Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over (Read 55085 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #100 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
Before that my yardstick for assessing how good a digital system was done by seeing how long it took to get a headache. In the early days 30 seconds was sufficient (of course my hearing was better then) and it took until the 1990s before I could stay in the room all day with a strictly digital source.
WoW! :)
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #102 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
Before that my yardstick for assessing how good a digital system was done by seeing how long it took to get a headache.
This is a common symptom of digital disorder, a subset of audiophile disorder.

Quote from: Atmasphere on
Look out for the Verdi Requiem on the RCA Soria series. Side 1 track 2 and tell me that you don't hear some dynamic range
No interest in anecdotes. The fact is LPs have limited dynamic range and high noise that is laid bare with wide dynamic range classical, while CDs do not.

Quote from: Atmasphere on
Or the Saint Saens Organ symphony, which has sub-20Hz in the grooves- it can shake the walls.
And the turntable...with high distortion mono spatially compromised bass. 16hz bass from stereo LP...please.

Quote from: Atmasphere on
As far as electronic music goes..
...red herring. That's about where LPs do ok. Due to lack of dynamic range, etc.

Quote from: Atmasphere on
There's a whole industry around room treatment.
Yes, many audio fashions like vinyl and "treatments" in the audio fashions biz.

Quote from: Atmasphere on
I know a manufacturer that builds subs that are meant to be deployed in multiples to eliminate nodes and such. Its not been my experience that audiophiles are unaware of these issues- most installations I've seen have some sort of treatment
You completely evaded the fact that EQ either by itself or combined with multi-sub (which is ok for HT/pop, not classical music), is far more effective.

Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #103 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
Quote
Oh for f*ck's sake, just stop this special pleading for vinyl.

And you don't have a special pleading for digital?? Keep in mind that the OP of this topic turned out to be false- that LP sales have been and are continuing to increase. You might ask why that is, why it is that you can get LPs at Target, Best Buy and Barnes and Nobles where you couldn't at those places only 5-6 years ago.

The thing is, analog or digital can sound just fine! When I play digital at shows, my goal is to get it to sound as good as LP (IOW not bright and annoying). When I play LPs at shows, my goal is to have them be as silent and noise-free as digital. There are strengths to both formats; I started taking digital seriously about 20 years ago with the Appogee DACs. That DAC showed that digital playback finally got good enough that it stopped giving me headaches.

Before that my yardstick for assessing how good a digital system was done by seeing how long it took to get a headache. In the early days 30 seconds was sufficient (of course my hearing was better then) and it took until the 1990s before I could stay in the room all day with a strictly digital source.


I suggest you drop such loads of utter tosh elsewhere. 
 

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #104 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Quote from: Atmasphere on
Before that my yardstick for assessing how good a digital system was done by seeing how long it took to get a headache. In the early days 30 seconds was sufficient (of course my hearing was better then) and it took until the 1990s before I could stay in the room all day with a strictly digital source.
WoW! :)
Makes total sense if you turn up the volume to compensate for the missing surface noise. In the old days, you could set the volume by ear before the music started ;)

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #105 –
Quote from: botface on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: botface on
I don't have the reports in my possession
That's too bad.
But you can always keep clutching your vinyl in the bubble, with belief that CD didn't wipe the floor with it due to sound quality.
Because you said so.


Batman, sorry I do find your posts difficult to understand at times. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm clutching some vinyl bubble whatever that means.

It says here you're a manufacturer of speaker systems. I suppose that means you run your own business. I expect that means you need legal advice now and then. Next time you speak to your legal adviser ask him to explain to you why it's not OK to make public information that is not already in the public domain - unless you're the owner of the data . Then you can stop banging on about it

If you come to a knife fight and claim to have a gun, don't be surprised when everybody laughs in your face when you can't produce it to defend yourself.

By hiding behind this apparently non-existent data, you've taken it off the table, because if it can't be reviewed directly, for all practical purposes, it does not exist.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #106 –
I'd like to exit this thread with just a couple of final comments:

1. Thanks to AJ for pointing out a couple of posts in other threads that do seem to suggest that perhaps botface does think vinyl sounds better than CD. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say they prove he does. I stand by my earlier comment that *within this thread* I had not seen anything he said that implied such.

2. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do NOT think vinyl sounds better than CD. I am fully aware of the LP format's limitations. What I do find remarkable is that vinyl can sound pretty damn good, despite those limitations. My day-to-day listening is via streamed digital files - some of which happen to be needle drops that I can (shock, horror!) actually enjoy listening to.

3. I object to being labelled a "placebophile" every time I try to engage in debate at a more subtle level than "vinyl is utter dog poo and everyone who thinks otherwise is crazy".

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #107 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
Quote
Oh for f*ck's sake, just stop this special pleading for vinyl.

And you don't have a special pleading for digital?? Keep in mind that the OP of this topic turned out to be false- that LP sales have been and are continuing to increase.

I believe that my OP to this thread complained about some false premises in the article's rhetoric.

Quote
You might ask why that is, why it is that you can get LPs at Target, Best Buy and Barnes and Nobles where you couldn't at those places only 5-6 years ago.

Obviously, they are big enough to address niche markets, even fairly tiny niches.

Quote
The thing is, analog or digital can sound just fine!

Ever wonder why before digital mastering, LPs were cut from tapes? Hint: sound quality had something to do with it.

Quote
When I play digital at shows, my goal is to get it to sound as good as LP (IOW not bright and annoying). When I play LPs at shows, my goal is to have them be as silent and noise-free as digital.

I'll bet that either not all of the people who visit your booth agree that you have made LPs to be as silent as CDs, or there are some what many of us would see as technical issues with the audio system at your booth.

Got any idea how many people have demoed their vinyl systems to me that were purportedly as free of added noise and distortion s comparable CD's, only to disappoint me?


Quote
There are strengths to both formats; I started taking digital seriously about 20 years ago with the Appogee DACs. That DAC showed that digital playback finally got good enough that it stopped giving me headaches.

Most would diagnose headaches due to listening to meainstream digital as a problem due to listener bias. Trouble is, unless the noise inherent in LP playback is removed by means of technology (usually digital), it has an obvious tell.

Quote
Before that my yardstick for assessing how good a digital system was done by seeing how long it took to get a headache. In the early days 30 seconds was sufficient (of course my hearing was better then) and it took until the 1990s before I could stay in the room all day with a strictly digital source.

I think Freud reported something comparable with certain sexually repressed women...

However, there is a technical reason for this.  IME if you tune a system so that it sounds good with LPs, well that takes a lot of bending, and you end up with something pretty weird.

Yes, I had to take the analog  turning out of my system when I first switched to digital to enjoy digital at its best. However, I had been guided enough by good technology when I tuned my system for vinyl, that I wasn't that bad for digital from the onset.

Quote
That was important as I do audio for a living.

That would be a controversial claim. What you do involves practicing dark audio arts that were chased into a tiny niche long ago for a number of very good reasons, many having to do with sound quality.


Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #108 –
Quote from: 4season on
I believe someone else on HA posted a link to these Hifi World phono cartridge frequency plots recently. I'd imagine that a cartridge like the Shure M97 would be "warmer" and more forgiving of record noise than the Ortofon 2M Red:

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


IME those tests show why people adjust the capacitive cartridge loading of the Shure M97 (and other Shure cartridges) as Shure recommends.  A roll-off like that usually goes away if you add about 220 pF (more or less, depends on tone arm wiring and preamp input loading) to each channel.  The cited text doesn't show that, but it appears to have other technical problems.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #109 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on

What sort of arm and cartridge? What phono preamp was used? As I have pointed out before, the phono preamp can cause ticks and pops to sound a lot louder than they are on the LP itself.

I guess you never heard of RIAA equalization, or simply don't know what it does to playback of LPs.

