The Vinyl Frontier

[Hilltop]

Vinyl has its place. Example, i love Judas Priest and Accept. A record stamped in 1978 fresh from the master tapes sounds incredible. Sad wings of Destiny sounds excellent even with a few pops and crackles.

A crap re-master on CD from 30 year old Master tape doesn't sound the same.

Music made in 2021? Buy digital.

 

[Digby]

May I come at this from a slightly different angle and say that the medium itself is somewhat immaterial, if the mastering is not up to snuff. If you think of the guys who used to work at the pressing plants getting records mastered and pressed (up until CD laid waste to vinyl), many of them had spent decades doing the same thing over and over, and were tutored by a previous generation who knew how to get the best out of vinyl, while working within the strict limits imposed by the medium itself.

Digital by comparison has very little in the way of limits as to what you can do to the sound and almost anyone can be a "mastering engineer". This has left the field open for any Tom, Dick or Harry to do a job that was once left to a very select and experienced group of people.

Digital as a medium is greatly superior to analogue, but perhaps by imposing very few limits, instead of always improving the sound quality, many times what you get is a lot of inexperienced "mastering engineers" taking liberties with the sound for the worse, which is something they could not have done to the same extent with vinyl. They would not have the ability to (the medium would limit them) nor the opportunity to (nobody would employ them for their cloth ears).

 

[imagidominc]

It's simple: I use digital when I want to hear the music as accurately as possible and vinyl when I want to change the sound completely and experience it for the first time again.

 

[Robin L]

May I come at this from a slightly different angle and say that the medium itself is somewhat immaterial, if the mastering is not up to snuff. If you think of the guys who used to work at the pressing plants getting records mastered and pressed (up until CD laid waste to vinyl), many of them had spent decades doing the same thing over and over, and were tutored by a previous generation who knew how to get the best out of vinyl, while working within the strict limits imposed by the medium itself.

Digital by comparison has very little in the way of limits as to what you can do to the sound and almost anyone can be a "mastering engineer". This has left the field open for any Tom, Dick or Harry to do a job that was once left to a very select and experienced group of people.

Digital as a medium is greatly superior to analogue, but perhaps by imposing very few limits, instead of always improving the sound quality, many times what you get is a lot of inexperienced "mastering engineers" taking liberties with the sound for the worse, which is something they could not have done to the same extent with vinyl. They would not have the ability to (the medium would limit them) nor the opportunity to (nobody would employ them for their cloth ears).

Nice fairy tale. Didn't happen. True, the cost of making a run of Vinyl LPs limited the number of amateur productions, but I've encountered plenty of those as well---my side hustle of transferring LPs to digital formats exposed me to plenty of recordings of School choirs and other sonically dubious productions.

The fact is that the speed stability of digital never interfered with the sonic quality of the end result, meaning there are no "off-center" digital recordings, no audible wow and flutter. There's no requirement of de-essing, meaning treble comes through clearly in digital media when it often doesn't with LPs. There's no summing bass to mono, no reduction of bass levels with digital. Above all, there's no baked-in IGD. Digital having no [or fewer] limits can result in outcomes that can't happen with LPs. While this all depends on the skill and artistry of the recording and mastering engineers involved in a project, there's a much higher likelihood of a good result with an all digital project.

The reason there are duff digital projects has a lot to do with the costs being so much lower for recording and distributing musical recordings with digital tools. One can look at this as either democratization or chaos, but that's what we have now, both good and bad. Back in the "good old days" one could get a disastrous sounding project from top-notch professionals. That's much less likely today.

 

[Digby]

What didn't happen?

I feel your first two paragraphs are just describing the limitations of vinyl, something I agree with you on. Your third paragraph seems to be somewhat agreeing with me, that the removal of limitations isn't always a good thing - I suppose it depends which professionals you are referencing.

Can you believe that there are some classical recordings from the 1960s, that for all the flaws of vinyl, seem to many to sound better on IGD prone, high noise floor, pops and clicks vinyl than they do on the later CD releases. I attribute this to something that has happened between the master tape (likely somewhat deteriorated over time) and the finished digital product. What could it be other than the mastering?

 

[Robin L]

What didn't happen?

That theoretical Golden age when the LPs were better than the CDs.

I feel your first two paragraphs are just describing the limitations of vinyl, something I agree with you on. Your third paragraph seems to be somewhat agreeing with me, that the removal of limitations isn't always a good thing - I suppose it depends which professionals you are referencing.

Can you believe that there are some classical recordings from the 1960s, that for all the flaws of vinyl, seem to many to sound better on IGD prone, high noise floor, pops and clicks vinyl than they do on the later CD releases. I attribute this to something that has happened between the master tape (likely somewhat deteriorated over time) and the finished digital product stage. What could it be other than the mastering?

No, and I've listened to plenty. People can believe what they want. I collected lots of "Golden Age", all-analog Classical LPs and then got the CD versions of the same. The SACDs RCA made of their "Living Stereo" series came out better than the original LPs. Has a lot to do with not limiting bandwidth, not having IGD, not having the same in-your-face distortions of the LPs. And, no, I don't think mastering is what you think it is. The art of LP mastering has everything to do with working around the limitations of vinyl. Full stop.

 

[Mariner9]

May I come at this from a slightly different angle and say that the medium itself is somewhat immaterial, if the mastering is not up to snuff

My experience was that the issue was more often the pressing rather than the mastering.

 

[Robin L]

My experience was that the issue was more often the pressing rather than the mastering.

And with LPs, the medium is the material. A well mastered LP pressed, off-center, to noisy vinyl will sound like crap. And there's plenty of those.

 

[Digby]

No, and I've listened to plenty. People can believe what they want.....And, no, I don't think mastering is what you think it is. The art of LP mastering has everything to do with working around the limitations of vinyl. Full stop.

OK, but what are they hearing that might make them think this way, maybe it is some kind of (pleasant) distortion that adds to the recording something that has been lost in the recording process itself?

Perhaps you're going to tell me nothing is lost in the recording process, or at least in the digital process (given high quality equipment), well isn't Stereo itself a grossly distorted representation of the soundfield actually presented by instruments in person/real life. Stereo is a large limitation in itself, yet few seemed to be concerned with that - how many have Ambisonic systems to attempt to recreate the soundfield in greater depth? Have you ever heard a stereo recording of a trumpet or cello and mistaken it for a real instrument being played, I can't say I have, even on the best systems they sound like recordings (albeit excellent) and not true to life.

What do you think I think mastering is, and when did I say the art of LP mastering wasn't working around the medium. That is precisely what I've said, at least twice now.

 

[MrPeabody]

 

[Robin L]

OK, but what are they hearing that might make them think this way, maybe it is some kind of (pleasant) distortion that adds to the recording something that has been lost in the recording process itself?

And maybe it's bias confirmation, maybe it has something to do with the auditor not being all that familiar with the sound of an orchestra, maybe people are more comfortable with distortion than the real thing.

Perhaps you're going to tell me nothing is lost in the recording process

I've recorded orchestras lots of times A lot of things get lost in the process. Microphones are transducers, transducers always have the highest levels of distortion in the signal chain, all are resonant devices, all possessing a signature sound of their own. None are "transparent", all are lossy.

. . . or at least in the digital process (given high quality equipment), well isn't Stereo itself a grossly distorted representation of the soundfield actually presented by instruments in person/real life. Stereo is a large limitation in itself, yet few seemed to be concerned with that - how many have Ambisonic systems to attempt to recreate the soundfield in greater depth? Have you ever heard a stereo recording of a trumpet or cello and mistaken it for a real instrument being played, I can't say I have, even on the best systems they sound like recordings (albeit excellent) and not true to life.

Ambisonic is as much of a kludge as two channel stereo. Interesting to note that many of the Living Stereo recordings were intended to be issued as three-channel recordings, making the center image solid in a way that doesn't/can't happen with two channel stereo. The SACDs RCA issued of those recordings were issued with a three channel option, something not possible when those recordings were first issued. And yeah, a trumpet through a microphone has little chance of sounding like what the real thing sounds like without a microphone coloring and distorting the sound. That issue is independent of format.

Here's an interesting example: The Carlos Kleiber/VPO recording of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. DGG originally intended to issue that recording as 4.0 surround, never happened in the LP era [LP quad is even more compromised than stereo]. But a surround SACD was made, I've still got that SACD [somewhere]. The LP and the two-channel versions on CD sound thin, the surround version is much better balanced in that regard.

What do you think I think mastering is, and when did I say the art of LP mastering wasn't working around the medium. That is precisely what I've said, at least twice now.

But you're still stating that LPs can sound better than their CD equivalent. There is the possibility of high-frequency loss, the tape can shed over time and so on. There's a few tapes that have been compromised to the extent that the LP version has some advantages over the CD reissue. Some people invested a lot of money in their turntable based systems, expect it to sound better because they spent so much money on it. But there's still no IGD with a CD, no loss of the frequency extremes [or at least of what's left after 40/50 years], no de-essing, the self-noise is much, much lower. Odds are not in LP's favor.

 

[Digby]

I feel that if you just slowed down and didn't jump to the conclusion that I was suggesting vinyl was better than CD, per se, then we wouldn't have to have this back and forth. In the last paragraph of my first post I said: "Digital as a medium is greatly superior to analogue". I then went on to qualify with a few opinions as to why vinyl may, sometimes, seem to sound better and you mistook me for saying it was unequivocally better.

You even agree with me, to an extent, in your last paragraph, saying: "There is the possibility of high-frequency loss, the tape can shed over time and so on. There's a few tapes that have been compromised to the extent that the LP version has some advantages over the CD reissue."

Ok, so some vinyl sounds better than some CDs, if I had said precisely that from the beginning, could we have avoided this? You are arguing with me over, by and large, my agreeing with you.

As to why bias confirmation, distortion and so on determine people's choices, I'd say it is because trying to reproduce a double bass over, often times at best, stereo 8" bass drivers or more commonly 5" bass drivers, is impossible to any real degree of accuracy - so perhaps it is just a case of pick your own poison as to which distortions the individual finds least offensive. Perhaps the distortion on vinyl is more pleasant than driving a small speaker (say something smaller than a JBL M2) into distortion with volume and it gives the effect of high volume, without the unpleasant distortion (or potential hearing loss) of true volume. So many things are at play and so many distortions (of greater or lesser effect) are made, from the microphone recording through to the speakers reproducing, that to an extent some of this is a matter of taste, no?

Do you like Fritz Kreisler? I like him a lot, there have never been any close to his sound to my mind, yet almost all his recordings are on 78 shellac recordings. Noisy as hell, and makes LP distortion look like nothing and yet there he is, playing in the way only he can and he cuts through the noise all the same. I can listen to countless more recent violinists on far superior recordings, but few are as evocative as Fritz was, so much so that I am willing to suffer listening to him under all that noise (that I'd much rather wasn't there, truth be told) and in low fidelity, compared to listening to a more recent violinist play the same pieces.

Why would I do this? I suppose it demonstrates that there are certain distortions that are more or less acceptable to each individual and that'll we'll have to decide, to an extent, what this is for ourselves. I hope you now understand the point I was trying to make at first and we don't have to continue talking past each other.

 

[Robin L]

I feel that if you just slowed down and didn't jump to the conclusion that I was suggesting vinyl was better than CD, per se, then we wouldn't have to have this back and forth. In the last paragraph of my first post I said: "Digital as a medium is greatly superior to analogue". I then went on to qualify with a few opinions as to why vinyl may, sometimes, seem to sound better and you mistook me for saying it was unequivocally better.

You even agree with me, to an extent, in your last paragraph, saying: "There is the possibility of high-frequency loss, the tape can shed over time and so on. There's a few tapes that have been compromised to the extent that the LP version has some advantages over the CD reissue."

Ok, so some vinyl sounds better than some CDs, if I had said precisely that from the beginning, could we have avoided this? You are arguing with me over, by and large, my agreeing with you.

As to why bias confirmation, distortion and so on determine people's choices, I'd say it is because trying to reproduce a double bass over, often times at best, stereo 8" bass drivers or more commonly 5" bass drivers, is impossible to any real degree of accuracy - so perhaps it is just a case of pick your own poison as to which distortions the individual finds least offensive. Perhaps the distortion on vinyl is more pleasant than driving a small speaker (say something smaller than a JBL M2) into distortion with volume and it gives the effect of high volume, without the unpleasant distortion (or potential hearing loss) of true volume. So many things are at play and so many distortions (of greater or lesser effect) are made, from the microphone recording through to the speakers reproducing, that to an extent some of this is a matter of taste, no?

Do you like Fritz Kreisler? I like him a lot, there have never been any close to his sound to my mind, yet almost all his recordings are on 78 shellac recordings. Noisy as hell, and makes LP distortion look like nothing and yet there he is, playing in the way only he can and he cuts through the noise all the same. I can listen to countless more recent violinists on far superior recordings, but few are as evocative as Fritz was, so much so that I am willing to suffer listening to him under all that noise (that I'd much rather wasn't there, truth be told) and in low fidelity, compared to listening to a more recent violinist play the same pieces.

Why would I do this? I suppose it demonstrates that there are certain distortions that are more or less acceptable to each individual and that'll we'll have to decide, to an extent, what this is for ourselves. I hope you now understand the point I was trying to make at first and we don't have to continue talking past each other.

You haven't registered yet just how much I hate LPs and why.

Two years ago, I gave up a collection of 2000 LPs and all the playback gear associated with those LPs. I had to move, had to reduce the amount of stuff I had, got rid of a lot of stuff that failed to spark joy, so to speak. And I had spent some of the previous 10 years transferring LPs, 45s and 78s to digital. One thing stuck out from that experience, the presence and nature of inner groove distortion. Mikey will tell you that IGD is fixed with the right type of stylus in the cartridge and the right adjustment of the tonearm geometry. But there will always be residual distortion from IGD as the most meaningful parameter is the reduction of energy in the groove from lead-in to deadwax. Most people are casual about such things as stylus overhang and record cleaning, the people that pay attention to those things are more likely to have records that don't sound damaged and stay that way for a long time. But most records develop problems when they're played by most people. The used record sections are full of sonically awful LPs that developed distortion via record wear. If one is paying attention, one notices that record wear always increases towards the end of LP sides. And that the pop, clicks and rumble of LPs also increases over time.

I don't like it, I'm not about to like it. When I listen to LPs these days, what I hear is an audible demonstration of entropy in action. I see no reason why I should say anything nice about LPs, I am so over it.

 

[levimax]

You haven't registered yet just how much I hate LPs and why.

I like my LP's, CD's, SACD's, DVD-A's, Hi-res files, and streaming. They are all different and offer different experiences of listening to recorded music. If I had to chose one format I would not chose LP's but I don't have to so I can enjoy them all.

I know from reading your posts that you are very sensitive to IGD. I have certainly bought some used LP's with terrible IGD which I promptly get rid of (or at least stick in a box with the intention of getting rid of some day). The IGD of records in decent condition does not bother me even though I am sure the last track on a side is not as good as the first track. I could chose to focus on the differences but I don't.

 

[egellings]

Buggy rides are fun and have their place (like vinyl records), but I wouldn't want to have to use one to get to work and back every day.

 

[rdenney]

The fact is that the speed stability of digital never interfered with the sonic quality of the end result, meaning there are no "off-center" digital recordings, no audible wow and flutter. There's no requirement of de-essing, meaning treble comes through clearly in digital media when it often doesn't with LPs. There's no summing bass to mono, no reduction of bass levels with digital. Above all, there's no baked-in IGD. Digital having no [or fewer] limits can result in outcomes that can't happen with LPs. While this all depends on the skill and artistry of the recording and mastering engineers involved in a project, there's a much higher likelihood of a good result with an all digital project.

The reason there are duff digital projects has a lot to do with the costs being so much lower for recording and distributing musical recordings with digital tools. One can look at this as either democratization or chaos, but that's what we have now, both good and bad. Back in the "good old days" one could get a disastrous sounding project from top-notch professionals. That's much less likely today.

And what have modern mastering engineers (granted, it's not usually their fault) done with all that freedom?

Brick-wall compression, and the Loudness Wars.

Classical has been mostly, but not completely, free of those effects.

Rick "power tools are dangerous" Denney

 

[rdenney]

You haven't registered yet just how much I hate LPs and why.

I'm not sure it's his responsibility to feel your feelings, and what you write is mostly about your own biases, not about his.

We all recognize the limitations of the medium. And, yet, if it's a recording of great music, I can still listen to it with profound enjoyment. But then I'm not listening to equipment, I'm listening to music. I have to listen through objectionable mastering decisions (dynamic compression, mostly) in modern recordings, and listening through surface noise, vinyl roar, and inner-groove distortion isn't really worse. But it depends on the example in hand.

Rick "who has heard great LPs and bad ones, and great CDs and bad ones, and, orthogonally, great music and bad music" Denney

 

[Frank Dernie]

OK, but what are they hearing that might make them think this way, maybe it is some kind of (pleasant) distortion that adds to the recording something that has been lost in the recording process itself?

Perhaps you're going to tell me nothing is lost in the recording process, or at least in the digital process (given high quality equipment), well isn't Stereo itself a grossly distorted representation of the soundfield actually presented by instruments in person/real life. Stereo is a large limitation in itself, yet few seemed to be concerned with that - how many have Ambisonic systems to attempt to recreate the soundfield in greater depth? Have you ever heard a stereo recording of a trumpet or cello and mistaken it for a real instrument being played, I can't say I have, even on the best systems they sound like recordings (albeit excellent) and not true to life.

What do you think I think mastering is, and when did I say the art of LP mastering wasn't working around the medium. That is precisely what I've said, at least twice now.

My recollection from when I was involved are that most of the shortcomings required in order to make an LP are euphonic. Speed stability is the notable exception.
In order to prevent the quieter passages dropping into the noise they will be amplified a bit, which means any ambience will be higher in level relative to the music and more audible.
High frequencies can not be recorded at high level so there is a limit to how loud high frequencies are cut, which makes LPs more mellow on brighter music.
In order for the groove to be continuous the bass has to be mono, this is a major benefit on most systems since the bass is the bit that taxes the speaker and amplifier most so sharing the bass between both channels makes the bass limit higher.

My view is that the least manipulation leads to the most realistic sounding playback but few people seem to be able to resist dicking about.

 

[Robin L]

I'm not sure it's his responsibility to feel your feelings, and what you write is mostly about your own biases, not about his.

We all recognize the limitations of the medium. And, yet, if it's a recording of great music, I can still listen to it with profound enjoyment. But then I'm not listening to equipment, I'm listening to music. I have to listen through objectionable mastering decisions (dynamic compression, mostly) in modern recordings, and listening through surface noise, vinyl roar, and inner-groove distortion isn't really worse. But it depends on the example in hand.

Rick "who has heard great LPs and bad one, and great CDs and bad ones, and, orthogonally, great music and bad music" Denney

When I'm doing a needledrop for someone else of a recording that I really don't like, there's really nothing to hear but the sound of the equipment. It's not as though I haven't had my fair share of LP based musical epiphanies, it's just that as of 2021, when I listen to an LP, all I can hear is the equipment.

 

[egellings]

Why bother hating LPs? Just ignore them and move on.