Vinyl best
Join Our Community Subscribe to Paul's PostsIn my earlier post, Audio Pedigree I waxed on about how nice it would be to know the true origins of our music’s recordings. Remastered vinyl “improved” by digital enhancement from the original analog tape is rarely as good as the original and often worse.
This prompted a few juicy questions about our own Octave Records process as we move into vinyl. While we’re completely transparent as to the recording methods and source materials, it would seem to some that vinyl mastered from DSD falls into a similar category as the aforementioned digital remasters I do not like.
Not so.
The ultimate quality of vinyl is achieved by what we used to call Direct-to-Disc recording. Where the long-ago norm was to first record on magnetic tape then transfer to vinyl, a few labels skipped the tape recorder altogether. Artists would play live while vinyl cutting engineers went direct to the lathe. These direct-to-disc recordings were amazing but not because of any superior cutting techniques.
What made direct-to-disc recordings sound so great was the elimination of the magnetic tape recorder. That was it. Tape recorders have limited dynamic range—less than what’s possible on a vinyl disc.
So the problem is in the recorder, which is why it seemed to make sense to record digitally. Digital recorders have dynamic range capabilities that far exceed the limitations of vinyl. Thus, with digital, it should be possible to obtain the same performance as we got with direct-to-disc. And while that is true when it comes to dynamics, it isn’t true when it comes to sounding like the live event.
This is where we draw the line between PCM and DSD. PCM can often sound artificial while DSD in the right hands sounds analog-live.
A new era is upon us. It is now possible to create direct-to-disc quality vinyl without requiring the musicians to play live.
Stay tuned.
Hmmm…”Vinyl best”…Juxtaposition or Oxymoron…discuss.
IMO the argumentation makes sense from the “one step elimination”, “dynamic range” and “better than PCM” perspective.
Two things I think are worth mentioning:
1. purely analog recorded, processed and played back music (inspite of tape limitations) still has qualities (not only harmonic additions) – also compared to DSD transfers – which seem superior (not just as a pure matter of taste) on sophisticated vinyl rigs or tape machines. Examples are comparisons of analog recordings e.g. of the label Analogue Productions done for vinyl and SACD. However it would be interesting to compare DSD recorded music with a parallel analog recording, both cut to vinyl.
2. There are leading labels (regarding audiophile quality) even having not only the option to record in DSD but also in parallel having the option to record on tape (or even PCM) for vinyl releases (like Yarlung and Opus 3). Those labels decided – differently than Paul for Octave Records – to record on tape for vinyl releases, not on DSD. By the info I got, they did so – also, but not only – because of the favored harmonic characteristics tape inherits (probably mainly due to its limitations). There seems to be more than coloration and limitation… not only for those who experienced differences between all analog processed music and any digital involved (incl. DSD, which some call analog, too).
So, as always, there seem to be also differing opinions among professionals. What a pity that no one publishes a suitable recording made on DSD, PCM and tape, released as DSD download, PCM download and vinyl. Then not only those with the parallel recording options could find out, but also the common audiophile.
.
.
.
.
.
By the way…I bought several of the lates direct to disc recordings, which really sound great. But what gets obvious also here is, that the recording technique still plays a far superior role. Given the same recording played back on various formats, the sequence of performance is clear for most of us individually…but the best sounding result imo is always the best recorded one, independent of the format.
Agree with all that, but mostly the final comment that it’s the recording that counts.
I dug out a Solti Bruckner 5 on “London Digital Recording” and the entire inside sleeve is dedicated tp an article by the General Manager of the label politely trashing tape as a recording medium (first column first page) and expounding that “16 binary digits…” can “handle the entire musical dynamic range with some reserve” (first column second page). https://flic.kr/p/2jXCab1 https://flic.kr/p/2jXD1gG I can’t help but feel that Mr Bayliff was arguing for 16-bit over tape just as Paul is arguing for DSD over tape, just 41 years earlier.
You also have to consider the pressing, whether lacquer or DMM. The latter was popular because of the level of detail and transient speed, but was sometimes considered too bright, whether or not it was actually a more accurate transfer.
