Digital vs Vinyl

[MattHooper]

Bald isn't a hair color, though. "Convenience" (medium reliability, too) is another way of saying "eliminating everything that isn't music" for audiophiles; for other, more "plebeian" people, it can be come "convenience for the sake of convenience", bringing ghastly stuff like bluetooth pool boomboxes.

That's a disanalogy.

Bald isn't a hair color, but convenience IS a feature. That is why convenience is typically advertised as a feature.

If I choose to listen to music on vinyl, there are extra-musical considerations involved in that (though which can directly impact the experience of the music). Until music is beamed directly in to your consciousness, when you say "I just want to listen to music" what you really mean is "I want to listen to music on X technology" where I may want to listen to it on Y technology. My choice may entail my having to deal with turntables, cartridges, record buying/storing etc. Your choice may entail having to deal with iphones/laptops/computers/servers, setting up wi-fi routers or ethernet cables, paying phone companies, maybe ripping CDs or paying for music subscriptions, different ways of organizing your collection, etc.

PS: it's quite the fun coincidence to note that my first sentence is usually used against disingenuous believers who say that atheism is a religion too.

You're speaking to the converted ;-) As a secular dude who has been in the trenches debating religion since the 90's...I've heard that one more than a few times. That's one reason why I'm alert to the disanalogy. One could make a religious analogy to the blind spot of thinking vinyl has extra-musical features and considerations, while digital doesn't. But best to leave that path for now.

 

[q3cpma]

That's a disanalogy.

Bald isn't a hair color, but convenience IS a feature. That is why convenience is typically advertised as a feature.

If I choose to listen to music on vinyl, there are extra-musical considerations involved in that (though which can directly impact the experience of the music). Until music is beamed directly in to your consciousness, when you say "I just want to listen to music" what you really mean is "I want to listen to music on X technology" where I may want to listen to it on Y technology. My choice may entail my having to deal with turntables, cartridges, record buying/storing etc. Your choice may entail having to deal with iphones/laptops/computers/servers, setting up wi-fi routers or ethernet cables, paying phone companies, maybe ripping CDs or paying for music subscriptions, different ways of organizing your collection, etc.

But after all of that is done, that way entails way less menial tasks and distractions to play whatever you want. I stand by what I said: if you take the time to setup all these annoying things, it's not to gain something (a feature), but to remove the most extraneous stuff possible. I mean, even you has to admit that the digital way is nearer to "beam to my mind" than vinyl.

 

[AudioStudies]

the playback system is overall quite unimportant, so if the recording is not great then you'll be able to hear this in ful.

I wouldn't go as far as saying the playback system is unimportant (or we would all be using 8-track tapes) - but I strongly agree about the paramount importance of the recording. What is especially disheartening -- is that my favorite vocalist (Sarah Vaughan) -- has so many recordings that did not turn out well. I don't know all the reasons for this, but I suspect part of it may be that she did not have good recording engineers, or certainly not as good as Ella had. Another part of it, could be that she moved the mic around so much -- making the recording engineer's job quite difficult. Perhaps the types of mics used also didn't work well with her style.

 

[MattHooper]

But after all of that is done, that way entails way less menial tasks and distractions to play whatever you want. I stand by what I said: if you take the time to setup all these annoying things, it's not to gain something (a feature), but to remove the most extraneous stuff possible.

No, it's clearly a feature. That's why greater convenience is always promoted as a feature.

I mean, even you has to admit that the digital way is nearer to "beam to my mind" than vinyl.

If you just ignore all the steps necessary to get to the point of "pressing play" on digital, sure. But the same could be said if you ignore all the steps it takes to get to "dropping a needle" on an LP. It was ton of hassle and time and work to get my digital library and system to where it is today. Ripping CDs, metatagging, getting album artwork, setting up the server, trouble-shooting, organizing the library, researching and signing up for subscriptions, changing routers etc. And it continues to be work whenever some new glitch arises. If you just ignore all the work, time and equipment fiddling leading up to an act then we'd say nothing is ever a hassle. Some people may have put much less time and effort in to their digital music system. But then, the same could be said of some who spin vinyl. They brought home a turntable, have some records, don't bother with all the fussiness, maintaince or anything, just put on a record and drop the needle. Again, no matter what choice you make, you are looking at extra-musical considerations. Look at the amount of time spent by people even on this forum, discussing, selecting software systems like Roon or others, library organizing, trouble-shooting etc.

 

[q3cpma]

No, it's clearly a feature. That's why greater convenience is always promoted as a feature.




If you just ignore all the steps necessary to get to the point of "pressing play" on digital, sure. But the same could be said if you ignore all the steps it takes to get to "dropping a needle" on an LP. It was ton of hassle and time and work to get my digital library and system to where it is today. Ripping CDs, metatagging, getting album artwork, setting up the server, trouble-shooting, organizing the library, researching and signing up for subscriptions, changing routers etc. And it continues to be work whenever some new glitch arises. If you just ignore all the work, time and equipment fiddling leading up to an act then we'd say nothing is ever a hassle. Some people may have put much less time and effort in to their digital music system. But then, the same could be said of some who spin vinyl. They brought home a turntable, have some records, don't bother with all the fussiness, maintaince or anything, just put on a record and drop the needle. Again, no matter what choice you make, you are looking at extra-musical considerations. Look at the amount of time spent by people even on this forum, discussing, selecting software systems like Roon or others, library organizing, trouble-shooting etc.

You aren't really comparing a one time setup to something you must do for each album with complete sincerity, right? (not even mentioning the inherent maintenance)

 

[board]

I wouldn't go as far as saying the playback system is unimportant (or we would all be using 8-track tapes) - but I strongly agree about the paramount importance of the recording. What is especially disheartening -- is that my favorite vocalist (Sarah Vaughan) -- has so many recordings that did not turn out well. I don't know all the reasons for this, but I suspect part of it may be that she did not have good recording engineers, or certainly not as good as Ella had. Another part of it, could be that she moved the mic around so much -- making the recording engineer's job quite difficult. Perhaps the types of mics used also didn't work well with her style.

Maybe it wasn't so clear from my post, but what I meant was that for playing digital, whether using a CD player or a DAC from a computer, the playback unit (the CD player or the DAC) isn't all that important, as they almost all sound the same. In that context, I did also write that the playback system (the CD player or DAC) is then "overall quite unimportant".
One thing that I think people often miss, which I also missed in the past, is that different CD players and DACs output slightly different voltage levels, although usually it's between 1.9 and 2.1 volts, but that difference is still easily audible.

As for 8-track tapes, that's the medium, not the playback system.

I often have the same issue with my favourite music as you have with Sarah Vaughan - a lot of it is poorly recorded/produced. In the past the technology wasn't as good as it is now, but I'm sometimes amazed at how good some old recordings sound compared to recordings years or decades newer. For example Sonny Rollins' "Saxophone Colossus" was recorded on one day in 1956 and sounds really, really good. Then a lot of rock music from ten years later, even The Beatles, sound not so great - at least I've always found The Beatles quite strident, and a lot of less popular bands from that time sounded even worse, and, unfortunately, a lot of my favourite music comes from the 1960s and early 70s.

 

[board]

You aren't really comparing a one time setup to something you must do for each album with complete sincerity, right? (not even mentioning the inherent maintenance)

I say the following as a help, and not as an attack on either of you:
I think the discussion between the two of you is turning into the type of discussion that I often see, no matter the subject:
Both parties, at least to some extent, take the "extreme position" and thereby believes this rules out the opposing party's argument, but what the discussion is really about is the difference between the two positions the two parties hold.
In your discussion, q3cpma takes the position that digital playback involves no work, or at least hardly any work, whereas vinyl playback involves a ton of work.
MattHooper then says that vinyl playback doesn't take that much work, and digital playback also takes some work.
What you're really discussing is the difference between how much work either medium requires for playback, and I think q3cpma is quick to jump to the conclusion that digital takes no work, which MattHooper then tries to contradict, and when q3cpma then says vinyl takes a lot of work, MattHooper says "no, it's not that bad".
I think your discussion could be boiled down to this:
One says "3 minutes", the other says "no, it's not that long. 1, maybe 2 minutes. Enormous difference". The other then says: "2 minutes is almost as long as 3 minutes".
It reminds of when I once said "it probably takes 15 minutes to drive there", and my dad seemed almost offended. "Surely, it doesn't take that long! What are you going on about?! It takes no more than 12 minutes, maximum!". And I was just thinking "eeeh, sounds almost the same to me".
And actually, when MattHooper says "it's not that much work", q3cpma actually says the same thing about digital.

