Lp and digital, the test

[[email protected]]

I have followed the current lp/cd thread only superficially but did notice
in one branch it took the testing path.

When considering this entire thing I'm reminded of a listening test of
some years ago. An lp was recorded digitally, might have been tape then.
The lp was used with the digital copy in a listening alone test to see if
which was which could be spotted. It could not beyond chance.

Whatever was on the lp, noise and euphonic distortions or what have you,
was on the digital copy faithfully enough not to be spotted reliabily.

This means that any differences spotted in other contexts likely owe their
audibility to mastering and other such done in the transfer to digital.

In my view, unless the above test can be shown to be in error then most of
this thread was in vain because all relevant questions relating to home
reproduction were addressed by it.

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
wrote:

> I have followed the current lp/cd thread only superficially but did notice
> in one branch it took the testing path.
>
> When considering this entire thing I'm reminded of a listening test of
> some years ago. An lp was recorded digitally, might have been tape then.
> The lp was used with the digital copy in a listening alone test to see if
> which was which could be spotted. It could not beyond chance.
>
> Whatever was on the lp, noise and euphonic distortions or what have you,
> was on the digital copy faithfully enough not to be spotted reliabily.
>
> This means that any differences spotted in other contexts likely owe their
> audibility to mastering and other such done in the transfer to digital.
>
> In my view, unless the above test can be shown to be in error then most of
> this thread was in vain because all relevant questions relating to home
> reproduction were addressed by it.

This is fairly normal. One shouldn't be able to tell the LP from a
digital copy of it, all things being equal. There is likely the rub.
Unless the digital copy was made from the same LP copy, on the same
turntable, using the same phono preamp as was used to play back the
record through the same amplifier and the same speakers during the
comparison, there could be differences. But if the record and playback
chains for the LP and the digital copy of that LP are the same as those
used to make the digital copy, There should be no difference.

People might complain that digital (especially 16-bit/44.1 KHz digital)
doesn't sound as "musical" as analog, but they can't say that it isn't
accurate to the signal fed to it.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:27:04 PM UTC-8, (unknown) wrote:
> I have followed the current lp/cd thread only superficially but did notice
> in one branch it took the testing path.
>
> When considering this entire thing I'm reminded of a listening test of
> some years ago. An lp was recorded digitally, might have been tape then.
> The lp was used with the digital copy in a listening alone test to see if
> which was which could be spotted. It could not beyond chance.
>
> Whatever was on the lp, noise and euphonic distortions or what have you,
> was on the digital copy faithfully enough not to be spotted reliabily.
>
> This means that any differences spotted in other contexts likely owe their
> audibility to mastering and other such done in the transfer to digital.
>
> In my view, unless the above test can be shown to be in error then most of
> this thread was in vain because all relevant questions relating to home
> reproduction were addressed by it.

You can't copy what you don't have. If one wants the mastering and euphonic colorations of LPs they will have to get the LPs and associated equipment. You won't find copies of best mastered LPs recorded on high end turntables at Amazon or Best Buy.