Why do records made from digital sources sound good?

I think perhaps the answer is the same as why do tube preamps make everything better?

I am not saying everyone feels that way, but it's certainly true for many.  Regardless of the source, analog, tape, digital, a tube preamp could be the sugar in the coffee you always like to add.

The phonograph playback chain may be the same for you. 

”Sounds good” and “sounds better” are totally subjective judgements so anything is possible.

There are tons of spectaculary bad analog and digital recordings. Also, spectacularly good ones. In part it depends on when they were made. In the late fifties most of the finest recordings ever produced were made. They were all analog. But during that period there were still some spectacularly bad recordings made. The tinniest horrible brittle ones, typically early rock, but I’ve heard some horrible classical as well..

Then the industry slowly switched over to digital mastering. Wow, there are some terrible early digital recordings. Deutsch Gramophone, known for outstanding classical recordings produced some incredibly bad stuff... released on vinyl. Over time digital recordings got better. But the digitall playback systems got better as well... only in the last ten years of so have they equaled vinyl playback.

So there have been long termed trends, but huge local variation within the time frame for recording, then the same in playback.

Today, the playback equipment has erased (or can, if you have a good system that is carefully curated) any difference between analog and digital. So, then you are left with how they were mastered.

billstevenson

... how can a digital master, for example make for a better sounding record? ...

If it's a truly hi-res digital master and great care is made in making LPs from it, it's possible for the LP to have a much higher extended frequency response than a CD made from the same master. That extended HF can lend a sense of "airyness" to the sound. 

I came to the conclusion that it simply comes down to:

1. The mastering quality.
2. A personal preference for the additive distortion components of various phono cartridges, step-up devices, and phono stages.

There’s nothing magic about vinyl itself; it’s actually an extremely difficult media to work with. But for various reasons, it’s been positioned as the "high fidelity for the masses" medium during both its salad days and the more recent revival. CDs, unfortuately, were shoved pretty quickly into the "car and portable" majority use case, and their typical mastering quality reflects this. The culture was shifting very fast at that time.

Early CD reissues of older material suffered from poor understanding of mastering techniques for digital. Then very quickly, the audiophile was no longer its main use case. And at some point, the original master / recording tapes for older material either degraded or were lost. Through all of this, older pressings of vinyl enudred, in all their glory.

With new pressings of new material - I agree some of it (actually, a LOT of it) sounds great on vinyl. But it can sound equally great on digital too! They can make these sound a lot alike, if they choose. For what it's worth, I have a few "all analog processing" pressings of modern material, and they still sound the best. Can't fully explain why, but they do (probaby, I like the added warmth of the master tapes!). And a well-done 45 RPM 12" always sounds a bit better, too. 

The digital quantization and DAC conversion process was NEVER at fault. As you discovered with the Suger Cube, these processes are actually VERY transparent. I’ve even piped my high-end vinyl sources into a Meridian 808i DAC/preamp - which digitizes on input and the DAC-converts on its outputs - and the output sounds 99% the same. The quality of mastering / engineering is the greatest arbiter of sound quality.

And yes, I DO like the sonic quirks of certain cartridges and phono stages. They have their own personalities, just as we all do. I am NOT in the "absolute sound" or objectivist / measurement audio camps.

The character (distortion, if you want to be technical) of the analogue chain (cartridge/arm/turntable/phono stage) is dominant... so I'm not surprised you like it more, if you like it. I personally don't.

So can someone explain this to me? 

@billstevenson Yes. FWIW, I ran an LP mastering operation for about 15 years.

When we got in a project that used a digital source file, we would talk to the producer to see if we could get a copy that didn't have all the DSP stuff that digital source files often have. In particular, most digital releases are compressed so they can be played on the radio, in a car or ear buds in a noisy environment.

LPs are likely not getting played in a car So they don't need the compression. So we would get a source file that didn't have it. LPs have a lot more dynamic range than most digifiles care to admit. It certainly makes the LP more interesting to listen to. We found that if we spent enough time with the project we could identify any problem areas (like out of phase bass, which can knock the stylus out of the groove) and see what we could do about them without resorting to extra processing (such as mono bass for out of phase bass). By doing this we never had to do any extra processing.

I know I'm not the only mastering engineer to figure this out. But usually the producer doesn't want to spend the cash for the engineering time, hence compression, limiting and mono bass processors. But an experienced mastering engineer usually can spot problem areas and deal with it in short order without using processing. In these days of most recordings being digital, I suspect getting a source file without DSP compression is a common practice.

On this account, LPs can often sound better than the digital releases, having nothing to do with LP or digital performance and everything to do with industry practice and the desire to make the digital release as accessible as possible.

Atmasphere,

Thank you.  That makes sense to me.  I always knew that mastering engineers are wizards!  Great insight and much appreciated.  I had given up hope.

Bill

I prefer digital sound.  The LPs that I buy are limited to ones that either were never issued digitally or were poorly remastered digitally.  Occasionally one of these LPs will eventually be digitized and I almost always prefer the digital.

  Having said this I recognize that it is possible to get excellent sound from analog.  I believe that many listeners prefer to hear the colorations from their analog set up (usually related to cartridge choice)and the sense of ambiance from LP playback, and I think the OP is probably not one of them.

  I might investigate the sugar cube.

Having said this I recognize that it is possible to get excellent sound from analog. I believe that many listeners prefer to hear the colorations from their analog set up (usually related to cartridge choice)and the sense of ambiance from LP playback, and I think the OP is probably not one of them.

@mahler123 Cartridges affect the sound a lot less than you suggest in this post! The ability of the arm to properly track the cartridge has much more effect. The platter pad has a big effect too. The other thing that affects ’cartridge sound’ is the phono section. Many phono sections (oddly) don’t take into account the simple fact that the cartridge is an inductor, and when you put an inductor in parallel with a capacitance (the tonearm cable) you get an electrical resonance that can overload the input of many phono sections, resulting in colorations as well as ticks and pops.

Once that problem is solved (often with a more competently designed phono section) the cartridge choice is limited to what works with your arm. The big weakness of LP playback is setting things up correctly and not really the media (which has wider bandwidth than digital and much lower distortion that many digiphiles care to admit).

The advantage of the LP in today’s world is its less likely to be compressed; digital releases tend to be compressed since there is expectation it will be played in a car, on earbuds in a noisy environment, or over the radio. LPs might be played on the radio but not in the other two situations.

When I was running my LP mastering operation, if we got a digital source file I always requested a version that had no DSP except for normalization. I never ran into a project that actually needed compression.

Whenever folks reference the colorations of analog / vinyl, there is usually a connotation of superiority to digital / solid state AND to the listeners who prefer their sound "clean, untained".

I readily admit the colorations of viny playback gear & tubes BUT sincerely find them - in the appropriate amounts and combinations - to be wonderful! A true testament to the way our universe sometimes expresses beauty in unexected and nuanced ways. Plus, the endless mix & match combinations make this a hobby worth sustaining for more than a week. 

Somwhat related is the usual whipping-boy of "dynamic range compression" in recordings. Yes, too much is bad, and a recording explicitly mastered for car/portable use is much more likely to sound just plain bad. BUT too much range is bad too - I DON’T want to crank up volume to hear intelligible vocals, just to have a snare drum hit pop out my eardrums! The proper mixing for a home environment is an artform of its own, which combines talents of artists AND mastering engineers. When done right, the playback in your system is a kind of performance in its own right. NO, it is never going to be the same as live, and with many kinds of material it shouldn’t try to be. That’s why the extra dynamic range capability afforded by digital is often meaningless in practice. Vinyl has "enough" for most use cases.

I believe that people who dis vinyl playback simply have not heard a really good system within a context that they are familiar with.  Likewise people who dis all things digital are equally flying blind.  The fact is that the differences are converging and either can be the winner in any given comparison.  A lot comes down to the mastering engineer apparently.  One thing I am learning is that although my favorite record playing system (VPI HW40, Consolidated SUT, Sound Smith Hyperion, C-J ART Phono), usually bests the best, newest Redbook  discs played through my Luxman D-10X, the difference is not as great as it once was.  Moreover, on occasion a Redbook comes along that is it's equal or better.  Too, DSD almost always equals and frequently betters my analog setup.   There is over a 5X cost up charge for that analog setup compared the the very expensive Luxman.  LP prices are skyrocketing.  BTW, in my system, high res down loads have not sounded as good to me as either CD or LP copies of the same music.  All this makes the CD, worthy of reconsideration in my estimation.

I believe that people who dis vinyl playback simply have not heard a really good system within a context that they are familiar with. 

Agree. Usually the best sonics are tape, vinyl, then digital.

@billstevenson - nice rig. I run a VPI Avenger, 4point and Schroeder CB-L, various top carts, VDH Grail SB phono.

When I was building my audio chain, I demoed the best I could find at brick n mortar and major audio shows.  Then I tried to recreate the sonics within my budget.  Wondering how many agoners actually demoed top systems to gear top sonics, I suspect very few “digital better than vinyl” have this experience as a reference.

@mahler123 Cartridges affect the sound a lot less than you suggest in this post!

+1 @atmasphere