Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[drewdawg999]

Since the LP was "new" it is most likely based on the 2014-2015 Jimmy Page remasterings which included bass and treble boost and compression (with some people claiming Jimmy Page was more or less deaf when he did these remasters). The DR of the RTR and CD was 13 and 12 for the LP. Since LP's will usually show a higher DR even if none exists (due to mastering moves related to cutting LP's) the fact that the LP has a lower DR points to a decent amount of compression being added to the LP.

The LP in question is a Classic Records pressing, 200g and 45rpm. It comes from a boxed set of many many records and now costs a fortune. It was mastered by Bernie Grundman, highly regarded as perhaps the best mastering of the Zepp catalog. I personally have the old 33-1/3rpm version of III, bought new in 2003, and it is spectacular. This would be an all-out balls-out audiophile pressing, the best that vinyl can offer.

 

[drewdawg999]

Actually, my hearing's shot to the point you could put a steep 12kHz low pass filter on those samples and I'd never notice. If I can hear it, it's going to be pretty obvious!

I'm down to 14kHz, but it's a gentle rolloff so music is still oh so pleasurable. Very little musical information up there, luckily. But I find it's what's between the ears that matters most for analysis of fidelity of recordings. Upside of losing hf hearing is you can no longer hear the artifacts in mp3s. Also I'm a burgeoning bass head, that's what seems to matter most to me these days.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I am sure there is some of the cart resonance causing a boost but to me it mostly looks like a "classic remastering" i.e. boost lows and highs and add compression

There's likely to be normal +4dB resonance centered about 17kHz. It's famous for creating the "air" vinyl gets credited with. I suspect the master itself is flat and we're seeing the ring-a-ding-ling sing-along stylus+cantilever resonance.

 

[MattHooper]

Has vinyl finally “jumped the (fried) chicken”?

KFC Canada offering vinyl record of holiday tunes as the top of its iconic bucket of chicken

KFC Canada is offering a limited-edition bucket lid that doubles as a holiday record for the brand's Instagram followers to win in a draw.

torontosun.com

I’m sure it will be worth scraping the chicken grease off your cartridge for the next couple of weeks.

 

[Andysu]

Has vinyl finally “jumped the (fried) chicken”?

View attachment 412723

KFC Canada offering vinyl record of holiday tunes as the top of its iconic bucket of chicken

KFC Canada is offering a limited-edition bucket lid that doubles as a holiday record for the brand's Instagram followers to win in a draw.

torontosun.com

I’m sure it will be worth scraping the chicken grease off your cartridge for the next couple of weeks.

KFJaws finger shark linkin'

 

[EJ3]

Has vinyl finally “jumped the (fried) chicken”?

View attachment 412723

KFC Canada offering vinyl record of holiday tunes as the top of its iconic bucket of chicken

KFC Canada is offering a limited-edition bucket lid that doubles as a holiday record for the brand's Instagram followers to win in a draw.

torontosun.com

I’m sure it will be worth scraping the chicken grease off your cartridge for the next couple of weeks.

Maybe it's a test for record cleaning machines?

 

[Andysu]

Maybe it's a test for record cleaning machines?

yeah just dip the records into kfc gravy and eat plastic

 

[Galliardist]

Has vinyl finally “jumped the (fried) chicken”?

View attachment 412723

KFC Canada offering vinyl record of holiday tunes as the top of its iconic bucket of chicken

KFC Canada is offering a limited-edition bucket lid that doubles as a holiday record for the brand's Instagram followers to win in a draw.

torontosun.com

I’m sure it will be worth scraping the chicken grease off your cartridge for the next couple of weeks.

If we order on our favourite online meal delivery service instead, do we only get a digital download?

 

[MattHooper]

If we order on our favourite online meal delivery service instead, do we only get a digital download?

As long as you are fine digging the digital token out of the macaroni salad

 

[levimax]

While the "mastering differences" subject has been discussed at length I still think in the age of streaming (mostly only the latest and greatest remaster) these differences are under appreciated. As mentioned mastering differences are far more audible than format differences.

Recently I came across a particularly egregious example of remastering nonsense where one of the most Iconic albums of all time, Frank Sinatra's "Songs for Swingin' Lovers!" , originally recorded in 1955, was "remastered" around 1964 with a bunch of "echo" added to Frank's voice. All subsequent versions of this album, both analog and digital (with a few exceptions for a few songs on some best of compilations), use the "echo" tape version. The only place to hear the original is on the old "Grey Label" Capital LP's pre 1964.

