Why does vinyl still exist?

[tfarney]

"tfarney -

 

I don't think any of the pro-vinyl guys are saying you can't hear as much as them - just that they think vinyl sounds better."

 

-- Really?

 

"If you hear a truly good vinyl system, there is no comparison."

 

"there's no contest ... yet. vinyl just sounds better, at least for now."

 

"Tim - you should mod that deck. Then it will surpass digital."

 

-- These are just a few of the more obvious examples. The "subjectivists" in this old argument aren't really subjective. Most of them believe analog is superior, just as much as the "objectivists" believe digital is superior. Really, that's what believing "it sounds better" is, when we're talking about sound. And when they say things like "There is no comparison," "There is no contest," "vinyl just sounds better," "it will surpass digital," these are declarations of objective superiority; they are, indeed, questioning what I hear. And that's fine. I have no problem being challenged and even enjoy the debate. But debate, even informal and online, is not a small child's sporting event where no one loses and everyone gets a plastic trophy. If they challenge what I hear, which is subjective, with such pseudo-objective language, I will bring out the objective data that supports what I hear. And the fact that there is no data to support what they hear doesn't make my view "flat earth," "objectivist" or any other term meant to imply that I believe in data, not good sound. It simply means that there is no data to support what they hear.

 

Tim

 

 

[Ashley James]

I've just been chatting to Martin about it and he reckons you could make a case for describing vinyl as having one thousand times more distortion than a modern digital file.

 

I think it's a case of people having got used to it and preferring it, which is fine. However there is plenty of evidence to prove that vinyl isn't as good as digital and that should be accepted as should the experiments done by the Auditory Dept. at Cambridge University that show how our ears interpret what they hear and explain how people can get used to a distorted sound and subsequently may have trouble adapting to an improvement, especially a big one.

 

From an engineering perspective, we as a manufacturer need to constantly strive to improve what we do and quantify improvements by proper measurement, so the moment we start ignoring this approach and decide we like something that is fundamentally flawed, we're on the road to ruin.

 

The fact is that the vast majority of music that most people want to hear is not available on vinyl. It's good that people do enjoy it or for that matter 78s, 81s and cylinders, but they are a tiny minority.

 

Tino it is probably twenty years since I handled a cassette deck!

 

[tino]

But everyone is a winner hear Tim - it's not about winning and losing, that's the beauty of it. The fact you have provided numbers telling people that digital is so superior, doesn't mean that the vinyl fans out there will now like the sound of digital more, and have lost the argument !

 

And regarding those figures - I'm not very technical, but a quick read does highlight technical areas that the pro-digital guys choose not to mention. "Aliasing distortion" and "quantization noise" are two I've seen come up a number of times, and it looks like there are many others. I've also read that ways around these involve more processing. Perhaps it is all this that creates a sound that those that like analogue don't like. I guess what I'm trying to say is, you say that you will "bring out the objective data that supports what I hear", but perhaps your not bringing out all the data. Infact, perhaps it is this very data that can infact support the case for vinyl as well. I'm very interested in finding out more about this, as I'd like to know why, when on the surface so apparently inferior, I still really like the sound of good quality vinyl - makes for quite mind-blowing reading though..........

Martin

 

[tino]

Not the detailed insight into the cassette world I was hoping for Ashley, but thanks anyway!

 

I still remember an old Hifi magazine I used to have that reviewed the Nakamichi Dragon (I think that was the name), and claimed it compared well to a good quality CD player. Never heard one myself so can't comment, though I did have a Sony TCK661s, single, three head deck, that sounded pretty reasonable with metal tapes - not anywhere near as exotic as the Nakamichi though.

Martin

 

[tfarney]

"But everyone is a winner hear Tim - it's not about winning and losing, that's the beauty of it. The fact you have provided numbers telling people that digital is so superior, doesn't mean that the vinyl fans out there will now like the sound of digital more, and have lost the argument !"

 

I agree completely. Of course that leaves us with "you say tomato, I say tomahto," and little to discuss on a discussion forum, but everyone should listen to what they enjoy, not what measures best.

 

Tim

 

[BEEMB]

 

I think ... I believe ... we may be done ... ?!

Hmmm ...

 

[PeterSt]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you say that you will "bring out the objective data that supports what I hear", but perhaps your not bringing out all the data. Infact, perhaps it is this very data that can infact support the case for vinyl as well.

 

It is just who you want to listen to or what is within one's comprehension. It must have been a dozen times by now I am saying this (and watch it, I never talk about distortion figures from vinyl. Only dynamics ...)

 

So here goes again :

 

 

 

What you see above is the representation of a pure square wave (which technically won't exist on a CD because of oversampling at the digital process of recording) at 3000 Hz. Doesn't look too good, right ?

 

 

 

Well, here you see the same, but at 10000 HZ. Not much left from those precious dynamics, right ?

How much distortion shall we dedicate to this ? Technically we might come to some 99.x % because four "dots" will match with the original.

Note that official AES17 measurents will tell you a THD(+N) of 0.0001 % in this case, just because of the way the norm for this is registered. Btw, the specs of the DAC this is taken from, do mention these exact figures.

 

The above is from the DACs most people listen to.

Like I said earlier in this thread, this is also a representative of what vinyl will make of it, but sure NOT THAT BAD.

 

 

 

This is more like it. The post ringing is because of a lacking filter which is the ever choice for a non-oversamplng DAC. Dynamics are near as good as they can get.

This is at 22050Hz, and 30000Hz will show exactly the same.

 

 

 

This is the same DAC, same frequency but with a 2 pole Bessel filter. No ringing whatsoever, but as you can see slightly less dynamical.

 

It is just what one wants to hear, but this is what I say.

If people don't have a clue about this being audible or not, then I don't know ...

 

Peter

 

[jtconte]

I think vinyl still exists because way too many people believed the marketing hype that digital is perfect when CD first came out and dumped all their vinyl. I chose to listen with my ears and back then, good turntable setups were superior to CD players. Instead of buying my collection all over again in CD format, I invested in a good turntable setup. It took me awhile but I finally learned to trust my ears instead of numbers. Trusting numbers alone will get you a system that should sound good but never does. At least compared to live music, in my opinion. I was then able to buy used vinyl at about one third the cost of new CDs. I now have about 1400 LPs and don't have plans to digitize them. If I was at that decision point today, I would go digital via computer and not look back. I am very glad I grew up during vinyls prominence and got to enjoy the large cover art, posters, readable lyric sheets and other assorted goodies that a 12 inch package could include. In this regard digital is a no-show. I don't think I will ever part with my vinyl but I don't buy much anymore. I plan on making music purchases via digital download whenever possible.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"One other point on a now dead thread is this Forum software. Recently someone else said he didn't like it and although I agreed I didn't say anything, but now I've had a few emails from people who don't like it either and won't use the forum because of it. They'd prefer something more like all others."

 

Hi Ashley - What parts of the forum software don't you like? I am working on this one right now and would like your opinion. Personally I'm not a fan of the "traditional" forum software as it looks like a spreadsheet and to me spreadsheets are boring and give me a headache. Traditional forum software dedicates more space to information about the post and poster than the actual content of the post.

 

Please let me know, this is feedback I need to improve the site.

 

[markr]

Duplicate post deleted.

 

[kristian]

First, noone credible states that vinyl always sounds better than digital. That would be incredible. The true statement is that excellent vinyl (clean, good pressing and recording) on a good table sounds better than good RB digital. Bad vinyl is worse than ever bad RB; scratches, noice, worn grooves, etc.

 

I confirm this constantly on a pretty serious system that includes active ATCs and an Origin Live TT. When I play great vinyl, it undoubtedly blows any RB or SACD away with a more natural, harmonically correct sound. But, the planets do have to be aligned; good table, good recording, great vinyl.

 

The more important point is that vinyl opens doors to unfathomable musical riches; I routinely buy top-of-the-line classical recordings for $1-2 at local used book stores (Deutsche Grammofon, Decca, shaded-dog RCAs, etc.), and have a field day cleaning out peoples' attics of the old vinyl they no longer want for *cheap*. Spin it through the VPI record cleaner, and most come out peachy. When I get Santana's three greastest albums in mint condition for $5, I'm happy; likewise when I buy Jean Michel Jarre's Concert in China on mint double-LP for $1, and it routinely sells for $20 used; when I steal 50 mint 60s Verve, Blue Note, and Concorde jazz albums by top artists for $35 at a garage sale, find out they play perfectly, sound unbelievable and are worth $500 on the open market, I'm really happy.

 

But, great CDs sound great, too; I'm continuously reminded of that, and never frown at digital. I'm not, for example, interested too much in paying a premium for vinyl new; if a new album is out on both CD and vinyl, and the vinyl is $5 more, I get the CD more often than not.

 

[BEEMB]

 

Hehe ... knew this one would go on and on.

 

I'm confused at all the moans regarding the forum software. Always found CA easy to use; click on the forums link on the left to get a better breakdown of whats going on ... simple isn't it ?

 

What forums are users comparing CA too ? Hydrogenaudio or something ?

 

Matt.

 

[markr]

...(hey Matt)... she says that at the end of life people will go on for DAYS after it is clearly over - unresolved issues, don't want to go 'home', various other things.....

 

I like and I haven't really had any problem using this board, but it has become more difficult than it was in late 2007 - 8^) - more folks here means longer search times ( bigger db of past posts) the topic list under the forum hyperlink is getting prohibitively huge, the "active forum topics" link which has those easy to get to topic hyperlinks rolls over rather quickly now so that if you cannot remember where (or under what discussion title) you were speaking to someone, you might not be able to (easily) find that discussion again.

 

All in all, I don't have a problem with CA's s/w - It is MUCH better looking than any of the other boards out there. I really don't like the look of most boards out there. What are there, about 5 different ones? They all look pretty much the same to me. Most have the look of Craig's list albeit with better search capabilities and the ability to put up pics.

 

I think that would be the key to satisfying the naysayers here: (1) lengthen the 'active forum topics' list up to the right there, and maybe make "Forums" look more like the other boards (an indexed spreadsheet) when you click on it. Just have things look like they do NOW when you get back to the discussion. Don't know if that would be good enough for the folks who have a problem with the way things are now though. There might be other things bothering folks. - getting your daily info fix is a highly personalized thing in this day and age.

 

- markr

I think I'll go paste this into the "Forum operation request" where Chris is soliciting this sort of stuff RIGHT NOW!

 

[BEEMB]

 

Good on you.

And maybe I should do something useful too. Such as stop adding pointless posts such as this one, and get to bed!!

 

Time Out.

(maybe)

 

Matt.

 

[tfarney]

"First, noone credible states that vinyl always sounds better than digital."

 

-- plenty of people state exactly that, over and over again. Glad we agree on their lack of credibility.

 

"...excellent vinyl (clean, good pressing and recording) on a good table sounds better than good RB digital."

 

--I've seen quite a bit of data on this subject, and I've never seen a single measurement to support that statement. Got any? If not, it might be good to add something like "regardless of the facts, to my ears..." to preserve the credibility of your own statements.

 

"When I play great vinyl, it undoubtedly blows any RB or SACD away with a more natural, harmonically correct sound."

 

-- See note above. Undoubtedly is a big word. Where are the facts that movce this from preference to a complete lack of doubt?

 

Sorry to whip the filly again, but this horse seems to have an eternal life of fantasy and taste, infinitely repeated in absolutes. And your version is really no more credible than the one you began your post with.

 

Tim

 

[markr]

.... the forum. Part eleventy million.

 

Hey Tim,

 

Something occurred to me: I read the post you are just now flogging here earlier and didn't really think twice about what had been said. I just went on my merry way because I was thinking about something else, but there is more than that to my lack of analytical response - After reading your breakdown of what had actually been said, realizing that you were absolutely correct in your criticism, I then realized that my logic algorithms hadn't been in operation when I had first read the post in question. More than that, I believe (no real data to back it up, heh) that my old PREJUDICE toward analogue audio as the 'sola scriptura' of audio had acted as a filter thereby keeping me from really thinking about HOW something had been expressed.

 

I've gotta keep those logic algorithms engaged a higher percentage of the time. No slip ups!

 

- markr

 

[tfarney]

"DIE HARD

 

.... the forum. Part eleventy million."

 

-- I don't care who ya are, that's some funny **** right there.

 

Tim

 

 

 

[mpmct]

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.

It's what you know for sure, that just ain't so."

 

- M. Twain

 

 

[kristian]

Farney, or whatever your name is,

 

You're now being an obstinant ass, usually found only in the worst places of AA.

 

I suggest you get past the idea that data indicate sound quality, always the bugaboo of immature audiophiles and/or folks with junk systems, or stop bothering people. And buy a good turntable and phono pre and try it for yourself.

 

Pikhoved.

 

[DavidJPettifor]

krisitan wrote:

 

Farney, or whatever your name is,

 

You're now being an obstinant ass, usually found only in the worst places of AA.

 

I suggest you get past the idea that data indicate sound quality, always the bugaboo of immature audiophiles and/or folks with junk systems, or stop bothering people. And buy a good turntable and phono pre and try it for yourself.

 

Quickest way to lose any credibility (if you had any to begin with) with a response like that, krisitan.

 

Probably time to kill the thread when the slime starts oozing out of the sewer.

 

--

djp

 

[PeterSt]

not ?

 

I as just wondering ... Suppose I'd run into this thread today. "Why does vinyl still exist". What information would I get from that ?

 

I'd be reading and reading and reading, and while there could have been a dozen or so posts about measurements and numbers on one side, feelings, smell, history and possibly candle light on the other side, there are exactly 12 dozen (=144) posts about not all that much, half of the posts stuffing an opinion through my throat, the other half writing romance books because there is no other way to fight the stuffers.

 

Apart from a few posts it is all about exactly nothing.

I imagine that a thread like this is only to the satisfaction of the suffers, happily waiting for another post to shoot at with super vague responses -often contradictionary- and with no other message than "I am right anyway and science is behind me because you don't come up with it". Wow, what a pile of sh*t this thread contains.

 

Why don't you leave a thread like this to those who really care about a discussion and are open to things (never mind the opnion will never change on matters like these !), and which IMO should be about a discussion that matters. Why isn't it enough to vent an opinion once, back it up with figures where possible in some other post, and leave it to that ?

 

[markr]

.. brother Peter.

 

[Ashley James]

The purpose of any discussion is to resolves issues, regardless of whether they are between Governments, Trade Unions and Management or just individuals on a message board, so we should not back away from this but try to resolve it because I believe it is fundamental. The hi fi Industry has been a laughing stock for years, the standard of reviewing hasn't been good enough and people don't realise the benefits of good sound quality. IMO this is because so much of what is said has no basis in science or logic. In fact it's worse than that because it has allowed snake oil salesmen making bogus pseudo-scientific claims and prosper at the expense of the people who I'm trying to protect. Some might even be on this Forum.

 

The reason for this is that no one will face up to the facts that measurements, common sense and logic apply to the design of Hi Fi just the same as they do to Airbus, Boeing, Norman Foster, Motor cars, washing machines and toasters. The only magic or emotion in any of them is that expressed by the marketing department.

 

The facts are that CD can be and probably is an exact copy of the master and that vinyl isn't. The master must be altered by changing the tonal balance and compressing the dynamic range so the music will play back on a system that might have as much as one thousand times as much distortion.

 

The real question is why people prefer something so awful. Two reasons, music has been altered by a skilled mastering engineer to sound as good as possible and because listeners have subconsciously trained themselves to listen to and enjoy it.

 

The arguments about digital sounding horrible have some basis because of problems I've previously described and there is still the issue of digital needing greater dynamic range that some enthusiasts amplifiers many not have.

 

For thirty of more years scientists and engineers have been drifting away from audio in frustration and despair simply because most of those that remain will not accept that science knows best and that they haven't discovered something science didn't know.

 

I repeat: If you love vinyl that is good, there is no reason on earth to stop loving it, but if you're arguing that it is better than digital then you're not being logical and you may not understand the facts.

 

Do we need to fall out over this. No we don't, but we may need to reconsider our position.

 

Sincerely.

 

Ashley

 

[DavidJPettifor]

Well, for what it's worth, taking this thread as a whole, the one thing I've deduced, is that vinyl is not "a truer representation of the original signal than digital" when you take into account all the facts and figures presented both here and on numerous other audio forums.

 

However, I'm a tube fan. Now that adds something to the sound, taking away any neutrality that was offered before. Therefore I prefer that added something. So, if there are peeps here who like that little something extra added to their final representation, then who am I to say that vinyl isn't the way to go for them or any other audio choice that they care to make for that matter.

 

--

djp

 

[PeterSt]

The master must be altered by changing the tonal balance and compressing the dynamic range so the music will play back on a system that might have as much as one thousand times as much distortion.

 

The real question is why people prefer something so awful.

 

I think it starts to come to me slowly that those (like you) express things like this, are somehow not able - or not willing to take the real technical arguments and real technical figures.

It is not so many posts back where I - on a kind of request - kind of exactly showed why your quote above is a. stuffing my throat once again b. ignoring - hence leaving out the proper context.

 

I showed to you that digital is MORE AWFUL and you did not respond to that, but ignore *that* as a fact in the mean time. As suggested, that it is likely to be beyond one's comprehension is another thing, but just stating that vinyl is awful ... you shouldn't do that.

You may have missed it, but I do my best to justify such expressions, *if* I'd do them at all. If you don't want to read them, or begin to understand them, fine. But please stop expressing your own ideas with leaving out the necessary context.

 

May it not be clear : my context is that a DAC has more distortion than vinyl ever can have. At least the DAC you're listening to has. And therefore bringing up distortion figures from vinyl says nothing without comparing them with the PROPER figures from a DAC.

When you'd be doing this honestly and consistently, you'd be without arguments and you'd stop repeating the same all over.

 

Please note I am as objective as can be, and as you may have read, I don't like vinyl (anymore). But that has its contexts too (read back if you like).

 

If you love vinyl that is good, there is no reason on earth to stop loving it, but if you're arguing that it is better than digital then you're not being logical and you may not understand the facts.

 

Right into my throat again, and you know why ? because you don't present the facts.. You = you and you know.

 

IMHO reasoning out things with the latest post from djp is a better approach. At least that may lead to understanding why people may like vinyl over digital, or the other way around. And with respect of the means how to get there !

 

I'll get you this one : If you want to listen to an oversampling DAC this is good. There is no reason on earth to stop loving it. But might you argue that it is better than non-oversampling you'r not being logical and you may not understand the principles at work.

 

Now, forget about what I have been writing about this OS-NOS subject. IOW, you know nothing about it, but you did choose for an OS DAC, and there PeterSt throws this right into your face.

Would you dig that ?