Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Wow: Is vinyl the format of the future?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wow: Is vinyl the format of the future? - Page 4

post #46 of 64
I have had the opportunity to pick up Telarc and some other brands of LP's, the same recording as on CD. So I have both.

The LP versions just shatter the CD's. There is no comparison.
Especially the Telarcs. The LP's are incredible, the CD's are crud in comparison.

The Telarcs are recorded in digital. Somewhere along the line the sound was lost. In the mastering and creation of the CD. Most CD's are very poorly created. Sorry engineers, you are fired.

I do have some fabulous CD's that rival LP's, but these are old recordings done on TUBE equipment. In this case, the engineers did have ears.

My LP setup is ok. Music Hall MMF-5 with Goldring 1012GX cartridge, Straightwire cables, and Rotel phono stage. This package is $800.

When I got back into LP a few years ago (I listen to classical mostly), my collection expanded dramatically via eBay. At an average of $3 a record, I enjoy listening to many old recordings and "new" stuff I had never heard before.

Like CD's, LP's vary in sound. But the best LP can stomp the best CD.

Coloration of sound by lp? LOL. You don't think chopping up sound into bits with slow sampling speed via digital is not coloring sound? Strong filtering in CD?

Buying a $100 turntable and $75 cartridge may not give you the fullest experience in LP's. Just as the $175 CD player may not give you the fullest experience in CD (as compared to a $1000 CD player).
post #47 of 64
Another funny, I was in the record store today playing some old vinyl (released >15 years ago) the record was a bit dusty so it gave the usual xteristic crackle and we started chatting about crackle engineered onto certain CDs and a DJ let slip that one of the things he likes about vinyl is the crackle . Quite funny, talk about subjective preferences.
post #48 of 64
Thread Starter 
Orpheus,

That's interesting. I thought the greatest weakness of both SACD and CD was the ability to produce accurate clean dynamics, in comparision to live music and the vinyl setup, which had surprisingly natural dyanmics.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at about the needle jumping out of the groove. . . I am listening on headphones anyways.

All I have to say about your last point is, if you rank the formats on a harshness scale with CD subjectively at 10, SACD would be somewhere in between five and eight, vinyl would score a two, and live music (ACCOUSTIC live music at that!) would be a one, at least to my ears. It's amazing how relaxing live classical performances are.

To each his own. I'm just too obsessed with this stuff to go back now.

Cheers,
Geek
post #49 of 64
Fwiw, Orpheus is wrong about "high frequency rolloff" with vinyl as well... it's capable of extending beyond CD, and I've personally tested some songs on vinyl after recording them to digital at 24/96... the LP format can and does extend beyond 20 KHz with some recordings.

As far as dynamic range, it's basically a moot point. Try and find me a CD that uses all 96dB of dynamic range -- no such CD exists, outside of test tones. Doesn't say much for the future of SACD, if you ask me... all that potential dynamic range going unused, because normal music doesn't require it. 24 bits of dynamic range (144dB) is great if you're into recording jet aircraft taking off from a few feet away, or Apollo rockets blasting off.

Being a "measurement fan" and also being into vinyl... I can say that most of the anti-vinyl rhetoric comes from people who really haven't given the format a chance. Both the dynamic range and frequency extension are more than adequate for most real world music recordings, and the advantages of redbook CD (except for having less background noise) are largely theoretical. The only time I'd consistently prefer digital would be with some classical music (benefits from the "perfect black" background of digital, and some of it has issues at the inner grooves of a record).
post #50 of 64
fewtch,
Quote:
Fwiw, Orpheus is wrong about "high frequency rolloff" with vinyl as well... it's capable of extending beyond CD, and I've personally tested some songs on vinyl after recording them to digital at 24/96... the LP format can and does extend beyond 20 KHz with some recordings.
i'm not wrong. what you measure using your 24/96 convertor is not audio that was correctly recorded on the vinyl. it is artificial, created by surface noise. anyway, there is definitely high-frequency roll-off. just compare your vinyl side-by-side to a cd. everyone says there is less "digital harshness." that is partly due to the high-frequency roll off. if you REALLY want to do some comparison with a CD using your 24/96 card, what you need to do is compare one recording from your vinyl, and one recording ripped from a CD of THE SAME EXACT RECORDING. not different masters. then you use the analysis function in Sound Forge, or something equivalent, and compare the high frequency content between the two mediums.

anyway, the measured high-end performance of vinyl tops out at 14khz-16khz -3-6db depending on what you read. CD is over 20khz... so yes, there IS high frequency roll-off.
Quote:
Try and find me a CD that uses all 96dB of dynamic range -- no such CD exists, outside of test tones.
well, most new CDs printed these days are compressed heavily and are maxed out. so, they all use the entire dynamic range of a CD. i'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here.
Quote:
Doesn't say much for the future of SACD, if you ask me... all that potential dynamic range going unused, because normal music doesn't require it.
yes, greater dynamic range is good, and is usable. in fact, i was reading some articles last year in a professional sound journal about dynamic range in movies. i'm not sure what the argument was then.... but just imagine the difference in volumes between a pin dropping, and your standard car explosion in a movie. dynamic range is very important, and because of today's technology, movies sound better than ever. couldn't do that on vinyl, i assure you.
post #51 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
fewtch,
i'm not wrong. what you measure using your 24/96 convertor is not audio that was correctly recorded on the vinyl. it is artificial, created by surface noise. anyway, there is definitely high-frequency roll-off. just compare your vinyl side-by-side to a cd. everyone says there is less "digital harshness."

anyway, the measured high-end performance of vinyl tops out at 14khz-16khz -3-6db depending on what you read.
Sorry, but I disagree. I've been into vinyl to digital transferring since 1999 (although haven't done much for the past 6 months) and am regularly looking at the graphs in Sound Forge, Cool Edit Pro, etc. I know what surface noise looks like and what music looks like on spectral charts and such, and also have a couple test records (one of them a lab grade sort of thing). The 14KHz-16KHz figure is just plain incorrect -- in particular for newer vinyl recorded in the 1970s and later. For vinyl recorded in the 1950s through late 60s it may be true, as I suspect both recording and pressing techniques just weren't as good.

Probably the HF response of vinyl depends on the cartridge as much as anything else, and a line contact or elliptical stylus is much better. Something with a spherical/conical stylus will definitely roll off highs... just can't trace very high frequency grooves properly. And some cartridges are just plain rolled off on top or dark sounding.

If you're interested, I'll find an LP with lots of HF content in the music, record something and post a Cool Edit spectral graph. Or just a graph of some 20 to 20 pink noise from one of the test records.
post #52 of 64
For many years I referred to vinyl as "a dead format".

Was I wrong.

I had some lps, with my Technics 1700 turntable and Audio Technica cartridge. They sounded ok.

Then I upgraded my system, generally.

Then I received a Rotel phono stage as a gift. Nice!

I took the plunge and added an MMF5 and vacuum record cleaning machine.

The MMF5 was stunning! The record cleaning machine made a great difference.

I got online and started ordering used records. Love them! Added about 1000 classical lps over a year or two.

High freq rolloff on lp? WRONG. There is high freq rolloff on CD's, big time. Some analog quadraphonic lps of the past need 40k response, and got it from turntables. That is rolloff?

CD's can be great, but again, it's the engineering process of the CD's that destroy the session recording quality. I have never heard an SACD. I really have no plans too. I am not spending the cash on a new player and new recordings. Why?
post #53 of 64
Quote:
If you're interested, I'll find an LP with lots of HF content in the music, record something and post a Cool Edit spectral graph. Or just a graph of some 20 to 20 pink noise from one of the test records.
sure, i'd be interested in seeing the graphs. i am open to objective proof.

i know from my own experience that frequencies above 20khz are very hard to capture though. i've also seen some spectral graphs of some of my own recordings, and there really isn't much recorded above 20khz. i believe the response of my at 4033 is 30-20khz... but still, it's hard to see anything above 20khz, especially after everything's mixed. so, i'd be very interested in seeing what these graphs say. remember, unless you got a REALLY expensive 24/96 interface there, it outputs about 2 bits of noise too. that's usually about the quality of mid-range 24bit converters. add that to the surface noise that is present, and you got a decent amount of error. anyway, something to keep in mind.
Quote:
High freq rolloff on lp? WRONG. There is high freq rolloff on CD's, big time. Some analog quadraphonic lps of the past need 40k response, and got it from turntables. That is rolloff?
40k response? very few mics can even record anything that high. and those types of mics are rarely used for music production anyway--mostly lab measurement mics. the vast majority of mics that are used today, even super duper expensive ones, do not have high frequency extension that good. so, even if you buy some ultra high frequency mic and record dizzy gillespi (probably spelled wrong) blowing a dog whistle, don't expect to see much recorded at 40khz.

....but i did however listen to a vinyl record in my own system. and i am honestly saying that there is a very strong roll-off in vinyl. don't believe me? come over and we'll a-b. i'm serious. i will even do some frequency testing with you, on my computer system. all real professional stuff here.
post #54 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
....but i did however listen to a vinyl record in my own system. and i am honestly saying that there is a very strong roll-off in vinyl. don't believe me? come over and we'll a-b. i'm serious. i will even do some frequency testing with you, on my computer system. all real professional stuff here.
"A" vinyl record? As in, one vinyl record and you are hearing a very strong rolloff? Or did you go through your numerous collection of records played with your high end cartridge and determine that all the LPs there sound rolled off?

I'm sure I can come up with a CD that sounds rolled off, if you'd like to A/B that with a vinyl LP that isn't rolled off.

Orpheus, this is ridiculous. Here, take a look at this:



A snippet I recorded from vinyl in Cool Edit Pro, with spectral graph (numbers on the right indicate frequency). This was from an 80's LP that was probably digitally mastered, because you can see the lowpass filtering (fairly sharp cutoff) around 20 KHz. Also, you can see that the high frequencies in the music easily extend past 14-16 KHz with no "visible" rolloff. And if you heard it, it sounds not in the slightest bit rolled off -- if anything it's brighter than CD versions of this song I've heard before (my cartridge is admittedly a bit on the bright side).

Edit -- hell, I'll even provide you with an MP3 or .WAV snippet if you like (maybe 10 seconds) so you can listen yourself and get an idea of the tonal balance.
post #55 of 64
Thread Starter 
Not to add fire to the flames, but the HD600 actually sounds slightly forward on the setup we listened to it on.

I actually think both formats have similar high frequency extension, analog obviously lacks clipped waveforms above 5khz due to sampling limits, and the resulting treble sounds incredibly smooth. This may play a part in it, as does the recording: a Frank Sinatra LP from the fifties has some serious high frequency rolloff, but recording technology wasnt as good at that point in time. Conversely, audiophile LPs (mobile fidelity recordings) that we listened to had excellent extension.

Cheers,
Geek
post #56 of 64
I just have to add my 0.2 $.

Have you ever tried to do live comparisment between guitar or vocal and cd or vinyl. Take a walk and listen how nature sounds. Its much more darker than we might think. You never hear the harsness like found on digital formats such as cds or any dig. media. Lps just simple create natural feeling. Take for example Argenta Espana. THis is one or rarity classical recordings. Man its just like siting infront of orchestra.

THis days everything is toooooo comprased and made for mass media. Somewhere in betwen we lost the feeling what is actually natural. Get out and listen to live unamplifed gig. Or invite friend with guitar and see what happens. Or even tell your girlfriend to sing few lines in betwen speakers .

You might be suprised. ANd now compare this to cd and vinyl. Or call someone who is not audiophile. A friend of wife, girlfriend etc. Ask for honest answer.

THis might come as rude. But we are all bewildered by massmedia.

Orpheus i also have pro recording stuff here. And trust me all todays stuff is degradation of sound. All our beloved macs and pcs and great soundcards.

I would go that far and say most of people today are deff . They made us so more or less or we made ourselves.

I recently went back to lps. Its like getting to concerte. Period. For me there is no substitude. Even if i have to rebuild my software.

love you all

yours

Miziq
post #57 of 64
Gotta love anyone who quotes the Bhagavad Gita in their sig... Yep, agreed... to a certain extent anyway. Digital has improved, and there are ways to improve it (like the upsampling I've been doing with the 24/96 DAC on my soundcard... sounds more natural than straight 16/44.1 playback, probably by moving the brickwall filter up to 48 KHz).

But yep... people hear, but they don't listen. Everything's in the background in most cases.
post #58 of 64
B.G. S.B. C.C. and of course Srila Prabhupad. If you know those than HK to you )
post #59 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by miziq
B.G. S.B. C.C. and of course Srila Prabhupad. If you know those than HK to you )
I'm not really into Hindu spirituality/Hinduism (anymore), nor interested in Hare Krishna sect... just remembering some stuff . Getting way off topic here though...
post #60 of 64
Quote:
Have you ever tried to do live comparisment between guitar or vocal and cd or vinyl. Take a walk and listen how nature sounds. Its much more darker than we might think. You never hear the harsness like found on digital formats such as cds or any dig. media. Lps just simple create natural feeling. Take for example Argenta Espana. THis is one or rarity classical recordings. Man its just like siting infront of orchestra.
this was exactly my previous point. vinyl IS rolled-off compared to CD. HOWEVER, modern music today is mixed with very high amounts of high-frequency content... much more than in an normal environment. that is why vinyl sounds "better" to some. however, it's anything but accurate.

anyway... as for the spectral graph, i confused the terminology, forgot what the spectral graph was. i actually can't interpret those spectral graphs well. but there's another function in cool edit and sound forge... forgot the exact name though. but it graphs the amount of each frequency band using small samples. the frequency is on the x axis, and the amount is on the y axis. that graph is much easier to read. try that....... it's much easier to see which frequencies are present in your material.

and no, didn't use a high-end vinyl table. cheap table actually.... some low-end mmf i think. cheap cartridge too. listened to about 5 records. one record of some electronica that i has on CD as well. all vinyl sounded muffled......

i posted the story earlier actually...

but in short, i was listening to the vinyl, and thought it sounded too muffled. so, i eq'd it and raised the high-end a little bit, and was more satisfied. well, we ate dinner (tim's friend Veronica makes damn good steak!)... and i came back and listened to the vinyl a bit more. i was so surprised...and i a-b'd it like 10 times!..... i was like, "Oh my god!!! it sounds as good as the CD!!!" i was so confused. i even called Tim back to apologize, and that he was right about vinyl............................ but then i noticed, the EQ WAS ENGAGED!!!! turned off the EQ... sure enough, mushy vinyl again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Wow: Is vinyl the format of the future?