The Truth About Vinyl Records

[Haskil]

The problem with the LP versus CD debates is that they have been parasitized by the propaganda of audiophile magazines since the end of the 1980s.

They then, after having accompanied the launch of the CD supported by advertising campaigns from the majors and large companies of audio, taking up the cause of the small audiophile brands and their networks of resellers who were their biggest advertising advertisers, after the cessation of the advertising campaigns of the big ones...

However, these small brands which did not have the technological means to produce CD players continued to sell and manufacture LP decks... The discourse which developed was then one of those which poisoned high fidelity for the sake of transform into audiophilia... Digital has been condemned as being anti-musical, producing a choppy sound while the LP was analog and therefore musical...

Here's why discussions around LP versus digital have been doomed to failure for over 30 years.

The reality is quite simple: the CD - and even more so the 24-bit digital one - qualitatively crushes the LP for at least two reasons: its intrinsic performance and the fact that its manufacture has no influence on the quality of the CD... while the pressing quality of the LPs has a considerable influence on the sound result: I am talking here about the same recording...

I gave away for a long time my Glenn Gould, Vladimir Horowitz, Leonard Bernstein CBS imported from the USA during the sixties which I replaced with their European versions pressed in the Netherlands, Austria or France of incomparably superior quality in the seventies and eighties... Today a CBS-Sony or RCA CD is of identical quality purchased on both sides of the Atlantic...

But there are of course bad editions of the same recording on CD and LP, but that's another problem.

Ah: I have three LP decks and 78 rpms and still around 1000 LPs and a hundred 78 rpms... But I am a fan of classical music and composers have very bad idea when the last minutes of their symphonies or opéra are played fortissimos by one hundred of musicians : LP is horrible with terrible distorsions... and a small bandwidth... due to the very low speed of movement of the furrow under the point when we are near the end of the face...

 

[Thomas_A]

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

If DIY is possible, I think it is easy to implement.

 

[Mart68]

If DIY is possible, I think it is easy to implement.

I've seen a mechanical way of fixing this issue also, a spacer with a spring. How many people with expensive decks, cartridges, phono stages implement anything like this? But still talk about high quality vinyl replay? The audible issues are not being addressed despite the huge expenditure. It's a nonsense.

 

[JP]

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.

There’s some color in a companion article conclusion in regard to amounts of distortion and audibility: https://www.worldradiohistory.com/A...eo/60s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1968-10.pdf#page=83

Also important to not that the purpose of the Woodward paper wasn’t to investigate wear,
but to show off their new toy. There’s interesting info, but it falls quite short when pressed in to service as a study on wear.

 

[Adi777]

Interesting topic. Personally, I have never had any contact with vinyl. According to most or all, vinyl is technically inferior to streaming and/or CDs - but sometimes I see completely different opinions, namely - vinyl provides the best sound quality due to higher dynamics and uncompressed sound, without loudness war.

"CD simply cannot transmit more than 20 kHz, because that is the standard.

This effect is not present with analogue boards:

CD simply cannot transmit more than 20 kHz, because that is the standard.

This effect is not present with analogue boards:

image.png.30e9a8dbc9c5b7ad9cf1253da8540242.png

In the case of the Deezer HiFi lossless stream, there is a cutoff at 20 kHz:

image.png.50a4bf8fc584a4277406aeed9fee1576.png

DR (dynamic range) in the case of the first one is 13, which corresponds to 39dB, in the case of the DR stream, it is 8, which corresponds to 24dB.

Check out other streaming services like Tidal HiFi, I don't subscribe, but otherwise it won't be there, because who would make different digital material for each platform?

That's why analog recordings, i.e. vinyl records, are so appreciated among people who value good sound.

In the case of lossy websites, it may be even worse. Using the Apple website as an example:

image.png.2406e81d178e1167d3276f0e55bc7f54.png

These red lines are distortions detected by the program, the compression was increased so much that the recording was destroyed.

In the case of the Deezer HiFi lossless stream, there is a cutoff at 20 kHz:

image.png.50a4bf8fc584a4277406aeed9fee1576.png

DR (dynamic range) in the case of the first one is 13, which corresponds to 39dB, in the case of the DR stream, it is 8, which corresponds to 24dB.

Check out other streaming services like Tidal HiFi, I don't subscribe, but otherwise it won't be there, because who would make different digital material for each platform?

That's why analog recordings, i.e. vinyl records, are so appreciated among people who value good sound.

In the case of lossy websites, it may be even worse. Using the Apple website as an example:

image.png.2406e81d178e1167d3276f0e55bc7f54.png

These red lines are distortions detected by the program, the compression was increased so much that the recording was destroyed." - not my words.

