Does Age Matter?

55 years old - I think digital sounds better, but I do like using vinyl because it's easy and fun, and vinyl sounds plenty good enough on a good turntable.

I and started getting my own stereo equipment at about age 11 - so about 1976 (paper route money). So my first big love was CASSETTES. And I still love that they allowed us to make our own mixes, most of which I did off the radio, because I had no other source!

In 1981 or so I got a decent turntable and I was immediately impressed with how much better it sounded than my rather inadequate cassette deck. I literally bought that turntable so I could borrow records just to make mixes with. I was planning to get a second cassette deck to make tape to tape dubs. There were no dual well tape decks at the time (that I knew of).

In 1988 or so I got a CD player. It didn't sound as good as my good (subsequent) turntable, but the next CD player certainly did. MP3s were bad, but even they are better now and FLAC is great.

I think good digital like CD or FLAC sounds best. I still prefer using vinyl records or CDs because disks are easy to deal with and fun, and I can own them, unlike so many of the songs in my streaming service playlists.

But I think digital above 128Kbps MP3 sounds best.

I have noticed a bunch of comments mentioning vinyl as "a scratchy sound." For most records that are well cared for and played with a good stylus well set up this is just not true. Vinyl can be very quiet. Yes, there is the occasional bad pressing and bad scratch, maybe even a skip but these are few and far between. Why do I keep listening to vinyl in spite of having a great collection of digital files. Well, I have a lot of records certainly in the thousands. I use to spend hours flipping through vinyl at the store and still love to. Flipping through CDs is just not the same. I use to buy records just because I loved the cover. I am always amazed at how good dragging a rock through a trench can sound. Digital sounds great also. When I'm busy there is no competition even though I have an end of record lift. I can totally understand some of use migrating to digital.
That's more records for the rest of us:-)

No, it’s not age that matters. It’s having a set of ears that matters, for anyone who can hear correctly can hear that analog is far superior to digital. And although I’m 65 age has nothing to do with being able to hear. Who buys streaming audio downloads! What goes for quality audio today is nuts. Back in the day it was tubes and a turntable. Today it’s the same. You disagree, that’s alright, do your thing!

Thank you Coltrane. That comment might be seen as a bit insulting. Now, I do not stream So I can not comment there. I am also sure my hearing is not the worst and I can attest to the fact that there are many Hi Res digital files that are every bit as good as vinyl if not better. You can hide in your corner with your tubes and your turntable but that would be a shame as you will be missing a lot.

It’s having a set of ears that matters, for anyone who can hear correctly can hear that analog is far superior to digital.

The relative superiority of vinyl over digital or of digital over vinyl, has nothing to do with "taste" or "hearing incapacity"...

The relative superiority of one or the other is function of the audio system GENERIC design potentials and their SPECIFIC concrete implementations... This 2 factors explain all....

No need for "taste" which is only an ennobled and idealized way to speak about our habits....

No need to accuse others to be half-deaf...No ears are structurally the same and no ears are historically constructed by the same listening habits...

Specific implementation of ANY generic designed piece of electronic occur in the 3 main working concrete dimensions of any audio system( an embedding of the audio system in my vocabulary) :
The mechanical dimension(vibrations and resonances), the noise floor of the electrical grid of the house/room/system, and last the acoustical concrete settings of the room....

Then, the relative superiority alleged to one or the other will manifest itself and occur in these indefinite variable situations....

Then it is IMPOSSIBLE to compare the 2 in so many different environments...





But how, you can ask, if we ourself compare for ourself the vinyl and the analog component in the same embeddings with the same pieces of electronic components except for the turntable and dac ?




Four other factors will stay and play and will relativize the alleged superiority of one or the other  :

1-The difference in the structural organization of the ears, and by that i means 2 healthy ears process differently the sound and interpret it differently, because of their different listening histories and habits....

2- The difference between one choice of turntable among many possible, versus the difference between one dac among many possible choices...This fact will play a MAJOR role....

3- The important complementarity or his absence between the chosen components , by that i means the specific interaction of a chosen turntable with a specific amplifier among many possible, and same thing with the dac interacting with a specific amplifier.... For example someone with another amplifier in the same room could conclude with a contrary opinion about digital and vinyl....Then even ourself could change our experience changing our amplifier....

4-I will not add the nature of the support format, master vinyl or not and the quality of the digital files...I suppose those who would made a strict comparison will take care about that... But...... 😁

Then no one can conclude ABSOLUTELY for all of us that digital win over vinyl or the opposite....One can conclude for himself only and without never knowing if this victory is an absolute fact...






Last but mot least , there is no original live event which is the "source" of a faithful recording....All recording processes are choices between choices, each time with a trade-off...

Then "reproduction" of this "original" live event would be more objectively qualified by the term RECREATION...

One acoustical event very difficult to "record" is timbre....Even in the case of only a solo live instrumental event....

Acoustical recreation of the musical timbre of an instrument ask for the ACOUSTICAL setting dimension of your room to be recreated completely....The delivery of the acoustical information of the live original event is already partial and never perfect and complete... it is your room acoustical informative or obstructive settings that will compensate... Because timbre perception need more than the transmission of an always incomplete information signals accuracy , this perception occur in the real concrete time synchronization of your room...

Your audio system recreate timbre with the help of your specific room, they do not reproduce it like it was because the information is anyway incomplete....

Acoustically timbre is not only pure musical tone... Timbre is tone+ the acoustical property of the material instrument +timing between the room and this envelope of the tone ....Your room cannot be the original room...Recreation can be, perfect reproduction cannot be....

The timbre perception and evaluation of the soloist instrument which has been specifically and with a partial trade-off recorded, reflecting the choices of the recording engineer, will be recreated in YOUR room acoustical setting...

This recreation is not only dependent from the choices and trade-off in each audio system but also with the choices in your embedding acoustical dimension, in your room and for your ears....

All that to say that the acoustic of a room will impact way more the S.Q. than our choosen obsession with turntable or digital.....😁

Sorry....





«Gosh! It is simple like an equation but it is written in chinese»-Groucho Marx