Why every music lover needs to buy a turntable - discuss.

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Not a CD, but downloads. The album "Live at the Happy Dog" - which was funded on Kickstarter - comes with a free high-rez download that sounded better than the vinyl. I guessed that the quality of the pressing was suspect as it was their first attempt. I bought numerous copies, but they all had some distortion.

Gary,

I expressly wanted to exclude poor quality pressings when I stated "Do you know of cases where a good mastering could make a CD sound better than the original good quality analog LP?" We all accept that the Achiles heel of LPs is the pressing quality - and for most of us the 25 minute per side limit.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Here is an example of the amount of losses a signal may go through in the LP process (from Don's post answering Myles), and let me tell you, the final cutter puts its sonic fingerprint on the sound in a big way. Lets talk several percent IM distortion here alone.

Says who? Facts please.


Now, when one prefers this (and I like LP too, and digital, and I KNOW its the mix/master and the vinyl process distortions) sound of vinyl, and uses terms like more body and flesh and all that good stuff, well, that's all that added distortions that are actually "filling in extra information" to a rather anemic plain old stereo system and of course your ears are pleased, and don't forget you did choose your playback cartridge cause it sounds good to you! So, just saying, that there is no doubt that vinyl is "adding" a lot of easy to measure distortions and there is no doubt that the same measuring gear does certainly not see these distortions at these levels in digital.

Oh here we go again. The only reason analog/vinyl sounds good is because all of those different forms of distortion that add up to equal great sound. And of course yet another jab at the pathetic "POS" as you lovingly refer to it that needs all of those distortions in order to sound good. Does that explain why digital doesn't sound as good in stereo as analog does because it doesn't have all of the analog distortions that help fill out the sound? If the digital people disagree and say their digital sound over stereo is the bomb, where does that leave your theory Tom?? You can't have it both ways.


Honestly, your vinyl playback system does not retrieve more detail from the source (as explained above, and infact your TT adds a huge amount of IMD and high frequency energy...which can sound good of course) but it is true that digital does distort more in its basic form (forget using noise shaping and dither) than analog for low level signals, but both end up in the noise pretty well below what we can hear when playing at a decent volume anyway, IMO.

Maybe your vinyl playback system doesn't retrieve more detail than a Kenner Close-and-Play, but that certainly doesn't mean that more modern high-end turntables/tonearms/power supplies haven't left your table in the stone ages. Ditto for turntables adding "huge" amounts of IMD and high frequency energy. Again, facts please to back up your assertions. If analog had half as much distortion as you claim it does it would be unlistenable.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
There's 5 minimum, sometimes 7.

1: Tape to lacquer
2: Lacquer to matrix
3: Matrix to mother
4: Mother to stamper
5: Stamper to vinyl
If a large release is anticipated, copy mothers are made from some of the stampers before they are used.
5: Stamper to copy mother
6: Copy mother to stamper
7: Stamper to vinyl

Degradation occurs at each step.

And what about D2D?

Well you know for all your degradation steps, the best of today's tables and phono stages--and your distant memory of a what 30 year old table (?)--are now within a whisker of the best reel to reel tapes. You'd actually be surprised how good a pressing facility like QRP is.... Oops....


And one step in digital degrades the sound too.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
First, Peter, this is about what you said, cause it is said a lot, and this is something that you might look at a different way, not to change your pleasure of LP or tape or am radio or mp3 or fm radio or digital or whatever turns you on.

Here is an example of the amount of losses a signal may go through in the LP process (from Don's post answering Myles), and let me tell you, the final cutter puts its sonic fingerprint on the sound in a big way. Lets talk several percent IM distortion here alone.

There's 5 minimum, sometimes 7.

1: Tape to lacquer
2: Lacquer to matrix
3: Matrix to mother
4: Mother to stamper
5: Stamper to vinyl
If a large release is anticipated, copy mothers are made from some of the stampers before they are used.
5: Stamper to copy mother
6: Copy mother to stamper
7: Stamper to vinyl

Degradation occurs at each step.


Now, when one prefers this (and I like LP too, and digital, and I KNOW its the mix/master and the vinyl process distortions) sound of vinyl, and uses terms like more body and flesh and all that good stuff, well, that's all that added distortions that are actually "filling in extra information" to a rather anemic plain old stereo system and of course your ears are pleased, and don't forget you did choose your playback cartridge cause it sounds good to you! So, just saying, that there is no doubt that vinyl is "adding" a lot of easy to measure distortions and there is no doubt that the same measuring gear does certainly not see these distortions at these levels in digital.

Take away, yes, vinyl is more distorted than digital. or, one person prefers vinyls distortions to digitals distortions.!

Honestly, your vinyl playback system does not retrieve more detail from the source (as explained above, and infact your TT adds a huge amount of IMD and high frequency energy...which can sound good of course) but it is true that digital does distort more in its basic form (forget using noise shaping and dither) than analog for low level signals, but both end up in the noise pretty well below what we can hear when playing at a decent volume anyway, IMO.

and, digital is a storage medium, and vinyl and tape are storage mediums, and putting info in and taking it out are distortion analog steps in all storage systems. its important to keep that clear in these debates as well.


on topic of this thread, I think every music lover should hear vinyl, as it is another expression of the recording arts, and they might prefer it, as many do.

Sez someone who's never listened to any of the top tables, cartridges, arms or phono sections. Yes, your table is one giant distortion.
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
And what about D2D?

Well you know for all your degradation steps, the best of today's tables and phono stages--and your distant memory of a what 30 year old table (?)--are now within a whisker of the best reel to reel tapes. You'd actually be surprised how good a pressing facility like QRP is.... Oops....


And one step in digital degrades the sound too.


+1 ....Isn't that the truth.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Sez someone who's never listened to any of the top tables, cartridges, arms or phono sections. Yes, your table is one giant distortion.

I didn't even have to leave the thread to find my first example of an attack on a poster's listening experience. Just had to wait a bit. By the way, Myles, all of this:

1: Tape to lacquer
2: Lacquer to matrix
3: Matrix to mother
4: Mother to stamper
5: Stamper to vinyl
If a large release is anticipated, copy mothers are made from some of the stampers before they are used.
5: Stamper to copy mother
6: Copy mother to stamper
7: Stamper to vinyl

is true, even if you've never heard a record in your life. What did you tell me? One generation?

Tim
 

Don Hills

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2013
366
1
323
Wellington, New Zealand
And what about D2D? ...

Same number of steps.

... Well you know for all your degradation steps, the best of today's tables and phono stages--and your distant memory of a what 30 year old table (?)--are now within a whisker of the best reel to reel tapes. You'd actually be surprised how good a pressing facility like QRP is.... Oops....

The flaw in your assertion is that vinyl technology slept for those 30 years. I see parallels between the way vinyl technology was advancing in the early 80s, and the way digital audio technology is advancing now. Also, the greatest advances in current vinyl technology are coming about due to digital - not audio, but in areas such as greater automation of vinyl production lines and FEA of turntable and cartridge designs. As you point out, pressing plants still struggle to match 30 year old quality. There are so many little "tricks of the trade" that were once common but have been lost and must be rediscovered.

...And one step in digital degrades the sound too.

1. Source to digital.

Yep, one step versus 5.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Decisions on gain, panning (channel separation char.), eq (FR char), compression (DR char) more in line for each format mainly.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
This debate appears to have no lifespan. It is the undead debate, but it's really very simple; the objective side of the debate seems to be more than willing to let the vinylphiles have their subjective preference and wish them well. We are even willing to allow that, because of the mastering involved, many vinlyl issues sound better than their digital counterparts. We would like, however, to be allowed of to have our own preferences, without having our ears, equipment, experience and wisdom questioned, and we would like the technical realities to be acknowledged instead of being violently denied, with a complete absence of supporting evidence, by the faithful.

That doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Preference is not good enough for the most vocal analogists among us, and they seem to have the ability to ignore any and all data, without feeling any need to present any solid evidence of ther own. Their position seems to be, and this is not all, just the loudest --

"Vinyl is objectively superior. That is obvious and, therefore, I don't need to present any evidence more substantive than the listening experiences of myself and those who agree with me. It is also perfectly reasonable for me to deny all the evidence that does not support my position, and to conclude that if you don't agree with me, you are deaf, stupid, or listen to crap equipment."

Does that about sum it up, or do you boys actually have something that reveals the lower noise and distortion, and the extra recorded information that is on vinyl? Because your rules of engagement, from the initiation of these threads, seem to be as stated above, and continuing appears to be a exercise in futility.

So...what ya got? Grown ups support their arguments with evidence or concede that their arguments are weak.

Tim
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
so it is possible to use a vinyl mix/master for a CD ?

Yes and vice versa. Budget permitting they would be re-mastered for the new release. If budget doesn't allow, well, we get sub standard offerings like a number of LPs now being offered. I can't really think of recent recordings that were purely analog save the Foo Fighters that skipped even digital editing.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
This debate appears to have no lifespan. It is the undead debate, but it's really very simple; the objective side of the debate seems to be more than willing to let the vinylphiles have their subjective preference and wish them well. We are even willing to allow that, because of the mastering involved, many vinlyl issues sound better than their digital counterparts. We would like, however, to be allowed of to have our own preferences, without having our ears, equipment, experience and wisdom questioned, and we would like the technical realities to be acknowledged instead of being violently denied, with a complete absence of supporting evidence, by the faithful.

That doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Preference is not good enough for the most vocal analogists among us, and they seem to have the ability to ignore any and all data, without feeling any need to present any solid evidence of ther own. Their position seems to be, and this is not all, just the loudest --

"Vinyl is objectively superior. That is obvious and, therefore, I don't need to present any evidence more substantive than the listening experiences of myself and those who agree with me. It is also perfectly reasonable for me to deny all the evidence that does not support my position, and to conclude that if you don't agree with me, you are deaf, stupid, or listen to crap equipment."

Does that about sum it up, or do you boys actually have something that reveals the lower noise and distortion, and the extra recorded information that is on vinyl? Because your rules of engagement, from the initiation of these threads, seem to be as stated above, and continuing appears to be a exercise in futility.

So...what ya got? Grown ups support their arguments with evidence or concede that their arguments are weak.

Tim

The only proof some people need is the pudding. That's life.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
The only proof some people need is the pudding. That's life.

No problem with that. It's when they insist that everyone who doesn't eat their pudding has no tastebuds that things get difficult. And they not only do that, they keep creating new threads, seemingly for the sole purpose of forcing their insubstantial pudding on everyone else, then play the victims (or pretend we all play the same game) when the meat eaters don't just silently allow them to strut around declaring their superior dining experience. It's a wonder the mods don't just think, "oh god...not again," and remove thise threads at the OP. Actually, it's not that great a wonder. Those threads probably make up half the board traffic.

Tim
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
No problem with that. It's when they insist that everyone who doesn't eat their pudding has no tastebuds that things get difficult. And they not only do that, they keep creating new threads, seemingly for the sole purpose of forcing their insubstantial pudding on everyone else, then play the victims (or pretend we all play the same game) when the meat eaters don't just silently allow them to strut around declaring their superior dining experience. It's a wonder the mods don't just think, "oh god...not again," and remove thise threads at the OP. Actually, it's not that great a wonder. Those threads probably make up half the board traffic.Tim

And you certainly contribute a fair amount of posts to every one of those threads.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Goes both ways Tim. Always does. The other side is always saying analog lovers like what they hear because of distortion. Something I for one do not totally agree with. Sorry Tom, I think yours is a gross misrepresentation. What's more curious is why anybody let's themselves get pissed off at all. What it boils down to is "strict adherence to fidelity" vs "success at creating an illusion". I sell digital gear, some, really expensive digital gear. I am not ashamed to say that analog really does the latter better IMO. The designers of the digital companies I represent won't be angry with me either. Didier (EERA), Larry (Light Harmonic) and Nishikawa (TechDAS) are all chasing what analog does so well, flow and continuity, while PRESERVING digital's advantage in silence and dynamics particularly in the lower octaves. They aren't doing it by adding distortion.

The problem is the preconceptions of the hardliners of both sides. The digital only guys will imagine pops, ticks, groove noise the moment they hear the word Turntable. Admit it you're one of these guys :p :D. The analog only guys will imagine edginess and glare the moment they hear the word digital. So these three designers and many, many more, are trying to make digital that flows better not make a DAC that sounds analog by introducing ticks, pops et al. If you think about it, that actually wouldn't be too hard to do at all. Fact of the matter is, with a quiet table, well set up cart, proper gain staging and most important of all a clean, well pressed LP, levels of noise are low enough that once the music starts playing the existing noise is masked to a very great degree to the point that it in no way detracts. On the other hand turntable manufacturers are doing their thing to get at digital's strengths by making tables ever more immune to acoustic feedback and with ever better speed stability and ever lower self noise.

Maybe someday the two will meet. I don't think we're at that point and I don't know if it will ever happen. I surely don't know what I would do if and when it does. In the meantime, I intend to try and enjoy both as best I can.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Jack-Great post and I agree with you word for word.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Yes, if that's their point, that is they have a preference, then that would be the end of it. But if we want to discover why, or facts as we know them, then we need to get away from preference, or atleast try to correlate facts that are known with impressions. This is the world of the objectivist, vs the world of the subjectivist, which is I like it and so its best (for me).

The interesting thing to me in these last dozen posts or so show Tims prediction came about very quickly, and that some of the perhaps loudest and most analog invested audiophiles seem to be loathe to admit they like particular distortions. Its like paying huge money for a diamond ring and later to find a colored bit of flaw in it that actually made it a better looking "pudding", but it still has a flaw. IF you consider it a flaw, to start with, that is, if you use measurents you will see its a flaw, not perfect,.

The "facts" are where you seem to come up short Tom. You make bold statements that you want others to believe are factual without ever providing the proof. I ask you for facts, but I never get them. And no, it's not my job to do your research and find the facts (if they exist) that back up your statements. You should change your forum name to "Mr. IM" because according to you, anything to do with analog has so much IM distortion it should basically be unlistenable.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing