SACD produces analogue like sound?

[jrhymeammo]

http://www.analoglovers.com/page3.html
So I was on that new vinyl website Bernd had told us about. And here's the article I came across:

"The "warmer" sound of analog records was generally believed to be an artifact of the dynamic harmonic distortion characteristic of Vinyl LPs. However with the introduction of SACD this was proven incorrect as SACD has much of the same "warm" sound of LP Vinyl."

When I played with $150 Soby SACD player, that was not something I noticed. SACD will destroy CD when it comes to cllarity and dynamics, but warmth was something I definelty didnt hear. That certain Sony model maye have something to do with it or my personal taste. But in general I would like to hear some opinion on that from some of our SACD buffs.
Warm? or warmer compared to CD sound?

[Dusty Chalk]

Well, it should be more phase accurate than CD, so maybe that's what they were hearing. It seems to make the digititis less audible. To me, anyway.

[Feanor]

http://www.analoglovers.com/page3.html
Warm? or warmer compared to CD sound?

The "problem" might be my ears rather than my system, but I can hear much (or any?) difference between CD and SACD where both were produced at the same time. Granted, I'm 61 years old and can't hear anything much above 10kHz.

It's a different matter when the CD and SACD layers where mastered at different times. For example, I have the hybrid SACD version of Carlos Kleiber's Beethoven's 5th & 7th; I can hear subtle differences between the CD and SACD stereo layers -- mostly detail and ambience, not warmth -- but I strongly suspect the CD layer is just DG's older, "Original bit processing" version, not a remastering, so we don't get an apples-to-apples comparision. On recent recordings made with hi-rez and multi-channel in mind, there is no significant difference.

In general, comparing SACD stereo from my Sony SCD-CE775, CD's ripped to Apple Lossless and played through my M-Audio Audiophile USB, and the CD itself played the Sony, if I were forced to choose, I say the quality is in that order. However the differences, if any, are insignificant. (see my motto below ...)

[kexodusc]

If you associate "warmth" with "good" or "better", than maybe this thread matters. I certainly don't. Might be some people's preference, but it certainly isn't everyone's.
When I go to a live performance, the acoustics are anything but "warm". Especially non-amplified music in large venues.

I have a secondary DVD player that was under $200, plays SACD's, and sounds better than my turntable which costs more.
I think the answer is in the mixing - my old Zeppelin and Allman Bros LPs absolutely sound better on LP than the CD remasters. My modern LP's don't sound as good as the CD counterparts, likely because the engineers assumed CD was going to be the dominant format during the mastering process.
Maybe some of these SACD's were re-mastered with pleasing LP owners in mind?

Alot of early CD releases were done quite terribly, many still are - seems these days its clip-or-die on a lot new releases. I think this gives the format a bad name, though the blame is misdirected to the format itself, a bit unfairly in my opinion.

[jrhymeammo]

I just wanna lay this out here. I wasnt criticing that statement at all. We all have different tastes. I thought SACD sounded way too aggressive and perhaps overly dynamic. Who knows maybe that's how it
s supposed to sound, or maybe the way it was mixed. Dynamic range is one of the selling feature of SACD so engineers may have added extra emphasis on mixers. We will never really know. It's nice to hear some people prefer Hi-Rez music on cheaper players as oppose to more costly devices. I think some of us have this definite idea that higher price tag will always equal to greater pleasure. Also I dont think newer technology willt always yield better product.

I prefer music on vinyl, especially on older recordings. I do agree with Kex to a certain degree on new music. The difference in sound isnt breathtaking as some of us hear on older music, but I don't think CDs sound "as good" as LPs on music. I own some RVG editions and think they sound great considering most of them were recorded in late 50's and early 60s. I've acquire same recordings on LP, clarity and range of sound will never be touched by CDs. I am interested to hear the difference in new music on LPS against SACDs though. Problem is that I may have hard time finding SACD player that doesnt pierce my ears. Has anybody done this?

-JRA

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I just wanna lay this out here. I wasnt criticing that statement at all. We all have different tastes. I thought SACD sounded way too aggressive and perhaps overly dynamic. Who knows maybe that's how it
s supposed to sound, or maybe the way it was mixed. Dynamic range is one of the selling feature of SACD so engineers may have added extra emphasis on mixers. We will never really know. It's nice to hear some people prefer Hi-Rez music on cheaper players as oppose to more costly devices. I think some of us have this definite idea that higher price tag will always equal to greater pleasure. Also I dont think newer technology willt always yield better product.

Actually SACD does sound markedly better on more expensive equipment, or even tweaked mid priced stuff. If you have never heard SACD on a DCS P8i CD to DSD player, Varona master clock, and DCS upsampler combination, then you have heard SACD in the purest most accurate form. This combination will set you back about $20,000. After hearing this myself, I found it very difficult to go back to my $300 upconverting DVD/SACD player as good as it sounds.

There are many ways that DSD encoded music is done. If its a new product, usually it is recorded in DSD, edited in DSD, and mastered in DSD, then downconverted to 16/44.1khz for CD. The extra dynamic comes from the fact that DSD is sampled at a much higher rate than redbook CD. Sometimes the CD layer has to be compressed a bit to keep from overloading the D/A converters. Other ways enclude taking a high resolution recording from a PCM source, and encode to DSD which produces good and bad results depending on the quality of the mix and mastering.

I prefer music on vinyl, especially on older recordings. I do agree with Kex to a certain degree on new music. The difference in sound isnt breathtaking as some of us hear on older music, but I don't think CDs sound "as good" as LPs on music. I own some RVG editions and think they sound great considering most of them were recorded in late 50's and early 60s. I've acquire same recordings on LP, clarity and range of sound will never be touched by CDs. I am interested to hear the difference in new music on LPS against SACDs though. Problem is that I may have hard time finding SACD player that doesnt pierce my ears. Has anybody done this?

-JRA

Actually you cannot say the LP's clarity and range of sound will never be touched by CD on certain recordings. It really depends on how it was mastered, and what the primary release format will be. If you record in PCM for CD, mix and master it for that format, but release the same mix on LP, it will trash the LP mix most certainly. If you record in analog with the intention of releasing it to LP, and use the same mix for CD, the CD will sound like crap. The best way to enjoy DSD/SACD, and the way to get it in its purest form is to avoid any bass managment and delay which must convert the signal to PCM for processing. The most deciding factor is how clean your player signal path is, and that it has quality D/A conversion so as not to degrade the signal when converting it from digital to analog.

