Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Axo1989]

... Over a year ago I outlined and summarised Toole’s explanation of how and why we have been conditioned to be pretty happy with pretty little. ...

This discussion emerges and re-emerges on many related subjects, and I find it interesting. Well, interesting enough to buy a multi-channel DAC when my old one died, but not urgent enough to go any further just yet. Reasons for non-urgency probably align with lack of uptake of loudspeaker multi-channel by the wider public (note this isn't a suggestion that their is much general uptake of stereo hi-fi either) around things like cost, complexity, space, clutter and (in my case but not everyone's) a raft of other things being on the to-do list.

That aside, the claims about relative fidelity of multi-channel for music are (most?) often advanced by people who like to listen to music genres typically performed live, like orchestra, jazz, acoustic or amplified acoustic ensembles and so on. While that's not my thing I think the discussions are credible at least.

But I listen to material that is assembled in-studio, primarily from synthetic sources (or otherwise heavily modified electronic outputs from more traditional instruments) sometimes with some acoustically-sourced elements. Where these are composed and assembled on a two-channel system I don't see the argument for multi-channel reproduction being higher-fidelity, by definition. People may enjoy upmixing and playback on multi-channel, but that is an aesthetic preference.

Now we may be in a transitional period where more and more mixing is done for multi-channel targets. Which means headphones for most people. And I enjoy that too. Music that's actually composed for multi-channel would presumably sound better reproduced that way.

The upshot is that the comparison between stereo and multi-channel qua fidelity is source-dependant, not absolute.

 

[Axo1989]

That's not what my prior comment was responding to. You claimed I was engaging in cultish behavior. If you're interested in being reasonable and civil, you can acknowledge that you were out of line. If you don't wish to, that's fine, but in that case you'll get as you give, until the mods step in. Do as you wish.

I see, I was referring to the last part "no one is allowed to disagree" without thinking about the tiresome "cult" angle. I'll certainly apologise for the ambiguity. If you want to argue about admissible arguments to that thread, or discuss pragmatics in a related context feel free to PM, no-one will want us to go on here.

 

[tmtomh]

I see, I was referring to the last part "no one is allowed to disagree" without thinking about the tiresome "cult" angle. I'll certainly apologise for the ambiguity. If you want to argue about admissible arguments to that thread, or discuss pragmatics in a related context feel free to PM, no-one will want us to go on here.

The "no one is allowed to disagree" part was inaccurate too. But I agree we should not go on here; I'm sure there's plenty of more on-topic subjects we can argue about.

 

[board]

Good to know there are still some people alive who are offended by Pollock. Or De Kooning.

Better art than linguistics though.

Ha ha! Yeah! Although actually it's not so much the artists that "offended" me, but the buyers - the artists are obviously, and should be, free to create whatever they want. What I find ridiculous, rather than offensive, is that some people pay astronomical sums for it, essentially just because other people have said that the artist is a genius, while the buyers *probably* wouldn't have liked the painting in question at all, if the artist had been a completely nobody (but the painting was identical).

 

[goat76]

and that is why!

Well, if you just gonna buy old records you could as easily buy old CDs of the same recordings. Probably 99% of everything in music was at some point released on CD, and most can be found on Discogs and similar places.

 

[board]

I really don't see it that way.
As everyone here knows and I think would admit the High End media is awash with claims of vinyl still being the "audiophiles choice" and the gear to use for SOTA sound in 2023. It's as much BS as all the claims for cables, grounding boxes, USB widgets, and all the rest. Its all been driven by the High End boys club where the media advertising money and their income ultimately determines what anything sounds like.
Someones got to call a spade a spade, ASR is not the place to be further supporting that line of crap.

Although I didn't like some of the things you wrote earlier, I do agree with this.
Unfortunately, there's a whole "cult" around sayings like "measurements don't measure what's important", etc. which IMO has really just come to mean "if the signal is changed in some way, but I like it more that way, this means the new signal is now BETTER QUALITY!"

Although some people have objected to Michael Fremer being mentioned, then he is the prime example of this, not only because of the ridiculous things he says, but also because of how he says them: When he comments on these topics, he essentially always speaks in statement form, not "in my opinion", "I prefer", "to my liking" etc. - it's essentially always "it's better!", etc.
Then he gets upset and nasty when challenged and then ignores the other part after leaving a final 'triumphant' message, effectively ending the discussion.

