Oh, come on now. You know you already bought all three of them, so it's pretty much the same for the rest of us.
Actually, what's all three of what? I understand you're making a joke, but my vinyl playback system is 35 years old, and works fine.
Oh, come on now. You know you already bought all three of them, so it's pretty much the same for the rest of us.
Matt, you need to stop going in circles like this.
If we are going to continue this discussion, then it has to have a baseline degree of rationality and sanity so that it does not become a waste of time.
1. You first responded to me by saying, "There's a slippage there which assumes an inference from "maximum fidelity" to "better/higher sound quality." But there is no such necessary link."
Your "pedantic correction" was that fidelity and good sound cannot simply be equated. Putting aside the rather important detail that I did NOT actually make such an assumption or inference,
Once again, I did not cast good sound as purely subjective. And an important bit of evidence to prove that I did not do so comes from... you: your first "pedantic correction" chided me precisely because in your view I did not cast good sound as subjective ENOUGH ("this one part scratched my pedantic itch, as I see this conflation [between fidelity and good sound] happening pretty often"). Rather, you claimed I associated good sound too tightly with maximum fidelity.
The fact that I did no such thing is irrelevant to the point I am making here. The point I am making here is that no matter what formulation anyone gives, you will manifest an irresistible compulsion to "correct" it, even if that requires misrepresenting it so you can correct the misrepresented version. This is the first time you and I have tangled on this particular issue, but if you want to know why several other ASR members have gotten frustrated with you or a little spiky towards you in past exchanges in several threads here, I can guarantee you that this kind of rhetorical move is the reason.
3. The bulk of your last comment to me, quoted in full above, is that people's perceptions of good sound have a significant degree of scientifically-backed consensus behind them, and that vinyl is capable of sounding good in those ways.
To that I say, absolutely, makes sense, agree - and I never claimed or implied otherwise.
But again, I have disputed none of that, and I have not dismissed the experiences of vinyl lovers, and I have pointedly not said that people like vinyl despite its bad sound. I never said or implied that vinyl sounded bad. The only critical or "negative" thing I have said about vinyl is that it has lower fidelity than digital, which is objectively true and which you have acknowledge. Therefore, when vinyl sounds audibly different than digital (assuming the same source and mastering), it must sound different because of that lower fidelity - that's not an opinion; it's simply the logical conclusion of facts upon which we agree. That lower fidelity does NOT have to sound worse of course - it can sound better to folks, or it can sound different and not necessarily better or worse. Nothing you have written disproves or effectively argues against those basic points, and conversely I have affirmed those basic points, most of them repeatedly.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what else there is to say. If you have a disagreement with a point I've actually made or a point of view I actually hold, I'm all ears. But if, instead, you have a disagreement with a viewpoint that you want to saddle me with based on an inaccurate and implausible interpretation of what I wrote, kindly take a seat.
"Now the problem is you can't make a perfect digital copy" at about 29:20 may cause some to have their head's explode because this is contrary to a fundamental concept they have accepted as being true about digital. I think because it just makes logical sense and when you learn the theory the front end of recording, mixing and especially mastering isn't part of the discussion. Ones and zeros, bit for bit, copy, etc., is all great in theory, but in reality it has to go through conversion or processing, and even mechanical.
Good luck getting 90+db out of any musical recording, out of vinyl or any other medium.
That's fine, but your statement had left a certain implication, or was at least ambiguous: So fidelity is not always correlated with good sound - that depends on one's preferences. That directly implied the correlation of "Good Sound Quality" with ""one's preferences."
Now, do those objective qualities of good sound have a connection - not a 100% connection or an exclusive connection, but an important and obvious connection nonetheless - to fidelity of sound reproduction? Of course they do: clarity, soundstage precision, dynamics, intelligibility - high fidelity reproduction is essential to all of them. In fact, for some of them (clarity and full frequency response in particular) high fidelity is synonymous - they are part of the definition of high fidelity.
Let's take this a bit farther. Can you even DEFINE "good fidelity"? In light of the point I made earlier in this thread that stereo itself is an illusion, I think you need to consider the issue of "what is Fidelity?"
Again, you posited an example IN WHICH one takes "High Fidelity" to be synonymous with "Good Sound from an audio playback system."
I was addressing the implications of anyone doing that. I already clarified that I wasn't attacking your viewpoint. But the example you gave is worth addressing so I don't see the problem here.
Ok. I'm pretty used to philosophical discussions/debates elsewhere, in which conceptual clarity even about small details is seen as important. I can see why not everyone is in to this style of discussion. But I find ignoring these things actually muddies the waters. I mean, everything is easier and simpler if you ignore niggling details.
As I've said, I'm not JUST being picky for pickiness sake: the reason I'm leaping on them is because I see the ambiguities/conceptual slippage/assumptions etc as underlying larger disagreements.
... your statement had left a certain implication, or was at least ambiguous: So fidelity is not always correlated with good sound - that depends on one's preferences. That directly implied the correlation of "Good Sound Quality" with ""one's preferences."
Since "Good Sound Quality" is separable from "an individual's preference" - I think this was worth clarifying.
As I pointed out, this is often ignored when people want to sort of dismiss the observations about equipment that may not be strictly, fully "accurate."
First there ARE people who equate "High Sound Quality" with "High Fidelity." That is why you used it as an example in the first place! And it was worth disambiguating those two things.
And then if someone like me lauds a piece of equipment (or source) that is not strictly "High Fidelity" often the response is "Look, nobody is disputing taste. It's fine you have a PREFERENCE for Lower Fidelity/Lower Sound Quality." But that sort of condescension (even if not meant so) derives from the very conflation I've been talking about - conflating High Fidelity with Higher Sound Quality, and "preference" as a proxy for saying "you like lower sound quality."
Earlier in this thread I pointed out a critical pitfall in the digital domain that ‘top-tier’ mastering engineers continue to fall into on a regular basis. It takes a few hours to learn how to avoid this and still produce a loud track. According to an old anecdote from someone who worked in Grundman’s studio a few times, he used to perform this by simply overloading the ADC … that’s smart . The video suggests that he does now use brick-wall ‘peak’ limiters, but it seems he’s confused about the difference between the attack and release knobs.there are still choices to be made (and resulting pitfalls) even in the digital domain
Industry professionals are just as vulnerable to magical thinking as audiophiles
Yes, it was only a joke that you already bought all three of the records which create an illusion of more complex soundfield. The joke is that it is rare and that you already grabbed those few (three) rare ones, so we're no better of.Actually, what's all three of what? I understand you're making a joke, but my vinyl playback system is 35 years old, and works fine.
Sadly, I must say I gave this a shot. And it was heart-breakingly futile. Since I don't think Matt is dumb, I concluded it's a new form of trolling I dubbed "soft-trolling". It's endless repeating of everything a troll would say, but without cuss words so that it gets under the mod's radar. It consists of obfuscating, obfuscating, obfuscating... First it's cars, then food, then cooking, then lifestyle, than quotes from philosophy... Still, behind few dozen k words, there is only "better for me is equal as objectively better". I have found no other argument worthwhile, nor do I consider this a valid argument. You simply can't equate subjective and objective. And you shouldn't.Sorry, but no.
Let's try again. First let's get one thing out of the way: I do not - and did not - think you were attacking my viewpoint. That's not the issue.
Now, my point was that vinyl sounds different than digital. There are different standards people can - and do - use to gauge sound quality. If - IF - you use fidelity to the source as the standard, then by definition digital is capable of better sound than vinyl. Of course one does not have to use fidelity as the standard for good sound. But it is a standard, and a sensible one at that.
So the first issue is that using fidelity to the source as a standard for sound quality - NOT the sound quality of the recording, but rather the sound quality of the audio gear reproducing that recording - is not a "conflation" of fidelity with sound quality as you claim. To call it a conflation is to say that it is an improper association, mixing one thing up with another. But it is not in any way improper. Quite the contrary. It is in fact quite logical, and if you want to get the most you can out of whatever recording it is that you're playing back, high fidelity is the most logical place to start. It is certainly not the ONLY logical way to think about sound quality. The fact that it is sensible - which it most certainly is - does not automatically make it exclusionary or narrow-minded. If you want to argue that using fidelity as a standard is "dismissive" of ways that some people listen to music, then we have to also say that using "simulating a real performance in the room" is also a standard that is dismissive of ways that some people listen to music. It's a criticism that can be leveled at any approach to good sound, and because it can be leveled at any approach, it's a meaningless criticism.
So one is free not to use fidelity as one's standard for good sound. And in that case, digital might produce better sound, or it might not - it depends on how digital and vinyl versions of various recordings sound to you, and how well the sound of each medium/format fulfills your expectations for good sound based on your standard.
Here we come to the second issue: in light of what I just wrote above, you might think, "aha - that's what I was saying: as soon as you move away from fidelity as the standard, you assume that it becomes a subjective free-for-all based on whatever sounds good to each individual."
But no, that was YOUR assumption about what I was saying. In fact, I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge and embrace the fact that, as you noted in your earlier comment, there is research on people's listening preferences (what they consider good sound), and that research suggests that there is a good deal of consensus on the subject. So there does appear to be some objective characteristics of "good sound." Therefore, one doesn't necessarily need "fidelity" at all in order to have an objective standard, or at least something approaching an objective standard.
Assuming that, we then come to what those consensus characteristics of good sound are, based on the research. My understanding of the research is that listeners tend to prefer neutral sound - flat frequency response (or the gently downward sloping but otherwise linear, even response that people apparently perceive as flat, and which Amir uses as a reference in his speaker reviews). If memory serves there is also a majority - though not necessarily as large of a majority - who prefer wider dispersion aka a larger perceived soundstage. My understanding from many threads here is that dispersion characteristics are at least in part considered a matter of taste - there is no consensus as to whether narrower or wider dispersion (within reason, anyway) equals better or worse sound quality. And we can use common sense combined with the research to safely say that people also value clarity, which generally comes from flat frequency response (or proper frequency balance) and from minimizing distortion and noise.
IMHO, this is where we come to the point where your argument becomes rather pointless. Because with the partial exception of dispersion characteristics - and again, to my knowledge there is no accepted dispersion standard that is the "right" one for good sound - all of these characteristics have a strong correlation with high fidelity sound reproduction. The correlation/association might not be 100% perfect - but it doesn't have to be in order for fidelity to be a reasonable standard for gauging good sound.
Which brings us back to where we started. If you feel that vinyl playback tends to produce sound that is clearer, more impactful, more dynamic, and more immersive than digital, then vinyl does indeed sound better to you. But I don't feel that vinyl playback tends to produce that kind of sound compared with digital. So even if clarity, dynamics, and so on are sonic characteristics that have a lot of research behind them to suggest that they are objective characteristics of good sound, there is still the problem that there is no consensus on how well digital vs vinyl provides those characteristics: many prefer digital, many prefer vinyl, and many don't have a strong or consistent or universal preference.
I'm quite comfortable with philosophical discussion; I'm in academia and the majority of my career as both a student and a faculty member has been spent immersed in close reading and in analysis that emphasizes conceptual clarity and details of language. For the third time, my objection is not to your pedantism or concern with niggling details. My objection is that you are not actually being pedantic, because you're not actually disagreeing with or correcting what I say. Instead, you're disagreeing with and correcting inaccurate and sometimes implausible inferences about what you think I am implying - like for example the mere mention of the obvious fact that many folks use fidelity as a standard for sound quality becomes an "example of a common conflation." No. Just no.
I agree. We just disagree on who is being conceptually sloppy and who is not.
There you go again. You're not simply arguing that sound quality is not (purely) subjective - you want to go further and argue that objectively true elements of sound quality may be the reason that lower-fidelity equipment is "observed" - a misleadingly scientific-sounding way to say "individually experienced" - to sound "good." No sale. If lower-fidelity gear is perceived as better-sounding than higher-fidelity gear, the most reasonable and likely explanations are that both pieces of gear are audibly transparent and the listener experienced a subjective preference for the one that happens to measure worse; or that the worse-measuring piece of gear is not audibly transparent and the listener enjoys whatever that gear's euphonic effect might be.
These are certainly not the ONLY explanations. But they are the presumptive ones, and "sound quality is both objective and not the same as fidelity" is not evidence of a different explanation. That's not philosophical precision; it's sophistry.
Again, no sale. There are people who equate high sound quality with high fidelity because when it comes to the contribution of the playback gear - NOT the quality of the recording itself - high fidelity IS the most reasonable metric to use to evaluate the sound quality of the gear. Once again, I freely admit that it is not the ONLY metric, and it is not the only LOGICAL or REASONABLE metric. But you are making a much more extreme argument in the converse: that sound quality and fidelity must be disambiguated. No, they do not need to be disambiguated, because the connection is clear, obvious, and reasonable.
The error in the kind of response you are citing is not that the response is condescending. Nor is it that the response assumes that fidelity is a good standard for sound quality. The error in the kind of response you are citing is that is assumes that the "not strictly high fidelity" equipment you are lauding actually sounds any different than a "strictly high fidelity" piece of equipment. It is more likely that there simply is no objective difference in sound between your lauded gear and a better-measuring piece of gear, because many of the measurement differences we talk about a lot here are not actually audible in normal listening situations, unless those differences become really large, or unless the worse-measuring gear's performance is unambiguously worse than the threshold of human hearing for such things.
So if you really like a piece of gear that doesn't measure great, that's fine - that gear might very well still sound excellent. Therefore, folks shouldn't say things like, "well then you must just prefer worse sound." But if you were to take it to the next step and say something like, "not only do I love this poorly measuring piece of equipment, but I compared it with a better-measuring piece of equipment that has gotten a rave review here, and the worse-measuring gear sounded better to me, so there must be things that measurements cannot capture that determine how good something sounds" - well then the most likely explanation would indeed be that you prefer the sound of euphonic distortion of some kind.
If you are not making that argument, then that's not an issue. But at the end of the day, what you're saying is, "I want to like what I like, and I want others to accept that I like what I like, and I want others to affirm that I like what I like for reasons that are objective and research-based but yet have nothing to do with high fidelity." You are of course free to want what you want, but you're going to be waiting a long, long time if you expect that a critical mass of ASR members are going to endorse and indulge you in that particular chain of desires.
Yes. Off course. There can be several different reasons why people listen to vinyl. But these days we have a vinyl revival. As I se it, the reason for this has nothing to do with audio quality. There are other explanaitions. IF mainstream consumers really cared for audio quality in an audiophile sense, then record companies would put much more effort into making digital sound as good as possible. But they don’t, because for the main stream consumer audiophile audio quality is of limited priority.This is mostly so. I think there are other considerations though: (1) lots of unusual, historic, and oddball stuff from around the world is only found on vinyl, particularly early classical from less well known artists, world/folk music, and spoken word; (2) used vinyl is often less costly (though buyer beware); (3) it's easier for middle-aged and older nerds to read librettos and liner notes in larger format; (4) album art was a thing for awhile and some of it's still interesting. Of course, none of this has anything to do with fildelity.
As Rudy Van Gelder is quoted, "The biggest distorter is the LP itself. I've made thousands of LP masters. I used to make 17 a day, with two lathes going simultaneously, and I'm glad to see the LP go. As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. It was a constant battle to try to make that music sound the way it should. It was never any good. And if people don't like what they hear in digital, they should blame the engineer who did it. Blame the mastering house. Blame the mixing engineer. That's why some digital recordings sound terrible, and I'm not denying that they do, but don't blame the medium."
Vinyl was a way of getting good music into the hands of the masses of us who could enjoy something that sounded "pretty good" for not too much cost. I still enjoy it as a fun way to explore sounds I might not be able to find elsewhere and let the pops and clicks fall where they may. Of course, most of the truly "great" music I listen to from Bach to the Beatles is digital.
If you are not making that argument, then that's not an issue. But at the end of the day, what you're saying is, "I want to like what I like, and I want others to accept that I like what I like, and I want others to affirm that I like what I like for reasons that are objective and research-based but yet have nothing to do with high fidelity." You are of course free to want what you want, but you're going to be waiting a long, long time if you expect that a critical mass of ASR members are going to endorse and indulge you in that particular chain of desires.
Sadly, I must say I gave this a shot. And it was heart-breakingly futile. Since I don't think Matt is dumb, I concluded it's a new form of trolling I dubbed "soft-trolling". It's endless repeating of everything a troll would say, but without cuss words so that it gets under the mod's radar. It consists of obfuscating, obfuscating, obfuscating... First it's cars, then food, then cooking, then lifestyle, than quotes from philosophy... Still, behind few dozen k words, there is only "better for me is equal as objectively better". I have found no other argument worthwhile, nor do I consider this a valid argument. You simply can't equate subjective and objective. And you shouldn't.
Imagine him coming up third in a race and then asking for his gold medal...
I would encourage you to bypass reading my posts. Then you'll be less likely to comment on them, which also means I'll see less strawmanning of my position (as you've done once again there. "better for me is equal as objectively better" is nonsensical and not what I've argued). A win-win.
Plus, maybe you'll be able to resist calling me a "troll" - which implies someone who is insincere and posts only with the intent to make people upset. I always prefer civil discussion and trying to understand other people's likes, dislikes and arguments. Unless someone is just clearly trying to take a piece out of me. Most of the responses suggest people don't see me as a troll. Look, also, to the ratio of likes for our posts.
Well, I have to say that in my experience, misinformation that is left alone becomes "truth" and we all suffer. Having said that, I'm not taking a position on your comments, other than to point out that for 'true fidelity' we need first a definition, are we talking about the fidelity of the illusion, the actual soundfield of a live performance, or what?
Today I have to reply to my own message.While the loudness wars are deplorable, the topic has zero to do with the measurable differences between vinyl and digital. Heavens, I do remember my Dad said reel-to-reel sounded much better than LPs and he did buy those (and measurements bear that out, my Dad owned a Tandberg).
A superbly engineered recording that truly exploits the benefits of digital would be completely wasted on vinyl, unless the ritual is what you like (and I completely respect that). Admittedly, probably only 2% of available releases are engineered to that standard.
I've been arguing that, when we are getting in the the fine details, conceptually we want to notice "High Fidelity Reproduction Of The Signal" and "Good Sound Quality" (qualities many would associate with Good Sound) are not one and the same. They are separable.
High Fidelity in this understanding CAN produce Good Sound quality - it has the POTENTIAL - but it is not guaranteed. The equipment - high fidelity or not - doesn't produce sound on it's own. The quality of the SOUND is ALWAYS going to be dependent on the source. This is inextricable.
We have to be able to play back any source through a High Fidelity system and STILL be able to rate the sound we are hearing as "poor" or "better." (Which is what we do in my work all the time, and most of us do anyhow).
So, clearly, defining "Good Sound quality" in to the very definition of "High Fidelity" can not work...when we are talking about source signals, which will vary in sound quality.
For instance, if someone DEFINED digital sources as High Fidelity, and made that synonymous with "Good Sound," it would bar us from actually being able to assess variations in recording sound quality "just because it's digital!"
But then you go on to argue, essentially: Ok, but when it comes to the EQUIPMENT itself, then we CAN define Good Sound quality INTO (or be synonymous with) the concept of "High Fidelity EQUIPMENT.
So...now, somehow, that is supposed to make sense?
Sound Quality is, and must be, a description of our perception of sound - that's what the "quality" part means. How Good It Sounds. Trying to ascribe "Good Sound Quality" as part of the definition of High Fidelity equipment is a fundamental error like attributing "High Value" as part of the "definition" of "bars of gold," as if "being valuable" were some objective, intrinsic property of Gold, inseparable, rather than our valuing that determines the value of gold (which could wax and wane)!
The equipment only exists to reproduce the source. It's inextricably linked to how the source sounds. If you take a High Fidelity system and play back what anyone would declare to be a horrible recording - muddy, distorted, etc - on what grounds would it make sense to declare "This Equipment Sure SOUNDS GOOD!" ??
That's just incoherent, trying to juggle two negating versions of "good sound quality" at the same time; the one that rates the source as "sounding bad" but suddenly rating the equipment producing EXACTLY THAT SOUND as "sounds good."
Well, we can use the terms like High Fidelity Equipment as a short-hand, a proxy for "Capable of producing High Quality Sound."
That makes sense, and as I've mentioned numerous times here, that surely IS the reason why people here pursue equipment capable of being High Fidelity To The Recorded Signal. The promise of High Sound quality. Given variations in the source, we aren't expecting that everything will sound "good" through such a system, but it holds the capability of sounding Good IF THE SOURCE IS GOOD SOUNDING.
So there's no problem at all with referring to High Fidelity Equipment as a proxy for Good Sound in this way (capable of producing Good Sound quality).
And generally speaking, I think this is how most will understand it.
So if THAT is what you mean by relating Good Sound Quality to High Fidelity, then we'd totally agree.
But that isn't what you seem to be saying. You offered an example where *someone* defines High Fidelity as identical to Good Sound.
And then you yourself seemed to defend just this form of definition, at least for equipment:
But we aren't talking about mere associations. You keep bringing up the concept of DEFINING "High Fidelity" as synonymous with Good Sound, or certain sound characteristics! It is a conflation if someone is defining "Good Sound Quality" in to the term 'High Fidelity" and/or when you define actual sound characteristics in to the "definition" of High Fidelity, as you did here:
"In fact, for some of them (clarity and full frequency response in particular) high fidelity is synonymous - they are part of the definition of high fidelity."
I've argued why that is so problematic. These concepts you are defending, whether defining Good Sound in to the definition of High Fidelity in regards to the signal or the equipment, suffer the problems I have pointed out. They are at best muddled or perhaps not stated clearly, at worst, incoherent as practical propositions. (And I see this problem running through much of the rest of your response)