• 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?

And what point am I proving with this anecdote? Probably nothing. Oh wait, that is the point: anecdotes prove nothing. Especially in this thread. Especially since we both know and have both stated numerous times, in this thread alone and in others, that mastering is the first thing you have to get right, no matter the format or technology.
Hm. Did you try the other CDs? That would be the obvious next move.
 
Newman , as I’ve said numerous times on this forum (and even in PMs with other people) I personally value your contributions in this forum. I think you bring a lot to the table and have made tons of great contributions. And I very sincerely would like our discourse to have less friction.

I personally have benefitted from feedback to my post both positive and negative. And I’m not saying my own posts haven’t displayed some of the issues below. I hope you take the following in that spirit.

You have just thanked Galliardist’s sympathetic reading of your post.

Since you see the good in this, I suggest that your replies could benefit from adopting more sympathy… “charity”… in understanding other people’s posts.

In other words: a default to seeking to understand the other person‘s view, which is going to involve being conscious of the context they have given for their view, rather than seizing on certain sentences and interpreting them in the least charitable way.

The latter is a recipe for raising one’s blood pressure, and raising the level of misunderstanding.

So if you have a very negative interpretation of a portion of a post, it would be better to look to whatever context has been given, to try to understand it. And perhaps more often adopt the approach: “ you seem to be saying something I strongly disagree with here. Do you really mean X as I’ve understood it, or could you clarify?

I think you can see how that approach opens up understanding, rather than taking an interpretation and running with it, and ignoring any context or clarifications given by the other person.

You’ll see quite a few such questions in my posts to you. But all too often my clarifications, my pointing out how my view differs from what you have characterized, and my questions for you simply go ignored. And so the same misunderstandings just keep showing up over and over. Paying more attention to when somebody is telling you
“ that’s not what I said or believe, THIS is actually what I’m saying…” would go a long way to reducing friction.

So on that note…
 
Popularity doesn’t mean anything in a science forum.

Clarification: I was not making an appeal to popularity. Relaying my own experience listening to records is relevant to the question of the OP who wondered why an audiophile would choose to play records in this day and age. He’s asking for reasons so I give my reasons.

And presumably, this also expands to understanding the vinyl Renaissance in general, so we’ve also been discussing motivations people have in the wider context as well.

If we want to analyse popularity in a science forum, instead of just giving opinions, reach to social sciences including marketing science

If we had firm science on answering this question and the way you want it answered - the vinyl Renaissance analyze scientifically - it would’ve been given already. We’ve had bits and pieces of studies which are provocative in certain ways, but nothing that wraps everything up and Gives The Answer.

So at this point, we are mostly left to providing whatever we can in terms of evidence of peoples stated motivations, as well as any ASR member experience which is pertinent to this question.

And so that has been the nature of the thread, generally speaking.

To that end I have produced tons of references to articles trying to understand the Renaissance, sales figures, and citations of and links to all sorts of testimonials as to why people say they are getting into vinyl.

As well , there’s nothing wrong with members here informally discussing their own experience and attitudes towards vinyl.

As to social sciences, typically they are going to start by asking people their reasons for making a choice: which is just the type of raw data I have been pointing to, in regards to the many examples of people stating their attitudes towards vinyl.

Again, we’ve got what we’ve got so far. If you have something far more comprehensive in explaining the vinyl revival, far more scientific which settles the question, I’d certainly like to see it.

Way back, I have made one or two of the more genuine attempts to do so of all the posts in this thread. Even though I don’t know marketing science, at least I tried. I got zero traction.

Would you mind linking to those? I may have missed them at the time. I would like to see what you were talking about there. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3
That’s why references to “the sighted anecdote crowd” and calls to “join us” in that crowd, come across, to me, as both a little bit smug, and as an appeal to populism.

And that is exactly what was happening in the post directly above mine, and to which I was responding. In a sense, the stakes were pretty high, and they were anti-science, a call to ASR readers to choose all their hifi gear mainly by sighted listening, and listening to writers telling their personal stories in science forums

So here’s where that “ charity” thing comes in and seeking to actually understand somebody.

I have emphasized constantly on this form until blue in the face that scientific controls are what you want when you are truly trying to understand a phenomenon, and seeking reliable information. I have re-emphasize that yet again even even within the last page or two.

As you know this, it would be far more helpful if you kept that context in mind when trying to interpret what else I have written.

My statement to Holmz about sighted listening was not an admonition to use sighted listening in place of scientific controls as the best way to interpret his vinyl versus digital comparisons.

It was instead simply a recognition that most people here (and elsewhere during the transition from vinyl to CDs) are not themselves going through any such trouble and scientific rigger in their listening. Just as a statement of fact about the state of affairs.

And that was a context of my somewhat jokey: So in this case, join the sighted anecdote crowd.

And this places you in the same crowd - you are not using double blind testing when switching between LPs and digital, as your recent sighted anecdote attests.

For this reason many of us simply understand the context of exchanges of experience using vinyl.

It’s like if your neighbour tells you he just bought a new 4K TV from Best Buy, do you demand “ I refuse to accept your claim unless you demonstrate it with plenty more evidence and scientific controls!” Of course not. Such demands are utterly unpractical. Instead, since we know people buy 4K TVs all the time, there is nothing the claim that undermines known science, it’s reasonable to just accept the claim for pragmatic reasons, and one can move on to asking questions like “ so how do you like your new TV?” This is not “ anti-science” in action. It is a justifiable pragmatic approach, which recognizes the worth of science, while recognizing we make decisions very often when we don’t have scientific data available. But within the context given, they are still reasonable inferences.

Likewise: When lots of the old fogies here talk about the trials and tribulations they had dealing with vinyl artefacts - their dislike of background surface noise, ticks and pops, inner groove distortion, wow and flutter causing warbling characteristics in the sound, bass frequency restrictions and all the rest…
It’s understood that this was not in the context of double blind testing. But that nonetheless, we know vinyl suffers from those audible artifacts, and that they bothered plenty of people, which was one reason so many people leapt to CDs. So if somebody complains about how they did not like how the piano notes wobbled on some of their favourite classical pieces due to wow and flutter on their vinyl copies, it is not
“ anti-scientific” to pragmatically recognize
“ OK, that wasn’t done double blind (there is the caveat, the acknowledgement of science!) but since the experience they are describing is completely plausible given vinyl’s known artefacts, it’s reasonable to accept the claim for the context of the current discussion.

Since for the vast majority of what we often talk about here we don’t have direct scientific data, it makes sense to make some space for informal discussions as well, which ASR members also enjoy and which make discussion richer.

The crucial difference between ASR members mentioning their own experience versus the typical audiophile forum, is that here we do so with a background acknowledgement of our fallibility, and with the caveat understood that this does not carry the weight of impressions gained within scientific controls.
Any reader is free to take such anecdotal descriptions as they wish. But it’s clear the vast majority of ASR members understand the context.

Otherwise, this place just becomes another hydrogenaudio, and I think it’s been expressed often enough that most don’t want that, and appreciate them more relaxed atmosphere here.

So when it comes to your characterization of such posts as mine I beg of you to please recognize the difference between what you describe here;

they were anti-science, a call to ASR readers to choose all their hifi gear mainly by sighted listening,

And what I actually argue, which I keep in careful context. That does not accurately characterize a single post I have ever made on this forum. Much less the tenor of my general arguments.

It doesn’t at all understand what I was saying to Holmz as I’ve already pointed out.

And it doesn’t understand all my general view I’ve put forth in the forum. I’ve given the context for vinyl versus digital impressions above.

Do I audition speakers under sighted listening conditions?
Yes. Most people do including many members here. Do I think it’s as reliable as blinded listening? No. Do I argue that others here SHOULD choose their gear with sighted listening? No. I’ve said 1 million times it is entire reasonable for anyone to take a fully measurement based approach to the gear they choose.

Do I defend my own use of sighted listening and also sometimes the worth of exchanging impressions with other audiophiles including some reviews? Yes. But to defend my own approach is not an admonition that anyone else do as I do!!! And importantly, my defence of to what degree I put relevance in sighted listening is constantly placed in a pragmatic context; acknowledging that simply fact we very often don’t have scientific data or the ability to audition every speaker using scientific controls. It is ALWAYS in the context that scientific controls are the way for more reliable inferences. To acknowledge the relevance of science, while at the same time acknowledging that we don’t always have, in fact rarely have, scientific controls available to vet our impressions, isn’t “ anti-science” or “science denial.” It is rational pragmatism of the type that if we didn’t use, we couldn’t get through the day. And of the type, as I said, that many of us here provisionally accept the reports of others describing experiences with vinyl artefacts versus digital.

I do hope this clears up some misunderstandings.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
I am pretty passionate about the anti-science rabbit hole that opens up when members here try to drag discussions into that space. Some members are very determined to do so. Their words might be sweet, but I see the regressive issues that lurk beneath. Sometimes my passion comes through a bit strongly….but saying “I’m passionate” seems a bit sterile compared to showing it. Of course as soon as one lets it show, one gets reported….but not by people who share my passion for audio science and progress.

So I guess I am apologising for being aggressively defensive in frustration ….but not for being passionate about defending audio science when it comes under siege, or letting it show from time to time.

Cheers
It seems to me that when someone mentioned that when CD's first came out they were "Preferred to LP's during sighted listening comparisons" you became "passionate".

I have digital samples from over 100 LP's that I have compared level matched and blind to digital versions (mostly original CD's). I don't have an exact tally but for ~95% of them I can reliably ABX between them. When it comes to "preference" of the 95% that I can ABX there are ~5% that I prefer the LP and ~30% that I prefer the digital and the rest I don't really have a preference. The absolute best sound quality recordings I have are digital. While not completely scientific doing these comparisons gives me a good baseline for what each format has to offer for sound quality.

To me what what is most interesting from a science point of view is that despite the many orders of magnitude better measured performance that digital has compared to LP's the actual audible differences are usually subtle. So if "snake oil" is the enemy of "Audio Science" when it comes to audio quality why is "High SINAD" (anything over ~ 60 dB) not considered "snake oil / the enemy of science" since in most cases no one can reliably tell the difference between 60 dB and 120 dB SINAD. The same for "Hi-Res" files. I don't believe anyone has ever reliably been able to ABX 44.1/16 vs 192/24, I know for a fact that I can not. Is Hi-Res the "enemy of science"?

To me the value of the"science of audio" is understanding what is important and what isn't for high quality and enjoyable listening. It seem that for some ever higher SINAD or ever higher "Hi-res" or ever higher measurements of whatever becomes that goal whether you can hear it or not. That seems like "snake oil" to me.

When your passion results in comments that belittle other people's choices as being "anti-science" or "snake oil", despite most everyone here being well versed in both the science of and the experience of recorded music playback, you are going to get predictable negative reactions. Too bad we don't have a "scientific way" to evaluate recording quality as that is where real audible differences in sound quality and listening enjoyment can be found.
 
There was no tone or shouting. Just an average statement of answering your question.
My, you are sensitive.
Had I known that, I would not have bothered, as I thought that I was just adding to the discussion & gently answering your query.
I guess that we have vastly differing ideas of what is normal, respectable, discussion.
I appreciated the content of your answer. It supported a point I had already made about circumstance, in fact.

However, simply typing “I WANT” in capitals the way you did started that post with the tone of a two year old having a tantrum, or at the very least a display of confected outrage.

From my end, it didn’t help that you also took the question completely out of context as well - it was rhetorical and part of a specific reply to someone else.
 
Your ABX experience regarding some records versus digital is interesting, thanks levimax!

To me what what is most interesting from a science point of view is that despite the many orders of magnitude better measured performance that digital has compared to LP's the actual audible differences are usually subtle.

Which are my impressions as well. I might put it “ often subtle.”

And you bring up a point I and others have made many times. It’s one thing to point to the technical differences and what can be measured. It’s another to scale the relevance of that to what is actually heard. Because we know there are all sorts of other considerations, including masking effects of the music itself, which can lead to lower discrimination than the measurements would seem to suggest. There are studies showing the distortion levels have to be surprisingly high (especially within the context of typical amplifier measurements for instance ) before people notice them or report it as unpleasant.

There was for instance on this forum the comparison of samples from a SET tube amplifier with significant measured distortion, versus a much lower distortion solid state amplifier, in which people found differences were very subtle or even hard to discern.

So you can’t simply leap from “ Look how much better digital measures” to “ therefore the perceived difference when playing a record versus digital is going to be REALLY SIGNIFICANT.

The level of differences vary given the record one is comparing. Evaluating “ how large” or “ significance” the perceptual effect is of those Sonic differences is of course, going to be subjective. You could in principle collect a whole bunch of impressions in scientifically controlled conditions, rating the reported significance of each vinyl artefact. But I don’t see that anybody has presented any such data. And even if we did have such data, there could remain problems in how it applies to any individual and their record library.

So if somebody else is going to object to what you and I report when comparing vinyl to digital, as if we are “ denying scientific facts” then it is incumbent on them to show specifically what “ facts” we are denying.
In other words, they have to bring more than their own opinion that “ vinyl sounds worse than you describe.” They’d have to bring the type of scientific perceptual studies that I’ve indicated that directly address what you and I report subjectively. And which could be applied directly to our experience.

I’m still waiting on that.

THIS study has been posted before. But it only compared two recordings (and not controlling for listener, playback equipment) and it doesn’t come close to settling the questions I’m talking about.

One reason it seems we do not have such answers is because of the challenges involved. This is not like evaluating claims of fancy AC cables, where electrical theory rules sonic differences to be highly implausible, whatever cable you are using. In other words, you can say to somebody who is reporting a sonic difference “ it is highly unlikely you are actually hearing that.”

And it’s not like evaluating loudspeakers, because in the case of loudspeakers we have lots of data supporting “ best practice measurements” and then if you can find measurements for a speaker, it can be evaluated against those measurements in terms of likely preferences.

When it comes to records, as far as I’m aware we don’t have the type of specific sets of studies that would let us come to similarly confident conclusions, which rule against the type of impressions some of us give for our records. As in “ we have a scientific basis to rule your evaluation of a subtle difference to be false.”

There’s a gazillion records out there, which are going to vary in all sorts of different ways in terms of what artefacts they display and to what degree for each artefact, and to what degree those artefacts are going to bother a listener and impede pleasure. Or appeal to on what scale those artefacts are rated. And one listener may have a collection of records that are higher quality and less artefact ridden than another person. So you can’t just presume what one person is really hearing or not.

It reminds me of when I used to go to movies all the time with my best friend. He became incredibly sensitive to noise made by people in the movie theaters. Somebody opening a package or crunching on popcorn behind us we drive him insane and he’d walk out declaring how “ it was so obnoxious it ruins the movie.” But for me, I barely noticed it, it didn’t bother me at all, and it had virtually no significance in terms of my taking in the movie. Who’s right? It’s a subjective rating, and one person doesn’t have the stance to brow beat another over the subjective assessment. It’s going to be duelling opinions.

We are in a similar situation in discussing the significance of differences we are hearing between digital and vinyl.

When your passion results in comments that belittle other people's choices as being "anti-science" or "snake oil", despite most everyone here being well versed in both the science of and the experience of recorded music playback,

Indeed.

The error often made here is confusingUnscientific” with “ANTI-Science.”

“ANTI-Science” should be a term reserved for when somebody is actually making claims that DENY known science, or which DENY the relevance of the scientific method.

“ Unscientific” would describe behaviour that simply isn’t engaging in science, or scientific rigour. And that describes the vast majority of human behaviour.

When the scientist leaves his lab, and goes home to cook a new recipe, experimenting by changing ingredients and measures, seeing how the recipe turns out as evaluated by him and his family… his method, like most people cooking, are Unscientific. But this has not made him ANTI-Science. Engaging in cooking does not entail making anti-scientific claims.

To plan your vacation with the informal input of the preferences of your family is NOT to engage in ANTI-Science. It’s just being reasonable and practical under the circumstances.

And that’s another important point: We also have to not confuse “Unscientific” with
“ unreasonable.” There are all sorts of reasonable inferences that can be made in unscientific conditions. If that weren’t the case, we’d be engaging in irrational behaviour all day long.

When we are comparing vinyl and digital in our homes, or exchanging such informal impressions here, we are engaging in Unscientific comparisons and discussion, but not therefore taking an ANTI-Scientific stance!

And further, many comments and impressions within an unscientific context can still be quite reasonable. If someone tells me they ditched a classical piano LP due to the irritating amount of “wow” warbling the sustained piano notes, I don’t need double blind test results to justify (provisionally) accepting that account.
 
I think that is a very generous reading of the below. To me it seems generous to the point that you are ignoring the connotation of the words and ignoring that it is a beg the question construction. I think it is plain to see from Newman’s responses in this thread that he is not just standing for the truth but is doing so in a highly aggressive manner and is an expert at using connotation to attack.

“You guys go 'settle' at whatever level you like. Call that level whatever you like, too, that won't change what it is. Low, mid, mid-high, lower, lesser, yeah yeah yeah, all good. Twist away. Twist away for 9188 posts, you are still accepting handcuffs when it comes to the big game in town....the reason for becoming an audiophile...aspirational sound quality”

While he doesn’t denote that you have to be an audiophile to be here, here certainly uses that connotation through the blind assumption that “You guys” are not following the (notice the singular) reason for becoming and audiophile… aspirational sound quality. He does this in the connotation of settling, which in US English is used derisively. Everyone knows that someone who says “The new C8s are good and all, if you’re willing to settle.” Is throwing shade, issuing an insult without denoting an insult in an attempt to insult someone and get away with it on the technicality that they only connotated an insult the didn’t denote it. This isn’t a one off for him. This post like many others follows a pattern of careful language construction to not denote insults but to connotate them.

