Questions about "digital" LPs

A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>I just picked up a still sealed box set of Schumann's complete symphonies on Philips Digital Classics and it made me think of some things you technocrats might be able to answer. If a recording was made digitally, and the LP was cut from digital masters, then what makes the LP not really digital, besides the fact that a laser isn't crunching numbers? How can it supposedly sound worse then the same exact CD version? Is it the surface of the disc itself? I also remember reading an article years back about some guy remembering back when Telarc came out with their first digital LPs in the early 80's, and him having to upgrade to a much better stylus in order for him to get the full effects of the digital cannons in the 1812 overture. How can a stylus &quot;read&quot; anything digital? Is this hogwash? I've noticed that the late generation &quot;digital&quot; LPs are mostly classical, and figured not very many people would know about them. Any words of wisdom?</font>
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
<font color='#8D38C9'>There are LPs from the early days of digital that were based on digital masters. &nbsp;The LP itself is of course analog, but made from a digital recording.

I recall some &quot;1/2 Speed Digital Masters&quot; LPs from years ago that sounded quite good- I want to say they were from Mobile Fidelity, but I really can't recall anymore.

Back in the innocent early days, it took a while for the high end to decide digital sucked and all things must be analog!</font>
 
Rip Van Woofer

Rip Van Woofer

Audioholic General
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If a recording was made digitally, and the LP was cut from digital masters, then what makes the LP not really digital, besides the fact that a laser isn't crunching numbers?</td></tr></table>

That's pretty much it. The wiggles of a LP groove are analogs of the audio waveform, as is the signal generated by the phono cartridge, instead of the 1's and 0's of a digital recording.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How can it supposedly sound worse then the same exact CD version? Is it the surface of the disc itself?</td></tr></table>

For one thing, it will get a little worse with each playback due to wear. And there is surface noise of course. Not sure if a pristine LP would be necessarily inferior to a CD, except that it might not have the dynamic range. Just guessing. On the other hand, remember that a phono cartridge, like a speaker, is an electromechanical device and is inherently &quot;lossy&quot; and will add its own distortion -- much more so than even the cheap DACs in a portable CD player.

As for the Telarc 1812 digital recording and the need for a better cartridge, maybe the peak amplitudes of the cannon blasts were greater than those found on most LPs, and a lesser cartridge couldn't handle them. Again, just guessing.

Now, tell me: what the he** am I doing here at 3:15 am...?
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Yes, but what makes a recording truly digital in the first place? Just the fact that there's no physical contact of any kind? Is that what it's all about? I remember those 1/2 speed masters you wrote about now. They were mostly put out by Columbia, and a few other independent labels, and were usually pop music. Yes, they did sound good, but I'm used to digital classical LP's which are much more common. I don't fully understand the &quot;analog only&quot; philosophy that some audiophiles abide by. All my digital LP's sound clean and smooth with no &quot;clicks and pops&quot; that everyone uses as a stereotype to rip on vinyl, and I prefer them to many of the older analog pressings. I would get killed for saying that in another forum!</font>
 
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, tell me: what the he** am I doing here at 3:15 am...? </td></tr></table>I know the insomnia bit very well Rip ol' buddy! My last post was directed at Rob Babcock BTW, just forgot the quote. You raised an interesting point about vinyl wear. I realize that anything that has contact with something else is going to wear out eventually, but when will it's effects become noticeable? How much of it is audible? Is there any mileage warning as on cars like, get rid of this LP after 20,000 rotations? I heard of a guy in a mag who claims to have bought an original Rolling Stones LP from 1966 that he took really good care of. He figures he must've played it about 1800 times, and claims it still sounds the same. Of course, hearing also wears out with age
and the article may have been biased towards analog, I can't remember. I'd be curious to know, as I've never owned an LP that I bought new that &quot;wore out&quot;, excluding my destructive childhood owned LP's (that original picture disc from Star Wars would be worth a lot right now).
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

JAB

Audioholic Intern
<font color='#000000'>I am an avid record collector and have a very large collection of pristine analogue records, some 12&quot; 45's, lots of 1/2 mastered records, and a large collection of the old FFS Decca/London's and RCA Living Stereo recordings.I also have an extensive collection of Reference Recordings, Sheffield, Classic Recordings reissues, Opus, etc. I have some early digital vinyl ( Telarc, Philips, EMI, London etc.). A record will last forever if it is properly cleaned (by a record cleaning machine), stored, and used on properly set-up cartridge/turntable equipment. Unfortunately, the vinyl record is not user friendly - most are played on poorly set-up systems with with little or no cleaning incorporated. Because of the vinyl friction factor, &nbsp;built-up dirt in the grooves is a major record destroyer. One thing you must remember about records is that they have been around for over 100 years ( I have some old Berliner records from 1896 in my collection that still work!).
So we know the longetivity of the format is there - the jury is still out on digital CD, DVD etc.

I still love to go back to vinyl - there is something about the warm sound of properly recorded record with its wide soundstage and depth that draws me back time after time. There is loads of dynamic range in a good LP recording and if you have a quiet playback system you can hear it. I can listen intently to vinyl for hours without fatique - with CD I start getting tired (bored?)after about a half an hour. I have yet to jump on the DVD-A, SACD band wagon, as I do not have the hardware yet (although I have the receivers - a Z9 and a NAD T763) to play back these formats. I am now investigating the purchase of a Denon DVD 2200. I hear good things about this unit playing all formats with good picture and superior sound.

Here are some facts from an old vinyl lover about the my beloved format:

(1) Digital LP's: The earliest ones available were by Telarc who used their own custom designed digital recorder (by Soundstream, I believe) with minimal miking and mixing. The bitrate was higher than Redbook CD, and some of the recordings sound spectacular (not all!!). The (in)famous 1812 recording had close miked cannon shots that was a torture test for any stylus (including mighty expensive ones). The result was the stylus would mistrack and jump out of the groove (the only one I found that would handle the shots was the Shure V15 series cartridges). If you have this LP, hold it up to the light and you will plainly see where each shot is stamped into the record surface.
I purchased a few of the early digital vinyl recordings that London, EMI, RCA and Philips released - some are very good, others not. There recordings are usually in DDA mastering . Some were reissued in ADA and don't sound as good as the original analogue recordings. The companion CD would come out in ADD. Because of the resolution of the CD format, a lot of the majors would remove analogue tape hiss from these early CD reissues. The results were that all the highs and air in the original recording would be removed also - something to akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

1/2 speed mastered: There were many companies, including Mobile Fidelity, Reference Recordings, Sheffield, etc. that released recordings in this format. They were totally analogue with the stampers cut slower with larger shoulders between the recording grooves. The result is the grooves could be cut with wider excursions increasing loudness, dynamic range, and if in the recording- &nbsp;more powerful bass. The downside is that the recording time per side was cut drastically so that a recording issued on a single LP would end up on two (especially Classical music) hence increasing the cost. The resulting sound was usually (again dependent on the quality of the original master tape) far superior.

The 45 RPM LP: The ultra vinyl playback speed! There are a few companies still releasing LP's using this speed. Just like master tapes recorded at faster speeds ( 7.5 ips (not so good,
15 ips (widely used by the majors and generally with very good sound) and 30 ips (the audiophile record companies with excellent sound)), the faster turning speed provides better dynamics, wider freqency range and quieter playback. Better than most CD's!!

Unfortunately, there was a dark period for vinyl pressings around the same as the so-called oil shortages in the 1970's when the record companies used recycled vinyl with paper-thin pressings that were noisy and instantly warped. Just last week, I dropped into the local record store and saw all kinds reissues of LP's pressed on 180 gram virgin vinyl - a sight that warmed my heart (and hopefully, ears!). Needless to say, I bought the 180 gram reissue of Santana's Abbaxas, and for 11.99 Canadian!

It's going on the turntable this weekend!

Al</font>
 
Rip Van Woofer

Rip Van Woofer

Audioholic General
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, but what makes a recording truly digital in the first place? Just the fact that there's no physical contact of any kind? Is that what it's all about?</td></tr></table>

Hoo boy. We have to talk about fundamentals here: what do &quot;digital and &quot;analog&quot; mean?

A digital recording -- digital electronics of any kind -- is based on numbers, usually binary (1 and 0). A CD is made up of microscopic pits and flats corresponding to the 1s and 0s. In turn, a digital master tape is simply encoded with 1s and 0s. In both cases, these correspond to on and off switches. Your CD player reads the sequence of 1s and 0s/on and off pulses and, using some seriously gnarly math (the Nyquist-Shannon theorem), reconstructs the original audio waveform with great precision. I'm a math idiot so someone else will have to explain that.

Analog recordings -- or analog electronics of any kind -- are not based on numbers. If digital is basically a bunch of switches turning on and off, analog is based on continuously variable but constant signals. Analog is always &quot;on&quot;, but it varies smoothly and constantly. Think of it as a volume control (or other kind of potentiometer) being turned up and down. The wiggles in a record groove are physical analogs of the sound waves that traveled thru the air to the microphone in the first place. Those wiggles get turned into a constantly fluctuating voltage -- always on, but varying -- by the phono cartridge and other analog components in your audio gear. The voltage fluctuations are analogs (&quot;equivalents&quot;) of the original sound. And those wiggles are themselves analogs of the voltage fluctuations produced by the microphone, the mic preamp, mixer, tape recorder, and so on throughout the recording /mixing process.

When you think about it, an old-fashioned music box is a sort of digital device, albeit crude. It has holes in a disk that engage metal tines that make that tinkly music. There's either a hole or there isn't. It goes &quot;plink&quot; or it doesn't; it's either &quot;on&quot; or &quot;off&quot;. What it lacks (among other things) is the math to reconstruct the comples audio waveforms that characterise the sound of singers and orchestras. So, yes, there can be physical contact. Same with Morse code. Or a Jacquard fabric loom (look it up -- the Jacquard loom is considered a precursor to our digital computers!).

To sum up: digital electronics are based on discrete, numerical processes. Analog is based on continuously and infinitely variable signals.

Basically, the trouble with analog is that at every step of the way -- every time a signal is converted into another analog of the previous signal -- there are inevitable losses and distortions. And there are lots of steps in the process between the recording microphone and the finished LP or CD. By definintion, an analog of something isn't an exact copy of the original, but something that is &quot;like&quot; the original but in another form. &quot;Like&quot; is not the same as &quot;exact&quot;.

In contrast, the 1's and 0's of digital stay the same at every step, so the CD is much closer to the original master tape. There are only two places to incur distortions and loss: when the analog signal of the microphone is transmitted to the digital recorder, and then when your DAC converts the digital signal back to analog (leaving aside your amp and speakers for the moment).

Once upon a time, there were even analog computers!

(If you've made it all the way thru and are saying to yourself &quot;I'm sorry I asked&quot;, I don't blame you!)</font>
 
M

mustang_steve

Senior Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Think of it as poijtilism in art.

Pointilism is where a picture is made of very tiny dots. &nbsp;In this case, teh dots come in onyl one color and shade, ptich black.
usually pointilism is done in paint or ink.

Now lets try to make a catroon out of imiages made form pointilism.

Now you can space the &nbsp;dots as far apart as you like (frequency range), but can only have each picture a certain size (bitrate). &nbsp;this gives you your limitations...

In the case of CD, it is 16-bit 44,100Hz. &nbsp;So, each chunk is 16-bits in size (16 binary spots, where it can either be 0 or 1), and that chunk represents data from 1 to 44,100Hz. &nbsp;

To accomplish this you have a DAC (Digital/Alnalog Converter) that takes the digital data your CD player is reading, and makes it an analog signal. &nbsp;There are different complexity DACs, from 1 bit, to over 20bits. &nbsp;Some designs even emplpoy multiple DACs that feed to a master unit that does averaging before sending out the final signal.

Now what a record does, is pure analog. &nbsp;In an analog system the input is only defined by it's topmost and bottomost limits. &nbsp;There is no conversions, there are no data packets, the circuit is the utmost in simplicity. &nbsp;the downside to this is any damage done to analog recordings will alter the sound of the recording. &nbsp;Often a &nbsp;good CD player can read through a few minor scratches no problem.

Think of analog as the pencil drawing of the same picture that was done in pointilism.....at 50 feet they might look very similar, but the way they were made was quite different. &nbsp;And the pencil image, while it &nbsp;looks like the pointilism image now, &nbsp;will wear out if handled often, much like how records wear down when &nbsp;played often.</font>
 
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Hey! What happened to my posts?
I guess I'll have to repeat myself. I just wanted to thank Rip for his beautiful essay on analog/digital, but I already did have a little knowledge between the differences. I was just confused on how something could kinda be both digital and analog at the same time. It is a little weird when you think about it... digital LPs?
However, you always learn something new when Rip talks, unless he says things like, &quot;Us Italians have always been good at masonry&quot;. Gee... I already knew that!
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am an avid record collector and have a very large collection of pristine analogue records, some 12&quot; 45's, lots of 1/2 mastered records, and a large collection of the old FFS Decca/London's and RCA Living Stereo recordings.I also have an extensive collection of Reference Recordings, Sheffield, Classic Recordings reissues, Opus, etc. I have some early digital vinyl ( Telarc, Philips, EMI, London etc.).</td></tr></table>Fellow Vinyl Junkie!
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeE SP9

JoeE SP9

Senior Audioholic
A. Vivaldi said:
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am an avid record collector and have a very large collection of pristine analogue records, some 12&quot; 45's, lots of 1/2 mastered records, and a large collection of the old FFS Decca/London's and RCA Living Stereo recordings.I also have an extensive collection of Reference Recordings, Sheffield, Classic Recordings reissues, Opus, etc. I have some early digital vinyl ( Telarc, Philips, EMI, London etc.).</td></tr></table>Fellow Vinyl Junkie!
</font>
I own a copy of the Telarc 1812. I have seen a cannon blast snap a stylus right of the cantilever. I'm also a vinyl lover. If you are, check out "musicstack.com" a great source for vinyl. :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
A. Vivaldi said:
<font color='#000000'>I just picked up a still sealed box set of Schumann's complete symphonies on Philips Digital Classics and it made me think of some things you technocrats might be able to answer. If a recording was made digitally, and the LP was cut from digital masters, then what makes the LP not really digital, besides the fact that a laser isn't crunching numbers? How can it supposedly sound worse then the same exact CD version? Is it the surface of the disc itself? I also remember reading an article years back about some guy remembering back when Telarc came out with their first digital LPs in the early 80's, and him having to upgrade to a much better stylus in order for him to get the full effects of the digital cannons in the 1812 overture. How can a stylus &quot;read&quot; anything digital? Is this hogwash? I've noticed that the late generation &quot;digital&quot; LPs are mostly classical, and figured not very many people would know about them. Any words of wisdom?</font>

Vinyl is inherently limited in its capability to record and play back an audio signal. So, in that light, it can sound worse than the master tape or a well made CD. Firstly, it would have a higher noise floor. Secondly, the dynamic range is nowhere close to the master tape capability or a CD. Thirdly, higher distortion inherent to vinyl that is of no concern to the other two.
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
mtrycrafts said:
Vinyl is inherently limited in its capability to record and play back an audio signal. So, in that light, it can sound worse than the master tape or a well made CD. Firstly, it would have a higher noise floor. Secondly, the dynamic range is nowhere close to the master tape capability or a CD. Thirdly, higher distortion inherent to vinyl that is of no concern to the other two.
Actually, from what I have read so far, the distortion is not so great with 1/2" studio tape or 2" used in multitrack mode(apparently things are different in 2 channel mode for 2" -- but this apparently is not a practical use for this tape due to several reasons, cost being one--therfor nothig in this post is meant to apply to 2" used in 2 channel mode). Apparently, nearing -17dB, studio tapes are specced at 2-3% THD(saturation). With around 70-75dB S:N available on average(before NR)with 50-55dB(slightly better with noise reduction) before single digit THD numbers set in? Not so great. If you have some concisive source on magnetic tape measurments/modes that would be nice. I seem to not be able to find a truly useful source of this data wth proper references.

-Chris
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
WmAx said:
Actually, from what I have read so far, the distortion is not so great with 1/2" studio tape or 2" used in multitrack mode(apparently things are different in 2 channel mode for 2" -- but this apparently is not a practical use for this tape due to several reasons, cost being one--therfor nothig in this post is meant to apply to 2" used in 2 channel mode). Apparently, nearing -17dB, studio tapes are specced at 2-3% THD(saturation). With around 70-75dB S:N available on average(before NR)with 50-55dB(slightly better with noise reduction) before single digit THD numbers set in? Not so great. If you have some concisive source on magnetic tape measurments/modes that would be nice. I seem to not be able to find a truly useful source of this data wth proper references.

-Chris

Are they still using 2" master tapes, in this age a digital? What a shame ;)
 
newsletter

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