Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[mppix]

Do you have any idea what your even talking about?

I try to summarize: you are saIng vinyl is not sota but cd is sota. This is demonstrated because a player has 120sinad dac ..?

My vinyl setup ends up somewhere in the 65dB dynamic range (measured), CDs are closer to 90dB (theretical), and i have some hires flacs that exceed the 120dB (theoretical).

In practice it is all a bit silly for albums recorded on tape (many of the "best" albums) because
- Many have significant technical issues such as mics, clipping, image, etc.
- One can make the argument that historic music should be played on historic formats.

To me, modern music is different and I listen to it mostly digitally. i have 24/96 or best quality files for music that was recorded/mastered as hi res (not the upsampled crap).
I should probably confess that I dont listen much to highly compressed music other than background.

What has this got to do with Linux?

Some of the earlier argumentation tactics seemed that a DE war was going on. The last pages improved considerably. Thank you.

 

[Newman]

We all also take it for granted that we can do basic simple math << how much force is created at a 'point' of 300micro-meter squared area with 1.5gm of weight upon it.

That’s very simple. The force is 1.5 grams-force or 0.015 Newtons. (2 sig fig)

 

[Newman]

Sal. Post production sound studios use very accurate sound reproduction equipment to....get this...evaluate the sound quality of recordings. (E.g. dialogue captured on set and pretty much everything else). (And btw, if the sound quality is lacking, we alter it - *distort it* for instance with EQ or other plug ins - to produce higher quality sound).
If "accuracy" were synonymous with "sound quality" this would be impossible. "Well...it's going through accurate equipment so, I guess it all sounds great!"
C'mon, you have to understand that accuracy/hi-fidelity - in the sense you use it, can not be synonymous with sound quality (in the sense of "higher quality sound").
A hi-fidelity system has the potential of producing high sound quality, but then it depends on the sound quality of the recording. A bad quality recording will produce "bad sound quality" on an accurate system, right?

Matt, your logical fallacy here is so blatant that I suspect you can see it. Sal clearly said he is talking about reproduction. If the musicians and production team choose for a recording to have low sound quality attributes, then Sal wants to hear that accurately. As does anyone interested in high fidelity.

C’mon, you have to understand this.

 

[egellings]

Sal.

Post production sound studios use very accurate sound reproduction equipment to....get this...evaluate the sound quality of recordings. (E.g. dialogue captured on set and pretty much everything else). (And btw, if the sound quality is lacking, we alter it - *distort it* for instance with EQ or other plug ins - to produce higher quality sound).

If "accuracy" were synonymous with "sound quality" this would be impossible. "Well...it's going through accurate equipment so, I guess it all sounds great!"

C'mon, you have to understand that accuracy/hi-fidelity - in the sense you use it, can not be synonymous with sound quality (in the sense of "higher quality sound").

A hi-fidelity system has the potential of producing high sound quality, but then it depends on the sound quality of the recording. A bad quality recording will produce "bad sound quality" on an accurate system, right?

Agree.

 

[mhardy6647]

Ahem, if we still lived in simple times.
View attachment 303181
We all know why the above came out. << A simple band-aid?
We all also take it for granted that we can do basic simple math << how much force is created at a 'point' of 300micro-meter squared area with 1.5gm of weight upon it.
But to sum it but saying modulation theory is simple is just piling on another band-aid.

So -- the funny thing is -- I look at all of the kludges and close enoughs and I listen to an LP record and I think to myself: dang, those engineers (i.e., the folks who developed stereo LP production "technology") were good.

ESPECIALLY when one considers that the product of commerce is made from a slug of PVC plastic in a mold, like an ashtray or part of a car interior.

Also, as I wrote earlier in this thread, consider the remarkable ability of a paper cone dynamic driver to convey music to our ears.
We stand on the shoulders of giants.

 

[pseudoid]

If the musicians and production team choose for a recording to have low sound quality attributes, then Sal wants to hear that accurately. As does anyone interested in high fidelity.

I - for one - would have preferred to listen to Robert Johnson's old recordings like the LP Gods intended them to be heard... if only I kept my TT and those old albums. bummer.gif
There is something raw, simple, and elegant way those records tickled the cranial that cannot be outdone in the digital recording/playback realm.
Stereo be damned!

 

[mhardy6647]

Nothin' wrong with mono.
Especially good mono.
This'll be good mono when it's all put together.

RCA Mono Horn System

This is in some ways a follow-up to the "RCA Shearer Horn" thread from old_borg but now we're off and running. My primary system is RCA horns in stereo and of course I can just fire up one side if I wish but I've had a hankering to do a dedicated mono stack for a while. If for no other reason...

hifihaven.org

 

[Sal1950]

Hey @Sal1950, let's be fair and admit that in those simple times, LPs were the best horse in the glue factory..

Absolutely, when have I or anyone else here said different?

I think the value of ASR and looking at things "scientifically" is it helps you sort out what is important or not when it comes to preceiving high quality audio playback. What is the point of 110 dB of SINAD if 50 dB is all you need? Is 110dB really more High Fidelity? To me some of what gets rave reviews here like a DAC with 120 SINAD combined with some small accurate 2 way speakers without much bass extension or SPL capabilites could easily sound less Hi-Fi than a good TT playing a clean record through tube equpitment driving some slightly inaccurate large full range effecient speakers. By knowing the science of psychoacustics and limits of hearing you can understand why this might be true.

What excuse is that for running components that DO audibly distort the source?
If you enjoy that distortion, fine. But don't try and call distortion High Fidelity in 2023
Why do you try and twist the discussion?

Some of the earlier argumentation tactics seemed that a DE war was going on. The last pages improved considerably. Thank you.

Oh BS, your making things up as you go along. Prove it!

C’mon, you have to understand this.

Naw, they keep trying to twist my words into meaning something else.

"High fidelity (often shortened to Hi-Fi or HiFi) is the high-quality reproduction of sound.[1] It is popular with audiophiles and home audio enthusiasts. Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.[2]
High fidelity contrasts with the lower-quality "lo-fi" sound produced by inexpensive audio equipment, AM radio, or the inferior quality of sound reproduction that can be heard in recordings made until the late 1940s.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

 

[MattHooper]

Matt, your logical fallacy here is so blatant that I suspect you can see it. Sal clearly said he is talking about reproduction. If the musicians and production team choose for a recording to have low sound quality attributes, then Sal wants to hear that accurately. As does anyone interested in high fidelity.

C’mon, you have to understand this.

Newman, you just made my point.

Remember, I had written:

Accuracy is not the same as sound quality

And Sal chimed in to tell me that was "completely wrong."

What Sal did was try to say "sound quality" was a measure of a system's accuracy of reproduction. (Which is why he concludes: Distortion Of The Source will never = Sound Quality).

That's where he got mixed up, for exactly the reasons I pointed out. "Sound quality" can't be conflated with "accuracy" because we can use accurate systems to evaluate variations in sound quality. It's in your own reply: "If the musicians and production team choose for a recording to have low sound quality attributes, then Sal wants to hear that accurately."

Unless you separate "accuracy" from "sound quality" even your own sentence above would make no sense!

And not conflating "Accuracy" with "sound quality" allows conceptual clarity, so for instance it tells us that in principle "less accurate sound" could also have "good sound quality." In fact it could have BETTER sound quality. Which, as I've said, should be obvious because this is employed all the time. In my job we are often ALTERING the original recordings (e.g. if the dialogue recordings were too thin, or too sibilant, or too noisy from the set) to get BETTER SOUND QUALITY. Just like one can use a judicious bit of EQ in one's home system <--- that's distorting the signal - with a poor recording to get BETTER SOUND quality. Even Floyd Toole has endorsed this!

Do you see the point I've been making now I hope?

 

[Sal1950]

Matt, please once more read the description of High Fidelity.
A system capable of High Fidelity is a system capable producing Good Sound Quality.
An accurate system is capable of good sound quality
Without accuracy, it isn't!
That is irrelevant of a good or bad source.
Quit trying to make it something else, its not.

 

[MattHooper]

"High fidelity (often shortened to Hi-Fi or HiFi) is the high-quality reproduction of sound.[1] It is popular with audiophiles and home audio enthusiasts. Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.[2]
High fidelity contrasts with the lower-quality "lo-fi" sound produced by inexpensive audio equipment, AM radio, or the inferior quality of sound reproduction that can be heard in recordings made until the late 1940s.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Sal. Take the worst recording you ever remember hearing.

Now, play it through the most accurate system you can imagine.

Do you think it would then be best to describe what you hear as "High Quality Sound?"

Please tell me you recognize how weird that would be. Does every single recording become indistinguishibly High Quality Sound through an accurate system?

The *sound* Sal. The sound. What. It. Sounds. Like.

 

[Sal1950]

The *sound* Sal. The sound. What. It. Sounds. Like.

The SOURCE!

 

[pseudoid]

Naw, they keep trying to twist my words into meaning something else.

Few decades ago, I (single handedly) invented the word "spintology".
It hasn't gained the traction that I expected, in our - currently polarized - world.
You are welcome to use it. No charge!

 

[levimax]

What excuse is that for running components that DO audibly distort the source?
If you enjoy that distortion, fine. But don't try and call distortion High Fidelity in 2023
Why do you try and twist the discussion?

I think you are missing my point. I don't believe distortion less than about -50 dB is audible for most people when music is playing. So to me going from -50 dB to -120 dB is not a big deal. A noisey or audibly distorting LP is more like -20 dB. To me to be Hi-Fi you need extended low FR and high SPL and inaudible distortion and noise. Where LP's often fall down is noise but they are certainly capable of being Hi-Fi.

 

[Sal1950]

Few decades ago, I (single handedly) invented the word "spintology".
It hasn't gained the traction that I expected, in our - currently polarized - world.
You are welcome to use it. No charge!

Exactly, and thank you, I will.
We have a few here with Doctorates in Spintology.
A Spintology PHD, LOL

 

[pseudoid]

Exactly, and thank you, I will.
We have a few here with Doctorates in Spintology.
A Spintology PHD, LOL

It is similar in intent of the old adage about "Don't argue with stupid; it'll take you down to its level and spank the daylight outta yah"!

 

[Sal1950]

I think you are missing my point. I don't believe distortion less than about -50 dB is audible for most people when music is playing. So to me going from -50 dB to -120 dB is not a big deal. A noisey or audibly distorting LP is more like -20 dB. To me to be Hi-Fi you need extended low FR and high SPL and inaudible distortion and noise. Where LP's often fall down is noise but they are certainly capable of being Hi-Fi.

You speak to only one form of distortion, there are many.
Noise introduced into the source is a distortion
Tube amps that change the frequency response depending on the load, is another.
Anything that modifies the sound of the source is distortion.
Not HiFi in the 2023 definition

It is similar in intent of the old adage about "Don't argue with stupid; it'll take you down to its level and spank the daylight outta yah"!

Good point.

 

[MattHooper]

The SOURCE!

You won't answer the question for some reason.

I'll give it one more try. I'm asking you to address the question of sound quality.

Do you agree that recordings have different levels of sound quality that we can evaluate? Some you (or we) would identify as "poor" on a continuum to "very high quality?"

Ok, if you agree that recordings have varying levels of sound quality, then...take the example of a recording we'd regard as having very poor sound quality.

Say I've made a recording of a concert on an old flip phone. The recording has all sorts of features that we'd normally identify as "poor sound quality:" It is terribly thin and bandwidth restricted, it is distorted, going in between muffled, fuzzy, and clipping...it's just damned hard to hear anything much at all.

Now...we play THAT recording through Amir's very accurate Salon 2 set up.

When asked to rate the sound quality we are hearing coming through those speakers...we are hearing the RECORDING...what will you say if asked to rate the sound quality?

Wouldn't it be bizarre to rate it as Very High Sound quality...because it happens to be played through an accurate system?

Imagine some normal person standing next to you and you've all be asked to rate the sound quality you are hearing. They say "god, that sounds awful...it's so thin and distorted I can barely make anything out."

Would you be denying this, saying "Oh no, poor naive person! What you are hearing is the Highest Sound Quality! Much higher sound quality than you've probably ever heard before."

When they look at you like you are nuts....will you stop for a moment to understand why?

Could it be...you are mixing up the evaluation of Sound Quality...with the accuracy of the system?

Imagine how muddled it would be to say "the SOUND QUALITY of this system is very high, but the SOUND QUALITY of the recording is very low."
Well...what then can you mean by "sound quality?" On one hand you are using the term to describe the actual sound you are hearing, on the other you are using the same term to describe the technical qualities of the system. Using the same term for both is utterly confusing and silly.

Wouldn't it be more clear, and correct to distinguish between "sound quality" and "accuracy" so you can say "You are hearing very ACCURATE SOUND REPRODUCTION but, unfortunately, the SOUND QUALITY of the recording is quite poor."

Tell me you see the sense in this, please.

 

[Doodski]

You speak to only one form of distortion, there are many.
Noise introduced into the source is a distortion
Tube amps that change the frequency response depending on the load, is another.
Anything that modifies the sound of the source is distortion.
Not HiFi in the 2023 definition

Linearity distortion has been a plague since the beginning of Hi-Fi and electronics/electromechanical. (The change from the input signal to the output signal.) The lower the better. Old gear has poor linearity and cannot compare to new gear that has been improved significantly. If one has a very good recording they can hear that.

 

[Sal1950]

Wouldn't it be more clear, and correct to distinguish between "sound quality" and "accuracy" so you can say "You are hearing very ACCURATE SOUND REPRODUCTION but, unfortunately, the SOUND QUALITY of the recording is quite poor."

Can't do anything about that.
All we can do is build a system that is capable of Good Sound Quality.
If you chose LP's and tubes, your lost from the start.
In a 2023 definition of High Fidelity