Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24/96 vinyl rips don't sound any better
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24/96 vinyl rips don't sound any better - Page 3

post #31 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzyorange View Post

I don't understand the point of vinyl rips.  By digitizing the music, you take away whatever is "special" about vinyl.  It doesn't make any sense to me.  Vinyl sounds different, and sometimes better, but the only way to appreciate that is to actually play the vinyl.

That makes no sense at all. Everything that might be "special" about vinyl is at the output of the phono pre. Capture that and you've got everything.

se
post #32 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


That makes no sense at all. Everything that might be "special" about vinyl is at the output of the phono pre. Capture that and you've got everything.

se

 

What's special about vinyl is the lack of a analog -> digital conversion.  When you digitize the output of the phono pre, you take away the entire point of listening to vinyl.

 

Now, ripping vinyl so you can listen to it without harming the originals, that's a different story.  

post #33 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzyorange View Post
 

 

What's special about vinyl is the lack of a analog -> digital conversion.  When you digitize the output of the phono pre, you take away the entire point of listening to vinyl.

 

Now, ripping vinyl so you can listen to it without harming the originals, that's a different story.  

 

How is ripping vinyl different from digitizing the output of the phono pre?

post #34 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzyorange View Post
 

 

What's special about vinyl is the lack of a analog -> digital conversion.  When you digitize the output of the phono pre, you take away the entire point of listening to vinyl.

 

Now, ripping vinyl so you can listen to it without harming the originals, that's a different story.  

That's how I listen to my vinyl, of course--necessarily, with no D/A. That's also how I listen to cassettes (no CD player in my old car), and it's how my most hi-fi friends in the 1970s made use of their reel-to-reel machines.

 

Strictly speaking, the question of storage on vinyl, signal translation through stylus and cartridge, and subsequent playback chain are all separate issues.

 

Personally, I'm looking forward to playing my vinyl back via laser...

post #35 of 71

Hasn't this topic been raised a few times already in other threads?

post #36 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzyorange View Post
 

 

What's special about vinyl is the lack of a analog -> digital conversion.  When you digitize the output of the phono pre, you take away the entire point of listening to vinyl.

 

 

 

On numerous occasions myself and others have indicated to you that a digital capture of the analog output can be transparent. This was tested as long ago as 1984 when Ivor Tiefenbrun was challenged by the BAS to prove he could hear the degradation caused by (1) any digital transmitter in the same room (they chose a digital clock) and (2) the effect of digitizing the analog output from one of his Linn LP12 turntables. The digitization was done using an early Sony PCM-F1 (which is nominally 16 bits) Tiefenbrun was singly unable to detect any degradation caused by the digitization.

 

This experiment has been repeated many times since including by the matrixHiFi Spanish audiophile society, who are vinyl lovers by the way, they found the same inability to detect audible degradation due by digitization. The experiment has also been replicated by several members at Hydrogen Audio.

 

That you persist in believing the myth of something magical about vinyl that cannot be transparently captured despite being provided with numerous sources to the contrary begins to look like an Idée fixe

post #37 of 71
The concept of records wearing out from play is vastly overstated too. One of the first things I bought was a Thorens turntable. I have records that have been played hundreds and hundreds of times and they still sound new. If your turntable is decent and in alignment, you will get tired of the music long before you wear out the record.

I once did a test with my Victrola, which uses a steel nail to play records. I digitized a record then systematically played the record over 120 times with a steel needle and then digitized it again. There was absolutely no difference.

Records were designed to be played.
post #38 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

The concept of records wearing out from play is vastly overstated too. One of the first things I bought was a Thorens turntable. I have records that have been played hundreds and hundreds of times and they still sound new. If your turntable is decent and in alignment, you will get tired of the music long before you wear out the record.

The effects of record wear are documented, one report is here.  The report shows the results of 100 plays of a test record with various tracking forces and stylus shapes.  In some cases, harmonic distortion went down (over 30%), in others it went up (as much as 66%).  But the point its, records wear, performance changes slightly with every play.  Difficult to track high level transients show wear long before  moderate steady-state tones.  It seems a stylus will "shape" a groove to itself a bit. A worn stylus will carve a groove too, and accumulated crud will abrade a groove permanently.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I once did a test with my Victrola, which uses a steel nail to play records. I digitized a record then systematically played the record over 120 times with a steel needle and then digitized it again. There was absolutely no difference.

How's the THD on that Victrola with it's tuned-bandwidth horn? ;)

 


Records were designed to be played.
 
Yup.  Played, worn out, then repurchased.  Ok, maybe not all that often, but it's been done.  I never have managed to wear out a CD by playing it, though.  Worn out a few players...
post #39 of 71

See, I'm headed this direction instead, Victrolas notwithstanding...http://www.elpj.com/order/

post #40 of 71

Ah, yes, they finally did it. There's been talk of laser playback of records since the 80' (I think there was an expensive prototype then).  Clearly the way to do it.  Their samples are impressive.

 

I'm right behind you...in line...at the bank....

post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
 

How's the THD on that Victrola with it's tuned-bandwidth horn? ;)

 

 

There are actually properties of acoustically recorded 78s that electronic reproduction doesn't address. A Caruso record on a good Victrola never fails to impress with its vivid and lifelike sound. The horn is a pretty powerful thing.

 

Record wear is WAY overstated. With a good turntable it is absolutely no problem in practice. I've gotten more damage to my records from taking them out and putting them away than actually playing them. There's nothing wrong with records. They can sound great and they will probably still be playing when CDs are just unplayable shiny coasters. The main difference between LPs and CDs are matters of convenience, not sound quality or durability.

post #42 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

There are actually properties of acoustically recorded 78s that electronic reproduction doesn't address. A Caruso record on a good Victrola never fails to impress with its vivid and lifelike sound. The horn is a pretty powerful thing.

 

Record wear is WAY overstated. With a good turntable it is absolutely no problem in practice. I've gotten more damage to my records from taking them out and putting them away than actually playing them. There's nothing wrong with records. They can sound great and they will probably still be playing when CDs are just unplayable shiny coasters. The main difference between LPs and CDs are matters of convenience, not sound quality or durability.

I love my LP's, and I still play them all the time, but: surface noise and pops and clicks--for me, CD sound quality takes the prize. Big difference, and worth it.

post #43 of 71
If surface noise is a big problem, your records are probably from the era of the oil crisis when vinyl was recycled. Earlier records were heavier and were pressed on high grade virgin vinyl. They were less prone to warp and had much less surface noise. I have a bunch of older Capitol records (Sinatra, Les Baxter, etc) that sound really clean. Classical vinyl on the whole has very little surface noise too. Rock from the late 70s on, particularly RCA Dynaflex, often sounds awful.
Edited by bigshot - 9/16/13 at 6:10pm
post #44 of 71

Yeah, it's not a big enough problem that I won't listen to them, I listen all the time. My records are mostly 70s and after. I can't *get* the B-52s on early vinyl, or Talking Heads, etc. As much noise as I make about sound quality, in the end its the notes and rhythms that matter most to me, so the Beatles in old mono vinyl still trumps most other recordings, all things considered. And while I used to clean disks religiously, I never got rid of every single click and pop, and those are much more troubling--takes me right out of the musical moment.

post #45 of 71

Well, I think the music industry has realized the fascination audiophiles have for vinyl, and its been turned into a new cash cow.

 

Take for example the recently released Daft Punk's RAM.  The vinyl has sold quite a few copies, and the vinyl rip sounds better than the CD. The reason being its been mastered differently, and has a higher DR (12dB)  than the CD (8dB).

 

It could've been done with the CD just as easily. 

Its a typical example of marketing ploy. Deliberately limit the lower tier models in performance, so the customer tends to go for the higher end models. The vinyl sells for a lot more than the CD.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24/96 vinyl rips don't sound any better