I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You

[RGA]

Love it

I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You

[Feanor]

Love it

I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You

Turntable as small phallus compensation.

Tubes too, I guess

[texlle]

Is that what we really sound like to the rest of the A/V world? Hmm, I figured we were a bit more subtle than that.

[JohnMichael]

That was fun. Of course I feel much the same way about owning a turntable. No compressed formats for me.

[frenchmon]

I love it!

You can leave your “dope new albums” in the back of your aging economy car, because I know the difference between an album and a CD.

Priceless!

[3db]

I own a turntable because I'm getting older and its too difficult to read the liner notes of CDs

[dingus]

I do not harbor lossy audio in my home. I own a turntable.

compression is introduced into the recording at the mic, so all audio formats suffer, its just that some do so more than others. when comparing vinyl to cd, the amount of compression is determined by the mastering\engineering and not the physical media.

[3db]

compression is introduced into the recording at the mic, so all audio formats suffer, its just that some do so more than others. when comparing vinyl to cd, the amount of compression is determined by the mastering\engineering and not the physical media.

That is incorrect. The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart because of the physical limitations of vinyl. However, other than classical music and maybe jazz, the remaining genres on CD suffer from the commerical loudness wars and thus reduces the amount of dynamic range available.

[bobsticks]

"I’d love to tell you about them, but then they would become instantly passé and detestable."


Now I'm going to spend my day wondering which Rave Rec contributor leads a double life penning hipster miniblogs for the Campus Socialite...

[dingus]

compression is introduced into the recording at the mic, so all audio formats suffer, its just that some do so more than others. when comparing vinyl to cd, the amount of compression is determined by the mastering\engineering and not the physical media.

That is incorrect. The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart because of the physical limitations of vinyl. However, other than classical music and maybe jazz, the remaining genres on CD suffer from the commerical loudness wars and thus reduces the amount of dynamic range available.

i was talking about compression...

cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl, but that is not the same thing as dynamic range, which is also dependent on the mastering\engineering. because of its wider bandwidth cd has the ability for wider dynamic range over vinyl, but afaik the vinyl format is capable of retaining a recording without introducing further compression.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

i was talking about compression...

cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl, but that is not the same thing as dynamic range, which is also dependent on the mastering\engineering. because of its wider bandwidth cd has the ability for wider dynamic range over vinyl, but afaik the vinyl format is capable of retaining a recording without introducing further compression.

CD has that benefit as well, that benefit is not exclusive to vinyl. Each choice has its subjective pluses and minuses. After listening to my master tapes, and comparing it to a vinyl pressing and CD, I felt the CD sounded more like my master than the vinyl did. After being able to do this kind of comparison on my stuff, and other folks stuff as well, I have come to the conclusion that Vinyl may be pleasing to the ear, but it is not accurate to the source. Since vinyl affectionados have no real comparison, they rely solely on how it sounds to the ear.

Now to be clear, I am not thrilled about the Redbook CD format. As it stands, it does not have enough resolution to fully represent instruments with ultra high frequency harmonics. Vinyl does. However as we go up in sample rate(and out of the Redbook spec) that difference is completely erased. By the time we get to 24/192khz, then vinyl sounds more colored that digital.

[Smokey]

Now to be clear, I am not thrilled about the Redbook CD format. As it stands, it does not have enough resolution to fully represent instruments with ultra high frequency harmonics. Vinyl does.

I don't know Sir TT, but that might be giving vinyl too much credit

Notwithstanding the fact that high frequency harmonics (which have low enegry) are probably buried in the groove due to excessive LP surface noise, the builtin RIAA low pass filter circuitry also take another wack at those harmonics by attenuating and filtering them out.

[3db]

i was talking about compression...

cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl, but that is not the same thing as dynamic range, which is also dependent on the mastering\engineering. because of its wider bandwidth cd has the ability for wider dynamic range over vinyl, but afaik the vinyl format is capable of retaining a recording without introducing further compression.

Dynamic range of CDs is far greater than that of vinyl. Its a non arguement. However, you are correct that the recording engineer ultimately determines how much of that range is used. In classical music, a recording on CD will wipe the floor of its vinyl counterpart in dynamic range. The differences in loudness between the loudest and quitest part is far greater than it is on vinyl.

[E-Stat]

The differences in loudness between the loudest and quitest part is far greater than it is on vinyl.

Some of that is "false" dynamic range at the bottom end of the scale. The Redbook standard 16 bit word length is insufficient to render the lowest level signals without going deaf (losing detail). The challenge is that you don't get 16 bit resolution at the lowest levels because not all of the bits are firing. Even in the presence of surface noise, however, you can hear detail on analog at lower levels where below a certain threshold, 16/44 ignores it.

As Sir T pointed out, that is solved with when one improves the word length to 24 or greater. Higher sampling rate solves the HF extension limitation.

[thekid]

I own 3 turntables so I guess I am 3 times better...........
But according to many because I also cassettes and laser discs I am not as smart as I think.........

[RGA]

Smokey - please source the link of graphs.

[RGA]

It would also help if we had real world comparisons.

For instance when I compare I try where possible to list the comparison. So for example:

Madonna Immaculate Collection song "Vogue" on LP versus the same on the CD via CA CD6 versus NAD 533/Rega 250 Arm Shure M97xE or AN TT2/Arm3/IQ 3.

This way when the CD wins or the vinyl wins you have some idea as to what was compared and you can somewhat crosscheck back and say I get why you came to that opinion because I heard the same or similar combo and agree that the CD or the LP was clearly better.

I never quite understand the arguments over these technologies. If I have 100 albums recorded on CD and LP and 50 albums sound better on CD and 50 sound better on vinyl then I need both to get the best out of the recorded music.

