2. analog
  3. 128323-18279

When and how did you, if at all, realize vinyl is better?

Of course I know my own story, so I'm more curious about yours.  You can be as succinct as two bullets or write a tome.  
128x128jbhiller
jsm71
141 posts
 

I've been listening to records since the late 50s (78s then) and then vinyl once it emerged.  I think there are two arguments here, one of sonics, and the other related to hobby interests.

As to sonics, I believe the best digital systems today can equal but not top the best vinyl rigs.  There is something I can't explain however.  I have both although neither are close to SOTA.  I do most of my listening these days after the day's activities end as my last enjoyment prior to bed.  When I listen to digital I stop because I get bored.  When I listen to vinyl, despite the frequent up and down to change/flip the records, I stop when I realize I'm falling asleep.  

There is something therapeutic about analog sound that relaxes me that digital simply lacks.  I can't explain it.

As to hobby interests, I choose to not pursue the best in digital gear because how to maximize the choices of setup never seems to stop.  I've worked in IT all my career and when I get home I don't want to even approach anything computer related. 

I imported my few hundred CDs into iTunes years ago only to quickly discover I didn't pick the best format and that still is debatable today.  Every digital setup I've seen seems to be a different approach to what pieces parts make up the solution.  Analog has always been table, cartridge, phono preamp, and maybe a SUT.  It has never changed in all this time.  There are different approaches to table designs, but not that many.

I also like that no software/licensing agreements/ are involved.  I own every LP I ever bought and chose to keep and none of them has ever needed to be given a software upgrade.

jollytinker
213 posts
 
@jsm71 you describe my own thoughts on this well! I’m sure that at the top end of the spectrum there’s a rough parity between vinyl and digital at this point. But there are a number of reasons why I don’t get the "bug" to go after that high end sound in digital format. For one thing, I spend so much time on a computer during the day that messing around with the file structure on my Baetis server when I’d rather be listening to music is really a buzzkill. And as you say, my LPs never stop working because of format changes or digital rights management. The best sounding digital files are at this point gigantic things that cost a lot of money. But a $4 dollar LP can sound just as good. or better. The other thing - and I can’t explain it either - is that LPs hold my attention as if I’m hearing the actual performance, whereas even the best digital reproduction (that I can muster - Hi Res, good DAC, etc) sounds like a very nice image, but just an image. I’m sure there’s a technical way to explain what I’m hearing, but I don’t know what it is…
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,657 posts
 
There is something therapeutic about analog sound that relaxes me that digital simply lacks. I can't explain it.
Dr. Herbert Melcher has shown that the brain has tipping points. Normally music is processed by the limbic centers; this is where toe tapping and other emotional reactions come from. When things go awry with the sound, the brain seamlessly transfers processing to the cerebral cortex- the seat of the conscious portion of the brain. When this happens, the emotion content of the music is diminished or lost.

The problem for digital is that it contains harmonics unrelated to the fundamental tones (instead are intermodulations related to the scan frequency). The ear is used to hearing harmonics that relate to the fundamental tones in some way. Now this inharmonic distortion (aliasing) is not a great amount, but the ear is very sensitive to any harmonic content that is higher ordered (uses it to measure sound pressure so it has to be sensitive) and is also tuned to birdsong frequencies (where many of the aliasing artifacts occur).

In this regard the ear is usually more sensitive than test equipment.

In top of that, the aliasing does not come off as separate tones unless you use special techniques to detect it (an analog sweep tone works rather well though). So the ear converts the result as a tonality of some sort. This is why digital frequently has a crisp sound while analog some how sounds more 'round'. Its a coloration, and unlike analog one that cannot be separated from the music being reproduced.

The result: less emotionally involving/more boring.
jollytinker
213 posts
 
@atmasphere  - wow that's really interesting and helpful, thanks. 
jsm71
141 posts
 

@atmosphere - that makes a lot of sense to me also.  I knew I liked analog better despite the dreaded artifacts that pro-digital folks like to attack. 

Pops, clicks, and the lack of icon-driven tablet interfaces won't persuade me to give up analog.  I also won't give up my tubes in my electronics for much the same reasons.  It just sounds better to me.

More to discover