The Truth About Vinyl Records

[MattHooper]

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 agree. I think the whole "artists intent" thing and what constitutes "the art"is a quagmire that can't be broadly settled on one foundation vs another. That seems very clear.
But IF one is going down that troubled route, I think that while it's plausible in some cases to point to the original master recordings as the art, or the artists intent, yet arguments can also be made in other cases for the vinyl releases being the representation of The Art.

We've gone through that before, but in a nutshell artists work within the limitations of their medium with an understanding of how the end result will be heard by their audience. It's somewhat like making TV shows. In the 60s they were shooting TV series on film, which is much higher resolution than the CRT sets in the audience's home (NTSC 480 scan lines for NA). So they didn't design for film projection, but for the format on which people would actually watch the "art." For instance on Star Trek, sets and matte paintings were designed with an understanding of the end viewing experience on a CRT set, so they could get away with all sorts of stuff that may have looked rough on stage, and rougher in the film editing suits and sound mixing suits when creating the show, but looked fine, how they expected the audience to see it, on the CRT medium. Now you can buy HD versions scanned from that film of shows like Star Trek which are astonishingly detailed. But the fact that detail is ON the "original recordings" of the show, all the seams in sets etc, doesn't mean you are seeing "what the artists intended you to see."

So the delivery system matters, what the audience will actually see or hear, in terms of what an artist expects of how you'll experience their work.

Likewise if you are listening to an impeccable digital transfer of a very old recording that originally was sold on vinyl, and listening on a super low distortion modern set up, with all your room correction etc, you may well be hearing things in a way the artists didn't hear themselves, or even expect anyone to hear. You don't know, usually.

We do know in some instances. We do have examples of artists who released work in the vinyl era saying they are happy now to re-release in digital form, in a quality not available then. But then you ALSO have all sorts of testimonies from musicians, which I had shown in a previous discussion, comprising both newer musicians and legacy musicians, who love records and say they view their vinyl releases as the ultimate expressions of their music for the consumer.

So it's hardly cut and dried either way.

Some have tried to cut the "goal of hi fidelity" debate off at the knees by saying "Look, we can't know exactly what the music sounded like in every mixing room, but we DO have the release of the recorded signal, so at least we can decide ok THAT represents the art, and lets reproduce that." But by the same token someone can argue the same for all those albums released in the vinyl era. We don't know what it sounded like in the mixing theater, but we DO know that it was all mixed down to the intended release format, vinyl, and so we can take that as representative of the musicians art, in the format they released to the public.

Again, it's all a rabbit hole, but arguing with some absolute assurance either way about The Intent or what constitutes The Musical Art we must reproduce is pretty silly to me.

 

[atmasphere]

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?

Archiving Vinyl

Vinyl is less consistent and less accurate than digital, yet endearing to many because of its hands-on requirements and the effort required to optimize…

legacyaudio.com

More than that one apparently. That's an opinion puff piece and proof of nothing. The author didn't feel it was enough to even put his name to it.

 

[Sal1950]

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

That's still not name calling, simply my opinion on the false statements you made which I find ridiculous and miles away from the actual facts.
Go to the vaults and see what's been archived, except in rare cases not the cutting lathe masters, Thank God.
If that was true we would have been really screwed over the last decades of remastering.

More than that one apparently. That's an opinion puff piece and proof of nothing. The author didn't feel it was enough to even put his name to it.

"Engineers Perspective"​

Pretty sure that was penned by Legacy Audio's owner-designer Bill Dudleson
"Bill Dudleston is the President and Founder of Legacy Audio.
A graduate of the University of Illinois with degrees in chemical engineering and mathematics, Dudleston has pioneered controlled directivity loudspeaker designs, wave-launch coherence in low frequency radiators, dynamic braking in active speaker design, selectable directivity multi-way microphone arrays, feedback eliminating stage monitors, and isolated wall-mounting methods for in-wall/on-wall speaker systems. He is an inventor/patent holder of numerous circuit topologies and acoustic alignments."

Beyond that, the statements made there on the technical capabilities and weaknesses of the vinyl chain have been repeated over and over by engineers everywhere except a few looking to support the LP sales market.. I've got at least a half dozen more links that I've posted here before and can again if you so desire.

 

[levimax]

Again, it's all a rabbit hole, but arguing with some absolute assurance either way about The Intent or what constitutes The Musical Art we must reproduce is pretty silly to me.

To me the cool thing is we don't have to chose. We can listen to an original LP, an early dynamic CD, the latest remaster on streaming, or even the latest MC Atmos version. To me having a "Hi-Fi" system that can resolve the subtle differences between formats and mastering styles over time is part of the fun.

