Vinyl-fetish hipsters might just have a point Hipsters. They're this decade's yuppies, but with worse facial hair. And an annoying predilection for pointless retro-technology fetishm that manifests itself in a love for vinyl records. Actually, scratch that complaint (pardon the pun). Or at least scratch it for the new 'ULTRA LP' format that Jack White, formerly of The …
There was me thinking you stick a record on and let it play.
The point of vinyl being you can't skip tracks so easily, so a good album is required. Once we started being able to skip tracks easily the filler rubbish started appearing more on records.
So if your record requires you to do all manner of strange things to play it you've lost already.
There was me thinking you stick a record on and let it play.
This.
The Monty Python example can just about be forgiven because they're as mad as a box of frogs. However, I don't expect to buy a record and then have to play Where's Wally to hear the damned music.
I'm also wondering how the auto-lift record players are going to cope with the inside-out track or the one "hidden" in the centre label. In fact I don't wonder: They won't cope with it. Well done, I guess we all have to go out and buy either a shit USB vinyl player or a stupendously expensive set of Technics or Stantons just to play the record?
How about just make it work?
You're right.
Most record decks, even manual ones, will not allow the arm to move much further in than the outside edge of the label. This is normally because of the bias counterweight, but also to prevent the stylus being damaged from 'playing the label'.
I'm also surprised about it having a 78 RPM track. Almost no record decks made in the last 30 years can even play at 78 RPM.
My Project, and most belt other decks like Linn, Rega et. al. have to have the belt manually moved to a different pulley position in order to play 45s. I think that there is a conversion kit which consists of a larger pulley and a longer belt for my Project, but I don't intend to fork out for and then mod my desk just for this record!
a better solution is just to wait for someone else to do all that, AND record the two hidden tracks, and upload the .ogg files to usenet or something, then download and play on your digital device
although, i doubt i'll bother. if Mr White is so concerned with retro, he won't be wanting any of my modern money and i'm all out of shillings and pence.
I have a Rega Planar 78 (based on the Planar 2) which runs at one speed and one speed only: 78rpm. But it's also set up with 78rpm stylii which are designed to fit shellace grooves that are around 4 times wider than vinyl microgrooves, and would sound pretty grim on this release - if any of the narrower ones could actually track the groove.
I suspect the reason, beyond total gimmick, for the higher speeds "under the label" is due to huge treble drop-off at the centre thanks to the much reduced linear velocity of the grooves that close to the hole. Given the way regular LPs suffer end-of-side distortion, those faster centre grooves must sound abysmal. I'm guessing they're not expecting many people to actually bother setting systems up to play them.
One final thing that demands correction: a completely mint shellac 78 is very shiny. When I see a 78 with a matte finish I give it a very wide berth as it's clearly completely shagged from being played to death, usually with a very heavy steel needle.
I can remember in the late '80s, early '90s, people talking up the sound quality of CDs by pointing out how crappy LPs sounded. When they failed to mention that by the early '90s, almost every possible component in turntables -- even supposedly high-end tables -- was being made of plastic. So, if your LPs sounded like crap back then, it's likely because they were being played on those crappy late '80s consumer-grade turntables full of crap plastic parts.
That's the problem with those USB turntables they're advertising to people who want to burn digital copies of their LPs -- it's a good idea, except that they're using those same kind of crap turntables full of plastic parts.
If you're trying to preserve any old LPs you have that are still in good shape, you'd be better off with a proper DJ turntable with the proper set of adapting connectors.
You are quite right that USB turntables are rubbish. But if the proper DJ turntable you refer to is the Technics -- frankly, it's not a great sounding deck.
Main benefit for DJs (and for recording individual tracks to CD) is near-instant start of the direct drive motor. The constant speed can also be detected by some listeners, compared to belt drive. But the arm is very basic and its bearings seem sloppy if not adjusted.
I've done side-by-side comparisons with friends between a Technics SL1210 Mk2 and a 1970s vintage Thorens 125 (the large electronically controlled belt drive model) fitted with a Mission arm. Same ADC cartridge in both turntables.
Predictably, a musician claimed to detect the better speed control of the Technics, but all agreed that the Thorens was in a different class for sound. The Technics sounded blurred, I suspect because its very limited suspension was poor at rejecting low frequency feedback compared to the wobbly suspension of the Thorens. Tapping the Technics body during playback produced an audible boom in the speakers, while the Thorens was immune.
Compared to the Mission arm, Technics arm is clearly not a precision design, particularly the bearings.
if the track doesn't sound good over the airwaves to the punter at home, he isn't going to buy the record!
My band recorded an EP many years ago. The "engineer"[1] that came with the studio wanted to do the mixdown on this lovely set of studio monitors. We had to threaten him with violence to get the mix done on a crappy set of 4" speakers instead. And the resulting mix sounded wonderful on a car stereo - which is exactly what we were after.
Vic.
[1] I use the term quite wrongly. We booked this studio because it had a Neumann U87, which remains my favourite microphone. We ended up having to send the bloke that came with it on the chip-run, whilst the two guitarists in the band did the mix. We were both working as sound engineers at the time...
When mixing albums with the Grateful Dead in the late '70s, Jerry Garcia used to do a standard cassette dub of the album in its current "state of play" to listen to in his car for just this reason. He'd play the work mix on his car stereo while doing his daily driving, and take notes to use in making changes to the mix in the studio. In fact, I think he even had a set of car stereo speakers similar to the set in his own car installed in the mixing booth at the studio.
I recall once hearing about a style of mixing in the early/mid '60s known as the "car radio mix" -- that is, tracks purposely mixed so they'd sound good on a car radio, which is where most teenagers were listening to their rock'n'roll at the time. Of course, this was before sophisticated car stereo systems really started taking off.
So, if you're listening to a digital reissue of an old Paul Revere And The Raiders album and wondering why the low end sounds so flat and "punchy", it's because it was originally mixed to be heard on the seven-inch dashboard speaker of a car radio, not your big fancy modern system at home.
I've noticed how smooth sounding and crackle free are early Decca FFRR classical vinyl (I have mostly post 1958 stereo pressings). I suspect the secret is in compression -- dynamic range and bass are not as obvious as on (say) 1980s pressings. Indeed, some of these oldies strongly remind me of cinema sound from my childhood in the 1960s, but they are rather lovely.
The lack of distractions caused by ticks and clicks is a relief (compared with later pressings). Of course, on the well-known principal that everything made since 1961 is substandard, it may also be that Decca used decent vinyl stock in the early days of stereo, knowing that the few buyers probably had (fairly) hi fi gear.
A website in S. Korea is dedicated to 1950's Decca titles -- the cover artwork is kitsch in the extreme but has a certain charm.
Also worth checking out early Motown albums issued via EMI in the UK -- again compression packs lots of sound into the grooves, making them seemingly impervious to damage.
Decca started issuing FFRR recordings in 1945 and LPs in 1950, so your albums aren't "early". In fact most Decca vinyl pressings in the early days were pretty grim and sounded much better in their Ace Of Clubs budget reissues at the end of the 50s and thereafter.
Personally, given the choice between mint 50s vinyl and mint 70s or 80s vinyl of the same recording I'd go for the 80s unless there was a very good reason not to.
(This all refers to classical music releases, BTW)
God, so many literalists on this site.
Okay I should have said Decca FFSS.
Main point is that Decca made LPs in the 1950s that are still listenable today because (I think) compression helped reduce surface noise. The quieter bits aren't so quiet, so you don't hear the clicks. To me this makes up for the fact that sound may not be authentic compared to 1970/80s releases. And the ones I have sound pleasant, nevertheless.
Conflicting evidence:
1) In the early days of CD many vinyl titles were rushed onto CD using dubious master tapes. For example, Simon & Garfunkel's Greatest Hits which scandalised the artists to the extent that they mention the isue in liner notes to a subsequent remastered box set.
Friends have uncovered this same issue when copying vinyl album to CD (via standalone CD Recorder, not computer) and comparing the resulting CDR with a commercial CD.
2) Recording vinyl to CD (via standalone device or computer) can produce better results than playing the original vinyl. The simple reason is that, unlike a CD player, the turntable is subject to feedback from the speakers. This is reduced or avoided if the recording to CD is monitored at lower than normal playback levels (or via headphones).
3) I would say that, usually, recent commercial CD reissues of old vinyl hits (The Doors albums are a good example) sound better than the vinyl originals.WEA in particular seem to have taken care to use good master tapes to provide greater dynamic range than was possible in the vinyl process.
Sampling an LP at 44Hz and doing a blind test would be a good way to put paid to the drivel that LPs are somehow better. If the LP were better then the sample should be measurably worse to someone who is randomly played clips of one or the other without knowing which is which. I expect that there would be no difference in results
Any difference between LP and CD versions are solely to do with the master track and any processing that went on during the reproduction of it.
You cannot 'sample' an LP, it is played with an analogue transducer (the cartridge) producing an analogue low level signal which needs to be amplified and equalised (inverse RIAA) before it reaches the same line level signal that the CD player output produces. All that and feedback too, how close to the LP are you?
But you are right about mastering - original records were mastered from analogue tapes, these days modern (+ reissue) records are produced from PCM masters several generations away from their predecessors 25+ years ago. The original Beatles master tapes have gone for good - the recent re-issues are from PCM copies. You can play a modern LP, you are still hearing digital...
In the beginning, sides were quite short, the vinyl was very heavy and the bass compression could be reduced and it would still fit and not distort. Starting from the mid-70s and the oil crisis vinyl got thinner and there is a distinctly noticeable change in bass quality until we get to the nadir in the 80s (and I'm sure part of this was record companies producing crap quality LPs to convince people that CD was better) when the records were being pressed onto something that was the same thickness as an Airfix kit! As vinyl resurfaced in the noughties and we got audiophile pressings on heavyweight vinyl with CD running times split over 4 sides so the quality of the reproduction has gone up again; bass particularly.
And I do think there is something lacking in CDs against vinyl. I have had Sound of Contact's Dimensionaut on CD for a while now and it's a good album. I listened to it for the first time on vinyl last night and it just sounds so much better (Linn Lp12 v Arcam CD82 (with CD92PSU/ DAC upgrade, both plugged into the same amp).
I am prepared to admit that the difference may be subjective, if you grew up listening to vinyl you think vinyl sounds better, and if you grew up listening to CD then it's CD you prefer. This doesn't explain hipsters, but it may be that's just because they've splashed out for decent kit to play the vinyl on rather than the £50 mini-system they listend to CDs on....
There are some fallacies in this discussion though! Vinyl does not degrade through repeated playing (unless you're careless enough to scratch it). I have a copy of Queen's Night at the Opera which I bought the week it was released. It still sounded gorgeous 30 years later, after being played, on average, at least once a fortnight, when I replaced it.... ...with the 30th anniversary remastered edition on 180g vinyl....
When the first vinyl records were released they were heavy so as to seem familiar to the shellac discs they replaced. The thickness of the vinyl has no real bearing on sound quality - there are a hundred and one other ways in which this was and is compromised as a master tape makes its way to a vinyl master. Cramming more and more onto a side is the biggest culprit here.
But the modern fetish for 45rpm heavy virgin vinyl is more about extracting cash from mugs. I've heard significantly better sound quality from regular mint 80s pressings than from the modern allegedly audiophile equivalent. And both are beaten hands down in just about every way (apart from added distortion, rumble, wow and flutter, dynamic range limitation etc.) by any halfway competent digital reproduction.
Vinyl does not degrade through repeated playing
Of course it does. It's a contact surface, and there is friction. This necessarily results in abrasion to the recorded surface.
Whether or not that wear is significant is a different point - but it is certainly the case that vinyl is degraded by playing it.
Vic.
I bought 'Who's Next' back in the 70s and put it on the family's hi-fi, but I hadn't noticed the speed was set to 16rpm. The piano on 'Baba O'Reilly' went on for ages and sounded very odd.
My first 'proper turntable was a Lenco L75, which had a conical pulley and a lever to continuously vary the speed from less than 16 to well over 78, plus a strobe disc to get the speed spot-on. Built like a tank, it was.
How is that going to work? Many of the record players that I have seen in my life would retract the stylus and switch off when it reaches the inner end.
As for playing inside the label, I just looked at my turntable [*] and I don't think it is capable of swinging the arm in that far - again, the automatic disengage mechanism.
* - I can hook it up to the computer but I don't as it sounds terrible. Does anything (Audacity?) have a free RIAA plugin to correct the raw sound from the record?
JAMin does.
Looks nice. Just a shame it's part of JACK. A more fiddly audio set-up I have yet to encounter. "Professional Quality" quite possibly, but also in the same way that 3D Studio Max requires a degree-level education to get past "render a sphere with a texture", and Cisco's IOS generally shouldn't be attempted by anybody who still possesses a shred of sanity.
When transferring my old vinyl to digital and normalising the peak signal to full scale (after removing scratches and clicks) I almost always find that the end result is quieter than all modern CDs, even of the same album. This is because of the "louder is better" fetish to make CDs "stand out", but the trouble is that once everybody does it nobody stands out any more...
Having sat behind the engineer who mixed and mastered our last couple of CDs, with HDD studios it's now become standard that each instrument has some compression applied to bring up the quiet bits and limit the loudest peaks, and then the final mix has the same. The end result is a higher overall level but with reduced dynamic range -- which is a waste of the much higher SNR of digital compared to vinyl, but that's the way recording is done nowadays :-(
The end result is a higher overall level but with reduced dynamic range -- which is a waste of the much higher SNR of digital compared to vinyl
Exactly so.
When I see the phrase "digitally remastered", I always read "fucked up by some deaf YTS trainee". I suspect this effect is why people still claim vinyl sounds better than CD - it generally does, but that's because of the way the masters are screwed up prior to producing the CD, not because of the technology itself.
Vic.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
