[stump4545]

Just ordered a new copy of Nine Inch Nails Downward Spiral.

Any chance this new Vinyl copy of Downward Spiral sounds "better" then my Downward Spiral on CD?

Pretty sure Downward Spiral was recorded digitally so am I buying the vinyl version just for the process and joy of putting on a record with no real sonic benefit?

thank you.

[Gzerro]

I would guess the vinyl was cut from a digital source but fyi:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Downward_Spiral

"Most of the music was recorded into a Macintosh computer using a board and manipulated with music editor programs on the computer. Unique effects such as analyzing and inverting the frequency were applied to the tracks to create original sounds. The band would "get an arrangement together" and convert it into analog tape."

At one point it went through an analog tape stage..

The 5.1 mix on SACD is fantastic as well.

[kgturner]

I read this thread title and got all excited. Seriously killing me with this! The Downward Spiral is anything but new. 

Kevin T

[stump4545]

ok since the album has gone through the digital mill is it safe to listening to this album on vinyl is purely a superficial experience with no sonic benefits?

or are there really no hard and fast rules, just got to listen and decide??

[Minn Mark]

Don't know about this album ( 'tho I like NIN) but I have many copies of music on both CD and LP. I just compared CD and LP copies of One Fair Summer's Evening by Nanci Griffith.  I have modest, but I think good sounding, playback for both CD (via dedicated DAC) and LP (VPI).  For my ears and in my experience, I prefer vinyl when I have that option, matters not the original source (analog tape, digital etc etc).

Just this man's opinion; YMMV.

Happy listening,

Mark

[barrows]

ok since the album has gone through the digital mill is it safe to listening to this album on vinyl is purely a superficial experience with no sonic benefits?

or are there really no hard and fast rules, just got to listen and decide??

Nope.  If you like the sound of LP playback in your system, you will probably like the sound of this.  People generally like Vinyl because of its limitations and artifacts, and those will be present whether the source was digital or not.  It is also likely that the source digital is at least 24/48, if not 24/96, which is an advantage (vs. Redbook CD).

I remember a couple of years ago at RMAF, PS Audio was debuting the NuWave Phono Stage.  Listeners would remark how nice it was that PS was playing analog, and how relaxing the sound was after hearing so many rooms with digital playback.  Then, Paul McGowan would reveal that the playback was going through an analog to digital conversion in the phono stage, and then being converted back to analog in the PerfectWave DAC, hahaha! 

[neobop]

Nope.  If you like the sound of LP playback in your system, you will probably like the sound of this. People generally like Vinyl because of its limitations and artifacts, and those will be present whether the source was digital or not.  It is also likely that the source digital is at least 24/48, if not 24/96, which is an advantage (vs. Redbook CD).

I remember a couple of years ago at RMAF, PS Audio was debuting the NuWave Phono Stage.  Listeners would remark how nice it was that PS was playing analog, and how relaxing the sound was after hearing so many rooms with digital playback.  Then, Paul McGowan would reveal that the playback was going through an analog to digital conversion in the phono stage, and then being converted back to analog in the PerfectWave DAC, hahaha!

Nope.  People like vinyl despite the limitations, not because of them.  It's those limitations which alienated millions of people in the '80s/'90s.  Many come back to vinyl because it has the potential to sound better.  24/96 can sound half decent, it's much better than Redbook but it still chops up the music and at best, loses some harmonic information.  That's why people say digital loses some warmth and natural sound.

Your anecdote about McGowan proves nothing.  Maybe it did sound nice, but it wasn't a comparison, and at a show?  If you think this is meaningful, surely you jest.  I doubt if you're that stupid. 

How many records do you have that were digitally remastered?   I'll venture a guess, none.  If you did have some and assuming you can hear, your input on this thread would reflect that. 

Analog is the only medium that gives continuous playback.  A digital remaster might improve some aspects, depending on the source material and quality of the original or subsequent pressings, but invariably loses harmonic information. 
Do you think so many people came back to vinyl because it's easy and convenient?   It's difficult, expensive and inconvenient. 
neo

 

[woodsyi]

Nope.  If you like the sound of LP playback in your system, you will probably like the sound of this.  People generally like Vinyl because of its limitations and artifacts, and those will be present whether the source was digital or not.  It is also likely that the source digital is at least 24/48, if not 24/96, which is an advantage (vs. Redbook CD).

The way I understand it, digital music is an artificial sound in the literal sense.  Inherent quantization errors are treated mathematically in different ways to create the final waveform.  However sophisticated and robust the algorithmic engines are, the process itself is an approximation and you are going to have to live with the fact that the asymptotic line will never touch the original line.  Close but no cigar, you know.

An analogy I use to think of digitally mastered music is rehydrated food. There are many "gourmet" dry foods that will last a long time.  You pour a pack in a pot, add water, heat it up and you have a stew.  I have enjoyed many good food on camping trips this way.  But fresh they are not.  Something is lost in the dehydration/rehydration process. 

Another way I think of it is the constant pi.  It's a ratio and an irrational number.  I liken the ratio as an analog representation and the interminable irrational number as the digital representation.  You can't express pi numerically to its finite form.  You just can't.

Having said all this I think the approximations are getting really good now a days.

[STEREOmole]

The latest NIN record offered an "audiophile" master (I think the release on vinyl was supposedly that version) which allegedly had more reasonable compression, and didn't slam the mix into square wave clipping like most current releases do in the quest for high apparent volume. If the approach to this release was similar, the LP might have some sonic benefits.  That being said, there's much talk that the "audiophile" release was a hoax...(search NIN hesitation marks vinyl).

Being new to this forum, I don't want to come off as a troll and debate CD vs vinyl. I like both formats for different reasons.  That being said, as someone who has recorded and released music on both formats, I can tell you from firsthand experience, that vinyl (due to it's limitations...and I'm not saying that digital doesn't have limitations as well) doesn't ever sound exactly like the digital master. Best case scenario would be non audible, and that would be dependant on the source material. Music with heavy bass (especially if it isn't planned dead center) provides a huge challenge for vinyl. I'm guessing the different master for the hesitation marks vinyl, had more to do with the need to cut the bass, than the desire to provide audiophiles with an uncompressed mix.

Lastly, my memory of the CD release, is that it sounds good... and was put out a few years ago before the loudness wars really went crazy. In this case, you might be better served locating the original non-remastered version of that CD while saving your money for vinyl that will provide you with a sonic benefit.