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

Renowned mastering engineer Steve Hoffman apparently did a direct comparison a while back between the master, an acetate, CD and DSD files with surprising conclusions.

He went on to write an update last year confirming that he feels that with better converters DSD is now closer to the master than CD. The record acetate also seems to acquit itself well in all cases.

However, due to inevitable losses in manufacturing and production of a physical copy, if Steve is right, wouldn't a direct DSD stream, be the closest to the original master?

If so, maybe DSD streaming is the next big thing for audiophiles?

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/what-sounds-just-like-the-analog-master-tape-cd-vinyl-sacd-or...

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".