Does vinyl really sound better?

TheMarlin

Drew_fx said:

These people who go "it's just an opinion..."

What if your opinion is an ILL INFORMED opinion? What then? HUH? HUH?!?!

Trying to work out if you actualy have an informed opinion on this, or are just jumping on the bandwagon. How about we hear about your equipment, and the A/B testing you've done?

As for opinion, I have one. It's my own, and it appears to be an unpopular one.  I came to it through years of rigorous testing with my own ears.  I'm not saying that vinyl is the ultimate platform, it's a dying platform. It can't compete for preservation of media (though, some CD's have oxidised, and are unplayable) or convenience.  From my own experience, it's more lively, has better imaging, and is a much more pleasurable listening experience.

I don't want to get into a slagging match.  I was just honestly answering the OP's question.

Marlin

holnrew

Drew_fx said:

These people who go "it's just an opinion..."

What if your opinion is an ILL INFORMED opinion? What then? HUH? HUH?!?!

At some point it becomes a prejudice.

bluechargeboy

I just went off looking for some quote I recalled from Professor Brian Cox regarding opinions, only to find that the fucker has bought himself a turntable.


(he hasn't said if he prefers it)

Skipped

I have found that I am listening to 24/192 recordings in the same way that I used to listen to Vinyl. I listen to the whole album. Then I let out a long deep sigh......And then I listen to another Whole Album.

One day in the future there will be a "test" (perhaps making a comparison with MP3) which will be designed to assist the listener (me) and the future buying choices of the listener. A test which results in the tester feeling 15% more smug, and then making incorrect conclusions is not helpful,   ("A and B are therefore the same"). Er....no they are not Sunshine.
The taste test you have just conducted demonstrates the inability for that person to detect Tofu moments after tasting Chicken. Chicken and Tofu are not "the same".


I look forward to this future understanding and these future tests.

Skipped

Cirrus said:

Is there some aspect to sound we don't understand yet?

Are you kidding?
Of course there is!!!


The impact that Music has on our mood,  on everything,  is surely very complex. Are we going to argue about that on this Forum of all Forums?

When I am shown a double-blind test which is attached to the central nervous system....I might perk up and get interested.

Danny1969

@Cirrus

Have you ever read this, I believe there are aspects to sound we don't understand and not all of us have the same skills in the ears and brain. 

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/transcript_talking_with_rupert_neve

PolarityMan

Even performing music loses quality. If you want to truly appreciate a piece you need to read the sheet music, only then can you experience the song the way the composer intended free from imperfections in performance, tone and reproduction. 

Cirrus

PolarityMan said:

Even performing music loses quality. If you want to truly appreciate a piece you need to read the sheet music, only then can you experience the song the way the composer intended free from imperfections in performance, tone and reproduction. 

I had a lecturer at uni who read sheet music like this. Guy was mental!

ICBM

I always liked the bit at the end of Immortal Beloved when Beethoven is listening to the performance of the Ninth Symphony, and as the last note fades the camera pans round to show the audience giving him a standing ovation... in complete silence.

LastMantra

Again? Honestly?!  :P

Drew_TNBD

TheMarlin said:

Drew_fx said:

These people who go "it's just an opinion..."

What if your opinion is an ILL INFORMED opinion? What then? HUH? HUH?!?!

Trying to work out if you actualy have an informed opinion on this, or are just jumping on the bandwagon. How about we hear about your equipment, and the A/B testing you've done?

As for opinion, I have one. It's my own, and it appears to be an unpopular one.  I came to it through years of rigorous testing with my own ears.  I'm not saying that vinyl is the ultimate platform, it's a dying platform. It can't compete for preservation of media (though, some CD's have oxidised, and are unplayable) or convenience.  From my own experience, it's more lively, has better imaging, and is a much more pleasurable listening experience.

I don't want to get into a slagging match.  I was just honestly answering the OP's question.

Marlin

I've got a bunch of vinyl, a Numark TT200 player with an Audio Technica needle. It's not bad, not ultra high-end, but I do like it.

I like vinyl, but would never ever ever argue that the fidelity was better than digital. Better "quality" in this context really does have an objective and measurable definition. Just because in some cases we prefer vinyl, doesn't mean it is better.

I think that fact should be celebrated, rather than playing mind games in order to convince ourselves that it really is better - because it measurably isn't.

The thing is.. you ask me for information on MY equipment and the A/B testing I've done... yet you've given nothing of your own evidence to support your claim. I'm not making a claim here, the onus isn't on me to prove anything.

Phil_aka_Pip

Drew said Just because in some cases we prefer vinyl, doesn't mean it is better.

And I say "If we prefer it, that makes it better." It doesn't mean there's less distortion or wider bandwidth, just that we perceive it as better.

I've read reviews in HiFi News that say something like "We tested products A, B, C, and despite the measurements for product C being way better than either of the others, we preferred to listen to product A".

Drew_TNBD

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Drew said Just because in some cases we prefer vinyl, doesn't mean it is better.

And I say "If we prefer it, that makes it better." It doesn't mean there's less distortion or wider bandwidth, just that we perceive it as better.

I've read reviews in HiFi News that say something like "We tested products A, B, C, and despite the measurements for product C being way better than either of the others, we preferred to listen to product A".

Sure, but you have to draw a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. In the case of vinyl, it doesn't matter what metric you use, it has been technologically superceeded on ever level.

Doesn't mean I don't like it!

monquixote

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Drew said Just because in some cases we prefer vinyl, doesn't mean it is better.

And I say "If we prefer it, that makes it better." It doesn't mean there's less distortion or wider bandwidth, just that we perceive it as better.

I've read reviews in HiFi News that say something like "We tested products A, B, C, and despite the measurements for product C being way better than either of the others, we preferred to listen to product A".

Yep I totally agree.Vinyl is great, but I think a huge amount of that is the process, the ceremony and the history and probably some of the distortions that it adds being pleasing to the ear in the way that we feel nostalgic when we see Super8 film grain.

It only serves to muddy the water when people start talking about it being "Lossless" or there being "much more data". This isn't a matter of opinion it's just factually incorrect.

An interesting byproduct of this is that the more you are spending on your system the further you are likely to be getting from the vinyl sound

jonnyburgo

Ive got old blues records that would sound not as good without the ol crackle and pop, It gives it that bit of magic to my ears.

Danny1969

monquixote said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Drew said Just because in some cases we prefer vinyl, doesn't mean it is better.

And I say "If we prefer it, that makes it better." It doesn't mean there's less distortion or wider bandwidth, just that we perceive it as better.

I've read reviews in HiFi News that say something like "We tested products A, B, C, and despite the measurements for product C being way better than either of the others, we preferred to listen to product A".

Yep I totally agree.

Vinyl is great, but I think a huge amount of that is the process, the ceremony and the history and probably some of the distortions that it adds being pleasing to the ear in the way that we feel nostalgic when we see Super8 film grain.

It only serves to muddy the water when people start talking about it being "Lossless" or there being "much more data". This isn't a matter of opinion it's just factually incorrect.

An interesting byproduct of this is that the more you are spending on your system the further you are likely to be getting from the vinyl sound

I think there is probably more information in a vinyl record in terms of resolution as there's almost infinitely measurable levels of amplitude, if such equipment existed that could measure such tiny amounts. We know the CD has a very finite amount of information as it was sampled at 44.4 thousand times a second and that's your lot. The rest of the information is provided by the filters. Now we know with the Nyquist theory that's enough to perfectly reproduce up to 22Khz but technically the record has more "resolution" 

monquixote

Danny1969 said:

I think there is probably more information in a vinyl record in terms of resolution as there's almost infinitely measurable levels of amplitude, if such equipment existed that could measure such tiny amounts. We know the CD has a very finite amount of information as it was sampled at 44.4 thousand times a second and that's your lot. The rest of the information is provided by the filters. Now we know with the Nyquist theory that's enough to perfectly reproduce up to 22Khz but technically the record has more "resolution" 

That's the point I was making earlier. 

If that were really true then you could by putting signwaves of various levels encode a near infinite amount of digital information onto a vinyl LP and it turns out you can't. That's information theory again, you can't get past physics. The difference between the peak excursion and the noise floor is the dynamic range end of story.

The confusion arises because you can point to a CD player and say what the exact dynamic range available is whereas with vinyl it depends on a number of factors, but that doesn't mean that it's infinite or even greater than CD because it isn't.

Also Nyquist dictates that everything under 22KHz means "everything" there is nothing sneaking in, no extra magic under 22kHz mojo to be found.

Also as I'm sure anyone familiar with the process of vinyl mastering will know audio is almost always low pass filtered and usually goes through some digital kit as part of the vinyl master preparation.

Drew_TNBD

Danny1969 said:

I think there is probably more information in a vinyl record in terms of resolution as there's almost infinitely measurable levels of amplitude, if such equipment existed that could measure such tiny amounts. We know the CD has a very finite amount of information as it was sampled at 44.4 thousand times a second and that's your lot. The rest of the information is provided by the filters. Now we know with the Nyquist theory that's enough to perfectly reproduce up to 22Khz but technically the record has more "resolution" 

That isn't actually correct dude. Give this a read:
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

Drew_TNBD

monquixote said:

The confusion arises because you can point to a CD player and say what the exact dynamic range available is whereas with vinyl it depends on a number of factors, but that doesn't mean that it's infinite or even greater than CD because it isn't.

Tbh, I think the main confusion comes from the old notion that analog = smooth lines and digital = stepped lines. Which is a simplistic model and was never meant to illustrate the difference between the two mediums, it was only meant to simplify understanding of digital sampling.

Phil_aka_Pip

Drew_fx said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Drew said Just because in some cases we prefer vinyl, doesn't mean it is better.

And I say "If we prefer it, that makes it better." It doesn't mean there's less distortion or wider bandwidth, just that we perceive it as better.

I've read reviews in HiFi News that say something like "We tested products A, B, C, and despite the measurements for product C being way better than either of the others, we preferred to listen to product A".

Sure, but you have to draw a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. In the case of vinyl, it doesn't matter what metric you use, it has been technologically superceeded on ever level.

Doesn't mean I don't like it!

Yes, the subjective vs the objective was my point. There were things that measured better, but which weren't as pleasing to listen to. I don't think you can measure the pleasure factor of what you listen to, you can only subjectively rate your enjoyment  of one being more than another.

I'd hestitate to say that vinyl has been technically bettered on EVERY level, though. To prevent aliasing, the CD has to be sharply cut at 22kHz, whereas an EllPee doesn't. Some will say that even though your ears can't hear those kind of frequencies (and I admit mine certainly can't), if they are present, they will modulate the things you CAN hear. Natch, with higher sampling rates, and better than 16 bits per sample, those kind of arguments diminish in relevance.