Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[MattHooper]

I remember reading somewhere decades ago, from some prominent audio writer, something to the effect of:

The better Analog playback gets, the more it sounds like digital.

Meaning to me, that analog is flawed to some degree, and only has a "Sound" based on its flaws.
When you remove the distortions, overload, noise, mistracking, and on and on, You have Digital.

Yes, to a degree, that would be the obvious conclusion. And I find it true to a point.

I was living with "pretty good" vinyl sound and then upgraded my turntable/arm/cartridge. With my original set up there was often noticeable background hiss, and complex tracks could get a teeny bit fuzzy and confused sounding. Just the stuff that clean digital signals do well that vinyl can fall down on. But when I got my newer set up, all that got better: much less background noise, often inaudible (except for ticks/pops), and the sound became super clean and clear, and stayed that way even as tracks got more complex. So it did indeed approach what I got with my digital source. However, it still has a generally different sonic character, it still sounds "like vinyl" but just, super clean vinyl. Which to me meant I got the best of both worlds, and it's why I'm so addicted to vinyl playback in my set up.

 

[MattHooper]

BTW, I think it's worth re-stating an aspect of playing records that many of us find valuable: Like curling up with a real book on the sofa, opting to play records over servers/streaming is a chance to unplug from digital life for a while. Admittedly at first using my iphone or ipad to control music sent to my system was a real "gee wiz isn't this incredibly convenient?" experience. But now...? I spend enough time staring at screens all day and having my iphone tugging for attention, swiping away on my phone through pages of music files holds little appeal these days. I do it when listening to my digital music. But I'm glad to not have to always interact with that stuff and enjoy
just going more old school with the vinyl listening experience.

 

[Newman]

I used to use a Rega Exact cartridge, which was mounted with Rega's own alignment (something like Stevenson), including the third mounting screw. I then aligned it to Baerwald, recorded before and after, and I thought the Baerwald alignment was a bit brighter, but I actually thought I was just imagining it, which is why I did this ABX test, which was one of the earliest ABX tests I ever did:


foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.10
2016-09-14 21:08:19

File A: Stevie Ray Vaughn - In Step - Riviera Paradise.wav
SHA1: 7b4c524c12fa6a1fbf908c49c27293afafa15d8e
File B: Stevie Ray Vaughn - In Step JUSTERET PICKUP.wav
SHA1: e2f04fdfa1a7c6e18d78c1716162aeae7f0389b3

Output:
DS : Primær lyddriver
Crossfading: NO

21:08:19 : Test started.
21:12:28 : 01/01
21:12:42 : 02/02
21:13:05 : 03/03
21:13:24 : 04/04
21:14:20 : 04/05
21:14:36 : 05/06
21:14:59 : 06/07
21:17:18 : 07/08
21:17:49 : 08/09
21:18:55 : 09/10
21:20:18 : 10/11
21:20:45 : 11/12
21:21:50 : 12/13
21:22:21 : 13/14
21:22:42 : 14/15
21:23:17 : 15/16
21:23:17 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 15/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

-- signature --
0358f776ff1c46feb6f6777c9826a01fab1f0cba





I EQ'ed a song by Queensryche in two different ways. One seemed to have more "air" than the other, which it also was, since one had more top-octave content than the other. I can show a graph of the difference if you like.
Here's my ABX of it:

foo_abx 2.0 report
foobar2000 v1.3.7
2019-10-26 18:34:05

File A: 03 - Jet City Woman EQ (kurve gemt som Queensryche 5 i Audacity).wav
SHA1: e093a40b54ad7cd3f40b27fe7fa7741abfc10e2a
File B: 03 - Jet City Woman EQ (kurve gemt som Queensryche 6 i Audacity).wav
SHA1: 192443380950b2630150b7ebbbd6c5dea620708c

