Questions about vinyl

Dick Heath wrote: It is worth noting that in the examples of ELP and Edgar Winter (e.g. on Frankinstein) introduced channel phasing around 1970 - i.e. a particular sound shifting from RH to LH and perhaps back again over several seconds of music  - a gimmick that surprisingly did  not last too long -  I wonder if anybody has employed it more recently?

Edited by ClassicRocker - May 29 2008 at 11:08

^You should be able to get hold of an MFSL or Japanese pressing in the US if it's quality vinyl you're after - they're cheaper than a "Pink Island".

Edited by Certif1ed - May 30 2008 at 07:24

^ always nice to hear from you again!

^Those holophonics were used even more widely on "The Pros and Cons of Hitchiking" - it's the best thing about the album, IMHO...

^ I'm with you there. Of course digital recordings are always approximations of the original (analogue) data - no fan of digital audio or video would say otherwise. But the important thing is: Does this approximation happen on a level of detail which is beyond our ability to detect (hear)? I definitely think so.

Listening tests show that people can't tell the sources apart - if anything, they'll hear the different mix of a vinyl release compared to the CD remastered version, or the CD version is simply much brighter and contains more treble information than the vinyl release they're used to, which leads to statements like "CD sounds harsh". I'm 100% sure that in a double blind test comparing the actual master tape to a properly sampled version in 16bit/44.1khz, nobody would be able to tell the difference ... except maybe for some extreme cases, either extreme listeners with unusually good ears or signals which provoke glitches or exploit weaknesses in the recording process. For those we have advanced digital formats (24bit/96khz) which are *beyond* any human ear. Whatever the details, digital formats *are* clearly superior over any analogue consumer format, and even in the professional domain their advantages are obvious.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 01 2008 at 00:54

arcer wrote: And then I stuck on the copy of Free's Fire and Water I'd bought (on an LP12 with Origin Live modded RB300 into a Graham Slee Era Gold MkV). The album is a pink-rim Island label, not the full pink label 1st press and yet it still made the CD player  sound a bucket of old bolts. And a flat, two dimensional bucket at that. The soundstage was vast by comparison, the front to back depth cavernous compared to CD and the placement of instruments in space almost tangible.

The power of imagination ... quite impressive. But I wonder: Why would you compare Jamiroquai singles with 70s Rock? I mean, Jamiroquai is usually well produced, but the singles are definitely catered for radio/club play.

Put on an Ozric Tentacles CD ... then we could be getting somewhere.

I didn't intend any insult ... I just found it odd that you would use this comparison between these two very different recordings to deduce that vinyl is better. You're welcome to your opinion, I simply don't understand why vinyl should offer better bass, mids, treble, soundstage, dynamics or placement ... digital formats store information much more accurately and reliably, and today I had the pleasure of listening to the new Opeth album, which is so well produced and recorded that it blew me away, both the "ordinary" CD version and the 5.1 mix in dts format. I'll get the vinyl release too ... then I'll be able to do a direct comparison.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I didn't intend any insult ... I just found it odd that you would use this comparison between these two very different recordings to deduce that vinyl is better. You're welcome to your opinion, I simply don't understand why vinyl should offer better bass, mids, treble, soundstage, dynamics or placement ... digital formats store information much more accurately and reliably, and today I had the pleasure of listening to the new Opeth album, which is so well produced and recorded that it blew me away, both the "ordinary" CD version and the 5.1 mix in dts format. I'll get the vinyl release too ... then I'll be able to do a direct comparison.

Sorry Mike, I didn't mean my tone to come across as err cross! It wasn't at all.
 
The thing I find about this endless debate is that more and more I get the feeling that accuracy is over-rated.
I'll give a very unscientific example. Distortion, within reason, is pleasing to the ear. In terms of the accuracy of transciption distortion should in some sense make the experience unpleasant and should register as somehow being 'wrong', yet mild forms of distortion can be pleasant to the human ear. Mild clipping can enhance the 'feeling' in music.

I grant you, there is absolutely no scientific reason why CDs shouldn't sound way better than vinyl. Certainly this should be the case with SACD and, if it ever happens, certainly with Blu-Ray, given the possibilities that opens up for audio. (In fact, I have a sneaking supsicion audio-only Blu-Ray could blow all arguments out of the water).

Regardless of the digital accuracy of CD, though, vinyl, to my ears, still sounds better. And more and more I reallty do think this is down to how music was/is recorded. I listen to a lot of newly realeased vinyl, and honestly, it is no better or worse than the CD equivalent. I'd be happy to own either (save for the artwork with vinyl).

I do believe that it is recording and mastering that makes 70s rock records sound better than modern rock records and I think a lot has to do with recording out of the digital domain to start with. Stick a mic a foot from the speaker enclosure of an amp, one a metre away and one behind or overhead and record it. I guarantee the recorded result will be better, by far, than DI'ing the same guitar and brewing an approximation of the same tone in Guitar Rig.

I think the same applies to mastering (though I'm no expert at all). Mastering for CD these days seems to revolve around excessive amounts of compression and peak limiting to do two things:
1. To enhance the "loudness" of a recording
2. The flatten dynamics so that things can be listened to without great volume shifts between quiet and loud passages on i-Pods, car stereos.

In days of yore, such limiting and compression was applied to simply fit the music to vinyl and the reasonable levels of compression used to master to a 3-minute 7" or 20-minute side of 12" are often quoted as having a benign effect on the sound of pop music, apparently making perfdormances sound "more together".

The only are where, to my ears, this definitely does not seem the cae is classical music. I would rather listen to classical music on CD or SACD than vinyl any day as it for whatever reason offers greater definition, more headroom, and better articulation.

I have no idea why this is. I have mint supposedly audiophile classical recordings on vinyl which leave me cold compared with the CD versions. Conversely, 70s rock music on vinyl just rocks in a way the CD remasters never can match. Led Zep's recent Mothership compilation is a good example. Despite the much-vaunted umpteenth rematsering of the tracks on it, none sounds as good as my scratchy old 1st press Zep III which just swings in a way the CD does not.

I can't offer any explanation than the emotional. The vinyl sings, the CD merely plays. But it's just my ears telling me that.

What I can suggest to anyone thinking about investing in vinyl as an alternative to CD is - tread carefully.
You can get an awful lot of performance out of a 500 euro CD player. To get the same level of performance and better out of a turntable will cost a lot more. Turntables are funny beasts and the while a CD player is plug and play a turntable requires balance, fettling and the correct matching or cartridge to arm, arm to 'table, table to phono stage and on and on. It's a minefield and you won't get seriously good vinyl performance until you're well into 2,000 euro territory.

Vinyl is utterly addictive (as my Ebay account will verify) and the best way to listen to music of a certain vintage but it can also be prohibitively expensive (as my wife and bank account will verify). 

Some expensive vinyl is worth it - MFSL's definitely sound better on "audiophile" systems than on cheap amps - my amp blew recently and I borrowed a friends; My first presses sound flat, my MFSL's sound tinny and cheap - but my CDs sound fine, as do most of my 1980s recordings (which are on thin, cheap vinyl). I find that very telling. 

arcer wrote: The thing I find about this endless debate is that more and more I get the feeling that accuracy is over-rated. I'll give a very unscientific example. Distortion, within reason, is pleasing to the ear. In terms of the accuracy of transciption distortion should in some sense make the experience unpleasant and should register as somehow being 'wrong', yet mild forms of distortion can be pleasant to the human ear. Mild clipping can enhance the 'feeling' in music.

I agree. But there are different kinds of distortion. The kind you want is called "harmonic distortion" and is usually created by tubes. Digital clipping however doesn't sound pleasant at all.

BTW: Maybe what annoys me about some audiophiles is that they claim that their highest goal is to reproduce the original signal as accurately as possible - but at the same time they employ techniques which clearly alter the signal.

arcer wrote: I grant you, there is absolutely no scientific reason why CDs shouldn't sound way better than vinyl. Certainly this should be the case with SACD and, if it ever happens, certainly with Blu-Ray, given the possibilities that opens up for audio. (In fact, I have a sneaking supsicion audio-only Blu-Ray could blow all arguments out of the water).

I don't think that we'll see another audio format beyond SACD and DVD-Audio. It wouldn't make sense to use digital cameras with 100 million pixels, or TV formats with resolutions of 10000x10000 ... by the same reason it doesn't make sense to extend resolution of audio formats beyond 96khz. *Maybe* bit depth will be increased from 24 bit to 32 bit, but I seriously doubt even that.

