The Truth About Vinyl Records

[MattHooper]

You can try to discredit my stance as much as you want, the above are simple facts of modern life.

I didn't try to discredit your stance at all. Just the opposite: that's why I replied that your reaction makes total sense to me.

You have good reasons for not wanting to play vinyl.

But that doesn't mean other people don't have good reasons to play vinyl. Your lack of reasons don't make their choice "irrational."


Me: Why the comeback of a format so cumbersome and full of compromises?

Simple: humans are irrational and emotion driven creatures.

This "playing records is irrational" theme comes up often. It totally misunderstand the nature of rationality. It's not "irrational" to do something that gives you pleasure or value. In fact, it's pretty much the definition of "rational behavior" to take actions that will fulfill your desires (so long as that doesn't conflict with some wider/deeper set of desires you have).

I'm not a "car guy" but I have a friend who is in to older sports cars. He likes to take them out for drives especially to the country areas. I could say to him "that's irrational. Don't you know there are now vehicles that will get you from A to B with better gas mileage and more reliability?" etc. But of course I'd be missing the point that my friend wouldn't enjoy GETTING from A to B as much as when he's driving his old sports car. Because he prefers the ride, feel, engineering...all the things an older car enthusiast appreciates that I don't. Same if I tried to tell someone taking their weekly bike ride to the country-side "That's irrational, you can get there faster, more conveniently and with less effort with a car!" Well...that would miss the whole point they get MORE pleasure, and hence value, out of riding their bike than doing it in a car. So it's more rational for them to bike.

Same with choosing vinyl. It satisfies various desires people have that they aren't getting from streaming. That makes it a rational choice for their purposes, not an irrational one.

I'm amazed by how much internet commentary boils down to "I personally don't have reasons for liking X, therefore there aren't good reasons for liking X" ...and therefore anyone else "doing X" can't have good reasons for it, so their choice must be irrational or just emotional."

Can Vinyl sound great? Oh it absolutely can, if it's a great master and a fresh pressing. Can it sound objectively better than digital, given the same source data? Not a chance, because vinyl is created by a digital base file. It always amuses me when people say "digital sounds lifeless/artificial" and then praise their vinyl, that was created from what?
A DIGITAL FILE.

Yaaah, we humans are weird indeed. I realize, that not everyone is as emotionless and detached as I am.

While it's true that some vinyl enthusiasts can say silly things about digital, that doesn't mean they are wrong in saying they prefer the sound of vinyl...even if it turns out a record came from an original digital master. Generally speaking the "sound of vinyl" comes from that medium, not necessarily from the master.
It comes from all the technical kludges required in getting sound on to wax squiggles and dragging them back off with a rock. At the very start a record usually has to get a different mastering job vs the digital version, and then you have all the variables from getting it on the vinyl and the variables of all the turntables and cartridges, phono stages etc getting that signal back off. So whether it's from a digital master or an analogue, the sound coming off a record is pretty much always going to sound different from the digital version to one degree or another. And once you have such differences, preference comes in to play.

I have records from analog and digital masters. Doesn't matter to me what the master was; it matters how the record ultimately sounds. And I often enough prefer the sound from the vinyl to the purely digital version. Doesn't mean it's "better" of course. But the point is that the fact many new vinyl pressings started from a digital master doesn't itself negate the claims of people who "prefer the sound of vinyl over digital."

Cheers.

 

[atmasphere]

This measurement method takes Fs/100 slices of the audio and runs an FFT on each slice grabbing the largest bin and averaging those values within 100Hz buckets. Lower frequencies have more bins to average being a log sweep. It's a bit more revealing than the typical octave smoothing plots or manual plots that are plentiful, and substantially more revealing than the chart-recorder plots of yesteryear.

Quite simply these are plots of the outer-most left channel sweep track and the inner-most left channel sweep track on a copy of TRS-1005 done sequentially one session. There's no treble emphasis and laybacks were done flat. The table below is by the numbers and illustrates the differences at 10kHz and 20kHz for the different minor radiuses. The 1000LT and 1000E are the specimens of interest being HOMC and seemingly identical aside from the styli on the cantilever.

