Dynamic range of vinyl

[GO-NAD!]

No, they don't even know what auto correct could even possibly mean.

Audio equipment of any kind, whether decent or lousy, is simply not even on their radar. I would be surprised if even 1 out of every 25 classical musicians you asked were even familiar with B&W (ok, at least for those who live outside of the UK). Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't any better than 1 out of every 100.

Professional, and perhaps even more so for pre-professional (they need to work harder to obtain a high level of music performance) are just too busy practicing, playing, critiquing to really get into hi-fi.

I had a roommate for a year, who has since gone on to an international career. I remember the year after we shared a space, we found our own respective apartments, and that he had wallpapered nearly his entire place with a concerto/orchestra score so that he could always study it, whether dressing, brushing his teeth, etc. Classical music as a study is just too demanding to do anything else really. It is non-stop for many; I've even met someone who practiced 15 hours a day. This person garnered first prize in four international competitions eventually.

The conductor for whom you helped me find a TT? When he is "appreciating" music, half the time he just prefers to read the score in silence, and hear it all in his head (even crazy Stravinsky, and lately Mahler). He's been using the same junk speakers for many decades.

Anyways, those have been my impressions.

I noticed that as well! I don't play any instruments, but many members of my extended family do. None of them knows, or even cares, anything about audio equipment beyond the "play" button and the volume knob. My brother-in-law owns a crappo Sony HTiB with tiny satellites - and doesn't even use the subwoofer. And, he plays drums and bass!

 

[jostenmeat]

Thank God! I thought I was an ignoramus for not being able to appreciate 20th century composers! I find a great deal of it to be an unlistenable, atonal racket. I love many genres, but 90% of my classical collection features composers from before the 20th century.

There is so much great stuff from the 20th century, it's not even funny.

"Atonal", believe it or not, is very rather ambiguous term. Notwithstanding a lot of insane stuff written well before the "common practice period", composers that you might enjoy already started breaking away from "tonality" before you might imagine. English composers have used plenty of bitonal (or polytonal in general) writing, and that includes Benjamin Britten that TLS Guy has referred to on numerous occasions. Debussy, whose works I find to be a bit sugary for me, has as well, for instance.

Let's say we talk about dodecaphonic (12-tone) music. It can be handled in many ways. There isn't a black or white, IMO, with any particular category. Check this work out, by a composer who is definitely known to be a 12-tone composer. Yet, he still maintains a lot of old, archaic ideas in his writing, and even with a 12-tone style, is there still gravitation towards tonality. Like I said, it's not always black and white. Maybe you can call this 12-tone-lite (in fact, it might be based on an 11 tone scheme), you might have to turn it up, level seems low, the Mass for unaccompanied Double Choir. Or maybe you think this sounds like a hammer on anvil, I don't know, to me it's serene:

 

[GO-NAD!]

There is so much great stuff from the 20th century, it's not even funny.

"Atonal", believe it or not, is very rather ambiguous term. Notwithstanding a lot of insane stuff written well before the "common practice period", composers that you might enjoy already started breaking away from "tonality" before you might imagine. English composers have used plenty of bitonal (or polytonal in general) writing, and that includes Benjamin Britten that TLS Guy has referred to on numerous occasions. Debussy, whose works I find to be a bit sugary for me, has as well, for instance.

Let's say we talk about dodecaphonic (12-tone) music. It can be handled in many ways. There isn't a black or white, IMO, with any particular category. Check this work out, by a composer who is definitely known to be a 12-tone composer. Yet, he still maintains a lot of old, archaic ideas in his writing, and even with a 12-tone style, is there still gravitation towards tonality. Like I said, it's not always black and white. Maybe you can call this 12-tone-lite (in fact, it might be based on an 11 tone scheme), you might have to turn it up, level seems low, the Mass for unaccompanied Double Choir. Or maybe you think this sounds like a hammer on anvil, I don't know, to me it's serene:

"Atonal" may have been an inaccurate word to describe my complaint about 20th century music. I just find a lot of it jarring to my taste. I'll put it this way - Stravinsky is about as far as I can tolerate, and only in small doses. Maybe I just don't have an educated ear, but as the saying goes: "I may not know art, but I know what I like!"

 

[Cristofori]

You are right about a lot of musicians having lousy equipment. I think it is because they must be able to fill in whats missing and sort of auto correct whats wrong.

However they are often poor and can't afford better. When I have had them in for playback checks and editing they do seem to really appreciate a good system.

Considering the cost and upkeep of expensive quality instruments, I probably wouldn't have a very good system either if I was a musician. But I've often been dumbfounded by their clueless indifference of the subject. I don't think some of them would have a decent system even if they easily could.

It seems you are a very eclectic collector. I can see how a classical fan could not want to set up a turntable. You have to go to trouble to set up a turntable properly and it takes up quite a bit of real estate.

I have not had good luck with used LPs, with one exception. An old bachelor who died in England left an enormous collection. He was an electrical engineer and built a lot of his own equipment. His records, sold by his nephew were pristine. He had an enormous equipment list, and watching that come up on eBay was like watching a huge museum be sold. He had a huge parts collection and I bought some of that also, especially SME parts.

However you can only listen to so much music and I think if you biased your budget a bit more to equipment you would be a lot happier.

For what you are listening to I think you need something bigger than bookshelves. Ideally you need to save for at least a B & W 802D for your musical tastes.[/QUOTE]

 

[jostenmeat]

But I've often been dumbfounded by their clueless indifference of the subject.

I am dumbfounded that you are dumbfounded.

 

[MidnightSensi]

Be careful about believing everything you read, especially on Audio Asylum. It ain’t called an Asylum for nothing.

You cannot add up the dynamic range limitations in the different audio ranges this way. That's misleading. Over the full audio range, the maximum dynamic range is no greater than the smallest dynamic range available in any subsection of the audio range.

You have it backwards. Recordings mastered for vinyl were intentionally compressed. This was done for two reasons (that I know of). One was an industry convention to allow about 20-23 minutes of music to fit on one side of the record. Greater dynamic range required fewer grooves per side. More music per side required closer spacing of the grooves and, as a result, less dynamic range. The other reason for compression was so that loud bass notes didn't cause the stylus to jump out of the groove.

Both of these were practical limitations to analog playback using needles and vinyl records, that no amount of original thinking or clever hand waving can get around.

highfigh has it right about the noise floor. There are two ways to increase dynamic range, raise the upper limit, the headroom, and lower the noise floor. Mechanical noise from a needle running over vinyl grooves is unavoidable. It can be minimized by careful and expensive efforts, but the best way to eliminate it is to eliminate the needle and the vinyl.

My experience with vinyl is with recent vinyl, and all electronic music vinyl. In electronic music, there is generally only one track on each side, maybe 5-7 minutes. The mp3s are usually mastered for playback, versus the vinyl is made to be a dubplate in a club. In a club, the volume is already there (through power) and with the way some mp3s are mastered they sound like crap in a club where the compression doesn't benefit like it does on a car stereo or ipod.

So, perhaps this is where my experience differs from traditional vinyl. In my experience, vinyl often has more dynamic range in the records compared side by side.

 

[Cristofori]

You are right about a lot of musicians having lousy equipment. I think it is because they must be able to fill in whats missing and sort of auto correct whats wrong.

However they are often poor and can't afford better. When I have had them in for playback checks and editing they do seem to really appreciate a good system.

Considering the cost and upkeep of expensive quality instruments, I probably wouldn't have a very good system either if I was a musician. But I've often been dumbfounded by their clueless indifference of the subject. I don't think some of them would have a decent system even if they easily could.

It seems you are a very eclectic collector.

Yes, sometimes there is no rhyme or reason to the recordings I buy but after a while I sort things out and sell off the things I no longer want. I've learned over time though what kinds of music, composers and record labels I like, but I will always pick up the obscure stuff if it's cheap.

I can see how a classical fan could not want to set up a turntable. You have to go to trouble to set up a turntable properly and it takes up quite a bit of real estate.

I have an audio dealer do it for me. He charges $25. I would like to get the tools and learn to do it myself though, that way I'm not limited in having to rely on someone else everytime I find a new TT at an estate sale or something.

Besides, many half way decent sounding TT's can be had nowadys with cartridges already set up, and most people looking to get into used vinyl are not always ultra-picky audiophile types.

I have not had good luck with used LPs, with one exception. An old bachelor who died in England left an enormous collection. He was an electrical engineer and built a lot of his own equipment. His records, sold by his nephew were pristine. He had an enormous equipment list, and watching that come up on eBay was like watching a huge museum be sold. He had a huge parts collection and I bought some of that also, especially SME parts.

I consistently find excellent near mint and still sealed classical LP's all the time, but I spend a great deal of time and effort looking for them, and then there is the all the hard work of listing and selling online, which helps me get free music and/or helps pay for for other things, so much so that I often don't have time to listen to the LP's and CD's I keep for myself, which is something I need to change.

I keep saying to myself I will stop but then another great find always seems to pop up somewhere and I can't resist. Oh well, I guess it's better than a gambling problem or something worse. It's just ironic that I used to listen to a hell of a lot more music in the past when I had far less of it! The invention of the internet didn't help either.

However you can only listen to so much music and I think if you biased your budget a bit more to equipment you would be a lot happier.

You are absolutely right (see above). I used to have better systems in the past mind you, but a long series of mistakes, poor decisions, and audiophool bum steers led me in the current state I'm in. I recently thrown together brand new system for cheap that actually doesn't sound to bad, although I'm returning the Sony ES receiver tomorrow for the Marantz which is probably a bit better has the features that I want for the same price. This is only temporary though, I will replace these components one at a time as the opportunities come, but right now I need music, and I need to concentrate on finally getting a pair of REALLY good speakers and a better TT above all else. Speakers and the TT/analog end excepted, I don't believe you really need to spend boatloads of money nowadays on components or accessories to get good sound, and I'm not going down that road of discontent and disappointment ever again.

For what you are listening to I think you need something bigger than bookshelves.

Except for full blown orchestral music (which is not my favorite genre), classical has the least amount of bass out of anything, so I don't see why a truly good pair of bookshelfs couldn't be considered. I could always add a sub woofer or two later. Of course, I'd like to shoot for the floorstanders if possible.

Ideally you need to save for at least a B & W 802D for your musical tastes.

Are you kidding me? I can see I'm talking to someone way out of my league. It's no wonder why you think those recordings I complained about earlier sound great!

I will get the best speakers I can afford which certainly won't be those, and they will NOT be bought on credit. Besides, I think those higher up B&W's with the tweeters on top are a bit ungainly looking, and their size and performance would be hindered in my smaller room, besides looking ridiculous. I also like to have a flat surface on my speakers to put LP/CD jackets/sleeves on when I'm cleaning/changing discs. Looks and ease of use do play in my decision making.

I had a pair of B&W 602 S3's in the past that were excellent. Besides sounding great, it was shocking how much bass those bookshelfs could put out for their size. I'd like to see what the higher up B&W CM series can do, which also has the build quality and looks to boot.

 

[Cristofori]

No, they don't even know what auto correct could even possibly mean.

Audio equipment of any kind, whether decent or lousy, is simply not even on their radar. I would be surprised if even 1 out of every 25 classical musicians you asked were even familiar with B&W (ok, at least for those who live outside of the UK). Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't any better than 1 out of every 100.

The musicians indifference to audio equipment reminds me of another strange phenomenon.

I can't tell you how many times I've been in a wealthy persons home, who had this big beautiful house, land, nice cars and such and were still watching some old console television with a faded picture or still using some other old, obsolete stuff that most regular people far below them would never tolerate.

And they are the ones who could most easily afford to get nice new stuff!

 

[Cristofori]

I am dumbfounded that you are dumbfounded.

