Stereophile doubles down on the snake oil!

[Sal1950]

I’m 100% on your side about rejecting high-end audiophile nonsense, by the way — this forum has been a huge help to me in understanding the fundamentals of great sound and avoiding subjective myths and finding great new components that enhance my deep enjoyment of music.

Doesn't sound like it as you want me to shut up on telling the truth so other newcomers from the dark side can also be enlightened?
I don't get it unless it's just a matter of your hurt feelings?
So unless you have some evidence to challenge anything I've said about the science of vinyl playback here I'm done.
This bickering helps no one.
Cheers

 

[DSJR]

Doesn't sound like it as you want me to shut up on telling the truth so other newcomers from the dark side can also be enlightened?
I don't get it unless it's just a matter of your hurt feelings?
So unless you have some evidence to challenge anything I've said about the science of vinyl playback here I'm done.
This bickering helps no one.
Cheers

Just keep on going please I know where you are coming from, even if I have too many vinyl (and a few shellac) discs here to get rid of right now.

(oh bloody hell, I'm remembering how many auto decks seem almost to take off when the cycle is engaged at 78, so fast is the arm thrown about, even with Duals!!! Come back the single auto-cycle speed of a Collaro or Magnavox changer, with second idler to drive the mechanism) - Apologies folks, I haven't even started on the beer yet.....

 

[krabapple]

View attachment 455571


JSmith

Just like higher sample rates are more resolving, that needle needs to be thinner to resolve those cliffs better

 

[kemmler3D]

The bell tolls for the death of High End Audio Snake-Oil

Ask not for whom the snake oils...

 

[DVinylfan]

I feel like people here have trouble with someone like me who defends vinyl as a hi-fi format while acknowledging its imperfections and its inferiority to digital in almost every way you measure it. I reject all of the dumb pro-vinyl cliches about magical analog warmth and cold, clinical digital sound.

I mainly object to digital-vs.-vinyl arguments that wildly exaggerate the degree of difference, that say or strongly imply that there’s a huge, blatant, glaring gap between the sound quality of digital and vinyl playback. That a stark scandalous contrast smacks you in the face when the two formats are auditioned side-by-side with good sources and gear.

It bugs me when criticism of vinyl fails the “walk into a room” test. Say what you like about the objective inferiority of vinyl and the superiority of SOTA digital, but don’t tell me that if you walk into a room where a quiet pressing of a beautifully mastered LP is playing on an excellent system, you’re hearing some crippled thing that’s not hi-fi because there’s a noise floor and an occasional tick or pop, and because digital admittedly measures better.

I couldn't agree more about the unhelpfulness of digital-vs.-vinyl arguments.
But, there is a difference between the two formats insofar as digital is reduced to 'bits' of digital information in the form of zeroes (0) and ones (1) whereas the information on a vinyl disc is conferred in an electro-mechanical format with no such reductive limitations, containing a (potentially) far higher definition of retrievable information, if only the inherent noise and distortion of the medium of retrieval could be removed.

 

[kyuu]

But, there is a difference between the two formats insofar as digital is reduced to 'bits' of digital information in the form of zeroes (0) and ones (1) whereas the information on a vinyl disc is conferred in an electro-mechanical format with no such reductive limitations, containing a (potentially) far higher definition of retrievable information, if only the inherent noise and distortion of the medium of retrieval could be removed.

IF you want to listen to vinyl, have at it. But "potentially higher definition of retrievable information"? No, sorry.

 

[DVinylfan]

IF you want to listen to vinyl, have at it. But "potentially higher definition of retrievable information"? No, sorry.

Hi. I do want to listen to vinyl, and am consequently having at it.
I actually said "potentially far higher definition of retrievable information" No, sorry?
Would you argue that reduction to binary code does not result in a lower definition of retrievable information than not reduced?
That seems counterintuitive.

 

[Purité Audio]

Hi. I do want to listen to vinyl, and am consequently having at it.
I actually said "potentially far higher definition of retrievable information" No, sorry?
Would you argue that reduction to binary code does not result in a lower definition of retrievable information than not reduced?
That seems counterintuitive.

 

[sergeauckland]

Hi. I do want to listen to vinyl, and am consequently having at it.
I actually said "potentially far higher definition of retrievable information" No, sorry?
Would you argue that reduction to binary code does not result in a lower definition of retrievable information than not reduced?
That seems counterintuitive.

It's not counterintuitive, if you consider that binary code can offer an arbitrary amount of resolution limited only by bit depth. Vinyl is limited ultimately by the granular nature of the vinyl that limits the minimum noise. Ultimately of course even digital is noise limited, as somewhere it has to be converted to analogue, but the limits are hugely lower with digital. That vinyl can give very acceptable results is more to do with our hearing limitations than technical limits.

S

 

[Short38]

Take your joy where you find it.

 

[krabapple]

I couldn't agree more about the unhelpfulness of digital-vs.-vinyl arguments.
But, there is a difference between the two formats insofar as digital is reduced to 'bits' of digital information in the form of zeroes (0) and ones (1) whereas the information on a vinyl disc is conferred in an electro-mechanical format with no such reductive limitations, containing a (potentially) far higher definition of retrievable information, if only the inherent noise and distortion of the medium of retrieval could be removed.

Nothing ever changes here, does it?

 

[MattHooper]

If however, you have more money than sense and are attracted to lavish vinyl players costing many thousands, an equally expensive pickup and phono stage, oh, and valves/tubes in the amp (and not necessarily a big Mac either, outside of the US), then I'd question it strongly.

I may be in your more money than sense category, but I certainly don’t for a moment regret paying extra for (what I consider to be ) a beautiful looking and wonderful to operate turntable. I don’t need to imagine that I have bought higher quality playback than I could’ve gotten cheap cheaper in order to enjoy my choice. Given the amount of joy it’s given to me, it makes sense to me.

(And let’s remember that to “normies”, plenty of ASR members, given the money they’ve put into their gear versus a non-audiophile, might be put in the more money than sense category)

Thing is, I think the audiophool part of our audio fraternity, still believes digital, most solid state and chips in particular, are the devil's work and simply cannot recreate a good musical experience to their golden-eared minds

Which ain’t me.

Hopefully, even though I’ve ended up in your “ more money than sense” category I have avoided your “audiophool” category

 

[Sal1950]

Hopefully, even though I’ve ended up in your “ more money than sense” category I have avoided your “audiophool” category

How do you figure that out? LOL

 

[kemmler3D]

Would you argue that reduction to binary code does not result in a lower definition of retrievable information than not reduced?
That seems counterintuitive.

It's counterintuitive but true. Analog isn't quantized so intuitively it seems like the level of detail would be unlimited in some sense.

In reality the amount of information contained in a format can be considered in terms of signal to noise ratio. This is actually still fairly intuitive if you think about it. Signal is... you know, the music. What you want. Noise is random, it does not count as information. When noise overwhelms the signal, that's the end of that format's resolution.

And in practice, digital actually has a better signal to noise ratio (and in many cases, higher frequency bandwidth) than vinyl or even tape. So it typically contains more actual information than analog formats.

Analogy: A blurry film photo vs. a sharp digital one. Which tells you more about the subject of the photograph? Just because it's analog doesn't mean it actually contains more music, image, or anything else.

Vinyl vs. CD or other digital formats is like this.

People like to say "analog has infinite resolution" but this is a misunderstanding of the concept of resolution. And, just because digital has limitations that analog doesn't, that doesn't mean analog formats don't have fundamental problems or limitations.

 

[Mart68]

And let’s remember that to “normies”,

'Civilians', please.

There's nothing normal about not owning a decent stereo.

 

[Audiofire]

Ask not for whom the snake oils...

 

[rdenney]

Doesn't sound like it as you want me to shut up on telling the truth so other newcomers from the dark side can also be enlightened?
I don't get it unless it's just a matter of your hurt feelings?
So unless you have some evidence to challenge anything I've said about the science of vinyl playback here I'm done.
This bickering helps no one.
Cheers

You think you are the only thing between newcomers and disaster? Or the only voice recommending against vinyl playback for newcomers? Get over yourself, Sal.

Rick “and read the part of my post you didn’t quote, among many others from almost everyone in this forum” Denney

 

[rdenney]

Hi. I do want to listen to vinyl, and am consequently having at it.
I actually said "potentially far higher definition of retrievable information" No, sorry?
Would you argue that reduction to binary code does not result in a lower definition of retrievable information than not reduced?
That seems counterintuitive.

Not if it isn’t there to begin with. The digital alternatives don’t start with the compromised information that ended up on the vinyl.

Rick “balanced” Denney

 

[Audiofire]

Demonstrations of sampling, quantization, bit-depth, and dither explore digital audio behavior on real audio equipment using both modern digital analysis and vintage analog bench equipment... just in case we can't trust those newfangled digital gizmos.

Xiph.Org Video Presentations: Digital Show & Tell

xiph.org

 

[DSJR]

I may be in your more money than sense category, but I certainly don’t for a moment regret paying extra for (what I consider to be ) a beautiful looking and wonderful to operate turntable. I don’t need to imagine that I have bought higher quality playback than I could’ve gotten cheap cheaper in order to enjoy my choice. Given the amount of joy it’s given to me, it makes sense to me.

(And let’s remember that to “normies”, plenty of ASR members, given the money they’ve put into their gear versus a non-audiophile, might be put in the more money than sense category)



Which ain’t me.

Hopefully, even though I’ve ended up in your “ more money than sense” category I have avoided your “audiophool” category

The turntable I had in the nineties, with 72lb main platter and a very substantial bearing to support it, was amazing and with Decca Gold Microscanner pickup and the 'graphite' platter recommended for it, the 'sound' was very close indeed to digital and the master copies I had (the latter not quite as good in actual fact as the tapes were maybe a generation or three too far removed) - total cost today would be around ten grand or so (Notts Analogue Dias with Ace arm is roughly where it would lie today). The Dual 701 I paid fifty quid for in 1989, paints a smaller picture, but it's all in proportion, works well enough for me and is quiet on backgrounds being a direct drive model

Below the Mentor - motor torque kept just enough to keep platter rotating, one hooked a finger around the support spacers and heaved it to speed Arm was a unipivot with stabilisers to prevent wobble. Belt was a silicon rubber that didn't stretch over time, unlike the rubber compounds other makers often use,