Beatles Mono vinyl box proves analogue superiority?

[Overdose]

What I don't get with these threads is someone opens with something like

"I've got the vinyl version and the CD version of (some great classic recording). The vinyl sounds better."

To which you get the inevitable reply:

"You like distortion... CD's technically better. Yada, yada, yada."

Followed by debates about live sound and what the mixing engineer hears in the studio etc etc etc.

To which I'm thinking "Who gives a proverbial? If it sounds better it is better and stuff what anyone else says."

And why is it that these objectivists that go on about the technical superiority of CD so often have such anodyne sounding systems? Is it because their left brains dominate so much of their thinking and listening that they end up with left brain systems?

And again with the assumptions and wild speculation.

Up until this point, the argument being that a digital playback system is technically superior to an analogue one.

No discussions, factual evidence exists to prove this.

The crux of the matter is preference, that's all.

In a word, subjective.

 

[Covenanter]

What I don't get with these threads is someone opens with something like

"I've got the vinyl version and the CD version of (some great classic recording). The vinyl sounds better."

To which you get the inevitable reply:

"You like distortion... CD's technically better. Yada, yada, yada."

Followed by debates about live sound and what the mixing engineer hears in the studio etc etc etc.

To which I'm thinking "Who gives a proverbial? If it sounds better it is better and stuff what anyone else says."

And why is it that these objectivists that go on about the technical superiority of CD so often have such anodyne sounding systems? Is it because their left brains dominate so much of their thinking and listening that they end up with left brain systems?

And why is it that certain subjectivists, no names no pack drill, think they can judge what is and what isn't anodyne.

Chris

 

[matt49]

What I don't get with these threads is someone opens with something like

"I've got the vinyl version and the CD version of (some great classic recording). The vinyl sounds better."

To which you get the inevitable reply:

"You like distortion... CD's technically better. Yada, yada, yada."

Followed by debates about live sound and what the mixing engineer hears in the studio etc etc etc.

To which I'm thinking "Who gives a proverbial? If it sounds better it is better and stuff what anyone else says."

And why is it that these objectivists that go on about the technical superiority of CD so often have such anodyne sounding systems? Is it because their left brains dominate so much of their thinking and listening that they end up with left brain systems?

You make it sound as if the “objectivists” started the fight about which format is better, but if you read the OP you’ll see this isn’t so. It’s the OP that states that vinyl is a better replay medium than digital. It’s even there in the flipping thread title!

By “anodyne” I assume you mean accurate or transparent.

 

[lindsayt]

And again with the assumptions and wild speculation.

Up until this point, the argument being that a digital playback system is technically superior to an analogue one.

No discussions, factual evidence exists to prove this.

The crux of the matter is preference, that's all.

In a word, subjective.

So the fact that a number of listeners have prefered the sound of the vinyl version of the Beatles recording over the CD version isn't factual evidence?

That's some made up fantasy is it?

That's a wild speculation and assumption to say that people who say they prefer the vinyl version of this Beatles recording actually did prefer the sound of the vinyl version?

If everyone had the same system and same room as Michael Fremer, what proprotion of them do you think would prefer the sound of the vinyl version of this recording over the CD? I predict it would be over 80%, as in hi-fi bake-offs you usually get a very good consensus on which sounds better, with only the people with vested interests disagreeing.

 

[Overdose]

So the fact that a number of listeners have prefered the sound of the vinyl version of the Beatles recording over the CD version isn't factual evidence?

That's some made up fantasy is it?

That's anecdotal evidence.

Fantasy? It could well be.

 

[lindsayt]

You make it sound as if the “objectivists” started the fight about which format is better, but if you read the OP you’ll see this isn’t so. It’s the OP that states that vinyl is a better replay medium than digital. It’s even there in the flipping thread title!

By “anodyne” I assume you mean accurate or transparent.

No, in the first post of this thread, VOE said: "Reading the Analogue Planet website and the (many) reviews of Michael Fremer including the most recent and important reviews of The Beatles Mono Vinyl set, does make me wonder if analogue is far better than digital." IE he was wondering if analogue is far better than digital. there's a difference between wondering and stating.

The thread title has a question mark at the end of it. You may take that as being a rhetorical question. In the context of the opening post I don't. To me he's asking the question, how much can the widespread preference for this Beatles recording amongst a number of reviewers and listeners on vinyl be extrapolated into a general superiority for vinyl?

By anodyne I mean this:
"anodyneˈadjective: anodyne1.not likely to cause offence or disagreement and somewhat dull."anodyne music"synonyms:bland, inoffensive, innocuous, neutral, unobjectionable, unexceptionable, unremarkable, commonplace, dull, tedious, run-of-the-mill"
IE what it says in the online dictionary. Not something else that you may wish I meant.

 

[lindsayt]

And why is it that certain subjectivists, no names no pack drill, think they can judge what is and what isn't anodyne.

Chris

It's quite simple, get two systems together play the same piece of music one after the other at about the same volume, or even with the less anodyne system at a slightly lower volume and the anodyne system will make itself all too apparent.

The differences are not subtle in the vast majority of cases.

It's really not difficult to judge what is anodyne when you have a less anodyne reference to compare it against, Anyone with non badly impaired hearing can do it easily.

 

[lindsayt]

So the fact that a number of listeners have prefered the sound of the vinyl version of the Beatles recording over the CD version isn't factual evidence?

That's some made up fantasy is it?

That's anecdotal evidence.

Fantasy? It could well be.

So, if I tell you the anecdote about how I ate at the Jardin du Sens one day and McDonalds the next and prefered the meal at the Michelin rosetted restaurant, would that be fantasy as well?

Just because something is anecdotal, doesn't mean to say it's fantasy. Especially when you haven't had the same experience yourself.

If you are extrapolating how the 2 versions sound on the basis of your understanding of the technical merits of CD vs vinyl then I would suggest that it is you that is more likely to be fantasizing than Michael Fremer when it comes to the actual sound that was in Mr Fremer's listening room when he played both versions.

 

[matt49]

No, in the first post of this thread, VOE said: "Reading the Analogue Planet website and the (many) reviews of Michael Fremer including the most recent and important reviews of The Beatles Mono Vinyl set, does make me wonder if analogue is far better than digital." IE he was wondering if analogue is far better than digital. there's a difference between wondering and stating.

The thread title has a question mark at the end of it. You may take that as being a rhetorical question. In the context of the opening post I don't. To me he's asking the question, how much can the widespread preference for this Beatles recording amongst a number of reviewers and listeners on vinyl be extrapolated into a general superiority for vinyl?

It was never the OP's intention to ask an open question. Throughout the exchanges from the first post onwards his baseline assumption was that vinyl is "far better than digital". "Far better" doesn't indicate openness. The OP simply drew the responses he deserved. He then went on to show that he hadn't the foggiest idea how digital audio works anyway.

By anodyne I mean this:

"anodyne ˈadjective: anodyne 1. not likely to cause offence or disagreement and somewhat dull. "anodyne music" synonyms: bland, inoffensive, innocuous, neutral, unobjectionable, unexceptionable, unremarkable, commonplace, dull, tedious, run-of-the-mill"

IE what it says in the online dictionary. Not something else that you may wish I meant.

You've completely missed the point. Your comment about "objectivists" having "anodyne" systems doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, so I didn't take it seriously.

 

[lindsayt]

You've completely missed the point. Your comment about "objectivists" having "anodyne" systems doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, so I didn't take it seriously.

Matt, you'll have to remind me. What system do you have now?

And you really don't think that this comment that I made earlier should be taken seriously: "And why is it that these objectivists that go on about the technical superiority of CD so often have such anodyne sounding systems?"

OK, I'll start off with a couple of examples:

Overdose. AVI. Flat, unmusical, boring.

Covenanter. Kef R700's. Bland.

Would you now like to give me examples of objectivists that go on about the technical superiority of CD that don't have anodyne systems?

 

[Covenanter]

And why is it that certain subjectivists, no names no pack drill, think they can judge what is and what isn't anodyne.

Chris

It's quite simple, get two systems together play the same piece of music one after the other at about the same volume, or even with the less anodyne system at a slightly lower volume and the anodyne system will make itself all too apparent.

The differences are not subtle in the vast majority of cases.

It's really not difficult to judge what is anodyne when you have a less anodyne reference to compare it against, Anyone with non badly impaired hearing can do it easily.

In your opinion ...

Chris

PS And ad hominem allusions merely undermine your argument.

 

[Overdose]

So, if I tell you the anecdote about how I ate at the Jardin du Sens one day and McDonalds the next and prefered the meal at the Michelin rosetted restaurant, would that be fantasy as well?

Just because something is anecdotal, doesn't mean to say it's fantasy. Especially when you haven't had the same experience yourself.

You still seem to be unable to grasp the situation.

You are confusing (yet again) factual information for stated opinion and preference.

If you wish to use the fine dining experience vs the golden arches, it could be argued that the latter is far superior, as many more people prefer it proven by much higher customer turnover. Would that situation be fact or fantasy?

 

[lindsayt]

So, if I tell you the anecdote about how I ate at the Jardin du Sens one day and McDonalds the next and prefered the meal at the Michelin rosetted restaurant, would that be fantasy as well?

Just because something is anecdotal, doesn't mean to say it's fantasy. Especially when you haven't had the same experience yourself.

You still seem to be unable to grasp the situation.

You are confusing (yet again) factual information for stated opinion and preference.

If you wish to use the fine dining experience vs the golden arches, it could be argued that the latter is far superior due to much higher customer turnover due to many more people prefering it. Would that situation be fact or fantasy?

Let me introduce you to the concept of non-sequitors. Feel free to google it.

It's a non sequitor for you to say that McDonalds actually gives a far superior dining experience on the basis of turnover, in response to my factual anecdote about eating there after eating at a high end restaurant.

Just because McD's has a higher turnover, it does not follow that I am mistaken, or wrong, or telling lies when I tell you the anecdote about me eating at both places and prefering the meal at Jardin du Sens. It's a non sequitor for you to bring turnover into the conversation in response to my anecdote.

 

[chebby]

Get a pound of good quality ground beef, an egg, a large onion, some stale bread crushed or blitzed into crumbs and some sea-salt and ground black pepper and a smidgeon of oil.

10 minutes prep and 2 minutes washing up and 5 minutes cooking time will give you a far better burger than anything from a fast food restaurant.

 

[Overdose]

OK, I'll start off with a couple of examples:

Overdose. AVI. Flat, unmusical, boring.

Covenanter. Kef R700's. Bland.

I prefer my music to be musical and let my system get out of the way. If possible, I don't want any kind of distortion of any variety exciting or not. This is my preference.

You may consider clarity and transparency as 'anodyne', that is your prefrence.

I couldn't comment on the KEFs being bland, but if you considered them as also 'anodyne', I personally would add them to a list of speakers to check out if I were ever in the market for another pair of passives, for the reasons above.

 

[Overdose]

So, if I tell you the anecdote about how I ate at the Jardin du Sens one day and McDonalds the next and prefered the meal at the Michelin rosetted restaurant, would that be fantasy as well?

Just because something is anecdotal, doesn't mean to say it's fantasy. Especially when you haven't had the same experience yourself.

You still seem to be unable to grasp the situation.

You are confusing (yet again) factual information for stated opinion and preference.

If you wish to use the fine dining experience vs the golden arches, it could be argued that the latter is far superior due to much higher customer turnover due to many more people prefering it. Would that situation be fact or fantasy?

Let me introduce you to the concept of non-sequitors. Feel free to google it.

It's a non sequitor for you to say that McDonalds actually gives a far superior dining experience on the basis of turnover, in response to my factual anecdote about eating there after eating at a high end restaurant.

Just because McD's has a higher turnover, it does not follow that I am mistaken, or wrong, or telling lies when I tell you the anecdote about me eating at both places and prefering the meal at Jardin du Sens. It's a non sequitor for you to bring turnover into the conversation in response to my anecdote.

You seem to be confusing yourself.

 

[lindsayt]

Do we have to refer to the online dictionary for a definition of the word distortion?

Your AVI's are deeply distorted because they suffer from compression. Which is a type of distortion.

They also make large changes to the frequency response between 20hz and 20khz. That is another type of distortion.

Both of these distortions when added together (not to mention the bass transient distortion and doppler effect distortion) in the amounts shown in your AVI system results in very obvious amounts of distortion, when compared to a better reference, which makes your system sound flat, unmusical and boring.

 

[lindsayt]

And why is it that certain subjectivists, no names no pack drill, think they can judge what is and what isn't anodyne.

Chris

It's quite simple, get two systems together play the same piece of music one after the other at about the same volume, or even with the less anodyne system at a slightly lower volume and the anodyne system will make itself all too apparent.

The differences are not subtle in the vast majority of cases.

It's really not difficult to judge what is anodyne when you have a less anodyne reference to compare it against, Anyone with non badly impaired hearing can do it easily.

In your opinion ...

Chris

PS And ad hominem allusions merely undermine your argument.

So what's your opinion on this? Do you think it's difficult to tell an anodyne system from a less anodyne system when you get the two together in an A/B demo? If you do think this, would you be prepared to tell us why you think this?

 

[matt49]

You've completely missed the point. Your comment about "objectivists" having "anodyne" systems doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, so I didn't take it seriously.

Matt, you'll have to remind me. What system do you have now?

And you really don't think that this comment that I made earlier should be taken seriously: "And why is it that these objectivists that go on about the technical superiority of CD so often have such anodyne sounding systems?"

OK, I'll start off with a couple of examples:

Overdose. AVI. Flat, unmusical, boring.

Covenanter. Kef R700's. Bland.

Would you now like to give me examples of objectivists that go on about the technical superiority of CD that don't have anodyne systems?

No, the statement doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, though I'm quite happy to rise to your bait re. individual people's systems. My main system is:

PC > Devialet 200 > Martin Logan Montis

I haven't heard any system that's better at rendering classical music, which is what I mainly listen to.

I have various other bits of kit kicking about. We're about to move house, and then I'll have a second system based on Sonus faber Cremona Auditor Ms, again using a digital source. I'm also in the market for a turntable. You'll recall we had a discussion about this a couple of months ago.

By the way, it's "non sequitur".

 

[Covenanter]

And why is it that certain subjectivists, no names no pack drill, think they can judge what is and what isn't anodyne.

Chris

It's quite simple, get two systems together play the same piece of music one after the other at about the same volume, or even with the less anodyne system at a slightly lower volume and the anodyne system will make itself all too apparent.

The differences are not subtle in the vast majority of cases.

It's really not difficult to judge what is anodyne when you have a less anodyne reference to compare it against, Anyone with non badly impaired hearing can do it easily.

In your opinion ...

Chris

PS And ad hominem allusions merely undermine your argument.

So what's your opinion on this? Do you think it's difficult to tell an anodyne system from a less anodyne system when you get the two together in an A/B demo? If you do think this, would you be prepared to tell us why you think this?

To be frank I think your use of "anodyne" is fairly meaningless. But to engage with you for a few minutes a hifi system should neither add nor subtract from the input signal except in terms of amplification. Obviously that is an ideal which can only be approached and not achieved but we should aim to get as close to that as possible. After all it's the input signal we want to hear not the hifi system.

The thrust of this thread is that vinyl systems are better than digital systems. Some of us have simply pointed out that whilst some people may think they sound better (and we are happy for them to have that opinion and for them to enjoy their systems) in fact they distort the input signal much more than digital systems and indeed that is easily demonstrated. Lots of people like this distortion and that is fine too. It doesn't make it better though nor do I have to like it myself.

Chris

PS I'm sure we could all hear differences between systems in some form of A/B comparison. Personally I wouldn't attach vague adjectives to my responses though.

 

[Freddy58]

You've completely missed the point. Your comment about "objectivists" having "anodyne" systems doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, so I didn't take it seriously.

Matt, you'll have to remind me. What system do you have now?

And you really don't think that this comment that I made earlier should be taken seriously: "And why is it that these objectivists that go on about the technical superiority of CD so often have such anodyne sounding systems?"

OK, I'll start off with a couple of examples:

Overdose. AVI. Flat, unmusical, boring.

Covenanter. Kef R700's. Bland.

Would you now like to give me examples of objectivists that go on about the technical superiority of CD that don't have anodyne systems?

Not nice, slagging off folks equipment*stop*

 

[Overdose]

Not nice, slagging off folks equipment*stop*

It's a bit pointless really, and being just an opinion anyway, is worthless in any meaningful context and was posted to ellicit a response more than anything.

Anyhow, it's quite likely an insecurity thing. I almost feel sorry for the chap.