The Truth About Vinyl Records

[Sal1950]

Telling people they are morons for embracing the media serves no purpose.

The only person here heard using an insulting word like that besides you was Matt.
You continually try to escalate the legitimate discussion of the mediums weaknesses into a ugly
name calling assault.
This is ASR and the facts of vinyls technical and audible problems will most likely continue right right along with the discussion of the snake-oil attributes of cables, widgets, groundboxes and all the rest till hell freezes over, with or without me.
I'm far from the only one reminding our readers of these facts here, Newman has just make a half dozen such posts in the last hour as have many others.
Now I really don't give a rodents behind that you don't like me, you have said so more times than I remember here.
But you only make yourself look foolish turning this into a personal issue and singling me out for these ugly personal attacks.
Why don't you grow the hell up?

 

[Sal1950]

I'm pretty sure they are both issues. Why put one issue on a pedestal and declare the other irrelevant?

Especially in the area of audio science! So very much of audio science, if you look at the research, is exactly on the topic of examining new technologies or approaches, comparing with each other and with the old, and determining which one is superior in which ways, and which inferior, and if there are tradeoffs, how they weigh up against one another. Plus, correlating back to audibility and preference.

And you say that is exactly what the issue "is not and never has been"?

Are you sure you are not confusing Science Issues with Hobbyist Issues?

Right on point.
The science of audio always has been and is, about the goal of making the path between the microphone and speaker as close to a "straight wire with gain" as technically achievable. That path had a lot of bumps to overcome but THE GOAL has been repeated over and over for decades.
We mostly all agree that the goal of near complete transparency has been met on the electronic side, with the main major failing in the area of speakers. But then why throw away the fantastic progress made in the last 50 years and encourage falling back to a
badly crippled mechanical path that can never fully equal what we already have with digital?

If you really want to turn the complete idea of progress in this area into "sounds good to me" and having a "fun toy to play with" is more important than the path to High Fidelity we've been climbing for decades, have at it. But I highly doubt that any of the guiding EE's from the 1930s going forward would agree to that proposition.

 

[Robin L]

The only person here heard using an insulting word like that besides you was Matt.
You continually try to escalate the legitimate discussion of the mediums weaknesses into a ugly
name calling assault.
This is ASR and the facts of vinyls technical and audible problems will most likely continue right right along with the discussion of the snake-oil attributes of cables, widgets, groundboxes and all the rest till hell freezes over, with or without me.
I'm far from the only one reminding our readers of these facts here, Newman has just make a half dozen such posts in the last hour as have many others.
Now I really don't give a rodents behind that you don't like me, you have said so more times than I remember here.
But you only make yourself look foolish turning this into a personal issue and singling me out for these ugly personal attacks.
Why don't you grow the hell up?

I don't recall mentioning you by name in that post.

My intention was to direct this thread into more civil discourse.

 

[drmevo]

I'm pretty sure they are both issues. Why put one issue on a pedestal and declare the other irrelevant?

No, I think you’re missing the point. The issue is not which format is, technically speaking, superior because everyone here knows that would be digital. If I’m wrong, then surely a vinyl evangelist will be along to tell me so, right? But they won’t. There are many valid reasons to enjoy vinyl, which have been discussed ad nauseam, but digital is capable of higher fidelity. That is clearly the consensus here on ASR, including among those who listen to vinyl.

What makes you think that is still being debated?

 

[Newman]

The issue is not which format is, technically speaking, superior

Challenge: try saying it without the word, technically.

Let's try sonically, instead.

Try not to choke. Try not to get angry or defensive.

Then try telling me it's not being debated by anyone here. Then try looking back just 2 or 3 hours in this thread, and tell me nobody has claimed a sonic wonderfulness from vinyl (and roped in a friend who he claims agrees) that is not present in any digital they have ever heard...as long as you spend a large amount on the TT.

 

[Robin L]

No, I think you’re missing the point. The issue is not which format is, technically speaking, superior because everyone here knows that would be digital. If I’m wrong, then surely a vinyl evangelist will be along to tell me so, right? But they won’t. There are many valid reasons to enjoy vinyl, which have been discussed ad nauseam, but digital is capable of higher fidelity. That is clearly the consensus here on ASR, including among those who listen to vinyl.

What makes you think that is still being debated?

Just so everybody knows, I'm a digital evangelist. I've been exposed to plenty of live acoustic music, including lots of violin/fiddle music. Though a virtuoso violinist will make a sweet, concordant sound, a fiddler is rougher in tone. I've heard the violinists mostly as a recording engineering (hearing the acoustic sound during rehearsals) and played with a number of fiddlers performing folk music. Both types of violin sound get messed up on typical LP playback gear, which tends to blunt and blur what should be a very focused and slightly edgy sound. I've heard a more homogonous sound from violins on analog gear, and a greater variety of violin sounds on digital gear and from DDD recordings. I recently got a 1981 DDD recording of Itzak Perlman and was amazed at how it managed to sound sweet and very focused at the same time.

But I think it's important to give people information about analog playback that can improve sound rather than belittling them for having LPs and turntables. That serves no good purpose.

 

[drmevo]

Challenge: try saying it without the word, technically.

Let's try sonically, instead.

I’m all set with the games, thanks.

Try not to choke. Try not to get angry or defensive.

Ehhhh….huh?

Then try telling me it's not being debated by anyone here. Then try looking back just 2 or 3 hours in this thread, and tell me nobody has claimed a sonic wonderfulness from vinyl (and roped in a friend who he claims agrees) that is not present in any digital they have ever heard...as long as you spend a large amount on the TT.

You seem to interpret things quite differently than I do. You mean the self-described digital evangelist?

 

[MattHooper]

Challenge: try saying it without the word, technically.

Let's try sonically, instead.

Try not to choke. Try not to get angry or defensive.

Then try telling me it's not being debated by anyone here. Then try looking back just 2 or 3 hours in this thread, and tell me nobody has claimed a sonic wonderfulness from vinyl (and roped in a friend who he claims agrees) that is not present in any digital they have ever heard...as long as you spend a large amount on the TT.

Who has claimed digital's technical superiority doesn't translate to sonic superiority in various ways? Not me.

I've acknowledged the obvious sonic advantages of digital, while trying to keep the sonic superiority in perspective, so that it's not always exaggerated. I've given reasons for when I prefer the sound of vinyl while acknowledging someone else listening to the same comparison may well prefer the higher sonic accuracy of digital.

My money is on drmevo actually understanding the nuances of such positions, as well as most others in the thread.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Challenge: try saying it without the word, technically.

Let's try sonically, instead.

Sonically digital can be completely transparent to the source signal. Vinyl can come pretty close but never achieve full audible transparency.

Vinyl can add colorations and artifacts that are close to universally accepted as detrimental to the subjective enjoyment of playback. Pops, tics, excessive noise due to groove damage, audible wow and flutter are among such artifacts that can be added by vinyl.

Vinyl playback can also add euphoric colorations that some listeners like and prefer over audible accuracy.

All facts. Never said the word “technical”

Try not to choke. Try not to get angry or defensive.

Yeah, let’s see if you can accept the facts stated above without trying to apply status to audiophiles with different preferences.

This is where some folks choke and get angry and offensive.

tell me nobody has claimed a sonic wonderfulness from vinyl that is not present in any digital they have ever heard...as long as you spend a large amount on the TT.

Tell us without invoking audiophile status what exactly is the problem with someone experiencing “wonderfulness” from vinyl.

If part of that experience of wonderfulness from listening to vinyl is a result of euphonic colorations unique to vinyl then it logically follows that that particular experience filled with “wonderfulness” will not be fully reproduced by any digital playback that doesn’t involve a digital copy of the signal from the vinyl playback.

But really, if you have a problem with someone experiencing “wonderfulness” of sound quality from listening to vinyl we have found the smoking gun so to speak.

Because no one is arguing which is more sonically accurate here.

 

[Newman]

But I think it's important to give people information about analog playback that can improve sound rather than belittling them for having LPs and turntables. That serves no good purpose.

"Belittled"..... how much mileage are you and others going to make out of this "I am deeply offended" angle? Latch on to one word here or there, and make out like somebody called you personally a 'swearword of choice'? Nothing even close to that is happening. The offence being taken, by a whole cohort, is way overblown.

First things first: take a look at this post by @ahofer just a couple of hours ago, containing a quote with which I presume he agrees...as do I. We really need to pause before rushing to "look for offences, even where none is intended, as an excuse for aggression."

