emrofsemanonm audio2design, atmasphere and others
Hard to disagree with any of your statements.
Regarding phase shift and other 'distortions' more prevalent in vinyl than digital recording, electro-mechanical lathing/playback (with RIAA equalization) seems of central importance.
Regarding potential frequency response with vinyl, again no argument.
This frequency response....higher frequency reproduction...is I would argue better preserved by playback (with or without subsequent digitalization) of vinyl pressings contemporaneous with the original recording than by 'master tapes' of those recordings, because of time-dependent degradation of the tapes. |
Do lp's made contemporaneously with analog tape recordings, in the decades before availability of digital recording at resolutions exceeding 16/44.5, offer better sound on playback than high resolution transfers made from those analog tapes ?
Thanks for any opinions and answers. |
Orpheus10 and others,
I again seek input regarding preservation ("archival") of music recorded prior to the hi res digital era.
Does playback (with or without digitization) of lp's made, say 40 years ago, from audio tape offer advantage over hi res digital transfers made today from those 40-year-old tapes ?
Is there better preservation of high frequency information on the lp's ? |
rossb
Your statement "digital recordings played back as lp's still sound digital"
is a great point for discussion.
Remember records marketed as 'digital' recordings ? I still have a few.
I should retrieve and play them.
Meanwhile, what proportion of newly produced lp's are made without intervention of digital....from tape I presume ?
All answers appreciated. |
Mijostyn,
Aha !, and thanks.
I assume we are 'on the same page', that transcription of an audio signal to vinyl imparts unique sonic quality, one that your high end system
duplicates by conversion of the vinyl 'signal' to high resolution digital.
So what in your opinion is the source of that quality ?
|
willewonka and cleeds and others,
1. I am gratified to hear that audiophiles like yourselves with high end equipment cannot discern the difference between vinyl played 'directly' and vinyl converted to hi resolution digital....as has been my experience.
So why does vinyl sound different (I would say very different) from digital without intermediate conversion of a digital signal to vinyl ?
2. Regarding the Nyquist theorem, sampling at the 'Nyquist rate' can capture 100% of the information contained in a sine wave.
But we are talking about digital encoding of that signal, a very different matter. With one-bit encoding, for example, DSD employs a sampling rate of 64 times the 'Nyquist' frequency, and on up to quadruple that number.
3. So why purchase a lp from, for example. Presto Classical (the British vendor) as opposed to a 24/192 version pf the same album ?
Why don't the 'labels' offer ultra high end digital conversions of
those lp's....to DSD, DXD, your choice ?
I see huge savings in postage, storage space, and of course ease of playback.
So why ???
Regards to all, 'seventies'. |
Dgarretson, willewonka and others...
I cannot disagree with your last posts.
So....if for whatever reason vinyl offers euphonic sound reproduction that is preserved on highly competent transfer from vinyl to digital format, how might we as audiophiles enjoy the convenience and cost savings of vinyl sound without vinyl ?
One method, already mentioned, is to induce a 'label' to digitally transcribe into high resolution digital their vinyl offerings....whether or not the 'offerings' were 'cut' from sound wave to tape to acetate or from sound wave to digital to acetate.
This may be cost-effective for the listener, but can it be profitable for the studio ?
Another method is to transcribe to digital from the acetate template, whether or not the template is 'cut'...."ditto"....without the intermediary of the metal 'stamper' and of vinyl
Acetate will, apparently, hold up for a few dozen playbacks via phonograph cartridge.
Playback from acetate has been done. Does it sound the same as vinyl made via the intermediary of a 'stamper'...a metal plated inverse copy of the lacquer master ?
Note that conversion from acetate to digital is not what has been merchandized as 'direct to disk' recording, where tape and digital intermediaries are bypassed, and with them editing capability.
Again, a fun subject.
More thoughts ?
|
Cleeds,
I'm not sure we're on different pages.
I am not talking about 'quality' connoting 'accuracy' of reproduction of a performance.
I am talking about a sonic characteristic, a sonic 'signature' if you wish, which is achieved only through the intermediary of vinyl.
Once that cutting to/reading from vinyl is accomplished the analog result can be converted to digital with preservation of that characteristic.
Were the case otherwise, why would one chose 'vinyl' or digitized playback from vinyl over high resolution digital recordings processed without intervention of vinyl ? |
Steve and cleeds and others,
So studios do sell digital 'copies' of vinyl sources.
Do you agree that the audio result of initial digital recording, tape recording, and 'direct to disc' analog recording (via vinyl lathe cutting or lacquer to 'stamper' to vinyl) is distinct (and to many 'euphonic') so long as the music is played back from vinyl, whether or not that analog playback signal is converted to hi resolution digital ?
If so, returning to the start of this 'thread', what imbues 'vinyl' with that sonic characteristic ?
I suspect by the process of elimination....which contributors to this thread greatly aided....that it is the electro-mechanical disc cutting and disc reading process, to which RIAA equalization is integral.
Is it the electro-mechanical cutting process ? Is it the electro-mechanical reading process ? These cannot be separated.
The result of those two electro-mechanical processes can as you affirmed be rendered digitally and as such "indistinguishable from the lp source".
So why bother with lp's, turntables, cartridges and phono pre-amps ? Why not await more from companies like Jeton Audiophile Legends ?
One may, of course, wish to digitize an lp collection. One may even feel that high frequencies (in particular) are far better preserved on lp's made 3 to 5 decades ago than on 'master tapes' of the same performances.
Respondents to this thread appreciate that such 'lp rips' must be done very well...or not done at all.
Again thanks |
Cleeds,
With all those thoughts I largely or entirely agree.
Please let me know if you elsewhere come upon similar discussion, this being a relatively specific discussion. There are bits and pieces, but where to find a more comprehensive review ?
Meanwhile, my 'own personal view' is focused on DXD as a PCM/DSD 'one format suits all high resolution seekers' solution.
Another topic I'm happy to discuss.
Again thanks,
'Seventies' |
Cleeds,
My intent in this thread was to ascertain and discuss the validity of vinyl sound achieved without vinyl.
Increased measurable distortion and decreased dynamic range inherent in vinyl playback are, I believe, hard to dispute.
Various explanations have been offered as to why some prefer the sound of playback from vinyl.
I had no intent of adding to those explanations.
If for you, Cleeds, high quality (with all that implies) music reproduction with and reproduction without intermediary of vinyl are indistinguishable or nearly so, "read no further"....
If, conversely, they are quite DISTINGUISHABLE, and if high quality digital reproduction of vinyl playback is sonically INDISTINGUISHABLE from direct vinyl playback, why not let music companies do the playback, purchase the digital result, and sidestep the expense and hassle of direct vinyl playback ?
This approach risks financial compromise of the resurgent vinyl production and home vinyl playback components of the music reproduction industry.
May I quite genuinely ask if you or other readers of this 'thread' are aware of letters to audiophile magazines or websites voicing similar thoughts ?
I appreciate your input and your helping me to verbalize these ideas.
Seventies |
Gentlemen, as the dust settles and more information, some recently 'published' as in 'Positive Feedback', becomes available, I find it hard to dispute that:
1. Analog tape is 'gone' save for a few 'boutique' studios.
2. Almost all digital and vinyl commercial recordings are made from digital encoding and recording of the analog audio signal.
3. The 'magic'....if there is such magic...of vinyl resides in the electro-mechanical 'cutting' and replaying process, and this characteristic is reproducible by high resolution digitalization of vinyl playback.
As digital technology advances the foregoing comments become moot.
With availability of quad DSD, 'DXD' or still higher resolution, record players will go the way of Edison devices.
'Meanwhile', I suspect that 'vintage' LP's retain sonic information, particularly high frequency information, longer and better than audio tape, which is subject to different forms of time-related degradation.
That may be the best reason to hold on to those expensive record players.
|
Guys,
Thanks to all.
For me, certainly, a learning experience.
I do find high end playback of vinyl made from analog tape preferable to16/44.1 versions of the same albums, to high definition tape transfer of old master tapes, and to 'remastered' (hiss filtering with treble augmentation) analog tape recordings, but not to high definition digitally recorded music.
Digitalization of those voluminous lp collections is, if the sonic result is to approximate direct lp playback, tedious, time consuming, and demands (as in part johnss mentioned) expensive equipment.
I would like to see 'labels' offer high end' digital conversions of 'master' vinyl pressings as opposed to the tape transfers they sometimes market without stating the source of such offerings.
