[arnyk]

   
I disagree and it goes to what I am trying to express that technically superior does not automatically equate to overall superiority, as some people seem to suggest, when we are talking about equipment whose function in the home is to provide enjoyment.
 
Classic muscle car <> Modern sports car
Automatic mechanical watch <> quartz watch <> digital watch
Vinyl <> CD
Tube <> SS
 
One could argue that the latter entries are all technically superior but there are plenty of people who would argue that they are inferior for the purpose for which they purchased them.  This is dismissed (quite condescendingly by some) but these people are not wrong. For some the gestalt of HOW the results are produced is a legitimate criteria in evaluating what is “superior.”

 
Classic example of moving the goalposts. The discussion was about the technical performance of vinyl, and I was forthrightly told that I was "wrong".
 
Without anybody admitting any error, all of a sudden  the discussion shifts to legacy sports cars.  
 
Reality is that there is an extant road track test that shows a recent Honda Accord kicking the pitewee out of a nicely restored Jaguar XKE. It turns out that there has been THAT much technical improvement in automotive technology in the past 30-50 years. However, there has not been any technical improvement at all in the performance of LPs over a similar amount of time.

 

[BeatsWork]

   
Classic example of moving the goalposts. The discussion was about the technical performance of vinyl, and I was forthrightly told that I was "wrong".
 
Without anybody admitting any error, all of a sudden  the discussion shifts to legacy sports cars.  
 
Reality is that there is an extant road track test that shows a recent Honda Accord kicking the pitewee out of a nicely restored Jaguar XKE. It turns out that there has been THAT much technical improvement in automotive technology in the past 30-50 years. However, there has not been any technical improvement at all in the performance of LPs over a similar amount of time.

 
Perhaps it's your attitude?  There are plenty of people I enjoy having a spirited debate with but your comments are just tiresome and looking through your posts in general make me think "troll".  I have complete respect for people who take the time to debunk spurious claims and share research with good intent but you seem to have taken it to a new level of personal crusade which is quite unpleasant.

 

[safulop]

   
Above 12 KHz or so the ability of the vinyl LP format to cleanly reproduce music at high levels falls into a deep hole because of the inherent nonlinear distortion associated with the geometry of trying to reproduce the audio signal by dragging a too-large rock through a too-soft soft plastic trough.
 
Analog tape has a completely different set of audible problems at those frequencies and higher. Unless you have everything lined up about perfectly, inconsistencies in how the tape passes over the tape head cause audio signals to waver and jump around. Just about anybody can hear 12 KHz tones, and if you try to record and play them back on anything but the most high quality and highly tuned analog tape machines, it sounds like a mess. The reason why this is not a stick-in-your eye problem with music is auditory masking.
 
It was long known that above 10-12 KHz both analog tape and the LP were in deep trouble that couldn't be helped due to the inherent limitations of the technologies, and that is what spurred the development of digital. Digital doesn't have audible problems unless they are forcibly induced by bad mastering.

Yup, I checked.  Going back to the recordings of Taylor Swift's "Red" that started this discussion, I compared the spectrum of the first plucked note that begins the song, between the CD version and the vinyl played on two different turntables *using the same cartridge*.  The results are interesting.  The low-frequency spectrum matches extremely well (see first figure).  In the figures, the red line of the vinyl spectrum overlays the black of the CD.  Where you see red stray from black, you see a likely inaccuracy of the vinyl spectrum.  The interesting thing is that in the high frequency band figures, the Sota turntable and Thorens turntables are about equally different from the CD *but in totally randomly different ways*.  Is this because the noise is random, resulting from play in tonearm bearings or some such?  As Rega likes to state, "one micron of play in a tonearm means a 10 kHz frequency is random."  
 
Now on the other hand, please note that the spectral *peaks* in the high frequency band are quite accurate on the vinyl for both turntables, and you can really only hear the peaks anyway.
 
 
 
 

 

[arnyk]

  Yup, I checked.  Going back to the recordings of Taylor Swift's "Red" that started this discussion, I compared the spectrum of the first plucked note that begins the song, between the CD version and the vinyl played on two different turntables *using the same cartridge*.  The results are interesting.  The low-frequency spectrum matches extremely well (see first figure).  In the figures, the red line of the vinyl spectrum overlays the black of the CD.  Where you see red stray from black, you see a likely inaccuracy of the vinyl spectrum.  The interesting thing is that in the high frequency band figures, the Sota turntable and Thorens turntables are about equally different from the CD *but in totally randomly different ways*.  Is this because the noise is random, resulting from play in tonearm bearings or some such?  As Rega likes to state, "one micron of play in a tonearm means a 10 kHz frequency is random."  
 
Now on the other hand, please note that the spectral *peaks* in the high frequency band are quite accurate on the vinyl for both turntables, and you can really only hear the peaks anyway.
 
