High end turntables and sound reproduction - few questions

[Hiten]

Hello everyone,
I listen to vinyls on pretty average setup (Pioneer and technics TT+Pioneer amp). and love the 'sound' of it. I read that in earlier times vinyl cutting process attenuated 'VERY' low frequencies (if there were any in the music) so as it doesn't get mixed with rumble noise of turntable and rumble noise doesn't get amplified. Also bass frequencies were made mono so as stylus movement is not too much and tracks easily. So Just asking out of curiosity ....
1) Do modern high end turntables have extreme low rumble noise specifications, So as very low frequencies can easily be reproduced without amplifying the rumble noise?
2) Suppose a music piece on outer most groove of the vinyl takes up 'X' amount of length on vinyl the same music on inner most grooves near record label will take less space but will require same movement of stylus, will both music sample sound same ?
3) Is it true that High frequencies are increased to suppress surface noise ?
4) Do stylus tip resonance and tonearm resonance get amplified even in high end systems ? How do they dampen it ?
5) If very low frequencies are still made mono so as stylus easily tracks the groove should we call it accurate sound reproduction ?
6) If all recording equipments are now digital wouldn't it make better sense to listen to digital medium rather than listening to vinyls which were cut using digital source ?
7) How accurate is frequency response of high end TT systems considering above points ?

Thanks in advance and best regards

[oshifis]

I can not answer all your questions, but here are a few thoughts:

1) LPs also have their own rumble, caused by disc warp and imperfect surface. This might be higher than TT rumble.
2) This is called inner groove distortion
3) True, refer to RIAA equalization curve
4) Stylus tip resonance is internally damped within the cartridge. Tonearm resonance (better said stylus compliance and tonearm + cartridge mass resonance) is not damped. It is tuned below the lowest audible frequency, around 10 to 15 Hz.
5) Natural low frequencies are mono, being pressure waves
6) Very true. But listening to vinyl is cool... Listening to AAA vinyl is the way to go.
7) It is as accurate as the frequency response of the cartridge. But frequency response is not the only parameter that determines listening pleasure...

[bear]

My opinions... I expect everyone has their own:

Originally Posted by Hiten

Hello everyone,
I listen to vinyls on pretty average setup (Pioneer and technics TT+Pioneer amp). and love the 'sound' of it. I read that in earlier times vinyl cutting process attenuated 'VERY' low frequencies (if there were any in the music) so as it doesn't get mixed with rumble noise of turntable and rumble noise doesn't get amplified. Also bass frequencies were made mono so as stylus movement is not too much and tracks easily. So Just asking out of curiosity ....
1) Do modern high end turntables have extreme low rumble noise specifications, So as very low frequencies can easily be reproduced without amplifying the rumble noise?

yes and no - there's nothing audible below 16Hz. and you can't reproduce it even if there was... forget about it in practical terms, a non issue.

2) Suppose a music piece on outer most groove of the vinyl takes up 'X' amount of length on vinyl the same music on inner most grooves near record label will take less space but will require same movement of stylus, will both music sample sound same ?

Length is equal to frequency. What changes is the velocity of the record under the stylus - it's just the rotation of a disc, faster on the perimeter than toward the center. So the length changes with the speed under the stylus. Yes, this is a problem in cutting a record. It does change the way things may sound on the record, but nothing to think too hard about.

3) Is it true that High frequencies are increased to suppress surface noise ?

Yes. See RIAA curve. (there are other curves as well...)

4) Do stylus tip resonance and tonearm resonance get amplified even in high end systems ? How do they dampen it ?

Sure if it is "in band" for the preamplifier. Usually these resonances are "out of band" for listening. Not always. The HF resonance can fall inside the listening range for some (imo not so great) cartridges. However the LF resonance can be an issue, so there is some art to matching the arm, the arm mass, the arm resonance to the cartridges' compliance. But generally speaking not a big issue unless you run really good subwoofers down very low... how to fix? Depends on exactly the nature of the specific case.

5) If very low frequencies are still made mono so as stylus easily tracks the groove should we call it accurate sound reproduction ?

Vinyl can not be considered to be "accurate" because of the way it is made, and the considerations of cutting a master. However, the localization of LF depends mostly on higher frequency components, so "it works".

6) If all recording equipments are now digital wouldn't it make better sense to listen to digital medium rather than listening to vinyls which were cut using digital source ?

...sure, definitely so - in theory. But in practice most digital systems so far lack a certain "natural quality" that can be heard in vinyl (in many cases). Why this is has been discussed and debated, even here on DiyAudio.

7) How accurate is frequency response of high end TT systems considering above points ?

Frequency response is just one parameter, one measure of performance. Perhaps the least meaningful one (within some degree of variation).

Btw, the frequency response of a vinyl recording potentially goes higher than the Redbook CD physically can...

Thanks in advance and best regards

Hope this helps some...

_-_-bear

EDIT: just saw oshifis post - #5) LFs are seen as "omni directional" in propagation, this is different than being "mono". For example it is easy to identify a sub woofer placed off to the side and behind you...

[Nanook]

Originally Posted by Hiten

1) Do modern high end turntables have extreme low rumble noise specifications, So as very low frequencies can easily be reproduced without amplifying the rumble noise?
2) Suppose a music piece on outer most groove of the vinyl takes up 'X' amount of length on vinyl the same music on inner most grooves near record label will take less space but will require same movement of stylus, will both music sample sound same ?
3) Is it true that High frequencies are increased to suppress surface noise ?
4) Do stylus tip resonance and tonearm resonance get amplified even in high end systems ? How do they dampen it ?
5) If very low frequencies are still made mono so as stylus easily tracks the groove should we call it accurate sound reproduction ?
6) If all recording equipments are now digital wouldn't it make better sense to listen to digital medium rather than listening to vinyls which were cut using digital source ?
7) How accurate is frequency response of high end TT systems considering above points ?

My answers to your Qs;

[1] Rumble , although not necessarily heard can be produced, and uses up a lot of "headroom". A rumble filter usually attenuates from about 15Hz on down. Most tables have a resonant frequency well below that. Most arm/cart combinations have a resonant frequency in the 7-12 Hz range.

[2] Not really. The linear speed of the groove doesn't remain constant as far as I know, although the angular speed remains constant.

[3] Not sure if the high frequencies are increased to reduce noise or overcome surface noise, but it would seem to me to be a contrary statement, although I can't say that I know this for a fact.

[4] Arm/cartridge resonance and compatibility is a significant issue. Every arm/cartridge system resonates. Lots of easy to find calculations , pick your arm/cart resonant do the math and hopefully no higher than 12Hz. Some arms use silicon fluid dampening, some use internal dampening. Cartridge dampening comes from the cartridge suspension and the cartridge body. Removal of the cartridge body can help (do a search for for "nude" or "re-body" Denon 103 or similar).

[5] It is a belief that the human ear cannot localize very low frequencies. I disagree. Try a little experiment. Get 2 matching subwoofers, and hook them up to a system. Using one for each side. Connect only one channel to each sub. Listen. Now do the same with 1 sub hooked up to both channels. Listen. You decide.

[6] There are some "direct to digital" analog recordings that can be very good. If digital recordings are made with care, they can sound very good, however I do find a certain "un-naturalness" to many "digital" recordings. I have a cd player, and an iPod. It doesn't mean I like them better, I may not be able to get the recordings I want on vinyl.

[7] Accuracy depends on input vs. output. In this regard modern tables (and even some "geriatric" turntables are excellent. The quality of the RIAA filter used during recording and the inverse filter during playback are perhaps one of the most misunderstood points about vinyl reproduction. The lack of resonances or ones that you can hear has already been stated. Do not overlook the actual quality of the cartridge as well. Line contact stylus types tend to get "more" of the information than elliptical and conical types.[/LIST]
Hope I haven't over-stated my points. There are fine examples of each recording medium, whether analog or digital. Unfortunately there are terrible examples of each as well.

As this question is a "newbie" question, I'll make a few more comments:

• bass from a properly tuned and playing turntable seems more natural than any digital that I have listened to
• digital is catching up, but only the mst expensive digital rigs get close to a vinyl system
• the sense of "space" and "atmosphere" (call it "soundstaging") is superior on a vinyl rig
• Pace, Rythm, Attach and Timing (the original context of "PRAT") is superior

Hope it helps. And to anyone else reading this: This is not intended to become an argument, only my personal observations and comments, nothing more...

[indianajo]

Recording practices were affected by the fact that department stores would give the money back if the records "were defective". I have some 1955? mono Colombia recordings of E.Power Biggs on organ that have quite commanding bass. My favorite organ performance is a 1962 recording, "Bach Organ Favorites" that has fairly subdued bass. I believe Colombia mixed it with suppressed bass to eliminate returns. Real pipe organs will jiggle your belly on 32' bass. I bought in 1970 an AR turntable with a 1961 ADC cartridge that I immediately put a new stylus in. At that time Atco and ABC records were producing enthusiastically "Hot" (loud) 45 rpm records that the ADC would not track at 1.5 g. For example, "I wonder where she is tonight" by Tommy Boyce & Bobbie Hart. A new Grado FTE cartridge tracked it fine, making the woofers in my LWEIII speakers jump an inch and a quarter on that song. But the owners of "fine wood consoles" with ceramic cartridges that sold well to the upper middle class, always had the option of taking the record back. So probably, easy listening and classical records that sold to that market would have subdued bass. By 1980 at the end of the LP era, nearly everybody had pretty good cartridges, and records were mostly in discount stores that didn't take opened records back for refund. So my ZZ Top "Eliminator" and "Afterburner' LP's have really realistic loud bass drum (synth?) on their tracks. I use these albums as turntable and CD testers, since I have both LP and CD. So far, other than dust pops and snaps, the LP wins.
My BIC turntable with Shure M97 Era IV cartridtge, is set between the speakers, so if I turn the amp up "too loud" I do get an oscillation lower than the lowest organ pedal, which I think is 20 hz. It sounds like a rattle and you feel it more than hear it.My disco mixer has a bass cut that will stop it, but also stop audible bass some.
The BIC is the best I have ever owned, much better than the AR turntable. I was given a gerrard turntable by a friend but never used it because they always had audible rumble. After about 1980 most people had bass response good enough that most turntable manufacturers killed the rumble as good business.

[sepolansky]

The "digital" medium of CD playback is really mixed. Only the amplitude is digitized. Frequency is dependent on the clock. Maybe if it was all digitized...

Since digital IS better, why deny it? Why not listen to pure digital? Don't bother converting back to analog, just to please the imperfect human ear.

I'm too imperfect to care about digital's perfection. I listen to an all tube analog system and am pleased by its imperfections.

To me, hearing nuances and real sounding instruments means more than perfection, so I'm a lost cause.

Listen for yourself with an open mind. Make your own choice based on your own ears. Who knows, that pure digital might really light your fire?

[Hiten]

Thanks a lot oshifis, bear, Nanook, indianajo, sepolansky.

"the localization of LF depends mostly on higher frequency components" @bear, can you please elaborate a little more ?

Interesting to know that human ear cannot localize very low frequencies. So very low fq. in 'stereo' is not necessary. right ?

ZZ Top are one of my favorite . Few more recommendation of vinyls to test capabilities of a vinyl setup would be of great help.
Regards

[indianajo]

Originally Posted by Hiten

"the localization of LF depends mostly on higher frequency components" @bear, can you please elaborate a little more ?
Interesting to know that human ear cannot localize very low frequencies. So very low fq. in 'stereo' is not necessary. right ?
ZZ Top are one of my favorite . Few more recommendation of vinyls to test capabilities of a vinyl setup would be of great help.

ZZ Top Afterburner is useful for testing bass response, as a bad setup will rattle. To hear some 32' (down to 20 hz) organ pedal on LP, try Peerless EXP21 stereo JS Bach organ works, Volume 1 artist Lionel Rogg at GrossMunster Zurich. Great miking. He also records CD's these days, see Mr. Rogg's website. This recording may also be available in the eastern hemisphere on a european label, it was recorded by Technical Service of Radio Zurich.
For mid-range and treble, distortions are more important. I find piano difficult to do correctly, and have only finally been pleased after forty years in hifi with my current setup of Peavey amp, SP2 speakers, & heavily modified disco mixer. You can hear a Steinway grand piano at any western college auditorium and many churches. Don't know how different a Bechstein grand is, never heard one live. On record the best miked and executed LP of a Steinway grand I have is RCA LSP-2482, Peter Nero, "Young and Warm and Wonderful", the Secret Love track with the solo top octave recorded pretty loudly. Not everybody's favorite type of music, but a great technical recording. A pretty good recording with very loud piano hits is Colombia LP MS6481 Three Favorite Sonatas #14,#8, #23. artist Rudolf Serkin. (Beethoven is author). Also available as Colombia CD MYK 37219. The mikes are not as modern as above. High piano tends to make systems produce intermodulation distortion, a buzzing sound. Also on piano mid-range, on these LP's I can hear the 1% harmonic distortion of my ST70 tube amp as a honkiness of the middle piano notes.
For extreme cutting velocities, pick up any Led Zeppelin 45 rpm from Atco of the seventies, or maybe any other Atco 45(they had a lot of black artists, too). Atco used the highest groove velocities of anybody I have found in the late sixties and early seventies, the beginning of the "loudness wars". My 1961 ADC cartridge refused to play these 45's.

[Hiten]

Thanks indianajo. Will look for these vinyls.
Regards

[stratus46]

Originally Posted by sepolansky

The "digital" medium of CD playback is really mixed. Only the amplitude is digitized. Frequency is dependent on the clock. Maybe if it was all digitized...

What would be 'all digitized'? That clock that bothers you is really quite good, even on 'poor' quality digital.

G²