vinyl versus digital redux

@seventies - what I said was - I cannot tell the difference between the vinyl and the digital AS PLAYED & RECORDED on MY system 

Let's not forget the many nuances of musical reproduction...

From a piece of vinyl.
- the details of the master cutting and subsequent pressing
- the sound of te actual cartridge
- the mounting of the cartridge - impacts sound/tone
- VTA - Toe-up or down, changes the sound to suit a person's hearing
- the cables/connectors involved
- the phono stage

From a digital source file.
- how the data is transferred to the DAC
- the cables used
- the abilities of the DAC
- the abilities of the DAC's analogue stage

Even before you posted - I listened to an album that I have in both formats from the record company - the digital download was 16/44 
- from  a "fidelity" perspective, I could NOT hear any difference.

But that is NOT the case with ALL albums
- e.g. for some reason my Peter Gabriel album, SO, sounds much better on vinyl. Again, the cutting/pressing process may account for this.

Some Albums are exquisitely recorded in analogue and then reproduced in digital
- in this case the vinyl has 100% of the signal
- whereas the digital does not really have 100%
- doesn't it stand to reason the vinyl should sound more "complete"?

The Nyquist Rate, whilst providing significant scientific evidence as to why digital should work, does not really factor in everybody's hearing abilities.

The ear is an extremely sensitive "instrument" and is different, person to person - in some cases NOT so sensitive :-)

Also, don't forget the "romantic" allure of vinyl. The pops and crackles that add to the "charm" of older recordings

AND those readable vinyl covers
- you get great artwork, sometimes words and thoughts of the artist
- you may get them on a CD, but you need  microscope to read them
- not very "appealing".

Also, if you attend a live performance - there is crowd & venue noise, artist/band mistakes and ad-libs
- with vinyl there are the pops and crackles to add "COLOR" 
- with digital there is just "perfect music"
- which actually sounds a bit too clinical for many ears..

When I started in this hobby there was no digital
- when it came out I switched - I liked the cleaner sound
- my vinyl rig was not very good and the CD player was much better than the TT
- then I started to improve the analogue rig

Today - I can listen to either - if not for the pops and crackles, they both [provide about the same level of "fidelity" and enjoyment

My older pressings - going back to around 1954 will always sound better on vinyl - complete with pops and crackles.

The newer albums sound great in digital - better dynamics and imaging

The ones in between? - depends on MY mood and whether there is a a glass of scotch in play :-)

One album I have is Annie Lennox singing some oldies
- it has some pops and crackles and it adds to the charm.
- It definitely would NOT sound as nice in digital
- this is album I recorded WITH pops and crackles, as mentioned above
- sounds great anywhere I play it.

No real answer to your post, but hopefully some insight into the more  "human" side of vinyl

Regards - Steve 

Given all the effort involved to make and sequence a recording of an LP, it's worth the added step to first clean the LP and get rid of as many of those clicks and pops as possible.  For me that means ultrasonic cleaning followed by a VPI 16.5.

I have many red-book cd duplicates of my vinyl records. I like to think that my vinyl set-up is pretty good (TNT, all tube phono pre). Generally the digitals can sound as good as the vinyls, but without the usual vinyl artifacts of noise and inner groove distortion. Occasionally the vinyls sound better where sufficient care seems not to have been made in the digital mastering. Given the variations in analog pressings, the digital often has better SQ. It took me some years and some $$ to come to this conclusion. Also, I don’t think it requires better than red-book digital to do as well as vinyl as LPs, generally, do not exceed red-book specs.

IMO the reason that some believe that the digital cannot be as good as the vinyl is that they have expensive vinyl set-ups and think that by buying a DAC with the right chip they are doing justice to digital. Fact is, you have to spend a good bit of cash and take considerable care to know how well digital can do. A bit is not a bit is not a bit.

In digital I think of the bit delivery system, that is what comes before the DAC, as the digital turntable and cartridge. As with analog, it needs to be done well for if it is lost there it can never be recovered. All bits are not equal. I think of the DAC as the phono pre which can only do as well as what its input is. As with a pre, simply putting out an analog signal does not necessarily make for a great pre.

Without reading through your entire post, I can tell you that with the right equipment, there is positively, absolutely, no difference in the sound of vinyl being played on your TT, and vinyl that has been ripped to your PC that is being played back.

Some years ago, this debate was raging, and what I just stated was concluded. But you have to have the right equipment.

Not favoring analog or digital, I listened to the PC people and the digital people, as well as "Stereophile", and I got it right. Everyday I listen to my vinyl that has been ripped to PC, with the confidence that it is no difference from listening to my TT through my analog rig.

As a matter of fact, when I upgrade my cartridge, or anything else, I have to do the recording process all over if I want to enjoy the upgrade.


I hope this answers your question.

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 ?