Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Newman]

You would agree, though, that no one here (including those who enjoy vinyl) is crying foul or moaning about that, wouldn’t you?

Let's just put it this way: numerous times people in this thread have made claims that "nobody here is saying such and such", and on the odd occasion when I have bothered to check it out, in 5 minutes I have several disproofs of the claim.

So, scepticism of such claims is warranted, and in a thread this size, a fair default position.

Telling the sceptic to go and prove you wrong, is gameplay. Instead, before making the claim, you should check that it is true. Not just 'throw it out there' and dare others to prove you wrong.

Then you can post, "I have re-read the thread in its entirety and checked every post, and I found that nobody here is saying such and such". That would be nice. Also acceptable, but unlikely, would be to post, "I have an eidetic memory and clearly recall every post in this thread, and I can assure you that nobody here is saying such."

Otherwise, just don't say it. Because in my experience everyone else who has made an ambit claim of that ilk has turned out to be wrong when checked.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

If you’re not going to believe a YouTube reviewer, who are you going to believe?

I was just watching Jay‘s channel because I actually enjoy it, and I was curious what he had to say about this beautiful turntable.

Jay’s reported experience in switching from streaming to listening to records echos a very common theme about how changing the medium can, for some people, change the listening experience:

If nothing else, I think it’s a pretty turntable!

 

[Doodski]

If you’re not going to believe a YouTube reviewer, who are you going to believe?

I was just watching Jay‘s channel because I actually enjoy it, and I was curious what he had to say about this beautiful turntable.

Jay’s reported experience in switching from streaming to listening to records echos a very common theme about how changing the medium can, for some people, change the listening experience:

If nothing else, I think it’s a pretty turntable!

Is that various liquid resin colors spiraled and then cured into a base? Is it wood? Whatever it is I love it.

 

[MattHooper]

Otherwise, just don't say it. Because in my experience everyone else who has made an ambit claim of that ilk has turned out to be wrong when checked.

While you are advising people on what kind of claims to make….

What’s your policy on making false claims about what other people have written?

I’m still waiting on evidence for your claim that I said vinyl is just as accurate as digital, and your suggesting I have been hypocritical and deceptive on this matter:

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...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Count Dacula]

You would agree, though, that no one here (including those who enjoy vinyl) is crying foul or moaning about that, wouldn’t you?

Well, it seems like maybe...

I actually meant that you were doing the moaning, without the need to reference the entire thread. I thought that was ironic, and was trying to be nice.

 

[Count Dacula]

My own perspective is that I’m not seeking the highest Fidelity to the signal when I play records, since I would get that better with my digital source.

But I am seeking the highest sound quality (as I judge it ) that I can get with either my vinyl or digital source. I care about sound quality when I play records as I do when listening to my digital source.

What’s funny is how the audiophile need to tweak is never satisfied. When turntables reigned, there was at least lots of plausible ways that setting up your turntable and cartridge could affect the sound quality.

Once we moved to digital much of that was made moot. But that didn’t stop the audiophiles. They just moved onto worrying about separating transports, tweaking with magnetic and green marker cures, and then later with servers, you can visit the computer audiophile sites and see that they “ tweak” virtually every aspect of computer music server.

Even here, where people do not generally go in for woo woo tweaking, there is still an amazing amount of attention paid, measuring and specs-sniffing, to a medium that is essentially a solved problem.
Audiophiles can’t help themselves. Whatever the technology, they are going to poke about

I guess it's fair to normalize the comparison data for the different master sources. That sounds complex and impossible, but it's easy if you consider the re-mastering for vinyl to be part of the vinyl "character".

I guess the standard for HiFi comparos is about "improvements" within the threshold of listening. That is, measurable differences verses perceivable differences. Bearing in mind that (for most people) sounding different isn't necessarily "better" one way or the other. Not that I believe listening is best done strapped to a chair with electrodes employed in a BF Skinner feedback loop, but demanding A2B statistical six-sigma results is unrealistic
in itself.

It brings to mind Amir's testing different inputs or other tests of SPDIF verses RCA or USB...I wonder how perceivable the minute difference is in a system that's all set-up in an average room..?. Considering all of those tweeks along the signal chain, and the inaccuracies of speakers.... lol, can you really split the output from a CD player and be able to tell AUX from CD inputs or optical verses "digitaL?

 

[Blumlein 88]

I guess it's fair to normalize the comparison data for the different master sources. That sounds complex and impossible, but it's easy if you consider the re-mastering for vinyl to be part of the vinyl "character".

I guess the standard for HiFi comparos is about "improvements" within the threshold of listening. That is, measurable differences verses perceivable differences. Bearing in mind that (for most people) sounding different isn't necessarily "better" one way or the other. Not that I believe listening is best done strapped to a chair with electrodes employed in a BF Skinner feedback loop, but demanding A2B statistical six-sigma results is unrealistic
in itself.

It brings to mind Amir's testing different inputs or other tests of SPDIF verses RCA or USB...I wonder how perceivable the minute difference is in a system that's all set-up in an average room..?. Considering all of those tweeks along the signal chain, and the inaccuracies of speakers.... lol, can you really split the output from a CD player and be able to tell AUX from CD inputs or optical verses "digitaL?

For someone who wants to mess with the signal, I've thought many who like the tweakiness of analog might feed their need with using the revered in some circles Pultec EqP 1a.

It could be done in software or with cloned hardware.

It is complex enough one can tweak it considerably and yet simple enough to understand with some hands on experience.

Below are some links with more info. Basically it had a low side you could boost or attenuate centered at one of four preselected frequencies. At the other end you could boost or attenuate high frequencies between 5 and 16 khz as well as selecting the bandwidth that would be effected by that part of the EQ. With just those simple controls you can actually create a wide ranging number of curves for "optimizing" the sound of the program material to your liking. Maybe if it were re-branded as some kind of high end audiophile tweakbox it would get more notice.

Here is a front panel photo. I drew yellow lines to show which knobs function together as that confuses people at first. Just two sections of EQ. Yet enough to entertain yourself forever.

The producer's guide to the Pultec EQP-1: "Its beauty lies in the the extraordinary character you get when you disobey what you’re told to do by the manual!"

This 1950s EQ is still one of the most in-demand processors around, so much so that you can find many (many) hardware and software emulations. But just why is the Pultec EQP-1 such a revered machine?

www.musicradar.com

https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/pultec-shootout-with-sound-samples/

 

[antcollinet]

I actually meant that you were doing the moaning, without the need to reference the entire thread. I thought that was ironic, and was trying to be nice.

Except you got it wrong. Your initial statement was regarding moaning about being told the reason for using vinyl was "other than sound quality"

@drmevo s comment was questioning how and if that statement applies to regulars here - he was not "moaning" about being informed of his motivations, sound quality or otherwise.

Just another example of the straw-manning employed here - as far as I can see, exclusively by those questioning other's motives for using vinyl.


Oh, and that use of the word "moaning", another word loaded with negativity, again intended to belittle or insult those at whom it is directed. I wish people would stop doing that.

EDIT - and for the record, I am also not "moaning" here about accusations of "using vinyl are doing so for a reason other than getting the highest fidelity." I am moaning (if you want to use that word) about use of the word "moaning"

 

[goat76]

For every set of 100 pages in this thread, I think someone needs to answer the title question.

1. For the larger mass of music listeners (you know the ones who don't have any deeper knowledge), vinyl has always been seen as THE audiophile format and is therefore the choice if they want to show their friends that they take music reproduction seriously.

2. Once in a while the master for the vinyl is truly better than the release for the digital formats, that is thanks to the technical limitations of vinyl playback as it can't be mastered as loud which in some cases leads to higher dynamic masters.

3. Some people simply like the relaxing procedure of handling the vinyl playback, they love holding the large cover art in their hands, and they like how they usually listen through all the songs on the album without constantly figuring out what they are going to choose as the next song. I can understand that even though I usually listen through the whole album even if I only listen to streamed music.

4. Some people just prefer the sound of vinyl, even though they know it's sometimes the technical inferior things that may be part of why they prefer that sound. Nothing wrong with that as music listening should be a joyful thing to do.

 

[antcollinet]

For every set of 100 pages in this thread, I think someone needs to answer the title question.

1. For the larger mass of music listeners (you know the ones who don't have any deeper knowledge), vinyl has always been seen as THE audiophile format and is therefore the choice if they want to show their friends that they take music reproduction seriously.

2. Once in a while the master for the vinyl is truly better than the release for the digital formats, that is thanks to the technical limitations of vinyl playback as it can't be mastered as loud which in some cases leads to higher dynamic masters.

3. Some people simply like the relaxing procedure of handling the vinyl playback, they love holding the large cover art in their hands, and they like how they usually listen through all the songs on the album without constantly figuring out what they are going to choose as the next song. I can understand that even though I usually listen through the whole album even if I only listen to streamed music.

4. Some people just prefer the sound of vinyl, even though they know it's sometimes the technical inferior things that may be part of why they prefer that sound. Nothing wrong with that as music listening should be a joyful thing to do.

You can add to that:

Some people just enjoy how good the sound can be in spite of the technology. I find myself endlessly fascinated listing to amazing sound coming from "dragging a rock through a ditch" as some like to disparage the activity.

Some people enjoy the process of getting the best sound possible from this ancient technology. Similar (perhaps - and aware that car analogies are often faulty ) to how some enjoy tinkering to get the best performance from a classic car or motorcycle. Playing with machinery.

Some people enjoy the nostalgia of listening to music in a way they did years ago before CD was available. For some it can also be a connection back to people from the past no longer here. (I have one precious album of my Dad's that he would have been listening to while I was. a 2yo toddler)

Even the "poor" quality sound can be a draw: the light crackly nature of the sound on some records, can take you right back to the past (why do you think some artists actually add that sound to some modern tracks.

Here are some lyrics from Passenger:
"I took myself down to the cafe to find all
the boys lost in books and crackling vinyl"

In my mind this creates a picture of a cosy cafe, perhaps rain rattling the windows, a fire in the corner. Warm music and warm friends.

In a way that:

"I took myself down to the cafe to find all
The boys lost in kindle and digital downloads"

Does not.


You are right - we should repost this stuff every few pages of nonsense. 100 is too many.

 

[drmevo]

Let's just put it this way: numerous times people in this thread have made claims that "nobody here is saying such and such", and on the odd occasion when I have bothered to check it out, in 5 minutes I have several disproofs of the claim.

So, scepticism of such claims is warranted, and in a thread this size, a fair default position.

Telling the sceptic to go and prove you wrong, is gameplay. Instead, before making the claim, you should check that it is true. Not just 'throw it out there' and dare others to prove you wrong.

Then you can post, "I have re-read the thread in its entirety and checked every post, and I found that nobody here is saying such and such". That would be nice. Also acceptable, but unlikely, would be to post, "I have an eidetic memory and clearly recall every post in this thread, and I can assure you that nobody here is saying such."

Otherwise, just don't say it. Because in my experience everyone else who has made an ambit claim of that ilk has turned out to be wrong when checked.

So you’re saying we should accept generalizations of the membership here on face value, without evidence? Because I’ve been participating in the thread awhile and I’ve never seen a claim that vinyl is the highest fidelity out there. Have you?

ETA: I suppose I could say something like “that view isn’t commonly expressed” or “that isn’t the general attitude among….” to make my point. I’ll try to do that in the future. @antcollinet didn’t seem to have any trouble understanding what I was saying but I’ll do what I can to be clear and precise.

I actually meant that you were doing the moaning, without the need to reference the entire thread. I thought that was ironic, and was trying to be nice.

Interesting take, given that I agree with your initial statement - “TBH, it can be said that people using vinyl are doing so for a reason other than getting the highest fidelity.”

