[/mp]

I don't wish to be insensitive or brusk but the "my stereo" playing videos has always been a pet peeve, They never struck me as a rational means of conveying what one's stereo sounds like. If the video contained clips with different components then, yes, there's a basis for comparing differences. Other than that.... 

FWIW, Vinyl sounds better to me on my system when listening closely. Maybe it's me; maybe it's the system; maybe it's both.

I digitize my records. Yes, I hear a difference between them. To me, the difference is clear, maybe even obvious, in A/B comparison. Some folks say maybe they hear the difference or they hear an insignificant difference. Some others say it sounds the same. The digital version is not horrible or unlistenable. Non-A/B is reasonably close--for some value of reasonably and close. Many of the records I listen to are historic live performances. The difference in sound quality between the better and worse recordings is far greater than the difference between my analog originals and my digital copies. Digital has the advantage when it comes to portability, user convenience and wear characteristics compared to vinyl. I play records when I want to sit back & focus only on the music. I listen to digital when allowing myself to simultaneously attend anything else.

I asked Gabe Wiener, uber-perfectionist, founder of Quintessential Sound and PGM Recordings & chairman of the New York Section of the AES why his productions were only available on CD. He said, "I can make great sounding LPs and CDs. Digital is easier."

Thanks for stirring up memories of my friend. As always, YMMV.
/mp

[FullRangeMan]

I don't know why people transfer vinyl to digital, but I'm sure glad they do.  Everytime my brother transfers a bunch of his albums I get a pile of new records, yea.  You might understand why I've never asked him why.

I suspect that is not to wear out the vinyl and the cartridge with every listen.

[jsaliga]

One thing that is true in audio above all else is that your mileage may vary.  Results achieved/perceived by one person don't necessarily have predictive power about what someone else might achieve/perceive even with similar or identical equipment and methods.  I swore off getting into audio "debates" (more like wars) a long time ago.  Very little good can come from them, and in my advancing years I want to spend time fighting over audio like I want to go to the dentist and get a root canal. 

I just do what appeals to and works for me and try not to get too wrapped up about whether or not someone else approves.  When it comes to what goes on my audio system the only opinion that matters is mine. 

--Jerome

[jsaliga]

I suspect that is not to wear out the vinyl and the cartridge with every listen.

That could be why some people do it.  But that is not why I do it.

--Jerome

[Mag]

Dear Reader,

Why do some record players offer USB out?

If one converts an analog recording to digital, does that not defeat the purpose of analog? Why not just stream DSD?

To me, when people 'archive' their LPs to digital (thinking it will be an analog source,) it's the same as a person posting a video of their 'sound system,' expecting that you'll hear what they hear at home (e.g. you have a different TT, DAC, speakers, etc.)

Am I missing something?

What's the purpose of archiving analog to digital? You're essentially listening to the weakest chain in the recording process - you DAC...which will never sound pure analog.

Please explain to me why people do this. Is there a legitimate reason, other than making a copy of a record?

I'd rather listen to pure digital (DDD,) than take vinyl and convert it to digital.

Best,
Firewall.

    I think you have misconceptions about digital. First of all a CD 44.1/16 bit is capable of capturing exactly what is on a vinyl record and I use a professional CD Recorder. So there is no reason why it shouldn't sound analog. In my careful listening, what separates vinyl from digital is that the recording doesn't sound compressed, but it is. The bass is altered so that the needle does not jump out of the groove and the dynamic range is much less than digital. Digital doesn't have to sound compressed just that a lot of recordings are victims of the loudness war and not because digital can be uncompressed. In fact recordings I have uncompressed digital IMO it exceeds how vinyl is capable of sounding.

 I could never hear the claim that vinyl is superior to digital until I purchased a fairly good phono pre-amp with usb out. Also the quality of the cartridge makes a difference, I have a Pickering which I understand is a very good cartridge which is no longer made. So I want to transfer some of my vinyl to CD while the needle is still good. I don't think I will be able to find a replacement needle.

Anyway the reason I want to transfer vinyl to CD is because I don't have room for a turntable. My turntable is only suppose to be there until I finish recording. But I need a new turntable because the speed does not stay constant. Anyway with a subscription to Amazon HD, vinyl to digital recordings have been put on hold indefinitely.

