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
Dear @mahgister : """ How to compare Ray Charles living presence in real time to a files?
It is impossible.. """

Well that’s not exactly the target when some of us speak about nearfield live MUSIC but that through these kind of live events experiences we at least can know the MUSIC and instruments true sound.
We can’t mimic in any room/system but we can take it as a " reference ".

My target is not to mimic what as you said is impossible, my target is to listen my system nearer to the recording having that nearfield live MUSIC experiences and that’s all.

If I’m listening LPs I want of achieve the best quality performance levels I can and the same is with digital.

Something that helps me about is to mantain every kind of room/system developed distortions at minimum.

In home system mimic live MUSIC is out of question.

""" Not one audio system sound the same....Is it then possible to decide the "truth" in the abstract, with only engineering numbers to take the decision? """

Numbers say a lot and additional are each one first hand experiences with their own systems and through other systems. So we can make a comparison of different mediums with facts/numbers and those experiences. The mos controversial/debatible parameter in that kind of comparison is that subjectivity that is different for different audiophiles.

As some other gentlemans in this and other thread as one of the latest posts by @psag I know for sure that exist a superiority level in digital against LP analog alternative but this kind of knowledge does not preclude the fact that I listen and enjoy the LP experiences.

I said in other post that the best for digital is forthcoming in contrast the LP technology is just finished because can’t really grow up as technology it can’t be improved. What we can improve is our system but the analog alternative per sé years ago arrived to its top limit.
We don’t have nothing really new on LP technology even the best is doing is returning to old LP developments as D2D recordings or one step recordings or things like that because fundamental principles in the recording process or playback one as cartridges or tonearms or TT are exactly the same as 20-30 year ago. The only thing that really changed in analog are its very high item prices year after year .

We analog lovers do not like those facts and we are not willing to accept it but at the end like it or not that’s the reality that’s the true and are not " numbers ".

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
I said in other post that the best for digital is forthcoming in contrast the LP technology
I certainly can agree with you on that.... And i understand that real event can gives the flavor of real instruments for sure if that is  your point you are right....Mimicking perfectly being impossible....

Regards to you....
Yes, we need at leasst that as reference does not matters we can't achieve it at home or really nearest to.

Several of the newcomers to ( digital gentlemans. ) LP/analog alternative are impressed by those " warmth and swetness " colorations that they do not experienced before in their digital alternative and the ones that are impressed with is because they had not yet the opportunity to listen the truw live sound of instruments/MUSIC.

R.
Sweetness and warmth and air. Yes, let’s call them colorations. 🤗
Dear @mahister and friends : @mikelavigne posted in this thread:

" with digital there are degrees of things missing, that are not missing from the vinyl and tape. period. "


"" objectively the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better.....""


""" a horn at full tilt, a drum whack.......

digital simply cannot muster the information at peaks. cannot do it. on paper it is suppose to be better. your engineering prof said it’s better. our friendly local goofball physicist said it’s better. but they were wrong."


and I posted to him that I have no single doubt that that’s what he is listening through his great and unique room/ system. He supports the LP alternative over digital one even that he accepts that digital experiences are really good " today " but can’t even the LP experiences.

I’m between those gentlemans that he said " were wrong " because we know about the digital superior technology and the why’s about.

The Mike’s premises statements foundation is different from my premises and taking in count his premises he is rigth as other LP lovers that like him supports it over digital.

In one of those statements he used the word : " objectively " but his whole statements has no real objectivity foundation but full subjectivity coming from our accustomed brain to listen LP sound for all our audio life and I said " our " because I was biased that way with full of subjectivity. From there came the premises and foundation to our opinions that supports LP alternative.

Other than numbers exist facts/objectivity that no one can denie and through those facts is where we can understand which medium is superior to the other one.
  
Lert me explain some of those facts from my point of view where certainly there is the possibility that I can be wrong, anyway here it’s:

- in analog LP the signal information is recorded in a tape recorder where no matters what it’s a faulty audio item starting by the tape it self that really can’t record the 100% of the signal due to its magnetic type of function and materials used to build it. Next the signal is contaminated by the tape recorder noise and woow&flutter levels along the tape recorder inaccuracies in its speed and speed stability that does not has.
So at this recording step the original signal is missing information and adding distortions/colorations along the tape added eq. needed as NAB. In digital the tape recorder can’t touch the 0,1s. The signal does not changes.

- through the cutting lathe process the signal is added with more contamination/degradation with the RIAA eq. and does not exist perfect cutting lathes machines where the cut head really cuts the 100% of that already contaminated signaL COMING from the tape recorder. Additional that DD motor in the cutthing machine is not perfect either about speed accuracy and speed stability ( just like our DD TTs. ) that affects that original signal.
All those does not happens with digital recording.

- Follows the pressing/stamped LPs non perfect process where the signal following losting information and adding distortions and not only that because the first stamped ( say. ) 50 LPs sounds different to the last 50 LPs stamped where the last ones were with higher signal recorded degradation.

All those does not happens in digital and not only does not happens but each CD is and original item, is the master always ! !

- Then comes the whole LP playback whole process where that delicated original MUSIC signal follows adding distortions and losting signal recorded information and even continuity in that signal:

- first losting and added mis-information to the signal starts with the cartridge transducer through its cantilever/stylus tip where this mechanic item is whom needs to pick-up the recorded and degraded signal that comes in the LP surface grooves.

The cartridge task to track grooves is just monumental one for say the least and impossible for any cartridge to pick-up all the degraded signal that comes in those grooves modulations and it can’t do it for several reasons like: non flat LP surface that always comes with waves at microscopic levels and many times we can see those waves, off-center LPs that per sé introduce additional noise to the signal, due to those LP surface waves the VTA and VTF and even azymuth is changing in continue way and these impedes the perfect ridding of the stylus tip missing information and adding more distortions.

Things don’t stop here with the cartridge tracking because when the stylus tip is tracking other than the groove modulations exist friction between the stylus tip and the vinyl surface and we can’t avoid here the Newton’s law this friction and grooves modulations makes that the cantilever/cartridge takes those additional " modulations/movements as MUSIC signal when were not MUSIC signal but added distortions/colorations, the cantilever can’t know if those movements comes from MUSIC signal or the developed tracking additional movements just transmitted it.
 Along these we have several sources of those cartridge traking movements that the cantilever takes it as additional modulations that are only more signal degradation: feedback comes from the LP it self, from cartridge body, from headshell, from tonearm arm wand , from tonearm bearing, fromTT arm board, etc, etc.

But before the signal can touch the headshell/tonearm wires during the ridding of the grooves and deppending of the recorded velocities and other imperfections in the LP and cartridge that stylus tip is with some continuty skipping/loosing the LP surface touch and here are signal losted information too ( this happens at microscopic levels. ).
 Things not ends with the cartridge here because the information that can be losted during tracking depends of different reasons as: self cartridge tracking abilities level to can follows those grooves modulations all over the LP surface because that cartridge ability is way important as the cartridge approachs the inner grooves.

Last but not least important is that the cartridge be perfectly matched with the tonearm and that the tonearm be a good design but is not enough with that because almost all pivoted tonearm has a tracking error that per sé develops tracking added distortions.
 This sole pivot tonearm tracking error impédes/precludes that the stylus tip can really follows exactly the groove modulations.
As we can see we really lost a lot of signal recorded information and added a lot of noises, distortions, colorations to what we are listening.
Additional there is no perfect geometry alignment set up between the cartridge and tonearm and this means lost signal and signal degradation.

- Now, that cartridge signal must be travel through the headshell/tonearm terrible cartridge output pins and the wire connectors and solder joints that only here make a signal degradation, then the signal follows through the internal tonearm wire that in the best of the cases goes all down to the phono stage input connectors.
 Well through all those wires/cables/input-output connectors/solder joints we are losting information and adding more distortions.
 When the tonearm wire does not goes directly to the phono stage we need additional IC cables and follows ......what we already know.

- the signal goes to the phono stage circuit boards that if the unit is well designed and is a SS electronic alternative with active high gain will have at least 2 gain stages sometimes 3 to amplify the very low cartridge signal level that sometimes and depending how low is the cartridge signal that phono stage needs to amplify that signal aroun 8K times.
 So a good phono stage design is a real challenge for any designer ( we need here: high gain, low noise levels and low distortions levels. ) but it’s not only the signal amplification the main phono stage matters but for the signal can recover it original frequency response and for that the signal in the phone stage must pass for very high signal degradation and losting more information with the inverse RIAA eq. stage where always exist a frequency deviation that can't mimic the RIAA curve that comes in the LP surface grooves.

From the cartridge to inside the phono stage process and due to the very low signal levels the signal it self is exposed to internal and external contamination that we are surrounded: EMI, RF, vibrations from the speakers or floor and many more.

- Ok from the phono stage the signal has to go to a line preamp looking for an additional gain stage before can be handled by the system amplifier. Even this additional gain stage exist in the few phonolinepreamps that are integrated: phono stage + line preamp that does not needs those additional IC cables.


There are many other degradation sources to the recorded signal in analog but I think that with all those is more than enough to understand why digital today is a true superior medium because nothing of all those happens in digital but that the signal must pass through an ADC and a DAC before we can listen in the speakers.
 Even there are CDP with control volume that can be connected directly to the amplifiers.

All those are not numbers ( but can be put on numbers but analog lover will not like what they can see trhough numbers of all that signal losting and added distortions. It’s better don’t ask about. ) and are with out any subjectivity mind but only FACTS no one can deny it.

So it’s not my opinion it’s what really happens.

All those means that I’m against the Mike’s opinion?, NO I already tell him and posted here: he listen what he posted because his premises are just different as the foundation for that opinion. Tha’s all.

Now if one of the several analog lovers ( like me ) wants to insist in the LP superiority then I invite any one that share with us the facts for his opinion, with or without numbers but facts not a subjective opinion.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.