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

[GXAlan]

Yes, absolutely, but I'm not sure this is related to the shift from vinyl to digital as much as the shift from dry acoustics with minimal processing to modern remastered versions with added processing for room effects (reverb) and average loudness.

Agreed 100%.

This is not directed to you, @rdenney , but to everyone else who doesn’t have an appreciation of how things were mixed “back in the day”.

Take the time to listen to this recording that was put out by JBL in the 1970s. Think of it like a TED talk. Have patience, play it back on your highest fidelity setup, knowing that YouTube compression is probably able to capture a lot of what the vinyl captured.

 

[krabapple]

But here we have the usual problem of extrapolating to the population from our own sample. I suspect the largest number of people were more like my brother-in-law--they weren't that interested in the stuff they had collected on vinyl and simply got rid of it altogether, and the CD's they later bought reflected their changing preferences. But nobody I know attempted anything resembling the systematic replacement of their LP's with CD's.

I doubt the word 'systematic' was even in our vocabularies.

Don't know where you came up, but from all that I could see the people around me doing, living in and around NYC then in Ann Arbor for about half and half the 80s, you and your friends were outliers. By the mid-late 80s people bought LPs only when there was no CD (and then bought the CD when it finally came out). There ws no 'system', just a general embrace of the glitch-free, easy-to-play, 'new thing' and abandonment of the old thing, whose well-known 'quirks' hadn't yet been nostalgized into virtues. Your friend's brother-in-law was the norm, in my experience . Which tracks the sales figures for CDs vs LPs in the 1980s.

Krab 'America, what a country' apple

 

[DSJR]

I adopted CD straight away, just sounded better and obviously so much more convenient i don’t think I purchased another record, but did buy again most of my collection on CD!
Keith

Umm, it only seems like yesterday that you were peddling valve amps from Italy and fancy-foo turntables. Maybe that was twenty years ago though (all but yesterday for me now )

 

[krabapple]

Yes, absolutely, but I'm not sure this is related to the shift from vinyl to digital as much as the shift from dry acoustics with minimal processing to modern remastered versions with added processing for room effects (reverb) and average loudness.

The adding of reverb to a product was something we'd already seen in the vinyl era (Beatles, anyone?)

But it isn't something that has much marked digital . Remastering rarely involves adding reverb.

(But I'm guessing you are again talking mainly about 'classical' music releases?)

Anyway, remastering typically involved/involves steps like this (some of which are optional) 1) source choice (if the source is on tape, with restoration/repair if needed) 2) correct tape playback 3) digital transfer 4) EQ tweaks 5) noise/glitch amelioration 6) level adjustment (which can include compression)

Rarely, there are things like pitch correction

I would bet these days that many 'remasters' start from a previous digital transfer -- the 'archival' transfer -- rather than a new digital transfer from analog tape.

 

[krabapple]

I was deep into the UK 'flat earth' back then - vinyl ruled and as for CD - 'Is this a lemon?' was the slogan from a certain Scottish company... I resisted CD until I heard the first one that didn't give me listener fatigue and which I felt was a step up from the standard '14 bit' machines, a Meridian MCD-Pro. For a year or so, I duplicated some album purchases (my CD of Brothers in Arms had the channels reversed over my LP...) and then went almost totally to CD, wrecking my credit card in the process I remember.

14 bit audio has a dynamic range of ~84 dB.

It's probably where most people stop hearing bit-depth difference.
I doubt you did blind level-matched A/B tests of CDPs back then when you were part of The Resistance.

 

[Timcognito]

My friend has new/used record store on the SF peninsula, CA. He told me that in the late 90s early 2000s a week did not go by where he would open the store and a large box of used records (10-50) would be sitting there. As that began to dry up he began trading store credit for boxes of records. Now he searches Craigslist and Ebay to find and buy large collections to fill his shelves.

 

[DSJR]

Agreed 100%.

This is not directed to you, @rdenney , but to everyone else who doesn’t have an appreciation of how things were mixed “back in the day”.

Take the time to listen to this recording that was put out by JBL in the 1970s. Think of it like a TED talk. Have patience, play it back on your highest fidelity setup, knowing that YouTube compression is probably able to capture a lot of what the vinyl captured.

Oh bloody hell, I HAVE this double LP. I can't get to my records right now, but I should dig it out as proof - not played it in thirty plus years...

 

[DSJR]

14 bit audio has a dynamic range of ~84 dB.

It's probably where most people stop hearing bit-depth difference.
I doubt you did blind level-matched A/B tests of CDPs back then when you were part of The Resistance.

UK FM radio is thirteen bit I recall and background noise on a clean transmission was basically inaudible, the venue 'atmosphere' easily masking it on a good live broadcast or general 'studio noise' on a speech programme, this before heavy compression kicked in (radio 4 held out the longest and may still be 'clean' that way). The brickwall filtering at 15kHz was all but inaudible too in reality. I do feel sad for those beautiful top-model Accuphase, Revox and Yamaha tuners of old, so good on a decent broadcast back in the day, now having to reproduce the compressed-to-hell muck the BBC and commercial FM stations churn out these days

 

[rdenney]

14 bit audio has a dynamic range of ~84 dB.

It's probably where most people stop hearing bit-depth difference.
I doubt you did blind level-matched A/B tests of CDPs back then when you were part of The Resistance.

I certainly could never tell the difference between my Magnavox CDB650 (nominally 14-bit TDA1541 DAC) and my later players.

Rick “recalling Philips had some mitigation strategy using over-sampling” Denney

 

[DoctorRobert]

I certainly could never tell the difference between my Magnavox CDB650 (nominally 14-bit TDA1541 DAC) and my later players.

Rick “recalling Philips had some mitigation strategy using over-sampling” Denney

Actually, the first Philips 14-bit 4-times oversampled DACs were effectively 16-bit (because of the oversampling). (The last 2 bits were basically spread over the additional samples.) With the added bonus of requiring a much simpler filter because the Nyquist frequency became 88.2 kHz instead of 22.1 kHz. The early Sony CD-players struggled with this because they used a 16-bit non-oversampling design. Their Nyquist filter affected the audio band.

 

[Mojo Warrior]

Back in the 1970s vinyl music reproduction was good enough to enjoy music. Technically, was it inferior ? Definitely.

 

[sergeauckland]

I adopted CD straight away, just sounded better and obviously so much more convenient i don’t think I purchased another record, but did buy again most of my collection on CD!
Keith

Me too. I even started a HiFi business on the strength of CD...

I sold my Gyrodec and all my LPs in the early 1990s, but started again 10 years later, and now am buying more LPs every month than I did during the LP era.

Probably 95% of my purchases are used LP from the 1970s, but the few new pressings I've bought have been quite good. Whether it's because it's now a premium product, (on the other hand so much of the knowledge has been lost) I don't know, but the LPs I've bought, both old and new are as I remember them.

I think what's happened is that the mass-market volume 'Hit-Parade' albums have gone away and all albums pressed now are for more upmarket buyers, so a bit more attention can be given to the pressing quality without volume pressures, and stampers wearing out.

S.

 

[Robin L]

14 bit audio has a dynamic range of ~84 dB.

It's probably where most people stop hearing bit-depth difference.
I doubt you did blind level-matched A/B tests of CDPs back then when you were part of The Resistance.

I've got a DDD Denon CD, released in 1987 (as a CD) but recorded in 1975. Denon was experimenting with the first* commercial digital recordings. Denon's first digital recording is "Something" by Steve Marcus and Jiroh Inagaki, December 1970. By the time my copy of Denon 33CO-1586—Beethoven, "Archduke Trio" performed by the Suk Trio—was recorded, Denon's engineers were using a 13-bit, 47,25 kHz recorder. The sound quality is really good, which points more to the players, the venue and the microphones than the recording medium. My guess is a trained ear could pick out this from a Redbook standard recording, but all of the other virtues of digital record/replay remain; absolutely steady pitch, no increase in distortion as volume increases, none of the issues with speed irregularities from analog sources.

*An AES paper on the dawn of digital recording:

https://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf

 

[AndyMorris]

Doesn't work for me - at that point I lose all the benefits of playing vinyl - ritual/nostalgia - and might as well stream digital. (Which I do as well of course anyway)

Thats fair enough, unfortunately I have 15 ft of records and only about 6 ft of shelves, so I haven't had them nicely ordered and available for years. I am about to splash out on a massive bookcase of all the LP and a large amount of cd's so I might get that pleasure again. Or I may just get the sleave out to contemplate while I stream it.

Not all records are on Spotify. It does matter to me that I have and am listening to records that I bought, either recently, or as a kid, or that my Dad bought in the 40s when he was a kid, or something that I found 2nd hand. And somehow it matters that I am listening to the grooves of the record that I have. Thats more a philosophical or psychological thing that anything to do with audio quality, but it matters to me. Yes, I am listening to a copy, but it's my copy of my record.

Finally Visual Studio can do a fantastic job of getting a decent sound out of old, well-loved records. I even managed to get the sound off an old 78 that had broken in two. And its great to able to listen to my records in the kitchen or while travelling.

I do miss the covers.

 

[Sal1950]

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

And you pay a crazy amount for a technology that is little improved in 60 years, extremely inconvenient, and largely inferior to digital in sound quality. Not to mention limited to 2 chs. If you need a toy constantly to play and tinker with, be my guest. I just want to listen to my music in as high a quality as possible.
YMMV

 

[Pearljam5000]

And you pay a crazy amount for a technology that is little improved in 60 years, extremely inconvenient, and largely inferior to digital in sound quality. Not to mention limited to 2 chs. If you need a toy constantly to play and tinker with, be my guest. I just want to listen to my music in as high a quality as possible.
YMMV

At least vinyl is less expensive than reel to reel

 

[antcollinet]

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?

I know I'm late to the party with this comment, but why? Why does it need to be quantified?

It sucks a little bit less than 30 years ago, even if only through modern tech such as the Waxwing with its built-in click removal and automated ultrasonic cleaning. But also, it doesn't suck more than 30 years ago either. And 40+ years ago, it was the pinnacle of mainstream home audio, capable of delivering sublime musical experiences.

For those still enjoying using it, it can still do the same.

This topic has been done to death on this forum. For God's sake, can we just let it go?

 

[Purité Audio]

It’s a hoo-haw but an enjoyable hoo-haw.
Those of you who have both ‘automatic’ turntables ie Technics SP10 and traditional ie Gyros which did

you prefer?

 

[AndyMorris]

It’s a hoo-haw but an enjoyable hoo-haw.
Those of you who have both ‘automatic’ turntables ie Technics SP10 and traditional ie Gyros which didView attachment 495018 you prefer?

I have no need of that reel to reel, but wow, its a pretty thing....

 

[EJ3]

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

Damn!

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.

Since that can happen to any modern (yeah, I know, vinyl is not so modern) item being made (poisoning the environment with an accident), why don't you just revert to being a hermit & don't use anything made after 1800 or so? Jeez, what a DUMB point.
I'm just telling it like it REALLY is!

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

As is manufacturing most anything (if you are not careful). So your point is quit using anything made since the industrial age began?