LP with better dynamic range than digital

[Orb]

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.

Although to be fair we are talking about music as produced for retail, so this needs to relate specifically to those processes associated with studio and linked recording-mixing-mastering (critically including limiters and these days autotuning that is nearly always active within many studios); and I think you will find it is far from a non-issue to reshape digitally clipped recordings to bring back actual musical sound-harmonics.
I agree there are tools to assist but more so with dynamic range, but they really only do a mediocre job (see the Metallica Death Magnetic and all the attempts by many to improve this as just one example).

Agree it is a problem for both, as an analogue example look at the state of Bat Out of Hell and the audio quality that suffered going from 16track to 8track for some editing-mixing; due to the way this has been handled the album and its "master" will forever be an audio disaster in terms of fidelity.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Don Hills]

... 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. ...

This is incorrect. They were a factory option on several car models from the mid 50s to the early 60s. Doing a Google search for "car record players" will find you plenty of evidence.

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

I've known about Dan's work for several years. Note that their tapes are 2 generations down - they are dubbed from a copy master, just like almost every LP. At least with digital you have a better chance of the actual master being used to do the capture.

... 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.

I am surprised - in most moulding processes, vibration helps to improve mould fill. Non-fill seems to be a bigger problem these days than it used to be - maybe the presses are too quiet for their own good?

 

[Atmasphere]

Seems like the industry is the real issue- either technology would be fine if the industry would allow it.

Seriously, I would not use LPs if I could get the digital stuff to be better. But I don't control the labels- nothing I can do about it!

 

[Atmasphere]

I've known about Dan's work for several years. Note that their tapes are 2 generations down - they are dubbed from a copy master, just like almost every LP. At least with digital you have a better chance of the actual master being used to do the capture.

Good point!

I am surprised - in most moulding processes, vibration helps to improve mould fill. Non-fill seems to be a bigger problem these days than it used to be - maybe the presses are too quiet for their own good?

Interesting point; I am only repeating what Mr. Kassem told me himself.

 

[esldude]

Seems like the industry is the real issue- either technology would be fine if the industry would allow it.

Seriously, I would not use LPs if I could get the digital stuff to be better. But I don't control the labels- nothing I can do about it!

We are in agreement here. Cassette without NR would be fine for a great majority of current over-processed music.

 

[esldude]

Although to be fair we are talking about music as produced for retail, so this needs to relate specifically to those processes associated with studio and linked recording-mixing-mastering (critically including limiters and these days autotuning that is nearly always active within many studios); and I think you will find it is far from a non-issue to reshape digitally clipped recordings to bring back actual musical sound-harmonics.
I agree there are tools to assist but more so with dynamic range, but they really only do a mediocre job (see the Metallica Death Magnetic and all the attempts by many to improve this as just one example).

Agree it is a problem for both, as an analogue example look at the state of Bat Out of Hell and the audio quality that suffered going from 16track to 8track for some editing-mixing; due to the way this has been handled the album and its "master" will forever be an audio disaster in terms of fidelity.
Cheers
Orb

Not sure about that Orb music for retail. I am not the one who brought up playing lacquers. And someone else talked about buying copies of reel master tapes.

When I refer to clipping and fixing it is if you clip something upon the initial recording. Did a recording awhile back where at the end of the song the percussionist got much more energetic than ever before and did clip a couple dozen shots. I went in and reduced them just a bit so I could round the waveform. You couldn't hear anything amiss. It surely isn't the actual sound recorded, but ruin the track it did not.

Death Magnetic's infamous sound is due to many ridiculous processing choices. Multi-band compression, limiting etc. etc. And no the end user can do nothing useful about it other than don't listen or listen like it is.

 

[ack]

I've known about Dan's work for several years. Note that their tapes are 2 generations down - they are dubbed from a copy master, just like almost every LP. At least with digital you have a better chance of the actual master being used to do the capture.

Yes, the actual master may be used, but you won't be able to fit all the information on the tape onto RBCD anyway, only onto sufficiently hi-res digital. So just how many RBCD titles have been based on the original master? I know of some FIM. Others?

 

[Don Hills]

Yes, the actual master may be used, but you won't be able to fit all the information on the tape onto RBCD anyway, only onto sufficiently hi-res digital. So just how many RBCD titles have been based on the original master? I know of some FIM. Others?

Straw man. The capture from master tape has historically done with the best technology available. Back in the 80s, this was 16/44.1. These days, it means 24/96 or 24/192. RBCD may not capture everything on the tape (specifically, content above 20 KHz) but it is good enough to hear the difference between 2 generations of tape, so there is still a case for capturing from the original master (at hi-res) even if the capture will be downsampled to RBCD for release.

 

[BruceD]

With all the hyperbole /inferences/ and theories--couples with some interesting quotations on the problems and sources-- for and against both mediums-yes Digital has some excellent attributes , measurements of fact /etc--but--

the fact is "The Song remains the Same"

For involvement, immersing in the Performance and sense of being there

Vinyl wins --not always I agree but I'd say 90% of the time

My way


Bruce

 

[thedudeabides]

For involvement, immersing in the Performance and sense of being there Vinyl wins -

Bruce

I love absolute objective judgments about a hobby that is, by nature, 100% subjective.

 

[rockitman]

the fact is "The Song remains the Same"

For involvement, immersing in the Performance and sense of being there

Vinyl wins --not always I agree but I'd say 90% of the time

My way


Bruce

sure does...Well said. Digital's a/d greatest shortcoming.

 

[FrantzM]

With all the hyperbole /inferences/ and theories--couples with some interesting quotations on the problems and sources-- for and against both mediums-yes Digital has some excellent attributes , measurements of fact /etc--but--

the fact is "The Song remains the Same"

For involvement, immersing in the Performance and sense of being there

Vinyl wins --not always I agree but I'd say 90% of the time

My way


Bruce

Speaking about hyperbole ....

