Vinyl Record Noise Floor - A Call For Measurements

[dualazmak]

My really subjective comparative listening sessions;

- Revival of analog LP player (MC cartridge) in my DSP multichannel multi-driver multi-amplifier fully active stereo system for real time on-the-fly vinyl LP listening (and digital recording, if needed): #688; see the bottom portion of this post

- Inside of Audio-Technica AT-PEQ30 phono preamplifier, and successful DIY suppression of inaudible EMF (electro-magnetic field) interference noise: #697

- Another comparative listening, on-the-fly vinyl LP vs. Remastered CD: analog piano solo recorded in 1967: #722

- Another comparative listening; on-the-fly remastered vinyl LP vs. remastered CD: Bill Evans jazz piano trio, analog recorded in 1977; remastered (2021) vinyl LP (45-RPM 188-gram) vs. its CD release: #740

and,,,
- Summary of my motivations reviving vinyl TT (turntable) in DSP-based multichannel time-aligned multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier fully active stereo audio setup: #758, #1,262(remote thread)

 

[dualazmak]

The constant low-level background noise didn't really bother me but the "snap", "crackle", and 'pop" DID annoy me more than it seemed to bother other people. And my records seemed to "develop" defects even though tried to take care of them.

Yes, I fully agree with you.

This should be also true for even the most crazy TT TechDAS Air Force zero playing almost all of the vinyl disks!
https://techdas.jp/pages/air-force-zero/
Further references can be found;
dedicated thread entitled "$575,000 (Spare Arm Tube Included)",
https://www.stereophile.com/content/techdas-air-force-zero-turntable,
and, my posts here and here.

 

[Thomas_A]

TechDas. Looks like the modern iteration of:

 

[goat76]

I can't remember the thread or poster (apologies again for senior moments), but one gent here, took a digital sourced track and 'vinylised' it, removing bass below 40Hz or so, monoing the rest under 120hz approx, de-essing the sibilance region and I can't remember if any other limiting was done in the mids. The DR figure increased quite a bit, simply by removing the excesses of the digital original music file.

That only spoofed the DR # not the waveform. When you re-added the bass to the digital track, the DR dropped again. When you re-added the bass to the vinyl rip, the DR remained higher because the vinyl lacked the limitation that the digital files had applied to it.

I think @DSJR is referring to the things I tested a few years ago in that very long vinyl thread.

Indeed, the common Dynamic Range Metering used at sites like DR Loudness-War can't be trusted for vinyl rips, because even if the vinyl record was made from the same already dynamically limited original master used also for the digital/CD release, things made in the preparation and maybe also things happening in the physical cutting process will bump up DR reading for the vinyl rip by 3-4 dB. That "bumped up" DR reading of the vinyl will only look better in comparison to the DR reading of the digital/CD release, but it will not make the vinyl rip sound more dynamic, as the lost dynamics in the already dynamically limited original master were already lost to begin with.

Without further knowledge of whether a particular vinyl release was made from a more dynamic original master, we can never know if it's truly more dynamic-sounding by just looking at the DR numbers found on a website like DR Loudness-War.




I just did a similar test to the one I made a few years ago, but this time I took the sound from Ian Shepherd's YouTube video named "Why the TT Meter doesn't work on vinyl."

The song in the video was mastered by Ian Shepherd himself, so he very well knows that the same original master used for the vinyl was the same as the digital/CD release. The original master had DR8, but the vinyl rip was showing DR12, which means that things that have been done in the preparation of the vinyl, and/or things happening in the cutting process, and/or things happening in the ripping process of the vinyl have "bumped up" the DR reading by as much as 50%(!), which of course will look much better in a comparison at a website as DR Loudness-War.

The segment of the CD version of the song I took from the video shows a reading of DR8, and that same segment of the vinyl rip shows a reading of DR11. By applying an HP filter, mono the bass, and a De-esser to the audio file of the segment for the CD version, the reading also lands at DR11 as the vinyl rip. And just for you @MatrixS2000, I also did an EQ-match for this new audio file to regain the lost bass level of the original CD, and it only lost 1 dB of dynamic range and landed at DR10.


Here are all the audio files if anyone wants to make listening comparisons or just analyse them:

1. The digital/CD version with DR8:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bxr7...ey=ma0lviuank2wzoaujazreuwwj&st=kx052qra&dl=0

2. The vinyl rip version with DR11:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

3. The digital/CD version processed with a High Pass filter, mono bass, and De-esser, which ended up with the same DR11 as the vinyl rip:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

4. The same as #3, but now EQ-matched to #1 to regain the bass level. DR10:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

In a level-matched listening comparison between the digital/CD version with DR8 and the vinyl rip with DR11, I find the digital/CD version to be better-sounding than the vinyl rip. It could be the other way around, IF the vinyl rip truly originated from a more dynamic original master, but for this particular release, that's not the case. The higher DR reading of the vinyl rip is just something that the DR metering sees, but the true dynamics were unfortunately already lost in the process of making the original master for this track.

Which version do you (and others) find sounding the most dynamic in this case, the digital release or the vinyl rip?

(And sorry if this isn't directly related to the thread topic, which is about noise floor levels, but I hope most of you find this interesting as well.)

 

[MatrixS2000]

I think @DSJR is referring to the things I tested a few years ago in that very long vinyl thread.

It is and as I already proved your method only spoofed the DR number not the waveform coming off the album.

Also Ian Sheppard admitted he did not understand what was happening at the time in the comments section of that video. All this was already discussed in the Vinyl Renaissance thread - no point rehashing it here.

 

[MatrixS2000]

If this is indeed due to distortions in vinyl playback as I presume, a layman’s hunch has me imagining that the sheer mechanical process of scraping the music down into vinyl and then back off with a needle is imprecise enough to add this type of distortion. For instance they can only be so much precision in terms of the wiggling needle picking up the sound waves in the groove, and so may be a little extra errant vibrations here and there it could be adding to it? And/or any other concatenation of distortions that are added in the process of creating vinyl records.

Thoughts?

I lean more toward the mastering of the vinyl being different and more to your preference.

 

[goat76]

It is and as I already proved your method only spoofed the DR number not the waveform coming off the album.

Also Ian Sheppard admitted he did not understand what was happening at the time in the comments section of that video. All this was already discussed in the Vinyl Renaissance thread - no point rehashing it here.

It's not "my method" that spoofed the DR numbers; it's the normal preparation of a vinyl release that causes the jump in the DR numbers.

What I show is exactly what is happening pretty much every time the normal steps of preparation are done for vinyl release, and why the DR numbers people are measuring and putting up on websites like DR Loudness-War can never be trusted when it comes to vinyl rips.

As this already came up in this thread, I think this information has a place here too, instead of just being buried somewhere in that long Vinyl Renaissance thread. And I'm sure Ian Shepherd would fully understand what is happening if he did the same test as I did, and as his video is pretty old, he probably knows the reasons by now.

 

[MattHooper]

My really subjective comparative listening sessions;

- Revival of analog LP player (MC cartridge) in my DSP multichannel multi-driver multi-amplifier fully active stereo system for real time on-the-fly vinyl LP listening (and digital recording, if needed): #688; see the bottom portion of this post

- Inside of Audio-Technica AT-PEQ30 phono preamplifier, and successful DIY suppression of inaudible EMF (electro-magnetic field) interference noise: #697

- Another comparative listening, on-the-fly vinyl LP vs. Remastered CD: analog piano solo recorded in 1967: #722

- Another comparative listening; on-the-fly remastered vinyl LP vs. remastered CD: Bill Evans jazz piano trio, analog recorded in 1977; remastered (2021) vinyl LP (45-RPM 188-gram) vs. its CD release: #740

and,,,
- Summary of my motivations reviving vinyl TT (turntable) in DSP-based multichannel time-aligned multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier fully active stereo audio setup: #758, #1,262(remote thread)

There really is nothing like a dualazmak post!

It’s my bet that no audiophile has ever documented his system and experiments so fastidiously.

You seem to have a lot of fun!

 

[MattHooper]

My take is that digital has more detail, dynamics and more of everything top and bottom of the frequency spectrum especially inner tracks

I only really speak from experience of what I find vinyl to sound like on my system, and on my friend’s system which I get to listen to very often (he reviews audio gear and often has different cartridges turntables to listen to).

The idiosyncrasies of vinyl playback means of course it may not be sounding quite the same on my system as your system. (not necessarily better but different.)

Whenever I do direct comparisons of the same tracks on digital versus vinyl, I hear an advantage, sometimes very subtle, in clarity to digital in the sense of a slight scrim having been removed. So for instance if a drummer is doing some modulated playing on his drum cymbals, the timbral nuances of the different cymbals and how he is modulating those with where he’s playing on the cymbals is a bit more clear and apparent. The vinyl will sound a little bit more generalized. And generally speaking, the same goes for the rest of the sound: cd better revealing timbral details. This is why I love CD as well.

In my system with my hearing, I don’t detect any high frequency, advantages for digital. My vinyl playback sounds as vivid and airy as anything in my digital sources (even if measurably the digital might be playing higher).

I can hear sometimes differences in bass quality from subtle to obvious in favour of digital. Though I sometimes favour the bass character from the vinyl.

I don’t find a major difference in dynamics between the two in general. Though I do have some CD recordings known for their dynamics (e.g. some Telarc digital recordings of symphonies) outdo anything I’ve got on vinyl. But generally speaking it it’s not a difference that sticks out to me.

Background noise: most of the time I’m not aware of any when the music is actually playing. Though it can occasionally intrude in quiet passages. However, even when it’s audible I can still prefer the vinyl version of a record, even on such passages.

For instance, and this is getting to the subject of detail…

I have on CD a remastered and expanded version of Jerry Goldsmith’s Star Trek score.
They released the same recordings on a double vinyl record. So both of them came from the same original digital remastering of the album. (although of course, there would’ve been a further mastering for vinyl.)

One of my favourite parts is the beginning where the score switches to the Klingon theme, which comprises the whole string sections rhythmically quietly plucking strings.

There is a little bit of background noise on this vinyl during that quiet passage.

However, on the vinyl, the plucking of the string strings simply sounds more real. There is a density and texture to those string plucks that make them pop out of the acoustics of the recording in a way that gives me the impression of hearing through real acoustic space to real strings being plucked in front of me. In contrast, the digital version sounds sort of smoothed over, “canned” … a recording of strings, not the real thing.

The question of which you would actually prefer if you were listening on my system is one I couldn’t answer.

But I find this phenomenon of a slightly more realistic texture and density to vinyl on my system to be very rewarding, despite other trade-offs.

 

[Thomas_A]

I only really speak from experience of what I find vinyl to sound like on my system, and on my friend’s system which I get to listen to very often (he reviews audio gear and often has different cartridges turntables to listen to).

The idiosyncrasies of vinyl playback means of course it may not be sounding quite the same on my system as your system. (not necessarily better but different.)

Whenever I do direct comparisons of the same tracks on digital versus vinyl, I hear an advantage, sometimes very subtle, in clarity to digital in the sense of a slight scrim having been removed. So for instance if a drummer is doing some modulated playing on his drum cymbals, the timbral nuances of the different cymbals and how he is modulating those with where he’s playing on the cymbals is a bit more clear and apparent. The vinyl will sound a little bit more generalized. And generally speaking, the same goes for the rest of the sound: cd better revealing timbral details. This is why I love CD as well.

In my system with my hearing, I don’t detect any high frequency, advantages for digital. My vinyl playback sounds as vivid and airy as anything in my digital sources (even if measurably the digital might be playing higher).

I can hear sometimes differences in bass quality from subtle to obvious in favour of digital. Though I sometimes favour the bass character from the vinyl.

I don’t find a major difference in dynamics between the two in general. Though I do have some CD recordings known for their dynamics (e.g. some Telarc digital recordings of symphonies) outdo anything I’ve got on vinyl. But generally speaking it it’s not a difference that sticks out to me.

Background noise: most of the time I’m not aware of any when the music is actually playing. Though it can occasionally intrude in quiet passages. However, even when it’s audible I can still prefer the vinyl version of a record, even on such passages.

For instance, and this is getting to the subject of detail…

I have on CD a remastered and expanded version of Jerry Goldsmith’s Star Trek score.
They released the same recordings on a double vinyl record. So both of them came from the same original digital remastering of the album. (although of course, there would’ve been a further mastering for vinyl.)

One of my favourite parts is the beginning where the score switches to the Klingon theme, which comprises the whole string sections rhythmically quietly plucking strings.

There is a little bit of background noise on this vinyl during that quiet passage.

However, on the vinyl, the plucking of the string strings simply sounds more real. There is a density and texture to those string plucks that make them pop out of the acoustics of the recording in a way that gives me the impression of hearing through real acoustic space to real strings being plucked in front of me. In contrast, the digital version sounds sort of smoothed over, “canned” … a recording of strings, not the real thing.

The question of which you would actually prefer if you were listening on my system is one I couldn’t answer.

But I find this phenomenon of a slightly more realistic texture and density to vinyl on my system to be very rewarding, despite other trade-offs.

I did some rips to compare in the maraton thread previously, mostly classic orchestral music. It was concluded that inner tracks with crescendos suffer just a bit in clarity, and I agree. From measurements it can be seen some variable frequency response depending on where on the record it is cut. Then there are phase issues, and background roar that makes the vinyl sound a bit more as "live". Like added room ambiance.

 

[MatrixS2000]

As this already came up in this thread, I think this information has a place here too, instead of just being buried somewhere in that long Vinyl Renaissance thread. And I'm sure Ian Shepherd would fully understand what is happening if he did the same test as I did, and as his video is pretty old, he probably knows the reasons by now.

Ok we can rehash it here again.

Let’s start with the mastering process where mastering engineers literally tell us that vinyl masters are more dynamic and have none of the loudness processing that their digital counterparts have (unfortunately) done to them. Underlining emphasis is mine.

 

[MatrixS2000]

However, on the vinyl, the plucking of the string strings simply sounds more real.

This is due to the transients being intact on the vinyl where as the digital has had limiting applied. We saw similar to this on this on the vinyl marathon thread (love that wording @Thomas_A !) with the Rush example where the drumming transients were noticeably different between the examples.

 

[MatrixS2000]

It's not "my method" that spoofed the DR numbers; it's the normal preparation of a vinyl release that causes the jump in the DR numbers.

Like I said, all you are doing is spoofing DR #’s

Here is the dynamics trace of the vinyl rip from your earlier example:

And here is the dynamics trace of the CD version brought back to CD:

 

[MatrixS2000]

And here is what it looks like with the version with the HPF, de- essing and monoed bass looks like:

 

[MatrixS2000]

And finally the CD rip:

 

[watchnerd]

Whatever is happening with DR, it's above the noise floor of vinyl.

So seems moot.

 

[sergeauckland]

TechDas. Looks like the modern iteration of:

View attachment 453810

When I see venerable make like Thorens attached to an abortion of that nature, I rather despair. From the superb TD124, through the TD150s and 160s, to the TD125, Thorens have always made decent, well engineered and sensibly priced turntables.

What happened?

S

 

[watchnerd]

When I see venerable make like Thorens attached to an abortion of that nature, I rather despair. From the superb TD124, through the TD150s and 160s, to the TD125, Thorens have always made decent, well engineered and sensibly priced turntables.

What happened?

S

Capitalism happened

 

[Palmer]

When I see venerable make like Thorens attached to an abortion of that nature, I rather despair. From the superb TD124, through the TD150s and 160s, to the TD125, Thorens have always made decent, well engineered and sensibly priced turntables.

What happened?

S

History • Thorens New Reference

I was young and unfortunately not able to afford it, would have if able to - but went Micro Seiki (BL 91) back then.

On another note, I remember one dealer who sold one to a customer who had the cabling removed, as he wanted the Reference solely as a object of art.
It was the early eighties...

 

[goat76]

Like I said, all you are doing is spoofing DR #’s

What do you mean when you say I'm spoofing the DR numbers? I hope you are not suggesting that I fiddle with the numbers.

I use one of the most commonly used DR Metering tools, which is recommended by the DR Loudness-War webpage and available in Foobar2000, which is also widely used. As that one is probably one of the most commonly used DR Meters, the result will also be highly representative of many of the measurements posted on that popular webpage.

If the tool you use, for any reason, is not showing the same result as the most common tool used on the DR Loudness-War, it’s simply not representative for all the results posted on that website (which is by far the most popular website for these type of comparisons).


This is the dynamic range of the digital/CD release and the original master file:

And this is the dynamic range of the vinyl rip, which was made from an original master file with only DR8:

And here is the dynamic range of the digital/CD release after applying the usual things done in the preparation of a vinyl record, as a high-pass filter, mono bass, and a De-esser. The result ends up with the same DR as the vinyl rip:

If anything is spoofing the DR numbers, it's the commonly used tools used when preparing the audio file to avoid technical limitations of the vinyl format, which then show up in the reading of the dynamic range.

And I'm not saying there are no vinyl releases out there that aren't more dynamic than their digital/CD counterpart. I'm just saying that the DR readings on their own can never be trusted, and even if the numbers look better, it's still possible that the vinyl was made from the same dynamically limited master as the digital/CD release.