The Vinyl Frontier

[LewisWaddo]

No, no, no. We've all seen the film, you must have seen it too. A sharp intake of breath throughout the cinema at the unsolicited invitation, the breathtaking perfectly rendered and mastered digital Dolby Atmos soundtrack playing through 400 speakers takes an eery and sinister turn. A drop of Tasker later, your guest leaves you sat in your listening chair, starey eyed, mumbling almost incoherently, 'dolby, atmos, digital, good, vinyl, analogue, sixties, bad, dolby, atmos, digital, good'. You've gone to that place where no one will ever reach you.

Hahaha. I’m a heathen! One speaker!?!

 

[LewisWaddo]

Here is a good reference for dynamic range in recordings. This shows some of the best and worst offenders. I checked out Gentle Giant’s octopus and it shows to have a, close to, top score on vinyl and CD. Who would have thought that crappy vinyl was capable of such a thing.

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

Let’s look at Kind of Blue, it appears that the Qobuz 96khz/24bit version is less dynamic than the recent vinyl pressing, and on par with the original release.

 

[Killingbeans]

Who would have thought that crappy vinyl was capable of such a thing.

I would take it with a grain of salt:

DR : Dynamic Range meter and its limitations

As already posted and (briefly) discussed on another thread, DR measurements of CDs versus vinyl records can be misleading, as convincingly demonstrated by Ian Shepherd using his own work Ian further investigated what might cause the difference in DR In the video, I mention that I can hear a...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[LewisWaddo]

I would take it with a grain of salt:

DR : Dynamic Range meter and its limitations

As already posted and (briefly) discussed on another thread, DR measurements of CDs versus vinyl records can be misleading, as convincingly demonstrated by Ian Shepherd using his own work Ian further investigated what might cause the difference in DR In the video, I mention that I can hear a...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I see! Well, to see similar measurements across the same albums across different formats, particularly vinyl vs direct from master HD rips, is what I was concentrating on. I think it bolsters my point, but I’m willing to be proven wrong.

 

[GXAlan]

You seem to miss the whole point.
Love it or hate it, a vinyl pressing can never deliver the sound that's on the master tape, be it analog or digital.

This is actually the best summary for both sides.

I am reminded when I was talking with a friend about the original Ford GT from 2005. I loved it. He hated it. Our exact rationale for our opinion: “It’s a Ford!”

A vinyl pressing/mastering does not deliver the sound of the master tape or digital file. The difference is preferred by vinyl enthusiasts while the deviation is not preferred by those who like to hear the recording.

No different than tubes. Tubes cannot deliver the sound that is on the master tape/digital file. The difference is preferred by tube enthusiasts while the deviation is not preferred by those who like to hear the recording.

The biggest mistake is to assume that the recording artist’s intent is captured in the recording. Just like us, they are subject to budgets and deadlines. It’s like going to a restaurant and wanting hot sauce or salt/pepper. Sure, a master recording just like a master chef delivers something perfect to you, but even a “very good” restaurant may offer condiments, dipping sauces for dumplings, or salad dressing on the side and their are “very good songs” where the seasoning of the vinyl actually is a net positive.

Most ASR-level vinyl fans will say “there is some content that I prefer on vinyl and some content I prefer with digital transparency.”

Most ASR-level tube fans will say “there is some content I prefer with tubes and some content I prefer with solid state transparency”

It’s rare to see at ASR, anyone claiming that tubes are always better or that vinyl is always better. In the end, the fans with wider budgets and multiple sources and playback systems get to experience a wider variety of listening experiences.

Saying that vinyl or tubes are a “fixed effects box” is like saying that a French restaurant ONLY has a fixed menu. Instead a replicator offers everything…. The reality is that owners of vinyl and owners of tubes can go to multiple restaurants or multiple listening setups.

 

[LewisWaddo]

This is actually the best summary for both sides.

I am reminded when I was talking with a friend about the original Ford GT from 2005. I loved it. He hated it. Our exact rationale for our opinion: “It’s a Ford!”

A vinyl pressing/mastering does not deliver the sound of the master tape or digital file. The difference is preferred by vinyl enthusiasts while the deviation is not preferred by those who like to hear the recording.

No different than tubes. Tubes cannot deliver the sound that is on the master tape/digital file. The difference is preferred by tube enthusiasts while the deviation is not preferred by those who like to hear the recording.

