• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Vinyl will always sound *different* than digital, right?

MaxBuck

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,515
Likes
2,115
Location
SoCal, Baby!
snap-crackle-pop.jpg
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
clearly people are investing in these interests so what's their ROI?
The obvious financial ROI is that LP's and TT's have appreciated substantially over the last 15 years. Some of the other reasons, which vary from person to person of course, are nostalgia, physical media with artwork, liner notes, and a closer physical connection to their favorite artists, supporting their favorite artists, playing with physical machines, shopping for and collecting physical media, different sound, being cool, and maybe even getting laid.
 

Victor Martell

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
175
Likes
214
Digital can do that. There are VSTs for it.

The OP's question is like: Will film always look different from digital photography? A: No. It took a while for digital to be able to emulate film but it was eventually accomplished.

Vinyl is like waxed cotton over coats, obsolete for most practical purposes except what it says about you.

Had to chime in - I am notoriously thin-skinned on this - as member of ASR and vinyl aficionado, believe me, I know the issues, limitations and other obvious inconvenience with vinyl.
And yes also obviously DSP could do everything, including harmonic distortion well enough for people to not hear a difference.
That is all true and understood by ASR vinyl aficionados. It is triggering to get "advice" stating this or WORSE actually mansplaining OBVIOUS stuff like the advantages of digital.

But @Multicore hit the nail right in the head, it is impractical and it could be argued it is obsolete. But @Multicore is specially right in that it says something about you, what you consider fun. (deleted car analogy here, because it did not 100% worked :D )

That is all, nothing wrong with that unless you go on saying inaccurate, unprovable stuff like "vinyl sounds/is better". Vinyl doesn't sound/is better; I just like it, it is fun.

( and again, my triggered/thin skinned comment - please no more captain obvious mansplaining the advantages of digital! :D )
v
 

Multicore

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Messages
1,673
Likes
1,766
The obvious financial ROI is that LP's and TT's have appreciated substantially over the last 15 years.
I was thinking of the specific psychological and social rewards, as you went on to mention. But yes, last weekend my friend, renowned creator of Brainwashed.com, detailed a few recent LP editions he pre-ordered on a whim that within a short time was trading at 2, 3, or 4x. Amazing! And of course, that can be a rewarding way to spend your time too even if you don't need the money.

That is all, nothing wrong with that unless you go on saying inaccurate, unprovable stuff like "vinyl sounds/is better". Vinyl doesn't sound/is better; I just like it, it is fun.
Evidently. I'm really curious to elaborate the nature of the fun.

Another friend, renowned creator of Vinylthon.com, roped us into it this year and my partner just returned from a conference with this reward for our participation. It's just baffling.

1667080536892.png


Third, and finally for now, my own podcasting partner, a professional orchestral musician, has to be disciplined by his wife so that his collection doesn't start to occupy rental storage space.

None of these three friends adequately answer my questions about how these practices and investments of time, money, space, attention, etc. are rewarded. They all kinda talk around the issue. Either they haven't explored the question much themselves or they don't want to talk to me about what they found.

I know lots more collectors but I'm not one. I would gladly have someone take my hundreds LPs etc. and thousands of CDs off my hands so long as I can still listen to the music somehow. I want to listen to music, not own product.
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
I want to listen to music, not own product.
You are in luck then with streaming being so reasonable with such a great selection of music as well as great quality. Some people want to just own product (collect) and some want both collecting and listening. Nothing wrong with any of these ... just a preference. If everyone thought the same the world would be pretty boring.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
But @Multicore hit the nail right in the head, it is impractical and it could be argued it is obsolete. But @Multicore is specially right in that it says something about you, what you consider fun. (deleted car analogy here, because it did not 100% worked :D )

There is an obvious sense in which vinyl is impractical relative to digital, that everyone knows and hardly needs to be pointed out. But I really think that mode of evaluating something like vinyl (heck...ANYTHING that persists because people like it) misses the point. It's only "impractical" and "obsolete" from a narrow viewpoint. But if vinyl was actually obsolete, it wouldn't be still around as popular as it is. It shows there is in fact some desire vinyl is fulfilling for lots of people that digital streaming is not. At this point the musical artist or executive who totally ignored vinyl thinking it totally "obsolete" would have shown they are actually fairly clueless as to the way it is satisfying some (ever growing) part of a market.

It's like saying "going to see the artist play life is IMPRACTICABLE since you can dial up their songs much faster and easier from your couch, yelling to your smart speaker." But that would miss the point: Seeing an artist is a DIFFERENT experience, a value-added experience, that the mere convenience of streaming doesn't replace. If seeing an artist live is something you value and want to do, sitting on your sofa streaming from your smart speaker is not a "more practical" way of meeting those needs. For someone who prefers live music, and doesn't mind the additional effort it takes to get tickets, show up etc, it would be very weird to say they have made an "impractical" choice.

It's the same for vinyl. My wife doesn't care about playing records, it would be a hassle having to care for them and play them. She just occasionally asks our smart speaker to play something. I could do the same. But does that make vinyl "impractical" for me? No, because it's not a hassle - like gardening for my friend - the physical aspects, even the fact it doesn't allow super easy access to skipping tracks, part of the stuff I value about vinyl. It's actually a practical way of meeting my goals! (If my life couldn't accommodate the demands of vinyl, THEN it would be impractical for me)
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
Yes, of course, all our choices say something about us. 100%. That's the point. What interests me is what do they say?

Yes I agree it's interesting!

I think what this says about me is that I am more interested in music than in audio gear and record collecting.

That makes sense.

I'd just put in the caveat - and I'm not saying you were implying this! - but sometimes people will presume that being in to audio gear or a physical music collection means they are "more about the gear/physical collection therefore less in to the music than I am" as if the other stuff somehow takes away from the love of music. That of course isn't the case. Every audiophile I know, whether they have a modest or elaborate system, is in love with music. I suppose my wife could say she is "all about the music" because she gets it in the easiest most convenient way possible - usually just streaming to a smart speaker. Except she would be the first to admit I'm far more obsessed with music than she is.


Actually I kinda hate my collection because it has come to present such big management problems that I find burdensome. And the audio gear is just an expensive means to an end. Some people I know are into vinyl and collecting per se. Some of them are also into fancy gear to play it on per se. None of that interests me. That all seems like mostly a drain on time, money, and living space.
Yeah, horses for courses...

I don't collect per se. Collecting for the sake of collecting doesn't interest me. But I understand others love it.

I want to listen to music, not own product.

I know what you mean. I'm there with my movie collection. I'm a film-nut and have been in to home theater for decades, and I built up a large collection of DVDs and then Blu-Rays (and I still have a couple hundred HD-DVDs! - I bet wrong on that one, early on). I used to really enjoy having a physical movie collection but now it seems burdensome - taking up space, not really adding much value. I'd get rid of all of it if I could totally replace it with streaming, but thus far I can't.
 

Victor Martell

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
175
Likes
214
I was thinking of the specific psychological and social rewards, as you went on to mention. But yes, last weekend my friend, renowned creator of Brainwashed.com, detailed a few recent LP editions he pre-ordered on a whim that within a short time was trading at 2, 3, or 4x. Amazing! And of course, that can be a rewarding way to spend your time too even if you don't need the money.


Evidently. I'm really curious to elaborate the nature of the fun.

Another friend, renowned creator of Vinylthon.com, roped us into it this year and my partner just returned from a conference with this reward for our participation. It's just baffling.

View attachment 240159

Third, and finally for now, my own podcasting partner, a professional orchestral musician, has to be disciplined by his wife so that his collection doesn't start to occupy rental storage space.

None of these three friends adequately answer my questions about how these practices and investments of time, money, space, attention, etc. are rewarded. They all kinda talk around the issue. Either they haven't explored the question much themselves or they don't want to talk to me about what they found.

I know lots more collectors but I'm not one. I would gladly have someone take my hundreds LPs etc. and thousands of CDs off my hands so long as I can still listen to the music somehow. I want to listen to music, not own product.

Oh sure - please understand - it is hard to explain. Why do I love The Who WAY more than The Stones? Can't say. Why do I find Vinyl fun? not sure why; I just like it and I am under no obligation to explain (I don't care people don't find it fun) or try to convince people (also don't care).

And yes, paring down my vinyl buys and trimming my current collection - running out of space and I think it would be DUMB to try to find a bigger home or to spend on space rentals just for the sake of the vinyl. Not smart.

BUT

I beg people to stop with the "I listen to music, I don't need to own it". I hate the implication the one loves music less if one likes physical product. It is a "no true scotsman" logical fallacy. Not only that, I could throw it back. Do you play an instrument? No? You must no love music enough. Oh? You play an instrument but are not a world class musician? You must not love music enough... Oh? You mean you stream? You are damaging the artist you profess to love. Your love of music not as strong as $20-$50 for new vinyl.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND - I DON'T THINK THE ABOVE IS TRUE. They are just examples of how baseless is the "I stream/got rid of my physical media therefore I love music more and/or my love of music is pure". It's silly and yes it triggers me... it's always said with smug tone. Again, the advantages of streaming are obvious. Does not take genius to know that. We just love physical media, including vinyl.

v
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Actually I meant to highlight and agree with exactly what you said earlier about our keeping in mind stereo is itself an illusion. Exactly! It's an illusion. Which is why "accuracy" can be a bit of a rabbit hole. I have no qualms about massaging the illusion somewhat to my taste.

I agree defining 'good fidelity' - in a way that would tie up all the messiness involved in this hobby - is problematic, which has been my point here many times. Here's my account, I wonder if you'll agree or disagree:

Sound reproduction in it's early years started off (often) with the goal of "fidelity to the sound of the real thing." That made sense: you discover you can record and reproduce the sound of real things - voices, violins. And since you are trying to do just that, naturally your first thought is to "try to reproduce the sounds we are hearing - voices etc - with as much fidelity to that real sound as possible." That's why so much of the early bragging, and then later advertising, with regard to "high fidelity equipment" had to do with claims "sounds more like the real thing" "puts you at the concert" etc.

While fully accurate reproduction of real sounds may not have been achievable, this at least had the benefits of having a goal - comparing the reproduced sound with the real thing in front of the microphone, seeing if one is getting further or closer from that reference. Plus it had the 'benefit' where the "fidelity" of the reproduction was pretty tightly matched to "sound quality." That is, not simply a set of measurements, but it related to the subjective: the perceived quality of the sound. If it SOUNDED more like the real thing, this was equivalent to "Higher Sound Quality."

But once the studio started to be used more as a tool itself to manipulate sound to deliberately depart from natural sound, then this goal for audio equipment of "reproducing the sound of the real thing in front of the microphone" no longer made so much sense. Now it made sense that we'd say "Ok, what we want to do is reproduce whatever artistic choices were laid down in the recording. So really, we restrict our goal to reproducing the recorded signal with High Fidelity."

This is as pragmatic a new version of "High Fidelity" as one could appeal to under the circumstances. So...makes sense.

However, this doesn't leave things all neat and tidy. Now we have uncoupled "High Fidelity Reproduction" from the previous notion of "sound quality." Now High Fidelity will result in "whatever it happens to sound like...if the artist deliberately put down an indecipherable distorted signal for her vocal...hearing that reproduced on an accurate sound system is "High Fidelity" as much as the startlingly natural sounding vocal."

As practical as this goal is, it doesn't get us out of the rabbit hole, because we can still ask "but why do we care about reproducing this signal with High Fidelity in the first place?" If the deeper goal is to "enjoy listening to music" then in fact it would seem anything we do to the signal that increases that enjoyment makes sense. But then, we may depart from fidelity - so why fidelity to the signal again? Or if it has to do with wanting to hear exactly what the artist intended - supposedly laid down in that signal. But that too is a rabbit hole: circle of confusion and all that.

But another consequence is that with "Fidelity to the signal" we have to be clear that we no longer mean by this "Sound Quality" per se - be that a sense of sonic realism or natural sound, or be that notions of what most people will tend to associate with "High Sound Quality" (e.g. clarity, articulation, richness of timbre, dynamics, often wide frequency response, etc).

So we can define High Fidelity in a pretty precise technical way, but there is still a certain arbitrariness in doing so, which doesn't necessarily solve the messy issues regarding "sound quality/underlying goal of audio systems" and such.

Generally speaking, when people hear the term High Fidelity Sound System they will tend to equate that to High Sound Quality. That makes some sense, since a High Fidelity Sound System is CAPABLE, fed the right signal, of producing what people will perceive as High Sound Quality. But there are many instances in which it's worth noting High Fidelity and Sound Quality are not one and the same. And while many audiophiles may state their goal as having a High Fidelity System, I don't think it's controversial to say the underlying motivation tends to be seeking at least the possibility of High Sound Quality. And if THAT is indeed the underlying motivation, then we can also talk about how, as you have pointed out, deviations from accuracy can sometimes actually enhance perceived sound quality. It's just that sometimes people on a site like this will ask "If you are an audiophile, why are you even here if you aren't pursuing High Fidelity/Accuracy?"
Well, it's because, I submit, what generally binds audiophiles together is an enthusiasm for High Quality Sound. And sometimes departures from accuracy can be included in that Big Tent.

