, or something? Maybe SOMEONE should make a DSP box that cam simulate a range of tube distortions and simulate vinyl playback (dial up your favorite cartridge sound!)
As far as vinyl, I enjoy it not because it has better sound, but because I like the whole ceremony from flipping through the albums to placing the needle on the record. Yes, a bit nostalgic, but also like reading a physical book rather than reading it om my kindle. Also it's useful for distracting me from other things every 20 minutes or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 17, 2015 6:41:29 GMT -5
Good thoughts. The real issue here is the poor recording quality of much available music. I used to, but no longer view this as a science project but a lens into music. As a musician, I listen for those cues that let me hear and feel what another musician intended to convey emotionally. That, for me is what. "sounds good". Exactly. Listening for "accuracy", or specific attributes we think should be reproduced accurately comes with the risk of missing those other qualities that are the very reason why we listen to music in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 17, 2015 6:48:10 GMT -5
(Aside: is dither added in the A-to-D step or in the D-to-A step?) It's added right into the grooves of the vinyl. |
|
|
|
Post by garym on Oct 17, 2015 7:37:09 GMT -5
To me, it's up to the artist and the producer to produce a recording that sounds exactly the way they think it should sound. And it's up to my audio system to reproduce what the artist and producer gave me as accurately as possible. And it's then up to me to decide whether I like it or not. Hear, hear! |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Oct 17, 2015 7:39:50 GMT -5
I agree that much of modern music is very poorly recorded... or, worse yet, has deliberately been compressed and EQed to death because someone wants it that way. However, since you mentioned a lens, I have to ask you..... Isn't the lens that's going to do the best job the one that is absolutely clear, with no distortion, and no color aberrations? (Do you want the lens that lets you hear/see the music itself the best, just as it really is, or the one that alters it in "pleasing ways"?) Good thoughts. The real issue here is the poor recording quality of much available music. I used to, but no longer view this as a science project but a lens into music. As a musician, I listen for those cues that let me hear and feel what another musician intended to convey emotionally. That, for me is what. "sounds good". I mean lens as a "passageway" into the music........ |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 17, 2015 10:05:47 GMT -5
Well put. And it sort of leads to where I was going.... If you really specifically like the colorations added by vinyl, and acknowledge that a digital recording, when made at some arbitrarily "good enough" sample rate, sounds audibly exactly like the original, then the only sensible way to proceed is to cut the original master onto vinyl, and so add whatever "vinyl sound" you're aiming for, then make a perfect digital recording of that analog album, which, since its a digital file, can be reproduced perfectly, and guaranteed never to change one iota from its original perfect state. (In other words, treat "recording to vinyl and playing back" as just another form of audio processing to be applied during the mastering process.) I've always wondered why nobody has thought to create a cottage industry doing just that.... If, somewhere out there, there's some $100k turntable, and some $10k cartridge, and a $20k phono preamp, that are so good that everyone just swoons over how wonderful they make every record sound, then someone should play a perfect copy of each album through them - once - and then make a perfect quality digital recording of it so everyone else can experience the exact same sound without spending all that money. Yes, of course it makes more sense to play the file after it's been fixed in iZotope RX. That's obviously the whole point of doing it in the first place, as it also means that you have to play the record only once (or twice in the event that you later decide to redo it after having upgraded your turntable setup). So it keeps both your records and your stylus from wearing out. And, yes, of course it just makes sense to get a copy straight from there if the digital release and the vinyl release were mastered exactly the same. The vinyl doesn't make it sound better. It just keeps the mastering engineers from being able to squish the dynamic range beyond toothpaste, which I consider a good thing. Moreover, in a fair number of cases a 40 years old vinyl record that has been kept in good shape will sound better than any attempt to digitally rescue what's still left currently of the 40 years old analog studio master tape. By comparison, a 30 years old CD that was made from this same tape (i.e., a CD that was made at the time when this tape was still only 10 years old, and assuming this tape was still in relatively good shape back then) will suffer from the shortcomings of early digital technology. Whereas a 22 years old CD might not suffer from these particular shortcomings as much, but a 15 years old CD might have a dynamic range that will give you the creeps like it's already Halloween. I never said the vinyl will *always* sound better. That's why you have to listen first, judge the quality second... NOT the other way round. I don't actually *like* the colorations of vinyl. Rather, after the clicks and pops have been manually (and meticulously) removed in software, especially if the ADC and DAC are worth their salt and the turntable setup isn't too shabby (and IMO it doesn't have to cost $100,000 nor even $5,000........), I very often *prefer* the colorations of the vinyl transfer over the colorations of any other available release of the same album. While big differences in the mastering used are typically the most responsible for this fact, smaller differences, such as the time smearing effect of pre-ringing artifacts inherent of the filters necessary to create a Redbook CD from an acoustic performance, for example, are not as audibly negligible to my own ears as some people would have loved everyone to believe. That said, you can't travel 46 years back in time to record Mick Jagger's voice directly onto a 24bit 192kHz file. You Can't Always Get What You Want
|
|
|
|
Post by cheddar on Apr 3, 2016 15:50:58 GMT -5
High res is mostly snake oil. Look at the biggest proponents of High res files and ask yourself what their motives are. I will listen to the objectivists who draw their conclusions from the scientific process and have no profit motive either way.
Of course I have also learnt over the last quarter century that if you tell an 'audiophile' that there is any measurable difference in a signal, the audiohpile will immediately claim they can hear the difference. The power of human belief can induce the brain to manifest many perceptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Apr 3, 2016 19:18:10 GMT -5
Think of the money you will save!
|
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Apr 3, 2016 19:24:38 GMT -5
High res is mostly snake oil. Look at the biggest proponents of High res files and ask yourself what their motives are. I will listen to the objectivists who draw their conclusions from the scientific process and have no profit motive either way. Of course I have also learnt over the last quarter century that if you tell an 'audiophile' that there is any measurable difference in a signal, the audiohpile will immediately claim they can hear the difference. The power of human belief can induce the brain to manifest many perceptions. I TOTALLY AGREE! I've learn exactly the same thing! I too wait for the objectivists who draw their conclusions from scientific process and have no profit motive either way! And when they prove something.... I rush out and buy it, and WOW! I immediately hear the difference! It's kind of weird how I don't notice the difference before I read the scientific report, though. But no matter! SCIENCE AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO PROFIT MOTIVE EITHER WAY RULE! (This will be my last post on this site. I've moved on to other things. It's been fun. So long and thanks for all the fish.) |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 4, 2016 11:30:11 GMT -5
You are indeed correct - virtually any conversion process introduces SOME error. However, the error introduced by a properly done analog-to-digital conversion is much LESS than the damage done by the best analog recording chain. Assuming you start out with some sort of "mixer output" which we're going to arbitrarily call "the original", and you send that directly into an A/D converter, that conversion will not be perfect (nothing is). However, once you get past that point, all the steps involved in duplicating and distributing that digital version will in fact be perfect - because, assuming you want to, you can in fact ensure that the bits that I download on my computer are EXACTLY the same as the bits that came out of that converter. In contrast, with the analog process, the recording goes from analog signal to analog tape, from analog tape to record cutter, from cutter to master, from master to mother, from mother to stamper, from stamper to album, from album to cartridge, from cartridge to phone preamp to line level preamp... and EACH of those steps includes errors - some of them potentially quite severe. In short, you are NOT "comparing a digital copy to a vinyl original"; you are comparing a digital copy to a vinyl copy; and, in almost all cases, the digital copy process will introduce FAR fewer errors. And, if you don't believe that, go read the frequency response, or S/N, or THD, specs on a record cutting lathe - if you can find them. Most people have no idea how different a vinyl album sounds than the original master recording - because they don't have the opportunity to compare them - so they assume, for no good reason, that the vinyl recording is a reasonably close approximation of the original.... which simply is not true. The answer to your dither question is that dither is normally added as the last step in the mastering-production process - specifically after all editing is done. So, in the case of a CD, dithering is added at the final step where the audio is reduced from 24 bits or 32 bits to the 16 bit version intended to be written to the disc. And, in the case of a digital file, it would be done at the last step before the file is distributed. (Dither should always be added after any process that alters the gain or frequency response of the audio signal - and after any bit-depth conversions.) Also note that, if you're making a digital copy of an analog original, the tape noise or background noise on the original may sometimes serve as an effective "dither signal" - in which case you don't need to explicitly add more dither. (Note that a bandwidth-limiting filter MUST be applied at the input of the A/D - because signal, and even noise, above the Nyquist frequency must be filtered out before reaching the A/D converter.) Well put. And it sort of leads to where I was going.... If you really specifically like the colorations added by vinyl, and acknowledge that a digital recording, when made at some arbitrarily "good enough" sample rate, sounds audibly exactly like the original, then the only sensible way to proceed is to cut the original master onto vinyl, and so add whatever "vinyl sound" you're aiming for, then make a perfect digital recording of that analog album, which, since its a digital file, can be reproduced perfectly, and guaranteed never to change one iota from its original perfect state. (In other words, treat "recording to vinyl and playing back" as just another form of audio processing to be applied during the mastering process.) I've always wondered why nobody has thought to create a cottage industry doing just that.... If, somewhere out there, there's some $100k turntable, and some $10k cartridge, and a $20k phono preamp, that are so good that everyone just swoons over how wonderful they make every record sound, then someone should play a perfect copy of each album through them - once - and then make a perfect quality digital recording of it so everyone else can experience the exact same sound without spending all that money. Not really. When you do the analog to digital to analog conversion, you introduce error. (Aside: is dither added in the A-to-D step or in the D-to-A step?) |
|
