Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[JP]

Oops, your "heart of the matter" assertion that digital "always" sounds better is obviously false. Thousands of recording have been made from "needle drops" and as good as digital is it cannot record something superior to the source. Beyond that there are a large number of recordings where due to damaged tape sources and or incompetent mastering, an LP has measurable better FR. Beyond that there are literally millions of recordings where the LP's and CD's sound different enough due to mastering and re-mastering choices (which can easily swamp the audibility of the technical superiority of digital) that some people could prefer the LP version. So I guess the "heart of the matter" isn't so clear. Of course sound quality alone is not what the vinyl renaissance us about.

A lot of my vinyl collection is simply because I prefer the mastering choices. I've also played around with lacquers which are a whole different world from pressings. Stupid money and fragile, but if you want, in this case, a flat transfer of something for which you'll never get your hands on....

 

[mhardy6647]

Yes you don't.
I find this thread more entertaining than many others in ASR. I would like to oppose its closure for this reason.

It's just kind of funny how many of the anti-turntablista take this stuff so seriously.
No idea why they feel threatened by molded pieces of plastic. Kind of weird.

 

[beagleman]

Oops, your "heart of the matter" assertion that digital "always" sounds better is obviously false. Thousands of recording have been made from "needle drops" and as good as digital is it cannot record something superior to the source. Beyond that there are a large number of recordings where due to damaged tape sources and or incompetent mastering, an LP has measurable better FR. Beyond that there are literally millions of recordings where the LP's and CD's sound different enough due to mastering and re-mastering choices (which can easily swamp the audibility of the technical superiority of digital) that some people could prefer the LP version. So I guess the "heart of the matter" isn't so clear. Of course sound quality alone is not what the vinyl renaissance is about.

I think you may be missing the point.....maybe, not even sure.....

You are referencing "Sources" for our final media, and mastering choices and so on.
None of that changes the fact that digital is more accurate.

The inaccuracies of vinyl though are different in nature than most "different" masterings, and as such, cause other variances, such as speed variations, rumble, surface noise, distortion, and so on.

Mastering differences tend to be more of the nature of compression and frequency adjustments mostly.

 

[beagleman]

It's just kind of funny how many of the anti-turntablista take this stuff so seriously.
No idea why they feel threatened by molded pieces of plastic. Kind of weird.

I do not think there is anyone anti-vinyl at all. I mean I used it for a long time, moved to CD, went back to vinyl a bit again, and then mostly do streaming now, with SOME vinyl and CD thrown in at times.

Today, I have no hate, no fear in fact not a lot of feelings about vinyl or CD, but look back nostalgically about the several dozen LPs I still have. I rarely play them based on it is simply not convenient to, as streaming offers a far quicker way to get to several things far quicker, and with less effort.

Even CD I rarely bother with, due to have to first FIND the CD I want, remove it and put in player and so on etc etc.

I have a friend QUITE into vinyl with a mega buck table, and literally maybe HE is the reason for my feelings in this thread. He invited me over to listen, and between a few comments he made about vinyl being superior, and saying he would play a few of my favorites, and taking literally MANY minutes to go from one album to another, with his protracted and painful process of cleaning and filing his vinyl, made me realize, he likes vinyl, MORE than he likes music, or the process of vinyl or something.

I just click on Spotify and can bam go from song to song and get into the music. For my friend, most time is spend cleaning, filing, taking caution to not do this or that and it frankly to him sounds perfect, but to me, not nearly as perfect as he insists he hears......

Rant over guys~!!

 

[levimax]

I think you may be missing the point.....maybe, not even sure.....

You are referencing "Sources" for our final media, and mastering choices and so on.
None of that changes the fact that digital is more accurate.

The inaccuracies of vinyl though are different in nature than most "different" masterings, and as such, cause other variances, such as speed variations, rumble, surface noise, distortion, and so on.

Mastering differences tend to be more of the nature of compression and frequency adjustments mostly.

No points being missed. If you start from the same source then of course digital will be more accurate than pressing it to LP. However for a lot of music for a lot of reasons the sources are not the same and sometime the source used for the LP is way better so the LP can sound and even measure better.

As I mentioned the audibility of mastering choices can easily swamp the audibility of an LP's shortcoming so again an LP can be preferred because it sounds better to some people.

My main point was all the "obsolute" garbage people throw around. "Always superior" is just not true in the real world of recorded music.

 

[Sal1950]

**I'm of the opinion that any thread here once it has reached around 30 pages is probably well past the point of absurdity.

Your correct, but if the thread got closed for any reason, within a few hours someone would start a new one.
I wouldn't want to count how many there have already been in my last 7 years here. LOL

Pretty much. Is that bad?

In no way, as long as it's the understood and admitted reason.

And yet, that statistic, upstream, shows a large number of 55 and over purchasers that has increased year over year. I suspect, like me, most of these have experienced records at one time or another in their life, so at least part of the renaissance are what you call "long term loyalists"... which I'm not one of, by the way. Have not played records in about 45 years or so, until recently, so I'd certainly not call myself long term anything, although nostalgia does explain my recent interest.

Loyalists, or aging gentleman looking for a new toy to play with, reminiscent of their youth?

Thousands of recording have been made from "needle drops" and as good as digital is it cannot record something superior to the source.

But the needle drop/digital copy will never add a single bit of any type distortion from that day on.
The LP will deteriorate to some extent with each play.

So I guess the "heart of the matter" isn't so clear.

Sure it is, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time by listing all the areas where vinyl mastering destroys the actual sound of any master.

I find it a lot more fun than another dB of SINAD when thresholds of audibility were passed long ago.

Why bring SINAD into this when it is only one small piece of vinyls audible failings?

Stupid money and fragile, but if you want, in this case, a flat transfer of something for which you'll never get your hands on..

A FLAT TRANSFER? ROTFLMAO
Haven't you learned anything reading this thread?

What is Mastering for Vinyl?

Mastering for vinyl is the process of creating a separate master that can be cut into a vinyl record without added unwanted distortion.

www.sageaudio.com

What I find most curious is how many here get their panties in a bunch when vinyls distorted marketing claims
are attacked by us. Yet they will jump up and down to denounce the exotic cables, grounding boxes, very poorly measuring DAC's, amps and all the other BS that subjective audio not only supports but has falsely created a huge sales market for that equals or eclipses the vinyl renaissance.

 

[antcollinet]

Your correct, but if the thread got closed for any reason, within a few hours someone would start a new one.
I wouldn't want to count how many there have already been in my last 7 years here. LOL

True. Vinyl threads are like Lernaean Hydra

 

[MattHooper]

Galliardist,

With respect - I enjoy many of your interesting contributions! - I'm still not seeing what you seem to be describing.

What is going on here is, entirely, that some other posters wish to espouse a case where no post in 152 pages, including many posts that say that the sound quality of vinyl is superior to the poster, are allowed to be read as a statement that the sound quality of vinyl is superior.

None.

Not even the one on the first page that states, in the first two words, that sound quality is a reason for the vinyl renaissance.

Somehow, on this forum, and this forum alone, no matter what is said in every other place in the English speaking audiophile universe, nobody has arrived who believes that the vinyl renaissance is due primarily, mainly, or even partly, because of the claim that the sound of vinyl is superior, even if we allow ourselves to read between the lines in the most generous manner.

This confuses me. Especially that last sentence. Who is denying that "sound quality" isn't one of the common motivations cited by the vinyl enthusiasts in the vinyl renaissance?

That has been cited over and over. I myself have said that the sound quality - sound caracter - of vinyl is one of my motivations for buying records. And that I find myself preferring vinyl records sometimes over my digital source. Likewise I have often talked about vinyl consumers citing "sound quality" as being part of their motivation for buying vinyl. It comes up all the time in articles about The Vinyl Revolution. I've also pointed out there is nuance, where some say they don't think it sounds "better" in that they recognize it as lower fi from digital, but they still "like" that sound character. Others perceive the sound to be "better" than digital. With nuances in a spectrum in between.

I care about the nuances because I wish to be accurate to what people are actually saying about vinyl.

For the same reason, if the claim is some people on this thread have declared vinyl to be "superior" I'd like to see what they actually said, to understand if that's the best interpretation of what they meant. Is it an expression of their own preference? Or a declaration that vinyl sound simply is superior, as a claim others ought to accept? Especially given such claims on ASR generally, and this thread specifically, seem vanishingly low.

Meanwhile, somebody has raised the bar for that even higher, requiring somebody to explicitly claim that "vinyl is the only true way" and have to try to convince us all, at this forum of all places, of its absolute superiority, for us to be in a position to accept that sound quality has anything to do with the expression of the vinyl renaissance here: and it seems from some of the argument, therefore it is not allowed to suggest even that sound quality is a reason for it anywhere else.

But I didn't raise the bar: you did. You wrote:

"Remember, this thread keeps going partly because somebody has to turn up every so often to tell us why we're wrong and vinyl is the only truth..."

And I didn't flat out declare you wrong. I asked for examples. Now you seem to be complaining that someone asked you to back up your own seemingly exaggerated claim.

Further, I didn't demand you find someone saying those exact words. I asked if you could provide examples from this thread of people displaying the dogmatism your words implied. Otherwise...why even write the claim in the first place?

I asked for more than one because you wrote that "somebody has to turn up every so often..."

Which suggests it wasn't just one fly-by poster, but some level of a regular occurrence (even if not often). So...I was just asking for evidence for your claims.


You've mentioned this:

"Not even the one on the first page that states, in the first two words, that sound quality is a reason for the vinyl renaissance."

That's clearly a reference to rDin's post here. He of 20 posts or so.

But does rDin's posts reflect the dogmatism implied by your words that he's here to "tell us why we're wrong and vinyl is the only truth?"

No. He made quite clear that wasn't the case, and that he was referencing his own subjective impressions/reaction to listening to vinyl:

rDin: "Heresy, I realise, but I can only speak from my own experience which is this:"

(And he mentioned the other physical pleasures of vinyl adding to the experience)

rDin, in response to someone saying they disagree and could not listen to classical music on vinyl: "I recognise that, of course. But here's the thing: it doesn't matter. I'm describing my subjective response to what I hear, and that's all I'm interested in; maximising my subjective experience. The OP asked for perspectives on why there is a vinyl renaissance, and I gave mine. I respect your subjective experience too."

rDin later post indicates he probably misunderstood the nature of digital sound in explaining why he prefers vinyl warts and all. But even there he hardly seemed dogmatic, saying: "Even if I'm incorrect in suspecting digital issues in my system, subjectively, I still much prefer vinyl over digital replay."

So, even from your one example so far, I certainly do not see the dogmatism or proselytizing that you had originally suggested.

This is why I asked for actual examples, rather than taking on board what struck me as exaggerated claims on your part.

Cheers.

 

[JP]

Why bring SINAD into this when it is only one small piece of vinyls audible failings?

Simple - that wasn't the context of the comment.

A FLAT TRANSFER? ROTFLMAO
Haven't you learned anything reading this thread?

I happen to to work with some mastering engineers and am very much aware of how this stuff actually works. And yes, even though lacquer cut some of these are as close as anyone is going to get to a flat transfer of a master tape. Have you much experience with lacquers?

 

[afinepoint]

Indeed, to quote yourself, “an opinion nonetheless”.

Just bear in mind that art is made as art. Turntables were never conceived as art or “functional art”. They were conceived as a high-tech engineering solution to an engineering problem. They should be judged as that, not as art: that is just something you are seeing that was never there.

I mean, if you want to look at tools and see functional art, that’s up to you, in fact I could say, “nice philosophical viewpoint but an opinion nonetheless”. I would see much purer functional art in a hammer, or a classical bow and arrow. So what. Big deal. It is not what they are, though.

cheers

Every visited a modern art exhibition. Interesting what passes as art. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Take a look at high end turntables. It that's not artwork . . .

 

[afinepoint]

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?

Few. If any

 

[computer-audiophile]

Every visited a modern art exhibition. Interesting what passes as art. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Here is a photo with a turntable art object. It bridges the gap from analog to digital, so to speak. I have forgotten where I saw it and what the context was.

 

[afinepoint]

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? are shouting

Perhaps they are voicing a love for it but not acting incredulous and insulting because others won't. Unlike some.

 

[afinepoint]

Here is a photo with a turntable art object. It bridges the gap from analog to digital, so to speak. I have forgotten where I saw it and what the context was.

View attachment 302499

Interesting

 

[afinepoint]

Indeed, to quote yourself, “an opinion nonetheless”.

Just bear in mind that art is made as art. Turntables were never conceived as art or “functional art”. They were conceived as a high-tech engineering solution to an engineering problem. They should be judged as that, not as art: that is just something you are seeing that was never there.

I mean, if you want to look at tools and see functional art, that’s up to you, in fact I could say, “nice philosophical viewpoint but an opinion nonetheless”. I would see much purer functional art in a hammer, or a classical bow and arrow. So what. Big deal. It is not what they are, though.

cheers

Your remarks are so far out there I don't know where to begin answering them. Your arguement beginnings is what is called a straw man fallacy. Yes turntable were never designed to be such but have you looked at today's high end turntables? Have you? Seems more you are the one not seeing what is there.

Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. Applying that definition go look (again).

Your second paragraph is called a false analogy. It is an absurd comparison. Yes they are both tools but the similarity between a hammer and turntable ends there. Although I'm sure a hammer could be turned into a piece of art.

There's an issue I see here and is too often repeated by those like you across ASR and other forums. The inability to see another perspective and just say hmmm that's different. The less mature and emotional thing is to strike out and attempt to discredit through false analogies, supposition, conjecture, unfounded beliefs and so on.

Perhaps you aren't a fan of art. And that's ok. As someone that appreciates it I feel no need to convince another that because I believe a certain way they must too.

