Technics SL 1210GR2 Turntable

[EJ3]

If you think you like the sound of a vinyl record better, then listen to a vinyl record. I prefer the sound of a CD. I consider vinyl to be harmful to the quality of sound.

I guess that I am a multi-listener (please note that for "critical listening", I have placed CD first, Vinyl second, cassette is tied with vinyl and the others are not at all for "critical listening" of music but more or less in order of general preference):
I listen to CD's (IF done right=bliss), vinyl (IF done right, maybe not bliss but CAN be close), cassette ([IF I recorded the music, it it COULD POSSIBLY SOMETIMES be better than vinyl], other recordings of myself on the air when I worked at radio stations, recordings that I made of the local community band, a sub-set of the local symphony, my families events, etc), FM (through DXing to get actual LOCAL stations far away just because I can), Reel to Reel (like my audio of the conversations between Houston & the guys doing the Moon Landing [I do not have any music reels, just historical events]),
I also have a SONY RCD-W500RCD that I can use to record to CD's (but, just like blank cassettes, the blank, archival recording media is getting hard to find).

 

[undeakyetonde]

You find it hard to believe because you're not involved in music production or delivery. I own a TC Electronic Clarity M Stereo, for instance, which is made specifically to provide LUFS (and other) metering so mixing and mastering engineers can tailor releases for the various platforms. Why go to the trouble? Because the platforms have loudness guidelines and exceeding them has commercial consequences. The same is true of not making a mix loud enough, which creates the quiet-track-on-the-jukebox problem.

I was dealing with these issues in 1999-2003 when I was director of R&D for an online+meatspace media venture, and I'm also a a recording artist (who needs to record more) and live sound engineer. But you do you.

So maybe you could be more technical?

I'm aware that streaming service guidelines are -14-16 LUFS-to-peak (depending on the service). It simply means if your audio is higher than -14-16 LUFS it will get attenuated by necessary amount of dB during playbackck. I am also perfectly aware that people who like their music at -6 LUFS still master it that way. I'm also sceptical about real would recordings that go lower than -18-22 LUFS after post-processing, except classical or field recording.

Now, what exactly would be a reason to do different mastering for different streaming services? For streaming and CD? For streaming and vinyl? How exactly do you compare "dynamic range" of different recordings? What are the real-world situations where same newly recorded music would end up with vastly different dynamic range on different media? Where do streaming platforms guidelines come in, how exactly do they influence decisions?

All releases of the same album that I cared to compare have been exactly the same between different streaming services, and CD. Sometimes tidal or qobuz gets a "hi-fi" 96 kHz 24 bit version but it is still the same mastering. Needledrops of recently produced records, when compensated for cartridge and phono stage frequency responses, sounded almost identical to their digital releases, especially if you give some slack to imperfect compensation.

Unfortunately, until you are kind to share some technical specifics, your owned gear and regalia are not relevant. While experience certainly means something, we've all met 'professionals' that believe (and do) useless and wrong things, in any field.

 

[J.M. Noble]

Unfortunately, until you are kind to share some technical specifics, your owned gear and regalia are not relevant. While experience certainly means something, we've all met 'professionals' that believe (and do) useless and wrong things, in any field.

This stuff is common knowledge in audio production. Do your own homework.

There are differences of opinion as in any profession, but it's not hard to find mastering engineers who provide separate streaming and CD masters as a matter of course--though CD is becoming a relic and may in fact end up getting the streaming treatment if someone is saving money. I've had this discussion with more than one, including in person. As for different master for each platform: look up "Apple Digital Masters" for one workflow, to say nothing of Atmos and other mix/master chains, and then look into the equivalents for Spotify etc.

You are moving the goalposts when saying "... vastly different dynamic range ...". I said they are different (digital vs. vinyl)--which they are because of physics--not that one is a mouse and the other an elephant. If you don't know how to measure such things, then you have a fun new adventure ahead of you.

 

[EJ3]

This stuff is common knowledge in audio production. Do your own homework.

There are differences of opinion as in any profession, but it's not hard to find mastering engineers who provide separate streaming and CD masters as a matter of course--though CD is becoming a relic and may in fact end up getting the streaming treatment if someone is saving money. I've had this discussion with more than one, including in person. As for different master for each platform: look up "Apple Digital Masters" for one workflow, to say nothing of Atmos and other mix/master chains, and then look into the equivalents for Spotify etc.

You are moving the goalposts when saying "... vastly different dynamic range ...". I said they are different (digital vs. vinyl)--which they are because of physics--not that one is a mouse and the other an elephant. If you don't know how to measure such things, then you have a fun new adventure ahead of you.

And an elephant is a mouse designed by the government (most any government) to meet the standards required.

 

[undeakyetonde]

You are moving the goalposts when saying "... vastly different dynamic range ...". I said they are different (digital vs. vinyl)--which they are because of physics--not that one is a mouse and the other an elephant. If you don't know how to measure such things, then you have a fun new adventure ahead of you.

In any good faith discussion 'different' means 'different enough to matter'. If you can't tell me what do you exactly mean by dynamic range then this discussion is futile. People call different things dynamic range - snr, (rms - sample peak) difference and other variants of crest factor, DR value from the DR meter, etc, etc, up to some vague audiophile 'dynamics, maaan'.

Your condescending tone is inappropriate. "Common knowledge" and "do your homework" is a jerk way to shut down conversation.

I understand if you don't want to spend the time explaining things - we're free people. At the same time, if you decide to participate in discussion and actually know something, it wouldn't hurt to write a sentence or two illuminating at least something of technical value. 'No, I'm in this field, this isn't true but I won't tell you what is true, it's common knowledge, do your homework' is a lousy contribution.

 

[J.M. Noble]

In any good faith discussion 'different' means 'different enough to matter'. If you can't tell me what do you exactly mean by dynamic range then this discussion is futile. People call different things dynamic range - snr, (rms - sample peak) difference and other variants of crest factor, DR value from the DR meter, etc, etc, up to some vague audiophile 'dynamics, maaan'.

Your condescending tone is inappropriate. "Common knowledge" and "do your homework" is a jerk way to shut down conversation.

I understand if you don't want to spend the time explaining things - we're free people. At the same time, if you decide to participate in discussion and actually know something, it wouldn't hurt to write a sentence or two illuminating at least something of technical value. 'No, I'm in this field, this isn't true but I won't tell you what is true, it's common knowledge, do your homework' is a lousy contribution.

I responded rather patiently to this and similarly expressed sentiments:

While experience certainly means something, we've all met 'professionals' that believe (and do) useless and wrong things, in any field.

If my experience is useless and wrong, feel free to go do your own homework. You could start with some of the pointers I helpfully provided you with. There's a goldmine out there, right at your fingertips.

What I'm trying to tell you in a polite way is that from what I can see you are not equipped to understand the discussion, and it's not my or anyone else's job to bring that level of knowledge to you for free. Have a great day!

 

[Robin L]

Why would you record an mp3 at 128kbps to begin with? You still strapped for storage space?

To share online via an E-Mail. I've done it. If the material recorded is low fidelity to begin with there's no need to use up more bandwidth.

 

[Robin L]

You're leaving out the human factor.

Digital allows things like the "loudness wars" to happen, which the physics of vinyl playback won't accommodate. I have owned some really harsh sounding CDs that sound OK or better than OK on analog formats. Vinyl keeps mastering engineers honest. I suppose you need to spend some time around the sausage factory of music production to appreciate why chasing after "fidelity" in popular music is nonsense.

If we're limiting ourselves to direct-to-disc/file stereo recordings of classical or jazz groups with no use of compression etc., then sure: hi-res digital is the non plus ultra.

And analog mastering allows things that include extreme compression and reduction of content at the frequency extremes. Also, reduction of channel separation. This one can be argued in either direction and to the same extent. Bottom line - it really boils down to operator error, or decisions that result in diminished sound quality.

 

[mike70]

And analog mastering allows things that include extreme compression and reduction of content at the frequency extremes. Also, reduction of channel separation. This one can be argued in either direction and to the same extent. Bottom line - it really boils down to operator error, or decisions that result in diminished sound quality.

People doesn't use analog in portable devices (phones, smart speakers, etc.)
That means, compression is applied to have higher volume levels, impossible stuff for vinyl mastering.

I promised I won't post anymore ... arrghh .. lol.
Done. Period

 

[Robin L]

People doesn't use analog in portable devices (phones, smart speakers, etc.)
That means, compression is applied to have higher volume levels, impossible stuff for vinyl mastering.

I promised I won't post anymore ... arrghh .. lol.
Done. Period

That was done all the time for top 40 recordings in the 1960s. Probably the most egregious example is "A Quarter to Three", Gary 'U.S. Bonds:

 

[mike70]

That was done all the time for top 40 recordings in the 1960s. Probably the most egregious example is "A Quarter to Three", Gary 'U.S. Bonds:

Compressing exists forever, I worked in broadcasting in the 80s and know it well.

But i don't understand what you try to say ... it's simply an historical aspect or are you saying that compressing in the analog days was at the same levels we have today in digital?

In that last case is plain wrong. With digital mastering you can compress and add gain orders of magnitude higher without distortion.

 

[Robin L]

Compressing exists forever, I worked in broadcasting in the 80s and know it well.

But i don't understand what you try to say ... it's simply an historical aspect or are you saying that compressing in the analog days was at the same levels we have today in digital?

In that last case is plain wrong. With digital mastering you can compress and add gain orders of magnitude higher without distortion.

Yes, a lot of popular music of the 1960s had compression as great as is happening now because they didn't care about the distortion, as the example I posted shows. Not as great in the 1970s, or 1980s or 1990s. Brickwalling started in the 2000s, but the 1960s had gobs of compression for top 40 tunes.

 

[markstein]

First, damping provided by the silicone gunk will vary, depending upon the ambient temperature. The oil fits in an open trough and its viscosity will change, depending.

To be fair, silicone oil has comparable small viscosity change with temperature.

Second, there is no real indication of how much oil you should put in the trough, and how to calibrate the amount for a specific damping factor you might want. The instructions just advise to fill it about half-way, not too much and not too little. So the end-user is faced with a Goldilocks dilemma.

You can measure the effect with different filling level and decide what you like most. I used maximum filling level (around half full, using the entire provided silicone oil) as this had the greatest effect on tonearm resonance (about 3dB attenuation of resonance peak and even more damping of sidebands)

Third, the silicone may lose elasticity over time due to evaporation, and/or contamination. That is, the gunk will become thicker and the arm will lose its ability to pivot in a worse case.

Can you quote a source confirming that silicone oil evaporates under ambient temperature and that viscosity changes?

Fourth, there is no way to defeat the device in order to make a resonance comparison between IN or OUT of the system. If I am not mistaken, some devices were hinged (I think the old SME and Micro paddles) and could easily be lifted out of the oil. You can't do that with the KAB. Once installed it stays put.

You can remove the paddle by loosening one screw. Matter of seconds.

Fifth, it is relatively easy to install, but a mess to remove, because silicone gunk will spill all over the arm base. Not easy to clean up.

Not true. Just loosen two screws and gently remove the paddle and the tank. No silicone oil will be spilled anywhere.

How do I know? I have one in a drawer somewhere.

Okay, if you did not manage to set up the KAB damper, I do not want to imagine how you install and adjust a cartridge...

I am in no way associated to KAB, just had to reply as I am using this thing myself and needed to somehow correct your horror story above...

 

[Timmy]

Alright … Did fresh measurings with my Sony PS-X60:

• App »PRM Speed and Wow«, version 1.6.8 tells me 33,36 rpm = 0,08% error

• App »Turntable Speed«, version 2.0.0 tells me 33,41 rpm = 0,24% error

What’s the use in going on with those smartphone apps if one of them gives back a threefold error result compared to another?

 

[morillon]

Alright … Did fresh measurings with my Sony PS-X60:

• App »PRM Speed and Wow«, version 1.6.8 tells me 33,36 rpm = 0,08% error

• App »Turntable Speed«, version 2.0.0 tells me 33,41 rpm = 0,24% error

What’s the use in going on with those smartphone apps if one of them gives back a threefold error result compared to another?

if after uninstalling and reinstalling the app (was necessary for me) it is still not relevant... you can use the manual calibration that it offers... in the end it is the measurements of wow flutter that are of interest on these apps...
:that's already something"...if a rather perinating one ;-)
practical and free.. after check....

 

[Timmy]

you can use the manual calibration that it offers

It makes no sense to me to let the app change its measuring results by a user-specified value.

See screenshots made from the two apps. Even the »graphs« appear to be different.

 

[morillon]

have you uninstalled and reinstalled the app??? there is a bug if it is just updated...
you will notice that due to their calculation methods, if the avg speed values are not too far away, the w&f values remain rather relevant... the interest of these apps which require "nothing"...
(personally even the speed is ok.. for me, it is the approach which corresponds the most to my use)
you can use a strobo, see at 300hz... but you won't have wf ;-)



ps 50.00hz controled, only precaution .. (old (90s)belt turntable with ac motor not controled, not cc, not dd)

 

[Timmy]

have you uninstalled and reinstalled the app???

I did.

Looking at the blue graph – that seems to show how the smartphone has trouble with turning around so much The peaks seem to be about 1.8 sec apart, which is near the time period for a single rotation ...

 

[morillon]

that s classic...


the wf value given by the app which seems correct can help you get an idea of the efforts on the electronic and mechanical side to be made on this old lady... 45 years old..

 

[Count Arthur]

Blah, blah, speed stability, blah, blah, wow and flutter, blah, blah, eccentric platter!

What are you worried about, it looks great, especially in black:

Surely, that's the main (only?) reason to buy a turntable in the era of digital audio.