Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[antcollinet]

The music I've enjoyed most was in the back seat of my 56 Chevy imposed over the buzzing of its 4 pin vibrator. LOL

Certainly puts the surface noise of .. dragging rocks through a ditch into perspective.

 

[Ropeburn]

But as you know Sal - one of the joys of vinyl is handling it. A short run time is a bonus .

(I actually have 1 45rpm album. I didn't realise at the time of purchase or I might not have. I think run time per side is less than 15 minutes, more than 10)

I have over 1000 (mainly) dance music records. And all I can say is that the short-runtime (below 8 minutes per side) 45 rpm format is the best technically possible. Superior dynamics and especially frequency range. Various 80s pressings are nothing but utter weaksauce in terms of any audible parameter. The audible quality on the record needs to be able to being picked up by the neddle. As long as the needle's physical capabilities aren't exceeded, this means as loud as possible. Which is inherently limited by the record, its groove sizes, and mastering and cutting technology - which is pretty much stuck in the 70s. Only slightly exaggerated.

There's a good reason why the good old 18 or even 30 minutes per side 33rpm album format has been practically eliminated decades ago. Thousands of loud as fuck Techno records (which btw enabled vinyl to economically survive past the 90s and 2000s) have told everyone better, including the audiophiles relevant in record production. The inherent limitations of the physical format simply dictate it. Worst case scenario you're listening to 10-bit equivalent musical data bandlimited to 15kHz or less. And here comes the kicker:

And it still sounds good.

That said: if you're a vinyl enthusiast, always prefer physically superior cuttings. That means low time per side, preferably 45 rpm, and if 33 rpm, even less. The format has physical limitations which are relevant in audible terms. You will want as big and deep a groove size as technically possible, for getting optimal results.

Almost every new vinyl release today adheres to this, and for dance music it's been true for at least two decades. Everyone in the industry keeps learning, and those who don't die out due to simple natural (market) selection.

The good news: buy a vinyl release today for comparably big money as opposed to digital, and you can expect a high amount of quality and expertise that went into it. That exactly is the markup you pay for. Still vastly inferior to a digital release in technical terms, but then you already knew that as an informed vinyl enjoyer, didn't you?

 

[MattHooper]

Certainly puts the surface noise of .. dragging rocks through a ditch into perspective.

Yep. And despite the high background noise of driving in a car - hardly a good scenario for high Fidelity - some of my happiest and most engaged musical experiences have come from listening to music while driving in the car. I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

 

[Sal1950]

But as you know Sal - one of the joys of vinyl is handling it. A short run time is a bonus

Only for the relatively tiny audiophile community.
Normal folks mostly used Record Changers before the 80 minute CD came along, and then they had to have CD Changers to load 4-6 CD's at a time. LOL

Back in the day, the really well heeled shellac listener had one of these.
Those ole 78s really offered a extended top end.
Hey Matt, you get one yet?

 

[drewdawg999]

I think you are confusing the whole idea of being all about the music. Your posts 8135 and 8137 are consumed with nostalgia. You give the impression that you don't give a toss about music except when it triggers memories. What is your attitude to new music? Doesn't even get a mention.

PS If T Swift is on tour today, it is front page news, just like your reminiscences of the Stones. Same same.

PPS sorry team, I was mixing the authors of post 8135 with post 8129. My general point stands, separate from who it was directed to, about psychological anchors (triggered by music, but actually just a re-immersion in something that formerly happened while music was present) not being the same as a fascination (emotional and other) with music in itself, even when it doesn't trigger one into non-musical reminiscences that happen to have music present.

So I see you're not into nostalgia, huh? I like it sometimes, in addition to the musical analysis side. It's a bittersweet kinda deal.

New music is fine. I'm aware of Taylor Swift, but it's just different than the Beatles and the Stones, Hendrix and Zep being on top. Zappa, we don't have that anymore. This is blues based rock and roll as opposed to saccharine bubblegum pop, much less polished but a thousand times more soulful. There's a chasm in the artistic aesthetic quality between the 2. I like Tay Tay, I have one of her albums on vinyl, Midnights. Good album, nice grooves, nice bass quality. She has a couple other good albums and is quite prolific, but she ain't no Bob Dylan. She's the ultimate commercial artist and makes straight pop music. Her looks and figure account for much of her appeal and she knows it and exploits it for maximum profit. But hey, that's show business.

