Some well known digital recorded/mastered albums from that time and a bit later have what ssems to be time code data on a carrier/clock well above 22kHz, around 35kHz iirc. Varies from track-track and generally quiet but continuous throughout the track as one might expect with time code.
Perhaps early digital gear still used analog tape as a media and somehow the timecode got folded in at mixdown? Still couldn't be 44.1 at mastering though, unless at half speed? Or perhaps post production artefacts and lathe transfer was still analog?
LD
Perhaps early digital gear still used analog tape as a media and somehow the timecode got folded in at mixdown? Still couldn't be 44.1 at mastering though, unless at half speed? Or perhaps post production artefacts and lathe transfer was still analog?
LD
Flicker noise is mostly what one should expect. 1/f profile. But in drag force, not nec as motion of stylus.
LD
I have engaged in this discussion several times--please go thru the thread.
I am, however, unimpressed by the quality of YOUR content to engage further. OTOH, I may be convinced to pontificate.
My turntable is about a metre from a quiet desktop PC with fans and you can detect the fan and disk vibration in the spectrum. Ultrasonics are much less likely thanks to the RIAA equalisation.
Vinyl has clearly lot of flaws, especially the uneven surface, the wow/flutter, the limitation of stereo, vertical and horizontal tracking limits and distortion from the arm/resonances. However, beyond that audible distortion, tracking errors and vinyl wear, the sound is what matters.
digital=sound flat, sounds hifi, sounds polite. Vinyl=sounds real, detail in the bass but distortion too, high frequency are way more detailed, multiple instruments are not blurred, sounds warmer in general. Night and day in 100% of samples CD/Vinyl I tried.
The only deception is Canadian and many American pressings, new pressings, most new digital to vinyl records, cannot compare to direct metal tape to vinyl without or minimal EQ mastering. For some reason the engineers got it right in the 1960s 70s. Todays music is dry dog food.
digital=sound flat, sounds hifi, sounds polite. Vinyl=sounds real, detail in the bass but distortion too, high frequency are way more detailed, multiple instruments are not blurred, sounds warmer in general. Night and day in 100% of samples CD/Vinyl I tried.
The only deception is Canadian and many American pressings, new pressings, most new digital to vinyl records, cannot compare to direct metal tape to vinyl without or minimal EQ mastering. For some reason the engineers got it right in the 1960s 70s. Todays music is dry dog food.
Last edited:
This, IMHO, is the core reason to listen to music on original vinyl format from that era.
Post-production mastering and lathe mastering had evolved to be part of a fine art. The medium shaped the artform, which was well developed.
What's worse is that many classic post-production master tapes were discarded after the 1st generation digital transfers and even studio masters bit the dust, by accounts. Leaving much scratching around to find what was left by way of tapes when the defects in such transfers were later realised for back catalogs. If its true, that was fairly insane but perhaps not untypical of the steamroller of progress.
Meantime, at least the finished vinyl product persists and is still capable of fine playback results even after 50+ years.
LD
To all, to clarify, DMM in the 80s made vinyl obsolete with a 1 dimensional sound.
There was some resurgence of high quality vinyl in the 90s, however which didn't achieve the quality of 60, 70s., although they are not bad records.
Modern repressing are awful and full of distortion, sold to 'audiophiles' by a lot of online shops for exorbitant prices on heavy 200, 300 gram vinyl, which except for DECCA sounds very poor.
There was some resurgence of high quality vinyl in the 90s, however which didn't achieve the quality of 60, 70s., although they are not bad records.
Modern repressing are awful and full of distortion, sold to 'audiophiles' by a lot of online shops for exorbitant prices on heavy 200, 300 gram vinyl, which except for DECCA sounds very poor.
Do you mean digital mastering or direct metal mastering? I read here there are some advantages and disadvantages of DMM, but as I understand it is considered as a step forward over lacquer mastering. I have only one or two DMM LPs, so I can't decide myself.
What you see in the spectral analysis is distortion, nothing is wrong with it.
You can use a filter -10db at 20khz, which is normally happening in many tube amplifiers with triodes with under 10db feedback.
It is perfectly fine, the youtuber doesn't understand nothing about cartridges 1% thd in the region of 20khz which is a 40db noise floor, maybe + the feedback effects in the zoom recorder and marantz which adds, -35 , -25 db in high frequency peaks is normal. it is contributing to the warmer sound of vinyl.
lcsaszar, DMM sounds flat in general, it has nothing to do with direct metal tape. There are many video on youtube where you can hear the 'splashing' distortion sound of DMM.
You can use a filter -10db at 20khz, which is normally happening in many tube amplifiers with triodes with under 10db feedback.
It is perfectly fine, the youtuber doesn't understand nothing about cartridges 1% thd in the region of 20khz which is a 40db noise floor, maybe + the feedback effects in the zoom recorder and marantz which adds, -35 , -25 db in high frequency peaks is normal. it is contributing to the warmer sound of vinyl.
lcsaszar, DMM sounds flat in general, it has nothing to do with direct metal tape. There are many video on youtube where you can hear the 'splashing' distortion sound of DMM.
When I say timecode, I don't mean in the OP. Just occasionally on some records from the 80s and 90s IME.
Some corollaries: (a) stylus motion, when analysed in the frequency domain, involves components with ultrasonic content even when there is none in the original programme material (b) harmonic distortion of high frequencies is inaudible, except via non-linearities in transducers like speakers. For example, on good speakers/headhones one cannot tell the difference between a 10kHz sine wave and a 10kHz square wave having the same fundamental amplitude.
LD
Some corollaries: (a) stylus motion, when analysed in the frequency domain, involves components with ultrasonic content even when there is none in the original programme material (b) harmonic distortion of high frequencies is inaudible, except via non-linearities in transducers like speakers. For example, on good speakers/headhones one cannot tell the difference between a 10kHz sine wave and a 10kHz square wave having the same fundamental amplitude.
LD
About 80s vinyl pressings vs. older stuff ... Digital delay lines (DDL) were intro'd in early 80s. DDLs were built into many lathes (but not all). Most of the major studios (CBS, RCA, A&M, Warner, etc.) used DDLs. Audiophile pressers (MFSL, Chesky) did not use DDLs.
Bottom line: 70-80% chance your LP pressed early 80's (henceforth) was digitized before it was cut.
Apologies for veering off-topic.
The topic ... ahem!!! ... remains a mystery.
Bottom line: 70-80% chance your LP pressed early 80's (henceforth) was digitized before it was cut.
Apologies for veering off-topic.
The topic ... ahem!!! ... remains a mystery.
Yep, control of the grove spacing was very much the thing, got you more average grove amplitude for a given recording length.
You could do the same thing with a tape transport having two replay heads with about two seconds of tape between them, but the digital approach was easier in all ways.
You sometimes see timecode up there, and sometimes even the line scan frequency of the mixing desk automation controller (SSL G series were known to bleed a little of this into the audio up at 15.5kHz or thereabouts).
As to transducer nonliterary, are not cutting heads and cartridges also transducers, and they have plenty of non linear stuff going on, in band as well as ultrasonic mixing products are entirely believable.
None of which is of course to say that vinyl sounds bad, but it clearly has a whole mess of distortion mechanisms going on, which can sound quite nice for the right material (Same thing with properly driven tape at 30IPS), however it is an effect and not one I always want to listen to.
Regards, Dan.
You could do the same thing with a tape transport having two replay heads with about two seconds of tape between them, but the digital approach was easier in all ways.
You sometimes see timecode up there, and sometimes even the line scan frequency of the mixing desk automation controller (SSL G series were known to bleed a little of this into the audio up at 15.5kHz or thereabouts).
As to transducer nonliterary, are not cutting heads and cartridges also transducers, and they have plenty of non linear stuff going on, in band as well as ultrasonic mixing products are entirely believable.
None of which is of course to say that vinyl sounds bad, but it clearly has a whole mess of distortion mechanisms going on, which can sound quite nice for the right material (Same thing with properly driven tape at 30IPS), however it is an effect and not one I always want to listen to.
Regards, Dan.
Yes, TV line frequency shows up surprising often in programme material from back in the day - the world was full of it I suppose. Makes sense if some desks or studio outboard had VDUs or whatever they were called back then, that would figure too.
LD
Hypothesis
I never really bought the stylus/cart./lathe "mistracking" hypothesis.
And timecode???!!! PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTT!!!!!!!!!! Are you serious?
Feed the analog output of a CD player to the input (line in) of the open-reel deck. Record any CD at 7.5, 15 or 30 ips.
Now play the tape back on same deck whilst recording it in the digital domain . You can use any digital recorder you wish including your PC sound-card.
As per OP, re-run the vlogger's experiment.
My bet: you'll see pretty much the same as the LP.
I never really bought the stylus/cart./lathe "mistracking" hypothesis.
And timecode???!!! PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTT!!!!!!!!!! Are you serious?
If anyone reading this has access to a calibrated, decent open-reel deck (and some good-quality tape), might I suggest an experiment:
Feed the analog output of a CD player to the input (line in) of the open-reel deck. Record any CD at 7.5, 15 or 30 ips.
Now play the tape back on same deck whilst recording it in the digital domain . You can use any digital recorder you wish including your PC sound-card.
As per OP, re-run the vlogger's experiment.
My bet: you'll see pretty much the same as the LP.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.