What's the deal with vinyl? (1 Viewer)

[Frank_S]

The bottom line is that digital is undoubtedly more measurably *accurate* to the source than an LP, but both media can sound subjectively excellent; which you prefer comes down to a matter of taste. A vocal minority of audio hobbyists feels that the LPs, and/or tube amps,
makes the music *sound* more 'lifelike' even if it is measurably less accurate a reproduction, than CD or solid-state gear.

That has been said ad nauseum.

 

[Chu Gai]

Well wow & flutter is one problem however those forms of distortion can be brought down to sufficiently low levels where their presence is either inaudible or not overly intrusive. After all, many of us manage to enjoy music in the confines of our automobiles.

Vinyl invariably gets a free pass from reviewers and it's ushered in through the backdoor by reviewers from say StereoPhile. Examine the tests this magazine does on CD players and contrast that with the lack of technical tests done on turntables and other sorts of hardware. Is it because the equipment is just so darned good that it's unmeasureable or is it because distortion is tens, hundreds, and multiples thereof higher?

In terms of reproduction, things being equal implying some skill and competency in the recording chain, CD will always reproduce the master than vinyl. Indeed there are bad masters whose deficiencies are completely masked by the limitations of vinyl but they're revealed by CD. This has spawned the creation of a couple of companies who make CD playback devices that intentionally introduce euphonics. Stuff sounds better...maybe, but all that's been done is perfume has been placed on a 2 dollar hooker. The onus has to and should go back to producing a better master for a technology that's far more revealing. You take the best that vinyl that's out there and the inherant surface noise is generally sufficient to mask most microphone noise. CD's surface noise won't do that and instead you'll need to use better and quieter microphones. For old recordings you just might be stuck since you're not about to re-record the Beatles although you can digitally correct many of the problems in the old masters.

Let's look at some other real-world deficiencies of vinyl as a playback medium.
1) pressing problems with off-center holes. jitter anyone?
2) distortion that varies depending upon where you are on the vinyl. inner grooves are particularly problematic.
3) each playback destroys a little more of the vinyl
4) each playback destroys a little of the stylus
5) a fair amount of preparation in both preparing the vinyl and even the stylus
6) ticks and pops
7) they're fairly bulky and difficult to store
8) variation in cartidges leading to admittedly different sounds being created. even with 100% correct RIAA equalization being applies during the recording, various cartridges need to have the inverse tailored leading to increased expenditures.
9) difficulties in setting up the tonearm...Linn ring a bell?
10) succeptibility to vibrations and feedback
11) dynamic range is very much less than CD's.
12) less stability with playback speed.
13) compression artifacts as one gets into the end of the album
14) poor channel separation
15) significant and audible amounts of intermodulation distortion in the grooves. admittedly this is responsible for such comments as airiness and spaciousness in vinyl. perhaps recording engineers should take advantage of this during the mixing for CD!
16) since vinyl is limited with regards to being cut in such a way as to accurately reproduce low and high frequencies of any large power, one may find that the mid-bass and the upper midrange has been boosted a bit to create the illusion. and we take Bose to task...tsk tsk.
17) tracking of program material with a lot of dynamics is very problematic with vinyl requiring more expensive equipment to 'solve' these problems.
18) CD players are frighteningly flat out to 20 kHz...vinyl comes up a bit short.
19) succeptibility of certain cartridges to airborn EMI/RFI interference due to poor design. I think they call that revealing though.
20) I'm tired of typing.

However, vinyl is kind of fun. It appeals to nostalgia. One can modify things with vinyl but to do the same thing with CD players requires far more knowledge in electronics that we possess. The players and even the cartridges have an admittedly artistic look to them that generates strong emotional appeal. CD players and the like certainly look boring by comparison. Everyone can redefine the word accurate by changing the cartridge, screwing around with capacitance. It gives us an attempt at control that's lacking with a CD player. Some performance will only exist on vinyl and they may be near and dear to our hearts. We had those great big album covers that looked like art. Inserts with interesting information and pictures that one didn't need a microscope to see. It appeals to some nurturing aspects that we have. And yes, it can sound good, but it is technically deficient. Just as the enjoyment of horseback riding and cars with carburators won't die, neither will vinyl. That's just the way the bell curve works.

Many comparisons of vinyl to CD are inherently flawed. Did one obtain two disks with both having the identical music, performace, mastering, mixing, etc. and then play them back with the levels matched? Or were there two different mixes? Or two different artists? Or two different masterings? If you don't care, well then fine. If you do, then maybe the results might not be to your liking. There's been a lot of CD's that've been released and poorly done. Probably in an attempt by companies to flood the market and generate sufficient sources to justify CD player purchases. There's been a lot of poorly made players but not so much because it was difficult, but rather they forgot to look or ignored the work that was done in the telecommunications industry regarding digital.

ChuckSolo in the case of playing a guitar on a tube amp we're dealing with the creation of music. With the creation of harmonics and the shaping of sound. Reproduction, and this IMHO, should be relegated to accurately recreating this and not further imparting veils of coloration and euphonics.

If vinyl sounds better to some then one must look at the technical deficiencies and limitations of the medium as to possibly the reasons for it. If Hoffman's work was as rigorous as it sounds, then the CD will be more difficult if not impossible to distinguish from the master while the vinyl should be much much easier. Even so Frank, I think it's very cool that you got that LP.

 

[Frank_S]

If vinyl sounds better to some then one must look at the technical deficiencies and limitations of the medium as to possibly the reasons for it. If Hoffman's work was as rigorous as it sounds, then the CD will be more difficult if not impossible to distinguish from the master while the vinyl should be much much easier. Even so Frank, I think it's very cool that you got that LP.

Thanks Chu, I listen to vinyl because it offers me what CD for the mostpart couldn't, and that is vinyl draws me closer to the feeling I get when I go to a concert or show, difficult to measure that feeling. People can mention accuracy, dynamic range till their blue in the face but I don't care about measurements. At my age I only care about the music, I tried to embrace Cd's, hell I sold most of my vinyl collection because I thought Cd's were neat, took me a while to figure out that CD's were not perfect sound forever(give me a break).

I started collecting vinyl again a few years ago, I still listen to Cd's occassionaly and it does'nt take more than a few seconds to tell the difference in the mediums.

I own decent digital playback equipment, Classe processor, Camelot Jitter filter for my transport, and B&W Nautilus speakers, tube and solid state amps. Every time I respond to a thread that states digital as being more accurate than vinyl causes a bigger grin on my face than the last. I'll go back to my wow & flutter induced, non dynamic, bulky liquorice pizzas and sit down and enjoy the music, everyone else can debate the accuracy of it, I really don't care.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Every time I respond to a thread that states digital as being more accurate than vinyl causes a bigger grin on my face than the last. I'll go back to my wow & flutter induced, non dynamic, bulky liquorice pizzas and sit down and enjoy the music, everyone else can debate the accuracy of it, I really don't care.

Same here. I have been on a digital quest for the best sound since 1991. Even having a $15K+ stereo by 1995, I was not happy with digital's harsh sound and lost interest in music for a couple of years. When I spoke with Mark Levinson in New York one day, he was talking up Super Audio. I purchased a Sony SCD-777ES after hearing one at Red Rose and have never looked back or been happier with audio in the convenient disc form.

But still, as I got back into audio, I noticed that some of my richer friends with fine turntables had even better sound than Super Audio. That's why I am looking for a turntable today.

So I guess I am returning full circle to analog. I'm keeping the '777 though.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Many comparisons of vinyl to CD are inherently flawed. Did one obtain two disks with both having the identical music, performace, mastering, mixing, etc. and then play them back with the levels matched? Or were there two different mixes? Or two different artists? Or two different masterings? If you don't care, well then fine.

What reviewers have done to get around this is have the same guy master both and compare the results.

The other option is to listen to the master tape on a good playback device and compare to a high sample rate recording. The master always sounds better. Going from the master to LP if done right produces something quite close.

But either way, you have to wonder why analog usually sounds so good, if the metrics are saying bad things. I think its another illustration that measurements cannot capture the full audio experience. Or maybe its just that those grooves on the LP contain more information than the CD.

I think its a combination of both.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

A vocal minority of audio hobbyists feels that the LPs, and/or tube amps,

A couple of quick notes:

I am not sure its a "minority" any more if you are just looking at audiophiles.

Also, there are many tube amps that measure as well or better than solid state amps. It all depends on the product and its quality.

 

[Chu Gai]

those neurons fired faster during the hallucinogenic 60's and 70's that's for sure.
aww, come on Lee it's a small minority and i'm sure the word audiophile can embrace even people with modest systems! btw, i know your a PF fan, did you ever see them?

Frank ya gotta run that pic through something and cut down on the information! As I've said before I give you props for the work you did...it looks real good.

However Lee, consider for a moment the fact that vinyl can mask noise due to its higher surface noise and also consider some of the boosting that's done to compensate for what can't be realistically reproduced down low and up high. Also consider the fact there's a reasonable amount of crosstalk between the channels. Since these are real aspects of the medium what would be your thoughts on doing the mixing a little different to simulate what's going on? After all, there's a few software programs out there wherebye one can run their CD's through and get the 'vinyl' sound if you will.

 

[Shane Morales]

Wow, very interesting and informative read. Alas, I was 11 the last time I heard an LP, I think (1982). As a product of my times, the only two mediums I've been exposed to that I can remember well enough to compare are tape and CDs.

I guess it's just like tube amps vs. solid state amps. Tube amps just sound better. I don't own one, but I've played on a few and whatever people say you just can't beat the tube sound.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

However Lee, consider for a moment the fact that vinyl can mask noise due to its higher surface noise and also consider some of the boosting that's done to compensate for what can't be realistically reproduced down low and up high.

I don't think the boosting occurs on most audiophile pressings.

As for masking some noise, that can happen but if done right it's a minimal amount that does not interfere with musical enjoyment.

With vinyl you are going from analog to analog, thereby eliminating two problematic and complex conversion processes.

 

[Chu Gai]

if you're assumption is correct regarding the boosting, and it need not be enormous, and if the microphones that're used are of sufficiently low noise that they don't impact negatively on CD's larger dynamic range, then that would suggest that part of vinyl's charm is related to
a) the mixing of information from the right and left channels due to crosstalk which is inherant due to the stylus
b) the fact that all cartridges and their stylii possess both different mechanical and electrical properties such that the way they retrieve information varies.

The first could certainly be simulated during mixing of CD's if not by post processing. I'd imagine the latter could as well. In either case the version of reality will be very user specific and will sonically vary to different degrees from the master. The Brave New World of Aldous Huxley don't you think? Tailoring reality to the individual desires? I'm waiting for the feelies myself!

 

[Jim Williams]

I remember listening to a vinal recording of McCoy Tyner, solo piano on my audiophile stereo setup (NAD pre/power, Klipsch speaks, high end turntable and cartridge). I noticed a slight clicking noise coming from the speakers. I got as close as I could to the speakers and found to my amazement that the clicking sound was Mr. Tyners fingertips hitting the piano keys. The recording was that detailed.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

McCoy sometime hums along too and the Chesky recordings pick that up as well. Really cool.

 

[Chu Gai]

Has anyone told him to stop?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Has anyone told him to stop?

No, it gives the music more soul.

 

[Chu Gai]

Maybe you're right. I once dated a girl who was a great hummer.

 

[rick_sullivan]

That's what hum filters are for!

 

[Steve_AS]

With all due respect Steve,
I think that statement is false. As an example, Steve Hoffman has remastered several albums in the past few years that were released in both digital and vinyl. They were cut using a tube based cutting lathe system. Both mediums used the same master and the Vinyl recordings sounded better than the digital counterparts, this coming from the folks who actually know what they are talking about.

With all due respect, nothing in your response actually falsifies what I wrote; if anything it endorses it. That the two sounded different is to be expected; as I said before, the vinyl *playback* system: LP + turntable/cartridge/tonearm -- introduces distortion that's not present in digital (this in *addition* to the usual differences in mastering, as I said); the judgement call of 'better' is entirely subjective, and to be expected from at least some listeners -- that's the very reason these distortions have been called 'euphonic', which roughly means 'good-sounding'

 

[Steve_AS]

Same here. I have been on a digital quest for the best sound since 1991. Even having a $15K+ stereo by 1995, I was not happy with digital's harsh sound and lost interest in music for a couple of years. When I spoke with Mark Levinson in New York one day, he was talking up Super Audio. I purchased a Sony SCD-777ES after hearing one at Red Rose and have never looked back or been happier with audio in the convenient disc form.

Mark Levinson...note dcomponent designer, but notable to me for being the guy who believed those wacky claims that listening to digital audio can physically harm your body, and actually repeated them to the New York Times.
Only goes to show you, peopel can be smart in somes ways, and not in others.

 

[Steve_AS]

But either way, you have to wonder why analog usually sounds so good, if the metrics are saying bad things. I think its another illustration that measurements cannot capture the full audio experience. Or maybe its just that those grooves on the LP contain more information than the CD.

Well, they may contain more *stuff* than CD, but it's probably not information as per Nyquist. And it probably doesn't have more of the 'full audio experience' either -- but it does add some stuff to the 'experience' that some people like. Why does LP sound 'so good'? Not every 'audiophile' believes it does. Why does it sound 'so good' to *some*? A matter of taste. Hey, I'm a huge fan of Dolby Pro Logic II for stereo playback, myself -- though I know it's actually *doing stuff* to the original signal.

At least LPS can be credited with probably sounding actually * different* from CDs -- as opposed to Shun Mook blocks and designer cables. Funny how many vinylphiles (even a few *mastering engineers*) seem to swear by *that* sort of stuff too.

 

[Steve_AS]

Wow, very interesting and informative read. Alas, I was 11 the last time I heard an LP, I think (1982). As a product of my times, the only two mediums I've been exposed to that I can remember well enough to compare are tape and CDs.

I guess it's just like tube amps vs. solid state amps. Tube amps just sound better. I don't own one, but I've played on a few and whatever people say you just can't beat the tube sound.

If you're going for a distorted sound, tube amps can certainly do the job. it's not always approriate though, is it?

Ever try hooking a CD player through a guitar tube amp?