• 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!

Vinyl down . . . Streaming up

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
There is no format antagonism. However there does appear to be an implied stance from certain quarters that vinyl is hifi. It aint.
Don't be ridiculous.
It may not be the highest-fi but to say it isn't hifi is unbelievably and pointlessly antagonistic. I would never have expected something so obtuse from you.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
In comparison to modern digital no it isnt hifi. All the reasons why have already been explained. Hifi - faithful to the original. Yeah, you just have to mono low frequencies, de-ess, limit both low and high frequencies and make sure there are no out if phase signals. Then of course after that listen to progressively increasing distortion through the album side, noise, pitch instability, cone flapping, acoustic and vibration feedback, innacurate FR........

But you know all this already. There is nothing obtuse about it. Conflating and arguing your preference or tolerence for all these known and proven limitations with the definition of hifi is actually the antagonistic position.

Enjoy your LPs, but lets not pretend they are something they clearly are not, especially in the context of the alternatives available in 2018.
 
Last edited:

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Don't be ridiculous.
It may not be the highest-fi but to say it isn't hifi is unbelievably and pointlessly antagonistic. I would never have expected something so obtuse from you.
'Wilfully lower fi'.

If the people who claim that they only do it to get at different masters were to digitise the results and then never play the LP again, I might believe them...
 
Last edited:

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,149
Location
London
It was ‘Hi-fi’ when there was nowt else, then cassettes came along...
A Peaceful and Prosperous New Year everyone.
Keith
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
'Wilfully lower fi'.

If the people who claim that they only do it to get at different masters were to digitise the results and never play the LP again, I might believe them...
It isn't "wilfully" lower - it was the best that could be done at a reasonable price for many decades.


My life is too short to digitise an LP, most of which are between 30 and 50 years old, bought new by me.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
In comparison to modern digital no it isnt hifi. All the reasons why have already been explained. Hifi - faithful to the original. Yeah, you just have to mono low frequencies, de-ess, limit both low and high frequencies and make sure there are no out if phase signals. Then of course after that listen to progressively increasing distortion through the album side, noise, pitch instability, cone flapping, acoustic and vibration feedback........

But you know all this already. There is nothing obtuse about it. Conflating and arguing your preference for all these known and proven limitations with the definition of hifi is actually the antagonistic position.

Enjoy your LPs, but lets not pretend they are something they clearly are not.
I am quite sure I know much more than you do about the recording and manufacture of LPs. They were the only hifi medium available to me for decades and I worked in the business.
The manipulations done to make them manufacturable are generally euphonic or, even, better - mono bass, for example since bass isn't directional anyway and with a modest stereo having both amps and both speakers producing bass is likely to sound better than one side doing it all.

To say something isn't hifi requires a definition, and there isn't one.

IME LPs are definitely hifi though vulnerable and the systems to play them very varied.

Yes analogue is inferior to digital, and much, much harder to optimise (digital is piss easy, any ignorant halfwit can get a transparent recording), but the difference is not as exaggerated as you imply IME having been recording for over 50 years using both analogue and digital methods.

My guess is you are too young to have much experience of LPs, if any.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
I am quite sure I know much more than you do about the recording and manufacture of LPs. They were the only hifi medium available to me for decades and I worked in the business.
The manipulations done to make them manufacturable are generally euphonic or, even, better - mono bass, for example since bass isn't directional anyway and with a modest stereo having both amps and both speakers producing bass is likely to sound better than one side doing it all.

To say something isn't hifi requires a definition, and there isn't one.

IME LPs are definitely hifi though vulnerable and the systems to play them very varied.

Yes analogue is inferior to digital, and much, much harder to optimise (digital is piss easy, any ignorant halfwit can get a transparent recording), but the difference is not as exaggerated as you imply IME having been recording for over 50 years using both analogue and digital methods.

My guess is you are too young to have much experience of LPs, if any.

Then why are you making excuses for the limitations? Euphonic? No, just plain inacuracies and distortions. Also there is nothing euphonic about end of side distortion or pitch instability for example

Hifi does have a definition - faithful to the original, which in the context of 2018 technology, LPs do not fit.

No, I am not too young and had maybe a hundred or so LPs. Very, very glad that progression of technology allowed me to get rid them. Oh as far as I am concerned the difference can be vast.
 
Last edited:

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
OK, but I am still not completely convinced that the lathe itself and its control electronics don't have EQ and protection built in. Why should the guy operating it know exactly what's in the box covered in knobs?

And this is based on what? Do you know who cut the records? Do you know anything about the lathe that was used? Do you know what modifications were made to the lathe and by whom? Do you have any actual factual information upon which to base any opinion upon whatsoever?

And supposing the system has had those features removed? Presumably they don't normally include them for fun. Surely the result is:
  1. Distortion
  2. Shorter playing time
  3. Higher noise floor
  4. Restricted choice of material (yes, less 'dynamic' stuff - the suggestion that sent a certain person apoplectic a while ago!).
"Surely" that is the result? Based on what? Please explain how removing or bypassing the circuitry of a limiter from a cutting lathe will cause distortion and a higher noise floor. That is what you are asserting "surely" will happen. Prove it. I'd bet that removing or bypassing a limiter in a cutting lathe or any circuitry in a mastering console will not add distortion or raise the noise floor. If anything it would reduce both.


This discussion is a debate on semantics. We know that digital recording is essentially perfect. We know that LP is a litany of noise and distortions of various kinds. Only the power of suggestion could keep it alive in the face of the possibilities that digital provides.

No, it was a debate on how some records were actually cut and it ran on for way to long because some folks who had no facts on their side continued to argue based on audio myths about how records supposedly "have to be cut ALWAYS" that are clearly not true. And preferences for one medium over another are not based purely on the power of suggestion. Yeah, bias effects are in play for those who have never done bias controlled comparisons. But that is true for you as well and your strong opinion on the subject.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
And this is based on what? Do you know who cut the records? Do you know anything about the lathe that was used? Do you know what modifications were made to the lathe and by whom? Do you have any actual factual information upon which to base any opinion upon whatsoever?

"Surely" that is the result? Based on what? Please explain how removing or bypassing the circuitry of a limiter from a cutting lathe will cause distortion and a higher noise floor. That is what you are asserting "surely" will happen. Prove it. I'd bet that removing or bypassing a limiter in a cutting lathe or any circuitry in a mastering console will not add distortion or raise the noise floor. If anything it would reduce both.




No, it was a debate on how some records were actually cut and it ran on for way to long because some folks who had no facts on their side continued to argue based on audio myths about how records supposedly "have to be cut ALWAYS" that are clearly not true. And preferences for one medium over another are not based purely on the power of suggestion. Yeah, bias effects are in play for those who have never done bias controlled comparisons. But that is true for you as well and your strong opinion on the subject.


Just because you can find a small number of examples where LPs have been cut without any processing does not invalidate the points being made. It is pure pedantry and semantecs on your behalf to labour the point.

The physics of cutting LPs are well understood and the points made are not based on myth as you put it. Again, whilst there may be some music that does not require manipulation to allow it to be committed to disc, it has to conform to very narrow parameters which Cosmik correctly alluded to and which most music doesnt.
 
Last edited:

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
In a forum far far away there is a dac designer who has had a thread running for about five years whilst he designs and crowd funds his ultimate dac. Ironically he claims tbat nothing surpasses vinyl. He says digital is not perfect. Whilst the latter statement may be true, the idea that vinyl is anything but a technical pile of steaming poo is just delusional, and I stopped taking the guy seriously after that. Why would I trust the aural judgement of someone who thinks vinyl is king? The sound of vinyl is entirely due to its technical deficiencies not its superiority. Your statement regarding essentially perfect will indeed send the audiophile fraternity utterly apoplectic.

Im not really sure why we are discussing vinyl. Its an anchronism. Who cares if there has been a fashion that has provided a bit of a temporary resurgance in sales? It aint hifi in any dictionary definition of the term.

Hey, lets get some vinyl cut from a recording made by a member and see how closely it resembles the original. Amir, is that a worthy experiment to spend some cash on?
You are not sure why we are discussing vinyl and yet you make numerous posts on the subject. IOW you continue to discuss it. What exactly is your idea of "temporary?" Not that it has that much bearing on the sound quality of vinyl but how is a how on earth is a 3000% increase in units sold over the past 14 years a "temporary resurgence?"
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Please explain how removing or bypassing the circuitry of a limiter from a cutting lathe will cause distortion and a higher noise floor. That is what you are asserting "surely" will happen. Prove it. I'd bet that removing or bypassing a limiter in a cutting lathe or any circuitry in a mastering console will not add distortion or raise the noise floor. If anything it would reduce both.
Sorry, my fault for not being more clear. If you fail to limit an overload you get distortion (or worse). To avoid this you can choose to cut at a lower overall level = higher noise floor. Or you can choose to cut with wider grooves = shorter playing time. Or you can choose to avoid 'challenging' recordings.

Or any permutation of the above. Clear now?
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
And this is based on what? Do you know who cut the records? Do you know anything about the lathe that was used? Do you know what modifications were made to the lathe and by whom? Do you have any actual factual information upon which to base any opinion upon whatsoever?
Can you play the piano? You have no right to ever talk about piano recordings.
Have you ever conducted an orchestra? You have no right...
Are you a rock god? Ditto.
Have you ever designed an electronic product? Ditto.
etc. etc.

Could be a bit limiting in the conversation stakes.

I wasn't there, and I didn't do the remastering myself, but I know that the 'professionals' who remastered Sgt. Peppers recently deliberately applied some "gentle clipping" to the digital version but not the vinyl and I can't tell you how much that annoys me. Am I allowed to have an opinion on this?
 
Last edited:

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
Just because you can find a small number of examples where LPs have been cut without any processing does not invalidate the points being made. It is pure pedantry and semantecs on your behalf to labour the point.

The physics of cutting LPs are well understood. Again, whilst there may be some music that does not require manipulation to allow it to be committed to disc, it has to conform to very narrow parameters which Cosmik correctly alluded to.
Finding examples that disprove an assertion of fact about how something allegedly has to ALWAYS be done does not invalidate the assertion that it has to ALWAYS be done that way? OK.......yeah sure, wow..... and you are saying this on a scientific forum. Yeah, that's how science works. Disproving assertions of fact in science certainly doesn't invalidate that assertion now does it?
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Finding examples that disprove an assertion of fact about how something allegedly has to ALWAYS be done does not invalidate the assertion that it has to ALWAYS be done that way? OK.......yeah sure, wow..... and you are saying this on a scientific forum. Yeah, that's how science works. Disproving assertions of fact in science certainly doesn't invalidate that assertion now does it?
This point isnt about science, its about the futile pedantry of challenging and labouring an issue when the wider and obvious context of the point in question is perfectly valid.
 
Last edited:

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
You are not sure why we are discussing vinyl and yet you make numerous posts on the subject. IOW you continue to discuss it. What exactly is your idea of "temporary?" Not that it has that much bearing on the sound quality of vinyl but how is a how on earth is a 3000% increase in units sold over the past 14 years a "temporary resurgence?"

Except Im not now discussing vinyl per se, its more about peoples attitudes to it.

3000%, and how many actual units is that compared to all digital formats? Was that meant to be oohh look big number? Do you think streaming or downloading will not continue to grow?
 
Last edited:

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
Sorry, my fault for not being more clear. If you fail to limit an overload you get distortion (or worse).


That's a big "if" you just added to the equation. And if you don't overload you don't get that distortion. Just curious, can you point to any individual records among the ones I have cited that you have heard or measured such distortion?

To avoid this you can choose to cut at a lower overall level = higher noise floor. Or you can choose to cut with wider grooves = shorter playing time. Or you can choose to avoid 'challenging' recordings.

Or any permutation of the above. Clear now?

Clearly with the specific records I have cited the recordings were chosen on the sonic and musical merits of the material not on how "challenging or not" those recordings were to cut without the use of additional processing. For many of these records shorter playing sides was the choice made to accomodate not using any processing and also to accomodate a speed of 45 rpms.

And yes your assertion is much clearer now.
 

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
This point isnt about science, its about the futile pedantry of challenging when the wider and obvious context of the point in question is perfectly valid.

Clearly it isn't about science since it is clearly totally unscientific. It's just plain anti science thinking
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom