Is the DR database really accurate for vinyl?

I think this tells a lot actually.

First, the TT meter can not be trusted to give you information about masterings on vinyl. Especially when comparing it to the digital release that came out at the same time.

Second, there are people out there, no matter what proof is given that say vinyl is better than digital even though this proves that the vinyl is not as accurate to the master as the CD is. The reality is they are either used to or more comfortable with the noise, colorization and distortion that vinyl brings to the table in comparison to the accuracy that CD brings to the table. In other words the "warmth" of vinyl is more comforting than the accuracy of the CD.

The relationship between DR and vinyl noise floor if anything should skew the results in the other direction. It shouldn't make it appear more dynamic.

The relation between DR and multiple "digital conversion" steps has no bearing on the difference in DR rating between the CD and vinyl versions of the same master. Maybe the analog conversion does but certainly not any digital conversions since the only conversion left from the master is to dither and down convert the master file down from 24 bit to 16. This will not make a 4db or even a 1db difference in dynamic range.

The bottom line is don't trust what the TT meter or waveforms tell you when comparing cd to vinyl of identical releases, trust your ears! If you like the vinyl better fine but it is more than likely because you like all the added colorization noise AKA "warmth" vinyl adds to the recording not because it is truly more dynamic.

 

I watched the video. how is everyone ignoring the two sets of RIAA curves the file gets run thru....assuming they did a cut without any further tweaks. one for the cutting of the lacquer and another to reverse it during the phono amplification. those waveforms will never be 100% the same after that.

So the vinyl haters....whatever. but yes the TT meter is boarder line worthless on anything but original files.

BTW...the CD waves will be distorted too once they go thru a preamp and and amp. So its unfair to say its distorted on vinyl. The CD is just a capturing of the last distortion as it became digital. Once it goes back analog and gets further processed it will be different too. so this is a flawed statement about digital being perfect.

 

My understanding, from watching the video (and I don't agree with many assumptions made in the video but that's another issue), is that it basically says we can't trust TT meter at all... there is nothing about the supposed TT Meter "problem" that is exclusive to vinyl... the needle drop is just another digital file, if the DR calculation is affected by the file content somehow it might just as well be suffering from the same problem when calculating average DR for native digital files.

I think the main difference here about this video and the DR theme is that I have to many questions and you seem to have all the answers

Has anyone considered the possibility that the TT Meter, as a simple tool that it is, is just measuring correctly? The problem, if there is one, maybe lies elsewhere... not in the tool.


Now... Let me tell you about vinyl and "warmth". I hate "warmth"... I hate that word and how it's used... just hearing the guy say that word in the video makes me twitch in despair. There is nothing warm about my vinyl rig. Many people describe my cartridge as "CD like sounding" exactly because of that... no "warmth" to be heard from it! And that's why I love it! My turntable adds pretty much nothing to the sound and the main reason why I've decided some years ago to sell my prized CD collection (many CD's I've sold right here in SHF) and the great Linn Ikemi CD player I had at the time was not "warmth"... it was clarity, resolution, fidelity! That's what made the "click" that changed the way I hear music forever, the World of Vinyl opened the door of true High Resolution, full flat and extended frequency and transient response, realistic decays, believable spacial cues, and overall much better mastering quality. Not "warmth"! The first hint of coloration or "warmth" would make me run away the very same moment! It was the exact opposite that made it stick to me, less coloration than digital sources! All these years have gone by and I've come to realize that not everyone has this level of sensitivity to "digital artifacts" that I have... that's fine, just like some people are extremely sensitive to pitch variations on deffective LP's and I can't hear any of it hehehehe We're all different and we should accept that!

Most "warmth" (aaarrrggghhh I hate writing that word) I've heard from vinyl rigs is caused by poor choice of hardware, usually a cart that's has extreme roll-off (many do, it's a marketing strategy because many people look for that sound) or some other component that was engineered to sound like that, or simply bad component matching. "Warmth" is not inherent to vinyl... it's a trend, hardware is marketed that way and many people just follow that. I don't, many others who take this matter seriously don't do that, and it's really disturbing when someone describes anyone who listens to vinyl LP's as having a preference for coloration or "warmth"... that's simply not correct.

If you find digital sources are clean and can't hear past that, that's great for you. But it doesn't seem to work that way for many other people, and certainly not for me. I've spent years listening to digital sources always feeling something was missing. My venture into vinyl was a new thing for me, no nostalgia factor (another recurrent accusation about people who like vinyl), and the clarity and clean sound hit me like a hammer! It was COLD

 

From my experiments with EQ changes (like RIAA curves) they really only affect DR results by a db maybe two but that's only the case if there are extreme EQ changes and that isn't happening here they are pretty close.

When it comes to calling digital perfect I don't think that term was ever used. Accurate was the term used not perfect, there is a BIG difference. What was being said is that digital (hi resolution specifically) reproduces what is on the master tape much more accurately than vinyl does. Is it perfect, no but it is closer to the master than vinyl is. More to the point in this example, CD will be much closer to the master since it is 24/48 digital master not analog.

 

what experience if I may ask? is it cutting vinyl? because I am not argueing the TT is accurate. I am saying the phono, no matter how good if expensive, will probably never perfect replicate the exact opposite curves done during the cutting process. which IMO perfectly explains why there are new peak and the file is no longer appearing bricked, even when much of the sound is/was.

The problem with this whole debate is we can never see the sound of vinyl without running it thru amplification first, and even then, the sound was intentionally skewed so it has to be unskewed. CD or digital (outside of the RIAA curve) wouldn't be as nicely bricked looking if it was run thru a DAC and amplified and then run thru a ADC. The bricking would go away and a new DR would arise...however less skewed as you won't have two inherently different EQs being used as in vinyl cutting and playback. that would be the test to try. not sure how to amplify and get it back to line level "cleanly" though.

The point is, the digital file is only accurate while its in the file format. So I wouldn't say its more accurate to the master tape, as tape like vinyl can never be seen without all these variables so we don't know what that waveform technically would have looked like before the tape machine and console or anything else..including the ADC...converted it. The bricked digital is just one brief stop along the way....but its the only time in the whole process it is visible so we give it more weight.

 

Thanks ! And - Yes, exactly.

 

Well, kind of - since the vinyl was a flat transfer (apart from necessary RIAA filtering) I don't term them to be separate masters. Minor tweaks at the cut result in something that sounds very close to the digital master.

Yes, exactly. There are so many variables in vinyl cutting, playback and ripping that the "truth" the TT meter tells us is of no value, for vinyl.

(OK maybe you could use it to compare two rips from the same turntable, but the effects of RIAA filtering etc are programme - dependent so even then I'm not fully convinced)

From digital files, and with no processing ? Yes, impossible. If processing (eg. hi-pass filter) is used then the DR value could change - but again this is the meter results being skewed by something that doesn't effect the sound, not a genuine increase in musical dynamics)

It's impossible. Intersample peaks can cause a change of a point, as can mp3 encoding, but these both count as "processing".

Yes. Applying expansion, compression, EQ etc can all increase the measured "DR" values, and even sometimes increase the apparent dynamics (enhance punch, clarity etc).

BUT all these are "fake" dynamics, meaning they are processes applied to try and give the appearance of something that was missing in the first place. None of them were used in this case, afaik, though - and the meter still gives a misleading result.

Most of these can have a small effect on the measured DR value (1 or 2 points), but none of them translate to a real improvement in dynamics, although EQ might help with our perception.

Finally I'd like to say - I'm very proud of the digital master, I think it sounds excellent and certainly doesn't lack "dynamics", irrespective of how the waveform looks, or the TT meter reads. Some people might prefer a slightly less limited version, but this is the one chosen by the band from several alternatives.
That was the point of the video - the TT meter is a useful "shorthand" for comparing lossless audio files - but that's all. If you prefer a certain release on vinyl - great. But you can't "prove" that it sounds better by looking at waveforms or measuring, you can only listen.

Ian

 

Thanks for doing this Ian. I have been having this argument with people for years that there is no fool proof way to compare digital to analog like this.

This came up years ago when someone ripped a vinyl album and tried to convince that it was a different mastering, was not as loud, and had it's peaks intact. To me the flaws in these comparisons are obvious and I often wondered why these DR numbers from vinyl are given such credence.

 

Well first we are talking about a digital master not an analog one so the CD will be much closer to the digital master than the vinyl is.

Second, how do you suppose an analog tape master gets on to a hard drive to digitize it? Through amplification first (pre amplification but same issues). So when you convert an analog tape master you are capturing it through amplification so whatever colorizing an amplifier adds to the tape gets captured when digitizing it. The idea would be to get an amplifier that most accurately represents the information on that tape when transferring it to digital. Also any colorization a good amplifier (pre amp) adds to the sound of the master pales in comparison to what gets added when transferring it and then playing it back on vinyl.

Third, the point I was making is that only drastic changes in EQ affect a DR rating and usually only by a db or 2 at most not 4. I know this because I have experimented with changing EQ up to +- 15db to see how it affected the DR rating and that is what I found.

The last point is the whole point of this video is that you can't use the TT meter to determine if the vinyl is a different master than the one used on the cd or digital download and the points you make in your post prove that point. So in turn you agree with the premise of what was the point of the video whether you agree with everything that was said or not in the video.

 

I think the reason is because you can still get some information from them (stuff I've stated already on the thread). Plus, the poster on the DRD website can add comments about what they're hearing on the vinyl which is better than trying to find information on Amazon who do not separate CD And vinyl reviews.

Again, it's just a tool and not the end-all say on the SQ of an album. A DR14 LP is likely going to be more dynamic (in an audible way) than a DR9 one, the numbers usually are accurate to what I'm hearing. Usually.

Agreed about the mastering part - there's no way to know by looking at numbers. You might get an idea, MAYBE, but looking at a spectrogram (in that a lot of data above 22khz might mean a 48khz or 96khz digital source, so not a redbook CD source in that case. Maybe). But it really is a guessing game, as I've stated before. And I think that the more I do these drops, the more I realize that.

I have a few modern LP's that sound the same as the CD / lossy copy, some that sound a little better, and some that sound significantly better. Gotta go with the ears.

 

I bet if you recorded the digital file with an ADC and measured that with the TT meter it would be very close to the same number as the vinyl.

 

The whole "Vinyl is warm" thing makes me cringe.

When I was still into vinyl and had a few tables and a handful of carts, it was never warm, wooly, fuzzy, rolled off etc. NONE of that stuff that I see many regularly say.
I think many or some merely try to emulate that sound, as they like it. Rolled off top end, and boosted mid bass.

My table with an OM-30 was crystal clear, detailed, smooth and natural, with a bit of top end boost. Never warm or colored. Very open and clean, and in fact usually sounded Quite like the CD version of the same music. Im talking on good mastered CDs before the remaster wars of loudness.

To me the goal was to have a record that sounded like a CD. Not the other way around. Sure vinyl and CD both have some minor issues related to their designs etc, but tonality wise they should almost always be similar.

 

I've actually done that test before (some time back) - the numbers didn't match up. But keep in mind that I didn't EQ the digital file whereas the RIAA curve does it's own EQ.

Now if I EQ'd the digital file, like how I did yesterday, then the numbers get a lot closer.

 

What has also not been discussed, is the effect "out of phase" sound levels affect apparent and measured DR, and sound quality.

If one uses a scope and looks at the "difference" of the 2 channels, in other words only the out of phase information, a record always has a decent bit more of this information as compared to a CD.

I'm not sure how it factors in to the overall sound or sound levels, but it has to somehow change something.

It is quite apparent when playing a record VS a cd and listening to ONLY the rear channels in surround mode.

A record has a wealth of out of phase signals, (( it also brings out a lot of the noise signal also )) compared to CD.

I never see this very noticeable issue mentioned much.

 

I never quite understood the term "warm" myself - I'm assuming it's tape hiss / a bit higher treble / less "clinical" like I would hear with some CD's, but maybe I'm thinking of it incorrectly?

Example: Some classical. Was listening to a needledrop yesterday of Coriolan Overture (Reiner) and I was enjoying that tape hiss and higher end, like it felt more real / more engaging. Some classical CD's I've heard have extra NR added that kill all the background noise, but also seem to suck some of the life out of the recording as well. Of course pops/clicks are a distraction but I clean those up somewhat. So, in the case of something like my Nathan Milstein LP that I own, I don't want it to sound like the CD as the CD had NR added to it.

I just want it to sound better. If it sounds better, then it was worth doing -- that goes for modern recordings as well.

 

Well the question would be how much that would affect a DR rating? I'm not sure it would affect it as dramatically as 4db but maybe.

 

Agreed. The question however is what if that same mastering was available on CD? My guess is you may like the CD version better.

 

Sorry, but it's a completely fair criticism. I have produced and engineered many recordings, and I prefer to have them mastered with no digital compression/limiting whatsoever. I see (and hear) zero benefit to it. If a mastering engineer wants to use such compression/limiting on certain recordings, for whatever reasons, that's their business. There's nothing to argue about here - that's my preference, let me have it. Feel free to apologize for the use of digital compression/limiting all you want, fine by me, but please leave my name out of your defense.

 

Hi Ian, thanks for the link to that article.
Many very famous and very experienced vinyl mastering engineers have explicitly refuted what you say in that article. I've seen/heard some seminars and discussions with guys like Doug Sax, Scott Hull, and Bob Ludwig, who give the reasons. If I can find links to what they've said, I'll post it here... or better yet, I'll just email them a link to your article and ask them to comment (I'll email it to Kevin Gray too, while I'm at it). If they respond, I'll post it here.

 

This...from about 4 minutes onwards.



It has been found that vinyl and CD have differing amounts of out of phase material.

This video does not address that directly but still interesting.

 

There are two, slightly contradictory, arguments being made in the video:

(1) In principle the vinyl can't be more dynamic because it comes from the same (limited) master as the CD.
(2) We can tell by listening that the vinyl is no more dynamic than the CD - actually it sounds a little less dynamic - so there may be extra dynamics but they are not true musical dynamics.

The second is (probably) subjectively true. The first is definitely false if we interpret 'dynamics' as an objectively defined property. Once you define dynamic range, it's possible to manipulate a file so as to increase the range.

The slight contradiction lies in relying on a subjective definition of dynamics and then claiming to have 'proved' something. Somebody could say that the vinyl rip sounds more dynamic to them. The only counterargument would be "no you're wrong, it doesn't" and the fact that the vinyl came from the same master would prove nothing.

 

Where did that "Vinyl haters" comment fit into any of the discussion.

I think we are all adults and are able to discuss how the vinyl cutting and playback changes the final sound. Its simply some things inherent in the process. Some like those effects, some not so much. Hatred I do not see.

 

I already know that answer and the answer is "yes". I use early 1990's CD's as a baseline there - I've bought some LP's from that time period and generally I've been a bit disappointed because the LP isn't "better". I have a few that might be just a tad better but again it might be the distortion / my cart that I'm used to hearing, but I've generally stopped targeting those LP's unless it's a nostalgia thing now, or if they are cheap.

I usually target these LP's:

- Late 1970's or earlier. Analog pressings / pre-CD so they have their own sound signature + some LP's don't even have a CD release.
- 1980's. Some may be digitally sourced but there seem to be some differences between them and the CD, especially first-run CD's that never got a remaster. Some of the LP's have a bit of a fuller sound, believe it or not, as the CD may have been based on a vinyl mastering. Maybe.
- Early 00's and newer. This one is tricky because it's hard to say where to start -- I have a few early 00's LP's but only ones I've bought on the cheap and it wouldn't surprise me if they were CD sourced. But as we get closer to 2013 releases there's a greater chance of a 24/48 or 24/96 source, and sometimes they are less limited (ie. The Beatles vinyl remasters). But it's still a guessing game.

1990's LP's I generally avoid for two reasons: 1) Cost as they are usually expensive since they are rare and 2) more likelihood that the CD probably sounds better anyway. Early 1990's CD masterings were generally quite good.

I buy lots of vinyl but I'm enjoying the discussion.

 

I would be interested in those links. My guess is Kevin Gray, Doug Sax etc wouldn't refute what he is saying in that article but would probably say a special vinyl master would be recommended but I would have a hard time believing that they would say that you absolutely have to have a special master for vinyl. A good sounding master done right should sound good on vinyl and CD. Now can you make a better sounding vinyl by making a master specifically for vinyl, yes. Is it necessary, no. I think that is the main point here.

 

I like that he gets into the complexity of the vinyl playback process, which I think a lot of people take for granted. It bums me out that most new vinyl is digitally sourced, but that hasn't really stopped me from buying new releases when I can't find an analog-era version. This thread will make me even pickier about what I buy. Thanks for posting.