-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?
- Thread starter carewser
- Start date
Information is lost at every step of the production process. It starts with the original master getting adapted for vinyl (mono bass, RIAA curve), cutting the lacquer, making the master stamp from that, actually pressing the final product, and then playing it back using a needle, and the RIAA curve applied in reverse.
Every single one of these steps alters the original signal. Information gets lost and distortion added.
Therefore, vinyl is a lossy format. The word not commonly being used that way doesn't change the facts.
It's amazing that it still sounds good and pleasant after so many lossy steps. Infact I consider it an extraordinary achievement of mankind in terms of material science, craftsmanship, and micromechanics.
Last edited:
That deserves a
. Some (a small proportion here) vinylphiles thrash nonsense != all do - or that all posts regarding vinyl are similarly nonsense.It is exactly like saying (After yet another interminable pushback against - eg - the merits of silver in cables, or superiority of an expensive DAC) : See krabapple et al? this is the common kind of thrashing we see from audiophiles.
MattHooper
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 8,814
- Likes
- 14,534
Why not? There’s no reason not to. On this forum we talk about the performance of audio gear. That also includes the distortion, and its subjective effects. Otherwise, why care about reducing distortion in the first place?
If you have EQ in your system, and you fiddle with it to get a particular recording to sound better, you are introducing a euphonic effect. There’s nothing wrong with talking about that.
Likewise, a speaker may have a distortion along the frequency response, perhaps a little bit of smile EQ or a little peak in the highs that someone might find euphonic. And it may “heighten the illusion” of greater clarity, more vivid cymbals, heightened vocal presence, clarity of guitar picking or whatever.
It’s just as possible for other distortions to have similar effects: for instance, the particular frequency response of a cartridge, or the mastering for vinyl, someone might find more euphonic than the digital version.
In my own system, I find vinyl tends to have a certain texture that slightly increases the sense of presence and density of instruments. I find that quite euphonic, and I will say so if I want to ;-)
Most of the posts on this forum are not of a scientific nature. Most simply could not be. The forum would have tried up a long time ago if that were actually the criteria for posting.
Last edited:
MattHooper
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 8,814
- Likes
- 14,534
I have never made any argument regarding missing high frequencies with digital or anything else. I would be happy if you point to any claim I’ve made about digital and vinyl that is technically incorrect or implausible.
Your post translates into: “ I can’t or won’t bother to point to something Matt Hooper has written that is wrong, but I’ll feel entitled to disparage him anyway.”
Please do better.
HammersRocco
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2018
- Messages
- 341
- Likes
- 381
It's not that what you are saying is no true. I also understand everything you mention. Obvious to an ASR person.
My only point is that it has never been called "lossy"! You admit that. Using the right terminology is key to understanding. Don't rename things or confuse domains. And from what I understand there is no peer reviewed consensus that has renamed it to that. It's inaccurate.
And I agree - given how primitive it is, it's amazing how well it works.
That's all!
Last edited:
MattHooper
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 8,814
- Likes
- 14,534
More insults?
Maybe you can find someplace better to work out your aggression. Maybe a workout at the gym or something and then when you’ve got it out of you, you could consider addressing peoples actual points rather than just spraying insults.
I am pleased to see you edited away your borderline ad hominems in the meantime. Let's just agree to disagree, and enjoy our record collections, shall we?
HammersRocco
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2018
- Messages
- 341
- Likes
- 381
More like prejudice than ad-hominem, I don't know you as to act based on it being you. I am triggered by some attitudes in ASR. The vinyl question brings them out.
Its like "you like something I don't, so you don't know anything" exhibited by a couple of members that triggers me the most. I react. But also, I want to believe I am reasonable enough to correct course, so decided it was better not to go that way. Again, I don't know you so to assume was also the wrong thing to do. It is also my prejudice that most fellow ASRs are just not into backtracking, so I am happy with myself about that. I feel that is a better attitude than that of some members.
I am not hiding or denying it, it would be dumb given that the system will show it. Again, I am better for it, I think. YMMV.
TBF, as I have mentioned in many other posts, one of my pet peeves is when fellow vinyl users talk about "infinite resolution" - man. That bothers me. It makes us all look bad. So I haven gotten into many discussions especially at Hoffman trying to correct that. It was just strange to see something similar said but from the other point of view. Had to say something too.
Peace. You too enjoy!
Yeah, I do it all the time. It's easy.
You are right there is nothing wrong about collecting older inconvenient lower resolution tech. I have some nice old radios, cool wired telephones form the turn of the last century to the early '70s and as a car and motorcycle lover, owner of many for many years and mechanical engineer, I would have hobby car if didn't live so close to the ocean to watch rust away. There is nothing wrong with collecting LPs and TT as I have a nice VPI TT 7-800 LPs myself that I rarely play. The thing that raises unwelcome and unwarranted rudeness is that most come to ASR to get the data the newest, best performing and value audio devices of which "vinyl" does not possess. But like cars there many collectors that enjoy the hobby. The explanation of this revolution is it is hobby of collecting.
Last edited:
When talking about vinyls inherent distortions there is, since there's no way to remove or shut it off..
Unless you trade up to a CD
Nah, you aren't doing what you think you're doing.
If a recording comes to you in a 44kHz (CD rate) format, for example, it can contain frequency content up to 22 kHz. Anything that was above 22kHz in the original audio signal going in to the ADC (analog-to-digital converter), is gone. It was filtered out. It never got digitized.
A 96kHz recording, on the other hand, can contain frequency content up to 48kHz.
But upsampling a 44kHz recording to 96kHz -- which is child's play to do -- does not 'add back' the original signal between 22 and 48kHz. Even software that extrapolates 'missing' frequency content isn't giving you back what was never recorded. It's making a guess.
That deserves a
Read again. I did not write " this is what vinylphiles always write". If I meant that, I'd have written that. I wrote: "This is the common kind of thrashing nonsense we see from vinylphiles." And that means it's common in the big wide world of audio -- which I've been following for decades -- not necessarily just 'here' at ASR.
But 1) that 'pushback' would be factually supported , unlike the type of argument Dz offered and 2) it actually hasn't been common for audiophiles to argue against the merits of silver in cables. Quite the opposite.
It's funny that you think I was saying *YOU* (and the et al.) made that claim.
LOL.
Both pushbacks (Against silver in cables being meaningful, AND against ultrasonics in vinyl being meaningful) are factually supported. The two statements are directly equivalent.
And if you didn't mean to imply it was somehow a facet of "all" vinylphiles - why did you specifically direct the comment at "Hooper et al" - what has it got to do with him/them - if you are not somehow lumping everyone together?
MattHooper
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 8,814
- Likes
- 14,534
What you wrote tied me in with making the same type of nonsense claims:
“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.”
So you tied me to the general idea of making nonsense technical claims, which is why I asked you to show anywhere I have made nonsense or implausible technical claims regarding vinyl or digital.
And of course you characterized my posts as “thrashing nonsense.”
If you’re going to insult somebody, at least own it.
If you’re going to insult my position as thrashing nonsense, the intellectually honest thing to do was actually back that up rather than attribute nonsense to me that I have not argued.
Classy.
Robin L
Master Contributor
HiFi News has a regular feature for hi-rez downloads. A lot of them are upsampled 44khz recordings:
I think that is the reason he used the word "can". Obviously if the ultrasonics are not in the source - whatever that is, then it doesn't matter what the sample rate is, they're not going to be in the recording.
But we shouldn't really care in any case. Our ears are not equipped to receive them. It's why they are called "ultra"
Similar threads
