Question regarding technical parameters of LPs.

[watchnerd]

Something from Hi-Fi News—the sort of turntable that requires extraordinary arguments in favor of. While the reviewer does his level best to justify the beast, it obviously required more that the usual encomiums to produce the review:

"What I do not see are the air bearing, vacuum hold-down, complex suspension or myriad other features supplied by TechDAS for £29,998 (less arm). That's ten grand below the Obsidian, and it challenges the thought that worth can only be defined by the customer, and if he/she can afford a given item. It took effort on a par with quitting smoking to stifle my antipathy toward the Obsidian, based on perceived value. I had to will myself to abjure any need for placing it in a financial context."

Read more at https://www.hifinews.com/content/continuum-obsidianviper-turntablearm#JGH6AEHXBYVL23be.99

It looks cool, though.

 

[Robin L]

It looks cool, though.

If you've got the money, they've got the time.

 

[Frank Dernie]

And as there's always more wow and flutter on tap from the discs themselves, this underscores the fundamental stupidity of high-end, high-priced L.P. playback gear.

Indeed.
Whilst one can get a nice sound out of a record player on lots of discs the effort and expense needed make it a hardware hobby rather than a music lovers hobby IMO and even then pretty well all the discs are far from perfect either from a cutting limitation, eccentricity, warp or wear (or all) pov.
I enjoy doing a bit of a cla on mine every 5 years or so but would rather not need to any more often...

 

[Sal1950]

It looks cool, though.

Not as cool as this, stop by Walmart and get yourself a genuine Victrola.
I would have thought that name would be trademarked?
All this cool for only $42.99

 

[MattHooper]

Feel free to check out this review's lab results. They do not inspire confidence. While rumble appears to be above average, wow and flutter does not. Not to mention that absurd arm. And that new pressing of Sweet Baby James? Doubtlessly mastered via a digital intermaster. Absurd.

Right, good to see measurements.

BTW, I don't find an LP from a digital master absurd. Good sound is good sound, however it gets in to the grooves.

If I can say anything positive about the review it's simply that it did not contain my all-time most disliked phrase in reviews and audiophile-chat: "Sounded like music."

The combination of implied profundity with a complete lack of useful content renders that phrase vomit-inducing whenever I see it used.

 

[Robin L]

Right, good to see measurements.

BTW, I don't find an LP from a digital master absurd. Good sound is good sound, however it gets in to the grooves.

If I can say anything positive about the review it's simply that it did not contain my all-time most disliked phrase in reviews and audiophile-chat: "Sounded like music."

The combination of implied profundity with a complete lack of useful content renders that phrase vomit-inducing whenever I see it used.

The reason I find digital intermasters for LPs absurd is that the source will always be less distorted than the vinyl pressing. And I'm not going to buy into "euphonic distortion" as an excuse for making the media that much easier to damage or more likely to have pitch & noise issues. This is 2019, not 1969. And now there's access to high-bit sources, so the notion of superior sound via vinyl playback is easily disproven. I suspect the real reason for the vinyl revival is the effective death of the CD as a music carrier and the rise of streaming. If one wants a participation trophy for musical taste, LPs are the current signifier. That, and the cravings of those who already invested too much money in gear and discs. Too late to stop now.

 

[MattHooper]

The reason I find digital intermasters for LPs absurd is that the source will always be less distorted than the vinyl pressing. And I'm not going to buy into "euphonic distortion" as an excuse for making the media that much easier to damage or more likely to have pitch & noise issues. This is 2019, not 1969.

Oh, I get where you are coming from!

There is, from a certain approach, a way in which it is absurd.

If one takes the approach of "I'm in to vinyl because I think analog is superior sound to digital," then some absurdity arises, ESPECIALLY for expensive turntables like the one in the review. After all, what are all these over-built turntables supposed to be doing anyway? The selling point is virtually always that they have found ways of REDUCING DISTORTION (all the heavy platters, damping, precision in the tone arm, tracking, etc, all have that implicit or explicit goal of avoiding added distortion.

Well, if reducing distortion is the goal, which presumably is also about hearing the source with as little distortion as possible, then this makes little sense with LPs coming from a digital master. The whole process of transferring the digital source to vinyl, inherently adding distortion, and going through heroic efforts and expense to reduce that distortion in the turntable playback seems silly. Just skip all that distortion-adding nonsense and play the digital file!

Makes perfect sense, given that way of thinking.

