DSD to Vinyl Versus Analog Tape to Vinyl

[andromedaaudio]

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

Larry what kind of gainstage does the merrill trident have , i couldnt find anything on their site or on the net.
Is it digital just like their amps these days and how would you describe the sound quality of it.

Brg hj

 

[Solypsa]

... - 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.

Can invite a lot of criticism to publicly use such logic

 

[microstrip]

Can invite a lot of criticism to publicly use such logic

Why? I use the Bottlehead tube head pre amplifier when I listen for enjoyment, but when I want a solid reference for a source that does not depend on tube sound, I use the standard machine. I do not insert a tube buffer in my dCS Vivaldi when comparing its sound with other sources ...

 

[astrotoy]

Larry what kind of gainstage does the merrill trident have , i couldnt find anything on their site or on the net.
Is it digital just like their amps these days and how would you describe the sound quality of it.

Brg hj

It is solid state, not tube. For me, the great advantage of the Trident over the Doshi is that the Trident has three tapehead inputs, for my two ATR-102s and Otari MX5050 BII. So I don't have to go into the back of my system to unplug and plug in cables every time I want to switch machines. I can also very easily switch EQ and also keep previous volume settings and HF settings in memory. The Doshi has the advantage of a real VU meter, with absolute 0 settings which I can set more precisely, while the Merrill has a digitally generated VU meter which doesn't have an absolute 0 setting. Both are fabulous sounding. I slightly prefer the Merrill sonically, but it is more like Chateau Lafite vs. Chateau Margaux.

Larry

 

[astrotoy]

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.

PM me with a list of some of your preferred recordings. Maybe they do exist. Larry

 

[adrianywu]

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

I have to second Larry's experience. I have been making orchestral and chamber music recordings to tape, DSD and PCM in parallel for years. While monitoring, switching between live mic feed and off the recorders, DSD sounds closest to live. On playback at home, I would say it is hard to pick whether DSD or tape is better. I prefer both to PCM. I use a Nagra IV-S for recording and Nagra T Audio for playback.
If you compare an analogue recording on master tape with the commercial vinyl derived from the tape, there is really no comparison. If you are using second generation tapes, the quality of the copy is of course very important. A professionally copied second generation tape using properly aligned and maintained machines should be pretty much indistinguishable from the source tape. I have over 90 titles on both LPs and master tape copies. I use the same preamp design for phono and tape head, so I can do direct comparisons. I have yet to find one title where the LP is better. The tape almost always have more density, for lack of a better word. It just sounds more transparent, weightier, fuller, the soundstage is usually wider and deeper and dynamics is better. The sound is often more natural on tape, and it gives more of the "you are there" illusion. Many LP reissues have been Eq'd, and often not for the better. The tone is often off. In my next article for the Copper magazine, I will show a spectrum analysis of a Nathan Milstein LP, comparing the original issue with an Analogphonic reissue. The amount of high frequency boost on the reissue is just unbelievable; +5dB at 4kHz, +12dB at 12 kHz. The tone of the violin has been totally changed.
For me, there is no reason to transfer a DSD recording to vinyl. You need to mono the bass, and often need to apply compression for highly dynamic passages in order to cut the lacquer. In some cases, such manipulations can sound better on some systems, but they are still unnecessary compromises.

 

[adrianywu]

Why? I use the Bottlehead tube head pre amplifier when I listen for enjoyment, but when I want a solid reference for a source that does not depend on tube sound, I use the standard machine. I do not insert a tube buffer in my dCS Vivaldi when comparing its sound with other sources ...

For listening, I am using a tape head preamp I built (point to point wiring) based on the Allen Wright RTP-3C design. I use the same preamp design (this one built on PCBs) for my record player. For transferring, I use the King Cello tape head preamp. Both preamps are miles better than the internal playback electronics of the Nagra T. My tube preamp has better space presentation and depth than the King Cello. The King Cello has continuously adjustable Eq, which is very useful for correcting the Eq on some tapes.

 

[rbbert]

I have to second Larry's experience. I have been making orchestral and chamber music recordings to tape, DSD and PCM in parallel for years. While monitoring, switching between live mic feed and off the recorders, DSD sounds closest to live. On playback at home, I would say it is hard to pick whether DSD or tape is better...
If you compare an analogue recording on master tape with the commercial vinyl derived from the tape, there is really no comparison...

Some here will probably find one or more of these opinions heretical

 

[Al M.]

Some here will probably find one or more of these opinions heretical

Or dependent on the recording gear and playback gear. Nothing to lose sweat over.

 

[Solypsa]

... I have over 90 titles on both LPs and master tape copies. . ...

Would love to learn more about this ( where vinyl is mastered etc ). Are these a commercial line or private ?

 

[microstrip]

I have to second Larry's experience. I have been making orchestral and chamber music recordings to tape, DSD and PCM in parallel for years. While monitoring, switching between live mic feed and off the recorders, DSD sounds closest to live. On playback at home, I would say it is hard to pick whether DSD or tape is better. I prefer both to PCM. I use a Nagra IV-S for recording and Nagra T Audio for playback.
If you compare an analogue recording on master tape with the commercial vinyl derived from the tape, there is really no comparison. If you are using second generation tapes, the quality of the copy is of course very important. A professionally copied second generation tape using properly aligned and maintained machines should be pretty much indistinguishable from the source tape. I have over 90 titles on both LPs and master tape copies. I use the same preamp design for phono and tape head, so I can do direct comparisons. I have yet to find one title where the LP is better. The tape almost always have more density, for lack of a better word. It just sounds more transparent, weightier, fuller, the soundstage is usually wider and deeper and dynamics is better. The sound is often more natural on tape, and it gives more of the "you are there" illusion. Many LP reissues have been Eq'd, and often not for the better. The tone is often off. In my next article for the Copper magazine, I will show a spectrum analysis of a Nathan Milstein LP, comparing the original issue with an Analogphonic reissue. The amount of high frequency boost on the reissue is just unbelievable; +5dB at 4kHz, +12dB at 12 kHz. The tone of the violin has been totally changed.
For me, there is no reason to transfer a DSD recording to vinyl. You need to mono the bass, and often need to apply compression for highly dynamic passages in order to cut the lacquer. In some cases, such manipulations can sound better on some systems, but they are still unnecessary compromises.

Can we have details on the hardware and software of your DSD set up and PCM set up? What are the bit rates you use?

 

[Atmasphere]

For me, there is no reason to transfer a DSD recording to vinyl. You need to mono the bass, and often need to apply compression for highly dynamic passages in order to cut the lacquer. In some cases, such manipulations can sound better on some systems, but they are still unnecessary compromises.

This isn't exactly right! If you have a 2-mic recording there will be no need for mono bass. At all. But just so we're clear on the bass thing, at 80Hz (and below, where this becomes important for vinyl) the wavelength in the room is 14 feet. By the time your ear can acknowledge the bass note and figure out the frequency, the bass has bounced off of several walls and is entirely reverberant. IOW the bass thing doesn't amount to a hill of beans, any more than using a single sub or a mono signal to drive multiple subs. You literally cannot tell the difference unless the recording is played back out of doors.

I've never run into a case were I needed to mono the bass; I have found out of phase bass but found simple ways to engineer the cut to avoid knocking the stylus out of the groove (for example, decrease the overall modulation by 1 or 2dB which can have an enormous effect on how much excursion the cutter stylus has to do!). With regards to dynamic range, vinyl is in the neighborhood of 85-90dB (this is certainly true of lacquers, if cut properly their noise floor is that of the electronics used to play them back; the surface noise of the LP comes in during the pressing process). Consequently I can usually cut an LP without any compression or other processsing. FWIW the limit here is in playback; the cutter head can cut grooves with ease that no pickup can play back.

This is part of why LPs are often more dynamic than digital releases; the other part being since there is often the expectation that the digital will be played back in a car while there is no such expectation for LPs. On this account I always tried to get the digital master without any DSP (or minimal DSP; normalization is nice).

Compression and mono bass are typically used to save engineering time (which is expensive) rather than a necessity!

 

[adrianywu]

This isn't exactly right! If you have a 2-mic recording there will be no need for mono bass. At all. But just so we're clear on the bass thing, at 80Hz (and below, where this becomes important for vinyl) the wavelength in the room is 14 feet. By the time your ear can acknowledge the bass note and figure out the frequency, the bass has bounced off of several walls and is entirely reverberant. IOW the bass thing doesn't amount to a hill of beans, any more than using a single sub or a mono signal to drive multiple subs. You literally cannot tell the difference unless the recording is played back out of doors.

I've never run into a case were I needed to mono the bass; I have found out of phase bass but found simple ways to engineer the cut to avoid knocking the stylus out of the groove (for example, decrease the overall modulation by 1 or 2dB which can have an enormous effect on how much excursion the cutter stylus has to do!). With regards to dynamic range, vinyl is in the neighborhood of 85-90dB (this is certainly true of lacquers, if cut properly their noise floor is that of the electronics used to play them back; the surface noise of the LP comes in during the pressing process). Consequently I can usually cut an LP without any compression or other processsing. FWIW the limit here is in playback; the cutter head can cut grooves with ease that no pickup can play back.

This is part of why LPs are often more dynamic than digital releases; the other part being since there is often the expectation that the digital will be played back in a car while there is no such expectation for LPs. On this account I always tried to get the digital master without any DSP (or minimal DSP; normalization is nice).

Compression and mono bass are typically used to save engineering time (which is expensive) rather than a necessity!

What I said was not about what is possible when cutting vinyl, but how most of the records were cut when vinyl was the mainstream medium. I have quite a number of recordings where I have both a copy of the master tape and the original LP issue, so it is quite obvious what the mastering engineer has done. Nowadays, audiophile labels can be more adventurous since they know their customers mostly own high performance equipment, but in the old days, customers with basic or poorly set up equipment wouldn't want their styluses mistracking frequently. Furthermore, in my experience, different pressings can sound very different, from awful to wonderful, which is another frustration with vinyl. And as you said, it was easier to just apply compression and get a good cut on the first go, and most customers wouldn't appreciate any extra effort anyway.

 

[Al M.]

What I said was not about what is possible when cutting vinyl, but how most of the records were cut when vinyl was the mainstream medium. I have quite a number of recordings where I have both a copy of the master tape and the original LP issue, so it is quite obvious what the mastering engineer has done. Nowadays, audiophile labels can be more adventurous since they know their customers mostly own high performance equipment, but in the old days, customers with basic or poorly set up equipment wouldn't want their styluses mistracking frequently. Furthermore, in my experience, different pressings can sound very different, from awful to wonderful, which is another frustration with vinyl. And as you said, it was easier to just apply compression and get a good cut on the first go, and most customers wouldn't appreciate any extra effort anyway.

Below video confirms what you say:

 

[adrianywu]

Below video confirms what you say:

Very interesting video. Thanks for posting. I always wondered why there are so few great sounding records of Beethoven symphonies. I have the wide band Decca of Georg Solti conducting the Vienna Phil playing the Eroica. The sound is truly awful. The dynamics is compressed, the bass rolled off and the sound is just muddy. There are some great sounding Decca records from that era (1959), and Solti's recordings in Vienna were usually done by Wilkie or Gordon Parry. No reason for such a terrible recording. I found a copy of the original production master last year and had a copy made for myself. The sound is night and day. It has awesome dynamics, deep and solid bass, wide and deep sound stage etc. The problem is in fitting 56 minutes of a highly dynamic piece of music into a single LP. Even today, I don't think anyone can do it any better. I find the same thing for Carmina Burana, for example. All the LPs sound compressed, but I have copies of the masters for the Herbert Kegel version and the Andre Previn EMI versions. Again, huge difference. I guess putting the music onto two LPs would have greatly increased the cost and would have affected sales.

 

[Al M.]

Very interesting video. Thanks for posting. I always wondered why there are so few great sounding records of Beethoven symphonies. I have the wide band Decca of Georg Solti conducting the Vienna Phil playing the Eroica. The sound is truly awful. The dynamics is compressed, the bass rolled off and the sound is just muddy. There are some great sounding Decca records from that era (1959), and Solti's recordings in Vienna were usually done by Wilkie or Gordon Parry. No reason for such a terrible recording. I found a copy of the original production master last year and had a copy made for myself. The sound is night and day. It has awesome dynamics, deep and solid bass, wide and deep sound stage etc. The problem is in fitting 56 minutes of a highly dynamic piece of music into a single LP. Even today, I don't think anyone can do it any better. I find the same thing for Carmina Burana, for example. All the LPs sound compressed, but I have copies of the masters for the Herbert Kegel version and the Andre Previn EMI versions. Again, huge difference. I guess putting the music onto two LPs would have greatly increased the cost and would have affected sales.

You're welcome. I thought this was a very interesting video too.

I see your point about long LPs. Yet also regular length LPs can sound compromised or even outright bad. Everybody complains about the current loudness wars in pop/rock, and those complaints often are legitimate. Yet in the day, pop/rock pressings often didn't sound great either. I have heard mediocre or even bad sounding vinyl pressings of such music from the Sixties and perhaps especially Seventies. Also some pressings of regular length classical LPs from that time could sound rather terrible, even though there were some great ones too.

Now some people complain that modern 180 gram pressings of older recordings sound lifeless and dull, without ambience. I have found that not to be the case, at least in a good number of instances (there may be some bad apples). Apparently it is hard to please everybody.

And loudness wars in digital reissues of rock/pop are not a given. For example, the Pink Floyd reissues around 2011 on CD, which were lovingly remastered by James Guthrie, a recording engineer associated with the group since 1978, sound great and very dynamic.

 

[bonzo75]

Very interesting video. Thanks for posting. I always wondered why there are so few great sounding records of Beethoven symphonies. I have the wide band Decca of Georg Solti conducting the Vienna Phil playing the Eroica. The sound is truly awful. The dynamics is compressed, the bass rolled off and the sound is just muddy. There are some great sounding Decca records from that era (1959), and Solti's recordings in Vienna were usually done by Wilkie or Gordon Parry. No reason for such a terrible recording. I found a copy of the original production master last year and had a copy made for myself. The sound is night and day. It has awesome dynamics, deep and solid bass, wide and deep sound stage etc. The problem is in fitting 56 minutes of a highly dynamic piece of music into a single LP. Even today, I don't think anyone can do it any better. I find the same thing for Carmina Burana, for example. All the LPs sound compressed, but I have copies of the masters for the Herbert Kegel version and the Andre Previn EMI versions. Again, huge difference. I guess putting the music onto two LPs would have greatly increased the cost and would have affected sales.

In the Solti era wide band and narrow band did not matter as much, that difference is more in the SXL 2xxx. Both the speaker's corner and the decca in this case are similar sounding and equally poor. I do use them for system auditions.

The szell Cleveland, and furtwangler originals are excellent. The furtwangler there is also a rare verticut using ortofon lyrec that is better than the HMV ALP original, which itself is very good

 

[Atmasphere]

Very interesting video. Thanks for posting. I always wondered why there are so few great sounding records of Beethoven symphonies. I have the wide band Decca of Georg Solti conducting the Vienna Phil playing the Eroica. The sound is truly awful. The dynamics is compressed, the bass rolled off and the sound is just muddy. There are some great sounding Decca records from that era (1959), and Solti's recordings in Vienna were usually done by Wilkie or Gordon Parry. No reason for such a terrible recording. I found a copy of the original production master last year and had a copy made for myself. The sound is night and day. It has awesome dynamics, deep and solid bass, wide and deep sound stage etc. The problem is in fitting 56 minutes of a highly dynamic piece of music into a single LP. Even today, I don't think anyone can do it any better. I find the same thing for Carmina Burana, for example. All the LPs sound compressed, but I have copies of the masters for the Herbert Kegel version and the Andre Previn EMI versions. Again, huge difference. I guess putting the music onto two LPs would have greatly increased the cost and would have affected sales.

That often seems the way of the audio industry- figure out how to do something really well, then try and do it as cheap as possible.

Most of my Beethoven symphonies are those of Bruno Walter, except for the 9th which I have on red label Angel with Klemperer conducting. I like the Columbia sound but its nothing to write home about; a bit diffuse and lacking bass, although nice and smooth. For certain peices I've been a bit resigned to the simple fact that the definitive performance isn't always the definitive recording! For example if you want Strauss's Four Last Songs, the definitive performance by far is conducted by Furtwangler and is a transcription from a home recorded live broadcast on 78 to LP. Its so much better than later recordings that I can't listen to the later ones (I do have the Elisabeth Schwarzkopf recordings; both the mono and later stereo performances). Carmina Burana has a similar problem. So when I recorded Canto General (Mikas Theodorakis) I made sure the LPs had none of those problems.

 

[rando]

That often seems the way of the audio industry- figure out how to do something really well, then try and do it as cheap as possible.

Ye of little faith in the Amazon print-to-order CD-R and it's less well announced analog counterpart.

 

[Atmasphere]

Ye of little faith in the Amazon print-to-order CD-R and it's less well announced analog counterpart.

That sounds accurate...