Is my cartridge bad? Question about compression and frequencies between CD and LP

The short version - it seems at around 16-18KHz, the dBs of my needledrops are way lower than they should be when comparing to the CD version. Bad needle/player or something I just don't understand about compression or something even more non-understandable? Gory details below.

I have recently gotten back into vinyl but when listnening to my needledrops, it seems like they need more treble. I started looking at Audacity's Plot Spectrum option of my needledrops versus a CD of the same recording/mastering and found some oddities. To start, let's look at Epica's The Essence of Silence, a Nuclear Blast release from last year that by all accounts uses the same master for LP and CD. The CD is on the left, my needledrop on the right.

Some things I think are interesting, besides the obvious brickwalling of the CD, is that the high frequencies seem to go down around 15KHz.
CD @10KHz = -40dB, LP @10 KHz = -49 dB, difference of 9
CD@15KHz = -48dB, LP@15KHz = -60dB, difference of 12
CD@17KHz = -51dB, LP @17KHz = -68dB, difference of 17
CD@20KHz = -62 , LP@20KHZ = -77dB, difference of 15

I have noted this phonomenon on pretty much everything I do, I expect there to be a difference between the dB of a CD versus my needledrop but shouldn't the difference be constant between frequencies? So I am wondering if my needle is bad (I do have a cheap AT-LP60USB player) or if the obviously huge compression of the CD has something to do with this. I also tried a comparison of Genesis' Eleventh Earl of Mar with the 1994 remastered CD versus a needledrop of the first pressing LP to see if it was just compression as this CD comes from the days before brickwalling. CD again on the left.

The same problem exists. There is a 2 dB difference between the CD and LP at 5KHz, a 5 dB difference at 10KHz, and a 9dB difference at 16-17KHz, back down to 3dB difference at 20KHz. Admittedly this could be somewhat comparing apples and oranges since the mastering could be slightly different but it seems my player is not reproducing 16-18KHz or so well. Any help analyzing this would be appreciated.

 

It could be because, even where an LP uses the same mastering as the CD , the engineer who cuts the LP will often roll off the top end, either to avoid the danger of damaging the cutting head or to prevent sibilance distortion on playback.

But much more likely, it's simply your cartridge. It's just a fact of life that MM cartridges don't have anything like a flat frequency response and yours evidently rolls off quite a lot at the top end. That's very common - some roll off while others are the opposite and have a big hump towards the top end. People tend to experiment with different cartridges until they find one they like, meaning it has a frequency response that suits their preferences, but it still won't be flat. If you want flat, you can experiment with cartridge loading and get fairly close to it through much of the frequency range, but you'll never get flat from 20Hz to 20 kHz like you get from a CD player.

 

If you want "flat" get a SHURE V15; Type III's about as "flat" as it gets

 

it's your turntable/cart/preamp/ADC combo, you won't get perfection for $99 USD.

 

Question is; can you actually hear the differences ? If the answer is ¨no, I just noticed it from Audacity's graphics¨, forget about it. 16 khz and up only a bat could bother about.

 

It appears not, I will save some money and try again.

Something sounded a little off to me which is why I started looking at it in Audacity so much to begin with. You make a good point though, I should take a hearing test and see if I can even hear above 16KHz, maybe the problem is something else entirely.

 

I don't see what frequency you're sampling at....there zero (fidelity related)point in a needldrop at less than 48khz....but, to do it right, you need to use 88.2 or 96khz for the capture--then reduce that to whatever you want to listen to.

Ideal bang for the buck (size) is to capture at 24/96 and reduce it to 16/48 to listen.

 

Hold the hearing test. If your charts are any guide, you're rolling off well before 15kHz. The trouble is, looking at your purple charts, you're using a linear scale instead of the normal log scale and that disguises the full impact of what's happening. If you look closely, though, it appears that you start rolling off quite soon after you pass 1kHz and in the second chart you're already 6dB down by the time you get to 10kHz. The first chart is even worse.

So it's your cartridge that needs testing, not your ears.

 

Could be the cartridge or an incorrect RIAA equalisation curve in the phono section.

 

I see two potential problems occurring.

The first is that the CD and LP mastering are different. The CD spectrogram reveals compression, which tends to lift the higher frequencies to unnatural levels. The more compressed the signal, the louder and more dense and sometimes brighter it will sound. Compression isn't necessarily bad, a little can go a long way while preserving the dynamics and detail in a music program. The amount of compression that sounds "right" depends on the type of music being processed. Compression becomes excessive as fatigue sets in after several minutes at high volume. High compression (pop R&B and Rock genres) always sounds louder (because it is) and initially perceived as more energetic and exciting. This is a temporary "high" that quickly wears off after several minutes, especially at high volumes. The ear and mind can become accustomed to excessive compression if that's all that a person listens to. So, then, uncompressed music will sound inordinately weak and thin, and lacking body. The cure is to just turn up the volume ...the loudness control

The second factor and more significant I think, is that most likely the USB table you have, comes equipped with a conical type stylus. This type of stylus rolls off the high frequency spectrum, and by increasing magnitudes, resulting in a sharp falloff at 20kHz.