Again, I'm just meddling in an attempt to help, since you seem to be arguing over this difference in your assessment or the workload required, and it is really your oppossite assessments that is the cause of your discussion .

 

[q3cpma]

I say the following as a help, and not as an attack on either of you:
I think the discussion between the two of you is turning into the type of discussion that I often see, no matter the subject:
Both parties, at least to some extent, take the "extreme position" and thereby believes this rules out the opposing party's argument, but what the discussion is really about is the difference between the two positions the two parties hold.
In your discussion, q3cpma takes the position that digital playback involves no work, or at least hardly any work, whereas vinyl playback involves a ton of work.
MattHooper then says that vinyl playback doesn't take that much work, and digital playback also takes some work.
What you're really discussing is the difference between how much work either medium requires for playback, and I think q3cpma is quick to jump to the conclusion that digital takes no work, which MattHooper then tries to contradict, and when q3cpma then says vinyl takes a lot of work, MattHooper says "no, it's not that bad".
I think your discussion could be boiled down to this:
One says "3 minutes", the other says "no, it's not that long. 1, maybe 2 minutes. Enormous difference". The other then says: "2 minutes is almost as long as 3 minutes".
It reminds of when I once said "it probably takes 15 minutes to drive there", and my dad seemed almost offended. "Surely, it doesn't take that long! What are you going on about?! It takes no more than 12 minutes, maximum!". And I was just thinking "eeeh, sounds almost the same to me".
And actually, when MattHooper says "it's not that much work", q3cpma actually says the same thing about digital.

Again, I'm just meddling in an attempt to help, since you seem to be arguing over this difference in your assessment or the workload required, and it is really your oppossite assessments that is the cause of your discussion .

Well, sorry to be that guy, but you misunderstood. The "problem" (not really a problem) is twofold: 1) I say that comparing one time setup and regular usage setup duration doesn't make sense 2) This is mostly a theoretical/Socratic discussion around the concept of purity, not really a practical one (as vinyl isn't really an horrible chore).

 

[board]

Well, sorry to be that guy, but you misunderstood. The "problem" (not really a problem) is twofold: 1) I say that comparing one time setup and regular usage setup duration doesn't make sense 2) This is mostly a theoretical/Socratic discussion around the concept of purity, not really a practical one (as vinyl isn't really an horrible chore).

But then I think you're also misunderstanding MattHooper's point, because he's saying that listening to digital also includes some kind of work every time you play it - it's not only the first time you set it up. And that is correct - every time we play a digital song it involves some kind of "work". And it seems to me that the discussion between the two of you is about how much or little work is involved in playing vinyl and digital.
I don't understand the purity aspect though. Do you mean audio purity, as in "is vinyl or digital closer to the source?"?
If so, I haven't seen the discussion be about that.
But yes, it's completely possible that I misunderstood everything .

 

[Emlin]

It is true to say that vinyl will always have its place - between shellac and CD.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I often have the same issue with my favourite music as you have with Sarah Vaughan - a lot of it is poorly recorded/produced. In the past the technology wasn't as good as it is now, but I'm sometimes amazed at how good some old recordings sound compared to recordings years or decades newer. For example Sonny Rollins' "Saxophone Colossus" was recorded on one day in 1956 and sounds really, really good. Then a lot of rock music from ten years later, even The Beatles, sound not so great - at least I've always found The Beatles quite strident, and a lot of less popular bands from that time sounded even worse, and, unfortunately, a lot of my favourite music comes from the 1960s and early 70s.

Broadly speaking, the recording technology available in the 1950s was just as capable of capturing the full range of human hearing as today's. The major advances have to do with increased dynamic range/less noise of digital recording.

What has changed drastically is the style and intent of present day recordings. Vintage rock music was mixed with the 'average phonograph' of the day in mind. That meant very little bass, compressed dynamic range, and a relatively lifeless overall sound. Phonographs of the day could easily track these discs. Music wasn't mixed necessarily with a high fidelity mentality. Today's digital playback devices have none of the limitations of the 'average phonograph', and can be mixed with abandon.

If you have heard even a single outstanding recording from the 50s and 60s, this in itself proves recordings could all sound that great, but for various reasons were compromised in production, usually to accommodate the market's perceived playback preferences/capabilities. Yes, some early vocals sound horrible on today's systems, but on the average playback system (i.e. portable phonograph) of the time probably sounded just about right.

 

[richard12511]

I kinda see the issues of recommending Vinyl to newbies as a different issue than those that already have it using it.

I think it's perfectly valid to recommend Vinyl to new people as long as you make sure they know and fully understand what they're getting. Be honest with them about the pros and cons. The sound will be ever so slightly worse. It will cost you way more money(especially if you want sound that is almost as good as digital). You have to take care of it better. You won't be able to discover new music as easily. But, it might make you feel more involved with the music selection. The expectation bias/placebo of knowing all of the expensive and nice looking gear involved might actually make it sound better under sighted conditions. More fun to collect records and expensive gear; I actually love going vinyl shopping with my college buddies that are into it(despite not buying anything). The occasional master will sound better.

The problem I have with recommending Vinyl to newbies is that I don't think we always make these things clear. Most of my friends that are into vinyl are into it because they wrongly believe it sounds better, not for those other(valid) reasons. I see nothing wrong with what @MattHooper (who fully understands the pros/cons) is using vinyl for, and I can see the appeal, too. If one is ok with the very slight degradation of music sound quality, the increased fun of gear collection can outweigh that, easily. Lets be honest, the difference in sound quality is small(relative to other factors). As much as we say, "it's all about the music", it's just not true. If you've spent thousands on and been through many different speakers over the years, you also enjoy the collection aspect . Human's enjoy collecting things, and it's a big reason why many of us are in this hobby. I see no shame in admitting it, either. It's definitely true for me. Also, the fact that we hear with our brains(not our ears) very well mean those who've spent thousands on analog gear really are "hearing" better sound, despite the actual sound being worse.

 

[AudioStudies]

Human's enjoy collecting things, and it's a big reason why many of us are in this hobby.

But records can be collected without playing them. Some people do that.

 

[Frank Dernie]

But records can be collected without playing them. Some people do that.

Quite a lot I think.
We have a LP dealer in this town and he told me a lot of his customers don't play their collection because they don't have a record player.
I was surprised.

 

[richard12511]

But records can be collected without playing them. Some people do that.

I have a friend who does that. He doesn't even own a record player .

 

[MattHooper]

I have a friend who does that. He doesn't even own a record player .

Such people are beneath contempt.

))

 

[MattHooper]

Good post.

Most of my friends that are into vinyl are into it because they wrongly believe it sounds better,

The question is then: do you tell them?

 

[Chrispy]

But records can be collected without playing them. Some people do that.

I've read of several examples, can't imagine why unless you're just speculating on particular "collectibles" ?

 

[richard12511]

Good post.



The question is then: do you tell them?

No. Doesn't seem right, though maybe some may see it the other way around(I'm letting them waste money ). The way I see it, they clearly enjoy it and enjoy spending money on it, so need to rain on that parade. They probably wouldn't care either way. They're no where near as into the gear and "high fidelity" thing as I am. They spend much more on the music(vinyl) than they do on the gear.

Maybe I've outed myself, though . My username is definitely sufficient to identify me to anyone who knows me in real life.

 

[MattHooper]

I've read of several examples, can't imagine why unless you're just speculating on particular "collectibles" ?

That idea of collecting records just to collect them (not even listen to them) just doesn't make contact with my brain. But then I guess I don't have the temperament of a collector that way. The only thing I can remember collecting in the sense of seeking out items known for their value was when I had a big comic collection when I was young. Spiderman 1 up to 300 and all that (if only I'd known how valuable they would become).

But even then, I read them.