IMO.

:)

I would say that High Fidelity/Accuracy is the only goal that is pursuable in a systematical way.

"Good-Sounding" or the "Enhanced-Illusion" can only be achieved be trial and error and it will only be so ("good-sounding") for an individual or group of individuals with identical preference. Different people will prefer different euphonic enhancers/enhancements. It is a relative concept.

And in a way that is what half the audiophile community does: it tries different equipment combinations in order to achive a "presentation" which provides the highest listening enjoyment.

The same is perhaps true for equipment designer: engineers will aim at High Fidelity/Accuracy and "audio tailors", many of them Japanese, strive to produce their vision of an "enhanced illusion" (e.g. Charles Hansen, Hiroyasu Kondo), of what reproduced music should sound like in their view.


There's no virtue in the tyrannical persecution of the "Enhanced-Illusion".
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
"Good-Sounding" or the "Enhanced-Illusion" can only be achieved be trial and error and it will only be so ("good-sounding") for an individual or group of individuals with identical preference. Different people will prefer different euphonic enhancers/enhancements. It is a relative concept.
Yes and no. Some effects are universal, some are not. For instance, effects due to partial loudness are universal, they are tied directly to how the cochlea responds to sound. Some effects arising from binaural effects, likewise.

Many, many others, however, are purely personal preference. Which is which is a complex issue.

Arguing personal preference, of course, remains a waste of money, and it only annoys the bear.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Yes and no. Some effects are universal, some are not. For instance, effects due to partial loudness are universal, they are tied directly to how the cochlea responds to sound. Some effects arising from binaural effects, likewise.

Many, many others, however, are purely personal preference. Which is which is a complex issue.

Arguing personal preference, of course, remains a waste of money, and it only annoys the bear.

JJ, do you know of any published research on "euphonic distortions"?
 

pma

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,591
Likes
10,727
Location
Prague
JJ, do you know of any published research on "euphonic distortions"?

Maybe not exactly what you looking for, but on topic:


IMO "Euphonic distortion" is a non-existent nonsense.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Maybe not exactly what you looking for, but on topic:


IMO "Euphonic distortion" is a non-existent nonsense.

What is this but a proof of "euphonic distortion" (or the preference for lower accuracy)?

okrrzIu.png


Thanks for the link, will have a read.
 

Multicore

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Messages
1,673
Likes
1,766
I'd just put in the caveat - and I'm not saying you were implying this! - but sometimes people will presume that being in to audio gear or a physical music collection means they are "more about the gear/physical collection therefore less in to the music than I am" as if the other stuff somehow takes away from the love of music. That of course isn't the case. Every audiophile I know, whether they have a modest or elaborate system, is in love with music. I suppose my wife could say she is "all about the music" because she gets it in the easiest most convenient way possible - usually just streaming to a smart speaker. Except she would be the first to admit I'm far more obsessed with music than she is.
I wasn't talking about audiophiles. I was talking about the vinyl enthusiasts I know, who have fairly basic practical playback equipment. They aren't disinterested in the music but they get excited at the chance to own it on vinyl, they go on shopping expeditions for that purpose, allocate time for cleaning, archiving and librarian stuff. I do not share these enthusiasms and find them curious. And I still believe that it suggests they are interested in the tangible product more than I am. I didn't say they were not interested in music. They most certainly are.

Speaking of product, and in the hope of changing the subject, regardless of format, the recording itself is also a product, of course. And this is another problem that hugely affects musical activities and aesthetics. A record can be like a poem, something that's worked on until it is finished and then goes out into the culture to seek it's fortune. But I also like music that can take risks. So another reason to like the digital age is it has changed the cost structures so that recordings can be more disposable. I can record something and put it on Youtube or Bandcamp quite easily. Look what Noël Akchoté or Buckethead have done with this possibility!

My hope is to find a format that allows the recording to be listened to only once per copy and then delete itself.
 
Last edited:

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806


IMO "Euphonic distortion" is a non-existent nonsense.

I wonder if you'd want to narrow your claim down a bit? Because broadly stated like that it's clearly untrue. Any deviation from the original signal is a form of distortion. And yet clearly many people can find ways of distorting signals to be Euphonic:

Euphonic - something one finds pleasing to the ear.

1. Guitar players having long been adding distortion to guitars that they and the audience clearly find pleasing.

2. Using tone controls or EQ to adjust the sound to taste is a form of distortion, yet many find it makes for more pleasing sound.

3. Even upmixing stereo to surround is a form of distortion, but many find the effect Euphonic. I certainly do, often enough.

4. I work in post production sound where we are often manipulating/distorting original sound files to more Euphonic effect. This is done in music production as well.

More specifically regarding audio gear, more anecdotally:

5. I and others seem to sometime prefer the sound of a vinyl version to a digital version of the same album, where the vinyl version is certainly distorting the sound vs the digital.

6. I blind tested my tube preamp vs a Benchmark solid state preamp, and it was some (pleasing to me) euphonic characteristics that allowed me to reliably identify the tube preamp presentation.
 

pma

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,591
Likes
10,727
Location
Prague
Any deviation from the original signal is a form of distortion.
Maybe in your eyes? In technical terms, distortion is used for nonlinear distortion, which means that output signal contains frequencies that were not present in the input signal. Frequency response changes are linear changes.
And we are not speaking about guitar effect boxes, we speak about reproduction of the recorded signal. Then there is nothing like euphonic distortion. Frankly, I become bored from audiophile discussions. There is nothing positive in it.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
Maybe in your eyes?

No just what the term means broadly speaking.

In technical terms, distortion is used for nonlinear distortion, which means that output signal contains frequencies that were not present in the input signal. Frequency response changes are linear changes.

Distortion in audio has usually included non-flat frequency response as well.

However if you have clarified how you are using the term that's fine. That's what I was asking for. Thanks.


And we are not speaking about guitar effect boxes, we speak about reproduction of the recorded signal.

That seems like an arbitrary distinction. We know distortion can be pleasing. Why would this phenomenon suddenly not apply to recorded signals?

Then there is nothing like euphonic distortion. Frankly, I become bored from audiophile discussions. There is nothing positive in it.

You'd prefer to put forth your opinion, but you'd rather not explain the reasons or hear alternatives as you find it boring?

Oh. Ok. I guess that leaves nothing to talk about. :)
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
Maybe in your eyes? In technical terms, distortion is used for nonlinear distortion, which means that output signal contains frequencies that were not present in the input signal. Frequency response changes are linear changes.
And we are not speaking about guitar effect boxes, we speak about reproduction of the recorded signal. Then there is nothing like euphonic distortion. Frankly, I become bored from audiophile discussions. There is nothing positive in it.

So you are saying that linear distortion is not distortion and that the technical term is actually linear change?

Is it incorrect to state that any change to the input signal is distortion?
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
I can show various papers on loudness growth in nonlinear systems, etc. Most papers address audibility or some other testable effect, as opposed to personal preference, for what I suspect are obvious reasons.

I do have to agree "nonlinear" means introducing new frequencies. Linear systems can have frequency shaping, time delay, phase shift, etc. Both kinds of signal modifications are accurate.

On the other hand, I absolutely have to argue that there ARE euphonic distortions (nonlinear effects) as well as euphonic linear modifications.

The "original" in a live recording is a soundfield that is much more complex than can ever (even in perceptual terms) be conveyed by 2 channels (other than head in vice binaural). So, "accuracy" is now to what? Sound out of mikes? Panpotted (ugh!) stereo? A combination of panpots and delay? Added reverb? Time alignment?

This is much more complex than anything even remotely described as "2 channels of audio".
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
So you are saying that linear distortion is not distortion and that the technical term is actually linear change?

Is it incorrect to state that any change to the input signal is distortion?

The distinction is made to show which processing adds new spectral content, and which does not. Linear changes are, barring noise floor or actual spectral zeros (both of which exist) reversible. Nonlinear systems are lossy if there is both any memory (i.e. frequency shaping or phase shift outside of pure delay) and any nonlinearity.

Much of this is more important in things like modems and such than for the human ear, where we hear lots of both on a daily basis. What does matter is quite complex, and in fact an individual's preference may select for a "less ideal" solution in terms of least mean squares.

Now, subtracting gain equalized output from input results in a "least mean squares" error criterion. It means the error signal is non-zero. This can be due to either linear or nonlinear changes in a signal.

"distortion" usually means "nonlinearity" but in fact it's often misused, to the point it's questionably referring to "mean squared error" which includes both. Such is life, and why precious of terminology is important. (No, not pointing at you, here!)
 
Top Bottom