Analog (Vinyl) vs Digital Audio (CD, FLAC) Listening Event Comparison

haraldo

haraldo

Audioholic Spartan
Given the conditions under which it was conducted, this was a 'comparison' simply stunning in its meaninglessness. But it will probably increase website traffic for awhile. Bravo.
What's your arguments for this?
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
There are some great songs on the 2nd Phil Collins solo album but I would have preferred to use his first album. I don't have it on vinyl though :(
Look at the used record stores. You should see some of the Blues albums I end up with that can't be had digitally. :)
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Given the conditions under which it was conducted, this was a 'comparison' simply stunning in its meaninglessness. But it will probably increase website traffic for awhile. Bravo.
I don't agree, in fact I think it says a lot more than listening tests where people are comparing one CD player to another, or an SACD player to a CD player. The test showed that on even a very high-end system, where you would think differences would be most likely to be revealed, that vinyl sounds very comparable to CDs, subjectively, and we *know* that by objective capabilities vinyl is so inferior as to be nearly laughable. (And, BTW, everyone compares vinyl specs at the optimum, outer portion of the groove, and not the inner portion.) This comparison exemplifies the importance of the big picture over individual specifications that few people - and I would argue many EEs - don't understand the impact of. I hope Gene keeps up doing sessions like this, because it keeps what's important in perspective.
 
krabapple

krabapple

Banned
It demonstrated that under 'sighted' conditions (because properly blinded comparisons are only advocated by 'trolls' ), an at best loosely level-matched comparison between LPs and 'digital' (actually, Redbook digital and FLAC files of unknown format), with no actual guarantee that the formats are the only difference being compared ...the people involved find that sometimes the CD sounds better, sometimes the LP does, and both can sound good. Apparently for vinyl this was a surprise.

Well.

Some points this 'reading illiterate' would question:

- "They will also decry that if the recordings weren't mixed by the same engineer, than you're comparing different mixes and not the formats themselves. ", No I don't think so. I don't think different *mixes* is typically the problem. Most records aren't remixed for digital vs analog delivery. And no one is going to complain that you compared Teo Macero to Hugh Padgham (the guys who mixed the Miles and Collins); you weren't comparing between recordings, you were comparing different releases of the same recording. You were comparing both the differences in mastering, as well as any differences the formats themselves impose on the sound, with no way to separate those.

- "This is an interesting comparison since in the Phil Collins case, the Vinyl would appear to have an advantage being an original analog master while in the Spyro Gyra case the CD would seem to have the advantage since its an original digital master." This really doesn't follow except by a sort of magical thinking where 'like is best with like'.

- " So suck on that Objectivists; we do have the same recordings mastered by the same people and mixes on both formats!"
Having the same mixes on both formats is nothing special, no one claims that's rare. It's the mastering that typically differs -- you even allude to this, mentioning the different use of compression in modern CD vs LP. As for the mastering in both formats being done by the same person, how are you so sure? In the case of an analog recording later released on CD, it wasn't typically the case that the engineer who created the original master tape, was the same person who created the CD master. And even when that was the case -- if the LP and CD were actually mastered by the very same person -- that's no guarantee that the mastering was the same on both. What do the mixing and mastering credits for the CDs say? (For KoB you have to be careful about both credits to be sure you're comparing like to like -- it's one of the rare cases where there *are* 'original mix' and 'remixed' versions out there,along with various different masterings).

-also, 'Suck on that Objectivists' is a bit confrontational, don't you think? Were there 'objectivists' in the room arguing with you?
(btw, if you mean acolytes of Ayn Rand, in that case, yeah, they can go suck it.)


- "It's impossible to level match with a SPL meter since we were trying to match music sources not a fixed generated test tone or pink noise." Of course if the masterings are different it could well be impossible to closely level match. If you are feeding the LP output to an ADC, then outputting it (or recording LP output to CD and then playing it), i.e., you really are comparing the same input audio, it's feasible though probably tedious. If you're using more than one track you might have to level match for each track -- LPs didn't usually make every track peak to the same level, whereas modern CDs often do.




 
Last edited by a moderator:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
It demonstrated that under 'sighted' conditions (because properly blinded comparisons are only advocated by 'trolls' ), an at best loosely level-matched comparison between LPs and 'digital' (actually, Redbook digital and FLAC files of unknown format), with no actual guarantee that the formats are the only difference being compared ...the people involved find that sometimes the CD sounds better, sometimes the LP does, and both can sound good. Apparently for vinyl this was a surprise.

Well.

Some points this 'reading illiterate' would question:

- "They will also decry that if the recordings weren't mixed by the same engineer, than you're comparing different mixes and not the formats themselves. ", No I don't think so. I don't think different *mixes* is typically the problem. Most records aren't remixed for digital vs analog delivery. And no one is going to complain that you compared Teo Macero to Hugh Padgham (the guys who mixed the Miles and Collins); you weren't comparing between recordings, you were comparing different releases of the same recording. You were comparing both the differences in mastering, as well as any differences the formats themselves impose on the sound, with no way to separate those.

- "This is an interesting comparison since in the Phil Collins case, the Vinyl would appear to have an advantage being an original analog master while in the Spyro Gyra case the CD would seem to have the advantage since its an original digital master." This really doesn't follow except by a sort of magical thinking where 'like is best with like'.

- " So suck on that Objectivists; we do have the same recordings mastered by the same people and mixes on both formats!"
Having the same mixes on both formats is nothing special, no one claims that's rare. It's the mastering that typically differs -- you even allude to this, mentioning the different use of compression in modern CD vs LP. As for the mastering in both formats being done by the same person, how are you so sure? In the case of an analog recording later released on CD, it wasn't typically the case that the engineer who created the original master tape, was the same person who created the CD master. And even when that was the case -- if the LP and CD were actually mastered by the very same person -- that's no guarantee that the mastering was the same on both. What do the mixing and mastering credits for the CDs say? (For KoB you have to be careful about both credits to be sure you're comparing like to like -- it's one of the rare cases where there *are* 'original mix' and 'remixed' versions out there,along with various different masterings).

-also, 'Suck on that Objectivists' is a bit confrontational, don't you think? Were there 'objectivists' in the room arguing with you?
(btw, if you mean acolytes of Ayn Rand, in that case, yeah, they can go suck it.)


- "It's impossible to level match with a SPL meter since we were trying to match music sources not a fixed generated test tone or pink noise." Of course if the masterings are different it could well be impossible to closely level match. If you are feeding the LP output to an ADC, then outputting it (or recording LP output to CD and then playing it), i.e., you really are comparing the same input audio, it's feasible though probably tedious. If you're using more than one track you might have to level match for each track -- LPs didn't usually make every track peak to the same level, whereas modern CDs often do.




You have truly earned your forum title with this thread. The Phil Collins and Spyro Gyra recordings are from identical releases and masters as the article stated. A digital recording has an advantage played back on a digital media just like an analog recording has the advantage on an analog media and loses resolution when transferred to digital. This is a known fact.

The comments about objectivists were good humored and really targeted towards the 2-3 forum trolls like you that would decry the results of this article invalid.

The levels WERE properly matched from track to track. I tested it each time and verified it with another experienced listener. Once again, you make assumptions based on no experience.

Anyone suggesting to do a Blind test comparing digital audio to vinyl obviously has ZERO experience comparing the formats.

However, I invite you to start your own publication, amass your own audio equipment and source material and then publish your results so others (myself included) can critique and devalue your efforts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

dingus48

Enthusiast
A digital recording has an advantage played back on a digital media just like an analog recording has the advantage on an analog media and loses resolution when transferred to digital. This is a known fact.
Nope. Myth, assuming competent equipment and methods. One of many examples of the actual truth of the matter: http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Nope. Myth, assuming competent equipment and methods. One of many examples of the actual truth of the matter: http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
Um I'm not talking about adding an ADA and DAC into the mix. I'm talking about making a recording originally on analog equipment and transferring it to digital to a CD as opposed to making the recording digitally and transferring it to CD. There is a DIFFERENCE but you can keep misusing studies to claim otherwise while people (myself included) enjoy digital masters of music on digital playback systems :)
 
D

dingus48

Enthusiast
(Sigh) The paper is spot-on. Let's take this one step at a time:
...an analog recording has the advantage on an analog media and loses resolution when transferred to digital.
Do tell - how do you transfer to digital and play back an analog recording without ADA? Simply put, the analog recording loses nothing in conversion to digital and back to analog when done competently. Site your peer-reviewed published sources to substantiate your quote to prove otherwise.
 
haraldo

haraldo

Audioholic Spartan
A release that I get back to over and over again when auditioning very high quality systems is: Leftism, by Leftfield
Leftism (album) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The better the equipment, the better the songs here work and it's one of the rare ones that just seem to be totally grain free and free from this hash or artificial grit that seem to be there in so many releases.... this is stunning music and in my opinion a very high level mastering and good mix

When you play this on a rig with very high quality bass, you get away from the auditioning with bruises in your chest, like you gone a few rounds with Mike Tyson, but the best part.... if the rig is up to it, everything is superbly nice, clean and incredibly good music :D

I suggest this as a potential album that could be very interesting to compare vinyl to cd :p
 
haraldo

haraldo

Audioholic Spartan
In the days of analog cassettes, I used to buy the vinyl and record it myself. I would monitor the album for a while to see what kind of levels it had and then choose a good overall level and no DNR before recording and I ended up with tapes that sounded much better than commercially available ones at the time, even from just decent quality consumer gear.
GoodOnYa..... I did the same too, using a Tandberg TCD 310 Mk II, to record releases from vinyl to casettes, the quality of the Tandberg deck is so high that it easily surpasses anything on cassettes that you could buy in the stores... also as is mentioned that pre recorded cassettes where recorded at high-speed.

