SIGNALS

I can't wait for those wax cylinders to make a big comeback, too. That recording of Thomas Edison and Henry Ford doing a rap version of "Mary Had A Little Lamb" is the absolute SHIZZLE!
Geez, I lived through the vinyl era, so I really wish people would stop romanticizing it. Lousy pressings on recycled vinyl that looked like used asphalt scraped off the highway, 2nd or 3rd generation master tapes, surface noise, clicks, pops, lousy dynamic range, lousy S/N ratio. But yes, let's all go back to the wonderful world of vinyl (and most of us teenagers and young adults couldn't afford $2500 turntables and $900 tonearms. Hell, I could barely afford the premium prices of the MFSL limited edition pressings that were available). Hey, and to hell with 7.1 channel surround or 11.2 channel Dolby Atmos or DTS:X, too - how could they possibly compare with the absolute purity of MONO?! And while we're at it, let's bring back 240-line VHS, too. 4K video? Bah, humbug!

This article is rather timely in that over the last few days I happened to watch a bunch of youtube videos in which quite surprisingly, the esoteric and very, very expensive is still alive and well in the two channel audio vinyl world. Tens of thousands of dollars is still being spent on equipment and speakers whose brand that I, personally, have never heard of along with every so-called room improvement gadget that ever existed. Add to that the enormous sums spent on snake oil cables and wiring which they insist improve the sound. In these videos, it is almost like a religious experience with these people and the owners are so wrapped up in their equipment and telling everyone what they have, I am not really sure that they spend that much time actually listening to the sound and the question sure has to be asked WHY?

To the small percentage who still spend their money on vinyl along with these outrageously expensive systems, it sure beats me.

This is my first post. I don't understand all the hate towards vinyl. I love most digital formats. HD audio files are awesome but when I have a stressful day at work nothing relaxes me like coming home and placing a record on my turntable. I am in my 30's and the vinyl experience has added new life to my love of music.

Ken embraced CDs when they were introduced and the sound was abominable. I'll cut him some slack and say he was mesmerized by the tech. He obviously still is. However calling vinyl playback "primitive" is both ridiculous and insulting. The individual who designed my pick up arm has Masters Degrees in mechanical engineering and material science. He is hardly "primitive" nor is vinyl playback in the 21st century. Ken stopped paying attention to probably 30 years ago so I understand why he's clueless about the state of this highly sophisticated mechanical science. The fact is vinyl still sounds more musical and more like real music than any digital format. That is what fuels the revival. I know. I talk to the young people way into what is 100% guaranteed not to be a fad. Among my 104,000 plus Analogplanet readers are astronauts, microchip designers and others well invested in modern scientific endeavors and they agree with me that vinyl sounds better. I'll put any of my 40 year old records played hundreds of times against any digital version and the record will sound way better. I do this all the time or skeptics and win every not most of the time. The sarcasm, defensiveness and bitterness in Ken's piece and especially in the snarky (shmucky actually) comments under Ken's post can be found under most such stories. Maybe these people aren't so much enjoying their brave new digital world? Otherwise what accounts for their tone. The reason people don't anymore sit down and pay undivided attention to recorded music much anymore becomes obvious the first time a youn person sits down and listens to a record properly played back. But if you love your digital I'm good with that. Why are so many of you so bitter and angry by what brings us so much listening pleasure?

Sorry about the typos above. Written on my phone. At airport on way to yet another vinyl event

Volume growth has been happening for some years now - and is in fact accelerating. This is an indication that the majority of the people that "joined" vinyl is NOT "leaving". Also, records are not exactly cheap, neither are turntables - so one can suspect the the majority of the joiners will think twice before investing into this. By contrast a hipster's bear has definitely much lower sunk cost.

I listen mostly to digital - in the car, running, cooking - but when I want to disconnect, relax, or whatever, nothing beats vinyl (not even Rob Watt's Dave.

Mike Fremer you need to sit down and relax buddy....just because people have differing opinions to you does not make them 'uniformed idiots'.

I'm 43 years old so I grew up with records/tapes, then CD's, then crappy MP3's, and now hi-res audio. I own some vinyl and it is fine for what it is...namely a nostalgia format with a nice, warm sound. But I tell you what, hi-res audio tracks played through my Sony HAP-S1 DAC sound LIGHTYEARS better. If you think otherwise you are deaf, period.

Well, I guess I got it all wrong having a separate mono table with mono cartridge and a separate stereo table with stereo cartridge.... And I thought it sounded good...

I listen to more digital music for convenience, but when I sit in my listening chair, I'm spinning vinyl. Thats what I like. I don't mind spending extra time or money on vinyl...its my hobby....!

Since when is a fad something that lasts as long as vinyl....??? Whitewall tires??? Butterfly collars??? Stone washed jeans??? Etc??? I will always be able to find a record store...

If you like digital better, than so be it....who cares?

Fremer is well studied, honest, and fair...and arguably one of the best voices in this industry and more importantly, another music lover.

You keep arguing, I stop listening...

I have a hard time believing this. Two things come to mind. Degradation & one universally excepted format that's easy to use.
I loved the romance associated with LP's. I loved to open them up... especially a double album. Getting a leaflet or poster inside was awesome. Kicking back and reading the lyrics on a 12"x 12" size piece of paper and looking at the cover art while playing the album is engrossing. But after a few spins and hearing the snap crackle pop, having to clean the record with solution and blow clean my needle got old fast. Eventually I got to the point where I would go down to Tower Records and buy an album AND a Fuji cassette tape, unpack the album pop in my CrO2 tape, set it to Dolby C press pause, then Record and Play, adjust my VU meters, drop the needle and record the album. I would then put the album away until my cassette wore out, and then I would redo the process all over again, just to make the album last as long as possible. So why did I (we) do this? To preserve the record, and to be able to play the music in our boom boxes at the beach, and in our Nakamichi's in the car right? Gotta preserve the record right? And don't want to be with out our music, so we needed the portability of a cassette for our car stereos and our walkmans right? So in the end I see vinyl growing, but I can't imagine it getting to 51% of the market share and becoming the dominant player. (BTW I'm not saying that those of you that are vinyl advocates are saying this.) What I am saying, or perhaps reminding everyone about, is the fact that most of us didn't want to deal with the needed upkeep of cleaning fluids, replacing cartridges, and degradation of the record, and we wanted the portability of the cassette... Well isn't that exactly how and why we arrived at digital music? Essentially sounds the same the first time as it does the hundredth time? And you can have it anywhere but even easier than a cassette? Stream it from your 4G, or give it to someone on a thumb drive, etc. Plus when you take up the space taken by LP's, I think most of us will choose digital, and perhaps only a handful will be willing to go down the analog vinyl road. Just one persons perspective.

In the end, the format of choice is just that: a choice, just a preference.

But as someone who grew up experiencing nearly everything (open reel, cassette, vinyl, MD, HDCD, SACD, etc.) and reading all the major publications (Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Audio, Stereophile, TAS, Sound & Vision (of course), The Analog Planet, Audioholics, Positive Feedback, etc., I have to say that on paper digital formats blow analog formats out of the water. In reality, specs only partially reveal what we hear and if someone hears something that some else doesn't, there isn't necessarily a placebo involved.

Fact: If you ask most S&V readers which format is best, they'll refer to a digital one. If you ask most Analog Planet readers which one is best, it's going to be the vinyl format.

Fact: There is definitely usually a condescending attitude toward vinyl from Ken and most other proponents of digital formats. When was the last time digital formats were labeled "primitive" (not synonymous with "old") on a vinyl website? I can't remember even one occurrence. But if vinyl is mentioned on a digital-centric site, someone somewhere never fails in bringing up a sarcastic wax cylinder remark or the falsehood of ticks and pops.

This just underlines what little exposure some listeners have had to good vinyl equipment or the lack of being informed about any progress for vinyl hardware and software within the past 30+ years (The latest improvement in pressing plant technology deals with a refined plating and pressing technique of Direct Metal Mastering). The vinyl comeback certainly isn't due to some "romantic sensual" emotion.

There's good vinyl and bad vinyl. I've heard vinyl that subjectively dead quiet without the "ocean roar" background hiss and without any other surface noise. So long as your turntable is a decent unit (not necessarily even new), the tonearm is well-matched to the cartridge in terms of effective mass and compliance, and the cartridge itself is a good one (not necessarily expensive), I guarantee you'll hear tons of detail, transient attack, tight bass, great separation (imaging and depth) against a subjectively dead-quiet background even with the volume set to a very high level, all with flat frequency response. All this and it can sound better (or, if you prefer) more appealing than your digital format of choice.

If you don't like it, then fine but tons of people do; it doesn't always involve some intangible emotion or the appeal of a nostalgic format. It can still often be about the sound quality.

You either didn't read my entire post or decided to cherry pick just the portion for the sake of an argument.

On the surface, your brief response sounds convincing enough. I've heard ticks & pops before and, yes, the "needle in the groove" label can persuade anyone who doesn't look at the current state of the vinyl format to believe it's primitive.

But let me make it obvious: There is great vinyl that is pressed quite often without any audible noise, including the "ticks & pops" you eagerly refer to. There's also quite a bit more than a needle in a groove involved when playing any vinyl. Is it really primitive when you realize that a proper setup involves optimum cartridge compliance, tip geometry, tip mass, tracking force, etc.? If you still think it's primitive, let's avoid the stylus altogether and think about the "ELP" laser turntable that the Library of Congress currently uses. This turntable does not use any stylus; all records are played using an optical laser system, which is NOT digital. Is the vinyl format old? Of course it is! There's no question but I'd hardly call it primitive.

I also have news for you regarding digital formats. Vinyl is not much more primitive than digital. Here's why: You may not be aware that the first D-A converter was built back in 1935 using tubes. It was an 8-bit converter. That's 12 years before the LP was introduced. The design for the first optical digital disc system was done back in the 60s but the hardware wasn't ready until the 1980 in Japan.

The combustion engine works well despite its age. So what?

Do you crave something new for the sake of its freshness? New doesn't always translate to better. The new relay switches that shift between "Drive", "Reverse", "Neutral", etc. in some new luxury SUVs are experiencing switch lagging issues. It's new but it's also less reliable.

There's a sizable and growing segment of consumers that genuinely like the vinyl format for its sound quality (It's currently recognized as a high resolution format and one of the reasons is its ability to reproduce musical overtones over 20kHz). I'm among those that like it. I also like digital formats enough to have those too. In other words, I'm non-partisan.

You don't like vinyl. I get it. But don't impose your preference on other people (I'm not just referring to your reply to my message). I realize Sound & Vision is also a digital-leaning publication but it's nowhere near as impartial as its predecessor's days (remember Stereo Review?).

Here are just a few of the readily audible noise and distortion problems brought to you by the vinyl LP:

LP surface noise, LP warping, lateral tonearm geometry distortion (of pivoting tonearms), the effects of tonearm resonance, turntable cogging and speed variation, turntable motor vibration, environmental vibration transmitted to the tonearm/phono cartridge, the effects of wear and age on the LP and phono cartridge, the effects of imprecise leveling of the turntable, acoustic feedback from the speakers to the phono system, the susceptibility of analog signal paths to noise and distortion from external electrical fields, compromised channel separation, the noise, distortion, and errors introduced by imperfect analog RIAA equalization and its incompatibility with other LP equalization standards...

These all too audible LP playback problems are completely eliminated by the CD and other digital media.
Remind me again how much better LP is than CD.

It's not my book, it's Mark Waldrep's book and think you might learn a thing or two if you would take the trouble to read it.

I came upon your post when I was looking for Ken Pohlmann's byline, who is one S&V writer whom I do like (but whose judgement seems to flagged a bit lately - he sometimes now prefers convenience to sound quality).

I think you may be too far gone for anything I say to help you. You are very defensive. My post was not an attack on you. You say the issues I brought up are inaudible and I disagree. For instance, your belief that LP surface noise is inaudible because it doesn't bother you (or you can't hear it) carries no weight because the distortion and noise levels, even in a very carefully set up rig, are well above the threshold of audibility.

I would ask you politely if you have considered whether your stated beliefs would hold up in a properly controlled double-blind listening test?

Below are a few replies to posts directed at me by a readers , some of whom were not above using obscenity against me (at least you have not stooped to that level), which help me to explain my positions on consumer audio.

AN OPEN LETTER TO CONSUMERS OF 'HIGH END' AUDIO EQUIPMENT

I don't preach. All I do is tell the simple truth. And I am not surprised or bothered by infantile tantrums posted by the believers in 'high-end' audio. Unlike the high-end shamans and pontiffs, I don't claim to have any special perceptual or reasoning ability; I am willing to submit anything I say to rigorous testing and to the scrutiny of the real experts, most of whom have engineering degrees in audio and physics.

Your statements, on the other hand, are sloppy and slobbish and so is your 'thinking'. Your posts typify the loose 'thinking' of the slob snob that keeps 'high-end' consumer audio alive. You are a prime example of the target market that is so skillfully cultivated and manipulated by the 'high end' audio manufacturers and their 'journalist' fellow travelers.

You "have been reading stereo magazines since the late 1970s" but have done precious little thinking in all of that time. It's a shame, and I wish I could help you.

And though you are probably too willfully ignorant to benefit from anything I could tell you, I will give it a shot anyway, and try to keep the discussion simple.

Let's compare consumer audio to consumer video. Are there any 'golden-eyed videophiles' with perceptions and beliefs that do not square with plain old ordinary physics and engineering? Does anybody claim to see a video defect or artifact that cannot be measured or explained using basic physics? Why is that so? Why is audio seemingly (according the snake-oil salesmen of the high-end) so stubbornly resistant to scientific and engineering progress, whereas, in every other field you care to name, science and engineering works so well to explain any empirical fact or observation and to advance the subject?

The crux of the problem is that, in audio, unlike video, we have to rely on memory to compare A with B. And that stubborn and indubitable fact is why stringent controls are needed in listening tests of audio equipment. Because, as anyone with experience in a court of law will tell you, eyewitness testimony (which also relies on memory) is notoriously unreliable.

So, without proper controls, we could argue endlessly and inconclusively for eons about the sound of A vs. the sound of B.

So, here is my advice to you (and to anyone reading this who is similarly inclined): get your hands on an ABX box and test out empirically some of your beliefs. The hard truth that you discover may initially cause you a sleepless night or two, but you may be surprised at how liberating the truth can be. Following your ABX experience, you will have a choice: you can continue with your religion and reject, or somehow rationalize, with great difficulty, the facts; or you can, with a little thinking and reflection, reconsider and reject the mountains of hogwash the high-end 'authorities' are selling you and focus instead on what is really important: the sound and that which actually affects the sound. The high-end dullards will tell you that they believe only what they hear, but they are, to paraphrase George Santayana, much better at believing than they are at hearing.

******************************************************************

Sorry if my comments irritated or upset you. Name calling will not decide any issues, and only makes you (the name-caller) appear petty and small. Is that who you are? Are you really that small? A multi-lingual man-of-the-world like you?

My comments were intended to be helpful, that's all.

I myself once believed in the myths that keep the market for 'high-end' audio products alive, but I eventually did some thinking and some experimenting and learned the truth.

The editors and reviewers of the high-end audio press are self-appointed experts, and their views and reviews have little or no value and are not respected by the real experts in the audio field.

The real experts in audio, the ones I respect, are University-trained electrical engineers and acoustic engineers, and they all hold the high-end audio business in very low regard. Stanley Lipshitz, Ethan Winer, Peter Aczel, Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Mark Waldrep, David A. Rich, et al., have engineering credibility. Waldrep has recently published a very interesting book called Music and Audio Guide and I recommend it highly. Waldrep is one of the real pioneers in 'high res' audio, founded AIX to sell and promote high res audio, but lately he is having some second thoughts about whether it is audibly superior to Red Book CD. This is the supreme hallmark of intellectual maturity and depth: follow the evidence, no matter what, and revise your beliefs to fit the facts.

A failed would-be expert is somebody like John Atkinson. He once replaced his existing tube power amp with a transistor amp which had excelled in single- blind testing, but he disliked the sound. Instead of investigating to determine the real cause of the problem, he instead jumped to the incorrect conclusion that blind tests of audio components are invalid, and went back to a tube amp. Sloppy, stupid, wrong, and self-satisfied. This does nothing to advance the audio hobby, but he is revered as an 'expert' by similarly inclined readers. Sorry, but that isn't the behavior of a curious, intellectually mature adult, let alone an expert of any kind.

My comments will be posted to the forum and maybe, just maybe, a few people who read it will begin to question their assumptions and be interested in a rational, credible approach to audio as a hobby even if you, yourself, are not moved to do so. If so, I have accomplished my purpose, with or without your agreement.

Happy listening!