While adding echo and the like is not that unusual to me it seems a crime to "alter" the sound of a international treasure like Frank Sinatra's voice on an iconic album. If it wasn't for these old LP's no one would know the difference. While not everyone cares about things like this I find it a fun and interesting part of the hobby and one reason I enjoy LP's, I doubt it is part of the reasons for the renaissance though.

See below link to two samples, one from the original LP and one from a Mofi CD (which is one of the better digital versions, there are worse ones). I strongly prefer the original and it is a treat for me to get to hear the album as originally created (which sounds really good for a 1955 recording). I would be curious about other's preferences.

Box

app.box.com

 

[Newman]

While the "mastering differences" subject has been discussed at length I still think in the age of streaming (mostly only the latest and greatest remaster) these differences are under appreciated. As mentioned mastering differences are far more audible than format differences.

I disagree with the last sentence. Perhaps you were comparing best-vs-best for format differences, and best-vs-worst for mastering differences? That is the only way you could conclude that mastering differences are far more audible than format differences: an unfair comparison.

People completely underestimate, or forget when discussing comparisons, the internal differences within the vinyl format. If we were to assemble all the record players in the world and line them up from best to worst, the median unit would be mostly plastic, with a plastic tonearm and a $15 cartridge. If we line them up from best to worst in terms of adjustment and maintenance, the median unit would likely not be on a level surface, stylus weight nowhere near the spec, VTA unimaginable, azimuth etc etc, stylus dirty or even fluffy. Then we turn our focus to variations in the records themselves. If we were to assemble all the records in the world and line them up from best to worst production when new, the median unit would be cheap and thin, possibly warped, pressed from a very tired stamper, audibly off-centre spindle hole eccentricity, and have several audible scratches. If we line them up from best to worst in terms of their in-use condition, the median unit would likely have several more scratches and never been cleaned, while no longer in the dust cover and quite likely living horizontally on a flat surface (which might make the record player envious).

With digital, the above internal format differences due to production and maintenance variations are effectively non-existent or minimal for audibility.

And what about multichannel? I don't know why people implicitly 'dumb down' digital to 2-channel for comparison to vinyl, since limiting digital to 2-channel means it is not best-vs-best. Perhaps it's because vinyl has been left so far behind that a best-vs-best comparison just seems unfair?

But any comparison other than best-vs-best, and the internal differences within the vinyl format mean it just drops off remarkably.

 

[levimax]

I disagree with the last sentence. Perhaps you were comparing best-vs-best for format differences, and best-vs-worst for mastering differences? That is the only way you could conclude that mastering differences are far more audible than format differences: an unfair comparison.

People completely underestimate, or forget when discussing comparisons, the internal differences within the vinyl format. If we were to assemble all the record players in the world and line them up from best to worst, the median unit would be mostly plastic, with a plastic tonearm and a $15 cartridge. If we line them up from best to worst in terms of adjustment and maintenance, the median unit would likely not be on a level surface, stylus weight nowhere near the spec, VTA unimaginable, azimuth etc etc, stylus dirty or even fluffy. Then we turn our focus to variations in the records themselves. If we were to assemble all the records in the world and line them up from best to worst production when new, the median unit would be cheap and thin, possibly warped, audibly off-centre spindle hole eccentricity, and have several audible scratches. If we line them up from best to worst in terms of condition, the median unit would likely have several more scratches and never been cleaned, while no longer in the dust cover and quite likely living horizontally on a flat surface (which might make the record player envious).

With digital, the above internal format differences due to production and maintenance variations are effectively non-existent or minimal for audibility.

And what about multichannel? I don't know why people implicitly 'dumb down' digital to 2-channel for comparison to vinyl, since limiting digital to 2-channel means it is not best-vs-best. Perhaps it's because vinyl has been left so far behind that a best-vs-best comparison just seems unfair?

But any comparison other than bet-vs-best, and the internal differences within the vinyl format mean it just drops off remarkably.

In my experience, using a decent TT and system, which I assume most on this site have or aspire to, comparing many original LP's to original CD's I often have a hard time to ABX them and usually the giveaway is noise.

I have a much easier time to ABX different masterings whether LP to LP, digital to digital, or LP to digital. For me FR changes due to EQ and to a lesser extent dynamic compression (level matched, compressed recording are much less audible than you would think looking at the graphs) are often more audible than format differences.

In the examples I posted I was very surprised that virtually all versions of this classic Frank Sinatra album released after 1964 had heavy echo added with the only full version of the album available without the echo being the original LP. This echo is extremely audible and with any reasonable playback system it is very obvious. While I am sure some may prefer the echo, to me I strongly prefer the original and am sad that the vast majority of people will never get to hear Frank's voice, which I consider a recorded music treasure, as originally recorded.

While physical media may not be practical, and certainly it is not for everyone, it does help preserve recorded music history in a way streaming, with its emphasis on the latest and greatest remaster, does not, and for that I am grateful.

 

[MattHooper]

People completely underestimate, or forget when discussing comparisons, the internal differences within the vinyl format. If we were to assemble all the record players in the world and line them up from best to worst, the median unit would be mostly plastic, with a plastic tonearm and a $15 cartridge. If we line them up from best to worst in terms of adjustment and maintenance, the median unit would likely not be on a level surface, stylus weight nowhere near the spec, VTA unimaginable, azimuth etc etc, stylus dirty or even fluffy.

But that’s not addressing what Levimax or I have been saying. We are talking about experience with a good turntable, carefully set up and cared for.

It doesn’t matter that plenty of young people on Crosley turntables or whatever.

As I’ve pointed up before, if one is going to expand all the variables in how most people listen to any source - by its nature, digital streaming makes it far easier for people to simply listen to music as a background to other activities - whether it’s from their smart speaker or laptop while cooking dinner, earbuds while they are working out, jogging or on public transit, or whatever. One could make the case that since many people who listen to records say it encourages focused, listening, those people may be taking in more details about the music and recording than
the average person who streams music as an accompaniment to something else they are doing. So I think various cans of worms get opened up there.

In terms of general record quality, I have about 1000 records which span all sorts of genres, I buy new vinyl or near mint, and I keep them in good condition (I have an ultrasonic cleaner), and I feel the same way Levimax does. Of course they’re absolutely is more variability in the source quality from vinyl records versus digital. And CDs did replace records for a good reason. We who grew up with records all heard that cleaner sound, and in various ways, better sound quality. And as I say, almost all my comparisons even with a good turntable show an advantage for digital sound.

But having gone back to records, using a good turntable and taking care of records, better than I ever did when I was young, i’ve been surprised at the Sonic quality still available from vinyl. In the big picture, the majority of my records sound terrific IMO, just like the majority of my digital music sounds terrific. So while I can hear certain advantages from the digital sources, I often find those differences are not as pronounced as the differences between recordings themselves and different mastering. The quality of the speakers set up and rest of the system are what produce the majority of the sonic quality of the sound I hear.

 

[Robin L]

It doesn’t matter that plenty of young people on Crosley turntables or whatever.

It does relative to the OP's question. What propels the market? Very few LP purchasers are as concerned with the sound of the black discs as you. Many buy the discs because of a desire to support the artist or for the cover art. Lots of different reasons why sales of LPs are going up. But the sonic aspects are fairly far down on the list. It does matter that lots of young people have Crosley turntables or their moral equivalent. The kind of gear you are using represents less than .01% of the kind of gear people use to listen to LPs.

 

[MattHooper]

It does relative to the OP's question.

Perhaps, but it doesn’t speak to what Levimax was saying, to which Newman responded.

Levinax was referring to the quality or capabilities of the formats themselves.
This would assume a properly functioning DAC, and a properly functioning (good quality) turntable/cartridge in order to compare format quality.

As I mentioned, if we start to widen the variables to “ all the different type of equipment people own, and under what conditions they listen” that’s not going to be focussing on the format quality itself.

Just as some teenager may listen to Taylor Swift on a Crosby turntable, someone else may be listening to Taylor Swift on some crappy smart speaker or a laptop or whatever.

So Levimax and I were speaking to a more “ apples to apples” comparison of what each format is capable of. And our own experience in that respect as well.

And that’s not even to mention the glory of KFC offerings

 

[Newman]

While the "mastering differences" subject has been discussed at length I still think in the age of streaming (mostly only the latest and greatest remaster) these differences are under appreciated. As mentioned mastering differences are far more audible than format differences.

Since repetition is now the cornerstone of this thread (you and I have been over this before, link, link2), let me put it this way: format differences can be (very) clearly audible, and mastering differences can be (very) clearly audible, and to say that one is far more audible than the other requires selective cherry-picking of one of the two so as to minimise its contribution. That's why I did that scrappy chart, so long ago.

I mean, if we listen to a stereo mix on two speakers then downmix it to mono and listen on one speaker, that format change is going to be pretty clearly audible. But if we remaster that stereo mix onto surround sound yet send practically no signal to anything but FL and FR, then that format change is going to be almost indistinguishable. There are a lot of format differences being used by the global music market, and they make big differences except when we selectively pick instances where they don't.

But like we agreed years ago, if we compare bad mastering on one 2-channel format and good mastering on another 2-channel format, and cherry pick good examples of each format, then the mastering difference will be the bigger issue.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

One of the problems is the subjectivity of terms like “ very” audible.

For instance, if we just take the artefacts associated with vinyl, for instance, forms of record noise, a few ticks and pops are completely swamped by the amount of information associated with the actual musical content or recording.
What about wow and flutter? Assuming a good record player, you can still get off-center hole pressings. But how often and how often are these “ very” audible or intrusive, and that’s going to depend on the music one is listening to as well. For me, I find both those forms of artefacts rarely noticeable, and again swamped by the amount of Sonic information from the recording.

Then we come to whether the recording itself suffers on vinyl due to the vinyl limitations.
There you get among other things bass limitations, sometimes mixing of the bass, high frequency limitations - all Recording dependent. And usually the mastering engineer is doing his best to get the vinyl not far off from the digital.

I don’t find much obvious difference in the base and lots of recordings. But then my speaker is only go down to around 35 hz and I got rid of my subwoofers a while ago.

I rarely find that the highs on a record sound, obviously rolled off or not extended and airy or vivid compared to the digital version.

But then my hearing rolls off a little above
14 K now.

But otherwise, on my system, what I hear is generally comparable sound, though with an advantage, usually subtle, to digital.

 

[Brian Hall]

RokBlok (vinyl killer) Wireless Portable Record Player review​

 

[ejr]

My impression is that audio technicians listen more to the quality of the recording than the performance it is trying to reproduce. I think most people mentally subtracted things like surface noise on records, and tape hiss on cassettes or reel to reel, and just paid attention to the music. (I still do, to this day.) I suspect the problem with digital is that it is harder to dissassociate the non-musical elements from what you are hearing (i.e. all the weird trade-offs that DAC filters can have, etc.) because they are subtler and more difficult to zero in on. Just look how people describe them. Everybody knows what clicks, pops, and hissing sounds like. How many listerners can discern, let alone describe in simple universal terms, concepts like pre-ringing or glare? In short, I find it easier to "tune out" the nonmusical sounds coming from a record player than the kind of weird, hard to identify things that just sound a little off when I am streaming audio. (I'll interject here that listening to a decent CD player, with its built-in DAC, is usually to most satisfactory experience for me, even if the streaming audio I am comparing it to is at a higher bit-rate.)

 

[levimax]

One of the problems is the subjectivity of terms like “ very” audible.

My definition of "very audible" is that a difference can easily be heard in a level matched ABX test by most people. Of course I am not set up for large sample ABX tests, but after listening to many ABX tests of different mastering samples I have created, and listening to samples others have posted, I am quite confident that if I can easily hear a difference so can most people.

I looped back to the "mastering topic" not to rehash something that has already been covered in this long thread, but to bring up the role of physical media in preserving our shared recorded music history. Specifically the way one of Frank Sinatra's most iconic albums has been "remastered" to sound much different that it sounded originally. For me part of the fun of the recorded music hobby is being able to "go back in time" and enjoy performances of super talented artists in their prime. In addition to the performances themselves the technical abilities of the equipment and the recording styles of the day were also captured. Now that I have heard the LP version and made a needle drop of "For Swingin' Lovers" I doubt I will ever listen to any other versions as to me it just sounds better and more realistic. Unlike most mastering differences this example is not subtle.

While streaming is no doubt the cheapest and best quality and most practical source of music it does focus on the "latest and greatest remastered version" which tends to make all recordings sound as much like new recordings as possible. Nothing wrong with that and for most users it is fine or even preferable. I sometimes like to hear the original versions of recorded music whether I prefer it or not just for perspective. Without physical media this would not be possible. I don't think this is a large part of the vinyl renaissance but it is part of it and I think it will be part of the CD renaissance as well when/ if that happens.