Myths (Vinyl) - Revision history

58.110.3.129: /* Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD */

2021-09-16T04:14:55Z

Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:14, 16 September 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Any time a person makes a claim about anything sounding better than another thing, we need to be understanding that the statement has no bearing on technical or objective measurements of fidelity, but is based on personal perception.		Any time a person makes a claim about anything sounding better than another thing, we need to be understanding that the statement has no bearing on technical or objective measurements of fidelity, but is based on personal perception.

			However it must also be recognised that some sounds would be universally recognised as better than other when measured comparatively e.g. a fart compared to birdsong.

	==Myth: Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==		==Myth: Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==

31.18.135.151: /* Myth: 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 */ Added Celsius for non-US readers

2019-09-27T08:11:11Z

Myth: 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: Added Celsius for non-US readers

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:11, 27 September 2019
Line 38:		Line 38:
	==Myth: 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==		==Myth: 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==

	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.		Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are ~150-260 °C (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.

	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.		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.

82.72.139.164: /* Time resolution */

2018-12-15T15:13:14Z

Time resolution

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:13, 15 December 2018
Line 85:		Line 85:
	===Time resolution===		===Time resolution===

	PCM can encode time ~~delays to any arbitrarily small length~~. Time delays of 1µs or less—a tiny fraction of the sample rate—are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1 nanosecond or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)		PCM can encode tiny delays that are actually limited by the bit depth and are far smaller than the time period of a single sample. Time delays of 1µs or less—a tiny fraction of the sample rate—are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1 nanosecond or less. (Proof [http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436 here].)

	===Dynamic range===		===Dynamic range===

BillTKD: /* Myth: Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids anti-aliasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce */

2018-09-27T23:40:46Z

Myth: Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids anti-aliasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 27 September 2018
Line 58:		Line 58:
	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, however these issues are minimised with the use of high quality cartridges, and correct capacitive loading of the phono preamp. Moving Coil cartridges are unaffected by capacitive loading due to their design.		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, however these issues are minimised with the use of high quality cartridges, and correct capacitive loading of the phono preamp. Moving Coil cartridges are unaffected by capacitive loading due to their design.

	When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern styli this is not as much of a concern, and tests ~~have been conducted which deonstrate~~ that a record can be played up to 1000 times before there is any measurable increase in distortion as a result of record wear.		When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern styli, this is not as much of a concern and tests demonstrate that a record ''can'' be played up to 1000 times before there is any measurable increase in distortion as a result of record wear, although this is unlikely. On every play, there is the potential for damage, as when the stylus forces a grit particle into the vinyl.

	Commonly there is audio content up to 23-24 kHz on many vinyl records.		Commonly there is audio content up to 23-24 kHz on many vinyl records.
	Many instruments have overtones up to 100 kHz. See article: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm		Many instruments have overtones up to 100 kHz. See article: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

	There are rarely, if ever, any ultrasonic frequencies for vinyl to preserve. In audio recordings, such frequencies, when present, are normally low-energy noise imparted by electrical equipment and storage media used during recording, mixing, and mastering. Although some musical instruments can produce low-energy overtones in the ultrasonic range, they could only be on the vinyl if every piece of equipment and storage medium in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages was able to preserve ~~them—which~~ is unlikely even in modern recordings, since the average microphone or mixing console is designed only with audible frequencies in mind. Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a low-pass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies, ~~however~~ the commonly found audio information up to 23-24 kHz is still present at significant amplitude on vinyl records.		There are rarely, if ever, any ultrasonic frequencies for vinyl to preserve. In audio recordings, such frequencies, when present, are normally low-energy noise imparted by electrical equipment and storage media used during recording, mixing, and mastering. Although some musical instruments can produce low-energy overtones in the ultrasonic range, they could only be on the vinyl if every piece of equipment and storage medium in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages was able to preserve them, which is unlikely even in modern recordings, since the average microphone or mixing console is designed only with audible frequencies in mind. Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a low-pass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies. However, the commonly found audio information up to 23-24 kHz is still present at significant amplitude on many vinyl records.

	It is, however, worth mentioning that it's highly unlikely for anyone to actually be able to hear frequencies above 20 kHz, which means that regular CD covers whole hearable frequency range.		It is, however, worth mentioning that it's highly unlikely for anyone to actually be able to hear frequencies above 20 kHz, which means that a regular CD covers whole hearable frequency range.

	==Myth: Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==		==Myth: Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==

BillTKD: /* Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD */

2018-09-27T23:30:41Z

Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:30, 27 September 2018
Line 3:		Line 3:
	No discussion about this topic would be complete without acknowledging that a person's subjective perception is their reality.		No discussion about this topic would be complete without acknowledging that a person's subjective perception is their reality.

	Many people prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats~~, a~~ majority of those people do so because they honestly ~~percieve~~ the sound to be better. Better meaning; more natural, less artificial, more true to the original studio recording, more organic etc, even when unsupported by objective measurements of fidelity. For such people the statement that "vinyl sounds better than CD" is not a myth but a fact.		Many people prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. A majority of those people do so because they honestly perceive the sound to be better. "Better" meaning more natural, less artificial, more true to the original studio recording, more organic etc, even when unsupported by objective measurements of fidelity. For such people the statement that "vinyl sounds better than CD" is not a myth but a fact.

	There are many examples where a vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. Conversely there are many ~~CD's~~ that may sound better than a vinyl record for specific reasons.		There are many examples where a vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. Conversely there are many CDs that may sound better than a vinyl record for specific reasons.

	The statement "Vinyl sounds better than CD" has nothing to do with objective measurements. The word "sound" refers to waves interpreted by our ears, not a piece of measuring equipment. The word "better" is subjective, based on personal experiments,comparisons and observations, and in the case of sound quality is very personal. We could make the statement "CD sounds better than Vinyl" and the previous statement would apply.		The statement "Vinyl sounds better than CD" has nothing to do with objective measurements. The word "sound" refers to waves interpreted by our ears, not a piece of measuring equipment. The word "better" is subjective, based on personal experiments,comparisons and observations, and in the case of sound quality is very personal. We could make the statement "CD sounds better than Vinyl" and the previous statement would apply.

118.209.52.201: /* Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD */

2017-12-24T01:05:39Z

Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:05, 24 December 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD==		==Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD==

	No discussion about this topic would be complete without acknowledging that a person's perception is their reality.		No discussion about this topic would be complete without acknowledging that a person's subjective perception is their reality.

	Many people prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats, a majority of those people do so because they honestly percieve the sound to be better. Better meaning; more natural, less artificial, more true to the original studio recording, more organic etc. For such people the statement that "vinyl sounds better than CD" is not a myth but a fact.		Many people prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats, a majority of those people do so because they honestly percieve the sound to be better. Better meaning; more natural, less artificial, more true to the original studio recording, more organic etc, even when unsupported by objective measurements of fidelity. For such people the statement that "vinyl sounds better than CD" is not a myth but a fact.

	There are many examples where a vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. Conversely there are many CD's that may sound better than a vinyl record for specific reasons.		There are many examples where a vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. Conversely there are many CD's that may sound better than a vinyl record for specific reasons.

	The statement "Vinyl sounds better than CD" has nothing to do with ~~technical~~ measurements. The word "sound" refers to waves interpreted by our ears, not a piece of measuring equipment. The word "better" is subjective, based on personal experiments,comparisons and observations, and in the case of sound quality is very personal. We could make the statement "CD sounds better than Vinyl" and the previous statement would apply.		The statement "Vinyl sounds better than CD" has nothing to do with objective measurements. The word "sound" refers to waves interpreted by our ears, not a piece of measuring equipment. The word "better" is subjective, based on personal experiments,comparisons and observations, and in the case of sound quality is very personal. We could make the statement "CD sounds better than Vinyl" and the previous statement would apply.

	Any time a person makes a claim about anything sounding better than another thing, we need to be understanding that the statement has no bearing on technical measurements but is based on personal perception.		Any time a person makes a claim about anything sounding better than another thing, we need to be understanding that the statement has no bearing on technical or objective measurements of fidelity, but is based on personal perception.

	==Myth: Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==		==Myth: Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==

62.57.126.71: /* Frequency resolution */

2017-08-27T21:32:50Z

Frequency resolution

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:32, 27 August 2017
Line 75:		Line 75:
	PCM is sometimes characterized as producing a jagged, "stair-step" waveform. This is only partially correct; analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) does indeed use a sample-and-hold circuit to measure an approximate, average amplitude across the duration of the sample, and digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) does the same kind of thing, generating a rectangular-ish waveform, but this output is always then subjected to additional filtering to smooth it out. Effectively, the ADC output sample values are interpreted as a series of points intersected by the waveform; the DAC output is a smooth curve, not a stair-step at all. Additionally, modern ADC and DAC chips are engineered to reduce below the threshold of audibility, if not completely eliminate, any other sources of noise in this conversion process, resulting in an extremely high correlation between the input and output signals. (Perhaps a better explanation: [http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml xiph.org's "Digital Show & Tell" video])		PCM is sometimes characterized as producing a jagged, "stair-step" waveform. This is only partially correct; analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) does indeed use a sample-and-hold circuit to measure an approximate, average amplitude across the duration of the sample, and digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) does the same kind of thing, generating a rectangular-ish waveform, but this output is always then subjected to additional filtering to smooth it out. Effectively, the ADC output sample values are interpreted as a series of points intersected by the waveform; the DAC output is a smooth curve, not a stair-step at all. Additionally, modern ADC and DAC chips are engineered to reduce below the threshold of audibility, if not completely eliminate, any other sources of noise in this conversion process, resulting in an extremely high correlation between the input and output signals. (Perhaps a better explanation: [http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml xiph.org's "Digital Show & Tell" video])

	A related myth is that components of the signal near the Nyquist frequency must be square waves on CD (or digital media), and that vinyl (or any analog media) preserves pure sine waves. The premise is false. A square wave, or any wave that's not a perfect sine wave, is the sum of multiple pure tones (sine waves), by definition. So if you have a pure 22.05 ~~KHz~~ signal on CD (i.e., sample values +''n'', -''n'', repeatedly), the DAC may first construct a square wave, but the reconstruction filter then filters out everything above the Nyquist frequency, leaving behind a sine wave. The principle is the same even in complex waveforms. The end result is that the uppermost frequency components on CD are no closer to being square waves than they are on vinyl.		A related myth is that components of the signal near the Nyquist frequency must be square waves on CD (or digital media), and that vinyl (or any analog media) preserves pure sine waves. The premise is false. A square wave, or any wave that's not a perfect sine wave, is the sum of multiple pure tones (sine waves), by definition. So if you have a pure 22.05 kHz signal on CD (i.e., sample values +''n'', -''n'', repeatedly), the DAC may first construct a square wave, but the reconstruction filter then filters out everything above the Nyquist frequency, leaving behind a sine wave. The principle is the same even in complex waveforms. The end result is that the uppermost frequency components on CD are no closer to being square waves than they are on vinyl.

	===Jitter===		===Jitter===

89.72.143.29: /* Myth: Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids anti-aliasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce */

2017-05-11T21:07:45Z

Myth: Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids anti-aliasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 11 May 2017
Line 64:		Line 64:

	There are rarely, if ever, any ultrasonic frequencies for vinyl to preserve. In audio recordings, such frequencies, when present, are normally low-energy noise imparted by electrical equipment and storage media used during recording, mixing, and mastering. Although some musical instruments can produce low-energy overtones in the ultrasonic range, they could only be on the vinyl if every piece of equipment and storage medium in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages was able to preserve them—which is unlikely even in modern recordings, since the average microphone or mixing console is designed only with audible frequencies in mind. Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a low-pass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies, however the commonly found audio information up to 23-24 kHz is still present at significant amplitude on vinyl records.		There are rarely, if ever, any ultrasonic frequencies for vinyl to preserve. In audio recordings, such frequencies, when present, are normally low-energy noise imparted by electrical equipment and storage media used during recording, mixing, and mastering. Although some musical instruments can produce low-energy overtones in the ultrasonic range, they could only be on the vinyl if every piece of equipment and storage medium in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages was able to preserve them—which is unlikely even in modern recordings, since the average microphone or mixing console is designed only with audible frequencies in mind. Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a low-pass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies, however the commonly found audio information up to 23-24 kHz is still present at significant amplitude on vinyl records.

			It is, however, worth mentioning that it's highly unlikely for anyone to actually be able to hear frequencies above 20 kHz, which means that regular CD covers whole hearable frequency range.

	==Myth: Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==		==Myth: Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps==

58.6.86.20: /* Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD */ anytime should be two words, meaning 'whenever'.

2017-01-12T07:43:30Z

Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD: anytime should be two words, meaning 'whenever'.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:43, 12 January 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The statement "Vinyl sounds better than CD" has nothing to do with technical measurements. The word "sound" refers to waves interpreted by our ears, not a piece of measuring equipment. The word "better" is subjective, based on personal experiments,comparisons and observations, and in the case of sound quality is very personal. We could make the statement "CD sounds better than Vinyl" and the previous statement would apply.		The statement "Vinyl sounds better than CD" has nothing to do with technical measurements. The word "sound" refers to waves interpreted by our ears, not a piece of measuring equipment. The word "better" is subjective, based on personal experiments,comparisons and observations, and in the case of sound quality is very personal. We could make the statement "CD sounds better than Vinyl" and the previous statement would apply.

	~~Anytime~~ a person makes a claim about anything sounding better than another thing, we need to be understanding that the statement has no bearing on technical measurements but is based on personal perception.		Any time a person makes a claim about anything sounding better than another thing, we need to be understanding that the statement has no bearing on technical measurements but is based on personal perception.

	==Myth: Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==		==Myth: Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD==

58.6.86.20: /* Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD */ possessive apostrophe required and added to 'persons'.

2017-01-12T07:38:34Z

Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD: possessive apostrophe required and added to 'persons'.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:38, 12 January 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD==		==Myth: Vinyl sounds better than CD==

	No discussion about this topic would be complete without acknowledging that a ~~persons~~ perception is their reality.		No discussion about this topic would be complete without acknowledging that a person's perception is their reality.

	Many people prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats, a majority of those people do so because they honestly percieve the sound to be better. Better meaning; more natural, less artificial, more true to the original studio recording, more organic etc. For such people the statement that "vinyl sounds better than CD" is not a myth but a fact.		Many people prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats, a majority of those people do so because they honestly percieve the sound to be better. Better meaning; more natural, less artificial, more true to the original studio recording, more organic etc. For such people the statement that "vinyl sounds better than CD" is not a myth but a fact.