2. analog
  3. 160855-86984

vinyl versus digital redux

Has anyone compared the sound of vinyl with the sound of digital converted from a vinyl intermediary ?

I am referring to 'rips' of vinyl made with high end, high quality vinyl playback systems, with
conversion to high resolution digital.
I find it nearly impossible to distinguish the two results.
The digital rip of a vinyl record sounds identical...or very nearly so...to direct playback of the vinyl.

If one has 'experienced' the foregoing, one might question why digital made without the intermediary of vinyl sounds so different from vinyl.   A detective story ?

We are talking about vinyl made by ADC (analog to digital conversion) of an amplified microphone signal and re-conversion to analog for output to the record cutting lathe, or from analog tape recording of an amplified microphone signal, and then....as above...via ADCl and back to analog for output to the cutting lathe.

Of course vinyl can be and is 'cut' (pressings made from 'stamper' copies the 'master' cut in lacquer) without digital intermediary.  Such practice is apparently uncommon, and ?? identified as such by the 'label' (production)

Has anyone compared vinyl and high resolution digital (downloads) albums offered by the same 'label' of the same performance ?  Granted, digital versus vinyl difference should diminish with higher digital resolution.   Sound waves are sine waves....air waves do not 'travel' in digital bits.    A digital signal cannot be more than an approximation of a sine wave, but a closer approximation as potential digital resolution (equating to bit depth times sampling frequency) increases.

If vinyl and digital well made from vinyl intermediary sound almost identical, and If vinyl and digital not made via vinyl intermediary sound quite different, what is the source of this difference ? 

Could it reside....I'll skip the sound processing stages (including RIAA equalization)...in the electro-mechanical process imparting the signal to the vinyl groove ?

Is there analogy with speaker cone material and the need for a degree of self-damping ?
Were self-damping not to some extent desirable, would not all speaker cones, from tweeter to sub-woofer, be made of materials where stiffness to weight ratio was of sole importance ?

Thanks for any comments.
seventies
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

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.
seventies OP
67 posts
 
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 ?

orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

"how might we as audiophiles enjoy the convenience and cost savings of vinyl sound without vinyl ?


Short answer; vinyl is cheap as it gets.


Long answer to vinyl without vinyl; you could download master tapes to your PC, that would require pockets deeper than a country well, but it would be even better.
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

Someone asked an extremely dumb question on the internet "Why do records sound better"?


Back in the day, my record player cost $200, plus $150 for the Shure cartridge, and that was quite common, When CD came along, it sounded much better, which is why everybody went to CD.


People who had "high end" analog rigs said hold on a minute. We "commoners" didn't even know about high end analog rigs. Now to the bottom line, analog sounds better if, and only if, you have a high end analog rig; there is no mystery to that, the bottom line is MONEY.
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
Seventies, Vinyl adds euphoric distortions that digital conversion has no problem capturing. I will even make digital recordings of two cartridges reading the same record for comparison's sake. 
If I played a 24/192 digital file of my turntable playing whatever, any experienced audiophile would think he was listening directly to the turntable. 
More to discover