Was vinyl really this bad?

GJO

Wammer
Wammer
Sep 1, 2006
3,533
138
0
Kent, ,
AKA
Graham
Have to agree with most of the above I now never buy re-issue's,played a re-issue of Rumours and it sounded dire compared to a very used first issue that the Mrs has played to death.There are some exceptions though the Quiex re-issues of the first 4 Gabriel LP's are very good and preferable to me to the originals,but later MFSL's seem to have lost the plot compared to what they released in earlier years,just  IMO of course. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chumpy

Wammer
Wammer
Dec 3, 2005
14,040
112
0
Bristol UK
AKA
Charlie
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
a) Vinyl was often how it was RELEASED-how we first best enjoyed it.

b) Vinyl sometimes (especially proper analogue) is best available till you archive-share it digitally.

c) TAPE often is best analogue source for enjoying-archiving-sharing.

Smarting-'phones/social media my-your ars(y)es.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

marlew

Guest
In my opinion for vinyl to beat good digital in terms of sound quality performance, you need a good and synergistic turntable, tonearm, cartridge (ideally MC) and phono stage combo. You are never going to achieve vinyl nirvana with a Technics (original version) and a MM cart.

For a lot of people the playing ritual vinyl allows is enough and I can relate to that. In pure fidelity terms, digital wins out in sound per pound performance. A good £600 digital front end (be it a player or a DAC) with good source material will nearly always beat a £1K turntable system in my experience. When you up that turntable system budget to £2k + and choose the component parts of that turntable system (turntable, arm, cart & phono stage) carefully, vinyl wins with the right material. It is not about how much you spend but how you spend it. Synergy and component part matching are all important when putting together a high performance vinyl front end ime.

 

SergeAuckland

Certified Measurist
Wammer
May 6, 2008
18,607
1,915
173
Bury St Edmunds, UK
AKA
Serge
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
In my opinion for vinyl to beat good digital in terms of sound quality performance, you need a good and synergistic turntable, tonearm, cartridge (ideally MC) and phono stage combo. You are never going to achieve vinyl nirvana with a Technics (original version) and a MM cart.

For a lot of people the playing ritual vinyl allows is enough and I can relate to that. In pure fidelity terms, digital wins out in sound per pound performance. A good £600 digital front end (be it a player or a DAC) with good source material will nearly always beat a £1K turntable system in my experience. When you up that turntable system budget to £2k + and choose the component parts of that turntable system (turntable, arm, cart & phono stage) carefully, vinyl wins with the right material. It is not about how much you spend but how you spend it. Synergy and component part matching are all important when putting together a high performance vinyl front end ime.
I don't think it's anything to do with the replay equipment, cheap or expensive, but with the limitations of the medium itself, i.e. the LP.  Regardless of what it's played back on, an LP is still cut on a lathe, with all the limitations that involves in HF headroom, stereo separation, LF extension and so on. Then, it goes through several intermediate steps with quality loss at each step, before ending up with the stamper that actually produces the LP.  Stampers have a finite life, so the earliest pressed LPs will be better than the last ones when the stamper is worn.

If you've ever heard a lacquer played straight off the cutting lathe, you'll know how much quality loss there is in the production process, and the lacquer is still not as good as the tape that made it as the cutting process is anything but transparent.

Digital, on the other hand has zero quality loss in the production process, the CD or download is exactly the same as the master in the factory. That record companies have chosen to debase the currency by ruining CD's potential is a matter of regret, but that doesn't take anything away from the capabilities of the medium.

Yes, you can indulge your hobby by choosing the individual components, or you can use something perfectly competent like an SL1210, but what you're playing is the problem, not what you play it on.

S.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

MJ.

Guest
Call yourselves music lovers ? Just listen to yourselves. Blasphemous. Pah !

Digital is soul less and you all know it, you just won't admit it to yourselves  :)

Anybody who no longer wants their vinyl can find a loving home for it right here  :D

 
Last edited:

Cas

The Scarecrow
Wammer
Mar 20, 2006
3,112
589
158
In a field
AKA
Chris
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
I don't think it's anything to do with the replay equipment, cheap or expensive, but with the limitations of the medium itself, i.e. the LP.  Regardless of what it's played back on, an LP is still cut on a lathe, with all the limitations that involves in HF headroom, stereo separation, LF extension and so on. Then, it goes through several intermediate steps with quality loss at each step, before ending up with the stamper that actually produces the LP.  Stampers have a finite life, so the earliest pressed LPs will be better than the last ones when the stamper is worn.

