Making CDs Sound Like LPs.

[Pyrrho]

While looking at a catalog recently, I stumbled upon a product that made me think about how one could make a CD sound like an LP. Here is a link to the device that got me thinking about this:

http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/50-7240

Part of the idea came from having previously read this article:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/component/content/article/426.html

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html

A very relevant portion of which is at:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/component/content/article/426.html?start=3

Because of the RIAA equalization that is applied to LPs in manufacture (due to inherent frequency response limitations of vinyl records), and the RIAA equalization "decoding" done in one's phono preamp, one gets all sorts of interesting phase shifts. By using the device at the link at the top (with a phono preamp), you can add those phase shifts to any line level source you have, giving you some of the "pleasing" distortions inherent in LPs. One could also use a high distortion tube preamp to make the sound more like an LP, and with a slightly rolled off high end to make it even more "authentic" sounding. If one is using an audiophile CD that has not been dynamically compressed, one could add a professional product to take care of that, something that compresses the dynamic range (sometimes called a dynamic compressor or limiter). Still, one would not get the clicks and pops of a real LP, but otherwise it should be pretty much like it.


So, has anyone used a product like the one to which I have provided a link, and if so, how much effect to the sound is there from the added phase shifts inherent in such a process? Are the results subjectively pleasing?

 

[3db]

While looking at a catalog recently, I stumbled upon a product that made me think about how one could make a CD sound like an LP. Here is a link to the device that got me thinking about this:

http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/50-7240

Part of the idea came from having previously read this article:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/component/content/article/426.html

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles/427-a-secrets-technical-article.html

A very relevant portion of which is at:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/component/content/article/426.html?start=3

Because of the RIAA equalization that is applied to LPs in manufacture (due to inherent frequency response limitations of vinyl records), and the RIAA equalization "decoding" done in one's phono preamp, one gets all sorts of interesting phase shifts. By using the device at the link at the top (with a phono preamp), you can add those phase shifts to any line level source you have, giving you some of the "pleasing" distortions inherent in LPs. One could also use a high distortion tube preamp to make the sound more like an LP, and with a slightly rolled off high end to make it even more "authentic" sounding. If one is using an audiophile CD that has not been dynamically compressed, one could add a professional product to take care of that, something that compresses the dynamic range (sometimes called a dynamic compressor or limiter). Still, one would not get the clicks and pops of a real LP, but otherwise it should be pretty much like it.


So, has anyone used a product like the one to which I have provided a link, and if so, how much effect to the sound is there from the added phase shifts inherent in such a process? Are the results subjectively pleasing?

I know I'm nit picking here but I want to be clear. Vinyl has no frequency response problems. Its full capable of 20Hz to and well beyond 20 KHz. My understanding of equalization is to limit the bass information contained on the medium so that the needle doesn't fly out of the groove and to increase the level of treble information.

Even if one is to succeed in reproducung the vinyl sound on CD, the CD still fails against the LP. There is no involvement of cleaning teh album and cuing a turntable and two one can actually read the liner notes of an album without using and magnifyingg devices. Also, most of my albums incduding my 40 year old albums are remarkably pop free.

 

[Pyrrho]

I know I'm nit picking here but I want to be clear. Vinyl has no frequency response problems. Its full capable of 20Hz to and well beyond 20 KHz. ....

First of all, that frequency response is not flat, which makes it very unlike a CD. Second, that frequency response is diminished with every play of the LP, so that its frequency response becomes worse and worse over time. And third, the frequency response worsens as the needle goes toward the center of the record (basically, due to the effective playback speed dropping, as it is shorter around the center than at the outmost edge, and the disc always rotates at the same basic speed). There is probably also a difference in frequency response depending on the volume level (as there is on analog tape; typically, analog tape decks are rated +/-3 dB at -20db, as it is worse at the 0dB reference point). And the frequency response issues are cumulative, so one must add in whatever anomalies exist in the master recorder for the disc.

I also left off the wow and flutter, which is going to depend on many things with an LP, not only including the turntable's ability, but the ability of the master recorder and how perfectly centered the hole is in the middle (as being slightly off is going to add significant wow). Adding the sound of that in to a CD would take some other device; I don't know of anything that does this (though a computer program could be written to add such things).

But all of this is beside the main point of the thread: Has anyone used a device like the one mentioned in the opening post, and if so, how well does one like it?

 

[TLS Guy]

First of all, that frequency response is not flat, which makes it very unlike a CD. Second, that frequency response is diminished with every play of the LP, so that its frequency response becomes worse and worse over time. And third, the frequency response worsens as the needle goes toward the center of the record (basically, due to the effective playback speed dropping, as it is shorter around the center than at the outmost edge, and the disc always rotates at the same basic speed). There is probably also a difference in frequency response depending on the volume level (as there is on analog tape; typically, analog tape decks are rated +/-3 dB at -20db, as it is worse at the 0dB reference point). And the frequency response issues are cumulative, so one must add in whatever anomalies exist in the master recorder for the disc.

I also left off the wow and flutter, which is going to depend on many things with an LP, not only including the turntable's ability, but the ability of the master recorder and how perfectly centered the hole is in the middle (as being slightly off is going to add significant wow). Adding the sound of that in to a CD would take some other device; I don't know of anything that does this (though a computer program could be written to add such things).

But all of this is beside the main point of the thread: Has anyone used a device like the one mentioned in the opening post, and if so, how well does one like it?

The main reason for the RIAA curve is noise reduction. The HF is boosted, so when the HF is cut on playback the noise from the disc is reduced. Phase anomalies are minimal or should be and far less than in most loudspeakers.

The NAB, CCIR and NAB curves work the same way for tape.

Tape specs for domestic formats are at -20db because of tape saturation issues.

However half track quarter inch machines running at 15 ips or higher are calibrated at 0db. My tape machines are flat to 20 kHz at 0 db using Ampex/Quantergy Grand Master running at 15 ips on the four half track machines.

 

[3db]

First of all, that frequency response is not flat, which makes it very unlike a CD. ?

First of, I never implied that in my post to you but whatever. Through the RIAA, the output as seen from the output stage of a phono pre-amp is that the frequency is fairly flat. Maybe not as flat as a CD but certainly not as far of as you may think.

Second, that frequency response is diminished with every play of the LP, so that its frequency response becomes worse and worse over time.

That is a myth perpetuated by the CD only camp. I have feet in both camps and recognize the merrit in both formats. However, ...taken from WIKIPEDIA

Frequency response and noise
In 1925, electric recording extended the recorded frequency range from acoustic recording (168–2000 Hz) by 2½ octaves to 100–5000 Hz. Even so, these early electronically recorded records used the exponential-horn phonograph (see Orthophonic Victrola) for reproduction.

The frequency response of vinyl records may be degraded by frequent playback if the cartridge is set to track too heavily, or the stylus is not compliant enough to trace the high frequency grooves accurately, or the cartridge/tonearm is not properly aligned. The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays.[citation needed] While this degradation is possible if the record is played on improperly set up equipment, many collectors of LPs report excellent sound quality on LPs played many more times when using care and high quality equipment. This rapid sound degradation is not usually typical on modern Hi-Fi equipment with a properly balanced tonearm and well balanced low-mass stylus.

from http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1170021910&openfrom&3&4
01-29-07: Rauliruegas
Dear Gnugear: If we take in count what is already done on Lp recording we can say that the frequency range could be this: 8Hz to 50kHz, the 1812 recording on Telarc goes to 8Hz and the cutting machine on the recording goes to 50kHz: so this is the theorethical frequency range.

And third, the frequency response worsens as the needle goes toward the center of the record (basically, due to the effective playback speed dropping, as it is shorter around the center than at the outmost edge, and the disc always rotates at the same basic speed). There is probably also a difference in frequency response depending on the volume level (as there is on analog tape; typically, analog tape decks are rated +/-3 dB at -20db, as it is worse at the 0dB reference point). And the frequency response issues are cumulative, so one must add in whatever anomalies exist in the master recorder for the disc.

When a recording engineer worth his salt is cutting a master, he will compensate for this effective shorter distance as you put it. To give you some context around the frequency resposne of vinyl...

The frequency response for a conventional LP player might be 20 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 3 dB. Unlike the audio CD, vinyl records (and cassettes) do not require a cut-off in response above 20 kHz. The low frequency response of vinyl records is restricted by rumble noise (described above). The high frequency response of vinyl depends on the record itself and on the cartridge. CD4 records contained frequencies up to 50 kHz, while some high-end turntable cartridges have frequency responses of 120 kHz while having flat frequency response over the audible band (e.g. 20 Hz to 15 kHz +/-0.3 dB).[1] In addition, frequencies of up to 122 kHz have been experimentally cut on LP records.[2]

This exerpt was taken from...

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue2/mastering.htm

I also left off the wow and flutter, which is going to depend on many things with an LP, not only including the turntable's ability, but the ability of the master recorder and how perfectly centered the hole is in the middle (as being slightly off is going to add significant wow).

I've listened to many a piano concertoes on vinyl and not once did wow/fluuter ever effect it so much as to be audable. With a cheap turntable built in the 70's this is very much possible or the USB junk or $140 Sony's etc . But today's entry level tables by ProJect, Rega, Music Hall etc have wow & flutter specs below audability.

Adding the sound of that in to a CD would take some other device; I don't know of anything that does this (though a computer program could be written to add such things).

But all of this is beside the main point of the thread: Has anyone used a device like the one mentioned in the opening post, and if so, how well does one like it?

My point is why go through this much trouble if you can have the real mccoy??

 

[cheaprecorder]

thanks mate

 

[just-some-guy]

My point is why go through this much trouble if you can have the real mccoy??

that is what i am thinking.

why not burn the vinyl to cd then play that ?

 

[highfigh]

My understanding of equalization is to limit the bass information contained on the medium so that the needle doesn't fly out of the groove and to increase the level of treble information.

Then, a vinyl record isn't capable of the full 20-20KHz range without equalization, is it?

EQ is the only way an album comes close to that frequency range as long as the decoding matches the encoding. As long as the equipment and recording are a good match, it works but there are lots of ways for this system to fail in that regard.

From Wiki, "The purpose of the equalization is to permit greater playback times, improve sound quality, and to limit the vinyl damages that would otherwise arise from recording analog records without such equalization.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

 

[mtrycrafts]

I know I'm nit picking here but I want to be clear. Vinyl has no frequency response problems. Its full capable of 20Hz to and well beyond 20 KHz. My understanding of equalization is to limit the bass information contained on the medium so that the needle doesn't fly out of the groove and to increase the level of treble information.

Even if one is to succeed in reproducung the vinyl sound on CD, the CD still fails against the LP. There is no involvement of cleaning teh album and cuing a turntable and two one can actually read the liner notes of an album without using and magnifyingg devices. Also, most of my albums incduding my 40 year old albums are remarkably pop free.

May want to read up on it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

It is much more than the low frequency you are thinking about, much more.

 

[KEW]

that is what i am thinking.

why not burn the vinyl to cd then play that ?

LMAO!!!

That is choice!

 

[KEW]

My point is why go through this much trouble if you can have the real mccoy??

Because the Vinyl catalog is comparatively limited?
Because a small fortune could be made peddling them?

 

[just-some-guy]

LMAO!!!

That is choice!

ok, what is so funny about that ?

 

[KEW]

ok, what is so funny about that ?

Well, I think many vinyl aficionados believe that the quality of CD's is a step down from vinyl, and the idea of converting vinyl to CD (which would capture any rumble and the pops) as a better end product than a CD mastered as a CD seems a bit absurd. For someone who thinks the vinyl format has SQ advantages over CD, this would be the worst of both worlds - you would be capturing all the flaws of LPs and further constraining the SQ to that of a CD.
Maybe it is just me.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

You can cut vinyl records still. Typical 12" is like 40-50 bucks for a single plate. I have producer friends that one-off what we call 'dubplates' all the time. But it's generally uncompressed digital to vinyl rather than redbook to vinyl...but, hey, whatever. I understand the soul draw of vinyl.

 

[JerryLove]

This rapid sound degradation is not usually typical on modern Hi-Fi equipment with a properly balanced tonearm and well balanced low-mass stylus.

Emphasis mine.

There will be smoothing of grooves when a needle passes through them. The rate of change is, to me, unknown and varies by equipment.

 

[3db]

Then, a vinyl record isn't capable of the full 20-20KHz range without equalization, is it?

EQ is the only way an album comes close to that frequency range as long as the decoding matches the encoding. As long as the equipment and recording are a good match, it works but there are lots of ways for this system to fail in that regard.

From Wiki, "The purpose of the equalization is to permit greater playback times, improve sound quality, and to limit the vinyl damages that would otherwise arise from recording analog records without such equalization.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

What's your point HIFI? CD would fail as well if their was mismatch in ADC and DACs or if the brick walll filtering failed and all the aliasing frequncies suddnely showed up in the code. This is a pointless arguement. My whole point of digging this information is vinyl is capable well beyond the 20Hz-20KHz frequency range despite the INCORRECT comment made about limited frequency response. Then I have everyone telling me all the faults about vinyl. Lighten up people. Stop (not just you HIFI but everyone else in this thread) jumping on people and showing all the glaring faults of vinyl. Today's CD recordings sound like **** because of the loudness wars but this cannot be transformed to vinyl. You didn't see me point that out in this thread until now.

I find no point in trying to get a CD to sound like vinyl when vinyl is so readily available. If vinyl sounds so bad, why even try and get the vinyl sound via CD?

 

[3db]

Well, I think many vinyl aficionados believe that the quality of CD's is a step down from vinyl, and the idea of converting vinyl to CD (which would capture any rumble and the pops) as a better end product than a CD mastered as a CD seems a bit absurd. For someone who thinks the vinyl format has SQ advantages over CD, this would be the worst of both worlds - you would be capturing all the flaws of LPs and further constraining the SQ to that of a CD.
Maybe it is just me.

I just want to be clear KEW. Never did I say nor imply that. I just demonstrated that the frequency response of vinyl is NOT limited as was INCORRECTLY implied. I have some recording in both formats and there are those where vinyl sounds better than the CD counterpart and visa versa. I always maintained that sound isn;t so much media dependent as it is recording engineer dependent. I hate to say it but its all the CD lovers who again tried to turn this into CD is better than Vinyl thread which I will not partake in. I think the CD camp needs to lighten up with its mob mentality and stop coming at those who see merrits of both formats.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Emphasis mine.

There will be smoothing of grooves when a needle passes through them. The rate of change is, to me, unknown and varies by equipment.

But, it has to degrade as it is a mechanical contact between a diamond needle and wax. Actually, both will wear otherwise needles would last a very long time which it doesn't unless it is not used
Light tracking takes longer to wear, heavy tracking much faster.

 

[GO-NAD!]

What's your point HIFI? CD would fail as well if their was mismatch in ADC and DACs or if the brick walll filtering failed and all the aliasing frequncies suddnely showed up in the code. This is a pointless arguement. My whole point of digging this information is vinyl is capable well beyond the 20Hz-20KHz frequency range despite the INCORRECT comment made about limited frequency response. Then I have everyone telling me all the faults about vinyl. Lighten up people. Stop (not just you HIFI but everyone else in this thread) jumping on people and showing all the glaring faults of vinyl. Today's CD recordings sound like **** because of the loudness wars but this cannot be transformed to vinyl. You didn't see me point that out in this thread until now.

I find no point in trying to get a CD to sound like vinyl when vinyl is so readily available. If vinyl sounds so bad, why even try and get the vinyl sound via CD?

Personally, I don't feel that vinyl is a bad format per se, but CD easily matches the attributes of vinyl, without the drawbacks of the vinyl format. Any abuses of the CD format, such as dynamic compression, aren't the CD's fault. As much as I like album covers & liner notes, I will take CD over vinyl any day. I just don't think vinyl's drawbacks are worth the bother.

 

[KEW]

Well, I think many vinyl aficionados believe that the quality of CD's is a step down from vinyl, and the idea of converting vinyl to CD (which would capture any rumble and the pops) as a better end product than a CD mastered as a CD seems a bit absurd. For someone who thinks the vinyl format has SQ advantages over CD, this would be the worst of both worlds - you would be capturing all the flaws of LPs and further constraining the SQ to that of a CD.
Maybe it is just me.

I just want to be clear KEW. Never did I say nor imply that. I just demonstrated that the frequency response of vinyl is NOT limited as was INCORRECTLY implied. I have some recording in both formats and there are those where vinyl sounds better than the CD counterpart and visa versa. I always maintained that sound isn;t so much media dependent as it is recording engineer dependent. I hate to say it but its all the CD lovers who again tried to turn this into CD is better than Vinyl thread which I will not partake in. I think the CD camp needs to lighten up with its mob mentality and stop coming at those who see merrits of both formats.

I have no belief that LPs have inferior FR
I've always believed that LPs extend above the 20kHz of CDs.

In any case, no worries, I wasn't thinking of you at all when I wrote it. I was thinking of articles and threads (primarily from other sites) I've read where there is conviction that the SQ of Vinyl is a substantial improvement over CD's.

I've inferred from exposure on this site that you are more down to earth on such matters.

I also believe you would not be the target market for a device to make CD's sound like records.

Right or wrong, I do believe that anyone who would buy a device to allow their CD's to mimic the sound of vinyl would be appalled at the concept of burning their vinyl to CDs, and I got a good laugh out of the idea.

Growing up with records and developing care methods as I matured and moved from children's LPs to "Top 10" 45's to music LPs, I prefer the convenience of CDs.
However if it were a magical world and I were King, all of my albums would come as vinyl so I could enjoy the ritual of pulling the record from the jacket and sleeve and inspect/clean it while anticipating the enjoyment of listening to it while looking at/reading through the cover art/notes/lyrics. After 2-3 plays, it would convert to the compact, durable, and quick format of a CD.