Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Audiofire]

Not sure what that last sentence means, or how it relates to the first..?

Vinyl definitely adds distortion to the master recording, which is heard as muffled sound plus noise without stereo separation. Quite appropriate that distortion also means "A statement that twists fact; a misrepresentation." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition)

 

[MattHooper]

Vinyl definitely adds distortion to the master recording,

It can. In greater or lesser amounts. Sometimes very little.

which is heard as muffled sound plus noise without stereo separation.

I don't know what vinyl you are listening to, but that doesn't remotely describe what I hear on most of my records. The sound if far from "muffled" - it's generally as vivid as my digital sources, and it has plenty of stereo separation. While there are some subtle differences I can enjoy, generally speaking the vinyl I have that comes from the same masters as my CDs sound almost identical in terms of vividness and stereo separation, and many other aspects.

Quite appropriate that distortion also means "A statement that twists fact; a misrepresentation." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition)

Ok I still don't know what you meant by "distortion of the vinyl renaissance is irrational for my listening enjoyment."

But I suppose it was a typo?

 

[Robin L]

With, say... Metallica?

I've successfully avoided listening to Metallica these many years. I really don't know how crucial pitch is with their music. I'd probably have trouble detecting an off-center side with the Electro-Acoustic music of Xenakis but I don't know for sure.

My most recent discouraging encounter with an off-center side was with one of the recent mono reissues of the Beatles catalog. A side of the "White Album" was off-center. There's no excuse for a recently manufactured LP to be off-center and as long as I have the option of avoiding LPs I will take that option.

 

[levimax]

There's no excuse for a recently manufactured LP to be off-center and as long as I have the option of avoiding LPs I will take that option.

From what I have seen I seldom come accross an off center vintage pressing but for recent production it is quite common... especially for the 180 gram or 200 gram LPs. The worst one I have is "The Ultimate Test Record" I bought a couple years ago ... renders it worthless.

 

[Newman]

The audible effects of the technical short comings of vinyl playback often seem over stated here.

You mean like this? "I’ve made thousands of LP masters... I’m glad to see the LP go. As far as I’m concerned, good riddance....It was never any good." - Rudy van Gelder (jazz)

Or maybe like this? "Anyone promoting LPs does not understand, or won't admit, that the signal that is extracted from an LP cannot be the same as the master recording. Cannot = can not! So, such people are content not to hear the art as it was created. This is provable fact, not my opinion. LPs are interesting as historical memorabilia, as are old cars, replicas of old cars, etc., which is absolutely fine - I would love to have an old Chevy to cruise around in on a sunny Sunday morning, but I have zero interest in LPs for enjoying music. " - Floyd Toole, with deep experience in calibrating the significance of perceived sonic differences, and quick to remind us if a difference is not a big deal

Perhaps this is exaggerated? "I had been using LPs as musical sources for listening tests in my research. I came to understand the medium extremely well, even to the point of creating test records to test the capabilities of the medium. It is sadly lacking - it is simply not possible to hear what was on the master tape when playing back an LP. It can be extremely pleasant if the music is to your liking but, objectively, the detailed sounds reaching your ears are not the sounds that were on the master tape. At a point, through personal connections, I was able to acquire a PCM digital version of a master tape, and an analog duplicate at 15 ips. I also had the LP release of the music. I cannot recall what it was, but it was one of the "warhorse" symphonies, very popular and in a highly thought of rendering. The first thing that was clear in the simplest of listening comparisons was that the PCM version and the one-from-master tape versions were essentially identical. The LP version was very different." - Floyd Toole, credentials unchanged

But if any average members say something even fractionally as strong as the above statements, they get lampooned from pillar to post for "overstating the issue". It's on record. (pun)

Source mix and mastering seem far more important to the sound than the means used to deliver it. With a reasonably clean LP and also a similar version on CD, rip of same, or stream with same initial mix and mastering, even with the necessary RIAA equalization, it can be very difficult to tell LP from CD or stream. (Though I should note I digitally process my LP playback on the fly, use a Parks Audio Puffin Phono DSP.)

Better technical specs don’t trump ****** remastering. If the mastering is similar, then, yeah, of course.

You mean like this?

© Newman (lol)​

The fact that the quality range doesn't stop at 2-channel is highly significant, because vinyl does*.

cheers
*quadrophonic blip aside, but Toole has described its "psychoacoustic shortcomings" and how it didn't really improve stereo's diffuse-field deficiencies

 

[MattHooper]

You mean like this? "I’ve made thousands of LP masters... I’m glad to see the LP go. As far as I’m concerned, good riddance....It was never any good." - Rudy van Gelder (jazz)

Yes. Like that.

It's one thing to have as your job the attempt to render music on to vinyl, and deal every day with the liabilities which mostly just go away when digital arrives. Sure that would make the job much easier. I was happy as hell when we moved from analog tape to DAWs in my field.

It's another to exaggerate the actual sonic differences between vinyl and digital in the end result, for the listener. You don't need to be a mastering engineer to know how vinyl compares to digital. Anyone with a decent turntable set up and a digital source can do some comparisons, e.g. between CDs and Vinyl, especially if you have both that came from the same original masters. The difference often really is subtle, not massive at all.

Having dealt with that Gelder quote before, here are quotes from another highly regarded mastering engineer, Bob Ludwig, which don't paint the same dire picture:

The Truth About Vinyl Records

Don’t forget, the reproduction equipment cant put back what is missing from the disc mastering process. Speaking of which, due to the the amount of missing and compromised information on an LP, it can’t really be considered “HiFi” in the current era. Compared to the excellent capabilities of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Or maybe like this? "Anyone promoting LPs does not understand, or won't admit, that the signal that is extracted from an LP cannot be the same as the master recording.

Aaaaand...who here is saying that digital isn't more technically capable than digital? Almost every ASR member on this thread acknowledges digital's inherent superiority in that regard. Is that another strawman burning?

Cannot = can not! So, such people are content not to hear the art as it was created. This is provable fact, not my opinion. LPs are interesting as historical memorabilia, as are old cars, replicas of old cars, etc., which is absolutely fine - I would love to have an old Chevy to cruise around in on a sunny Sunday morning, but I have zero interest in LPs for enjoying music. " - Floyd Toole, with deep experience in calibrating the significance of perceived sonic differences, and quick to remind us if a difference is not a big deal

Whether Floyd Toole is interested in listening to records is neither here nor there. As is any characterization of vinyl being equivalent to old cars. That's a subjective characterization.

It doesn't actually tell us precisely how different a good LP will sound vs the digital version, and hence there is the additional smell of a fallacious version of "appeal to authority" in this one.

Perhaps this is exaggerated? "I had been using LPs as musical sources for listening tests in my research. I came to understand the medium extremely well, even to the point of creating test records to test the capabilities of the medium. It is sadly lacking - it is simply not possible to hear what was on the master tape when playing back an LP. It can be extremely pleasant if the music is to your liking but, objectively, the detailed sounds reaching your ears are not the sounds that were on the master tape. At a point, through personal connections, I was able to acquire a PCM digital version of a master tape, and an analog duplicate at 15 ips. I also had the LP release of the music. I cannot recall what it was, but it was one of the "warhorse" symphonies, very popular and in a highly thought of rendering. The first thing that was clear in the simplest of listening comparisons was that the PCM version and the one-from-master tape versions were essentially identical. The LP version was very different." - Floyd Toole, credentials unchanged

But if any average members say something even fractionally as strong as the above statements, they get lampooned from pillar to post for "overstating the issue". It's on record. (pun)

You mean like this?

