LP Playback: is it really Reference Quality?

IMHO Jim Smith's knowledge, experiences, insights, and professionalism are top echelon. And he's not shy challenging widely held audiophile beliefs. Always enjoy what he has to say.
 
Absolutely agree with Jim. As the owner of several tons of records (15,000 records+) I can testify that they are far from perfect for most of the reasons that Jim mentions. I also have more than 500 R2R tapes of the 15ips 2 track variety, mostly 1/4", but also a fair number of 1/2" tapes, including well over 200 safety masters. The records done at their best with a great TT setup can sound great, but not in comparison with the tape. However tape is crazy expensive - a factor of 20 in most cases, unless you are buying collector level vinyl. Also without the selection that vinyl provides. Of course, most of the great recordings were done in the analogue era, so the tapes are the closest to the originals. For comparison, a safety master or direct copy of a master is one generation from the master, while a record is 5 generations from the master (lacquer, father, mother, stamper, record). Even copies like Tape Project and Acoustic Sounds are just 2 generations from the master (in practice more like 1.5 generations, since the running master is usually 1" tape or 1/2" running at 30ips).

Larry
 
astrotoy said:
Absolutely agree with Jim. As the owner of several tons of records (15,000 records+) I can testify that they are far from perfect for most of the reasons that Jim mentions. I also have more than 500 R2R tapes of the 15ips 2 track variety, mostly 1/4", but also a fair number of 1/2" tapes, including well over 200 safety masters. ...
Click to expand...

Larry, that is an astonishing collection!

I confess to being a lurker on zerodistortion.org and am in complete awe of your rich experience with music and audio. *hat tip*
 
Indeed very impressive collection and experience Larry, very nice.

As to Jim's observations, since 'Bop Till You Drop' Pandora's box has been opened and digital recording has started to take over. As pretty much all recordings nowadays are recorded (and also often produced) digitally, bits and bytes will eventually prevail. Technically that simply is the superior process, with better dynamics and less artifacts introduced into the recording during the production and multiplication process. This is what Jim was referring to in his article, proposing that already simple red book actually is better.

What has been impeding digital sound is insufficiency of digital playback technology, which contrary to analog tape or vinyl has continued to evolve and is still evolving today. Dynamics and frequency range of the recording are simply better portrayed and preserved than in physical analog media. Whether D/A conversion algorithms and their implementation in circuits and FPGAs are yet neutral, views might differ.

But to what extend digital conveys the sounds and ambiente of a 50's and 60's jazz club better than vinyl and tape, and the completely analog production process, might still be a question of preference.

Why I commented the article being funny, is because that technical argumentation kind of misses the point. I might not be the only vinyl or tape lover, where the process of finding, buying, storing, playing and cherishing the physical media is an important part of the process. For some, it might be argued, playing a vinyl record is part of 'the thing' of being into 50's and 60's jazz recordings.

So, I do have a 1969 280 SL Merc convertible and a current model C class taking me from 0-60 in 6.6 sec. Technically the latter is clearly better, but is it the better experience? Would you rather cruise around in one or the other. I guess it depends.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Nikhil said:
Larry, that is an astonishing collection!

I confess to being a lurker on zerodistortion.org and am in complete awe of your rich experience with music and audio. *hat tip*
Click to expand...

Nikhil, thanks. Much appreciated. Larry
 
Kuoppis said:
Indeed very impressive collection and experience Larry, very nice.

As to Jim's observations, since 'Bop Till You Drop' Pandora's box has been opened and digital recording has started to take over. As pretty much all recordings nowadays are recorded (and also often produced) digitally, bits and bytes will eventually prevail. Technically that simply is the superior process, with better dynamics and less artifacts introduced into the recording during the production and multiplication process. This is what Jim was referring to in his article, proposing that already simple red book actually is better.

What has been impeding digital sound is insufficiency of digital playback technology, which contrary to analog tape or vinyl has continued to evolve and is still evolving today. Dynamics and frequency range of the recording are simply better portrayed and preserved than in physical analog media. Whether D/A conversion algorithms and their implementation in circuits and FPGAs are yet neutral, views might differ.

But to what extend digital conveys the sounds and ambiente of a 50's and 60's jazz club better than vinyl and tape, and the completely analog production process, might still be a question of preference.

Why I commented the article being funny, is because that technical argumentation kind of misses the point. I might not be the only vinyl or tape lover, where the process of finding, buying, storing, playing and cherishing the physical media is an important part of the process. For some, it might be argued, playing a vinyl record is part of 'the thing' of being into 50's and 60's jazz recordings.

So, I do have a 1969 280 SL Merc convertible and a current model C class taking me from 0-60 in 6.6 sec. Technically the latter is clearly better, but is it the better experience? Would you rather cruise around in one or the other. I guess it depends.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Of course, so many of the great artists (I am mostly thinking about classical, but there are lots of jazz greats too) were gone before the digital age began, so we only have their analogue recordings.

If there is no access to tapes (either because of destruction or deterioration) then often a vinyl record is all we have. One thing that I have found to be excellent in the digital world is being able to do edits after recording in hirez. I've converted a lot of my vinyl and tapes into digital (all 192/24) and then removed scratches and some surface noise with quite excellent software tools. I have been using Merging Pyramix software with a Pacific Microsonics Model Two and then declick and denoise with Izotope RX3 Advanced. That can restore records which have seen their better day. In a couple of cases, I have safety master tapes with bumps or glitches and have been able to edit the defects out, without changing the sound quality of the tapes. I'm no mastering engineer, and I don't do digital EQ or limiting, which can be the bane of digital editing.

Larry
 
astrotoy said:
Of course, so many of the great artists (I am mostly thinking about classical, but there are lots of jazz greats too) were gone before the digital age began, so we only have their analogue recordings.

If there is no access to tapes (either because of destruction or deterioration) then often a vinyl record is all we have. One thing that I have found to be excellent in the digital world is being able to do edits after recording in hirez. I've converted a lot of my vinyl and tapes into digital (all 192/24) and then removed scratches and some surface noise with quite excellent software tools. I have been using Merging Pyramix software with a Pacific Microsonics Model Two and then declick and denoise with Izotope RX3 Advanced. That can restore records which have seen their better day. In a couple of cases, I have safety master tapes with bumps or glitches and have been able to edit the defects out, without changing the sound quality of the tapes. I'm no mastering engineer, and I don't do digital EQ or limiting, which can be the bane of digital editing.

Larry
Click to expand...

Wow, you really go to great lengths and have all the goodies. I think Pyramix is still the way to go for editing digital recordings.

And as you demonstrate, there is little use of being religious about one or the other format. Just leverage either where an opportunity emerges.

Very impressive indeed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
As to Jim's observations, since 'Bop Till You Drop' Pandora's box has been opened and digital recording has started to take over. As pretty much all recordings nowadays are recorded (and also often produced) digitally, bits and bytes will eventually prevail. Technically that simply is the superior process, with better dynamics and less artifacts introduced into the recording during the production and multiplication process. This is what Jim was referring to in his article, proposing that already simple red book actually is better.
Click to expand...

No, I was referring to the fact that no audiophile I have EVER visited (many hundreds at a minimum) had their turntable performing at its best. I'll say it again - NOT EVER. And, these days, it's rarely about the mechanical set-up, what with all the useful gadgets we have that enable us to get that critical part of the job done.

The sad thing is that it would probably only take an hour or less to get it there.

My question remains - is such a set-up truly reference quality - as claimed by those who have turntables that simply aren't delivering what is on the LP?.

Kuoppis said:
What has been impeding digital sound is insufficiency of digital playback technology, which contrary to analog tape or vinyl has continued to evolve and is still evolving today. Dynamics and frequency range of the recording are simply better portrayed and preserved than in physical analog media. Whether D/A conversion algorithms and their implementation in circuits and FPGAs are yet neutral, views might differ.

But to what extend digital conveys the sounds and ambiente of a 50's and 60's jazz club better than vinyl and tape, and the completely analog production process, might still be a question of preference.