One of the reasons upthread that I gave for listening to vinyl, is that I have generalized anxiety and depression and the ritual for preparing to play a record helps me focus on the music in ways that can be hard on a computer when I am anxious. His response was he had no problem concentrating. Again the denotation is that he has no problem concentrating, but mental health in this country is still highly stigmatized and a common reaction those of us with it get is along the lines of I get nervous too, but i just use self discipline to overcome it. Completely not understanding the difference between nervousness and anxiety (or sadness vs depression) and think I am just like them, so what’s the issue. This very often extends to denotations of cowardice and laziness. Newman’s response, in the context of my disclosure connotates an insult and a very clear one that is oft repeated in my culture. It does it in the guise of a simply statement so that Newman can disavow responsibility and further if challenged can throw it back in the challenger’s face by saying I am misunderstanding him or it is all in my head (the usual one since I have already admitted mental health issues).

The denotation/conotation ploys is learned by fifth grade as a strategy, and while easily called out there as it is usually clumsy, it can be refined until it becomes exhausting to try and fight. After all 8/8 is just a date. Many statements are 14 words long, settling isn’t technically an insult, and everyone here (“you guys”) should be an audiophile of this definition (begs the question), and since that is true you should acknowledge that your experience is lesser.

So no, he didn’t technically say everyone had to be an audiophile on this site. He begged the question and then equated it with the non-insult insult (very akin to the non-apologies corps and politicians tend to issue) of settling and lesser. I would posit that his pattern of doing this is what makes many people angry/irritated and push back. It has nothing to do with them (and me) being perfectly happy to own the literal denotations (I have done so several times in this thread) while absolutely not excepting the connotations.

Wow I have not seen many posts as well written is yours.
You sir, are a gentleman.


It seems to me that when someone mentioned that when CD's first came out they were "Preferred to LP's during sighted listening comparisons" you became "passionate".

I have digital samples from over 100 LP's that I have compared level matched and blind to digital versions (mostly original CD's). I don't have an exact tally but for ~95% of them I can reliably ABX between them. When it comes to "preference" of the 95% that I can ABX there are ~5% that I prefer the LP and ~30% that I prefer the digital and the rest I don't really have a preference. The absolute best sound quality recordings I have are digital. While not completely scientific doing these comparisons gives me a good baseline for what each format has to offer for sound quality.

To me what what is most interesting from a science point of view is that despite the many orders of magnitude better measured performance that digital has compared to LP's the actual audible differences are usually subtle. So if "snake oil" is the enemy of "Audio Science" when it comes to audio quality why is "High SINAD" (anything over ~ 60 dB) not considered "snake oil / the enemy of science" since in most cases no one can reliably tell the difference between 60 dB and 120 dB SINAD. The same for "Hi-Res" files. I don't believe anyone has ever reliably been able to ABX 44.1/16 vs 192/24, I know for a fact that I can not. Is Hi-Res the "enemy of science"?

To me the value of the"science of audio" is understanding what is important and what isn't for high quality and enjoyable listening. It seems that for some ever higher SINAD or ever higher "Hi-res" or ever higher measurements of whatever becomes that goal whether you can hear it or not. That seems like "snake oil" to me.

When your passion results in comments that belittle other people's choices as being "anti-science" or "snake oil", despite most everyone here being well versed in both the science of and the experience of recorded music playback, you are going to get predictable negative reactions. Too bad we don't have a "scientific way" to evaluate recording quality as that is where real audible differences in sound quality and listening enjoyment can be found.
And it looks like I have some commonality with you.
 
I think it is important to remember that when we are talking about the pros and cons of formats, we need to keep in mind that this has to be addressed in terms of our collective and individual hearing capabilities. I just spent some time taking the klippel distortion tests. I can reliably hear two tone distortion over my speakers to about -42 dB. I can reliably hear two tone distortion on my headphones (in wireless mode) to -33dB. With Music the headphone listening fell to -15dB. I took the tests multiple times as I was listening for where I seemed to be most sensitive to it, but even with repetition and practice it was relatively consistent. I became frustrated with the testing at that point because I was right at the median or slightly below it for the headphone tests, and man not excelling at tests really bugs me, apparently. I'll go back and test over speakers with music soon, hopefully.

What this tells me, given my headphones measure well below those thresholds (minimum of 10dB below for test tones and 25dB below for music) there is no point in seeking out headphones with better distortion characteristics. What's weird is I am far more sensitive to distortion over my speakers, but I never listen to vinyl on my headphones as the noise there is far more apparent, so I seem to be more sensitive to noise than distortion in the sense that it bothers me more.

Are there similar tests for IGD, pops and clicks, misstracking, surface noise etc.? Getting a sense of these for a population might really help contextualize who these flaws might be more clearly audible to and therefore why the dislike vinyl or hear its flaws, while on the other end it would explain (at least to me, most likely) why some people experience vinyl as being excellent sounding compared to digital even though on paper it is no contest.
 
I appreciated the content of your answer. It supported a point I had already made about circumstance, in fact.

However, simply typing “I WANT” in capitals the way you did started that post with the tone of a two year old having a tantrum, or at the very least a display of confected outrage.

From my end, it didn’t help that you also took the question completely out of context as well - it was rhetorical and part of a specific reply to someone else.
I have recently had 3 cervical vertebrae in my neck fused together, I did not realize that I had used caps on the word 'want' until you just told me & I looked at it again.
Sorry about that.
 
It seems to me that when someone mentioned that when CD's first came out they were "Preferred to LP's during sighted listening comparisons" you became "passionate".
Surely you are not suggesting that that is what I became passionate about. :cool: It was all the other claims and implications and attempted misdirections in that post. We are talking about someone who will happily insist (to you, in fact) in this thread that vinyl can equal redbook for accurate reproduction, then happily and repeatedly deny that anyone here claims that vinyl is just as accurate as digital. When he personally did exactly that. That is the level of misdirection we have to sit and accept.

I have digital samples from over 100 LP's that I have compared level matched and blind to digital versions (mostly original CD's). I don't have an exact tally but for ~95% of them I can reliably ABX between them. When it comes to "preference" of the 95% that I can ABX there are ~5% that I prefer the LP and ~30% that I prefer the digital and the rest I don't really have a preference. The absolute best sound quality recordings I have are digital. While not completely scientific doing these comparisons gives me a good baseline for what each format has to offer for sound quality.
You have made a laudable attempt there, well done. Although the inconsistencies and vagaries of LP playback gear mean that any changes to your LP gear might change your 'baseline' numbers (if you had the determination to re-do your excellent experiment above every time you changed vinyl gear, which would put you in such hallowed territory that we would all have to get on our knees and bow to you). TBH there are other factors too, in a home-based system comparison: like I said in this thread a few weeks ago, "...the cartridge response might just compensate for the owner's speakers' response. And so many have not EQ'd the bass, so ugly modal resonances come into play, and having a source that doesn't play those resonances so hard might be a relief (and lead to a preference). Conclusion: there are numerous ways that it would be entirely understandable for any one individual to prefer vinyl over digital sonics, even in controlled listening. It would simply be wrong to insist otherwise."

To me what what is most interesting from a science point of view is that despite the many orders of magnitude better measured performance that digital has compared to LP's the actual audible differences are usually subtle. So if "snake oil" is the enemy of "Audio Science" when it comes to audio quality why is "High SINAD" (anything over ~ 60 dB) not considered "snake oil / the enemy of science" since in most cases no one can reliably tell the difference between 60 dB and 120 dB SINAD. The same for "Hi-Res" files. I don't believe anyone has ever reliably been able to ABX 44.1/16 vs 192/24, I know for a fact that I can not. Is Hi-Res the "enemy of science"?
That's why I never advocate high res audio over sonically-transparent standard definition digital audio.

To me the value of the"science of audio" is understanding what is important and what isn't for high quality and enjoyable listening.
Me too!

It seem that for some ever higher SINAD or ever higher "Hi-res" or ever higher measurements of whatever becomes that goal whether you can hear it or not. That seems like "snake oil" to me.
Me too! Although to be truly 'high class snake oil', you would need to boost the price just because the SINAD is high, and boost it way beyond the engineering cost of achieving it. Then polish off the job with claims that it sounds better because of the SINAD being that high.

If someone is offering low-priced products with high SINAD, it would be very harsh to accuse them of snake-oiling just because they didn't make the SINAD lower, given that engineering-wise they could probably only reduce the price by $10 by doing so.

High res music files, at double the price of the same master on standard res, definitely qualifies as snake-oiling IMO. It might only be $10 but this time one is paying it hundreds, or thousands, of times. But not snake-oiling if it is the same price.

When your passion results in comments that belittle other people's choices as being "anti-science" or "snake oil", despite most everyone here being well versed in both the science of and the experience of recorded music playback, you are going to get predictable negative reactions.
I try to direct the points of my posts to the general readership, even when I am dealing with statements made in a single post. Unlike you, I think that these threads get read by a lot more people than post here, and I think a lot of them are not so well-versed as you are claiming based only on contributor posts. As a general principle, the less well versed the reader, the less likely to post, and the more likely to be influenced by those who do post. So, the potential damage done by not caring enough about the audio science messaging, is, in my view, worth standing up for. When a specific poster, despite an obvious general learnedness, has a long running agenda where he or she does everything possible to white-ant certain aspects of audio science, and resorts to debating tricks to that end, then I will not be afraid to call it an anti-science position. For the general readership, not just in a head-to-head sense. And sometimes I will let a little passion show. The general readership probably doesn't need that, agreed.

Too bad we don't have a "scientific way" to evaluate recording quality as that is where real audible differences in sound quality and listening enjoyment can be found.
We do have scientific ways to evaluate recording quality eg the storage medium's engineering attributes (including not just SINAD but also for instance, FR, and number of channels), but I suspect you mean the subjective preference for the mixing and mastering, in which case, I certainly agree.

cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3
Well, I tried… :)
 
It was all the other claims and implications and attempted misdirections in that post. We are talking about someone who will happily insist (to you, in fact) in this thread that vinyl can equal redbook for accurate reproduction, then happily and repeatedly deny that anyone here claims that vinyl is just as accurate as digital. When he personally did exactly that. That is the level of misdirection we have to sit and accept.

Hi Newman. You seem to be talking about me. That is quite a claim of deceit to lob at someone. I hope you understand why it would be below the standards we want for discourse to make such a claim without evidence.

Now I suppose it’s possible I have blanked out on making such a claim. But I highly doubt it given my understanding of my own position.

Could you please supply the reference for where I claimed “ vinyl can equal redbook for accurate reproduction?”

I have a feeling that whatever post you are thinking about would clear up the context.
And I can guarantee that it will not equate to the claim “ vinyl IS just as accurate as digital.” (As I’ve gone on record many times saying digital is more sonically accurate medium as everybody knows).

When a specific poster, despite an obvious general learnedness, has a long running agenda where he or she does everything possible to white-ant certain aspects of audio science, and resorts to debating tricks to that end, then I will not be afraid to call it an anti-science position.

General note: Talking to the crowd in “ you know who” language, making disparaging claims about that person‘s position, while refusing to interact with their clarifications and corrections of your claims, is not taking the highroad. It’s more like the type of tribal political theater we see on social media.
I hope we can be better than that.
 
Last edited:
i … General note: Talking to the crowd in “ you know who” language, making claims about that person‘s position, while refusing to interact with their clarifications and corrections of your claims, is not taking the highroad. It’s more like the type of tribal political theater we see on social media.
I hope we can be better than that.

^That^ ended optimistically…

 
Just checking in after 3 weeks. So still no explanation? Just more navel gazing if even that. Averaging about 1 post per hour the whole time too.

I think it was largely answered within the first a few pages of the thread.

The rest has been a combination of adding more detail, fleshing things out with more citations and data, and then of course, heaps of commentary and digression. Not unusual for some forum threads.

If you haven’t found an explanation yet in this thread, I’m curious what would an explanation look like to you?
 
I think it was largely answered within the first a few pages of the thread.

The rest has been a combination of adding more detail, fleshing things out with more citations and data, and then of course, heaps of commentary and digression. Not unusual for some forum threads.

If you haven’t found an explanation yet in this thread, I’m curious what would an explanation look like to you?
I posted back a few weeks that I think the paper someone linked had it mostly right. Closer than anything else I've seen. Maybe not perfect, but hits on what I consider the most important points.

 
I posted back a few weeks that I think the paper someone linked had it mostly right. Closer than anything else I've seen. Maybe not perfect, but hits on what I consider the most important points.

Thanks. Now I remember that paper.
Much of it seems to jibe with what a number of us have put forth in the thread. But it’s nice to see some of it collated.
 
Just checking in after 3 weeks. So still no explanation? Just more navel gazing if even that. Averaging about 1 post per hour the whole time too.

You may have missed the multiple posts by multiple members where it is explained - "personal preference"
 
I think that is a very generous reading of the below.
Hey there. I am sympathetic to the personal mental health and stigmatisation issues you raise below, and hesitate to reply at all, but there are one or two things I really do want to address. Let me know if I am not doing it very well.

To me it seems generous to the point that you are ignoring the connotation of the words and ignoring that it is a beg the question construction. I think it is plain to see from Newman’s responses in this thread that he is not just standing for the truth but is doing so in a highly aggressive manner and is an expert at using connotation to attack.

“You guys go 'settle' at whatever level you like. Call that level whatever you like, too, that won't change what it is. Low, mid, mid-high, lower, lesser, yeah yeah yeah, all good. Twist away. Twist away for 9188 posts, you are still accepting handcuffs when it comes to the big game in town....the reason for becoming an audiophile...aspirational sound quality”
OK and I have apologised for the aggression, born of frustration. I had, one or two posts earlier, suggested that having vinyl as well as digital, which was pointed out as being the general case, (and I agree and said it applies to me too), allows the freedom to treat vinyl as 'a bit of low-fi fun' with no need to even compete or compare with digital. To which the reply was that I should have said 'lower' or 'lesser' because those are more accurate. My text above was simple frustration and I was saying 'call it what you like...no wonder the thread is so long...it doesn't change the big picture one bit'.

While he [Newman] doesn’t denote that you have to be an audiophile to be here, here certainly uses that connotation through the blind assumption that “You guys” are not following the (notice the singular) reason for becoming and audiophile… aspirational sound quality. He does this in the connotation of settling, which in US English is used derisively. Everyone knows that someone who says “The new C8s are good and all, if you’re willing to settle.” Is throwing shade, issuing an insult without denoting an insult in an attempt to insult someone and get away with it on the technicality that they only connotated an insult the didn’t denote it. This isn’t a one off for him. This post like many others follows a pattern of careful language construction to not denote insults but to connotate them.
I'll give you a promise: I did not use settle in the way you read it. Not with all the meanness you added.

And I'll happily admit that I, personally, settle. I settle all the time. I settle for a modest budget for gear. I settle for not putting as much time into the hobby as I might want. I settle for 5 channel MCH....for now. You forget, I am a vinyl user, and I settle for vinyl sound quality every time I put on a record. I sure won't feel manipulated with words if someone points that out to me. I will shrug and agree. But I still aspire to the levels above vinyl sound that are there, and I aspire to the levels above what my digital stuff is currently delivering. Meanwhile, I settle. But when people argue that settling for vinyl sound is settling for very, very little shortfall indeed, I disagree. I simply disagree, and I do so because of the objective evidence from controlled listening tests, including greater than two channels.

I give you a hypothetical. Let's say vinyl was never invented. Let's say recording technology was invented in the 80s and it was modern digital tech, and continued to where we are today. And an audio researcher sets up a controlled listening experiment, today, that is digital vs digital, where one is a clean high quality stereo control recording, and the other is the same but has been modified in the following ways that had never been done before: it had a random and inconsistent amount of pop and tick sounds over the music; it had occasional and unexpected issues with playing crescendos cleanly; it had overall dynamic compression, that changed from moment to moment; there was this strange phasey hollow sound between every track and that was even more prone to random pop and tick sounds; just before the start of every track there was a little pre-echo of the first couple of notes; sometimes a piece of music would stop part way through, and after a wait of about a minute, continue; the bass output was often dialled down a bit, and the treble similarly but less often. I put it to you that such an experiment would have yielded a strong and unequivocal preference for the control. Now repeat the experiment, but make the control (and only the control) a modern advanced multichannel recording.

One of the reasons upthread that I gave for listening to vinyl, is that I have generalized anxiety and depression and the ritual for preparing to play a record helps me focus on the music in ways that can be hard on a computer when I am anxious. His [Newman] response was he had no problem concentrating.
Hi, I am going to stick my neck out here, and with all due respect, I just don't think that ever happened. I don't remember it, and I searched upthread, and I cannot find it. Maybe it was someone else?

Again the denotation is that he has no problem concentrating, but mental health in this country is still highly stigmatized and a common reaction those of us with it get is along the lines of I get nervous too, but i just use self discipline to overcome it. Completely not understanding the difference between nervousness and anxiety (or sadness vs depression) and think I am just like them, so what’s the issue. This very often extends to denotations of cowardice and laziness. Newman’s response, in the context of my disclosure connotates an insult and a very clear one that is oft repeated in my culture. It does it in the guise of a simply statement so that Newman can disavow responsibility and further if challenged can throw it back in the challenger’s face by saying I am misunderstanding him or it is all in my head (the usual one since I have already admitted mental health issues).
I just don't think that ever happened.

The denotation/conotation ploys is learned by fifth grade as a strategy, and while easily called out there as it is usually clumsy, it can be refined until it becomes exhausting to try and fight. After all 8/8 is just a date. Many statements are 14 words long, settling isn’t technically an insult, and everyone here (“you guys”) should be an audiophile of this definition (begs the question), and since that is true you should acknowledge that your experience is lesser.

So no, he didn’t technically say everyone had to be an audiophile on this site. He begged the question and then equated it with the non-insult insult (very akin to the non-apologies corps and politicians tend to issue) of settling and lesser. I would posit that his pattern of doing this is what makes many people angry/irritated and push back. It has nothing to do with them (and me) being perfectly happy to own the literal denotations (I have done so several times in this thread) while absolutely not excepting the connotations.
I'll be shocked if I am wrong, but I just don't think that ever happened. Apologies if it did.

cheers
 
Back
Top Bottom