• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Vinyl will always sound *different* than digital, right?

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
You might want to find out about your first assertion before making a statement like that without proof. Based on common comments I see here, without further evidence, I suspect your surmise about 'ability and the knowledge' is false, Occam's razor and all. Ticks and pops is a very common complaint! Phono sections that generate them are common too!

Let me see, now, you ARE aware I spent the first part of my EE career doing high dynamic range analog/hybrid hardware research at Bell Labs, right? Let's see, now, the ability to hook up the scope, look for instabilities, (including internal op amp instabilities) clipping, etc, that's handy, too. You are, of course aware that you have publicly accused me of being incompetent in my actual first field of research. So you might need to back down a bit. I've observed the performance of quite a few (non-crystal cartridge) devices, and while some of the low-end Shure cartridges had a pretty nuclear output level, I have very rarely seen that in any commercial device that's above the bottom grade of equipment. Even a PAT3 or PAT4 did just fine. I'm quite sure of that, and yeah, the "tone control" on both needed to be bypassed by a couple of decent resistors. That would be with any of a variety of MM cartridges.

I did see a few MC cartridges combined with external preamps that had a problem with high enough output to drive the phono stage then went into some issues, but that's easily fixed with a resistive divider, and the problem wasn't "pops and clicks", frank clipping is very, very obvious to anyone who's heard it twice.

Now, I don't have any equipment that runs on single-ended +5 volt, there's a reason for that.

If you're talking about phono sections in "modern" electronics (say after 2000) I haven't even seen one, because they don't appear to exist. But I do have both the understanding and equipment to properly evaluate anything I'm looking at, and you can be very, very sure I use it if I'm even slightly suspicious. Oh, and the kind of overload effects you're talking about aren't simply clipping, most often they are actual instability brought about by bad choice of gain element, and they are much less likely than you think, unless you're feeding a crystal cartridge into a single-ended 5V FET input op amp, in which case the designer crippled his/herself.

So slow down there, Gloria, slow down.

As far as surface noise of all kinds, my LP's are all over the map. Some of the older ones that were gotten via people giving them away in CD era have quite some noise, and most of those required some very serious cleaning. All of your LP's are clean? Really?
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
THERE ARE TONS OF REASONS WHY VINYL SOUNDS DIFFERENT THAN DIGITAL

Here's yet another experienced pro and audiophile's clear explanation of the major difference in what we tend to hear, and why:



Of course, all you have to do is record those LP's at redbook standard, and they still sound just like LP's.

Or you run an LP sim digitally. You can even design your own cartridge, beam resonance, and stylus shape, effectively, although the variables that you set up are not expressed in that fashion.
 

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA
Of course, all you have to do is record those LP's at redbook standard, and they still sound just like LP's.

Or you run an LP sim digitally. You can even design your own cartridge, beam resonance, and stylus shape, effectively, although the variables that you set up are not expressed in that fashion.
Did you watch the YT video? His explanation is reliant on different mastering practices, not dubbing. But I agree with you, too.
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
Did you watch the YT video? His explanation is reliant on different mastering practices, not dubbing. But I agree with you, too.

I did. I was simply pointing out, again, that CD can capture any audible information present on an LP. I find myself hearing the old "CD's can not capture xxx" nonsense over and over again. As a note, I would love to get in touch with the fellow, having been privy to some conversations when the loudness war started, and the lunacy started.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
I was simply pointing out, again, that CD can capture any audible information present on an LP. I find myself hearing the old "CD's can not capture xxx" nonsense over and over again.
Absolutely,
It's also true that the reverse isn't, a LP could never capture the spread of qualities a CD can.
 

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA
Absolutely,
It's also true that the reverse isn't, a LP could never capture the spread of qualities a CD can.
True. LPs, at their best, were never very good music media. They were simply the best we had for mass distribution until 1982.
Tempus movet on.
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
True. LPs, at their best, were never very good music media. They were simply the best we had for mass distribution until 1982.
Tempus movet on.

They do have some distortion mechanisms that can, in the best of times, help out the stereo illusion. Obviously, that can be done in digital as well.
 

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA
They do have some distortion mechanisms that can, in the best of times, help out the stereo illusion. Obviously, that can be done in digital as well.
Yes, if you believe that music/illusion is somehow 'enhanced' by distortion. That might beg the question, "do we wish for high truth or enjoyable fakes in sound playback?"

I think many here might secretly prefer the latter, even while professing the former. Either is valid; just be honest with yourself.


Spending money in quantity on one, while hoping for the other puts the audiophile at crossed purposes.
 

FrankW

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2023
Messages
393
Likes
373
Yes, if you believe that music/illusion is somehow 'enhanced' by distortion. That might beg the question, "do we wish for high truth or enjoyable fakes in sound playback?"
You are referring to stereo, which is all fakes. The dichotomy is awareness vs not, the latter being the vast majority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j_j

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,712
"upmixing" is a swear word. It consists of trying to extract 5 independent variables from two. Simply put, algebra is still right, you can't get 5 independent variables from two.

LOL, I like that swearing*! ;> (me and Floyd Toole both, though his upmixer probably smokes mine)

My upmixer of choice was DPLII Music. I get by now with its unfortunately lesser, movie-focused replacement, DSU. It's an effect, it sure ain't purist...but I like it. I've rarely been a pure stereo listener for years now.



* I like swearing, generally
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
LOL, I like that swearing*! ;> (me and Floyd Toole both, though his upmixer probably smokes mine)
Works for me too, plain 2ch is just so boring once you get used to surround.
Discreet is best, no doubt, but as we say in racing, run what ya brong. LOL
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
Yes, if you believe that music/illusion is somehow 'enhanced' by distortion. That might beg the question, "do we wish for high truth or enjoyable fakes in sound playback?"

Well, let's start with "stereo is an illusion" and there isn't nearly close to enough information in a stereo signal to enable the auditory system to actually sense what a real space would sense. That amount of perceived information is, then, a tiny bit of the actual Shannon information available in even a simple, lousy soundfield. Stereo, meaning 2-channel reproduction (as opposed to Fletcher's original "stereo" meaning "solid sound") does a pretty good job of providing a decent illusion. Cross-channel mixing, etc, can very much improve the "illusion". Now when you're talking about "fakes" with 2-channel stereo IT IS ALL FAKE (except for a binaural recording done with your own head). Your brain can make some sense of it, for one fixed position. (Fixed position even more so for binaural.) So there is no "high truth" there. Sorry, there just is no "high truth" at all.

A variety of modifications (interchannel leakage, 'M' and 'S' filtering, asymmetric distortion in M and S, other stuff) can actually create a better sense of verisimilitude. This is not some speculation, it's demonstrated in actual listening tests (of the double blind, controlled variety, not audiopile "tests"). No, most of them are not published, being part of some commercial enterprise, sorry. So, there is ONLY illusion, and it is unwise to order someone else to pick the same illusion one likes.
It's all "enjoyable fakes". One is free to pick their own, but let's not confuse any of it with "accuracy". Compared to a real soundfield (when that actually exists, which in the modern day isn't very often) it's all fake, especially when you throw in head movement, which people do reflexively in a real soundfield.

Then there's the loudness enhancement that results from distortions in LP. Bear in mind "loudness" is not "SPL" or something like that, it refers to the psychoacoustic intensity, not the physical intensity, and varies substantially with bandwidth, level, etc, as compared to the SPL (which is not quite physical intensity but we'll let that slide for now). Taking a signal and distorting it adds lots of other junk in the spectrum, and effectively makes the bandwidth wider, which is to say the power spectrum is made wider. Making a signal wider in bandwidth creates a sensation of more loudness (basic psychoacoustics here) and hence if distortion grows with level (which is to say the THD/IMD grows with level, not remains constant) will create a false sensation of higher dynamic range. The irony there is that it works best if it's JUST below the level of obnoxious.

None of this is speculation, it's all well-known phenomenon in the hearing science community.

Now, for real stereo (i.e. properly created multichannel, or head-motion compensated good quality virtualization) you can get something much closer to "reality" for a signal in a real hall, and closer to fake reality in a simulated hall. Again, there's nothing new for the people in the hearing and signal processing communities, or for those who make perceptual coding systems.

So, for 2 channel audio, please abandon the "high truth" concept. It's not there.

Having said all that, extensive listening to lots of systems does tend to push one into the "accurate as possible, please" camp. I'm certainly firmly in that camp, but I also do leading edge research into virtualization, hall simulation, etc. So, again there is no "high truth". Sorry.

You do notice nowhere in all of this did I say "buy LP's". Now if this was "stop this compressed to (*(& awful clipping, etc, in the CD's" oh yes, please, STOP THAT.

The problem with a CD is that you CAN successfully convey a wretchedly compressed, clipped to death, insanely wide power spectrum on a CD, it has no more or less effect on the CD than a natural recording. You simply could not EVER put that on an LP, because it's so much less reliable, has so much lower power bandwidth, etc. This is why, I am pretty sure, some people like LP these days, because you can't squeeze the last bit out of the signal to make it TOO DAMN LOUD!
 
Last edited:

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
Works for me too, plain 2ch is just so boring once you get used to surround.
Discreet is best, no doubt, but as we say in racing, run what ya brong. LOL

When you hear REAL 7.0 mixes properly played back into a 7.0 system, it's a lot better. For stuff that's mostly synthetic to start with, and for one listening position alone, "upmixing" can be cool, but it can not avoid screwing up time domain cues. When you listen to it after a good multichannel production, it rather bites you right in the nose, so to speak.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
When you hear REAL 7.0 mixes properly played back into a 7.0 system, it's a lot better.
For sure, that's what I meant when I said, "Discreet is best, no doubt,".
But in 95 % of the time, if I'm given the choice between a straight stereo mix or a well done upmix, I'll take the upmix.
That is, upmixed to 5 or 7 base channels, not sure I feel the same about adding in the overheads, many times I get
the feeling that somethings not quite right with that ???
YMMV
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
For sure, that's what I meant when I said, "Discreet is best, no doubt,".
But in 95 % of the time, if I'm given the choice between a straight stereo mix or a well done upmix, I'll take the upmix.
That is, upmixed to 5 or 7 base channels, not sure I feel the same about adding in the overheads, many times I get
the feeling that somethings not quite right with that ???
YMMV

I'm with you on the "up channels" from any "upmix". The time domain issues in a 5 channel from upmixing are pretty awful, 7 makes it a bit worse, but UP channels from an upmix simply can not have the proper time structure, at least compared to any space you would want to perform or listen in, so I can hardly argue you're wrong there.
 

billybuck

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
37
Likes
36
Location
U.S.
I have a heretical setup where a mini-PC accepts signal from a "flat" phono preamp (no RIAA EQ curve applied), gets digitized at high res and then declicked in real time via software. That goes to EQ APO, where the RIAA curve is applied via convolution, and bass frequencies below 100 Hz are summed to mono to eliminate cutter or turntable rumble. Finally, that goes out via SPDIF to my receiver's digital in, still in high res. There's 1-2 seconds of latency, but it doesn't really matter in this context.

This setup eliminates most of the differences between vinyl and digital (primarily noise) and I'd say that with the exception of occasional differences in mastering, they sound pretty similar. I'm an LP enthusiast, but I've never been one to claim their sound quality is better - despite having had some pretty high-falutin, pure-analog setups in the past. My collection is mostly odd, rare stuff I've picked up crate-digging over many decades, though I do buy some jazz reissues just because classic-era jazz just seems subjectively suited to vinyl. Some might say I'm missing out on the "analog magic" due to the digital layer, but at this point in my life I'm finished chasing that dragon. It sounds as good as it ever did - even better without the noise, particularly with classical and ambient electronic.

Comparing lossless streams to vinyl in this setup, I'm often amazed at how little difference there is - given that the LP is a piece of plastic with a rock being dragged across it.
 

JP

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
2,273
Likes
2,449
Location
Brookfield, CT
What’s the heretical part?
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
I have a heretical setup where a mini-PC accepts signal from a "flat" phono preamp (no RIAA EQ curve applied), gets digitized at high res and then declicked in real time via software.

Sounds similar to what the Parks Puffin does, and I don't consider myself a heretic.
 

billybuck

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
37
Likes
36
Location
U.S.
What’s the heretical part?
Being facetious, in the sense that from the analog purist's view I'm soiling the analog magic, and from the progressive digital side I'm just wasting time fiddling with old, inferior plastic.
 

billybuck

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
37
Likes
36
Location
U.S.
Sounds similar to what the Parks Puffin does, and I don't consider myself a heretic.
I was really tempted by the Puffin, but I like to tinker, so the open architecture of the PC lets me experiment with various approaches in the digital realm. (Windows 10 is probably not the best environment for a headless unit I want to work reliably, but I’m familiar with it and there’s plenty of great, open-source audio software available.)

I'm currently training an AI model to handle vinyl noise, so we'll see how that goes....
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom