OT: Vintage Audio Part 4

[William]

Sources.

CD, LP, 45, cassette, Reel...what sounds best?

I found this video helpful in describing the differences I notice from medium to medium. I couldn't really describe the differences and I was using the term "warmth" or "dynamic" which I suppose can work, but now I think a better term is "depth". CD's sound clear and bright, but they have no depth in comparison to vinyl or tape. The compressed nature of the digital medium removes the depth of the sound/music.

Interesting comparisons, and even with the compressed nature of YT you can still hear the differences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4BLWR2E2wg

Same presenter and test equipment but using Dark Side of The Moon (CD, SACD, Vinyl, Tape)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=almdxI76DOw








William

[William]

A profile of the CD's "Wall of sound" to make up for its lack of depth...






William

[William]

LP...




William

[William]

Tape...






William

[William]

45...







William

[kingpin75s]

Sources.

CD, LP, 45, cassette, Reel...what sounds best?

William

I have heard good things about cassette media from my tapehead friends, but have always considered it to fragile of a format for my tastes.

The real answer, in part, depends on how it was recorded to begin with and what was done after. Original analog recordings are great to keep analog in LP or 45 format. Some digital recordings can be very compressed whereas others have great production and you get the most out of a CD. It's all a mix so there is no blanket truth for me.

In general I prefer:

45, LP, CD and I do not listen to cassettes or stream music.

[daker13]

The real answer, in part, depends on how it was recorded to begin with and what was done after. Original analog recordings are great to keep analog in LP or 45 format. Some digital recordings can be very compressed whereas others have great production and you get the most out of a CD. It's all a mix so there is no blanket truth for me..

To this I'd add, everything also depends on equipment. That's the problem with answering this kind of question. CD's can sound amazing, with the right CD player. My friend's Naim CD player does things that my Cambridge and Rotel players can't do. I used to think 'vinyl sounds better,' but then I listened to my dad's crappy record player (the one I used to think sounded so awesome) and realized that on his system, CD's were better. He doesn't bother to clean the dust off the stylus. At the same price point, however, I think do think vinyl sounds best. Set up can be a pain in the butt, but there's just something about it.

Cassettes sound nice but soft. From what I understand, reel to reel has the widest bandwidth of all the formats; I have a couple of decks here but I don't really listen to them. Seems like a crazy expensive rabbit hole to fall into.

[yinzerniner]

Sources.

CD, LP, 45, cassette, Reel...what sounds best?

William

Easy answer, SACD!
:banana:
(RIP)

But honestly there's so many variables to account for that it's impossible to find a definitive answer. IMO from the original choices, with a decent set of components and an average room LP sounds the best. CDs are always harsh, and I actually prefer the HD compressed formats over regular CDs. Cassette was always last as the thin magnetic tape just isn't well suited for wide dynamic range, and reel is INCREDIBLE but also impossible to find outside a studio environment.

[parco]

I have an audiophile friend who won't listen to CD's. He only buys vinyl and then he tapes it on a stereo 1/2" tape recorder with some kind of noise reduction processor. (I can't remember which one and I know that is one piece of equipment he changes a lot). I know he has a really expensive turntable (about $4K) but he says that the tape with the noise reduction sounds better to him.

[parris]

STOP WITH THESE THREADS ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live around the corner from a shop named Audio Classics which is a big McIntosh and other high end shop. This thread is making it even harder to stay out of it!!! :D

[Mark McM]

CD's sound clear and bright, but they have no depth in comparison to vinyl or tape. The compressed nature of the digital medium removes the depth of the sound/music.

CDs are not compressed. The data is recorded at full resolution (16 bits/channel) and constant sampling frequency (44.1 KHz).

Many tracks originally mastered for vinyl can sound tinny (too much high frequency) - but not because CDs are inherently tinny. Instead it is due to the original mastering being altered to make up for the deficiencies of vinyl. Vinyl records can have good low frequency reproduction, but they suffer amplitude losses at higher frequencies. To make up for this, higher frequencies are often boosted on master recordings intended for vinyl. In comparison, CDs have a linear amplitude reproduction across their entire frequency range. If the original masters (intended for vinyl) are transferred to a CD, the high frequencies will remain boosted, resulting in an overly bright, tinny sound. Recordings originally mastered for CDs don't result in this.

[Mark McM]

I have an audiophile friend who won't listen to CD's. He only buys vinyl and then he tapes it on a stereo 1/2" tape recorder with some kind of noise reduction processor. (I can't remember which one and I know that is one piece of equipment he changes a lot). I know he has a really expensive turntable (about $4K) but he says that the tape with the noise reduction sounds better to him.

Well, I guess it is worth the money, if you truly prize the high fidelity reproduction of the constant popping, rumble and background hiss of vinyl record players and analog tape ...

[pjm]

I would compare playing records to driving a manual transmission. It’s just more involving and satisfying to some people to be a part of the process.

[William]

...Cassettes sound nice but soft. From what I understand, reel to reel has the widest bandwidth of all the formats; I have a couple of decks here but I don't really listen to them. Seems like a crazy expensive rabbit hole to fall into.


You should try taking up cycling if you want to see a crazy expensive rabbit hole to jump down...:D


...To this I'd add, everything also depends on equipment.


True. I used to think cassettes were a pretty crappy medium, and remembering back to those days I remember them as being tolerable. Recently a guy I know who has a few really high end decks made me some recordings that were made on type 2 and type 4 cassettes and they sound amazing. One with DBX sounded really good but if you try to play it back on a deck that does't have DBX it wouldn't sound the same. Most commercial (though not all) cassette tapes back in the day were made on type 1 cassettes for cost savings and played back on a mediocre system will sound okay but nowhere close to LP or CD. The recordings I recently heard easily rivaled CD quality clarity IMO.

Oh, and the turntable I'm running with a quality cartridge/stylus and clean records doesn't pop and hiss at all. It sounds dang good.








William

[drewski]

I remember bringing home records from high school from class mates when we used to have inter-library loan. It was a neat process of discovery.

I actually brought in a vinyl record the other day for a co-worker to borrow. The world would might be a might more tolerant if we all would borrow vinyl from each other. The record was a Cozy Powell solo album Tilt. My chum and I had just gone to see Jeff Beck and this record featured some pretty cool grooves. Its a cheesy 80's album put its gone some great tunes by Jeff Beck and Gary Moore. RIP Cozy and Gary.

[daker13]

STOP WITH THESE THREADS ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live around the corner from a shop named Audio Classics which is a big McIntosh and other high end shop. This thread is making it even harder to stay out of it!!! :D

They're the #1 McIntosh repair place, a lot of ex-McIntosh engineers work there. They did the repair on my MC 240 (which I found on the street). When I got it back from them, I saw that the guy who worked on it left a sticker in it with his initials and the date. It was "RM 9/11/01" and I always wondered if he was listening to the radio/TV while working on my amp, or if he left his workshop at the end of the day and then found out what happened.

[Peter P.]

CDs are not compressed. The data is recorded at full resolution (16 bits/channel) and constant sampling frequency (44.1 KHz).

Exactly. CD's have a greater dynamic range than any of the other mediums mentioned above.

[93KgBike]

I used to work extra hours for cash to buy Maxell XLIIS metal-hydride 90 minute tapes. I wonder if any of those girls still have those mixes? Ah, the 80's...

[William]

...Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).

This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps....

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion.

This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside

https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/is-the-sound-on-vinyl-records-better-than-on-cds-or-dvds.htm






Interesting...






William

[parris]

Daker13 that shop is very nice. They've got 3 dedicated music rooms setup as well as another listening area at the end of the sales floor.

One of the things that's very interesting is that they have racks of gear ready for packaging and sale out on the main area but due to the shear amount of "stuff" they have much more in back just due to lack of space. I drive past the shop at least twice a day on my way to and from work.

[crankles]

I used to work extra hours for cash to buy Maxell XLIIS metal-hydride 90 minute tapes. I wonder if any of those girls still have those mixes? Ah, the 80's...

we can hang....

[Mark McM]

Interesting...

... And BS.

The quote correctly states that the digital recording breaks down the sound pressure magnitude into 65,535 discrete numeric values. And that the sound wave is modeled as steps that are 1/44,100 seconds long. But that 65,535 range of values of gives a dynamic range of about 96 db, whereas while a stylus can resolve a vinyl record groove to about 0.1 microns, the groove itself is only about 1500 microns deep - so the dynamic range of the vinyl disk is only about 50 db - and it varies by frequency (and radius of the track on the disc). While the CD samples in discrete time intervals, these samples can be used to reconstruct the sound waves to high degree of accuracy - and a greater accuracy than with a vinyl record, which is subject to variations in radial runout and disc speed. So no, the waveform from a vinyl record is not more accurate than from a CD.

[Plum Hill]

How often do you sit in a still room and just listen to music?
If there’s any kind of background noise it kind of blows superior sound quality all to crap, or if you’re up and wandering around does it really make a difference?

Back in my AR tube days, I found myself occasionally warming the stuff up and perhaps listening to three LPs in an evening. When the stuff went pffsstt I got a solid state FM receiver. The thing is always on, whether listening to music on the local FM station or an SACD or a number of CDs on the changer. The finest quality music in the world makes no difference if it’s not being listened to. I’ve got damned bad tinnitus in my left ear but I’m always listening to music. And isn’t that the point?

Another take: why worry about all the playback equipment when the original recoding was made on a cheap Stratocaster through a Fender Champ?

[Bob Ross]

>>This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps....<<

Now Google the Nyquist Theorem. Which clearly the author of ^^^that sentence does not understand.

[William]

Interesting article and it would seem to explain the first CD sound graph attached above as well as some of the complaints of CD in comparison to vinyl...



I’d heard about this issue of compression. It’s not the kind of compression that is used to create mp3 files; that is a compression of data, for easier portability, which undoubtedly results in varying degrees of fidelity loss, but is a completely different subject. Dynamic range compression (see Wikipedia here), on the other hand, has long had legitimate uses and still does, but lately there had been complaints that it was being employed excessively on popular music CDs, with the goal of making the music just sound louder, so that it would seem to pop out more on radios and computer speakers and music players of every description, and people would presumably be more likely to notice it and to buy it.

https://www.cinchreview.com/bob-dylan-audio-scandal/570/


Video example embedded in the article...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=113&v=3Gmex_4hreQ



That said, I've also come across articles stating that this doesn't happen as much as it did in the mid 2000's and later and CD and vinyl can be a very close match.

I'm not an audio engineer so I won't presume to argue the topic with any heir of authority. I'll only state that to my ear vinyl/tape (good tape) generally has the edge but I'm open to comparisons that could sway me.







William

[rnhood]

CD playback generally (but not always) requires filters and processing. This generally puts unwanted delays with respect to frequency into the playback. Can you hear this? Well, that depends on who you ask.

[Mark McM]

CD playback generally (but not always) requires filters and processing. This generally puts unwanted delays with respect to frequency into the playback. Can you hear this? Well, that depends on who you ask.

ALL components, both analog and digital, add delays with respect to frequency (whether it is a microphone, a stylus, a magnetic pickup, amplifier, analog or digital filter, speakers, etc.). Digital filters can be designed to add minimal variation in this delay.

[crankles]

... And BS.

The quote correctly states that the digital recording breaks down the sound pressure magnitude into 65,535 discrete numeric values. And that the sound wave is modeled as steps that are 1/44,100 seconds long. But that 65,535 range of values of gives a dynamic range of about 96 db, whereas while a stylus can resolve a vinyl record groove to about 0.1 microns, the groove itself is only about 1500 microns deep - so the dynamic range of the vinyl disk is only about 50 db - and it varies by frequency (and radius of the track on the disc). While the CD samples in discrete time intervals, these samples can be used to reconstruct the sound waves to high degree of accuracy - and a greater accuracy than with a vinyl record, which is subject to variations in radial runout and disc speed. So no, the waveform from a vinyl record is not more accurate than from a CD.

Ah...so refreshing to read this. That article infuriated me... "This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound."

I feel like that sentence should have been prefaced with something like those old physics problems that allowed one to ignored reality...er...friction.

" given an infinitely small needle and a linear record..."

[William]

I had no idea this was going on, but it would explain why some CD's I have purchased in the past from artists that I like sounded fatiguing and meh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Fb3rWNWDA





William

[jmoore]

Oh, and the turntable I'm running with a quality cartridge/stylus and clean records doesn't pop and hiss at all. It sounds dang good.
William


What are you running? I have been looking to add a turntable lately.

[William]

What are you running? I have been looking to add a turntable lately.

Well, I have a more modern Yamaha and JVC turntables in the house but my go to right now is a refurbished old school Garrard Lab80 with an Ortofon OM10. Love how this thing sounds.




William

[Ken Robb]

I have 100s of LPs that I bought as long ago as 1955. A fair number are mono because stereo hadn't been invented. Because I was into hi-fi by the time I was 12 I noticed that there has always been a wide variation in the sonic quality of vinyl. I concluded that many times this was dependent on how many discs had been pressed from a master disc before the one I got were produced. It's a mechanical process so there is wear to the master with each pressing. If I was lucky and got a disc made early in the life of a master disc the sound was good but when I got one made when the master disc was due for replacement high frequencies were distorted. When I tried to return the bad ones the store owner didn't understand the problem because he didn't have a system good enough to hear the problem so he told me he accept returns on records that were scratched when first opened but not for poor sound quality. From then on when I got a bad pressing I scratched it and returned it. Usually the replacement disc was satisfactory. :).
As early as the late 1950s Audio Fidelity label went to great lengths in recording techniques and pressing and their discs were terrific. Some of my favorites from them were by The Dukes of Dixieland. They still sound terrific. Then in the 1980s (I think) Sheffield Labs produced direct-to-disc LPs completely by-passing tape recording. The sound of these are excellent. Interestingly they also did tape record the sessions and used the tapes to make some really good CDs and I have a couple of "pairs" of CD and LP of a few sessions. It's been a long time since I did A/B comparisons between the two media and I don't remember my exact conclusions from years ago but they were both very listenable. I use the LPs on those occasions when a visitor doubts that LPs could possibly rival CD sound.
NOW MY BIG NEWS. Leslie bought me one of the new "Heavy" LPs by Diana Krall. We have many of her CDs. Leslie and I were in a music store shopping for a wireless mike system for our church and I stumbled on a small LP department selling only the new-weight records. I passed on spending $25-30 for an album then but she went back and got one for me for Father's Day. WOW! the sound is terrific and there is ZERO surface noise. Les was rehearsing with her favorite trumpet player at our house last week and afterward we all had a glass of wine and I played the Krall LP for him. "It sounds like she's right THERE!" he said pointing between my Vandersteens. Then I played a few Harry James selections from Sheffield and closed with Dukes of Dixieland on Audio Fidelity and they also impressed this professional musician.
If you have a decent stereo to play vinyl and haven't tried the new LPs give yourself a treat. OTOH that may be like riding you first Serotta and being spoiled for lesser bikes thereafter. :)

[crankles]

Well, I have a more modern Yamaha and JVC turntables in the house but my go to right now is a refurbished old school Garrard Lab80 with an Ortofon OM10. Love how this thing sounds.




William

Wow. Just Wow. That Garrard is..so nice.

[jtakeda]

I’m really curious to see your record collection now.

With the curated focus on which equipment to use I’d imagine your collection is full of deep cuts—1st press and private press goodness.

Care to share the top 5 bonzers in your collection?

Maybe similar to the “what are you listening to thread” we should do a top vinyl rarities thread to introduce folks to new tunes

[crankles]

I have 100s of LPs that I bought as long ago as 1955. A fair number are mono because stereo hadn't been invented. Because I was into hi-fi by the time I was 12 I noticed that there has always been a wide variation in the sonic quality of vinyl. I concluded that many times this was dependent on how many discs had been pressed from a master disc before the one I got were produced. It's a mechanical process so there is wear to the master with each pressing. If I was lucky and got a disc made early in the life of a master disc the sound was good but when I got one made when the master disc was due for replacement high frequencies were distorted. When I tried to return the bad ones the store owner didn't understand the problem because he didn't have a system good enough to hear the problem so he told me he accept returns on records that were scratched when first opened but not for poor sound quality. From then on when I got a bad pressing I scratched it and returned it. Usually the replacement disc was satisfactory. :).
As early as the late 1950s Audio Fidelity label went to great lengths in recording techniques and pressing and their discs were terrific. Some of my favorites from them were by The Dukes of Dixieland. They still sound terrific. Then in the 1980s (I think) Sheffield Labs produced direct-to-disc LPs completely by-passing tape recording. The sound of these are excellent. Interestingly they also did tape record the sessions and used the tapes to make some really good CDs and I have a couple of "pairs" of CD and LP of a few sessions. It's been a long time since I did A/B comparisons between the two media and I don't remember my exact conclusions from years ago but they were both very listenable. I use the LPs on those occasions when a visitor doubts that LPs could possibly rival CD sound.
NOW MY BIG NEWS. Leslie bought me one of the new "Heavy" LPs by Diana Krall. We have many of her CDs. Leslie and I were in a music store shopping for a wireless mike system for our church and I stumbled on a small LP department selling only the new-weight records. I passed on spending $25-30 for an album then but she went back and got one for me for Father's Day. WOW! the sound is terrific and there is ZERO surface noise. Les was rehearsing with her favorite trumpet player at our house last week and afterward we all had a glass of wine and I played the Krall LP for him. "It sounds like she's right THERE!" he said pointing between my Vandersteens. Then I played a few Harry James selections from Sheffield and closed with Dukes of Dixieland on Audio Fidelity and they also impressed this professional musician.
If you have a decent stereo to play vinyl and haven't tried the new LPs give yourself a treat. OTOH that may be like riding you first Serotta and being spoiled for lesser bikes thereafter. :)

This is the worst thread in the world... I'm not getting back into audio....I'm not getting back into audio....i'm not getting back into audio.

[pjm]

This is the worst thread in the world... I'm not getting back into audio....I'm not getting back into audio....i'm not getting back into audio.:cool:

[William]

I’m really curious to see your record collection now.

With the curated focus on which equipment to use I’d imagine your collection is full of deep cuts—1st press and private press goodness.

Care to share the top 5 bonzers in your collection?

Maybe similar to the “what are you listening to thread” we should do a top vinyl rarities thread to introduce folks to new tunes



For me, I don't know if I have anything rare, and a lot of albums I know I had back in the day are missing...but I still have some good stuff that I like that I purchased as a kid in the 70's and very early eighties.


Yesterday morning's listening pleasure...






William

[verbs4us]

Had a lovely experience recently, visiting my daughter at CalArts in California. In the Early Holocene when I was in college, on a nice fall or spring day, my roomy Bruce would prop his Harbeth reference speakers (gift from otherwise neglectful dad) on the window sill of the dorm, turn the Marantz up to 8, and everyone on Foss Hill would dance to Steely Dan. A few weeks ago, when I dropped off my daughter, someone had propped some speaker up on the window sill and was playing ... Steely Dan. Gives one hope for humanity.

[pjm]

Wore out an 8-track of Countdown to Ecstasy during my college years.