[Peter Pinna]

In the OP's first post he used the term "Vinyl Player" which I thought was humorous.
It's actually called a "Phonograph" or a "Record Player".

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have heard that the high end LP equipment back then was pretty bad compared to the 90s and beyond. I wonder if this has anything to do with it?

Nah. LP playback hasn't really advanced much at all since the 1980s, other than in a few notable instances like the Laser turntable, which is far from being universally considered a definite improvement over conventional players.

There were always high end decks like the Garrard or Thorens from back in the 1950s which could, if set up well, equal anything made today.

The average entry level record player is definitely better now than ever but this is more due to the fact that all the big companies turning out cynically marketed dross have left the stage to the quality budget brands like Rega.

Some things like very high quality wiring have become more widely available as a byproduct of the computer industry so your average tonearm today is much better wired, or there is no excuse for it not to be. Tonarms are better today on the whole due to the influential '80s designs of Roy Gandy (Rega again) and SME.

Magnets like neodymium used in cartridges have improved so basic MM carts today can have a much flatter response, but there are plenty of vintage classic carts that do also.

The use of modern composite materials and the understanding of the importance of plinth design are more widespread today but companies like Transcriptors and Michell were using advanced materials in the 1960s and '70s and the high end Japanese decks of the '70s also made elaborate use of constrained layer damping with all sorts of innovative composite materials.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway It's my understanding that the job of the mastering engineer is to optimize the sound of a recording for a particular medium. Unless you contend that CD and vinyl sound identical, it seems reasonable to argue that a recording optimized for vinyl is not going to sound identical when pressed to a CD.

Well the last time I was present at a cut (at Abbey Road), the mastering engineer optimised the recording for vinyl by running the tape through a desk straight to the cutting head. There is obviously a lot of skill in knowing what kind of eq you can get away with in order to keep the recording as loud as possible without running the grooves together and you can watch the cutters progress to monitor this on a little screen on the Neumann lathes.

This is what makes certain mastering engineers like Nilz at the Exchange in Camden ,or the sadly now deceased, Ron Murphy at NSC in Detroit, very much in demand. To the degree that a record mastered by one of these guys is unmistakable.

I have heard stories of sub masters with the RIAA eq already present being used but this would be unlistenable so I am dubious.

Transfering a master tape to a CD is a far easier proposition as you just have to make sure you don't clip digital zero. Not much of a learning curve there which is why mastering is a dying art I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway This is not an original idea; it's something I read repeatedly over the years in the audio press. [Insert anticipated disparaging comment about audio writers here.]

I have too and it makes about as much sense as saying all modern recordings sound poor because they are mastered hot when this is equally something which has been going on since the advent of popular music....

...and as for tapedecks, well your friends Dragon can record at +10db to 25Khz if you push it as it has amazing tape heads, superior to any digital recorder in many respects. The main reason to my mind is in the way it distorts when you oveload the tape. Saturated compressed tape which gently rolls off into the noise floor sounds natural to our ears in a way that band limiting on digital recorders just doesn't....too much information is lost.

This is also the case with vinyl. CD is just missing too many harmonics and the only way to make up for this is using valves to add them back in, which explains to my mind the resurgence of the glowing bottle in so many bits of kit both pro and domestic.

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif The average entry level record player is definitely better now than ever but this is more due to the fact that all the big companies turning out cynically marketed dross have left the stage to the quality budget brands like Rega.

Side note: I would like to point out that for most people, "entry level record player" means "Crosley"... and Crosleys still use ceramic carts. That said, I'd imagine that the ~$100 the entry level Crosley sells for now is far less in real terms than what a rinky-dink table sold for back in the day. But I also can't imagine it sounding any better.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wasn't into anything high end in the 70s and 80s. I was busy being a kid and teenager, but I have heard that the high end LP equipment back then was pretty bad compared to the 90s and beyond. I wonder if this has anything to do with it?

As memepool says the fundametals have not changed much, there have been incremental refinements, arm design is better arguably bearing design as well I do not know if carts are any more linear than before. I recently saw some FR graphs for the old V15 and new M97 Shure cartridges, the M97 was far worse in distortion and midrange trough but it isnt a really high end cart as such. But the TT is only half of the equation.

Quote:

Also, all the cracking and noise you hear could be just bad records. When going to vinyl I had to realise that bad records sound worse than bad CDs, and if a record was in bad shape with cracks or old, then I'd pass on it. At $2 a pop not a big deal. New records shouldn't have those issue - old records should be bought, then recycled except for the ones that stand out.

I do not often use the expression anal retentive, my first degrees are in Psychology so I know what it actually means, however I was very very careful wth my LPs, never bought used records, and my kit setup was dedicated TT tables, spiked speaker stands, carbon fibre brushes , darkened rooms, painfully exprimented toe-in and so on.

Quote:

I don't agree that it is more accurate than LPs. By the way, master tapes and live studio feeds on the radio even trump vinyl, so I am pretty far from feeling that CD is the ultimate ideal for accuracy.

Well we disagee then, I cannot think of any meaningful parameter by which CD is a less accurate rendering of a recording than LP.

Also it has been a while since I used FM radio as a serious source but I thought that FM audio signal , not the carrier, was bandlimited to 15K ?

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius /img/forum/go_quote.gif Side note: I would like to point out that for most people, "entry level record player" means "Crosley"...

Come on I seriously doubt anyone would seriously consider playing their records on one of those novelty things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles I cannot think of any meaningful parameter by which CD is a less accurate rendering

Transient rise time?

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif There were always high end decks like the Garrard or Thorens from back in the 1950s which could, if set up well, equal anything made today.

I've never heard the classic Garrard, but I did hear several Thorens tables that I thought sounded really great. I'd be curious to know if you think how these would compare to a modern Linn or equivalent.

Also, do you think there is anything to be gained by shelling out for one of the really ludicrously expensive tables like, say, the Rockport? I'm always pretty skepical of what I read in the reviews of equipment like that. I do believe that good equipment is almost always expensive, and I'd love to have a Linn, but are the nosebleed-expensive tables demonstrably better than mid-priced stuff like that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well the last time I was present at a cut (at Abbey Road),[...]Not much of a learning curve there which is why mastering is a dying art I guess.

O.K., I'm obviously way out of my depth technically and in terms of experience with these issues, so I pretty much have to defer to your expertise. Thanks for not slapping me up verbally.

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Come on I seriously doubt anyone would seriously consider playing their records on one of those novelty things.

Oh, ye of excessive faith.

Quote:

Transient rise time?

Not meaningful.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Transient rise time?

Agreed a cartridge does have better rise time ( ~ 8 x 10 ^ -6 s) than a CD which is of course fixed at ~2.25 x 10 ^ -5 s .

I will cede LP's technical superiority in that respect. I might quibble about whether it makes an audible difference, rise time and frequency being related , but that is another debate.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif I will cede LP's technical superiority in that respect. I might quibble about whether it makes an audible difference, rise time and frequency being related , but that is another debate.

I will quibble about whether the differences in specifications yield any meaningful difference in sound quality that is directly attributable to the sound carrier. Reasoning that they do and proving that they do are not the same thing. So it really comes down to preferences.

Now, if you want to argue that the defect rate is higher on vinyl than it is on CD...I don't think anyone can argue otherwise though I have bought some defective CDs. In my opinion a click/pop or two from a vinyl record is generally preferable to the very loud and sudden sound explosions that can be caused by defective digital audio, and I have read where a number of people reported that such defects blew the voice coils in their loudspeakers (not to mention their ear drums).

Honestly, I fail to see the point in these arguments. Is it because the folks who come down on one side or the other want to convince everyone that they made the wiser, better sounding choice? That they don't listen to inferior formats? The "mine's bigger and better than yours" debate seems rather childish to me. I don't listen to formats...I listen to music.

The fact that CDs spec out better than vinyl in most measures is irrelevant, because it does not follow that all CDs sound better than vinyl records. If they did, then some of you might be on to something. If vinyl and all CDs used the same masters then maybe, just maybe you might have a basis for some actual comparison between sound carriers, but this is usually the exception rather than the rule.

I just finished listening to a wonderful vinyl re-issue of Everybody Digs Bill Evans from Analogue Productions on a pair of 45 RPM 180 gram LPs, mastered by Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman at Acoustech Mastering. It is easily the best sounding release of this title that I own, and that includes two different CD releases and a vinyl reissue. Does it mean that I think vinyl sounds better than CDs? Of course not, it means that this release of this specific title on vinyl sounds better than anything else I own. Which is of some relief for me, since I paid $100 for it.

As has already been said, the sound quality you enjoy is largely determined by the source session recordings and the master -- not the format. I have CD, SACD, vinyl, and 1/4" stereo tape recordings that blow my mind where sound quality is concerned -- but none of that leads me to believe that one is inherently better than another. They all have their strengths and weakness.

--Jerome

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, ye of excessive faith.

I'm sure if you look long and hard enough you can probably find some people who are playing records on Fischer Price turntables made in the 1960s and 70s. And if you think those folks are representative of the typical head-fier then I think it is time for me to find another audio forum because in that case this one is going to the dogs.

--Jerome

 

[robm321]

LOL - this thread is funny - very unscientific and vague measurements thrown around out of any useful context.

I think the only useful arguments for vinyl vs CD are more about the fact that interest is very alive and money and effort are being invested well after the supposed death of the LP.. and so far vinyl has not only survived but thrived while CD is on the decline.

More high end (vinyl players

) are coming out. And it's not because it's convenient

I think a lot of people that don't have a TT want to kind of knock it down a bit in order to feel that they aren't missing something (like all the dirt thrown at SACD when it came out).

The layering and depth that vinyl (and tubes for that matter) give is not about it being pleasant, warm or lush, but about it being more true to life than any digital player. Hence, the many reviews of CD players that state "very vinyl sounding" which is another way of stating that it goes a long way to eliminate the digital hard edged mechanical sound while adding palpability.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the only useful arguments for vinyl vs CD are more about the fact that interest is very alive and money and effort are being invested well after the supposed death of the LP.. and so far vinyl has not only survived but thrived while CD is on the decline.

Thrived ?, LP sales last year were 1.3M units, the same figure for CD was
500M, wake me up when LP sales reach even 10M

Quote:

I think a lot of people that don't have a TT want to kind of knock it down a bit in order to feel that they aren't missing something (like all the dirt thrown at SACD when it came out).

I had TTs I got rid of them in the 1980s, I got rid of them because I felt CD was better, I even bought a TT again last year and discovered LP was just as flawed as it was back in 1984 , it is gathering dust in my office.

Quote:

The layering and depth that vinyl (and tubes for that matter) give is not about it being pleasant, warm or lush, but about it being more true to life than any digital player.

How can a medium that is so far from transparent be true to life ?. By any definition of High Fidelity (noise, dynamic range, distortion, linearity, crosstalk, speed stability) LP is way worse than CD.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif How can a medium that is so far from transparent be true to life ?. By any definition of High Fidelity (noise, dynamic range, distortion, linearity, crosstalk, speed stability) LP is way worse than CD.

So what? Are you trying to argue from the specifications that CDs sound better?

Way worse? How much worse? And how much does how much worse degrade the sound in ways that people can hear?

It's sort of like arguing that a great deal can happen in a picosecond when that amount of time is well below the threshold of human perception.

--Jerome

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif So what? Are you trying to argue from the specifications that CDs sound better? Way worse? How much worse? And how much does how much worse degrade the sound in ways that people can hear? --Jerome

I was arguing wrt to this point

Quote:

but about it [LP]being more true to life than any digital player

i.e how can LP be more accurate due to its limitations, whether the sound is preferable is a different question, that LP has greater limitations that must impinge on its fundamental accuracy was my contention.

How much worse...conservatively

1. Crosstalk (40db to over 70db)
2. Distortion (0.2% to 0.005%)
3. Noise (-80db to -100db)
4. Speed stability (0.01% to 0.005%)
5. Dynamic Range (80db to 96db)

I tried to be generous to LP and conservative with CD.

The noise is certainly audible, the crosstalk must also change the sound , do not some amp manufacturers build a crosstalk circuit into their products ?

Quote:

It's sort of like arguing that a great deal can happen in a picosecond when that amount of time is well below the threshold of human perception.

Not really, I certainly agree that picosecond jitter is irrelevant, 20ps represents sample timing variation of ~ +/- 1 part in 1,000,000 however 0.2% distortion is 1 part per 500

 

[jsaliga]

Back up a second...please don't pull me into the specification debateathon. I don't care about the specs and have seen no empirical evidence that would prove they are relevant to sound quality in ways people can hear. So there's no need to ask me how LP can be more accurate as I am not the one making that claim. What I am arguing is that nothing that you or robm321 have said here is important.

I think you, on the other hand, believe the specs are pretty much everything where SQ is concerned if I am any fair judge of your posts. I have never once seen you discuss the importance of mastering on SQ and where you think that might fit into the grand scheme of things, for example. But I have not read everything you have said on the subject. Feel free to elaborate if you wish.

I believe you when you say the noise is certainly audible on the records you have played, and I hope you believe me when I tell you that own a lot of records that are every bit as quiet as a CD. I am listening to one right now - Louis Armstrong Plays W.C. Handy from Pure Pleasure Records on 180g vinyl.

In any event I think you guys are in a "can't see the forest for the trees" mode of argument, and the debate is full of logical fallacies because of it.

--Jerome