The Tandberg decks made recordings that's close to the best I ever heard on this media, and very easy to listen to :p

I'm not sure that an average CD will provide better musical pleasure than any recording from vinyl made via a Tanderg Deck
oooohhhhh, I wish I still had that TCD 310 Mk II
 
Last edited:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
(Sigh) The paper is spot-on. Let's take this one step at a time:

Do tell - how do you transfer to digital and play back an analog recording without ADA? Simply put, the analog recording loses nothing in conversion to digital and back to analog when done competently. Site your peer-reviewed published sources to substantiate your quote to prove otherwise.
You can have far more dynamic range if the recording is done digitally and played back on a digital system as opposed to taking an older and limited analog recording and transferring it to digital media. Many of these transfers are overly compressed and filtered to lower the noise floor and aren't properly EQ'ed since they were mastered originally for Vinyl.

Try playing back some of the older rock and pop stuff (70s and 80s era) recorded from analog equipment and remastered digitally, it sounds terrible, especially the re-releases digitally redone. Yet the original analog recordings on vinyl are usually listenable.
 
Last edited:
its phillip

its phillip

Audioholic Ninja
A release that I get back to over and over again when auditioning very high quality systems is: Leftism, by Leftfield
Leftism (album) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The better the equipment, the better the songs here work and it's one of the rare ones that just seem to be totally grain free and free from this hash or artificial grit that seem to be there in so many releases.... this is stunning music and in my opinion a very high level mastering and good mix

When you play this on a rig with very high quality bass, you get away from the auditioning with bruises in your chest, like you gone a few rounds with Mike Tyson, but the best part.... if the rig is up to it, everything is superbly nice, clean and incredibly good music :D

I suggest this as a potential album that could be very interesting to compare vinyl to cd :p
I have that cd :)
 
D

dingus48

Enthusiast
You can have far more dynamic range if the recording is done digitally and played back on a digital system as opposed to taking an older and limited analog recording and transferring it to digital media. Many of these transfers are overly compressed and filtered to lower the noise floor and aren't properly EQ'ed since they were mastered originally for Vinyl.

Try playing back some of the older rock and pop stuff recorded from analog equipment and remastered digitally, it sounds terrible, especially the re-releases digitally redone. Yet the original analog recordings on vinyl are usually listenable.

Gene - let's stay on point to your original quote: what are your sources to back up your claims that analog loses something in conversion to digital, and that such conversions have nothing to do with ADA?
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Gene - let's stay on point to your original quote: what are your sources to back up your claims that analog loses something in conversion to digital, and that such conversions have nothing to do with ADA?
You are misquoting me. I never said the ADA or DAC conversion process was the problem. I designed Analog Front Ends of Modems and Audio Communication Systems for a living prior to doing Audioholics so I am fully versed in that topic. You need to drop this or start a new thread as you and the other forum troll have completely sucked the fun out of this article and thread.
 
Alex2507

Alex2507

Audioholic Slumlord
you and the other forum troll have completely sucked the fun out of this article and thread.
Not to worry. 3db loves this article and thread. I bet he's got it memorized by now. :D

... not to mention that the bouquet of red looks kind of cool.

You don't see that every day.
 
Adam

Adam

Audioholic Jedi
...you and the other forum troll have completely sucked the fun out of this article and thread.
You could always inject some more fun into it by uploading post-Chimay pictures of Dave.

:D

Btw, you almost inspired me to find my ancient stash of vinyl because I think that I have Phil Collins' first album. After I glanced into the closet at the towers of boxes, any one of which could contain them...I just shuddered and walked away. :eek: :D
 
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
you and the other forum troll have completely sucked the fun out of this article and thread.
Haters gonna hate :D

I took the article for what it was and found it pretty interesting. I've been curious about getting into vinyl, regardless of the differences, and this article helps give me a little extra nudge towards doing it.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I've been curious about getting into vinyl, regardless of the differences, and this article helps give me a little extra nudge towards doing it.
Not me. I enjoyed the article, I was actually surprised by the results, and I hope Gene does more of them. Heck, if I wasn't on the wrong coast I'd want to participate, but I can't imagine wanting to start collecting vinyl. It's the same thing with Dolby-A analog master tapes; if most people heard them, the first question that would come to mind is why anyone would think that digital was necessary in the recording studio. The truth is, twenty years ago I'd be right there too. But vinyl just doesn't attract me, once I get over the miracle that a phonograph record is capable of high fidelity reproduction at all. :)
 
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
Not me. I enjoyed the article, I was actually surprised by the results, and I hope Gene does more of them. Heck, if I wasn't on the wrong coast I'd want to participate, but I can't imagine wanting to start collecting vinyl. It's the same thing with Dolby-A analog master tapes; if most people heard them, the first question that would come to mind is why anyone would think that digital was necessary in the recording studio. The truth is, twenty years ago I'd be right there too. But vinyl just doesn't attract me, once I get over the miracle that a phonograph record is capable of high fidelity reproduction at all. :)
I'm not talking on going all horders on vinyl :p But maybe a uturn table with a couple records just to see what it's all about. Not a huge investment for something I think I'll probably like.
 
Adam

Adam

Audioholic Jedi
I'm not talking on going all horders on vinyl :p But maybe a uturn table with a couple hundred records just to see what it's all about. Not a huge investment for something I think I'll probably like.
Fixed for you. :p
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top