If you've ever heard a lacquer played straight off the cutting lathe, you'll know how much quality loss there is in the production process, and the lacquer is still not as good as the tape that made it as the cutting process is anything but transparent.

Digital, on the other hand has zero quality loss in the production process, the CD or download is exactly the same as the master in the factory. That record companies have chosen to debase the currency by ruining CD's potential is a matter of regret, but that doesn't take anything away from the capabilities of the medium.

Yes, you can indulge your hobby by choosing the individual components, or you can use something perfectly competent like an SL1210, but what you're playing is the problem, not what you play it on.

S.

 
If the recording in the studio is digital then the production is digital to CD the there will be no loss, the
digital process has loss right from the beginning of the process ?

If the recording in the studio is analogue then production is digital to vinyl or CD then you get loss.

Is it not true that digitization chops the tops of the sound wave, its compressed so therefore lossy ?

I do not disagree with your analogy about the lathe cutting, there will be loss right through the analogue
process but less than through the digital process.

They change the stampers after so many pressings hence the difference in stamper numbers
in the run out area on records ? Or they should do if the correct vinyl process is followed.

Call yourselves music lovers ? Just listen to yourselves. Blasphemous. Pah !

Digital is soul less and you all know it, you just won't admit it to yourselves  :)

Anybody who no longer wants their vinyl can find a loving home for it right here  :D
Share some with me.

 

SergeAuckland

Certified Measurist
Wammer
May 6, 2008
18,607
1,915
173
Bury St Edmunds, UK
AKA
Serge
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
If the recording in the studio is digital then the production is digital to CD the there will be no loss, the
digital process has loss right from the beginning of the process ?

If the recording in the studio is analogue then production is digital to vinyl or CD then you get loss.

Is it not true that digitization chops the tops of the sound wave, its compressed so therefore lossy ?

I do not disagree with your analogy about the lathe cutting, there will be loss right through the analogue
process but less than through the digital process.

They change the stampers after so many pressings hence the difference in stamper numbers
in the run out area on records ? Or they should do if the correct vinyl process is followed.

Share some with me.
No! It's not true, at all, ever! When an analogue signal is digitised in an ADC, there must ALWAYS be some headroom left exactly so that there is no risk of clipping. Clipping is also what happens with analogue recording, so no difference there. 

What you may be think of is that some time back in the mid 1990s, it was felt desirable for CDs to sound louder, so first heavy compression then limiting was used, and later still, signals were allowed to clip as that gave a raw, hard sound which some thought preferable as it was LOUD. This has nothing to do with the capabilities of the CD medium, but in the way record companies abused the system in the 'loudness wars' where every new CD had to be louder than the ones before. 

Digital recording is as transparent as it's possible to be, with none of the limitations of analogue tape. No wow and flutter, no treble crushing, no generation loss on copying, completely flat frequency response, distortion lower by orders of magnitude, far lower noise without needing extra processing such as Dolby and very important for producing finished recordings, non-destructive editing. 

S

 
M

MJ.

Guest
What you may be think of is that some time back in the mid 1990s, it was felt desirable for CDs to sound louder, so first heavy compression then limiting was used, and later still, signals were allowed to clip as that gave a raw, hard sound which some thought preferable as it was LOUD. This has nothing to do with the capabilities of the CD medium, but in the way record companies abused the system in the 'loudness wars' where every new CD had to be louder than the ones before. 
I think this is why many people think that CD quality isn't all that Serge, as many of their CD's (and mine) suffer from exactly this.

 

SergeAuckland

Certified Measurist
Wammer
May 6, 2008
18,607
1,915
173
Bury St Edmunds, UK
AKA
Serge
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
I think this is why many people think that CD quality isn't all that Serge, as many of their CD's (and mine) suffer from exactly this.
It's a problem of perception. People confuse the implementation with the capability of the medium. 

Analogue FM suffered from this before CD, (and still does), which is why CDs got louder as people apparently complained the CD they bought didn't sound like they heard it on the radio, so CDs were made to sound like heavily compressed FM......madness, but there you are. 

To paraphrase H.L. Mencklen, Nobody ever went broke underestimating the public.

S

 

Cas

The Scarecrow
Wammer
Mar 20, 2006
3,112
589
158
In a field
AKA
Chris
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
well that's where you assume wrongly
At least get my words correct not take out the bit you want :eek:ff:

If the recording in the studio is digital then the production is digital to CD then there will be no loss, the
digital process has loss right from the beginning of the process ?

I am getting out of this thread now, we all have our ideas and things we have read.

Who is right, who is wrong ? In the end we all prefer what our ears and brain hear.

To me CD sound is clinical ans has no life, whereas vinyl has a warmth and sounds
more detailed and alive and has a bigger soundstage.

I do listen to both.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

wizons

Wammer
Wammer
Apr 19, 2009
1,772
22
0
Bucks
AKA
Paul
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
Of course, personal preference is important, but the point of my OP is to point out that the 'needle drop' 24/96 digital conversion on the Blu-ray Disc is clearly inferior to Steve Wilson's remaster. Given his reputation, I would expect him to use an excellent turntable and vinyl disc etc from which to make the copy. I don't have a vinyl setup and so can't comment on listening to vinyl directly. 

 

mycogen

Wammer
Wammer
Mar 29, 2015
71
1
0
Málaga
AKA
Lorenzo
I have hundred of vinyls, mainly japanese pressings. They all sound superb (without clics, pops and any other issues), much better than its CDs. I also have 500-600 cds, some of them sound amazing, some very decent and others awful. The same horrible cd sounds incredible in the LP version. So I conclude that the mastering and the condition of the original masters is essential. Also the engineer. Of course I also own horrible Lps. I'm afraid it's is the eternal discussion, like cables, tubes vs ss...

 
  • Upvote
Reactions: marlew

Cas

The Scarecrow
Wammer
Mar 20, 2006
3,112
589
158
In a field
AKA
Chris
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
Of course, personal preference is important, but the point of my OP is to point out that the 'needle drop' 24/96 digital conversion on the Blu-ray Disc is clearly inferior to Steve Wilson's remaster. Given his reputation, I would expect him to use an excellent turntable and vinyl disc etc from which to make the copy. I don't have a vinyl setup and so can't comment on listening to vinyl directly. 
Well I for one have made a big mistake here, I read your OP as that the vinyl version was not sounding so good when you
played it, when infact it is a vinyl to CD transfer that is the problem, so you have not actually heard the vinyl version on a turntable
that the transfer was made from ?

Seems to me that maybe just maybe something got lost in the tranfser somewhere from analogue to digital, without hearing the source who is to say.

Sorry I read your OP incorrectly :doh:

 

Simon_LDT

Wammer
New Wammer
May 29, 2016
12
3
0
Coventry
AKA
Simon
Of course, personal preference is important, but the point of my OP is to point out that the 'needle drop' 24/96 digital conversion on the Blu-ray Disc is clearly inferior to Steve Wilson's remaster. Given his reputation, I would expect him to use an excellent turntable and vinyl disc etc from which to make the copy. I don't have a vinyl setup and so can't comment on listening to vinyl directly. 
As far as I know, SW isn't the one that does the needledrops - He just does the remixing and mastering. I wouldn't rely too much on the quality of needledrops in sets like these. The recent Rush vinyl re-issues had needledrop downloads bundled and most of them suffered with problems. The record labels just don't do it properly for what ever reason. Think they see it as a novelty.

 

Juancho

Wammer
Wammer
Jan 22, 2014
1,597
573
158
London
AKA
David
The attachment is from the back of a Satchmo album from the sixties. It sounds glorious and there's obvious pride in the description of the recording equipment  and claimed frequency response!

View attachment lps.pdf

 
  • Upvote
Reactions: Blzebub

Forum statistics

Threads
113,444
Messages
2,451,263
Members
70,783
Latest member
reg66

Latest Articles