Other reasons for vinyl to digital is some stuff that was recorded on vinyl was never released on CD. And two, my digital equipment is good, better than what I can afford to invest in turntable & cartridges and also purchasing vinyl records again. And three, some vinyl recordings not all, are better sounding than the digital release, I have two examples that I've compared.

[SteveFord]

I always buy and album and then burn it to a CD-R right off the bat.
It's a combination of preserve the albums, cut down on stylus wear and CDs are convenient.

[jsaliga]

I think you have misconceptions about digital. First of all a CD 44.1/16 bit is capable of capturing exactly what is on a vinyl record

That is not entirely true.  CD Audio is brickwalled at ~ 22KHz, or the Nyquist frequency of its 44.1KHz sampling rate.  See the spectrum below from a CD track loaded into Adobe Audition and note all of the black space above 22KHz.



Vinyl records commonly have content that far exceeds the 22KHz limit of CD audio.  My phono cartridge/phono preamp combo can reproduce frequences out to about 65KHz.  Here is the spectrum of a recent vinyl recording I made using a 192KHz sampling rate in Adobe Audition:



Note the spectrum extends out to about 65KHz.  There may be more information on the vinyl, but if there is my cartridge/phono preamp cannot reproduce it.  This is why I record vinyl at 24bit/192KHz.  I want to capture the full frequency range of a vinyl record that my cart/phono pre can reproduce.

Naturally, it is fair to point out we can't hear frequencies above 20KHz.  However, I have seen some studies on human ultrasonic frequency perception.  I don't claim to understand everything in those studies.  But my feeling is why not just capture everything on the record and erase any doubt about the fidelity of my digital captures.  Since storage is fairly cheap these days I record everything at 24bit/192KHz and occasionally I do DXD 24bit/352.8KHz even though I think it is overkill for my vinyl set up.  I mostly do it to address potential IMD and only then on what I would consider a prized recording.

--Jerome

[Mag]

   What I do is upsample a recording multiple times, in this case vinyl. Re-record it and upsample again. The end result is a better recording than what was originally recorded.

[jules]

I suspect that is not to wear out the vinyl and the cartridge with every listen.

That, particularly the vinyl bit, has always been a factor for me. I've always used high quality turntable/stylus gear but for me even one playing of a new record degrades the quality of the reproduction slightly. With old, well played vinyl there's no question but that it's lost something of its shine. What's the balance between CD/digital sound and worn vinyl? Well this is the vinyl circle of course so maybe I shouldn't pose the question 

[FullRangeMan]

That, particularly the vinyl bit, has always been a factor for me. I've always used high quality turntable/stylus gear but for me even one playing of a new record degrades the quality of the reproduction slightly. With old, well played vinyl there's no question but that it's lost something of its shine. What's the balance between CD/digital sound and worn vinyl? Well this is the vinyl circle of course so maybe I shouldn't pose the question 

The mass media targeted to the teenage millennials created a revival wave for vinyl, since these people have no idea that vinyl wears out and the sound gets worse and the hiss increases, what gifted a new clothe to the king, and anyone who says the king is naked will be ignored.

In this case the audio magazines were not guilty, it was the non-specialized magazines that started this movement.

[Grinnell]

I don't archive as much as make a second copy for my system at my cabin where I don't have a TT; too duty up there.  the sound is not quite as good as an LP but that may be my setup.

[dlaloum]

1) well recorded digital is superior to Vinyl - it has wider dynamic range, lower noise etc... (note: WELL RECORDED)

2) Many recordings originally mastered on Vinyl, were mastered far better than their later digitally re-mastered version

This is really sad - look up the "Loudness Wars" - but over and over, the best mastered original vinyl releases, are superior to all subsequent releases- Whether on vinyl or digital
So even though vinyl is the theoretically inferior medium, it is often the best version (in some cases the only version) available

3) If I have an excellent Vinyl recording - I want to archive it onto digital for both convenience, and long term use purposes - every play of a record, wears it a little bit further.

So setting it up with an excellent cartridge, tuning it to as close to a flat frequency response as possible (cartridge loading, etc.... with measurement records), and then recording it to 96/24 ... once recorded, the final version can be downsampled to 44/16 - as that provides more than enough DNR ... (or keep it 96/24)

Don't underestimate vinyl wear on a favourite LP. - One of the major selling points of the Shure "High Compliance" generation of cartridges, was accurate tracking at very low VTF.
Mistracking - causes very accelerated wear. Correct tracking has low wear, and correct tracking at very low VTF (possible only with very high compliance designs in very low mass arms - preferably with some damping in the system) - has extremely low wear. .... but Digital has NO wear.

[Roy Boy]

I do archive vinyl to digital. My initial intent was that one day I might need to downsize . In addition I like the convenience of streaming from my NAS and the ability to play those files in multiple systems in my house. I ended up using RME ADI-2 Pro A/D and ripping at 24/352 (DXD) which yielded a playback that was as good as vinyl.  My analog front end for ripping is refurbed Technics SP-10 MK II with Basis Vector arm and Soundsmith Paua cartridge through a Tom Tutay tube phono preamp. Ripping SW is Vinyl Studio. I stream back with Lumin A1. I actually find the streamed file playback superior to vinyl playback in two ways
   1) VinylStudio has a pop/click removal tool that does not appear to remove any musical info
   2)My two channel system includes two Seaton submersive subs. I can crank the volume as far as I like without getting feedback. I do have my turntable on a wall mount stand and with music that has low frequency content, like Yello, I am limited in overall volume with vinyl. Yes if I mute the subs that goes away, but what fun is that!

[S Clark]

1) well recorded digital is superior to Vinyl - well, maybe, maybe not
.... but Digital has NO wear.  But hard drives crash on a regular basis.

[jsaliga]

.... but Digital has NO wear.  But hard drives crash on a regular basis.

I don't think that's a valid point.  At least it is not consistent with my experience as an IT professional, where our datacenter has thousands of hard disks and we might have one fail in a year.  But truth be sold we don't sit around waiting for stuff to fail and have an active refresh program for storage and servers...usually every 5 to 7 years.  Personally I have not had a hard disk fail in over 10 years.  I currently have about 32TB of storage on my home network.  Moreover, storage is dirt cheap these days.  A 12TB USB 3.0 hard disk will set you back a little over $200.  That is a massive amount of storage, even for someone such as myself who has about 5,500 albums in my digital library, mostly in 24bit/192KHz FLAC, DXD 24bit/352.8KHz FLAC, and DSD256.  I keep both an online and offline backup of my entire digital music library and the storage to support it cost me less than $350.

So the advantages of digital music can't reasonably be argued, it seems to me.  I'm a vinylphile too, and it has some advantages that digital lacks.  But it also has some weaknesses as well that do not plague digital music.  In short, both have their strengths and weakness.

--Jerome

[FullRangeMan]

My current HD(bussines grade) are from 2012 no prob so far.

[dB Cooper]

A few opinions based mainly on my take on the last few posts.

• If you are seeing 'information' on your recordings well above 20 kHz, that isn't music. It is distortion. There just isn't any music that high, especially on recordings from the 'classic' era. It probably comes largely from cartridge mistracking but the additive form of intermodulation distortion may be contributing as well.
• Hard drives can and do crash. We see it all the time at the tech support end of the computer business I work at, which I can't name. If you ask the technicians there for a failure rate on hard drives, the answer will be "100%." Your car engine doesn't have an unlimited service life and neither does your HD.The only reason this doesn't happen more visibly is that the computer is often obsoleted before the HD buys the farm.
• Put me down in the 'Good digital beats good analog' camp. To me it's not even close. Not to say you can't have bad digital or that analog is always bad- it often sounds better than it has any right to-but in terms of potential, digital's shortcomings are IMHO a technology that literally traces its origins to Thomas Edison.

[jsaliga]

Concerning information above 20KHz in music, this paper written by James Boyk of the Music Lab at CalTech disagrees with you, and so do I.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm#I

Hard drives can and do crash. We see it all the time at the tech support end of the computer business I work at, which I can't name. If you ask the technicians there for a failure rate on hard drives, the answer will be "100%." Your car engine doesn't have an unlimited service life and neither does your HD.The only reason this doesn't happen more visibly is that the computer is often obsoleted before the HD buys the farm.

I never said they didn't, and I certainly never said or suggested that one can run a hard disk forever.  I edited out the MTBF comment from my prior post because in retrospect that might be misleading.  The typical service lifecycle  of a hard disk of quality manufacture is about 5 years.  And within that lifecycle, current generation hard drives are very reliable.  Failure rates during the first 3 years of operation generally are very low...about 2%.  From 3 to 5 years the failure rate climbs gradually to about 12%.  And from 5 to 7 years the failure rate ramps up to 50%.  Regardless of the failure rate, only a fool would run their system without a backup.  To anyone who thinks backing up their digital music library is too great a burden...my advice is to stick to vinyl and CDs.  It remains my opinion that fears about hard disk failures are largely overblown.  A good backup strategy is 100% effective in mitigating hard disk failures, and storage is so cheap these days it is easy enough on the wallet to do.

--Jerome

[S Clark]

Well, you guys are much more knowledgeable about digital than I am.  I tried to get into computer file music 7-8 years ago and never could keep it stable.  After a year of frustration and bothering much more knowledgeable computer people for help, I gave up and went back to analogue.    An IT friend was out for a weekend a month or so ago and told me that my Western Digital external hard drives are too old to be stable... so he ordered one for me. When it arrived, I could not get my laptop to recognize it. 
Computers are not my thing. So in my case, vinyl sounds better than computers (which don't sound like anything since error messages don't make music)     Think I'll go spin some vinyl.  And you kids get off of my yard. 

[jsaliga]

 

And you kids get off of my yard.

 

I tried to get into computer file music 7-8 years ago and never could keep it stable.  After a year of frustration and bothering much more knowledgeable computer people for help, I gave up and went back to analogue.

You raise a fair point.  I have been using a computer as a source for 10 years and manage my music library and playback with J-River Media Center.  The knowledge and skill required to set up a system for music is often glossed over by power users and experts.  Piece of cake, right?  I'm an IT Professional with over 30 years of experience.  Every workstation in my home for the last 25 years I custom built from hand picked components.  I wouldn't take anything from HP, Dell, Lenovo, or Apple if you gave it to me for free.  A long time ago I used to custom build home audio/home theater PCs for friends for a modest fee.  I had to stop doing it because the requests for builds was taking up all of my spare time.  To put together a good, reliable computer-as-a-source system means you really need to know your business about hardware, the operating system you want to run it on, and the tools you are planning to use to playback and manage your media library.  It it is about as far away from plug-and-play as you can get, and a certain degree of expertise and patience is necessary to set up a system for home audio or video. 

Last year I wanted to add 4K video to my audio workstation.  My base system could already support it: 32 CPU cores, 128GB of RAM, and a RTX3070 video card.  I upgraded to a 42" 4K HDR monitor and put a Sonos soundbar on my desk.  I found the right software to get things set up, but making it all work involved a huge learning curve (even for an IT expert  such as myself), a lot of trial and error, and a lot of frustration.  After messing with it for a couple of weeks I was very close to throwing in the towel.  But I stuck with it and now I have a library of 250 4K UHD movies ripped to MKV files on a 18TB hard disk.  Is it something I would recommend...maybe.  But only to those who have a high tolerance for goal frustration and masochistic tendencies where computer hardware and software integration are concerned.  To everyone else...run away.

One final note, I have always advocated for people to do what they feel is best for them.  I have never felt that any audio related decision I have made in the last 25 years required external validation from someone else.  Frankly, I don't really care what anyone thinks of my system or my choices.  I do it all to please me, not them.  I generally hand out advise very sparingly because what works for me and what I like may not work well for someone else.  I don't think there is any harm in asking for advice, but I cringe every time I see someone letting people they don't really know make their decisions for them.  In short, it really isn't my place to tell someone else what to do, though I am happy to share my experience.  Where you will see me saying the most is in discussion of facts, their practical applications, and how we might interpret/use them.  Debating opinions, on the other hand, seems less productive to me and often strikes me as a fool's errand.  So I really try to avoid getting dragged into arguing opinions -- with varying degrees of success.  You aren't going to persuade someone who thinks otherwise that  x is better than y, so what's the point in arguing over it? 

Cheers.

--Jerome