David@FrankHarvey said:
erm, ok. Not really much one could say about that, apart from facepalming.
erm, ok. Not really much one could say about that, apart from facepalming.
How can it be "technically superior" if it sounds poor? Sorry I don't buy the argument that it is automatically superior. Digital media storage might well be technically better not to mention more convenient but in my view, if it doesn't sound better, it isn't better. This is a Hi-Fi forum isn't it? It's about the quality of music reproduction, not technical data and scientific theories.
Maybe I should just go back to one of the hundreds of web fora that acknowledge the merits of analogue and discuss new / archival musical releases in the musically superior format? This is certainly a strange place and has little or nothing to do with real Hi-Fi
Maybe I should just go back to one of the hundreds of web fora that acknowledge the merits of analogue and discuss new / archival musical releases in the musically superior format? This is certainly a strange place and has little or nothing to do with real Hi-Fi
VOE said:
It doesn't sound "poor", it sounds different. Different people like different things, I don't like caviar and yet it's universally recognised as one of the world's greatest taste sensations. This is no different. The fact is in terms of noise, dynamic range and frequency response (and probably some other stuff) CD is better than vinyl (measurably so, this isn't guesswork, it can be measured).
And you know what? I'd rather listen to vinyl as well. In fact, I don't even own a CD player, haven't done in over 20 years (I do have a digital music system but it isn't CD or even disc based) but I still wouldn't try to argue that vinyl is technically superior, I just enjoy the sound of it more.
That's the point people here are trying to make, there's nothing wrong with preferring vinyl but it is NOT technically superior and none of your "arguments" are going to change that (I put arguments in quotes because to be honest you don't have any arguments as you have no idea what you're talking about and are therefore entirely unable to support your viewpoint with a properly reasoned "argument").
Perhaps you should avoid fora completely and make your own mind up, you seem to be far too easily swayed by the arguments of people that should know better.
Ah, "real" hi-fi, right. You mean the hi-fi you need a mortgage to buy yes, anything less than that just isn't worth considering right?
Covenanter
Well-known member
- Jul 20, 2012
- 96
- 50
- 18,620
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
You're all in denial. I swear that you'd refuse to accept what unquestionably sounds better to most people even if your own ears also told you it sounded better. Oh wait a minute, we're being lectured about the placebo effect so you're right, you shouldn't trust your own ears. Next time I want to know how good my kit sounds I'll ask a complete stranger. Why should I trust myself?Am I the arbiter of good sound - yes, where my kit / music is concerned. This forum is demonstrably dominated by a digital clique with their pc drives and DAC's and unspeakably expensive speakers, 'cause they matter the most. LOL!
VOE said:
I am with you (I think) though I personally make use of all sources including of course vinyl.
However, this site has a dedicated vinyl section where you/we find a more appreciating audience for all things round plastic. Then there's vinyl engine ...
Trying to convince people that continuously argue against it of the merits and joys of it is pretty pointless.
I do get sometimes wound up about folks that seem to spend a considerable amount of energy and time to convince us (vinyl users) of the pitfalls (and there are of course a few). Why bother posting the same arguments again and again?
If you don't like it, fair play but this is a hifi forum and even if you like to argue that vinyl is not hifi, it has a place in music reproduction. Why not just keep out of the thread and contribute something useful elsewhere?
regards
drummerman said:
With all due respect, this misrepresents the arguments being made on this thread. I really don't think anyone's saying that vinyl isn't hi-fi and has no place in music reproduction.
What a number of people have said is that vinyl can be subjectively preferable, but that it makes no sense to argue that it's technically superior.
VOE said:
no, you are. But feel free to keep repeating it so it becomes a truth in your head.
VOE said:
most people? Have you a poll for this that covers most people? Please feel free to share... You also seem to be ignoring that a lot of people are AGREEING WITH YOU THAT THEY PREFER THE SOUND OF VINYL!!!!
VOE said:
No need to throw your toys out of the pram.
If you can't seperate technical from preference, then I'd suggest you stop engaging in such discussions that wind you up to the point of making such swwping generalisation that are just wrong. And it's pretty obvious you have an issue with accepting that you are wrong in that digital is *techically* better.
Yes, trust your ears to listen to music but don't trust your ears to make technical differentiations on things which you just can't hear.
"DDD" = Didactic Digital Dictators ? *aggressive*
Yes, some people here agree that they like the sound of vinyl and yes some also say "it's ok to like it but please admit it's technically inferior" or "just because it sounds better to you doesn't mean it is better or prove anything - it's your preference". This is probably what I struggle with. Many Hi-Fi dealers, rightly in my opinion, will suggest that if it obviously sounds much better to everyone in the room it automatically MUST be better.
I don't honestly believe that everyone who is comparing notes on The Beatles box, some making completely different observations about specific albums, multi-tracks or songs, but all in agreement that the vinyl sounds much better than the CD can be wrong. It's not really as simple as putting it down to personal preference. That's to slightly belittle what the vast majority hear and say. It sounds better, it IS better. Why, may be a valid question given that every effort has been made to maximum the benefits of the remastering for both CD and LP using the same original tapes and equipment.
Anyway, as has already been said, it isn't worth arguing about
Yes, some people here agree that they like the sound of vinyl and yes some also say "it's ok to like it but please admit it's technically inferior" or "just because it sounds better to you doesn't mean it is better or prove anything - it's your preference". This is probably what I struggle with. Many Hi-Fi dealers, rightly in my opinion, will suggest that if it obviously sounds much better to everyone in the room it automatically MUST be better.
I don't honestly believe that everyone who is comparing notes on The Beatles box, some making completely different observations about specific albums, multi-tracks or songs, but all in agreement that the vinyl sounds much better than the CD can be wrong. It's not really as simple as putting it down to personal preference. That's to slightly belittle what the vast majority hear and say. It sounds better, it IS better. Why, may be a valid question given that every effort has been made to maximum the benefits of the remastering for both CD and LP using the same original tapes and equipment.
Anyway, as has already been said, it isn't worth arguing about
VOE said:
How do you square this rationale with the Matrix Audio blind test, the results of which determined that an extremely cheap and thrown together setup is to all intents and purposes, indistinquishable from a very expensive (high end, they call it) one?
Presumably you will have all sorts of explanations for your above quote not applying in this particular circumstance?
As for arguing, there really isn't much argument from where I'm sitting, simply a few cronic cases of denial.
VOE said:
hehehehehe erm yeh right! Better what exactly?
Don't worry, hopefully one day you'll be able to differentiate between subjective and objective, but until you can, threads like this will always wind you up the wrong way.
cheeseboy said:
Are you trying to be deliberately awkward or does it come naturally? BETTER AT REPRODUCING MUSIC
VOE goes to the doctor, he is feeling a bit poorly.
The doctor looks him up and down and says.
"You have cancer, come in tomorrow and I am going to start you on an aggresive course of chemotherapy".
You say.
"What, you just looked at me, aren't you going to do any proper tests"?
"Oh", says the doctor, "you want an objective opinion"?
(With apologies to anyone dealing with cancer, not nice, I've been there.)
The doctor looks him up and down and says.
"You have cancer, come in tomorrow and I am going to start you on an aggresive course of chemotherapy".
You say.
"What, you just looked at me, aren't you going to do any proper tests"?
"Oh", says the doctor, "you want an objective opinion"?
(With apologies to anyone dealing with cancer, not nice, I've been there.)
VOE said:
Natually I guess, but at least I can differentiate between subjective and objective without getting my nickers in a twist
(joke btw)Ok, so if everybody in the room says it's better at reporoducing music that's fine, still doesn't mean they are correct as you would have to have a frame of reference to compare it against.
However, you could say it's sounds better to you at reproducing music that the other stereo you have just listened to for example, but to say it's just better at reproducing music full stop would be folly unless you were the producer/artist.
Just to be clear *nobody* is trying to convince you that a digital source/system sounds better to you - nobody. So when you are defending the notion that vinyl is technically better than digital, and being wrong about it, it doesn't meant that people are trying to convince you that digital *will* sound better than vinyl. Please try and bear this in mind when replying.
VOE said:
May be this will help http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html
It mentions a professor who tests his students each year and finds an increasing number prefer the a compressed mp3 to higher quality recording. It is probably the same with vinyl - it is less like the original recording that a CD, but it does not mean that the listener cannot prefer it. So VOE, it is fine that you like your distorted recordings - many people do. Just don't think that makes them better in any objective sense and we will all be happy.
VOE said:
May be this will help http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html
It mentions a professor who tests his students each year and finds an increasing number prefer the a compressed mp3 to higher quality recording. It is probably the same with vinyl - it is less like the original recording that a CD, but it does not mean that the listener cannot prefer it. So VOE, it is fine that you like your distorted recordings - many people do. Just don't think that makes them better in any objective sense and we will all be happy.
Jota180 said:
This is surreal folks! You ask what "better" means in the context of a Hi-Fi forum where (presumably? I do wonder sometimes) the aim is to surely identify the kit which can extract the most information from the source (Lp, CD, digital file) as possible and reproduce it in the most authentic and natural sounding way ie. to convince the listener that the performer / artist might actually be there in the room with them.
So "better" could mean many things - the list below is hardly exhaustive:
Transparency - giving the illusion of closeness and real clarity
Weight - does the music sound light, weedy and thin or does it have impact. Does the bass go deep?
Definition - can all the background sound and instrumentation buried deep in a mix be heard equally clearly and with clearly defined "space" around it or is it murky?
Resolution - how long does cymbal decay last? How much detail in a voice / instrument can you hear?
The much touted "musicality" is a good example of something people talk about but it is not always simple to define - does the reproduced music sound like an electrical bit of kit recreating a copy of the music or does it really sound like a "live studio" performance? Does the whole sound image hang together or does it appear like a collection of disparate parts?
Anyone who believes any CD sounds more like real music than an Lp is....well......I'm speechless
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
How To How do I get my sound working through my DAC? Need some advice!- Started by Yoran
- Replies: 23
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram