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

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,151
0
36
Smyrna, GA
#21
It's only a moot point to those who will only listen to digits.
I only listen to music - not digits.

As for how you skip a song you don't like on vinyl, it's easy. You just get up off your butt and lift the needle over to the next song you want to play.
Ruins the experience for me - I listen either in a deep meditative state, or play stuff casually in the background while reading. Jumping up is a non starter for me in both scenarios.
 

rbbert

Active Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,423
0
36
Reno, NV
#22
Do you mean the fact that it is being done?
. Yes. I could go on and on, but the short story is that many record companies (or at least the powers that be) have the idea that the only people who care about good sound want the music on LP. Doug Sax alluded to this a few years ago in an interview for TAS where he said he couldn't understand why people would want LP's instead of the 24/192 digital masters he was making the LP's from, but since he is now very gainfully employed doing just that he isn't going to complain too much.
 

rbbert

Active Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,423
0
36
Reno, NV
#23
and in fact I can give an even better example of what this focus on vinyl is doing. for Record Store Day 2014 the Grateful Dead are issuing LP's made from cassette masters...:confused:
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
9,483
0
0
#24
I only listen to music - not digits.
Yeah, except your music originates from digits.



Ruins the experience for me - I listen either in a deep meditative state, or play stuff casually in the background while reading. Jumping up is a non starter for me in both scenarios.
Sounds like you don't really listen to music in the way that audiophiles do. If you are in a deep meditative state, music would be lost in the background of your mind I would think. Playing music while concentrating on reading is just background music that isn't being listened to seriously either.
 
May 30, 2010
13,934
18
38
Portugal
#25
Moot point. I could never deal with the aggravation of having to walk to a TT and fiddle with large black objects and mechanical contraptions to be able to listen to music. How do you skip a song you don't like?
No one will say that LP is more convenient - we are debating sound quality. But flat, sterile jazz is something I hate. I am not an expert in this type of music, I must feel the performers emotion, joy and anger!

One of my main insurgences against digital is that the equipment that I have really appreciated is still too expensive, and due to digital obsolescence does not represent good value. Digital audio was supposed to be a leveling technology, fainting the differences between equipment sound quality, and IMHO only made things worst. YMMV.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,151
0
36
Smyrna, GA
#26
No one will say that LP is more convenient - we are debating sound quality. But flat, sterile jazz is something I hate. I am not an expert in this type of music, I must feel the performers emotion, joy and anger!

One of my main insurgences against digital is that the equipment that I have really appreciated is still too expensive, and due to digital obsolescence does not represent good value. Digital audio was supposed to be a leveling technology, fainting the differences between equipment sound quality, and IMHO only made things worst. YMMV.
May be. My $30K DAC sounds pretty damn good, and it is conceivable you can het similap peformance from a $5K TT. Who knows.
 

still-one

Member Sponsor
Aug 6, 2012
1,362
0
36
Milford, Michigan
#27
Yes, I own one a TT and still dislike everything about owning it.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,151
0
36
Smyrna, GA
#28
Sounds like you don't really listen to music in the way that audiophiles do.
I hope not. This means I would waste my time be obsessing over formats and playback hardware, and start qualify music that is not encoded as a groove cut into a vinyl disc as "listening to digits".
 
Dec 12, 2013
935
0
16
NYC , USA
#29
Edorr i was thinking that but would not type it. LMAO.

Al
 
Jul 1, 2010
8,713
0
0
#30
Interesting. Gary, do you really mean a different mix, or a different master?

Tim
 
May 30, 2010
13,934
18
38
Portugal
#31
I hope not. This means I would waste my time be obsessing over formats and playback hardware, and start qualify music that is not encoded as a groove cut into a vinyl disc as "listening to digits".
Edorr,

Why people can't handle the truth? They are really listening to digits and have to fill the gaps with patches :) The patchwork defines the quality of the playback.
 

Attachments

rbbert

Active Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,423
0
36
Reno, NV
#32
Interesting. Gary, do you really mean a different mix, or a different master?

Tim
There are many examples of a less compressed master (of the same mix) being used for some formats. Dream Theater has done this for all their titles on HDtracks (hallelujah), but it's more commonly reserved for LP's (the Jimi Hendrix "core" albums being the ones that come most quickly to mind for me).
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,151
0
36
Smyrna, GA
#33
Edorr,

Why people can't handle the truth? They are really listening to digits and have to fill the gaps with patches :) The patchwork defines the quality of the playback.
One of the "defining" albums in my life is Keith Jarrett's Koln Concert. I used to own it on vinyl, then 44/16 and now 96/24. Change in format (or even sound system) has had zero impact on the enjoyment I derive from this music. It is all just the "Koln Concert". I can play it in my head start to finish.

Sure, I suffer from audiophilia nervosa like anyone else on this forum and fret about my powercables and stuff. But this aspect of the hobby has nothing to do with my innate ability to enjoy music, and everything with my surplus of disposable income and obsessive compulsive tendencies. That my friend, is the honest truth, and I can handle it quite well.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
#34
Reason that I put this topic in my Dialectic and not the general discussion forum is because I don't want this to degenerate into a "my DAC sounds better than your TT" debate or a general digital vs analog food fight.

I thought that I worded my OP carefully to indicate that it is not just a different master, it can be a totally different mix. However, I admit that I am not enough of an expert in music production to absolutely identify a different mix vs just different options taken in mastering to 100% confidence - or even 99% confidence. I'll edit the OP to indicate so for new readers.

From what I understand from a couple of recording engineer friends, a different mix is far more expensive than just doing two different masters from a single mix. What is significant, though, is that for the 3 albums I referenced, it looks and sounds like the mp3 and high-rez download are inferior sonically and are from the same mix/master, whereas the vinyl is a superior mix/master.
 
May 30, 2010
13,934
18
38
Portugal
#35
Reason that I put this topic in my Dialectic and not the general discussion forum is because I don't want this to degenerate into a "my DAC sounds better than your TT" debate or a general digital vs analog food fight. (...)
Gary,

Yes, I considered you were just referring to mastering. Then the logical question - why systematically the LP got the better mastering and not the opposite?
 
May 30, 2010
13,934
18
38
Portugal
#36
One of the "defining" albums in my life is Keith Jarrett's Koln Concert. I used to own it on vinyl, then 44/16 and now 96/24. Change in format (or even sound system) has had zero impact on the enjoyment I derive from this music. It is all just the "Koln Concert". I can play it in my head start to finish.

Sure, I suffer from audiophilia nervosa like anyone else on this forum and fret about my powercables and stuff. But this aspect of the hobby has nothing to do with my innate ability to enjoy music, and everything with my surplus of disposable income and obsessive compulsive tendencies. That my friend, is the honest truth, and I can handle it quite well.
We share the love for this album. I still have my first pressing of it, and as I got it around 1977 and listened to it in too many poor turntables, later I got a new one. When the CD has shown I got it - and it is still a disappointment compared with the LP. :( Perhaps it is due to decades of listening to the LPs but as ECM German LP pressings are of very high quality, it is one of the labels I still prefer the LPs. How do you compare the CD and the 96/24 in your system? As far as I remember the Koln Concert was recorded using tube microphones.

I cannot say that the audiophile hobby has nothing to do with my reproduced music enjoyment. I will enjoy music in any system, but I have to say that thanks to the hobby I enjoy music that I would not otherwise. Shostakovitch is one of my favorite examples - unless your system is able to decode its music, you will find it aggressive and howling. Some types of "strange" jazz also need a great system.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
#37
Gary,

Yes, I considered you were just referring to mastering. Then the logical question - why systematically the LP got the better mastering and not the opposite?
Yes - that is what I am hoping to explore.

One answer speculated is that when Lorde produced 40,000 LPs, she (and her producers) might have made a lot of money. When an mp3 is downloaded, or a track is streamed via Internet radio, they get $0.16 per million. It makes sense that they are paid much more for better quality. As high rez downloads are also so easily shared, even high rez downloads are compressed.
 

JackD201

[WBF Founding Member]
Apr 21, 2010
10,989
7
38
Manila, Philippines
#38
The final distribution medium and specifically where they prospectively will be played and with what ideally dictates the mix and master. It is not unusual to have the mix engineer do a dub and take that to his car and drive around just as an example. If people really want to know the real reason the loudness wars started, it started with portable radios, long before digital entered the market.

LPs will be played at home. The lower noise floor allows for more USABLE dynamic range. CDs are both portable and ubiquitous. The production team needs to factor in the worst case scenarios like as mentioned, car audio. We know what a hostile environment that is with all the road and engine noise. The LP producer doesn't have to worry about that. Now we have Mastered for iTunes which by spec should be better than CD preps because they are primarily geared to headphone users who are more protected against external noise especially when using IEMs or close backed headphones. Even with buds and open backs the level of external noise is less. Just not as good. No need to squash that mix as much either.

Now this is not to say things can't swing around the other way completely. I've come across some (now defunct) "audiophile" labels that churned out CDs that were so quiet on one end that you had to constantly ride the volume control and on the other end played with processing so much to make things sickeningly airy highlighting reverb and decay trails. In a word, gimmicky. Then there are the labels trying to cash in on the vinyl resurgence. No surprise the LPs sound awful compared to the CDs from which they were derived.

Many of us are drawn to the sound quality of recordings done from the 50's to 70's, even guys like me who were born after the golden age of recording. I believe the glue is that this was the period where most listening was done at home with free space stereos. It was the time where a lot of people just sat down and listened. Recordings of the period reflected the listening habits of the market.

I've said it many times before that Mastering is the icing on the cake. The whole cake starts with the musicians and ends with the audience. Now try to imagine the infinite number of choices that are made throughout the entire process from creation to production to reproduction to appreciation. It is simply mind boggling.

I collect music, I'll take it in the format that works for where and how I'm going to be playing it. The hardest part is getting the system to play equally well regardless of format. Physical set up will always skew towards the best possible performance of the most used and preferred format at some compromise to others. Human nature. :)
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,151
0
36
Smyrna, GA
#39
How do you compare the CD and the 96/24 in your system? As far as I remember the Koln Concert was recorded using tube microphones.
Not much difference.

I cannot say that the audiophile hobby has nothing to do with my reproduced music enjoyment. I will enjoy music in any system, but I have to say that thanks to the hobby I enjoy music that I would not otherwise. Shostakovitch is one of my favorite examples - unless your system is able to decode its music, you will find it aggressive and howling. Some types of "strange" jazz also need a great system.
There is indeed some music that I can only enjoy on a great audio system as well.
 

jazdoc

Member Sponsor
Aug 7, 2010
2,600
0
36
Bellevue
#40
Yes - that is what I am hoping to explore.

One answer speculated is that when Lorde produced 40,000 LPs, she (and her producers) might have made a lot of money. When an mp3 is downloaded, or a track is streamed via Internet radio, they get $0.16 per million. It makes sense that they are paid much more for better quality. As high rez downloads are also so easily shared, even high rez downloads are compressed.
Ahhh. Sorry for the misunderstanding.