Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[MattHooper]

I have seen posts here that even claim LP and digital to sound so close that it doesn’t matter. So, someone found it controversial.

Not sure who you are referencing but that wouldn't represent what I've written.

One of the things I like about vinyl is that it does tend to sound different from digital, so obviously I don't find it controversial.

Of course as to "how different" vinyl will sound will vary on a case by case basis. Sometimes very different, sometimes less so, but always different to some degree. As I've said before when I've compared certain LPs that came from the same original master as the CD version, the sonic difference was surprisingly small, with each version displaying excellent sound quality. But a difference was still there, so it becomes up to an individual how much of a difference "matters" to them. The differences can still matter to me in terms of choosing which one I'll tend to play: I sometimes prefer the vinyl version even when the sound is quite close to the digital version - and sometimes I prefer the digital version.

 

[MattHooper]

Neither do I as the "vinyl sound" I hear now is very different from what I use to ear when I grew up, or even just 30 years ago a a younger man. So much has changed in my set up.
A lot a talk here from many about the "vinyl sound", really? It is as if their was that huge gulf between a digital file and the same song on a record. I guess it depends on what TT the record is played with, but, in my case, If was to listen to a song I do not know, I could not tell if it is from a digital file or a record.
If play one and the other, back and forth, trying to find cues, then yes, I will be able to tell, which is which.
I find much bigger differences between different mastering, than between digital files and records.
So remembering what it sounded like when I grew up? I wish I guess! , Is that even physiologically possible?

I can see what you mean in a sense.

Obviously, just as sound varies on digital it varies on vinyl. Some LPs can sound "obviously on vinyl" some less so. If someone played a really clean needle drop from a good sounding vinyl record I wouldn't be confident to necessarily say "Ah, I know that's vinyl!" But if someone played the digital version back to back with the vinyl I would expect it to sound at least somewhat different, and perhaps I'd then have a better chance of picking the vinyl version from the digital.

 

[Newman]

Not sure who you are referencing but that wouldn't represent what I've written.

Correct, it wasn’t you, although pinpointing who would take research. Point being that sighted listening can take those who believe it to any conclusion imaginable, even in contradiction of the most carefully worded, ‘uncontroversial’ of statements.

 

[pablolie]

In high school I used to transfer LP's to 8 tracks and I recorded right though the "track change clunk". ...

8 track is something I was never exposed to. I recall my Dad had one but can't recall we ever used it. But wow -recording to tape with compact cassette! My dad had a Tandberg and I got addicted to recording mix tapes. They were super popular with friends. *That* was fun and a labor of love - no copying files, you had to stay very involved.

But as fun as that was, I shall also never feed into the -less momentum carrying than vinyl- CC revival... :-D But for several years we all probably compiled such mood mix tapes from CD to CC... and if you knew what you were doing (in the end I owned a TEAC 8030S) the results were *not* at all offensive to the ear - I also remember that.

 

[Cote Dazur]

I can see what you mean in a sense.

Maybe a better example is when listening to those needle drop files. Digital files who are recordings of a LP playing on a TT. Beside the obvious noise defect inherent to LPs, if those noise are not present, then the so called “vinyl sound” is not obvious to me. Not saying it is not there and is not detectable when being in audiophile mode or doing AB comparison, but if listening to the music, not so much. A difference is there, yes, but, in my view, blown out of proportion, equally, by pro vinyl or pro digital. I am pro music, in my life, both can play music in a very effective way and are more alike than different.

 

[pablolie]

Maybe a better example is when listening to those needle drop files. Digital files who are recordings of a LP playing on a TT. Beside the obvious noise defect inherent to LPs, if those noise are not present, then the so called “vinyl sound” is not obvious to me. Not saying it is not there and is not detectable when being in audiophile mode or doing AB comparison, but if listening to the music, not so much. A difference is there, yes, but, in my view, blown out of proportion, equally, by pro vinyl or pro digital. I am pro music, in my life, both can play music in a very effective way and a more alike than different.