The thing is, the reasons people play vinyl happen to be more wider-ranging than that way of thinking. E.g., all the things people like about the physical character of vinyl LPs and turntables. And it's completely legitimate for anyone to prefer a certain type of added distortion, if in fact they do.

In my case, as I've written before, I'm amazed how close vinyl playback can actually come to digital playback, given a good source/pressing.
But even so, there is always going to be some level of distortion picked up in the process, and I often enjoy it. So my goal in buying a "better" turntable that reduces distortion wasn't to reach the perfection of digital of course. Rather, it was to minimize the type of distortion that can make vinyl unpleasant for me, while retaining the sound/distortions that I find pleasant. My current set up does that almost perfectly for my tastes. Many LPs can sound simply astounding. I was playing a recently purchased album and the sound, evaluated on it's own, was almost ideal to my ears: rich, warm, punchy, super clean and clear, lively...it had every characteristic that makes me luxuriate in the sound as well as the musical performance. And the whole process of owning and playing the LP is more pleasurable than playing a CD or flicking through songs on my phone app. It just makes for a richer overall experience to me.

But...if you have the goal I indicated earlier, more narrowly defined as wanting to hear the original digital source as undistorted as possible, then you'd of course have a different reaction than I do.

 

[Sal1950]

The reason I find digital intermasters for LPs absurd is that the source will always be less distorted than the vinyl pressing. And I'm not going to buy into "euphonic distortion" as an excuse for making the media that much easier to damage or more likely to have pitch & noise issues. This is 2019, not 1969. And now there's access to high-bit sources, so the notion of superior sound via vinyl playback is easily disproven. I suspect the real reason for the vinyl revival is the effective death of the CD as a music carrier and the rise of streaming. If one wants a participation trophy for musical taste, LPs are the current signifier. That, and the cravings of those who already invested too much money in gear and discs. Too late to stop now.

What he said.

 

[Robin L]

Oh, I get where you are coming from!

There is, from a certain approach, a way in which it is absurd.

If one takes the approach of "I'm in to vinyl because I think analog is superior sound to digital," then some absurdity arises, ESPECIALLY for expensive turntables like the one in the review. After all, what are all these over-built turntables supposed to be doing anyway? The selling point is virtually always that they have found ways of REDUCING DISTORTION (all the heavy platters, damping, precision in the tone arm, tracking, etc, all have that implicit or explicit goal of avoiding added distortion.

Well, if reducing distortion is the goal, which presumably is also about hearing the source with as little distortion as possible, then this makes little sense with LPs coming from a digital master. The whole process of transferring the digital source to vinyl, inherently adding distortion, and going through heroic efforts and expense to reduce that distortion in the turntable playback seems silly. Just skip all that distortion-adding nonsense and play the digital file!

Makes perfect sense, given that way of thinking.

The thing is, the reasons people play vinyl happen to be more wider-ranging than that way of thinking. E.g., all the things people like about the physical character of vinyl LPs and turntables. And it's completely legitimate for anyone to prefer a certain type of added distortion, if in fact they do.

In my case, as I've written before, I'm amazed how close vinyl playback can actually come to digital playback, given a good source/pressing.
But even so, there is always going to be some level of distortion picked up in the process, and I often enjoy it. So my goal in buying a "better" turntable that reduces distortion wasn't to reach the perfection of digital of course. Rather, it was to minimize the type of distortion that can make vinyl unpleasant for me, while retaining the sound/distortions that I find pleasant. My current set up does that almost perfectly for my tastes. Many LPs can sound simply astounding. I was playing a recently purchased album and the sound, evaluated on it's own, was almost ideal to my ears: rich, warm, punchy, super clean and clear, lively...it had every characteristic that makes me luxuriate in the sound as well as the musical performance. And the whole process of owning and playing the LP is more pleasurable than playing a CD or flicking through songs on my phone app. It just makes for a richer overall experience to me.

But...if you have the goal I indicated earlier, more narrowly defined as wanting to hear the original digital source as undistorted as possible, then you'd of course have a different reaction than I do.

I had a very interesting experience this week. Went to a job interview at the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry. They have this amazing sonic space in the entrance of that building, a large conical section that goes up about four or five stories. There was a chamber choir singing in that space, with some of the richest reverberation I have ever auditioned. This includes a decade's worth of recording choirs in a wide variety of venues, all with different sonic characteristics. The sound in this room was unusually beautiful. I remembered some LPs having the sense of more fully developed reverberation than the CD equivalent. Listening with the Stax earspeakers I once had, I could hear the pre and post echo that was engraved into the vinyl. There's going to be more of that sense of reverberation on some LPs than the CDs made from the tape or digital source. There's going to be more of that reverberation on any analog source, in fact. The Eponymous Joan Armatrading LP is a good example.

While I can understand how a listening preference for the LP can arise from this situation, it's still distortion to me. An engineer can nail this sort of stuff down with digital recording and replay. But if it's turned into an LP, the mastering engineer has to punt and only hope he [or she] can do as well.

 

[MattHooper]

I I remembered some LPs having the sense of more fully developed reverberation than the CD equivalent. Listening with the Stax earspeakers I once had, I could hear the pre and post echo that was engraved into the vinyl. There's going to be more of that sense of reverberation on some LPs than the CDs made from the tape or digital source. There's going to be more of that reverberation on any analog source, in fact. The Eponymous Joan Armatrading LP is a good example.

Interesting. Although my own anecdotal experience seems to go sort of in the opposite direction.

I can't say I've ever detected the phenomenon you mention.

But when I have directly compared vinyl LPs with the digital versions that came from the same master, sometimes what I hear is less reverberation on the LP. The digital source seems a bit more fine in resolution, so I can hear the reverb trails and general reverb a bit better. Where the LP version seems a bit lower resolution, the reverb trails a bit truncated and less audible. The result is a somewhat "drier" sound in the LP. But the other result is that the LP therefore sounds a bit more "forward" and present and "in the listening room," which can itself be a pleasurable effect. I can appreciate either one in those instances.

 

[Robin L]

Interesting. Although my own anecdotal experience seems to go sort of in the opposite direction.

I can't say I've ever detected the phenomenon you mention.

But when I have directly compared vinyl LPs with the digital versions that came from the same master, sometimes what I hear is less reverberation on the LP. The digital source seems a bit more fine in resolution, so I can hear the reverb trails and general reverb a bit better. Where the LP version seems a bit lower resolution, the reverb trails a bit truncated and less audible. The result is a somewhat "drier" sound in the LP. But the other result is that the LP therefore sounds a bit more "forward" and present and "in the listening room," which can itself be a pleasurable effect. I can appreciate either one in those instances.

My first impression of Digitally sourced recordings, transferred to LPs [this was in the early 80's, just before CDs appeared], was a foreshortening of reverb tails on orchestral recordings. Had a Dual turntable, auto-return but not a changer, Grado cartridge, a NAD 3020, a pair of mini-monitors. Listened to a lot of classical LPs. The local Rhino Records retail outlet in Claremont [this was before they made and sold recordings on their label] and Poo-Bah's in Pasadena had a lot of Living Stereo/Presence, London Blueback/STS reissues of same for $2 a pop, most as minty as they would ever get. Those vintage LPs had more of a sense of the acoustic of the venue the music was recorded in than the Digitally sourced LPs from Columbia, EMI, other companies. The Telarc records seemed to have a finer sense of acoustic space, right from the start in the late 1970s. Regarding that fineness of detailing in Digital recordings you speak of, I really didn't hear that much improvement in Digital record/playback until around 2008, though I did hear a slow, incremental increase in low-level resolution starting when CDs with a 20 bit intermaster first appeared in the 1990s. My twenty-bit capable t.c.electronics M2000 [an effects box that I used for a DAC and as an ADC] that I got in the mid 1990s improved recovery of ambient information as well.

 

[Wombat]

Not as cool as this, stop by Walmart and get yourself a genuine Victrola.
I would have thought that name would be trademarked?
All this cool for only $42.99

View attachment 42349

Custom upgrade for Thomas:

 

[Sal1950]

Custom upgrade for Thomas:

View attachment 42373

Maybe Santa will bring him one for Christmas.
Depending on his Naughty/Nice status.

 

[watchnerd]

Not as cool as this, stop by Walmart and get yourself a genuine Victrola.
I would have thought that name would be trademarked?
All this cool for only $42.99

View attachment 42349

I'd pay $200 for that if it came in psychedelic fuck fur just to fuck with house guests by claiming it was an expensive art object.

 

[watchnerd]

My first impression of Digitally sourced recordings, transferred to LPs [this was in the early 80's, just before CDs appeared], was a foreshortening of reverb tails on orchestral recordings. Had a Dual turntable, auto-return but not a changer, Grado cartridge, a NAD 3020, a pair of mini-monitors. Listened to a lot of classical LPs. The local Rhino Records retail outlet in Claremont [this was before they made and sold recordings on their label] and Poo-Bah's in Pasadena had a lot of Living Stereo/Presence, London Blueback/STS reissues of same for $2 a pop, most as minty as they would ever get. Those vintage LPs had more of a sense of the acoustic of the venue the music was recorded in than the Digitally sourced LPs from Columbia, EMI, other companies. The Telarc records seemed to have a finer sense of acoustic space, right from the start in the late 1970s. Regarding that fineness of detailing in Digital recordings you speak of, I really didn't hear that much improvement in Digital record/playback until around 2008, though I did hear a slow, incremental increase in low-level resolution starting when CDs with a 20 bit intermaster first appeared in the 1990s. My twenty-bit capable t.c.electronics M2000 [an effects box that I used for a DAC and as an ADC] that I got in the mid 1990s improved recovery of ambient information as well.

I've experienced the same thing, but I can't figure out what in the evolution of digital audio would account for it.

So I suspect I may be imagining it.

 

[Sal1950]

I'd pay $200 for that if it came in psychedelic fuck

Your got me lost with that one, could you draw me a picture?

 

[watchnerd]

Your got me lost with that one, could you draw me a picture?

Whoopsie, "psychedelic fur".

A psychedelic fuck is what I think @Thomas savage offers if you rent one of his real dolls with a peyote salad side dish.

 

[Sal1950]

Whoopsie, "psychedelic fur".
A psychedelic fuck is what I think @Thomas savage offers if you rent one of his real dolls with a peyote salad side dish.

More along the lines of a Freudian Slip me thinks.

 

[watchnerd]

Oh, I get where you are coming from!

There is, from a certain approach, a way in which it is absurd.

If one takes the approach of "I'm in to vinyl because I think analog is superior sound to digital," then some absurdity arises, ESPECIALLY for expensive turntables like the one in the review. After all, what are all these over-built turntables supposed to be doing anyway? The selling point is virtually always that they have found ways of REDUCING DISTORTION (all the heavy platters, damping, precision in the tone arm, tracking, etc, all have that implicit or explicit goal of avoiding added distortion.

Well, if reducing distortion is the goal, which presumably is also about hearing the source with as little distortion as possible, then this makes little sense with LPs coming from a digital master. The whole process of transferring the digital source to vinyl, inherently adding distortion, and going through heroic efforts and expense to reduce that distortion in the turntable playback seems silly. Just skip all that distortion-adding nonsense and play the digital file!

Makes perfect sense, given that way of thinking.

The thing is, the reasons people play vinyl happen to be more wider-ranging than that way of thinking. E.g., all the things people like about the physical character of vinyl LPs and turntables. And it's completely legitimate for anyone to prefer a certain type of added distortion, if in fact they do.

In my case, as I've written before, I'm amazed how close vinyl playback can actually come to digital playback, given a good source/pressing.
But even so, there is always going to be some level of distortion picked up in the process, and I often enjoy it. So my goal in buying a "better" turntable that reduces distortion wasn't to reach the perfection of digital of course. Rather, it was to minimize the type of distortion that can make vinyl unpleasant for me, while retaining the sound/distortions that I find pleasant. My current set up does that almost perfectly for my tastes. Many LPs can sound simply astounding. I was playing a recently purchased album and the sound, evaluated on it's own, was almost ideal to my ears: rich, warm, punchy, super clean and clear, lively...it had every characteristic that makes me luxuriate in the sound as well as the musical performance. And the whole process of owning and playing the LP is more pleasurable than playing a CD or flicking through songs on my phone app. It just makes for a richer overall experience to me.

But...if you have the goal I indicated earlier, more narrowly defined as wanting to hear the original digital source as undistorted as possible, then you'd of course have a different reaction than I do.

One thing I like about vinyl is that I can change cartridges to play with the sound. It's like getting a different set of speakers but for a lot less money. I find it fun not because it's better, but because it's different.

I'm currently running a ridiculously fat, heavy (30 g), and high VTG (4 g) Ortofon SPU with elliptical stylus. It seems to mesh particularly well with vintage records, a little less so with modern repressings.

 

[Wombat]

I'd pay $200 for that if it came in psychedelic fuck fur just to fuck with house guests by claiming it was an expensive art object.

Put this on the platter:

Or this: