[wushuliu]

Some things sound better on vinyl some sound better on CD. I don't know why this stuff has to get rehashed over and over.

[jsaliga]

Hmm.  I think the vinyl camp uses more opinion as fact than the digital camp.  The SNR/Dynamic Range differences between digital and vinyl are very significant (well over 20 db in many cases).  Vinyl playback also has to deal with wow/flutter, high frequency loss over time with repeated playing of the records, cartridge/tonearm alignment, and the list goes on and on.  There  is also the low frequency rumble effect to deal with. 

But you gloss completely over the difference between what digital is capable of delivering and what it typically delivers.  I will concede your point when you can show that the vast majority of digital content being produced actually takes advantage digital's strengths.  Until then your argument simply isn't credible because you are making unfounded large-scale assumptions about the content.

Now if you care to present some specifics, good examples of recordings that were issued on vinyl and digital, then we might have something to discuss.  But it is still just a few examples and you cannot reason from the specific to the general.  It doesn't work the other way around because brick walling and dynamic range compression in digital mastering have both been long-established as a common practice.

--Jerome

[jsaliga]

I think the takeaway from Bob Ludwig's comments is that the potential for a more faithful recording of the performance that was heard in the studio is possible from the digital medium than it is from analogue mediums, vinyl or tape.
On paper I think this might be true, but we will always be at the mercy of the producer for what happens to to the final product. The way I see it producers have a lot of Karmic debt to pay.
Scotty

I agree.  What I was getting at is that Bob Ludwig can certainly speak authoritatively about the work that Bob Ludwig does.  But his work is not representative of what is happening industry-wide.

--Jerome

[FullRangeMan]

Some things sound better on vinyl some sound better on CD. I don't know why this stuff has to get rehashed over and over.

The mastering, eq, and other details for LP and CD are very different.

[werd]

The article deals with cd more than file generated playback. Cd playback is plagued by a compression that exists with cd players and less with file streamers. This compression is not part of the recording but in the design of the cd player. Its locked down somewhere in the dac. Reading disc mediums,then deciphering and output filtering, all being powered by the same power supply.  Its sounds potato compared to Vinyl.  (my kid calls my xbox1 a potato compared to his PS4 so I thought I would throw that in there.  )

[*Scotty*]

werd, can you give me a link to this problem, I would like to read more about it, this may partially explain why I quite using my CD player and went to file playback via DAC in my system 7 years ago.
Scotty

[jsaliga]

Yes, I would be interested in that as well.  Whenever I buy digital music listen to it first and then load it into Adobe Audition to check it out.  I can't do DSD but I can do PCM up 32bit/384KHz. When you have multiple sources of a given recording (including vinyl needle drops) it doesn't take rocket science to recognize digital content that has been stepped all over.

--Jerome

[Freo-1]

Check out this link:

http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/pubrec.html

Spells out the differences pretty clearly.

[*Scotty*]

If it purports to "Hi-Rez" I check via the Spek program to see if it shows signs of brick filtering at 22.5 or 24Khz which indicates a problem even if it is 24 bit material.
Scotty

[jsaliga]

Thank you.  Excellent point.  The egregious faults are pretty easy to spot.

Brickwall limiting isn't bad on its own, but over done it makes a recording difficult to listen to.  I recall some years ago getting a Chris Duarte Group CD as I love their stuff.  I listened to it and it was pretty awful.  Then I loaded the first track into Audition and saw that it was clipped all over the place.  This is a pretty extreme example but there is no doubt in my mind that the person who mastered it had no idea what he was doing.

Here is a short article about brickwall limiting that I think is pretty instructive on its proper use in mastering.

http://www.musicradar.com/tuition/tech/how-to-use-a-brickwall-limiter-in-a-mastering-chain-602356

--Jerome

 

[Freo-1]

But you gloss completely over the difference between what digital is capable of delivering and what it typically delivers.  I will concede your point when you can show that the vast majority of digital content being produced actually takes advantage digital's strengths.  Until then your argument simply isn't credible because you are making unfounded large-scale assumptions about the content.

Now if you care to present some specifics, good examples of recordings that were issued on vinyl and digital, then we might have something to discuss.  But it is still just a few examples and you cannot reason from the specific to the general.  It doesn't work the other way around because brick walling and dynamic range compression in digital mastering have both been long-established as a common practice.

--Jerome

Many of the recent recordings I am referring to are simply not available on vinyl.  I'll do a search to see if some of them were issued on vinyl as well as digital.  I rather doubt it, but I'll look.

See if someone you know has a copy of the recording I listed above.  The dynamic range on that one is major.

[*Scotty*]

I was referring to the brickwall anti-aliasing used at the 44.1 and 48 kHz sampling frequencies. I too look for clipping on an album using Audacity software. There is really no excuse for clipping unless it is done on purpose for the nasty sound it produces. I was surprised to learn that it is considered desirable contribution to their "sound"by some artists.
Scotty

[Freo-1]

I was referring to the brickwall anti-aliasing used at the 44.1 and 48 kHz sampling frequencies. I too look for clipping on an album using Audacity software. There is really no excuse for clipping unless it is done on purpose for the nasty sound it produces. I was surprised to learn that it is considered desirable contribution to their "sound"by some artists.
Scotty

If you believe in the Nyquist theorem, it's not an issue.     

[werd]

There is no paper pointing to what I hear or (basically any supporter of analogue hears) that can directly lay blame to cause. My guess, the analogue info on vinyl moves the stylus sufficiently to produce a proper sine wave with out the use of fixer-upper filtering with digital. A 16 bit dac can not produce a sine wave with out help. As you move up in bit-size the smoothing-out filters becomes less of requirement as the hi rez files looks more analogue. The dac itself can swing the sine wave voltage better.  With cd the transport reads files off the cd in real time with the transpot mounted on the same chassis as the dac (usually). So you have moving parts (the motor spinning the cd) in an environment that works better with less moving anything. Compared to vinyl this is what creates a compression around every instrument. Or maybe its a tension (a better word) that makes cd so easily identifiable regardless of the recording.

That's my guess 

[audioengr]

Digital files are definitely capable of outperforming vinyl, however there have historically been a lot of roadblocks for digital that prevented this, including:

1) Jitter, which is more prevalent with typical CD players and less of a problem with computer playback.  Not easy to tackle by the designers and parts that render really low jitter systems tend to be pricey.  Only in the last 5 years have solutions been available to reach really low jitter levels, and this is required to compete with vinyl.

2) Digital filtering.  Even the best hardware implemented digital filters seem to fall short, even the latest Apodizing ones that eliminate pre-ringing at the expense of post-ringing.  A case in point is the popularity of NOS DACs that have no digital filtering.  One such DAC from Audio Note  was just reviewed in the latest Stereophile.  Terrible measured results and yet the listening reviewer thought it was very natural and analog sounding.

3) I/V conversion.  There are many ways to achieve I/V conversion from a D/A chip. Some of these sound better than others.  All have some sort of drawback.

4) resolution.  This is quickly becoming history as many companies are offering hi-res files for download.

5) format conversion.  This is primarily a new problem that appeared with computer file playback and the lossless and lossy compression techniques that followed in order to save memory.  None of these formats seem to be free from artifacts, or at least the playback CODECs are not free from artifacts/distortion of some kind.

The good news is that most of the above roadblocks are being tackled by good designers, so digital is sounding a lot like and even better than vinyl in some cases.

Vinyl playback on the other hand has fundamental physical limitations, including:

1) bandwidth of the modulation of the grooves
2) bandwidth and linearity of the cartridge - limited by the magnetics, size, mass, wiring etc..
3) speed control of the platter
4) WOW of the platter
5) dynamic range due to stylus pressure
6) angle inaccuracy of the tonearm
7) inaccuracy of the RIAA curve in the preamp

These are much more difficult to overcome with new technologies IMO.

Steve N.

[jsaliga]

I was referring to the brickwall anti-aliasing used at the 44.1 and 48 kHz sampling frequencies. I too look for clipping on an album using Audacity software. There is really no excuse for clipping unless it is done on purpose for the nasty sound it produces. I was surprised to learn that it is considered desirable contribution to their "sound"by some artists.
Scotty

Ah...thanks for the clarification.

--Jerome

[FullRangeMan]

Digital files are definitely capable of outperforming vinyl, however there have historically been a lot of roadblocks for digital that prevented this, including:

1) Jitter, which is more prevalent with typical CD players and less of a problem with computer playback.  Not easy to tackle by the designers and parts that render really low jitter systems tend to be pricey.  Only in the last 5 years have solutions been available to reach really low jitter levels, and this is required to compete with vinyl.

2) Digital filtering.  Even the best hardware implemented digital filters seem to fall short, even the latest Apodizing ones that eliminate pre-ringing at the expense of post-ringing.  A case in point is the popularity of NOS DACs that have no digital filtering.  One such DAC from Audio Note  was just reviewed in the latest Stereophile.  Terrible measured results and yet the listening reviewer thought it was very natural and analog sounding.

3) I/V conversion.  There are many ways to achieve I/V conversion from a D/A chip. Some of these sound better than others.  All have some sort of drawback.

4) resolution.  This is quickly becoming history as many companies are offering hi-res files for download.

5) format conversion.  This is primarily a new problem that appeared with computer file playback and the lossless and lossy compression techniques that followed in order to save memory.  None of these formats seem to be free from artifacts, or at least the playback CODECs are not free from artifacts/distortion of some kind.

The good news is that most of the above roadblocks are being tackled by good designers, so digital is sounding a lot like and even better than vinyl in some cases.

Vinyl playback on the other hand has fundamental physical limitations, including:

1) bandwidth of the modulation of the grooves
2) bandwidth and linearity of the cartridge - limited by the magnetics, size, mass, wiring etc..
3) speed control of the platter
4) WOW of the platter
5) dynamic range due to stylus pressure
6) angle inaccuracy of the tonearm
7) inaccuracy of the RIAA curve in the preamp

These are much more difficult to overcome with new technologies IMO.

Steve N.

Great post Steve.

[jsaliga]

Many of the recent recordings I am referring to are simply not available on vinyl.  I'll do a search to see if some of them were issued on vinyl as well as digital.  I rather doubt it, but I'll look.

See if someone you know has a copy of the recording I listed above.  The dynamic range on that one is major.

If you are referring to the Tchaikovsky 6th you mentioned I have it.  I bought it direct from Pentatone in DSD format.  Can't remember what it sounded like but I can queue it up for a listen when I have some time.

I don't buy a lot of music from them but there some titles that I like.  It has been a mixed bag for me.  As I said, my listening preferences are mostly in the past.  I am an enormous fan of the big conductors and orchestras of the day, a fan of the recording methods, the microphones used, etc. etc.  Most modern recordings that I have heard just don't produce the sort of breathtaking sound that was commonplace with Decca/London, RCA Living Stereo, and Mercury Living Presence.

--Jerome

[*Scotty*]

Jerome, was DSD format DSD 64 or DSD 128?
Scotty

[G Georgopoulos]

Vinyl playback on the other hand has fundamental physical limitations, including:

1) bandwidth of the modulation of the grooves
2) bandwidth and linearity of the cartridge - limited by the magnetics, size, mass, wiring etc..
3) speed control of the platter
4) WOW of the platter
5) dynamic range due to stylus pressure
6) angle inaccuracy of the tonearm
7) inaccuracy of the RIAA curve in the preamp

These are much more difficult to overcome with new technologies IMO.

Steve N.

...