CD vs. Vinyl

Back around 1984, Dave Wilson put out a test record entitled "Digital -- How Accurate?"

Both sides of the record contained the same music, consisting of ragtime piano and a jazz trio. Both sides were produced from the same master tapes, recorded on his high quality custom-built 30 ips 1/2" analog tape recorder. Mastering and pressing were done to expectably high standards.

The only difference between the two sides was that on one of them the output of the recorder had been processed through what was then a state-of-the-art Soundstream digital recorder/processor, which converted the analog output from the tape recorder to digital, and then converted it back to analog.

That made possible an extremely clear-cut assessment of the degradations that were introduced by the conversions to and from digital, because:

1)That methodology eliminates all variables in the recording process, the mastering process, and the playback process, other than the effects of the digital processor.

2)That methodology eliminates subjective judgments, since what is being assessed is not which side sounds better, but simply whether or not the two sides sound identical. If they don't sound identical, it means that the conversion to and/or from digital has introduced a degradation. (Although of course some "degradations" may be subjectively preferable to some listeners).

On that record the difference between the two sides was clearly audible in many ways, even on modest playback equipment. It would be interesting to see a comparison like that repeated with today's state-of-the-art equipment, and the results might even help to settle some of these kinds of debates.

Beyond that, I second Tvad's earlier comment: "Why is it that we can't simply enjoy what we enjoy without having to debate why we enjoy it?"

Regards,
-- Al

Al - what if Master Tape is digital (most common)?

1. Master Tape to CD to DAC to amp
2. Master Tape to DAC to LP to amp

Both have one D/A conversion. Perhaps quality of D/A conversion is important since most of LPs now comes from digital Master Tapes?

hi kijanki:

i'd rather hear the microphone feed, not the cd and not the lp.

i realize this is impractical. a live broadcast over a decent radio comes close.

sorry to be a wise guy, but i could'nt resist the temptation.

Mrtennis - why microphone? With the pricetag of top quality gear it might be cheaper to hire Symphony Orchestra to play at your place.

what if Master Tape is digital (most common)?

1. Master Tape to CD to DAC to amp
2. Master Tape to DAC to LP to amp

Both have one D/A conversion. Perhaps quality of D/A conversion is important since most of LPs now comes from digital Master Tapes?

Hi Kijanki,

I suppose that there are a number of comparisons along those lines that would yield useful data points. But I think that step 1 in resolving these kinds of debates, which is perhaps all that can ultimately be hoped for, is to get the debates out of the realm of ideology and theory (as to whether or not chopping up the signal into discrete samples and finite numbers of bits is inherently a flawed concept), and to the point where it is recognized that neither the digital nor the analog approach is inherently flawed, and what counts is the quality of the implementation.

I think that a re-do of the Wilson Audio recording I described would go a long way toward either proving or disproving that assertion, and thereby narrowing the scope of these debates.

I certainly don't profess to have the experience to be able to assert either position with certainty, but fwiw my own instinct is that digital is not inherently flawed, and that quality of implementation (in both the recording and mastering process and in the playback process) is what counts.

Best regards,
-- Al