Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other


One common theme I read on forums here and elsewhere is the view by many that there is a pecking order in quality:

Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital

I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?

High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two.  Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?

This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
roberttdid
There is no pecking order. Unless you are recording, tape machines are pretty worthless due to lack of software. Yes they can sound fabulous. Otherwise, it all depends on the mastering. If you switch back and forth between analog and a 24/192 copy it is unlikely you will be able to label the two versions reliably. I have duplicate copies of many albums in vinyl and Hi Res digital. In comparing them it can go either way and I'd guess that it is pretty close to 50/50.

I do not care for streaming. The drop outs drive me crazy. I have tried several wireless routers and systems and I still get them. I suppose once you have a huge collection of music you are not as interested? My daughters (who I trained well) turn me on to new artists. They filter out the mountains of really bad stuff out there now. You use to have to be tolerably good to get a recording contract. Them days are over. In the jazz world it is nowhere near as bad. You have to have at least some mastery of your instrument for admission.
The humble cassette, no not the crappy ones from the 70s, the good ones from the 80s and 90s, out perform many LPs and CDs, no bout a doubt it. Greater dynamic range, more musical, more air and sweeter. Funny, Steve Hoffman left cassettes off his evaluation. That’s a shame. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes. 🤗
This is such a silly conversation to be having in the third millennium, especially given that there are similar threads on Audiogon here, and here, and here, and here, and ...
If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it.
Pardon me, but did we need your permission?
There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
The next leap, to what??

Here’s a simple fact: The highest fidelity copy of many recordings can only be had on LP. It may be that digital versions were deliberately squashed in dynamic range to compete in the Loudness War. Or it may be that the master tape has aged so badly that early LP pressings remain truest to the original. Or it may be that something was lost in the digital remastering process.

I find that even streaming services that aim for high SQ (such as Qobuz) sometimes don’t have the best sounding copies. Of course, when Qobuz gets it right, those files can swamp an LP. Sometimes.

The notion that those who prefer LP to digital do so because of inherent distortions in the LP process is also misguided; it’s the logical error of confusing correlation with causation. While it may be true of some listeners, it overlooks those who take satisfaction in reducing those distortions to the lowest possible level.

And there are those here - @mikelavigne is one of them - who insist they are unable to make digital copies that can equal the SQ of the best LPs, and that the two are easily distinguishable. (That hasn’t been my experience, though.)

To be clear, I wouldn’t bother with a turntable and LPs if I were starting in audio today - the expense and inconvenience just wouldn’t be worth it. But I’ve been into audio since the LP era. The suggestion that those of us enjoying LPs may be "preventing the next leap" is just absurd. Many of us have made that "leap" and found the potential of digital is often not realized.
cd318, I remember that post well, it created a lot of confusion, frustration, and annoyance if that is the right word? ... check out page 2:
Ian Lascell said:
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the same exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.
Steve Hoffmann: Glad you understand what I was trying to say. I am never sure it's coming out exactly like I mean it to.. Especially when typing in the back seat of a Taxi..

Not sure what generation of Pacific Microsonics unit they were using and can't remember if it was HDCD encoded, which had a "sound".
i have invested high degrees of assets in tape, vinyl and digital. taken each as far as i can go. as far as anyone. and my comments are related to the top level of each format. what happens in each format on the way to these levels could be completely different than my experience.

so for me and my system.......i’d say that the best vinyl sounds really the same as tape. when you play the best pressings, including 45rpm and direct to disc on vinyl, then play tape, it’s doing the same things. maybe 1/2" tape steps up farther.

i have three turntables with different drive systems and different type tone arms and so there are tiny variations in those playback characters that the tape does not have in the same way. yet the tape quality is more all over the board so there are variations on each side. we could spend 10 hours switching back and forth and i think it’s easier to keep playing stellar vinyl and stellar tape is more challenging to find.

with digital there are degrees of things missing, that are not missing from the vinyl and tape. period. exclamation point. m i s s i n g. and i’m a guy with $160k invested in my digital hardware. i’m a serious digital person. yet......it’s not like those other 2. you can talk mic feeds and all that crap. just listen head to head for a period of time. it hits you right in the nose.

i do lots of listening sessions with visitors. we start with digital, but once we switch to analog we rarely switch back unless people want to play something they know that is only digital. analog is just more real. no math conversions holding back reality involved in the formats.

where digital is better, is in the way it works for my life. it fits. i can listen to lots of new music and it works for the 70% of the time i’m not in the mood for analog. i love all the new classical music i can stream at really high levels of performance. i love exploring musically. and the sound is great. the reason i’m so invested in digital is that all around it is better.......but let’s just forget it sounding like analog. it just does not, nor does it need to.

my 2 cents, YMMV.