billstevenson Posted January 8 Posted January 8 I posted this same question is slightly altered form on the Audiogon Forum and was hoping for more insight here. This question defeats my understanding. If analog reproduction sounds better than digital, and my ears say that it usually does, how can a digital master, for example make for a better sounding vinyl record? I also have a Sugar Cube, which removes pops and clicks from old or damaged records and it does this by making an instantaneous digital copy and editing out the noise. And it works and the records sound quite listenable and the digital part is almost undetectable - emphasis on almost. So can someone explain this to me? Please no diatribes from fanatics about the virtues of analog and the evils of digital. What would be appreciated is a technically competent explanation. It is not useful to just explain that we just like the distortions inherent in the phone stage, cartridge, wires etc. better than the pure digital signal through a DAC. How is it possible that an old analog recording can be digitally re-mastered and then a new analog record be made from it that can sound quite excellent? In some cases even superior to original all analog prior releases of the same recording? This simply befuddles me. Any help with understanding would be appreciated. Denials, however, will be thrown in the dust bin because my ears do not deceive me.
aussievintage Posted January 8 Posted January 8 3 hours ago, billstevenson said: How is it possible that an old analog recording can be digitally re-mastered and then a new analog record be made from it that can sound quite excellent? In some cases even superior to original all analog prior releases of the same recording? Because a big part of the good sound is the skill of the mastering engineers, and the transition to and from digital is quite innocuous, despite many peoples predjudices. There is also nothing wrong with records made from original digital recordings, again because the digital recording is good. 9 3 1
maximus Posted January 8 Posted January 8 @aussievintageexplained it perfectly, short and simple. I remember discussing sound production with an engineer from Studio 301, in a nutshell what @aussievintage said.
billstevenson Posted January 8 Author Posted January 8 aussievintage, What you explain makes sense. In fact the majority of new recordings are being recorded digitally and the difference in sound between the vinyl records made from them and the corresponding Redbook CDs is getting to be small. Very interesting. Thank you.
Cloth Ears Posted January 8 Posted January 8 53 minutes ago, billstevenson said: aussievintage, What you explain makes sense. In fact the majority of new recordings are being recorded digitally and the difference in sound between the vinyl records made from them and the corresponding Redbook CDs is getting to be small. Very interesting. Thank you. Our ears quite like the sound of vinyl analog, as it's a fairly easy listen. Not quite the same as when listening to the same stuff on an analog master, which has not been changed to fit vinyl limitations. Similarly, almost all vinyl set-ups do not have the resolution to reproduce any digital artifacts that might be included in a digital master. I remember listening to Bop Til You Drop by Ry Cooder in 1980 and thinking how nice it sounded - and when the CD eventually came out, it sounded different (more dynamic) than the LP, but still different to the current CD's that were being released which were based on analog masters. 2 1 1
SONDEKNZ Posted January 9 Posted January 9 I cannot answer the OP's question - but I would add this to the mix. Every Pure DSD recording that I have heard on an original vinyl (first) pressing has sounded absolutely magnificent! The same Pure DSD albums truncated down to Redbook CD sound rubbish... easily trumped by the analog recordings of yesteryear, truncated down to 16/44.1 PCM on CD. So, I deduce that many digital recording formats - even high-level ones - truncate badly to Redbook; meanwhile pressing to vinyl (analog) seems to remove these barriers. Conclusion: Analog pressing to vinyl gets out of the way and lets recording formats - and production values - speak for themselves. This understanding - however rudimentary - guides where I invest my hard-earned... 2
aussievintage Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 38 minutes ago, SONDEKNZ said: The same Pure DSD albums truncated down to Redbook CD sound rubbish... easily trumped by the analog recordings of yesteryear, truncated down to 16/44.1 PCM on CD. How was it "truncated"? Are you sure they weren't remixed/remastered, and generally played with, in the process? I was reading that even some blind tests had trouble because different filtering was used. Edited January 9 by aussievintage
SONDEKNZ Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 40 minutes ago, aussievintage said: How was it "truncated"? Are you sure they weren't remixed/remastered, and generally played with, in the process? I was reading that even some blind tests had trouble because different filtering was used. When I say "truncated", I understand that the latest high-rez digital recordings - far beyond good old 16/44.1 in terms of word length and sampling rate - need to be mathematically "folded" down to meet Redbook CD playback requirements. It seems to my ears, that some hi-rez formats fold better - with less loss - than others. I don't pretend to understand the nuances behind the math, but the albums I have tried were released concurrently on vinyl and CD. There was no mention of "remastering" for one format or the other. The first time I encountered this disappointment was when my buddy played me his brand-new vinyl pressing of ALISON KRAUSS & UNION STATION "LIVE". It was an absolute wonder! I went straight out and purchased the CD version. It was rubbish. Edited January 9 by SONDEKNZ
aussievintage Posted January 9 Posted January 9 11 minutes ago, SONDEKNZ said: When I say "truncated", I understand that the latest high-rez digital recordings - far beyond good old 16/44.1 in terms of word length and sampling rate - need to be mathematically "folded" down to meet Redbook CD playback requirements. But DSD is single bit.
