Trying to understand the turntable/vinyl world...

[Bob from Florida]

One more thing. I made a fair number of recordings of orchestral music. I also have been collecting recordings of orchestral music for over 50 years. There's a number of sonic differences between "Golden Age Stereo" recordings, like the RCA Victor "Living Stereo" series and the Mercury "Living Prescence" series and modern digital recordings of orchestral music. I collected Shaded Dogs and MLP recordings on vinyl, CD and SACD. There's a thickening and smoothing of texture in these old recordings. The sounds of massed strings on these recordings, or the sound of string sections on record from 1954-1970, are nowhere as open as reality or digital recordings of the same. Big difference between the monolithic sound of vintage stereo and the far more diffuse and delicate sound of reality. These old recordings had their dynamics adjusted on the fly via gain riding, where a tech reads a score and adjusts level accordingly. The recordings tended to have the levels pushed hard to override the self-noise of the analog tape.

Harry Pearson and the notion of "The Absolute Sound" pointed to these recordings as the absolute state of the art. But production decisions limited the potential dynamic range of these recordings. The levels of distortion on these recordings are quite high, particularly in the peaks. But people with limited exposure to the real sound of the orchestra would compare a digital production, without the distortion or limiting of the "Golden Age" recordings and come to the conclusion that an accurate representation of orchestral sound is wrong.

An important bottom line to note: CD sales were first driven by Classical music, where the virtues of Digital record/replay are more important than with pop music. Having over an hour of continuous playing time could cover the durations of most classical compositions. IGD---inner groove distortion---is more of a problem with classical music than pop as the dynamic peak of most Classical music comes at the very end of a work and IGD is worst just before the deadwax. And the self-noise of LPs is a bigger problem with music of wide dynamic range than the usually highly compressed sound of most pop music.

Orchestral music is one of the big reasons for CD's initial sucess. Classical music lovers, for the most part, voted with their wallets. CD won.

Please read this link https://hub.yamaha.com/audio/music/what-is-dynamic-range-and-why-does-it-matter/

If you can't wade through the whole thing the relevant highlight is below.

--------​

​

DYNAMIC RANGE AND MUSICAL GENRE​

All music has some degree of level fluctuation, but some genres tend to have broader dynamic ranges than others. Recorded pop, rock, R&B, hip-hop and country music usually have a relatively modest dynamic range — typically around 10 dB, although there are exceptions. Electronic dance music (EDM) probably has the smallest dynamic range — often in the 6 dB neighborhood — but makes up for it by creating contrast with its almost infinite array of instrument colors and textures coming from synthesizers and samplers.

On the other end of the spectrum are jazz and classical music, which can have considerably large differences between their quietest and loudest parts. In jazz, uptempo songs typically go from loud passages played on brass and saxophone instruments to quiet piano and bass solos. Even in jazz ballads, the dynamic range is usually relatively wide. A study of dynamic range in different musical styles conducted in 2016 revealed that dynamic ranges in jazz generally varied from 13 dB to 23 dB.

As a group, classical recordings have the widest dynamic range of any genre. The same study cited above found that recorded classical music typically offers between about 20 dB and 32 dB of dynamic range. While that might seem like a lot, it’s still quite a bit smaller than that of a live symphony orchestra performance, which can be as large as 90 dB.

-------

So, while live orchestra music can have large swings the actual recording does not by a large margin. Since the dynamic range of CD's - 96 db - is never approached - max 32db - the vinyl max of 60 db is more than sufficient. As you mentioned the actual recording itself - how it is mastered is the real key.

If I may point out - all this bashing towards vinyl or digital is basically horse manure. The key is the recording with adequate playback electronics for sources (turntable, tape, or digital) and destination (speakers and room).

 

[egellings]

I have a Thorens TD-125 turntable which has electronic speed control and viewing the TT speed with stroboscope shows variation too small to be audible.

 

[anmpr1]

2) Painting with the board brushes that we are, I can’t agree with that. 301/401 and 124...

1) Seems AT have abandoned flat FR in favor of the rising response typically seen with MCs. Disappointing.

1) A/T have been on the bright side for a while. I have one of the MONO 3 LP MC cartridges that is more balanced.

