The Observer view on the vinyl revival: LPs are the antidote to a frenetic digital world

[Waxx]

I am certain that if I did a survey of audiophiles who own a vinyl system, I would find two types - your traditional "high end" audiophile with expensive and exotic turntables. The intention is "ultimate fidelity". And hipsters with much cheaper turntables and poorly thought out systems. The intention is to "look cool". I am not sure which group to laugh at more.

That is a very narrowminded and cliché view on "the vinyl fan".

I don't belong to any of these categories, and so don't most of my friends who love vinyl. I'm not a hipster at all (altough i have a beard, but from long before it was hip (about 30 years now), nor do i live in an inner city hipster neighbourhood, i live in an old farm in the remote countryside. And the only bike i own is a old MTB. I'm more an old punk/weirdo/nerd type of guy that collects vinyl since the 1990's.

Most of my friends who love vinyl are music freaks who have a (pair of) Technics SL1200 or other direct drive technics as turntable, and some mediocer hifi system that fits their needs, and many use diy (or partly diy) systems or cheaper studio monitors as hifi system. And almost all have huge vinyl collections that they build up by collecting vinyl for decades (from long before it was hip again) and rather spend their sparse money on that than on a fixie (ao hipster things) or an audiophool system. Many of them are or were musicians or (vinyl) dj's. So was i, i was a dj for about 20 years, and played with vinyl only for about 15 years of it. It's only in the last 5 years that cd players were good enough to work for me. Now i'm kind of retired as dj for a bit less than a decade...

 

[MattHooper]

I am certain that if I did a survey of audiophiles who own a vinyl system, I would find two types - your traditional "high end" audiophile with expensive and exotic turntables. The intention is "ultimate fidelity". And hipsters with much cheaper turntables and poorly thought out systems. The intention is to "look cool". I am not sure which group to laugh at more.

Although I joked in my earlier reply, that is not at all an accurate assessment of the options. It's the type of cynical assessment born, I think, of not really being familiar with
vinyl communities.

Peruse a vinyl community like that found on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/vinyl/

And you'll see the actual range of vinyl enthusiasts. Very few expensive and exotic turntables (though some - it's a wide community), and a wide range of system set ups, many of them in the "middle" of your characterization - decent turntables, speakers etc. Sure an ASR member may look down his nose and declare "poorly thought out system" for many of them. But that type of snobbishness isn't terribly becoming. And it's very clear, to any honest onlooker, that there is genuine enthusiasm for listening to vinyl - that most aren't just doing it to "look cool." (That's also true if you were familiar with the huge amount of vinyl channels and comments on youtube).

Now, someone could look at these communities and brush them off as "hipsters trying to look cool." But that cynical, facile take would, I think, say more about the person taking such a dismissive attitude, than it would about the actual communities.

 

[Anton D]

Although I joked in my earlier reply, that is not at all an accurate assessment of the options. It's the type of cynical assessment born, I think, of not really being familiar with
vinyl communities.

Peruse a vinyl community like that found on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/vinyl/

And you'll see the actual range of vinyl enthusiasts. Very few expensive and exotic turntables (though some - it's a wide community), and a wide range of system set ups, many of them in the "middle" of your characterization - decent turntables, speakers etc. Sure an ASR member may look down his nose and declare "poorly thought out system" for many of them. But that type of snobbishness isn't terribly becoming. And it's very clear, to any honest onlooker, that there is genuine enthusiasm for listening to vinyl - that most aren't just doing it to "look cool." (That's also true if you were familiar with the huge amount of vinyl channels and comments on youtube).

Now, someone could look at these communities and brush them off as "hipsters trying to look cook." But that cynical, facile take would, I think, say more about the person taking such a dismissive attitude, than it would about the actual communities.

That's too much work.

 

[krabapple]

Your quip “groove noise, crosstalk, imperfect pitch stability, add ‘em all. Vinylphiles love ‘em” has no foundation or support by any studies, surveys or any other verifiable information. As such it was quite worthy of my quip “Cross talk should be quite popular on ASR”

If you say so.

While I side with other experts such as James D Johnston and Ethan Winer over Dr. Toole on the subject of early room reflections I hold no grudge against Dr. Toole. I do have an opinion or two about the small tribe of nearly cult like followers he has.

Ethan, god bless him, is not at the same expert level as JJ and Toole. Then again, I suspect you, like many, misperceive/misrepresent Toole's actual stance on that subject. Perhaps you should refer to the figures in his book depicting.....room treatment options (absorption and/or diffusion) for a home theater.

As for Dr. Choueiri being president of the company you seem to have failed to point out Dr. Toole’s business interests in HK.

Laughable comparison. HK was never Toole's company, he was an esteemed employee -- and he's been retired from it for many years now.

If you really want to have an honest discussion about why vinylphiles like the sound of vinyl it should at least begin with an honest look at their claims and some actual listening tests to investigate those claims. Your quip is a non starter for any such conversation as it is really nothing more than a tribalistic ad hominem argument with zero objective support. James D Johnston has, in the past, discussed a few measurable distortions inherent in vinyl and posed very plausible reasons why those specific distortions might be preferred by certain listeners. *That* list of distortions would be worthy of an honest discussion and their psychoacoustic effects as well.

I'm quite aware of JJ's posts on the euphonic distortions of vinyl, thanks. I doubt it's his preferred format, though.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

If you say so.



Ethan, god bless him, is not at the same expert level as JJ and Toole. Then again, I suspect you, like many, misperceive/misrepresent Toole's actual stance on that subject. Perhaps you should refer to the figures in his book depicting.....room treatment options (absorption and/or diffusion) for a home theater.



Laughable comparison. HK was never Toole's company, he was an esteemed employee -- and he's been retired from it for many years now.




I'm quite aware of JJ's posts on the euphonic distortions of vinyl, thanks. I doubt it's his preferred format, though.

Suspect whatever you want. Or talk directly to JJ. He will tell you straight up he disagrees with Dr. Toole on room reflections and considers any sound added by the room to the playback to be a detriment to the quality of the sound.


The comparison between Dr. Toole’s and Dr. Choueiri’s financial interests in their research is hardly laughable. Both Dr. Toole and Dr. Choueiri have or had a financial interest in their respective companies. If either one had a greater financial personal stake it was Dr. Toole. 3D audio is essentially Dr. Choueiri’s side gig not his primary source of income. *You* made the inference that Dr. Choueiri’s financial interest was an issue. Not me. Now you want to play double standards. If it’s an issue then it’s an issue for both of them. You can pretend it wasn’t a reality but Dr. Toole’s research was motivated by commercial interests of HK to sell speakers to the widest consumer base they could reach.

If you are quite aware of JJ’s posts on euphonic colorations then you should know better than to post misrepresentations of why some people like the sound of vinyl and ignore his quite valid research based opinions on the subject. Such cynical posts are non starters for any real discussions. Hence my quip in response to your quip.

 

[jsrtheta]

My pet theory remains: people like the groove noise.

There are people who like the sound of fingernails on blackboards.

 

[jsrtheta]

Everyone knows that cold petroleum products can’t match the warmth of a wax cylinder.

The late Clark Johnsen thought 78s were the pinnacle of perfection.

Don't be like Clark Johnsen.

 

[jsrtheta]

...Starting play of a quiet record yields an ineffable but unmistakable sense of space opening up in the listening room as that background noise is transduced.

That said, I mean, all y'all digital guys added dither to music data a long time ago, right?

Funny, I get the sense of enjoyment flying out the window.

And the audibility of surface noise is far greater than that of dither.

This is why I got rid of all my vinyl when CD came out. There was no excuse any longer to suffer crap sound.

 

[Overseas]

I do analog wood based heating for counterattacking the digital world, as for music I stream and collect CDs, usually CDs sound better. No need to go into vinyl.

 

[aagstn]

And you'll see the actual range of vinyl enthusiasts.

I don't know any one that does it to be cool and I'm too old to know why the young got into it. Everyone I know with records now, had them in the 80's. We all stopped because CDs solved all the issues with that format and had amazing dynamic range. For some reason CD mastering in the late 90's and 2000's starting pushing down that dynamic range more and more. To my ears modern streaming and CDs are very harsh sounding. All volume and no dynamic range. Yes, I can turn them down compared to my 80's and early 90's CDs but they still don't sound good to me.

A friend of mine asked a few years ago if I had listened to records again. I thought he meant my old ones but he was talking about new records. So over time I picked up vinyl record versions of albums from the 2000's from bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Black Keys, and Queens of the Stone Age to name a few and to my ears the dynamic range was back and made up for the negatives of vinyl. It also had a second effect. It got me interested in my old records and tapes. For the first time in over a decade I hooked back up a tape deck along with a turntable and just listened to all my music for the fun of it.

I totally understand people that just want the best sound and find it with CD or Hi Res digital files. I have enjoyed the compromise of records at least in some instances and overall I'm just having fun revisiting my records, tapes, and CDs. Some I have owned for nearly 50 years.

 

[aagstn]

Funny, I get the sense of enjoyment flying out the window.

And the audibility of surface noise is far greater than that of dither.

This is why I got rid of all my vinyl when CD came out. There was no excuse any longer to suffer crap sound.

Surface noise will always be the biggest problem with vinyl and it is worse with some modern vinyl. I have many records from the 80's that I have played 50+ times that sound better than many of the records they make now when it comes to surface noise. I have accepted this surface noise trade off when I have decided to buy a record for a particular album but understand why people don't like it. Getting away from it was the whole reason many of us switched to CDs in the 80s.

 

[mhardy6647]

I do analog wood based heating for counterattacking the digital world, as for music I stream and collect CDs, usually CDs sound better. No need to go into vinyl.

ahh, those warm infrared photons -- can't be beat!

 

[MattHooper]

To my ears modern streaming and CDs are very harsh sounding. All volume and no dynamic range. Yes, I can turn them down compared to my 80's and early 90's CDs but they still don't sound good to me.

My hunch is such impressions can have something to do with the variations in vinyl playback - differences in cartridges, set up etc.

I know vinyl has this reputation for "warm" sound, but I find if anything digital tends to sound smoother in various set ups. I've heard vinyl often sound more vivid, forward, which can border on brightness relative to the digital versions (which I attribute mostly to the probable frequency curve of the cartridge, or how its been set up).

On my system, I find both sources sound smooth and easy to listen to, but I would put the vinyl as generally more "forward" in sound, the digital a little more laid back and smoother.

 

[aagstn]

My hunch is such impressions can have something to do with the variations in vinyl playback - differences in cartridges, set up etc.

This is certainly possible. It is always hard to explain why something sounds good or bad to my ears.

I really feel though that the biggest difference I'm hearing for many of these is in the mastering. The vinyl is being mastered differently. The digital and CD version is the standard loud and compressed mastering that became standard in the 2000s and the record is being mastered the old way with more dynamic range. I think the limitations of the format might even force this to be done.

Is the trade off worth it to deal with surface noise? Not on every record I've bought but on enough for me to stick with it for the few new releases I buy. It is more than just the CDs being louder now. I can just turn them down to 80s CD levels but that doesn't fix it for me.

 

[Robin L]

My hunch is such impressions can have something to do with the variations in vinyl playback - differences in cartridges, set up etc.

My guess is that phono preamps make a huge difference. I had a Scott 229B for a few years until it pooped out. It had the least surface noise of any amplifier I used, sounded particularly good with gray label Capitol issues and early Angel releases. Had another stereo at the same time with the same cartridge but a solid-state receiver and that had lots more surface noise. The Scott 299B was a one trick pony. Would not interface with anything solid state. Trying to use the tape output would reduce bass, CD players would overload it. But it had a remarkable sound with vintage vinyl.

 

[JeffS7444]

If nothing else, vinyl playback does encourage a person to sit quietly and just listen for awhile. Seems simple, yet I imagine that more than a few people struggle to uni-task.

 

[Robin L]

If nothing else, vinyl playback does encourage a person to sit quietly and just listen for awhile. Seems simple, yet I imagine that more than a few people struggle to uni-task.

I usually was reading when I listened to music via LPs, now do the same with CDs. As most of what I listen to these days is classical I'm going to be listening to whole CDs. But I don't see the sin in reading while listening to music.

 

[MattHooper]

My guess is that phono preamps make a huge difference. I had a Scott 229B for a few years until it pooped out. It had the least surface noise of any amplifier I used, sounded particularly good with gray label Capitol issues and early Angel releases. Had another stereo at the same time with the same cartridge but a solid-state receiver and that had lots more surface noise. The Scott 299B was a one trick pony. Would not interface with anything solid state. Trying to use the tape output would reduce bass, CD players would overload it. But it had a remarkable sound with vintage vinyl.

Interesting. I had (and still have) little experience with differing phono preamps. I had a very cheap Bryston phono stage with my previous turntable and sold it with the turntable. Simply being an audio nut I got a phono stage that my turntable guru pal recommended since he's had plenty in his system (JE Audio HP10). One reason I got it was that it allowed all the settings (impedance etc) easily available on the front panel. Didn't think much about it beyond that. Then at one point I was tracing some distortion problems, wondered if it could be the phono stage, bought a cheap solid state amazon phono stage and swapped it in. After a couple weeks I was thinking "man, this actually sounds really good too, and it's so bloody cheap!" But when I put the JE phono stage back in I was taken aback. It really seemed to jump in some aspects, like the sound was more solid and powerful, made the other one sound a bit "weak" and tepid. I dunno enough to make any assesment beyond that.

 

[Robin L]

Interesting. I had (and still have) little experience with differing phono preamps. I had a very cheap Bryston phono stage with my previous turntable and sold it with the turntable. Simply being an audio nut I got a phono stage that my turntable guru pal recommended since he's had plenty in his system (JE Audio HP10). One reason I got it was that it allowed all the settings (impedance etc) easily available on the front panel. Didn't think much about it beyond that. Then at one point I was tracing some distortion problems, wondered if it could be the phono stage, bought a cheap solid state amazon phono stage and swapped it in. After a couple weeks I was thinking "man, this actually sounds really good too, and it's so bloody cheap!" But when I put the JE phono stage back in I was taken aback. It really seemed to jump in some aspects, like the sound was more solid and powerful, made the other one sound a bit "weak" and tepid. I dunno enough to make any assesment beyond that.

My understanding is that the overload margin for the input to the phono stage is a significant factor. When it clips early, surface noise increases.

Amirm touches on that variable in this review:

Schiit Skoll Balanced Phono Stage Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Schiit Skoll balanced phono preamplifier. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $399. Touch controls select everything from loading of the input (resistance and capacitance) to input type (RCA or XLR), gain and filtering. A remote...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[JP]

That’s one approach, but as the data is already lost, fast recovery can work as well as high headroom.