Digital vs Vinyl

[MattHooper]

No. Doesn't seem right, though maybe some may see it the other way around(I'm letting them waste money ). The way I see it, they clearly enjoy it and enjoy spending money on it, so need to rain on that parade. They probably wouldn't care either way. They're no where near as into the gear and "high fidelity" thing as I am. They spend much more on the music(vinyl) than they do on the gear.

Maybe I've outed myself, though . My username is definitely sufficient to identify me to anyone who knows me in real life.

It's if I end up at a record show or in a record store, overhearing conversations near me, that I sometimes bite my tongue or grit my teeth.
I guess I'm fickle about it though. When I overhear someone saying vinyl sounds great or they like the sound I'm like "meh, ok, give it a pass."
It's mostly when I hear versions of "vinyl sounds superior" or it's the authentic way to listen to an artist's music and reiteration of any of the vinyl myths...then I have to bite my tongue. My gawd if I ever hear that vinyl is superior because it's analog, like real life, pure unbroken waveforms vs digital chopping up the sound artificially so not capturing all the music, I'll throw up all over the offending person.

 

[Chrispy]

That idea of collecting records just to collect them (not even listen to them) just doesn't make contact with my brain. But then I guess I don't have the temperament of a collector that way. The only thing I can remember collecting in the sense of seeking out items known for their value was when I had a big comic collection when I was young. Spiderman 1 up to 300 and all that (if only I'd known how valuable they would become).

But even then, I read them.

Yeah my only reason for "collecting" vinyl was to play it....then again for most of my first 20 plus years of it there was little choice outside of vinyl. Cannot imagine collecting it without at least playing it....

 

[Newman]

Thanks for your explanation. I'm not sure I understand everything completely correctly though.
Rega has a mantra of "as stiff and light as possible" when it comes to their plinths (they then add mass on the platters), and certain other manufacturers also at least follow the stiffness principle by using metals or other hard materials for their plinths.
So, do you mean that the plinth shouldn't be as stiff as possible, but rather it should be less stiff (maybe even slightly soft, like acrylic)? Or do you mean that aiming for as stiff as possible is okay, but it's unnecessary as it only needs to get to a certain level of stiffness and anything above that point is a wasted effort?

Putting aside structural analysis for a moment, vibrational minimisation through materials choice involves being maximally light, stiff and dampened. This is the correct approach to materials engineering for vibrating systems that shouldn't. Rega's mantra actually is all three, not just light and stiff. You can tell from their TTs. If you focus on light and stiff only, you will overlook damping and the product will ring.

Although everyone understands the sense in being stiff and well damped, not many understand the need for lightness. Indeed, to the layman, it can seem counterintuitive, so they think the ideal is massive, stiff, and well damped. Guess what, most of the buying market is filled with laymen. Guess what, most of the selling market gives them what they want. Ergo, gigantic massive turntables that are just plain wrong. But the overall market sees them as the ultimate.

cheers

 

[Frank Dernie]

Putting aside structural analysis for a moment, vibrational minimisation through materials choice involves being maximally light, stiff and dampened. This is the correct approach to materials engineering for vibrating systems that shouldn't. Rega's mantra actually is all three, not just light and stiff. You can tell from their TTs. If you focus on light and stiff only, you will overlook damping and the product will ring.

Although everyone understands the sense in being stiff and well damped, not many understand the need for lightness. Indeed, to the layman, it can seem counterintuitive, so they think the ideal is massive, stiff, and well damped. Guess what, most of the buying market is filled with laymen. Guess what, most of the selling market gives them what they want. Ergo, gigantic massive turntables that are just plain wrong. But the overall market sees them as the ultimate.

cheers

This is complete bollox I'm afraid.
Stiffer increases natural frequency. Nowt else.
Lighter increases natural frequency. Nowt else.
Damping reduces amplitude at resonance and changes the shape of the mode, widening it, unless critically damped the resonance will therefore act over a wider range of frequencies. Damping also reduces transmission.
The ONLY way to know what the modes look like is to do a full distributed mass analysis of the structure.
Being doctrinaire about stiff and light is a wrong headed as being doctrinaire about massive and heavy.

Both are over simplifications which the layman, as you put it, have been bombarded with.

 

[Newman]

Bollox, eh? Case of pot-kettle-black there, Frank. So NO. To almost every line. Sorry.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Bollox, eh? Case of pot-kettle-black there, Frank. So NO. To almost every line. Sorry.

I am sure I learned something during my 40 odd years of noise and vibration research and vehicle dynamics. Enough to win a lot anyway.
If I have missed something you will have to explain it to me much more convincingly than stating stiff light and damping is the answer.
That has not ever been the case in any dynamic system I have designed or analysed, from vibration transducers (which is what a record player is, of course) to complex ship transmission systems, to Formula 1 racing car dynamics, which I had some success with.
Just stating something which is absolutely not true without a bit of technical backup is (Edit I had to rush on the school run) not enough.
Are you saying lighter doesn't raise the natural frequency?
Are you saying stiffer doesn't raise the natural frequency?
Are you saying that damping has a different effect to the one I have been working with for 40+ years?

You need to go into convincing detail to convince me what you wrote isn't bollox I'm afraid, and you are nowhere near so far.

 

[MattHooper]

Putting aside structural analysis for a moment, vibrational minimisation through materials choice involves being maximally light, stiff and dampened. This is the correct approach to materials engineering for vibrating systems that shouldn't. Rega's mantra actually is all three, not just light and stiff. You can tell from their TTs. If you focus on light and stiff only, you will overlook damping and the product will ring.

Although everyone understands the sense in being stiff and well damped, not many understand the need for lightness. Indeed, to the layman, it can seem counterintuitive, so they think the ideal is massive, stiff, and well damped. Guess what, most of the buying market is filled with laymen.

*raises hand* average layman here.

Guess what, most of the selling market gives them what they want. Ergo, gigantic massive turntables that are just plain wrong. But the overall market sees them as the ultimate.

cheers

Well my mass-damped turntable sure sounds right - better than any record player I've ever owned, and with a decent record pressing, noise and clarity is reminiscent of digital. Most of my guests comment they never new records could sound that good.

If high-mass turntables are "wrong" I don't wanna be "right."

 

[AudioStudies]

I just don't think you can say, "lighter is best for all situations" - I think there are way too many variables involved to make a blanket claim such as that.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

 

[board]

That idea of collecting records just to collect them (not even listen to them) just doesn't make contact with my brain. But then I guess I don't have the temperament of a collector that way. The only thing I can remember collecting in the sense of seeking out items known for their value was when I had a big comic collection when I was young. Spiderman 1 up to 300 and all that (if only I'd known how valuable they would become).

But even then, I read them.

When I collected vinyl I also played it, but a lot about collecting was social conditioning done to people who were already slightly weird. I also see it now in one of my friends, who used to be a dj and built up a massive collection of one genre of records that he would play at dj gigs. Then he sold them, and now he has started to buy records again, without ever opening them, just to collect them.
The social conditioning is this: Records are cool; CDs are for losers. And who wants to be a loser?
But what is even more cool than having records is having the right records in the right editions in the right conditions. That's how collecting was for me. I didn't buy audiophile MFSL or Classic Records reissues, but original issues from the 60s and 70s. Sometimes I would spend €200 on one record, although, luckily, that didn't happen so often.
I would especially know this one dealer who would show me records he had found, often for pennies, or at least reliatively cheap, and then he would tell me with a big grin on his face how much he planned to sell them for. And when I asked the guy standing next to him at a record fair about a specific record he had for sale, this grinning seller came up to us and said "I would aim for the UK edition of that one".
It was all about the right records, in the right editions, in the right conditions if you wanted to be cool. You gained more cred from other collectors if you had a collection of 500 good albums and 500 boring but high-priced albums, than if you had a collection of 1000 average priced albums where you liked the music on all of them.

About collecting in particular: We have to remember that men tend to be more obsessive than women, and men are more interested in things and systems than people compared to women, and men are also more competitive and hierarchical. So it's no wonder we see so many men ending up competing about who can be the most obsessive and hierarchical about high-priced physical objects, whether it's records, comic books, or speaker cables.
I liked what a record seller said to me once: "People just like to collect. All the reasons they then give you for why they collect are only attempts at justifying the collecting habits they already had in the first place".
Buying makes you happy.

 

[MattHooper]

I'm sure now that records have become hip again plenty of people feel some coolness buying them. Though even then I'd grant that many of those people get some personal satisfaction from the records too, not just a personal coolness grab.

I don't feel particularly hip or cool buying records. But then I'm from the era where I grew up with them...almost slightly embarrassed ;-)
I do feel very excited buying them though, including being at thriving, busy record stores with folks of all ages enthusiastically looking through the records. I like the buzz and excitement of being among others who enjoy it, and of the recent vinyl movement in general. More fun and energizing than just flipping through songs on my phone.

I didn't buy audiophile MFSL or Classic Records reissues, but original issues from the 60s and 70s. Sometimes I would spend €200 on one record, although, luckily, that didn't happen so often.

I wish it didn't happen so often with me either.

Though I haven't gone as high as $200, a good number of the records I've bought via discogs are pretty expensive, and occasionally (rarely) over $100. The expensive ones I've bought are the rare records (often Library Music genre) that aren't available digitally. So for instance an old production/library LP I want may only have had 100 or 200 albums pressed back in the 70's, and then many of those lost. Hence the high price.
And I certainly admit that when I'm holding one of those in my hands, there is some marvel at holding such a rare record that managed to survive obscurity and being tossed out like all the others, for almost 40 years. So, yeah, a bit of "rare object shine" accompanies those purchases.
But since it's the music and listening to the record that are my main motivation, if a decent new pressing of those albums are available (which occasionally they are) I go for the cheaper newer version without hesitation.

But that's just personal values. I don't begrudge anyone who buys to collect just the objects, or think my way is "better or more virtuous" than theirs. We're all built different.

 

[LTig]

I think we finally found the reason for the vinyl resurrection.

I am all digital, but I am suddenly feeling the urge to buy a turntable and a lot of black disks.

Nope. I'd rather prefer those women to look at me than at my LP collection...

 

[Frank Dernie]

I have to admit to once buying records hoping they may increase in value.
I bough both Zappa's "Beat the Boots" boxes and they are still sealed - I have plenty of Zappa LPs and CDs already.
Must look up if they are worth anything yet!
It didn't give me a buzz so haven't done it since (it was about 20 years ago)
A friend started buying audiophile cred LPs which were expensive and asked if he could listen to them on my system.
One of them was nominally the same as one I had bought 40 or 50 years ago and when we played both mine sounded better despite the cosmetic condition of his looking perfect.
I guess his was more worn than mine, classical music lovers don't all have the best cartridges I suppose!

 

[Newman]

I just don't think you can say, "lighter is best for all situations" - I think there are way too many variables involved to make a blanket claim such as that.

Yes indeed. I mentioned the key variables. I never said what you put in quotes above.

Most lighter solutions are worse. So, obviously, I agree with your point. Implementation is critical, as always.

But for TTs and their vibrational circumstances and functional goals, there is a hierarchy of solutions in terms of vibratory outcomes, and at the top of the hierarchy, counterintuitively, we will not find high-mass solutions. I would characterise it like this:

• Worst: Lightweight and poorly engineered (or decently-engineered to a low price target). Most lightweight decks are light for the wrong reasons: to keep the price down; to keep transportation costs down; to keep engineering costs down; to meet a simplicity-is-best mantra. These have the potential to be, vibrationally, uncontrolled. You will also find here the misguided high end believers in a 'lively' sound, where the structure itself actually adds its own contribution in a positive way, or that's what they insist.
• Better: Heavyweight and poor to good engineering (pinnacle engineering would never have chosen heavyweight in the first place). This is where the safe bets lie for enthusiasts to buy: you would have to monumentally stuff up the implementation to not be better than the 'worst' category. But, ultimately, brick walls are encountered in achieving high damping for stiff and massive structures, and generating few modalities with high mass.
• Best: Lightweight, stiff, well-damped, and pinnacle engineering. Execution is everything here. If you attempt this approach and don't get it right, you will end up in the 'worst' category with the additional burden of high price. But if you get it right, the potential for vibratory control and modal minimisation is unmatched by massive solutions.

Rega have taken aim at the best of the above, but have they succeeded? I don't know. As the derisive Frank has noted, to answer that would involve specialist instrumentation and independent specialist analysis. I am not aware of anyone doing this for free and documenting the results on the open-access internet. How disappointing!

cheers

 

[AudioStudies]

My point was more than simply that there are some bad examples of lightweight turntables. My more comprehensive point includes the fact that high mass implementations do not necessarily rule out an excellent design. I will keep an open mind though, if you can present evidence to the contrary. But my gut feeling, is that excellent designs are possible in both realms.

 

[Newman]

Sure, excellent. I'm talking about which has the higher potential. In an engineering, measured, in-principle sense. Not 'excellent'. That's too easy.

Hifi's dirty secret is that human hearing is so much more limited than we imagine it to be, that all sorts of sonic errors go undetected, in general listening scenarios. If we were all hyper-sensitive and hyper-irritated by the slightest amount of wow, or speed error, or tracking error and distortion, or background noise, or clicks and pops, or microphonics, or resonances..... then every turntable on the planet would have been in landfill within 12 months of the release of CD.

Instead, we revere the things and hail their excellence. Testament to the low standards of human aural acuity.

So, my discussion is about the engineering principles. Not saying that one can be excellent and the other can't. That bar is too low.

cheers

 

[AudioStudies]

Sure, excellent. I'm talking about which has the higher potential. In an engineering, measured, in-principle sense. Not 'excellent'. That's too easy.

Hifi's dirty secret is that human hearing is so much more limited than we imagine it to be, that all sorts of sonic errors go undetected, in general listening scenarios. If we were all hyper-sensitive and hyper-irritated by the slightest amount of wow, or speed error, or tracking error and distortion, or background noise, or clicks and pops, or microphonics, or resonances..... then every turntable on the planet would have been in landfill within 12 months of the release of CD.

Instead, we revere the things and hail their excellence. Testament to the low standards of human aural acuity.

So, my discussion is about the engineering principles. Not saying that one can be excellent and the other can't. That bar is too low.

cheers

I have a degree in engineering. Feel free to make your case with engineering principles that only light turntables can reach the higher potential in the engineering sense. Curious also if you are talking about mass of the plinth, platter, other parts, etc. - or all of the above. It seems reasonable to me that a heavy platter can spin in a more stable manner. Too bad a guy named Newton isn't still around to comment. And of course the rack the table sets on is a consideration, as well as interference from nearby components, and perhaps even temperature and humidity in the room. Certainly tonearm mass and design, and then we get into cartridges. And even if you and Frank disagree, I think there would be value in such a discussion. I don't necessarily disagree with Rega's approach -- because I don't know enough about it. But I have a hunch that Frank could be correct about turntable manufacturers being small artisan companies that don't have the engineering resources or funding to reach the highest potential. Even what type of floor is in the home could be a consideration, and whether or not the table sits on rack or a wall-mounted shelf. This is what I am talking about when I say there are way too many variables to just assume low mass designs are the clear winners. But if you can prove it with engineering principles, I will be a believer. Its kind of like Frank was talking about -- we really need to see what you have, beyond your opinions. I forgot to mention whether or not a mat is used, and if not -- how the platter material interacts with the vinyl that sits upon it.

 

[AudioStudies]

I forgot to mention whether or not a mat is used, and if not -- how the platter material interacts with the vinyl that sits upon it.

And if you need more variables, I could likely come up with at least a dozen more.

 

[AudioStudies]

Perhaps a new thread is in order, entitled: Engineering Principles of Turntable Design.

 

[MattHooper]

Even what type of floor is in the home could be a consideration, and whether or not the table sits on rack or a wall-mounted shelf. This is what I am talking about when I say there are way too many variables to just assume low mass designs are the clear winners.

Yeah, I found that out when I got nice turntable and wanted to build an isolation platform underneath it. My equipment rack sits on a sprung wood floor and tons of vibration comes through the rack to the turntable with movement on the floor. (My son walking around would sometimes skip the record). I ended up using a combination of constrained layer damping for the shelf sitting atop spring-based isolation pods, and that did the trick.
I went from feeling tons of vibration on the turntable if I stomped around the floor in the room, and measuring lots of vibration via a seismometer app, to registering essentially zero vibration once it was on the isolation base.

Whereas my friend listens in his basement, a poured concrete floor. Stomping on the floor near his turntable makes negligible measurable results for vibration on his turntable. So he doesn't need the kind of base I built.