.

[krabapple]

Cool. Now, where's the 'Digital is unsurprisingly good' thread? Because that's true too.

 

[Wombat]

Well, perhaps you're "special". Personally, compression artifacts, evident on so many CD's, "distracts" me a whole lot more.

So what was so "distracting" exactly ... because again ... without provided the actual rip(s) to relate, I've no idea or confirmation to what you refer.

But that said, I also hear "artifacts" with many rips, including many of my own. But certainly not all. Rips that don't work out perfectly, which I have plenty, IMO, don't justify vinyl's true potential. And when it comes to torrent vinyl rips, they're all over the place. PBThal rips are popular. His early work seemed to have no (or little) digital intervention, so you really got a chance to hear what his system was capable of reproducing. His later offerings have obvious signs of digital intervention, and although they may sound quieter, they don't really provide the proper insight toward his systems true sound. One chap, who's rips are also all over the place on the net, with Japanese type name resembling a tire manufacturer, claims his "Vinyl" rips are perfect ... and they certainly are ... that's because they are in fact an exact copy of the original high DR CD's, bit for bit.

Personally, although it's relatively easy to de-click & filter a file post rip, I prefer to share my rips with no post digital intervention, rather them judge based on reality, warts & all.

I've acquaintances who also are not into vinyl. For those 'philes, the turntable remains static which pleases me fine. Let's not confuse my love for vinyl as a slight against digital, I absolutely love digital, so those all-digital listening sessions are very much welcomed, and certainly, the inconvenience of searching, cleaning, playing LPs, for those who prefer the vinyl experience, may eventually drive me to loneliness.

However, for those who first visit, I routinely pull the same stunt ... I start by playing three specific re-masters, a Badco, Deep Purple, and Bowie CD. The Badco and DP songs are "extra" titles on the re-masters, absent from the original album. The beauty of these picks is since they didn't make the album, I presume they were left as-is, since little to no apparent compression was added (except for the DP Glover remix version). Not only are they most-often totally unaware of these cuts, they're also always impressed by the music. The third cut is a down-mix from Ken Scott's Ziggy Stardust SACD MC re-issue, which contains stellar DR, values, way in excess of every version of this album I've heard or own, in any format. Chances are, they never heard this version either, always seems to impress. But then, the stunt. I put on a high DR rip, one with very little to no apparent noise. Not once has anyone guessed it was a vinyl rip. Nada!!!! Instead, they act just as they did with the prior songs. I've pulled this "stunt" often, and its proved 100% consistent. When inform, they always ask to either hear it again, or claim "you'd never know that was a rip".

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's a flawed stunt, but considering the consistency, I don't think you and your "old" ears would have acted any differently.

I did say extraneous artifacts. They are clicks, pops and surface noise that are due to vinyl surface imperfections. Qualities of the recording are accepted, or not, for what they are. So, there is no reason to say I am special as these defects are plainly audible to most people. I find them as annoying as a dripping tap.

Maybe those who can ignore them are special.

 

[cjfrbw]

Vinyl has one trick that is pretty cool. The pops and ticks travel all around the room, even if I restrict playback to the main two channels. Sometimes a pop goes right through my listening spot like a shot through the head. How it is able to do that i.e. retrieve that level of dimensionality? It's lost in hi rez recordings of the vinyl when played back through DAC.

No, I don't drink, snort, or toke, I am actually sober when I listen (but not necessarily sane).

 

[solderdude]

The 'rituals' involved with vinyl. The 'smell' and feel of handling vinyl, the sleeves, the nice looking all mechanical TT systems, seeing a cart 'floating' above vinyl, seeing how it 'works'. The attention it needs and wondering how on earth the few mV that comes out the cart coming from invisibly (by eye) small vibrations can be amplified hundreds (if not thousands) of times and sent to speakers can still sound good/pleasant (while ignoring noise and crackles/ticks).
Vinyl can sound surprisingly good. It can even subjectively sound 'more pleasant'.

It is a good indication of how crappy and forgiving the human hearing/brain actually is for an objectively poor music reproduction system.

Still have a lot of vinyl, a few TT and carts ... but convenience gets in the way of using it.
Those who enjoy vinyl must do so... they just should not claim it is a superior 'system' in any way.

 

[TBone]

Vinyl has one trick that is pretty cool. The pops and ticks travel ...

Some are more tolerant of ticks & pops than others ... I was far more tolerant than I am now.

How a turntable, arm & cart handle ticks & pops is quite telling of it's overall quality. Another major tell-tale sign of overall quality is the amount of needle-talk. In both cases, the quieter, the better.

Often, while ripping, a particular song is seemingly going to rip well to the end, just when I'm thinking I'm home-free, a "pop" interrupts my reality.

Immediately, I wonder, should I investigate the source of the pop, perhaps re-clean & re-rip, or simply (easier) use manual noise reduction ... or just live with the intrusion?

The 'rituals' involved with vinyl. The 'smell' and feel of handling vinyl, the sleeves, the nice looking all mechanical TT systems, seeing a cart 'floating' above vinyl, seeing how it 'works'. The attention it needs and wondering how on earth the few mV that comes out the cart coming from invisibly (by eye) small vibrations can be amplified hundreds (if not thousands) of times and sent to speakers can still sound good/pleasant (while ignoring noise and crackles/ticks).
Vinyl can sound surprisingly good. It can even subjectively sound 'more pleasant'.

It still amazes me how dragging a rock within a circulating vinyl valley can sound so damn convincing, enough to make many an "audiophile" forget they are either listening to "vinyl", or don't care ...

The rituals are interesting, in that they bother me more than I care to admit. When a digit-head visits, they near always comment about the "rituals" as a negative. Vinyl is certainly not for the lazy. However, past the handling of the LP itself ... it's the album covers, gatefolds, inserts, (big bold print), perhaps even a poster ... these tangibles are pawned over repeatedly.

 

[cjfrbw]

I think it is the electro-mechanical nature of vinyl that enables it to cut through the amplification chain and jump out of the speakers. I am beyond defending it from any reasonable objective standard, so all I can say is I still really like it.

Yes, the ritual of placing the vinyl on the turntable alter and lowering the tonearm is part of it. Nostalgia is part of it. The ticks and pops are part of it. The decadence of self indulgence is part of it.

 

[Grave]

My dad is still listening to his vinyl non-stop whereas I gave up on listening to it because digital lossless sounds slightly better.

 

[RayDunzl]

Given the actual design/implementation of the storage/retrieval mechanism, I'd have to agree with the initial proposition in the thread title that vinyl is "surprisingly good" (at least to my deaf ears).

 

[TBone]

... whereas I gave up on listening to it because digital lossless sounds slightly better.

Slightly a blanket judgement.

Slightly subjective.

What exactly did you compare?

And what is better, better than what?

What software was used in this appraisal, did you compare apples to apples?

Is this a comparison simply between your/fathers turntable and a digital player, lumping all vinyl based on thee?

Since I've heard, countless times, my own turntable(s) (which measure tonally correct and given the software can demonstrate potential dynamic superiority) put my digital players to shame (*) ... it makes we wonder ..., in this case, has your or your fathers turntable been fairly represented, or perhaps if it indeed has, maybe its compromised, either inheritably, or based on setup?

So many questions, but since this board is above subjective answers ...

(*) and vise versa.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Slightly a blanket judgement.

Slightly subjective.

What exactly did you compare?

And what is better, better than what?

What software was used in this appraisal, did you compare apples to apples?

Is this a comparison simply between your/fathers turntable and a digital player, lumping all vinyl based on thee?

Since I've heard, countless times, my own turntable(s) (which measure tonally correct and given the software can demonstrate potential dynamic superiority) put my digital players to shame (*) ... it makes we wonder ..., in this case, has your or your fathers turntable been fairly represented, or perhaps if it indeed has, maybe its compromised, either inheritably, or based on setup?

So many questions, but since this board is above subjective answers ...

(*) and vise versa.

In the interests of objectivity, it would be really interesting to see those measurements if you have them?

What do you mean by dynamic superiority? Not criticising, just trying to be critical

 

[TBone]

I've shown plenty graphs and txt comparing tonally, and dynamically, my vinyl rips to many a digital counterpart. A simple search ...

 

[andreasmaaan]

I've shown plenty graphs and txt comparing tonally, and dynamically, my vinyl rips to many a digital counterpart. A simple search ...

Perhaps you could unlimit me from your profile so that I can find this material?

Or perhaps you could just link me to wherever it is on the forum you've posted the measurements?

PS. there don't need to be many, I'd just like to see one or two that demonstrate your point, please.

 

[TBone]

Hmmm ... didn't realize, or more likely, have long forgotten, that I had the power to Limit people from viewing my profile.

Anyway ... I've scattered a few such graphs/data within many ASR threads concerning vinyl and dynamic range discussions. Such as below ...

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nd-why-is-it-happening.3392/page-6#post-86305

 

[andreasmaaan]

Hmmm ... didn't realize, or more likely, have long forgotten, that I had the power to Limit people from viewing my profile.

Anyway ... I've scattered a few such graphs/data within many ASR threads concerning vinyl and dynamic range discussions. Such as below ...

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nd-why-is-it-happening.3392/page-6#post-86305

Cheers, that clarifies it I think you're saying that in many cases LPs are dynamically and/or tonally superior due to mastering decisions, not inherent characteristics of the medium itself? In which case I would agree - depending on the particular master of course.

 

[TBone]

Cheers, that clarifies it I think you're saying that in many cases LPs are dynamically and/or tonally superior due to mastering decisions, not inherent characteristics of the medium itself? In which case I would agree - depending on the particular master of course.

Yes, you cannot judge, and come to a conclusion, about the medium on an absolute level (or very limited experiences). As for tonally superior, not really a "superiority" issue per say ... I check tonality in order to view any variations in frequency response that might tilt the subjective scale, what I'm really looking for is overall tonal accuracy ... more a test for my analog rigs accuracy, and/or the LP frequency response in comparison to the digital counterpart.

The dynamic content comparisons can really tell-the-tale of why vinyl can easily trounce digital, subjectively, and objectively, but of coarse, this works both ways. The problem is; the apparent dynamic range advantage of vinyl has too often been wrongly communicated & misrepresented by many "experts" as a part of the vinyl format itself, which is totally ludicrous, while conversely, it is too often presumed that since digital has absolute measurable advantages over vinyl, that those advantages are always going to be realized, and not offset by mass compression, at the mastering level.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Yes, you cannot judge, and come to a conclusion, about the medium on an absolute level (or very limited experiences). As for tonally superior, not really a "superiority" issue per say ... I check tonality in order to view any variations in frequency response that might tilt the subjective scale, what I'm really looking for is overall tonal accuracy ... more a test for my analog rigs accuracy, and/or the LP frequency response in comparison to the digital counterpart.

The dynamic content comparisons can really tell-the-tale of why vinyl can easily trounce digital, subjectively, and objectively, but of coarse, this works both ways. The problem is; the apparent dynamic range advantage of vinyl has too often been wrongly communicated & misrepresented by many "experts" as a part of the vinyl format itself, which is totally ludicrous, while conversely, it is too often presumed that since digital has absolute measurable advantages over vinyl, that those advantages are always going to be realized, and not offset by mass compression, at the mastering level.

Yeh, the fact is that many masters don't push the dynamic capabilities of either medium. But I take fidelity in reproduction to mean fidelity to the recording - even if it's not very good in the first place.

I'm not sure I understand the first sentence of your post. I'd suggest that on an absolute level digital is superior. Even relatively inexpensive digital devices are capable of being transparent (taking "transparent" to mean not exceeding audibility thresholds as they are best understood on the basis of scientific research - and of course there's some uncertainty here).

Without being any kind of expert on vinyl, it doesn't seem that the same could be said of it, if I'm not mistaken?

 

[cjfrbw]

The old arguments around vinyl were about tonal viscosity and reverberant tails, as well as vinyl's very special rendering (probably due to mass loading artifacts) of upper bass and lower midrange.

The first thirty years of digital reproduction scoured these traits into sterility.

It only took over thirty years, but somewhere in there for reasons unbeknownst, digital got a lot better. Now, even well crafted compressed music can be enjoyable. I listen to it all the time now, and it's fine.

I still "like" vinyl because of the saturation and mass loading effects, but these are arguably additive distortions. I prefer to think of them as ear-brain friendly dither.

 

[TBone]

Yeh, the fact is that many masters don't push the dynamic capabilities of either medium. But I take fidelity in reproduction to mean fidelity to the recording - even if it's not very good in the first place.

It really is a shame, or sham for that matter ... that not only are dynamic potentials not being realized, they've been consistently squashed over time, despite the labels claims of the "re-masters" superiority. Never understood why audiophiles spend extra money on better equipment in order to enhance or justify dynamic content, while the software they choose is of secondary importance. It should be the other way around, especially in the digital world.

I'm not sure I understand the first sentence of your post. I'd suggest that on an absolute level digital is superior. Even relatively inexpensive digital devices are capable of being transparent (taking "transparent" to mean not exceeding audibility thresholds as they are best understood on the basis of scientific research - and of course there's some uncertainty here).

Digital is obviously superior to vinyl on absolute terms, but that's does not translate into audiophile reality ... since the 90's, mass compression has severely offset that ideal. Vinyl has also suffered at the heavy handed compression trend, but not to the same extent. Streaming services, mostly, if not entirely, provide re-mastered material, which is near always more heavily compressed when compared to the originals, either CD or LP.

Without being any kind of expert on vinyl, it doesn't seem that the same could be said of it, if I'm not mistaken?

It is difficult to get the very best out of vinyl; unlike digital, it's cost prohibitive, very much equipment and setup dependent to a very large degree. IMO, it does not help that the vast majority of vinyl-experts can't even get the basics right, never mind them dolling out that advice to casual users. Vinyl has obvious limitations, some more controllable than others ... but dynamic content should not be one of 'em ... and even a casual user on a casual deck should be able to hear that advantage - when properly presented.

 

[TBone]

Now, even well crafted compressed music can be enjoyable. I listen to it all the time now, and it's fine.

well crafted compressed music ... lol ... perhaps one mans "fine" is another mans “accidenti.”

 

[cjfrbw]

well crafted compressed music ... lol ... perhaps one mans "fine" is another mans “accidenti.”

I mean compressed aka 256kps vs. Redbook as opposed to 'dynamically' compressed. Dynamically compressed is another can of tuna. Perhaps some better terminology distinction.