• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The Truth About Vinyl Records

Status
Not open for further replies.
You don’t know that. I can cite a perfect example. I worked with David Grohl a few years back and asked him about various masterings of the Nirvana catalog. He went on a small tirade about how Universal “completely f**ked up the mastering” on the most recent CD reissues and ironically said if you didn’t have the original vinyl you had no idea how the recordings actually sounded.
I would imagine that would be because he signed off on a vinyl master that had very little relation to the sound
on the master tapes. When a digital (accurate) remaster was released, and for whatever reason he didn't have any
power of approval in his contract, he was pissed.
And whether the remasters sounded good or not, he was pissed because he didn't have any "say so".
An understandable position, but life's a bitch and then you die.
He should have had a stronger contract.
 
I would imagine
There in lies the problem. You keep confusing your imagination with objective reality.

that would be because he signed off on a vinyl master that had very little relation to the sound
on the master tapes. When a digital (accurate) remaster was released, and for whatever reason he didn't have any
power of approval in his contract, he was pissed.

You do have a vivid imagination. But regardless of why, David Grohl is one of the artists and his opinions of those Universal CD remasters pretty much disprove your assertion that the artists’ intent can be found on the commercial digital releases.

You
Don’t
Know
That

And whether the remasters sounded good or not, he was pissed because he didn't have any "say so".
An understandable position, but life's a bitch and then you die.
He should have had a stronger contract.
Indeed a vivid imagination.

What has your imagination conjured up to explain away Donald Fagan’s glowing endorsement of the Steely Dan vinyl on AP? Still working out that narrative in your head?
 
There in lies the problem. You keep confusing your imagination with objective reality.

I don't usually read old mate's posts, but show ignored posts every now and then to follow a conversation. "I would imagine" is an interesting approach to audio science as story-telling. For someone who decries so-called subjectivism. :rolleyes:
 
But regardless of why, David Grohl is one of the artists and his opinions of those Universal CD remasters pretty much disprove your assertion that the artists’ intent can be found on the commercial digital releases.
OK, if true in a few cases "so what???" It doesn't matter one iota.
You just want to make a big deal over using the term "artists intent".
Would you be happy if I said "engineers intent" ?
Would you be happy if I said "labels intent" ?
At this point in the game it really doesn't matter.
The idea of HiFi is to play back "whatevers" on the source in an accurate way.
With vinyl you even get this too

rice krispies.jpeg
 
It means your claims of knowing the artists’ intentions are bull***t. I agree that your B.S. claims don’t really matter though


Dude, you are not a mind reader. Do you fail to see the utter irony of trying to represent my intentions when I am busting you on making bogus claims about knowing the artists’ intentions?


It would still be bull***t


It would still be bull***t
You
Don’t
Know
No
Matter
How
You
Word
It
I do know who's full of it. ;)
 
There in lies the problem. You keep confusing your imagination with objective reality.



You do have a vivid imagination. But regardless of why, David Grohl is one of the artists and his opinions of those Universal CD remasters pretty much disprove your assertion that the artists’ intent can be found on the commercial digital releases.

You
Don’t
Know
That


Indeed a vivid imagination.

What has your imagination conjured up to explain away Donald Fagan’s glowing endorsement of the Steely Dan vinyl on AP? Still working out that narrative in your head?
Donald Fagan is a god but it was Walter who was the technical one.

'Artist intent' may be nonsense but you can't escape the fact that Vinyl mangles the signal in the pressing and on replay and digital doesn't. (As intrinsic formats, that is).

It's always surprising to me how good vinyl can be considering how flawed it is and I appreciate the non-sound quality aspects (sleeve art, the general 'cool factor') but it is just way too inconsistent.

I can put one record on and be blown away, then the next one up is a huge disappointment. So I never play my vinyl anymore and I'm happier.
 
Donald Fagan is a god but it was Walter who was the technical one.
How does that affect Fagan’s opinion of their collective intent when they made their recordings?
He’s one of the two key artists. I think if anyone can speak for artists’ intent for Steely Dan it would be him. Of course Bernie Grundman is the mastering engineer on the new AP reissues and was the original mastering engineer so I guess he may have a legitimate say in the original intent.

'Artist intent' may be nonsense but you can't escape the fact that Vinyl mangles the signal in the pressing and on replay and digital doesn't. (As intrinsic formats, that is).

That’s a gross exaggeration of inherent vinyl distortion.

It's always surprising to me how good vinyl can be considering how flawed it is and I appreciate the non-sound quality aspects (sleeve art, the general 'cool factor') but it is just way too inconsistent.

I can put one record on and be blown away, then the next one up is a huge disappointment. So I never play my vinyl anymore and I'm happier.
And there you go. It can sound fantastic and even preferable to some listeners. And that’s as far as that goes.
 
That looks a bit analogue to me. So not exactly modern itself.
To be fair though, full in the box studio's don't seem to be the dominate force among those you can afford to go anywere they want to get the work done.. Hybrid studio's seem to be where it is at. It's also a matter of what one is willing to pay for when setting off to get something done in studio land. Not saying full digital systems are bad at all, just that they don't seem to be dominate in major player work flow. & really how many are alive that are qualified to handle/ work with master tape.? or are even set up to do so.? plug in's etc..are dirt dirt cheap compared to the real deal & takes monster $ to get banks fresh perfectly working in spec gear to go with DAW ?. Why don't all studio's go full digital ..It would be so so much cheaper if the results are the same..? This is a question I can't answer as I don't know.
 
I agree vinyl tends to hit or miss but I have plenty of "great" digital recording as well as a lot of hugely disappointing ones. Neither format can "fix" a bad recording.
True and I have some CDs that are too compressed. In general though I prefer the CD experience to the extent that I mothballed the turntable.

I've duplicated most of my vinyl collection on CD so have both to compare across a lot of albums.
 
I've duplicated most of my vinyl collection on CD so have both to compare across a lot of albums.
Near 20 years ago I did hundreds of very high quality digital vinyl needle drops that I never play anymore.
90% of the music I care about has been replaced with TOTL quiet ultra quality digital recordings.
What a waste of time and hard-drive space it turned out to be.
More new SOTA digital releases are out every day.
So much music and so little time.
 
[to Mart68] And there you go. It can sound fantastic and even preferable to some listeners. And that’s as far as that goes.
I have always acknowledged that too. Of course there is the implied caveat about listener standards. And we have been over the caveat about mastering. Then there is the thing about only one of the formats offering the potential to hear what the production team heard. Some people have standards about that too. Hmmm.
 
I have always acknowledged that too. Of course there is the implied caveat about listener standards. And we have been over the caveat about mastering. Then there is the thing about only one of the formats offering the potential to hear what the production team heard. Some people have standards about that too. Hmmm.
It's not an either, or, Newman and Sal.

All part of Audio Science Review.

Maybe you guys can work on the "happy members" part. ;)
 
“Which speaker does he inarguably prefer the sound of?”
He inarguably preferred the sound of speaker A over speaker B in his first comparison done sighted and then he inarguably preferred the sound of speaker B over speaker A in his second comparison done blind.
Still not the right answer. At least this time you didn’t get the question wrong.

It was your hypothetical. It’s what *you* said. If you want to argue with the content of your hypothetical at this point I will leave you to it.
Rinse, wash and repeat
perception is the amalgamation of all the stimuli we are taking in.
Preferences can change.
Preferences are inarguable
Hmmm.

Let’s continue your lesson by coming at it from another angle.

Someone does a sighted listening test and prefers the sound of speaker A over speaker B. But there was a mistake and it was speaker B both times, although this fact is never noticed by anyone.

Which speaker does he inarguably prefer the sound of? There is no doubt that he will leave with an opinion!
 
I haven't followed this particular conversation closely, but as to this question:

Someone does a sighted listening test and prefers the sound of speaker A over speaker B. But there was a mistake and it was speaker B both times, although this fact is never noticed by anyone.

Which speaker does he inarguably prefer the sound of?

It seems in such a case we can't conclude which speaker he unarguably prefers. He didn't hear both of them, which would be necessary to make a "preference" distinction.
 
Ah, but his preference is inarguable. Apparently that’s the definition. Or so I’m told.
 
Ah, but his preference is inarguable. Apparently that’s the definition. Or so I’m told.
In that circumstance, his preference is his preference.

You say it was done wrong, so if done right his preference is fungible.

Are all preferences eternal?
 
Still not the right answer. At least this time you didn’t get the question wrong.
It was the right answer. It was stated in your question as such. If you ask a hypothetical question and set out the hypothetical facts one can only go by that
Hmmm.

Let’s continue your lesson by coming at it from another angle.
Sorry but I take my lessons on these things from JJ.
1. Our perceptions are based on everything we take in via all our senses and state of mind. Everything influences it.
2. Preferences are inarguable
3. Preferences can change

Someone does a sighted listening test and prefers the sound of speaker A over speaker B. But there was a mistake and it was speaker B both times, although this fact is never noticed by anyone.

Which speaker does he inarguably prefer the sound of? There is no doubt that he will leave with an opinion!
There was an error in the test. Look, we all know that sighted bias affects our perceptions. You are not teaching anyone anything here.

For all you know you prefer the sound of vinyl and are being influenced by your biases.

You are just looking for some twist to argue preferences.

I once again suggest you watch JJ’s lecture and learn before trying to teach when it comes to preferences.
 
Ah, but his preference is inarguable. Apparently that’s the definition. Or so I’m told.

I don't think that is the correct understanding of preferences being inarguable.

There is the sense in which preferences are arguable. And the sense in which they are not arguable.

1. They can be arguable in the sense: You may very well be mistaken about what, or at least why you prefer something. So you may misdiagnose the reasons for your preference. You may in sighted conditions conclude you "prefer the sound of speaker A over B" but this is potentially arguable. If you can show the person actually prefers the sound of speaker B instead, under blind conditions, then you can say "actually, you misdiagnosed the situation: strictly in terms of sound, you actually prefer speaker B.

The sense in which preference is inarguable is the following:

2. You can't argue that the person didn't prefer speaker A in sighted conditions. You can only argue they misdiagnosed WHY they preferred speaker A's sound. That their perception of the sound was influenced by sighted bias.

More important:

3. Where preferences do exist, you can't argue they don't exist.


So I don't think the others are saying one can't be mistaken, or misdiagnose WHY one likes A over B. But rather, if someone states a preference, that's hard to argue, and you are stuck at best arguing why they have that preference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom