LP with better dynamic range than digital

[Orb]

But your description of perceived dynamics fits with the idea.

https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lect5.pdf

Pretty good explanation of the basics of hearing. Talks about critical bands and other things. Page 24 shows the idea that two sounds in two different critical bands sound louder than two sounds in a critical band. I put this mainly to show it isn't some hair brained hypothesis of my own. It is researched and a result of understanding how hearing works.

Most LP systems, even expensive and good ones that sound great, have the tendency to grow distortion rapidly over a certainly level on program peaks. The better systems will have that only for fractions of a second on peaks. So the sound will still seem clean, the peaks which have a few percent distortion occur too rapidly to be perceived as dirty, but not too rapidly to trick the ear into hearing a momentary increase in loudness that is greater than the actual increase. For the fundamental range of most musical instruments the first few harmonics will land right in the ears most sensitive range. You hit a peak, briefly you have audible harmonics in several additional critical bands, the ear hearing more bands active will tag it as louder without hearing it as distorted. If the distortion gets loud enough long enough it would start to sound distorted. Instead you hear more powerful peaks as added power and loudness or dynamics when a cleaner lower distortion presentation would sound much more restrained.

Although critical bandwidth relates to influence from noise and tones/complex sounds?
I still am not seeing how distortion is part of this tbh Esldude; would really need to see a measurement showing the distortion (what type-trait of distortion?) with its level and frequencies, and how this then influences the complex musical notes/chords/harmonies but critically also maintains their timbre-pitch-tone-musical quality.
While anecdotal Keith Howard when looking at various distortion traits-preferences always preferred the music without distortion, appreciate this is more anecdotal but he has a good understanding of test methodology and trained listening.
And yeah nice notes you linked just had a quick look through them and bookmarked for further reading, thanks
One thing that link may have missing is interference tones and aspects associated with this (could not see it with quick read through).

Thanks
Orb

 

[Al M.]

Al, changing to new power supplies has affects on your sound that are too much to now compare against what you think LP sounded like. You would have to listen to LP on your system now and then without the supplies in some sort of A/B.

Except I can't, Tomelex. As I said, I had listened to LP not on my system, I'm a digital-only guy.

Now, I hope you are not suggesting that LP sounds the way it does due to less distortion than digital.

Oh no, there is hardly anything with less distortion than digital -- if you discount jitter which is a subtle but nasty distortion that has harshened the sound of early digital, but does not appear to play an audible role in my current digital set-up, except perhaps in the few cases where the A/D conversion for the recording is messed up (can't do much to correct in that case).

I do agree with your idea that vinyl is at best about 70db, but that is plenty really.

That's what I thought as well.

Its all fun to talk about, and perhaps that string quartet sounds good because that guy used the dynamic range of cd for a change,

It is not just that. I have plenty other classical CDs that sound dynamic, and a good number with just as excellent dynamics as this one.

 

[esldude]

Although critical bandwidth relates to influence from noise and tones/complex sounds?
I still am not seeing how distortion is part of this tbh Esldude; would really need to see a measurement showing the distortion (what type-trait of distortion?) with its level and frequencies, and how this then influences the complex musical notes/chords/harmonies but critically also maintains their timbre-pitch-tone-musical quality.
While anecdotal Keith Howard when looking at various distortion traits-preferences always preferred the music without distortion, appreciate this is more anecdotal but he has a good understanding of test methodology and trained listening.
And yeah nice notes you linked just had a quick look through them and bookmarked for further reading, thanks
One thing that link may have missing is interference tones and aspects associated with this (could not see it with quick read through).

Thanks
Orb

I agree to some extent. I once took some good sounding CD's, added a touch of compression, a bit of EQ, and some distortion processing. The goal was to make it LP-like. I didn't fully succeed. A couple friends heard it and said "sorry no cigar". Where upon they said, "let us listen to the real deal, some LPs". After a few minutes they said, "well.....maybe you were on to something there, sounds more like your processed CD than we thought it would." Equally anecdotal, but given the direct comparison both liked the clean signal better. And in the end agreed my processing put me in the vicinity of LP sound.

Then there is the listening comparison I described earlier in the thread between CD, LP and RTR. These were mostly LP fans. Though occasionally the LP was preferred, all agreed the LP was the odd man out. And almost always liked the tape and CD better than LP. In direct comparison to something like a reference cleaner is better. So without direct comparison can LP seem nicer, calmer, more natural and dynamic? Sure. If you have some cleaner, more direct comparisons one may well be surprised to find the LP lags behind better fidelity. Same deal with highly compressed music. You compress an original a bit, and everyone says they like it better. Compare that to a bit more compression and everyone likes it a bit better. Rinse and repeat a couple three more times. Take the final, most liked most compressed version and compare to the original. Suddenly most people go "yuck, what did you do?".

As tomelex has pointed out, LP can only add distortions and subtract fidelity vs good digital. Is it really that hard to get across?

If you prefer the sound of LP, that is fine. Just realize it is a preference and not fidelity. Myself, having heard it, if I were to prefer lesser fidelity, I much prefer RTR tape to LP. By a wide, wide margin. Yet when done well, with a highly tuned high end playback system, and digital recordings of an original performance with little to no processing, none of the 'colored' playback formats can touch good digital. It is high fidelity in the best sense of the word.

 

[Orb]

Actually I only listen to digital these days
BUT I used to listen to early batch test/best promo white label pressings from one of the larger labels, and I get just how good these were.

But in theory both CD/LP add distortion and noise and both can be additive if one considers all the processes-functions for each type (heck I hate to think how many digital releases are produced perfectly - only about 20 to 25% hirez reviewed and measured by HifiNews would meet that standard).
It seems your taking the view of digital being perfect and then forgetting aspects such as noise shaping required in CD (where there is no universal mastering standard) or this then not screwed up by the CD pressing/replication-duplication plant?
Then that also ignores how influential and critical reconstruction filters are when it comes to 44.1khz; again far from ideal as it limits filter co-efficiant design in terms of time/frequency domain and one benefit of higher sampling rates beyond CD quality.
Or in your view are you now comparing LPs only to native 24bit recordings and high sampling rates?

And yeah agree it will never be like for like comparison, but regarding preference do you actually prefer more dynamically compressed music?
Personally I hate it; and one can compare compression though between original-older CDs and newer "remastered" digital releases, in fact some have had several re-iterations and dynamic compression/loudness wars can be heard at each stage.
Playing Devil's Advocate, you mention how people probably prefer compression, and yet mention LP is preferred for being more natural, it cannot work both ways

As tomelex has pointed out, LP can only add distortions and subtract fidelity vs good digital. Is it really that hard to get across?

Most of this thread is debating aspects of theory with many variables-factors and at times from a narrow focus , nothing proven either way and as I mentioned both LP and CD can subtract fidelity, or both can be excellent.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Al M.]

Actually I only listen to digital these days

[...]

But in theory both CD/LP add distortion and noise and both can be additive if one considers all the processes-functions for each type (heck I hate to think how many digital releases are produced perfectly - only about 20 to 25% hirez reviewed and measured by HifiNews would meet that standard).
It seems your taking the view of digital being perfect and then forgetting aspects such as noise shaping required in CD (where there is no universal mastering standard) or this then not screwed up by the CD pressing/replication-duplication plant?
Then that also ignores how influential and critical reconstruction filters are when it comes to 44.1khz; again far from ideal as it limits filter co-efficiant design in terms of time/frequency domain and one benefit of higher sampling rates beyond CD quality.

Yes, if you count all these deviations from the ideal as distortions, then I'll gladly take back my above statement that digital is distortion-free except when it comes to jitter. If you count all the above, digital is indeed full of distortions, and some of the distortions have the potential of being rather unmusical, as opposed to a number of the benign distortions of LP production/playback.

Just take the mentioned jitter: the timing irreglarities that it introduces are mostly very small (at several parts per billion they are still disrupting), but the efffects can be nastier and much more glaringly (literally) audible than several % of harmonic distortion by a tube amp *). Fortunately, nowadays jitter is hardly a significant problem anymore (except in its effects on the A/D domain, still leaving its legacy on some earlier CDs), but boy, did it screw up a lot of early digital!

But anyway, just like you I only listen to digital at home these days, and have done so for almost two and a half decades now.

______________

*) the effects of which also have to be seen in relation to the fact that speakers themselves have harmonic distortions between 1 and 3 %. There goes your impressive harmonic distortion number of 0.001 % for some SS amps -- out the window in terms of relevance that is.

 

[Al M.]

Then there is the listening comparison I described earlier in the thread between CD, LP and RTR. These were mostly LP fans. Though occasionally the LP was preferred, all agreed the LP was the odd man out. And almost always liked the tape and CD better than LP. In direct comparison to something like a reference cleaner is better. So without direct comparison can LP seem nicer, calmer, more natural and dynamic? Sure. If you have some cleaner, more direct comparisons one may well be surprised to find the LP lags behind better fidelity. Same deal with highly compressed music. You compress an original a bit, and everyone says they like it better. Compare that to a bit more compression and everyone likes it a bit better. Rinse and repeat a couple three more times. Take the final, most liked most compressed version and compare to the original. Suddenly most people go "yuck, what did you do?".

As tomelex has pointed out, LP can only add distortions and subtract fidelity vs good digital. Is it really that hard to get across?

If you prefer the sound of LP, that is fine. Just realize it is a preference and not fidelity. Myself, having heard it, if I were to prefer lesser fidelity, I much prefer RTR tape to LP. By a wide, wide margin. Yet when done well, with a highly tuned high end playback system, and digital recordings of an original performance with little to no processing, none of the 'colored' playback formats can touch good digital. It is high fidelity in the best sense of the word.

I am afraid you may not quite appreciate how linear LP actually can sound under optimal circumstances (I didn't know either until recently). Peter A.'s LP playback system is of an incredible caliber (with a matching price tag). Not many have heard LP reproduction on such a level, but I had the privilege to experience it. Really quite something -- on the very best recordings/pressings, that is. On the best source material I also don't think LP playback on that level sounds "calmer" or "less clean" than good CD playback (some minor surface noise aside). Interestingly, on that level of playback vinyl can also reproduce the natural hardness of sound of instruments (e.g., of brass), an area where LP playback is usually weaker than CD (certainly, the reproduction of natural hardness by digital should not be confused with the artificial harshness heard on lesser digital). Of course, poor recordings/pressings sound poor also on Peter's system, and to its credit it does not try to make them sound "better" than they are.

Having said all that, I stick with digital (16/44, specifically) for the simple reason that it harbors all the music I want to listen to (and anyway, I can't afford the kind of analog playback just described). And I am very satisfied with the level of reproduction that my current digital system offers, even though of course better is always possible.

Strangely enough, while on the surface lesser LP playback has all kinds of immediately audible problems, it still edges out lesser digital in some important musical areas. For example, lesser digital is clearly inferior to even mediocre LP playback when it comes to what the British call "rhythm & timing", that elusive foot-tapping quality that comes with correct reproduction of the rhythm aspects of music -- even though overall it may "sound better" or even may, on the surface, "sound closer to master tape". Fortunately, my current DAC is the first one that I have had that can keep up with LP in that area -- I believe it rocks and swings just like the best LP playback does.


EDIT: comment about natural hardness of sound

 

[Atmasphere]

as far as bass, there is no way vinyl can compete with even redbook. I think what some perceive as better bass is just extra second harmonics, ie doubling of bass sounds and that can fill in information for the ear as well. Vinyl does a lot of filling in...

I have yet to hear a digital system that can shack the walls as well as a good analog setup. By comparison the digital is thin and dry; as it has improved over the years its been a function of removing the thinness and dryness. Bass Is no problem for analog generally- if you look at the RIAA curve you will see why. Its just not that hard to cut bass on an LP; again you would be amazed to see what changing the modulation level can do! Decreasing the cutting level by 1 or 2 db can have a huge effect as it can reduce the excursion so dramatically.

Again, I would try a state of the art LP playback system and see how well it really can do before you state that it can't keep up with Redbook. I find that the bass of LP is one of the reasons I hold out for the vinyl if its available- the bass will be better, almost universally. But I have an arm that, if not state of the art, is nearly so, and without question that makes a difference.

 

[Al M.]

I have yet to hear a digital system that can shack the walls as well as a good analog setup. By comparison the digital is thin and dry; as it has improved over the years its been a function of removing the thinness and dryness. Bass Is no problem for analog generally- if you look at the RIAA curve you will see why. Its just not that hard to cut bass on an LP; again you would be amazed to see what changing the modulation level can do! Decreasing the cutting level by 1 or 2 db can have a huge effect as it can reduce the excursion so dramatically.

Again, I would try a state of the art LP playback system and see how well it really can do before you state that it can't keep up with Redbook. I find that the bass of LP is one of the reasons I hold out for the vinyl if its available- the bass will be better, almost universally. But I have an arm that, if not state of the art, is nearly so, and without question that makes a difference.

Ralph,

while I cannot echo your sentiments on digital thinness, it appears that we both agree that, when it comes to the real high-end in LP playback, things are different (see also my previous posts).

(And again, I say this as a digital-only guy who has no personal stake in defending vinyl. I just hear what I hear.)

 

[rockitman]

awllright then, we will just have to disagree on that one!

I agree with Ralph w/o reservation. Please remind us on what your current reference turntable rig is that leads you to your conclusions.

 

[thedudeabides]

By comparison the digital is thin and dry

Again, I would try a state of the art LP playback system and see how well it really can do

I thought we were beyond meaningless generalities. Suffice to say, my system is not thin and dry but quite the opposite.

And how much does a SOTA analogue system cost compared to a reputable digital system and is the difference worth that amount of money? I suppose if you are wealthy, that's fine but many of us, including me, are not. Having said that and dollars aside, I have no desire to get back into LP's. Way too much work and hassle.

 

[Atmasphere]

^^ I get that. But, and this is something I have said for decades: "a system does not have to be expensive to sound right. It just has to sound right."

Setting up an analog system is one of analog's weak points! CDPs are plug and play- analog sure isn't!

I would not call 'thin and dry' a meaningless generality. If some one says that is what they are experiencing to me on the 'phone, I take it pretty seriously. What I experience in that regard with digital is a matter of degree- its not nearly as thin and dry as it used to be!! I hear digital-only recordings that seem fantastic. But, given my experience I am always wondering how it would have sounded if there was an LP to compare.

 

[thedudeabides]

With all due respect, a SOTA analogue playback system, as you referenced in Post No. 354, is very expensive. Easily tens of thousands of dollars.

Regarding your statement "I would not call thin and dry a meaningless generality", I respectfully disagree and we'll just leave it there.

And I've stopped wondering how something may sound in another format and just enjoy listening to what I have. I left "audio neurosis" a long time ago. Very unhealthy in my opinion. And to the best of my knowledge, isn't enjoying music the core of what this hobby is about?

 

[Atmasphere]

It is indeed and I think audio neurosis is rarely a good thing!

 

[Atmasphere]

^^ Not sure I get you here at all. This post seems crafted to avoid answering what should be a very simple question. Rather than supporting your position, the result of the post seems to recursively reduce its own credibility.

This suggests the possibility that you really have not heard a high end analog playback in some time.

To put down that supposition, perhaps you could answer the question- "what is your current turntable rig that leads you to your conclusions?" as rockitman posed?

 

[ack]

Another example of the LP's incredible dynamic range vs RB CD, this time listening to Carreras back to back last night - both incredible mastering jobs:

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-126977...iolla-jose-carreras-180g-import-vinyl-lp.aspx

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/50123/Jose_Carreras-Ariel_Ramirez__Misa_Criolla-K2_HD_CD - a FIM reissue again

The last track, La Huida, is particularly interesting and telling, his voice giving me the shivers on the LP

 

[Al M.]

This suggests the possibility that you really have not heard a high end analog playback in some time.

Indeed, it does.

By the way, how would someone measure the following?

Strangely enough, while on the surface lesser LP playback has all kinds of immediately audible problems, it still edges out lesser digital in some important musical areas. For example, lesser digital is clearly inferior to even mediocre LP playback when it comes to what the British call "rhythm & timing", that elusive foot-tapping quality that comes with correct reproduction of the rhythm aspects of music -- even though overall it may "sound better" or even may, on the surface, "sound closer to master tape". Fortunately, my current DAC is the first one that I have had that can keep up with LP in that area -- I believe it rocks and swings just like the best LP playback does.

This is a common observation shared by many. But a mere frequency measurement in the bass range will not give you any hint about the very real phenomenon of rhythm & timing. Much more sophisticated measurements of development of a complex music signal over time would be needed, rather than the simplistic assertion "there is no difference because I measured no difference". The confidence of such an assertion does not make it any truer.

And no, the "rhythm & timing" issue has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an alleged better bass response of digital. You can hear it on systems without any deep bass too (completely putting aside the question if digital really has better deep bass).

 

[Sonus]

Adding oil to the fire

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5626058/vinyls-great-but-its-not-better-than-cds

 

[Joe Whip]

I have no issues with rhythm and timing with digital, none. I go to many live jazz shows and when I hear well recorded digital played back through my computer system, I am amazed by the sound. So much so that I have retired my VPI table. The same is true for classical music. The keys for me are how well a piece is recorded and mastered. Digital, when done right, is superb and IMHO, bests LPs in all respects. Just my opinion.

 

[Al M.]

I have no issues with rhythm and timing with digital, none. I go to many live jazz shows and when I hear well recorded digital played back through my computer system, I am amazed by the sound. So much so that I have retired my VPI table. The same is true for classical music. The keys for me are how well a piece is recorded and mastered. Digital, when done right, is superb and IMHO, bests LPs in all respects. Just my opinion.

Then you probably have a very good digital source. I also have no issues with rhythm and timing in digital, none. But as I mentioned, only since I have the Berkeley DAC. It may also be that rhythm and timing has become less of a problem in general with digital over the years, even with more moderate digital playback equipment (I haven't gathered the audible evidence for that possibility tough). Fact is that, more than 20 years ago, rhythm and timing was a big issue in digital, and my Meridian 602/606 combo from back then, even though in all other areas it was significantly better, was outclassed in this area by the five times cheaper Marantz CD80.

I go to many live jazz shows and when I hear well recorded digital played back through my computer system, I am amazed by the sound.

Interestingly, while my old Wadia 12 DAC could swing quite well with jazz, it couldn't really rock. My Berkeley DAC can do both.

 

[Joe Whip]

DACs have come a long way in the last few years. A long way. I also now find that removing a CD player or transport out of the chain entirely helps a good bit as well. I rip all of the CDs I want to enjoy onto a 2TB SSD and all of my digital playback is done exclusively through a computer (Mac) interface.