Why does vinyl still exist?

[PeterSt]

Jeff, you very conveniently leave out jitter, that digital harshness that ruins so much of our digital music. There are great points about both the formats.. But most disappointing were your comments made regarding Steve's products. Probably pushing things a little on what has always been a very laid back forum.

 

Hi Matt,

 

Not wanting to nitpick really, I don't think jitter can be taken into the equation as a negative by itself. No matter it is. :-)

It would be more fair to state that digital - being more precise and far more dynamic - brings out all the negatives of the rest of the chain ! IMO this is far more important than jitter, though hard to recognize (and explain) from theories only.

 

I dedicated phenomena like "smooth" and "warm" to vinyl. This is not because vinyl sounds warm or is smooth in the base ... this is because the low dynamics are hardly capable of incurring for harsness. Dynamics are smoothened and you may perceive it as warmth because of washed away "harsness".

 

When you would be in the middle of some progress on the digital chain, you will perceive coldness and harshness. This is because the unavoidable dynamics are followed wrongly right from the start. This is why a good CD player can matter so much, where as you know, all is amplified from there on (yes, I am talking even in advance of the DAC).

I have this in fact beautiful experience of progress in that area (the software player) encountering that the more precise all was followed, the warmer it gets and the less harsh it gets.

 

Ok, sorry to mention XXHighEnd AGAIN, but I really think it is important for those who want to grasp what is going on;

 

When I started that, with the explicit target of at last creating an audiophile player (which is totally unrelated to "a" software player like Foobar or iTunes to which I dedicate conveniency) I could do one thing only : try to follow those digital waves with all those nasy digital steps as accurate as possible. What could I think of otherwise ? it was just the only thing I could think of, with the top priority of staying as far as possible from DSP.

 

So, at the beginning I could do it a little, and from there I went on and on at improving this 1:1 following of those nasty digital steps.

By now I kind of know what it is really all about : CONSISTENCY. Meaning :

 

Of course it should be theoretically so that when you follow those digital steps - up to the pure square at 22050 Hz ! - this can only be worse. Everybody would say that, and it includes me. But what happens when you recognize that the better this "following" happens, the better things sound ? ... then you start to make up theories why this is so;

All is about harmonics. And when the base of the waves is not followed precisely, the harmonics just cannot be there, or false harmonics are created. And this is what I mean by "consistency". Harmonics are vast complex plays of elements which need to be consistent throughout.

 

Lately I have been spending quite some time on analysing "a best" NOS DAC with "a best" OS DAC. Funny thing is that this can be compared to "a DAC" and "vinyl" IMO;

The OS DAC smoothens, while the NOS DAC does not, and the effect is the same as the smoothening vinyl. The base with either is the lack of dynamics (assuming the dynamics are present in the original source (e.g. the trumpet player)), and because the dynamics are not there, the harmonics can't be there.

I have said it more often : harmonics come from square(ish) sounds, and not from sines. Well, the OS DAC as well as vinyl contain sines where squares were in the original.

 

In the end, and as far as I can tell, this is all not about SNR and rumble, wow, flutter, pops and clicks and maybe even not about harmonic distortion as such. It is about the lack of dynamics which is not just a phenomenon we perceive at listening; It is a technical requirement to let work harmonics.

 

Right now, with some experience, I can easily point it out by ABing OS and NOS, and at playing OS I can exactly predict how NOS will change the sound. Earlier I could tell this only by means of real squarish sounds like trumpets or higher dynamic sounds like rim hits, but now I can translate it to (lacking) harmonics, and I can do it with piano, violins, xylophones and all with more complex harmonics.

 

And you know what ? this would imply that people with an OS DAC will have a much much better comparison with vinyl than the NOS lovers. OS just implies for the similar process in the base.

