11 ms·

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

by steven2012 11y ago

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.

karmapolice 11y ago
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.
have_faith 11y ago
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.
- steven2012 11y ago
  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.
  - korethr 11y ago
    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.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    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.
  - rsync 11y ago
    "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!
- rdale 11y ago
  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.
mschuster91 11y ago
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.
- leviathant 11y ago
  >tapes can't be scratched at all unless you load them in some form of RAM Unless you're Mr. Tape, of course. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xuy0GAsnNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xuy0GAsnNQ
- golergka 11y ago
  > 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.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    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"...
    - golergka 11y ago
      Audience listens to music. Carwfully prepared turntable routine is more important, and a lot of laptop tricks aren't reproducable on bare turntables anyway.
golergka 11y ago
And in 99% of cases, the weakest spot in sound chain is the room anyway.
- copperx 11y ago
  Many audiophiles use headphones for this reason.
  - golergka 11y ago
    Many audiophiles and audio professionals have hearing damage for this reason.
- angdis 11y ago
  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 !).
  - golergka 11y ago
    Yeah, but what about all the reflections that are bound to happen in untreated room?
    - ddingus 11y ago
      They get ignored mostly. If the intent is pro grade, treat the room. Otherwise, that is what the sweet listening spot is all about.
ams6110 11y ago
think they know better than science and math 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.
angdis 11y ago
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).
ddingus 11y ago
Better is highly subjective. 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? Interesting isn't it?
- zzalpha 11y ago
  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.
mikestew 11y ago
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.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cname 11y ago
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.
thrownaway2424 11y ago
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.

karmapolice 11y ago

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.

have_faith 11y ago

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.

steven2012 11y ago
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.
- korethr 11y ago
  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.
- ams6110 11y ago
  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.
- rsync 11y ago
  "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!
rdale 11y ago
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.

mschuster91 11y ago

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.

leviathant 11y ago
>tapes can't be scratched at all unless you load them in some form of RAM Unless you're Mr. Tape, of course. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xuy0GAsnNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xuy0GAsnNQ
golergka 11y ago
> 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.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  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"...
  - golergka 11y ago
    Audience listens to music. Carwfully prepared turntable routine is more important, and a lot of laptop tricks aren't reproducable on bare turntables anyway.

golergka 11y ago

And in 99% of cases, the weakest spot in sound chain is the room anyway.

copperx 11y ago
Many audiophiles use headphones for this reason.
- golergka 11y ago
  Many audiophiles and audio professionals have hearing damage for this reason.
angdis 11y ago
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 !).
- golergka 11y ago
  Yeah, but what about all the reflections that are bound to happen in untreated room?
  - ddingus 11y ago
    They get ignored mostly. If the intent is pro grade, treat the room. Otherwise, that is what the sweet listening spot is all about.

ams6110 11y ago

think they know better than science and math 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.

angdis 11y ago

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).

ddingus 11y ago

Better is highly subjective. 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? Interesting isn't it?

zzalpha 11y ago
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.

mikestew 11y ago

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.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

cname 11y ago

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.

thrownaway2424 11y ago

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.