LP with better dynamic range than digital

[rockitman]

You must already be asleep and dreaming.

LOL, I have both formats well sorted, you do not. I am very comfortable with my judgment...But please, continue to grind away. This is getting humorous. Cheers !

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Glad to know one person in the whole world has both formats sorted out! What you have sorted apparently can not be explained in the dynamic range comparison of digital and LP. Must be something else but you are not telling because......?

I just finished listening to Telarc full digital recording stereo cd-70501 California Project Papa Doo Run Run and it was recorded without limiting or compression and it sounds fantastic. Done right, and taking advantage of digital, and as Keith Johnson shows a few post up, digital is really great when done right.

I agree, it is! My digital music collection is very small and I only have a cheapie old H/K DVD/DVD-A/CD/SACD player, but the 20th Anniversary SACD of Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms kicks ass! I can only imagine what it would sound like on a top-notch digital setup.

 

[rockitman]

I agree, it is! My digital music collection is very small and I only have a cheapie old H/K DVD/DVD-A/CD/SACD player, but the 20th Anniversary SACD of Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms kicks ass! I can only imagine what it would sound like on a top-notch digital setup.

I agree when done right....problem is, it's not done right most of the time when it comes to converting analog master to CD..

 

[dmnc02]

I agree, it is! My digital music collection is very small and I only have a cheapie old H/K DVD/DVD-A/CD/SACD player, but the 20th Anniversary SACD of Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms kicks ass! I can only imagine what it would sound like on a top-notch digital setup.

You should hear the recent SHM SACD of this title.

 

[FrantzM]

You should hear the recent SHM SACD of this title.

+1

 

[rbbert]

You should hear the recent SHM SACD of this title.

Or the cheaper and at least as good sounding MFSL SACD

 

[microstrip]

LOL, I have both formats well sorted, you do not. I am very comfortable with my judgment...(...)

Christian,

You are a happy man - I am not comfortable with my judgment. Why must I rise six times from my chair when listening to the Verdi Rigoletto to change side/LP in order to have the best dynamics?

 

[dmnc02]

Or the cheaper and at least as good sounding MFSL SACD

I have all three SACD's: the 20th anniversary, the MFSL and the SHM. Compared to the 20th anniversary, the MFSL sounds a bit more refined, with a touch more clarity and detail, but it loses in punch and dynamics. Upon hearing both back to back, a friend of mine commented that the MFSL sounds like the unplugged version of the album. Choice between the two might as well vary with the system and individual preferences, but since this is a rock album and not a string quartet, I personally prefer the 20th anniversary. However, the SHM is way better than either of the other two.

 

[rockitman]

And this is the vexing issue. And why is digital not done right. One suggestion I have seen numerous times on the web is that digital is mastered to sound good in a car while obviously vinyl (with a few goofy car record players) is supposedly mastered to sound good in your home, in a quieter environment. Also, I would say that you can only make vinyl so loud before its unplayable, while digital can be pounded to 0.001db or even clipped. And, also, supposedly audiophiles are such a small part of the market, perhaps less than 0.5% (my guess) that we don't matter. Hence the limited "audiophile grade" mastered stuff...

yes, it's all about loudness. Let's scrunch the dynamic range so those quiet parts don't sound so quite on the radio, ect. If the labels cared about sound quality, they would make RTR master reel dubs available to the public for purchase. It appears they would just rather make hi-rez archival copies and let the analog reels rot in storage.

 

[Don Hills]

LOL, I have both formats well sorted, you do not. I am very comfortable with my judgment...But please, continue to grind away. This is getting humorous. Cheers !

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na-na-na" doesn't change the facts - nor improve your listening experience.

 

[Don Hills]

yes, it's all about loudness. ...

I strongly agree.

... If the labels cared about sound quality, they would make RTR master reel dubs available to the public for purchase. ...

Whew. How much do you think they would cost? How many people have good RTR decks?

I know what the generation loss of a real-time dub on a good studio deck sounds like. I'd much rather have a 24/96 digital dub.

 

[esldude]

I strongly agree.



Whew. How much do you think they would cost? How many people have good RTR decks?

I know what the generation loss of a real-time dub on a good studio deck sounds like. I'd much rather have a 24/96 digital dub.

Reminds me of hearing an early digital demo CD, maybe from Chesky or Stereophile. One track was an original and a 100th generation digital copy. Many pointed to the 100th gen copy being subtly less good proving digital wasn't 'perfect'. Upon first hearing it, my RTR collector friend got a big smile and said, "can you imagine how a 100th generation RTR copy would sound. You wouldn't even know what it started out sounding like as it would just be all garbled noise. That is incredibly good."

 

[rbbert]

I have all three SACD's: the 20th anniversary, the MFSL and the SHM. Compared to the 20th anniversary, the MFSL sounds a bit more refined, with a touch more clarity and detail, but it loses in punch and dynamics. Upon hearing both back to back, a friend of mine commented that the MFSL sounds like the unplugged version of the album. Choice between the two might as well vary with the system and individual preferences, but since this is a rock album and not a string quartet, I personally prefer the 20th anniversary. However, the SHM is way better than either of the other two.

Two huge problems with the SHM-SACD, IMHO. First, it has the truncated LP versions of the songs on side 1, a no-no in my book. Second, somebody turned up the treble rather remarkably; I guess if you don't hear the frequencies above 8 kHz it might sound OK, but otherwise...

The DR reading for the 20th Anniversary Stereo SACD layer is about 8, very compressed. The Mch layer is much better although still peak limited compared to the original CD or either of the other 2 SACD's (which are all about the same at 15-16).

It's a very tough choice between my original Vertigo CD and the MFSL SACD, but one or the other is my go-to.

 

[Bruce B]

Pretty cool video...

 

[dmnc02]

Two huge problems with the SHM-SACD, IMHO. First, it has the truncated LP versions of the songs on side 1, a no-no in my book. Second, somebody turned up the treble rather remarkably; I guess if you don't hear the frequencies above 8 kHz it might sound OK, but otherwise...

The DR reading for the 20th Anniversary Stereo SACD layer is about 8, very compressed. The Mch layer is much better although still peak limited compared to the original CD or either of the other 2 SACD's (which are all about the same at 15-16).

It's a very tough choice between my original Vertigo CD and the MFSL SACD, but one or the other is my go-to.

I do not find the treble in the SHM SACD exaggerated and I do not think it is my hearing either, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Also, where did you get the DR reading of 8 for the stereo DSD layer of the 20th anniversary SACD? The DR Database reports 8 for the redbook layer and 13 for the stereo down mix of the 5.1 DSD layer. Unfortunately, no data for the stereo DSD layer, which is the one I listen to. The DR for the stereo DSD layers of the MFSL and SHM SACD are both reported to be 15.

 

[rbbert]

I do not find the treble in the SHM SACD exaggerated and I do not think it is my hearing either, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Also, where did you get the DR reading of 8 for the stereo DSD layer of the 20th anniversary SACD? The DR Database reports 8 for the redbook layer and 13 for the stereo down mix of the 5.1 DSD layer. Unfortunately, no data for the stereo DSD layer, which is the one I listen to. The DR for the stereo DSD layers of the MFSL and SHM SACD are both reported to be 15.

I have PCM conversions of the stereo DSD layer of all three SACD's. Using that I can get the DR reading. I can also look at the frequency spectrum analysis of all three and the original Vertigo CD, and this shows there is a significant treble boost on the SHM-SACD compared to the others, which agreed with my listening perception.

 

[ack]

How LPs are made

We have seen a number of these videos, here's another

 

[Don Hills]

I note that the video shows a limited run pressing. The discs are apparently being pressed directly from stampers made from the lacquer master. You can only make one metal part ("master" or "matrix") from a lacquer. For longer runs, one or more metal "mothers" are made from the master. The stampers are then made from the mothers.

Lacquer (positive) is silver/nickel plated and the plating peeled off to produce a master (negative).
Master (negative) is nickel plated and the plating peeled off to produce mother(s) (positive).
Mother(s) are nickel plated and the plating peeled off to produce stampers (negative).
Stampers are usually chrome plated for wear resistance.
Stampers press discs (positive).

While a cut lacquer may have a low surface noise, each plating step introduces surface irregularities which accumulate, increasing the surface noise on the eventual disc.

 

[Atmasphere]

I think the facts have shown the dynamic range of cd, and no facts have shown the dynamic range of LP, and the facts have shown that LP playback (refer to the techdas cartridge measurements,, bottom of post 153) is a severe distorter of sinewaves compared with digital. It is well sorted, and it is sorted that distortion is preferred by many. So like, we did not already know that with SET amps. The conclusion to be drawn at this point, which is already known, is that playback LP is dynamic range limited vs digital. And the idea that a more distorted playback system can sound good suggests that stereo has some limitations that some need masking to better enjoy....buy hey, its an idea from the 1930's and even the inventor of it talked about some of its weaknesses...read his patent.

A lot has happened in LP mastering since the 1930s! FWIW though if you run digital past its limits, the distortion is even higher! No relation to music at all.

And this is the vexing issue. And why is digital not done right. One suggestion I have seen numerous times on the web is that digital is mastered to sound good in a car while obviously vinyl (with a few goofy car record players) is supposedly mastered to sound good in your home, in a quieter environment. Also, I would say that you can only make vinyl so loud before its unplayable, while digital can be pounded to 0.001db or even clipped. And, also, supposedly audiophiles are such a small part of the market, perhaps less than 0.5% (my guess) that we don't matter. Hence the limited "audiophile grade" mastered stuff...

Correction, since some of the above is incorrect: there were never any car record players. I have seen photos of one, but it never got past prototype. Digital can't be 'pounded or clipped' as you put it- that is the realm of analog. If you clip digital you stand a good chance of ruining the recording! Its just something you can't do. Spend some time with a digital recorder some time and see what it does.

I strongly agree.

Whew. How much do you think they would cost? How many people have good RTR decks?

I know what the generation loss of a real-time dub on a good studio deck sounds like. I'd much rather have a 24/96 digital dub.

Sounds like you don't know about the Tape Project (www.thetapeproject.com).

I note that the video shows a limited run pressing. The discs are apparently being pressed directly from stampers made from the lacquer master. You can only make one metal part ("master" or "matrix") from a lacquer. For longer runs, one or more metal "mothers" are made from the master. The stampers are then made from the mothers.

Lacquer (positive) is silver/nickel plated and the plating peeled off to produce a master (negative).
Master (negative) is nickel plated and the plating peeled off to produce mother(s) (positive).
Mother(s) are nickel plated and the plating peeled off to produce stampers (negative).
Stampers are usually chrome plated for wear resistance.
Stampers press discs (positive).

While a cut lacquer may have a low surface noise, each plating step introduces surface irregularities which accumulate, increasing the surface noise on the eventual disc.

The 1-step process can get you between 500 and 1000 copies then its done. The 3-step process can get you millions. The noise seems to have more to do with the pressing machines than it does the metal parts in the process. This is why QRP pressings can be so quiet- they have less vibration during the pressing operation itself.

 

[esldude]

A lot has happened in LP mastering since the 1930s! FWIW though if you run digital past its limits, the distortion is even higher! No relation to music at all.



Correction, since some of the above is incorrect: there were never any car record players. I have seen photos of one, but it never got past prototype. Digital can't be 'pounded or clipped' as you put it- that is the realm of analog. If you clip digital you stand a good chance of ruining the recording! Its just something you can't do. Spend some time with a digital recorder some time and see what it does.



Sounds like you don't know about the Tape Project (www.thetapeproject.com).



The 1-step process can get you between 500 and 1000 copies then its done. The 3-step process can get you millions. The noise seems to have more to do with the pressing machines than it does the metal parts in the process. This is why QRP pressings can be so quiet- they have less vibration during the pressing operation itself.

Yeah, you make a disingenuous argument for the "problem" of digital clipping. You can do what Zoom portable recorders do, run concurrent tracks with the second running -18 db lower. If you clip a spot or two you have a way to fix it. Then unless you are hamfisted in your approach clipping will rarely happen, and guess what if it does you can go in and reshaped the wave to make it a non-issue. It is tedious, but possible. The clipped wave will be distorted even reshaped, but it need not be terribly bad. It is distorted on analog if you get some spots too high in level as well as being more distorted in general.

Finally, most records that aren't recent will have a few pops, ticks or other blemishes. What do you consider those.... music ruined to use your words. If you love analog that is fine, but no need to build fantasy advantages that effectively don't factor in.