Vinyl transfers and generational loss - none with digitizing?

[Taketheflame]

Hey all,

Just a curiosity of mine. It's my understanding that with any analog-to-analog transfer of media content (i.e - vinyl to cassette, cassette to cassette, VHS to VHS, etc.), there will always be some degree of generational loss (i.e - the copy will never be as good of quality as the original), but that any digital to digital transfer (i.e - copying FLAC files) results in zero losses.

My questions are where both digital and analog sources come into the equation. Admittedly, I'm a bit of a vintage analog gear enthusiast, so I have lots of vinyl, and also enjoy making cassette recordings purely for the fun of it (and often being surprised with the results). I have a good handful of things in my vinyl collection which I need to digitize, as they are somewhat rare records, and contain music which isn't available on any streaming platforms (or sometimes even on CD).

When doing an analog-to-digital conversion (in this case, vinyl to FLAC), is there truly zero generational loss, unlike that of analog-to-analog transfers? Basically, what I'm wondering is if I were to digitize the vinyl in question, but decided I wanted to record a tape from the digital copy later on, am I somehow bypassing (or at least reducing the amount of) the generational loss that would be present in going straight from vinyl to tape? I'd rather digitize first anyways, due to numerous benefits such as click and pop removal and audio normalization, but curious if reducing generational loss is another benefit of this.

FWIW, I'm using a Scarlett 2i4 for an ADC, and a Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus for a DAC. (along with various turntables and amplifiers/phono pre-amps).

Thanks

 

[Beershaun]

The loss will be the analog transfer but that’s it. So fine the best equipment you can for analog to digital conversion and use the highest quality digital sampling you can get. Then after that you will always have the same quality digital content. Conversion back to analog depends on conversion equipment and media. But the digital copy will always be the same. For example I put my digital library on a thumb drive and plugged it into my car stereo and I now have my entire library with me in my car all the time at the same quality as home.

 

[BDWoody]

Basically, what I'm wondering is if I were to digitize the vinyl in question, but decided I wanted to record a tape from the digital copy later on, am I somehow bypassing (or at least reducing the amount of) the generational loss that would be present in going straight from vinyl to tape?

Consider also that each time you play the record, you are increasing wear, and reducing fidelity for the next time.

Once you've got in digital form, it's not going to degrade with additional copies or playing. Spend a little time getting your TT setup as best you are able, and then make as many copies of that digital rip as you want.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Being super picky even Analog to Digital there is some degradation. But it is super tiny and inaudible. I've posted threads where I went DAC to ADC in loops for 8 generations. You could maybe begin to hear some tiny differences in the 8th generation. But none previous to that.

So if you do one nice clean conversion to digital from your analog and use that for copies to analog tape or such it is essentially going to be perfect. You in essence are archiving the analog sound in a form that doesn't degrade.

Also, yes copying flac to flac or even wav to flac there are zero losses.

 

[Taketheflame]

The loss will be the analog transfer but that’s it. So fine the best equipment you can for analog to digital conversion and use the highest quality digital sampling you can get. Then after that you will always have the same quality digital content. Conversion back to analog depends on conversion equipment and media. But the digital copy will always be the same. For example I put my digital library on a thumb drive and plugged it into my car stereo and I now have my entire library with me in my car all the time at the same quality as home.

So then there's essentially the same generational loss when a tape copy is made, whether it's from the vinyl itself or the digital rip from the vinyl? (Not that it would really matter much, as there wouldn't be any copies made from a tape copy - just curious on the technical aspects of it).

Is it really worth using something a bit higher end than a Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 for an ADC? It's my understanding that you're either paying for more features (i.e - more mic/line inputs) or better quality mic pre-amps/converters as you move up in the world of ADCs. Would going for something with a bit better of pre-amps yield better audible results from digitizing analog media? Or is transparency pretty much a given at all price levels?

Consider also that each time you play the record, you are increasing wear, and reducing fidelity for the next time.

Once you've got in digital form, it's not going to degrade with additional copies or playing. Spend a little time getting your TT setup as best you are able, and then make as many copies of that digital rip as you want.

That's the idea . Since they're not only fairly rare, but also in great shape with excellent playback quality, I figure they're great copies for digital preservation/reduced wear and tear from repeated playback.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Is it really worth using something a bit higher end than a Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 for an ADC?

Unless you absolutely insist on ripping at 44.1 kHz, pretty much no. (The CS4272 ADC anti-alias filters are really intended for 48 kHz at least. Same as for CS5361/81.) Use 96 or 192 kHz, and you should be set. You can always downsample to whatever you like later... even Audacity uses the high-quality SoX resampler. (Note: Windows users should select WASAPI for I/O in Audacity, which is the only way to record in >16 bit.)

The only problem is that the available inputs are a bit awkward to use with consumer sources. The line-in has an unproblematically high input impedance but is really intended for higher levels than those normally provided by a phonopre so requires cranking up the input gain a fair bit (worsening distortion performance though I guess we are still talking 30-50 dB better than vinyl...), while the mic-in would be perfect in terms of input level but I wouldn't trust just any phonopre to drive the ~3 kOhm of input impedance entirely effortlessly. You may also require custom cabling to make use of the fact that the inputs are balanced (the Monoprice RCA to XLR cables should work though), even if that should not be overly critical as phonopres tend to be floating and not very prone to ground loops.

 

[billmr]

Get an old Pioneer CD Recorder, easy to use, has a remote, fits in with your stereo gear, makes great digital wav files that are easily played back by anyone, and you don't need a computer

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Digital is for all intents and purposes a transparent medium, assuming you're using good quality gear.

As far as record wear goes, I have records which are decades old and show no audible degradation; the occasional pops are still in the same places and there are no new ones. The background noise is the same as it always was. I have never used a record cleaning machine; I brush my records before each play with an anti-static brush. My turntables have always had covers and I keep my records, turntable and stylus clean and properly aligned.

Pressing quality is of course all over the place. Really good pressings today are generally better than ones from back in the day when vinyl was about the only option.