Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 17:13:32 GMT -5
Hello all...I have only been re-born into vinyl for about a year or so...Although I have learned quite a bit regarding the Hardware side of things, album related, I am not ready for primetime! When it comes to the actual record itself I am a bit, well, ignorant! I know this topic has probably been beaten to death but I would like insight on the following if anyone can help that would be much appreciated!
1. Why and what does half speed recordings accomplish?
2. Are Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (MOFI) albums worth the additional cost?
3. What/Why are some "large" albums recorded at a speed of 45? Is there an advantage?
4. Why are some re-issues/releases horrible sounding?
5. Why would a 180 gram plus album be "better" AND since the album is thicker is it necessary to re-adjust VTA?
I do feel a bit stoopid asking all these questions at one time but I am tired of guessing...Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Dec 1, 2016 18:09:02 GMT -5
My 20 cents
1. Why and what does half speed recordings accomplish?
Tape;
Slower = more recording on the same tape length, lesser sound quality
Faster = more tape used for the same amount of information, better sound quality
Vinyl;
Cutting the master disc at slower speed simply means more accuracy is possible in the process, it doesn't always mean that there was more accuracy. just that it's possible.
2. Are Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (MOFI) albums worth the additional cost?
I don't have any myself by a good friend of mine is a vinyl nutter and has a few, they sound pretty good, but as usual most of it comes from the mastering not what it's recorded on. A number of MOFI albums are pressed onto "quadrophic" vinyl, which is high quality raw material and when back to backed to a version on recycled material there is a distinct lessening of the pops and clicks. The quadraphonic version of DSOM sounds better than the stereo version, some of that is mastering and some the superior raw material.
3. What/Why are some "large" albums recorded at a speed of 45? Is there an advantage?
It's the same logic as tape (refer #1 above) more distance for the same information = better sound quality
4. Why are some re-issues/releases horrible sounding?
Mastering, it almost always comes back to the decisions that the sound mixer/engineer made in the mastering process.
5.Why would a 180 gram plus album be "better" AND since the album is thicker is it necessary to re-adjust VTA?
Refer to #2 above. It's simply better raw material, the weight is a by product. A lot of the 70's vinyl was made using recycled material, which has defects and as result more pops and clicks. The heavier brand new material is more consistent, cohesive, dense and as such has far fewer defects.
Some stylus and cartridges are more sensitive to VTA than others, so you really need to test yours. My friend, the vinyl freak, has the 2 settings marked on his tone arm which he originally set by ear. He does have a Stevenson alignment protractor, but he uses it more for confirming that his "by ear" setup is logical.
Hope that helps
Cheers
Gary
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 18:33:54 GMT -5
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Dec 1, 2016 18:39:15 GMT -5
I'll chime in where Gary left off.
MoFi albums: I have a few and they all sound great and as a rule I think most of them are a good bet for excellent analog playback. Are they the best? Well truth is nowadays there are a lot of excellent productions on vinyl, Mofi does not have the corner on the market by any means. Reference Recordings, Blue Note and many others come to mind. Put a Doug Macleod RR 45 RPM record on and if your TT is set up correctly your jaw will drop. Absolutely amazing sound quality.
Re-issues with horrible sound: This is not the first time I've heard this or rather about this, but I must be living a blessed life because every re-issue I have bought sounds demonstrably better than their original releases and all of them have been mastered by some of the most legendary master technicians in the business. The vinyl is better, much better, as Gary mentioned and the techniques and quality pressings all go to making a much better sounding record IMHO.
In the old glory days of vinyl playback you were lucky to get a 150 gram pressing and very few were made from virgin vinyl. Regarding VTA and thicker records, I once read a note from Analog Planet (I think) that the difference in VTA for a 180 gram vs 200 gram was negligible requiring a microscopic change at the pivot. On the other VPI makes a really nice TT that does VTA on the fly. For now I figure there a much bigger fish to fry than being overly concerned about the VTA for a mere 20 grams of weight and the additional thickness this contributes.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 2, 2016 7:18:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Dec 2, 2016 8:58:32 GMT -5
Hello all...I have only been re-born into vinyl for about a year or so...Although I have learned quite a bit regarding the Hardware side of things, album related, I am not ready for primetime! When it comes to the actual record itself I am a bit, well, ignorant! I know this topic has probably been beaten to death but I would like insight on the following if anyone can help that would be much appreciated! 1. Why and what does half speed recordings accomplish? LARGER DYNAMIC RANGE 2. Are Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (MOFI) albums worth the additional cost? YES 3. What/Why are some "large" albums recorded at a speed of 45? Is there an advantage? 4. Why are some re-issues/releases horrible sounding? BAD MASTERING 5. Why would a 180 gram plus album be "better" AND since the album is thicker is it necessary to re-adjust VTA? LESS LIKELY TO WARP . USUALLY NO TO THE VTA ADJUSTMENT I do feel a bit stoopid asking all these questions at one time but I am tired of guessing...Thanks again! THE LED ZEP REISSUES DO NOT SOUND AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL>GOOD LUCK FINDING ONE IN PERFECT SHAPE Your welcome |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 2, 2016 10:27:07 GMT -5
In the case of a remaster I concur this would be very high among the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why. But not all bad sounding reissues have been remastered so there's other factors involved, such as the pressing plant, which stampers were used, and what condition the stampers were in at the time when the record was pressed. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 2, 2016 10:55:59 GMT -5
re Mobile Fidelity remasters (vinyl). I haven't heard any of the recent releases - so I'm speaking from experience with the original ones. (I probably owned about 20 of the original 100 or so of their vinyl remasters.) The physical quality of their remasters was excellent (they had very low surface noise, rarely had flaws, tended to resist warping, and were usually clean and tick-free - relatively). In addition to "technical quality", virtually every MOFI vinyl I heard sounded significantly different than the original issue (unlike some "remasters" they really were usually remixed as well as simply remastered). While MOST people agree that MOST of their reissues sound better than the original, that is, and will remain, a matter of personal preference. I personally preferred most of their re-masters to the original pressings (they also had pretty good taste, and usually only re-issued "real classic albums"). Of the dozen or so remasters of Dark Side of the Moon I've heard, I think theirs was the best vinyl one, although I like the EMI CD version from 2003 and the 24/96k version from the Immersion Set better. Note that their CD remasters also share most of the virtues of their vinyl remasters (at least the older ones did). Incidentally, if you're looking for remasters that actually were remixed, and tend to sound noticeably different than the originals, the DCC Gold CD remasters are also known for that. Hello all...I have only been re-born into vinyl for about a year or so...Although I have learned quite a bit regarding the Hardware side of things, album related, I am not ready for primetime! When it comes to the actual record itself I am a bit, well, ignorant! I know this topic has probably been beaten to death but I would like insight on the following if anyone can help that would be much appreciated! 1. Why and what does half speed recordings accomplish? LARGER DYNAMIC RANGE 2. Are Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (MOFI) albums worth the additional cost? YES 3. What/Why are some "large" albums recorded at a speed of 45? Is there an advantage? 4. Why are some re-issues/releases horrible sounding? BAD MASTERING 5. Why would a 180 gram plus album be "better" AND since the album is thicker is it necessary to re-adjust VTA? LESS LIKELY TO WARP . USUALLY NO TO THE VTA ADJUSTMENT I do feel a bit stoopid asking all these questions at one time but I am tired of guessing...Thanks again! THE LED ZEP REISSUES DO NOT SOUND AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL>GOOD LUCK FINDING ONE IN PERFECT SHAPE Your welcome |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 2, 2016 11:11:31 GMT -5
I've got to chime in here about "the glory days of vinyl".... and also about terms like "virgin vinyl". (As someone who was actually there at the time.) Back when vinyl was simply "what there was" the quality of vinyl albums varied VERY widely. MoFi made a big deal of "virgin vinyl" because many other record manufacturers actually used various types of recycled vinyl. When records are manufactured (at least the original way), the blob of vinyl goop is put into the press, and the sides close..... The extra plastic that squishes out of the edges is trimmed off, falls into a bin, and gets reused (which is OK - as long as the bin is kept clean). However, because vinyl was somewhat expensive, even records that simply hadn't sold were melted back down and recycled (like road tar). And, believe it or not, it wasn't at all uncommon to see a lump in your nice pristine new album..... And sometimes it was a bit of the label from the album they'd recycled, or a bad pressing they'd tossed back into the vat, and melted down to make your nice new one. And, if that sometimes happened, you can imagine how many flecks of dust and bits of dirt sometimes ended up there as well. There's also the issue that the long chain molecules in vinyl "break down" when you reheat and reuse them too many times - so the vinyl itself "deteriorates" a little bit. So, when they promised "virgin vinyl", they were offering assurances that none of this hanky-panky would interfere with the quality of THEIR albums..... (And, since MoFi albums were known for being very quiet, it seemed to be true.) Back in the day, MoFi got a reputation for being THE company for high quality re-masters of classic rock albums..... (There were a few other similar labels.... but none as prolific or well known.) So, you do frequently see MoFi vinyl albums on eBay at reasonable prices and, if you like vinyl, they're probably a good bet.... (I can't honestly say whether their recent pressings have held to their original standards cuz I don't buy vinyl any more.) I'll chime in where Gary left off. MoFi albums: I have a few and they all sound great and as a rule I think most of them are a good bet for excellent analog playback. Are they the best? Well truth is nowadays there are a lot of excellent productions on vinyl, Mofi does not have the corner on the market by any means. Reference Recordings, Blue Note and many others come to mind. Put a Doug Macleod RR 45 RPM record on and if your TT is set up correctly your jaw will drop. Absolutely amazing sound quality. Re-issues with horrible sound: This is not the first time I've heard this or rather about this, but I must be living a blessed life because every re-issue I have bought sounds demonstrably better than their original releases and all of them have been mastered by some of the most legendary master technicians in the business. The vinyl is better, much better, as Gary mentioned and the techniques and quality pressings all go to making a much better sounding record IMHO. In the old glory days of vinyl playback you were lucky to get a 150 gram pressing and very few were made from virgin vinyl. Regarding VTA and thicker records, I once read a note from Analog Planet (I think) that the difference in VTA for a 180 gram vs 200 gram was negligible requiring a microscopic change at the pivot. On the other VPI makes a really nice TT that does VTA on the fly. For now I figure there a much bigger fish to fry than being overly concerned about the VTA for a mere 20 grams of weight and the additional thickness this contributes. Hope this helps |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Dec 2, 2016 11:33:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Dec 2, 2016 12:31:53 GMT -5
I have several MSFL UQHR disc that really sound fine
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Dec 2, 2016 12:50:50 GMT -5
I have several MSFL UQHR disc that really sound fine Ditto! |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Dec 2, 2016 13:00:21 GMT -5
Sony, how should I say this?,,,,,,,,SUCKS!  |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Dec 2, 2016 14:21:23 GMT -5
1. Why and what does half speed recordings accomplish?
The thought is that the slower speed makes higher fidelity possible. Records are a physical playback medium, and I could see how that COULD make a difference.
2. Are Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (MOFI) albums worth the additional cost?
Most of the ones I have purchased I would say yes. Let me chime in with Keith to say that they sweated the small stuff. The vinyl compound was quiet, they pressed them right, and they often chose albums I was interested in because they were well recorded.
3. What/Why are some "large" albums recorded at a speed of 45? Is there an advantage?
Again, since vinyl is a physical medium, the thought is that more physical vinyl is used for less seconds of sound, so that will result in increased fidelity. I have one 45 recording, Get Happy by Elvis Costello. They HAD to release that as two albums because the original had to be compressed and compressed and compressed to get all that music to fit on one lp. The album sounds better than any other copy of that album I have owned or heard (original Brit, Japanese, a few different American vinyl and cd releases) but it sounds like it was basically remixed. No problem, I love it, but it sounds like the bass was juiced a little and it was remixed.
4. Why are some re-issues/releases horrible sounding?
Record companies are businesses and some businesses are interested in taking advantage of market interest to make a quick buck by putting out a cheap product at a higher price to ride the coat tails of people who are doing it right. Also, some times the original tape sucks and there is no way to equal much less surpass the vinyl made when the tapes were young.
5. Why would a 180 gram plus album be "better" AND since the album is thicker is it necessary to re-adjust VTA?
I think that the vinyl sounds better because they are particular about the pressing and the formula, I think that the 180 gram thing is more marketing. That is just me and my ears. Many people who know more about cartridge geometry and playback say that small changes in vta take large changes in record or arm height and that the small difference between 180 gram and lesser or 200 gram pressings does not meet the qualification for a serious change as far as the math is concerned.
Lots of opinions in this post, but you asked! 8)
Trey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2016 11:40:35 GMT -5
All great information! Thanks! I have ordered my first MOFI album (The Cars)...I have listened to the CD and Album a 1,000 times so I know it well! When I listen to the MOFI I will report my findings!
