LP with better dynamic range than digital

Champ04 said:
Someone should take the time to look at the actual waveforms of these various formats. Just an idea.

For years I used the audiophile iconic CD from Patricia Barber, "Cafe Blue", as test material for improving my system. No question that the midrange on that recording is outstanding. But I jumped through a million hoops trying to improve my SYSTEM because the drums and cymbals never ever sounded correct. On some tracks I couldn't even tell if it was real cymbals or electric cymbals used on the recording. Then, one day, I got the LP. And it was no comparison! The LP blew the doors off the CD. And for the first I could hear an accurate rendering of the drums and cymbals.
So I used a Tascam to record the LP straight to digital and then compared that waveform with the CD waveform.
To this day I can hardly believe what I found. The CD was clipped beyond belief! It many spots, the waveform was a near flat line across the top of the spectrum. All the dynamic life of the recording had been literally chopped off the top.

I still can't believe that I have yet to find anyone else in the audiophile community that is aware of this on the CD format of this iconic "audiophile" recording.
And, as an aside, it proved to me that the reason so many audiophiles buy into crappy sounding systems is because they don't a have a flyin clue what instruments are actually supposed to sound like.
(Then again, like Harley says, "It's all good".) :-/
Click to expand...

first off, i'm one who strongly believes that Lp's far exceed digital in 'real world' dynamic range. and it's not even close.

that said, 'Cafe Blue' had quite the variance in CD masterings. i'm at work and trying to remember the label of the best one.....i think it was 'Premonition'. most of the others sucked. then FIM came out with a version or two which were good as was the MoFi SACD. but my original label CD was best.

of course, maybe it was squashed too. i do have the original Lp and the 45rpm and a 1/4" master dub which are much much better.....
 
If ever there was an argument for analog, IMO its overhead! Maybe more so in the studio than in playback. Last year we mastered an LP of an avant garde jazz project which was saxophone and drums. We noticed that occasionally some of the drums strikes were a bit 'snappier' than one would expect- The levels were set a little too high in record and the producer just left it that way. Not much we could do except transfer it to disc.

If that had been done with an analog master, the snapping sound would not have been there. It would have been a simple job then to transfer to digital without overload. But often recording producers don't think that way.
 
Atmasphere said:
When you cut a lacquer, its impossible to hear its surface noise no matter how quiet your electronics are. The surface noise creeps in during the pressing process. Currently, QRP has the quietest pressings we have seen. Chad Kassem claims this is because the took extra care to eliminate vibration during the cooling of the vinyl in the pressing machines.

Something else to keep in mind: the less bits you use in digital, the less resolution you have. You don't dare go over 0VU in a digital recording; a 'tick' is the result, and could ruin a recording. To get around this problem many projects are compressed when going to digital so that they will sound better and be tick-free.

LP OTOH does not need compression as there is no loss of resolution as signal level is decreased. The limit to LP reproduction is in playback, where the groove might not be tracked properly due to excessive excursion. You don't have to compress the LP to deal with this, but you do have to be careful of the level. Sometimes there is nothing for it, but instead of compression limiting can be used more effectively.

So it may very well be that you see less compressed information on the LP. It depends a lot on the label and the mastering engineer. Some houses don't care a hoot and use the same file for digital as well as analog; others do care and you will hear a big difference between the two. An uncaring mastering engineer might just slap some compression on so they don't have to take time with the recording and then its all over.
Click to expand...

Back in the 80s one of my relatives had a reasonably senior role in marketing with one of the larger record labels, and oh man was I lucky with regards to LPs given to us that were the best ones kept back for large national radio stations-test/etc.
The quality of these LPs were stunning even if you played them on an average system, jaw dropping compared to what was available to buy and back then going by memory definitely felt IMO a match to CD with regards to noise-dynamics.
These included releases by Prince, amongst others.
Idiot for moving away from them and giving all LPs to another family member bah.

Cheers
Orb
 
I haven't been paying too much attention to this thread, but I can relate that several posters at SH Forums have compared the DR ratings of LP's know to be cut from CD masters (using their own rips and Foobar to generate the DR values) and have found that the DR rating for the LP can be as much as 4 higher than the CD. Thus few people are currently using the DR values to compare LP to any digital, only LP to LP (different masterings) and digital to digital (same).

Anyone here can do the same, with something like Dire Straits Brothers in Arms, Donal Fagen's The Nightfly, Paul Simon's You're The One (I think, it could be a different album), Daft Punk's RAM (use the qobuz 24/88.2 download), etc.
 
rbbert said:
I haven't been paying too much attention to this thread, but I can relate that several posters at SH Forums have compared the DR ratings of LP's know to be cut from CD masters (using their own rips and Foobar to generate the DR values) and have found that the DR rating for the LP can be as much as 4 higher than the CD. Thus few people are currently using the DR values to compare LP to any digital, only LP to LP (different masterings) and digital to digital (same).

Anyone here can do the same, with something like Dire Straits Brothers in Arms, Donal Fagen's The Nightfly, Paul Simon's You're The One (I think, it could be a different album), Daft Punk's RAM (use the qobuz 24/88.2 download), etc.
Click to expand...

just play 'Billie Jean' from Lp of MJ's Thriller on a system that is dynamically capable and compare it to the CD.

the digital is a weak facsimle.
 
Mike Lavigne said:
just play 'Billie Jean' from Lp of MJ's Thriller on a system that is dynamically capable and compare it to the CD.

the digital is a weak facsimle.
Click to expand...
Not my point, and I'm not discussing the relative dynamics of different versions of an album, only the use of the software DR meter to compare LP's to digital (which is how the thread started).
 
Doesn't something have to be "better" than what it's measuring? You wouldn't use a 1kg scale to measure a 7kg object.
Keith Johnson says vinyl has a dynamic range over 120dB. Show me digital that can capture that!
 
Last edited:
Bruce B said:
...Keith Johnson says vinyl has a dynamic range over 120dB. Show me digital that can capture that!
Click to expand...
I don't know about ADC's, but Stereophile has measured at least 3 DAC's that have 144 dB (Benchmark, Auralic and dcs).
 
Mike Lavigne said:
just play 'Billie Jean' from Lp of MJ's Thriller on a system that is dynamically capable and compare it to the CD.

the digital is a weak facsimle.
Click to expand...

That doesn't necessarily mean that LP playback is superior to CD. It would infer that the CD was not mastered properly (or something else was a play) to duplicate the DR on the LP. We all know that the "devil" is in the details.

Although I don't have an analogue system, I have read numerous reviews over the years in TAS and Stereophile by, I assume, competent reviewers, that have indicated that the CD version is equal to, or in some cases, better sonically than the LP. The Paul Simon / Rhythm of the Saints recording comes to mind.

This type of thread is so dated and, IMHO, so irrelevant unless you like watching the movie "Ground Hog Day" on a repeated basis. :)

Sigh.
 
rbbert said:
I don't know about ADC's, but Stereophile has measured at least 3 DAC's that have 144 dB (Benchmark, Auralic and dcs).
Click to expand...

Auralic Vega DAC... Dynamic range: 130dB ref. 0dBFS, 20Hz–20kHz, A-weighted. THD+noise: <0.00015%, 20Hz–20kHz at 0dBFS not even close..... At 24bit, you have a resolution of 144, theoretically, though it seems that JA suggests the Auralic has a very commendable resolution of 21bits.


I thought we were talking about capturing LP and measuring DR..... correct? That means we would need an great cartridge, dynamic (read quiet) phono pre and dynamic ( read VERY quiet A/D ). A 24bit converter wouldn't do, so you would need at least a 32bit A/D and software that would capture that ON TOP OF all that noise.
 
Bruce B said:
Doesn't something have to be "better" than what it's measuring? You wouldn't use a 1kg scale to measure a 7kg object.
Keith Johnson says vinyl has a dynamic range over 120dB. Show me digital that can capture that!
Click to expand...

I have read that a lot lately. Can someone point me to an LP even one with test signals only that has that range ? And cartridges, arms and phonostages capable of such ?Just for my own education?
In passing I wouldn't mind seeing some measurements of such prodigious performance from LP.
 
Bruce B said:
Auralic Vega DAC... Dynamic range: 130dB ref. 0dBFS, 20Hz–20kHz, A-weighted. THD+noise: <0.00015%, 20Hz–20kHz at 0dBFS not even close..... At 24bit, you have a resolution of 144, theoretically, though it seems that JA suggests the Auralic has a very commendable resolution of 21bits.


I thought we were talking about capturing LP and measuring DR..... correct? That means we would need an great cartridge, dynamic (read quiet) phono pre and dynamic ( read VERY quiet A/D ). A 24bit converter wouldn't do, so you would need at least a 32bit A/D and software that would capture that ON TOP OF all that noise.
Click to expand...

I did have a faulty recollection of those DAC's, sorry. But both the Benchmark ADC and Ayre ADC have 20-21 bit resolution, and the three processors I mentioned (and likely others) 20-21 bit resolution. Unless you are cutting direct to disc, you still have to use a master "tape", either digital or analog, which may or may not limit the actual DR achievable on LP (in practice). Either way, the consumer ADC > DAC probably isn't the limiting step.
 
tomelex said:
Yes indeed, don't hold your breath! But of course, sound preference is not always about the best replication, for example tape typically has almost no second harmonic distortion but mostly third order. And folks like that, the ear apparently finds "detail" in that. Its that trick of pleasing the ear, and that certainly comes back to preference.
Click to expand...

+1

it is always about the matrix not the real world. (at least for some)
 
tomelex said:
Yes indeed, don't hold your breath! But of course, sound preference is not always about the best replication, for example tape typically has almost no second harmonic distortion but mostly third order. And folks like that, the ear apparently finds "detail" in that. Its that trick of pleasing the ear, and that certainly comes back to preference.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the preferences. One can prefer the sound of LP to anything and that is fine ..but I sincerely and honestly need the information that sustain that LP has better dynamic range than CD.

This find by Amirm reinforces IMO the importance of the Mastering process in the final product.
 
FrantzM said:
I have read that a lot lately. Can someone point me to an LP even one with test signals only that has that range ? And cartridges, arms and phonostages capable of such ?Just for my own education?
In passing I wouldn't mind seeing some measurements of such prodigious performance from LP.
Click to expand...

back on June 29th 'Atmasphere' wrote a post that I knew would come in handy later...like now.

I'm not sure the thread it was in and I just copied it into an email to myself so I could find it.

Ralph on vinyl....

Having been doing LP mastering work a lot recently, I am interested in the innuendo that I highlighted. The reason being, I had a lot of misconceptions (myths) about LPs prior to actually mastering them (we burned through quite a few lacquers figuring things out!!).

One of the myths was dynamic range, another was noise floor, yet another was distortion and also bandwidth. All turned out to be mostly misinformation caused by either lack of care in the mastering process or misinformation disseminated by the early digital proponents that has propagated over time. So I thought I might share a few of the things I have learned:

1) the noise floor of LPs comes from the pressing process, not the mastering process. A 'lathe cut', if done with care will be quieter than the quietest electronics used to play it back. QRP of Acoustic Sounds in Kansas is now producing pressings that are so quiet that the result rivals CD.

2) The dynamic range of LP easily exceeds that of CD. Essentially, you can't overload an LP mastering amplifier (typically they have about 10-15 times more power than is needed to fry the cutterhead) nor the cutterhead (so obviously you can easily blow up the cutterhead if you do something stupid ). The limit in LP dynamic range is in the playback apparatus; the cutterhead can cut undistorted grooves no cartridge could ever track.

3) Because you can't overload the mastering system the primary source of distortion is in the playback. This is not a fault of the media so much as it is a fault of poor setup, unless you want to say that because an LP reproducer can be set up badly that is a fault of the media. This latter statement would also be shared by CD, ever try setting up a new laser head in a player?

4) LPs have bandwidth that exceeds Redbook and all analog tape formats. We can easily record 30KHz using stock electronics from 50 years ago and play it back on a lowly Technics SL1200 with a stock arm and a Grado Gold. As high end stuff goes, the Technics really isn't although it is a workhorse which is why we use it. Most phono equalizers have similar bandwidth, which may go well past 50KHz (we spec the phono section of our MP-1 and MP-3 preamps to 100KHz). We've not really tried to see how high we can record; the stock cutter electronics are bandwidth limited at about 45KHz to prevent stability problems from frying the cutterhead due to the pre-emphasis. The result of this is you have less phase shift in the audio passband with LPs unless there are significant errors in the playback equalizer.

(Its my opinion that this extra bandwidth is part of why the LP is still very much around over 3 decades after the introduction of the media that was to succeed it. In case anyone has not been keeping track, when the LP was introduced, 7 years later the last 78 was made. When the cassette was introduced, 7 years later it had 99% marketplace penetration. CD failed utterly to have this kind of success although downloads seem to be doing better. The economic reality of the LP still being around after all this time should tell you something: that it works and failed to be inferior to the 'succeeding' format.)

I know its a forlorn hope that in the context of debates as this that the information above be under consideration.

Now as a manufacturer of electronics one thing I learned early on is that LPs will have far less ticks and pops if care is taken in their storage, in the setup of the reproducer, and also in the design of the equalizer. Improper design can lead to emphasis of ticks and pops and the difference between how it should be done and how it should not can be pretty profound. IOW I find that LPs are usually much quieter than many people claim.

These comments are not, IMO, part of the A/D debate so much as correction of misinformation that often fuels that debate. For those that have trouble believing what I say, I really recommend that you get an LP mastering system and find out for yourself. Barring that, perhaps arrange to spend some time with a mastering engineer while they are doing a project.

The bottom line here is money: many LPs are crappy because the producer did not give a hoot; Redbook was bad because Phillips could not do what Sony wanted and intentionally compromised the format (Sony lost of lot of money in the process and was hopping mad about it); studios got on board with digital often because it was so much cheaper. We humans make up reasons for doing the things we do but (and this is my opinion) much of what we see in audio has to do with making money rather than making quality. In the last 20 years I have seen vast improvement
Click to expand...

personally I could give a rip about the technical data on Lps, I just listen and have my opinions. but some here like those numbers.
 
Mike Lavigne said:
back on June 29th 'Atmasphere' wrote a post that I knew would come in handy later...like now.

I'm not sure the thread it was in and I just copied it into an email to myself so I could find it.

Ralph on vinyl....



personally I could give a rip about the technical data on Lps, I just listen and have my opinions. but some here like those numbers.
Click to expand...

Mike

I understand your sentiment, however those quotes do not tell why LP has more dynamic range than CD which I know is hard-limited to 22.1 KHz ... I find the 120 dB of LP figure rather surprising ... Just some references would be enough.
 
FrantzM said:
Mike

I understand your sentiment, however those quotes do not tell why LP has more dynamic range than CD which I know is hard-limited to 22.1 KHz ... I find the 120 dB of LP figure rather surprising ... Just some references would be enough.
Click to expand...

I'd love to have you hear how the Lps compare to the various digital formats in my system.

the numbers would be the last thing you would need to know regarding how they compare in dynamics and dynamic range. it's amazing how not close it is.
 
Last edited:
FrantzM said:
I have read that a lot lately. Can someone point me to an LP even one with test signals only that has that range ? And cartridges, arms and phonostages capable of such ?Just for my own education?
In passing I wouldn't mind seeing some measurements of such prodigious performance from LP.
Click to expand...

I recently bought this Reference Recordings LP (RR-11) new, and you are welcome to come listen - I think you will be blown away by the dynamic range, which no Redbook HDCD I have has been able to match yet. I think Keith Johnson not only says, I think he also does

53653.jpg
 
ack said:
I recently bought this Reference Recordings LP (RR-11) new, and you are welcome to come listen - I think you will be blown away by the dynamic range, which no Redbook HDCD I have has been able to match yet. I think Keith Johnson not only says, I think he also does

53653.jpg
Click to expand...

+1. the RR Lp of Symphonie Fantastique is a sonic tour de force!

speaking of Reference Recordings and CD's, or even hirez and then Lps or even master tapes there are a few Reference Recordings where you have parallel recording chains; where you have 2 mic feeds to both an analog RTR deck and a hirez PCM 176/24 ADC.

i have many RR CD's and every RR HRx 176/24 file.

compare the 'Chruch Music' CD to the 45rpm Lp (i also have the master tape). the dynamic difference is mind blowing. how can they be from the same mic feed?

how indeed. you don't suppose that an Lp has much more dynamics and dynamic range?;)

then there is the Arnold Overtures where i have the CD, HRx, Lp and Master Tape.

Nojima Plays Listz compare the CD and Lp (i also have the master tape). not close.

and all these digital recordings are very very good. this is not a situation where the digital has not been lovingly produced. collectively these CD's might be the top of the top in sonics.

it is nice to have a Label like RR that really pays attention to the details and has done such a great job on both the analog and digital side. it does upset me that the recent Lps from RR are 176/24 sourced.:eek:

and then, of course, there are 'DTD' direct-to-disc Lps, which mostly seem to be more dynamic and have greater dynamic range than even tape. they might not have 'quite' the meaty dense tonal saturation of tape, but more bite and snap. that is where you can really appreciate what an Lp can do. try any of the Jeton late 70's to early 80's DTD pressings to hear just how powerful and real sounding an Lp can get.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Playing local files with A8 much better than with Roon. How to fix?
Replies
16
Views
3K
Digital Audio Forum: DAC, Transports, Digital Processing Forum
audiobomber
audiobomber
J
An evening with XVX/Gryphon/DCS/Air force 1
Replies
94
Views
10K
General Audio Forum
Charles S
C
V
Graham Audio LS5/5: considered impressions after three months of ownership (Part One)
Replies
28
Views
7K
Speakers
whatiguana
W
MichaelHiFi
Waversa Digital Filter
Replies
24
Views
6K
Digital Audio Forum: DAC, Transports, Digital Processing Forum
MichaelHiFi
MichaelHiFi
D
My Personal Experience With Detailed Speaker Setup - I'm Finally There
Replies
71
Views
14K
General Audio Forum
Macattack
Macattack

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

Home Forums

User Menu

Login
Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing
Top Bottom