2) Yes. But I was mostly referencing consumer decks sold in the US; those that are now readily available on the second hand market, for routine purchase, 50 years on. 301/401 were more pro-broadcast oriented, and you don't find them frequently listed. In any case, Garrard didn't sell many in the US, and by the mid '60s I don't even know if the company was importing them. If they were, it was special order.

For its part, Thorens was more consumer oriented, but an outlier.

Whatever the situation, they were much more expensive and, market-wise, had more limited distribution/penetration than top of the line consumer-tier record players (think Garrard SL-95, Dual 1219, the top Miracord, et al). Perhaps the Empire deck was somewhat equivalent to Brit/Euro high end, but it too was a more costly outlier, and not often encountered in the field.

Today it is doubtful that the typical 'vintage' hobbyist is going to gravitate toward a 301 or 124, simply because those have become exorbitantly priced. That said, it is may be a lot easier to find a bespoke custom 301 than an SL-95, because of the former's long-lasting 'boutique' appeal, and initial build quality.

Same with @sergeauckland and his EMT. Even in the day of the 301 (and top of the line Thorens) EMT was orbiting Jupiter, somewhere. In the US, Gotham Audio distributed EMT (along with Studer, Neumann, and others). In fact, an early EMT MC cartridge was the first 'boutique' cartridge I ever encountered (Grado Signature possibly excepted). Today, EMT decks are highly sought out, but one is looking at many thousands of dollars to find one in good condition.

 

[JP]

They were just an example. If you have belts, idlers, etc., you have the maintenance that goes with them. I maintain, in broad strokes, a quality DD ‘table brought up to snuff will be less finicky than a mechanical one overall.

 

[anmpr1]

My SP-10 is running as good as it gets 1/4 second after pressing start, and has done so for 7+ years now, and there’s no indication that it won’t do so for decades more.

SP-10 changed the consumer turntable market. Not exactly the SP-10, but the lower models that Panasonic quickly introduced, shortly after SP-10 came out. There was simply no comparison of the fit, finish, ergonomics, and smooth operation they featured, compared to the clunky mechanical stuff coming out of England and Germany, at the time. I'm talking about the low and mid-end of the range--the mass market. Panasonic (and soon the other Japanese brands) pretty much destroyed Garrard and Dual.

FWIW, I have an SL-1100a that I bought in 1975, and is still going strong. My SL-1200-Mk5 I bought in 2005 is an overall better deck, and I expect it to last my lifetime.

The new SP-10 is no doubt circling the universe at Warp 10, but it's no longer priced within range of most people that might be interested in one.

 

[EJ3]

Well, I thought CD players were precision machines as much as a TT are. Maybe Im wrong. Doesn't laser has to be very precisely focused at the right spot while the motor has to spin at constant angular velocity all the time? Maybe CDs being digital media have a lot more room for signal correction and we just don't notice the errors.
I expected that as time passes, technology gets cheaper and cheaper. It doesn't seem to be the case for TT.
I have seen and listened fine, expensive "HiFi" TT and CD players.
But they have always been connected to expensive amps and high end expensive speakers so it is hard (actually impossible) to compare the sound of the source against whatever I have back at home.

Many times it is the loading operation of the CD player that fails. The cheap laser focusing goes out, as does the cheap laser. The DISC usually will operate fine IF the laser & the loading mechanism would still work. That is how come the inexpensive ones are cheap. Also, unlike a higher $ TT (which people mess with adjust & take care of), people do not lube parts that need to be lubed (the loading mechanism, for one) in a CD player. Take for example, if one never changed the transmission fluid or oil in a car: it won't matter how great it was initially, something will break before it's time. Things that are built to be non-maintenance are built to a life-cycle that is not as long as what could be. In the process, creating a wasteful, throw-away culture. But the cheap manufacturers like it. It keeps them selling more & more. The manufacturers that don't have to get a reputation as being very reliable & get return business from word of mouth about reliability or they fail. Which skews what is being done to the throw -away manufacturers. All of this goes against the idea of helping the environment.
Suddenly, it looks like looking for spending a bit on long term quality, reliability & reparability to have stuff that one keeps long term makes one an actual environmentalist.

 

[Robin L]

So, while live orchestra music can have large swings the actual recording does not by a large margin. Since the dynamic range of CD's - 96 db - is never approached - max 32db - the vinyl max of 60 db is more than sufficient. As you mentioned the actual recording itself - how it is mastered is the real key.

If I may point out - all this bashing towards vinyl or digital is basically horse manure. The key is the recording with adequate playback electronics for sources (turntable, tape, or digital) and destination (speakers and room).

That "vinyl max" is optimistic. That would be the maximum signal to noise ratio one could reasonably expect from an LP. However, analog discs will have pops and clicks, it just a matter of degree, and if the noise level included these events and does not average the result, it's these noise peaks that really determine s/n. While there are turntables where overall noise levels are lower, all the little parameters that can go out of alignment affect the apparent noise level. I'm not sure just how many turntables I've owned, but by way of example, I've owned at least 5 AR XA tables, a belt drive Pioneer, a Thorens, a couple of malfunctioning PE 'tables, Garrards, BSR, Philips, Dual, JVC, Linn Sondek, Strathclyde, about three Technics and a bunch more I can't remember.

The types of noises and distortions produced from an LP are very level dependent. My understanding is that this can reflect overload margins for phono preamps. I can say from experience that the variable, shifting nature of noise and distortion of LP replay pops out of the sonic texture in ways that the steady and very low-level noise and distortion of digital record/replay does not. I remember all the budget LPs, odyssey and Seraphim, Nonesuch and others, where the surface noise was fairly audible even when the shrink wrap for the disc is first opened and the disc first played.

That 30 db dynamic range of classical music cited doesn't reflect the number of rests in Classical music. There will be many more little "fades to black" in Mozart than Metallica. And it's in these fades that surface noise is more likely to be audible. I've got a recording of Mahler's 3rd Symphony that clearly has a wider dynamic range than 30db.

 

[MattHooper]

Please read this link https://hub.yamaha.com/audio/music/what-is-dynamic-range-and-why-does-it-matter/

If you can't wade through the whole thing the relevant highlight is below.

--------​

​

DYNAMIC RANGE AND MUSICAL GENRE​

All music has some degree of level fluctuation, but some genres tend to have broader dynamic ranges than others. Recorded pop, rock, R&B, hip-hop and country music usually have a relatively modest dynamic range — typically around 10 dB, although there are exceptions. Electronic dance music (EDM) probably has the smallest dynamic range — often in the 6 dB neighborhood — but makes up for it by creating contrast with its almost infinite array of instrument colors and textures coming from synthesizers and samplers.

On the other end of the spectrum are jazz and classical music, which can have considerably large differences between their quietest and loudest parts. In jazz, uptempo songs typically go from loud passages played on brass and saxophone instruments to quiet piano and bass solos. Even in jazz ballads, the dynamic range is usually relatively wide. A study of dynamic range in different musical styles conducted in 2016 revealed that dynamic ranges in jazz generally varied from 13 dB to 23 dB.

As a group, classical recordings have the widest dynamic range of any genre. The same study cited above found that recorded classical music typically offers between about 20 dB and 32 dB of dynamic range. While that might seem like a lot, it’s still quite a bit smaller than that of a live symphony orchestra performance, which can be as large as 90 dB.

-------

So, while live orchestra music can have large swings the actual recording does not by a large margin. Since the dynamic range of CD's - 96 db - is never approached - max 32db - the vinyl max of 60 db is more than sufficient. As you mentioned the actual recording itself - how it is mastered is the real key.

If I may point out - all this bashing towards vinyl or digital is basically horse manure. The key is the recording with adequate playback electronics for sources (turntable, tape, or digital) and destination (speakers and room).

I think the point is more that in an apples to apples comparison, it's digital that has the capacity for wider dynamic range and other characteristics of high fidelity, over analog and especially vinyl.

That said: information like the above seems to explain why, in practice, I rarely notice any obvious advantage, let alone difference, in dynamics
from CDs and streaming vs my vinyl records, whether it's pop, rock, jazz or even orchestral. For instance, a couple nights ago I was listening to an excellent vinyl pressing of Jerry Goldsmith's Planet Of The Apes soundtrack. It is very dynamic, going from the most subtle, quiet "mysterious ambience" notes from a flute or oboe, to a distant low level sound effect, to sudden slams of a tympani or horns. I literally jumped in my seat from the suddenness and power of some big tympani hits out of nowhere. It was VERY realistic in the sense of the impression of dynamics.

 

[JP]

SP-10 put changed the consumer turntable market. Not exactly the SP-10, but the lower models that Panasonic quickly introduced, shortly after SP-10 came out. There was simply no comparison of the fit, finish, ergonomics, and smooth operation they featured, compared to the clunky mechanical stuff coming out of England and Germany, at the time. I'm talking about the low and mid-end of the range--the mass market. Panasonic (and soon the other Japanese brands) pretty much destroyed Garrard and Dual.

FWIW, I have an SL-1100a that I bought in 1975, and is still going strong. My SL-1200-Mk5 I bought in 2005 is an overall better deck, and I expect it to last my lifetime.

The new SP-10 is no doubt circling the universe at Warp 10, but it's no longer priced within range of most people that might be interested in one.

They made a lot with the same electronics. SL-1300/1400/1500MK2 used the same chipset as the SP-10MK3. Other brands had similar ranges, of similar reliability. I consider those mid- mass market.

Too much focus on my poor examples. Turns out that with a refurb the typical low-end DDs just keep going without having to go under the knife on a regular basis. Hell, many of them still are with no work at all. Perhaps we‘ll start seeing wide-spread IC failure down the road, but thus far, barring few known issues, this hasn’t happened.

 

[Robin L]

They made a lot with the same electronics. SL-1300/1400/1500MK2 used the same chipset as the SP-10MK3. Other brands had similar ranges, of similar reliability. I consider those mid- mass market.

Too much focus on my poor examples. Turns out that with a refurb the typical low-end DDs just keep going without having to go under the knife on a regular basis. Hell, many of them still are with no work at all. Perhaps we‘ll start seeing wide-spread IC failure down the road, but thus far, barring few known issues, this hasn’t happened.

I had the best luck/most consistent results with the Technics turntables I've owned. Two were low-cost models with a P-Mount, the other an old semi-automatic, pre-quartz. The LP-12 was the best turntable I've owned, but the Technics 'tables got used longer [only had the Linn Sondek for a year] and never bailed on me.

 

[EJ3]

You have to define your use cases.

Turntables that I have seen for well under $500 including cartridge are (to me) at the very least, suspect.

Yes, my DUAL 1229 & SHURE V15-IV is very good (that can be obtained refurbished with a new hardwood plinth & new acrylic dust cover for around $800) and is certainly adequate for most use cases.

But my Technics SL-M3 with SHURE ULTRA 300 cartridge is a good bit better (with a good bit more invested). But it's level of performance and quality is not necessary to enjoy vinyl.

Beyond this level of performance: to me it is pointless, I can't seem to hear that $10,000 or $100,000 turntables are better. Certainly, many look cool. I am sure that others hear a difference AND bling is certainly a consideration for many folks.

All of my records from day one were cleaned & then recorded to high end cassette (and many to Reel to Reel). They were put back into their new poly (or rice paper) sleeves.

And they also saw some play, but the usual playback for me was/is tape.

Therefore, it is good to now clean my records & digitize them from the Technics SL-M3. & that is an upcoming project.

After my house restoration.
So I'm looking at perhaps a year or more down the road.

 

[Bob from Florida]

That "vinyl max" is optimistic. That would be the maximum signal to noise ratio one could reasonably expect from an LP. However, analog discs will have pops and clicks, it just a matter of degree, and if the noise level included these events and does not average the result, it's these noise peaks that really determine s/n. While there are turntables where overall noise levels are lower, all the little parameters that can go out of alignment affect the apparent noise level. I'm not sure just how many turntables I've owned, but by way of example, I've owned at least 5 AR XA tables, a belt drive Pioneer, a Thorens, a couple of malfunctioning PE 'tables, Garrards, BSR, Philips, Dual, JVC, Linn Sondek, Strathclyde, about three Technics and a bunch more I can't remember.

The types of noises and distortions produced from an LP are very level dependent. My understanding is that this can reflect overload margins for phono preamps. I can say from experience that the variable, shifting nature of noise and distortion of LP replay pops out of the sonic texture in ways that the steady and very low-level noise and distortion of digital record/replay does not. I remember all the budget LPs, odyssey and Seraphim, Nonesuch and others, where the surface noise was fairly audible even when the shrink wrap for the disc is first opened and the disc first played.

That 30 db dynamic range of classical music cited doesn't reflect the number of rests in Classical music. There will be many more little "fades to black" in Mozart than Metallica. And it's in these fades that surface noise is more likely to be audible. I've got a recording of Mahler's 3rd Symphony that clearly has a wider dynamic range than 30db.

I believe the biggest fallacy in audio is this prevalent assumption that because CD has great dynamic range it is automatically better than vinyl. Only possible if the recording has that kind of range. Even if the recording had full 96 db of range we would likely not enjoy it. By the time you crank your system up enough to hear the low level stuff the peaks will be high enough to overload our speakers and/or damage our hearing. Intelligent compression improves the listening experience by allowing us to hear the low level stuff and the peaks without excessive playback levels. Classical has the widest recorded range - typical 32 db max - and won't really challenge vinyl much less digital.

Digital is more cost effective. My digital front end consists of a $400 CD player, Raspberry pi based server - $350 including 1TB SSD, and a $199 Schiit Modius. Total digital front end investment - $950. My analog front end has a $6500 list price investment to achieve dead quiet background with terrific dynamics. Most folks balk at spending that kind of cash on archaic technology - rightfully so. Cheap analog setups don't approach what is possible. What I really like about Vinyl is the difference in sound quality by proper setup and component selection. That makes it fun! Digital is considerably more "cut and dried". Bottom line for me is finding fun music to play and enjoy. Can be analog or digital - as long as it's fun.

 

[JP]

to achieve dead quiet background

That’s not possible.

 

[Bob from Florida]

That’s not possible.

Quiet enough not to notice from listening position. I will submit if you crank it up you can hear some surface noise once you put your ear to the speaker. Once the music starts you don't notice any of this.

 

[JP]

Quiet enough not to notice from listening position. I will submit if you crank it up you can hear some surface noise once you put your ear to the speaker. Once the music starts you don't notice any of this.

You must listen at a very low level, or your systems noise floor is rather high.

Like vinyl all you want. I do. But let’s stop making shit up about it.

 

[mackat]

Seems AT have abandoned flat FR in favor of the rising response typically seen with MCs. Disappointing.

Do you know if this has more to do with the cartridge body or stylus? I am curious as to what the FR would look like running a VMN40ML stylus on a 150MLX body or an ATN150MLX stylus on a VM740ML body.

 

[Triliza]

Never had anything to do with turntables and vinyls, but I can think of three things that I'd probably like about that. The artwork of some records, physically going through your collection and choosing something you'd like to listen to, and given the hassle to change to something else, the imposed necessity to listen to the whole record without getting the itch to skip and mix and match tracks.

I wouldn't dwell too much on the fidelity of the thing though, not at this forum at least.

 

[JP]

Do you know if this has more to do with the cartridge body or stylus? I am curious as to what the FR would look like running a VMN40ML stylus on a 150MLX body or an ATN150MLX stylus on a VM740ML body.

Okay, here we go. VM740ML at 47k, 150pF:

The best I could get it was with 36k. My goal here was as flat as I could get for frequencies that matter. There's not much on vinyl above 15k, and I wouldn't be able to hear it anyway. This actually isn't bad at all in that context.

150MLX body w/ VMN40ML. You may be able to flatten that a bit by lowering Rl. I didn't try.

Last is the VM740 body with ATN150MLX:

 

[Bob from Florida]

You must listen at a very low level, or your systems noise floor is rather high.

Like vinyl all you want. I do. But let’s stop making shit up about it.

That does not make sense. If the noise floor was high I would hear the noise further away from the speakers at lower volumes. Please don't accuse me of "making shit up". I really don't appreciate that.

 

[JP]

For reference: