Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Galliardist]

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.

With the pulling rank line I used, I'm referring to the line where you told us that "good setup is important" for vinyl. It's used as a putdown in these parts. Nothing more. I don't want to cut you out of the conversation, that's why I replied to you, because you were being missed.

I see the problem you have, but not the cause, and therefore not the solution. My first point would be to (temporarily at least) remove the Emotiva, and listen directly from the Wiim Pro DAC. Cut out listening to the filters and get the "purest" digital into your setup. (I'm assuming that you have equipment that allows that). That gets you "as good as it gets" accuracy at your source. We know that in most cases, people in controlled testing prefer the more "accurate" source by conventional measurement, and if something isn't right with the Emotiva, we have good measurements for the WIim. I hope that makes sense.

We don't appear to have great evidence for digital vs vinyl in blind or controlled testing. That's because it is difficult to test without things like noise and distortion giving away which is vinyl for the most part.

If I were you, I would listen to just one source for a couple of weeks, and then just the other for a couple of weeks. See if you listen in different ways to the two formats, see if you can start listening to digital without that "vinyl is better" thing going on for a while. I don't know that you can reverse a decision in a situation like this, but it would be great to shift from thinking of this as a "quality" thing to a "preference" thing. Both are perfectly adequate for listening to music on. There's no need to worry about what is what, unless it changes the way you listen.

You mentioned a pre-pro. Are you listening on a multichannel system? If so, are you using 2.0, 2.x or some other method to listen to stereo? How do you feel about stereo vs more channels? Could you detail the rest of your system?

 

[Galliardist]

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?

It was understood to be the case when CD came out - and this has been reinforced since - that the vast majority of people, in controlled testing, prefer a source that is more faithful to the source signal. In other words, the general case should be that the two definitions are the same.

The domination of listening to digital sources today suggests that the approach taken in designing digital was and remains correct.

 

[Count Dacula]

I think some issues come down to people either having a technical background or they do not.

I guess it's a classic left-brain / right-brain scenario.

Some want to describe things in terms of esoterics and others rely on reducing things to quantifiable numbers. Both are on full display here. Not to be a dick, but fortunately I have H&SS to fall back on, which puts me in a bit of a pickle giving opinions. I can honestly see both sides better than most people. Full credit to the people I'm learning from too, basically everyone here. I'm giving a scholastic view, as pompas as it sounds, it should nudge the subject along and give insight.

Generally, I think current tech not only has the ability to faithfully reproduce music, but also possesses the fine tools of analysis, that we didn't have 50 or 100 years ago. Sure we.went to the Moon, but we still crafted speakers with guesswork and a 5w grainy amplifier for a "true reproduction". It's incremental improvements, but at what point do we agree it's settled science?

The answer is easy, the advent of digital.era. Infinite and instant sharing, editing options in the studio that never existed before; catalogues on a tiny indestructible USB drive, or streaming and satellites (I'm laughing while typing) cool DDD printed on CDs, with kooky holographic surfaces...lol how can solid state media compare, it can't.

Compared to brittle master tapes or platter-based formats....digital is a revolution, the others are evolution...and more in the minds of the users than anything that the most delicate of science instrument can detect. At what point will digital be the de facto best format? I would say it already is, despite the moans.

vs.

 

[Mark 911t]

Hi my 18yr old daughter said to me
"Dad I just don't get how vinyl works"
She has no problem with digital and how it works but is almost enchanted with vinyl
Maybe this explains the resurgence in the younger generation
Not sure about us old buggers though

 

[antcollinet]

H&SS

I had to google:
Humanities and social science?
Hair and skin solutions?
Hospitality and Staffing Solutions.

I'm guessing the first - but it could be something Google didn't throw up.

 

[HammersRocco]

Hi my 18yr old daughter said to me
"Dad I just don't get how vinyl works"
She has no problem with digital and how it works but is almost enchanted with vinyl
Maybe this explains the resurgence in the younger generation
Not sure about us old buggers though

It is amazing how well it works, being what it is!

 

[Snarfie]

Talking about renaissance i'm in the middle of a Radio renaissance. I have a balanced mancave attic making use of DSP room correction an phase coherent speaker by build it come close to excellent sound.

Now the living room is a restricted array WAF rules. So some months ago bought a almost brand new Bose Wave III in a thrift store. It lifted the room acoustic problems such that it is nice to listen (Bose Wave has 2 sort DSP/loudness settings) well not coming close to what is in the Mancave but the living room is quite listenble.
Guess what for what ever reason i'm offent downstairs now with my laptop working around the de Bose Wave streaming favorite radio stations like https://www.kcsm.org/playlist from my phone to the aux from the Bose or listen to my favorite radio station by dab radio https://www.nporadio2.nl/soulenjazz...d810/zo-luister-je-naar-npo-radio-2-soul-jazz

Did some soul searching an found out that besides the acceptable sound the unpredictable tracklist is quite appealing esspecialy KCSM radio.

Al what counts is what ever turns you ON (audio wise ) is fine Vinyl, CD, (digital) radio on a average or high end set it does not matter. If i/you tapp your feet thats for me the measurment of enjoyment an a good time.

 

[Count Dacula]

I had to google:
Humanities and social science?
Hair and skin solutions?
Hospitality and Staffing Solutions.

I'm guessing the first - but it could be something Google didn't throw up.

I linked it a few times. https://hss.sas.upenn.edu/undergraduate/science-technology-society or anything "Interdiciplinary" https://erau.edu/degrees/bachelor/interdisciplinary-studies

It doesn't give the answers, but gives a framework for understanding the development of any given subject. Astronomy and medical are two areas with a rich history and societal impacts, but it relates to everything. I think what we're doing is pretty interesting. Gotta roll....

 

[krabapple]

Hi my 18yr old daughter said to me
"Dad I just don't get how vinyl works"
She has no problem with digital and how it works but is almost enchanted with vinyl
Maybe this explains the resurgence in the younger generation
Not sure about us old buggers though

You think she really understands how digital works? Most people do not. Or do you mean it just doen't matter to her how digital works, whereas it does, for vinyl?

 

[IPunchCholla]

You think she really understands how digital works? Most people do not. Or do you mean it just doen't matter to her how digital works, whereas it does, for vinyl

I can write bad, but functional, code in several programming languages. I build audio and video public art projects based on that code. I have done this since 2005. But it wasn’t until I joined this site (and watched that oft posted video on sampling theory) that I had any clue how digital files became analog sound, and I still wouldn’t claim to understand it. Most of my grad students (who are a fair sampling of typical knowledge in the scientific real, being artists) have no idea how any of the digital stuff they use works, though there have been a few exceptions. This isn’t to say that this is or isn’t true of any single individual, but it isn’t my experience that people a generation younger than me have a firm grasp on the details. If anything they have less than I do, since they are just handed the tools, 20-30 years ago many people outside of computer science still had to code their own tools.

 

[MattHooper]

I think some issues come down to people either having a technical background or they do not.

I guess it's a classic left-brain / right-brain scenario.

Some want to describe things in terms of esoterics and others rely on reducing things to quantifiable numbers.

Yes, this is what I’ve gotten into before. This site tends to self select more for those with an engineering brain versus a humanities brain.

And it also gets to the issue. I brought up many times: these different proclivities or aptitudes among people bring up a conundrum.

On one hand, you can have an engineer minded person who thoroughly understands how measurements correlate to how something sounds and why.

In order to have this knowledge you have to not only understand measurements, but to have lots of experience, having correlated measurements to their Sonic consequences so that by looking at measurements, you know “ how it will sound.”


On the other hand, you have a great many if not, a majority of audiophiles who have neither the inclination, aptitude or experience to do so. Which is why they rely just on what they hear.

Therefore, somebody wanting to emphasize the relevance of measurements has to act as some sort of interface between an understanding of the measurements and those who don’t know how to interpret them.

In order to explain the relevance of a measurement to its perceptual consequences, you were going to have to translate the measurements into some sort of subjective description. Why should we care about that for DB broad peek around two to 4K? Because… it will change the sound from “ sounding like X” to “ sounding like Y”

So you have to get into a subjective description of “ sounds like or this is how the sound will be perceived.” Otherwise, why should the listener care about the squiggly marks of those measurements to begin with?

And this is where the conundrum comes in.

Generally speaking, the individuals who are most technically inclined to understand and work with measurements - the engineer brain - are those least interested in deploying subjective language. You can see it all over this site. If you can simply look at measurements and understand how something is going to sound then you don’t need subjective language, so you don’t bother developing the facility for transforming measurements into descriptive language.

So the very people who understand the measurements tend to be the ones least able to translate the measurements into “ what it sounds like.”

Whereas on the other side of the coin, you can have (for instance, in a good subjective reviewer) someone who may not be good technically, but who is very good at describing “ how something sounds.”

We know the liabilities involved with subjective reviewing. But the above is why I actually still get something out of both some technical discussions of measurements, as well as gaining information through the purely subjective descriptions of some reviewers and some other audiophiles.

The ideal for me would be the engineer who fully understands the measurements and how they correlate to perception, but is also not allergic to subjective description and therefore is good at being detailed and describing the sound.

I think the closest I’ve found so far would be John Atkinson and Erin’s Audio corner.
Obviously, Atkinson has lots of technical knowledge, but is also a good writer and can describe sound quite well.

Erin started off with an engineers bashfulness about subjective description, feeling it “wasn’t his thing.” But he’s gotten better and better so that his reviews feel quite well rounded I he’s doing very good job of translating measurements into their subjective consequences. I still don’t quite get from him the level of descriptive detail that I can get out of some purely subjective reviewers. But I’d say that as far as an ideal - since an ideal review would provide objective measurements - he is getting there.

 

[MattHooper]

I had a conversation with my brother today that I think is pertinent to some of the themes of this thread.

He is an indie musician. His music is very obsessive and elaborate. He’s a huge fan of The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Prince, and Stravinsky… and if you can imagine his music is somewhat like you’d get combining all those influences. It’s like ultra lush, ultra complex pop, flavoured music that goes down all sorts of dark corners, and usually with lush instrumentation - string sections, brass, woodwinds, you name it, all hired from places like the Toronto Symphony Orchestra members. He’s incredibly meticulous and his music is something like an audiophile feast.

Anyway, I asked him the question, all things considered what medium would you prefer for your listening audience, your vinyl release or your digital releases?(streaming. I think he might’ve done CD but I can’t remember).?

He said no question : the vinyl record.

I asked why.

Interestingly, he didn’t talk about the fact he earns some money from the vinyl.

What he focussed on was that…

1. The vinyl felt like the ultimate representation of his efforts, all combined in a physical form you can hold. So in your hands, you are holding the music and physical form, as well as all of the efforts in terms of graphic design, photography, etc., for the album design and cover. It amounts to a cohesive curated, physical form or package in the way sending the music out into the ether of streaming doesn’t duplicate.
In streaming people may or may not even look at the album artwork, they may be listening to music in the background, or they may be seeing just a thumbnail of the artwork, or it might be on some tiny phone screen, another person might see an image on a laptop, others may not at all because they’re streaming on a smart speaker. There is no cohesive experience that he’s under control of. Whereas when you have created a satisfying single object in the form of a vinyl record and its cover, you know that somebody who buys that record is experiencing just the package, feeling, aesthetics that you carefully put together.

2. The type of person motivated to buy his vinyl record tends to be the type of person motivated to sit down and listen and concentrate on the music. Other people just encountering, his music streaming in the background or whatever. So his ideal is that somebody put on his vinyl record and sit down and listen and pay attention in the way he did to records growing up.

3. The feedback that he’s gotten from listeners - people who write to him - seems to back up his intuitions.
He says that the more rapturous reactions to his music is coming from those who bought his vinyl album. They provide the most detailed and enthusiastic feedback to the tracks. He says there’s a very distinct difference in that way between the feedback he gets from the vinyl versus the streaming.

So just some feedback from one Indie musician it seems to speak to at least some factors explaining enthusiasm for vinyl records these days.

 

[Robin L]

1. The vinyl felt like the ultimate representation of his efforts, all combined in a physical form you can hold. So in your hands, you are holding the music and physical form, as well as all of the efforts in terms of graphic design, photography, etc., for the album design and cover. It amounts to a cohesive curated, physical form or package in the way sending the music out into the ether of streaming doesn’t duplicate.
In streaming people may or may not even look at the album artwork, they may be listening to music in the background, or they may be seeing just a thumbnail of the artwork, or it might be on some tiny phone screen, another person might see an image on a laptop, others may not at all because they’re streaming on a smart speaker. There is no cohesive experience that he’s under control of. Whereas when you have created a satisfying single object in the form of a vinyl record and its cover, you know that somebody who buys that record is experiencing just the package, feeling, aesthetics that you carefully put together.

But with LPs people may be listening in the background (I've done that countless times over the years) and with CDs I'm more likely to listen for the full duration CD (in part because I'm older now with a better attention span and also because I'm more likely to be listening to Classical CDs these days). Of course, CDs were created in part knowing they would be a superior alternative to cassettes in a car, so the packaging necessarily had to be shrunk. This severely affected the sense of the collectability of Compact Discs. But and still, CDs in many ways still offer a superior listening experience. I'm sure that the physical format of CDs was determined by market forces like having a superior alternative to cassettes (the dominant recorded music media of the time), but I always wondered what would have happened if CDs first appeared as 12" discs with full-sized covers.

2. The type of person motivated to buy his vinyl record tends to be the type of person motivated to sit down and listen and concentrate on the music. Other people just encountering, his music streaming in the background or whatever. So his ideal is that somebody put on his vinyl record and sit down and listen and pay attention in the way he did to records growing up.

That might be true circa 2024 but in 1980, lots of people were motivated to curate mix tapes featuring highlights of their LP collection. And lots of people now still prefer the moral equivalent of mix tapes when listening to music, thus playlists.

3. The feedback that he’s gotten from listeners - people who write to him - seems to back up his intuitions.
He says that the more rapturous reactions to his music is coming from those who bought his vinyl album. They provide the most detailed and enthusiastic feedback to the tracks. He says there’s a very distinct difference in that way between the feedback he gets from the vinyl versus the streaming.

So just some feedback from one Indie musician it seems to speak to at least some factors explaining enthusiasm for vinyl records these days.

But I would suspect that a musician asking such questions of their fans would probably get those responses - fans being fans after all. Consider all the multi-colored collector's editions of the Taylor Swift catalog on vinyl.

 

[EJ3]

But with LPs people may be listening in the background (I've done that countless times over the years) and with CDs I'm more likely to listen for the full duration CD (in part because I'm older now with a better attention span and also because I'm more likely to be listening to Classical CDs these days). Of course, CDs were created in part knowing they would be a superior alternative to cassettes in a car, so the packaging necessarily had to be shrunk. This severely affected the sense of the collectability of Compact Discs. But and still, CDs in many ways still offer a superior listening experience. I'm sure that the physical format of CDs was determined by market forces like having a superior alternative to cassettes (the dominant recorded music media of the time), but I always wondered what would have happened if CDs first appeared as 12" discs with full-sized covers.

That might be true circa 2024 but in 1980, lots of people were motivated to curate mix tapes featuring highlights of their LP collection. And lots of people now still prefer the moral equivalent of mix tapes when listening to music, thus playlists.

But I would suspect that a musician asking such questions of their fans would probably get those responses - fans being fans after all. Consider all the multi-colored collector's editions of the Taylor Swift catalog on vinyl.

LP's & CD's for the house. I record my LP's to my CDR's for the car (as well as just bring some CD's.
In my cars, normally the music is the car.
My wife does not like the distraction of music in the car from the driving experience.
& she doesn't like the way that I get into the music while driving.
So, if I am with her, there is no music except the car itself. When I am by myself, about 20% of the time I listen to music, about 20% of the time I listen to talk radio and about 60% of the time I just enjoy the car and the driving.
Our son only uses the car as an appliance to get from place to place.

 

[MattHooper]

But with LPs people may be listening in the background

Possible and probably happens, but there are many good reasons why it’s less likely for people to listen to a record in the background versus streaming. There’s a financial and physical commitment to attaining and playing a record in a way that there isn’t necessarily for streaming. Going to the trouble of searching for and buying a record and playing it can engender , a different mindset then “ Alexa play some Taylor Swift.”

The proposition that playing a record seems to encourage more active listening is brought up over and over by people getting into vinyl.

I myself, virtually never play vinyl in the background. If I’m going to go through the actions of selecting and putting on a record, then I’ve already made the type of greater commitment than just flicking on a song on my phone or telling my smart speaker to play something. And I find vinyl somewhat inconvenient as a background, listening, medium. If I put on vinyl to listen to something while I’m cooking for instance, watch a side ends I have to drop what I’m doing and go change the side. Since I don’t face this problem with streaming, I use streaming for background.

That might be true circa 2024 but in 1980, lots of people were motivated to curate mix tapes featuring highlights of their LP collection. And lots of people now still prefer the moral equivalent of mix tapes when listening to music, thus playlists.

I remember that once I started making curated tapes, then music more often became a background accompaniment to other things I was doing. For instance, playing a tape in the car while driving, or listening via a Walkman while out for a walk or on public transport. It certainly was great and freeing and it’s on way. But it could change the experience. Whereas I remember it as far more likely that when I put on a record, I was going to be sitting down and listening to it. (not that I never put records on while doing something else. But once the music got more portable in the form of tapes, etc., then I was far more likely to use the music as a background accompaniment, as so many do these days with playlists. That’s just one person’s experience, but I’m pretty sure it reflects many other peoples experience.

But I would suspect that a musician asking such questions of their fans would probably get those responses - fans being fans after all.

My brother wasn’t asking that question of his fans. He’s just noticed the difference between the type of feedback he’s been getting from people who bought the vinyl versus those who encountered his music on streaming.

Consider all the multi-colored collector's editions of the Taylor Swift catalog on vinyl.

Yeah, and that brings up the other large contingent of young fans who are just buying vinyl to support an artist, or as decoration or whatever and not even owning a turntable.

But the issue I’m speaking to is what my brother has a musician feels, in his ideal, which way he prefers people to experience his music. So we are presuming of course people actually playing the vinyl, which makes the feedback from people who are playing the vinyl relevant.

 

[Galliardist]

I remember that once I started making curated tapes, then music more often became a background accompaniment to other things I was doing. For instance, playing a tape in the car while driving, or listening via a Walkman while out for a walk or on public transport. It certainly was great and freeing and it’s on way. But it could change the experience. Whereas I remember it as far more likely that when I put on a record, I was going to be sitting down and listening to it. (not that I never put records on while doing something else. But once the music got more portable in the form of tapes, etc., then I was far more likely to use the music as a background accompaniment, as so many do these days with playlists. That’s just one person’s experience, but I’m pretty sure it reflects many other peoples experience.

I always felt that listening to music on the move, and while doing other things (at least, music I felt worth paying attention to) was a trap. So I didn't get into listening that way, at least by choice. There is no music on my phone. (Actually Apple Music is there for now, but not used).

But I was pretty certain twenty years ago that people started using music in a different way, and that music would change as a result. It changed when I was a kid with the growth of studio albums by rock bands, of course. It started me off on an interest in music history that I still pursue in different ways.

My brother wasn’t asking that question of his fans. He’s just noticed the difference between the type of feedback he’s been getting from people who bought the vinyl versus those who encountered his music on streaming.

It may be that this is a sample biased in favour of people who choose to comment. There are albums to buy, and a steady stream of people jumping on, or back onto vinyl, who are excited about it.

It wouldn't even occur to me as a rule to say that "I listened to your entire album on Qobuz": except I did exactly that recently on Facebook, just to let the artists concerned know it was even there.

 

[MattHooper]

I always felt that listening to music on the move, and while doing other things (at least, music I felt worth paying attention to) was a trap. So I didn't get into listening that way, at least by choice. There is no music on my phone. (Actually Apple Music is there for now, but not used).

But I was pretty certain twenty years ago that people started using music in a different way, and that music would change as a result. It changed when I was a kid with the growth of studio albums by rock bands, of course. It started me off on an interest in music history that I still pursue in different ways.

Just to be clear, I’m certainly not trying to be negative about listening to music in a portable way or or as an accompaniment.

I’ll never forget how glorious it felt to get my first Walkman, and go for a walk, listening to music and take that music when I was riding on my way to school or work or wherever.

And listening to music in my car has actually provided some of my best musical experiences. Sometimes the combined stimulation can enhance the experience.

It may be that this is a sample biased in favour of people who choose to comment. There are albums to buy, and a steady stream of people jumping on, or back onto vinyl, who are excited about it.

It’s certainly not a scientific sample. Just anecdote, of course.

 

[MarkS]

The proposition that playing a record seems to encourage more active listening is brought up over and over by people getting into vinyl.

I am not at all into vinyl (dropped it like a hot scratchy potato when CDs came out 40 years ago), but this still seems pretty clearly true to me. It just takes more time and effort to get the music started (and more attention at the end, if your TT doesn't have auto-shut-off), so having invested that time and effort, you're more likely to pay attention to what it was intended to create.

 

[Count Dacula]

I watch this channel normally, as part of my H&SS duties. It's dry but cogent. Much more in depth than the intro would indicate. Red Book. 44.1 kHz based on...easy to remember?! 74 minutes capacity because....?

 

[Count Dacula]

Yes, this is what I’ve gotten into before. This site tends to self select more for those with an engineering brain versus a humanities brain.

And it also gets to the issue. I brought up many times: these different proclivities or aptitudes among people bring up a conundrum.

On one hand, you can have an engineer minded person who thoroughly understands how measurements correlate to how something sounds and why.

In order to have this knowledge you have to not only understand measurements, but to have lots of experience, having correlated measurements to their Sonic consequences so that by looking at measurements, you know “ how it will sound.”


On the other hand, you have a great many if not, a majority of audiophiles who have neither the inclination, aptitude or experience to do so. Which is why they rely just on what they hear.

Therefore, somebody wanting to emphasize the relevance of measurements has to act as some sort of interface between an understanding of the measurements and those who don’t know how to interpret them.

In order to explain the relevance of a measurement to its perceptual consequences, you were going to have to translate the measurements into some sort of subjective description. Why should we care about that for DB broad peek around two to 4K? Because… it will change the sound from “ sounding like X” to “ sounding like Y”

So you have to get into a subjective description of “ sounds like or this is how the sound will be perceived.” Otherwise, why should the listener care about the squiggly marks of those measurements to begin with?

And this is where the conundrum comes in.

Generally speaking, the individuals who are most technically inclined to understand and work with measurements - the engineer brain - are those least interested in deploying subjective language. You can see it all over this site. If you can simply look at measurements and understand how something is going to sound then you don’t need subjective language, so you don’t bother developing the facility for transforming measurements into descriptive language.

So the very people who understand the measurements tend to be the ones least able to translate the measurements into “ what it sounds like.”

Whereas on the other side of the coin, you can have (for instance, in a good subjective reviewer) someone who may not be good technically, but who is very good at describing “ how something sounds.”

We know the liabilities involved with subjective reviewing. But the above is why I actually still get something out of both some technical discussions of measurements, as well as gaining information through the purely subjective descriptions of some reviewers and some other audiophiles.

The ideal for me would be the engineer who fully understands the measurements and how they correlate to perception, but is also not allergic to subjective description and therefore is good at being detailed and describing the sound.

I think the closest I’ve found so far would be John Atkinson and Erin’s Audio corner.
Obviously, Atkinson has lots of technical knowledge, but is also a good writer and can describe sound quite well.

Erin started off with an engineers bashfulness about subjective description, feeling it “wasn’t his thing.” But he’s gotten better and better so that his reviews feel quite well rounded I he’s doing very good job of translating measurements into their subjective consequences. I still don’t quite get from him the level of descriptive detail that I can get out of some purely subjective reviewers. But I’d say that as far as an ideal - since an ideal review would provide objective measurements - he is getting there.

It's funny how this parallels the way I feel about room correction. It's like, if your hearing is sensitive enough to need an exact eq "correction", then your hearing is good enough to do it without the software and mic. It seems like gross bass and treble control make sense after all.

Also I would say, the room is the room. You listen to it as well as the system. That is, if a musician was there to play for you live, how and why would you rush to "correct" their performance? You wouldn't. So if a faithful system is playing 20-20kHz why the need to mess with it's playback?