I have a question that I don't feel inclined to ask in That Other Thread, since it seems to have turned into an Atmasphere-kicking session.
I've been (unfairly, IMO) accused of various things on this forum, such as a "vinyl apologist", and a "placebophile". Let me make my position absolutely clear: I am neither a vinylphile nor a vinylphobe. I understand and acknowledge the technical limitations of vinyl, and yet I can enjoy listening to it. Despite its manifest flaws, I happen to think that vinyl can sound pretty damn good in a normal domestic listening situation.
I want to hear from those who hate vinyl exactly what it is that they find so objectionable. Is it just the surface noise (what I call "vinyl roar") and the ticks & pops? Or do some of the other inaccuracies (eg. frequency response, distortion, crosstalk, wow & flutter) make vinyl unlistenable?
To put it another way, if you heard some vinyl that had no audible ticks, pops or surface noise, how confident are you that you would be able to identify it as vinyl?
So another vinyl topic in General Audio forum... but why not, if the mods don't care.
My opinion is extremely simple: if a vinyl, a tape, or cassette release sounds great, and it is exclusively released on such storage media, I will digitize it ASAP before it deteriorates, or ask someone to do that for me if I don't have the equipment.
Simply because... only digital formats can last forever.
If it wasn't for the pops, it would sound fine to me. It does sound overall different than a CD, but I don't perceive it as worse or better. Just slightly different.
However, I only have limited experience with actual vinyl. I don't own a setup, but my father did in the past. In those days, I didn't have a CD player yet. My vinyl comparisons are using those "24-bit vinyl rips" one can find online, which I have downloaded due to curiosity to compare them against my CDs. So this might invalidate any kind of comparisons I did vs CDs, not sure.
But some of those vinyl rips were surprisingly clean, with extremely few noticeable pops. And those sounded fine to me; as I said, slightly different sound, but not worse nor better. I don't know if vinyl is pressed from a different master though compared to digital releases. That might be the reason for the majority of the differences I hear, and those differences are very small (to me) to begin with.
With that being said though, in the age of Spotify (and friends), I find myself bothering less and less with using CDs when Spotify is just a click away. In fact, I don't think I played an actual CD in... over a year now? So I can't imagine that I'd be willing to deal with the additional hassles of using vinyl. I do realize though that for many people, these "hassles" are part of the experience. I completely understand why holding a vinyl record in your hands, putting it on, moving the needle, etc, would be a satisfying experience. I totally get it.
Oh Clive, c'mon now.
Perhaps you're now just a recovering placebophile...
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,52171.msg467623.html#msg467623
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,52171.msg467857.html#msg467857
Sorry, but I think you asked for it.
I want to hear from those who hate vinyl exactly what it is that they find so objectionable. Is it just the surface noise (what I call "vinyl roar") and the ticks & pops? Or do some of the other inaccuracies (eg. frequency response, distortion, crosstalk, wow & flutter) make vinyl unlistenable?
For me, it's preamp instability. I've now learned that vynil is a dead silent medium, that does not need heroics/cleaning to reduce surface noise as commonly thought, but rather a stable, albeit bling phono pre. Maybe a dust brush too.
I've subsequently dumped my fancy record cleaner and am in negotiations with Ralphie over a bling stable pre. The >$100 cartridge will have to wait.
To put it another way, if you heard some vinyl that had no audible ticks, pops or surface noise, how confident are you that you would be able to identify it as vinyl?
Other than the NPR and furnace business, I thought we just did??
I want to hear from those who hate vinyl exactly what it is that they find so objectionable. Is it just the surface noise (what I call "vinyl roar") and the ticks & pops? Or do some of the other inaccuracies (eg. frequency response, distortion, crosstalk, wow & flutter) make vinyl unlistenable?
Noise!!! Clicks and pops were always the biggest issue for me. Defects/damage on records didn't seem to bother my friends & family (as long as the record didn't skip) but they annoyed me, especially if it was my record that was damaged/defective, and I really tried to take care of them.
I could have lived with "normal" background surface noise and preamp noise but now I've been spoiled by digital.
But... back when I was listening to vinyl I was always upgrading (or wanting to upgrade) my cartridge for "better sound" (better frequency response).
Most (rock/popular) records seemed to have rolled-off highs, but there were a few gems with "sparkly-clean" sound. So, I was on a fool's errand looking for a better cartridge. And, I felt like I was "cheating" if I turned-up the treble... Reading too many hi-fi magazines about "flat frequency response"... Now if I digitize a record (because I can't find a digital copy) I use EQ if I feel like it needs it... That's after click & pop reduction, of course!
45's were generally lousy... I can't say what was wrong and it's been decades since I've played a 45, but I suppose it was distortion (loudness war? re-grind vinyl?). The same song on an LP usually sounded much better.
With LP's, tracking/distortion problems were only occasional.
I never heard crosstalk (or lack of separation) and I never heard wow/flutter from a turntable that wasn't broken.
I want to hear from those who hate vinyl exactly what it is that they find so objectionable. Is it just the surface noise (what I call "vinyl roar") and the ticks & pops? Or do some of the other inaccuracies (eg. frequency response, distortion, crosstalk, wow & flutter) make vinyl unlistenable?
For me, it's preamp instability. I've now learned that vynil is a dead silent medium, that does not need heroics/cleaning to reduce surface noise as commonly thought, but rather a stable, albeit bling phono pre. Maybe a dust brush too.
I've subsequently dumped my fancy record cleaner and am in negotiations with Ralphie over a bling stable pre. The >$100 cartridge will have to wait.
To put it another way, if you heard some vinyl that had no audible ticks, pops or surface noise, how confident are you that you would be able to identify it as vinyl?
Other than the NPR and furnace business, I thought we just did??
I asked what I thought was a reasonable question. And I thank Nikaki and DVDdoug for actually answering what I asked. (And it seems to me that their main issue with vinyl is indeed the noise).
But you, AJ, seem to just want to try and make jokes. Are you prepared to actually answer the question?
No diatribe against inner-groove distortion?
@AJ:
You forgot balanced XLR connections, like what can be found on the veil-lifting Squeezebox Transporter.
Oh Clive, c'mon now.
Perhaps you're now just a recovering placebophile...
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,52171.msg467623.html#msg467623
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,52171.msg467857.html#msg467857
Sorry, but I think you asked for it.
So you had to go back over 10 years to find something I said that you feel puts me in that camp?
Actually, I'm in awe that you were able to find them in under 23 minutes. Almost as if you keep close at hand a cache of members' posts that you might want to use as ammo.
No, I have a memory and have a penchant for searching efficiently; but if it makes you feel better to dismiss me as a troll collecting ammo against placebophiles, you're more than welcome. It's a conspiracy after all.
But that raises an interesting question, my raising the term conspiracy, that is: exactly when were you accused of being a placebophile before my pointing out the obvious?
Simply because... only digital formats can last forever.
I dunno bennet, I'm thinking that gold record on Voyager 2 is going to have a good long lifespan.
Digital files are only as immortal as their backups & error correction, and your ability to read them, of course. :D
I happen to think that vinyl can sound pretty damn good in a normal domestic listening situation.
CD can sound pretty damn
better in a normal domestic listening situation, is more convenient, way cheaper, can be played 1000 times without sonic degradation. CD players can be cheap and good, can be embed in cars or computers, are way less cumbersome, don't need maintenance or a precise setup. And of course a CD can be ripped and the resultant identical-sounding files are even more convenient, can be played litterally anywhere anytime etc.
All in all, the vinyl support has a lot of cons and not a single pro over CD/Files. So the only rational question to ask is:
why vinyl over digital?
I'm 59 years old and have known a huge part of the vinyl-only era. Though not affected by nostalgia for this crappy format most of us used to loathe at the time (which every old-timer rejoicing in the so-called vinyl return seems to have forgotten), I can acknowledge and even understand while some people may suffer from it. Especially in modern popular music (from the 50's to today) where image, rituals and plain fetichism are dominant. What I can't understand is how a long-time HA member can question on this very forum the preference for digital. It's been answered in 1982 et never rationally opposed.
You're telling us you enjoy listening to vinyl? Good for you but nobody cares on this forum. Or if some do then they're on the wrong forum.
I dunno bennet, I'm thinking that gold record on Voyager 2 is going to have a good long lifespan.
Digital files are only as immortal as their backups & error correction, and your ability to read them, of course. :D
Sure. Both digital and analog formats rely on physical storage media. Physical media of course are destructible.
Rephrase it into no generation loss OK?
Also about the "bit rot" thing... I think repeated discussions are not necessary.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111995.0.html
I'd say I'm the cliveb camp - I neither love nor loathe vinyl - and tend to agree with the OP. I'm old enough to remember a time when vinyl was the highest source quality commonly available, tapes were a poorer and hissy second. Given the choice, you listened to vinyl at home, assuming you had the record.
In isolation, I think a well cared for LP on a modestly decent setup is quite acceptable. However, like most I've been somewhat spoilt by digital with its capability of (in real-world terms) noiseless reproduction, better bandwidth, convenience etc. I still have a turntable (with a sub-$100 cartridge) but it rarely sees use and I only have a handful of records.
To answer one of the questions: were it not for the surface noise I'm not confident I could identify vinyl in isolation. I could probably pick it as "not the same" against digital, assuming identical source material but even that might be wishful thinking.
I want to hear from those who hate vinyl exactly what it is that they find so objectionable. Is it just the surface noise (what I call "vinyl roar") and the ticks & pops? Or do some of the other inaccuracies (eg. frequency response, distortion, crosstalk, wow & flutter) make vinyl unlistenable?
I have lots of vinyl records and I love listening to them, when I have time. It's a nice experience.
On one hand they do sound nice on their own, but the little distortions and all that kinda adds to the sound. I.e. when listening to vinyl, it's not entirely about listening to "the best way to listen music" it's about the entire package.
Right now, there's an entire music resurgence going on, with people listening to Lo-Fi, Vapor Wave, Synthwave, etc. Some artists intentionally release their music on MCs because the slightly muffled sound is actually part of the whole point, etc.
To put it another way, if you heard some vinyl that had no audible ticks, pops or surface noise, how confident are you that you would be able to identify it as vinyl?
You're making assumption about a theoretical perfect vinyl already. When you compare two things, then you compare actual real-world objects.
If you want to assume a hypothetical perfect vinyl on a hypothetical perfect player, with no audible artifacts, then what are we comparing against? A perfect hypothetical DAC with infinite bit depth and a infinite sampling rate, playing a source with equally infinite attributes? Why not throw infinite number of channels into the mix for good measure?
Real world objects like that are tested in systems. So you'd actually perform that sort of test in an anechoic chamber, with test equipment which for all intents and purposes have near-infinite attributes to the setup (walls reflectivity of near 0, engineering measurement microphones, etc). This isn't a listening test, this is an engineering experiment at that point, you'd have to decide what you're after. If you want a comparative test setup, you must control for all other coefficients. And if possible make a p-value analysis and control against that with a control group.
The entire assumption is weird when looking from it from the other side: It is relatively easy to synthesize the sound of a vinyl. In fact most DAWs and even some DJ-ing software include these functions, for effects. Cubase has a plugin that lets you select what
type of vinyl or amp you want to simulate. And trust me, they are really convincing (btw, similar things also exist for simulating specific microphones, etc.) Similar things exist in the video production world, too. There are grain filters, which intentionally simulate different kinds of film stock in 4k digital footage: https://www.rocketstock.com/video-packs/emulsion-film-grain-overlays/
So I can turn this right around: suppose you select a vinyl with pops and clicks and all that, and I edit the same song or whatever from a lossless source, such that the music has the same dynamic range, same length, but I add vinyl noise, wow and flutter, clicks and pops, to a regular amount. How confident are you, you'd be able to differentiate between the two, given a common test equipment, like amp, speakers or headphones?
What is "unlistenable about vinyl"? Nothing. What drives people up the walls, is that people claim they have nothing in comparison from anything beyond that medium, and if you can't hear it, you simply lack the ears for that. That and the sheer inability to understand assumptions like that is what kinda makes these threads feel like sticking your head in a tumble dryer.
To be hones, I'm having a hard time differentiating what's an honest question and what's a friggin troll trying to pour more oil into the fire.
And last but not least: There's a vinyl section on HA, as well as an off-topic section, and I've seen you post in both. I don't see how this thread doesn't belong in either, but instead goes into General Audio. My understanding is, that discussing vinyl goes into the vinyl section, and meta-discussions go into the off-topic section. But oh well, I might be wrong. People being annoyed at "mis-posting" like that, isn't a HA thing, it's consistent across pretty much all forums everywhere. Usually mods will move a thread into the correct section.
I listen to vinyl because it's fun and for what it is, it sounds pretty good. Not perfect, but good enough - it has its own kinda nice sound and it's a nice experience. I love playing with my reel-to-reel, too, for pretty much the same reasons. The difference there, is that I can record on it and I have no pre-recorded content, while it's the exact opposite to vinyl.
In almost all cases I can think of (mobility or a "regular home equipment", as you stated), digital music beats vinyl in pretty much all cases. On the level of sound reproduction, but also on the levels of investment vs. attained quality, as well as convenience.
Vinyl music is preferable for a small edge case: enjoying listening to vinyl.
But you, AJ, seem to just want to try and make jokes.
I was trying to best Ralph, but guess I failed. I admit his was pretty epic.
In case you missed it, I don't take this stereo music listening stuff, rock through window seriously. YMMV.
Are you prepared to actually answer the question?
Whether I still beat my wife...excuse me, "hate" vinyl?
In case you missed it, I own a TT. I find plenty fastidiously cleaned vinyl quite enjoyable. But as a classical music fan, with my decidedly non-audiophile, slightly capable system, near intolerable.
The only reason I still have a TT in 2017 while walking upright, is to rip music that either doesn't exist digitally, or flat out sounds better mastered. Otherwise the whole ritual thing sucks. Lets not get into the whole, "but it causes
focus" Hocus Pocus. Please.
Are you thinking of posting a "silent vynil" file slight more, ahem, capable than Ralphies?
If so, please do.
@AJ:
You forgot balanced XLR connections
I have those on my Bryston phono preamp, does that count???
Are you thinking of posting a "silent vynil" file slight more, ahem, capable than Ralphies?
If so, please do.
I was trying to gauge whether any people claim that vinyl has audible problems other than the obvious noise issues, and that they can tell when they are listening to vinyl even when those noise issues are absent.
Because if they do, then I *am* thinking of posting a few files - some of them will be needle drops, and some will be CD rips.
Their task will be to identify which is which. If vinyl is as flawed as people say it is, then it'll be a trivial exercise.
I personally think they might struggle.
Is anyone willing to risk it?
Because if they do, then I *am* thinking of posting a few files - some of them will be needle drops, and some will be CD rips.
Their task will be to identify which is which. If vinyl is as flawed as people say it is, then it'll be a trivial exercise.
I personally think they might struggle.
Is anyone willing to risk it?
Sure, how about Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture. There is a Telarc version on vinyl (have) and CD iirc. (think I have)
Hopefully no brick through window from Chibi if I fail.
I've been (unfairly, IMO) accused of various things on this forum, such as a "vinyl apologist", and a "placebophile". Let me make my position absolutely clear: I am neither a vinylphile nor a vinylphobe.
From my (similar but not the same) not-giving-a-crap-either-way point of view, this seems like playing the middle and a false equivalence. Like so many other things nowadays, one "side" seems to be making the outrageous claims and the other "side" seems to just be reacting to the insanity. I would concede that you can place Mr. Science and Reason Warrior, our Dear OP of that other thread, in the "phobe" camp, but that's just him and you can see how it backfired on him.
I understand and acknowledge the technical limitations of vinyl, and yet I can enjoy listening to it. Despite its manifest flaws, I happen to think that vinyl can sound pretty damn good in a normal domestic listening situation.
I don't think most of the vinyl "haters" here would disagree with that. Seems like you're setting up a straw man here.
I want to hear from those who hate vinyl exactly what it is that they find so objectionable. Is it just the surface noise (what I call "vinyl roar") and the ticks & pops? Or do some of the other inaccuracies (eg. frequency response, distortion, crosstalk, wow & flutter) make vinyl unlistenable?
To put it another way, if you heard some vinyl that had no audible ticks, pops or surface noise, how confident are you that you would be able to identify it as vinyl?
I don't think that's the issue, the issue is that it's so difficult to get no audible ticks, pops or surface noise in the first place, compared to digital. There is just no contest.
Originally magnetic tape and phonograph records were all that was available (to most people, to me, at least). The noise bothered me on many LPs, and the tape hiss on many tapes. The wow and flutter on many cassettes was more unpleasant. An expensive enough tape deck brought that later under reasonable control but such equipment was beyond the economics of a great many people. I began collecting CDs a couple or so years after they came on the market. There was much to prefer over most of my LPs, as far as the majority of the CDs I selected were concerned.
Quite a few years later I learned the idea of transferring LPs to digital, then cleaning out some significant part of the noise. After working on my old collection, I started buying used LPs. That was when I discovered their true value.
The recording equipment wasn't as good in the pre-digital days but the art of recording was well advanced, practically perfected by turn of the last century. There have been many great performers for long before that. Mastering practices were, for the most part, much more to my taste than the models used during the last twenty five years.
This produced a bounty of so many thousands of used recordings to choose from, recordings I never could have afforded otherwise, a trainload of marvelous music of many different genres I never would have heard otherwise. That was the true value of vinyl in my life, so much affordable experience and music not hammered to death with the modern mastering approach.
Because if they do, then I *am* thinking of posting a few files - some of them will be needle drops, and some will be CD rips.
Their task will be to identify which is which. If vinyl is as flawed as people say it is, then it'll be a trivial exercise.
I personally think they might struggle.
Is anyone willing to risk it?
Sure, how about Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture. There is a Telarc version on vinyl (have) and CD iirc. (think I have)
I think you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that an LP and CD of the same recording would be indistinguishable - of course they would sound different (and especially so for classical).
What I am proposing is to post a few clips (some vinyl, some CD) so that those people who claim that vinyl sounds so bad that it's unmistakeable can prove their claim by identifying which ones are vinyl.
If you're still up for it, I will post the clips.
That said, I think perhaps andy o makes a valid point:
I don't think that's the issue, the issue is that it's so difficult to get no audible ticks, pops or surface noise in the first place.
I absolutely agree with this. All of my vinyl-sourced music is needle-dropped and declicked/denoised. I certainly acknowledge that lstening to vinyl direct from the TT is always accompanied by annoying noise.
My original aim here was to establish whether those who seem vehemently hostile to vinyl think there are other problems as well as the noise - because reading comments from the likes of AJ and Arny, that's the impression I get.
In case you missed it, I own a TT. I find plenty fastidiously cleaned vinyl quite enjoyable.
My original aim here was to establish whether those who seem vehemently hostile to vinyl think there are other problems as well as the noise - because reading comments from the likes of AJ and Arny, that's the impression I get.
While I play a psychologist on TV, I'm not really one in real life, so I can't help with that level of disconnect between what I actually wrote vs what's going on in your head. Sorry Clive, no hypotheses to put forward there, perhaps you could help?
Oh and that's a pretty uncalled for low blow lumping me in with Arny. Not nice.
Post those files. I'd be interested in doing the test. Hating a format is irrational and I don't get a sense of vinyl hate on this forum.
I still listen to vinyl, still buy records and maintain a high end TT and cart.
I prefer the presentation of well mastered digital though and I believe will be able to pick most of those files that are needledrops. It's hard to describe, I have heard so many different turntables and digital rigs and generally vinyl has a smoother sound (which I think is an artefact of imprecise low bass and high treble frequencies which sort of blends the sound) which suits some types of music. However again hard to describe, nearly always vinyl has a sound that is veiled, a sort of like looking through a slightly opaque lens. Sustained notes, such as a hit of the piano key is rarely pitch perfect. I do know, to these ears, if I compare my best LPs (ie sound quality, very quiet and and perfectly centred pressing) with my best CDs, it is splitting hairs with the CD coming out ahead on tracks with deep nuanced bass and when the track gets closer to centre of the record.
I *am* thinking of posting a few files - some of them will be needle drops, and some will be CD rips.
Their task will be to identify which is which. If vinyl is as flawed as people say it is, then it'll be a trivial exercise.
I personally think they might struggle.
Is anyone willing to risk it?
All of my vinyl-sourced music is needle-dropped and declicked/denoised. I certainly acknowledge that lstening to vinyl direct from the TT is always accompanied by annoying noise.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that an LP and CD of the same recording would be indistinguishable - of course they would sound different (and especially so for classical).
Umm, no, It's not me who misunderstands. At all.
In case you missed it, I own a TT. I find plenty fastidiously cleaned vinyl quite enjoyable.
In selectively quoting your earlier post, you have removed your follow-up comment that it is intolerable. Let me refresh your memory:
In case you missed it, I own a TT. I find plenty fastidiously cleaned vinyl quite enjoyable. But as a classical music fan, with my decidedly non-audiophile, slightly capable system, near intolerable.
So you find fastidiously cleaed vinyl quite enjoyable, but you also find it near intolerable. It's often difficult to figure out exactly what you mean to say.
While I play a psychologist on TV, I'm not really one in real life, so I can't help with that level of disconnect between what I actually wrote vs what's going on in your head. Sorry Clive, no hypotheses to put forward there, perhaps you could help?
I have a hypothesis that might help. It's because you tend to write in riddles. You routinely lob in mischievous remarks that I for one have difficulty deciphering. I *think* you do it to try and be funny. But I could easily have got that wrong, too.
So I *still* don't know whether you think vinyl has audible problems over and above surface noise and clicks. I kinda got the impression that you do, but I guess I could easily have misinterpreted your posts.
A staight answer to a straight question would be helpful at this stage. Any chance of one?
Oh and that's a pretty uncalled for low blow lumping me in with Arny. Not nice.
I didn't realise you had a problem with Arny. I put the two of you together because I got the impression that you both have a dislike of vinyl and might be the sort of people who would claim to be able to identify it easily. No other reason.
Post those files. I'd be interested in doing the test.
OK, here you go. The ZIP file contains 8 FLACs and a readme file.
I'm not suggesting that an LP and CD of the same recording would be indistinguishable - of course they would sound different (and especially so for classical).
I certainly acknowledge that lstening to vinyl direct from the TT is always accompanied by annoying noise.
In selectively quoting your earlier post, you have removed your follow-up comment that it is intolerable. Let me refresh your memory:
In case you missed it, I own a TT. I find plenty fastidiously cleaned vinyl quite enjoyable. But as a classical music fan, with my decidedly non-audiophile, slightly capable system, near intolerable.
So you find fastidiously cleaned vinyl quite enjoyable, but you also find it near intolerable. It's often difficult to figure out exactly what you mean to say.
I'm saying I agree with Cliveb regarding classical vinyl/playback noise. If you can decipher what he's saying about classical vinyl that I agree with, you should be good to go.
I didn't realise you had a problem with Arny. I put the two of you together because
Please don't.
Now I have a question for you. Do you listen to "live" vinyl with some sort of active analog declicker/noise remover, or just (digital) noise removed recorded vinyl rips? Genuinely puzzled as to what sort of "vinyl" playback you speak of.
I want to hear from those who hate vinyl exactly what it is that they find so objectionable.
Once I experienced the convenience of using a clicker to pick anything from my library for instant playback, there was no going back. The fact that digital sounds to me as good or better than what I got from my turntable was just icing.
Right now, there's an entire music resurgence going on, with people listening to Lo-Fi, Vapor Wave, Synthwave, etc. Some artists intentionally release their music on MCs because the slightly muffled sound is actually part of the whole point, etc.
The latest hipster fad. Like a plate of 'food' being half empty and the rest dotted with tweezer placed micro-dots of one gel or another and the odd flower. Fluff and nonsense.
OK, here you go. The ZIP file contains 8 FLACs and a readme file.
I started listening, got halfway through, stopped and started playing video games.
Anyone else notice this?
p.s. Clive ^joke, not serious^
Who on this forum "hates" vinyl? So far as I can tell they believe they simply have recognized a better medium and moved on. Does buying an LCD TV mean you hate cathode ray tubes?
(I still watch T.V. on a C.R.T. box, by the way...)
It seems to me you started this thread by poisoning the well with a personal attack on those who *prefer* digital modes. They disagree with your preference, therefore they must hate your preference. Not a great way to start a productive conversation. And you wonder why you are drawing some snark?
I don't hate vinyl, rather I don't appreciate the nonsense that people parrot about the format, either ignorantly or disingenuously.
In this case we also see poor reading comprehension and intellectual dishonesty through the use of strawman argumentation and playing the victim.
I 'hate' the smugly ignorant blather that vinylphiles emit whenever they veer beyond 'I like to play records'.
As if vinyl is doing anything that digital can't, soundwise.
(I do not count cliveb among the ignorati)
Now I have a question for you. Do you listen to "live" vinyl with some sort of active analog declicker/noise remover, or just (digital) noise removed recorded vinyl rips? Genuinely puzzled as to what sort of "vinyl" playback you speak of.
All of my music listening is streamed via various Squeezebox devices. Most of my library is CD rips.
A proportion (perhaps 5%) is needle drops that have been carefully declicked & denoised.
I never listen to "live" vinyl.
Excellent. Why you decided to wear a target for being sensible is a bit odd.
It seems to me you started this thread by poisoning the well with a personal attack on those who *prefer* digital modes. They disagree with your preference, therefore they must hate your preference. Not a great way to start a productive conversation. And you wonder why you are drawing some snark?
You seem to have drawn the conclusion that I prefer vinyl. I don't, and thought I made that absolutely clear in the very first post. If you want to know, I do actually prefer digital - it's far more convenient and (usually) sounds better.
I started the thread because I perceived that some forum members regarded vinyl as much more seriously flawed than I do.
All I wanted to find out was whether this perception of mine about their attitude was correct. I don't recall ever attacking anyone for preferring digital over vinyl - if I did that, please show me where.
I unwisely used the term "hate vinyl" to characterise their position, and now realise that it was too strong: I apologise for that.
You're telling us you enjoy listening to vinyl? Good for you but nobody cares on this forum. Or if some do then they're on the wrong forum.
Well, we did once have a
what do people like about LPs and playing them? thread and, if I remember rightly, it turned into one of those threads about... what people like about LPs. Probably most things got covered, from the feel of the cardboard to the inner sleeve but nobody tried to claim that
only LPs contained angel dust and the farts of real musicians.
Yes, we can discuss records. It all depends on the agenda, I suppose.
I certainly don't hate vinyl. I
love vinyl, and even shellac, as having been a big part of my history.
I don't play it any more, though, and, sentimentally, I regret that sometimes.
For what it's worth, all of the samples sound fine to me. I don't hear anything wrong with any of them. I compared them to Spotify's version of them (320kbps Vorbis) and they sound the same to me.
I didn't try especially hard to listen to differences and I didn't try to ABX anything. Just a normal listen a couple times.
Now I have a question for you. Do you listen to "live" vinyl with some sort of active analog declicker/noise remover, or just (digital) noise removed recorded vinyl rips? Genuinely puzzled as to what sort of "vinyl" playback you speak of.
All of my music listening is streamed via various Squeezebox devices. Most of my library is CD rips.
A proportion (perhaps 5%) is needle drops that have been carefully declicked & denoised.
I never listen to "live" vinyl.
It is with some trepidation that I offer this opinion, but here goes anyway...
I think Funkstar might have something of a point when he talks about not browsing the net or skipping tracks when listening to vinyl. My hypothesis is that the effort involved in playing an LP has a psychological effect that encourages the listener to pay more attention so that the effort they've just expended doesn't get squandered.
This is a scientific forum, but psychology is still a science of some sort, isn't it? (Not proper science like maths or physics, of course ;) )
Ok, so your hypothesis was based on what vinylphiles llike Funkstar claimed, rather than what you yourself experience.
Got it. Puzzle solved.
Ok, hopefully you got the joke above too then.
OK, here you go. The ZIP file contains 8 FLACs and a readme file.
Ok here i go. I only listened with foobar and write down my honest impression after short listening. No science.
No hunt for samples from my side happened. This means no comparison or abx.
Kevin Ayres, scratch ~6sec, vinyl
Tchaikovsky, clean and fresh, digital
Saint Saens, lowres unpleasent, vinyl
Gordon Giltrap, slow transients for such a guitar recording, vinyl
Queen, crackle ~13sec, sibilence vinyl
King Crimson, old fashioned sound but clean, digital
Eberhard Weber, precise bass vs sax but crackle ~28sec, vinyl
Franky i don't know. I guess digital as the pop recordings back then were not so good
All I wanted to find out was whether this perception of mine about their attitude was correct.
It isn't.
...but I can't speak for Arny.
All I wanted to find out was whether this perception of mine about their attitude was correct.
It isn't.
...but I can't speak for Arny.
Right, he may actually be that hater Clive thought existed.
TT/vinyl owning me, not so much. Except
classical (maybe some big band and occasional jazz with 20hz bass) on vinyl, yep, admitted dynamics/deep bass limited, noise, pops, etc. hater.
Ok here i go. I only listened with foobar and write down my honest impression after short listening. No science.
No hunt for samples from my side happened. This means no comparison or abx.
Thanks, Wombat, for taking the trouble.
I will reveal where the samples came from in due course, to give others a chance to play (if they wish to).
But if you're interested, for now I can tell you that you got 3 out of 8 correct.
No problem with that. None of these recordings are exactly great sounding.
Post those files. I'd be interested in doing the test.
OK, here you go. The ZIP file contains 8 FLACs and a readme file.
Looks like they were originally lossy compressed. How else to explain the brick wall @ 16 kHz?
Sigh!
I think the idea was to use your ears rather than your eyes.
I think the idea was to use your ears rather than your eyes.
I am eagerly anticipating the results of this experiment, using ears etc. How many will have the courage to express their views on the origin of the, now famous, 8 files? So far, we have only one, if I’m not mistaken.
Not very confident of my results. I listened in front of my PC rather than streaming the files to the hi fi but here it goes...
1. Vinyl 5. Digital
2. Digital 6. Digital
3. Digital 7. Vinyl
4.Vinyl 8. Digital
That's what I see in cliveb's first post:
To put it another way, if you heard some vinyl that had no audible ticks, pops or surface noise, how confident are you that you would be able to identify it as vinyl?
Then the test files are vinyl rips with laborious digital restoration applied. These files are just as invalid as Atmasphere's revolutionary mic rip, if the purpose of the test is to demonstrate "live" vinyl playback, as AJ mentioned. The only valid comparison is vinyl rips with only basic processing (e.g. volume normalization). Vinyl rips with digital restoration is by definition no different from ADD or AAD CDs, apart from those CDs are supposedly originated from tapes. Obviously I don't choose which CDs to buy based on SPARS codes.
What's the point of doing such a test? The only point I can conclude from this test is remastered CD originated from analog sources can sound great without all those loudness war bullshit and molesting as discussed here:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114203.msg941916.html#msg941916
...and you can see Atmasphere's nonsense again.
Problems with the test files:
If you're trying to isolate the effects of vinyl, you can't do that with samples made from analog tape masters which are already two or more generations down from the original. Many of the issues with tape and vinyl are similar in several aspects, and will thus it would be difficult or impossible to differentiate between a vinyl copy of an analog master vs a digital copy of the same master, assuming pristine vinyl once surface noise and ticks are eliminated.
If you want to isolate vinyl differences you have to start with masters better than vinyl in all aspects, and that would most likely be a digital master.
You might also number the files so people posting their "results" with files 1, 2, 3...etc... will have some means of definitive identification.
I'm not sure what validity there is in evaluating a vinyl that has already been noise reduced and de-clicked, as those are the big issues. What's left after that is distortion of various kinds, much of which exists in the analog tape chain as well. So what you're actually asking is if we could identify second or greater generation analog master transferred to vinyl vs a similar master transferred to digital. Essentially, "can you see if my window is dirty by looking through this other dirty window?" I don't know what that proves, or even what the point is.
In my own tests of vinyl and CD made from the same digital master with no changes (and with the lacquer cut conservatively so as not to "push" the limits of the medium), I could get first-play pristine vinyl to sound exactly like the CD on the outer half of the vinyl, up until the area between tracks where surface noise was the tell, or where a vinyl imperfection was audible. However, past several plays, there were other issues creeping in, and our material didn't stress separation much at all. So it got down to surface noise and ticks, then groove wear distortion. Inner grooves of course were a different story.
I guess it goes without saying that comparing a CD and vinyl of the same recording is just an exercise, as they've taken usually entirely different mastering paths.
Looks like they were originally lossy compressed. How else to explain the brick wall @ 16 kHz?
That's explained in the readme file, but I'll repeat it here anyway:
I noticed that the vinyl rips (made at 44.1kHz using a M-Audio AP2496) had energy up to 22kHz, whereas all of the CD rips seemed to have nothing above the 20kHz mark. So to remove the possibility of seeing the difference using a simple frequency analysis, I decided to brickwall everything above 16kHz. I used CoolEdit's FFT filter to do that. The files were not passed through a lossy compression step.
Not very confident of my results. I listened in front of my PC rather than streaming the files to the hi fi but here it goes...
1. Vinyl 5. Digital
2. Digital 6. Digital
3. Digital 7. Vinyl
4.Vinyl 8. Digital
Thanks for taking the trouble, but since I didn't number the files, I'm not sure which files your numbers refer to.
Assuming it is the order they are found in the ZIP file, then we have:
1. Eberhard Weber
2. Frankie
3. Gordon Giltrap
4. Kevin Ayers
5. King Crimson
6. Queen
7. Saint-Saens
8. Tchaikovsky
Does my numbering match yours?
Then the test files are vinyl rips with laborious digital restoration applied.
They are indeed.
These files are just as invalid as Atmasphere's revolutionary mic rip, if the purpose of the test is to demonstrate "live" vinyl playback, as AJ mentioned.
The purpose was NOT to demostrate "live" vinyl playback.
I feel like I'm having to repeat myself, but let me try and explain once again:
I got the impression that there are some forum members who feel that vinyl has a whole raft of problems *in addition to* simple surface noise, ticks and pops. Their characterisation of vinyl as having high distortion, poor frequency response, bad crosstalk, etc. suggested to me that they believed that even if vinyl had no surface noise, it would still be grossly inadequate and easily identifiable. My challenge is therefore for those people (who I now accept may be a figment of my imagination) to identify vinyl after it has had the obvious tell-tale noise removed.
Not very confident of my results. I listened in front of my PC rather than streaming the files to the hi fi but here it goes...
1. Vinyl 5. Digital
2. Digital 6. Digital
3. Digital 7. Vinyl
4.Vinyl 8. Digital
Thanks for taking the trouble, but since I didn't number the files, I'm not sure which files your numbers refer to.
Assuming it is the order they are found in the ZIP file, then we have:
1. Eberhard Weber
2. Frankie
3. Gordon Giltrap
4. Kevin Ayers
5. King Crimson
6. Queen
7. Saint-Saens
8. Tchaikovsky
Does my numbering match yours?
Don't reveal anything yet, worked 16hrs yesterday, so I'll listen some time today.
My guess:
Kevin Ayers - Day By Day - vinyl
All others - digital
The purpose was NOT to demostrate "live" vinyl playback.
But that's exactly what the focus hocus pocus hypothesis kerfuffle was all about.
Their characterisation of vinyl as having high distortion, poor frequency response, bad crosstalk, etc. suggested to me that they believed that even if vinyl had no surface noise, it would still be grossly inadequate and easily identifiable.
Might be helpful for you to cite actual quotes of
Their, lest they be a strawman in your head.
Or at least that's my hypothesis.
These haters spoke out against your digitized "cleansed" vinyl??
If you're trying to isolate the effects of vinyl, you can't do that with samples made from analog tape masters which are already two or more generations down from the original. Many of the issues with tape and vinyl are similar in several aspects, and will thus it would be difficult or impossible to differentiate between a vinyl copy of an analog master vs a digital copy of the same master, assuming pristine vinyl once surface noise and ticks are eliminated.
That could very well be a valid point. I don't have enough experience with analogue tape to know whether it has much the same issues as vinyl. Anyone else care to offer an opinion?
If you want to isolate vinyl differences you have to start with masters better than vinyl in all aspects, and that would most likely be a digital master.
Unfortunately very little of my music collection was originally recorded digitally.
You might also number the files so people posting their "results" with files 1, 2, 3...etc... will have some means of definitive identification.
Yes, good point. See my earlier response to old tech (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115122.msg949674.html#msg949674).
The point of CDs, or digital in general, is transparency. So digital doesn't have a sound of its own. The sound will be the one of the source.
Vinyl is not transparent, by far. That's the whole point.
If you take a vinyl rip, and then you compare it with a CD rip, you're only comparing your modified vinyl rip with the source of the CD, not with the CD per se. So this whole exercise is pointless.
I guess your point is that vinyl can be "transparent enough". Of course, that will depend on the quality of the source. If it's a modern recording, it won't be enough. You took care of that possibility choosing bad quality recordings.
Might be helpful for you to cite actual quotes of Their, lest they be a strawman in your head.
Or at least that's my hypothesis.
Here's a few that I found (
emphasis added by me):
It doesn't make any sense to say that the most intrusive audio format, vinyl, with all its sonic distortions, favors concentration. Digital is transparent, it doesn't interfere with the listening experience. Just imagine listening a vinyl when you know where every distortions are, and instead of listening to the music you're just waiting for them.
There is no "digital sound" because digital can easily recreate sound which is accurate well beyond the limits of human hearing.
OTOH vinyl can be shown to distort sound in a way that is easily perceivable.
Digital recording is more or less exact. You record something and then play it back and you get what you recorded.
Vinyl is not. You play it back and you get something that is fairly different from what you recorded.
No you have not. Vinyl inherently adds so much noise and distortion that anything approaching realism is technically impossible.
The perception that vinyl can possibly even vaguely approach sonic realism has to be a consequence of a sighted evaluation.
Most digital is probably chucked out even more carelessly, and can still be sonically perfect. Vinyl sounds bad no matter how carefully you attend to it.
Compared to any old CD you randomly or intentionally burn, the LP format is pi$$. It's got relatively massive amounts of just about every kind of distortion known to man. If you think that jitter is problem with digital, you ain't seen nuttin' until you see what LPs do. It's about 3 orders of magnitude worse. There is a reason why nobody does technical tests on LP playback systems, and that's because the results are so horrific as numbers.
I mean music, like certain orchestral works, with the widest dynamic range, deep bass (below 20hz), etc., played at realistic levels, to expose the limitations of vinyl...which electronic/rock/pop music that vinyl clutchers mainly listen to, won't expose.
Remember, not talking "preference" here, but the physical reality limits of the soundfield, that only the audiophile deaf could miss.
If you're listening to a bad quality recording, you can not know if the limiting factor is the source or the medium.
So posting bad quality files is useless.
If you posted good modern recordings (jazz, classical) samples, it would be different.
With pop-rock, from any era, it's mostly futile, the mastering quality is consistently garbage.
As a side note, that's why vinyl is not a classical but a pop-rock thing, the loss in sound quality is marginal there.
I'm not suggesting that an LP and CD of the same recording would be indistinguishable - of course they would sound different (and especially so for classical).
I mean music, like certain orchestral works, with the widest dynamic range, deep bass (below 20hz), etc., played at realistic levels, to expose the limitations of vinyl...which electronic/rock/pop music that vinyl clutchers mainly listen to, won't expose.
Remember, not talking "preference" here, but the physical reality limits of the soundfield, that only the audiophile deaf could miss.
So you disagree with this, yet your tiny snippet classical rips deliberately didn't include widest dynamic range, deep bass (below 20hz), etc.
No 1812 canon shots, no Firebird suite etc. Plus appear to admit yourself (above) there
are differences with classical.
Interesting. Do you consider yourself a vinyl hater based on your own quote above?
Ok, my guesses
1. Eberhard Weber - Vinyl
2. Frankie - too terrible SQ to guess
3. Gordon Giltrap - ditto
4. Kevin Ayers - ditto
5. King Crimson - ditto
6. Queen - ditto
7. Saint-Saens - CD
8. Tchaikovsky - Vinyl
I am eagerly anticipating the results of this experiment, using ears etc.
As we do yours. Where are they???
So we've established that a CD sourced from a poor quality master can sound pretty crummy, perhaps no worse than cherry-picked examples of vinyl.
What we haven't established is whether vinyl is a sonically transparent medium, capable of faithfully representing the original source used to author it.
The samples presented do absolutely nothing (zip, zero, nada) to support the hypothesis that processed vinyl playback is transparent.
Can processed vinyl playback sound pretty good? Maybe, but the samples presented aren't exactly compelling.
Kevin Ayres, scratch ~6sec, vinyl
Sounds like a glitch in the master or a bad rip to me. This isn't exactly uncommon in CD releases from the '80s and early '90s.
Eberhard Weber, precise bass vs sax but crackle ~28sec, vinyl
Again, this could easily be a problem with the master or rip.
If it is a bad rip or master the samples are even more pointless. My in ear click detector reports it as vinyl if the question is what of them is vinyl.
Edit: I just listen Pink Floyd's Wish You Where Here. Someone offer the first 30sec of that one from vinyl?
If you're listening to a bad quality recording, you can not know if the limiting factor is the source or the medium.
So posting bad quality files is useless.
If you posted good modern recordings (jazz, classical) samples, it would be different.
With pop-rock, from any era, it's mostly futile, the mastering quality is consistently garbage.
As a side note, that's why vinyl is not a classical but a pop-rock thing, the loss in sound quality is marginal there.
Well that clears things up - the reason I find that I can enjoy vinyl is because I listen to poorly recorded rock music.
If only I was a jazz or classical fan I could enjoy the benefits of properly recorded high quality sound. My loss, I guess.
I don't have enough experience with analogue tape to know whether it has much the same issues as vinyl.
You have more than you think if you have a collection of vintage vinyl. Both mediums become progressively less linear as level goes up, but the resulting distortion is different in character. Both mediums have an audible noise floor, again different in character and level depending on a host of variables. However, analog "masters" used to cut lacquer masters is/was hardly ever first generation tape, so whatever issues it has becomes compounded with each generation. Thus, it is more than likely that the tape master used to cut the lacquer would be audibly inferior to the best that can be had from vinyl, and thus mask vinyl's contribution to the whole mess.
Unfortunately very little of my music collection was originally recorded digitally.
So...you have mostly recordings made pre-1978 then? The industry rapidly swung to digits after that. Even vinyl released in the late 1970s through the end of the first vinyl era was recorded digitally first. The thing is, you have to know or you can make any valid assumptions (or test files).
What we haven't established is whether vinyl is a sonically transparent medium, capable of faithfully representing the original source used to author it.
The samples presented do absolutely nothing (zip, zero, nada) to support the hypothesis that processed vinyl playback is transparent.
Why do some of you have to constantly misrepresent what I set out to test?
If anyone is setting up a strawman here, it's the people who tell me I'm claiming something that I haven't.
I *NEVER* claimed that vinyl is a transparent medium. Indeed I explicitly stated the opposite.
All I ever wanted to find out is whether those people who think that vinyl is universally bad could spot it when they don't know what the source is. Why is that so hard to understand?
Why do some of you have to constantly misrepresent what I set out to test?
If anyone is setting up a strawman here, it's the people who tell me I'm claiming something that I haven't.
I *NEVER* claimed that vinyl is a transparent medium. Indeed I explicitly stated the opposite.
Now you know how others in this discussion feel.
All I ever wanted to find out is whether those people who think that vinyl is universally bad could spot it when they don't know what the source is. Why is that so hard to understand?
It isn't, just like you should understand this was a GIGO endeavor.
Select needle drops can sound as good as a poorly produced CD, but only after they have been
carefully declicked & denoised.
What a revelation!
Let's not pretend I didn't point this out earlier, though, OK!?!
Can processed vinyl playback sound pretty good? Maybe, but the samples presented aren't exactly compelling.
Rather than be butt-hurt over three pages of pointlessness, realize you're basically only going to find yourself arguing with Arnold.
If you're listening to a bad quality recording, you can not know if the limiting factor is the source or the medium.
So posting bad quality files is useless.
If you posted good modern recordings (jazz, classical) samples, it would be different.
With pop-rock, from any era, it's mostly futile, the mastering quality is consistently garbage.
As a side note, that's why vinyl is not a classical but a pop-rock thing, the loss in sound quality is marginal there.
Well that clears things up - the reason I find that I can enjoy vinyl is because I listen to poorly recorded rock music.
If only I was a jazz or classical fan I could enjoy the benefits of properly recorded high quality sound. My loss, I guess.
Far from you being sarcastic, you're spot on. You, indeed, couldn't "enjoy vinyl" listening to classical music. But for rock, vinyl is more than good enough.
As for spotting samples, it seems it's you who doesn't understand. If everything is bad, how to spot anything?
I *NEVER* claimed that vinyl is a transparent medium. Indeed I explicitly stated the opposite.
All I ever wanted to find out is whether those people who think that vinyl is universally bad
Remind me again, why are you quoting me above in your list of haters?
Btw Clive, when you listen to your cleansed digitized vinyl, do you feel an irresistible urge to surf the net and play games, etc, shortly after hitting play?
Just curious..
All I ever wanted to find out is whether those people who think that vinyl is universally bad could spot it when they don't know what the source is. Why is that so hard to understand?
The "test" you provided is not capable of doing that because your test files don't represent either medium accurately, nor in isolation from the entire production chain.
Your test conditions effectively mask and blur the issue you're testing for, so the results become invalid with respect to your original question.
You can set up conditions to test/prove anything, even a difference in mediums that is assumed to be easily detectable. For example, you could set up a test that makes it impossible for someone to differentiate if he's listening to AM radio or FM radio simply by controlling the conditions.
As for spotting samples, it seems it's you who doesn't understand. If everything is bad, how to spot anything?
Well, it's not a complete fiasco like Ralphs, but it certainly seems, umm, designed to blur the issue of real differences.
Almost....
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/7ddc086c7de7131adbef3a0fd8c195ad/tenor.gif)
Just an example of what I consider a good recording, meaning it can be spotted as a CD without any doubt because no vinyl can sound like that. Generally speaking, any good DDD classical music recording would do.
Hmm, I've quickly checked the sample files in Baudline, and the noisefloor is actually pretty high across the board. I've tested against a youtube video I've downloaded with youtube-dl, and that noisefloor is actually lower on my end, so I don't know what happened there.
Some files have a ~17kHz peak for the entire length of the sample.
Eberhard Weber has that, Frankie's file has that, too, but it's slightly frequency shifting, which I think is down to it being played from a Vinyl, perhaps? The amplitude in this case is much lower than in the first file of that peak. In fact all the frequencies wobble back and forth regularly.
Saint-Saens has by far the lowest noisefloor. Kevin Ayers' has a much lower noisefloor than any of the other files, too, but nothing compared to the Saint-Saens file. The Saint-Saens file also has the 17kHz peak, although much lower than the previously mentioned files. Some classical instruments have pretty high overtones, and the lowpass filtering does them no good: The vibrato "hits" the filter edge and is simply clipped which creates a weird "on-off-keying" kinda effect in the upper range, not really audible, but it's just one of a more obscure artifact, and one reason you don't want a steep filter cut-off.
I'll add the spectrograms for you to check out.
Ok Clive, hope this file attach works for a newb.
Try this at home with your vinyl ;)
Another for good measure
Ok, last one I swear. :D
Lets see how a TT handles the ending 16hz pedal notes. Literally shakes the house, cats scrambling, etc.
What happens there with vinyl?
Not very confident of my results. I listened in front of my PC rather than streaming the files to the hi fi but here it goes...
1. Vinyl 5. Digital
2. Digital 6. Digital
3. Digital 7. Vinyl
4.Vinyl 8. Digital
Thanks for taking the trouble, but since I didn't number the files, I'm not sure which files your numbers refer to.
Assuming it is the order they are found in the ZIP file, then we have:
1. Eberhard Weber
2. Frankie
3. Gordon Giltrap
4. Kevin Ayers
5. King Crimson
6. Queen
7. Saint-Saens
8. Tchaikovsky
Does my numbering match yours?
Yes. I numbered them in the order of the unzipped files.
Some files have a ~17kHz peak for the entire length of the sample.
That's strange, since I brickwalled all of the files at 16kHz.
I'll add the spectrograms for you to check out.
Thanks for adding these, because it explains my confusion.
It looks like your Baudline spectrograms think that these files have a sample rate of 48kHz. They are actually 44.1kHz.
16kHz at a 44.1kHz sample rate will appear to be 17.4kHz if assumed to be 48kHz sample rate. I checked a few files and there are some with a peak at 15.6kHz (=17kHz if taken as sampled at 48kHz).
I guess that the peak, which is slightly below the filter cutoff, could be an artefact of the CoolEdit FFT filter I used?
So...you have mostly recordings made pre-1978 then? The industry rapidly swung to digits after that. Even vinyl released in the late 1970s through the end of the first vinyl era was recorded digitally first.
I would agree as far as classical is concerned.
Jazz: I couldn't say.
But as far as rock and pop is concerned, I think you are way out. Apart from a few outliers (eg. Ry Cooder's 1979 Bop til you Drop), rock and pop were routinely tracked to analogue tape well into the 90s. The earliest rock album in my collection that I know for sure was digitally recorded is Joe Jackson's Big World, released in 1986. (Maybe Dire Straits' 1985 Brothers in Arms was also digital?). But the overwhelming majority of rock albums from those years were still analogue recordings.
Nope. Oversampling is not done through filtering or interpolation as such, oversampling is a re-sampling of a reconstructed signal.
....
[lots of technical stuff incuding some impressive looking mathematical equations]
Doesn't alter the fact that your resampled recording includes frequencies that are not in the original files.
Something must have gone wrong.
Some files have a ~17kHz peak for the entire length of the sample.
That's strange, since I brickwalled all of the files at 16kHz.
I'll add the spectrograms for you to check out.
Thanks for adding these, because it explains my confusion.
It looks like your Baudline spectrograms think that these files have a sample rate of 48kHz. They are actually 44.1kHz.
16kHz at a 44.1kHz sample rate will appear to be 17.4kHz if assumed to be 48kHz sample rate. I checked a few files and there are some with a peak at 15.6kHz (=17kHz if taken as sampled at 48kHz).
I guess that the peak, which is slightly below the filter cutoff, could be an artefact of the CoolEdit FFT filter I used?
Well, technically, there's no such thing as a "brickwall filter" it's just a sharp cut-off low-pass filter. A Gibbs-overshoot would appear right at the cutoff, this peak that we're seeing there is unlikely it comes from the filtering process. Can you give us the un-bandlimited samples?
i'm using a simple loopback from Pulseaudio and it's piped into baudline. It just takes whatever the DAC settings are forwarded to. Hence, the spectrogram is also single channel, etc. I use it like that so it doesn't care where a signal is coming from, etc. Otherwise I'd have to record a file every time, etc.
Baudline has been around for ages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudline It's often used by HAM radio operators, etc.
You can load your FLAC files directly into it, if you want. It unfortunately expects /dev/audio, and PulseAudio's wrapper for that is crap. So piping it is.
I'll see if inspectrum compiles, though, apart from GNU radio this seems to be the best effort right now.
Doesn't alter the fact that your resampled recording includes frequencies that are not in the original files.
Something must have gone wrong.
Only saw your post now. Yeah, the Pulseaudio wrapper doesn't adjust the sampling frequency the DAC is set to. Your best bet is use Matlab or similar, though or just load the file.
Anyway, can you give us the un-altered sample of Eberhard Weber - Chorus Part IV.flac? I.e. not band limited, etc.?
Anyway, can you give us the un-altered sample of Eberhard Weber - Chorus Part IV.flac? I.e. not band limited, etc.?
I could, but then a simple frequency analysis would give away its source (since I have already stated that the vinyl rips had energy at slightly higher frequencies than the CD rips).
However, I can tell you that the 15.6kHz peak is indeed present in the non-filtered sample - so NOT an artefact of the CoolEdit filter. Why its presence or otherwise is significant for the purposes of this test escapes me.
Remind me again, why are you quoting me above in your list of haters?
You mean this one?:
I mean music, like certain orchestral works, with the widest dynamic range, deep bass (below 20hz), etc., played at realistic levels, to expose the limitations of vinyl...which electronic/rock/pop music that vinyl clutchers mainly listen to, won't expose.
Remember, not talking "preference" here, but the physical reality limits of the soundfield, that only the audiophile deaf could miss.
Perhaps I'm trying your tactic and did it for fun, just to give you something else to dispute.
Or perhaps I have misinterpreted your phrase "physical reality limits of the soundfield, that only the audiophile deaf could miss" as some sort of claim that vinyl is so badly flawed that it should be easy to spot. That's how it seemed to me. But we have already established that what you write often baffles me, so I could easily have got the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps you meant that it's only well recorded classical with wide dynamic range and deep bass that the audiophile deaf will miss?
Btw Clive, when you listen to your cleansed digitized vinyl, do you feel an irresistible urge to surf the net and play games, etc, shortly after hitting play?
Just curious..
There he is again, that mischievous little imp. Is this the thread equivalent of photo-bombing?
Transparency only is important if you know how the source sounds. So it's only important for acoustic instruments recordings.
If you listen to a pop-rock album, you can not know how the source is, how the master is. It will sound however the people in the mixing table want it to sound.
So if you listen to that album through a vinyl record, the sound you're hearing can not be compared with anything.
If you listen to an orchestral, or string quartet recording, you can compare it with the real sound of an orchestra or string quartet, that you know because you've heard it live multiple times.
So the flaws of vinyl as a format, are irrelevant for pop-rock. It doesn't matter how bad the mastering is, or how different it ends up in the vinyl, because the sound of the vinyl will not be compared with anything, it will be an autonomous entity, a "particular sound". The digital edition of that album will not be better, just different, because there's not an original sound to be faithful to.
So the discussion about sound fidelity, about transparency, is just a waste of time with people that doesn't care about transparency in the first place, i.e. pop-rock aficionados.
However, I can tell you that the 15.6kHz peak is indeed present in the non-filtered sample - so NOT an artifact of the CoolEdit filter. Why its presence or otherwise is significant for the purposes of this test escapes me.
It's not, but I'm curious what it is. I remember someone saying something that it's noise picked up by the recorders while a CRT screen was running, I'm kinda wondering if that's it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/2mszh4/whats_up_with_this_spike_at_around_157khz_on_the/
It seems the peak in your files is rather low, compared to this: https://i.imgur.com/6MVtUct.png
So...you have mostly recordings made pre-1978 then? The industry rapidly swung to digits after that. Even vinyl released in the late 1970s through the end of the first vinyl era was recorded digitally first.
I would agree as far as classical is concerned.
Jazz: I couldn't say.
But as far as rock and pop is concerned, I think you are way out. Apart from a few outliers (eg. Ry Cooder's 1979 Bop til you Drop), rock and pop were routinely tracked to analogue tape well into the 90s. The earliest rock album in my collection that I know for sure was digitally recorded is Joe Jackson's Big World, released in 1986. (Maybe Dire Straits' 1985 Brothers in Arms was also digital?). But the overwhelming majority of rock albums from those years were still analogue recordings.
But digital delay lines were finding their way onto lathes by around 1977, initially retrofitted and later incorporated in newer builds. So how can you be sure that your album was not converted to digital and back (and at 14bits at that) unless you are sure that the record is a pre 1977 pressing?
Btw the way, there were many digital rock and pop recordings prior to 1986 (and yes Brothers in Arms was a 16/44 recording), a lot of the 1980s acts recorded digitally by the time CDs were released. Of course there was still a lot of analog recordings around that time too.
I would agree as far as classical is concerned.
Jazz: I couldn't say.
But as far as rock and pop is concerned, I think you are way out. Apart from a few outliers (eg. Ry Cooder's 1979 Bop til you Drop), rock and pop were routinely tracked to analogue tape well into the 90s. The earliest rock album in my collection that I know for sure was digitally recorded is Joe Jackson's Big World, released in 1986. (Maybe Dire Straits' 1985 Brothers in Arms was also digital?). But the overwhelming majority of rock albums from those years were still analogue recordings.
Do you have proof of these statements?
Perhaps you meant that it's only well recorded classical with wide dynamic range and deep bass that the audiophile deaf will miss?
Yes, as I was concurring with what this guy said:
I'm not suggesting that an LP and CD of the same recording would be indistinguishable - of course they would sound different (and especially so for classical).
He said only audiophile deaf type would miss the difference between digital/vinyl with classical. I agree with him. Do you?
Btw Clive, when you listen to your cleansed digitized vinyl, do you feel an irresistible urge to surf the net and play games, etc, shortly after hitting play?
Just curious..
There he is again, that mischievous little imp. Is this the thread equivalent of photo-bombing?
No, serious question. Do you? Remember, you agreed with Funkstar about the whole ADD thing listening to digital vs total focus with live vinyl...which you don't do. Interesting "hypothesis".
Paradox?
Btw, did you have a chance to listen to my posted files?
But digital delay lines were finding their way onto lathes by around 1977, initially retrofitted and later incorporated in newer builds. So how can you be sure that your album was not converted to digital and back (and at 14bits at that) unless you are sure that the record is a pre 1977 pressing?
Digital delay was only required when cutting lacquer from a digital master. Otherwise the analog chain already had the preview head in place. I hired a major mastering studio for two projects in the mid 1980s, both on digital masters. The studio owned the Sony PCM-1630 (Video > PCM > DAC unit), but rented the mating digital preview delay on a per-project basis. It was fully 16 bit, also a Sony unit, matching the 1630. Analog projects did not use it then, as they already had the delay head.
Aside from that, the digital delay was transparent relative to analog tape's noise and distortion, it didn't impose any inherent effects. Citing preview delay in this discussion is tangential in any case.
Btw the way, there were many digital rock and pop recordings prior to 1986 (and yes Brothers in Arms was a 16/44 recording), a lot of the 1980s acts recorded digitally by the time CDs were released. Of course there was still a lot of analog recordings around that time too.
Yeah, kinda my point. DDD was a big deal, a marketing plus.
No, serious question. Do you? Remember, you agreed with Funkstar about the whole ADD thing listening to digital vs total focus with live vinyl...which you don't do. Interesting "hypothesis".
Paradox?
Yes, sometimes I might have music on in the background while I do something else (such as browse the net, do some ironing, etc).
But the crucial point here is that the music is the secondary thing. It's only on because it's so easy to play it when you have network streamers around the house. On those occasions when I put on some music for the purpose of listening, I pay attention.
Back in the days when I had to put on a physical disc (vinyl or CD), it only ever happened when I wanted to listen. I never had it on as a background while doing something else. (Actually, there is one caveat - as a teenager, if I had a visitor of the fairer sex, then music got put on, but my attention frankly wasn't focussed on it).
Btw, did you have a chance to listen to my posted files?
Not yet. I've spent too long fielding responses on this thread.
On those occasions when I put on some music for the purpose of listening, I pay attention.
Yep. No different than vinyl.
Not yet. I've spent too long fielding responses on this thread.
They are examples of why I "hate" vinyl I suppose.
However, I can tell you that the 15.6kHz peak is indeed present in the non-filtered sample - so NOT an artefact of the CoolEdit filter. Why its presence or otherwise is significant for the purposes of this test escapes me.
Me as well.
Not yet. I've spent too long fielding responses on this thread.
They are examples of why I "hate" vinyl I suppose.
OK, I've now taken a cursory listen to your files. Not sure what to say, really. They sound good to me, typical examples of well recorded classical music. But my (limited) experience of classical is that it is nearly always well recorded within the constraints of the technology available at the time.
The only piece I also have is the Firebird Suite (Robert Shaw, Atlanta Symph Orch, Telarc, on CD). The extract you posted sounds marginally clearer than the Telarc, but to be frank the difference in performance is vastly more significant.
Although I'm quite partial to bombastic Russian stuff, the 1812 has never been my cup of tea, so I don't have it.
They sound good to me, typical examples of well recorded classical music. But my (limited) experience of classical is that it is nearly always well recorded within the constraints of the technology available at the time.
Disagree, there are plenty horrible classical recordings of every era. However that isn't the point. The point is that if you are going to seriously compare differences of vinyl vs digital, don't handcuff the digital. Show what it can do as my samples did, yours didn't.
The "especially classical" per you.
Although I'm quite partial to bombastic Russian stuff, the 1812 has never been my cup of tea, so I don't have it.
Once again, totally misses the point. Try those canon shots on a TT, tell us what happens. There's your answer.
p.s. I hope Ralph didn't blow up his audiophile "hifi" system playing that track. I have personally witnessed a >$300k "audiophile" system explode/shut down playing that very track, which my non-believer "lofi" systems handle with ease.
That's what makes the whole audiophile/vinylphile/studiophile, etc etc. thing so darn funny. :))
Ok, so when do we find out which of your tracks were which?
Digital delay was only required when cutting lacquer from a digital master. Otherwise the analog chain already had the preview head in place. I hired a major mastering studio for two projects in the mid 1980s, both on digital masters. The studio owned the Sony PCM-1630 (Video > PCM > DAC unit), but rented the mating digital preview delay on a per-project basis. It was fully 16 bit, also a Sony unit, matching the 1630. Analog projects did not use it then, as they already had the delay head.
I don't believe DDL was only relevant to cutting from digital recordings, though I am not a subject matter expert. One of the main benefits DDL is that the preview delay was more precise and noise free, regardless whether the source material was a digital or analog recording. Also, it doesn't surprise me that DDL was 16 bits by the time we were in the early 80s, the earlier implementations were not.
Aside from that, the digital delay was transparent relative to analog tape's noise and distortion, it didn't impose any inherent effects. Citing preview delay in this discussion is tangential in any case.
Tangential to an extent but it illustrates that digital processing does not need to change the sound of an analog recording, even at 14 bits. The DDL story is enough to confirm that the vinylphile's obsession with all analog is irrational and pure placebo. What is tangential though is comparing a vinyl record to analog tape, for example, a copy of an analog tape to another also does not need to change the sound (apart from a slight generational loss) but the sound will always change when cut to a vinyl record.
I don't believe DDL was only relevant to cutting from digital recordings, though I am not a subject matter expert.
It wasn't. But the onset of universal use of DDL for all lacquer cutting is just a bit overblown. It didn't suddenly appear then become universally applied to all mastering. It was expensive, memory was expensive, and thus for about a half decade or so it was adopted slowly, often rented per project, and about the time it was cheap enough and good enough to be universally adopted for all mastering, vinyl was already fading out.
One of the main benefits DDL is that the preview delay was more precise and noise free, regardless whether the source material was a digital or analog recording.
Precision of delay time was already adequate using the analog preview head. DDL in mastering was used for automatic lathe pitch control, pre-adjusting the land between grooves. Precision was relatively easy, and not an issue even for analog preview machines. Just a matter of linear tape speed and head spacing. The issue of DDL audio performance was very significant because it was the delayed signal that actually got cut.
Also, it doesn't surprise me that DDL was 16 bits by the time we were in the early 80s, the earlier implementations were not.
You'll have to cite a reference for that one. 14 bit delays in mastering would have always required truncating two LSBs, as every pro digital recording system from 1976 (Soundstream) on was 16 bits. Only the original EIAJ "prosumer" stuff was 14 bits, and Sony took care of that too. Any EIAJ material that made it to release would have been edited on a PCM-1600-based 16 bit system. The Sony delay product was introduced along with their original PCM adapter unit, the PCM-1600, which was part of nearly every CD production chain, and part of the lacquer mastering process from its inception. It was 16 bits. All DASH recorders were 16 bits, and most production was at 44.1 because resampling was a problem in the early days.
14 bit DDLs also have a failure in design logic. DDLs were based on memory chips of the time, and they were all structured in 4 bit or 8 bit bytes, so 16 bit delay would have been a natural, 14 bit would have been unnecessary and of no advantage.
In fact, the only reason 14 bit digital audio ever existed at all was cheaper ADCs and DACS, which in turn drove the early EIAJ 14 bit video-based formats. Sony found room for the extra two bits by dropping a bit of error correction code, IIR. But no matter, it all became 16 bit format for editing and mastering. Thus the DDL was highly likely to be 16 bits as well. Let me know if you find a confirmed variance. One possibility would be a DDL designed specifically to replace the preview head arrangement which was an expensive mod to an analog deck. Might have been a cheap alternative. But I doubt it proliferated.
Tangential to an extent but it illustrates that digital processing does not need to change the sound of an analog recording, even at 14 bits. The DDL story is enough to confirm that the vinylphile's obsession with all analog is irrational and pure placebo. What is tangential though is comparing a vinyl record to analog tape, for example, a copy of an analog tape to another also does not need to change the sound (apart from a slight generational loss) but the sound will always change when cut to a vinyl record.
Actually, you have it a bit backwards in some ways. Analog tape copies have significant generational loss in distortion, noise and FR in particular. FR response issues can be partially compensated for if recognized and analyzed in detail, but usually were not. Setup tones were 1kHz and 10kHz, no spot frequencies or sweeps to go by. The lacquer/vinyl system had the potential for being inherently flatter FR, and the noise spectrum was in many ways less audible than that of certain tape speeds, but it did introduce other losses. It's maximum HF modulation was quite limited geometrically, and separation wasn't nearly as good as tape. Vertical groove distortion was a problem exacerbated by wear, but off the press, not too bad. All in all a direct-cut from live vinyl could (and did) sound better than a second or third generation analog tape. Listen to any of the early 1970s Sheffield direct to disc stuff if you doubt that, and compare to their CDs made from tape backups of the same sessions.
Edit: after some extensive googling...the original Studer mastering delay unit was indeed 14 bit, updated to 16 by the second generation. Sorry, don't have dates. The Ampex ADD-1 was 16 bits (ca 1979). The reason DDL wasn't adopted quickly for analog only projects was the cost of memory. One on-line referencehttp://jcmit.net/memoryprice.htm has the cost/Mb at almost $37,000 in 1977, dropping to $10,000 by January of 1979. That should scale the cost of a 1.8 second DDL. These things were more expensive than the tape-based system with no advantage until you started to cut from digital masters.
dc2bluelight - thanks for the interesting info!
Although I'm quite partial to bombastic Russian stuff, the 1812 has never been my cup of tea, so I don't have it.
Once again, totally misses the point. Try those canon shots on a TT, tell us what happens. There's your answer.
How am I supposed to try your digital file on a TT? Do you think I have access to an LP mastering facility?
OK, to be serious for a moment. Is this 1812 the famous Telarc one? The one that is known for its virtual untrackability on vinyl with anything other than a V15, 681EEE or similar? I recall that when it came out, a number of reviewers remarked that it was unplayable. Of course it's an example of something that works fine in digital and doesn't on vinyl. But you have to admit it's an extreme example.
You keep saying I'm missing the point, but in the context of my intention in this thread, you are the one missing the point. I started off by saying that I got the impression there were people on this forum who think vinyl is such a dog's dinner that it always mangles anything you put on it. If that's the case, then it should be easy to identify it without knowing that's what you're listening to. We've already established that I may well have been mistaken in that perception. If that is the case, then all anyone had to say was that I had got it wrong and that no, vinyl isn't obviously identifiable just by listening. Indeed a few responders did say something along those lines.
Ok, so when do we find out which of your tracks were which?
Only four people have posted their results, and it looks as if nobody else is going to, so now is as good a time as any:
Track Source wombat old tech knik ajinfla
Eberhard Weber Vinyl Vinyl Vinyl CD Vinyl
Frankie Vinyl CD CD CD RTG*
Gordon Giltrap Vinyl Vinyl CD CD RTG
Kevin Ayers CD Vinyl Vinyl Vinyl RTG
King Crimson CD CD CD CD RTG
Queen CD Vinyl CD CD RTG
Saint-Saens CD Vinyl Vinyl CD CD
Tchaikovsky Vinyl CD CD CD Vinyl
#correct (out of 8) 3 3 3 3
*RTG = refused to guess
Congratulations to AJ - he is the only one who got every one he was prepared to guess correct. But also brickbats to AJ - he refused to guess 5 of the 8 samples, which suggests to me that he was only prepared to make a choice when he felt it was absolutely obvious. That's basically cheating; if you can't tell whether it's vinyl, at least make a guess - chances are you'll get some of them right.
Interesting that for the classical samples (which we generally think are more likely to show up the flaws on vinyl), everyone apart from AJ reckoned the vinyl Tchaikovsky was from CD, and two thought that the CD Saint-Saens was from vinyl.
So everyone scored 3 out of 8. (If AJ hadn't been chicken with the rock tracks, he might have scored more). My conclusion is that it is NOT obvious when you're listening to vinyl, IN THE CONTEXT OF TYPICAL RECORDINGS FROM THAT ERA.
dctobluelight has suggested that recordings of that era are so bad that putting them on vinyl doesn't degrade them, and this explains why people can't tell. But I am skeptical. If you ABX compare a CD transfer of a 70s rock recording to its vinyl equivalent, there is an obvious difference - the CD is clearly better. I never wanted to try and show that vinyl is transparent. All I wanted to show is that it isn't the utter train-wreck that I got the impression some people claim. Once again, I acknowledge that my perception that some people think vinyl is a train-wreck might be wrong. All they had to do was tell me that I had misunderstood their position and that would have been the end of it.
PS. Merry Christmas to everyone!
So everyone scored 3 out of 8. (If AJ hadn't been chicken with the rock tracks, he might have scored more). My conclusion is that it is NOT obvious when you're listening to vinyl, IN THE CONTEXT OF TYPICAL RECORDINGS FROM THAT ERA.
IMHO that's still a quite deceptive statement since you are (intentionally) leaving out the extensive digital audio processing that your recordings undertook to reach this conclusion.
It's probably fair to say that a recording of a Vinyl in perfect condition played back on high quality equipment which furthermore underwent large amounts of digital audio restoration is not *obviously* inferior to a CD recording, but at this point you have already taken out most of the aspects that make Vinyl inferior to CD.
A CD is not superior or inferior to anything, it's transparent.
You're comparing the source used to make the CD.
Vinyl is not a train-wreck, it's a fetish.
Much energy seems to be gone into finding samples to fool us and it worked ;)
The Queen sample with a tiny crackle and the Ayers with the big glitch is not typical for CD.
OK, to be serious for a moment. Is this 1812 the famous Telarc one?
The one that is known for its virtual untrackability on vinyl with anything other than a V15, 681EEE or similar?
The clip I posted is a Telarc CD recording. I also have a Telarc 1812 LP, but I will have to check if same recording, which is doubtful.
I haven't yet ripped, as that wasn't my intent when I recently acquired it, but maybe will at some point. Actually I haven't even played it yet!
But you have to admit it's an extreme example.
Not if the idea is to highlight the differences with classical music, no. Sort of the opposite of your terrible SQ rock tracks that made it impossible to ascertain sound quality, regardless of format. Who cares what format when SQ is bad?
I started off by saying that I got the impression there were people on this forum who think vinyl is such a dog's dinner that it always mangles anything you put on it.
I can think of at least one such hater, so perhaps you should have been a bit narrower in scope rather than your shotgun blast?
I was quite specific about classical...and of course, surface noise
in all genres.
Congratulations to AJ - he is the only one who got every one he was prepared to guess correct. But also brickbats to AJ - he refused to guess 5 of the 8 samples, which suggests to me that he was only prepared to make a choice when he felt it was absolutely obvious. That's basically cheating; if you can't tell whether it's vinyl, at least make a guess - chances are you'll get some of them right.
Umm, Clive, I can only judge "sound quality" where it exists, not where it doesn't. Familiarity with the music helps also.
Even with digital, I have no idea how to judge compressed electronic music "sound quality". Just not my bag. I know countless audiophiles with megabuck systems that listen only to that stuff! I have no idea how that lot judges SQ. Did I mention I only play an psychologist on TV?
Interesting that for the classical samples (which we generally think are more likely to show up the flaws on vinyl), everyone apart from AJ reckoned the vinyl Tchaikovsky was from CD, and two thought that the CD Saint-Saens was from vinyl.
Being a non-audiophile, I generally try to comment about what I know, vs don't.
PS. Merry Christmas to everyone!
Ditto
How about that?
After years of digitizing vinyl cliveb collected a few minutes of ok sounding music that after carefull digital processing and for parts without silent moments hides typical vinyl flaws when listened against selected bad sounding CD releases.
How about that?
After years of digitizing vinyl cliveb collected a few minutes of ok sounding music that after carefull digital processing and for parts without silent moments hides typical vinyl flaws when listened against selected bad sounding CD releases.
...and declares victory.
Yeah, not so much.
How about that?
After years of digitizing vinyl cliveb collected a few minutes of ok sounding music that after carefull digital processing and for parts without silent moments hides typical vinyl flaws when listened against selected bad sounding CD releases.
I didn't deliberately select "bad sounding" CDs. I deliberately selected *typical* rock CDs.
I admit that I was careful to exclude any that had been ultra-compressed, because a cursory glance at their waveforms would have shown the extreme nature of that compression and been a dead giveaway that they are CDs. That kind of left me with little choice but to pick older CD releases, since pretty much all rock CDs in the last 25 years or so have suffered from overcompression.
I also selected a classical CD of what is generally regarded as one of the finest performances of Saint-Saens 3rd, and you thought it was vinyl. You also thought that a vinyl of a 1960 recording of Tchaikovsky's 6th was CD. How do you explain that?
If the HA crowd deems that only beautifully recorded stuff is worth listening to, then it's as guilty of restricting itself to a tiny subset of recorded music as are the audiophiles who only ever play "Jazz at the Pawnshop" and its ilk. Bad news for Elvis/Beatles/Stones/Hendrix/Doors/Zeppelin/Floyd/etc.
So everyone scored 3 out of 8. (If AJ hadn't been chicken with the rock tracks, he might have scored more). My conclusion is that it is NOT obvious when you're listening to vinyl, IN THE CONTEXT OF TYPICAL RECORDINGS FROM THAT ERA.
IMHO that's still a quite deceptive statement since you are (intentionally) leaving out the extensive digital audio processing that your recordings undertook to reach this conclusion.
Sorry, you are correct. I should have said that "My conclusion is that it is NOT obvious when you're listening to DIGITALLY RESTORED vinyl"
Also, it doesn't surprise me that DDL was 16 bits by the time we were in the early 80s, the earlier implementations were not.
You'll have to cite a reference for that one. 14 bit delays in mastering would have always required truncating two LSBs, as every pro digital recording system from 1976 (Soundstream) on was 16 bits. Only the original EIAJ "prosumer" stuff was 14 bits, and Sony took care of that too.
Denon's earliest digital releases were 14-bit, IIRC. Early 1970s (like, 1973). I have no idea how the records would have been cut.
The clip I posted is a Telarc CD recording. I also have a Telarc 1812 LP, but I will have to check if same recording, which is doubtful.
I haven't yet ripped, as that wasn't my intent when I recently acquired it, but maybe will at some point. Actually I haven't even played it yet!
Be careful your system doesn't explode :-)
If it *is* the famous Telarc 1812, then unless you have something like a V15 cartridge, then it *will* mistrack badly, possibly even jump out of the groove.
Again we also may summarize how unimportant numbers and superlatives are when we don't know what we listen.
All this HighBit, magic filter, dsd crap people argue all day long about may be completely only for the purpose of creating markets.
btw. if you had used a better declicker on the Weber sample i had this wrong also.
dctobluelight has suggested that recordings of that era are so bad that putting them on vinyl doesn't degrade them, and this explains why people can't tell. But I am skeptical.
That's not exactly what I said. To clarify, the typical recording of the analog era was recorded on multitrack tape, mixed to stereo (1 generation), that master dubbed and equalized (2nd gen) and a copy made of that to cut lacquer (3rd gen). Some variance from this is of course possible, i.e. the lacquer was cut from the equalized master not the copy, but lacquers would be at least 2-3 tape generations away from the original. That is a LOT of generation loss!
But assume (incorrectly, but just for a moment) that tape and vinyl had the same exact nonlinearities and noise floor. Would the vinyl copy of the tape be the same or worse than the tape? Yeah, worse, by 1 generation's worth of crap. Now take that tape and dub it to a medium with less of the same noise and nonlinearities, like lacquer/vinyl actually is, what do you get? A reasonably close replica of the tape with all it's "glories" with a bit of different crap thrown in at a lower level. And dubbing to 16/44? You get an audibly exact replica of the tape. Comparing the vinyl to the 16/44...is it any wonder telling them apart during high levels of audio is difficult? But that comparison doesn't prove anything except the analog chain is flawed. No surprise there, that's why we ended up with 16/44.
If you ABX compare a CD transfer of a 70s rock recording to its vinyl equivalent, there is an obvious difference - the CD is clearly better.
I'm going to stop you right there. That's incorrect for SO many reasons. "Better" is subjective opinion. "Better" is not consistent in that comparison. And finally, the most important point, you can't actually ABX the two and assume you're only comparing the effects of vinyl! Because the entire production chain could be, and usually was, different for the CD, right down to the individual who made the mastering decisions for each. You have an apples and rocks comparison. Don't bother even citing it unless you can absolutely confirm the paths were identical except for the lacquer/vinyl step(s).
I never wanted to try and show that vinyl is transparent. All I wanted to show is that it isn't the utter train-wreck that I got the impression some people claim. Once again, I acknowledge that my perception that some people think vinyl is a train-wreck might be wrong. All they had to do was tell me that I had misunderstood their position and that would have been the end of it.
I'm sorry, you have not done that. You've shown that certain specific selections, when digitally processed to remove the most objectionable vinyl artifacts, is difficult to distinguish from a different production path. Assuming anything else was demonstrated would be incorrect.
Denon's earliest digital releases were 14-bit, IIRC. Early 1970s (like, 1973). I have no idea how the records would have been cut.
Always an exception. Denon's was initially 32kHz, 13bit and stayed 13 bit through 1972. Big deal, it was barely a hand full of records. As for DDL, the cost of RAM wasn't even an issue because there wasn't any that could even begin to do the job, much less anything like 200K to 300K of it (at $1M/MB), so no DDL, the lacquer was probably pitched manually (just like they did for the Sheffield live direct to disc stuff).
I hope Ralph didn't blow up his audiophile "hifi" system playing that track.
Thanks. I didn't.
If the HA crowd deems that only beautifully recorded stuff is worth listening to, then it's as guilty of restricting itself to a tiny subset of recorded music as are the audiophiles who only ever play "Jazz at the Pawnshop" and its ilk. Bad news for Elvis/Beatles/Stones/Hendrix/Doors/Zeppelin/Floyd/etc.
That sounds familiar. So sound fidelity ("beautifully recorded stuff") is just elitism, and real music lovers, the real connoisseurs, can go the extra mile (vinyl) because what they only really care is music. lol
This way, the limitations of vinyl are just another turn of the screw of inconvenience. The worse vinyl sounds, the more it shows how they care about music. Sick.
Be careful your system doesn't explode :-)
If it *is* the famous Telarc 1812, then unless you have something like a V15 cartridge, then it *will* mistrack badly, possibly even jump out of the groove.
It's "the" one and only (https://www.discogs.com/Tchaikovsky-Cincinnati-Symphony-Orchestra-Erich-Kunzel-1812-Capriccio-Italien-Cossack-Dance/release/2205254) I think. AT VM540ML and there is some distortion on the canon shots even though it played right through, so yes some tracking issues there. Probably the most dynamic sounding LP I own, but still nowhere near my "lofi", much much higher standards than the AA "hifi" crowd. Believe me.
I hope Ralph didn't blow up his audiophile "hifi" system playing that track.
Thanks. I didn't.
Then you should play it and tell us what happens
I hope Ralph didn't blow up his audiophile "hifi" system playing that track.
Thanks. I didn't.
Then you should play it and tell us what happens
It plays fine. My speakers are 98 db 1 watt/1 meter and they can handle way more power than my M-60s make. So it just plays and without the woofers bottoming out (dual 15s).
It plays fine. My speakers are 98 db 1 watt/1 meter and they can handle way more power than my M-60s make. So it just plays and without the woofers bottoming out (dual 15s).
That's good to know. Your Asylum system profile (https://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/2949.html) lists a model not on their website (http://classicaudioloudspeakers.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?fs=2&top=17&content=19).
System details mention 19th century neanderth...excuse me, "Hifi" uber technology "field coil" drivers. Wasn't sure if such limited excursion drivers would handle "lofi" like what I posted without some distress.
Of course there is zero chance of them producing 16hz pedals and as you say, your amps can't produce much power that low anyway, so viola, "Hifi" sound.
Btw, you have any vinyl like that you can post files of...not using a Zoom/mics? While very amusing, what you posted was uh, slightly "Lofi" if you will.
It plays fine. My speakers are 98 db 1 watt/1 meter and they can handle way more power than my M-60s make. So it just plays and without the woofers bottoming out (dual 15s).
That's good to know. Your Asylum system profile (https://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/2949.html) lists a model not on their website (http://classicaudioloudspeakers.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?fs=2&top=17&content=19).
System details mention 19th century neanderth...excuse me, "Hifi" uber technology "field coil" drivers. Wasn't sure if such limited excursion drivers would handle "lofi" like what I posted without some distress.
Of course there is zero chance of them producing 16hz pedals and as you say, your amps can't produce much power that low anyway, so viola, "Hifi" sound.
Btw, you have any vinyl like that you can post files of...not using a Zoom/mics? While very amusing, what you posted was uh, slightly "Lofi" if you will.
Hm. You are either making assumptions or not reading things right. My amps are full power to 2Hz (-3db at 1 Hz). A benefit of direct-coupled input and output. My (TAD) woofers have Alnico magnets rather than the field coils (and a free air resonance of 22Hz); I'm using the field coils on the midrange driver only (whose first breakup is at 35KHz). My cabinets are custom (a bit taller) so I could get an extra 3Hz cutoff on the bottom. So while I can't hear 16Hz, I can certainly feel it and the house shakes.
Hm. You are either making assumptions or not reading things right. My amps are full power to 2Hz (-3db at 1 Hz). A benefit of direct-coupled input and output. My (TAD) woofers have Alnico magnets rather than the field coils (and a free air resonance of 22Hz); I'm using the field coils on the midrange driver only (whose first breakup is at 35KHz).
Well sure, anything is possible in audiophile fantasy world, where physical reality evidence is neither required nor wanted.
A midrange with 35k breakup eh?
My cabinets are custom (a bit taller) so I could get an extra 3Hz cutoff on the bottom. So while I can't hear 16Hz, I can certainly feel it and the house shakes.
Right, if you could understand basic physics then you'd know there is no way your "98db" sensitivity speakers could produce anywhere near 16hz (nor could you provide any evidence...again), but you wouldn't want that anyway, since you are a vinylphile...playing an ancient device not so receptive to 16hz bass power anywhere near it.
Your Zoom in room recording not only sounded terrible, but rather chinless and bass shy, in a very audiophile "Hifi" kind of way.
Par for the course.
Shall I split this to a new topic so you guys can take the gloves off and really go at it?
Sure, maybe "How does your TT handle 16hz in room bass at high levels from vinyl records"...without the furnace on.
A late addition to this thread: What is the point of jumping to the disc player and changing disc / side every 20 minutes? If it is for this fb2k has also plugins to emulate that.
Other than that I think vinyl is only about nostalgia. I sometimes also feel the need to dedicate more to some record downloaded from bandcamp because it is so good. If you can look for hours at some cover that might make you feel better.
And of course there is those people that spend 10k EUR on some vinyl disc player to fill up some internal void. If it is for music better donate the money to the artist (if still alive).
Hm. You are either making assumptions or not reading things right. My amps are full power to 2Hz (-3db at 1 Hz). A benefit of direct-coupled input and output. My (TAD) woofers have Alnico magnets rather than the field coils (and a free air resonance of 22Hz); I'm using the field coils on the midrange driver only (whose first breakup is at 35KHz).
Well sure, anything is possible in audiophile fantasy world, where physical reality evidence is neither required nor wanted.
A midrange with 35k breakup eh?
Yes. one of the few really real beryllium diaphragms out there, suspended by Kapton.
My cabinets are custom (a bit taller) so I could get an extra 3Hz cutoff on the bottom. So while I can't hear 16Hz, I can certainly feel it and the house shakes.
Right, if you could understand basic physics then you'd know there is no way your "98db" sensitivity speakers could produce anywhere near 16hz (nor could you provide any evidence...again), but you wouldn't want that anyway, since you are a vinylphile...playing an ancient device not so receptive to 16hz bass power anywhere near it.
Your Zoom in room recording not only sounded terrible, but rather chinless and bass shy, in a very audiophile "Hifi" kind of way.
Par for the course.
With regards to the Zoom, my concern was not to do anything other than prove my point, which I did easily enough. The SQ is irrelevant. I don't keep recordings for the best sound. I keep them for the music I like (how many rock and roll artists do you know of with crappy recordings??), which (as in this case) might be a poor recording of an amazing performance. For example if you want the best performance of Strauss' Four Last Songs, the best performance by far is sung by Kirsten Flagstad. But its recorded by a 78 rpm home recorder from the AM broadcast of the premiere performance.
Here's a declicked version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-odXYLs-iE4
I can put 16Hz into the speakers and feel them moving the house easily enough. They employ dual TAD 1602s in a bass reflex cabinet. I was wrong about that driver though- its free air resonance is 21Hz.
beryllium diaphragms
Ooh, an even less defensible use of an notably toxic element (http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol58/mono58-1.html) for trivial consumer uses than the beryllium bicycle. Congratulations to you sir. Let's hope, for the sake of the firefighters at least, that your domicile never, ever, catches fire.
I've heard the use of tanned white rhino hide produces the most transcendently warm low frequency driver cone material.
More importantly, molten Neptunium electrical interconnects are widely understood but the true cognescenti to produce by far the clearest, purest, most revealing sound.
So vinyl 'cause Furtwängler. What a joke.
I have old recordings from shellac, AM or whatever, on CD.
Yes. one of the few really real beryllium diaphragms out there, suspended by Kapton.
That's good enough for AA Kruger corner, but sensible folk need a valid graph, otherwise just more blah blah.
With regards to the Zoom, my concern was not to do anything other than prove my point, which I did easily enough.
Right, on Kruger corner you "won", but in physical reality you made a complete fool of yourself, though I must admit it was pretty funny, since despite the horrific SQ, clicks and pops were still audible above furnace, NPR etc.
You definitely confirmed a point, just not the one you thought.
I can put 16Hz into the speakers and feel them moving the house easily enough.
That's good enough for Kruger corner but we need a valid graph, otherwise just more blah blah.
One certainly wouldn't want high level 16Hz capability when playing vinyl without filtering, not that you have anything remotely like that in reality....outside of your furnace, maybe.
If Neil Young can use a car he certainly can use a portable recorder.
That's good enough for Kruger corner but we need a valid graph, otherwise just more blah blah.
One certainly wouldn't want high level 16Hz capability when playing vinyl without filtering, not that you have anything remotely like that in reality....outside of your furnace, maybe.
Yah- its about 8 below zero F outside right now. Going to -20 this weekend... go ahead and gloat, but the cold does seem to keep the riff raff out. In Florida, I'm sure the essential hardware in the house is probably the air conditioner but around here its the furnace :) Unfortunately the more efficient ones tend to make a lot of noise.
Aren't you and Arnie the same guy?? Just kidding...
You design speakers; you know without even doing the math that the speakers do what I said. I'm sure its down slightly at 16Hz but has no troubles with the Fremaux version of the Saint-Saens Organ symphony. That recording has 16Hz pipes on it as well. These speakers go down lower than most subs.
The phono preamp cuts off at about 3Hz and is the highest time constant in the electronics side of the playback chain. It relies on the phono cartridge being properly set up so that the mechanical resonance is within the proper window of 7-12Hz. The 'table resides on a custom stand with anti-vibration platforms; at +100db sound pressure levels on my Radio Shack SPL meter (at 10 feet) there is no hint of feedback. The 'table itself is pretty well damped- you can thump the platter (which is damped via platter pad and extensional damping compounds) pretty hard while the LP is playing without appreciable sound in the speakers.
You design speakers; you know without even doing the math that the speakers do...
Yes, exactly.
...what I said.
No. See above.
The 'table resides on a custom stand with anti-vibration platforms; at +100db sound pressure levels on my Radio Shack SPL meter (at 10 feet) there is no hint of feedback. The 'table itself is pretty well damped- you can thump the platter (which is damped via platter pad and extensional damping compounds) pretty hard while the LP is playing without appreciable sound in the speakers.
Mmmkay ::)