[jrhymeammo]

Dear Sir,

You are right about sound quaity relying on how they were recorded/mastered. I have some LPs that were digitallyt remastered and sounds like crap.
I cannot say I've heard every digital setup out there, but I just prefer vinyl is general. And trust me, if I hear a new/digital format that is "fairly" affordable, and sounds better than records I would jump in in a heart beat. So far, I havent heard anything yet. Sure, I loved the sound of SACD on Esoteric player, but like l said, must be reasoanbly priced.
I guess this topic weasnt supposed to be brought up to begin with.
I say clarity, then some would say bright
I say deep, then some would say excessive.
I say boring, then some would say neutral.

[Dusty Chalk]

Actually you cannot say the LP's clarity and range of sound will never be touched by CD on certain recordings.

Watch me: LP's clarity and range of sound will never be touched by CD on most every recording. I don't care if it was mixed in 16/44.1 -- the best CD could do is equal it, never better it. Unless they deliberately sabotaged the LP release.

It really depends on how it was mastered, and what the primary release format will be. If you record in PCM for CD, mix and master it for that format, but release the same mix on LP, it will trash the LP mix most certainly. If you record in analog with the intention of releasing it to LP, and use the same mix for CD, the CD will sound like crap.

This is pure mythical conjecture, and it sounds like it was purveyed by record executives and CD apologists. I have several recordings which are on both vinyl and CD, and in most cases, they are the same mix. Accurate is accurate. I can hear "into" the noise floor of vinyl deeper than I can hear into the dither noise floor of CD (which, by design, one cannot hear into).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Watch me: LP's clarity and range of sound will never be touched by CD on most every recording. I don't care if it was mixed in 16/44.1 -- the best CD could do is equal it, never better it. Unless they deliberately sabotaged the LP release.

This is opinion. and opinon only and neither truth nor fact. I would refer when looking for fact to someone who has objective, experienced, and scientific knowledge of the record/playback chain for a much more accurate response. First the rules of RIAA preephmasis on recording and deempnsis on playback do not apply to redbook standards. If they were applied on a CD release it would sound muffled and bass heavy as there is no deemphais in PCM decoding. If you apply a flat frequency response as you would with a CD mix, the LP would have little to no bass below 100hz, and way to much output at 1000hz and above. That is why you cannot mix and master for one, and apply it to the other. Each has to have their own mix and mastering done.

Secondly I would put the DCS upsampling CD player, P8I master clock, and PCM to DSD coverter combination against any turntable at any price with all things being equal(each mix tweaked for its own format). This combination, especially if it was derived from a DSD bitstream, will have a much smoother less hard sound than raw PCM, and sounds much closer to analog with the limitation of dynamic range, groove noise and its resultant higher noise floor. This combination also raises the height of the aliasing filter to prevent its audibility within the audble audio band. This will restore a recordingd natural imaging and ambience recovery. Because the LP medium must touch its media to get it sound, it is subject to wow and flutter, and inconsistant playback speed which CD does not have to content with.

This is pure mythical conjecture, and it sounds like it was purveyed by record executives and CD apologists. I have several recordings which are on both vinyl and CD, and in most cases, they are the same mix. Accurate is accurate. I can hear "into" the noise floor of vinyl deeper than I can hear into the dither noise floor of CD (which, by design, one cannot hear into).

Sorry dusty, but what I said is fact based on experience and science, not personal anecdotal observation. The CD and the LP may be derived from the same mix, but they have different equalization of they would not sound accurate with played back on their respect meduim. LP's require the RIAA equalzation curve to be applied during cutting, and during playback. This equalization would not sound very good on CD. CD's require a relatively flat frequency response that does not sound very good on LP. That is a fact, and if you were a studio engineer with any experience with both the LP and the CD medium, you would know this.

Besides, who wants to listen into the noise floor anyway? This is no valuable musical information there. What I want to hear is quality musical signals reproduced as closely to the recorded sounds as possible. Dither is not always needed in digital mastering or playback, so the audible effects of dither are not always present in every recording. Sighted listening along with the common noise level of most room may allow you to hear the benefits of a preferred medium better than one that you do not desire. Any sighted audio listening is not objective listening, its subjective listen with all of the biases applied.

[Dusty Chalk]

You keep leaning on the RIAA equalization curve as a crutch for vinyl -- what about digital filtering? That totally screws up phase response (especially at 16/44.1). And this:

This is opinion. and opinon only and neither truth nor fact. I would refer when looking for fact to someone who has objective, experienced, and scientific knowledge of the record/playback chain for a much more accurate response. First the rules of RIAA preephmasis on recording and deempnsis on playback do not apply to redbook standards. If they were applied on a CD release it would sound muffled and bass heavy as there is no deemphais in PCM decoding. If you apply a flat frequency response as you would with a CD mix, the LP would have little to no bass below 100hz, and way to much output at 1000hz and above. That is why you cannot mix and master for one, and apply it to the other. Each has to have their own mix and mastering done.

...is entirely a red herring. What you're describing is the mechanics of record playback -- you don't think there's anything going on between when the bits get read by the lens and the analog outputs? You'd be lying to yourself. If you submitted an analog signal to that kind of processing, it'd sound like carp, too. It's apples and oranges.

I, for one, listen into the noise floor. It's your opinion that there is no musically useful information there, it's my opinion that there is.

BTW, there is fact amongst my admittedly opinionated blatherings, just as there is with yours. It's a matter of trade-offs -- what's important to you? If lack of "digititis" is important to you (and it's getting that way to me), then vinyl is the way to go, even if it was mastered digitally.

And putting the dCS rig up against any vinyl player? Oh, that's fair. Who on here can afford that? Less than 1%, I guarantee you.

I'll turn it around on you, so you can feel how fair it is -- I'll put the best top-of-the-line vinyl rig up against any CD player (so far, the best one I've heard is the VPI Scout, and I'm not sure what phono amp I was hearing -- but I've heard the Musical Fidelity X-LP2, which is pretty darn good [that's the dual monoblock one]). I guarantee that it will be anecdotally more pleasing to listen to, no matter how it measures.

[Feanor]

Watch me: LP's clarity and range of sound will never be touched by CD on most every recording. I don't care if it was mixed in 16/44.1 -- the best CD could do is equal it, never better it. Unless they deliberately sabotaged the LP release.This is pure mythical conjecture, and it sounds like it was purveyed by record executives and CD apologists. I have several recordings which are on both vinyl and CD, and in most cases, they are the same mix. Accurate is accurate. I can hear "into" the noise floor of vinyl deeper than I can hear into the dither noise floor of CD (which, by design, one cannot hear into).

A couple of years ago a member here who was real vinyl fan, recorded some of his vinyl on to CDR using a CD recorder. He discovered that the CDR recordings reproduced the vinyl sound essentially perfectly, that is without "digititis" or harshness sometimes associated with CD. His conclusion was that there was nothing inherently wrong with the CD medium and that its problems, such as it is, are the result of recording practice.

By the way, He remained a vinyl lover despite this conclusion.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You keep leaning on the RIAA equalization curve as a crutch for vinyl -- what about digital filtering? That totally screws up phase response (especially at 16/44.1).

Sorry Dusty, with oversampling techniques in most decent CD players in the mix, filters are no longer an issue. As a matter of fact there have been no CD players manufactuered in the last 10 years that has had issues with brick wall filters. With most CD players doing a minimum of 4X oversampling(that means the filter response kicks in at 705khz or so) that means the filter effect on the audio would occur at that frequency. How much music can be found at 752Khz? Can we hear any of it? Woops, there goes your argument.

RIAA is not a crutch point, its a neccessity and a requirement for the format.

I, for one, listen into the noise floor. It's your opinion that there is no musically useful information there, it's my opinion that there is.

There isn't any audible musical information in the noise floor, its all noise. If there is any musical information there it is masked by noise.

[/quote]BTW, there is fact amongst my admittedly opinionated blatherings, just as there is with yours. It's a matter of trade-offs -- what's important to you? If lack of "digititis" is important to you (and it's getting that way to me), then vinyl is the way to go, even if it was mastered digitally.[/quote]

Dusty, if you have actually worked with digital EQ on vinyl, you would know that it doesn't work very well with vinyl sources, and the few times I have heard digitally EQ'd vinyl it was a sonic diaster. I think anyone with a long history of vinyl listening would agree with me. If you are going to do analog, then you should record in analog, mix in analog, master in analog, and reproduce in analog. That is the best way to preserve anlog's unique sound. I happen to like digital recordings, and prefer DSD/SACD that do not have :digititis" built in to the process. PCM signals inherently sound ditial, but good digital is as good as good analog. Its all a matter of taste. I like great sounding audio whether its digital or analog, I am not that polarized or narrow minded on this issue. In twenty three years of mixing and mastering audio, I have learned it is all done in the recording, mixing, and mastering process no matter which format is chosen.

And putting the dCS rig up against any vinyl player? Oh, that's fair. Who on here can afford that? Less than 1%, I guarantee you.

The point is not who can afford it, but what represent a high quality digital chain. This would be the chain of my choice in a vinyl shootout.

[/quote]I'll turn it around on you, so you can feel how fair it is -- I'll put the best top-of-the-line vinyl rig up against any CD player (so far, the best one I've heard is the VPI Scout, and I'm not sure what phono amp I was hearing -- but I've heard the Musical Fidelity X-LP2, which is pretty darn good [that's the dual monoblock one]). I guarantee that it will be anecdotally more pleasing to listen to, no matter how it measures.[/QUOTE]

You cannot make this claim without knowing what is pleasing to me. That is one thing you cannot decide for me, and only I can decide for myself. Secondly I would want to choose my digital chain and not have that decided for me. The dCS chain is what I would choose, and not just a stand alone CD player. However I would put the dCS upsampling CD player against the musical fidelity preamp any day.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A couple of years ago a member here who was real vinyl fan, recorded some of his vinyl on to CDR using a CD recorder. He discovered that the CDR recordings reproduced the vinyl sound essentially perfectly, that is without "digititis" or harshness sometimes associated with CD. His conclusion was that there was nothing inherently wrong with the CD medium and that its problems, such as it is, are the result of recording practice.

By the way, He remained a vinyl lover despite this conclusion.

I agree with this conclusion, especially if he used a recorder with a good oversampling routine. No filter interference to worry about, and the integrety of the signals would remain to well beyond our hearing.

[Dusty Chalk]

Sorry Dusty, with oversampling techniques in most decent CD players in the mix, filters are no longer an issue. As a matter of fact there have been no CD players manufactuered in the last 10 years that has had issues with brick wall filters. With most CD players doing a minimum of 4X oversampling(that means the filter response kicks in at 705khz or so) that means the filter effect on the audio would occur at that frequency. How much music can be found at 752Khz? Can we hear any of it? Woops, there goes your argument.

I can tell the difference between analog and "most decent CD players". Whoops, there goes your argument.

There isn't any audible musical information in the noise floor, its all noise. If there is any musical information there it is masked by noise.

No, that's exactly my point -- it's not. What you're describing is dither. The noise floor on analog is surface noise, etc. It masks nothing. The information is still there, and with a clean record, and a well set-up rig, you're getting a lot more than the equivalent of 16/44.1, I don't care how much you upsample it. Using the same digital encoders, I can record both 16/44.1 and 24/96, and I can hear the difference -- that tells me that the analog information coming in is higher than 16/44.1. There is more information.

Dusty, if you have actually worked with digital EQ on vinyl, you would know that it doesn't work very well with vinyl sources, and the few times I have heard digitally EQ'd vinyl it was a sonic diaster.

You're going off into left field. Have you heard digitally eq'd vinyl at 24/96, or at lower res? Unlike you, I'm not going to assume your answer -- I'm asking.

I think anyone with a long history of vinyl listening would agree with me. If you are going to do analog, then you should record in analog, mix in analog, master in analog, and reproduce in analog.

Well of course you would, I would never argue that point -- quit putting words in my mouth. We were talking about a worst-case scenario in which the master tapes only existed in low-ish res digital -- E.G. 16/44.1 -- and whether or not one would rather hear that from vinyl, or from CD. My stance, as I apparently have to reiterate it, as you've seem to've forgotten it by now, is that even in that worst case scenario, vinyl will at worst sound as bad as the CD. If the original master tapes were higher res, then the vinyl will sound better. Therefore, there is no instance in which CD will "trump" vinyl.

