Interesting Piece on the Dynamic Range of Vinyl vs. CD

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Pretty good read. Not sure what I think of it but it was nice to see a fresh perspective :).

Also interesting since wasn't using anything near SOTA analog rig for the tests.

Also, think it goes to show how it's hard to generalize since it seems that there's a lot of tomfoolory going on at the mastering end for these releases.
 

RBFC

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
5,158
46
1,225
Albuquerque, NM
www.fightingconcepts.com
It's interesting to consider the fact that certain qualities of music reproduction may play a more important role in recreating the "illusion of reality" than limited measurement scope can describe.

Lee
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
I am curious. What do you think about the purported mthodology used to support Tham's conclusions?
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
Amir, I'm surprised you of all people are giving a free pass to Christine Tham's methodology.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Amir, I'm surprised you of all people are giving a free pass to Christine Tham's methodology.
I said "not sure what I think of it." That is not a free pass :). It was a long read and I skimmed it. When I have a chance, I will dig into it more.

For now, I do cringe a bit when someone uses a PC audio card and analyzes analog sources. I would first like to see a "control" experiment to understand the characteristics of that system. Second comment is that macro analysis of music while easy, obviously is not revealing of real characteristics of music.

All this said, I always like people attacking old arguments with fresh tools. That is what I liked about it. Not necessarily any conclusions he drew.

So there. Am I out of the dog house? :D
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
I'll have to dig up the dog house video so you know what it is really like to be there.

Putting aside the technical deficiencies, how's this for starters: all she did was show properties of different mastered versions of the same album. Yet the article is written to suggest more, IOW it appears to be written in a way that it is about the formats, when clearly it is not. This is a typical mistake made by *some* vinyl lovers who do not fully understand measurements, how to make them and how to interpret them, and simply but incorrectly embrace anything appearing as scientific to support their bias.

Christine Tham is known for her vinyl bias.

If I can find it, I'll post the link to her sampling article. That one is a real winner.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Man, I think this is the funniest video ever posted to a forum! Love this line, "I got my wife RAM for her computer. I even put a note in there saying 'thanks for the memories!'"

Thankfully, my wife does her business on her computer so when I did buy her RAM and that made her computer run twice as fast, I was in anything but a doghouse! :D
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
I got a good laugh... those damn mastering engineers monkey with everything! ;)
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Any article that is published which details why analog is superior to digital is by its very nature an excellent article and should be taken as gospel by all who read it. Failure to do so will result in the continued torture of listening to digital while deluding yourself that it really sounds good. You need to unplug yourself from the digital matrix Nemo and come back to the real world and experience the highest sound quality yet devised which is analog.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Any article that is published which details why analog is superior to digital is by its very nature an excellent article and should be taken as gospel by all who read it. Failure to do so will result in the continued torture of listening to digital while deluding yourself that it really sounds good. You need to unplug yourself from the digital matrix Nemo and come back to the real world and experience the highest sound quality yet devised which is analog.

We all listen in analogue. Digital is a storage medium. Now if only my CD sounded like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21IGt1YSHrA
 

DexterMiller

Member
Jan 20, 2019
53
16
8
New Jersey (U.S.)
To me, SO much of the vinyl mythologizing is based on a historical revisionism of the format's lineage itself...where: it has (now) been cultivated to be looked-upon as some sort of esoteric, "LUXURY" item (*ignorant* of all the tech aspects it never was able to do right to begin with) some people feel the need to convince themselves is better for THAT reason.

For nearly four decades, the LP was *merely* the cheapest/mass-produced medium to manufacture and sell commercial music on. There was never anything technologically "superior" about it...not in: 1956, 1966, 1976, or 1986. The proof of that is; not by comparing (endless) remasters made 40-50 years later (which, ironically, the dynamic weaknesses of records do a good job of HIDING any of the signal degradation and flaws "master" tapes from unknown generations may now be wraught with)...BUT: to go back and look at what the primary (analog) competitor to records was when the source material was new. REEL TO REEL TAPE.

Reel to reel tape was/is the ONLY audio format ever descended from "the studio" to be adopted to consumer use. It was the first publicly available in two-channel ("Binaural") in 1953 (at the time: a Magnecord PT-6 transport fitted to a Magnecord BN-62 dual-channel preamplifier) and, it had a consumer library of stereo recordings already by 1956 (while the Westrex 45/45 stereo cutting lathe was still mired in development). Now, for most of the heyday of RTR (EXcluding: the mail order Columbia House utter junk of the late-'70s/early-'80s duped at 160ips from cassette masters): pre-recorded RTR "albums" were priced between $6.95 (for a 3 3/4ips Pop/Rock album on acetate base formula tape)...to: $8.95 (for a 7 1/2ips "best seller" album on better quality polyester formula tape)...to: $12.95 (during the Discrete/Quad era)...to: $29.95 (for a multiple-reel-set, 7 1/2ips recording of complete Opera titles). Contrast this, with: how records (generally) ran priced from $3.98 to $10 throughout the same period (as well as factoring in: the most entry-level decent turntable was an $85 A.R. "XA"; fitted-with the first-generation Shure V15 or a Stanton 681 of its day...while: a decent three-head/three-motor RTR *started* at $500). The differing attitude during that time (vs. what today's audio "intelligentsia" has become), though, was that even though the expense factor ostracized what had always been acknowledged (then) as the BETTER reproduction component...nobody was declaring cassette (or 8-track cartridge) to have anywhere near the sound quality standards RTR was known -and accepted- for having (in the pre-digital era). [While oppositely thesedays, for example, the vinyl crowd pooh-pooh's tape by having a ridiculous -but telling!- penchant for; either: daring to *even* suggest that their cassette decks were in the same league as 7 1/2 - 15ips, 1/4" recordings(!)...or, that: their unfamiliarity with tape's maintenance "learning curve", for them, is reason to discredit it (which would be like calling a Porsche a pile of junk because one couldn't drive a stick shift!)].

It, honestly, seems as-if the "sound quality" arguments for vinyl have this common thread involving people not liking loudness or treble(!). Why is that and how could it ever be interpreted as approaching "accurate" sound(?). Again, however, when one has had the experience of hearing (multiple) comparisons of two different analog formats against each other INSTEAD OF ONE VS. DIGITAL (using well-preserved examples played on thoroughly overhauled equipment)...even the most budget version of reel to reel tape during its '60s heyday (quarter-track stereo: though no less than played back at 7 1/2ips) BEAT THE LP COUNTERPART hands down(!). After all: for what the corresponding technologies were capable of at the time, it should have(!). When there was a dedicated quality control applied to the process: the tapes were made from, at worst, a third generation safety of the master itself. I'd wager my money on THAT being a damnsight closer to what was "intended" than what the intermediary, RIAA-squashed sub-copy was able to replicate. Case in point: the 1960s RCA reels never had "Dynagroove" encoded onto them; nor did the late-'60s/early-'70s Warner/Elektra/Atlantic and (a majority of) the A&M reels have the right channel phase-inverted with the HAECO "compatible stereo" affect (so, obviously, the dubbing source was different than what the records were pressed from). [Another] case in point: one of the most famous bad-sounding albums of all-time is the Capitol (stereo) version of The Beatles' SECOND ALBUM. The ONLY remotely-pleasing (to the point-of the material becoming a whole new revelation upon hearing) transfer of this album is: a 7 1/2ips reel to reel copy Ampex reissued/"remastered" in 1970. It even surpasses the source Capitol used for the 2004 CD in their giftbox collection (something which the vinyl-centric bootlegging crowd has even picked up on!).

I just cannot stand records having that characteristic boxy, mid-bass "hollowness" spread between L and R as well as; how the end-of-side track is ALWAYS left sounding like sludge being squeezed through a soup can(!). I recognized this immediately at a very early age (when listening between a reel to reel and a LP of the same recording). As soon as the initial "Golden Age" of Hi-Fi had worn off and passed-into becoming dominated by imported Solid State crass-consumer goods, the blunt truth of history was that most (domestic U.S.) pressings of records were garbage anyhow; save for: Monarch in L.A. (the reason A&M product held out sounding better for so long); Deutsche-Grammophon in Germany; and JVC in Japan. The only logical upside to record hunting, at this moment, would be: if one is trying to find an ORIGINAL pressing from when the *source* would be guaranteed closer to NEW (which, to me, makes A LOT more sense than banking-on a crapshoot of: 40+ year-old material artificially "brightened up" to not sound so worn and $50 for off-centered spindles on wax scuffed-up in a dodgy Eastern Europe warehouse).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerD and Lagonda

Lagonda

VIP/Donor
Feb 3, 2014
3,415
4,670
1,255
Denmark
To me, SO much of the vinyl mythologizing is based on a historical revisionism of the format's lineage itself...where: it has (now) been cultivated to be looked-upon as some sort of esoteric, "LUXURY" item (*ignorant* of all the tech aspects it never was able to do right to begin with) some people feel the need to convince themselves is better for THAT reason.

For nearly four decades, the LP was *merely* the cheapest/mass-produced medium to manufacture and sell commercial music on. There was never anything technologically "superior" about it...not in: 1956, 1966, 1976, or 1986. The proof of that is; not by comparing (endless) remasters made 40-50 years later (which, ironically, the dynamic weaknesses of records do a good job of HIDING any of the signal degradation and flaws "master" tapes from unknown generations may now be wraught with)...BUT: to go back and look at what the primary (analog) competitor to records was when the source material was new. REEL TO REEL TAPE.

Reel to reel tape was/is the ONLY audio format ever descended from "the studio" to be adopted to consumer use. It was the first publicly available in two-channel ("Binaural") in 1953 (at the time: a Magnecord PT-6 transport fitted to a Magnecord BN-62 dual-channel preamplifier) and, it had a consumer library of stereo recordings already by 1956 (while the Westrex 45/45 stereo cutting lathe was still mired in development). Now, for most of the heyday of RTR (EXcluding: the mail order Columbia House utter junk of the late-'70s/early-'80s duped at 160ips from cassette masters): pre-recorded RTR "albums" were priced between $6.95 (for a 3 3/4ips Pop/Rock album on acetate base formula tape)...to: $8.95 (for a 7 1/2ips "best seller" album on better quality polyester formula tape)...to: $12.95 (during the Discrete/Quad era)...to: $29.95 (for a multiple-reel-set, 7 1/2ips recording of complete Opera titles). Contrast this, with: how records (generally) ran priced from $3.98 to $10 throughout the same period (as well as factoring in: the most entry-level decent turntable was an $85 A.R. "XA"; fitted-with the first-generation Shure V15 or a Stanton 681 of its day...while: a decent three-head/three-motor RTR *started* at $500). The differing attitude during that time (vs. what today's audio "intelligentsia" has become), though, was that even though the expense factor ostracized what had always been acknowledged (then) as the BETTER reproduction component...nobody was declaring cassette (or 8-track cartridge) to have anywhere near the sound quality standards RTR was known -and accepted- for having (in the pre-digital era). [While oppositely thesedays, for example, the vinyl crowd pooh-pooh's tape by having a ridiculous -but telling!- penchant for; either: daring to *even* suggest that their cassette decks were in the same league as 7 1/2 - 15ips, 1/4" recordings(!)...or, that: their unfamiliarity with tape's maintenance "learning curve", for them, is reason to discredit it (which would be like calling a Porsche a pile of junk because one couldn't drive a stick shift!)].

It, honestly, seems as-if the "sound quality" arguments for vinyl have this common thread involving people not liking loudness or treble(!). Why is that and how could it ever be interpreted as approaching "accurate" sound(?). Again, however, when one has had the experience of hearing (multiple) comparisons of two different analog formats against each other INSTEAD OF ONE VS. DIGITAL (using well-preserved examples played on thoroughly overhauled equipment)...even the most budget version of reel to reel tape during its '60s heyday (quarter-track stereo: though no less than played back at 7 1/2ips) BEAT THE LP COUNTERPART hands down(!). After all: for what the corresponding technologies were capable of at the time, it should have(!). When there was a dedicated quality control applied to the process: the tapes were made from, at worst, a third generation safety of the master itself. I'd wager my money on THAT being a damnsight closer to what was "intended" than what the intermediary, RIAA-squashed sub-copy was able to replicate. Case in point: the 1960s RCA reels never had "Dynagroove" encoded onto them; nor did the late-'60s/early-'70s Warner/Elektra/Atlantic and (a majority of) the A&M reels have the right channel phase-inverted with the HAECO "compatible stereo" affect (so, obviously, the dubbing source was different than what the records were pressed from). [Another] case in point: one of the most famous bad-sounding albums of all-time is the Capitol (stereo) version of The Beatles' SECOND ALBUM. The ONLY remotely-pleasing (to the point-of the material becoming a whole new revelation upon hearing) transfer of this album is: a 7 1/2ips reel to reel copy Ampex reissued/"remastered" in 1970. It even surpasses the source Capitol used for the 2004 CD in their giftbox collection (something which the vinyl-centric bootlegging crowd has even picked up on!).

I just cannot stand records having that characteristic boxy, mid-bass "hollowness" spread between L and R as well as; how the end-of-side track is ALWAYS left sounding like sludge being squeezed through a soup can(!). I recognized this immediately at a very early age (when listening between a reel to reel and a LP of the same recording). As soon as the initial "Golden Age" of Hi-Fi had worn off and passed-into becoming dominated by imported Solid State crass-consumer goods, the blunt truth of history was that most (domestic U.S.) pressings of records were garbage anyhow; save for: Monarch in L.A. (the reason A&M product held out sounding better for so long); Deutsche-Grammophon in Germany; and JVC in Japan. The only logical upside to record hunting, at this moment, would be: if one is trying to find an ORIGINAL pressing from when the *source* would be guaranteed closer to NEW (which, to me, makes A LOT more sense than banking-on a crapshoot of: 40+ year-old material artificially "brightened up" to not sound so worn and $50 for off-centered spindles on wax scuffed-up in a dodgy Eastern Europe warehouse).
Wow ! What a interesting post to a 9 year old thread !
Welcome to WBF, it’s going to be interesting to see what you are selling !;)
 

XV-1

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
3,591
2,573
1,860
Sydney
To me, SO much of the vinyl mythologizing is based on a historical revisionism of the format's lineage itself...where: it has (now) been cultivated to be looked-upon as some sort of esoteric, "LUXURY" item (*ignorant* of all the tech aspects it never was able to do right to begin with) some people feel the need to convince themselves is better for THAT reason.

For nearly four decades, the LP was *merely* the cheapest/mass-produced medium to manufacture and sell commercial music on. There was never anything technologically "superior" about it...not in: 1956, 1966, 1976, or 1986. The proof of that is; not by comparing (endless) remasters made 40-50 years later (which, ironically, the dynamic weaknesses of records do a good job of HIDING any of the signal degradation and flaws "master" tapes from unknown generations may now be wraught with)...BUT: to go back and look at what the primary (analog) competitor to records was when the source material was new. REEL TO REEL TAPE.

Reel to reel tape was/is the ONLY audio format ever descended from "the studio" to be adopted to consumer use. It was the first publicly available in two-channel ("Binaural") in 1953 (at the time: a Magnecord PT-6 transport fitted to a Magnecord BN-62 dual-channel preamplifier) and, it had a consumer library of stereo recordings already by 1956 (while the Westrex 45/45 stereo cutting lathe was still mired in development). Now, for most of the heyday of RTR (EXcluding: the mail order Columbia House utter junk of the late-'70s/early-'80s duped at 160ips from cassette masters): pre-recorded RTR "albums" were priced between $6.95 (for a 3 3/4ips Pop/Rock album on acetate base formula tape)...to: $8.95 (for a 7 1/2ips "best seller" album on better quality polyester formula tape)...to: $12.95 (during the Discrete/Quad era)...to: $29.95 (for a multiple-reel-set, 7 1/2ips recording of complete Opera titles). Contrast this, with: how records (generally) ran priced from $3.98 to $10 throughout the same period (as well as factoring in: the most entry-level decent turntable was an $85 A.R. "XA"; fitted-with the first-generation Shure V15 or a Stanton 681 of its day...while: a decent three-head/three-motor RTR *started* at $500). The differing attitude during that time (vs. what today's audio "intelligentsia" has become), though, was that even though the expense factor ostracized what had always been acknowledged (then) as the BETTER reproduction component...nobody was declaring cassette (or 8-track cartridge) to have anywhere near the sound quality standards RTR was known -and accepted- for having (in the pre-digital era). [While oppositely thesedays, for example, the vinyl crowd pooh-pooh's tape by having a ridiculous -but telling!- penchant for; either: daring to *even* suggest that their cassette decks were in the same league as 7 1/2 - 15ips, 1/4" recordings(!)...or, that: their unfamiliarity with tape's maintenance "learning curve", for them, is reason to discredit it (which would be like calling a Porsche a pile of junk because one couldn't drive a stick shift!)].

It, honestly, seems as-if the "sound quality" arguments for vinyl have this common thread involving people not liking loudness or treble(!). Why is that and how could it ever be interpreted as approaching "accurate" sound(?). Again, however, when one has had the experience of hearing (multiple) comparisons of two different analog formats against each other INSTEAD OF ONE VS. DIGITAL (using well-preserved examples played on thoroughly overhauled equipment)...even the most budget version of reel to reel tape during its '60s heyday (quarter-track stereo: though no less than played back at 7 1/2ips) BEAT THE LP COUNTERPART hands down(!). After all: for what the corresponding technologies were capable of at the time, it should have(!). When there was a dedicated quality control applied to the process: the tapes were made from, at worst, a third generation safety of the master itself. I'd wager my money on THAT being a damnsight closer to what was "intended" than what the intermediary, RIAA-squashed sub-copy was able to replicate. Case in point: the 1960s RCA reels never had "Dynagroove" encoded onto them; nor did the late-'60s/early-'70s Warner/Elektra/Atlantic and (a majority of) the A&M reels have the right channel phase-inverted with the HAECO "compatible stereo" affect (so, obviously, the dubbing source was different than what the records were pressed from). [Another] case in point: one of the most famous bad-sounding albums of all-time is the Capitol (stereo) version of The Beatles' SECOND ALBUM. The ONLY remotely-pleasing (to the point-of the material becoming a whole new revelation upon hearing) transfer of this album is: a 7 1/2ips reel to reel copy Ampex reissued/"remastered" in 1970. It even surpasses the source Capitol used for the 2004 CD in their giftbox collection (something which the vinyl-centric bootlegging crowd has even picked up on!).

I just cannot stand records having that characteristic boxy, mid-bass "hollowness" spread between L and R as well as; how the end-of-side track is ALWAYS left sounding like sludge being squeezed through a soup can(!). I recognized this immediately at a very early age (when listening between a reel to reel and a LP of the same recording). As soon as the initial "Golden Age" of Hi-Fi had worn off and passed-into becoming dominated by imported Solid State crass-consumer goods, the blunt truth of history was that most (domestic U.S.) pressings of records were garbage anyhow; save for: Monarch in L.A. (the reason A&M product held out sounding better for so long); Deutsche-Grammophon in Germany; and JVC in Japan. The only logical upside to record hunting, at this moment, would be: if one is trying to find an ORIGINAL pressing from when the *source* would be guaranteed closer to NEW (which, to me, makes A LOT more sense than banking-on a crapshoot of: 40+ year-old material artificially "brightened up" to not sound so worn and $50 for off-centered spindles on wax scuffed-up in a dodgy Eastern Europe warehouse).


LOL.

There is magic in them grooves you know :p
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Wow ! What a interesting post to a 9 year old thread !

Unfortunately a bit inflammatory, IMHO, and it does not bring anything new 9 years after.

Meanwhile digital recording and playback improved a lot and we have plenty of facts that would ask for a fresh re-evaluation of the old arguments and new tests. We should not expect any different conclusions - this is an hobby of preferences and we can not expect that people will change. But in WBF sometimes we debate for the fun of arguing, not to become a sapient audiophile. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda

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