Has anybody measured the resolution of vinyl records?

[3db]

You mean strictly limited by some requirement specific to the format as opposed to an inherent physical limitation, right? They do limit the upper response, somewhat, due to the heat buildup and need to cool the cutter head. Limiting/filtering is cheaper than cooling.

Exactly. But the capability of the medium is there. Nice to know if you want to drive your pets crazy.

 

[Archimago]

Yup. Like many of the respondents suggest, vinyl "resolution" is:
1. Highly dependent on the system and vinyl pressing itself. Everything from vinyl material quality to the accuracy of the pressing "impression" plays a role. Furthermore, there's the issue with just how good the playback equipment is. Quite often, cartridges themselves can have +/-2dB channel balance issues and such... Very significant factor at the end of the day when we consider the topic of resolution in totality.

2. Noise floor (surface noise) of vinyl is high. No way we can achieve 16-bit resolution with vinyl (or analogue), period.

3. Other distortions will be present in vinyl. Ticks, pops, scratches, inner groove issues with some gear, tracking errors, imprecise centering, warps, etc... All this will be present in some form; no such thing as "perfect" LP or playback.

4. Careful with noise through an analogue system. Low voltage MC cartridges with output in the mV, step-up transformers, RIAA phono preamps all are very sensitive to noise and will add to that noise floor.

5. Having said all this... Yes, frequency response >22kHz is present in vinyl. But does it matter? Also, could this also be a bad thing because of the risk of ultrasonic intermodulation distortion?

Bottom line. Technically CD is more resolving where it matters IMO. But preference around the sound quality is of course individual taste.

 

[highfigh]

Yup. Like many of the respondents suggest, vinyl "resolution" is:
1. Highly dependent on the system and vinyl pressing itself. Everything from vinyl material quality to the accuracy of the pressing "impression" plays a role. Furthermore, there's the issue with just how good the playback equipment is. Quite often, cartridges themselves can have +/-2dB channel balance issues and such... Very significant factor at the end of the day when we consider the topic of resolution in totality.

2. Noise floor (surface noise) of vinyl is high. No way we can achieve 16-bit resolution with vinyl (or analogue), period.

3. Other distortions will be present in vinyl. Ticks, pops, scratches, inner groove issues with some gear, tracking errors, imprecise centering, warps, etc... All this will be present in some form; no such thing as "perfect" LP or playback.

4. Careful with noise through an analogue system. Low voltage MC cartridges with output in the mV, step-up transformers, RIAA phono preamps all are very sensitive to noise and will add to that noise floor.

5. Having said all this... Yes, frequency response >22kHz is present in vinyl. But does it matter? Also, could this also be a bad thing because of the risk of ultrasonic intermodulation distortion?

Bottom line. Technically CD is more resolving where it matters IMO. But preference around the sound quality is of course individual taste.

How can digital be called "more resolving" when it's literally a sliced up and reassembled approximation of the original? It doesn't have the noise, but it still isn't exactly the same as an analog signal.

That Ultrasonic IM you referred to- that's the same thing that occurs with the brick wall filters used on the original CDs, except the difference component seemed to be more audible.

 

[andyblackcat]

STAR WARS LP original on youtube. I still have LP original £5.50 brought from Record Mechanics Ltd, around 1978.

The CD is extended version.

Since I don't have a turntable the youtube is the only way I can hear the snap crackle pops of the warmness of the LP.

The CD sounds like a STAR LOUDNESS WARS without snap crackle and pops.

The frequency and loudness on on youtube is what it is.

The CD frequency and loudness is what it is.

Pitch speed the youtube is small % faster

Pitch speed the CD a slight % slower

At last they are originals and not an orchestra mimicking the John Williams LSO final original recoding that is no doubt etched into STAR WARS listener fans heads.

The Spectrum Lab can run at high frequency level but I have to go into its internal parameter settings and frankly its a bit tricky and I generally only use it for low frequencies, there is a basic setting that only allows me to extend from lowest to about 2756.3KHz (but it can go way higher).

The recoding is final throne room/end credits at around the point where princess theme cuts in for a few moments.

Youtube STAR WARS LP same as I have expect I can recall mine having different scratches when last played when I had turntable might have been 30+ years ago.

The CD version I have. I had to lower the fader down a bit to roughly about the same loudness I had the LP-youtube at 0.0db the CD -20db.

 

[TLS Guy]

How can digital be called "more resolving" when it's literally a sliced up and reassembled approximation of the original? It doesn't have the noise, but it still isn't exactly the same as an analog signal.

That Ultrasonic IM you referred to- that's the same thing that occurs with the brick wall filters used on the original CDs, except the difference component seemed to be more audible.

That is a common misconception. It is not a reassembled approximation of the original, it is exactly the same as the original.

There is no way the best turntable in the world can be as good as a well produced CD.

I have quite a few LPs that I have subsequently bought CDs of made from the original master. The CD is an exact copy of the reel to reel master, the LP is not. I have quite a few where the tape masters are mine. I used very good pressing plants.

Bottom line, the CD is indistinguishable from the master tape, the LP is not.

 

[highfigh]

That is a common misconception. It is not a reassembled approximation of the original, it is exactly the same as the original.

There is no way the best turntable in the world can be as good as a well produced CD.

I have quite a few LPs that I have subsequently bought CDs of made from the original master. The CD is an exact copy of the reel to reel master, the LP is not. I have quite a few where the tape masters are mine. I used very good pressing plants.

Bottom line, the CD is indistinguishable from the master tape, the LP is not.

I didn't mean the LP is an exact representation- it has limitations that don't allow this to be possible. I meant that in the original 44.1K sampling rate, it's not perfect. How were your master tapes sampled- 96K, 192K?

 

[TLS Guy]

I didn't mean the LP is an exact representation- it has limitations that don't allow this to be possible. I meant that in the original 44.1K sampling rate, it's not perfect. How were your master tapes sampled- 96K, 192K?

The master tapes were not sampled. They are analog.

They are 15 ips 1/2 track stereo DBX 1 professional encode on Ampex Grand Master. The LPs were cut from these master tapes. The CDs I have subsequently remastered are indistinguishable from the master tapes, the LPs are not and never could be, since the spec of the master tapes are beyond the capability of LP.

Yes, the 44.1 sampling rate is perfect within the range of human hearing, or as perfect as the resolution of the human ear. There is the odd program that requires dynamic range beyond the CD, but that is far beyond the capability of LP.

I used this Revox A700 on location.

And this late model Brenell MK 6 late version with parabolic tape path. It is the silver machine.

Here is a 20 KHz wave form played from a CD on a 1984 CD player (a Revox).

 

[3db]

The master tapes were not sampled. They are analog.

They are 15 ips 1/2 track stereo DBX 1 professional encode on Ampex Grand Master. The LPs were cut from these master tapes. The CDs I have subsequently remastered are indistinguishable from the master tapes, the LPs are not and never could be, since the spec of the master tapes are beyond the capability of LP.

Yes, the 44.1 sampling rate is perfect within the range of human hearing, or as perfect as the resolution of the human ear. There is the odd program that requires dynamic range beyond the CD, but that is far beyond the capability of LP.

I used this Revox A700 on location.

And this late model Brenell MK 6 late version with parabolic tape path. It is the silver machine.

Here is a 20 KHz wave form played from a CD on a 1984 CD player (a Revox).

 

[3db]

The master tapes were not sampled. They are analog.

They are 15 ips 1/2 track stereo DBX 1 professional encode on Ampex Grand Master. The LPs were cut from these master tapes. The CDs I have subsequently remastered are indistinguishable from the master tapes, the LPs are not and never could be, since the spec of the master tapes are beyond the capability of LP.

Yes, the 44.1 sampling rate is perfect within the range of human hearing, or as perfect as the resolution of the human ear. There is the odd program that requires dynamic range beyond the CD, but that is far beyond the capability of LP.

I used this Revox A700 on location.

And this late model Brenell MK 6 late version with parabolic tape path. It is the silver machine.

Here is a 20 KHz wave form played from a CD on a 1984 CD player (a Revox).

And the key is "analog tapes are the masters" meaning that all the information has been captured, not sampled. Theoretically, information is lost during sampling. Whether or not its audable is a different kettle of fish. Just sayin .

 

[Speedskater]

Theoretically, information is NOT lost during sampling.

Now tell me about the differences that we see if we play the tape back 10 times.
Each play-back will have different noise and different wow & flutter.

 

[highfigh]

The master tapes were not sampled. They are analog.

They are 15 ips 1/2 track stereo DBX 1 professional encode on Ampex Grand Master. The LPs were cut from these master tapes. The CDs I have subsequently remastered are indistinguishable from the master tapes, the LPs are not and never could be, since the spec of the master tapes are beyond the capability of LP.

Yes, the 44.1 sampling rate is perfect within the range of human hearing, or as perfect as the resolution of the human ear. There is the odd program that requires dynamic range beyond the CD, but that is far beyond the capability of LP.

I used this Revox A700 on location.


And this late model Brenell MK 6 late version with parabolic tape path. It is the silver machine.


Here is a 20 KHz wave form played from a CD on a 1984 CD player (a Revox).

You did it again- I wasn't referring to sampling for LP- I know that's not necessary, I was referring to the digital conversion for the CDs- what sampling rate/bit depth?

How many values are given for the input signal's amplitude, in a sample? I have always heard that it has one- or, is the info I had totally inaccurate? Is it an actual "snapshot" of the waveform in the duration of each sample?

Assuming digital is so accurate, you confirmed my opinion- the reason I don't like a lot of digital recordings is due to the techniquis used and the decisions made during the recording/mastering process.

 

[TLS Guy]

You did it again- I wasn't referring to sampling for LP- I know that's not necessary, I was referring to the digital conversion for the CDs- what sampling rate/bit depth?

How many values are given for the input signal's amplitude, in a sample? I have always heard that it has one- or, is the info I had totally inaccurate? Is it an actual "snapshot" of the waveform in the duration of each sample?

Assuming digital is so accurate, you confirmed my opinion- the reason I don't like a lot of digital recordings is due to the techniquis used and the decisions made during the recording/mastering process.

Well since it is CDs I'm talking about, there is only one Red Book standard to master the CD which is 16 bit 44.1 kilocycles per second. In practice with proper dithering, this gives you a dynamic range of around 95 db and by the Nyquist theorem an upper high frequency response to 22.05 KHz.

I can tell you one thing, a reel to reel recorder has to be in perfect operating condition to equal a digital recorder, and use of Dolby A or dbx 1 noise reduction must be used. These later can introduce their own problems.

 

[andyblackcat]

Looks like x2 Dolby 361 A-type, nice.

 

[TLS Guy]

Looks like x2 Dolby 361 A-type, nice.

Yes, I have quite a few analog codecs. For open reel I have Dolby A and B and also dbx1 and dbx 2

For cassette Dolby B and C and dbx. I have the dbx code for dbx encoded LPs. In my collection in addition to my masters I have some reel to reel Dolby B encoded commercial tapes as well as dbx 2 encoded tapes and LPs.

I also have one staggered head reel to reel tape. I don't have a staggered head recorder, but I can cheat and synchronize the tracks with my audio workstation.

 

[andyblackcat]

What you do that just for own personal leisure.
They have Dolby SR encoders cheap on the ebay. got myself a Dolby SRA5 Spectral Recoding, for playback.

I even find the A-type is suited for old mono film that is bit hissy or hummy on the lows.

 

[3db]

Well since it is CDs I'm talking about, there is only one Red Book standard to master the CD which is 16 bit 44.1 kilocycles per second. In practice with proper dithering, this gives you a dynamic range of around 95 db and by the Nyquist theorem an upper high frequency response to 22.05 KHz.

I can tell you one thing, a reel to reel recorder has to be in perfect operating condition to equal a digital recorder, and use of Dolby A or dbx 1 noise reduction must be used. These later can introduce their own problems.

What? No response against the analog verses tape master comment? Ignoring the response is an acknowledgement of being trumped.. just saying.

And too the previous poster, dam f'IN straight sampling is losing information. But as I posted previously, is it audable? The brain is very powerful and can fill in the
blanks but that doesn't mean that information is not LOST.

 

[TLS Guy]

What you do that just for own personal leisure.
They have Dolby SR encoders cheap on the ebay. got myself a Dolby SRA5 Spectral Recoding, for playback.

I even find the A-type is suited for old mono film that is bit hissy or hummy on the lows.

For many years I did the outside broadcast recordings for the local public radio station in my spare time. I recorded symphony, chamber, choral concerts and organ recitals. Over the years I also mastered LPs and CDs for individuals and groups.

Now I just archive and edit mainly.

Another reason I keep this equipment is that it makes a nice museum. It is possible to compare media over a very long period of time with current offerings.

A lot of these pieces are now very rare. The Brenell Mk 6 is very rare and I would doubt there are even a handful left. They were made for the BBC, who used them extensively for post production work. I have it on good authority, they were scraped and not offered for sale.

This Garrard/Decca ffss turntable is the most complete I can find on the NET. It also contains a very rare Auriol lift.

This collection certainly has the power to fascinate.

 

[TLS Guy]

What? No response against the analog verses tape master comment? Ignoring the response is an acknowledgement of being trumped.. just saying.

And too the previous poster, dam f'IN straight sampling is losing information. But as I posted previously, is it audable? The brain is very powerful and can fill in the
blanks but that doesn't mean that information is not LOST.

Your post contains this common and often advanced misconception about digital technology, play back and recording.

THERE IS NO INFORMATION LOST.

Look at the 20 KHz scope trace it is perfect.

Any curve can be described as a series of points, or coordinates if you like. The digital coordinates will describe any trace. The brain does not have to fill in any blanks. To suggest it does is totally wrong. This is just another refuge of the audiophools and another example of their oft spouted nonsense. It is just as daft as their wire claims.

 

[andyblackcat]

For many years I did the outside broadcast recordings for the local public radio station in my spare time. I recorded symphony, chamber, choral concerts and organ recitals. Over the years I also mastered LPs and CDs for individuals and groups.

Now I just archive and edit mainly.

Another reason I keep this equipment is that it makes a nice museum. It is possible to compare media over a very long period of time with current offerings.

A lot of these pieces are now very rare. The Brenell Mk 6 is very rare and I would doubt there are even a handful left. They were made for the BBC, who used them extensively for post production work. I have it on good authority, they were scraped and not offered for sale.

This Garrard/Decca ffss turntable is the most complete I can find on the NET. It also contains a very rare Auriol lift.

This collection certainly has the power to fascinate.

That is brutal to scrap them. They could have made a few bob, on the side.

 

[ski2xblack]

...I meant that in the original 44.1K sampling rate, it's not perfect...dam f'IN straight sampling is losing information. But as I posted previously, is it audable? The brain is very powerful and can fill in the
blanks but that doesn't mean that information is not LOST.

It's not true. This is a false meme that deserves to die. Google up Nyquist sampling theorem.

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.