Turntables - help me understand the appeal?

[jsrtheta]

Well, when in doubt, I tend to trust the pros.

Bob Ludwig and Bob Clearmountain are, I submit, established pros. Here's what they think: https://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162

As both of them make clear, what they heard while recording is not what they heard when they heard the vinyl.

 

[MattHooper]

Well, when in doubt, I tend to trust the pros.

Bob Ludwig and Bob Clearmountain are, I submit, established pros. Here's what they think: https://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162

As both of them make clear, what they heard while recording is not what they heard when they heard the vinyl.

I don't think anyone here is under the illusion vinyl isn't a technical compromise, especially relative to digital.

Points made by, for instance, levimax about his desire for previous analog mastered music, would still stand in either case.
I doubt that many of the recordings he is talking about have been re-mastered by the likes of Bob Ludwig for digital, if they have even shown up on CD at all. The vinyl versions would have been what the mastering engineer intended and signed off on, so would represent that historical encapsulation of the music as sold to the public, and may be actually closer to the original master sound than future digital versions which may have been altered substantially in the digital master. There certainly have been quite a number of digital releases through the years that people have found unsatisfactory, including substantial deviations in mastering choices, compared to the original vinyl versions, and which also represent liberties taken in regard to the sound of the original master source.

 

[jsrtheta]

I don't think anyone here is under the illusion vinyl isn't a technical compromise, especially relative to digital.

Points made by, for instance, levimax about his desire for previous analog mastered music, would still stand in either case.
I doubt that many of the recordings he is talking about have been re-mastered with by the likes of Bob Ludwig for digital, if they have even shown up on CD at all. The vinyl versions would have been what the mastering engineer intended and signed off on, so would represent that historical encapsulation of the music as sold to the public, and may be actually closer to the original master sound than future digital versions which may have been altered substantially in the digital master. There certainly have been quite a number of digital releases through the years that people have found unsatisfactory, including substantial deviations in mastering choices, compared to the original vinyl versions, and which also represent liberties taken in regard to the sound of the original master source.

All quite true. There are many reasons to declare war on the current state of recording. But, as you also acknowledge, that's the not the fault of the digital medium.

 

[MusicNBeer]

All quite true. There are many reasons to declare war on the current state of recording. But, as you also acknowledge, that's the not the fault of the digital medium.

But it is a valid reason to be spinning vinyl for specifically the sound quality of a specific recording. Zero fault of digital. I mentioned earlier that I needledrop to digital and all the magic of the mastering remains.

 

[JBNY]

But for many people it is because of the sound, changing cartridges and preamp loading settings can make a big difference in how the music sounds. Is it accurate as digital is not at all. Anyone who really enjoys records for the sake they they sound like the original recording is delusional. Turntables are an endless tinkering machine, If you enjoy playing with things and making little adjustments that can both change the sound of the music and help you enjoy the hobby more, than that is great. If you want an easy solution that requires no effort and but sounds great, turntables are not for you.

When I was in college I was so happy when the CD came out and was happy to dump my record player, it just didn't fit my lifestyle at the time. Now that I am older have more despicable income, time, and space I really like the whole turntable experience.

 

[MattHooper]

But for many people it is because of the sound, changing cartridges and preamp loading settings can make a big difference in how the music sounds. Is it accurate as digital is not at all. Anyone who really enjoys records for the sake they they sound like the original recording is delusional. Turntables are an endless tinkering machine, If you enjoy playing with things and making little adjustments that can both change the sound of the music and help you enjoy the hobby more, than that is great. If you want an easy solution that requires no effort and but sounds great, turntables are not for you.

When I was in college I was so happy when the CD came out and was happy to dump my record player, it just didn't fit my lifestyle at the time. Now that I am older have more despicable income, time, and space I really like the whole turntable experience.

Agreed.

I don't go in for all the audiophile tweaks for a minute when it comes to CD players, digital, transports (e.g. "isolation pads" and all the external tweaks audiophiles think make a difference to the sonic output of digital devices). But it's pretty easy to note the sonic changes in dialing around vertical tracking force etc. (To the degree I understand things, there are sound technical reasons why playing with aspects of the arm/cartridge interface would change the sound ). I'm really a newbie when it comes to this stuff, but it was fascinating to hear when setting up the table.

