The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Vinyl high end?
Old 30th April 2017
  #1
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Vinyl high end?

Hi
Today I've encountered the fact how good vinyl really sounds, don't take this wrong I just want to share how good it really sound on studio speakers from an old vinyl-roundtable-player at least in my opinion on my system.

In this case an old Yamaha turntable ("Natural sound" series from -84) and out of a pair of Se Egg (not really high end but at least in that direction), sounds amazing in my ears after been didgital for the last ten years...

Now I got to figure out how to get this amazing sound translated to my mixes, in this case I also compared to how this same record sounded from youtube, yeah I know it is really crap with the compression destroying every dynamic/harmonics but I had totally forgot how good it could really sound in reality from vinyl, what is your thoughts?

Have a nice weekend end and cheers
Old 1st May 2017
  #2
Gear Addict
 

I have ten turntables and 40 cartridges. I enjoy playing around with them. I do recognize that the sound of vinyl is not as true as digital.
Old 1st May 2017
  #3
Gear Addict
I'm one of the Crank Old Dudes™ on this forum that grew up with vinyl records and I still have a decent collection. I do like the sound of vinyl and I really disliked the sound of CD's until I bought a NAD CD player. The NAD CD player had a hot output and I'm guessing they drove an amplification stage hard to introduce some harmonic distortion.

Moral of the story is is that a little distortion sounds great.
Old 1st May 2017
  #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyG View Post
I'm one of the Crank Old Dudes™ on this forum that grew up with vinyl records and I still have a decent collection. I do like the sound of vinyl and I really disliked the sound of CD's until I bought a NAD CD player. The NAD CD player had a hot output and I'm guessing they drove an amplification stage hard to introduce some harmonic distortion.

Moral of the story is is that a little distortion sounds great.

Lets say I agree with you.
Old 1st May 2017
  #5
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
People often prefer distortions of reality.

Apply and reverse an RIAA EQ curve. Apply HP and LP and roll them in until it sounds right. Add scratch and static noises. Apply the time/speed distortions of a turntable. Bring THD up to about 2%.
Viola! Vinyl!! Enjoy!

p.s. you might limit your track count to 16, and avoid digital conveniences while recording. Record stuff like they did before the mid 80's.
Old 1st May 2017
  #6
I love my vinyl and shellac records. They're part of who I am. I have 1200+ LPs, 200 or so singles and 78s.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with personally preferring the sound of vinyl over other media.

But one should not confuse one's preference for objective superiority of sonic accuracy (high fidelity, as it were). Because, by that measure, vinyl records fall way down.

And there are very real reasons for those sonic limitations.

Anyone who wants to really know more about the fascinating world of vinyl record cutting -- and why it is so very difficult to milk high fidelity out of the format -- should give a good read to the interesting and informative interview with vinyl mastering guru, Scott Hull, in this Tape Op article:

Talking Vinyl with Scott Hull
Old 1st May 2017
  #7
Gear Addict
 

I'm one of those mutant individuals who prefers the lackluster, sterile medium of the compact disc to vinyl on a sonic basis. In theory, the nostalgia factor should work for me, because I was buying and listening to vinyl in the first part of my formative years; but I was more than happy to move onto CDs when that hardware became affordable. Part of this is practicality; based on what I know (and I don't really keep up with the whole vinyl thing so I could be wrong), you can get a CD player that does its job well for a good deal less money than a vinyl reproduction system of the same quality level. Part of it is a personal preference for transparency in reproduction medium.

I'm not exactly thrilled that when my favorite bands put out new records these days, vinyl plus an mp3 download is the only option, but I guess that's progress.
Old 1st May 2017
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoopysnorp View Post
I'm one of those mutant individuals who prefers the lackluster, sterile medium of the compact disc to vinyl on a sonic basis. In theory, the nostalgia factor should work for me, because I was buying and listening to vinyl in the first part of my formative years; but I was more than happy to move onto CDs when that hardware became affordable. Part of this is practicality; based on what I know (and I don't really keep up with the whole vinyl thing so I could be wrong), you can get a CD player that does its job well for a good deal less money than a vinyl reproduction system of the same quality level. Part of it is a personal preference for transparency in reproduction medium.

I'm not exactly thrilled that when my favorite bands put out new records these days, vinyl plus an mp3 download is the only option, but I guess that's progress.
[bold added]

This is a very valid, practical point that often gets lost -- it's much cheaper to mass produce a CD player that achieves relatively high fidelity than it is to make the kind of very tweaky, carefully engineered turntables, tonearms, and cartridges that are required to milk what we might now consider reasonable fidelity out of vinyl records.

And the above-referenced Scott Hull mastering article goes into the specific difficulties of the medium -- although it's concentrating exclusively on how hard it is to get the fidelity into the groove. Suffice it to say, it's difficult and expensive -- and always has been -- to get that fidelity back out.
Old 1st May 2017
  #9
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I love my vinyl and shellac records. They're part of who I am. I have 1200+ LPs, 200 or so singles and 78s.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with personally preferring the sound of vinyl over other media.

But one should not confuse one's preference for objective superiority of sonic accuracy (high fidelity, as it were). Because, by that measure, vinyl records fall way down.

And there are very real reasons for those sonic limitations.
Well-stated. Vinyl is a lifestyle, a vibe, a way of connecting with the artist in a physical manner. It's cover art. Handling and controlling the "music" itself. It's the concept album, and the reason why 10 or 12 songs hangs together as a single statement and moment in an artist's history. And, it's the reason why rock music exploded as a legitimate form of art in the 60's.

The fact that it is a medium of music delivery to end listeners is way down the list of what makes it important to the history and development of popular music. All of its sonic shortfalls are an inseparable part of what makes it culturally vital, and certainly a part of what is creating the resurgence.
Old 1st May 2017
  #10
Gear Addict
 
dcwave's Avatar
 

Was over at a young dudes house. he showed me his brand new hi-fi turntable, speakers and amp. He carefully placed his record on the turntable and dropped the needle... he was telling me how awesome the sound was and how its more pure and blah blah blah.

I asked him if the hiss and the little tiny crackles bugged him at all. He was stunned. Until i pointed it out, he never heard it before.

About a week later he called me to tell me that he hates me because all he hears now is the hiss and crackle of static and dust.

I also asked him if he liked the loss of high end on his old records.

About another week later he called to tell me he hates me even more, because he's had to buy a GEQ to bring the highs up on his older (60s/70s) records because they started sounding muffled--after he spent a lot for new needles.

HEHEHEHE.

Vinyl--no thanks. Grew up with it and couldn't wait to get on to a medium that didn't require careful handling or need to constantly change out parts. Do i miss the experience of buying a record, and getting all my buddies over to the house to read the liner notes and look at the artwork while listening? sure. Good times. but i do not miss the medium.
Old 1st May 2017
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcwave View Post
Was over at a young dudes house. he showed me his brand new hi-fi turntable, speakers and amp. He carefully placed his record on the turntable and dropped the needle... he was telling me how awesome the sound was and how its more pure and blah blah blah.

I asked him if the hiss and the little tiny crackles bugged him at all. He was stunned. Until i pointed it out, he never heard it before. ..
'Oops' [grins] Great story.
Old 1st May 2017
  #12
I want to love vinyl, I really do. But a high end CD player, some good old altec speakers or some good reference monitors (focal, genelec, dineaudio, etc) and good d/a converters like my Dangerous Dbox make my records all stand up, hang their heads and walk single file out back and jump into my trash cans like shamed lemmings. No contest.
Old 1st May 2017
  #13
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
Records were just one part of a total analog chain. Their sound and vibe were the result of that total analog process.
Old 1st May 2017
  #14
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcwave View Post
Was over at a young dudes house. he showed me his brand new hi-fi turntable, speakers and amp. He carefully placed his record on the turntable and dropped the needle... he was telling me how awesome the sound was and how its more pure and blah blah blah.

I asked him if the hiss and the little tiny crackles bugged him at all. He was stunned. Until i pointed it out, he never heard it before.

About a week later he called me to tell me that he hates me because all he hears now is the hiss and crackle of static and dust.

I also asked him if he liked the loss of high end on his old records.

About another week later he called to tell me he hates me even more, because he's had to buy a GEQ to bring the highs up on his older (60s/70s) records because they started sounding muffled--after he spent a lot for new needles.

HEHEHEHE.

Vinyl--no thanks. Grew up with it and couldn't wait to get on to a medium that didn't require careful handling or need to constantly change out parts. Do i miss the experience of buying a record, and getting all my buddies over to the house to read the liner notes and look at the artwork while listening? sure. Good times. but i do not miss the medium.
New vinyl with the right cartridge, tone arm weight, etc, doesn't pop or hiss. However, I cannot tell you how many people my age have never even heard a new record. They only have used, dollar bin records. It's really hard to compare a freshly pressed record to a 30+ year old record that has seen it's fair share of abuse.

I only say this because I feel this medium is always sort of discussed from the perspective of a dusty, scratched, or not so great example of what it sounds like. If I take a modern pressing and compare it to the CD, it actually doesn't sound much different.

Point being, some people like vinyl because of the recording techniques of the era of the music they listen to, and happen to listen to it on vinyl. Some people really perceive a totally different sound with vinyl, but never think to compare it a digital version, and don't have a single modern record to really consider what the medium sounds like, nostalgia aside. As said, many think about the not so great record as the core sound of the medium.

It's really hard to discuss the topic without knowing what others are discussing. If I have two copies of the same record, in totally different conditions, I get two different results.
Old 1st May 2017
  #15
Gear Maniac
 
Poinzy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by akerramassafroe View Post
but I had totally forgot how good it could really sound in reality from vinyl, what is your thoughts?

Have a nice weekend end and cheers
When I got my first CD player in 1983, I couldn't get rid of my vinyl records fast enough. Now I just digitize vinyl for other people, and keep a few records on hand for testing purposes.

Among other things, I like the dynamic range that digital offers and that vinyl severely restricts.

And I'm not interested in hearing from "golden ears" types who claim they can hear the digital "steps" in interpolated, hi-res waveforms while failing to hear the surface noise generated by their own vinyl records.

Clowns like Michael Fremer are just lucky that outfits like Hirsch-Houck Laboratories are no longer in business, and that 'Audio' and 'The Wireless World' are largely forgotten.
Old 1st May 2017
  #16
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
New vinyl with the right cartridge, tone arm weight, etc, doesn't pop or hiss. However, I cannot tell you how many people my age have never even heard a new record. They only have used, dollar bin records. It's really hard to compare a freshly pressed record to a 30+ year old record that has seen it's fair share of abuse.

...

It's really hard to discuss the topic without knowing what others are discussing. If I have two copies of the same record, in totally different conditions, I get two different results.
Which illustrates another reason I prefer digital reproduction media. The scenarios in which vinyl performs at its best verge on the theoretical. The act of listening to a vinyl record contributes to the degradation of the information it contains. If vinyl is capable of achieving a certain level of quality the very first time you play a record (on a precisely calibrated system, at that), that's great and all, but how often does this describe the way people listen to music in real life?
Old 2nd May 2017
  #17
Gear Addict
 

What is it CD or LP?

Back in the 1980's when I owned a high end HI FI store we tried to demonstrate how good cd's could sound because at this time many people were biased against digital sound and would only listened to records. I set up a same music demo with 3 cd's and 3 clean tick free Lp's where the differences were not detectable on a quick switch. I got good at cuing up the demo too. We played through Quad Electrostatic speakers or the Kef 107 Reference monitors, with Quad electronics whichever the customer wanted to listen to. The rub is the price. The Quad cd player was $1300.00 but the Linn Sondek turntable was $1500.00, the Linn arm was $1250.00 and the Linn cartridge was $2000.00. Almost nobody could tell what they were listening to after switching between each source but were still skeptical because of all the anti cd stuff in the magazines. With good clean vinyl the results can be quite stunning especially if you played a direct to disc that Doug Sax of Sheffield Records cut, especially the first recording of Harry James recorded with a AKG Stereo mic, it was better then the cd that they made from the back up tape. Most people today have not listened to really high quality turntables with records in great condition so have a limited idea what's possible, the sound is very enjoyable. A turntable of this quality is even more pricey today, in fact the prices are ridiculous if you want some of the best. Also a really good cd player can cost 2 to 3 grand, but they are audibly superior. Again most people don't listen to gear at this level. However my preference is listening to cd's or live recordings that I record with my Nagra recorder, can't beat the pristine realistic quality of a 24/96 file and it keeps getting better. The old Studer and Nagra tapes from the 70' 80's still sound good but the new stuff is just better.
Old 2nd May 2017
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post

But one should not confuse one's preference for objective superiority of sonic accuracy (high fidelity, as it were). Because, by that measure, vinyl records fall way down.

And there are very real reasons for those sonic limitations.
I do not believe that digital is objectively superior. When it comes to measurements, I would say that digital measures 'more', but I don't know if that makes it better.

Not that I'm saying analog is objectively better either, but when it comes to "reproducing" frequencies, who is to say that the extended frequency range of digital is not created by the electronics used to create and analyze a 'signal', as opposed to what it is actually happening in the air.

I think it's at least possible that a limited frequency response could potentially be more true to reality as we experience it, because we don't hear all frequencies linearly in the way that digital is designed.
Old 2nd May 2017
  #19
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoopysnorp View Post
Which illustrates another reason I prefer digital reproduction media. The scenarios in which vinyl performs at its best verge on the theoretical. The act of listening to a vinyl record contributes to the degradation of the information it contains. If vinyl is capable of achieving a certain level of quality the very first time you play a record (on a precisely calibrated system, at that), that's great and all, but how often does this describe the way people listen to music in real life?
Well, a good record shouldn't degrade quickly, but they often do to improper storage, collecting dust, etc. I can't say I have never done that.

But yes, your point is exactly what I am saying, that "vinyl" though a real thing, is pretty theoretical when you discuss it because I may have a brand new record, with a high quality cart, phono preamp, going through great monitors. Then someone else may be using a all in one setup with a low quality, non changable needle in iffy condition, who knows the quality of preamp, through built in speakers, or maybe the took the time up to set it up to some better speakers.

It's just not apples to apples. Why does every vinyl simulation have clicks and pops when it's not a part of the format, but it becomes part of the format.

Trust me, a lot of my records have clicks and pops too and I enjoy them all the same. I just don't have a direct association with that or not, and if archiving or recording for any reason, I do my best to adjust my tone arm to minimize this to the best of my ability, but I don't do that if I am listening.


Not really trying to make any point, other than you grabbed on to my original point and in many ways the sound of vinyl is theoretical, based upon how you buy/collect it, and how you treat it.
Old 2nd May 2017
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitymusic View Post
I do not believe that digital is objectively superior. When it comes to measurements, I would say that digital measures 'more', but I don't know if that makes it better.
Properly set up and performed digital has far lower audible and measurable distortion. It has flat frequency response across whatever frequency spectrum the format is designed to cover. (And it does it without the hinky pre-emphasis/de-emphasis EQ 'noise reduction' of the RIAA or other emphasis curves designed to try to deliver something approaching linear frequency response on grooved records.) Digital has superior time domain performance (no wow or flutter, none). It has far, far less noise, even in the original 16 bit commercial format. (Sit down with a brand new record and listen to a blank LP groove at normal listening level sometime and see how 'silent' even a perfectly clean, unworn, content-free groove is.)

And it's not just my ears and plenty of other folks who have plenty of experience with vinyl (as noted elsewhere I have 1200+ LPs, 200 singles and 78s) -- it's objective measurement that confirms that -- and demonstrates broad improvements across measurable characteristics. And it does not matter if you do those signal accuracy measurements with the latest test gear or 'vintage' analog gear just like that used by the designers of classic gear of the past.

