Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Axo1989]

Now I finally understand why vinyl sounds better than digital :

”Richness refers to the diversity of auditory aspects heard in vinyl records. Because of record grooves, the sound of vinyl is more open, allowing a greater quantity of features to be heard. The space afforded by the grooves allows one to locate and individuate particular instruments and sounds and observe how they contribute to the music as a whole. This way, diversity can be heard.”

Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl Is Better than Digital - Aesthetics for Birds

What follows is a guest post by Tony Chackal. We have also published a response piece to this post, which you can read here. Ever wonder why people prefer vinyl records over digital formats? Are they just snobs who fetishize vintage culture or elitists overly concerned with being hip? Are vinyl...

aestheticsforbirds.com

Haha. There were some interesting thoughts elsewhere in that essay, but the attribution of sonic individuation to groove space was pure fantasy/allegory of course. The linked article in response dealt with all that pretty nicely.

Edit: I thought the responder's point that we shouldn't necessarily attribute material to analog was a good one actually (eg analog radio had all the ephemerality of digital streaming, and more).

 

[USER]

I'm not sure whose bubble would be popped. I think many vinyl enthusiasts in this thread say a good vinyl rip can sound close in quality to a digital version. It wouldn't be bubble-popping at all to encounter such a thing. I've heard it before in vinyl rip vs digital versions, and it seems to be the case in this one too (from my initial listen).

Of course when it comes to vinyl playback I think the best one could get from a test like this is whether this particular vinyl rip example sounds close to digital or not. And that it would be an example that digital doesn't always sound "way better" than vinyl (depending on how one hears these files).

Given all the variables it would be hard to go beyond that. You have variations in turntables/arms/cartridges, cartridge adjustment, phono stages and their settings etc. So, generally, vinyl and digital may sound more different one set up, less so on another.

I certainly wasn't meaning yours. And as I mentioned it is more about cartridge comparisons. But now that you mention it, I do personally think a lot of what you mention at the end would come into play. People ascribe a lot of differences to turntables, tonearms, etc. that I don't believe are there (or are that audible), accounting for proper functioning, decent enough specs, set-up, etc. of course, which is fair to say on this site. (I'm simplifying a bit as performance changes toward the inner groove.) But here we have access to a lot of tools to help us refine set-up and adjust to proper audio science standards in ways not possible for the common person a few years ago. (ie. measurements.) We can get more turntables to come closer to the medium's potential than before and comparisons to other media should be made from there is what I would say. But for personal use, do your thing, man.

 

[Newman]

What really annoys me about the cynical criticism here is that they force onto us 1970s use so they can maximize their arguments. (They are always using the latest and multiple versions of digital media themselves.) You hate clicks and pops? Get a Puffin. Use a real-time de-clicker. It's 2023, turntable use is not the same.

De-clickers were actually available in the 1970s. And at all times since then.

They were very little used.

Still holds true, from what I see and hear.

 

[MattHooper]

But people in the audio hobby often say “high end” when they mean high performance. If you meant performance and not price, then I can point you to a lot of posters here who will insist that you never said that or meant that, indeed, you couldn’t have, because they keep saying nobody is saying vinyl is high performance.

You still get this wrong.

Some of us, e.g. me, have said vinyl can be "high performance" in terms of audio quality. It's often pointed out it's amazing how good it can sound GIVEN it's technical liabilities. As I have said, if vinyl wasn't capable of "audibly high performance" then it's strange I have been able to regularly impress guests, including picky listeners, whether I'm playing vinyl or digital on my system.

And it takes a medium to be technically "high performance" to produce "high quality sound." That doesn't mean vinyl is of course the "highest performance." Digital is capable of higher performance. But vinyl can perform "highly enough" to produce "high quality sound."

So...while vinyl is not technically as accurate as digital, that doesn't mean it is destined to SOUND poor or very obviously lacking compared to digital. In practice those flaws vary in audibility depending on the record, and can fade far enough in to the background that the high quality, impressive aspects of the sound are in the forefront. If I play a good recording on LP, I can get spacious enveloping sound, super vivid clarity of instruments, great density and focus, rich instrumental and vocal timbre, rich punchy bass, virtually every "excellent sound quality" aspect I could hope for. Would the digital version sound just as good or better? Certainly it can! But that doesn't make the vinyl version poor sound quality - it's still very high performance audio, when played through a high performance system.

Of course, if you stick to a question-begging definition of "high audible performance only coming from digital" then these points will never stick.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Please tell that to all the people here who want to make it all about how much and how often they like listening to vinyl! In fact, the more I talk to the actual topic of the thread, the more people start questioning out loud how much and how often I like listening to vinyl. Perhaps the thread has been hijacked?

Well, unless one is going to get some grant money and formulate a research plan (people in sociology, psychology do this), then what is one supposed to say?

I can say why I listen to vinyl. People who don’t listen to vinyl can say why they don’t. After that it’s just projecting “reasons” on to others. Often those “reasons” are demeaning to the ones being projected on to.

 

[MattHooper]

I certainly wasn't meaning yours. And as I mentioned it is more about cartridge comparisons. But now that you mention it, I do personally think a lot of what you mention at the end would come into play. People ascribe a lot of differences to turntables, tonearms, etc. that I don't believe are there (or are that audible), accounting for proper functioning, decent enough specs, set-up, etc. of course,

Interesting. I certainly would agree that people can hear things that aren't there, or exaggerate, and so I would never take as truth everything any audiophile spouts about turntable set ups.

And I actually don't have tons of experience with owning and setting up lots of different turntables. I've had only 3 in my current home, over time. But as far as variables, I'm thinking even of just setting VTF. Having played with different levels of VTF it seems to obviously affect the sound - generally too little VTF and the sound seems to get thinner and brighter, too much and it seems to thicken out a bit too much and get sluggish. Given it's a mechanical system designed on the precision of a teeny needle sitting in grooves, that seems to make sense that the sound would be affected by such variables. (And it tracks with what other turntable owners report). So even the VTF setting
would be a variable, since not everyone is trying to set theirs with the precision, or with the same goal you may have (you seem striving for technical accuracy).

 

[Newman]

I do understand sampling theory and that there are no stair steps, but lossy refers to discarding “unneeded” information in order to reduce file size. Lossless is compression that can be reversed to be bit perfect to the original file. What would be the equivalent of a compression/decompression algorithm (lossless or lossy) in the analog realm?

Perhaps transcribing from an R2R master to vinyl is lossy? (All the information removed from the R2R in order to make it fit on vinyl)

Perhaps mastering for 33 RPM vinyl instead of 45 RPM vinyl is lossy?

Just shootin’ the breeze here. Like you, I wonder perhaps it is better to use terms like “lower fidelity” than “lossy”, if one really wants to point out that something is lower fidelity.

cheers

 

[Newman]

There have actually been many articles in both the audiophile and mainstream press touting the superiority of vinyl over digital (a quick Google search will surface plenty). Those that I’ve read are not based in science and are mostly marketing fluff pieces to take advantage of the resurgence of vinyl, which to me is annoying in the same way that cable and other snake oil claims are annoying.

And some people could be coming to ASR to check on those claims. That’s why I think it’s okay, perhaps even important, for a thread like this to discuss the reality. Without having to arm-wrestle vinyl defenders at every turn, as if nothing should be said about it unless posters to the thread have personally made the “marketing claim”.

 

[USER]

Interesting. I certainly would agree that people can hear things that aren't there, or exaggerate, and so I would never take as truth everything any audiophile spouts about turntable set ups.

And I actually don't have tons of experience with owning and setting up lots of different turntables. I've had only 3 in my current home, over time. But as far as variables, I'm thinking even of just setting VTF. Having played with different levels of VTF it seems to obviously affect the sound - generally too little VTS and the sound seems to get thinner and brighter, too much and it seems to thicken out a bit too much and get sluggish. Given it's a mechanical system designed on the precision of a teeny needle sitting in grooves, that seems to make sense that the sound would be affected by such variables. (And it tracks with what other turntable owners report). So even the VTF setting
would be a variable, since not everyone is trying to set theirs with the precision, or with the same goal you may have (you seem striving for technical accuracy).

Speaking of which, I posted this today for another member:

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

Would be interesting to see some tracking tests.

www.audiosciencereview.com

I do think goals have been much more over the place because it has really been the wild west and people are going into this blind even today. They have no choice and I am not cruel enough to dismiss them or the way the medium has been used. But I am trying to help shed light into the workings of the medium. Graphs can teach in ways words can't. Plus nothing here is really new. People once valued and expected the measurements in the great audio magazines of the 1950s-1980s. I do trust that people can see good and bad set-up choices for a particular cartridge on a measurement like the ones we post here. I mean in the linked example, I doubt anyone would want the poorer crosstalk. So people could come to a consensus with all the facts. At the very least they can fine tune performance to their liking.

Obviously I like technical accuracy for my purposes, which are archival in nature. It only makes sense. But I do think we owe the medium that when we put it up against other media, especially when that is the defining characteristic of the latter.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Always happy to make someone’s day! Like Dr Toole says in the quote, vinyl only sounds impressive once people achieve a level of self-desensitising great enough to filter out the audible badness.

Agreed, as I read it, like for a live venue, we can adapt and appreciate the greatness, hence it can sound impressive. This is inline with my experience and helps me understand why I find vinyl to be quite enjoyable.

Technically and audibly.

Yes, technically and audibly, absolutely.

I have not seen anyone question anyone’s sanity. I have seen rationality questioned, because for many it is an emotional choice. I have seen people here try to claim emotion-based choices are rational too, but that is not consistent with the normal definition of rational: separating reason from emotion.

Let’s agree to disagree on that one. If someone can feel the emotion of the music by listening to a vinyl, it is rational to repeat the experience. Reasonable choice triggered by an emotion.

The correct definition of “high end” is expensive, so yes, vinyl is definitely a “high end” medium.

But people in the audio hobby often say “high end” when they mean high performance. If you meant performance and not price, then I can point you to a lot of posters here who will insist that you never said that or meant that, indeed, you couldn’t have, because they keep saying nobody is saying vinyl is high performance.

Agreed, vinyl is more expensive than streaming, but this is not what I meant by high end. Because digital is better than vinyl and also high end, does not mean that it is the one and only high end. To me, vinyl is good enough to qualify as high end as well. I know you don’t agree, it is your prerogative and I respect your choice

Please tell that to all the people here who want to make it all about how much and how often they like listening to vinyl! In fact, the more I talk to the actual topic of the thread, the more people start questioning out loud how much and how often I like listening to vinyl. Perhaps the thread has been hijacked?

Agreed, this thread has been hijacked left, right and center, but it is up to us to correct the situation. That one listen to vinyl or not is almost irrelevant If it is all they contribute but is useful in letting the other know where they stand. Most important is to respect each other experience and opinion.

 

[JP]

I don't expect much response to try. These kinds of tests usually fail to get responses. Especially properly done cartridge comparisons. When push comes to shove most vinyl users refuse to even entertain the thought of popping their world view bubbles.

I don't have anyone in mind in saying this, just speaking from experience. I'd rather interest come organically without pushing any agenda. And I'd rather just do it now as I certainly won't be sticking around for the next 170 pages. However, it would be funny to call it "vinyl, is it really that bad (on your stereo)?"

On other forums I get rather little response to blind comparisons. It is rather interesting as they're usually cartridges whose FR are very close to each other. There will be people who say there's no difference which shows how lacking digital is - these typically are the folks that are very vocal and steadfast about huge sonic differences. There will be a group whose impressions just don't match reality. And last, there will be a group that whose impressions are very, very close to what the measurements show.

I should get back on to my digital source vs. lacquer cut test. I've done a fair number of those comparisons but am not able to post any of that material.

 

[USER]

On other forums I get rather little response to blind comparisons. It is rather interesting as they're usually cartridges whose FR are very close to each other. There will be people who say there's no difference which shows how lacking digital is - these typically are the folks that are very vocal and steadfast about huge sonic differences. There will be a group whose impressions just don't match reality. And last, there will be a group that whose impressions are very, very close to what the measurements show.

I should get back on to my digital source vs. lacquer cut test. I've done a fair number of those comparisons but am not able to post any of that material.

I was thinking of your great AB test from not so long ago when that uncovered SAE cartridge stock was sold for cheap on eBay and caused mayhem on various forums. A lot of people with very strong opinions about the sound could not handle the comparisons.

I'd personally would love to hear a lacquer cut test one day.

 

[JP]

Ya that was the last one I did.

 

[Newman]

Agreed, vinyl is more expensive than streaming, but this is not what I meant by high end. Because digital is better than vinyl and also high end, does not mean that it is the one and only high end. To me, vinyl is good enough to qualify as high end as well. I know you don’t agree, it is your prerogative and I respect your choice

Nicely said. You have clarified that you mean “high performance” when you write “high end”.

It’s an unfortunate mis-use of the term “high end”, which genuinely originates from a marketing term and genuinely means “high priced”, as an abbreviation of “the high end of the price range”.