Also, my phono stage has a nice set of easily accessible selectors for a range of gain, impedance settings etc. I enjoy the flexibility these give me in terms of the sound. There is one setting that sounds most bang-on accurate in terms of comparing a vinyl version to the CD version. But as I lower the impedance I get a sort of darker, rolled off, more lush sound with looser bass, raising the impedance it becomes brighter and more tight sounding. Sometimes I prefer listening with one setting over another. (I don't screw around too much with this, but I like having that option).

 

[SIY]

EQ is a lot easier. And it will give an outlet for your urge to fiddle.

 

[levimax]

Anyone who really enjoys records for the sake they they sound like the original recording is delusional.

Old records still sound like they always sounded, not perfect but SOTA at their time. This "art" includes the mastering and recording styles of the time. Compromises were made from the "original recording" to accommodate the format (records) with often times a little flair added by the engineer as well. I think the results for listening on speakers is much better than the "loudness at all costs" mastering styles used today. The worst thing is it doesn't have to be that way.... I have some wonderful new digital recordings that blow any record I have away.... they are expensive and of obscure artists and very limited selection. Hopefully digital will live up to it's potential again some day.... it was doing pretty good in the early / mid 90's before the loudness wars started. In the mean time I will enjoy some of my old records along with Tidal and the rest.... it is all good.

 

[Erik]

Well said, highly recommend people check out http://dr.loudness-war.info/ and search albums from the eras mentioned. Many will have DR ratings contributed from vinyl recordings, and they'll often be better than the most modern releases.

"Sometimes vinyl is mastered with more dynamics than the digital versions, but you CAN'T find this out by measuring DR, or looking waveforms. Apparent increases in DR, or "peak to loudness ratio" on vinyl are usually a mirage, and DON'T prove it has better dynamics than digital."

 

[NTomokawa]

I don't understand why "high end" manufacturers don't gravitate towards laser turntables. Is ELP Japan the only (commercial) manufacturer of laser turntables?

Then again... if laser turntables become affordable, there wouldn't be a market for "boutique" phono preamplifiers, cartridges, stylii, tonearms, headshells, headshell cables (don't get me started)...

 

[Sal1950]

The vinyl versions would have been what the mastering engineer intended and signed off on, so would represent that historical encapsulation of the music as sold to the public, and may be actually closer to the original master sound than future digital versions which may have been altered substantially in the digital master.

The error in this line of thought is the engineer "signed off" on what he heard at the console, not what that would sound like after the vinyl playback process added 5% distortion, wow, flutter ---------------------. Any digital copy of that master, even if the monkey decides to squeeze the DR a few points, will still be miles closer in Fidelity than a vinyl playback.

"Let's be honest, on it's best day, with the worlds best vinyl gear and the best pressed LP, if the same master was recorded to a RedBook digital CD, the CD would cream the LP in every measurable and audible area of sound quality.."
And I would take issue with that claim.
If we are talking strictly about the technical potential for accuracy, no question, we all know even cheap (but good) digital beats a vinyl/turntable. (/QUOTE)
So then what is there to "take issue" with? After reading a full page of your subjective preference justifications, we fall back to the same ole same ole. Is accurate High Fidelity your aim, or personal preference. You just can't defend any vinyl rig (no matter how much your spent and believe you've improved it's SQ) as representing the SOTA in High Fidelity for 2019.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't think anyone here is under the illusion vinyl isn't a technical compromise, especially relative to digital.

Points made by, for instance, levimax about his desire for previous analog mastered music, would still stand in either case.
I doubt that many of the recordings he is talking about have been re-mastered by the likes of Bob Ludwig for digital, if they have even shown up on CD at all. The vinyl versions would have been what the mastering engineer intended and signed off on, so would represent that historical encapsulation of the music as sold to the public, and may be actually closer to the original master sound than future digital versions which may have been altered substantially in the digital master. There certainly have been quite a number of digital releases through the years that people have found unsatisfactory, including substantial deviations in mastering choices, compared to the original vinyl versions, and which also represent liberties taken in regard to the sound of the original master source.