My recommendation is to first invest in a better cartridge with an elliptical or line contact stylus. The Shure M-97 XE would be a good starter cartridge. They can be found online for as low as $85.00, and do require a fair amount of break in time (approx 100 hrs) to really come alive. I also suggest a turntable upgrade if budget allows. The cheap USB turntables just play records, that's about it, but there is no magic to be found!

 

My the CD Frequency Analysis looks nasty! No subtlety, compressed and no doubt including sonics you wouldn't care to hear. What sounds better? I'd guess its the needle drop?

 

Looks like you are using an album which NUclear Blast cut from a CD. This is why so much new vinyl sucks the big one - period. There is no analog sound to an album recorded digitally, mastered digital then cut to vinyl. Nothing analog about it.

If you want to compare then you should be using an older album which was recorded analog. Then later properly remastered for CD. There are lots of classics to choose from like Fleetwood mac, Floyd etc. Might not be your music tastes but you take an analog classic album like Rumors and you now have a proper measuring stick. Of course you do not use the latest vinyl reissue but an old copy that is truly analog. Available cheap. Then a new issue CD. This album has been mastered right on both formats. Now what do you see? Again do not use a new vinyl as that has been cut from a digital archive of the source. You want a real analog to digital comparison not digital to cheap digital copy.

Right now you are using a poorly cut album which used the CD as source and that always ends in a fuzzy/lifeless vinyl. Total no no yet the growing trend. I do not buy new vinyl anymore becuase often all they do is cut from CD. I can just play the CD myself thru a DAC of my choice at home.

 

I guess it's a sign of the times that a $100 record player is being subjected to this kind of analysis.
Yeah, your cartridge is bad. So is the whole "vinyl is magic sounding" myth. It's sad but true,
a cd sounds better than these entry level players.

 

Thanks for your recommendation, I will upgrade the turntable when budget allows which unfortunately will probably be a while. I checked the internet and found that I cannot upgrade the cartridge in my current cheap player so a turntable upgrade has to be the next step. Do you have any recommendations on a turntable that could use this cartridge that wouldn't break the bank?

 

I should have clarified better what year my examples came out, my second example in the first post is what you say to do here. Genesis' Eleventh Earl of Mar came out in 1976 and my examples are from what I think was a great remastered CD from 1994 and my accompanying needledrop is from an original 1976 LP. I saw the same frequency loss across higher frequencies but it wasn't as pronounced as from the brickwalled production in my first example. So it appears I definitely have a cartridge problem, I think you are right that testing with an older non-brickwalled album is more revealing.

 

To keep things reasonable, price wise, buy one of the new Teacs, they come in an amazing variety of colors, have USB output, built in phono pre, and come with a cartridge, almost surely superior to your current one. Plus, you can upgrade it to something like a VERY nice Shure M97XE for under $80 that's essentially flat across the audible spectrum (a hallmark of the better Shures). Just my $.02 but pretty good bang for your buck (under $500 with Shure upgrade)

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_063TN3...70105&awat=pla&awnw=g&awcr=59220123865&awdv=c

 

Thanks for the recommendation, looks better than the Debut Carbon which I have heard people have a lot of issues with. I'll have to ask the Mrs. for one for my birthday!

 

Whatever the answer to your problems, it's certainly not the Shure M97xE - it rolls off the top end very heavily when fitted with the stock stylus.

Shure M97xE frequency response, log scale:


Same data, linear scale:

 

No myth, I have an Audio Technica LP-120 with a standard AT95e cartridge and a CD is absolutely of no comparison.

 

Because you don't understand how to gain stage likely. There absolutely IS a comparison....is just that people don't bother to do anything beyond buy a cheap optical drive something, but a commercial disc in and hit play. If your "test" is "put on the CD then put on the vinyl and ask which you like the sound of better" without gain staging concerns at all, of course there's no comparison.

I think one is substituting "myth" for "misunderstanding". Maybe one springs from the other?

Format never brings fidelity. It's the greatest misunderstanding of all recording tech. Format is nothing but a canvas. People's expectation that vinyl or 96khz digital or SACD or whatever inherently sounds better is flawed. As an engineer, I'll tell you what more accurately delivers what I'm hearing in the studio. But, what I do in the studio might not "sound good" to you. But, the confusion that consumers have that a format imbues good or bad sound is a problem for the industry as a whole.

 

I like how the master of my lp is presented by way of my cartridge and phono pre

 

You have one LP?

 

They multiply like rabbits As do compact discs and super audio's and dvd-audio's ...

 

The only cartridge I know of that's currently available that has a near flat frequency response is a Dynavector 17D3.

 

Well, you could qualify that claim by telling us what differences you hear.