<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Axon</id>
	<title>Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Axon"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Axon"/>
	<updated>2026-06-19T09:29:09Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.44.2</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=21558</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=21558"/>
		<updated>2010-06-22T01:09:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Katz has stated that all of his vinyl masters are sourced from a mix &amp;quot;prior to any of the peak limiting or any additional loudness makers other than the ones there for esthetic purposes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with same/similar hypercompressed master as on CD=&lt;br /&gt;
This is a list of vinyl/CD releases, where the CD release has been considered compressed or clipped for a popular music audience, and the vinyl master has been proven to be sourced from digital audio equal in compression/clipping content to that of the CD master. This list excludes albums whose CD releases are considered relatively uncompressed or unclipped.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does &#039;&#039;&#039;not&#039;&#039;&#039; mean the CD master necessarily sounds poor - some CDs referenced here have been highly commended for their sound quality - but it &#039;&#039;does&#039;&#039; mean that, for any of these records, if one considers the CD to be &#039;hypercompressed&#039;, one ought to also consider the LP to be hypercompressed as well, so preferring LP over CD for that reason would be foolish.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering]: Sourced from 24/96 digital masters, which differ from CD masters only in choice of output format. Hypercompression/clipping which existed on CD also existed on LP master. Emphasis added:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received ... had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from.&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Metallica, &#039;&#039;Death Magnetic&#039;&#039;. [http://audiamorous.blogspot.com/2008/09/metallicas-death-magnetic-clips-on-both.html Visually confirmed], and [http://www.metallicabb.com/index.php?showtopic=85317&amp;amp;st=0 strongly hinted at] by Ted Jensen, who mentions that the mixes were clipped. No word from vinyl mastering engineer Kevin Gray. As the mix itself was clipped, it is highly anticipated that the vinyl release is of the same master as the CD. Jensen:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In this case the mixes were already brick walled before they arrived at my place. Suffice it to say I would never be pushed to overdrive things as far as they are here. Believe me I’m not proud to be associated with this one...&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* Soundgarden &amp;quot;Down on the Upside&amp;quot;, as admitted at http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/502795-soundgardens-down-upside-vinyl.html. At least one other record mastered by Collins is also implied as being sourced from CD masters. Two things about Collins&#039;s work are worth pointing out:&lt;br /&gt;
# He was [http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5507275-post1.html specifically commended] for the sound quality of the vinyl release before he pointed out that it was sourced from CD.&lt;br /&gt;
# He [http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5511973-post15.html claims] that a Stereophile reviewer once commended him in the same way about a separate record, and refused to believe that the vinyl was in fact sourced from 16/44. (emphasis added)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;I once had a reviewer from Stereophile call and was raving, raving I tell you, about the sound of an LP done the same way: I sent my eq&#039;d CD master and someone else cut the lacquer. &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&#039;&#039;The depth, the detail, the microdynamics are beyond compare, it&#039;s just more proof of the superiority of analog.&#039;&#039;&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But it was cut from a 16 bit digtial source.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&#039;&#039;Impossible&#039;&#039;.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I was at the session.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&#039;&#039;Don&#039;t you tell me what I&#039;m hearing!&#039;&#039;&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Uh, I gotta get back to work.......&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pete Lyman, Infrasonic Sound, [http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5512418-post17.html same &amp;quot;Down on the Upside&amp;quot; thread as above], comments on how CD sources form the majority of his business in cutting records, and points out that 16-bit digital delay lines have been used since the 80s, and quite possibly for most records released since then (emphasis added): &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;I cut about 10 sides a week, most of them from a 16/44.1 source.&#039;&#039;&#039; If the source material sounds good and doesn&#039;t have excessive high end issues or phase issues, it should sound fine, if not better. &#039;&#039;&#039;I doubt most people could tell the difference between the same material cut at 16 bit and 24 bit. Most records (at lease since DAT/digital surpassed analog mixdown options)have gone thru some conversion during the cutting. I think it would shock quite a few people to know that those &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot; records they love so much probably passed thru a 16 bit digital delay line on their way to the cutting head.&#039;&#039;&#039; But, quite a few of us are opting to bypass that sort of delay and do it in the workstation thru a second set of converters, eliminating a stage of conversion.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Clips, but at a different (lower) level than the CD (!)&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=21557</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=21557"/>
		<updated>2010-06-22T00:12:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Completion of Down on the Upside quotes, switch all quotes to &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;, added emphasis&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Katz has stated that all of his vinyl masters are sourced from a mix &amp;quot;prior to any of the peak limiting or any additional loudness makers other than the ones there for esthetic purposes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, these situations seem to occur because the mixes themselves are clipped before mastering is done. &#039;&#039;&#039;Mixing engineers: Mastering is not supposed to &amp;quot;fix&amp;quot; your bad mixes. Avoid clipping.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering] (emphasis added):&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received ... had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from.&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Metallica, &#039;&#039;Death Magnetic&#039;&#039;. [http://audiamorous.blogspot.com/2008/09/metallicas-death-magnetic-clips-on-both.html Visually confirmed], and [http://www.metallicabb.com/index.php?showtopic=85317&amp;amp;st=0 strongly hinted at] by Ted Jensen, who mentions that the mixes were clipped. No word from vinyl mastering engineer Kevin Gray. As the mix itself was clipped, it is highly anticipated that the vinyl release is of the same master as the CD. Jensen:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;In this case the mixes were already brick walled before they arrived at my place. Suffice it to say I would never be pushed to overdrive things as far as they are here. Believe me I’m not proud to be associated with this one...&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* Soundgarden &amp;quot;Down on the Upside&amp;quot;, as admitted at http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/502795-soundgardens-down-upside-vinyl.html. At least one other record mastered by Collins is also implied as being sourced from CD masters. Two things about Collins&#039;s work are worth pointing out:&lt;br /&gt;
# He was [http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5507275-post1.html specifically commended] for the sound quality of the vinyl release before he pointed out that it was sourced from CD.&lt;br /&gt;
# He [http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5511973-post15.html claims] that a Stereophile reviewer once commended him in the same way about a separate record, and refused to believe that the vinyl was in fact sourced from 16/44. (emphasis added)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;I once had a reviewer from Stereophile call and was raving, raving I tell you, about the sound of an LP done the same way: I sent my eq&#039;d CD master and someone else cut the lacquer. &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&#039;&#039;The depth, the detail, the microdynamics are beyond compare, it&#039;s just more proof of the superiority of analog.&#039;&#039;&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;But it was cut from a 16 bit digtial source.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&#039;&#039;Impossible&#039;&#039;.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I was at the session.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&#039;&#039;Don&#039;t you tell me what I&#039;m hearing!&#039;&#039;&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Uh, I gotta get back to work.......&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pete Lyman, Infrasonic Sound, [http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5512418-post17.html same &amp;quot;Down on the Upside&amp;quot; thread as above], comments on how CD sources form the majority of his business in cutting records, and points out that 16-bit digital delay lines have been used since the 80s, and quite possibly for most records released since then (emphasis added): &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;I cut about 10 sides a week, most of them from a 16/44.1 source.&#039;&#039;&#039; If the source material sounds good and doesn&#039;t have excessive high end issues or phase issues, it should sound fine, if not better. &#039;&#039;&#039;I doubt most people could tell the difference between the same material cut at 16 bit and 24 bit. Most records (at lease since DAT/digital surpassed analog mixdown options)have gone thru some conversion during the cutting. I think it would shock quite a few people to know that those &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot; records they love so much probably passed thru a 16 bit digital delay line on their way to the cutting head.&#039;&#039;&#039; But, quite a few of us are opting to bypass that sort of delay and do it in the workstation thru a second set of converters, eliminating a stage of conversion.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Clips, but at a different (lower) level than the CD (!)&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=21556</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=21556"/>
		<updated>2010-06-21T23:57:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Katz has stated that all of his vinyl masters are sourced from a mix &amp;quot;prior to any of the peak limiting or any additional loudness makers other than the ones there for esthetic purposes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, these situations seem to occur because the mixes themselves are clipped before mastering is done. &#039;&#039;&#039;Mixing engineers: Mastering is not supposed to &amp;quot;fix&amp;quot; your bad mixes. Avoid clipping.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received ... had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;br /&gt;
* Metallica, &#039;&#039;Death Magnetic&#039;&#039;. [http://audiamorous.blogspot.com/2008/09/metallicas-death-magnetic-clips-on-both.html Visually confirmed], and [http://www.metallicabb.com/index.php?showtopic=85317&amp;amp;st=0 strongly hinted at] by Ted Jensen, who mentions that the mixes were clipped: &amp;quot;In this case the mixes were already brick walled before they arrived at my place. Suffice it to say I would never be pushed to overdrive things as far as they are here. Believe me I’m not proud to be associated with this one...&amp;quot; No word from vinyl mastering engineer Kevin Gray. As the mix itself was clipped, it is highly anticipated that the vinyl release is of the same master as the CD.&lt;br /&gt;
* Soundgarden &amp;quot;Down on the Upside&amp;quot;, as admitted at http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/502795-soundgardens-down-upside-vinyl.html. At least one other record mastered by Collins is also implied as being sourced from CD masters. Two things are worth pointing out: &lt;br /&gt;
# Collins was specifically commended for the sound quality of the vinyl release before he pointed out that it was sourced from CD.&lt;br /&gt;
# Collins claims that a Stereophile reviewer once commended him in the same way about a separate record, and refused to believe that the vinyl was in fact sourced from 16/44.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Clips, but at a different (lower) level than the CD (!)&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19454</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19454"/>
		<updated>2009-02-16T08:47:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Minor correction suggested by botface (the earlier change was from botface too)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Vinyl always sounds better than CD==&lt;br /&gt;
If vinyl always was the superior listening format, why did CDs so completely displace them? It takes no small amount of elitism (and ignorance) to suggest that CDs became dominant simply because they were the newer and more &amp;quot;hip&amp;quot; format, or that consumer listening habits became less focused and less emotional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is described below, despite decades of arguments, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technical proof of the sonic superiority of the vinyl medium compared to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039; One vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. That does not mean the medium as a whole is superior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its &amp;quot;feel&amp;quot; - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, or is precisely quantified and tied to subjective experience, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==&lt;br /&gt;
Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. One notable example is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;. However, &#039;&#039;&#039;there are also many documented instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases&#039;&#039;&#039;. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is logical to assume that the master will be no better than on CD unless evidence is found to the contrary. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&#039;&#039;&#039; The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300hz, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&#039;&#039;&#039; Multiband limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F. Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt. Back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play. No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Proper vinyl playback is click-free==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience. No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever. They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids antialiasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50khz and perhaps as high as 100khz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45khz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10db or greater are not uncommon in the 20khz range for many records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern stylii this is not as much of a concern, though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22khz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people. There is no evidence that reconstruction and antialiasing issues are audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including harmonic distortion, noise and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 Hydrogenaudio].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound==&lt;br /&gt;
The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly. Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent==&lt;br /&gt;
Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight. That said, if a brand-new cartridge arrives visibly bent, it is probably a good idea to return it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables==&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair. Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19453</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19453"/>
		<updated>2009-02-16T08:12:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Vinyl always sounds better than CD==&lt;br /&gt;
If vinyl always was the superior listening format, why did CDs so completely displace them? It takes no small amount of elitism (and ignorance) to suggest that CDs became dominant simply because they were the newer and more &amp;quot;hip&amp;quot; format, or that consumer listening habits became less focused and less emotional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is described below, despite decades of arguments, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technical proof of the sonic superiority of the vinyl medium compared to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039; One vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. That does not mean the medium as a whole is superior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its &amp;quot;feel&amp;quot; - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, or is precisely quantified and tied to subjective experience, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==&lt;br /&gt;
Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. One notable example is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;. However, &#039;&#039;&#039;there are also many documented instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases&#039;&#039;&#039;. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is logical to assume that the master will be no better than on CD unless evidence is found to the contrary. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&#039;&#039;&#039; The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300hz, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&#039;&#039;&#039; Multiband limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F. Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt. Back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play. No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Proper vinyl playback is click-free==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience. No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever. They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids antialiasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50khz and perhaps as high as 100khz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45khz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10db or greater are not uncommon in the 20khz range for many records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern stylii this is not as much of a concern, though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22khz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people. There is no evidence that reconstruction and antialiasing issues are audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including total harmonic distortion, noise and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 Hydrogenaudio].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound==&lt;br /&gt;
The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly. Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent==&lt;br /&gt;
Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight. That said, if a brand-new cartridge arrives visibly bent, it is probably a good idea to return it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables==&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair. Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19422</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19422"/>
		<updated>2009-02-03T22:20:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Vinyl always sounds better than CD */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Vinyl always sounds better than CD==&lt;br /&gt;
If vinyl always was the superior listening format, why did CDs so completely displace them? It takes no small amount of elitism (and ignorance) to suggest that CDs became dominant simply because they were the newer and more &amp;quot;hip&amp;quot; format, or that consumer listening habits became less focused and less emotional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is described below, despite decades of arguments, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technical proof of the sonic superiority of the vinyl medium compared to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039; One vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. That does not mean the medium as a whole is superior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its &amp;quot;feel&amp;quot; - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, or is precisely quantified and tied to subjective experience, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==&lt;br /&gt;
Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. One notable example is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;. However, &#039;&#039;&#039;there are also many documented instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases&#039;&#039;&#039;. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is logical to assume that the master will be no better than on CD unless evidence is found to the contrary. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&#039;&#039;&#039; The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300um, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&#039;&#039;&#039; Multiband limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F. Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt. Back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play. No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Proper vinyl playback is click-free==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience. No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever. They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids antialiasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50khz and perhaps as high as 100khz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45khz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10db or greater are not uncommon in the 20khz range for many records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern stylii this is not as much of a concern, though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22khz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people. There is no evidence that reconstruction and antialiasing issues are audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including total harmonic distortion, noise and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 Hydrogenaudio].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound==&lt;br /&gt;
The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly. Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent==&lt;br /&gt;
Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight. That said, if a brand-new cartridge arrives visibly bent, it is probably a good idea to return it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables==&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair. Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19421</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19421"/>
		<updated>2009-02-03T21:34:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Vinyl always sounds better than CD */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Vinyl always sounds better than CD==&lt;br /&gt;
If vinyl always was the superior listening format, why did CDs so completely displace them? It takes no small amount of elitism (and ignorance) to suggest that CDs became dominant simply because they were the newer and more &amp;quot;hip&amp;quot; format, or that consumer listening habits became less focused and less emotional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is described below, despite decades of arguments, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technical proof of the sonic superiority of the vinyl medium compared to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039; One vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. That does not mean the medium as a whole is superior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its &amp;quot;feel&amp;quot; - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==&lt;br /&gt;
Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. One notable example is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;. However, &#039;&#039;&#039;there are also many documented instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases&#039;&#039;&#039;. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is logical to assume that the master will be no better than on CD unless evidence is found to the contrary. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&#039;&#039;&#039; The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300um, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&#039;&#039;&#039; Multiband limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F. Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt. Back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play. No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Proper vinyl playback is click-free==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience. No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever. They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids antialiasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50khz and perhaps as high as 100khz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45khz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10db or greater are not uncommon in the 20khz range for many records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern stylii this is not as much of a concern, though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22khz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people. There is no evidence that reconstruction and antialiasing issues are audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including total harmonic distortion, noise and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 Hydrogenaudio].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound==&lt;br /&gt;
The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly. Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent==&lt;br /&gt;
Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight. That said, if a brand-new cartridge arrives visibly bent, it is probably a good idea to return it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables==&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair. Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19420</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19420"/>
		<updated>2009-02-03T21:33:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: More tweaking of first paragraph&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Vinyl always sounds better than CD==&lt;br /&gt;
If vinyl always was the superior listening format, why did CDs so completely displace them? It takes no small amount of elitism (and ignorance) to suggest that CDs became dominant simply because they were the newer and more &amp;quot;hip&amp;quot; format, or that consumer listening habits became less focused and less emotional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is described below, despite decades of arguments, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technical proof of the sonic superiority of the vinyl medium compared to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039; Vinyl records may sound better than equivalent CDs for extremely specific reasons that do not apply to the media as a whole. That does not mean the medium as a whole is superior.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its &amp;quot;feel&amp;quot; - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==&lt;br /&gt;
Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. One notable example is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;. However, &#039;&#039;&#039;there are also many documented instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases&#039;&#039;&#039;. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is logical to assume that the master will be no better than on CD unless evidence is found to the contrary. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&#039;&#039;&#039; The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300um, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&#039;&#039;&#039; Multiband limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F. Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt. Back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play. No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Proper vinyl playback is click-free==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience. No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever. They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids antialiasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50khz and perhaps as high as 100khz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45khz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10db or greater are not uncommon in the 20khz range for many records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern stylii this is not as much of a concern, though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22khz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people. There is no evidence that reconstruction and antialiasing issues are audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including total harmonic distortion, noise and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 Hydrogenaudio].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound==&lt;br /&gt;
The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly. Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent==&lt;br /&gt;
Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight. That said, if a brand-new cartridge arrives visibly bent, it is probably a good idea to return it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables==&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair. Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19419</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19419"/>
		<updated>2009-02-03T21:23:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Tweaked the structure of the first few paragraphs and made a couple points more clear&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Vinyl always sounds better than CD==&lt;br /&gt;
Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its &amp;quot;feel&amp;quot; - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If vinyl always was the superior listening format, why did CDs so completely displace them? It takes no small amount of elitism (and ignorance) to suggest that CDs became dominant simply because they were the newer and more &amp;quot;hip&amp;quot; format, or that consumer listening habits became less focused and less emotional.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As other myths here show, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technically correct argument for vinyl having a superior sound quality to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039; Vinyl records may sound better than equivalent CDs for extremely specific reasons that do not apply to the media as a whole. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==&lt;br /&gt;
Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. One notable example is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;. However, &#039;&#039;&#039;there are also many documented instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases&#039;&#039;&#039;. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is logical to assume that the master will be no better than on CD unless evidence is found to the contrary. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&#039;&#039;&#039; The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300um, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&#039;&#039;&#039; Multiband limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F. Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt. Back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play. No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Proper vinyl playback is click-free==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience. No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever. They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids antialiasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50khz and perhaps as high as 100khz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45khz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10db or greater are not uncommon in the 20khz range for many records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern stylii this is not as much of a concern, though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22khz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people. There is no evidence that reconstruction and antialiasing issues are audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including total harmonic distortion, noise and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 Hydrogenaudio].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound==&lt;br /&gt;
The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly. Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent==&lt;br /&gt;
Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight. That said, if a brand-new cartridge arrives visibly bent, it is probably a good idea to return it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables==&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair. Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Advantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19240</id>
		<title>Advantages (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Advantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=19240"/>
		<updated>2008-10-31T06:51:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Why invest in an obsolete, 50+ year old music medium?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Used vinyl is often extremely inexpensive - 50 cents to two dollars a disc is common for some releases. Vinyl is a very cheap way to expand your collection in older artists that you cannot justify spending $15/CD on listening to.&lt;br /&gt;
* Some albums have simply never been released on CD.&lt;br /&gt;
* Some album art is better suited to the larger scale of LP covers and sleeves.&lt;br /&gt;
* The ritual of playing a record - of pulling it out of its sleeve, placing it on the turntable and playing it - may often compel the listener to focus on the music in a more dedicated way than when listening to a CD or to computer-based music. Completely independently of any sound quality differences, this ritual, like the rituals involved in live music listening, might substantially improve the enjoyment of the music.&lt;br /&gt;
* The mastering of an original LP release is often considered superior to a CD remaster of the same release. This can be for any number of reasons, including:&lt;br /&gt;
** Increased use of compression and limiting on the CD release, reducing dynamics&lt;br /&gt;
** The master tapes have often degraded in the time between the LP and CD releases&lt;br /&gt;
** The equalization and even mixing of some CD releases is radically different than on the LP releases. For instance, many Zappa LPs have had entire drum tracks replaced for the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
* Properly maintained vinyl is of a surprisingly good quality and is often not objectionable.&lt;br /&gt;
* It can be safely purchased as a long term investment. &lt;br /&gt;
** The standards of record playback are relatively simple and nonproprietary. Record players can always be constructed from scratch, including the cartridge assembly, with a minimum of technical experience. Playback has been standardized for roughly 50 years&lt;br /&gt;
** Properly maintained disc records (including both vinyl and shellac) have survived to the present day with little degredation. The long term chemical processes involved with vinyl are believed to keep it stable for 100 years or more.&lt;br /&gt;
** While large swings in value have plagued vinyl as collector&#039;s items, there are no long term risks to future devaluation for vinyl as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
** Well built turntables should last 40 years or more and are refurbishable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19102</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19102"/>
		<updated>2008-09-21T10:36:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Katz has stated that all of his vinyl masters are sourced from a mix &amp;quot;prior to any of the peak limiting or any additional loudness makers other than the ones there for esthetic purposes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, these situations seem to occur because the mixes themselves are clipped before mastering is done. &#039;&#039;&#039;Mixing engineers: Mastering is not supposed to &amp;quot;fix&amp;quot; your bad mixes. Avoid clipping.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received ... had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;br /&gt;
* Metallica, &#039;&#039;Death Magnetic&#039;&#039;. [http://audiamorous.blogspot.com/2008/09/metallicas-death-magnetic-clips-on-both.html Visually confirmed], and [http://www.metallicabb.com/index.php?showtopic=85317&amp;amp;st=0 strongly hinted at] by Ted Jensen, who mentions that the mixes were clipped: &amp;quot;In this case the mixes were already brick walled before they arrived at my place. Suffice it to say I would never be pushed to overdrive things as far as they are here. Believe me I’m not proud to be associated with this one...&amp;quot; No word from vinyl mastering engineer Kevin Gray. As the mix itself was clipped, it is highly anticipated that the vinyl release is of the same master as the CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Clips, but at a different (lower) level than the CD (!)&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19056</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19056"/>
		<updated>2008-09-12T20:08:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Katz has stated that all of his vinyl masters are sourced from a mix &amp;quot;prior to any of the peak limiting or any additional loudness makers other than the ones there for esthetic purposes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, these situations seem to occur because the mixes themselves are clipped before mastering is done. &#039;&#039;&#039;Mixing engineers: Mastering is not supposed to &amp;quot;fix&amp;quot; your bad mixes. Avoid clipping.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received ... had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;br /&gt;
* Metallica, &#039;&#039;Death Magnetic&#039;&#039;. Ted Jensen: &amp;quot;In this case the mixes were already brick walled before they arrived at my place. Suffice it to say I would never be pushed to overdrive things as far as they are here. Believe me I’m not proud to be associated with this one...&amp;quot; http://www.metallicabb.com/index.php?showtopic=85317&amp;amp;st=0 As the mix itself was clipped, it is highly anticipated that the vinyl release is of the same master as the CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Clips, but at a different (lower) level than the CD (!)&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19055</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19055"/>
		<updated>2008-09-12T20:06:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Katz has stated that all of his vinyl masters are sourced from a mix &amp;quot;prior to any of the peak limiting or any additional loudness makers other than the ones there for esthetic purposes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received ... had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;br /&gt;
* Metallica, &#039;&#039;Death Magnetic&#039;&#039;. Ted Jensen: &amp;quot;In this case the mixes were already brick walled before they arrived at my place. Suffice it to say I would never be pushed to overdrive things as far as they are here. Believe me I’m not proud to be associated with this one...&amp;quot; http://www.metallicabb.com/index.php?showtopic=85317&amp;amp;st=0 As the mix itself was clipped, it is highly anticipated that the vinyl release is of the same master as the CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Clips, but at a different (lower) level than the CD (!)&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19054</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19054"/>
		<updated>2008-09-12T20:05:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Katz has stated that all of his vinyl masters are sourced from a mix &amp;quot;prior to any of the peak limiting or any additional loudness makers other than the ones there for esthetic purposes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received ... had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;br /&gt;
* Metallica, &#039;&#039;Death Magnetic&#039;&#039;. Ted Jensen: &amp;quot;In this case the mixes were already brick walled before they arrived at my place. Suffice it to say I would never be pushed to overdrive things as far as they are here. Believe me I’m not proud to be associated with this one...&amp;quot; http://www.metallicabb.com/index.php?showtopic=85317&amp;amp;st=0 As the mix itself was clipped, it is highly anticipated that the vinyl release is of the same master as the CD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19048</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19048"/>
		<updated>2008-09-09T21:32:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Not really worth trashing Bob Ludwig in the quote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Katz has stated that all of his vinyl masters are sourced from a mix &amp;quot;prior to any of the peak limiting or any additional loudness makers other than the ones there for esthetic purposes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received ... had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19047</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19047"/>
		<updated>2008-09-09T21:01:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Katz has stated that all of his vinyl masters are sourced from a mix &amp;quot;prior to any of the peak limiting or any additional loudness makers other than the ones there for esthetic purposes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received from Bob Ludwig for the most part had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19046</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19046"/>
		<updated>2008-09-09T01:42:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
* The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
* Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
* Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
# The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
# Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
# The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
# Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master. &#039;&#039;&#039;This is the only distinction between a vinyl an CD master that is meaningful&#039;&#039;&#039; - in the sense that information exists on the vinyl master, in terms of reduced compression, that does not exist on the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, generally, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;. There are certainly many &#039;&#039;wrong&#039;&#039; ways to determine this, which can lead to false positives and false negatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Many people look at large-scale waveform plots, like those available in Audacity and Audition, and compare the waveforms across the entire piece of music. &#039;&#039;&#039;This does not work&#039;&#039;&#039;. The distortions present in vinyl - everything from subsample delays in the recording process to phase errors in the analog electronics to tracking and tracing distortion - ensure that even if the vinyl is cut with the exact same master as the CD, the peaks will be considerably higher, even during regions of gross clipping. Thus this technique is generally not acceptable, even though it is by far the most popular.&lt;br /&gt;
* RMS loudness estimates, such as the industry standard RMS figure and ReplayGain, are ineffective because they require a reference level to compare the vinyl and CD versions against. No such reference level exists.&lt;br /&gt;
* Experimental dynamic range estimators, such as pfpf and SparkleMeter, are useful in teasing out substantial differences in dynamic range, and may be quite useful in estimating when they become audible, rather than . pfpf, in particular, is designed to be immune to moderate levels of clipping distortion, under the expectation that clipping is either going to be inaudible or going to affect the timbral character of the music, not the dynamic range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one consistently accepted method of showing reduced compression is to show the individual samples in a clipped waveform against the same waveform in a different master that is not clipped. But again, this method is not foolproof: Various distortions can mask the clipping so that it is not consistently at the signal peak, yet still retains its characteristic distortion. However, clipping may not exist obviously in hypercompressed music, and even if a difference exists, it very well may not be audible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?=&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes. Low levels of clipping and hard limiting (perhaps up to 3db!) are surprisingly inaudible. Excessive dynamic range is generally contrary to many peoples&#039; listening habits and situations; few people will tolerate the full dynamic range of a symphony orchestra in their living rooms, or the full loudness of a live rock band. Modern music listeners consistently perceive less compressed music as being drier in tone and less pleasing to the ear than modern mastering styles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, just like speaking in different tones and loudnesses of voice is considered more emotional and human than speaking monotonically, music with a wider dynamic range is generally perceived as being more emotional than music with a tight dynamic range. And once the dynamic range is crushed out of the music, it generally cannot be added back in at a later time. The information representing by the dynamic range is effectively destroyed. These factors, as well as the diverse other factors mentioned in discussions of the &amp;quot;Loudness War&amp;quot;, ultimately reduce the value of modern-mastered records in many peoples&#039; view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* Foo Fighters, &#039;&#039;In Your Honor&#039;&#039; 45rpm 4LP. Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received from Bob Ludwig for the most part had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Battles, &#039;&#039;Mirrored&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayer, &#039;&#039;Christ Illusion&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
* The Decemberists, &#039;&#039;The Crane Wife&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* REM, &#039;&#039;Accelerate&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Commentary is very divisive. Some people believe the vinyl is clearly superior to the CD, and some people abhor the vinyl as sounding hypercompressed.&lt;br /&gt;
* Autechre: &#039;&#039;Untilted&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Chiastic Slide&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;Gantz Graf&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Shellac: &#039;&#039;Excellent Italian Greyhound&#039;&#039; (and probably all others)&lt;br /&gt;
* Of Montreal, &#039;&#039;Hissing Fauna: Are You The Destroyer?&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19045</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19045"/>
		<updated>2008-09-09T01:20:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 * The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
 * If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
 * Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
    * Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
 # The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
 # Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
 # Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
 # The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
 # The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
 # The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
 # Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is truly different than a CD master, ie, it has less dynamic range compression?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=One known counterexample: A vinyl release with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received from Bob Ludwig for the most part had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19044</id>
		<title>Vinyl Mastering</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Mastering&amp;diff=19044"/>
		<updated>2008-09-09T01:18:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: New page:   =Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=  There&amp;#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same mate...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&#039;s this idea floating around that vinyl records must have intrinsically different masterings than CDs of the same material. There&#039;s both a kernel of truth to this, and a few gigantic myths.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDs have only one (extremely strong) restriction on how loud they can be cut - the digital peak level, 0dbFS - and (almost) anything that doesn&#039;t violate that restriction is permissible. Vinyl manufacturing has many different restrictions, and they are all rather loose, in that the restrictions can be sometimes relaxed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    * The grooves can actually overlap each other if they are too loud. This can be alleviated by spacing the grooves further apart.&lt;br /&gt;
    * If the groove &amp;quot;moves&amp;quot; quickly enough - its velocity is high enough - some turntable cartridges will be unable to track the groove, and a skip results.&lt;br /&gt;
    * Just like the voice coils in a speaker can burn up if enough energy is dumped into them, the voice coils on a cutter head can burn up if the signal is of a high enough power. (The amplifiers range into the hundreds of watts and the coils themselves are liquid- or helium-cooled, depending on who you ask, so the powers involved here really are quite substantial.) The historical solution to this is a special limiterthat squashes the high frequencies in the music if the cutting head temperature exceeded some threshold. Clearly not a high-fidelity solution (and many mastering engineers do not use them nowadays).&lt;br /&gt;
    * Excessive stereo bass content (bass in one frequency or another) can compromise tracking or even make the cutting head jump out of the groove. This is sometimes solved with an elliptical filter, which sums bass frequencies to mono. Again, not all mastering engineers use this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
None of these restrictions explicitly say &amp;quot;hypercompressed, distorting music cannot be cut onto vinyl&amp;quot;. Rather, that music may be more difficult to cut and play back than other music.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?=&lt;br /&gt;
 # The CD and vinyl masters might just be exactly the same: the same signal that goes on the ADC goes on the cutting head.&lt;br /&gt;
 # Acceleration limiting might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
 # Elliptic filtering (bass sums to mono) might be used on the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
 # The vinyl master may be sourced from a 24-bit version of the CD master. (However, the high noise content of vinyl generally makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
 # The vinyl master may be sourced from a higher-sampling-rate version of the CD master. (However, the demonstrated inaudibility of frequencies above 20khz makes this a meaningless distinction.)&lt;br /&gt;
 # The vinyl master may be EQ&#039;d differently to account for equalization differences in the cutting head, electronics, or playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
 # Finally, the vinyl master &#039;&#039;might&#039;&#039; be sourced from a master with less dynamic range compression or limiting than the CD master.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=How do you know if a vinyl master is truly different than a CD master, ie, it has less dynamic range compression?=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You ask the mastering engineer what he did. Other that, that, &#039;&#039;&#039;you don&#039;t know&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Hoffman&#039;s work is &#039;&#039;generally&#039;&#039; known for distinctly different masterings compared to equivalent CD releases. His mastering of ZZ Top&#039;s &#039;&#039;Tres Hombres&#039;&#039; includes diverse changes, including a much less compressed drum track. His mastering of the White Stripes&#039;s &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039; is also well praised for being distinctly different (and better) than the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=One known counterexample: A vinyl release with the same master as the CD=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve Berson, Total Sonic Mastering: &amp;quot;When I cut the vinyl DMM masters for the first &amp;quot;special edition&amp;quot; release of the 45rpm 4-LP set for the Foo Fighters &amp;quot;In Your Honor&amp;quot; album the producers made a big deal out of wanting to have an &amp;quot;audiophile&amp;quot; release and made sure that I could work from 24bit/96kHz source (which I was able to do at Europadisk due to SAWStudio sending to a matched pair of Lavry Blues that went to both the pitch depth computer and the cutting head) and that I did as close to a flat transfer from these as possible. &#039;&#039;&#039;I was disappointed to find that the high res files I received from Bob Ludwig for the most part had been heavily clipped as they were the same files (just prior to SRC and dithering) that the CD master was made from. &amp;quot; http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1706712-post20.html&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Topic_Index&amp;diff=19043</id>
		<title>Topic Index</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Topic_Index&amp;diff=19043"/>
		<updated>2008-09-09T01:05:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Audio Hardware &amp;amp; CD Ripping */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;* For a more structured &#039;table of contents&#039;, use the &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Main Page#Categories|Categories List]]&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Please see [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=12979&amp;amp;st=25&amp;amp;p=247441&amp;amp;#entry247441 this thread] for a discussion of the future structure of this wiki.  If you have thoughts, comments, suggestions, etc., please join in this discussion.  In the meantime, please feel free to fill in gaps in the information below.&lt;br /&gt;
* See also [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28658 the style related discussion thread] in the forums.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= General Information =&lt;br /&gt;
== General Guides ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Create a long-term archive]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Secure ripping|Secure Ripping]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Enabling DMA]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Choosing_the_best_codec.|Choosing the best codec]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lossless_comparison|Lossless Comparison]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== EAC Guides == &lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[EAC Drive Configuration|EAC and CD-ROM Drives]] &lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[EAC and Lame]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[EAC and AAC | EAC and Nero AAC]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[EAC and Ogg Vorbis | EAC and Vorbis]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[EAC and Musepack]] &lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[EAC and WavPack]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[EAC and FLAC]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[EAC and Monkey&#039;s Audio]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[EAC and Cue Sheets]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring EAC and [[REACT]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== CDex Guides ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[CDex and CD-ROM Drives]] &lt;br /&gt;
* Configuring [[CDex and FLAC]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== AAC Guides == &lt;br /&gt;
* [[AAC_FAQ|AAC FAQ]] frequently asked questions in reguard to AAC the latest industry standard.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[AAC encoders|AAC Encoders]] known AAC encoder/decoder implementations and configuring them (Apple Itunes, Nero AAC, etc)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vorbis Guides ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Recommended_Ogg_Vorbis|Recommended encoders and settings for Vorbis]].&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lancer|Ogg Vorbis Acceleration Project]] information reguarding optimized Vorbis binaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Compiling_aoTuV|Compiling AoTuV]] compiling the AoTuV binaries under Linux. &lt;br /&gt;
* [[OggDropXPd|OggDropXPd]] guide for encoding with John 33&#039;s popular drag-n-drop frontend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Audio Codecs =&lt;br /&gt;
== [[Lossy]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Advanced Audio Coding]] (AAC)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[AC3]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ATRAC3]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[DTS]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[MP2]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[MP3]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Musepack]] (MPC, MP+)&lt;br /&gt;
* (Ogg) [[Vorbis]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[QDesign]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[VQF]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Windows Media Audio]] (WMA)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== [[Lossless]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ALAC|Apple Lossless]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ALS|Audio Lossless Coding]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[DTS-HD|DTS Master Audio]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Free Lossless Audio Codec]] (FLAC)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lossless Audio]] (LA)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lossless Predictive Audio Compression]] (LPAC)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Monkey&#039;s Audio]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[OptimFROG]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lossless comparison#RealAudio Lossless|RealAudio Lossless]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Shorten]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[TTA|True Audio]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[WavPack]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Windows Media Audio|WMA Lossless]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= [[Metadata]] (Tags) =&lt;br /&gt;
* [[APEv1]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[APEv2]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ID3v1]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ID3v1.1]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ID3v2]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Vorbis Comment]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Media Extractors =&lt;br /&gt;
== CD Extractors ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[CDex]] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[cdparanoia]] (Posix)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[dBpowerAMP with AccurateRip]] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Exact_Audio_Copy|Exact Audio Copy]] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Grip]] (Posix) &lt;br /&gt;
* [[iTunes]] (Win32/OSX)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[MediaMonkey]] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Max]] (OSX) &lt;br /&gt;
* [[PlexTools]] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Rubyripper]] (Posix/OSX)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== DVD Extractors ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/SetupDVDDecrypter_3.5.4.0.exe DVD Decrypter] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
* DVD-A / CPPM Decrypter (Win32/Posix)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Media Players =&lt;br /&gt;
== Windows ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Apollo]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[dBpowerAMP]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Foobar2000:Foobar2000|foobar2000]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[iTunes]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[MediaMonkey]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[musikCube]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Quintessential Player]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[VUplayer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Winamp]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Windows Media Player]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wxMusik]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[XMPlay]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[WMPTSE]] (with WMP)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Linux/BSD ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Amarok]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[BMP]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[JuK]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[LAMIP]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Muine]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Music Player Daemon (MPD)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Quod Libet]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Rhythmbox]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wxMusik]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[XMMS]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mac OS X (Non-BSD Specific) ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[iTunes]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[skiTunes]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Whamb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[CL-Amp]] (BeOS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Audio Editors =&lt;br /&gt;
== Windows ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Adobe Audition]] (previously known as &#039;&#039;Cool Edit&#039;&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Audacity]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Goldwave]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/products/soundforgefamily.asp Sony Sound Forge] (Previously released by Sonic Foundry)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Linux/BSD ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ardour]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Audacity]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ReZound]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mac OS X (Non-BSD Specific) ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ardour]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Audacity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://timidity.sourceforge.net/ Timidity++] (MIDI to PCM (WAV) converter)&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Timidity++ synthesizes MIDI files (sequences) in real-time using Gravis UltraSound Soundfont patches (loosly based upon Wavetable Synthesis) to common digital audio file formats such as, WAV, AU, AIFF, Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, etc. Useful for those who want to bypass FM Synthesizers on their sound card&#039;s to hear MIDI sequence as it was intended to be heard.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Testing Software =&lt;br /&gt;
== Subjective Perceptual ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ABC/HR]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[PCABX]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Objective ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;color:green;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;Note: Might be good to put something here about the problems of quality comparisons using graphs, frequency sweeps, etc.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[EAQUAL]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Rightmark_Audio_Analyzer|Rightmark Audio Analyzer]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Audio Hardware =&lt;br /&gt;
== PC Audio ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Terratec EWX 24/96]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[M-Audio Audiophile 24/96]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[M-Audio Revolution 5.1]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[M-Audio Revolution 7.1]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Chaintech AV-710]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[E-MU 0404 24/192]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Audiotrak MAYA 5.1]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Audiotrak Prodigy 7.1]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notebook Audio == &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Echo Indigo IO 24/96]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Firewire ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[E-MU 1212M 24/192]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[M-Audio Firewire 410]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== HiFi ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[M-Audio Fast Track USB]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Slim Devices Squeezebox]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Slim Devices Transporter]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Hermstedt AG Hifidelio]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Olive Musica]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MIDI Interfaces ==&lt;br /&gt;
* M-Audio MIDISport Uno 1x1 &lt;br /&gt;
* M-Audio MIDISport 2x2 &lt;br /&gt;
* MOTU 5x5 Micro Lite &lt;br /&gt;
* MOTU Fastlane USB&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Digital Audio Players ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Portable Flash ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(These players make use of a internal flash drive.)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Apple iPod]] Nano&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Apple iPod]] Shuffle&lt;br /&gt;
* Creative MuVo&lt;br /&gt;
* iRiver iFP Series&lt;br /&gt;
* MPIO lFP Series&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Rio Carbon]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Portable HD ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(These players make use of a internal harddrive.)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Apple iPod]] with &#039;&#039;([http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/TargetStatus#iriver_H110_H115_H120_H140 Rockbox firmware])&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Archos Jukebox with Rockbox Software]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[iAudio M3]] with &#039;&#039;([http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/TargetStatus#iAudio_X5 Rockbox firmware])&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[iRiver H-Series]] with &#039;&#039;([http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/TargetStatus#iriver_H110_H115_H120_H140 Rockbox firmware])&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[MPIO H-Series]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Neuros]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Rio Karma]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Portable CD ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Car Players ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Car stereos that can read MP3, Vorbis, WMA, etc.).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Aiwa CDC-MP3]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Yakumo Ultrasound]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===DVD Players=== &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Neuston&#039;s Maestro DVX-1201]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Firmware ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Rockbox]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Audio Theory =&lt;br /&gt;
== Analog Audio ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Tube Amplifiers]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Vinyl_Playback_and_Recording|Vinyl Audio]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Digital Audio ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Solid State Amplifiers]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Replay Gain]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Testing Methodology ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ABX]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[EAQUAL]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Audio Development =&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;note: Let&#039;s start with basic development tools (compilers, engineering tools, dev. libraries) until we think of more tools to add. I am also adding external links to books, tutorials, etc under resources.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tools ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/ MATLAB 7.0] commercial software for algorithmic design, developement, engineering, and scientific computing. (multi-platform support)&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.octave.org/ GNU Octave] open-source alternative software (GPL) to MATLAB for numerical computations, engineering, and scientific computing. (multi-platform support)&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.fftw.org/ FFTW] Is a C subroutine library for computing the Discrete Fourier transform (DFT) in one or more dimensions on real and complex inputs.&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://gcc.gnu.org/ GCC] THE GNU compiler collection for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada.&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html GNU Emacs] an extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time display editor. Great for writing all types of source code especially on Unix. (multi-platform support) &lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html DevCPP] free front-end IDE and compiler for the C and C++ languages. Delphi and C source code available. (Win 9x, NT, 2000, and XP)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Resources ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=30 Scientific/R&amp;amp;D Forums] for Psychoacoustic, DSP, Electrical Engineering, theory, and coding related questions. (most questions are generally answered)&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.aes.org/ AES] The Audio Engineering Society website. Home of year-round world AES conferences.&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dspguru.com/info/books/favor.htm DSP Tutorials] this site provides another good introduction in to the area of DSP.   &lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.musicdsp.org/archive.php?classid=2 Music-DSP] source-code archive for analysis, filters, effects and synthesis. (C, C++, and Java code)&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.itakura.nuee.nagoya-u.ac.jp/HRTF/ HRTF] A database of measurements and research papers on Head Related Transfer Functions for 3D-Audio. (PDF, Audio)&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.midi.org/about-midi/specshome.shtml MIDI Specifications] MIDI 1.0, the new MusicXMF specification, and SP-MIDI for third generation 3GPP mobile devices (PDF) &lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article2008.asp OpenAL] a beginners tutorial on writing code using OpenAL for audio programming in computer games and other applications. (C, C++). &lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.alsa-project.org/ ALSA Project] (Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) bringing audio and MIDI capabilities to Linux.&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.engmath.dal.ca/courses/engm6610/notes/notes.html A Really friendly guide to Wavelets] A good introduction to wavelets aimed towards engineer, requires a fair amount of background knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books/Research == &lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3540231595/qid=1135380559/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-1730075-7300931?s=books&amp;amp;v=glance&amp;amp;n=283155 Psychoacoustics - Facts and Models] author&#039;s Zwicker, Fastl, and Hugo, revised 2005 third edition. The book for comprehensive psychoacoustics models and figures.  &lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.eas.asu.edu/~spanias/papers/paper-audio-tedspanias-00.pdf  Perceptual Audio Coding] authors A. Painter and T. Spanias. A comprehensive paper on percepual audio coding (PDF)&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0780334493/103-2094923-9567001?v=glance&amp;amp;n=283155&amp;amp;%5Fencoding=UTF8&amp;amp;me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;amp;no=283155&amp;amp;st=books Speech Communications Human and Machine] this book provides a good introduction to speech coding, inlcuding anaylsis, recognition, and perception. This text is a very good introduction for beginners. &lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dspguide.com/ Scientist and Engineer&#039;s Guide to DSP] author Steve Smith, a great guide for beginners new to the subject of DSP (free online text)(PDF)&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0792391810/ref=ase_theinternetdatac/103-9882844-5344648?v=glance&amp;amp;s=books Vector Quantization] authors Gersho and Gray. Good read for understanding how VQ and arithmetic coding work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Audio Resources =&lt;br /&gt;
== Websites ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: Let&#039;s include a small description to the side for now, so that we have something to work with when this section becomes large enough for its own page&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.audiocoding.com (Page with a wiki on technical audio topics, homepage of FAAC and FAAD2, also has an AAC forum.)&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.ff123.net (Lots of general information on various MP3 implementations, test samples, testing methodology information, homepage of ABC/HR)&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.head-fi.org (general information/board about head phones and portable audio players)&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.rarewares.org (Downloads for many audio and media tools)&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/ (Download old versions of Foobar2000 and other audio and media tools)&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.rockbox.org/ (Open-source jukebox firmware for numerous DAP and architectures, GNU/GPL License). &lt;br /&gt;
* http://psplab.csie.nctu.edu.tw/invboard2_0/index.php (Perceptual Signal Processing Lab, small university forum based in Tawain dealing with perceptual coding on acedemic level).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Articles/Debates ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=31759&amp;amp;st=0 DVD-A vs. SACD debate]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=38041&amp;amp;st=0 Subjective vs. Objective testing]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/19/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-state-of-the-s-union-s-division/ Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD comparison]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.ambisonic.net/pdf/ambidvd2001.pdf 5.1 surround vs. Ambisonics comparison]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Listening Tests ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.rjamorim.com/test/ Roberto&#039;s listening tests]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Listening_Tests|Inventory of several listening tests, mainly on HA.org]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Other Topics =&lt;br /&gt;
== Video ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[MPEG-4 Visual]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Real Video]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Theora]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Tarkin]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snow]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[VP6]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Windows Media Video]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== [[Container format]]s ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[ASF]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[AVI]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Matroska]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[MOV]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[MP4]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ogg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Glossary =&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Glossary_Of_Audio_Terms|Glossary of Audio Terms]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Introduction &amp;amp; User Guides =&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;A starting place for new users to audio, with guides to compression and CD ripping and a glossary of all common terms.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Glossary Of Audio Terms]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[FAQ]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Audio format guide]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Ripping Guides&lt;br /&gt;
** [[EAC]] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
** [[CDex]] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
** [[DBpowerAMP with AccurateRip]] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Plextools]] (Win32)&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Max]] (OS/X) &lt;br /&gt;
** [[Rubyripper]] (Posix/OSX) &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Tagging]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Replay Gain]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--Spacer--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Audio Codecs =&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Pros/cons, Recommended settings, Useful tools, etc.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:Codecs|The Technical/Codecs Category]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--Spacer--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Container Formats =&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;What is a [[container format]]?&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Matroska]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[MP4]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ogg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--Spacer--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Audio Hardware &amp;amp; CD Ripping =&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;CD Tools, Secure Ripping, Soundcard Quality&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Secure ripping]]&lt;br /&gt;
** Ripping Guide&lt;br /&gt;
*** [[EAC]]&lt;br /&gt;
*** [[CDex]]&lt;br /&gt;
*** [[DBpowerAMP with AccurateRip]]&lt;br /&gt;
*** [[Plextools]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[CD copy protection]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[CD Hardware]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl records and turntables&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Introduction to Vinyl|Introduction]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Advantages of Vinyl]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Disadvantages of Vinyl]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Vinyl Myths]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Purchasing Vinyl LPs and Components|Purchasing]]&lt;br /&gt;
** Record Player Components&lt;br /&gt;
*** [[Turntable]]&lt;br /&gt;
*** [[Cartridge]]&lt;br /&gt;
*** [[Phono preamplifier]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Evaluating Vinyl Sound Quality]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Vinyl Playback and Recording|Playback and Recording]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Vinyl Maintenance|Maintenance]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Vinyl Forum Posts and FAQs|FAQs]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Vinyl Glossary|Glossary]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Vinyl Links|Links]]&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Vinyl Mastering|Mastering]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Soundcard|Soundcards]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Other hardware]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--Spacer--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Tests =&lt;br /&gt;
* [[EAC Vs CDex SecureMode]] (by Pio2001)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[EAC Vs CDex SecureMode II]] (by westgroveg)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Listening Tests]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--Spacer--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=Downloads=&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Where to obtain the software discussed in HAK.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Download page]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--Spacer--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Using HAK =&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Help:Contents|Wiki User Guide]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Play around at the [[Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase:Sandbox|Sandbox]] to try your formatting skills. Everything goes here and everything can/may be deleted.&lt;br /&gt;
* Contributors should read [[Help:Editing|editing help]].&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=18694</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=18694"/>
		<updated>2008-06-06T19:07:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;Note: These are preliminary notes, are a little opinionated, and are subject to change. Please edit as appropriate or comment on the discussion page.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl always sounds better than CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
** Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile differences - of larger artwork, and the required playback ritual for a record.&lt;br /&gt;
** Many other people prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. (If they didn&#039;t, CDs would not have completely displaced vinyl in the marketplace in the 1980s.)&lt;br /&gt;
** As other myths here show, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technically correct argument for vinyl having a superior sound quality to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Vinyl records may sound better than equivalent CDs for extremely specific reasons that do not apply to the media as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Fact: different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality, by eg lowering background noise, increasing or reducing the dynamic range, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
** There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. (The most notable of which is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;&#039;.)&lt;br /&gt;
** There are &#039;&#039;&#039;also&#039;&#039;&#039; documented instances of &#039;&#039;&#039;the same&#039;&#039;&#039; masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases.&lt;br /&gt;
** There is much anecdotal evidence, judging from digital analysis of vinyl recordings, that many more modern LP releases use largely the same masters as are used on CD.&lt;br /&gt;
** Alternative masters cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound.&lt;br /&gt;
** The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&lt;br /&gt;
*** The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts).&lt;br /&gt;
*** At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
*** A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300um, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
*** The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Also, multiband acceleration limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
** Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F.&lt;br /&gt;
** Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is true that back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
** Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play.&lt;br /&gt;
** No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Proper vinyl playback is click-free.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience.&lt;br /&gt;
** No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever.&lt;br /&gt;
** They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
** Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids antialiasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50khz and perhaps as high as 100khz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45khz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced.&lt;br /&gt;
** That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10db or greater are not uncommon in the 20khz range for many records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.&lt;br /&gt;
** When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern stylii this is not as much of a concern, though.&lt;br /&gt;
** Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22khz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, nor is there any evidence that reconstruction/antialiasing issues are audible.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
** Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including THD, noise, IMD, etc. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
** Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
** The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
** In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db.&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db.&lt;br /&gt;
** Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.&lt;br /&gt;
** Thread [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 here].&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly.&lt;br /&gt;
** Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage.&lt;br /&gt;
** Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight.&lt;br /&gt;
** That said, if a brand-new cartridge arrives visibly bent, it is probably a good idea to return it.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair.&lt;br /&gt;
** Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
** Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=18693</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=18693"/>
		<updated>2008-06-06T19:06:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;Note: These are preliminary notes, are a little opinionated, and are subject to change. Please edit as appropriate or comment on the discussion page.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl always sounds better than CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
** Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile differences - of larger artwork, and the required playback ritual for a record.&lt;br /&gt;
** Many other people prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. (If they didn&#039;t, CDs would not have completely displaced vinyl in the marketplace in the 1980s.)&lt;br /&gt;
** As other myths here show, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technically correct argument for vinyl having a superior sound quality to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Vinyl records may sound better than equivalent CDs for extremely specific reasons that do not apply to the media as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Fact: different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality, by eg lowering background noise, increasing or reducing the dynamic range, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
** There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. (The most notable of which is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;&#039;.)&lt;br /&gt;
** There are &#039;&#039;&#039;also&#039;&#039;&#039; documented instances of &#039;&#039;&#039;the same&#039;&#039;&#039; masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases.&lt;br /&gt;
** There is much anecdotal evidence, judging from digital analysis of vinyl recordings, that many more modern LP releases use largely the same masters as are used on CD.&lt;br /&gt;
** Alternative masters cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound.&lt;br /&gt;
** The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&lt;br /&gt;
*** The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts).&lt;br /&gt;
*** At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
*** A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300um, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
*** The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Also, multiband acceleration limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
** Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F.&lt;br /&gt;
** Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is true that back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
** Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play.&lt;br /&gt;
** No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Proper vinyl playback is click-free.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience.&lt;br /&gt;
** No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever.&lt;br /&gt;
** They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
** Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids antialiasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50khz and perhaps as high as 100khz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45khz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced.&lt;br /&gt;
** That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10db or greater are not uncommon in the 20khz range for many records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.&lt;br /&gt;
** When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern stylii this is not as much of a concern, though.&lt;br /&gt;
** Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22khz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, nor is there any evidence that reconstruction/antialiasing issues are audible.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
** Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including THD, noise, IMD, etc. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
** Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
** The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
** In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db.&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db.&lt;br /&gt;
** Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.&lt;br /&gt;
** Thread [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 here].&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly.&lt;br /&gt;
** Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage.&lt;br /&gt;
** Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair.&lt;br /&gt;
** Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
** Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=18684</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=18684"/>
		<updated>2008-06-06T18:56:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;Note: These are preliminary notes, are a little opinionated, and are subject to change. Please edit as appropriate or comment on the discussion page.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl always sounds better than CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
** Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile differences - of larger artwork, and the required playback ritual for a record.&lt;br /&gt;
** Many other people prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. (If they didn&#039;t, CDs would not have completely displaced vinyl in the marketplace in the 1980s.)&lt;br /&gt;
** As other myths here show, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technically correct argument for vinyl having a superior sound quality to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Vinyl records may sound better than equivalent CDs for extremely specific reasons that do not apply to the media as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Fact: different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality, by eg lowering background noise, increasing or reducing the dynamic range, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
** There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. (The most notable of which is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;&#039;.)&lt;br /&gt;
** There are &#039;&#039;&#039;also&#039;&#039;&#039; documented instances of &#039;&#039;&#039;the same&#039;&#039;&#039; masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases.&lt;br /&gt;
** There is much anecdotal evidence, judging from digital analysis of vinyl recordings, that many more modern LP releases use largely the same masters as are used on CD.&lt;br /&gt;
** Alternative masters cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound.&lt;br /&gt;
** The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&lt;br /&gt;
*** The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts).&lt;br /&gt;
*** At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
*** A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300um, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
*** The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Also, multiband acceleration limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
** Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F.&lt;br /&gt;
** Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is true that back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
** Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play.&lt;br /&gt;
** No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Proper vinyl playback is click-free.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience.&lt;br /&gt;
** No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever.&lt;br /&gt;
** They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
** Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
** Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including THD, noise, IMD, etc. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
** Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
** The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
** In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db.&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db.&lt;br /&gt;
** Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.&lt;br /&gt;
** Thread [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 here].&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly.&lt;br /&gt;
** Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage.&lt;br /&gt;
** Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair.&lt;br /&gt;
** Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
** Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=18683</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=18683"/>
		<updated>2008-06-06T18:50:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;Note: These are preliminary notes, are a little opinionated, and are subject to change. Please edit as appropriate or comment on the discussion page.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl always sounds better than CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
** Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile differences - of larger artwork, and the required playback ritual for a record.&lt;br /&gt;
** Many other people prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. (If they didn&#039;t, CDs would not have completely displaced vinyl in the marketplace in the 1980s.)&lt;br /&gt;
** As other myths here show, &#039;&#039;&#039;there is no technically correct argument for vinyl having a superior sound quality to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Vinyl records may sound better than equivalent CDs for extremely specific reasons that do not apply to the media as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Fact: different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality, by eg lowering background noise, increasing or reducing the dynamic range, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
** There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. (The most notable of which is The White Stripes&#039; &#039;&#039;Icky Thump&#039;&#039;&#039;.)&lt;br /&gt;
** There are &#039;&#039;&#039;also&#039;&#039;&#039; documented instances of &#039;&#039;&#039;the same&#039;&#039;&#039; masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases.&lt;br /&gt;
** There is much anecdotal evidence, judging from digital analysis of vinyl recordings, that many more modern LP releases use largely the same masters as are used on CD.&lt;br /&gt;
** Alternative masters cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will yield in a superior sound.&lt;br /&gt;
** The technical details behind this myth are as follows.&lt;br /&gt;
*** The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts).&lt;br /&gt;
*** At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker&#039;s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.&lt;br /&gt;
*** A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a&lt;br /&gt;
record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Additionally, during playback, the turntable&#039;s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300um-wide groove at 300um, and yet only 50um at 20khz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.&lt;br /&gt;
*** The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master.&lt;br /&gt;
*** Also, multiband acceleration limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
** Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F.&lt;br /&gt;
** Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is true that back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
** Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play.&lt;br /&gt;
** No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Proper vinyl playback is click-free.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience.&lt;br /&gt;
** No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever.&lt;br /&gt;
** They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
** Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
** Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including THD, noise, IMD, etc. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
** Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
** The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
** In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db.&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db.&lt;br /&gt;
** Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.&lt;br /&gt;
** Thread [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 here].&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly.&lt;br /&gt;
** Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage.&lt;br /&gt;
** Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair.&lt;br /&gt;
** Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
** Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Disadvantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=17924</id>
		<title>Disadvantages (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Disadvantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=17924"/>
