Better is highly subjective. In a technical sense, yes digital audio performance...

zzalpha · on Jan 1, 2016

Interesting isn't it?

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.

ddingus · on Jan 1, 2016

Irrationally?

Who are you kidding?

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.