Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Newman]

You answered afinepoint's post:
It has been said a sign of an intelligent man is his ability to see and argue both sides of a debate. Good job.
With this:
Darn, I thought that was a sign of a debating team captain with an amoral approach to assessment...
A plain reading of your reply is that you contested what afinepoint had written (which is the point I supported further, in my reply to you), and saw it as a negative.

And a plain reading of your reply is that you are chronically humour-impaired.

 

[antcollinet]

And those luxury digital items do attract ridicule here eg ‘snake oil’, ‘waste of money’, but, strangely, the critics don’t attract a huge backlash such as they do when criticising vinyl.

That backlash is the problem. If you know vinyl is inferior, then keep quiet and cop it sweet when someone says “vinyl is inferior”. Don’t go all emotional and proclaim how upset you are at the way someone said that vinyl is inferior. (I’m not aiming this at you personally, but at the Vinyl Defenders Brigade.)

But they don't justify ridicule to all users of digital as @egellings post seemed to justify for vinyl owners.

 

[MattHooper]

And a plain reading of your reply is that you are chronically humour-impaired.

Or you are bad at humor?

Obviously it was a wise-crack. But wise-cracks are often used to denigrate someone else's position.
Since so many of your posts, especially in this thread, seek to undermine people's points, it is far from a given that this particular post was different.
And you have often enough made some bizarre arguments (see your recent one about turntables I just addressed that you ignored). So I'm afraid, I can't presume any particular contrarian comment from you is just humor.

 

[mppix]

Oh? What thread on the topic of vinyl does not have dozens of people shouting their love of vinyl from the rooftops? Plus a sprinkling of anti-digital myths?

Liking (or loving) vinyl does not imply sprinkling anti-digital myths. I have see here several expressing the former but very little of the latter.

And those luxury digital items do attract ridicule here eg ‘snake oil’, ‘waste of money’, but, strangely, the critics don’t attract a huge backlash such as they do when criticising vinyl.

That backlash is the problem. If you know vinyl is inferior, then keep quiet and cop it sweet when someone says “vinyl is inferior”. Don’t go all emotional and proclaim how upset you are at the way someone said that vinyl is inferior. (I’m not aiming this at you personally, but at the Vinyl Defenders Brigade.)

I guess I am doing everything wrong:
turntable -> phono pre converts to 24/96 -> interface routes 24/96 audio over the network -> interface sends to analog out (and PC if desired) -> class D amps -> speakers in quad configuration
Oh .. there is no hardware volume control, just timmers

 

[MattHooper]

That was quite a stretch...

Your premise is flawed. You are altering the argument to make it something it is not.

I never see anyone disparaging peoples "Enjoyment" as you put it.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

In contrast to your "humorous" implication that it's a narcissistic "all about MattHooper" issue, no it's just just about "me."

A number of ASR members not "on board" with the vinyl renaissance don't *just* show up to counter purported false technical claims. They tend to ascribe vinyl consumer's choice - and the "renaissance" in general - to the shallower and more mockable motivations. They aren't just buying records because they enjoy the experience, they are largely "Hipsters" falling for fads/trends etc.

Why are people enjoying buying vinyl?

Look at a typical post by Newman, where he "sums up" the motivations for the Vinyl Renaissance:

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

… Even if there's a vinyl resurgence going on, it's a pretty thin sliver of the market. Let's say, incredibly generously, that it's 20% (again, I'm too lazy to research it, so we'll go big). It would be shockingly stupid from a business perspective to provide 80% of your customers with an...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It is a clearly negative spin at every turn "explaining" people's motivations, with a clear "I'm above and not falling for all of this" subtext.

Most vinyl threads contain these negative spins. For instance from another vinyl thread, a number of us explained why we enjoyed vinyl. Yet here is how our motivations
were characterized as mere whiny narcissism:

Why do records sound so much better than digital?

Not attacking vinyl rather than consideration as a worthwhile route. Not sure I understand. Do you mean you (or others?) who don't care for vinyl have been arguing against vinyl as a "worthwhile route?" If so...woudn't those be on the grounds that have been repeated ad nauseum? (Vinyl's...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Back to this thread, a brief search quickly shows, for instance:

Sal mocking Levimax's explanation for enjoying vinyl as an art different from digital streams:

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

Something else on the subject of Dual. Twenty years ago I had a phase where I was more intensively occupied with vintage turntables that I had known since my youth and tried to buy some of such classics as perfectly preserved as possible to restore them. Among them was a Dual 1229, which is the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Sal calling my preference for vinyl "misguided."

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

you had me at obsolete. You beautiful bastard. I was going to ask if they were yours but I see you've answered. I can appreciate this level of insanity from afar!

www.audiosciencereview.com

Now, do those strike an icy hand in to my heart? Of course not. I'm good with Sal.

But all these things are representative of a trend to take pot-shots at those who are enthusiastic about vinyl records, whether it's people "out there" buying records or ASR members daring to defend their strong engagement with records.

Where, as I said, you don't see anything like the snide attitude from those of us here playing records, towards your or anyone else's choice to just listen to digital.
Which I think my earlier response to you illustrated:

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

So the vinyl distortions, we are told above, make a sound that is preferred to the digital source file. And yet, when we go to 45rpm, which has LESS of those very same distortions, more like the digital original, we prefer it even more! (cough, cough) I am going to make one last point before I...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Sal1950]

But they don't justify ridicule to all users of digital as @egellings post seemed to justify for vinyl owners.

When people constantly want to debate or deny the measurable and verifiable facts of vinyl's highly audible flaws,
unfortunately there is little else left but ridicule.

 

[Newman]

Look at a typical post by Newman, where he "sums up" the motivations for the Vinyl Renaissance:

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

… Even if there's a vinyl resurgence going on, it's a pretty thin sliver of the market. Let's say, incredibly generously, that it's 20% (again, I'm too lazy to research it, so we'll go big). It would be shockingly stupid from a business perspective to provide 80% of your customers with an...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It is a clearly negative spin at every turn "explaining" people's motivations, with a clear "I'm above and not falling for all of this" subtext.

Most vinyl threads contain these negative spins.

Thanks for reminding me of how spot-on my summary post really was. A refresher for most to re-read (just ignore Matt’s attempt to poison it with more of his “shooting the messenger” BS). Matt, you forgot to note how fully it aligned with the OP and his tone and expectation for this thread, ie the sound quality for vinyl has been well and truly surpassed even by digital v1 decades ago, so please run us through all the non-sonic reasons for this renaissance.

You are also showing more humour impairment if you cannot see, as I do, the ironic humour in your attempt to re-badge as ‘negative spins’ such factual statements from my summary of the vinyl renaissance as:-

1. It is largely driven by hipster culture, bolstered by anti-technology backlash including love of ritual and old things.
2. It is reinforced with inexcusable myth-making about 'sounding better' from the media.
3. It is justified by the largely-acceptable sound quality when all the stars align and flaws are overlooked and listener standards are not at the highest level.
4. It will survive despite the quantum leap in perceptual sound quality from MCH that has left vinyl sound in the dust.
5. It will endure despite the insane price per song for new vinyl.
6. The high price per song has ironically created in some minds a Veblen Good attitude of 'it-must-be-best-because-it-costs-most', means this renaissance is probably here to stay, and
7. The battle for factualists will be to continually point out that cognitive bias is causing fans to misrepresent 'sounds-better-to-me' as being something in the sound waves.

The only “negative spin” in the room is your attempt to spin the above statements as biased and hence discredit them. Yet again Matt ignores the wise advice to not shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the content of the message.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Does it? Many young people buying vinyl are playing it on TTS someone else ones (their parents). That’s what I did when I was a kid.

 

[Sal1950]

A refresher for most to re-read (just ignore Matt’s attempt to poison it with more of his “shooting the messenger” BS). Matt, you forgot to note how fully it aligned with the OP and his tone and expectation for this thread, ie the sound quality for vinyl has been well and truly surpassed even by digital v1 decades ago, so please run us through all the non-sonic reasons for this renaissance.

Once again a top shelf post Newman!
As we are continually invaded by folks from the Mikey Fremer school of BS lies.
The Science of High Fidelity constantly bears repeating.

 

[Newman]

When people constantly want to debate or deny the measurable and verifiable facts of vinyl's highly audible flaws, unfortunately there is little else left but ridicule.

How many times have you said “rice bubbles” in obviously humorous reference to a real thing, and promptly met with “that’s offensive and should be withdrawn”, “I can’t hear it”, “I filter it out and don’t notice it”, and “if you use a very specific stylus tip profile that the vast majority of record players don’t use, and clean your records with the same washing, scrubbing and drying technique that I do, it almost disappears”?

And, after all that, some here have the sheer gall to insist that nobody here denies that vinyl has inferior sound quality!

 

[IPunchCholla]

1. It is largely driven by hipster culture, bolstered by anti-technology backlash including love of ritual and old things. Citation needed
2. It is reinforced with inexcusable myth-making about 'sounding better' from the media. Citation needed
3. It is justified by the largely-acceptable sound quality when all the stars align and flaws are overlooked and listener standards are not at the highest level. Citation needed
4. It will survive despite the quantum leap in perceptual sound quality from MCH that has left vinyl sound in the dust. Citation needed
5. It will endure despite the insane price per song for new vinyl. Citation needed
6. The high price per song has ironically created in some minds a Veblen Good attitude of 'it-must-be-best-because-it-costs-most', means this renaissance is probably here to stay, and Citation needed
7. The battle for factualists will be to continually point out that cognitive bias is causing fans to misrepresent 'sounds-better-to-me' as being something in the sound waves. Citation needed

 

[Newman]

LOL that’s actually funny.

You haven’t ever seen anyone post that they love the old-tech vibe of vinyl, or the ritual of it, or ever seen any media saying vinyl sounds better to them (ever heard of Fremer? He is not alone), and you want me to cite people saying that the sound is acceptable at its best? You missed all the experimental listening test data about MCH being a superior format to 2-ch? You need evidence that new vinyl prices per song are many times higher than digital or streaming? Really?? And you don’t understand Veblen Goods and that many people believe that high priced recordings are an indicator of superior sound? And, finally, you need citations that sighted listening bias applies to vinyl sound quality?

What rock are you living under?

 

[mglobe]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1008779/vinyl-record-buyers-us-by-age/

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for reminding me of how spot-on my summary post really was. A refresher for most to re-read (just ignore Matt’s attempt to poison it with more of his “shooting the messenger” BS). Matt, you forgot to note how fully it aligned with the OP and his tone and expectation for this thread, ie the sound quality for vinyl has been well and truly surpassed even by digital v1 decades ago, so please run us through all the non-sonic reasons for this renaissance.

You are also showing more humour impairment if you cannot see, as I do, the ironic humour in your attempt to re-badge as ‘negative spins’ such factual statements from my summary of the vinyl renaissance as:-

1. It is largely driven by hipster culture, bolstered by anti-technology backlash including love of ritual and old things.
2. It is reinforced with inexcusable myth-making about 'sounding better' from the media.
3. It is justified by the largely-acceptable sound quality when all the stars align and flaws are overlooked and listener standards are not at the highest level.
4. It will survive despite the quantum leap in perceptual sound quality from MCH that has left vinyl sound in the dust.
5. It will endure despite the insane price per song for new vinyl.
6. The high price per song has ironically created in some minds a Veblen Good attitude of 'it-must-be-best-because-it-costs-most', means this renaissance is probably here to stay, and
7. The battle for factualists will be to continually point out that cognitive bias is causing fans to misrepresent 'sounds-better-to-me' as being something in the sound waves.

The only “negative spin” in the room is your attempt to spin the above statements as biased and hence discredit them. Yet again Matt ignores the wise advice to not shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the content of the message.

I knew with absolute certainty you would reply with "thanks for reminding me how right I was." (I almost put in a footnote that you would doubtless respond that way).

You just can't help yourself ;-)

Everyone else can see your take on the vinyl renaissance is nothing but negative, as is your general appraisal of people's motives.

And of course I showed that beagleman's post that nobody has been disparaging anyone's reasons for enjoying vinyl was incorrect.

BTW, were you going to make sense for us of this strange claim denying the aesthetic/artistic component of turntables, to which I responded?

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

Exactly - so why dosn't the like of this result in ridicule towards the "CD owner"? luxman-d-10x-super-audio-cd-player-601-p.asp Because CDs are perfect sound forever and there's no wear-out; vinyl is not and wears out. Also, digital formats such as CD don't care about wow and flutter and...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[mppix]

Once again a top shelf post Newman!
As we are continually invaded by folks from the Mikey Fremer school of BS lies.
The Science of High Fidelity constantly bears repeating.

This is not science! Here's the definition of the science council:

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.​

The title of this thread is a valid scientific question. Your stance is not. Here are some logical flaws
(A) the vinyl renaissance is a fact as observed by sales stats - no need to argue evidence
(B) the vinyl renaissance has not been correlated with the (actual or perceived) sound quality of the medium beyond reasonable doubt - hence sound sound quality arguments are largely irrelevant to the discussion
(C) people here are trying to tell their stories and interests just to see comments like the above, by people apparently not interested in "understanding the ... social world following a systematic methodology"

Edit/removal: statement

Scientists are more than happy to make simplifying approximations or use older theories as long as they understand the limitations. After all, Newtonean physics is used by everybody who can get away with it and (audio) circuits are designed ignoring half of the Maxwell equations.

Edit/addition: fyi, I tend to discourage everybody from Vinyl "unless they understand the limitations".

 

[restorer-john]

I'm going to my storeroom to bring home my crates of records.

All this arguing has got me back into vinyl. Got four or five TTs out to play with.

 

[Newman]

Go for it. Live the dream.

 

[Galliardist]

Exactly - so why dosn't the like of this result in ridicule towards the "CD owner"?

luxman-d-10x-super-audio-cd-player-601-p.asp

EDIT : Or the wadax reference at the end of this list for users of streaming?

Editors’ Choice: Music Servers

Muzo Cobblestone $59 This inexpensive little device provides wireless streaming to any audio system. Although the Cobblestone wouldn’t be considered for a

www.theabsolutesound.com

Go and take a look at the review here of the Marantz SA-10. Ridicule enough? I was only saying that to my good friend Vlad the other day...

And in fact, while I'm not at all sure what is and is not snake oil in current turntable design, I'm pretty sure that it is still the case that given the problems inherent in isolating, reducing noise, and maintaining the correct distance and relationship between the cartridge and the groove, that there will be a case for some of the more expensive turntables as they are likely to do that better. Mechanical engineering has not dropped in price as the basic electronic components in a DAC have.

More, a case for vinyl has been made here. I may have some arguments about the effect of the vinyl renaissance, and the claim for superiority that does get made, but that does not equal a case for anyone to get rid of their vinyl, or even not to start down that road if someone wants it enough. I might point out some of the downside, but I think that's only fair given the hype.

 

[Newman]

(to Sal) This is not science! Here's the definition of the science council:

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.​

The title of this thread is a valid scientific question. Your stance is not. Here are some logical flaws
(A) the vinyl renaissance is a fact as observed by sales stats - no need to argue evidence

Where in Sal's post does he deny the sales stats or contradict them? I don't see it.

(B) the vinyl renaissance has not been correlated with the (actual or perceived) sound quality of the medium beyond reasonable doubt - hence sound sound quality arguments are largely irrelevant to the discussion

It is valid to discuss whether the reasons for the renaissance include sound quality, or don't. How is that off-topic?? I mean, how many people in this thread have already said, "I love the sound of vinyl, I just love it", and you say that's irrelevant? Tell them!

(C) people here are trying to tell their stories and interests just to see comments like the above, by people apparently not interested in "understanding the ... social world following a systematic methodology"

Please relate that back to your definition of science. Or are you saying those stories are off-topic because they are not following a systematic methodology and hence not science? Now that's a point I can agree with!

Scientists are more than happy to make simplifying approximations or use older theories as long as they understand the limitations. After all, Newtonean physics is used by everybody who can get away with it and (audio) circuits are designed ignoring half of the Maxwell equations.

I don't know what the point is that you make above...

...but let's go back to your opening statement, "The title of this thread is a valid scientific question." OK, but it is a scientific question on the social science question, "Why do people buy what they buy, when they buy things that cost more and perform less, with less convenience?"

To which I say, let's look at marketing, ie the science of creating desire, for answers to a question about a sales success. Note, I am a distant observer of marketing at work, so I would love to see citations, but based on advertising campaigns as evidence, I can offer the following answers to the question:-

1. Because retro stuff and retro looking stuff sells.
2. Because being cool and being seen to be cool sells.
3. Because ritual is a sellable proposition, despite convenience also being a sellable proposition.
4. Because bigger and heavier things are generally seen as better quality.
5. Because high price can be sold via an assumed connection to high quality.
6. Because media influence works. *

Which pretty much lines up with my earlier summary. Although citations would be nice, and I am not close enough to social science research to know them, I can also ask which of the above reasons do you think are so controversial? After all, advertising is expensive, and people in business don't waste money on things that don't work, so I'll take it as evidence that they work until I see citations to the contrary.

cheers

* eg for how many flippin' decades did we read reviews of CD players where "more analog sounding" was the highest praise? What do you think that sets up in the readers' minds about the sound quality of vinyl?

 

[Sal1950]

I'm going to my storeroom to bring home my crates of records.

All this arguing has got me back into vinyl. Got four or five TTs out to play with.

Go for it John!
At your age the exersise will be good for you.
And you can't hear all the noise, pops, clicks, and distortion any who.