Vinyl

[Enki]

There isn't really any such thing as a stereo recording of early Beatles music. They had stereo equipment but they used it as a two track mono recorder with vocals on one channel and the band on the other. This is why, when you listen to such tracks today, you hear the vocals in one ear and the band in the other ear. That's probably also why there are so few pressings of the stereo version of your LP.

Having said that, the technical quality of a recording has no bearing on how much you can sell it for and I did find a stereo first pressing of Please Please Meon eBay that sold for £4,600.

Cheers Jeremy, thanks for the info.

Further to the info I gave in Mess. 4, I have now taken it(today) to an expert in Vinyl(including rare records). He cleaned it for me, using a professional vacuum driven cleaner, and played both sides on his equipment. The results were truly impressive(I haven't played it for at least 45 years) with very few clicks etc. and no jumping whatever. He has confirmed it is a genuine first issue, and immediately made me a promising offer, which I have not yet accepted. To be honest, We don't know whether to keep it with our sons/grandchildren in mind or to sell/auction it. He also tells me that it is the first one he has ever seen(stereo version, that is) and has taken photographs of both disk and sleeve. We'll see what transpires.

Strangely enough, the most enjoyable part of all this isn't the money, but the gradual dawning that it was possibly a first issue followed by the  internet research that I did, which seemed to confirm this to be so. It was also tinged with a little nostalgia, as I remember going to see the Beatles live in Hull many years ago with a friend called John Harrison, who later became part of the folk group, the Watersons whom some may have heard of, and whom I knew quite well.

[L.A.]

Vinyl - inner groove - linear tracking rate is about 300 mm/second. Feature size that can be 'read' by the stylus (and can be cut) is below 0.1 micron, therefore the equivalent 'bit rate' is about 3 million bits per second. Oh but don't forget that a vinyl groove has two walls, one for each channel, which are read simultaneously - so we are now at 6 million bits per second. Plus don't forget that the vinyl approach provides a hugely more complex level of information from those 'bits' - they aren't merely zero or one.

I think we are agreed that in theory vinyl could carry the required data rate. The question is whether the cutting and pressing process's could reproduce the required detail. Although most record companies tend to be silent on the issue, the evidence suggests not.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think we are agreed that in theory vinyl could carry the required data rate. The question is whether the cutting and pressing process's could reproduce the required detail. Although most record companies tend to be silent on the issue, the evidence suggests not.

Even with the limitations inherent in the vinyl analogue processing there is no doubt that (even the inner grooves) contain greater information than a standard cd, where those limitations are an inherent and fundamental part of the system (no more than 1.4 million bits per second). CD of course also has just as many technical limitations in being able to retrieve, decode, and convert that information into a signal that can then be amplified and converted into sound. But the starting point is far more inherently limited than for vinyl.

Just for fun I actually checked out my system using the test record I described yesterday, which has a number of frequency sweeps in different places. I have a small measuring devise that I normally use for checking azimuth, but it effectively also measures output and it takes its feed straight from the cartridge, no bypasses any effects of amplifier, speakers etc. Guess what - output is dead flat all the way up to 20kHz (which is the top of the frequency sweep) and is exactly the same for the same track cut at the outside or the inside of the record.

Now if I'd done that on my cd player (I don't actually have the equipment) then I'm sure I'd get the same, but the difference is that once I move higher than 20kHz the CD drops like a stone to zero, I have absolutely no doubt that my cartridge would be happily retrieving and transmitting frequencies way beyond 20kHz, indeed up to 50kHz as per its spec. I'm also sure that output will gently roll off above about 25kHz, but that still is inherently preferable to a system that cuts off completely at 20kHz.

[L.A.]

Just for fun I actually checked out my system using the test record I described yesterday, which has a number of frequency sweeps in different places. I have a small measuring devise that I normally use for checking azimuth, but it effectively also measures output and it takes its feed straight from the cartridge, no bypasses any effects of amplifier, speakers etc. Guess what - output is dead flat all the way up to 20kHz (which is the top of the frequency sweep) and is exactly the same for the same track cut at the outside or the inside of the record.

That surprises me a lot, I suspect that your test disc is not typical of commercial music discs.

Now if I'd done that on my cd player (I don't actually have the equipment) then I'm sure I'd get the same, but the difference is that once I move higher than 20kHz the CD drops like a stone to zero, I have absolutely no doubt that my cartridge would be happily retrieving and transmitting frequencies way beyond 20kHz, indeed up to 50kHz as per its spec. I'm also sure that output will gently roll off above about 25kHz, but that still is inherently preferable to a system that cuts off completely at 20kHz.

I really don't think that is an issue. Young people can maybe hear frequencies of 18kHz, but for most adults 15kHz is pretty good  (people  my age are doing well to hear 12kHz). I don't think there is any evidence that intermodulation between ultrasonic frequencies would enhance the quality, more likely the opposite. In any case the master recording will likely cut-off  around 20kHz so unless you cut your disc directly from a live performance you will have precisely the same frequency response as the CD.

[ProfessorDavey]

That surprises me a lot, I suspect that your test disc is not typical of commercial music discs.

Nope I don't think so, but why would that surprise you. As I keep saying the issue isn't about the information on the record - there is no problem in theory or in practice in perfectly extended high frequency recording in the inner grooves. The issue is with poor play back systems - so if the system doesn't track effectively (and this is more likely in the inner grooves) then there may be high frequency roll-off. But with a decent system there won't be. So I imagine if you played the same test record with a system that doesn't track well you would measure declining output as you increase frequency behind 16kHz or so.

I really don't think that is an issue. Young people can maybe hear frequencies of 18kHz, but for most adults 15kHz is pretty good  (people  my age are doing well to hear 12kHz). I don't think there is any evidence that intermodulation between ultrasonic frequencies would enhance the quality, more likely the opposite. In any case the master recording will likely cut-off  around 20kHz so unless you cut your disc directly from a live performance you will have precisely the same frequency response as the CD.

Professional master recordings won't cut off at 20kHz although this will be done as the mastering for CD production is developed. That may or may not occur for vinyl, although usually not.

Whether ultrasonic frequencies affect the sound we actually hear is open to debate, but what isn't in doubt is that the original instrument will almost certainly produce sound at frequencies above 20kHz and those ultrasonic sound waves will interact with those in the audible range when we listen to a live instrument playing. So if they do have an effect and we remove them from the recording we will undoubtedly affect the ability of the reproduced sound to be truly authentic. It would be kind of recording an organ in a cathedral with long range reverberation and deliberately removing that return wave sound.

[Shaker]

Look, willy-wave about vinyl v. CD all you like, but can we not all agree that wax cylinders are where it's at, banging choons-wise? Mr Edison has laid down some cracking stuff.

[ProfessorDavey]

Look, willy-wave about vinyl v. CD all you like, but can we not all agree that wax cylinders are where it's at, banging choons-wise? Mr Edison has laid down some cracking stuff.

We have a museum near us that has a range of old organs (fnar, fnar) but also has a few early gramophones, where amplification is completely acoustic via an enormous horn (fnar, gnar again) - but do you know what the sound is remarkable, easily enough to fill a large room - quite incredible. And actually this is probably the purest form of recording playback with the simplest path from the record to the ear.

Not saying it is anything like state of the art but remarkable none the less for such a simple and rather crude device.

[Udayana]

PD,

Thanks, You are right.

Personally, I need to wash out my ears and start listening again. tbh over the years I've more less stopped listening to both albums (rock, folk) and CDs (classical/opera/etc). Only listened to Radio 3 and the occasional jazz concert: Reminded of what I've been missing .. can't wait to get back into it...