Quote:
Not that I'm saying analog is objectively better either, but when it comes to "reproducing" frequencies, who is to say that the extended frequency range of digital is not created by the electronics used to create and analyze a 'signal', as opposed to what it is actually happening in the air.
Who is to say?

People who understand how it works. There is absolutely no 'mystery' as to how digital audio works. It's the same math and science that takes NASA spacecraft to Mars, the same math and science that helps geologists find oil and minerals with amazing precision, the same math and science that informs much of the modern technological world.

We might argue about the practical effects of what we do with that science, but the science and the math are themselves very well understood.

Here's a very informative little vid that does an excellent job of explaining some of the most pernicious myths regarding how digital sound works and does not work -- and demonstrating with analog test gear the greater accuracy that can result.



Quote:
I think it's at least possible that a limited frequency response could potentially be more true to reality as we experience it, because we don't hear all frequencies linearly in the way that digital is designed.
Ah... now you are touching on the personal/subjective -- and that is very interesting and often highly arguable turf since perception varies widely by individual.

One of the things we have observed generally, of course, is that the frequency linearity of human hearing varies with sound pressure level -- and varies somewhat individually but can be broadly mapped as has been done with the Fletcher-Munson and other such dynamic hearing response curves.

Of course, most folks probably listen at home at lower levels than an (unamplified) symphony orchestra or rock show, so the results (without EQ, anyway) would be 'duller' with less bass and treble than would be perceived at a louder volume.

However, we also know most folks don't have what you'd call great stereos and a fuller frequency bandwidth recording may push such stereos into greater distortion in the more difficult to negotiate higher frequencies, so, indeed, a source with less high frequency information might well produce much more listenable results on such a lesser repro system.

This is a pretty well understood problem with regard to lower quality gear and one reason why a 'well-balanced' system can sometimes sound better than a similar one that has a couple of very high quality pieces in its chain. For instance, if you have a crappy amp that produces lots of high frequency intermodulation or other distortion, feeding it from a full range CD player could 'excite' that inherent distortion and then sending the output into full range speakers could (not very helpfully but) accurately reproduce that high frequency distortion. Mind, this isn't an argument against high quality playback, but merely an illustration of one way the problem you allude to could happen.



But... of course, many of us here at GS (being or having been in the record making biz) actually have pretty good, low distortion playback that doesn't have problems reproducing full range material.

And me? I've been overall trying to improve my playback since I put my first stereo together when I was 12 with spare parts from a Goodwill, our garage, and an amazingly cheap/noisy little stereo tube amp from the local Allied Electronics. ($13.95 Equivalent price today: $111.88; mostly earned selling liquid organic cleaning spray door to door; I used a little red wagon on delivery day, I kid you not. It was the year before the Beatles first came to the US, the year that JFK's presidency was cut short. Long time ago.)
Old 2nd May 2017
  #21
Gear Maniac
 

What I hear in Vinyl that I most appreciate over digital is listening to original vinyl recordings after hearing them remastered for cd for so many years. The vinyl mixes are typically better. Not necessarily from a sonics perspective but - what I hear is what the engineer, producer and musician intended. Sometimes it's night and day better on vinyl.
Old 2nd May 2017
  #22
I was still buying LP's when the LP section of the record store swindled down to a couple of rows while the rest was CD's and cassettes. I was not an early adopter of CD's.

What I found is that once the industry started to record specifically for CD instead of printing an LP master to CD, the sound quality was definitely there with CD's. I can get that 3-dimensional imaging with 2 speakers thing going with both CD's and LP's. You had to pay attention to who was involved with the project, however. I don't buy LP's anymore, just CD's. CD's are too convenient.

What I miss, what I get nostalgic about, was the satisfaction you had (back in the 80's) when you put together all the pieces needed to make vinyl sound REALLY good. Others touched on it above. To get vinyl to sound its best, you needed to invest in a good turntable, cartridge, tonearm and preamp. To get CD to sound good, you had to spend a LOT less, on one piece of equipment. CD's are a whole lot more convenient.

I sometimes think to myself, "I miss the days when it was hard to get something to sound good. You could take pride in what you accomplished." Ah youth.

Scott
Old 2nd May 2017
  #23
Besides the fact that with each play an LP is somehow changed when it is played, however grossly or minutely, lets touch on the fact that each LP is not created equally.

It is a known fact that each stamper set on a vinyl press has a limited life. Some pressers will run 1000 copies from a stamper and others may run 5- 10 20,000 on a stamper. When you have to deliver a million records on Monday, pressing plants may be running 20-50 100 presses at a time to get those orders printed.

It is a fact that the first hundreds pressed on a stamper have a higher quality than the last hundreds.

Then there are the stampers themselves. The earlier stampers made from an acetate will be higher quality than the later.

And to make the stampers, the mastering plant may have to make many acetates, each one hand processed by a human.

The fact that the new vinyl enthusiasts are completely unaware of all this is laughable.


Every CD however, is an EXACT replica of the data that the mixing/mastering engineer had when they mastered the CD.


But sometimes I like the needle drops better.
Old 2nd May 2017
  #24
Gear Addict
 

And then there is the fact that LPs don't handle loud program material as well closer to the label as compared to closer to the edge, so you have to compensate by sequencing your record in a certain way or endure the increased distortion.

On the other hand...I can't deny that LPs are neat. They're way neater than CDs. A million times neater than digital files. Neat as in cool, nifty, boss.
Old 2nd May 2017
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBHan View Post
What I hear in Vinyl that I most appreciate over digital is listening to original vinyl recordings after hearing them remastered for cd for so many years. The vinyl mixes are typically better. Not necessarily from a sonics perspective but - what I hear is what the engineer, producer and musician intended. Sometimes it's night and day better on vinyl.
There are some absolutely HIDEOUS remasters out there, totally agreed.

Since I'm a veteran of subscription streaming, I'm used to seeing multiple versions of some albums. Some recent remasters are actually not squashed or hideously brightened, but, arguably, the period from, say 1995 until fairly recently saw some just horrible remastering.

When confronted with multiple releases of the same album in my streamer, I often actually head first to the the earliest release date (typically but not always the date of the first CD release but sometimes 'backdated' to the original vinyl release year -- there is precious little standardization or label discipline in documenting releases from most labels, it appears, it's often truly disgraceful the way our classic music is treated by those who have acquired the rights to it by hook crook or, on rare occasion, equitable, honest dealing).

The original CD masters are often (but not always) pretty close to straight transfers from the original masters and typically (but not always) sound most like the mixes/masters from the vinyl (when I have it among my 1200 LPs).

Still, every once in a long while, you get a remaster that is -- arguably -- an improvement on the original CD and/or vinyl master.*

When Bowie left the house last year I had occasion to pick through the various re-and re-re- and re-re-re-releases of some of his classics. Mostly, the earliest were best, but there were a handful remastered in 2015 that were actually quite good.


*And then there are those LPs that maybe have always been marred by their cuttings. Because, I guess, I can be a bit on the, let's say, compulsive side when it comes to sound and audio issues, I have sometimes gone back to favorite albums from my early days, often albums I struggled to get to play without distortion. I remember trying like crazy to get the first (or second) Swingle Singers album to track without distortion. I repeatedly rechecked the position and angle of my cartridge/stylus, adjusted the weight (higher and higher until I was at the upper range of the recommended weight) and still, rattling, nasty distortion. Flash forward 40 years or so and I finally hear the digital release of the record via streaming and -- sure enough -- all that nasty intermodulation distortion I thought was the needle bouncing around in the groove was IN THE FREAKIN' MIX. The loud bed of hiss on the album I'd always understood since bring it home was from bouncing tracks (to fatten the singing ensemble), but I'd always assumed the nasty distortion was because of a bad cutting job. Nope. Apparently right there in the 1962 tape masters.
Old 2nd May 2017
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by philsaudio View Post
Besides the fact that with each play an LP is somehow changed when it is played, however grossly or minutely, lets touch on the fact that each LP is not created equally.

It is a known fact that each stamper set on a vinyl press has a limited life. Some pressers will run 1000 copies from a stamper and others may run 5- 10 20,000 on a stamper. When you have to deliver a million records on Monday, pressing plants may be running 20-50 100 presses at a time to get those orders printed.

It is a fact that the first hundreds pressed on a stamper have a higher quality than the last hundreds.

Then there are the stampers themselves. The earlier stampers made from an acetate will be higher quality than the later.

And to make the stampers, the mastering plant may have to make many acetates, each one hand processed by a human.

The fact that the new vinyl enthusiasts are completely unaware of all this is laughable.


Every CD however, is an EXACT replica of the data that the mixing/mastering engineer had when they mastered the CD.


But sometimes I like the needle drops better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoopysnorp View Post
And then there is the fact that LPs don't handle loud program material as well closer to the label as compared to closer to the edge, so you have to compensate by sequencing your record in a certain way or endure the increased distortion.

On the other hand...I can't deny that LPs are neat. They're way neater than CDs. A million times neater than digital files. Neat as in cool, nifty, boss.
Excellent points!

The Scott Hull article I mentioned earlier goes into some depth on these issues.

Talking Vinyl with Scott Hull | Tape Op Magazine | Longform candid interviews with music producers and audio engineers covering mixing, mastering, recording and music production. [requires a free subscription to read the whole article]
Old 2nd May 2017
  #27
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitymusic View Post
I think it's at least possible that a limited frequency response could potentially be more true to reality as we experience it, because we don't hear all frequencies linearly in the way that digital is designed.
Sorry but this departs from all logic.

If it were true, then we would hear the digital playback in the same non-linear manner that we hear any other audio. All digital does is accurately represent what is fed into it. If we hear what is fed into it in a "human non-linear" fashion, we would then hear the digital reproduction in the same exact "human non-linear" fashion.

Digital playback would not somehow disable that feature in our brains.

Unfortunately, departures from logic and reality are the bread and butter of arguments against digital. Belief that vinyl or analog audio in general is somehow superior to digital tech in some undefinable humanistic manner is really the only thing left to argue the debate, in a vacuum of measurable, empirical data.
Old 2nd May 2017
  #28
Gear Addict
 
jono's Avatar
 

It's impossible for a vinyl record to sound as accurate when compared to a master as a CD or a sequence of digital files (an album of songs) does. Vinyl simply loses fidelity as the grooves approach the inner diameters of the vinyl disk. No getting around it. But, vinyl records can and do sound plenty good, and if well cared for shouldn't suffer huge problems with surface noise.

The records I cut for people are very, very quiet with regard to surface noise, and if cut reasonably loudly (zero DB or higher), self noise won't be a problem either.

Most of my clients have never had any of their material on vinyl, and it's a pretty great experience hearing your music played on vinyl for the first time. More than one has actually cried in my studio when hearing it for the first time. Strange to me, but true.

Vinyl is a terrible medium for reproducing music - it's hard to think of anything that could be more problematic....and, it costs a lot more to make a vinyl record sound good than it does to make a digital file sound good. Any phone with a decent pair of earbuds is going to sound better than that $150 Crosley suitcase turntable. You need a decent turntable, cartridge, stylus, and preamp to get good results.

All that being said - many people just don't care how it actually sounds - vinyl is just plain fun. It's nice to hold a tangible, heavy artifact, and spin it to make some noise. and...you can't do THIS with a digital file, can you?
Attached Thumbnails
Vinyl high end?-img_3461.jpg   Vinyl high end?-img_3130.jpg   Vinyl high end?-img_3581.jpg   Vinyl high end?-img_3360.jpg  
Old 2nd May 2017
  #29
Gear Maniac
Has anyone tried digitised (ripped) vinyl? It gives you the convenience and quality of digital (once it's been transferred) and the sonics of the vinyl.
Old 3rd May 2017
  #30
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jono View Post
All that being said - many people just don't care how it actually sounds - vinyl is just plain fun. It's nice to hold a tangible, heavy artifact, and spin it to make some noise. and...you can't do THIS with a digital file, can you?
Even an avowed digital proponent like me got a thrill out of listening to my band's test pressing when it came in.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump