• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The Truth About Vinyl Records

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think musicians are too rarely concerned with the sonic nuance of the recording, for their intent (in the sense of art) to be considered present in the final recording. (This link also refutes your argument in #707 that artist signoff on vinyl test pressings in bygone days means those recordings best document the artistic intent of the musicians.)
...
I believe this is HIGHLY dependent on the artist. Many artists know the sound and performance they want, and work tirelessly, and knowledgeably, to attain it. And this is not new at all.
 
I believe this is HIGHLY dependent on the artist. Many artists know the sound and performance they want, and work tirelessly, and knowledgeably, to attain it. And this is not new at all.
For sure, sometimes for the good, sometimes no so good,
MAKE IT LOUDER is the cry too often heard.
LOL
 
I believe this is HIGHLY dependent on the artist. Many artists know the sound and performance they want, and work tirelessly, and knowledgeably, to attain it. And this is not new at all.
Speaking from a film production perspective. I think folks who are not experienced directly in creating content, be it music or film have this perception that what comes out is 100% preconceived and 100% executed as preconceived.

Nothing can be further from the truth. There are happy accidents and dreaded fails. Schedules and budgets dictate a great deal of choices. Artists’ intents are often nothing like audiences would imagine and are rarely fully realized in the final product.
 
.That’s a gross exaggeration of inherent vinyl distortion.
.
I was thinking more in terms of audible wow on piano, and that continual background noise that obscures studio ambience. Audible distortion really only an issue when they put songs with high dynamics at the end of the side. Which isn't that often but once is too many.

I play a record, really enjoying it. Suddenly it sticks, or jumps. That didn't happen before. Now I have to take it off and clean it (yes, I have a proper machine for that) but the experience is ruined.

I confess I don't get why anyone lives with those issues when there's an alternative, but I accept that they do and that their happy to do so.
 
Speaking from a film production perspective. I think folks who are not experienced directly in creating content, be it music or film have this perception that what comes out is 100% preconceived and 100% executed as preconceived.

Nothing can be further from the truth. There are happy accidents and dreaded fails. Schedules and budgets dictate a great deal of choices. Artists’ intents are often nothing like audiences would imagine and are rarely fully realized in the final product.
I agree. I have seen band members arguing over the finished product more than once. Some like it, some don't, or sometimes no-one likes it. But it's done, no going back.
 
I was thinking more in terms of audible wow on piano, and that continual background noise that obscures studio ambience. Audible distortion really only an issue when they put songs with high dynamics at the end of the side. Which isn't that often but once is too many.

I play a record, really enjoying it. Suddenly it sticks, or jumps. That didn't happen before. Now I have to take it off and clean it (yes, I have a proper machine for that) but the experience is ruined.

I confess I don't get why anyone lives with those issues when there's an alternative, but I accept that they do and that their happy to do so.
Preferences for euphonic colorations aside. Sometimes there isn’t even a decent digital alternative
 
I agree. I have seen band members arguing over the finished product more than once. Some like it, some don't, or sometimes no-one likes it. But it's done, no going back.
This is one reason I find original pressings of popular older music released on LP's interesting. It was not the "master tape" nor the "artists intent" that sold tens of millions of copies, rather it was what ended up, for better or worse, on the LP. To me the LP is the "original art". I know others don't agree with this and I can understand why and in addition to old LP's I always try to track down a good digital version of my favorite music as well. Often times I prefer the digital version but still listen to the original from time to time for perspective and fun. I believe a lot of the acrimony on this thread comes not from "digital" vs "vinyl" technical arguments or preferences but rather it is between those that believe technical accuracy and practicality define the goal of the hobby vs those that define the hobby more as maximising their enjoyment of listening to recorded music that can include things not related to the accuracy of the actual sound waves.
 
I believe a lot of the acrimony on this thread comes not from "digital" vs "vinyl" technical arguments or preferences but rather it is between those that believe technical accuracy and practicality define the goal of the hobby vs those that define the hobby more as maximising their enjoyment of listening to recorded music that can include things not related to the accuracy of the actual sound waves.

Indeed. And the acrimony is mainly instigated from one side, those who seem triggered by people expressing their enjoyment of vinyl (and especially, gasp, even sonically!)
Even in the other vinyl thread we still have people accusing a record enthusiasts like myself as anti-science and obfuscating truth, and we still have ASR members calling us "vinyl cultists."

You generally don't see this nonsense coming from the people saying we enjoy records, I'm not dunking on anyone's choice to just use streaming or CDs (why would I?) or calling anyone "digital cultists" for going on about the advantages of digital and why they choose that medium. If someone says "I really don't like records and much prefer digital" it's like "cool." But voice a preference for records, or even an enthusiasm, and then the hounds are released. It's pretty bizarre. Though I always keep in mind it tends to be restricted to very few ASR members, mostly a very loud minority.
 
Last edited:
I have no disdain, I simply make the point that the analog LP is a badly flawed media to use
for high quality music reproduction in 2024. That's the facts, use whatever makes you happy.
I don't see the basis for this statement other than opinion without a measurement basis. I already showed that LPs have wider bandwidth than digital with distortion and noise much lower than most people realize. You would be more accurate to mention that the reason why is that most people don't bother with proper arm/cartridge setup and usually are ignorant of what sort of things winnow out the best of the LP. That is the weakness of analog!

For example, many ('most' might be more accurate) phono sections generate ticks and pops, sounding for all the world as if they are on the LP surface, due to poor high frequency overload problems- once that is fixed the LP surfaces are surprisingly free of ticks and pops if properly cared for.

We should be clear about what is meant by 'high quality'. One of the best tonearms made is the Triplanar but I bet many people on this thread have never heard of it.
Analog > vinyl sources have to be altered to cut and press.
Not in my experience. Usually the digital source file has DSP which isn't required (other than normalization) for the LP release source file.

If the producer is in a hurry or on the cheap the LP mastering engineer can simply use the digital release file since it already has all the compression compromises DSP'd in, so no need for additional processing. Just plug in and let the cutter do its thing.

In the 20 years of running my mastering operation I never ran into a source file that required us to use limiting/'alteration' of any kind.

What I'm getting at here is that poor playback equipment and setup, as well as poor mastering choices (which an affect digital releases as well) should not be conflated with the media itself, which I think you are doing.
 
I don't see the basis for this statement other than opinion without a measurement basis. I already showed that LPs have wider bandwidth than digital

Well, no, if 'digital' means everything from 44.1 to 196kHz to DSD sample rates, that's simply not true. Moreover, have you shown that the FR across LP's bandwidth is darn near perfectly 'flat' across its bandwidth, as it is for digital formats?

And that's of course leaving aside the fact that no one is hearing any that bandwidth beyond ~22kHz
 
Well, no, if 'digital' means everything from 44.1 to 196kHz to DSD sample rates, that's simply not true. Moreover, have you shown that the FR across LP's bandwidth is darn near perfectly 'flat' across its bandwidth, as it is for digital formats?

And that's of course leaving aside the fact that no one is hearing any that bandwidth beyond ~22kHz
The other issue being that it's easier to get really deep, loud bass from a digital format.
 
The other issue being that it's easier to get really deep, loud bass from a digital format.

Well that goes with the territory of having flat FR from 0Hz to 20kHz. No LP can even come close to the bass potential thus available to a lowly CD.
 
To me the LP is the "original art". I know others don't agree with this and I can understand why and in addition to old LP's I always try to track down a good digital version of my favorite music as well.
I've heard that before and no idea why anyone can claim that. Pure baloney.
The "original art" was what's on the master tape. The one before it was mangled up into a cutting master to conform to the cutting lathe and playback gears weaknesses.
 
I've heard that before and no idea why anyone can claim that. Pure baloney.
The "original art" was what's on the master tape. The one before it was mangled up into a cutting master to conform to the cutting lathe and playback gears weaknesses.
How many master tapes of Rumours or DSOTM or LZ2 were sold to the public?

Also with many "modern digital remasters" the original LP can be "closer" to the master tape.
 
How many master tapes of Rumours or DSOTM or LZ2 were sold to the public?

Also with many "modern digital remasters" the original LP can be "closer" to the master tape.
You can try to fly that silly fairy-tale all you like, The little kids believe them.
Alan Parsons mixed the master tape, not a distorted LP cutter.
Ask him.
 
You can try to fly that silly fairy-tale all you like, The little kids believe them.
Alan Parsons mixed the master tape, not a distorted LP cutter.
Ask him.
If someone has a different perspective than you why do you have to revert to name calling and insults? I said in my original post that not everyone agrees with my perspective that LP's can be "original art" and that I can understand that. Not sure what your point is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VQR
I don't see the basis for this statement other than opinion without a measurement basis. I already showed that LPs have wider bandwidth than digital with distortion and noise much lower than most people realize. You would be more accurate to mention that the reason why is that most people don't bother with proper arm/cartridge setup and usually are ignorant of what sort of things winnow out the best of the LP. That is the weakness of analog!
Funny how most everyone in the industry disagrees with you on signal to noise and all the rest.
How many links do I need to post?

Yep, we even had CD4 discrete quad LP's in the 1970s that had a carrier wave cut around 30khz.
Only, in most cases, after about half a dozen plays it got wiped out of the grooves and the disc became useless.

If someone has a different perspective than you why do you have to revert to name calling and insults? I said in my original post that not everyone agrees with my perspective that LP's can be "original art" and that I can understand that. Not sure what your point is.
Excuse me sir, your putting words in my mouth.
I didn't call you any name and don't stoop to that level.
Though I've been called plenty here in the past.
If you going to post at least attempt at an accurate response.
 
Excuse me sir, your putting words in my mouth.
I didn't call you any name and don't stoop to that level.
Though I've been called plenty here in the past.
If you going to post at least attempt at an accurate response.
See your words below.

"Pure baloney" .... "fly that silly fairy-tale all you like" .... "The little kids believe them"

Not exactly a science based or even a civil constructive response to a comment I made that I noted that not everyone would agree with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom