"High Definition Vinyl" Coming as Early As Next Year

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,943
In a follow up to a 2016 European patent that described a new way of manufacturing vinyl records that would allow them higher audio fidelity, louder volume, and longer playing times. Pitchfork is reporting that Austrian based startup Rebeat Innovation has received $4.8 million in funding for the initiative, founder and CEO Günter Loibl told Pitchfork.

Vinyl is a pretty niche market, however $4.8 million isn't a ton of money when talking about startups now days. It will be interesting to see if this tech takes off.

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.
 
Ok, this retro vinyl crap has gone too far. Records suck compared to CDs. I remember, apparently some people don't or just get a hard on for old archaic crap and can't let go. Oh wait, can't you hear the warmth of the analog sound with a 70 dB noise floor? Scratch, hiss, pop. They are pretty loose and vague on specs.
 
Last edited:
HD Vinyl...otherwise known as CD's. Or rather..CD's in a less convenient format. For the record I do have a Vinyl collection. It is stuff my grandfather passed down to me and stuff that really isn't easily obtainable in any other format. I wouldn't consider for a second buying anything new in Vinyl.
 
Ok, this retro vinyl crap has gone too far. Records suck compared to CDs. I remember, apparently some people don't or just get a hard on for old archaic crap and can't let go. Oh wait, can't you hear the warmth of the analog sound with a 70 dB noise floor? Scratch, hiss, pop.

Agreed.

My father used to have a record shop. He always said how much better the CD format was as soon as it was released: it was smaller, sounded better, wasn't as delicate, had more capacity and you could choose the song. It was simply better on all counts.
 
This assumes all the cartridges and pre-amps in use have significant headroom left to provide 30% volume increase without any saturation/distortion.
I'm skeptical.
 
Last edited:
Agreed.

My father used to have a record shop. He always said how much better the CD format was as soon as it was released: it was smaller, sounded better, wasn't as delicate, had more capacity and you could choose the song. It was simply better on all counts.

I mean digital is so high quality you can digitize a record, flaws and all and you can't pick it out in a blind test. We can get higher SNR, better frequency response, less distorting, etc, etc out of digital. Just how it goes.
 
HD Vinyl...otherwise known as CD's. Or rather..CD's in a less convenient format. For the record I do have a Vinyl collection. It is stuff my grandfather passed down to me and stuff that really isn't easily obtainable in any other format. I wouldn't consider for a second buying anything new in Vinyl.

I still have the records I collected while in high school & college...
Wait, are you calling me old and comparing me to your grandfather? :mad:

Get off my lawn before I come out there and wave my cane at you ! :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Cant wait for HD cassettes, those will be super cool!
Back in the day we had 'type 2' chrome tapes, and later on 'type 4' metal cassettes which were even better. More sparkle but still had a measure of background hiss absent in CDs.

Back to vinyl ... with old tech the big caveat was quality and/or wear on the metal molds they were stamped from. This is why hard core collectors seek out original pressings or ones by certain producers. Can say with certainty my "Peco Duck" (George Peckam) copy of Led Zeppelin 4 sounds much better than later pressings I have acquired over the years. That said, I am not going to run out and buy HD copies of all my old albums.

[edit]
you kids and your fancy records, 8 track is where its at
Yesterday was "National 8 track day". Yes we celebrated. :D
 

Attachments

  • crazy.eight2.jpg
    crazy.eight2.jpg
    86 KB · Views: 0
Back in the day we had 'type 2' chrome tapes, and later on 'type 4' metal cassettes which were even better. More sparkle but still had a measure of background hiss absent in CDs.

Back to vinyl ... with old tech the big caveat was quality and/or wear on the metal molds they were stamped from. This is why hard core collectors seek out original pressings or ones by certain producers. Can say with certainty my "Peco Duck" (George Peckam) copy of Led Zeppelin 4 sounds much better than later pressings I have acquired over the years. That said, I am not going to run out and buy HD copies of all my old albums.

[edit]
Yesterday was "National 8 track day". Yes we celebrated. :D

Sweet man, Dire Straits on 8 track! I wish my dad hadn't gotten rid of all of his.
 
The thing with Vinyl, especially today, is that the quality of the music you get on new pressings is often highly suspect. Vinyl can sound better than CD's, but it's not a hard rule at all. Many labels are happy to just take a low quality file and press it onto vinyl and many people collecting today don't realize that they are being ripped off. I have an original mint press of the Lethal Weapon soundtrack from 1987 that sounds far better than its CD. Similar issues exist with newer re-issues of Led Zeppelin and Van Halen. Anyone who really listens to vinyl nowadays has to accept that fact that you need to research labels, pressing runs, and artist history.

The best vinyl to be had today is, the overwhelming majority of the time, pressings that existed back when Vinyl was at its peak. Shop used and don't fool yourself into paying $30 for an album unless you can avoid it for various reasons.

I'm all for higher music fidelity, but I'll remain skeptical. There are so many factors that go into a proper vinyl setup and I seriously doubt that this new format is going to be perfectly compatible with every cartridge out there without introducing distortion. I also would be willing to bet that this new format comes out under some 'HD' label and costs twice as much. $50 for a basic album? No thanks. Even blu-ray music is cheaper.
 
Sweet man, Dire Straits on 8 track! I wish my dad hadn't gotten rid of all of his.
That one actually sounds half decent. 8-track build quality got worse as time went on. Thin tapes stretched easily. Read head pressed tape against cheap foam pads instead of felt tipped metal springs, among other things.
 
"Hey guys, let's get some people out there to trick people into spending money revisiting a format that wears out so they have to buy the album over and over."
 
I always thought those looked neat. Never actually used it before, though.

I mean in terms of analog, they are amazing. A good reel-to-reel with dbx noise reduction can get very nice sound, perceptually very close to CD. Not quite the same SNR specs (maybe 70-75dB at best) and not the same low end, but very good.
 

I used to use those for mix CD's in the car and parties. Just for kicks, and people got a laugh about it.

I miss Laser Disc.
I don't. And I was a Laserdisc enthusiast. It had a good enough run, nearly 20 years. I tried to convince everyone I met that Laserdisc was better than sliced bread. Video and audio quality far superior to VHS or Beta. Turns out that most people just didn't give a crap. After all, they were watching TV on 20 year old Zenith and Curtis Mathis console TV's, not decent TV's or home theaters. I figure I spent thousands of dollars in my 20's on players and laserdiscs, I had around 50 (and they were never cheap, average price was $30-40). I could have spent that on a better car.
What does piss me off is that Laserdisc never really got recognition out of anyone but enthusiasts. When DVD started to take off around 1998 or so, people were so "amazed" at the picture and sound quality... I was like, I've been enjoying movies like this for 10 years, where have you been?
Cant wait for HD cassettes, those will be super cool!
You're joking of course, but they existed in many formats. DAT never took off as a consumer format, but I remember selling DCC decks in the low 90's. CD quality audio on tape, complete with chapter skip and no hiss (on digital playback). I almost bought one, but the stupid copy protection BS and the high cost of the blank DCC tapes sank the deal. The audio quality was there though, and you could throw in your old Journey cassette and it would play that too (much worse, of course).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Compact_Cassette
I found a workaround for home audio... Hifi VHS. VHS video quality was dogshit, but Hifi audio was damn near perfect in SP (2 hour) and still really good in EP (6 hour) mode. I used to make VHS hifi mix tapes from my CDs for parties and stuff. Just throw a tape in and forget about it, and NO stupid copy protection like DCC. Of course that only worked if you had a decent home theater setup. And sadly, didn't help me out on road trips in the car.
I think there were many different "digital" tape formats fighting for market share in the 90's. Recordable CD's killed those off.

Don't get me started on CD-R... I spent a fortune on that too. But at least it had better uses than just music.
 
The thing with Vinyl, especially today, is that the quality of the music you get on new pressings is often highly suspect. Vinyl can sound better than CD's, but it's not a hard rule at all. Many labels are happy to just take a low quality file and press it onto vinyl and many people collecting today don't realize that they are being ripped off. I have an original mint press of the Lethal Weapon soundtrack from 1987 that sounds far better than its CD. Similar issues exist with newer re-issues of Led Zeppelin and Van Halen. Anyone who really listens to vinyl nowadays has to accept that fact that you need to research labels, pressing runs, and artist history.

The best vinyl to be had today is, the overwhelming majority of the time, pressings that existed back when Vinyl was at its peak. Shop used and don't fool yourself into paying $30 for an album unless you can avoid it for various reasons.

I'm all for higher music fidelity, but I'll remain skeptical. There are so many factors that go into a proper vinyl setup and I seriously doubt that this new format is going to be perfectly compatible with every cartridge out there without introducing distortion. I also would be willing to bet that this new format comes out under some 'HD' label and costs twice as much. $50 for a basic album? No thanks. Even blu-ray music is cheaper.

A well made CD will beat any well made vinyl.
 
Foe me personally, it's not the medium the music is recorded on, it's how the performance is recorded and mixed. Everything seems to be recorded at ear shattering levels now. No highs, no lows, just one long monotone racket.
 
The thing with Vinyl, especially today, is that the quality of the music you get on new pressings is often highly suspect. Vinyl can sound better than CD's, but it's not a hard rule at all. Many labels are happy to just take a low quality file and press it onto vinyl and many people collecting today don't realize that they are being ripped off. I have an original mint press of the Lethal Weapon soundtrack from 1987 that sounds far better than its CD. Similar issues exist with newer re-issues of Led Zeppelin and Van Halen. Anyone who really listens to vinyl nowadays has to accept that fact that you need to research labels, pressing runs, and artist history.

The best vinyl to be had today is, the overwhelming majority of the time, pressings that existed back when Vinyl was at its peak. Shop used and don't fool yourself into paying $30 for an album unless you can avoid it for various reasons.

I'm all for higher music fidelity, but I'll remain skeptical. There are so many factors that go into a proper vinyl setup and I seriously doubt that this new format is going to be perfectly compatible with every cartridge out there without introducing distortion. I also would be willing to bet that this new format comes out under some 'HD' label and costs twice as much. $50 for a basic album? No thanks. Even blu-ray music is cheaper.
Sound is a subjective thing. Vinyl is not better. It has no where near the dynamic range/clarity, reproduction of CD/DAT. Even when using DBX disks. But thanks to the loudness wars, it hard to tell if you have shitty speakers/headphones for playback.
 
Last edited:
Foe me personally, it's not the medium the music is recorded on, it's how the performance is recorded and mixed. Everything seems to be recorded at ear shattering levels now. No highs, no lows, just one long monotone racket.

Something to look at to try and avoid that is to see if music you are interested in is available on one of the "HD" music services. Things like HDTracks, some iTunes stuff, DVD-A and so on. The reason is not because you need the extra resolution, you really don't you can't hear the difference, but because they tend to be better mastered since the people who buy that stuff are audio heads. For example the HD version of Daft Punk's Random Access Memories just has amazing mastering and sounds great for it.

No guarantee, of course, they can use too much compression and limiting on 24-bit 96kHz audio just as easy as they can 16-bit 44.1kHz audio, but it seems like there is a better chance that they don't, and they give it a proper mastering job with proper dynamic range. You can also look at the Dynamic Range Database. They measure the dynamic range of albums and publish it on the site. Now you can't take it as gospel because they are overly zealous about dynamic range being the be-all, end-all and plenty of what they consider "bad" can be just fine and they also don't rate the overall mastering quality, which is very important, but you can give it a look. If something has very low numbers, it is likely to be the ear shattering mess you dislike. If the numbers are higher, probably not.
 
Something to look at to try and avoid that is to see if music you are interested in is available on one of the "HD" music services. Things like HDTracks, some iTunes stuff, DVD-A and so on. The reason is not because you need the extra resolution, you really don't you can't hear the difference, but because they tend to be better mastered since the people who buy that stuff are audio heads. For example the HD version of Daft Punk's Random Access Memories just has amazing mastering and sounds great for it.

No guarantee, of course, they can use too much compression and limiting on 24-bit 96kHz audio just as easy as they can 16-bit 44.1kHz audio, but it seems like there is a better chance that they don't, and they give it a proper mastering job with proper dynamic range. You can also look at the Dynamic Range Database. They measure the dynamic range of albums and publish it on the site. Now you can't take it as gospel because they are overly zealous about dynamic range being the be-all, end-all and plenty of what they consider "bad" can be just fine and they also don't rate the overall mastering quality, which is very important, but you can give it a look. If something has very low numbers, it is likely to be the ear shattering mess you dislike. If the numbers are higher, probably not.

That DR Database is amazing. Thanks for the link. :)
 
Ok, this retro vinyl crap has gone too far. Records suck compared to CDs. I remember, apparently some people don't or just get a hard on for old archaic crap and can't let go. Oh wait, can't you hear the warmth of the analog sound with a 70 dB noise floor? Scratch, hiss, pop. They are pretty loose and vague on specs.

HD Vinyl...otherwise known as CD's. Or rather..CD's in a less convenient format. For the record I do have a Vinyl collection. It is stuff my grandfather passed down to me and stuff that really isn't easily obtainable in any other format. I wouldn't consider for a second buying anything new in Vinyl.

A well made CD will beat any well made vinyl.

Sound is a subjective thing. Vinyl is not better. It has no where near the dynamic range/clarity, reproduction of CD/DAT. Even when using DBX disks. But thanks to the loudness wars, it hard to tell if you have shitty speakers/headphones for playback.


There's some weird stuff going on in this thread.

Vinyl is analog, and "lossless". To say that CD, which is 16-bit / 44.1 Khz, sounds better than vinyl, or that it is "HD Vinyl", is arguing that 16-bit 44.1 Khz sounds better than 24-bit / 96 Khz, or any higher digital format.

If any of you worked in music or sound production, you'd surely know that 16-bit / 44.1 Khz is SHIT quality compared to 24-bit / 96 Khz and higher. It's basically like listening to a 128 or 160 kbps MP3 compared to a 256 kpbs MP3, or listening to a 256 or 320 kbps MP3 compared to 16-bit / 44.1 Khz CD audio.


Listen to an album that's available in both CD format, and in 24-bit WAV format, and you'll hear the difference, if you have ears for sound. There is much less clarity in CD format than in 24-bit format, or analog format - despite some reduced min-max dynamic range in vinyl compared to digital. But if you can't tell the difference between 16-bit CD audio and 24-bit audio or analog, then you aren't going to notice the difference in dynamic range, anyway.
 
Last edited:
In the later 1990's CD's got louder, and sound like a muddy mess.. I have a re release of Meat Loaf- Bat Out Of Hell, my dad has an original CD from the later 80's or early 1990's.. Putting those 2 side by side, the older copy is much clearer. We did that test on some older high end equipment that he had. I also have the same album on vinyl since my dad gave it to me and it's also much clearer.

New vinyl is pressed from the same newer muddy loud sounding master.. It's not 'bad', it's ok for car audio or whatever, but put with decent equipment and side by side it's noticeably crap
 
Back
Top