File: 3.20 MB, 3072x2304, Mallrats OST.jpg [
Show reposts] Image reverse search: [
iqdb] [
google]
No.51153163 [
Reply] [
Original]
Recent purchases or whatever the fuck else you want. Anything vinyl related.
| >> | No.51157800
>>51154939
>So the hard scientific facts don't matter then? Gotcha.
They actually don't in this case.
I've explained many times to the oscilloscope babies on here that you cannot quantify sound "quality" the same way you can quantify a chemical formula or a physical law.
Why?
Because there's a highly subjective element (your ears/brain) that actually alters the sound quality as it enters your ears. You are not hearing what the oscilloscope and other such "view from nowhere" measurement devices are "hearing," so appealing to charts, graphs, and scientific "evidence" is fuckin' pointless.
If this issue was so cut and dry, then speakers and other such audio components would have been standardized a long time ago. But they're not, because people have different preferences vis a vis speaker and/or amp design (solid state vs tube, etc).
The little graphs you look up might say something is "great" on paper, but you might find yourself not liking the sound.
That said, there's a very valid reason why people prefer vinyl to digital, and it has nothing to do with "emotional appeals."
Digital formats produce more square waves, human beings typically find square waves harsh sounding. Vinyl rounds off those square waves (because the soundwave has to travel through the coil in the cartridge, so by the time it reaches you, the square wave has turned into a sine wave).
Now, I'm not claiming one is a better than the other. Some music sounds better "harsh" while other music doesn't.
(cont'd)
|
| >> | No.51157843
>>51157800
>(cont'd)
I'll close my rant with some pertinent quotes:
> Tyll Hertsens: There's a tension between subjective and objective evaluation. It seems to me they both attempt to evaluate headphones, but operate in two different domains. Essentially, I think measurements can tell you how close something is to neutral, and to what extent it deviates from neutral. Subjective testing allows you to know how pleasing something is, and in what ways. I don’t think our brain and perceptual system is like an Audio Precision tester at all; I don’t think we’re good at objectively analyzing what we hear. Likewise, my AP tester isn’t conscious, and it doesn’t experience what it’s hearing. So I don’t think it can tell us much about the pleasurable experiences of listening to a pair of headphones.
>The trick here is knowing that objective and subjective evaluation happen in two different domains, and one has to have an open mind to bring in information from both without feeling conflicted.
>I feel things are very complicated for both subjective and objective evaluation. “Measures well” and “sounds good” are both gross oversimplifications.
>SG (Steve Guttenberg): The objectivists want to believe the most accurate playback system is always the best approach, but that view ignores the sonic variability of recordings and the sound preferences in play. If most of the music you like sounds like crap, hearing it "accurately" might not be the best way to go. It's hardly a theoretical problem, more and more contemporary music sounds really bad and distorted, so it's up to each buyer to get the system that works best for them. There are no universal solutions.
TH: Indeed. That’s why I think measurements are a good coarse sorting tool, but in the end you have to have the listening experience to find things that you like for the music you listen to.
|
| >> | No.51159445
>if u dnt buy vinyl u r kids tht dnt aprecit musiks!!!1!!
Guys, vinyl is inferior to digital mediums in terms of fidelity. The distortion on the low end, the noise floor, surface noise and 13bit analog recording process (when put to a digital equivalent) is just not as transparent as a well mastered WAV file.
Also, unless you have an exceptionally expensive set up, you won't even achieve the same quality as a CD. A lot of the higher frequencies available on vinyl are not only not audible, but usually aren't part of the signal and are just noise than can cause distortions to audible frequencies. The fact CDs cut off at a discrete frequency means all the signal is contained but supersonic noise is not.
https://www.xiph.org/video/
The first one explains why in terms of fidelity, analog mediums are inferior and the second shows misconception about digital audio. Nothing is lost in a digital reproduction, nor is there a "stairstepping" of waves. The entire wave is reproduced exactly. All samples are mathematically accurate. A lot of misconceptions about DAC which feeds on the general cognitive dissonance and rife misinformation pertinent in the HiFi industry; propagated by pseudoscientific woo printed in What Hifi or Stereophile.
