Vinyl is not as bad as I expected.

[symphara]

I prefer headphones. Odd, in that it has some of the aspects of surround [binaural recordings can have all] in that there is a sense of being surrounded by sound. I also get the impression of hearing more low-level detail. I know it's not "real", but "Stereo" is not "real" either, insofar as the imaging of two-channel is an audio illusion. I have owned and enjoyed a 5.1 system, but in the end I find headphone listening makes it easier to hear musical detail, so I often use headphones when speakers are an option. The audio perspective of headphones might not be "real", but it is consistent.

I would think this sort of information could and should be a data point, to be included alongside the various arrays of speakers.

Interesting. For me it’s not detail with headphones but intimacy. Solo from Sleep (Max Richter) on headphones is my late night daily routine, I love it.

 

[Newman]

What started as Vinyl not sounding so bad is now stereo versus multichannel.

Well, people preferring vinyl over digital have to defend stereo against multichannel, or their stance is doomed.

And you can see from the players involved that this is happening.

It’s the Scorched-Earth Policy. Notice that its use is synonymous with retreat.

 

[Inner Space]

Simplest to explain by way of an example. In sighted listening you clearly prefer speaker A over speaker B. But in controlled conditions you clearly prefer speaker B over speaker A. So it turns out that you actually prefer the SOUND WAVES from speaker B. But without the controlled test you would be dead certain that you prefer the sound waves from speaker A, and you would be wrong.

P.S. Before you assert that the example is unrealistic: it is actually routine and has been done repeatedly. Even when speaker A and B are very different. There is nothing to debate about the realism of the example.

I agree. As a further learning opportunity, can you describe the controlled conditions you used to determine your reaction to stereo -vs- multichannel? And the controlled conditions you routinely use to select speakers?

 

[Bob from Florida]

Well, people preferring vinyl over digital have to defend stereo against multichannel, or their stance is doomed.

And you can see from the players involved that this is happening.

It’s the Scorched-Earth Policy. Notice that its use is synonymous with retreat.

I don't pretend to understand the need to try and force a view on anyone else. Vinyl is not perfect, but it sounds good enough for me. I also listen to digital - no complaint there. Okay by me if you or others don't like what I like - does not affect my reality at all.
On the other hand, the industry does benefit from multichannel audio. More speakers and associated equipment equals a lot more money at every consumer level.
The best movie experience for me has been Dolby Cinema - complete with powered recliners equipped with "butt woofers" to shake you during special effects. Have not been since the start of the Covid - hopefully able to see Dune soon.

 

[MattHooper]

I don't think this is the issue. Yes vinyl can sound very good. I recently asked someone with a large LP collection to play for me something that would be excellent sounding and he produced Timeless (Abercrombie, ECM). It was excellent. Very nice LP mastering, the disc had no defects, it was pancake flat and very clean, there was minimal LP noise, we really enjoyed listening to it. Basically as good as I've heard an LP.

The issue is that the CD version sounds much better, there's more depth and clarity, the bass is deep and wonderful, you don't need to pay close to $50 for it, and you can digitise it so it's so much more convenient to use, and the digital copy won't degrade (at all).

Unless you have a large number of LPs with unique masters that aren't available in digital format - and this is unlikely - it's just nostalgia. The format is clearly (substantially) inferior, more expensive and far more inconvenient to use.

I don't know why people fall over themselves to demonstrate that LPs are somehow superior. They aren't. It's just nostalgia. Own up to it, there's nothing to be ashamed of. It's perfectly acceptable to choose something objectively worse because it makes you feel better due to its very quaintness and the ritual attached to using it.

Since I just saw this quoted, and getting back to the spirit of the subject of this thread....

I disagree that the only reason someone would choose vinyl, or even like or prefer the sound, is mere nostalgia.

As usual I would never make the case that LPs are the superior format technically..or sonically, all things considered.

But as someone who listens to music digitally and on LPs (with a good quality turntable/cartridge), I often love the sound from the LPs and not simply due to "nostalgia." To me if there is anything that reminds me of the past sonically it's when there is obvious record noise - pops, ticks etc. I don't get warm fuzzies from record noise - I generally want as clean playing a record as I can find.

But going back and forth between digital and LPs on my system I just can't ignore how often I find aspects of an LPs sounding "better" in a certain sense. Certainly not better in noise floor, absolute transparency to the source, absolute dynamics or in any of the ways digital is superior. But "better" in that there can be certain characteristics in the LP sound that can sound a bit more "real" or "life like" to my ears.
Again, this isn't an across the board proposition, since I have plenty of digital music that sounds better than lots of my LPs.

But there is often enough a sort of density and texture and "pop out of the recording" characteristic that reminds me more of the real thing.
This shows up a lot on snare drums, but also on many instruments.

I'm constantly comparing the character of real sounds to reproduced sounds. So even today I was passing some live music - a sax and stand up bass, unamplified. When I close my eyes and listen, and take note of the character of the sound, I always note a sense of density and it's-right-there-could-reach-out-and-touch-it texture to the sound, which makes recorded instruments sound sort of glazed over and canned.

Last night I played my digital copy of Everything But The Girl's Amplified Heart, which I've loved for decades and played endlessly. I compared it to the 1/2 speed master release of that album on LP. They sounded very similar - I would frankly find anyone declaring the Obvious Sonic Superiority of the digital to be...exaggerating at the least. But in terms of subtle differences that we audiophiles may care about, I found the digital version not surprisingly to sound a bit more "clean" and slightly more transparent (e.g. I could hear the subtlist reverbs that seemed a bit lost or truncated in the vinyl version), which also allowed a slightly finer variation in timbre of voices and instruments. So I loved the digital version.

But the vinyl version also had a very appealing character to me: the drums, guitars, various percussion instruments like wood blocks, vocals, had more of that "real life" texture, that solidity and "thereness" that I hear when I listen to live instruments. Wood blocks sounded a bit more like hearing right through to the real thing, vs a slightly glazed recording of a wood block. Again, same with voices and pretty much everything else.

In other words, the character the LP brought to the table was a bit more of the character I noted in listening to that live sax and bass, the character I usually hear in live sound sources. It's no doubt from some accrual of distortions, from possible different mastering EQ to other subtle distortions that may build up in putting down the signal on wax and dragging it off again with a rock. But I'm far from the only one who finds it can sometimes mimic "slightly more believable sound" (insofar as those are the particular characteristics one finds believable).

I can easily imagine someone listening to both on my system and preferring the sound quality of the digital. I'd completely get that. We tend to bring our own listening history, likes, dislikes and goals to these evaluations. But the point I'm making is that when I like the sound of LPs the term "nostalgia" doesn't fit; it's that I can actually find the quality of the sound - the vividness and believability - to be compelling.

 

[Leiker535]

Since I just saw this quoted, and getting back to the spirit of the subject of this thread....

I disagree that the only reason someone would choose vinyl, or even like or prefer the sound, is mere nostalgia.

As usual I would never make the case that LPs are the superior format technically..or sonically, all things considered.

But as someone who listens to music digitally and on LPs (with a good quality turntable/cartridge), I often love the sound from the LPs and not simply due to "nostalgia." To me if there is anything that reminds me of the past sonically it's when there is obvious record noise - pops, ticks etc. I don't get warm fuzzies from record noise - I generally want as clean playing a record as I can find.

But going back and forth between digital and LPs on my system I just can't ignore how often I find aspects of an LPs sounding "better" in a certain sense. Certainly not better in noise floor, absolute transparency to the source, absolute dynamics or in any of the ways digital is superior. But "better" in that there can be certain characteristics in the LP sound that can sound a bit more "real" or "life like" to my ears.
Again, this isn't an across the board proposition, since I have plenty of digital music that sounds better than lots of my LPs.

But there is often enough a sort of density and texture and "pop out of the recording" characteristic that reminds me more of the real thing.
This shows up a lot on snare drums, but also on many instruments.

I'm constantly comparing the character of real sounds to reproduced sounds. So even today I was passing some live music - a sax and stand up bass, unamplified. When I close my eyes and listen, and take note of the character of the sound, I always note a sense of density and it's-right-there-could-reach-out-and-touch-it texture to the sound, which makes recorded instruments sound sort of glazed over and canned.

Last night I played my digital copy of Everything But The Girl's Amplified Heart, which I've loved for decades and played endlessly. I compared it to the 1/2 speed master release of that album on LP. They sounded very similar - I would frankly find anyone declaring the Obvious Sonic Superiority of the digital to be...exaggerating at the least. But in terms of subtle differences that we audiophiles may care about, I found the digital version not surprisingly to sound a bit more "clean" and slightly more transparent (e.g. I could hear the subtlist reverbs that seemed a bit lost or truncated in the vinyl version), which also allowed a slightly finer variation in timbre of voices and instruments. So I loved the digital version.

But the vinyl version also had a very appealing character to me: the drums, guitars, various percussion instruments like wood blocks, vocals, had more of that "real life" texture, that solidity and "thereness" that I hear when I listen to live instruments. Wood blocks sounded a bit more like hearing right through to the real thing, vs a slightly glazed recording of a wood block. Again, same with voices and pretty much everything else.

In other words, the character the LP brought to the table was a bit more of the character I noted in listening to that live sax and bass, the character I usually hear in live sound sources. It's no doubt from some accrual of distortions, from possible different mastering EQ to other subtle distortions that may build up in putting down the signal on wax and dragging it off again with a rock. But I'm far from the only one who finds it can sometimes mimic "slightly more believable sound" (insofar as those are the particular characteristics one finds believable).

I can easily imagine someone listening to both on my system and preferring the sound quality of the digital. I'd completely get that. We tend to bring our own listening history, likes, dislikes and goals to these evaluations. But the point I'm making is that when I like the sound of LPs the term "nostalgia" doesn't fit; it's that I can actually find the quality of the sound - the vividness and believability - to be compelling.

Aside from naturalness and the odd better imaging I perceive, there's also a hint of cleanliness I get from my vinyl system which makes absolutely no sense objectively (aside from confirmation bias and attentively listening). The subjectivist word would be "blackness". I'm sure that this is all in my head but nevertheless prefer the illusion/placebo.

 

[Leiker535]

Well, people preferring vinyl over digital have to defend stereo against multichannel, or their stance is doomed.

And you can see from the players involved that this is happening.

It’s the Scorched-Earth Policy. Notice that its use is synonymous with retreat.

Joking aside, I wonder whether if in future, when we have neuralink directly to our brains playing a orchestra with live perfect accuracy, there'll be people defending OG listening through membrane transducers.

 

[Inner Space]

Aside from naturalness and the odd better imaging I perceive, there's also a hint of cleanliness I get from my vinyl system which makes absolutely no sense objectively (aside from confirmation bias and attentively listening). The subjectivist word would be "blackness". I'm sure that this is all in my head but nevertheless prefer the illusion/placebo.

In the mid-1980s I worked at a facility that was hired during an off week to host (blinded and controlled) vinyl -vs- CD comparisons for record company execs. It was the peak-vinyl era and I would echo @MattHooper above when he says, "They sounded very similar - I would frankly find anyone declaring the Obvious Sonic Superiority of the digital to be...exaggerating at the least."

Two things stood out - the negative was the speed and image instability of vinyl. The positive was, despite catastrophic numbers, vinyl noise didn't seem to matter very much. Our hypothesis was, because of the moving, rushing, forward-going nature of the noise (i.e. it wasn't static and it seemed related to the progress of the song) it was somehow mentally "subtracted" from the experience. Thus your impression of blackness and cleanliness is plausible (albeit psychoacoustic) according to those experiments.

 

[rdenney]

In the mid-1980s I worked at a facility that was hired during an off week to host (blinded and controlled) vinyl -vs- CD comparisons for record company execs. It was the peak-vinyl era and I would echo @MattHooper above when he says, "They sounded very similar - I would frankly find anyone declaring the Obvious Sonic Superiority of the digital to be...exaggerating at the least."

Two things stood out - the negative was the speed and image instability of vinyl. The positive was, despite catastrophic numbers, vinyl noise didn't seem to matter very much. Our hypothesis was, because of the moving, rushing, forward-going nature of the noise (i.e. it wasn't static and it seemed related to the progress of the song) it was somehow mentally "subtracted" from the experience. Thus your impression of blackness and cleanliness is plausible (albeit psychoacoustic) according to those experiments.

This sounds a bit like Floyd Toole telling us how we can adapt to listen through room effects.

I play on amateur radio, and one of the developed skills is hearing weak signals in a flood of noise, particularly in a contest. One old mentor told me, "You have to listen three levels deep." Humans are actually good at that, but it's definitely post-aural processing going on, assuming it's even possible to distinguish what's happening in the ears versus what's happening in the brain. We can be highly selective and focus on the sound of interest, even unconsciously, the same as we do with our other senses.

I think it's possible that if we are deeply adapted to listening through noise of a particular character, not having to do so presents an implausibility. If I hear speech emanating from a radio without any of the usual attendant noise, I find it jarring, as if someone wired a sound system into the speaker to have me on. This is, of course, expectation bias at play, but that doesn't make it seem any less real.

I have one beat-up old vinyl record that I victimized severely during my college days. As a result of that, surface noise on that album is quite noticeable. When listening to the LP at home, I'm never bothered by it. But when I listen to the needledrop of that LP in the car, it suddenly sounds like I've driven into a swarm of insects hitting the windshield. I lack the expectation of LP noise when listening to music in the car against 65 dB SPL of ambient noise, but not when I'm sitting in a chair in my quiet living room watching the platter spin. (I certainly do not hear vinyl roar in the car, however. There's enough road noise to bury that deeply.)

Rick "go figure" Denney

 

[MaxBuck]

I have one beat-up old vinyl record that I victimized severely during my college days.

Rick "go figure" Denney

I've got you beat. I sprayed Tuf-Skin on the surface of a Black Sabbath LP during my senior year. The sound was neither improved nor deteriorated -- just "different."



Alcohol may have played a role in this experiment.

 

[Inner Space]

I think it's possible that if we are deeply adapted to listening through noise of a particular character, not having to do so presents an implausibility. If I hear speech emanating from a radio without any of the usual attendant noise, I find it jarring, as if someone wired a sound system into the speaker to have me on. This is, of course, expectation bias at play, but that doesn't make it seem any less real.

I think this is a crucial issue, and wonder, more broadly, if we have adapted to two separate mental constructs - music, and loudspeaker music. Your reaction to the hypothetical radio could be translated into a loudspeaker test, where the winner sounds like a loudspeaker ought to. Really it's the only way I can explain to myself why people say their systems approach the scale and dynamics of live music. They're judging on two separate scales.

 

[MattHooper]

In the mid-1980s I worked at a facility that was hired during an off week to host (blinded and controlled) vinyl -vs- CD comparisons for record company execs. It was the peak-vinyl era and I would echo @MattHooper above when he says, "They sounded very similar - I would frankly find anyone declaring the Obvious Sonic Superiority of the digital to be...exaggerating at the least."

Two things stood out - the negative was the speed and image instability of vinyl. The positive was, despite catastrophic numbers, vinyl noise didn't seem to matter very much. Our hypothesis was, because of the moving, rushing, forward-going nature of the noise (i.e. it wasn't static and it seemed related to the progress of the song) it was somehow mentally "subtracted" from the experience. Thus your impression of blackness and cleanliness is plausible (albeit psychoacoustic) according to those experiments.

That's quite interesting!

There is an aspect to this that brings to mind the old saying: “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”

In theory, all the technical kludges required to get the sound on to and off wax, and all the compromises along the way, seems like it should produce low quality sound. But in practice it's not necessarily the case, it can be surprisingly good.

It's like if you look at various digital audio compression schemes. If you look at "all the information it seems to be throwing out" the intuition could be "well that can't sound good." But in practice a good compression scheme can sound transparent. And even as you get lower quality in lossy compression...yes you can start hearing differences, but it can be pretty damned minute in the bigger picture. (I've switched between lossless and lossy streams all the time on my streaming in my hi fi system and rarely notice I've suffered some significant audible degradation).

So there can be a bit of a mountain-out-of-a-molehill thing, even when it comes to digital vs vinyl, IMO.

And the significance of the differences are going to vary with individuals to some degree.

For instance, I listen to a wide variety of music genres on both vinyl and digital. I'm quite aware of the technical compromises in vinyl, and how digital has technical advantages in allowing for better dynamic range (if used), lower noise floor, better bass, etc.

But frankly, in practice I find I rarely notice these as significant advantages (with the exception sometimes of the lack of noise - record hiss/ticks pops, for digital). Across all the music I listen to it seems to somewhat even out - I get some titles with anemic bass and distant sound from digital, kick ass bass and vivid sound from LP, some digital titles with really "lively" sounding dynamics, some not very dynamic, LPs that sound lively and dynamic, others that sound limp. Some digital that images and soundstages incredibly impressively, some not. Same with the LPs.
So as much as in theory the advantage is for digital, in practice given all the real world variables, I don't really find myself "missing" some across the board advantage for my digital music, while listening to LPs. The closest exception is, again, the noise floor of digital vs vinyl. Though most of my vinyl plays quite clean, yes I certainly do sometimes hear record noise in between tracks (rarely when the music is playing).

But again, individual sensitivity is going to come in to play. I don't like record noise, but I resign myself to some level of it when playing records, so it doesn't get in the way of my enjoyment. Someone else though who really loves the digital advantage of the (usually) silent noise floor may be immediately put off and not be able to listen past the occasional ticks or pops or whatever. Classical music fans especially! Whereas I will listen through even a bit of record noise to still appreciate aspects of the sound. (And that goes for classical music too, which I quite like on vinyl - if the record isn't obnoxiously noisy I can still appreciate some of the textural character I like in the vinyl sound even with classical).

But to clarify about the mountain/molehill: Folks like us tend to really sweat the details, and what may seem minor to one person can be major to another. So I can certainly see why for instance some artifacts may not bother someone who listens to lots of vinyl, where a classical music lover may key in on the added record noise and lack of pitch stability (especially for piano), and it could be their reason to utterly write off the medium for their own purposes.

 

[MattHooper]

I think this is a crucial issue, and wonder, more broadly, if we have adapted to two separate mental constructs - music, and loudspeaker music. Your reaction to the hypothetical radio could be translated into a loudspeaker test, where the winner sounds like a loudspeaker ought to. Really it's the only way I can explain to myself why people say their systems approach the scale and dynamics of live music. They're judging on two separate scales.

That's good too.

I don't seek total realism in my music playback. If I set that high a bar I'd be constantly disappointed. Rather I just look for the sound to share certain agreeable characteristics that I hear in "real sounds." And of course not all music even makes sense as "sounding realistic" in the sense of t a real-world version (e.g. *electronica music). But when it comes to certain material some aspects of realism are cool. Like for well recorded orchestral music, there's obviously no way my system is reproducing the equivalent sound of an orchestra. But I enter the experience as I would watching a movie, making concessions for the artificial aspects, allowing me to sink in to the more believable aspects, to enter the illusion.

I have found that with my eyes closed leaning back on my sofa, the symphonic image spreads out quite wide. Not nearly wide as being close to a real orchestra, but if I do a mental adjustment and imagine myself sitting in the far seats, or the balcony, then the scale can seem quite appropriate and I'm able to sink in to the illusion of "being at the symphony" pretty well, sometimes. Last night I was listening to some symphonic soundtracks and frankly marveling at the illusion of hearing through a hall to a large orchestra.

Also: I've found an across the board benefit in using live sound as my reference point. As I've nudged my system - through choice of speakers, speaker set up, room acoustics, source choices etc - chasing that "palpable acoustic density" more like the real thing, not only do things like saxophones and voices seem more "there," so does everything else. *I find it just as thrilling when listening to variaties of electronic music, where the synthasizer blips and bleeps and swooshing pads can seem to virtually "materialize" solidly in the room, almost like having alien visitors. It never fails to captivate me. (And that's another reason why I've enjoyed re-listening to lots of electronic music on vinyl that I'd previously owned on digital. There can be that added vinyl-playback pop-out-of-the-recording texture/density and sometimes that increases the effect I'm describing).

 

[symphara]

I can easily imagine someone listening to both on my system and preferring the sound quality of the digital. I'd completely get that. We tend to bring our own listening history, likes, dislikes and goals to these evaluations. But the point I'm making is that when I like the sound of LPs the term "nostalgia" doesn't fit; it's that I can actually find the quality of the sound - the vividness and believability - to be compelling.

There was a test done on the supposed sound characteristics of LP vs CD, I read the report some years ago - I’m quoting from memory here - and the researchers did some smart things.

One of which was to take the CD track, add LP noise to it, then they played it to the subjects through the speakers with an actual turn table in front of the room, spinning the disc (but that was not the thing producing music, it was a trick). And then they asked the audience to compare it vs the actual LP sound, and the tricked digital version won. The audience thought it was a better LP, and they commented on the sound quality in a similar fashion to your post.

If they played the original digital version on a CD, with a CD player, and they asked the audience to compare it to the LP, I don’t remember if the LP version won but it was far more divided.

I’m sure you trust your perceptions but I think it’s the tail wagging the dog. You probably find vividness and believability because you know it’s an LP, and not the other way around.

Now there’s nothing I can probably say to change your mind. If you can, you should subject yourself to this kind of test. Otherwise it’s no different from claiming sound improvement due to cable differences. You might absolutely believe that (I met plenty of people who do) but it’s just bias.

I never believed that cables can make a difference and thus I was never able to tell any difference. I never grew up with LPs, we never had a turn table when I was growing up, I never bothered buying one, so now if I go to someone and they play an LP, I just hear the low dynamic range, poor bass and general noise, without any of the exceptional sound qualities (vs digital) that you mention.

Please don’t get me wrong - I am sure I have plenty of biases myself. For example, I think there’s a difference between sound reproduction caused by the DAC used, but I haven’t blind tested this with a proper level match and this perception could well fall apart if I ever had the time and the equipment to test it. The thing I do, being aware of that, is to never spend too much money on a DAC

 

[Leiker535]

There was a test done on the supposed sound characteristics of LP vs CD, I read the report some years ago - I’m quoting from memory here - and the researchers did some smart things.

One of which was to take the CD track, add LP noise to it, then they played it to the subjects through the speakers with an actual turn table in front of the room, spinning the disc (but that was not the thing producing music, it was a trick). And then they asked the audience to compare it vs the actual LP sound, and the tricked digital version won. The audience thought it was a better LP, and they commented on the sound quality in a similar fashion to your post.

If they played the original digital version on a CD, with a CD player, and they asked the audience to compare it to the LP, I don’t remember if the LP version won but it was far more divided.

I’m sure you trust your perceptions but I think it’s the tail wagging the dog. You probably find vividness and believability because you know it’s an LP, and not the other way around.

Now there’s nothing I can probably say to change your mind. If you can, you should subject yourself to this kind of test. Otherwise it’s no different from claiming sound improvement due to cable differences. You might absolutely believe that (I met plenty of people who do) but it’s just bias.

I never believed that cables can make a difference and thus I was never able to tell any difference. I never grew up with LPs, we never had a turn table when I was growing up, I never bothered buying one, so now if I go to someone and they play an LP, I just hear the low dynamic range, poor bass and general noise, without any of the exceptional sound qualities (vs digital) that you mention.

Please don’t get me wrong - I am sure I have plenty of biases myself. For example, I think there’s a difference between sound reproduction caused by the DAC used, but I haven’t blind tested this with a proper level match and this perception could well fall apart if I ever had the time and the equipment to test it. The thing I do, being aware of that, is to never spend too much money on a DAC

IMO it comes to "do you want to hear it for what it is?" question. Despite the inconvenience of vinyl , plus the expenses, I do like the routine of it versus my flac library or streaming, because I associate it differently. I usually listen to digital in my smartphone using TWS or on the computer while taking quick breaks from work (home office), so I associate the experience with those activities and not with active listening. With vinyl I turn off all other eletronics and just sit there watching it spin and spacing out with music. Sure, I could create a routine using a streamer deck or a CD player, but I personally prefer the inconvenience and quirks of LPs, to quote the famous joke.