		<updated>2007-10-29T23:01:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are several risks and disadvantages to vinyl, compared to other (digital) audio technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl is harder to [[Vinyl Maintenance|maintain]] than CDs, and should ideally be stored in temperature- and humidity-controlled environments. (However, air conditioning, perhaps with a dehumidifier, is almost always sufficient.) Mold can grow on vinyl and may permamently damage it and its sleeve, and can spread from record to record.&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl is very easy to damage during playback. Any scraping of the surface can permanently compromise the sound quality.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Surface noise]], while often inaudible, will always be present and measurable, even on a brand new LP.&lt;br /&gt;
* The sound quality of a record cannot be determined until you play it, increasing the risk of the purchase. Even brand new, sealed LPs can have significant pressing and warping problems that may make it unusable for listening purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Certain parameters of vinyl recording and playback - notably, the vertical tracking angle (VTA) and the stylus rake angle (SRA) - were never formally standardized, and vary considerably between records. Distortion from these effects is generally considered extremely audible and very difficult (if not impossible) to correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* Turntables and cartridges require periodic maintenance and alignment by a professional, usually a repairman or a dealer. Otherwise you must learn how to tune a system by hand, which may require a great deal of time to perfect. Maintenance may be necessary anytime a turntable is moved or reconfigured.&lt;br /&gt;
* Any play of a record, even one, has the risk of permanently damaging the record. Repeated playback with an excessively worn or misaligned cartridge will cause permanent damage.&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl playback is not nearly as portable as other technologies. Portable record players exist, but they are considered of inferior sound quality and require a motionless playing surface.&lt;br /&gt;
* Investing in a high quality vinyl system is hundreds to thousands of dollars more expensive than investing in a high quality digital audio system. &lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl equipment reviews are notoriously biased and subjective, and it is extremely difficult to locate objective information about playback and build quality. Expect to purchase hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of equipment or features that you may not need.&lt;br /&gt;
* Cartridge stylii wear out over time (typically 200-1000 hours) and require periodic replacement. High quality cartridges generally cost between $60-$6000. At the upper end of cartridge cost, playing a single LP may cost $1 in stylus wear alone.&lt;br /&gt;
* Records are large and heavy. Transporting them correctly is logistically difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
* The &amp;quot;book value&amp;quot; of many LPs, representing both its collector&#039;s value and its musical value, is often quite high - anywhere from $10-$20 for either new or used LPs to over a hundred dollars for collectible LPs.&lt;br /&gt;
* LPs in general are neither overvalued nor undervalued. While they do not risk becoming worthless, they usually do not carry their value well unless certain releases become more collectible. Vinyl is not a particularly safe investment for collection or financial purposes only.&lt;br /&gt;
* While there is some appeal in listening to older music in the format it was released under, that does not necessarily mean that one is any &amp;quot;closer&amp;quot; to the music than listening to it in a different format. Put more simply, vinyl is simply not any more of an &amp;quot;authentic&amp;quot; format than CD or MP3 by any rational measure; all evidence to the contrary is based purely on emotional arguments.&lt;br /&gt;
* Financially, any benefits of the cheaper media must be compared against the amortized cost of the equipment needed to play and maintain it. Unless great care is taken in a vinyl investment, the cost can quickly outweigh the benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Cartridge_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=17821</id>
		<title>Cartridge (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Cartridge_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=17821"/>
		<updated>2007-08-26T04:56:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Moving Coil */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The pickup cartridge is the device mounted at the end of the tonearm which holds the [[stylus]] (usually diamond) onto the record&#039;s groove. The groove vibrates the stylus, which transfers this movement into the body of the cartridge via a short rod (known as the [[cantilever]]). The cartridge then has the task of converting the mechanical vibration into an electrical signal. Different types of cartridge use different methods to generate the electrical signal.&lt;br /&gt;
=Magnetic Cartridges=&lt;br /&gt;
The vast majority of cartridges use electromagnetic induction to generate the signal (and are therefore known as &amp;quot;magnetic cartridges&amp;quot;). This method involves moving a permanent magnet and a coil of wire (a pair of coils for stereo) relative to one another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_cartridge Wikipedia article on magnetic cartridges].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moving Magnet==&lt;br /&gt;
As the name implies, in this type the coils of wire are fixed inside the cartridge assembly, and the magnet, mounted on the cantilever, is moved relative to them. Most DJ and lower-price home audio cartridges are of this type. There are some advantages to this type:&lt;br /&gt;
* Since there is no physical connection between the sylus and the wiring, the stylus can easily be made replaceable. Most (but not all) modern MM cartridges offer replacement stylii, at 50-80% of the cost of a new cartridge.&lt;br /&gt;
* Since the coils of wire are fixed, they can use a large number of turns, thereby increasing the output level from the cartridge (typically around 5mV), which will then require less subsequent amplification and hence lower noise compared to moving-coil cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
* Moving magnet cartridges are generally much easier to manufacture and are less expensive than moving coil carts. MM models usually range from $20 to $300.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The large number of turns on the coils give moving magnet cartridges a high output impedance (typically a few kiloohms), much of which is inductive. If the cartridge outputs are wired directly into a high input impedance preamplifier, the cartridge will form an RL filter, which can lowpass the signal in the 10-20khz range and compromise performance. Furthermore, the high mass of the cantilever/magnet assembly generally causes a resonance in the high frequency audio range, although not enough to complement the coil inductance. Two elements are added to alleviate these issues.&lt;br /&gt;
* A capacitance is added to the circuit to form an LC tank circuit. This boosts the high end response substantially, but also creates a large resonance, potentially in the audio range. Preamps usually come with 50-200pF of capacitance at the inputs, but often, the cabling from the cartridge to the preamp contains up to 100pF of capacitance.&lt;br /&gt;
* To reduce the size of this resonance, a relatively low resistance is added between the signal and ground, to dissipate the resonant energy, smoothing out the high frequency response. This resistance should be low enough as to reduce the HF peak, but high enough so as to not compromise the HF response completely. Most cartridge manufacturers have standardized at 47kOhm as the &amp;quot;usual&amp;quot; preamp input resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moving Coil==&lt;br /&gt;
In a moving coil cartridge, the magnet is fixed and the coils are wound onto arms at the far end of the cantilever. Therefore the stylus cause the coils to move relative to the magnet, generating current. Virtually all audiophile cartridges use a moving coil generator. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are usually several advantages to this scheme:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* From a subjective point of view, MC cartridges are usually favored for their high fidelity compared to MM cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
* The wire assembly usually has much fewer turns of wire, compared to moving-magnet cartridges. This substantially reduces the source impedance of the cartridge and makes it much easier to drive electrically. Perhaps most importantly, MC cartridges can be plugged directly into microphone preamps (as long as they don&#039;t use phantom power!).&lt;br /&gt;
* Generally, the cantilever-wire assembly of an MC cartridge is lighter than the cantilever-magnet assembly of an MM cartridge. This leads to a wider frequency response. (However, this is not generally true in practice - some MM designs have considerably lower tip mass than many MC designs.)&lt;br /&gt;
* MC cartridges are generally manufactured to stricter tolerances, and feature more advanced construction principles and materials, than MM cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several disadvantages.&lt;br /&gt;
* The cantilever assembly is usually not user replaceable, as it is literally wired to the rest of the cartridge. However, the manufacturer usually has a program for trade-ins or stylus replacement that is comparable in relative cost to replacing the stylus of an MM cartridge.&lt;br /&gt;
* Suspension designs are generally different between MM and MC, although it is not strictly because of the generator type. MC cantilever suspensions tend to be much more fragile than for MM. Accidentally snapping the cantilever off an MC is more common than you might think.&lt;br /&gt;
* MC cartridges are extremely expensive - between $150 to $10000 Much of this added expense is because MC cartridges are inherently harder to construct than MM cartridges, although they also tend to use more exotic components.&lt;br /&gt;
* Because of of the smaller wire assembly of MC cartridges compared to MM cartridges, MC carts tend to have vastly reduced electrical sensitivity - often 20-30db less than MM. This requires a much more advanced preamp design than in order to achieve the same noise specifications. (Note that some MC carts are designed for high output and do not suffer from this issue.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Crystal and Ceramic Cartridges=&lt;br /&gt;
These types of cartridge use the piezo-electric effect. The vibrations of the stylus are used to apply pressure on a crystal or block of material which has a piezo effect, which generates a voltage. The generated voltage can be quite high (up to 100mV). And unlike magnetic cartridges which generate a signal proportional to the velocity of the stylus deflection, crystal/ceramic cartridge signals are proportional to the amplitude of the stylus deflection. This effectively forms a lowpass filter of the velocity-based signal, requiring little to no additional RIAA equalization. As a result, crystal/ceramic cartridges do not require any phono preamp, are very easy to manufacture, and are still used today for very low cost turntable systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal/ceramic cartridges have many major disadvantages. First, they tend to have much higher levels of distortion and noise compared to magnetic cartridges. Second, because the stylus/cantilever system is mechanically coupled to the cartridge, these cartridges tend to have extremely low compliance. This tends to compromise the high frequency response. Third, their purported compatibility with line level stages generally comes at the expense of any sort of close accuracy of the RIAA reproducing curve at high frequencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Other Types of Cartridge=&lt;br /&gt;
Grado, a pioneer cartridge manufacturer that was the primary innovator of Moving-Magnet cartridges, calls their technology &amp;quot;Moving Iron&amp;quot;. It is occasionally seen in other brands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Cantilever=&lt;br /&gt;
The cantilever is responsible for mechanically coupling the stylus (which actually touches the vinyl) to the electrical transducers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been known to be made of several materials. The primary technical consideration in the choice of metal is its mass, followed by its mechanical deformation characteristics. These affect the cantilever assembly&#039;s various resonance characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;
* Aluminum (most common). Sometimes solid and sometimes rolled from a thin sheet to reduce mass.&lt;br /&gt;
* Boron&lt;br /&gt;
* Beryllium (used in Shure V15 carts, now no longer available due to toxicity concerns during manufacturing)&lt;br /&gt;
* Gold-plated metal (usually aluminum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Stylus=&lt;br /&gt;
A stylus is the piece that actually touches the vinyl and tracks its modulations. It is usually the only component of a turntable that really &amp;quot;goes bad&amp;quot; over time and must be replaced, usually along with an assembly, or the entire cartridge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stylii are nowadays univerally made of diamond. No other material is as hard or durable. Worn stylii develop polished facets that act as chisels on the vinyl, causing permanent signal damage. A diamond stylus will generall wear out after somewhere between 200 and 2000 hours of use. Inferior materials (sapphire, osmium) will wear out far faster - possibly within 1-50 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important stylus characteristic is how it is cut, which determines the profile of the stylus on the groove. This measurably and audibly impacts the signal quality, the tracking force and the lifetime of the stylus. If the stylus touches a large surface area of the record, a larger tracking force is required to exert the same pressure on the surface, which also reduces the life of the stylus. If the surface area is oriented horizontally rather than vertically - if it covers more of the groove radially - then the high frequency response is compromised. On the other hand, a stylus with a very small contacting surface area tends to be very sensitive to proper alignment and tracking force, and is not as user-friendly to configure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The simplest way to cut a stylus is spherically. A pure spherical cut is pathologically bad and is never seen for microgroove records. Rather, a stylus is cut conically, with a spherical tip. These generally have the worst frequency response and a short lifetime. However, a few high end cartridges - notably the legendary Denon DL-103 - still use a conical tip. Most DJ cartridges use conical tip stylii.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The stylus can be cut in an ellipsoidal shape, so that the contact area forms an ellipse. These are very common in audiophile cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Finally, there are a number of different cuts related to the idea of strongly eccentric, vertically oriented contact areas on the record. These include names like &amp;quot;fine line&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;micro-line&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Shibata&amp;quot;, etc. These are also very common for audiophile cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is worth noting that quadraphonic systems, which require much more signal bandwidth than stereo, used fine line or Shibata stylii in the 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Cartridge_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=17820</id>
		<title>Cartridge (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Cartridge_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=17820"/>
		<updated>2007-08-26T04:55:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: /* Moving Coil */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The pickup cartridge is the device mounted at the end of the tonearm which holds the [[stylus]] (usually diamond) onto the record&#039;s groove. The groove vibrates the stylus, which transfers this movement into the body of the cartridge via a short rod (known as the [[cantilever]]). The cartridge then has the task of converting the mechanical vibration into an electrical signal. Different types of cartridge use different methods to generate the electrical signal.&lt;br /&gt;
=Magnetic Cartridges=&lt;br /&gt;
The vast majority of cartridges use electromagnetic induction to generate the signal (and are therefore known as &amp;quot;magnetic cartridges&amp;quot;). This method involves moving a permanent magnet and a coil of wire (a pair of coils for stereo) relative to one another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_cartridge Wikipedia article on magnetic cartridges].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moving Magnet==&lt;br /&gt;
As the name implies, in this type the coils of wire are fixed inside the cartridge assembly, and the magnet, mounted on the cantilever, is moved relative to them. Most DJ and lower-price home audio cartridges are of this type. There are some advantages to this type:&lt;br /&gt;
* Since there is no physical connection between the sylus and the wiring, the stylus can easily be made replaceable. Most (but not all) modern MM cartridges offer replacement stylii, at 50-80% of the cost of a new cartridge.&lt;br /&gt;
* Since the coils of wire are fixed, they can use a large number of turns, thereby increasing the output level from the cartridge (typically around 5mV), which will then require less subsequent amplification and hence lower noise compared to moving-coil cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
* Moving magnet cartridges are generally much easier to manufacture and are less expensive than moving coil carts. MM models usually range from $20 to $300.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The large number of turns on the coils give moving magnet cartridges a high output impedance (typically a few kiloohms), much of which is inductive. If the cartridge outputs are wired directly into a high input impedance preamplifier, the cartridge will form an RL filter, which can lowpass the signal in the 10-20khz range and compromise performance. Furthermore, the high mass of the cantilever/magnet assembly generally causes a resonance in the high frequency audio range, although not enough to complement the coil inductance. Two elements are added to alleviate these issues.&lt;br /&gt;
* A capacitance is added to the circuit to form an LC tank circuit. This boosts the high end response substantially, but also creates a large resonance, potentially in the audio range. Preamps usually come with 50-200pF of capacitance at the inputs, but often, the cabling from the cartridge to the preamp contains up to 100pF of capacitance.&lt;br /&gt;
* To reduce the size of this resonance, a relatively low resistance is added between the signal and ground, to dissipate the resonant energy, smoothing out the high frequency response. This resistance should be low enough as to reduce the HF peak, but high enough so as to not compromise the HF response completely. Most cartridge manufacturers have standardized at 47kOhm as the &amp;quot;usual&amp;quot; preamp input resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moving Coil==&lt;br /&gt;
In a moving coil cartridge, the magnet is fixed and the coils are wound onto arms at the far end of the cantilever. Therefore the stylus cause the coils to move relative to the magnet, generating current. Virtually all audiophile cartridges use a moving coil generator. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are usually several advantages to this scheme:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* From a subjective point of view, MC cartridges are usually favored for their high fidelity compared to MM cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
* The wire assembly usually has much fewer turns of wire, compared to moving-magnet cartridges. This substantially reduces the source impedance of the cartridge and makes it much easier to drive electrically. Perhaps most importantly, MC cartridges can be plugged directly into microphone preamps (as long as they don&#039;t use phantom power!).&lt;br /&gt;
* Generally, the cantilever-wire assembly of an MC cartridge is lighter than the cantilever-magnet assembly of an MM cartridge. This leads to a wider frequency response. (However, this is not generally true in practice - some MM designs have considerably lower tip mass than many MC designs.)&lt;br /&gt;
* MC cartridges are generally manufactured to stricter tolerances, and feature more advanced construction principles and materials, than MM cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several disadvantages.&lt;br /&gt;
* The cantilever assembly is usually not user replaceable, as it is literally wired to the rest of the cartridge. However, the manufacturer usually has a program for trade-ins or stylus replacement that is comparable in relative cost to replacing the stylus of an MM cartridge.&lt;br /&gt;
* Suspension designs are generally different between MM and MC, although it is not strictly because of the generator type. MC cantilever suspensions tend to be much more fragile than for MM. Accidentally snapping the cantilever off an MC is more common than you might think.&lt;br /&gt;
* MC cartridges are extremely expensive - between $150 to $10000 Much of this added expense is because MC cartridges are inherently harder to construct than MM cartridges, although they also tend to use more exotic components. In comparison, MM cartridges range from $20 to $500.&lt;br /&gt;
* Because of of the smaller wire assembly of MC cartridges compared to MM cartridges, MC carts tend to have vastly reduced electrical sensitivity - often 20-30db less than MM. This requires a much more advanced preamp design than in order to achieve the same noise specifications. (Note that some MC carts are designed for high output and do not suffer from this issue.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Crystal and Ceramic Cartridges=&lt;br /&gt;
These types of cartridge use the piezo-electric effect. The vibrations of the stylus are used to apply pressure on a crystal or block of material which has a piezo effect, which generates a voltage. The generated voltage can be quite high (up to 100mV). And unlike magnetic cartridges which generate a signal proportional to the velocity of the stylus deflection, crystal/ceramic cartridge signals are proportional to the amplitude of the stylus deflection. This effectively forms a lowpass filter of the velocity-based signal, requiring little to no additional RIAA equalization. As a result, crystal/ceramic cartridges do not require any phono preamp, are very easy to manufacture, and are still used today for very low cost turntable systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal/ceramic cartridges have many major disadvantages. First, they tend to have much higher levels of distortion and noise compared to magnetic cartridges. Second, because the stylus/cantilever system is mechanically coupled to the cartridge, these cartridges tend to have extremely low compliance. This tends to compromise the high frequency response. Third, their purported compatibility with line level stages generally comes at the expense of any sort of close accuracy of the RIAA reproducing curve at high frequencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Other Types of Cartridge=&lt;br /&gt;
Grado, a pioneer cartridge manufacturer that was the primary innovator of Moving-Magnet cartridges, calls their technology &amp;quot;Moving Iron&amp;quot;. It is occasionally seen in other brands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Cantilever=&lt;br /&gt;
