Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[MattHooper]

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

Ok. Towel thrown in.

But in making the mistake that you keep repeating, not being able to recognize this very basic distinction between the accuracy of a system and sound quality, you hobble your ability to make a coherent case to "educate" newbies on these subjects.

Just sayin.'

 

[Sal1950]

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.

Yes, it's a shame we've made so many advances in technology and our ability to accurately reproduce music.
And so many want to argue that it doesn't matter ???

Ok. Towel thrown in.

But in making the mistake that you keep repeating, not being able to recognize this very basic distinction between the accuracy of a system and sound quality, you hobble your ability to make a coherent case to "educate" newbies on these subjects.

Just sayin.'

Your calling the kettle black and refuse to acknowledge the facts.
I award you a Spintology PHD,
I'm done.

 

[JP]

Yes, it's a shame we've made so many advances in technology and our ability to accurately reproduce music.
And so many want to argue that it doesn't matter ???

Thresholds of audibility for this stuff is rather well established, no? Are you going to argue that something like a Yggy performs poorly enough that the deficiencies are readily audible as compared to, say, an ADI-2?

 

[Doodski]

Yes, it's a shame we've made so many advances in technology and our ability to accurately reproduce music.
And so many want to argue that it doesn't matter ???

They are arguing about semantics, limitations and what ifs. It's a good argument although the specs speak for themselves even if one of the sources is good enough if setup well and not up to date technology.

 

[Sal1950]

They are arguing about semantics, limitations and what ifs. It's a good argument although the specs speak for themselves even if one of the sources is good enough if setup well and not up to date technology.

Correct, but "good enough" is not an absolute, it's an opinion. LOL

 

[IPunchCholla]

Can something be more inaudible? Or is it a binary condition?
Do we know enough about psychoacoustics to determine thresholds for the above?
Can the reproduction chain be separated from the quality of the recording?
Is fidelity necessary for an audiophile?
Is it necessary to be an audiophile to participate on this site?
Is this a technology site or a science site?
What are the goals of that science or technology?

It seems to me that much of the points made in this thread assume the answers to these questions when in fact differing answers are held by the participants. The rest is people determined to be right, rather than engage in the possibility of having their mind changed.

 

[Doodski]

Correct, but "good enough" is not an absolute, it's an opinion. LOL

Obviously a modern well setup and well stocked Hi-Fi system is going to blow the doors off a LP when using a up to date surround sound recording that is well made. I think what the LP Doods are saying is that the recordings of music whether on LP or DDD historically has not been all that great in some situations and the LP sounds good enough on their gear for that specific recording. I don't get why somebody would spend mucho bucks for a cool system that is dated technology when they could have modern up to date gear. Maybe they just like the romance and hobby of it all?

 

[MattHooper]

I don't get why somebody would spend mucho bucks for a cool system that is dated technology when they could have modern up to date gear. Maybe they just like the romance and hobby of it all?

You’ve got a long thread to read.

 

[Sal1950]

I don't get why somebody would spend mucho bucks for a cool system that is dated technology when they could have modern up to date gear.

Me either. I always had the best I could afford and put the old stuff in the closet.

You’ve got a long thread to read

We've read it all over and over Matt.
But 2+2 will never =3

 

[thecheapseats]

thank goodness I'm not an audiophile...

 

[levimax]

Obviously a modern well setup and well stocked Hi-Fi system is going to blow the doors off a LP when using a up to date surround sound recording that is well made. I think what the LP Doods are saying is that the recordings of music whether on LP or DDD historically has not been all that great in some situations and the LP sounds good enough on their gear for that specific recording. I don't get why somebody would spend mucho bucks for a cool system that is dated technology when they could have modern up to date gear. Maybe they just like the romance and hobby of it all?

An up to date system with a decent TT does not have to be expensive and being able to play more formats is an advantage to some.

 

[Chazz6]

Does the quality of digital source files vary? Does the range of variation overlap substantially with the range of variation in the quality of LPs? If so, this is more important than the fact that the best digital files puts the best LPs to shame.

This thought is probably in one or more prior pages of this long thread. I repeat it because today I put Spendor A1 speakers into my system, fed by a FirstWatt F8 amplifier — and the sound of an old LP (C.T. Meets Monk) was top notch, superior to some of my digital files and the equal of many of them (yes, by my subjective appreciation of them). Spendor speakers are praised for the detail they reveal, not for any interpretation that they impart.

 

[Newman]

An up to date system with a decent TT does not have to be expensive and being able to play more formats is an advantage to some.

Agreed. What do you think is the necessary budget for a "decent, not expensive, up-to-date" TT including tonearm, cartridge and phono amp?

 

[Axo1989]

They are arguing about semantics, limitations and what ifs. It's a good argument although the specs speak for themselves even if one of the sources is good enough if setup well and not up to date technology.

Yes, both good enough and good sound are preferences and/or value judgements. Accuracy is a technical evaluation, but not achieved absolutely. If a technical deficiency has no audible consequences, then it may not conflict with good sound or with high fidelity.

 

[NIN]

Exactly.
ASR is not a rah rah club for a noisy, distorted, obsolete medium.
No rose colored glasses when it comes to High Fidelity
If playing with a record cleaning brush and all the rest is your idea of fun, be my guest.
Just don't try and present it as a relevant option for SOTA sound for the last 50 years.

It still can be the "SOTA" sound for album X, Y and Z. Better mastering or source can do that the vinyl version is clearly better than the digital version.

 

[Newman]

It still can be the "SOTA" sound for album X, Y and Z. Better mastering or source can do that the vinyl version is clearly better than the digital version.

Well...you are applying a condition that has nothing to do with SOTA in playback gear.

The point has been made many times that some music lacks a digital release with little or no dynamic compression applied between the studio master and the digital release master. And that such recordings are one of many reasons that one might choose to retain a TT in one's system.

But to apply the term SOTA to this situation is a new and unconventional use of the term, which is not advisable as it does not help in communication and language to do that.

cheers

 

[NIN]

Well...you are applying a condition that has nothing to do with SOTA in playback gear.

The point has been made many times that some music lacks a digital release with little or no dynamic compression applied between the studio master and the digital release master. And that such recordings are one of many reasons that one might choose to retain a TT in one's system.

But to apply the term SOTA to this situation is a new and unconventional use of the term, which is not advisable as it does not help in communication and language to do that.

cheers

SOTA don't mean a thing if the source you are feeding is worse. Better dynamic range, s/n less distortion don't mean a thing if the mastering sounds like shit and the vinyl version have better mastering.
This is not rocket science.

 

[computer-audiophile]

We stand on the shoulders of giants.

True!

For me, the sound potential is clearly on the recording or content side. I therefore pay the most attention to that.
What you normally get to buy on LP, CD, or streaming is still second-rate today.

One of the most enjoyable listening experiences on my audio pilgrimages was the screening of master tapes made during live recordings in German radio studios. Played back on a big vintage Klangfilm horn speaker system by my former audio friend Tom S. (R.I.P.).

I show here a photo of the said AEG-Telefunken tape recorder which was used for that.

 

[mppix]

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

This is the only part of that post that did not need a response. I rest the case. Cheers.

 

[Axo1989]

State of the art is another non-specific descriptor. If we refer to technical specification only, then certain parameters certainly exceed thresholds of audibility. Depending on which characteristics we are discussing and which thresholds apply, falling short of SotA may have no audible consequences.

Remembering that audio waves are relevant to actual sonics, but the proper good feelings one may get from purchasing gear that returns nice numbers (that one may value as a proxy for good engineering, or whatever) are not. People who obsess over numbers that don't matter, and harass people who enjoy listening to gear with different numbers that don't matter, may be indulging in little more than a technical fetish.