Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Sal1950]

You are missing the fact that these pressings are only using the first half of the record width - to avoid inner groove distortion, and then as you pointed out, wider track spacing because - audiophile - so we are probably more like "up to" 6 or 7 minutes.

I think you're being a bit generous but OK, I can live with 6 minutes. LOL

I'm sure @Sal1950 wouldn't mind me pointing out : That is not one of his strengths.

 

[antcollinet]

I think you're being a bit generous but OK, I can live with 6 minutes. LOL

Great track - but how long's he been playing that guitar?

 

[JP]

That song needs a certain je ne sais quoi:

 

[antcollinet]

Not a patch on Willie.

 

[Sal1950]

Great track - but how long's he been playing that guitar?

The Martin N-20 Willie named "Trigger", since 1969.

"Over time, Nelson has worn a large hole above the bridge, nearly reaching the sound hole. While classical guitars are meant to be played with finger-style picking, Nelson's use of a flatpick, and constant strumming, caused the damage as the pick slowly scrapes away at the wood.[9] Trigger's wear is so great that even the steel frets have been worn down from smooth ridges to wavey lines by the nylon strings over 10,000 shows of exclusive use."

Trigger (guitar) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mppix]

I understand Sal1950 as saying: "If we recorded Ella Fitzgerald in 1962 with digital equipment from 2023 it would sound more like she actually sounded like when singing in front of us than if we had used the analogue equipment from 1962, as modern digitial equipment introduces less noise, distortion and time-based errors".
In short: Modern digital equipment has higher fidelity than analogue equipment from 1962.

Then I think the misunderstanding starts here, because from what I can tell the other side is not contradicting that the above is factual, but what that seems to put them off is everything that happens in the studio after capturing the microphone feed:
What they're saying is that Ella Fitzgerald would no longer sound like Ella Fitzgerald after she's been put through modern studio processes of massive EQ changes, auto-tune, digital effects, hyper aggressive treble, etc.
So after all this processing, the end product no longer sounds like Ella Fitzgerald, and hence no longer sounds "authentic" like the real Ella Fitzgerald.
So, Victor Martell, Levimax, and mmpix's gripe really is about modern music production and all the processing happening in the studio nowadays, rather than with digital recording itself. And I think this is what Sal1950 misunderstood - the other side is not saying vinyl and analogue in itself is more accurate to the source, but rather that Ella Fitgerald captured on analogue equipment of the day in 1962 (and pressed on to vinyl), despite all its noise, distortion, non-linear frequency response, wow and flutter, etc., sounds more like a real, actual singer than modern music with all its auto-tune, digital effects, etc., despite its lower noise, distortion, time-based errors, etc.

As Sal1950 then correctly points out, this modern finished end product, with all its auto-tune, EQ changes, effects, etc., is "the source" when you're talking about the finished work, so listening to the end product as a consumer would be more faithful to the source if you listen to it digitally than on vinyl.
Nevertheless, the misunderstanding seems to come in again here: Despite having lower fidelity to the source (the finished product in the studio), to the other side sometimes the vinyl edition sounds more like a "real" singer/musician because the pumped-up treble has been lowered or whatever the change might be on the vinyl edition.
This is simply a preference, and I would be happy to admit that I sometimes have a similar preference.
Although I usually agree with most things I've seen Sal1950 write on this forum, in this particular case it seems to me that it is difficult for him to comprehend that someone would chose a personal preference with lower fidelity over something that has higher fidelity.

Thank you for summarizing the last 100 pages or so.

You are correct that I am not the biggest fan of popular music production (but I am a huge fan of modern recording by studios like Stockfish, Chesky, Blue Note, etc).

Regarding the discussion of recording from the analog era, I believe an additional point is whether vinyl issues are part of the final art or not (analogous to lens and film issues in photography). Some suggest that we should just "re-print" classic photos from their negatives and clean them up digitally. Others strongly object.
Part of that objection is that that artists/engineers may have recorded music with intent to produce LPs and have used aspects of vinyl creatively (like vignetting, bokeh, or film grain in photography). This would make the vinyl end product more "authentic" to the artists intent.

 

[Newman]

Although no one has asked me to do this, I have taken it upon myself to try to mediate a bit here, as I think the two opposing sides misunderstood each other a lot - one side consisting of Sal1950, the other side consisting of Victor Martell, Levimax, and mmpix.

No, you don't think that...not going by the rest of your post. Because you go on to document what you think Sal is misunderstanding, but you don't go on to describe what the other 3 are misunderstanding. Your post is all about Sal's "misunderstandings".

...I understand Sal1950 as saying: "If we recorded Ella Fitzgerald in 1962 with digital equipment from 2023 it would sound more like she actually sounded like when singing in front of us than if we had used the analogue equipment from 1962, as modern digitial equipment introduces less noise, distortion and time-based errors".
In short: Modern digital equipment has higher fidelity than analogue equipment from 1962.

Then I think the misunderstanding starts here, because from what I can tell the other side is not contradicting that the above is factual, but what that seems to put them off is everything that happens in the studio after capturing the microphone feed:
What they're saying is that Ella Fitzgerald would no longer sound like Ella Fitzgerald after she's been put through modern studio processes of massive EQ changes, auto-tune, digital effects, hyper aggressive treble, etc.

You are wrong. There is no misunderstanding by the 'Sal' side. It's perfectly clear to everyone, including Sal I'm sure, that such is the claim (or something similar, even though Levimax never actually made that claim: he actually said a 1962 Lady Ella recording sounds more like a female singing than does a 2021 Adele recording).

However, as I pointed out at the time, it is a bogus claim because it isn't like-for-like. If a legendary jazz vocalist turns up at the studio today with an acoustic jazz and brass ensemble, they won't get the sonic 'Adele treatment'. Perhaps you failed to understand this important point?

So after all this processing, the end product no longer sounds like Ella Fitzgerald, and hence no longer sounds "authentic" like the real Ella Fitzgerald.

Wrong. See above.

So, Victor Martell, Levimax, and mmpix's gripe really is about modern music production and all the processing happening in the studio nowadays, rather than with digital recording itself. And I think this is what Sal1950 misunderstood - the other side is not saying vinyl and analogue in itself is more accurate to the source, but rather that Ella Fitgerald captured on analogue equipment of the day in 1962 (and pressed on to vinyl), despite all its noise, distortion, non-linear frequency response, wow and flutter, etc., sounds more like a real, actual singer than modern music with all its auto-tune, digital effects, etc., despite its lower noise, distortion, time-based errors, etc.

What you don't understand is that those people just have low standards. They are 'settling'. "Vinyl, with all its audible artefacts, is plenty good enough for me." "TBH I don't even notice them." "2-channel sound, with all its limitations, is all I ever need or want."

As Sal1950 then correctly points out, this modern finished end product, with all its auto-tune, EQ changes, effects, etc., is "the source" when you're talking about the finished work, so listening to the end product as a consumer would be more faithful to the source if you listen to it digitally than on vinyl.
Nevertheless, the misunderstanding seems to come in again here: Despite having lower fidelity to the source (the finished product in the studio), to the other side sometimes the vinyl edition sounds more like a "real" singer/musician because the pumped-up treble has been lowered or whatever the change might be on the vinyl edition.

Oh...another misunderstanding by Sal. This is getting a little less balanced than you claimed it would be.

This is simply a preference, and I would be happy to admit that I sometimes have a similar preference.
Although I usually agree with most things I've seen Sal1950 write on this forum, in this particular case it seems to me that it is difficult for him to comprehend that someone would chose a personal preference with lower fidelity over something that has higher fidelity.

Wrong. He understands that perfectly. The counter argument is that you can get Lady Ella on CD without the 'Adele Treatment'. Plus, you can get a plethora of great modern performances and productions on digital, so...assuming one has genuine high standards for sound quality, just go there and have the best time ever.

In the same breath, many subjectivists seem to find it difficult to understand why someone would choose higher fidelity over something that they actually enjoy the sound of more. This can also be difficult for me to understand, although I'm not a subjectivist at all, but I don't understand why someone would rather listen to something that sounds unpleasant, knowing, as if it was an intellectual exercise, that it has higher fidelity instead of listening to a pleasant version of the same music, although it might have lower fidelity.
This "hyper objectivity" becomes very intellectual, and listening to music should ultimately be about experiencing pleasure, not having intellectual thoughts - even objectivists prefers certain remasters where the source has been modified (the fidelity lowered, strictly speaking, when thinking of the original master as the real source).

Again, wrong. You can have whatever priority you want, no doubt, but to say music listening should be about experiencing pleasure, is both arrogant and hedonistic. Hedonism is not the imperative for appreciating art: in fact, it's an inhibitor.

It looks like you have a misunderstanding of what the entire thing called music appreciation is really all about. Music is an art form. Artists use their medium to convey every aspect of human existence and the human condition, including all the horrible stuff and all the negative emotions. Taking pleasure from that would be...sick. OTOH if your personal focus on music is musicians whose mission statement is "I wanna be super popular and sell crazy numbers through every distribution channel, so here is my musical formula to that end", then hedonism may be a priority... plus, you get what you deserve!

...Lastly, I should say that it seems clear to me that different people have different priorities in sound reproduction and therefore are also bothered to different extents by artefacts. Subjectivists and vinylphiles talk very much about emotional involvement, and noise simply doesn't seem to bother them as much as it bothers Sal1950.

Yep. Settling. Happy with lower standards of reproduction than necessary. Got it. Nobody has misunderstood that, though.

Personally, I'm probably somewhat in between when it comes to noise. I was a vinylphile for 15 years before I started comparing records and CDs and then mostly switched to CDs. I was always looking for the cleanest second-hand copies I could find of the records I was buying (mainly 60s and 70s music), but eventually I became used to the noise. Even though Sal is older than me, it seems that he never became used to the noise, despite having lived in an era where almost all available music was noisy.
About emotional involvement, if the same master was used, I think much of this can simply be explained to the phono cartridge's frequency response (often the spike around 10-15 kHz adds "air" and "sparkle") as well as added noise, which adds "atmosphere" and thereby "emotional involvement".

Yes, that is one of many aspects, including non-sonic aspects, that for some people enhance the "emotional involvement" that you mention. Regarding this 'sparkle', a lot of people make the mistake of building their system around vinyl, until without realising it, their amps and speakers conspire to compensate for the 'sparkle' until it is 'just right'...and as a consequence when they play digital, its natural frequency response isn't reproduced properly. That is, unless the 'cartridge sparkle' is a rough-as-guts compensation for the tendency to master the treble down a bit for vinyl production. Who knows? Vinyl surely increases the Circle of Confusion, with all these 'did-they-or-didn't-they' prognostications.

Another big one to consider is simple cognitive bias. A lot of people are consciously and/or unconsciously biased in favour of vinyl, so they perceive the sound waves from vinyl as sounding better to them, even if the same people would pick against vinyl in a controlled listening test. Unfortunately, in their rush to discount this very major factor, people keep looking into the sound waves to try and explain their preference for vinyl, and end up utterly deluded* about cause and effect. Another misunderstanding...by the vinyl side.

*'sparkle' being a possible example​

And yes, like someone pointed out, vinyl is more than just the music and the sound. For me it was a lifestyle - going to flea markets and record shops every weekend and scouring eBay and Discogs every night. Like someone said once: There is no such thing as a part-time record collector. Even now, holding big LP covers in my hands or even just looking at my phono cartridge is a tactile, fun and joyus experience that pressing the button on my mouse or putting a CD into my CD player can never give me - as much as I do want to sell as many of my records as possible.
When I started selling my records, I told my story about comparing records to CDs to around 100 record collectors, and maybe 5-10 people found the story interesting, and only 2-3 people had actually done a comparison. When everybody else heard my story they either barely paid attention, or then looked at me with a stare saying "why in the world would you sell your records, you nut case?!"
Vinyl is a hobby, a statement, and an identity - digital music is not.

Now you're talking! Anything but sound quality.

cheers

 

[Anton D]

One small positive for vinyl: some jackass with a Spotify playlist can’t try to take over the party.

(Only meant as a joke. I am sure there are other ways I did not mention.)

 

[mppix]

What you don't understand is that those people just have low standards. They are 'settling'. "Vinyl, with all its audible artefacts, is plenty good enough for me." "TBH I don't even notice them." "2-channel sound, with all its limitations, is all I ever need or want."

I'm only responding because I was mentioned by nametag as one of "those people" and I find the commentary inaccurate and needlessly insulting.
However, I almost hope that you are intentionally misrepresenting your understanding what "those people" are saying because the alternative would be that you really don't understand...

Wrong. He understands that perfectly. The counter argument is that you can get Lady Ella on CD without the 'Adele Treatment'. Plus, you can get a plethora of great modern performances and productions on digital, so...assuming one has genuine high standards for sound quality, just go there and have the best time ever.

[Edit/addition] I have many modern high-res recordings and in a testament to my "low standards", I actually check them for their uses of the high frequencies and bits.

Anyhow, the point remains that "Ella" without "Adele Treatment" does not matter to at least some here (and in fact we had that decades ago on vinyl). What matters is that the "Modern Ella" is "Adele" and that the "treatment" (designed to make audio translate to anything from car stereo, coffee shops, lossy streaming, and cheap headphones) largely negates the advances of the digital medium. So much so in fact that people do buy vinyl because of "quality".

 

[Sal1950]

Now you're talking! Anything but sound quality.

Good post Newman.
Funny how after close to 5,000 posts here some people still insist I just don't understand them.
Truth being, I understand many all too well and that makes them quite unhappy and unpleasant. LOL
Cheers!

 

[pkane]

What you don't understand is that those people just have low standards. They are 'settling'.

You seem to have a problem with folks enjoying something that's not on your approved list, but you're not in charge of what someone enjoys.

I just listened to an extremely enjoyable LP. Bought it still sealed for about $12. I have streaming and NAS drive with 2000+ albums, mostly digital from my old CD collection, some DSD and some hires. I streamed about a dozen of different performances/masterings of the same piece after this. Most hires and lossless (Apple music Classical). Guess what? I still enjoyed the LP, and listened to it a number more times.

So there! I have low standards. I settled. Whoop-de-doo! Tell me again how vinyl is inferior and I'll tell you that it's none of your business what I like and enjoy. And then we can go in circles for another 250 pages.

 

[EJ3]

I was looking on Amazon for a record display holder to put next to my turntable. Couldn't believe how much people were asking for a chunk of wood and some random bits of metal. Then I realized that I have a whole basement full of chunks of wood and random bits of metal. What do y'all think?

View attachment 314111
View attachment 314113
View attachment 314114View attachment 314115

With an LP cover in it, pretty good looking!

 

[Newman]

You seem to have a problem with folks enjoying something that's not on your approved list, but you're not in charge of what someone enjoys.

Thanks for the massive misread LOL. Let’s see if board adds yours to his list of misunderstandings…I’m not holding my breath.

I just listened to an extremely enjoyable LP. Bought it still sealed for about $12. I have streaming and NAS drive with 2000+ albums, mostly digital from my old CD collection, some DSD and some hires. I streamed about a dozen of different performances/masterings of the same piece after this. Most hires and lossless (Apple music Classical). Guess what? I still enjoyed the LP, and listened to it a number more times.

Congrats. At least you are in the minority who actually own a TT to play their vinyl purchases. What was the album?

So there! I have low standards. I settled. Whoop-de-doo! Tell me again how vinyl is inferior and I'll tell you that it's none of your business what I like and enjoy. And then we can go in circles for another 250 pages.

Like I said, massive misread.

I’ll never criticise or condemn anyone who has low standards for audio playback. I simply note when they are in play…and I did so generically, not personally.

Getting all offended about that is curious.

 

[AdamG247]

I was looking on Amazon for a record display holder to put next to my turntable. Couldn't believe how much people were asking for a chunk of wood and some random bits of metal. Then I realized that I have a whole basement full of chunks of wood and random bits of metal. What do y'all think?

View attachment 314111
View attachment 314113
View attachment 314114View attachment 314115

Beautiful Speakers. I bet they sound phenomenal.

 

[MattHooper]

I’ll never criticise or condemn anyone who has low standards for audio playback. I simply note when they are in play…and I did so generically, not personally.

Getting all offended about that is curious.

LOL. Classic. “If people would simply accept my constant negative, belittling characterizations of people enjoying vinyl, then we won’t have a problem.”

 

[tmtomh]

I've gone 12 rounds with @mppix and @levimax about the "original/authentic artwork" point and I still disagree with them about that, but come on, @Newman - "low standards" is not an accurate way to describe all LP playback, and I don't think it's fair to renarrate the experience of everyone who says they enjoy vinyl as enjoying low standards. That's not what @pkane was saying, at least to my eyes.

High-quality vinyl playback setups, when playing quiet, well-mastered LPs, are perfectly capable of producing high-quality sound. As good as digital? Not in my opinion - but we always have to keep in mind that some aspects of performance exceed human hearing thresholds and so some types and degrees of reduction in fidelity will not necessarily be audible. (Edit: just re-read this bit and I suppose it could seem like I'm saying that I can hear vinyl-digital differences but others cannot. That is not at all what I meant! I include myself among those who have the same typical hearing thresholds as everyone else.)

Also, to one of the points mppix has made, most (perhaps all) 1960s and 1970s pop/rock recordings (and probably jazz too) have very little content below 50Hz and so the superior capabilities of digital in the low bass region are usually not a factor for such recordings. The noise floor of vinyl playback is a huge issue for me personally, but someone with first-rate equipment and a solid LP-cleaning regimen can, I assume, obtain sufficient S/N for a home listening environment in many cases.

What's become particularly goofy about the discussion most recently is that someone like pkane isn't even talking about why he prefers vinyl. He's simply saying he enjoys vinyl in addition to digital - and based on his comment above it appears vinyl is not even his primary or everyday choice.

Personally I find that @Sal1950 's issues more closely parallel my own - for vinyl to be worth the hassle, extra expense, extra system complexity, and required storage space for me, the playback experience and the sonics would have to give me some kind of enjoyment I don't get from digital. It doesn't - quite the contrary. But for others it does, and I can understand why, even though the balance of plusses and minuses is different for me.

Finally, I have a modest but lovingly curated collection of about 550 CDs, and while I play them much less often than I used to because my computer music server is so convenient, I do enjoy having them and playing them once in a while. I like the physical object, the act of playing them is enjoyable and nostalgic for me, and it contributes to the overall enjoyment of my music, even when I'm playing from my computer server in the day-to-day. The sound quality is identical to that of my computer server playback of course so there's no distinctive sonic signature. But in terms of the tactile experience, the nostalgia, and so on, it's not really different from people like pkane enjoying LPs, is it?

 

[Deleted member 65547]

I'm not an audiophile but just a lover of good music. And I'm not even a vinyl fan, although I like to listen to them from Mother Earth from time to time.
However, I believe I have an explanation: perfection does not exist in nature, therefore a FLAC 24/192 is undoubtedly "technically almost perfect", but this can make listening to it a little unnatural.
In particular, what does not exist in nature is absolute silence, and consequently the dynamics much higher than the 100dB that we obtain from our systems.
In nature the softest sounds exist only mixed with background noise.

 

[MattHooper]

I'm not an audiophile but just a lover of good music. And I'm not even a vinyl fan, although I like to listen to them from Mother Earth from time to time.
However, I believe I have an explanation: perfection does not exist in nature, therefore a FLAC 24/192 is undoubtedly "technically almost perfect", but this can make listening to it a little unnatural.
In particular, what does not exist in nature is absolute silence, and consequently the dynamics much higher than the 100dB that we obtain from our systems.
In nature the softest sounds exist only mixed with background noise.

The flaw in that argument is that you are listening to any music file while being in the very “nature” you describe.

It’s like saying “8k displays have too much resolution, more than the human eye, which is why they look unnatural.” Well, if you can actually notice the high resolution then it’s not unnatural - your eyes can naturally see that resolution. But if you can’t perceive all
that resolution, then it also couldn’t look “unnatural” because you’re eyes naturally limit to their own native resolution.

Likewise with high smple/bit rate audio files.
They can simply capture more of what you’re hearing is capable of, and if they go beyond the resolution limit of your hearing, you’d never hear the aspect that is “unnatural.” One may as well say a super low distortion amp is “unnatural” sounding.
In fact it can be said to be ensuring no unnatural artifacts are added to the sound!

 

[Deleted member 65547]

It’s like saying “8k displays have too much resolution, more than the human eye, which is why they look unnatural.” Well, if you can actually notice the high resolution then it’s not unnatural - your eyes can naturally see that resolution. But if you can’t perceive all

This comparison is not accurate, it is an objective and qualitative judgment while I gave one based on perception.

 

[tmtomh]

This comparison is not accurate, it is an objective and qualitative judgment while I gave one based on perception.

True, you did indeed make a qualitative judgment based on perception.

But you made that judgment as part of a claim about what causes that perception:

I believe I have an explanation: perfection does not exist in nature, therefore a FLAC 24/192 is undoubtedly "technically almost perfect", but this can make listening to it a little unnatural.

It is clear as day from your statement here that you are saying that because high-res digital it virtually perfect, it sounds unnatural.

You write that "Flac 24/192 is... 'technically almost perfect'." And you say that "this" - this technical near-perfection - "can make listening to it a little unnatural." You say this is an "explanation" of why high-res digital sounds unnatural.

So @MattHooper 's response is on-point.