LP with better dynamic range than digital

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
Post this elsewhere for a different argument but thought it is good to share here:



The highlighted ones compare the CD to HDTracks which only shows marginal improvement. The LP captures though, both outperform the digital versions on this metric. Clearly a less compressed master existed than the one released. And if there are no other issues with the LP, that is the better sounding one.

In a moment of weakness, I thought about getting a turntable but then sanity returned and I am staying with digital. :D

But well done LP lovers....
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,172
2,850
1,898
Encino, CA
Amir, I'm finding this happens all the time on modern music. They put the ipod mastering on the cd and the real version on LP.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,319
1,428
1,820
Manila, Philippines
There was a time I thought I'd never go back to LPs Amir. All I can say is, I'm glad I did. ;)
 

MadFloyd

Member Sponsor
May 30, 2010
3,079
774
1,700
Mass
The higher dynamic range on the LP version of this title is simply the super loud, untenable surface noise. :)

Stick to digital on this one, seriously.
 

Sonus

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
123
2
260
SF Bay Area, CA
The higher dynamic range on the LP is because of the way the DR plugin calculates the data.

Remember, to get the DR value of LP you have to sample it first, i.e digitize it.
The way the DR algorithm works produce (incorrect) better numbers for the LP.
 

TheMadMilkman

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2010
125
0
91
The higher dynamic range on the LP is because of the way the DR plugin calculates the data.

Remember, to get the DR value of LP you have to sample it first, i.e digitize it.
The way the DR algorithm works produce (incorrect) better numbers for the LP.

I'm not doubting you, but do you have a link with a technical explanation for this? I'm genuinely curious.
 

Sonus

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
123
2
260
SF Bay Area, CA

mojave

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2010
251
0
321
Elkhorn, NE
Dynamic Range = Difference between loudest and softest portions
Crest Factor = Ratio of peak values to average values

The DR database is not dynamic range even though they call it that. It is crest factor. Crest factor has little to do with the dynamic range of the music. A metric similar to dynamic range is the R128 Loudness Range.

R128 Loudness Unit Algorithm Description
The input to the algorithm is a vector of loudness levels, computed as specified in ITU-R BS.1770
[2] with different relative-threshold gating, using a sliding analysis-window of length 3 seconds for
integration. An overlap between consecutive analysis-windows must be used in order to prevent
loss of precision in the measurement of shorter programmes. A minimum block overlap of 66% (i.e.
a minimum 2 s of overlap) between consecutive analysis windows is required; the exact amount of
overlap is implementation-dependent.

A cascaded gating scheme is employed which uses an absolute threshold of very low level, in
combination with a relative threshold of higher, signal-dependent, level.

The purpose of the relative-threshold gating is to gate out any periods of silence or background
noise, using a method that is independent of any level-normalisation of the input signal. The lower
edge of Loudness Range should not be defined by the noise floor (which may be inaudible), but
should instead correspond to the weakest ‘real’ signal. The relative threshold is set to a level of
-20 LU relative to the absolute-gated loudness level. The purpose of the absolute-threshold gate is
to make the conversion from the relative threshold to an absolute level robust against longer
periods of silence or low-level background noise. The absolute threshold is set to -70 LUFS,
because no relevant signals are generally found below this loudness level.

I have 3 versions of Elton John's Madman Across the Water. Here are the DR and LRA of each album for the Madman Across the Water song:
DR 13, LRA 13.6 (DJM Records W. Germany)
DR 10, LRA 11.7 (MCA Records USA)
DR 8, LRA 13.3 (HD Tracks)

Another metric that is useful is R128 dBTP (db True Peak). There are intersample peaks which can be higher than 0 dB. These can lead to distortion if the digital levels are not attenuated (i.e. using analog volume control). Here are the dBTP for the same 3 albums:

+0.5 dBTP (DJM Records W. Germany)
-0.4 dBTP (MCA Records USA)
+0.4 dBTP (HD Tracks)

You can see that while the HDTracks version has the lowest DR rating, it maintains is Loudness Range (or dynamic range) and is the only one that won't clip or cause distortion if one isn't using Volume Leveling or digital attenuation. I think the reason the DJM album has a higher DR number is because it has a higher noise floor. This is probably similar to MadFloyd's suggestion that the surface noise of records causes a higher DR number.
 

Atmasphere

Industry Expert
May 4, 2010
2,361
1,853
1,760
St. Paul, MN
www.atma-sphere.com
The higher dynamic range on the LP version of this title is simply the super loud, untenable surface noise. :)

Stick to digital on this one, seriously.

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.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
The higher dynamic range on the LP version of this title is simply the super loud, untenable surface noise. :)

Stick to digital on this one, seriously.

I have done MANY demos with the vinyl of this album - and the response has universally been "Man, I've heard this album a million times because my daughter/son plays it and it has NEVER sounded this good. I'm now a fan!" I have the download, the CD and several copies of the vinyl. I think that the vinyl smokes the digital. No comparison at all!!
 

jazdoc

Member Sponsor
Aug 7, 2010
3,327
737
1,700
Bellevue
I'm confused....I thought that if something measures better it has to sound better :D
 

MadFloyd

Member Sponsor
May 30, 2010
3,079
774
1,700
Mass
I have done MANY demos with the vinyl of this album - and the response has universally been "Man, I've heard this album a million times because my daughter/son plays it and it has NEVER sounded this good. I'm now a fan!" I have the download, the CD and several copies of the vinyl. I think that the vinyl smokes the digital. No comparison at all!!

If you have a listenable pressing then consider yourself lucky. I have tried 3 of them, all extremely noisy.
 

Atmasphere

Industry Expert
May 4, 2010
2,361
1,853
1,760
St. Paul, MN
www.atma-sphere.com
MadFloyd, your experience suggests that it was not the LP that was noisy. I am guessing that you don't know this (many audiophiles don't) but the playback electronics (the phono stage) can do things that make surface noise really stick out- to the point that an LP has unacceptable surface noise. The way this happens is when the RIAA equalization is contained in a feedback network in the phono stage, in such a way that the circuit is able to echo the tick or pop (thus enchancing it) in a way that it does not exist on the LP surface. Yet when you place such units on the bench, they meet the RIAA spec just fine.

IOW, not all phono sections are the same, and a good phono section will appear to have less ticks and pops than a poor one. Price is no object here; design is!!
 

MadFloyd

Member Sponsor
May 30, 2010
3,079
774
1,700
Mass
MadFloyd, your experience suggests that it was not the LP that was noisy. I am guessing that you don't know this (many audiophiles don't) but the playback electronics (the phono stage) can do things that make surface noise really stick out- to the point that an LP has unacceptable surface noise. The way this happens is when the RIAA equalization is contained in a feedback network in the phono stage, in such a way that the circuit is able to echo the tick or pop (thus enchancing it) in a way that it does not exist on the LP surface. Yet when you place such units on the bench, they meet the RIAA spec just fine.

IOW, not all phono sections are the same, and a good phono section will appear to have less ticks and pops than a poor one. Price is no object here; design is!!

Ralph, it was the LP. I have a large LP collection and a very decent phono stage. I know a bad pressing when I hear it.

Ironically the first copy I got had a pretty decent side 1, but side 2 was bad. The two replacement copies each had two bad sides. I didn't check the pressing plant, but I know this happens with a lot of pop LPs.
 

Champ04

Member
Sep 24, 2012
72
2
6
Illinois
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".) :-/
 

Atmasphere

Industry Expert
May 4, 2010
2,361
1,853
1,760
St. Paul, MN
www.atma-sphere.com
Ralph, it was the LP. I have a large LP collection and a very decent phono stage. I know a bad pressing when I hear it.

Ironically the first copy I got had a pretty decent side 1, but side 2 was bad. The two replacement copies each had two bad sides. I didn't check the pressing plant, but I know this happens with a lot of pop LPs.

I have run into certain pressings of certain titles that had pressing defects (notably- Porcupine Tree's first press of 'Signify'). Sounds like this might be one of them. In the last 15 years, I can still count such things on one hand. So you still have any of the LPs in question?
 

MadFloyd

Member Sponsor
May 30, 2010
3,079
774
1,700
Mass
I have run into certain pressings of certain titles that had pressing defects (notably- Porcupine Tree's first press of 'Signify'). Sounds like this might be one of them. In the last 15 years, I can still count such things on one hand. So you still have any of the LPs in question?

Pretty sure I do. They just get moved to my basement.
 

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