Vinyl is not as bad as I expected.

[Galliardist]

I disagree.

The linear speed is reduced, yes, but the real effect is ... more information per groove distance ... and that doesn't mean distortion.

Distortion happens when the cartridge / stylus / suspension cannot "track" correctly the information in the groove, and you have a more difficult groove to track, obviously ... but the IGD happens when the cartridge cannot read it rightly. With conical / eliptical styluses and MM cartridges not very good adjusted it can happen easily (MC cartridges have an improved internal motor, so even a conical works much better than MM)

Other source of IGD happens when a previously misaligned cartridge made physical damage in the groove ... that's irreversible obviously. Also dirt or static can create IGD.

The truth lies somewhere in between. You can demonstrate this by aligning the cartridge correctly for the innermost and outermost grooves, then measuring the distortion. I can't find the reference unfortunately, but I have read that this has been done and distortion was still higher when the cartridge was correctly aligned for the inner grooves.

(Of course this is hearsay without the actual numbers, but I can put it out there for someone to repeat the test)

Have you evidence that MC cartridges are inherently superior? Back when I was taking notice of such things, the better MM cartridges tracked better than the majority of MCs. I'm prepared to accept that this may have changed in the last couple of decades. That "not well aligned" line doesn't justify any claims, anything not set up properly won't work as well.

 

[Newman]

they hear it in double blind?
or science is only applied to prove things you like?
all the topic is like a loop about how awful is vinyl, inconvenient, expensive, blah blah ... someone do a real double blind with a good and rightly adjusted analog system? or made acoustic measurements in the final results? (not in the source, i mean in the room)
source measurements is what i know, and everyone here knows ... but ... it's not what i objectively hear and listened in good analog systems.
it's only brain tricks? it can be, of course.
but, someone do the math? or we're only thinking that it must be that way?
we can make the hipothesis where all the great difference is awfully eaten down the river? ... it's impossible?

Although you wrote this in response to me, your numerous questions and comments are all over the shop and mostly rhetorical or have no relevance to my post sorry.

 

[JP]

Distortion happens when the cartridge / stylus / suspension cannot "track" correctly the information in the groove, and you have a more difficult groove to track, obviously ... but the IGD happens when the cartridge cannot read it rightly. With conical / eliptical styluses and MM cartridges not very good adjusted it can happen easily (MC cartridges have an improved internal motor, so even a conical works much better than MM)

Time for the hip waders.

I‘ll see if one of my associates has time to cut a lacquer with tone at the beginning and end.

 

[Sal1950]

Have you evidence that MC cartridges are inherently superior? Back when I was taking notice of such things, the better MM cartridges tracked better than the majority of MCs.

I ran counter to the trend back in the hey days of vinyl too. I owned some quite expensive MC's like Dynavector Ruby, Supex 900 Super and some greats MM's like the Stanton 681-EEE, 881-S, Shure V15's. In the end I leaned back towards the technically superior MM, my fav was the Stanton 881-S. It's lightness and ablity to track at very low pressures when mated with a lightweight tonearm just gave better performance IMHO.

 

[Newman]

@Sal1950 I find it interesting that MC gained its reputation for superiority at a time when many of the lauded MC carts had a significant HF peakiness when measured. If those audiophiles had speakers that were ‘voiced’ or picked to sound good with those carts, I bet CD sounded so ‘lifeless’ and ‘unengaging’ to them on those speakers.

I occasionally caution my fellow audiophiles against building their system around their vinyl rig. They are walking into a cul-de-sac where everything else is going to sound worse, but for the wrong reason.

But do you think they listen?

 

[Blumlein 88]

@Sal1950 I find it interesting that MC gained its reputation for superiority at a time when many of the lauded MC carts had a significant HF peakiness when measured. If those audiophiles had speakers that were ‘voiced’ or picked to sound good with those carts, I bet CD sounded so ‘lifeless’ and ‘unengaging’ to them on those speakers.

I occasionally caution my fellow audiophiles against building their system around their vinyl rig. They are walking into a cul-de-sac where everything else is going to sound worse, but for the wrong reason.

But do you think they listen?

I fell in love with an MC when I first heard one. I did learn the need to load them carefully. I used a Sota Headamp which did a good job, or the Roger Modjeski RM4 head amp(which was tubed). I have a theory about it. Tape rolls off some, and then you put the signal on LP. The MC cartridge if the ultrasonic peak wasn't severe often had a little response lift in the top couple octaves. Just enough to perhaps accidentally EQ closer to flat the signal off the RTR tape. Or so it seemed to me.