I agree the raggedness of the outer groove test track is interesting, and I've earlier plots of it with different cartridges that are a lot smoother so it may be tracing damage. Regardless, the point was to show relative difference between inner and outer on the same setup with different r, and this clearly does that, not that it was really needed - plenty of info out there on this. It doesn't equate it to typical program levels, though being 3.54cm/s @1kHz and no emphasis it's pretty far from being an outlier test.

View attachment 272404

Thanks! One reason for channel differences can be skating forces, particularly at really high frequencies. A straight tracking arm solves this particular problem.

Regarding the claim for bandwidth with vinyl… I distinctly remember this claim being put to the test somewhere, where a well specified setup was recorded with various supposedly audiophile LPs and they looked at output at 24-25 kHz.

They found - noise. No more, no less.

In fact MQA is better in this regard, in practice. (Does ASR have a witness protection program- I’m going to need it).

Of course I can’t find that test at the moment, but if you think about it it has to be true given the amount of signal in most recordings at that frequency. They probably used recordings from analogue tape to compound the results.

Modern pressing practices may not help.

I'm guessing you may be too young to remember CD4 LPs. They encoded 2 rear channels of information for 4 channel playback using a modulated carrier running at 30KHz or thereabouts.

An awful lot depends on setup as to how quiet a regular LP might be above 20KHz. Again, with most MM cartridges, the inductance is such that in parallel with the capacitance of the tonearm cable (and the input capacitance of the phono preamp) you can have an electrical resonance that results in a peak of as much as 20dB, which might be at the upper range of the audio band (15KHz and above) or just above it. This resonance has a low 'Q' value so covers a bit of range. If you are looking for signals at that frequency and the cartridge hasn't been properly loaded to eliminate this resonance, you might be looking at noise that might be 20dB higher than it really is on the LP surface.

 

[egellings]

Thanks! One reason for channel differences can be skating forces, particularly at really high frequencies. A straight tracking arm solves this particular problem.


I'm guessing you may be too young to remember CD4 LPs. They encoded 2 rear channels of information for 4 channel playback using a modulated carrier running at 30KHz or thereabouts.

An awful lot depends on setup as to how quiet a regular LP might be above 20KHz. Again, with most MM cartridges, the inductance is such that in parallel with the capacitance of the tonearm cable (and the input capacitance of the phono preamp) you can have an electrical resonance that results in a peak of as much as 20dB, which might be at the upper range of the audio band (15KHz and above) or just above it. This resonance has a low 'Q' value so covers a bit of range. If you are looking for signals at that frequency and the cartridge hasn't been properly loaded to eliminate this resonance, you might be looking at noise that might be 20dB higher than it really is on the LP surface.

My understanding of those CD-4 records is that the high frequency carrier got worn away pretty quickly by the stylus, and when it wore down far enough such that the decoder could no longer pick it up, the 4-channel sound collapsed down to 2 channel stereo.

 

[JP]

Thanks! One reason for channel differences can be skating forces, particularly at really high frequencies. A straight tracking arm solves this particular problem.


I'm guessing you may be too young to remember CD4 LPs. They encoded 2 rear channels of information for 4 channel playback using a modulated carrier running at 30KHz or thereabouts.

An awful lot depends on setup as to how quiet a regular LP might be above 20KHz. Again, with most MM cartridges, the inductance is such that in parallel with the capacitance of the tonearm cable (and the input capacitance of the phono preamp) you can have an electrical resonance that results in a peak of as much as 20dB, which might be at the upper range of the audio band (15KHz and above) or just above it. This resonance has a low 'Q' value so covers a bit of range. If you are looking for signals at that frequency and the cartridge hasn't been properly loaded to eliminate this resonance, you might be looking at noise that might be 20dB higher than it really is on the LP surface.

In general this is well understood. Not sure why you're bringing it up as there's no applicability to what I showed.

 

[atmasphere]

In general this is well understood. Not sure why you're bringing it up as there's no applicability to what I showed.

Correct. I was not responding to you.

 

[Galliardist]

I'm guessing you may be too young to remember CD4 LPs. They encoded 2 rear channels of information for 4 channel playback using a modulated carrier running at 30KHz or thereabouts.