 

[MattHooper]

To me the cool thing is we don't have to chose. We can listen to an original LP, an early dynamic CD, the latest remaster on streaming, or even the latest MC Atmos version. To me having a "Hi-Fi" system that can resolve the subtle differences between formats and mastering styles over time is part of the fun.

Exactly. It's not like us ASR folk who have a turntable don't have access to digital sources too.

And anyone with a decent turntable can compare a vinyl release with the digital release (the digital being something akin to a copy of the original digital master) to see for themselves what the fuss is all about. Just how awful does the vinyl sound compared? As I've mentioned before, I have often found the differences are less pronounced than one might expect from the technical diatribes against vinyl.

 

[Jaxjax]

Exactly. It's not like us ASR folk who have a turntable don't have access to digital sources too.

And anyone with a decent turntable can compare a vinyl release with the digital release (the digital being something akin to a copy of the original digital master) to see for themselves what the fuss is all about. Just how awful does the vinyl sound compared? As I've mentioned before, I have often found the differences are less pronounced than one might expect from the technical diatribes against vinyl.

Thats what I been trying to say.. most us with vinyl rigs play both...Not to hard to go grab something Chad had done up & compare it to the digital version. I for the life of me can't hear what the heck is wrong with either format. My hearing must be shot

 

[Robin L]

Likewise if you are listening to an impeccable digital transfer of a very old recording that originally was sold on vinyl, and listening on a super low distortion modern set up, with all your room correction etc, you may well be hearing things in a way the artists didn't hear themselves, or even expect anyone to hear. You don't know, usually.

. . . unless it's classical music, where the musicians all know that the result on the LP will be degraded compared to the reality of a good seat in a good concert venue. Of course, someone sitting in the orchestra will probably get a skewed perspective on the recording. The conductor will hear the whole ensemble, but lacking the sonic blending the hall adds to the total effect.

It's all different if the music is pre-distorted, as all pop music to a certain extant. But if there such a thing as "The Absolute Sound", it will be found in unamplified acoustic music. Funny, so many of HP's favorite recordings - the "Living Stereo" and "Living Presence" recordings - are so much more distorted than the digital recordings of the early 1980s. Even on the very high-quality transfers those historic recordings got in the 1990s and 2000s one can easily hear the peak distortion, sometimes a bit of wow and flutter may also intrude.

 

[Anton D]

Don't forget, Klemperer used Otto tune.

 

[Axo1989]

That's still not name calling, simply my opinion on the false statements you made which I find ridiculous and miles away from the actual facts. ...

The usual half-arsed sophistry and disingenuous denial: "little kids believe" > what @levimax believes > levimax is/has the credulity of a little kid. But "not name calling". While ignoring the original "name calling and insults". FFS. It's one or the other or both. Then segue to an appeal to authority. I don't why anyone bothers.

 

[Newman]

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.

And I agree with you. But across the industry, I think it is too rare. Exactly like I wrote.

 

[Newman]

Sorry but I take my lessons on these things from JJ.
1. Our perceptions are based on everything we take in via all our senses and state of mind. Everything influences it.
2. Preferences are inarguable
3. Preferences can change

Well I have looked at the video now and I don't think it was about preference. I don't see JJ setting out to teach us much about preferences, instead he sidelines it with a quick generalisation, and moves on to his main content: the difficulty of being accurate, if one can even define it.

To read that sidebar as a definitive treatise on the nature of preference, is to underestimate the topic IMHO. My few short posts have simply been aimed at raising awareness of that.

cheers

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Well I have looked at the video now and I don't think it was about preference. I don't see JJ setting out to teach us much about preferences, instead he sidelines it with a quick generalisation, and moves on to his main content: the difficulty of being accurate, if one can even define it.

You are right. It wasn’t about preference. But he clearly addressed it. And those were his points.

Our perceptions are an amalgamation of all of the stimuli we take in as well as our state of mind.

Preferences are inarguable. He explicitly states that more than once without any qualifiers

Preferences can change

To read that sidebar as a definitive treatise on the nature of preference, is to underestimate the topic IMHO. My few short posts have simply been aimed at raising awareness of that.

Ask JJ. I am sure he will clarify. But even if it isn’t a definitive treatise it’s a pretty clear message.

And he has addressed the specifics of euphonic colorations of vinyl playback.

So ask him if you like. I’m pretty confident he will suggest you stop arguing with or challenging the validity or merit of other peoples’ preference for vinyl.

 

[Newman]

OK so he hasn't clarified yet, and we shouldn't be referring to what he has already presented as the clarification.

OTOH Toole has done a lot of work in that area. What does he say, as far as you recall from having read him?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

OK so he hasn't clarified yet, and we shouldn't be referring to what he has already presented as the clarification.

He has with me in private conversations. Which is why I suggest you try the same. JJ is very generous with his knowledge both on forums and in private conversations. With that said I’m quite hesitant to represent his opinions on his behalf based on private conversations.

Just ask him. I’m sure no one will give you a better answer

OTOH Toole has done a lot of work in that area. What does he say, as far as you recall from having read him?

Indeed he has. We are getting into touchy areas now.

Let’s just say that even experts don’t always agree.

Toole is an expert. He is not an authority.

But with that said, I don’t think Toole has ever taken the position that preferences were either arguable or had intrinsic hierarchy in their merit. His work was all about measuring preferences in sound quality independent of other stimuli and applying the data to producing commercial products that would appeal to a wide array of consumers. His work documented trends in preferences but never dismissed outliers as wrong or inferior.

 

[Newman]

I totally respect private PM conversations and wouldn't want to discuss them in the forums.

cheers

 

[pinger]

Thats what I been trying to say.. most us with vinyl rigs play both...Not to hard to go grab something Chad had done up & compare it to the digital version. I for the life of me can't hear what the heck is wrong with either format. My hearing must be shot

But what about those pesky crackles and pops in the LP's ? CD's are quiet

 

[Brian Hall]

In my experience, the CD version of an album is almost always the best version even if the vinyl lp sounds good.

I have recently found an exception. A German "symphonic" metal group called Beyond the Black. I have all of their CDs and also bought the vinyl lp of their latest album just titled "Beyond the Black".

The vinyl lp actually sounds better and clearer to me than the CD or the CD quality streaming version. The bass guitar stands out better. Also the drums have more punch. On the CD the guitars, bass and keyboards are a little more mushed together.

I don't know what they did different, but the vinyl version is the superior version.

 

[Sal1950]

And anyone with a decent turntable can compare a vinyl release with the digital release (the digital being something akin to a copy of the original digital master) to see for themselves what the fuss is all about. Just how awful does the vinyl sound compared? As I've mentioned before, I have often found the differences are less pronounced than one might expect from the technical diatribes against vinyl.

But that's only true of the very tiny subsection of the available sources.
If you want to got out and spend $50 and more a piece for a LP from the boutique labels, you might get a product
that sounds somewhat close to digital source. Or spend your weekends digging thru used record stores and
garage sales to find that rare jewel of a pristine 50 yo example, that after spending half an hour in your $1,000 LP
washing machine, might not sound like a tree chipper the moment the needle hits the surface..
OTOH the vast majority of the millions and millions of old LP's floating around had horrible surfaces and pressing problems
when they were new, have mostly been badly abused over the decades, and haven't a snowballs chances in hell of
providing the kind of sound some of you try to portray as the norm.
Don't try and blow smoke up my butt, I know, I did it for over 40 years too with near SOTA gear.

 

[Newman]

OK, answer me this then. Here is a very common scenario. Someone does a sighted listening test and prefers the sound of speaker A over speaker B. Then he does a blind listening test and prefers the sound of speaker B over speaker A.
Which speaker does he inarguably prefer the sound of?

I bet you thought this was quite the gotcha question. But the answer is clear and……inarguable despite being a hypothetical. He inarguably preferred speaker A over speaker B in his first comparison done sighted and then he inarguably preferred speaker B over speaker A in his second comparison done blind.

I didn’t ask which speaker he preferred. Read carefully.

He inarguably preferred the sound of speaker A over speaker B in his first comparison done sighted and then he inarguably preferred the sound of speaker B over speaker A in his second comparison done blind.

Still not the right answer. At least this time you didn’t get the question wrong.
Let’s continue your lesson by coming at it from another angle.
Someone does a sighted listening test and prefers the sound of speaker A over speaker B. But there was a mistake and it was speaker B both times, although this fact is never noticed by anyone.
Which speaker does he inarguably prefer the sound of? There is no doubt that he will leave with an opinion!

There was an error in the test. Look, we all know that sighted bias affects our perceptions. You are not teaching anyone anything here.
For all you know you prefer the sound of vinyl and are being influenced by your biases.
You are just looking for some twist to argue preferences.

OK, final chapter of the (tongue-in-cheek) lesson. The purpose of which, besides Q/A entertainment (and we did indeed get a few takers), was to let you switch on to my point yourself, which might, with any luck, have been less resistant than me spelling it out. By now you must know that I'm not serious about "lecturing you", right? I respect your smarts.

And we kind of got there with your, "look, we all know that sighted bias affects our perceptions", although you pointedly stopped short of adding the word 'preferences'.

So, here is how I would lay it out:-

"Preferences change and are inarguable" contains an assumption, and it’s true only when the assumption is true. But the assumption isn’t always true. So it ‘looks clever’, indeed it looks, ahem, inarguable, but doesn’t represent reality. Because the assumption isn’t true in reality.

The assumption I refer to, is that when we think we are preferring the sound of something, we actually are responding to the sound of that thing. As long as that is assumed true, then the stated preference is inarguable. But in real life, that assumption is simply not true. More wishful than real.

This stuff is so hard-wired into human perception, that there is automatic resistance to the notion that it could be flat-out wrong. The brain is hard-wired to tell us that perceptions are always describing objective real external phenomena. The more we learn about perception, we more we realise that context re-writes raw data, but our hard-wiring says it’s still raw data. It’s a natural-selection survival mechanism: believe what our senses are telling us, or die.

Anyway, I am preaching to the converted, since you already acknowledged the role of sighted bias. (One can discuss the question of extent/strength/dominance separately.)

In my last scenario, he picked speaker A without actually hearing it. That's remarkably like what actually happens in sighted listening tests. Your note that "there was an error in the test" is apposite. He doesn't actually know which speaker he prefers the sound of. But he thinks he does! The question of which speaker he prefers the sound of, is anything but inarguable. He hasn't done the right test! Same goes for sighted listening 'preferences', if the goal is to know which sound is preferred.

I'm plodding through all this because IMHO it's actually counterproductive to introduce the 'inarguability of preferences' argument in the manner you did, not because you might misuse it, but because a lot of others might! You want to know how hard it is to get "I heard it with my own ears, so it must be in the sound waves" moved from the status of 'inarguable end of discussion' to 'actually a myth' status? Do you want to feed the same group with another slogan that they will misuse forever?

ARE WE UNIQUE OR ROBOTS. An exaggerated title to be sure, but some of the statements posted by audiophiles about the variability of personal preferences give the impression that it's one or the other. "Everyone's listening preferences are uniquely individual (oh, and did I mention they vary from moment to moment, too). Nobody can tell me what I do and don't prefer; even I don't know what I will prefer in five minutes. Don't you dare suggest it. Any data to the contrary has to be wrong: we are not robots, you know." - random audiophile generalisation. Your broad brush-stoke of 'preferences change' feeds into this sort of thinking. Again, that concerned me because it is easy to misuse.

If our sonic preferences were as unique and equivocal as some people claim, then Toole could have wrapped up his career one year out of school and advised industry as follows: "Just make up any old product and sell it with marketing." (Yes, I know, I know, haha.) But instead, we get statements like this:-

• "Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity. This may seem like a dangerous path to take, risking the corruption of all that is revered in the purity of an original live performance. Fortunately, it turns out that when given the opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. By the end of this book, we will see that technical excellence turns out to be a high correlate of both perceived accuracy and emotional gratification, and most of us can recognize it when we hear it." - Sound Reproduction

Emphasis in bold. I don't think that can happen in a world where preference is both unique and capricious: the experiments just wouldn't have come to any conclusions except randomness.

Maybe I shouldn't be delighted and excited by that. But I am!

cheers

 

[Newman]

But that's only true of the very tiny subsection of the available sources.
If you want to got out and spend $50 and more a piece for a LP from the boutique labels, you might get a product
that sounds somewhat close to digital source. Or spend your weekends digging thru used record stores and
garage sales to find that rare jewel of a pristine 50 yo example, that after spending half an hour in your $1,000 LP
washing machine, might not sound like a tree chipper the moment the needle hits the surface..
OTOH the vast majority of the millions and millions of old LP's floating around had horrible surfaces and pressing problems
when they were new, have mostly been badly abused over the decades, and haven't a snowballs chances in hell of
providing the kind of sound some of you try to portray as the norm.

The way I would put it is, don’t be surprised that a format with terrible consistency has some nice examples. It is inevitable.

Sample consistency is a critical aspect of high fidelity. A high fidelity format needs to deliver 90-95% on sound quality, and 99-99.9% on consistency. For digital, 99.9% consistency (less than 1 in 1000 having an audible difference from a perfect sample) is easy. For vinyl, the low bar 99% (less than 1 in 100 records having an audible difference from a perfect sample) is impossible. Like I said in another thread, “Most people who are critical of vinyl are critical of its accuracy, consistency and repeatability: from deck to deck, from cartridge to cartridge, from sample to sample of a record, from pressing to pressing, from clean to slightly less clean, and from the start of a side to the end of a side. Every one of those six failings against the three core criteria of a reproduction medium, are difficult to endorse if one has standards and also has a cheaper easier alternative that meets all three criteria in all six domains.”