But one thing that might happen is that entire discographies could be released on Blu-Ray - or collections which include both music (albums) and video (performances, documentaries). Of course only after we have all purchased everything on CD and DVD ...

arcer wrote: Regardless of the digital accuracy of CD, though, vinyl, to my ears, still sounds better. And more and more I reallty do think this is down to how music was/is recorded. I listen to a lot of newly realeased vinyl, and honestly, it is no better or worse than the CD equivalent. I'd be happy to own either (save for the artwork with vinyl). I do believe that it is recording and mastering that makes 70s rock records sound better than modern rock records and I think a lot has to do with recording out of the digital domain to start with. Stick a mic a foot from the speaker enclosure of an amp, one a metre away and one behind or overhead and record it. I guarantee the recorded result will be better, by far, than DI'ing the same guitar and brewing an approximation of the same tone in Guitar Rig.

Not so sure about what you said about guitar recording. Miking a guitar is actually a very difficult and cumbersome process ... you can't just "stick" some microphones around an amp and voila, there's a great sound. On the other hand the modern amp modellers do all that for you ... the simple ones had no room/microphone simulation at all, then they simulated one microphone, then you could move it around in a room (and change the room), and today you can use multiple microphones.

Of course you can do it "old school", but modelling technology is constantly improved and has today reached a point where you really can't tell it apart from the real thing, if configured properly.

arcer wrote: I think the same applies to mastering (though I'm no expert at all). Mastering for CD these days seems to revolve around excessive amounts of compression and peak limiting to do two things: 1. To enhance the "loudness" of a recording 2. The flatten dynamics so that things can be listened to without great volume shifts between quiet and loud passages on i-Pods, car stereos.

As I said elsewhere: I'm listening to *a lot* of new releases, and outside of mainstream I don't hear that much compression. If you want to risk a little experiment: Get the new No-Man album (or the re-release of Porcupine Tree - Lightbulb Sun). You can also get them on vinyl if you like, and the CD versions both include the DVD-Audio version.

arcer wrote: In days of yore, such limiting and compression was applied to simply fit the music to vinyl and the reasonable levels of compression used to master to a 3-minute 7" or 20-minute side of 12" are often quoted as having a benign effect on the sound of pop music, apparently making perfdormances sound "more together".

Compressing and limiting were always done ... ever since there was radio. IMO it is wrong to do it, since it cannot be reversed ... it's an effect which should be applied during playback. The true problem is that digital media increased the possible dynamic range so much that compression has become necessary for stuff that is targeted for radio.

arcer wrote: The only are where, to my ears, this definitely does not seem the cae is classical music. I would rather listen to classical music on CD or SACD than vinyl any day as it for whatever reason offers greater definition, more headroom, and better articulation.

Thank you for this statement. The reason is obvious however: it is more accurate and has greater dynamic range, resulting in a better signal to noise ratio.

arcer wrote: I have no idea why this is. I have mint supposedly audiophile classical recordings on vinyl which leave me cold compared with the CD versions. Conversely, 70s rock music on vinyl just rocks in a way the CD remasters never can match. Led Zep's recent Mothership compilation is a good example. Despite the much-vaunted umpteenth rematsering of the tracks on it, none sounds as good as my scratchy old 1st press Zep III which just swings in a way the CD does not. I can't offer any explanation than the emotional. The vinyl sings, the CD merely plays. But it's just my ears telling me that.

I think you simply got attached to the vinyl sound. It is your benchmark, and anything which is different is less good to you. Maybe it's the same for me and digital formats.

arcer wrote: What I can suggest to anyone thinking about investing in vinyl as an alternative to CD is - tread carefully. You can get an awful lot of performance out of a 500 euro CD player. To get the same level of performance and better out of a turntable will cost a lot more. Turntables are funny beasts and the while a CD player is plug and play a turntable requires balance, fettling and the correct matching or cartridge to arm, arm to 'table, table to phono stage and on and on. It's a minefield and you won't get seriously good vinyl performance until you're well into 2,000 euro territory. Vinyl is utterly addictive (as my Ebay account will verify) and the best way to listen to music of a certain vintage but it can also be prohibitively expensive (as my wife and bank account will verify).

As I stated before: I don't think that you have to invest that kind of money into hi-fi equipment. You have to select it carefully, especially amp and speakers. But when it comes to CD players, IMHO even the cheapest (modern) one will do ... if you like classical music you should get one which also plays SACD, but SACD/DVD-Audio often contain 5.1 mixes so you'll probably have to get a surround system. This is how I arrived at my solution: The Logitech computer speakers:

http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/logitech-z-5500-digital/4852-3179_7-31115626.html

As you can see, opinions are divided on them. Some say they're not suitable for music, some say the exact opposite. If you have a decent current computer (a new Core Duo / AMD X2 board with hi-def audio on board) and no 5.1 system at all, then my suggestion would be to try the Logitech X-530 to get started - I'll soon start a separate thread about this.