Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

glupson

"Pretty much most posts are blathering about CD players, and perhaps vibration..."

What about wire directionality?

>>>>Speaking of direction, once glubby joins the thread the direction will be going down. ⬇️

Cursing can be an effective emotional release, especially for anger and frustration.

I guess we will have to start with learning basic manners.

Better get a ghostwriter. Your comebacks suck, pea brains. Dumb and Dumberer.

Just like other non-audiophiles, most musicians don’t expect LP’s, CD’s, tapes, and streamed music to sound anywhere close to that of live music.

I'm content being a non-audiophile I never expect recorded music to sound like live events only what was recorded. 

Inferiority complex? Perhaps daily affirmation will help. People like you, Geoff.🙄

Based on the lack of creativity and repeated use of the same insults, same topics, etc., maybe @geoffkait is actually a BOT. That would explain the 23,000 posts. Jokes on us.

"...maybe @geoffkait is actually a BOT."

No way. Newer artificial intelligence protocols are way more sophisticated than that.

Sweet nothings from my favorite powder puffs. They prove 1/2 wit + 1/2 wit not equal 1 wit.

buzz off, dimwit. You can’t win for losing. So boring, too. Must be the new breed of internet nitwit. 💋

Such over-abundance of wit.

I know you are but what am I?

Here I thought your humor was sophomoric, it's actually kindergarten level.

He'd probably piss-off the instructor.

Dear @roberttdid : """ 24/192 digital in it’s pure form, has far more "information" than is possible by any measure on 15ips tape, and way more than vinyl. When you strip away what happens in mixing and mastering and just look at what the format is capable of, 24/192 digital is unmatched, and 24/96 is not too far behind for practical purposes. Vinyl definitely colors what passes through, and even tape will create colorations. Digital is pure, it’s detailed, its busy, everything is there ... and maybe that is too raw for most people. Musicians say it sounds truest to what they hear coming from the instrument, b...."""

All those was already proved in this thread and many other with facts, measures and several objective links with information that gives absolute certainty to those facts/measures. Exist no doubt about, even many of those facts are only just a little of common sense.

Dear @mikelavigne unfortunatelly you continue talking/posting information with deep foundation on subjectivity where unfortunatelly you can’t prove in anyway all what you said about, just can’t do it you or any one else: impossible.

Subjectivity is not a true/real fact it is not like 2+2=4 . Founded in subjectivity point of views for you that 2+2 can be 4 but other gentleman can be 3 0r 5 because subjectivity is not universal as ovjectivity. Subjectivity is way personal and can’t be proved with true facts.

It’s really pity that all those audiophiles that die for analog and that post in Agon and other forums in this same main subject leave you here alone, I can say a shame of all them.

You know that I value your opinion but here I think that we need a little of objectivity and not try to look things with no biased attitude.

Mike, Robert posted: "" Vinyl definitely colors what passes through..."""

Vinyl not only color everything that pass through due to its inherent high developed distortions during recording and playback process but not only that: you said that digital is missing information when the LP alternative not even can pick up the recorded information from the groove LP surface modulations. Not only lost a lot of information not even can pick-up in accurate way the overall information ! !.

I already said this in different way of what Robert posted:

" Digital is pure, it’s detailed, its busy, everything is there ... and maybe that is too raw for most people... "

Absolutely rigth, Mike you don’t like the " raw " reality when digital is truer to the recording that any LP recording. Digital is way nearer than the LP as how nearfield live MUSIC sounds, this nearfield live MUSIC sounds ( at its real live SPL. ) is what the recording microphones pick up and these mics are at nearfield.

So why want we to listen at our homes something way way different as the LP/tape experiences?, why? . I can understand that that is what you like to hear because is what your brain and mine are acustom to but you and me are wrong about.
You linked twice that LP recording that proves nothing against digital it does not matters that we listen it or compare at your place.

You are an experienced audiophile and a wise gentleman and I don’t want that you accept here that digital is truer to the recording that is already proved. What I insist again to you is that use your " unbiased " common sense.

The whole dialogue in this thread is not for find out who are the winners because at the end here there are not winners or loosers but all of we , including you, are winners because one way or the other all of we are learning something even if we don’t agree with.

Those @djones51 links here and elsewhere are a lesson for me as many other of the links in this specific subject and he posted:

"""  I'm content being a non-audiophile I never expect recorded music to sound like live events only what was recorded. """

That should be the main target for any true audiophile.

Other importan reason why could not likes the digital alternative could be that normally we LP lovers fine tunned our room/system to this specific alternative.
Digital performs way different and is an alternative where the room/system overall " errors " can’t be hidding through its low distortions levels .
The full distortions levels in the LP alternatives could hide those room/system overall set up " errors ".

Btw, truer to the recording is the nearest we can stay to nerafield live MUSIC performance levels. This means: digital alternative.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

rauliruegas
Other importan reason why could not likes the digital alternative could be that normally we LP lovers fine tunned our room/system to this specific alternative.
Digital performs way different and is an alternative where the room/system overall " errors " can’t be hidding through its low distortions levels .
The full distortions levels in the LP alternatives could hide those room/system overall set up " errors ".

>>>>I’d say that entire paragraph is probably false. I humbly submit the proposition that subjective experience is just as valid as measurements, as evidence in a debate, perhaps even more valid. If the thing that measures better doesn’t sound better maybe you’re measuring the wrong parameter. Once the myth of Total Harmonic Distortion THD was revealed 40 years ago measurements as an enterprise has been on a steady decline. ↘️ But I’m not saying all measurements are irrelevant or of no value. For example, mapping out the room acoustic anomalies is quite important. Otherwise how can you know where the room treatments are supposed to go?

rauliruegas,

An excellent attempt to navigate what can be a confusing pathway.

There has always been an immediate divergence in the differing paths followed by audiophiles, namely that vital decision of whether to discover what was actually recorded or to follow whatever pleases you most.

I suspect many audiophiles follow the latter and always will. If they admit it, that's great. It's when they claim it's better, more accurate etc that problems begin.

This is the infamous objectivist v subjectivist dichotomy. This schism exists not only due to personal choice of the listener but also due in part to the existence of the circle of confusion on audio that Toole and Olive talk about.

Hardly anyone can know what the recording is supposed to sound like.

Audiophiles are notorious for casual dismissing of what others say, including producers, engineers, and musicians who were actually involved in the recording! They are often equally dismissive of technical data accumulated over decades.

Yet they will readily listen what some reviewers may have written. Reviewers who have no more qualification in knowing what was recorded than they have.

Reviewers whose opinions immediately disintegrate once the object they're reviewing is hidden from plain sight!

Needless to say that cable merchants, snake oil doctors, magic pebble peddlers etc all tend to all be firmly on the subjectivist side.

No surprises there.

So are we at an eternal impasse or is there a way forward?

Is reconciliation even possible between those who want accurate sound and those who want a sound they like?

I suspect not.

I'm prepared to acknowledge that digital is a more accurate recording medium than tape, at least in theory.

As for playback, again in theory, digital holds a measurable advantage over tape and vinyl. In fact I'd argue that a vinyl record can never sound better than the mastertape it was taken from.

In practice though things are not so clear due to all the futzing around with the sound the recording industry is notorious for.

Certain period albums still sound best on vinyl and will always remain that way due to industry indifference and sometimes the ravages of time inflicted upon the original tapes.

https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html?m=1

+1 cd318! I always have a healthy suspicion of the conclusions of the "golden ears" crowd! After all, progress in anything advances fundamentally by objectivity!

If the rule you followed brought you to this what use was your rule? Note to self: it’s always charming to see pseudo scientists patting each other in the fanny.

In fact, it was "pseudo scientists" that caught my attention.

Dear @cd318 :: ""  Hardly anyone can know what the recording is supposed to sound like.. ""

Rigth. To be nearest or truer to the recordings we must to put all kind of generated room/system distortions at minimum. This should be the target of any audiophile.

Again, common sense.

R.

mikelavigne,

I have worked in an aspect of the audio industry that has given me "access" to musicians and recording processes in fairly recent history, including some boutique all analog work flows.

Raul, et. all, please note one key aspect of what I posted. I stand by 24/192 containing far more "raw" information than vinyl/tape. However, note, that I also stated (in different words), that that does not mean that more information makes it into the brain, at least useful information from a musical appreciation stand point. This has nothing to do with technically ignorant hypotheses w.r.t. "continuous vs. discontinuous", timing, etc. which are born out of a lack of understand of signal processing.  It goes to more fundamental aspects of how humans "hear" music. Reduced total information can allow easier processing of the remaining information. Noise can improve signal detection. Cross-talk can reduce complexity (information), but also creates different spatial perceptions, and can even cause acoustic cancellation improving actual separation at the ears (especially with near field listening).

roberttdid,

So not only is there this distinction between what we seek from a recording, ie accuracy or pleasure (objectivist v subjectivist), not only is there great confusion for the consumer regarding what the recording was intended to sound like (audio's circle of confusion), there's also this issue of how an individual brain processes the sound. 

Signal processing is an entirely separate issue and a no less complex one. A 2009 study even indicated that some Stanford students preferred lower bitrate recordings to higher bitrate ones (192kbps to 320kbps).  


"Reduced total information can allow easier processing of the remaining information."


For the purposes of this post it's fairly safe to conclude that digital does hold more data than tape.

Tape can sound wonderful no doubt, but it's fairly obvious that successive generations of tape recording (bouncing down) have far more serious implications for its sound quality than digital copying ever does. 

The 1960s, especially the latter half, saw many recordings following in the footsteps of Phil Spector/Joe Meek etc with dubbing and overdubbing and bouncing down repeatedly. Daniel Lanois often used these techniques to great effect.

Some of those recordings as works of art hold up well, but sonic masterpieces they're not, ie the background is often a load of mush. Pleasant mush, but mush nonetheless.

As any fan of the Mamas and the Papas can tell you. 

cd318
Needless to say that cable merchants, snake oil doctors, magic pebble peddlers etc all tend to all be firmly on the subjectivist side.

No surprises there.

>>>>>Logical fallacy alert. 🚨 No surprises there if you’re a self-annointed pseudo skeptic. Typical phony baloney argument presumably made to create a false concept of US and THEM, everything is BLACK and WHITE with them. Controlled blind tests promoted by Olive and Toole are in fact.... subjective. Hello! I like Toole, he was great in Lawrence of Arabia.

glupson
In fact, it was "pseudo scientists" that caught my attention.

>>>>>Never get into a technical argument with a history major, if history has taught us anything. How can a non technical person be expected to decide which argument is correct. Answer at 11. Cue glubson for clever retort. 

Good question! Maybe you can answer it as being non-technical on the topic has never stopped you before.

geoffkait23,053 posts07-01-2020 6:53am
How can a non technical person be expected to decide which argument is correct. Answer at 11. Cue glubson for clever retort.

Oh, geez, two snappy retorts in a row. Be still my heart. Which illustrates what I’ve been saying all along, two 1/2 wits doesn’t always equal one whole wit. 😳😳 it’s nice to know I can always count on you two knuckleheads for something stupid. In robberrttddidd’s case probably too much time in front of an oscilloscope fried his brain. 🍳 We can probably blame the public school system on glubson.

Mystery solved. Thank you! 

Dear @roberttdid @cd318 : "  there's also this issue of how an individual brain processes the sound. "

Our brain " reaction " to any stimulus or condition is surrounded by many factors that constantly makes the brain perceive or react in different ways to the same kind of " stimulus ".

In other thread where the subject is direct drive/idler drive and belt drive TT designs and which is better in between Mike was posting there because he owns all those kind of TTs diferent drive designs and because he owns the best of the best on each TT kind of drive.
Some one asked how he choose the one to his listening sessions that can gives him the higher enjoyment and his answer was something near this: " depending of my mood ".

Our mood or stress levels and factors like these affects directly the brain response in that moment to what we are listening.

For me subjectivity is valid when it matchs an objective fact because in this condition the fact proves that subjective issue.

Facts are and have permanency and does not changes if everything the same but subjectivity is a focus of several levels of changes that depends of many other subjective issues.

The real imposibility by any cartridge to pick up the full information recorded in the LP surface never changes but what we can listen one day to other with the same recording can change.

In this thread the audiophiles with posted subjective arguments those arguments were not matched through facts that can proves those subjective arguments.

Some one mentioned reviewers and I know some of them ( ST, TAS, etc. ) that are posting in other forums out of Agon as a fact some of them M.Fremer, Seydor, Atkinson did it here in Agon but they don't do it anymore mainly because here we are to direct and the high knowledge level audiophiles that exist here always were questioning the reviewers opinions and several times they just can't answer.
Why made I this comment?, because some of them read some Agon threads.

Could be interesting to know the points of view of MF/others in this specific dialogue and if they have some information that we are not taking in count because several audiophiles and newcomers take their opinions as they guide that some times is really a misguide.

Anyway, trhough this thread I confirmed information I already have it and learned/enhanced those information and learned new " issues " that I never took in count for my overall opinions in this specific subject. Thank's for all those.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Information data is not perceived sounds,  purely objective perceived sounds are not musical sounds, and musical sounds are never subjectively evaluated and perceived in exactly the same manner by all individuals in any environments....

Subjectivity versus objectivity is an obsolete scientific false debate for almost a century now....Immmanent participation of all consciousness is the new paradigm in science....

Like in many audio forum debates about cables for example, the analog/digital debates, defenders and opponents are like 2 cats reading the other’s grin with a replicating grin, and the 2 cats disapearence at the end let only their 2 grins mimicking one another, without any cats anymore like the Cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll....


The repudiation of subjective perception has no scientific meaning at all, and reduction of subjective perception to a "so called" objective one no ultimate meaning....Only a dialogue is meaningful but on the basis of the ultimate irreducibility of individual perception to any numbers there is....

I will repeat myself, " In a word, i value all the very interesting informations in the last post of rauliruegas and if i think about it i think that he is right....BUT i trust the impressions of mikelavigne, the testimonies of his friends, and his long time dedication on his very refined audio system.... THEN...." :)

Dialogue between people not pretending to be right and others wrong is the only interesting way.....

mahgister,

Interesting comments, as ever


"Information data is not perceived sounds, purely objective perceived sounds are not musical sounds, and musical sounds are never subjectively evaluated and perceived in exactly the same manner by all individuals in any environments...."

No one’s arguing with that, are they?



"Subjectivity versus objectivity is an obsolete scientific false debate for almost a century now....Immmanent participation of all consciousness is the new paradigm in science...."

Since when?



"Like in many audio forum debates about cables for example, the analog/digital debates, defenders and opponents are like 2 cats reading the other’s grin with a replicating grin, and the 2 cats disapearence at the end let only their 2 grins mimicking one another, without any cats anymore like the Cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll...."

Yes, but one cat is armed with measurable data which stands up to repeated testing. The other isn’t. If progress isn’t built upon technology and science, then what is it built upon?
Some vague notions of consumerist faith, belief and superstition?



"The repudiation of subjective perception has no scientific meaning at all, and reduction of subjective perception to a "so called" objective one no ultimate meaning....Only a dialogue is meaningful but on the basis of the ultimate irreducibility of individual perception to any numbers there is...."

Yes we’re both free to perceive and interpret any way we want to, but we’re discussing the differing merits of tape, digital and vinyl playback (and recording). Or are we not?



"I will repeat myself, " In a word, i value all the very interesting informations in the last post of rauliruegas and if i think about it i think that he is right....BUT i trust the impressions of mikelavigne, the testimonies of his friends, and his long time dedication on his very refined audio system.... THEN...." :)"


If you wish to trust individual testimonies ahead of data then that’s your prerogative, but how does that help us decide which format is the most accurate?



"Dialogue between people not pretending to be right and others wrong is the only interesting way....."

In this instance, since a question was posted, dialogue must involve acknowledging other opinions before making a judgement, must it not?


Best wishes to you my friend

cd318

Thanks for your generous comment on my posts first...

If you wish to trust individual testimonies ahead of data then that’s your prerogative, but how does that help us decide which format is the most accurate?

My point is precisely that, it is impossible to solve that for now definitively, because too many factors are implicated+ a subjective experience(mikelavigne and friends) that no one neither any science can dismiss scientifically except by dogmatic affirmations based on numbers...

In this instance, since a question was posted, dialogue must involve acknowledging other opinions before making a judgement, must it not?

Dialogue is possible indeed only if one recognise the scientific fact of irreducibility of subjective experiences to numbers....

For the question posed by the OP i answer by a neutral stance, i am sure that digital is good and will progress in the years to come.... But i am sure also that some improved way to read vinyl on very high end system, can be also implemented, and can be now for some people, able to afford it, "better" to their ears.... How can we judge them wrong? Except by receding ourself to a non scientific dogma of the reducibility of the conscious perceiving experience to numbers?


I use myself only digital by the way......But i dont want to dismiss lavigne experience to a peculiarity of taste only because some measured engineering facts said so.....

In a single word, for what we know now digital is on par or better than vinyl theoretically speaking, but for some listener it is not....Why reducing their experience to "illusion"? I trust numbers and i trust people experience....For now the debate can be interesting indeed, but cannot be closed dogmatically but must stay a DIALOGUE precisely especially if someone has investigated with much money, time, and a very high end system....Never mind in day to day experience by ordinary listener, no ordinary system comparison can solve this question once for all, except dogmatically by appeal to numbers in place of human ears experience....My grain of salt....

My best regards to you for your generous takes on my impressions....

+1 mahgister - Excellent treatise on philosophy of listening and why you can never know what someone’s system sounds like without actually 🔜 being there 🔙 and hearing it yourself. Technical descriptions, color photographs, subjective evaluations cannot suffice for 🔜 being there 🔙 and hearing for yourself. For one thing, subjective descriptions of a system’s sound can be misleading, intentionally or not. Words describing sound can have different meanings to different people. For example, the words transparent, congealed, analytical, boomy, synthetic, etched, tinny, two-dimensional and compressed can have different meanings to different people.