A theory for preferring vinyl.

And here I thought that it was wearing plaid boxer shorts that made my LPs sound better. Silly me.

Still, maybe it's the reason I like vanilla ice cream over chocolate or strawberry. I won't give up on my theory!

 

I am personally no vinyl hater, quite the opposite, I mostly play vinyl, and I really like it. But the thread is a 'begging the question' thread and makes no sense to me at all.

 

And I used both side by side for twenty years too. Don't recall telling anyone that but seem to be told that very same thing by return though. Had enough of it.

 

This is just made up. Don´t create something that isn´t there.

 

What's made up? The fact that vinyl lovers also like digital? Well, I like digital, so don't tell me it's a phony claim. As for the rest of my statement, go read any thread about vinyl/digital, and you'll see that what I say is true.

 

If there, hypothetically, would be a conflict between some, why are You continuing creating a conflict?

 

Makes sense to me. But just a theory, as the OP wrote. Not sure why many want to outright dismiss it, but whatever.

 

I don't understand what this sentence means.

My first post was a response to mikemoon, and its point is that the appreciation for vinyl does not require justification. The post of mine that you're arguing with me over was a response to Brother Rael who wanted to say that vinyl lovers are at fault for saying that they think vinyl is better than digital. I thought that my first post was something that needed to be said, and I thought that Brother Rael's point deserved a response. If that's "creating a conflict", please accept my apology.

 

This might explain why recordings I made digitally end up sounding so nice when they're cut to vinyl. And it's not just me - I've heard others (people who approved digital masters, then approved the vinyl test pressings) make similar comments. Not "vibrations" exactly, but similar esoteric descriptions ("Sounds more analog", "less harsh", "warmer" etc.).

 

Some people obviously love various forms of distortion and vinyl has it in spades
I love it in a guitar amp where its artful and pleasing in creative hands
However I dont want to hear it when listening to string quartets, choirs and orchestras

 

Sorry noise floor is measurable.

 

Please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say that or suggest that at all. That's your reach.

 

I don't always prefer vinyl over digital media, especially if the digital is 2496 and started out that way. I have some awful sounding LPs. I couldn't sleep last night and pulled out some mono Nat King Cole LPs (Unforgettable and The Best of NKC Vol 1 & 2) and I had forgotten how poorly recorded they were. It sounded like Nat's vocal were recorded with an omni mic fairly close to him and that was also used to pick up his piano which sounded distant and tinny. His vocals were better than the rest of the mix as he was closer to the mic. It was a sad opportunity lost. Vol 1 & 2 were slightly better, but.... I also listened to an old lp of radio transcriptions that were from the Trocadero club in LA. Also opportunities lost.

It is clear that today's vinyl is superb, but there is much more care in the manufacturing and the recordings are are exponentially better in effort with excellent gear. I'm glad I pulled out these discs as a reminder that we all have much less to complain about with our media these days. To make a bad recording today you really have to work at it.

 

This is your quote:

In it, you express frustration with "vinyl types" who say that "digital is this or that and never will be as good." Those words are in your own mouth.

"Vinyl types" are free to think and say anything they want. Yup, there's a few people here who think that vinyl is the best thing ever and no digital alternative is as good. I don't agree with them, but it's their opinion and their business. If people want to think that vinyl sucks, that's their business too, and I don't fault anyone for having their opinion, although sometimes I take issue with how they express or attempt to justify their position.

 

The term "noise floor" was made up by audiophile magazine reviewers. It was coined and still used as a purely subjective quality. It is not at all related to the technical term "Signal to Noise". In fact it has nothing to do with noise level at all. It is merely the listener's ability to perceive very subtle details, versus details which are so subtle that they become "noise" themselves. If this can be measured, I would like to know how.

 

Great comment! And very relevant to the thread i TRIED to create. Lol

And i agree with you.

I've always felt that even with digital masters, the physical cutting off the vinyl would automatically fill in any gaps left to bit rate, or whatever peoples issue is with digital (1's and 0's). Or at least those who have an issue with it.

But THAT is opening the can of worms. So all those who are tempted, please don't respond to that theory. I don't care to know what you think.

Let's try and keep this thread in the "does the sound waves in the room effect the cartridge/play back".

For better or worse, i don't care what your opinions are. Let's hear them. I just don't want this to become a digital vs analogue thread,.. Clearly some people just can't let go, and loooove to argue. Oh, and love to post in threads that they consider pointless.

(Maybe i should visit all the threads i find stupid or pointless, and post just to let everyone know how i feel. Lol)

 

Possibly I could not be understanding you. The signal-to-noise ratio is used all the time by recording studios for instance to measure the noise floor and compare it to the nominal operating signal level. I guess you can say in the consumer environment there is no real standard if that's what you mean? But the term has real meaning in the recording world and is easily able to be measured. There are companies that make their whole livelihood from testing these type of things and helping studios improve them.

 

That subtle details are below noise must be very rare, which are You thinking about. Crest factors are seldom more than 25-30dB.

 

I know what I said thanks, it's your interpretation that's incorrect and in need of revision.

I think this is a general accord no? Not restricted to one group or another? Having the right of free speech, doesn't of course confer the right to say anything you please without reply or consequence. In this case, what I say is merely "sauce for the goose".

I used to buy into that as well. Right up till about 1992.

i) I'm delighted for you
ii) it is, and some of them have expressed the opinion I disagree with and which inspired my comment on this thread. I trust you'll accept that's my opinion and hence my business too. Nowhere, at no point, in word nor intention, does that equate to what you've suggested. Thanks to your post here, you've affirmed my right, by default, to do exactly the same. To wit, have an opinion, hold it, and come on to a public forum and respond to a thread.

Seeing as I grew up with vinyl since the 60s, used it almost exclusively and loved it (and gave it up for several reasons, not just excellent and better sound quality elsewhere), then you're a tad out in the inital part of your final sentence, but you may of course be speaking generally.

If, however, you're obliquely referring to me then either way, this is me putting your right and in an informed position. And yes, vinyl types. I choose my words more carefully however. You might want to consider doing the same, or fact checking first. Either's good with me.

And yes, you were hopelessly incorrect in your interpretation to what I'd said earlier. Hopelessly out.

 

When yr turntable is set up right & your pressing/mastering is done properly , it will walk over CD & Hi Res. BTW I love Cd.

 

Did all that. Deck serviced, the lot. CD was simply as good, as capable, less distortion and often simply just better. Vinyl is a lovely way to enjoy music, but to suggest it's "better" or will (hyperbole alert) "walk all over CD and hi-res" is a non-starter. Of course, you'll be using the same mastering for the CD as per the vinyl, naturally...

EDIT: And I respect your opinion. But "walk over" is a term without any corresponding meaning. Unless you can say why you think it does, then this is just another meaningless term that does nothing for the debate.

 

In 1976 Decca ,the Worlds top classical label , compared a direct cut LP to their first PCM 13 bit recorder (probably 10 bis in reality) and declared them equivalent.
My case rests M'Lord
No more questions
Happy Christmas to all our listeners

 

Of course it's a general accord and my entire, unedited sentence expresses that unambiguously.

If I was speaking about you, I'd speak about you, If I say, "people", I mean, "people in general." I choose my words carefully too. I'm not sure what about what I posted needs "fact checking."

 

I'll let you re-read your post in the comfort of your own home and work it out. Seeing as it followed on directly from a post of mine that you quoted, you might understand the subsequent ambiguity. And what you think is unambiguous, well....don't quote me next time. And then I won't assume you're basing your comments directly to me. Or clarify it accordingly. Then the risk of a misunderstanding is negated.

 

In my opinion, the main reason that analog is preferable to digital is because of certain physiological phenomena, and not necessarily the old canard of "euphonic distortions". Digital certainly captures things more accurately, in fact, it does this almost to a fault! I think the real reason analog is more "listenable" is because of the way you feel it. I believe (as does Rupert Neve btw!) this is because of mass and bone inductance beyond the range of hearing.

Until these parameters can be measured and replicated, I think digital will ultimately always be inferior to analog.

Those of us who work with analog tape already know this. Only the dogmatic ABX crowd doesn't accept any real world anecdotal evidence. They just can't get past the results of their primitive measuring devices and biases.

They need to look further into other areas of science as to why many of us think digital is still lacking when it comes to fully replicating a true analog audio "event".