Another vinyl post

[mtrycrafts]

Live doesnt have the flaws of either Digital or Vinyl and it cant be compared, the whole point to this is a prefered method of playback, not live.
Look this can be argued back and fourth but the fact is many prefer Vinyl, some like Digital and think its perfect but maybe we should all spend more time listening to music instead of playing these games telling folks they are wrong for prefering one over another, what a novel idea.....an opinion and personal choice being respected. I have more Digital than Vinyl and enjoy both but prefer Vinyl when its available like many others, why does anyone have the time or feel the need to question that?

Actually, no one is telling anyone what to prefer and what not to prefer. Some just go beyond issues of preferences.
John Dunlavy and others have compared to live as their yardstick
It is most difficult to capture a live performance into a 2 channel recording, hence that is where the process falters, not about accuracy what is being sent from the mic to the recording gear.

 

[Geno]

The extra distortion could also be added with special circuitry; perhaps some audio company will make a device, through which all of one's audio is processed, to screw up the frequency response, add wow and flutter, as well as other distortion, to make relatively undistorted recordings sound like they were on an LP. But, most likely, there would be little market for such a device, as it would require "audiophiles" to face reality a bit more than most of them are willing to do.

Just get a tube amp!

 

[tbewick]

What distortion is added into a vinyl recording? I would like to know? I've compared both CD and vinyl recordings and noticed know distortion from the vinyl side.

'...The frequency response of vinyl is difficult or impossible to control to the same degree as is commonly done in digital audio. It is a reasonable goal, if true high fidelity is the objective, to maintain amplitude response within 0.1 dB over the range which the ear is most sensitive, which runs from about 100 Hz to 10 KHz. Not only is it difficult or impossible to maintain this tolerance with vinyl, there are other forms of amplitude distortion that can intrude on vinyl playback. One of them is the fact that the actual sensititivity of a cartridge can vary by a dB or more as small imperfections in the flatness and eccentricity of the record cause the cartridge to vary its distance from the groove.

...Once the rotation of the turntable is stabilized by mechanical design, there are still wow and flutter problems that remain because records are rarely if ever perfectly mechanically flat. It is very difficult to make a record sit perfectly flat once it has been stored for a while. It is one of the ironies of audio that vinyl advocates rant about jitter in digital audio when measurements show that jitter (FM distortion) is not only far greater in magnitude, but generally also more concentrated in frequency ranges where the ear is most sensitive, in vinyl.

...Without the use of elaborate seismic supports, it is difficult or impossible to have what in modern terms would be a full-range audio system incorporating vinyl. If you have a high-performance subwoofer and want to play vinyl you either just add a low-frequency roll-off for playing vinyl, or provide some means for further isolating the turntable from the low frequency sound that the subwoofer can provide.

...Measurements show that in terms of linearity in the midrange, vinyl has very substandard performance.

...there is nothing like a good subwoofer to show that vinyl adds a wealth of low frequency noise to whatever is recorded that way. Furthermore tone arms used to play vinyl typically have very pronounced resonance in the 5 to 30 Hz range which make good bass performance almost impossible. These resonances can even influence sound quality in the lower midrange.'

Arny Krueger
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/f8dbb089de19e262

I would say that the goal of hi-fi is to allow the artist full control over the sound. Vinyl is not as accurate as most digital formats, and cannot exactly reproduce what the recording artist had intended. In terms of a preference for vinyl warmth, I would say that it is better to be able adjust the sound quality of a particular recording by deliberate control, i.e., using a signal processing device, rather than being stuck with a particular sound due to format inaccuracies.

 

[davidtwotrees]

Re: album art.........attached find some quik photos of Album art displayed on my 42" Television via my Fireball Music Server.

I'm not sure why the objectivists find it necessary to denegrate vinyl lovers for liking the "sound". I don't miss vinyl at all....but if you like it great. I'm listening to my cd's ripped at 320 and the sound is awesome.......

I also think the vinyl lovers here have no clue who is driving the resurgence of vinyl. I talk to a lot of these kids on line at SiaMusic.net. The typical vinyl lover driving this renaissance of vinyl is a twenty year old guy who is buying 10" Ep's and single remixes of his favorite artist's newest releases. Mostly for the cool factor and artwork.........sound quality is far down their list, and I can guarantee you that 99% of them think tube rolling is some sort of surf board manuever or pot smoking technique.......

 

[3db]

Re: album art.........attached find some quik photos of Album art displayed on my 42" Television via my Fireball Music Server.

I'm not sure why the objectivists find it necessary to denegrate vinyl lovers for liking the "sound". I don't miss vinyl at all....but if you like it great. I'm listening to my cd's ripped at 320 and the sound is awesome..............

I don't either. You mention vinyl and your labelled as having the bubonic plague

I also think the vinyl lovers here have no clue who is driving the resurgence of vinyl. I talk to a lot of these kids on line at SiaMusic.net. The typical vinyl lover driving this renaissance of vinyl is a twenty year old guy who is buying 10" Ep's and single remixes of his favorite artist's newest releases. Mostly for the cool factor and artwork.........sound quality is far down their list, and I can guarantee you that 99% of them think tube rolling is some sort of surf board manuever or pot smoking technique.......

Not according to my findings. I have asked all the major vendors of new and used vinyl who is buying them and although its th eyounger crow, its full blown lps, not the 10" EPs you are mentioning. These are kids who are actually collecting the music to listen too, not to mix. Thats been my findings from a city of about a million people.

 

[3db]

'...The frequency response of vinyl is difficult or impossible to control to the same degree as is commonly done in digital audio. It is a reasonable goal, if true high fidelity is the objective, to maintain amplitude response within 0.1 dB over the range which the ear is most sensitive, which runs from about 100 Hz to 10 KHz. Not only is it difficult or impossible to maintain this tolerance with vinyl, there are other forms of amplitude distortion that can intrude on vinyl playback. One of them is the fact that the actual sensititivity of a cartridge can vary by a dB or more as small imperfections in the flatness and eccentricity of the record cause the cartridge to vary its distance from the groove..

So a speaker response who varies +/- 3db in its frequency response is distortion? Just using the same logic as being applied in this arguement about the levels of a cartridge varying with frequency. The range of frequency most sensitive is the midrange. What are the other forms of distortion that he's introducing into the arguement.

...Once the rotation of the turntable is stabilized by mechanical design, there are still wow and flutter problems that remain because records are rarely if ever perfectly mechanically flat. It is very difficult to make a record sit perfectly flat once it has been stored for a while. It is one of the ironies of audio that vinyl advocates rant about jitter in digital audio when measurements show that jitter (FM distortion) is not only far greater in magnitude, but generally also more concentrated in frequency ranges where the ear is most sensitive, in vinyl..

Again, an arguement that doesn't hold much merit. All decent turntables spin with a wow and flutter rate that is inaudable. SO even if its present, its still not heard.

...Without the use of elaborate seismic supports, it is difficult or impossible to have what in modern terms would be a full-range audio system incorporating vinyl. If you have a high-performance subwoofer and want to play vinyl you either just add a low-frequency roll-off for playing vinyl, or provide some means for further isolating the turntable from the low frequency sound that the subwoofer can provide.

...Measurements show that in terms of linearity in the midrange, vinyl has very substandard performance.

...there is nothing like a good subwoofer to show that vinyl adds a wealth of low frequency noise to whatever is recorded that way. Furthermore tone arms used to play vinyl typically have very pronounced resonance in the 5 to 30 Hz range which make good bass performance almost impossible. These resonances can even influence sound quality in the lower midrange.'

Arny Krueger
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/f8dbb089de19e262
.[/QUOTE]

I have a sub and I don't hear the claims of noise that is mentioned by the author. I would also like to see real proof of tonearm resonance. I think there is way more specualtion done on the authors part then there is fact.

 

[Rickster71]

Global Warming, Vinyl, or Politics.
Fasten your seatbelts; these threads never end well.

 

[abefroeman]

So a speaker response who varies +/- 3db in its frequency response is distortion?

Yes.

At some point they are too small to be audible, but all variances from flat response represent distortion of the original sound.

 

[Brett A]

...vinyl adds a wealth of low frequency noise to whatever is recorded that way. Furthermore tone arms used to play vinyl typically have very pronounced resonance in the 5 to 30 Hz range which make good bass performance almost impossible. These resonances can even influence sound quality in the lower midrange.'

This is why, when setting up a TT, it's important to match the compliance rating and weight of the cartridge to the mass of the tone arm. By choice of cartride, you tune the resonant frequency of the tone arm/stylus/cart combination to fall well below audible range. (somewhere around 9 or 10 cycles per second is considered best). Then a quality sub sonic filter (such as in the Cambridge Audio Azure 640p phono stage) can remove those really low frequencies, taking that load off the drivers and the amp.

Vinyl is not as accurate as most digital formats, and cannot exactly reproduce what the recording artist had intended.

No doubt (at all) vinyl is not as accurate as some other popular sources. But many would argue it is more lifelike. (The two are not necessarily the same.) If emotional engagement with the music is the goal, accuracy is simply one factor in play in service of that goal. A system can be highly accurate yet still sound unengaging on anything but a cerebral level.

It's my belief that vinyl sounds better because it contains the whole signal. The original sound waves have not been cut into thousands of selected of slices, with every slice in between them being left 'on the cutting room floor' if you will. I prefer to have the whole signal delivered with all the limitations and added artifacts of vinyl than have a squeaky clean assembly of selected shards of the original music. Redbook CD sampling rates do not do as complete a job of engaging me with the music nearly as well as LPs do (to which, "sampling rates" are a moot topic).

All that said, I do have 5 times as many CDs as I do LPs, and my CD rig is worth twice what my vinyl rig is, I appreciate both and acknowledge their unique inherent values.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

What distortion is added into a vinyl recording? I would like to know? I've compared both CD and vinyl recordings and noticed know distortion from the vinyl side.

The distortion is not "added into" the recording, but arises from the fundamental limitations of the medium itself. Digital has no such limitations, which is why CD sound is flawless.

 

[3db]

The distortion is not "added into" the recording, but arises from the fundamental limitations of the medium itself. Digital has no such limitations, which is why CD sound is flawless.

Its curious though that flawless sound is not always perceived as being better, hence the endless debate of vinyl vs digital.

Some of the arguements used to put down vinyl in this thread have been non conclusive and comes across as opinions, not fact.

I only posted this thread because of the growing trend that vinyl seems to be enjoying.

 

[Brett A]

The distortion is not "added into" the recording, but arises from the fundamental limitations of the medium itself.

I would say this about the low sampling rates of redbook CDs which I and many others consider a limitation.

Digital has no such limitations, which is why CD sound is flawless.

Your point that digital has no limitations may or may not be true, but we don't yet have a digital format without limitations. It may just be that CD quality meets your standards. That is good news. You can rest and enjoy your music without wanting for better.

 

[Pyrrho]

...
I'm not sure why the objectivists find it necessary to denegrate vinyl lovers for liking the "sound". I don't miss vinyl at all....but if you like it great. ...

In most of the threads in which I have seen a denigration of vinyl, it is in response to an erroneous claim about vinyl being superior to all other formats. If someone says, "I do not care about accurate reproduction of the sound, I just like vinyl," I think most people would leave them alone. Certainly, if people prefer vinyl, they are free to enjoy it. But if people start some BS claims about how superior vinyl is, then they are in the realm not merely of having a preference, but are making a false claim regarding a matter of fact, and they should expect to be called on their BS.

Occasionally, someone posts that their opinion is a private concern, so that others should leave them alone. But one should always remember when posting, if one posts it, it is no longer simply a private matter. Here, anyone with Internet access may look at it, so it is about as far from being private as possible. So, if people have private opinions, and they don't want their opinions publicly challenged, they would be well-advised to refrain from posting them.

 

[Brett A]

...But if people start some BS claims about how superior vinyl is, then they are in the realm not merely of having a preference, but are making a false claim regarding a matter of fact, and they should expect to be called on their BS.

The very metrics we choose to base our 'facts' on are based on preference. I think if we were to lay out metrics we agree on, no one could argue about the measurements. But I somehow think the vinyl v. digital arguers are indeed not talking about the same metrics.

But at it's essence, it is not about measurements. They are merely tools to get us to some end---in this case, sense pleasure in the form of sound (and perhaps sense pleasure in the form of thought as well).

I think when people talk about the superiority of vinyl, they can only be expressing an opinion, it happens to be an opinion that does not regard some of the common measurements.

When people talk about he superiority of digital, they too can only be expressing an opinion, it happens to be an opinion that does regard many of the commonly chosen measurements.

In the abstract, the fact is, it cannot be a fact that digital is superior, it is simply another opinion.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Global Warming, Vinyl, or Politics.
Fasten your seatbelts; these threads never end well.

And, I have first hand knowledge of this, sadly

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
No doubt (at all) vinyl is not as accurate as some other popular sources. But many would argue it is more lifelike.

But, that would mean it is accurate then, no? But we also know it is far from being accurate to the feed signal from the mic. So, it must be a false belief?

... It's my belief that vinyl sounds better because it contains the whole signal. The original sound waves have not been cut into thousands of selected of slices, with every slice in between them being left 'on the cutting room floor' if you will.

Your explanation of the cutting floor is way out in left field. Nothing is left on the floor. The digitization of the analog signal from the mic will be recreated perfectly to the original signal.
Vinyl doesn't contain the original signal intact. That is testable and that is what has been argued here that it just impossible for that to happen and recreated with that needle.

... Redbook CD sampling rates do not do as complete a job of engaging me with the music nearly as well as LPs do (to which, "sampling rates" are a moot topic).

That is different from which creates accurate reproduction to the mic signal. You prefer one over the other and try to justify it. Best is just keep it as a preference issue, nothing more. No one can pick it apart then.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I would say this about the low sampling rates of redbook CDs which I and many others consider a limitation.

You may consider it but it is not supported by the facts of the Red Book sampling rate. In a recent DBT, published in JAES, no one could differentiate Red book from a much higher sampling rate.

Your point that digital has no limitations may or may not be true, but we don't yet have a digital format without limitations. It may just be that CD quality meets your standards. That is good news. You can rest and enjoy your music without wanting for better.

Actually, Red Book has been shown to be adequate in DBT comparisons.

 

[TLS Guy]

In most of the threads in which I have seen a denigration of vinyl, it is in response to an erroneous claim about vinyl being superior to all other formats. If someone says, "I do not care about accurate reproduction of the sound, I just like vinyl," I think most people would leave them alone. Certainly, if people prefer vinyl, they are free to enjoy it. But if people start some BS claims about how superior vinyl is, then they are in the realm not merely of having a preference, but are making a false claim regarding a matter of fact, and they should expect to be called on their BS.

Occasionally, someone posts that their opinion is a private concern, so that others should leave them alone. But one should always remember when posting, if one posts it, it is no longer simply a private matter. Here, anyone with Internet access may look at it, so it is about as far from being private as possible. So, if people have private opinions, and they don't want their opinions publicly challenged, they would be well-advised to refrain from posting them.

You are right on in this post. I love my vinyl collection and love playing it. I would never claim it is better than CD. It is not. In any engineered system you can test the intrinsic faithfulness and accuracy of the system. It IS important, and has a significance and does carry more weight then anecdotal reports, which have very little value.

 

[tbewick]

So a speaker response who varies +/- 3db in its frequency response is distortion?

I think the point is that linear errors are probably audible with vinyl recordings, and this could be verified in properly controlled double-blind tests. An example test could be to compare the original master recording to the vinyl issue of that recording and see if there is a difference. Of course, this would not be sufficient to identify whether the difference was due to a linear error.

You might be able to check the audibility of the linear errors of vinyl records using a digital filter to replicate the typical frequency response deviations of vinyl records. Dr Floyd Toole's work on loudspeakers suggests to me that the ear may be fairly sensitive to these errors, e.g., a loudspeaker resonance with a Q = 1 is audible on some material at only 0.3 dB [1].

I have a sub and I don't hear the claims of noise that is mentioned by the author.

Going back to nonlinear errors, vinyl does introduce harmonic distortion at potentially audible levels [2], as I recall typically 1 % or greater [3]. Noise is potentially audible.



http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/8926/harmoniclp4.gif



http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/787/noisecs6.gif

Vinyl also has a limited dynamic range and suffers greater distortion at signal peaks. I'm afraid that I don't have any references for this. In regards to bass performance, presumably you would need to compare a master recording with the vinyl release to confirm a difference in sound quality. I suspect the majority of recordings may not suffer drastically from a bass cutoff since most do not contain much information below 30 Hz or so.

I would also like to see real proof of tonearm resonance. I think there is way more specualtion done on the authors part then there is fact.

You'd probably get much better answers to your queries by contacting Arny Krueger directly. I think he still contributes to the rec.audio groups.

[1] Loudspeakers and Rooms for Multichannel Audio Reproduction by Floyd E. Toole, Vice President Acoustical Engineering, Harman International, 'Part 2 - Making a good loudspeaker - Imaging, space and great sound in rooms.' Page 12.
http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/technology/whitepapers/inf-rooms_2.pdf
[2] Stuart, J. (n.d.). "Coding High Quality Digital Audio". Meridian Audio Ltd, UK. Pages 24-25.
http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf
[3] Sony Europe (2001). 'Digital Audio Technology', 4th edn, edited by J. Maes & M. Vercammen. Focal Press.

 

[tbewick]

It's my belief that vinyl sounds better because it contains the whole signal. The original sound waves have not been cut into thousands of selected of slices, with every slice in between them being left 'on the cutting room floor' if you will. I prefer to have the whole signal delivered with all the limitations and added artifacts of vinyl than have a squeaky clean assembly of selected shards of the original music. Redbook CD sampling rates do not do as complete a job of engaging me with the music nearly as well as LPs do (to which, "sampling rates" are a moot topic).

The sinc function perfectly replicates the continuous form of the original bandlimited signal. It is true that practical analogue-to-digital and digital-to-analogue converter implementations of the sinc function are approximate, but in a good quality converter, the errors introduced by these approximations e.g., aliasing distortions, are unlikely to be audible on ordinary signals.

'Digital audio signals can only represent a selected bandwidth. When constructing an analog signal from a digital audio data stream, a direct conversion of sample data values to analog voltages will produce images of the audio band spectrum at multiples of the sampling frequency. Normally, these images are removed by an anti-imaging filter. This filter has a stopband that starts at half of the sampling frequency—the folding frequency.

Modern audio DACs usually have this anti-imaging filter implemented with a combination of two filters: a sharp cut-off digital finite impulse response (FIR) filter, followed by a relatively simple low-order analog filter. The digital filter is operating on an oversampled version of the input signal, and the analog filter is required to attenuate signals that are close to the oversampling frequency' [1]

For example, here is the frequency response of the anti-image filter of a 48 kHz DAC inside and outside the audible band [1]:



http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9218/antiimagesy6.gif



http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/8325/ripplelz5.gif

As you can see, these deviations in response are extremely small. I am not aware of any controlled tests that have shown deviations of this size to be audible with ordinary music signals. This fact is strengthened by an AES paper which compared the sound quality of oversampled DVD-Audio and SACD against ordinary Compact Disc [2]. It did not find any significant differences between the formats.

You should note that the continuous nature of analogue formats is itself something of an approximation. Pressure changes corresponding to sound waves are due to the behaviour of countless numbers of discrete particles. The resolution of vinyl records is, in part, limited by the behaviour of the record surface, and this behaviour is also quantized [3].

[1] Dunn, J. (2003). "Measurement Techniques for Digital Audio", Audio Precision Application Note #5, Audio Precision, Inc. USA. Pages 87-88.
http://ap.com/library/technotes.htm
[2] ' Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats', Peter Aczel, Audio Critic webzine.
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1
[3] Lesurf, J. "Analog or Digital?", The Scots Guide to Electronics.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page1.html