Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Newman]

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?

Naming the worst transgressors 'and their lot' isn't lumping everyone together, other than the worst transgressors as a group.

 

[antcollinet]

Naming the worst transgressors 'and their lot' isn't lumping everyone together, other than the worst transgressors as a group.

Profanity removed.

My reaction to the quoted post - that the profanity illustrated - stands.

 

[Robin L]

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"

I guess it's also worth noting that some of the "hi-rez" downloads have ultrasonic content by virtue of the presence of tape hiss and others have ultrasonic content so low in level as to be audibly masked by the audible signal.

 

[Newman]

Jesus fucking christ.

I beg your pardon?

 

[Timcognito]

Chill or be Chilled. The Mods are watching.

 

[Newman]

Closing this thread would be the best thing since sliced bread, for the rational audiophile.

 

[Sal1950]

Jesus fucking christ.

Now now Mr Collinet, lets play nice

 

[antcollinet]

Now now Mr Collinet, lets play nice

I'd say the same - but I know there's some here that don't think they need to - so I'll just bow out of this distinctly nasty thread for a while.

 

[Newman]

I'd say the same - but I know there's some here that don't think they need to - so I'll just bow out of this distinctly nasty thread for a while.

…after having made a significant contribution to said nastiness…

 

[drewdawg999]

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.

Why not? It's been discussed here before, I'm not just pulling it out my butt. Amir doesn't seem to like it but I believe JJ mentioned that it's been studied and it is in fact a thing. And like it or not, tube gear exists and introduces distortions that plenty of people have a right to like. It's not comp sci, but it's still scientific to study these things. Personally, I took this distortion test on YT and THD didn't start bothering me until like 8%. That must be some ugly low SINAD, but my tolerance for distortion must be high. Perhaps it's a slight case of tinnitus that makes me find distortions pleasing, as someone once brought that to my attention.

I did a shootout between the SACD and vinyl of Waltz for Debby, same Analogue Productions mastering, and preferred the vinyl. It was a subtle difference but came down to soundstage and presence, which one can say are artificially heightened by euphonic distortion. Artificial or not, I have a right to like it if it enhances my enjoyment of the music.

 

[Dz1]

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.

Where did I say it would put back the original ultrasonic frequencies that are gone for good?

An extrapolation of the originals is 100% fine and has the same desired positive effects.

 

[Newman]

What does "an extrapolation of the originals" even mean?

 

[krabapple]

Both pushbacks (Against silver in cables being meaningful, AND against ultrasonics in vinyl being meaningful) are factually supported. The two statements are directly equivalent.

Correct. And your complaint about that is?

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?

Because Hooper et al. seem continually aggrieved by what they perceive as senseless/gratuitous anti-vinylphilia.

Apparently this was difficult for some to parse?

 

[MattHooper]

Naming the worst transgressors 'and their lot' isn't lumping everyone together, other than the worst transgressors as a group.

Ah, I’m merely one of the “ worst transgressors.”

Are you going to point out where I have made technically incorrect or implausible technical claims about vinyl or digital?

Or are you going to just double down like the other fellow, and spray insulting claims without backing them up? And just characterize my posts - daring to express enthusiasm for vinyl on your watch - as “transgressions”?

 

[krabapple]

Where did I say it would put back the original ultrasonic frequencies that are gone for good?

An extrapolation of the originals is 100% fine and has the same desired positive effects.

LOL, whatever.

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.”

The address to y'all et al. follows from the entire post, not just that line. And it does not mean that y'all here made those claims.

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.

Except, you're wrong.

 

[Dz1]

LOL, whatever.

That's it. Stay ignorant.

 

[krabapple]

What does "an extrapolation of the originals" even mean?

"The action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable."

AFAIR this is what such software claims to do. I could be wrong. Either way: it's a guess at best.

A guess that creates ultrasonic noise that Dz can't hear, or perceive, in normal listening. So, harmless. And silly.

HiFi News has a regular feature for hi-rez downloads. A lot of them are upsampled 44khz recordings:

View attachment 386331

Yes, part of the endless 'hi-rez' scam. Are we not entertained?

 

[krabapple]

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!

It's quite true that 'lossy audio' comes from the digital era, but let's recall that 'generational loss' was certainly in the parlance of the analog era. That referred to the loss inevitable every time something was copied, whether from tape to tape, or tape to another analog format.

 

[MattHooper]

The address to y'all et al. follows from the entire post, not just that line. And it does not mean that y'all here made those claims.

Again, if you’re going to insult somebody own it, and back it up, don’t try and squirm out of it. It just makes you look more dishonest.

“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.”

Anyone who can read understands that links me to making bogus technical arguments. If not THAT particular argument, then bogus arguments of that sort. What else could “THIS” refer to if not the bogus type of technical claim you’d just referenced, and tied me to?

But be my guest and clarify your position:
Are you accusing me of making bogus technical arguments regarding vinyl or digital?

If so, present an example. Otherwise, how about retracting your claim in the interest of clarity and intellectual honesty?

If you’d like to point to some other specific argument I’ve made that is “ thrashing nonsense” what would that be?

Noticed that I have not made some post saying somebody has made some bogus technical claim, or “thrashing nonsense” followed by “see Krabapple et all…”

I would rightly expect pushback if I did.

 

[krabapple]

There's nothing to retract. See post number eight thousand two hundred and thirty three of this absurd bedamned thread.