Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Cote Dazur]

It is not really relevant here any more.

I could not agree more, but lately, this qualify for almost any post on the last 25 pages of this thread, why change a winning formula at this point?

 

[board]

I could not agree more, but lately, this qualify for the almost any post on the last 25 pages of this thread, why change a winning formula at this point?

Although I was the one starting it, I think it's fair enough to either move the art appreciation thread to a separate thread of just wrap it up, which is what I tried to do with my last message.
I'm also okay with letting Axo1989 have the last word, and to ensure that, I can avoid responding to his last message.

 

[board]

I remember reading somewhere decades ago, from some prominent audio writer, something to the effect of:

The better Analog playback gets, the more it sounds like digital.

Meaning to me, that analog is flawed to some degree, and only has a "Sound" based on its flaws.
When you remove the distortions, overload, noise, mistracking, and on and on, You have Digital.

And I think that to some extent explains exactly the analogue fan boys' love for certain types of gear: They don't like the sound of accuracy, but like a certain colourisation. And I understand that to some extent, as I remaster music much in the same way: A bass boost, cutting the lower treble, and boosting around 10-12 kHz, which is somewhat what many cartridges do to the music. A lot of music really does sound better that way, and many well-sounding remasters have also been EQ'ed that way.

I've noticed that the most expensive cartridges are often some of the least accurate ones.
Granted, if a cartridge costs $5-$10,000 people think it will necessary be better than if it costs $500, I understand that. But those buyers usually audition many cartridges before settling on one, and Lyra, Koetsu, Zyx, and other super expensive brands (although Zyx also makes some more reasonably priced ones) are often the products of choice rather than Audio Technica or Shure, which often produce some of the best test results.
He whose name should not be spoken surely does love that Lyra sound, and they have a massive rise/spike in the top octave. Many others swear by Lyra.

 

[Newman]

I've noticed that the most expensive cartridges are often some of the least accurate ones.
Granted, if a cartridge costs $5-$10,000 people think it will necessary be better than if it costs $500, I understand that. But those buyers usually audition many cartridges before settling on one, and Lyra, Koetsu, Zyx, and other super expensive brands (although Zyx also makes some more reasonably priced ones) are often the products of choice…

I suspect that, if those very people were only able to react to the sound of the sound waves, ie controlled testing, the whole edifice of their opinions on sound quality and what they like and which carts they like and why, would come crashing down into a jumbled mess of contradiction, confusion, and possibly even anger.

Hence, …

They don't like the sound of accuracy

…I seriously, seriously doubt this has anything to do with it. Remember, they are very often having similarly strong opinions on the sound quality of the tonearms and decks. This is all driven by cognitive biases.

 

[JP]

Couple DB difference on a cart from the midrange is really easy to pick out. Really easy. The likes of Lyra are much more than that.

 

[board]

…I seriously, seriously doubt this has anything to do with it. Remember, they are very often having similarly strong opinions on the sound quality of the tonearms and decks. This is all driven by cognitive biases.

You've sometimes said "fixed it for you" so I'll try that one now

Some of this is driven by cognitive biases.

The cartridge is very much the sound of a turntable, especially when you get past a point where the audibility of changing a tonearm and a deck is either negligible or even inaudible. And yes, in a blind test many people would choose something else than what they own, but I think you're overestimating how much of it is cognitive bias/trivializing how much is actually a difference in sound.
Despite cognitive bias certainly being a part of it, it is worth noting that most cartridges have such great deviations from flat, often 1 to 6 dB, that the difference ranges from just exactly audible to easily audible. Creating the same deviations with an equalizer would also be audible, and to some people the difference is an improvement, hence the purpose of a remaster or that particular cartridge.

 

[Axo1989]

I'm also okay with letting Axo1989 have the last word, and to ensure that, I can avoid responding to his last message.

Gracious of you. I'm also glad my last reply wasn't overly disagreeable.

 

[board]

Gracious of you. I'm also glad my last reply wasn't overly disagreeable.

No, not at all. Both you and the other people on your side of the argument have been respectful, and I'm hoping that you can say the same about me, although I do know that I've had this attitude of "it's shite", so maybe that's not so likely .

 

[Newman]

You've sometimes said "fixed it for you" so I'll try that one now
The cartridge is very much the sound of a turntable, especially when you get past a point where the audibility of changing a tonearm and a deck is either negligible or even inaudible. And yes, in a blind test many people would choose something else than what they own, but I think you're overestimating how much of it is cognitive bias/trivializing how much is actually a difference in sound.
Despite cognitive bias certainly being a part of it, it is worth noting that most cartridges have such great deviations from flat, often 1 to 6 dB, that the difference ranges from just exactly audible to easily audible. Creating the same deviations with an equalizer would also be audible, and to some people the difference is an improvement, hence the purpose of a remaster or that particular cartridge.

Yours is a common misconception, to think that cognitive bias is mainly relevant to barely audible differences, and that when the differences are clearly audible, sighted listening is suddenly all about the sound waves.

It isn’t. Pure and simple.

Put the same people in a room with unknown gear A and B, which definitely have sufficient difference to be easily detectable, and compare their assessments sighted vs controlled, and their sighted choices will be consistent with their cognitive biases, and their controlled listening choices will be consistent with what the measurements tell us they would likely choose.

 

[ChrisCables]

Interesting thread and I'm late to the party in that respect, but not late to the format, having grown up with it.
I found the resurgence in vinyl and also I'd like to add; cassette tape albeit to a much smaller extent, very interesting.
I think at the end of the day it comes down to preference and why should anyone denegrate someone else's interest or enthusiasm for analogue mediums if they garner enjoyment from it?

I enjoy analogue as well as digital formats and understand and appreciate the appeal for both.
I got back into vinyl and cassette after years of being away from it and ultimately just enjoy the totally different experiences each format gives, both analogue and digital.

If I had to put a single aspect on the appeal of vinyl it would be the 'tactility' of the medium. It's something you can actually hold in your hands in order to read sleevenotes and artwork while you're ensconsed in listening to it. It definitely has a different, if sonically/technically inferior SS to it's digital equivalent, but therein lies the other main appeal component; there's definitely something going on that has some kind of psychoacoustic effect.
For all the pops, crackles and dropouts there is definitely 'something' which appeals to a sub/semi-conscious layer of perception.
Who knows exactly what that is and how it could even be quantified? Maybe it's nostalgia-driven for old fkrs like me. Maybe it's the novelty factor for millenials who missed it the first time around finding out what all the fuss is about.
Who really cares?

It's unfortunate that there should be anything negative or unnecessarily comparative pitched between digital and analogue formats but that's human nature for you I suppose.
Live and let live I say. If you enjoy vinyl/analogue, carry on.

 

[tmtomh]

Interesting thread and I'm late to the party in that respect, but not late to the format, having grown up with it.
I found the resurgence in vinyl and also I'd like to add; cassette tape albeit to a much smaller extent, very interesting.
I think at the end of the day it comes down to preference and why should anyone denegrate someone else's interest or enthusiasm for analogue mediums if they garner enjoyment from it?

I enjoy analogue as well as digital formats and understand and appreciate the appeal for both.
I got back into vinyl and cassette after years of being away from it and ultimately just enjoy the totally different experiences each format gives, both analogue and digital.

If I had to put a single aspect on the appeal of vinyl it would be the 'tactility' of the medium. It's something you can actually hold in your hands in order to read sleevenotes and artwork while you're ensconsed in listening to it. It definitely has a different, if sonically/technically inferior SS to it's digital equivalent, but therein lies the other main appeal component; there's definitely something going on that has some kind of psychoacoustic effect.
For all the pops, crackles and dropouts there is definitely 'something' which appeals to a sub/semi-conscious layer of perception.
Who knows exactly what that is and how it could even be quantified? Maybe it's nostalgia-driven for old fkrs like me. Maybe it's the novelty factor for millenials who missed it the first time around finding out what all the fuss is about.
Who really cares?

It's unfortunate that there should be anything negative or unnecessarily comparative pitched between digital and analogue formats but that's human nature for you I suppose.
Live and let live I say. If you enjoy vinyl/analogue, carry on.

View attachment 317280

Great comment - agreed!

 

[MattHooper]

Yours is a common misconception, to think that cognitive bias is mainly relevant to barely audible differences, and that when the differences are clearly audible, sighted listening is suddenly all about the sound waves.

It isn’t. Pure and simple.

Yes, absolutely! As I've often pointed out in the "subjectivist" forums: Look, if people can imagine they've been anally probed by aliens, don't you think an audiophile can imagine less "midrange glare" with a new AC cable? Or that one expensive speaker sounds better than a cheaper one? People truly don't often grapple with the power of bias. It's not only a factor for teeny differences.

That said, there IS still a difference between justifying our inferences in sighted conditions when we know sonic differences DO exist in the type of gear being evaluated, vs areas in which they may not (subtle differences), or do not exist.

As I have often pointed out "bias" can't explain everything, and we have to keep in mind that while we can cite examples of bias, we can also cite innumerable examples of our perception "getting it right." You should never lose sight of either of those facts when deciding on a reasonable conclusion in any given circumstance.

To wit:

Put the same people in a room with unknown gear A and B, which definitely have sufficient difference to be easily detectable, and compare their assessments sighted vs controlled, and their sighted choices will be consistent with their cognitive biases, and their controlled listening choices will be consistent with what the measurements tell us they would likely choose.

Again...this is overstating the case. In no case is our perception perfect, so we are not going to hear as accurately as equipment. But we can ask: "Is someone, generally speaking, perceiving some TRUE sonic characteristics of a loudspeaker?"

For instance, a while back I had a chance to listen to some Audio Note speakers. I'd heard a couple of AN demos in shows that left me very impressed, and I'd auditioned a set of AN speakers that I also quite liked. It's rare to encounter the speaker brand so I was excited that a local shop happened to have a new pair set up that I could listen to with some of my demo tracks.

So if we are talking about what would be "constant with my cognitive bias" - I was very favourably disposed towards the brand, expected to enjoy the sound, and I also found the particular speakers quite attractive. So I had nothing but positive expectations.

But what I heard shocked me. It was terrible. Absolutely terrible. I'd never heard AN speakers sound like that. The frequency response was obviously scatter-shot, emphasized, steely, sharp highs, a very obvious peak, and clearly suck outs in lower mids - all voices were hollow sounding, female vocal tracks I knew like the back of my hand were thin, hollow and overly sibilant etc. I could not stand listening to them for more than 20 minutes. Whether it was a poor speaker design in this case or a room placement issue with nodes/frequency suck outs, or a combo...it was bad.

This does not seem predicted by the claim I would hear the sound as "consistent with my cognitive biases."

Now, of course, there are other ways in which we can perceive things inaccurately, other than what would be predicted by an expectation biases. Just by the way we use our attention we can hear things differently...things that can surprise us, seem contrary to our bias. (Which is what I have to constantly explain to subjectivists who say "but I didn't EXPECT the slightly cheaper cable to sound better than the ultra expensive cable, therefore what I heard was true, not bias!" No...you can still imagine things just due to how you alter your attention).

So even if my impression of the AN speakers wasn't an expectation bias, it's still possible at least it was some other form of misconception.

However, we have to balance against that other facts. We know speakers sound different. We know that frequency response errors are audible. We know that speakers often interact with rooms in a way that causes changes to the sound character, especially frequency response (suck outs, peaks, room nodes, reflections, etc).
You can't ignore one set of facts (we can perceive speaker response deviations) to only assume the other (our perception can be in error due to bias).

So here's one plausible explanation:

1. I had favourable expectations towards the loudspeakers, but in this case the sound REALLY DID exhibit an exaggerated frequency response problem that I heard, and that explains why my expectations were confounded, and why I could not listen to them for very long.

Or:

2. My impressions were purely some form of bias effect (as yet un-described); the "sound waves" were actually quite different from what I perceived.

I hold that the first explanation in this case is quite plausible and I'm justified in going with my impressions unless I get better evidence my impressions were implausible. I could be wrong, but that caveat is built in to any sighted listening inferences.

The point being, though, that without knowing the measurements of THAT speaker in THAT room in THAT set up, you can't ASSUME my description is inaccurate, and therefore simply down to a bias effect. We need to be wary of bias, and acknowledge it as a possible variable, and when we are seeking high justified confidence, we want to remove that as a variable. But we can't always just assume "it's just a bias effect causing the perception" as the default truth or best explanation in all sighted listening.

 

[JP]

Most of the people I know can easily pick out FR changes in excess of 1dB from the midrange of a cartridge. A Lyra Kleos is +2dB from 4k to 10k, and +4 dB at 20k. That is so substantial that I doubt many people wouldn't pick up on it when contrasts with a flat cartridge. Not to say that they'd describe it correctly - this is where terms like "detailed" and "air" come from.

 

[Newman]

Most of the people I know can easily pick out FR changes in excess of 1dB from the midrange of a cartridge. A Lyra Kleos is +2dB from 4k to 10k, and +4 dB at 20k. That is so substantial that I doubt many people wouldn't pick up on it when contrasts with a flat cartridge.

Ouch. Awful, especially at its price.

Not to say that they'd describe it correctly - this is where terms like "detailed" and "air" come from.

Err, that would be the sighted listening report. If the speakers were flat and a controlled test comparison with flat response cartridges were conducted, it would be least preferred and the adjectives would be a lot less complimentary.

And if you want to get some really uncomplimentary descriptors directed at the Kleos, offer a sighted listening comparison with a cheap cart with a flat FR, but lie about which is which.

That’s the power of the mind (that Matt is in denial about).

 

[JP]

Not necessarily. I've seen and posted needled drops with little context and responses are all over the map in regard to preference, and I do see people who's descriptions correlate to what the FR plot says, just using words they understand - where I'd call out the rising response of something like the Kleos, they'd say it has detail and air. Which, BTW, isn't a bad listen at all. It's not what I'd want, but I completely understand why people do.

 

[board]

Yours is a common misconception, to think that cognitive bias is mainly relevant to barely audible differences, and that when the differences are clearly audible, sighted listening is suddenly all about the sound waves.

It isn’t. Pure and simple.

Put the same people in a room with unknown gear A and B, which definitely have sufficient difference to be easily detectable, and compare their assessments sighted vs controlled, and their sighted choices will be consistent with their cognitive biases, and their controlled listening choices will be consistent with what the measurements tell us they would likely choose.

My point was that it's not only about cognitive bias, as you claimed ("this is all driven by cognitive biases") - there are also audible differences in some cases.

 

[Axo1989]

My point was that it's not only about cognitive bias, as you claimed ("this is all driven by cognitive biases") - there are also audible differences in some cases.

That makes sense to me.

You won’t convince @Newman however, he’s hardcore. For some reason he thinks preference is a line, not a spread. So any deviation from the Olivian ideal must be delusional.

 

[Axo1989]

… We need to be wary of bias, and acknowledge it as a possible variable, and when we are seeking high justified confidence, we want to remove that as a variable. But we can't always just assume "it's just a bias effect causing the perception" as the default truth or best explanation in all sighted listening.

This seems evident and straightforward to me as well.

 

[Newman]

Just do the blind tests, and show me the consistency with sighted. Until then, what I am saying is spot on. Nothing hard core, just consistent with the science of sighted listening.

Labelling someone who makes comments aligned with science “hard core”, is saying more about the label-makers than the labelled.

Judge your selves, not me.

 

[MattHooper]

That’s the power of the mind (that Matt is in denial about).

Amazing.

Newman, is it really impossible to just be intellectually honest and for once attempt to understand, or accurately represent, what I actually argue?
Your ignoring of my actual points, including my example above, along with avoiding other questions inconvenient for your dogmatism....is conspicuous.

You can sling words like "denial" all day long. What you can't do is back that up with any honest reading of what I wrote.

Just do the blind tests, and show me the consistency with sighted.

I haven't done blind speaker tests (only one a long time ago), but here's a blind test where what I heard blind was totally consistent with what I heard sighted:

Blind Test Results: Benchmark LA4 vs Conrad Johnson Tube Preamp

Hey folks, I thought I'd post about a little blind test I did between my two current preamplifiers: Benchmark LA4 vs. Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS2 tube preamplifier. People are familiar with the Benchmark LA4 I'm sure: https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-la4-line-amplifier A...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I've also described other blind tests, on this forum, where what I was hearing from some old DAC/CDPs confirmed my sighted impressions.

Does this mean I or anyone else should just ignore the problem of sighted bias? Of course not. <-- The point I make over and over, which you refuse to recognize.

What it does mean is that you can't justify in many cases simply assuming someone's perception is totally inaccurate and simply a bias effect. That is blinkered dogmatism, not a scientific mindset. As I pointed out in my Audio Note speaker example (which you conspicuously avoided), you can't know my sighted impressions/perception of the sound was inaccurate unless you had measurements of that speaker in that set up in that room, which happened to contradict my perception.