Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[levimax]

348 pages later STILL going strong about a technology that is almost 150 years old.

Are we going to bring back typewriters? The analog print with typewriters looks warmer and more organic.

Musical instruments are hundreds or even thousands of years old .... should they be abandoned because they are old and can be simulated cheaper and easier with a synthesiser? Soon enough the same thing for humans singing.... should we just let the machines serenade us? Recorded music has a historic and artistic context and occasionally spinning an old LP can be a different experience than streaming. Digital vs vinyl is a silly argument... both are part of the recorded music history /hobby and are complementary.

 

[Newman]

Logically, it makes no sense to listen to vinyl records when better formats with better sound quality are readily available, much more convenient and less expensive.

Is that better?

You just reiterated the OP’s issue raised in post #1. Which means that, unlike most, you are on topic!

 

[Newman]

The claim above, that wanting excellence in sound reproduction is consistent with an argument that musical instruments need to be new too, is obviously flawed.

(I’m still not sure whether these flawed statements are the result of simple errors in logic, or trying too hard to defend vinyl even more strenuously than they would do if their spouse was insulted.)

 

[Newman]

It's logical to do things you like to do.

The reason you listen to music in the first place is that you like to. It gives you pleasure, right? So it's logical to listen to music, and logical to listen to music in whatever way brings someone pleasure.

There’s strong logic and there’s weak logic.

If you are proud of the logic in that statement, then remember that it can be used to justify paying $10,000 for interconnects that have the same LCR as $5 interconnects. And recommending that others try it before they judge it.

And in 3 minutes flat we are right back in the bottom of the hole that TAS and Stereophile have been digging for 40 years.

Ya gotta do better.

 

[CleanSound]

Musical instruments are hundreds or even thousands of years old .... should they be abandoned because they are old and can be simulated cheaper and easier with a synthesiser? Soon enough the same thing for humans singing.... should we just let the machines serenade us? Recorded music has a historic and artistic context and occasionally spinning an old LP can be a different experience than streaming. Digital vs vinyl is a silly argument... both are part of the recorded music history /hobby and are complementary.

Not a valid comparison and don't even think it's worth breaking down why it's not even a valid comparison, but I think some others can easily see why.

 

[MattHooper]

You just reiterated the OP’s issue raised in post #1. Which means that, unlike most, you are on topic!

So you select out for kudos someone declaring that it makes senses to listen to digital sources instead of a post answering the question asked by the OP?

Of course.

The claim above, that wanting excellence in sound reproduction is consistent with an argument that musical instruments need to be new too, is obviously flawed.

CleanSound questioned the value of a 150 year old technology. Clearly it can have value to people - staying power says a hell of a lot. Secondly, you missed Levimax's point about just throwing away anything that can be potentially reproduced with newer technology. Samplers have gotten very good at reproducing orchestral instruments, yet people still find value in playing and listening to real orchestral instruments. In other words it's silly to imply old things don't still have value.

There’s strong logic and there’s weak logic.

If you are proud of the logic in that statement, then remember that it can be used to justify paying $10,000 for interconnects that have the same LCR as $5 interconnects. And recommending that others try it before they judge it.

LOL. No.

You may as well have said something as dumb as "Don't you realize you've justified serial killing? If a serial killer likes killing, then it's logical for them to kill people right?"

That would be just as silly an extrapolation as what you just made.

Think about the point I was actually likely making, rather than searching for some gotcha.

Nuance. Context, Newman.

Ya gotta do better.

It takes two to communicate.

 

[MattHooper]

Not a valid comparison and don't even think it's worth breaking down why it's not even a valid comparison, but I think some others can easily see why.

Well, some of us may be thick. So could you explain it for us dummies, why Levimax's reply wasn't reasonable?

You decried discussing a 150 year old technology. And suggested that was silly given modern technology was available instead.

Levimax's reply spoke directly to what you actually wrote, mentioning why old an technology can still have value, with instruments as an example, and he also got specific about how vinyl, despite being an old technology, can still produce a different experience for people that they value. So that's why we are still talking about an old technology, among other things. (I mean, this site IS about audio technology, right?)

And...your actual rebuttal to his points is....?

 

[MattHooper]

$18K vinyl vs $3.5K digital playing the same song.

Certainly a case where the digital superiority seems obvious, even through youtube. If the owner felt the vinyl was better I supposed I'd nod politely...

 

[CleanSound]

Well, some of us may be thick. So could you explain it for us dummies, why Levimax's reply wasn't reasonable?

You decried discussing a 150 year old technology. And suggested that was silly given modern technology was available instead.

Levimax's reply spoke directly to what you actually wrote, mentioning why old an technology can still have value, with instruments as an example, and he also got specific about how vinyl, despite being an old technology, can still produce a different experience for people that they value. So that's why we are still talking about an old technology, among other things. (I mean, this site IS about audio technology, right?)

And...your actual rebuttal to his points is....?

Really, do I actually have to write this down? Alright, I comply.

1) Vinyl is just a storage medium based on a technology which is inferior compared to what is available today; an instrument is a tool that let's the musicians channel and express their art. There is no such thing as "old technology" when it comes to the physical act of an artists' expression.

2) There actually are plenty of instruments that went obsolete over history. Many of which can arguably be contributed to its primitive construction and material science (in other words the technology used to make them).

3) Rest assure, there will be one day where AI generated music will be accepted, and don't be shocked if it is damn good, though that day is likely long after I am gone.

Now, I said nothing about the experience of holding something tangible, the artwork, the ritual, but most of that is nostalgia. I like my mechanical watch, it's an work of art and tradition, and it's anything but accurate time keeping.

And if you like vinyl, like away, but know that vinyl is not HiFi (High Fidelity) audio reproduction. It may have been when it first came out, but it is no longer and never will it be ever again.

So 348 pages, now 349 pages of this talk, is an eye roll to some (such as myself), where we don't even feel this discussion of vinyl is worthy of 349 pages of storage space on the ASR server. Why? Because most of us know the underlying real reason is nostalgia and not sound quality.

Sure, I can unwatch this thread, but I felt the need to express the sentiment of those with similar feeling.

 

[CleanSound]

Well, some of us may be thick. So could you explain it for us dummies, why Levimax's reply wasn't reasonable?

You decried discussing a 150 year old technology. And suggested that was silly given modern technology was available instead.

Levimax's reply spoke directly to what you actually wrote, mentioning why old an technology can still have value, with instruments as an example, and he also got specific about how vinyl, despite being an old technology, can still produce a different experience for people that they value. So that's why we are still talking about an old technology, among other things. (I mean, this site IS about audio technology, right?)

And...your actual rebuttal to his points is....?

Also I would like to know which modern day instrument that is being used to make music today (with the exception of music to recreate old tunes of those specific ancient instruments) that are thousands of years old. I can only think of the drum, but drums aren't made with animal skins anymore are they?

 

[MattHooper]

Really, do I actually have to write this down? Alright, I comply.

Ok, thanks.

1) Vinyl is just a storage medium based on a technology which is inferior compared to what is available today;

"Inferior" in terms of technical accuracy? Sure. "Inferior" in terms of producing a satisfying musical experience? Not always, not to everyone. That is what most people want out of their sound system right? A compelling musical experience.

If you get a more compelling overall experience playing a digital source, and someone else gets a more compelling overall listening experience from vinyl, then it makes no sense to just dismiss the older technology just because you prefer the newer one.

an instrument is a tool that let's the musician's channel and express their art.

And a sound system is (usually) a tool for a listener to have a compelling musical experience.

If an older tool does that for a significant number of people, then the newer one is not automatically superior in that important respect. And it's worth discussing.

There is no such thing as "old technology" when it comes to the physical act of an artists' expression.

Of course there is. Musicians discuss things in terms of old technology all the time. Even with relatively modern gear people distinguish between new and old guitars, old keyboards, old effects, etc. Someone advocating for a new technology can talk about all the technical superiority of a new sample-based system vs an old mellotron.
But a musician may still prefer the sound of the old mellotron for a track, so it's still of value.

Likewise, you can talk about the technical advantages of a digital source, but a record enthusiast may prefer the sound and experience from a vinyl record, so it's still of value despite being an old technology.

It really isn't a different scenario: in either case one can find pleasure from old or new technology. And thinking "but digital is JUST SUPERIOR" is similar to someone trying to argue but the LATEST KEYBOARD SAMPLER IS JUST SUPERIOR. That's just not how value works in EITHER case.

I think that covers the rest of the points.

So I think Levimax's reply (and mine) are reasonable responses, which anticipated your elaboration.

And if you like vinyl, like away, but know that vinyl is not HiFi (High Fidelity) audio reproduction. It may have been when it first came out, but it is no longer and never will it be ever again.

So 348 pages, now 349 pages of this talk, is an eye roll to some (such as myself), where we don't even feel this discussion of vinyl is worthy of 349 pages of storage space on the ASR server. Why? Because most of us know the underlying real reason is nostalgia and not sound quality.

Actually, it's just that type of misleading simplification that is one reason why the thread is still going.

Sure, I can unwatch this thread, but I felt the need to express the sentiment of those with similar feeling.

No problem. But, make sure you don't stumble on to the ASR subforum for:

Turntables, Phono Amplifier, Cartridges​

You'll have a heart attack due to Amir devoting all that storage space to this old technology

 

[Robin L]

2) There actually are plenty of instruments that went obsolete over history. Many of which can arguably be contributed to its primitive construction and material science (in other words the technology used to make them).

And there are plenty of instruments that were regarded as obsolete that have been revived by the historically informed performance/early music movement. Crumhorns and sackbuts and viols and harpsichords are now being heard throughout the world because the music that was written for those instruments never became obsolete and that music would not sound right if played on modern substitutes - if there were modern substitutes and there usually aren't.

Some of those instruments, like the lute and the viol, became "obsolete" because they weren't as loud as the instruments that displaced them, like guitars and cellos. One might as well point out that acoustic instruments have become "obsolete" because of electrified versions of the same.

In any case, this is not a defense of the continuing expansion of sales of LPs - hey, whatever floats your boat - but pointing to a logical flaw in that specific argument (from someone who at one time was the recording engineer for the San Francisco Early Music Society).

 

[CleanSound]

If you get a more compelling overall experience playing a digital source, and someone else gets a more compelling overall listening experience from vinyl, then it makes no sense to just dismiss the older technology just because you prefer the newer one.

Define "more compelling overall experience." I presume you don't mean sound quality nor the closeness to live music experience?

Just to be clear, I am not dismissing someone's preference. I am simply rolling my eyes in disbelief that this topic has gotten 349 pages worth of discussion, when most of us deep down already know the reason why people are drawn to vinyl is the x factor and not because of (scientifically) the sound quality.

And a sound system is (usually) a tool for a listener to have a compelling musical experience.

Yeah, it will help me if you define what you mean by compelling musical experience.

Likewise, you can talk about the technical advantages of a digital source, but a record enthusiast may prefer the sound and experience from a vinyl record, so it's still of value despite being an old technology.

That is preference due to factors outside of sound quality. Unless you really feel vinyl has better sound quality.

It really isn't a different scenario: in either case one can find pleasure from old or new technology. And thinking "but digital is JUST SUPERIOR" is similar to someone trying to argue but the LATEST KEYBOARD SAMPLER IS JUST SUPERIOR. That's just not how value works in EITHER case.

But digital IS superior in sound quality and is closer to live experience with the science to back it. Nostalgia, preference and x factor is a different matter, and I do respect it, but just don't respect 349 pages of the obvious.

No problem. But, make sure you don't stumble on to the ASR subforum for:

Turntables, Phono Amplifier, Cartridges​

You'll have a heart attack due to Amir devoting all that storage space to this old technology

I just may have to donate more next time to cover the cost of storage space

 

[CleanSound]

If you get a more compelling overall experience playing a digital source, and someone else gets a more compelling overall listening experience from vinyl, then it makes no sense to just dismiss the older technology just because you prefer the newer one.

One more thing, I'm willing to bet, if I put you in front of a system handed you the album art of a LP and a TT playing the LP but tricked you by not even connecting it to the system, and then play a digital file instead but put a vinyl filter on it to simulate vinyl, you wouldn't even know and you will get the same exact "compelling listening experience."

 

[droid2000]

I just may have to donate more next time to cover the cost of storage space

I wonder if forum data is recorded to old-school magnetic tape for a certain je ne sais quoi.

 

[Newman]

One more thing, I'm willing to bet, if I put you in front of a system handed you the album art of a LP and a TT playing the LP but tricked you by not even connecting it to the system, and then play a digital file instead but put a vinyl filter on it to simulate vinyl, you wouldn't even know and you will get the same exact "compelling listening experience."

Almost guaranteed. The sighted listening effect dominates when given the opportunity. A fact which is hotly debated by some, but only on occasions when it is inconvenient to their arguments.

 

[levimax]

Really, do I actually have to write this down? Alright, I comply.

1) Vinyl is just a storage medium based on a technology which is inferior compared to what is available today;

An LP is art, from the artwork to the liner notes to the order of the tracks to the "sides" and of course the music. Digital files and streaming only recreate the "music" part of the art, sometime better, sometimes worse and most of the time differently. If you can't appreciate the historical and artistic value and just plain fun of playing a 50 year old relic complete with the artwork and everything that goes along with it that is cool but why denigrate others hobby? I don't collect mechanical watches but I can understand why some people would think they are cool and would certainly not try discourage people from collecting them.

 

[levimax]

Also I would like to know which modern day instrument that is being used to make music today (with the exception of music to recreate old tunes of those specific ancient instruments) that are thousands of years old. I can only think of the drum, but drums aren't made with animal skins anymore are they?

Looks like you can add trumpets and flutes https://www.oldest.org/music/musical-instruments/

 

[CleanSound]

Looks like you can add trumpets and flutes https://www.oldest.org/music/musical-instruments/

Just to be clear, I am not dismissing someone's preference. I am simply rolling my eyes in disbelief that this topic has gotten 349 pages worth of discussion, when most of us deep down already know the reason why people are drawn to vinyl is the x factor and not because of (scientifically) the sound quality.

 

[Axo1989]

There’s strong logic and there’s weak logic.

If you are proud of the logic in that statement, then remember that it can be used to justify paying $10,000 for interconnects that have the same LCR as $5 interconnects. And recommending that others try it before they judge it. ...

Tobogganing down another slippery slope, eh?