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
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
Many a recording engineer and many an audiophile would disagree with that comment on DSP. The recording engineer because he uses it to emulate analog sound and the audiophile who raves over the result not knowing why ... They just like it.

Orpheus the topic is can digital capture and playback vinyl such that it is indistinguishable.  Many with very good systems, and even with very experienced listening skills would argue yes if done right.   There is no audiophile magic in this.
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

 
audio2design, no, there is no magic, but you must have the right equipment; this plus I changed a card in my computer to enable a smooth conversion of the analog to digital process.


https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-adc1-usb-audio-converter


The people who would benefit from doing what I have done were too busy saying it could not be done instead of doing it. Now it's possible that they are correct, because it can not be done if what's needed to do it is no longer available.

How sweet it is to lay in bed and enjoy your vinyl collection in all it's glory, the same as if you were dropping the needle on the LP, at 3:00 in the morning (I sleep sporadically)


Enjoy the music.
johnss
612 posts
 
"I find this statement suspect and can only assume a mistake in the setup."

Too funny, thanks for the humor. As you noted correctly, clocks are used to sync all the gear, but that is only one function. The other function is to reduce drift. Look at all the high end gear from DCS, most have a clock input. Even on file playback, all you have to do is listen to a DAC, then listen to same DAC with the clock. Focus is improved, dimensionality is better in the sound stage, etc.

I have been doing live to 2 track for 25+ years. so have listened to hours and hours of mic feeds. once digital got good enough, I shelved most of my analogue gear and switched to 24/192 digital since its much less weight to carry around a cart load of digital gear.
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

This is just downright comical; "old farts" saying it couldn't be done, and now it can't be done because the equipment to do it is no longer available.

I'm an old fart, but I realized that digital and computers eluded me; I don't understand the stuff, that's why I sought a computer "Guru" who has a college degree in the stuff.

In the beginning when I asked him questions in an effort to learn, he tried to explain, but each time he noted that totally blank look on my face, that's when he decided it was hopeless. Now he just asks what it is that I want done, indicating; "Please don't waste my time by asking questions". That works for both of us.


Maybe the computer train done come and gone for all the "old farts", but you will get a lot more out of this hobby if you find a computer Guru.
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
This is sort of laughable. I have the equipment and use it everyday. Works fine. I would think with the system I have problems or differences would be as obvious as they can get. Of course, depending on the hearing of one person (in this case me) to make an evaluation on anything is dangerous. But I think it is safe to assume that a record and a 24/192 file of that record are close enough in sound quality such that there are not glaring differences and a large percentage of us can't hear the difference. 
More to discover