Vinyl is not as bad as I expected.

[Angsty]

In addition to my previous post, modern, no moving parts, electronics just cannot compete with this level of bonkers:

I’ve never seen this before and I thank you for the chuckles before bed!

 

[Newman]

No, it actually is more dynamic. Vinyl has a pretty hard loudness limit that digital doesn't, so you have to have more dynamic range in the pressing if you want any amount of low end. I asked cutting engineers and pressing plant operators about this.

That isn't even logical.

 

[Newman]

I have never understood the obsession with recording or production quality.

Well you should, it's easy to understand.

I don't care if the music sounds like it was recorded in a garage on a fifty quid tape deck. For me that sound is inherent to that music, it's part of it, it's how it is meant to sound.

Sure. But that is not relevant to the 'obsession'. The 'obsession' is with hearing the recording that the artist intended for you to hear. If the recording/production gets in the way of that, then you, the listener, are getting something else. Not the actual music.

I bought a hi-fi to listen to music I like, I don't buy music to listen to the hi-fi.

It's the same for all of the 'obsessed', you know. I think you have completely gotten the wrong end of the stick.

If the production values are high that's just a bonus. I've never bought music or listened to music solely because it is 'well-recorded.'

Again, you have erected a straw man. Virtually no-one buys (and keeps) terrible music that they hate, but is well recorded. Your assumption that they do is IMHO something of an insult, as well as wrong.

 

[Angsty]

I spent all day today (Mother’s Day in the US) playing old records that my wife owns but never listens to. I was surprised how good some of them sound after a thorough cleaning. The nostalgia was worth the extra effort.

Vinyl does not have to measure superior to digital to move the heart. It really does not matter what the SINAD is if it brings a tear to the eye or a spring in the step.

 

[Angsty]

It's a hug pain which is also what makes it so rewarding when it's done right.

I’ve spent thousands to get my vinyl rig “right”, at least to my standards. The problem was that once I invested that much in it, I had a psychological bias to want it to be right.

I originally purchased my phono years ago to play inherited records. But once I had sunk the cost, I started buying new vinyl to play on it, doubling down on my psychological bias. During a particularly drab stretch of the pandemic, I purchased much of the past two years of Blue Note re-releases.

I don’t claim vinyl is “better”, I just claim that I like it for some recordings. I also still invest in CDs, but that’s a different rabbit hole for a different thread.

 

[levimax]

TBH I am starting to think this comment is dated, and these days a lot of same music has been "re-remastered" to quite nice dynamics, and these latest versions pop up on streaming services.

I haven't conducted a major investigation into it, but it is the impression I get from own experience.

Of course, all the above comments are about pop music variants only. The traditionally serious music genres never had a "loudness war".

cheers

I keep an eye on older rock / pop re- remasters and to me it appears the loudness wars have leveled off and the re-remasters usually dont have more DR but not less either and compression techniques seem to have improved and some of the re-remasters do sound good. I also collect original CD's and LP's of older rock / pop and still prefer them for the most part mainly for the greater dynamics but also I'm sure for familiarity. For pop music the loudness wars are over and loudness has won. For most use cases that is fine but for Hi-Fi it is a loss.

 

[MattHooper]

I used to have 4K albums and enjoyed them, but I could never go back. The one thing I did like about LPs and their distortion characteristics is that they sounded great with rock music; the drums seemed to have a more physical kick to them, and the room felt more energized at lower volumes.

That's what I perceive in many rock recordings too. I'd had my favorite Rush and Van Halen albums on my digital server (ripped from CDs) for years but spinning the vinyl re-releases was a revelation. It just seemed to burst from the speakers with more energy, density and presence.
I had to get a new cartridge recently which isn't set up yet, so I've been listening to my digital source. I was listening to Rush Fairwell To Kings and Hemispheres and, damn, I just wasn't getting the pop and focus and density of the drums - they way I see right through the mix to a clear drum set - and other instruments like I get from the vinyl

 

[MattHooper]

I was listening to some live saxophones today, a baritone and tenor. Of all things I was hearing them while at a vaccine pop up clinic - they were serenading the people waiting in line.

As always, I closed my eyes and took note of the character of the sound - what do these real, live instruments sound like, what characteristics stick out for me. As usual, it was how big rich and powerful they were, how there was such a relaxed sense of effortless "detail" with no electronic timbre or exaggeration, rich full, being played by a human, "organic" is the word that comes to mind. They could never be mistaken as being electronic samples. But most especially it was the density of the sound - imaging wise they sounded like very dense objects projecting power, not like the sort of gossamer see-through versions that happen in the home illusion of stereo.

Those are all aspects of sound that I like to try to achieve in my own hi-fi systems, and the closer I get the more I like it. Richness, roundness, detail but smooth, organic not "hard, spiky and electronic," and a sense of density to the sound. It's why I stick with my tube amps which bring some of that to my ears, and also why I can prefer vinyl over digital because instruments sound just that bit more "solid and dense" on vinyl, on my system.
If it's some accrual of minor distortions in how vinyl is mastered, through that rock dragging through the grooves to my speakers, I don't know, but the effect is something that can sometimes feel more "natural" in ways to my ears. (Not always of course).

 

[Thomas_A]

One reason why vinyl is preferred by some may relate to the low frequency sound inherent to playback. Such background noise can be perceived as noise from wind, ventilation, and other distant low level noise. This may give an impression of something going on also during silent parts, adding a sense of a "live" event.

 

[Newman]

They could never be mistaken as being electronic samples.

Unless you were put to the test. It seems that whenever a listener is put in front of a live performer who is between a pair of good speakers and asked whether they are hearing the live performer or the speakers (with live performer 'faking it'), this 'unmistakable might-and-day difference' evaporates into blatant guessing.

You see, it is just another variant of sighted listening. The mind is so sure that the difference is so clear.... sighted. The effect is so much stronger than we want to believe. And vinyl is not exempt.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

Unless you were put to the test. It seems that whenever a listener is put in front of a live performer who is between a pair of good speakers and asked whether they are hearing the live performer or the speakers (with live performer 'faking it'), this 'unmistakable might-and-day difference' evaporates into blatant guessing.

There is certainly always the possibility of sighted bias. But how far do you want to take this? Are we constrained to never drawing a conclusion unless we are under strict scientific double-blind conditions? The problem is:

1. That is clearly unworkable

and

2. We manage to make reliable judgements that A is different than B to navigate the world successfully all day long.

So yes one can always say "it COULD be merely a case of sighted bias" but that does not therefore entail that attributing sighted bias to any particular observation is MORE PROBABLE.

Right?

To take a clear example: I recorded those saxophones on my iphone. Do you think that I could not in blind tests reliably discern between two live saxophones playing in front of me, vs played back on my iphone? Do you think double blind tests would be NECESSARY before granting my impressions on the difference between the live vs iphone sound any credence at all? Surely you don't go that far. Then where do you draw the line? Laptop speakers? A soundbar? A bose radio? A cheap pair of speakers? Slightly more expensive? When does a system produce, to your knowledge, sound indistinguishable from live, such that any perception of live sound as different is mere "sighted bias?" Do you not think it even valid to be at a symphony and take note of how it sounds, or do we wave that as invalid "look we haven't set up a double blind condition so you can't really make any inferences from what you think you hear."

I doubt you'd find anyone here who has spent more time explaining to other audiophiles the problem of sighted bias. But on the other hand, it's possible to take the objections too far.

 

[sergeauckland]

To take a clear example: I recorded those saxophones on my iphone. Do you think that I could not in blind tests reliably discern between two live saxophones playing in front of me, vs played back on my iphone? Do you think double blind tests would be NECESSARY before granting my impressions on the difference between the live vs iphone sound any credence at all? Surely you don't go that far. Then where do you draw the line? Laptop speakers? A soundbar? A bose radio? A cheap pair of speakers? Slightly more expensive? When does a system produce, to your knowledge, sound indistinguishable from live, such that any perception of live sound as different is mere "sighted bias?" Do you not think it even valid to be at a symphony and take note of how it sounds, or do we wave that as invalid "look we haven't set up a double blind condition so you can't really make any inferences from what you think you hear."

The main problem with live vs recorded is that they are in totally different acoustics. You heard the saxophones live, outside, in whatever environment you were in. You recorded them with a microphone that occupied one point in space (or two points at best with stereo microphones whether coincident pair, space omnis or whatever) then reproduced them in an enclosed room. Even with the best possible system, it won't sound like you heard them. Live vs Recorded demos done in the same acoustic in a concert hall can and have been convincing, especially if the musicians were close-miked, excluding any recorded ambiance, then reproduced in the same space, but as soon as the recording and reproducing acoustic is different, then the illusion collapses.

I have a number of 'girl and guitar' or 'girl and piano' close-miked recordings that do sound believable as having a real performer in my room. Anything larger, even a Jazz Trio or Quartet, and the illusion isn't there, especially if the recording has been done in an audible acoustic.

S

 

[MattHooper]

The main problem with live vs recorded is that they are in totally different acoustics. You heard the saxophones live, outside, in whatever environment you were in. You recorded them with a microphone that occupied one point in space (or two points at best with stereo microphones whether coincident pair, space omnis or whatever) then reproduced them in an enclosed room. Even with the best possible system, it won't sound like you heard them.

Yes, very aware of that. Though I have done live vs reproduced recorded and played back in the same room (fairly dead). Not perfect, but still illuminating.

Still, having listened closely to live sound sources in the same manner I depicted in countless different acoustic environments, there is an overall "gist" to the presence of live instruments vs recorded, of the type I described. IMO.

 

[Newman]

There is certainly always the possibility of sighted bias. But how far do you want to take this? Are we constrained to never drawing a conclusion unless we are under strict scientific double-blind conditions? The problem is: 1. That is clearly unworkable and 2. We manage to make reliable judgements that A is different than B to navigate the world successfully all day long. So yes one can always say "it COULD be merely a case of sighted bias" but that does not therefore entail that attributing sighted bias to any particular observation is MORE PROBABLE.
Right?

Hi Matt,

not right. Because sighted bias is so hard-wired, ingrained, and constant, that jumping to a conclusion (based on uncontrolled perception) without testing it is unwise. If you are attracted to ASR for the right reasons, and you haven’t learnt this yet, then maybe now is a good time?

I feel a bit ‘straw-manned’ by your response. You jumped to the conclusion that I am saying that simply because you use sighted listening that alone is the reason I question what you said. Whereas, I actually said that I think it has been tested and there are reports that it fails the test. Not the same thing.

Right?

 

[MattHooper]

Hi Matt,

not right. Because sighted bias is so hard-wired, ingrained, and constant, that jumping to a conclusion (based on uncontrolled perception) without testing it is unwise. If you are attracted to ASR for the right reasons, and you haven’t learnt this yet, then maybe now is a good time?

Yeah, a perusal of my posts here will really show I need to learn that. But you are pretty new here so I can't expect you to know everyone yet.

I feel a bit ‘straw-manned’ by your response. You jumped to the conclusion that I am saying that simply because you use sighted listening that alone is the reason I question what you said. Whereas, I actually said that I think it has been tested and there are reports that it fails the test. Not the same thing.

Right?

From what I've read, live vs reproduced tests have a very spotty history, including manipulation of the audience, and no real studies have been done in a way that has been scientifically rigorous. So the whether there are speakers that can produce sound indistinguishable from live is still an open question.

Of course, people have been *fooled* in to thinking they are hearing live music when it was reproduced. As Sean Olive explains it, many of these were "demonstrations" where visual cues were added (e.g. musicians pretending to play the instrument), not really scientific tests.

The fact people can be fooled, or fall for sighted biases is of course nothing new. But that is different from concluding an instance in particular, such as my report, "WAS sighted bias. " Nor does it allow us to conclude that our senses are wholly unreliable. After all, we successfully navigate the world via our senses every day. Somehow I manage to recognize my mom's voice on the phone every time ;-)

The point is, as I said, how FAR does it make sense to take that skepticism, in any practical sense, for evaluating our experience? Do you think if we are at the symphony it is worthless to even concentrate on the sound to evaluate what we are hearing...because it's not blinded conditions?
Do you think the average person's sound system could REALLY produce sound indistinguishable from a live symphony? Or a trombone playing in the room? Or a drum kit? Don't you think it's quite reasonable to think they would sound different, and that there would be some pretty easy differences to observe between, say, Miles Davis' horn played through an average pair of speakers and Miles actually playing the horn?

We may posit a sound system that is so good as to reproduce the sound of live instruments indistinguishable from the real thing. (Though most on this site hold that to be mostly impossible, given the inherent limitations of stereo). But I'm sure we can acknowledge most sound systems people own, even here, aren't up to that, and so there are differences that actually exist to observe between what it's like to be in the immediate presence of a live drum kit, and one played back on our stereo. Do you agree?

 

[Newman]

Nor does it allow us to conclude that our senses are wholly unreliable.

Again, you bring in the straw men. Is that a reflex action for you?

But that is different from concluding an instance in particular, such as my report, "WAS sighted bias. "

I see your quote marks. Where did I write that? Or is it another straw man?

The point is, as I said, how FAR does it make sense to take that skepticism, in any practical sense, for evaluating our experience?

