vinyl versus digital redux

Analog tape is not a panacea. Just like vinyl, it significantly colors the sound.

To be clear, analog tape colors the sound more than the LP, owing to the fact that a properly functioning tape machine will exhibit a 3rd harmonic, which contributes to 'bloom' and apparent detail.

.... 3rd harmonic.


No, the 3rd harmonic was just the convenient harmonic to measure when setting levels as you can readily hear it on test tones. There were other harmonics in there as well when the tape starts to compress.

Then there is the common mid band frequency anomalies that varied machine to machine, sibilance from pre-emphasis, wow, flutter, scrape, and of course the loss of high frequencies and dynamics from simply playing the tape.

Dear @seventies : " So vinyl to high resolution digital retains the ’magic’ that many associate with vinyl sound. What other than an electro-mechanical groove-cutting process underlies that ’magic’ ?

First than all non-exist that " magic " we audiophiles " like " to think and just do not accept is not " magic ".

@dgarretson at the very first page of your thread posted:

""" The answer is that vinyl contains euphonious distortions and artifacts that are accurately captured and passed through a hi-res digital recording. """

Other than the cutting/pressing process the recorded LPs came with a huge developed distortions developed through the nigthmare overall LP playback process. The " magic " are only every kind of developed distortions you can imagine not music information and these non-music information is captured with accuracy for the digital medium that with this fact proves that digital medium is way superior to the analog one no matters what.

I think you agree with when posted:


"" By high resolution bit rate I mean bit depth times sampling frequency. As that rate increases, format differences diminish. DAD 256 verses PCM 24/192 ? Take your pick.

Recording standard is evolving to PCM 24/352, because PCM allows editing that DSD does not.

Music recorded at that resolution has no peer in the ’history’ of sonically preserving performances. Prefer the ’magic’ of vinyl ? No problem. Such is available. But the ’master tape’ is now a master hi res digital file, now a huge upgrade over the ’DDD’ lp’s touted a few decades ago. ""

Absolutely rigth !.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Btw, you posted:

"""" one might question why digital made without the intermediary of vinyl sounds so different from vinyl. A detective story ?

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

No detective story: both are way different mediums, so today : why any one could thinks that both mediums should sounds alike when that is just impossible ?

The analog deffenders likes all those high euphonic distortions against way lower distortions in the digital medium. Yes it's not that digital do not like to them as medium but that digital has not those euphonic distortions all of us are accustom to: go figure ! !

Dear friends/ @seventies : ""   is way superior to the analog one no matters what.  ""

Wrong what I posted. What I wanted to say is that that proves that digital records/plays exactly the information we recorded.

So, it's really an accutared medium. @dgarretson  confirmed it when he posted that in his system he can listen tiny differences in what was recorded in digital medium because it's imposible that can sounds the same as the vinyl direct sound due to the converters ( ADC/DAC ) in the digital domain and the cable used to transmit from vinyl play to digital device. 

R.

To my own ears of having always been around, for instance, REEL TO REEL tape; IMHO:  24-bit and DSD remastered cds come A LOT closer to sounding like an original 1960s copy of a quarter-track, 7 1/2ips vintage commercial tape (in terms of: capturing soundstage width as well as bass response, especially) than vinyl ever could.  The characteristic upper bass/lower-mid bloat peakiness OF VINYL sounding like a phase-distorted bathtub affect is the thing I, personally, have never been able to stand about "vinyl sound".  Of course, someone restricting the debate to records vs.: (badly mastered) 16-bit cds, computer audio, streaming, mp3's, etc. won't recognize that and therefore think vinyl (beholden, by default, to being a "component grade" audio medium) is the top-of-the-heap....BUT: it's a disingenious argument when the buyer DOESN'T know what was considered above LP playback when there was no digital (and, too: when records were a mass-market $5 item and not a $40-up boutique novelty).

The wild-eyed claims of vinyl's frequency abilities also prey-upon the uninformed (and: always seem to be spoken by snake-oil hucksters selling $20k turntables!).  Truth is: THOSE specs came from JVC's parameters for reproducing Discrete Quadraphonic records in the 70s; requiring a Shibata stylus and an outboard demodulator to "unscramble" a 30khz subcarrier pilot signal containing rear channel matrixed information (which, as a sidebar: if anyone ever experimented with such arcane gear for fun, even a quality rtr deck was able to register the quad beacon "birdie" while recording at 15ips....even the single motor Panasonic/Technics model RS-736 rtr I had from my father in 1972).

If one is NOT talking about the obsolete tech of quadraphonically-encoded records neccessitatingly played back with a Shibata stylus, then all of vinyl's far-flung frequency specs are totally irrelevant and a moot point.  Vinyl, for one, is THE WORST for Classic Rock in STEREO.  Much too hollowed-out.  The 1969 Ampex 3 3/4ips reel of Led Zepp II, for example, is the next best vintage source to the Ludwig first pressing(!).