just another vinyl article

[3db]

but more on the mechnaics of cartridges

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/technical-topics/vinyl-vs.-cd---a-running-commentary.html

 

[Pyrrho]

Very interesting; thanks for the link. I look forward to future installments in that ongoing article. (This, by the way, is coming from someone who gave up on LPs years ago, and loves CDs. I remember, in the late 1970's and very early 1980's, how people were saying that LPs that were made from the new digital recordings were second only to direct-to-disc LPs; no one seemed to hate digital recordings until they were able to have a digital copy in their homes. I think people did not like giving up the distortion of LPs that they had lived with their whole lives. Too bad most people don't listen to live acoustic music for their ideas of what it is supposed to sound like.)

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

What distortion are you talking about?

To me, CDs are full of distortion. It's like sound engineers have forgotten how to be subtle and overdrive everything. As I said in another thread, Weird Al's latest CD is a prime example of this. It causes my receiver to have "Peak" warnings that the source material is overdriven.

The sound engineers of the 60s and 70s understood the limitations of vinyl, knew they had to keep the gain at a reasonable level, or the needle would mistrack. I think this is why many consider vinyl superior, because they used to know what they were doing and now people are throwing music together using any old software in their basement.

 

[Pyrrho]

What distortion are you talking about?

To me, CDs are full of distortion. It's like sound engineers have forgotten how to be subtle and overdrive everything. As I said in another thread, Weird Al's latest CD is a prime example of this. It causes my receiver to have "Peak" warnings that the source material is overdriven.

The sound engineers of the 60s and 70s understood the limitations of vinyl, knew they had to keep the gain at a reasonable level, or the needle would mistrack. I think this is why many consider vinyl superior, because they used to know what they were doing and now people are throwing music together using any old software in their basement.

Do not confuse poor mastering techniques with the format on which the recording is sold. Compressing the dynamic range of the music and putting it all near the maximum level of a CD is something that has become extremely common on recent pop releases, but that is not the fault of the CD format, which is capable of a much greater dynamic range than LPs.

In my previous post, I was referring to the inherent distortion in LPs, not poor mastering, which is an entirely different matter. Poor mastering can make a recording sound bad, no matter what format we are talking about.

 

[3db]

Do not confuse poor mastering techniques with the format on which the recording is sold. Compressing the dynamic range of the music and putting it all near the maximum level of a CD is something that has become extremely common on recent pop releases, but that is not the fault of the CD format, which is capable of a much greater dynamic range than LPs.

In my previous post, I was referring to the inherent distortion in LPs, not poor mastering, which is an entirely different matter. Poor mastering can make a recording sound bad, no matter what format we are talking about.

What distortion are you talking about with LPs? I think you are throwing out a blanket statement with that line

 

[Pyrrho]

What distortion are you talking about with LPs? I think you are throwing out a blanket statement with that line

If you had read the article at the link in the post that began this thread, you would have a start on the answer to that question:

Now, when the RIAA pre-emphasis curve is applied at recording, and then the de-emphasis curve is applied at playback, the phase shift should cancel out and you end up with a proper phase relationship throughout the audible spectrum. Right? Well, that would be fine if all the recording systems applied the RIAA pre-emphasis curve perfectly, and all our phono stages applied the RIAA de-emphasis curve perfectly.

Guess what? Nothing is perfect out there.

So, we end up with LPs and phono stages that deliver a sound with varying amounts of phase shift in all areas of the audible spectrum, and I feel that this is one of the defining characteristics of the analog LP sound. It delivers a soundstage that is much different than what you would hear from a CD where such EQ curves are not applied.

And, it's very appealing. I will talk more about this in a later installment.

There is also record surface noise, wow and flutter, lack of stereo separation (though probably adequate for the basic effect), frequency response errors, etc.

You can also read more at:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

And:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/edge.html

At the second link, you will find an interesting discussion of intentionally adding distortion to digital in order to make it sound more like analog recordings. It adds "warmth" to the sound, and that is what many people want, rather than an accurate reproduction of the original sound.

Also, if we are dealing with a multi-channel analog recording, that is then mixed down to 2 channels onto an analog master tape, we are dealing with multiple layers of these defects in the audio. Since most people listen to recorded music and electronically amplified music rather than unamplified acoustic music, their concept of what it is supposed to sound like is shaped by such recordings and speaker imperfections. This means that when these various distortions are removed, it sounds "wrong" and "unnatural" to people accustomed to hearing nothing that lacks those defects.

 

[3db]

If you had read the article at the link in the post that began this thread, you would have a start on the answer to that question:



There is also record surface noise, wow and flutter, lack of stereo separation (though probably adequate for the basic effect), frequency response errors, etc.

You can also read more at:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

And:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/edge.html

At the second link, you will find an interesting discussion of intentionally adding distortion to digital in order to make it sound more like analog recordings. It adds "warmth" to the sound, and that is what many people want, rather than an accurate reproduction of the original sound.

Also, if we are dealing with a multi-channel analog recording, that is then mixed down to 2 channels onto an analog master tape, we are dealing with multiple layers of these defects in the audio. Since most people listen to recorded music and electronically amplified music rather than unamplified acoustic music, their concept of what it is supposed to sound like is shaped by such recordings and speaker imperfections. This means that when these various distortions are removed, it sounds "wrong" and "unnatural" to people accustomed to hearing nothing that lacks those defects.

thanks for the reply. I did read the article but it was quickly so I missed that point. I agree with the phase shift argument and even the down mixing but I disagree with the wow and flutter argruement. This spec keeps coming up over and over again and its effects are audable with all good turntables.

I've listened to many CDs and their corresponding vinyl recordings and noticed nothing lacking in stereo seperation. Again, I think this is a non issue when played on good turntables.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

There is also record surface noise, wow and flutter, lack of stereo separation (though probably adequate for the basic effect), frequency response errors, etc.

Lack of stereo separation? Sorry, but oftimes I've run across BETTER stereo separation on LPs.

And as far as adding distortion to a CD recording to make it sound warmer, that doesn't fly with me.

I have LPs and I have the CD reissues and in most instances, the LP sounds much better. Yeah, ok, "warmer," but that isn't distortion, that's the difference between analog and digital, which is something I've argued since the inception of CD. There's a harshness, a coldness if you will, to digital that only those of us who have listened intently to both medias can attest to. Most people raised on just CD can't seem to hear the differences, or if they do, they translate the beautiful sound of LPs as "distortion" or "unnatural."

Listen to a live recording on both mediums and the LP comes closest to reality.

I love these arguments.

 

[gliz]

Lack of stereo separation? Sorry, but oftimes I've run across BETTER stereo separation on LPs.

And as far as adding distortion to a CD recording to make it sound warmer, that doesn't fly with me.

I have LPs and I have the CD reissues and in most instances, the LP sounds much better. Yeah, ok, "warmer," but that isn't distortion, that's the difference between analog and digital, which is something I've argued since the inception of CD. There's a harshness, a coldness if you will, to digital that only those of us who have listened intently to both medias can attest to. Most people raised on just CD can't seem to hear the differences, or if they do, they translate the beautiful sound of LPs as "distortion" or "unnatural."

Listen to a live recording on both mediums and the LP comes closest to reality.

I love these arguments.

I have been to many live shows and I did not hear any pops and clicks nor any WOW or flutter
seriously , friction makes distortion, plan and simple, LP's, tapes both are friction based and both introduce extra noise into the meteral.haveing said that some CD's do sound like crap do to bad mastering so both sodes have a point.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I have been to many live shows and I did not hear any pops and clicks nor any WOW or flutter
seriously , friction makes distortion, plan and simple, LP's, tapes both are friction based and both introduce extra noise into the meteral.haveing said that some CD's do sound like crap do to bad mastering so both sodes have a point.

I don't hear any pops and clicks either. I take good care of my vinyl.

And I doubt that anyone can hear "wow and flutter" on a quality turntable.

And yes, friction causes distortion, but there are even ways around that. There are sprays that "coat" the record, reducing friction, and reducing wear.

There's a reason vinyl is making a come-back and why there are turntables costing into the thousands.

They just sound better.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have LPs and I have the CD reissues and in most instances, the LP sounds much better.

And? Perhaps that is due to other factors. Maybe a different EQ, compression, different mastering engineer with different taste or hearing ability. Any number of reasons why that may be and not because one is being transferred to digital data streams.
Nor do you have any idea which master tape/s were used, right?

Yeah, ok, "warmer," but that isn't distortion, that's the difference between analog and digital, which is something I've argued since the inception of CD.

It is because one is accurate to the master tape, the CD, and tho other has severe issues of technical capabilities of recording, hence the frequency response is poor and warm. Or, one prefers the inaccurate product not what may be closer to the recorded product in the first place.

There's a harshness, a coldness if you will, to digital that only those of us who have listened intently to both medias can attest to.
I love these arguments.

I love it as well.
No different from other areas in consumerland where a preference or a belief may get in the way of facts.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/browse_frm/thread/b5b3d74ebf5195d9?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&prev=/groups?hl=en&group=rec.audio.high-end

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinyl_record#Frequency_response_and_noise

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I love it as well.
No different from other areas in consumerland where a preference or a belief may get in the way of facts.

Facts, statistics, and measurements are meaningless when it comes to how one perceives sound.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Facts, statistics, and measurements are meaningless when it comes to how one perceives sound.

I doubt that very much. But, one certainly can be swayed by bias.

If numbers on the bench didn't mean anything, you'd have chaos, no meaning for anything and speakers would be who knows where.
No, numbers do have meaning and when that bias is out of the equation, the measurements corresponds to perceived sound for sure. Just ask the folks at PSB, NRC in Canada and some reputable speaker builders. It is bias that gets in the way of things.

 

[3db]

No different from other areas in consumerland where a preference or a belief may get in the way of facts.

I'm guilty as charged. I prefer the sound of alot of vinyl recordings over their CD counterparts. I know that CD is more technicaly accurate but something about the vinyl sound keeps drawing me back to it. Plus, its way easier to look at the album cover art of vinyl than a CD jacket!!

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

If numbers on the bench didn't mean anything, you'd have chaos, no meaning for anything and speakers would be who knows where.
No, numbers do have meaning and when that bias is out of the equation, the measurements corresponds to perceived sound for sure. Just ask the folks at PSB, NRC in Canada and some reputable speaker builders. It is bias that gets in the way of things.

Well, numbers help, you're right on that. Back in the dark ages of audio (the 70s) we were all concerned with S/N ratios, wow and flutter, rumble, frequency responses, and all that. Even a 0.01% difference between gear was a big thing.

I don't get that sense with today's afficianados. Maybe it's because all the gear is so competitive in that area. Or maybe that's not as important as total watts and the number of inputs and outputs something has, since a lot of people today are more home theater oriented than pure audio.

My contention has always been, however, that you take the best gear, then take the best turntable and the best CD player, use similar source material (meaning the same album on pristine vinyl and CD), I doubt that many people would be able to tell the difference in overall quality, but I do think that the vinyl will sound fuller and warmer and closer to the ideal of what music is.

But that again could be my own prejudice against digital since music is analog.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'm guilty as charged. I prefer the sound of alot of vinyl recordings over their CD counterparts. I know that CD is more technicaly accurate but something about the vinyl sound keeps drawing me back to it. Plus, its way easier to look at the album cover art of vinyl than a CD jacket!!

Or, the vinyl and CD that you listen to, the CD is poorly mastered?
That happens a lot when they race to make CD sound loud overall, compression.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...I doubt that many people would be able to tell the difference in overall quality, but I do think that the vinyl will sound fuller and warmer and closer to the ideal of what music is.

But that again could be my own prejudice against digital since music is analog.

Well, ideal music is not warmer at all but covers the whole gamut of the frequency band.
Perhaps you prefer it warmer than it really is in a concert hall.
Yes, bias does also enters the equation at times, especially when it is supported by a lifelong preference to something.
Nothing wrong with liking to you own tune

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

Warmer was the best descriptive I could come up with. And warmer is what I hear at the concert hall.

I equate the CD vs. Vinyl wars as I do preference for loudspeakers.

Numbers give you a good idea of how efficient, how loud a speaker will play, gives you a good idea of the frequency response, and the size of the drivers can give you some idea of how well it might cover certain frequencies.

But I'm sure you'll agree that it would be silly to buy a set of speakers without listening to them. And I'm also sure you'll agree that what one person likes in a speaker another will probably not feel the same way.

Just as some people like jazz or classical or rock and can't stand other genres.

Numbers might show that CDs or SACDs have a better FR, better S/N ratios, etc., etc., but it all still comes down to what sounds best to you.

I admit I'm weird in that I get more pleasure pulling out a record album, looking at the art, reading all the information on the back, pulling the vinyl out, checking and cleaning the grooves, then placing it on the platter. There's a certain moment where I place the stylus onto the album that gives me a feeling of satisfaction. Don't ask me why. It makes me feel a part of the whole process.

Plug and play CDs or MP3 seems to take all the fun out of that process.

However, that said, I do think people who prefer tube amps are just weird.

 

[Halon451]

However, that said, I do think people who prefer tube amps are just weird.

Hifihoney is already on his way to your house with a baseball bat.

 

[Pyrrho]

Warmer was the best descriptive I could come up with. And warmer is what I hear at the concert hall.

If you never hear anything harsh in a concert hall, you are probably not listening very closely. An orchestra can play very harshly, and for some pieces of music, harshness is required to play the piece properly.

I equate the CD vs. Vinyl wars as I do preference for loudspeakers.

Numbers give you a good idea of how efficient, how loud a speaker will play, gives you a good idea of the frequency response, and the size of the drivers can give you some idea of how well it might cover certain frequencies.

But I'm sure you'll agree that it would be silly to buy a set of speakers without listening to them. And I'm also sure you'll agree that what one person likes in a speaker another will probably not feel the same way.

The main reason it is silly to buy speakers without hearing them first is that they never, ever provide all of the necessary information for making a good decision. For example, how many speakers do you know of that have ratings for total harmonic distortion? (The reason, of course, that they don't generally give such ratings is that the numbers would make one feel ill to read.)

Just as some people like jazz or classical or rock and can't stand other genres.

Numbers might show that CDs or SACDs have a better FR, better S/N ratios, etc., etc., but it all still comes down to what sounds best to you.

I admit I'm weird in that I get more pleasure pulling out a record album, looking at the art, reading all the information on the back, pulling the vinyl out, checking and cleaning the grooves, then placing it on the platter. There's a certain moment where I place the stylus onto the album that gives me a feeling of satisfaction. Don't ask me why. It makes me feel a part of the whole process.

I missed it for a time, too, when I switched to CDs. But I would never want to go back to all that bother now. This, by the way, is obviously a reason for your preference that has absolutely nothing to do with the sound. There are many such motives in audio, and it is fine to have such preferences, but it is a mistake to ever confuse such things with sound quality. Many imagine that if something is big and heavy and shiny and expensive, it must sound better than a basic black box. That, of course, is nonsense, but it is commonly believed.

Plug and play CDs or MP3 seems to take all the fun out of that process.

However, that said, I do think people who prefer tube amps are just weird.

They are no more weird than you. They, too, often have their preference for a pleasing, added distortion.

I remember years ago having a tube system (with a turntable, of course) that "smoothed" everything out and made Jimi Hendrix sound like Mozart (an exaggeration, but I hope you get my meaning). The thing is, Jimi Hendrix isn't supposed to sound like Mozart.