The biggest mistake is to assume that the recording artist’s intent is captured in the recording. Just like us, they are subject to budgets and deadlines. It’s like going to a restaurant and wanting hot sauce or salt/pepper. Sure, a master recording just like a master chef delivers something perfect to you, but even a “very good” restaurant may offer condiments, dipping sauces for dumplings, or salad dressing in the side and their are “very good songs” where the seasoning of the vinyl actually is a net positive.

Most ASR-level vinyl fans will say “there is some content that I prefer on vinyl and some content I prefer with digital transparency.”

Most ASR-level tube fans will say “there is some content I prefer with tubes and some content I prefer with solid state transparency”

It’s rare to see at ASR, anyone claiming that tubes are always better or that vinyl is always better. In the end, the fans with wider budgets and multiple sources and playback systems get to experience a wider variety of listening experiences.

I’m with you on this. I’ve got solid state, tubes, digital and analog setups. I’m just not hearing massive gains in the HD digital streaming side compared to my records. I’m also not hearing the ‘crappy lo-fi noise filled’ music from my 1960’s technology that is vinyl. It sounds pretty close to the HD digital streaming, if I’m honest.

 

[rdenney]

I get that Sal and others have experienced the death of forums because they were taken over by those who believe that sound quality exists mystically beyond measurement. That scar tissue makes them especially keen to prevent that from happening on ASR, which is a worthy goal.

And there is no arguing that vinyl playback has a range of measurable and often audible technical deficiencies when compared to digital playback technologies. Though, Sal's recent comparison of stereo with 5.2 surround sound is an unfair comparison in that regard--MOST digitally produced music is also in stereo and he's not attacking those who promote those technologies.

But two things can be true at one time:

1. Vinyl is an obsolete playback technology that suffers from measurable deficiencies when compared with current playback technologies.

2. It is possible to approach vinyl playback in a thoroughly scientific and rigorous way with the objective of a pleasing result.

The efforts on ASR to build a library of tests for cartridges is an example of the second truth that in no way invalidates the first truth. And it in no way threatens the integrity of ASR, which isn't a matter of vinyl versus digital, but is a matter of mysticism versus plain engineering.

So, I would submit that the way forward is to simply not relitigate whether vinyl is "superior" or not in any measurable way. It isn't, and insisting it is is just as insulting as insisting those who listen to and enjoy vinyl playback are self-deluded idiots or, worse, charlatans, hell-bent on turning ASR away from scientific rigor. Instead, I believe the way forward is that when we discuss vinyl playback, we focus on what we can do to make it the best it can possibly be, using rigorous methods.

Vinyl is not the only playback technology that is obsolete and inferior in absolute terms. FM radio is also obsolete (when compared to streaming) and is technically inferior to basically any other playback technology, including vinyl. The signal/noise ratio is lower, the stereo modulation method is distorting, and the music itself is usually gain-ridden horribly and automatically resulting in intrusive noise levels during "quiet" bits. Yet it does fulfill some requirements other technologies don't, particularly in areas where internet service is spotty or limited (as it is where I live, despite living in the county that has as much claim to be the home of the Internet as any other). And it is possible to approach FM radio playback technology scientifically and rigorously, too.

This is a point I was prepared to make (yet again!) on that other long-running vinyl thread, but I was trying to get from Page 165 to Page 220 and simply had to give it up. I did make it as far as @AdamG247 's expressions of frustration at the circular insults (usually but not always implied) that were again dominating that discussion, despite that those issuing those insults showed every sign of being utterly deaf to them. In the posts that followed for as far as I was prepared to follow it, I did not see anyone make the point (again) that even obsolete technologies can be evaluated and optimized using the latest and most rigorous scientific methods completely consistently with the principles and focus of ASR.

Rick "science is about method, not rhetoric" Denney

 

[GXAlan]

even obsolete technologies can be evaluated and optimized using the latest and most rigorous scientific methods completely consistently with the principles and focus of ASR.

Well stated!

 

[LewisWaddo]

It’s why I’m here! I love ASR’s evaluations of hifi equipment, and have used measurements from this forum to guide my hifi purchases. I love squeezing as much as I can out of my listening experience using the formats of my choice. ASR has helped in getting that little extra out of Vinyl, CD, and HD digital formats.

 

[Jack Harrison]

This is actually the best summary for both sides.

I am reminded when I was talking with a friend about the original Ford GT from 2005. I loved it. He hated it. Our exact rationale for our opinion: “It’s a Ford!”

A vinyl pressing/mastering does not deliver the sound of the master tape or digital file. The difference is preferred by vinyl enthusiasts while the deviation is not preferred by those who like to hear the recording.
.

It’s actually not hard to find examples of respected mastering engineers back in the day claiming that listening to a record played by one of the iterations of a Shure V15 for instance sounded identical to listening to the master tape. I’m not claiming that personally, or saying that was universally accepted, but for whatever reason, that’s what they thought.
I think one of the reasons for that is that the ‘sound’ of the master tape itself is far from being something totally fixed, seeing as you can’t actually plug in and listen to it directly, bypassing your ears, meaning you have to listen to it through something like speakers and in some place like a studio or listening room. Arguably that mastertape is never going to sound the same twice. The closest would be in the original control room listening through the exact same pair of speakers on which the recording was mastered. Which no one is ever likely to do.
Analogue mastertapes also deteriorate, get lost, damaged, stolen, destroyed in fires. So for many recordings a good vinyl copy is the best option available.
I fully recognise it’s different with digital masters which can be copied over and over again and transcribed to different media without loss. But even so, they‘re not going to sound the same played through different speakers even if the dac and amp are transparent.
Masters were and still are made with the medium in mind. So back in the days of vinyl, recordings were mixed and mastered so they sounded good on Dansette record players, on Transistor Radios and almost only as an after thought that a relatively few people would be playing them on a hifi system. This meant that few recordings took advantage of the full dynamic range available even on an LP.
Digital recording certainly has the capacity to give the listener the finest listening experience with the greatest dynamic range in the history of humankind, but because most humans are still not listening to music on hifi systems but streaming in low bitrates on their phones, tablets, smartphone speakers or digital radios, and in their cars and kitchens and hardly ever in dedicated listening rooms, too many new recordings and remasterings are compressed and brickwalled, which is at least one reason why listening to records regardless of their limitations can still be a rewarding way of listening to music.

 

[Bob from Florida]

I get that Sal and others have experienced the death of forums because they were taken over by those who believe that sound quality exists mystically beyond measurement. That scar tissue makes them especially keen to prevent that from happening on ASR, which is a worthy goal.

And there is no arguing that vinyl playback has a range of measurable and often audible technical deficiencies when compared to digital playback technologies. Though, Sal's recent comparison of stereo with 5.2 surround sound is an unfair comparison in that regard--MOST digitally produced music is also in stereo and he's not attacking those who promote those technologies.

But two things can be true at one time:

1. Vinyl is an obsolete playback technology that suffers from measurable deficiencies when compared with current playback technologies.

2. It is possible to approach vinyl playback in a thoroughly scientific and rigorous way with the objective of a pleasing result.

The efforts on ASR to build a library of tests for cartridges is an example of the second truth that in no way invalidates the first truth. And it in no way threatens the integrity of ASR, which isn't a matter of vinyl versus digital, but is a matter of mysticism versus plain engineering.

So, I would submit that the way forward is to simply not relitigate whether vinyl is "superior" or not in any measurable way. It isn't, and insisting it is is just as insulting as insisting those who listen to and enjoy vinyl playback are self-deluded idiots or, worse, charlatans, hell-bent on turning ASR away from scientific rigor. Instead, I believe the way forward is that when we discuss vinyl playback, we focus on what we can do to make it the best it can possibly be, using rigorous methods.

Vinyl is not the only playback technology that is obsolete and inferior in absolute terms. FM radio is also obsolete (when compared to streaming) and is technically inferior to basically any other playback technology, including vinyl. The signal/noise ratio is lower, the stereo modulation method is distorting, and the music itself is usually gain-ridden horribly and automatically resulting in intrusive noise levels during "quiet" bits. Yet it does fulfill some requirements other technologies don't, particularly in areas where internet service is spotty or limited (as it is where I live, despite living in the county that has as much claim to be the home of the Internet as any other). And it is possible to approach FM radio playback technology scientifically and rigorously, too.

This is a point I was prepared to make (yet again!) on that other long-running vinyl thread, but I was trying to get from Page 165 to Page 220 and simply had to give it up. I did make it as far as @AdamG247 's expressions of frustration at the circular insults (usually but not always implied) that were again dominating that discussion, despite that those issuing those insults showed every sign of being utterly deaf to them. In the posts that followed for as far as I was prepared to follow it, I did not see anyone make the point (again) that even obsolete technologies can be evaluated and optimized using the latest and most rigorous scientific methods completely consistently with the principles and focus of ASR.

Rick "science is about method, not rhetoric" Denney

The nice thing about vinyl playback is you can do things to your setup to improve playback. Digital reaches its limit quickly and changing DACs at that limit is very much a waste of time and money. By limit I mean further improvement in measured specs beyond our ability to discern. Both formats can play dynamic ranges of available recorded material with digital having the lowest baseline noise.

 

[mike70]

Who would have thought that crappy vinyl was capable of such a thing.

Is it crappy?
Or you follow science and data?
What DR you need to record standard music?
90dB? I think is totally overkill in 99% of the times.

You see: theory is only equals to practice in theory

Nobody says vinil is better, we say vinyl CAN be enough ... even with their shortcomings.
I think good sense is coming again to this thread.

 

[Timcognito]

This is actually the best summary for both sides.

I am reminded when I was talking with a friend about the original Ford GT from 2005. I loved it. He hated it. Our exact rationale for our opinion: “It’s a Ford!”

A vinyl pressing/mastering does not deliver the sound of the master tape or digital file. The difference is preferred by vinyl enthusiasts while the deviation is not preferred by those who like to hear the recording.

No different than tubes. Tubes cannot deliver the sound that is on the master tape/digital file. The difference is preferred by tube enthusiasts while the deviation is not preferred by those who like to hear the recording.

The biggest mistake is to assume that the recording artist’s intent is captured in the recording. Just like us, they are subject to budgets and deadlines. It’s like going to a restaurant and wanting hot sauce or salt/pepper. Sure, a master recording just like a master chef delivers something perfect to you, but even a “very good” restaurant may offer condiments, dipping sauces for dumplings, or salad dressing on the side and their are “very good songs” where the seasoning of the vinyl actually is a net positive.

Most ASR-level vinyl fans will say “there is some content that I prefer on vinyl and some content I prefer with digital transparency.”

Most ASR-level tube fans will say “there is some content I prefer with tubes and some content I prefer with solid state transparency”

It’s rare to see at ASR, anyone claiming that tubes are always better or that vinyl is always better. In the end, the fans with wider budgets and multiple sources and playback systems get to experience a wider variety of listening experiences.

Saying that vinyl or tubes are a “fixed effects box” is like saying that a French restaurant ONLY has a fixed menu. Instead a replicator offers everything…. The reality is that owners of vinyl and owners of tubes can go to multiple restaurants or multiple listening setups.

Agree with most everything here but the original Ford GT was developed and raced in the early-mid 60s where wiped out Ferrari dominance in auto racing.

 

[JP]

It’s actually not hard to find examples of respected mastering engineers back in the day claiming that listening to a record played by one of the iterations of a Shure V15 for instance sounded identical to listening to the master tape.

I’ve been around for more than a few cuts where we switched between the source, feedback, and a flat cartridge playing back. I’m not going to say they sounded identical, but certainly close enough that I’d need to do blind listening to be sure I was hearing a difference.

 

[GXAlan]

Agree with most everything here but the original Ford GT was developed and raced in the early-mid 60s where wiped out Ferrari dominance in auto racing.

I loved the Ford vs. Ferrari movie. . As an aside, Gran Turismo in Regal 4DX is great. 4DX is not like D-Box, it’s way better in terms of dynamics.

My mistake. I was thinking the first consumer model or at least distinguishing it from the current model.

 

[anome]

GT40 != GT; Ford did not own TM on GT40 for the second go-around of a car with GTx moniker.

 

[Timcognito]

GT40 != GT; Ford did not own TM on GT40 for the second go-around of a car with GTx moniker.

West of Cowtown? wondering would that be that "seasonal" place with the P----- Creek cafe. I used to go there to quite often .

 

[egellings]

You talk about missing the point! Lol.
Everyone gets what you’re saying and have done since you started saying it a zillion posts ago. But you seem incapable of saying it without pathetic attempts at humour seasoned with huge dollops of condescension which are as appetising as a bucket of sick.
Why the heck you feel like you have to police these vinyl threads like some ludicrous keystone cop is beyond me.
We get it. Digital sources generally measure better than vinyl and you prefer it. The whole record playing business is a tedious mindless bore to you. Good grief you dumped your whole vinyl collection so you surely must believe it.
Just tell us something we don’t know.

Basically, if you like vinyl, enjoy; if not simply pass it by.

 

[DanielT]

Speaking of Frontier. Here a really good song from a really good album.
Songs from that record played on vinyl at many HiFi fairs.If you run a lot at such fairs, you can get an overdose of songs from that album. Or at least it was a few years ago.

Album details - Dynamic Range DB