The truth about vinyl.vinyl vs digital

[bonzo75]

Very much agree, but also Peter it’s worth noting the various outcomes of choice of platform to pursue recorded music has a range of potentials and constraints well beyond cost of hardware v software.

In the end the cost at the pump of playing music via a system ultimately is a summative thing… and none of us aren’t likely mostly maxed out here in this pursuit

I sold my analogue setup and with it my vinyl collection once to do a gap year grand tour of the world… my gear at the time Sota sapphire, SME V and some Garrot brothers modified deccas and dynavectors bought us nearly 4 months in the Mediterranean alone. We were young and we travelled cheap.

I don’t now regret selling my LP collection as well because I’d realised much of it was audiophile selected so not primarily for musical performance but rather for sonic criteria. I’d started out a music lover and realised I’d been led by my particular audiophile focus to become somehow a sonic seeker

So I had all these albums which I’d curated more so on the basis of the recording credentials rather than just the musical performance. Ultimately it meant I’d play just a smallish selection of performances that largely satisfied both for music artistry and for sonic wonder when I needed a sonic moment with my system as well as a more musical moment with myself.

After a lifetime of enjoying what I had but also realising I wasn’t really where I wanted to be I’m happy that simply great performance and artistry and diversity in music and musical discovery is now my focus… and this is just more possible for me with my current setup. I’d love to have the option of a revisit to analogue as an addition but to get something that I’d be happy to use often would require a total budget equal to my current setup or more by the time I factored in a sufficiently sized library (2 thousand recordings at least) of great analogue vinyl with sufficiently great musical performances. Big call for me to have both… might genuinely be a beyond turntable setup but more for me a budget beyond than anything else .

But I definitely don’t want to find myself playing the same handful of records or reel to reel tapes over and over again… that’s just not loving music and living a full musical life in a way that’s become right for me.

We each get what we need out of this and it is not the same for each and not the same for us as we change along the way. After decades of going from being a simple music lover to being a full on audiophile I’ve found myself primarily to be a simple music lover again… but with a great system.

I love great music and great analogue and great digital and appreciate great sound as well. So instead till an opportunity comes up for something otherwise I focus on playing music on my current setup and stay focussed primarily on musical connection through engaging in music’s artistry and in further discovery. I generally listen to whole albums and each concert is different, each performance a new interpretation, seeing familiar artists as well and familiar music and also my favourite composers but expanding to realise how every performance can take you to a new appreciation and not just reliving those same handful of exact same moments in time… simply more like going to live music and having the musical journey unfold.

I’m lucky my system sounds natural and connective and the music is the focus. Sure I can do sonic appreciation (and love that quality as well) but it’s not where the system is centred. It always leads me back into the music.

I started out analogue (vinyl and reel to reel) and now visit a mate regularly who has the right setup and the right record library for enjoying that analogue window as well. But there is no shortage of access to great music at home, and for me the format that leads me to the greatest accessibility for that happens to be currently digital based and the musical return on investment is very full. If I was more purely sonically geared I might choose otherwise.

Tao, I largely agree with this, which is why Lampi stays my favorite thing in audio, over products from other parts of the audio chain. Because with it you can stream whatever you like at a touch and enjoy the experience. Maybe if someone already had a few thousand great LPs they will be able to listen to as much music, but those who don't have them already can afford very few good ones. And the quality of downloads and streaming will only get better. If I want to listen to different great classical performances, I have to book a seat at G's place or listen to it on a Lampi.

On any other system I can almost never investigate classical, i.e. if that person has exhausted his reserves on a great Kogan version of a concerto, he will not have that piece by 10 other violinists. Sure, the Kogan will sound phenomenal, but how many times can you repeat it? On a Lampi, I can switch between all the versions and enjoy them all.

That said, we have to differentiate between what is practical for you and me vs what is practical for WBF. If someone is willing to spend 100k for a TT, 25k for an arm, rotate 10k plus each on 10 carts, and an expensive phono, and listens to reissues and bad presses, that person will have been sonically and musically better off buying a STST motus II, SME 3012r + vdh or FR64 + some other cart, any nice used phono he gets from his friends, and buying expensive LPs with the difference. Kind of like what Jeff has done with his Garrard.

