The Truth About Vinyl Records

[JP]

That's called mental masterbation. LOL

Calibration. When someone reports an experience that’s materially different from someone else’s most people would want to figure out why.

Jumping out of one’s chair just from the lead-in sounds like a massive amount of hyperbole.

You’ve the clips already. Why not add some actual value to a thread for once?

 

[Sal1950]

The Truth about Hi-Fi. Speakers are the limiting factor, followed closely by the source. That is why an obsolete source like LP's can stay quite competitive despite their huge technical limitations (which are over emphasized because most recorded music does not even come close to using the capabilities of even 44/16 digital). A good LP playback chain playing a good quality LP can certainly be Hi-Fi and if used with good speakers will outperform most digital systems.

Nope, not in this house. I haven't found that obsolete
system acceptable for a good 30+ years now.

I don't think there is one *. There were DIN standards in Europe in the 1970s I think.

Given CD quality is available to everyone, I would argue (outside of transducers) that the basic specs of its SNR, separation and Frequency Response should be the bare minimum for sources and line-level components.

Yes, since the introduction of CD, the cost of near SOTA is very minimal and should be the measurement levels ascribed to HIGH FIDELITY reproduction.

You’ve the clips already. Why not add some actual value to a thread for once?

Coming right up for you JP, just hand on.

 

[Robert C]

That's certainly true, but they cannot claim to own a High Fidelity system.

Of course they can. If their system is reproducing the vinyl disc accurately, then the system's fidelity relative to the disc is high

 

[levimax]

Nope, not in this house. I haven't found that obsolete
system acceptable for a good 30+ years now.

Well I guess that settles things then

 

[egellings]

Would you complain to the conductor of a symphony that is instruments/orchestra didn't sound euphonic enough? And I've actually heard statements along that line. That live music didn't sound as good as his home vinyl, SET tube amp'd system.

Nope. A home stereo setup, no matter how expensive, will not give an absolutely accurate reproduction of an orchestra's sound, if for no other reason than the listening room being different from that where the music was originally played & maybe recorded. My preference is to hear the orchestra live, but absent that, I have to rely on audio equipment in my room. I use the term "euphonic" to describe reproduced, not live sound. Live unamplified sound is what it is, warts & all, while reproduced sound is what I get through my equipment, and that can be all over the road in terms of S.Q. I might, for an example, use a bass control to tame the dreaded Telarc bass drum. I am not into SET amplifiers at all, as they are too inaccurate for my enjoyment. In the end, it's what tickles my nun-handles that matters.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Of course they can. If their system is reproducing the vinyl disc accurately, then the system's fidelity relative to the disc is high

The aim is high fidelity to the source recording. The manipulation needed to master an LP followed by the inaccuracies inherent in LP playback are in the spotlight.

 

[levimax]

The aim is high fidelity to the source recording. The manipulation needed to master an LP followed by the inaccuracies inherent in LP playback are in the spotlight.

While I can't "prove" it I have some LP's and CD's which appear to use the same source and from what I can tell the "mastering steps" required for LP's do not "degrade" the sound in a meaningful way and why should they? Sum bass to mono (Just like everyone with subwoofers does) is not a big deal in most cases. Hi and low pass extreme frequencies again does not effect most music. Reduce silibance? this is going to be case by case but one of the biggest complaints about CD is that they are too silibant so it seems like it is just as likely to improve things as make them worse and most CD's use mastering to limit silibance as well.

I find mastering choices (ultra compression and EQ changes) made to many digital transfers to add orders of magnitude more "inaccuracies" to the source than the very subtle LP mastering requirements.

The other issue is worn out master tapes before digital transfer. The best example I have is "Are you Experienced" by Jimi Hendrix. If you listen to an original pressing LP compared to the latest and greatest "remaster" it is clear than a ton of HF information was lost from when the original LP was cut to when the tapes were transferred to digital. They obviously used lots of modern tricks to try to fix it but when information is lost it is gone.

I would never argue LP's are better than digital in general but there are examples where old LP's contain the most accurate (or preferred to some people) remaining recording of some music. I think the most interesting thing as an objective observer is that LP's are still popular after all these years. I think it is a great example of psychoacoustics and psychology being part of the equation for recorded music and points out the limits of measurements. The main thing I push back on is when I hear people say LP's are only popular because of hipsters, arrogance, ignorance, and love of distortion. That may be a part of it but there is much more to it which is interesting I think.

 

[egellings]

There's also the fiddly nature of the LP playback equipment. You get to try arms, cartridges, and turntables and countless alignment approaches to no end, if you enjoy fiddling with equipment. With d1g1t01, it's a shiny object. It's perfect.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

The limitations of the vast majority of speakers dwarfs the limitation of the LP. So for example a good TT playing a good LP driving Hypex amps and Salon 2 speakers will outperform all but a handful of systems regardless of source. This includes frequency response, distortion, SPL output / dynamic range, and subjective experience. Noise is and always will be LP's biggest weakness but depending on the music may or may not be important.

I have some bad news for you. Some of the studios I worked in early on had both professional turntables and professional open-reel tape machines. We regularly serviced them and that involved lining them up to be accurate (it's very important that a disc or tape played in studio 3 measures and sounds the same in studio K). We used line-up tapes and line-up LPs. By every single measure, the 1/4" tape machines at 15ips were better than the turntables:

• A professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips achieves wow and flutter figures better than an LP on a turntable. As a result, musical timing is more accurate on a tape machine.
• Distortion is lower on a professional 1/4" tape at 15ips. What's more, it's identical at the start, middle and end of a tape, not just two points (of overhang) across the disc. It also doesn't get worse at the end of a tape like it does at the end of an LP side.
• Frequency response is flatter and more extended on a professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips than on an LP. Much of what comes off of an LP above 15kHz is a mix of signal and resonance. The frequency response is the same at the end of the tape, unlike at the end of a side of an LP.
• Separation of a professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips is better than an LP on a turntable, even if the VTA and alignment are perfect (which varies from disc to disc).
• Noise is lower on a professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips than an LP on a turntable. There is no rumble and no need to avoid peaks at very low frequencies due to warps. There are none of the artefacts of plastic rushing past a needle. There are no pops and clicks. Playing the tape several times does not degrade the noise (very much).

When professional digital recording systems came in (professional is 48kHz sample rate or higher), they measured better than the professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips on all of the above (especially at very low frequencies).

So in terms of ability to reproduce original source material, the pecking order was: 1) professional digital recording equipment; 2) professional 1/4" tape machines at 15ips; 3) LPs on turntables.

 

[levimax]

I have some bad news for you. Some of the studios I worked in early on had both professional turntables and professional open-reel tape machines. We regularly serviced them and that involved lining them up to be accurate (it's very important that a disc or tape played in studio 3 measures and sounds the same in studio K). We used line-up tapes and line-up LPs. By every single measure, the 1/4" tape machines at 15ips were better than the turntables:

• A professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips achieves wow and flutter figures better than an LP on a turntable. As a result, musical timing is more accurate on a tape machine.
• Distortion is lower on a professional 1/4" tape at 15ips. What's more, it's identical at the start, middle and end of a tape, not just two points (of overhang) across the disc. It also doesn't get worse at the end of a tape like it does at the end of an LP side.
• Frequency response is flatter and more extended on a professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips than on an LP. Much of what comes off of an LP above 15kHz is a mix of signal and resonance. The frequency response is the same at the end of the tape, unlike at the end of a side of an LP.
• Separation of a professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips is better than an LP on a turntable, even if the VTA and alignment are perfect (which varies from disc to disc).
• Noise is lower on a professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips than an LP on a turntable. There is no rumble and no need to avoid peaks at very low frequencies due to warps. There are none of the artefacts of plastic rushing past a needle. There are no pops and clicks. Playing the tape several times does not degrade the noise (very much).

When professional digital recording systems came in (professional is 48kHz sample rate or higher), they measured better than the professional 1/4" tape machine at 15ips on all of the above (especially at very low frequencies).

So in terms of ability to reproduce original source material, the pecking order was: 1) professional digital recording equipment; 2) professional 1/4" tape machines at 15ips; 3) LPs on turntables.

My point was an LP played through Solan 2 speakers is going to outperform (objectively and subjectively) most digital play back systems on lesser speakers. Of course digital playback on the Solan 2's (assuming a good recording) will be objectively and possibly subjectively better. This started with a claim that LP's can not be Hi-Fi which I disagree with.... I will never claim LP's are the "Highest-Fi" but so what as that has little to do with enjoying Hi-Fi recorded music.

 

[krabapple]

If all you care about is the, er, scrumptrulescent sound of your LPs - and not the, er, quaint rituals surrounding their playback -- it's foolish not to simply digitize them and thereafter just sit back and enjoy the covers art/text while you play your digital copy -- a copy that is audibly perfect and will never acquire more tics , pops, or wear.

Again: there's nothing that's audible in the LP preamp output that cannot be captured transparently by digital. You can even capture the inaudible stuff perfectly if you want to.

 

[levimax]

If all you care about is the, er, scrumptrulecent sound of your LPs - and not the, er, quaint rituals surrounding their playback -- it's foolish not to simply digitize them and thereafter just sit back and enjoy the covers art/text while you play your digital copy -- a copy that is audibly perfect and will never acquire more tics , pops, or wear.

For some people I'm sure that is fine. Besides being too lazy to digitize my LP's (tagging is a huge pain) I want the option to get a new cart or TT or stylus to be able to listen to all my old records again with a different (hopefully better) sound

 

[IPunchCholla]

For some people I'm sure that is fine. Besides being too lazy to digitize my LP's (tagging is a huge pain) I want the option to get a new cart or TT or stylus to be able to listen to all my old records again with a different (hopefully better) sound

I try for best of both worlds. My TT is fed to my computer where it is eq’d for room modes and clicks are removed. I can futz around and get great sound out of a rock traveling in a plastic groove!

 

[Cote Dazur]

Is there a definition for the minimum fidelity that qualifies as high?

Such a great question, if, for any reason, someone, over a certain period of time, developed a case of hatred to anything analog and particularly toward listening to music on analog records played on a turntable, then it seems obvious to them that if it ain't digital it is not "HiFi". Quite amusing for those not suffering the condition.

The limitations of the vast majority of speakers dwarfs the limitation of the LP

Speakers carry some of the weight, but, to me, the set up/placement/room(environment) will render even quite good speakers unable to do their duty when done wrong and very average speakers can shine if done right.

The truth about LP is just that even though they are not the best option if only highest theoretical capacities are to be considered, for real folks, listening to real recordings in a real environment, against all odds, LP on a proper TT is still a very valid solution to enjoy listening to music in "HiFi" condition. Millions are doing it daily with a smile on their faces.

 

[Punter]

If all you care about is the, er, scrumptrulescent sound of your LPs - and not the, er, quaint rituals surrounding their playback -- it's foolish not to simply digitize them and thereafter just sit back and enjoy the covers art/text while you play your digital copy -- a copy that is audibly perfect and will never acquire more tics , pops, or wear.

Again: there's nothing that's audible in the LP preamp output that cannot be captured transparently by digital. You can even capture the inaudible stuff perfectly if you want to.

Why bother digitising and labelling all the tracks when someone has done it for you?

 

[levimax]

Why bother digitising and labelling all the tracks when someone has done it for you?

In addition to LP's I have Hi-Res streaming as well as thousands of ripped tracks from all types of shinny digital discs on my hard drive. Unfortunately in many cases "someone" didn't just digitize and tag the music they also compressed and EQ'd it and often used dodgy sources. To me it's all good and I only see advantages to being able to have and play multiple formats even though it is not objectively "practical".

 

[JRS]

There's also the fiddly nature of the LP playback equipment. You get to try arms, cartridges, and turntables and countless alignment approaches to no end, if you enjoy fiddling with equipment. With d1g1t01, it's a shiny object. It's perfect.

Reminds me of the nostalgia for muscle cars and the joys of tinkering with the timing and buying bigger carburetors. it makes you part of this whole process of extracting the beauty of music from some stored form, as opposed to what we do with cars these days which is change bodily fluids at various intervals. The last thing I want is alienation from my hobby, thank you very much as I get plenty at my work place.

When it came to my LP setup, I was definitely more of a set and forget it kind of guy--probably because I didn't know enough, the return was apt to be small and I might break something. (Retipping the cartridge I owned was a cool grand--ouch). But when I discovered the DIY side of loudspeakers, man I was in a fish with water for the first time.

Instead of haunting audio salons looking for the next great "fix", there was a virtual infinitude of combinations of various drivers and getting mismatches to marry was at hand with DSP. And tons of info to absorb, of which I have merely scratched the surface. So a much deeper level of engagement with my hobby was now mine. And I suspect that the LP experience is of the same flavor, I get that. In a disposable society where 1000 dollar phones are replaced every few years, here is something timeless.

So the kids are putting together some killer car stereos instead of hot rods as a means of putting a stamp on whats theirs, and having a blast doing it, I toast them too.

 

[JRS]

... Of course digital playback on the Solan 2's (assuming a good recording) will be objectively and possibly subjectively better....

Wow, there is still debate in your mind that digital done right still can't beat LP's? That's simply unimaginable to me. Maybe comes close, I get that. Maybe many instances where the LP sounds better, I get that as well. Maybe on average in some setups vinyl still wins. But a SOTA dij rig vs SOTA vinyl on an impeccable recording? Not a chance.

Does this then mean forfeiting the benefits of using DSP, which in my experience is about as big an improvement short of a acoustically designed and built listening room as can be made? My experience: When within thirty minutes of buying a DEQX I was able to make a cheap JBL bookshelf sound almost as good as the Infinity Preludes which I was auditioning in my home at the time, the future of hi-fi seemed to crystallize before my eyes. And so far, things have worked out almost exactly as expected, only at a slower pace than I expected in 2002. But I digress.

 

[levimax]

Wow, there is still debate in your mind that digital done right still can't beat LP's? That's simply unimaginable to me. Maybe comes close, I get that. Maybe many instances where the LP sounds better, I get that as well. Maybe on average in some setups vinyl still wins. But a SOTA dij rig vs SOTA vinyl on an impeccable recording? Not a chance.

Does this then mean forfeiting the benefits of using DSP, which in my experience is about as big an improvement short of a acoustically designed and built listening room as can be made? My experience: When within thirty minutes of buying a DEQX I was able to make a cheap JBL bookshelf sound almost as good as the Infinity Preludes which I was auditioning in my home at the time, the future of hi-fi seemed to crystallize before my eyes. And so far, things have worked out almost exactly as expected, only at a slower pace than I expected in 2002. But I digress.

I think you misunderstood me because I shouldn't have used "possibly" but rather said "in most cases" so I agree with you. I also agree with you on DSP which I use not only for room and speaker EQ but also using the measurement script developed on this site and a test record to EQ my TT/cart/stylus.... works like a charm.

 

[Galliardist]

Why bother digitising and labelling all the tracks when someone has done it for you?
View attachment 270537

I’m lucky, only one album not digitised somewhere. Other people have dozens. You’re always one change of copyright holder away from an album disappearing.

Then there’s the matter of a remaster being uploaded everywhere that turns out to be a sonic disaster.

The cost of being on a service for a small number of releases (not as bad as streaming video, but still an issue)

Quality differences. It dorrs happen occasionally that one service only has a release at lowest quality.

Screwed up albums. For example. Albert Fuller’s Rameau disc has the “Gavotte with six doubles” without the variations.

Releases not available in your country for copyright reasons - and you can’t beat that with a VPN because they use your address and card number in the checks

Finally we are talking about vinyl and outside of a few needle drops the streaming service copies will sound different.