This all sounds very plausible, but it is an artificial construct of how such things were done. At least in regards to "historical encapsulation of the music as sold to the public". Spend some time comparing LP to pre-recorded reel to reel from the same time periods. Which encapsulates the music sold to the public? They were always rather different sounding. I and friends tried this in the last century. Collectors we put together quite a few albums on pre-recorded RTR, LP and the earliest CD versions. The early CD versions usually were very close to the RTR versions. There were some differences in level and noise, but the basic EQ and flavor were very much like someone took the RTR master and digitized it. LP was always the obvious odd man out. In my mind despite how much it is revered, LP was the old version of MP3. Less expensive, and more convenient than the real deal of reel tape. Imagine 50 years from now people hearing some new release and complaining because the new masterings don't match what the widespread MP3s sounded like way back when.

 

[tomelex]

This all sounds very plausible, but it is an artificial construct of how such things were done. At least in regards to "historical encapsulation of the music as sold to the public". Spend some time comparing LP to pre-recorded reel to reel from the same time periods. Which encapsulates the music sold to the public? They were always rather different sounding. I and friends tried this in the last century. Collectors we put together quite a few albums on pre-recorded RTR, LP and the earliest CD versions. The early CD versions usually were very close to the RTR versions. There were some differences in level and noise, but the basic EQ and flavor were very much like someone took the RTR master and digitized it. LP was always the obvious odd man out. In my mind despite how much it is revered, LP was the old version of MP3. Less expensive, and more convenient than the real deal of reel tape. Imagine 50 years from now people hearing some new release and complaining because the new masterings don't match what the widespread MP3s sounded like way back when.

I agree, evidence I have read in the past from those who did the recordings, and the artists, said that the cd version most closely matched the tape, but, and this is big, the vinyl while sounding different did sound appealing. So, this is why we say that vinyl distortions (from EQ pre-cutter all the way until your phono amp outputs the signal) can add a pleasing structure to the sound. Not all like it, but plenty do. Folks just need to accept that vinyl distortions can be euphonic and liked over the more pristine original source, its not about accuracy so much as that perhaps a perfect two channel amplification system in the end might not sound as pleasing to some.

 

[tomelex]

"Sometimes vinyl is mastered with more dynamics than the digital versions, but you CAN'T find this out by measuring DR, or looking waveforms. Apparent increases in DR, or "peak to loudness ratio" on vinyl are usually a mirage, and DON'T prove it has better dynamics than digital."

I remember seeing this years ago, thanks for brining it back. Anybody with ears can hear the differences between the end result vinyl playback and the CD. The point is you either like that difference or you don't. The vinyl process has more places for things to change than just moving bits about or low level analog signals, and we saw some of the physical differences as he showed when he expanded out the waveform, I though the vinyl sounded better myself, not so much dynamics but soundstage instrument and voice fill in for lack of a better term at the moment.

 

[MattHooper]

Hi Sal1950,

The error in this line of thought is the engineer "signed off" on what he heard at the console, not what that would sound like after the vinyl playback process added 5% distortion, wow, flutter ---------------------.

No error.

Did you perhaps not notice I wrote: "The vinyl versions would have been what the mastering engineer intended and signed off on, so would represent that historical encapsulation of the music as sold to the public"?

The engineer surely understood he was mastering for turntables of that period and had an idea of how it would sound coming off a turntable - hence that was his target.

Also, I'm unclear on your claim about "5% distortion, wow, flutter." Do you mean 5 percent distortion in addition to wow and flutter? If so, which distortion are you referencing? If you mean 5% wow and flutter distortion, that would seem awfully generous. I'm no expert in this, but I've read that W/F below .19% (decimal/19) is inaudible for most people. And even an old Acoustic Research AR-XA can measure down to .13% W/F.
I've seen W/F measurements for the Lin LP12 at .07%.

Any digital copy of that master, even if the monkey decides to squeeze the DR a few points, will still be miles closer in Fidelity than a vinyl playback.

Here again..."miles" doesn't sound terribly quantified. Rather, a description of your opion as to the effect. As I said, I've compared digital and vinyl versions of the same album from the same original masters, and I certainly did not find "miles better" to be an apt description of any difference I heard.

So then what is there to "take issue" with?

Personal characterisations - "X would cream Y" etc - used to imply the claim is an objective fact, rather than a personal assessment, which can therefore mislead the degree of difference one actually might hear in such comparisons.

After reading a full page of your subjective preference justifications, we fall back to the same ole same ole. Is accurate High Fidelity your aim, or personal preference.

A mix of both ;-)

I highly support those engineers seeking ways of reducing distortion in capture and playback of sound. I'd love it if we end up being able to reproduce real acoustic music in a manner indistinguishable from the real thing. And I do generally like speakers that are low distortion/neutral.
I work in sound post production, and I'm used to hearing my work played back in professional mixing theaters. I had my own listening room designed with the input of a professional acoustician. So I appreciate even, smooth playback of my sources.

However....

I have no qualms about slightly seasoning my sound to taste for several reasons. 1. There is no perfect sound reproduction system, so most of us select our own balance of compromises to one degree or another. 2. I adore the qualities that live voices and instruments produce, and I seek in my system to re-create some of that character. 3. Source quality is obviously massively variable. I want to hear the important differences in mixes, production etc. But my main aim is to actually *enjoy listening* to music through my system. Therefore I'm fine with tiny introductions of distortion - be it from tube amplification or sometimes vinyl - that nudges the sound in a direction I enjoy, and which helps me subjectively achieve goal #2.

So...no...I don't just throw all notions of accuracy to the birds.

But yes, I nudge the sound in the direction pleasing to me. Note that Floyd Tool has no qualms with altering the signal to taste either and in fact advocates it. Though of course he does it via EQ/tone controls, signal processing like upmixing etc, and would not do it earlier in the chain. Nonetheless, it is still a case of distorting/altering the signal to listener taste.

You just can't defend any vinyl rig (no matter how much your spent and believe you've improved it's SQ) as representing the SOTA in High Fidelity for 2019.

Agreed. Which is why I did not make such a claim! I made it clear right at the beginning of my post, and re-iterated along the way, that I did not believe, or claim, vinyl could be SOTA in accuracy. I said even a cheap (well made) digital source beats vinyl.

 

[jsrtheta]

But it is a valid reason to be spinning vinyl for specifically the sound quality of a specific recording. Zero fault of digital. I mentioned earlier that I needledrop to digital and all the magic of the mastering remains.

You are absolutely right about that.

 

[jsrtheta]

Agreed.

I don't go in for all the audiophile tweaks for a minute when it comes to CD players, digital, transports (e.g. "isolation pads" and all the external tweaks audiophiles think make a difference to the sonic output of digital devices). But it's pretty easy to note the sonic changes in dialing around vertical tracking force etc. (To the degree I understand things, there are sound technical reasons why playing with aspects of the arm/cartridge interface would change the sound ). I'm really a newbie when it comes to this stuff, but it was fascinating to hear when setting up the table.

Also, my phono stage has a nice set of easily accessible selectors for a range of gain, impedance settings etc. I enjoy the flexibility these give me in terms of the sound. There is one setting that sounds most bang-on accurate in terms of comparing a vinyl version to the CD version. But as I lower the impedance I get a sort of darker, rolled off, more lush sound with looser bass, raising the impedance it becomes brighter and more tight sounding. Sometimes I prefer listening with one setting over another. (I don't screw around too much with this, but I like having that option).

And that's fine. After all, many, if not most of us love the gear in this hobby. Hell, I use a sample rate converter with my DAC. Does it make any difference? Damned if I know. But occasionally I'll increase or decrease the sample rate. Why? Because I can. Maybe subconsciously I am hearing a difference. Maybe I am the Padishah of Iran. Maybe I just like gear.

 

[SIY]

Well, it would seem then that the rational solution is to find three or four other vinylphiles, all chip in on a top quality phono system, then rip all your albums to lossless files. Then you can sell off the rig and the vinyl and turn a tidy profit.

 

[NTomokawa]

Well, it would seem then that the rational solution is to find three or four other vinylphiles, all chip in on a top quality phono system, then rip all your albums to lossless files. Then you can sell off the rig and the vinyl and turn a tidy profit.

A better idea would be to buy a laser turntable. Wash the records and do the entire process in a cleanroom to avoid any dust. "Rip" the tracks to something ridiculous like 24/384 or DSD. Why is this not a business yet?

 

[MattHooper]

Well, it would seem then that the rational solution is to find three or four other vinylphiles, all chip in on a top quality phono system, then rip all your albums to lossless files. Then you can sell off the rig and the vinyl and turn a tidy profit.

Hey, don't go bringing practicality into a thread on vinyl!

I'm not sure who you are replying to and I take your comment to be mostly jest, but it wouldn't be rational for me to do what you suggest (nor IIRC would it make sense for some of the others in this thread who still enjoy spinning vinyl).