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
This is where, again, reading someone’s post more carefully and with charity should save you frustration.
You’d written that “
Everyone should just agree” that vinyl is audibly inferior,
low-fi, and not part of a serious pursuit of sound reproduction excellence.
I simply wrote that I disagreed (with the part I bolded) in terms of how I would characterize MY OWN impressions of vinyl on MY system, nor did I feel your characterization adequately described my OWN GOALS which for me include vinyl in my “ pursuit of sound reproduction excellence.” In other words that I care about hearing great sound from my vinyl just as I do from my digital, and generally feel I have achieved it.
If you read carefully, you would see that I was clearly, as always in this case, Just giving my own opinion, and NOT telling you that YOU should use terms like “lesser/lower fi.”
I was explicit about that writing in reference to your low-fi characterizations:
“I certainly wouldn’t begrudge anybody else characterizing whatever they are hearing that way. ”
And:
“But hey, that’s my experience. I totally respect anyone else having very different experiences and opinions when they’ve compared vinyl to digital.”
So if you really want to reduce your level of frustration leading to the type of post you are regretting, more careful and charitable reading of what I and others post would help solve that. I am less dissatisfied with the sound of vinyl versus digital than you are. This should not be an occasion for deep frustration (much less accusations of science denial, and all the rest).
But when people argue that settling for vinyl sound is settling for very, very little shortfall indeed, I disagree. I simply disagree,
That’s no problem to disagree of course. That will be your opinion. The problem is when you presented as more than that, as if your opinion simply represented “ science “ and that somebody disagreeing with your opinion becomes a “ science denier.” That’s where things go off track.
and I do so because of the objective evidence from controlled listening tests,
This is another request for that evidence, please. What is the objective evidence from controlled listening tests from which you can declare that my subjective assessment “ vinyl on my system CAN sound
similar to a digital counterpart” to be false and in contradiction of science? Where is the objective evidence that a subjective assessment in certain cases that “ I find the differences to be somewhat subtle” is unreasonable or false?
Please look carefully at the caveats and qualifications in such statements.
. I put it to you that such an experiment would have yielded a strong and unequivocal preference for the control.
Yes, that is highly likely, especially since you’ve included many of the possible vinyl, artifacts and liabilities all in one track.
However, in the real world, the presence and significance of those artefacts are variable.
They can be plenty of instances where all those issues are not there, or difficult to hear and thus not obvious. That’s why, as I said plenty of people listening to my system, people who care about sound quality, don’t know when they are listening to a record versus a digital source. The Sonic problems you describe don’t always jump out.
We’ve had people post vinyl rips versus the digital counterpart on this very forum, and many of the issues you describe we’re not there or not obvious, and not everybody easily discerned the vinyl rip from the digital.
So again, can vinyl display all sorts of audible artefacts? Of course. Does it always display every single artifact? No. And when vinyl displays the artefacts are the artefacts always equally intrusive? No. Does the vinyl mastering for every record - the compromises in getting the sound of the original recording onto vinyl - have to be equally aggressive IN EVERY WAY ? No.
Which of those facts would you like to dispute?
This means that assessments of “ how different the vinyl sounds from the digital” are likely to vary on the recordings selected.
And also that individuals may differ in how they rate the significance of those differences.
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.
Wonderful Newman! Great to hear it! Nobody begrudges you this at all!
The problem comes, as some keep pointing out to you, when you make posts that clearly contain belittling statements aimed at people who you think do not share your exact aspirations, or opinions of vinyl. Should someone talk about really enjoying vinyl, and dare praise the sound quality they perceive, for whatever reason your knives come out. This is the cause of much friction.
Also, when belittling those of us enthusiastic about records as having lower standards than you and lower aspirations, you seem to continually ignore that we have, just like you!, both high-quality digital sources as well as turntables! And as I pointed out so many times, I have a terrific surround system that I use all the time with great enjoyment! Very often up mixing two channel to surround with great results. And yet if someone like me dares to express happiness with the sound of vinyl as well… the belittling comments come.. claims of “ science denial” and all that.
If you want to be an ASR Truth Warrior, fine. But try to keep in mind the distinction between opinions (including yours) and The Scientific Truth, and perhaps practice some more charity in regards to reading the posts of others, and in your disagreeing with opinions you don’t share.
