A lot of recorded music only exists as recorded music and never was a "live experience". I am not going to argue that digital doesn't have the potential to sound better but there is a lot of historical recorded music that was originally released on vinyl where the compromised vinyl is the best version that exists. This is in addition to a lot of historical music that only exists on vinyl or only existed on vinyl before being transferred to digital. Sound quality is not the end all or be all for this hobby as not all good music is well recorded. This is just as true today as it was 60 years ago.
-
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?
- Thread starter carewser
- Start date
Galliardist
Major Contributor
And apart from the fact that digital tools can be used to alleviate some faults in vinyl playback… who exactly is disputing this?
Most of the actual quoted examples through this thread are good digital recordings transferred to vinyl.
Last edited:
Was that ever "a Thing"
, must have missed that.
This is one of the most prevalent argument I have heard. And there is absolutely zero merit to it.
Digitize it and be done.
All of that TT, phono cartridge, phono stage, record cleaning fuss is the fuss that brings vinyl lovers joy. . .that is the x factor. . . and that is ok. That is the x factor that I was talking about, no beef with that here.
This, now 350 pages, of jibberish jabberish (like this whole historical argument) when we all know deep down, vinyl is just the x factor, is what makes me eye roll.
A.K.A. the x factor and not the sound quality. We all already know that is the real reason for vinyl, hence my eye roll for 350 and counting pages worth of discussion about something most people already know.
*Eye roll*
Not going to be baited in to further argue this, like I was about "it's not even a comparison."
You started this argument out by saying that since vinyl was 150 years old and that there are higher performance and cheaper alternative it was somehow irrelevant and analogous to a typewriter. My point is that there are a lot of obsolete technologies (like typewriters even) that are much older than 150 years that people enjoy either on their own or as part of creating art or both and I mentioned musical instruments as an example.
I don't seen anything wrong with this example but you are dismissive without really giving a reason why and keep going back to people claiming "vinyl sounds better" as an excuse to be dismissive which doesn't make sense to me as if you read through the thread few if any, including me, claim "better" sound. Some claim a "preference" for the sound which seems to trigger some people which I don't understand. As far as being Hi-Fi or not I think if you look at things objectively and subjectively the quality of "Hi-Fi" recordings has not advanced as much as you would think over the last 60 years for a variety reasons which leaves the sound quality of LP's, even some 60 years old, competitive with contemporary recordings. This to me is the crazy and frustrating part of the story but it is fascinating how this hobby has evolved the way it has including the "vinyl renaissance".
add also the tuba (in fact a Latin loan word), which was used to relay the commander's marching orders to the Roman army. It looked a bit more like a thinner sousaphone, but similar deep burping sound.
Alright, I took the damn bait.
This is a hideous argument here. A musical instrument in itself, consisted of (1) the primitive technology of physics of sound waves and (2) the ability to produce sound/music to a specific taste, typically what is in fashion of that time and place.
For example, sure we know the basic physical characteristics when we pluck a long string versus a short string (that is the technology piece), but why was it decided how long the string should be relative to everything else of that instrument? It's based on what the sound makes that is in fashioned in that time of that place (that is the taste piece). For instance, why is a string instrument in, say China in 823AD, different than a string instrument in Mesopotamia in 1485BC? The physics of a string pluck is the same, hasn't changed.
If we go back to (1) the technology part of an instrument, any modern day instrument today, say drums, has evolved over time; today's drum is very different from the drums used a thousand years ago, same thing with all of the instruments you have brought forth, we no longer use animal skins now do we? And please do not come back with a counter argument stating some drums still do use animal skin, now you're just arguing to argue.
An instrument is simply a tool based on the application of science (aka technology) that fits the taste/fashion of the musician of that time and place to let the musician channel their art. Similar to an athlete using a ball to play sports, the ball used is dependent on what is in fashion today (just like the instruments used by musician is what is in fashion today and according to their part of the world). Sure some instruments may come back to fashion if enough hippies pushes for it, just some some balls of ancient sports can come back to life.
A vinyl is a medium to store music, such goal is to preserved the music, aka the ability for sound reproduction. Yes, there are other x factors to vinyl as many of you have passionately and vocally expressed, no one is beefing with that x factor. But we are talking about the preservation and recording of the music and in today's technology (specific to HiFi sound reproduction, some people do like the poor dynamic range, the cracks and pops of vinyl) it is simply, indisputably, scientifically INFERIOR.
And I go back to my challenge: Blind ABX between vinyl vs. digital with a vinyl sound emulation filter. Who can pass this blind ABX?
Anton D
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2021
- Messages
- 863
- Likes
- 994
At this point, Cleansound is just showing full troll blossom. You are doomed to fail, he has learned the standard trope words and is one of those types.Ok, thanks.
"Inferior" in terms of technical accuracy? Sure. "Inferior" in terms of producing a satisfying musical experience? Not always, not to everyone. That is what most people want out of their sound system right? A compelling musical experience.
If you get a more compelling overall experience playing a digital source, and someone else gets a more compelling overall listening experience from vinyl, then it makes no sense to just dismiss the older technology just because you prefer the newer one.
And a sound system is (usually) a tool for a listener to have a compelling musical experience.
If an older tool does that for a significant number of people, then the newer one is not automatically superior in that important respect. And it's worth discussing.
Of course there is. Musicians discuss things in terms of old technology all the time. Even with relatively modern gear people distinguish between new and old guitars, old keyboards, old effects, etc. Someone advocating for a new technology can talk about all the technical superiority of a new sample-based system vs an old mellotron.
But a musician may still prefer the sound of the old mellotron for a track, so it's still of value.
Likewise, you can talk about the technical advantages of a digital source, but a record enthusiast may prefer the sound and experience from a vinyl record, so it's still of value despite being an old technology.
It really isn't a different scenario: in either case one can find pleasure from old or new technology. And thinking "but digital is JUST SUPERIOR" is similar to someone trying to argue but the LATEST KEYBOARD SAMPLER IS JUST SUPERIOR. That's just not how value works in EITHER case.
I think that covers the rest of the points.
So I think Levimax's reply (and mine) are reasonable responses, which anticipated your elaboration.
Actually, it's just that type of misleading simplification that is one reason why the thread is still going.
No problem. But, make sure you don't stumble on to the ASR subforum for:
Turntables, Phono Amplifier, Cartridges
You'll have a heart attack due to Amir devoting all that storage space to this old technology
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2022
- Messages
- 1,116
- Likes
- 1,400
Wouldn’t that be hipsters? Or, you know, just people?
Whatever it is.
I'm just happy I never got rid of my baggy jeans from college as they are now coming back to fashion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2022
- Messages
- 1,116
- Likes
- 1,400
Well everything I know about musical instrument revival comes from the Ladykillers remake. So it would be casino heisters pretending to be academics.
I'm not even going to.
Robin L
Master Contributor
But of course you are - you're displaying disapproval of those who enjoy something you don't approve of. You're a killjoy, plain and simple. There's something about LPs and the sounds they make that turn some people on. And you don't like that. Anybody who points out the illogical nature of your arguments gets your disapproval even if they are fundamentally right. Right now, you're trolling.I'm not even going to.
Well then, carry on to page 351.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,337
- Likes
- 12,303
That can be part of it.
I'm reasoning from first principles: why are we engaged in this hobby? If anyone is talking about accuracy that surely is a means to an end, not the end itself. We are looking to be engaged in the listening experience, and since it's normally music, engaged in a compelling musical listening experience.
That can be something that comes from the latest most accurate equipment, or for another person the totality of the vinyl experience when they find themselves most engaged listening that way. And vinyl can produce very impressive sound quality. I personally often prefer the vinyl sound to the digital in my set up, and combining that with the other physical/aesthetic aspects, it can sometimes be more compelling to me.
"Nostalgia" simply doesn't cover why many people are enthusiastic about records. The many reasons have been covered in the thread. So no we don't all know "deep down" that your particular take is true.
As for sound quality being a factor, that's more complicated. There's the issue of "are many motivated by their perception of sound quality, that is a preference for what THEY perceive to be the sound of records ? Clearly: yes. The particular sound of records being preferable is referenced all the time in articles, interviews with record enthusiasts, on forums etc. That doesn't mean of course records "sound better" but the point is that perceptions about sound quality ARE a major player for plenty of record buyers. So it is an issue.
As I've written before, I know that digital is technically superior apples to apples, but I have often preferred the sound of vinyl - sometimes it does sound more "real" to me. So sound quality is a factor for why I'm in to vinyl. Purely subjective impressions.
But back to the point, why are we still talking about such an old playback technology? Because it still provides a compelling listening/musical experience, even for many audiophiles who care about sound quality. You don't need The Very Best Most Accurate playback to still have very high sound quality - quality enough to thrill many listeners, combined with the other tactile and conceptual aspects that add to the experience.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,337
- Likes
- 12,303
So if you process audio output from a digital source until people can't tell the difference between that and a vinyl source, people who like vinyl sonics will probably like that too (ignoring non-sonic factors). While that's been discussed upthread, I don't see how the result would discredit anyone who likes the somewhat different sonics of vinyl-sourced playback?
Similar threads
