Hmm, I’m still not convinced - in general my DVD-A’s sound different than my SACDs even from the same source and mastered by the same house. But we know that DSD can represent faithfully the sound from DVD-A’s (and in the case of the needle drops I’ve heard, compared to their source vinyl systems.) I think people have certain expectations for each format and that often things are mastered with that in mind.
Indeed, I think the normal new vinyl pressings (not the good audiophile) are sometimes done with a certain expectation assumed people want to hear (recessed highs etc.). I hate that, but I rarely if at all buy vinyl of recordings other than first class masterings anyway anymore.
But after your post I now understand what you and ELK possibly mean. Yes, there might be still slight differences of masterings of the same house done for vinyl and digital. But to me it’s not that important to exactly know how each concept (vinyl/digital) performs with exactly the same mastering source. If this exists at all, it’s probably very few as ELK mentioned.
For me it’s more important what people generally get when the buy the same mastering on SACD or vinyl, no matter if the vinyl mastering always sounds little different due to a slightly different mastering process. Simply because that’s always the case then.
So if a vinyl version of MFSL, Chesky etc. always sounds in the same way different (better or worse) than the digital format, then this is what’s connected with the formats. And that’s my experience. It’s not so much dependent on the individual label etc. what sounds better, but more dependent on the kind of recording, dynamics, tonality, extension, quality level etc.
My experience is that vinyl/digital doesn’t mostly win differently on each example, but mostly on categories of different aspects as mentioned above.
jazznut said . . . comparing on one and the same setup, certainly no different setupsThere is no such thing as the same vinyl setup and digital setup.
Just as there are no two analog (or two digital) systems which sound the same, there is no cartridge/TT/tonearm/phono pre which is the “same” as any given transport/DAC.
So if a vinyl version of MFSL, Chesky etc. always sounds in the same way different (better or worse) than the digital format,I fully understand preferring the house vinyl sound of one label over its house digital sound (or vice versa). This is not comparing formats per se, but how each label chooses to present each format.
But a cartridge/TT/Tonearm/Phono pre equals a transport/DAC combination within a given system. We have nothing else to compare and especially the vinyl combination can be matched to a setup or a digital comparison. Again: we also compare different amp concepts for their sound within an otherwise identical setup.
And for me the reason why we can compare a house digital with a house vinyl sound is, that it’s the only comparison we have among a variety of music. And that results are very similar among different labels, not depending on them (with some exceptions). This IMO allows a conclusion to the general difference of vinyl and digital as well as the general difference how digital vs. vinyl masterings sound.
But I don’t insist. If we call it that we compare digital setups with digital masterings of the same engineer to the same on vinyl side. It’s not different from each recordings to the other, it’s pretty much consistent (depending on other aspects than labels) and therefore comparable IMO. We don’t need anything else than comparing how digital or vinyl most typically sound with what they typically have as media mastered by the same engineer at least.
But when comparing amps, everything else can be exactly the same in your system - just swap the amps and compare. The differences you hear are because the amps are different. This is fair and meaningful apples to apples.
When you compare vinyl to digital everything before the preamp is different: source (LP v. disc, which may be mastered differently, let alone the changes made when cutting the LP), TT/Tonearm/phono pre/Transport/DAC/cables (plus even more cables when listening to vinyl, tonearm, TT to phono pre, phono pre to preamp). Who knows why one or the other has better timbre, more air, compressed or less compressed, etc.
With this many variables one has absolutely no clue what you are listening to. What is is responsible for any difference in sound? It could be any one difference, two of them, three, four . . .
The comparison is fair if you only want to know is which you would prefer to listen to. It is otherwise essentially meaningless.
I really understand your points and try to drill the discussion down to something that’s easier to discuss:
let’s take the acoustic sounds recordings of the blue note and prestige catalog. Both mastered by Hoffman/Grey for both formats (quite sure they tried to get them as similar as possible). Gus Skinas was involved for the SACD’s, too it seems. Does someone of you have the chance to ask him what’s the difference in such masterings for both formats other than the differences which are always the same in any identical masterings for the two formats?
I’m ready to learn.
What I’m saying so far is just that for me the result of comparing any of the i.e. golden era jazz recordings of any of the high quality mastering studios (Grundmann, Hoffman, Grey, Ryan, Marino etc.) was quite the same for the two formats they were mastered for by them.
I haven’t asked Gus this question specifically but based on random conversations with him here’s a sketch if the source is already mastered:
Gus isn’t one for post processing. In general for SACDs from analog (e.g. tape) he’ll treat DSD editing system like a recorder: he’ll set the levels correctly for the whole disc and (in general) simply record the input as DSD. This involves having a good player for the analog in question and setting it up correctly and using a good analog console to set the levels. Coming from digital he’ll do either algorithmic conversion or play the material with a good player (e.g. a CD thru the DS) and record that as DSD with the levels set correctly. He makes these choices based on getting closest to the source and the equipment available at the time. (At least as one point in the past he told me the DS rendered CDs better than anything else he’d heard. FWIW he didn’t think it was the best at DSD at the time.)
Things get a lot more complicated for MC SACDs, besides getting the levels correct all the way around there might be some processing required to use DST to compress the output sufficiently to fit on a single disc. (DST is the lossless compression used for SACDs. Since random inputs are not compressible, insofar as the ultrasonics from the DSD recording is random it can’t be compressed, so some ultrasonic filtering may be necessary.)
When he’s mastering (e.g. multiple input elements) there’s obviously much more going on.
Elk said But when comparing amps, everything else can be exactly the same in your system - just swap the amps and compare. The differences you hear are because the amps are different. This is fair and meaningful apples to apples.When you compare vinyl to digital everything before the preamp is different: source (LP v. disc, which may be mastered differently, let alone the changes made when cutting the LP), TT/Tonearm/phono pre/Transport/DAC/cables (plus even more cables when listening to vinyl, tonearm, TT to phono pre, phono pre to preamp). Who knows why one or the other has better timbre, more air, compressed or less compressed, etc.
With this many variables one has absolutely no clue what you are listening to. What is is responsible for any difference in sound? It could be any one difference, two of them, three, four . . .
The comparison is fair if you only want to know is which you would prefer to listen to. It is otherwise essentially meaningless.
Aside of the mastering subject:
I now understand what you mean: If we exchange an amp, this ich unit has no variety of sound, while if we exchange a vinyl source which consists of a chain from cartridge to phono amp, then this chain can vary a lot. True. That’s why I say one can’t say “vinyl sounds this or that way definitely”. And that’s equally true of a digital source setup (to a little lesser extent).
So I think what you say is we can’t compare digital to vinyl because both can sound very different themselves and we never know what’s typical for each concept. That’s true i.e. for mainly tonality aspects, but not so much for traceable quality aspects IMO. But now I got what you mean, even if this is also true for amp concepts (tubes, solid state, hybrids etc. can sound very different, too).
What remains is, we can compare individual digital to individual vinyl setups and we can identify certain common aspects of each concept. And it also makes little sense to discuss theory to a larger extent, if we see such a variety of possible outcome.
Finally there’s no big new wisdom: there can be a vinyl source within the same setup, bettering the digital in most aspects with a majority of recordings and the opposite.
“And you’re right, live also often sounds much worse in terms of hifi aspects than recorded music, but in terms of dynamics and the fact that inspite of these dynamics, nothing sounds annoying, dry or harsh etc., it’s always better and what I call still more euphonic at the same time. Also a question of the size of the room certainly, but even played in the same living room as the stereo setup, this is apparent.”
Maybe a guy playing an acoustic guitar in your listening room might sound “euphonic”, but concerts I go to often sound harsh. There is a rawness to the sound. I’m not saying that is bad, it is what I often hear. Maybe our definition of euphonic is different. Euphonic to me is the sound of an overly warm preamp, for example.
As to annoying, I saw Neil Young and Crazy Horse at Alpine Valley. We were off center up close, in front of the PAs, I was plugging my ears, I ended up moving.
Most of the time live shows that I go to can sound great, but euphonic is not a description I would use.
If I followed your last group of posts, you are saying that labels have a house sound that can be heard on both vinyl and SACD, is that correct?
Bottom line each format has it’s benefits. My example of Sinatra and Ellington, I would choose the vinyl. On newer music I would want to know if it the recording was done on tape or digital. I maintain both formats, and within my budget have worked to optimize both, to be the best they can be.
As far as live goes, I have a friend who will only go see live music at two of our venues. He feels the sound quality of the rest, make listening unenjoyable. I will go to any venue if it gives me the opportunity to see and hear music that I never had the opportunity to see live, or is a band I love.
Seeing you are the Jazznut, I imagine that you may also be talking about bands playing unmiked in a small club. The only time I had that experience, it was Stanely Turrentine, about 40 years ago, so no memories of the sound. I do remember it was a good show.
I do remember seeing a lot of punk bands in small clubs and harsh was part of their sound.
I think I covered what I wanted to add to this discussion in my last post, that there are usually too many variables to make any meaningful comparisons.
Ted Smith said I haven't asked Gus this question specifically but based on random conversations with him here's a sketch if the source is already mastered:…
Thanks much for your input Ted!
In terms of analog tape (example AP Blue Note with the credit “mastered by Hoffman/Grey for SACD, authored for SACD by Gus Skinas”), what do you think happens in parallel for vinyl and DSD by Hoffman/Grey and Skinas? I ask this because if Skinas would just record the master to DSD, no (re)mastering step of Hoffman/Grey would have been involved. Or do you mean, Hoffman/Grey would produce a second (remastered) analog or digital master for use for SACD, which Skinas again records to DSD with his own equipment?
Regarding your other info when coming from digital: are there really DSD/SACD made from CD’s played back from a DS DAC?
jeffstar:
to your questions:
Im only speaking of unamplified music
with “euphonic” I don’t mean “warm”, but something like “naturally pleasant sounding”. Example: a trumpet or saxophone from recordings can sound aggressive or fatiguing at time if played loud, popping too much out of the background, strings can sound dry or unpleasant. Live, unamplified it sounds loud, but never that kind of aggressive, dry or unpleasant.
label sound: yes, I think with rare exceptions, a label sound exists for digital and vinyl in the same way
unamplified concerts: yes, there are only few even in jazz, but it’s always a great experience (even if what you hear is much dependent on the room). My main experience with unamplified music other than classical is playing sax myself alone, in a group or big band (with trumpets in my back and partly a drum set aside)
Re Gus using the DS, I know that he’s used it on some projects, whether those project ended up being release on SACD I don’t know. Note, Gus doesn’t usually (or ever?) upsample CDs and release them as SACDs, but when mastering a project, at times, the best copy of an element might only be available in lower resolution PCM.
I can’t speak to his involvement with mastering DSD from the same source as vinyl. In general there are final steps in vinyl (not only the RIAA curve) that happen after mastering and hence after the stage where the DSD might be copied/recorded.
I haven’t read this whole thread, but I’ve been at multiple demonstrations of recording vinyl to higher resolution PCM and in sighted A/B’s you can almost always predict people’s answer depending on their previous expressed preferences for vinyl or digital. In blind tests I’ve seen things as weird as digital heads always picking the vinyl copy when they are trying to point out the digital and also many people getting odds that are just about random. I’ve also seen some who can pick out the vinyl as vinyl almost always. I can too, but often that’s because I remember where the clicks and pops are as the music is playing - if you get the chance to listen to anything twice the clicks move on the vinyl copy. I don’t know how many people do this unconsciously. My point is just that what humans expect changes their perceptions - it’s not a fault, it just the way we are. When we listen expecting vinyl we hear differently than when we listen expecting digital. This can lead multiple people in the same A/B repeatably picking different outcomes as being the best or being digital or being vinyl…
at Ted:
Mastering:
so far I thought, mastering vinyl from a mastertape is applied at the cutting stage. That’s why I wondered how this mastering can be applied if also an SACD is done and thought there must be an interim step for SACD (or both in this case).
A/B comparisons:
Thats funny and interesting. What you say means, either people just hear what they want to hear or that the formats sound so similar in a good comparison, that differences are just recognized by the clicks of vinyl…or both ;-). At least the latter would mean, all the vinyl limitations and compromises seem not to be too apparent in the outcoming sound at the end. Which is what I think: a vinyl setup can be composed to be nearly indistinguishable to a digital, except for some small aspects and except of some extreme categories of recordings (i.e. strong large scale bass dynamics, strong dynamics in one channel only etc.)
Ted Smith said Hmm, I'm still not convinced - in general my DVD-A's sound different than my SACDs even from the same source and mastered by the same house.Completely agree on this. At first, I thought I was just imagining it, but many of my DVD-A discs sound different from SACD.
I’ve tested the opposite of what you claim - I’ve only been able to test whether digital can be transparent for something that came from vinyl. All of my experience says that for most audiophiles digital can capture vinyl. I have 0 experience with trying to use vinyl to capturing digital: i.e. A/B’ing vinyl copies of digital sources against those exact digital sources. I’m quite confident that somethings I like in digital can’t be rendered transparently with vinyl. But I know that vinyl can do a great job with the things that many people care about.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but just by physics vinyl has a noise floor higher than digital (not only because you have to amplify low level signals, but because vinyl has a grain), it has a bottom end frequency response (at any given level of distortion) much higher than digital, and a top end response lower than hi-res digital. No one should expect vinyl to capture digital. Also often digital has artifacts that you wouldn’t want to capture 
None of that changes whether any given person likes the artifacts of vinyl more than the artifacts of digital (or conversely whether a particular person is bothered by the artifacts of digital more than they are by the artifacts of vinyl.) Given that hardly anyone takes the same amount of care setting up their systems for both vinyl and digital even doing comparisons is fraught with problems. I’ll stop here
Also one thing I’ve always wanted to point out is that people don’t really know what to expect some of the differences between, say CDs and vinyl to be. Elk has pointed out some of the changes one might expect in the bass, but many people seem to think that vinyl is smoother than digital in the highs, when in theory exactly the opposite is true.
Vinyl does have some frequency response above, say 22k, it may not be 100%, but it’s not 0% like Redbook. What happens when you band limit a signal? You smooth it out. Properly rendered CDs should be smother than vinyl, but not in a good way - properly done digital (especially Redbook) is too smooth.
That’s fine with me. I know digital can capture vinyl and didn’t mean or think, vinyl can capture digital.
My perception that both can sound very similar probably ignores physical facts like the difference in noise floor. Either because I don’t care for it or can’t hear it at certain level
And I overlooked that you just spoke of a vinyl/digital A/B of needledrops, not the formats with their own media. Sorry, I got you wrong, so we wrote about two different things.
Edit: If you (besides needledrops with vinyl) ever seriously compared different high quality vinyl setups with digital using their own media, I’d be interested, what you heard. But I understood, you see this as comparing masterings, even if the same company and mastering engineer produced them. By these preconditions I understand that the only statement possible is based on the “digial can capture vinyl” experiment, which just doesn’t mean much for the other comparison.
Ted Smith said Also one thing I've always wanted to point out is that people don't really know what to expect some of the differences between, say CDs and vinyl to be. Elk has pointed out some of the changes one might expect in the bass, but many people seem to think that vinyl is smoother than digital in the highs, when in theory exactly the opposite is true.Vinyl does have some frequency response above, say 22k, it may not be 100%, but it’s not 0% like Redbook. What happens when you band limit a signal? You smooth it out. Properly rendered CDs should be smother than vinyl, but not in a good way - properly done digital (especially Redbook) is too smooth.
No disagreement, that’s why I repeatedly wrote here, that for me vinyl never was the generally warmer and kind of rouded out source.
No question the DS extracted much more out of this format, but my perception always was, that CD compared to vinyl had less ambiance, extension, resolution, sounded dryer, less involving in mids with less harmonic richness and worse pace & timing. The DS changed much of it.
I’m sure there are also many theoretical and practical downsides of vinyl to redbook, they just were not as appearant to me.
What Beatles album is the new release?
I feel the cartridge is even more important, thake a koetsu and compared to any 200 dolar One!?
Ps. I feel at least for now the few vinyls i had heard, it feel they are great for trumpets, like in jazz Music but not so Good like piano 128 dsd Music like One remastered from example One from high definition tape transfers, compared the same old lp album and tell Me😅