An awful lot depends on setup as to how quiet a regular LP might be above 20KHz. Again, with most MM cartridges, the inductance is such that in parallel with the capacitance of the tonearm cable (and the input capacitance of the phono preamp) you can have an electrical resonance that results in a peak of as much as 20dB, which might be at the upper range of the audio band (15KHz and above) or just above it. This resonance has a low 'Q' value so covers a bit of range. If you are looking for signals at that frequency and the cartridge hasn't been properly loaded to eliminate this resonance, you might be looking at noise that might be 20dB higher than it really is on the LP surface.

I’m just old enough to have seen one for sale.

As far as signal goes, the point is to do with noise level and wanted signal. As far as I’m aware the best LP pressings haven’t reached SNR better than -90dB. It’s rare for anything much over 20kHz to be at a higher level than that. It’s quite often claimed that because you can measure output at higher frequencies than 20kHz from LP it must have “higher resolution than CD”, but it’s noise.
If you cut a trackable 25kHz signal above the noise level you can retrieve it, providing the signal survives on the production LP. For two channel stereo playback it’s unnecessary.

It doesn’t matter how many other issues you bring up. There is just no point in trying to cut a signal that is entirely below the noise level of the disc itself or claiming to be able to retrieve it, let alone basing a “high definition” claim on doing that.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

But that doesn't mean other people don't have good reasons to play vinyl. Your lack of reasons don't make their choice "irrational."

It's not "irrational" to do something that gives you pleasure or value.

I think we misunderstand each other here, allow me to explain:

Acting based on emotion instead of objective logic is precisely what "irrational" means.
You attribute a negative connotation to the term, I do not. At lest not in this current context.

Yes, it is highly irrational to prefer a sonic signature that is inferior in quality / further removed from the artists intention (as you stated: vinyl demands concessions during the mastering process).

It's just as irrational to beef up the house curve-bass via EQ until it hit's one's tastebuds the right way and logically speaking: degrade the signal from what the artist intended.

Irrational in this context means: cannot be logically explained or understood.
From a rational/logic PoV I will never understand why you prefer vinyl. It simply doesn't compute for me. The clicks and pops alone ruin the music experience for me.
I can emotionally empathize if you prefer the added distortion, even if it's not a preference I share.

I hope this makes my use of language clearer for you. Keep in mind: I am not a native speaker, so using incorrect terms at times may happen.

If one link in my chain is objectively weaker than an other link but my chain is still strong enough to deliver the result I am after, it does not matter to me, my goal is not testing links, it is using the chain for what I need it for.

I share this sentiment.
As much as I like drooling over state of the art engineering and technology, ultimately it's a device for a purpose.
As long as said purpose is accomplished, further overkill specs gain me nothing.

 

[Bob from Florida]

I think we misunderstand each other here, allow me to explain:

Acting based on emotion instead of objective logic is precisely what "irrational" means.
You attribute a negative connotation to the term, I do not. At lest not in this current context.

Yes, it is highly irrational to prefer a sonic signature that is inferior in quality / further removed from the artists intention (as you stated: vinyl demands concessions during the mastering process).

It's just as irrational to beef up the house curve-bass via EQ until it hit's one's tastebuds the right way and logically speaking: degrade the signal from what the artist intended.

Irrational in this context means: cannot be logically explained or understood.
From a rational/logic PoV I will never understand why you prefer vinyl. It simply doesn't compute for me. The clicks and pops alone ruin the music experience for me.
I can emotionally empathize if you prefer the added distortion, even if it's not a preference I share.

I hope this makes my use of language clearer for you. Keep in mind: I am not a native speaker, so using incorrect terms at times may happen.

I share this sentiment.
As much as I like drooling over state of the art engineering and technology, ultimately it's a device for a purpose.
As long as said purpose is accomplished, further overkill specs gain me nothing.

Claiming that someone is "irrational" is a way to "invalidate" an individual. Calling someone "irrational" - even if you believe that conclusion can be reached using "logic" - is not polite. Perhaps the "intention" is to be "impolite" and push "buttons" designed to invoke an "irrational" response, or perhaps just a "poor" choice of "words".

Reading your below quote and applying it to another area in audio. Are you claiming the use of the Harman Preference Curve to be "irrational"? This "Curve" is accepted as "This is the way" when it comes to headphones.

It's just as irrational to beef up the house curve-bass via EQ until it hit's one's tastebuds the right way and logically speaking: degrade the signal from what the artist intended.

Why should an EQ preference for headphones be "okay" and use of another preference - cartridge, arm, turntable combined signature for example - not be "okay"? That may be your "preference", which may or may not be my "preference".

 

[IPunchCholla]

I think we misunderstand each other here, allow me to explain:

Acting based on emotion instead of objective logic is precisely what "irrational" means.
You attribute a negative connotation to the term, I do not. At lest not in this current context.

Yes, it is highly irrational to prefer a sonic signature that is inferior in quality / further removed from the artists intention (as you stated: vinyl demands concessions during the mastering process).

It's just as irrational to beef up the house curve-bass via EQ until it hit's one's tastebuds the right way and logically speaking: degrade the signal from what the artist intended.

Irrational in this context means: cannot be logically explained or understood.
From a rational/logic PoV I will never understand why you prefer vinyl. It simply doesn't compute for me. The clicks and pops alone ruin the music experience for me.
I can emotionally empathize if you prefer the added distortion, even if it's not a preference I share.

I hope this makes my use of language clearer for you. Keep in mind: I am not a native speaker, so using incorrect terms at times may happen.

I share this sentiment.
As much as I like drooling over state of the art engineering and technology, ultimately it's a device for a purpose.
As long as said purpose is accomplished, further overkill specs gain me nothing.

How do you know what the artist intended? All we can say is whether, in what ways, and how much our sound reproduction differs from the media it is playing back. The relationship of the recording to artist’s intent is opaque to us, unless we know or get to ask the artist (or go to enough live shows to get a sense of their aims despite the limitations of different venues). The few I have talked to about it have mentioned ways in which the recording was a compromise.

So if I add bass, because that was tuned down for commercial reasons compared to what the artist wanted, and because I also enjoy more bass, is that irrational?

 

[DSJR]

I’m just old enough to have seen one for sale.

As far as signal goes, the point is to do with noise level and wanted signal. As far as I’m aware the best LP pressings haven’t reached SNR better than -90dB. It’s rare for anything much over 20kHz to be at a higher level than that. It’s quite often claimed that because you can measure output at higher frequencies than 20kHz from LP it must have “higher resolution than CD”, but it’s noise.
If you cut a trackable 25kHz signal above the noise level you can retrieve it, providing the signal survives on the production LP. For two channel stereo playback it’s unnecessary.

It doesn’t matter how many other issues you bring up. There is just no point in trying to cut a signal that is entirely below the noise level of the disc itself or claiming to be able to retrieve it, let alone basing a “high definition” claim on doing that.

From what I was told by mastering engineers, cutting lathes don't like much over 15kHz (isn't there a typical resonance around that frequency?) and can overheat if asked to do much up here at any real level.

So many far eastern cartridges set the rake angle of the diamond a bit too steep, often by several degrees (so little a VTA or tracking force increase could cure). This seemed deliberate and back then, stylus after stylus was commented on and criticised because hf distortion was high as a result. No idea if this (even with a Shibata style diamond) would affect wear above 20kHz (those CD-4 records didn't last that long I gather).

Got to add that a 90dB s/n from vinyl is impossible in my view. Most clean records will offer 70dB at hf and around 40dB maximum from lower mids downwards. Lest you think that latter figure is ridiculously low, remember than most cartridges offer around 30dB channel separation as a safe maximum, although one or two MC's offer up to 40dB in a narrow frequency range. What comes out of the 'unspoken channel' is that kind of 'reverberant halo' that vinyl sound can offer and whuch charms the ears so much.

 

[JP]

The cartridge is going to limit S/N far, far less than 90dB. Channel separation is always a narrow range with the best performance usually around 600Hz. 20Hz will be around 15dB worse than that, and 20kHz around 10dB worse. There may be outliers but this is typical.

 

[atmasphere]

As far as signal goes, the point is to do with noise level and wanted signal. As far as I’m aware the best LP pressings haven’t reached SNR better than -90dB. It’s rare for anything much over 20kHz to be at a higher level than that. It’s quite often claimed that because you can measure output at higher frequencies than 20kHz from LP it must have “higher resolution than CD”, but it’s noise.

My Neumann U67s don't go that high and I don't think there are many mics that do- so it stands to reason that if you're going to find anything beyond about 20KHz, its going to be noise or distortion.

From what I was told by mastering engineers, cutting lathes don't like much over 15kHz (isn't there a typical resonance around that frequency?) and can overheat if asked to do much up here at any real level.

You do have to be careful, on account of the 6dB/octave pre-emphasis. Its so easy to blow up a cutter head and so depressing; the power amps can typically make about 10X whatever power the cutter can handle (the idea being that the amps cannot be overloaded) so they can fry it pretty good. All stereo cutter heads have a feedback winding, which, in tandem with the feedback module, resonance is controlled. The resonance is often an octave lower than you stated; hence the idea of half speed mastering but that is only beneficial with certain cutters. The Westerex 3d in tandem with the 1700 electronics employed 30dB of feedback so no need for half-speed mastering.

 

[egellings]

Why not make the cutting amplifier say, only 25% (if that much) more powerful than the cutter head can withstand? Why 10X?

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for your reply.

I don't think I misunderstood you: you've elaborated on exactly the "mistake" I believed you were making regarding "rationality" (and choosing vinyl).

You attribute a negative connotation to the term, I do not. At lest not in this current context.

It's not about negativity: it's about what conception of "rationality" actually makes sense.

When it comes to human actions, "rational choices/actions" are those that come from deliberation regarding:

1. Our desires/goals/preferences,
2. Our beliefs about what is true
to:
3. Which actions are most likely to fulfill our goals/preferences.

If I desire a beer, and I believe a beer is in my fridge, and I decide that going to the fridge to get the beer will be likely to fulfill my desire - THAT is rationality in action, the reasonable connection between my desires, beliefs and actions.

If I concluded instead "therefore I'll most likely fulfill my desire to have a beer by going outside and sitting in the warm sunshine" THAT would be irrational.

But by the same token, if someone were out sitting in the warm sunshine, it would be silly to say "You are being irrational! Sitting in the sunshine like this isn't going to get you a beer!" Well...what if the person didn't want a beer? They just wanted to sit in the sunshine and soak in the sun? For them going inside and drinking beer would be the irrational choice, GIVEN their preference and goal!

So "rationality" in terms of our choices ALWAYS derives from some goal/preference/desire/value. And so it always has to be evaluated in light of an individual's goal, not on simply assuming your own goal, much less acting like there is some Objective Goal Written In To The Universe regarding...choosing digital sources or something, on which "rationality" is based!

Yes, it is highly irrational to prefer a sonic signature that is inferior in quality / further removed from the artists intention (as you stated: vinyl demands concessions during the mastering process).

It's just as irrational to beef up the house curve-bass via EQ until it hit's one's tastebuds the right way and logically speaking: degrade the signal from what the artist intended.

Irrational in this context means: cannot be logically explained or understood.
From a rational/logic PoV I will never understand why you prefer vinyl. It simply doesn't compute for me. The clicks and pops alone ruin the music experience for me.
I can emotionally empathize if you prefer the added distortion, even if it's not a preference I share.

I hope this makes my use of language clearer for you. Keep in mind: I am not a native speaker, so using incorrect terms at times may happen.

What you've done is simply assume your own goal - something about "accuracy" and "artists intent" and judged everyone else who doesn't share it to be "irrational."

Now that..is irrational! (In the sense of not logical or based on reason).

That logic entails that every music lover who doesn't seek out the most accurate equipment they can - who doesn't share some specific audiophile's goal - is "irrational." Basically, most of the music listening public - because most people don't have that goal, and most people don't have strictly accurate playback gear- would be deemed "irrational" when listening to music. Do you not see that as a red flag?

Say I'm on vacation in a rental car and my family and I want to listen to some of our favorite music while we take a long drive. The car's audio system isn't great, nobody is going to mistake it for accurate or really low coloration. Does this therefore mean our choice to play music while driving would be "irrational?" Can you see how bizarre that notion would be? Of course it would be rational - our goal is to just enjoy some music while driving, not "hear the most accurate possible rendition of the signal." We are all juggling our own priorities. It is simply not necessary to hear music played through The Most Accurate Possible System in order for the musical message to get through, the essential characteristics that make us enjoy any song. Playing music on any number of different systems has long satisfied the goals of "enjoying listening to music" for a great many people.

Likewise, when I switch from listening to digital sources in my system to playing vinyl, my goal is not "to hear the most accurate possible reproduction of that original studio signal." It's to enjoy listening to music! You want to talk about "artist's intent?" What, if anything, could be a greater catch-all than that listeners enjoy the artist's music? Above all, that surely is what most musical artists hope for! Much new music is now put out on vinyl. How may artists have you seen warning people "Don't listen to my music on vinyl! It's Not What I Intended!" ??? By far most artists are happy that people enjoy their music through whatever medium is preferred by the listener. (And many musical artists are extolling vinyl because they themselves enjoy it as a listening medium!)

So again, while the choice for vinyl may not be rational in fulfilling YOUR goal or preference, it is rational for fulfilling MY goals and preferences, and that of many other people. I know that listening to a record alters the sound and experience in a way I often quite like, and can also even aid my concentration on the music, so spinning records is perfectly rational for my preferences and goals.

You wrote:

Irrational in this context means: cannot be logically explained or understood.

It has been logically/reasonably explained. Whether it's understood is up to you.

Cheers.

 

[posvibes]

Just a thought.

In trying to interest young people in the dying hobby of Hi-fi, I was thinking to myself for the sake of sound fidelity would I recommend digital formats, because they are relatively inexpensive, the gamut of music is endless, the equipment is already at hand considering the capabilities of a mobile phone.

Or.....(and I do not have a skerrick of proof for this) but I would assume that a lot of youngens' have inherited their parents' turntables, and probaly their record collections. Thinking back to that period when I was young I don't remember a lot of friend's parents having particularly good turntables or even stereo gear full stop, so I wonder what they are playing their vinyl on?

I wouldn't want to get all audiophile on them, not at all, but I think in terms of cost/price, fidelity, music availability, ease of use, device quality etc I'd recommend digital being the way to go.

 

[pablolie]

Just a thought.

In trying to interest young people in the dying hobby of Hi-fi, I was thinking to myself for the sake of sound fidelity would I recommend digital formats, because they are relatively inexpensive, the gamut of music is endless, the equipment is already at hand considering the capabilities of a mobile phone.

Or.....(and I do not have a skerrick of proof for this) but I would assume that a lot of youngens' have inherited their parents' turntables, and probaly their record collections. Thinking back to that period when I was young I don't remember a lot of friend's parents having particularly good turntables or even stereo gear full stop, so I wonder what they are playing their vinyl on?

I wouldn't want to get all audiophile on them, not at all, but I think in terms of cost/price, fidelity, music availability, ease of use, device quality etc I'd recommend digital being the way to go.

I think there are 2 separate elements there:

1. RITUAL. Dealing with vinyl is a more involved ritual, zero doubt about that. Whether you love it or hate it is not the point.

2. SQ: There also is zero doubt about the fact that by any measurable benchmark, digital slaughters vinyl.

Live and let die, basically. I know what my personal preference is. I am not sure why people are trying to debate what others' preferences should be. It's a thankless mission.

"The truth about vinyl records" is that those who love the ritual will always love it, those who are turned off by the inconveniences at many levels will never go back... and in the meantime, both sides can be happy and spend $ on their particular preferences.

 

[Joe Smith]

It is pleasant to use vinyl, I think it's often more about the "total experience" than the SQ for sure. And nothing wrong with that at all. For me, pumping a LOT of money into playback for vinyl does not seem worth it, I am happy with my inexpensive vintage tables, the current AT-120xUSB table, and cartridges under $150. But let's face it, a lot of equipment purchases and going down the rabbit hole is about hobbyism and bragging rights.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Reading your below quote and applying it to another area in audio. Are you claiming the use of the Harman Preference Curve to be "irrational"? This "Curve" is accepted as "This is the way" when it comes to headphones.

As someone who does not like the extreme bass of the Harman curve: yes.

It's just a mainstream preference target. It applies to many people but not all of them.
So blindly following it as the "Ideal to be strived after" is quite irrational in my book.

As valuable as Harman's work is, given that each human has a different ear, thus different frequency response, there is no hard, scientific target that fits all people. At some point, tailoring the sound to your personal taste/ears will have to happen.

How do you know what the artist intended?

As you already stated: every record, heck every live performance as well, is a compromise in terms of sonic signature and sound quality.