One way to look at it is that it is one big freakin' low pass filter.



There is a 40 dB over-all high frequency loss!

This means that high frequency sounds like record tics are massively attenuated by any even just marginal RIAA preamp.

It is inconceivable to me how one could screw up the performance of a RIAA equalizer to create such a severe problem as to overcome massive desirable high frequency losses like this, and have anything that could be reasonably considered to be just marginally operational.  Tweeters would fry. There would probably be readily audible distortion. It would be horrible!

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #110 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
I guess I could post samples but I also guess that some people will just say the vinyl rip was just poorly made by someone who can't set up properly his own turntable.
Quote from: Atmasphere on
What sort of arm and cartridge? What phono preamp was used? As I have pointed out before, the phono preamp can cause ticks and pops to sound a lot louder than they are on the LP itself.

It seems that I was right. Most often when someone explains that obvious sound issues are audible with vinyl LP, there's another person to tell that LP wasn't played correctly.

— Fire is nice but it's hot, burns and create smoke
— No it doesn't! how was the fire created? Which wood did you take? With a good set up it's perfectly smokeless, lukewarm and odourless.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #111 –
Quote from: cliveb on
1. Thanks to AJ for pointing out a couple of posts in other threads that do seem to suggest that perhaps botface does think vinyl sounds better than CD. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say they prove he does. I stand by my earlier comment that *within this thread* I had not seen anything he said that implied such.
And again I couldn't care less if he prefers vinyl to CD, or wax cylinders for that matter. Subjective preference is preference. Nothing to argue there.
However, audiophile believers always feel the need for objective crutches to support their preferences, due to the specious nature of their positions. It's not enough for them to simply prefer something, they need to have objective metrics like the sane folks have, such as lower distortion, noise, dynamic range, FR errors, etc, etc, etc to support their preferences.
So they fabricate tales about objective support like secret controlled blind tests, secret survey data, etc, etc. to prop up their subjective preferences.
Sad.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #112 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
Quote from: guruboolez on
I guess I could post samples but I also guess that some people will just say the vinyl rip was just poorly made by someone who can't set up properly his own turntable.

It happens all the time!  So if you ask them to post their samples, they either post something that can't be compared to an extant CD, or they post nothing at all.

Placebopihiles are often into all talk but no action. They are audio voyeurs - they want to talk, they want to drop names, they want names and pictures but when it comes to making their alleged gear strut its stuff, they are dead to the world.

For example, let's take the placebophile poster at hand. he claims to have a vinyl cutting shop, but I seriously question his competence to actually operate it. People who are hands-on with something often have a sort of immediacy in their tone.  What work of his is there to back up his claims?

Quote
Quote from: Atmasphere on
What sort of arm and cartridge? What phono preamp was used? As I have pointed out before, the phono preamp can cause ticks and pops to sound a lot louder than they are on the LP itself.


Placebophiles are very often big into name dropping.

Quote
It seems that I was right. Most often when someone explains that obvious sound issues are audible with vinyl LP, there's another person to tell that LP wasn't played correctly.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #113 –
Sidenote:
Almost bizarre to tell guruboolez how something sounds.
I doubt there are many people out there on the internet ever provided as good detailed listening test results and artifact descriptions on a solid verifyable basis over many years as he did.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!
 

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #114 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Sidenote:
Almost bizarre to tell guruboolez how something sounds.
I doubt there are many people out there on the internet ever provided as good detailed listening test results and artifact descriptions on a solid verifyable basis over many years as he did.
Yeah, yeah, but we still don't know what arm, cartridge and phono preamp he used, now do we?
That critical information is far more important than say 60db vs 100db dynamic range, audible vs inaudible levels of distortion, timing errors, etc
Who knows, he could have been using lowly zip cord for wires too!
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #115 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Wombat on
Sidenote:
Almost bizarre to tell guruboolez how something sounds.
I doubt there are many people out there on the internet ever provided as good detailed listening test results and artifact descriptions on a solid verifyable basis over many years as he did.
Yeah, yeah, but we still don't know what arm, cartridge and phono preamp he used, now do we?
That critical information is far more important than say 60db vs 100db dynamic range, audible vs inaudible levels of distortion, timing errors, etc
Who knows, he could have been using lowly zip cord for wires too!

Thank you Wombat. Ten years after my last tests people haven't forgot me :-[

@ajinfla
As I said before my experience is based on:
— a single personal experience which I can't tell anything about (it was good hardware even if  you can't buy a Ferrari for the same price)
— exemples of downloaded stuff. I don't have them anymore, so I can't describe it nor tell anymore what exact model of every piece of hardware they used. But among the recording process you always have cleaning fluid, expensive cartridge, audiophile wires etc, etc… You can easily find exemples of them but searching for DSD128 (maybe 256 now) or 352/32 LP rips on sharing site. There's nowadays a kind of race in sound quality / technical demonstration and every ripper want to outperform all rivals.

Anyway my point was to answer to the poster who answered that vinyl can sound with a nice dynamic to someone who remind that CD has a much better signal to noise ratio, which is the true technical word for dynamic range. Unless you or someone else can bring some evidence that specific cartridge, specific phono preamp or whatever may overcome the known limitation of LP format (~60 to 70 dB of theoretical SNR, and practically less) and therefore allow it to reach the CD transparency (96 dB, up to 112 with dithering and noise shaping) I have no interest to further discuss this point. It's a fruitless debate.

The obvious is that LP is by far a less transparent media than CD. It may be transparent enough on Iron Maiden (I like this band since 25 years so it's not an insult) but the limitation are obvious on every piano, or symphony, or string quartet, or opera recordings. For this kind of music quiet parts are countless and CD was the very first popular media which sounded and still sounds perfectly transparent. Some classical lovers may prefer the sound of LP for some reasons, but it can't be for dynamic, transparency or even fidelity.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #116 –
Sheesh.
Quote
Obviously, they are big enough to address niche markets, even fairly tiny niches.

Anything to try to make yourself right, go ahead.... So these companies *weren't* big enough to do that five years ago?? Do you see how ridiculous you are sounding?
********************************

An article was linked, showing cartridge performance and how it was measured, yet with no mention of the equipment used or how it was set up, and somehow I'm the bad guy in this? That's bulls**t and you all *know* that.

What was really going on is that the article was heavily slanted, using two 'mid-fi' cartridges (one being pretty junky lo-fi), with almost no mention of the procedures, despite having a section devoted to just that. The question really is, is the obfuscation on purpose or are they just not aware of how dramatically the pickup performance can alter the measurements? This article is heavily flawed ('bad science') as a result.

Before you all do the knee jerk unload, think about the fact that in any scientific procedure, the equipment used and how it is used is laid out so things can be repeatable. This article does not allow for that; if you ignore the arm, turntable and equalizer as this article did, you will get different results using the same cartridges. Sheesh.

FWIW, setup of the pickup is the single worst problem of the LP. Most people screw it up (by not using a protractor) and then when it fails to perform, blame the LP instead. Sheesh. Of course I'm going to ask how someone came to the conclusion they did, but all I did was ask what cartridge, arm and so on and they get all offended. This site asks for proof and all I was looking for was evidence. No-one seems willing to provide it. Arnold still has refused for some days now to say why he uses legacy cartridges (read: old junk) when he tests phono performance.... but here's a suggestion: Why assume I am casting aspersions when I ask a simple question like that? Are you afraid of the answer??

Quote
Most would diagnose headaches due to listening to meainstream digital as a problem due to listener bias. Trouble is, unless the noise inherent in LP playback is removed by means of technology (usually digital), it has an obvious tell.

Most would?  :) that's really funny! Clearly you've not spent time around high performance gear, but the the thing is, you think you have, which is also funny.

My phono preamp is just that and nothing more. What it does not do is **add** to the signal or exacerbate problems (like ticks and pops), simply because its circuit is stable. It really seems like a lot of people here listen to junk and think its the greatest thing ever.
Quote
That would be a controversial claim. What you do involves practicing dark audio arts that were chased into a tiny niche long ago for a number of very good reasons, many having to do with sound quality.

Evidence for such an attack and obvious crap? 

You can't have it both ways you know. You want others to present proof of their assertions, but then turn right around and make similar ridiculous statements, all the while expecting that you should be given a pass. What a hypocrite!

'Dark Audio Arts'... sheesh.  ::)

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #117 –
Quote from: cliveb on
I'd like to exit this thread with just a couple of final comments:

1. Thanks to AJ for pointing out a couple of posts in other threads that do seem to suggest that perhaps botface does think vinyl sounds better than CD. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say they prove he does. I stand by my earlier comment that *within this thread* I had not seen anything he said that implied such.

2. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do NOT think vinyl sounds better than CD. I am fully aware of the LP format's limitations. What I do find remarkable is that vinyl can sound pretty damn good, despite those limitations. My day-to-day listening is via streamed digital files - some of which happen to be needle drops that I can (shock, horror!) actually enjoy listening to.

3. I object to being labelled a "placebophile" every time I try to engage in debate at a more subtle level than "vinyl is utter dog poo and everyone who thinks otherwise is crazy".

I know for a fact that you are a 'white hat'  -- no 'placebophile' --  and I hope you won't be put off  permanently from engaging in such threads as this. 

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #119 –
In order to feed the debate with something to hear, I'm trying to post some comparison between LP sound and CD sound. As I said before it's usually pointless because people tends to refute everything concrete with hardware considerations. But for the other one who may be curious about how LP may sound with classical it should be interesting enough.

First example: the famous Bolero of Maurice Ravel (a large, 15 minutes crescendo repeating the same scheme).
I found a LP rip of a modern and digital recording done in 1986. It features Claudio Abbado conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. The original CD is not absolutely transparent but silent parts are really close to silence unless you turn the volume knob on unrealistic level. This transparency level was the kind of digital marvel people never get before in their listening rooms when they discovered the CD and pure digital media. The first 30 seconds (the most quiet part) is provided as sample.

On the other side, the LP release of the same recording. It was ripped by someone in PCM 192.000 Hz, 32 bit downsampled to 24 bit. The person used a Trio KP-700, a Luxman E-03, a T.C. Electronic Desktop Konnekt 6. The LP itself may be used.

As you can see in the dynamic range graph of the 15 minutes recording, the quietest musical parts of the CD rip is ~-60dB. On the LP recording ripped it's ~15 dB higher. On the graph, it's not dramatic. On the ears… oh well. I still don't get the point of having a 2,3 Gb rip of something that bad. Even strongest LAME 96 kbps artifacts are not that obvious in my souvenirs (but they're not pretty either).
This LP rip is also interesting on loud musical moments. Frequency jumps up to 80.000 Hz which undoubtedly proves that LP is a very high resolution format… Oh wait, source is PCM from 1986, 44100 or 48000 Hz at best, with no information above 24000 Hz.

Conclusion on most classical music or on any high dynamic range recordings: LP provides lower dynamic range with a higher noise level easily audible on normal playback conditions, various audible issues (pops, crackles…), a lot of high frequency distortion.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #120 –
Quote
First example: the famous Bolero of Maurice Ravel (a large, 15 minutes crescendo repeating the same scheme).
I found a LP rip of a modern and digital recording done in 1986. It features Claudio Abbado conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. The original CD is not absolutely transparent but silent parts are really close to silence unless you turn the volume knob on unrealistic level. This transparency level was the kind of digital marvel people never get before in their listening rooms when they discovered the CD and pure digital media. The first 30 seconds (the most quiet part) is provided as sample.

On the other side, the LP release of the same recording. It was ripped by someone in PCM 192.000 Hz, 32 bit downsampled to 24 bit. The person used a Trio KP-700, a Luxman E-03, a T.C. Electronic Desktop Konnekt 6. The LP itself may be used.

So all LPs are as noisy as this one, right? The likelihood is 'some are and some are not'.

The other questions to ask are: what cartridge, what arm, what table and what phono preamp. As always.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #121 –
Second example. This one is much less shocking.

It features another DDD recording. Composer is Philip Glass. The music comes from the movie Powaqqatsi. Released on CD and LP in 1988 by Nonesuch.

The ripper used the following well documented hardware and software setup:

• Linn LP12 with Lingo 2 power supply
• Linn Ekos 2 Tone-arm *upgrade
• van den Hul – The DDT II Special Cartridge
• Linn T-cable (Tonearm)
• Accuphase C11 Phono-pre
• Pro-Line Silver interlink
• Propellerhead Balance ADC
• Audioquest Coffee USB Cable
• Wavelab 6 and CD Wave 1.95.2

Tweaks:
• Noise Eater
• Masterbase (under the feet of the turntable)
• Boston Audio Mat 1

Again, I provided two samples from the same part (20 seconds sample, beginning of track #6).
The LP is this time much cleaner. But keep in mind that a noise was digitally lowered and clics/pops removed by filters. Even there, the most transparent version is the CD. The LP is muffled. If you pump the volume, many surface noise and artifacts will rise again with the LP.

If you check the dynamic of these 20 seconds, especially on the six first ones, you can easily see how well shaped, precise and deep it may go on the CD. LP isn't that far… but — ironically enough— only with digital enhancement.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #122 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
So all LPs are as noisy as this one, right? The likelihood is 'some are and some are not'.

The other questions to ask are: what cartridge, what arm, what table and what phono preamp. As always.
For the latter it seems that some information are provided in my post. As I said I'm not trying to convince you. Bring anything concrete to the debate please. If you have some evidence that an arm can magically enhance the sound, remove all pops, clean all noise, be sure I'll listen carefully…

…or maybe not so carefully. LP is technically inferior from the SNR point of vue. It's well known for 40 years. You can't reinvent the wheel... Even vinyl fanatics carefully avoid any conflict in this area and try to argue on more poetic aspect of the sound (warmth, presence, depth… almost anything you can't describe nor measure).

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #123 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
@ajinfla
As I said before my experience is based on:
Probably lost in translation. I was joking. Sarcasm. I thought the  zip wire comment would be the total giveaway.
Yes, I'm very aware a magic mega $$ tonearm still can't generate 100+ db dynamic range from vinyl. Or cartridge. Or phono pre. Or...

I was recently at a demo of an uber table, $20k phono pre, etc.
The Elvis track sounded hands down better than my CD version. So good, I went out and bought the LP ;-).
On classical, well.....
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over

Reply #124 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
Quote
First example: the famous Bolero of Maurice Ravel (a large, 15 minutes crescendo repeating the same scheme).
I found a LP rip of a modern and digital recording done in 1986. It features Claudio Abbado conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. The original CD is not absolutely transparent but silent parts are really close to silence unless you turn the volume knob on unrealistic level. This transparency level was the kind of digital marvel people never get before in their listening rooms when they discovered the CD and pure digital media. The first 30 seconds (the most quiet part) is provided as sample.

On the other side, the LP release of the same recording. It was ripped by someone in PCM 192.000 Hz, 32 bit downsampled to 24 bit. The person used a Trio KP-700, a Luxman E-03, a T.C. Electronic Desktop Konnekt 6. The LP itself may be used.

So all LPs are as noisy as this one, right? The likelihood is 'some are and some are not'.

OK "Atmasphere", if you really do have a disk cutting facility at your disposal, (I doubt it!) then you are unique among us as being able to prepare a counter-example with all LP recording and playback components as exactly you would have them.  I'm sure the CD track is still available as either new or old stock. Since it is digital, its provenance doesn't matter. Just round trip it through your LP recording and playback facility and post the results as a FLAC file.

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