I personally have found that replay is an important factor via the turntable and the phono stage. They're more finicky and big name or prices doesn't necessarily mean good. CD replay is less substantial in playback quality in comparison to vinyl replay.

Changing a $70 cart to $100 cart was a massive improvement - going from a $400 CD player to a $700 CD player isn't nearly as noticeable and not likely to pass a DBT - with the carts you would.

The info is fairly important because plenty of people own a $100 Fisher or Sony turntable with a misaligned cart and then proclaim vinyl to suck. That is considerably different than using a Voyd Reference and Helius arm with an Io Gold cartridge and S4 step up transformer. I tried plenty of the Duals and used cheapies of the world as well as project and Regas and Oracles and Linns and the classic 124. I wasn't convinced by any of them.

[E-Stat]

Smokey - please source the link of graphs.

That's simply the RIAA de-emphasis curve. Understand that the signal is boosted initially by an identically inverse curve. Which does not support Smokey's rather simplistic claim.

The top octave is where vinyl can be superior in harmonic integrity to Redbook.

[Smokey]

That's simply the RIAA de-emphasis curve. Understand that the signal is boosted initially by an identically inverse curve. Which does not support Smokey's rather simplistic claim.

RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis curve standard was created to work with audible range of 20-20k hz window, not harmonics that can go beyound 20 khz. Enhnace RIAA curve (red) was suggested later on to address that issue, but it was never standardized.

The top octave is where vinyl can be superior in harmonic integrity to Redbook.

That would be true if it wasn't for excessive noise (S/N ratio) associated with LP. I download alot of hi-bit MP3 from internet (Usenet) and can tell right away if source is vinyl. And I let you guess what gives it away

[E-Stat]

RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis curve standard was created to work with audible range of 20-20k hz window, not harmonics that can go beyound 20 khz. Enhnace RIAA curve (red) was suggested later on to address that issue, but it was never standardized.

And? How many MC cartridges with significant output above 20k have you heard? Is theory your only guide?

That would be true if it wasn't for excessive noise (S/N ratio) associated with LP. I download alot of hi-bit MP3 from internet (Usenet) and can tell right away if source is vinyl. And I let you guess what gives it away

Let's hear it for all the folks who record into MP3 with their crappy changers!

[hifitommy]

no, i am LUCKIER than you.

This is incorrect: The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart. cd is limited to its top limit after which it is ALL distortion, and its lower limit which cannot capture sounds below the noise floor. analog can go both over the redline with minor diminution in fidelity and below the noise floor where sounds are still captured.

analog also will yield faster soft to loud transitions and has a greater startle or jump factor. transients also are better captured in analog format than redbook as sometimes the ictus of the transient signal falls after the beginning of one of the 44.1k samples and thereby loses some of its life.

the luckier part is that i never crumbled to the onslaught of digital with the release of redbook cd playback. i kept my LPs and waited until good sounding affordable cd players were available. i then found out that the same music recording on vinyl sounded better and more real than its cd counterpart (most of the time).

its not like i don't enjoy my cd collection. they became more valuable when i got my first sacd player due to upsampling and its effect on the sound. that and the fact that sacd sounds much closer to analog than rbcd. i am ready to accept the hi-rez downloads when it becomes a turnkey operation and the software prices fall to affordable levels. i would hope that ALL releases will be done this way thereby reducing the production cost.

"cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl" i can oly see this statement as incorrect. the upper limit of rbcd is ostensibly 22k and realistically 19k whereas vinyl can go to approximately 40k as was required by CD4 records. its not to say we can hear that but we can hear the freedom from stress when the capability is there.

here come the flames.

[Pat D]

no, i am LUCKIER than you.

This is incorrect: The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart. cd is limited to its top limit after which it is ALL distortion, and its lower limit which cannot capture sounds below the noise floor. analog can go both over the redline with minor diminution in fidelity and below the noise floor where sounds are still captured.

analog also will yield faster soft to loud transitions and has a greater startle or jump factor. transients also are better captured in analog format than redbook as sometimes the ictus of the transient signal falls after the beginning of one of the 44.1k samples and thereby loses some of its life.

the luckier part is that i never crumbled to the onslaught of digital with the release of redbook cd playback. i kept my LPs and waited until good sounding affordable cd players were available. i then found out that the same music recording on vinyl sounded better and more real than its cd counterpart (most of the time).

its not like i don't enjoy my cd collection. they became more valuable when i got my first sacd player due to upsampling and its effect on the sound. that and the fact that sacd sounds much closer to analog than rbcd. i am ready to accept the hi-rez downloads when it becomes a turnkey operation and the software prices fall to affordable levels. i would hope that ALL releases will be done this way thereby reducing the production cost.

"cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl" i can oly see this statement as incorrect. the upper limit of rbcd is ostensibly 22k and realistically 19k whereas vinyl can go to approximately 40k as was required by CD4 records. its not to say we can hear that but we can hear the freedom from stress when the capability is there.

here come the flames.

You are entitled to your preferences. However, you are not correct in stating that CD cannot reproduce anything below the digital noise floor of -90.31 dB. Some audio writers thought that, and some may still believe it. However, Stereophile has routinely measured the low level linearity of CD players down to -120 dB. How is it done? With dither. A dithered signal can resolve well below -90 dB. Here is one example. Check out Fig. 5.

Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player Measurements | Stereophile.com

[E-Stat]

However, Stereophile has routinely measured the low level linearity of CD players down to -120 dB.

That must be right. Just look at the square wave response at -90db that is virtually indistinguishable from its original!

[hifitommy]

it seems that you are being snide, Ralph.

[E-Stat]

it seems that you are being snide, Ralph.

I prefer "facetious", implying humor. Hence the smiley face.

That square wave is about as mangled as you can get. Which illustrates your point pretty well I think!