Vinyl is where it's at???

Brothers in Arms was actually recorded using an analogue Neve 8078 console, into a digital multi-track.
It was then mixed on an analogue mixing console. The resulting two tracks were then converted back to digital and recorded onto DAT.

As to DSD - to get the benefit of a DSD playback, the recording has to be done in that format (ultra high-frequency sampling, but with only 1 bit of information).

Mastering:
This is a final touch-up of a recording, which prepares a 'master' version for copying onto a vinyl, CD, etc, etc. The signal is compressed, processed as needed. Perversely LPs typically required more compression, so that the needle would not jump out of the groove at sudden signal changes

Innocent Bystander posted:

Eloise posted:

Even with identical mixing recorded back to 16/44.1 ... mastering can still provide a difference between CD, vinyl and SACD (though then claiming its pure DSD is misleading).

What I don't understand is why there should be mastering differences between LP and digital releases (ignoring subsequent remastering), or as one I cited, apparently between CDs pressed in different countries. In my naivety I would expect the mastering to be to the audio satisfaction of the artist/engineer/publisher, and then simply put out in the different formats. Or do they think the different formats go to different markets which are divided by a different taste in sound?

LPs need different mastering than digital releases.  (My layman's understanding is that) Producing a retail product is a series of processes, the recording and mixing which produces a final "Mix".  That Mix is then sent to the mastering engineer to produce the final recording for CD or LP.  Often different engineers will be used for the CD and the LP, or at least different decisions will be made over levels and compression, EQ, etc.  Remember that of course the LP master also requires RIAA EQ to be added (there was reports in the early days of CD that some of the LP masters complete with RIAA EQ were sent and put on CD without any change resulting in awful reproduction).

CDs produced in different countries would (IMO) be a different issue - that of the quality of the pressing. With a CD played back on a CD player, the player has to read the disc in "real time" so any imperfections can cause errors or at least issues of jitter.  If you are ripping a CD, then the resultant rips should be identical as a computer drive can read repeatedly until it gets a perfect rip.

Adam Zielinski posted:

As to DSD - to get the benefit of a DSD playback, the recording has to be done in that format (ultra high-frequency sampling, but with only 1 bit of information).

Mostly I agree with your post... but this statement is debatable.

A lot of DSD recordings available are actually from analogue masters, the idea of DSD originally was that it was an archival format more than for new recordings.  

The big issue with DSD is that it is impossible to do much processing / EQ on it; anything that needs mixing, EQing, etc is converted to high bitrate DSD (a.k.a. DXD) then converted back.  Some DAW (Digital Audio Workstations) are able to just covert the segment requiring processing (e.g. a second or two).

There is also the situation where some people prefer their computer to convert PCM to DSD to be passed to the DAC.  This is mostly due to the fact that they prefer the DAC when it is processing in this way (in the same way some people will upsample in the computer prior to sending to the DAC) rather than an inherent superiority of DSD over PCM.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Or is it to keep the analog vs digital debate going, thus fuel for this forum?!

Well not so much to keep the debate going ... but it does help to explain that things are not always as they appear!

Eloise posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

As to DSD - to get the benefit of a DSD playback, the recording has to be done in that format (ultra high-frequency sampling, but with only 1 bit of information).

Mostly I agree with your post... but this statement is debatable.

A lot of DSD recordings available are actually from analogue masters, the idea of DSD originally was that it was an archival format more than for new recordings.  

Fully agree. What I meant is that what comes out from the analogue domain (be it live recording or analogue master tapes) needs to be encoded in DSD at that point in time to get the benefits of the DSD playback.

I personally don't know of any analogue tape system that's capable of matching, let alone exceeding the technical parameters of the red book format, with the single exception that some can record HF beyond 22khz.

An analogue master provides no significant overall advantage over 16/44.1 PCM for conversion to DSD, indeed it actually has many more limitations.

Yes, The vinyl lp is indeed where it is at.

Bodger posted:

 

 

Clive,

just a quick word to the wise. I have the Shakes "Boys & Girls" on vinyl. The SQ is lousy so save your money. I can't comment on their second album as I never bought it.

Dave

 

 

Thanks, Dave - I will avoid!

Clive

Huge posted:

I personally don't know of any analogue tape system that's capable of matching, let alone exceeding the technical parameters of the red book format, with the single exception that some can record HF beyond 22khz.

An analogue master provides no significant overall advantage over 16/44.1 PCM for conversion to DSD, indeed it actually has many more limitations.

In any case, is not the critical difference that CD / Digital has a sharp cutoff at 22kHz where as analogue tape has a gentler, more natural roll off.

Eloise

All academic surely? At my age (5th decade) I'm getting nowhere near that!