|
|
Post by geebo on Jun 27, 2016 13:35:18 GMT -5
I have a very serious suggestion/question here - specifically for those who are convinced that vinyl sounds good.
Have you ever tried taking your favorite vinyl album, playing it on your favorite turntable and cartridge, with your favorite phono preamp - and then recording it at 24/96k or 24/192k using a decent analog-to-digital converter? Assuming that the entire "vinyl playback signal chain" is simply adding something you like to the sound, and that the digital playback chain can reproduce whatever you feed it very accurately, then this should enable you to have all the benefits of BOTH at the same time. You'll get the sound of the vinyl album, and the vinyl playback signal chain, plus the easy backup and storage, and the permanence, of a digital file. In fact, a bunch of guys who like vinyl could chip in, buy one really good vinyl system that none of them could individually afford, and one really good A/D converter, and then each use it to convert their records to digital. (Of course, they can't legally buy one copy of the album and make copies for everyone... )
You can see why no company has done this: because, from a licensing standpoint, it's a nightmare. Technically only people who own the record are legally entitled to make a digital copy of it - and only for themselves. but, for a company who already sells digital downloads, they would just be "special re-masters". I wonder how many people would be willing to pay a little extra to get "high-res digital recordings with that high end vinyl sound". They could even offer your choice of several different turntables and cartridges.
All musings aside, though..... anyone who thinks that "digital takes something away from the sound" should be eager to try this experiment... that way you can see for yourself if the digital recording of a vinyl source really sounds any different than the original vinyl source itself, or if the vinyl is just ADDING something... and the digital recording is able to reproduce it accurately... Which would prove, once and for all, that the differences really lie in the mastering and the analog reproduction signal chain. (Even a $39 Sound Blaster audio card should be good enough as an A/D converter to prove the point.)
I have the BD release of Yes Fragile and it includes a full album needle-drop of an original UK vinyl pressing. I listened to it once and it can't compare to the HiRes PCM versions on the same disc. Boring and lifeless with too much noise. The digital versions are superior. Dynamic, engaging and detailed with better frequency response at both extremes. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 27, 2016 13:51:45 GMT -5
My sentiments exactly.... And here's another thought... It would be illegal to provide digital copies of an album to people who don't own the album. However, if a bunch of guys were to buy used copies of the same vinyl album, they could then pick out the best and cleanest of those copies, then use it to make digital backup copies for everyone in the group who had one. That way they could all have really good digital backup copies of the album they'd bought without duplicating a lot of effort. (This would be a great solution for classic albums, where there are plenty of copies available, but many of them are in bad shape.) I have a very serious suggestion/question here - specifically for those who are convinced that vinyl sounds good.
Have you ever tried taking your favorite vinyl album, playing it on your favorite turntable and cartridge, with your favorite phono preamp - and then recording it at 24/96k or 24/192k using a decent analog-to-digital converter? Assuming that the entire "vinyl playback signal chain" is simply adding something you like to the sound, and that the digital playback chain can reproduce whatever you feed it very accurately, then this should enable you to have all the benefits of BOTH at the same time. You'll get the sound of the vinyl album, and the vinyl playback signal chain, plus the easy backup and storage, and the permanence, of a digital file. In fact, a bunch of guys who like vinyl could chip in, buy one really good vinyl system that none of them could individually afford, and one really good A/D converter, and then each use it to convert their records to digital. (Of course, they can't legally buy one copy of the album and make copies for everyone... )
You can see why no company has done this: because, from a licensing standpoint, it's a nightmare. Technically only people who own the record are legally entitled to make a digital copy of it - and only for themselves. but, for a company who already sells digital downloads, they would just be "special re-masters". I wonder how many people would be willing to pay a little extra to get "high-res digital recordings with that high end vinyl sound". They could even offer your choice of several different turntables and cartridges.
All musings aside, though..... anyone who thinks that "digital takes something away from the sound" should be eager to try this experiment... that way you can see for yourself if the digital recording of a vinyl source really sounds any different than the original vinyl source itself, or if the vinyl is just ADDING something... and the digital recording is able to reproduce it accurately... Which would prove, once and for all, that the differences really lie in the mastering and the analog reproduction signal chain. (Even a $39 Sound Blaster audio card should be good enough as an A/D converter to prove the point.)
I like the idea of a communal enterprise where people pool together and buy vinyl as a pool of buyers!  I won't be a part of the pool as I no longer own vinyl or vinyl gear but would be watching the game keenly from the sidelines. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jun 27, 2016 13:52:51 GMT -5
I have a very serious suggestion/question here - specifically for those who are convinced that vinyl sounds good.
Have you ever tried taking your favorite vinyl album, playing it on your favorite turntable and cartridge, with your favorite phono preamp - and then recording it at 24/96k or 24/192k using a decent analog-to-digital converter? Assuming that the entire "vinyl playback signal chain" is simply adding something you like to the sound, and that the digital playback chain can reproduce whatever you feed it very accurately, then this should enable you to have all the benefits of BOTH at the same time. You'll get the sound of the vinyl album, and the vinyl playback signal chain, plus the easy backup and storage, and the permanence, of a digital file. In fact, a bunch of guys who like vinyl could chip in, buy one really good vinyl system that none of them could individually afford, and one really good A/D converter, and then each use it to convert their records to digital. (Of course, they can't legally buy one copy of the album and make copies for everyone... )
You can see why no company has done this: because, from a licensing standpoint, it's a nightmare. Technically only people who own the record are legally entitled to make a digital copy of it - and only for themselves. but, for a company who already sells digital downloads, they would just be "special re-masters". I wonder how many people would be willing to pay a little extra to get "high-res digital recordings with that high end vinyl sound". They could even offer your choice of several different turntables and cartridges.
All musings aside, though..... anyone who thinks that "digital takes something away from the sound" should be eager to try this experiment... that way you can see for yourself if the digital recording of a vinyl source really sounds any different than the original vinyl source itself, or if the vinyl is just ADDING something... and the digital recording is able to reproduce it accurately... Which would prove, once and for all, that the differences really lie in the mastering and the analog reproduction signal chain. (Even a $39 Sound Blaster audio card should be good enough as an A/D converter to prove the point.)
I have the BD release of Yes Fragile and it includes a full album needle-drop of an original UK vinyl pressing. I listened to it once and it can't compare to the HiRes PCM versions on the same disc. Boring and lifeless with too much noise. The digital versions are superior. Dynamic, engaging and detailed with better frequency response at both extremes. Obviously the transfer to digital is what ruined it.  When it comes to vinyl versus CD, I say just listen to whatever you think sounds best. If you have to depend on someone else telling you what sounds best because you can't believe your own ears then shame on you, just go to a big box store and let some master salesperson sell you a boom box. These days when I purchase a CD, my concern is the recording quality. I hate it if an album comes out by an artist I like and the engineers have butchered the recording. The quality of the mastering/engineering to me makes more difference than the resolution or medium. Back in my vinyl days, my concern was also the recording quality. Some records were just better than others. For example, if Steely Dan released an album then it was a pretty safe bet that it was recorded well, whereas some other artists did not seem to care so much about the recording quality. On top of that, I was also concerned about how much ticks and pops would be evident, and also concerned that the record wouldn't be warped. I had lots of tick and pop vinyl (MCA was a huge offender) and also ran across some records with quite a warp hump in them. Time seems to have rounded off all the rough edges of the memories of vinyl for many people who insist on how wonderful it sounds, as though there was never a poorly recorded vinyl album in the history of mankind. That's just not the case. There were excellent recordings, lousy recordings and a whole range inbetween, same as there is with CD's. There's no "magic" which makes vinyl a better medium than a CD. Like I said, we should listen to whatever our ears tells us sounds good. |
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Jun 27, 2016 13:58:50 GMT -5
I have a very serious suggestion/question here - specifically for those who are convinced that vinyl sounds good.
