It's funny how on sites like HN, much of the herd will emote over how superior vacuum tube amps and vinyl records are "better" than current technology, despite the fact that science and math proves them wrong. It just goes to show that there will always be a subset of people in all fields, regardless of the level of technology or sophistication, that think they know better than science and math. It's as absurd as a surgeon who is a deep believer in astrology and who goes to visit psychics for life advice.
I actually lived through the vinyl era as well as ferric oxide and CrO2 cassettes, etc, and the advance from that to CDs you just can't even compare. If you say you prefer the sound of vinyl records with its pops and fading dynamic range, then that's your choice, but it's in no way superior to digital audio.
People like vinyl because of the whole experience. It is very ritualistic. It's a slow and mindful process. The large physical artwork, the imperfect "warm" sound, etc.
Mathematically perfect sound is not the goal for most. It's a certain aesthetic and state of mind.
If it's a preference, then that's perfectly reasonable as I already noted. People prefer Subway to French Laundry but you can't argue that Subway is "better".
And I believe you are wrong, in that most people, > 90% I would wager, WOULD prefer mathematically perfect sound quality. Are you too young to have witnessed how quickly records and cassettes died once CD technology became available to the masses? We went from always having to hear a humming from the background noise of the cassettes and records to almost perfect silence when the music wasn't playing. I wager most people if they listened to every single one of their songs played over record would prefer the sound quality that a CD brings to the table.
I don't think people so much prefer mathematically perfect sound quality; people want convenient music. MP3s are less than the "mathematically perfect" quality of CDs, but far more convenient. A few hundred bucks spent on quality speakers and the quality difference between an MP3 file and a CD/WAV/FLAC will start to become apparent. But quality speakers aren't anywhere nearly as convenient as earbuds.
Don't get me wrong, I love the bright sparkling highs and powerful rich lows a CD through a quality set of speakers can bring, which vinyl can't. But I can't take all my CDs and a pair of 3-way drivers and a subwoofer with me in my car, on the bus, on my bike, at work, while grocery shopping, etc. But I can conveniently achieve a reasonably good listening experience in those environments with my phone, a collection of MP3s and an aux cable or a pair of earbuds.
90% of people are not audiophiles. They just don't care that much about sound quality, as long as it's decent. Digital music sounds good, but it's also more convenient than records or cassettes or even CDs (who buys CDs anymore, for that matter?). Digital took over for that reason, mostly.
The people who claim that vinyl sounds better than digital are using systems that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They sound VERY good and even if digital is provably "better" it's not a degree of distinction that many people would care about.
Nobody claims that a $175 "turntable in a briefcase" from Urban Outfitters sounds better than digital music. Or if they do, they are deluded, I agree.
"Are you too young to have witnessed how quickly records and cassettes died once CD technology became available to the masses? We went from always having to hear a humming from the background noise of the cassettes and records to almost perfect silence when the music wasn't playing."
I did live through that transition. While I agree - then and now - that the sound quality was superior, it was the ability to random access songs on the album that excited me.
That was groundbreaking - it was incredible! Better sound quality was just a bonus ... any song on the album, right this second, without having to do anything!
Red book CD quality at 16/44.1 isn't 'mathematically perfect' at all anyway. The 22 khz Nyquist frequency is too close to the audio band, and there are unavoidable effects in the audio band of the 20 khz brick wall anti aliasing filtering needed.
It's not really like that. "Superior" is subjective when it comes to something like this. Yes you can look at the numbers for dynamic range and distortion if that's important to you, but generally what matters for the listener is what his or her ears like. And this is a matter of individual preference. Sound from analog recordings and vacuum tube amplifiers have different characteristics than digital and some people prefer that. They aren't denying any science.
In a technical sense, yes digital audio performance is on another level, when compared to vinyl. However, we did peak on analog capability in the 70s, and a good reel to reel, along with better tape used for master recordings does perform in a comparable way.
This isn't about the better sound technically.
This is all about sound we crave, and it turns out that humans often prefer less than perfect sound.
I was there too, and I have to tell you my vinyl and exotic oxide tapes sound great! I crave that sound, and I crave it because that sound made an impression on me.
I bought a stereo for the guys where I work. It was a spiff for a great year. I got them a late 70s era receiver, good speakers, and a nice turntable with a quality stylus.
There are now a couple hundred albums stored nearby, and that turntable gets as much use as the little audio cable I provided to work with phones, etc...
Interestingly, there is no interest in a CD! I mentioned one, and the receiver has the input, etc...
Nobody cares.
So, I came in last week during the end of year beer, pool and pizza party. They had it way up, nice full sound, with a Credence Clearwater Revival album on vinyl playing...
Perfect?
Technically, no way.
On a human satisfaction level?
Damn straight. Almost as good as it gets. Perfect would involve a sub. The speakers do fill the room, and are well matched to the receiver. But I did hear a bit of muddy bass that would clear right up at higher volume with a better speaker and a cross over to relieve the tower speakers a little. I'll be sure to get right on that. :)
That is why people persue audio gear like we see them so often do.
The guy I got the gear from runs a shop. Nothing newer than 1979 in that shop and he's been there for 30 years. Business has never been better. Secondly, the younger peeps in the building really appreciate the style and feel good, vintage audio gear can deliver.
When I got it all done, one guy said, "so that is a stereo... why don't they make 'em that way today?" Why indeed?
What? That folks are irrationally attracted to stuff from the "good ol days" back when they "made stuff right"?
No, not in the slightest.
That guy running that shop is making a mint on nostalgia, placebo effect, and confirmation bias.
And good for him, business is business.
But let's not pretend it has anything to do with even subjective sound quality. I guarantee you, with a double blind test, your colleagues would prefer a high quality digital sound reproduction. But because the turntable was a gift, and because the technology is suddenly in vogue, with a generation now venerating the technology of their parents, its no great surprise they gravitate to the turntable, not because it actually sounds better, but because there's an irrational emotional connection to it.
That guy in the shop is making a living on those things as well as high quality gear.
Again, it is sound people crave.
Take distortion and noise. People add those things to get sounds they like. Same with circuit benders, others.
To be clear, I'm not making an argument that analog means are superior to digital ones. In most cases, that is not true. I only say most, because some consumer grade digital is crap when compared to high grade analog, but I digress.
Better depends on the metric used to qualify better. That metric could be that kind of sound one identifies with as much as it can be technical performance of any kind.
Further, that simply is not irrational. People have reasons for their preferences. Those are true things by default.
If I were to tell you I prefer the side 2 extended mix of a given tune on vinyl, and I were to tell you I prefer it due to how it colors my impression of the piece as well as is resonant with fond memories I have associated with that sound, that's true.
You, quite frankly, have no meaningful rebuttal.
You could say you prefer that same mix remastered and issued on CD and you could tell me all sets of technical, production attributes that support your preference too.
Edit: a great example of this is "The Wall" which was released on CD, and later remastered on gold CD. The production differences between these two sets of recordings is very significant! The remaster is better on every single technical metric you can name. But if you A B test that one, you will find a lot of people prefer the original production values.
Both digital, both high quality, both well produced.
In any case, given a discussion of this kind, what have we learned?
We learned something about who we both are. The difference in technical performance is there and obvious.
But, a person just might not care about that as much as they do other things.
A similar thing plays out in markets all the time.
What is a thing worth?
It's worth what another person will pay for it, that's what.
When the seller has a different basis for value than the buyer has, they may not agree well enough to transact.
A great example of this would be Apple, and their asking price and value proposition simply not working for many people who value things differently than Apple does. They most often cite, "expensive, or not worth it" as reasons for not buying Apple products. My favorite is, "I wish Dell would make a nice computer like Apple does, so I could afford one..." Lots to discuss on that one.