 

[ack]

Let's turn the tables around and have you digital-philes prove that RBCD dynamic range is better than vinyl's, especially when it doesn't sound like it when all parameters are optimized... I am sure you saw this coming. Maybe that's the best way to settle this.

 

[Orb]

Not sure about that Orb music for retail. I am not the one who brought up playing lacquers. And someone else talked about buying copies of reel master tapes.

When I refer to clipping and fixing it is if you clip something upon the initial recording. Did a recording awhile back where at the end of the song the percussionist got much more energetic than ever before and did clip a couple dozen shots. I went in and reduced them just a bit so I could round the waveform. You couldn't hear anything amiss. It surely isn't the actual sound recorded, but ruin the track it did not.

Death Magnetic's infamous sound is due to many ridiculous processing choices. Multi-band compression, limiting etc. etc. And no the end user can do nothing useful about it other than don't listen or listen like it is.

The lacquers was part of those debates between those talking theory/potential, same way CDs do NOT make most of their dynamic range but does not stop the debate about how good dynamic range of CD is; again theory/potential.
When you mention recovering clipping/compression (dynamic) this must be applied to real world retail solutions, especially when I read your post.

BTW when you say reduce them a bit how did you do that and at what stage?
From my experience any tool recovering end product is pretty limited, I used Death Magnetic as a simple example (same as I used analogue Bat Out of Hell) to show that the recovery is limited either for a clipped waveform or compressed dynamics.

Cheers
Orb

 

[FrantzM]

Orb

What is your position on this debate? Simply trying to get a handle on your posts.

in your opinion Does LP, please take the best example you can has a better dynamic range than CD (take the best example you can/have or have experienced). Real world implementation here .

 

[thedudeabides]

Maybe that's the best way to settle this.

With all due respect, there is no way of "settling" this but I'm confident that there are those who will continue to debate this issue again, and again, and again, ..........................................

Sigh.

 

[ack]

With all due respect, there is no way of "settling" this but I'm confident that there are those who will continue to debate this issue again, and again, and again, ..........................................

Sigh.

Of course it won't be settled - I was being sarcastic I wanted to see what sort of hyperbole the other side will come up with, "data", and most important of all, listening impressions when using worthy equipment. It is very easy for me to demonstrate at home playing, say, the same RR HDCD vs the LP versions back to back. Actually, one of the easier ways to demonstrate my point of view is Bruch's Scottish Fantasia (Decca reissue, Speakers Corner) vs the FIM/LIM XRCD/RBCD reissue from the analog master tape: the power of Oistraksh's violin is unmistakable in the LP (not to mention the higher pitch frequencies the LP can reach) and I am sure we can verify by measuring SPL.

 

[thedudeabides]

Of course it won't be settled

Thank you ack.

I'm glad you recognize "reality".

 

[Atmasphere]

Allright then, in the interest of further education of vinyl folks, and i did say very few were made, but Chrysler had it as an option, so they were commercial. crazy cool.....and well, just plain crazy.

On this I stand corrected and my apologies! Quite honestly when I first heard of this decades ago, I thought it absurd and never gave the idea any credence.

And I did qualify "pounded" with a db reading and yes, you can and digital is clipped, there are numerous posts on wbf that identify actual clipped digital commercial releases. Not that its the right thing to do old boy as we both agree. Like it or not, its analogs distortions that draw folks to it, its just a fact, and it is not "wrong" or you could say that some folks prefer analog distortions over digital distortions....aaahh, now neither camp can jump me.

We mastered an LP project last year where we saw some of that, and I think I mentioned it on this thread. To me its such a sonically identifiable phenomena that I just feel it ruins what otherwise could be a great recording.

One has to consider what the definition of 'clipped' is- for example Stereophile has a strict definition where clipping is anything over 1% THD. I see clipping as the point when you see the tops of the waveform being flattened on the oscilloscope, which is quite a bit more. I agree- it does seem that the types of distortion produced by analog systems at clipping are considerably more musical to the human ear, as usually they have some sort of relationship to the music.

***********************

I want to reiterate one point that has not been adequately covered on this thread though it has appeared in others. This has to do with surface noise on the LP. Essentially, the subjective amount of surface noise present will vary in some cases depending on the phono equalizer used. IOW, the phono preamp can emphasize surface noise while on the bench having the correct RIAA curve. As an example, if you have a traditional phono equalizer using semiconductors and traditional 1970s design (many Japanese receivers are examples of this) you are very likely to experience more ticks and pops. This has to do with 'ringing' effects that occur due to how the RIAA curve is handled in the feedback loop. This is not to say that feedback cannot be used, but if applied incorrectly this will be a result (FWIW we use passive EQ in our designs).

I have no doubt that with an entire generation of amps and receivers that came out of Japan in the 1970s and 80s that this had some influence on the amount of surface noise people think LPs have. I'm just pointing this out as this design problem with phono reproducers is still with us. I know of several fairly well-known phono sections that exhibit this trait that are current production.

 

[ack]

This has to do with surface noise on the LP. [snip] This has to do with 'ringing' effects that occur due to how the RIAA curve is handled in the feedback loop. This is not to say that feedback cannot be used, but if applied incorrectly this will be a result (FWIW we use passive EQ in our designs).

What a coincidence... I was on the phone with a member here last night discussing audio, and this ringing is one of the things I mentioned to him - and do, in fact, hear it; basically, different phono preamps will render pops and ticks differently. I mentioned the FM Acoustics products as probably the best (of those I am aware of) so far in that regard.