Our uncontrolled experience routinely tells us that cables sound dramatically different, DACs sound dramatically different, Ethernet supply lines sound dramatically different, power cords sound dramatically different, well-measuring amps sound dramatically different, speaker A sounds significantly superior than B sighted then the opposite under controlled conditions. And like you said, Olive says we are so suggestible that you only have to tell us that a live performer is performing, and we will live that experience. Ergo, we only have to think that a live performance is happening, and we will live that experience. Ergo, we only have to think that a mere reproduction is happening, and we will live that experience.

The more we learn about perception, we more we realise that context re-writes raw data, but our hard-wiring says it’s still raw data. It’s a natural-selection survival mechanism: believe what our senses are telling us, or die. But in truth our perceptions are creations, not observations. As you say, we sensibly assume it is real for practical purposes. But that’s different from saying we are sure it would survive a test. “They could never be mistaken as being electronic samples.” - and that’s not a mis-quote. Yet you quoted Olive saying you only have to fib and it happens.

So, indeed, how far does it make sense to NOT take that scepticism? You stopped at a random point of your own making. I say test it. You say nah, I don’t need to, it’s real and sure and true as can be. I say hmmmm.

Do you think the average person's sound system could REALLY produce sound indistinguishable from a live symphony?

Why restrict it to “average person”? Let’s open the field up a little. Toole, 2008, p.14: “Live vs reproduced comparison demonstrations were also conducted by RCA in 1947 (using a full symphony orchestra [Olson, 1957, p.606]), Wharfedale in the 1950s (Briggs, 1958, p.302), Acoustic Research in the 1960s, and probably others. All were successful in persuading audiences that near perfection in sound reproduction had arrived.”

OK, “near perfection” is not perfection. But clearly, better than your “could never be mistaken” certainty. And that was 50, 60, 75 years ago.

In case your next straw-man question is, “So you are saying my hifi recordings are actually indistinguishable from live, and I am only imagining that they aren’t????” No. Toole also goes on to say, (op cit)., “the bulk of recordings quickly drifted into areas of more artistic interpretation.”, and lays the foremost blame with recording. They aren’t putting the microphones in positions where playback could have a chance to mimic live.

Cheers

 

[MattHooper]

Again, you bring in the straw men. Is that a reflex action for you?



I see your quote marks. Where did I write that? Or is it another straw man?



Our uncontrolled experience routinely tells us that cables sound dramatically different, DACs sound dramatically different, Ethernet supply lines sound dramatically different, power cords sound dramatically different, well-measuring amps sound dramatically different, speaker A sounds significantly superior than B sighted then the opposite under controlled conditions. And like you said, Olive says we are so suggestible that you only have to tell us that a live performer is performing, and we will live that experience. Ergo, we only have to think that a live performance is happening, and we will live that experience. Ergo, we only have to think that a mere reproduction is happening, and we will live that experience.

The more we learn about perception, we more we realise that context re-writes raw data, but our hard-wiring says it’s still raw data. It’s a natural-selection survival mechanism: believe what our senses are telling us, or die. But in truth our perceptions are creations, not observations. As you say, we sensibly assume it is real for practical purposes. But that’s different from saying we are sure it would survive a test. “They could never be mistaken as being electronic samples.” - and that’s not a mis-quote. Yet you quoted Olive saying you only have to fib and it happens.

So, indeed, how far does it make sense to NOT take that scepticism? You stopped at a random point of your own making. I say test it. You say nah, I don’t need to, it’s real and sure and true as can be. I say hmmmm.



Why restrict it to “average person”? Let’s open the field up a little. Toole, 2008, p.14: “Live vs reproduced comparison demonstrations were also conducted by RCA in 1947 (using a full symphony orchestra [Olson, 1957, p.606]), Wharfedale in the 1950s (Briggs, 1958, p.302), Acoustic Research in the 1960s, and probably others. All were successful in persuading audiences that near perfection in sound reproduction had arrived.”

OK, “near perfection” is not perfection. But clearly, better than your “could never be mistaken” certainty. And that was 50, 60, 75 years ago.

In case your next straw-man question is, “So you are saying my hifi recordings are actually indistinguishable from live, and I am only imagining that they aren’t????” No. Toole also goes on to say, (op cit)., “the bulk of recordings quickly drifted into areas of more artistic interpretation.”, and lays the foremost blame with recording. They aren’t putting the microphones in positions where playback could have a chance to mimic live.

Cheers

I think we are talking past one another.

You seem to be saying that I have no basis on which to think I can examine the character of a sound, no basis on which to have any confidence I've noted anything accurately, without it being under blind testing conditions. On the basis that...hey...biases and all that. I'm pointing out that is an overreach of the skeptical mindset.

You seem to be talking about scientific certainty.

I'm talking about practicality.

Both are reasonable.

If you want scientific certainty about ANYTHING in our experience then you do the rigorous science.

But I have gone to pains to try and be clear I'm talking about practicality and what is actually feasible for the average person and on that basis what conclusions from experience, even if tentative, are reasonable.

I'm pretty sure my perception is such that I can reliably identify my mother's voice on the phone (or in person) from my brother's voice. Have I run the blind tests? No. That would be impractical. But it has seemed quite reliable and it shouldn't be controversial that one could remember and distinguish the different characteristics of voices we know.

Likewise, I work with sound all day long - recording, manipulating it, eqs, effects, etc. This entails constantly identifying the specific character of different sounds and making the right decisions on how to change that character. None of it is done by measuring or blind testing. I hear wind rumble, I know which eq setting will get rid of it. I hear too much sibilance, I can reliably eq it out. Something sounds thin without impact, I know what to add that will bring that impact. If I'm recording and I percieve wind rumble or sibilance or many other issues, I take steps to alter this and successfully solve the problem. All this in the absence of blind testing to scientifically ensure I'm right about every single such inference.
If I were not reliably identifying the sonic qualities of sounds all day long, and their changes, my job would literally be impossible.

If someone suggested that I need to double blind test every sonic inference I make, I hope you understand how that is both impractical, and also absurd given I produce reliable results for achieving my goals and for my clients without blind testing.

Do you see now what I'm getting at? Yes, there is *always* the specter and possibility of bias and misinterpretation in everything we do. But that does not entail of course that any particular instance is actually in error, or that we need to employ scientific rigor to in order to have some reasonable level of confidence in what we perceive.

If I'm positioning speakers I can hear bass nodes, thumpiness and other characteristics change as I move them around. Is a microphone and computer room correction system more specific, detailed and reliable? Sure. But I can detect changes accurately enough to effect changes and get it to where I want sonically.

If we were listening to a bose radio and a giant pair of Magico speakers in the same room, can we not talk about the sonic differences we hear?
Or do we need to shut down any such subjective impressions in lieu of not being able to double blind test? Does that sound practical?
Is it that implausible that we would actually be perceiving real differences between huge Magico speakers and a bose radio? How far to you take skepticism in practical terms?

This is what I'm talking about. And why, on that level, it seems silly to say I couldn't close my eyes, listen to a live instrument, and come away with any reasonable perception or inferences about the character of the sound. Nor that I couldn't do the same with a sound system. And have no basis to draw some plausible comparison, even if not scientifically rigorous. To say for instance that one has no basis for any confidence he has percieved a real difference between standing in front of a live drumset being played, and hearing drums played back on small Spendor bookshelf monitors, is getting silly. Yes, if looking for scientific rigor, you do the double blind science. But in practical terms, there is plenty of reason to have enough confidence in our perceptual inferences where distinct sonic differences are plausible.

Now at this point you may wish to say "but this site is devoted to science, so scientific results are all we should be talking about." But in practice, that's not how things play out. We do exchange impressions of how things sound. It always comes with the caveat when it's not via double blind testing or whatever, just as my observations were presented as not being scientific. But in practice we can talk about plausible differences we hear in gear, what live sounds like to us, etc.

 

[Dogen]

Many times in the past I’ve transferred LPs to CDs, and the digital has always sounded exactly like the LP to me. So if there’s a difference, it’s not the medium but whatever processing for LP and playback distortion is inherent in vinyl.

 

[Tks]

Only thing I care about in vinyl is how it inherently lessened the chance of Loudness War propagation. Louder volume and heavy bass tracks eat up platter real-estate. In order to get larger albums to fit, you couldn't really afford to just compress everything (well I guess you can afford it if you want a multiple platter release and sell at higher cost).

Everything else about vinyl could die in a ditch for all I care.

Woops, one more thing that was great.. The sleeves and extra stuff that would come (booklets). These days I buy Hi-Res files and I can't even get cover art to save my life. I get it, but it's some DISGUSTING jpeg compressed to dog shit levels where I can count the artifacting blocks.. And the releases that have PDF booklets, look nice, but native resolution is piss poor (though enlargening is far less impact than trying to zoom in on the godforsaken jpeg cover-art).

So yeah, aside from those two, I couldn't care less about it.

 

[abdo123]

Many times in the past I’ve transferred LPs to CDs, and the digital has always sounded exactly like the LP to me. So if there’s a difference, it’s not the medium but whatever processing for LP and playback distortion is inherent in vinyl.

i would give this another thought if i were you.