Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[polocolo]

I don't agree with favoring analog over digital, but I understand it. In addition to the nostolgic or retro vibe you get when using it, you are basically trading one set of audible artifacts for another.

Totally agree. And I do think your imagination/memory can make up for some, in order to produce an intense experience (granted you also know the piece on a "good" format)

For records, you accept the occasional pop, scratch or skip for the music not having any digital "glare", "distortion", or whatever you want to call it.

Though I'm not sure one could argue there is anything "colored" on digital

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't agree with favoring analog over digital, but I understand it. In addition to the nostolgic or retro vibe you get when using it, you are basically trading one set of audible artifacts for another. For records, you accept the occasional pop, scratch or skip for the music not having any digital "glare", "distortion", or whatever you want to call it.

Except those digital artifacts are not actually there. So.........

 

[antcollinet]

digital "glare", "distortion", or whatever you want to call it.

That doesn't exist.

To prove it - if you digitally record the output of your phono stage using a competent ADC, it will be impossible to tell the level matched recording from the original if you don't know which is playing. No glare, no distortion, just audibly perfect reproduction.

 

[Newman]

Totally agree. And I do think your imagination/memory can make up for some, in order to produce an intense experience (granted you also know the piece on a "good" format)

How can you "totally agree" with him saying that one is trading one set of audible artefacts for another....

Though I'm not sure one could argue there is anything "colored" on digital

...and then (rightly) dispute the existence of one side of the tradeoff?

 

[polocolo]

How can you "totally agree" with him saying that one is trading one set of audible artefacts for another....

...and then (rightly) dispute the existence of one side of the tradeoff?

1) Have you ever heard of the rhetorical principle of charity? Like start from the principle that if your interlocutor appears to be contradicting themself, the first step is to question if maybe they're not contradicting themself and maybe you've just misunderstood what they meant?

2) artifact: "a usually simple object (such as a tool or ornament) showing human workmanship or modification as distinguished from a natural object" (Webster).

So from that perspective, I understood "audible artifact" as a synonym of "format". Vinyl is an audible artifact because it's an audible object. CD is an audible artifact because it's a tool to produce music. One could argue that mp3 and FLAC files are digital-audible artifacts.

So "to trade an audible artifacts" for another here means : "to trade vinyl (imperfections, noise, distorsion) for streaming/CD (pure signal)". You can hear that Files/CD sound different than vinyle, so it derives that Files/CD are an audible artifacts on their own.

No contradiction here, is it?

 

[Leporello]

1) Have you ever heard of the rhetorical principle of charity? Like start from the principle that if your interlocutor appears to be contradicting themself, the first step is to question if maybe they're not contradicting themself and maybe you've just misunderstood what they meant?

2) artifact: "a usually simple object (such as a tool or ornament) showing human workmanship or modification as distinguished from a natural object" (Webster).

So from that perspective, I understood "audible artifact" as a synonym of "format". Vinyl is an audible artifact because it's an audible object. CD is an audible artifact because it's a tool to produce music. One could argue that mp3 and FLAC files are digital-audible artifacts.

So "to trade an audible artifacts" for another here means : "to trade vinyl (imperfections, noise, distorsion) for streaming/CD (pure signal)". You can hear that Files/CD sound different than vinyle, so it derives that Files/CD are an audible artifacts on their own.

No contradiction here, is it?

If we go by Webster then no, but you clearly did not understand what ejr meant by 'audible artifacts'

 

[polocolo]

If we go by Webster then no, but you clearly did not understand what ejr meant by 'audible artifacts'

Or maybe I did, but I tried (gently) to open a door to another way of understand things with a subtle contradiction that isn't a frontal opposition like we're used to on internet.
I did send the most important message (digital is not colored) didn't I?

am I not allowed to interact with other people like I want to?

 

[ejr]

I think everybody knows what I meant, but some just like to argue.

IMHO everybody has his own ox to gore and some just like to split hares. (And, yes, that spelling is intentional. Its called humor and you can't measure it except with your ears.)

 

[pkane]

2) artifact: "a usually simple object (such as a tool or ornament) showing human workmanship or modification as distinguished from a natural object" (Webster).

Can we please agree that this discussion is about audio reproduction, and that terms of trade should be assumed to be related to this field and not to some other, irrelevant, or overly general meaning of these terms? (all in the interest of charity towards those who participate).

 

[antcollinet]

I think everybody knows what I meant, but some just like to argue.

IMHO everybody has his own ox to gore and some just like to split hares. (And, yes, that spelling is intentional. Its called humor and you can't measure it except with your ears.)

Ahh - you got caught out by Poe's Law. For future reference emojis help combat this condition. Like this --->

 

[MattHooper]

Touchscreens may not be suitable for everything. Physical buttons work better on some occasions.

Yes, but it’s also not always simply about something “ working better” or more efficiently, it can be about the tactile and aesthetic experience. we know these things influence our experience.

I have gear where some of it is more satisfying to me to interact with than others, based on the haptics/tactile/aesthetics.

For instance, I find the volume knob on my benchmark, pre-amplifier to feel cheap and plastic and clicky. Whereas I love operating the motor control from my turntable because the equipment has that wonderful cliché “ look and feel of high-quality German engineering” where the knob looks substantial and feels substantial to the touch, and operates with a silky movement and satisfying light “ clunk” when turning the motor on or changing the speed.

And as I said, I spent money having an entirely custom remote control made due entirely to desired aesthetics and tactile quality versus the teeny plastic buttons on some of my remotes or swiping on my iPhone for volume. I find it a more satisfying way to interact with my system.

It’s not for nothing that Steve Jobs from APPLE was so fanatical and paying attention to the field and haptics of Apple products.

The author tries to get philosophical about it and read too much into it (”The button may be a way to almost de-technologize our everyday existence, to a certain extent”).

That’s not too philosophical. She’s referencing real aspects of human experience and desires, which have been reflected and what many people actually say they are seeking or getting out of certain experiences.
In terms of playing vinyl records, as I said one of the reasons, I appreciate it is unplugging from the daily type of technology that is tugging for my attention all day long - computer screens, smart, phone, screens, etc.

Plenty of other people have expressed similar reasons for enjoying records, including jumping out of the daily ubiquitous presents of digital technology, endless streaming music, etc.

 

[Newman]

Ahh - you got caught out by Poe's Law. For future reference emojis help combat this condition. Like this --->

He sure did. But I do enjoy the absurd smokescreening by our new member who thinks it looks smarter to play Pretzel Logic with words than to simply speak clearly in the first place. The person who he is making look silly isn’t the one he intends.

 

[Axo1989]

Yes, but it’s also not always simply about something “ working better” or more efficiently, it can be about the tactile and aesthetic experience. we know these things influence our experience.

I have gear where some of it is more satisfying to me to interact with than others, based on the haptics/tactile/aesthetics.

For instance, I find the volume knob on my benchmark, pre-amplifier to feel cheap and plastic and clicky. Whereas I love operating the motor control from my turntable because the equipment has that wonderful cliché “ look and feel of high-quality German engineering” where the knob looks substantial and feels substantial to the touch, and operates with a silky movement and satisfying light “ clunk” when turning the motor on or changing the speed.

I know what you mean.

When it came to renovating the kitchen here (still progressing) there was a choice between a dynamic full surface induction rig with full touchscreen control, and a still good but less advanced type with fixed heating areas and a single large magnetic wheel (with tap to select and turn to adjust temperature). Tactile won for me. Similar with the oven choice, some nice looking large colour touchscreen systems are on offer, but the series with two large rotating knobs made more sense. We'll see after installing and using if I regret being a bit more conservative.

I'm not someone who has issues with the Apple Music app UI for sonic selection, but well-executed tactile controls can present characteristics that are pleasant and easy to use, for sure.

 

[MattHooper]

I know what you mean.

When it came to renovating the kitchen here (still progressing) there was a choice between a dynamic full surface induction rig with full touchscreen control, and a still good but less advanced type with fixed heating areas and a single large magnetic wheel (with tap to select and turn to adjust temperature). Tactile won for me. Similar with the oven choice, some nice looking large colour touchscreen systems are on offer, but the series with two large rotating knobs made more sense. We'll see after installing and using if I regret being a bit more conservative.

I'm not someone who has issues with the Apple Music app UI for sonic selection, but well-executed tactile controls can present characteristics that are pleasant and easy to use, for sure.

We still have certain light switches in the house, some of which I think we’re just put in by the contractor who did the work in the room, that I still rue every time I touch them.

Our kitchen lights switched friends. Are these horrible little hard plastic switches that inevitably slightly poke in to the skin when turning them on. Just awful on a tactile level.

I remember reading about Steve Jobs obsession with haptics, to the point of making the engineers get the sound of buttons clicking, or even the feel of plugging in the charging cable to be just right. I often think of that when I’m using my iPhones. And frankly. (And while I’m on it: I really appreciate not only apples attention to the experience of simply opening the boxes for their products - beautifully, simple and easy and somehow satisfying - but they’ve made plenty of other companies up their game in the same way. I noticed it’s routine to have well thought out packaging, versus the utter “ store theft proofing” nightmare most electronics were coming in for quite a while. “ we made this so thieves, can’t open it, we don’t know how to open the box, you’re on your own…”)

 

[MaxwellsEq]

1) Have you ever heard of the rhetorical principle of charity? Like start from the principle that if your interlocutor appears to be contradicting themself, the first step is to question if maybe they're not contradicting themself and maybe you've just misunderstood what they meant?

2) artifact: "a usually simple object (such as a tool or ornament) showing human workmanship or modification as distinguished from a natural object" (Webster).

So from that perspective, I understood "audible artifact" as a synonym of "format". Vinyl is an audible artifact because it's an audible object. CD is an audible artifact because it's a tool to produce music. One could argue that mp3 and FLAC files are digital-audible artifacts.

So "to trade an audible artifacts" for another here means : "to trade vinyl (imperfections, noise, distorsion) for streaming/CD (pure signal)". You can hear that Files/CD sound different than vinyle, so it derives that Files/CD are an audible artifacts on their own.

No contradiction here, is it?

Are you here to contribute to the actual debate? Or do you just want to argue about "how to argue"?

Instead of rhetorical tools, cod philosophy, sophistic pretensions, why don't you answer the question: "Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?" and give a justification which is not based on pre-Roman Hellenistic methodology.

 

[ejr]

Ahh - you got caught out by Poe's Law. For future reference emojis help combat this condition. Like this --->

In my view, reverting to pictographs is a step backward in the evolution of human society and literacy.

P.S. With regard to "Poe's Law", I believe Edgar Allen would have regarded "Internet Culture" as an oxymoron. It would have had him turning in his crypt (though I wouldn't hazard a guess at how many RPM.)

 

[antcollinet]

In my view, reverting to pictographs is a step backward in the evolution of human society and literacy.

You might think so - but what they actually do for internet/text based discussion, when properly used, is to substitute for body language that you would automatically use and understand in face to face discussion. They help to communicate the intent behind the actual words.

For example in face to face communication while parodying audiophile misinformation (which I am now assuming you were trying to do ) you would have been smiling, or using tone of voice, or similar, to indicate your words were not intended to be taken as your actual views.

Due to the lack of other indication, (again assuming my assumption about your intent is correct), your words were taken as your literal viewpoint. Which is absolutely to be expected in a world (and on a forum) where many people do espouse that viewpoint literally. This is the very definition of Poe.

Of course - if you don't like pictograms, you could always add words to clarify your intent. This tends IME to detract from any humor though.

 

[Axo1989]

In my view, reverting to pictographs is a step backward in the evolution of human society and literacy.

P.S. With regard to "Poe's Law", I believe Edgar Allen would have regarded "Internet Culture" as an oxymoron. It would have had him turning in his crypt (though I wouldn't hazard a guess at how many RPM.)

Ok, Poe's law takes its name from a 2005 forum post by Nathan Poe, not the somewhat earlier poetry of Edgar Allen.

 

[ejr]

You might think so - but what they actually do for internet/text based discussion, when properly used, is to substitute for body language that you would automatically use and understand in face to face discussion. They help to communicate the intent behind the actual words.

Fair enough.

For example in face to face communication while parodying audiophile misinformation (which I am now assuming you were trying to do ) you would have been smiling, or using tone of voice, or similar, to indicate your words were not intended to be taken as your actual views.

Due to the lack of other indication, (again assuming my assumption about your intent is correct), your words were taken as your literal viewpoint. Which is absolutely to be expected in a world (and on a forum) where many people do espouse that viewpoint literally. This is the very definition of Poe.

Of course - if you don't like pictograms, you could always add words to clarify your intent. This tends IME to detract from any humor though.

And there have been thousands of years after pictographs and before emojies when writers did not rely on them. My point is that our propensity as a society to misunderstand each other seems to be rising and I find that alarming because it is becoming increasingly difficult to have a civil discussion about anything these days. It seems to be harder and harder for people to take a joke (perhaps because they take themselves to seriously) and, unfortunately, less humor in a time when I would argue it is sorely needed.

 

[ejr]

Ok, Poe's law takes its name from a 2005 forum post by Nathan Poe, not the somewhat earlier poetry of Edgar Allen.

See post above. (If there were an emojie for rolling my eyes, I would be using it now.)