Does Digitizing Audio Change the Sound?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июл 2019
- Why should I buy vinyl if I know that it's been digitized first? What's the point? Does digital audio have a unique "sound" that changes the analog signal into a "digital" one that is then cut to vinyl? Let's explore this, shall we?
Видеоклипы
Frankly, I don't care if the music was recorded digitally, or not. The proof of the pudding is what you hear through your own stereo. Some vinyl sounds good, and some sounds bad, likewise CDs, (and even some high definition files).
I have a lot of old records from the 60s and 70s, some of which are really well recorded, and sound fabulous, (some not), but I also have some 'remasters' that also sound great, even though they have been (re-)processed on modern digital equipment. I also have some LPs from modern artists that were digitally recorded, but that were properly mastered for vinyl, and sound brilliant too.
So I really don't care how they were recorded and processed, just so long as they sound good.
Thanks for video, and the topic for discussion.
This says everything I wanted to say.
This, all of this! You took the words right out of my mind.
Yeah Tony, spot on mate....
Let's face it some people enjoy music and some take great pleasure in their substantial taste and ability to evaluate the quality of practically everything and point out to the poor slobs of this world exactly why they are a pack of morons for not having the same views and opinions..!!
Exactly my sentiment. The variations that exist in so many recordings, some sound great, others not so. The mastering of a recording can make a record sound better than a cd or the other way around. Add to that the infinite variables in equipment to reproduce that recording, and there is no real benchmark for which media or recording is superior.
It sounds good, or it sounds bad, just don't over think it, listen to many formats, even cassette tape can be amazing when done right.
The most ironic thing to me is that whenever I play a record in a video, I get many comments of people saying how much better it sounds than digital, even though they're hearing it through a 128 kbps compressed, 44.1 kHz sampling rate digital recording. It's all due to the colorization and distortion ("warmth") of the record and the placebo effect of seeing the record spinning and the stylus playing the groove.
Read your comment several times. I would have to agree.
Oops, wrong account ;)
Well, which is it? If it's placebo effect then there really is no difference, only perceived in the mind based on visual stimulus. But if there is coloration and distortion, as you said, then it's not placebo effect and actually does sound different.
Probably because the REAL world is analog, the sound is heard without passing it through a ADC converter and then another DAC converter. The sound from vinyl is passed straight through from disc to your ears, albeit with some artifacts.
@@VinylTV33 😂
Music on Vinyl is probably the best reissue company out there for vinyl and even they use digital masters on a lot of their pressings. It's more about knowing how to transfer the audio properly to the vinyl than it is the source type. Many master tapes have been digitized by record companies in order to preserve them properly because the tapes break down over time and with more use. With the recent fire at the Universal storage space, thank goodness those digital copies exist or we would be without some killer music on vinyl forever. My two cents. Great video Craig.
Yes and even digital sounds different on vinyl. MOV is really good on making pressings and they always have good sound quality, i have like 10 mov pressings at least and they all sound fantastic.
I would rather listen to "direct-to-disc", where the tape (digital or analog) is taken out of the loop. More expensive, YES, but worth every penny!
I love your videos Craig! You explain these topics in a very detailled yet clear, simplified manner. Keep on posting!
Awesome video Craig! ... Good to see you putting out vids again! :) - Peace from Toronto!
Just found this channel today and man, you GET IT. So many other channels on this topic with their heads so far up their asses but you actually understand what you're talking about. So refreshing!
Your bottom line is the same for me. The only thing that can make an analog recording different when transferred to digital is trying to "enhance" it with compression, limiting and/or EQ. But a high quality, transparent, flat transfer should sound the same. Audiophiles rejecting reissues just because they aren't AAA without even listening to them make me sick.
True, if you simply digitize a great analog record, the digital copy will sound great as well. The reason why vinyl often sounds better is superior mastering on vinyl.
I agree, I have made digital copies of records I made that sound better than the poorly mass produced CD's of the same recording. Digital is not the enemy, poorly recorded digital is, along with poor DAC's. Another question is why is the actual dynamic range on most CD's limited to around 20 db when records used less compression and had more dynamic range? Seems ironic.
zulumax1 I think they compress CDs because they want them to sound good on tiny Bluetooth speakers and $10 earplugs
@@audiofun999 Not to mention car audio which needs quiet sounds louder so you can hear it over the road noise.
I disagree. It depends on the complexity of the sound in the LP. I have made copies of simple music like Jazz and it comes good, but rich complex sound like a full orchestra is a lot trickier and elusive.
Always good to see you, Craig! Love the songs you recorded back in the day.
I have been in professional recording studios and have listened to playback in the control room right after the take was completed and it sounded identical to the live mic feed. every time.This was at 24/96. Could not discern a difference. We have also needledrops of LPs at 24/96 and the resulting files sound the same as the LP playback. The LP playback does add something to the sound but the digital captures it. I have heard needledrops at 16/44.1 that sound superb as well.
Hello Craig, I totaly agree with you that digital doesn't touch or infect the sound. I've been in recording studio's many times to transfer analog tapes for CD which were released later.
The analog tape was transfered to 32 BIT over 192 Khz. this to prevent as you said those sound steps, you know those blocks.
As I allso have had comment in an other video, the cut off is 22 Khz. this because the CD is 16Bit 44.100 Khz.
I know people are getting back to vinyl, because the so called loudnes war. The companies are aware off that now and the CD's that are realesed this very day comes from the same mastertape as for the vinyl. The reason vinyl is making his comeback is, because the lost off income. Allso like you said in this video you don't own something.
I have to be honest and have to say I like both formats. Even cassettes. I still play those and first thing I do, is when I've bought a new vinyl put it on tape.
Allso the Cassette is making a comeback. I own 2 Cassette Tape Decks A Revox B215 and a Studer A721. Think this will say enough to you.
Any way I'm curious to the next video about this topic. Keep spinning those vinyls
As a recording and mixing engineer, let me state that hearing a band or singer or any musician being recorded live and the tracks in input, it sounds exactly the same on playback as it did during recording on today's DAWs. This was never the case with tape, in input it sounds live as the tracks are being monitored through the circuitry and the console output, but playing back off the tape it sounds completely different depending upon the tape formulation and machine alignment specs. Very refined hearing can differentiate between digital and analog recording, and further refined ears can tell something is missing from fully digital recordings that end up on vinyl and still sound generally great, but the vinyl mastering process and running a fully digital album through top tier analog mastering gear will bring in amazing high frequency harmonics that can make a modern recording and mix stellar. The vinyl record will always incorporate a sound that is pleasing if done right, but I've also heard terrible fully analog recordings on vinyl due to amateur mastering, usually on a compilation where groups of already available and finished songs are put through horrible equipment to make the record.
I have an original John Lennon Imagine Pressing and it sucks. I have a Beck Morning Phase (I assume digital here) and that shit is amazing.
I agree , most mass recordings are to sell as standered .
The only thing that is Analog is the Phono cartage .
Music recorded on Cessete is better done at home for sure
Craig, great video. I have recently been down the rabbit hole of audio formats, trying to find the best digital format for high quality, and I can hear differences when an album is encoded to DSD 128bit vs uncompressed FLAC - more so when the source material was fully digitally recorded, mixed and mastered.
The characteristic that I always hear is a slight harshness or slightly clinical sound, which is very fatiguing.
Example - I love the Queen album “The Game” from 1980, fully analogue recording but when listened from DSD/SACD a whole new level of clarity, focus and dynamics appear, even though I should not hear anything else as it’s out of my hearing range.
Flip forward to 1986 “A Kind of Magic” album, which was fully digitally recorded and this in DSD/SACD sounds a bit flat.
There is clearly something going on that is lost during recording with digital.
Best option is to tape MQA/DSD masters from the tapes and go from there - that seems to yield (to my ears anyway) the most true and dynamic versions in digital.
First of all I love watching your videos Craig ! I think your amazing and I could learn a lot from you. This particular video is very interesting to me personally ! I've been doing my digitization's from my laptop on Audacity (2 Channel, 16 bit, 44100 Hz) Wave file. Then I have Technics Rubber Mat, An Audio Technica VM 540 ML/H for my cartridge & then a AT-LP120 USB (what you have for your broadcasts). More info I use when using Audacity is: Real Time conversion (Best Quality Slowest) & High quality conversion, sample rate converter is set for Best Quality (slowest) once again. It's differently not the best in the world off-course, as you said in this video there are professional equipment out there to do this properly. So what I try to do is I try to capture the best that I can afford. I do it so that I can bring my Vinyl in Digital along with my other digital (newer tracks from beatport, iTunes, 320 random MP3's) I wanna mix it all together in a playlist. Choosing a direct drive keeps the consistent pace so that it doesn't stretch my audio ... like i try to capture using belt drive i had lol .... DJ software's that I know of can detect if you have same consistent BPM, then that's good and you can beat match properly. (I'm a music lover, not really a DJ but I love to play around with Virtual DJ As A Hobby) So yeah I do what I can what I can afford ... I do feel happy doing what I'm doing, I have ordered quite a bit from Discogs in making me busy digitizing so I can make my digital playlists. 1) From Vinyl to digital wav file & 2) 320 MP3's that I buy online from various sites like beatport, iTunes ect... Forgive me if I have Typos lol my english is sometimes not the best. Thanks a bunch for the upload Craig and your awesome intelligent man who knows his stuff. Thankfully I can look up to you to learn tips for the future ... Cheers !!!
I always learn something when I watch your videos! Thank you for what you do!
I agree with most of your observations. The "cushiony" sound of a magnetic tape master was probably due to the low amount of tape hiss in the background even at high recording tape speeds. The introduction of Dolby noise reduction in the mastering process eliminated this hiss and some listeners complained that the resulting sound lacked "warmth". Near the end of the LP era, mastering was done with digital tape formats (Sony PCM) with great results. Now the only differences between the master tape and the LP pressing were the accuracy of the LP mastering cut and the cartridge being used for playback. Being a collector of classical music I soon realized that the LP could not match the CD which eliminated speed variations due to off-center pressings and/or warpness, inner groove distortion, noises due to static charge, noises resulting from non-fill occurring in the molding process and their great susceptibility to noises due to mishandling. Most of these defects are still present in recent LP production.
My friends and I spent a good deal of time and money searching for the "perfect" cartridge, actually meaning the cartridge we liked the most which had less to do with accuracy and more to do with personal preferences. .
Let me say this, my friend.
I own Telarc's very first digitally-recorded LP of the 1812 Overture (with real cannon-fire), as well as its CD counterpart.
Until last December, I hadn't listened to my LPs for decades, but I bought a new turntable and began rediscovering my LPs. I first played Telarc's 1812 Overture on CD, and all went well. Then, I played the same recording from the LP, and when it arrived at the cannon fire, I blew my speakers.
True story.
TBNTX was it only the tweeters that got blown ?
This is an important topic because we have a format coming out called HD Vinyl which REQUIRES a digital conversion in the pressing process. I totally agree that tape and vinyl add their own character to the sound. I know this based on experience recording in a studio and being part of the process as you have, Craig. I did a demo once where we recorded digitally and then purposely bounced the 2 channel mix downs to tape and then BACK to digital again so we could get that tape sound (we didn't have a "tape" plug in back then). I feel that even modern digital recordings will sound more pleasing if they are pressed to vinyl even though they started digitally. To use a similar analogy, it is like spreading peanut butter on your toast. It takes the rough edges of the toast and just spreads over them with a nice tasty paste that we like to hear. I am not so concerned with the digital in the middle but we will probably find that the music originally recorded on analog tape has a certain quality as compared to music recorded in the digital domain and then pressed to vinyl. I think converting a digital master to vinyl will make it sound better (to me) but not quite the same as a tape master pressed to vinyl, with or without a digital conversion in the middle.
Craig, you nailed it. I was going to point out the fact that 44.1 sampling rate caused some phase shifts in the lower audible frequencies due to steep cut off above 22k but you said basically the same thing in different words. aliasing and moire effects due to equally spaced sampling rates can cause audible artifacts, but I think modern DACs have done away with anything audible now days. My first CD player in 1985 was an ADC CD-100X which used analog filtering which I liked much better than the early digital filtering which I found harsh and grainy. I am going to go make a bologna sandwich with peanut butter on it.
I love the hobbyists that listen with their eyes. They accidentally catch a glimpse of the word "digital" and swear they can suddenly hear 1s and 0s.
interesting discussion. I like to learn more about this. I think some people enjoy analog recordings because there is minor imperfections(maybe nuances is a better term) that add a unique quality to the sound.
good points about the digital audio converter making a difference in the sound quality of cd players.
I have a REAL problem with "analog" recordings that use a DIGITAL FILE for the source to make it sound "better". Let's take the analog tape out of the recording chain, as in "direct-to-disk" recordings, to eliminate the artifacts of the tape recording. I have a few of these direct-disk recordings from the late '70s, they sound FANTASTIC! I have not purchased any vinyl since 1978, AND do not plan to buy anything that uses a DIGITAL FILE as the source. I did not just spend $400+ on a 2M 'bronze' cartridge that is mounted in an SME 3009 arm to listen to a 'digitized' vinyl record. Why would I bother with all this shyte when I could just pop a CD into my Yamaha CDX-1100U and 'enjoy' perfect sound? Thanks for ALL the videos you upload!!
Craig thank you for your awesome take on this topic! You were way ahead of the Mofi drama and your words sound prophetic. I've shared this video with others and who ever else doesn't think that Vinyl is final🤓
Thanks for discussing this topic. I was right there when CDs first hit the market and was amazed at what I could hear that was not audible on vinyl. But here we are in 2019, and I still get goose bumps when I play my vinyl, original that I bought in the summer of 1976, Frampton Comes Alive! The digital conversion sounds fabulous, but the vinyl warms my heart.
Yes but if you record your vinyl digitally and then play it back, it would sound as if you played it again. You would not be able to distinguish if it was the vinyl playing or the digital file.
I have and it's not the same to my ears.@@Henk-dx5kl
Really enjoyed this and found it very informative. Thanks Craig.
I've become a big fan of vinyl records again. Initially I resisted, very sceptical of the supposed resurgence of the format. I had vinyl of course back in my youth in the 80's, then on to CD's and then on to MP3's. I gave it a go on the "let's see what all the fuss is about then" basis and I've performed a complete 180 in my attitude. The first thing that hits you is the warmth in the sound, very much an advocate now.
Great video Craig. Makes perfect sense.
Double blind listening tests will prove things one way or another.
For me, CD's were a godsend. For the first time I could hear the hiss of the original master tape. No pops or crackles. And I had no complaint about the frequency range. These days we have 24/96 digital and cheap storage so why not?
Great toppic Greg, Thanks!
More great content as always. I was wondering if you are still going to do part 2 of, archiving records?
Thanks for your videos! You talked about CD players and their DACs briefly. I can verify how CD players came a long way. I had stopped buying CDs awhile ago, occasionally using my Sony CDP-C50 changer from 1988. It was supposed to be a top of the line back then. The sound was quite muddy, not really enjoyable even with my new Goldenear Triton One speakers. It shows 4 times oversampling Dual DA converter system on the front. The DAC is a Texas Instruments 16 bit DAC. I recently bought an Integra CDC 3.4 CD Changer and it has 128-times oversampling with Wolfson 192 kHz / 24-bit DAC (x2). I connected to my AVR through the optical port, which the Sony did not have. My gosh, I went though all my CDs and it is like I never heard them before. The highs and lows came though beautifully, I think I will get back into CDs as well as my return to vinyl. I have bought a lot of lossless DSD music albums also, usually DSD128. I want to say each media, whether it be CD, vinyl or DSD, each gives its own sound (characteristics) and I appreciate each one when playing the music. The most important thing in my mind is getting the most enjoyment of the music using the best media (like no MP3s) and equipment you can comfortably afford. Thanks again for taking the time to do these videos.
Hello Craig, Intresting topic. My answer is as follows. Professional analog 24 or even 36 track Tape machines does have a frequenzy response from around 20 Hz up to 19 Khz. So anyone that say the Cd is cut of above 20 Khz (which is in real 22 Khz) doesn't know how audio is working. This has allso to do with the caristics off the microfon. Every microfone does have his own. Allthough we can put higer freq into a record, it won't happen cuz the stylus can't handle this. But those come in the harmonic. Therefore a cartridge with a freqenzy response up to 50 Khz will perform better the a cartridge with a lower one let's say up 22 Khz. The funniest thing happens with Cd players which you mentioned from the early day's. A14 bit bit machine does sound better then a 16 bit or a bit stream machine. For those players is even an upgrade which makes the sound more analoge sounding. See link nanocamp.de/ .
Some say Digital sounds to bright or whatever. I remember when FM was introduced. We all were used to listen to AM. Back then people allso said, FM is not sounding great. Well AM has died at least here over in Europe and now the same is happening with FM cuz DAB+ is taking over.
We will see what will happen in about 2 years when the HD vinyl is introduced. Then the albums will be cut by a laser, this during the fact there not enough cuttingheads and the grooves will be more precise. I'm looking foreward to this anyway.
So for now I keep playing my records, Cassettes, Cd's and Digital file's which I bought at HDtracks.com
Keep on making video's Greetz from the Netherlands
I saw I did add the German language oof the Nanocamp so here the Englisch versision. Allso intresting to hear what they say in the youtube links. dindiki.com/?metronom-tda1540
For what it's worth. In the late 1970 and early 80's I was apart of a team that was asked to compare Vinyl to the new CD "Digital" format. Most of my collection at the time was 1/2Master LP's.
But to be fair we decided to use 1 location and the same equipment. We used to different studios, but they were identically the same (except the Speakers/Monitors). Room #1 had ADS LS203 Monitors, and room #2 had the Infinity Reference Standard 1's. The same Power Amps', Preamps, Turntables I believe was a Oracle. Remember back then there were 2 CD format reading systems SONY & PHILLIPS. This wasn't a 1 or 2 hour test, it took over a week to arrive at fair and honest conclusion. To cut a long process short... we even Recorded on reel to reel both the Vinyl cut and the CD cut, to be judged later. This process took about 10 days and 6 different people "Audiophiles" if you will. The format(s) were blind to the listeners, and the evaluation sheet were collectively made up by Sony, Phillips, 2 Recording Engineers, and 15 Audiophiles. At the end of the test, it was apparent at that time... that CD did in fact, sound Cool-Cold depending on the music and passage vs vinyl. In allot of the comments section several people wrote that "H" which was the blind label for CD's sounded Artificial in some sense. Harmonics was another area that was low on the CD side. Bottom line at that time CD were not equal to Vinyl, but judge as just being another format to put music on the market... like other had done with Cassette Tapes etc., Now that being said, keep in mind we were using judges that had 10-30 years of listening to Vinyl, with modest $10-25K equipment. So, they knew what to look for and when.
All-in-All at the end of the day ... we collectively agreed that CD's would become cheap to make, very durable, and would be appropriate for the GENERAL PUBLIC! Not everyone will want to sit in a Audiophile environment for hours dissenting to wonderful, colorful, true like recordings. But, for someone who want to just through something in a device and hear something CD's had a future... better than a Cassette or 8 Track! CD's have become a very forgiving format, better than anything else... for it MOBILITY etc., So, Vinyl has it's place and that not in you Car or SUV...
it's in the home. I believe CD's are now starting to disappear from the market place... not because they don't sound good, but because of connivance. Yes, people want there MUSIC with them 24/7, so now the play is towards Music Streaming Services, which quality is very ????? BUT, and this time, and age of Streaming.. your sacrificing Quality for Convince. To each there own, no one way is the wright way! That's like he drives a Ford, and you drive a Chevy... differences are what makes it all worth it! Another way of looking at it, is I don't drink Starbucks! The QUALITY and prep is not up to my demanding standards! I have Roasted my on Coffee Beans, and learned how to properly make a Latte' while I was in Europe. An I don't have to stair at a TIP JAR in my face before I even get my Coffee. If you want the BEST of anything LEARN HOW TO DO IT YOURSELF ! But, don't judge others with your prejudices!!!
Hi Craig. I seldom comment but felt the urge to this time. I agree with your assessment. Case in point. Back in the 90’s I bought one of those Pioneer CD recorders. I still have it today. I remember recording all analogue vinyl onto it and did many comparisons between the original vinyl and the newly recorded cds. Absolutel NO difference in sound to my ears. I think the files that made up the cds from the unit were lossless wave files created from the records. Anyway, you are correct IMO.
i really appreciate the honesty.
You are complety correct in my personal opinion.
The digitized signal quality depends heavily from the analog to digital convertor hardware quality (ADC). When CD's first came out in the eighties, these ADC machines were not the quality they are today. So yes, there can really be a loss to the analog original in this ADC prozess , jitter as you mentioned etc.. All depends with what equipment and in which year what original source master tape was digitized with what quality of equipment. Today, often there exists no master tape anymore only some digital version of it. My personal optinion is, that's where the bad reputation of digital recordings comes from.
I did exactly what you mention here. While live recording a cellist at 96/24, I was able to compare the digitized sound "live" to the real instrument. Compared to the real cello, the sound in the headphones was simpler and annoying.
Just want to add that my 'best' music, the tracks that I think sound most hi-fi, are all on L.P. They seem to be crisper and have more attack, although it's really difficult to describe just what is better or different, or how that has come about, whether in the mastering, or due to the 'analogueness' of the format.
So once again, thanks for the video, and the opportunity to discuss this debate.
A good recording at 32 or 24 bits may be very good but CDs were down-converted to 16 bits. Early CDs I still have were horrendously mastered. It took a few years for the industry to realize that bass frequencies would not be reliably detected by the equipment back then. That left CDs sounding hollow. They later learned to inject white noise to make the signals below 440 hz "visible". Pioneer explained this in the early 90s. Worse though was the industry feeling the need to remix and push down the bass and pump up the highs on releases of classic rock. It was so bad that I could hear the difference on my crappy mono car radio back in the 90s. Jim Morrison went from being rich and "smoky" to shrill and thin. The organ was almost gone.
Don't get me wrong, I do buy CDs since many things will never get a vinyl release. I just don't expect as much. I hate MP3 and I can readily tell the difference between 125 bit and 160 and 256 bit files. Sadly, most pop is only found at the low end. FLAC is rare but even that depends on the encoding and the source material. It seems most people can't tell the difference. My ears have aged but still detect the flaws. I can no longer hear the 15K whine of old TVs but can still appreciate good audio.
Everyone's perceptions differ but never say "nobody can tell the difference" because some can.
B.T.O is very underrated Canadian band. Found few of their records in Montreal on 1$ record sales.
And they're old.
I think when certain CD era "hot" CD's are pressed to vinyl and not analogue tapes, the record doesn't sound as good as it could and loses the "vinyl" sound. I've heard some records that were made from the CD audio and vs. the same album that was pressed from the original master tapes, there is a difference for sure. I do agree, if starting with tape, then digital "correctly" you would in theory be able to press that to vinyl and not lose anything. However, I think direct from CD or "digital" to vinyl doesn't sound good. OR, what I've heard was just not done "correctly" in the process.
That sandwich analogy was amazing 😂
Forgive me if you covered this (I was eating while I was watching your video). What are your thoughts about albums that were originally digital and later pressed to vinyl? There have been a slew of albums from the 90’s and 2000’s that are now getting reissued on vinyl but we’re originally released on cd. As a rule, I typically buy the album on cd if it was released after 1988 but what do you do? Love your content.
Good topic, I tried recording digital to analog, but it didn’t sound good, but when recording drums or vocals to analog quarter inch tape, then dumping it into protools, that sounded great, but over all analog is thee best format, I remember those days when recording in recording studio on 2 inch reels and sound was unbelievable, nothing still compares.
And yes digital remastered albums sound Aweful,that’s what pisses me off about seeing LPS at target is that there all presses from a digital source
I picked up that BTO album a couple of weeks ago, it slaps!
Your video is quite thought provoking as usual. Two thoughts/questions: 1. Seems the whole mastering process involved in making a cd or vinyl master is a BIG part of the equation of what you hear even if we agree digitizing alone is not changing the sound. 2. Even if a digital source made from an analog master tape (lets assume its identical) is pressed on vinyl and also put on a CD... does it follow you will hear Analog sound on both when you play back or will the vinyl sound more warm and analog because it’s being played on an analogue turntable and the CD more digital? In other words what’s the impact of the type of playback device given equal quality? Hmmm
The key to all analog recording is the electromagnetic transducer that is used to record the impulses, and read them back. If this is done accurately on vinyl, then it's theoretically possible to get perfect reproduction from a record. But then the cartridge, another electromagnetic transducer, has to do its job and retrieve that information properly.
In the case of a CD, there's much less chance of error because there's no moving parts, other than the disk drive, which in most cases, does not affect the sound quality. (Audiofiles will debate that)
The true answer is that technically, it will capture the recording exactly as it is produced, and if that is produced and sourced from an LP, that exact signal is captured. HOWEVER... signal processing both during sourcing and conversion to digital and then again at playback will always change it somewhat. If done properly with the goal in mind of keeping the sound the same and done on proper equipment, I would challenge anyone, even the most speculative cynics to tell the difference beyond the statistical probability of guessing. None of could accomplish that with everyday software and a PC, however.
It's all relative, it all depends on the equipment and method, but yes, it can be done without changing the sound (at least from a human perspective).
I don't immediately tend to say yes, because of an experience I had with the 50th anniversary Beatles white album.
It is an ADA pressing, which sounds wonderful, just unbelievable what a semi digital pressing can do!
Unfortunately, the price of it was unbelievable as well :(
loved the baloney sandwich example so true!
Digital sound can have good sound quality but also the opposite. It depends on how the song is mixed and adjusted in the studio.
Both digital and analog can have fantastic sound but also the opposite. Remember, vinyl has limitations. You need to adjust the sound specifically for vinyl. Digital sound does not have so many limitations but there are many who adjust and mix digital sound wrong so it doesn't sound good. But if it is done correctly and you play it off on a good digital system then it sounds fantastic.
The Denon DCD-3300 was an incredibly good CD player
I find straight Digital 'sharp' and 'abrupt' with less 'echo', even compared to a CD rip.
When I say 'echo' i mean it in a positive way, like 'layered' or 'life'
Yep. Not only is the digital recording near perfect, any minute inaccuracies that could occur would be lost in the digital to analogue conversion. Digital recordings are basically perfect. And I say that as someone who likes to record digital to cassette, I still enjoy analogue sound. But I can then record my digital to cassette recording back to digital if I want and it's like that last step never even happened, this is a practice I do. And I'll listen to my favorite music like that sometimes.
like your video so much. It helped me a lot. Thank you all the time ^^
Hi sir, i almost agree with facts you said. Thanks for such information. I also found that analog or digital media whatever if pressing done properly with pro quality gears they sounds great.Further R n D in digital recordings on improving resolution and reducing time error also reducing left n right channel bit read right time synchronisation error can make it future perfect top class media. The recording read and right in LPs and cassettes have no time synchro issues because of single head/device recording methods. May be in digital that can be remained issue.(just i thought), But digital has full potential and benefits to be future proof media.
It's peanut butter!! I've been listening to people tell me that digital is perfect for years and although i like your channel, I have to say that it is wishful thinking. Several background sounds disappeared from our music in the conversion to digital back in the days when 16/44.1 was considered perfect, and today's version of perfect is still not perfect, though it's better than before. The other side is admitting nothing (until it's twenty years later and they can't sell a CD to save their life). Digitizing the original doesn't deteriorate like a tape would, but it does change the sound, and moreover it doesn't capture what the tape would. The problem is not only jitter, which some people hear more than others, there's also Dither, which actually introduces sound(noise) to try to capture the stuff that was missing in the earlier recordings of digital sound, but only creates another annoying quality to the digital sound which is a background hum that makes most people's ears hurt after listening for too long (and another thing they insist we can't hear). Also, the sound is flattened. I'm not the only one who notices, though i notice it most in the drum sound. Sound is 3-dimensional and most musicians think of it that way. The digitizers think it's 2-dimensional, sound across time, and they think they only need to reconstruct the wave more accurately to fool the listener so they can sell you a bunch of crap that isn't necessary to hear good music. I don't advise anyone to go out and buy the most expensive system analog or digital, but the problem is not convincing me or anyone else that it's bologna, it's about being honest about what it actually is. The digital guys are selling sorbitol, dextrose, aspartame and telling people that you can't tell the difference from honey, molasses and maple syrup. The simple answer is you can tell the difference, you just need to honest about what it is you want. A hi-res digital master rendered to vinyl is better than a CD rendered to vinyl, (ironically you might be getting a better digital quality recording than the digital fan who subscribes to spotify) but it isn't the same or even better than the original. I have several Iron Maiden re-issues to prove it (before they finally got it right and went back to the master tapes) but I always go back to my originals printed in the 80s. However, we could keep insisting that no one can tell the difference. It would keep us occupied for a long time fighting about nothing worthwhile. :)
I don't know the Maiden records, but it's most likely a difference in mastering. Craig is right, digital does not have a "sound", analog does. If you like and prefer the analog sound, more power to you! But it's not a better reproduction of the original performance.
@@SomePotato Yes it is better! I disagree with Craig, (not that I don't respect his opinion) But analog to analog is objectively better. It isn't because getting a digital to vinyl disc is horrible, but analog to vinyl is better (though it's getting harder and harder to find). The only reason I bring up Maiden is because I happen to own copies in numerous different forms, and it says 're-mastered' on several of them. It's not the mastering. Analog is better. Peanut butter, dammit! Peanut butter!! :) (btw: 'Re-mastered' usually means 'Re-mixed' which is another load of b.s. by the audio industry.)
@@gabriel38g I strongly disagree with your "objectively" part, as this is purely subjective.
I completely agree on the remastering issue though!
@Çerastes Yes I do! And you're the one who has no clue... d-uh!
For me Craig, it’s the ritual, taking the vinyl out of the sleeve, placing on mat, cleaning with the pad, then needle drop,
Very gutsy video
Yep.... all those +20K frequencies that are created by instruments when played are what shape the the overall 'tone' of the instrument; what you hear as it's played. If you capture the instrument using either analog or digital methods, you have also captured those +20k frequencies because you're capturing that 'tone' of the instrument.
Even though you cannot hear above 20k, it's those 'overtones' that shape the overall sounds; the 'harmonics' of the instruments... and that is what either digital, or analog recording can capture...so that "20k limit" on digital because it can't catch these harmonics, is a nonsense....they've already been recorded because they've recorded the sounds of the instruments that rely on those +20k harmonics.
And also, most adults cannot hear much above 15KHz on average.... and Most phono cartridges don't play above 20KHz anyway.... because those +20k frequencies are already recorded and actually on the record/CD anyway......
There really is no need to record information on a record much above 20KHz unless you want to annoy dogs or bats - if your cartridge could even pick it up!!
Beta testers of the Sweetvinyl Sugar Cube say they can’t tell the difference in quality from the record and it uses adc to dac to remove the unwanted sounds. Some of these people are professional musicians. They all paid for their products too.
I bought myself a bluetooth turntable and use my Bluetooth headphones to listen to my vinyl. Sounds great to me, even though Audiophiles would shudder in horror at using Bluetooth. Still has all the warmth and the imperfections that make up the vinyl listening experience.
knowing that your album is analog has a kind of magical value, an infinite waveform, not confined by bits and samples.
The other issue with people that don't like CD is they never tried a stand alone DAC. They rely on the cheap DAC built in to the CD player. A decent $100 stand alone DAC or quality modern CD player should sound pretty darn good.
I love both,Vinyl and CD.Digital don't have to be the Enemy.I remember the first CD Pressings,the sounded very cold and flat.But the Technique evolved over the Years and nower Days CD's are sounding ''warm'' too.Vinyl have this very unique Sound,and for some Albums it sounds ''better'' than on CD,but sometimes also sounds ''better on CD.It depends on personal Preference what People prefer.And also there are good Remasters and very bad Remasters (Loudnesswar).But some sound fantastic on CD and Vinyl too.For me its often like a CD sounds more like ''Studio'' and a Vinylrecord more like ''Live''.I believe like Graig do,that Digital don't change the Sound,but Analog do a little bit,and that's fine.Love and hear what you want and prefer.Have a nice Day
Most of the problems with early CDs had to do with two facts.
a) Sound engineers had little or no training for the new medium.
b) Apart SONY based machines, ALL the rest used Philips' 14 bit converters with a rudimentary sort of oversampling to obtain the equivalent to the 16 bitdepth established in the famous "Red Book". This was because Philips had an enormous stock of such converters forecast that the final bitdepth was that (the result: 16 bit and a lot of non-16 bit chips manufactured in advance and asking for being amortized).
Hi Craig, I am interested in recording vinyl and from my microphone with my computer but the built in sound card in my linux/windows 10 pc is on board and its specs and features are pretty lackluster. Do you have info or video's discussing what to look for in an aftermarket sound card option to get higher quality? Thanks for all these great and informative video's.
I’ve always wondered about this really! So far, digitising always seems to be combined with quite extreme compression.. I suppose I couldn’t hear the difference, but all attempts I heard so far clearly sounded different from the original.. I do agree with your logic though.. I HAVE heard a digital device reintroducing the higher harmonics and trying that out on the radio. And many people responded to say how great it sounded! And it felt the same to me. So that was recalculating these harmonics and putting them back. Weird isn’t it? So nobody noticed it was essentially fake.. It does make digital quite interesting 😀
Is this the time to remind viewers of the digital mastering houses in the 80s and their processes of prepping for vinyl cutting?
Grrreat video & content. HailYes, some Randy Bachman!. I thank thee for sharing all...
Good video.
re: the capacitor, transistors, etc. The signal goes through much of the same for analog recording too. So even any difference from that is very minimal to the point of nearly infinitesimal. The tolerances of those electronic components, even between any two pieces of equipment, in either analog domain or digital domain, probably has more of an effect than the digitation of the signal.
I think if you capture an analogue signal in 24bit Hi-Res digital thats ok. The problem comes in when we want to put that signal onto a CD. The limitations of CD as we know only allows for 16bit 44.1kHz signal. So then comes in the process of dither to go from the 24bit signal down to 16bit for CD. Now enter quantization noise etc. Better just to burn your audio to a DVD or just play it straight in 24bit through a player like foobar2000.
One of the important characteristics of digital audio is that it can be compressed. Audio files are generally large. Compressed audio files save space, and are easier to transfer over the Internet. When you compress audio files, the quality of the audio file is affected.
Vinyl sounds better than MP3s ever could. With the rise of digital music (CDs included), it's possible to make a track sound louder than it naturally should. The problem here is that it had a tremendous result on the audio quality. It caused songs to sound distorted and unpleasant and removed their depth and texture.
The Real Differences Between 16-Bit and 24-Bit Audio:
www.tested.com/tech/1905-the-real-differences-between-16-bit-and-24-bit-audio/
Human hearing supposedly tops out at 20kHz, but that doesn't make higher sample rates useless. According to the Nyquist rate, to fully capture a wave, it should be sampled at twice its highest frequency. In other words, a higher sample rate, and a greater bit depth, gives your sound more wiggle room, meaning sound peaks are less likely to be truncated and the subtleties of the music are less likely to be drowned out.
I have digitized most of my LPs to 24 bit Flac or DSD and then play those files through a stand alone DAC, honestly I couldnt hear any difference at all , the same Vinyl warmth, not the Digital Brightness or harshness like from a CD or the files transferred from a CD.
I have not found any software or hardware to record flac or DSD files. Playback no problem. DSD is my favorite format for digital. Better than PCM. What are you using?
Nice video. I just want your opinion in a question. There is the first scenario that i record digitally and then i cut vynils from this recording. Second scenario recording analog and then i cut vynil. If both processes are done properly do you believe that there will be difference?
I think if you do a recording of the same piece of music, at the same time, one is digital and one is an analogue recording, you might end up with two different recordings, cause analogue, by it's nature, is lossy and colors the sound, like You said, where digital is influenced by microphones and preamps too, but from that point pretty much digitizes that signal 1:1. So you might end up with two different recording results. The trick then is, to mix the audio signal properly, so it can be turned into a pleasant sounding record. Taking the digital signal straight from the recording won't work, cause vinyl couldn't handle that signal properly. And also the analogue recording needs proper mixing to sound "right" on a vinyl record. That's also why proper mixing can make or break the sound of a record and always has. So since the source recording is most likely not the same and mixing is involved and might need different adjustments for digital or analogue sources to sound pleasant, i think the result might not be the same but can sound very good in both cases.
If you don’t use 'properly equipment', but an okay computer to convert a CD collection to lossless format - ie. .flac, to secure it and saving it for the future. Is the PC then using the processor alone or the sound card to get the job done?
And what lossless format would you’ve gone for yourself?
Thanks.
The answer is maybe, because the of the ADC "analog to digital converter used in the digitization process. Different ADC chips and units have different sound characteristics. Even the digital mastering will have a lot to do with it. Vinyl can be a good medium for music, but its not the best. It just has a sound signature that many people love. Modern music done in high resolution DSD should be superior to about anything else. For older music best should be reel to reel converted to DSD.
Both digital and analog domain are limited by the frequency response of the playback and recording equipment.
Even if the entire signal is kept in analog domain during recording, mixing and mastering, you are still limited by the frequency response of the analog equipment, because analog equipment have frequency response too.
Id just like to add a few elements. Personally I firmly belive (as Geoff Emerick + another engineer who I cannot remember the name of but this refers with an interview with them on the tube somewhere) that as soon as 96/24 digitizing or higher is used it is not possible to distinguish between the formats although i believe that vinyl is mastered differently from "true digital". From memory what Geoff Emerick said approximately: "Our tape recording systems could record frequencies of 40+ kHz. They (Both engineers) agreed that is as soon as you are in 96/24 territory or above it is not possible to distinguish between the formats. This is my experience too.
Also i own a "Sci-FI" digital system (not for the price but the technology which is japanese and easily available ) which can play downloaded "HiRes" files - uncompressed or slightly compressed. This system has the shortest path possible between the source file and power amp, ie nothing between and it plays as analog as it gets ... if the source file is mixed so. I also own a CD player with the same D/A converter and it is a parallell system to the "Sci-FI" system. Although only 44/14 the converter uses a 8 channel feed backwards - feed forward suystem which totally eliminate the "Digital artifacts" known as such. This converter converts bits and pieces to true sine wave at -90 dB or less + a few other reference technologies which contributes to a true analog sound from digital.
Recently I have acquired quite some old/used vinyl. I play these on mu 1974 stereo system which stands out great even today. All vinyl sounds good but I can deepen the details later. However, some records from the lot like
Madonnas; Like Prayer (1989, original)
Billy Ocean;Tear Down These Walls (1988 original)
McCartneys; Flowers In The Dirt (1989 original)
Matt Biancos; Whos Side Are You On? (1984 original)
Earth Wind & Fire; Faces (Original 1980)
Thelma Huston & Pressure Cooker (1974 bought it new - like reference sheffieldlab.com/item.php?item_id=38&category_id=2023)
To mention a few examples, has enormous dynamic power & range. I wonder if the "MixMasters" altered their mixes towards the end of the 80s to match the CD format? These records from the lates 80s has enormous dynamic range as listened, Really stands out.
As it is, I am truly impressed by the quality of vinyl. Of course my Sci-FI digital easily tak one to the studio or live stage in away which vinyl can never do but does it really matter?
Personally I would not be able to choose between the formats. I could live with either one without a problem.
My Twin Silver Discs :)
Curiosity: I am currently checking out various pickups/cartridges. Here is a link to an early test. It is really difficult to find a way to get the differences available on to the net but here it is:
ruclips.net/video/pjeOvX7yzq0/видео.html
Right after the start of the cuts there is a heavy drum beat and a complimentary guitar riff, this is a part where it is really easy to spot some of the real big differences between these PUs.
Sony/Satin(DENON(DENI_ONKYO)MC vs ADC ZLM (IM)
ruclips.net/video/pjeOvX7yzq0/видео.html
My Favourite vinyl surface quick cleaner for old used discs:
ruclips.net/video/iDMMRkssMJY/видео.html
BTW, I really like your channel and Videos.
RGDS
There may be a lot of audible artefacts generated in the D/A converters and this are easily audible. An example: Ca 1994 I had an AV MAC which it was possible to alter the sampling frequency from 32 to 44 and 48 kHz, 16 bit CDs when playing back and the different settings made a huge difference. 32 was useless, 44 OK for Rock but the biggest difference from 44 to 48 kHz sampling was very audible. Classic music benefited greatly from the higher sampling rate. The D/A converter design & quality seems critical in conversion from Digital to analog, for any purpose.. My twin silver Discs...
Hi Craig :You are so right. I have transferred old analog cassettes of old rehearsal tapes to digital, sampled the tape HISS before the recording , eliminated 70% and maybe a touch of EQ and WOW!! (Did not improve the performance ) LOL But sounded Darn good from a 2 track cassette!! Go figure Cheers Bob... BUT Analog still Rocks
I think I you got a point. The thing is : returning to analog seems the closest way to feeling the trumpeter's original blow of air...
Analog and digital recordings perform the same function, they store and retrieve electrical signals that are supposed to be analogs of music (they are poor analogs in themselved) in another form. They use entirely different methods but their function is the same. I'm focusing on RBCD stored on Digital Compact Discs because that remains the best digital format for musical recordings for many technical reasons. The question is which method yields the least distorted result between input and output? And the answer is RBCD wins hands down in every possible way. You may not prefer the result. There are lots of possible reasons why you might prefer the analog recording but they are due to the way the technology is used and its inherent distortions but the technology itself is no contest. BTW in RBCD the encrypted musical signal itself is only a small part of what's on the disc.
Hi. This a question from someone who knows very little about these issues. Was it not the case that their was a time when CDs were recorded with high and low notes cut out? Well did that affect any of the records back in the day? And does it still affect any recordings?
So the plugin that gives you the feeling 😍 would be digital?
I never understood why people buy expensive vinyl reissues that cost $25-$40 and are made from a digital source when you can easily find original pressings for like $10. Even something like the Iron Maiden reissues which have blurry, pixelated, badly photocopied artwork all cost around $30 when the original pressings can be purchased for around $20. Unless the original is extremely rare and hard to find, why buy digitally sourced reissues to begin with? Although I think the equipment has a lot to do with it too. I have a couple picture disc reissues, and the person who released them told me flat out he used a CD as the source, and even they sound BETTER than my CD copies of the same albums.
And to add, a pixel is a tensor. It has a location, luminosity, and at least 3 color values. Google that.
Scientifically, a record will never sound as good as a CD.
@@deletedaccount966 wrong
That's because you like and prefer the distortions produced by vinyl. Nothing wrong with that, enjoy your music the way you enjoy it. But it's technically a worse reproduction of the original recording.
@@zachary_attackery My friend, you can't deny something that as been proven 40 years ago. It's the main reason why the CD was developed. But if you like vinyl records, nothing wrong with that. Other than the recent trend surrounding vinyl, to ths untrained ears, it sounds more or less the same as a CD or mp3, good enough.
Hello Craig, Yesterday I showed this video to my cousin. And after this video again, I've to ad something. Have you ever ask yourself the question what the frequenzy response of the mic is?
Afterall it starts there. Allso the tape is importand. Tape usualy goes up to around 19 KHz if you have a very good quality one.
So what's the problem with Cd's then? The very first ones came direct from the existing mastertapes. Pure analog so to speak. If you play those now on a brand new player they sound the same as the vinyl album. Point back then was in my humble opinion most people could not handle the sound.
Let me explain how I see it. In the 60's FM radio was introduced and what did people say? It's to sharp, they were used to the warm sound off AM. So the change from vinyl to CD is in my eyes the same as back then. Then we have ofcourse the producer. Every producer does have his own sound. Take the wall of sound which was typical Phil Spector. Albums produced by Phill Collins the drums are more present and Santana well his guitar. So the pure sound of a band we will never hear unles we see the band play live.
So what's you thought about this?
This is very interesting: you are basically comparing analog mastering to digital mastering of a recording. Now from what I've been able to gather by reading around the Internet, record producers almost always prefer digital mastering, primarily for practicality (we mix on computers nowadays) but also for audio quality. The dinamic range of digital formats is way superior to any analog medium. So every vinyl record made today (even re-issues of old albums) is digitally mastered, meaning there is no tapes involved like it used to be. But nonetheless, a lot of people say that many re-issues sound worse than the original pressing, even if (like you said) digitising a master tape doesn't change the sound. I would say it's probably down to some re-mixing done after the digitization process.
You know me. Above 96k, no human can tell. Not even close. Depends on the effects. Dolby Surround 1.0. woof
Homework word for the day "apophenia"
What about a recording that was originally recorded digital and pressed to vinyl or duped to a cassette? I remember owning Duran Duran's Notorious first on cassette, then CD and later vinyl. All were initial pressings. Honestly, I noticed a slight difference between the three formats. The record had far more bottom end than the CD yet retained the overall clarity. The cassette actually had hiss...which should never exist in a digital recording. Also, I did notice a coldness overall except with the vinyl recording.
Hello sir, excuse me for my ignorance but, how exactly does a digital format reproduce 2nd and 3rd octave harmonics ? I agree it may sound the same but you can't really get the omph from analog. Analog was obviously heard and felt ! Digital can't reproduce this at least not to me . Maybe I'm just biased .. oh well really enjoyed your video ! Learning much !!!
Also like to share here if a person who really know about , speakers,there proper placements,mics, mics placements for true stereo recordings,room acoustics,human perception of hearing things naturally,best tone of acoustic music instrument and passionate in audio electronics, then if he made recordings then any time of media can shine its best to sound great.
i was born and will die...Analog.
Must be my age.
Assumption. The capture of the sound Digitally via a quality microphone ( ie Telefunken U47 ), a high quality A to D Converter and to the DSD recording format. That’s going to be pretty good. Given, it’s going to be better then the same process using an all analog system, tape recorders and tubes, and that with State of the Art Analog equipment today. That does not mean it will "sound better" to listeners.
In the late 80’s the BAS ( Boston Audio Society ) and the Media Lab at MIT did an in depth study of why people prefer the “Tube” sound over the “perfect” Digital sound ( CD’s at the time ). People brought in master tapes ( digital and analog ) that they had themselves created. 20 Golden Ears, mine being one of those Golden Ears, listened extensively to the recordings and which was “better”. Expensive test and filtering equipment was used during the test.
Assumption, most LP’s, and even CD’s, at the time were Mastered Analog ( Tubes ).
Overwhelmingly the 20 Golden Ears chose the Analog ( Tube/Tape ) Sound.
So having done that we went to work looking for what was in the Analog sound that made it more desirable. That was quantified and turned into a mathematical algorithm. That algorithm was freely shared with High End Audio equipment manufactures some of whom built it into their offerings either as a tube circuit or DSP.
You are correct. The Tube/Tape sound is preferred over the ultradifinitive Digital media. And you even referred to the fact that there are “artifacts” in the Analog, Tube/Tape, media and that is why it “sounds better”. That was proven over 30-years ago. And I was part of that investigation.
Really interesting input, thank you. Just wondering if you know at what point the recording industry switched from analogue recording, mixing and mastering equipment to digital? i.e. roughly what year, or period of years?
@@mandolista IMO the transformation process started shortly after the CD was released by Philips and Sony (Perfect Sound). In the early 80's. By the 90's the old analog equipment had been flushed out due to the fact that it was expensive to maintain. The first Digital A/D converters ( early 80's ) were AWFUL!!!! Did I say that loud enough?
FWIW Back in the 60's I took a summer job working at an Ampex manufacturing plant. :-))
Also FWIW I'm likely the only American to ever sell ( American made ) tape recorders ( Digital ) to the Japanese, 83 to 85ish.
@@mandolista Paul McGowan, CEO and founder or PS Audio, builds a tube based input buffer circuit into some of his equipment. I suspect he over drives that circuit just a tiny little to get that analog tube sound everyone loves so much.
What do you think about SHM CDs?
For that reason I think that Technics did a great job with the SU-R1000
I've made digital recordings of my records and they sound exactly like the record so IMO digital does not have a "sound".
This is the right answer. Bad equipment aside, digital is just neutral.
It depends when they reissued the Led Zeppelin I was reading on music directs website that the Led Zeppelin reissues were made right from the analog Master tape I was so excited and I bought a couple of the first issues and when I was listening to them I said why does my record sound like a bad CD so I did some more research and there it was the record was made from a digital file.
but now when they had reissued the Pink Floyd I didn't know I thought that was from an analog and it turned out it was digital as well but I didn't hear the digital in the Pink Floyd.
So it all depends I guess who's doing what but most of the time I can hear digital in these digital reissues some are not so bad some are
when I take my record and I digitize it using my Alesis master link I can't seem to hear a difference
They may have tweaked the Zeppelin to bring it up to today's expectations, so there are lots of variables that could have changed the sound.
@@VinylTV33 no it was from a digital file that sounded horrible compared to my classic records reissues remember new records sound great it's about what are you comparing it to then you find out that you've been getting ripped off I have a large collection I can compare to
I would agree that properly done digital doesn't change the sound, but in my experience properly means a higher sample rate than CD has. 96kHz sounds fine while 44.1 kHz (CD) sounds fine for a moment until irritation builds up.
An LP pressed from a 96kHz sampled analog source or direct digital recording at 96kHz would be fine.
I stated that I can hear a difference, you should state that you don't, instead implying that I talk nonsense.
If you have a perfect DAC the difference may be very small but with an average DAC, 96kHz sounds better because of the filtering which is less critical at this rate. I recorded many LP's that way and at 44.1 it sounds not as great as with 96kHz. How have you tested the difference if you actually have or are you talking theory here?
@Çerastes I believe you don't have any experience with (quality) audio.
So does using a tube emulator "plug-in" eliminate the need for tube equipment ?
before watching, my take is that it will change it, the real question, in my opinion, should be; can a person tell the difference?
same with film if its scanned to digital it still retains the film look
Interesting; theoretically speaking you cannot have a continuous fade/blend if you "end" the note.
It's easier for a consumer to get closer to the intended experience through digital.