LPs Mastered from Digital Sources

[Scott Dolan]

It is indeed all in the mastering. Good masters will sound great in any format. Bad masters will sound shitty in any format.

[bogdan101]

I'm sure the sacd sounds much better than the Impulse cd. Fact of the matter is I have a lot of music on cd (mostly classical) that sounds very very good, and for which there is no vinyl release. But every single time I have compared a vinyl original or reissue with a cd version, the vinyl sounds better than the cd. Oh yes, I have an lp reissue of Lee Morgan's Cornbread that sounds like a cd, and that is because it is sourced from cd. One can argue that cd masterings are by and large crappy and a well made cd can sound as good as analogue. I am not arguing that point; just know from experience that vinyl on average will sound better than cd, for various reasons that are rather irrelevant to me, so I act accordingly. For example right now you'll excuse me while I dig out my Miles Complete Blackhawk Sessions Mosaic lp box...

Edited August 22, 2014 by bogdan101

[Scott Dolan]

...just know from experience that vinyl on average will sound better than cd, for various reasons that are rather irrelevant to me, so I act accordingly.

And that's a textbook example of expectation bias, which is fine. We all have it some way or another.

It bears keeping that in mind.

[bogdan101]

...just know from experience that vinyl on average will sound better than cd, for various reasons that are rather irrelevant to me, so I act accordingly.

And that's a textbook example of expectation bias, which is fine. We all have it some way or another.

It bears keeping that in mind.

It's more than that. Here's an involuntary test I did a while ago: I have a Jordi Savall hybrid SACD set of "La Ruta de Oriente", which I played on a cheap Pioneer universal player with HDMI out, streaming DSD (via HDMI) into a Yamaha receiver which has the ability to decode DSD. So I put the disc in and started to listen, fully expecting the sacd layer was played at full resolution. The sound was no better than similar cd's playing in the same system, so I was mildly disappointed. Then for some reason I wanted to turn on the tv to see the list of tracks playing. As the TV was turned on, the sacd player display briefly flashed 1080P and, more importantly, the sound quality increased noticeably, you know, spatial separation and all that nonsense. I did a bit of research online after this, and it appears that HDMI without a video signal going through will default the audio stream to a lower resolution, not sure exactly what. In any case, initially I was not listening to the full resolution, and noticed something was not quite right. Of course, ymmv and so on.

[Scott Dolan]

Cool.

Though, I'm not sure what that has to do with LP's sounding better than CD's.

[bogdan101]

Cool.

Though, I'm not sure what that has to do with LP's sounding better than CD's.

I was addressing the issue of expectation bias.

[Stefan Wood]

There is an expectation bias, for either format.

[Scott Dolan]

But that was a technical and tangible flaw.

That's like having an eight cylinder motor only running on six. That's going to be very noticeable no matter what you were expecting.

When comparing formats, though different, neither are crippled. As Teasing said earlier, both LP's and CD's have their strengths and weaknesses. There is no clear winner, strictly personal preference.

[Stefan Wood]

I read this article many years ago, and it is interesting, and at least in my lp collecting experience, found to be mostly true:

**As stated in "The Audiophiles Guide to London Bluebacks" written by Robert Moon & Michael Gray (on page 20):

"...there is a harsh brightness to the Decca-London early stereo records because the disc cutters were weak in reproducing frequencies above 10khz. The pressings made after 1968--to my knowledge all FFRR--were made with the Neumann SX-68 helium-cooled disc cutter which could reveal the sweet high frequenices on the original tape. It's for that reason that the later FFRR pressings are often superior to the early FFSS pressings."

The same was said about Shaded Dog RCA Living Stereo original pressings, Westminster bluebacks, etc. Whether the same can be said about Jazz and Rock I can not say, but it shows that even in the lp era there was compression issues.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Stefan Wood

[Scott Dolan]

There is an expectation bias, for either format.

I'd say that's a fair assessment, but not always the case.

For example, when I upgraded my equipment last winter. I listened to a large variety of digital formats knowing, and I mean knowing I was going to hear a difference between CD and higher bitrate AAC. I just wanted to see how dramatic the difference was. And I've done it multiple times using different tunes, through my main loudspeakers, as well as through my headphones.

Wasn't done blind, and I knew I would hear a difference. And heard none. At all.

Expectation bias up in flames, I suppose. Then again, I've worked very hard at identifying when I'm actively trying to bullshit myself.

[Stefan Wood]

So the Emotiva DAC wasn't all that it was supposed to be?

[Scott Dolan]

Hahaha...

Yeah, it either made 256 AAC sound as good as CD, or CD sound as bad as AAC.

[Stefan Wood]

I'm glad I held off. I ended up buying a Nagaoka cartridge instead for my turntable.

[Scott Dolan]

Yeah, I would encourage you not to waste your money.

[Teasing the Korean]

But every single time I have compared a vinyl original or reissue with a cd version, the vinyl sounds better than the cd. Oh yes, I have an lp reissue of Lee Morgan's Cornbread that sounds like a cd, and that is because it is sourced from cd.

So you are differentiating between analog vinyl and digital vinyl, correct? Digital vinyl makes no sense to me, unless the CD is unavailable.

[bogdan101]

Yes, analog vinyl sounds better in my system than cd's or other higher resolution digital formats. Now having said that, it all depends very much on what exactly is in the system one is listening to, so for reference purposes I will list my analog and digital signal chain:

Analog: Rega RP3 turntable, Dynavector DV 20X2L low output MC cartridge, Dynavector P75 mk II phono preamp.

Digital: Oppo BDP-105. Before getting this, I was using the DAC in the receiver listed below, and the Oppo has been a big jump in sound quality, where I can actually enjoy listening to CD's on this system.

Both go into Yamaha RXV-1900 receiver (analog connected of course), then to Von Schweikert VR-1 speakers and a Klipsch 12" subwoofer.

Who knows, maybe a better DAC might bring up the digital up a notch perhaps all the way to analog level? I would be very happy if that would be the case, for reasonable money, because storing and cleaning lp's is not my idea of fun.

[Scott Dolan]

CD's will never sound like LP's. You'd have to have a DAC that mixes in second order harmonics. This will never happen because nobody is clamouring to add distortion to digital music.

And that is what you enjoy. Distortion. That is a very important thing to keep in mind. That "level of quality" steals away from the overall resolution/accuracy of the sound you're hearing. And no digital format should ever aspire to that.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[Scott Dolan]

Interesting article.

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5626058/vinyls-great-but-its-not-better-than-cds

"Perhaps the best audio-based case for vinyl is actually precisely the fact that it does mess up the original recording. A lot of vinyl fans talk about the "warmth" of records, particularly of the low-end. But, as Pitchfork's Mark Richardson puts it, "the 'warmth' that many people associate with LPs can generally be described as a bass sound that is less accurate." The difficulty of accurately translating bass lines to vinyl without making grooves too big means that engineers have to do a lot of processing to get it to work, which changes the tone of the bass in a way that, apparently, many people find aesthetically pleasing.

"Warmth" also comes from flaws in record players. As the University of Waterloo's Stanley Lipshitz once explained to Popular Science, speaker sound and the needle's height fluctuations can cause the record to vibrate, which the needle in turn picks up and translates into a "warmer" seeming sound."

[bogdan101]

Interesting article.

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5626058/vinyls-great-but-its-not-better-than-cds

"Perhaps the best audio-based case for vinyl is actually precisely the fact that it does mess up the original recording. A lot of vinyl fans talk about the "warmth" of records, particularly of the low-end. But, as Pitchfork's Mark Richardson puts it, "the 'warmth' that many people associate with LPs can generally be described as a bass sound that is less accurate." The difficulty of accurately translating bass lines to vinyl without making grooves too big means that engineers have to do a lot of processing to get it to work, which changes the tone of the bass in a way that, apparently, many people find aesthetically pleasing.

"Warmth" also comes from flaws in record players. As the University of Waterloo's Stanley Lipshitz once explained to Popular Science, speaker sound and the needle's height fluctuations can cause the record to vibrate, which the needle in turn picks up and translates into a "warmer" seeming sound."

That was totally unconvincing, and not because of my expectation bias... ... Comparing a digital recording to an analog cassette recording??? On a Nakamichi deck that does not even exist??? Nakamichi made MR1 and MR2, but there is no MR3. How about using a professional reel tape recorder? Unless, of course, they set out to prove that analogue recordings are not as good as digital.

If you don't mind me asking, on what analogue setup did you conclude that vinyl sounds worse than cd?

Edited August 25, 2014 by bogdan101

[Scott Dolan]

First of all, please show me where I EVER said LP's sound worse than CD's.

Please re-read this post from earlier in the thread.

What I'm telling you now is that what "sounds better" to you is the even/second order harmonics inherent in analogue recordings/playback. That, my friend, is distortion. I love how you ignore almost the entirety of that article to point out one small comparison briefly mentioned three quarters of the way through. Did you happen to catch anything other than that? You know, like the 18 other paragraphs out of the 21 total?

Look, you prefer the sound of LP's. Fine. But, let's stop playing make believe that they are superior to CD's in resolution and accuracy. They are not.

" Vinyl is physically limited by the fact that records have to be capable of being played without skipping or causing distortion. That both limits the dynamic range — the difference between the loudest and softest note — and the range of pitches (or "frequencies") you can hear.

If notes get too low in pitch, that means less audio can fit in a given amount of vinyl. If notes are too high, the stylus has difficulty tracking them, causing distortion. So engineers mastering for vinyl often cut back on extreme high or low ends, using a variety of methods, all of which alter the music."

[Daniel A]

It's difficult to escape the effects of expectation bias when comparing LP and CD audio even in a blind test, as LP almost always gives itself away. One crackle from static or pollution in the groove, or slight rumble during a quiet passage is enough to tell you that you're listening to an LP.

You will also find it hard to come up with a recording available in both formats in the exact same mastering. While not ideal, one way to do a blind test is to record the sound from the LP playback to a recordable CD player, or just convert it to 16/44 PCM. If there is no audible difference, you would have to conclude that a CD is able to sound like an LP, but of course not the other way round.

From looking around the internet, it seems that a few people have tried this. So far, I haven't found a test with any degree of statistical significance that shows that the 16/44 digital signal is discernable from an LP.

Is there any point in buying LP:s anyway? I do it myself because I like the sound, covers and general feel of LP:s. However, I wouldn't argue that they are sonically superior to CD, because much points to the conclusion that they are (at least technically) "inferior".

Edited August 25, 2014 by Daniel A

[Daniel A]

And I should add that from a personal, subjective point of view, I'm more comfortable with an all analog LP production, even if it has no effect on the sound.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Daniel A

[Scott Dolan]

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697658/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not

Very interesting interview with Sean Olive of Harman International who knows a hell of a lot more about audio than 99.9% of the people on this planet, and far more than anyone on this board.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[psu_13]

That piece was OK as far as it went, but the discussion of compressed formats was a bit painful. They talk about the "higher quality" iTunes Plus as if it's a new thing, when really it's been around since 2007.

The part at the beginning when the host mixed up audio compression (of dynamic range) with data compression also made me nuts, but then I'm a grump.

Anyway, in a few (maybe zero) years lossless will be just as "portable" as 128K MP3 used to be earlier, just because of the growth in bandwidth and storage capacity.

[Daniel A]

I thought it was a bit dishonest (or misguided) to prove that MP3:s are inferior by showing what information you "lose". The whole point with psychoacoustic compression is to discard sonic information that isn't audible because it's masked by other sounds.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Daniel A