I'd venture an opinion and say it depends on the music you listen to and the recording. If music has a huge range -like several but certainly not all classical stuff-, then the needle grind definitely impacts the experience of very "pianissimo" passages. The dramatic pauses become less effective. But a lot of music doesn't have such range, especially rock, R&B and so on.

I should also note one of my fav recordings of all time -Karl Munchinger's album of Pachelbel's Canon and other pieces- has very audible tape hiss, but God, what an amazing performance and I never get tired of listening to it, absorbing every note and allowing my breathing to adjust to the cadence.

 

[Galliardist]

Hi Galliardist,

I've certainly seen Fremer trumpeting vinyl as sounding better than digital. He's obviously a vinyl evangelist.

On the other hand I remember seeing him say in a video not too long ago that he doesn't necessarily know why since, yeah, it's a kludgy system and doesn't measure as well, so could be just types of euphoric distortion but "whatever it is, it sounds better to me."

So in terms of the 'superiority of vinyl' I think he means how it sounds to him (and many others) and I'm not sure Fremer has actually made (or is currently making) the claims vinyl is technically better or more accurate. I don't think for instance he repeats certain myths like digital "missing information" etc. I could certainly be wrong of course because I haven't followed everything the guy does, I'm just thinking about that last time I saw him saying something like the above.

I think this may contain his opinion on the matter and you remember correctly about his not knowing why. His basis for working is that accurate sound is inferior and I think he argues that that is objective, that you must be able to hear the difference that way. In other words, accuracy is objectively inferior. So for him, distortion added by devices - not just vinyl (watch the video) - makes the sound more realistic. He would make an interesting case for blind testing if he ever dared to agree to it. He also claims that he correctly reviews, that is that his observations match the measured results. That could be surveyed if anyone wanted to bother.

He's on his best behaviour in this video - he certainly was not on his brief foray into this forum and you will find him to be very angry when making comments on other forums against objectivists and others.

 

[pablolie]

I think this may contain his opinion on the matter and you remember correctly about his not knowing why. His basis for working is that accurate sound is inferior and I think he argues that that is objective, that you must be able to hear the difference that way. In other words, accuracy is objectively inferior. So for him, distortion added by devices - not just vinyl (watch the video) - makes the sound more realistic. He would make an interesting case for blind testing if he ever dared to agree to it. He also claims that he correctly reviews, that is that his observations match the measured results. That could be surveyed if anyone wanted to bother.

He's on his best behaviour in this video - he certainly was not on his brief foray into this forum and you will find him to be very angry when making comments on other forums against objectivists and others.

But... "one monkey don't stop/make no show" I don't think any single person has driven the new vinyl revolution, even though they always like to see themselves as the prophets of change.

Not too long ago, I got contacted by a great friend from the old days that remembered my audio "affliction" and asked me advice about a new rig... with vinyl. I can guarantee he never followed the audio press - it was entirely social movement driven.

 

[RonSanderson]

“In high school I used to transfer LP's to 8 tracks and I recorded right though the "track change clunk". To this day (45 year later) when ever I hear those songs that used to have the "track change clunk" in the middle of them I expect to hear the "clunk" and when I don't I immediately notice it. Old audio memory is a weird thing with a lot of emotions attached to it. Another example I was playing a used record I just picked up with a friend and was frustrated because of how noisy it was and got up to change it and my friend said "No don't change it, that noise reminds me of when I was a kid listening to music with my Mon and Dad before they divorced." Stuff like this shows that your brain is what is really hearing the music and there is a lot more going on than just SINAD.”

I still hear the skip in my first Led Zeppelin album even though it’s approaching 50 years since I replaced it.

 

[MattHooper]

I think this may contain his opinion on the matter and you remember correctly about his not knowing why. His basis for working is that accurate sound is inferior and I think he argues that that is objective, that you must be able to hear the difference that way. In other words, accuracy is objectively inferior. So for him, distortion added by devices - not just vinyl (watch the video) - makes the sound more realistic. He would make an interesting case for blind testing if he ever dared to agree to it. He also claims that he correctly reviews, that is that his observations match the measured results. That could be surveyed if anyone wanted to bother.

He's on his best behaviour in this video - he certainly was not on his brief foray into this forum and you will find him to be very angry when making comments on other forums against objectivists and others.

(I've had Fremer lob insults at me in a comment section where I was voicing some skepticism about something or other. He has a quick trigger finger).

I "get" what Fremer is saying to a point in describing the difference he claimed to hear in the video above. Of course I also think he is waaaaaaaay over exaggerating (presumably for effect). And it's ludicrous to think that a CD can't reproduce the sound of a sax or whatever.

But I still get what he thinks he's hearing because I experience (to a less exaggerated degree) some similar effects. Sometimes I'll be listening to my ripped CDs and thinking it sounds so damned good, for instance some jazz. And then I'll move to playing some records with similar content and go "whoah!" and it seems even that much more "there" and "right" in some ways. Especially sax. I've compared my LP copy of Herbie Hancock's Head Hunters with my ripped CD version a number of times and it's always the same impression: the drums, percussion, and sax just seem to sound a bit more real and convincing, popping out of the mix with more of a texture, dimensionality and "air" around them. I'll choose the vinyl version over the CD these days every time if given the choice.

Of course (unlike Fremer) I don't offer my own impressions as anything but my own impressions, and not as facts anyone else must accept.

So while I think Fremer is way overboard, and all generalizations - e.g. "vinyl sounds like X and digital sounds like Y" are going to be at the mercy of many exceptions, I do get what he is trying to get across.

 

[Galliardist]

But... "one monkey don't stop/make no show" I don't think any single person has driven the new vinyl revolution, even though they always like to see themselves as the prophets of change.

Not too long ago, I got contacted by a great friend from the old days that remembered my audio "affliction" and asked me advice about a new rig... with vinyl. I can guarantee he never followed the audio press - it was entirely social movement driven.

I agree here: indeed one of the sources of the vinyl renaissance is a more general movement against certain forms of modern and digital technology in other matters. For a long time books vs ereaders was the frontline, but that need for emotional context in music has made vinyl and indeed audio a more compelling place for this battle.

But vinyl is there at almost every point of contact with audio. Go into any store and express a general interest in buying a system and tbe first thing you are told is that you need a turntable. Google, vinyl if in the first few hits (when I looked just now, general searches for related terms gets you What Hifi as the first non-sales link - that probably varies by location but you get the picture). Go buy a magazine and vinyl superiority th there, every time.

I think it’s about justifying the existence of a complex and somewhat baffling audio industry. Think about TVs as a counter example. Apart from the different screen types, the aim has been to simplify as much as possible. Lots of simple menus, auto setup of most things, standards (OK, not a single standard for any one thing but you get my point), Now consider audio. It’s a mess for most people: vinyl is the tip of the iceberg. There is no reason why excellent audio should not be ubiquitous and easy. If people still want vinyl and the other stuff, fine, but it shouldn’t be our starting point.

 

[JP]

But I still get what he thinks he's hearing because I experience (to a less exaggerated degree) some similar effects. Sometimes I'll be listening to my ripped CDs and thinking it sounds so damned good, for instance some jazz. And then I'll move to playing some records with similar content and go "whoah!" and it seems even that much more "there" and "right" in some ways. Especially sax. I've compared my LP copy of Herbie Hancock's Head Hunters with my ripped CD version a number of times and it's always the same impression: the drums, percussion, and sax just seem to sound a bit more real and convincing, popping out of the mix with more of a texture, dimensionality and "air" around them. I'll choose the vinyl version over the CD these days every time if given the choice.

A few weeks ago the SD card in the rPi in my DAC8 DSP, which is my Roon bridge for the system, soiled the bedsheets. After getting everything back up with a new one and fresh OS install, I couldn't listen to the system for two weeks. It sounded all wrong.

 

[DuncanDirkDick]

I think it’s about justifying the existence of a complex and somewhat baffling audio industry. Think about TVs as a counter example. Apart from the different screen types, the aim has been to simplify as much as possible. Lots of simple menus, auto setup of most things, standards (OK, not a single standard for any one thing but you get my point), Now consider audio. It’s a mess for most people: vinyl is the tip of the iceberg. There is no reason why excellent audio should not be ubiquitous and easy. If people still want vinyl and the other stuff, fine, but it shouldn’t be our starting point.

Replace TV with the home theater realm and the talking points are almost the same.

 

[Newman]

[Fremer interview]
I think this may contain his opinion on the matter and you remember correctly about his not knowing why. His basis for working is that accurate sound is inferior and I think he argues that that is objective, that you must be able to hear the difference that way. In other words, accuracy is objectively inferior. So for him, distortion added by devices - not just vinyl (watch the video) - makes the sound more realistic.

Actually he was being heavily sarcastic with that comment. He doesn't believe that for a second. In fact, a minute later he was saying that CD tech has all sorts of problems, audible problems.

The longer he spoke, the more obvious it became that he is so ignorant, on so many levels, on the very topic where the interviewer was lauding him as 'the expert'. Or a shockingly smooth-tongued congenital liar...but I prefer to assume that he is saying what he believes to be true. [I mean, to be that good a sociopathic liar, it would have to spill over into other displays, such as screaming vitriolic and profane abuse at anyone within range when caught out or appearing to lose a debate centred on his lies. Whoops.]

Nope. Fremer is asking us to believe something that is patently ridiculous, but he just hasn't thought it through. I mean, let's look at his tale, on the video, of his early CD experience with Avalon and the CD player the size of a refrigerator. There would have been a studio master, which made the whole production team happy, from which a vinyl master was made -- I expect with minimal alterations other than what they deemed necessary for safe playback. As for the CD master, this was before the loudness wars, and I fully expect it was actually the studio master with a straight transfer ADC. If readers want to believe that the ADC process screwed with the studio master audibly, then they are buying into the myth that early ADC and CD had audible problems. Not so. Bottom line: Fremer was listening to the studio master's sound, and his opinion was that it sounded execrable, with instruments sounding nothing like they should. And yet ...wait for it... when that same studio master was transferred to vinyl master and pressed and replayed, everything sounded like it should again. So: a process that had lost the real sound of instruments at the half way point, got it all back again at the end. Bull. Absolute bull. To believe such is to believe in magic, pure and simple.

And viewed in that light, Fremer's sneering ridicule of the 'engineers in the room' who loved the sound of the CD, makes them look like the ones with the good judgement, compared to him with his blatant bias.

cheers

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

Let me correct this. “It sounds better to you” or are you providing some hard facts (no fairy tales please) that it is universally true. Because last time I checked - I thought it sucked.

How something sounds is inherently subjective.

You can demonstrate classical is objectively better if you believe measurements of being in tune, time, harmony, etc. than punk rock, by most metrics that make music pleasing to humans, but which sounds better is a matter of taste,

So it is with gear.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

How something sounds is inherently subjective.

You can demonstrate classical is objectively better if you believe measurements of being in tune, time, harmony, etc. than punk rock, by most metrics that make music pleasing to humans, but which sounds better is a matter of taste,

So it is with gear.

I said no tales please.

Besides you are contradicting yourself. First you say certain (vinyl) gear is universally (for everyone) better. Now you basically saying what I said - it sounds good only to you as it is a matter of taste. Which is correct because I think vinyl sucks for me and it’s futile arguing about tastes. Right? Yet still you do.

 

[Galliardist]

How something sounds is inherently subjective.

You can demonstrate classical is objectively better if you believe measurements of being in tune, time, harmony, etc. than punk rock, by most metrics that make music pleasing to humans, but which sounds better is a matter of taste,

So it is with gear.

So it is absolutely not with gear. Confusing the music with th playback system leads to the major error people make that the system contributes musically.
Taking a subjective approach to the system is one thing, but skip this comparison and leave the music to the musicians.

 

[Galliardist]

Actually he was being heavily sarcastic with that comment. He doesn't believe that for a second. In fact, a minute later he was saying that CD tech has all sorts of problems, audible problems.

The longer he spoke, the more obvious it became that he is so ignorant, on so many levels, on the very topic where the interviewer was lauding him as 'the expert'. Or a shockingly smooth-tongued congenital liar...but I prefer to assume that he is saying what he believes to be true. [I mean, to be that good a sociopathic liar, it would have to spill over into other displays, such as screaming vitriolic and profane abuse at anyone within range when caught out or appearing to lose a debate centred on his lies. Whoops.]

Nope. Fremer is asking us to believe something that is patently ridiculous, but he just hasn't thought it through. I mean, let's look at his tale, on the video, of his early CD experience with Avalon and the CD player the size of a refrigerator. There would have been a studio master, which made the whole production team happy, from which a vinyl master was made -- I expect with minimal alterations other than what they deemed necessary for safe playback. As for the CD master, this was before the loudness wars, and I fully expect it was actually the studio master with a straight transfer ADC. If readers want to believe that the ADC process screwed with the studio master audibly, then they are buying into the myth that early ADC and CD had audible problems. Not so. Bottom line: Fremer was listening to the studio master's sound, and his opinion was that it sounded execrable, with instruments sounding nothing like they should. And yet ...wait for it... when that same studio master was transferred to vinyl master and pressed and replayed, everything sounded like it should again. So: a process that had lost the real sound of instruments at the half way point, got it all back again at the end. Bull. Absolute bull. To believe such is to believe in magic, pure and simple.

And viewed in that light, Fremer's sneering ridicule of the 'engineers in the room' who loved the sound of the CD, makes them look like the ones with the good judgement, compared to him with his blatant bias.

cheers

He still doesn’t “know”.

And of course it gets more ridiculous still when you consider that he wanders around hifi shows with his USB of vinyl rips, because of course a digital copy of an analogue master tape is garbage but his own digital copy of the same music offan LP is perfectly OK.

Personally, I reckon that he dug his hole 20 years ago and has kept digging till he can’t get back.

Maybe it’s all an act, and when he’s safely back in his listening room and locks the door to the world, he just tells Alexa to play some classic rock from Spotify on that fancy digital system he still feels the need to have?

 

[Spkrdctr]

(I've had Fremer lob insults at me in a comment section where I was voicing some skepticism about something or other. He has a quick trigger finger).

I "get" what Fremer is saying to a point in describing the difference he claimed to hear in the video above. Of course I also think he is waaaaaaaay over exaggerating (presumably for effect). And it's ludicrous to think that a CD can't reproduce the sound of a sax or whatever.

But I still get what he thinks he's hearing because I experience (to a less exaggerated degree) some similar effects. Sometimes I'll be listening to my ripped CDs and thinking it sounds so damned good, for instance some jazz. And then I'll move to playing some records with similar content and go "whoah!" and it seems even that much more "there" and "right" in some ways. Especially sax. I've compared my LP copy of Herbie Hancock's Head Hunters with my ripped CD version a number of times and it's always the same impression: the drums, percussion, and sax just seem to sound a bit more real and convincing, popping out of the mix with more of a texture, dimensionality and "air" around them. I'll choose the vinyl version over the CD these days every time if given the choice.

Of course (unlike Fremer) I don't offer my own impressions as anything but my own impressions, and not as facts anyone else must accept.

So while I think Fremer is way overboard, and all generalizations - e.g. "vinyl sounds like X and digital sounds like Y" are going to be at the mercy of many exceptions, I do get what he is trying to get across.

I would not take anything he says as true. I want to see a hearing test before I would even consider what he says. It is like Paul as PS Audio. I want to see his hearing test too. Old men around 70 years old thinking they have amazing hearing is crazy. I don't give them the time of day. They just don't know what they don't know. If you try to educate them they fight back with 100% accurate opinions. If they say it then it has to be true. Their 70 year old ears would never lie......

 

[Spkrdctr]

So: a process that had lost the real sound of instruments at the half way point, got it all back again at the end. Bull. Absolute bull. To believe such is to believe in magic, pure and simple.
cheers

They often talk about the magic of audio. first they tell you about the magic, then if you are in doubt the old "trust me" comes out of them. It is anti-science.