PCM signals inherently sound ditial, but good digital is as good as good analog.

Fact? Or opinion? Never mind, you answer it in your next sentence.

Its all a matter of taste.

Yes, it is, on that we agree.

I like great sounding audio whether its digital or analog, I am not that polarized or narrow minded on this issue. In twenty three years of mixing and mastering audio, I have learned it is all done in the recording, mixing, and mastering process no matter which format is chosen.

I don't know, you sound like your mind is pretty set -- not that there's anything wrong with that, mine is too -- and you're trying to convince me.

I'll turn it around on you, so you can feel how fair it is -- I'll put the best top-of-the-line vinyl rig up against any CD player (so far, the best one I've heard is the VPI Scout, and I'm not sure what phono amp I was hearing -- but I've heard the Musical Fidelity X-LP2, which is pretty darn good [that's the dual monoblock one]). I guarantee that it will be anecdotally more pleasing to listen to, no matter how it measures.

You cannot make this claim without knowing what is pleasing to me. That is one thing you cannot decide for me, and only I can decide for myself. Secondly I would want to choose my digital chain and not have that decided for me. The dCS chain is what I would choose, and not just a stand alone CD player. However I would put the dCS upsampling CD player against the musical fidelity preamp any day.

Well, that's what you did when you claimed that the dCS rig would trounce any vinyl rig. So good -- if you're peeved that my comparison was unfair, then it did its job. You understand exactly how unfair you were being.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I can tell the difference between analog and "most decent CD players". Whoops, there goes your argument

You can tell the difference between analog and most decent players? Have you heard all analog and digital rigs? If not, then your arguement is BS! Nobody here has made any claim that there is no sonic difference between analog and digital, so were did that come from, ya bum?

.No, that's exactly my point -- it's not. What you're describing is dither. The noise floor on analog is surface noise, etc. It masks nothing. The information is still there, and with a clean record, and a well set-up rig, you're getting a lot more than the equivalent of 16/44.1, I don't care how much you upsample it.

You are trying to make the claim that analog is higher resolution than digital. That is a claim that nobody else has made except delusional and irrational vinyl lovers with absolute no scientific proof its true. I was not describing dither at all, and the noise floor of analog vinyl is not just surface noise, its is microphone noise, mixer noise, microphone cable noise, ambient noise and surface noise.all combined together just like you would get with digital. How often do find a well setup rig and a perfectly clean record. Try next to never! And to get it, would cost much more than a digital rig with equivalent performance. Everytime a stylus touches a record groove, that groove is deteriorated. The same does not go for digital sound. Therefore every play of the record results in that much more deterioration. You would have to bring to the table a freshly cut record to keep up with CD that could have been played a thousand times. The maintainence of vinyl is time consuming with no gaurantee of optimal playback. I have worked with both mediums at the recording and mixing level to understand completely the pluses and minuses of both, and how time consuming LP is to work with from that level to get it right. Digital does not require half the time to make it sound equal to LP.

Lastly you cannot redefine the hearing mechanism. There is a point in both mediums where noise is louder than the musical content. That happens below the noise floor where the noise dominates the amplitude of the signal. You are no more sensitive to analog noise than to digital noise, both inhibit the ear from hearing the musical content, and that is science, not claims of super human hearing abilities.

Using the same digital encoders, I can record both 16/44.1 and 24/96, and I can hear the difference -- that tells me that the analog information coming in is higher than 16/44.1.

Have you ever actually done this, or are you just making a unsubstantiated claim. It has not been proven, and may be impossible to tell that LP has more musical information that 16bit 44.1khz digital. The fact that you can record to different bit and sample rates, and hear the difference has absolutely no relationship to what you would hear from a vinyl record. The are too disimular and yield such different sonic results from the same signals. This statement is a stretch equaled to the distance from Paris to Los Angeles.

There is more information.You're going off into left field. Have you heard digitally eq'd vinyl at 24/96, or at lower res?

I have never heard digitally eq'd vinyl at 24/96khz and no one else has either. I have heard vinyl digitally mastered and mixed in 16bit 44.1khz, and it sounded very degraded compared to the originally recorded signal. Why? Because it had to make a trip from the analog recording method (tape), to digital for mixing and mastering, and back to analog for playback. By the time it reached the cutter it had passed through two conversions, a mixing board, and the mastering process. Totally unnecessary when you know you are releasing to LP. Smart audio engineers would stay all analog for analog playback, and all digital for digital playback. This way there is less processing and no conversion till playback at least for the digital signal.

We were talking about a worst-case scenario in which the master tapes only existed in low-ish res digital -- E.G. 16/44.1 -- and whether or not one would rather hear that from vinyl, or from CD.

With everyones taste being different, it is impossible to say whether one would rather hear digital or analog. Each medium masks signal deterioration very differently. You would have to do a DBT and evalutate the statistical data to tell that.

My stance, as I apparently have to reiterate it, as you've seem to've forgotten it by now, is that even in that worst case scenario, vinyl will at worst sound as bad as the CD. If the original master tapes were higher res, then the vinyl will sound better.

You cannot translate this stance past youself. You have never tested this theory, nor have you tested any listener for what they deem as unacceptable distortion from either medium. Both formats can sound bloated, thin, harsh, muffled, bright, can have image restrictions and contractions,and be depth truncated in the soundfield. You would have to DBT the master tape next to the analog and digital outputs to make any determination, as of yet nobody has done any such thing. So your theory is purely hypothetical, and not tested or factual in any way.

Therefore, there is no instance in which CD will "trump" vinyl.Fact? Or opinion?

Pure opinion and not fact. You have not tested this theory past yourself and your own personal biases, so it cannot be fact.

Never mind, you answer it in your next sentence.Yes, it is, on that we agree.I don't know, you sound like your mind is pretty set -- not that there's anything wrong with that, mine is too -- and you're trying to convince me

Actually I wasn't trying to convince anyone, I was merely countering your opinion with facts. Whether that changes your mind is irrelevant to me.

.Well, that's what you did when you claimed that the dCS rig would trounce any vinyl rig. So good -- if you're peeved that my comparison was unfair, then it did its job. You understand exactly how unfair you were being.

You do not know me well enough to know if I was peeved, indifferent, annoyed, or just dismissive. So no job was really done, I know that you would like to believe that you have the power to influence my emotions, but the FACT is you don't. I didn't really think I was particularly unfair. If I am going to do a comparison, I choose equipement that can do the job the best, not adequently. My test would be DBT the original master tapes versus the best analog and digital playback systems, then let folks decide for themselves, and not be coached by a biased vinyl lover hell bent on making a point where there is no point. Its all subjective. .

[jrhymeammo]

Dear Sir,

Would you agree that Vinyls offer more continous signal than CDs? Let's assume records arent damaged. If you wish to include microscopic dust particles grinding between stylus and reocrds, no need to reply. I'm sure I can say something about that on CDs also, since nobody listen to music in NASA labs.

I'm curious.

-JRA

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Dear Sir,

Would you agree that Vinyls offer more continous signal than CDs?

No I wouldn't. A digital bitstream is as continuous as analog is.

Let's assume records arent damaged. If you wish to include microscopic dust particles grinding between stylus and reocrds, no need to reply. I'm sure I can say something about that on CDs also, since nobody listen to music in NASA labs.

I'm curious.

-JRA

CD's are far less suseptible to dirt and scratches effecting its sound thanks to error correction than LP's. Not saying that a CD cannot skip if real dirty, but it has to be REAL dirty.

[Bernd]

Well, that is a great discussion and it stayed civil.
My 2 cts. I use both media, but prefer without fail the analogue playback chain. I believe that I own decent equipment and can enjoy both without any dissatisfaction.
Apart from analogues more pleasing sound to my ears I also like to mention the visual stimulation that Vinyl gives me. I happen to enjoy the holding and cleaning of records, watch the record rotate and see the stylus do it's job.
I for one have heard a dcs top of the line playback system and it is indeed very special. As is the Zanden CD system. Both were compared to an SME 30/2 and Series V arm with a Koetsu Jade Platinum Cartridge. All tube phono amp and amps into ART Speakers.
Would have been happy with either set up just enjoyed whatever Vinyl brought to the party more. Call it organic or whatever. To me it just sounds that little bit more real. And that's all that matters.
I have abandoned Vinyl before in the 80s (perfect sound forever, HA) and I will not be that easily convinced this time. I will be watching and listening.

Great thread.

Peace

Bernd

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, that is a great discussion and it stayed civil.
My 2 cts. I use both media, but prefer without fail the analogue playback chain. I believe that I own decent equipment and can enjoy both without any dissatisfaction.
Apart from analogues more pleasing sound to my ears I also like to mention the visual stimulation that Vinyl gives me. I happen to enjoy the holding and cleaning of records, watch the record rotate and see the stylus do it's job.
I for one have heard a dcs top of the line playback system and it is indeed very special. As is the Zanden CD system. Both were compared to an SME 30/2 and Series V arm with a Koetsu Jade Platinum Cartridge. All tube phono amp and amps into ART Speakers.
Would have been happy with either set up just enjoyed whatever Vinyl brought to the party more. Call it organic or whatever. To me it just sounds that little bit more real. And that's all that matters.
I have abandoned Vinyl before in the 80s (perfect sound forever, HA) and I will not be that easily convinced this time. I will be watching and listening.

Great thread.

Peace

Bernd

See, this is a rational logical reply. You say you just like vinyl more, not make claims that are unrealistic, untried and untested. Your response is completely subjective, just like an opinion should be.

[kexodusc]

I've observed that the mature audiophiles who've been around since the days vinyl was the dominant format, before CD emerged, for the most part have difficulty accepting the CD sound. I attribute this to many a failed experiment in the early days of CD where the mixes were transferred inadequately from analog to CD, but I don't doubt there were some LP's that wiped the floor with CD's.

Likewise, the younger generation of audiophiles I've met believe that LP's cannot match a well recorded CD, let alone SACD (though a small subset prefer tubes). Not because they haven't heard or haven't tried, I really think it's more a question of what they are familiar with.

And there's exceptions to both groups obviously, just a casual observation.

I liken this front-wheel vs rear-wheel drive. I grew up driving RWD on old cars, and I still can't quite get use to FWD, and prefer RWD - especially modern versions. My mother-in-law really feels safer and in better control in a FWD. Maybe with respect to analog-vs-digital it's just a matter of what you learned was the proper sound skewing your thought process to believe one or the other is better.

I own a modest collection of about 46 LP's -give or take - and they get a work out several times a week, but I prefer most of the SACD and even 2nd generation CD remasters (the initial transfers were terrible - Led Zeppelin and the Allman Bros in particular). I believe digital sounds better without that false, unrealistic "warmth" that many audiophiles enjoy and believe is more realistic. I like a well produced CD better than a well produced LP. I suppose my main speakers might only perform like some $3000-$4000 or less commercial models, so I'm not terribly high end, but that shouldn't matter.

Here's the kicker - when it comes to my guitar gear, I still prefer the sound of tubes to SS. Even though there's a some great SS gear out there now, I just can't be fooled into making my Gibson Lucille sound like it's B.B. playing (not that I sound anything like Mr. King but the tone can be mostly replicated).

[E-Stat]

I attribute this to many a failed experiment in the early days of CD where the mixes were transferred inadequately from analog to CD, but I don't doubt there were some LP's that wiped the floor with CD's.

Another reason has to do with the type of music one listens to. For the most part, rock is electronic and less demanding than purely acoustical venues. I still listen to Allman Bros and Zep every once in a while (have albums on both formats), but I would use neither to evaluate any kind of audio component for qualitative differences.

Redbook is still harmonically sterile and does not do full justice to symphonic or even guys like Michael Hedges. His twelve string does not shimmer the same on CD. Having said that, I still listen to CDs more than my 500 odd hundred record collection. Never switched to SACD because I didn't want to go through yet another format change investment for what might be at best a 5% availability overlap.

rw

[Dusty Chalk]

You can tell the difference between analog and most decent players? Have you heard all analog and digital rigs? If not, then your arguement is BS!

Ah, the classic, "if you haven't heard every possible combination, then you can't make any claim" argument.

You do realize that you are making the opposite claim, and the same argument can be thrown back at you in reverse? Have you heard every vinyl rig? I'm not saying you should, that's just the equivalent ridiculous statement in reverse. I only think you should hear one good analog rig, and it doesn't need to be ultra-expensive as in your argument (the VPI Scout system is not expensive by audiophile standards).

You are trying to make the claim that analog is higher resolution than digital.

Yes.

That is a claim that nobody else has made except delusional and irrational vinyl lovers with absolute no scientific proof its true.

No.

I was not describing dither at all, and the noise floor of analog vinyl is not just surface noise, its is microphone noise, mixer noise, microphone cable noise, ambient noise and surface noise.

Most of those things are inherent in both digital and analog recording process, and should therefore cancel each other out in a digital vs. analog debate.

all combined together just like you would get with digital. How often do find a well setup rig and a perfectly clean record. Try next to never!

I have a friend who has a couple of decent rigs, and we get excellent results every time we listen.

And to get it, would cost much more than a digital rig with equivalent performance.

Not only is this not a fact, but an opinion, but it's also wrong.

Everytime a stylus touches a record groove, that groove is deteriorated.

Not as much as you think -- and I don't tend to listen to the same record thousands of times.

The same does not go for digital sound.

Sigh. You're bringing up a new point. And I will not argue it. I agree that any mechanical medium will produce slight deterioration with every play. Do you know what? My anecdotal personal experience is that in a well setup system, it's not audible. It only takes one exception for me to contradict your universal truths. Therefore, even one anecdotal piece of evidence makes you wrong.

Digital does not require half the time to make it sound equal to LP.

Sigh -- agreed. Would it surprise you for me to admit that both mediums have their plusses and their minusses? I thought I said that before, but I'll say it again -- they both have their plusses and minusses. The point is what is important to me. I'll spend 10 times the effort to get 10 times the fidelity (I'm not saying that's what the numbers are for vinyl, but...something like that...).

Lastly you cannot redefine the hearing mechanism. There is a point in both mediums where noise is louder than the musical content. That happens below the noise floor where the noise dominates the amplitude of the signal.

But my point is that with analog, even when the signal to noise ratio is 1/1 (I.E. really bad), I can still hear the signal. With dither (I.E. one of the main components of the digital noise floor), one cannot. And that's by design -- I wouldn't want to hear undithered digital signals.

You are no more sensitive to analog noise than to digital noise, both inhibit the ear from hearing the musical content, and that is science, not claims of super human hearing abilities.

I'm not claiming superhuman hearing, I'm characterizing the differences in the noise. It's just different, that's all.

Have you ever actually done this, or are you just making a unsubstantiated claim.

Alesis Masterlink ML9600 -- rated class A recording device by Stereophile in this month's issue. I have one. And yes, I've done it. As well as record 24/96 and 24/88.2, to see if I could tell the difference in the downsampling algorithms when I mastered to CD.

It has not been proven, and may be impossible to tell that LP has more musical information that 16bit 44.1khz digital.

Now this is an unsubstantiated claim. And just plain wrong. I have analog, 24/96, and 16/44.1 copies of most of the tracks from Alan Parsons Project's I, Robot, and do you know what? They all sound different. I guarantee you, you will be able to hear the difference. There is just plain more information there. Worlds apart.

The fact that you can record to different bit and sample rates, and hear the difference has absolutely no relationship to what you would hear from a vinyl record.

If the differences can be captured by the same recording device -- this, to me, is proof positive that the difference is there in the incoming signal.

I have never heard digitally eq'd vinyl at 24/96khz and no one else has either.

Echos (the Pink Floyd compilation) is a digitally mastered set of records. And if I recall correctly, 24/96. Even if not, I'm sure others exist. So again, WRONG. Get with the times.

I have heard vinyl digitally mastered and mixed in 16bit 44.1khz, and it sounded very degraded compared to the originally recorded signal.

Unholy carp, did you just agree with me, that analog sounds better than digital (at least, better than 16/44.1)!?!?!

Oh, and the question -- you seem to keep wanting to go down this tangent -- is not whether or not analog will sound worse if it's mastered at 16/44.1, or mastered in the analog domain -- of course it'll sound worse mastered at 16/44.1. The question is will analog mastered at 16/44.1 sound worse than CD? My stance is "no", it won't. It'll sound just as bad.

Think about it -- mastering studios have some exquisite gear. So if they're handed a 16/44.1 digital master, they're most likely going to translate it to analog with Apogee DAC's or EMM Labs DAC's or something else which is way more expensive and better than most anything else anyone (short of someone who can afford the dCS stack) can afford. With the record, you get to hear that. Best case scenario, you have the dCS stack, and it sounds just as good.

Totally unnecessary when you know you are releasing to LP. Smart audio engineers would stay all analog for analog playback, and all digital for digital playback.

Again, no argument, I was only citing the digital mastered example as a worst-case scenario. Look at things like Misplaced Childhood from the 80's -- all they had was the digital master, because it was recorded with what at the time was cutting-edge digital technique at the time. But yeah, most of the time, analogly-recorded analog is going to sound better -- of course! Quit going down that road, you red-herring-thrower you.

With everyones taste being different, it is impossible to say whether one would rather hear digital or analog.

I give up -- I already agreed with you on this topic.

So your theory is purely hypothetical, and not tested or factual in any way.

Yeah, and hardly anyone else has heard the dCS stack or the EMM Labs setup. So: "ditto". I'm sure you have a handful of people you know, but that does hardly a well measured statistical sample make.

Actually I wasn't trying to convince anyone, I was merely countering your opinion with facts.

No, you were countering my experiences and opinions with experiences and opinions of your own. Very few facts. And a lot of assumptions.

You do not know me well enough to know if I was peeved, indifferent, annoyed, or just dismissive.

Well, you sounded annoyed, so...yeah, I may have misinterpreted you. I believe that. Seeing as how much you repeat yourself, I realize now that you love hearing your own voice more than actually listening to anyone else.

And since we are at the point of repeating ourselves, I'm going to revert to the old stand-by, "we're just going to have to agree to disagree".

Oh, and you want to hear something funny? 99.99% of my listening is digital. CD's.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ah, the classic, "if you haven't heard every possible combination, then you can't make any claim" argument.

A classic argument that happens to ring true. No one can make an absolute claim of anything without a large sampling to draw from. Any one with half a brain and a chicken sandwich wouldn't make the claims you have unless they were looking for an argument, and just wanted to find something to argue about. Been through this with Mtry, and its getting really old.