There are people on the other side who taught themselves to unlift the veil, and I salute them for that. @Robin L is one I admire here in the forum. I myself have a proclivity to master searching in LPs and his told experiences here made me chill out a bit with that, keeping my collection to LPs I actually care to collect and not to hoard things just because the snare drum attack sounds better at halfway on the third track of that particular japanese repress of Fleetwood Mac.

In other aspects, objectivity and self honest reflection also saved me from going nuts with source gear in the past, and with actual transducers (in my case, headphones) now. There was a time, before I delved into ASR and studied the technicalities of audio, that I was utterly immersed in hype and source gear releases. Searching for the perfect, most euphonic amp or DAC while I myself couldn't tell one apart from the other. I live in Brazil and gear is really expensive here, with chifi being an absolute miracle for us (american and european offerings can cost 10x as much). Despite that, I was always told from the NA subjective community that my gear was "ok" while their Schiit was much better. Today I couldn't care less for "warm dacs" or such because I have finally taught myself that it just doesn't matter for me. And most recently more progress was achieved when I realized I do actually like the harman target and EQing to it, making headphone choice much more narrow than collecting (hoarding, really) multiple cans to "specific" genres of music, catering to their own "individual personality".

 

[MattHooper]

I’m sure you trust your perceptions but I think it’s the tail wagging the dog. You probably find vividness and believability because you know it’s an LP, and not the other way around.

Now there’s nothing I can probably say to change your mind. If you can, you should subject yourself to this kind of test. Otherwise it’s no different from claiming sound improvement due to cable differences. You might absolutely believe that (I met plenty of people who do) but it’s just bias.

I understand your suspicion. Though I think you are making a bit too strong a leap there, especially if you are very confident in presuming it's "just bias."

Could the features I describe about some vinyl, and my preference in some cases, be my imagination and bias and expectation effects?
Yes, of course. That's always a possibility. I don't have a scientific level of confidence about it. And not having done a blind test I'm just left to give my thoughts about what you wrote at this point.

The question for me isn't therefore whether it's possible I'm fooling myself (yes it's possible): it's whether it's more plausible I'm fooling myself, than not.

Good record pressings from the same master of a digital version sound VERY close in sound quality, but across a broad sampling of vinyl where distortion levels vary, there are some slightly wider characteristic differences).

It's not controversial that vinyl often sounds detectably different than digital - it's predicted by theory and born out in much practice. That's one reason why so many here abandoned it . Which means the claim to identify sonic differences is not directly comparable to claims made about theoretically unlikely phenomena like sonic differences between AC cables

So the plausibility of my actually hearing real sonic differences are very high.

So the more likely issue of concern is in the cases I prefer an LP, whether I actually prefer it for the sonic reasons I feel I'm detecting, and would prefer it in a blind test like the one you mention.

I don't know for sure.

But it remains at least plausible to me that, as there are real differences to be heard between vinyl and digital, that the character of those differences I'm detecting (which vary) are real. I work in sound editing and all day long I am discriminating between the character of sound and using that discrimination to manipulate sound, often in extremely subtle ways (literally matching the "air tones" of rooms sometimes). That doesn't entail I can't be wrong, or that bias and some imagination isn't playing a role both in my record listening AND my work. After all, when I slightly manipulate the volume, or EQ, or compression, or do countless adjustments to alter texture, I could be fooling myself. And yet...it wouldn't seem reasonable to doubt-in-most-cases these abilities - it seems to work

So on a subjective level of plausibility, while I COULD always be wrong about the differences I'm detecting playing a vinyl record, I'm about to use precisely the same sound discrimination to work on a movie FX soundtrack, and it seems to produce real results. So I find it plausible that if I'm detecting a sharpening of the sound, or brightness, dullness, or a bit more distortion or texture when playing a vinyl record, that they are there, just like I detect sonic distinctions in my work.

(I'd also note that my preference - or perception that vinyl sound quality can be "better" in the ways I describe - is variable. I often find digital to sound better than many of my LPs, and in fact I judge the digital version of the Everything But The Girl album to be better overall. That doesn't entail there isn't still some perceptual error happening, but it DOES suggest it isn't strictly the expectation effect "because it's vinyl it will sound better.")

Anyway...all that is actually somewhat beside the point. Remember that I had responded to your claim that one would only be enjoying vinyl in terms of "nostalgia," not sound quality etc. I still think that is a superficial take that doesn't hold water, at least in my case.

Whether in blind tests digital would eek out a win over LP, it's still the case LPs can sound fantastic. As even those who don't play vinyl will often point out. For one thing, note that Inner Sound referenced blinded tests between CD and LP, and his conclusion from that work "I would echo @MattHooper above when he says, "They sounded very similar - I would frankly find anyone declaring the Obvious Sonic Superiority of the digital to be...exaggerating at the least."

Which supports the idea that vinyl can sound excellent. And so you can't presume someone is simply moved by "nostalgia" rather than actually appreciating good sound quality.

Pre-covid, I regularly had many guests who listened to my sound system and it didn't matter which I played as a demo - a good record pressing or a digital version - it still rendered many speechless "looked like they've seen a ghost" at the sound quality, where they say things like "I never knew music could sound so real!"

I just received some pressings of some excellent older rock band recordings. Words I'd just to describe the sound would be: clear, detailed, vivid, punchy, spacious - impressions typically associated with excellent sound quality. What is more plausible? That, as someone who cares about sound quality and works evaluating sound all day long, manipulating just those characteristics, that I'm utterly mistaken about the sound? Or that it has those features? To argue it's more plausible than not that I'm wrong, you'd have to demonstrate that vinyl can not produce sound with those qualities, or is highly unlikely to produce such qualities. That isn't something you could actually demonstrate, which leaves my impressions as more plausible than not.

It's possible I'd select the digital version in a blind test as sounding even better. But even granting that, it doesn't entail that the the vinyl can't also sound excellent.

The point being that with vinyl I'm often appreciating excellent sound quality - often vivid, dimensional, punchy etc - qualities I also get from digital. So mere nostalgia doesn't cover what I'm getting out of vinyl.

Please don’t get me wrong - I am sure I have plenty of biases myself.

No one here ever need apologize for suggesting an impression is due to bias. It's something we all have to take in to consideration, no matter what the claim or argument.

For example, I think there’s a difference between sound reproduction caused by the DAC used, but I haven’t blind tested this with a proper level match and this perception could well fall apart if I ever had the time and the equipment to test it. The thing I do, being aware of that, is to never spend too much money on a DAC

I view digital as a solved problem and have zero interest in discussion of new DACs.

But ironically, in the 90's I seemed to hear distinct differences between some CDPs and DACs I had on hand. Doubt was cast on this by the engineer-types on the audio news sites, and I had doubts myself, so I did two sets of blind tests (level matched at speaker terminals with voltmeter etc) and aced them easily for detecting differences between the CDPs/DAC. Weird. But I don't care about it these days.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating since it seems to be ignored - LPs have a very definite and audible 'groove rush' which has nothing to do with the stereotype of click and pop type of noise. Groove rush is almost like a 'room ambience' type of sound, and it is has a strong random out of phase / in phase quality which can sound like an added 'liveness' to the sound which can be quite pleasant, although of course its an artifact.

Of course digital doesn't have this effect.

 

[symphara]

I don’t know if you guys watched Bosch on Amazon Prime (if you like detective shows, I highly recommend it).

There’s something really romantic and appealing about Bosch, in his wonderful glass house overlooking LA, playing Art Pepper on his turntable, in the evening.

I’d probably do it with an SACD, but you do whatever makes you happy!

 

[abdo123]

Update after 7 months:

my other mother in law gave me her pristine record collection to digitize, it included hundreds of gems like first prints of Thriller and other iconic pop albums.

And God now whenever someone says that 'compression is part of the pop and electronica' i just want to put a sock in their mouth and bitch slap them really hard.

 

[Newman]

Compression is part of pop and electronica. Learn to deal.