Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: How does it support your argument? nt posted by Analog Scott on April 19, 2017 at 10:07:43
that is still around because the market likes it. Such tech is not considered obsolete. Its just old.
Tubes are a good example. They do something transistors have really troubles with: good linearity and soft clipping, so less odd ordered harmonics. By rights they should be loooonnnnnggg gone!
Just because there is a market for older technology doesn't mean the newer technology is not "delivering." Jet engine airplanes most certainly do "deliver." So do automobiles and cameras that do not use polaroid film technology.
To understand how it didn't (or doesn't) deliver, you have to understand the history.
In 1987 RCA/BMG declared the LP obsolete and asserted that they would no longer produce vinyl.
The CD had been declared 'perfect sound forever' several years earlier by such players as Marantz.
During the years that followed, the record industry in the US actively attempted to shut down vinyl production (despite at the time many people putting the various labels on notice that the new product was not sounding right).
So 1992 was the year of least vinyl production. But the demand never dropped off. Some LP titles pressed in the early and mid 90s command crazy high prices on ebay owing to their rarity and desirability to this day.
At any rate, this was an example of the industry attempting to influence the market, rather than the other way 'round. Because the demand never faltered, LP sales were on the rise all through the 90s and succeeding decades, to the point that one of the top selling bands of a few years ago (Arcade Fire) could be found on LP almost anywhere. They were on an independent label!
Now had the early assertions of the record and audio industry not in fact existed, things could be seen as different. But the fact is those assertions are well-known, and despite the industry trying to stamp out the LP (as in get rid of it, not make more :)...), it survived because it was doing something that made it worth keeping. As a manufacturer I often hear of audiophiles that regret having sold their LP collection early on. I know a few that bought them back at tremendous expense!
That all points to the CD not making good on the promise and as time has gone by, we've seen digital improve, belying the obviously ridiculous 'perfect sound' assertion.
But the thing is, despite much higher scan rates, word lengths, MQA and the like, the simple fact is the LP is still very much alive when it was supposed to be supplanted. Jack White just opened a new pressing plant using a new pressing machine, something that no-one thought possible even 10 years ago.
As I have pointed out in other posts, the issue has to do with how the ear/brain system perceives sound. In that regard, two factors are in play; the first being that the ear converts distortion into tonality (in the case of digital, this is the source of the brightness or crispness for which it is known) and the other is that the ear uses higher ordered harmonics to gauge sound pressure, which causes it to be more sensitive than the best test equipment in detecting certain forms of distortion.
That is why we see perfectly flat frequency response on the bench, but for some reason its bright. Its not a frequency response error, its distortion, but in trace amounts that are hard to measure and easy to hear.
Until the digital industry wakes up to that fact, the LP will continue to thrive.
clearly was not delivered back when it was used as a marketing slogan. But it's not unusual for any technology to mature. Digtal clearly has amtured. Now we do actually have audibly transparent digital recording and playback. But here is the thing that no one was able to forsee. Perfect transparency doesn't equate with best asthetic performance. Digital did eventually deliver on the promise of audible tranasparency. We just found out it wasn't what we all wanted in the first place.
I find that one must increase the sample rate at least to 88khz in order to minimize the brickwall filter (digital or not) phase induced funkiness.
Hi-rez can sound very good to these ears. :)
But please correct me if my math is wrong.
Weren't we talking about CDs? They sample at 44.1 khz.
"(perfect sound forever) clearly was not delivered back when it was used as a marketing slogan. But it's not unusual for any technology to mature. Digtal clearly has matured. Now we do actually have audibly transparent digital recording and playback. But here is the thing that no one was able to forsee. Perfect transparency doesn't equate with best asthetic performance. Digital did eventually deliver on the promise of audible tranasparency. We just found out it wasn't what we all wanted in the first place."
When I refer to "digital" I include other digital formats beyond red book CD and include 24/96. Sorry for any confusion.
IMO based on some very careful blind comparisons I have found 24/96 can be completely audibly transparent.
The "Perfect sound forever" format, aka Redbook, has never been either. :)
IMO based on some very careful blind comparisons I have found 24/96 can be completely audibly transparent.
I just thought high-end was about sound quality -and as soon as we move to the next level, we can't go back. Like standard-def TV. I know CRTs are making a (small) comeback. But this is more about screen-size than 'wanting' lower resolution. For many folk, old (or new) TV shows, shop-TV or the news, the old screen-size is better.
Ralph thinks young-ins are buying LP. That means 40-50 year olds are streaming but kids half their age are playing vinyl. Doesn't make sense. Does he mean DJs ? They are, but this small group (always) spun records.
I understand Pro-ject sold a lot of players in recent years. But who bought them ? Could be India, China or small emerging markets. Without proof of (U.S.) player sales, we have *no way* of knowing if there was a 'vinyl comeback'. For playing discs, not collecting that is...
You continue to ignore facts at a trumpian level.
A quick search for "my vinyl collection" on YouTube will reveal hundreds of videos posted by LP fans from ages 14 and up. The younger ones are largely buying new releases, although some also crate dig (and most of them are actively ruining said records by playing them on shitty equipment).
Now do a search for "my MP3 collection." Crickets.
Anytime you want to find out what's really going on in the world, YouTube is your source.
Despite my posts here, I actually support retro-comebacks. The current wave started in the 90s with classic baseball stadiums (w/ real grass). It continues with the pay phone, pinball machines, old brand names and roller skates.
New restaurants are going brick-and-wood w/ higher ceilings. New homes include porches.
That said, it doesn't mean these items are sweeping the country. Hundreds of vinyl videos could be from 100 people.
It's sound quality, not retro-ness that concerns these forums. And IMO reviewers got it right -99% of them have digital while most of (these) prefer it to LP.
If we are actually talking about sound quality and looking to the market as any kind of indicator then you obviously have to look to the audiophile market. And when you do the indicators are quite clear. Vinyl dominates that market. Personally I don't look to market trends as meaningful evidence of quality but if one wants to make that argument vinyl is the clear winner.
LP is all but gone from high-end audio. It's hard to find reviewers who prefer it to digital. I go to them because it's the best evidence we have. We obviously can't know every consumer's system.
But even here, look around, go to your audio societies, etc. -it's all digital.
Reviewer Jim Austin said it best: it's been 'more than decade' since LP left (high end) as a reference. Even Art Dudley and Herb Reichert, two of the remaining 'vinyl-first' people, have been reviewing a LOT of digital.
In the past 2 years -so much that they seem to be listening to digital full-time, due to constantly-new samples coming in. Why are they doing this if digital is not their beat ?
Reviewer Jim Austin said it best: it's been 'more than decade' since LP left (high end) as a reference.
Kindly post a link to that quote. You've clearly demonstrated in this thread alone a decided inability to read and understand content.
Does he know fellow reviewer Mikey Fremer? :)
While I'm not a Valin fan, he continues to update Harry Pearson's "Super LP" list. You can find it here . Jacob Heilbrunn continues to review record playing gear and even when reviewing stuff like Odin 2, he references his vinyl library.
As a long term friend of HP, I can tell you that he regularly spun vinyl on the Clearaudio until the end.
No, the burden of *proof* is upon you to support your silly assertion (referencing only a handful of names) if you want to be taken seriously.
You can read Jim's thoughts on a thread (I started) called 'Reviewers with LP -how many are there' ? For Jim, LP is now second-choice. The 'decade ago' thing was the decline of LP, in high-end audio, in his words.
If you do the work, let me know how many reviewers use LP as a primary source. I found 10 (and even listed them). But there are 130, maybe 150 U.S. reviewers ! Some don't review much, so it's hard to get an exact number.
And even this could be off -vinyl lovers Dudley and Reichert are reviewing a *lot* of digital these days. When it's not even their beat to do so.
You can read J.m's thoughts on a thread (I started) called 'Reviewers with LP -how many are there' ?
I followed the thread and perhaps I missed it, but I find no link to his printed words.
Kindly link them again. Surely that should be an easy task.
...can't help you there !!
Let's review your claim from this post:
"Reviewer J.m Austin said it best: it's been 'more than decade' since LP left (high end) as a reference."
There is a search engine which provides the ability to locate any text sequence. Try it for yourself. Paste the text "more than a decade" into the "exact phrase" dialog and see what you find.
Are you really that delusional?
For those who are able to count both their fingers and their toes, here is the *alleged* post.
This is what you actually find:
"I do not find one technology innately, sonically superior to the other; excellent music in excellent sound is available in analog and digital form. "
It is indeed impossible to quote text that no one has ever written.
Perhaps you should lay off the recreational drugs for a while. :)
So you couldn't find it but NOW you can....
Jim was disagreeing with those who say "LP is superior". Then said "things have changed" (twice !). Read between the lines.
that you are delusional, free from the boundaries of facts and reality...
"LP is all but gone from high-end audio." Wrong
"It's hard to find reviewers who prefer it to digital." Wrong
"I go to them because it's the best evidence we have." Wrong
So once again you got it all wrong. Next you will ask me to prove it and I will and then you will try to spin it away or ignore it. Do some homework for a change and try to get some facts right. Your parade of objectively wrong assertions is getting boring.
Alright big guy prove it.
do your own homework for a change. If nothing else you are predictable. can't help yourself?
I just thought high-end was about sound quality -and as soon as we move to the next level, we can't go back.
Sure - if the move doesn't involve any back stepping like it did with the CD. For decades of music released before either CD or high resolution formats were available, vinyl still offers audible advantages.
For many folk, old (or new) TV shows, shop-TV or the news, the old screen-size is better.
That's certainly not my preference. All of the TVs in my household are now 16x9 capable. When stuck, however, with 480p content old tubes look better to these eyes.
edit: I do hate it, however, when folks distort the image by stretching 4x3 content into a 16x9 presentation. My father-in-law can't tell the difference. :)
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: