Slashdot Mirror
'High Definition Vinyl' Is Coming As Early As Next Year (pitchfork.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Pitchfork: In 2016, a European patent filing described a way of manufacturing records that the inventors claimed would have higher audio fidelity, louder volume, and longer playing times than conventional LPs. Now, the Austrian-based startup Rebeat Innovation has received $4.8 million in funding for the initiative, founder and CEO Gunter Loibl told Pitchfork. Thanks to the investment, the first "HD vinyl" albums could hit stores as early as 2019, Loibl said. The HD vinyl process involves converting audio digitally to a 3D topographic map. Lasers are then used to inscribe the map onto the "stamper," the part that stamps the grooves into the vinyl. According to Loibl, these methods allow for records to be made more precisely and with less loss of audio information. The results, he said, are vinyl LPs that can have up to 30 percent more playing time, 30 percent more amplitude, and overall more faithful sound reproduction. The technique would also avoid the chemicals that play a role in traditional vinyl manufacturing. Plus, the new-school HD vinyl LPs would still play on ordinary record players.
Yeah, it goes to 11
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The volume of the record is dependent on the movement of the needle which is dependent on the width of the track. Louder tracks are wider which reduces the length of play. Remember those old compilation albums with 10+ tracks per side sounded tinny compared to the original because to fit the tracks were compressed and volume (especially bass) was lost.
Larger dynamic range, I'm sure. Stupid dumbed down writing.
Or.. now hear me out on this one... or ... we could just, you know, send the digitally converted audio, you know, without converting it back into a bumpy piece of plastic.
I know this might sound radical, but it seems to me that converting analog sound to digital format then to a digital 3d map then to a laser-cut stamper then to a piece of bumpy vinyl then to a vibrating stylus and into a varying electrical current to drive an amplification system to run the speakers that you listen to might just be a little more complicated than just taking the digital format for storage and transport and converting that back into analog sound at playback.
'cause they're cheaper?...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
the rush of high definition 8 track players that are sure to follow....
If only record companies would put a fraction as much effort and resources into mastering their CDs properly and making them sound good, all this would be unnecessary.
I used to think like that, but it occurred to me to just look at it differently.
Steampunk aesthetic is producing modern outcomes with archaic (generally 19th century) means and/or styling. Generally it involves overly complicated mechanisms (as complex as needed to achieve the outcome mechanically, only 'overly complicated' when compared to a solution using electronics.)
Using rotating turntables, vinyl and needles to reproduce sound fits this description neatly. So all those people who like vinyl are just a variety of steampunks (whether or not they realize it.) And I'm cool with steampunks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The whole obsession with analog formats (and super-digital formats like SACD) stems from lay people's fundamental misunderstanding of digital sampling. It's not intuitively obvious that a series of discrete digital samples at 2x the highest frequency you want to capture only has a single valid analog mathematical solution, and so the digital sample is a perfect representation of the original analog waveform. Because it's not intuitively obvious, people convince themselves that the digital sample must somehow be missing something that the analog sample captures.
Well, to nitpick, Nyquist's theorem applies only to signals of infinite length, and in fact a 20kHz signal can't be perfectly reproduced with a 40kHz sampling frequency because you lose phase information on any finite signal.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that this actually adds up to a perceptible loss of information in the signal, or that 'transients' are in any way different to high frequency signal components, or that Vinyl is superior. I'm just nitpicking, because it's Friday afternoon, and I've nothing better to do.
PPH theorized:
TFS says they can still be played on old turntables. It seems that what they are doing is taking the digital audio, computing the shape of the groove and passing that on to a numerically controlled laser cutter. The end result is a record track much the same as (and compatible with) older LPs. But they have removed the limitations of the analog master cutting techniques.
It's important to keep in mind that professional digital audio recording is done at frequency sampling rates as high as 320kbps sampling rates at 32-bit resolution (although 192 kbps at 24-bit resolution is more common). In the process of mastering for CD, the final mix is down-sampled to 44.1 kbps at 16-bit resolution (the CDA standard). So the source material is of FAR higher audio quality than the end product that consumers hear.
Rhino Records has issued a stream of premium-quality LPs for the audiophile market that are pressed using 180-gram, very high-grade vinyl discs. These extra-thick records, made of nearly bubble-free vinyl, sound very different than the old-school LPs I bought in my youth. At first play, they are nearly as noiseless as CDs, they're highly warp-resistant, and they're mastered at higher SPLs than the original vinyl releases. On an audiophile-grade sound system, they make the CD versions sound as sonically-impoverished as they actually are.
It's not just the much-vaunted analog "warmth" of the vinyl sound (in reality, that's a product of the distortion characteristics of the vinyl/needle/cartridge/preamp signal chain), either. They offer measurably-better resolution than CDA, and the product of that higher resolution is a richness and detail to the sound they produce of which CD audio simply is incapable.
If you play them on a laser turntable, and keep them properly stored to minimize their exposure to dust, they'll retain that pristine, first-play sound indefinitely. This new vinyl format, then, holds the potential to make future such premium LP releases sound even better than the current audiophile versions.
I'm interested in hearing whether the real-world improvement matches the hype. And I'm willing to withhold judgement on it until I get a chance to do so ...
Check out my novel.
No, still not true.
CD, as a medium, has every audio advantage over vinyl other than myth.
What is different — and does matter — is the recording technique. Vinyl with good recording technique can sound better than a CD with poor recording technique.
Part of what takes people legitimately back to vinyl is that many older recordings sound better, primarily because the dynamic range wasn't horribly crushed, as is often the approach taken today with CD recordings.
But best recording technique on vinyl, against best recording technique on CD... CD wins on every possible audible metric. Signal to noise, dynamic range, accuracy of reproduction, consistent audible frequency response, ancillary distortion, immunity to surface defects that damage the recording, repeatability, THD, etc.
Vinyl offers some non-audio features, such as large jackets, with larger artwork. Those same large jackets can, and often do, carry great liner notes you won't get with a CD due to the packaging area; such as interesting colors and artwork on the center of the platter. And of course, for those of us who are older, just plain old nostalgia.
Personally, speaking as an older fellow, I don't find the trade of the art and liner notes worth the candle when I can have better audio from a CD. I buy from high-end CD makers such as Telarc, and those productions are well worth the money spent. But when I can't find a good modern recording of something I treasure, then sometimes, it's vinyl FTW.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So what you're saying is you prefer the way the vinyl was mastered.
Take the output of your record player, pump it into a moderately okay sound card, write the files to a standard CD and then tell us if you can still tell the sound apart. I bet you can't.
By the way this has also fuelled an online piracy campaign that records vinyl in HighDef and then gets shared via FLAC. The medium itself had nothing to do with it.
Similar SACD. The SACD versions of old classics owe their sound to the remastering and sound identical whether you play the DSD bitstream perfectly though a quality DAC or you downsample to 44.1khz
It's more likely the patent involves a more "higher resolution" print, eg the grooves have a deeper print into them.
That said, "HD Vinyl" records, you have got to be shitting me. You're basically inverting causality, you can't create anything higher resolution than what you can do with 192khz 48bit 8.2 channels digitally. Analog recordings at best are equal to 32khz 24 bit recordings, and that's assuming you can get no hiss or feedback.
The only thing that has improved in the last 40 years in sound systems analog pathways are the moves from tubes to transistors, and thus the elimination of a lot of noise. The downside of that is that a lot of speaker systems have moved from being large, loud and full-range to tiny sattelite speakers with no bass. Instead you have a subwoofer that gives you the haptic feeling from sound with a deep bass range. You can not create a deep bass effect on vinyl. The upper and lower pitches on vinyl records just do not exist because it moves the needle too much.
And this is the problem with Vinyl, if you ever had a "phono" input on any device ever, the audio is very quiet, and thus plugging a record player into something without a phono input would generate a lot of hiss as it has to be amplified. The Phono input on the device actually had specific pre-amplification.
So people who think Vinyl sounds better, are full of shit, or deaf.
I Analog recordings at best are equal to 32khz 24 bit recordings, and that's assuming you can get no hiss or feedback.
Ehm no. That is a misconception. 24 bit is overkill, even for digital (most `24` bit is actually no more than 18 bit, at most, and more likely 15-16). But as far sampling rate goes, (studio) tape reels happily go over 20kHz, and so does vinyl. You may be confused by FM broadcast, which has a 15kHz bandwidth. More fair would be to compare vinyl to '48kHz/16 bit'.
So people who think Vinyl sounds better, are full of shit, or deaf.
Define better. It sounds different, i think we easily agree on that. Mechanical issues, harmonics and more all play a role. If people say that it sounds better to them, you will have to accept that as a truth, since perception is subjective by definition. It's like saying 'you cannot find yellow prettier than blue, because blue is a nicer color because it has a shorter wavelength'. For similar or other reasons, some people do prefer tube amplifiers.
It's probably said a dozen times elsewhere in this topic, but personally i think the big difference between the vinyl vs digital `experience` is in the mastering. That's most likely why this 1970's old vinyl album of [fill in favorite band] sounds better than the 2005 cd release. Disclaimer: i am one of such people.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
Yes, vinyl records were not affec-
Yes, vinyl records were not affec-
Yes, vinyl records were not affe (bump)
-tches in any way.