The Courteous Vinyl Playback Discussion

[MatrixS2000]

theory and practice are only equals in theory.

Yup….what is always seems to be overlooked is that the theory = format and the format is merely a container that describes the bounds that it can contain. Mastering = practice which will ultimately define what is actually heard. You don’t listen to a container, you listen to it’s content. So pointing to the container's capabilities is meaningless when the content never comes close to utilizing it.

Indeed, no need for CDs to have the same compression as files for streaming.

Agreed - Here is an example of a CD and its vinyl counterpart having shared the same mastering:

Van Halen - 5150 - Good Enough.

The CD dynamics:

Here are the dynamics for the vinyl:

And if we look at the loudness profiles of both, CD first:

They are nearly identical, with the small differences easily attributed to the vinyl cutting process and the CD holding the slight edge in better dynamics. If only this were true for more modern digital releases. I have many examples where the above is not the case and the poor digital versions are limited to near musical death.

Up until the mid 1990s the LP version would often be more dynamically squashed than the CD release due to format limitation, the LP being preferred by some for that exact reason, it sounds to them 'more dynamic' even though it has considerably less dynamic range it has more 'punch' at lower volume levels.

This is why we measure, everyone here should know no-one’s ears a fine measuring devices. BTW, that punch at lower volume you describe above is due to higher dynamics as the transients are intact on the vinyl whereas the digital version has been peak limited. That punch being in the vinyl but not in the digital is a hint that peak limiting occurred. The best way to do level matched comparisons is to bring the level of the digital release down to the vinyl vs bring the vinyl up to the digital. Doing the former will bring out the lack of dynamics in the digital release. For the example I posted above, which were both released in 1986 (I own both), that punch you attribute to the vinyl is not there. If anything the vinyl is missing that punch and sounds thin compared to its digital counterpart, but as the traces above show, they are virtually identical from a dynamics and loudness perspective.

 

[mike70]

But aren't people posting in ASR about how all the fancy stylus profiles and even better cantilever materials were available back then?

did you carefully read my post?

boron cantilevers existed but at stratospheric prices, and shibata styuses the same.
the namiki / microline stylus was created in the 80s (the most "modern"), but also at high prices.

now you have the AT vm95ml microline at 150 usd or the new AT 750 with microline / boron cantilever at 350 USD. You DON'T have that in 70s / 80s.

 

[Newman]

Well, I am no expert on the prices of the cheapest carts with ML or boron back then. But your claim that "today's vinyl isn't your grandpa's vinyl" seems a bit of a stretch if the only thing different is the price.

cheers

 

[EJ3]

Actually it didn't. Vinyl defenders took it over and got hostile towards anyone who tried to discuss pros and cons with a balanced perspective. People who saw both sides were asked to leave, asked why they were visiting the thread if they had negatives to say about vinyl, reported at the least excuse as if vinyl lovers were being offended by association when vinyl is criticised, etc. Very unfriendly place for open discussion about vinyl. I may be wrong but in the end I think the mods also started to think of it as a 'safe space' vinyl love thread. That's why this thread withered on the vine, even though it was originally started part way through that vinyl thread (see post dated one day before this thread was started) specifically in order to make a safe space for vinyl lovers to escape the cauldron of open discussion of vinyl with all its flaws. Why would vinyl lovers come here if they had 'converted' the open discussion thread into a love thread?


Correct. That's the whole point of this thread.

How about this one? @RickS? Or we could open a new one with a clear title and purpose that it is about balanced discussion ("ups and downs" as you put it), and manage it properly.

The whole point of this thread is so that we can discuss vinyl and it's developments that may or may not make it better without being distracted by others things that are unrelated to vinyl, shellac & whatever else that we want to know about involving the reproduction advances and how to use them in the turntable format.
Those of us that do other formats (either solely or in addition to this one) can go to those threads to find out more about them.
I would like to see this done on Reel to Reel, cassette tape, DAT, CD recorders, DATs, Laser disc & all other formats.
A thread for only that format.
That way, the "tribal knowledge" knowledge of each format can be tested by those that use the format and can be distilled by users of that format testing to what actually works best for that format. Thus creating a much better "tribal knowledge" base.

 

[RickS]

The whole point of this thread is so that we can discuss vinyl and it's developments that may or may not make it better without being distracted by others things that are unrelated to vinyl, shellac & whatever else that we want to know about involving the reproduction advances and how to use them in the turntable format.
Those of us that do other formats (either solely or in addition to this one) can go to those threads to find out more about them.
I would like to see this done on Reel to Reel, cassette tape, DAT, CD recorders, DATs, Laser disc & all other formats.
A thread for only that format.
That way, the "tribal knowledge" knowledge of each format can be tested by those that use the format and can be distilled by users of that format testing to what actually works best for that format. Thus creating a much better "tribal knowledge" base.

I considered a suggesting to Amir that we could use a legacy equipment topic area too. That might help with bracket the discussion to keep it within the limits of the technology. Am hoping that between the OP here and I, we can better temper some of the extremes that happened in other threads. Notably, the "renaissance" thread was allowed to be trolled to the extent that it would have been a lot of work to restore it. The defense of that thread seems to have given it some sacred aspect to some members, but the reality is that it was like walking through a battle zone before the mines had been cleared.

For both the OP and members, please report inappropriate behavior BEFORE it gets messy. I have stated the extension of an added safety shield for vinyl advocates in this thread. However, it is still ASR and objectivity should still be honored. Most members understand this. Please enjoy!

 

[EJ3]

Properly cleaning the records transformed my experience with vinyl ... absolutely.
And ... we never had access to high quality stylus cuts at budget prices like today (never).

These 2 facts elevate vinyl reproduction over what we know about it in 70s / 80s ... today vinyl isn't your granpa vinyl.

We had audio clubs back then that the club bought the record cleaning machine & then for a minimum fee (to replace supplies) the members could clean their records.
What happened to Audio clubs?
I was out of the country for 17 years. But many were associated with audio stores, electronics stores & broadcasting stations and did things for charities like raffles & other stuff.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

It isn't the format that preserves the dynamics it is the released recordings. LPs are capable of less dynamics that 16-bit digital and early CDs were great but now that 99% of people listen to streamed digital files in noisy places digital music tends to be very compressed even though it doesn't need to be, so you can hear the quiet bits in a car/on ear buds, and LPs are only compressed as much as they need to be for the format since the distributors know LPs will be listened to at home. That is the irony I referred to.
The technical limit of the formats is not what dominates SQ any more it is the listening environment(s) anticipated by the music distributors...

Excellent summary.

 

[mike70]

Well, I am no expert on the prices of the cheapest carts with ML or boron back then. But your claim that "today's vinyl isn't your grandpa's vinyl" seems a bit of a stretch if the only thing different is the price.

cheers

the only thing? if you think you can minimize the fact that 40 years ago a standard Joe only can use standard elliptical cuts vs now you can have a hell of a cartridge under 200 USD ... maybe your grandpa was rich, and it's ok, but, we need to see the world outside your window. I only can dream with that kind of cartridge in the 80s.

And that's a point that improves my experience with vinyl, a lot. The details and high frequency response that i have with a microline stylus is much better now, and i expressed that in my post. That's all.

 

[MattHooper]

I’d really like to see some good measurements of the DS Audio optical cartridge and phono stage. It’s got a fair amount of hype. My friend uses that in his system. It’s been a while since I heard it, but I remembered that it seemed particularly quiet in terms of background noise, which is something many other people have remarked on.

The only thing I’ve been able to find in terms of reference to measurements is Fremer mentioning that early versions some years ago measured and sounded pushed in the bass and also with a high frequency peak.

Supposedly, that has been ameliorated in newer versions. Though with one of the optical stages at my friends, there seemed to be a distinct frequency peak. (the lesser with other versions of the optical phono stage).

 

[rdenney]

So, you guys know that my turntable is a Thorens TD-166II with the stock TP-11 tone arm and an Audio-Technica AT440MLa cartridge. I have restored the turntable to operate as well as possible, including replacing the plastic slip-clutch pulley with an aftermarket pulley made from aluminum, and, just for the fun of it, obtaining a preowned external frequency-agile AC power supply so that I could run the belt on the large pulley and control speed externally.

Other than having to replace the belt once a year, it's working reliably and it looks good to the wife.

So, to the subject of this post: A friend of mine is sending me his Linn Axis turntable, which he bought new in maybe 1986 after both of us received a demo. It has a Basik tone arm and I don't know what cartridge. (EDIT: The cartridge is a K9.) (He's also sending me the turntable he had before he bought the Linn.) The Linn is not working at the moment, so I'll have to repair it if possible. Assuming I am able to do that, what say you guys? Is this an improvement over the Thorens (I doubt it would be audible, so that's not the answer I'm looking for)? Mor reliable than always wondering if the belt has gone bad? Reasonable resistance to mechanical vibration and acoustic feedback? Tonearm mass consistent with high-compliance catridges?

Preamp will be the Holman I recently renovated which has considerable flexibility vis a vis loading capacitance and impedance.

Rick "just beginning to look into it" Denney

 

[Bland_username42069]

I’d really like to see some good measurements of the DS Audio optical cartridge and phono stage. It’s got a fair amount of hype. My friend uses that in his system. It’s been a while since I heard it, but I remembered that it seemed particularly quiet in terms of background noise, which is something many other people have remarked on.

The only thing I’ve been able to find in terms of reference to measurements is Fremer mentioning that early versions some years ago measured and sounded pushed in the bass and also with a high frequency peak.

Supposedly, that has been ameliorated in newer versions. Though with one of the optical stages at my friends, there seemed to be a distinct frequency peak. (the lesser with other versions of the optical phono stage).

This is Paul Miller’s tests of it

DS Audio DS-E3 photo-electric pick-up Lab Report

In practice, while DS Audio’s ‘third generation’ mechanism brings the DS-E3 some of the benefits over the DS-E1 [HFN May ’19] we saw in the Master 3 [HFN Jan ’24], other features of its performance are inescapably linked to the retention of a basic crimped alloy cantilever and elliptical stylus...

www.hifinews.com

It looks a bit of a mess to me. Very high output which is good but everything else looks unimpressive to me.

It’s an interesting idea but it just seems a wonky mess from those measurements and a huge money pit.

 

[MattHooper]

This is Paul Miller’s tests of it

DS Audio DS-E3 photo-electric pick-up Lab Report

In practice, while DS Audio’s ‘third generation’ mechanism brings the DS-E3 some of the benefits over the DS-E1 [HFN May ’19] we saw in the Master 3 [HFN Jan ’24], other features of its performance are inescapably linked to the retention of a basic crimped alloy cantilever and elliptical stylus...

www.hifinews.com

It looks a bit of a mess to me. Very high output which is good but everything else looks unimpressive to me.

It’s an interesting idea but it just seems a wonky mess from those measurements and a huge money pit.

Thanks. I just realized I’ve seen that before and I was trying to remember where I had seen it.

I recognize that high frequency peak.

I’d heard the optical cartridge set up a few times and it sounded quite nice in many ways.

But one time it was pretty nasty.
My friend had 3 different phono stages for that DS Audio cartridge (designed for that cartridge). One of them he mentioned to me, seemed to have something of a “ smile” frequency response, and he was using that phono stage one time when I was over at the same time as he was reviewing some loudspeakers that also had a high frequency peak. The cartridge phono stage and speaker response together for me made vinyl playback on that system almost intolerable.

 

[Bland_username42069]

Thanks. I just realized I’ve seen that before and I was trying to remember where I had seen it.

I recognize that high frequency peak.

I’d heard the optical cartridge set up a few times and it sounded quite nice in many ways.

But one time it was pretty nasty.
My friend had 3 different phono stages for that DS Audio cartridge (designed for that cartridge). One of them he mentioned to me, seemed to have something of a “ smile” frequency response, and he was using that phono stage one time when I was over at the same time as he was reviewing some loudspeakers that also had a high frequency peak. The cartridge phono stage and speaker response together for me made vinyl playback on that system almost intolerable.

I don’t understand why it has two different bass equalisations for the RIAA on the phono stage. I couldn’t make sense of their explanation at the time.

It’s an interesting idea for sure but from what I’ve read I’m not convinced they have the design nailed down yet. Id love to hear one though.

I wish someone would rip some music with a DS and a MM / MC to compare

 

[Soniclife]

So, you guys know that my turntable is a Thorens TD-166II with the stock TP-11 tone arm and an Audio-Technica AT440MLa cartridge. I have restored the turntable to operate as well as possible, including replacing the plastic slip-clutch pulley with an aftermarket pulley made from aluminum, and, just for the fun of it, obtaining a preowned external frequency-agile AC power supply so that I could run the belt on the large pulley and control speed externally.

Other than having to replace the belt once a year, it's working reliably and it looks good to the wife.

So, to the subject of this post: A friend of mine is sending me his Linn Axis turntable, which he bought new in maybe 1986 after both of us received a demo. It has a Basik tone arm and I don't know what cartridge. (EDIT: The cartridge is a K9.) (He's also sending me the turntable he had before he bought the Linn.) The Linn is not working at the moment, so I'll have to repair it if possible. Assuming I am able to do that, what say you guys? Is this an improvement over the Thorens (I doubt it would be audible, so that's not the answer I'm looking for)? Mor reliable than always wondering if the belt has gone bad? Reasonable resistance to mechanical vibration and acoustic feedback? Tonearm mass consistent with high-compliance catridges?

Preamp will be the Holman I recently renovated which has considerable flexibility vis a vis loading capacitance and impedance.

Rick "just beginning to look into it" Denney

FWIW I had an axis, in about 91, never liked it, there was something dead about the sound, but it did have a nice speed change.

 

[Newman]

And that's a point that improves my experience with vinyl, a lot. The details and high frequency response that i have with a microline stylus is much better now, and i expressed that in my post. That's all.

To the general readership of this thread:

Test #1: is anyone aware of a controlled listening test between a good elliptical and a microline/line-contact stylus on the same cartridge body, that showed listeners enjoyed a much better perceived level of detail and high frequency response with the latter?

Test #2: is anyone aware of a controlled listening test between a decent audiophile cartridge from the 80s vs modern microline/line-contact stylus, at a comparable price point adjusted for inflation?

These would be really interesting topics for discussion in this thread, and fits perfectly with OP Bob's desire to see technical discussion about variables that improve or degrade vinyl playback.

As context for Test #1, I see on the cartridge measurements thread that elliptical carts seem to routinely achieve responses out to 20 kHz with no rolling off in the top octaves, eg AT OC9 EN vs OC9 ML. So I see no basis for a claim that changing from elliptical to microline will immediately result in much better details and HF response.

As context for Test #2, surely in vinyl's heyday the production volumes were massive, and the opportunity was there for lower production costs via economies of scale. As far as I can tell from ASR discussions, the technologies were absolutely there in the 80s. Were they making very decent cartridges at good value in the 80s that would sound great to today's vinyl audiophile? I can't see why not.

cheers

 

[RickS]

How about this one? @RickS? Or we could open a new one with a clear title and purpose that it is about balanced discussion ("ups and downs" as you put it), and manage it properly.

Not sure what you are asking.

 

[dlaloum]

But aren't people posting in ASR about how all the fancy stylus profiles and even better cantilever materials were available back then?

They started to hit the market in the high end around the late 1970's...
Became the norm for upper end cartridges in the 1980's

If you are talking about the 1960's and early 70's then no - at that point people like Shure were doing some in depth research (a number of excellent papers were published) - which subsequently led to advancements like the fancy stylus profiles and ultra light cantilevers with special material.

Also the development of quad records on vinyl required response out to 35khz or thereabouts to read the encoded additional channels - which led to various developments in stylus profiles and other cartridge technologies to allow the reading of these higher frequencies with sufficient accuracy... (that was the origin of the Shibata styli) - I am talking about the CD4 system here, developed jointly by JVC and RCA in the early 70's.

But there were various others also heading in the same direction at around that time.

 

[dlaloum]

To the general readership of this thread:

Test #1: is anyone aware of a controlled listening test between a good elliptical and a microline/line-contact stylus on the same cartridge body, that showed listeners enjoyed a much better perceived level of detail and high frequency response with the latter?

Test #2: is anyone aware of a controlled listening test between a decent audiophile cartridge from the 80s vs modern microline/line-contact stylus, at a comparable price point adjusted for inflation?

These would be really interesting topics for discussion in this thread, and fits perfectly with OP Bob's desire to see technical discussion about variables that improve or degrade vinyl playback.

As context for Test #1, I see on the cartridge measurements thread that elliptical carts seem to routinely achieve responses out to 20 kHz with no rolling off in the top octaves, eg AT OC9 EN vs OC9 ML. So I see no basis for a claim that changing from elliptical to microline will immediately result in much better details and HF response.

As context for Test #2, surely in vinyl's heyday the production volumes were massive, and the opportunity was there for lower production costs via economies of scale. As far as I can tell from ASR discussions, the technologies were absolutely there in the 80s. Were they making very decent cartridges at good value in the 80s that would sound great to today's vinyl audiophile? I can't see why not.

cheers

The "modern" microline/line-contact styli, are exactly what was in use for high end cartridges in the 1980's - they are made by a very limited number of manufacturers (eg: Namiki) and to this day are still made by the same manufacturers who sell the cut diamonds to the various stylus and cartridge makers.

Some of the rare cuts (eg: FritzGeiger) might need a bit more research to work out who is making them now.

Shibata profile was developed by RCA & JVC in the early 70's.... and is still in use unchanged today.

A listening test would only be relevant if you could remove other extraneous variables, so you could test the subjective impact of the one variable you are interested in.

You could for example compare an original V15VMR to a V15V-SAS-B - but although the cartridge body is the same, the cantilever and its suspension/mounting mechanism are quite different, whereas the stylus tip cut profile is well nigh identical (and most likely based on the same original patents, and manufactured by the same manufacturer!)

So your comparison would not be so much the stylus as the cantilever, suspension etc...

A top flight 0.2mil eliptical has the same performance as a microline - the performance limitations are driven by the horizontal width of the contact patch - and they achieve pretty much the same patch width.

However, having said that - the aereal pressure applied by the eliptical is much higher, as its contact patch is basically a tiny circle... with all the pressure applied to the vinyl in that constrained area, whereas a line contact will distribute the pressure over a substantially larger surface area.

This leads to two major differences:
1) The reduced pressure leads to reduced wear and tear both on the stylus and the vinyl - lifetime of both is increased substantially
2) because it "reads" the vinyl both above and below the conical/eliptical read location, older records that have reduced performance due to wear, can sometimes be "read" as well as "new" - as you are now reading a vertical line rather than a circular spot - you read above and below the contact wear zone from the conical/eliptical styli.

As an important aside, elipticals and conicals are not so sensitive to precise vertical angles of mounting - they read a spot... so it doesn't matter so much!
Line contact designs read a Line - and for best results, that line needs to be as close to vertical as possible.... which makes these designs quite sensitive to vertical angle variation!

There are excellent cartridges from the 1980's and even 1970's which are on a par with the best made today. Getting replacement styli for them on the other hand is increasingly difficult.

Manufacturers like Jico with their SAS styli, provide an alternative path... one that turns the vintage cartridge into a hybrid design with Jico SAS technology applied. The SAS styli I have measured, did not perform up to the standards of the 1980's styli they were replacing - but they are very good nevertheless.

Sadly no one is making Beryllium cantilevers (due to OH&S issues with the material), and no manufacturers are making boron hollow tube cantilevers.... so the key technologies to making ultra low effective mass cantilevers are (at least for the time being) defunct.

Some people have taken to retipping and re-suspending original 1980's cantilevers - but results can be highly variable, and dependent on the skills of the individual doing the work... a very delicate craftsman task...

 

[mike70]

The "modern" microline/line-contact styli, are exactly what was in use for high end cartridges in the 1980's - they are made by a very limited number of manufacturers (eg: Namiki) and to this day are still made by the same manufacturers who sell the cut diamonds to the various stylus and cartridge makers.

Some of the rare cuts (eg: FritzGeiger) might need a bit more research to work out who is making them now.

Shibata profile was developed by RCA & JVC in the early 70's.... and is still in use unchanged today.

A listening test would only be relevant if you could remove other extraneous variables, so you could test the subjective impact of the one variable you are interested in.

You could for example compare an original V15VMR to a V15V-SAS-B - but although the cartridge body is the same, the cantilever and its suspension/mounting mechanism are quite different, whereas the stylus tip cut profile is well nigh identical (and most likely based on the same original patents, and manufactured by the same manufacturer!)

So your comparison would not be so much the stylus as the cantilever, suspension etc...

A top flight 0.2mil eliptical has the same performance as a microline - the performance limitations are driven by the horizontal width of the contact patch - and they achieve pretty much the same patch width.

However, having said that - the aereal pressure applied by the eliptical is much higher, as its contact patch is basically a tiny circle... with all the pressure applied to the vinyl in that constrained area, whereas a line contact will distribute the pressure over a substantially larger surface area.

This leads to two major differences:
1) The reduced pressure leads to reduced wear and tear both on the stylus and the vinyl - lifetime of both is increased substantially
2) because it "reads" the vinyl both above and below the conical/eliptical read location, older records that have reduced performance due to wear, can sometimes be "read" as well as "new" - as you are now reading a vertical line rather than a circular spot - you read above and below the contact wear zone from the conical/eliptical styli.

As an important aside, elipticals and conicals are not so sensitive to precise vertical angles of mounting - they read a spot... so it doesn't matter so much!
Line contact designs read a Line - and for best results, that line needs to be as close to vertical as possible.... which makes these designs quite sensitive to vertical angle variation!

There are excellent cartridges from the 1980's and even 1970's which are on a par with the best made today. Getting replacement styli for them on the other hand is increasingly difficult.

Manufacturers like Jico with their SAS styli, provide an alternative path... one that turns the vintage cartridge into a hybrid design with Jico SAS technology applied. The SAS styli I have measured, did not perform up to the standards of the 1980's styli they were replacing - but they are very good nevertheless.

Sadly no one is making Beryllium cantilevers (due to OH&S issues with the material), and no manufacturers are making boron hollow tube cantilevers.... so the key technologies to making ultra low effective mass cantilevers are (at least for the time being) defunct.

Some people have taken to retipping and re-suspending original 1980's cantilevers - but results can be highly variable, and dependent on the skills of the individual doing the work... a very delicate craftsman task...

find a 0.2 elliptical today is like a white fly ... and as you said, the contact area still greater in shibata / microline.
shibata was created to read more upper frequencies (JVC cuadraphonic records) and later in time microline, of course.

some time ago i changed from elliptical to microline, and using the same body / preamp (only changing styus) the A-B difference with digitized tracks is easily recognized, i done that with the AT vm series. In Youtube you cand find many similar tests, with AT / Ortofon 2M series, etc.
If you check the voices and the hi-hat details (as an example), you can find the differences quickly.

In other point, i challenge to find a 70s cartridge with shibata (microline doesn't exists at that time) and boron cantilever under 500 usd at constant prices.

 

[dlaloum]

In other point, i challenge to find a 70s cartridge with shibata (microline doesn't exists at that time) and boron cantilever under 500 usd at constant prices.

The bodies can be found if you search - but one with an intact original stylus in good condition.... that is unlikely

For a few years I searched for the JVC X1... and I could find the bodies, but an intact original stylus always evaded me.