Re-Discovering Vinyl......and learning a few things! - Page 3

1988 is correct! Pretty amazing considering that CDs and CD players did not hit the US shores until 1983/84.

The convenience issue is indisputable, no doubt. Vinyl is a pain. The detail and neutrality bit is disputable but not in reasonable price ranges. My mid-fi vinyl rig beats the crap out of my $100 cdp for detail but that should be expected. It totaled over $600.

Obviously you know that you're not gaining any detail back by taking an analog signal and making it digital again. Are you disappointed by the sound quality of your transfers? The Tech 12 is a great deck, I own one. But sound quality is not its forte. If a large portion of what you listen to comes from transfer off of vinyl you'd be doing yourself a big favor by selling off your table and stepping up to a better one, not to mention the phono stage(assuming you're using something cheap).

I recently bought a Moth Alamo (Rega P2) and am using the Shure V15 cart that I had previously used on the Technics and the difference in detail is not insignificant.

I don't really understand your problem with "cart alignment, tonearm, platter" etc. You're dealing with that already. Setting up my Rega wasn't any more difficult than with the Technics.

Anyway, to each his own. I just figured since you're going to deal with vinyl anyway you might as well get the best out of it (within reason... $$$). If you want to sell off any of that vinyl that you've already transfered at a decent price I'd be interested!

Best,
Oliver

The highs are shaped so well with vinyl that they practically disappear, instead what comes across is the natural timbre of the instruments, and the spirit of the musicians. It is truly an audiophile format in every sense of the word. After a lot of live music, I cannot listen to any digital without cringing for a period of two days: the sound is FAR too grainy! Even really nice digital players sound lifeless and artificial.

I just don't think there's a way to fix the loss of data above 5khz and the ridiculous amount of waveform distortion which accompanies digitial, period, unless a sampling system comes out which outputs hundreds of times more data than even SACD.

Even though vinyl is a bigger hassle, it's hands down what I would choose as a format if I had about 1500 or 2000 dollars. No question about it.

Cheers,
Geek

Yeah... I know. I'm not doing myself any favors using my Tech 12. I got that before I knew what good headphones were. One of these days, I -do- want to upgrade to a $500 table, $250 phono stage... my vinyl rips will sound a lot better. I just paid $800 for a Stax getup, though, so that probably won't be happening soon

Just a gripe, really. It's not too big of a deal. I just prefer ripping a CD in EAC. Easier and cleaner.

I definitely agree with you. Vinyl is a necessary evil in my world, and one of these days, I'm gonna do the best I can. I'll PM you re: music.

- Chris

AFAIK, the sampling theorem was introduced by Nyquist and later mathematically proven by Shannon several decades ago.

On consumer level digital has been around for ca. 20 years.

And all this time the scientists, sound engineers, musicians and the music-buying public have been unaware of "the loss of data above 5khz" and "the ridiculous amount of waveform distortion which accompanies digitial"? Are you serious?

Do tell us more about your fantastic findings.


Regards,


L.

I have to agree with you. Geek is misinformed... maybe it's a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," or reading other websites that present misinformation (there are many of them out there that explain very badly and incorrectly how digital works, and some of them are audio manufacturer websites etc -- let the reader beware).

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know about Geek's rhetoric but waveform distortion caused by the CD's low sampling rate and crappy clocks, DACs, etc. is a fact. Scientists, sound engineers, musicians (especially) and occasionally the music-buying public HAVE been aware of this. That's part of why vinyl is still alive.
Geek's findings aren't "fantastic" at all. They are, in fact, based on the science. The question is whether or not people actually hear the mistakes that Redbook makes. I feel that I can, so do others. Others don't. Some people love low-rez digital, some can't stand it. It sounds fine to me, just not as good. ALL current formats have problems. Recognizing them isn't heresy.

Oh, the loss of data above 5khz. I don't think it's LOST exactly as much as cut off by a filter. There's a reason for this, I just can't remember what it is... my books are in boxes. DAMN! Anyone know more about that?

No, this is misinformation (unless you're talking lowpassing around 20-22 KHz... that's a different story).

Have you ever heard music with a 5 KHz cutoff? It sounds like a very low bitrate RealAudio stream over a 28.8k modem. Even crappy 128kbps MP3's extend to 16 KHz. This thread is really getting ridiculous... digital is not perfect by any means, but the reasons being offered here don't even remotely jibe with reality.

I think that is what I'm talking about, pardon the mistake. How does the other stuff not jibe with reality?

I love my vinyl.

How does the cd's low sampling rate cause distortion?


Regards,


L.

Leporello: Well, shoot me, but because of the very low amount of sampling points for the treble area in 16/44.1 audio, both erring in amplitude (quantization) and erring in timeframe (jitter) will distort the reproduction of the original signal to a noticable degree. Vinyl wow & flutter as well as constant speed deviation and limited tracking ability plus rather low channel separation apparently still cause a much more listenable, natural (= less random and artificial) kinf of distortion...

And then, while of course being very arguable when seen from the Fourier perspective, digital 20 kHz in redbook might not be all the same as analogue 20 kHz on vinyl - in the sense that a cd player will be more or less limited to sine shaped waveforms in the highs in order not to produce high frequency artefacts/distortion. From the format limitations, the cd player just cannot tell apart a sine from a triangle or rectangular waveform at the upper frequency limit, because it can only work with ~ 1 sample point per half wave in that area. The analogue representation on vinyl might still be closer to the original - despite analogue limitations in the highs...

Another point could be, that in normal music there's usually much more bass and mids than treble. Thus in relation the treble range will usually have less resolution on cd - whereas riaa equalization on vinyl might compensate for that to some degree...

Hmmm - probably it's still a mystery in the end...

Musing greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

And here I was ready to start a new day by typing something long Thanks Lini.

The problem I have with vinyl lately is that variance in pressing quality causes me to play only certain albums.

The wow & flutter on my current deck DOES make certain things unlistenable - like piano and bass. Even in classical, the violins sound like they're played by a group of 90 yr olds.

But yes, the lush presentation and fullness keep me coming back anyway! In one week, I got my Ortofon X-5MC cartridge, got a good preamp, and SET THE CORRECT TRACKING FORCE, I didn't play a CD for 2 weeks. And this is a coming from a guy with 500 CDs, and about 30 LPs...

Thank you for comments, lini (absolutely no shooting here!).

Well, I'm no expert but I certainly was under the impression that the quantization (amplitude) errors have more to do with bit depth than sample rate, no?

You also say that

Doesn't the Nyquist theorem tell us that the waveform has to be sampled with *more* than 2 times the original frequency (2.0 is not enough, 2.0000001 is)?

I was also under the impression that square waves become ordinary sinus waves when the signal is bandwith limited prior to sampling. Am I completely at sea here?



Regards,

L.