How would you reply to this quote about LPs?

[Rspaight]

PLEASE buy an original mint copy of Tommy

As always, you have to invest heavily to appreciate these differences. And after you blow major coin on a mint first pressing of Tommy, naturally your brain is going to desperately want it to be "better" than a $5 CD out of the used bin.

And even if it was "better," that says nothing about the LP format and the CD format. It just means that you like the sound of one LP, played through a particular set of equipment, better than the sound of one CD.

More importantly, it also says nothing about which format is actually presenting the source material more accurately. Just which version you like more.

Ryan

[Dob]

For that matter, sound is not infinite. It is a vibration with measurable frequency and amplitude characteristics.

I think the argument is that a complex audio/music waveform (as opposed to a pure, steady tone), especially in the case of higher frequencies, cannot be properly reproduced with just a few samples. In other words, music is not composed of a set of simple sinusoidal curves that can be described in terms of frequency and amplitude. That is contrary to one of the fundamental assumptions of Nyquist/redbook, as I understand it.

The really intense pro-vinyl arguments oftentimes have pseudo-mystical overtones.

"Oh, your silly facts have nothing on my assertion that the sound will LITERALLY GRAB YOU BY THE HEAD AND SMACK YOU AROUND YOU HAIRY HOOKER when you play an A1 Steak Sauce pressing." It starts like an argument, and ends like a devotional.

Since music appreciation itself is an emotional experience, and since arguments about bands and songs are inherently unscientific, it's not surprising that some music fans get carried away and start ascribing mystical qualities to their hifi.

I have no issues with that...as long as they don't start using pseudo-science to "prove" something. Namely, that their ears are better than yours and that their opinions are more authoritative than yours.

And after you blow major coin on a mint first pressing of Tommy, naturally your brain is going to desperately want it to be "better" than a $5 CD out of the used bin.

It's amazing how many audiophiles get offended by the suggestion that they are susceptible to the placebo effect. As if placebos only work on weak minded individuals or something.

And even if it was "better," that says nothing about the LP format and the CD format. It just means that you like the sound of one LP, played through a particular set of equipment, better than the sound of one CD.

Amen.

[Xenu]

Since music appreciation itself is an emotional experience, and since arguments about bands and songs are inherently unscientific, it's not surprising that some music fans get carried away and start ascribing mystical qualities to their hifi.

Well, sure, but if you're going to take the next departing train to hyperboletown, make sure not to describe whatever incredible emotion you're feeling from your first pressing "Deja Vu" as being "literal."

See example above.

[Andreas]

There is something hypocritical in these arguments.

On the one hand, vinyl lovers always talk about subjective experiences, warmth, the needle grooving, the smell of an LP, etc. In other words, they emphasize the emotional part of listening to music. They will tell you that scientific measurements are meaningless when it comes to music. Which is something I accept. Whatever you prefer and makes you happy, enjoy it!

But on the other hand, some of those vinyl snobs come up with (pseudo-)scientific explanations why an LP is objectively superior to a CD. Suddenly, scientific arguments ("infinite resolution", "no frequency limiting") seem to be more important than subjective impressions.

You can't have it both ways.

That is the point that makes me angry, but when I try to explain this point, people always assume that I want to tell them that CDs are better than LPs.

[Rspaight]

Yeah, that's pretty much the thing. I can respect the argument that says, "I don't care what the numbers say. I enjoy the sound of vinyl." Nothing wrong with that at all. And there are plenty of CDs that, to me at least, sound inferior to certain vinyl pressings. (Abbey Road, I'm looking at you.) I'm not saying the vinyl is more *accurate* in these cases, just that I subjectively enjoy the way it sounds.

But all this talk about digital's "missing information" and vinyl's ultra-audible voodoo wangdang is a bit much.

Ryan

[krabapple]

Or you could just get metaphysical, and ask how you can fit an infinite amount of information on a 12" plastic disc.

Well, he'd probably concede that you can't fit an infinite amount of information on an LP. But if he thought about it, he might be forced to admit that is indeed the case...not only that, but that even an infinitesimally small fraction of the LP contains infinite information.

He probably reasons that even one waveform from the LP would need an infinite amount of digital sampling (information) to reproduce with perfect accuracy. Going even further, he could apply that logic to the tiniest fraction of the waveform -- a millionth of a second, for instance. A continuous curve, no matter how short, has an infinite amount of points defining it. To reproduce it perfectly, you need an infinite amount of points.

Except that, of course, you *don't* need an infinte amount of points to define a wave. Another reference to Shannon/Nyquist would appear to be in order. This is a *fundamental* point in information and signal processing. It is also counterintuitive.

[krabapple]

There is something hypocritical in these arguments.

On the one hand, vinyl lovers always talk about subjective experiences, warmth, the needle grooving, the smell of an LP, etc. In other words, they emphasize the emotional part of listening to music. They will tell you that scientific measurements are meaningless when it comes to music. Which is something I accept. Whatever you prefer and makes you happy, enjoy it!

But on the other hand, some of those vinyl snobs come up with (pseudo-)scientific explanations why an LP is objectively superior to a CD. Suddenly, scientific arguments ("infinite resolution", "no frequency limiting") seem to be more important than subjective impressions.

You can't have it both ways.

Visit some of the creationist/science debates, you'll see this phenomenon in spades.

[Rspaight]

Visit some of the creationist/science debates, you'll see this phenomenon in spades.

Oh, shit.

<ducks and runs>

Ryan

[krabapple]

"Tommy" and the entire Zeppelin catalog sound better on beat up vinyl that skips. There is no question there; I'm sorry- I just don't understand how this can be an argument at any point. Anyone who owns "Tommy" on Decca or even later period MCA (I have both, actually) can hear the difference. Turn it up loud. It isn't just about the mastering; it's about needle to groove and how a record player amplifies the sound. Is your record player going through the same speakers as your cd player? Mine are it's staggering.

Good lord. The confusion of fact and opinion here is simply staggering. I didn't know record players had amps built into them.

[Ess Ay Cee Dee]

I didn't know record players had amps built into them.

He must have one of these babies...



Paul Reilly, I don't know who the fuck you are, but you ROCK!

[Dob]

Except that, of course, you *don't* need an infinte amount of points to define a wave.

One analogy I read is that a circle can be fully defined by three points (or two, if one point is designated as the center). Similarly, more complex curves, such as parabolas and hyperbolas, can be fully defined with just a few points and a generic equation.

It is also counterintuitive.

IMO, that's a big stumbling block...but an even bigger one is the denial of the validity of a blind test.

I thought I could hear the difference between wav files and mp3s, but since you sent me those test CD-Rs, I have to admit I can't reliably tell the difference. Even if I could (it seems I was doing great at the beginning), I had to listen so closely that I'd have to agree that, for all but the most critical listening (and maybe not even then) there is no difference.

Still, my music collection is in wav format, not mp3s...I guess it makes me feel better to know I'm listening to the full, glorious sound spectrum of wav files.

Oh, shit. <ducks and runs>

Eh, I've had my say (and then some). But I'm always up for another discussion about Enoch Powell.

[krabapple]

I thought I could hear the difference between wav files and mp3s, but since you sent me those test CD-Rs, I have to admit I can't reliably tell the difference. Even if I could (it seems I was doing great at the beginning), I had to listen so closely that I'd have to agree that, for all but the most critical listening (and maybe not even then) there is no difference.

Keeping in mind that it's codec-dependent, setting, dependent, and it's also a matter of the material encoded. None of the music I used as test material was considered 'difficult' to encode, as far as i know; codec developers though have a set of tough samples that can trip up even some very good codecs. But from my experinece (which is like yours), I wouldn't worry too much about differences betweem a well-done MP3 and its source. I only worry about the dead-end nature of MP3s -- you can't do much with them after they're MP3. It's not an archival format. So in the end I decided to archive all my music collection in lossless FLAC form, which is easily interconvertible to MP3 or .wav, and more space-saving than .wav.

Oh, shit. <ducks and runs>

Eh, I've had my say (and then some). But I'm always up for another discussion about Enoch Powell.

GWB just weighed in 'the controversy' yesterday...using rhetoric that's right out of the Discovery Institute's 'wedge strategy' playlist. WHoever is Bush's science adviser these days should either speak out, or resign, if he or she has any integrity.

[lukpac]

"Tommy" and the entire Zeppelin catalog sound better on beat up vinyl that skips. There is no question there; I'm sorry- I just don't understand how this can be an argument at any point. Anyone who owns "Tommy" on Decca or even later period MCA (I have both, actually) can hear the difference. Turn it up loud. It isn't just about the mastering; it's about needle to groove and how a record player amplifies the sound. Is your record player going through the same speakers as your cd player? Mine are it's staggering.

Good lord. The confusion of fact and opinion here is simply staggering. I didn't know record players had amps built into them.

That's odd...for some reason the "Notify me when a reply is posted" didn't work that time...

As I said there, it seems clear to me this guy must have something seriously wrong with his CD player to talk like that.

[lukpac]

PLEASE buy an original mint copy of Tommy

As always, you have to invest heavily to appreciate these differences. And after you blow major coin on a mint first pressing of Tommy, naturally your brain is going to desperately want it to be "better" than a $5 CD out of the used bin.

Except you don't!

"Tommy" and the entire Zeppelin catalog sound better on beat up vinyl that skips. There is no question there; I'm sorry- I just don't understand how this can be an argument at any point. Anyone who owns "Tommy" on Decca or even later period MCA (I have both, actually) can hear the difference. Turn it up loud. It isn't just about the mastering; it's about needle to groove and how a record player amplifies the sound. Is your record player going through the same speakers as your cd player? Mine are it's staggering.

But...

It's not the issue of the CDs sounding worse and I only have the 1995 single disc.

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

I'd go with Ryan's and Dob's response. That is to say, if "analog is better because it has an infinite sampling rate", then surely *any* analog source will be better than digital. Have him switch to Edison cylinders.

http://www.audaud.com/audaud/NOV04/news/newsnov10.html

Edison Cylinders for the 21st Century - Shawn Bori has reopened Thomas Edison’s original l888 company, North American Phonograph, as a wax-cylinder-recording studio. He records tracks first on the wax cylinder, and then transfers them digitally using a state-of-the-art digital cylinder recorder called the Archeopone. Bori has been fascinated with wax cylinders since a child, and says it gives a presence to the recording that no other method can duplicate.

Pour écouter

See? I told you guys a long time ago that the Archeophone was going to kick the audio world's ass (and give its aural reverberations more presence).

So who's laughing now (besides the Archeophone people all the way to the bank)?