Output:
DS : Højttalere (CA USB Audio)
Crossfading: YES

18:34:05 : Test started.
18:38:09 : 01/01
18:38:17 : 02/02
18:38:24 : 03/03
18:38:30 : 04/04
18:38:37 : 05/05
18:38:49 : 06/06
18:38:56 : 07/07
18:39:03 : 08/08
18:39:10 : 09/09
18:39:17 : 10/10
18:39:24 : 11/11
18:39:30 : 12/12
18:39:38 : 13/13
18:39:53 : 14/14
18:39:59 : 15/15
18:40:26 : 16/16
18:40:26 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 16/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

-- signature --
8d010bf07333f890ebdcecc855d12670bcde3a4f






Then I offered my girlfriend at the time to do the same ABX test, and this was the very first ABX test she ever did:



foo_abx 2.0 report
foobar2000 v1.3.7
2019-10-26 18:59:16

File A: 03 - Jet City Woman EQ (kurve gemt som Queensryche 5 i Audacity).wav
SHA1: e093a40b54ad7cd3f40b27fe7fa7741abfc10e2a
File B: 03 - Jet City Woman EQ (kurve gemt som Queensryche 6 i Audacity).wav
SHA1: 192443380950b2630150b7ebbbd6c5dea620708c

Output:
DS : Højttalere (CA USB Audio)
Crossfading: YES

18:59:16 : Test started.
19:03:06 : 01/01
19:03:55 : 02/02
19:04:43 : 03/03
19:05:11 : 03/04
19:08:00 : 04/05
19:08:41 : 05/06
19:09:03 : 05/07
19:09:24 : 06/08
19:10:22 : 07/09
19:11:56 : 08/10
19:12:32 : 09/11
19:12:52 : 10/12
19:13:10 : 11/13
19:13:25 : 12/14
19:14:29 : 13/15
19:15:34 : 14/16
19:15:34 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 14/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.2%

-- signature --
f4ed7a50c8e4e5de0010fa44b921be0474409ac2





This might not be exactly what you're looking for, but at least it's a start.

It’s a million miles from what I’m “looking for”, and completely pointless other than as an audibility threshold test.

Which part of my posts led you to answer with the above?

 

[Newman]

5. Hipster appeal...

Ohhhh, you are really asking for it…from certain contributors to this thread!

 

[thecheapseats]

Ohhhh, you are really asking for it…from certain contributors to this thread!

children hipsters...

 

[antcollinet]

children hipsters...

I thought people here were just stating factual information, and not trying to insult anyone?

Oh yes, and that "hipster" was just a descriptive term and didn't have any negative connotations?

 

[MattHooper]

It’s a million miles from what I’m “looking for”, and completely pointless other than as an audibility threshold test.

Which part of my posts led you to answer with the above?

Move the goalposts much?


Board pointed out: My point was that it's not only about cognitive bias, as you claimed ("this is all driven by cognitive biases") - there are also audible differences in some cases.

You responded: Just do the blind tests, and show me the consistency with sighted.

He did that. He had been using sighted listening to form impressions of cartridges and selecting in line with his preferences. He provided blind test results that showed consistency with his sighted impressions...the very impressions he was using in selecting what he preferred.


Your modus operandi is to automatically equate any sonic impressions derived from "sighted" listening to be "cognitive bias" effects, where sighted cognitive biases inevitably distort the impression so that we are not apprehending "true nature of the sound waves." You take this stance whether it's subtle possible characteristics (e.g. between some cartridges) or large obvious differences (e.g. between loudspeakers).

As I have said (which you reliably ignore) I have done blind tests that confirm both my sighted impressions of the sound characteristics between gear, and which confirm my preferences based on those characteristics. Sighted listening is not entirely or always dominated by cognitive bias.

Overstating claims, and ignoring evidence that is counter to your assumptions is not displaying a science-oriented mindset. Someone with a properly cautious scientific mindset would say: If you want to be confident that cognitive bias isn't altering your perception of the sound, you should use controls to minimize that variable, e.g. blind testing. That properly leaves open the possibility that, even in the sighted listening, one could be perceiving something accurately regarding the sound itself, rather than denying it outright.

It takes a dogmatic, unscientific mindset to claim that one knows any sighted listening results are simply cognitive bias effects.

Further, if you really cared about what is true, then you'd stop posting untruths (a charitable way of putting it) about what I have argued regarding bias.

 

[Newman]

If board agrees with your post above, then the two of you are really running quite a serious gaslighting campaign...assuming your comprehension skills are okay, which I do.

[edit]

 

[dkinric]

Me checking in on this thread to see if anything has changed...

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/11gC4odpiRKuha" width="480" height="360" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="

">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[MattHooper]

If board agrees with your post above, then the two of you are really running quite a serious gaslighting campaign...assuming your comprehension skills are okay, which I do.

Undemonstrated assertion and evasion (again) noted.

If your position was clear and coherent, and nothing I or board wrote undermines it, you'd explain precisely how our replies get your position wrong. Instead of that you've replied with vague "not what I'm looking for" and now simply slung terms like "gaslighting."

It's up to you if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Newman]

I was editing my post above when you again demonstrated your ability to write faster than I can think, , so here is the intended edit separately:-


[edit: if anyone thinks my words, "this is all driven by cognitive biases" is the same as if I said, "it's impossible for anyone to even detect a difference between cartridges (or EQ settings) in ABX", then maybe comprehension skills are indeed deficient...

Remember, my comment about cognitive biases being the driver was a reply to board's claim, that some people like colouration in sound reproduction more than accuracy being the 'exact' reason why Koetsus et al are preferred in sighted listening.

Board then backs that up with an ABX about listening thresholds, then if I reject that as not what I was looking for, you Matt accuse me of "moving the goal posts", and not him? Why?]

 

[IPunchCholla]

Me checking in on this thread to see if anything has changed...

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/11gC4odpiRKuha" width="480" height="360" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="

">via GIPHY</a></p>

So it's like you walked in to a house of Burlesque and saw your grandson was working as the concierge, so in a smooth move just continue your action in reverse and walk out the door?

 

[MattHooper]

[edit: if anyone thinks my words, "this is all driven by cognitive biases" is the same as if I said, "it's impossible for anyone to even detect a difference between cartridges (or EQ settings) in ABX", then maybe comprehension skills are indeed deficient...

(if you want to talk about reading comprehension...)

Nobody (and certainly not I) was suggesting that you didn't think real audible differences, even subtle ones, can't be detected in ABX. That's rather obvious.

The point is addressing your constant claims about how sighted impressions won't be consistant with blinded impressions. That in sighted conditions we are not "assessing the sound waves." You keep defaulting to "cognitive bias" effects for any sighted impressions, and also that blind impressions of sound will not track sighted impressions, due to this cognitive bias factor.

So the point is whether sighted impressions can be consistent with blinded impressions.

Again, you wrote: Just do the blind tests, and show me the consistency with sighted.

Board presented evidence that his blind tests showed consistency with his sighted impressions. (The point he made was that he decided to ABX test to make sure his sighted impressions weren't just his imagination).

I also cited blind tests showing my blind-test impressions were consistent with my sighted impressions.

My preferences also tracked with my sighted/blinded impressions. As do, I infer, Board's.

Board then backs that up with an ABX about listening thresholds, then if I reject that as not what I was looking for, you Matt accuse me of "moving the goal posts", and not him? Why?]

As I understand it, just like me, he was able to identify the differences in blind tests by hearing the same type of difference we heard sighted.

 

[pkane]

You keep defaulting to "cognitive bias" effects for any sighted impressions, and also that blind impressions of sound will not track sighted impressions, due to this cognitive bias factor.
...
I also cited blind tests showing my blind-test impressions were consistent with my sighted impressions.

If your results don't agree with @Newman's opinion, then your blind tests are obviously influenced by cognitive bias

 

[MattHooper]

If your results don't agree with @Newman's opinion, then your blind tests are obviously influenced by cognitive bias

Heh. And...cognitive bias doesn't only affect perception but reasoning as well; our biases can cause us to ignore data/evidence or arguments that aren't in line with what we already believe. And it can lead us to making incautious, exaggerated inferences from data.

 

[Newman]

Haha, I got sucked in and broke my Matt rule. My bad. Let’s see how my conversation with board goes, ie the one that is probably in good faith.

 

[Newman]

I just want to make a general comment to the general reader of this thread.

A few writers are making reference to “Newman’s opinion” and proceeding to mock or ridicule. I wish to emphasise that there is no “Newman’s opinion”. I attempt to confine my statements, on subjects such as audible preferences, to simple reflections of the best audio science on the topic, as far as I am aware. The only “Newman’s opinion” is that audio science holds true.

If I get it wrong and fail to reflect the audio science, then I am very open to that correction: just show me the audio science that is inconsistent with my reflection. Don’t regale me with anecdotal stories that you think have merit, littered with Whataboutisms. Don’t set up a straw man that I said something other than what I said, and proceed in bad faith to mock, argue and discredit that. Such bad faith argumentation usually gets short shrift from me.

So, if you see other writers doing all the above with my posts, just remember that they are disputing audio science….at least, up until the point that they provide audio science to the contrary.

Now…back to something less personal. Here is a bit of audio science, that I think is relevant to vinyl connoisseurs making statements on the sonic attributes of different expensive, or famous, or legendary, or whatever, cartridges, and they are using sighted listening: sighted listening is thoroughly unreliable as a means to determine the sonic attributes or preferences of the sound waves alone due to a device under test, and the only reliable listening-based way to determine such attributes or preferences is via well-controlled listening tests where the listeners don’t even know what are the devices being tested, and ideally involving three or more devices.

If you have an issue with that, then you don’t have an issue with “Newman’s opinion”: you have an issue with audio science. Yet, when I reflect the above by saying that cognitive biases are driving sighted listening impressions on exotic cartridges (just like they do for loudspeakers that sound clearly different under controlled conditions, as demonstrated by researchers), I get pushback. To put it mildly.

I hope the general reader sees a pattern here.

 

[JP]

I don’t see anyone disputing audio science. I do see people disputing your interpretation of it.

 

[tmtomh]

Can't we just agree that our ability to hear sonic differences in sighted, uncontrolled listening is a real ability, but also an ability that most of us overestimate? (And that part of listening bias is precisely that we tend to overestimate our abilities and underestimate the power of unconscious factors?)

And can't we further agree that our ability to identify the cause or source of heard differences is even more overestimated?

And can't we further agree that we overestimate our ability to predict ahead of time which listening differences or situations will be ones in which we can reliably hear differences through sighted listening?

I have a hard time seeing how any of these three propositions should be controversial here at ASR. And so with that said, it seems to me that the only real disagreement about sighted listening is about precisely how reliable or unreliable it is on a continuum: is it reliable once in a while, some of the time, a lot of the time, or most of the time?

In this regard I agree with @MattHooper on the basic principle that sighted listening is not entirely disconnected from objective sonic reality - it would be absurd if it were. But I agree with what I take to be the thrust of @Newman 's position in that the kinds of anecdotal accounts Matt raises for the purpose of making what he sees as common-sense points also tend to give an impression that sighted listening is more reliable than it actually is.

 

[JP]

But I agree with what I take to be the thrust of @Newman 's position in that the kinds of anecdotal accounts Matt raises for the purpose of making what he sees as common-sense points also tend to give an impression that sighted listening is more reliable than it actually is.

His point is that sighted impressions are completely unreliable. If there were practical nuance I suspect this argument wouldn’t exist.

…I seriously, seriously doubt this has anything to do with it. Remember, they are very often having similarly strong opinions on the sound quality of the tonearms and decks. This is all driven by cognitive biases.