• 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?

Well, not sure if that is true, but because I think even trying to corroborate this with a simple search it's weird, I will correct - unlike them, humble enough to do that:



That said, I think that is worse...

ah well... :D

I’ve inspected your post for terms like “warmth” and “vinyl” occurring in the same sentence.

As you have not made such a dire mistake, you may continue posting in this thread.
:)
 
While I make a cup of coffee in my kitchen with vinyl flooring, I am hoping it will give me some warmth on a cold day.
 
While I make a cup of coffee in my kitchen with vinyl flooring, I am hoping it will give me some warmth on a cold day.

I’m sure that that will make the naughty list.
 
Thanks, I have added your post to my list of people in this thread saying vinyl has a warm sound.

It still amazes me that the assertion, that nobody here is claiming that vinyl has a warm sound, got likes.

It is not just outside of ASR that people are claiming that special positive sonic advantages of vinyl are part of the reason for its popularity. It is happening here too. And when I see it, I will call it.

cheers
I thought that was more loose language about others than a claim.

If @Snarfie wants to clarify that he does believe vinyl innately has a warm sound, that's still OK.

After all, it is absolutely clear that out there in the shining citadel of audiophilia, plenty of people, including a lot of the people in charge, do believe that vinyl has an inherent warm sound, and that there are special properties to vinyl that make it sonically superior, no matter what they think of "technical superiority".

There. Used all the words.... :) Let's see who strikes first!
 
While I make a cup of coffee in my kitchen with vinyl flooring, I am hoping it will give me some warmth on a cold day.
You forgot to tell us what it sounds like.

And since the vinyl floor in our kitchen doggedly remains cold at all times, I guess the kitchen isn't resolving enough and the floor isn't set up properly!
 
I thought that was more loose language about others than a claim.

If @Snarfie wants to clarify that he does believe vinyl innately has a warm sound, that's still OK.

After all, it is absolutely clear that out there in the shining citadel of audiophilia, plenty of people, including a lot of the people in charge, do believe that vinyl has an inherent warm sound, and that there are special properties to vinyl that make it sonically superior, no matter what they think of "technical superiority".

There. Used all the words.... :) Let's see who strikes first!
Now english is not my native language but I will do my best.

Watching the discussion in this topic it reminded me about my early fascination about pinball machines. There are 2 sort of pinball machines Electro mechanical (before 1975) an after Electronic pinball machine based on computers. Sort of analogy between Vinyl an Digital.

There were also more or less 2 camps the people who loved to restore such machines interested in the technique an the ones that where more or less interested in the game it self one goal play the counter round. But all could get along with each other was mine impression never ever I heard any bickering better they technical geeks an competition players encourage each other. Compared to this topic some ASR members are in sort of polarization situation. An yes I have mine opinion regarding Vinyl an Digital but it is not that black an white. Basically I love the dead silence of digital (mostly: sometimes tape hiss) which I don’t get with Vinyl now we can argue that is or is not true we come in a subjective discussion also regarding the warm sound of vinyl which also have (partly) to do with how good or bad is your room acoustic same for digital source.

Have a look at my first post in this topic: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...vinyl-renaissance.32420/page-466#post-2083823

I’m rediscovering radio played over a Bose Wave III found in thrift store. It’s by far not comparable with the man cave audio set but I’m sitting right now typing this reply listening on my Bose Wave II to KCSM jazz radio. Point is the sources they are using is CD and or Vinyl (what I could find) on a bit rate lower than 320kbs I really don’t care I love the audio waves. It is a completely different experience in the living room but as Much fun listening in the man cave. Some how with the super imposed loudness setting of the Bose Wave it lifted the acoustic conditions of the living room which added to the fun an enjoyment.

So the various conditions (like specific room modes FR) the perception that creates personal preference for instance in music choice it all creates a subjective environment creates personal taste which is IMO not debatable. An if members have questions I notice in depth an knowledgeable answers/solution are given on ASR. Would suggest see each other as brothers an sisters (yes really groovy statement:facepalm:) because you know so well the pro’s an con’s of each other an over time (most of us) dealt with it as I do with my sisters. Still we could have our difference an that is good even debateble but as @MattHooper an I concluded Lets Agree to Disagree. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-times-visits-ojas.36020/page-12#post-2091932

Peace:cool:
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I have added your post to my list of people in this thread saying vinyl has a warm sound.

It still amazes me that the assertion, that nobody here is claiming that vinyl has a warm sound, got likes.

It is not just outside of ASR that people are claiming that special positive sonic advantages of vinyl are part of the reason for its popularity. It is happening here too. And when I see it, I will call it.

cheers
I only now and again check this thread. I missed the whole list thing.

I think we can agree that compared to digital or RTR, vinyl is lower fidelity and has some colorations. Therefore there is the possibility that those colorations figure into someone preferring it or even possibly just finding it interesting for its sound. I won't say this is the primary reason for a renaissance, but it could be part of the reason.

I do think vinyl in general has a warm sound. Dammit, now I'm on the list.

From truncated lows, mono lows, arm-cartridge resonances, TT rumble, often drooping treble, a source from magnetic tape that had high frequency issues, etc the alterations needed to process the sound to fit it onto the Long Playing vinyl disc tended toward a warmish sound. I think that partly explains the reaction against CD. You had a warmish source with systems setup to get the most from that. Probably requiring some manner of up-tilt (or the real audiophiles secret weapon a moving coil cartridge). Suddenly you have a flat accurate source and the final result in the existing systems was a bit cold. I'll say in my experience comparing steps away from fidelity a warmish tilt can be a bit more engaging and emotional while a coolish tilt is the reverse.

Now we know from Toole's work with speakers people prefer accuracy. In a modern well set up high fidelity system good digital recordings can be extremely good while vinyl, even excellent vinyl, sounds like vinyl. Yet for John or Jennifer Q. Public most systems are not well set up and high fidelity. Little speakers, soundbars, ear buds not greatest fidelity. I'm pretty sure a warmish sound will be preferred in those instances. Another way to look at it, is vinyl was a compromised medium. It represents an information channel that was a bottleneck constraining full information transmission. About 2 generations of experience went into using the constrained information to best effect. AM radio was even more constrained. Those of us living thru those years know even AM radio can be musically satisfying. So a medium built to work over a constrained information channel might well work into low end listening rigs that also represent a bottleneck to full fidelity.

Is there any research into optimizing musical preference over low information channels? I mean we have MP3 and other codecs, but those are oriented toward getting best fidelity with least data on good playback. That wouldn't be the same as configuring optimum preference over playback with significant basic fidelity compromised. Such research would be hard to get your hands around too as there are myriads of ways playback rigs can be bad. In the case of vinyl the industry was at least working with a somewhat defined channel of lowered fidelity.
 
I only now and again check this thread. I missed the whole list thing.

I think we can agree that compared to digital or RTR, vinyl is lower fidelity and has some colorations. Therefore there is the possibility that those colorations figure into someone preferring it or even possibly just finding it interesting for its sound. I won't say this is the primary reason for a renaissance, but it could be part of the reason.

I do think vinyl in general has a warm sound. Dammit, now I'm on the list.

From truncated lows, mono lows, arm-cartridge resonances, TT rumble, often drooping treble, a source from magnetic tape that had high frequency issues, etc the alterations needed to process the sound to fit it onto the Long Playing vinyl disc tended toward a warmish sound. I think that partly explains the reaction against CD. You had a warmish source with systems setup to get the most from that. Probably requiring some manner of up-tilt (or the real audiophiles secret weapon a moving coil cartridge). Suddenly you have a flat accurate source and the final result in the existing systems was a bit cold. I'll say in my experience comparing steps away from fidelity a warmish tilt can be a bit more engaging and emotional while a coolish tilt is the reverse.

Now we know from Toole's work with speakers people prefer accuracy. In a modern well set up high fidelity system good digital recordings can be extremely good while vinyl, even excellent vinyl, sounds like vinyl. Yet for John or Jennifer Q. Public most systems are not well set up and high fidelity. Little speakers, soundbars, ear buds not greatest fidelity. I'm pretty sure a warmish sound will be preferred in those instances. Another way to look at it, is vinyl was a compromised medium. It represents an information channel that was a bottleneck constraining full information transmission. About 2 generations of experience went into using the constrained information to best effect. AM radio was even more constrained. Those of us living thru those years know even AM radio can be musically satisfying. So a medium built to work over a constrained information channel might well work into low end listening rigs that also represent a bottleneck to full fidelity.

Is there any research into optimizing musical preference over low information channels? I mean we have MP3 and other codecs, but those are oriented toward getting best fidelity with least data on good playback. That wouldn't be the same as configuring optimum preference over playback with significant basic fidelity compromised. Such research would be hard to get your hands around too as there are myriads of ways playback rigs can be bad. In the case of vinyl the industry was at least working with a somewhat defined channel of lowered fidelity.
As a subjective exercise I've listened to a few of the modern bluetooth and "smart" speakers, and apart from Apple's first effort, it's surprising how good they are, within their limits. The "lower fidelity products" of today are considerably better than the old mono radios and cassette players of the last century - a bigger leap than well set up stereo systems have made in that time, as far as I can tell.

I do know that the Bose speaker in use in our dance classes at the moment sounds way better with modern digital recordings than the older vinyl ones that sometimes get used as the only available versions of pieces we're dancing to. Not only that, but the modern recordings are easier to dance to.

I see no need for artificial warmth at all, unlike with quite a few supposedly high fidelity speakers on the market.
 
the stereo turntable is capable of sending a signal, with all its nuances, to the system that allows the speakers to recreate a sound stage.
Therefore, to put the listener in the condition of perceiving a multidimensional sound.
So in my opinion, regardless of the final resolution of the clicks or pops, it is a component that fits easily into a high-fidelity system.
I consider all reproduction systems that do not allow this result to be low-fi.
Because the creation of the sound stage is still the minimum requirement that brings home listening closer to live listening.
This does not compare it to digital but places it alongside it, as one of the sources available for reproduction.
 
the stereo turntable is capable of sending a signal, with all its nuances, to the system that allows the speakers to recreate a sound stage.
Therefore, to put the listener in the condition of perceiving a multidimensional sound.
So in my opinion, regardless of the final resolution of the clicks or pops, it is a component that fits easily into a high-fidelity system.
I consider all reproduction systems that do not allow this result to be low-fi.
Because the creation of the sound stage is still the minimum requirement that brings home listening closer to live listening.
This does not compare it to digital but places it alongside it, as one of the sources available for reproduction.
Would you include 8 track tape as high fidelity? It meets your definition.

All that is needed to do the multidimensional thing is about 15 db of channel separation. Is that the arbiter of hifi vs not hifi? Yikes.
 
Would you include 8 track tape as high fidelity? It meets your definition.

All that is needed to do the multidimensional thing is about 15 db of channel separation. Is that the arbiter of hifi vs not hifi? Yikes.

I'm not convinced: two or more microphones in recording, two or more well-positioned speakers in reproduction and a system capable of managing the stereophonic signal. If I remember correctly, stereophony, unlike monotone or double mono, has as its final aim that of multidimensional sound reconstruction.
 
After all, it is absolutely clear that out there in the shining citadel of audiophilia, plenty of people, including a lot of the people in charge, do believe that vinyl has an inherent warm sound, and that there are special properties to vinyl that make it sonically superior, no matter what they think of "technical superiority".
I thought there was a strong consensus here that, that’s bullshit, no? Any sound you can get with LP playback, you could 100% also get with digital playback.

I want a t-shirt that says it’s the mastering, not the medium.
 
I'm not convinced: two or more microphones in recording, two or more well-positioned speakers in reproduction and a system capable of managing the stereophonic signal. If I remember correctly, stereophony, unlike monotone or double mono, has as its final aim that of multidimensional sound reconstruction.
The greatest resolution of far left, far right, and placement etc is around 17 db difference. So yes, 15 db is about enough and 20 db is most definitely enough. You'll not hear an improvement with more than that even on the finest two microphone recording. There also the effect of timing left vs right, but your ears don't use that much once you pass 1500 hz. And even 8 track has time resolution good enough for that.

Since playback is by definition double mono, or two sources there is no difference vs anything else as the source recording. That meager channel separation is all your ears on your head are capable of if you were there to hear it live. It is all your ears can hear playing back over two speakers.
 
Last edited:
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
I had a photographic memory, but it never developed.
 
Because the creation of the sound stage is still the minimum requirement that brings home listening closer to live listening.
This does not compare it to digital but places it alongside it, as one of the sources available for reproduction.
The definition of Hi-Fi is interesting. After years of playing around with DIY speakers I finally took the plunge and ordered a pair of KH310's to hear for myself what all the fuss was about. The left speaker was in stock and the right speaker had to be ordered so was about a week behind. For the last week I have been listening to one KH310 with the source downmixed to mono and yesterday the second speaker showed up. While adding the second speaker added to the sound stage and is preferable to one speaker I certainly didn't consider one KH310 to be anything but Hi-Fi on a pretty high level.
 
Last edited:
The definition of Hi-Fi is interesting. After years of playing around with DIY speakers I finally took the plunge and ordered a pair of KH310's to hear for myself what all the fuss was about. The left speaker was in stock and the right speaker had to be ordered so was about a week behind. For the last week I have been listening to one KH310 with the source downmixed to mono and yesterday the second speaker showed up. While adding the second speaker added to the sound stage and is preferable to one speaker I certainly didn't consider one KH310 to be anything but Hi-Fi on a pretty high level.
I was reading a bit of hi-fi history here and there and it is believed that the great leap forward came with stereophony, and therefore the possibility of having a sound stage, which mono cannot recreate. It is strange, but I had a 102 Denon mono head, and the result was to have a sort of circle in front of the eyes, well defined but not very spatial. or rather, with a space in a certain way only of depth. Approaching the speakers the sound source was identical for each of them. even in the recording phase very often the voices are recorded in mono and then mixed with the rest of the content, as well as the particular soloists. But to obtain environment and spatial information you can only record in stereo, with the two bidirectional microphones. And reproduce with two speakers.
 
Since playback is by definition double mono, or two sources there is no difference vs anything else as the source recording. That meager channel separation is all your ears on your head are capable of if you were there to hear it live. It is all your ears can hear playing back over two speakers.

da Wikipedia,

“Dal punto di vista anatomico-funzionale la stereofonia è la facoltà dell'udito di individuare la collocazione spaziale delle sorgenti degli stimoli acustici mediante ascolto biauricolare.
Grazie alla presenza di due sistemi auditivi paralleli (due padiglioni auricolari, due timpani e due emisferi cerebrali) possiamo capire quale è la provenienza di un suono o di un rumore, attitudine molto importante sul piano dell'adattamento all'ambiente. Questa è una delle motivazioni per cui l'ascolto della musica dal vivo non di rado comporta un senso di pienezza spaziale, dipesa dalla rivelazione della posizione relativa degli strumenti musicali. La spazialità è data dalla percezione umana di rilevare in combinazione binauricolare i ritardi di propagazione (delay), le cadute (decay), e un insieme di percezioni che dipendono dalla fase dell'onda, dall'istante di arrivo, dal livello acustico, e dalle componenti armoniche differenti.
Tre i parametri fondamentali che permettono la percezione spaziale, e sono detti ITD (Interaural Time Difference), ILD (Interaural Level Difference), DDF (Direction Dependent Filter), che sono rispettivamente il tempo di propagazione con la differenza interaurale, l'intensità sonora percepita (assoluta e a livello differenziale-binauricolare) e il filtro direzionale.
La localizzazione spaziale è quindi un fenomeno fondamentale nella stereofonia, e alquanto articolato; si sviluppa anche nel senso verticale e non solo nel piano orizzontale[4] e non dipende solo dalla binauricolarità o dalla binauralità o dal doppio canale in sé, e dai tre parametri succitati, ma dipende anche dal fatto che i due lobi del cervello non lavorano nella medesima modalità, in quanto l'area sinistra è specializzata nell'elaborazione del suoni complessi e quelli consonantici, mentre l'area destra è specializzata per i suoni semplici e le emissioni vocaliche.[5]
Altri elementi che contribuiscono alla percezione della direzione del suono sono dovute alla diffrazione e alla riflessione delle onde. Per quanto concerne la diffrazione, se la sorgente tende a essere puntiforme la natura dell'irradiazione sarà a onde sferiche e di pari efficienza su tutte le direzioni, mentre una sorgente piatta sufficientemente piatta genererà onde piane. Nel caso la lunghezza d’onda sia confrontabile con le dimensioni della sorgente, il suono viene irradiato con efficienza diversa a seconda della direzione. In particolar modo, qualora la lunghezza d’onda sia minore della dimensione della sorgente sussiste un angolo al di sopra del quale non vi è praticamente irradiamento. Un primo effetto della diffrazione è la direzionalità dei suoni acuti rispetto ai suoni bassi, ed è per questa ragione che è molto più semplice identificare la posizione di una sorgente se questa emette frequenze acute. Di questo fenomeno tengono conto gli apparecchi hi-fi, nei quali le basse frequenze non necessitano di diffusione stereofonica. Inoltre è a causa della diffrazione che le frequenze basse possono essere più facilmente percepite anche in presenza di ostacoli che non consentono la propagazione diretta del suono, come ad esempio nel caso di stanze comunicanti. L’effetto della diffrazione è inoltre responsabile del tipo di propagazione della voce: essendo l’apertura della bocca sufficientemente piccola rispetto alle frequenze di emissione sonora, le onde sonore hanno propagazione sferica.”

Translation provided by Moderation..Please post in English only going forward. Thank you.


from Wikipedia, “From the anatomical-functional point of view of stereophony is the facoltà dell'udito di individuare la colocazione spaziale delle sorgenti degli stimoli acoustics through ascolto biauricolare.
Thanks to the presence of the two parallel auditory systems (the ear pads, the timpani, and the cerebral emissphere), we can understand what comes from a dream or a rumor, a very important attitude in the piano in the environment. This is one of the motivations per cui the aspect of live music does not have a sense of spatial pienezza, based on the variation of the relative position of musical instruments. The spazialità è data da la percezione umana di rilevare in combinazione binauricolare i ritardi di propagazione (delay), le cadute (decay), e unsieme de percezioni che dipendono della phase dell'onda, dall'istante de arrival, dal livello acoustic, e Of the different harmonic components.
Three fundamental parameters that allow spatial perception, namely ITD (interaural time difference), ILD (interaural level difference), DDF (direction dependent filter), which respectively define the propagation tempo with the interaural difference, the perceived sound intensity (assoluta e a livello diferenziale-binauricolare) and the directional filter.
Spatial localization is a fundamental phenomenon in stereophony and art; Si sviluppa also in the vertical sense and not only in the orizzontale piano[4] and does not depend only on the binauricolarità or on the binauralità or on the doppio canale in se, and in three parameters succitati, but it depends also on the fatto that i due lobi del cervello non lavorano In the most modalità, in quanto l'area sinistra è specializzata nell'elaborazione del suoni complessi e quelli consonantici, entre el'area destra è specializzata per i suoni semplici e le emiti vocaliche.[5]
Other elements that contribute to the perception of sleep direction are the use of diffusion and wave riflessione. As far as diffusion is concerned, if the source tends to be point-like, the nature of the irradiation will be spherical and, in equal efficiency in all directions, between a sufficiently large source square, the plane will generate space. In the case that the light of the wave faces the dimensions of the source, the dream is irradiated with varying efficiency in the second direction. In particular, as the length of the wave is smaller than the size of the source, there is an angle above which there is practically no irradiation. First effect of the diffusion and direction of its high frequencies with respect to its low frequencies, it is for this reason that it is much easier to identify the position of a source with these high frequencies. This phenomenon has nothing to do with high fidelity devices. , whose low frequencies are not necessary for stereophonic diffusion. Inoltre è because of the diffusion that the frequency basse can be easily perceived also in the presence of ostacoli that do not consent to the direct propagation of the dream, as for example in the case of communication stanze. The effect of the diffraction is also responsible for the type of voice propagation: if the opening of the mouth is sufficient to respect all the frequencies of sound emission, the sound wave has no spherical propagation."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
excuse me! then I'll shut up about the topic, otherwise I'll take the discussion off the original subject
 
Back
Top Bottom