Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

I'm sorry Raul, maybe its a language thing. I think I stated it several times in this thread but let's be clear:

1) Make a good recording; a good master tape
2) release it on LP and CD
3) compare what you hear to the master tape

Now you should know that there is a 'test' of some sort that is part of the LP or CD release process. This 'test' (as in 'test pressing') is used to see how well the ***LP PLAYBACK*** is able to meet the sound of the master tape!

I emphasized the words 'LP playback' to prevent further misunderstanding.

I have to assume that you must have at least one test pressing somewhere in your collection... if not its something to work on. Test pressings are the first off of the stamper and so can sound better.

Anyway, if the test is approved then the mass production begins. Having been through this process a number of times (and mind you, I am not talking about listening to the lathe cut, instead we are talking about playback of an actual LP) I can tell you that unequivocally, the LP is:

1) not distorted, rather it should sound nearly identical to the master tape and
2) it will have better bass than the digital as well as smoother, more detailed and more dimensional highs.

So I am indeed talking about **playback**! If you are not experiencing the same advantages of vinyl, then adjustment or upgrading of your playback apparatus is indicated.

Dear Atmasphere: Got it and yes I own some test pressing samples that normally is not what any customer get.

Truer to the recording, this is my point. Which alternative is truer to the recording: digital or LP analog?
what mean I?:

an even comparison IMHO must be do it on the natural field of each alternative, this is ( for example. ). playback a DVDA against not an analog master tape but against the digital master tape and then the LP playback against the analog master tape. Don't you think?, apples against apples.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

It does not matter the master tape. You will find the LP to be the truer playback. If you spend some time in a recording studio you run into these comparisons all the time.

For example, we always record analog with a 24-bit digital backup. The analog tape of course sounds a lot better regardless of the digital recording means. What is interesting though is that the production LP made from the analog tape *also* sounds better than the digital master! If we cut the LP from a digital master it takes on many of the qualities of the CD, although the LP will usually still sound better even though they have the same digital master tape.

If you have ever produced a CD, the biggest degradation occurs between the master tape and the production CD. There is less degradation with the LP. So it should be no surprise that the LP can sound better even though the master tape is digital!

Digital just can't win in its present state. I am hopeful that it will get there, but mostly what I see from digital is a dive to the bottom- mp3s being a great example. But before that the WAV files were a pretty good example too.

IOW, the LP is truer to the recording in all cases.

Isn't the assumption that "sounds better" which is totally subjective is not the same as "more accurate" to the recording in this case?

I think it has been acknowledged that something can sound better and not necessarily be more accurate.

Also specific ideal test scenarios, whatever the outcome, do not determine what occurs in the real world. They are interesting from an R&D perspective but until that is translated into a viable commercial product, it may not matter to most.

In this case, by 'sounds better' I mean that how it sounds with respect to the master tape. For example I hear LP bass sounding very much the same.

Raul was suggesting that the sound of the LP is distorted compared to an analog tape and that is not the case. Further, he was suggesting that the sound of a digital copy of a digital master is less distorted than that of the LP, also not the case.

What is perhaps not understood is that the LP media is one of the lowest distortion and widest bandwidth media ever devised. If there is distortion, its an artifact of playback and as such if done right can be quite low- low enough that the distortion is not audible. There is no way you can do this with digital!

A simple test for anyone with a digital recorder is to record and play back sine wave sweep tones. You will be amazed at what you hear- the distortion digital has can be profound, easily heard, but unlike analog it tends to be related to the scan frequency rather than the musical tones recorded (in case you are curious what you hear, in the digital playback of the sweep tone you will also hear 'birdies', sets of modulation tones that change frequency as the fundamental changes). The distortion is easily heard even if the sweep tones are kept at a low level.

It is these distortions that contribute the brightness many perceive in the digital sound. I've pointed this distortion out to a number of pro-digital 'digi-phile' types in the past that have discounted it as a product of cheap converters, but oddly enough after 20 years (when I first heard it) its still with us. A lot has happened in the digital world since then but getting rid of distortion is not one of them.