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: [TROLLBAIT] Dare I start another vinyl topic? (Read 42383 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #100 –
dc2bluelight - thanks for the interesting info!

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #101 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: cliveb on
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.

Quote from: ajinfla on
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:
Code: [Select]
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!

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #102 –
Quote from: cliveb on
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.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #103 –
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.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #104 –
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.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #105 –
Quote from: cliveb on
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!

Quote from: cliveb on
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?

Quote from: cliveb on
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.

Quote from: cliveb on
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?

Quote from: cliveb on
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.

Quote from: cliveb on
PS. Merry Christmas to everyone!
Ditto
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #106 –
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.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #107 –
Quote from: Wombat on
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.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #108 –
Quote from: Wombat on
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.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #109 –
Quote from: Deathcrow on
Quote from: cliveb on
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"

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #110 –
Quote from: dc2bluelight on
Quote from: old tech on
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.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #111 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #112 –
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.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #113 –
Quote from: cliveb on

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. 
Quote from: cliveb on
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).
Quote from: cliveb on
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.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #114 –
Quote from: krabapple on

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). 

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #115 –
Quote
I hope Ralph didn't blow up his audiophile "hifi" system playing that track.

Thanks. I didn't.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #116 –
Quote from: cliveb on
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.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #117 –
Quote from: cliveb on
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 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.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #118 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
Quote
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
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #119 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Atmasphere on
Quote
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).

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #120 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
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 lists a model not on their website.
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.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #121 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Atmasphere on
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 lists a model not on their website.
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.

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #122 –
Quote from: Atmasphere on
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?

Quote from: Atmasphere on
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.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Dare I start another vinyl topic?

Reply #124 –
Sure, maybe "How does your TT handle 16hz in room bass at high levels from vinyl records"...without the furnace on.
Loudspeaker manufacturer