• 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?

...or dump on the driveway like the 4-wheeled ones do. ;)
 
[to Newman] You are one of the kingpins my friend and you prove it on a regular basis. Your denial is blatant and blinded you! How many people have to tell you the same thing?
Rude and condescending with a heightened sense of superiority. 99% of what you say is just ignored by me and Sal, holy smokes he's left on Ignore.
A science-based forum never has to be rude and if you pay attention a majority of the people on this site are not, BUT you are.
Some people are brutally honest while others are honestly brutal, you are the latter not the former.
...This thread is a perfect example of a few individuals that express their dislike of others, that disagree with their opinions....
Ok, friend.

You call your neighbour a dumb shit, your own children unlikeable, and me a troll.

And you think you get to judge who is the rude one?

Seriously. Just chill. We are talking about turntables and records, not the Middle East.
 
There are many posts here claiming LP playback is garbage. That some have higher standards and cannot tolerate vinyl. Care to take a test? Can you pick out the inferior vinyl? I did a thing, I prepared 4 flac files, 2 for each 30 second song clip at 24-96 resolution, with perceived loudness normalization through Audacity. All MFSL mastering, one is a needle drop and one is a sample of the SACD version. I myself can't pick it out, even knowing which is which. I doubt anyone can, but perhaps some of you are trained listeners and can do it.

Song clips can be downloaded here:

Let me know if you can hear a difference. Is this a valid test? I was browsing the Are Measurements Everything? thread and was blown away by the McGurk effect. I guess my ears can't be trusted, as my turntable is very beautiful, especially while spinning, which no doubt influences my perceived sound quality. I claimed I could hear a difference between an LP and the SACD of the same master, but unsighted I'm not so sure now. I would classify the sound quality of the vinyl here as transparent and high fidelity.
The Sultan1 has a bit more resonant bass.

But none of them sounds like the original LP...

 
Umm, I would put it more like this: subjectivity will not be allowed to pass as objectivity. Instead, it will be called. Is that utopian? Or is it just getting real? Calling a myth a myth: utopian? Or just realism?
Some here want all subjectivity gone. If it's allowed when appropriate then that's about right and real, since for many it's all they can provide. The most useful measurement tool I have is my cell phone though, actually all I need to measure loudness. And set the speed of the turntable motor. Well I have a multimeter that I don't use too. Anyways no expensive analyzer.
You mean that rationality is expected here? I assume that's not problematic for you?
Yes it takes some getting used to, that level of scrutiny. Not everyone is a trained scientist so are not prepared for this level of rigor. Not used to applying it towards audio reproduction though. Used to be more about party time when the music's playing, not so technical.
Yes, but not by propagating myths. Surely you can see the issue with that sort of 'fun'?
Okay, I need to think about this some more, try to delineate the myths from facts. Used to be so much fun talking about gear acquisition, and shopping for stuff, finding the right dealer. Mine was very slick, seemed very knowledgeable and experienced and reputable, oh so friendly. Most info in those days came from the dealer themselves and audio publications, everything subjective.
A funny thing has come to my attention on that point. Whenever I see a rare but sincere controlled listening test comparison of a roughly-$1000 turntable vs many times that price, a null result is obtained. This has made me ponder on how far one could take that test to the extreme with a cheap TT.

It could very well be a myth that big dollars on turntables are well spent on sound quality.
Would love to see this kind of study, in search of the best value turntable on the market. But at around $1000 I'm loving the Technics SL-100C. Max out the cart with a nice AT with ML tip and you got quite outstanding playback.

As far as dipping under that price point ($12-1300), I wonder what that cart would sound like on a Pro-ject DC ($800) or Fluance's TOTL. I actually have a cheap Technics SL-QD35 that sounds decent with a p-mount AT cart with shibata stylus. Perhaps a shootout is in order with my Gyro and Koetsu.

Have you heard of the Grand Prix Audio Monaco 3.0? It is supposed to be the steadiest table available, a DD with undetectable W&F, built to racecar tolerances. That's as high price as I would go. Supposedly the speed stability yields surprising gains in sound quality. Local dealer has it, I should ask for an audition.
For sure. That's why I think Toole did the community a great service in working through the principles of getting great sound quality in 'real world' listening spaces, including shared-purpose rooms. If you don't have his books yet, I commend you to do so.
Okay I'll check it out. Watched parts of his lecture on YT so yeah, am certainly open to better sound quality reproduction in my system.
 
Last edited:
The question for this thread is, can you explain the vinyl renaissance?
As I mentioned in my very first post at the beginning of this thread;

First, if you are trying to make sense of the vinyl renaissance, you are least likely to get an accurate answer from someone who doesn't care for vinyl. We tend to be pretty poor at understanding why other people do things that we personally don't care for, and thus tend to resort to more facile "explanations" (e.g. "it's just a hipster thing" or whatever).”

Newman’s response was an example of that yet again:

That just means that the commercial powers of manipulation and influence are being more ruthlessly applied than we originally anticipated. Big Money found a way to extract money from pockets in bigger lumps, so the machine started churning. People tend to think that they are more resistant to external influence and manipulation than they really are. "Sure, marketing works on them, but not on me." Yeah, sure.

Notice how this is a stance of essentially pure cynicism: the agency of the record buyers and whatever reasons they have are ignored to imply they are merely dupes or pawns for Big Money’s manipulations.

Of course there are marketing forces and of course there are social forces, as for anything. That doesn’t mean that people aren’t getting out of the medium what they say they are getting. I originally bought an iPhone, no doubt influenced by marketing, pop culture, seeing other people with one, etc. but it was also the features of the iPhone itself that I thought could be really useful. And of course it has been extremely useful and I enjoy as many features. If somebody ask me what I like about my iPhone, “Big Money” would fail to capture the answer. I would have to tell you what I use it for and how I use it to give a full picture.

Likewise, whether it was somebody getting in early on the vinyl revival, or someone later who noticed friends playing vinyl and they became intrigued, or seeped through pop culture or advertising, etc. Whatever combination, vinyl continues to be popular because it does provide experience that many people find gratifying. And it’s worth understanding what it is that people find gratifying to help understand the appeal of the medium and why records are still selling.

So rather going with the “people are sheep for big money” explanation, which is shallow and superficial (and unsurprisingly, massages one’s ego for not being a dupe), I think a wider less biased, more detailed perspective makes more sense, such as this description I gave earlier in the thread:

I've pointed out there is a wide range of motivations among people who have started buying vinyl, or returned to purchasing records, in this vinyl revival. It covers a huge span, from the often noted satisfying physical aspects of holding and owning records, enjoying turntables, the aesthetics/artwork, the conceptual appeal of holding "the music" in physical form and interacting with it that way, that many say it encourages them to more focused listening vs streaming alternatives, to the fun of collecting, so supporting their favourite artists in buying vinyl as merch, to just collecting records without even owning turntables, to nostalgia, to wanting to be part of a trend, and on and on. And I have many times produced evidence for my claims, in the form of articles on the subject, links to discussions among vinyl fans/Reddit forums etc, to show people's motivations.



And that yes some significant portion will say they are also motivated by "sound quality." And I have pointed out that of course there is all sorts of nuance there to unravel.

For instance some say they find vinyl to be "worse" sound quality than streaming, but they actually like that - they like the "pops and ticks and crackle" of vinyl, perhaps as some form of nostalgia or whatever. Others citing sound quality say they like the sound of vinyl generally more than digital, and of course as I've said, that could comprise all manner of nuances. That cohort would comprise people who have naively bought in to the narrative "vinyl sounds better" and don't know any better. It would comprise vinyl fans falling to pure bias effects causing them to think they like the sound better, where they would not choose it in blind testing against digital. It would likely include situations in which they may truly prefer the sound quality. Because given all the variables, it is problematic to declare in every instance the preference is only delusion or bias. They may be comparing a new vinyl set up with nice speakers to when they listen to digital on ear buds or laptops. Or they may have a cartridge that produces a smiley frequency response that emphasizes 'details' in a way they take as "oh, look how much more clear and detailed vinyl is" than whatever they happen to listen to digital on. Etc.
 
Oh, and about this:

Beware deniers with good-sounding argumentation who happen to say what you would rather be true.

Even better is to beware members who regularly misrepresent another member as a “denier” (or anti-science etc.). I have never “denied” any established facts about vinyl or digital. That’s why Newman can never actually point to my denying any such thing. What I have “denied” are certain people’s opinions. Newman has a habit of mixing up opinion with fact, unfortunately. Which is one reason why this thread continues.
 
Ok, now we have the denier who denies being a denier. A new category in the annals of anti-science.

Your choice, gentle reader. But try to resist making your choice based on which 'side' who's on.

Just consider that one of the two protagonists is smoothly aligned with the findings of audio science, and the other is hotly misaligned with audio science respecters like Amir, Toole, and JJ, including jousting sessions on ASR with all of them. And not on the margins of their expertise, either.

Someone who thinks that it is an 'appeal to authority error' to make reference to what an actual content expert says in their area of expertise. And why? Just because he doesn't want it to be true. And why doesn't he want it to be true? Because it doesn't match his sighted listening experiences!!!

The smoking keyboard sessions and self-affirming abuse of logic are not signs of a good learner. Be not fooled.
 
And they seem to dismiss all the psychology that draws (generally the younger crowd) to wanting LPs.

:oops:

Again, it's like people wearing blue don't even read what people wearing green write.


I'd say rather that 'they' think 'all the psychology' is central to the vinyl renaissance.
 
It could very well be a myth that big dollars on turntables are well spent on sound quality.
Would love to see this kind of study, in search of the best value turntable on the market.
Okay, here are a couple of examples of controlled experiments.

This one showed no overall preference between two turntables with at least 10x price difference.

This one showed an overall preference, but perhaps surprising to vinyl spenders.

Note that a $78 1961 turntable inflates to $800 today. So, if there has been any progress at all in turntable value engineering, a turntable with similar sound quality today should cost no more than, what, $600?
 
A funny thing has come to my attention on that point. Whenever I see a rare but sincere controlled listening test comparison of a roughly-$1000 turntable vs many times that price, a null result is obtained. This has made me ponder on how far one could take that test to the extreme with a cheap TT.

It could very well be a myth that big dollars on turntables are well spent on sound quality.
I've been advocating for more money on the turntable than some want to spend. There should be a price point where things work. That may have come down in the decades since I last bought a turntable: new manufacturing techniques and materials are available, and turntable design must have progressed a little in that time as well.
 
Okay, here are a couple of examples of controlled experiments.

This one showed no overall preference between two turntables with at least 10x price difference.

This one showed an overall preference, but perhaps surprising to vinyl spenders.

Note that a $78 1961 turntable inflates to $800 today. So, if there has been any progress at all in turntable value engineering, a turntable with similar sound quality today should cost no more than, what, $600?
I'm pretty sure the profit margins and advertising costs have increased, and production must be at a lower level. We'll need stricter standards today in a lot of systems where bass levels have increased, and designers will have to work harder to approach digital playback standards. I reckon that $1000 you quoted before may be closer to the mark in practice.

Archimago's test doesn't account for real world operating conditions. It tells us that there's not much difference when ripping: what if the two turntables were playing in a room at volume, with people moving around, and lots of opportunity for feedback? Still, it's a good starting point to understand what different players are capable of.
 
Just consider that one of the two protagonists is smoothly aligned with the findings of audio science, and the other is hotly misaligned with audio science respecters like Amir, Toole, and JJ, including jousting sessions on ASR with all of them. And not on the margins of their expertise, either.
I believe this is incorrect. This is how you see those who have different choices. However, they are not what you think they are - deniers, that is. Pretty much I have have seen none of that in this thread. Note, that I did not say "disagree with you". You seem to be upset at their choices, and are pretty unable to let it go, which is the reason that I dared to bring the word "pathology" in to this. I beg of you, accept that someone can make a difference choice. I also beg you, to not look at them as ignorant deniers. Very few of those here.

IMHO, of course.
 
Okay, here are a couple of examples of controlled experiments.

This one showed no overall preference between two turntables with at least 10x price difference.

This one showed an overall preference, but perhaps surprising to vinyl spenders.

Note that a $78 1961 turntable inflates to $800 today. So, if there has been any progress at all in turntable value engineering, a turntable with similar sound quality today should cost no more than, what, $600?
This is an example of the kind of Vinyl users in this forum and thread. Me, for example; my turntable is not a super high value one. Why? Because I understand all of the above. I prefer those that are DD or least have digital speed control. And I spent most of my money where it matters. On the cart. None that silly "turntable-arm-cart" synergy stuff! :D As long as the arm works with the specs of the cart, you should be golden! :D

But we know that. I know Matt knows that. So within the choice we act as ASRs - please try to see that. Everything else? well... let it go

IMHO, of course.
 
Okay, here are a couple of examples of controlled experiments.

This one showed no overall preference between two turntables with at least 10x price difference.

This one showed an overall preference, but perhaps surprising to vinyl spenders.

Note that a $78 1961 turntable inflates to $800 today. So, if there has been any progress at all in turntable value engineering, a turntable with similar sound quality today should cost no more than, what, $600?
And neither one of them capable of reproducing anything near the sound of a master recording.
None are, no matter how much you spend.
That's the bottom line truth.

Oh, and about this
Even better is to beware members who regularly misrepresent another member as a “denier” (or anti-science etc.). I have never “denied” any established facts about vinyl or digital. That’s why Newman can never actually point to my denying any such thing. What I have “denied” are certain people’s opinions. Newman has a habit of mixing up opinion with fact, unfortunately. Which is one reason why this thread continues.
You do a great job of fence riding while pissing on the facts of High Fidelity Home Music Reproduction.
Encouraging anyone to spend .10 cents on vinyl before he's exhausted his budget on modern SOTA 2 and multich reproduction is just short of extortion, right up there with the promoting cables and all the rest.
I've always agreed a turntable can be a fun toy for some to play with.
When it comes to my music, I have little time for toys, I want SOTA High Fidelity, the best I can afford at least.

There's a lot of fun poking photos, but this remains the best and most truthful
It closely represents the very worst of the High End Believer world. :p

expense.jpg
 
Ok, now we have the denier who denies being a denier. A new category in the annals of anti-science.
And still, as is your modus operandi, not a single fact to back up your claim. You know: some data point like an actual quote from me showing I have denied any facts or science?

What happened to facts Newman? Just ignored when they inconveniently don’t support your desire to disparage somebody?

and the other is hotly misaligned with audio science respecters like Amir, Toole, and JJ,

And yet not a single example from you available of what scientific facts I have denied from any of those persons. See the pattern here, Newman? You can never adduce facts so you rely on mischaracterization and innuendo.

Why is everybody just supposed to take your word… your mere subjective impressions? What happened to evidence Newman?


including jousting sessions on ASR with all of them. And not on the margins of their expertise, either.

Only when it comes to some of their opinions, not scientific facts. You seem to slip into fallacious APPEALS to AUTHORITY

Perhaps you’re most audacious move of all:

Tired of my being strawmanned I
Wrote a post describing exactly my viewpoint and what my arguments were regarding vinyl in this thread.

In response, did you address a single actual argument or point I made? No. Instead, you called my own stated arguments “A distortion!

And then went on to concoct your own fantasy version of what I’m arguing.

This has been your modus operandi with me for years. What do you get out of this behavior? I simply cannot reckon. It’s bizarre.

Someone who thinks that it is an 'appeal to authority error' to make reference to what an actual content expert says in their area of expertise.

Anyone is invited to follow the previous links I gave showing how you mistake opinion for facts when they come from an authority.


And why? Just because he doesn't want it to be true. And why doesn't he want it to be true? Because it doesn't match his sighted listening experiences!!!

More vague innuendo, instead of evidence.

What truth have I denied in this thread? Cite anything I have actually written - not your characterization of it, but my actual written words - to support your constant slander that I am denying facts. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do wouldn’t it?


Why not give that a whirl?

Because everyone can see from the link I gave encapsulating what I’ve argued, that there are no facts being denied. That’s inconvenient for you, so you just make stuff up instead.

I literally do not think you have ever once seen you honestly and accurately represent what I have really argued.
 
Last edited:
:oops:

Again, it's like people wearing blue don't even read what people wearing green write.


I'd say rather that 'they' think 'all the psychology' is central to the vinyl renaissance.
Ok - what is it then?
Please tell us/me.

I am not a hipster, and have had a TT from a long time.
So a renaissance is not something I can relate to, other than “upgrades to it”.

And I can only tell you what the hipsters seem to intimate.
Seems more of status /psychology than attention to technical specifications.
 
There's a lot of fun poking photos, but this remains the best and most truthful
It closely represents the very worst of the High End Believer world. :p

View attachment 387639

expense.jpg


And much the same can be said about folks who get obsessed over any aspect of audio reproduction, like plunging big wads of money and effort into a full-blown Atmos system. Audio reproduction isn't always about the pursuit of SOTA replay, there are other reasons to be interested in audio reproduction. And Vinyl replay doesn't have to be expensive or inconvenient. But Sal keeps on hammering on just one point, like he's the guy in charge here and anyone who doesn't agree with him is some kind of a fool or worse. I had an interaction with him about how he always brings up the same subjects, cited chapter and verse, he decided to block me.
 
You do a great job of fence riding

It’s called nuance Sal. It helps us avoid the mistakes that come from black-and-white thinking.

while pissing on the facts of High Fidelity Home Music Reproduction.

And not a single fact to back that up as usual.
You can’t actually cite anything I’ve written that denies “ facts” of high Fidelity home, music reproduction.

Whereas I have made numerous posts
Defending the Hi FidelityApproach

And I have written numerous times on the problem with pure Subjectivist approach


Encouraging anyone to spend .10 cents on vinyl before he's exhausted his budget on modern SOTA 2 and multich reproduction is just short of extortion, right up there with the promoting cables ..

And of course, nowhere can you cite me doing any such thing. I have never recommended anybody else do what I do, whether it is getting into records or buying an expensive turntable. I have consistently said I’m speaking only of what I get out of playing records, and that it’s clearly not for everyone, and I completely recognize many people, especially ASR members see it as an unnecessary waste of time, money and hassle.

So you are once again making things up. Hallucinating. I just don’t know why you bother doing this Sal. What’s the point?
 
Last edited:
And much the same can be said about folks who get obsessed over any aspect of audio reproduction, like plunging big wads of money and effort into a full-blown Atmos system.

Exactly. The lack of self-awareness can really be something. It’s a constant hurling of rocks in one’s own glass house.
 
Back
Top Bottom