SH Spotlight Vinyl vs. master tape?

Not loud and clear, but it's there. You have to turn it way up to hear it. I didn't have this problem with my old Shure cartridge or any other brand.

You see, if I make an LP transfer, I clean it up with software first anyway. I know that's sacreligious to you audiophiles, but I can remove the hum and leave the music intact. Even when I do this processing I can get so close to the vinyl in an A/B test that it doesn't matter.

For this test, the idea is to not do a thing to the music and go straight to CD-R in 16-bit.

 

Goldenboy
"I'm not going to go around to everyone who has a so called highend table and ask them what brand they have to prove a point. I don't even believe any of that comes into play."

So long as you refuse to listen to a "so called highend table" you are argueing about something with which you have no experience. That's a fact. Sorry but this plethora of unnamed highend turntables is meaningless. For all we know you think a Yamaha 80's rack system turntable is highend.
It now sounds as if you think the table makes no difference in the sound anyways. Sorry but you are way off on that one if that is your position.

As for your rhetroical question yes I knew what it was. I addressed it because unfortunately it is a question you really should have asked in ernest.

"you did fall back on the subjective arguement of what something 'sounds' like"
I thought that was what we were discussing. Which format sounds better. Are we now supposed to do so without talking about what something sounds like? It all about what these things sound like.

 

...and this debate rages on, and on, and on...

 

I certainly hope anyone with a sincere interest in the truth would at least e mail James Boyk, the one person who has actually conducted extensive controled listening tests on this subject.

 

The point of comparing CDs to SACD was to demonstrate that the sound on of CD might leave a lot to be desired. I believe CDs lose something in the digital domain that is there in the analog format. I think this loss is due to the decision to limit the bit rate to 16 bits and the sampling rate to 44.1 KHz. I think these specs are inadequate, and that something definitely IS lost. I also think that digital has the POTENTIAL of being the better format. I just don't think CD is it.

Also, I think the whole argument of "Does CD or LP sound more like the original master (or live music)?" is kind of absurd. Neither one sounds like the original master tape, which doesn't sound like live music anyway. A dedicated engineer like Steve can get close, but there can never be an exact match. LPs DO roll off frequencies, and CDs DO discard a lot of musical data. I believe that the best LPs sound more "musical" on the best equipment than the best CDs sound on the best equipment. However, CDs also have a wider dynamic range than LPs, and lack surface noise. I will grant that to the "average" listener, CDs sound better on an "average" system, because most "average" systems can't reproduce the detail that makes LPs sound more "musical" than CDs in the first place. So the question of "Does CD or LP sound more like the original master (or live music)?" is really about which sound is more pleasing to the ear, and I think which sound is more pleasing to the ear depends on the playback system and the source material to a great degree. (It may also have something to do with hearing. Different people's hearing works differently. Most people bigin to lose the ability to hear high frequencies as they get older. Personally, I don't hear extremely soft sounds as well as some, but I can hear frequencies WAY beyond the norm.)

On my main stereo system (dual McIntosh MC7270 power amps, bridged for mono, McIntosh C34 pre-amp, Klipshorns), I prefer the sound of a great LP to the sound of a great CD of the SAME recording. The LP sounds more "musical" to my ears. On my surround system (Yamaha something or other surround amp, with an old pair of Boston Acoustics floor speakers I use for stereo), using the SAME CD player and turntable, I usually prefer the sound of CD, because the Yamaha/Boston combination tends to muffle what I hate about CD sound and muffle what I like about LP sound.
So which is better? I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. Since neither sounds exactly like the master tape or the live performance, it comes down to which type of inaccurracy you prefer, not which is "better" or "truer." It seems that most people who have invested absurd amounts of money in the playback system tend to prefer LP, even if they have a $20,000 CD setup and tend to listen to CDs most of the time. Many people who have NOT invested absurd amounts of money in the playback system tend to prefer CD, and refuse to even consider the idea that LPs may actually sound better on some systems. The rest just consider LP an archaic medium, and don't care.

 

My standard no-frills domestic copy would kill any CD, and it's whisper quiet because I took the time to clean it. Actually, "You Make Loving Fun" would really blow you away. In fairness, I haven't heard the DVD-A of Rumours.

 

You make it sound like you aren't susceptible to conditioning. Is that so? Interesting.