I think that I and many others have said things along these lines - that vinyl is clearly lower fidelity than other sources. It’s a fact. So where am I moaning?

Perhaps giving ASR members a little more credit than the typical audiophile stereotype would be nice, unless and until they give you reason not to.

Just another example of the straw-manning employed here - as far as I can see, exclusively by those questioning other's motives for using vinyl.


Oh, and that use of the word "moaning", another word loaded with negativity, again intended to belittle or insult those at whom it is directed. I wish people would stop doing that.

Thanks, agree completely.

 

[antcollinet]

So you’re saying we should accept generalizations of the membership here on face value, without evidence? Because I’ve been participating in the thread awhile and I’ve never seen a claim that vinyl is the highest fidelity out there. Have you?

There is sometimes the odd newbie, or troll who comes here and makes that statement. Which means your absolute "no-one" is difficult to defend.

Much better IMO to point out that the regular members here are not making that claim, and even in most cases will try to correct those that are. IE, that the typical reasons given for the vinyl renaissance are not "objectively superior sound"

And if the vinyl opponent of the day has a problem with that, they should take it up with the people who are making such claims rather than making more straw-man generalisations.

 

[drmevo]

There is sometimes the odd newbie, or troll who comes here and makes that statement. Which means your absolute "no-one" is difficult to defend.

Much better IMO to point out that the regular members here are not making that claim, and even in most cases will try to correct those that are. IE, that the typical reasons given for the vinyl renaissance are not "objectively superior sound"

And if the vinyl opponent of the day has a problem with that, they should take it up with the people who are making such claims rather than making more straw-man generalisations.

Yes, good point, and I rethought and edited my post to try to reflect that.
Still, in this case especially, I don’t recall even the drop-in random posters ever saying “vinyl is the highest fidelity.” That has a very specific meaning, and would be pretty indefensible. If anyone has said that here, it would be a rarity, indeed.

 

[Galliardist]

In my system good vinyl (Fluance RT85 turntable > Audio-Technica AT120Eb + VM540ML cart and stylus > Hagerman Bugle2 pre-amp) sounds better than the highest-rez Tidal digital (WiiM Pro > Emotiva Xda-3 DAC, converging to the same pre-pro, amps and speakers) -- not by a mile but by inches, and it does depend on the quality of the vinyl presssing. There were people arguing that digital was perfect back in the earliest days of CDs, when DACs frankly sucked by today's standards. They were wrong then; they still may be wrong now. You do need to know how to set up a turntable though; the cart and stylus are critical; and this only works with good, fresh vinyl.

Well, your post is happily being ignored while everyone here pats themselves on the back because nobody believes that vinyl is more accurate, or technically superior, or whatever, to vinyl.

I believe you deserve an ASR-style answer to some of your claims, though. So, how to start?

I'm going to work backwards.

Your last sentence is a bit condescending in these parts. You are dealing with your peers, at the very least, in terms of turntable setup. I'm the outlier perhaps having spent a long time with no turntable, but I've still rebuilt a couple from the ground up, a lot more than just levelling, balancing the tonearm and installing the cartridge. The others you are lecturing here still have turntables and are still maintaining them. Seriously, don't try to pull rank with this "you do need to know how to set up a turntable" thing - it's embarrassing.

On the earliest days of CD: it hardly matters that the DACs were behind what we have today technically. To be "better" in the sense of accuracy, they only need to measure better than the LP playing systems they had to replace, and that was never ever a contest. Or, if you want a modern day subjectivist rebuttal (not that I'd agree) you can go and tell the subculture that is today paying large sums of money for some 1980s CD players on the grounds that they sound better than any of the modern stuff, analogue or digital.

I'm not going to deny that in the circumstances you have, that you prefer the vinyl playback. I'm not sure of your use of the word "better", though. What do you have that might convince me about "better"?

 

[whit]

The others you are lecturing here still have turntables and are still maintaining them. Seriously, don't try to pull rank with this "you do need to know how to set up a turntable" thing - it's embarrassing.

Discussions that don't have more than one side aren't discussions. Is it "pulling rank" to disagree with you, or are you pulling rank to try to shut me down?

My goal is to get digital to sound as good a vinyl, because I listen more to digital sources. Now granted, part of the reason vinyl often sounds better in my house may be because the newer vinyl here is all audiophile pressings, where there's simply more care in their production than in average digital output. Part of it may be that the vinyl equipment has had longer to evolve than digital. All reproduction introduces "color." Those designing phono stuff have a longer legacy of wisdom in tuning that color so as to contribute well to a range of musics. Perhaps you like some of the digital colorations better. Nothing wrong with that, either way.

The ES9038Q2M-based Emotiva DAC I put digital signals through has 7 different filter settings, only 3 of which sound decent to me, and I end up switching between those to get the best result for particular recordings. Perhaps there's some other DAC that would sound better (to me) than vinyl. This one's as close as I've gotten so far, better than the ES9016S DAC in my Yamaha pre-pro, and the AD1955 in the Emotiva CD player. I'll be more than happy if I can get digital to sound better than vinyl here. But it doesn't, yet. I'm not the only person with this experience. And it's not that digital doesn't sound very good indeed. It's just not quite up to the best vinyl yet. I hope in the future, with more system upgrades, it becomes so.

 

[antcollinet]

All reproduction introduces "color."

This is where you are going wrong.

If you are comparing sources (eg turntable and DAC) then yes the turntable introduces "colour" (Probably not a good word for it, but let's run with it).

The DAC - (caveat - decently designed and probably 90% of DACS we see measured are decent enough** - and used with the standard sharp roll off filter with good attenuation) does not. The output is an audibly perfect analogue representation of what is encoded in the CD or digital file.

Vinyl in all cases will have more noise, more distortion, and frequency response that is not as flat. In many cases one or more of these imperfections will be audible.

You may prefer the sound of that imperfection. But that does not mean it is any way objectively better.



** including your Emotiva, which while not stellar performing is (if the spec sheet is to be believed) good enough to be audibly transparent.

 

[MattHooper]

So you’re saying we should accept generalizations of the membership here on face value, without evidence? Because I’ve been participating in the thread awhile and I’ve never seen a claim that vinyl is the highest fidelity out there. Have you?

As someone else pointed out, there has been the rare person dropping in to make unjustified claims about the nature and vinyl.

That said, it would be good to keep in mind that @Newman has proven to be an exceedingly unreliable interpreter of what other people have written. You’ve already seen evidence in the last few pages.

When he claims that he has collected instances of “ people saying X dubious thing” you can often find that he has been quite misleading in how he is using or interpreting what people write.

FOR EXAMPLE HERE

Or you could take, for example his countless mischaracterizations and false claims about what I have written, that I have had to correct over and over again.

The view that I have expressed in the thread has been very consistent:

Digital is obviously, all things considered, the more accurate system over vinyl. (As virtually any regular ASR member understands).

This translates into Sonic advantages for digital, both in terms of general accuracy to the signal, and in not suffering the type of artefacts you get with vinyl.

From my part, I have said numerous times, that when I compare vinyl records to their digital counterparts, I hear sonic advantages for the digital version virtually every time.
The differences can range between obvious and subtle to my ears, but I can’t remember a single comparison where I could not hear some Sonic advantage in the digital version (among the advantages a cleaner sound, which can reveal more detail as well).

So through the whole thread, I have agreed with the obvious facts that digital is the technically superior medium in terms of rendering accuracy to the signal, of course, this translates into audible advantages for digital.

I’ve also pointed out the fact that, of course, the degree to which any record departs sonically from the digital version, is going to depend on the nature of that record - the quality of the record, the nature of the mastering, etc. Some records will sound more similar to the digital counterpart, others will sound less similar.

And I’ve said that in my personal experience playing records on my system, I have been often surprised at how similar a record can sound to its digital counterpart. Not identical, because I typically hear the higher accuracy of the digital. But nonetheless, considering the medium, a record to my ears can hold up fairly well. Which I have also stated is purely a subjective call that anybody else is free to disagree with.

And I have said that while I hear advantages for digital and love my digital system and listen to it all the time… I seem to like certain Sonic characteristics I hear in many records, again, accepting it’s a departure from accuracy, well also appreciating the other aspects of playing records that get me into the listening zone.

And I have continually emphasized that I completely understand someone else having a different viewpoint, who may disagree with my assessment, even to the point they find the liabilities and artefacts with vinyl to be discrediting or intolerable. I totally 100% get and respect someone not wishing to get into vinyl, or abandoned vinyl for perfectly good reasons. I am therefore, of course not recommending people get vinyl who aren’t at all interested. I defend my own reasons for enjoying records.

Now imagine how you would have to twist yourself in knots to pull out of that view, that what I am saying amounts to pushing
“science denialism” (and all the other denigrating interpretations Newman has flung my way).

Obviously, you can’t draw any such conclusion from my stated views. So what do you have to do?
You have to do what @Newman continually does: misinterpret, mischaracterize, and lie.

And Newman has again, without providing any evidence, written that I’ve claimed vinyl is just as accurate as digital. Another lie.
He won’t provide evidence of this because he knows that, if he actually cites a real post of mine, it will be immediately revealed how he has mischaracterized what I wrote.
You can be 100% guaranteed that what I would have written is consistent with the views I outlined above.

Having made all that clear, I will nonetheless continue to respond to Newman’s posts in terms of their content, and remain as civil as possible in the face of someone who serially misrepresents my views.

 

[Leporello]

Discussions that don't have more than one side aren't discussions. Is it "pulling rank" to disagree with you, or are you pulling rank to try to shut me down?

My goal is to get digital to sound as good a vinyl, because I listen more to digital sources. Now granted, part of the reason vinyl often sounds better in my house may be because the newer vinyl here is all audiophile pressings, where there's simply more care in their production than in average digital output. Part of it may be that the vinyl equipment has had longer to evolve than digital. All reproduction introduces "color." Those designing phono stuff have a longer legacy of wisdom in tuning that color so as to contribute well to a range of musics. Perhaps you like some of the digital colorations better. Nothing wrong with that, either way.

The ES9038Q2M-based Emotiva DAC I put digital signals through has 7 different filter settings, only 3 of which sound decent to me, and I end up switching between those to get the best result for particular recordings. Perhaps there's some other DAC that would sound better (to me) than vinyl. This one's as close as I've gotten so far, better than the ES9016S DAC in my Yamaha pre-pro, and the AD1955 in the Emotiva CD player. I'll be more than happy if I can get digital to sound better than vinyl here. But it doesn't, yet. I'm not the only person with this experience. And it's not that digital doesn't sound very good indeed. It's just not quite up to the best vinyl yet. I hope in the future, with more system upgrades, it becomes so.

You do not seem to realize that there are several popular definitions of goodness in matters of sound reproduction.

1. Good is something that sounds subjectively good to you.

2. Good is something that is as faithful to the source signal as possible.

You seem to support the first definition. Many friends of digital also favor number one though their preference differs from yours.
However, digital was first and foremost not designed to sound good according to the first definition.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[MattHooper]

Oh wow, this street is about to get even bigger ;-)

ETA: Whoops false alarm. I thought they were going to be merging the other large thread on turntables with this one. They decided not to which makes sense.

 

[MarkS]

Decades ago, soon after the dawn of the CD (which I thought sounded great, I was so happy to leave behind the world of surface noise and clicks and pops that in those days drove me batshit insane), I read an interview with a recording engineer who was also excited about digital recording. He was asked, "Some people say that vinyl records sound better than CDs, what do you say to them?" He replied,

Their criteria are not my criteria.

I thought this was a truly excellent answer, one that can be applied to many areas of life.