Vinyl is not as bad as I expected.

[Mart68]

Nothing in any of the posts proves anything. Contrived "tests" and unverified hearsay is all they are. The DR meter is just math that compares peak to RMS and is no doubt flawed and abused but it is based on reasonable mathmatical assumptions and I find strong correlation between the DR values and percieved loudness. Preference of course is another matter. In an era of ever louder and more compressed music the DR values do provide some useful information especially with the online database. Knowing that a tool is limited and imperfect does not mean it is useless.

I've also found a correlation, although compared to the number of albums on the database I only have a small sample.
Obviously as a guide to vinyl DR it's useless but no-one is disputing that,

 

[Newman]

Obviously as a guide to vinyl DR it's useless but no-one is disputing that,

No one?

 

[Mart68]

No one?

You know what I mean. There's always some people who haven't done the required reading.

 

[mike70]

Many people complains about vinyl measurements and they have systems or speakers / rooms with worst numbers ...

Vinyl can sound very, very good ... everyone must hear a good analog system, have a real experience ... and then you have a real opinion.

That's not science? Oh ... yes, it is.

You need to take ALL the numbers, all the information together. Sound in your ears is not only about SNR in the source ... far from that. In the standard sound system / room acoustics ... vinyl measurements are more than enough for hifi sound.

Experience a good analog system once in your life, with an open mind ... and remember ... brain "tricks" also works for what you don't want to hear ... it's a 2 way lane.

Only my opinion.

 

[DSJR]

Judging by many audiophile system setups I see in pictures, the speaker siting and room unsuitability, renders all their subjective opinions null and void frankly. They may as well have stuck with a 1960's console/stereogram I reckon They spend a fortune on the gear and then set it up like an audio shrine, with speakers too close to the turntable and one or both of them on a corner to boot, everything tightly stacked in a 'rack' and often picking up hum, which in my experience is a killer for potential vinyl sound quality whatever the cartridge used. One year the speakers are spiked hard to the floor and the next, soft decouplers are the rage (this on speakers/stands properly designed by engineers, as audiophiles always know better).

 

[mike70]

Judging by many audiophile system setups I see in pictures, the speaker siting and room unsuitability, renders all their subjective opinions null and void frankly. They may as well have stuck with a 1960's console/stereogram I reckon They spend a fortune on the gear and then set it up like an audio shrine, with speakers too close to the turntable and one or both of them on a corner to boot, everything tightly stacked in a 'rack' and often picking up hum, which in my experience is a killer for potential vinyl sound quality whatever the cartridge used. One year the speakers are spiked hard to the floor and the next, soft decouplers are the rage (this on speakers/stands properly designed by engineers, as audiophiles always know better).

Knowledge and science are the real thing ... but, as you described ... there's much more than SNR / SINAD on the source ... much more.

If you only measure the solar radiation and you ignore the magnetic protection in the earth you can conclude that earth cannot support life. A real measurement ... an incomplete information ... a wrong conclusion. And we're talking about science, not magic.

 

[DSJR]

Knowledge and science are the real thing ... but, as you described ... there's much more than SNR / SINAD on the source ... much more.

If you only measure the solar radiation and you ignore the magnetic protection in the earth you can conclude that earth cannot support life. A real measurement ... an incomplete information ... a wrong conclusion. And we're talking about science, not magic.

Oh I dunno - SINAD would he hugely affected by hum on a vinyl source, lack of control below 30Hz will affect amp power availability as well as giving smaller speakers a hard time with their cones flapping back and forth and generating loads of distortion which *will* mess up the midrange too.

I maintain that if we hear it and it's real (and not imagined as many audiophile things seem to be looking back), there's a measurable reason for it as our ears and hearing really isn't that good in many fellas, even when we're young and especially as most of us are rather older now in this hobby. Once the mind gets involved, all further bets are off though I feel. (Didn't Peter Aczel suggest borderline audible distortion at around -70dB? I'd put it more like -40dB for us oldies around and about! - yet some here fuss and fret over 118dB SINAD compared to 120dB, if you know what I mean )

I have a love-hate relationship with vinyl now and still love tinkering with the kind of decks you lot would ignore (perhaps in ignorance). For me it's a bit like watching the VHS and Betamax tapes I've collected and now disposing of (nobody wants home recorded tapes, even 'EHG grade' so they have to go in household rubbish my local recycling centre tells us, probably to be invinerated rather than pure landfill). the picture quality at best is pretty awful watched today and compared to DVD which itself doesn't quite have the visual dynamic range potential or storage capacity of blu-ray, yet back then, we watched these tapes with little criticism i remember.

 

[mike70]

I repeat, you need to hear a good analog system. As a mechanical device, it's not everyone that can do that ... even worst for a digital native
You can think on a modern car when the most important aspects are controlled by computers ... you connect a PC based diagnostic machine and "voila".

But ... you can adjust the exact combustion point in a 60s mustang / Ferrari / whatever? You need the right skills. Kind of in vinyl.

I'm not pushing vinyl to the top, I only say that I see many debatable opinions about vinyl as a "second class" sound from people that really never experienced a real good analog system in their life.

 

[symphara]

Many people complains about vinyl measurements and they have systems or speakers / rooms with worst numbers ...

Vinyl can sound very, very good ... everyone must hear a good analog system, have a real experience ... and then you have a real opinion.

That's not science? Oh ... yes, it is.

You need to take ALL the numbers, all the information together. Sound in your ears is not only about SNR in the source ... far from that. In the standard sound system / room acoustics ... vinyl measurements are more than enough for hifi sound.

Experience a good analog system once in your life, with an open mind ... and remember ... brain "tricks" also works for what you don't want to hear ... it's a 2 way lane.

Only my opinion.

I don't think this is the issue. Yes vinyl can sound very good. I recently asked someone with a large LP collection to play for me something that would be excellent sounding and he produced Timeless (Abercrombie, ECM). It was excellent. Very nice LP mastering, the disc had no defects, it was pancake flat and very clean, there was minimal LP noise, we really enjoyed listening to it. Basically as good as I've heard an LP.

The issue is that the CD version sounds much better, there's more depth and clarity, the bass is deep and wonderful, you don't need to pay close to $50 for it, and you can digitise it so it's so much more convenient to use, and the digital copy won't degrade (at all).

Unless you have a large number of LPs with unique masters that aren't available in digital format - and this is unlikely - it's just nostalgia. The format is clearly (substantially) inferior, more expensive and far more inconvenient to use.

I don't know why people fall over themselves to demonstrate that LPs are somehow superior. They aren't. It's just nostalgia. Own up to it, there's nothing to be ashamed of. It's perfectly acceptable to choose something objectively worse because it makes you feel better due to its very quaintness and the ritual attached to using it.

 

[PierreV]

Knowledge and science are the real thing ... but, as you described ... there's much more than SNR / SINAD on the source ... much more.

If you only measure the solar radiation and you ignore the magnetic protection in the earth you can conclude that earth cannot support life. A real measurement ... an incomplete information ... a wrong conclusion. And we're talking about science, not magic.

Well, you can't measure solar radiation, without understanding electro-magnetism, a bunch of other minor things such as nuclear fusion, its byproducts and the impact they have on key life-supporting molecules, which you wouldn't have understood without applications of electro-magnetism either. Earth's magnetic field would not go unnoticed.

That's the core issue with the "there is more than measurements" idea in audiophilia. Even if you are sympathetic to the idea that there is more, it would be nice to clearly define what that "more" consists of, something that never happens. Well, there is the psychology/human mind aspect of course but, for some reason, the testing of that hypothesis (for example in blind tests) doesn't fly with a lot of audiophiles either...

 

[mike70]

I don't think this is the issue. Yes vinyl can sound very good. I recently asked someone with a large LP collection to play for me something that would be excellent sounding and he produced Timeless (Abercrombie, ECM). It was excellent. Very nice LP mastering, the disc had no defects, it was pancake flat and very clean, there was minimal LP noise, we really enjoyed listening to it. Basically as good as I've heard an LP.

The issue is that the CD version sounds much better, there's more depth and clarity, the bass is deep and wonderful, you don't need to pay close to $50 for it, and you can digitise it so it's so much more convenient to use, and the digital copy won't degrade (at all).

Unless you have a large number of LPs with unique masters that aren't available in digital format - and this is unlikely - it's just nostalgia. The format is clearly (substantially) inferior, more expensive and far more inconvenient to use.

I don't know why people fall over themselves to demonstrate that LPs are somehow superior. They aren't. It's just nostalgia. Own up to it, there's nothing to be ashamed of. It's perfectly acceptable to choose something objectively worse because it makes you feel better due to its very quaintness and the ritual attached to using it.

It's not my experience, and that's why I'm writing it on a vinyl thread.

I know the other positions / experiences, I expected that the "repetition" will come. Maybe what I wrote it's totally useless after all.

 

[mike70]

Well, you can't measure solar radiation, without understanding electro-magnetism, a bunch of other minor things such as nuclear fusion, its byproducts and the impact they have on key life-supporting molecules, which you wouldn't have understood without applications of electro-magnetism either. Earth's magnetic field would not go unnoticed.

That's the core issue with the "there is more than measurements" idea in audiophilia. Even if you are sympathetic to the idea that there is more, it would be nice to clearly define what that "more" consists of, something that never happens. Well, there is the psychology/human mind aspect of course but, for some reason, the testing of that hypothesis (for example in blind tests) doesn't fly with a lot of audiophiles either...

I don't talked against measurements ... read it again .. If you care. At the end, I'm thinking it's pointless ... I'm wrong writing this after all.

Forget about it, we can go back to our lives and way of thinking

 

[Mart68]

It's not my experience, and that's why I'm writing it on a vinyl thread.

I know the other positions / experiences, I expected that the "repetition" will come. Maybe what I wrote it's totally useless after all.

good analogue systems are expensive. I've heard many that were very good but the cost was in excess of £4K and required the record to be unwarped, pressed exactly on centre, and free from blemishes.

Even then the process of cutting the recording onto vinyl mangles the signal so it is not true to the master.

Why spend that much to get sound quality that can be obtained for a tenth of that amount with digital?

If it was better than digital then at least it could be justified. But even at it's best with all stars aligned it doesn't quite make it.

 

[mike70]

good analogue systems are expensive. I've heard many that were very good but the cost was in excess of £4K and required the record to be unwarped, pressed exactly on centre, and free from blemishes.

Even then the process of cutting the recording onto vinyl mangles the signal so it is not true to the master.

Why spend that much to get sound quality that can be obtained for a tenth of that amount with digital?

If it was better than digital then at least it could be justified. But even at it's best with all stars aligned it doesn't quite make it.

Never said it's better. We're all wasting time to do other things that really matters.

I'll go back to my CDs / records ... I'm happy listening to music ... I'm sorry doing boring talking.

 

[Mart68]

My point was that if analogue was better there would at least be a good reason to go to the extra expense.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Vinyl is technically 'better' in one aspect though compared to CD and that is frequency response.

Well not really.
The point at which the low bass response starts being reasonably accurate depends on the compliance and effective mass. It isn't far off above about 2x the natural frequency of that mass on the compliance (depending on damping) but below is incapable of accurate transduction because of the way the transducer works.
The upper frequency limit is also vague since mechanically it depends on stylus shape and alignment and the maximum level recordable at HF is limited by cutter head electrical and mechanical constraints.
Between these variable-outside-the-buyer's-control limits the frequency response is nowhere near as flat as CD even in the most accurate systems. The limits are not "hard" like CD but they are worse in flatness and bass and arguably only "superior" at HF at frequencies and levels that are inaudible.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Never said it's better. We're all wasting time to do other things that really matters.

I'll go back to my CDs / records ... I'm happy listening to music ... I'm sorry doing boring talking.

Before Covid - back when folks were comfortable visiting and receiving visitors - audio enthusiasts would be shocked by how good vinyl was rendered by my system. Yes it was expensive and the records played were good recordings without damage. My digital sources were also good and cost significantly less than the cartridge I was using at that time. Some listeners were more into vinyl and some digital. My room setup is not anywhere near perfect. I simply do the best I can with what is available. I have had multiple listeners make the same comment - "this should not work but it does!". People draw conclusions without all the data - a poster a few messages above made a blanket statement about seeing pictures of audio setups that had obvious problems. The missing data being hearing that setup - measure it too if you like. Psychology is at work here in multiple ways - we convince ourselves of our own "reality" all the time. If we read a review with measurements beyond belief - expectation bias can result. Never mind that the measurement differences are not audible from another product measuring 10 times worse. Same thing can happen with cost or aesthetics - bias occurs. Overcoming biases is not easy and requires one to stop and think.
You made a nice post about your own reality of experiencing a good vinyl playback chain. The replies detailed various reasons why that was a least partially wrong to that's okay but it still is too costly example argument. That is their reality - which is not the same as yours or mine. When it comes to audio - there are many variables. Our own perceptions are pretty important and that's okay.

 

[oivavoi]

I've listened to a couple of analog systems which cost about half as much as my house. As far as analog systems go, I don't think it can get any better. I still thought it was really annoying to listen to. No matter how good an analog system gets, no matter how clean a vinyl record is, you still get a higher noise floor and ever so tiny cracks and pops. I just don't understand why one would want to infuse one's music with that, when one doesn't have to?

 

[mike70]

Those tiny cracks and pops are almost eliminated with a good and right clean ... vinyl today it's not your grandfather vinyl.

Today cartridges / styluses / prices are incredible for what I can had in 70s ... but THAT experience it doesn't exists for someone that born in 90s. That's ... experience.

A cartridge with microcline stylus / boron cantilever under 500 usd is a dream ... only today.

Maybe that's the point, I listened to vinyl almost 50 years ... and it's only getting better in time. Digital is amazing in convenience, that's my 80% of the time format .. But THAT special record I really like ... I listened on vinyl. And it sounds awesome.

I have it all. Convenience and the "ritual" when I want it. But I only hear a difference between mastering / recording ... not an embarrassed sound as many try to say ... even without any real experience with analog.

It's only my experience. That's all ... and yes, maybe I'm a fool. Yes. At least I know it

 

[mhardy6647]

Reflecting upon this thread -- all y'all are almost ready for the ultimate medium.
Of course, I am referring to...

8trackin2 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Eight track.

ker-chunk.

Best of all, tracking alignment requires only a folded paper matchbook.