I want to love vinyl, but...

So much useful information but it gets confusing when choosing cables.



EDIT: Oh! wait, wrong thread but the picture still fits.

 

You misread. Read it again.

 

Whew! Somehow with all the distortions and colorations my all-analog tube-based system makes records sound very real! What luck!

 

I took away from your post that you don't do vinyl any more? Or maybe that's the disconnect, as it wasn't clear....

 

But... but... that’s UNPOSSIBLE!!! Measurements say OTHERWISE!!


/end sarcasm
.

 

What's the old saying? If sounds good and measures poorly, you're measuring the wrong thing?

 

I can't help think about the poor soul, who wants to get into audio, finally had time to sit down today and research what format he / she wants to choose, and stumbled on this thread as their initial source of trying to sort it out....

 

Measurements are objective. They quantify things, and they are repeatable, and verifiable.

"It sounds good" is a subjective opinion. It is neither universal, repeatable, or verifiable. What one person thinks is good, another may not.

There is no research that supports the concept of something measuring with degraded performance in any one parameter (higher noise, higher distortion, poorer channel separation) still being the preference across any population segment.

There are many reasons to like a particular means of recording and reproduction, many of those reasons have nothing to do with the quality of reproduction. That doesn't mean they are not valid reasons, and that doesn't mean that someone's preference for a particular type of reproduction means isn't valid. The physical nature of handling and playing a record, the size and graphic nature of the album cover, the visual experience of a rotating turntable, the participation in the threading of a tape on a machine, the visual presentation of huge rotating tape reels...all of that is valid, and all of that reinforces the experience. Layer all of that with the fact that you cannot easily compare different formats because you have no access to the original masters for any of them, plus the reality that some vinyl and tape is just plain mastered better, and you have your subjective preference.

Subjective preference is not wrong, it's a preference. The only problem is when preference is stated as an absolute qualitative evaluation. "Analog is better!" That's a problem. "I like my vinyl!" and "I prefer vinyl!" I'll never argue with those.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I hope you don't think there was something in your reply that was a revelation, or that I learned anything from - most of it were fairly obvious statements.

You read a whole lot more into my tongue in cheek, sarcastic comment than was ever intended, or existed.

 

I truly wish things could actually work as you say they do. Life would be so easy with audio technology. Since 1987 I have worked in audio manufacturing companies. When a really deep look (more like listen) is taken, it just doesn't end up so neat and clean.

 

Thank YOU for clearing THAT up. I can't tell who's being serious or not anymore. There is a lot of commitment to misconception.

 

Huh?

All I did was define the difference between the subjective and objective. Do you disagree with those definitions?

 

That's a fact..........

 

I would object to such absolute declarations as you made here.

Yes, there are some inherent limitations in stereo in terms of perfectly reproducing an original soundfield.

But that's not the same as "can't even come close to real life conditionality."

I certainly have experienced many times "close to real life sounding dimensionality."

I've had a life-long fascination with live vs reproduced sound (no doubt why I have been a life long audiophile, and got in to post production sound for films). I'm constantly comparing the sound of real life to reproduced. Usually it shows up the liabilities of reproduced sound. But not always or to the same degree. I have recordings I've made of my acoustic guitar being played, my sons playing their high school instruments (sax etc), my family's voices speaking, which I've used to do live vs reproduced comparisons.

I've owned speaker systems that frankly produced a fairly uncanny sensation of the real thing. For instance, recreating the impression of my acoustic guitar being played. Yes, it didn't have quite the same impact, and quite the same richness, but with eyes closed the impression of a real guitar being played RIGHT THERE in 3 dimensions, like the real guitar, in a specific spot in front of me was almost effortless. So, yes, to my ears it certainly did "come close" even in meager two channels.

I'd say my MBL omnis did this effect most effortlessly, but my Thiel 3.7s also did it really well too (and some others). I've also heard numerous tracks on my system, e.g. some vocal tracks recorded very naturalistically in a real acoustic space, that...with eyes closed...mimicked the sensation of real people singing in real dimensions, as to be close to effortless to believe I was listening in to a real event. Even if there are ways to detect it's not real, again, it certainly was "close" not some impossibly distant goal.

Actually, yes it is for quite a number of recordings. In fact, "life like" and "the illusion of live" was a common selling point even in the earliest days of stereo - see any number of RCA adds and promotional films. (In fact, even mono had been demonstrated using live vs reproduced to illustrate with the right content it was hard to tell the difference).

Not a few audiophile labels have been explicit about a similar goal, e.g. Chesky's stated goal is precisely the one you claim isn't the goal:

"Our philosophy is simple: to create the illusion of live musicians in a real three-dimensional space."

About

Now, you of course can argue why this is hard to pull off with stereo. But that's different from your starting claim that a simulation of "real life" is "not a goal, not for recording, and not for reproduction." Maybe not for you, but for some producers, yes it is.

Again, that may be how you, and plenty of other producers, see the goal. But some have had the goal of trying to capture and reproduce live sound as realistically as possible (and following that, it would be presumed, the original message and emotion and feel would be simulated as well).


[QUOTE = Grant said: ↑
You need 4k to get closer to real life visual.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be more charitable to infer Grant likely knows the caveat for seating distance, like most people around here. No one thinks you need HD or 4K if your TV is a 27" screen on the other side of a cafeteria. So being charitable, Grant is certainly right that, all other things being equal, increasing TV resolution to 4K more closely approximates our real life visual limitations than does 1080p or below. He's not wrong. It's why we have 4K now in the first place.

Again, you keep overstating the case.

Yes, in fact, the progress in digital imaging IS to a large extent "about capturing reality." The only reason we kept pushing digital technology to higher resolutions, higher dynamic range, expanded color, and even available higher frame rates, is BECAUSE we have the standard of real life in those respects, and capturing those aspects of real life (that is, what our eyes are capable of seeing) has driven that progress. It very much IS about "capturing reality." That's why people care about contrast range, color fidelity, resolution, etc etc.

Just as in stereo, the fact that digital imaging can not fully capture and replicate reality does not therefore entail that capturing and reproducing important aspects of reality isn't often a goal.
And just as in movies: the fact we all know movies are faked doesn't mean that movie-makers are not looking to make aspects "more realistic." Many dramas can live or die on the realism of the acting/script. The sets can be more or less realistic (with realism being the goal in many films). Similarly, all sorts of cinematographic choices are made as to what "looks more realistic/believable" when that is the goal. Recreating aspects of "real life" so that something seems "realistic" is a common motivation in all sorts of choices in film-making.
The fact that a movie, or perhaps a sporting broadcast, is not a completely realistic experience doesn't warrant the declaration that it's "NEVER about capturing reality."

Also, I have to say that even the two dimensions for movies can feel very "real." I use a projection system in a room that I can completely black out with velvet, so the room dissapears, leaving a giant screen floating in black space. I use a JVC RS600 projector; one of the reasons being it's industry leading contrast/black levels. Why? Because higher contrast makes for a more believable, realistic image when the content calls for it. I was watching a horror film with the characters walking around a spooky house at night. With the big screen, the amazing sharpness of image, the wide contrast, the sensation of simply peering right in to a real room, at real people walking around was almost slightly disorientating at times and I loved it. Was it *perfectly* realistic? No. But it was MORE realistic to the degree the cinematography and reproduction could re-created more REAL LOOKING visual cues. It was more like "real life" because of this.

 

"There is no research that supports the concept of something measuring with degraded performance in any one parameter (higher noise, higher distortion, poorer channel separation) still being the preference across any population segment."

 

check the red type. That's precisely what I'm saying, not the opposite. They are not about recreating the reality at all, just an effective illusion.

Read "Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers and Rooms" by Floyd Toole. In particular, chapter 2. The entire recording and reproduction process suffers within a "circle of confusion" (Toole's terminology). The creative environment isn't the same as the reproducing environment, which isn't the same as the original acoustic environment. Therefore, reproducing the original acoustic even is not possible, and not the goal. Chesky got it right, it's about creating the illusion.

If this isn't the case, you'll have to explain how the original 3D sound field can be captured with microphones of different designs and patterns (none at all like even one ear), then these signals electrically mixed and modified in an entirely different acoustic environment with the work presented, not from multiple discrete sound sources, but from only two sound sources, a pair of speakers, in a specific set of locations. Then the result of that effort is played, not on the same speakers, not in the same (or even similar) space, distance, angle, or perhaps even presented on you MBL (incorrectly called "omnis" when their pattern is actually toroidal) which include most of your rooms surfaces in the system before all those multiple arrivals get to your ears. Nothing at all even approximating the original space, or the creative space. It's not a replication, it's an illusion. The better the illusion the better, but it isn't ever anything but an illusion. Your mind must play along.

It's the same goal, just stated differently.

Again, it's not about pixel count. It's about the entire viewing system, which when all is said and done, is nothing at all like the thing the camera shot a picture of in any aspect. You don't have the same color space, you don't have the same dynamic range, you don't have a holographic image of the same size and location, all you have is an illusion that represents the idea.

No photographic system, film or any resolution of digital, can capture "reality". There is no system that can produce a field of view that encompases the entire peripheral vision area, present the same dynamic range, color range, and present objects in actual space as they were originally. Nothing. That means everyone using the tools we have, regardless of the resolution, must work within the confines of presenting an illusion that will suspend disbelief for the duration of the message. It's right out of filmmaking 101. Speilberg used the phrase "suspension of disbelief", and it only partially applied to the capabilities of the medium.

So...you're agreeing with me, and switching sides? OK then.

What you've experienced is a better illusion. But it isn't real life captured and reproduced. It's in fact miles from it. Your system won't produce a holographic image in full color. Any idea how far away from "reality" a video projector on a flat screen really is? The art is in making that work for you. And it's not about pixels, contrast ratios, or specified but unachievable black levels, etc. All of those are limitations, but working with those limitations (not within them, but with them) is what produces satisfying content.

 

That is correct. If you can find some that does, post a link. What you find is studies to the contrary, and a whole lot of unscientific testing and opinions.

 

I'm in a weird place in my life where all I ever hear is music through bargain-basement computer speakers! Fortunately, they do the job, and I enjoy what I hear.

But there have been times in my life when the sound of a vinyl record has moved me in a way no digital medium ever has. When it works, it's like a transporting, spiritual experience. I honestly can say that's never happened to me with digital. Not once.

I wish that wasn't true -- digital is so much more economical, and easier to live with. I'm glad digital is there, because it's allowed me to enjoy music in ways I couldn't before. But for me, at least, nothing touches the magic of vinyl.

 

Warning, warning! you have performed an illegal operation and are in violation of code 010110

You must submit your equipment for measurement, alterations and possible destruction.

You must also submit yourself for mind cleansing and re education..

The Ministry of measured sound.

 

No different than analog. It's still electricity. Some people act is if analog is some mysterious system where sound magically passes through with no alteration of the original sound wave. It's not.

 

I agree. "Lifelike" was the wrong word. Try "accurate".

[/QUOTE]

 

Our bodies are electrical. Electrical impulses are how our brains receive the data that is presented to it, and how it tells the body how to respond.

No matter how you record or perceive something, whether it be with "analog" gear or digital gear, or your ear, it's all electricity. It's not air!

When electricity hits magnetic tape, it's electrical energy magnetizing rust on a ribbon.

When it hits the cutter head, it's electricity which powers a magnet attached to a stylus.

If it's digital, the electricity hits the AD converter and gets transformed into binary pulses, thus Pulse Code Modulation.

If it's your ear, the waves vibrate the bones in your ear and turned into electrical pulses that are sent to your brain.

All of these methods are ways of interpreting sound waves. None of these methods are perfect. Your ears and brain are the least perfect of them all. Half of why some think analog is somehow more accurate is all psychological. That's why these pissing contests are pointless. It's all subjective. You like one, the other, or both, but never think one is intrinsically more accurate than the other.

 

No, higher sampling rates and bit depths are not more accurate. Higher rates only raise the maximum frequency that can be digitized and reproduced, everything below that frequency is accurately digitized and reconstructed. Higher bit depths permit a digital system with lower noise, but that's only in theory. In practice, there are no 24 bit ADCs with any better than 20 bit performance because they hall face thermal noise limitations. You can get 20 bit performance out of a properly dithered 16 bit ADC too. No acoustic space has a noise floor that exceeds the capabilities of 16 bits, dithered. Typical studios test to NC10 or NC5, but when you look at what NC means, it's a weighting mask that permits high levels of low frequency noise. So the are really more like 20dB SPL spaces. If you add 110dB (the DR of a modestly dithered 16 bit system) to 20dB, you get a maximum level of 130dB SPL, which is now capable of damaging the hearing of any listener and damaging most speakers. Acoustic instruments don't have anywhere near that DR. If 24 bit systems did have a real 144dB DR, and you set their noise floor at the same noise floor of your room (20dB SPL is quite optimistic) the result would be a maximum peak at 164dB SPL, which would cause either A) immediate and permanent hearing damage, B) A fire in your speakers voice coil, if the amp could provide that power, C)Horrific distortion if your amp couldn't but then A) and B) would still occur.

So the 16 bit system is completely capable of reproducing a realistic DR, and 24 bits is unachievable.

Neither higher rates nor higher bid-depths improve accuracy. Monty explains and demonstrates it better than I do.

 

But the are, unfortunately, the reference. I'm not sure the ear/brain is least perfect, since we can't seem to capture what they hear and reproduce it exactly.

I wouldn't say it's only half, though.

Belief systems are though to change.

 

#1 I totally disagree.

#2 Monty is not correct in everything he says. He is not credible, and it is really sad that so many people on the internet just refer to his youtube videos without any more understanding of the issue. Go read a book by real audio pros, like Ken Pohlman or Bob Katz.