The Science of Vinyl/Analog Setups


It seems to me that there is too little scientific, objective evidence for why vinyl/analog setups sound the way they do. When I see discussions on tables, cartridges, tonearms and even phono cables, physical attributes are discussed; things like isolation, material, geometry, etc. and rarely are things discussed like wow, rumble, resonance, compliance, etc. Why is this? Why aren’t vinyl/analog setups discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?

Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivists” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in vinyl/analog setups. 

I know vinyl/analog setups are often system-dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xcelander

Showing 3 responses by stevecham

"...rarely are things discussed like wow, rumble, resonance, compliance, etc. Why is this? Why aren’t vinyl/analog setups discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?"

I disagree. These features and specifications are very often discussed here in these threads. I would bet that most, if not all, vinyl enthisiasts here pay very close attention to the measurable aspects for cartridges, arms and turntables when making not only decisions as to what to buy, but what to listen to before purchasing.

Do you have a specific question about any piece of equipment you're interested in?
The Science of Cables’ thread has, unsurprisingly and perhaps somewhat sadly, taken on a life of its own. The topic of cables touches very sensitive nerves in this industry/hobby and it seems most have a strong opinion about it. My hope is that in the vinyl realm, other than comparing it endlessly to digital sources (yawn), there will be civility and education. I’m here to share experience, knowledge and wisdom; I've been playing records for the past 55 years.
Didn’t take long now did it?

In analog, unlike digital, magnets or coils are moved relative to and through fields, not numbers.  What's the resolution of a field? At least no worse than the size of the quarks, muons, gluons, higgs, electrons and other particles with spins that comprise it. Certainly higher than any digitized format. More like a continuum. Plus, that field displacement directly translates from magnet or coil to the coil and magnet of the speaker, with only gain stages on the original field. No conversion to numbers and back. Nothing lost in translation. That's why we like analog. That's why the ear/brain uses it too.