Why I commented the article being funny, is because that technical argumentation kind of misses the point. I might not be the only vinyl or tape lover, where the process of finding, buying, storing, playing and cherishing the physical media is an important part of the process. For some, it might be argued, playing a vinyl record is part of 'the thing' of being into 50's and 60's jazz recordings.
Click to expand...

Hearing what vinyl can actually deliver from your (correctly set-up) turntable is a whole 'nother world. I have always enjoyed mine. Highly musically involving.

Kuoppis said:
So, I do have a 1969 280 SL Merc convertible and a current model C class taking me from 0-60 in 6.6 sec. Technically the latter is clearly better, but is it the better experience? Would you rather cruise around in one or the other. I guess it depends.
Click to expand...

The article was not about what's the better experience. It was about questionable claims of reference quality by those who haven't even experienced the actual performance available from the TTs they own.

Is their sound "reference quality"?

For me it's a big NO.
 
Jim Smith said:
No, I was referring to the fact that no audiophile I have EVER visited (many hundreds at a minimum) had their turntable performing at its best. I'll say it again - NOT EVER. And, these days, it's rarely about the mechanical set-up, what with all the useful gadgets we have that enable us to get that critical part of the job done.

The sad thing is that it would probably only take an hour or less to get it there.

My question remains - is such a set-up truly reference quality - as claimed by those who have turntables that simply aren't delivering what is on the LP?.



Hearing what vinyl can actually deliver from your (correctly set-up) turntable is a whole 'nother world. I have always enjoyed mine. Highly musically involving.



The article was not about what's the better experience. It was about questionable claims of reference quality by those who haven't even experienced the actual performance available from the TTs they own.

Is their sound "reference quality"?

For me it's a big NO.
Click to expand...

Hi Jim, thank you for your comments on my posting.

To me your article initially looked like being thought through. That is, if it was referring to the technical limitations of an older vs newer technology and people not seeing it.

However, if it was meant to be a critique of people not knowing how to set up their turntables, I find it a bit confusing and rather poorly written, as the message is unclear. To me, with that the tenor also slips from witty to besserwisser.

That does not take anything away from your superb expertise in voicing audio systems though [emoji3].

PS: I am probably one of those vinyl lovers, who have no idea how real vinyl sounds, but who love it nevertheless. So, maybe the message hit a little too close to home...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
Hi Jim, thank you for your comments on my posting.

To me your article initially looked like being thought through. That is, if it was referring to the technical limitations of an older vs newer technology and people not seeing it.
Click to expand...

Never occurred to me as a critique - solely about folks with under-performing TTs claiming reference quality from them.

Kuoppis said:
However, if it was meant to be a critique of people not knowing how to set up their turntables, I find it a bit confusing and rather poorly written, as the message is unclear.
Click to expand...

Should be unclear if taken as a critique of people not knowing how to set-up tables, as that was not what was written, from my viewpoint at least.

Thanks for your comments!
 
Jim Smith said:
Never occurred to me as a critique - solely about folks with under-performing TTs claiming reference quality from them.



Should be unclear if taken as a critique of people not knowing how to set-up tables, as that was not what was written, from my viewpoint at least.

Thanks for your comments!
Click to expand...

Fair enough Jim. I am sure everyone agrees perfecting turntable setup is not easy. Many moving parts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
jap said:
I don't see any TT listed in your system.
Click to expand...

Joe,

Maybe you missed this in the article -


A finyl word
When a digital system is done right, or at least pretty well, the music can flow and pluck your heartstrings. Although I love to listen to my vinyl, I haven’t in several years, preferring for a number of reasons to pursue making my digital archives the medium of choice.



BTW - I just looked in your profile and despite previous comments/requests, there is still no system listing of any kind. Maybe I missed it.

Do you actually have a system? :doubtful: :skeptical: :eyebrow:
 
Mr.Smith,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

I didn't read article.

Yes, I have a system.

I've never felt the need to list it in my profile or signature.

I've only had one person on this forum ask about my system, and I PM'd him the information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top