Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Anton D]

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

Oh, Newman.

There is nothing except your nastiness on this thread.

 

[beeface]

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.

sorry, I meant to say yes

 

[Audiofire]

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'm not demanding that users agree with me, however this kind of definition is always brilliant simplicity to me:
"the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original"

Definition of HIGH FIDELITY

the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Newman]

Oh, Newman.

There is nothing except your nastiness on this thread.

At least I now know that I wasn't exaggerating....

 

[MattHooper]

I'm not demanding that users agree with me, however this kind of definition is always brilliant simplicity to me:
"the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original"

Definition of HIGH FIDELITY

the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Ah, ok. That definition suggests to me you think of "fidelity" in terms of accurately reproducing the sound of, say, an instrument. Vs just "fidelity to the signal?"

So High-Fidelity to real sounds would always mean a saxophone, or voice, or piano etc would sound like the real thing. Where High Fidelity simply to the recorded signal could sound like everything under the sun. So you could have a very "bad" recording that perhaps really distorts the sound of a sax or piano, but it would be "high fidelity" insofar as it is simply accurately recreating the recording.

Are you more in the former or latter camp?

 

[Robin L]

Ah, ok. That definition suggests to me you think of "fidelity" in terms of accurately reproducing the sound of, say, an instrument. Vs just "fidelity to the signal?"

So High-Fidelity to real sounds would always mean a saxophone, or voice, or piano etc would sound like the real thing. Where High Fidelity simply to the recorded signal could sound like everything under the sun. So you could have a very "bad" recording that perhaps really distorts the sound of a sax or piano, but it would be "high fidelity" insofar as it is simply accurately recreating the recording.

Are you more in the former or latter camp?

Latter - warts and all if that be the case. Because that means that, assuming the recording is of the highest quality, it has the best chance of being properly reproduced. But that last sentence is jumbling recording and reproduction - a really bad recording, accurately reproduced, would sound really bad through really high-fidelity gear. Gear that makes bad recordings sound good isn't high-fidelity, it's more like a gauzy filter. I think that's the idea behind SETs and super-efficient speakers, at least that's what I've heard at audio shows. The gear I'm now using makes the difference between an okay and a great recording quite audible. Just last week I listened to the Szell/Cleveland recording of the Eroica (late 1950s) followed by the Vanska/Minnesota Eroica (2005) and it was clear that there was a kind of grain all over the sound of Szell's recording, while the string sound of Vanska's recording was clearly so much better.

 

[krabapple]

sorry, I meant to say yes

it's supermassive black holes, I tell you

 

[RDoc]

Ah, ok. That definition suggests to me you think of "fidelity" in terms of accurately reproducing the sound of, say, an instrument. Vs just "fidelity to the signal?"

So High-Fidelity to real sounds would always mean a saxophone, or voice, or piano etc would sound like the real thing. Where High Fidelity simply to the recorded signal could sound like everything under the sun. So you could have a very "bad" recording that perhaps really distorts the sound of a sax or piano, but it would be "high fidelity" insofar as it is simply accurately recreating the recording.

Are you more in the former or latter camp?

Well, take the case of a guitar run through a distortion system to get a recording that clearly doesn't sound like the undistorted guitar but does sound like the artist's desired output.

I'm pretty sure most people would consider a "HiFi" system that reproduced a sound closer to the distorted signal more "accurate" than one that somehow reversed the distortion system to produce the sound of an undistorted guitar.

WRT vinyl, it seems to me that while an artist might want to have the surface noise and compression effects that vinyl offers, that's pretty easily done with a decent digital medium and some signal processing. The changing noise and distortion effects of surface wear and the dynamics of the tonearm, platter, etc would be more difficult since they aren't consistent over repeated playbacks and local environmental effects.

 

[MattHooper]

But that last sentence is jumbling recording and reproduction - a really bad recording, accurately reproduced, would sound really bad through really high-fidelity gear.

Yes that's what I was getting at.

I'm pretty sure most people would consider a "HiFi" system that reproduced a sound closer to the distorted signal more "accurate" than one that somehow reversed the distortion system to produce the sound of an undistorted guitar.

In one sense, yes. In another, lots of people equate "HiFi" to "good sound."

So imagine if you had the most accurate system and wanted to demonstrate HiFi sound to someone, but you chose a recording made on an iphone of a taylor swift concert, which was thin, distorted, muffled etc. If you played that recording "accurately" through your system, you'd leave the listener scratching their head as to why anyone would care about "HiFi."

"sounds like sh*t!" would be the likely reaction.

So while I think that in mere technical terms HiFi can be defined as accuracy to whatever the signal is, in real world practical terms, what "most" people care about is "good sound." Which isn't always necessarily about "accuracy." And even those who view the term "high fidelity" as being fidelity to the signal ultimately care about it as a means to an end, not an end in of itself: HiFi carries at least the promise of "good sound," which is the main point and motivation behind it.

 

[Audiofire]

I have been disappointed by how badly produced some otherwise excellent music is, which is the same reason why distortion of the vinyl renaissance is irrational for my listening enjoyment.

 

[deweydm]

Digital can be degraded enough to sound like Vinyl records. Vinyl records can't be improved enough to have the same sound quality as digital.

The audible effects of the technical short comings of vinyl playback often seem over stated here. Source mix and mastering seem far more important to the sound than the means used to deliver it. With a reasonably clean LP and also a similar version on CD, rip of same, or stream with same initial mix and mastering, even with the necessary RIAA equalization, it can be very difficult to tell LP from CD or stream. (Though I should note I digitally process my LP playback on the fly, use a Parks Audio Puffin Phono DSP.)

Better technical specs don’t trump ****** remastering. If the mastering is similar, then, yeah, of course.

 

[IPunchCholla]

The audible effects of the technical short comings of vinyl playback often seem over stated here. Source mix and mastering seem far more important to the sound than the means used to deliver it. With a reasonably clean LP and also a similar version on CD, rip of same, or stream with same initial mix and mastering, even with the necessary RIAA equalization, it can be very difficult to tell LP from CD or stream. (Though I should note I digitally process my LP playback on the fly, use a Parks Audio Puffin Phono DSP.)

Better technical specs don’t trump ****** remastering. If the mastering is similar, then, yeah, of course.

Reminds me of the saying “the fighting is viscous because the stakes are so low” to describe niche academic arguments, in my case, archaeology.

I doubt if I could tell for certain if something was digital or vinyl if I walked into the room in the middle of a song and just had to guess. No A/B. I think this is true of most systems, not just fancy ones. 80s consumer grade TTs were and remain very good. Where I think I could most likely tell would be with music that has solo acoustic instruments playing or solo voice. And then only if the noise floor of the room was low.

 

[Robin L]

I doubt if I could tell for certain if something was digital or vinyl if I walked into the room in the middle of a song and just had to guess. No A/B. I think this is true of most systems, not just fancy ones. 80s consumer grade TTs were and remain very good. Where I think I could most likely tell would be with music that has solo acoustic instruments playing or solo voice. And then only if the noise floor of the room was low.

I'm pretty sure if the record was off-center, I'd have little trouble telling that the source was an LP. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens all too often.

 

[JP]

I'm pretty sure if the record was off-center, I'd have little trouble telling that the source was an LP. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens all too often.

With, say... Metallica?

 

[Axo1989]

Well, take the case of a guitar run through a distortion system to get a recording that clearly doesn't sound like the undistorted guitar but does sound like the artist's desired output.

I'm pretty sure most people would consider a "HiFi" system that reproduced a sound closer to the distorted signal more "accurate" than one that somehow reversed the distortion system to produce the sound of an undistorted guitar.

I this case I think the “signal” is the (recording of) guitar with effects.

WRT vinyl, it seems to me that while an artist might want to have the surface noise and compression effects that vinyl offers, that's pretty easily done with a decent digital medium and some signal processing. The changing noise and distortion effects of surface wear and the dynamics of the tonearm, platter, etc would be more difficult since they aren't consistent over repeated playbacks and local environmental effects.

There was some discussion of recordings with faux vinyl surface noise upthread (I posted a couple) along with the hall of mirrors invoked when playing those on an actual turntable …

 

[IPunchCholla]

I'm pretty sure if the record was off-center, I'd have little trouble telling that the source was an LP. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens all too often.

I have one record that is off center and warped. I mean the cartridge moves around like it’s on a kiddy roller coaster. But I still can’t hear it. I forget which album it is, but it’s something in the rock genre.

 

[MattHooper]

I have been disappointed by how badly produced some otherwise excellent music is, which is the same reason why distortion of the vinyl renaissance is irrational for my listening enjoyment.

Not sure what that last sentence means, or how it relates to the first..?

 

[IPunchCholla]

I this case I think the “signal” is the (recording of) guitar with effects.



There was some discussion of recordings with faux vinyl surface noise upthread (I posted a couple) along with the hall of mirrors invoked when playing those on an actual turntable …

I think the new The Smile album has artificial surface noise, on the vinyl version. Which is so weird because it masks the surface noise between tracks. They added information during the gaps between songs.

 

[MattHooper]

I have one record that is off center and warped. I mean the cartridge moves around like it’s on a kiddy roller coaster. But I still can’t hear it. I forget which album it is, but it’s something in the rock genre.

Yeah I have a few of those and it's kind of wild that it doesn't seem obvious in playing the record. Whereas I do have the occasional record where wowing of the sound is audible, and yes the record is off center a bit but not 'that bad.' Sort of a crap shoot.

 

[mhardy6647]

There was some discussion of recordings with faux vinyl surface noise upthread (I posted a couple) along with the hall of mirrors invoked when playing those on an actual turntable …

e.g.,

but, heck, in the 1960s those trailblazers - the Prefab Four - added faux shellac noise to an LP track... reproduced in ultra mono, too.

Those were the days...