Who plays vinyl records here? What have you bought lately? (1 Viewer)

[RichP]

Could this possibly be more generic, subjective and irrelevant?

a cymbal?
good jazz recording?
a CD?
good table?

I don't think it's possible to be less specific that you were here.

I've heard plenty of "good jazz" in every format, and everything else being equal (recording, performance, mastering) I'll choose the CD 9 times out of 10, and the hi-rez digital version 10 times out of 10.

The complete lack of surface noise is enough to give the advantage to digital. Can an LP have little to no surface noise? Sure it can, but you have to have a very clean pressing and you have to work at it. Sorry, but I'm not the kind of guy that will spend 15 mins cleaning a record before I listen to it, then play 20 mins and have to get up, pick it up, flip it over, make sure no dust got on it from the table, lather, rinse, repeat, etc.

Stop comparing a "high end" turntable to a $100 Wal-Mart CD player, which is what far too many LP zealots do. "High End" digital (especially hi-rez) will sound as good or better than the equivalent LP when fed good source material and played on an equivalent system.

 

[Marc Colella]

I agree with Rich.

A properly mastered CD on decent equipment overall sounds better to me than vinyl. Vinyl has too many conditions that need to be met to achieve quality sound, most of which is not practical at all. I want to play a recording more than once without having the quality already start to diminish. I cant be spending all my time cleaning the turntable, needle and LP's just to listen to a recording - I just want to press play and sit and listen.

Maybe all these conditions can be met when the equipment is enclosed in a vacuum with precise robotic arms handling everything, but I live in the real world where a vinyl setup is dramatically affected by the evironment around it.

The only thing I miss about vinyl is the whole presentation/package where great artwork. lyrics and other information made the experience of purchasing a recording much more gratifying. With the exception of the last two Aimee Mann CDs, the packaging on CDs/SACDs in my collection have been nothing but dull.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"It is beyond simple to measure a frequency spectrum from an LP and see how limited it is."

I am one who believes it is very difficult to equate/correlate measurements to great sound. You can capture part of the experience but not all of it.

"A properly mastered CD on decent equipment overall sounds better to me than vinyl."

Then you probably have not heard a good cart/table/phono stage combo.

"Maybe all these conditions can be met when the equipment is enclosed in a vacuum with precise robotic arms handling everything, but I live in the real world where a vinyl setup is dramatically affected by the evironment around it."

??? The only thing you need is good isolation and a quick wipe with a carbon brush.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"Could this possibly be more generic, subjective and irrelevant?"

Rich, I'm a recording engineer on the weekends. I choose cymbal because I have found that in even good masterings redbook CD cannot capture the shimmer sound properly. I do a lot of jazz and acoustic work so natural sounding cymbals are important to me. I also know what the live event sounds like so I can compare analog tape, 24/88.2 or 24/96 and redbook to the actual event in real time. Redbook just sucks.

"Stop comparing a "high end" turntable to a $100 Wal-Mart CD player"

Uh, I'm not I listen to $10K+ DACs and ADCs in the studio.

Hirez digital 24/88.2 and higher does get the cymbal sound right if done properly.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Lee- I do agree with you about the sound quality itself of vinyl being preferred over CD. Just that CD does have a higher theoretical signal to noise ratio, but unfortunately which is rarely utilized today in actual mastering.

This isn't necessarily true. I remember an old story about a turntable manufacturer who wanted to test the auto return mechanism on their new table. So they set up an automated test where the turntable would play the last track on the lp, let the auto return return the arm to the rest position, and then play the last track again, and repeat. They did this a few hundred or thousand times, I can't remember the details. Anyway, when they were done, they were surprised that there wasn't any audible degredation of the last track vs the rest on that lp side. Their conclusion was that, yes, there is wear occuring during the first few times the track is played, but after that, with the same cartridge and stylus, the wear is negligible. fwiw.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"Just that CD does have a higher theoretical signal to noise ratio, but unfortunately which is rarely utilized today in actual mastering."

Yes Kevin I agree...CD does have some great technical specs but the LP can be created all within the analog domain. I think the difficulty with the analog to digital (and back) conversion must explain part of why LP sounds so good in comparison with good pressings and tables.