In the case of sound, these guys brought in vinyl, and with that, culture, a scene, memories, and a sound they crave.
The guy who sold the stereo knows damn well that nice, peak 70s era unit will happily play a top end digital production with the best of them. He's selling that too, not just nostalgia, or style, though those are all per of the value perception he's hoping to cash in on.
That fully restored and warrantied gear isn't cheap. It's not cheap, because he put labor in to being it to its functional peak. Worth every penny too.
Unless one does not care, then it's too much money, right?
Right then.
You seem to frame is as some sort of crap, when the truth is, it isn't crap at all. Whether it is depends on what people value and why.
It is inadvisable to attempt to tell people they are irrational for seeking a listening experience they desire. It would be nice and simple to say the best tech always wins and that there is somehow an objective basis for all of that too.
There isn't. Never will be either. Humans are social creatures, and they are influenced by and bond with lots of things in lots of ways that form who they are and what they value.
Clearly you don't value things the same way I do, for example. That's OK too.
But as OK as it is, you are also going to have to accept that others can will and do value things differently, and will do so for reasons that are perfectly valid.
The world is not all hard science and logic. The grit of emotion and the color of character are always there.
Edit: Another great way to understand this is by looking at how final tracks are produced from the master recordings.
Technical limitations prevent simply mixing them all together. It results in a jumble, with subtle bits lost, while other bits are dominant, and out of place with the overall intent and feel of the tune.
A technically competent producer will insure all the important stuff is there and listenable on the final track. A great producer will go one step further, teasing out the feel, color, character, emotion, and other bits, often choosing emphasis on various elements that may or may not be technically, "the best" or "optimal."
Where there are limits, there is art. A really great analog recording is something, given the limits. It's art. And it's fun to experience. Same goes for a CD, but those limits are much greater. Takes a lot of the art away.
What do people do?
They hose it up, and they do it to make art, or win some subjective test. Wall of sound, vs quality production? Clipping to get a little louder, and add "grit" or whatever other BS they call clipping?
Those add up to more sales, sadly. Often, people will prefer the louder one.
So we take your test, and I get to process the analog sound a little. Bet you with some well thought out processing, I could get a lot of people to pick the technically "worse" track as their preference!
Remember that when you attempt to take the high ground on a "better" type dialog with someone who very clearly demonstrates different values from those you hold dear.
...and you might only hold them for a while. As a kid, through my early 30's, I could hear 22Khz. Heck, as a little kid, I could tune the vertical and horizontal hold just by listening to the noise made by the flyback transformer, and or tell you which button was pressed on the acoustic remote control.
Now, it's probably somewhere around 17Khz, with a little more rolloff each year. No worries. The good stuff is all under 10Khz, and for most of us, we will be well above that when we are old.
But, that perfect sound? Most people won't even be able to hear it. Or, if they expect it, at some point, the senses just won't deliver what the mind expects. You, yourself may not even be able to tell at some point in your future. Very few people can.
Enter the sound people crave! And that's how it can often happen, if by no other means. Given the effects of aging and our impressionable nature, LOUDER may score well on your preference tests, sourced from a high grade cassette!
You just watch your peer group. Track a couple younger ones and some older ones. Pay some attention to what they do listen to and why. You may find out they too don't care quite so much about perfection as much as they do the kind of sound they crave, or put another way, sounds good to them.
And yes, I've done this. Had an interest since I was a kid.
Or maybe it just shows that this is a very subjective matter. I can rationally know that digital is more precise, and at the same time like more the way tubes and other analog devices changes the sound.
It just goes to show that there will always be a subset of people in all fields, regardless of the level of technology or sophistication, that think they know better than science and math.
I'm convinced it can happen with anything, especially if it's something that judging the results is largely subjective ("sounds better to me"). Take another example that's completely unrelated: mandolins. Do they "open up" (IOW, sound better) by being played over a period of time? Many raging debates on the relevant forums, and there are even devices sold in front of which you place your instrument, and the device produces sound so that the instrument will open up without you even playing it! Old school wisdom was that you set your instrument in front of your stereo speakers and play music of the style you wish to play (wouldn't want to "open it up" with Celtic music if you're a bluegrass player!). Repeatedly do it overnight, much to the chagrin of anyone with whom you share the living space.
All of this is backed by sound science, of course. Oh, wait, no it's not. It's backed by philosophical arguments about how the skeptics can never prove that "opening up" isn't a thing. Not a single person to my knowledge has so much as recorded an instrument when new, then recorded it ten years later (and even that would be fraught when huge, uncontrollable variables). Because it's largely subjective anyway, and unlikely that any lab is going to take the time do blind tests, the debate will fill mandolin forums from now to the heat death of the universe. (Me, whether it's true or not, I think you better like the way an instrument sounds now before you buy it. And I do fall in the skeptical camp.)
One can see the phenomenon elsewhere, of course, with such things as holographic bracelets (a rehash of copper bracelets from the 70s) that are obviously complete bullshit, but are claimed to cure everything from the common cold to a soft penis. People will believe what they want to believe, and vendors will stand at the ready to profit from it.
I'm not seeing "the herd" express this vacuous sentiment.
Every time this topic comes up, plenty of people mention that digital is superior in an objective sense, and plenty of other people counter that the interest in vinyl isn't necessarily about that.
It's as much a meme that vinyl is "better" as it is that people think that other people think that it's "better" for stupid, non-scientific reasons.
There is one thing you can do with vinyls only: scratching. Yes, you can use timecode vinyls with some DJ software, but it's error prone and you experience latency issues.
CDs / tapes can't be scratched at all unless you load them in some form of RAM - and existing CD scratchers have a far smaller "disk" size and often next to zero resistance. It's just not the same.
> Yes, you can use timecode vinyls with some DJ software, but it's error prone and you experience latency issues.
This may have been true in 2008, but not now. I don't follow DMC closely, but as far as I remember, a lot of winning routines now actually use timecodes.
Mh, I was burned by the first wave of timecode stuff, it was 2009 iirc... nice to see that technology has advanced :)
But still, it (in my opinion) looks less professional if you work with a laptop instead of appearing with a suitcase of disks. Appearing with vinyls makes the audience believe that you as a DJ prepared for the event and selected music for them, a laptop feels like "meh I could do that shit when you give me ten beers and a line of coke"...
Audience listens to music. Carwfully prepared turntable routine is more important, and a lot of laptop tricks aren't reproducable on bare turntables anyway.
I agree that in terms of sound, digital is superior. But as the article describes there is very much a collectable "object appeal" to old media. Now that even CD's and their annoying jewel cases are becoming obsolete, there remains an attractiveness to vinyl for some folks that is unrelated to any technical characteristics (real or imagined).
Agree, although properly positioned monitor speakers which have been equalized by the listener for a particular spot in the room can sound really, REALLY nice (if you don't leave your listening chair !).
I think you're actually just suffering from the same problem you are complaining about, but your nostalgia is for the early digital era, instead of for the analog era. Everything published on CD for the last 20 years has been mastered by raging asshats. All of it sounds like shit, no matter how perfectly reproduced the shit-sound is when you play it back. Digital downloads and streaming services are even worse. Nearly all of them have audible watermarks applied.
I think people buy vinyl because there is some hope that the vinyl issues, even the new ones, were mixed and mastered by someone who cared about the result. It is more likely that you're going to hear something nice on vinyl.
I actually lived through the vinyl era as well as ferric oxide and CrO2 cassettes, etc, and the advance from that to CDs you just can't even compare. If you say you prefer the sound of vinyl records with its pops and fading dynamic range, then that's your choice, but it's in no way superior to digital audio.