5 ms·

No; it's really fine - same with tube amps etc. It's OK to have a subjective preference for some kinds of distortion. It's not OK to say it's "truer to the orig

No; it's really fine - same with tube amps etc. It's OK to have a subjective preference for some kinds of distortion. It's not OK to say it's "truer to the original sound", which is where this usually comes off the rails.

kazinator 4y ago
Sure, if the artifact you prefer actually exists and you can confirm it in a double blind test.
- cwillu 4y ago
  “I prefer bit of oregano on my pasta.” “Not without a double-blind test you don't!”
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    "The pasta you just said was the best pasta you ever had didn't have any oregano on it."
    - cwillu 4y ago
      There was no cilantro in the dish you just said was delicious: we substituted dove-brand soap shavings.
- wolrah 4y ago
  You're not wrong in the general "audiophile" world where fools and their money are parted over snake oil magical cables claiming benefits only those with the most golden of ears can enjoy. Where you're getting pushback is that this thread is talking about vinyl records and tube amps, things where the noise and distortions introduced by their operation are well known, well documented, audible to anyone with normally functional ears, and regularly utilized artistically. These are not the inventions of grifters with a product to sell, it's just an older technology that is less precise in a certain predictable way which some people find pleasant.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    It's relevant to the article, where a digital source made from a tape should sound the same as the tape.
    - wolrah 4y ago
      Right, but this subthread is about it being fine for people to prefer the sound of less accurate systems, just not to claim those systems are objectively superior. The poster I'm replying to is then acting like it's some weird audiophile belief that records sound different from other media. On the topic of the overall article, of course the people who believe a digital processing step makes things inherently worse are absolutely off their rockers.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    A quality tube amp for audio reproduction (not guitar playing) has very low distortion.

kazinator 4y ago

Sure, if the artifact you prefer actually exists and you can confirm it in a double blind test.

cwillu 4y ago
“I prefer bit of oregano on my pasta.” “Not without a double-blind test you don't!”
- pessimizer 4y ago
  "The pasta you just said was the best pasta you ever had didn't have any oregano on it."
  - cwillu 4y ago
    There was no cilantro in the dish you just said was delicious: we substituted dove-brand soap shavings.
wolrah 4y ago
You're not wrong in the general "audiophile" world where fools and their money are parted over snake oil magical cables claiming benefits only those with the most golden of ears can enjoy. Where you're getting pushback is that this thread is talking about vinyl records and tube amps, things where the noise and distortions introduced by their operation are well known, well documented, audible to anyone with normally functional ears, and regularly utilized artistically. These are not the inventions of grifters with a product to sell, it's just an older technology that is less precise in a certain predictable way which some people find pleasant.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  It's relevant to the article, where a digital source made from a tape should sound the same as the tape.
  - wolrah 4y ago
    Right, but this subthread is about it being fine for people to prefer the sound of less accurate systems, just not to claim those systems are objectively superior. The poster I'm replying to is then acting like it's some weird audiophile belief that records sound different from other media. On the topic of the overall article, of course the people who believe a digital processing step makes things inherently worse are absolutely off their rockers.
- kazinator 4y ago
  A quality tube amp for audio reproduction (not guitar playing) has very low distortion.