I hear no crispies in nearly all of my LPs. Just sweet sweet music. That's because I don't like noise and spent a lot of years figuring out (on dozens of crummy LPs that I could destroy) how to properly clean one by hand. You would be amazed how quiet I can get a record. You have to strain to hear any noise for most LPs in my collection. I have successfully cleaned LPs covered in mold, mildew, cat hair, dirt, dust, fingerprints. You name it. If the disc is not terribly scratched underneath that grime, usually I can get it sounding as good as new. I have even gone to the extreme of "backing out" pops by VERY gently moving a record back & forth on a manual turntable at higher than normal stylus pressure (with a cart I specifically keep for this task). It works. I learned all of this by trial and error too, so I wouldn't necessarily go into this lightly. But once that's all done, you never have to do it again. Moral of the story, you ask?? I wouldn't go through this trouble if I could just buy a CD that sounds as good. But in many cases I can't! Conditioning, maybe. At least I'll admit as much. But I still contend that LPs sound more musical and "real" than CDs, in general.

Actually, I have said before that I like CDs too. I just don't think they're as musical as LPs (but can be very very close). Cold, hard truth was a phrase someone in the CD camp used to describe their listening preferences - those aren't my words. I collect Steve's CDs, and I have many hundreds more, many of which sound just great to me. I could fall in either camp on this argument. But arguing AGAINST Lps is just silly. You're disrespecting the format that brought high fidelity to the mass market, and at the same time, vastly limiting your ability to collect and enjoy great music. Spend some time with well kept, quality vinyl, played on a rig by someone who cares for the format, and you'll see that it is not only viable in the modern digital age, but it has some very positive qualities that cannot be denied (that is, if you are actually listening and not debating!).

I also used to hate tape hiss. But now I see what happens when people try to remove it from vintage recordings! Ear pain & digital malaise.

Mike

 

A CD can easily match, and surpass, the frequency response of an LP. Or were you arguing for CD? ;>

 

Pardon me, but, unless the CD has been badly m astered, or your setup is somehow not optimal for CD playback : yes, it is. Even slight tonal colorations -- and the colorations of msot Lp playback chains is *not* slight -- tend to cause large subjective perceptual differences.

How have you verified that *any* INFORMATION has been lost?

<snipperoo>

Are you even aware of the *well-characterized* effects of LP euphonic distortion (e.g. phase errors)? They sound a lot lilke what you describe.

Euphonic distortion exists. It can be measured. It can be correlated to what vinylphiles describe as 'what makes vinyl sound good'. That's how it got its name.
It's an artifact of the playback medium...*NOT* something present on the master tape!

 

Arguably 'we' are digital: our neurons fire in an all-or-none fashion. This of course includes the neurons of the auditory system.

In any case, the correspondence between 'us' being 'analog or digital' and and our enjoyment of different forms of audio playback is sheer superstition. There's no science behind it.

 

Examine the logic here for a moment. IF you prefer the sound of vinyl, you of course WILL NOT tend to think ANY CD player sounds as good... though there is one test that could prove interesting, if not definitive. Burn an LP to CD using a good A/D converter. Don't do any processing to the digital version. You want it to sound as much like the LP as possible. Have someone play them back to you in a level-matched blind comparison (level matching to within <1 dB is critical). *Then* see if you can tell them apart.

If not , there is nothing *inherent* in digital that results in 'inferiority' ; and that the 'superiority' of vinyl is due to something being added to the signal (i.e., a form of distortion).

 

I am astonished at the assertions being made here. VInyl is *theoretically* capable of reproducing very low bass at lifelike levels, but in practice this would result in records unplayable on most turntable systems. This is not a hindrance to CDs.

And again, one of the well-known effects of certain euphonic distortions *is* a greater sense of 'space' , which some equate with 'real life' (though it doesn't,
necessarily).

And I submit that at least part of the vinyl boom *is* driven by nostalgia; I for one miss the large-format album covers of old. I n other cases it's simply an example of hobbyist purism,,which never needs logic to thrive.

 

synching up is important, but not nearly as important is doing the comparisons *blind* and *level matched*.

 

Re: long-winded reply

Of course, the existence of *even one* 16-bit recording that sounds great to you, argues against this. Have you not heard any?


If CD is such a great medium, why do they have to keep developing better converters to make it sound better? [/QUOTE]


78's sounded pretty 'great' when they were new...why'd they have to keep improving the medium?

That said, I'd assert that the improvements in A/D conversion since the early 80's have not been nearly as momentous as those vinyl needed to sound 'hi fi'.

Has it been demonstrated, *anywhere*, in anything like a scientific fashion, that it does?

LP is a 'lossy' system too, in that is has a higher S/N ratio than CD (hence information is lost to noise), tends to have a limited frequency and dynamic range, etc.

These superstitions about digital have been refuted time and again. You can learn all the standard refutations by spending a bit of time in places where audiophiles with some engineering and/or psychouacoustics background congregate (e.g.
rec.audio.high-end).

Have you ever compared a high bitrate MP3 to an LP or CD?

All you KNOW is that you prefer the sound of LP. You haven't presented any valid technical arguments as to why CD can't 'cut it'. Also *someone* is buying all those remastered editions that have been coming out since the 90's, so Joe Public must have *some* hankering for 'better' sound than the mastered-from-who-knows-what CDs of the 80s.

Given the large *known* effects of expectation bias, level matching, etc, I think you should be skeptical about what you 'know' you hear, when comparing cables, amps, and other components which have no a priori reason to sound different.

 

And why should that theory hold true anyway? Between the LP you play on a turntable and the master tape it was recorded on, there's a cutting and stamping processes. It's not like we're hearing the unmediated production master, and stories of master tapes taht sounded great but vinyl product that didn't, are legion.
There are 'conversions' that have taken place.

Then of course there's the vagaries of turntable, tonearm, and cartridge...all of which end up 'converting' the information yet again.

 

Hi Krab!

I have...

A few months ago I was going to send Steve an mp3 of the sound of the ticks and pops I was getting on my CDR dubs off LPs (don't ask why!).

I encoded at 128kbs.

When I listened back, I was shocked: a 'tick' didn't sound like a 'tick'. It sounded like a 'zing!' (well, you just have to hear it to understand).

I then encoded it at 196 -- same problem, although a little better.

I then tried at 256 -- I could still hear a substantial difference between the original wav and the resulting mp3.

I finally gave up and sent steve the full 10 meg wav file.

HZ

 

? solid state *needn't* add coloration. Tube equipment is practically guaranteed to, by their nature. Some people like those colorations, which they tend to perceive as 'warmth'.

Of course, the most coloration in almost *any& system is added by the speakers and room.

 

However, one can demonstrate the superior *accuracy* of a good digital recording, compared to an analog one.

 

No need to apologize. Your wording was quite correct. By every spec we
can measure -- and correlate to what we can hear -- a good digitial copy is more *accurate* than an analog one. That is, the measured differences between the original and copy will be less with a digital copy, than with an analog one.

 

Evidence, please, for this extraordinary claim. Proof, for example, that you can hear above 20 kHz. And that any of your favorite LPs even have any audible content above 20Hz.

*SO MANY THINGS* are stated by vinylphiles as 'true' that are either misunderstandings of the facts, or outright hearsay. I blame the audiophile press, TAS especially, for spreading what amounts to 'old wives tales' as 'fact' in the hobby.
It;s la lot like reading the bogus 'argument' creationists offer against evolution, again and again, despite them having been refuted by fact over and over.

 

Hardly. If you don't control for expectation bias, and don't level-match, the discussion is sure to veer quickly away from 'intelligent'. The proper test is to compare a CDR copy made with a good A/D converter to the actual record from which it was copied, in a double blind, level-matched protocol. And then to compare for 'difference', not evaluate which sounds 'better'. And to do enough trials for statistical significance.

Sorry, it sounds rather complicated, but human bias is *that* confounding to 'truth'.

 

What controlled tests *have* been doen show that specs do correlate to perceptions above a certain threshold; for example, a slightly louder playback will be perceived as 'sounding better'; hence the need for level matching.
What controlled tests*have* been done show that the 'signal' in sighted comparisons tends to be swamped by 'noise' of expectation bias, so that two sources that are in fact *identical* can easily be reported as 'different' sounding.

That said, no one really needs blind tests to show that recordings mastered for and played back in vinyl tend to sound different from those mastered for and played back on CD. This is because they tend to *really be* different, in easily measurable ways. As with speakers, one would expect these to pass a blind test easily.

The *empirical* evidence is that digital recordings are more *accurate* reproductions of the source, all other things being equal. That is, the specs for digital recordings are better than for analog, assuming both are 'done right'.

As for what qeustion we are all asking: We can't objectively state what sounds 'better' because there will always be people who prefer, say, compressed radio sound to hi-fi. We can report what people will tend to say sounds better, but that might have nothing to do with inherent qualities of the medium (see the example above). But we *can* approcah objectivity in stating what sounds *different*. One question is whether a straight CDR burn of an LP will *necessarily* sound *different* than the LP. That is testable.

 

I would hope those that do would also be cognizant of the opinions and experiences of *others* who have investigated the matter, and Boyk's results. A place to start would be rec.audio.high-end.

 

And I would suggest visiting Arny Kruger's website, which is *devoted* to contorlled comparison of audio equipment, and whose opinions differ with Mr. Boyk in some notable respects.

www.pcavtech.com

also, do a google on 'Boyk' and 'rec.audio.high-end' fopr critiques of some of Boyk's results. By no means does everyone agree that his tests were done 'wiht the best science one could expect'.

 

What encoder did you use?