Comparing quality on vinyl with Digital

Good Morning people..

I'm new here and I haven't read the whole forum yet. Maybe this topic is posted somewhere else hidden here. But here's my topic. I was last night having g a conversation with my best friends about a couple SACD's that are coming out these weeks etc... We were talking about the quality and i just asked:-What would be the most accurate comparison in terms of audio quality of a "top quality" Vinyl with the Resolution of digital audio? I know that in terms of quality the SACD is the one that has been closer to the sound a good Vinyl. And my friend suggested me to discuss it in the forum to have all different points of view.
But here's my question again and rephrased:

What digital resolution is closer, same or better to Vinyl?

S.R. / B.R.

44.1k / 16
48k / 24
96k / 24
192k / 24

good day people

 

192k/24 is the closest, but its still a far cry from what analog can sound like. IMHO there is still nothing better than analog recording and reproduction.

 

Really? I wasn't aware that vinyl could reach much more than about 30 or so kHz (making nearly half of the available frequency range of the 192k S.R. useless for anything but noise shaping). Sure there are cartridges that can go to 50kHz, but there is so little that high in a groove for it to reproduce. And vinyl has an effective dynamic range of something like... what... 40 or 50 decibels above the surface noise?

I know there's more to it than that, but that's where subjectivity comes in.

Doesn't it?

 

It all depends on the mastering and what generation source is being used IMO. For instance, Steve's Elvis 24KT Hits or Nat King Cole DCC CD's. Has there been another companies Vinyl, SACD, or CD that has even come close to Steve's redbook work on these 2 artists? The answer is a definite no.

Steve has stated in the past that it doesn't matter what format is being used that he can still get that quality of sound and I believe him.

Please read the signature.

 

Good evening everyone...

JoelDF I guess you misunderstood my question, it is about resolution, not audio freq response.. but it's ok.. where are here to learn in this forum

To Dave, in my question in the best quality on the Vinyl I meant the whole thing process, Mastering, Vinyl quality, all the processes that make a good first "A Grade" Class Vinyl...
Sorry if i didn't made my self clear. My English is not that perfect yet.

thanks for your answers and keep bringing the info.. it is always good to learn.

 

Thanks Mr Henres. And you are absolutely right about it. Like Analog, hmm mm nothing like it. Amen on that

 

Oh, I knew that would raise a few eyebrows (hence the ). And, yes, I did read more into the original post than I thought.

But, still, wouldn't 96k/24 be enough? I mean if it's resolution we are talking about, then once you go 24bits, you're there right?

I do understand that giving more info both ways is better.

And, yes Steve, I also realize that there is little above 15k in most rock music. There is actual signal above that (harmonics that can reach the 20's), but the strength is so light, and our own hearing so insensitive to that range...

 

I have to agree with Dave that the mastering and the generation source are extremely important! I have heard many well mastered CDs, SACDs, DVD-As that have better sound(IMO) than vinyl that isn't mastered with the same care. Having said that, I also have heard numerous LPs that outshine digital playback mediums. The mastering process is sooooo... important! There is no one medium that outplays the others. There are well mastered digital and analog recordings, poorly mastered digital and analog recordings and the whole gamut in between.

Steve

 

Hi Dave...Have you heard Steve's DCC Elvis's 24KT and Nat's Greatest Hits vinyl versions?
That would make a very good comparison...take the "mastering" part out of the equation.
Providing of course that somehow playback of equal relative quality was being used (and I don't mean equal cost).

Infact, there is a thread on this very same subject going right now...http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=36954

 

With 24 bits you are still limited (as with any n-number of bits) to a finite amount of values to represent the signal within a given period of time (given by the sampling rate)- in this case 16777216 (2^24). Whereas with analog you don't have 'steps' (small as they might be). In the micro-micro-level, there's most likely stuff that still 'slips thru the cracks' (so to speak) on digital that is properly represented on analog, dynamics-wise.

All from a purely theoretical point of view of course.

 

No Ben, no Vinyl or TT yet. To get those 2 on Vinyl would definitely fall under the "I wish" category.

 

I agree with this Joe, but I've heard a 192k/24 recording that took my breath away, but of course there was nothing to compare it to. It was a a friends house, who is/was a reviewer for The Absolute Sound, and I'm not sure where he got it. I couldn't even tell you at this point what equpment was used for playback, but most of it was extremely good stuff, and much of it was supplied by the makers who were eager for good reviews.

This particular recording was of a German baritone singer all by himself. It sounded like it was recorded in a wonderful room with 2 distant beautiful microphones as the recording was swimming in natural room reverb. The thing that amazed me the most was that while it was clearly a distant recording, there were attributes present that sounded like a close mic recording. For example, lip smack was extremely clear and present. I have never heard anything like this anywhere else.

Of course, this is not to say that an analog version of this recording would not have sounded at least this revealing. It all comes down to the equipment and techniques used for the original recording.

 

Ivan, Analog is the standard and SACD comes closest. There are solid scientific reasons for this that have to due with the bandwidth limiting filters that are required for are digitization. I have to go shower and go to dinner with my wife now. If I remember I will do a search tomorrow and find you links to other threads that have explored this in great detail.

 

Too much information.

 

Thanks, always welcome to any info..... and by the way have a nice evening with your wife...

 

The problem with digital is when you have a recording with a tremendous amount of dynamic range, the low level sounds may not be represented with great accuracy, at least with 16 bit. At full scale, you've got 32768 voltage levels each way to represent the signal. But say part of the signal is 90 db quieter than the loudest part. You only have 1 bit to represent this signal, so it is essentially represented as a square wave and anything quieter isn't represented at all! With 24 bit you've got 8 extra bits at the bottom, so you're 1 bit word in the 16 bit system would be a 9 bit word in the 24 bit system. But this would be an extreme situation, probably only encountered in certain types of classical music. Most pop music is typically no more than 30 db down from full scale. Consider this however, even if a recording is only 18 db down from full scale it is only being represented by 8192 voltage levels. That's not that much.

I think the important thing to remember about PCM is that it is a variable resolution system. I'm not sure if many people realize this, it took awhile before it dawned on me. Maybe this is why PCM never sounds as good as analog to some people.

 

Ivan, I checked your profile and it says you are an audio engineer. I am not sure how good your background in in math and EE, but I assume it is good. Here are three previous threads on the forum that get into your question (be sure to pay special attention to my posts ).

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=34501
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=34809
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=36057

If your strong enough in integral transforms you can understand all of the math and science behind the various digitization techniques, but what I have always felt is lacking in many of these discussions is psychoacoustics (i.e. how the ear/brain combination hears things in the human specie). What appears to be the case based on what people say they prefer is that the effects of bandwidth limiting (such as pre-ringing if you are using linear phase filters) have more of an effect on what we hear than the impact of noise shaping to push the quantization noise to ultrasonic frequencies. Now since we do not have a technology yet that allows us to digitize 24 bits and MHz frequencies we will have to make a trade off between bandwidth limits and quantization noise. I think the fact that many people say they prefer the sound of SACD over hi-rez PCM says that quantization noise is the way to make that trade-off.

 

Easy question:

LP > Pure DSD > 24/192K > 24/96 >>> 44.1

 

Thanks ALP- super interesting posts. As I said at the beginning of this topic I haven't read the whole forum but I'm on it.

 

That would be great, if that was how an analog signal was digitized. You forget a few very important things though. Dither, and Tape hiss. And the actual dynamics of real music factor in.

To hear a sound at even -90 db and have it be truly audible at all, would require a dead quiet room and playback levels of well over 120db or so, to have the -90db signal even be audible.

The classic blunders of 'analogue has infinite resolution' and
'digital has stairsteps, neither is true, and in real world music, other things matter FAR more.

 

Digital recording is in a higher realm to mechanical recording
The mere process of dragging the medium under a stylus or over a tape head is inherrantly destructive
The duplication of this mechanical process into a commercial product further compounds all the imperfections.
PCM does not suffer from mechanical artefacts
Compare and contrast a 1Khz tone from a disc, tape and a file.
There is no comparison, the mechanical always flutters,warbles , wows, pre echoes and intermod distorts.
You may like this 'colouration', many do, but its fidelity is very limited, vinyl LPs especially.

 

Interesting to see who dredged up this nearly 10 year old thread

 

Absolutely agree. I've got some very well-mastered 24/192 and native DSD content that I also have the equivalents of in first-class original, or well-remaster reissues, e.g. Music Matters 45 or Speakers Corner, and the vinyl still sounds the best.

To answer the OPs question, in my experience, it's from closest to furthest.

DSD
24/192
24/176
24/88
16/44 (though well-done 16/44 XRCD24s can be quite close to vinyl as well)

 

Not in my experience. I've found the 24/192 version of the same recording sound better (more lifelike, more analog) that 24/96 versions. This is can be easily done by purchasing a 24/192 and 24/96 download of the same album from a vendor such as HDTracks, Super Hi-Rez, etc.

I still prefer DSD to 24/192, all things being as equal as possible.

But vinyl still sounds better than digital equivalents of the same recording.