It's OK. I get your point and I am WILLING to try to see your view without an emotional knee jerk reaction. See both sides and THEN respond to remarks.

And as a parting remark turntables ARE seen as art by the Museum of Modern Art. A Bang and Olufsen turntable was inducted. Feel free to call and argue your point with them. Tell us how that worked out.

Again think before speaking. It's potentially less embarrassing.

Your ship is taking on water and rolling onto its side. Abandon it or continue debating as it slips below the waves.

Cheerios

 

[Sal1950]

And yes, even though lacquer cut some of these are as close as anyone is going to get to a flat transfer of a master tape.

Not sure I understand you? Are you saying there are lots of lacquers being cut that ignore all special needs of cutting a playable lacquer? I have links to at least 4 or 5 mastering houses that all list the same things that must be done to the original analog or digital master to make it cut-able or playable.

Have you much experience with lacquers?

Not a damn bit personally, I only know what I've learned from some of the best engineers in the business.

 

[egellings]

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.

Enjoy!

 

[beagleman]

Your remarks are so far out there I don't know where to begin answering them. Your arguement beginnings is what is called a straw man fallacy. Yes turntable were never designed to be such but have you looked at today's high end turntables? Have you? Seems more you are the one not seeing what is there.

Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. Applying that definition go look (again).

Your second paragraph is called a false analogy. It is an absurd comparison. Yes they are both tools but the similarity between a hammer and turntable ends there. Although I'm sure a hammer could be turned into a piece of art.

There's an issue I see here and is too often repeated by those like you across ASR and other forums. The inability to see another perspective and just say hmmm that's different. The less mature and emotional thing is to strike out and attempt to discredit through false analogies, supposition, conjecture, unfounded beliefs and so on. Your reaction and choice of words strikes me as someone who neither appreciates or understands creativity. Art. And that's ok. As someone that appreciates it I feel no need to convince another that because I believe a certain way they must too.

It's OK. I get your point and I am WILLING to try to see your view without an emotional knee jerk reaction. See both sides and THEN respond to remarks.

And as a parting remark turntables ARE seen as art by the Museum of Modern Art. A Bang and Olufsen turntable was inducted. Feel free to call and argue your point with them.

Again think before speaking. It's potentially less embarrassing.

Your ship is taking on water and rolling onto its side. Abandon it or continue debating as it slips below the waves.

Cheers

I am fairly sure, Mr. Newman and myself are simply having a bit of fun in this thread. I would not take things so seriously or personally.

I can completely see most of the views that are hating on me or thinking I am being clueless or a jerk. Trust me I get it all.
But all must be able to see that none of this is truly "That important" overall.

When I mention some become defensive of vinyl, just look at the last several pages of this thread......I mean, I am kidding a good bit and having fun with this, and meant all in good spirits, but I am not so sure we all are....

Gonna head out of this thread, was not sure it would cause so much panic and alarm. I thought this place was above bickering more than most other forums.
So carry on all and have a great time!

 

[JP]

Not sure I understand you? Are you saying there are lots of lacquers being cut that ignore all special needs of cutting a playable lacquer? I have links to at least 4 or 5 mastering houses that all list the same things that must be done to the original analog or digital master to make it cut-able or playable.

Not a damn bit personally, I only know what I've learned from some of the best engineers in the business.

Nothing like a good, faceless, appeal to authority.

Lathes don't cut pop and ticks. Center holes are precise and, well, centered. Lacquer noise floor can be less than tape (there are AES papers on this). The rest of the 'compromises' to accommodate the format were part and parcel with the production back then, so arguably they are inclusive to how it was intended to sound.

The way you describe the format I picture a Fisher Price turntable with a cheap as chips cart slammed on with no setup and records that were routinely used as frisbees. Sadly I have heard setups that bad, and more than one where the owner thought it was "dialed-in" with good records. Why don't you posted one of those needle drops so there's some calibration with your claims?

 

[Sal1950]

Yes turntable were never designed to be such but have you looked at today's high end turntables?

They have to offer the market something for their money, it sure ain't SOTA sound quality.

I can completely see most of the views that are hating on me or thinking I am being clueless or a jerk. Trust me I get it all.

Myself also, I've never hated on anyone here.
But for simply refusing to let the snake-oil marketing of vinyl become SOP at ASR,
we are the ones being hated on.
That's also such an ugly word used for simple technical debates on sound quality.
I really don't understand why many insist that the focus of this "hobby" shouldn't be High Fidelity Music Reproduction?
Whether source media, electronic components, or speakers, they should all be judged by their ability bring the sound of
the master recording into the home with as little alteration as possible.