back into vinyl...but....

[dbrahms]

started getting back in vinyl but before i go out and buy a new turntable and phono stage, does it matter that my receiver is only rated from 20hz-20khz freq response ? I always understood one of the main reasons to stick with vinyl is to get the info that CD doesnt have...ie: freq's above or below the CD realm of 20hz-20khz....Am i wasting my money by getting a new turntable with the existing receiver i have ? which by the way is a Harman Kardon AVR 510 that can be seen at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000051SDP/ref=e_de_a_smtpd/002-4852484-3419213?v=glance&s=electronics&vi=tech-data

[92135011]

Dont think its the frequency. I would say its the detail. The life and breath of the music.
Besides, many budget cartridges only respond to 20 hz anyways. So you dont really have to worry. 20hz is pretty damn low anyways. So unless you got speakers that can handle it, then there's no point. In fact...lots of subwoofers dont even handle down to 20hz. I guess we shouldnt really call them subwoofers then eh?

Being a newbie in this field, the information here could be inaccurate, but I hope it is.

[DMK]

started getting back in vinyl but before i go out and buy a new turntable and phono stage, does it matter that my receiver is only rated from 20hz-20khz freq response ? I always understood one of the main reasons to stick with vinyl is to get the info that CD doesnt have...ie: freq's above or below the CD realm of 20hz-20khz....Am i wasting my money by getting a new turntable with the existing receiver i have ? which by the way is a Harman Kardon AVR 510 that can be seen at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000051SDP/ref=e_de_a_smtpd/002-4852484-3419213?v=glance&s=electronics&vi=tech-data

20hz-20khz is the theoretical range of human hearing, not the frequency response of CD. CD's go up to 22.05khz and I don't think I've heard the low frequency limit (I think it's DC but not sure). But even though humans can only supposedly "hear" down to 20hz, we can feel the vibrations of lower frequencies. And there's research into whether we can hear higher than 20khz. There is proof of musical content above that level but the debate is whether or not we can hear it or whether, like subsonic frequencies, we perceive it on some other level.

Vinyl playback is theoretically limited, at least according to the measurements we now use. In fact, those that prefer digital often tout those numbers to support their position.

[stratman672001]

Just snag yourself a good tt (Music Halls are fantastic) and a Shure V15VxMR cart (the Audio Technica AT440ML makes a good 75% alternative). Have it set up properly and you should be able to blow the doors off most CD players. The only thing CD's have over vinyl is that you don't have the risk end of side mistracking (but aligned properly you shouldn't have that problem). May be able to find yourself a good used Rega on audiogon as well.

[Sealed]

started getting back in vinyl but before i go out and buy a new turntable and phono stage, does it matter that my receiver is only rated from 20hz-20khz freq response ? I always understood one of the main reasons to stick with vinyl is to get the info that CD doesnt have...ie: freq's above or below the CD realm of 20hz-20khz....Am i wasting my money by getting a new turntable with the existing receiver i have ? which by the way is a Harman Kardon AVR 510 that can be seen at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000051SDP/ref=e_de_a_smtpd/002-4852484-3419213?v=glance&s=electronics&vi=tech-data

Do not worry about that aspect. The main difference in cd vs lp is not just frequency response. It is the fact that on an LP, the sound is one continuous analog waveform. A CD is sampled. Folks can quote Nyquist theory until they suck all the air out of a room and they pass out, but CD is a "lossy" portion of analog.

The Lp has a more "whole" sound. This is manifested tonally, timbrally, and in the way the soundstage and air is presented. I recently set up a Rega P-3/RB300 with a decent cart (this was all for $400 finished) and it delivers more than any affordable cd player does. For the most part, Cd's sound thinner, more mechanical and colder than LP's or real music for that matter. Lp's have no brickwall filter to block frequencies over 20khz like cd players do. Some cd players use tube to help warm up the sound, but in reality, there is a degree of euphonic color-not true "analog' warmth. It's not a bad thing, but it's not vinyl.

I was listening to some 200 gram "Audio Fidelity" pressings of Al Hirt. These were made between 1957-1960. The realism communicated by the LP exceeds the cd playback. In fact, there is an online abx/dbt that was conducted between the nearly $20k LINN cd-12 and the Lp-12. The vast majority of listeners (over 75%) preferred the vinyl. After listening to vinyl intensively, cd sounds lacking to me. And that is amazing to some folks, because I am talking about a recording that is almost 50 years old!

FWIW: the frequency response of the audio fidelity LP is 16hz- 22khz. The music hall deck is a great value, and look into rega also. Carts make huge differences, so you can always upgrade.

The receiver doesn't suddenly stop exactly at 20khz, but it does start to roll off.

[DMK]

FWIW: the frequency response of the audio fidelity LP is 16hz- 22khz.

Where did you get this information? Is that theoretical or practical? I have a test record but I can't hear that high so I don't know if it plays to that frequency. If true, that pretty much blows CD's "wider frequency range" theory out of the water, no?

I do own a phono cartridge that was measured out to 30khz but I don't think vinyl can support that high a frequency.

[92135011]

Here's another interesting question.
Turntables range from a couple hundred to a couple hundred thousand. How does the cost justify? What is different about these expensive turntables compared to the cheaper ones?

Also, Why are TTs belt driven rather than just connecting a motor with gears?
Belts at the end do deteriorate much faster than gears.

[DMK]

Here's another interesting question.
Turntables range from a couple hundred to a couple hundred thousand. How does the cost justify? What is different about these expensive turntables compared to the cheaper ones?

Also, Why are TTs belt driven rather than just connecting a motor with gears?
Belts at the end do deteriorate much faster than gears.

I've never heard of a turntable costing a "couple hundred thousand". The most expensive I'm aware of is the Rockport Sirius at roughly $74K. Ask our resident poster Sir Terrence the Terrible if he thinks his is worth that! I'm told it's worlds better than most tables. I've never heard it but I have heard the Walker Proscenium at $30K and it made my former $8.5K turntable hang it's tonearm in shame! :)

There are many differences in the more expensive ones - better bearings, superior isolation from outside noise, platters made from material that bonds better with the LP, quieter motors, etc. I've found that even though the law of diminishing returns is in evidence with turntables, it doesn't kick in as quickly as it does in, say, CD players. Isolation from noise is critical and it's expensive! When it works as it should, say goodbye to your CD player and tell it you'll be back in touch when you don't have time to clean your records!

Belts are quieter because they decouple the motor from the chassis as opposed to direct drives. Owners of direct drives will always prefer higher output cartridges because the low output ones are drowned out by the motor noise in many cases. And belts do wear out but it takes a few years. Why use belts in an automobile?

All this doesn't mean you can't find a good sounding turntable for little money. I've always felt the Music Hall MMF2.1 was a decent little table once you took the supplied cartridge off and upgraded it. Nothing wrong with the table. Can it be bettered? Sure, but it has no glaring faults. I like it.

[Sealed]

Where did you get this information? Is that theoretical or practical? I have a test record but I can't hear that high so I don't know if it plays to that frequency. If true, that pretty much blows CD's "wider frequency range" theory out of the water, no?

I do own a phono cartridge that was measured out to 30khz but I don't think vinyl can support that high a frequency.

The audio fidelity liner notes from the 200 gram pressing of Al Hirt reads as follows:

Frequency response: 16cps to 22,000 cps" the recording date is 1957.

No kidding. :eek:

This is one magnificent LP. :D

Cd *never* had treble like vinyl. There is a brick wall filter so cd cannot reproduce much over 20hz. Only bass is the issue. I understand one cd claims 7hz bass, but there isn't much that can reproduce that...

There is a report out in a recent hifi+ (or other British mag) that some cd bass has been measured to have 30% distortion. The article says this.

[DMK]

The audio fidelity liner notes from the 200 gram pressing of Al Hirt reads as follows:

Frequency response: 16cps to 22,000 cps" the recording date is 1957.

No kidding. :eek:

This is one magnificent LP. :D

Cd *never* had treble like vinyl. There is a brick wall filter so cd cannot reproduce much over 20hz. Only bass is the issue. I understand one cd claims 7hz bass, but there isn't much that can reproduce that...

There is a report out in a recent hifi+ (or other British mag) that some cd bass has been measured to have 30% distortion. The article says this.

And yet another myth purported by the digital crowd withers and dies! Outstanding! Eventually the measurement crowd will catch up to the superiority of vinyl.

[hifitommy]

dbrahms: "always understood one of the main reasons to stick with vinyl is to get the info that CD doesnt have...ie: freq's above or below the CD realm of 20hz-20khz....Am i wasting my money by getting a new turntable with the existing receiver i have ?"

it seems youre intimidated by specs. they are only numbers on paper and many times dont mean much. frequency response specs, distortion specs and the like are many times advertising hype.

nothing to fear about vinyl playing. youre about to let yourself in on some VERY satisfying experiences.

as for all the hoopla about frequency response re: cd vs vinyl vs whatever, read and consider. the more you do, the more youll see that some people have some unknown axe to grind. the reason for wide frequency response in audio is to provide that headroom and avoid restriction. this is why vinyl and sacd have a more relaxed presentation. vinyl has the capability of up to about 40kHz, proven by the ability of cd4 cartridges being able to track the 40k carrier signal on the vinyl that carried the discrete rear channels.

[Audie Oghaisle]

...turntables used idler wheels and the like to transmit power and change speeds of the platter...Carts of that time period were a. mono and b. limited in freq response...as cartridges evolved, motor noise(as vibration)became an issue...older gear actually had what was known as a "rumble filter" or a low freq filter to attenuate those freqs...a belt drive TT is designed to isolate the platter/record/cart/tonearm combination from motor vibes and other airborne/ structure borne sources of rumble and feedback...

Direct drive TTs came about when drive motors were developed that could reliably rotate at playback RPMs...still many prefer belt drive over DD...

Gears would transmit even more noise.

Audie