I also don't buy the wear aspect of vinyl...I have many LPs that I have played dozens of times and they sound the same. Several vinyl experts think the LP when cared for properly can last several hundreds of playings.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Once it hits the microphone, you don't have sound anymore. All you have is a one-dimensional electrical signal. That signal is very well characterised, and measurements tell the whole story. There's nothing else there. Now, Redbook has its problems, but it's overall a high-quality medium. Any PCM system suffers impairment above Fs/3, principally a combination of aperture rolloff [sin(x)/x] and the violation of the stationary condition, and with 44.1 kHz sampling that's inside the "audible" band — audible here meaning, not that you can hear the tone (most people can't very well), but that you can hear the coloration it imparts to lower frequencies (much easier). I will state as a hypothesis, grounded in my understanding of electrical and mechanical engineering (which is my field) and acoustical engineering (which is a lively interest of mine) that cymbals do sound more natural on an LP. This is not because of extended frequency response, quite the opposite (you're not getting much above 16 kHz, for sure). Rather, the intermodulation distortion which takes place in the record-cutting process generates low-frequency components from the "highs" in a way that mimics the intermodulation which usually takes place in your ears. As a result, you hear the same kind of "shimmer", not because of increased fidelity, but because of reduced fidelity. The CD doesn't have those IM products, and the low-pass filter cuts off the highs so they can't be generated in your ear. This is a phenomenon which might be a useful tool in the mastering suite, but if you use it, I expect a share of the credit. Anyway, a few passes with a spherical stylus will scrape the subcarrier right off the walls of a CD-4 disc, or so I've been told. Under some conditions you can get a very long life from vinyl, to be sure, but again it varies with setup.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"Once it hits the microphone, you don't have sound anymore. All you have is a one-dimensional electrical signal. That signal is very well characterised, and measurements tell the whole story. There's nothing else there."

I'm sorry Chris but experience has taught me that I don't believe the above.

"This is not because of extended frequency response, quite the opposite (you're not getting much above 16 kHz, for sure). "

I think its due to the higher "effective sampling rate" (not really sampling as it stays analog which also helps) of the LP. 100khz equivalent resolution on LP versus 44khz on redbook CD.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

One more thing Chris. I listen to cymbals in a controlled studio environment where I can back up the analog tape and listen again. I can also so the same on a DAT or my Alessis and repeat the redbook playback. Even with a spendy DAC, the analog tape always sounds closer to the real thing!

That means increased fidelity.

 

[RichP]

A gross oversimplification and you know it.

 

[RichP]

So does an LP compared to tape and hi-rez digital. Condemning a format in total is just completely ridiculous. 16/44.1 digital can sound wonderful if some care is taken in the creation of it.

 

[RichP]

Sorry Lee but this is simply wrong (and hilarious). 100Khz eh? So, your LPs have 40Khz frequencies on them? LPs are frequency limited when compared to digital carriers. Plot a frequency spectrum pre-RIAA correction from any LP one day and tell us what you see. Then see how silly it sounds to talk about "infinite resolution." What a delusional audiophile term that is!

 

[RichP]

Repeat after me...

Analog Tape Does Not Equal LP.

Say it 100 times, and then come back and let us know when your argument is straight.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Rich,

There is no need for personal attacks or venomous language here. I am simply sharing my views and knowledge as best I know how. If you disagree then that's fine by me, but let's argue the issue on the merits in a calm manner.

First, I never said anything about "infinite resolution". I do believe that based on my own listening tests that sonics of master tapes are more faithfully created by good LP playback than by good redbook playback. In other words, LP is highly resolving compared to CD. I believe the hirez formats DSD and 24/96 (even 24/88.2) PCM reach the same sonic level. It's been a toss-up for me between good LP and good SACD (ie. good original recordings and good mastering).

Second, analog tape does not equal LP exactly but it is very close in my experience and in any event is the base recording medium for an analog production. Tape and LP have wow and flutter issues but these tend to be minor in any good production. I have heard reel 2 reel tapes sound really fine (a good friend has a 1:1 dub of Aqualung which is simply breathtaking).

Third, as for an equivalent sampling rate I rely on both Bob Ludwig and Tim de Paravicini who both believe LP from analog tape is around 100khz sampling rate in terms of sonics and overall resolution.

Fourth, as good as redbook CD has become, you must keep in mind that going from an analog tape to LP requires no conversion of the signal whereas a CD involves a problematic A to D step and another problematics D to A step. No perfect digital converter exists yet although they are getting better every year and are loads better than those that existed in the 90s.

I was a late adopter of analog gear in my system and I only did so reluctantly following a realization that many audiophile pressings were being done on music I like. I wanted to have that music in a hirez format as I don't like redbook CD sonics. LP was the answer for me.

I've been working with live to 2 track and live to up to 24 track recordings since 1990. So I can listen to master tapes and the result in several formats and make some educated conclusions about what are the strengths and weaknesses of each format.

Another issue here between us may be philosophical. I believe that metrics do not capture the entirety of an audio event, only some of it. Some things tend to measure well but sound aweful like many solid state amps or CD players with high jitter. I tend to believe we should trust our ears coupled with measurements that we know are important. That makes me a subjectivist which may have an honest disagreement with your more objectivist viewpoint.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I've just been told that recording engineer Tony Faulkner believes 2 track 15 IPS tape is sonically to 24/192khz PCM which is a format he works in a lot.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I seem to recall an article on the remastering of Brothers in Arms in which the well-respected mastering engineer asserted that, in his judgement, the hierarchy of sound quality ran:

1. 24 bit 96 kHz PCM
2. 1-inch 30 ips tape
3. DSD (SACD)
4. 2-inch 15 ips tape

I may have gotten the two tape formats reversed, but I don't think so.

Now, I do wish that 3M's initial proposal had been adopted, and the sampling rate of digital audio standardised at 60 kHz. That would move the point where degradation of PCM begins right out to 20 kHz. The thing is, though, that even 14.7 kHz (Fs/3 for 44.1) is out at the edge of where you get any degree of fidelity from LP, and most studio equipment still doesn't have the signal-to-noise ratio needed for 16 bits, much less 20 or 24 (which are mostly needed for post-processing).

It's true that you get higher fidelity from a higher sampling rate even with band limitations. There is an improvement when sampling 20 kHz band-limited signal at 100 kHz rather than 40 kHz (in fact for engineering data-collection purposes we often choose a sampling frequency as much as 10 times the highest signal frequency). It is, however, small, and below 13 kHz (Fs/3 for the lower signal) essentially zero.

Meanwhile, mechanical, electronic, and other physical and signal limitations in the LP mastering and pressing process essentially lose you any advantage gained by not going through the non-idealities in the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog processes.
Do as you like, but I would suggest that the problem of "subjectivism" is that it can only (by definition) make assertions which are valid for the speaker but no-one else, whereas an objecive viewpoint rests on facts which anyone can verify for himself. In other words, it's impossible for anyone to agree with you, because your statements have no external referent.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"the sampling rate of digital audio standardised at 60 kHz"

I'm not sure that would have been enough based on the 48khz recordings I have heard. It's really at 88.2khz where I feel instrument tonality gets played right.

"Meanwhile, mechanical, electronic, and other physical and signal limitations in the LP mastering and pressing process essentially lose you any advantage gained by not going through the non-idealities in the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog processes."

I think modern processes such as a good mastering engineer like Kevin Gray or Stan Ricker or Bob Ludwig using a Neumann VM80 lathe properly overcome these issues based on my listening.

"In other words, it's impossible for anyone to agree with you, because your statements have no external referent."

True perhaps but there is much academic evidence in AES and scientific papers about the complexity of measuring the various effects in a typical audio presentation.

Ultimately, I would encourage one to listen to reel 2 reel, fine LP, fine SACD, fine DVDA, and fine 16/44.1 CD and draw their own conclusions. I would also encourage one to keep an open mind and a critical ear however. In my experience this is one of those areas where conventional wisdom does not hold very well.

 

[Phil A]

Depending on what producer/mastering engineer you talk to you get a garden variety of opinions as to what sounds better. Here are a couple of references to an article that quoted Larry Klein who produced among other things Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides Now" which from what I recall did not make WB happy having something in a trade publication indicating a rival format to DVD-A was better (the album does however sound wonderful on DVD-A):

http://mail.music.vt.edu/pipermail/s...ry/000011.html

http://mail.music.vt.edu/pipermail/s...ry/000013.html


I've owned decent vinyl stuff many moons ago and have helped set up some very expensive systems with them over the years. It is not for me (and I was really diligent when I owned it cleaning, having a stylus microscope, Stylus force gauge, multiple expensive cartridges and even a Burwen TNE (Transient Noise Eliminater) 7000A to remove the surface noise when adjusted properly) as it is lots of bother vs. CDs or SACDs or DVD-As and when I made the decision to dump it many moons ago I only had a limited no. of good albums (e.g. MoFis) and the majority of the collection was played on poorer equipment than I ultimately ended up with over the years. It can in many cases sound better than a comparably priced (to the turntable) CD players in certain ways at certain price points but it has limitations and lots of bother (betweening cleaning and storage) vs. other media. The surface noise alone drove me nuts (and that's why I had the Burwen unit)

CD mastering has gotten much better than the early days (and I had a CD player the 1st week it was available and at silly expensive prices too) as many of the early masterings did not do the medium justice. Sometimes these discussions get a little disjointed in that there are too many general statements vs. actual comparison. I find it much more helpful to hear that someone compared this pressing of a record on a specific turntable in a specific system and compared it a CD. At least at that point I have some idea as to how they listened on what. What sounds really good in a studio may not sound the same on someone's system. An example of a general statement (and I'm not picking on anyone so don't take it personal) is "No perfect digital converter exists yet although they are getting better every year and are loads better than those that existed in the 90s." Come hear my circa 1992ish (?) MicroMega DuoPro DAC and if the several other more modern players with more modern DACs I have on hand doesn't suit you, bring anything you want (I've had people bring over numerous $1-3k players already) and they were not in the same league (the DAC of course did list for somewhere around $3k in its day).

 

[RichP]

Are you being daft on purpose?

You made a statement that the LP was "hi rez."

I said it was not and data has been provided in this thread that supports that.

Your comeback is that analog tape is superior to digital

You do understand what we're discussing here, yes?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Well I'm glad Larry likes SACD but the comparison here is with 16/44 and LP. As I said earlier hirez CDs are quite good.

Phil, there has been much improvement in DACs since 1992. There's not much likelihood the Micromega can hold its own versus a modern converter. My point is that ADCs abd DACs are still imperfect and you don't have this problem with analog. It all stays in the analog domain.