Vinyl will always sound *different* than digital, right?

[Multicore]

Frankly, I become bored from audiophile discussions. There is nothing positive in it.

That's not my experience.

I do not consider myself an audiophile and I bristle and the suggestion. I spent more money on audio equipment than most people because the performance I want isn't something you can easily get for $500. That doesn't make me audiophile. I don't enjoy audio gear. I just want equipment that can shift enough air around in controlled way such that I am confident it is not screwing the program material. This is why I think ASR is useful.

If the equipment is

- quiet (imperceptible noise)
- linear
- uncolored
- while delivering the loudness I want
- with most of the program material I care about (e.g. lots of power below 45 Hz isn't critical)

then I can be in control, with equalizers, volume controls, multi-band compressors even (useful for social events).

I'm no objectivist, as some around here claim to be. I don't think anyone really is. We do this for fun. Measurements are useful to help us decide if the equipment likely to work for our purposes. And the purpose is to have fun.

 

[MattHooper]

I can show various papers on loudness growth in nonlinear systems, etc. Most papers address audibility or some other testable effect, as opposed to personal preference, for what I suspect are obvious reasons.

I do have to agree "nonlinear" means introducing new frequencies. Linear systems can have frequency shaping, time delay, phase shift, etc. Both kinds of signal modifications are accurate.

On the other hand, I absolutely have to argue that there ARE euphonic distortions (nonlinear effects) as well as euphonic linear modifications.

The "original" in a live recording is a soundfield that is much more complex than can ever (even in perceptual terms) be conveyed by 2 channels (other than head in vice binaural). So, "accuracy" is now to what? Sound out of mikes? Panpotted (ugh!) stereo? A combination of panpots and delay? Added reverb? Time alignment?

This is much more complex than anything even remotely described as "2 channels of audio".

Yes a lot went through my mind at the idea that there is really no euphonic distortion.

For instance what about the reflections added to the signal you hear by room acoustics that we know can (in the right set up) add spaciousness many people find pleasing?

And in modern music production, even non-linear reverb is often used to create pleasing effects all the time (I often use non-linear reverbs in my work too).

It seems to me anyone making a claim against euphonic distortion would have to navigate all the ways in which distortions do seem euphonic in many instances,
and explain how...just in the case of listening to music through sound systems... distortion can suddenly no longer be euphonic.

 

[tuga]

@j_j what Linear Distortion is Klippel talking about here if there is no such thing as Linear Distortion?

 

[j_j]

@j_j what Linear Distortion is Klippel talking about here if there is no such thing as Linear Distortion?

Language difficulties. He's talking about linear modifications, like frequency response.

 

[pablolie]

I'll just say this: the whole -and in my opinion completely unnecessary- discussion around the perceived absolute merits of vinyl vs digital is a waste of too many bytes. There are no esoteric advantages that the convoluted audio review dialect we are often exposed to tries to convey - nope. What there is is personal preference, but please STOP telling anyone else except yourself -by yourself, late at night, and look around to make sure you're alone- that there is a *better* audio quality to what your personal experience is under whichever parameters it is you want to live out your personal audio preferences.

 

[j_j]

I'll just say this: the whole -and in my opinion completely unnecessary- discussion around the perceived absolute merits of vinyl vs digital is a waste of too many bytes. There are no esoteric advantages that the convoluted audio review dialect we are often exposed to tries to convey - nope. What there is is personal preference, but please STOP telling anyone else except yourself -by yourself, late at night, and look around to make sure you're alone- that there is a *better* audio quality to what your personal experience is under whichever parameters it is you want to live out your personal audio preferences.

That. All of that!

 

[atmasphere]

Here is an example of a modern vinyl release.

It looks like it's just the CD master (with added processing needed for vinyl). It might look better (and have a higher DR rating), but it's not.

Adele 21, CD (level decreased to match the vinyl recording):


Vinyl (recorded with my Asus Essence ST soundcard). The clipping is still there, but if you zoom out, it will look "better" or "more dynamic":


Another example from the same record:

I have a question.

Phono cartridges have inductance and the tonearm cable has capacitance. In parallel they create an electrical resonance. If MM, probably at the top end of the audio passband or just barely ultra sonic. If LOMC cartridge, the peak is higher due to higher Q of the inductance and is also much higher in frequency- often in the low MHz region.

This peak can overload the phono section input if the phono section's designer didn't take this phenomena into account (poor HF overload margin, plus sensitivity to RFI). Loading can correct the MM peak; if the phono section's designer was ignorant of this phenom then 'cartridge loading' resistors are used, which detunes the resonance, preventing excitation.

So the question is, did you account for this in your measurements? If not, how do you know that the distortion isn't caused by ultrasonic overload?

 

[beagleman]

Vinyl has 2 traits.
1. The music "encoded" onto vinyl

2. The colorations and effects of vinyl playback.


The music CAN sound fairly good fidelity. (in most ways, usually)

The colorations can degrade the sound to some ,and enhance it to others.
The RIAA curve Boosts the low end, but the low end noise is also out of phase in relation to the musical content.

I always feel like vinyl sounds like a very low level bowling ball rolling down the alley, and a low level amount of out of phase noise and rumble, that give it an artificial false sense of ambiance.
Summing to mono removes most of the low end bass "Noise" and consequently the false random noise that appears to be ambiance.

 

[MattHooper]

I'll just say this: the whole -and in my opinion completely unnecessary- discussion around the perceived absolute merits of vinyl vs digital is a waste of too many bytes. There are no esoteric advantages that the convoluted audio review dialect we are often exposed to tries to convey - nope. What there is is personal preference, but please STOP telling anyone else except yourself -by yourself, late at night, and look around to make sure you're alone- that there is a *better* audio quality to what your personal experience is under whichever parameters it is you want to live out your personal audio preferences.

If you mean to aim that at any vinyl enthusiast who is making incorrect technical claims for vinyl, or who is making broad declarations that "Vinyl Just Sounds Better Than Digital" then, yes. That's all well and good.

But it's worth remembering: by the same token the digital music enthusiast wouldn't be in a position, in public or otherwise, to declare the digital sound to be "better." That's a value judgement, so it's battling preferences.

If I played you a well-recorded vinyl copy of an album and the digital version, and they sound slightly different I may prefer the vinyl. You could certainly assert technical facts we agree on about the greater accuracy of the digital to the source, but if you say "the digital version sounds better" that would be asserting your own preference against mine. Once you put the word "better" in front of "Audio Quality" you are talking preference (value). It may be a preference for greater accuracy, but it's a personal preference, not an absolute fact written in to the universe.

If the digital enthusiast forgets this and makes similarly broad claims for digital audio being "better," the vinyl enthusiast could remind them to "keep that (preference masquerading as a fact) to themselves, by themselves, late at night..."

 

[Mr. Widget]

If I played you a well-recorded vinyl copy of an album and the digital version, and they sound slightly different I may prefer the vinyl. You could certainly assert technical facts we agree on about the greater accuracy of the digital to the source, but if you say "the digital version sounds better" that would be asserting your own preference against mine. Once you put the word "better" in front of "Audio Quality" you are talking preference (value). It may be a preference for greater accuracy, but it's a personal preference, not an absolute fact written in to the universe.

My vinyl and digital playback systems have evolved to the point where both can be quite enjoyable or painful... in both cases it is software dependent. If I play one of the digitally recorded Analogue Productions vinyl discs of Nora Jones for example the differences are extremely subtle.

I have come to the conclusion that at this level of playback, the differences are in the mastering of the final product. For some popular recordings there are half a dozen different versions of the same record. Some sound radically different than others... but it is not usually the medium.

Of course, if the recording has very extended dynamic range or deep bass that can not be handled by the technology of vinyl discs, there will be differences there, but these instances are fairly rare.

 

[MaxBuck]

Again: "sounds best" and "highest fidelity" are entirely different things.

 

[atmasphere]

The RIAA curve Boosts the low end, but the low end noise is also out of phase in relation to the musical content.

The RIAA curve does not boost the low end, unless by that you mean to 'flat' (there are two ways to interpret your comment). The de-emphasis network has zeros where the pre-emphasis network has poles and vice versa. So there's no phase shift.
If you are having noise problems (in the bass or anywhere else), this points to a problem in your playback apparatus, not the media itself. However, getting the setup to play LPs properly and then getting it set up properly are two different things, and arguably the biggest weakness of the LP, since most people fail at both. So in a way that's baked into the medium. But it can be surmounted.

 

[beagleman]

The RIAA curve does not boost the low end, unless by that you mean to 'flat' (there are two ways to interpret your comment). The de-emphasis network has zeros where the pre-emphasis network has poles and vice versa. So there's no phase shift.
If you are having noise problems (in the bass or anywhere else), this points to a problem in your playback apparatus, not the media itself. However, getting the setup to play LPs properly and then getting it set up properly are two different things, and arguably the biggest weakness of the LP, since most people fail at both. So in a way that's baked into the medium. But it can be surmounted.

You misunderstood what I have said......

The RIAA curve boosts Low end NOISE. Is what I meant.
I know how it works, yes the musical content will be back to flat, but in essence boosts all the low end noise. It reduces High end noise when the inverse curve is applied.

Never mentioned having ISSUES with noise.
I mean that noise in INHERENT to vinyl playback.
I used to use vinyl, but gave it up. Noise is simply part of vinyl.
Some are immune to noticing it.
I am talking about LOW level noise, that is there all the time, whether you think it is or not.

I get you are into vinyl, but ignoring the built in issues, do not make them go away. All tables have some noise, and just the effect of a stylus dragging through vinyl creates a low level noise floor.

 

[atmasphere]

You misunderstood what I have said......

The RIAA curve boosts Low end NOISE. Is what I meant.
I know how it works, yes the musical content will be back to flat, but in essence boosts all the low end noise. It reduces High end noise when the inverse curve is applied.

Never mentioned having ISSUES with noise.
I mean that noise in INHERENT to vinyl playback.
I used to use vinyl, but gave it up. Noise is simply part of vinyl.
Some are immune to noticing it.
I am talking about LOW level noise, that is there all the time, whether you think it is or not.

I get you are into vinyl, but ignoring the built in issues, do not make them go away. All tables have some noise, and just the effect of a stylus dragging through vinyl creates a low level noise floor.

Thanks for the clarification.

Low frequency noise isn't inherent in the media although it is common.

My phono section has bandwidth on the RIAA curve extended to 2 Hz; well below the tonearm resonance target of 7-12 Hz (which, if met, takes care of a lot of LF noise). Apparently I hit the target window since my woofers don't flop around even at high volume.

The effect of the stylus in the groove is a bit of a different matter. It might be a surprise to you, but if the mastering engineer did his job properly setting up the cutter stylus, the resulting silent groove is so quiet that its below the noise floor of the best phono electronics made (FWIW I ran an LP mastering operation for some years). Now if it can be that quiet, obviously the LF noise would be a component of that.

Most of the LF noise on any LP is caused by the pressing plant. QRP, of Acoustic Sounds in Salinas, KS, found that by applying appropriate damping to their pressing machines, they were able to lower the surface noise of their product by anywhere from 10-20dB. I can confirm that; we did a project with them about 10 years ago and the tests we got back were eerily silent- I was wondering if my phono section was selected on the front panel of the preamp until the music erupted from the speakers. Since the preamp was already at -75dB this would put the LP surface close to -80dB.

My point here is that you are conflating anecdote with the media and they are not the same. While it is true that many LPs have LF noise and many turntables and arms have issues, these are not inherent in the media so much as they are endemic in the application.

 

[Ageve]

So the question is, did you account for this in your measurements? If not, how do you know that the distortion isn't caused by ultrasonic overload?

I have recorded many LPs to my PC, and they all look fine (including a few modern "loud" albums without digital clipping from the master). Recording is very useful when adjusting anti-skating, VTA and optimal tracking force as well.

The clipping on the Adele LP appears on exactly the same locations as on the CD (and only on those locations). The recording was done at 24 bit, 192kHz (but looks the same when downsampled to 16/48).

I don't think vinyl can be mastered with a DC "signal" (and it can't be reproduced at playback either). That's why it's leaning (following the signal).

 

[atmasphere]

+1

I don't think vinyl can be mastered with a DC "signal" (and it can't be reproduced at playback either).

Thanks- and you're right. The cutter system I used was good to about 4Hz owing to time constants upstream in the electronics. But the cutter itself can go to DC no problem

 

[Frank Dernie]

My phono section has bandwidth on the RIAA curve extended to 2 Hz; well below the tonearm resonance target of 7-12 Hz (which, if met, takes care of a lot of LF noise). Apparently I hit the target window since my woofers don't flop around even at high volume.

A pickup cartridge is a seismic transducer and the mass is only a close approximation to static relative to the moving element from around 2x the natural frequency of the arm/cartridge on its suspension, depending on type and location of damping.
What this means, in a nutshell, is that the signal coming out of a cartridge below 2x Fn is from slightly to very inaccurate and contains the inevitable phase shift.

Back when I was working on them the the designers used to know how cartridges worked - it seems few people do any more, I haven’t seen facts discussed for decades.

The most logical thing to do is to have a high pass filter set at 2Fn to make sure none of the spurious rubbish makes it to them amp. The 1976 revision of the RIAA curve helps if there isn’t a filter but not having one is bad engineering practice.

 

[atmasphere]

A pickup cartridge is a seismic transducer and the mass is only a close approximation to static relative to the moving element from around 2x the natural frequency of the arm/cartridge on its suspension, depending on type and location of damping.
What this means, in a nutshell, is that the signal coming out of a cartridge below 2x Fn is from slightly to very inaccurate and contains the inevitable phase shift.

Back when I was working on them the the designers used to know how cartridges worked - it seems few people do any more, I haven’t seen facts discussed for decades.

The most logical thing to do is to have a high pass filter set at 2Fn to make sure none of the spurious rubbish makes it to them amp. The 1976 revision of the RIAA curve helps if there isn’t a filter but not having one is bad engineering practice.

The concern with the cutoff frequency was phase shift at 20Hz. The ear interprets phase shift in the bass (generally speaking) as a loss of impact. I've no doubt that low frequency noise and abituary cutoff frequencies would explain why so many people think that digital somehow has more bass extension and impact than LP (and certainly if low frequency noise is goobling up amplifier power, digital would be obviously perceived as 'better'). IME there isn't any difference at all, but only if the analog playback is designed and set up properly.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I have a question.

Phono cartridges have inductance and the tonearm cable has capacitance. In parallel they create an electrical resonance. If MM, probably at the top end of the audio passband or just barely ultra sonic. If LOMC cartridge, the peak is higher due to higher Q of the inductance and is also much higher in frequency- often in the low MHz region.

This peak can overload the phono section input if the phono section's designer didn't take this phenomena into account (poor HF overload margin, plus sensitivity to RFI). Loading can correct the MM peak; if the phono section's designer was ignorant of this phenom then 'cartridge loading' resistors are used, which detunes the resonance, preventing excitation.

So the question is, did you account for this in your measurements? If not, how do you know that the distortion isn't caused by ultrasonic overload?

Resonance will only occur at a particularly frequency.
1/2Pi x sq root(L xC)

 

[atmasphere]

Resonance will only occur at a particularly frequency.
1/2Pi x sq root(L xC)

Yes. And in a LOMC cartridge, it can go into excitation, thus presenting the input of the phono section with RFI.

In a high output MM system, the inductance of the cartridge is much higher so the resonant frequency is much lower as I mentioned earlier. This can cause a peak if the inductance is low enough, that is inside the audio band, which causes the presentation to be bright. Because of the Q of MM cartridges is much lower than LOMC cartridges, the peak is less profound (perhaps 'only' 20dB instead of 30!) and covers a wider range on either side of the peak.

If the MM cartridge isn't loaded properly on this account, the brightness can cause the ear to interpret the sound as bass shy- loading the cartridge to rid the system of the resonance will appear to improve the bass. I've no doubt that this is why some people think that digital has more bass extension and impact than the LP, when in reality they are the same. The problem is simply that the performance of the LP is almost entirely up to the user, where digital has much better 'plug and play'.