Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over (Read 55304 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #125 –
Guruboolez, what's a Noise Eater? Sounds interesting.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #126 –
Quote from: nastea on
Guruboolez, what's a Noise Eater? Sounds interesting.
My first guess: a noise cleaning filter
But after googling it: it may be an audiophile carpet, or an idiophile device:

https://www.thomann.de/fr/roland_ne_10_noise_eater.htm
http://www.son-video.com/Rayons/Cables/EspaceCable/FiltresSecteur/EAT-Noise-Eater.html

Anyway, it's probably something you don't need to rip a CD but something important  enough to make a LP rip sound closer to a CD.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #127 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
This LP rip is also interesting on loud musical moments. Frequency jumps up to 80.000 Hz which undoubtedly proves that LP is a very high resolution format… Oh wait, source is PCM from 1986, 44100 or 48000 Hz at best, with no information above 24000 Hz.

Thank you for finding and providing these comparisons. This LP rip is a fine example of limitations inherent in vinyl. And a particularly bad rip. On a good setup (without all the fancy stuff) one would be clearly able to see the aliasing filter of the recording device (I assume it was a PCM adaptor, Soundstream or Sony PCM-16xx). When I digitized several vinyls last year (I wanted to know how good an LP rip can really be), it was visible in all cases. Most of the time indicating a 44.1 source, one time a 48 source and two or three times a 32 source. The LPs were a mixture of '80s -> Present-Day recordings. While I set the turntable up to perfection, I spent hours to remove all the defects all LPs (several brand new) produced. All the time.

A few months ago I had a discussion on the German site minidiscforum.de. Someone accused me of regarding everything audio with a too technical eye, "sucking out the soul of the music", reducing peoples' abilities to listen to music, etc.

To (sort of) prove that one can create any desired sound once that person knows how that sound technically works, I created a listening test (non-ABX).

People had to listen to two samples of the same musical piece: one vinyl, the other CD. So at a glance a very simple analogue vs. digital fun and not serious listening test. But: in most cases, both samples came from the same media. Many came from the vinyl rips I described above. To create the CD version I just applied an EQ setting supposed to sound like the audiophool cliché: cold, brittle and lifeless. I also brickwall limited and decreased channel seperation. Very easy.

To create the vinyl sound was easy as well: I just had to destroy the material. That simple. Add distortions for high frequencies, make lower frequencies monaural and attentuate them, add a cartridge/amp mismatch (peak around 15 kHz), add pops / clicks and noise (white noise, equalized to pronounce low frequencies), add vinyl surface noise, add wow and flutter and - Heureka! - you created a destroyed vinyl rip out of perfectly transparent audio. In two cases I mimicked different turntables. One was supposed to be the new Audio-Technica, the other an old Thorens (clearly audible wow and flutter, different distortions).

I didn't say what was what, people had to guess. The ones who took parts guessed correctly and suggested to throw the "Thorens" away. One person had problems hearing any difference at all, one or two persons refused to listen because "one cannot compare this / test not expressive / one cannot listen to computer files / blablabla".

Things I took away from this were:

1. people are easily fooled (I read things like "vinyl samples sound warmer")
2. they like their clichés to be confirmed (CD sounds "cold")
3. they will believe the things you tell them once you say "I work as an engineer" (which is true but still doesn't make any arguments of mine more important)
4. the "vinyl sound" is easy to create: just destroy the audio

Effectively, LP is just a collection of several kinds of distortions and defects, with a bit of music thrown in for good measure. And in rare cases (when all is well, the LP a good pressing, etc.), it can even sound decent. If the music has a low dynamic range and doesn't reveal the low signal to noise ratio.

So, Atmasphere, if vinyl is as noise-and-distortion-free as you say it is, prove it. Btw, the guys here don't need to prove that digital is better. It is a fact. Here you can find those facts, the guys on this site have them, they are stating them to you all the time. You have faith. Which isn't really a counterpart. I understand you, I do. I was once like you, not 10 years ago. I did not believe them (that's why they still don't trust me which is ok) and I didn't like to be challenged by them. In the end however they have been right with... well, anything and everything. And you would do well by listening to them.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #128 –
He has already chimed in with a moderator report against one of Arny's posts, for allegedly failing to meet this site's need for proof to validate his mere opinion that digital is better than vinyl. Technically, that could be correct, as if someone actually does desire all of those flaws in their audio recordings, to give them the "character" that they could not acquire merely through the original performance, then perhaps to those people, LPs really are "better".

Digital is still objectively better at reproducing the original signal, regardless of whatever medium it came from in the first place. Digital can even faithfully reproduce all of the flaws of vinyl or analog tape, either through recording something produced in that format, or from digital simulation that is more than adequate at fooling anyone with a set of ears.

I only posted in one of these vinyl discussions a few weeks ago to point out I had to transfer an LP to digital, and I used heavy processing before I settled on a result. I only did this because the original album was never released in a digital format, not because I desired the flaws of vinyl media.

Don't take this as the final word of this forum, though. I only oil the gears, I have chosen to stay out of this discussion in any official capacity, as it has been somewhat entertaining, and has brought out all sorts of technical details and knowledge. Of course, a lot of this is existing information, and may very well already be posted in older vinyl arguments.

I also notice that @Atmasphere registered years ago, and only posted a handful of times back then, also in some placebophile discussion, before disappearing for many years, only to return here in time with the vinyl revolution. (Get it? It's a turntable pun.)

I even see the publisher of some of my favorite games, Double Fine, getting in on the vinyl action, by selling "limited edition" vinyl releases of their game soundtracks. This time, for their retraux futuristic Head Lander. And you just know that what they're putting on these vinyl platters is a 100% digital master, so the only point is to introduce all of the format flaws of LP, which don't even matter, because people will be buying this mostly to stash in their collectibles vaults of crap that never gets used, and will likely never accumulate as much value as they will dust.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #129 –
SOME MORE SAMPLES

LOVE - FOREVER CHANGES - MFSL

2016 MFSL EDITION: SACD vs 2×180g LP high quality rip


I choose this one, because I can compare a new pressed LP to the same digital master (SACD edition). Both were released by MFSL last year. I also choose this one because the person who did the rip seems to master the process, has a nice hardware setup and documented every step. Even the LP was new. It's the kind of vinyl rip I talked above: a well performed and time consuming work, something I couldn't do nor simply afford probably. I couldn't enjoy a better sounding "vinyl" experience myself.
Here are the details:

Quote
Vinyl condition: Brand New, Sealed.

• 3 step cleaning process:
(1) Washed with Knosti Disco-Antistat;
(2) Rinsed in 2nd trough with demineralised water;
(3) Record Doctor V RCM

• Rega RP3 Turntable upgraded with:
    — Rega TT-PSU
    — New aluminium sub-platter
    — New stainless steel dual pulley fitted with 2 x Rega White Drive Belts manufactured to higher tolerances
    — New acrylic platter
    — SRM/Tech Silicone Platter Mat
    — JA Mitchell Record Clamp
    — Ortofon 2M Bronze Phono Cartridge aligned using the Baerwald Arc Protractor
• Rega Fono MM Phono Preamp
• Onzow Zerodust stylus cleaner
• Tascam US-366 ADC
• Recorded using Adobe Audition CC v.6.0 @ 32bit/192kHz, then resampled to 24bit/192kHz
• Manual declicking and track splitting using Adobe Audition v. 1.5.

The person didn't say if the electricity comes from a nuclear power plant or a coal power plants (I guess it matters to reduce the DAC's jitter, am I right?), but everything else seems to be complete. I resampled it to 88200 Hz to match the SACD rip (for information, there were no information in the highest frequencies bands, except a slight amount of noise).




On the other side, there's the SACD rip (PS3, Oppo, Pioneer DVD players… there are several options nowadays to rip them). I would say the Red Book layer would do the job, but I prefered the High Resolution DSD layer in order to check the high frequencies as well.
Quote
• SACD Edition, ripped with PS3 to ISO
• PCM conversion with foobar2000: 88200 Hz, +6dB, multistage 32fp mode
• small and imprecise time alignement to match the LP rip




The sample corresponds to:
• track one (Alone Again Or)
• 30 first seconds
It's a really interesting one, because it begins with a very quiet part, with a high channel separation, close to silence in the left channel, and ends with a louder moment.




LISTENING EXPERIENCE

I'm not familiar with the technical words describing analog flaws, but there's an audible kind of wow & flutter on the left channel of the LP rip. There are also small tics and/or pops which weren't removed by the declicking filter of Adobe Audition. They're not very loud but I can ear them with no troubles. The noise is also stronger on the LP rip: it's a coarse one, irregular, corresponding to the mechanical movement of the platter I suppose.
When the music goes louder, all audible problems are gone. Sound is really good, no problem with that. It becomes probably as good as a CD ripped, with individual track split, and tagged, in three minutes and three mouse clics only.

The SACD is on the other side much cleaner. MFSL kept a solid amount of noise (which I can mainly hear on the right and loud channel: so it seems they decided to clean it at the beginning of the left channel which is a great idea in my opinion). No surface noise, no wow/flutter, no tics, no pops, nothing "analog". It's just music, with little annoyance from the recording and media techniques.


CONCLUSION

Even with a high quality set up, even with a lot of work (washing, cleaning and drying the disc + digital filtering) a LP rip from the same master has a poor dynamic range. Silence never exist. Noise covers all the quietest and subtle but audible parts of the music (unless they're compressed on LP mastering, funny enough…). Even with the best efforts, it seems you can't get rid of inherent LP sound issues. And this is with a fresh cut, never played before, LP. From a well reputed audiophile label. I can't provide any better example of the LP vs CD (or SACD, it doesn't matter at this point) comparison. All the remaining ones I found are much worse (when not laughable) for vinyl when it comes to compare the impact of LP transfer on high dynamic music.

You want to know why classical lovers quickly left the vinyl format and why there's quite no LP resurgence in the classical catalogue: no need to look for convenience of the CD format or cost. LP is a far worse media for music, and flaws are easy to notice when benefits are very vague at best (warmth, presence, analog truth, or many more poetic expressions from the neurotic dictionnary of audiofools).

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #130 –
Quote from: kode54 on
He has already chimed in with a moderator report against one of Arny's posts, for allegedly failing to meet this site's need for proof to validate his mere opinion that digital is better than vinyl.

I need to clarify some things.

(1) I reject and avoid using words like "Better" simply because they lack general meaning.  What's better for you might not be better for me, or vice versa.

(2) No matter what better may mean, I assert that sounding different is a prerequisite for sounding better. It is obvious to me that something can't sound better than itself.  In every reasonable case, it will sound no different than itself.

(3) If I'm expressing my true thoughts, I only think in terms of different or not different.

(4) My standard for sound quality is reproduction that is audibly no different than an ideal audio component. To me the ideal audio component is a short, straight, piece of conductive substance driven and received by  what is by traditional engineering standards  appropriately conditioned signal sources and sinks. 

So, failing any other listening test, to me the ideal reference listening test is a comparison of the DUT to the ideal audio component that I just described.

In the case of 16/44 digital, as has been reported publicly many times, in the late 1970s along with some associates of mine we conducted an ABX listening test involving an Ampex  ADD-1 digital delay.  It is described here http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm where it has been posted for well over a decade. I would estimate its first posting date to be around 1996.   The device operated at 16/44 or 16/48 and was based on LPCM coding. It was designed to facilitate the use of the Ampex ATR100 analog tape recorder for vinyl mastering. Its quality was essential, as its purpose was to drive the cutting head.  The delay was required to enable the cutting lathe to anticipate needs for various amounts of lead or groove width based on loudness and spectral content. For example, heavy deep bass needs a wider groove.

It is obvious to me that while the ADD-1 was by most accounts a very good device, current high quality analog converters can reasonably expcted perform the same or even better, at least in terms of technical measurements. Therefore, its sonics are no better than theirs are.  That makes those tests a suitable reference for judging the sonics of modern high quality 16/44 digital audio.

IOW for almost 5 decades I can claim that 16/44 digital audio is indistinguishable from the ideal, based on ABX tests. This claim is thus compliant with TOS-8.   The claim that I violated the site's rules for proof is false and has been false for about 50 years.


Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #131 –
Good vinyl rip. With awful results. Channel separation is particularly bad (apart from surface noise, noise, etc.)

I did a quick frequency response comparison between SACD derived flac and vinyl:


(Vinyl: reference, spectrum: linear, no smoothing)

The wildly alternating response indicates fairly high distortions starting around 650 Hz (assuming the absence of said distortions on the digital source). Rumble noise is clearly visible, the RIAA amp appears to lack a high pass. The frequency boost starting at 14 kHz is either caused by distortions of the cartridge / mistracking / distorting amp or by a low pass applied to the master used for the SACD.

I really have to wonder why people record this with 24/192 if they then don't throw all kinds of signal processing at it (which would at least partly validate the usage of overkill datarates). Pointless.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #132 –
[deleted post]

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #134 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
Good vinyl rip. With awful results. Channel separation is particularly bad (apart from surface noise, noise, etc.)

I did a quick frequency response comparison between SACD derived flac and vinyl:


(Vinyl: reference, spectrum: linear, no smoothing)

The wildly alternating response indicates fairly high distortions starting around 650 Hz (assuming the absence of said distortions on the digital source). Rumble noise is clearly visible, the RIAA amp appears to lack a high pass. The frequency boost starting at 14 kHz is either caused by distortions of the cartridge / mistracking / distorting amp or by a low pass applied to the master used for the SACD.

I really have to wonder why people record this with 24/192 if they then don't throw all kinds of signal processing at it (which would at least partly validate the usage of overkill datarates). Pointless.

I did my own analysis (see attachment) and can't confirm anything above.

The < 40 Hz content in the LP version that seems to be missing from the SACD lacks the periodicity that is characteristic of most rumble which is due to the platter motor. There is a peak just below 10 Hz which seems to be the usual tone arm resonance.

I don't hear lot of mistracking. The HF spectral differences commence above 4 KHz and seem to the result of a shelving-type equalizer filter. 

There were minor timing (ca. 30 mSec) and more signficiant level differences between the SACD and LP rips. Once these difference reduced to less than 1 mSec and less than 0.1 dB, I could still ABX them 16/16 listening to just X's. ABX log on request.  If you listen to the LP track, you should immediately recognize why.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #135 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
There are some unexpected differences. One is the  HF differences that you noted, which for all the world look and sound to me like plain old equalization in the form of a shelving filter. There is also a sharp roll off below 60 Hz in the CD version that again looks to me like something that a mastering engineer would do.

About the sharp roll off below 60 Hz... you could be right, I didn't think about that. When mastering I do this all the time, too (below 35 Hz). Apart from subwoofers and certain headphones, most speakers are unable to play such content anyway.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I would not consider this to be a typical pair of recordings because of the extreme nature of the differences in spectral balance. While the LP format has a lot of issues, those issues are IME generally not that bad.  This looks like the work of a mastering engineer with something specific but hard for me to understand on his mind. Maybe if I had been there, or heard an explanation of them, I might understand.

I wondered about that, too. I suspect the hardware, though. I wouldn't be surprised if the boutique amp that was used tries to add something that isn't there in order to be adored by its target audience. I've seen my fair share of boutique hardware, some of that was - strictly speaking - broken. And with an analogue RIAA amp (which is imprecise technology to begin with) companies might go wild in order to attract people who are basically looking for a botched frequency response (because it sounds... "different").

I often have the impression that audiophiles just crave something that "remasters" stuff on-the-fly. Something that applies some euphonic beautyfication alongside a preferred, effective EQ setting. You probably could make audiophiles of all trades happy if you'd produce a device that contains an equalizer (combined with an exciter), put it into fancy housing, offering genre-specific settings not called "settings" and sell it as the newest analogue revolution. Of course, it cannot be called equalizer, they wouldn't buy it.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
However, people who are trying to justify their affection for vinyl do not follow the kind of logic that you and I might share. There is this tremendous hostility to the digital domain which they may seek to addresss with extreme overkill formats, and then accept poorer subjective results by avoiding digital processing of any kind.

Reminds me of religious zealots.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
(1) A poster who reported health-related problems due to listening to digital media. I haven't heard of such a thing since the days of Dr. Diamond.  http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4408

Sadly, I can't read it.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
(2) The ELP turntable which was apparently packaged with an analog noise reduction facility that probably underperformed digitial equivalents.

Wasn't that the one that came with a washing machine because the reading process amplified dust enormously?

My big mistake - The tracks in question were incorrectly identified in the graphic, and were actually the previous LP/CD pair.

I deleted the post but you quoted and responded to it before I realized my mistake and deleted its contents.

I redid the work with the LP/SACD pair and just posted those results.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #136 –
Deleted my post as well as.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The < 40 Hz content in the LP version that seems to be missing from the SACD lacks the periodicity that is characteristic of most rumble which is due to the platter motor. There is a peak just below 10 Hz which seems to be the usual tone arm resonance.

A tone arm resonance. Makes sense, thanks.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I don't hear lot of mistracking. The HF spectral differences commence above 4 KHz and seem to the result of a shelving-type equalizer filter.

So indeed a mastering decision.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #137 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: nastea on
Guruboolez, what's a Noise Eater? Sounds interesting.
My first guess: a noise cleaning filter
But after googling it: it may be an audiophile carpet, or an idiophile device:

https://www.thomann.de/fr/roland_ne_10_noise_eater.htm
Interesting. It's a damping device to place under the kick pedal of an electronic drum kit to reduce the transmission of vibrations caused by using the pedal. (I am a failed ex-drummer and occasional user of an e-drum kit myself, and my wife will attest to how annoying the "thump thump thump" that travels through the house can be). Made by Roland who are one of the leading manufacturers of e-drums. (Obviously not relevant for an acoustic drum kit).

Can't quite figure out where it fits into a vinyl ripping setup. Presumably it goes under the turntable in an attempt to limit environmental vibrations reaching the TT. That said, the picture of it suggests that it's narrower than would be needed to go under a TT.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #138 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
2016 MFSL EDITION: SACD vs 2×180g LP high quality rip
A very nice sample guruboolez, thanks.
The noise in the beginning even when cleaned as in the LP sample it still sounds like the storm comes near or i live near the beach. This is for normal listening level and i don't like listening to loud.
What annoys me most is clicks. Even the obvious cleaned clicks leave that little hiccups that sound like broken tape.
I can't stand such noise and i am glad digital came around.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #139 –
Quote
For the latter it seems that some information are provided in my post. As I said I'm not trying to convince you. Bring anything concrete to the debate please. If you have some evidence that an arm can magically enhance the sound, remove all pops, clean all noise, be sure I'll listen carefully…

I don't know of an arm that can do that! Nor did I suggest that one can, although I *did* say that when a cartridge is mistracking, one of the artifacts is a crackle that is very much like ticks and pops. An arm that can track a cartridge properly will be free of **that** particular artifact, but its not actually removing any ticks and pops.
Quote
…or maybe not so carefully. LP is technically inferior from the SNR point of vue. It's well known for 40 years. You can't reinvent the wheel... Even vinyl fanatics carefully avoid any conflict in this area and try to argue on more poetic aspect of the sound (warmth, presence, depth… almost anything you can't describe nor measure).

No argument, nor have I suggested otherwise at any time on this forum! What I **have** suggested is that the LP is quieter than many here assert, that's all. Two nights ago I played an LP pressed in 1960 (a red label Angel no less, the 4 seasons by Vivaldi) and there were no ticks and pops over the entire side. I don't find this unusual, but I am careful when I buy used LPs (like this one) and I try to take care of them with proper storage and handling.

Quote
OK "Atmasphere", if you really do have a disk cutting facility at your disposal, (I doubt it!) then you are unique among us as being able to prepare a counter-example with all LP recording and playback components as exactly you would have them.

That is correct-  I bought the lathe and associated electronics back in 1991. And I do have a state of the art tone arm (Triplanar) and phono preamp.  FWIW I've already posted a photo of my lathe and on the lathe was the Sutherland Timeline.

Quote
  I'm sure the CD track is still available as either new or old stock. Since it is digital, its provenance doesn't matter. Just round trip it through your LP recording and playback facility and post the results as a FLAC file.

If you can't meet this simple request "Atmasphere," it is evidence that you don't have the resources you claim, or that they don't work as well as you claim.

I think I can do that but perhaps you could clarify: what CD track is it to which you refer?

Quote
He has already chimed in with a moderator report against one of Arny's posts, for allegedly failing to meet this site's need for proof to validate his mere opinion that digital is better than vinyl.

This statement is false. I reported the post on the basis that what he was saying about me was false- in fact he had no idea what he was talking about, and no evidence for it. Oh wait- maybe it was the statement that Arny made about vinyl being past its resurgence- I loose track; he says a lot of things he can't back up. This site looks for evidence, I assume that includes comments that members make. Go back and read the report again. As an admin you can do that.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #140 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
No argument, nor have I suggested otherwise at any time on this forum! What I **have** suggested is that the LP is quieter than many here assert, that's all. Two nights ago I played an LP pressed in 1960 (a red label Angel no less, the 4 seasons by Vivaldi) and there were no ticks and pops over the entire side. I don't find this unusual, but I am careful when I buy used LPs (like this one) and I try to take care of them with proper storage and handling.

I have no reason to not believe in your experience, but you could try to capture some examples of quiet moments and share them. It's a good way to feed a debate by sharing audio samples rather than words only. You must have quite a good experience with vinyl playback. I don't have it — mine is near exclusively based on LP rip. So I'm really open minded with others experience, but I need something to hear :)

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #141 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
This statement is false. I reported the post on the basis that what he was saying about me was false- in fact he had no idea what he was talking about, and no evidence for it. Oh wait- maybe it was the statement that Arny made about vinyl being past its resurgence- I loose track; he says a lot of things he can't back up. This site looks for evidence, I assume that includes comments that members make. Go back and read the report again. As an admin you can do that.

IOW what I said was false, but you don't know the reason why. But wait, you have speculated a couple of things.

I never said that vinyl was past its resurgence. I just quoted an article that used a statement to that effect to grab attention.  I just pointed out why some of its reasons why were bogus.

It appears that this is about as good as it gets with you - false claims, Opinion Stated As Fact, an absence of any confirming evidence except your say-so which has already been found to be false any number of times.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #142 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on


Quote
OK "Atmasphere", if you really do have a disk cutting facility at your disposal, (I doubt it!) then you are unique among us as being able to prepare a counter-example with all LP recording and playback components as exactly you would have them.

That is correct-  I bought the lathe and associated electronics back in 1991. And I do have a state of the art tone arm (Triplanar) and phono preamp.  FWIW I've already posted a photo of my lathe and on the lathe was the Sutherland Timeline.

Provides zero evidence about who owned it and when. 

Quote
  I'm sure the CD track is still available as either new or old stock. Since it is digital, its provenance doesn't matter. Just round trip it through your LP recording and playback facility and post the results as a FLAC file.
Quote


If you can't meet this simple request "Atmasphere," it is evidence that you don't have the resources you claim, or that they don't work as well as you claim.

I think I can do that but perhaps you could clarify: what CD track is it to which you refer?

Three have been mentioned in this thread.

This is what I can divine about the specifics that are mentioned in this thread.  This information is just as available to you as it is to myself, but I want to make sure that you can't hide behind your oft-demonstrated inability to discern such things:

Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft , Digital Stereo , 415 972-1  specifically the Bolero cut.
https://www.discogs.com/Ravel-London-Symphony-Orchestra-Claudio-Abbado-Bolero-Rapsodie-Espagnole-Ma-M%C3%A8re-LOye-Pavane/release/7719557
Post 119 this thread

Philip Glass. Soundtrack for the movie Powaqqatsi. Released on CD and LP in 1988 by Nonesuch
https://www.discogs.com/Philip-Glass-Powaqqatsi/release/2395526
Post 121 this thread


Love - Forever Changes - MFSL 2016 MFSL EDITION: SACD vs 2×180g LP 
https://www.analogplanet.com/content/mobile-fidelity-reissues-loves-forever-changes-45rpm
Post 129 this thread

This is the best information that I can discern. It is subject to verification by the authors of the posts  in this thread that originally mentioned it.




Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #143 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
This site looks for evidence, I assume that includes comments that members make.

Two nights ago I played an LP pressed in 1960 (a red label Angel no less, the 4 seasons by Vivaldi) and there were no ticks and pops over the entire side.
Post sample now or stop making extraordinary claims...unless you mean you can't hear ticks and pops.
While you're at it, post samples of the 16hz Saint-Saens stereo LP also
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #144 –
I don't have the CDs Arne mentions, but I do have others. I'll see if I can post that Angel recording too, but that's an entire album side we're talking about and you want that uncompressed?

Quote
I never said that vinyl was past its resurgence.

Quote
There is copious and very clear evidence that a true resurgence of LP sales  never happened.
(reply #84)

Hm. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #145 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
... although I *did* say that when a cartridge is mistracking, one of the artifacts is a crackle that is very much like ticks and pops. An arm that can track a cartridge properly will be free of **that** particular artifact, but its not actually removing any ticks and pops.
I am very familiar with the sound of mistracking. To me it sounds very little like ticks and pops. Rather, it's a horrendous distortion.

If your definition of ticks and pops is something that sounds like mistracking, and what I think of as ticks and pops slides under your radar, then I'm not surprised that you claim LPs need not have ticks and pops.

FWIW, my own experience is that I've never come across one single example of an LP from any source that was completely tick-free. But then digitally restoring LPs is my hobby, and I'm a bit anal about hunting down ticks. (Bear in mind that I've not bought a brand new LP in the last 25-odd years).

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #146 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
This site looks for evidence, I assume that includes comments that members make.
Yes and your hands continue to wave.
It's obvious you have none.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #147 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
I don't have the CDs Arne mentions, but I do have others. I'll see if I can post that Angel recording too, but that's an entire album side we're talking about and you want that uncompressed?

They are readily available to buy for a reasonable cost  - both CD and LP versions.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #148 –
Quote from: cliveb on
Quote from: Atmasphere on
... although I *did* say that when a cartridge is mistracking, one of the artifacts is a crackle that is very much like ticks and pops. An arm that can track a cartridge properly will be free of **that** particular artifact, but its not actually removing any ticks and pops.
I am very familiar with the sound of mistracking. To me it sounds very little like ticks and pops. Rather, it's a horrendous distortion.

If your definition of ticks and pops is something that sounds like mistracking, and what I think of as ticks and pops slides under your radar, then I'm not surprised that you claim LPs need not have ticks and pops.

FWIW, my own experience is that I've never come across one single example of an LP from any source that was completely tick-free. But then digitally restoring LPs is my hobby, and I'm a bit anal about hunting down ticks. (Bear in mind that I've not bought a brand new LP in the last 25-odd years).

I agree 100% with the comments above.  Tics and pops have  short duration, on the order of a fraction of a millisecond to several milliseconds.

(please see attachment for a real-world example).

Mistracking has the duration of the track contents that stimulate it, usually on the order of tens of milliseconds or longer.

The other two graphics are from a Shure document about trackability. I"ve always wondered how modern high end cartrdiges would do if judged by these Shure ca. 1976 criteria.  Since AFAIK nobody seems to ever try, I suspect that the results were no overly complementary.. The Shure test disk is still readily available for a reasonable price. 

But we know one of the cannonical  rules of golden earism - zillions$ for gear, but don't we let you dare spend a penny on test equipment!




Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #149 –
Many thanks for posting the matched Love rips/drops, guruboolez, the differences are definitely there.
If I can make it back to my stash of physical CDs any time soon it would be very interesting to compare the MFSL SACD/CD mastering to that of the standard remastered version.

For anyone interested, Forever Changes is an absolutely superb, and incredibly eclectic album.
Psychedelic, baroque, late 60s rock. Flamenco-inflected and slashing electric guitarz, orchestral bits, abrupt time signature changes, bizarre, evocative lyrics ("By the time that I'm through singing, The bells from the schools of wars will be ringing, More confusions, blood transfusions, The news today will be the movies for tomorrow").