Spectral analysis of Vinyl...

  • Thread starter Thread starter evm1024
  • Start date Start date
evm1024

evm1024

New member
I came across this link:

http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html

Which I found very interesting. It shows some of the spectral content of vinyl recordings to be way out to beyond 96 kHz.

Of course some say that you need not record anything above 20 kHz cause we can't hear it (make that about 8 kHz in my case).

We know that humans can detect both direct ultrasonic sounds throught skin and so on as well as the harmonics that the ultrasonics create. Nothing that you hear as sound but rather a you detect it as a sense of the space.

Just found it interesting..... And thought to share for all yo vinyl buffs.

-Regards, Ethan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe that explains all the esoteric descriptions of analog recording, "space," "air" etc. I always wondered if playing a record isn't making somthing bounce or rattle in the room in a different way than a CD. Or maybe it is more slightly closer to the original performance in the entire impact. I think there is some science on this? I remember reading something about that a while ago.
 
A little above my head but some interisting info. Thanks for sharing this.
 
I always wondered if playing a record isn't making somthing bounce or rattle in the room in a different way than a CD.

Definitely. I'd venture to guess that the higher frequencies you can't hear also in ways shape the lower ones you CAN hear creating that sense of something beyond what your hearing. With a bias tone for example, you can't hear it but it physically scatters all the particles on the tape. So could it be what you DON"T hear sometimes makes a difference too?

Like in music, sometimes it's the space between and the notes that are omitted that make a difference.
 
But how did it get there...

But how it got there is what I wonder about. I realize a higher speed r2r can capture frequencies well above human hearing range, but how many microphones go much above 20khz? and for the rest of the path along its way to vinyl pressing? ***is it possible that some of the gear including the actual record player add harmonics of the original content?***

to test this I'd like to see some spectral analysis of vinyl that was originally recorded digitally and maybe mastered analog. or even test a cd recording that's been dubbed onto R2R.

recently a friend of mine commented on some of the albums i've recorded - she said of them all its the one she happens to have on vinyl that works best to dispel 'bad vibes'. With her arguably 'non audiophile' perception, she did seem to think it had to do with it being vinyl and even thought to ask me if the album was originally recorded digital or analog. - they were all recorded digital.

i'm guessing that anything that's been put onto vinyl (or other analog medium) and played from vinyl (or other analog medium) is going to sound 'more alive' regardless of the original source. If that is true, it would be interesting to have some ideas as to why. Added harmonic resonances/distortions? better harmonic 'cohesion' of content (whatever such a conceptualization would mean) or?
 
I've always been a bit put off by audiophile demands of "flat" equalization and "zero harmonic distortion". In the real world neither of these exist or are actually desirable. An instrument played and recorded in an anechoic chamber may be free of any outside harmonics or "distortions", but will sound un natural. It is the very interactions or "distortions" of the sound that arise from the sounds playing off of walls and objects, creating other harmonics, time delays, etc. are what we expect to hear and what gives sound life. When listening to recordings where the entire piece was recorded live with all of the instuments in the same room, there is an interplay between the harmonics of the various instruments that one cannot fully capture thru an individually tracked and mixed song. More so, there is NO harmonic blending in digital.....ones and zeros are always ones and zeros.

Yes, there is an audible difference even in digital put on vinyl, but this is likely due to the introduction of some (good) harmonic distortion introduced in the analog cutting head and the resistance of the laquer media being cut.
It reverses some of the sterile nature of digital recording.
 
Vinyl is final!

That is some refreshing info! My goal is to have some vinyl of my own in the future.
VP
 
Interesting stuff. What I glean from it is that there are non-source elements added to vinyl that enhance the listening experience. This goes along with my “Better than live” characterization of analog in general. And as I’ve said many times, accuracy is for machines. Listenability is part of the human equation that has been lost… and the music industry has suffered for it.
 
Don't assume non-source

I don't think that it is an either or situation RE source of ultrasonics in vinyl or tape for that matter. Only digital uses brick-wall filters in an attempt to compleatly remove ultrasonics. Analog as a recording chain never had the need to remove them so whatever was there at whatever level got recorded at best as the deck or cutting lath could do.

For example any of the mics you have spec some freq range. Say 40 kHz to 18 kHz +-3 dB. This just says that in that range the response varies up to 3 dB not that it ends at 18kHz. It might be 6 dB down at 20 and 18 dB down at 22 kHz. Even - 30 dB from 0 VU signals are audible.

I just calibrated my ATR and measured the -6 dB point of 25 kHz at 15 ips and 35 kHz at 30 ips.

I guess the 2 points are that analog does not attempt to get rid of ultrasonics and that they have some level greater than none in the chain. And that this is not mutually exclusive with "self generated" ultrasonics.

Regards, Ethan
 
I got into cd's in the mid-eighties and went about 15 years without any vinyl. the past 4 years I've been listening to about 90% vinyl, because I can actually afford to got to the used record store and come home with piles of great music! I have a pretty decent hifi (B&W DM580's--pioneer sx-1250 receiver--Dual 1249 turntable with Grado cartidge) and now that I only occasionally put on a CD, I can honestly say that records are WAY more enjoyable. this is not simply because of nostalgia for my high school days--I am talking about the sound here. yeah, CD's do sound "crisper, cleaner"--but they are grating on the nerves in time, especially at higher volumes. and the better recorded vinyl simply blows the CD's away! check this out: http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audio_Quality_Matters
 
Interesting stuff. What I glean from it is that there are non-source elements added to vinyl that enhance the listening experience. This goes along with my “Better than live” characterization of analog in general. And as I’ve said many times, accuracy is for machines. Listenability is part of the human equation that has been lost… and the music industry has suffered for it.

Actually I dont go to live performances any more for this very reason. Whether it's Placido Domingo, Renee Fleming, or any of the great vocalists through out the musical world, none of their voices sound as good in person as after being recorded and played back on analog formats. Far too sterile sounding. Like a machine.

I hear there's a voice trainer in the USA who is teaching aspiring vocalists to train their voices to sound like they were recorded on analog tape. There's huge bucks to be made here and I expect there will be such voice coaches springing up all over the world soon.

Oh and I nearly forgot. The same voice coach is also training vocalists to produce ultrasonics when they sing. This is a much harder technique to master as the vocalists cant hear these ultrasonics and neither can the voice trainer or the audience but apparently it leads to so sort of ecstatic euphoria in certain audiophiles who have more money than sense.
Like that website cited by Ethan said in the features for its product, with this software you can actually upsample a track that had no ultrasonics in it, right up to 192khz sample rate. Sure, it wont produce anything that wasnt there on the recording in the first place. But you can content yourself that if there HAD been ultrasonics on the original recording, they WOULD HAVE now be recorded on the upsampled file.
That's reassuring to know. If I had the money I too would spend it on a system that could replay information that WASNT recorded but COULD HAVE BEEN...
And if it HAD been recorded, maybe I MIGHT have been able to feel it through my skin....

Oh Lord, here we go again.
 
Aw, come on Tim. You know that live and studio recording are two different things. Studio recording is a different art form. Especially since the Beatles. And even live you use different treatments for individual sounds, fine tune and balance the mix in auditorium. It's all about tone in either case. And lastly, digital is not the same thing as live either.
 
Aw, come on Tim. You know that live and studio recording are two different things. Studio recording is a different art form. Especially since the Beatles. And even live you use different treatments for individual sounds, fine tune and balance the mix in auditorium. It's all about tone in either case. And lastly, digital is not the same thing as live either.

Your point being...?
 
I thought you were arguing Beck's point of the recording being better than live? Almost always I prefer a studio recording rather than a live recording. It hardly ever matters how well a live performance was recorded. I'd also rather listen to a studio recording than go see a live band half the time too. That's not to say that some bands don't sound great live, or that some perfomances aren't phenomenal, it's just two different things. You can't generally experience, a song being performed live, up close the way you can a recorded song.
 
I thought you were arguing Beck's point of the recording being better than live? Almost always I prefer a studio recording rather than a live recording. It hardly ever matters how well a live performance was recorded. I'd also rather listen to a studio recording than go see a live band half the time too. That's not to say that some bands don't sound great live, or that some perfomances aren't phenomenal, it's just two different things. You can't generally experience, a song being performed live, up close the way you can a recorded song.

Thanks for the clarification. I think you have misunderstood Beck's point. Beck's point was not that recordings as such are better than live (though he might also believe that) but that ANALOG recordings and specifically the distortions they introduce are better than if those distortions were not introduced.
 
Deep Listening Round Table

--but they are grating on the nerves in time, especially at higher volumes. and the better recorded vinyl simply blows the CD's away! check this out: http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audio_Quality_Matters

that was an interesting discussion (the video link), as I think is ours here. For some of us, or at least myself the interesting and practical question to think of is in regards to how we would like to make our vinyl records. is it important to keep the whole chain analog like those 'civil war reenactment' style band purists? or how much of the 'analog emotional experience' is projected if a digital recording is turned out on vinyl (I'm guessing thats how most new vinyls are made - from original digital recordings). and what about mastering - better to master analog? or perhaps digital mastering at 24-bit/192kHz?

and then for curiosity sake it would be fascinating to see what frequencies different analog gear was passing through. what frequencies do OUR turntables / reel to reel machines give out. I've got a 24-bit/192kHz a/d converter and I'm guessing many people here have as well - surely not as exacting as the "Lynx Aurora" used in the Supertramp test but something to test with none the less. but what about a spectrum analysis prog that goes up that high - does anyone know of any free or cheap ones that go up to 90k?

good to keep in mind that that Supertramp record was remastered specially for that edition (at half speed!) which seems to be an Audiophile label - I wonder how many real world albums have that kind of high freq content.... but perhaps most importantly, that bell sound IS rather loaded with high frequency harmonics... I wonder how much high freq content is in an acoustic guitar(with old strings) recorded with a tube condenser...

In my practical meditations on the subject I guess I'm thinking that an interesting work flow would be to record on to 1/2" 8 track tape, mix analog onto stereo 24-bit/192kHz wave files. I've never really been so particular about the higher bit rates "because you can't hear it", and it makes the computer work slower, but this research gives me a new perspective. and the high bit rate files can be shared as well - Windows Media player even plays them - though what comes out of most generic D/A converters could be another matter...
 
James Boyk

There has been a LP.CD.Tape recording made that can be directly compared. Here is a quote from the website:

World's only comparison of (a) pure digital, (b) digital-from-analog, and (c) pure analog recordings, made at the same time from the same microphones; (a) and (b) on the CD, (c) on the LP. The analog master tape was the first tape made on MagnesaurusTM. From the album notes: "Interested listeners may use this double release of LP and CD to investigate some timely questions: Given an analog master tape, which medium preserves its virtues better, LP or CD? (Compare the LP with the analog half of the CD.) Does a CD sound better made from digital or analog master tape? (Compare the two versions on the CD.) And most important, which preserves the emotional impact of the music better, purely analog or purely digital recording? (Compare the LP with the digital half of the CD.)"

The link is: http://www.performancerecordings.com/albums.html#available

And the recording is PR7.

I have both the LP and the CD but have not had time to sit down and closely listen.

Regards, ethan
 
I just calibrated my ATR and measured the -6 dB point of 25 kHz at 15 ips and 35 kHz at 30 ips.

Hm...

That's....sick. Sick, sick, sick.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I think you have misunderstood Beck's point. Beck's point was not that recordings as such are better than live (though he might also believe that) but that ANALOG recordings and specifically the distortions they introduce are better than if those distortions were not introduced.

I think the issue is why does analog subjectively sound better to some people than digital. I've read it somewhere that the content you can't hear has an impact the room environment. The information is there in analog and not there in digital. Whether or not it has an impact is the debate here, and I don't know one way or the other science wise. I do know that all analog systems roll off, whereas with digital they cut off. There isn't anything above ~22kHz in digital, but your stereo may be able to reproduce those distortions, harmonics, etc. -6dB at 30kHz is still not 0.
 
Last edited:
I would have thought the point of comparison and the standard by which ANY recording is measured is the actual live voice or instrument, not another recording.
Shootouts between various recordings wont do. You've lost the original. People talk about "the original and the best"? That's what I'm talking about.
Is this really too hard to understand?
 
Back
Top