Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[AdrianusG]

I listen to both vinyl and digital and enjoy both. Most of the time, the convenience of digital wins out. I have some old LPs that I can't find on digital, but I own a lot more digital music. To replace it all with vinyl would cost a bunch and take up a ridiculous amount of space.

I have to confess that I've never been able to hear what people describe as vinyl sounding better or being more musical.

Same goes for me, in fact ,19 times out of 20 I prefer the sound of digital (CD or otherwise) over Vinyl.

I love to play vinyl as well every once in a while, but definitely not for it's "better" sound quality.
besides that, i don't stream and always listen to full albums unless i'm running out of time and have to stop.

One thing of concern of course are the "loudness wars", but those have nothing to do with the format per se (digital or otherwise), that's all on the Music Industry that record or re-master, and their choice to deliberately butcher up the sound for the Mp3 generation that doesn't care about SQ in the first place.

 

[Galliardist]

Are you sure that’s a Guarneri? It would have to be a heavily modified one, with the huge metal endpin and long neck.

Just like almost all violins made in that period, a lot of cellos were also modernised with a replacement neck, raised bridge, and so on. I don't know the full raft of changes that are made to the cello, but you would expect a more modern looking instrument to result, just as seen here.

The thing I was wondering was... which Guarneri?

 

[computer-audiophile]

The thing I was wondering was... which Guarneri?

Unfortunately, I don't know, and I can't inquire about it today. It is actually not so important to me, the sound of this old cello was in any case sensationally good.

Another picture with Carin Levine and Rohan de Saram

 

[Multicore]

Fujifilm is doing good business with its Instax cameras. The quality of images from my phone is objectively far higher and my phone is a much more flexible tool, including filters to imitate Instax and other retro film types. But I dig Instax. For one thing there's the friendly fun of waiting for the image to appear. For another, you get only the one print. It is not in the cloud, not on the Internet's permanent digital record. If you give it to someone, you're not sharing, rather it's a gift of the only one of its kind. Clearly that's different from vinyl in some important ways. All the same many vinyl runs these days are small editions hand numbered.

 

[Bob from Florida]

All day long I manipulate recordings to sound more real. There's all sorts of tricks in manipulating sounds. If we were stuck having to find or create only
"perfectly transparent recordings" we'd be up sh*t's creak. But fortunately...that's not how it works.

Likewise, in principle, some coloration in your sound reproduction could add to or restore some more "natural sounding" elements. (Even adding more sidewall reflections for a more believable spacious acoustic sensation, where the sound seems less stuck in the speakers, can be part of that as well).

Exactly my point! The only thing “real” is actually being at the event. If we enjoy whatever was done during the mastering process - great, just don’t try to convince me that it sounds the same as the actual live event. Subjectivity always shows up due to our own preferences. Consider the Harmon Curve for headphones - derived from a sample group of frequency response preferences. Not flat response, but pleasing to the majority of tested.

 

[Ron Texas]

Does it need explaining?

 

[Newman]

Consider the Harmon Curve for headphones - derived from a sample group of frequency response preferences. Not flat response, but pleasing to the majority of tested.

I’m not sure that its non-flatness means what you seem to be implying it means? I mean, why should a headphone FR curve be flat, when the measuring mic is in the ear canal? It’s not logical to expect it.

 

[MattHooper]

I'd absolutely desire to go to the meters to determine if the effect was the result of superior technical performance or just the happy accidental result of some distortion. It's easy to use distortion to give a signal a pleasant tint.

Ok, then we essentially agree on my point. Cheers.

From that approach you really learn nothing of the science of recording or move the goal posts for true High Fidelity reproduction forward.. If you ever hope to hear a system that can actually suspend belief in the Live vs Memorex test, it won't come from adding euphonic distortions.

I have fooled people that someone was practicing saxophone in the next room (a recording I made of my son practicing sax).

The system comprised tube amps driving an MBL omni speaker.

 

[MattHooper]

Audiophiles kvetching about other audiophiles seems a major part of our hobby.

Recording may be about trying to capture an original performance as closely as possible, or it may not. Usually not.

Replay (Hi-fidelity replay) is about getting as close to what was recorded as possible.

It's not really a subtle distinction but this basic misunderstanding has led many audiophiles up blind alleys and resulted in many very poor (but expensive) loudspeakers.

Then you get complaints about how bad most recordings are, how cloth-eared and incompetent recording engineers are, how the 'better' the system gets the more recordings become 'unlistenable' and so on.

All audiophiles should be taken to a studio (at gunpoint if necessary) and shown how a recording is made,. then maybe the nonsense would stop.

Sorry but it is a pet peeve.

I don't think audiophiles in general are as naive as you suggest.

I don't know a single audiophile, nor have I met one, who thinks our sound systems can regularly reproduce the same sound as live instruments and voices.

No audiophile needs to enter a recording studio to have noticed the wide variability in recording characteristics and quality, and thus understand that some recordings seem meant to sound natural, others may by happy accident, and many simply do not and don't even try.

As to life-like sound, do we have sound systems that reliably sound distinguishable from real? No.

But can some systems (and recordings) produce more life-like sound than others? Of course. The fact you haven't reached a goal doesn't mean you can't be further
or closer to that goal.

And, again, as I always point out, even audiophiles like myself who reference real sound in evaluating hi-fi gear, understand we can only at best, at times, get some level of
approximation, and in many cases we wouldn't even WANT the real thing (I don't want a real drum set in my small listening room). So we are talking about getting certain aspects of the real thing that are attainable or pleasurable.

This is fairly typical when audiophiles have conversations about life-like sound from hi-fi gear:

What exactly is "lifelike" sound?

Another forum member asked me this question recently and I thought it worthy of a separate thread. Here's how I replied. That's an excellent question,...

forums.stevehoffman.tv

I don't see many in such threads being completely unaware of the artifice of recordings. It's a pretty nuanced discussion.

 

[Mart68]

Audiophiles kvetching about other audiophiles seems a major part of our hobby.



I don't think audiophiles in general are as naive as you suggest.

I don't know a single audiophile, nor have I met one, who thinks our sound systems can regularly reproduce the same sound as live instruments and voices.

No audiophile needs to enter a recording studio to have noticed the wide variability in recording characteristics and quality, and thus understand that some recordings seem meant to sound natural, others may by happy accident, and many simply do not and don't even try.

As to life-like sound, do we have sound systems that reliably sound distinguishable from real? No.

But can some systems (and recordings) produce more life-like sound than others? Of course. The fact you haven't reached a goal doesn't mean you can't be further
or closer to that goal.

And, again, as I always point out, even audiophiles like myself who reference real sound in evaluating hi-fi gear, understand we can only at best, at times, get some level of
approximation, and in many cases we wouldn't even WANT the real thing (I don't want a real drum set in my small listening room). So we are talking about getting certain aspects of the real thing that are attainable or pleasurable.

This is fairly typical when audiophiles have conversations about life-like sound from hi-fi gear:

What exactly is "lifelike" sound?

Another forum member asked me this question recently and I thought it worthy of a separate thread. Here's how I replied. That's an excellent question,...

forums.stevehoffman.tv

I don't see many in such threads being completely unaware of the artifice of recordings. It's a pretty nuanced discussion.

You're hanging out with less advanced audiophiles I think.

There's plenty of people out there claiming that live instruments and voice are their benchmark when demoing equipment. (not just loudspeakers but electronics, cables and complete foo like grounding boxes).

Usually accompanied by 'I attend a lot of live acoustic performances so I know what instruments sound like.'

So for a start they have no concept of how mic placement is going to change the sound of the acoustic instrument or voice, and that's unavoidable regardless of how purist the recording is.

 

[MattHooper]

You're hanging out with less advanced audiophiles I think.

There's plenty of people out there claiming that live instruments and voice are their benchmark when demoing equipment.

With the completely reasonable caveats that I gave, and which are also found in the thread I linked to.

(not just loudspeakers but electronics, cables and complete foo like grounding boxes).

Snake oil is a different subject.

Usually accompanied by 'I attend a lot of live acoustic performances so I know what instruments sound like.'

So for a start they have no concept of how mic placement is going to change the sound of the acoustic instrument or voice, and that's unavoidable regardless of how purist the recording is.

I use live sound as a benchmark, and as someone who works in sound I'm familiar with how microphone choice and placement alter the presentation.

Most audiophiles understand recording techniques affect the sound. It's o-b-v-i-o-u-s because anyone can hear the variations in recordings. So I think you are wailing at something of a straw man.

Audio memory is imperfect, but I can recognize the sound of my mom's voice, or anyone else I know. A cellist or someone who is a fan of cello music who attends live unamplified performances will have a decent idea of what a cello sounds like live. Same with any instrument or group of instruments to which someone pays attention.
There is a "gestalt" as it were, from which a reproduction of the sound can depart further, or get closer. And you don't need to know a single thing about how something was recorded to recognize when the playback of an instrument, or voice, sounds more like the real thing than some other example that obviously departs from the real thing.

 

[Mart68]

I use live sound as a benchmark, and as someone who works in sound I'm familiar with how microphone choice and placement alter the presentation.

Most audiophiles understand recording techniques affect the sound. It's o-b-v-i-o-u-s because anyone can hear the variations in recordings. So I think you are wailing at something of a straw man.
.

Yes I am sure you can but can all the other people who are not professional sound engineers doing it every day for a living make that mental adjustment? With any kind of accuracy? I doubt it. I know I can't.

I disagree that most audiophiles have any concept of how recordings are made beyond what they have seen on TV.

 

[computer-audiophile]

Usually accompanied by 'I attend a lot of live acoustic performances so I know what instruments sound like.'

Well, how can it be otherwise? Do you have a better suggestion how to train your hearing than with acoustic instruments, voices and nature sounds?

 

[IPunchCholla]

Well, how can it be otherwise? Do you have a better suggestion how to train your hearing than with acoustic instruments, voices and nature sounds?

Well, I personally, have no interest in training my ears that way. I have no interest in realism in the music I make and only slight interest in realism (it’s way down the list in my priorities), so that type of training would subject me to music and culture I am just not interested in without any benefit.

For reference I make music that would simply not be possible with acoustic live performances, doing things like using a reversed cymbal crash as the sidechain for massive compression on a distorted and reverbed bass chord and violin notes that last 12 minutes while going from ”pure” violin (whatever that means when using a digital instrument) to highly echo if and distorted and back while intermingle with two other notes to form a chord some part of which is distorted and some part of which is clean while the main note of the chord slowly changes.. Live, my favorite experiences have been at shows with giant j-stacks played so loud the air itself sounds reverberant, the sound without source.

 

[computer-audiophile]

Well, I personally, have no interest in training my ears that way. I have no interest in realism in the music I make and only slight interest in realism (it’s way down the list in my priorities), so that type of training would subject me to music and culture I am just not interested in without any benefit.

For reference I make music that would simply not be possible with acoustic live performances, doing things like using a reversed cymbal crash as the sidechain for massive compression on a distorted and reverbed bass chord and violin notes that last 12 minutes while going from ”pure” violin (whatever that means when using a digital instrument) to highly echo if and distorted and back while intermingle with two other notes to form a chord some part of which is distorted and some part of which is clean while the main note of the chord slowly changes..

For many types of music, it really doesn't seem that important to me whether the sound at home is really hi-fi or 'right' or as natural as possible. If there are sounds with no natural reference, I can't check that either. I can only say: it's OK for me.

I also listen to electronic music, have made some myself. That is not the point

Live, my favorite experiences have been at shows with giant j-stacks played so loud the air itself sounds reverberant, the sound without source.

I assume that you will not be able to reproduce this experience at home.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I can only say: it's OK for me.

I also listen to electronic music, have made some myself. That is not the point

You can go beyond just wether something is “OK for you” even when not referencing acoustic instruments. I have been training my hearing by importing songs into my DAW that were recorded by pros that I admire the quality of, and while making/mixing, Switching to those tracks to see how what I am doing compares to those tracks paying attention to the exact relationship of the bass to the kick to the… where the instruments are placed and how that effects the overall feel of the song. I also use the LUFS meters which shows second by second LUFS, an intermediate average (I think ten seconds), and total for the song. This has been amazing for helping me learn how one hears dynamic range and to develop strategies for using compression effectively. Essentially critically listening to how songs that attract me are constructed and how I can use those elements to make my songs better. There is no need to reference live acoustics to do this. It can be done within the realm of the representation itself.

 

[MattHooper]

Well, I personally, have no interest in training my ears that way. I have no interest in realism in the music I make and only slight interest in realism (it’s way down the list in my priorities), so that type of training would subject me to music and culture I am just not interested in without any benefit.

I can empathize with that. I have no interest in training my ears to hear the minute differences in distortion, e.g. different codecs or whatever. I don't want to sensitize
myself to things that could distract from my enjoyment. I sensitize to aspects that seem to improve my enjoyment of music.

I also don't want all music to sound "live" at all. Far from it. That to me evokes the idea of everything being recorded 'audiophile-style,' with "natural micing" where realism is the goal. And I generally don't listen to a lot of audiophile music in that respect. It can be so boring. I love studio craft, all the different styles, the different reverbs, mixing. A recording for me is part of the musical enjoyment so I want to preserve the artificiality if it's there.

I listen to a lot of Library/Production music from the late 60s to the early 80s and part of the appeal is the surprising and idiosyncratic recording and production choices.
Two different albums may list instruments like horns, strings, drums, synth, tympani, but I'll never have an inkling how they will sound from one album to the next. If the drums
are mixed to the far right corner of the soundstage, as if recorded in a closet, that's what I want to hear. But still, if the drums sound recognizably "right" to me as drums, the texture and timbre of the snare, cymbals etc, that increases my enjoyment. I was playing an old MOR fusion album I just got and I have no idea how the horns or drums were mic'd, but on my system the horns had that recognizable-to-me golden brassy tone where my brain just relaxed and said "yup, those are horns" and in that sense sounded more life-like, even if they were a very diminished version of horns.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I can empathize with that. I have no interest in training my ears to hear the minute differences in distortion, e.g. different codecs or whatever. I don't want to sensitize
myself to things that could distract from my enjoyment. I sensitize to aspects that seem to improve my enjoyment of music.

I also don't want all music to sound "live" at all. Far from it. That to me evokes the idea of everything being recorded 'audiophile-style,' with "natural micing" where realism is the goal. And I generally don't listen to a lot of audiophile music in that respect. It can be so boring. I love studio craft, all the different styles, the different reverbs, mixing. A recording for me is part of the musical enjoyment so I want to preserve the artificiality if it's there.

I listen to a lot of Library/Production music from the late 60s to the early 80s and part of the appeal is the surprising and idiosyncratic recording and production choices.
Two different albums may list instruments like horns, strings, drums, synth, tympani, but I'll never have an inkling how they will sound from one album to the next. If the drums
are mixed to the far right corner of the soundstage, as if recorded in a closet, that's what I want to hear. But still, if the drums sound recognizably "right" to me as drums, the texture and timbre of the snare, cymbals etc, that increases my enjoyment. I was playing an old MOR fusion album I just got and I have no idea how the horns or drums were mic'd, but on my system the horns had that recognizable-to-me golden brassy tone where my brain just relaxed and said "yup, those are horns" and in that sense sounded more life-like, even if they were a very diminished version of horns.

I get that. I use a lot of different drum machines. Some sound nothing at all like drums, but they do have their own charm in how the different sounds work together. At the same time I use modeled drum sets. There is one in particular I like that really sounds like drums, but also like drums that I like. There are a couple that sound natural to me, but I just don’t like the tonality of the snare, or side stick, or kick or whatever. I have yet to find a good model of horns. I do wonder if that is because I played trumpet for 3 years 40 years ago.

 

[MattHooper]

I get that. I use a lot of different drum machines. Some sound nothing at all like drums, but they do have their own charm in how the different sounds work together. At the same time I use modeled drum sets. There is one in particular I like that really sounds like drums, but also like drums that I like. There are a couple that sound natural to me, but I just don’t like the tonality of the snare, or side stick, or kick or whatever. I have yet to find a good model of horns. I do wonder if that is because I played trumpet for 3 years 40 years ago.

Indeed. Ultimately to the extent something sounds "right" to any of us (compared to a sound we think we know) it's generally to whatever sound impression we carry around in our head. I only have to please my own memory impressions, not anyone else's.

For me tone/timbre is quick deal killer if it doesn't suit my mental template. I've listened to ultra detailed systems that are simultaneously forensic in clarity and description of the instruments in the recording, and yet to my brain "the wrong timbral colors." For me it's the equivolent of looking at an Ansel Adams photo of an orchestra: there's all the detail in the world allowing me to intellectually apprehend each separate instruments, but it's black and white, so it's missing the essential element of "correct tonal color."
Once that tonal color seems right to me, I completely relax and it's all good.

 

[computer-audiophile]

... Live, my favorite experiences have been at shows with giant j-stacks played so loud the air itself sounds reverberant...

If one then suffers from hearing loss or tinnitus at an older age, this could perhaps be a late consequence.