Vinyl dynamic range questions

That's not it at all. First, mastering has everything to do with the format. Recordings are not made for you to do "DR comparisons" with. The only thing that any scientist worth his salt would care about measuring is the end result. That's what you get when you get the medium, not a blank slate to theorize about.

Further, the output of an amplifier through the phono stage has a higher noise floor than the line stage. So if he is still getting better results through the phono stage, then that really speaks volumes about quality of the actual products output.

In any case, no one disputes the theory of digital having greater dynamic range capability. The dispute is with the actual performance and the listener's reactions to it. I have heard true 24/96 recordings that if what you are suggesting was true, would have decimated the 16/44 recordings in terms of my enjoyment of them. It did not. I found the 24/96 version to indeed have greater dynamic range, but also to sound less life-like. There is so much more to it than just the specs of the medium. The playback equipment has a huge role in what actually meets the ear as well, regardless of what's inserted into the system. Many variables there, too many to isolate and use conveniently as an argument either way. Meanwhile, we can all continue to theorize...
-Bill

 

I had a Six Transistor version!
-Bill

 

I know you were kidding, but the fact is the truth is just the opposite.

Pop/Rock music is often extremely compressed - and this was before the compression wars. Guitars are intentionally compressed and distorted. Many rock musicians and folks that I know who have attended too many concerts have limited or reduced hearing capabilities. This doesn’t happen to classical fans and musicians.

Additionally, the people that I saw and knew buying classical CD’s when they were first released were young adults. The "old" folks were too attached to their vinyl and tt’s (doesn’t that sound familiar?) and wouldn’t bother with "newfangled" CD players. Of course, you do lose hearing capabilities as you grow older, but that had no effect on who was buying those classical CD’s at early release.

 

The relative part of the article is the measured noise floor and it's effect on the low level musical signal. What is wrong with that aspect of the article? Do you think his measurments of the vinyl and CDs noise floor is in any way inaccurate? Here is the part of the article I am refering to.

"This is the noise floor from the CD recording (in the "silent" bit just before the music starts):




The noise floor seems to be hovering around the -88dB level up to 20kHz, and then drops down to below -108dB (the underlying noise floor of the sound card).

By contrast, here is the recording of the LP around the same point:




We can see why statistics often "mislead". LP's noise floor is actually quite low over most of the spectrum, ranging from -84dB around 1kHz to -96dB for frequencies above 10kHz . In other words, the LP recording has a lower noise floor than the CD recording for the majority of the spectrum (frequencies above 2kHz ).

LP's surface noise, which is responsible for the poor dynamic range, is mainly concentrated below 500Hz where the noise level is around -50dB.

And this is for a mass-produced commercial LP, purchased second hand from a thrift store for around $1!

The noise floor is even lower for an "audiophile" pressing on good quality vinyl. This is the noise floor from a Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab "Original Master Recording" of Three Works For Jazz Soloists & Symphony Orchestra ( Don Sebesky ) MFSL 2-503 (200J-3):




As you can see, the noise floor is convincingly below -90dB all the way down to 400Hz. So it would appear LPs do have a reasonable dynamic range for the majority of the audible frequency range.

Many vinylphiles have long claimed that they can hear "below" the noise floor of their LPs. My observations would seem to partially support this claim: surface noise is fairly "structured" (it has a distinct "sound" as opposed to random noise) allowing our brain/ears to "filter" it away and listen to the "music" all the way down to the "real" underlying noise floor which is comparable to CD."

So lets discuss this since this is the relavent part of the article. Do you see a problem with the measurements? Do you see a problem with the analysis of those measurements?

 

Vanishing into inaudibility . . .

Did you taste the nine volt batteries?

I'm sure you're right, you spend enough time looking at meters, after all.

Interesting to compare to this which has to have waaaaay more dynamic range than 20db.

 

http://www.audioholics.com/educatio...ology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4

Looks sensible enough, but is utube science only

His 'average's dismiss a huge hump in the vinyl noise levels that are very evident to the ear.
IE -60 db

Not that we need a huge dynamic.
BBC Radio 3 exists on 40 dbs and that is amazing nowadays
The BBC peak programme meter covers 22 dbs
Most programme easily squeezes into this with a little help.

However we can hear 20 bits which is 120 db
16 bit is a more domestic range in a perfect room, 96 db
You need a lot of power to realise that, at least a kilowatt

So most people don't need dynamics of that scale
However I do and have 1Kw across 3 front speakers.
So you pay your money and have your choice.

 

I don't think he dismisses it at all but rather deals with the practical implications. Noise floor is an issue due to 1. It's audibility and distraction as a result of it's audibility and 2. it's masking effects. The point being that the nature of vinyl noise is that it is audible due to it's specific nature (only barely during silent passages if we are talking SOTA performance) but makes it far less masking than an equivalent digital noise floor based on standard measurements of signal to noise. When we are talking real world dynamic range of music we are really talking about the lowest *audible* level of signal in relation to the loudest level. Not just the measured signal to noise ratio averaged across the entire audio band. So the real world effective dynamic range of vinyl is a hell of a lot more than the standard meausrements would suggest. Besides that the actual dynamic range via standard measurements is much better than 60db fi you are using SOTA equipment and vinyl.

 

Unfortunately you can't really hear anything above 22k so it's not really a big advantage, its worthless.

 

Take the biggest audiophile in the universe and do a needledrop using his equipment. Then do a blind test in playing back the needledrop and vinyl record, on his own equipment. I guarantee it's nothing more than a lucky guess at that point. Mastering has nothing to do with the format: just because it's on vinyl doesn't somehow make the average dynamics of the music better, as the article is implying.

But he's NOT getting better results. He's claiming -90dB on the vinyl within a particular range of frequencies ("most" of the audible range)...but on all his graphs, if you look at the upper bass/low mids, they show the vinyl noise floor hitting -50 dB, even on the quiet mo-fi vinyl. You don't measure noise floor based off a particular range of frequencies, because in this case that means nothing! You have to look at it at all audible frequencies. Even the compact disc recording, the highest the noise goes is -80 dB in the bass.

 

See posts #16, 23, and 35.

 

Here's another "real world" scenerio: What about a SOTA CD player with SOTA interconnects? I guarantee you even a SOTA turntable will never be able to reproduce a 96dB or better S/N ratio across all frequencies for the entire duration of an experiment; it excedes the inherent limitation of the format.

 

I am arguing against the claim of 60 db dynamic range for vinyl. Nothing more nothing less. I think that article addresses that point quite adroitly. do you really think that vinyl truly only has an effective dynamic range of 60db and you have masking of any signal below that limit? I don't believe that is remotely true. Further more when you get into low level signals the distortion on most real world CDs is of a nature that is quite amusical. If you want to know why some audiophiles prefer vinyl to CD put way the bench tests and just listen to the decay of a sustained note on a piano on a SOTA LP on SOTA playback gear v. any CD.

 

Go ahead—argue with the meter if that makes you happy.

Of course not. Thing is, there are usually very sudden, very short peaks in the noise floor, that must be part of what is described in the s/n ratio. Thing is, some can tune that sort of noise out, some can't.

Well, I guess you have to re-conduct the experiment yourself.

There's more then enough that sound fine. This may not be the golden age of Audio Engineering but there's more than enough really good sounding CDs out there to justify getting serious about playback gear. Most vinylophiles hold off upgrades of the digital front ends, what with re-tipping the Van den Hul being a higher priority.

My Living Stereo SACDs of Artur Rubinstein beat any LP I've got. Not that I'm planning on throwing out my Kempff Mono Beethoven cycle anytime soon.

 

No, I think it has an effective dynamic range of about 70 dB...on a good clean quiet vinyl if you're lucky. Average vinyl, definitely 60dB or worse. Anything below the noise floor is audible still, but I don't think that ought to be counted as "effective" dynamic range because the noise excedes it in volume...you just have to tune out the noise. Still doesn't hold a candle to 96dB for CD. And I think I would be more likely to hear noise from the vinyl corrupting the decay of a sustained note at the lowest dynamics than the quantization noise caused by a CD.

 

1. I'm not arguing with the meter just the guy who doesn't seem to know what to measure.

2. I don't need to redo a bad experiment when others have done better ones and found a good deal more measured dynamic range.

3. I never suggested there weren't more than enough good sounding CDs to get serious about CD playback. I suggested that those who don't get the preference for vinyl compare the decay of a sustained note on piano using SOTA vinyl on SOTA equipment v. anything on CD. Anyone reading this thread can either take that advice or leave it.

4. Your SACDs of Arthur Rubenstein may beat anything *you* got. But what do you got?

 

just like a cartridge has to pick up vibes from a groove a laser has to track pits and bumps as well. nyquist is right in that 16 bits and 44.1 sampling is all that's needed for 20hz-20khz at 120 dB theoretically but along the way $hit happens and many of these zeros and ones get lost or jittered out of sequence (or even worse,...made up with oversampling or padded up word lengths). people can talk math and theory all they want but the real proof is in the execution and what you like to listen to.

 

Well then you and I have a different idea of what is and is not "effective." If I can hear it it is effective. You are certainly free to think what you want about what is more likely. No harm in speculation. I am just going but what I have actually heard on my system.

 

How does oversampling "make it worse"?

 

Ok, then by your definition of "effective dynamics", vinyl is infinitely dynamic because it's an analog format. That defeats the entire purpose of this discussion.

 

...some used mainly the high level part of these 20dB...to me Fritz Reiner is the loudness war(lord) of the golden age

 

Sorry, but it "Wows" me

I've got beaucoups classical piano recordings, allsorts. I've got a decade of experience recording classical music, including classical piano, allsorts. I had a Steinway B in the living room. I've traded CDs with Peter Serkin. I've owned at least twenty-five LPs of the Hammerklavier and most turned out to be not so good. I foolishly attempted four times to exchange my off-center Seraphim LP of the Gieseking/Galleria Emperor for a properly centered one. I produced a series of programs* at KPFA concerning Glenn Gould. I've engineered/co-produced a CD of Piano music where I'm happy with the results. I think Martha Argerich is really hot. I think Sviatoslav Richter is a golden god.

I've heard altogether too many off-center piano LPs.

*With Glenn Gould maven Nancy Canning

http://www.flipkart.com/book/glenn-gould-catalog-nancy-canning/0313274126

 

oversampling is extrapolation. the data is not real.

 

I regularly record Bechsteins and Steinways and now Fazioli pianos @ 88.2 khz 24 b and can tell no difference between mic feed (Sennheiser MKH20/MKH 30) and the recording.

 

...to do a bit hair-splitting: I think it's more real than no oversampling, but it's not the truth yet...the curve is just a little better...at least that's the pure maths part of it...