The Truth About Vinyl Records

[Justdafactsmaam]

And we kind of got there with your, "look, we all know that sighted bias affects our perceptions", although you pointedly stopped short of adding the word 'preferences'.

I wasn’t trying to dodge anything here. I thought it was self evident. Absolutely biases, not just sighted biases affect our preferences.

So, here is how I would lay it out:-

"Preferences change and are inarguable" contains an assumption, and it’s true only when the assumption is true. But the assumption isn’t always true. So it ‘looks clever’, indeed it looks, ahem, inarguable, but doesn’t represent reality. Because the assumption isn’t true in reality.

The assumption I refer to, is that when we think we are preferring the sound of something, we actually are responding to the sound of that thing. As long as that is assumed true, then the stated preference is inarguable. But in real life, that assumption is simply not true. More wishful than real.

I thought by stating perceptions were influenced by all stimuli and state of mind that this was covered. Or to put it more succinctly “I like the sound of it” is inarguable. “I like the sound of it because _______ (fill in the blank) may or may not be arguable depending on the assertions.

This stuff is so hard-wired into human perception, that there is automatic resistance to the notion that it could be flat-out wrong. The brain is hard-wired to tell us that perceptions are always describing objective real external phenomena. The more we learn about perception, we more we realise that context re-writes raw data, but our hard-wiring says it’s still raw data. It’s a natural-selection survival mechanism: believe what our senses are telling us, or die.

For sure. Something I am guilty of assuming was understood here.

Anyway, I am preaching to the converted, since you already acknowledged the role of sighted bias. (One can discuss the question of extent/strength/dominance separately.)

In my last scenario, he picked speaker A without actually hearing it. That's remarkably like what actually happens in sighted listening tests. Your note that "there was an error in the test" is apposite. He doesn't actually know which speaker he prefers the sound of. But he thinks he does! The question of which speaker he prefers the sound of, is anything but inarguable. He hasn't done the right test! Same goes for sighted listening 'preferences', if the goal is to know which sound is preferred.

I'm plodding through all this because IMHO it's actually counterproductive to introduce the 'inarguability of preferences' argument in the manner you did, not because you might misuse it, but because a lot of others might!

If we let it slide sure. On other forums I’m the asshole telling people that I’m not going to argue with what you like but your assertions of cause and effect are objective and testable and have already in effect been tested and falsified. Which of course leads to the ego driven pissing contests we typically see in response. “You are calling me delusional” “I’m an experienced listener” etc etc.

If we let it slide that can happen.

Don’t let it slide

You want to know how hard it is to get "I heard it with my own ears, so it must be in the sound waves" moved from the status of 'inarguable end of discussion' to 'actually a myth' status? Do you want to feed the same group with another slogan that they will misuse forever?

No. And I promise you my conversations don’t go down that path.

And some folks on other forums have raised a fair question. If they are having fun and enjoy their hobby what’s the harm?

And I think I have a pretty good answer for this.

If it doesn’t matter why then what’s the harm in letting audiophiles know why they like their cables and power cords? It matters. Audiophiles mostly buy these things not just because they like the sound of their system better but because they believe there is a real difference and they are skilled listeners who appreciate these real differences. Ego. I think it matters because I think consumers deserve to be able to make their objectively well informed choices.

ARE WE UNIQUE OR ROBOTS. An exaggerated title to be sure, but some of the statements posted by audiophiles about the variability of personal preferences give the impression that it's one or the other. "Everyone's listening preferences are uniquely individual (oh, and did I mention they vary from moment to moment, too). Nobody can tell me what I do and don't prefer; even I don't know what I will prefer in five minutes. Don't you dare suggest it. Any data to the contrary has to be wrong: we are not robots, you know." - random audiophile generalisation. Your broad brush-stoke of 'preferences change' feeds into this sort of thinking. Again, that concerned me because it is easy to misuse.

I get it but at the same time it goes both ways. And data gets misused to challenge preferences. And I guess I am a little bit more concerned about that.

If our sonic preferences were as unique and equivocal as some people claim, then Toole could have wrapped up his career one year out of school and advised industry as follows: "Just make up any old product and sell it with marketing." (Yes, I know, I know, haha.) But instead, we get statements like this:-

Let’s not overlook the fact that his career was largely research used to develop commercial products. And there are commercial interests involved.

• "Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity. This may seem like a dangerous path to take, risking the corruption of all that is revered in the purity of an original live performance. Fortunately, it turns out that when given the opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. By the end of this book, we will see that technical excellence turns out to be a high correlate of both perceived accuracy and emotional gratification, and most of us can recognize it when we hear it." - Sound Reproduction

Yeah, I have read the book cover to cover and more than twice sections at a time. But I see a lot of folks who seem to think they are being scientific treat his book like a bible. And I take issue with that

The research was for commercial purposes. And I am of the opinion that the reach of these claims were over simplified and over stated.

Yes, the research showed a majority (not universal) preference for flat frequency response on axis and smooth frequency response off axis and low distortion in a range of environments that were likely representative of common places of use for speakers.

Where the reach of the research was IMO overstated was in the assertion that the preference rating’s derived from the testing of speakers in mono with specific designated source material in their one space where they had the speaker shuffler was universally indicative of preferences in stereo in any listening room.

That was not well supported by their research and frankly unnecessary. The commercial interests were common use in common domestic spaces.

But even worse was asserting this research extended to anything audio including tube gear and vinyl. They did not test those things.

IMO this lead to the near religious misuse of some data to reject and denigrate other peoples’ preferences. And I think I see a lot more of that on this forum than what you worry about

And by the way, when I pointed out the sparse support for this universal assertion that more accurate universally equals subjectively better in ALL things audio I got viciously attacked by disciples of Toole and Olive.

I’m thinking I have to run for cover after I hit “post reply” on this one

Emphasis in bold. I don't think that can happen in a world where preference is both unique and capricious: the experiments just wouldn't have come to any conclusions except randomness.

I think reality lies uncomfortably in between the two extremes. For instance when I challenged the idea that preference testing in mono universally applied to preferences in stereo it got ugly

I know the retort. Test results in mono gave better results because the results were more clear

That’s plainly wrong. The quality of data hinges on its accuracy not on its clarity.

for commercial purposes clarity of results and ease of testing are valuable. I see that. But that doesn’t make the data more accurate

Testing in mono if the use is going to be in stereo can not give you more accurate data than testing in stereo. The signal to noise ratio may be more clear but the noisier results in stereo are more true. The noise is part of the data.

And did I ever get attacked for pointing that out.

And by the way this is not me saying there is no value in testing speakers in mono. Not at all. Just that you can’t assume it’s going to give you the whole story.

Maybe I shouldn't be delighted and excited by that. But I am!

Or maybe you should consider the implications of that delight. We all have to be careful not to believe something because we like the idea and it fits our preconceptions.

One thing I ask folks on other forums, the folks who believe in the effectiveness of $30K power cords. 1. If you were wrong would you want to know it? 2. What would convince you that you were wrong?

I think the question is just as applicable on ASR. If Toole’s research was wrong about some aspects of audio would ASR members want to know and what would it take to convince them?

I have a great deal of respect for Toole. He did more to show a large audience how far reaching the effects of sighted biases are on sound preferences even on things like speakers than anyone else in audio. But neither the research nor his book are scripture.

This post was waaay too long. And now I need to go into an audiophile witness protection program

 

[Bob from Florida]

Now that that's finally over - never expected to have Newman and Justdafactsmaam compete with Matt Hooper (no offense Matt) for "longest reply ever"! - all will now be well in the Audiophile objective/subjective universe. LOL

The only thing left is for @Newman to finally share the details of Newmans vinyl setup and as a bonus - reasons for specific choices.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Now that that's finally over - never expected to have Newman and Justdafactsmaam compete with Matt Hooper (no offense Matt) for "longest reply ever"! - all will now be well in the Audiophile objective/subjective universe. LOL

The only thing left is for @Newman to finally share the details of Newmans vinyl setup and as a bonus - reasons for specific choices.

I apologize for how long that last response was

 

[deweydm]

I don't know what they did different, but the vinyl version is the superior version.

Amirm wrote, "it is my firm belief that when LP sounds better, it is because it is mastered differently...." - Measurements of Parks Audio Puffin Phono Stage

Same. But totally understand those who would never consider LPs, even for recordings that have been mastered poorly on CD or streaming. And that’s cool. Pick your poison to taste.

And most people don’t ever consider LPs. Or any physical media anymore. It’s the streaming era. Most people probably think a record (or CD) collection is odd at this point. Like an enthusiasm for AM radio.

But if there’s any rational there, there with LPs, it’s that sometimes subjectively preferable sound with some albums due to the mastering differences. And that seems to irk those most focused on the objective, technical, scientific factors. As it probably should.

 

[Anton D]

Now that that's finally over - never expected to have Newman and Justdafactsmaam compete with Matt Hooper (no offense Matt) for "longest reply ever"! - all will now be well in the Audiophile objective/subjective universe. LOL

Hmmm, does there seem to be some common denominator?

 

[MattHooper]

Matt: As I've mentioned before, I have often found the differences are less pronounced than one might expect from the technical diatribes against vinyl.

But that's only true of the very tiny subsection of the available sources.

Ok, but my statement is true of a larger subsection of records I own.

Sure, there are tons of mistreated records in circulation. That would include my old records I held on to since I was a teenager. Those are pretty moth eaten and noisy because, well, they are old and I didn't pay much attention to keeping them in great condition.

However, since getting back in to records a few years ago, I buy lots of new vinyl which is often low in background noise, and I only buy second hand vinyl rated as "mint" or "near mint." The ratings aren't always accurate and don't guarantee low noise, but on the whole, very few of my records have noise that I find noticeable or distracting when the music is playing.

And outside of the occasional ticks or pops, the actual sound quality - that is the clarity of detail, vividness, soundstaging, imaging, dynamics etc, is very often very satisfying and I find pretty competitive over all with my digital stuff. YMMV.

I'm certainly not making claims for every other record collection out there. That you can just pick up any old record and it will sound great. On the other hand, I'm not surprised that those vinyl enthusiast audiophiles who seek good quality records and take care of them report similar experience to mine.

Of course records that have been abused and not cared for and which have picked up lots of noise aren't going to compete well with digital. Neither will a compressed to hell digital file sound as good as the better representative. The point of a more apples to apples comparison, of a less noisy record, speaks to understanding how the INHERENT limitations of vinyl match up against digital. You can find worse case scenarios where you have a music track that strains every limitation of vinyl, and so even the best vinyl version won't compete with the digital version. But the variability of music means the liabilities of vinyl are more spread out than that, and don't necessarily intrude as much. As one mastering engineer I quoted said, yes they have to fiddle to get the music on vinyl, but they can usually get something close to what they wanted on to the wax. (You can find other mastering engineers with a different view, which is natural, as you'll find audiophiles with different views on vinyl/digital).

 

[MattHooper]

The way I would put it is, don’t be surprised that a format with terrible consistency has some nice examples. It is inevitable.

(Putting aside that "Terrible consistency" is a subjective characterization...)

Sample consistency is a critical aspect of high fidelity.

A high fidelity format needs to deliver 90-95% on sound quality, and 99-99.9% on consistency.

I haven't seen that particular criteria before. Wondering where you got it from?

For digital, 99.9% consistency (less than 1 in 1000 having an audible difference from a perfect sample) is easy. For vinyl, the low bar 99% (less than 1 in 100 records having an audible difference from a perfect sample) is impossible.

The question remains as to the significance of the audible deviations we are talking about. If a few of those records have some ticks and pops or some level of wow, my interest is in how significant those deviations are in the big picture: do some ticks and pops simply negate all the sonic information conveyed about the recording? Usually, from my perspective: No. Just like if you took 100 CDs and added a few ticks and pops to a subset, the vast majority of the sonics will be those of the actual music track and still sound excellent. In that respect, the "noisy" CDs and the clean CDs are far more the same than they are different.

Like I said in another thread, “Most people who are critical of vinyl are critical of its accuracy, consistency and repeatability: from deck to deck, from cartridge to cartridge, from sample to sample of a record, from pressing to pressing, from clean to slightly less clean, and from the start of a side to the end of a side. Every one of those six failings against the three core criteria of a reproduction medium, are difficult to endorse if one has standards and also has a cheaper easier alternative that meets all three criteria in all six domains.”

No argument there. If you want the highest level of accuracy and consistency digital is the no-brainer. I don't see anyone here arguing otherwise.

The debate, at least from my position, has to do with the subjective significance of vinyl's liabilities. As I say, this will vary somewhat among listeners.

Basically there are two issues as I see it with assessing vinyl sound quality:

1. The technical limitations in terms of translating the sonic information of the music on to and off a record (e.g. limitations in dynamics, challenges presented by bass or high frequencies, etc). And the limitations this puts not simply on "accuracy" but on "sound quality."

2. ADDED NOISE - background hiss, ticks and pops, wow etc.


In terms of #1, I find that in real world listening, with my record collection (and some others I know). the technical limitations of vinyl are not that big a deal as I might expect from the limitations. I find the vinyl often sounds competitive with the digital versions, with certainly digital having an upper hand here or there, but often not to my ears a huge one. In other words, the vinyl still often sounds terrific.

In terms of #2, that can be mitigated to some degree by seeking good copies and taking care of/washing records. The result is certainly far from perfect, but the degree to which any leftover added artifacts intrude on the musical content will often be a fairly subjective call. You may hear some ticks and pops and it could ruin a track that you'd want to have utterly silent. For me, it won't, and I'll notice that beyond the few ticks and pops, the sound quality and musical content is generally well preserved and satisfying.

 

[Robin L]

The question remains as to the significance of the audible deviations we are talking about. If a few of those records have some ticks and pops or some level of wow, my interest is in how significant those deviations are in the big picture: do some ticks and pops simply negate all the sonic information conveyed about the recording?

With the music I listen to, that is the most notable factor that affects my enjoyment of CDs vs LPs - altogether too many LP recordings of piano, organ, acapella choir or new age music suffer from audible wow, whereas the only CDs that do are needledrops of one sort or another. Pops and clicks are relatively easy for me to tune out unless the record is scratched, and the scratch relentlessly repeats. I realize that my musical interests are not shared (or not shared to the same extant) with other audiophiles, but pitch accuracy and consistency is central to "high fidelity". There are other reasons why I no longer have LPs, but as regards sound issues, this is the biggest. I may be more sensitive to wow than others. I've got lots of CD transfers of 78s, with varying degrees of surface noise. But I can't help but notice that wow usually isn't an issue. And there are some very old recordings with remarkably little surface noise, thanks to modern digital noise removal technology. I have owned a number of older LP pressings that tended to have lower levels of wow than more recent pressings. It seems that some 75 years after the introduction of long playing records, this should be a solved problem. But it's not.

 

[atmasphere]

That's still not name calling, simply my opinion on the false statements you made which I find ridiculous and miles away from the actual facts.
Go to the vaults and see what's been archived, except in rare cases not the cutting lathe masters, Thank God.
If that was true we would have been really screwed over the last decades of remastering.

"Engineers Perspective"​

Pretty sure that was penned by Legacy Audio's owner-designer Bill Dudleson
"Bill Dudleston is the President and Founder of Legacy Audio.
A graduate of the University of Illinois with degrees in chemical engineering and mathematics, Dudleston has pioneered controlled directivity loudspeaker designs, wave-launch coherence in low frequency radiators, dynamic braking in active speaker design, selectable directivity multi-way microphone arrays, feedback eliminating stage monitors, and isolated wall-mounting methods for in-wall/on-wall speaker systems. He is an inventor/patent holder of numerous circuit topologies and acoustic alignments."

Beyond that, the statements made there on the technical capabilities and weaknesses of the vinyl chain have been repeated over and over by engineers everywhere except a few looking to support the LP sales market.. I've got at least a half dozen more links that I've posted here before and can again if you so desire.

FWIW the LP has wider bandwidth, lower noise, wider dynamic range and lower distortion than reel to reel. Just so you know. But its a royal pain to do direct to disc- screw anything up on an entire LP side and you have to start over. But if you pull it off it blows tape well out of the water.

I get that you linked to a guy that makes speakers and such. I don't see LP mastering in his resume. FWIW when I got my lathe (which I had to refurbish, as well as the electronics), once I started working with it a lot of my preconceived notions (which were much like yours) died an ugly death. Without that hands-on experience, I suspect that others have the same misconceptions. Nothing wrong with that except that if you promote them, you mislead others (as well as yourself).

Here are the real weakness of LPs:
1) cost is much higher on both the record and playback sides
2) playback setup is highly variable. Some people get it right and they are a tiny minority.
3) lots of playback gear is deeply flawed. The good stuff is expensive.
4) while ticks and pops can be avoided without crazy cleaning ritual, the media is fragile. All media is differently fragile in its own way so that might be a common denominator.

So yes, other links please. Let's see if they are simply appeals to authority like the last one, or if they are real, and see if they need to be debunked or not.

Mind you just so we are clear: I'm not saying the LP is superior to digital. What I am saying is its a lot better than you make it out. Its hard to tell from your posts exactly how hyperbolic they really are.

My interest here is simply to set the record straight, if you see what I did there.

 

[MattHooper]

I feel confident we'll get to The Truth any time now...

 

[Mart68]

FWIW the LP has wider bandwidth, lower noise, wider dynamic range and lower distortion than reel to reel. Just so you know. But its a royal pain to do direct to disc- screw anything up on an entire LP side and you have to start over. But if you pull it off it blows tape well out of the water.

I get that you linked to a guy that makes speakers and such. I don't see LP mastering in his resume. FWIW when I got my lathe (which I had to refurbish, as well as the electronics), once I started working with it a lot of my preconceived notions (which were much like yours) died an ugly death. Without that hands-on experience, I suspect that others have the same misconceptions. Nothing wrong with that except that if you promote them, you mislead others (as well as yourself).

Here are the real weakness of LPs:
1) cost is much higher on both the record and playback sides
2) playback setup is highly variable. Some people get it right and they are a tiny minority.
3) lots of playback gear is deeply flawed. The good stuff is expensive.
4) while ticks and pops can be avoided without crazy cleaning ritual, the media is fragile. All media is differently fragile in its own way so that might be a common denominator.

So yes, other links please. Let's see if they are simply appeals to authority like the last one, or if they are real, and see if they need to be debunked or not.

Mind you just so we are clear: I'm not saying the LP is superior to digital. What I am saying is its a lot better than you make it out. Its hard to tell from your posts exactly how hyperbolic they really are.

My interest here is simply to set the record straight, if you see what I did there.

You make some good and valid points.
When I used a turntable I would sometimes not be sure if I had put on a CD or an LP (lights low, system a fair distance away, and a couple of sheets to the wind).

That was with a Technics SL1200 Mk2 and Nagaoka MP50 cartridge. The stock mat replaced with an Achromat.

Cartridge was set up by an expert (i.e not me) and with all discs cleaned on a Moth MK2 machine. I have albums I bought 40 years ago that are still pristine. That set up was fairly close to digital (for not a huge amount of outlay ) If I ignored the background noise and pitch wow from off-centre pressings - which ultimately I could not.

Comparing my set up to far more expensive vinyl set ups I estimated it to be a good 90 percent of the way to maxing out what the format is capable of.

I abandoned my plan to move up to a refurbished SP10 with linear tracking arm. Why spend all that to try to get closer to digital quality when I could just move fully to digital?

I'm interested to know what you would consider 'the good stuff' - and what you consider 'Expensive' since that does tend to be relative, I've noticed. The Technics set up I have would be about £1800 new in today's money. Most civilians would consider that expensive for a record player.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

FWIW the LP has wider bandwidth, lower noise, wider dynamic range and lower distortion than reel to reel.

Having worked on state of the art professional tape recorders, I can't agree with all of that. Are you comparing LP with 30 IPS tape?

In terms of bandwidth, professional tape supports up to an extra stereo octave at lower frequencies than normal LPs can support.

Ignoring low frequency stereo (which I think everybody accepts is normal LP playback's Achilles heel) and not mentioning wow and flutter, your assertions are only correct in exceptional circumstances. As you have said elsewhere, it's possible to cut very low distortion and low noise masters, but the limitation comes with playback which is not the case with professional tape. I would expect a very well recorded tape to play back equally well on a well maintained tape machine.

All of which is academic since both professional tape and well cut masters drastically poorer than 48kHz 24bit digital.

 

[Sal1950]

I get that you linked to a guy that makes speakers and such. I don't see LP mastering in his resume. FWIW when I got my lathe (which I had to refurbish, as well as the electronics), once I started working with it a lot of my preconceived notions (which were much like yours) died an ugly death. Without that hands-on experience, I suspect that others have the same misconceptions. Nothing wrong with that except that if you promote them, you mislead others (as well as yourself).

Once again, your LP's fall into the "boutique" range. You've done everything possible to avoid the most grievous issues.
But how many LP's have you cut and introduced into the market compared against the billions floating around?
You can tweak for almost anything by making sacrifices in other areas.
He fixed a lot of inner groove distortion issues here, but at what sacrifice in playing time? And At 45rpm???? LOL

So yes, other links please. Let's see if they are simply appeals to authority like the last one, or if they are real,

Which one of Bill's specs for "NORMAL REAL WORLD LPs" do you debate.
A S/N of 50db ?
Separation of 25db ?
These guys are generous and will give you 60db or more under theoretical perfect conditions

What is the signal-to-noise ratio? Can we improve it and if so, how? - Son-Vidéo.com: blog

How is the signal-to-noise ratio factors in the quality of electronic devices? What impact does it have on sound?

blog.son-video.com

Comparison of analog and digital recording - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is Mastering for Vinyl?

Mastering for vinyl is the process of creating a separate master that can be cut into a vinyl record without added unwanted distortion.

www.sageaudio.com

More info

Vinyl Sucks and Your Little Dog Too!

Mind you just so we are clear: I'm not saying the LP is superior to digital. What I am saying is its a lot better than you make it out. Its hard to tell from your posts exactly how hyperbolic they really are.

My interest here is simply to set the record straight, if you see what I did there.

I don't find my posts hyperbolic at all. I may not cover my posts in a politically correct layer of honey.
I just tell the straight truth.
If you're really concerned "to set the record straight" just write with the thought in mind that potential new
entry's into the Hi Fi market can expect to get from the real world medium

 

[Jaxjax]

But what about those pesky crackles and pops in the LP's ? CD's are quiet

So are the LP's I mentioned I would go get that Chad had done up........I don't listen to CD's anymore I just stream via wifi.

 

[Sal1950]

So are the LP's

One in a million are.

 

[Jaxjax]

One in a million are.

Sure Sal....whatever floats your boat man....
What did you do with all those LP's you had.? Land fill.? sell them .? target practice.?

 

[Sal1950]

Sure Sal....whatever floats your boat man....
What did you do with all those LP's you had.? Land fill.? sell them .? target practice.?

The smart thing, dumped them all at one time to a wholesaler.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

One in a million are.

Nope, no hyperbole there. I’m sure you actually tested a million records and only found one

 

[Anton D]

I can't imagine being so unhappy that I would need to try to poop on part of this hobby that other people enjoy.

It's actually boggling.

I know guy who loves working on cassette decks and playing tapes. I'm sure the harpy-wipes here would find a way to minimize his joy, as well.

 

[MattHooper]

A dangerous topic: What sounds better, CD or vinyl? Well…​

A dangerous topic: What sounds better, CD or vinyl? Well… - National | Globalnews.ca

Ever since the CD was introduced in 1982, there's been a war about which sounds better: the compact disc or vinyl records. Who's right? You might not like the answer.

globalnews.ca

Seems to me the author zigs and zags and lands on some truths here and there, but with some fudgy logic or understanding in between.