 

Thus, the better the digital wave is followed, the warmer and smoother it will get because things start to workout. Harmonize. This is very different from smoothening and a perceived warmness because the dynamics are flattened, and the rest of the chain does not get the opportunity to exhibit harsness (which is just not there anymore). Allow digital (and the nasty steps) to be dynamic in the wrong (not consistent) way, and at the same dynamical level you'll end up with very profound wrong harmonics. This exhibits in uneven piano notes etc.

 

It is very clear to me that the (better) OS DAC is easy on the playback chain, and that it won't fatigue and allows a massive orchestra to fall over you like it should for massive sound. There will be no difference with vinyl on this matter.

It is as clear to me that the NOS DAC is a 1000 times more difficult on this, because so so many things can go wrong at following the waves precisely. And do not forget : the OS DAC (as vinyl) does not follow anything precisely because inherently there isn't such a thing as precise in there. All is smoothened from the start. But ...

 

But when you have that most good NOS DAC, things do fit, and the orchestras are as massive, with one difference : all instruments can be recognized properly.

Anyone saying he can do that with vinyl (or his OS DAC which is not the subject here), is happily invited it to prove to me. :-)

 

Peter

 

[Ashley James]

 

“The facts are compelling: Distortion - 30 db, crosstalk -30 dB intermodulation distortion 7 %, all with pops and clicks that are significantly louder than the music.”

 

-- Ash, thanks for supplying some of the numbers I was alluding to. I appreciate not having to do the research. As for the rest of your post, it is a an excellent example of the subtlety, restraint, and diplomacy that characterizes most of your posts about records. ?

 

Thank' for reassuring me Tim. I was worried lest I was being too subtle.

 

We've used turntables costing up to £15K and cartridges up to £2K, always with the results that you'd expect from a rod with a needle on the end stuck through a sponge. I really do think that we speak with more experience of vinyl repay than most and also with more than an average understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to the sound we hear.

 

Harshness is always distortion and the more distortion, the more the harshness. Record players have more than one hundred times the distortion of CD's, so must sound harsher. However, as everyone knows, some early CD players sounded extremely harsh and more particularly there were amplifiers that made them particularly harsh. This was and still can be because DACs operate at relatively high frequency and can radiate digital hash that may upset partnering electronics.

 

The original Philips 16 Bit DAC came with a digital filter that only reduced out of band hash by 30 dB and it upset quite a few amplifiers badly. When Bitstream arrived, one particular very well reviewed DAC radiated so badly at its clock frequency of 11 mHz that it would stop FM tuners in adjoining rooms from working.

 

I don't think any of this is very common now as it was then, but it is probably reason for CD getting the harshness tag that it no longer warrants.

 

[shenzi]

If you haven't heard a really high end eight track cartridge system, you haven't lived ...

 

[tfarney]

You think you're joking, shenzi. I know of at least one audiophile (vinyl/valve-centric) board where they've had very serious discussions about the superiority of their cassette decks to cds.

 

Some wonder why there are people who seem to have no respect for the "high-end." For my part, this is the answer:

 

I'm not jealous of costly systems. I've been quite comfortable operating within my personal financial limitations for decades. I don't think "it's all about the music." The music comes first, of course, but I'm pretty picky about its reproduction. But the "high end" has this very loud group - they might even be the majority for all I know - consisting of both enthusiasts and manufacturers, who invent and/or exaggerate affects, and make outrageous, unsubstantiated, illogical and poetic claims, with truckloads of confidence and no facts. And when they are presented with facts, they simply deny them, for no reason other than the superiority of their equipment and their ears (for which they also have no data). They are not satisfied to like what they like. They must, understandably, justify their investment by declaring their choices to be demonstrably superior to the choices of the unwashed masses (ie: music lovers with good equipment but not THEIR equipment).

 

Then they utterly fail to demonstrate it.

 

This thread is a perfect example. Where are the specifications, other than the few that Ashley has offered, that show how vinyl outperforms digital by any measure? I've seen dozens of these vinyl/digital debates. I've yet to see a single piece of data showing how/where vinyl outperforms digital. I've seen plenty of data from the other side, followed by dismissal, justified by the alleged insufficiency of science to measure what the high end audiophile hears.

 

The "high end" is not a reality-based endeavor, it is an emotional one. There is nothing wrong with that. If someone likes the way vinyl and valves sound, good for them. Enjoy. But if they come to me telling me that it is superior, but have no evidence of that short of their own preference (a preference with which my own ears disagree, BTW), I will judge their position less than credible, and that will be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

 

Why do I bother to respond to them? a) because it annoys me when people intimate that I cannot hear and have absolutely nothing to back that up, and b) because this is a DISCUSSION board.

 

 

Tim

 

[shenzi]

I should know better than to make up silly ideas and expect to get away with it. Someone out there has usually already done it.

 

I switched to digital very quickly because it somehow sounded more stable and less subtly disturbing than the vinyl systems I'd heard (including various Linns, Thorens and the American SOTA deck, the one with the vacuum thingie). At the time CD came in, a couple of writers in HiFi News predicted how analogue enthusiasts would react and how the new digital system would sound through systems optimised for analogue. They came pretty close to describing the howls of outrage emitted by the Linn/Naim camp shortly afterwards. One writer, John Crabbe, even demonstrated the low level noise which was an inherent part of the vinyl playback system and speculated that it gave the sound the ambience apparently missing from the more accurate digital chain.

 

A pity we don't have more writers around like him - he pursued accurate sound reproduction above all else. After starting his career with monster, concrete-constructed horns of his own design, he recognised that good sound was getting cheaper, easier and more convenient.

 

JC invented some of the techniques used in modern audio and he had an immense depth of knowledge about both music and its reproduction. He recently died and I fear his passing marks the end of reasoned, intelligent writing about audio in favour of the elitist, neurotic pursuit of the infinitesimally small, as expounded by the likes of Stereophile.

 

Sorry, rant over. We now return you to the thread in question ...

 

 

 

[tfarney]

"One writer, John Crabbe, even demonstrated the low level noise which was an inherent part of the vinyl playback system and speculated that it gave the sound the ambience apparently missing from the more accurate digital chain."

 

-- I'm not sure this is at all far-fetched. Drop the needle onto the vinyl and listen, before the first track begins, to the subtle "woosh" that is minimized on the best decks, but always there at some level.

 

It sounds a lot like an empty room.

 

Tim

 

[DavidJPettifor]

tfarney wrote:

 

But the "high end" has this very loud group - they might even be the majority for all I know - consisting of both enthusiasts and manufacturers, who invent and/or exaggerate affects, and make outrageous, unsubstantiated, illogical and poetic claims, with truckloads of confidence and no facts. And when they are presented with facts, they simply deny them, for no reason other than the superiority of their equipment and their ears (for which they also have no data). They are not satisfied to like what they like. They must, understandably, justify their investment by declaring their choices to be demonstrably superior to the choices of the unwashed masses (ie: music lovers with good equipment but not THEIR equipment).

 

Then they utterly fail to demonstrate it.

 

From that description, such a person could be summed up in two words... a "snobbish bore". I'm sure that no such individual frequents this forum however.

 

--

djp

 

 

 

 

[Ashley James]

I believe he was an intellectual, he was certainly extremely bright and sharp as a knife. We were always pleased to see him when we exhibited at the Heathrow Penta Show and also rather nervous. The slightest mistake in supplying information and he'd spot it. He'd been a formidable force for reason, but became a casualty of the Linn/Naim invasion and from then on he wrote short articles for Hi Fi News and occasionally Gramophone I believe.

 

I'm with Tim on the hi end and I'd go further: Why is when the price of all consumer and pro audio electronics has fallen considerably and the its performance risen equally considerably, that prices for hi end disproportionately higher.

 

I'm with Bob on craftsman made Guitars or any fine craftsmanship. I've spent some years restoring antique clocks and watches as well as old largely hand made cars. My son is about to re-trim, amongst other things, a Type 49 Bugatti in crocodile skin leather for the next Pebble Beach and other exotic cars he's had a part in the restoration of, have appeared there too. It all takes time, requires considerable craft skill and costs a fortune, but consumer electronic don't they are more Model T Ford.

 

Henry Royce's crane and electric motor business failed because he ignored more efficient and more cost effective methods of production used by American and German competitors, so he decided to make cars instead. He applied the same techniques and attracted the attention of an Aristocrat, the Honourable CS Rolls. The two teamed up and the most famous hi end product was born shortly afterwards. The Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost in 1906. However during WWI, not only were Silver Ghosts used in the Desert, but also Model T Fords, 19,000 of them and they were just as reliable at a fraction of the cost. In fact they were preferred, because they were lighter and easier to lift out when they got stuck. By the early Twenties Ford were making almost as many in a day as R-R made Ghosts between 1905 and 1925 when production ceased. R-R were lovely cars, but an un-competitive anachronism until BMW bought them! Hi End appears to try to emulate the magnificent craftsmanship of the likes of R-R, but under the skin electronic components are twenty first century Model T. Because that's all there is to do the job with. Just as huge companies like VW and BMW can do a better job than R-R were, so it is that small hi end manufacturers can, in the main, no longer compete with professional engineers in larger commercial concerns IMO.

 

[BEEMB]

 

A large number of CD's are so compressed - and that compressed vinyl never (can't) makes it to the vinyl release. So whilst technically, digital may have it's advantage to vinyl, the poorer version of the track is often released on CD.

 

Okay, maybe I'm talking more mainstream music here - but that appears to be the case, certainly in the comparisons I've performed.

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Wow, wait until BMW and Mercedes team up then, which might be a fact at the time of this writing.

 

But I am not sure whether you are contradictionary here and there, or that I just don't get it all;

The large companies make their products too expensive, while the small won't be able to cope. Now what. dead end in either case ?

 

But I don't know. I don't know whether there's a general rule on these things. Maserati made beautiful cars that never work, as did Mercedes at their latest 200 series which electronically break down each x miles.

Renault, the average man in between, eletronically break down each other mile, so is worse.

A Spyker, handmade by a handful of dutch idiots, never does (but costs a fortune).

 

So where is the rule ?

I earlier indicated that innovation seems to come from the kitchen tables, when it is about audio. I still think it does because of the proof I see around me, but you still think it does not, because of ... well, you don't see the proof but instead see the larger companies let rise their prices only (meaning without innovation) ?

 

But as said, I probably don't get what you really want to say, or better, where the solution to which problem is in your opinion.

But there probably is no problem at all ?

 

[shenzi]

Always exceptions. A friend of mine worked for Jaguar at the time they developed one of their later sports cars. They were already part of Ford by then, so handed over the plans to form the basis of the new Aston Martin. He was rather amused at the amount of money that went into the hand-crafted Aston when, as he liked to point out, the seams and joins in the body work weren't as well finished as the mass-produced Jag.

 

There's always room for the bespok, the hand-crafted and the piece with a maker's name attached. Trouble is, it usually (but not always) comes at a high price and that tends to be the factor which can blind a lot of people to its merits.

 

There is a designer watch-maker in the UK who seems to be bucking the trend by deliberately producing Swiss-crafted watches at rather less than the bespoke makes. A few more like that in audio wouldn't come amiss.

 

[audiozorro]

If anyone cares to read an objective discussion of analog vs. digital with facts and figures, it is presented here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_sound_vs._digital_sound

 

My earlier posted reference on records is also fascinating reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record

 

All the facts, numbers and references (maybe not all, but certainly ample) are presented in these links.

 

You are very fortunate if you can enjoy music both analog and digital formats without entering this endless debate. If not, I believe it’s your loss because musical treasures are found in both formats.

 

 

[Ashley James]

We have an EMI test disc and the kit for setting the vertical tracking angle. It tells you to aim for 30 dB distortion figure on each channel and if you have less, balance it up. Minus 45 dB is 1%, so more than 1% distortion. Intermod can be 7%!

 

If you download Audio Companion or LP recorder and play it a record, you can see hum and noise on a good deck is at best minus 40 dB for vinyl and 30 for Shellac.

 

We spent years messing about with direct cut masters and other allegedly good records and never saw anything to convince us.

 

When I was a regular visitor to recording studios I was regularly told that records bore no resemblance to master tapes because it was necessary to compress the recording and add lots of top at 3-5 kHz to get it to sound and track as well as it could. You lose HF every time you play a record and you get less towards the centre anyway. The silly thing about this argument is that when you hear a master tape you're usually hearing an identical copy of a CD, whether it is analogue or digital! It's the record that sounds so different, which is why Pros laugh at hi fi people.

 

In the days when they had to play records, the BBC (I was a regular visitor there too) used to buy three or four copies of each record and play them only three or four times each with a special cartridge that tracked at 4.5 gms. This sounded better but trashed the records more quickly. Hence people preferred FM radio to their records and they sold well for hi fi.

 

Analogue recordings are fine, but records are not, it's just that some people love them and won't leave it at that.

 

All we do is refer people to www.fwhifi.co.uk because he will get as good as you can from vinyl if you must.

 

Remember 990,000 LPs sold in the States last year against 9 Billion downloads.

 

[wooster]

Whatever the relative merits of the very best vinyl replay v the very best digital, I have always found it hard to believe that anyone could think vinyl was better on average (if I can put it that way).

 

I bought most of my vinyl collection in the 1970's, and buying records then (in the UK) was often a very disheartening experience. It was a time when records seemed to be getting thinner and thinner and retailers thought it would be good idea to shrink-wrap them, just to make sure that they warped while they were in the shop. Some of them could have doubled as plant pots. Then, of course, there was the problem of surface noise etc. I estimate that I used to return 50% of my purchases, and, even after several attempts, frequently had to settle for something far from perfect. And, after that, things got worse as microscopic bits of dust embedded themselves in the grooves.

 

In contrast, I have hardly ever had to return a CD, and, as far as I can tell, my digital collection (CD and downloads) hasn't deteriorated over the years.

 

I know that in these days of 180g audiophile vinyl, production standards have risen a bit since the '70's, but I'm still not willing to go back to what I've long regarded as the Russian roulette of vinyl replay, even if it may, on occasion, sound better.

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

Audiozorro,

 

Good reading on those links, thanks very much. I must say I agree with you in that I like to enjoy both formats.

 

Ash,

 

Whilst I accept the figures posted on here having done my own reading, the 9 billion downloads from iTunes you keep quoting is a rather strange way of comparing the two formats. Of those 900,000 LP's sold, you can be sure that more of those people are into their hi-fi than the 9 billion downloads from iTunes in compressed audio formats which are, as backed up by facts and figures, inferior to CD and have done nothing but destroy the superior CD format and lower the sound quality expectations of the masses. Okay, they've improved music on the move I guess, portability.

 

I'll buy and rip a CD over iTunes any day. Or search for a high resolution download of course!

 

Matt.

 

 

[Ashley James]

Matt

 

iTunes downloads are now DRM free and 256K AAC's, which means even if the material was mixed for CD it will be difficult to distinguish between the two, but it's more likely to have been made with downloads in mind and may sound better as such. Either way much better than LP. AACs are much better than MP3s don't forget.

 

CD sales in the States were I believe down 30% (please check) at 367 million.

 

I'm really not trying to suggest that people are wrong to enjoy vinyl only that in the interests of obtaining better sound quality for the future or their hi fi system or both, that they recognise high levels of distortion when they hear it.

 

Hi fi has suffered terribly for lack of definition of what is good or accurate sound and the facts to support any such proposition.

 

 

[audiozorro]

Some of what’s being reported as facts is nonsense – “when you hear a master tape you're usually hearing an identical copy of a CD”. If an individual really believes that the fidelity of a studio master tape is identical to a CD then discussions or debates on high fidelity are pointless with that person, at least for me.

 

Also the sales numbers being reported here are absolutely wrong. Figures released in the US showed that vinyl albums sales nearly doubled in 2008, with 1.88 million sold - up from just under 1 million in 2007. In Australia, unofficial figures show an increase of more than 50 per cent over the same period.

 

I often get a very big laugh at the rabid anti-vinyl or anti-analog or anti-digital fanatics out there. If you hate vinyl it must really rile you when you hear that analog sounding is good and digital sounding is bad or when you read the hundreds of articles like:

 

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2008/04/29/record-sales-up-no-really-actual-records/

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9124699

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1702369,00.html

http://www.courant.com/entertainment/music/hc-vinylsound.artfeb08,0,7844069.story

 

Debates like these are usually very amusing and almost always generate a lot of discussions, as jeffca is well aware. But I eventually get tired and long to listen to my excellent analog (vinyl) and digital music. Sooo glad the weekend is almost here.

 

 

[Ashley James]

Some of what’s being reported as facts is nonsense – “when you hear a master tape you're usually hearing an identical copy of a CD”. If an individual really believes that the fidelity of a studio master tape is identical to a CD then discussions or debates on high fidelity are pointless with that person, at least for me.

 

I have visited Recording Studios, as I did for many years when I was at ATC and regularly heard CDs and original master tapes side by side to have it proved to me that it was records that had to be different. Abbey Road and CTS spring to mind for starters. It is a personal experience and the truth. I've also visited Bob Ludwig in New York where he was mastering other studios efforts because they needed it. What he did would be the CD because digital copies are identical, just like computer programs. I have also spent time with engineers cutting disc masters and explaining what needed doing to the master tape so that it would play on vinyl. I'm talking about personal experience. Therefore Vinyl will not be as the original recording, but the a digital recording will be.

 

As far as record sales go I promise you that I was repeating what I'd read somewhere, but it was wrong so try this which supports what you're saying.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2009-01-01-soundscan-numbers_N.htm

 

I'm really sorry to keep this up, but I do believe it is fundamental to the goal of correctly defining sound quality and equating with what is measured.

 

Ash

 

 

[tino]

Ashley, downloads sell in the numbers they do for the same reason people have their digital photos printed from automatic "plug-in your memory stick" photo booths, rather than from a pro lab. It is convenient and cheap. I just cannot imagine anyone saying, "I think I'll get that latest album from itunes as an MP3, instead of the LP, as it will sound so much better compressed". For a manufacturer that claims to do so much listening to DACs and expensive turntables, etc, I am completely shocked that you can even listen to most compressed music, yet alone class it as high quality!!! I think in this case you would do well to listen to your own much used advice......"you cannot trust your ears". Clearly the direction your company is taking is influencing your ability to identify poor quality music. Let's get back to (uncompressed) digital vs vinyl, and chuck the low quality downloads on the scrap heap where they belong.......

 

[BEEMB]

 

I do think some compressed music sounds good. I downloaded some 320kps MP3's from Boomkat just the other day which sound very good indeed.

 

It is true that CD / digital often sounds harsh because of the mastering; many tracks are compressed to within an inch of their lives so that all those quiet parts sounds as loud as the loudest parts, so that teenage daughter/son will hear it and download it. But I tend to avoid pop as much as possible anyway.

However, this leads me to question those "pro's" that laugh at vinyl. For, these pro's are responsible for some truley awful sounding music!

 

Ash, I do accept that some AAC's sound pretty good, I really do. Some sound great actually. But your quick to point out the facts on vinyl vs digital, so I am just being quick to point out that compressed, technically, cannot be as good as uncompressed. The facts back that one up too, as I'm sure you'll agree.

 

Martin - I feel your last statement is too strong. I am sitting here stunned at the quality of audio I am hearing through my ADM9.1's so don't doubt the engineering that has gone into these speakers. Because of that engineering though, I am also able to define between some compressed tracks and uncompressed tracks.

 

I still firmly believe that irrespective of the final playback format, the original recording and mastering is the single most important item impacting the sound.

 

 

Matt.

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

... please all pretend that you didn't see a post from me on a Friday evening.

I just can't afford to go out this evening :-(

 

 

[audiozorro]

Even though I will disagree that the fidelity of studio master tapes and CDs are identical, I will gladly accept your position if you can convince our friends at Reference Recordings, Linn Records, 2L, and Design w/Sound that the fidelity of their studio masters sound identical to CDs.

 

I’d be tempted to drain my bank account if you could convince these folks to price their studio master releases at CD prices.

 

Unfortunately, they seem to feel otherwise and since they are renowned experts in achieving the highest levels of audio fidelity, who am I to disagree?

 

 

[tino]

Sorry, my previous comments were not aimed at AVI's engineering. I have seen and heard the ADM's and am impressed by the sound and build quality. I was simply saying that for a company that appear so focussed on sound quality, I am suprised at the pro-Mp3 attitude. Though I can see how it fits in with the product (ADM9.1) that you are currently marketing, and I would probably do the same.........

 

But I get the impression that most of the people who post on this site are of, at least, a reasonable level of intelligence, and so are unlikely to accept that compressed music sounds as good as uncompressed - nearly is not good enough for most audiophiles. The technical facts speak for themselves.

 

[Ashley James]

Tino

We can't predict what music customers might buy, so we must design equipment that as far as the technology allows, will not distort anything anybody wants to play. It also helps to understand what if any problems might occur with different formats. Therefore we spend a lot of time listening to various levels of compression, both MP3s and AAC's. We also have friends in the music business around the world who explain the processes they use to us.

 

One thing that I suspect you may not have considered, although I have discussed it before, is that music is mixed to sound good on the format it is most likely to sell on, so if a record company thinks that is going to be a download, he'll make sure that's what sounds best. In some instances music is sold on the web from short sound and video clips that are heavily compressed, but still have to sound good and not too different to the eventual purchase. If you're used to MP3s and AACs you'll know that they almost never sound unpleasant. All that happens is that they sound slightly softer and less finely etched, which can be fixed with a tweak.

 

In our opinion DAB, FM and vinyl are much worse than any of these formats, but not only that, it is perfectly possible for some degree of compression to be impossible to detect or for compressed material to sound better than full files because they've been made that way, so I'd say audiophiles would be making a mistake if they ignored them. There are 10,000 online radio stations, many of which sound much better than DAB or FM too, as well as providing access to music many may never have heard before. IMO there is better and more interesting music beyond audiophile labels, in fact I'd even say better sounding music too. Hi fi has never been more exciting for those with the broadest horizons.

 

I do hope these points seem reasonable.

 

Ash

 

 

 

[tfarney]

"tfarney wrote:

 

But the "high end" has this very loud group - they might even be the majority for all I know - consisting of both enthusiasts and manufacturers, who invent and/or exaggerate affects, and make outrageous, unsubstantiated, illogical and poetic claims, with truckloads of confidence and no facts. And when they are presented with facts, they simply deny them, for no reason other than the superiority of their equipment and their ears (for which they also have no data). They are not satisfied to like what they like. They must, understandably, justify their investment by declaring their choices to be demonstrably superior to the choices of the unwashed masses (ie: music lovers with good equipment but not THEIR equipment).

 

Then they utterly fail to demonstrate it.

 

From that description, such a person could be summed up in two words... a "snobbish bore". I'm sure that no such individual frequents this forum however.

 

--

djp"

 

-- Some, perhaps. Others, I suppose, are just very anxious to hear every dollar of their prodigious investment. In any case, these arguments always seem to be devoid of any data to back up the bravado. "Trust your ears!" they say when, inevitably, whatever it is they hear cannot be quantified.

 

And I do. And I disagree.

 

The syndrome is not limited to vinyl, but this thread is already running long enough, so I think I'll leave it at that.

 

Tim