But my comments here are not about him, because unfortunately I find that many others are just like him, whether it's vinylphiles or just other 'crazy' audiophiles, and yes, I've met in person non-vinylphiles with exactly the same way of being, then it was just about the superiority of hi-res, or that putting a piece of paper under an amplifier changed the sound - and yes, that's a real story.

It should be said, however, that I do understand that when a phono cartridge changes the frequency response of the signal, the vinylphiles might like it more, and sometimes I do too, but what kills the discussion is this attitude "it's f**king BETTER! I'm TELLING you! It's a superior technology! I'm TELLING you! I've listened to XYZ numbers of master tapes [Fremer's usual charge]! I've listened to and/or owned a piece of gear costing XYZ dollars! I I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone else! My word is bond! I know what I'm talking about, and you clearly don't! You imbecile!"
If instead the attitude had been "I am aware that vinyl playback equipment changes the sound, but I simply like the change it produces" there would be much less arguing, but I would say that it's a personality issue - those people perceive the world that way, and I actually think that remembering and imagining feelings rather than sounds or images is one of the explanations to this behaviour. At least I know that Fremer remembers feelings rather than sounds or images, and I highly suspect that several others I've met have been the same.
When I objected to your comments earlier, Sal1950, it was because, in my impression, the opposing side in this current discussion (Levimax, etc.) were not saying that vinyl is a superior technology, but were simply saying "we like the change in sound that it produces".

 

[board]

Very much possible. Down/upsampling is not an exact science and the HF sensitivity of a listener matters a lot.
Perhaps more objective, did you analyze the fft of the residual?

No, I didn't analyze the residual.
But did you try the two tests I suggested to see if you can actually hear a difference?

 

[Newman]

You mean a controlled test, don’t you, @board?

 

[levimax]

Well, if you just gonna buy old records you could as easily buy old CDs of the same recordings. Probably 99% of everything in music was at some point released on CD, and most can be found on Discogs and similar places.

I buy both.... more CD's these days as old record prices are getting crazy. It is one thing to take a chance on an old $8.00 LP than to take a $40.00 gamble on an old LP... especially when you can get a $5.00 or less sure thing with an old CD.

 

[drmevo]

The term HiFi is stuck with equipment from the mid 60s to mid 80s. Only old people listen to their HiFi.
Maybe we can take a page from the display folks: how about Ultra-High-Fidelity with the acronyms Ultra HiFi, or alternatively UlFi?
.. or a page from the car folks: perhaps Super-Fidelity, i.e. SupFi, could also work? We can then leave the Hyper-Fidelity, i.e. Hy(pe)Fi, to the hires folks.

It would be great to have a marketing term and attract people to the new stuff. If we make "modern hifi" actually successful, people don't need to go back to "high quality" vinyl when they are dissatisfied with youtube music quality.

It also has the added advantage that we don't need to scratch off the HiFi writing on those old turntables. They all had them back then.


True and it is working. J. Olive also participated in a video that states that music quality is at a historic low point now.

I agree, it would be really strange suddenly deem something that has been considered High Fidelity for years something else. The TV/display analogy is especially apt - is my 1080P panel no longer HD just because 4K and 8K are now available? It makes more sense to just create new names as new technologies develop.

 

[Victor Martell]

The music has now "the worst quality it has ever been", according to the film "The Distortion of Sound" featuring

• Quincy Jones
• Slash
• Snoop Dogg
• Steve Aoki
• Lianne La Havas
• Mike Shinoda
• Hans Zimmer
• Kate Nash
• A. R. Rahman
• Dan the Automator
• Manny Marroquin
• Andrew Scheps
• Neil Strauss
• Dr. Sean Olive
• Greg Timbers
• Chris Ludwig

Please watch it!!!! It is free:

I had decided to stay out of the thread - it is amazing how "I know, I KNOW that vinyl is inferior, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME, I just like to do it" IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND... I made my argument and that's it - audiopholia is bigger problem...

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

As a vinyl user - I HATED THAT VIDEO - it is exactly the reason Sal and others can't let go... I UNDERSTAND, it is not a well exposed argument. I am like, man, with defenders like that... WE DON'T NEED ENEMIES!

It's been a while since I saw it but if I remember correctly, at some point it starts using data compression (mp3) and brickwalling compression interchangeably? ?Ugh
And again, vinly fan/user... but also, well, also a person that knows why.

 

[board]

You mean a controlled test, don’t you, @board?

Well, I meant what I suggested, which was the null-test I explained + an ABX test in Foobar.

 

[board]

It's been a while since I saw it but if I remember correctly, at some point it starts using data compression (mp3) and brickwalling compression interchangeably? ?Ugh

Yes, and not only dynamic range compression, but clipping. There's a drummer playing, where the signal is heavily clipped. And that is apparently how mp3 is supposed to sound because the signal is "compressed" .
Although this is speculation, I'm relatively certain that no one, or hardly anyone, appearing in that video has taken an ABX test of .mp3 vs. .wav.

 

[tmtomh]

Well, I meant what I suggested, which was the null-test I explained + an ABX test in Foobar.

Part of the beauty of a null test is that you don't need to ABX anything. You can just listen to the difference file, cranking it up and/or putting on headphones to see whether or not you hear anything but silence. If you are concerned that you hear only silence but someone else might hear something else, then I can see how the FFT @mppix asked about above could be useful too, because it if showed only ultrasonic content, you could rule out the possibility that the difference file might contain content that's audible to someone else.

Apologies if I am misunderstanding what you are discussing in these comments!

 

[board]

Part of the beauty of a null test is that you don't need to ABX anything. You can just listen to the difference file, cranking it up and/or putting on headphones to see whether or not you hear anything but silence. If you are concerned that you hear only silence but someone else might hear something else, then I can see how the FFT @mppix asked about above could be useful too, because it if showed only ultrasonic content, you could rule out the possibility that the difference file might contain content that's audible to someone else.

Apologies if I am misunderstanding what you are discussing in these comments!

I wouldn't say that you're misunderstanding anything .
Nevertheless, a lot of people unfortunately believe content above 20 kHz is audible and plays a role somehow, so if you don't include ultrasonic content in the signal it's somehow audible.
Not that it should be about him, yet again, but Framer said in a video interview once, more than ten years ago I think, that he probably can't hear past 15 kHz (at that time), yet he then proceeded to postulate, in the same video, that CDs can never sound right because content above 22 kHz is filtered out .
Unfortunately, it's impossible to convince people who think that way. I've tried with him and various other people, and so have many others, and none of us have even made a dent. Their arguments are the same in 2023 as they were in 1988, and I think I know why.


EDIT:
I made a file of the difference between hi-res and downsampled then upsampled back up again. The song is from Laurence Juber's "Guitar Noir" on AIX records.

Here's a picture:

 

[board]

I buy both.... more CD's these days as old record prices are getting crazy. It is one thing to take a chance on an old $8.00 LP than to take a $40.00 gamble on an old LP... especially when you can get a $5.00 or less sure thing with an old CD.

Agreed. When I bought vinyl, I also took more chances with cheaper records. The one positive thing about taking a chance with a $40 LP is that it will probably keep it's price, or even increase, if you want to sell it again, although this is not certain.

 

[tmtomh]

I wouldn't say that you're misunderstanding anything .
Nevertheless, a lot of people unfortunately believe content above 20 kHz is audible and plays a role somehow, so if you don't include ultrasonic content in the signal it's somehow audible.
Not that it should be about him, yet again, but Framer said in a video interview once, more than ten years ago I think, that he probably can't hear past 15 kHz (at that time), yet he then proceeded to postulate, in the same video, that CDs can never sound right because content above 22 kHz is filtered out .
Unfortunately, it's impossible to convince people who think that way. I've tried with him and various other people, and so have many others, and none of us have even made a dent. Their arguments are the same in 2023 as they were in 1988, and I think I know why.


EDIT:
I made a file of the difference between hi-res and downsampled then upsampled back up again. The song is from Laurence Juber's "Guitar Noir" on AIX records.

Here's a picture:



View attachment 316419

Thanks! And to be clear, yes, I agree - ultrasonics are not audible. I am very familiar with the claims you mention. I remember reading in another forum a post by the very skilled mastering engineer - and very nice person - Barry Diament, where he said he and his wife tested themselves and he could hear up to 22kHz and she could hear up to 28kHz. I've also made it a point to educate myself as much as I can about what the research is that people like Bob Stuart claim as "neuroscience research" that purportedly shows that ultrasonics have an impact on our hearing. (Stuart's entire MQA venture was based on his unsupported conviction that frequencies up to 26kHz are necessary for full hi-fi reproduction.) To my knowledge all that exists is the discredited and never-repeated Oohashi "hypersonic effect" study, and another study conducted with women (I believe lactating women if memory serves, but don't quote me on that) that showed that ultrasonic sound waves, when directed at the body, could stimulate breast tissue. The study found no effect on the human hearing apparatus - only a skin/tissue response from the waves physically impacting that skin/tissue.

 

[Newman]

Part of the beauty of a null test is that you don't need to ABX anything. You can just listen to the difference file, cranking it up and/or putting on headphones to see whether or not you hear anything but silence.

Quite right, although part of the weakness of a null test is that it is one-sided with respect to audibility.

In other words,

1. if you can’t hear anything in a null test at ‘loudest normal’ volume setting, then you can be confident that you can’t hear a difference between the two original music files.
2. however, if you can hear something, that is a very poor indicator that you can hear a difference between the two original music files.

So, if the null test yields outcome #2, you still need to ABX (or otherwise blind test) for detectable differences in the music files.

 

[Axo1989]

Ha ha! Yeah! Although actually it's not so much the artists that "offended" me, but the buyers - the artists are obviously, and should be, free to create whatever they want. What I find ridiculous, rather than offensive, is that some people pay astronomical sums for it, essentially just because other people have said that the artist is a genius, while the buyers *probably* wouldn't have liked the painting in question at all, if the artist had been a completely nobody (but the painting was identical).

Ok, a side-track we shouldn't spend too much time on, but I agree the financial aspect of the art market is distorted by many factors. I had an art school education before getting into other things, which included both traditional and Marxist interpretations of art history. The former was in service of the art market in the final analysis, including theories of linear progress, appreciating value and individual genius. The latter was critical of same.

Otoh there's there can be some difference between original art and reproduction (yes, sounds like this thread). Can't recall if it was actually discussed upthread here or in another topic but another poster mentioned that Pollock's Blue Poles is something else to see full-scale and physical compared to reproduced in art book or wall poster, say.

The major furphy is the "actual talent" argument that posits the verisimilitude of a Dutch Master favourably against an Abstract Expressionist (say) based on an estimation of "technical skill" and assumed ease of replication. While prices are not necessarily an indication of anything beyond preferences of market participants when dealing with non-utilitarian goods—including Veblen goods especially—the art market de-values derivative works and copies. You think it's easier to produce a work in the abstract expressionist style than Dutch baroque realism? It doesn't matter. Either would be derivative and of no special value. Art differs from craft in that originality and invention—among other things—are valued more highly, alongside technical skill. No prizes for doing it later and so on. You may not care, and may maintain certain aesthetic preferences toward photorealism for example, but that is basically irrelevant, as it should be.

 

[board]

[A]nother poster mentioned that Pollock's Blue Poles is something else to see full-scale and physical compared to reproduced in art book or wall poster, say.

Sure, I can understand that.
Nevertheless, what I find random is that Pollock is considered a genius, but plenty of others doing something very similar, perhaps almost indistinguishable, are not geniuses. Granted, if Pollock was one of the firsts, as you point out, then that counts for something. I get that.
Nevertheless, perhaps this is because I've never been very interested in art, and especially not in abstract art, but have more appreciated skill, then this kind of art has long struck me as a bunch of drunk, angry wifebeaters who flung paint on canvas in a fit of rage between taking sips of their fourth whisky bottle that day, and then neurotic art critics who had no friends in school see it and see strokes of real genius and a representation of how alienating life is in modern cities, foreshadowing the downfall of modern civilization ... or whatever.
It all seems very silly to me and essentially like a circle-jerk, to use a very derogatory term.
But that's of course just my perspective .

I'm from Denmark, and a local portrait artist that I find very skilled, Thomas Kluge, did the following paintings, which look very "old-fashioned" (he has also done a few paintings that were quite dreadful).
This first one I've seen in person many times, as it was hanging in my local library:

These two are of the Danish queen. The second one is a photograph taken at an angle, so it looks a bit strange: