Why does vinyl still exist?

[jcbrum]

In an attempt to answer the OP, it still exists because some people want it to. They enjoy playing their vinyl records on their chosen equipment.

 

I think this might be similar to the enjoyment of, say, classic cars They are not technically "as good" as contemporary cars which are sold entirely on the desires of current purchasers requirements, but the "classics" have a nostalgic following.

 

The truest statement in this thread is this one ....

 

quote - "I still firmly believe that irrespective of the final playback format, the original recording and mastering is the single most important item impacting the sound." - unquote

 

I think this is probably an indisputable audiophile fact.

 

To make a really good recording at present, most engineers would use a really excellent digital recorder, - probably a computer - maybe a Mac. This will provide a better master recording than magnetic tape, and is the reason that digi-recording is ubiquitous and universal.

 

To place that excellent master onto vinyl will certainly degrade it because of the limitations of vinyl records. A digi copy will be identical to the original, and that is a great benefit. I think Ashley also made this point.

 

It matters little whether the preferred "consumer" version is 24/192, 16/44.1, MP3, AAC, WAV, CD-Audio, DVD, Vinyl 33 Record, or 78rpm Shellac. Consumers will buy the format that suits them, and formats that don't sell will die, ie cylinders and cassettes, etc.

 

Vinyl is very difficult and expensive to replay properly, and that is what some enthusiasts enjoy, but it's technically useless, and ridiculously expensive, for todays consumers compared to digi-music systems.

 

I enjoy 1920's and '30's music, some of which is only available on 78's, but the first thing I do with it is digitize it and put it into my iTunes library. To me, it is then much more enjoyable and useful. Has anyone tried using a 1920's record player recently ? They WRECK your records irretrievably. Vinyl is only the last development of that 100 year old system which became obsolescent about thirty years ago for very good technical and commercial reasons.

 

Regards JC.

 

[audiozorro]

I have to reprint part of an article on Prof. Keith Johnson

 

http://www.ultraaudio.com/features/20090201.htm

 

“I first heard Däfos in the Spectral Audio suite in the Conrad Hilton, during a summer CES in Chicago. Through the Entec subwoofers, the visceral impact of "Psychopomp" gave me the illusion of being very seasick. It was as if the entire room were resonating. "The Gates of Däfos" and "The Beast" scared the living daylights out of me. I thought a volcano was about to erupt”.

 

"The holy grail of consumer audio formats has always been to deliver to the listener an exact replica of the signal heard by the recording engineer. That’s been a pipe dream -- the LP is a big step down in quality from analog tape, CD is limited by its fundamental specifications, and even real-time copies of analog tapes suffer from generation loss”.

 

"New technologies, however, have narrowed the gap between what the recording engineer and consumer hears. Although DVD-Audio and SACD at their best can deliver high-resolution digital audio to consumers, it’s really the advent of computer-based audio and Internet downloads that will usher in the new era of high-resolution digital."

 

I eagerly await my HRx version of Däfos from Reference Recordings for comparison. I sure hope it has superior dynamics since I can find no CD that blows out my windows like that LP.

 

 

[tomE]

I started collecting music on LP in the early 60s. By the time digital came along I had amssed quite a few records. Before listening to early digital I was hopeful that at last I could give up records as every time I had to move my collection I risked a hernia or worse. Alas the early stuff was abyssmal in sound quality. I didn't know if it was the recordings or the gear but I couldn't listen for more than about a half hour. And the price of the CD was around $25 here in the great white north. So I stayed with the LP. When others were abandoning analog for digital I took advantage of those selling off their premium record players cheap and acquired a rig I would have balked at paying for earlier. So I had a financial committment in vinyl records that was more than trivial.

Over the ensuing years as CD became wildly popular I did audition players in hope that the sound quality would improve and it did. The fact that much music was no longer released on vinyl sealed the deal for me and I bought a player and began collecting CDs. CD still didn't sound as good as analog to me but to listen to new music I liked I had to buy digital. Well recorded CDs sounded pretty good so it wasn't really that much of a chore.

I didn't audition newer digital products for a long time until recently. I heard a Bryston BDA-1 in an audiophile system at a local dealer with a familiar CD. I was almost blown away and bought the DAC.

So now I have a good DAC that's almost as good as digital gets these days. What do I think? I have many well recorded LP records and CDs as well as quite a bit of fairly lousy sounding ones in both formats. I can now enjoy and embrace digital sound. The BDA-1 has changed the way I listen to music for the most part (the computer thing!). The one thing that vinyl still does better for me is that when I put on one of my better vinyl records and settle into my listening chair with the lights low I can close my eyes and feel like I am in the presence of musicians playing instruments. As good as digital now sounds in my system, it doesn't quite sound as real to me in that way. This is mostly with jazz and classical music or anything using acoustic instruments. Analog just fools my brain into believing there are people present playing and digital not so much. I haven't listened to any of the higher rez formats yet ( I own one DAD) so the jury is still out. But the fact remains that I still own thousands of LPs that sound at least decent and many sound fantastic so I won't dump them. I will listen to my CDs more now and will investigate downloads more. I have some stuff from the iTunes store (someone bought me a gift certificate) but it is obvious that it isn't CD quality but I do listen to them on my iPod at the gym.

So they are both good and I like both formats. To those who rely on measurements instead of their ears I would beware as they don't always correlate to what you hear. TIM and jitter were discovered I believe because someone though something didn't sound right and investigated. To think that we know everything about how measurements relate to sound is a bit arrogant in my opinion.

 

[BEEMB]

JC,

 

Thanks for awarding me the truest quote.

... but ... a 1920's record player to digitise your records ... tut tut .. ;-)

 

Ash,

 

If it's the case that so much music is made for the download market then that, along with compression, explains why so many digital downloads sound rather poor. I must admit, as I said before, it's usually mainstream poppy stuff that sounds bad. I'm so glad we have a good number of websites offering higher resolution downloads where you can really tell you're listening to what will hopefully be commonplace in the future.

 

 

Interesting topic actually but probably already discussed; as download speeds increase I wonder whether we will see higher resolution downloads becoming more commonplace or not.

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

Tim,

 

I guess I've never come across these snobbish bores before. Most people whom I have met within the hifi industry are obviously keen to sell their products, but most will listen to what you have to say and put forward their point of view without forcing it onto you. I've never been corrected or dismissed.

 

Same with the mags to be fair too. Ash, you steer well clear of some of the mainstream mags here in the UK, but the likes of HiFi Choice, traditionally known for supporting a lot of this so called high end gear, are readily reviewing DACs and writing about computer audio. With all sorts of goodies (and rubbish too) sat in front of them I still find their views helpful and enjoyable to read. The only anti computer audio items I've read in that mag came from one or two reader letters - I guess they're the snobbish bores. Things have changed and are changing.

 

I guess I've just never been exposed to as much of this high end snobbery as other people within this thread clearly have.

 

I'll continue to enjoy the speed and foot tapping agility of vinyl when I fancy a listen. I'll continue to enjoy my digital audio, it's cleanliniess (and now that it's on my computer, it's warmth) amd I'll endlessly tinker with my setup no doubt too (right now comparing playback software) ...

 

M.

 

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

Tom,

 

You make some good points there.

 

I've read some great reviews of that DAC. And can I say that it also - looks the part too ..!!

 

[BEEMB]

 

If anybody could tell me why I am still posting here at 1:30AM then I'd appreciate it ...

 

 

[markr]

It isn't even 8pm yet......

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi BEEMB

 

 

...as download speeds increase I wonder whether we will see higher resolution downloads becoming more commonplace or not."

 

I can confirm higher resolution downloads will continue to increase in number and greater bandwidth will ease concerns of those providing the content. I continue to urge the providers to at least offer the option of very high resolution content for people with a lot of bandwidth or a lot of time. Don't worry about bandwidth of consumers, they'll figure out how to get what they want.

 

The more people that ask for this content the faster it will be available. Manufacturers, retailers, content providers will listen to anyone who wants to spend money on their products. If they don't know how big the demand is, it's hard to justify releasing new products especially in a tough economic time.

 

[Ashley James]

Beemb - I disagree that most modern recordings sound poor, I find the opposite and am constantly surprised that so much is so good. We get a steady flow of audiophiles through here, all with different music, often stuff I haven't heard before and some of which I keep for dem purposes. Some of it is compressed, but it is still very good for demonstration.

The stuff that doesn't sound so good now is older Elton John, Pink Floyd era, which is rougher and veiled IMO.

 

I agree with you over Hi Fi Choice and I have the greatest respect for Alan Sircom, not just because he stated that ADM9s signalled the start of a revolution, but because he is very intelligent and perceptive and understands the problems facing an industry hooked to the idea that the front end is the key bit of a system. Now that computers do that, there is re-inventing on the cards. I'd like to think we had the best idea though.

 

Chris - If I understand it correctly, it is likely we will soon all be offered VBR encoded 24 bit material. These are described as better than 16 Bit and exhausted listening and measuring has been done to show the results to be indistinguishable from full 24 Bit. I don't doubt that there will be critics by the truck load, but I'm finding customers increasingly are using compression on some of their music where they either can't hear a difference, or don't care about a particular track and this seems a good compromise.

 

[tfarney]

I think the march toward higher resolution, which looked like it had died with the failure of SACD and DVD-A to capture a viable audience, was brought back to life in a big way when iTunes moved from 128kbps to 256. I wish they had gone ahead and jumped to 320, but I'll take what I can get. And what I got was a strong indication that the resolution of downloads will rise with the bandwidth of the majority of downloaders.

 

Tim

 

[tfarney]

"Tim - you should mod that deck. Then it will surpass digital. It's just old techology inside holding it back.

 

Steve N."

 

Thanks, Steve. Unfortunately, the weakest link is not the internal components, but the software. When it was in regular use years ago, the commercial tapes available were at 7 1/2 ips, and while they sounded better than vinyl, the many 15 ips copies of vinyl, fresh from the shrink wrap, that I made did not. Well, they didn't sound better until after the vinyl had been played a few times anyway.

 

This is where I definitely agree with the old audiophile notion of "source first." The difference is, the source I'm referring to is the software -- the tape, the record, the file, the disc.

 

Tim

 

[BEEMB]

 

Excuse my ignorance guys, but 24bit VBR ... VBR ?

 

[markr]

"Variable Bit Rate".

 

- markr

 

[BEEMB]

Mark,

 

Thanks! oops.

 

 

[tfarney]

So if the bit rate is variable (why?), does that mean the maximum is 24? What is the minimum?

 

Tim

 

[PeterSt]

Tim, this is about the original message and how it was brought by Ashly

 

Chris - If I understand it correctly, it is likely we will soon all be offered VBR encoded 24 bit material.

 

This just means that 24 bit material may be offered in VBR methods (btw, DVD-A could very well already be).

So it is about the base material.

 

The minimum is 0. This is when 0 bits are needed to enode the information. Like "The next 3000 samples have a volume of zero" and then no samples appear, so each (virtual !) sample of these 3000 uses 0 bits.

It could also be "The next 1000 samples use a volume of (decimal) 6 max". In that case 3 bits are needed for those upcoming 1000 samples.

 

The why ? ... it saves space.

 

[Ashley James]

The idea is to maintain the required quality by varying the bit rate according to the requirements of the music. Thus minimum file size and maximum quality. The Franhoffer (probably spelt wrong!) Institute have been doing research to find a suitable level compression that isn't audible when tested on a mixture of experts and amateurs and you can Google it up if you're interested. Cymbals have a tremendous bandwidth, so are part of this procedure.

 

If you'd like to try VBR encoding then iTunes/preferences/custom importing will do it.

 

Ash

 

 

 

 

[tomE]

Thanks BEEMB. The BDA-1 has definitely increased the amount I listen to digital. I just got my sound card sorted out and listened to my DAD at 24/96 for the first time. Very nice! I gotta investigate this stuff further (via downloads). I agree that a lot of pop music these days is WAY compressed. Sounds o.k. in the car but I find that the music is missing something when compressed like that. It's lacking drama or something.

 

[JensPH]

Maybe that "that scary-good 25 to 35 decibels of stereo seperation" is part of why vinyl to many ears sound better than its digital cousin?

 

Another often overlooked factor is the mastering proces (no brickwall limiting here) and the possibility of the filtering causing many speakers sound less strained in reproducing vocals!

Also, in my experience no 16 bit/44.1 disc/source has ever matched the ability of a really good vinyl in delivering pin-point accuracy of an instrument - given the vinyl is based on an analogue or 24 bit/96 KHz or better recording.

 

But this has to do with a phase phenomennon inherent in any source in need of steep filtering above 20-so KHz.

 

When I remember where to find the tech article on that I will post it (it had something to do with MELISSA waterfallplot analysis).

 

[tfarney]

"Tim,

 

I guess I've never come across these snobbish bores before. Most people whom I have met within the hifi industry are obviously keen to sell their products, but most will listen to what you have to say and put forward their point of view without forcing it onto you. I've never been corrected or dismissed."

 

-- "snobbish bores" is certainly not my choice of words or point of view, but if you're looking for audiophiles or manufacturers who are quick to declare their choices superior, even when faced with no evidence to support that view, and ready to blame the inferiority of your equipment on your inability to hear what they hear, you won't have to look far or search long.

 

Tim

 

[Ashley James]

"Maybe that "that scary-good 25 to 35 decibels of stereo seperation" is part of why vinyl to many ears sound better than its digital cousin?"

 

What this means is that out of phase information is in the opposite channel and is known to cause some listeners distress. FM is similarly phasey and upsets people too. Therefore vinyl listeners have grown accustomed to what is unpleasant for some non audiophiles.

 

"Another often overlooked factor is the mastering proces (no brickwall limiting here) and the possibility of the filtering causing many speakers sound less strained in reproducing vocals!"

 

Straining to produce vocals is often limited headroom resulting in an amplifier clipping. Vinyl has to have it's dynamic range reduced to stop the needle jumping out of the groove so doesn't need as much.

 

"Also, in my experience no 16 bit/44.1 disc/source has ever matched the ability of a really good vinyl in delivering pin-point accuracy of an instrument - given the vinyl is based on an analogue or 24 bit/96 KHz or better recording."

 

I think this may be an illusion caused by phased distortion because channel separation is poor. The best stereo comes from the system with the best, not worst phase integrity. CD has at least 60 dB more channel separation than vinyl.

 

"But this has to do with a phase phenomennon inherent in any source in need of steep filtering above 20-so KHz."

 

When I used to visit disc mastering studios I was told that a great deal of extra energy had to be added in the 3-5 kHz region because a cartridge will remove anything much above that in the first pass without you hearing it. I doubt you'd find many records with anything above 5 kHz on the outside edge never mind towards the centre.

 

Another point that needs to be considered is that the shaft driving the cutting head has a resonance at just over 3 kHz and there is a passive suck circuit to neutralise it. This will also cause phase distortion.

 

We are far more sensitive to phase changes than we are amplitude ones, however audiophiles believe that running in equipment in is essential. During this period they seem to train themselves not to hear this and not realise that the wife and kids plus any visitor can. I kid you not. As a manufacturer I cannot list current three way speakers that do this, but I can mention the now defunct LS3/5As that had a resonant filter to prop up the top end of the bass/mid driver. Audiophiles have swooned over them for years, but they literally hurt some others' ears.

 

Ash

 

 

 

[tomE]

Ashley, some components that I have direct experience with DO need run in time. A friend wanted a good relatively inexpensive (

[shenzi]

Someone commenting that the revered LS3/5A could sound horrible ...

 

In the late 70s I went to a hi fi show with a friend who worked in a TV studio (he was looking for a pair of small monitors). The BBC speakers were given a good dem, loads of room for them to show their best, not bad acoustics (these were designed for small rooms and mobile OB, remember). We both prefered the NEAL speakers next door - modest little units which made hardly a ripple on the market.

 

The LS3/5A did vary over time and with different manufacturers though. Vinyl probably sounds quite good on them, given their bandwidth limitations.

 

[Ashley James]

"Ashley, some components that I have direct experience with DO need run in time. When we installed it in his system and fired it up it sounded very shrill to me. My friend was less critical and didn't seem to mind. We tried several CDs (unlike me he doesn't own an analog front end) and they all sounded very harsh to me. I returned to his place a couple of weeks later and the amp sounded fine. I also used to own an Adcom amp that changed quite a bit sonically as it warmed up. These two examples weren't hard to hear as the changes were quite obvious. My present gear doesn't seem to have this problem although the preamplifier is tubed and does require a few minutes to settle in."

 

We don't think they do, we think they stay the same but that you learn to "tune out" the distortion you heard at first acquaintance. Cambridge University's auditory Department had done tests that prove this is how our ears work. It would also be easy for us to verify this by measuring the unit before run in and after. We're pretty sure nothing would have changed. I've just discredited a million subjective reviews!

 

Shenzi

 

Manipulation of phase is often used to give three dimensional effects from single speaker sources and both B&W and Yamaha currently have "surround sound speakers" available that are simply a group of drivers alongside the TV. Also, for many years crossovers in both passive and active speakers have contained resonant circuits to correct drive unit anomalies in the belief that amplitude response is more important than phase. We think this is a wrong assumption and that it's the other way round because there are well documented experiments that show a proportion of people react badly to phase affects. Others may like the "spatial imagery" that it produces.

 

In record player cartridges each channel has some of the other in it and out of phase. Some think it is better stereo and others suffer discomfort.

 

The B & W 801 was originally launched with a 12" driver in a sealed box, but the record companies wanted more bass, so a 13" reflex loaded driver was produced that was a few dB more sensitive. This caused problems for the mid unit that was a little down at the low end. The solution was a resonance in the lower crossover to push up the amplitude response. This surprised us because to us it was not good engineering practice, so I contacted a number of sound engineers who used them and asked how what they heard from the monitors differed from the performance they were recording. A few had noticed slightly phasey sound in this region and others noted more "ambience" from the speakers.

 

I don't like these effects, but they are often sold to produce wider sound stage from a stereo system or surround sound from single source speakers and they can be extremely effective at the point of sale. However it isn't usually long before people turn it off.