I could frankly give a hang about the audio angle of vinyl or turntables -- it's a significantly flawed medium from the sonic standpoint (among others) and is not synonymous with the word "analog" as many audiophiles carelessly assume it to be, and I have nothing against digital in principle -- but I certainly love vintage records and good record collections, because it's all about passion for the music, the artists, and the times. Always nice to learn of another Agonner who collects and plays vintage 7" 45's, the medium whose demise (replaced, badly, by the music video) signalled the beginning of the end of rock's golden age. Now if I can just quintuple the size of my collection I'll be hot on Paladin's heels (though one turntable should continue to suffice, jukebox excepted). |
Newbee gets right what Johnnantais misses in my opinion: It's typically the rabid vinylphiles who exagerate the shortcomings of CDs vs. what average digital-friendly audiophiles usually state about the shortcomings of vinyl.
Both formats have their limitations and strengths, but these days the most overheated claims about the inferiority of the other format are promulgated by the vinyl side. So too are most of the rationalizations, omissions, or dismissals of problems inherent in their own pet format also to be found on the vinyl side, as Johnnantais' comments above illustrate -- noise, quite real, is hardly the only such problem with records -- or his and Stevecham's cliched but meaning-free quips about computers and ones and zeroes. (The fact is that the major problems audible with CD sound are analog in origin: jitter- and filter-related primarily. But the basic theory of digital conversion is well-proven, and the remaining practical difficulties are known and addressable.) On the digital side at least work continues to be done in trying to establish higher-rez consumer protocols to supercede Red Book, which implies in part a more honest appraisal of the CD's sonic shortcomings, among other more marketable factors, and that evolution will be ongoing as the physical silver disk increasingly becomes a thing of the past.
And don't for a second try to tell me that the high end industry marketing to audiophiles what is essentially being treated as a 'new' format from a sales standpoint doesn't both drive and feed off much of the vinyl propaganda, same as when CD was first promoted to the general public, only much more expensively (it's not called the high end for no reason after all). Not since then has the high end seen such a bonanza of audiophiles lining up to be convinced once more that they must re-buy their music in a more costly audiophile format yet again, plus all the new gear to play it on. Just witness today's profusion of me-too turntables -- talk about cynical. But that's fine -- I don't have a problem with what is still a cottage industry in the larger scheme of things reaping the benefits of rich boys wanting to play with new toys; that's what the high end is all about.
Let's just not get carried away from reality by all the rhetoric. No matter how much you want to expend on their playback, and no matter how much we might enjoy or fetishize them, records cannot faithfully transmit the sound of a mastertape. Digital has that possibility, as well as more relative practical advantages than you can shake a tonearm at. |
I'm not sure by their responses that Albert and Raul totally get what I said above. I didn't say anything about the subjective sound of vinyl compared to CD or vice versa, at any limit you care to push the playback envelope, or at any budget, be it high or low, or anything about my own personal preferences. I'm just talking about the theoretical limits of closely approaching transmitting an exact copy of a mastersource using analog or digital means. (For those who may not know, my vinyl collection is over 10X larger than my CD collection at around 10,000 pieces. And no, I haven't come anywhere near pushing the envelope for playback of either format, and never will. All of which is irrelevent to my post.) |
Again, posters like Hfeiner remain intent on conflating the notion of all digital audio with the limited medium of the CD. The question at the top was "Can you imagine a world without vinyl?", not "Can you imagine a world with nothing but CDs?" Anyway, it makes perfect sense that reviewers would inlcude listening to CDs in their evaluations, since that's the source most readers will be using.
Gregm: Think beyond the realm of the silver disk, be it CD, DVD or SACD. My hunch is that in several years when prerecorded disks are on the way out, and almost all music (and video) is delivered digitally over the 'Net and connection bandwidth/speed has ceased being a practical limitation, audiophilia may get a welcome kick in the pants from the availability for customers to choose just how high they'd like their rez. |
Hey, I'm actually one of those who is capable of enjoying a moderate degree of surface noise on old records of certain musical genres, but not so much with LP's, more so 45's and 78's. And not just noise from uncleanable dust'n'dirt and years of playing on a cheap old turntables/cartridges either, but from a patina of countless light scratches as well. The robustness of the physically larger grooves of the single formats, combined with the higher velocity and therefore pitch of the groove/surface noise generated by higher rpm playback, can allow for a very evocative atmospheric sound to be created in the ears of some devotees of older genres and records. It's not unlike the desirability of leaving the timeworn finish untouched on a piece of antique wooden furniture. |
My condolences Albert for the loss of your friend.
I want to point out that as this thread has evolved away from the starting topic, IMO many of the posts have too casually equated analog with the LP record and digital with the Red Book CD. I think disappointment with the Red Book CD gets carried too far as a general blanket condemnation of the potential of digital audio. It's still a young technology by the standards of the LP and its forerunners, but the CD is absolutely ancient by the standards of information technology. Recall the primitive state of the home computer at the time of the CD's introduction, then think about the cost vs. capability of computing power today. Yet the CD ploddingly persists (if no longer predominates in the mass market, where sound quality is the least of consumers' concerns). It's like being confined in 2007 to playing Pong and working in DOS. The theoretical advantages inherent in skipping at least a couple stages of signal transduction on the way from the microphones to the loudspeakers, combined with intrinsic robustness, manipulability, and portability/transmissability as a storage medium, clearly make digital the way of the future, today's audiophile vinyl renaissance notwithstanding. I'll never get rid of my records, but I don't expect them to always be my sonic preference. |
Johnnantais: You are entertaining and passionate and I enjoy reading your posts. However you are also, please excuse the phrase, a bit full of it, rhetorically speaking. Grandiosity and insinuations that some audiophiles are more equal than others won't sway many.
Anyway, let me cut to the chase: That explication of digital signal theory you quote is simply wrong, even if it repeats a popular miscomprehension, based on faulty inductive reasoning. My advice: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. (Disclaimer: I am about as far from being a computer nerd as can be found on Audiogon.) |
Gregm: I imagine a scenario when super high-speed connection bandwidth and device storage capacity have both become commodities, and we're no longer tied to limiting physical disk formats, then service and content providers will look to higher resolution as a low-cost way to add value in order for them to charge a premium. Kind of like gas stations offering high-octane gas at a higher price for drivers of high-performance cars. You can see this as a logical extension of the HE industry trend right now touting "high def" as a way of generating new revenues. In the future, music and video consumers could be offered the choice of downloading resolution-reduced content at one or two different price tiers (call 'em "regular" and "mid-grade"), or paying more and getting the full native master resolution of digitally-recorded content ("premium" or "ultra"). Compared with today, when iTunes customers are supposed to be happy with resolution that's not even CD-quality, the optional availability of higher than CD-quality resolution every time you choose to download or stream content should have the effect of raising public awareness about the high end (the "high performance cars" of my analogy). I think it's inevitable that the mainstream industry will eventually come around to the profitable possibilities inherent in promoting sound quality rather than trying to sweep it under the carpet, it's just a matter of tech advancement rendering capacity a non-issue from the provider-cost and consumer-convenience standpoints. |
Shadorne: Think girlfriends/wives of audiophiles get implanted with sonic mammaries? |
"Come to think of it, she may have included it in "Dolly Parton's biggesthits"" Albert, I think you put an "h" in that last word which shouldn't have been there... |
I thought that, when it comes to digital audio, there's only so much bit-depth, or S/N ratio, that can pertain in any case, due to the limits of both the noise floor of all the analog parts of the record/playback chain (including the listening room), as well as of human hearing. But maybe what Raul was talking about was simply the limits of currently employed standards for mastering gear. |
Agree that it makes sense for the LSB to lie below the noise floor, or for the system S/N ratio to be defined by that noise floor rather than the bit-depth. What I meant to suggest was that beyond a certain point there ceases to be a real world advantage to increased bit-depth in a multi-bit scheme, but please correct me if I'm wrong. |
130dB dynamic range is more than sufficient for our ears I think, but Eldartford's point about the resolution of low-level signals with fixed vs. floating LSB schemes is interesting, and seems like it could possibly have some bearing on why audiophiles hold reservations about the naturalness of digital sound. Anybody know of any subjective audition testing done in this area? |
Eldartford: Am I correct in thinking from your post that your CD sound is being output from the player in analog, then reconverted to digital and back again in the EQ? |
Bondmanp: The change to vinyl and turntables "becoming hip with young people" already occurred a long time ago now, but it was because of hip hop, not anything related to audiophile sound matters. |
If my listening room weren't also the living room, I'd eliminate the couch and make a permanent dancefloor. |
Don't take Johnnantais personally Jsadurni, it's him against the world and none of the rest of us digital-having heathen can express our affection for vinyl sufficiently enough to escape getting crushed 'neath his crusade of correction.
Yawn. Let's talk about something that matters -- like music.
I played three CDs today and enjoyed the frickin hell out of them. They majorly moved me. And no one's gonna bring me down about that. In fact, I think I'll go list them on the What's On Your Turntable Tonight thread now, and wave my hand in the air like I just don't care... |
Ah, the acolyte and the apostle. Ok, he has my thanks for you. As for me, I never quit vinyl, so I'll skip the enlightenment. ;^) |
