How Science Got Sound Wrong

mapman

Lots has been done to squeeze the most possible out of that inherently old technology since resulting in very expensive players ...

Quite so!

Way more people have access to very accurate sound these days, more accurate than most anyone would ever need, than ever for very modest cost.

Agreed!

Thank you science and technology!

Right - science and technology have made these improvements possible in both analog and digital formats.

It’s not very difficult to find a vinyl system that’s better than the average CD system. But it’s very hard to find a CD system that is better than the average vinyl system. Of course, if you can stand the blandness and boredom of CDs you’re one up on me.

geoffkait

... it’s very hard to find a CD system that is better than the average vinyl system ...

I don’t know whether that’s true or not. It certainly wasn’t true when CD first debuted. It was the proliferation of cheap turntables and tonearms that helped fuel the rise of the CD. When users found a medium with no pops and clicks, no feedback, no skips, no risk of damage to fragile styli, they jumped right in. For them, the CD was a huge, genuine step forward. Many of those with better turntable systems heard the CD’s deficiencies immediately and were more cautious.

The whole LP/digital debate is really a silly one today. If you build a fairly neutral system around neutral speakers and amplifiers, and you then use any of today’s better analog and digital equipment, the qualities of LP and CD are remarkably similar.

There are a few noisy advocates on either end of the CD and LP preference spectrum that would have you believe one is substantially superior to the other. They’re both wrong.

If I were starting an audio system today from a completely blank sheet of paper, I’d frankly never get into LP. It’s just too much of a nuisance. But I acquired many LPs in the pre-digital era and - because their master tapes have degraded over time - even the best digital transfer of these albums pale compared to a good LP copy. (The Mercury Living Presence recordings are a good example of that.)

Oddly, the highest quality pressings of many releases today are often the LP, because the CDs tend to be more compressed.

It seems to me that the central point of the article posted initially is more about the processing of sound by the brain-body in a real phenomenological experience versus the reconstruction of sound in an artificial way trough different mediums, be it digital, or analog like, or a mixed of the 2, with headphones or speakers...


But the redactor of the article seized the occasion where an artist(Neil Young) was criticizing the reduction of live musical event, to reconstructed one, be it analog or digital reconstruction, or a mix of the 2...For sure the preference of many for analog/ vinyl versus digital reconstruction has obscured the main point...Like in this thread for example where the main point was lost by crowds defending vinyl versus digital reconstruction or the reverse... And some engineer happily pointing to "errors" in digital reconstruction interpretation by the author, like somebody pointing a tree instead of the forest...Even if the criticism is right,( and I dont doubt at all that it is possibly right), that does not suppress the main point of this author, it is marginal...It is important to not throwing the baby with the bath waters ...


If we want to understand this article we must really understand first that hearing in a real world event is not equals to a reconstructed perception at this actual moment in the history with the technology available to a normal customer now...The author of the article otherwise speak at the end of a possible revolution coming in technology more akin to the natural hearing-body experience....The main point of the article is precisely that: the hearing body real event versus an artificial reconstructed event, of limited extent quality like with headphones or less limited like with speakers,will be always artificial then adding some destructive effects if compared to a real life hearing-body experience...But the author think about a future incoming revolution in the reconstruction of sound that will best mirror the real hearing-body lived experience...Then the author is not against technology "per se", but his goal was pointing to some limitations and difference...It seems to me interesting point...My best to all...


That was my 2 cents after reading this article and after reading this thread but I apologize in advance if someone can prove to me that my understanding of this article intent is totally wrong.... 
My goal in this post is expressing the idea that the starting point of the article, that is a controversy (Neil Young opinion), not only is an occasion and a pretext that is allowing to present his main point by the author in some manner but it is also a possibility to obscure this same point ( the debate/ discussion here illustrate that)… Main point : the difference between hearing-body lived experience and some technological reconstruction and their negative impact and limitations at this moment , be it analog or digital or a mixed of the two...

I proved the article wrong in my first few posts. The article is based on a gross technical inaccuracy.