HQP vs. Vinyl Reassessment

[Sal1950]

Here's an interesting compare, the 1987 cd, a unknown year DVD, and my needle drop of a very early US LP release. All within 1 point of each other. Pretty dang close from "back in the day" masters.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24386[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24389[/ATTACH]

[semente]

I believe most mainstream labels use the CD Master as a basis for the vinyl version so DR numbers should be the same but sometimes differ due to how the DR number is calculated, see here:

 

 

This video is very interesting.

 

To his comments regarding dynamic range I would add that even though I've bought CD remasters (of classical music) that have marginally less dynamic range the tonal balance in those masterings is far more natural and that in my view is more important.

 

R

[Sal1950]

Thanks semente and Ian!

Very educational and enlightening

So the vinyl master came from the same digital master as the CD. Interesting

I guess I can put to death blaming the labels for cheating the digital community and pass this on

to others when they either post the same mistaken conclusion I had, or just the using of the numbers to support peoples claims of vinyls superiority. I'm glad I never posted the results of my needle drop numbers, I always felt that something was not kosher about them.

So here we are at a point in the road where we can actually measure, see, and deduce the "phase rotation" distortions generation in the analog LP creation process. If you can see it in the analog waveform, its coming out of the speakers or cans, Yes?

Could this distortion be analogous to jitter, which has been shown in small amounts to be pleasing to many listeners? Not more accurate but pleasing as in a EQ mod.

Time to do a little deeper digging on the issue.

 

PS, Sorry about the broke links in post #201 and too late to remove. Don't know why that happened, maybe after the jpeg in the post before I ran into some sort of site quota?

Nothing to bother with, just more of the now proven inaccurate deductions.

[Cormorant]

Thanks semente and Ian!

Very educational and enlightening

So the vinyl master comes from the same digital master as the CD. Interesting

 

Yes, thanks a bunch Rexp for the Ian Shepherd Youtube link. Very interesting.

 

Sal - The way I understood what Ian said was that the vinyl master probably comes from the same digital master as the CD, but not necessarily. The vinyl could well be made from a different master. But that the DR rating is useless for comparison. Instead, one must read reviews, liner notes, interviews with the mastering engineer on the recording and how the master was made, and so on. In other words, it's really hard to know.

 

I poked around Ian's site and found a lot of other interesting recording related posts. Like this one on Daft Punk recording:

 

Daft Punk - Mastering Analysis of 'Random Access Memories'

 

And this one on how Youtube might cause the dynamic range of new recordings to increase in the future:

 

YouTube just put the final nail in the Loudness War’s coffin

 

It's kind of pitiful in a way that "Random Access Memories" won a Dynamic Range Day award in 2014 for excellent dynamic range when it's only... DR8 (!).

 

The Dynamic Range Day Award

 

Oh well, hopefully things are moving in a better direction.

[JBNY]

This video is very interesting.

 

To his comments regarding dynamic range I would add that even though I've bought CD remasters (of classical music) that have marginally less dynamic range the tonal balance in those masterings is far more natural and that in my view is more important.

 

R

 

Not all vinyl recordings use the same master as the CD. Most of the better ones will use a different master for vinyl, it's just that the guy who made that CD used the same for his vinyl. If you read some interviews with people like Bernie Grundman, they will flat out tell you the the vinyl master should be different from the CD. Not everyone does it, but that fact that they don't should only highlight everything we are talking about, some people don't care it they put out a substandard product.

[Sal1950]

Yes, thanks a bunch Rexp for the Ian Shepherd Youtube link. Very interesting.

 

Sal - The way I understood what Ian said was that the vinyl master probably comes from the same digital master as the CD, but not necessarily. The vinyl could well be made from a different master. But that the DR rating is useless for comparison. Instead, one must read reviews, liner notes, interviews with the mastering engineer on the recording and how the master was made, and so on. In other words, it's really hard to know.

 

Ian states at least once very clearly that he created the vinyl and digital masters from the same digital file, just fast forward to 5:00 on the video and listen to the next minute of so, no doubt in what he says there.

In any case I really don't care about the digital vs analog question, hadn't purchased a LP since around 1988 and sold all gear and LPs in 2010.

But since the situation seem to be the result of vinyls creation distortion and not better masters we would both profit by doing everything we can to fight back in the loudness war.

Honestly I'm not 100% convinced that in all cases it's the phase rotation distortion, and that the major labels aren't doing some of what we suspected all along. But in any case it's all irrelevant, we have to find a way to get the labels from squishing everything to dead.

Maybe if Neal Young would stand more behind DR improvement then he spends on insinuating the Music Store has 2 million high definition files when the truth is 99% are 16/44 rips, we could really find the "soul in the music".

[semente]

Not all vinyl recordings use the same master as the CD. Most of the better ones will use a different master for vinyl, it's just that the guy who made that CD used the same for his vinyl. If you read some interviews with people like Bernie Grundman, they will flat out tell you the the vinyl master should be different from the CD. Not everyone does it, but that fact that they don't should only highlight everything we are talking about, some people don't care it they put out a substandard product.

 

I'll look Bernie Grundman up.

There are several websites describing good mastering for vinyl practices, this one is ended up in my bookmarks someday:

 

Mastering Vinyl | Emusician

 

R

[Cormorant]

Ian states at least once very clearly that he created the vinyl and digital masters from the same digital file, just fast forward to 5:00 on the video and listen to the next minute of so, no doubt in what he says there.

 

Right, that was the main point of his video, resulting in his conclusion that DR rating is useless for comparison. He was also suggesting some ways to tell if other vinyl recordings, that he didn't make, had better dynamic range.

 

Your other DR points are spot on though!

[Sal1950]

Not all vinyl recordings use the same master as the CD. Most of the better ones will use a different master for vinyl, it's just that the guy who made that CD used the same for his vinyl. If you read some interviews with people like Bernie Grundman, they will flat out tell you the the vinyl master should be different from the CD. Not everyone does it, but that fact that they don't should only highlight everything we are talking about, some people don't care it they put out a substandard product.

You absolutely right, the analog sound stream that feeds the recording lathe HAS to be custom modified at some point to deal with vinyls mechanical limitations. If the lathe got the same analog signal as a CD gets, either the lathe or the cutting disc would be damaged or the LP would send the arm flying if you tried to play it. Don't know if you've seen this link that I've posted before. Great easy to understand info.

Mixing for Vinyl: Don't Fall for These Traps

[CR250]

Nope, the answer is the folks who prefer the digitally recorded/mastered vinyl over the digital version don't have a good enough digital front end.

 

I wouldn't say that's necessarily the case, although it can be. Yes, if you buy a better CD player, you can get better sound. But that goes for all components. That's why we upgrade in the first place. I think the discrepancy in sound quality comes when the record is made from the digital master down-sampled to 16/44 for CD, or using the same master at the bit rate it was originally recorded in. If they make the record using CD resolution, then you can't really do much. Buying vinyl made like this doesn't make much sense. If the record is made without down sampling to Redbook, then better sound quality is possible. Since vinyl has no resolution cap like CD, you can pull the extra resolution of the record, providing you have an analog front end that is up to the task. My personal view is that its not worth it. To me, vinyl made from hi res digital sounds like better digital (Compared to CD), and is not really worth the extra expense. I'm just as happy with an SACD or high res download. The only time I find that vinyl is clearly better is when there's no digital in the chain.

 

As to why some people prefer CD's they made by recording their own records, is fairly clear. The phono cart, tt, arm, phono pre, cables and sometimes the linestage, were all selected according to personal taste. When a record is recorded to CD, the system itself is being recorded as well. The signal runs through all those hand selected components.

[Jud]

Just in general:

 

- Ian Shepherd's points are valid, due to the way the DR is calculated according to the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) standard.

 

- However, they don't necessarily account for *all* the DR difference between a CD and an LP. A couple of points, yes. But 4 points difference or more and the reason is almost certainly compression of the CD master. (The difference with Ian's demo was this high or higher IIRC, but I think he was using the most extreme example he could find to make his point.)

[Cormorant]

But 4 points difference or more and the reason is almost certainly compression of the CD master.

 

 

Good point.

[Sal1950]

Just in general:

 

- Ian Shepherd's points are valid, due to the way the DR is calculated according to the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) standard.

 

- However, they don't necessarily account for *all* the DR difference between a CD and an LP. A couple of points, yes. But 4 points difference or more and the reason is almost certainly compression of the CD master. (The difference with Ian's demo was this high or higher IIRC, but I think he was using the most extreme example he could find to make his point.)

 

Yep, we sure can't equate what a specialty company does with anything coming from the major labels. Totally different intentions. LOL

[Rexp]

Yes, thanks a bunch Rexp for the Ian Shepherd Youtube link. Very interesting.

 

Sal - The way I understood what Ian said was that the vinyl master probably comes from the same digital master as the CD, but not necessarily. The vinyl could well be made from a different master. But that the DR rating is useless for comparison. Instead, one must read reviews, liner notes, interviews with the mastering engineer on the recording and how the master was made, and so on. In other words, it's really hard to know.

 

I poked around Ian's site and found a lot of other interesting recording related posts. Like this one on Daft Punk recording:

 

Daft Punk - Mastering Analysis of 'Random Access Memories'

 

And this one on how Youtube might cause the dynamic range of new recordings to increase in the future:

 

YouTube just put the final nail in the Loudness War’s coffin

 

It's kind of pitiful in a way that "Random Access Memories" won a Dynamic Range Day award in 2014 for excellent dynamic range when it's only... DR8 (!).

 

The Dynamic Range Day Award

 

Oh well, hopefully things are moving in a better direction.

Random Access Memories is interesting because even listening via Youtube in the video below, the vinyl sounds way better than the CD which leads one to assume the vinyl came from the 24/88 master and the CD came from an inferior CD master.

[Cormorant]

Random Access Memories is interesting because even listening via Youtube in the video below, the vinyl sounds way better than the CD which leads one to assume the vinyl came from the 24/88 master and the CD came from an inferior CD master.

 

Interesting, Rexp. In the Dynamic Range Database the CD is DR8 and the vinyl ranges from DR12 to DR13. So going either with your listening test or Jud's "4 point" theory, it's definitely a different master.

[wanta911]

...and just to confuse matters a little more on Random Access Memories, a direct quote from Ian Shepherd on another forum:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I've posted a full English translation of the interview, for anyone who's interested:

 

Post removed

 

Chab confirms that the DR8 Qobuz master was used as the basis for all the other formats.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I agree with Jud that a DR4 difference or more on vinyl vs CD is required to alleviate that small tell-tale pain in my ears, I find that most DR2-3 vinyl differences do nothing to alleviate fatigue if it is there on the CD.

 

Here is an example of a release where the vinyl is clearly a different master, the CD is fatiguing to my ears but I can play the vinyl rip hard and long without any discomfort:

 

AC/DC - Rock Or Bust

CD:

 

 

Vinyl rip:

 

[Cormorant]

I found that comment from Ian on Steve Hoffman's forum, in 2013, via Google. But clicking the link leads to the following message:

 

It’s been brought to my attention that some of the information in the interview originally posted here is incorrect.

I’ve decided to remove it.

 

Maybe the incorrect information is about the Qobuz master being the basis for all the other formats?

 

Otherwise, I'm confused.

 

Interesting differences on the AC/DC album, wanta911.

[wanta911]

I found that comment from Ian on Steve Hoffman's forum, in 2013, via Google. But clicking the link leads to the following message:

 

It’s been brought to my attention that some of the information in the interview originally posted here is incorrect.

I’ve decided to remove it.

 

Maybe the incorrect information is about the Qobuz master being the basis for all the other formats?

 

Otherwise, I'm confused.

 

Interesting differences on the AC/DC album, wanta911.

 

Thanks for that info. I will join you in the confused state

[Rexp]

I found that comment from Ian on Steve Hoffman's forum, in 2013, via Google. But clicking the link leads to the following message:

 

It’s been brought to my attention that some of the information in the interview originally posted here is incorrect.

I’ve decided to remove it.

 

Maybe the incorrect information is about the Qobuz master being the basis for all the other formats?

 

Otherwise, I'm confused.

 

Interesting differences on the AC/DC album, wanta911.

I think they did use the 24/88 Qobuz master as the basis for the CD master and the vinyl master, they just didn't do a good job on the CD version.

[Sal1950]

Mailman brought me the two Tony Bennett's Duets CD's from 2006 and 2011. Two bad they're both a DR9 when both are such beautiful Phil Ramone productions, clean and smooth sounding, amazing talents. R2D4 if you don't own them. If only

[semente]

I have been experimenting with the TT Meter and comparing the results with the DR Database.

 

Even though the DR score of some recordings is somewhat low, I think that one should always take into account the fact that some musical programme doesn't contain any significant dynamic contrast between the accompaniment/background and the leading/foreground melody.

This is true for classical as well as jazz or pop and rock.

I feel that it doesn't make that much sense to compare the DR score of different recordings, only different editions of a same recording; for new recordings that have no benchmark to compare with one should take the characteristics of the melody into account.

 

I still prefer AudioLeak because it provides a graphic "description" of what's happening to the dynamics during the time/length of the recording.

 

R

[Jud]

I have been experimenting with the TT Meter and comparing the results with the DR Database.

 

Even though the DR score of some recordings is somewhat low, I think that one should always take into account the fact that some musical programme doesn't contain any significant dynamic contrast between the accompaniment/background and the leading/foreground melody.

This is true for classical as well as jazz or pop and rock.

I feel that it doesn't make that much sense to compare the DR score of different recordings, only different editions of a same recording; for new recordings that have no benchmark to compare with one should take the characteristics of the melody into account.

 

I still prefer AudioLeak because it provides a graphic "description" of what's happening to the dynamics during the time/length of the recording.

 

R

 

Hi Ricardo. The ITU standard, which is what the TT Meter is using to come up with its numbers, compares the *average* and *loudest* volume of a track. The comparative dynamics of the foreground and background don't enter into it.

[semente]

Hi Ricardo. The ITU standard, which is what the TT Meter is using to come up with its numbers, compares the *average* and *loudest* volume of a track. The comparative dynamics of the foreground and background don't enter into it.

 

Hi Jud,

 

Thanks for the info.

I think that my comments are still valid, though.

 

R

[Forehaven]

Gone for a week trip and return to this...though I shouldn't be surprised, these type of threads seems freq. to devolve into ABX/DR crap. I'm a physician and fully believe in science, but really, you can't listen/enjoy music based on stats. All I was saying how despite all the digital advances, there's still something 'special' to vinyl for certain material. If you want to call it colored than so be it.

 

Indeed! For a phono pre, I was looking today at the Aikido Phono kit. I'm a DIYer and built a version of the Aikido line pre and thought it was very good. For $199 it might fill the bill.

 

Cool looking diy kit. Not a diy'er, but I do wonder the SQ of this w. it's separate PS.

 

 

Did you have the gain adjustments on your amp at full volume? They should provide you with more than enough volume.

 

I had time to check this out: iFi Micro/Preamp direct to amps. I did have to turn gain up a bit, but not as much as I had prev. thought. And despite how good imo the Emotiva pre is, this direct setup IS better. Better transparency and dynamics. Thanks for encouraging me to try this again.

[Sal1950]

I feel that it doesn't make that much sense to compare the DR score of different recordings, .

R

 

It does have the quality of giving us a general overview of who the bad guys and good guys are in the recording industry.