 
 
 

 
 
Classic move-the-goalposts argument. Differences have now been found, but are being dismissed.
 
The alleged results appear to be meaningless anyway, because no reliable standard of performance seems to have been established.

 

[nick_charles]

  in the high frequency band figures, the Sota turntable and Thorens turntables are about equally different from the CD *but in totally randomly different ways*.
 

 
There are all sorts of sources of variation since the only common factor is the cart (is it the same physical cart or do you have two of them?) . Due to the physical nature of vinyl playback anything from different levels of: motor breakthrough, rumble, misalignment, arm resonance, speed variations, tracking weight, lateral movement and so on could give rise to variations, below is a link to a very interesting page about some characteristics of vinyl
 
an interesting page on the physics of LP playback

 

[CanadianMaestro]

   
There are all sorts of sources of variation since the only common factor is the cart (is it the same physical cart or do you have two of them?) . Due to the physical nature of vinyl playback anything from different levels of: motor breakthrough, rumble, misalignment, arm resonance, speed variations, tracking weight, lateral movement and so on could give rise to variations, below is a link to a very interesting page about some characteristics of vinyl
 
an interesting page on the physics of LP playback

 
Given the complexities of the physics described therein, it's a wonder that TTs and tonearms work to give some measure of satisfaction to vinyl afficiondos.

 

[arnyk]

   
Given the complexities of the physics described therein, it's a wonder that TTs and tonearms work to give some measure of satisfaction to vinyl afficiondos.

 
It is a testimonial to the rather large amount of masking that is part and parcel of human hearing.

 

[Gr8Desire]

I made some vinyl recordings back in the day. I switched to digital and PCM around 1988, and never looked back.  But that's just me.

The main limitations of vinyl were: limited dynamic range and high noise floor. Back then, you absolutely needed a dbX expander to reconstruct normal amounts of dynamic range from a vinyl source. For some reason, audiophiles eschew dynamic range expansion.  They think any manipulation of the source is heresy. What they don't seem to understand: vinyl mastering required you to make significant changes to get decent playback. None of it reflected true sound - and we all knew it. 

You also had to be very careful with rapid changes in volume / SPL, lest the stylus would jump from its track or you would pollute the other channel with content that just wasn't there.  

I am surprised analog reel-to-reel decks aren't more popular. Most have better dynamics with a decent noise floor and less problems with rapid changes in SPL. It's almost as if audiophiles don't want the best sound. They just want the most exclusive sound.

Please keep the 'reasons to love vinyl' coming. I for one, look forward to reading more rationalizations.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

Gr8Desire: Very well expressed. 

 
I suspect many audio enthusiasts desire "pleasant" sound. Not necessarily "truthful" sound (truthful to the source -- i.e. artists' intent). That, to my biased sense of musical repro, is the essence of the vinyl vs. digital debate.

 

[judgmentday]

Once you listen to LPs you don't want to go back to listen to those bright ass CDs.
My rational reasons are:
1-) I listen for hours without stress on my ears
2-) I listen to bigger sounds
3-) I listen to more depth, space, extension of the waves of the sound when cymbals are hit
4-) Instruments and vocals sound well within their space, better sound stage, some singers even look like they are physically present in my audio room.
5-) Music has more body, more reality vs. the thin, bright ass DAC music.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Once you listen to LPs you don't want to go back to listen to those bright ass CDs.
My rational reasons are:
1-) I listen for hours without stress on my ears
2-) I listen to bigger sounds
3-) I listen to more depth, space, extension of the waves of the sound when cymbals are hit
4-) Instruments and vocals sound well within their space, better sound stage, some singers even look like they are physically present in my audio room.
5-) Music has more body, more reality vs. the thin, bright ass DAC music.

I bet you wouldntneve be able to distinguish between an LP and a 16/44 needle drop of the same LP.

se

 

[knucklehead]

 
Once you listen to LPs you don't want to go back to listen to those bright ass CDs.
My rational reasons are:
1-) I listen for hours without stress on my ears
2-) I listen to bigger sounds
3-) I listen to more depth, space, extension of the waves of the sound when cymbals are hit
4-) Instruments and vocals sound well within their space, better sound stage, some singers even look like they are physically present in my audio room.
5-) Music has more body, more reality vs. the thin, bright ass DAC music.

 
Hallucinogenic vinyl?

 

[CanadianMaestro]

   
Hallucinogenic vinyl?

Hallucinogenic listener. 

 

[CanadianMaestro]

   
It is a testimonial to the rather large amount of masking that is part and parcel of human hearing.

yeah, we certainly aren't dogs or bats.

 

[BeatsWork]

 
Hallucinogenic listener. 

 
Yes but when he spins them backwards he can clearly hear Paul saying "CD is dead. CD is dead."