You do realize that you are making the opposite claim, and the same argument can be thrown back at you in reverse? Have you heard every vinyl rig?

No. my claim was based on a specific combination, so there is no need for me to hear every digital system. I have heard vinyl rigs that cost in the low six figures and at various figures below that. No matter how much the rig costs, you cannot hide the fact that vinyl pops, hiss, wow and flutter are all audible and SACD, DVD-A, or redbook are not marred by any of these issues. You can clean till they are raw, but once a pop is there, it is there.

I'm not saying you should, that's just the equivalent ridiculous statement in reverse. I only think you should hear one good analog rig, and it doesn't need to be ultra-expensive as in your argument (the VPI Scout system is not expensive by audiophile standards).

I have heard a The Continuum Caliburn turntable with Halcro amps and the Wilson MAXX. It sounded stunning. I however would replace all of that with the dCS chain with the same speakers and amp and a high end SACD player over that any day of the week and month. Its a matter of choice and that is the bottom line. Vinyl and turntables are too time consuming to care for and maintain all the way around, and no one would be stupid to deny that. There are far too many complicated machanical parts to maintain and in the end is still at the mercy of a constantly deteriorating media.

.Most of those things are inherent in both digital and analog recording process, and should therefore cancel each other out in a digital vs. analog debate.

I believe I said that, but for vinyl you can add that, along with pops, hiss, audible wow and flutter, tracking problems as demonstrated by the inability to cleanly play a low bass signals with high out of phase content, like the 1812 overture with digital cannons by Telarc

I have a friend who has a couple of decent rigs, and we get excellent results every time we listen.Not only is this not a fact, but an opinion, but it's also wrong.Not as much as you think -- and I don't tend to listen to the same record thousands of times.Sigh.

Push the figure back to 50 times and you still have audible problems that do not exiist with 50 plays of a SACD.

You're bringing up a new point. And I will not argue it. I agree that any mechanical medium will produce slight deterioration with every play. Do you know what? My anecdotal personal experience is that in a well setup system, it's not audible.

Oh ****, its time to get my boots. In a well setup system it would be MORE audible, come on Dusty, you are not talking to a fool here. I have been a working audio engineer for 25 years, I know exactly what happens to a LP after even ten times played. Sell this crap to a fly man. This sounds to me like a lie just to make a point. Not necessary at all.

It only takes one exception for me to contradict your universal truths. Therefore, even one anecdotal piece of evidence makes you wrong.Sigh -- agreed.

No! One exception does not create a pattern. And anedotal information in this context is unuseful. Anyone can say anything in the name of making a point, you have done that several times in this thread. Science, and what is clearly understood about the record/playback chain is what rules in this arguement.

Would it surprise you for me to admit that both mediums have their plusses and their minusses?

Had you said that instead of the unproven claims you made earlier, this discussion would be over already.

I thought I said that before, but I'll say it again -- they both have their plusses and minusses. The point is what is important to me. I'll spend 10 times the effort to get 10 times the fidelity (I'm not saying that's what the numbers are for vinyl, but...something like that...)

I would first like to see any white paper or any scientific information you could provide to support this claim. Otherwise I am saying this now, on this forum, on this day, you are a bald face lie!. I know it, and you know it as well. I hate when people think that other people are stupid as hell. I have been around studio audio long enough in both the analog and digital domain to know that this is just a plain ole lie. Again, unnecessary and no proof.


[/quote].But my point is that with analog, even when the signal to noise ratio is 1/1 (I.E. really bad), I can still hear the signal. With dither (I.E. one of the main components of the digital noise floor), one cannot. And that's by design -- I wouldn't want to hear undithered digital signals.I'm not claiming superhuman hearing, I'm characterizing the differences in the noise[/quote]

Once again to the unlearned. Dither is not needed on all digital audio. It is not necessary until you downconvert digital audio. I would not put downconverted digital audio or any PCM signals against vinyl. I would put SACD against vinyl. SACD requires no dither. Dither is a post process that is ADDED to the signal, and should not even be discussed within the context of this discussion. We are talking about the audio signals only.

. It's just different, that's all.Alesis Masterlink ML9600 -- rated class A recording device by Stereophile in this month's issue. I have one. And yes, I've done it. As well as record 24/96 and 24/88.2, to see if I could tell the difference in the downsampling algorithms when I mastered to CD.Now this is an unsubstantiated claim.

I have owned and record digitally exclusively with the dCS chain I have described earlier for the past 3 years. I have also used the Alesis Masterlink piece as well. I hate to drop this bomb on ya but the Alesis ML9600 nor any product manufactured my Alesis is not even in the same class as the dCS chain nor any dCS product.

And just plain wrong. I have analog, 24/96, and 16/44.1 copies of most of the tracks from Alan Parsons Project's I, Robot, and do you know what? They all sound different.

They should sound different, so what's your point? The analog would have different EQ than the 24/96jhz, and the 24/96khz has more samples and way more amplitude values than 16/44.1khz. This is not rocket science. Besides they could all be different mixes and you wouldn't even know.

I guarantee you, you will be able to hear the difference. There is just plain more information there.

Dusty, please just stop lying. If you did a computer analysis of the data of each format, you would find no more information in the analog signal than you would the 16/44.1khz or the 24/96khz. The EQ is different, and their could easily be mastering difference in many areas. I bet you didn't even bother to level match any of this. Also sighted listening is useless, it just brings bias into the mix. You need to give this desperation up man, its really unattractive.

Worlds apart.If the differences can be captured by the same recording device -- this, to me, is proof positive that the difference is there in the incoming signal.Echos (the Pink Floyd compilation) is a digitally mastered set of records. And if I recall correctly, 24/96. Even if not, I'm sure others exist. So again, WRONG. Get with the times.Unholy carp, did you just agree with me, that analog sounds better than digital (at least, better than 16/44.1)!?!?!

As I have said early, I don't make comparison between 16/44.1khz and vinyl. Vinyl vs SACD for me, and no in this case there is no more information in vinyl than SACD, DVD-A or 16/44.1khz. Data analysis can easily bare this out. If this LP was digitally mastered, then you will not find anymore information on vinyl than you would on the master tapes themselves. Lastly this album was released in 2001 if I am not mistaken, there was not alot of 24/96khz mastering equipment around back then. I know of only a few places in the world that could do it at that time. So maybe not so WRONG!

Oh, and the question -- you seem to keep wanting to go down this tangent -- is not whether or not analog will sound worse if it's mastered at 16/44.1, or mastered in the analog domain -- of course it'll sound worse mastered at 16/44.1. The question is will analog mastered at 16/44.1 sound worse than CD? My stance is "no", it won't. It'll sound just as bad.

Analog cannot be mastered at 16/44.1khz and still be called analog. My dog Darnell knows this, why don't you? So much for your stance. Its more like a tilt. Your scenrio has not been tested, so you do not know what the result would be yourself.

Think about it -- mastering studios have some exquisite gear. So if they're handed a 16/44.1 digital master, they're most likely going to translate it to analog with Apogee DAC's or EMM Labs DAC's or something else which is way more expensive and better than most anything else anyone (short of someone who can afford the dCS stack) can afford.

And you were asking ME to get with the times??? Dude, first almost nobody records in 16/44.1khz these days. You can record in higher resolutions on a DAW now. Mostly everything is downcoverted from a master at 24bit 88.2khz. Mastering in 16bit leaves you absolutely no headroom for post. By the time the mixing was done, you would be well past your bit allocation with 16bits. Also there is more good D/A conversion out there than apogee and EMM, so it is unknown what D/A conversion is being used in any given studio. These are just two brands amoung many good pieces of equipment. To assume Apogee and EMM is head and shoulders above what is out there is plain wrong. It just takes getting out there to see that.

With the record, you get to hear that. Best case scenario, you have the dCS stack, and it sounds just as good.Again, no argument, I was only citing the digital mastered example as a worst-case scenario.

No one works in worst case scenarios so this is a waste of time. Recording budgets don't allow for worst case scenarious. It might be helpful to keep your examples in the real world, and not make up some arbitratry scenario to make a point.

Look at things like Misplaced Childhood from the 80's -- all they had was the digital master, because it was recorded with what at the time was cutting-edge digital technique at the time. But yeah, most of the time, analogly-recorded analog is going to sound better -- of course! Quit going down that road, you red-herring-thrower you

You site one example and that makes a case you red herring eater you!

.I give up -- I already agreed with you on this topic.Yeah, and hardly anyone else has heard the dCS stack or the EMM Labs setup.

If they listen to alot of SACD or DVD-A classical, they have probably heard the handy work of both of these digital chains.

So: "ditto". I'm sure you have a handful of people you know, but that does hardly a well measured statistical sample make.

Try three handfuls, and a couple of feet fulls. dCS gear is in quite alot of studios these days....oh but wait, you wouldn't know that because apparently you haven't been in many studios or else you would be much more up to date with recording practices, equipment, and you would already know that most of what you have stated is subjective opinion not fact. There isn't a mstering engineer in this world who would say that LP has more information than PCM or DSD, and especially not DSD even if analog was their preference. They would just say its there preference, because they would have no PROOF this is so.

No, you were countering my experiences and opinions with experiences and opinions of your own. Very few facts. And a lot of assumptions.Well, you sounded annoyed, so...yeah, I may have misinterpreted you. I believe that. Seeing as how much you repeat yourself, I realize now that you love hearing your own voice more than actually listening to anyone else.

I love listening to other voices when they know what they are talking about. You don't however. If what I point out sounds repetitive, it done that way to penetrate thick skulls. So let's go back to the beginning.

Dusty says. Vinyl has more information than digital.
Sir T says You don't have a shred of proof of that. That's fact, you have no proof.

Dusty says that deterioration in vinyl is inaudible.
Sir T says pops, clicks, groove distortion, wow and flutter, and hiss are all audible because we can easily hear it. That is also a fact.

Nothing I have said was an assumption. Everything I have said against LP is measureable, audbile and by the way well noted except to the person in complete denial.

As I have said before, it is one thing to say I prefer LP over CD. That is a subjective choice or preference. Its not science however. But you have made some pretty outrageous statements that NOBODY has proven, and especially not yourself. Analog tape is a high resolution source. LP is not, and it is not because if I was to record in DSD and have it transferred to LP, it would have to be compressed for the lowest volumes to be heard above the noise floor. I wouldn't have to do that for SACD. Everything about dealing with the LP is time consumeing from the mastering, the cutting, the care, the tweaking for proper playback, making sure it tracks the groove accurately etc., none of this has to be done with DSD. You just record it, mix it master it, and release it. As long as the signal stays DSD it can A/B to the source. Even after you play it a thousand times. Try that with LP!

You can love LP, but you don't have to lie about to make a point. I am curious to read your explaination about how a person can seem annoyed in writing. There is no emotion in writing!

[Dusty Chalk]

I don't appreciate your accusations of me lying. So much for civil, eh? I really don't see how you got to be a moderator. I've thrown a few digs in, myself, but they were meant to keep things light. Accusing me of lying when I was making one of my main points (and I was not lying) was just plain rude, and there was nothing light about it. Scumbag.

You keep claiming you're throwing facts around, when I'm trying to stress the differentiations when I'm talking personal opinion and personal experiences, and you're throwing around your personal experiences like they're facts. I don't care how important you are, how much experience you have, and how many times you've done something, your opinion never becomes fact.

This argument started because you made the statement: "Actually you cannot say the LP's clarity and range of sound will never be touched by CD on certain recordings." (Notice: CD, not SACD.) It is an opinion, and I stated mine to the contrary.

I'll get back to you later about some of your other points -- there's obviously at least one or two misunderstandings going on. The fact that I could hear the difference between 24/96 recorded vinyl and 16/44.1 recorded vinyl on the admittedly inferior (to dCS and EMM Labs) Masterlink should only prove even more that the difference is there. I wasn't talking about the different masters of I, Robot in which one could also hear the difference -- I probably shouldn't even have mentioned those, as it confused you (or you used them to act confused).

[Feanor]

I don't appreciate your accusations of me lying. So much for civil, eh? I really don't see how you got to be a moderator. I've thrown a few digs in, myself, but they were meant to keep things light. Accusing me of lying when I was making one of my main points (and I was not lying) was just plain rude, and there was nothing light about it. Scumbag.
...

I would not have said "liar". Severely self-delusional, well maybe.