Vinyl Rip: a case for

[linnrd]

Here is a spectrum analysis of the raw vinyl rip of Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here. There have been some comments expressed about the veracity of the superiority of vinyl rips as compared to CD rips. I trust this should address some of those comments, as well as be of some amusement. I hope.

The left axis represents the frequency and the colour of the peak (at a frequency) represents its amplitude. There is content up to about 35kHz at 50dB down.

[dol]

(2012-07-28 05:24)linnrd Wrote:  The left axis represents the frequency and the colour of the peak (at a frequency) represents its amplitude. There is content up to about 35kHz at 50dB down.

What about the new BlueRay Immersion 192/24 tracks provided?
Are they similar??

[jbc]

Interesting results!

I'm guessing the 24 bit vinyl rip would sound better than the cd rip, and maybe even better than the high-res digital version as well, right?

Best,
Jbc

[linnrd]

I'll leave you to enlighten the forum on this in a couple of days after you have heard the lot in a blind (or double-blind) test.

[jbc]

Ok, quick follow-up on an experiment....

Linnrd recorded the new 'Wish You Were Here' vinyl release on to his 24/96 digital recorder (neat rig, by the way), and brought the rip over to my place.

To provide a comparison, we did a recording of the same release on my table using the same recorder.

That way, we could compare the recordings from two different tables head-to-head, and could also compare the digital recording of vinyl to the record played on the turntable itself.

My observations/thoughts:

1. The digital recordings of vinyl do lose some of the vibrancy and sense of depth, but are more than sufficient to enable comparisons - if you're comparing digital recording to digital recording.

2. 24/96 Digital recordings of vinyl sound pretty darned good. With a decent vinyl pressing, I prefer them to CD for sure, and maybe even to high res. Haven't figured out exactly why - maybe it's the mastering.

3. Comparing digital rips, Linnrd's SME20 has come clear sonic advantages over my LP12. Bass is deeper, faster, and free from overhang; resolution of detail is at a different level; clarity through mids and treble is better as well. How much of that is due to differences in table vs. arm vs. cartridge vs. phono stage, it's not possible to say.

4. Given the fact that the digital recordings sounded less vibrant than the turntable itself, I would expect the differences between the tables themselves to be more significant 'in real life' than what is hinted at by the digital recordings.

5. Since, for most of us, it's so difficult to be able to do head-to-head comparisons of analog upgrades (for the LP12), I wonder if dealers would entertain the idea of having a repository of comparative digital recordings of an LP12 in various states of upgrade, such that a potential customer could get a better idea of what each upgrade will bring. The caveat would be that the 'digital' comparison would give a flavour for the upgrade, which would be more significant when on the actual table... in the same way that a picture of an exotic hardwood plinth isn't quite the same as seeing it live.

Anyways, that's my take, and I'm sticking to it!

Best,
JBC

[MattC]

(2012-08-01 16:30)jbc Wrote:  5. Since, for most of us, it's so difficult to be able to do head-to-head comparisons of analog upgrades (for the LP12), I wonder if dealers would entertain the idea of having a repository of comparative digital recordings of an LP12 in various states of upgrade, such that a potential customer could get a better idea of what each upgrade will bring. The caveat would be that the 'digital' comparison would give a flavour for the upgrade, which would be more significant when on the actual table... in the same way that a picture of an exotic hardwood plinth isn't quite the same as seeing it live.

JBC

I think this is a terrific idea - and one that Linn could perhaps support themselves by producing the Needle Drop Recordings of the Vinyl Albums with escalating levels of equipment - MOST dealers have a KDS a KK and a Klimax Power Amp or two to provide a level playing field for the benefits of each upgrade to be exposed...for me, i'd be more than happy to buy analogue equipment based on the sound differences of some test recordings delivered on a top notch digital rig.


...if Linn don't do it - i'm sure there are some bright spark dealers out there who will gradually build up a top spec LP12 taking a couple of reference recordings at each stage - and using them for Demo purposes.

[Wilseus]

On a related note, has anyone tried one of those laser turntables? I believe they are primarily designed for this purpose. How do they stack up against a top spec LP12 I wonder?

EDIT: This is the product I'm referring to: http://www.elpj.com/

[k_numigl]

>> 4. Given the fact that the digital recordings sounded less vibrant than the turntable itself,

I would not generalise this. The differences in ADCs are big - and there are some (only a few) for
which I bet you cannot distinguish between source and recording. As all other stuff, they are
sensible to power supply quality, its phase, the support they stand on etc. etc. . So correct:
If you hear a difference between two recordings, it is definitely there in the live setup. If you
don't, there might be something in live nevetheless.
In a private context, we use this method within a small community since long. Worn Akiva against
new one, Ekos 2 vs. Ekos SE, NAS on dedicated table or not, AD/DA on Trampolin or not, Khan or SS top,
LP12 plinth versions etc etc., and in particular how to wash and degauss records. It is very helpful
to be able to listen repeatedly to such files.

[linnrd]

(2012-08-02 14:51)k_numigl Wrote:  >> 4. Given the fact that the digital recordings sounded less vibrant than the turntable itself,

I would not generalise this. The differences in ADCs are big - and there are some (only a few) for
which I bet you cannot distinguish between source and recording. As all other stuff, they are
sensible to power supply quality, its phase, the support they stand on etc. etc. . So correct:
If you hear a difference between two recordings, it is definitely there in the live setup. If you
don't, there might be something in live nevetheless.
In a private context, we use this method within a small community since long. Worn Akiva against
new one, Ekos 2 vs. Ekos SE, NAS on dedicated table or not, AD/DA on Trampolin or not, Khan or SS top,
LP12 plinth versions etc etc., and in particular how to wash and degauss records. It is very helpful
to be able to listen repeatedly to such files.

If you could PM me a "shopping list", I would really appreciate it. The ADC I use is for convenience and cost, but I think for long-term archiving, I would definitely be interested in what you view as a transparent ADC. I know you are partial to the Orpheus and was wondering if this is what you are referring to in your post.

[jbc]

Yes, very valid point. Thanks for the correction.

The observations I made were applicable only to the system and ADC/recorder being used at the time. A more transparent ADC could well narrow the gap between recording and 'live' to the point of insignificance.

I would love to hear some rips of a lingo vs. radikal on a similarly equipped LP12, if you know anyone that has any...

Best,
JBC

(2012-08-02 14:51)k_numigl Wrote:  >> 4. Given the fact that the digital recordings sounded less vibrant than the turntable itself,

I would not generalise this. The differences in ADCs are big - and there are some (only a few) for
which I bet you cannot distinguish between source and recording. As all other stuff, they are
sensible to power supply quality, its phase, the support they stand on etc. etc. . So correct:
If you hear a difference between two recordings, it is definitely there in the live setup. If you
don't, there might be something in live nevetheless.