[Pricklely Peete]

I like both......vinyl has many drawbacks, so does red book....that being said today's vinyl and red book playback mechanisms/technology have never been better.

Peete.

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif A properly cleaned, mint record (from a good pressing) that is (and this is the important part) hit with a good anti-static device (ie, the Furutech) will often have no more than a couple of pops and ticks on a whole side.

Quote:

There is always going to be a little bit of background noise on LPs, but on a good table it's going to be minimal and not even noticeable except between songs or in extremely quiet passages (because of this, I do prefer classical on CD, but everything else shines on vinyl).

Make up your mind. Which is it?

I'm really tired of people going "pops and ticks don't exist on good vinyl!" and then quickly backtrack with "well, they're there, but on a good record and a good system you should not notice them". Or even better, "they're there, but you really shouldn't bother with vinyl if you care much about them." (You didn't say that, but that has been lobbed at me on occasion.)

I listen to a lot of classical vinyl, that is well cared for, and I hear lots of transient noise. It generally doesn't distract from the performances, but I wouldn't for a minute suggest that the noise doesn't exist. It can be inaudible with some music and some playback systems and some listeners, but you'll find it on every record. To say otherwise is to take your audience to be a bunch of chumps.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your condescending attitude towards what others have to say pisses me off.

Please. Get over it already.

You and Nick are arguing over points that are irrelevant to me. Hence, they aren't important to me. And I am not going to be disingenuous and sugarcoat my difference of opinion to spare your feelings. If that bothers you well I'm sorry, but that really doesn't change anything. Just like I don't really care whether or not you think I'm dead wrong. You're welcome to your opinion.

--Jerome

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius /img/forum/go_quote.gif I listen to a lot of classical vinyl, that is well cared for, and I hear lots of transient noise. It generally doesn't distract from the performances, but I wouldn't for a minute suggest that the noise doesn't exist. It can be inaudible with some music and some playback systems and some listeners, but you'll find it on every record. To say otherwise is to take your audience to be a bunch of chumps.

the other thing is that most of the best classical recordings from before the advent of digital recorders, ie the ones which most people want from the post war years, have tape noise as well.

It's not until you listen to these recordings on open reel that you realise a lot of what you take as vinyl surface noise or even mistracking sometimes on very loud passages, is actually present on the original recording.

People weren't as fussy back then about incidental noises in the recording like chairs moving between tracks, the slight hum from a mic or the click of the recorder being turned on and off, because they probably thought nobody will ever hear it so whats the point.

It's only when you pour over these things obsessively on very revealing modern headphones that you start to realise this.

Comparing early '80s classical recordings mastered digitally with CD's from the same era is a more accurate indication and often these are not the best recordings in either case.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif But sometimes specs do tell us important things, like the fact that the Rega I used to own has speed variations of close to 1% , this is clearly going to impact on sustained tones.

Fair enough Nick, but I thought we were talking about the recording medium. I understand that it is hard to separate the media from the playback device, but not all sources are created equal. Still, I'm not sure if it would be fair to try vinyl or CD on the worst possible source device you can find then declare all vinyl or CDs inferior.

I'm not suggesting that your Rega was a bad deck. I'm curious; if you don't mind my asking which one was it? I used to own a P7 for about a year and was very pleased with its performance. Eventually I moved to a SOTA Star Sapphire because I found a used one for a great price.

--Jerome

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fair enough Nick, but I thought we were talking about the recording medium. I understand that it is hard to separate the media from the playback device, but not all sources are created equal. Still, I'm not sure if it would be fair to try vinyl or CD on the worst possible source device you can find then declare all vinyl or CDs inferior.

Ah, well you got me sidetracked to a discussion of specs by asserting that they were pretty much all I cared about, and questioning how big the differences were.

The paradox is that the playback of LP is almost better than the LP itself, a good TT will not add much noise but this is a hygiene factor since there is relatively much more noise on the LP to start with.

I disagree with mempool here, it is easy to tell the difference between vinyl surface noise and tape noise because you do still get tape noise on CD from some recordings and it is qualitatively different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not suggesting that your Rega was a bad deck. I'm curious; if you don't mind my asking which one was it? I used to own a P7 for about a year and was very pleased with its performance. Eventually I moved to a SOTA Star Sapphire because I found a used one for a great price. --Jerome

Call it rubbish if you like I do not object.

In 1984 I bought a Rega Planar 3 with the RB300 arm, actually it sits in my Brother-in-laws attic still. I had noise trouble from day one and the speed variation is a measured value 0.9% (Stereophile I think).

For popular music the noise could be more or less buried but for classical recordings the quiet passages were really hard to take. I add I was very careful with my records.

The vinyl recording and playback system is inherently noisy, you just need to read Ben Bauer's papers in the JAES, when you consider how vinyl playback works it is impressive that the noise is even as low as it is.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif it is easy to tell the difference between vinyl surface noise and tape noise because you do still get tape noise on CD from some recordings and it is qualitatively different.

If you have heard the reel to reel then it's easier but with CD it's necessary to use some sort of NR filtering as otherwise the hiss is extenuated by the hard roll off over 20kHz. It's like chopping the edges off a sound somehow makes it artificial and more noticable.


Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif In 1984 I bought a Rega Planar 3 with the RB300 arm, actually it sits in my Brother-in-laws attic still. I had noise trouble from day one and the speed variation is a measured value 0.9% (Stereophile I think). For popular music the noise could be more or less buried but for classical recordings the quiet passages were really hard to take. I add I was very careful with my records.

I've heard many Rega decks over the years and have never been a great fan but it is possible to get them quiet, at least better than -65db quiet.

As you say it's also very possible to get a turntable more stable than a P3. there is no reason why an AC syncronous motor would fluctuate that much locked as it is to the mains frequency, so the finger points firmly at insufficient engineering tolerances between the Rega motor spindle / bearing.

But then again it's a budget turntable..... If you bought a CD player in 1984 it must have cost 3-4 times the price easily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif The vinyl recording and playback system is inherently noisy, you just need to read Ben Bauer's papers in the JAES, when you consider how vinyl playback works it is impressive that the noise is even as low as it is.

It's completely possible to get better than -80 Db SNR which is I think all you could ever realistically need as I'm sure you've said elsewhere. When people talk about vinyl noise they are not usually talking about the shortcomings of the medium itself rather the sound of worn out or damaged records. Although I suppose you'll argue damage is inherent...

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, well you got me sidetracked to a discussion of specs by asserting that they were pretty much all I cared about, and questioning how big the differences were.

Ok, but I would like to add a little clarification. I wasn't asserting that specs was all you care about. I was deducing it perhaps, and maybe even incorrectly, from your many posts on this very topic. That is why I asked you to elaborate, and in response you went into more detail about specifications. I was hoping you would have used the opportunity to discuss other factors that affect sound quality, such as mastering, and how that rates in importance to you relative to the recording medium. It was an opportunity missed, but that's ok. You don't owe me an explanation and people are obviously free to judge sound quality on any criteria they care to choose. Freedom of choice is a good thing, and I don't need to agree with someone else's choices or opinion to appreciate that.

Simiarly, when I pressed you for information on the on the differences I was mainly interested in qualitative (how the differences translate into what you hear), and not quantitative differences. Sorry for not making that clear.

Quote:

I disagree with mempool here, it is easy to tell the difference between vinyl surface noise and tape noise because you do still get tape noise on CD from some recordings and it is qualitatively different.

Perhaps I am just an unrefined listener. But honestly noise is something that I haven't paid very much attention to, as it usually doesn't rise to the level that would interfere with my enjoyment of the music.

Quote:

Call it rubbish if you like I do not object. In 1984 I bought a Rega Planar 3 with the RB300 arm, actually it sits in my Brother-in-laws attic still. I had noise trouble from day one and the speed variation is a measured value 0.9% (Stereophile I think).

I never owned a Rega Planar 3 so I don't consider myself qualified to comment on its build quality and performance. I do know that Regas in general are not especially well received here on Head-Fi. My experience with the P7 I owned was quite positive, and if the chance to buy the SOTA at a great price did not come along I would still be using the P7, and quite contentedly so.

--Jerome

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've heard many Rega decks over the years and have never been a great fan but it is possible to get them quiet, at least better than -65db quiet.

Do you not think that -65db is really not terribly good , I have an old Nikko amp from 1973 that does better than that on line inputs.


Quote:

But then again it's a budget turntable..... If you bought a CD player in 1984 it must have cost 3-4 times the price easily.

The Rega cost me £200 in January 1984, that was without cartridge, the cartridge added another £30 or so, and my first CD player (December 1984) cost me £300.

Quote:

It's completely possible to get better than -80 Db SNR which is I think all you could ever realistically need as I'm sure you've said elsewhere. When people talk about vinyl noise they are not usually talking about the shortcomings of the medium itself rather the sound of worn out or damaged records. Although I suppose you'll argue damage is inherent...

The playback system TT/Arm/Cart can be quite quiet as you say, but getting the LPs to be quiet is more difficult vide the JAES papers.

Damage is *inevitable* due to the physics involved, you have a material that is distorted and locally heated to quite extreme temps under up to 6000g . I profer no opinion on the extent or audibility of said damage. Nor sadly have I ever seen measured data for damage due to playback. Finally the cutter and the playback stylus do not have the same geometry nor unless you have a linear tracking arm will they mainain the same angle over a side.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif Simiarly, when I pressed you for information on the on the differences I was mainly interested in qualitative (how the differences translate into what you hear), and not quantitative differences. Sorry for not making that clear.

Ah, okay I can give you a better answer on this. To me the argument revolves around what HiFi means. My take on it is that the purpose of a hifi playback system is to neither add nor take away from the data it is given. So the perfect system does not add noise or distortion or change the frequency balance or dynamics it merely changes the data from one representation to sound waves.

When I have listened to LP I can tell that there was stuff there (noise) that should not have been there, since I do not have access to the masters I cannot tell if stuff has also been ommitted that should be there, of course the same is true for CD.

When I listen to CD I do not get this noise. So if you want a wholly unscientific qualitative impression CD sounds cleaner to me and I equate that with greater accuracy.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you not think that -65db is really not terribly good

No I'd say it's the minimum for Hi-Fi.



Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Rega cost me £200 in January 1984, that was without cartridge, the cartridge added another £30 or so, and my first CD player (December 1984) cost me £300.

I can check the RRP in '84 but I think you may have paid a little over the odds.... 300 quid CDP got to be the Philips 100/101 or Marantz CD 63 right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Damage is *inevitable* due to the physics involved, you have a material that is distorted and locally heated to quite extreme temps under up to 6000g . I profer no opinion on the extent or audibility of said damage.

Well in an absolute sense but it depends on your playback equipment doesn't it. It's perfectly possible to play vinyl on a laser turntable now without it ever being touched in which case there is no physical contact. However on a well set up deck like your old Rega with the idiot proof 3 point cart mounting it should be possible to play records for years without ever damaging them enough so as it impairs your enjoyment. I guess that's the subjective part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I have listened to LP I can tell that there was stuff there (noise) that should not have been there, since I do not have access to the masters I cannot tell if stuff has also been ommitted that should be there, of course the same is true for CD. When I listen to CD I do not get this noise. So if you want a wholly unscientific qualitative impression CD sounds cleaner to me and I equate that with greater accuracy.

Well when I listen to CDs for the most part it's because i want some background music and can't be bothered to play a record. It doesn't captivate me in the same way except on rare occasions on very well made discs.

On the other hand records and tapes despite all their obvious annoying issues 9 times out of 10 connect me to the music in a way that CD's or digital files just don't and demand that I stop what I'm doing sit down and loose myself in the music.

So to me this is more Hi- Fi in the original sense of "faithful to the source" because it's the closest experience available to actually hearing the perfomance live. I am sure most vinylistas feel the same way.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can check the RRP in '84 but I think you may have paid a little over the odds.... 300 quid CDP got to be the Philips 100/101 or Marantz CD 63 right?

Who knows. At this distance I cannot say what street prices were, though I did get the UK HiFi mags pretty regularly and visited Tottenham Court Road regularly and I did have to leg it all the way from Earlsfield (SW) to Lewisham (SE) to get the Rega, I doubt I would have made this trip unless the price was at least okay, I was a poor Civil Servant in those days, but I have no way of doing a month/year price comparison now.

Mine was the Marantz CD63 in black. I keep trying to get one of these again (purely for nostalgic reasons I hasten to add but the prices they fetch are absurd.

Quote:

So to me this is more Hi- Fi in the original sense of "faithful to the source" because it's the closest experience available to actually hearing the perfomance live. I am sure most vinylistas feel the same way.

But the source as you define it is long gone, some of the performers may be dead (probably most of them if it is one of BigShot's historical recordings) and in 99.99% of cases you (and I) were not there.

So it is difficult if not impossible to say that what you hear is accurate wrt any given live performance as you have no way of directly comparing them, even if you were there you cannot possibly have a detailed memory of the sound at that event. In my music collection very few items are of "live" performances anyway.

My "CD sounds cleaner to me" and your "closest experience available to actually hearing the performance live" are equally unhelpful as they are rather woolly and being wholly personal utterly unverifiable. Maybe this was why those clever Germans at D.I.N devised a set of standards for HiFi, albeit rather generous ones.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif But the source as you define it is long gone, some of the performers may be dead (probably most of them if it is one of BigShot's historical recordings) and in 99.99% of cases you (and I) were not there. So it is difficult if not impossible to say that what you hear is accurate wrt any given live performance as you have no way of directly comparing them, even if you were there you cannot possibly have a detailed memory of the sound at that event. In my music collection very few items are of "live" performances anyway.

LOL. That being the case we should all just give up now and haul all of our CDs, vinyl, and gear to the landfill and be done with it.

Seriously, I don't disagree with anything you have said about the specifications and I really don't have any qualms with your assertions about the lower "error rate" of CD audio. That much seems to be clear in the specifications. But I do not agree that the specs are the last word on sound quality. They only tell us something about the potential of the medium. They have no predictive power regarding how a specific recording will sound.

I think I'll continue to just follow my instincts and take comfort in the knowledge that what I hear is ultimately the final word for me personally on what sounds the best. And I still have to take that one recording at a time. It's a strategy that has served me well most of the time. I do, as most of us do, want what sounds the best. It has been my experience that this varies from recording to recording and has more to do with the recording and mastering than the media.

--Jerome

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL. That being the case we should all just give up now and haul all of our CDs, vinyl, and gear to the landfill and be done with it.

No that does not quite follow from what I said. It only follows if you follow the "you are there" model of HiFi. If you think that HiFi is about getting an accurate rendering of a sound recording, you can then be happy with any medium that delivers that.

Quote:

But I do not agree that the specs are the last word on sound quality. They only tell us something about the potential of the medium. They have no predictive power regarding how a specific recording will sound.

Agreed.

 

[joe_cool]

This is from my perspective but I agree with most of the points made here. I personally entered the Hi-Fi world with open reel tape about 1968. I had known the Garrard record changers and FM tuners before that.

Eventually I tired of the labor of tape reels and shortage of media and conceded the game to LP about 1972. I had a number of TTs and pickups and was happy with the compromise until about 1985.

My first impression of CD music was WOW there is no noise. Of course we all know the downside of modern music, but I believe that has less to do with the medium and more to do with the audience as mastering has become a game of popularity.

I now use a computer for music playback as it has the most convenience and flexibility, and gives up little to technical perfection. My best media is from other sources but CD is still the mainstay because it is absolute and reproducible.