3 ms·

I listen to vinyl myself, and I also have some limited knowledge of the science involved. I don't claim to be any sort of an expert in acoustics but I do have a

by rusk 10y ago

I listen to vinyl myself, and I also have some limited knowledge of the science involved. I don't claim to be any sort of an expert in acoustics but I do have a basic grounding in DSP from my undergraduate days as well as high-school physics to refer to ... I have to say I enjoy vinyl for a number of non-qualitative reasons. Nostalgia. Tactility. The cover art. The fact that the medium feels like it has more of a "wholeness" to it. My system is fairly modest: A pair of battered Technics turntables plugged through a mixer as preamp into a bog-standard stereo. It's certainly not audiophile quality. But I am constantly struck by how visitors comment on the sound quality when I play my records for them. To a certain extent, I can put it down to a placebo effect, but many often refer to a "warmer" sound. Even with the dust-crackles and occasional pops! There are a couple of things I could think of that could explain it. Firstly is that the accepted human range of hearing is 20 Hz to 20 kHz .. from what I recall of CD sampling it is set at 44.1k samples per-second, twice the dynamic-range in anticipation of Nyquist aliasing. I can't help but wonder if there are "inaudible" frequencies that are chopped out in this scheme. The deep bass-tones that our ears don't pick up but are felt in our body. These frequencies could resonate external physical fixtures perhaps creating a more immersive acoustic experience. I've also heard it been said that these inaudible frequencies can be picked up by the body, in particular the stomach and chest cavity, which could give the sound a more visceral quality. Certainly this is the case in a club or even a lounge setting. Apart from being able to physically scratch and manipulate this would also explain why vinyl has persisted moreso in these environments. Aside from this acoustic hocus pocus there might be a more fundamental reason for perceived qualitative differences, and that is to do with implementation. CD as a technology is sufficiently provisioned to capture the entire range of human audio, but for reproduction you are always at the mercy of your DAC. It's important to remember that when you're listening to digital sound you are listening to an analogue signal that's reproduced by modulating an oscillator, whereas with an analogue recording you're listening to the original analogue signal. This isn't an issue for well built sound system but is that most people's experience? Whereas whenever we listen to records the DAC simply isn't an issue. This may not result in "better" sound but it would make it distinguishably "different". I remember being struck, when repairing one of my turntables just how little electronics there was on the audio line: Pretty much a straight uninterrupted line from the stylus out to the pre-amp. One final thought is that, who even listens to CDs any more? We're so used to listening to music on our phones or computers, from a number of formats at varying compression levels and of varying quality, through poor quality headphones or car stereo systems. It could just be that our expectations have been slowly been lowered by ever decreasing reductions in quality to the point that when we do hear something reproduced as its master intended it is a notable experience.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Interesting. Note: deep bass notes are reproduced just fine with digitization. Sampling at 44.1kHz doesn't mean only high-frequency sounds are represented. You only have to sample at say 100Hz or more to get bass notes.
- rusk 10y ago
  I didn't mean to suggest that sample-rate had anything to do with discarding the bass. Name-dropping Nyquist just to show off I have a little knowledge. Just that such signals may be discarded as a matter of course by filters on either side (recording/reproduction) on the basis that they are "inaudible".
beat 10y ago
The "inaudible" low frequencies are absolutely removed during mixing, or by the mastering engineer. There's probably no content below 50hz on anything you listen to. Few speakers can reproduce such low sounds (and fewer still do it with any sort of fidelity, and fewer of those are in rooms that won't freak out at the low frequencies). But the amp and speaker use enormous power trying to reproduce them! It seriously injures the sounds we can actually hear to reproduce the sounds we can't hear. Amps and speakers are the real limiting factors, not the recording medium. They distort very easily (and never read the distortion figures of amps - they're not anything like real world conditions). Mixing is done to make the speakers work well, not to be "accurate". edit: When tracking and mixing records, I routinely put a high-pass filter on every single track, specifically to prevent subsonic rumble. I often low-pass tracks as well, to limit noise, hiss, and distortion artifacts. This is so routine that even many microphones have a built-in high-pass switch. In mixing, I might high-pass guitars as high as 300hz, throwing away whole octaves of low-frequency information. This is to keep it from conflicting with kick drums, bass guitar, and other instruments that need that space. Solo the guitar in the mix, and it sounds weird. In context, you can't hear the difference in the guitar, and the mix itself sounds better.
- rusk 10y ago
  Is this a more modern practice, in the same vein as the whole compression thing or would it be something they've been doing all along? I always liked the idea of the "Naked Sound" though perhaps this hasn't ever been a thing ...

by rusk 10y ago

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Interesting. Note: deep bass notes are reproduced just fine with digitization. Sampling at 44.1kHz doesn't mean only high-frequency sounds are represented. You only have to sample at say 100Hz or more to get bass notes.

rusk 10y ago
I didn't mean to suggest that sample-rate had anything to do with discarding the bass. Name-dropping Nyquist just to show off I have a little knowledge. Just that such signals may be discarded as a matter of course by filters on either side (recording/reproduction) on the basis that they are "inaudible".

beat 10y ago

The "inaudible" low frequencies are absolutely removed during mixing, or by the mastering engineer. There's probably no content below 50hz on anything you listen to. Few speakers can reproduce such low sounds (and fewer still do it with any sort of fidelity, and fewer of those are in rooms that won't freak out at the low frequencies). But the amp and speaker use enormous power trying to reproduce them! It seriously injures the sounds we can actually hear to reproduce the sounds we can't hear. Amps and speakers are the real limiting factors, not the recording medium. They distort very easily (and never read the distortion figures of amps - they're not anything like real world conditions). Mixing is done to make the speakers work well, not to be "accurate". edit: When tracking and mixing records, I routinely put a high-pass filter on every single track, specifically to prevent subsonic rumble. I often low-pass tracks as well, to limit noise, hiss, and distortion artifacts. This is so routine that even many microphones have a built-in high-pass switch. In mixing, I might high-pass guitars as high as 300hz, throwing away whole octaves of low-frequency information. This is to keep it from conflicting with kick drums, bass guitar, and other instruments that need that space. Solo the guitar in the mix, and it sounds weird. In context, you can't hear the difference in the guitar, and the mix itself sounds better.

rusk 10y ago
Is this a more modern practice, in the same vein as the whole compression thing or would it be something they've been doing all along? I always liked the idea of the "Naked Sound" though perhaps this hasn't ever been a thing ...