• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily 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?

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
2,180
Likes
2,595
So the CD bass is an undistorted replication of the original studio production, but the LP bass is better every single time?

Where do I send the tin foil hat?
I didn't say that; pretty obvious strawman. Logical fallacies are inherently false FWIW.
Well here’s what you DID say:
I've yet to encounter a CD that has better bass than the same title on LP; not saying that couldn't happen.
So…you said your experience of the LP bass has been never worse than CD, so either you hear them as exactly equal an awful lot, or the LP as better pretty much all the time. You are certainly saying the LP bass is equal or better than CD bass every single time you have listened. To which I still want an address to send the tin foil hat.


As for your repeated appeals to self-authority:-
…outing yourself as a vinyl gear designer tells us all we need to know about your biases and the credibility of your opinions digital vs vinyl. Thanks. Appreciated.
FWIW I also outed myself as a mastering engineer. Not so much bias as it is direct experience, which to me holds more cred than made-up stories.

Let’s take a look at what Floyd Toole writes about LP in his book Sound Reproduction, about its undoubted problems and their audibility, and even more importantly to your claims, what he writes about the credibility of those who get too familiar with its sound:-

First, some context on enforced sonic changes: “In LP mastering, the changes are substantial: mono bass, dynamic compression, rolled-off highs near the center of the disc, and so forth to cope with the limitations of the medium. Digital media need no such dramatic manipulations, but mastering engineers may choose to tailor the sound…

Regarding preservation, often the predistorted masters were kept and undistorted masters lost: “There is cause for some sadness, because some of the old analog tapes being converted for delivery through digital formats are not the original masters, which were lost or reused, but the LP master tapes used to drive the cutter heads for creating LP master discs. It seems that important decision makers thought the LP was the final development in the delivery of audio signals. These tapes have been skillfully manipulated—predistorted, in fact—to compensate for some of the significant limitations of LPs and therefore cannot sound their best when played through digital devices. The art has been compromised. This is an example of an old technology executing a strange form of revenge on the new.

Importantly, Toole also says that the limitations of pre-digital audio also caused musicians to modify their instruments and playing styles so that they don’t overwhelm the medium: “Spectral and dynamic limitations did not flatter instruments like pianos and drums, so substitute instruments were used. Live performances came to reflect some of these substitutions and sometimes even playing styles. For example “slap” bass playing was a means of minimizing bothersome low-frequency output but retaining some of the essential sound of the upright bass. Said Katz (2004), “The bass drum was a troublemaker even into the 1950s” (p. 81). (Wrapping it in a blanket was a common studio remedy.) Katz explained as follows: “Whether in France, the United States, or anywhere in the world, most listeners who knew jazz knew it through recordings; the jazz they heard, therefore, was something of a distortion, having been adapted in response to the nature of the medium. The peculiar strengths and limitations of the technology thus not only influenced jazz performance practice, it also shaped how listeners—some of whom were also performers and composers—understood jazz and expected it to sound.”(p. 84)”. So, in the pre-digital era, the recording medium’s mediocrity didn’t just influence behaviour in the recording studio: it flowed right through into playing styles and choice of instruments when not in the recording studio. The inherent badness of vinyl has a lot to answer for.

Toole also explains how repeated exposure to LP sound over time results in LP-specific perceptual masking coming into play. This is why LP lovers, even in this thread, insist they hear no problematic artefacts or distortions —they are in a manner hypnotised to the point where they bite into an onion and think “mmm, apple”— whereas when a non-hypnotised audiophile with critical faculties intact comes across vinyl, there is a good chance they will not like all the icky artefacts that they are not perceptually masking out. “Auditory masking is a natural perceptual phenomenon…it has assisted our musical enjoyment by suppressing audience noises during live performances and, over several decades, by rendering LPs more pleasurable. If we talk here about compressing data, it would be fair to say that LPs perform “data expansion,” adding unmusical information in the form of crosstalk, noise, and distortions of many kinds. More comes off of the LP than was in the original master tape. However, because of those very same masking phenomena that allow perceptual data reduction systems to work, the noises and distortions are perceptually attenuated. So successful is this perceptual noise and distortion reduction, that good LPs played on good systems can still sound impressive.” Well, at least to the long-term LP listener.

And that’s why LP gear designers and LP mastering engineers are the worst possible judges of what that gear actually sounds like, to the unindoctrinated mind. Their words relate only to fellow indoctrinees.

FWIW

Cheers
 
Last edited:

atmasphere

Active Member
Manufacturer
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
298
Likes
418
First, some context on enforced sonic changes: “In LP mastering, the changes are substantial: mono bass, dynamic compression, rolled-off highs near the center of the disc
Floyd clearly hasn't spent time with an LP mastering system. 'Mono bass' isn't a thing (its not endemic); these days there's more dynamic compression in digital releases (as I also explained earlier; think about listening in a car) and I've yet to measure any rolled off highs near the end of the disc. That last bit is a common myth; its associated with playback using antiquated phono cartridges. Its not on the record side.

Again, the mono bass thing is done with a passive processor and is not part of a mastering tape.
For example “slap” bass playing was a means of minimizing bothersome low-frequency output but retaining some of the essential sound of the upright bass. Said Katz (2004), “The bass drum was a troublemaker even into the 1950s” (p. 81).
:facepalm:
Obviously this predates the Westerex 3d cutter head, which ushered in stereo. In fact the comment sounds pre-war (emphasis added). Really, you gotta update your sources.

Floyd is a great guy but his comments point more towards cheap LP mastering (LP engineering time is expensive; mono bass and compression are used to save time) rather than taking advantage of what the medium can do. No tin hat needed and I stand behind my comment that I've yet to hear a CD that has bass better than the LP. Its not a limitation of the medium so mcuh as it is the budget. The simple fact is that digital is a lot cheaper to do; the typical LP mastering time is $500-$600/hour; digital mastering is no-where near that.

The mistake you seem to be making is conflating personal anecdote with the medium itself. They are not the same.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,817
Likes
2,421
Location
Massachusetts
Floyd clearly hasn't spent time with an LP mastering system. 'Mono bass' isn't a thing (its not endemic); these days there's more dynamic compression in digital releases (as I also explained earlier; think about listening in a car) and I've yet to measure any rolled off highs near the end of the disc. That last bit is a common myth; its associated with playback using antiquated phono cartridges. Its not on the record side.

Again, the mono bass thing is done with a passive processor and is not part of a mastering tape.

:facepalm:
Obviously this predates the Westerex 3d cutter head, which ushered in stereo. In fact the comment sounds pre-war (emphasis added). Really, you gotta update your sources.

Floyd is a great guy but his comments point more towards cheap LP mastering (LP engineering time is expensive; mono bass and compression are used to save time) rather than taking advantage of what the medium can do. No tin hat needed and I stand behind my comment that I've yet to hear a CD that has bass better than the LP. Its not a limitation of the medium so mcuh as it is the budget. The simple fact is that digital is a lot cheaper to do; the typical LP mastering time is $500-$600/hour; digital mastering is no-where near that.

The mistake you seem to be making is conflating personal anecdote with the medium itself. They are not the same.

What are the specified maximum dynamic range limits for Westerex 3d cutter head?

Why not provide some measurements, the playback equipment, the room?

Without data, the " I stand behind my comment that I've yet to hear a CD that has bass better than the LP" might as well be followed by a Harumph, Harumph :p

- Rich
 

Yuhasz01

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
106
Likes
60
I'm a member of a couple of reddit audiophile threads where people post pictures of their rigs and most of the time they include turntables and every time I see one my mind is blown because I outgrew vinyl only a few years after buying my first CD player in the '80's. Back then I had a tape deck, a turntable and a CD player but once I heard digital I knew they was no going back yet people en mass are and I find it baffling given all the benefits of youtube. The first and most obvious benefit is, it's free. Secondly, youtube has an almost endless catalog of music, with the original music video, the karaoke versions of songs, live versions and videos that include the lyrics. Thirdly, the convenience of simply clicking my mouse a few times and opening up a world of music is pretty alluring. I always wondered about the sound quality though so I bought a CD a few years ago to compare youtube to CD and couldn't hear any difference. LP's on the other hand can only be played one at a time, require time, money and effort to obtain and play and also require money and effort to maintain and as your collection of LP's grows it obviously becomes more expensive and takes up space-something youtube doesn't yet most reddit audiophiles are flocking to them

Does the vinyl renaissance make sense to you because it sure doesn't to me
Same people who want to bring back Hulu hoops, film for photography and stick shift cars. Everything old becomes new….
 

atmasphere

Active Member
Manufacturer
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
298
Likes
418
What are the specified maximum dynamic range limits for Westerex 3d cutter head?

Why not provide some measurements, the playback equipment, the room?

Without data, the " I stand behind my comment that I've yet to hear a CD that has bass better than the LP" might as well be followed by a Harumph, Harumph :p

- Rich
The cutter amps of the Westerex 1700 mastering electronics make 125 Watts into 8 Ohms. The cutter head is about 10 Ohms and needs about 7-10 Watts maximum before you fry the hell out of it and do a lot of swearing. The idea is to not be able to overload the system and this will be so as long as you have your levels set properly to begin with. It can cut 4 mil grooves without distortion; a lot of pickups are challenged to play that back without distortion. Typically you're not cutting more than about 2 mil groove width. Some cartridges can't even do that! The real danger you have when mastering is making sure a loud passage does not overcut a prior groove which will result in distortion. That is why there is a preview head on a tape machine or some other process (we used an Arduino to read the incoming audio and generate a motion file for the lead screws that advance the cutter head- it was cheap and worked really well) to advance the cutter well enough ahead so when a loud or complex passage occurs there's enough room for the groove when its cut.

(I use a Triplanar arm which employs the hardest metal bearings made anywhere (Triplanar has a security clearance to get them), a damped arm tube and is the most adjustable tonearm made. For years I had that mounted on an Atma-Sphere 208 which is a belt drive machine that had a damped plinth machined out of 1" solid aluminum and a platter damped well enough that you could twack it with your index finger while it was playing and not hear it in the speaker. But I think the Technics SL1200G is a better machine, owing to 6 damping systems (including the platter) and the best speed stability in the business. So I'm running that with the Triplanar mounted and a different platter pad- its stock pad is so much junk IMO.)

The low frequency limit is defined by the mechanical resonance of the tonearm and cartridge. The cutter itself has no problem cutting grooves right to the LF limit of the mastering electronics. On the top end the electronics are bandwidth limited to 42KHz mostly to prevent damage to the cutter, since the RIAA pre-emphasis has a rising 6db/octave response. Just for fun I cut a 35KHz signal and played it back on my studio's older Technics SL1200 which was equipped with a Grado Gold. That machine was used to represent the 'average' playback situation. No problem playing a signal that high. You may recall the old RCA color video disks, which also used a needle in a groove. You need a bit of bandwidth to reproduce chroma information of the old analog video system; and of course the old CD4 4 channel system also relied on the fact that vinyl has very good HF bandwidth as well.

One problem in playback is the platter pad of the turntable. For it to work correctly, it has to have the same durometer as the vinyl itself so it can absorb vibration from the LP when its being played so as to prevent resonance. One clue about this is if you can hear the needle tracking the groove when the volume is all the way down then you know the platter pad isn't doing its job, which means most platter pads. You won't get the bass right if this is a problem. Its well known that if the arm isn't set up right you won't get the bass right either; the stars really have to align (let alone the cartridge; you have to be careful and do proper measurements- there's an app for that...). That is really the strength of digital- you don't have all the crazy setup issues and misinformation around it like exists with analog!
 

Don Hills

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
699
Likes
441
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
The cutter amps of the Westerex 1700 mastering electronics make 125 Watts into 8 Ohms. The cutter head is about 10 Ohms and needs about 7-10 Watts maximum before you fry the hell out of it and do a lot of swearing. The idea is to not be able to overload the system and this will be so as long as you have your levels set properly to begin with.

I believe the technical reason for the high power amps is because the cutter head (like a tape record head) is current driven. Like a tape head, its impedance rises as the frequency increases. The amplifier has to have enough output voltage swing to drive enough current through the head at high frequencies.
Edit: Ooops, said this back in May. Memory is the second thing to go with age... I forget what the first thing was.

You may recall the old RCA color video disks, which also used a needle in a groove. You need a bit of bandwidth to reproduce chroma information of the old analog video system; and of course the old CD4 4 channel system also relied on the fact that vinyl has very good HF bandwidth as well. ...

There was a groove, but the rest was totally unlike an audio disk setup. The groove contained a vertically cut sawtooth pattern and the pickup stylus tip was designed to run up the ramp of the sawtooth and drop off the top. The movement was picked up by a piezoelectric transducer and the result was an FM modulated signal. Freeze frame was accomplished by stopping the tracking motor, forcing the stylus to jump over the wall to the previous groove once per revolution.

One of the other systems used a pattern of pits and lands like a videodisc, but the pickup slid over the surface. It had electrodes plated on its sides which sensed the difference in capacitance between pit and land.

Yeah, more than you ever needed to know... :)
 
Last edited:

atmasphere

Active Member
Manufacturer
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
298
Likes
418
I believe the technical reason for the high power amps is because the cutter head (like a tape record head) is current driven. Like a tape head, its impedance rises as the frequency increases. The amplifier has to have enough output voltage swing to drive enough current through the head at high frequencies.
Edit: Ooops, said this back in May. Memory is the second thing to go with age... I forget what the first thing was.



There was a groove, but the rest was totally unlike an audio disk setup. The groove contained a vertically cut sawtooth pattern and the pickup stylus tip was designed to run up the ramp of the sawtooth and drop off the top. The movement was picked up by a piezoelectric transducer and the result was an FM modulated signal. Freeze frame was accomplished by stopping the tracking motor, forcing the stylus to jump over the wall to the previous groove once per revolution.

One of the other systems used a pattern of pits and lands like a videodisc, but the pickup slid over the surface. It had electrodes plated on its sides which sensed the difference in capacitance between pit and land.

Yeah, more than you ever needed to know... :)
The old RCA disks were also subject to all the issues of the surface -scratches and like- glad they're gone.

The impedance curve of the cutter isn't all that simple (although its flatter than some speakers I've seen; its principle of operation is the same, using low power voice coils) so you need an amplifier that can behave as a voltage source. Like any transducer the impedance does rise somewhat with frequency, but its affected by the suspension as well. For this reason a feedback winding is provided, which also allows the operator to monitor the cut in real time. A feedback amplifier is part of the 1700 electronics and insures that there is 30dB of feedback at all frequencies. This helps insure that distortion does not rise with frequency; pretty forward thinking of Western Electric (Westerex is one of their brands) at the time. The original amplifier design was also pretty advanced for a design from the 1960s, all-silicon, employing a Darlington output section and differential input. Because of the low power requirement of the cutter, the actual overall distortion of the cut groove is actually quite low. The cutter amps are about 0.2% THD at full power, but the the cutter would be damaged long before that since it can barely handle 10 Watts. The amps were pretty unstable and known for that; being a bit daring design for the time. I was always holding my breath every time I turned the system on. It was equipped with adjustable current limiting as a protection circuit, but IME foolhardy to rely on it.

Before I sold the system I was thinking of replacing the amps with class D modules; our class D module would run easily in that environment and a nice feature of self-oscillating class D amplifiers is extreme stability, plus the distortion would be lowered as well as the noise, although to their credit, the Westerex amps were very low noise.
 

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,352
Likes
1,357
Location
Zagreb
I often profess this point of view that people opt for records and turntables completely emotionally, completely libido driven, as a lifestyle choice, not audio source choice. After that choice has been made, comes the effort at rationalization. Very few people are big enough to admit their totally irrational and libido driven decisions let alone marketing driven decisions, so they start the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Maybe it's an illusion coming from the fact that I've been following the development of such arguments from the 90' so I just think that there was a chronological order to them, like, first came the "digital=harsh/analogue=natural sound" argument, then the warmth, the "as artist intended" the "band in your living room" and so on.

Very often I also see this niche reluctantly admitting to shortcomings, sometimes without words, all of a sudden you just see a meter long tone arm mounted on an adjoining stand to counter tracking error, producers not putting the heavy bass song for the last one on the record etc.

Sometimes I have a feeling that, no matter how much vinyl-folks hate it when you face them with some facts, they actually use what you say for improvements. Objectivists, who have no problems seeing records for what they are and have no need to spread myths about warmth, natural sound or such, often are the source of improvements for the record lovers.

For the longest time, objecitivsts used to warn about the BS of record weights. It's two fold; it can flatten only one side and it's heavy and shouldn't be added as extra weight on your turntable. Objectivists used to say, use a light clamp only where needed - if the middle is bulging you can flatten it with a clamp. But if the outer rim is rising, clamp (nor weight) is no good.

So now we have the next step in evolution of the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Meet the outer clamp:
outer-clamp-1.jpg

And yes, you put it after you place a record on the TT and it lowers the rising outer rim of the record. Sure why not. I don't think you'll have any problems guessing my question; why not simply use a well produced CD as a source. Keep investing large sums of money to make it less like records and closer to CD... Just use CD.

Mind you, a lot of these shortcomings are what vinyl-heads claim they like about the olden technology. OK, why eradicate them? Fight the WOW and flutter, fight tracking error, fight the lack of range, fight the pops and crackle, fight it, fight it, fight it... The answer is at hand. You could even keep the records to look at the sleeve and just play a CD, right?

So far, the listening room looks like a steam-punk altar. You have your weight, you have the outer clamp, you have your meter long tone arm, double decoupling decks, removed belt driving motors, standalone TT stand (heavier and more expensive than the entire system), tube phono pre-amp more expensive than the TT stand...

I mean... What I'm asking is do you:
a) like it for what it is?
b) want to make it sound like CD and just be able to still say it's a record?
c) pretend you like and enjoy the shortcomings just as long as they don't get solved and then get the solution just so that you can keep saying you're a vinyl person?
 

aslan7

Active Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
Messages
179
Likes
177
It’s all about nostalgia and ritual; the LP enthusiasts enjoy all the needles, cartridges, tone arms, etc., not to mention the constant tweaking of the turntables and associated tube rolling. It’s their prerogative.
 

dlaloum

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
1,838
Likes
1,278
I often profess this point of view that people opt for records and turntables completely emotionally, completely libido driven, as a lifestyle choice, not audio source choice. After that choice has been made, comes the effort at rationalization. Very few people are big enough to admit their totally irrational and libido driven decisions let alone marketing driven decisions, so they start the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Maybe it's an illusion coming from the fact that I've been following the development of such arguments from the 90' so I just think that there was a chronological order to them, like, first came the "digital=harsh/analogue=natural sound" argument, then the warmth, the "as artist intended" the "band in your living room" and so on.

Very often I also see this niche reluctantly admitting to shortcomings, sometimes without words, all of a sudden you just see a meter long tone arm mounted on an adjoining stand to counter tracking error, producers not putting the heavy bass song for the last one on the record etc.

Sometimes I have a feeling that, no matter how much vinyl-folks hate it when you face them with some facts, they actually use what you say for improvements. Objectivists, who have no problems seeing records for what they are and have no need to spread myths about warmth, natural sound or such, often are the source of improvements for the record lovers.

For the longest time, objecitivsts used to warn about the BS of record weights. It's two fold; it can flatten only one side and it's heavy and shouldn't be added as extra weight on your turntable. Objectivists used to say, use a light clamp only where needed - if the middle is bulging you can flatten it with a clamp. But if the outer rim is rising, clamp (nor weight) is no good.

So now we have the next step in evolution of the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Meet the outer clamp:
View attachment 255790

And yes, you put it after you place a record on the TT and it lowers the rising outer rim of the record. Sure why not. I don't think you'll have any problems guessing my question; why not simply use a well produced CD as a source. Keep investing large sums of money to make it less like records and closer to CD... Just use CD.

Mind you, a lot of these shortcomings are what vinyl-heads claim they like about the olden technology. OK, why eradicate them? Fight the WOW and flutter, fight tracking error, fight the lack of range, fight the pops and crackle, fight it, fight it, fight it... The answer is at hand. You could even keep the records to look at the sleeve and just play a CD, right?

So far, the listening room looks like a steam-punk altar. You have your weight, you have the outer clamp, you have your meter long tone arm, double decoupling decks, removed belt driving motors, standalone TT stand (heavier and more expensive than the entire system), tube phono pre-amp more expensive than the TT stand...

I mean... What I'm asking is do you:
a) like it for what it is?
b) want to make it sound like CD and just be able to still say it's a record?
c) pretend you like and enjoy the shortcomings just as long as they don't get solved and then get the solution just so that you can keep saying you're a vinyl person?
Outer clamps have been around for years - fit/compatibility is highly dependent on individual TT's

Very valuable for getting the best archival recording off older warped records

additional weight should always be approached with caution on TT's as the Platter bearing system would not have been engineered in many cases for the additional weight - hence clamps rather than weights...

Additional weight on the outside rim, can increase the inertia of the platter - but the results are heavily dependent on a whole bunch of factors, including bearings, and speed control systems.
 

tonycollinet

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
3,666
Likes
5,695
Location
UK/Cheshire
I often profess this point of view that people opt for records and turntables completely emotionally, completely libido driven, as a lifestyle choice, not audio source choice. After that choice has been made, comes the effort at rationalization. Very few people are big enough to admit their totally irrational and libido driven decisions let alone marketing driven decisions, so they start the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Maybe it's an illusion coming from the fact that I've been following the development of such arguments from the 90' so I just think that there was a chronological order to them, like, first came the "digital=harsh/analogue=natural sound" argument, then the warmth, the "as artist intended" the "band in your living room" and so on.

Very often I also see this niche reluctantly admitting to shortcomings, sometimes without words, all of a sudden you just see a meter long tone arm mounted on an adjoining stand to counter tracking error, producers not putting the heavy bass song for the last one on the record etc.

Sometimes I have a feeling that, no matter how much vinyl-folks hate it when you face them with some facts, they actually use what you say for improvements. Objectivists, who have no problems seeing records for what they are and have no need to spread myths about warmth, natural sound or such, often are the source of improvements for the record lovers.

For the longest time, objecitivsts used to warn about the BS of record weights. It's two fold; it can flatten only one side and it's heavy and shouldn't be added as extra weight on your turntable. Objectivists used to say, use a light clamp only where needed - if the middle is bulging you can flatten it with a clamp. But if the outer rim is rising, clamp (nor weight) is no good.

So now we have the next step in evolution of the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Meet the outer clamp:
View attachment 255790

And yes, you put it after you place a record on the TT and it lowers the rising outer rim of the record. Sure why not. I don't think you'll have any problems guessing my question; why not simply use a well produced CD as a source. Keep investing large sums of money to make it less like records and closer to CD... Just use CD.

Mind you, a lot of these shortcomings are what vinyl-heads claim they like about the olden technology. OK, why eradicate them? Fight the WOW and flutter, fight tracking error, fight the lack of range, fight the pops and crackle, fight it, fight it, fight it... The answer is at hand. You could even keep the records to look at the sleeve and just play a CD, right?

So far, the listening room looks like a steam-punk altar. You have your weight, you have the outer clamp, you have your meter long tone arm, double decoupling decks, removed belt driving motors, standalone TT stand (heavier and more expensive than the entire system), tube phono pre-amp more expensive than the TT stand...

I mean... What I'm asking is do you:
a) like it for what it is?
b) want to make it sound like CD and just be able to still say it's a record?
c) pretend you like and enjoy the shortcomings just as long as they don't get solved and then get the solution just so that you can keep saying you're a vinyl person?
What a wall of strawmen - at least if you are attempting to describe most of the people here who listen to vinyl.
 

HonestSonics

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Messages
9
Likes
9
A rock dragged through plastic somehow creating full, detailed, stereo sound will never not be fascinating to me. Streaming is useful but I find it personally quite overwhelming having almost the entirety of recorded music at my fingertips, it's difficult to settle into any one song, album or artist for long. For others that may not be a problem, and I am very happy for you.
Also, these days you buy a record and get a lossless download code thrown in anyway!
 

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,352
Likes
1,357
Location
Zagreb
A rock dragged through plastic somehow creating full, detailed, stereo sound will never not be fascinating to me. Streaming is useful but I find it personally quite overwhelming having almost the entirety of recorded music at my fingertips, it's difficult to settle into any one song, album or artist for long. For others that may not be a problem, and I am very happy for you.
Also, these days you buy a record and get a lossless download code thrown in anyway!
Which comes handy if you're looking for good sound AND you want to look at pretty pics. :)
 

Hipster Doofus

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
137
Likes
165
I often profess this point of view that people opt for records and turntables completely emotionally, completely libido driven, as a lifestyle choice, not audio source choice. After that choice has been made, comes the effort at rationalization. Very few people are big enough to admit their totally irrational and libido driven decisions let alone marketing driven decisions, so they start the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Maybe it's an illusion coming from the fact that I've been following the development of such arguments from the 90' so I just think that there was a chronological order to them, like, first came the "digital=harsh/analogue=natural sound" argument, then the warmth, the "as artist intended" the "band in your living room" and so on.

Very often I also see this niche reluctantly admitting to shortcomings, sometimes without words, all of a sudden you just see a meter long tone arm mounted on an adjoining stand to counter tracking error, producers not putting the heavy bass song for the last one on the record etc.

Sometimes I have a feeling that, no matter how much vinyl-folks hate it when you face them with some facts, they actually use what you say for improvements. Objectivists, who have no problems seeing records for what they are and have no need to spread myths about warmth, natural sound or such, often are the source of improvements for the record lovers.

For the longest time, objecitivsts used to warn about the BS of record weights. It's two fold; it can flatten only one side and it's heavy and shouldn't be added as extra weight on your turntable. Objectivists used to say, use a light clamp only where needed - if the middle is bulging you can flatten it with a clamp. But if the outer rim is rising, clamp (nor weight) is no good.

So now we have the next step in evolution of the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Meet the outer clamp:
View attachment 255790

And yes, you put it after you place a record on the TT and it lowers the rising outer rim of the record. Sure why not. I don't think you'll have any problems guessing my question; why not simply use a well produced CD as a source. Keep investing large sums of money to make it less like records and closer to CD... Just use CD.

Mind you, a lot of these shortcomings are what vinyl-heads claim they like about the olden technology. OK, why eradicate them? Fight the WOW and flutter, fight tracking error, fight the lack of range, fight the pops and crackle, fight it, fight it, fight it... The answer is at hand. You could even keep the records to look at the sleeve and just play a CD, right?

So far, the listening room looks like a steam-punk altar. You have your weight, you have the outer clamp, you have your meter long tone arm, double decoupling decks, removed belt driving motors, standalone TT stand (heavier and more expensive than the entire system), tube phono pre-amp more expensive than the TT stand...

I mean... What I'm asking is do you:
a) like it for what it is?
b) want to make it sound like CD and just be able to still say it's a record?
c) pretend you like and enjoy the shortcomings just as long as they don't get solved and then get the solution just so that you can keep saying you're a vinyl person?
I do not mean to offen anyones religious beliefs…but your tale reminds me of a sermon I once heard. A member of the congregation was going to plant a garden and trust God to help him over the summer. This take place in Vermont, so a fair chance of fair results…as it turns out the summer was very dry and the church member began to pray for Gods help in providing rain. As time went on it remained dry and the gardener wondered why his faith and prayers were not enough. But the gardener was up for the test of his faith, and was counting on it to pull him through. After all he had proclaimed his faith to the whole congregation and could not back down now…. A few weeks went by and it seemed the garden was doing well….when asked “How So”, the man answered that God had answered his prayers, he told me I had a garden hose.
 

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
560
Likes
1,012
Location
Northeastern Ohio, USA, in the woods
I consider the present fetish for vinyl to have the same character as what we might call 'musical masturbation' -- a mechanical substitute for real copulation by the musically incapable.

[That should stir up some hand-held vitriol from those who may practice it.] ;)
 

JP

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
1,222
Likes
1,481
Location
Brookfield, CT
I often profess this point of view that people opt for records and turntables completely emotionally, completely libido driven, as a lifestyle choice, not audio source choice.

For me it was 100% audio source choice due to misinformation and being human. I’m not remotely unique in that regard.
 

IPunchCholla

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
519
Likes
608
I often profess this point of view that people opt for records and turntables completely emotionally, completely libido driven, as a lifestyle choice, not audio source choice. After that choice has been made, comes the effort at rationalization. Very few people are big enough to admit their totally irrational and libido driven decisions let alone marketing driven decisions, so they start the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Maybe it's an illusion coming from the fact that I've been following the development of such arguments from the 90' so I just think that there was a chronological order to them, like, first came the "digital=harsh/analogue=natural sound" argument, then the warmth, the "as artist intended" the "band in your living room" and so on.

Very often I also see this niche reluctantly admitting to shortcomings, sometimes without words, all of a sudden you just see a meter long tone arm mounted on an adjoining stand to counter tracking error, producers not putting the heavy bass song for the last one on the record etc.

Sometimes I have a feeling that, no matter how much vinyl-folks hate it when you face them with some facts, they actually use what you say for improvements. Objectivists, who have no problems seeing records for what they are and have no need to spread myths about warmth, natural sound or such, often are the source of improvements for the record lovers.

For the longest time, objecitivsts used to warn about the BS of record weights. It's two fold; it can flatten only one side and it's heavy and shouldn't be added as extra weight on your turntable. Objectivists used to say, use a light clamp only where needed - if the middle is bulging you can flatten it with a clamp. But if the outer rim is rising, clamp (nor weight) is no good.

So now we have the next step in evolution of the "endlessly creative "argument" factory". Meet the outer clamp:
View attachment 255790

And yes, you put it after you place a record on the TT and it lowers the rising outer rim of the record. Sure why not. I don't think you'll have any problems guessing my question; why not simply use a well produced CD as a source. Keep investing large sums of money to make it less like records and closer to CD... Just use CD.

Mind you, a lot of these shortcomings are what vinyl-heads claim they like about the olden technology. OK, why eradicate them? Fight the WOW and flutter, fight tracking error, fight the lack of range, fight the pops and crackle, fight it, fight it, fight it... The answer is at hand. You could even keep the records to look at the sleeve and just play a CD, right?

So far, the listening room looks like a steam-punk altar. You have your weight, you have the outer clamp, you have your meter long tone arm, double decoupling decks, removed belt driving motors, standalone TT stand (heavier and more expensive than the entire system), tube phono pre-amp more expensive than the TT stand...

I mean... What I'm asking is do you:
a) like it for what it is?
b) want to make it sound like CD and just be able to still say it's a record?
c) pretend you like and enjoy the shortcomings just as long as they don't get solved and then get the solution just so that you can keep saying you're a vinyl person?
I absolutely listen to vinyl for the nostalgia. I run it through a DAW to get rid of the pops and clicks (but not the noise) and to take advantage of my room correction.
I also listen to it because it forces a certain type of engagement. I’m too lazy to play 45s, so it is always about which 20-25 minute collection of music do I want to listen to. I can do that with streaming (which is how I listen most of the time), but I tend not to, particularly as I listen to “radio stations” and skip songs. Because I can.
I’m a photography professor. I shot 4x5 film for years and years. When digital got good/affordable enough I got a good DSLR. I went from shooting 300-400 images a year to shooting 10k+. Because I could. Didn’t make any more “good images” though. I had to go back to shooting my DSLR like it was a 4x5, in order to make the work I wanted. Digital could totally do it, and better, but the default of the technology points in other directions.
As for vinyl being musical masturbation. I’m cool with that. I like to masturbate. I also like to have sex with other people. Pretty sure Kinsey eat al. found almost everybody does both, but they lie about it.
 
Top Bottom