I’ve dug out another: “Joaquin:Plainchant” on Gimell released in 1986, a digital recording and a DMM by Teldec. I’ll give it a spin later.
This is now old territory, but I went to the trouble of pulling out some vinyl records using each format, in date order:
Tape to Vinyl: Mahler 5 recorded by EMI 1969
Denon PCM to vinyl: “Historical guitar collection” Denon Japan 1977
Digital to vinyl: “Handel: Coronation Anthems” Archiv Produktion 1981 (don’t know what hardware)
DSD to vinyl: Rolling Stones “Let it Bleed” Abkco released 2003
Direct cut to vinyl: “One-Zero” cut at Metropolis in 2012
The direct cut is exceptional, the Denon has rather limited dynamic range, but the one that Paul thinks is the worst recording format is the Mahler, which is magnificent and the recent 24/96 transfer is superb as well.
Didn’t Paul always claim that it is all about synergy and that focusing on a single parameter (dynamic range) wouldn’t respect the complexity of human hearing? Here is a most refreshing look to today’s topic: https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/10/17/hi-fi-why-do-records-sound-better-the-ivory-tower/ . 😉
To quote your linked article: “ Yes, poor digital can suck the life out of a signal. And poor analog, especially tape, can rob the signal of a lot of great things as well.”
In the final order of the subject matter… what, ultimately , does it all mean??
https://www.thesoundadvocate.com/2020/08/analog-vs-digital-audio-some-final-thoughts/
Hello Paul, I’ve just sold all my vinyl records, except the Lyncoln Mayorga registrations. Paul, I think DSD registrations cut on vinyl at 45 rpm, might have a future for all those who are willing to invest in excellent turntables. I hope more artists will come to Octave records and I hope that one day Octave records will go to the concerthalls to record all that brilliant classical music as well. Regards, Gert R.J. Smit.
Paul, consider getting in Jessica Williams, “best unknown jazz piano player”. A universal pleaser in every dimension (sound empathy skill intelligence and fun).
She opened for Bill Evans, “ where the heck have you been?”
Try her “Touch” recent recording.
Paul,
While I fully agree with your comments above regarding how good DSD is, I have your piano SACD which is amazing, your comment of “Tape recorders have limited dynamic range—less than what’s possible on a vinyl disc” trouble me…
… you’re saying that the likes of Abbey Road Master tapes compromised the dynamic range instead of direct cut to vinyl?
What ‘tape recorders’ are you quoting above, domestic cassette tapes?
Obviously disputable, but even Wiki had reasonable statements, do you disagree with any of these?
Dynamic range – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording
“…
Consumer analog cassette tapes have a dynamic range of 60 to 70 dB
Analog FM broadcasts rarely have a dynamic range exceeding 50 dB
The dynamic range of a direct-cut vinyl record may surpass 70 dB
Analog studio master tapes can have a dynamic range of up to 77 dB
Vinyl records typically yield 55-65 dB…
A theoretical LP made out of perfect diamond has an atomic feature size of about 0.5 nanometer, which, with a groove size of 8 micron, yields a dynamic range of 110 dB…
…“
“The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB”
… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
So, are your new LP’s made of diamonds 😉
Alan, Do you know d these dynamic range levels expressed in dB’s are dB’s of sound pressure levels or dB’s of signal voltage levels?
Also what do you have to type to make a wink face?
Sorry for all the questions?
They will be signal voltage levels – good point, as the audio system, from recording to replay, ‘as a whole’ has to use well designed components to retain very high dynamic levels. I guess one of the reasons Paul’s IRSV System sounds so ‘live’ and so good.
As for the 😉 I just typed a semicolon, a minus then a closing bracket.
I’ll have to check! Last I looked it was something a bit softer, like vinyl.
The difference in dynamics from a direct-to-disc vinyl vs. a tape recorded version may have been only a few dB, but whatever the actual numbers, they were noticeably more dynamic. I remember the original Sheffield series of Lincoln Mayorga where the needle actually jumped out of the groove of the record when playing. I had to actually realign the turntable to play Sheffield discs without interruptions.
So, while the numbers you quote are probably generally accurate, I am not sure they adequately cover the subject. The point remains that direct-to-disc vinyl is noticeably more dynamic than when a tape recorder was in the mix – and the only real difference is the ack of the tape recorder. I can also suggest that listening to a few cuts on our upcoming Reference disc, I have never experienced anything close in dynamics. It’ll be interesting to see how well this translates to vinyl since we will have to use compression to fit them onto the disc.
The point of the post was not to be argumentative but to point out that no longer do we need to perform live to a cutting lathe nor do we have to suffer the dynamic limitations of the recording medium.
I fully agree with Paul that DSD comes extremely close to analog. I make DSD needle drops and I have a very hard time telling them from the vinyl that is playing since my DSD recorder has a monitor button that allows me to toggle between source and recording and I can do this in real time while the recording is being made.
However, I have never had the opportunity to listen to be in a recording studio where you can toggle between the a live performance and a DSD recording of it as the recording is being made. I believe that DSD captures live music as well as it capture vinyl, but I haver no experience with recording live music with DSD.
I also still think that analog RTR recording is an excellent source and if anyone has a first or second generation 15 ips studio master of the Beatles, the Stones or Dylan they want to find a good home for please let me know. I would be willing to travel to personally pick it up. 🙂
One comment regarding D2D vinyl recordings. These things are far from “created equal” and necessarily better for SQ. Think of the challenges for the recording engineers and performers to get all of this “right” during the live performance. When it’s done right it is truly exceptional. When not quite right it’s not very impressive as you’d expect. I also second (strongly) the quality of a recording has far more impact to sound quality than format whether digital or analog or a mix of the two. I have a few plain-old “Red Book” CDs that sound better than anything in my collection.
Paul I wonder if your comments give the impression that D2D was a later discovery and utilized for limited recordings to improve on the “standard” procedure of recording on tape, then mastering and pressing the vinyl? “Where the long-ago norm was to first record on magnetic tape then transfer to vinyl, a few labels skipped the tape recorder altogether.”
As I’m sure you know magnetic tape was not developed and utilized in the recording process until after WW2. Prior to that all recordings were made by a direct process. Doug Sax (Sheffield Labs) often told the story of being amazed by the “presence” quality of older 78 records. Realizing those were recorded directly inspired him to direct cutting of a vinyl master LP, bypassing the normal taping.
Yes, recording onto tape had become the norm since the late ’40s. That was easier on the musicians and allowed a much greater range of mastering. But adding more steps in the process didn’t improve the sonic quality.
Direct to disc can no longer be duplicated so what alternative is there other than attaining the original disc and recording that to vinyl or over to DSD? I prefer analog to remain pure analog whether it’s coming from a tape or the original disc. DSD is fine if you’re playing it back on digital but not OK if its going from DSD and back to vinyl. Not for the analog purist. Might as well just playback on DSD. What would you gain by transferring it over to vinyl? Houston we have a problem.
A subject that opens an exciting can of warms… Why ‘butchering’ DSD material in order to squeeze the full monty into the grooves? The same track in DSD form will surely be better reproduced on the same system via your own good PS Audio DAC (especially when we talk about PS Audio LP releases) than even a very good turntable/arm/cartridge/head-amp combination… That combo, to be serious, should roughly cost over 5K whereas your decent DAC, the best you produce, is under 4K. I can guarantee you that even a different, but high-quality DAC that can be had for under 1.5K will outperform the expensive t/table when replaying the same DSD track cut on vinyl.
Releasing an LP version of DSD recording (and I hope that we talk about at least DSD128 – 256 or 512 even better) somehow does seem to rob the logic of sound recording and reproduction progress – it would be better to advocate the use of exemplary DACs to those still with their t/tables as the only source of quality audio than to give them new music material on vinyl where an original DSD master recording exists and was used as an originator for this ‘modern’ LP.
One way or the other, these DSD-mastered LPs will never sound as good as the DSD original tracks given a good DAC. They will misrepresent (undersell) the scope of the sound quality of the DSD medium (available properly only via DAC) to all vinyl lovers. The usual, pretty average vinyl replay setups will be yet another obstacle on the way of subtle, massively dynamic, nuanced musical data flow that good DSD recordings do possess and those new LPs will partially contain. Still, the real thing will remain easily available via DAC’s native DSD tracks’ replay.
I am a collector of vinyl, a listener, and an equipment connoisseur (Linn, Koetsu, Class A valve monoblocks, Quad ESL 57 panel, Stax ear speakers etc.) and a fan of live music recording – a dedicated fan who turned pro ages ago with over a hundred a fifty concerts in the catalog – all DSD128 material done with Rupert Neve signature ribbon mics, silver interconnects, air and structure-born vibration isolation etc. A serious audiophile affair, to be sure.
The only advantage I see in producing and distributing DSD-based LPs is reaching an audience that just will not bother sorting out DSD replay properly, if at all. On their t/table these LPs may and will sound very refreshing indeed.
Still, a free DDS replay software like BRIO, a simple but quite adequate DAC/headamp from iFi Audio or Chord, and an s/h pair of Sennheiser HD 600, for example, would have served most of them better. IMHO.
P.S. I am not referring to that slim 1-2% minority with a truly decent audio system. But they all should have bought a good DAC by now! Perhaps a dCS unit as they tend to do when price is no object. 😉
In my comment, I failed to mention that the prices I was referring to were related to s/h gear and were in GBP.
InterdaMusic, I have to admit my heart and ears are with you here. I’ve got a dCS Vivaldi stack, Legacy Valor speakers, file service over a fiber isolated network, both Merrill and BHK amps, also an MSB Select for my electrostatic and ribbon headphones. I understand the romance of vinyl, and the sonic horror of much early [and even current] digital. But . . . as I said elsewhere, I am all in on digital primarily for two reasons: (1) the removal of several mechanical barriers—e.g., turntables and plinths, moving platters, cartridges, styli, tonearms, inner groove distortion, disc warpage, and inevitable frictional deterioration—improves the likelihood of accurate reproduction; and (2) every single time I play a piece of music, it is exactly the same quality as before. Granted, there are plenty of recordings that have been optimized for that old RIAA curve and plenty of recordings that can sound great on vinyl, but if a recording has been properly engineered, anything less than a digital reproduction won’t do it justice. Just my two cents, adjusted for inflation. 😀
BTW, is this you: https://www.facebook.com/interdamusic/
Greetings to you, palerider! It was good to read your comment. I was glad to note the equipment that you use. There is an interesting opportunity here for me. I’d like to pass to you a few native DSD128 master tracks, of a special quality each, from my recent recordings in order to ask you for your view on their music value. It would be good to have your opinion on the matter as I keep delaying work on their official release. The entire collection has not seen the light of day yet… Please send me an email so that I can pass you the link to the Dropbox folder privately (sergei@interda.com).
As for Facebook, yes, it is my page, but I did not touch it for over a couple of years being busy with setting up (testing most of the time) a cinematic multicamera video production unit in addition to a DSD128 recording setup that I’ve more or less perfected (the wish is to go from a two sE RNR1s mics to eight for close miking, etc. using HAPI, an AD/DA converter from Merging Technology). And now a four-camera streaming setup is being tested. We will have the best technically possible sound to accompany high-quality visual presentation to support our talks about audio gear, LPs’ replay, showing videos with uncompressed 96kHz/24-bit audio tracks etc.
We plan to discuss the subject of the modern audio roller-coaster ride in-depth, the sound recording and reproduction games, an odd corporate indifference to true ‘sounds of music’, program after program… The amount of misunderstanding, disinformation and nonsense surrounding music is appalling! And there is a massive uninformed audience eager to learn how to sort out their replay systems in order to fall in love with the music… To hear it properly for a change… To wean them off their staple diet of noisy dross from smartphones with stock ear-buds… 😉 Warm regards. S.
Thank you Sergei. Email sent.
Here’s what I know: the latest Clandestine Amigo recording sounds fantastic. I’ve been all-in on digital for some time. And while I thoroughly enjoyed my turntables of year’s past, I will never ever go back to the encumbrance of vinyl and what feels [only to me, and solely IMO] like the laborious service of vinyl. Others obviously feel very different. And that’s cool for all of us, because whether we love vinyl or digital, we all want superb recordings. And I agree with Paul that, in the here and now, DSD recording is probably the best current method to record the performance [though I reject the “analog-live” metaphor; reality is digital; analog is the approximation ;-). I think Cookie Marenco at Blue Coast and others would agree. So, what I hope Paul and the team at Octave continue to do is seek out musicians who want to make great recordings, record them as well as possible and suitable for their musical style, and engineer and then publish them optimized for whatever medium they choose. We will all benefit from that.
I spoke to Guenter Pauler today, owner of the label which imo produces the best or at least together with 3 or 4 other labels like Chesky, Reference Recordings, Analogue Productions…the best recordings available with a kind of holographic palpability which is not available from all of the great labels.
What he said toots the horn of Steven more than others.
Pauler records everything in 24/88.2. He does so because it’s up (DSD) and down (16/44) convertible mathematically the easiest. And he does so because he says, nobody can hear a difference between the hires formats (he has various samples for download and the whole audiophile hifi press who wanted to hear differences wasn’t able to distinguish in his demos). He says DSD isn’t usable for recording larger groups due to the multitrack limitation and hardly editable in a meaningful way.
He also mainly states, that everything we really hear that is relevant is depending on the recording skill. The leading digital developers (DAC’s etc.) he named are nothing any aufdiophile ever hear of I guess. So he seems to be in the pro camp, whatever positive or negative this means for some.
Although much except the “recording skill matters” statement is not what I believed so far, there’s one thing that isn’t disputable: Pauler’s recordings are exceptional even among the very best. I never thought that exactly he records on lower resolution PCM.
I forgot to name the label Fone at the beginning of this post. The fact that all of the labels I personally see as the best of the best are recording analog or PCM does not mean, DSD wouldn’t possibly be superior….it just again means, that recording skill absolutely rules.
Although most DSD recording labels are indeed just producing solo to trio music, I didn’t get the relation between multitrack, multimic’ing and larger groups clean for me (as there are classical symphony recordings recorded in DSD), so if someone can enlighten me, that would be fine.
Please do ask a specific question and I will try to provide you with an answer. Your questions will also help to form the body of material for the programs we plan to stream as discussions on all things related to music and audio gear.
I deal with an audiophile recording of music concerts in DSD format and I will be only glad to share the acquired knowledge and experience.
Regards.
I want to second Jazznut’s view that DSD to vinyl is interesting, but AAA recordings to vinyl sound different (and better) than SACD. It is essential to preserve the analogue physical relationship from microphone diaphragm to speaker driver to make the most of vinyl playback.
I’m waiting for the New HD vinyl records, which has been promised to become available in April (2021, 2020, 2019, and 2018). They supposedly will exceed an 80dB s/n, and have better frequency response and less distortion. But, I’m beginning to suspect it’s all a pipe dream. Wait, maybe it’s an annual April Fool’s joke!!!
Completely agree with the first paragraph. As for analogue made from DSD, well it may sound better than every other digital system but it will never sound like analogue simply because sampling is the Achilles’ heel of digital technology. It is very obvious how quality of sound increases audibly as sampling rate is increased. So unless digital gets rid of sampling completely it will continue to deliberately lose information. But when it does then it will cease to be digital since it will have become analogue. So digital is going to remain second best. As for the greater dynamic range of digital it remains more of a selling point than of practical use for the average listener. Imagine someone with a recording with 120 decibel dynamic range playing it on an average wattage system. With the softest part of the recording being just clearly audible when the crescendo hits the amps shut down and the speakers unless capable of megawattage output are blown. I have a TELARK digital recording on vinyl of the Cleveland Symphonic Winds where when the softest parts are just clearly audible the loudest drum hits would shut the P10 down every time necessitating a second P10. According to the LP jacket absolutely no limiting, filtering, compression, equalization or low frequency crossover was used in the recording or mastering process. Guess what the dynamic range given on the jacket is ? 90 db. So much for the greater dynamic range in practice. For most people it will remain just a pipe dream. How many audiophiles can afford to have mansion size rooms and huge megawatt systems ? Not many. So the huge dynamic range will remain a selling point only. How many commercial recordings with 120 db or greater dynamic range exist ? Regards.