Why every music lover needs to buy a turntable - discuss.

Phelonious Ponk · Mar 9, 2014

JackD201 said:
I don't know your angle Tim. I really don't. I don't because I don't know WHAT you consider UN-distorted. When you spout about people preferring distortion you A) have to be clear what it is being distorted and B) know what undistorted sounds like in the first place. Now be honest with me. Do you? EVERYTHING is manipulated. The choice of microphone is a manipulation. Let's leave analog out of this for a minute. DACs do not all sound alike. Would you say people like a particular DACs more because it is distorted? I bet not huh. Yet you are eager to pounce on another medium that also sounds different and project this very reason. When you choose say one type of dither over another on Amarra, sound will differ. Which one is "more distorted"? Can you tell me? Have you not manipulated the signal at it's very core when you do this? There are samples on youtube where dither is not used versus used. un-dithered SUCKS. If you leave settings at default, you've just left the decision to somebody else. That's exactly what Tim has done by going to a fully integrated system. That is not wrong. It is not. Just don't fool yourself that it is anymore true because NOBODY and I mean NOBODY has ever HEARD what the truth is because ALL monitoring chains are compromised.

So let's talk pudding. End results. Referencing what Tim asks, WHAT DO YOU HEAR? It's not so much what I hear but what I SHOULDN'T hear. The vinyl distortion, from a well sorted rig playing a clean, unworn LP TO ME is less offensive than poorly implemented digital. It is the type of noise easily filtered and listened past compared to a character that is in a nutshell, artificial. Noise shaping and dither work under the same framework, it should be low enough to be effectively masked during playback. That doesn't mean I like the distortion of analog and that is the leap you've made that frankly IMO you have not supported. All gross playback distortions suck, it's provenance matters not. What matters is getting it low enough so as not to be so damned bothersome.

Everybody is free to theorize but man, you want to ram this down our throats you have to come armed with a full controlled study with a sample size large enough to support an acceptable level of confidence. Get that peer reviewed while you're at it. Until then IMO you are in no place to make us admit to nothing more than an untested theory on your part.

Vinyl has more distortion. Sure. People like vinyl BECAUSE of this distortion? Hang on buddy, that's a reach and you know it. cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

We're confused at this point, Jack. That's why you're not getting it. You are mixing my arguments with Tom's and I've mixed you up in a point I'm trying to make about the debate techniques (or lack thereof) of other members of this board, that I really don't think applies to you. In this discussion, at least, I'm not addressing vinyl's distortions, though it is a sidebar that can't be kept down. Let me see if I can break it down:

1) Much of the vinyl contingent insists that vinyl is superior.
2) They are so insistent that they refuse to accept that anyone could prefer digital unless there is something wrong with their listening experience, and all comers are subject to insult
3) Their uber-confident position is not, however, supported by any data. By all the standard metrics, vinyl performs worse than rebook. (Does digital have its own distortions? Of course, but remember, we're talking about people who refuse to allow that digital could even be a legitimate preference. They insist it is clearly inferior)
4) If vinyl is superior, not just preferred, the aforementioned industry standard metrics (THD, IMD, Crosstalk, FR....) can't be what they're hearing, so no, I'm not arguing that what they're hearing is distortion. I just want them to answer the question:
5) What is it?

#5 is where discussion always breaks down, because in spite of the fact that we're talking about the most mature playback technology still in use, they never have an answer. Whatever it is they hear, it has never been measured or documented. A WAG? A theory? Sure. Actual evidence of something present in vinyl and absent from digital other than the distortions and limitations that inevitably come into these conversations? Not that I've seen.

I'd be OK with it all if they were reasonable. If they want to believe their hearing some unmeasured quality in their preferred media, I wish them well. It is the fact that they will not allow anyone an alternate point of view that is not driven by some flaw in the dissenter's listening experience that pisses me off.

On the merits, these guys have got nothing but opinions. Their position is unsupported, but their smarmy, dismissive, arrogance is consummate. To put it plainly, I'm asking them to put up or shut up, and honestly expecting neither to happen. You're a good and reasonable man who, as well as I can remember, has never questioned anyone else's legitimate opinion. You're just running with the wrong crowd

.

Tim

Johnny Vinyl · Mar 9, 2014

By attaching a bunch of wires to your head one could measure the level of intensity of an orgasm and the degree of pleasure, but I do not believe it can measure the feeling derived. Perhaps some things are just not measurable.

JackD201 · Mar 9, 2014

^
John is part of that crowd and I like him

Phelonious Ponk · Mar 9, 2014

Johnny Vinyl said:
By attaching a bunch of wires to your head one could measure the level of intensity of an orgasm and the degree of pleasure, but I do not believe it can measure the feeling derived. Perhaps some things are just not measurable.

But if you spent much of your time strutting around sex forums claiming that your orgasms were not only more pleasurable and more intense than everyone else's, but that anyone who had not experienced your orgasms could not possibly have a legitimate opinion on the subject, and if and all the available, measurable data actually said your orgasms were not the most intense, then those with more measurably intense and pleasurable organisms would be pretty justified in expecting you to have something to back up your claim.

Something besides your bravado...

Tim

MylesBAstor · Mar 9, 2014

Don Hills said:
You really can't admit you're wrong, can you? Before you tried to move the goalposts, we were discussing the different number of steps involved between producing an LP and producing a digital stream. (There are a quite a few steps involved in pressing a CD too, but they arguably don't cause any degradation unless the result is so poor it causes actual CU errors.)

Again, when was the last time you had an analog system? I just love when people make judgements based on erroneous or dated information. Once again, the real issue was always and is much less currently, playback, not the mastering step. So this makes your whole argument moot.

Inquiring minds want to know when was the last time you compared either a master or safety copy of a recording with its vinyl counterpart? Or for that matter, the tape with its digital counterpart? Remember the digital copy should be an exact copy of the tape, warts and all. No shoulda, woulda, coulda. Just cold, hard facts.

As for digital degradation, have to disagree. See the article I wrote years ago for TAS on how the same 1630 tape done by Bernie Grundman sent to two different CD manufacturing plants (one in the US and one in Canada) sounded totally different.

And yes, they cut a new lacquer for each stamper/ pressing. As you said, masters rarely left then (and either rarer now) the studio. What was sent overseas was generally a safety; thus, the quality of foreign pressings (other considerations are also involved) are a step below the US because generation number is everything.

Phelonious Ponk · Mar 9, 2014

JackD201 said:
^
John is part of that crowd and I like him

I like John, too. And he is not who I'm talking about. There are a lot of vinyl lovers on this forum who do not fall in the category.

Tim

Johnny Vinyl · Mar 9, 2014

Phelonious Ponk said:
But if you spent much of your time strutting around sex forums claiming that your orgasms were not only more pleasurable and more intense than everyone else's, but that anyone who had not experienced your orgasms could not possibly have a legitimate opinion on the subject, and if and all the available, measurable data actually said your orgasms were not the most intense, then those with more measurably intense and pleasurable organisms would be pretty justified in expecting you to have something to back up your claim.

Something besides your bravado...

Tim

My point with the rather extreme example is that parts of what reach our ears is not something that can be measured, and IMO does not need to be. I look at it as the unifying piece of why we like something and accept that for what it is. In the very vast majority of cases vinyl gives me that final piece and lets me enjoy my cake with the icing. Whatever it is, it is something I like. I make no claims about it being better or that others should share my opinion, which is all it can be.

MylesBAstor · Mar 9, 2014

tomelex said:
I am just replying to your comments:

Originally Posted by JackD201 View Post

Decisions on gain, panning (channel separation char.), eq (FR char), compression (DR char) more in line for each format mainly.

And hopefully, even MF knows that means that the two mediums will never sound the same, not counting that the cartridge adds its own distortions anyway.
The topic has evolved to preferring a known more measurable distorting storage and playback medium. Yes, we can hear differences between all parts of a playback chain, if the DISTORTIONS are high enough. We are good there Jack.

So you're basically saying that there's no threshold for the perception of different-since you seem to choose whatever is convenient-distortion. And all the work that's been done could have reduced those cursed distortions to unpercepable levels? And basically you haven't heard a top table phono combination in the last ten or twenty or thirty years.

Phelonious Ponk · Mar 9, 2014

Johnny Vinyl said:
My point with the rather extreme example is that parts of what reach our ears is not something that can be measured, and IMO does not need to be. I look at it as the unifying piece of why we like something and accept that for what it is. In the very vast majority of cases vinyl gives me that final piece and lets me enjoy my cake with the icing. Whatever it is, it is something I like. I make no claims about it being better or that others should share my opinion, which is all it can be.

A reasonable position. Enjoy.

Tim

mep · Mar 9, 2014

Gentlemen-We are all on a merry-go-round stuck on Ground Hog day. We have had this same argument/discourse/pointless discussion way too many times and it always ends the same. No one is EVER going to change their belief systems. No one is going to have an epiphany and declare they have seen the light. Jack has fantasies about demonstrating analog for Tim and making a convert out of him which isn't going to happen. Does anyone remember when MikeL invited Tim to his house? I offered to chip in $100 towards his plane ticket, but no one else offered up any cash. In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't waste any of my money because Tim would have come back and told everyone how his desktop system sounded just as good if not better.

The arguments being made against vinyl by Mr. IMD and Tim aren't any more relevant than arguments we would make against digital based on what it sounded like in 1982. "Oh, I once owned a Magnavox CD player when digital first came out and it sounded terrible. The CD player broke and I stuck it in a closet and I haven't heard it in 30 years but I'm sure all digital still sounds the same." Or in Mr. IMD's case, he would still be using the 1982 Magnavox CD player and comparing all digital to the sound he was achieving with that dinosaur.

It's all a joke and it's time to move on. I just wish the "T" brothers would stop asking other people to do their research and prove their points for them.

Johnny Vinyl · Mar 9, 2014

mep said:
Gentlemen-We are all on a merry-go-round stuck on Ground Hog day. We have had this same argument/discourse/pointless discussion way too many times and it always ends the same. No one is EVER going to change their belief systems. No one is going to have an epiphany and declare they have seen the light. Jack has fantasies about demonstrating analog for Tim and making a convert out of him which isn't going to happen. Does anyone remember when MikeL invited Tim to his house? I offered to chip in $100 towards his plane ticket, but no one else offered up any cash. In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't waste any of my money because Tim would have come back and told everyone how his desktop system sounded just as good if not better.

The arguments being made against vinyl by Mr. IMD and Tim aren't any more relevant than arguments we would make against digital based on what it sounded like in 1982. "Oh, I once owned a Magnavox CD player when digital first came out and it sounded terrible. The CD player broke and I stuck it in a closet and I haven't heard it in 30 years but I'm sure all digital still sounds the same." Or in Mr. IMD's case, he would still be using the 1982 Magnavox CD player and comparing all digital to the sound he was achieving with that dinosaur.

It's all a joke and it's time to move on. I just wish the "T" brothers would stop asking other people to do their research and prove their points for them.

I don't think that's true at all. Jack, much like Gary and myself, have our preference, but none are seeking to convince others and move over to the other side.

Phelonious Ponk · Mar 9, 2014

mep said:
Gentlemen-We are all on a merry-go-round stuck on Ground Hog day. We have had this same argument/discourse/pointless discussion way too many times and it always ends the same. No one is EVER going to change their belief systems. No one is going to have an epiphany and declare they have seen the light. Jack has fantasies about demonstrating analog for Tim and making a convert out of him which isn't going to happen. Does anyone remember when MikeL invited Tim to his house? I offered to chip in $100 towards his plane ticket, but no one else offered up any cash. In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't waste any of my money because Tim would have come back and told everyone how his desktop system sounded just as good if not better.

The arguments being made against vinyl by Mr. IMD and Tim aren't any more relevant than arguments we would make against digital based on what it sounded like in 1982. "Oh, I once owned a Magnavox CD player when digital first came out and it sounded terrible. The CD player broke and I stuck it in a closet and I haven't heard it in 30 years but I'm sure all digital still sounds the same." Or in Mr. IMD's case, he would still be using the 1982 Magnavox CD player and comparing all digital to the sound he was achieving with that dinosaur.

It's all a joke and it's time to move on. I just wish the "T" brothers would stop asking other people to do their research and prove their points for them.

I'm happy to move on, but just to be clear, I'm not making an argument against vinyl. I'm making an argument against the behavior of people who claim their tastes are superior to others, offer absolutely nothing but their own preference to support that claim, then, in the face of their lack of a legitimate point, rapidly stoop to attacking the listening experiences of those who disagree with them. You recently started a thread that began, in its title, with the superiority of your preference. You've just attacked the listening experience of those who disagree with you right here, in the post above.

Thanks for making my point for me. Now, if you honestly do think it's time to move on, we are actually done here.

Tim

mep · Mar 9, 2014

Sorry John, but I think you are dead wrong.

Johnny Vinyl · Mar 9, 2014

mep said:
Sorry John, but I think you are dead wrong.

Surely Jack and Gary can guide us with their response. Personally I don't think I'm the one who's wrong.

mep · Mar 9, 2014

Johnny Vinyl said:
Surely Jack and Gary can guide us with their response. Personally I don't think I'm the one who's wrong.

It's really a moot point John. All of this bickering back and forth will never cease. People who don't own vinyl rigs or who own crappy old vinyl rigs will continue to proclaim how awesome and 'perfect' digital and how horrible analog is while those who own both digital and vinyl rigs appreciate both for what they can do while still maintaining a preference for one over the other. World hunger will cease and peace will come to the Middle East long before this feud comes to an end.

Johnny Vinyl · Mar 9, 2014

mep said:
It's really a moot point John. All of this bickering back and forth will never cease. People who don't own vinyl rigs or who own crappy old vinyl rigs will continue to proclaim how awesome and 'perfect' digital and how horrible analog is while those who own both digital and vinyl rigs appreciate both for what they can do while still maintaining a preference for one over the other. World hunger will cease and peace will come to the Middle East long before this feud comes to an end.

Can't disagree with that one bit Mark.

Phelonious Ponk · Mar 9, 2014

mep said:
Sorry John, but I think you are dead wrong.

Evidently we're not done yet....

Tim

mep · Mar 9, 2014

Phelonious Ponk said:
Evidently we're not done yet....

Tim

No Tim, we will never be done. The horse has long been dead, but we are still beating it down to tooth, hair, and bone.

Phelonious Ponk · Mar 9, 2014

mep said:
It's really a moot point John. All of this bickering back and forth will never cease. 1) People who don't own vinyl rigs or who own crappy old vinyl rigs will continue to 3) proclaim how awesome and 2) 'perfect' digital and how 2) horrible analog is while those who own both digital and vinyl rigs appreciate both for what they can do while still maintaining a preference for one over the other. World hunger will cease and peace will come to the Middle East long before this feud comes to an end.

An 1) uninformed attack on the listening experiences of those who disagree with you, 2) a couple of gross exaggerations and 3) a re-positioning of the opposition's case into something much less credible and easier to ridicule than their actual position. 1,2,3) A perfect storm of duplicitous BS, making my point for me in just 3 sentences. Masterful.

As always. You're welcome to your preference of one over the other.

Tim

Johnny Vinyl · Mar 9, 2014

tomelex said:
God, how many times can this be said

Myles and Mark,

You (pick your stance...often, always, sometimes) prefer a storage medium (vinyl) that has measurably higher distortions than digital. I don't care if it sounds more real, or better, or what, it makes more distortion than digital.....I also prefer the highs of vinyl over the highs of digital, but far prefer digitals lows and mids, which are hugely more accurate sounding to me. I also understand that for you, vinly portrays a more accurate rendition of the live event, no problems, my point is only one, measured distortion.

Can you not acknowledge the FACT that vinyl produces more MEASURED distortion than digital? Its my only point, its simple, really. Others have here, in this thread, some of the high posters such as yourselves. Belly up to the bar with a YES or NO. Less we stay on this merry go round.

I of course realize that we hear things differently, and have different thresholds of what we can hear or consider as distortion. Since the recorded signal is some sort of snapshot and blended mess of mix and mastering, attempting to make it sound something like the real event over two speakers from the mix and master engineers perspective of what they think sounds good or will sound good to us, on a car radio or in a car via Cd or in home via LP, it is (the recording) the only REFERENCE we have cause that's what we are reproducing, NOT the actual event. Once this recording is sent off to the cutter, now a new set of interpretations are put onto the recording, via the cutter, the vinyl, and our TT/cartridge combination. Saying you prefer vinyls re-interpretation to digitals re-interpretation of what say Bruce let fly from the mixing session is not at argument here. I don't care what you interpret, but how long can you guys argue that vinyl produces less distortions than digital.....really.

BTW, I don't know why listening at shows does not count for hearing the very best tt and gear in the world, and what difference it makes that my most recent experience was last year at AXPONA, but that's not the only show I have been to in my life by any means, and still, it does not change the fact that vinyl has more measured distortions than digital, it really does not, atleast not in my world, which is electronics, and since I have been desingning audio stuff since I was in my late teens, I don't think either one of you are going to persuade me that vinyl does not produce more measurable distortions than digital. You simply don't have the technical understanding apparently. I can see no other reason for a mature, highly educated PHD nor for a guy who makes his living supervising electronic technicians and engineers for like 30 years in a row to disagree with simple measurement facts. Oh yeah, I can see another reason, and as usual, its an emotion connection to a belief, ie its a religious thing. I know I am not a religious audiophile, just like I am not a believer in any man-documented religions.....got no dogs in the audiophile religion race, none at all.

Let me cut to the quick.....Tom, what is this obsession you have with wanting people to agree with you that vinyl produces/has more measurable distortion? For arguments sake I'm going to agree with you....now what? Do I now appreciate my vinyl playback less as I've agreed there is more measurable distortion? The question is meaningless as without sound (which you say should not be considered) there is nothing to measure. You do have a nice paper that says some agree with you......you may file it....I'll toss it.

Why every music lover needs to buy a turntable - discuss.

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Similar threads