DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl

[AMR / iFi audio]

@WRP For me, sampling alone is not that important. I've heard a spectacular sound out of CD-based systems. In my opinion, the point is what equipment will do with the said signal. Older digital equipment was made especially for 44.1 kHz signals. That's where it shines. Now, the market moves toward higher sampling rates which change the requirements for contemporary gear. For example, in some of our products we use the GMT system which is a sample rate converter (our take on it). It provides two major benefits. It resamples the input signal greatly reducing jitter and increases the sampling rate for a converter. A higher sampling rate in a DAC pushes all the interference up in frequency. It allows designers to use simpler filters, that are affecting the signal less. If the provided signal already has a higher sampling rate, then even better for the DAC.
Before that became popular, engineers were coming up with clever filtering techniques, both in analogue and digital domains. Even the fanciest filters aren't perfect, so more complex filters were putting their signature on sound. That's why older equipment has a tone to it, while even affordable, modern DACs can be surprisingly transparent.

 

[Al M.]

@WRP For me, sampling alone is not that important. I've heard a spectacular sound out of CD-based systems. In my opinion, the point is what equipment will do with the said signal. Older digital equipment was made especially for 44.1 kHz signals. That's where it shines. Now, the market moves toward higher sampling rates which change the requirements for contemporary gear. For example, in some of our products we use the GMT system which is a sample rate converter (our take on it). It provides two major benefits. It resamples the input signal greatly reducing jitter and increases the sampling rate for a converter. A higher sampling rate in a DAC pushes all the interference up in frequency. It allows designers to use simpler filters, that are affecting the signal less. If the provided signal already has a higher sampling rate, then even better for the DAC.
Before that became popular, engineers were coming up with clever filtering techniques, both in analogue and digital domains. Even the fanciest filters aren't perfect, so more complex filters were putting their signature on sound. That's why older equipment has a tone to it, while even affordable, modern DACs can be surprisingly transparent.

Yes, I have a reclocker between CD transport and DAC that upsamples to 96 kHz. The DAC itself would upsample the 44.1 kHz signal anyway, as well.

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

Yes, I have a reclocker between CD transport and DAC that upsamples to 96 kHz. The DAC itself would upsample the 44.1 kHz signal anyway, as well.

@Al M. External reclockers have the edge over systems built-in existing DACs. They have more hardware dedicated to that task, giving them better performance in this regard. I'm guessing it made a significant difference in your system?

 

[Al M.]

@Al M. External reclockers have the edge over systems built-in existing DACs. They have more hardware dedicated to that task, giving them better performance in this regard. I'm guessing it made a significant difference in your system?

Yes, big difference. Much more depth and differentiation of tone color, more subtlety in resolution, e.g., silky tone of massed orchestral strings.

However, I am not sure how much of that can be attributed to upsampling, or how much is removal of jitter, the main task of the reclocker. In theory, the internal DAC clock should suffice to remove jitter, but in practice it does not.

My Simaudio Moon CD transport, with an all in-house developed mechanism, has a jitter of 115 psec, which is already quite good for a transport; an Oppo for example has 800 psec jitter and sounds accordingly worse on my DAC. The Empirical Audio reclocker brings it further down to around 8 psec jitter, which seems more like computer audio territory (but apparently without the noise often associated with the latter).

 

[microstrip]

To record sound into a Digital format one actually is recording measurements of sound at discrete points along a timeline, it is not recording the entire event in that there is unrecorded information occurring in real time between each discrete measurement, and perhaps in what is being measured as we do not know how frequencies outside of normal hearing range (so not measured, or removed with filters) contribute to the subjective listening experience.

The discrete points is an old argument, that has been dismantled many times in this forum by proper discussion of sampling theory. Although we could discuss if the quantization errors and sampling frequency of red book were subjectively adequate, the bit depth and sampling frequency of DXD make such discussion an affair of the past.

Being able to very accurately reproduce that which was measured digitally, with absolute perfection implies that the device is doing a stellar job of performing its function. It does not in any way however stretch to imply that the musical event of which measurements were taken is being reproduced more accurately, or even as accurately as an analogue device. It is like comparing apples with oranges.

Comparative measurements are not made just comparing bits. Since long null tests (an extremely powerful and accurate analog technique) were carried for this purpose and skilled designers could listen to the differences. Today, the residuals are listened and analyzed using instruments such as the Audio Precision analyzers.

But the main point is that the high-end does not ask for ultimate accuracy - it asks for enjoyable sound reproduction, according to listener preference. If everyone preferred the vinyl sound, digital designers should emulate it!

 

[Gregadd]

The 8000lb Gorilla is being ignored. Every time we convert we distort, If DSD is better why do we need vinyl? Whynot just convert DSD to analogue during playback?
Converting DSD means we get the combined distortions of digital and analoge.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The 8000lb Gorilla is being ignored. Every time we convert we distort, If DSD is better why do we need vinyl? Whynot just convert DSD to analogue during playback?
Converting DSD means we get the combined distortions of digital and analoge.

i have a few dsd sources converted to vinyl. they are a mixed bag; sometimes the file is better, sometimes the vinyl.

but analog sourced vinyl is better than dsd or pcm sourced vinyl almost 100% of the time. you confuse the significance of the distortion of the analog recording process with the significance of the reduction in completeness in the digital process. both are true; but one dwarfs the other.

and the completeness of analog is much more significant in the vinyl playback, that the lower distortion of the digital source. i have 10 thousand examples.

 

[rbbert]

@WRP For me, sampling alone is not that important...

I'm not sure about "not that important", but it is clearly only one of several important parameters; however, it is the one which most directly addresses the post to which I was responding.

 

[microstrip]

The 8000lb Gorilla is being ignored. Every time we convert we distort, If DSD is better why do we need vinyl? Whynot just convert DSD to analogue during playback?

Surely you are right but the thread subject is DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl
and people want to debate it. Their right and do not have to explain us why they want to stay with vinyl. There are many reasons that can explain it.

Converting DSD means we get the combined distortions of digital and analoge.

Remember some people prefer the sound of vinyl to the sound of tape.

 

[microstrip]

i have a few dsd sources converted to vinyl. they are a mixed bag; sometimes the file is better, sometimes the vinyl.

but analog sourced vinyl is better than dsd or pcm sourced vinyl almost 100% of the time. you confuse the significance of the distortion of the analog recording process with the significance of the reduction in completeness in the digital process. both are true; but one dwarfs the other.

and the completeness of analog is much more significant in the vinyl playback, that the lower distortion of the digital source. i have 10 thousand examples.

Pure DSD is known to be very limited in recording phase. My best DSD recordings were originally recorded in PCM or tape, BTW.

 

[PeterA]

Remember some people prefer the sound of vinyl to the sound of tape.

The few times that I have heard tape in about five different systems, it never sounded as good as vinyl that I have heard in a couple of other systems. This is more a statement about the sound of the systems than it is about the format, in my opinion.

I did have a chance to compare tape to vinyl in three systems, and then two of those the same music. I always preferred the vinyl. I remain open minded and hopeful that someday I will hear optimal tape presentation and understand what other people keep describing.

 

[Gregadd]

Surely you are right but the thread subject is DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl
and people want to debate it. Their right and do not have to explain us why they want to stay with vinyl. There are many reasons that can explain it.



Remember some people prefer the sound of vinyl to the sound of tape.

Come on. You just made the argument. Very non specific. If you care to be more specific please do. If not that is good too.
My point is if DSD is better why not go directly to playback. If you just like vinyl that is fine by me.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The few times that I have heard tape in about five different systems, it never sounded as good as vinyl that I have heard in a couple of other systems. This is more a statement about the sound of the systems than it is about the format, in my opinion.

I did have a chance to compare tape to vinyl in three systems, and then two of those the same music. I always preferred the vinyl. I remain open minded and hopeful that someday I will hear optimal tape presentation and understand what other people keep describing.

i can pretty much guarantee that it would be easy to switch your thinking. quickly. certain tapes just go farther. too far.

but agree that good but "run of the mill" tapes and tape decks can fall prey to great vinyl with the best pressings. and with so many more great pressings than great tapes experientially it's no contest. i would give up all the tapes and not be so sad....since i have the vinyl.

 

[microstrip]

Come on. You just made the argument. Very non specific. If you care to be more specific please do. If not that is good too.
My point is if DSD is better why not go directly to playback. If you just like vinyl that is fine by me.

DSD as a recording media can't be compared to tape. Vinyl just adds an extra processing and some limitations to the master. And surely I do not prefer vinyl, but understand why some people prefer it and respect their preference.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I did have a chance to compare tape to vinyl in three systems, and then two of those the same music. I always preferred the vinyl. I remain open minded and hopeful that someday I will hear optimal tape presentation and understand what other people keep describing.

Can we know what were the tape machines being used in these sessions and the tapes origin?
Although looking at the turning reels is nostalgic and hypnotic, there is nothing intrinsically magic in tape - most of the time I listened to poor or even very poor sound using tape.

 

[PeterA]

Can we know what were the tape machines being used in these sessions and the tapes origin?
Although looking at the turning reels is nostalgic and hypnotic, there is nothing intrinsically magic in tape - most of the time I listened to poor or even very poor sound using tape.

Most comments I read say that tape is the superior medium, with no qualification for gear or generation of tape. I don’t know enough about it to remember either and I was not impressed enough to ask. But the owners all brought out the tapes hoping to impress.

We can always fall back to criticizing the source component or quality of the recording. This is a discussion about the media and which is superior, Not the specific tape deck or tape.

One’s preference depends strongly on his reference, values, and exposure.

 

[rbbert]

Most comments I read say that tape is the superior medium, with no qualification for gear or generation of tape. I don’t know enough about it to remember either and I was not impressed enough to ask. But the owners all brought out the tapes hoping to impress.

We can always fall back to criticizing the source component or quality of the recording. This is a discussion about the media and which is superior, Not the specific tape deck or tape.

One’s preference depends strongly on his reference, values, and exposure.

What is your hypothesis for how LPs (vinyl) can sound better than tape, considering that LPs are sourced from tape and (for the most part) current home tape playback is at least the equal of the tape playback used to cut acetates (and which then involves several more physical steps, each potentially causing degradation of sound quality, before resulting in the LP which you play)?

 

[PeterA]

What is your hypothesis for how LPs (vinyl) can sound better than tape, considering that LPs are sourced from tape and (for the most part) current home tape playback is at least the equal of the tape playback used to cut acetates (and which then involves several more physical steps, each potentially causing degradation of sound quality, before resulting in the LP which you play)?

Yes, all true. I don’t have an explanation. My hypothesis is simply that in the cases were there was a direct comparison in the same system either the source component or the media was superior on the vinyl end. In absolute terms, the best tape I heard was in an overall system that was not at the same level as the best systems I’ve heard that were playing vinyl.

as I say, I suspect a very good tape presentation will be better, but one never really knows because of the replay equipment and the quality of the recording. One could compare a first generation tape with a direct to disc record played on SOTA gear in the same system. But in that case there’s no tape to vinyl transfer. I defer to opinions like MikeL’s and others who have much more experience than I do listening to tape.

 

[astrotoy]

Can we know what were the tape machines being used in these sessions and the tapes origin?
Although looking at the turning reels is nostalgic and hypnotic, there is nothing intrinsically magic in tape - most of the time I listened to poor or even very poor sound using tape.

I've had the complete opposite experience, with tape my favorite medium. Definitely not the low priced spread. With a top playback machine and tape preamp (I have two Ampex ATR-102 machines, one for 1/4" tape and one for 1/2" tape, and have had the Doshi tape preamp and now the Merrill Trident tape preamp), and with high quality tape dubs, including safety masters, I am in audio heaven. There are plenty of sources of commercial 15ips 2 track tapes which originate from the Tape Project beginnings close to 15 years ago to the current time. There are also other sources of top quality tapes. My listening experience is my own, obviously.

Larry

 

[microstrip]

I've had the complete opposite experience, with tape my favorite medium. Definitely not the low priced spread. With a top playback machine and tape preamp (I have two Ampex ATR-102 machines, one for 1/4" tape and one for 1/2" tape, and have had the Doshi tape preamp and now the Merrill Trident tape preamp), and with high quality tape dubs, including safety masters, I am in audio heaven. There are plenty of sources of commercial 15ips 2 track tapes which originate from the Tape Project beginnings close to 15 years ago to the current time. There are also other sources of top quality tapes. My listening experience is my own, obviously.

Larry

We fully agree. But how many people have access to top playback machines and quality tapes?
Typically a top tape will cost more than $300 and the existing catalogue is extremely limited - none of my preferred recordings exist in tape format. Considering I listen to an average of around 20 new recordings per month it would also be an expensive project!

I keep tape an an audiophile luxury - the Tapeproject tapes have become a reference and I enjoy listening to them occasionally. For this purpose I use standard Studer electronics - if it was good enough to create my tapes and for recording top sounding LPs it is god enough for my specific purpose.