Vinyl

[Hope]

A very interesting article about the production - outside of Prague - of the world's vinyl, ahead of Record Shop Day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36044609/record-store-day-this-is-what-happens-inside-a-vinyl-factory

[L.A.]

A very interesting article about the production - outside of Prague - of the world's vinyl, ahead of Record Shop Day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36044609/record-store-day-this-is-what-happens-inside-a-vinyl-factory

Vinyl records are pure nostalgia . . . but not very practical. They are bulky, they easily scratch and need turning over half way through.

That's one trip down Memory Lane that I won't be taking.

[floo]

In 2007 we had a flood in our garage at our previous property, when a culvert in the lane overflowed after heavy rain. My husband was desperately ill at the time so it was the least of my worries. When I got around to investigating, I discovered that a box containing all his old vinyl records was under water, I chucked them out. I wonder if with all this fuss about vinyl these days they might have been worth anything, who knows?

[ippy]

I've just set up my turntable and I'm going through my collection cleaning them up via the PC and putting them onto MP3.

A long very enjoyable job.

I'll get the web address, I haven't got it at the mo, if no one else has it; there is a site that will value your old vinyl, some of them can be worth quite a bit of money.

ippy

[Enki]

You might just find this an interesting story.

Last night I was vaguely watching a programme presented by Twiggy on 1950s/early 60s music and. I'm happy to say that nostalgia took over, especially when some guy started to talk about the old vinyl LPs. He held up a copy of the LP, 'Please Please Me' by the Beatles, and talked about its possible rarity. Now, funnily enough, I seemed to remember I had a copy of that same record in my erstwhile collection of vinyls. So, I decided to check it out. I did indeed find it, and, just for fun, decided to see what info the internet had to offer. After a short while, and with increasing interest, I began to realise that the label of the LP of the Beatles "Please Please Me" that I have was in gold/black(later changed to block yellow lettering) and this could either be the first or second issue. A little more research, and I have now pretty well established that it is in fact one of the original first issue of 1963. The record and sleeve are in pretty good condition also(it hasn't been played for at least 40 years). it is also the stereo version, which is even rarer. As far as I can tell, perhaps only 800 to 900 were ever made. If I am right,(and, I am, of course, trying to establish as far as I am able that this is so), then I am the proud owner of one of the rarest and most sought after LPs. I have also checked auction prices which seem to vary roughly between $5000 and $10000 varying according to condition. I am of course extremely wary of being wrong completely, but I have checked the details that I have found with two other people who, so far, confirm my own findings. I'm not quite sure what to do next, except I am going to take photographs of this record(and sleeve) to more than one of the several independent record dealers near to me, and, judge from their reactions, as to whether they think that it is anything like as valuable as I think it is.

Incidentally, I used to have a market stall trading in coins/cap badges/medals/old postcards and I am well aware of how dealers operate.

I am very willing to listen to anyone's advice however, so, if you have any to give, feel free.

Cheers   

[Khatru]

I loved my records - I still have them even though I have nothing to play them on.

What's more, many of them are quite collectible now.  Especially those on the Vertigo "swirl" label, Pink Island Eye, Atlantic Plum, etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

Vinyl records are pure nostalgia . . . but not very practical. They are bulky, they easily scratch and need turning over half way through.

That's one trip down Memory Lane that I won't be taking.

I love them, and not just for the 'nostalgia' part, although there really is nothing to compare with handling a record and being able to look at 12'' cover artwork.

No the main reason I love vinyl is that is sounds better - I have still to find anything that gives the same quality of sound as a record played through a top quality system. It is interesting how many people say to me when they are around at my place 'blimey doesn't your cd played sound great', and then I tell them that they are listening to a record.

[L.A.]

I love them, and not just for the 'nostalgia' part, although there really is nothing to compare with handling a record and being able to look at 12'' cover artwork.

No the main reason I love vinyl is that is sounds better - I have still to find anything that gives the same quality of sound as a record played through a top quality system. It is interesting how many people say to me when they are around at my place 'blimey doesn't your cd played sound great', and then I tell them that they are listening to a record.

I would disagree about the quality. You need a record to be in pristine condition if you are going to avoid the clicks and scratches, and the frequency response falls-off dramatically for the tracks at the centre of the disc.

Of course, hearing these imperfections may bring on a wave of nostalgia in some 

[ProfessorDavey]

I would disagree about the quality. You need a record to be in pristine condition if you are going to avoid the clicks and scratches, and the frequency response falls-off dramatically for the tracks at the centre of the disc.

Of course, hearing these imperfections may bring on a wave of nostalgia in some 

most people have never heard a record played on a top quality system and it is frankly jaw dropping.

And sure if the record is really knackered it is an issue, but on a good system the stylus usually tracks deep in the groove while most scratches crackles etc are surface so they become less and less noticeable. And on a good system they are detached from the 3d nature of the soundstage so pretty unimportant. And that true depth is something I've never heard reproduced as well in cd or other format.

As to frequency response well there are much more important issues - vinyl being analogue isn't fundamentally compromised in the way that any digital format inherently is.

I completely understand the advantages and ease of use of cd and of mp3 on the move type stuff, and I enjoy them greatly, but if you want quality there really is nothing that compares to vinyl and also reproduced through top quality valve amplification.

Nothing to do with nostalgia, and I suspect you may never heard what a top notch vinyl and valve system can do. Most people haven't and most people are absolutely blown away when they do.

[L.A.]

As to frequency response well there are much more important issues - vinyl being analogue isn't fundamentally compromised in the way that any digital format inherently is.

The problem is that the velocity between the vinyl track and stylus reduces as the pick-up moves towards the the centre of the disc. On the outer tracks on a good system can reproduce frequencies of 18kHz+ but the centre tracks are much lower. I have heard a figure of 6kHz quoted.

[Udayana]

Fidelity to the original sound can be scientifically determined and, using equipment of good quality, there is no doubt that CD provides better fidelity. Frequencies lost by the sampling process are outside audible range. 

Nevertheless, most people seem to prefer the sound from a good analogue system and find it more "musical".

Funny.

[L.A.]

Fidelity to the original sound can be scientifically determined and, using equipment of good quality, there is no doubt that CD provides better fidelity. Frequencies lost by the sampling process are outside audible range. 

Nevertheless, most people seem to prefer the sound from a good analogue system and find it more "musical".

Funny.

I think by most measurable criteria (frequency response, signal to noise ratio etc), CDs are superior to vinyl. It was certainly true that some of the early CD players used poor Digital to Analogue conversion, which produced a sound that some people claimed was a 'harsh' and distinctively Digital, but this is not the case with most modern players.

I think that preference for analogue is largely based on psychological factors.

[Harrowby Hall]

Fidelity to the original sound can be scientifically determined and, using equipment of good quality, there is no doubt that CD provides better fidelity. Frequencies lost by the sampling process are outside audible range. 

Nevertheless, most people seem to prefer the sound from a good analogue system and find it more "musical".

Funny.

And, of course, the people making such assertions are usually sufficiently old to be suffering age-related hearing loss. They just cannot hear the high frequencies. Their brains make up the missing frequencies - an example of perceived rather than veridical sound. The same people, however, do not appear to prefer sepia to full colour ...

[Hope]

most people have never heard a record played on a top quality system and it is frankly jaw dropping.

I remember playing an LP on a fairly standard Pioneer turntable that one of the guys at school had, and then the same LP about 10 minutes later on a Bang & Olufsen that the music department had obtained a coupole oif months previously.  The difference was dramatic.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem is that the velocity between the vinyl track and stylus reduces as the pick-up moves towards the the centre of the disc. On the outer tracks on a good system can reproduce frequencies of 18kHz+ but the centre tracks are much lower. I have heard a figure of 6kHz quoted.

That is simply not true from a basic physics perspective - it is perfectly possible (and indeed the case) to cut inner grooves that can be 'read' by a quality system (critically good combination of arm and cartridge) that can reproduce high frequencies just as well in the inner grooves as outer ones.

If your system is cutting off at 6kHz then get a decent system. I've got a test record that I use for set up purposes that has a pure tone 1-20kHz sweep, in several places on the record, including one band on alms the innermost area - it plays perfectly and no differently there to the most outer grooves.

But why the obsession with frequency range - we don't listen to pure tone frequency sweeps, we listen to music and some of the key components that make sound realistic and believable are complex low level harmonic structures and, critically, timing in other words rapid transients and their alignment with the rest of the music - this drives the 'attack' and 'decay' of a sound and how it interacts with its surroundings (by that I mean the recorded instrument interaction with surroundings, not the reproduced sound) - these are areas where CD (and digital due to its inherent lossiness) has always been lacking and vinyl is (for all its faults in other areas) excels. And that's why a great vinyl system can produce the sound of a recorded instrument which is lifelike and three dimensional in a way that CD really struggles to do - at best being a rather flat 2D interpretation.

And on the issue of 'measuring' the quality of sound reproduction - this is really, really difficult. I actually have colleagues here at my university who are at the forefront of that kind of research - often described (amongst other things) as machine listening. When we listen we hear sound as instruments, voices etc - measurement systems see it merely as exceptionally complex spectral patterns of frequency and amplitude. So, just as an example, it remains really difficult for a measurement system to be able to differentiate between the instruments in a simple jazz trio - it cannot tell the difference - the human ear instantly knows there is a piano, a drum kit and a bass playing. So if the measurement isn't even able to differentiate between the three instruments, how on earth it can be of any meaningful use in determining whether their reproduction is realistic of believable is beyond me.

[L.A.]

That is simply not true from a basic physics perspective - it is perfectly possible (and indeed the case) to cut inner grooves that can be 'read' by a quality system (critically good combination of arm and cartridge) that can reproduce high frequencies just as well in the inner grooves as outer ones.

I don't believe that is correct.

There is a practical limit to the amount of information that can be recorded in a given length of groove. On an LP,  for the inner track the radius is about  2.6inches but for the outer about 5.6inches. There is velocity changes by a factor for more than 2, so the outer tracks have more than twice the capacity of the inner tracks which means that the maximum frequency that can be recorded on the inner tracks is half that of the outer tracks.

A close friend of mine was a real Hi Fi freak and spent a fortune on decks, amplifiers and speakers and he always claimed that the inner tracks were not worth listening to.

[Udayana]

...
And on the issue of 'measuring' the quality of sound reproduction - this is really, really difficult. I actually have colleagues here at my university who are at the forefront of that kind of research - often described (amongst other things) as machine listening. When we listen we hear sound as instruments, voices etc - measurement systems see it merely as exceptionally complex spectral patterns of frequency and amplitude. So, just as an example, it remains really difficult for a measurement system to be able to differentiate between the instruments in a simple jazz trio - it cannot tell the difference - the human ear instantly knows there is a piano, a drum kit and a bass playing. So if the measurement isn't even able to differentiate between the three instruments, how on earth it can be of any meaningful use in determining whether their reproduction is realistic of believable is beyond me.

Yes, but this inability to isolate particular aspects is just as true of analogue recording systems.  For sure, trying to compare a recording with the original is difficult because of the difficulty of finding an objective method - you must make assumptions about which aspects of the sound you consider make it closer or further from the original and independent ways of measuring those. Then you can compare transmission of the same signals via analogue or digital transmission independent of a recording method - eg digital live radio vs analogue live radio.

I suspect, that as long as an analogue recording contains enough detail (a digital recording will carry more information) warmth and colour added by the equipment just makes it sound better - as long as it still good enough (eg. by preventing vibration feedback to the record deck) not to lose any more information. Quite often a CD played back through valve power amplifiers can sound better than through a conventional amp - here any information possibly recorded by an analogue tape but not by a digital recorder will have been eliminated.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't believe that is correct.

There is a practical limit to the amount of information that can be recorded in a given length of groove. On an LP,  for the inner track the radius is about  2.6inches but for the outer about 5.6inches. There is velocity changes by a factor for more than 2, so the outer tracks have more than twice the capacity of the inner tracks which means that the maximum frequency that can be recorded on the inner tracks is half that of the outer tracks.

That is completely misunderstanding the nature of the vinyl format. Remember the master is cut with a vibrating cutting tool, whose vibrations are driven by the original recording. Sure there are different feature characteristics and intervals in the inner grooves due to the lower linear velocity of the stylus (and cutting tool) progression, but that doesn't mean you get less information, because unlike digital formats the amount of information isn't quantised and fundamentally limited. There can be, effectively, an infinite number of permutation of features cut, something which simply isn't the case in any digital format.

And this frankly has nothing to do with frequency limitation - indeed in theory there is absolutely no upper frequency cut off for a vinyl record - in practice (largely due to technical issues) there tends to be a 'soft' frequency cut off (i.e. rolled off response but not absolute cut off. So in real life a decent vinyl system will actually have extended high frequency response up to 30kHz - and there are record playing systems that have been used to demonstrate the ability to extend that frequency range - up to 50kHz and even beyond 100 kHz.

By contract CDs have an absolute cut off at 22kHz - above that zilch, not a thing. Whether those frequencies above hearing are important (as they may interact with lower frequencies that we can hear) is a matter of debate, but it is simply a fact that the upper frequency response and limit is more extended in a vinyl system than a cd.

More info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording

and here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

Note he is using a pretty shit turntable (and a pretty shit record ), but is still able to demonstrate frequency range massively beyond that achievable by a standard cd system.

A close friend of mine was a real Hi Fi freak and spent a fortune on decks, amplifiers and speakers and he always claimed that the inner tracks were not worth listening to.

Then I suggest he needs to look carefully at to whether his system is any good (particularly the match between turntable, arm and cartridge. And most importantly whether he has set up the system well (alignment, tracking force, azimuth, VTA, anti-bias). If he thinks inner tracks aren't worth listening to then he has something badly wrong - and sure poor set up affects inner tracks more than outer ones (often) but there is no difference with a decent system set up well.

Just to give some context my cartridge has a frequency response of 10Hz to 50kHz and has effectively a flat response (standard +/- 3dB) across the audible range - it has (in theory and in practice) a wide frequency response and more extended higher frequency range than my cd player (5Hz to 20Hz).

[L.A.]

I agree that the theoretical frequency limit for vinyl disc is very high. In the late 1960's at least one company was experimenting with recording video on a kind of grooved disc. However, there are practical constraints. The process of producing a disc from the master recording involves a number of steps which can lose some of the finer structures, and that equates to frequency response. And because the inner tracks are about half the length of the outer, they have half the bandwidth, so that any shortcomings will be obvious on the last tracks

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree that the theoretical frequency limit for vinyl disc is very high. In the late 1960's at least one company was experimenting with recording video on a kind of grooved disc. However, there are practical constraints. The process of producing a disc from the master recording involves a number of steps which can lose some of the finer structures, and that equates to frequency response. And because the inner tracks are about half the length of the outer, they have half the bandwidth, so that any shortcomings will be obvious on the last tracks

But even for the inner grooves the amount of information, which will include the ability to deliver frequency range, is substantially better than cd.

So my back of fag packet calculation - cd 1.4 million bits (i.e. a zero or a one) per second maximum.

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.

So the amount of information (i.e. detail) that can be packed into a 5 minute song (even on inner grooves) recorded onto vinyl, is massively greater than that that can be packed into a 5 minute song on CD, which is limited to 420 million zeros or ones.

Sure there is less information that you can practically pack into the inner grooves than the outer ones, but the amount of information you can get into the inner grooves is in no way limiting and is way more than you can get in an equivalent time on s cd.

If your inner tracks don't play well there is something wrong with your system - set it up properly, or check whether there are inherent mismatches between turntable, arm and cartridge which prevents the latter from tracking properly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, but this inability to isolate particular aspects is just as true of analogue recording systems.  For sure, trying to compare a recording with the original is difficult because of the difficulty of finding an objective method - you must make assumptions about which aspects of the sound you consider make it closer or further from the original and independent ways of measuring those.

That's right - and as music is listened to by people (whether live or recorded) using their ears and brains as the 'measuring' instruments then the assessment of the accuracy of the recording has to involve listening tests as even the most sophisticated analytical systems simple aren't able to uncover the subtleties and key components of sound that are absolutely obvious to us. So they might be great at measuring frequency response or dynamic range, etc but that tells us very, very little about how a recording (and it's playback characteristics are).

And frankly most audio equipment is subject to the most crude of analytical measurement testing. So it is often almost impossible to tell the difference between cd players from standard testing approaches used even by reviewers, yet the cd players can sound dramatically different. Why, because the things that are critical to how something sounds to the human ear are the most subtle, because the human ear is far, far more sophisticated at listening to real sounds than measuring devices.

So I mentioned the inability of even the best 'machine listening systems' (such as the ones being developed and used by my academic colleagues who are UK and world leaders in this area) even to be able to determine how many instruments are being played, let alone which or whether their reproduction is high quality compared to the real sound. There was also some rather fun research in which the 'machine listening' algorithms were challenged to tell between different genres of music with incredibly distinct musical style (e.g. classical, reggae, rap, country, metal etc). So the system was 'taught' using example pieces typical of the genre and then was presented with 'test' pieces, similarly typical of the genre - its ability to differentiate was really awful. Most average listeners would instantly get it right - yup reggae, definitely rap - the machine can't do it.

I suspect, that as long as an analogue recording contains enough detail (a digital recording will carry more information)

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

For crying out load the whole point about digital is it converts a smooth analogue signal into a bumpy, lossy digital one. Draw a perfectly smooth sine wave, convert it to digital and it becomes a series of bumps. Sure as your resolution increases it better approximates the original analogue signal, but never attains it. Digital inherently contains less information than analogue, and in practice (see above) a vinyl record spinning at 33rpm can produce data per second rates at least 4 times greater than cd, even for the inner grooves.

warmth and colour added by the equipment just makes it sound better - as long as it still good enough (eg. by preventing vibration feedback to the record deck) not to lose any more information. Quite often a CD played back through valve power amplifiers can sound better than through a conventional amp - here any information possibly recorded by an analogue tape but not by a digital recorder will have been eliminated.

Indeed smooth amplification systems can hide the limitations of cd and make it pleasant sounding, but those limitations still exist, they are just hidden.

There are of course limitations of vinyl systems, not least the greater challenge to be able to extract the information (indeed the greater amount of information) from a vinyl groove than you'd get from a cd. But get it right and the ultimate ability to reproduce sound in a realistic and believable manner is simply greater for vinyl for a whole range of reasons, not least that it is analogue and not inherently 'lossy'. And most experts agree - surely they can't all be wrong.

Now don't get me wrong here I'm not talking about nostalgia vinyl fans. There are 2 main groups of people who love vinyl. The first (the nostalgia type) love the tactile nature, they love the crackles, they love a warm, smooth, punchy sound (which is often a product of rather poor vinyl playback). That kind of pleasing sound that is like wrapping yourself in a warm blanket, which CD struggles to achieve. But that's not anything to do with accuracy - the second group love vinyl because it is more accurate. A great vinyl system isn't warm, smooth, muddy (and lovely in a euphonic kind of way) it sounds like a group of real instruments playing together - in fact it is often quite the reverse of the classic warm vinyl sound - it is lightning fast, pin-point accurate, absolutely precise - some might think cd like, but actually startlingly real. But where it is better is that it is never harsh (albeit lightning fast), it separates players in 3D (something I've never heard CD do effectively, so not only can you tell that the drummer has a cymbal higher and to the right of another cymbal, but that it is positioned behind (or in front of the other one).

All I can say is find somewhere to hear a really top notch vinyl system and you will be astonished - it won't sound like your vinyl comfort blanket, but like the best cd you've never been able to hear - why because standard cds simply aren't able to attain that fidelity of reproduction.

[jeremyp]

have now pretty well established that it is in fact one of the original first issue of 1963. The record and sleeve are in pretty good condition also(it hasn't been played for at least 40 years). it is also the stereo version, which is even rarer.

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.

[jeremyp]

I would disagree about the quality. You need a record to be in pristine condition if you are going to avoid the clicks and scratches

The clicks and crackles are all part of the experience.

[Shaker]

The clicks and crackles are all part of the experience.

... if you like the experience of listening to music while eating cream crackers, anyway.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

It is interesting actually how good some early mono records can sound - I've got quite a few from Sinatra, Beach Boys etc etc. Although there is no left, right separation the actual ability to hear individual instruments as separate and distinct is often exceptional. The challenge with stereo is that it is complicated to get right due to cross talk and even speaker positioning, so this can often lead to imagine position which is somewhat imprecise and 'blurry' compared to mono. Of course get it just right and a good stereo system can be brilliant.

On the Beatles the mono and early stereo recordings are actually different, not merely the same recording reproduced as mono or stereo (really two channel) - I haven't heard many of the original mono recordings of some of the later albums, but from memory I think I read that Sgt Pepper had perhaps the greatest difference from the mono to stereo versions.