Quote from: cliveb on 2017-12-21 15:40:01

dctobluelight has suggested that recordings of that era are so bad that putting them on vinyl doesn't degrade them, and this explains why people can't tell. But I am skeptical.

Clive, your skepticism is IME well-founded

Quote

That's not exactly what I said.  To clarify, the typical recording of the analog era was recorded on multitrack tape, mixed to stereo (1 generation), that master dubbed and equalized (2nd gen) and a copy made of that to cut lacquer (3rd gen).  Some variance from this is of course possible, i.e. the lacquer was cut from the equalized master not the copy, but lacquers would be at least 2-3 tape generations away from the original.  That is a LOT of generation loss!

Up until the claims about generational loss, the account above agrees with what I saw in the day, and what the practitioners of the day tell me about it today.

The generational loss was improved by technical improvements in analog tape technology, the greatest of which were Dolby B and high performance (high bias) tape formulations.  Obviously, something drove the widespread move to digital mastering which was well under way by the early 1970s as you say. But after Dolby A asnd modern tape formulations, a generation of analog tape made an interesting but not daunting ABX test.  That was actually tried in the early 1980s so this is not speculation.

Quote

But assume (incorrectly, but just for a moment) that tape and vinyl had the same exact nonlinearities and noise floor.

A horrid assumption, but lets follow to see where that fiction leads...

Quote

Would the vinyl copy of the tape be the same or worse than the tape?  Yeah, worse, by 1 generation's worth of crap.  Now take that tape and dub it to a medium with less of the same noise and nonlinearities, like lacquer/vinyl actually is, what do you get?  A reasonably close replica of the tape with all it's "glories" with a bit of different crap thrown in at a lower level.  And dubbing to 16/44?  You get an audibly exact replica of the tape.  Comparing the vinyl to the 16/44...is it any wonder telling them apart during high levels of audio is difficult?

I don't think that was one of the comparisons that was available. I'm talking the exact same musical work and studio performance being compared, level matched and time synched. Did I miss something?

Quote

But that comparison doesn't prove anything except the analog chain is flawed.  No surprise there, that's why we ended up with 16/44. 

Quote from: cliveb on 2017-12-21 15:40:01

If you ABX compare a CD transfer of a 70s rock recording to its vinyl equivalent, there is an obvious difference - the CD is clearly better.

Without relevant evidence, we have nothing but speciulation about that.

Quote

I'm going to stop you right there.  That's incorrect for SO many reasons.  "Better" is subjective opinion.  "Better" is not consistent in that comparison.  And finally, the most important point, you can't actually ABX the two and assume you're only comparing the effects of vinyl!

Point of order. ABX is a test of differences, not one of preferences.  You can't get blood out of a stone. If you want to test preference how about using some scientific tool that is a proper test for preference?

Given the apparent absence of viable tracks to compare, and the use of the wrong testing paradigm, I'm stepping back from this!