Pinnacle of vinyl playback

[svart-hvitt]

I thought this was supposed to be a science-based forum..?

I could suggest a scientific reason why vinyl might have certain audible qualities that people like: it gets acoustic feedback from the room, and cancels/reinforces it. I honestly can't think of anything else about it that is worth discussing here.

When we come to the audible qualities of vinyl, I have started thinking about channel separation, crosstalk. Vinyl playback has technologically poor channel separation; the cartridge cross talk is no more than 30 dB. Many phono preamplifiers have crosstalk figures around 60 dB. Despite these awful numbers, many people like the sound. Why is that?

Could it be that vinyl playback is more mono than digital playback? What do people prefer; sharp stereo or a stereo with weaker channel separation? I have seen little research in this area. But we do have anecdotes that even experienced mastering engineers prefer mono when you switch the mono button on and off on your console.

It's also true that modern playback gear often is mono. Is this a choice taken for us by profit maximizing companies (monoboxes are simpler and cheaper than stereo boxes). Or has the market told us that people are happy with mono because mono works?

Maybe vinyl's success can be partly explained by poor channel separation?

Remember, the technologically perfect frequency curve is a flat one, but people prefer a somewhat declining curve. So a technically perfect audio curve is not so perfect in real-life because audio is the interplay between machine and man. Maybe mono vs stereo is an overlooked factor in the equation that explains "nice sound"?

 

[Cosmik]

When we come to the audible qualities of vinyl, I have started thinking about channel separation, crosstalk. Vinyl playback has technologically poor channel separation; the cartridge cross talk is no more than 30 dB. Many phono preamplifiers have crosstalk figures around 60 dB. Despite these awful numbers, many people like the sound. Why is that?

Could it be that vinyl playback is more mono than digital playback? What do people prefer; sharp stereo or a stereo with weaker channel separation? I have seen little research in this area. But we do have anecdotes that even experienced mastering engineers prefer mono when you switch the mono button on and off on your console.

It's also true that modern playback gear often is mono. Is this a choice taken for us by profit maximizing companies (monoboxes are simpler and cheaper than stereo boxes). Or has the market told us that people are happy with mono because mono works?

Maybe vinyl's success can be partly explained by poor channel separation?

Remember, the technologically perfect frequency curve is a flat one, but people prefer a somewhat declining curve. So a technically perfect audio curve is not so perfect in real-life because audio is the interplay between machine and man. Maybe mono vs stereo is an overlooked factor in the equation that explains "nice sound"?

It's all about dimensions (or permutations). For a start, we don't know whether people actually prefer the sound, or just the whole package including the smell of the album sleeves. Or maybe they just like the idea of vinyl, or the types of people in that 'club'.

And then we don't know that stereo doesn't sound awful when played over the sorts of speakers that vinyl listeners gravitate towards on the basis of the aesthetics or their manufacturers' stated 'philosophies' and so on. In which case, mono or reduced separation may make it more tolerable to listen to. And so on. It could be a kind of symbiosis.

There's a thing that has only recently happened: systems have been produced that attempt to be truly neutral (active, DSP, sealed enclosures). Until that happened it was not possible to attempt to isolate the effects of stereo crosstalk, say, because of all the other non-neutral dimensions within the system. The advent of the K** Th*** and similar systems shows, perhaps, that no one until now has truly experienced the real sound of stereo.

 

[svart-hvitt]

It's all about dimensions (or permutations). For a start, we don't know whether people actually prefer the sound, or just the whole package including the smell of the album sleeves. Or maybe they just like the idea of vinyl, or the types of people in that 'club'.

And then we don't know that stereo doesn't sound awful when played over the sorts of speakers that vinyl listeners gravitate towards on the basis of the aesthetics or their manufacturers' stated 'philosophies' and so on. In which case, mono or reduced separation may make it more tolerable to listen to. And so on. It could be a kind of symbiosis.

There's a thing that has only recently happened: systems have been produced that attempt to be truly neutral (active, DSP, sealed enclosures). Until that happened it was not possible to attempt to isolate the effects of stereo crosstalk, say, because of all the other non-neutral dimensions within the system. The advent of the K** Th*** and similar systems shows, perhaps, that no one until now has truly experienced the real sound of stereo.

I think it was you who criticized Floyd Toole for using one speaker mono in speaker evaluation. It narrows down the equation, but you noted that this kind of evaluation doesn't reflect what people may think of the same speaker in a stereo setup. Now it seems like you want to do the same as Floyd; narrowing down the problem in order to make it more easily "solved". So what is it? Is the single factor model better or do we want to venture into more complex problems, including psychoacoustic ones?

One area of research in recent years is listening fatigue. According to some vinylists they experience less fatigue when listening to vinyl. Maybe they are making their own reality, but what if there is something to it? Because vinyl can be digitized, it's obvious that plastic is not a part of the equation, but maybe some of the flaws in the vinyl playback chain are?

I think such questions are fascinating even if the problems are more complex than evaluating single speakers in mono playback.

In my own listening room I use a couple of Genelec 8351a. The coaxial design in combination with more complex DSP than, say K3, ensure joyful listening true to the source material - both on and off axis. Both digital streaming and digitized vinyl sound great, even though the differences are obvious. Nothing beats really good digital like 2L releases, but digitized vinyl can sound pretty good as well.

 

[Thomas savage]

A advantage vinyl has is the recordings seem to be made to be played on a hifi system rather than a lot of digital that seems to be mastered with ear buds in mind ( older digital maybe FM radio) ..

Case in point, the dynamic range of the vinyl often seems to be greater than the CD at least.. that seems bonkers to me.

 

[svart-hvitt]

A advantage vinyl has is the recordings seem to be made to be played on a hifi system rather than a lot of digital that seems to be mastered with ear buds in mind..

Case in point, the dynamic range of the vinyl often seems to be greater than the CD at least.. that seems bonkers to me.

Thomas, I agree that true vinyl mastering can give vinyl a touch. But the higher DR thing could be attributable to what Archimago finds here:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/08/musings-increasing-dynamic-range-of.html?m=1

 

[Thomas savage]

Thomas, I agree that true vinyl mastering can give vinyl a touch. But the higher DR thing could be attributable to what Archimago finds here:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/08/musings-increasing-dynamic-range-of.html?m=1

For me the proof in the pudding is the ability to capture the analog outs of the best vinyl rig and digitise it.. when it's replayed we can really see the limits of digital or the lack of them in reality.

I have a friend with miles of vinyl, it's loads more fun hunting in a record store for vinyl records than buying a CD or a download and you can't beat the tactile sensations of getting a record out either , It's a labour of love .

I'd love to compare a reasonably priced technics TT with my friends linn sondek..

 

[Thomas savage]

I actually buy my friend vinyl, just because I like buying records in the record shop

 

[Purité Audio]

You can visit again when you return the scratched/warped /damaged copy you just bought.
Keith

 

[svart-hvitt]

You can visit again when you return the scratched/warped /damaged copy you just bought.
Keith

You're quite right: It's the hassle and inconvenience that draws you to vinyl, isn't it.

 

[Purité Audio]

It was the hassle and inconvenience that drew me away from vinyl.
Keith

 

[svart-hvitt]

It was the hassle and inconvenience that drew me away from vinyl.
Keith

It was a joke

 

[Purité Audio]

I know, I just meant that it is hard enough to find a decent copy , then you have the 'ritual' of playing the damn thing.
Keith

 

[Thomas savage]

I know, I just meant that it is hard enough to find a decent copy , then you have the 'ritual' of playing the damn thing.
Keith

Don't forget cleaning it on the special record cleaning machine

My friend like to open it so you keep the cellophane outer cover on, he just puts a slit in it...

I found that out when I was opening some of his new ones , oops

 

[Wayne]

@ Cosmik
I like your arguments and where you are going, but you lost me on a couple items. Would you be kind enough to clarify two statements you made?

systems have been produced that attempt to be truly neutral

What do you mean by neutral (ie linear response?) and is this unique to vinyl?

The advent of the K** Th*** and similar systems shows, perhaps, that no one until now has truly experienced the real sound of stereo.

I have followed some of the threads on "K** Th***" and looked at the specs and see that they are probably very good speakers, but to say that have "real sound of stereo" confuses me. Of course I confuse easily...

Thanks in advance

 

[watchnerd]

have "real sound of stereo" confuses me.

When I've recorded both symphonies and jazz I've used a combination of stereo cardioids mounted in the farfield, plus nearfield spot mics on soloists, percussion, etc, for a total of 3-7 tracks, which then get mixed down to 2 channel stereo at whatever ratio I find artistically pleasing.

What's the "real sound" of stereo in that situation?

 

[watchnerd]

Don't forget cleaning it on the special record cleaning machine

Everytime I look at the cost of a record cleaning machine, and weigh against how seldomly I buy dirty 2nd hand vinyl that needs cleaning, the math just never seems to work out.

 

[Cosmik]

@ Cosmik
I like your arguments and where you are going, but you lost me on a couple items. Would you be kind enough to clarify two statements you made?

What do you mean by neutral (ie linear response?) and is this unique to vinyl?

Ah, no. I meant that only non-vinyl systems can get anywhere near neutral. And the relatively recent active DSP systems haven't been created through scientific experiments or feedback from listening tests: they have simply been built to be objectively neutral using engineering that is now pretty simple to do - the new bass dispersion control being the icing on the cake.

I have followed some of the threads on "K** Th***" and looked at the specs and see that they are probably very good speakers, but to say that have "real sound of stereo" confuses me.

I just mean that until a neutral(-ish) system was built, no one actually knew what stereo from speakers could sound like. Until then, the phase and timing was all messed up amongst all the other problems of passive speakers, never mind the quirks of vinyl. No one could draw any conclusion regarding the importance of phase, say, because they had never been able to control it.

I am sure that stereo isn't theoretically perfect, but the new systems are showing that when 'cleaned up' it gives "a holographic, dynamic and crystal clear window to the music." (just the first quote I pulled off the top of the list in Google).

 

[amirm]

Hmm. This is beginning to resemble any old audio forum. Could someone explain scientifically why vinyl is worth listening to?

The mastering is different and often better than what is put on CD. I know for my tape sampler for example, I have no digital versions that are mastered remotely ask good. So should what is on LP be what is on my tape, then clearly that would be a reason to listen to LP.

I don't like the pops and clicks so it is not for me but I can't dey the mastering differences.

 

[Wayne]

The mastering is different and often better than what is put on CD.

I can understand that the mastering may be different for various reasons, but do you have a working theory as to why they would be better?

Just a thought, possibly the Dynamic Range (DR) may be better due to the "loudness wars."

 

[Cosmik]

I can understand that the mastering may be different for various reasons, but do you have a working theory as to why they would be better?

Just a thought, possibly the Dynamic Range (DR) may be better due to the "loudness wars."

No, Amir's right about the mastering, but it isn't necessarily a "scientific" reason.

Check out this video at about 3.00:

The industry has clearly got the whole thing completely the wrong way round. They think that the medium with huge dynamic range requires some "gentle limiting" for no reason other than to compete with all the other idiots. This is the "loudness wars" straight from the horse's mouth.