I also have Father John Misty's Pure Comedy on vinyl and don't think it sounds that good. But it's great music in my book, and the colored vinyl and packaging is beautiful. Also have this Car Seat Headrest album Twin Fantasy on vinyl and it's pretty good, nothing spectacular but it works. And then Angel Olsen's All Mirrors, it's a double and it's very nice, quite dynamic with the epic nature of the songs. But that's about it for me. I prefer older music but that's just me. New releases are hit and miss in terms of quality of pressing, so I don't have many.

What does "all about the music" entail to you? That you only listen to the notes and ignore an artist's place in pop culture? It's all tied together for me, the person, the music, the emotions it conjures up. Are you not supposed to get emotional or something? And where does gear fit into this? Because the technical side of things is not very musical at all. It's all physics, not my favorite subject. I guess I am confused what being all about the music is all about. Does someone who plays instruments have more devotion to music than someone who does not? Doesn't have to be so black and white though, may be many levels in between.

 

[drewdawg999]

This subject has come up before, and I generally agree with how you view this.

Obviously, digital is capable of High Fidelity.
And it is the Highest Fidelity medium, we have.

But would that mean any other source, such as vinyl, is “low fidelity!” For me, I think: “ not so fast!”

As you imply, rating the significance of one level of Fidelity versus another can be mushy and subjective.

From perhaps a majority of my records, I get a similar impression of sonic realism and “ instruments and voices occurring in front of me” from vinyl as I do my digital source. (to the degree that’s possible.). I can be just as slack-jawed in an amazement from a good record as from a good digital recording.

As to Sonic Fidelity to the master: I have quite a few records that came from the same original digital Masters as the CD or streaming release. (of course whatever remastering had to be done for pressing on vinyl)

Possessing the CD tracks is similar to possessing the digital master, with which to compare the vinyl version . Whenever I’ve compared the two, I have found the Sonic differences to usually be subtle. No doubt examples could be brought forth where the differences are less subtle. But in any case, to my mind, records still seem like quite a capable medium sonically. I keep buying new music on vinyl which I compare to the digital versions on streaming for instance, and the vinyl almost always holds up extremely well in the comparisons. (with even characteristics I favour in the vinyl). And if somebody hearing the same comparison I have deemed the vinyl to be “low fidelity” I’d grant them their subjective assessment, but I would disagree. Relative to digital I would rate the records as slightly “lower fidelity” but not “low fidelity.”

I'm with ya, Matt. I used to love me a shootout until I realized the difference was so small it would just come down to personal preference. It varies and when vinyl clearly wins it's largely due to a superior mastering. But if the format has enough resolution to reveal mastering differences, isn't it effectively transparent? And there's some kind of zen focus I developed where I can just sweep the surface noise under the rug, don't let it bother me. Just brush that dirt off my shoulders, though I'm guessing I owe a lot of that to quality of diamond (line contact) and phono pre headroom.

In the case of my new Cars debut LP from MFSL, sound quality is simply outstanding. The SACD? Also outstanding. But there's gotta be bonus points for original format. The MoFi pressing quality is outstanding as in no pops or ticks, with surface noise undetectable. Downside it was pretty expensive. But that's also relative. I would like an AP Kind of Blue and Aja please. AP Aja costs more than my DAC.

 

[Sal1950]

But if the format has enough resolution to reveal mastering differences, isn't it effectively transparent?

Not when it also introduces distortions that never existed on the original master
That's the opposite of transparent, and all LP's are guilty of that.

 

[drewdawg999]

Not when it also introduces distortions that never existed on the original master
That's the opposite of transparent, and all LP's are guilty of that.

I say those distortions are usually below the threshold of audibility, on vinyl done right. Also they can be euphonic distortions that heighten the illusion. But on my best vinyl, this MFSL Cars album and my AP Waltz for Debby, I swear it's all good. The pressing quality and mastering quality are high enough that it sounds like master tape. IGD has disappeared for me since switching from an elliptical stylus, like 20 years ago.

 

[Ropeburn]

Please, can we not get into esoteric territory with "euphonic distortion" that "heightens the illusion", on this scientific forum?

Vinyl is no doubt an enjoyable format. But it's highly lossy.

 

[HammersRocco]

Please, can we not get into esoteric territory with "euphonic distortion" that "heightens the illusion", on this scientific forum?

Vinyl is no doubt an enjoyable format. But it's highly lossy.

- I am not a going to disagree with your comments re: "heightens the illusion" - We all deceive ourselves in some way or the other. Dunning Kruger is rampant everywhere, both sides of the vinyl discussion.

- Using the word "Lossy" is strange in the context of analog technology. When talking data compression in the context of information theory, sure. But in analog reproduction? I would recommend editing the post. Vinyl has limitations, which NOBODY in this forum denies, but we have to keep using the terms in the right domain PLEASE.

BTW, (before I get call out on it) let me clarify that I also call out when people claims vinyl (or analog) has infinite resolution. Also mixing domains. Also weird.

 

[DSJR]

Only for the relatively tiny audiophile community.
Normal folks mostly used Record Changers before the 80 minute CD came along, and then they had to have CD Changers to load 4-6 CD's at a time. LOL

View attachment 386173

Back in the day, the really well heeled shellac listener had one of these.
Those ole 78s really offered a extended top end.
Hey Matt, you get one yet?
View attachment 386174

Oh Lord, I have to admit owning both a Garrard AT6 (early version of your pic above, fitted with Stanton 500A) and also, a later 60mk2. Why? No idea but they came along fifteen years back and kind-of became absorbed into the collection




As an aside, I have a collection of old HiFi Choice test books and just now, had a read through a mid 80s cartridge group test. Almost all the MM types tested had a drooping high frequency end (oo-er missus) and often a lift below 100Hz, giving a downtilted response (who says we didn't need tone controls back then?). Pickups with a more neutral to rising response weren't favoured - and this kind of tallies with my opposing views then to now, on the Shure V15 III sample here (I still maintain the v15 VMR which sadly got damaged was a superb compromise - and I recall the V15 IIIHE was too, but I'm digressing again).

 

[Holmz]

Please, can we not get into esoteric territory with "euphonic distortion" that "heightens the illusion", on this scientific forum?
…

Why not?
What makes distortion more enjoyable for many people?
Is that not a scientific question?

 

[antcollinet]

Is that not a scientific question?

another scientific questions, is "is there any scientific evidence that distortion is more enjoyable for many people?"

 

[Newman]

But if the format has enough resolution to reveal mastering differences, isn't it effectively transparent?

That's a simple error in logic.

 

[Sal1950]

Why not?
What makes distortion more enjoyable for many people?
Is that not a scientific question?

Because it's the exact opposite of High Fidelity
Introducing distortion or whatever into a signal path is whats done during the creation of music.
Home reproduction is intended to be transparent to the source.
Of course if you want to plug in a mixer board to your stereo, that's your business, many are doing similar.
But that's still in no way what this passion was designed to do.

 

[Dz1]

Vinyl outputs a lot of ultrasonic frequencies that are missing from digital formats such as MP3 or FLAC. In scientific studies, these frequencies have been found to impact the brain in positive ways. This may be why many people prefer vinyl. I know I do. But nowadays I prefer to just add these missing frequencies back into digital music which can quite easily be done with the technology we have now.

 

[antcollinet]

n scientific studies, these frequencies have been found to impact the brain in positive ways.

Citation needed. The only ones I've ever seen were either debunked or not applicable to vinyl.

 

[krabapple]

Certainly puts the surface noise of .. dragging rocks through a ditch into perspective.

I think of it more as a dirt bike hugging a rock-strewn terrain. How could sweet sweet audiophile music not come from that?

Citation needed. The only ones I've ever seen were either debunked or not applicable to vinyl.

Oohashi in 5..4..3...

 

[krabapple]

Only for the relatively tiny audiophile community.
Normal folks mostly used Record Changers before the 80 minute CD came along, and then they had to have CD Changers to load 4-6 CD's at a time. LOL

4-6? Pah. Mine held 200.

 

[krabapple]

Vinyl outputs a lot of ultrasonic frequencies that are missing from digital formats such as MP3 or FLAC.

Which are two rather different things, and lumping them together like this tells me you are lacking some important knowledge

In scientific studies, these frequencies have been found to impact the brain in positive ways.

Those studies have been discussed here, and elsewhere, before.

This may be why many people prefer vinyl.

No, it's not.

I know I do. But nowadays I prefer to just add these missing frequencies back into digital music which can quite easily be done with the technology we have now.

No, it can't. You can't add 'missing frequencies' back.


See, Hooper, et al? This is the common kind of thrashing nonsense we see from vinylphiles.