Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[mppix]

If you scan any dozen or so pages of this thread, you will find answers to your question.

TLDR: in the pop-rock genre, vinyl releases in vinyl's heyday were in a loudness war. They called it a 'hot' pressing. Lots of really bad sounding music from a pure hifi angle. When CD took over, for the same genre the loudness war got even worse, because digital could handle it. When streaming took over, this initially continued, but recently the music streaming platforms are imposing fixed average levels (eg -14 dBFS), which means, for the first time, applying dynamic compression will make a song sound quieter and hence less arresting. This should make the issue a thing of the past. Fingers crossed. For other genres of music, it has never been an issue.

Thank you for the summary - I'll try to go back on this thread (there are A LOT of posts).

I hope you are right and streaming levels will really help with dynamic range, but this is by no means certain.

 

[Sal1950]

I hope you are right and streaming levels will really help with dynamic range, but this is by no means certain.

What seems to be making a real difference is the boom in multich.
Multich music enthusiasts are true audiophiles and don't take to this compression crap.
I can't think of a single multich release by the top engineers thar suffer from this.
It's slowly waking the rest of the bone heads up

 

[antcollinet]

Ahh...now I understand why you can't see them anywhere...

And perhaps I can understand why you see them everywhere. Please do feel free to continue to interpret others posts with your own warm blanket of bias.

 

[Musty]

Even more bizarre is many of the people buying vinyl listen to the digital version anyway. As an early adopter of cd I can't say I want to go back to surface noise, pops & crackles and I had a pretty expensive, considered good, record deck.

I think some of the fashion for vinyl is down to the pretty poor production given to us on many releases nowadays. Over saturated and hard to listen to.

 

[beagleman]

I had vinyl for MANY years, had several hundred albums at one point, and slowly sold many off.
NOT cause I hated vinyl, not cause it sounded like crap, but cause, CD was FAR more consistent and had very few actual issues introduced physically by the disc itself.

I felt a layer or 2 of stuff was removed and it was less tense to listen to. I used to cringe at times with my vinyl, as sadly I was one that could hear minute distortion and mistracking of loud parts especially more towards the center of some albums.

I am not talking distortion due to stylus shape etc, but simply how vinyl could not "take" high levels of sound on the smaller radius inner grooves.

The ENTIRE time I loved vinyl, EVERYONE complained that there were issues with it, inherent to it being vinyl, and if only we could remove surface noise, increase the dynamic range, reduce mistracking on loud parts and on and on.

I subscribed to literally 5 audio monthly magazines, and most of the discussion was based on trying to either minimize vinyl issues, or how easily the issues were noticed.

Fast forward to today, and most have left vinyl permanently.
Yes it enjoys a smallish new life for sure, but its not even remotely like in its heyday, nor the heyday of CD.

Today, if we talk about those SAME issues built into the format, we are called trolls, haters, and so on.
My time was vinyl, it was almost required TO DISCUSS those issues, and problems or you were NOT an audiophile.

The average person could ignore most issues, unless the needle "Skipped".....

Today seems like a "Rosy colored glasses" version of audiophilia with vinyl. Ignore the realities to some degree, or bash the person who lived through it and hints a bit at the realities.
Back in the day, we ALL complained about vinyl and wished for something, to remove those dozen issues.
We got that for the most part in Compact disc.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I had vinyl for MANY years, had several hundred albums at one point, and slowly sold many off.
NOT cause I hated vinyl, not cause it sounded like crap, but cause, CD was FAR more consistent and had very few actual issues introduced physically by the disc itself.

Yes, I went through that too, starting in the early sixties. But still, I see things differently, and I don't deny any technical characteristics of the various media.
Please stop insulting the vinyl listeners. They have their reasons.

I owned dozens of good turntables TD124, EMT, SP10 to name only a few already when I was young. Also some hifi-tape recorders and cassette players e.g. from Uher, Revox A77 e.g. and Nakamichi 700 etc. etc. When the CD came up I took over of course and gave away my vinyl records and tapes - by the way I had already done this twice before. Once when I lived on my sea-ship for two years and had no place to live ashore. After that I started using digital audio as an early adopter and still use it today. Nevertheless, I bought myself last year and the year before again two new turntables and have also again a nice LP collection, especially with classic and contemporary classic and some collectors rarities. CD I hear practically no more. If I get one I can't find otherwise, and it is worth the effort, I rip it with my laptop. Most music I find at my streaming provider Deezer HiFi.
My last Turntable so far is a Technics 1200GR.

 

[Bob from Florida]

I had vinyl for MANY years, had several hundred albums at one point, and slowly sold many off.
NOT cause I hated vinyl, not cause it sounded like crap, but cause, CD was FAR more consistent and had very few actual issues introduced physically by the disc itself.

I felt a layer or 2 of stuff was removed and it was less tense to listen to. I used to cringe at times with my vinyl, as sadly I was one that could hear minute distortion and mistracking of loud parts especially more towards the center of some albums.

I am not talking distortion due to stylus shape etc, but simply how vinyl could not "take" high levels of sound on the smaller radius inner grooves.

The ENTIRE time I loved vinyl, EVERYONE complained that there were issues with it, inherent to it being vinyl, and if only we could remove surface noise, increase the dynamic range, reduce mistracking on loud parts and on and on.

I subscribed to literally 5 audio monthly magazines, and most of the discussion was based on trying to either minimize vinyl issues, or how easily the issues were noticed.

Fast forward to today, and most have left vinyl permanently.
Yes it enjoys a smallish new life for sure, but its not even remotely like in its heyday, nor the heyday of CD.

Today, if we talk about those SAME issues built into the format, we are called trolls, haters, and so on.
My time was vinyl, it was almost required TO DISCUSS those issues, and problems or you were NOT an audiophile.

The average person could ignore most issues, unless the needle "Skipped".....

Today seems like a "Rosy colored glasses" version of audiophilia with vinyl. Ignore the realities to some degree, or bash the person who lived through it and hints a bit at the realities.
Back in the day, we ALL complained about vinyl and wished for something, to remove those dozen issues.
We got that for the most part in Compact disc.

Once I went to a good turntable- circa 1985 from the Dual 505 Mk2 to the Merrill Heirloom Micro Seiki arm - the issues disappeared unless you had a messed up album. The Dual was a piece of crap by comparison and my Clearaudio Performance DC is even better than the Merrill. Proper setup is important to minimize distortion as the arm sweeps across the record. You have to spend some cash to get the performance that is possible and most folks are unwilling to do so - understandable in the age of cheap digital. You also have to get some setup tools and learn how to use them. Finally, the recording is “king” in any format- can’t get around that. Once you have a good system going your money is really most effective spent on good recording.

 

[DSJR]

Once I went to a good turntable- circa 1985 from the Dual 505 Mk2 to the Merrill Heirloom Micro Seiki arm - the issues disappeared unless you had a messed up album. The Dual was a piece of crap by comparison and my Clearaudio Performance DC is even better than the Merrill. Proper setup is important to minimize distortion as the arm sweeps across the record. You have to spend some cash to get the performance that is possible and most folks are unwilling to do so - understandable in the age of cheap digital. You also have to get some setup tools and learn how to use them. Finally, the recording is “king” in any format- can’t get around that. Once you have a good system going your money is really most effective spent on good recording.

Anal Aspergic response forthcoming -

The Dual 505 series was/is a lighter build to the classic decks they made in the 70's and by the mid 80's, out of the box sounded scrappy and rough as a badger's backside is supposed to be. By then, a lower cost CD player (supposedly crude in themselves compared to the top models - cough-) sounded far better.

HOWEVER

A then stock 505-2 could be refined a bit with an Ortofon OM20 stylus which drastically improved the high frequencies and a mat change improved record support over the simple ribbed affair they came with. I can't remember if it was the mk2 or mk3 version that had the option of a better more solid plinth which also helped just a little. The 505-3 had a solid 'flat' mat and some here came with thick wool-felt mat and an AT95E although I think most later on had an AT91 style cartridge (upgrade with a DN251E) and the heavier flat mat... Beyond the suggestions above, the poor old thing can't be taken. The deck survived to a mk5 I believe, but tooling was ageing and not sure if production hasn't finally ceased. At the end *in the UK,* it was Rega 3 price which was ridiculous frankly as a Rega 2 out-'sounds' it comfortably.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a Dual turntable lover - and have a few..... No hope for me then

 

[beagleman]

Anal Aspergic response forthcoming -

The Dual 505 series was/is a lighter build to the classic decks they made in the 70's and by the mid 80's, out of the box sounded scrappy and rough as a badger's backside is supposed to be. By then, a lower cost CD player (supposedly crude in themselves compared to the top models - cough-) sounded far better.

HOWEVER

A then stock 505-2 could be refined a bit with an Ortofon OM20 stylus which drastically improved the high frequencies and a mat change improved record support over the simple ribbed affair they came with. I can't remember if it was the mk2 or mk3 version that had the option of a better more solid plinth which also helped just a little. The 505-3 had a solid 'flat' mat and some here came with thick wool-felt mat and an AT95E although I think most later on had an AT91 style cartridge (upgrade with a DN251E) and the heavier flat mat... Beyond the suggestions above, the poor old thing can't be taken. The deck survived to a mk5 I believe, but tooling was ageing and not sure if production hasn't finally ceased. At the end *in the UK,* it was Rega 3 price which was ridiculous frankly as a Rega 2 out-'sounds' it comfortably.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a Dual turntable lover - and have a few..... No hope for me then

I had a DUAL back then, 12?? (wood base and it was a changer) honestly forget which one now sadly, but it was GREAT sounding, with an Ortofon OM-30 cart.

I had a few tables, and honestly the DUAL sounded as good as some of my truly high end tables for the most part.

I did NOT expect the Dual to be that good.

 

[computer-audiophile]

Sorry, I'm a bit of a Dual turntable lover - and have a few..... No hope for me then

I used to think Dual, the old German turntable brand, made good record players, but to me, they always had a somewhat traditional and conservative vibe. You'd often find their devices in the average German living room sitting atop the television, adorned with a charming crocheted lace doily underneath. If I were British, I might have perceived the brand differently and might have even considered owning one myself.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Anal Aspergic response forthcoming -

The Dual 505 series was/is a lighter build to the classic decks they made in the 70's and by the mid 80's, out of the box sounded scrappy and rough as a badger's backside is supposed to be. By then, a lower cost CD player (supposedly crude in themselves compared to the top models - cough-) sounded far better.

HOWEVER

A then stock 505-2 could be refined a bit with an Ortofon OM20 stylus which drastically improved the high frequencies and a mat change improved record support over the simple ribbed affair they came with. I can't remember if it was the mk2 or mk3 version that had the option of a better more solid plinth which also helped just a little. The 505-3 had a solid 'flat' mat and some here came with thick wool-felt mat and an AT95E although I think most later on had an AT91 style cartridge (upgrade with a DN251E) and the heavier flat mat... Beyond the suggestions above, the poor old thing can't be taken. The deck survived to a mk5 I believe, but tooling was ageing and not sure if production hasn't finally ceased. At the end *in the UK,* it was Rega 3 price which was ridiculous frankly as a Rega 2 out-'sounds' it comfortably.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a Dual turntable lover - and have a few..... No hope for me then

It’s okay to be a Dual turntable lover! I was trying to use a Grado at the time and the AC motor location on the Dual definitely made the Grado hum.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I was trying to use a Grado at the time and the AC motor location on the Dual definitely made the Grado hum.

I can imagine that.

 

[beagleman]

Once I went to a good turntable- circa 1985 from the Dual 505 Mk2 to the Merrill Heirloom Micro Seiki arm - the issues disappeared unless you had a messed up album. The Dual was a piece of crap by comparison and my Clearaudio Performance DC is even better than the Merrill. Proper setup is important to minimize distortion as the arm sweeps across the record. You have to spend some cash to get the performance that is possible and most folks are unwilling to do so - understandable in the age of cheap digital. You also have to get some setup tools and learn how to use them. Finally, the recording is “king” in any format- can’t get around that. Once you have a good system going your money is really most effective spent on good recording.

I notice you glossed over the inner grooves having less fidelity due to the rotational speed being constant and the grooves becoming progressively smaller and tighter wrapped.......

I understand totally how set up and all that matters. It HELPS MINIMIZE, but does nothing, zero, zilch to alter that the inner grooves do not sound the same as the outer grooves and consequently have more distortion UNLESS the level is reduced.

That is built into the format, and has zero to do with arm geometry or stylus shape, or set up etc.....it has to do with physical limitations of high frequencies on inner grooves specifically.

There is more information packed into the inner grooves. It takes 1.8 seconds for a record to turn one revolution. If an inner groove is 2½" from the center of the record, and the outer groove is 5½" away from the center, an inner groove is 15¾" long and an outer groove is 34½" long (remember 2πR?). The same 1.8 seconds of music has to fit into each groove. It's packed more tightly into the inner groove. The wiggles in the vinyl are coming fast and furious on the inner grooves compared to the outer ones.

I had a studio Test record at one time, it had multiple test tones on different parts of the 12" album.

I noticed the last set of tones on the most inner grooves, seemed to be several db quieter. I asked my friend that got me this record, from a local music studio, and he said yeah, that is normal, the inner grooves are limited to about 5-6 db less output on purpose to avoid "groove overload" and assumed it was well known thing.

The smaller diameter effectively limits/alters the groove size as it becomes smaller and smaller in diameter. So either level has to be reduced or distortion will result, unrelated to arm geometry, stylus shape etc. This is not tracking distortion, but built in distortion inherent to the smaller diameter.


45 RPM albums get around this for the most part, by spreading out the time over 2 albums and not going AS close to the center.

 

[computer-audiophile]

When I think about Dual

...however, my start and my enthusiasm for great sound has to do with turntables from Dual and Perpetuum Ebner (PE). In 1960 I went to a private boarding school in a Monastery in the Black Forest, where these devices were nearby made. So we had a system in the music room with such things, also containing a Saba-Telewatt (Klein and Hummel) amplifier and Telefunken loudspeakers. There was also a good collection of records of classical music.

When I heard this great sound I wanted to have it too - and that's how it started.

 

[Galliardist]

Your history lesson is a little off. During vinyl's hey day while some pop music, such as Motown, was loud and compressed many other artists recorded high quality and dynamic music some examples are Dire Straights, Steely Dan, Pink Floyd, Neil Young, The Eagles, Linda Rhonstadt, and many more.

When CD's took over a lot of popular music became even more dynamic and high quality both from artists from the vinyl era and new artists like Tracy Chapman and even the original albums from the Seattle grunge scene like Nirvana, The Meat puppets and Soundgarden were very well recorded and dynamic. In my opinion digital recording quality for popular music peaked in the early 1990's with some really great dynamic recordings. While not really pop I would say Lyle Lovitts first 4 albums are as good as it gets for recording quality for mainstream music.

Starting mid 1990's the loudness wars took over and recording quality and dynamic range have been in decline ever since. It may be leveling off but it shows no signs of getting better. Both Adell and Taylor Swift recordings are masterpieces of loudness ... no distortion or bad sounds but unbelievably loud with absolutly no dynamics... I don't know how they do it but even the soft part of the songs are loud. They sound fine in a car but I really don't like them on a good system in a house. For me a decent LP from the 1960's or 1970's sounds better than the latest greatest from today.

A couple of points. Loudness in the vinyl age was about radio play, and to a lesser extent a concern from some artists when their song was quieter than the others on a compilation hits LP. So it didn't affect normal LPs as much and often not at all.
And when it comes to CD, it depends on when and where it "took over". A lot of radio stations didn't really switch to CD or digital until.. the mid 1990s, right on when you point to the beginning of the loudness wars.

I suspect you and @Newman are agreeing furiously?

 

[Bob from Florida]

I notice you glossed over the inner grooves having less fidelity due to the rotational speed being constant and the grooves becoming progressively smaller and tighter wrapped.......

I understand totally how set up and all that matters. It HELPS MINIMIZE, but does nothing, zero, zilch to alter that the inner grooves do not sound the same as the outer grooves and consequently have more distortion UNLESS the level is reduced.

That is built into the format, and has zero to do with arm geometry or stylus shape, or set up etc.....it has to do with physical limitations of high frequencies on inner grooves specifically.

There is more information packed into the inner grooves. It takes 1.8 seconds for a record to turn one revolution. If an inner groove is 2½" from the center of the record, and the outer groove is 5½" away from the center, an inner groove is 15¾" long and an outer groove is 34½" long (remember 2πR?). The same 1.8 seconds of music has to fit into each groove. It's packed more tightly into the inner groove. The wiggles in the vinyl are coming fast and furious on the inner grooves compared to the outer ones.

I had a studio Test record at one time, it had multiple test tones on different parts of the 12" album.

I noticed the last set of tones on the most inner grooves, seemed to be several db quieter. I asked my friend that got me this record, from a local music studio, and he said yeah, that is normal, the inner grooves are limited to about 5-6 db less output on purpose to avoid "groove overload" and assumed it was well known thing.

The smaller diameter effectively limits/alters the groove size as it becomes smaller and smaller in diameter. So either level has to be reduced or distortion will result, unrelated to arm geometry, stylus shape etc. This is not tracking distortion, but built in distortion inherent to the smaller diameter.


45 RPM albums get around this for the most part, by spreading out the time over 2 albums and not going AS close to the center.

I don’t hear inner groove distortion, so it does not matter to me. Then again, I don’t listen for it either as I am just enjoy the recording. When it comes down to it I have a combination of high and low standards. Objectively, I want to own precision gear. Subjectively, if I like the sound I am good with it. I occasionally have to remind myself that what I have is definitely “good enough“ when I start thinking about trying some different gear. However, Parks Audio is revamping the Puffin phono stage and if the new version due out September first includes a USB output for ripping to a computer….. Well, that is a feature I would like to test drive.

 

[computer-audiophile]

For this and for many similar rare records from my collection alone, a record player is worth it for me. It is a direct cut disc, which results in a very good sound quality. The music is by the highly esteemed composer Wolfgang Rihm, whom I know personally and have experienced more often. He was a former neighbor of ours.

 

[JP]

I notice you glossed over the inner grooves having less fidelity due to the rotational speed being constant and the grooves becoming progressively smaller and tighter wrapped.......

I understand totally how set up and all that matters. It HELPS MINIMIZE, but does nothing, zero, zilch to alter that the inner grooves do not sound the same as the outer grooves and consequently have more distortion UNLESS the level is reduced.

That is built into the format, and has zero to do with arm geometry or stylus shape, or set up etc.....it has to do with physical limitations of high frequencies on inner grooves specifically.

There is more information packed into the inner grooves. It takes 1.8 seconds for a record to turn one revolution. If an inner groove is 2½" from the center of the record, and the outer groove is 5½" away from the center, an inner groove is 15¾" long and an outer groove is 34½" long (remember 2πR?). The same 1.8 seconds of music has to fit into each groove. It's packed more tightly into the inner groove. The wiggles in the vinyl are coming fast and furious on the inner grooves compared to the outer ones.

I had a studio Test record at one time, it had multiple test tones on different parts of the 12" album.

I noticed the last set of tones on the most inner grooves, seemed to be several db quieter. I asked my friend that got me this record, from a local music studio, and he said yeah, that is normal, the inner grooves are limited to about 5-6 db less output on purpose to avoid "groove overload" and assumed it was well known thing.

The smaller diameter effectively limits/alters the groove size as it becomes smaller and smaller in diameter. So either level has to be reduced or distortion will result, unrelated to arm geometry, stylus shape etc. This is not tracking distortion, but built in distortion inherent to the smaller diameter.


45 RPM albums get around this for the most part, by spreading out the time over 2 albums and not going AS close to the center.

It's geometry, so stylus shape absolutely does play a role. These are actual measurements. No practical way to know if or how much of the differences with 2.5µm minor radius are due to geometry or just track variation.

 

[computer-audiophile]

However, Parks Audio is revamping the Puffin phono stage and if the new version due out August first includes a USB output for ripping to a computer…

I would then make sure that there is a level control somewhere with which I can precisely adjust the recording level before the analog-to-digital converter. The used pickups deliver different output voltages and also the LPs are different loud. Simple phono-USB-interfaces as they are sometimes found in cheap record players, do not have this possibility.

 

[Galliardist]

Anal Aspergic response forthcoming -

The Dual 505 series was/is a lighter build to the classic decks they made in the 70's and by the mid 80's, out of the box sounded scrappy and rough as a badger's backside is supposed to be. By then, a lower cost CD player (supposedly crude in themselves compared to the top models - cough-) sounded far better.

HOWEVER

A then stock 505-2 could be refined a bit with an Ortofon OM20 stylus which drastically improved the high frequencies and a mat change improved record support over the simple ribbed affair they came with. I can't remember if it was the mk2 or mk3 version that had the option of a better more solid plinth which also helped just a little. The 505-3 had a solid 'flat' mat and some here came with thick wool-felt mat and an AT95E although I think most later on had an AT91 style cartridge (upgrade with a DN251E) and the heavier flat mat... Beyond the suggestions above, the poor old thing can't be taken. The deck survived to a mk5 I believe, but tooling was ageing and not sure if production hasn't finally ceased. At the end *in the UK,* it was Rega 3 price which was ridiculous frankly as a Rega 2 out-'sounds' it comfortably.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a Dual turntable lover - and have a few..... No hope for me then

Ah, the Dual 505. My first visit to a hifi store, in 1980, I was actually thrown out! Why? They kept in a Trio KD1033 so that they could do a "comparison" and show off the Dual 505, which they sold and was the standard entry level model of the time. I of course preferred the Trio - which they didn't sell - so I was moved on forcefully.

The 505 was the first step in the infamous source first process by which you were told to upgrade to the Linn Sondek before moving on from your Nad 3020 and little Mission speakers. Even though I got that source first idea, I didn't play by the rules.