Vinyl Asylum Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers! Setup guides and Vinyl FAQ.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Vinyl Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Yes and no. . . .

Posted by David Smith on May 26, 2015 at 19:13:39

In Reply to: RE: Yes and no. . . . posted by flood2 on May 26, 2015 at 18:34:38:

"You comments about "accuracy" make even less sense especially with LPs today which are cut from a digital source and have gone through an additional D/A stage before the rest of the vinyl mastering process begins."

That may be true of some, but certainly not all.

"You mentioned the example of violin overtones and the OP mentioned brass instruments sounding "bad". I don't understand what is meant by "bad" in this context although I attempted to enquire if "bright" or "harsh" was meant.
Could you clarify in more detail what you mean by analogue having improved accuracy in reproduction of overtones and whether you consider LPs cut in the 50s and 60s to also be superior to digital equivalents? You may be aware that the original recordings were often limited to 15kHz. I have many jazz LPs from that era where the sleeve proudly proclaims a flat response up to "15 000 cps". Would you consider FM Radio to be sufficient in reproducing violin overtones? Again the bandwidth is limited to 15kHz to allow for stereo."

Sure, I mean that strings, cymbals and brass (in particular, but I would also include bass) are reproduced with more tonal accuracy in analog. I don't think response above 15k is particularly crucial, cetainly not in that regard. With respect to that, I think I'd add that many or most modern recordings, including reissues of older recordings, suffer from exaggerated highs. It sounds impressive and people tend to associate highs with "good sound" for whatever reason. Generally speaking, I consider lps cut in the 50s and 60s to be superior to digital versions of the same recordings.

"With a digital copy from the analogue master, the relative amplitude is going to remain approximately the same (allowing for the band-limiting analogue filter passband response depending on the bandwidth of the system), therefore the ratios of harmonics with respect to the corresponding fundamentals will be very similar; in which case the encoded signal will be closer to the master."

On paper, perhaps.

"My LP transcriptions to CD sound indistinguishable from the source both subjectively and objectively via measurement."

I don't have that same experience, though I do agree that they can sound good and often better than digital reissues.

"My point is that much of the negatives heard in CD compared to a good LP are down to poor choices in the mastering (including dither and noiseshaping). When done properly, the digital version HAS to be more faithful to the master for the reasons given! For starters, once in the digital domain you don't add wow/flutter and you don't add spurious tones due to HF signal modulation from LF signals."

Again, perhaps on paper, looking at the particular variables you are looking at. But the digital version doesn't HAVE to be more faithful, for one it's been converted to digital! (And back of course). That's a pretty big issue you're not including. No doubt digital is superior to analog in terms of wow/flutter type issues, but I don't find that a critical issue in terms of the levels of wow/flutter in high-quality equipment.

"If your LP provides a technically better result than the CD, then the finger would point to your digital replay equipment being inferior to your analogue rig. From a playback perspective there is absolutely no basis to your claim assuming SOTA playback equipment for analogue and digital - cartridges typically give 15 to 20% harmonic distortion at 15k to 20kHz. That level of distortion may "sound" better to you, but don't pretend that it is more "accurate"!"

I'm not speaking exclusively with respect to my rig, it doesn't matter if that's where I make the comparison or at a studio (with SOTA equipment). Your assuming that it's the 20% distortion at 20k that is the basis of the difference I am speaking of, by all means add that to a recording and I'll let you know whether it sounds exactly like vinyl.

I'm not sure exactly where the difference of our experience lies, we probably appreciate different aspects of sound. Different strokes, no biggie. I do disagree with the notion of digital being inherently more accurate in reproducing an analog signal.

Dave

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---