The cantilever is responsible for mechanically coupling the stylus (which actually touches the vinyl) to the electrical transducers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been known to be made of several materials. The primary technical consideration in the choice of metal is its mass, followed by its mechanical deformation characteristics. These affect the cantilever assembly&#039;s various resonance characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;
* Aluminum (most common). Sometimes solid and sometimes rolled from a thin sheet to reduce mass.&lt;br /&gt;
* Boron&lt;br /&gt;
* Beryllium (used in Shure V15 carts, now no longer available due to toxicity concerns during manufacturing)&lt;br /&gt;
* Gold-plated metal (usually aluminum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Stylus=&lt;br /&gt;
A stylus is the piece that actually touches the vinyl and tracks its modulations. It is usually the only component of a turntable that really &amp;quot;goes bad&amp;quot; over time and must be replaced, usually along with an assembly, or the entire cartridge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stylii are nowadays univerally made of diamond. No other material is as hard or durable. Worn stylii develop polished facets that act as chisels on the vinyl, causing permanent signal damage. A diamond stylus will generall wear out after somewhere between 200 and 2000 hours of use. Inferior materials (sapphire, osmium) will wear out far faster - possibly within 1-50 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important stylus characteristic is how it is cut, which determines the profile of the stylus on the groove. This measurably and audibly impacts the signal quality, the tracking force and the lifetime of the stylus. If the stylus touches a large surface area of the record, a larger tracking force is required to exert the same pressure on the surface, which also reduces the life of the stylus. If the surface area is oriented horizontally rather than vertically - if it covers more of the groove radially - then the high frequency response is compromised. On the other hand, a stylus with a very small contacting surface area tends to be very sensitive to proper alignment and tracking force, and is not as user-friendly to configure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The simplest way to cut a stylus is spherically. A pure spherical cut is pathologically bad and is never seen for microgroove records. Rather, a stylus is cut conically, with a spherical tip. These generally have the worst frequency response and a short lifetime. However, a few high end cartridges - notably the legendary Denon DL-103 - still use a conical tip. Most DJ cartridges use conical tip stylii.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The stylus can be cut in an ellipsoidal shape, so that the contact area forms an ellipse. These are very common in audiophile cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Finally, there are a number of different cuts related to the idea of strongly eccentric, vertically oriented contact areas on the record. These include names like &amp;quot;fine line&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;micro-line&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Shibata&amp;quot;, etc. These are also very common for audiophile cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is worth noting that quadraphonic systems, which require much more signal bandwidth than stereo, used fine line or Shibata stylii in the 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Disadvantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=16302</id>
		<title>Disadvantages (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Disadvantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=16302"/>
		<updated>2007-01-22T20:45:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are several risks and disadvantages to vinyl, compared to other (digital) audio technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl is harder to [[Vinyl Maintenance|maintain]] than CDs, and should ideally be stored in temperature- and humidity-controlled environments. (However, air conditioning, perhaps with a dehumidifier, is almost always sufficient.) Mold can grow on vinyl and may permamently damage it and its sleeve, and can spread from record to record.&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl is very easy to damage during playback. Any scraping of the surface can permanently compromise the sound quality.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Surface noise]], while often inaudible, will always be present and measurable, even on a brand new LP.&lt;br /&gt;
* The sound quality of a record cannot be determined until you play it, increasing the risk of the purchase. Even brand new, sealed LPs can have significant pressing and warping problems that may make it unusable for listening purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Certain parameters of vinyl recording and playback - notably, the vertical tracking angle (VTA) and the stylus rake angle (SRA) - were never formally standardized, and vary considerably between records. Distortion from these effects is generally considered extremely audible and very difficult (if not impossible) to correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* Turntables and cartridges require periodic maintenance and alignment by a professional, usually a repairman or a dealer. Otherwise you must learn how to tune a system by hand, which may require a great deal of time to perfect. Maintenance may be necessary anytime a turntable is moved or reconfigured.&lt;br /&gt;
* Any play of a record, even one, has the risk of permanently damaging the record. Repeated playback with an excessively worn or misaligned cartridge will cause permanent damage.&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl playback is not nearly as portable as other technologies. Portable record players exist, but they are considered of inferior sound quality and require a motionless playing surface.&lt;br /&gt;
* Investing in a high quality vinyl system is hundreds to thousands of dollars more expensive than investing in a high quality digital audio system. &lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl equipment reviews are notoriously biased and subjective, and it is extremely difficult to locate objective information about playback and build quality. Expect to purchase hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of equipment or features that you may not need.&lt;br /&gt;
* Cartridge stylii wear out over time (typically 200-1000 hours) and require periodic replacement. High quality cartridges generally cost between $60-$6000. At the upper end of cartridge cost, playing a single LP may cost $1 in stylus wear alone.&lt;br /&gt;
* Records are large and heavy. Transporting them correctly is logistically difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
* The &amp;quot;book value&amp;quot; of many LPs, representing both its collector&#039;s value and its musical value, is often quite high - anywhere from $10-$20 for either new or used LPs to over a hundred dollars for collectible LPs.&lt;br /&gt;
* LPs in general are neither overvalued nor undervalued. While they do not risk becoming worthless, they usually do not carry their value well unless certain releases become more collectible. Vinyl is not a particularly safe investment for collection or financial purposes only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Financially, any benefits of the cheaper media must be compared against the amortized cost of the equipment needed to play and maintain it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Advantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=16301</id>
		<title>Advantages (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Advantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=16301"/>
		<updated>2007-01-22T20:32:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Why invest in an obsolete, 50+ year old music medium?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Used vinyl is often extremely inexpensive - 50 cents to two dollars a disc is common for some releases. Vinyl is a very cheap way to expand your collection in older artists that you cannot justify spending $15/CD on listening to.&lt;br /&gt;
* Some albums have simply never been released on CD.&lt;br /&gt;
* Some album art is better suited to the larger scale of LP covers and sleeves.&lt;br /&gt;
* The mastering of an original LP release is often considered superior to a CD remaster of the same release. This can be for any number of reasons, including:&lt;br /&gt;
** Increased use of compression and limiting on the CD release, reducing dynamics&lt;br /&gt;
** The master tapes have often degraded in the time between the LP and CD releases&lt;br /&gt;
** The equalization and even mixing of some CD releases is radically different than on the LP releases. For instance, many Zappa LPs have had entire drum tracks replaced for the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
* Properly maintained vinyl is of a surprisingly good quality and is often not objectionable.&lt;br /&gt;
* It can be safely purchased as a long term investment. &lt;br /&gt;
** The standards of record playback are relatively simple and nonproprietary. Record players can always be constructed from scratch, including the cartridge assembly, with a minimum of technical experience. Playback has been standardized for roughly 50 years&lt;br /&gt;
** Properly maintained disc records (including both vinyl and shellac) have survived to the present day with little degredation. The long term chemical processes involved with vinyl are believed to keep it stable for 100 years or more.&lt;br /&gt;
** While large swings in value have plagued vinyl as collector&#039;s items, there are no long term risks to future devaluation for vinyl as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
** Well built turntables should last 40 years or more and are refurbishable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Talk:Record_Player_Components&amp;diff=14948</id>
		<title>Talk:Record Player Components</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Talk:Record_Player_Components&amp;diff=14948"/>
		<updated>2006-10-12T16:24:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Requesting deletion: this is mainly a stub page, it only points to other pages (which the category guides already do), and it&#039;s orphaned. -[[User:Axon|Axon]] 11:24, 12 October 2006 (CDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Record_Player_Components&amp;diff=14947</id>
		<title>Record Player Components</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Record_Player_Components&amp;diff=14947"/>
		<updated>2006-10-12T16:23:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{DELETE|Orphaned page. This is mainly just a stub to link to other pages - which the category guide already does.}}&lt;br /&gt;
=Playback system=&lt;br /&gt;
To play a record, you need the following:&lt;br /&gt;
* A [[turntable]]&lt;br /&gt;
* A [[cartridge]]&lt;br /&gt;
* A [[phono preamplifier]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Supplementary (and optional) accessories, including a [[record cleaning machine]], [[dry cleaning brush]], [[stylus cleaner]], etc.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Maintenance_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=14574</id>
		<title>Maintenance (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Maintenance_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=14574"/>
		<updated>2006-09-26T21:50:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: first draft&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Required Maintenance=&lt;br /&gt;
==Cartridge inspection==&lt;br /&gt;
The fastest way to damage a record is to play it back with a worn or damaged cartridge. A stylus that is worn is believed to have burnished, flat facets with sharp corners that place far greater pressures on the record than usual, causing permanent deformation and in some cases, outright recutting of the surface.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Worn stylii are anecdotally believed to cause audio distortions such as sibilance, harmonic distortion, etc. When these distortions occur at all locations on a record, and are evenly distributed through loud and soft passages, the stylus may be suspected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules for determining when a stylus is too worn. Manufacturers usually provide lifetime figures, measured in hours of playback. However, these numbers can be affected by any number of factors, including the dirtiness of the played records, the tracking force, etc. A microscope of 200X power or higher is useful to visually inspect stylii. Again, no distinct rules exist for determining stylus quality, but any sort of flat surface on the stylus is a clear sign of wear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every time the turntable is used for playback, the cantilever should be inspected to see if it is visibly damaged or bent. When using a conical stylus, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The azimuth of the stylus on the cartridge in the horizontal plane (as opposed to the VTA) should be within 5 degrees of straight. If the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Tracking force and antiskate inspection==&lt;br /&gt;
==Record storage==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Optional Maintenance=&lt;br /&gt;
==Record cleaning==&lt;br /&gt;
==Stylus cleaning==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Vinyl&amp;diff=14565</id>
		<title>Category:Vinyl</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Vinyl&amp;diff=14565"/>
		<updated>2006-09-26T21:25:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Start link to maintenance page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This guide is meant as an objective source of information about all aspects of 33/45 RPM records, including construction, playback, recording, measurement, and maintenance. It is currently more of a brain dump than anything else. Eventually, all of these topics should either reference peer-reviewed material, or document objective experiments that can be used to support conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You may start reading the following topics as an introduction:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The pros and cons of vinyl&lt;br /&gt;
* The construction of turntables, cartridges&lt;br /&gt;
* Myths and FAQs&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Maintenance (Vinyl)|Maintenance]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Links&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Vinyl_Guide&amp;diff=13244</id>
		<title>Category:Vinyl Guide</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Vinyl_Guide&amp;diff=13244"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:17:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Move category&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;This page is obsolete. Please consult the [[:Category:Vinyl]] topic instead.&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Vinyl&amp;diff=13243</id>
		<title>Category:Vinyl</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Vinyl&amp;diff=13243"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:17:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Rewritten introduction&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This guide is meant as an objective source of information about all aspects of 33/45 RPM records, including construction, playback, recording, measurement, and maintenance. It is currently more of a brain dump than anything else. Eventually, all of these topics should either reference peer-reviewed material, or document objective experiments that can be used to support conclusions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You may start reading the following topics as an introduction:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The pros and cons of vinyl&lt;br /&gt;
* The construction of turntables, cartridges&lt;br /&gt;
* Myths and FAQs&lt;br /&gt;
* Links&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Sound_Quality_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13242</id>
		<title>Sound Quality (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Sound_Quality_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13242"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:11:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Sources of Distortion=&lt;br /&gt;
==Turntable==&lt;br /&gt;
===Turntable Level===&lt;br /&gt;
===Environmental Noise===&lt;br /&gt;
===Motor Noise===&lt;br /&gt;
===Belt/Drivetrain Wear===&lt;br /&gt;
===Record Wear===&lt;br /&gt;
==Tonearm, Cartridge and Stylus==&lt;br /&gt;
===Tracking Error===&lt;br /&gt;
===Cartridge Alignment===&lt;br /&gt;
===Tonearm Alignment===&lt;br /&gt;
===Cartridge Damage===&lt;br /&gt;
===Stylus Wear===&lt;br /&gt;
===Stylus Damage===&lt;br /&gt;
===Cartridge Distortion===&lt;br /&gt;
===Electromagnetic Interference===&lt;br /&gt;
===Mechanical Resonance===&lt;br /&gt;
==Preamp==&lt;br /&gt;
===Preamp Distortion===&lt;br /&gt;
===Cartridge Loading===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Objective Requirements Of Vinyl Playback=&lt;br /&gt;
These statements are derived from psychoacoustics and electrical constraints that would be necessary to yield objectively optimal playback. These statements also form a concise summary of the audible issues with vinyl.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Pitch, wow and flutter==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The playback speed of the turntable must be within 0.3% of 33 1/3 RPM at all times - or 5 cents. Variations of pitch must stay witin the 5-cent requirement and the modulating frequencies must not be audible.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shockingly, this is extremely hard to achieve in belt-drive turntables for a number of very important reasons. Good direct drives are much better at pitch. (Bad direct drives are much worse at flutter.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under certain pathological circumstances, playback tolerances much lower than 0.3% may be audible. For instance, if playing in a very large room with echo on the rear wall, the reflected music will interfere with the speaker output. Beat frequencies could thus develop at potentially [i]any[/i] playback tolerance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that the standard tolerance for center holes (&amp;lt;0.2mm off center) results in a very large wow at inner grooves. (For a 0.2mm deviation, at a groove radius of 60mm the wow will be 0.6% p-p).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Low rumble==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The low frequency noise (rumble) of the turntable must not impinge on program material, must not distort amplifier or speaker stages, and must not be audible.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rumble is an intrinsic part of both the vinyl medium and the turntable. It originates from several sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Low-frequency vibrations from the air and ground are coupled to the cartridge through the turntable and the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
* Low-frequency signals on the record itself. Lateral signals exist due to off-center holes and groove compression at cutting time. Vertical signals exist due to record warping and cutting distortion.&lt;br /&gt;
* The resonant frequency of the cartridge-tonearm system, typically 5-15hz, stores and amplifies external energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often times, 5-10dB of the peak amplitude of a vinyl recording is contained in the rumble, and removing it can help increase the loudness for essentially free. Playback with significant rumble can be audible with subwoofers, or can increase distortion by driving speakers closer to excursion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Frequency response==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;After RIAA equalization, the system must be able to reproduce frequencies from 20hz to 20khz to within 0.1dB of the source media.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.1dB is close to the theoretical JND of amplitude for a single sinusoid; tolerances around 1dB in response are usually acceptable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MM cartridges are well-known for boosting the high end if improperly loaded. Stylus or record wear will eliminate high frequencies. Rumble may make low frequency reproduction difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Stereo Separation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Turntable_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13241</id>
		<title>Turntable (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Turntable_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13241"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:10:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Turntables vary widely in price, construction and age. Audiophiles will categorize the subjective qualities of a turntable on the following metrics:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Construction=&lt;br /&gt;
==Plinth==&lt;br /&gt;
The plinth is the base of the turntable, on which the platter (and usually the motor) rests. The basic function is to isolate the components mechanically from the base of the turntable and from each other.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Construction styles vary:&lt;br /&gt;
* No isolation whatsoever (solid box). For very cheap turntables.&lt;br /&gt;
* A box, often wooden, holding a metal plinth supported by springs. Usually found only on vintage turntables.&lt;br /&gt;
* A plinth of multiple levels, each level isolated from the other by some rubber-like substance. In some form or another most audiophile turntables use this method.&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical separation of the turntable components from each other, and individual isolation of each component from the ground. Certain very expensive turntables use this method.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are few objective criteria for plinth design. Isolation issues can be resolved through the use of additional isolation placed underneath the turntable. Build quality is important and may be lacking, even for audiophile turntables. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Tonearm==&lt;br /&gt;
The stick-shaped part of the turntable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* They hold the cartridge on top of the record, keeping it properly aligned, and carry the wires down to the plinth. &lt;br /&gt;
* A [[counterweight]] is placed on the back to reduce the force of the needle on the record to very low levels, usually equivalent to an effective mass of roughly one gram. &lt;br /&gt;
* A force, the [[anti-skate force]], is applied to the tonearm, pulling it outwards from the center of the disk, to counteract forces during playback that pull it towards the center.&lt;br /&gt;
* The tonearm must be lowered slowly onto the disk to prevent damage to the disk or the stylus. All quality turntables include a mechanism, usually hydraulic, to slowly lower the tonearm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key differences between tonearms include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Mass&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Counterweight]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Build material&lt;br /&gt;
* Shape (S-shaped or straight)&lt;br /&gt;
* Linear tracking or angular tracking&lt;br /&gt;
* Degrees of freedom on the mounting&lt;br /&gt;
* Antiskate force mechanism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several objective differences between tonearms:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The mass of the tonearm affects the resonances of the playback system. The mass can sometimes be incompatible with the mass of the cartridge and the compliance of the stylus, leading to an excessively high or low resonant frequency that induces skipping or rumble, or can negatively affect low frequency performance.&lt;br /&gt;
* Tracking errors, representing angular deviations between the stylus and the record groove, are present with every tonearm, and different designs use different approaches. Linear tracking arms, in theory, have zero tracking error. In practice they require a motor to move the tonearm, with some known error in correct positioning, as well as some vibration. S-shaped tonearms are shaped to reduce tracking error but (XXXX list issues).&lt;br /&gt;
* XXX high frequency effects?&lt;br /&gt;
* Counterweight markers are notoriously unreliable and a scale is often employed to get a correct measurement of the counterweight setting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Platter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The platter is the rotating part which supports the vinyl record while it is played. The platter should ideally be acoustically dead, ie. it should not &amp;quot;ring&amp;quot; like a bell. Platters that ring store energy and release it slowly back into the record, causing loss of fine detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Motor==&lt;br /&gt;
===Belt Drive===&lt;br /&gt;
Belt drive turntables use a small motor turning fairly rapidly, and a belt then transfers the power from the motor spindle to the platter. On some models the motor sits outside the platter and the belt runs around the outer edge of the platter; on others the platter is in two parts with an inner spigot for the belt, with the motor sitting between the spigot and outer edge of the platter. There is no significant advantage to either arrangement, with the possible exception that when the motor is external to the platter it can be sited a long way from the path of the pickup cartridge, and therefore potentially reduce the danger of hum pickup by the cartridge from the motor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The belt (usually some form of rubber or similar material) provides excellent decoupling so that motor bearing noise is not transferred into the platter (and thence to the LP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motors used are usually synchronous AC motors whose speed is determined by the frequency of the mains supply. Some more expensive belt drive turntables include a sophisticated power supply which generates an AC signal even cleaner than that provided by the mains.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the motors on belt drive turntables do not have much torque, and because the AC frequency might vary slightly, stable rotation of the platter is achieved by the use of high mass platters that provide a &amp;quot;flywheel&amp;quot; effect to smooth out any variations. A consequence of using a high mass platter and a low torque motor is that start-up speeds are rather slow, and hence belt drive turntables are not really suitable for broadcast or DJ use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Direct Drive===&lt;br /&gt;
In a direct drive turntable, the central spindle in the platter is an extension of the axle. So the motor itself sits directly underneath the platter, and rotates slowly at the required vinyl record playback speed (ie. 33.3/45/78 rpm). Such motors are servo-controlled DC motors, and the turntable includes some means of measuring the rotation speed of the platter so that it can adjust the motor&#039;s speed to keep it steady. In order that any speed inaccuracies can be adjusted quickly enough, the motor must have high-torque; this also means that startup speeds are very rapid, hence the preference for direct drive in broadcast and DJ applications.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the platter is directly attached to the motor, it is not well decoupled from any bearing noise. However, since the motor turns at a slow speed, the bearing noise is very low frequency and therefore will not cause audible degradation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Idler Wheel Drive===&lt;br /&gt;
This type of drive mechanism was traditionally used on cheap autochangers, and involves a small motor running at fairly high speed (like in a belt drive turntable). But unlike a belt drive turntable, the power is transferred to the platter by means of a wheel (usually rubber) sitting between the motor spindle and the platter edge. The wheel offers far less decoupling, and so motor noise is transferred to the platter. What&#039;s more, because the motor rotates at high speed, this noise can affect the audible frequency spectrum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, there have historically been some successful high quality idler wheel drive turntables. Perhaps the most famous is the Garrard 301.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Internal Wiring and Power==&lt;br /&gt;
The cartridge electrical system is entirely passive; no power is required for the electrical signal to be sent to the preamp. The signal output may be vulnerable to electrical interference because of the high impedance of the cartridge and the long length of wire to the preamp. The motor usually receives the AC wall power directly and converts to its own required power internally. Some higher end turntables use external power supplies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Power wiring can be a cause of increased interference with interconnects, so try to keep power cables separate from other cables. If they must cross, cross them at 90 degree angles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Prices=&lt;br /&gt;
All prices are for new turntables. The used market is highly irregular but you can usually expect a 20-50% discount. All prices are sampled from online vendors and may not be realistic for purchase at local stores. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;$200 or less&#039;&#039;&#039;: Inexpensive belt-drive or direct drive turntables. Tonearm, cartridge and preamp are usually included. You&#039;ll find turntables in this price range at Best Buy/Circuit City with vintage stylings. Because these are the mass-market items, these will quite often have features like automatic loading, 78rpm operation, and strobe marks that are absent from more expensive turntables. The quality of these turntables is highly variable, and because most audiophiles do not spend much time in this range, reviews are hard to compare against more expensive models.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;$400 or less&#039;&#039;&#039;: Entry level audiophile/DJ turntables, and used mid-range turntables. Tonearm and cartridge are usually included; preamp is almost always not. Most $200-$400 turntables have related models that cost under $200 so they are grouped together here. Brands in this price range include Audio Technica, Technics, Teac, Numark, Stanton, Music Hall, Pro-Ject.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;$400-$1000&#039;&#039;&#039;: Most introductory-level audiophile turntables are at this price, as well as flagship DJ turntables such as the Technics SL1200. Other brands with models in this range include most of the brands in the $400 range and also Rega, Thorens, Sota and Goldring. Tonearms are usually included; cartridges are &#039;&#039;sometimes&#039;&#039; included; preamps are never included.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;$1000-$10000&#039;&#039;&#039;: The meat of the audiophile market. Most high-end turntables will be somewhere in this range. Most brands have something here, but brands that operate exclusively in this price range include Clearaudio, Bluenote, JA Mitchell, Origin, Roksan and SME. Cartridges, tonearms and preamps are usually priced separately.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Over $10000&#039;&#039;&#039;: Esoteric audiophile models, including audiophile linear trackers and laser pickups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Purchasing_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13240</id>
		<title>Purchasing (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Purchasing_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13240"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:10:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Vinyl Availability=&lt;br /&gt;
Note that a lot of this info is currently US centric.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;market rate&amp;quot; for LPs depends primarily on the collector&#039;s value. Mass-produced and unpopular LPs will not cost more than a dollar. Original pressing Beatles LPs are usually over several hundred dollars. Jazz records tend to be very expensive. Classical records tend to be quite inexpensive. Rock, blues and electronica lie somewhere in the middle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Depending on how clued the store is to the by-the-book market prices of vinyl, prices can range anywhere from 50 cents on up. Record stores tend to have the highest prices and charity stores the lowest, but there are always exceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Many cities have local record stores that specialize in certain genres. Check your yellow pages and local music listings for ads.&lt;br /&gt;
* Half Price Books (US) tends to have extremely good vinyl selections. Vinyl is not transferred between stores, so the quantity/quality varies widely even by the neighborhood.&lt;br /&gt;
* Goodwill, Salvation Army, and other charity stores often have good deals on vinyl. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Austin Record Convention http://www.austinrecords.com/ has a very, very large quantity of LPs. Biannual. Similar conventions exist in many other large cities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Component Availability=&lt;br /&gt;
Buying a turntable now is a lot harder than it used to be, but there are still plenty of options. A new turntable is usually much less hassle to set up than a used turntable for a new user. Maintenance and calibration is usually much less of an issue. However prices are much higher (30-100%) than equivalent used models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a general rule, &#039;&#039;&#039;do not purchase used cartridges, ever&#039;&#039;&#039;. They are the component that wears out the fastest on turntables during normal operation, and are the easiest to permanently damage. Buy them from reputable local or online sources. They do not have particularly difficult shipping requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==New==&lt;br /&gt;
===Hifi stores===&lt;br /&gt;
The traditional place to obtain a turntable is at a local hi-fi shop. These are becoming an endangered species in the US - many have folded or switched to home theater and car audio - but most cities usually have at least one store selling audiophile kit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Most hifi stores are locally owned and operated.&lt;br /&gt;
* Shipping issues with turntables are already taken care of. Turntables are rather notoriously hard to ship correctly.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hifi stores will usually tune/calibrate turntables free of charge on purchase.&lt;br /&gt;
* You may be sending your table back to said store for maintenance, even if you purchase it elsewhere. Setting up a rapport is good.&lt;br /&gt;
* Product support is often (possibly always) better from hifi stores than from any other source. A no-questions-asked tryout period between 7 and 30 days is standard for most stores.&lt;br /&gt;
* They occasionally deal with both new and used gear and some very good deals are sometimes available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Hifi stores have an extremely high markup, reflecting their small consumer base. All stores have noncompete clauses with neighboring stores in order to protect said customer bases. Therefore, there is often &#039;&#039;&#039;no competition whatsoever&#039;&#039;&#039; in most product lines.&lt;br /&gt;
* Along the same lines, one of the promiment reasons why online stores cannot support certain products as well as hifi stores is that online stores are technically selling outside their &#039;designated area&#039;. In other words, online support is prohibited because it enroaches on hifi stores&#039; territories. Grado products, in particular, are notoriously bad for online support.&lt;br /&gt;
* Expect to haggle.&lt;br /&gt;
* Hifi stores usually cater to the extremely high end and will often not have much under $500 in the way of turntables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Mass market stores===&lt;br /&gt;
Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. They usually have a small selection of retro turntables, and perhaps more if they are ordered to the store beforehand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Cheap (most turntables under $200)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easily accessible&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Very few turntables are sold that are considered any good&lt;br /&gt;
* Very few available accessories and no cartridges&lt;br /&gt;
* 30-day return policy only for support. Hifi stores can actually repair things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Online stores===&lt;br /&gt;
Quite a number of online audiophile stores carry turntables of all makes and models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Very inexpensive prices for most turntables&lt;br /&gt;
* Shipping is usually of good quality; the hifi stores are going to get their turntables the same way you would.&lt;br /&gt;
* Widest selection of turntables and accessories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Turntable shipping costs are high. Hifi stores will roll in the shipping costs.&lt;br /&gt;
* You may need to pay sales tax.&lt;br /&gt;
* Very little to no support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Used==&lt;br /&gt;
There is a huge market for used turntables for any number of reasons. There is a high turnover rate in DJ turntables from people who have attempted to DJ as a hobby. Many people junk their turntables when upgrading their stereos. Audiophiles resell their turntables when upgrading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hifi stores sometimes resell turntables or demo units, and it is worth checking them for any deals. They are sometimes competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, as a disadvantage, used turntable quality is completely unknown. At the very least you should expect to replace the cartridge and the drive train (belt). At the worst, there may be fundamental structural issues with the turntable, such as a damaged tonearm or bearing or motor, that may not be easily repairable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Local stores===&lt;br /&gt;
These include pawn shops and charity stores - Salvation Army, Goodwill, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Very, very good deals on some items.&lt;br /&gt;
* Inexpensive.&lt;br /&gt;
* Local; needs no shipping.&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Completely unknown quality. Expect to replace the belt if necessary, cartridge, and possibly even the tonearm and wiring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection is spotty, and the really good items can get snatched by the store workers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Online stores and individuals===&lt;br /&gt;
Notables here include eBay and Audiogon, but also check forums on places like Head-Fi, Audio Asylum, etc for sale posts.&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Large market in turntables of all price ranges.&lt;br /&gt;
* Sellers are often fairly knowledgable.&lt;br /&gt;
* Prices are quite competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages:&lt;br /&gt;
* Stores take a rather large cut of the sale price. Audiogon is especially criticized for this. (This isn&#039;t a problem with forum interactions.)&lt;br /&gt;
* The risk of shipping damage is quite high. 3rd-party sellers often have &#039;&#039;very&#039;&#039; little experience packaging and sending turntables.&lt;br /&gt;
* Risky product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
* No support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Preamplifier_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13239</id>
		<title>Preamplifier (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Preamplifier_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13239"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:10:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The electrical signal from the cartridge is unamplified, is high impedance, that impedance changes considerably with frequency, and the signal itself is equalized on the record. The role of the preamp is to properly buffer and amplify the signal to acceptable levels, and to apply RIAA equalization.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Overview of RIAA equalization=&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the amplitude of a recorded signal comes from its low frequencies. This causes problems for vinyl, because these high amplitudes, if directly transcribed to fit the constraints of the system, would reduce the signal-to-noise ration unacceptably at many frequencies. To avoid this, the transcribed audio is equalized so that low frequencies are attenuated and high frequencies are boosted. On playback, this process is reversed, so that low frequencies are boosted and high frequencies are attenuated. This has the additional benefit of reducing the high frequency noise caused by ticks and pops during playback. However, it has the risk of increasing rumble. The particular equalization curve used is known as the RIAA curve (standardized in the 1950s).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Specfications=&lt;br /&gt;
Preamps, like all amplifiers, are entirely electronic devices with no moving parts. Their objective parameters can be described using the usual metrics, including frequency response, deviation from the ideal RIAA curve, PSRR, THD+N, IMD, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the choice of cartridge determines which preamp to get. MC carts operate at a much lower signal level than MM and thus require more amplification and a different load impedance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frequency response is measured as deviations from the ideal RIAA curve. +-1dB is common for entry-level preamps, and given the other inaccuracies in LP playback, is going to be fine for most users.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Construction=&lt;br /&gt;
Preamps must amplify a signal by 40-60dB (roughly, from 1mV to 1V) and also apply an equalization. This is a surprisingly difficult task, and some bad apples are out there. Preamps, like many audiophile components, still use a multitude of different technologies to implement these goals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Power supplies can be an issue, especially with discrete/triode units. This usually owes more to the cheapness of the preamp, or the incompetence of the power supply design, than th any intrinsic reason why power supplies or power cables or power conditioning are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Op Amp==&lt;br /&gt;
Found most often on inexpensive preamps and preamps integrated with receivers and turntables. Even today, the requirements of preamp design often exeed the capabilities of many op amps, and expensive ICs (or complicated topologies) are often required. Op amp designs are no less complex than discrete designs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One very great advantage of op amp designs are their generally high power supply rejection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Discrete solid state==&lt;br /&gt;
Found on many/most preamps. Extremely sensitive to power supply issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Tubes==&lt;br /&gt;
Tube preamps are still extremely popular among audiophiles, for any number of subjective listening reasons. There are actually a couple good objective reasons for building preamps with tubes, as it is thought that their electrical properties are somewhat more compatible with the requirements of preamp design. Like discrete preamps, tube preamps are very sensitive to power supply issues, but require far higher voltages than discrete preamps to operate, making power design that much harder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Prices and Availability=&lt;br /&gt;
Many entry-level turntables have integrated preamps. Their efficacy is unknown and usually prejudged poorly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While audio receivers today generally do not include integrated phono preamps, receivers from the 1950s to the early 90s generally include one. Some of them are held in very high esteem. Old receivers can be obtained on eBay for $20-$100 and should definitely be studied if you are interested in that price range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that preamps have existed for 50 years and using much worse components than are used today, finding a preamp that properly satisfies the objective requirements should not be expensive or hard. Sadly, preamps are such an esoteric field that you are likely to spend over $200 to find a good one. Check online stores and hifi stores, but don&#039;t hesitate to buy used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Playback_and_Recording_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13238</id>
		<title>Playback and Recording (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Playback_and_Recording_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13238"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:09:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13237</id>
		<title>Myths (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13237"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:09:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&#039;&#039;Note: These are preliminary notes, are a little opinionated, and are subject to change. Please edit as appropriate or comment on the discussion page.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
** Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 F.&lt;br /&gt;
** Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is true that back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
** Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play.&lt;br /&gt;
** No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Proper vinyl playback is click-free.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience.&lt;br /&gt;
** No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever.&lt;br /&gt;
** They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the laquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.&lt;br /&gt;
** Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.&lt;br /&gt;
** Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including THD, noise, IMD, etc. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.&lt;br /&gt;
** PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)&lt;br /&gt;
** Signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only results in increased noise in a correct implementation. No distortion is introduced and the noise is of questionable audibility under most listening conditions.&lt;br /&gt;
** The term &amp;quot;analog&amp;quot;, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an &amp;quot;analogue&amp;quot; of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.&lt;br /&gt;
** In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db.&lt;br /&gt;
** The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db.&lt;br /&gt;
** Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.&lt;br /&gt;
** Thread [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&amp;amp;st=0&amp;amp;p=425794&amp;amp;#entry425794 here].&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly.&lt;br /&gt;
** Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Bent stylii cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage.&lt;br /&gt;
** Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair.&lt;br /&gt;
** Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Subjective claims to the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.&lt;br /&gt;
** Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** There is a common myth that a direct drive will &amp;quot;hunt&amp;quot; for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.&lt;br /&gt;
** It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.&lt;br /&gt;
** Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Links_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13236</id>
		<title>Links (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Links_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13236"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:09:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;* http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm cliveb&#039;s excellent guide to recording LPs to computer. Includes discussion on cleaning, sound cards, recording, and postprocessing. &lt;br /&gt;
* Wikipedia articles on the:&lt;br /&gt;
** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_player Record Player]&lt;br /&gt;
** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinyl_record Vinyl Record]&lt;br /&gt;
** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technics_SL-1200 Technics SL-1200]&lt;br /&gt;
** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_cartridge Magnetic cartridge]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/index.php The Vinyl Engine]: Detailed discussion on all aspects of vinyl playback and maintenance. Check out the Library section for good articles and free protractors.&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/bbs.html The Vinyl Asylum] at the Audio Asylum: true to its name, this has more voodoo audiophiledom than perhaps anywhere else on the Internet. But there are many good discussions, as long as you take some hefty grains of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/ubbthreads.php Stereophile forums]: Almost as much voodoo audiophiledom as Audio Asylum.&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://audiokarma.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=28 Turntables &amp;amp; Tape forum at AudioKarma.org]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.head-fi.org Head-Fi]: Discussions on turntables under the &amp;quot;Dedicated Source Components&amp;quot; forum and the TTVJ forum.&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/index.php? Steve Hoffman Forums]: Excellent technical discussions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=FAQs_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13235</id>
		<title>FAQs (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=FAQs_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13235"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:09:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==HydrogenAudio threads==&lt;br /&gt;
* What sample rate to record with?&lt;br /&gt;
** ([http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43709&amp;amp;hl=vinyl thread] [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=38016&amp;amp;hl= thread])&lt;br /&gt;
** In general 44.1khz will work fine. There are not significant reasons to choose either 44.1khz or any higher sample rate. Some postprocessing tools for vinyl recordings only operate at 44.1khz.&lt;br /&gt;
** Additionally the dynamic range and distortion specifications for many sound cards are better at 44.1khz than at higher sample rates.&lt;br /&gt;
** This does not preclude using higher sample rates if there is a clear objective reason to do so. Probably the most important reason to use a higher sample rate is if you are recording a CD4 album, which has signal all the way to 30khz.&lt;br /&gt;
** Certain DSP operations may operate more effectively in the audible range if the sampling rate is increased, but this is not a general rule of thumb.&lt;br /&gt;
* What bit depth to record with?&lt;br /&gt;
** ([http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=38016&amp;amp;hl= thread])&lt;br /&gt;
** Similar to the sample rate question above. In general 16 bits actually does work well. &lt;br /&gt;
** It&#039;s a common misconception that the quantization noise will significantly raise the noise floor of the recording; as long as the signal peak is -10dbFS or higher it is not an issue.&lt;br /&gt;
** CDs have a lower noise floor than vinyl, period. Their noise performance exceeeds vinyl at all frequencies.&lt;br /&gt;
** If you plan to perform a very large amount of digital processing on the recording, the rounding errors could build up sufficiently that they impinge on the background noise level of the vinyl. In that case the recording should be made at (or converted to) 24 bit resolution prior to the processing stages to reduce the effect of rounding errors. That said, you would need to do a very great deal of processing before a 16 bit recording of vinyl became degraded in this way. A few passes of EQ, noise reduction, amplitude adjustment, etc. isn&#039;t going to bring the quantisation noise up above the vinyl noise floor.&lt;br /&gt;
* How low of a frequency can LPs produce? &lt;br /&gt;
** ([http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37509&amp;amp;hl= thread])&lt;br /&gt;
** The common wisdom is that they don&#039;t have much below 60hz, but there is evidence that the signal extends as low as 20hz and possibly lower on some LPs.&lt;br /&gt;
** Note that low bass on vinyl records will be mono, but this is not a problem because low bass is non-directional. (The reason for this is that low bass signals cause the largest groove excursions, and of course  the vertical (out of phase) component of the groove must never be so great that the groove rises above the surface of the record, so the out of phase component of the low bass is removed when mastering for vinyl).&lt;br /&gt;
* How much bandwidth is on an LP? &lt;br /&gt;
** ([http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35530&amp;amp;hl= thread])&lt;br /&gt;
** This is a hard question, because the dynamic range has to be considered and it is frequency-dependent. It is almost certainly lower than CD, and certainly far lower if the theoretical bandwidth limits of the CD medium are considered, rather than the digital specifications.&lt;br /&gt;
** Although some sort of signal above 20kHz can be recovered from an LP, it is highly unlikely to be related to the programme material; in other words it is noise. The majority of LPs probably contain nothing of significance above about 16kHz.&lt;br /&gt;
** CD4 (quadrophonic LPs) had signals cut to 30khz or above.&lt;br /&gt;
** CED disks had a usable signal extending to the Mhz range, but used a completely different playback technology that is completely incomparable to audio LPs.&lt;br /&gt;
* What recording level should LPs be recorded at? &lt;br /&gt;
** ([http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=41045&amp;amp;hl= thread])&lt;br /&gt;
** As high as possible without clipping. -3db is usually safe and some sound cards may distort if driven past that. If you are recording on a sound card with a good noise floor (100db or greater) then you can go as low as -18db without ill effects. &lt;br /&gt;
** Be sure to take into account pops, ticks, and records cut at higher volumes, such as singles.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to remove sibilance? &lt;br /&gt;
** ([http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=40346&amp;amp;hl= thread])&lt;br /&gt;
* How should mono LPs be recorded? &lt;br /&gt;
** ([http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=39008&amp;amp;hl= thread])&lt;br /&gt;
* What are some examples of good and bad vinyl rips? &lt;br /&gt;
** ([http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37328&amp;amp;hl= thread]&lt;br /&gt;
** [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37303&amp;amp;hl= thread] &lt;br /&gt;
** [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37444&amp;amp;hl= thread] &lt;br /&gt;
** [http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35340&amp;amp;hl= thread])&lt;br /&gt;
* Can/should LPs be ripped faster than real time, ie at 45rpm or 78rpm? &lt;br /&gt;
** ([http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=37097&amp;amp;hl= thread])&lt;br /&gt;
** The short answer: No.&lt;br /&gt;
** The long answer: you can use a reverse RIAA filter, speed up the signal and reencode in the equalizing filter of your choise (RIAA, AES, misc 78 equalizations). Or you can use a flat preamp. Both of these options are far more complicated and risky than just recording in real time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Disadvantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13234</id>
		<title>Disadvantages (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Disadvantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13234"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:07:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are several risks and disadvantages to vinyl, compared to other (digital) audio technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl is harder to [[Vinyl Maintenance|maintain]] than CDs, and should ideally be stored in temperature- and humidity-controlled environments. (However, air conditioning, perhaps with a dehumidifier, is almost always sufficient.) Mold can grow on vinyl and may permamently damage it and its sleeve, and can spread from record to record.&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl is very easy to damage during playback. Any scraping of the surface can permanently compromise the sound quality.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Surface noise]], while often inaudible, will always be present and measurable, even on a brand new LP.&lt;br /&gt;
* The sound quality of a record cannot be determined until you play it, increasing the risk of the purchase. Even brand new, sealed LPs can have significant pressing and warping problems that may make it unusable for listening purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Turntables and cartridges require periodic maintenance and alignment by a professional, usually a repairman or a dealer. Otherwise you must learn how to tune a system by hand, which may require a great deal of time to perfect.&lt;br /&gt;
* Turntables may require realignment if they are moved.&lt;br /&gt;
* Any play of a record, even one, has the risk of permanently damaging the record. Repeated playback with an excessively worn or misaligned cartridge will cause permanent damage.&lt;br /&gt;
* Vinyl playback is not nearly as portable as other technologies. Portable record players exist, but they are considered of inferior sound quality and require a motionless playing surface.&lt;br /&gt;
* Investing in a high quality vinyl system is hundreds to thousands of dollars more expensive than investing in a high quality digital audio system. &lt;br /&gt;
* Cartridge stylii wear out over time (typically 200-1000 hours) and require periodic replacement. High quality cartridges generally cost between $60-$6000. At the upper end of cartridge cost, playing a single LP may cost $1 in stylus wear alone.&lt;br /&gt;
* Records are large and heavy. Transporting them correctly is logistically difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
* The &amp;quot;book value&amp;quot; of many LPs, representing both its collector&#039;s value and its musical value, is often quite high - anywhere from $10-$20 for either new or used LPs to over a hundred dollars for collectible LPs.&lt;br /&gt;
* LPs in general are neither overvalued nor undervalued. While they do not risk becoming worthless, they usually do not carry their value well unless certain releases become more collectible. Vinyl is not a particularly safe investment for collection or financial purposes only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Financially, any benefits of the cheaper media must be compared against the amortized cost of the equipment needed to play and maintain it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Cartridge_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13233</id>
		<title>Cartridge (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Cartridge_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13233"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:07:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The pickup cartridge is the device mounted at the end of the tonearm which holds the [[stylus]] (usually diamond) onto the record&#039;s groove. The groove vibrates the stylus, which transfers this movement into the body of the cartridge via a short rod (known as the [[cantilever]]). The cartridge then has the task of converting the mechanical vibration into an electrical signal. Different types of cartridge use different methods to generate the electrical signal.&lt;br /&gt;
=Magnetic Cartridges=&lt;br /&gt;
The vast majority of cartridges use electromagnetic induction to generate the signal (and are therefore known as &amp;quot;magnetic cartridges&amp;quot;). This method involves moving a permanent magnet and a coil of wire (a pair of coils for stereo) relative to one another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_cartridge Wikipedia article on magnetic cartridges].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moving Magnet==&lt;br /&gt;
As the name implies, in this type the coils of wire are fixed inside the cartridge assembly, and the magnet, mounted on the cantilever, is moved relative to them. Most DJ and lower-price home audio cartridges are of this type. There are some advantages to this type:&lt;br /&gt;
* Since there is no physical connection between the sylus and the wiring, the stylus can easily be made replaceable. Most (but not all) modern MM cartridges offer replacement stylii, at 50-80% of the cost of a new cartridge.&lt;br /&gt;
* Since the coils of wire are fixed, they can use a large number of turns, thereby increasing the output level from the cartridge (typically around 5mV), which will then require less subsequent amplification and hence lower noise compared to moving-coil cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
* Moving magnet cartridges are generally much easier to manufacture and are less expensive than moving coil carts. MM models usually range from $20 to $300.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The large number of turns on the coils give moving magnet cartridges a high output impedance (typically a few kiloohms), much of which is inductive. If the cartridge outputs are wired directly into a high input impedance preamplifier, the cartridge will form an RL filter, which can lowpass the signal in the 10-20khz range and compromise performance. Furthermore, the high mass of the cantilever/magnet assembly generally causes a resonance in the high frequency audio range, although not enough to complement the coil inductance. Two elements are added to alleviate these issues.&lt;br /&gt;
* A capacitance is added to the circuit to form an LC tank circuit. This boosts the high end response substantially, but also creates a large resonance, potentially in the audio range. Preamps usually come with 50-200pF of capacitance at the inputs, but often, the cabling from the cartridge to the preamp contains up to 100pF of capacitance.&lt;br /&gt;
* To reduce the size of this resonance, a relatively low resistance is added between the signal and ground, to dissipate the resonant energy, smoothing out the high frequency response. This resistance should be low enough as to reduce the HF peak, but high enough so as to not compromise the HF response completely. Most cartridge manufacturers have standardized at 47kOhm as the &amp;quot;usual&amp;quot; preamp input resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moving Coil==&lt;br /&gt;
In a moving coil cartridge, the magnet is fixed and the coils are wound onto arms at the far end of the cantilever. Therefore the stylus cause the coils to move relative to the magnet. There are usually several advantages to this scheme:&lt;br /&gt;
* The cantilever/wire assembly is extremely light, and unlike a moving magnet, the mechanical resonance of the cantilever is generally in the ultrasonic range.&lt;br /&gt;
* The wire assembly usually has much fewer turns of wire, compare to moving-magnet cartridges. This substantially reduces the source impedance of the cartridge and makes it much easier to drive electrically.&lt;br /&gt;
* MC cartridges, being at the higher end of cartridge technology, tend to be designed to much tighter specifications than other cartridge technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several disadvantages.&lt;br /&gt;
* The cantilever assembly is usually not user replacable, as it is electrically wired to the rest of the cartridge.&lt;br /&gt;
* MC cartridges are extremely expensive. The cheapest cartridges are usually around $200. The most expensive cartridges are over $10000.&lt;br /&gt;
* Because of of the smaller wire assembly of MC cartridges compared to MM cartridges, MC carts tend to have vastly reduced electrical sensitivity - often 20-30db less than MM. This requires a much more advanced preamp design than in order to achieve the same noise specifications. (Note that some MC carts are designed for high output and do not suffer from this issue.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, MC cartridges are usually favored for their high fidelity compared to MM cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Crystal and Ceramic Cartridges=&lt;br /&gt;
These types of cartridge use the piezo-electric effect. The vibrations of the stylus are used to apply pressure on a crystal or block of material which has a piezo effect, which generates a voltage. The generated voltage can be quite high (up to 100mV). And unlike magnetic cartridges which generate a signal proportional to the velocity of the stylus deflection, crystal/ceramic cartridge signals are proportional to the amplitude of the stylus deflection. This effectively forms a lowpass filter of the velocity-based signal, requiring little to no additional RIAA equalization. As a result, crystal/ceramic cartridges do not require any phono preamp, are very easy to manufacture, and are still used today for very low cost turntable systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal/ceramic cartridges have many major disadvantages. First, they tend to have much higher levels of distortion and noise compared to magnetic cartridges. Second, because the stylus/cantilever system is mechanically coupled to the cartridge, these cartridges tend to have extremely low compliance. This tends to compromise the high frequency response. Third, their purported compatibility with line level stages generally comes at the expense of any sort of close accuracy of the RIAA reproducing curve at high frequencies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Other Types of Cartridge=&lt;br /&gt;
Grado, a pioneer cartridge manufacturer that was the primary innovator of Moving-Magnet cartridges, calls their technology &amp;quot;Moving Iron&amp;quot;. It is occasionally seen in other brands.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Cantilever=&lt;br /&gt;
The cantilever is responsible for mechanically coupling the stylus (which actually touches the vinyl) to the electrical transducers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been known to be made of several materials. The primary technical consideration in the choice of metal is its mass, followed by its mechanical deformation characteristics. These affect the cantilever assembly&#039;s various resonance characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;
* Aluminum (most common). Sometimes solid and sometimes rolled from a thin sheet to reduce mass.&lt;br /&gt;
* Boron&lt;br /&gt;
* Beryllium (used in Shure V15 carts, now no longer available due to toxicity concerns during manufacturing)&lt;br /&gt;
* Gold-plated metal (usually aluminum)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Stylus=&lt;br /&gt;
A stylus is the piece that actually touches the vinyl and tracks its modulations. It is usually the only component of a turntable that really &amp;quot;goes bad&amp;quot; over time and must be replaced, usually along with an assembly, or the entire cartridge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stylii are nowadays univerally made of diamond. No other material is as hard or durable. Worn stylii develop polished facets that act as chisels on the vinyl, causing permanent signal damage. A diamond stylus will generall wear out after somewhere between 200 and 2000 hours of use. Inferior materials (sapphire, osmium) will wear out far faster - possibly within 1-50 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important stylus characteristic is how it is cut, which determines the profile of the stylus on the groove. This measurably and audibly impacts the signal quality, the tracking force and the lifetime of the stylus. If the stylus touches a large surface area of the record, a larger tracking force is required to exert the same pressure on the surface, which also reduces the life of the stylus. If the surface area is oriented horizontally rather than vertically - if it covers more of the groove radially - then the high frequency response is compromised. On the other hand, a stylus with a very small contacting surface area tends to be very sensitive to proper alignment and tracking force, and is not as user-friendly to configure.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The simplest way to cut a stylus is spherically. A pure spherical cut is pathologically bad and is never seen for microgroove records. Rather, a stylus is cut conically, with a spherical tip. These generally have the worst frequency response and a short lifetime. However, a few high end cartridges - notably the legendary Denon DL-103 - still use a conical tip. Most DJ cartridges use conical tip stylii.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The stylus can be cut in an ellipsoidal shape, so that the contact area forms an ellipse. These are very common in audiophile cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Finally, there are a number of different cuts related to the idea of strongly eccentric, vertically oriented contact areas on the record. These include names like &amp;quot;fine line&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;micro-line&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Shibata&amp;quot;, etc. These are also very common for audiophile cartridges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is worth noting that quadraphonic systems, which require much more signal bandwidth than stereo, used fine line or Shibata stylii in the 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Vinyl&amp;diff=13232</id>
		<title>Category:Vinyl</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Vinyl&amp;diff=13232"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:05:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Stub&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Advantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13231</id>
		<title>Advantages (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Advantages_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13231"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:05:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Moving Vinyl Guide category over to Vinyl&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Why invest in an obsolete, 50+ year old music medium?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Used vinyl is often extremely inexpensive - 50 cents to two dollars a disc is common for some releases. Vinyl is a very cheap way to expand your collection in older artists that you cannot justify spending $15/CD on listening to.&lt;br /&gt;
* Some albums have simply never been released on CD.&lt;br /&gt;
* Some album art is better suited to the larger scale of LP covers and sleeves.&lt;br /&gt;
* The mastering of an original LP release is often considered superior to a CD remaster of the same release. This can be for any number of reasons, including:&lt;br /&gt;
** Increased use of compression and limiting on the CD release, reducing dynamics&lt;br /&gt;
** The master tapes have often degraded in the time between the LP and CD releases&lt;br /&gt;
** The equalization and even mixing of some CD releases is radically different than on the LP releases. For instance, many Zappa LPs have had entire drum tracks replaced for the CD release.&lt;br /&gt;
* Properly maintained vinyl is of a surprisingly good quality and is often not objectionable.&lt;br /&gt;
* It can be safely purchased as a long term investment. &lt;br /&gt;
** As a playback standard, vinyl has remained essentially unchanged for 50 years, and turntables will continue to be manufactured into the distant future. Unlike many digital data formats, vinyl has no risk of having no available playback devices.&lt;br /&gt;
** Properly maintained disc records (including both vinyl and shellac) have survived to the present day with little degredation. The long term chemical processes involved with vinyl are believed to keep it stable for 100 years or more.&lt;br /&gt;
** While large swings in value have plagued vinyl as collector&#039;s items, there are no long term risks to future devaluation for vinyl as a whole.&lt;br /&gt;
** Well built turntables should last 40 years or more and are refurbishable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guides]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vinyl]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Talk:Vinyl_Playback_and_Recording&amp;diff=13230</id>
		<title>Talk:Vinyl Playback and Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Talk:Vinyl_Playback_and_Recording&amp;diff=13230"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:01:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Talk:Vinyl Playback and Recording moved to Talk:Playback and Recording (Vinyl): Making vinyl-related topics be a consistent format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Talk:Playback and Recording (Vinyl)]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Talk:Playback_and_Recording_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13229</id>
		<title>Talk:Playback and Recording (Vinyl)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Talk:Playback_and_Recording_(Vinyl)&amp;diff=13229"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:01:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Talk:Vinyl Playback and Recording moved to Talk:Playback and Recording (Vinyl): Making vinyl-related topics be a consistent format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Format=&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m doing everything on a single page until it gets too unwieldy. (Granted, it may already be too unwieldy...) -[[User:Axon]]&lt;br /&gt;
I ripped everything out and moved it elsewhere. This should be repopulated with info that&#039;s actually pertinent to the article title.&lt;br /&gt;
-[[User:Axon]] 25 April 2006&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Playback_and_Recording&amp;diff=13228</id>
		<title>Vinyl Playback and Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Playback_and_Recording&amp;diff=13228"/>
		<updated>2006-09-08T17:01:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Axon: Vinyl Playback and Recording moved to Playback and Recording (Vinyl): Making vinyl-related topics be a consistent format.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Playback and Recording (Vinyl)]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Axon</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>