And I have proposed that when a new LP release is put on Bandcamp there should be a Eco LP version available as well, which has the download code but no actual vinyl inside. This is a nice and less plastics-heavy alternative for those who aren't going to play it anyway, which, we are told, is about half the buyers at present.
I don't either. I was theorizing. It just struck me that we can do a lot these days with VST if we want coloration or harmonic distortions or a "valve sound", the same isn't really true in the same way for the sound of vinyl. We can reproduce the band limitation and mono-bass of production but we can't reproduce the defects of specific copy that you might have. Personally, I can do without all of that but it does seem there's a qualitative difference here.
I was thinking of lo-fi as a genre.
There are so many genres and sub-genres, especially in electronic music, these day; it's hard to keep up with exactly what fits where.
House
Hard House
Acid House
Techno
Hip-hop
Trip-hop
Garage
Jungle
Drum and Bass
Synthwave
Chillwave
Vapourwave
Trance
Ambient
Chill-out
Dubstep
Big Beat
Breakbeat
Downtempo
And more Amen Break than you can shake a stick at.
I guess you haven't read Mike Uwins' AES paper, which he also published as a Linear Audio article.So... I've been thinking (dangerously enough) about the thesis of this thread. I got to wondering whether the question posed might (???) be rephrased in a way that might make it more interesting and more useful.
My sub-thesis is that the type and spectrum of noise in LP playback is a factor in the perceived warmth and yumminess of same, but only a factor. Pops and ticks aren't good, full stop, but the low-frequency noise encountered on LP playback (even with an inherently quiet deck), I suspect, imparts a sense of acoustic space that is part of the charm of the medium. I wonder if there's anything else? Heck, who knows, maybe phase shifts relating to the imposition and subsequent correction of the RIAA equalization curve applied when the lacquer is cut?
Even many of the vinylista* will allow that a digitally captured needle drop sounds pretty good; i.e., pretty vinylistic.
This got me to wondering whether "null testing" could give some insight into roots of the ('vinyl sounds better') phenomenon. Unfortunately, what probably wouldn't work is nulling the digitized output of playing an LP track with "the same" track from a digital source (i.e., not a needle drop). The master tape (or whatever) used to cut the LP lacquer would almost certainly be different than that used to generate the digital version, if for no other reason than the imposition of RIAA EQ, mixing the bass to mono and/or rolling off extremely low frequencies in the case of the analog pathway.
I don't know enough about anything (as the ramblings above testify!) to devise a way to do an appropriately controlled comparison to see what's really different (besides clicks and pops) between the two sources -- but I'll bet there is a good way(?).
_______________
* of which I would have to count myself as a member, although not a rabid one.
Admittedly, Kryptonite to my street cred in any music discussion.
1) No, I hadn't. Thanks.I guess you haven't read Mike Uwins' AES paper, which he also published as a Linear Audio article.
AES E-Library » Analogue Hearts, Digital Minds? An Investigation into Perceptions of the Audio Quality of Vinyl
This study investigates the vinyl revival, with particular focus given to the listener's perception of audio quality. A new album was produced using known source material. Subjects then participated in a series of double-blind listening tests, comparing vinyl to established digital formats...www.aes.org
His results:
Below are the test tracks. Vinyl was digitally sampled. Emulated vinyl was the digital master:
1. EQ to the frequency response of the vinyl playing system2. Stereo width narrowed to match the cross-talk of vinyl3. Added ~5.6% THDInterestingly MP3 scored higher than CD in test A (test B was a statistical tie).
1) No, I hadn't. Thanks.
2) Well, I was suggesting more or less the opposite approach -- to figure out what the quantifiable differences are (besides clicks and pops) that make vinyl records (LPs) sound like... what they sound like. I am very skeptical of vinyl emulation as such -- but, more to the point, I am quite curious as to what people are hearing (again, besides clicks and pops). Maybe it's just rumble and noise inherent in the groove/stylus interface. I am not convinced, and I rather doubt there's any data. The few parameters used in the study may not be exhaustive. E.g., the spectral content of that 5.6% THD.
I guess I'd better read the paper!
There are some real problems with the "emulated vinyl" scenario.
. I've had a few records playing and "damn, I thought I bought this in excellent condition" but it was added record noise to the recording.Actually that just adds another layer of annoyance
And thats why I gave it up, did a one to one match of a CD for each vinyl album then ripped these CD's to move to a file based paradigm.
Maybe I am missing something? They used an ABCHr test for “preference?” Is that an audible accuracy test with a hidden reference as the objective measuring stick? That’s not preference. A true preference test would not have a reference.
Let's face it, most albums didn't have particularly good artwork anyway. From the 70's onwards the good stuff from the likes of Hipgnosis, Barney Bubbles, Peter Saville, Malcolm Garrett, Vaughan Oliver, Neville Brody etc. sleeve notes and good artwork became almost mutually exclusive. On Saville's Factory covers you were lucky to find the name of the band let alone a track list. But that was all part of the fun ...
They used a modified MUSHRA not ABC-HR. The modification was to avoid having to assume one of the samples was audibly 'worst' as a check for unreliable data as explained in the paper.