Do some offer digitalization of sometimes 'historic' vinyl pressings, perhaps 'master pressings' made at the outset of the commercialization of a performance ? |
Orpheus, Mijostyn and Audio2design, I raise this issue because of disappointment with older albums re-released as 'high density tape transfers (HDTT's)' and 'remastered (? EQ-ed up)' recordings. In both instances the high frequencies are to my ear so compromised as to suspect misleading commercialization. Certainly, audio2design, audio tape can chemically deteriorate with time, and magnetic information degrades with repeated playback. To what extent is that information...particularly high frequency information....lost with time even if tape is of high quality and properly stored ?
|
Cleeds, bluemoondriver,
Apologize if I did not clarify.
I concur that lp's newly made from tape or high resolution digitalization of an audio source can be 'very close to the master tape' except that 'cutting the spiral groove' (what I termed an electro-mechanical process) changes the 'original sound' in a manner pleasing to some listeners.
I am asking about LP's made decades ago from analog tape...whether these lp's preserve sound...particularly high frequency sound...better than does the tape itself.
Regarding possibly 'misleading commercialization', I refer to 'high resolution digital transfer'...ie transfer from tape... and 'digital re-mastering of tapes recorded decades ago....before high resolution digital recording became available.
One company, 'High Definition Tape Transfers' (HDTT is their logo) offers downloads in a choice of digital resolution. To my ear 'high resolution' is a specious claim insofar as one is making a high resolution digital copy of a time-degraded source....ie. low resolution in particular respect of lost high frequency information.
Digitally "re-mastered" tapes from that era, also sold as downloads or streamed, and sometimes not identified as 'remastered', are subject to the same loss of initially recorded information. Resolution is not and cannot be improved by boosting the treble.
Am I misleading ?
|
o_holter and others,
I thank particularly o_holter for his comments concerning deterioration of sound 'stored' on tape, on the sound becoming dull.
The subject has been of particular interest to me.
'Dull', truncated high frequency sound has been my experience with 're-mastered classic classical recordings and 'high definition tape transfers', a reason to avoid...or avoid purchasing...digital conversions of older tape recordings, however 'high resolution' the conversion.
So 'unresolved' questions are: 1. Do lp's last much longer, and 2. can and need 'digital deterioration' be addressed, some type of lossless fault tolerant storage ?
|
o_holter
As time passes, I appreciate more your response.
Have you or others reading this purchased 'high definition tape transfers' as download files ?
Have any of you found a single example of such transfers (from 'classic recordings) that retains more than a 'semblance' of high frequency detail ?
Indeed, vinyl retains the high frequency and other detail 'extant' at the time of the 'pressing', at least during our lifetimes.
And those pressings were made from newly recorded high speed tape.
Meanwhile, the high resolution digital era has arrived, and it is possible to experience 'vinyl' sound as transfer from vinyl to high resolution digital...it seems that 24/192 or dsd 128 is required.
So vinyl to high resolution digital retains the 'magic' that many associate with vinyl sound. What other than an electro-mechanical groove-cutting process underlies that 'magic' ?
With such transfer made from lp's 'cut' from high speed tape 'masters' shortly after the initial recording much of the high frequency detail is preserved.
With such transfer made from 'vintage' high speed tape recordings....going back 30-50 years...the magic cannot be retrieved.
'Meanwhile'...in this high resolution digital era...achievable bit rates have erased digital 'glare' without loss of detail. By high resolution bit rate I mean bit depth times sampling frequency. As that rate increases, format differences diminish. DAD 256 verses PCM 24/192 ? Take your pick.
Recording standard is evolving to PCM 24/352, because PCM allows editing that DSD does not.
Music recorded at that resolution has no peer in the 'history' of sonically preserving performances. Prefer the 'magic' of vinyl ? No problem. Such is available. But the 'master tape' is now a master hi res digital file, now a huge upgrade over the 'DDD' lp's touted a few decades ago.
|
Raulirugas, 4trackmind and others, I appreciate your comments and....unless I 'missed something'....agree.
1. 4trackmind, could you please clarify: in stating that "24 bit and dsd re-mastered cd's come a lot closer to sounding like an original 1960's copy of a quarter track....", do you mean that they sound as did the tape recordings when whey were
new, before time and playback had taken their toll of the sonic information ?
2. Regarding DSD vs PCM, and in the context of 'DSD re-mastered CD's, and assuming that DSD-PCM differences hugely diminish at the highest available digital 'throughputs', are you tempted to broach another subject: Do DSD 64 (not 128 or 256) and ?? RSR 'ladder' DAC's smooth lower resolution digital sound such that it, like vinyl' is more palatable even if less 'realistic' ?
Thanks again for your thoughts. |
