HiFi

[Jack M]

I'm hearing a lot of subjective reasons why vinyl is better, which is cool.  I think it comes down to personal preference and whatever medium you grew up with.  My parents had a record player but not a great system, so I grew up mostly listening to shitty cassette tapes in my room, and then CDs.  CDs were a revelation for obvious reasons, and that's when I started to really pay attention to quality.  CDs and ditgital sound "normal" to me.  Vinyl is the "different" format to my ears.

I just don't buy it at all when someone says the sampling rate of CDs - 44,100 samples per second - can be heard or perceived.  Even if it can, that's been far surpassed by new high-resolution recordings.  Besides, vinyl has its own version of "sampling" in that it is just sharp peaks and valleys in the groove that vibrate the needle.  If you rotate a record very slowly you can hear them. 

I asked ChatGPT, "are vinyl records superior to compact discs in any objective way?" and the conclusion at the end of the lengthy discussion was a clear no.

[lordmetroland]

7 minutes ago, Jack M said:

I asked ChatGPT, "are vinyl records superior to compact discs in any objective way?" and the conclusion at the end of the lengthy discussion was a clear no.

I asked ChatGPT is this discussion was a "stupid and futile waste of time" and it cheerily and enthusiastically said, "no." So, by all means, carry on.

[Neil Gendzwill]

8 hours ago, Jack M said:

I just don't buy it at all when someone says the sampling rate of CDs - 44,100 samples per second - can be heard or perceived.  Even if it can, that's been far surpassed by new high-resolution recordings.  Besides, vinyl has its own version of "sampling" in that it is just sharp peaks and valleys in the groove that vibrate the needle.  If you rotate a record very slowly you can hear them. 

The peaks and valleys are not at all similar to sampling. And of course you can’t hear the samples, the signal to the speakers is analogue.  What you can hear with CDs is the quality of the recording and playback chain. In the early days of CDs it was bad on both ends. Nyquist says you can exactly reproduce up to 22 kHz with the CD standard. Of course Nyquist also requires an ideal low pass filter to do that which doesn’t exist. The filters they used on playback originally had significant roll off and caused pretty bad phase distortion in the high end. 

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sounds like a man who…wastes too much money on new snowboards….... 

Edited September 9 by ShortcutToMoncton

[Jack M]

I'm not sure how to express what I want to effectively, but I have seen people arguing in favor of vinyl saying that the digital sampling leads to degradation that they can hear.  They post pictures of a sine wave and a stepped wave and say "see? digital sounds worse because of this".  I call bs on that. 

The peaks and valleys and the vinyl itself are a simulation and approximation of the source "voice".  So is sampling.  I think it just comes down to which simulation you prefer.

[Corey]

Non-audiophile here with minor hearing loss: This topic begs for double blind testing. Can people actually perceive the differences that they claim to?  Prove it. 

Us humans are pretty darn good at convincing ourselves that the money we spent for something is DEFINITELY worth it. 

[Jack M]

20 hours ago, Corey said:

Non-audiophile here with minor hearing loss: This topic begs for double blind testing. Can people actually perceive the differences that they claim to?  Prove it. 

I see some such tests on youtube, but haven't watched any yet.  I want to go to my local hifi store and have them do this for me.  I saw them doing a vinyl demo for someone last time I was in there with some sweet gear, including massive Klipsch Cornwall speakers.  I bet they could easily do an A/B with a digital source.

20 hours ago, Corey said:

Us humans are pretty darn good at convincing ourselves that the money we spent for something is DEFINITELY worth it. 

And telling other people to buy the same thing in order to validate the money we blew spent on it!

Way back when I was working at that hifi store, a rep from one of our vendors put on this special after-hours event to demo their new high end power conditioner.  IIRC it cost like $4000.  We put a DVD (BlueRay didn't exist then) with a great music soundtrack on the Vidikron CRT projector with line doubler, Bryston amps, B&W speakers.  He played it first as-is and then with the power conditioner inserted.  There was -zero- difference.  But the rep swooned over it like the emperor with no clothes.  It was hilarious.  He offered a special discount for attendees.  Nobody bought one.

[Neil Gendzwill]

On 9/9/2024 at 9:45 AM, Jack M said:

They post pictures of a sine wave and a stepped wave and say "see? digital sounds worse because of this".  I call bs on that. 

Those are just people without the foggiest clue on how digital signal processing works. The output of a DAC is not a stepped wave. 

[skhil]

4 hours ago, Jack M said:

I bet they could easily do an A/B with a digital source.

Keep in mind that vinyl requires special mastering. Unless your digital track is ripped from vinyl one they should not sound the same. It's probably enough to decide which your like more, but the choice will be subjective.

Making a clean experiment is tricky and the setup will depend on the question you're trying to answer.

[Jack M]

If they can plug a turntable and a CD player or high-res streamer into the same high quality amp and speakers, put the same album on each, and switch between the two sources, I'd be satisfied.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

It’s harder than that. The mastering issues mean that the same album can sound different enough to make it almost impossible to assess differences in sound quality. Secondly, you’d also need to volume match between albums: a super small difference in volume levels will also throw off your ability to compare. 

I still feel that sound quality is a moot point here. It’s the experience. There’s no reason why vinyl would sound better than a high quality CD, hi res or digital file. But flipping through your records, pulling one one, lining up the needle and sitting back to listen to that music? I’ll take that over scrolling and clicking in your phone any day the week. 

[philw]

I've zero interest in persuading anyone else to like what I like, but I'm some experience in this area. My degree did cover signal processing in some depth, but I don't think that's remotely relevant other than debunking particularly unscientific logic.

I was once assured by some salesman that a "Naim" branded USB stick would make for better sound than a generic USB stick. So there's that.

[quote]It’s harder than that[/quote]It is.

I once sat in a "single speaker demo" - the only ones that count - which was I think a Linn Sondek with some other British toys. We listened to what was then the standard reference source LP, which everyone knew well. It sounded great. He took that pair of speakers away, and replaced it with some other speakers, all horrendously expensive. It sounded different.

Then he brought in the smallest speaker they had - a Linn Kan, so you can date it! - and it sounded different. With closed eyes, we tried to guess if the Kan was on its back or standing upright. The speaker is tiny, but different orientations were noticeably different: we could tell the difference. But which was better?

The problem was - and is - I can hear the differences, but I can't say which I like best. In fact I pretty much don't care. It's the same as wine over a certain price. It all tastes great, and it all tastes different, but one taste isn't "better" than another; I do not have that level of preference.

Which brings me to my algorithm for hi-fi selection.

1. Decide how much you want to spend
2. Listen to a few bits and pieces which cost that much
3. Pick one.
4. Forget it.

I'm a Linn Selekt [single box UK streamer] person at the moment.

I find the fashion for vinyl amusing but inevitable. I always hated it, and probably should sell my collection whilst the going's good. My teenage rock star pal has be helping to distribute vinyl to trendy record shops here selling.. the same LPs I have up in the attic. Ha ha.

The same thing happened with photography and film.

One day people may decide that skinny skis are cool again. Burton already sells "throwback" style snowboards, and car manufacturers are producing electric versions of "classic" motors (actually those are different: I may be interested in an electric Dino).

[Jack M]

Agreed all around, @philw.

2 hours ago, philw said:

The same thing happened with photography and film.

Kind of.  Digital is superior in every measurable way.  But sometimes film looks better for certain shots.

 

On 9/11/2024 at 8:36 PM, ShortcutToMoncton said:

It’s harder than that

I know, but that's the extent of my interest in this comparison.

 

On 9/11/2024 at 8:36 PM, ShortcutToMoncton said:

But flipping through your records, pulling one out, lining up the needle and sitting back to listen to that music? I’ll take that over scrolling and clicking in your phone any day the week. 

The problem with that is there are very few albums that I like all the way through.  I almost always skip a few songs.  That's a nerve-wracking test of fine motor skills with vinyl.  And you have to get off your ass!

[MNSurfer]

Lurking, but I love this thread!

Audiophilia is mostly psychological. Hence why hifi enthusiasts are reluctant to perform blind or double-blind listening tests. I've found that if I listen to something, be it a (similar) loudspeaker or component, after a day or two, I couldn't tell you the difference I was trying to hear.

Honestly, the best piece of gear I've had in years, is a Puffin phono preamp. Total game-changer. I know, it's not pure analog, but what a difference it can make if you're vinyl isn't A+ quality. 

That's my two cents. Carry on.

Now excuse me as I go buy a new, audiophile-grade network switch... 

Edited Friday at 03:27 PM by MNSurfer

[Neil Gendzwill]

Audiophile network switch? Is there really such a thing? An uncompressed CD stream is very low bandwidth by modern standards, why would you need special gear?

[Jack M]

Oh...  I happened to take a look at our cell phone plan and realized I could lower it by $35 a month.  So I'm rewarding myself with an $11/mo single Tidal subscription.  HEOS plays Tidal natively, and Tidal has switched to FLAC, so now I can get rid of Qobuz and sell the streamer I bought to access it since HEOS doesn't support it.  At the time I bought the streamer, Tidal was on MQA and that would have been uncivilized.  I can also get rid of Plex.  I also learned my amp has a USB port, so I could load a stick with my local files and play them through the HEOS app if I wanted.  But no need with Tidal.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I didn’t enjoy Tidal because of all the variations of albums. It found it kind of silly. Curious to hear if they’ve fixed that.

[st_lupo]

14 hours ago, Neil Gendzwill said:

Audiophile network switch? Is there really such a thing? An uncompressed CD stream is very low bandwidth by modern standards, why would you need special gear?

I’ve seen audiophile network cables at a local hifi store once!

[MNSurfer]

I know, @st_lupo! That and "audiophile grade" USB cables. Must make the 1's and 0's sound more... Onesey and Zeroey.

[Jack M]

On 9/13/2024 at 9:53 PM, ShortcutToMoncton said:

I didn’t enjoy Tidal because of all the variations of albums. It found it kind of silly. Curious to hear if they’ve fixed that.

I haven’t explored much but it seems like that is still the case. Oh well, Spotify will probably continue to be my tool for casual listening and discovery.  I have to keep it because of the family plan. 

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, that really annoyed me.

On the bright side, you can now do a direct Spotify to hi-res Tidal comparison and see if there’s any difference….. 

[Jack M]

5 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

Yeah, that really annoyed me.

It looks like some albums appear twice and one is in "high" quality (CD) and one is in "max" quality (high-res).  Silly that there is not a global setting that will hide one or the other.

5 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

On the bright side, you can now do a direct Spotify to hi-res Tidal comparison and see if there’s any difference

I have.  There's a noticeable difference, but I have to be paying attention.  The difference is bigger with some albums more than others.  Spotify on high quality (320 kbps) is good enough for casual purposes like entertaining, doing chores, background music, etc.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhhh, I forgot Spotify was only 320 — was thinking it was 16/44. 

Yes, if I remember correctly I think Tidal also used to have different remaster versions too on some albums. Like you said, a global or preference setting makes sense because it was just a very messy experience. 

[Jack M]

Yeah Spotify promised like 3 years ago that a 16/44 tier was coming, but they have been dragging ass.

Tidal, I dunno, it's not a huge deal really, imo, but it is silly.  The UI is otherwise so much like Spotify just with different colors, so I'm already used to it.  Another issue that I think is a bigger deal is: search for an artist with a big catalog, scroll down to albums, click "view all".  You're not going to see all.  Click an album, scroll down past the songs to "more albums by <artist>".  Click that, and you'll see many more albums.  I sent them feedback about both issues.

Tidal should thank Denon/Marantz for HEOS not supporting Qobuz or Apple Music. 

 

[Jack M]

16 hours ago, Jack M said:

The difference is bigger with some albums more than others.

One that is really obvious to me is Seal, 1991.

 

4 hours ago, Jack M said:

Apple Music

Speaking of Apple Music, I demo'd it for a day and could find no way to stream it at full resolution.  Neither HEOS nor my particular external streamer (Cambridge MX10) support it, and maddeningly, the AppleTV 4K is limited to 16/44.  Whether I can hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/192 or not is entirely beside the point, I want all the data I'm paying for, dammit! 

WTH?