Survey : Which one is better : vinyl or Native DSD256 ?

[Geeksterlab]

Enquête :

Vinyle (bonne qualité), vs

DSD256 natif?

Merci pour votre participation !

[Dr Tone]

Which ever has the better master.  Same master, DSD256 wins.

[davide256]

YMWV based on the gear you have. I have not heard DSD sound as good as a maxed out vinyl solution... but $40K is a bit steep for vinyl front end

[Speedskater]

Why not ask: is DSD256 better than CD?

 

and the answer is 'no difference'.

[sphinxsix]

DSD, bien sur.

[Kal Rubinson]

Not a useful comparison since there have been no significant analog/vinyl recordings in decades.  Speaking of classical music.

[adamdea]

3 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Not a useful comparison since there have been no significant analog/vinyl recordings in decades.  Speaking of classical music.

Unlike the thousands of significant dsd256  recordings....

[crenca]

This topic reminds me of those "Who is better, Einstein or Mozart?" one hand clappers...

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, crenca said:

This topic reminds me of those "Who is better, Einstein or Mozart?" one hand clappers...

Van Gogh, obviously.

[Kal Rubinson]

54 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Unlike the thousands of significant dsd256  recordings....

However many there are, they greatly outnumber the LPs.

[jabbr]

Ha ha. No one records to vinyl! If you have a DSD256 recording then vinyl is at best a coloration. If you have an 8 bit recording then who cares?

[AudioDoctor]

Did the OP wake up and decide to start a never ending argument thread?

[audiobomber]

On 10/11/2018 at 11:04 PM, jabbr said:

Ha ha. No one records to vinyl!

Not any more, but I have several direct-to-disc LP's.

 

Vinyl is dead, DSD is dying. PCM wins.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

Not any more, but I have several direct-to-disc LP's.

 

Vinyl is dead, DSD is dying. PCM wins.

Maybe but my PCM equipment is backwards compatible with DSD. ?

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, audiobomber said:

Not any more, but I have several direct-to-disc LP's.

 

Vinyl is dead, DSD is dying. PCM wins.

 

The exception that proves the rule. If direct to disc were viable then one could argue that it is the purest analog LP medium — alternatively playback 15 ips tape

 

 

DSD256 recorders are more commonplace eg RME ADI-2, and even so most PCM recordings start out with an SDM converter ie DSD, and most DACs ultimately output SDM/DSD. 

 

Im just saying that a DSD256 recording played back as DSD256 is the least adulterated format in wide distribution.

[Ralf11]

Somebody should add a "vinylizer processing algorithm" to their DAC

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Somebody should add a "vinylizer processing algorithm" to their DAC

http://www.plektronfx.com/vinylizer.php

http://www.plugandmix.com/products/p1159-Vinylizer/

https://www.izotope.com/en/products/create-and-design/vinyl.html

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tobishiba.vinylizer

[gmgraves]

On 10/11/2018 at 6:23 AM, Geeksterlab said:

Enquête :

Vinyle (bonne qualité), vs

DSD256 natif?

Merci pour votre participation !

As a format, Native DSD wins. In fact, as a format under any circumstances, DSD wins. Vinyl has many problems. First of all, while it is possible to inscribe frequencies up to 50KHz onto a vinyl record, as JVC found out with their multiplexed "quadraphonic" scheme, CD-4, even when using special vinyl compounds and special cartridges with special stylus shapes (Shibata), the 30 KHz subcarrier simply did not last for very many plays. Secondly, even under the best of conditions, vinyl struggles to obtain a dynamic range of 60 dB, and that's when pristine, new, out of the sleeve using top-grade virgin vinyl. Then of course, there are the various manufacturing defects: Off-center holes, warped discs, under-fill (where the vinyl "puck" did not evenly fill the record mold), noisy "regrind" (where formerly made and not sold records are reground to add to the vinyl mix for a new batch of records), etc. Add to that the fact that records cut from analog masters have very little on them above 15 KHz (that's the limit of the ability to maintain analog tape recorders due to the limitations in tape head alignment and the inevitable self-erasure of high frequencies on the tapes). Then, of course, there's the inevitable slow decline of the record as it is played over and over again. Records can last for decades, I have some that are more than 50 years old. And while they are still playable and enjoyable, when compared to a CD or a high-res LPCM download of the same material, it is obvious that some of the "sparkle" on the top end is gone and that the vinyl version is us unmistakably very noisy in comparison.

In spite of those serious shortcomings vinyl has a number of euphonic colorations that make the sound of a vinyl LP very serendipitously musical. That's not to say that it's accurate to the master tape; it can't be. Most people are totally unaware of the artistry and craftsmanship that go into mastering an LP. It's not easy and it's not straightforward. First of all, there's the cutting head. This thing is sort of a phono cartridge in reverse. it takes the incoming signal and converts it to a physical representation of  that signal by causing the cutting stylus to trace that signal onto the blank lacquer disc. The lacquer may be soft, but it's not THAT soft. The cutting stylus has to have a lot of power behind it to allow it to keep-up with a signal comprised of frequencies from 20 Hz to 15 KHz. So, high power amplifiers are used to drive the cutting head. In the early stereo days when Mercury was recording those still beloved "Living Presence" recordings Mercury used two 60 WPC McIntosh amps to drive their Westrex brand cutting heads. Since then of course, complete recording lathe setups have been available turn-key from companies like  Neumann, JVC, and Ortofon using sold-state amps of varying power and design.  Most lathes use Ortofon heads, mostly because they have service facilities here in the States and in Europe. They can turn a blown or damaged cutting head around in hours. 

 

Cutting heads use so much power, and are so inefficient that virtually all professional cutter heads are water cooled. It is axiomatic of a cutter head that they have very little dynamic range and require a great many Watts to start them moving at all, and just a few more to burn one out. How can something with so little dynamic range cut a record with 55 dB+ of dynamic range? The answer is the skill of the mastering engineer coupled with the RIAA eq curve. Modern cutting rigs have automatic pitch control, whereby loud passages result in fewer grooves per inch, and soft passages result in more grooves per inch. That was controlled, in the past, by a read head on the mastering tape that was positioned by some fixed advance in front of the head providing the actual record signal. The advanced head told the lathe carriage whether to widen or narrow the pitch in advance of the actual record signal reaching the cutting head itself! Today, the advance head is replaced by digital delay circuitry to delay the musical signal by the interval needed to control the pitch of the grooves. Finally, record cutters need ultrasonic filters to keep-out UHF signals and oscillations which could blow the cutter and acceleration limiters to keep the cutter head from trying to move too fast and too far thus avoiding the stylus cutting through the "lands" into an adjacent groove which would ruin the entire master.   

It's a wonder that we consumers end-up with anything listenable at all!. Digital is both easier and better, but again, Just as it's possible to make to a lousy LP, it's possible to make a lousy DSD, CD, or LPCM download or music Blu-Ray! It's all in the care and execution at each step of the process.

[audiobomber]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

DSD256 recorders are more commonplace eg RME ADI-2, and even so most PCM recordings start out with an SDM converter ie DSD, and most DACs ultimately output SDM/DSD. 

 

Im just saying that a DSD256 recording played back as DSD256 is the least adulterated format in wide distribution.

Really? I thought most studios used PCM for recording.

 

Even when the recording studio does use PCM, I believe they mostly convert to PCM for mastering and for the final product, don't they. 

 

I have a Korg DS-DAC-10R that can record up to 192/24 or 5.6MHz DSD. I recorded my vinyl to 88/24. If I had recorded in DSD, I would not have been able to remove clicks and pops, separate tracks and tag the results. I would need to convert to PCM for processing, so what's the point?

 

I believe DSD is a superior format to vinyl, because LP's deteriorate even when used with care, and downloading is nice way to buy music. Also, one can achieve acceptable SQ at a much lower price with an SACD player or computer audio system vs. a good quality vinyl replay system. 

[jabbr]

6 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Really? I thought most studios used PCM for recording.

 

Broadly SAR vs SDM ADCs and SDM tends to be used for audio even when the output is PCM. Similarly DACs tend to use SDM even when the input is PCM.

 

6 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

 

Even when the recording studio does use PCM, I believe they mostly convert to PCM for mastering and for the final product, don't they. 

 

 

Yes, just saying that SDM/DSD is more natural and involves less processing. Most, but not all, recording -> playback chains start life as SDM and end life as SDM.

[Geeksterlab]

On this site: https://www.nativedsd.com/, we find a lot of native DSD of good quality!

 

By the way, have you heard about laser vinyl turntables?

ELP CORPORATION is the designer, manufacturer of the famous laser vinyl turntable.

Made and assembled by hand in Japan, this product is one-of-a-kind.

ELP promises you an incredible immersion experience in the analog quality of your LPs.

The LT-Master, LT-Master EU, LT-Master ALL models will allow you to read and listen to all the information written on your discs without cracking, without breath (because no contact on the surface of your discs), without wear. .. A must have for any audiophile enthusiast of vinyl records.

Another great find for vinyl fans: the Disc Demagnetizer by ACOUSTIC REVIVE: http://acousticrevive.jp/portfolio-item/disc-demagnetizer/

[Geeksterlab]

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, Geeksterlab said:

As for room acoustics treatment vinyl can be in some regards better than digital (CDs, SACDs) and much better than hi-res downloads - either PCM or DSD, doesn't make that much difference 

[marce]

2 hours ago, Geeksterlab said:

 

Another great find for vinyl fans: the Disc Demagnetizer by ACOUSTIC REVIVE: http://acousticrevive.jp/portfolio-item/disc-demagnetizer/

Magnetic disks.... All my records are plastic, so don't need de-magnetizing...

[audiobomber]

12 hours ago, audiobomber said:

Even when the recording studio does use PCM, I believe they mostly convert to PCM for mastering and for the final product, don't they?

Sorry, here's what I meant to say: "Even when the recording studio does use DSD..."