Exactly, how much does vinyl suck less than it did 30 years ago? This needs to be quantified.

[skankhobag]

When I gave up buying vinyl in the 90s, the rule of thumb was that the standard LP had a dynamic range of around 45 to 50dB on a brand new major label recording. Some were better and some were worse.

The only exception to this when it came to popular music was Mobile Fidelity. Their releases would give you about 10 dB less noise and distortion. Also, usually they would last longer because the discs were so thick, but this was not always the case.

I only owned a few of MFs albums, but I was very crestfallen when my copy of Sergeant Pepper’s by The Beatles got a huge pop on one of the tracks after only a dozen playings. For me, that was the turning point where I decided that I would never buy vinyl again unless it was for a recording that was not available on CD.

This all being said, I’ve been hearing all of this PR crap about the Vinyl Renaissance. Is the product being made today any better than what was offered 30 years ago?

Has anyone actually tested what the sound to noise ratio and distortions are being produced by modern vinyl and the systems used to play them back (other than photo preamps)?

One of my hobbies is not only designing loudspeakers, but also audio engineering since I’m also a musician.

One of the reasons that I moved to digital audio from R2R tape is that digital offered greater fidelity and much less noise & distortion. Also, tape requires a lot more maintenance… And, oh, there was the fact that tape was/is really expensive.

So, you guys measure stuff here. Any thoughts about taking a modern vinyl recording and comparing it through software to its digital release? Give them a serious, objective measurement based comparison to show the difference between them.

I’d think that acoustic music would yield the best results and it would be optimal if the source was recorded digitally and released in a hi-res, 24 bit format.

I imagine someone will have done this in the past, but I’ve not seen it.

My experience makes me think that Vinyl will lose to Digital worse than the Chiefs lost to the Eagles at the Superbowl (BOOM!) this year. (Go EAGLES… yeah, I said it)

Sorry, got carried away.

Anyway, a delicate, hi-res mastered, acoustic music recording compared using the best of both formats. Run them through the best competitor software and see what the results are. Then, release the proof to the world.

You can even give Vinyl a mulligan by running the digital signal through a DAC and capture it with the input ADC.

Your thoughts?

 

[JP]

What for? The technological peak of the format was just over 45 years ago.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Is the product being made today any better than what was offered 30 years ago?

No. Often worse, in fact, or that's what one hears (elevated surface noise, off-center pressings, warped discs do not seem uncommon).

BTW, "30 years ago" was 1995. Well into the CD era. You meant more like 40.

 

[JSmith]

Bad pressings are much more common now... such as;

JSmith

 

[Petrushka]

As someone who bought hundreds of garage sale records, the most important change from then to now is, people don’t smoke.

Old records are coated with tar. And ash.

Clean it off, and most of the noise and distortion is gone.

 

[Joe Smith]

I don't buy bad vinyl - just good old ones and good new ones. And use a microline stylus for the most part. Given that, decent fidelity is not a problem.

 

[levimax]

The quality of today's vinyl formulations is better (quieter) than in the past. On the other hand todays "heavy 180/200 gram discs" seem more susceptible to off center holes and poorly cut holes. All in all vinyl's quality is consistent over the decades in how inconsistent it is.

 

[HoweSound]

Why don't you compare the CD and vinyl pressing of "The Bright Mississippi" by Allen Tousaint? It was released on vinyl with an included CD. I listen mainly to a flac copy of the CD, but, I recall that the vinyl was of excellent quality and the album was exceptionally well recorded and produced:

The Bright Mississippi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[skankhobag]

Has contemporary vinyl album production not improved at all since 1990? Really?

Damn!

So, people who love vinyl are thoroughly analogous to folks that still prefer VHS on a 21” Trinotron CRT (had one of those a million years ago).

Given that vinyl albums cost twice as much (or more) as CDs or Blu-rays with HD video and that digital discs last a lifetime and never wear out (unlike vinyl), why would you buy them? That amazes me.

They want a drastically inferior product that costs 100% more. Well, I learned a long time ago not to argue with fools and crazy people.

Also, hi-res digital in any form can be an exact copy of the original master. You can, with really good speakers, hear almost the exact same thing that the artist & mastering engineer heard in the studio.

Then there’s the last bit: producing vinyl albums involves highly toxic chemicals. Ask the folks in East Palestine, OH how they feel about being poisoned by vinyl chloride.

That people still buy new vinyl albums is not only nonsensical, but also reprehensible. It’s as bad as buying conflict diamonds.

I’m not saying that manufacturing optical discs has no environmental downside, but, hey, do a search on both products about their environmental impacts and vinyl, just like with its audio qualities, is a gigantic loser.

Thanks, all you folks who buy new vinyl albums, for helping to poison our planet!

 

[antcollinet]

One way in which vinyl has improved since its heyday is the Parks Audio Waxwing pre amp with its digital filters, "Magic" de-clicking functionality - and ground noise killing optical output.

 

[antcollinet]

That people still buy new vinyl albums is not only nonsensical, but also reprehensible.

jeez - chill a little dude. We are a broad church here.

(PS - I hope you don't drive a car - or any other motor vehicle. Or eat meat, or drink milk etc etc etc)

 

[skankhobag]

jeez - chill a little dude. We are a broad church here.

(PS - I hope you don't drive a car - or any other motor vehicle. Or eat meat, or drink milk etc etc etc)

Sorry, but just calling how it is.

This isn’t like trying to get modern society to convert to electric cars. That’s a huge undertaking that will take decades.

Vinyl in audio was over & done, but, like Small Pox, it’s back… and for no good reason.

That you conflate it to driving a car or eating meat is comical. Personally, I pilot a crotch rocket (BMW K1300S), take public trans & Uber, do unapologetically eat meat and get my extra calcium from cheese.

As Arnold Schwarzenegger once said, “Milk is for babies, beer is for men.“

 

[Hiten]

Is the product being made today any better than what was offered 30 years ago?

Maximum fidelity of the vinyl was probably achieved decades ago.

How about this : To achieve more will require research in vinyl material to have less noise. Making a master by laser etching modulations on the master. Modulations will be generated in computer and will compensate for typical 9 inch tonearm which moves in an arc. In other words modulations will be formed as if pivoted cutter head is making them.

But...
Is there any point of modifying digital source in so many steps just to have it on vinyl ? Everyone knows each steps degrades fidelity.

But still...
A vinyl record pressing plant has come up near my home town. And vinyls are selling. That too at high prices.

May be in few years we will know.

 

[DVinylfan]

Sorry, but just calling how it is.

Not really. You started a thread at 4.14am requesting comparative measurements so that the differences could be quantified. After a little preliminary subjective discussion in the thread, at 9.06am #9 you posted your conclusion.
It's pretty easy to see what's going on here. If your intention was simply to bash a medium still enjoyed by millions despite having been superseded in fidelity terms by digital, perhaps you should have stated that at the outset, rather than posing behind a disingenuous request for measurements.

Vinyl in audio was over & done, but, like Small Pox, it’s back… and for no good reason.

Okay. Goodbye now.

 

[ZolaIII]

Quality will be primarily determined by quality of mastering. Plenty of old LP's (70's-80's) which sound good, still no reason not to use better masters tapes or digitally cleaned such in digital form of course. One thing which will never be so good again is album covers and promo materials on them. They do thicker vinil pressings today and still it's how good mixing engineer whose.

 

[Chr1]

The fact that the quality is way down, while the price is way up on many years ago.
This is the bit that I have issue with.

Dude's got a point...Blatant profiteering that is bad for the planet.

I am also sick of explaining to ignorant youngsters why their USB turntable and expensive vinyl does not sound better than my cheap boring Flacs and CDs.

Saying that I still have fond memories of my first proper hifi which included a turntable, almost 50 years ago now...

Dual CS505, NAD 3020 and Mission 700s

 

[skankhobag]

No. Often worse, in fact, or that's what one hears (elevated surface noise, off-center pressings, warped discs do not seem uncommon).

BTW, "30 years ago" was 1995. Well into the CD era. You meant more like 40.

Thanks for the info.

Hey, I know when CDs started, but I was referring to when I was thoroughly done with vinyl of any form.

Listen, baby, I recorded all of my favorite 12” singles to R2R around 30 years ago. That way, I could play them at 15ips on a half-track TEAC mastering R2R rather than wear out the vinyl. Wow, that was not cheap.

Biggest names in the collection were David Bowie, Peter Gabriel, Robert Palmer, Chaka Khan and James Brown. Even have a 12 inch single by Yes… really.

Having built a digital studio in my house 5 years later, I recorded all the singles to hi-res digital and added a bit more sheen to them with some post processing. They sound fantastic.

Those recordings are still on my various digital devices, but, unlike 25 years ago, they can almost all be bought & streamed online.

My hi-res digital transcription of the James Brown’s “Living in America” 12” single will be inferior to any properly done digital remaster.

I’ve already heard it with David Bowie’s 12” single, “Loving the Alien”. My transcription sounded really good. The hi-res audio download was listening to the master tape. It’s that simple.

You do need a rather good system to fully hear the disparity of quantity. Both are enjoyable, but the original that’s digital and closest to the master is unmistakably superior.

 

[AndyMorris]

One way in which vinyl has improved since its heyday is the Parks Audio Waxwing pre amp with its digital filters, "Magic" de-clicking functionality - and ground noise killing optical output.

Or for the cheapskates - use Vinyl Studio to rip and clean and play it from your phone or PC.

 

[whereisbrian]

I have a vinyl turntable because I have about 500 albums in that format left. I listen to them once every 3 months or when some crazy kid asks me to play one with a happy face. I'm thinking of selling them for camera equipment.

As everyone knows (or not) manufacturing or recycling LP is very polluting, a real poison

 

[antcollinet]

That you conflate it to driving a car or eating meat is comical.

You are taking an absolutist approach to vinyl being worse for the planet than alternatives and therefore being "reprehensible".

A position only justifiable IMO if you take the same approach to all consumption - if you are consuming something worse for the planet than available alternatives (eg meat - whose production is vastly worse for the environment than plant based foods), why isn't that reprehensible?

Or is it just that it is something *you* don't want to do that makes it so?