AI proxy war.
Where do classical vinyl records get their rumble from?
Recently converted back to vinyl from silver disks, I am struck by how much rumble seems to be inherent in the new and used vinyl I am buying.
A case in point, is a recent Deutsche Grammophon (DG) recording (487 7484) of Mahler’s Second Symphony made at a live performance at the Sydney Opera House (I was there). The first set I bought was amongst the dirtiest pressings I have ever had, but the second set was much improved. However, there is a persistent rumble whether played on my Holbo Mk2 air bearing system or my venerable Garrard 301 (new bearing from Classic Turntable Company).
Mahler typically has huge dynamic range, from muted off-stage performers to hundreds of musicians going hell-for-leather.
The rumble could be partly caused by the venue’s air conditioning system, but I hear similar background on a Telarc recording (Stereo 10051) of Saint Saens Organ Symphony made in Philadelphia. Telarc even arranged to have local roads shut down for the recording sessions.
Similar efforts were made by DG when recording the organ at Notre Dame in Paris, where recording was done late at night to reduce traffic noise. My copy includes Dolby Atmos on Pure-Audio Bly-ray (DG 486 1466).
I was beginning to think the rumble was inherent in my tables, but then I played a German Direct Metal Mastered (DMM) set from In-Akustik for Clearaudio’s 40th anniversary (INAK 78051 2LP). It includes some Telarc tracks. This set has the quietest background I’ve never heard. There is virtually no rumble, exonerating my tables.
So apart from the recoding venue’s air conditioning and traffic noise, why do so many classical records seem to have built-in rumble? Could it be from the mastering lathe?
I am really only thinking about classical recordings where the dynamic range approximates the signal to noise ratio of vinyl, meaning that very low-level signals are musically important, while simultaneously bumping against the noise floor.
- ...
- 148 posts total
I wasn't the one who brought it up and I made a very salient point. You can be dismissive and try to put a period on it because you don't appreciate a poster's input, its not going to stop me. Oh, it's a thread and if your records are noisy, its your fault.
The above remark required absolutely no effort. I bet you're just as laissez-faire regarding everything else you do. There are innumerable legitimate sources of information both on the internet and in print if you um, make the effort. You can both grab your smart phones and go back to watching your Hello Kitty cartoons now. |
@faustuss I brought up using a mono cartridge strictly to address the OP's rumble problem, not to evaluate the merits of mono cartridges. This was obvious in my original post. |
I think they accurately reflect any low frequencies that the cartridge stylus traces. Because they 'measure' the deflection of the stylus, they give maximum output at the extreme points where the deflection is maximal. By contrast a conventional MM or MC cartridge delivers zero output at these inflection points, because they 'measure' velocity. That is why optical cartridges are renowned for delivering deep bass. So if there is rumble, optical will reproduce it whereas MM and MC might attenuate it to some extent. Optical cartridges do decrease the general noise levels from clicks and pops because in general these induce rapid changes in velocity but not much change in position. |
- 148 posts total