Regardless, I disagree with people demeriting vinyl. The fidelity is inferior, distortion and noise wise (especially if you are adding additional distortion with tube amps, a technology only useful in production of audio for authentic distortion) the sensation of owning vinyl and having tactile music is something that has its own merits. I own relatively few vinyl, only my favourite records, and I own a very basic set up, but that makes me neither more nor less appreciative of music. Most my music is either on CD of FLAC. I also stream a lot on a day to day basis. If I like album art, I'll buy the LP for display and as a nice object. Hell, I enjoy listening to them even if the audio is inferior as the distortions can be pleasant.
|
| >> | No.51159503
>>51157800
>>51157843
I agree with most of your argument, but the square waves BS is incorrect.
https://www.xiph.org/video/
Digital to Analog conversion preserves analog waves perfectly. Watch the videos. There is and has been scientifically observable and audible evidence for this for a while.
That isn't to say that digital doesn't have its drawbacks, it just isn't a square wave. Scientifically, you are getting a purer analog signal on a CD or FLAC than you are on vinyl due to distortions in vinyl playback and noise. Also vinyl lose information with each play due to the delicate nature of grooves. The pressing process also is subject to loss of information, especially in modern presses and non OG pressings. Even in OG pressings, they aren't as accurate as the transfer to a CD (although many CDs of pre 70s stuff wasn't recorded digitally and the master tapes have degraded so a lot of them are taken from vinyl copies, hence not particularly superior in senses other than longevity and noise.)
Fidelity aside, if vinyl sounds better to you, because of bias, or the quality of distortion and your preference, then power to you. With art, there is no right answer. I prefer the convenience and clarity of digital media, but I also enjoy the tactile nature of an LP.
Horses for courses. The source is the least important part of a set up. Speakers and amps are far more important.
|
| >> | No.51159890
>>51159719
>It is more accurate though. I don't know why you have quoted the word. It may sound harsher to some.
I quoted accuracy, because accuracy may not always be desired.
Take color accuracy. Some people might prefer the look of over saturated colors over accuracy.
See the quotes here: >>51157843
Some people like the sound of vinyl simply because they like the sound of it and they'll pay for that sound.
Hell, I like the sound of 78s. The grainy playback gives old jazz and blues recordings something of a primitive, historical quality that lends itself to the music (and it's not like you're going to be able to hear those recordings with more fidelity anyhow, since the 78s are usually the source material for the CD releases [if the music even winds up making to CD]).
It's also reasons people will pay big money for speakers and amps from certain manufacturers. They like the sound. It usually has little to do with "accuracy." And on the flip side, audiophile forums are filled with people who dumped 4 or even 5 figures on speakers and wound up preferring the sound of their original, much less expensive setup.
It really is a subjective matter. I also contend that accuracy should be the least of a speaker, amp, or format buyer's concern when researching what to buy. It's not like you're going to recreate the conditions of the recording studio in your listening room anyway.
Once music reaches a certain fidelity (FLAC, CD, Vinyl, 320), it's splitting hairs, since each format will be accurate enough. After that, it comes down to preference (and the quality of your gear, of course).
Format wars shouldn't even really exist. It's a pointless debate.
|
| >> | No.51159979
>>51159890
You know what, thank you. Your post has really given me a reasoning and a way of thinking that is both mature and rational. I wish all people in the world held such balanced views.
You are a good guy anon.
Format wars shouldn't exist. It is pointless. I agree with Tyll Hertsens too.
It should be down to personal preference, not a scientific accuracy contest, when that is not always desirable.
It depends what people want and prefer.
I do however have a problem with some of the HiFi industries overpriced stuff that sounds literally no different when added or omitted. This can be proven through blind tests AND scientific measurement.
Mega expensive cables, weird ornaments and amps costing the size of a small house neither offer a pleasant distortion or level of accuracy (that can't be found much cheaper with the same quality) and just serve to exploit rich people. Yeah, different effects are desirable, and different levels of gear will be more preferable, but some companies produce gear that is inferior component wise, regardless of the format or intention, for much higher prices than is ethical. I have a problem with that. That is just charlatans lining their pockets.
Of course you get different quality amps, and different brands that do different things with their sound, but some companies and some mega high end technology is woo, and a lot of the non-technology products like magic clocks or 'special' cables is bullshit and exploitation.
|