That being said: it is reasonable to assume that the contents of the recording are a compromise that the artist can live with.

So if I crank the bass to 11, because I like it when it rumbles, I am actually deviating from what was intended.
Doesn't make it "wrong" to do so, of course, since it's just end-user preference.

It's not about negativity: it's about what conception of "rationality" actually makes sense.

When it comes to human actions, "rational choices/actions" are those that come from deliberation regarding:

1. Our desires/goals/preferences,
2. Our beliefs about what is true
to:
3. Which actions are most likely to fulfill our goals/preferences.

If I desire a beer, and I believe a beer is in my fridge, and I decide that going to the fridge to get the beer will be likely to fulfill my desire - THAT is rationality in action, the reasonable connection between my desires, beliefs and actions.

If I concluded instead "therefore I'll most likely fulfill my desire to have a beer by going outside and sitting in the warm sunshine" THAT would be irrational.

But by the same token, if someone were out sitting in the warm sunshine, it would be silly to say "You are being irrational! Sitting in the sunshine like this isn't going to get you a beer!" Well...what if the person didn't want a beer? They just wanted to sit in the sunshine and soak in the sun? For them going inside and drinking beer would be the irrational choice, GIVEN their preference and goal!

So "rationality" in terms of our choices ALWAYS derives from some goal/preference/desire/value. And so it always has to be evaluated in light of an individual's goal, not on simply assuming your own goal, much less acting like there is some Objective Goal Written In To The Universe regarding...choosing digital sources or something, on which "rationality" is based!

Interesting discussion, though I'm afraid we're veering off-topic here. :'D

I feel the causality sequence you describe is too simple to explain rationality. It's great that you used beer as an example, so lets stick with it for a moment:
You say: I desire a beer and believe that a beer is available in a location, then moving my bum to said location is rational behavior.
While that may true for the action taken, I'd go a step further back and analyze the desire:

I desire beer. A beverage that (usually) contains alcohol, which is toxic and addictive. Now I may like the taste, bubbliness, whatever of the beverage but willingly desiring to poison my body is as illogical and irrational as it gets. Wouldn't a rational decision be to NOT get the beer and subsequently NOT harming my body/further risk an alcohol addiction? Am I truly acting in a rational manner when I let emotions guide me (in this case, the desire for the beverage)?

Acting on desire and belief may lead me to kill every member of an opposing religion because they desecrate my chosen deity. according to your definition, that would be "acting on my beliefs and desires" and thus completely rational behavior.

Say I'm on vacation in a rental car and my family and I want to listen to some of our favorite music while we take a long drive. The car's audio system isn't great, nobody is going to mistake it for accurate or really low coloration. Does this therefore mean our choice to play music while driving would be "irrational?"

I don't think this is a fair analogy. You are comparing a "no-choice scenario" to a deliberate choice here.
If a decent vinyl setup was all I had, you can bet your gluteus maximus on it, that I would enjoy the crap out of it. As you said: the systems are already good enough to get the musical message across.

When I am in a hotel room/vacation and plug my can into my smartphone, I know I'm not getting the greatest sonic quality. I still enjoy the music nonetheless.

I know that listening to a record alters the sound and experience in a way I often quite like, and can also even aid my concentration on the music, so spinning records is perfectly rational for my preferences and goals.

Lets step away from the term "irrational" and call it "emotion driven decision". The above is 100% that. A logical decision would be to know that you do not need a ritual or a spinning disc to focus on music. Logically, these things are all irrelevant (assuming the actual musical content is the same). You deliberately choosing the vinyl setup over your digital one, despite having the same master available for both is akin to people choosing a different EQ profile, depending on the mood of the day.

To reiterate: I'm not saying it is "wrong" to do so, but it is not logical behavior. It is emotional behavior.
And that is what I wanted to express in my first post about humans being "irrational" creatures. That absolutely includes myself of course.

 

[Bob from Florida]

As someone who does not like the extreme bass of the Harman curve: yes.

It's just a mainstream preference target. It applies to many people but not all of them.
So blindly following it as the "Ideal to be strived after" is quite irrational in my book.

So basically, anything not in agreement with your point of view is "irrational". Got it.

 

[JP]

Lets step away from the term "irrational" and call it "emotion driven decision".

Which may be more biochemical programming than anything.