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Dec 3, 2016 13:10:01 GMT -5
Yeah, the Cars album is nice. It is strange to think of a New Wave band benefitting from a higher resolution treatment, but those records were well played and well recorded.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmule on Jan 8, 2017 23:17:47 GMT -5
Don't feel stupid asking questions...you gain knowledge by asking questions, and that's what I love about this forum, everyone seems willing to help. I just answered the questions that I thought I could add value to.
2. Are Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (MOFI) albums worth the additional cost?
---it all depends, worth and value are subjective terms. Some say that MOFI has a certain sound - I have 30-40 albums, and think they all sound good, so maybe I like their sound. If you spend anytime on Steve Hoffman's website, (be careful) you will be overloaded with a boatload of information - some good, some questionable. I think MFSL are worth the money, I was quite happy when they released a couple of Grateful Dead albums. I would also emphasize I have about 50 Analogue Productions albums and have not found a stinker in the bunch - I actually prefer AP over MFSL, but mainly because AP caters more to my musical taste. On the other hand, Friday Music has been very hit or miss with me, to the point I no longer buy anything from them.
4. Why are some re-issues/releases horrible sounding?
I believe mastering plays the biggest role - seems to be more of an art than a science. Some labels take more time/concern on how they master to the specific medium (MP3, CD, Vinyl, etc) while other labels do not.
I am way out on the fringe because the only vinyl I buy must be AAA vinyl - which is all analog from start to finish, no digital remastering or digitally sourced from the master tape, etc. This is a sketchy area as most labels will not advertise how they obtained the master recording. I'm aware of a handful of labels that are forthcoming with how they obtain the master recording (MFSL, AP, ORG, Classic, Reference Recordings, Music Matters)..I'm sure there are more, but that's just off the top of my head...
I'm not against digital in anyway, but I think it is silly to buy a recording that was recorded in analog, then digitized, then put back into analog. I would rather by the DSD, SACD, or HI-Rez digital file. And before anyone starts picking on me....out of convenience, I listen to more digital than vinyl. I think both are successful - but I prefer vinyl, and especially mono vinyl.
For a interesting digital technology for recordings, check out www.plangentprocesses.com/index_save2.htm in a nutshell, it's a digital system used to clean up tape noise rumble of the heads when playing master tapes...I own over 100 cd's that use this and I'm very impressed.
5. Why would a 180 gram plus album be "better" AND since the album is thicker is it necessary to re-adjust VTA? It's my understanding the thickness of the record was only to prevent warping, and therefore potentially increasing longevity. Technically, yes, you should adjust the VTA.
hope that helps......be well |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jan 18, 2017 1:59:20 GMT -5
First, one of the really neat companies from the 'direct to disc' era was Telarc. These made the transition to CD very easy since they were also recorded. The might have used 1/2" 'half track' tape?
The pure White Virgin Vinyl albums were very quiet.
The CDs I own from them are all excellent. My Telarc Vinyl is all now long-gone. I miss the Bach recorded at the Garden Grove Church.
Now? Why does Slower speed help a disc recording?
Let's take the example of a 33 rpm standard 'record'.
They are what is called Constant Angular Velocity. They ALWAYS go the same RPM. It is called CAV in the trade.
So, at the EDGE of a 12" record the LINEAR velocity is about 36" per revolution. The needle can easily track side-to-side and you'll hear from very high to low frequencies reproduced easily.
Now, for the INSIDE grooves. SAME 33 rpm results in only about maybe 12" per revolution into which the same information much be packed as the 'longer' groove available at the EDGE of the record.
One recording of the 1812 Overture is famous for blowing the needle out of the groove during the CannonFire section. It is also near the end of the side at the worst possible place, technically.
For comparison, a CD is a CLV recording. That is Constant Linear Velocity. So, the disc is Always speeding up as it tracks from inside 'grooves' to outside. It always reads the same number of bits per second.
To use somewhat better numbers? 33 1/3 rpm is about 0.56 revs per second. For a 12" diameter, that works out to about 20" per second. For a 5" diameter INNER groove, it works out to about 8 3/4" per second.
High frequency needle velocity would be VERY high at the lower linear speed. Don't forget the needle would oscillate at the same speed in each case for the same frequency. The needle VELOCITY would be higher for the inner groove.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 18, 2017 11:25:54 GMT -5
All good information.... I would add one thing about the difference between CDs and LPs - at a more conceptual level. All of those factors matter with a vinyl album because records are a mechanical recording medium. Every one of those changes, from linear velocity, to the amount of pressure exerted on each side of the record groove, has a direct impact on the signal - and on what you hear. This means that things like rotational speed and stylus pressure are critical throughout the entire process. With a CD the exact opposite is true; as long as all the data is read correctly, and there are no data errors, nothing else matters. Here's a piece of interesting trivia - at least from an audio perspective. While we still technically describe a CD drive as "a constant linear velocity" device, and they all still read a given track or sector at a constant linear velocity, that description is very misleading for modern CD drives. The way all modern computer drives, and most modern audio drives as well, operate is this.... The data is actually "played" from a memory buffer. A processor reads the data from the buffer, using an accurate digital clock, and sends it to the DAC. This is the "constant velocity" part that relates to the audio data being delivered at a constant rate. The data is clocked out of the buffer at precisely "a 1x data rate" and sent to the DAC. However, the way the data is read from the disc into the buffer is somewhat different. The processor and control mechanism monitors the status of the buffer and simply requests more data whenever the buffer starts to run low. The drive then "fetches" that data from the disc itself and sends it to the buffer. However, with modern drives, the disc is almost always read at a MUCH higher speed that the speed at which the data is used. (Each read is still performed at a constant linear velocity, but the data is read at the fastest rate that the drive can reliably read at the physical position on the disc where that particular data is stored. This is typically at around 10x the normal rate near the center of the disc, and as much as 50x, or even more, near the outside edge.) The drive then tests the data for errors, corrects any errors that it does detect, and sends the data on to replenish the buffer. In other words, while the data is played from the buffer at a steady rate, it is usually read from the disc and used to refill the buffer in very short fast little bursts. For all the now-horrified audiophiles out there, remember that ALL THAT MATTERS IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU HEAR is how fast the data comes out of the buffer - and THAT rate is controlled by a very accurate and stable clock. There is absolutely no benefit to be had by "refilling the buffer smoothly". (The buffer is a digital electronic circuit, the ONLY thing that affects how smoothly it delivers data to the DAC is the quality of the output clocking circuitry.) First, one of the really neat companies from the 'direct to disc' era was Telarc. These made the transition to CD very easy since they were also recorded. The might have used 1/2" 'half track' tape? The pure White Virgin Vinyl albums were very quiet. The CDs I own from them are all excellent. My Telarc Vinyl is all now long-gone. I miss the Bach recorded at the Garden Grove Church. Now? Why does Slower speed help a disc recording? Let's take the example of a 33 rpm standard 'record'. They are what is called Constant Angular Velocity. They ALWAYS go the same RPM. It is called CAV in the trade. So, at the EDGE of a 12" record the LINEAR velocity is about 36" per revolution. The needle can easily track side-to-side and you'll hear from very high to low frequencies reproduced easily. Now, for the INSIDE grooves. SAME 33 rpm results in only about maybe 12" per revolution into which the same information much be packed as the 'longer' groove available at the EDGE of the record. One recording of the 1812 Overture is famous for blowing the needle out of the groove during the CannonFire section. It is also near the end of the side at the worst possible place, technically. For comparison, a CD is a CLV recording. That is Constant Linear Velocity. So, the disc is Always speeding up as it tracks from inside 'grooves' to outside. It always reads the same number of bits per second. To use somewhat better numbers? 33 1/3 rpm is about 0.56 revs per second. For a 12" diameter, that works out to about 20" per second. For a 5" diameter INNER groove, it works out to about 8 3/4" per second. High frequency needle velocity would be VERY high at the lower linear speed. Don't forget the needle would oscillate at the same speed in each case for the same frequency. The needle VELOCITY would be higher for the inner groove. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jan 18, 2017 13:42:59 GMT -5
I wanted to KISS it. No need to go into buffers from my end of the telescope. But it might be fun to add that you can buy 'reclockers' which will issue a Hyper-Accurate BitStream. In the Digitl Audio area a number of discsssions are always centered on 'JITTER' and Dither and a whole bunch of other tech stuff. hifipig.com/wyred4sound-remedy-digital-reclocker/One thing I've come to accept is that you can have 2 CD players with the same 'chipset'. One is more msically Satisfying. It's the implimentation / parts / attention to detail. As for Vinyl? Endless talk of tracking force, Anti Skate, VTA, Record Matts, Clamping, Vacuum Clamps. You NAME it. Speaking of Buffers? It's time for Breakfast. My input buffer is a little 'low' and needs some data. |
|
