Analog Apologist
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure the debate won't rest until a blind man can play both sides of this "vinyl-and-cd-release-on-one-disc" at the same time.
I doubt that you could capture it (Boz-Scags) on LP. Too many steps and opportunities to mess things up. It would be nice if we could find out the recording process. Maybe a 45rpm one sided 200 gram Direct to Disc.
One of HP's better know quotes: if you want to enjoy digital, stop listening to analog.
How old is that quote? I thnk it was not too long after he finally accepted digital as a hi-fi medium. I recall a post card where he lamented the price his refusal to accept digital had cost him.
Not really Frantz. Do you actually believe putting a curtain in front of a speaker doesn't affect the sound more than seeing the speaker?
When did putting a curtain in front of the speaker become part of the discussion? Speakers present a particular challenge to blind listening for a whole lot of reasons. It can certainly be done without putting a curtain in front of the speaker, but it's irrelevant. We're talking about digital and analog. Does someone here have some digital speakers?
Tim
Why don't you read a little before posting? Look at how Sean Olive does his testing next time.
Good it's better to express our true opinions than sitting around here like a bunch of sheep nodding our heads up and down and acting politically correct. I've been way too polite for too long.
I know how Sean Olive does his speaker testing, I'm just at a loss as to what it has to do with a conversation about the analog and digital reproduction. Does someone out there have digital speakers?
Are we changing the subject to blind testing because I responded in kind to Mike's post about how he has grown in his audiophile path? There really is no need to get into another very divisive topic. I try to find ways to audition equipment unsighted because it works for me. I'm not asking you to adopt it or believe in either my experience or the existence of acoustically-transparent cloth, now known as a "curtain."
Back on subject, I'm sure any and all vinyl systems I have ever listened to were not SOTA, including the one I auditioned at a high-end shop last year that looked like a bling Calder and was connected via garden hose to a massive rack of billet aluminum, connected via garden hose to a pair of Wilsons, and that, given the chance to hear whatever system it is that you deem SOTA (Mike's?), all wow, flutter, inner groove distortion, RIAA equalization effects, surface noise, compression etc. would vanish and the reproduction from vinyl would both measure and sound utterly transparent, surpassing digital in all ways. I concede that, in the event that SOTA vinyl doesn't measure better, the meaninglessness of audio performance metrics are only exceeded by the vacuum of my listening experience and the only valid arbiter of audio quality is hearing what you hear. Can we stop now?
P
Last edited:
Alas the digital vinyl debate will be decided not by the hardware manufacturers but by the software makers. That means the profit makers will decide the format wars. Audiophiles remain a negligible portion of the pie.
Maybe that's the last word.
Maybe that's the last word.
It's a good one, as words go. But vinyl, hotly debated mostly because the differences, good or bad, can actually be heard by the aging men who are audiophiles, will die off with the Baby Boomers. Then we'll be left where we've been for years, IMO -- 70% of the battle for higher fidelity is in the recording. 25% is in speakers, and audiophiles will continue to obsess and argue over the 5%, even though, at their age, they probably can't hear it.
Exaggerated (a bit) for effect, YMMV, etc. ad infinitum amen...P
It's a good one, as words go. But vinyl, hotly debated mostly because the differences, good or bad, can actually be heard by the aging men who are audiophiles, will die off with the Baby Boomers. Then we'll be left where we've been for years, IMO -- 70% of the battle for higher fidelity is in the recording. 25% is in speakers, and audiophiles will continue to obsess and argue over the 5%, even though, at their age, they probably can't hear it.
P
The good thing about young people is they are open to everyhting and easily bored. I was at the record store recently buying CDs. Not only was there a healthy section of vinyl aimed at youngsters but you could buy a turnable and take it with you. Let's not forget the venrable technics SL 1200. I would guess it reamins a huge seller.
Actually somewhat surprised that Panasonic hasn't done more to promote the Technics SL-1200 in light of vinyl's resurgeance.
John
P,
i was late to this thread (and i've never had any previous interaction with you), so i went back and read your early posts in the thread to try and get a more complete picture of your perspective. i try to understand cause and effect. no different than getting a feel for a reviewer. why do they say what they say? how can i relate to this person? are their conclusions logical based on their specific experience?
it should never matter what sort of system one has in terms of credibility. this is not a contest with winners and losers. we are exchanging ideas to enjoy the hobby more, to learn something, to express ourselves, to hang out with like minded people.
OTOH what does matter is transparency in relation to degree of bluster. if you want to have a considerably contrary position and make all sorts of generalized claims (and you want to have your comments respected) then you have to make a case for the specific source of your perspective. or you will be challenged and then eventually you will be ignored.
i am sincerely curious about the specific sources of your perspectives on vinyl compared to digital. generalized shots at vinyl beg support with specifics. are your claims based on listening (to what specifically?); or are they based on your perspective on the science of music reproduction?
maybe just tell us about the specifics of the dealer experience above and the digital system used in comparison to the vinyl. i am open to learning something new. my pursuits of different formats was because i am curious. how you might describe that system's sound might help me to understand why we disagree.
I've gone back through your posts as well, Mike, and my own, and I find myself regretting getting emotional and unconvinced that any detailed discussion of what I have and have not auditioned will change anything. And that's fine, you're welcome to you point of view. I believe I've already said that more than once. Mine point of view, FWIW, is based on both listening and the science of music reproduction, but it's not just my perspective, it's quite a bit broader than that.
I don't recall the specifics of the system I spoke of earlier, but most of my vinyl listening in recent years has been at the house of a friend who is a vinyl devotee. He has been through a half dozen tables in the last 10 years including a heavily modified Technics, a couple of, again, heavily modified vintage tables that were, evidently, pro tools in their day, others I can't remember, and he now has a relatively simple-looking deck that he bought used, but still at a very dear price. It's name is some fellow's name, and it was evidently the table of choice of Michael Fremer at some point, if that means anything to you. He has been through many cartridges, most of which bear names that mean little to me and, therefore, do not stick in my memory. He has also been through a lot of system components, the best of which, in my opinion, was McIntosh solid state into Vienna Acoustics Beethoven Grands. Good-sounding speakers that require an ungodly amount of current to do what they do well. I apologize that I cannot be any more specific than that. What I can be specific about, and have been specific about is the inherent distortions of vinyl, which are well-known and have been detailed in this thread and in many other places. I can also be specific about what I hear. Every one of my friend's vinyl rigs (and the vinyl rigs I've auditioned in shops) has had a midrange thickness to them that I do not like. It sounds slightly murky to me and seems to dull the clarity of what is, to me, the most important part of the music. Often seems to have a blurring effect on imaging as well.
That is purely subjective, I suppose. One man's warmth is another man's darkness. If you prefer and enjoy the sound of vinyl, as I've said before, I'm fine with that. I'm not on a crusade to change anyone's mind. The problem - my problem - is that I have a bit of trouble standing down when people say, in the most certain and un-subjective of terms, that something is superior when I both hear it as inferior and am supported by all the objective metrics available. Not to start another war, but I have the same issue sometimes with the devotees of valves and NOS DACs. These things have a sound. If you prefer that sound, say so. I'm fine with that. If you must say it is more accurate or more transparent, or closer to the original event, none of which have particularly subjective implications, I will ask for support to back up that claim.
You like vinyl. I'm glad you enjoy it. As long as you don't try to tell me that what I like, which, coincidentally is supported by the available science, is wrong, I'm happy to let it go at that. Fair enough?
P
So how do we define what are SOTA analog and digital rigs? Is that based on measurements or your opinion, TAS's, mine or a panel of trained expert listeners?
If the expert listeners deem the SOTA digital system is superior and it also measures better in all regards, will you accept the conclusions of my test?
How many rooms do I need to repeat the test in to show evidence that listeners can reliably tell the analog SOTA system has more noise, distortion and that is why they rate the system lower in sound quality/accuracy? If I repeated the tests and got the same results in 10 representative rooms would that be enough data to convince you that digital is superior to analog sources, in terms of perceived sound quality?
The effect of seeing the loudspeakers is huge in terms of listeners' preference ratings. In the sighted tests brand/size/price/number of drivers/Miles B. Astor's opinion etc affects perceived quality AND listeners no longer respond to loudspeaker positional effects and program interactions that are clearly measurable in the blind tests. Move the speaker over a few feet in the sighted tests and they give it the same rating, even though the effect in blind tests can have a 20% effect on the loudspeaker ratings. People largely have their minds made up in sighted tests before they hear a note of music based on biases and other cognitive factors; they shut down their ears, and become less responsive to real changes in the sound.
Below are some data from blind versus sighted loudspeaker tests that we published quite a few years ago. We've acoustically and subjectively measured the grille cloth effects and they are negligible compare to the size of these sighted effects.
Last edited:
P,
thank you for taking my request seriously and explaining your actual experience with vinyl.
my above post to you was toned down considerably before i hit 'submit'. my first draft was much more 'agressive'. then i thought; the guy needs the benefit of the doubt to explain that he actually knows what he's talking about in terms of actual experience of top level vinyl performance.
well; my first instincts were correct. based on the second paragraph of your post quoted above; you have a casual level of exposure to vinyl but no clear basis to make any of the SWAG comments you have been making. there is no way to tell what level of vinyl you were experiencing because you don't know. and whatever level it was; you were not living with it day to day. you have not identified the digital source either. for a guy with such strongly held viewpoints; your knowledge of specific gear is sorely lacking.
which does not prove you are wrong; it only eliminates you as the reliable source for the information.
a note about vinyl performance which will apparently be news to you. it varies greatly. since there is so much information in those grooves; as you step up from level to level the performance increases exponetially. generalizing about it is impossible. all the 'touch' words you threw around in trying to diss vinyl....wow and flutter, inner groove distortion, etc. etc. vary greatly.......and are pretty much eliminated at the SOTA. which is why we all wanted to know what vinyl you were listening to. some vinyl could be guilty of those things.
on this subject you are now on my ignore list.
added note; i'm not judgeing your intent here. only whether you have a credible basis for your comments. i would assume that you firmly believe what you wrote. you may very well believe you know all that that is needed to know about high level vinyl performance. you have simply failed to make that case IMHO. and i agree with the whole YMMV direction and we all have our own tastes.
respectfully,
Mike
Last edited:
Obviously none if I don't accept how the hypothesis was tested eg what are the studies assumptions and testing methodology. After all, all studies begin with asking a question. So is that investigator unbiased?
1) A combination of both methods. You know in medicine why, putting aside CYA, a MD asks for several tests? Because one test may not give them all the information they need to make a diagnosis. The same is true for audio. It's not that I don't appreciate your work; however, it's just like any other scientific study and it's methodology has to be accepted. (and BTW, maybe Revel speakers aren't affected by grill cloths--but does that mean that result applies to each and every speaker you test?) But I still don't buy the transparency of a curtain in front of the speaker. If that's true, maybe you should market that too as a WAF and interior decorators. They'd sell a lot more speakers if they could be hidden behind a curtain! You might be able to sell some of your speakers by saying they measure perfectly but eventually if they sound dreadful, they won't sell.
2) To sit here and tell me that digital doesn't have it's own unique set of distortions borders on being disengenious. Both analog and digital systems have their own set of distinct distortions (or do you believe that digital is perfect?). Otherwise, I'd stay home and listen to music at home far away from the maddening crowds. To my ears, analog playback, and its accompanying distortions are more like real music than digital and its own distortions. And there's still as many recording engineers out there preferring to stay in the analog domain as there are who have switched over to digital. I was recently just in one studio in NYC purchasing a Studer deck for a friend where they were moving and going totally over to digital. Why? The owner wants it. Not that the engineers thought it sounded better.
It's akin to what was done in the early years in applying distortion measurements originally used for tubes and then applying them to solid-state. Yeah of course solid-state measured better. But did it sound better? I don't think that anyone here would ever go back and listen to an early Marantz solid-state amplifier. Yet those who have been lucky enough to hear an original (unmodded) 8B amp is shocked by how good this amplifier sounds, even by present day equipment. No I think in the end, it really comes down to what one's definition of musicality is.
I also find it curious how the brain/ear interface adapts to certain distortions and not others. Or how the ear can listen through certain distortions and not hear the problem until something better comes along. Or having a piece of equipment that sounds great out of the box and with extended listening, ends up on audiogon.
3) For me, I simply can't stand to listen to digital for more than an hour. After 30 mins I start fidgiting and finding myself looking for other things to (or at CES how to make a quick exit from the room gracefully). Conversely, I can listen to tape or table for hours on end, rueing the time I have to shut the system off. Yes, it's subjective but again like medicine, one has to listen to the patient and try to figure out what they're complaining about. Maybe and just maybe, there's a subpopulation of audiophiles/listeners (I'm sure like any other study there have to be outlyers 1 or 2 SD from the mean) who are more sensitive to the effects of digital sound? But to prove that statistically and to show even the 30% of the population was more sensitive to digital distortions, would require a study size far beyond the capabilities of a single room. (that's why todays medical studies are multi-institutional eg. to get enough patients to accrue into the study to make it statistically significant).
Let me give you an example. One of my clients (who is also an MD) work colleagues was complaining about excruciating LBP. He went for several MRI and other tests and all came back negative. Yet he was still in pain. So upon further reflection, my client looked at the how the MRI is used and of course people are laying down while the scan is performed. So, the action of gravity on the spine is negated. So he was sent next time for a "standing" MRI and all of a sudden, gravity pulled the spine down and instantly revealed the presence of a previously undetected herniated disc. So in the end, one can have the best equipment in the world but if you don't ask the right questions, it don't matter one iota. Asking the right questions, rather than accepting the status quo, is what separates the real scientist who makes progress in their fields from the also rans.
To my ears, digital has gone from being unlistenable to listenable. But do I get the goose bumps listening to digital that I do with tape or analog? No. Do I understand what the recording engineer was trying to accomplish on a digital recording as I do with analog? No. Do I sit up and say wow when I hear a solo with digital like I do with analog? No. Do instruments sound like the real counterparts with digital recordings as they do analog? No.
4) When will you admit that reductionism doesn't work (it certainly doesn't for biological systems and last time I looked we're not Borg) and long term listening has an important role in evaluating the performance of audio equipment? There's more to music than test tones, tone bursts, etc. Measurements are a beginning but not an end all. Let's say it's the minimum specs that equipment should meet. But in part it's it's how these different distortions uniquely combine that makes the difference and drive people who think out of the box like Keith Johnson use different analysis techniques. Personally while I might not opt for the sound of Spectral gear, Keith has some very interesting ideas on settling time in circuits and its effects on many areas including timing and instrumental harmonics. that makes a lot of sense.
Last edited:
What are the speakers?
What are the associated components?
What was the source material?
Of what material was the curtain made?
Of course what is the motive for conducting the test? Say a company wants to crack into high end sales but has found itself consistently neglected or disfavored by the highend press and audiophiles it might try to establish its credibilty by the use of "science."
It does sort of beg the question, If the highend community is so biased why don't they have the same speakers for decades like I do. They change equipment like a teenage girl changes clothes. Moreover there is no evidence that we blindly follow highend reviewers. Indeed an endorsement by some reviewers is the kiss of death. I blush when I think of some of the vile things said about HP of the absolute sound.
Sean quite frankly I am disturbed by the way you throw around the word bias like candy from a PEZ dispenser. You contempt for highend reviewers in particular and to a smaller extent audiophiles in general is palpable.
Ferrari has a certain attraction to it because it is a Ferrari. It's red paint, exhaust note, and penis envy is part of its appeal. Without it would be just another fast car. A fact that a lot of fast cars complain about all the time. There is more to a sports car than 0-60 times,brakes and cornering ability. I recall being at the Mercedes dealer and having him refer to his sports car as a, Ferrari beater. I replied, "there is not such thing as a Ferrari beater."
What are the associated components?
What was the source material?
Of what material was the curtain made?
Of course what is the motive for conducting the test? Say a company wants to crack into high end sales but has found itself consistently neglected or disfavored by the highend press and audiophiles it might try to establish its credibilty by the use of "science."
It does sort of beg the question, If the highend community is so biased why don't they have the same speakers for decades like I do. They change equipment like a teenage girl changes clothes. Moreover there is no evidence that we blindly follow highend reviewers. Indeed an endorsement by some reviewers is the kiss of death. I blush when I think of some of the vile things said about HP of the absolute sound.
Sean quite frankly I am disturbed by the way you throw around the word bias like candy from a PEZ dispenser. You contempt for highend reviewers in particular and to a smaller extent audiophiles in general is palpable.
Ferrari has a certain attraction to it because it is a Ferrari. It's red paint, exhaust note, and penis envy is part of its appeal. Without it would be just another fast car. A fact that a lot of fast cars complain about all the time. There is more to a sports car than 0-60 times,brakes and cornering ability. I recall being at the Mercedes dealer and having him refer to his sports car as a, Ferrari beater. I replied, "there is not such thing as a Ferrari beater."
Well, Mike, I lived with vinyl and listened to it on a daily basis for 30 years before I gave it up, and I have "experienced" many tables at my friend's house and at shops. Am I going to invest in and live with whatever you consider SOTA, when my pretty broad and high-end experience thus far has failed to deliver what I want to hear? Of course not. So I guess you can go ahead and put me on your ignore list, but let's not fool ourselves. There's nothing respectful about it.
P
P
- Status
Similar threads
