Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Vynil or digital? (Read 48155 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #50 –
sure, ok
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #52 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: pdq on
Quote
As well, I've heard some amazingly realistic recordings from vinyl,

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.


I don't want to reopen and old topic, or add fuel to the fire, I also don't wish to find myself on the wrong side of an argument - however...

Implying that vinyl cannot, in certain cases, deliver a transparent listening experience (I'm assuming that what everyone means my realism) is entirely false. My assertion is that if the record is pressed well, the playback setup is calibrated correctly, and the music contains no silent passages, then vinyl can in some cases be transparent. Your mind does a great job of filtering out most of the noise... just like how lossy compression works really.

As clarification, I am fully aware that digital recording and playback is much more robust and measurably better than any analogue method, I have no issue with that.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #53 –
Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: pdq on
Quote
As well, I've heard some amazingly realistic recordings from vinyl,

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.


I don't want to reopen and old topic, or add fuel to the fire, I also don't wish to find myself on the wrong side of an argument - however...

Implying that vinyl cannot, in certain cases, deliver a transparent listening experience (I'm assuming that what everyone means my realism) is entirely false. My assertion is that if the record is pressed well, the playback setup is calibrated correctly, and the music contains no silent passages, then vinyl can in some cases be transparent. Your mind does a great job of filtering out most of the noise... just like how lossy compression works really.

As clarification, I am fully aware that digital recording and playback is much more robust and measurably better than any analogue method, I have no issue with that.

I'm working on an ABX test of the same recording from vinyl and digital, the best, flattest, most time-synched I can do it. I don't have a lot on both vinyl and CD, but I do have a Cars album that sounds pretty good to me.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #54 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

Interesting pair of comments. The first exceptional claim about perceived realism  by 2tec was no doubt based on a sighted evaluation, and then he turns and demands DBT confirmation for a number of well known inherent audible artifacts related to vinyl.

Moving goalposts, indeed!
Music is listened to, and not "evaluated".

I'll thank you to not tell me how I can listen to music, particularly when we're talking technical sound quality.

This looks to me like the usual subjectivist, placebophile double-talk. 

Quote
Many people listen to vinyl and do so to hear the music, and not to evaluate the experience only in technical terms.

If that is what they want to do, then let them do it in good health and great pleasure and never ever try to make any technical comments, whether musical or audio technical. Otherwise, there seems to be some confusion on what technology is.

Quote
Only a rhetorical argument could fail to observe the obvious difference between a listening experience for enjoyment and an audio evaluation sighted or otherwise.

Straw man argument. Excluded middle as well.

Quote
As far as I'm concerned, and in my view, some people in this discussion are not being "open-minded" or perhaps trolling, when they claim that vinyl is incapable of reproducing acceptable audio reproduction, or that digital is always perfect.

Straw man argument with built in moving goalposts based on the use of a meaninglessly vague word: Acceptable.

I'd say anybody who claims that their idea of acceptable defines mine has one of the most closed minds conceivable.

Quote
Such efforts to argue that because it's not digital, it's not acceptable are, in my opinion, just refusing to accept any argument that doesn't fit with their "analog must be crap" beliefs or just to be argumentative. The fact that so many people enjoy so much music on vinyl, and have for so long, seems a self-evident argument concerning the acceptability of vinyl based audio reproduction.

Straw man argument because everybody should know that music starts out analog and to be transmitted to our ears has to be analog again, so any arguments pitting analog against digital without sufficient specificity has to be grotesquely flawed. The relevant issue is not analog in general, but some examples of legacy media (analog tape and LP)  with well known and generally accepted audible and other practical flaws of a very serious nature.

Science is not at its best when determined and limited by popularity contests as it seems to be suggested above. 

In fact only a percent or two of people in the first world bother with vinyl at all, and most of them concede its audible faults readily.

There is no accounting for taste or the lack of it.

We now understand how listening pleasure works in the brain. One of the leading causes of listening pleasure is familiarity. If a cerain kind of sound is what you are most familiar with, or that you prize the most, that is likely to give you your best pleasure and that's all fine and good.

OTOH about 98% more or less of all music listeners behave and make choices in a vastly different direction. Are they being fooled by hype, or is there some other reason such as improved objective sound quallty?

Quote
I fully acknowledge the advances that digital processing has made when compared to the preceding analog processing technology. 

Which is basically a comparison between actual progress for digital and churning the same tired vat of sour milk for the LP.

Quote
Nor am I making any claim other than that vinyl is capable of providing a rewarding and enjoyable listening experience for many people, obviously.

"Many people" is hopelessly vague. Is it 1 thousand, 1 hundred thousand, 1 million, or 1 billion?  Digital is exceeding the last number, and the LP seems to be running  behind by almost 2 orders of magnitude. It seems like every decade or so we get a new crop of marketeers who, assisted by the remains of the last batch of pitch men, start beating the same old tired drum and we get a temporary uptick in LP media and gear  sales.  I'm sure something like this  happens with buggy whips and classic cars.

 Wanna try to actually say something that has meaning? ;-)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #55 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I'm working on an ABX test of the same recording from vinyl and digital, the best, flattest, most time-synched I can do it. I don't have a lot on both vinyl and CD, but I do have a Cars album that sounds pretty good to me.

"Good Times Roll" by The Cars is a pretty good test of pitch stability.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #56 –
Quote from: 4season on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I'm working on an ABX test of the same recording from vinyl and digital, the best, flattest, most time-synched I can do it. I don't have a lot on both vinyl and CD, but I do have a Cars album that sounds pretty good to me.

"Good Times Roll" by The Cars is a pretty good test of pitch stability.


Any reasonable turntable will have flutter and wow well below inaudible. It's an electric motor at the end of the day.

Secondly, I have many test records that have set tones which you can record an measure for pitch deviation. But we know that vinyl measures worse than digital, so I'd be happier to see a comparison with music.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #57 –
Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on
Implying that vinyl cannot, in certain cases, deliver a transparent listening experience (I'm assuming that what everyone means my realism) is entirely false. My assertion is that if the record is pressed well, the playback setup is calibrated correctly, and the music contains no silent passages, then vinyl can in some cases be transparent. Your mind does a great job of filtering out most of the noise... just like how lossy compression works really.

Shall we also exclude recordings containing sustained piano notes, heavily modulated tracks towards the inner grooves, or the use of anything less than a line-contact stylus?

Fun's fun, but realistically, I'm likelier to pick up LPs in the free-to-$6 range. $20-35+ for beautiful 180 gram pressings? Not so much unless it's a vinyl exclusive or packaged in a particularly appealing manner.

Where vinyl really works for me is I'll be flipping through a bunch of LPs and see something which intrigues me. And if the price seems okay, I'll take a chance on it. And because it's a physical object which is more of a fuss to acquire or dispose of, chances are it will get played at least once all the way through, usually an uninterrupted side or entire album per listening session.. Playlists? Only in the loosest sense of the word: Maybe I'll have a half-dozen albums that I currently favor.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #58 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Wanna try to actually say something that has meaning? ;-)
Aren't you just rhetorically and erroneously trying to undercut everything I ever say? By the way, no, I don't agree with you or your reasoning. Many people means just that, many people. It's plain English, like the rest of my post, which I knew would get this type of reaction from you. If you deliberately don't want to see my point or my perspective, there's no way you'll be able to, will you?

It's a waste of time discussing this with people who cannot get past being personal, isn't it? Pardon me for saying but this doesn't seem like a good faith, open, objective, or honest discussion, it just seems to me to be just an attempt to put me, and anyone you choose to cartagorize as a "placebophile" down. If you can't "win" an argument without resorting to insult and rhetoric, what is it worth really?

I have no wish to put anyone down for any reason, but I guess some other people think that it is somehow an accomplishment. Oh, and thanks for posting my post after I'd removed it!

Thanks all for your input, have nice day. ;~)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #59 –
Quote from: 4season on
Shall we also exclude recordings containing sustained piano notes, heavily modulated tracks towards the inner grooves, or the use of anything less than a line-contact stylus?

No.  I don't know what kind of equipment you've heard, but very few of my records suffer from those issues.  I have no idea what you mean by "heavily modulated" tracks - but in general you get high end roll off towards the inner groove, at worst.

Quote from: 4season on
Fun's fun, but realistically, I'm likelier to pick up LPs in the free-to-$6 range. $20-35+ for beautiful 180 gram pressings? Not so much unless it's a vinyl exclusive or packaged in a particularly appealing manner.

That's nice, but I'm not here to sell you records.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #60 –
Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on
Quote from: 4season on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I'm working on an ABX test of the same recording from vinyl and digital, the best, flattest, most time-synched I can do it. I don't have a lot on both vinyl and CD, but I do have a Cars album that sounds pretty good to me.

"Good Times Roll" by The Cars is a pretty good test of pitch stability.


Any reasonable turntable will have flutter and wow well below inaudible. It's an electric motor at the end of the day.

It would be a very good day if the turntable motor speed was the only source of FM distortion in the Vinyl media system.

Here are the other sources that come to mind quickly:

(1) Warp wow - even visibly flat LPs  cause audible speed variations.
(2) Off center punched hole
(3) Any tone arm with offset or overhang. IOW anything but a linear tracking turntable. The offset interacts with the audio modulations on the disc.
(4) The lathe the LP was cut on.
(5) The music source which was and in some cases is an analog tape.
(6) FM distortion caused by speed variations due to added drag as the modulation increases

Quote
Secondly, I have many test records that have set tones which you can record an measure for pitch deviation. But we know that vinyl measures worse than digital, so I'd be happier to see a comparison with music.

I have many test records too, some modern, some legacy.

Saying that vinyl "measures worse than digital" is like saying that sewer water is not good to drink.

The audible distortions in vinyl are several orders of magnitude large,  ror if you will factors of 10 greater than 16/44 CD.

It is true that after about 100 years of development, vinyl technology searched every nook and cranny it could find to hide the audible distortion and noise in ways that made them less obvious.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #61 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Wanna try to actually say something that has meaning? ;-)
Aren't you just rhetorically and erroneously trying to undercut everything I ever say?

No, I'm pointing out what I see as flawed rhetoric with common rhetorical errors.

Quote
By the way, no, I don't agree with you or your reasoning.

It is not just my reasoning. The use of "many" is a well known means of creating a false impression. There are now something like 6 billion people on this planet. 6 million sounds like a lot of people, but in fact it is 0.1% of everybody, which in many situations is a totally insignificant percentage.

Quote
Many people means just that, many people. It's plain English, like the rest of my post, which I knew would get this type of reaction from you.

Thank you for expecting that I would give your writing a good analytical treatment.

Quote
If you deliberately don't want to see my point or my perspective, there's no way you'll be able to, will you?

Sue me for seeing many of the tricks that careless speakers use to insult their reader's intelligence. ;-)

Quote
It's a waste of time discussing this with people who cannot get past being personal, isn't it?

I attack the logic and words and for my trouble I get personally attacked.

Quote
Pardon me for saying but this doesn't seem like a good faith, open, objective, or honest discussion, it just seems to me to be just an attempt to put me, and anyone you choose to cartagorize as a "placebophile" down. If you can't "win" an argument without resorting to insult and rhetoric, what is it worth really?

Placebophile is a descriptive word that may fit in this situation.  Rhetoric isn't a bad thing which one learns if one actually studies it.  You know, it used to be taught in high school and college under that name, but these days other words are used. One relevant term is "critical thinking".  One good thing about critical thinking is that it gives you to tools to examine your own decision making and communication skills and have tools for improving them. Using overgeneralizations, abusing words, and misinterpreting logical thinking seem to me to be good things to avoid.

Quote
I have no wish to put anyone down for any reason,

Then your posts are tragic because they are working at cross purposes to your goals.

Quote
but I guess some other people think that it is somehow an accomplishment.

I think that clear thinking and critical examination of self and world around oneself is a good thing.

Quote
Oh, and thanks for posting my post after I'd removed it!

How did I do that? I simply quoted a post, worked on a response to it for a while, and posted it.

Quote
Thanks all for your input, have nice day. ;~)

It would have been helpful if you had actually responded logically to the issues I raised.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #62 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"Many people" is hopelessly vague. Is it 1 thousand, 1 hundred thousand, 1 million, or 1 billion?  Digital is exceeding the last number, and the LP seems to be running  behind by almost 2 orders of magnitude. It seems like every decade or so we get a new crop of marketeers who, assisted by the remains of the last batch of pitch men, start beating the same old tired drum and we get a temporary uptick in LP media and gear  sales.  I'm sure something like this  happens with buggy whips and classic cars.

The expression "many people" is hardly "hopelessly vague" and even if it's not a precise number, that doesn't, in any way, make my statement irrelevant. Despite LP sales not being in the same league as the entire digital market, it is growing, unlike CDs.

Quote
Flash forward to 2015. Fueled by that unique sound quality and a nostalgia wave, sales of vinyl records were up 32% to $416 million, their highest level since 1988, according to the RIAA. (CD sales, while much higher in total income, were down 17%.)
~ http://fortune.com/2016/04/16/vinyl-sales-record-store-day/

Nor is vinyl an insignificant share of the market:

Quote
Revenues from vinyl sales last year were higher than those of on-demand ad supported streaming services, such as YouTube, Vevo and Spotify's free service, which only accounted for $385 million, according to the RIAA. (To be clear, though, paid subscription services and Internet radio services, like Pandora, greatly exceeded LP and EP sales.)
(from the same article)

I fully concede that the digital market dominates the scene, and rightfully so, however, I'd suggest that the dollars involved indicate that "many people" are ok with the sound quality of current music reproduction from vinyl. I'd also like to point out that no such "hi-rez" digital initiative has done anything, financially speaking, in terms of the dollars that the so-called "vinyl resurgence" has generated.

Oh, by the way, was the reference to marketers and pitchmen an attempt to label and denigrate all the people in the industry who are, or have, put out music on vinyl? Furthermore, I feel compelled to point out that there is a considerable and ongoing market for classic cars. However, the "buggy whips" comment was pure hyperbole, in my personal opinion. I suspect you were just getting carried away at the moment perhaps?

To answer the original post, as a layperson, I'd say a purely digital processing chain is the only possible way to go these days, but there seems to be a compelling financial case for putting out a vinyl version of the digital end product as well once a certain level of interest is reached. The referenced article points out that many mainstream artists are now doing so.

To be clear, I'd prefer the convenience and sound quality of the digital copy myself, but I'd be happy with the vinyl copy too. And yes Arnold, I do understand that mics, amps, and speakers are analog devices, there's really no need to point that out except perhaps, to imply that your "opponent" is uninformed or ignorant, which tends to make that statement appear insulting, just to let you know. ;~)

Of course, all this talk of objective sound quality is important here, and rightfully so, but, in my personal opinion, not so much that we should forget that the technology is normally used in the pursuit of a highly subjective and personal experience.  Of course, I'm just a layperson and as such I can only respect and thank those of you who have worked hard to become well informed, and for contributing so much, so often.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #63 –
Oh, and just for completeness, the used vinyl market isn't a part of the sales numbers for new vinyl. Used vinyl numbers are also significant. For instance, consider Discogs:
Quote
The online retailer, which is celebrating its 15th birthday in 2015, gave Billboard some proprietary data about its recent transactions. So far in 2015, the website has facilitated $43.5 million in sales—that's over 2.5 million records, half a million CDs and 50,000 tapes. The figures reflect a general industry-wide increase in vinyl sales, with the stats in the US at a 25-year high. The average price of vinyl at Discogs has risen over the years, from $10 in 2010 to $13.37 last year, and the user base has grown to almost three million. This year also saw the most expensive record ever sold on Discogs, at a price of $5,958.36 (it was Judge's Chung King Can Suck It).
~ https://www.residentadvisor.net/news.aspx?id=32227

As well, and pardon me for straying from the topic a little, but locally, we have five or six used record stores. I don't have any firm numbers, but every store in this town has been selling more vinyl than digital, so, as far as the local stores are concerned, vinyl sure seems more important to their survival than digital. Of course, most digital sales don't happen locally, which seems to take money from local economies and concentrates it in the bank accounts of large multi-national corporations. Just saying.

By the way, apparently, the upward vinyl trend continued into 2016.

Quote
Vinyl sales rose 26% in 2016
~
http://consequenceofsound.net/2017/01/vinyl-sales-rose-26-in-2016-see-the-25-top-selling-releases/

Darn, just froze my beer :~() thanks Arnie!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #64 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Nor is vinyl an insignificant share of the market:

Quote
Revenues from vinyl sales last year were higher than those of on-demand ad supported streaming services, such as YouTube, Vevo and Spotify's free service, which only accounted for $385 million, according to the RIAA. (To be clear, though, paid subscription services and Internet radio services, like Pandora, greatly exceeded LP and EP sales.)
(from the same article)

The only way vinyl sales can seem relevant is if you compare the revenue against the free streaming services.

"Yes, we have greater revenue than free services! Go us!" is kinda defeatist.

Vinyl records are a fad. They'll be popular for a while, and then go back to obscurity.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #65 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"Many people" is hopelessly vague. Is it 1 thousand, 1 hundred thousand, 1 million, or 1 billion?  Digital is exceeding the last number, and the LP seems to be running  behind by almost 2 orders of magnitude. It seems like every decade or so we get a new crop of marketeers who, assisted by the remains of the last batch of pitch men, start beating the same old tired drum and we get a temporary uptick in LP media and gear  sales.  I'm sure something like this  happens with buggy whips and classic cars.

The expression "many people" is hardly "hopelessly vague" and even if it's not a precise number, that doesn't, in any way, make my statement irrelevant.

Excluded middle argument (fallacious). I never faulted "many people" for not being precise, so you arguing against the idea that its only fault is that it is not precise is wrong headed and irrelevant.  I used to work in a substance abuse program as a counselor and boy, do I know Denial when it whaps me in the face so hard that it stings!

Quote
Despite LP sales not being in the same league as the entire digital market, it is growing, unlike CDs.

This week.

Only by overbearing us with the idea that the argument is about just one form of modern media, when it is really about LP versus all contemporary media. Furthermore, bringing sales volume into a discussion of sound quality is yet another logical fallacy.

You know, if the vinyl bigots and placebophiles could actually assemble a good tight logical argument that was relatively free of obvious fallacies, now that would be a breath of fresh air!

I repeat, it is well known that one of the major contributors to the physical experience of listening to music and receiving pleasure is familiarity. In short there is a strong tendency for familiar sounds to be more pleasurable. If that were the dominant reason for sales of recordings, Vinyl would still have nearly 100% of the market like it did in 1980.


Nor is vinyl an insignificant share of the market:

Quote
Revenues from vinyl sales last year were higher than those of on-demand ad supported streaming services, such as YouTube, Vevo and Spotify's free service, which only accounted for $385 million, according to the RIAA. (To be clear, though, paid subscription services and Internet radio services, like Pandora, greatly exceeded LP and EP sales.)
(from the same article)

I fully concede that the digital market dominates the scene, and rightfully so, however,
[/quote]

If so, why are we even having this discussion?

Quote
I'd suggest that the dollars involved indicate that "many people" are ok with the sound quality of current music reproduction from vinyl. I'd also like to point out that no such "hi-rez" digital initiative has done anything, financially speaking, in terms of the dollars that the so-called "vinyl resurgence" has generated.

Since the phrase "many people is meaningless. any person who uses it as the foundation of their argument is not using logic and reliable evidence  as the foundation of their rhetoric. Therefore it makes no sense to rebut it with logic and reliable evidence. Instead it is logical to point out the most serious problem, which is the lack of logic and relevant reliable evidence.

Quote
Oh, by the way, was the reference to marketers and pitchmen an attempt to label and denigrate all the people in the industry who are, or have, put out music on vinyl?

I guess you think that words like marketers and pitchmen are naturally denigrating. That would be your value system, not mine. I have definitely worked in sales and marketing and therefore the words marketer and pitchman apply to me. I don't believe in self-abuse, but I do believe in using accurate and relevant terms.

[quotye]
 Furthermore, I feel compelled to point out that there is a considerable and ongoing market for classic cars. However, the "buggy whips" comment was pure hyperbole, in my personal opinion. I suspect you were just getting carried away at the moment perhaps?
[/quote]

One of the things that added to my success as a marketer and pitchman was my "way with words".  I was playing with words.  However a decent percentage of classic cars were contemporaneous with buggy whips, as history shows.

Quote
To answer the original post, as a layperson, I'd say a purely digital processing chain is the only possible way to go these days,

There ain't no such thing as an operational purely digital processing chain today. At least none in mainstream commercial use.

Quote
but there seems to be a compelling financial case for putting out a vinyl version of the digital end product as well once a certain level of interest is reached.

Only a tiny minority of all recordings have ever been released in the LP format, and fewer in cassette and far fewer in open reel and other legacy  analog tape formats. 

Analog audio formats are a tiny niche that survives on sentimentality that is still supported by true believers in audiophile myths, such as the ones about digital having inherent low level distoriton or there being empty space between the samples.

Quote
The referenced article points out that many mainstream artists are now doing so.

This is that same many that nobody can tell me whether it is smaller than a breadbox or larger than house, no?

Quote
To be clear, I'd prefer the convenience and sound quality of the digital copy myself, but I'd be happy with the vinyl copy too.

Two most likely explanations: Sentimentality or hearing disfunction (probably due to age).

Quote
And yes Arnold, I do understand that mics, amps, and speakers are analog devices, there's really no need to point that out except perhaps, to imply that your "opponent" is uninformed or ignorant, which tends to make that statement appear insulting, just to let you know. ;~)

There is knowing in your mind as an abstract factoid, and there is knowing through and through.

Quote
Of course, all this talk of objective sound quality is important here, and rightfully so, but, in my personal opinion, not so much that we should forget that the technology is normally used in the pursuit of a highly subjective and personal experience.

The usual subjectivist anti-intellectual pitch. 

Quote
  Of course, I'm just a layperson and as such I can only respect and thank those of you who have worked hard to become well informed, and for contributing so much, so often.

The service along those lines that is being offered today relates to critical thinking because it seems that holding and proffering well-known kinds of fallacious and weak argumentation styles seems to be part and parcel of vinyl tolerance or worse yet, preference.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #66 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on
Quote from: 4season on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I'm working on an ABX test of the same recording from vinyl and digital, the best, flattest, most time-synched I can do it. I don't have a lot on both vinyl and CD, but I do have a Cars album that sounds pretty good to me.

"Good Times Roll" by The Cars is a pretty good test of pitch stability.


Any reasonable turntable will have flutter and wow well below inaudible. It's an electric motor at the end of the day.

It would be a very good day if the turntable motor speed was the only source of FM distortion in the Vinyl media system.

Here are the other sources that come to mind quickly:

(1) Warp wow - even visibly flat LPs  cause audible speed variations.
(2) Off center punched hole
(3) Any tone arm with offset or overhang. IOW anything but a linear tracking turntable. The offset interacts with the audio modulations on the disc.
(4) The lathe the LP was cut on.
(5) The music source which was and in some cases is an analog tape.
(6) FM distortion caused by speed variations due to added drag as the modulation increases

Quote
Secondly, I have many test records that have set tones which you can record an measure for pitch deviation. But we know that vinyl measures worse than digital, so I'd be happier to see a comparison with music.

I have many test records too, some modern, some legacy.

Saying that vinyl "measures worse than digital" is like saying that sewer water is not good to drink.

The audible distortions in vinyl are several orders of magnitude large,  ror if you will factors of 10 greater than 16/44 CD.

It is true that after about 100 years of development, vinyl technology searched every nook and cranny it could find to hide the audible distortion and noise in ways that made them less obvious.

Yes, if the record has been manufactured incorrectly it will of course affect sound quality.  How that is part of the argument, I don't know. It seems disingenuous to argue worse case, because digital worse case don't even play. But we're getting further away from the core question here.

And saying " vinyl measures worse than digital is like saying that sewer water is not good to drink" is a total nonsense. Because something measures better does not mean that it is more fit for purpose. Or do you subscribe to the hires audio gimmick too?

Lastly, can we please define digital in a more precise manor? I would rather listen to the worst vinyl pressing than a 2bit/8Khz digital file.

Arnold, you are on the correct side of the argument, but your retorts are poorly thought out and confusing.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #67 –
Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on

Yes, if the record has been manufactured incorrectly it will of course affect sound quality.  How that is part of the argument, I don't know. It seems disingenuous to argue worse case, because digital worse case don't even play. But we're getting further away from the core question here.

With digital, just about anybody with inexpensive, easy-to-operate tools and material can make a commercially distributable recording that sounds as good as the original recording.

With vinyl only highly-skilled people with a willingness to work with dangerous chemicals and hazardous machines that are rare, expensive and hard to operate can make a commercially distributable recording that at best sounds somewhat poorer than the original recording.

Obviously, the second process requires some luck and often goes awry.  That means a lot of scrap, and the probability that some marginal product gets to the consumer. When vinyl was mainstream, the odds of getting defective product were IME and the experience of many others pretty good.  Therefore, discussing these certainties makes sense. The product can also spoil on the shelf, and receives appreciable wear even with careful use.


Quote
And saying " vinyl measures worse than digital is like saying that sewer water is not good to drink" is a total nonsense.

Show me reliable evidence to back up your claim.

Here is some evidence that addresses many of my claims:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/06/musings-measurement-thoughts-on-vinyl.html

Here's another set of vinyl measurements for comparison:

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/vinyl-lp/70-tests/103-cartridge-tests.html?showall=1

Quote
Because something measures better does not mean that it is more fit for purpose. Or do you subscribe to the hires audio gimmick too?

Of course, measurements have to be evaluated in the context of how they relate to reliable listening tests. Many of the vinyl test results shown in the article I referenced are very likely to adversely affect sound quality. For example, the second plot in the reference titled "3150 Hz Test Tone (Log 20Hz to 96 Hz) shows the LP distortion to be poorer than 2% or about 33 dB down  with appreciable high harmonics while the  16/44 digital format distortion is more like 100 dB down with no higher harmonics visible at all despite the far lower noise floor.

Quote
Lastly, can we please define digital in a more precise manor? I would rather listen to the worst vinyl pressing than a 2bit/8Khz digital file.

Unless otherwise specified I think that the usual convention is to equate 16/44 LPCM with "digital audio".

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #68 –
OP got his moneys worth for sure LOL
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #70 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on

Yes, if the record has been manufactured incorrectly it will of course affect sound quality.  How that is part of the argument, I don't know. It seems disingenuous to argue worse case, because digital worse case don't even play. But we're getting further away from the core question here.

With digital, just about anybody with inexpensive, easy-to-operate tools and material can make a commercially distributable recording that sounds as good as the original recording.

With vinyl only highly-skilled people with a willingness to work with dangerous chemicals and hazardous machines that are rare, expensive and hard to operate can make a commercially distributable recording that at best sounds somewhat poorer than the original recording.

Obviously, the second process requires some luck and often goes awry.  That means a lot of scrap, and the probability that some marginal product gets to the consumer. When vinyl was mainstream, the odds of getting defective product were IME and the experience of many others pretty good.  Therefore, discussing these certainties makes sense. The product can also spoil on the shelf, and receives appreciable wear even with careful use.


Quote
And saying " vinyl measures worse than digital is like saying that sewer water is not good to drink" is a total nonsense.

Show me reliable evidence to back up your claim.

Here is some evidence that addresses many of my claims:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/06/musings-measurement-thoughts-on-vinyl.html

Here's another set of vinyl measurements for comparison:

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/vinyl-lp/70-tests/103-cartridge-tests.html?showall=1

Quote
Because something measures better does not mean that it is more fit for purpose. Or do you subscribe to the hires audio gimmick too?

Of course, measurements have to be evaluated in the context of how they relate to reliable listening tests. Many of the vinyl test results shown in the article I referenced are very likely to adversely affect sound quality. For example, the second plot in the reference titled "3150 Hz Test Tone (Log 20Hz to 96 Hz) shows the LP distortion to be poorer than 2% or about 33 dB down  with appreciable high harmonics while the  16/44 digital format distortion is more like 100 dB down with no higher harmonics visible at all despite the far lower noise floor.

Quote
Lastly, can we please define digital in a more precise manor? I would rather listen to the worst vinyl pressing than a 2bit/8Khz digital file.

Unless otherwise specified I think that the usual convention is to equate 16/44 LPCM with "digital audio".


I'd say it was easier to press a plastic disc than to build and maintain a network capable of digital distribution. Not only that, but if we consider physical 'digital' media, it's very slightly more difficult to produce than vinyl.

Skimming through the links, I don't see anything that backs up your claim.  A lot of measurements, not many of them relating back to what we actually can hear.  Even the links concedes "Yet the stereo illusion is still subjectively maintained. One reason is that the human head manages only 20dB or so separation between the ears and is used to working with this amount, so around 25dB-30dB of separation is adequate in practice for a good sense of stereo. " and the other "my Technics SL-1200M3D deviates -9.5/+8.8Hz which when low-passed still stays around -0.8/+0.5Hz (-0.02/+0.02%) over a minute; this is certainly quite good"

I don't know how much harmonic distortion is discernible, and I don't have all evening to nit pic through each of these. 

Attached is a clip of a recording I made this evening. It's from a 33rpm LP, it's the runout track (a min or two from the end of the record), has lit's of transients, high frequencies, a quite section (where the reverb is decaying). I don't hear anything wrong with it. This isn't an ABX, it's me listening to something and finding it transparent in the sense that I could not tell what the medium was. Just thought it would be interesting for people to hear.

Again, yes digital recordings are better, but usually, vinyl is more than enough for me to consider it 'good quality'.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #71 –
Quote from: 2tec on
By the way, apparently, the upward vinyl trend continued into 2016.

Quote
Vinyl sales rose 26% in 2016
~
http://consequenceofsound.net/2017/01/vinyl-sales-rose-26-in-2016-see-the-25-top-selling-releases/

Darn, just froze my beer :~() thanks Arnie!


Although off-topic a bit, LP sales did go up in 2016, but only just at 0.6% and would have been negative if not for the record day sales - in the USA at least.

It is sad but fair to say that LP sales have flattened out (the trend was apparent two years ago) and like CDs and other forms of physical media, will eventually be a footnote in the annuals of history.
http://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/RIAA-2016-Year-End-News-Notes.pdf

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #72 –
I was putting my head in a noose with my last post.  Please let me rephrase to "in isolation, vinyl does not sound bad to me".

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #73 –
Quote from: Funkstar De Luxe on


I'd say it was easier to press a plastic disc than to build and maintain a network capable of digital distribution. Not only that, but if we consider physical 'digital' media, it's very slightly more difficult to produce than vinyl.

Both wrong and a straw man argument.

Creating a digital distribution network is very easy if you are even mildly technically competent. Set up a file server.

 Can't do it? Find a 6 year old to help you! ;-)


But, you don't need to set up a digital distribution network. All you need to do is burn a piece of digital optical media or copy files to a portable digital device like a DS chip, a flash drive, or a portable hard drive.

 Can't do it? Find a 4 year old to help you! ;-)


Quote
Skimming through the links, I don't see anything that backs up your claim.  A lot of measurements, not many of them relating back to what we actually can hear.  Even the links concedes "Yet the stereo illusion is still subjectively maintained. One reason is that the human head manages only 20dB or so separation between the ears and is used to working with this amount, so around 25dB-30dB of separation is adequate in practice for a good sense of stereo. " and the other "my Technics SL-1200M3D deviates -9.5/+8.8Hz which when low-passed still stays around -0.8/+0.5Hz (-0.02/+0.02%) over a minute; this is certainly quite good"

I don't know how much harmonic distortion is discernible, and I don't have all evening to nit pic through each of these. 

...And there is no such thing as google and the web to educate yourself with. GMAB! 

Ever hear of self-induced ignorance?

Tell me that you want to know! I don't believe it.

I have read endless false technological claims about digital from analog bigots. Being charitable, I'll say that they are based on ignorance. In this day and age, it has to be self-induced.

Quote
Attached is a clip of a recording I made this evening. It's from a 33rpm LP, it's the runout track (a min or two from the end of the record), has lit's of transients, high frequencies, a quite section (where the reverb is decaying). I don't hear anything wrong with it. This isn't an ABX, it's me listening to something and finding it transparent in the sense that I could not tell what the medium was. Just thought it would be interesting for people to hear.

Again, yes digital recordings are better, but usually, vinyl is more than enough for me to consider it 'good quality'.

For one thing, the moral equivalent of a run out groove on a digital recording is either:

(1) A run out groove doesn't exist on digital media because. unlike analog, it doesn't have to exist.

(2) A run out groove on digital media is just the background noise from the production chain which is over 90 dB down and is therefore very, very, hard to hear at all.

(3) A run out groove on digital media is digital black, which is as quiet as  your playback gear can make it. YMMV.

Re: Vynil or digital?

Reply #74 –
I run a small LP master facility. We master LPs from all sources.

Prior to setting up our lathe and cutter head, I labored under many of the same false impressions and assumptions that I see on this thread. BTW, I don't have a bone to pick; I don't care who thinks what is superior or the like, but I do see some areas where the record (pardon the expression...) should be set straight instead of some sort of death spiral (sorry, couldn't resist...).

First, the issue of distortion! LPs may contain significant distortion but they are not usually the source. Usually its the source from which the LP was made or the distortion occurs in playback (more on the latter later). For example, LPs are often accused of 2-3% distortion at full output, but that's usually the recording tape (its possible to go direct to disk after all, that's when you find this sort of thing out).

Here's why: The cutter head of any mastering system take a few watts to drive. But the cutter amps as a rule of thumb make about 10X whatever the power the cutter needs. Example: our cutter (Westerex 3D) takes about 7-8 watts maximum. The amps make about 125 watts at full power. The amps, as you can imagine, don't make that much distortion even at full power. The reason this is so of course is so that the amps cannot be clipped. Period.

Next, the cutter head is equipped with feedback windings, which are used not only to reduce distortion but also to prevent crosstalk. The feedback modules in our cutter system have 30db of gain, which is applied to the input of the cutter amps. IOW by itself the actual distortion is similar to what you might see in a good quality solid state amplifier, if such are being used as cutter amps.

Now the cutter can cut undistorted cuts that no tone arm/cartridge combination could hope to track long before its voice coils are fried. This places the limitation of dynamic range in playback, not record (which is also where much of the distortion issues lie, usually due to poor setup or design in the pickup).

IOW most of the 'distortion of LP' lies outside of the LP itself.

So far despite encountering out of phase bass tracks on many occasions, I've found that if you spend time with the track and do some test cuts, there has been no need for additional processing such as compression or bass limiters (which usually are passive devices in the signal FWIW). The issue is usually how much time the engineer is spending with the recording and in particular to do this you often wind up making a number of test cuts to get things right (add to that $400/hour for typical mastering and you see what the problem there is- which is why compression and other forms of processing can be common). Variables may include changing the overall level (1 db might not sound like much but when you consider that +/-3 db changes the excursion by double or half, you can see that a decibel might be very helpful yet inaudible in the finished product) or changing the groove depth.

(Regarding compression, most digital tracks are compressed more than LPs for the simple reason that there is no expectation that LPs will be played in a car. Any discussion of dynamic range has to include this foible of the recording industry in general. For this reason we request from the producer the **unmastered** digital files free of such DSP so we can turn out a better product.)

There is the issue of noise.... what most people don't know that for all intents and purposes, a properly cut lacquer will easily rival the noise floor of a CD. Whatever you play it back on, the electronics used are the noise floor, not the lacquer. This is true even if you start with a lacquer that has obvious scratches on it! The surface noise comes in during the pressing process (and hiss is in nearly every raw unmastered recording). At least one pressing house (QRP) has addressed surface noise as they found that vibration in their pressing machines was a main contributor; by damping their pressing machines most of the noise is eliminated. Projects we have done through their operation confirm this; those pressings seem to be as silent as the lacquers.

Bandwidth seems to be another issue that I don't see being addressed! The typical LP has bandwidth to about 40KHz; an octave above just about everything else. This has apparently been true since the advent of the stereo LP. Since at least the early 1970s this has also been true on the playback side (we can cut a 40KHz tone on our 1959 Westerex cutter head and play it back on a Technics SL1200 driving a Harmon Kardon 730 receiver easily enough...). In round numbers the implication is less phase shift owing to the frequency poles being spaced apart a bit; phase shift while inaudible with single tones is easily heard as affecting depth and width in the soundstage or 3D aspect of a recording (which might only be heard when minimalist microphone techniques are employed).

IOW the bandwidth of an LP is described by its source and not the media. In a similar way, so is the potential noise floor as well as distortion. What I am seeing on this thread is that many posters are simply uninformed about the nature of the media and conflate it with their playback-only experience; because *their* LP has certain problems played back in *their* system, that it must be that way for everyone. That of course is a logical fallacy and by definition untrue.

Again, I'm just presenting these facts so that people can make more informed posts as this thread (inevitably) grows.

(BTW if you want to test speed stability in a turntable, get a Sutherland Timeline. This is a laser device that projects dots on the wall; if the speed is off the dot will become a small line and may also drift across the wall. FWIW the Technics SP10 and the new SL-1200 GAE (which looks for all the world like the older SL1200s but is an entirely new design in every way except appearance) can keep that dot on the same place all afternoon while being played constantly. So stylus drag need not be an issue but is an issue often conflated with the media itself. )