Turtlerock Forum

I haven't had a turntable in some years, and I just bought a new one so that I could listen to some of my old vinyl. Set up the turntable, set the tracking weight, picked out a couple of 12 inch singles and cleaned them and let rip. Now these records are well played, not new ( I am saving my new vinyl until the stylus runs in for 10 hours or so, and then on the first play of the new vinyl I am recording it straight to a Korg MR-1000 1 bit recorder in DSD at a sample rate of 5.6MHz so that I can capture the "fist play" quality).

Well, as these are well-loved records there are some small crackles in spots, but the condition is pretty good considering how much they have been played. The first thing that hit me is the better bottom end and much nicer top end, and how smooth and non-fatigueing the records sound compared to a CD. In short, to me they sound so much better to listen to than CD's. I am loving it. Records can reproduce up to 40k, double that of CD's, obviously we can't hear that, but I am surprised at how clean the tops are compared to CD. I find that I can listen to the records at volume without getting ear fatigue in a way I can't with a CD.

So, to make this scientific, once my turntable has run in, I am going to break the shrink wrap of a brand new 1982 US 12 inch pressing of New Order's "Blue Monday" that I have, record it in HD digital, and then do a digital copy of the same song from the "Substance" CD, put them side by side into Audiogate and compare them.[/i]

Results will be interesting to see.

Won't they be mixed and mastered differently anyway regardless of media? You'd need to find the album version on vinyl and cd to do a direct comparison.

Have you read Mr Neve's (and others) opinions on the distortion created as a result of the cut off frequency of the 16 bit 44.1 sample rate? I suppose this is what you are reffering to.In short his thesis is the resulting distortion is only just above our hearing threshold but still perceived and is the probable cause of the hearing fatigue. Having the extended bandwidth in a playback system will get rid of this problem. That is one of the reasons i purchased a recording chain that can handle this extended range in a linear way. The gear i got for this was the Amek Dual Mic Pre, and the Avalon 747............... Eight years on and I'm still waiting and hoping for a widely adopted consumer playback system with extended bandwidth.

Hi there,

Steve..I love my MR1000 !
Thats what I mix onto these days.
Interested to hear your results.

Cheers
N
Y
M
O

Kurt wrote:Won't they be mixed and mastered differently anyway regardless of media? You'd need to find the album version on vinyl and cd to do a direct comparison.

That's true, they will be mastered differently regardless, as vinyl (hopefully) is always mastered differently. It's almost certain that the 12 inch and the album version will have been mixed and mastered identically though, as the mix engineer would most likely have printed a 12 inch version, an album length version and a radio version at the same time.

In the end, the question is, despite mastering, does the record and the CD sound markedly different? Mastering for vinyl is a part of the vinyl process, so I don't regard mastering as having any real bearing in the comparison, and they would not have been mixed differently, the engineer would have done the usual thing and just made different length edits and TV edits in the same mix session.

The MR-1000 is pretty ideal for this kind of testing. Not being an Audiofool I only really trust comparisons where you lay the 2 tracks up side by side and switch between them. I must to my shame admit that I cannot hear the difference between a cork and a felt mat on a turntable, or a difference if I pull the metal knob of my amp and replace it with a wooden knob coated with C37 laquer. If I bought a 2000 speaker cable that needed 3 moths burn in I know some Hi-Fi buffs would tell me that they could hear a progressive improvement, but I wonder if they were born on planet Krypton?

Chris H wrote:Have you read Mr Neve's (and others) opinions on the distortion created as a result of the cut off frequency of the 16 bit 44.1 sample rate? I suppose this is what you are reffering to.In short his thesis is the resulting distortion is only just above our hearing threshold but still perceived and is the probable cause of the hearing fatigue. Having the extended bandwidth in a playback system will get rid of this problem. That is one of the reasons i purchased a recording chain that can handle this extended range in a linear way. The gear i got for this was the Amek Dual Mic Pre, and the Avalon 747............... Eight years on and I'm still waiting and hoping for a widely adopted consumer playback system with extended bandwidth.

I'm not familiar with any that but did they give a preference for minium standard? Is 48kHz enough

Bent my VU wrote:

Chris H wrote:Have you read Mr Neve's (and others) opinions on the distortion created as a result of the cut off frequency of the 16 bit 44.1 sample rate? I suppose this is what you are reffering to.In short his thesis is the resulting distortion is only just above our hearing threshold but still perceived and is the probable cause of the hearing fatigue. Having the extended bandwidth in a playback system will get rid of this problem. That is one of the reasons i purchased a recording chain that can handle this extended range in a linear way. The gear i got for this was the Amek Dual Mic Pre, and the Avalon 747............... Eight years on and I'm still waiting and hoping for a widely adopted consumer playback system with extended bandwidth.

I'm not familiar with any that but did they give a preference for minium standard? Is 48kHz enough

I don't have a great scientific mind so those better qualified can correct or fill in the gaps, but here is a basic overview.
In the PCM format 24 bit 96 k extends the frequency to 40 Khz and gives a wider dynamic range. So this is a "minimum" for PCM if you want to capture ah extended frequency. However the gains are somewhat negated in the dithering and sample rate conversion process to 16 bit 44.1 for CD. But the DSD format is better still at giving a more true to life capture of audio in that the wave is not stepped as in PCM.

I remember the first digital release here in the early 80's, a girl named Vanessa Venning I think. Ron Tudor gave my Dad a copy. I can't understand why over 20 years on I'm still working to those specs. It even seems to be going backwards.

Chinagraf wrote:I remember the first digital release here in the early 80's, a girl named Vanessa Venning I think. Ron Tudor gave my Dad a copy. I can't understand why over 20 years on I'm still working to those specs. It even seems to be going backwards.

When CD's first appeared, people were re-buying their favourite records on the new CD format, which they were obviously very familiar with hearing on vinyl over the years, and the comment was that apart from the low noise floor and absence of crackles, that they sounded inferior, but that was to be expected with a new format, and that the faults would no doubt be ironed out as the format was evolved. As you say, a CD now is identical to a CD in 1986, no evolution of the format whatsoever.

Didnt she sing the Wonderworld theme for Simon Townsend?

the first local CD released was " the man from snowy river "
not saying i had anything to do with it or nothing :)

rick wrote:the first local CD released was " the man from snowy river "
not saying i had anything to do with it or nothing :)

The first CD released ever internationally was that Dire Straits thing with that song about appliances. (shudder)... Man from Snowy River would be an improvement.

Thirteen wrote:

Chinagraf wrote:I remember the first digital release here in the early 80's, a girl named Vanessa Venning I think. Ron Tudor gave my Dad a copy. I can't understand why over 20 years on I'm still working to those specs. It even seems to be going backwards.

When CD's first appeared, people were re-buying their favourite records on the new CD format, which they were obviously very familiar with hearing on vinyl over the years, and the comment was that apart from the low noise floor and absence of crackles, that they sounded inferior, but that was to be expected with a new format, and that the faults would no doubt be ironed out as the format was evolved. As you say, a CD now is identical to a CD in 1986, no evolution of the format whatsoever.

So why wont SACD take over as a standard CD format? With technology as it is today, with great sampling rates, bit depth, higher resolution stuff, it should be going ahead in leaps and bounds..
Who is determining that we have to stay at 16/44.1??

nah sorry steve
1812 overture was the first release
brother in arms was a bit ( two years later) but it was the "popular musical culture showpiece"
not saying i had anything to do with brothers in arms or nothing :)
err except i cut the,million local vinyl records that are floating around 9highest selling "record ever" here in oz

Vanessa's may have been the first fully digital, as in DDD, not AAD or ADD? I remember some fuss about it at the time.
Or maybe it was all just some sort of 'Fable' haaaaaaa. (In joke for old people)

TimS wrote:

Thirteen wrote:

Chinagraf wrote:I remember the first digital release here in the early 80's, a girl named Vanessa Venning I think. Ron Tudor gave my Dad a copy. I can't understand why over 20 years on I'm still working to those specs. It even seems to be going backwards.

When CD's first appeared, people were re-buying their favourite records on the new CD format, which they were obviously very familiar with hearing on vinyl over the years, and the comment was that apart from the low noise floor and absence of crackles, that they sounded inferior, but that was to be expected with a new format, and that the faults would no doubt be ironed out as the format was evolved. As you say, a CD now is identical to a CD in 1986, no evolution of the format whatsoever.

So why wont SACD take over as a standard CD format? With technology as it is today, with great sampling rates, bit depth, higher resolution stuff, it should be going ahead in leaps and bounds..
Who is determining that we have to stay at 16/44.1??

I don't see why bluray can't be the "new" format, 192k 24 bit, should just be a new standard. At least when cd's were first made a standard was agreed to.

rick wrote:nah sorry steve
1812 overture was the first release
brother in arms was a bit ( two years later) but it was the "popular musical culture showpiece"
not saying i had anything to do with brothers in arms or nothing :)
err except i cut the,million local vinyl records that are floating around 9highest selling "record ever" here in oz

I had it on vinyl - then got the CD yrs later..
Got quite alot of your mastered albums rick.. I'm sure we all have!!

TimS wrote:

rick wrote:nah sorry steve
1812 overture was the first release
brother in arms was a bit ( two years later) but it was the "popular musical culture showpiece"
not saying i had anything to do with brothers in arms or nothing :)
err except i cut the,million local vinyl records that are floating around 9highest selling "record ever" here in oz

I had it on vinyl - then got the CD yrs later..
Got quite alot of your mastered albums rick.. I'm sure we all have!!

Yes I even found an old cassette a while back of a mates band from the early 90's, credits included "Mastered by Rick O'Neil". :) Sounded good too as far as cassettes go.

for whats its worth kylie was the first australian DCC !
err perhaps i had something to do with that as well :)

i think australia ran about 12 titles on DCC

rick wrote:the first local CD released was " the man from snowy river "
not saying i had anything to do with it or nothing :)

The guitarist for that recording ( and my guitar teacher) was Rod Stone, and a lot of it, the orchestra etc, was recorded at Robert Blackwood Hall, Monash Uni.

I have a copy of what at the time was said to be the first digital recording in Oz. It was the recording of Kerrie Biddell's album, Compared to What. Recorded at 301 through Sony A to D then D to A and cut direct t to vinyl as the band played live.

Came out in 78 or 79.

Is that tetris on the tv screen to the left?

Chris H wrote:Came out in 78 or 79.

OK, lets play "spot the console".

it's an SSL 4000 isn't it? did they have an E back then, or is it actually an old B? faders are different to an E-series.

Since this thread has woken up I thought I'd ask if anyone has a suggested tool/whatever for enlarging the spindle hole in LP's where it's just too small by maybe .5mm, *JUST* enough to need 20lbs of force to get it on, and near impossible to get off (obviously not good for either the LP or my suspension deck).

Today's example was the new Iron Maiden double, and LP4 of the recent Dylan box set.

dremel???

Gently with a tapered reamer from both sides I guess, I think that Jaycar still sells them. If you can keep it at right angles and be careful you can probably do it without putting any eccentricity into the record. do it from both sides to reduce the taper.

Thirteen wrote:Gently with a tapered reamer from both sides I guess, I think that Jaycar still sells them. If you can keep it at right angles and be careful you can probably do it without putting any eccentricity into the record. do it from both sides to reduce the taper.

Yes the tapered or peg hole reamer would do the job nicely...........speaking of reamers, MFDU has been conspicuous by his absence of late.....and it seems as though Mark Rachelle had dropped off the edge of the earth...... I know he sold his Trident and his SSL.

how true..
better tell 'em we miss 'em!!