As you may know I am in the process of digitally archiving my vinyl. This is a long, and let's not beat about the bush, tedious process, only relieved by the joy of rediscovering and plain discovering some great music ....and unfortunately some dreadful pieces!
Over the last few weeks I decided to test whether these LP rips were actually 'better' or whether I was deceiving myself. I set up a playlist on my NS01 with tracks where I had LP rip & digital, I then played these to a number of friends and family. The results:
Consistently preferred LP rip ..........3
Consistently preferred digital ..........0
Mixed ..............................................2
The mixed were the people stated they could hear no difference on some tracks and then were inconsistent on choosing one source over the other.
I decided to take the test myself, with my daughter in control of what was played.
When I tested a person I simply asked them which track they preferred. In mine I tried to identify the LP rip.
My result: 5 pairs of tracks in which I correctly identified the LP rip; but with two I thought the digital was 'better' in HiFi terms ....and this did get me thinking.
Whether I or anyone else can 'spot' a digital vs LP rip by listening to short passages of music is not the point. What I can state positively is that I am listening to a LOT more music, both in terms of frequency and length; I generally find the LP Rip simply more relaxing to listen to. I do not mean that it lacks visceral dynamics, far from it, but I think that I do not await the appearance of an uncomfortable edge.
I will mention two tracks: Stevie Wonder - Superstition; and, Genesis - Mama.
Superstition: Both the digital and LP rip are very dynamic, and the bass for the digital rendition is subterranean. Additionally the higher frequencies reveal more detail than the LP rip, this detail IS present on the LP rip it just isn't so obvious, 'in your face'? When listening to a short piece of Superstition I would select the digital rendition as better. However, I know that when I listen to the LP rip I get comfortable and listen to the whole album. With the CD rip I start hoping through tracks.
Mama is interesting as I think the CD rip IS simply better, but it is a dreadful recording regardless!
M
Posted on: 30 April 2015 by George Johnson
I have some LP transfers to CD standard that have convinced some golden ears that they were from the master tape direct rather than through forty or fifty year old LPs played on a Rega P3 [Super Elys cart] on a Philips 760 CD recorder through a 52. These LPs were mint because of real care. Whole half hours without a single pop or crackle. That should seem incredible, but it is true. I still have these transfers in iTunes, in some cases.
Of course - in my view - the subsequent real from the master tape CDs were actually rather finer, but the needle drops were very enjoyable!
ATB from George
Posted on: 30 April 2015 by George Johnson
For me the best digital recordings are better [but still obviously not perfect] than any analogue recordings.
The best analogue recordings are better than the worst digital ...
The best analogue recordings tend to be direct cut without tape in the process ...
Both tape and cutting to disc involve big compromises ...
Digital involves compromises as well, but none so large as any analogue sytem actually used ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 30 April 2015 by sjbabbey
Originally Posted by dayjay:
So, a digital recording from an lp is better than a digital recording from the master? Clearly what people are expressing a preference for is the colouration of vinyl, in which case why not listen to the vinyl. I don't get it at all
I think the issue is that many CDs have been remixed/remastered and are no longer representative of the original master tape recording. Also, many classic rock master tapes will have deteriorated over the years.
Yes, maybe some of the preference for the sound of vinyl rips could be put down to "nostalgia" but I think we can recall that early 'perfect' CD digital sound was criticised for being too bright/harsh. Was this sound really a true digital representation of the original master?
Nobody is saying that digitised vinyl rips are as good as the original analog masters or a mint copy of the vinyl record itself but skilfully done with high quality equipment they can still be very enjoyable and to some ears their higher resolution (not restricted by red book specs) may be preferred to a CD version.
Posted on: 01 May 2015 by Mr Underhill
Hi Tony,
In my case I have a LOT of albums and can only keep a subset to hand for playing. I enjoy setting up playlists that include tracks from a number of albums. This also enables me to listen to good music whilst small, medium and large children are on the prowl - not to mention cats. Having the LPs on my NAS makes them available to stream round the house. Finally, I have script which converts any new files I have to MP3 for transfer to my phone.
A friend of mine characterises my LP rips as 'sounding like an LP12 - which he means in a semi derogatory way as he would like me to upgrade via Tiger Paw.
I do not agree that there is any simple order: HiDef Digital > Good CD rip > etc.
Generally I DO prefer my LP rips but I could easily set up a demo to demonstrate that well mastered CD rips or HiDef files are better.
For me the key thing is that when listening to LP rips I listen for longer and more regularly.
M
Posted on: 03 May 2015 by analogmusic
LP may be recorded from a hi resolution digital master (higher than 44.1/16) so has that advantage
Also from what I can hear, Vinyl is not transparent, and has it's own sound (even if digitally recorded) which is pleasant on the ear.
One recording engineer explained to me as saying it has a "comb filter" effect. Analog tape isn't transparent either, and adds something to the sound, which is also pleasing on the ear.
Posted on: 03 May 2015 by George Johnson
Originally Posted by joerand:
Originally Posted by George Johnson:
I have some LP transfers to CD standard..... I still have these transfers in iTunes, in some cases.
George,
Given your recent posts on music ownership rights and prior posts on the legacy of your vinyl, I have to ask whether you should still be in possession of said iTunes transfers? Hopefully you've kept those LPs!
Given that the LPs concerned were original 1950s pressings, and long since out of copyright, there is no requirement to retain the originals. The material is public domain [called "PD" on record labels]!
The copyright period for recordings is fifty years. A new re-issue gains new copyright from the year of issue. So a 2015 CD of a recording made sixty years ago has a new copyright in this specific remastering, but not from sixty year old vinyl pressings.
For example the commercial Regis Company legally uses out of copyright vinyl to make transfers and remasterings for CD re-issues that are sold entirely without any payment to the original recording company or artists concerned. After fifty years it is fair to observe that most of the artists concerned are no longer with us, and many of the original recording companies themselves have either ceased to exist or exist as part of quite different organisations.
I do have two LPs left. Kept for sentimental reasons as being my first ones. Given me for my tenth birthday over forty years ago now.
It is also true that in every case, I have also bought commercial CD release - re-issued since my transfers - even though the original recordings are out of copyright, so that from me the recording companies and by extension the artists [if they are still alive] on the recording have been rewarded by me twice for their labours. I only keep the home made transfers for sentimental reasons!
The CDs from best source master parts are always finer ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 03 May 2015 by George Johnson
An interesting case of out of copyright recordings concerns the DG recordings of Helmut Walcha's rightly famous [if incomplete] Bach Organ music recorded in mono between 1947 and 1952.
Of course any company may assemble the original vinyl and shellac discs to transfer to CD legally.
DG chose to release the set on pristine CD remasterings using the original carefully restored master parts and tapes. I have this CD set. Superb. Issued now some 15 years ago.
Shortly after that estimable restored edition appeared a small company produced a rival set of CDs at a considerable saving in price. No statement appeared about what was the provenance of the transfers used, and DG went to Court to show that the small independent company had in fact based its own CD release on the DG CDs, and not the original vinyl and shellac discs. Apparently there were some tell tale aspects to be found in better editing of tape and side joins in the DG re-issue! The cheaper set had breached the copyright that existed in the new DG CD release! And they had to withdraw their budget priced CDs. Had they made transfers from the original commercially released LPs and 78s, they could have legally carried on!
ATB from George
Posted on: 04 May 2015 by Mr Underhill
Originally Posted by analogmusic:
Vinyl is not transparent, and has it's own sound (even if digitally recorded) which is pleasant on the ear.
This was why I started on this path. I thought it was interesting that listening to short passages doing the exercise above lead me to do a HiFi style analysis, but I feel this misses the point. Whether any system or file allows you to hear more detail is all well and good, ultimately I want to be able to be transported, to listen for long periods and be absorbed in the music. My vinyl, and vinyl rips, does this better that my digital files, whether those are HiDef, Internet streamed or CD sourced; but I do think the gap is narrowing all the time - and some aspects of the digital files are consistently better, all else being equal.
M
