Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted March 4, 2014 Volunteer Posted March 4, 2014 So I’ve forgotten to take my meds and I’ve been thinking again…. Bearing in mind that I know pretty much nothing about the process of creating records I feel I am eminently qualified to throw my theories out there. There is this commonly accepted idea that because records are analog, they somehow better capture the information required for playback. What I’m wondering is, just how accurate are they – what is their ‘resolution’ (if we can use that term for analog)? If I think about sound as a continuous vibration, how does this get transferred onto vinyl with sufficient accuracy? Can the cutting lathe start and stop and change direction with no overshoot, with no delays in stopping and starting, with no discontinuities that would lead to ‘chopping’ of the waveform? Is it even physically possible? We don’t think of vinyl as doing sampling, but perhaps in a way it is. Perhaps our idea of analog as being a pure, continuous waveform is just not correct Or I could be talking rubbish
BradC Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Analog also has limitations on what can be achieved, the same as digital. Analog will have a bandwidth limitation (limit to how fast the stylus can move back and forth) and a resolution limit, (the smallest movement of the stylus that is distinguishable from random fluctuations) i don't know what the numbers are, but they are probably easy to find out in specifications somewhere. 1
Zaphod Beeblebrox Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) There are several aspects to consider: Frequency response: Analogue (vinyl) is capable of FAR wider bandwidth than 16/44 digital. The mighty Dynavector 17D (I, II, III) cartridge has a flat response well past 60kHz. This enables such a vinyl set-up to deliver more accurate rise times, than 16/44 digital. An aspect of vinyl that is rarely mentioned in this discussion is two-fold: * In the cutting process, it is possible (though rarely done) to reduce the rotational speed of the lathe, thus allowing much higher frequencies to be recorded. * When playing back a square wave, the actual waveform on the LP appears as a triangle wave. Thus rapid impulse response of vinyl is far superior to 16/44 digital. Signal to noise: 16/44 digital comfortably exceeds vinyl in this area. By a very considerable margin. THD: 16/44 digital comfortably exceeds vinyl in this area. Wow & flutter: 16/44 digital comfortably exceeds vinyl in this area. 3 steps forward, one step back. Edited March 4, 2014 by Zaphod Beeblebrox 2
Guest kab Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) The valleys of vinyl.....Record groove magnified. Edited March 4, 2014 by kab
frankn Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Wouldn't the limitation on resolution be the accuracy of the cutting head when the master is being created, followed by the stamping of the production records / quality of vinyl then followed by the playback equipment - a combined response of creation and playback?
Addicted to music Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 And we left out the SCP issue, dont care how you guys clean it, this issue sticks its ugly head up for you to take notice....
Keith Anderson Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Which just goes to show, it's not all about the numbers. If you look at this CD should sound way superior but it doesn't 1
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted March 5, 2014 Author Volunteer Posted March 5, 2014 Which just goes to show, it's not all about the numbers. If you look at this CD should sound way superior but it doesn't That is a matter of opinion, you are entitled to yours of course. In any event not really relevant to my original question.
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted March 5, 2014 Author Volunteer Posted March 5, 2014 And we left out the SCP issue, dont care how you guys clean it, this issue sticks its ugly head up for you to take notice.... What is SCP?
Jake Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 And we left out the SCP issue, dont care how you guys clean it, this issue sticks its ugly head up for you to take notice.... Yes, it is there, in varying degrees. Many variables of course, but with well-pressed vinyl that has been taken care of the noises you speak of are minimal at worst, and often gone altogether. The fact that vinyl is so popular should tell you something about that.
Jake Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 And we left out the SCP issue, dont care how you guys clean it, this issue sticks its ugly head up for you to take notice.......and not relevant to the thread.
Jake Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Snap Crackle Pop? Rice bubbles anyone? Not relevant. I shouldn't have even acknowledged it. Let's get back to RESOLUTION.
New Sensations Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Vinyl's bit depth is typically equivalent to 9 or 10 bits. http://wiki.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Bit_Depth#Vinyl_etc
New Sensations Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 ....although I've heard other sources quote it as being closer to 12 bits.
Newman Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 12 is probably theoretical, 9 or 10 more realistic. 1
Gruffnutz Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Vinyl's bit depth is typically equivalent to 9 or 10 bits. http://wiki.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Bit_Depth#Vinyl_etc When looked at purely from the perspective of total available Dynamic Range and ignoring other aspects of 'resolution' such as frequency response, 'granularity', interpolation and compression.
Addicted to music Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Not relevant. I shouldn't have even acknowledged it. Let's get back to RESOLUTION. IMO Im glad you answered it, SCP effects resolution and detail, especially live recording, for example did someone just dropped there guts or is a dirty record. If you take some old recordings thats done on analog tape and it is a direct cut to vinyl, these are the best, the tape doesnt hide any micro-details and you get to hear everything. For example in a Linda Rondstadt album, you can pick up what she is listening to on the headphone she's wearing, in the CD version of the same track, its hard to pick or literally not there. With today's recording studio its easier to edit what you dont want people to hear.
Newman Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 There are several aspects to consider: Frequency response: Analogue (vinyl) is capable of FAR wider bandwidth than 16/44 digital. The mighty Dynavector 17D (I, II, III) cartridge has a flat response well past 60kHz. This enables such a vinyl set-up to deliver more accurate rise times, than 16/44 digital. An aspect of vinyl that is rarely mentioned in this discussion is two-fold: * In the cutting process, it is possible (though rarely done) to reduce the rotational speed of the lathe, thus allowing much higher frequencies to be recorded. * When playing back a square wave, the actual waveform on the LP appears as a triangle wave. Thus rapid impulse response of vinyl is far superior to 16/44 digital. Signal to noise: 16/44 digital comfortably exceeds vinyl in this area. By a very considerable margin. THD: 16/44 digital comfortably exceeds vinyl in this area. Wow & flutter: 16/44 digital comfortably exceeds vinyl in this area. 3 steps forward, one step back. And the one step back is the only inaudible one. 1
David.M Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 These discussions seem to never change, digital fans rely on measurements and analogue fans the sound. I've just realised how I can get the best of both worlds, I'll listen to analogue sound and read about digital measurements 6
Addicted to music Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 And the one step back is the only inaudible one. Not according to some in these neck of the woods, some SNA members hear believe they have bat ears :lol: :nana 1
andyr Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 And we left out the SCP issue, dont care how you guys clean it, this issue sticks its ugly head up for you to take notice.... SCP?
Guest myrantz Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 These discussions seem to never change, digital fans rely on measurements and analogue fans the sound. The bigger issue IMO is folks are getting very gear focused in today's fast paced constant changing world... A lot of the forum talk nowadays focuses most on specifications/technology/topology/medium/format/codec etc... <- Topics that generate 100% of arguments found on the Internet... Even how something sound is described from the perspective of the gear these days: digital, vinyl or tape; digital fans vs analog fans; floorstandards vs standmounts vs stats vs horns; SS vs tubes; silver vs copper vs brass; hi-res vs dsd vs blah; bang-for-buck; etc. All fine examples of gear first and music second. All examples of how people get sucked into marketing IMO, but to each his own. And I can understand first hand how people stereotype camps and over-generalise, as I'm personally guilty of this right now ... But once in a while it's nice to take a step back and watch folks argue ... 1
metal beat Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) I am going to stay out of this mass-debate. :eek: I had my fun last night learning about the wonders of prerecorded master tape R2R and the huge number (not) of titles available. Those amusing facts even made me appreciate CD's as at least they have a lot of music choice. have fun boys Edited March 5, 2014 by turntable 1
Recommended Posts