[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif interesting analogy but logically flawed, even if your mathematics is correct which it may well be, you are assuming vinyl can be measured in a way which analogises roughly with the way CD is measured which is a nonsense because the way "data" is retrived from the two media, not to mention the "data" itself is completely different. By your reasoning for instance a larger stylus surface area would = more information being retrieved which is facile and demonstrably untrue if you've ever listened to a turntable. When CD was released it was measured by the metrics applied to turntables and open reel such as noise floor and speed stability, areas in which it quite obviously betters turntables and open reel cassette. It is inferior in frequency range but of course in an analogue system frequency range is defined in tandem with noise floor whereas a CD arguably has a superior frequency range within the commonly percieved audible spectrum coupled with a much lower possible noise floor, provided the signal is kept to average levels. But then other problems were identified with digital recording which are completely alien to analogue recording such as jitter. All in all there are various theories as to why analogue sounds better to many people but these point more to gaps in our knowledge about how we percieve sound per se and "process" it in our conscious minds (assuming we have such things).

Ah some reasoned debate, excellent. True these approximations are based on certain assumptions but they are not mine as such so I strictly cannot vouch for them, I did separate them from my preamble sorry if I did not make that clear enough.

It is true that LP does have Freq response extension beyond 20K that CD (not at all arbitrarily) cuts off but getting anything like a linear response at these higher freqs on LP is difficult at other than very low level and the DR is severely limited above 20K, similarly LP is "summed to mono" below 80hz.

No, I would guess that a smaller stylus would cause less distortion in the vinyl which limits the retrieval evan if less surface area was caught so some algorthm must be required to work out the optimum size - I do not know how one would do this, my figures are courtesy of Arny Kreuger.

Jitter is really not a problem on anything but the rankest modern kit and is in essence similar to turntable wow and flutter (speed variations) which on even a good TT runs into the 0.02% range which audibly degrades solo piano, by comparison jitter even in the 1000s of ps range is much less intrusive, in fact nobody has shown CD jitter to be empirically audible below 10ns.

As for preference, dunno, I grew up with Vinyl and even bought (still have) a pretty decent turntable in 1984 but the noise drive me up the wall, I listen to a lot of classical and the various noises (including wear and clicks and so on) on the quiet passsges were dreadful, by contrast my 1984 Mahler's First CD (Solti/CSo) sounds as good today as it did in 1984.

Preference is an odd thing, many Americans for instance like peanut butter in chocolate, this is something I just cannot get my head around, but back in the 1980s my favourite dish was pork pie and yoghurt so I cannot talk.

Peace and Love

 

[Audiofiler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you saying you wet-vacuum clean them every 5-10 plays? Unless you're talking about wet-vacuum cleaning, you really can't understand what I'm taking about. It's a whole other level of clean. here is my routine, works exceptionally well. 1. Wet-vacuum clean record before every playing (whether new or not), using VPI 16.5 with Record Research deep cleaner. 2. Apply LAST record preservative 3. Use Zerostat gun to remove static 4. Put in anti-static sleeve. Then, when playing the record: 1. Use Onzow Zerodust to remove any dirt from stylus 2. Apply Stylast to protect Stylus 3. Zap record with Zerostat gun again to remove static 4. remove any small amount of surface dust with DRY discwasher brush (but any decent brush will do). That's it. There is simply no need for me to wet-vacuum clean them again.

simple and clean with this routine

 

[Zanth]

Great tips for cleaning vinyl! I purchased an RCM from Tom late last year and a clean record = a great sounding record!

Here is perhaps the most indepth cleaning article ever!

I believe good analogue sound can be had for not too much money, but the problem isn't the rig (a good solid used Thorens with a decent arm and a Grado cart + Little Rat (maybe $200 USD?) can = magic!) but the media itself and keeping it in perfect shape is an entirely other matter!

There is far more maintenance with a vinyl rig and this is what really costs, in terms of time and money.

1) buy and set up rig properly
2) source out vinyl if not already owned (or do so continuously)
3) clean vinyl which includes

1. antistatic dust brush
2. wet brush
3. second brush for dry brushing after wash
4. RC fluid (usually 2 types, enzyme action first sequence for deep cleaning biosludge and moulds, second for everything else)
5. RCM if desired (and usually quite helpful particularly the high-end British models like the Monks)
6. anti-static inner sleeves (because the ones that came with the record are usually paper and leave shreddings and/or are completely unusuable because they are dusty.)

4) anti-static gun (optional but handy)
5) setup tools (optional but handy)
6) cart retipping and/or new cart every 3-5000 hours (necessary)
7) cart cleaning gear (brush, gel etc: optional but handy)

So although vinyl can be very enjoyable, if not for the music then for the tactile experience...I do understand those that find it a real pain. Digital is easy, plop the disc in and go. At most one dusts off the machine, retube if the system has a tube output buffer stage, and the occasional dusting/polishing of discs when required. Otherwise...press play and go!

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I listen to a lot of classical and the various noises (including wear and clicks and so on) on the quiet passsges were dreadful, by contrast my 1984 Mahler's First CD (Solti/CSo) sounds as good today as it did in 1984.

Personally as I played the violin for many years, I can't ever get my head around how anyone can listen to stringed instruments on a CD compared to a record and not see the obvious flaws in the lack of high frequency information. The same goes for the human voice with choral works like plain chant for instance.
Perhaps I am just sensitive to high frequencies as many CD players in the past have given me headaches.
Yes the background noise can be intrusive on vinyl, more so on large scale orchestral works but I am happier living with that as a compromise to hear more realistic timbre.


my main point was that I can't explain why CD sounds better or worse to some ears but it certainly sounds different to vinyl and in those differences lies the answer to creating a more advanced format which will hopefully address the shortcomings of both. I don't think DVD-A or SACD is it either.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif my main point was that I can't explain why CD sounds better or worse to some ears but it certainly sounds different to vinyl and in those differences lies the answer to creating a more advanced format which will hopefully address the shortcomings of both. I don't think DVD-A or SACD is it either.

Well at least IMO, SACD might be able to capture the original recording master better then any other format. Not saying that it will always sound better to everyone: there's probably euphonic reasons why some prefer LP. Still waiting on my TT.....but at the record store, I found a used LP of a Living Stereo Julian Bream. It's making it to SACD later this month, so I'll be A/Bing them extensively. Not hearing a good TT yet, I can say that I prefer SACD to CD because of the extended treble and there is a difference in soundstage. It just seems cleaner and more fluid. Seems like vinyl fans say that LP has deep soundstage and extension. I'll be the judge when my TT comes and I can compare LP to CD to SACD

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...in those differences lies the answer to creating a more advanced format which will hopefully address the shortcomings of both. I don't think DVD-A or SACD is it either.

What's wrong with these high-resolution formats (purely technically speaking)? DSD is objectionable to some degree, but DVD-A at 24 bit/192 kHz, offering a bandwidth up to 95 kHz, should be good enough even for the most sensitive ears. In comparison analog records have infinitely greater shortcomings -- and don't sound neutral in any way. It's just that people prefer this kind of «organic» colorations over everything closer to the original signal, and nobody of the analog fraction is really interested in the latter.
.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally as I played the violin for many years, I can't ever get my head around how anyone can listen to stringed instruments on a CD compared to a record and not see the obvious flaws in the lack of high frequency information. The same goes for the human voice with choral works like plain chant for instance.

In fact the very first work I ever auditioned on CD in 1984 was Kyung Wha Chung (sp) playing Beethoven's Violin Concerto on a 14x4 Marantz and that was pretty much enough to sell me on CD and mothball my Rega Turntable. These days I listen to a lot of Medieval vocal music. The lack of high frequency information you mention is just not borne out by either the specifications or real-world performance of CD or by comparative listening tests or by the sheer volume of audiophiles, musicians , engineers and so on who have made the change to CD. LP is theoretically capable of 20Khz+ but its performance at these ranges is extremely non-linear and the dynamic range highly curtailed - a matter of 10 - 15db and that if you are at the sweet spot and not anywhere near the inner grooves where the distortion becomes massive, nor is this supposed ability even relevant to music. Similarly there have been no peer reviewed papers that have ever conclusively shown the audible effect of frequencies above 20K anyway (The oft cited Oohashi paper was rejected by the JAES and only ever publsihed as a paid advert) . 16/44.1 is pefectly adequate to capture a full musical range , (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=40134) many argue strongly that 13/44.1 is in fact adequate ( it (13 bits) will give you a 78db DR, coincidentally the best that LP can ever manage over 20 - 20k, while CD manages 93 - 95db over the same range) , put it this way distinguishing between 15 bit and 16 bit is very very difficult. CD transcriptions of LPs have been shown to be completely transparent, AD/DA conversions of LP have been shown to be completely transparent.

Prefer LP by all means but if you contend it is technically superior you need to back this up with better evidence.

Peace and Love

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's wrong with these high-resolution formats (purely technically speaking)? DSD is objectionable to some degree, but DVD-A at 24 bit/192 kHz, offering a bandwidth up to 95 kHz, should be good enough even for the most sensitive ears. In comparison analog records have infinitely greater shortcomings -- and don't sound neutral in any way. It's just that people prefer this kind of «organic» colorations over everything closer to the original signal, and nobody of the analog fraction is really interested in the latter. .

The paradox I suppose is that for many, vinyl sound more real as in real life, approximating what one would hear if performers were standing in front of the listener. Digital may well be more faithful to the original recording/master tapes, but then one has to wonder...what does happen between the live performance to the tape that guts the sound such that it takes vinyl (and many would argue tubes as well) to reintegrate an honest life-like sound?

Having played an instrument of one type or another since I was 5 (so that means 25 years and climbing) I admit that vinyl + tubes do sound more true to form when reproducing acoustic instruments, be it within the organization of an orchestra or a few lads strumming on some guitars. Heck, even electric guitars can sound edgier and dirtier via lp/tube than digital/ss. To my ears of course, but I'm certainly not alone (and given that most musicians prefer to use tubes in their guitar amps...it is not a stretch to believe that tubes could bring out the best from the recording also).

 

[noseallinit]

no we are not! I personally never had the money to spend on such cleaning machines. back in the mid 80's my used B&O TT cost me around $350 including it's new $175 cartridge. the cleaning machines cost more money than me TT.

my vinyl got very minimum play and mostly for recordings. many never even hit the needle more than a few times. only the worst of vinyl did I ever feel a need for deep cleaning of which other methods would be used.

the point being most do or did not have the money to spend on such cleaning machines for their vinyl so most vinyl never even got used under such pristine conditions as your set up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif We're talking about 2 different things here. Wet cleaning with something like Discwasher is useless - it just grinds in wet dirt. When you wet-vacuum deep-clean your records you only have to do this ONCE, ever. Then keep the record in a clean, anti-static sleeve, and just use a light dry brush on it right before playing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif True dat. If you're going to collect used vinyl (which I LOVE doing), a wet-vacuum cleaner is mandatory, and will be a revalation. It makes a lot of records dead quiet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noseallinit /img/forum/go_quote.gif very nice to have if ya got the money to spend on such items. or can they be found cheap these days. this is what kills me on the superiority of vinyl. it takes lots of money for it to be so of which many don't have and didn't have to take care of the vinyl in the first place. most used vinyl you will never find to be treated in such pristine conditions.

 

[noseallinit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vinyl does not have to cost a lot of money, a decent TT, arm and cartridge, under say 500.00 will get you into the realm of good vinyl (with all the upgradius these days, finding a good cheap unit is easy). The part that most people forget is not the cost of the rig, rather how it is set up. To get good to great sound you must spend a lot of your time learning why and how to set the TT up properly. Good sound out of vinyl demands a very well set up TT - arm - cartridge As for finding good used vinyl...I have purchased hundreds of used albums from garage sales, flee markets, used vinyl stores, private collections, for $5.00 the album must be mint, most are $1.00 or less.... Most have been VG+ to mint. Yes there have been several to lots that are not good enough to keep, I don't recirculate these to others, I recycle I heard an estimate that there are 5,000,000,000 in circulation, and as most people don't have a TT anymore, a lot still have their vinyl collection. Vinyl does take a somewhat major investment...your time being the most important

in my day of vinyl collecting I searched for a many of used vinyl with record shows being one of my sources. most being $3 and $5 tops at record stores with many appearing to have very little play to the worst. the price factor of vinyl and the alternative music I was looking for not available on CD at the time is what kept me from getting a CD player for years.

I remember what most had for a turntable and how it was taken care of. most didn't have a $500 turntable, most was not set up properly and they were not even interested in setting one up properly. when the majority had vinyl in the day what do you think it was being played on? $500 TT set up properly? no way, it just didn't happen, not for the majority anyway. much less some of the systems some of these guys talk about on this forum. I'm not saying good vinyl cannot be found but many played may as well have had a nail for a stylus.

not to mention some of the ones I see getting into vinyl today that know nothing but CD and Cassette do not even know how to hold an LP or know what even a half decent system is. some of the trendy youth that wants the retro sound who's bands are still cutting vinyl pressings.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif The paradox I suppose is that for many, vinyl sounds more real as in real life, approximating what one would hear if performers were standing in front of the listener.

Yes, I had similar experiences -- but I didn't trust them entirely. The definitive eye-opener was the experience that LPs from a digital master (The Nits - «Henk/Kilo»; Arthur Honegger - Symphonies No.1+3 and 2+4 on Erato) sounded more «real» than CDs from the same master as well. This is a clear indication of artificial euphonic effects added by the vinyl system. The more I concentrated on the phenomenon, the more sure I became that it's indeed the distortion and the surface noise which make most of the LP's charm and subjectively perceived «superiority» over the CD. Now there's also the better, more organic high-frequency behavior of the LP! It's just that it shouldn't pay off in the case of a digital recording pressed on vinyl -- where the signal accuracy suffers from both formats' limitations, such as two high-pass filters in series: the steep 21.5-kHz antialiasing filter plus the less defined/definable bandwidth limitation of the vinyl/cartridge system. So any sonic advantage of the turntable system has its origin in euphonic inaccuracies.


Quote:

Digital may well be more faithful to the original recording/master tapes, but then one has to wonder...what does happen between the live performance to the tape that guts the sound such that it takes vinyl (and many would argue tubes as well) to reintegrate an honest life-like sound?

It's more easy when we focus on redbook CD vs. vinyl. The CD's mandatory abrupt bandwidth limitation causes a smearing of transients -- which some DAC/filter concepts (e.g. from Wadia as well as filterless designs) try to eliminate, but at least half of the evil is already done before A/D conversion of the recording where the same sort of filtering is applied, so in fact the infamous HF ringing (to be seen on square waves) is an unavoidable feature of the CD format. IMO this is what makes overtones sound cold, glassy and lacking definition and edges. But let's change perspective for a moment. Although the vinyl systems' upper bandwidth limitation causes some sort of transient corruption, too, it is less pronounced and less uniform, as there's no sharp filter, instead there's an irregular filter curve formed by the cutting machine's frequency characteristic, the cartridge resonance, the upper frequency limit due to the stylus radius, some material resonances in the vinyl, the master tape's bandwidth limitation plus the low-pass filter characteristics of the concerned microphones used during the recording... Add to this the vibration/dampening characteristics of the vinyl record making for a seasoning with subtle and warm material resonances (smoothness) plus numerous artificial harmonics produced during cutting and playback, which -- together with the surface noise and tiny dust particles (most of them just unconsciously heard) -- are even able to mask a (low-rez) digital recording's «sterile» high-frequency ringing by adding unsmeared (!) transients and harmonics... In this respect the same mechanism is at work with (some) tube electronics used for masking digititis.

When it comes to hi-rez digital, it gets harder to «justify» the still existing lack of organicalness and euphony. Apart from the notorious imperfection of the playback systems -- even those for a supposedly perfect audio format -- there's also the notorious imperfections of the recording systems (electronics, cables, ADCs). Even the microphones' flaws might be revealed to a much greater extent than through vinyl systems. And then let's not forget that many of the buyable hi-rez discs are made from not so hi-rez masters. So 192-kHz DVD-As are an absolute rarity, and maybe about 40 or 50% are based on 48-kHz PCM recordings -- the same goes for SACDs.


Quote:

Having played an instrument of one type or another since I was 5 (so that means 25 years and climbing) I admit that vinyl + tubes do sound more true to form when reproducing acoustic instruments, be it within the organization of an orchestra or a few lads strumming on some guitars. Heck, even electric guitars can sound edgier and dirtier via LP/tube than digital/SS. To my ears of course, but I'm certainly not alone (and given that most musicians prefer to use tubes in their guitar amps... it is not a stretch to believe that tubes could bring out the best from the recording also).

I also played several instruments (bass guitar, double bass, electric and acoustic guitar, alto sax) and can absolutely reproduce your attitude. Nevertheless, I'm not able to the self-deception needed for accepting vinyl records as superior data-storage format. That said, I'm not strictly opposed to a concept like «if it sounds good, it is good» or an extended understanding of synergy with the original concert as reference instead of the original signal on the recording. My above post was referring to the statement that the existing high-rez digital formats aren't «good» enough. Personally I'm halfways convinced that at least DVD-A at 192 kHz is absolutely «transparent» and all we need for perfect accuracy. I'm not so sure, on the other hand, that a perfectly transparent and neutral amplifier exists -- be it tube or SS --, and possibly that's also where the handicap lies for the perfect digital format: The electronics components needed for making music out of the stored data will always add or subtract something to/from the original signal. And considering the complexity and the technical nature of the processes/devices, the resulting coloration will most likely rather tend to unorganicalness than to euphony. Under this premise it may not be completely unreasonable to go the opposite route and not care for absolute neutrality and transparency, but to introduce (subtle) euphonic masking effects -- with a sonic result which obviously pleases a lot of people. I'm talking of vinyl.
.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In fact the very first work I ever auditioned on CD in 1984 was Kyung Wha Chung (sp) playing Beethoven's Violin Concerto on a 14x4 Marantz and that was pretty much enough to sell me on CD and mothball my Rega Turntable.

If you're basing your arguments on experience of a Rega Plannar 3 then you havn't really heard what vinyl is capable of. Not to denigrate the Rega in any way, but it is an entry level turntable and there is a huge performance gulf between what you will hear on a basic turntable and a high end one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The lack of high frequency information you mention is just not borne out by either the specifications or real-world performance of CD or by comparative listening tests or by the sheer volume of audiophiles, musicians , engineers and so on who have made the change to CD.

CD has a frequency range that extends upto 20Khz. This is part of the specification and not up for argument. The reason for DSD was to extend this and circumvent the brick wall filtering which PCM sampling uses at 20khz, another widely agreed shortcoming. The limitations of CD are almost universally accepted, the reasons for it's endurance are ecconomic rather than technical. Most people don't see the need for better sound quality in the shap of DVD-A or SACD and consider MP3 perfectly adequate. One look at declining sales in CD and non-existant ones in the high resolution digital formats is enough to tell us this unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif LP is theoretically capable of 20Khz+ but its performance at these ranges is extremely non-linear and the dynamic range highly curtailed - a matter of 10 - 15db and that if you are at the sweet spot and not anywhere near the inner grooves where the distortion becomes massive, nor is this supposed ability even relevant to music.

This depends very much on the play-back equipment and quality of the pressing but many commentators have suggested that perhaps the few extra khz arn't the key but rather that the decay of an analogue waveform is gradual at these high frequencies and that this is why analogue media sound more natural.

Others still content that it's the slight randomness of analogue playback which recreates a performance more convincingly rather than the digital snapshot of a frozen moment in time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Similarly there have been no peer reviewed papers that have ever conclusively shown the audible effect of frequencies above 20K anyway (The oft cited Oohashi paper was rejected by the JAES and only ever publsihed as a paid advert) .

The paper you refer to was published in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry, I believe, certainly as credible a source as anything published by the Audio Engineering Society. But as I say there is simply not enough known about the workings of our perception to say definitely what resolution of recording might be able to fool the brain into thinking it was listening to a live instrument or a facsimilie of one.

Certainly most Audio Engineers of my aquaintance would not admit to being fooled by a synthsised or sampled instrument in comparison to a recording of a "real one". Moreover many would bemoan the fact that 15IPS open reel tape which has a frequency range upto around 45khz has been largely surplanted by hard disc recording at "CD quality".

 

[Zanth]

Jazz, your posts are always so informative. I seriously have learned a lot about digital (and now vinyl too!) from you.

I can't help but agree with everything you wrote and even though I prefer the sound of my vinyl rig for most albums (that I have on RBCD as well) I am more partial to my cd player as I have grown with it during my adventures here. It has gone through many stages of modification so I know it very well and it certainly is no slouch. But then your last paragraph...regarding absolute transparency and neutrality with the high res formats being limited now by everything else, at least with my wallet, the ability to chase after the absolute best in partnered gear to mate with a good DVD-A or SACD player...well, at least for now, that is out of the question and I guess even with the sometimes glassy highs and etched sound, I'm comfortable enough with RBCD because I have my vinyl rig (and I get the added benefit of the more tactile experience with that analogue setup). If I didn't own it though...I may well race after the high res. Certainly in some way, we are all after perfection, however we define it, and if the next wave of high res formats gets me closer, I'm in, I just won't go after DVD-A and SACD, not with the HD-DVD and Blueray now on the market. Too much competition for my wallet. Still, I won't argue that vinyl is a superior format over the present high res discs, from what you have written and what I have read, it does seem SACD and DVD-A are superior, my ears just can't hear that perfection...as you state, the other stuff isn't up to par yet.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Moreover many would bemoan the fact that 15IPS open reel tape which has a frequency range upto around 45khz has been largely surplanted by hard disc recording at "CD quality".

I seriously doubt most bands/artists masters are 16 bit. I imagine most, if not all, master tapes are 24/48-192khz.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloco /img/forum/go_quote.gif I seriously doubt most bands/artists masters are 16 bit. I imagine most, if not all, master tapes are 24/48-192khz.

You'd be surprised. Most of them will end up on Pro-Tools no matter how they were recorded and the majority of Protools suites are still running at 16/48k (DAT quality). On top of this most masters arrive at mastering suites mixed down to CD.