Well... not really dumbfounded, but just curiously odd.

Remember though, that at sometime in a musicians life there must have been a period to begin with where they heard and loved the music which inevitably led them down that path, and most people nowadays would have first heard it on some kind of audio system. I'm not just talking about genius classical composers or some odd-ball flake that is happy reading scores in his head.

I think it's a combination of what you & I said earlier, that they spend so much time and money playing and upkeeping instruments that they don't have the time or in some cases the funds for a great audio system, but you would think that even they would need to take a break and find some inspiration somewhere once in a while.

I guess it's their job to create and make the good sounds, and for us to enjoy, collect, and play back what they made, to the best of our abilities.

 

[highfigh]

And they are the ones who could most easily afford to get nice new stuff!

Nobody ever spent their way to wealth.

 

[Cristofori]

"Atonal" may have been an inaccurate word to describe my complaint about 20th century music. I just find a lot of it jarring to my taste. I'll put it this way - Stravinsky is about as far as I can tolerate, and only in small doses. Maybe I just don't have an educated ear, but as the saying goes: "I may not know art, but I know what I like!"

If you can tolerate Stravinsky, you'd probably love Shostakovich, Britten, Honegger, Vaughn Williams, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff and a whole host of other 20th CC's I can't think of at the moment, most of whose music is generally far more enjoyable then Stravinsky's in my opinion.

 

[Cristofori]

Nobody ever spent their way to wealth.

Yeah... so let's just forget about nice TV's, audio systems, washing machines, kitchen appliances, or other useful creature comforts and just concentrate on huge mansions, lake front properties, autos, etc.

That's the way to get wealthy!

 

[jostenmeat]

Remember though, that at sometime in a musicians life there must have been a period to begin with where they heard and loved the music which inevitably led them down that path, and most people nowadays would have first heard it on some kind of audio system. I'm not just talking about genius classical composers or some odd-ball flake that is happy reading scores in his head.

I agree. Quality of reproduction is not necessarily required for quality of appreciation. Someone who is sensitive to music might be more moved in front of a boombox than someone else in front of the greatest system in the world. There is a lot to pick out from any given interpretation of any given work by a good musician, even on a humble system. Rhythmic interpretation, harmonic movement, etc. By far and away, most of my own recording discoveries were done on a $70(?) pair of Radio Shack bookshelves. No pre/pro, just ran the cdp directly line-in to a Kenwood amp, The open-box cdp didn't work properly (so they gave me a new one).

I think it's a combination of what you & I said earlier, that they spend so much time and money playing and upkeeping instruments that they don't have the time or in some cases the funds for a great audio system, but you would think that even they would need to take a break and find some inspiration somewhere once in a while.

Well, I find this varies person to person. Take me for example. I was so tired of hearing myself play music all day long, that I could hardly listen anymore after practice, work, teaching, whatever. Many aspiring musicians would try to take responsibility for any given interpretation, and really dive headlong into a given work, that they sometimes find it's seemingly impossible to listen to anyone else's version of the same work. We sometimes are so certain that our way is best, the only right way possible, that we find that it's hard to appreciate even the most famous renditions. It's only after time has passed from any involvement with any given work, that we can appreciate the other renditions more.

What I mean is that the inspiration comes from the inside, and is directly applied towards the understanding and execution on the instrument. I remember with a particular work, I was working on some rhythms all the time when driving, using my feet and hands (not that hard, but hard enough for me that I had to practice). Or I might write out the melody, all on its own, from an otherwise extremely complex work, and just sing it over and over, so that in my mind and body, I can hopefully have the melody completely unencumbered by everything else going on, to make sure that it will be compromised as least as possible. Some of us even buy colored pencils, and re-write an entire work, with a given color per voice, so that we can better understand the polyphony by visual aid. Some of us wished that publishers would just do this for us!

When we wanted to take a break, we wanted to do anything else besides music. Well, many of us at least. Sanity check I suppose. When I stopped playing seriously, I was so relieved to have free weekends, have the freedom to play basketball or biking without the fear of repercussions from injury, able to read books, take girls out on the weekends, anything really. Hell, I was excited to go camping! (lol, couldn't ever take the time off to do that during the serious years). The goal for a serious classical musician is to work 365 days a year. I think serious persons get pretty close to that goal.

I guess it's their job to make the good sounds, and for us to enjoy and play back what they made, to the best of our abilities.

Yep. Just like a stage actor concentrates on being, well, a stage actor. He/she most likely doesn't care enough to understand room acoustics, lighting, prop construction, stage mgmt, etc.

Nobody ever spent their way to wealth.

lol

 

[TLS Guy]

If you can tolerate Stravinsky, you'd probably love Shostakovich, Britten, Honegger, Vaughn Williams, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff and a whole host of other 20th CC's I can't think of at the moment, most of whose music is generally far more enjoyable then Stravinsky's in my opinion.

Yes there has been a huge body of good music written in addition to the above.

Ravel, Debussy, Poulenc.

Richard Strauss

Sir Edward Edgar one of my absolute favorites. Rubra, Rawsthorne, Arnold, Bax, Walton, Bantock, Grainger, Delius, Bantock, Finzi, Warlock, Holst, Havergal Brian, LLoyd, Howels, William Matthias, Whitlock, Bridge, Butterworth, Ireland, Berkeley and Bairstow to name a few from the British Isles.

In America we have a sizable contingent with Bernstein, Copland, Harris, Ives, Barber, Diamond, Gershwin, Roy Harris, Hovhaness, Paulus, and quite a few I bet I have forgotten.

There have been a lot from Scandinavia, including Nielsen, Aho, Rustuvara and I'm sure many that escape me.

Then we have the great scores of Bartok and Janacek.

It when you hear people using the piano as a purely percussive instrument, plucking the strings and letting out wails, that I tune out. Including an eight track tape in the score I have also found to be a bad omen.

I got back to Benedict today, and I have put on the Hogwood Mozart Requiem. That was recorded 1984, and so would be before the Kingsway Hall was ruined. The recording sounds smooth and spacious to me.

If you are going to listen to a lot of big choral scores, I still advise a speaker larger than a bookshelf.

One line you should try and seek out is the Spendor range. For your taste, I think you would really like them.

The B & W CM5 is an excellent speaker, but I don't think it will have the guts fro some of the scores you have been talking about.

 

[GO-NAD!]

If you can tolerate Stravinsky, you'd probably love Shostakovich, Britten, Honegger, Vaughn Williams, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff and a whole host of other 20th CC's I can't think of at the moment, most of whose music is generally far more enjoyable then Stravinsky's in my opinion.

I do like those composers, and although they may be of the last century, to my ear, some of them still have one foot in the 19th century. Does that make sense? Maybe I shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement about not liking 20th century composers.

Perhaps it's the more recent composers that leave me cold.

 

[3db]

If you can tolerate Stravinsky, you'd probably love Shostakovich, Britten, Honegger, Vaughn Williams, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff and a whole host of other 20th CC's I can't think of at the moment, most of whose music is generally far more enjoyable then Stravinsky's in my opinion.

I l ike Sibelius but cannot stand Shostakovich. I've also tried listening to Rachmaninoff, epsically his 4 piano concertoes but there is nothing there that grabs my attention. Generally, I find the 20th centruy stuff to be too abstract for my taste. I return to it a few times every year to see if I finally get it but so far its lure has evaded me.

However I do like Gershwin alot....That openeing clairennet in Rhaposdy In Blue floors me everytime I hear it.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Yes there has been a huge body of good music written in addition to the above.

Ravel, Debussy, Poulenc.

Richard Strauss

Sir Edward Edgar one of my absolute favorites. Rubra, Rawsthorne, Arnold, Bax, Walton, Bantock, Grainger, Delius, Bantock, Finzi, Warlock, Holst, Havergal Brian, LLoyd, Howels, William Matthias, Whitlock, Bridge, Butterworth, Ireland, Berkeley and Bairstow to name a few from the British Isles.

In America we have a sizable contingent with Bernstein, Copland, Harris, Ives, Barber, Diamond, Gershwin, Roy Harris, Hovhaness, Paulus, and quite a few I bet I have forgotten.

There have been a lot from Scandinavia, including Nielsen, Aho, Rustuvara and I'm sure many that escape me.

Then we have the great scores of Bartok and Janacek.

It when you hear people using the piano as a purely percussive instrument, plucking the strings and letting out wails, that I tune out. Including an eight track tape in the score I have also found to be a bad omen.

I got back to Benedict today, and I have put on the Hogwood Mozart Requiem. That was recorded 1984, and so would be before the Kingsway Hall was ruined. The recording sounds smooth and spacious to me.

If you are going to listen to a lot of big choral scores, I still advise a speaker larger than a bookshelf.

One line you should try and seek out is the Spendor range. For your taste, I think you would really like them.

The B & W CM5 is an excellent speaker, but I don't think it will have the guts fro some of the scores you have been talking about.

There's a bunch on your list that I like as well! Also, some that I never heard of before. I guess I wasn't really thinking while I was typing!

 

[jostenmeat]

I l ike Sibelius but cannot stand Shostakovich.

The Sibelius Violin Concerto might be my favorite from that genre. Otherwise, I think Shostakovich is the superior, and much more important, composer. Sibelius was indeed known as a conservative, musically, during his time, and IIRC, he just one day flat out quit! Nothing wrong with being a "conservative" during one's time, as the greatest ever, Bach, was viewed the same way.

I've also tried listening to Rachmaninoff, epsically his 4 piano concertoes but there is nothing there that grabs my attention.

I'm not big on Rachmaninoff either, but I still have to hear his Vespers, of which musicians I have spoke with say it's something else. Hm, been a while since I've added to the cd collection, maybe I'll get that next.

I do like those composers, and although they may be of the last century, to my ear, some of them still have one foot in the 19th century. Does that make sense? Maybe I shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement about not liking 20th century composers.

Yes, it makes sense. No, you shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement. As for having a foot in the 19th century, of all the composers named in this thread so far, it is Richard Strauss. You might swear he was from an earlier era than many famous composers, and then scratch your head when you find out that he lived until 1949. Put it this way, it was only 19 years after his death, that his music was being used in 2001: A Space Odyssey. (OK, the composition used was written long before, but still . . . )

Perhaps it's the more recent composers that leave me cold.

I do not know what has been going in the composition world for a while now. However, the popular movement for a while there was Minimalist. Now, to me, it leaves me cold, but for some others it's more accessible: Easily memorable melody, constant/droning simple rhythm, consonant harmony, small repetitive themes/motifs, static (or transformation is slow at best), etc.

 

[highfigh]

Yeah... so let's just forget about nice TV's, audio systems, washing machines, kitchen appliances, or other useful creature comforts and just concentrate on huge mansions, lake front properties, autos, etc.

That's the way to get wealthy!

Look around- most of the people who lost their houses were borderline or worse when it came to debt-asset ratios and many were immediately upside-down on their house. Zero-down is a good way to get people into houses but it's also a good way for the lenders to end up owning a lot of houses they don't need or want and can't get rid of fast enough. Buying items that depreciate immediately is a good way to spend everything and end up with old things but no money. We all know that and still, many go that route. Creature comforts are nice but replacing them often while the old ones still work fine isn't a good way to go. At least adding onto a house usually gets a good return.

 

[3db]

Sorry to ressurect this old thread but Im on a mission. Someone in another forum has claimed that the loudness wars has spilled over to DVD and BluRay movie soundtracks and as a result has made it as or less dynamic than vinyl. I know vinyl at its very best is 75db. I don't know the numbers for CD, DVD, and BluRay. I also believe that the loudness war has not spilled into DVD and BluRay media. Anyone have links I can read. I found one and am still looking.