Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  ebunton said:
To say that one prefers vinyl over digital, is to say that one prefers the more inaccurate sound of vinyl over digital. Yes it may sound more life-like and more emotionally penetrating to the individual, however the core fact remains unwavering: the music being heard is a more inaccurate representation than one from a digital source.

Love your work.:)

Posted
  Arg said:
Hi Orpheus, do you believe that your ear-mind interaction is normal (by which I don't mean 'average', I mean within the normal range of human limitation), or super-human? Because there is no rational way to:

(a) understand the interaction and how it creates bias at conscious and unconscious levels,

(:) believe oneself to be human in this respect, and

© 'trust' one's own ears, or anyone else's, in casual home listening situations.

Pick any two.

I am well aware of psycho-acoustic effects. Both the ear and the palate are immensely suggestible, and this is a fact that is taken into account in all aspects of design and marketing of audio goods, wines, food, etc, etc.

I agree, it is hard to eliminate these effects.

However, I returned to vinyl with a prejudice against it, rather than for it. My last attempt had been a shocking failure; pitch instability, excessive distortion, and excessive clicks and pops. I did not expect to enjoy it.

Further, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, I had invested very heavily in digital gear.

I was massively surprised what a well set-up turntable sounded like, hence my slightly evangelical approach.

I do not deny the limitations of vinyl, and do not believe that it will remain the case that it produces, on average, the sound which is most involving, and most like being present when something is performed.

After all, it has evolved over 100 years or so, whereas digital audio has been around less than 30. (Amazing to think it has been that long, actually.)

Posted
  datafone said:
...Just because you think people are imagining things, doesn't mean it's true. :) It is your belief, not a fact.
The notion* has been thoroughly tested too often, and the weight of evidence is too overwhelming, to ignore...... except if one wants to deny it for personal reasons.

* 'imagining things' is just a disparaging put-down rephrasing of the true notion here, which is that the mind reinterprets sensory data if it knows the context of that data, and hides the fact that it has done so from our awareness.

Posted (edited)
  Arg said:
The notion* has been thoroughly tested too often, and the weight of evidence is too overwhelming, to ignore...... except if one wants to deny it for personal reasons.

* 'imagining things' is just a disparaging put-down rephrasing of the true notion here, which is that the mind reinterprets sensory data if it knows the context of that data, and hides the fact that it has done so from our awareness.

The trouble is, we haven't really seen this "weight of evidence". If you mean that digital has a lower noise floor and greater macro-dynamic range and that the 0s and 1s on the disc will all be translated by the DAC (by a far from perfect process) into an analogue wave form, then fine, so much may be accepted.

Beyond that, what?

Edited by Orpheus
Posted
  Arg said:
The notion* has been thoroughly tested too often, and the weight of evidence is too overwhelming, to ignore...... except if one wants to deny it for personal reasons.

* 'imagining things' is just a disparaging put-down rephrasing of the true notion here, which is that the mind reinterprets sensory data if it knows the context of that data, and hides the fact that it has done so from our awareness.

You would rather deny what your ears tell you because numbers say otherwise....sounds like a sad life indeed.

I hope you snap out of it one day, so you can enjoy life more :)

Posted
  Catostylus said:
I'd rather believe what my ears tell me because it agrees with the numbers.

Life is good.

What do your ears tell you? Does your Oppo BDP-95 sound better to you than your TEchnics?

Posted

Actually, yes.

I emphasise though that it doesn't stop me from enjoying and listening to the Technics. I just feel the Oppo is getting me closer to musical truth, especially with a good SACD (the Kitajenko Shostakovich set, anyone?).

As good as the Technics sounds I can't escape from the feeling that it is falsely introduced harmonics that make it so. But I reiterate my earlier point about the convergence in sound quality I hear between truly top-end turntables and digital equipment. However LP surface noise issues will always send me back, by preference, to a good, clean, high resolution digital set-up.

Posted
  Arg said:
Hi Orpheus, do you believe that your ear-mind interaction is normal (by which I don't mean 'average', I mean within the normal range of human limitation), or super-human? Because there is no rational way to:

(a) understand the interaction and how it creates bias at conscious and unconscious levels,

(:) believe oneself to be human in this respect, and

© 'trust' one's own ears, or anyone else's, in casual home listening situations.

Pick any two.

I have a vinyl system that I do not use because, for several reasons, it is just inconvenient for me to do so. However whenever I do turn give it a spin I end up promising myself to use it more often - and then don't.

It used to irritate me that I found the vinyl system attractive, and wondered if it was just a nostalgia thing.

Then I spent an afternoon at Luckydog's doing A-B comparisons of his vinyl and digital setup of that time. In some instances we were even able to compare vinyl and digital formats of the same recording. Not much doubt that the vinyl was a) different, and b)to every listener present that day, more attractive. Not by as much on all recordings. In 2 instances the digital was quite similar, however they were the exception.

So, be it cd mastering, some form of vinyl distortion that is seductively pleasing, or whatever, pretty hard to ignore such an intensive A-B result.

Posted
  Super Mustud said:
...... some form of vinyl distortion that is seductively pleasing......

I'm sure that's what it is. I find it pleasing too, but to me it rings false.

For the record I feel the same way about valve amplifiers. I have no idea about these tube things people speak of.

Posted
  Catostylus said:
I'm sure that's what it is. I find it pleasing too, but to me it rings false.

WEll one of the things about turntables is that they vary immensely, and can be very sensitive to set up (depending upon the turntable, arm, and cartridge). This is one of the most annoying aspects of vinyl, but also there is great potential in a well set-up system.

I don't know what is "false", exactly. Obviously, the whole process of audio reproduction is "false", in a sense. Calling it "distortion" is really just offering up a conclusion without really understanding why you like it.

Posted (edited)
  datafone said:
You have a preference it seems.

That's good :)

Just because you think people are imagining things, doesn't mean it's true :)

It is your belief, not a fact.

I object to this characterisation of my post and misdirection.

Please take my belief that people are imagining things out of the discussion. I'm not here to talk about beliefs.

There is a fact that vinyl representations of source material are more inaccurate than high-resolution digital media: http://ricochet.com/member-feed/The-Human-Imagination

This is fact (evidence based and scientifically backed). Please do some due diligence on the subject matter if you think this is a lie.

It is a logical deduction that the preference of vinyl sound is the preference for more inaccurate sound compared to high-resolution digital media.

This is true regardless of down-stream components as any change to the sound wave is always detrimental.

For me, there is no belief involved in this - only acceptance of the laws of physics and truth in empirical measurement.

Edited by ebunton
Removed poorly chosen reference
Posted

First of all, I am fairly confident this is an inappropriate use of the laws of thermodynamics (I haven't clicked on the link, but I assume the principle is that any conversion of energy involves a loss of energy through heat, or something like that), and second, it seems to me that the conversion of digital to analogue clearly involves a "change to the sound wave".

Posted
  datafone said:
You would rather deny what your ears tell you because numbers say otherwise....sounds like a sad life indeed.

I hope you snap out of it one day, so you can enjoy life more :)

One is able to both accept the numbers *and* accept that one enjoys what they hear.

Posted
  ebunton said:
I object to this characterisation of my post and misdirection.

Please take my belief that people are imagining things out of the discussion. I'm not here to talk about beliefs.

There is a fact that vinyl representations of source material are more inaccurate than high-resolution digital media: http://ricochet.com/member-feed/The-Human-Imagination

This is fact (evidence based and scientifically backed). Please do some due diligence on the subject matter if you think this is a lie.

It is a logical deduction that the preference of vinyl sound is the preference for more inaccurate sound compared to high-resolution digital media.

This is true regardless of down-stream components as any change to the sound wave is always detrimental. Please see the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

For me, there is no belief involved in this - only acceptance of the laws of physics and truth in empirical measurement.

For the sake of the argument, let's accept that this is so. Then, how is it that so many human ears and emotional receptors gain more satisfaction from this inaccurate sound than they do from digital?

It seems to me that this is a more productive area of investigation and focus, for those who worry about these truths, anyway, than to try to convince those who enjoy their vinyl that digital is technically better.

