Has anybody measured the resolution of vinyl records?

[Irvrobinson]

Analog is somewhat like having an infinite sampling rate, but at some point you smack up against the limits of the medium; those limits are below those of redbook.

Analog is not like having an infinite sampling rate. The sampling rate determines the upper limit of frequencies that can be captured. A very high sampling rate would allow you to characterize cosmic rays, for example, but it would be no better at capturing 20KHz signals than a Redbook CD.

 

[ski2xblack]

Strictly in terms of frequency response, and ignoring the physical limits of the medium and playback devices, analog is indeed analogous to an infinite sampling rate.

 

[Speedskater]

But the 'analog' of which we speak is in regards to hi-fi record/play-back systems like vinyl and tape.
It's the system that has the limit.

 

[Chu Gai]

Strictly in terms of frequency response, and ignoring the physical limits of the medium and playback devices, analog is indeed analogous to an infinite sampling rate.

That's a lot of ignoring! Since we can make an essentially indistinguishable copy of vinyl on CD, does that mean CD has an infinite sampling rate?

 

[ski2xblack]

Of course not, Chu, don't be ridiculous.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Strictly in terms of frequency response, and ignoring the physical limits of the medium and playback devices, analog is indeed analogous to an infinite sampling rate.

Read the 4th post here by Richard Pierce(At the top depending how it loads):
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/rec.audio.high-end/tbPXTr9Rldk/GBFUB4DoPWUJ


There will be those that argue, quite incorrectly, that the
sample rate and resolution of LP is "infinite" and thus the bit
rate is "infinite." These arguments are propped up on completely
cinorrect notions like "continuous" means the same as "infinite
resolution." The resolution in the time domain is a measure of
how often unique and unambiguous changes of state can occur, and
is DIRECTLY related to bandwidth. SImilarily, resolution in the
amplitude domain is a measure of how small a change can be
unabiguously encoded in the presence of noise, and is DIRECTLY
related to dynamic range.

 

[ski2xblack]

I'm not making that argument, nor any other, for the superiority of vinyl. If that's how you're interpreting my posts, check again.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I'm not making that argument, nor any other, for the superiority of vinyl. If that's how you're interpreting my posts, check again.

And you're still as incorrect as ever. Analog is not like an infinite sampling rate, You could argue that analog is like having an extraordinarily deep word depth, with extremely fine-grained resolution of amplitude, though not infinite because you get to the quantum level eventually, but that wasn't your argument. Your statement about analog having an infinite sampling rate is just plain incorrect.

 

[3db]

Sampling in analog didn't occur (before the advent of digital technology )in the recording process so why is brought up now? These arguments are becoming nothing but a battle of semantics...

 

[Irvrobinson]

Sampling in analog didn't occur (before the advent of digital technology )in the recording process so why is brought up now? These arguments are becoming nothing but a battle of semantics...

Because there's that continual and incorrect argument that analog recording results in a more accurate representation of the frequencies that make up music, and that higher sampling rates make an audible difference over 44.1KHz. You can tell right away when someone doesn't understand the difference between the time domain (sample rate) and the amplitude domain (word depth) in digital recording. And the use of the term infinite activated my sensors. Analog is finer grain in recording amplitude, though with less dynamic range. Not that I think the difference matters, but facts are facts.

 

[Swerd]

Analog audio does not have an infinite sampling rate – it has no sampling rate at all. Sampling rate and bit density simply do not apply to analog tape recording or its cousin vinyl playback.

What does matter in analog tape recording is the amount of magnetic particles that pass over the record head per unit time. The particle or grain size, as well as the tape width and speed affect this. Better microphone quality, faster tape speed, wider tape and record heads, and finer grain size all produced greater resolution, reflected as a larger dynamic range or signal-to-noise ratio. There were drawbacks, faster tape speed led to greater tape hiss in the recording.

This is directly analogous, in photography, to the silver grain size and film format dimensions. Finer grain and larger negatives made for better results. I suppose camera lens sharpness corresponds to microphone/tape record head quality.

Limits to dynamic range in vinyl playback, in addition to the quality of the tape master and record master cutting gear, are the smoothness of the vinyl (lack of microscopic air bubbles and contaminating particles), the abilities of the phono cartridge, and the lack of mechanical noise from the turntable and arm assembly.

When digital sound recording arrived, the physical limitations of the record and playback materials and hardware (except the recording microphone) went out the window. However, once a digital recording is transformed back into analog, its dynamic range can be directly compared to old analog recording dynamic range. There is no contest. CD playback can generate a dynamic range of 90-95 dB; vinyl playback under the best conditions can generate 68-78 dB.

The only limit to digital sound is the bit quantity and sampling rate. Philips & Sony worked out that out for CDs in the late 1970s. The standard Red Book CD values are large enough and fast enough to generate such good sounding audio that larger digital size and faster sampling do not translate into audibly improved sound. As a result standard CDs are good enough. In this case, more is not better.

 

[ski2xblack]

Good grief, folks. My post that seems to have started this "argument" is as follows:

Analog is somewhat like having an infinite sampling rate, but at some point you smack up against the limits of the medium; those limits are below those of redbook.

Please note the italicized phrases. I was making an analogy, not a precise technical description, and in no way advocating for vinyl.

Irv, thanks for the personal insult big guy. Do you feel better?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Good grief, folks. My post that seems to have started this "argument" is as follows:

Analog is somewhat like having an infinite sampling rate, but at some point you smack up against the limits of the medium; those limits are below those of redbook.

Please note the italicized phrases. I was making an analogy, not a precise technical description, and in no way advocating for vinyl.

Irv, thanks for the personal insult big guy. Do you feel better?

It wasn't intended as a personal insult. My "incorrect as ever" comment was referring to your analog sampling rate analogy. (No pun intended.) And analog isn't even somewhat like an infinite sampling rate either, so please quit that. How many people do you need to tell you that? As for the big guy part, how did you know I'm fat?

 

[ski2xblack]

Sorry Irv, I was having a moment there...you're correct, I'll quit that...blasted some loud music and now I feel much better, if a bit sheepish about my response.

 

[Swerd]

ski2x – sorry if I sounded like I was piling on . I guess I was.

But now that I'm posting (yet again) on this subject, let me properly beat a dead horse so that it's even more deader.

I had mentioned (above) that the dynamic range of CDs was in the low 90 dBs range. This was important because prior to CDs, most consumer audio receivers, pre-amps, and amps had dynamic ranges at least in the 90 dB range or higher. It was only the audio sources, vinyl records, tapes, and FM radio that limited the overall system dynamic range. There was great effort in the industry to improve the sound from those sources, but they were only small incremental improvements that still left analog audio sources as the weak link. The biggest improvement I noticed was with dbx recording/playback noise reduction. But that was expensive and I suspect it wasn't widely adopted because people were waiting for digital CDs.

I still remember hearing for my first time, a vinyl record that was made from a digital studio recording. I think it was about 1980. The lack of background noise (tape hiss) made all the previous (sometimes expensive) improvements sound puny in comparison.

Once CDs were common, their improved dynamic range equaled what the receivers, pre-amps, and amps already were capable of. CDs removed recorded music as the weak link in audio playback. So even if CDs are 35 year old technology, they were revolutionary.

 

[Irvrobinson]

ski2x – sorry if I sounded like I was piling on . I guess I was.

But now that I'm posting (yet again) on this subject, let me properly beat a dead horse so that it's even more deader.

Even more deader?

 

[Swerd]

Even more deader?

Yes! That's when merely deceased isn't enough.

 

[Motrek]

Agreed. I only mentioned this because of the misconception that vinyl is limited in frequency response which it isn't.

I assume there's no intentional limit, i.e., nobody said "hey let's throw out all the frequencies above 30kHz" or whatever.

But there must be a manufacturing limit. Are the materials used for masters and presses able to accurately retain enough physical detail to reproduce frequency X? What about the equipment used to create the masters and presses?

 

[Swerd]

I assume there's no intentional limit, i.e., nobody said "hey let's throw out all the frequencies above 30kHz" or whatever.

But there must be a manufacturing limit. Are the materials used for masters and presses able to accurately retain enough physical detail to reproduce frequency X? What about the equipment used to create the masters and presses?

The functional high frequency limit to any recording from the vinyl days was lower than 20 kHz, perhaps as low as 15 kHz. Studio microphones didn't go higher.

No recorded signal existed above that. Any sounds that did exist at those frequencies would be unwanted noise.

 

[TLS Guy]

The functional high frequency limit to any recording from the vinyl days was lower than 20 kHz, perhaps as low as 15 kHz. Studio microphones didn't go higher.

No recorded signal existed above that. Any sounds that did exist at those frequencies would be unwanted noise.

This raises another issue.

The audiophools with their $30,000 turntables site the frequency response of cartridges going to 45 KHz as one reason for their investment.

Well first that is beyond human hearing.

The next issue, is that unless the LP is direct cut, or made form a very high resolution digital master then the LP was cut from a tape. Well tape machines struggle to get to 20 KHz.

I have set up a lot of tape machines in my time and considered myself expert.

Even with the best Studer heads (easily the best ever made) -2db at 20 KHz is the best you will do. I would beaver hard to leave tape machines -2db at 20 KHz. In addition only Studer heads in my experience got to 20 Hz. All the rest rolled off around 30 Hz and a lot of the Japanese ones higher than that.

Now CD is flat to 22 KHz usually and 20 KHz easily.

I see absolutely no point in cutting an LP from a digital master anymore, but it is now becoming common place. There was only a point when there were digital tapes before the CD launch. Now it is daft to master an LP from a digital tape, this is bound to be inferior than a CD properly mastered from a digital master.

It really is sad that so many (high end) brick and mortar audio dealers and Internet sites spew such arrant easily refuted nonsense at prospective customers.

The non technical music lovers are intimidated by this, and scared off as these lunatic dealers tell them they need funny wire and absurdly expensive line conditioners, that cost far more than most sane members here spend on their entire systems.

The non technical music lover is the looser.

Its just too bad that prospective music lovers looking for good music in the home don't all wander into this site before entering these lunatic establishments. Unfortunately these charlatans are the rule now, rather than the exception.

I love my turntables and my legacy record collection. I don't pretend it is state of the art, because it is not, and never will or can be again. The wonder is that such a mechanical system vibrating in a plastic groove sounds as marvelous as it does. That is where reasoned discussion should end.

The daftest release of all is issuing the sound track of Interstellar on LP. There is just no way that sound track can be cut to LP and retain even a fraction of its impact.

That really is a high water mark of daft!