I remember reading the Shure cartridges were good moving magnets, but had a tape-like sound. Having heard and used them that was just about right. But that is what an accurate cartridge should sound like if the source was tape.

 

[JP]

Flat cartridges are pretty much non-existent these days.

 

[MRC01]

I fell in love with an MC when I first heard one. I did learn the need to load them carefully. ...

Me too. Once I heard a good MC I never went back. It becomes a slippery slope because their output levels are so low one ends up needing a better phono amp. I had a clean accurate phono amp (DACT CT-100) that was highly configurable for gain and loading.

Flat cartridges are pretty much non-existent these days.

It's not surprising that many vinyl lovers prefer a non-flat response. But back in the day, cartridges having flat response could be found, or at least tuned flat if you had an adjustable phono amp. I was able to load my old Ortofon MC-30 Super Mk II to measure within 2 dB of flat through the audible spectrum, on test LPs that I used. As I recall, it took low load impedance to tame the rising HF, less than 100 ohms. WAY less than the 47k loading of a typical MM.

 

[spiritofjerry]

You don’t need classical. Try Touch by Yello on LP and CD and you’ll see there’s a world of difference between them. Vinyl simply can’t do it.

I think the disconnect you two were having (and that I also misunderstood) is that you were suggesting you could find the same exact album that was released on vinyl in digital format every time that sounded better than the original. Hence, why I disagreed with that, because you simply can't. There's absolutely no doubt digital is superior if all mastering is equal, I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that (and if they did, they are not right).

 

[symphara]

I think the disconnect you two were having (and that I also misunderstood) is that you were suggesting you could find the same exact album that was released on vinyl in digital format every time that sounded better than the original. Hence, why I disagreed with that, because you simply can't. There's absolutely no doubt digital is superior if all mastering is equal, I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that (and if they did, they are not right).

No, I didn’t say or suggest that. In replying to a member who postulated that it’s hard to find good digital recordings (thus the need for vinyl and its supposedly superior masters), I said that *I* have no issues whatsoever finding good digital recordings. Even great ones. On a daily basis!

And surely, let us stipulate that there is one record that’s available on LP and either not available in digital format, or the digital mastering is somehow botched. Wouldn’t you be better off digitizing that LP and playing its digital capture instead, so the precious LP doesn’t degrade, and you can just do it with your phone, from the comfort of your listening position?

It seems to me that the crux of the issue (save for people who are upfront about liking the quaintness in itself) is that some people actually believe that there’s some magic in LP sound reproduction that a digital reproduction system cannot produce. It’s probably why I hear “analog” said with reverence so often.

 

[spiritofjerry]

It seems to me that the crux of the issue (save for people who are upfront about liking the quaintness in itself) is that some people actually believe that there’s some magic in LP sound reproduction that a digital reproduction system cannot produce. It’s probably why I hear “analog” said with reverence so often.

I don't think the person you were initially replying to, or myself, was suggesting that. I think your initial comment was misunderstood, I was simply pointing that out for you.

 

[DSJR]

So, what you say it's not based in science proved methods.

And ... I don't hear IGD ... only with bad adjusted cartridges or conical stylus. I see cartridges with 30 or more khz in high frequency response, maybe they used a basic cartridge and they thought that is all.

If vinyl it's THAT awful ... I can't hear what I hear with vinyl ... 0 difference with digital. I only recognize better or worst recordings between the formats.

May I respectfully suggest you've never heard or worked with clean master recordings? The losses going from that metal stamper to the plastic end product are palpable and not subtle, no matter how good the playback system is!

By the way, a mastering engineer showed me that when an acetate is cut, you can't usually cut much under 40Hz due to playback needle-jump, any remaining bass is mono'd for similar reasons, the upper mids are often increased a bit (or mixed that way back in the day) and apparently, the cutting heads don't like much if anything over 15kHz. The analogue tape machines used back then, used to have the 15kHz test tone progressively turned up as the heads wore and only when there was no further adjustment possible, were the heads removed for service or replacement, this in a very busy record label mastering centre where said machines were used all day.

Frankly, I'm amazed we got any half decent fidelity out of a vinyl record at all. Half speed mastering was routinely done by Decca in the 60's long before MoFi started an audiophile trend and even then, the eq done to many of these now valuable pressings was significant. Only when they acquired Neumann lathes in around 1970, could they eq less and cut at playback speeds. Guess what, the die hards preferred the previous eq'd cuts because they often sounded more mellow, due to the eq used.....

 

[Sal1950]

Try Touch by Yello on LP and CD and you’ll see there’s a world of difference between them.

Have you heard the Yello - Point Yello BD with Atmos fully immersive mix?
Incredible SQ and just an hell of a lot of fun to listen to!

 

[symphara]

Have you heard the Yello - Point Yello BD with Atmos fully immersive mix?
Incredible SQ and just an hell of a lot of fun to listen to!

I heard whatever Atmos album they have on Tidal or Apple Music (don't remember the name), and the sound quality was very good. Unfortunately I'm not really into surround sound music, with few exceptions I find it fatiguing and gimmicky.

 

[DSJR]

I heard whatever Atmos album they have on Tidal or Apple Music (don't remember the name), and the sound quality was very good. Unfortunately I'm not really into surround sound music, with few exceptions I find it fatiguing and gimmicky.

Haven't heard the surround mixes myself, but Yello's music lends itself brilliantly to this kind of thing I'd suggest

Here's an early one of theirs from 1981 I lived a lot in my younger days... Oh yes indeedy...

 

[ahofer]

That’s the standard response, isn’t it? “Your system isn’t good enough”. And then when it is,”your ears aren’t good enough.”

Bingo

 

[Bob from Florida]

I ran counter to the trend back in the hey days of vinyl too. I owned some quite expensive MC's like Dynavector Ruby, Supex 900 Super and some greats MM's like the Stanton 681-EEE, 881-S, Shure V15's. In the end I leaned back towards the technically superior MM, my fav was the Stanton 881-S. It's lightness and ablity to track at very low pressures when mated with a lightweight tonearm just gave better performance IMHO.

I started out in the eighties with a $18 Grado that sounded good on my Dual 505 MK2 turntable except it picked up hum on the inner tracks - close to AC motor. When I got my Merrill table it came with a Garrettt Brothers P77 MM which I played until the needle wore out - took over 10 years. I had a Benz Ace high output moving coil for awhile but never really liked it. I then acquired a pair of lightly used low output moving coils - Lyra Parnassus and Miyabi MCA. The Lyra had no bass until I matched it with a 28 db step up transformer which gave it bass with pretty good detail. The Miyabi worked well with the same step up but had a less clinical sound than the Lyra - some would call it warmer. I had those 2 on separate head shells - a snap to swap if I wanted a different presentation. Probably 200 hours or less over the 10 years of shared use. Both were expensive and having an accident with one of them and the cost of re-tipping seemed to concern me. Sold the Miyabi still have Lyra in a box. Next up was Denon 103 - works great through a 23 db step up into 100K load. Terrific bass and decent mid's and high's - still have it as a backup. New turntable - 2 years ago - Performance DC came with the Clearaudio Maestro 2 MM. Very pleased with that combo until I removed a Maestro 2 and mounted a Hana SL MC on a friends Clearaudio Concept table. It had the carbon fiber Satisfy Arm - same arm as my table. The Maestro 2 MM is the "peaky" cartridge in this case while the Hana seems to have bass, mid's, and highs in balance. No numbers to share but the Hana does not induce any listening fatigue and I can keep on listening for longer sessions. It does not "fix" really crappy recordings, but it does a great job with "average" recordings while still showcasing stellar recordings. Hana SL - 60 db gain with 1K load through Musical Surroundings Phonomena 2 plus phono preamp. Going to try and wear the Hana out!

The only cartridge out of these that had any tracking issues was the Grado. During dynamic passages it would "dance" a bit. Never quite jumped out of a groove but was somewhat "disturbing" to observe. Might have been a mismatch to the Dual table. All the others tracked well with no "dancing".

 

[Sal1950]

Unfortunately I'm not really into surround sound music, with few exceptions I find it fatiguing and gimmicky.

That's what they were saying in 1960 about stereo.
Obviously you haven't listened to good recordings on quality equipment.
Plain stereo is just so boring and limited in it's presentation abilities.

 

[Inner Space]

Plain stereo is just so boring and limited in it's presentation abilities.

That's a little harsh. Stereo is pretty amazing, compared to what came before. I get that you want more now, which is great, but why dis something that gave us such joy, not so very long ago?

 

[Sal1950]

That's a little harsh. MONO is pretty amazing, compared to what came before. I get that you want more now, which is great, but why dis something that gave us such joy, not so very long ago?

I fixed it for you