LP with better dynamic range than digital

[Atmasphere]

I get what you are saying esldude but I don't see how you are reading that into Don's quote. In order for you to say what you are there has to be some sort of leap in logic and apparently I am less willing to do that than you.

So you imply I am hiding info. If I were making this up I would pick detailed examples more impressive. The lack of mentioning the cartridges is I don't remember them with clarity. They were properly loaded however. One was a MM. two were MC's. A SOTA headamp with adjustable loading was in use for one. A Music Reference with adjustable loading was used for the other MC. The SOTA arms I also am fuzzy about. One had the arm changed about then and I am not sure if it was before or after this as this was a few years ago. I believe one was a Graham and the other an SME. The Rega wasn't a reference in its day though a good little table within its capabilities. The Rega later had one of those arms with the silicone damping fluid in a cup which I also find the name escaping my memory. But that was after this format comparison period. The apparent differences in the format of LP vs CD and tape was enough to swamp any such little issues.

As for the pressings in use, all were good pressings from early on. In my group of friends were some knowledgeable collectors of both LP and reel tape. We did the comparisons for fun and to learn something. I wasn't a proponent of digital at the time though it was one of the experiences that nudged me in the direction of using digital more.

Text in bold: No, you have misread my demeanor.

You *might* want to consider that this comparison may not have given you accurate results- I would consider doing it again. FWIW, I compare analog and digital at every opportunity. We usually have state of the art gear at shows and I tend to do a lot of after-hours listening. IOW what I am saying is that there is something to be said for staying current. The current DSD systems are very good, much easier to live with than the best digital of only a few years ago. In the old days I judged digital by how long it gave me a headache- in the early days that was about 30 seconds. It was 1998 before I finally heard a digital system that would allow me to be in the same room all day long without physical pain. When I was in my 20s I could hear up to about 24KHz, ultrasonic motion detectors were really painful back then. Advances in technology and the degradation that comes with age have both helped me out when it comes to things digital. But only 2 years ago I heard a DAC at RMAF that gave me a splitting headache after only 30 seconds, so some of my upper range must still be intact...

One thing that has come out in spades in the last few years now due to downloads and hidef is the difference that often shows up depending on how things are done. For example, there are a number of sites that offer hidef downloads; some are a joke and some are excellent (Acoustic Sounds being an example of the latter). IOW you might think you are getting a hidef file when all it is is a redbook file repackaged.

Depending on how you have your programs set up you can also have really variable results (for example you may think you are running hidef when that is not the case at all...). I don't doubt that the ongoing confusion in the marketplace (PONO, anyone?) is why new vinyl is so easy to find these days.

 

[Orb]

They're not perfect. Because it's hard to make good R2R DACs, we currently have S-D DACS because it's cheaper to get high performance in software than in hardware. S-D DACs bring their own set of compromises. Excellent digital filters are hard to implement at a reasonable cost. But quoting a T-shirt slogan I saw recently: "I'm not perfect. But I'm so close it scares me."

Yeah, and add to that the limitations of hardware related functions in terms of processing and calculation capabilities.
Here is a great article by a very experienced engineer, while the web page article title and its scope is about USB the page I have linked shows just how some compromises in real world happen due to limitations even for something as "simple" as SRC.
http://www.edn.com/design/consumer/...-with-care--Scary-stories-from-the-test-bench

What he has experienced is something I have seen and I know others have as well, and said considerations apply to other related DAC functions; must emphasise though costs do not need to be upper high end to accommodate these challenges just that it does and can be part of compromises (not necessarily due to cost but possibly such as relying upon integrated functionality/reduction in design-architecture/etc).
Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

Because early on in this thread there was a statement attributed to Keith Johnson that LP's can have a dynamic range of 120 dB

Yes. This statement has become viral in forums, and should be understood in the context of the whole interview. Unfortunately I am away of my usual computer and can not find the bookmark for our readers. But most people hate spending time reading whole interviews and live forever with a few old quotes.

For example read what J. Tamblyn Henderson Jr. founder of Reference Recordings thought 25 years ago: (from a Stereophile interview)

Henderson: Frankly, I am disappointed that so many audio fanciers seem to be satisfied with digital sound as it is today. I know the reasons why. CD is popular, that's perfectly obvious, and it has to be because audiophiles are simply not aware of what is missing in current digital recordings. We are able to hear our microphone feeds at the sessions. We hear what the analog machine does to that signa' it does certain things, it's not a perfect medium by any stretch of the imagination. And we hear what the digital machine does to the signal. It's far from perfect also, but it seems to be more subtractive in nature. It loses information. Even the convertor we're now using, which is a highly modified thing that Keith has had his way with—it's clearly better than any of the other ones I've heard—has pretty serious difficulties in certain areas. But digital sound certainly has taken over faster than I ever dreamed possible.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not so enamored of the LP that I'm oblivious to its shortcomings. There are serious shortcomings to the LP medium. I wish there were something better for us to preserve our analog recordings and circulate them to the public. But it is the only real analog medium apart from cassette, which doesn't work at all. So there we are, stuck with the LP as it exists. It's becoming increasingly difficult to make a good LP, but that's another whole can of worms.

Surely his opinion about digital changed when HiRez became available!

 

[Bruce B]

Yes. This statement has become viral in forums, and should be understood in the context of the whole interview. Unfortunately I am away of my usual computer and can not find the bookmark for our readers. But most people hate spending time reading whole interviews and live forever with a few old quotes.
!

Here you go...

The quote starts around 7 minutes into the video when he's talking about what LP's can capture, 120dB or Better!.

 

[rbbert]

...One thing that has come out in spades in the last few years now due to downloads and hidef is the difference that often shows up depending on how things are done. For example, there are a number of sites that offer hidef downloads; some are a joke and some are excellent (Acoustic Sounds being an example of the latter). IOW you might think you are getting a hidef file when all it is is a redbook file repackaged...

No; Acoustic Sounds is also selling upsampled 16/44.1 as hi-res. At the very least there are two Stevie Wonder albums from the '80's.

 

[rbbert]

I get what you are saying esldude but I don't see how you are reading that into Don's quote. In order for you to say what you are there has to be some sort of leap in logic and apparently I am less willing to do that than you..

Well, both Don Hills and esldude are saying that if a digital recorder can capture an LP "needledrop" indistinguishably from the LP playback, then the digital recorder can capture everything on an LP, and is therefore a more accurate recording system. No leap in logic required.

 

[rbbert]

Here you go...

The quote starts around 7 minutes into the video when he's talking about what LP's can capture, 120dB or Better!.

He doesn't give any real data, though, and as has been pointed out, even if that dynamic range could be cut onto an LP (far from certain), how could any playback cartridge hope to track it?

 

[Bruce B]

He doesn't give any real data, though, and as has been pointed out, even if that dynamic range could be cut onto an LP (far from certain), how could any playback cartridge hope to track it?

I just thought folks wanted confirmation of the quote., Granted... he gives nothing to back up his data...

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I have the greatest repect for KOJ but I will ask again how in the world an LP can have 100 dB of dynamic (see I am leaving 20 dB off the table). If I had the time I would have looked into the physics of the groove that would support 100 dB and what would have been the needle travel in this groove and the suspension .. Same would go for the cutting head too. Much has been said about the playback system as being the limiting factor (Description , no data whatsoever ...) I would like to have a look at the travel necessary to cut 100 dB ... And the amps too ...

 

[FrantzM]

Well, both Don Hills and esldude are saying that if a digital recorder can capture an LP "needledrop" indistinguishably from the LP playback, then the digital recorder can capture everything on an LP, and is therefore a more accurate recording system. No leap in logic required.

Something Mr Analog/LP , Michael Fremer referred to. I would like Bruce to interject on this as he has some experience about needle drops so should Astrotoy. There are others whose voices I woud like to hear not the usual .. :"analog is superior because I like it and/or I say so "

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well, both Don Hills and esldude are saying that if a digital recorder can capture an LP "needledrop" indistinguishably from the LP playback, then the digital recorder can capture everything on an LP, and is therefore a more accurate recording system. No leap in logic required.

not even close. at the very tip tip top of the digital food chain it is still simple to hear the difference between the digital file rip of the Lp and the same Lp played on a SOTA tt.

I likely have 2-3 terabytes of 2xdsd needle drops of Lps I own. these were done on a very high level tt and high quality ADC.

when I have people over I do A-B's to show how close/far the difference is. and I do the comparisons often myself.

and these needle drops sound wonderful in their own right and are my go-to choice for much of my listening. as a group likely the best digital files I've yet heard....partly because of the source. i'll do a playlist of 5-6 albums and let it play all night.

but it falls quite a ways short of the real thing.

if 'needle drops' are indistinguishable from the Lp then you have vinyl front end issues you need to work on.

pontificating on the performance limits of a playback format requires a considerable commitment to optimizing that format or your conclusions are flawed.

 

[microstrip]

Here you go...

The quote starts around 7 minutes into the video when he's talking about what LP's can capture, 120dB or Better!.

Thanks Bruce. It is the link I was looking for. KJ refers to "dynamics of an event" in a particular way and besides just quotes an equivalent of sizes of the micro groove in ideal conditions. Although he is not is strict agreement with this paper that refers to an ideal 110dB, I am not disturbed with the minimal difference, considering the approximations taken in the calculus. https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html
Anyway it worth listening to the whole again.

 

[rbbert]

Mike, my original post had "if" italicized for a good reason...

 

[Bruce B]

Something Mr Analog/LP , Michael Fremer referred to. I would like Bruce to interject on this as he has some experience about needle drops so should Astrotoy. There are others whose voices I woud like to hear not the usual .. :"analog is superior because I like it and/or I say so "

Well as I stated in post #31, I don't feel digital has come far enough to capture all the elements in LP/Tape as to be indistinguishable. I can quickly A/B all day long and hear the very same thing every time between digital/tape and digital/LP, and I'm pretty sure both my digital and analog rigs are well sorted out.

 

[rockitman]

Well, if we want to allow for his idea of the sizes getting down to the micro inches as he says, then he is talking about levels that are far too small for a big old ball shaped needle to even notice, ie when we start getting down to micro inches as he is saying, we are now back to digital, that is, there are no smooth lines in that vinyl, there are pits an peaks and spikes, that that round needle ball "averages" and no, we aint gonna get that 120db that is "possible" there. no sir. we cant do it in playback. And we are ignoring all the tracking issues etc with that needle bouncing along the groove, creating its own sets of vibrations and hence LP is never the same song twice. Yeah, it sounds good, but it is not logical to implement, you could maybe say it is capable of that if you had a way to measure a point in time in a record looking at that valley bottom and peak, using some sort of laser or something, but not with a big old needle ball mowing these micro informations over etc and averaging them.

LOL...give it up. Your are hardly the authority on analog playback. You seemingly can't escape your memories from the Kenner Close and Play eating a bowl of Cherrios...

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Well, if we want to allow for his idea of the sizes getting down to the micro inches as he says, then he is talking about levels that are far too small for a big old ball shaped needle to even notice, ie when we start getting down to micro inches as he is saying, we are now back to digital, that is, there are no smooth lines in that vinyl, there are pits an peaks and spikes, that that round needle ball "averages" and no, we aint gonna get that 120db that is "possible" there. no sir. we cant do it in playback. And we are ignoring all the tracking issues etc with that needle bouncing along the groove, creating its own sets of vibrations and hence LP is never the same song twice. Yeah, it sounds good, but it is not logical to implement, you could maybe say it is capable of that if you had a way to measure a point in time in a record looking at that valley bottom and peak, using some sort of laser or something, but not with a big old needle ball mowing these micro informations over etc and averaging them.

While the LP or any format for that matter is not or may not be the ultimate in playback, it's all we have and should be respected for what it is. The use of words or description as I highlighted does nothing to discuss the topic other than incite others to take issue. Sometimes comical.

 

[rockitman]

While the LP or any format for that matter is not or may not be the ultimate in playback, it's all we have and should be respected for what it is. The use of words or description as I highlighted does nothing to discuss the topic other than incite others to take issue. Sometimes comical.

Lol...I need a 5x loop to see my big styli balz. The Close and play did have a rather large stylus...

 

[audioarcher]

I would tend to put my faith in the people that have access to SOTA tape, LP, and digital rigs like Bruce B and Mike L over people that have not heard the best available. Digital can and does sound very good these days but it's still not at the level of the best tape and LP IME. Digital is the most economical way to go these days and there is no shame in not spending the money it takes to get the best out of LP's and R2R. Both are very expensive and take a lot of knowledge to do well.

Most of the reason digital can suck is on the recording side. As said above the priority of most of the music produced today has nothing to do with sound quality in the home.

 

[rockitman]

Most of the reason digital can suck is on the recording side. .

Ed Zaccary and that is the point...most label digital releases of older analog mastered material sucks in comparo to vinyl. If new digitally mastered music is your thing, there is no need for a turntable or tape deck.

 

[esldude]

not even close. at the very tip tip top of the digital food chain it is still simple to hear the difference between the digital file rip of the Lp and the same Lp played on a SOTA tt.

I likely have 2-3 terabytes of 2xdsd needle drops of Lps I own. these were done on a very high level tt and high quality ADC.

when I have people over I do A-B's to show how close/far the difference is. and I do the comparisons often myself.

and these needle drops sound wonderful in their own right and are my go-to choice for much of my listening. as a group likely the best digital files I've yet heard....partly because of the source. i'll do a playlist of 5-6 albums and let it play all night.

but it falls quite a ways short of the real thing.

if 'needle drops' are indistinguishable from the Lp then you have vinyl front end issues you need to work on.

pontificating on the performance limits of a playback format requires a considerable commitment to optimizing that format or your conclusions are flawed.

Do you make your digital recordings of LP with the rest of the system playing through the speakers as you record or do you record the LP with the speakers silent?