Lies about vinyl vs digital

[Ralf11]

I congratulate you all for researching Martian data rates while I was out wandering around on a lava flow!

 

But...

 

how much close in phase noise do the Martian communications have?

[Rexp]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

First of all, why bother trying to make an argument for one format over another by comparing worst examples of one to best examples of another?  Apples to apples makes so much more sense if you want to gain any traction with folks.

I have nothing against those who love vinyl playback, but the facts are that current, good, digital playback and recording are superior.

 

One of the best ways to experience this is to have the experience of comparing well done, high resolution, needle drops to direct vinyl playback on the same rig.  In every case I am aware of of this type of comparison the direct vinyl playback is found to be indistinguishable from the digital playback of the needle drop.  Where the needle drop retains all the "vinyl LP sound qualities" that folks love, and somehow, "magically" none of the "evil digital sound".  The only conclusion which is reasonable to draw from such experiences is that people love vinyl sound (or not) because of its flaws and inaccuracies, and not because it is actually technically superior to good digital in any way.   Which is OK with me, as long as the vinyl lovers own the idea that they like vinyl for its flaws.

 

I have been collecting LPs over the last few years, although I currently do not own a turntable set up, as I hope to get a 'table going for fun sometime later.  And the LPs are likely mostly good investments.

If you cant tell a 16/44 needle drop from the original something is wrong somewhere.

[barrows]

23 minutes ago, Rexp said:

If you cant tell a 16/44 needle drop from the original something is wrong somewhere.

I did not say anything about 16/44.  There is no reason these days to record/archive vinyl records to 16/44.  I would do 24/176.4 or DSD 128.

[firedog]

5 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

 

You want apples to apples?  Take the exact same master, particularly the one destined for Vinyl LP, with just enough compression and bottom end roll off and all the other compromises, press it to both vinyl and to CD, with NO additional processing to the CD version(brickwall limit, etc). 

 

 

When I've heard such flat transfers to digital they don't sound good - lifeless, little bass or treble. 

[Rexp]

6 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

But people on here are using what they hear to determine if vinyl or digital/CD is better.  Very often what they hear, the content itself, has been compromised on one format in a way that it sounds inferior to the way it sounds on the other.  This leads so many to make the false assumption that the format with the inferior sounding version(typically a brickwalled loudness war casualty on CD, or early CD release with ho-hum digital chain - suitcase converters, etc.) is automatically the inferior format.  It's a trap so easy to fall into.

 

You want apples to apples?  Take the exact same master, particularly the one destined for Vinyl LP, with just enough compression and bottom end roll off and all the other compromises, press it to both vinyl and to CD, with NO additional processing to the CD version(brickwall limit, etc). 

 

I challenge you to be able to hear a significant audible difference between the two during playback, aside from the inevitable surface rush of the stylus on vinyl, in such a comparison.

I would to take up such a challenge, while there are many poor quality digital recordings that sound similar on vinyl and CD, the better recordings sound much better on vinyl. 

[Don Hills]

9 hours ago, gmgraves said:

....

Of course, but the result is the same. A digital relay line is simply another way to get the preview necessary to control the groove pitch of the lathe.

 

The digital delay line is in the main signal path to the head, not the preview signal to the pitch control. You know that, I just thought I'd make it clear for those following along at home.

[mcgillroy]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Huh? That's just wrong. The "floor" in a high-res digital recording is waaaayyyy below the analog background noise e.g. microphones, tape, vinyl etc.

 

Typically digital can incorporate the entire analog signal without hitting the noise floor ... recall for DSD512 -200dB

 

 

That's the job of the recording, mastering etc ... if done properly there won't be clipping in the recording and similarly in playback you can scan the digital file and adjust the peak so that it is e.g. -3 dB

 

 

 

My copies of 1812 show DR: 21 ... that's been mentioned already.

Roon tells me the DR is 20 on this DSD256 tape transfer from HDTT: 

The one, DR 18, is 24/96 PCM:

I think the "Relayer" disc from the "Yes: High Vibration" SACD set has a DR of 14 and many discs are between 10-12

 

Huge Mravinsky fan here but a bit sceptical about those tape-transfers. Is that recording any good & recommendable?

[semente]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

I would to take up such a challenge, while there are many poor quality digital recordings that sound similar on vinyl and CD, the better recordings sound much better on vinyl. 

 

By "sound much better" you mean that you enjoy it more.

You don't listen to classical music do you?

[esldude]

4 hours ago, Rexp said:

If you cant tell a 16/44 needle drop from the original something is wrong somewhere.

Bull shite.  Nothing is wrong. Well other than you being full of it. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

I would to take up such a challenge, while there are many poor quality digital recordings that sound similar on vinyl and CD, the better recordings sound much better on vinyl. 

Yeah, and you don't get out much to hear real music do you?  I don't even need your answer. 

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, Rexp said:

If you cant tell a 16/44 needle drop from the original something is wrong somewhere.

 

You guys talk passed each other;

A needle drop is an ADC recording of vinyl. Thus, you play a Talk Talk vinyl album, record it (ADC) meanwhile, a digital file being the result (commonly named "needle drop").

 

If that file is played through the very same rig (only the source now being different - TT against software player & DAC), nobody would be able to distinguish the two.

 

The conclusion of that is : digital is so good that it can record ALL the aspects (nasty and good) of the vinyl playback. There is no single hint that it ever can be the other way around, but if there is, you are going to tell us HOW, now you grasped the situation. 

[Summit]

Both vinyl and digital can be made to sound really good and bad. Both has their strength and weakness and it’s not in dynamics. The mayor dynamic weakness is, with some exaptation of really good horn speakers, made by speakers. No records are made that challenging the dynamic of vinyl let alone CD.  

[PeterSt]

11 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

You want apples to apples?  Take the exact same master, particularly the one destined for Vinyl LP, with just enough compression and bottom end roll off and all the other compromises, press it to both vinyl and to CD, with NO additional processing to the CD version(brickwall limit, etc). 

 

No, for me I apples to apples are not desired. If the bottom end is out, my sub is out. Who wants that ...

 

11 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

I challenge you to be able to hear a significant audible difference between the two during playback, aside from the inevitable surface rush of the stylus on vinyl, in such a comparison.

 

You mean that rush implying noise at -60dB or whatever, while I deem it necessary to have the system noise at -140dB and better ?

So why am I doing that then ?

 

 

[jabbr]

5 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Huge Mravinsky fan here but a bit sceptical about those tape-transfers. Is that recording any good & recommendable?

I haven’t listened to it enough to recommend. From a purely technical POV the transfers look well done and capture the tape. These DSD256 transfers seem to have less ultrasonic noise than DSD64 transfers (SACD) but whether that is audible or makes any difference st all is beyond me. 

 

Now whether that particular recording is great? Need to listen ?

I can tell you that it does have quite a bit of low level audience noise, the soundstage is wide and the instruments are precisely located. Excellent dynamics. I can precisely localize the tight bass in the loud passages.

[The_K-Man]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

When I've heard such flat transfers to digital they don't sound good - lifeless, little bass or treble. 

 

Sighhh.. No sense in even TRYING to convince some folks(!)

 

Digital's frequency response is truly flat - analog, and human hearing for that matter, are anything but.

[The_K-Man]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

No, for me I apples to apples are not desired. If the bottom end is out, my sub is out. Who wants that ...

 

 

You mean that rush implying noise at -60dB or whatever, while I deem it necessary to have the system noise at -140dB and better ?

So why am I doing that then ?

 

 

^^ Pure dither ^^

[firedog]

6 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Sighhh.. No sense in even TRYING to convince some folks(!)

 

Digital's frequency response is truly flat - analog, and human hearing for that matter, are anything but.

And I think you totally misunderstood what I wrote.

[The_K-Man]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

And I think you totally misunderstood what I wrote.

 

You mean that dither several posts up?

[firedog]

15 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Sighhh.. No sense in even TRYING to convince some folks(!)

 

Digital's frequency response is truly flat - analog, and human hearing for that matter, are anything but.

That one. 

[jabbr]

Now this DSD256 tape transfer:

 

Are we saying we would prefer a Vinyl compression of the original master tape to a 15ips 2 track tape itself? The DSD256 transfer captures every magnetic particle on the tape in excruciating detail ?

[semente]

43 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

Digital's frequency response is truly flat - analog, and human hearing for that matter, are anything but.

 

What do you mean and why are you mixing/confusing reproduction with listening?

[The_K-Man]

10 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What do you mean and why are you mixing/confusing reproduction with listening?

 

Because sonic differences in CONTENT faaaaaarrr outweigh any differences between 'vinyl and CD', or between any other two formats?

 

Got any more dither for us?

[semente]

22 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

Because sonic differences in CONTENT faaaaaarrr outweigh any differences between 'vinyl and CD', or between any other two formats?

 

It's still not clear what you're trying to say.

 

That the difference between one same recording adequately mastered to vinyl and to CD is in the master not the medium and its reproduction?

Or something else entirely?

[The_K-Man]

38 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It's still not clear what you're trying to say.

 

That the difference between one same recording adequately mastered to vinyl and to CD is in the master not the medium and its reproduction?

Or something else entirely?

"That the difference between

one same recording adequately 

mastered to vinyl and to CD is in

the master not the medium and

its reproduction?"

 

YES!

 

And anyone refuting this, or stating otherwise, is just spouting pure DITHER.

[mjb]

There's nothing wrong with vinyl, except: the crackles and pops, dust, static, dropping the stylus in and smashing track walls, not lifting the stylus squarely and scraping half an inch, the crackles and pops, and the static. Did I mention crackles and pops? Thats it really. I can fully appreciate that a good pressing on a good rig can sound out of this world, I've heard it too, but I'm just too careless for it long term. Oh, and you have to turn it over after 20 mins!