The reason I harp on a bit about it, is because high end (high end of the price range) audio is snobbish and elitist. And a huge amount of mischief has been done by hifi writers conflating high price with high performance and throwing the term “high end” in there as a beautiful confluence of the two. Whereas we on ASR are largely aware of the lie and the mischief in that, as we know that a lot of staggeringly expensive hifi gear performs abysmally, and a lot of remarkably cheap hifi gear performs to a level that cannot be audibly surpassed, ie complete audible transparency.

So I will always encourage us to say “high performance” when that is what we mean. And when we mean very expensive, let’s say “very expensive” rather than “high end” in order to avoid the confusion about price and performance.

cheers

 

[drmevo]

The reason I harp on a bit about it, is because high end (high end of the price range) audio is snobbish and elitist.

Sort of like “top shelf?”

 

[levimax]

I've done a fair number of those comparisons but am not able to post any of that material.

Not even 30 second clips? I would be very interested.

 

[JP]

Not even 30 second clips? I would be very interested.

It’s stuff that I do ‘professionally’ so I can’t talk about any of it. I have to provide the source material and have it cut to have material I can share.

 

[CherylJosie]

Not sure if this has been posted before (even by me, don't remember) but I can think of a couple of really good reasons to prefer owning a vinyl collection.

The first one is that civilization will ultimately collapse one day, maybe sooner than any of us expect given the recent global warming weather.

Here's a mathematical deconstruction of the concept of exponential growth, be it population growth or economic growth it only ends one way:

Here's a forecast from the 1970s that puts the collapse of civilization sometime after 2050. This model/simulation has been validated twice at two different times by two different universities since its first publication based on real-world validation with historical data proving its projections were accurate:

World3 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's a video I assembled from YouTube clips with some added slides of my own explaining how this all works in today's recent context:

We won't be able to leave streaming service subscriptions for our offspring if there's no Internet. We won't be able to leave digital media that endures if it relies upon microscopic bits that rot and integrated circuits that burn out and can't be replaced. We won't be able to leave behind our musical legacy even though it's pathetically easy to access right now, any more than we will be able to leave behind the convenience of cellular communication or even computerized ignition systems.

What we will be able to leave behind is plain old 50/60Hz power, vinyl discs, and tube amplification, because these things are relatively simple and don't rely upon a global infrastructure to produce.

Vinyl will endure. We'll still be playing Benny Goodman and Jimmy Dorsey on shellac 78s long after the digital era has come to a close.

Protect your collection. It may be inferior, but the best media you have is what's in your library. If vinyl is the only thing that survives, it's going to be good as gold some day.

 

[levimax]

Not sure if this has been posted before (even by me, don't remember) but I can think of a couple of really good reasons to prefer owning a vinyl collection.

The first one is that civilization will ultimately collapse one day, maybe sooner than any of us expect given the recent global warming weather.

Here's a mathematical deconstruction of the concept of exponential growth, be it population growth or economic growth it only ends one way:

Here's a forecast from the 1970s that puts the collapse of civilization sometime after 2050. This model/simulation has been validated twice at two different times by two different universities since its first publication based on real-world validation with historical data proving its projections were accurate:

World3 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's a video I assembled from YouTube clips with some added slides of my own explaining how this all works in today's recent context:

We won't be able to leave streaming service subscriptions for our offspring if there's no Internet. We won't be able to leave digital media that endures if it relies upon microscopic bits that rot and integrated circuits that burn out and can't be replaced. We won't be able to leave behind our musical legacy even though it's pathetically easy to access right now, any more than we will be able to leave behind the convenience of cellular communication or even computerized ignition systems.

What we will be able to leave behind is plain old 50/60Hz power, vinyl discs, and tube amplification, because these things are relatively simple and don't rely upon a global infrastructure to produce.

Vinyl will endure. We'll still be playing Benny Goodman and Jimmy Dorsey on shellac 78s long after the digital era has come to a close.

Protect your collection. It may be inferior, but the best media you have is what's in your library. If vinyl is the only thing that survives, it's going to be good as gold some day.

Don't forget about EMP ... back to tubes and LP's.

One thing I figured out is predicting the future is hard to impossible so I don't take predictions too seriously.

 

[Leporello]

True for a poorly set up or performing TT setup.

No doubt. But also true for the best set up and highest performing TTs. It is inherent in the medium.