The Truth About Vinyl Records

[Deleted member 56560]

Please unpack "the usual FFT". I don't know what that means.

What is the "time domain" that "is imprecise". I don't understand this.

The point is the measurements tell us a lot. Not enough, to state otherwise is folly.

 

[Deleted member 56560]

no. it degrades every time you drag the rock across the plastic groove.

Just listen to 1951 Schneider Quartet pressing of Hydn.

 

[DonR]

I disgree completely. Wear is minute over decades, well within tolerances, big myth that misunderstands the reality of the vinyl record robust nature. Just listen to the 1951 Schneider Quartet pressing of Hydn I have played for decades. Blows the socks off recent digital recordings of Hydn. By a huge margin.

Your subjective opinion on quality is irrelevant but amusing. Can you even remember, accurately, what the recording sounded like when you first played it? Of course, you can't because auditory memory does not work that way.

 

[Bernard23]

I honestly do not undestand how anyone can state digital media are technically superior, it's beyond me. In what way? It is complex certainly. I have studied DSP to a published level. But to confuse DSP with the simple fact that, despite necessary tolerances being met, the record turntable and cartridge produce music in the home to something approaching perfection just baffles me. I suppose if people on forums repeat this stuff about technical measurements often enough it's come to take on a seeming "law of nature". CDs sound really poor compared to the same music on a record - that's the thing forums should try to figure out. I'm just casting a vote for the turntable. I cannot listen to CDs. They're fake. Why would anyone prefer fake to nearly the real thing?

You are living in an existentialist universe, which is not one where you'll find engineers lurking very often, certainly not during the hours of working. To argue that vinyl is somehow more perfect than a CD is no different to claiming that the earth is flat.

 

[VQR]

Oh sorry, I mistook the readership of this forum. Funnily enough we have a local log supplier called FFT Lumber, I thought they might be FFT Timbre. A bit of a stretech. Stands for Fast Fouier Transform, a set of mathematical operations to analyse a waveform into its component frequency components. The 'usual' bit is it ubiquity on computers these days - producing a graph of amplitude against frequency. Time domain is what occurs over time. If we do many FFTs we can produce a changing landscape that attempts to show how the individual frequency regions change grossly over time. It is these time amplitude changes that define timbre or tone colour. I suspect the measurements people are missing these changes. Well, a so-called waterfall plot will illustrate the time-frequency-amplitude patterns but the resolutions depicted are quite arbitary. We are a LONG way of knowing the appropriate resolutions to apply based on the resolution of auditory stages (cochlear, cochlear nucleus) and then the auditory grouping stages (auditory grouping is itself a fascinating literature) of higher auditory centres. Its a fascinating story. The point is the measurements tell us a lot. Not enough, to state otherwise is folly.

Is a diamond running through a groove with 0.03% wow and flutter more temporally precise than digital? I would be baffled if you claimed otherwise. By any metric, digital does not have variations in signal like even the best of turntables.

Frequency is a measurement correlated with time; if the frequency varies moreso than in a separate instance, the 'temporal precision' if I'm understanding you right should be lower.

You reproduce a frequency, suppose 1 kHz. A turntable will be good to 1 to 2 decimal places on average. A DAC though? Look at some of the ones reviewed here, they are good to at least 5 decimal places. All this talk of 'temporal imprecision' in digital is preposterous when it's analog media that is the least precise.

I'm not saying you should like digital over analog, far from it. I love the vinyl records I have, but when it comes to noise and frequency response my vinyl is bested by good digital. A lot of masterings on vinyl I find superior to some digital counterparts, but I can think of some cases as well where I prefer even a CD to an LP.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Oh sorry, I mistook the readership of this forum. Funnily enough we have a local log supplier called FFT Lumber, I thought they might be FFT Timbre. A bit of a stretech. Stands for Fast Fouier Transform, a set of mathematical operations to analyse a waveform into its component frequency components. The 'usual' bit is it ubiquity on computers these days - producing a graph of amplitude against frequency. Time domain is what occurs over time. If we do many FFTs we can produce a changing landscape that attempts to show how the individual frequency regions change grossly over time. It is these time amplitude changes that define timbre or tone colour. I suspect the measurements people are missing these changes. Well, a so-called waterfall plot will illustrate the time-frequency-amplitude patterns but the resolutions depicted are quite arbitary. We are a LONG way of knowing the appropriate resolutions to apply based on the resolution of auditory stages (cochlear, cochlear nucleus) and then the auditory grouping stages (auditory grouping is itself a fascinating literature) of higher auditory centres. Its a fascinating story. The point is the measurements tell us a lot. Not enough, to state otherwise is folly.

Thank you for the tutorial. Can you be clearer on why you think the approach is flawed? You start OK, with the mathematical benefits of being able to do frequency calculations in the time domain and vice versa, but you lost me when argued the resolution is arbitrary. Is this simply because you are concerned about stable vs unstable signals or periodicity? And I was completely flumoxed how this is applied to the auditory grouping stage. How can decisions about the "time amplitude changes apply to this.

Also, as previously asked, "what is the "time domain" that "is imprecise". I simply don't understand what you mean by time domain being imprecise. Is this again your concern about time being a viable transform of frequency?

 

[Holmz]

Distortion from vinyl is orders of magnitude greater than any digital lossless source.

Yeah but who cares?
It is a Quixotic effort to save us all from ourselves.

And the who cares part, is people get ‘de bonour de jur’ for the next peice of equipment with 5dB of better SINAD… and the speakers distortion artefacts are thousands of times higher.

And really when I play and LP and listen to the same thing on streaming through a DAC it is very similar.

Please unpack "the usual FFT". I don't know what that means.

What is the "time domain" that "is imprecise". I don't understand this.

I could imagine that taking the complex FFT and then showing only magnitude sort of makes it FR Uber Alles.
And it is possible to get a variety of subtle changes in the sound with the same magnitude of the FFT components.

And we can make the tones look better with different filters, but that also provides some ringing for an impulse in the time domain.
So it is easy to make changes that may or may not sound good.

Lastly one can either have the frequency bins narrower or wider, and give up time resolution for frequency resolution.
So for analysis it more us towards Frequency uber alles… SINAD wars, and the chasing of super high SINAD Without any meaningful analysis of whether time domain is getting jacked up In any way,

 

[Deleted member 56560]

Is a diamond running through a groove with 0.03% wow and flutter more temporally precise than digital? I would be baffled if you claimed otherwise. By any metric, digital does not have variations in signal like even the best of turntables.

Frequency is a measurement correlated with time; if the frequency varies moreso than in a separate instance, the 'temporal precision' if I'm understanding you right should be lower.

You reproduce a frequency, suppose 1 kHz. A turntable will be good to 1 to 2 decimal places on average. A DAC though? Look at some of the ones reviewed here, they are good to at least 5 decimal places. All this talk of 'temporal imprecision' in digital is preposterous when it's analog media that is the least precise.

I'm not saying you should like digital over analog, far from it. I love the vinyl records I have, but when it comes to noise and frequency response my vinyl is bested by good digital. A lot of masterings on vinyl I find superior to some digital counterparts, but I can think of some cases as well where I prefer even a CD to an LP.

I have long suspected that the broad tolerances of a vinyl cut contrast with digital.

 

[Deleted member 56560]

Yeah but who cares?
It is a Quixotic effort to save us all from ourselves.

And the who cares part, is people get ‘de bonour de jur’ for the next peice of equipment with 5dB of better SINAD… and the speakers distortion artefacts are thousands of times higher.

And really when I play and LP and listen to the same thing on streaming through a DAC it is very similar.




I could imagine that taking the complex FFT and then showing only magnitude sort of makes it FR Uber Alles.
And it is possible to get a variety of subtle changes in the sound with the same magnitude of the FFT components.

And we can make the tones look better with different filters, but that also provides some ringing for an impulse in the time domain.
So it is easy to make changes that may or may not sound good.

Lastly one can either have the frequency bins narrower or wider, and give up time resolution for frequency resolution.
So for analysis it more us towards Frequency uber alles… SINAD wars, and the chasing of super high SINAD Without any meaningful analysis of whether time domain is getting jacked up In any way,

If I follow you, the frequency analyses parameters need to be carefully chosen.

 

[Deleted member 56560]

You are living in an existentialist universe, which is not one where you'll find engineers lurking very often, certainly not during the hours of working. To argue that vinyl is somehow more perfect than a CD is no different to claiming that the earth is flat.

Ah. This is why this present thread is so intriguing.

 

[OldHvyMec]

I find the truth is in the ears of the beholder. I would be hard pressed to say one medium is better than another. I subjectively support
a TT just "because". I also like Jiffy peanut butter, "because". I like an Otari over a Studer reel to reel, "because", I like Thoren and McIntosh
"because".

That 1.0 vs .1 or .01 is getting to be a joke. I think many well meaning scientist need to crank up a Victrola and understand where we came from
(and enjoying the heck out of it) to where we are. Nitpicking about "THE DIFFERENCE" when the argument is about .00 anything. It is ridiculous!

Saying or proving any medium is better than another has never been an issue for me when comparing the room at 50% of the sound to begin with.

It's like nitpicking about a 500lb bomb or a 1000lb bomb at ground zero for an ANT. Kind of immaterial isn't it?
That ANT became part of eternal star dust. I think it was an X-File!

 

[Deleted member 56560]

Thank you for the tutorial. Can you be clearer on why you think the approach is flawed? You start OK, with the mathematical benefits of being able to do frequency calculations in the time domain and vice versa, but you lost me when argued the resolution is arbitrary. Is this simply because you are concerned about stable vs unstable signals or periodicity? And I was completely flumoxed how this is applied to the auditory grouping stage. How can decisions about the "time amplitude changes apply to this.

Also, as previously asked, "what is the "time domain" that "is imprecise". I simply don't understand what you mean by time domain being imprecise. Is this again your concern about time being a viable transform of frequency?

In doing an FFT we set the parameters of the algorithm, such as the width or resolution of the bands in the FFT, and the period of the waveform we average over. So measurements are highly selective (Amir of this forum stresses this too I believe).

 

[Deleted member 56560]

Your subjective opinion on quality is irrelevant but amusing. Can you even remember, accurately, what the recording sounded like when you first played it? Of course, you can't because auditory memory does not work that way.

Of course I do not remember - auditory memory for complex tone quality is reliably under 20 to 30 seconds (J. Exp. Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition). I was just saying a record played for more than sixty years (and looks it) sounds very good.

 

[Deleted member 56560]

I find the truth is in the ears of the beholder. I would be hard pressed to say one medium is better than another. I subjectively support
a TT just "because". I also like Jiffy peanut butter, "because". I like an Otari over a Studer reel to reel, "because", I like Thoren and McIntosh
"because".

That 1.0 vs .1 or .01 is getting to be a joke. I think many well meaning scientist need to crank up a Victrola and understand where we came from
(and enjoying the heck out of it) to where we are. Nitpicking about "THE DIFFERENCE" when the argument is about .00 anything. It is ridiculous!

Saying or proving any medium is better than another has never been an issue for me when comparing the room at 50% of the sound to begin with.

It's like nitpicking about a 500lb bomb or a 1000lb bomb at ground zero for an ANT. Kind of immaterial isn't it?
That ANT became part of eternal star dust. I think it was an X-File!

I agree.

 

[Newman]

I had to shake my head and laugh.

You are giving us all that very same feeling.

 

[Deleted member 56560]

You are giving us all that very same feeling.

Sure.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I disgree completely. Wear is minute over decades, well within tolerances, big myth that misunderstands the reality of the vinyl record robust nature. Just listen to the 1951 Schneider Quartet pressing of Hydn I have played for decades. Blows the socks off recent digital recordings of Hydn. By a huge margin.

When I worked in studios, there were lots of record decks (music radio studios had at least two with the DJ and two with the producer in the control room), so I got to set up and measure a lot of decks, arms, cartridges and styli. We used test LPs to do this. They had fixed tones recorded at different frequencies and velocities (i.e. volume), both vertically and horizontally cut. They had silent grooves, grooves used to measure tracking and grooves to measure wow and flutter.

They had a VERY short lifetimes, with the higher frequency grooves losing energy after just a handful of plays. We treated them so carefully because of this - only using some grooves once we'd established the general health of the turntable, arm and cartridge. Even so, unless the LP was mint, we were always circumspect about trusting the 10kHz groove for adjusting the frequency response, since an older LP would result in us adding too much eq.

An LP is an astonishingly robust way of storing information - properly made and stored, it may still be fully readable in hundreds of years time! But once played, it is no longer a reliable store of high-frequency, low noise or high-velocity content.

 

[Deleted member 56560]

When I worked in studios, there were lots of record decks (music radio studios had at least two with the DJ and two with the producer in the control room), so I got to set up and measure a lot of decks, arms, cartridges and styli. We used test LPs to do this. They had fixed tones recorded at different frequencies and velocities (i.e. volume), both vertically and horizontally cut. They had silent grooves, grooves used to measure tracking and grooves to measure wow and flutter.

They had a VERY short lifetimes, with the higher frequency grooves losing energy after just a handful of plays. We treated them so carefully because of this - only using some grooves once we'd established the general health of the turntable, arm and cartridge. Even so, unless the LP was mint, we were always circumspect about trusting the 10kHz groove for adjusting the frequency response, since an older LP would result in us adding too much eq.

An LP is an astonishingly robust way of storing information - properly made and stored, it may still be fully readable in hundreds of years time! But once played, it is no longer a reliable store of high-frequency, low noise or high-velocity content.

Thankyou, very interesting. It's robustness on enjoyment of music is remarkable, played many many times nevertheless.

 

[Bernard23]

Yeah but who cares?
It is a Quixotic effort to save us all from ourselves.

And the who cares part, is people get ‘de bonour de jur’ for the next peice of equipment with 5dB of better SINAD… and the speakers distortion artefacts are thousands of times higher.

And really when I play and LP and listen to the same thing on streaming through a DAC it is very similar.

Only those that are irritated by wild claims about physics that simply isn't true (caveat: within the human perception of universal truth). Otherwise, yeah who cares? It's bleedin' obvious that large numbers of self proclaimed audiophiles really don't like an uncoloured pure sound. When audio reviews read like wine tasting expos, you know it's all become a little self indulgent parody. I don't take any of it seriously, but then I'm not trying to make a living out of it; but facts is facts.

Ah. This is why this present thread is so intriguing. What if - this is my drift - the broad tolerances of vinyl replay PERMIT the time-frequency landscape to be revealed, whereas the infinitesimal tolerances of digital storage, transfer and conversion DOES NOT PERMIT that landscape to be revealed convincingly? I'm happy for you to report measurements of DACs. But do not compare apples to oranges.

What does that actually mean, are you trying to articulate some form of reality model where the brain is capable of continuous data processing and streaming, and somehow can detect the difference between that and discrete packets of information? There is plenty of research about the frame rate by which the brain captures and processes information, it is not a continuous process.

 

[Bernard23]

I find the truth is in the ears of the beholder. I would be hard pressed to say one medium is better than another. I subjectively support
a TT just "because". I also like Jiffy peanut butter, "because". I like an Otari over a Studer reel to reel, "because", I like Thoren and McIntosh
"because".

That 1.0 vs .1 or .01 is getting to be a joke. I think many well meaning scientist need to crank up a Victrola and understand where we came from
(and enjoying the heck out of it) to where we are. Nitpicking about "THE DIFFERENCE" when the argument is about .00 anything. It is ridiculous!

Saying or proving any medium is better than another has never been an issue for me when comparing the room at 50% of the sound to begin with.

It's like nitpicking about a 500lb bomb or a 1000lb bomb at ground zero for an ANT. Kind of immaterial isn't it?
That ANT became part of eternal star dust. I think it was an X-File!

This is a perfectly valid opinion, and in practice you're right, in the context of buying a bit of stuff to listen to music on as leisure and relaxation. It does matter though when you're a designer of said equipment, you can't just use your ears and hope for the best, or if you're an "expert" offering guidance to other consumers. So many people have been ripped off and conned by pseudo science and just plain tosh which gets regurgitated as truth. If no one cares about the truth, then what's the point in anything? Might as well start looting and rioting in the streets this afternoon.