Posted
  Super Mustud said:
For the sake of the argument, let's accept that this is so. Then, how is it that so many human ears and emotional receptors gain more satisfaction from this inaccurate sound than they do from digital?

Gee that's a good point and even one he's acknowledged, although the "Yes it may sound more life-like and more emotionally penetrating" bit was missing from more recent posts.

And here's a quote...

"A CD is a reconstruction of the sound. It's not even a clone. It's more like a toy or a robot, just a string of ones and zeros, whereas analog recording is a true reflection, like a pool or a mirror. Imagine telling Picasso, 'That's a nice painting; now we're going to fax it to the public.' There's no doubt in my mind that this is why the industry is failing."

Bonus points for naming the author (no Googling).

Posted
  Orpheus said:
First of all, I am fairly confident this is an inappropriate use of the laws of thermodynamics (I haven't clicked on the link, but I assume the principle is that any conversion of energy involves a loss of energy through heat, or something like that), and second, it seems to me that the conversion of digital to analogue clearly involves a "change to the sound wave".

My pointing out of the law is to illustrate the fundamental tenet that everything grows more entropic, and that any changes to the source material is always detrimental.

Now that you mention it, it is not the best use of this law.

Yes the digital to analogue conversion is a change, but the change is from a more accurate source.

Vinyl is inherently less accurate (I hope that this is already accepted as a fact????)

Thus any change to the less accurate source becomes even more inaccurate.

Combine this with the fact that vinyl deteriorates and thus grows more and more inaccurate over time and it builds a strong case for high-resolution digital.

Posted
  Orpheus said:
I am well aware of psycho-acoustic effects. Both the ear and the palate are immensely suggestible, and this is a fact that is taken into account in all aspects of design and marketing of audio goods, wines, food, etc, etc.

I agree, it is hard to eliminate these effects.

However, I returned to vinyl with a prejudice against it, rather than for it. My last attempt had been a shocking failure; pitch instability, excessive distortion, and excessive clicks and pops. I did not expect to enjoy it.

Further, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, I had invested very heavily in digital gear.

I was massively surprised what a well set-up turntable sounded like, hence my slightly evangelical approach.

I do not deny the limitations of vinyl, and do not believe that it will remain the case that it produces, on average, the sound which is most involving, and most like being present when something is performed.

After all, it has evolved over 100 years or so, whereas digital audio has been around less than 30. (Amazing to think it has been that long, actually.)

Hi Orpheus, yours is a great story, the most common one in all of audio: "I changed a component, the difference shocked me, the component caused the difference".

Your conscious former prejudice against vinyl makes a good story but simply reveals that your overriding bias was not at the conscious level nor in the direction you consciously thought.

Your preference for vinyl sound over the master tape sound is yours to enjoy. I don't want to take that away from you. We all have our euphorias and that is fine.

But I cannot think of a better goal for the *electrical* components in our home playback systems than to replicate the electrical signal that comes off the master tape with minimum audible error. Your preference is taking you away from the goal. You like what you like (and so do I) but your 'like' is taking you away from the goal of better sound quality.

To illustrate this, let's say I (and a fairly large group of like-minded people) develop a preference for listening to 1960's portable transistor AM radios with 2" full range speakers. There is just something magical about the way they sound that blows us away. It's just not there with 'big' hifi, and we have an enhanced sense of 'being there'. We announce to the world that we simply love this sound more than any other sound, it is our euphoria. The world smiles back and gives a few pats and words of encouragement. We then announce to the world that this is the best form of music reproduction in existence, unsurpassed in fact, and that includes all 'big-fi'. We start a thread asking how big does big-fi have to get before it begins to approach the unsurpassed beingthereness that we are currently enjoying. Some outsiders comment that there is a pile of evidence that this is simply not so, although it is fine that we like it so much. We retort that this is inexplicable and say that this can only be explained by the outsiders not having good enough transistor radios. We then try to divert discussion to what models of transistor radio the outsiders are using, because we genuinely believe this is the real issue.

cheers :)

Posted
  Arg said:
Hi Orpheus, yours is a great story, the most common one in all of audio: "I changed a component, the difference shocked me, the component caused the difference".

You generalise my statement in a manner which renders it completely different.

Your conscious former prejudice against vinyl makes a good story but simply reveals that your overriding bias was not at the conscious level nor in the direction you consciously thought.

I can't win! I had a conscious bias, and was expecting to find something, but the fact that I found something else means that I in fact had a bias I wasn't aware of in the other direction!

Your preference for vinyl sound over the master tape sound is yours to enjoy. I don't want to take that away from you. We all have our euphorias and that is fine.

I can't say whether I have that preference. I haven't heard the master tape.

But I cannot think of a better goal for the *electrical* components in our home playback systems than to replicate the electrical signal that comes off the master tape with minimum audible error. Your preference is taking you away from the goal. You like what you like (and so do I) but your 'like' is taking you away from the goal of better sound quality.

I've never thought this was a realistic goal. I would prefer it to capture the spirit of an actual recording or performance. I don't agree that it is taking me away from the goal of better sound quality. That is what I am aiming for.

To illustrate this, let's say I (and a fairly large group of like-minded people) develop a preference for listening to 1960's portable transistor AM radios with 2" full range speakers. There is just something magical about the way they sound that blows us away. It's just not there with 'big' hifi, and we have an enhanced sense of 'being there'. We announce to the world that we simply love this sound more than any other sound, it is our euphoria. The world smiles back and gives a few pats and words of encouragement. We then announce to the world that this is the best form of music reproduction in existence, unsurpassed in fact, and that includes all 'big-fi'. We start a thread asking how big does big-fi have to get before it begins to approach the unsurpassed beingthereness that we are currently enjoying. Some outsiders comment that there is a pile of evidence that this is simply not so, although it is fine that we like it so much. We retort that this is inexplicable and say that this can only be explained by the outsiders not having good enough transistor radios. We then try to divert discussion to what models of transistor radio the outsiders are using, because we genuinely believe this is the real issue.

cheers :)

We can all agree that the best sound will not be obtained from 60s transistor radios, and that those who believe that it can are misguided.

Posted
  Arg said:

But I cannot think of a better goal for the *electrical* components in our home playback systems than to replicate the electrical signal that comes off the master tape with minimum audible error. Your preference is taking you away from the goal. You like what you like (and so do I) but your 'like' is taking you away from the goal of better sound quality.

Couldn't agree more.

The goal should be the accurate reproduction of the source.

Minimise the signal path between source and speaker; minimise the chances of alteration to the audio signal.

Posted
  ebunton said:
Couldn't agree more.

The goal should be the accurate reproduction of the source.

Minimise the signal path between source and speaker; minimise the chances of alteration to the audio signal.

No EQ in any circumstances? Perhaps no cross-overs? No filters in the source, amplifier, or speakers?

Posted
  Super Mustud said:
For the sake of the argument, let's accept that this is so. Then, how is it that so many human ears and emotional receptors gain more satisfaction from this inaccurate sound than they do from digital?

It seems to me that this is a more productive area of investigation and focus, for those who worry about these truths, anyway, than to try to convince those who enjoy their vinyl that digital is technically better.

Read my posts, I've almost memorised the numbers now from repeating them when poster after poster after poster repeats the above question as if the thread doesn't exist. #43 and 82? I forget.

Posted
  ebunton said:
Couldn't agree more.

The goal should be the accurate reproduction of the source.

Minimise the signal path between source and speaker; minimise the chances of alteration to the audio signal.

Minimise as much as possible without sacrificing the goal.

Posted
  Arg said:
Read my posts, I've almost memorised the numbers now from repeating them when poster after poster after poster repeats the above question as if the thread doesn't exist. #43 and 82? I forget.

Arg, I'm not having a go at digital - after all, I use it almost exclusively. I am also not having a go at your many thoughtful posts.

I am honestly intrigued at why vinyl is more attractive. Well, to many, anyway. Including myself. Over time I have read through all of this thread and have no doubt forgotten a lot of it. Because of the repetition, I am not particularly interested with the ongoing technical argument on the medium and am more interested about how we perceive sound and how we process it for pleasure. That's all.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...
To Top