© Newman (lol)​

The fact that the quality range doesn't stop at 2-channel is highly significant, because vinyl does*.

cheers
*quadrophonic blip aside, but Toole has described its "psychoacoustic shortcomings" and how it didn't really improve stereo's diffuse-field deficiencies

Again: Please remember this: CDs, or your standard 16 bit / 44.1kHz digital source, is essentially identical to the digital masters. Right? Therefore you don't need to be employed as a professional mastering engineer to have, with a CD or equivalent streaming source at your disposal, essentially perfect copies of the digital master to compare to a record you might own. So we can actually do these comparisons ourselves and decide when we feel someone is exaggerating.

And yes, often I find the sonic advantages for CD are exaggerated, insofar as the technical differences are waved around in a way that suggests vinyl is going to sound quite poor in comparison. It often doesn't. As I've pointed out, guests at my place, from audiophiles to musicians to regular folk are just as amazed by the sound quality they hear on my system whether it's a digital track or I'm playing an LP.

 

[Axo1989]

You mean like this? "I’ve made thousands of LP masters... I’m glad to see the LP go. As far as I’m concerned, good riddance....It was never any good." - Rudy van Gelder (jazz)

Or maybe like this? "Anyone promoting LPs does not understand, or won't admit, that the signal that is extracted from an LP cannot be the same as the master recording. Cannot = can not! So, such people are content not to hear the art as it was created. This is provable fact, not my opinion. LPs are interesting as historical memorabilia, as are old cars, replicas of old cars, etc., which is absolutely fine - I would love to have an old Chevy to cruise around in on a sunny Sunday morning, but I have zero interest in LPs for enjoying music. " - Floyd Toole, with deep experience in calibrating the significance of perceived sonic differences, and quick to remind us if a difference is not a big deal

Perhaps this is exaggerated? "I had been using LPs as musical sources for listening tests in my research. I came to understand the medium extremely well, even to the point of creating test records to test the capabilities of the medium. It is sadly lacking - it is simply not possible to hear what was on the master tape when playing back an LP. It can be extremely pleasant if the music is to your liking but, objectively, the detailed sounds reaching your ears are not the sounds that were on the master tape. At a point, through personal connections, I was able to acquire a PCM digital version of a master tape, and an analog duplicate at 15 ips. I also had the LP release of the music. I cannot recall what it was, but it was one of the "warhorse" symphonies, very popular and in a highly thought of rendering. The first thing that was clear in the simplest of listening comparisons was that the PCM version and the one-from-master tape versions were essentially identical. The LP version was very different." - Floyd Toole, credentials unchanged

But if any average members say something even fractionally as strong as the above statements, they get lampooned from pillar to post for "overstating the issue". It's on record. (pun)

You mean like this?

© Newman (lol)​

The fact that the quality range doesn't stop at 2-channel is highly significant, because vinyl does*.

cheers
*quadrophonic blip aside, but Toole has described its "psychoacoustic shortcomings" and how it didn't really improve stereo's diffuse-field deficiencies

Haha Toole’s getting on a bit to take his comments on audibility as thrillingly eye-opening now, but I do enjoy them as historical memorabilia …

 

[Galliardist]

Clearly, ASR has fallen to the distorters and this thread is proof.

Time to move on?

 

[Audiofire]

But I suppose it was a typo?

No, but allow me to suppose that your transducers masked the difference between digital and vinyl. I know the difference is audible from experience.

 

[IPunchCholla]

No, but allow me to suppose that your transducers masked the difference between digital and vinyl. I know the difference is audible from experience.

The difference is audible to me if I do fast A/B switching, more so if I listen on headphones. The difference is not apparent to me if I just walk in to a room and have to compare by non-echoic memory. 16bit 44khz is higher fidelity. LPs are high enough fidelity. For me.

I listen on monitors with low distortion in a semi treated room. FR is plus or minus 3dB from 100hz to 20khz at the listening position. Distortion is under 1% for that range and goes to about 5% at 20 hz. I make and mix/master music for an average of about 3 hours a day on that system.

For casual, enjoyment listening, vinyl will likely be good enough for the vast majority. Outside of that, tell @MattHooper his system isn’t resolving enough is a weird flex.

 

[Audiofire]

16bit 44khz is higher fidelity. LPs are high enough fidelity. For me.

I concede that I could have pointed out this is true for me too, but rarely. In these rare cases, it obviously has everything to do with incompetent mastering of the CD and not higher fidelity of vinyl itself. At minimum, added noise of vinyl is grave distortion in hi-fi.

Outside of that, tell @MattHooper his system isn’t resolving enough is a weird flex.

Nope, transducers (acoustics) add distortion.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I concede that I could have pointed out this is true for me too, but rarely. In these rare cases, it obviously has everything to do with incompetent mastering of the CD and not higher fidelity of vinyl itself. At minimum, added noise of vinyl is grave distortion in hi-fi.


Nope, transducers add distortion.

Which is why I specified that in my post. Matt’s system has less distortion. He is also a professional in the audio field and has better hearing than most. Much of the constant denigration of vinyl appears to me to be the objectivist equivalent to golden ear arguments, where fidelity becomes this stand in for how pure of an audiophile you are. I’m sorry you have a hard time enjoying records. I’m glad the technology has been created that lets you continue to enjoy music.

 

[Audiofire]

Matt’s system has less distortion. He is also a professional in the audio field and has better hearing than most.

Interesting. Bass has bad stereo separation on vinyl, and is also difficult to control with speakers and room acoustics. In general, distortion from room acoustics is complicated science to measure.

 

[Anton D]

"The audible effects of the technical short comings of vinyl playback often seem over stated here."

True. This is the internet and some people gain psychic energy from negativity. (A good clue is to watch for their repetitive use of tropes/memes.)

There are plenty of "Colin Robinsons" in forums.

 

[Audiofire]

Having dealt with that Gelder quote before, here are quotes from another highly regarded mastering engineer, Bob Ludwig, which don't paint the same dire picture:

The Truth About Vinyl Records

Don’t forget, the reproduction equipment cant put back what is missing from the disc mastering process. Speaking of which, due to the the amount of missing and compromised information on an LP, it can’t really be considered “HiFi” in the current era. Compared to the excellent capabilities of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

True. This is the internet and some people gain psychic energy from negativity. (A good clue is to watch for their repetitive use of tropes/memes.)

The contrarian quote from Bob is a ludicrous meme if we are talking about hi-fi (high fidelity). It implicitly shows the negativity caused by mastering clowns (in contrast to engineers).

Peddling unscientific behavior is also way overdue here, because of the rhetorical truth in:

Time to move on?

 

[MattHooper]

The contrarian quote from Bob is a ludicrous meme if we are talking about hi-fi (high fidelity). It implicitly shows the negativity caused by mastering clowns (in contrast to engineers).

LOL. That’s one of the more idiosyncratic takes I’ve seen here.

(Ludwig and Grundman are both engineers- Mastering Engineers. But even then apparently not “engineers” enough for you).

 

[Audiofire]

LOL. That’s one of the more idiosyncratic takes I’ve seen here.

(Ludwig and Grundman are both engineers- Mastering Engineers. But even then apparently not “engineers” enough for you).

I don't care whether people agree with me here, but introducing nonlinearity like Bob is asking for lo-fi (low fidelity). Bring back an even more obsolete format then.

 

[Newman]

Haha Toole’s getting on a bit to take his comments on audibility as thrillingly eye-opening now, but I do enjoy them as historical memorabilia …

Wow, so I guess the fundamentals of audibility, as established by even older (long-dead) doyens of psychoacoustics, have neither currency nor relevance today? So little relevance as to be laughable, “Haha”? Once you’re elderly, your life’s work is junk, and dismissed with a hand-wave, and despite the fact that Toole would be well versed in current audio science and not refer to obsolete findings in his recent comments that I quoted, his views are still laughable and borderline quaint “memorabilia”??

Toole’s tags on ASR as Audio Luminary, and Technical Expert, should have an asterisk for “too old to take seriously”?

Your disrespectfulness is despicable. Your denialistic mindset is transparent.

 

[deweydm]

You mean like this? "I’ve made thousands of LP masters... I’m glad to see the LP go. As far as I’m concerned, good riddance....It was never any good." - Rudy van Gelder (jazz)

Or maybe like this? "Anyone promoting LPs does not understand, or won't admit, that the signal that is extracted from an LP cannot be the same as the master recording. Cannot = can not! So, such people are content not to hear the art as it was created. This is provable fact, not my opinion. LPs are interesting as historical memorabilia, as are old cars, replicas of old cars, etc., which is absolutely fine - I would love to have an old Chevy to cruise around in on a sunny Sunday morning, but I have zero interest in LPs for enjoying music. " - Floyd Toole, with deep experience in calibrating the significance of perceived sonic differences, and quick to remind us if a difference is not a big deal

Perhaps this is exaggerated? "I had been using LPs as musical sources for listening tests in my research. I came to understand the medium extremely well, even to the point of creating test records to test the capabilities of the medium. It is sadly lacking - it is simply not possible to hear what was on the master tape when playing back an LP. It can be extremely pleasant if the music is to your liking but, objectively, the detailed sounds reaching your ears are not the sounds that were on the master tape. At a point, through personal connections, I was able to acquire a PCM digital version of a master tape, and an analog duplicate at 15 ips. I also had the LP release of the music. I cannot recall what it was, but it was one of the "warhorse" symphonies, very popular and in a highly thought of rendering. The first thing that was clear in the simplest of listening comparisons was that the PCM version and the one-from-master tape versions were essentially identical. The LP version was very different." - Floyd Toole, credentials unchanged

But if any average members say something even fractionally as strong as the above statements, they get lampooned from pillar to post for "overstating the issue". It's on record. (pun)

You mean like this?

© Newman (lol)​

The fact that the quality range doesn't stop at 2-channel is highly significant, because vinyl does*.

cheers
*quadrophonic blip aside, but Toole has described its "psychoacoustic shortcomings" and how it didn't really improve stereo's diffuse-field deficiencies

Over stated in that as much as some here may want the objective factors to be way more important than the subjective factors when listening to music, that doesn’t make it so for everyone.

Mastering matters much more to me than any audible technical deficiencies with LP playback. It’s admittedly a subjective preference, so the expert opinions on the technical deficiencies of vinyl aren’t really going to change that. Just reminds me that the only reason I prefer the sound of an LP to CD or streaming version is when the latter is mastered poorly, for home listening anyway.

But then, I’m sure I’m over stating the problem with mastering for some here. Which makes sense, since we’re talking about a subjective activity, listening to music. I assume you’re never gonna listen to LPs regularly, because they’re a technically inferior pain in the ass, etc.. And unless I’m in the car, I’m not gonna listen to a brick walled master if I have a version that sounds better to me on LP.

 

[CleanSound]

Haha Toole’s getting on a bit to take his comments on audibility as thrillingly eye-opening now, but I do enjoy them as historical memorabilia …

Wow, so I guess the fundamentals of audibility, as established by even older (long-dead) doyens of psychoacoustics, have neither currency nor relevance today? So little relevance as to be laughable, “Haha”? Once you’re elderly, your life’s work is junk, and dismissed with a hand-wave, and despite the fact that Toole would be well versed in current audio science and not refer to obsolete findings in his recent comments that I quoted, his views are still laughable and borderline quaint “memorabilia”??

Toole’s tags on ASR as Audio Luminary, and Technical Expert, should have an asterisk for “too old to take seriously”?

Your disrespectfulness is despicable. Your denialistic mindset is transparent.

I stopped participating in this conversation because of all the loud mouths and obnoxiousness here, but this has gone too far.

Dr. Toole is considered to be the Godfather who unlocked the modern day loudspeaker and psychoacoustic science and design. He has a storied career, contributed to what HiFi is today. He is retired, and still contributes to the community as he does here. He is an incredibly gracious and polite man, yet here you are, just disrespecting him, who is not even here to defend himself. You stepped out of line @Axo1989, shame on you.