And consider the possibility that, in a fully calm and objective discussion about reasons why some people are happy to tolerate quite-frequent and obviously audible aberrations when playing vinyl, and other people do not find them acceptable, ....then it is okay to suggest that the reason might be that they have different sonic standards for playback? And nobody takes offence? (The post directly above this being yet another case in point. Honestly....)

I keep getting the impression that people react as emotionally as if their newborn has been called names. Save that for the website called Vinyl Makes Me Whole And Gives Meaning To My Life. But here on ASR? Moderator Adam has made it pretty clear how it is here on ASR: "Vinyl Lovers come here with the understanding that the Vinyl Format is a compromised system and that you may be told that over and over again."

Hence, repeating it is no crime here, nor should it be. Guys, stop treating it that way.

cheers

 

[Newman]

Sonically digital can be completely transparent to the source signal. Vinyl can come pretty close but never achieve full audible transparency.

Vinyl can add colorations and artifacts that are close to universally accepted as detrimental to the subjective enjoyment of playback. Pops, tics, excessive noise due to groove damage, audible wow and flutter are among such artifacts that can be added by vinyl.

Vinyl playback can also add euphoric colorations that some listeners like and prefer over audible accuracy.

All facts. Never said the word “technical”



Yeah, let’s see if you can accept the facts stated above without trying to apply status to audiophiles with different preferences.

This is where some folks choke and get angry and offensive.

Tell us without invoking audiophile status what exactly is the problem with someone experiencing “wonderfulness” from vinyl.

If part of that experience of wonderfulness from listening to vinyl is a result of euphonic colorations unique to vinyl then it logically follows that that particular experience filled with “wonderfulness” will not be fully reproduced by any digital playback that doesn’t involve a digital copy of the signal from the vinyl playback.

But really, if you have a problem with someone experiencing “wonderfulness” of sound quality from listening to vinyl we have found the smoking gun so to speak.

Because no one is arguing which is more sonically accurate here.

Anecdotes are stories. QED. Next.

 

[MattHooper]

But really, if you have a problem with someone experiencing “wonderfulness” of sound quality from listening to vinyl we have found the smoking gun so to speak.

That's always been the smoking gun. No problem if you own a turntable and play records. Just don't speak positively about or praise the sound quality at all. Unless you admit to just slumming it as an audiophile listening to records, that's when the Bat Signal goes up.

You can admit to playing records, but make sure that confessing enjoyment of the sound is done in the sense of confessing a sin. Bring your rosary beads and give yourself a public lashing if you speak of vinyl sound quality positively, lest you mislead any naive souls down the road to believing vinyl sounds "better" than digital.

 

[levimax]

We mostly all agree that the goal of near complete transparency has been met on the electronic side, with the main major failing in the area of speakers. But then why throw away the fantastic progress made in the last 50 years and encourage falling back to a
badly crippled mechanical path that can never fully equal what we already have with digital?

No doubt progress toward transparency has been made not only in electronics but in speakers as well. To me the area that has lagged is recording techniques and style for a number of reasons both technical and commercial including the "ease" of digital recording compared the care that had to be taken with analog. Without diminishing the value of new technology recordings from the past can be enjoyed and appreciated for both the musical art and the recording art.

Equating LP's to cables and other snake oil products is not correct. Snake oil products don't do anything to the sound where as vinyl does sound different and measure different.

I am not sure why it is so frustrating to you that for some people LP's can be a compliment to digital and not a replacement or competition for digital. I play digital and LP's through the same system which has high SINAD electronics, digital active crossovers, and DSP corrections. It is possible to embrace all the new Hi-Fi technology as well as LP's as part of the fun of the hobby without "throwing away" progress.

 

[Brian Hall]

A great well mastered recording on a CD or stream is always the best option.

A great well mastered recording on a vinyl LP can sound really good.

There are instances where the mastered recording on the vinyl LP is better than the one on the CD.

The CD is more stable, less fragile and much easier to handle, deal with and store in less space.

The vinyl is less stable, more fragile and harder to handle and requires more fiddling with and a lot more room and care in storage.

I can put a CD in or start a stream and listen to a complete album from start to finish.

With a vinyl LP, I will have to get up and flip it over before it can continue.

