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
johnss
616 posts
 
Have to side with Atmosphere here. He is correct. Would agree on the minimalist method of doing most things, and most of the major labels do have climate controlled storage conditions for their session masters. That is not to say many production or duplication masters tapes still get tossed.  Can't tell you how many times I have been to the loading dock of a major studio back in the day, and found pallets and pallets of tape waiting for the garbage truck to pick it up.... 

As for tape degradation, the SSS (sticky shed syndrome) was a major problem on Ampex 406/407, 456/457, scotch 226/227, and a few others.

After Quantegy stated they had fixed the binder problem I bought 4 new cases of 456 with the new and improved binder. They were good for the first few years, but after that they slowly degraded into sticky shed just like the earlier stuff. Ended up pulling the flanges off and tossing the balance of the remaining tape into the trash.

The earlier formulations never had this problem. Same with Scotch 206/207. Have 4 cases of 207, from the early 1980s, and it still performs like new.

Losing signal was normally not an issue.
 
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
Atmasphere, it is my understanding that most of the old tapes have been digitized. Correct me if I am wrong but digital storage is certainly more robust. Once in numbers that "sleepiness" can be corrected with very modest EQ as well as doing neat stuff like getting rid of the tape hiss.
I am totally unfamiliar with DSP as might be used in the recording studio.
My experience is in using it on the reproduction side for correction and bass management. Given the variables involved in speakers, subwoofers and rooms the advantages are significant on this end.  IMHO it is always an advantage to hear and know what "flat" sounds like before modifying things to your liking. It is also a great learning experience hearing what different modifications do to the sound.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,351 posts
 
master tapes which in general will be stored properly for any media company of note
Are you forgetting about the Universal studio fire in 2008?  Apparently, it's really hard (expensive) to properly store large amounts of media.

If you're considering long term storage, as in 50+ years, vinyl discs are probably the preferred method.  This is according to research done by the Library of Congress when deciding upon their long term archive needs.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
12,169 posts
 
As for tape degradation, the SSS (sticky shed syndrome) was a major problem on Ampex 406/407, 456/457, scotch 226/227, and a few others.

After Quantegy stated they had fixed the binder problem I bought 4 new cases of 456 with the new and improved binder. They were good for the first few years, but after that they slowly degraded into sticky shed just like the earlier stuff. Ended up pulling the flanges off and tossing the balance of the remaining tape into the trash.
I bake tape for about 3 hours at 140-150 degrees if there's any question about age or storage (and these days there usually is). This will cause the moisture to exit the tape and it should be good for a few months. It helps to store the tape in a plastic bag with a packet or two (more if its 1/2" or 1" tape) of silica gel to absorb moisture. Its better to store the tape in the attic rather than the basement! We remastered an LP where the artist ('Spider' John Koerner) did exactly that and the tapes (recorded in the early 1970s) were immaculate- no shedding and no need for baking.
it is my understanding that most of the old tapes have been digitized. Correct me if I am wrong but digital storage is certainly more robust. Once in numbers that "sleepiness" can be corrected with very modest EQ as well as doing neat stuff like getting rid of the tape hiss.
Some tapes have been digitized. Many, possibly most are missing because studios sold them off or sent them to landfill. Digital storage is less robust than LP, unless the digital storage is constantly moved/backed up (which means electricity is involved for the period in which the recording is stored); if analog tape is stored properly (see above) it can last decades, but its rarely treated properly. You can't correct that 'sleepiness' with just EQ; you need a bit of expansion (as opposed to compression) and you can't do anything about the loss of detail. This is all why original LPs are usually the best 'record' (if you'll pardon the term) of an older musical event.
This is according to research done by the Library of Congress when deciding upon their long term archive needs.
That study was done sometime in the 1980s if memory serves. What they found was that laminated media (magnetic media and CD) had lifetimes in decades if stored properly (months or years if not) but amorphous media (LPs and the stampers that made them) could last centuries. The study did not include any kind of solid state media like thumb drives.


bluemoodriver
193 posts
 
Anyone got an estimate of the proportion of all masters which have yet to be captured in red book digital quality or higher? I’m guessing, now that Amazon, Qobuz, Tidal, and Spotify are competing on total digital library size, the proportion is small.
If the proportion of non-digitised masters is small, then we can conclude either i) not enough people want to listen to the remaining non-digitised tapes so who cares really, or ii) there should be a crowd-funder effort to complete the capture to achieve the complete permanent preservation of all The artefacts of that extraordinary period of human artistic achievement.
More to discover