• Welcome to ASR. 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!

When a single vinyl album costs more than your DAC ...

ROTFLMAO, Look out guys, Matt will defend his $10,000 turntable all day and night long. Not really sure why he hangs out here beating that analog drum, it hasn't been a viable as a SOTA High Fidelity medium for over 50 years now, that's indisputable. I guess when you got that much invested in squashed hockey pucks you can't let people destroy your holideck's vacation image. :p

I admit: I have an almost quixotic belief that some people can be prodded to see beyond certain solipsistic tendencies.
Not everyone, mind you...;)
 
Last edited:
A watch these days is just bling. Its to look nice and impress people. Fashion and fad. Would you were an old analog watch if it was ugly ( or cheap) ? A music format is to listen to. Whats a better format for that. The rest of the attraction to vinyl is like the watch, fad and fashion, pretty and expensive and to impress people. And you cant put your phone away when you listen to a CD?
For some it may be, but I take issue with you making it a general point.
My interest in mechanical watches is from an engineering perspective. I have been fascinated since a child in the 50s watching my grandfather whose hobby was rebuilding clocks and watches.
It massively appeals to me that it is possible to make a mechanism which can set the calendar to 29 February correctly once every 4 years and that people still do, despite how easy it is to do for pennies in silicon.

Yes Rolex is bling and marketed as such even including deliberately restricting supply of the inexpensive to make models to keep prices up. They have a very good uncomplicated movement which is mass produced in considerable quantity and very, very profitable I'm sure.

Most interesting mechanisms are made by other makers (Rolex don't make any) and pretty well nobody will be impressed by seeing them unless they know what they are and 99.9999% of people will not.
 
I admit: I have an almost quixotic belief that some people can be prodded to see beyond certain solipsistic tendencies.
Not everyone, mind you...;)
Pot calling kettle black.
 
[QUOTE="MattHooper, post: 389928, member: 5908"it doesn't fulfill your function, sure. But it's only "inferior" for your interests, it's not automatically "superior" in some way to someone else's..
Cheers.[/QUOTE]

Yes a CD is superior to vinyl, in the area that maters, the music. And I can buy 5 times as much of it on CD. If you want to play the lame analogy game, food. I think most people wuold rather eat great food in a dive for a 1/4 the price than mediocre food in a fancy expensive place, unless your a poser whos trying to impress someone.
 
For some it may be, but I take issue with you making it a general point.
My interest in mechanical watches is from an engineering perpspective.
You can say the same about steam locomotives.
It is a general point. Your the anomaly, the only one I can see a point too. 99.9% of people buy wrist watches as jewelry. Why would anyone who looks at there phone every 5 minutes (99% of the population) also need to look at there watch.
 
Why would anyone who looks at there phone every 5 minutes (99% of the population) also need to look at there their watch.
I like to be able to glance at the time whenever I want to.
Getting my phone out of my pocket just to check the time would be mind bendingly irritating.
I bought a smartwatch but ended up wearing a proper watch as well because it went dark all the time to preserve battery so unless I made it wake up it was pointless. I don't bother with it any more and have gone back to a proper watch. Much, much more convenient and better. Not jewellery at all.
I find it impossible to believe only the 0.1% of watch wearers you specify are like me. I actually would expect watch as jewellery would be in the minority - but I have no evidence of that either.
I do know people who have to get their phone out and tap it to tell the time :facepalm:
 
it doesn't fulfill your function, sure. But it's only "inferior" for your interests, it's not automatically "superior" in some way to someone else's..
Cheers.
Yes a CD is superior to vinyl, in the area that maters, the music. And I can buy 5 times as much of it on CD. If you want to play the lame analogy game, food. I think most people wuold rather eat great food in a dive for a 1/4 the price than mediocre food in a fancy expensive place, unless your a poser whos trying to impress someone.
Most of the writing I find in "High-End Audio Journals" likes to talk about super expensive gear and LPs as artisan or bespoke goods, products that are all about one's societal position. An illusion of superiority is maintained this way via association. If one's concern is for audio quality alone, these particular qualities are meaningless. But there are collectors and hoarders of all stripes. I used to collect Shaded Dogs, and so it goes.
 
Last edited:
Pot calling kettle black.

Robin, simply not true and I'd think you'd know that from your own extensive thread.

I've NEVER been dismissive or critical or disparaging of anyone else's preference for digital (and have said many times I love digital sound, my main source being digital for most of my audiophile career). I have defended why some audiophiles like myself collect and enjoy listening to vinyl against critiques that make it seem like a purely silly, irrational or sheep-like devotion to "being cool" or a fad.

As I said in your thread about vinyl:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...technical-parameters-of-lps.10041/post-275451

"My main concern is when we audiophiles take our own criteria as somehow the arbiter of rationality in this hobby, so that something we don't care for is seen to be strictly silly or irrational for anyone else."


And when you explained the reasons you ditched vinyl and now greatly prefer digital I responded:

" I totally understand where you are coming from.

It makes all the sense in the world to me. I dumped vinyl quickly for CD, and it made sense for me to do so."


So, no, I'm not being hypocritical at all. I have been consistent in acknowledging that the reasons someone has for staying completely digital and for disliking vinyl can be and often are completely reasonable. Extremely reasonable! I don't dismiss others who have put together a system that fulfills what they value. That's rationality in action!

That's what I mean by the "sollipsistic' tendencies I see all too often when some audiophiles dismiss vinyl collectors (or other "not strictly accuracy-chasing purchases) as flakes or fad-chasers - it comes from not seeing beyond one's own mind, beyond one's values to see how something can make sense in light of the other person's values and criteria. And it often results in needless belittling, and poor understanding of the reality of what's going on.
 
Robin, simply not true and I'd think you'd know that from your own extensive thread.

I've NEVER been dismissive or critical or disparaging of anyone else's preference for digital (and have said many times I love digital sound, my main source being digital for most of my audiophile career). I have defended why some audiophiles like myself collect and enjoy listening to vinyl against critiques that make it seem like a purely silly, irrational or sheep-like devotion to "being cool" or a fad.

As I said in your thread about vinyl:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...technical-parameters-of-lps.10041/post-275451

"My main concern is when we audiophiles take our own criteria as somehow the arbiter of rationality in this hobby, so that something we don't care for is seen to be strictly silly or irrational for anyone else."

And when you explained the reasons you ditched vinyl and now greatly prefer digital I responded:

" I totally understand where you are coming from.

It makes all the sense in the world to me. I dumped vinyl quickly for CD, and it made sense for me to do so."

So, no, I'm not being hypocritical at all. I have been consistent in acknowledging that the reasons someone has for staying completely digital and for disliking vinyl can be and often are completely reasonable. Extremely reasonable! I don't dismiss others who have put together a system that fulfills what they value. That's rationality in action!

That's what I mean by the "sollipsistic' tendencies I see all too often when some audiophiles dismiss vinyl collectors (or other "not strictly accuracy-chasing purchases) as flakes or fad-chasers - it comes from not seeing beyond one's own mind, beyond one's values to see how something can make sense in light of the other person's values and criteria. And it often results in needless belittling, and poor understanding of the reality of what's going on.
Probably. At the same time the audio environment you describe as your own and your ideal strikes me as hermetically sealed as Proust's cork-lined room. Ultimately solipsistic in that we cannot know what you experience. In my experience, I cannot unhear the flaws inherent in LP reproduction. You may have a joyous experience with the gear you have and the discs you chose. But you are an outlier on the Far shore. People simply looking for the music they like on a format with the pitch and distortion issues baked into the format that LPs possess are bound to be disappointed.
 
Probably. At the same time the audio environment you describe as your own and your ideal strikes me as hermetically sealed as Proust's cork-lined room. Ultimately solipsistic in that we cannot know what you experience.

How so? Why would my subjective experience be any different from your own in terms of "knowing" what someone else is experiencing?

If I say "I like my turntable, I think it's a cool device knowing something about the challenges turntable design presents and how the engineers sought to approach the problems."

You say "I really like how this DAC measures. I like knowing that the signal is being reproduced with as little deviation as possible."

How exactly is what is going on in your brain any more, or less, "hermetically sealed" than mine?

And how can I "know" what you experience when thinking about your DAC, or when listening to it, any more than you can "know" what I experience when thinking about or listening on my turntable?

Now, I don't think we are stuck in pure ignorance and pure reletavism/subjectivism. We can measure the differences between LPs and digital, and also determine things like what distortion types and levels are audible, and we can catalogue their subjective effects. But insofar as these things are available for investigation, there's no real difference in principle between LPs and digital, right? As if one was in the realm of the "purely subjective" and the other wasn't. If someone claims to hear a difference between DACs, that can be tested vie blind testing to raise or lower confidence levels. If someone claims to prefer an LP to a digital version, that in principle is open to the same type of blind test confirmation/disconfirmation.


In my experience, I cannot unhear the flaws inherent in LP reproduction.

Which makes your preference for digital over vinyl entirely sensible. It's possible that if we both heard a digital and an LP version of a track I *might* prefer the LP and you would prefer the digital. But in any case I'd say "Even though I prefer the vinyl version, I get why you prefer the digital version."

People simply looking for the music they like on a format with the pitch and distortion issues baked into the format that LPs possess are bound to be disappointed.

Well, your prediction has failed the test of reality. Which I think is a result of the not-quite-being-able-to-see-beyond-one's-own-criteria problem I spoke of. Vinyl has become as popular again as it has for reasons your analysis is missing. Far from being disappointed, most people buying vinyl, including most getting in to vinyl for the first time, have reported satisfaction with the sound of vinyl, but also greater satisfaction with LP buying overall, because they find that physical format fulfills certain desires that digital music has not. That is for the people who are the current market for vinyl, of course. If your criteria is to find the format with the least pitch and distortion issues, then yes you will be disappointed by vinyl and it's not going to be the main format for you. But...you have to understand that such a criteria is generally NOT driving people to vinyl; people really in to vinyl have varying criteria that vinyl fulfills very well.

(This seems so obvious it's weird to have to keep pointing it out...)
 
But the are collectors and hoarders of all stripes. I used to collect Shaded Dogs, and so it goes.
Did they get sick in the sun?
 
You got ole Matt spinning now guys, he's up to 3 long paragraphs.
Pretty soon he'll be writting whole pages in defense of dragging a rock thru the ditch. LOL
 
You got ole Matt spinning now guys, he's up to 3 long paragraphs.
Pretty soon he'll be writting whole pages in defense of dragging a rock thru the ditch. LOL


Have you graduated to a covered vehicle with four wheels yet? They're the latest thing! :p
 
... a CD is superior to vinyl, in the area that maters, the music.
How can a medium incorporating limited resolution be superior to a medium with unlimited resolution?
 
How can a medium incorporating limited resolution be superior to a medium with unlimited resolution?

I have to ask: are you serious?

POE's Law and the internet, and all that....
 
I have to ask: are you serious?

POE's Law and the internet, and all that....

Your CD has a resolution of 16 bits.
Those are 65,536 fixed voltage steps.

Now how many steps for vinyl?
All of them (unlimited).
 
Did they get sick in the sun?
I got captured by Harry Pearson's "Absolute Sound" concept before I knew what the Absolute Sound was/is. Blame it on my youth. With the RCA Victor Classical music releases of the early stereo era, before there were CDs or digital recording, I was sucked into the glorious bombast of Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra as the ne plus ultra of sound. Reality usually has a drier acoustic and a whole lot less gain-riding. But that's what happens when one's point of reference is the sound of a record instead of the sound of the real thing. Big-ass problem in the land of audiophila. The more of "the real thing" I hear, the less I'm impressed by recordings of any sort.

In any case, I had to give away the last of my old RCA [and Mercury, and EMI, and Decca, and London, and Philips, and Capitol and Columbia] classical LPs because nobody wanted them. Like 300 or so? The BMG SACDs of the classic Shaded Dogs are superior in all respects, if one is concerned with sound of music as opposed to being concerned with collecting.
 
Back
Top Bottom