Have you ever tried taking your favorite vinyl album, playing it on your favorite turntable and cartridge, with your favorite phono preamp - and then recording it at 24/96k or 24/192k using a decent analog-to-digital converter? Assuming that the entire "vinyl playback signal chain" is simply adding something you like to the sound, and that the digital playback chain can reproduce whatever you feed it very accurately, then this should enable you to have all the benefits of BOTH at the same time. You'll get the sound of the vinyl album, and the vinyl playback signal chain, plus the easy backup and storage, and the permanence, of a digital file. In fact, a bunch of guys who like vinyl could chip in, buy one really good vinyl system that none of them could individually afford, and one really good A/D converter, and then each use it to convert their records to digital. (Of course, they can't legally buy one copy of the album and make copies for everyone... )
You can see why no company has done this: because, from a licensing standpoint, it's a nightmare. Technically only people who own the record are legally entitled to make a digital copy of it - and only for themselves. but, for a company who already sells digital downloads, they would just be "special re-masters". I wonder how many people would be willing to pay a little extra to get "high-res digital recordings with that high end vinyl sound". They could even offer your choice of several different turntables and cartridges.
All musings aside, though..... anyone who thinks that "digital takes something away from the sound" should be eager to try this experiment... that way you can see for yourself if the digital recording of a vinyl source really sounds any different than the original vinyl source itself, or if the vinyl is just ADDING something... and the digital recording is able to reproduce it accurately... Which would prove, once and for all, that the differences really lie in the mastering and the analog reproduction signal chain. (Even a $39 Sound Blaster audio card should be good enough as an A/D converter to prove the point.)
Oh! Don't forget to make sure the DAC has tubes to boost that warm and fuzzy THD!  |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Jun 27, 2016 16:35:51 GMT -5
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Jun 27, 2016 17:47:44 GMT -5
The problem with the communal ownership premise is that music is supposed to be purchased for personal use. I'm sure lawyers would have a field day with this.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jun 27, 2016 18:14:47 GMT -5
The problem with the communal ownership premise is that music is supposed to be purchased for personal use. I'm sure lawyers would have a field day with this. Maybe I misread what KeithL posted but my understanding was that each person in the group owned an original of the vinyl. The best quality original was then used to make a hi def digital "backup" that each person was entitled to as they own an original. If a lawyer came to my house I'd simply show him the original and the door.  Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jun 27, 2016 19:13:38 GMT -5
Amazing, given all that, that it still sounds better than vinyl... |
|
harri009
Emo VIPs 
ReferenceAnalog.com
Posts: 1,425
|
Post by harri009 on Jun 27, 2016 22:38:56 GMT -5
For me the order of preference is vinyl, digital download/rip, cd, stream. Comparing Tidal to a cd rip through the Aurender, the rip sounds fuller. I do not like surface noise on my vinyl and as a whole do not have much vinyl with it, the guys who think vinyl is a bunch of clicks and pops are missing out. I think it has a fuller sound with more meat to the bones type idea. I do have to admit though that my first couple tables didn't wow me. I had a project 1.3 and a Marantz TT-15 and neither of those tables made me prefer vinyl. It wasn't until I got into the higher end tables before I started to hear why people preferred vinyl. Below that level I preferred SACD's to just about anything. Anyone is welcome to come by and take a listen if you are ever in the Oklahoma City area. I did a direct comparison a couple weeks ago for some people between these formats. That is when the discovery that tidal was a little thin in the mids in comparison to the rip of the same track. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Jun 28, 2016 2:01:02 GMT -5
Amazing, given all that, that it still sounds better than vinyl... What does? |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jun 28, 2016 6:39:05 GMT -5
Amazing, given all that, that it still sounds better than vinyl... What does? Blu ray, PCM, FLAC, CD, DVD-A and I'm sure I'm leaving out a few. |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Jun 28, 2016 7:50:55 GMT -5
Personally I find that all streaming is inferior in my own house. I have set it up probably 10 ways. Anytime I allow the music to pass over any ethernet the bass loses some definition and the music lacks coherence. Please don't offer to fix this for me I have tried many times and many ways. I find that Files locally on the device at the audio point sound best. I have proven this out to myself multiple times on multiple devices and systems.
As far as Digital vs Vinyl, it depends on the album. I'm sure it boils down to the master. Van Morrison's Moondance is amazing on Vinyl, ditto Jack Johnson In Between Dreams. Thing like Peal Jam Ten and VS I prefer digital.
I can't comment on CD because I've never owned a decent player.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jun 28, 2016 8:07:11 GMT -5
Personally I find that all streaming is inferior in my own house. I have set it up probably 10 ways. Anytime I allow the music to pass over any ethernet the bass loses some definition and the music lacks coherence. Please don't offer to fix this for me I have tried many times and many ways. I find that Files locally on the device at the audio point sound best. I have proven this out to myself multiple times on multiple devices and systems. As far as Digital vs Vinyl, it depends on the album. I'm sure it boils down to the master. Van Morrison's Moondance is amazing on Vinyl, ditto Jack Johnson In Between Dreams. Thing like Peal Jam Ten and VS I prefer digital. I can't comment on CD because I've never owned a decent player. Speaking of Moondance, it's amazing on the Blu Ray Audio in DTS-MA surround. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Jun 28, 2016 8:51:02 GMT -5
Blu ray, PCM, FLAC, CD, DVD-A and I'm sure I'm leaving out a few. I didn't imply anything else. Was more an explanation why high-res digital formats makes sense even if we can't hear higher frequencies than roughly 20 KHz. This also applies to ADC of analog sources that you for instance want to run through Dirac. Personally, I'm a music format agnostic. Recording and mastering is far more important IMVHO. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jun 28, 2016 9:19:13 GMT -5
Blu ray, PCM, FLAC, CD, DVD-A and I'm sure I'm leaving out a few. I didn't imply anything else. Was more an explanation why high-res digital formats makes sense even if we can't hear higher frequencies than roughly 20 KHz. This also applies to ADC of analog sources that you for instance want to run through Dirac. Personally, I'm a music format agnostic. Recording and mastering is far more important IMVHO.So very true. Sadly, full advantage of the CD format is rarely taken. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 28, 2016 9:52:18 GMT -5
Nah... not that amazing when you consider all the weak points and flaws in ANALOG recording and playback mechanisms. Most fans of vinyl just love to point out all the flaws and weaknesses of digital audio storage and playback... but, oddly, they seem to usually ignore all the weaknesses in analog playback - and vinyl in specific. For example, the next time someone wants to complain about how the reconstruction filter on a DAC "messes up the transient response", consider the fact that both the cutting lathe and the cartridge used in a vinyl playback system are electromechanical devices, with their own frequency response anomalies, resonances and distortions. So, while we're all stuck with the flaws of microphones and speakers, vinyl adds another pair of equally flawed links to the signal chain. And then, to the often overused compression that gets done to CD audio, you can add the high-frequency limiting required to keep loud high-frequency signals from overloading, or even damaging, a record mastering lathe. And, if you want to look at waveforms, and imagine what they go through, find a good microscope video of a stylus riding in a record groove.... the vinyl actually BENDS under the force of the stylus (you can see it), and then springs back after it passes.... youch! And, personally, what I find most interesting is that most DACs at least quote distortion numbers for THD and IMD; have you ever seen a number quoted for the THD of a sine wave that's been recorded onto vinyl and played back? How about the IMD? There's a reason why nobody wants to cut a sine wave onto vinyl, and then play it back through an AP..... And, if you want to talk about the ringing and other horrible things DACs do to transients, see if you can find some photos and measurements of what vinyl does to them. Likewise, lets see some square wave pictures.... let's SEE if vinyl can really make a square wave with less ringing than the little bit added by most DACs - and which everyone points to as one of the reason DACs are so horribly flawed. And, incidentally, if you look around you will find plenty of articles about "trying to overcome the flaws and limitations of cutting vinyl" (although many of them were published before the Internet became popular, there are still a lot out there if you look carefully). The other thing that I find interesting is that, because making digital copies of things is easy, and because many things that were originally issued on vinyl are now available on CD, people like to nit-pick about the differences... and this is silly for two quite different reasons.... 1) Records and CDs are virtually NEVER mastered identically... so what you're hearing is mostly those differences in mastering. 2) People just love to talk about the tiny differences you can see between the original signal and a digital reproduction of it (like edge ringing), and about things like "time blur" that are caused by the conversion process. And, not surprisingly, one of the reasons is that it's pretty simple to take a test signal, make a digital recording of it, then compare the output of your DAC to the original. However, because the whole process of producing vinyl is so complicated, expensive, and time consuming, I don't know anyone who has taken a well recorded CD or high-res file, cut it to vinyl, then done a direct comparison to the original. (I specifically mean doing so while being careful to NOT modify the master - so they can specifically see, hear, and measure, how the vinyl recording and playback process have changed the sound). If you've ever read any discussions about this by industry professionals, you'll notice how many of them consider it pointless - because, to them, it's obvious that the vinyl album will not be an accurate reproduction of the master (in the sense that you can A/B them and not know which is which). OK... now that you're awake... my point here wasn't to point out how awful vinyl is... in fact it can sound pretty good... My point is to suggest that, since it's virtually a given that vinyl is NOT "an accurate reproduction method", it should NOT be thought of as a method of sound REPRODUCTION. So, stop claiming that vinyl somehow "preserves mystical stuff that digital loses". And simply accept that vinyl is instead part of the MUSIC PRODUCTION process (not the reproduction process)... and is just one more step in the creation process that adds a pleasant coloration that some people like.... (Comparing vinyl to digital audio makes about as much sense as comparing wine to distilled water... for about the same reason - wine will never be "pure water" and distilled water will never be wine.) And, yes, in case anyone didn't already know, I'm a solid fan of DIGITAL... because I'm quite certain that it is in fact closer to the original master recording. (Which is not precisely the same as saying that it's closer to "live" - whatever that means to you....) Amazing, given all that, that it still sounds better than vinyl... |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 28, 2016 9:54:48 GMT -5
No kidding.... Every once in a while I hear a CD that's mastered so well, and sounds so good, that it makes me wonder why most of them AREN'T anywhere near that good. I didn't imply anything else. Was more an explanation why high-res digital formats makes sense even if we can't hear higher frequencies than roughly 20 KHz. This also applies to ADC of analog sources that you for instance want to run through Dirac. Personally, I'm a music format agnostic. Recording and mastering is far more important IMVHO.So very true. Sadly, full advantage of the CD format is rarely taken. |
|
harri009
Emo VIPs
ReferenceAnalog.com
Posts: 1,425
|
Post by harri009 on Jun 28, 2016 10:41:36 GMT -5
Keith perhaps the problem with digital is that our recording and mastering techniques are so subpar at creating realistic sound that a analog coloration needs to be there to have it sound realistic. Comparing the best digital I have ever heard to the best analog I would say analog always sounds more like an actual human
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 28, 2016 11:17:30 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I think mastering gets most of the blame, and, even worse, it's only partly accidental or incidental. The other part is simply what you might call "the modern sound" - which is what many listeners either expect or actually want. Keith perhaps the problem with digital is that our recording and mastering techniques are so subpar at creating realistic sound that a analog coloration needs to be there to have it sound realistic. Comparing the best digital I have ever heard to the best analog I would say analog always sounds more like an actual human |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 28, 2016 11:20:16 GMT -5
The thing with CD vs vinyl is the CD is limited by the quality of the DAC output. And there are various types of dacs and they have their own sound. And like it or not most DACS have ringing in the wave form. Something vinyl does not have. Also though people say who cares about the sampling rate? If isn't sampled at a certain time then that information is lost.
So the CD doesn't capture everyhing perfectly.
The digital filters used also has to alter the signal.
Now vinyl also has limits to its time resolution as well as a bunch of manipulations the signal needs to go through to output it like the RIAA curve and different cartridges sound different etc.
|
|
