• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Turntables - help me understand the appeal?

John Dyson

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Messages
172
Likes
90
I have added a few snippets for classical music decodes and the original raw CD. These files represent essentially the full quality of each. I am not listing them here, the can be selected as downloads of a directory on Dropbox.
The 'rawCD' FeralA version tends to be 'woody' sounding and obvious compression. I am not claiming that the decodes are the epitome of audio quality, but are definitely much better (IMO.) The 'decoded' version comes directly from the 'rawCD' version -- no hankey panky other than the FeralA decoder. (It is a DolbyA with special EQ.)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cnmb237b7yawy2q/AACxWL-6N-Xn750MHKSEi8LMa?dl=0

I do believe that the FeralA on CDs (and other digital) are a big reason why *properly mastered* vinyl is hanging on. Digital material is not properly mastered as often as the vinyl versions.

John
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,463
Location
Australia
This problem with digital has been around since CDs came out, and no -- I am not a digital nay-sayer, but just the opposite...
CDs, since they came out, are mastered differently than the vinyl equivalent. If you notice some compression in the HF on CD (or even high-res downloads), but not so much on vinyl -- there is a real technical reason for it... The difference is in the mastering.

Early CDs (and still to some extent) were created from material on DolbyA tapes. For some reason, instead of decoding the DolbyA material, they did a fairly cute EQ scheme. That corrected the shreeking, shrill DolbyA (much worse than DolbyB) into something listenable, but no actual DolbyA decoding step was used.

Early on, vinyl was usually mastered correctly using the DolbyA HW.
Why did the CD thing happen? I am still trying to research it -- actually chatting with recording engineers, but SOMEONE chose to make the CDs with the errsatz-decoding scheme.

I have LOTS of existence proof -- I don't want to monopolize the thread -- but I can provide snippet examples of the 'CD' vs. truly decoded material based directly on the CD, undoing the 'errsatz EQ', and then doing a DolbyA decoding operation. Part of the proof is that when trying to decode material that is ALREADY decoded, it really isn't good sounding at all. The corrected material from CD (even some high-res downloads), and then decoded starts reminding me of the vinyl sound.

I put up two example snippets from the Carpenters onto Audiophile Style objective-fi section -- and numerous other examples can be provided -- for example, I just produced the most beautiful copy of Crime of the Century possible (well, I didn't have a real master tape, but only a clean original issue CD.) The CD is certainly going to be slightly lower quality than the master tape, but the results are astounding (and outstanding.)
This is essentially non-commercial and mostly a research effort -- but this whole vinyl and CD and compression matter has often been somewhat confused by the very substantial difference in mastering.

Another very sad situation is happening now -- the errsatz 'decoding' is now appearing on some vinyl, therefore making the difference between vinyl and CD much less.

John

FWIW: Steve Hoffman is not a fan of Dolby A. https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/professional-dolby-noise-reductions-systems-and-why.754983/
 

John Dyson

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Messages
172
Likes
90

Yea -- I underrstand. A lot of material is already DolbyA, and that is where we are stuck trying to decode it. It will never be correct unless decoded -- once it is encoded.

The material won't even sound totally clean/accurate when decoding with a true DolbyA HW unit.
There is a design flaw in true DolbyA units that the DHNRDS DA decoder fixes -- put your EE or control systems hat on, and I'll try to explain so that non-EEs understand it... It is complicated and my language/composition skills suck badly, but this is important to understand to keep from thinking that I am some kind of snake oil person (which I am not really selling anything anyway...)

Here, you have the original DolbyA encoding operation... It is a set of paralel jFET feedback compressors, each of them joined together with bandpass filters. Those compressors all together make a fairly now distortion multi-band compressor. I'll explain below R Dolbys genius in his compreesors.

In order to decode DolbyA, the mechnaism is to invert the behavior by putting the compressor array into the reverse leg of a feedback loop. The configuration of the feedback loop effectively inverts the compressor array into a reverse compressor, or expander.

Here is the problem with DolbyA *decoding*... This is where EE and/or control systems is important... Those compressors have a kind of propagation delay for their behavior and for the signal propagation through the process. Normally, in the forward direction, that delay is very benign -- it is so short tha it isn't really noticeable.
When using the compressors in the feedback loop, that propagation delay through the compressors is not benign, and creates errors in the decoding process. The DolbyA *decoding* process has more errors than the encoding process.

The DHNRDS DA is a mathematical inversion of what a DolbyA does -- it was very tedious to calculate ahead of time, but it is as accurate as needed to accurately represent the inverse compression provess without noticeable audible errors associated with the HW approach.

There is one more problem with BOTH the DolbyA compression and the inverse DolbyA compression (decoding) -- modulation effects. There are two parts to the modulation effects. One is that the DolbyA signal detector itself can create small amounts of intemodulation effects in the gain control signal. That slightly intermodulation effected gain control signal creates a sound that is almost equivalent to normal signal intermod distortion. THis kind of distortion happens mostly in the edge of the speed range of the attack/release times -- about 1000Hz range.
Another noticeable effect -- any fast gain control device, are the creation if signal sidebands that effectively soften the sound. These sidebands are equivalent to AM moduation as used in AM radio, and just a mathematically natural event of modulating the signal with a gain (gain control.)

The DHNRDS DA mitigates both of the kinds of IMD also (along with the inversion fix) -- one is that the precise DolbyA attack/release calculation is slightly modified in the margins so that the detector IMD doesn't happen. Secondly, the gain multiplication is a very complex math algorithm that moves the distortion sidebands into a less audible place in time and frequency (the energy is shifted.) It is impossible to eliminate the sideband energy, but the DHNRDS puts it into a hiding place where it is less noticeable. (There is an Orban patent that does some sideband manipulation in a more primitive way, but uses some of the same kinds of processing elements that the DHNRDS uses for its sideband manipuation. The Orban patent -- NOT what the DHNRDS does, but in the same vein -- US patent 6,205,225.

SO, many of the defects associated with DolbyA can be mitigated when decoding by using the DHNRDS DA.

About R Dolby's genius. His feedback compressors used in the cat 22, A301 and later DolbyA designs have a so-very-carefully crafted attack/release circuit. When doing a casual look-see at his circuit, it almost looks like an extra hairy straight signal detector, but it is NOT simple. Looking closely, it has a carefully crafted attack/release time filtering -- brilliant.

How does FeralA (the digital sound) decoding relate to DolbyA? The 'compressed' and woody sound on the digital CDs is basically an EQed version of the ENCODED DolbyA recording. Instead of decoding, the distributors of the dgital media did NOT decode, but instead attempted to EQ away the hard, intense DolbyA sound instead of decoding it. The DHNRDS DA takes away the disadvantages of decoding, except for simple better-than-DolbyA decoding takes about 3X faster than realtime. For super-archival quality decoding, it takes approx realtime.

This is the short, but long description of what is going on!!! Back to vinyl :).

John
 
Last edited:

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,386
Likes
3,513
Location
San Diego
First -- I have a major mea culpa -- I made a mistake. I looked back at my records and recognized that I made a mistake decoding the material, plus looked at the logs and there was some clipping in the output...
I erroneously used a mixed version of the old method and new method for decoding. Also some checks even show that I was wrong about the material being 'DolbyA", but instead it was 'FeralA' (eq'ed DolbyA as normally used on CDs.) Because the material is so intense, I made some mistakes about some of the tellls. This decode is finally correct (the other one has been erased), and is also in 88.2k/24bit quality, directly converted from the floating point decoder output.
The 'raw CD' version is just a conversion from a .wav CD file.
I make mistakes all of the time, probably the most ham-handed at 'mastering' as you can get. My hearing goes dead quickly, then I make mistakes. This is NO LONGER a mistake.

So -- the ACTUAL, ACCURATE decoded snippet is the --decoded version, and the 'rawCD' version is raw from CD. The new decoded version is VERY different, sounds much more normal, and no clipping happened on output.... (Even though the decoder cannot really clip, the flac conversion from the floating point out to 24 bit can clip.)

Note that a major tell about FeralA or raw DolbyA on this kind of material is that the high-hats are swishy and the midrange is compressed. It can get so bad sometimes that it becomes an ugly-woody sounding.

I apologize for being mislead and my previous decoding mistake!!!

Also, in about 1HR or less, I'll have a classical FeralA recording and the properly decoded version -- much nicer. Trying to choose which one.
After this, I'll fall back and stay focused on 'turntables'. I am extending this part of the discussion a little because this FeralA thing might be one reason why vinyl is still very important.

Decoded:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4aytoff1ipafty/07 Thelma Houston,I've Got The Music In Me-decoded.flac?dl=0
Raw CD:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ahpvo9khuo1s0ws/07 Thelma Houston,I've Got The Music In Me-rawCD.flac?dl=0


Wow that is a huge difference. Thank you for for sharing your work. When I listen to needle drops of LP's vs CD's I seldom notice this much difference but the CD's do tend to be brighter/ harsher. After listening to these examples and reading Steve Hoffman's comments on Dolby A I can see why I often prefer the vinyl mix for older analog recorded music. For me personally I only buy vinyl if it is the original pressing of music recorded prior to the digital era... beside the "fun factor" I know the music sounds as originally intended and to me this often sounds better than the digital transfers done years or decades later. For newer music or old remastered music the added cost of vinyl does not make sense to me but I understand for some it still has the "fun factor".
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,739
Likes
6,447
Vinyl forces you to get up from your seat every 15 minutes when you're working from home.
That would definitely be a good thing. Moving around and such. Working from home, or even at the office, our lives are too sedentary.

If you are playing the Crystal Clear 45 rpm recording of Charlie Byrd, you might even have less than fifteen minutes, but generally you're probably going to have to sit for twenty to twenty-five minutes, maybe up to thirty, with most LPs. If you own a copy of that Murray Hill Furwangler set, you will be able to sit for almost 45 minutes! But after fifteen, you will likely want to get up anyway, and put something else on, due to the poor audio quality of the records.

On some records you might have to get up from your seat after just five minutes, in order to push the tonearm over the skip. If you are listening to the Pink Floyd alarm clocks, or the Archie's Sugar Sugar, while under the influence of powerful hallucinogens, or listening to the latest trance mix beat, you might not even realize that the needle is skipping backwards, and the record could go on for a couple of hours before you get up out of your seat in order to fix the problem. However, if you are working from home I would not advise that sort of scenario. Even on a remote Zoom meeting your co-workers will probably realize something is not right and HR could be notified.

So it's really a mixed bag, in the pace and timing department.

byrd.jpg
wagner.jpg
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,155
Likes
16,841
Location
Central Fl
Vinyl forces you to get up from your seat every 15 minutes when you're working from home.
What, you don't have a record changer?
You need to get up to date with the tech.

Zenith-Record-Player-Automatic-Record-Changer.jpg
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,155
Likes
16,841
Location
Central Fl

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,263
Likes
7,691
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I recently put together a nice 2.1 music only system ($3K USD range) and use streaming (Spotify HQ and Qobuz <I'm a beta tester in US>) as my source. I'm extremely happy with the results - the sound quality is amazing, everything I had hoped for, and impresses me more everytime I listen.

I keep seeing, especially on Reddit/Audiophile, many, many turntable setups feeding similarly nice or better equipment. I'm familiar with the science behind it, but curious as to the appeal. The arguments for seem to be an "organic" sound that many prefer. I'm curious, but not sure I want to invest several hundred more dollars on an appropriate rig, not to mention cost of albums. I'm not looking to challenge anyone's preferences, but am looking for a better understanding of the appeal?

For those who like listening to turntables on their main systems, why should I consider putting money into this? Can you help me understand why you like listening to records better than HQ streaming?

Thanks in advance for sharing your opinions.
I used to listen to LPs, starting out practically from birth [have a deep embedded memory of hearing Nat King Cole on the record player] up until 2019 when I moved and got rid of all my records and record players. I've had some LP playback rigs that were great, but most weren't. Working in record stores when records were the thing, a record playing device was necessary. Later I had a side hustle copying other people's analog discs to digital formats. In between, LPs were everywhere and for a very long time they were cheap, thanks to the inroads CDs made into record stores. I'm not going back to analog discs for various reasons, but first I'd like to note the things that make LP playing worthwhile.

To start with, the sound is different. People who like the sound of LP reproduction are hearing forms of distortion that digital record/play doesn't have, suggesting that some people have a preference for certain types of distortion. One element, usually not considered but probably more important than given credit, is that LPs have pre and post echo engraved in the grooves. If the track is dynamic enough, the mastering engineer has to temporarily widen the space for the groove so there's no obvious bleed through. The net result would be an additional sense of ambience and room tone. I suspect that some of the quality of LP reproduction has to do with various form of feedback. I bought my best turntable from a lute player who also happened to be an audiophile. He had a system using what appeared to be a stock AR XA, had a beautiful sound with Rodgers LS/3/5a speakers powered by vintage Dynaco tube gear.

There can be a sense that the vocal is more dynamic and prominent in a tubes & turntable system, where the output transformers of the tube gear are more focused in the midrange than the frequency extremes. I had a system with a good turntable, an old Scott 299b integrated amp, some RBH mini-floorstanding speakers. Sounded great with vintage mono LPs. Someone really into the fifties would appreciate this system.

I'm gonna guess you've already been bombarded with all the good reasons why getting into analog discs can be a major PIA and ultimately can only produce sub-par reproduction. However, when it's good it's remarkable how good it can be.
 
OP
dkinric

dkinric

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
675
Likes
1,465
Location
Virginia, USA
So, this post is over 3 yrs old, but thanks for the feedback. FWIW, I did not get a turntable, and continue to enjoy streaming music - now with a second sub and Dirac DSP, it sounds better than ever.
The only real advantage I see is access to some more dynamic, possibly better mastering. This is a really interesting site, which uses lots of measurements to assess the different release versions: https://magicvinyldigital.net/
 

Digby

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,632
Likes
1,558
Digital offers endless opportunity for some cloth eared mastering engineer to come and mess things up, when it involves older recordings this is usually called 'remastering' (making everything boom and tizz).

Vinyl didn't offer the same opportunity and you had to earn your chops, as one of a select few, before you were let loose on the world at large.

There is some exceptional sounding vinyl (within the limits of the format) and there are some awful sounding CDs (even though the format is superior). It will depend on the music as to whether it sounds better on vinyl or not.

I wouldn't bother for any music produced since CD became the dominant format though, there is little point (if the CD mastering is poor, the vinyl will likely be the same). Certain older recordings do sound better on vinyl - not because vinyl is better, but because they remained relatively unmolested in the mastering phase.
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
Digital offers endless opportunity for some cloth eared mastering engineer to come and mess things up, when it involves older recordings this is usually called 'remastering' (making everything boom and tizz).

Vinyl didn't offer the same opportunity and you had to earn your chops, as one of a select few, before you were let loose on the world at large.

There is some exceptional sounding vinyl (within the limits of the format) and there are some awful sounding CDs (even though the format is superior). It will depend on the music as to whether it sounds better on vinyl or not.

I wouldn't bother for any music produced since CD became the dominant format though, there is little point (if the CD mastering is poor, the vinyl will likely be the same). Certain older recordings do sound better on vinyl - not because vinyl is better, but because they remained relatively unmolested in the mastering phase.
Well stated, totally agree. when i ripped all my cds to hd years ago, the dr data was entered into a database. the ave dr numbers were disappointing overall, but if you separate the data by period/date, it was obvious that early cds offered exceptional dynamics, while my later period cds declined on ave very quickly, which is rather sad ...

again, its not the technical format that is in question ... digital is obviously a superior format, nobody is stating any different, but todays mass compression is software related, compressed "remasters" r now part & parcel of most digital reproduction. sad indeed ...
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,155
Likes
16,841
Location
Central Fl
Well stated, totally agree. when i ripped all my cds to hd years ago, the dr data was entered into a database. the ave dr numbers were disappointing overall, but if you separate the data by period/date, it was obvious that early cds offered exceptional dynamics, while my later period cds declined on ave very quickly, which is rather sad ...

again, its not the technical format that is in question ... digital is obviously a superior format, nobody is stating any different, but todays mass compression is software related, compressed "remasters" r now part & parcel of most digital reproduction. sad indeed ...
DR, DR, DR, Yea it's important, but you guys constantly trying to defend vinyl by riding the DR horse crack me up.. It is one failing of a lot of modern popular music recordings but oh well. The recording tech is beyond reproach, the only weakness comes from the recording engineers bad decisions.
OTOH, vinyls failings exist on each and every LP ever squished. No matter how much DR they have, they all have, to one extreme or another,
High surface noise,
Inner groove distortion
Wow and Flutter
Off center stampings
Mono bass
Cymbals and other high freq sources can not be cut too loudly.
None of the various multich playback methods were ever very successful, it's basically 2ch limited and mostly mono in the bass
ETC ETC ETC.

What is a “Vinyl Ready” master?
Read what the cutting experts have to say.

As disappointed as we all were in the new Tears For Fears - The Tipping Point, the CD and HDTracks DR5 mastering, it still didn't sound too bad.
I listened to these versions a half dozen or more times and enjoyed the experience quite a bit
Then our good friend Steven Wilson came along and remastered the source into 5.1 and Atmos files measuring a great DR-13
Let me see you do that on a LP. LOL
 

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
DR, DR, DR, Yea it's important, but you guys constantly trying to defend vinyl by riding the DR horse crack me up.. It is one failing of a lot of modern popular music recordings but oh well. The recording tech is beyond reproach, the only weakness comes from the recording engineers bad decisions.
OTOH, vinyls failings exist on each and every LP ever squished. No matter how much DR they have, they all have, to one extreme or another,
High surface noise,
Inner groove distortion
Wow and Flutter
Off center stampings
Mono bass
Cymbals and other high freq sources can not be cut too loudly.
None of the various multich playback methods were ever very successful, it's basically 2ch limited and mostly mono in the bass
ETC ETC ETC.

Yet i have so many vinyl rips which you couldnt tell a difference ... and many in which sound significantly, and measurably more dynamic.
As disappointed as we all were in the new Tears For Fears - The Tipping Point, the CD and HDTracks DR5 mastering, it still didn't sound too bad.

U gotta b kiddin me, its always LOUD and imo sounds brutal ... tells me everything about your sonic expectations. no thanks ...

Then our good friend Steven Wilson came along and remastered the source into 5.1 and Atmos files measuring a great DR-13
Let me see you do that on a LP. LOL

the dr values of my rips r consistently near identical to the same master on digital ... inc many well over dr13 which is beyond rare in todays digital world.

I enjoy the best of both worlds, while you whine about 1 over the other as something of relevance in a world where ANYONE can achieve good digital, inc ANY vinyl owner ...
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,155
Likes
16,841
Location
Central Fl
U gotta b kiddin me, its always LOUD and imo sounds brutal ... tells me everything about your sonic expectations. no thanks ...
High surface noise,
Inner groove distortion
Wow and Flutter
Off center stampings
Mono bass
Cymbals and other high freq sources can not be cut too loudly.
None of the various multich playback methods were ever very successful, it's basically 2ch limited and mostly mono in the bass
And the above tells me everything about your sonic expectations.
Not like I haven't been listening to vinyl since the mid 1950s.
In the main it stinks unless you spend 50 times the amount a digital rig will cost,
Spend more time tweaking than listening,
And search the earth for the expensive & rare LP that isn't totally overwhelmed sonicly with those issues.
But in the end, every single vinyl pressing in history is contaminated with all the above referenced shortcomings. Did you read any of the links I posted?
I've still got around 250 vinyl rips on my harddrive but can't remember listening to a single one since I got my first Spotify streaming account.
No Thanks. ;)
flintstone.png
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,263
Likes
7,691
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
That would definitely be a good thing. Moving around and such. Working from home, or even at the office, our lives are too sedentary.

If you are playing the Crystal Clear 45 rpm recording of Charlie Byrd, you might even have less than fifteen minutes, but generally you're probably going to have to sit for twenty to twenty-five minutes, maybe up to thirty, with most LPs. If you own a copy of that Murray Hill Furwangler set, you will be able to sit for almost 45 minutes! But after fifteen, you will likely want to get up anyway, and put something else on, due to the poor audio quality of the records.

On some records you might have to get up from your seat after just five minutes, in order to push the tonearm over the skip. If you are listening to the Pink Floyd alarm clocks, or the Archie's Sugar Sugar, while under the influence of powerful hallucinogens, or listening to the latest trance mix beat, you might not even realize that the needle is skipping backwards, and the record could go on for a couple of hours before you get up out of your seat in order to fix the problem. However, if you are working from home I would not advise that sort of scenario. Even on a remote Zoom meeting your co-workers will probably realize something is not right and HR could be notified.

So it's really a mixed bag, in the pace and timing department.

View attachment 192617View attachment 192618
That Ring set is in competition for worst sounding recording of all time. I had an Italian Fonit Cetra set of the same set of radio broadcasts. The sonics were better, but still horrible.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,739
Likes
6,447
What, you don't have a record changer?
There's not much out there that's as cool as a Cobra-Matic. I've seen a few in mint condition on the second hand market. In different configurations. After all these years I'd suspect that its plastic parts would be prone to breakage.

In the '50s and sometimes up through the '60s, and even '70s, many receivers and preamps featured two phono stages. The idea was that the well-heeled audiophile would want two record players --> a changer for relaxing quiet times in the evening in his den reading the newspaper, or with company, when he didn't want to be bothered with getting up and down. And a 'transcription' single play machine, for 'critical listening', and transferring his precious discs to open reel tape.

At the low end, Crossly attempts to recreate the '60s design style. I've posted her photo before, but here's Yang Mi and her Crossly. Yang actually has the Cobra-Matic tonearm look, in her pose.

cobra.jpg
mi23.jpg
 
Top Bottom