Similarly, if I had 400k, I would not buy a Cessaro Gamma or a vox, but I would buy a horns universum or get someone to build a custom, and put the 370k difference into originals. Sonically and musically, I would be much better off.

The point I want to emphasise with the above two examples is that even assuming one prefers the expensive speakers sonically more when comparing with reissues, that person will prefer the sonics of better LPs via gear he deems less. Also, the pleasure from owning more expensive gear subsides quickly - the sonic superiority of better LPs in a transparent system even with sonically lesser but good gear leads to better sound that can be enjoyed over a much longer period of time and if you have 370k worth of them, they will give you a thrilling feeling for a long time vs listening to compressed reissues over better gear. Of course, most of are thinking of a 10k difference not 370k, so this strategy is impractical for most.

 

[Mikem53]

Tao, I largely agree with this, which is why Lampi stays my favorite thing in audio, over products from other parts of the audio chain. Because with it you can stream whatever you like at a touch and enjoy the experience. Maybe if someone already had a few thousand great LPs they will be able to listen to as much music, but those who don't have them already can afford very few good ones. And the quality of downloads and streaming will only get better. If I want to listen to different great classical performances, I have to book a seat at G's place or listen to it on a Lampi.

On any other system I can almost never investigate classical, i.e. if that person has exhausted his reserves on a great Kogan version of a concerto, he will not have that piece by 10 other violinists. Sure, the Kogan will sound phenomenal, but how many times can you repeat it? On a Lampi, I can switch between all the versions and enjoy them all.

That said, we have to differentiate between what is practical for you and me vs what is practical for WBF. If someone is willing to spend 100k for a TT, 25k for an arm, rotate 10k plus each on 10 carts, and an expensive phono, and listens to reissues and bad presses, that person will have been sonically and musically better off buying a STST motus II, SME 3012r + vdh or FR64 + some other cart, any nice used phono he gets from his friends, and buying expensive LPs with the difference. Kind of like what Jeff has done with his Garrard.

Similarly, if I had 400k, I would not buy a Cessaro Gamma or a vox, but I would buy a horns universum or get someone to build a custom, and put the 370k difference into originals. Sonically and musically, I would be much better off.

The point I want to emphasise with the above two examples is that even assuming one prefers the expensive speakers sonically more when comparing with reissues, that person will prefer the sonics of better LPs via gear he deems less. Also, the pleasure from owning more expensive gear subsides quickly - the sonic superiority of better LPs in a transparent system where the speaker leads to better sound that can be enjoyed over a much longer period of time and if you have 370k worth of them, they will give you a thrilling feeling for a long time vs listening to compressed reissues over better gear. Of course, most of are thinking of a 10k difference not 370k, so this strategy is impractical for most.

Hear hear , Great post ! highlighting priorities, variety and quality of the source material. Most important to the overall musical experience and enjoyment. Totally agree , priorities of the pursuit.

 

[advanced101]

As a relatively young audiophile (35) these topics are always interesting, but I rarely ever comment. I have no nostalgia regarding vinyl. I was 25 when I heard my first turntable. It was a terrible setup but there was something that seemed right to the sound. I thought to myself, there is potential here. And down the rabbit hole I went. I have had to learn with trial and error, no mentors (although I should have put effort into seeking one out) on how to get things right. I am still learning with forums like WBF. As someone who works around technology and robotics in my day job, the last thing I want to mess with when I get home is a computer. There is a certain satisfaction in working through the mechanical challenges of vinyl playback.

When I sit down for a listening session I keep my phone in a separate room, as this is my time to perform a tech cleanse. During the few times I have invited a friend over to listen, they are typically on their phones half the time. I think my generation has a tough time focusing on the task of "listening". The Artists that release these works of art deserve my full attention. An enlightening comment a friend made was "This is too real, it is giving me anxiety". I do not think many people in my generation have actually heard a good playback system. We didn't grow up with a stereo being the main source of entertainment. That was split between the TV, video games, computers and mobile devices.

10 years later I do not regret my decision to go strictly vinyl. Those Ah-Ha moments make it worth it and I am still finding great records, both original and reissue.

 

[jeff1225]

As a relatively young audiophile (35) these topics are always interesting, but I rarely ever comment. I have no nostalgia regarding vinyl. I was 25 when I heard my first turntable. It was a terrible setup but there was something that seemed right to the sound. I thought to myself, there is potential here. And down the rabbit hole I went. I have had to learn with trial and error, no mentors (although I should have put effort into seeking one out) on how to get things right. I am still learning with forums like WBF. As someone who works around technology and robotics in my day job, the last thing I want to mess with when I get home is a computer. There is a certain satisfaction in working through the mechanical challenges of vinyl playback. 10 years later I do not regret my decision to go strictly vinyl. Those Ah-Ha moments make it worth it and I am still finding great records, both original and reissue.

You have an interesting system, have you ever posted a full system picture?

 

[advanced101]

You have an interesting system, have you ever posted a full system picture?

No, but I should. I will create one in the near future.

 

[Ron Resnick]

You won't get any of these reissues sounding better than their originals if the originals are in good shape. Tried many compares. I like classic records and their stuff is better than speakers corner, but still not as good. Even electric recording company (ERC) which records from master tapes and has ortofon lyrec and tubed equipment to try and come close to the original assembly don't sound anywhere as good

Why do you believe this is? Tape degradation between the original and the reissue? Or something else?

 

[bonzo75]

Why do you believe this is? Tape degradation between the original and the reissue? Or something else?

For some it is different equipment, and in cases like ERC where equipment is the similar it can only be explained by different engineers. Part of it might also be the filtration process of the survivors, only the really good get filtered out after so many years.

 

[bonzo75]

Also, musically, the classic records/analog production catalog is very poor compared to the music available if you can source originals. But streaming does not have that constraint

 

[ddk]

You can't be serious?? Both are equally important. Subjective opinions are not worth anything without some frame of reference.

I would trust measurements long before a subjective opinion of unknown origin and with no frame of reference. Buy frame of reference I mean a friend who you know well and have shared listening experience's with. I have several friends who's opinion's I have confidence in.

How do you do a objective comparison without a yardstick? Sounds like measurements to me?

Why would anyone put any stock in a You Tube video based on a random person's opinion??

Rob

Hi Rob,

I'm very serious in what I said.
1- High end audio is ultimately about sound quality, which depending on the person can be subjective, objective or both.
2- Subjective and Objective both matter.

The Objective can be a yardstick of choice and certainly more than one yardstick can be used for one's assessments and needs. I'm not trying to define or limit personally meaningful yardsticks.

david

 

[ddk]

So, you reject any objective basis here:

"It's actually measurements and technical hype that have no correlation to sound and ie reality!"

Yet you want me to expand on an objective subject here?

"expand on these "psychoacoustically preferred" distortions and artifacts? What are they, what specific frequencies and supporting data?"

[personal criticism post deleted above]

I certainly don't reject any objective as clearly mentioned in my post and the sentence connected the one you present out of context here! I merely asked tor supporting evidence for your statement;

On analog vs digital the largest issue that seems to rarely be mentioned is analog distortions and artifacts are both psychoacoustically preferred in many cases and are also acclimated to by the listener. Digital otoh is not, so distortions and artifacts added by a DAC are unpleasant.

I’m interested because IMO people are sensitive to distortion in sound irrespective of technology and in a digital dominated how can analog distortion be the distortion of choice?

david

 

[ddk]

The statement that measurements and "technical hype", which needs to be properly defined... maybe we can say it's technical specifications of a piece of gear? In any case, reality defines these things and defines the sound these things produce!

Pertinent to the one line taken out of my entire reply to your post:#14 in this thread lets clarify what I said in full context;

“High end sound reproduction is about sound quality which is both objective and subjective not measurements. It's actually measurements and technical hype that have no correlation to sound and ie reality!”

The first sentence is self explanatory IMO purpose of High End system is higher quality sound reproduction not not measurements, The second sentence is a continuation of the first one and should be put in context of this being a high end audiophile site and primarily a consumer/layman forum and not an engineering forum so technical knowledge is by definition limited, even among industry members who think they know it all. I’ll explain my comments as you suggested.

Measurements with no correlation to good sound quality

1- There are many know examples of poor sounding electronics, turntables, digital players and cables sold solely based on measurements to the unsuspecting public for decades and there were magazines devoted to “perfect” measuring poor sounding audio equipment replaced by measurement based forums. In the same scenario we have equipment not measuring as well as the previous mentioned group sounding superior. In both cases there’s a conflict between measurements and sound quality.


2- Differences in sound quality of similar products that can’t be measured. As an example you up sell your power cords by offering different plugs claiming the more expensive as superior. On the surface they’re all moulded plugs with similar specs with minor finishing differences,

a) Do you explain the sonic characteristics of each type on your site for the consumer so they’re clear what they’re paying for?

b) Can you provide or are there measurements that can define the sonic characteristics of each plug? If they exist how and why are those measurements important to the consumer when making purchase decisions?


Technical hype

I’m referring to two specific types of technical hype I see used in context of sound quality and high end audio.

1- Pseudo technology and made up science with interesting names to sell questionable products like a $2500 fuse and other snake oils.

2- When technology in another industry is claimed in audio industry as proof of superior sound, for example;

a) OCC/OHCC process and the resulting crystal structure of their conductors somehow translates to superior sound over other conductors when there’s no supporting data. This is a type of diversion some manufacturers use without providing any facts backing their claims or even what that supposed sonic advantage is; and compared to what!

The above statement is a massive logical fallacy, it makes no sense whatsoever. It is only our own failure to be able to correlate measurements to what we hear. In some cases like frequency response, this is really obvious and is proof that these kind of subjectivist statements are misguided and incorrect, a result of faulty logic and an incorrect assessment of how an audio system works, and in fact a faulty assessment of how facts and reality define our world.

What are you talking about? Incorrect assessment of how audio systems work as defined by whom and what/sho's assessment are you referring to? Who’s world defining reality? You're making huge statements presented as fact without context!

david

 

[microstrip]

Hi Rob,

I'm very serious in what I said.
1- High end audio is ultimately about sound quality, which depending on the person can be subjective, objective or both.
2- Subjective and Objective both matter.

The Objective can be a yardstick of choice and certainly more that one yardstick can be used for one's assessments and needs. I'm not trying to define or limit personally meaningful yardsticks.

david

David,

Properly collected and analyzed subjective data becomes objective data, including error bars.

So people can either tell it is all subjective or all objective and be true!

IMHO the more relevant aspects of the so called "subjective" versus so called "objective" debate are the influence of bias, improper statistics or poor understanding of listening methods. The measurement battle belongs to a war of the past ...

 

[ddk]

David,

Properly collected and analyzed subjective data becomes objective data, including error bars.

So people can either tell it is all subjective or all objective and be true!

IMHO the more relevant aspects of the so called "subjective" versus so called "objective" debate are the influence of bias, improper statistics or poor understanding of listening methods.

It's a reality that we have to accept in such conversations Francisco, we do what we can.

david

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . .

Properly collected and analyzed subjective data becomes objective data, including error bars.

. . .

Now you have me confused. If we survey in a controlled study a group of audiophiles about which of two amplifiers subjectively sounds better, the result of that subjective study yields an objective conclusion that one amplifier is objectively better sounding than the other amplifier?

I must be misunderstanding you.

 

[DaveC]

David,

Properly collected and analyzed subjective data becomes objective data, including error bars.

So people can either tell it is all subjective or all objective and be true!

IMHO the more relevant aspects of the so called "subjective" versus so called "objective" debate are the influence of bias, improper statistics or poor understanding of listening methods. The measurement battle belongs to a war of the past ...

You may form a hypothesis with such subjective data but what you said for the most part is not true, and is certainly misleading.

This isn't debatable unless you think you can get everyone to agree to change the scientific method, which is here for your reference:

Scientific method - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is therefore a clear delineation between subjective and objective, unless you think you can get everyone to agree to change the definitions of the words. I'll leave it up to you to google the definitions.

The "measurements battle" will end when science defines the precise relationship between measured phenomenon and subjective experience. If you think this will never happen I disagree, I think it's just a matter of time. Currently it's stalled out because there is little financial incentive to do the work except for audio businesses, and they will only share information if they think it'll help with marketing.

I understand why you said what you did but IMO it's not helpful because it's not true.

 

[DaveC]

I’m interested because IMO people are sensitive to distortion in sound irrespective of technology and in a digital dominated how can analog distortion be the distortion of choice?

david

I think people actually enjoy analog forms of noise and distortion. Why? I think the origin of the sound is more natural... and in this I mean from the natural world. Digital distortions and noise is subjectively harsher sounding and is much more likely to cause listening fatigue, maybe the sound is unnatural, like a synthetic chemical that our bodies are not used to. Another reason is acclimation... we're used to hearing analog forms of distortion.

In any case I think the reasons are mostly psychoacoustic, how our bodies and brain interpret sound.

Some anecdotal evidence... for a long time now analog distortion such as surface noise or tape hiss, clicks and pops, even a distortion effect that mimics a woofer with blown surrounds have been added to some genres of music, it's very common. EDIT: on the other hand I could not see anyone ever adding that harsh 90's digital sound to music on purpose.

 

[thedudeabides]

I'm predicting 400 posts on this thread.

 

[microstrip]

You may form a hypothesis with such subjective data but what you said for the most part is not true, and is certainly misleading.

This isn't debatable unless you think you can get everyone to agree to change the scientific method, which is here for your reference:

Scientific method - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is therefore a clear delineation between subjective and objective, unless you think you can get everyone to agree to change the definitions of the words. I'll leave it up to you to google the definitions.

The "measurements battle" will end when science defines the precise relationship between measured phenomenon and subjective experience. If you think this will never happen I disagree, I think it's just a matter of time. Currently it's stalled out because there is little financial incentive to do the work except for audio businesses, and they will only share information if they think it'll help with marketing.

I understand why you said what you did but IMO it's not helpful because it's not true.

Well if you need Wikipedia definition of the scientific method to answer you are clearly out of the main subject. We are not in the 17th century anymore and perceptual science uses the scientific method. People gave adapted the scientific method for me, I do not need to do it.

Concerning high-end there is no real possibility to establish the precise relationship between measured phenomenon and subjective experience we all dream about. Too many variables and a too diverse population.

 

[DaveC]

Well if you need Wikipedia definition of the scientific method to answer you are clearly out of the main subject. We are not in the 17th century anymore and perceptual science uses the scientific method. People gave adapted the scientific method for me, I do not need to do it.

Concerning high-end there is no real possibility to establish the precise relationship between measured phenomenon and subjective experience we all dream about. Too many variables and a too diverse population.

I totally disagree with both statements. If you want to derive fact from subjective experience and conflate subjective and objective then you're in your own little fantasy land.

 

[Al M.]

Well if you need Wikipedia definition of the scientific method to answer you are clearly out of the main subject. We are not in the 17th century anymore and perceptual science uses the scientific method. People gave adapted the scientific method for me, I do not need to do it.

As far as I can tell from a reading of the crucial first summary paragraphs in full (while briefly glancing over the rest for potential glaring mistakes) the Wikipedia article is correct about the scientific method. I say this as a trained scientist (biochemist) myself.

So no need for misplaced derogatory comments about Wikipedia, which is on average (though not always) far more accurate than some sources of fake news that are preferred by others.

Concerning high-end there is no real possibility to establish the precise relationship between measured phenomenon and subjective experience we all dream about. Too many variables and a too diverse population.

That I have to agree with, contra Dave.