Ask an Audio geek

[Alex K]

^ d'oh not Isophon (I wish), I meant Infinity

[vorlon13]

Do you think there's anything to the idea that vinyl records have a "special quality" of sound, which in some way makes them superior?

As long as the sampling rate (44.1 kHz for CDs) is much higher than my upper limit (I think I'm still around 16 kHz, although without so many CRT TVs these days, haven't had confirmation on that for a while), the signals is not compressed, the signal is dithered and reasonable care was taken during the recording process, one can assert vinyl sucks.

[Alex K]

Do you think there's anything to the idea that vinyl records have a "special quality" of sound, which in some way makes them superior?

As long as the sampling rate (44.1 kHz for CDs) is much higher than my upper limit (I think I'm still around 16 kHz, although without so many CRT TVs these days, haven't had confirmation on that for a while), the signals is not compressed, the signal is dithered and reasonable care was taken during the recording process, one can assert vinyl sucks.

I've been wondering - the sampling theorem assumes infinite resolution I think. Does the 16 bit depth really not interfere with it beyond dither noise?

[AFTT47]

Do you think there's anything to the idea that vinyl records have a "special quality" of sound, which in some way makes them superior?

As long as the sampling rate (44.1 kHz for CDs) is much higher than my upper limit (I think I'm still around 16 kHz, although without so many CRT TVs these days, haven't had confirmation on that for a while), the signals is not compressed, the signal is dithered and reasonable care was taken during the recording process, one can assert vinyl sucks.

Absolutely. The purpose of any recording medium or device is to as faithfully as possible, copy and reproduce the original material. CD is far superior in that regard by every conceivable measure. Dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, frequency response - all superior by a wide margin.

Vinyl is definitely snake oil. All it's got is nostalgia.

[Kosh]

Do you consider certain genres repulsive opposed to others?

The short answer...  Yes         
          
I don't care for newer pop music.  It feels narcissistic and shallow.  I've also never liked RAP nor Country.   I grew up on a Midwestern dairy farm so that probably explains never getting into RAP.  My musical taste comes from four different periods in my life.         

60's/70's - My mother was a big Beatles, Stones, and Doors fan.          
70's/80's - My aunt introduced me to new wave.  Blondie, B52's, Talking heads.    
90's/00's - Buddies introduced me to metal and industrial.  Metallica, Megadeth, NIN, and Nirvana.     
00's to present -Rockabilly, Jazz, Big Band, old blues.  I've regressed musically from before I was born.

---

Do you think there's anything to the idea that vinyl records have a "special quality" of sound, which in some way makes them superior?

Yes there is...  There are two reasons why.         
     
1) Vinyl sounds different because of the way it's created, and the way it's extracted.     
       
The cartridge of a turntable is in some ways like a musical instrument.  They have very different tonal qualities based on manufacturer, stylus type, and cartridge type.   A MM (moving magnet) will have a different tonal quality than an MC (moving coil) cartridge.  Then factor in stylus types such as conical, elliptical, and shibata. They determine how the stylus rides in the groove which has a determination on tone quality.  Many higher end cartridges use a boron cantilever instead of aluminum which is stiffer.  The cantilever attaches the stylus to the cartridge.  

We haven't even discussed the actual turntable and tonearm yet.
  
2) Poorly mastered modern recordings.          
        
A LOT of new music is mastered terribly.  Google "Lowdness War" and you'll get a good idea of what I'm talking about.   For the most part, vinyl does not suffer from the loudness war due to limitations inherent in vinyl.  You can only record vinyl so loud.  If you go past a certain point, the record lathe will cut into the adjacent track and ruin the master.

There is crappy vinyl masters as well.  Some record companies in order to cash in on the resurgence of vinyl have simply used their CD masters to make vinyl records.  The best vinyl records are mixed from the original source tapes.

[vorlon13]

A friend of mine (with college level media arts background) noted how at the time (LOL, mid 80s, my how time flies) how much CDs recreated the studio recorded master tape sound, which is what the artist would have heard during mixing and mastering. The point being, none of the intermediate stages of making an actual vinyl record are recorded on vinyl, and therefore, the artist was not working on refining how the sound was on the finished product, rather, they worked on refining the sound on the studio master tape sent to the vinyl record plant, and essentially, hoped for the best.

I've not spent much time over the decades worrying too much about that 'vinyl' sound.

Another friend of mine was gushing how much his favorite FM radio station at the time (80s again) had improved it's sound upon switching from vinyl records to CDs.

Well, sorry J, but here it works the other way. Stereo FM was designed with the technical characteristics of the available media of the time, vinyl records. So s/n ratio, frequency response, whatever, was all matched as well as they could to the specs of vinyl, and there were some compromises made. FM was a tremendous improvement over AM, but some of the technical hurdles of converting existing original mono FM to stereo FM and maintaining compatibility with existing mono FM radio were, well, pretty challenging. Stereo FM transmits a mono FM signal (which was left and right added together) to be compatible with the existing mono radios (and they were still made after stereo was introduced) and then they added an additional signal in the ultrasonic range of the received FM stereo signal that was the difference between the left and right channels. Turns out a stereo FM radio can take the summed signal and add the difference to recover one of the original channels and can take the summed signal and subtract the difference to yield the other channel. That process, while really really clever, is not perfect.

So, J, I suspect the station went to CD more for advertising purposes than for sound.


BTW, you can listen to the 'difference' signal in the privacy of your own home if you want to tinker a little bit. If you have a stereo receiver on your TV or available, connect it to whatever source you like (stereo of course) and connect a speaker from the 'hot' left speaker terminal (usually the red one) to the 'hot' right speaker terminal (the other red one).

You can now listen to the difference between the left and right signals. Depending on how the recording was mixed, you might only hear the instruments and background vocals and no lead singer. If you're really enthralled with this, connect the left and right speakers normally, and put your difference speaker behind your listening position. You now have a 'Hafler' surround system.

I had my stereo wired this way in '86.

[Kosh]

As long as the sampling rate (44.1 kHz for CDs) is much higher than my upper limit (I think I'm still around 16 kHz, although without so many CRT TVs these days, haven't had confirmation on that for a while), the signals is not compressed, the signal is dithered and reasonable care was taken during the recording process, one can assert vinyl sucks.

Absolutely. The purpose of any recording medium or device is to as faithfully as possible, copy and reproduce the original material. CD is far superior in that regard by every conceivable measure. Dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, frequency response - all superior by a wide margin.

Vinyl is definitely snake oil. All it's got is nostalgia.

    
I'll agree and also disagree here.  From a technical standpoint you are correct.  CD is superior in every way.  Facts are facts and you can't argue measurable values.  From an implementation perspective, the way modern music is mastered has made a lot of music unlistenable (to me).  It doesn't matter if the technology is superior if the recording engineers are going to piss away the advantages with their inferior recording techniques.

It's like watching 480P content on a 40" 4K TV from 10 feet away.  You've pretty much pissed away every technical advantage that the TV had by how its being used.  Now obviously all CD's aren't brickwalled compressed into oblivion, but a lot are.  You have to take them on a case by case basis.    
    
I got back into vinyl for a few reasons.    

First, I like the way my table sounds.  Turntables flavor/color music much like a tube amplifier might.  Digital is more accurate, and what your hearing is what was recorded (for better or worse).  I have zero qualms with flavoring my music in a manner I find pleasing to my ear.  I used to be a tone control Nazi..  Never use the tone control ever!  Not anymore. 

I enjoy the process of listening to a record.  It can be a cathartic ritual.  Pulling the record out of the sleeve, placing it on the turntable, and listening to the whole side while looking at the cover art and reading the liner notes.  Holding a physical object.  It's yours..  It's not some nebulous thing from a cloud that you don't own.  You listen to a whole side because it's too much of a pain in the ass to jump around songs  
 
Can I listen to a whole CD ripped to FLAC on my home theater PC?  Sure..  Do I?  Not often..

With Vinyl I'm OCD, with Digital I'm ADD.  I'll play digital if I'm running around the house doing chores, driving the car, working out, or have company over.  I listen to digital when I'm not paying attention.     

If I'm vegging in my chair with a snifter of single malt scotch, I'll play a record.

[AFTT47]

Absolutely. The purpose of any recording medium or device is to as faithfully as possible, copy and reproduce the original material. CD is far superior in that regard by every conceivable measure. Dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, frequency response - all superior by a wide margin.

Vinyl is definitely snake oil. All it's got is nostalgia.

    
I'll agree and also disagree here.  From a technical standpoint you are correct.  CD is superior in every way.  Facts are facts and you can't argue measurable values.  From an implementation perspective, the way modern music is mastered has made a lot of music unlistenable (to me).  It doesn't matter if the technology is superior if the recording engineers are going to piss away the advantages with their inferior recording techniques.

It's like watching 480P content on a 40" 4K TV from 10 feet away.  You've pretty much pissed away every technical advantage that the TV had by how its being used.  Now obviously all CD's aren't brickwalled compressed into oblivion, but a lot are.  You have to take them on a case by case basis.    
    
I got back into vinyl for a few reasons.    

First, I like the way my table sounds.  Turntables flavor/color music much like a tube amplifier might.

Indeed it does - which is undesirable for a recording/playback technology. That's not its role. It would be easy for manufacturers to create a a DSP device which could do the same thing - and give you some control of the coloring - without having to resort to such a delicate medium as vinyl records. I remember being taught that the pressure density of the diamond needle on the soft vinyl is several tons per square inch! So apart from all the limitations, the vinyl is being torn up on every play. I remember treating my records with a chemical add-on in the early 80s in the hope of preserving them. CDs came along soon after which made the issue moot but I always wondered if it worked.

[Kosh]

    
I'll agree and also disagree here.  From a technical standpoint you are correct.  CD is superior in every way.  Facts are facts and you can't argue measurable values.  From an implementation perspective, the way modern music is mastered has made a lot of music unlistenable (to me).  It doesn't matter if the technology is superior if the recording engineers are going to piss away the advantages with their inferior recording techniques.

It's like watching 480P content on a 40" 4K TV from 10 feet away.  You've pretty much pissed away every technical advantage that the TV had by how its being used.  Now obviously all CD's aren't brickwalled compressed into oblivion, but a lot are.  You have to take them on a case by case basis.    
    
I got back into vinyl for a few reasons.    

First, I like the way my table sounds.  Turntables flavor/color music much like a tube amplifier might.

Indeed it does - which is undesirable for a recording/playback technology. That's not its role. It would be easy for manufacturers to create a a DSP device which could do the same thing - and give you some control of the coloring - without having to resort to such a delicate medium as vinyl records. I remember being taught that the pressure density of the diamond needle on the soft vinyl is several tons per square inch! So apart from all the limitations, the vinyl is being torn up on every play. I remember treating my records with a chemical add-on in the early 80s in the hope of preserving them. CDs came along soon after which made the issue moot but I always wondered if it worked.

The tracking force of most decent modern cartridges is feather light compared to the old days.  My cartridge tracks at 2.0g, and never skips.  I can still remember my mom taping pennies on the cartridge headshell in order to keep the "needle in the groove".    Even with heavy play, my records will last until I'm wormfood dead in the ground.   It's not for everyone, and I would only recommend vinyl to certain people.  You definitely don't get into it for the convenience.      
  
I think the playback system plays into it as well.  As I mentioned, I'm using a pair a Klipsch Chorus II's.  I've owned a lot of speakers in my day.  Magnepan IIIA, Vandersteen 3a Sigs, DCM Timewindows, Polk Audio SDA's, Ohm Walsh.  The horn tweeter and squaker on the Klipsch do very well with vinyl.  The combination has a nice synergy.   The other big factor with vinyl is where your records come from.  If I had to build a collection with buying new records at $35 each, I would definitely have walked away.  The bulk of my collection came with two craigslist purchases.  The first was a lot of 200 records for $100 that consisted of all late 60's to mid 70's classic rock.  The seller had only played then once to record to reel-to-reel, and never played them again.  This was the motherload, and I didn't even have a TT at the time.  I also have a local used record shop that I can get NM grade records for about $3 each. 

Unlike a lot of vinyl guys, I am not anti-digital.  I have 1000's of CD's.  I will never purchase an MP3 though.  I'd rather buy the CD and rip it to lossless FLAC.

[ignoramus]

Adding to that, that radio stereo has never broadcasted HiFi quality sound (20-20).

Extra fidelity can work against the "musicality" of music also.
One reviewer of the latest ultra 4k TVs commented that watching something filmed at this high a level made it seem that he watching the "making of" the movie rather than the movie.

Do we really need to see every pimple covered up with makeup in closeups?
Listening to music is similar.   I used to love listening to my stereo (lots of telarcs), but now I'm just happy to listen to the music... You can reach a point of technical perfection, but is that really how the studio envisioned the masses will be listening to it?

I listened to Brothers in Arms for the first time on good equipment and it sounded like a whole new experience.

The reason I have slackened off with age, and most will agree is because even with middle of the road digital audio consumer equipment these days, the quality is a lot better than in the past.

The biggest enemy of analogue HiFi has always been distortion in all its many manifestations.