Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[JP]

Certain? You don't know what changes were made during the cutting process. You don't know what differences were made between what was made in the studio and "vinyl production masters" either.

I used to own multiple early copies of LPs by the Dutch band Focus - US, UK, Germany and Italy IIRC.. The US versions were sometimes different mixes, but none of them sounded remotely the same even when from direct copies of the same master. So what the hell should my digital copies sound like?

Sorry, but I don't see how assuming that any one format is "right" gets us anywhere. It's quite clear that even when band members get involved in later mastering, it doesn't help as it turns out that any two people on the same recording turn out to have different "intent", that band members have a different idea of what the album should sound like thirty years later (especially after playing the music from that album years later on different instruments), and that they may not have been allowed their actual intention for whatever reason at the time the recording was made. Then there's just plain fashion in how a recording should sound.

We have no idea if any artist was actually happy with the sound of the LP in most cases, either, unless there's clear evidence from the time. We might agree with the studio master as reference if it was approved by the musicians, but even then we still have to understand it as they heard it, which may be very different what an engineer finds on the tape decades later.

The whole "fidelity to what" thing remains very woolly. I've pondered this for decades, but recently reached the point of believing that all we can do in audiophilia is build systems that give each of the versions we listen to a decent shot at convincing us.

Fidelity to the source. If you're "building" to convince you of something you could end up pretty far away from fidelity in general. Not that I have any particular issue or even care if that is someone's goal.

In regard to the sources for some of these CDs, the matter has been investigated and analyzed for decades on other forums by professionals in the field, so we're talking about considered opinions. I don't know of anyone that personally witnessed the vinyl and disc process for these tiles, so no, I don't think it's possible to know for certain. But there is consensus in the community and I have of course listened to both myself as anyone else can.

"Right" is a pointless debate for the reasons you mentioned, which is why I didn't use that word.

 

[levimax]

And it does again always come down to money.
Before the, which and how many sources decision you might want to ask
yourself, is the rest of my system the best it can be, specially your speakers.
Or am I still locked into a 2ch only rig.
If the total budget for your music is limited, then you might want to cut back a bit on the source options.

It doesn't have to cost a lot of money to play multiple souces. I have a PC based system so streaming, shiny disc, and file playback are free. I picked up a couple vintage TT's cheap because they had minor issues and easily fixed them. I use an ADC and digital RIAA so no phono pre. Decent carts and stylus are the most expensive part. I did the 5.1 thing and I have a bunch of DVD-A and SACDs and other surround music but I didn't find it compelling and sold off the surround speakers and built a pair of DIY full range active speakers. I recently added 2 SVS SB 3000 subs so the majority of money is in the speakers. Many different ways to enjoy this hobby.

 

[Sal1950]

Plus it's no almost a given that an artist, indie or huge stars, want to put their albums out on vinyl. And it's not always as simple as the money they get from vinyl being a type of "merch."

Hipsters want to hang with hipsters, no surprise their.

I got into this stuff because I needed more than a cheap cassette deck or all in one record player to be able to focus on the musicians' ability, what they are doing, the tightness, and so on.

What's odd, your also a musician, amateur or professional.
The average audiophile who doesn't play couldn't separate a good musician from a great one.
I know what I like but would never profess being any judge of REAL talent and ability.

I see no reason to dunk on however any person gets there.

Not again Matt.
Nether do I and never have.
Talking about and telling the truth about the technical capabilities of the two media isn't dunking on anyone.
On the other hand I won't have anyone sold a bill of goods, bunch of BS, at ASR.
The great has always been the enemy of the merely good.
When it comes to High Fidelity as the motivation, the LP hasn't been relevant for 40 years
That dunk on comment is just like the DAC or amp owner who's pride and joy Amir measured to perform poorly and is now crying about why we're dunking on his baby.

I did the 5.1 thing and I have a bunch of DVD-A and SACDs and other surround music but I didn't find it compelling and sold off the surround speakers and built a pair of DIY full range active speakers.

Honestly, I feel sorry that you'd rather listen to a bunch of vinyl distortion, than a SOTA fully immersive digital music system.
Your money, your decision.

 

[Sal1950]

It doesn't have to cost a lot of money to play multiple souces. I have a PC based system so streaming, shiny disc, and file playback are free. I picked up a couple vintage TT's cheap because they had minor issues and easily fixed them. I use an ADC and digital RIAA so no phono pre. Decent carts and stylus are the most expensive part. I did the 5.1 thing and I have a bunch of DVD-A and SACDs and other surround music but I didn't find it compelling and sold off the surround speakers and built a pair of DIY full range active speakers. I recently added 2 SVS SB 3000 subs so the majority of money is in the speakers. Many different ways to enjoy this hobby.

Do you also have 8 track, cassette, RTR, AM/FM tuners for sources?
If not, why not?

 

[Sal1950]

I see no reason to dunk on however any person gets there.

 

[Galliardist]

Fidelity to the source. If you're "building" to convince you of something you could end up pretty far away from fidelity in general. Not that I have any particular issue or even care if that is someone's goal.

This is the other side of the coin. Unless we build a different "system" for every recording (we could use different EQ I guess) or every class of recording, if we have a body of recordings to listen to, for most of us accurate response would be the starting point. As often gets pointed out, we can't judge fidelity to the source, subjectively, without at least a very good knowledge of that source. So accurate response within the potential bounds of human hearing is what gets us there for the best chance for each recording on a system that plays many different recordings.

Does that make sense?

I think we have to allow for outliers in any subjective human activity: that's a harder question for me to get my head around...

 

[JP]

This is the other side of the coin. Unless we build a different "system" for every recording (we could use different EQ I guess) or every class of recording, if we have a body of recordings to listen to, for most of us accurate response would be the starting point. As often gets pointed out, we can't judge fidelity to the source, subjectively, without at least a very good knowledge of that source. So accurate response within the potential bounds of human hearing is what gets us there for the best chance for each recording on a system that plays many different recordings.

Does that make sense?

I think we have to allow for outliers in any subjective human activity: that's a harder question for me to get my head around...

I think we’re talking past each other. The “source” for home playback is the media/file.

 

[Galliardist]

What's odd, your also a musician, amateur or professional.
The average audiophile who doesn't play couldn't separate a good musician from a great one.
I know what I like but would never profess being any judge of REAL talent and ability.

My point is that I was that way inclined years before I got involved in performing, though.

 

[Galliardist]

I think we’re talking past each other. The “source” for home playback is the media/file.

And how do you know if you have fidelity to it?

 

[levimax]

Honestly, I feel sorry that you'd rather listen to a bunch of vinyl distortion, than a SOTA fully immersive digital music system.
Your money, your decision.

If it makes you feel any better I probably listen to digital 80% of the time and vinyl 20%. How ever I do listen to some mono recording on one speaker from time to time... it can be a very compelling presentation on some music (like girl and guitar stuff).

Do you also have 8 track, cassette, RTR, AM/FM tuners for sources?
If not, why not?

Why?

 

[JP]

And how do you know if you have fidelity to it?

Measurements.

 

[Sal1950]

My point is that I was that way inclined years before I got involved

I didn't ask about any sexual preferences.

 

[Galliardist]

Measurements.

And so, accurate response?

 

[Sal1950]

It doesn't have to cost a lot of money to play multiple souces.

Do you also have 8 track, cassette, RTR, AM/FM tuners for sources?
If not, why not?

Why?

Why don't you have them?
In the discussion of vinyl as a 2023 source, think about it.

 

[JP]

And so, accurate response?

Seems to be a given if fidelity is the goal. What’s the game?

 

[IPunchCholla]

It doesn't have to cost a lot of money to play multiple souces. I have a PC based system so streaming, shiny disc, and file playback are free. I picked up a couple vintage TT's cheap because they had minor issues and easily fixed them. I use an ADC and digital RIAA so no phono pre. Decent carts and stylus are the most expensive part. I did the 5.1 thing and I have a bunch of DVD-A and SACDs and other surround music but I didn't find it compelling and sold off the surround speakers and built a pair of DIY full range active speakers. I recently added 2 SVS SB 3000 subs so the majority of money is in the speakers. Many different ways to enjoy this hobby.

What are you using for the ADC? I’m curious as I hadn’t even thought of bypassing the phono pre amp. But your mentioning this made me think about the possibility, as my chain is TT->Phono Pre->Scarlett 4i4 -> DAW (Audition on Mac) -> ARC3 (via sound source). It might be nice to skip the pre.

 

[Galliardist]

Seems to be a given if fidelity is the goal. What’s the game?

No game, I'm just trying to work out what I said that was wrong in my second post (the first wasn't great). We appear to be in agreement, I just used too many words.

 

[Galliardist]

Yup. As I've said: If the ultimate reason most of us are doing this isn't to enjoy the music we play through our systems...what would be the goal?

I can quite happily "enjoy" music on a crappy radio or through cheap earbuds, whatever. I'm pretty sure that an expensive system is about more than that.

I think that when we let the "more" become a search for some kind of heightened emotional response that a lot of the trouble begins.

 

[levimax]

What are you using for the ADC? I’m curious as I hadn’t even thought of bypassing the phono pre amp. But your mentioning this made me think about the possibility, as my chain is TT->Phono Pre->Scarlett 4i4 -> DAW (Audition on Mac) -> ARC3 (via sound source). It might be nice to skip the pre.

I use TT >balanced tranmsmitter> ADC (steinberg similar to Scarlet)>PC with Foobar 2000 convolution plugin with RIAA EQ. The reason I use a balanced transmitter is to get the proper 47K load on the cart. The ADC surprisingly has plenty of gain for an MM cart... for MC I use a SUT. I used this balanced transmitter but changed input resistors to 47K https://sound-au.com/project87.htm . I have seen similar on Amazon but not sure input impedance. Really works well and eliminated some noise issues I was having.

 

[MattHooper]

OCD is common to objectivists and subjectivists alike.
For many, the concentrating on measurement based assessments is liberating.

The "subjectivist" audiophiles are often portrayed as obsessed with gear, but pouring over measurements and spending time measuring gear, measuring room responses, setting up subwoofers, caring about distortion numbers...it's the same obsession by a different name, or with a somewhat different approach.

Audiophiles are gonna audiophile.

I've seen some people here say that when you look to objective data in buying gear and care about accuracy that's a path "off the subjectivist equipment merry-go-round." For one thing, if you like playing with equipment and can afford it, there's no need to get off the merry-go-round if you get a kick out of it. For another, as above, one can spend just as much time on measurements and sussing out accurate gear. On this forum there are people happy with what they have, and enjoy exchanging views on gear or learning about it, while others are eyeing new gear and upgrades. I still inhabit several more subjective-based forums and it's mostly the same dynamic. There are plenty who have had their favorite gear for many years, who are happy and not looking to upgrade, but they like discussing the hobby. I think we all seek to justify our own approach to others and to ourselves.