billstevenson Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 12 minutes ago, SONDEKNZ said: the albums I have tried were released concurrently on vinyl and CD. There was no mention of "remastering" for one format or the other. The first time I encountered this disappointment was when my buddy played me his brand-new vinyl pressing of ALISON KRAUSS & UNION STATION "LIVE". It was an absolute wonder! I went straight out and purchased the CD version. It was rubbish.
aussievintage Posted January 9 Posted January 9 16 minutes ago, SONDEKNZ said: I don't pretend to understand the nuances behind the math, but the albums I have tried were released concurrently on vinyl and CD. There was no mention of "remastering" for one format or the other. btw. I was talking about what you said on DSD vs redbook - not vinyl.
SONDEKNZ Posted January 9 Posted January 9 15 minutes ago, aussievintage said: btw. I was talking about what you said on DSD vs redbook - not vinyl. I understand. I think we are clear. I was talking about Pure DSD recordings released on CD playback format. I was not rubbishing DSD, persae. On vinyl it is superb!
billstevenson Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 I, too, have compared the vinyl and CD versions of recent releases. My recent experience has been different from yours in that Redbook CDs are quite good and close to the sound of their LP counterparts. This has been noticed across several labels: DGG, Sony Classical, Decca, Nonesuch, Blue Note, come to mind and recent Mosaic re-issues of Blue Note artists on CD sound excellent and compare well to the same artist re-releases on Blue Note- Tone Poet or Classic series records. The trend to better sounding Redbook CDs in both acoustic jazz and classical seems to be widespread. Mind you, I still think LPs generally sound a bit better, but the difference is not great like it was just a short time ago. The vast majority of the jazz re-releases were originally analog, some like the Tone Poets remain so, but many (most?) have been digitally remastered. Again my ear tells me that is OK and is what prompted my original post. All of the new recordings are presumably DSD and then converted to PCM, but that is not always clear. My CD players (Luxman D-10X and Marantz SA10) both convert the PCM to DSD internally, which might have something to do with what I am hearing. All I can say for sure is that digital recordings, whether presented in the LP or Redbook CD format, are vastly better sounding than they used to be. I am quite grateful for the improvement. 2
Steff Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, aussievintage said: But DSD is single bit. And if you want to get really fine-grained about it DSD64 - "single-rate DSD" - PDM, 1-bit 2.8224 MHz. SACD uses DSD64. Infrequently, also 1-bit 3.072 MHz. DSD128 - "double-rate DSD" - PDM, 1-bit, 5.6648 MHz/6.144 MHz. DSD256 - "quad-rate DSD" - PDM, 1-bit, 11.2896 MHz/12.288 MHz. DSD512 - "octuple-rate DSD" - PDM, 1-bit, 22.5792 MHz/24.576 MHz. The file sizes do explode, of course. Please also note that the top end of human hearing is around 20kHz (best case scenario) and that many among us will strike out below 15kHz (age related HF hearing loss). Of course the DSD 1-bit rates above do not reflect any sound data in the MHz range, I don't think - our equipment's signal-to-noise ratio is well below any of that. To quote from the top of the range Luxman DX10 - Frequency Response: Quote CD : 5 Hz to 20 kHz (+0, -1.0 dB) SACD : 5 Hz to 38 kHz (+0, -3.0 dB) USB : 5 Hz to 47 kHz (+0, -3.0 dB) And Quote Harmonic Distortion: CD : 0.0018 %, SACD : 0.001 %, USB : 0.0015 % Vinyl: Harmonic Distortion: 0.5%-1.5% (some of which will be experienced as pleasant - even order and low order harmonics) Edited January 9 by Steff
Steff Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, SONDEKNZ said: Pure DSD recordings released on CD playback format. I was not rubbishing DSD, persae. On vinyl it is superb! You may prefer the vinyl sound, sure, but it's worth pointing out that much "information" of the source file will not present on vinyl. Neither at the bottom end (bass) nor at the top end, nor in terms of dynamic range. Vinyl mastering engineers have to make these decisions when cutting the record. I wonder whether personal sonic preferences are here bleeding across into a normative set of arguments about "format x is better"? Edited January 9 by Steff 1
Steff Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, billstevenson said: My CD players (Luxman D-10X and Marantz SA10) both convert the PCM to DSD internally, which might have something to do with what I am hearing. No, I do not think they do. They can switch between the DSD layer and the PCM layer of your hybrid SACDs. On the Luxman this will be accompanied by an audible *click* as the laser switches between layers. I do not think you can insert a redbook CD and make the Luxman output to DSD (the blue light would come on - on my Luxman I get an error message that states "CD inserted" when I press the DSD/PCM button during Redbook playback). I'm happy to stand corrected but do not think these players can resample/upsample from PCM to DSD. Edited January 9 by Steff
Steff Posted January 9 Posted January 9 Quote Why do records made from digital sources sound good? Because Ry Cooder's Bop Til you Drop is a cracking album and mastered by professionals who respect SQ. Ditto for many of Zappa's albums. These are equally good on CD. 1
rantan Posted January 9 Posted January 9 19 minutes ago, Steff said: I wonder whether personal sonic preferences are here bleeding across into a normative set of arguments about "format x is better"? I am in no doubt whatsoever. From the first post it was evident that there was a format crusader at work who is working tirelessly to promote a preferred ( and allegedly ) better format discourse, based on nothing but personal biases, which is sadly nearly always the case here. Can we possibly evolve to a forum where there is no evangelism? Hmm, desirable but not likely. 1
SONDEKNZ Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 3 hours ago, Steff said: You may prefer the vinyl sound, sure, but it's worth pointing out that much "information" of the source file will not present on vinyl. Neither at the bottom end (bass) nor at the top end, nor in terms of dynamic range. Vinyl mastering engineers have to make these decisions when cutting the record. I wonder whether personal sonic preferences are here bleeding across into a normative set of arguments about "format x is better"? I imagine you are quite correct about this. I do wonder if despite this limited bandwidth, vinyl just makes a better job of presenting the frequencies that matter to human (my) hearing? To answer your question about personal preferences, I do have the occasional vinyl LP which is bettered by its CD or STREAMED counterpart... not that this proves anything. Edited January 9 by SONDEKNZ 2
Bass13 Posted January 9 Posted January 9 I'm a little confused with these mastering engineers, even with all their latest equipment & experience, how can they still get some/many recordings so degraded in 'Sound Quality" , regardless if its Vinyl, Cd or streaming, yes its better than it use to be, but ... SQ is a variable with many pressings/recordings imo. Most of us have moved on from the Pye 3 in 1 stereo systems "Yes my wife had one", so we can hear the difference from a great recording to a not so good one, regardless of format.
FR DRew Posted January 9 Posted January 9 1 hour ago, Steff said: Vinyl: Harmonic Distortion: 0.5%-1.5% (some of which will be experienced as pleasant - even order and low order harmonics) Here we go... The post where we compare the lowest possible distortion on the digital formats with all possible bits used, to the highest possible distortion on the vinyl playback at full excursion. Sorry, not comparing apples with apples. At low levels, the distortion of the stepped waveform in CD playback becomes dismal, meanwhile at low levels the distortion of the vinyl waveform gets miniscule... At the end of the day, the vinyl surface has to be an analogue waveform, no matter what the original source. Obviously that doesn't mean that it can't sound like trash, similarly to the fact that some CD's are sublime and some CD's sound like trash. I've heard some horrid LP's that were analogue every step of the way and some that were heavenly. Similarly there are some recordings that were born digital (even in the early days of digital recording) that are sublime and some digital ones that sound awful. This whole debate is like arguing over why a cake can taste brilliant if it has butter instead of margarine while ignoring both the recipe and the cook. No one is arguing that Love Over Gold isn't a brilliant sounding album, anymore than they argue that Hotel California has lovely sonics. One is digital, one is analogue. Both are fabulous. I'll leave the rest of the gallery to cite examples of both digital and analogue recordings that they despise... 2
aussievintage Posted January 9 Posted January 9 49 minutes ago, Bass13 said: I'm a little confused with these mastering engineers, even with all their latest equipment & experience, how can they still get some/many recordings so degraded in 'Sound Quality" All singers sing, but some sing badly. 2
billstevenson Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 10 hours ago, Steff said: No, I do not think they do. They can switch between the DSD layer and the PCM layer of your hybrid SACDs. On the Luxman this will be accompanied by an audible *click* as the laser switches between layers. I do not think you can insert a redbook CD and make the Luxman output to DSD (the blue light would come on - on my Luxman I get an error message that states "CD inserted" when I press the DSD/PCM button during Redbook playback). I'm happy to stand corrected but do not think these players can resample/upsample from PCM to DSD. From the Web: “DSD is at the heart of the way the SA-10 handles digital audio: PCM and DXD inputs are all upconverted to DSD at 11.2MHz using the proprietary MMM-Stream converter within the player, and then the high-frequency signal produced is processed by the unique MMM-Conversion stage, used in place of a conventional DAC, to produce the analog output.” I could not readily find similar Luxman info. You will have to accept my assessment that they are performing similarly. Off subject but interesting, both have nearly identical transport mechanisms too.
mkaramazov Posted January 10 Posted January 10 18 hours ago, FR DRew said: At the end of the day, the vinyl surface has to be an analogue waveform, no matter what the original source. Obviously that doesn't mean that it can't sound like trash, similarly to the fact that some CD's are sublime and some CD's sound like trash. +1 to this. If you have access to the hi res digital file, and this is the source file, then all things being equal it will sound better than the vinyl that is pressed from the same source, because of the inherent distortion (noise floor etc) of vinyl. Of course there could be issues with mastering differences between formats, or differences in the quality of your digital front end vs your analogue system, or your personal preferences. But in theory the digital file will be the 'best'. Not knocking vinyl here btw - I am an avid collector.
Recommended Posts