Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[krabapple]

I like the aroma of hot, freshly laid-down asphalt. Does that count?

 

[krabapple]

Is my HD TV no longer HD because 4K and 8K are now available?

Your HDTV was HD because it was 720/1080 versus 480 standard definition. That was a huge leap in quality, as we all saw. 4K,8K, not so much.

CD represented a similar leap above LP. 'High fidelity' was usually a reference to gear, anyway, rather than records.

 

[Audiofire]

The difference from 4K or 8K is invisible at the viewing distance often used, but vinyl often sounds worse (hence vinyl is not real hi-fi). The main feature of vinyl is the inconvenience and expense for those who have the need. It's fine, since problem solving is a large amount of what makes life seem to have meaning.

 

[AdamG]

So who have we lost from the thread? For a moment it looked like @CleanSound was benched, but @AdamG's post advising same is gone now (unless I'm misremembering and it was @BDWoody). Can I hold the (slim) hope that the former will explain the point of their ABX challenge in response to my query? And/or have we lost @Anton D's sharp ripostes to @Newman's energetic dirge?

Yes, they are still here.

 

[Axo1989]

Your HDTV was HD because it was 720/1080 versus 480 standard definition. That was a huge leap in quality, as we all saw. 4K,8K, not so much.

CD represented a similar leap above LP. 'High fidelity' was usually a reference to gear, anyway, rather than records.

The difference from 4K or 8K is invisible at the viewing distance often used, but vinyl often sounds worse (hence vinyl is not real hi-fi). The main feature of vinyl is the inconvenience and expense for those who have the need. It's fine, since problem solving is a large amount of what makes life seem to have meaning.

Your perceptions may differ but SD:HD::LP:CD seems dubious to me in anything more than a general sense. In my limited experience LPs sound a lot better vs CD than SD content looks compared to HD (absent really good upscaling maybe).

 

[krabapple]

Your perceptions may differ but SD:HD::LP:CD seems dubious to me in anything more than a general sense. In my limited experience LPs sound a lot better vs CD than SD content looks compared to HD (absent really good upscaling maybe).

May I presume you are talking about the best possible presentation of LP -- for starters: no pops, tick, low hiss, no warp, 'audiophile' pressing quality, no mistracking -- rather than the one most people had experienced at the dawn of digital media?

 

[drmevo]

Your HDTV was HD because it was 720/1080 versus 480 standard definition. That was a huge leap in quality, as we all saw. 4K,8K, not so much.

CD represented a similar leap above LP. 'High fidelity' was usually a reference to gear, anyway, rather than records.

And many turntables from the 50's and onward started to be called hi-fi because they were much higher fidelity than earlier playback devices. A microgroove LP can sound miles better than the best AM radio or older 78s. I would argue, a clean, high-quality LP is much closer to digital than those earlier sources are to LP.

So the question remains, is it still an HDTV or isn't it (especially 720P which absolutely does look noticeably worse than 4K/8K)?

Can mp3 playback be hi-fi? Lossy streaming? Or is only hi-res audio hi-fi now, since, you know, it's the highest?

The difference from 4K or 8K is invisible at the viewing distance often used, but vinyl often sounds worse (hence vinyl is not real hi-fi).

That's often not the case with larger TVs. Desktop/Laptop screens as well - there is a pretty significant difference between a 1080P and QHD or UDH+ screen. Or, forget the resolution and just say old, early 2000's panel vs. 2024. There is definitely a difference.

The main feature of vinyl is the inconvenience and expense for those who have the need.

Wow, never heard that one before.

It's fine, since problem solving is a large amount of what makes life seem to have meaning.

I do agree with this though - I enjoy having some stake in the quality of sound produced by my system. It's a hobby in and of itself, just like collecting records can be.

 

[Newman]

... @CleanSound ...Can I hold the (slim) hope that the former will explain the point of their ABX challenge in response to my query?

No, he has gone from the thread, voluntarily. Bullied into leaving by inappropriate name-calling. None of which has been retracted. Some people should be ashamed of themselves. I bet they aren't.

 

[dtaylo1066]

I have 200 albums from the 70s and 80s. I bought a TT to give them a spin. They sound OK, certainly not as good as my digital. I always hated the clicks and pops. For 30 years of my life there was nothing but vinyl.

Why did martinis come back? Well, they don't taste half bad, someone began to market them, and folks realized an old but new way to get a buzz. And of course there are martini purists.

Have a drink and don't worry about it. No one is forcing you to buy a martini or a turn table.

I think CD players are starting to make a comeback!

People like hardware. It is tangible and tactile. For some folks streaming is bringing songs in from the ether.

 

[MattHooper]

No, he has gone from the thread, voluntarily. Bullied into leaving by inappropriate name-calling. None of which has been retracted. Some people should be ashamed of themselves. I bet they aren't.

ahem....

 

[drmevo]

I have 200 albums from the 70s and 80s. I bought a TT to give them a spin. They sound OK, certainly not as good as my digital. I always hated the clicks and pops. For 30 years of my life there was nothing but vinyl.

I completely agree, clicks and pops suck. If I buy a new album at the store or a used album on Discogs with a high grade, and there’s more than a handful of clicks/pops, or worse, a scratch/scuff or non-fill causing a repeating tick, I just return it. Used bin records are a total crapshoot and usually not worth spending much on.

I do think that a lot of records sound much worse than they originally did due to poor handling, damage from improperly set up/damaged/dirty cartridges/stylii, etc. And that has great affected how people perceive the quality that is generally attainable from vinyl playback.

 

[JP]

ahem....

The lack of self awareness truly boggles the mind.

 

[beeface]

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

no

 

[MattHooper]

The difference from 4K or 8K is invisible at the viewing distance often used, but vinyl often sounds worse (hence vinyl is not real hi-fi).

If someone wants to characterize vinyl as "not real hi-fi" that seems reasonable, depending on what they mean by that.

For instance, if you want to have a hard bar for "high fidelity" which would be: "the highest current standard for fidelity"- digital - and anything that falls short of that is "not hi-fidelity" well that's fine as far as that goes.

I'm more interested in what someone will claim in terms of the implications for actual sound quality.

For example, take a best case scenario, an excellent record pressing from the same original digital master as the CD release (for instance one LP and CD version I have of Talk Talk's Color Of Spring). A good pressing can sound extremely close, almost identical, to the digital version. Now using the above criteria one could still just declare the digital "high fidelity" and the vinyl version "not high fidelity." But to me in actual sonic terms that's, as Axo put it, getting in to "the narcissism of small differences." I personally would still think of the vinyl version as "hi fidelity" in terms of the fact that playing it back on an excellent system (e.g. revealing/low distortion speakers) will produce tons of sonic information about the track. Certainly lots more than you would hear on a poor quality playback system with a digital source. That's why guests often are taken aback at the sound quality on my system whether I happen to play records or digital sources.

And this gets in to subjective assessment as to "how much better" the digital sounds. So taking again the previous example, if you have a super clean vinyl playback that sounds almost identical to the CD version...but now add in a few ticks and pops. What does that do to the "sound quality?" Well, if ticks and pops really bug you, really distract you, then it could be a serious downgrade in the sound quality. But if they don't, then a few ticks or pops are almost nothing consequential. Virtually all that same sonic information is right there to listen to, 99.9 percent of the sonic information coming out from the speakers is the recorded music. If you are someone who doesn't pay attention to a few ticks and pops, then you are still just hearing all that glorious sound and it would be damned weird to hear someone say "wow, now this sounds really bad!"

So we could listen to the very same comparison, both note any vinyl artifacts that occur, but still differ...reasonably...on it's impact on the sound quality in our listening experience.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone who is sensitive to vinyl artifacts. If it makes the experience suck for you, I get it. But someone else's assessment of vinyl sound quality as "low-fidelity" or "poor sound quality" based on their own sensitivity is neither here nor there for me: I just go with what I'm hearing and enjoying in my system, and in my own comparisons, mostly.

 

[Newman]

The lack of self awareness truly boggles the mind.

I could do the same, probably for both of you.

That's a weak example, BTW. If someone says they are asking a non-snarky question when they actually are, then they are lying.

OTOH calling someone a troll when they agree with the OP, that's just BS bullying.

 

[MattHooper]

no

I disagree. I think a lot of it was explained early on by some others, and in My Initial Post.

But it's an ongoing phenomenon, rich with potential discussion, hence the long thread.

 

[Anton D]

Some people will obsequiously worship the same thing said by one person, then opine on it when someone else says the exact same thing.

Kinda funny.

Like "Larry" in the movie "Wizards."

For a completely voluntary hobby, we are rife with arbiters.

 

[MattHooper]

I could do the same, probably for both of you.

That's a weak example, BTW. If someone says they are asking a non-snarky question when they actually are, then they are lying.

OTOH calling someone a troll when they agree with the OP, that's just BS bullying.

It was a glass houses situation where you'd already accused Anton of trolling.

That said, I'm sympathetic to your general point about not calling people a troll. I find that a term of last resort and think that it's best to presume someone is honestly representing their view. It's not always easy to resist and I've fallen down on this before myself (pretty sure I even used the word "troll" on this forum, despite my own disdain for the word).

But generally, I'd hope we try to refrain from such characterizations.

 

[Newman]

Some people will obsequiously worship the same thing said by one person, then opine on it when someone else says the exact same thing.

Kinda funny.

Actually I was just about to write the same thing. It would be nice if some vinyl over-defenders showed self-regulation by calling out one another when they cross the line. Instead, they give one another 'likes' for such posts, because it's more important which 'side' you are on than whether you are behaving badly. Then, when someone on the other 'side' calls out such posts, they lay into him and sneer.

Poor show all round.

As for you personally, I used to be ultra-sarcastic, like you. I used to use it as a tactical weapon, like you. But I don't anymore. Well, maybe the odd slip-up. But in the end I realised that it's a form of nastiness. Not genius wit at all. Especially online. So I now try to reserve my tendencies in that direction for face-to-face conversations, where nuance is so much easier to read. I don't think I would be doing a disservice if I suggested that you could follow suit.

cheers

 

[JP]

OTOH calling someone a troll when they agree with the OP, that's just BS bullying.

It could be, or it could be a legitimate perception. I don’t find it outlandish to see that those posts could be perceived as hostile, regardless of what perspective they were aligned with.