Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[MattHooper]

There are many similarities between this thread and the ones for snake oil.

Because they are the same.

 

[droid2000]

My record is exquisite!!!

Trust me.

 

[droid2000]

The idea is so stupid it hurts my eyeballs. The whole purpose of this forum is to dive into the truth of sound reproduction. And you vinyl cultists come in here demanding equal time. No.

 

[deweydm]

Phonautograms are where it’s at.

“‘There is a yawning epistemic gap between us and Léon Scott, because he thought that the way one gets to the truth of sound is by looking at it,‘ said Jonathan Sterne, a professor at McGill University in Montreal and the author of ‘The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction.’”

Researchers find song recorded before Edison’s phonograph .

 

[MattHooper]

The idea is so stupid it hurts my eyeballs.

Well, I’m not a doctor but my prescription for your pained eyeballs: try not to think stupid thoughts ;-)

The whole purpose of this forum is to dive into the truth of sound reproduction.

Vinyl records and turntables are a method of sound reproduction. So discussing the truth of that medium would fall under the remit of the forum, right?

That’s one reason why there’s an ASR sub forum dedicated to sound reproduction via vinyl records. But since a lot of people are now playing records someone asked the general question here about the phenomenon. So what is your point?

And you vinyl cultists come in here demanding equal time. No.

What does that even mean? Once your eyeball pain clears up could you clarify?

 

[Axo1989]

Vinyl records and turntables are a method of sound reproduction. So discussing the truth of that medium would fall under the remit of the forum, right?

You may be confusing truth with Truth ...

 

[Axo1989]

There is correct appeal to authority, and there is fallacious appeal to authority. You seem to have a personal problem with the former.

You've recently demonstrated/discovered that your reading comprehension isn't infallible (nobody's is, really). You aren't in the best position to judge meaning and logic for others, or accuse them of personal problems. I'm sure you can make your arguments with less vitriol if you try.

No, I'll leave it to you, as to whether you want to carry on with behaviour patterns that don't work socially, obfuscate audio truths and science, and get the above-mentioned results. Your call.

And this is the most recent example of your lecture series on forum decorum, generally targeting people you disagree with/dislike (and possibly conflating those two aspects). I'd just dial it back a bit, if it was me. I overdo things myself at times, so that is the same advice I'd give myself, and occasionally accept from others.

 

[Platypus20]

Vinyl records and turntables are a method of sound reproduction.

What he said is true, it is a method, I never read him to say it was the only method or the best method. He has constantly said it’s a method he enjoys, along with many others. I listen to vinyl, cds, radio and streaming, to me the music that matters, no matter how it comes, it’s okay, none of the systems is perfect

 

[MattHooper]

Let's just try a re-set here.

In the latest back and forth about vinyl, you ended with telling me this:

as to whether you want to carry on with behaviour patterns that don't work socially, obfuscate audio truths and science,

Could you point out exactly where you think I am doing that?

The OP said he was a member of some Reddit Audiophile threads, had noticed people posting pictures of their systems often including turntables, and citing the disadvantaes of vinyl over digital he wondered why reddit audiophiles were "flocking" to turntables. Then he ended with what seemed a more general question as to how anyone makes sense of the Vinyl Renaissance in general.

As a member of the same Reddit forums he cited, and as someone who posts there about my own turntable set up, and being an ASR member as well, AND as someone fascinated with the vinyl revival and having followed countless news stories, conversations, discussions, comment sections, forums etc on the subject, I felt I could offer some pertinent views on the questions. Starting with the list of my own reasons for owning a turntable and playing records. (Which, amazingly, not long ago you suggested was off topic in answering the OP!)

So I listed a variety of reasons I enjoy turntables and records, noting that many others getting in to vinyl share similar motivations. And in expanding the question to explaining the Vinyl Revival in general, I've elaborated, pointing out that it can't be easily reduced to single motivations, e.g. "nostalgia" or pure "Hipsters Just Wanting To Be Trendy."

I've pointed out there is a wide range of motivations among people who have started buying vinyl, or returned to purchasing records, in this vinyl revival. It covers a huge span, from the often noted satisfying physical aspects of holding and owning records, enjoying turntables, the aesthetics/artwork, the conceptual appeal of holding "the music" in physical form and interacting with it that way, that many say it encourages them to more focused listening vs streaming alternatives, to the fun of collecting, so supporting their favourite artists in buying vinyl as merch, to just collecting records without even owning turntables, to nostalgia, to wanting to be part of a trend, and on and on. And I have many times produced evidence for my claims, in the form of articles on the subject, links to discussions among vinyl fans/Reddit forums etc, to show people's motivations.

And that yes some significant portion will say they are also motivated by "sound quality." And I have pointed out that of course there is all sorts of nuance there to unravel.
For instance some say they find vinyl to be "worse" sound quality than streaming, but they actually like that - they like the "pops and ticks and crackle" of vinyl, perhaps as some form of nostalgia or whatever. Others citing sound quality say they like the sound of vinyl generally more than digital, and of course as I've said, that could comprise all manner of nuances. That cohort would comprise people who have naively bought in to the narrative "vinyl sounds better" and don't know any better. It would comprise vinyl fans falling to pure bias effects causing them to think they like the sound better, where they would not choose it in blind testing against digital. It would likely include situations in which they may truly prefer the sound quality. Because given all the variables, it is problematic to declare in every instance the preference is only delusion or bias. They may be comparing a new vinyl set up with nice speakers to when they listen to digital on ear buds or laptops. Or they may have a cartridge that produces a smiley frequency response that emphasizes 'details' in a way they take as "oh, look how much more clear and detailed vinyl is" than whatever they happen to listen to digital on. Etc.

As to my own comments on vinyl sound quality: I essentially defended that, especially in my own playback system, I have found vinyl to produce often high quality sound, in terms of satisfying my criteria, and even the impressions of many guests listening to my system. And that I can even prefer the sound of some records to digital counterparts, recognizing that the digital is the more accurate, and noting actual sonic characteristics in the digital version that are "better" and/or more accurate, and yet still really liking what the vinyl sound brings despite that.

And I have pushed back against claims that I feel exaggerate the real world sonic liabilities in vinyl vs digital. Just as the specs of a poorer performing tube amp can look abysmal vs a Benchmark amp, in real world listening due to masking and all sorts of perceptual issues, the difference may not be as great as the technical liabilities suggest.

And that can be the case often enough with vinyl. I just state that I myself often don't find huge differences in sound quality between digital and vinyl in my set up. And I have allowed the subjectivity involved in my impressions: pointing out that someone who is more sensitive to, and critical of, any added artifacts (ticks, pops, wow etc) may find themselves quite dissatisfied with what I find satisfying. And they may therefore rate the sonic difference between digital and vinyl as greater than I would rate it. This is the inherently subjective assessment of "how BIG or how RELEVANT is the sonic difference between vinyl and digital for the individual listener?"

So I have tried to be as careful and nuanced as I can in stating any claims, as befits a forum like this.

So please explain: WHY do you feel the above requires so much vociferous pushback? What do you actually argue I'm getting wrong or where I'm being unreasonable.

Especially, point out where in the view encapsulated above am I obfuscating audio truths and science. ?

Thanks.

 

[MattHooper]

BTW, the OP originally references the curious phenomenon of vinyl / turntables on a reddit forum, and wonders what explains this vinyl renaissance. Well, as I've pointed out through the thread, you can find just that type of information in the relevant reddit forums too. The reddit vinyl forum is full of new and older vinyl enthusiasts, discussing why they like vinyl records and turntables!

For instance, though small, there was yet another poll on this on r/vinyl reddit forum:

https://www.reddit.com/r/vinyl/comments/1b4pe6e
Results so far:

 

[Anton D]

“Audio Science Review.”

“Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required.”

Vinyl violates none of these parameters.

Plenty of fun and science.

 

[Robin L]

Let's just try a re-set here. . .

. . . The OP said he was a member of some Reddit Audiophile threads, had noticed people posting pictures of their systems often including turntables, and citing the disadvantaes of vinyl over digital he wondered why reddit audiophiles were "flocking" to turntables. Then he ended with what seemed a more general question as to how anyone makes sense of the Vinyl Renaissance in general.

He also said that all his needs could be met by streaming from YouTube. Clearly, he is not speaking for the overwhelming majority of audiophiles.

 

[Axo1989]

And that yes some significant portion will say they are also motivated by "sound quality." And I have pointed out that of course there is all sorts of nuance there to unravel.
For instance some say they find vinyl to be "worse" sound quality than streaming, but they actually like that - they like the "pops and ticks and crackle" of vinyl, perhaps as some form of nostalgia or whatever. Others citing sound quality say they like the sound of vinyl generally more than digital, and of course as I've said, that could comprise all manner of nuances. That cohort would comprise people who have naively bought in to the narrative "vinyl sounds better" and don't know any better. It would comprise vinyl fans falling to pure bias effects causing them to think they like the sound better, where they would not choose it in blind testing against digital. It would likely include situations in which they may truly prefer the sound quality. Because given all the variables, it is problematic to declare in every instance the preference is only delusion or bias. They may be comparing a new vinyl set up with nice speakers to when they listen to digital on ear buds or laptops. Or they may have a cartridge that produces a smiley frequency response that emphasizes 'details' in a way they take as "oh, look how much more clear and detailed vinyl is" than whatever they happen to listen to digital on. Etc.

As to my own comments on vinyl sound quality: I essentially defended that, especially in my own playback system, I have found vinyl to produce often high quality sound, in terms of satisfying my criteria, and even the impressions of many guests listening to my system. And that I can even prefer the sound of some records to digital counterparts, recognizing that the digital is the more accurate, and noting actual sonic characteristics in the digital version that are "better" and/or more accurate, and yet still really liking what the vinyl sound brings despite that.

There's inherent semantic and conceptual issue with the way we commonly use "quality" that Pirsig elaborated in his fun book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Quality usually means "better" but is enmeshed in a web of value judgements, etc. He suggested that quality was a chimera, we should think in terms of qualities. In other words, aggregate "quality" is blunt, often ambiguous and misleading. Things have multiple qualities that may have utility, value etc depending on situation and application. I generally avoid using the singular formulation for those reasons. Otherwise we have so much to unpack, untangle and specify before discussion can be meaningful. Ergo, this thread (and many others).

 

[Newman]

And you vinyl cultists come in here demanding equal time. No.

Equal time would be a downgrade, haha.

 

[MattHooper]

There's inherent semantic and conceptual issue with the way we commonly use "quality" that Pirsig elaborated in his fun book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Quality usually means "better" but is enmeshed in a web of value judgements, etc. He suggested that quality was a chimera, we should think in terms of qualities. In other words, aggregate "quality" is blunt, often ambiguous and misleading. Things have multiple qualities that may have utility, value etc depending on situation and application. I generally avoid using the singular formulation for those reasons. Otherwise we have so much to unpack, untangle and specify before discussion can be meaningful. Ergo, this thread (and many others).

Yes I generally agree. That's also why I have in earlier posts gone in to detail about specific "qualities," those I find preserved in the vinyl playback, including high levels of detail, clarity of specific features in recordings, imaging, soundstaging, dynamics etc, vs specific qualities I find better preserved in digital.

 

[Anton D]

Equal time would be a downgrade, haha.

Haha.

Vinyl is a minority interest here, you are just so triggered, it takes up more of your mental energy.

 

[Axo1989]

Yes I generally agree. That's also why I have in earlier posts gone in to detail about specific "qualities," those I find preserved in the vinyl playback, including high levels of detail, clarity of specific features in recordings, imaging, soundstaging, dynamics etc, vs specific qualities I find better preserved in digital.

Of course! My post wasn't a criticism, rather an elaboration.

And I don't mean to deflect from addressing the claim that you are "obfuscating audio truths and science".

 

[Newman]

Especially, point out where in the view encapsulated above am I obfuscating audio truths and science. ?

The “view encapsulated above” in your post is a distorted view.

What actually happens is more like I already summarised in my post, that you hand-waved away with the words “ad hominem / strawman”. And the net result is that: the actual authority and expert has left the discussion; his words have been largely drowned out and swamped by your excesses (Most words wins? Last post wins?); and the casual reader of the forum might get entirely the wrong view about what is and isn’t factual, if he or she can even still find the long-buried authoritative expert input, and has enough nous to disregard your carry-on.

Obfuscation.

That’s why, from time to time, I go fossicking and re-extract the actual authority and expert input, and re-inject it into some of these threads, as a small service to science and ASR’s mission. At which point the usual suspects sometimes call me a sycophant, or even suggest I am anti-science for not nit-picking the views of scientists about “the unknown unknowns” and “remember Einstein”, etc etc. Basically trash-talking science itself. That’s where these attitudes can end up.

And you know what the biggest single reason is for the above trainwreck? Because the science is too immature to correlate with their sighted listening impressions……………….yet.

 

[Anton D]

The “view encapsulated above” in your post is a distorted view.

What actually happens is more like I already summarised in my post, that you hand-waved away with the words “ad hominem / strawman”. And the net result is that: the actual authority and expert has left the discussion; his words have been largely drowned out and swamped by your excesses (Most words wins? Last post wins?); and the casual reader of the forum might get entirely the wrong view about what is and isn’t factual, if he or she can even still find the long-buried authoritative expert input, and has enough nous to disregard your carry-on.

Obfuscation.

That’s why, from time to time, I go fossicking and re-extract the actual authority and expert input, and re-inject it into some of these threads, as a small service to science and ASR’s mission. At which point the usual suspects sometimes call me a sycophant, or even suggest I am anti-science for not nit-picking the views of scientists about “the unknown unknowns” and “remember Einstein”, etc etc. Basically trash-talking science itself. That’s where these attitudes can end up.

And you know what the biggest single reason is for the above trainwreck? Because the science is too immature to correlate with their sighted listening impressions……………….yet.

Or, they simply enjoy playing records.

 

[Axo1989]

Or, they simply enjoy playing records.

Not possible.