What is the "sound" of vinyl

[Chill3]

I'll try again... My fault, I'm not sure how to word my question or even if it's a meaningful one.

Firstly, I'm NOT talking about whether or not vinyl is better. I AM talking about whether it is meaningful to talk about the 'sound' of vinyl.

My reasoning is that the means by which we extract sound from the grooves of the record is a transducer and therefore has a sonic signature of its own. Different turntable systems can sound as different as different speakers do. So how do we know which bit of what we hear is the essential 'sound' of vinyl and which bit is the transducer.

*caveat: I may be completely wrong about the above. If so, tell me why but don't tell me why by telling me vinyl is better or worse than cd.

ZB has posted that there is *one* brand of stylus that has a flat response so I guess that in theory, might allow us to hear what's actually on the record. That's the sort of discussion I had hoped for. I'm not interested in talking about whether vinyl is better than CD- its been done to death and never gets anywhere.

Well let me take a shot ?

I think that there is a "sound to Vinyl" in the sense that certain basic qualities are present on good or better turntable systems that are not as present on other formats

These qualities are independent of the cartridge as long as the cartridge is also at least good - the cartridge being a transducer does have a major effect on the sound, but still there are other qualities that exist outside that.

For example - your TT the Yamaha GT 750 - the sound will change a great deal if you move from say the Sure MM to a Denon 103 - however IMO there are other sound qualities that would be consistent across both that are intrinsic to a vinyl replay system.

I personaly find those qualities make vinyl more enjoyable that other formats !

[Dr X]

In general, I believe the "sound of vinyl" is of more natural mastering in regards to dynamics (loudness) than CD.

Also I think vinyl may be a good way to hide/mask flaws in one's HIFI system and room because along with musical information, vinyl also presents audible noise and distortion.

CD will simply expose all flaws in your playback system and room.

And yes in a practical sense I think you need to make comparisons to CD's or at the very least it's worthwhile.

[Drizt]

I'm pretty sure he was trying to determine if vinyl does in fact have a "sound" of it's own at all when take into consideration the variations in the components used in the playback chain. He specifically mentions cartridges, but everything including the turntable, what it sits on, the arm, the wiring, phono pre, etc. all contribute to what you get off the disk.

No idea why comparisons to master tapes and CD come into it nor methods for comparing to them. As for what vinyl sounds like. For a lot of people it apparently sounds a lot closer to music than any other format.

What else.can you compare against other than the master ? This is bewildering. If tt playback has a sound surely it.could.be.measured against what it came from.

[ArthurDent]

What else.can you compare against other than the master ? This is bewildering. If tt playback has a sound surely it.could.be.measured against what it came from.

Okay I'll bite. What method are you proposing to use to do this. And would we be using analog master tapes or digital.

[samman]

Well let me take a shot ?

I think that there is a "sound to Vinyl" in the sense that certain basic qualities are present on good or better turntable systems that are not as present on other formats

These qualities are independent of the cartridge as long as the cartridge is also at least good - the cartridge being a transducer does have a major effect on the sound, but still there are other qualities that exist outside that.

For example - your TT the Yamaha GT 750 - the sound will change a great deal if you move from say the Sure MM to a Denon 103 - however IMO there are other sound qualities that would be consistent across both that are intrinsic to a vinyl replay system.

I personaly find those qualities make vinyl more enjoyable that other formats !

Hi Chill

I totally agree with you, there is something about the sound of vinyl that sets it apart from other forms of music reproduction....

Regards

Sam

Edited January 6, 2012 by samman

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

What else.can you compare against other than the master ? This is bewildering. If tt playback has a sound surely it.could.be.measured against what it came from.

Certainly. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed:

* Some listeners prefer vinyl because of the colouration that certain components (notably: certain cartridges) introduce into the system.

* Some listeners prefer vinyl because it has less objectionable colouration than other playback media.

* Some vinyl has been recorded without first going to master tape.

FWIW: I did a comparison between 2nd generation master tapes of the same performances that was available on vinyl and 16/44 digital. We also compared a signal that had been recorded from the master tapes to a DAT machine.

The result? In every test, the master tape was the preferred medium. In every test, the vinyl was a close second. In every test, the CD was indistinguishable from the DAT tape and was the least preferred medium.

Cartridge was the Dynavector 17D. Tone arm was the Dynavector DV507. ME25 preamp. ME150 power amps, actively bi-amped into custom loudspeakers, using Infinity drivers (EMIMs, EMITs, et al). Tape equipment included a ReVox A700 and an Otari MX50.

And, just to throw a fly in the ointment, we tested the best vinyl we could find. In every case, the direct to disk vinyl simply obliterated EVERYTHING we could throw at the system. Of course, it was difficult to compare, but a DAT recording made of the direct to disk LPs, sounded disgusting, by comparison.

[Drizt]

Okay I'll bite. What method are you proposing to use to do this. And would we be using analog master tapes or digital.

Most masters are digital so that would be the most logical to use. I dont mind either way if you were to be insistent.

A high quality adc would be used to sample the output of the preamp which could then be compared to the digital master.

The nitty gritty details are irrelevant at this stage unless everyone accepts that it can be done.

How would you compare them ?

[Drizt]

Preference is irrelevant in THIS thread.

The sound of vinyl which would be.defined as the difference from the master is what is being discussed.

Certainly. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed:

* Some listeners prefer vinyl because of the colouration that certain components (notably: certain cartridges) introduce into the system.

* Some listeners prefer vinyl because it has less objectionable colouration than other playback media.

* Some vinyl has been recorded without first going to master tape.

FWIW: I did a comparison between 2nd generation master tapes of the same performances that was available on vinyl and 16/44 digital. We also compared a signal that had been recorded from the master tapes to a DAT machine.

The result? In every test, the master tape was the preferred medium. In every test, the vinyl was a close second. In every test, the CD was indistinguishable from the DAT tape and was the least preferred medium.

Cartridge was the Dynavector 17D. Tone arm was the Dynavector DV507. ME25 preamp. ME150 power amps, actively bi-amped into custom loudspeakers, using Infinity drivers (EMIMs, EMITs, et al). Tape equipment included a ReVox A700 and an Otari MX50.

And, just to throw a fly in the ointment, we tested the best vinyl we could find. In every case, the direct to disk vinyl simply obliterated EVERYTHING we could throw at the system. Of course, it was difficult to compare, but a DAT recording made of the direct to disk LPs, sounded disgusting, by comparison.

[Drizt]

Hi Chill

I totally agree with you, there is something about the sound of vinyl that sets it apart from other forms of music reproduction....

Regards

Sam

it is definitely different, lets try and measure and define the difference.

[Chill3]

Preference is irrelevant in THIS thread.

The sound of vinyl which would be.defined as the difference from the master is what is being discussed.

Preference is never irrelevant ! unless two formats / reproduction chains were identical ( and they never are ) then Preference will always be relevant !

[ArthurDent]

How would you compare them ?

I wouldn't bother because you can't buy master tapes.

The closest you can get for a very limited range of titles is 2nd generation copies from people such as The Tape project.

http://www.tapeproject.com/

And according to our friend with two heads vinyl comes pretty close and CD doesn't.

A more interesting and revelant comparision would perhaps be a DSD master to SACD and vinyl.

[Drizt]

Preference is never irrelevant ! unless two formats / reproduction chains were identical ( and they never are ) then Preference will always be relevant !

Perhaps you should reread the OP

[Drizt]

I have the masters for goyte latest album, so we have at.least one.

I wouldn't bother because you can't buy master tapes.

The closest you can get for a very limited range of titles is 2nd generation copies from people such as The Tape project.

http://www.tapeproject.com/

And according to our friend with two heads vinyl comes pretty close and CD doesn't.

A more interesting and revelant comparision would perhaps be a DSD master to SACD and vinyl.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Preference is irrelevant in THIS thread.

Not quite. Since there was an audible difference between all sources, a choice had to be made as to which was the most accurate. The (analogue) master tapes were clearly the most accurate. Obviously. The next choice to be made was which alternate source was deemed to be the next most accurate. The vinyl was deemed to be next most accurate and quite close to the master tapes. Last, was the CD and the DAT.

The sound of vinyl which would be.defined as the difference from the master is what is being discussed.

Yes. Both vinyl and CD sounded different to the master tape. Vinyl simply sounded nearer to the original. MUCH nearer, in fact.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Brain fart

[lemnos]

What else.can you compare against other than the master ? This is bewildering. If tt playback has a sound surely it.could.be.measured against what it came from.

Comparing a source to the original master tape highlights the difference in sound. This difference might be perceived an enhancement or non enhancement to the sound from the original master. But one thing for certain there is a difference, therefore Drizt's argument is valid.

When comparing a tt sound to the original master whatever difference is heard is due to the combination of tt\arm\cartridge\phono\setup. Different tt combinations can greatly vary in sound.

The question of what tt sounds like is irrelevant.

Edited January 6, 2012 by lemnos

[Chill3]

Perhaps you should reread the OP

Perhaps you should reread the OP - and his further request to not make this about "comparing formats "

Whatmore has asked that at least 3 times

we get it you do not like vinyl - you prefer digital

on this section of the forum at least you are in the minority - natural as it is the VINYL section

perhaps best you go back to the digital section and play with your mates - comparing the size of there measurements and DP tests

[Chill3]

Opps sorry meant DB tests

[Drizt]

Did you measure the differences or just make a subjective opinion ?

Not quite. Since there was an audible difference between all sources, a choice had to be made as to which was the most accurate. The (analogue) master tapes were clearly the most accurate. Obviously. The next choice to be made was which alternate source was deemed to be the next most accurate. The vinyl was deemed to be next most accurate and quite close to the master tapes. Last, was the CD and the DAT.

Yes. Both vinyl and CD sounded different to the master tape. Vinyl simply sounded nearer to the original. MUCH nearer, in fact.

[Drizt]

Another emotional response. Im specifically trying to answer whatmore question, not comparing formats. Im yet to read any other replies that detail how to measure or define the tt playback signiture sound.

Perhaps you should reread the OP - and his further request to not make this about "comparing formats "

Whatmore has asked that at least 3 times

we get it you do not like vinyl - you prefer digital

on this section of the forum at least you are in the minority - natural as it is the VINYL section

perhaps best you go back to the digital section and play with your mates - comparing the size of there measurements and DP tests

[Jake]

Another emotional response. Im specifically trying to answer whatmore question, not comparing formats. Im yet to read any other replies that detail how to measure or define the tt playback signiture sound.

You can't measure it. Just listen and enjoy. Something you seem not to be able to do Drizt.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Did you measure the differences or just make a subjective opinion ?

Purely subjective. Hence the term: "listening". The technical differences were already well known and measured by others.

And, FWIW: Except for S/N, THD, W&F and flatness of frequency response, the Dynavector 17D, the ReVox and the Otari were dramatically, measurably superior to the DAT and CD.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Brain fart

[Drizt]

Another emotional response. Why cant people.just answer the question rather than having a go at the person trying to answer the question

You can't measure it. Just listen and enjoy. Something you seem not to be able to do Drizt.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Drizt

[Drizt]

You can't measure it. Just listen and enjoy. Something you seem not to be able to do Drizt.

Statsman thread would be a good place.to take your argument that it cant be measured.

[GFuNK]

Certainly. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed:

* Some listeners prefer vinyl because of the colouration that certain components (notably: certain cartridges) introduce into the system.

* Some listeners prefer vinyl because it has less objectionable colouration than other playback media.

* Some vinyl has been recorded without first going to master tape.

FWIW: I did a comparison between 2nd generation master tapes of the same performances that was available on vinyl and 16/44 digital. We also compared a signal that had been recorded from the master tapes to a DAT machine.

The result? In every test, the master tape was the preferred medium. In every test, the vinyl was a close second. In every test, the CD was indistinguishable from the DAT tape and was the least preferred medium.

Cartridge was the Dynavector 17D. Tone arm was the Dynavector DV507. ME25 preamp. ME150 power amps, actively bi-amped into custom loudspeakers, using Infinity drivers (EMIMs, EMITs, et al). Tape equipment included a ReVox A700 and an Otari MX50.

And, just to throw a fly in the ointment, we tested the best vinyl we could find. In every case, the direct to disk vinyl simply obliterated EVERYTHING we could throw at the system. Of course, it was difficult to compare, but a DAT recording made of the direct to disk LPs, sounded disgusting, by comparison.

Zaphy if your DAT recording sounded disgusting, your doing something wrong, period.

This does not inspire confidence for the rest of your observations.

Edited January 6, 2012 by GFuNK

[Chill3]

You can't measure it. Just listen and enjoy. Something you seem not to be able to do Drizt.

Spot on

You can not measure what you do not fully understand - and how our brain / ear interprets music and what factors / errors / distortions / are important or not important not fully understood

The world is full of poor measuring equipment that sounds great (vinyl being just one type ) and "good" measuring equipment that sounds crap

So in short we are measuring wrong

given the above how Dritz do you propose that we measure ?

I and on others on here have come to a very sensible answer - we measure with the most accurate instrument we can find - our ears