In general CDs and streams make much more sense than vinyl.

A fantastic sounding CD system is much easier to get and set up than a great sound vinyl system.

Some people prefer the extra hassle or nostalgia and expense of vinyl LPs and physical aspects of a turntable.

I don't. I prefer CDs or streaming, but do listen to a vinyl LP every now and then. It isn't logical, but I still do it. Then I remember why I prefer CDs or streaming when the side ends too fast and don't touch my turntable for a week or two.

I think this effect is a little similar to childbirth in women. They forget how bad it is after a while and want to have another child. This is fortunate because the human race would have gone extinct otherwise. The same thing to a much lesser degree happens with playing vinyl LPs. Yes, I actually compared childbirth to playing vinyl.

I own a vinyl LP cleaner and use it. I don't own a CD cleaner and have no need for one.

 

[Axo1989]

I think this effect is a little similar to childbirth in women. They forget how bad it is after a while and want to have another child. This is fortunate because the human race would have gone extinct otherwise. The same thing to a much lesser degree happens with playing vinyl LPs. Yes, I actually compared childbirth to playing vinyl.

You did ...

So, vinyl saves us from extinction. No wonder these threads are so existential.

 

[Thomas_A]

It’s better for multiple listeners but not as good for a single listener

That i still an open question. All three-channel systems are not the same.

 

[Mart68]

The quality of LP playback is all over the place, and at its very best it's easily comparable to good digital playback. The background noise may be measurably higher but it might not be audibly higher. The quality is not exactly the same, but it's very close. But until one hears that level of quality of playback, one doesn't really know what the format is actually capable of providing. Mind you, to get to that level of performance requires no little expense and a certain amount of knowhow.

was going to say I have heard it done properly many times but thinking about it I haven't.

It would need a deck that compensates for off-centre pressings such as the Nakamichi Dragon, and that uses a properly implemented linear tracking tonearm.

I don't think any of the mega-money decks available nowadays offer either feature which leads me to suspect it really is all about the romance.

 

[Thomas_A]

was going to say I have heard it done properly many times but thinking about it I haven't.

It would need a deck that compensates for off-centre pressings such as the Nakamichi Dragon, and that uses a properly implemented linear tracking tonearm.

I don't think any of the mega-money decks available nowadays offer either feature which leads me to suspect it really is all about the romance.

This one?

Wheel 2

Wheel 2 plays records from the back. All technology is safely hidden underneath your record. It plays singles, LP’s and everything in between. Smart slide track for the easiest operation. It works upright on a stand or wall, or flat on a table. A stand is included with every Wheel.

miniot.com

 

[Mart68]

This one?

Wheel 2

Wheel 2 plays records from the back. All technology is safely hidden underneath your record. It plays singles, LP’s and everything in between. Smart slide track for the easiest operation. It works upright on a stand or wall, or flat on a table. A stand is included with every Wheel.

miniot.com

Interesting, doesn't seem to be any technical review available to show it does what it claims, though.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Record wear and its impact

The scanning electron microscope articles shared by @NTK are interesting. They confirm the theory that the extraordinarily high pressure at the contact patch does change the groove. on each play Also there is the work by Ray Pankhurst and others that demonstrate that hundreds of plays of records do have a measurable impact.

So a thought experiment: where is wear likeliest to appear? If the stylus and cantilever were massless, then acceleration vertically or horizontally would be infinitely fast. However, with real world mass, there will inevitably be a limit to how quickly the stylus can track. These limits won't be met for unmodulated grooves or gently changing grooves. They probably won't be met for high frequency sine waves (assuming the cartridge cartridge is tracking OK and resonances managed). They are most likely to happen where groove changes are quick, such as transients.

If this is the case, then record wear may not be obvious on silent grooves or sine wave sweeps. It won't manifest as an increase in noise. It is more likely to appear a bit like Transient Intermodulation Distortion, but only for sharp transients with high rise time. This implies record wear will sound like intermodulation distortion but only be present where there are transients.

So if my thought experiment is correct, the traditional record wear tests which do demonstrate increased distortion (but only mild frequency response changes) with wear, and only over hundreds of plays should be tried again, but this time using grooves with both vertical or horizontal impulses, and they should focus on distortion and specifically intermodulation distortion.