LP Sound vs Digital

[amirm]

It is pretty nice and informative! I just have a hard time reading all the detail. Was the original higher resolution?

 

[TBone]

thanks, segue'd from your questions/our conversations prior ... yes, res much higher, this but a scaled down bitmap copy of the template created in the tools mentioned above. Ironically it looks a bit too compressed ...

Will post a better picture soon ...

 

[TBone]

The following track/plots were taken from "The Challenge" CD. MikeL system (at that time).
(rec by John Elison ~2006)

Turntable: Rockport Sirius III/Colibri cart, DarTZeel pre.
Provenance: CD: Harvest CD2277 Reprise. LP: <unknown>

The DR values look quite accurate, hinting a very close transfer. However, the top plot shows the LP rip gaining considerable brightness >1khz while the bottom plot (0-1khz) shows a very different lower frequency response.

Without proper provenance data, it's difficult to say if this is yet another apple/grapefruit type comparison, but it's telling never-the-less, especially considering this particular rip was derived from a mega-buck "Hi-End" rig w/supposed "superior" vinyl.

 

[Ron Party]

[Rant on]I'm always tickled by the inability of people to recognize they have boundaries, that they possibly, just possibly, could be in error about something. A whole flock of people are congratulating themselves on having a civil discourse on the topic of this thread at another site which-must-not-be-named (Like Lord Valdemort in Harry Potter). It's civil, of course, because intellectual honesty is in scarce supply while ego is in over abundance.

Then I read the contributions here from someone like TBone who not only clearly understands the definition of preference but also supplies useful information which can be analyzed. Facts, not "it's better because it sounds better to me". The audiophile community would be a much, much better place with more people like TBone. More posts like the one just above this, plus an emphasis on evidence which gives rise to this forum's charter, give me high hope for the future of this forum.[/Rant Off]

 

[TBone]

I didn't know about the [Rant on][/Rant off] option.

Ron, thx for the kind words, it certainly helps justify the number-crunching work involved. Some of us really have done our "homework".

 

[TBone]

Addendum to the above LZ3 info ...
(a closer look at the lower freq. region.)

W/this rip, silly me thinking happy archive type results; well, in retrospect ... a very slight increase in turntable speed would've been welcome. Next rip perhaps ...

Sometimes I wonder if "hi-end" these days is measured more in terms of $$$,$$$ than it's ability to properly "reference" ...

 

[amirm]

Without proper provenance data, it's difficult to say if this is yet another apple/grapefruit type comparison, but it's telling never-the-less, especially considering this particular rip was derived from a mega-buck "Hi-End" rig w/supposed "superior" vinyl.

View attachment 913

That is pretty strong drop in bass response of the LP.

 

[TBone]

That is pretty strong drop in bass response of the LP.

Way too much, it really made little sense after I started looking up related provenance issues, couldn't find any similar looking pressings.

A recalc revealed I parsed the wrong data,

my mistake, corrected.

 

[TBone]

rising top end remains ...

 

[amirm]

Is it a rising top end in CD or droop in LP?

 

[TBone]

MikeL LP rip (tonearm resonance freq~5hz) ...

CD (2277)

 

[TBone]

Hard to say, that cart is known in some circles to be on the brighter side of neutral, and on hearing it, I made that assumption.

edit: Blue=LP Rip, Orange=CD

 

[amirm]

I asked because that sudden truncation at 20 Khz looked like man-made/in mastering.

 

[TBone]

Most early CD pressings show the same cliff/characteristics. IIRC, this CD is ~1986. Some require pre-emphasis. Another ~consistency is with certain brands, such as the consistently dynamic AM+ "Audiophile Quality" CD series.

IME, depending on system choices, some of these early and very dynamic CD transfers can sound a bit "saw-toothed" on top ... as perhaps, some may debate, they should.

 

[Werner]

Reality had nothing to do with it.

I had my epiphany at the age of 17 (*), reading a part of a series in a local magazine that attempted to analyse what all of this is about. That series could be summarised as "high fidelity is a giant misunderstanding".

(* Not really. It took me another 20 years or so to really understand it.)

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Two questions from the peanut gallery:

1) Anybody know of a resource those of us in the gallery can go to that would give a basic tutorial on how to read these charts?

2) I can't find any good action pics on Netflix. Is there a way to lift this entire thread and drop into some audiophile forums so I can watch the heads explode?

Tim

 

[TBone]

Hi Werner, welcome aboard.

 

[amirm]

Two questions from the peanut gallery:

1) Anybody know of a resource those of us in the gallery can go to that would give a basic tutorial on how to read these charts?

Tim, I plan to do a video on that very topic. Alas, got "hit" with gorgeous warm weather all of a sudden and taking care of the garden is taking priority .

 

[amirm]

I had my epiphany at the age of 17 (*), reading a part of a series in a local magazine that attempted to analyse what all of this is about. That series could be summarised as "high fidelity is a giant misunderstanding".

(* Not really. It took me another 20 years or so to really understand it.)

. Welcome to the forum Werner.

 

[thefsb]

Let me be a bit more clear. I actually want to incorporate the differences in mastering in the analysis, not just physical format to physical format.

Right now, in many instances I find LP to have an annoying signature and many distortions. I want to understand why others do not hear these and have such strong preference for LP. I hope to create some sample clips for us to listen to since I have these rips.

Different consequences of the loudness war, perhaps.

Some people's vinyl collection contain a lot of releases unaffected by the loudness war. I think that's the case with my collection. A recent loudness-enhanced digital remaster of the same original will sound different and some people prefer the less pumped-up master.

Conversely a lot of LPs produced in recent years are intended not for critical listening and I believe often not even for listening at all. They are instead fan merch, like a t-shirt or poster—a tangible object of pride connecting the consumer to the artists. They come with a download coupon code anyway and you can listen more conveniently on your streaming service. So labels often don't bother with the cost of producing a different master for vinyl and carelessly pack a loudness-enhanced digital master into an LP that can't properly cope. In this case the vinyl sounds worse with its "annoying signature and many distortions"?

So perhaps it's not that others cannot hear the problems that you do but that they don't hear them at all, because they aren't listening to those releases.