Turntables - help me understand the appeal?

[Frank Dernie]

DACs and the other bit and pieces that go into digital listening have improved a lot since then

This is an oft quoted comment but wrong IMO.
I changed from a reel to reel tape recorder to DAT for my recordings decades ago and it was the first time the output of my recorder sounded the same as the microphone feed.
A comparison between an interconnect and the Sony PCM-F1 recorder system set to convert a signal to digital and then re-convert it back to analogue showed that digital was sufficiently unobtrusive to banjax Ivor Tiefenbrun, the arch supporter of analogue at the time, into not being able to hear the difference between the original ADC/DAC chain and a piece of wire.

https://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

We have had new standards and 24- bit recording makes level setting a bit easier (even though 16 bit was much easier than a tape recorder) but IME there has been no substantial improvement in the technology for SQ on real world music recordings since CDs. Theoretical small gains maybe but negligible on real music.
Sure there is a massive variance in the quality of the stuff being put onto CDs today, some are great some dire, but that is a shortcoming of the artist not the medium.

 

[MattHooper]

If the sincere argument against digital when it appeared was that analog trumped digital (and it was, vehemently: read, oh, everything written by Michael Fremer at the time), then there was little reason to promote the return of LP instead of an insistence on analog tape. Remember, a lot of this started when LP was not widely available anymore, and turntables were on the verge (though, honestly, never over it) of joining the 8-track in the dustbin of history. And it is certainly true that old turntables were far more available than old R2Rs. This is all true.

However, this reveals more than it obscures. First, if analog tape was always the preferred medium due to, if nothing else, accuracy and a lower noise floor, then why did LP dominate the market? Easy: Convenience. R2Rs are a pain in the ass. So right there, fidelity was sacrificed for ease of use. And it's understandable that the average Joe had no interest in winding tapes. He wanted to throw something on and not worry about it. But if high fidelity was in any way related to audiophilia, then audiophilia blew its cred decades ago.

I find that reasoning unconvincing for many of the reasons already defended in this thread.

All during the time, including early on, that vinylphiles were dissing CDs, vinyl and turntables were available in vastly higher proportion to RTR machines and tapes. And there was no reason at all to expect that to change.

The vinylphiles typically had built up a large collection of vinyl to begin with, and also knew where to get lots of vinyl. And vinyl had already shown how well it could be mass produced. So the vinylphile's rational was that he already knew of and possessed a mass produced medium that produced "better" sound than CDs. If that were true, then it's entirely reasonable that they would continue to decry replacing vinyl with CDs, where RTR was *never* in a position of mass production or easy accessabiity.

Again, none of that is to validate the nonsense many vinylphiles spouted in technical terms (and Fremer, whether using technical terms or not, spouted plenty of nonsense). But if we are taking their view, trying to preserve the existence of vinyl made sense.

And that, frankly, leaves ritual and nostalgia as the justifications for LP. (I understand that just because I say it with conviction doesn't make it so, to quote 48 Hours, so feel free to pile on.) To me, that kind of gives the lie to the entire "LP vs. CD" argument.

No.

The belief held by vinylphiles that vinyl sounded superior to digital was already justification for decrying CD and trying to promote vinyl.
And as has been discussed in this thread, using vinyl does not translate in to the desire for RTR, given the hassle, expense and rarity of RTR is a whole different ballgame. That was true during the early period of vinyl-lovers decrying digital, like it is today.

And of course other reasons have been given here for why people buy vinyl beyond "ritual and nostalgia." For one thing, vinyl is very big with millennials who did not grow up with vinyl, so it's not "nostalgia" so much as they find vinyl to offer a different and valued experience over digital.
There's also the greater connection many feel to an artist when buying their music on that physical media, that they like they are supporting the artist to a larger degree than streaming, and...the Big Elephant In The Room....the fact many people prefer the sound of vinyl, to their ears it seems to be "better sound quality" than what they hear in digital. It certainly may not be true if one appeals strictly to the technical details, but it is *true* in terms of what is an actual motivation behind buying vinyl for a great many people.

 

[Frank Dernie]

And of course other reasons have been given here for why people buy vinyl beyond "ritual and nostalgia." For one thing, vinyl is very big with millennials who did not grow up with vinyl, so it's not "nostalgia" so much as they find vinyl to offer a different and valued experience over digital.
There's also the greater connection many feel to an artist when buying their music on that physical media, that they like they are supporting the artist to a larger degree than streaming, and...the Big Elephant In The Room....the fact many people prefer the sound of vinyl, to their ears it seems to be "better sound quality" than what they hear in digital. It certainly may not be true if one appeals strictly to the technical details, but it is *true* in terms of what is an actual motivation behind buying vinyl for a great many people.

My local record dealer told me most of the LPs he sells will never be played. Lots of his customers just like them and don't have a turntable. I believe a lot of LPs now come with a download code to download a digital file, so you have the music on digital but with LP artwork and never-been-played collectibility.

 

[GGroch]

......There's also the greater connection many feel to an artist when buying their music on that physical media, that they like they are supporting the artist to a larger degree than streaming.....

Several posts here discuss increased connection and focus that can make up the vinyl experience from the listener's perspective.

The artist's process in creating and releasing LP's must also have been different, perhaps requiring more commitment and focus.

As streaming takes over there is much less limitation on the number of releases in a year. You are not limited to 22 minutes like on an LP side. The order the songs will be listened to is more random, and most listeners will not listen to the equivalent of an album in one sitting. So sequencing, an overall theme, and telling a larger story may no longer be as important.

Music videos certainly provide new options for graphic/visual reinforcement...but I imagine the thought that went into an LP's graphics and liner notes is not the same.

I am not familiar with the most current top releases...but is the album concept still a thing as it was 20 years ago?

 

[jsrtheta]

I find that reasoning unconvincing for many of the reasons already defended in this thread.

All during the time, including early on, that vinylphiles were dissing CDs, vinyl and turntables were available in vastly higher proportion to RTR machines and tapes. And there was no reason at all to expect that to change.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying vinyl was almost inferior to tape (given the same recordings), yet people spent a lot in the '50s getting the best sound they could out of their turntable-based systems while spurning R2R.

Certainly, the ungainliness of R2R killed it for the mass market. But even "audiophiles" I knew then never really considered R2R on the basis of quality. And it was right there. And I've heard analog master tapes that were indistinguishable to me from the digital versions. (I know of no DBTs to support this statement, so take it as it is, no authority, just anecdote. Still.)

 

[SIY]

Except... we didn't have master tapes, what was available was dubbed tapes, done with high speed duplication off a nth generation copy, and set for (at best) quarter track 7.5 ips.

IOW, the sound quality of the tapes we could actually buy was not great.

 

[JJB70]

This is an oft quoted comment but wrong IMO.
I changed from a reel to reel tape recorder to DAT for my recordings decades ago and it was the first time the output of my recorder sounded the same as the microphone feed.
A comparison between an interconnect and the Sony PCM-F1 recorder system set to convert a signal to digital and then re-convert it back to analogue showed that digital was sufficiently unobtrusive to banjax Ivor Tiefenbrun, the arch supporter of analogue at the time, into not being able to hear the difference between the original ADC/DAC chain and a piece of wire.

https://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

We have had new standards and 24- bit recording makes level setting a bit easier (even though 16 bit was much easier than a tape recorder) but IME there has been no substantial improvement in the technology for SQ on real world music recordings since CDs. Theoretical small gains maybe but negligible on real music.
Sure there is a massive variance in the quality of the stuff being put onto CDs today, some are great some dire, but that is a shortcoming of the artist not the medium.

Indeed, I sometimes wonder if the more objectively minded audio enthusiasts fall into a similar trap to those who dismiss measurement by reading too much into measurements. The state of the art of DACs has advanced in terms of measurement but has it really advanced in audible terms over the last 20 - 30 years? My CD player dates back to the early 90's, OK it wasn't cheap (although nor was it excessively expensive, a Sony ES model) and to be quite honest I really wouldn't say that any of my much newer digital sources or alternatives I've listened to are audibly better regardless of how they might measure.

I'm a mechanical engineer, you can always play with a design to add a bit more strength, or fatigue resistance or power output or nominal efficiency but I wouldn't be thanked for going beyond meeting the specification and spending $$$$$$$$$'s to optimise a design beyond what is necessary or even useful. If a DAC is audibly transparent then it has achieved its purpose in my view, yes in a way ever better measurements are impressive in their own way but given that the levels of distortion and signal degradation are pretty well insignificant compared to what is induced in (still audibly transparent) amplifiers, then speakers, then room acoustics and it seems to be one of those things that may look impressive on paper but with no actual benefit. In a funny way I see an equivalence with engine efficiency, you can spend an awful lot of money to tweak an engine to be a bit more efficient and in the real world it will make no difference as there are so many other influencing factors, the secret is knowing when to stop.

And personally I'm a big believer of rubbish in = rubbish out, the most important part of the audio chain is the recording itself which crazily enough is where modern recordings or re-issues of older recordings fall over thanks to some awful mastering/re-mastering. But that has nothing to do with the merits (or otherwise) of digital sources.

 

[Killingbeans]

A good engineer is lazy in the best possible sense of the word.

It's easy for both 'objectivists' and 'subjectivists' to find themselves lost in a unicorn chase.

 

[MattHooper]

Indeed, I sometimes wonder if the more objectively minded audio enthusiasts fall into a similar trap to those who dismiss measurement by reading too much into measurements. The state of the art of DACs has advanced in terms of measurement but has it really advanced in audible terms over the last 20 - 30 years? My CD player dates back to the early 90's, OK it wasn't cheap (although nor was it excessively expensive, a Sony ES model) and to be quite honest I really wouldn't say that any of my much newer digital sources or alternatives I've listened to are audibly better regardless of how they might measure.

I've wondered a bit about the exercise of measuring so many DACs etc on hydrogen audio, at Archimego's blog and by Amirm on this site.
Yes, the instruments can pick up measurable differences. But almost routinely, with very few exceptions, this is accompanied by the caveat "but not to an audible degree."

So I'm not sure what the motivation is to keep measuring a type of device over and over where the practical implications for what we hear is moot.

???

(BTW, that's not at all to dispute the findings...just something I've found a bit puzzling overall).

 

[Frank Dernie]

I've wondered a bit about the exercise of measuring so many DACs etc on hydrogen audio, at Archimego's blog and by Amirm on this site.
Yes, the instruments can pick up measurable differences. But almost routinely, with very few exceptions, this is accompanied by the caveat "but not to an audible degree."

So I'm not sure what the motivation is to keep measuring a type of device over and over where the practical implications for what we hear is moot.

???

(BTW, that's not at all to dispute the findings...just something I've found a bit puzzling overall).

Me too. Measuring any more DACs when there are actually parts of the Hi-Fi chain which are far more critical puzzles me.

 

[Killingbeans]

+1

It's a little silly to keep focusing on an undetectable funny smell from a DAC when the speakers and room response is a big stinking turd.

But at least it gives a nice snapshot of how little money you actually have to spend before you hit the wall of diminishing returns and how little skill you need to have in the field of electrical engineering in order to build a perfectly good DAC. That's also valuable in my book.

 

[MusicNBeer]

You all know a lot of this undetectable stuff is not even 16 bits right? Redbook was always good enough, but then potential profits and false claims got in the way...

 

[tomelex]

Electronics is I think the only thing I know that gets better and less expensive over time, I appreciate the engineers drive to make things better, even if only incrementally in electronics, because we get more for less. Amir has a whole world of stuff to measure over time, its perhaps easier for someone to send him a small dac then an amplifier etc. Its all fun in my book, to see the art advance in measurable terms instead of thickness of faceplates.

 

[jsrtheta]

I've wondered a bit about the exercise of measuring so many DACs etc on hydrogen audio, at Archimego's blog and by Amirm on this site.
Yes, the instruments can pick up measurable differences. But almost routinely, with very few exceptions, this is accompanied by the caveat "but not to an audible degree."

So I'm not sure what the motivation is to keep measuring a type of device over and over where the practical implications for what we hear is moot.

???

(BTW, that's not at all to dispute the findings...just something I've found a bit puzzling overall).

I largely agree. It seems to me that what Amir is doing is exploring who is making things right, or poorly, or, in some circumstances, safely. I am hardly one to judge his technical work. That's not something I could even begin to guess at, except for the more elementary things like frequency response and SNR. You either want all this information or you don't (not you, specifically). And even a technical dimbulb like me learns from this.

OTOH, your point is well-taken: DACs, when built at least competently, are indistinguishable from each other. (So, to my ears, is the effect of upsampling.) We went way beyond the point of diminishing audible returns a very long time ago. And on the way, a lot of people made some good coin convincing people, including me for a time, that various DACs, of increasing price, weight and size, would deliver dramatic improvements while obsolescing everything that came before, and it was all lies and wishful thinking and barely concealed greed.

Meaning, I suspect the audience for this is fairly limited, though knowledgeable and expert. Still, it's fun to read.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've been saying for some time, match your amp to your speakers (or use active speakers) and everything between transducers is transparent. That being everything between microphone and speakers.

Tests like done here are very valuable to point out how some brands take shortcuts on their gear. Especially when they charge 10 times more, promise exemplary performance and instead fail to equal a $300 DAC.

So I know that many DACs have superlative performance to everything down to -110 db and have no sound for several years now, and the most recent ones are pushing that to more like -115 to -120 db (with some getting near that -130 point). So the latest probably don't sound any different, but its nice to see continued improvement and at cheaper pricing.

I'd posted some 8th generation files of ADC/DAC loops that people couldn't hear vs original digital files. I've a DAC and ADC which which each are at least 10 db better on everything now. I could make them even more "inaudible".

I'd started to see how many generations made something audible. It was obvious it was when the noise floor rose enough to be heard. Not distortion, not jitter, not even frequency response if everything was pretty flat to begin with. So that was a non-exotic result not worth pursuing. So pick speakers, get a big enough amp and choose features from reputable makes and enjoy. It is a golden age of sorts for audio.

 

[JJB70]

So pick speakers, get a big enough amp and choose features from reputable makes and enjoy. It is a golden age of sorts for audio.

Indeed, good sound has never been so accessible and user friendly. DSP is taking a lot of the mystique out of setting up speakers in a room which was probably the last frontier of needing some thought. All that vinyl tweaking is gone, you don't need shelves full of records, CD's or tape. The democratization of hifi sound is a boon for most people as you really don't have to spend much to enjoy great sound. Even speakers, where there is still a good reason to go up the price scale don't need to be expensive to enjoy good quality sound. Which bizarrely is the problem for many high end enthusiasts, I think the thought that DACs are a mature technology which hits the point of diminishing returns at a very, very low price point (many devices hit it with their stock DACs IMO), any PC or tablet can be a perfectly good hifi source, the fact that even low cost entry level amplifiers are largely transparent has plunged some of them into an existential crises as they've tried to cling to a belief that the high end stuff they love is sonically better rather than admitting it is audio jewellery and about being in a club. Watch enthusiasts have no issues with the fact that a perfectly good watch can be bought for peanuts, nor admitting that such a watch will be more accurate than their cherished mechanical watches as they don't pretend that their interest is about keeping the time, it is all about jewellery and feeling better than the riff raff who wear Casio or such like. I have zero issue with people that love expensive hifi because they appreciate high end materials and build quality, or value ultimate measured performance because they want to push the envelope or, well hell, I just want expensive stuff. Despite what I'm writing here I would happily buy an Accuphase system or a Benchmark DAC, but I wouldn't be doing it to get better sound quality. And maybe this is exactly why vinyl is popular, it's nothing to do with sound quality (despite what people might even tell themselves), there is a tactile feel to vinyl and a sense of being part of a club that is different to us proles that are happy with computer based audio (or, shudder, even CD's). What I object to is the Fremer's, Guttenberg's, Darko's etc of this world pushing all sorts of spin and bollox to try and pretend a choice based on a perfectly reasonable personal preference for how something feels or looks (or just wanting expensive stuff) is sonically superior.

 

[MattHooper]

And maybe this is exactly why vinyl is popular, it's nothing to do with sound quality (despite what people might even tell themselves), there is a tactile feel to vinyl and a sense of being part of a club that is different to us proles that are happy with computer based audio (or, shudder, even CD's).

This, again, goes back to my first post where I pointed out that people are generally poor at psychoanalyzing someone else's choice that they don't understand. So for instance, JJB70, it seems you are so keenly aware of the technical deficiencies of vinyl that you presume someone else won't *really* have "sound quality" among their reasons for choosing vinyl.

But they can. And they do.

I've already explained why I have often preferred many of my vinyl records over digital. Vinyl often sounds different, and if you *enjoy* that difference, it's a nice place to visit. Even if one also enjoys digital like I do.

I'm not lying when I say this. It's an honest report of what I believe I perceive. (And in my case it doesn't come with any claim of vinyl's technical accuracy).

If you really want to understand the popularity of something, you should listen to what people actually tell you as to why they are buying it.
Over and over you, from young to old vinyl buyers, you will see reference to a preference for the sound of vinyl - constantly mentioning the "warmth" of the sound, and other purported attributes. I've read so many articles where vinyl buyers young and old have said when they play vinyl it sounds "more life-like" "I heard things I didn't hear before" and "it just sounds better/nicer."

The fact that their appraisals of vinyl sound quality may be mixed in with all sorts of error - e.g. faulty technical understandings of analog and digital, as well as sheer listener bias expecting vinyl to sound 'better' for one bad reason or another - may often be the case. But that's an entirely different issue from the actual motivations they believe they have. Many *are* motivated by their belief that to them vinyl "sounds better" or that they prefer the sound.

What I object to is the Fremer's, Guttenberg's, Darko's etc of this world pushing all sorts of spin and bollox to try and pretend a choice based on a perfectly reasonable personal preference for how something feels or looks (or just wanting expensive stuff) is sonically superior.

Agreed that Fremer et all push irritating B.S. about vinyl.

However, again, I personally think it would be conceptually cleaner to replace your last phrase "sonically superior" with "more accurate."

Because the phrase "sonically superior" is most often used to denote how something sounds to human beings (because "superior" is a value term). In which case, someone can make a case for vinyl tending to be "sonically superior" insofar as it does certain desirable things sonically, whether more accurate or not. Again, see my previous discussion using EQ and mastering to deviate from the original in accuracy, yet arrive at something people would generally agree to be "sonically superior" or "better sound."

I have been told by one or two members that "sonically superior" here is used to denote technical accuracy, not subjective impressions in how something actually sounds. That is fine as far as it goes; one can make clear arguments so long as one defines one's terms.

It just seems to me, though, to be unnecessary. Why use a term that has different connotations attached to it than the one you want to give it, and hence risk confusion, rather than simply using a more direct term like "accurate?"

 

[JJB70]

What people prefer is euphonic distortion, the idea of euphonic distortion being preferred by listeners is well accepted and I don't think many dispute that preferring particular sound is a matter for the individual. However in the case of vinyl the euphonic distortion is a result of its technical limitations and if people want that warm sound it can easily be provided in digital format. I think using DSP and EQ is a better way to adjust sound to personal preference.

 

[MattHooper]

Indeed, but I wonder if you take my point: that it's not helpful to analyze the vinyl phenomenon by ignoring the reasons people give for purchasing vinyl and turntables? You gave some reasons people buy in to vinyl that are accurate - tactile nature is a reason vinyl buyers themselves often include as motivations, and some may enjoy the exclusivity 'cool' factor as well. But those are not fully inclusive of all the reasons people are buying vinyl. The perceived difference in sound between vinyl and digital is also a common motivation, yet you seem to want to deny this by saying people buying vinyl has "nothing to do with sound quality." That's just wrong. Buyers often think they are getting more pleasing sound quality with vinyl.

 

[JJB70]

I'll admit I probably did phrase it badly, but to be honest I still think it is much more about the tactile feel and an image than sound quality. If it was about sound quality it would be simpler to replicate the vinyl distortion in digital.