Tle last picture is Apple, before HiFi Deezer.

Also:

Dynamic compression makes everything louder. This is a trend in digital recordings that has been present almost since the beginning of CDs; that's how it affects them too.

Another participant commented on this topic in detail on this forum a few years ago. As the author of the mentioned thread notes, it is not uncommon for recordings to be distorted to obtain even greater volume.

For this reason, many people noticing this sick practice have shifted their interests towards vinyl records. The dynamics are much better there, and on old albums it's absolutely cosmic.

For me, a clinical case of music being spoiled by compressing dynamics is the album Welcome by SBB. A CD has a dynamic range of 24 dB, a vinyl record has 50 dB.

Link:

The Loudness War & Dynamic Range

Problem niby powszechnie znany, ale widzę, że nadal jest wiele osób nieświadomych skali tej tragedii. MATERIAŁY YT GODNE UWAGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydg-ajN1u9o&t=42s&ab_channel=ReduktorSzumuhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ&ab_channel=MattMayfieldMusichttps://www....

forum.audio.com.pl

So, can someone explain me where is the truth?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

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

Which ones can give you 100% accuracy in image location with certain recordings?

Which ones can give you depth and specificity of imaging ranging from inches away from your head to hundreds of feet away?

 

[Thomas_A]

I've seen a mechanical way of fixing this issue also, a spacer with a spring. How many people with expensive decks, cartridges, phono stages implement anything like this? But still talk about high quality vinyl replay? The audible issues are not being addressed despite the huge expenditure. It's a nonsense.

Yep. There are ways to improve LP playback but instead they make 100 kg turntables in gold and acrylic. That is sad.

That said the more I read about the flaws of the medium, the more suprised I get when playing a good clean vinyl copy. Yes it has flaws but the expectation of how it should sound, given its flaws, gets lower the more I read about them. The low expectation is sort of a bias.

My way of fixing off-center records is rather easy. I just watch the grooves or tonearm and gently push/tap the rim of the record with my finger until I see visual stability. I have a two-layer mat, rubber + felt which makes this possible. For measurement/recording purpose I use an USB microscope of the lead-out groove.

 

[Thomas_A]

Which ones can give you 100% accuracy in image location with certain recordings?

Which ones can give you depth and specificity of imaging ranging from inches away from your head to hundreds of feet away?

I have yet to hear the Bremen three-channel system, so I cannot say. If and when it happens I will give a report.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I have yet to hear the Bremen three-channel system, so I cannot say. If and when it happens I will give a report.

Something that also has to be considered is the degree of backwards compatibility of any multichannel system.

I believe JJ was involved in the development of a multichannel recording and playback system that was about as good as it can get. But the system required proprietary multichannel recordings.

Given the existing body of commercial recordings in existence retro-compatibility is always going to be an issue.

Also forward compatibility is an issue. I have yet to dabble in it but according to Edgar one can take Dolby Atmos and other multichannel encoded recordings and effectively convert them into a two channel file that the BACCH can playback with the full effect of the original multichannel recording played back on a multichannel system.

How are you going to beat a system that works with all legacy recordings in stereo and all current and future recordings of the current industry standard multichannel formats?

And we haven’t even touched on the additional advantages of head tracking and proprietary room correction….with head tracking.

And Edgar is working on a multi seater version with multiple head tracking

 

[Sal1950]

The problem with the LP versus CD debates is that they have been parasitized by the propaganda of audiophile magazines since the end of the 1980s.

An excellent post with clairity of sight on the High End medias marketing and lies told about analog and the LP.

 

[Punter]

In my original post, I laid out the necessary compensations that had to be enforced on the master recording if it was going to be transferred to a vinyl master. These compensations mean that sonically, the mix has been purposely altered to accommodate the limitations of the lathe and the mastering medium, either a lacquer or direct metal disk.

If the engineer was going to create a master for transfer to 15IPS stereo tape, his options would be far greater and the primary limitation would be tape saturation with respect to amplitude so some compression/limiting might have to be introduced but it would be far less than that required for a vinyl master.

I think familiarity and nostalgia play a big part in some individuals preference for the quality of music reproduced from a vinyl disk. However, vinyl does not impart any magical sonic properties on a given piece of music. Yes it will sound different to the same piece of music reproduced from a digital source but that absolutely must be the case to accommodate the limitations of vinyl as a format. From the perspective of "High Fidelity" the reproduction from a vinyl disk is unquestionably inferior to the same mix off a digital source, if the master has been adapted to the capabilities of a digital format as opposed to vinyl.

If you, as a listener, dislike the sonic accuracy of digital or find it too "clinical" then whip out that LP and feast your eyes on the cover art and liner notes until it's time to flip it over.

 

[MattHooper]

In my original post, I laid out the necessary compensations that had to be enforced on the master recording if it was going to be transferred to a vinyl master. These compensations mean that sonically, the mix has been purposely altered to accommodate the limitations of the lathe and the mastering medium, either a lacquer or direct metal disk.

True. And it's also worth remembering that the amount of fudging necessary in mastering for vinyl can vary depending on the content. For some recordings it will be necessary for more heavy-handed changes (I've mentioned a recording where they literally decided to move the position of a bass drum from the right channel to more center, for the vinyl master), for others much less so (many vinyl records can sound very close to the digital).

I think familiarity and nostalgia play a big part in some individuals preference for the quality of music reproduced from a vinyl disk. However, vinyl does not impart any magical sonic properties on a given piece of music.

Agreed no magic involved. There just seems to be plenty of places for vinyl to pick up distortions or depart from the master/digital version, from as you say the mastering, the sheer efforts to carve the sound in to plates and vinyl, and scrape it off again with a needle, with variables like phono stages, variations in cartridges, in turntables, in how all that has been set up, etc. Given this it's no surprise that vinyl virtually always sounds different to one degree or another, but also surprising how good it can sound, and how close to digital in many cases IMO.

Yes it will sound different to the same piece of music reproduced from a digital source but that absolutely must be the case to accommodate the limitations of vinyl as a format. From the perspective of "High Fidelity" the reproduction from a vinyl disk is unquestionably inferior to the same mix off a digital source, if the master has been adapted to the capabilities of a digital format as opposed to vinyl.

Yes unquestionably inferior in accuracy as a general principle. Though such statements can at least imply some across the board "obvious" sonic inferiority which can be exaggerated, as there is variability in regards to the significance of those sonic differences. There are some records vs digital where I'd agree the record is unquestionably inferior in terms of absolute accuracy, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that it is "unquestionably inferior" in terms of general sonic quality. More "different" and hence taste decides.

If you, as a listener, dislike the sonic accuracy of digital or find it too "clinical" then whip out that LP and feast your eyes on the cover art and liner notes until it's time to flip it over.

Ha! If only it worked like that ;-)

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

In my original post, I laid out the necessary compensations that had to be enforced on the master recording if it was going to be transferred to a vinyl master. These compensations mean that sonically, the mix has been purposely altered to accommodate the limitations of the lathe and the mastering medium, either a lacquer or direct metal disk.

And yet most if not all of the top cutting engineers tell us they rarely if ever do anything other than sweeten the sound with a little EQ and apply modest amounts of strategically placed de-essing. Not because they have to but because it just sounds better

What they do say is it is harder and more work for them to cut without the “alterations” and that for some more demanding recordings it needs to be done at 45 rpm’s with short sides to avoid cutting into the inner groove area.

Of course there are some recordings that do require adjustments. But according to these same cutting engineers those are mostly things like hip hop, techno and house music that have brick wall compression applied to them.

I think familiarity and nostalgia play a big part in some individuals preference for the quality of music reproduced from a vinyl disk. However, vinyl does not impart any magical sonic properties on a given piece of music.

Euphonic colorations are not magic. They are real and have been studied

Yes it will sound different to the same piece of music reproduced from a digital source but that absolutely must be the case to accommodate the limitations of vinyl as a format.

According to many top cutting engineers that is just a myth. And while that may seem like an appeal to authority it really isn’t. They do know for a fact how they actually cut records.

From the perspective of "High Fidelity" the reproduction from a vinyl disk is unquestionably inferior to the same mix off a digital source, if the master has been adapted to the capabilities of a digital format as opposed to vinyl.

Which often doesn’t happen

If you, as a listener, dislike the sonic accuracy of digital or find it too "clinical"

It is possible to like both digital accuracy and vinyl euphonic colorations.

 

[levimax]

Yes it will sound different to the same piece of music reproduced from a digital source but that absolutely must be the case to accommodate the limitations of vinyl as a format. From the perspective of "High Fidelity" the reproduction from a vinyl disk is unquestionably inferior to the same mix off a digital source, if the master has been adapted to the capabilities of a digital format as opposed to vinyl.

I wonder if these blanket "inferior" statements about all the "terrible" accommodations that have to be made for vinyl are people just looking at the numbers on a piece of paper of if they are from actual experience listening to vinyl playback. The audible difference these terrible accommodations make for listening to most music are subtle at best if done well. Summing to mono is the most exaggerated accommodation as most high end systems with a sub do that anyway. Some HF and LF roll off only pertains to a small subset of music and an even smaller subset of listeners. Compression is not an issue with current mastering styles. Most of the real issues are increased noise and these are mainly related to pressing / production issues. As has been pointed out by @Atmosphered an acetate cut on a lathe can have better performance even 30 ips tape. For classical music these accomidations and extra noise have real world listening consequences, for classic rock or pop old and new not so much.

Instead of using loaded words like inferior or terrible why not lower performance or other non judgemental words? Some people claim it is their duty to warn the uninformed masses about the misinformation on vinyl. This fine but if you want to convince a non technical person about the advantages of digital and you start off with vinyl is terrible and inferior you will immeditely lose credibility as for most people in most circumstances vinyl sounds good.

 

[MattHooper]

Very well put levimax !!!!

 

[NTK]

As has been pointed out by @Atmosphered an acetate cut on a lathe can have better performance even 30 ips tape.

Do you have independent confirmation that it is the case? And where do you get direct lathe cut acetate disks?

 

[levimax]

Do you have independent confirmation that it is the case? And where do you get direct lathe cut acetate disks?

The rational used is you can hear tapes hiss on an acetate (and in some cases on the PVC pressings) so the noise floor of the acetate is lower than tape. Not the most scientific test but there is no doubt a lathe cut acetate is much higher performance than current pressed LPs and points to the potential of the format.

I guess you need to buy a lathe or know someone with a lathe

 

[Newman]

I wonder if these blanket "inferior" statements about all the "terrible" accommodations that have to be made for vinyl are people just looking at the numbers on a piece of paper of if they are from actual experience listening to vinyl playback. The audible difference these terrible accommodations make for listening to most music are subtle at best if done well.

What’s the name for it when you overstate the other view in order to ridicule it? Can you see how you did that there?

OTOH if you are saying that Floyd Toole, in making his comments that I reported, lacked actual experience listening to vinyl playback….and if you are saying that the high volumes of Nimbus Records customers who complained so much about the audible issues with their classical catalog, as reported by their chief engineer and CEO in the 1980s, that the company couldn’t move to CD fast enough and gratefully enough…if you are saying they also lacked actual experience listening to vinyl playback…then that is your perfect right! But IMHO you just might look a bit silly in the eyes of the unbiased readership, if you do hold to that line.

And to the usual suspects who raced one another to give your post likes, and even to laud it vociferously in bold as a great contribution…what can I say? It’s all a bit desperado and herd-mentality IMHO: “Any argument made at all, no matter what weak debating tactics lie therein, I’m going to boost to 11!”

I’m sticking to evidence, not “argumentum”. The facts speak for themselves. The Nimbus Records story is telling: the most discerning music-listening market fled from vinyl as fast as they possibly could, and the reasons were all about unacceptable audible issues. And they never came back. And being tolerant of those issues absolutely speaks to one’s standards: it is almost the definition of standards. That’s not an insult: it is a statement of factual differences between two groups of people.

This thread is called The Truth About Vinyl Records. I suggest you all just Own It.

cheers

 

[levimax]

What’s the name for it when you overstate the other view in order to ridicule it? Can you see how you did that there?

OTOH if you are saying that Floyd Toole, in making his comments that I reported, lacked actual experience listening to vinyl playback….and if you are saying that the high volumes of Nimbus Records customers who complained so much about the audible issues with their classical catalog, as reported by their chief engineer and CEO in the 1980s, that the company couldn’t move to CD fast enough and gratefully enough…if you are saying they also lacked actual experience listening to vinyl playback…then that is your perfect right! But IMHO you just might look a bit silly in the eyes of the unbiased readership, if you do hold to that line.

And to the usual suspects who raced one another to give your post likes, and even to laud it vociferously in bold as a great contribution…what can I say? It’s all a bit desperado and herd-mentality IMHO: “Any argument made at all, no matter what weak debating tactics lie therein, I’m going to boost to 11!”

I’m sticking to evidence, not “argumentum”. The facts speak for themselves. The Nimbus Records story is telling: the most discerning music-listening market fled from vinyl as fast as they possibly could, and the reasons were all about unacceptable audible issues. And they never came back. And being tolerant of those issues absolutely speaks to one’s standards: it is almost the definition of standards. That’s not an insult: it is a statement of factual differences between two groups of people.

This thread is called The Truth About Vinyl Records. I suggest you all just Own It.

cheers

As I mentioned, for classical music LP's are sub optimal.

 

[MattHooper]

As I mentioned, for classical music LP's are sub optimal.

Of course, excepting your very first sentence, he didn't directly address your arguments at all.