But you, AJ, seem to just want to try and make jokes.I was trying to best Ralph, but guess I failed. I admit his was pretty epic.
In case you missed it, I don't take this stereo music listening stuff, rock through window seriously. YMMV.
Are you prepared to actually answer the question?Whether I still beat my wife...excuse me, "hate" vinyl?
In case you missed it, I own a TT. I find plenty fastidiously cleaned vinyl quite enjoyable. But as a classical music fan, with my decidedly non-audiophile, slightly capable system, near intolerable.
The only reason I still have a TT in 2017 while walking upright, is to rip music that either doesn't exist digitally, or flat out sounds better mastered. Otherwise the whole ritual thing sucks. Lets not get into the whole, "but it causes focus" Hocus Pocus. Please.
Are you thinking of posting a "silent vynil" file slight more, ahem, capable than Ralphies?
If so, please do.
Last post by polemon -
I pretty much only use the Win7 VM for work related stuff, and the odd software that doesn't work on Linux. Other than that, I have really no use for most of Windows. I don't really play game or anything.
When it comes to my browser usage, they're kinda vanilla. I only really use Adblock. I've used GreaseMonkey many years ago, and I always liked the developer tools of Firefox. Other than that, I use Linux commandline tools. youtube-dl and mpv are my main clients for listening to music and watch movies on youtube, if I'm honest. I don't watch Twich and I don't use any streaming service like Netflix or Amazon Prime, etc.
Btw: Firefox makes a better image viewer, and Chrome makes a better PDF reader and media player, drag-drop a video into a new tab and there you go! ¦D
I also use links (the web browser) in graphics mode: links -g. That's my preferred way to read things on the internet, tbh. It can only display text and images, but it does that really good, and I do quite a bit of research like that for my job and whatnot.
I want to hear from those who hate vinyl exactly what it is that they find so objectionable. Is it just the surface noise (what I call "vinyl roar") and the ticks & pops? Or do some of the other inaccuracies (eg. frequency response, distortion, crosstalk, wow & flutter) make vinyl unlistenable?I have lots of vinyl records and I love listening to them, when I have time. It's a nice experience.
On one hand they do sound nice on their own, but the little distortions and all that kinda adds to the sound. I.e. when listening to vinyl, it's not entirely about listening to "the best way to listen music" it's about the entire package.
Right now, there's an entire music resurgence going on, with people listening to Lo-Fi, Vapor Wave, Synthwave, etc. Some artists intentionally release their music on MCs because the slightly muffled sound is actually part of the whole point, etc.
To put it another way, if you heard some vinyl that had no audible ticks, pops or surface noise, how confident are you that you would be able to identify it as vinyl?You're making assumption about a theoretical perfect vinyl already. When you compare two things, then you compare actual real-world objects.
If you want to assume a hypothetical perfect vinyl on a hypothetical perfect player, with no audible artifacts, then what are we comparing against? A perfect hypothetical DAC with infinite bit depth and a infinite sampling rate, playing a source with equally infinite attributes? Why not throw infinite number of channels into the mix for good measure?
Real world objects like that are tested in systems. So you'd actually perform that sort of test in an anechoic chamber, with test equipment which for all intents and purposes have near-infinite attributes to the setup (walls reflectivity of near 0, engineering measurement microphones, etc). This isn't a listening test, this is an engineering experiment at that point, you'd have to decide what you're after. If you want a comparative test setup, you must control for all other coefficients. And if possible make a p-value analysis and control against that with a control group.
The entire assumption is weird when looking from it from the other side: It is relatively easy to synthesize the sound of a vinyl. In fact most DAWs and even some DJ-ing software include these functions, for effects. Cubase has a plugin that lets you select what type of vinyl or amp you want to simulate. And trust me, they are really convincing (btw, similar things also exist for simulating specific microphones, etc.) Similar things exist in the video production world, too. There are grain filters, which intentionally simulate different kinds of film stock in 4k digital footage: https://www.rocketstock.com/video-packs/emulsion-film-grain-overlays/
So I can turn this right around: suppose you select a vinyl with pops and clicks and all that, and I edit the same song or whatever from a lossless source, such that the music has the same dynamic range, same length, but I add vinyl noise, wow and flutter, clicks and pops, to a regular amount. How confident are you, you'd be able to differentiate between the two, given a common test equipment, like amp, speakers or headphones?
What is "unlistenable about vinyl"? Nothing. What drives people up the walls, is that people claim they have nothing in comparison from anything beyond that medium, and if you can't hear it, you simply lack the ears for that. That and the sheer inability to understand assumptions like that is what kinda makes these threads feel like sticking your head in a tumble dryer.
To be hones, I'm having a hard time differentiating what's an honest question and what's a friggin troll trying to pour more oil into the fire.
And last but not least: There's a vinyl section on HA, as well as an off-topic section, and I've seen you post in both. I don't see how this thread doesn't belong in either, but instead goes into General Audio. My understanding is, that discussing vinyl goes into the vinyl section, and meta-discussions go into the off-topic section. But oh well, I might be wrong. People being annoyed at "mis-posting" like that, isn't a HA thing, it's consistent across pretty much all forums everywhere. Usually mods will move a thread into the correct section.
I listen to vinyl because it's fun and for what it is, it sounds pretty good. Not perfect, but good enough - it has its own kinda nice sound and it's a nice experience. I love playing with my reel-to-reel, too, for pretty much the same reasons. The difference there, is that I can record on it and I have no pre-recorded content, while it's the exact opposite to vinyl.
In almost all cases I can think of (mobility or a "regular home equipment", as you stated), digital music beats vinyl in pretty much all cases. On the level of sound reproduction, but also on the levels of investment vs. attained quality, as well as convenience.
Vinyl music is preferable for a small edge case: enjoying listening to vinyl.
I'd say I'm the cliveb camp - I neither love nor loathe vinyl - and tend to agree with the OP. I'm old enough to remember a time when vinyl was the highest source quality commonly available, tapes were a poorer and hissy second. Given the choice, you listened to vinyl at home, assuming you had the record.
In isolation, I think a well cared for LP on a modestly decent setup is quite acceptable. However, like most I've been somewhat spoilt by digital with its capability of (in real-world terms) noiseless reproduction, better bandwidth, convenience etc. I still have a turntable (with a sub-$100 cartridge) but it rarely sees use and I only have a handful of records.
To answer one of the questions: were it not for the surface noise I'm not confident I could identify vinyl in isolation. I could probably pick it as "not the same" against digital, assuming identical source material but even that might be wishful thinking.
I dunno bennet, I'm thinking that gold record on Voyager 2 is going to have a good long lifespan.Sure. Both digital and analog formats rely on physical storage media. Physical media of course are destructible.
Rephrase it into no generation loss OK?
Also about the "bit rot" thing... I think repeated discussions are not necessary.
I happen to think that vinyl can sound pretty damn good in a normal domestic listening situation.CD can sound pretty damn better in a normal domestic listening situation, is more convenient, way cheaper, can be played 1000 times without sonic degradation. CD players can be cheap and good, can be embed in cars or computers, are way less cumbersome, don't need maintenance or a precise setup. And of course a CD can be ripped and the resultant identical-sounding files are even more convenient, can be played litterally anywhere anytime etc.
All in all, the vinyl support has a lot of cons and not a single pro over CD/Files. So the only rational question to ask is: why vinyl over digital?
I'm 59 years old and have known a huge part of the vinyl-only era. Though not affected by nostalgia for this crappy format most of us used to loathe at the time (which every old-timer rejoicing in the so-called vinyl return seems to have forgotten), I can acknowledge and even understand while some people may suffer from it. Especially in modern popular music (from the 50's to today) where image, rituals and plain fetichism are dominant. What I can't understand is how a long-time HA member can question on this very forum the preference for digital. It's been answered in 1982 et never rationally opposed.
You're telling us you enjoy listening to vinyl? Good for you but nobody cares on this forum. Or if some do then they're on the wrong forum.
Simply because... only digital formats can last forever.
I dunno bennet, I'm thinking that gold record on Voyager 2 is going to have a good long lifespan.
Digital files are only as immortal as their backups & error correction, and your ability to read them, of course.
Last post by Audible! -
Interesting, polemon. I'm pretty sold on FFox Quantum at this point, as it does seem appreciably faster with the particular set of plugins I run (script blocker, video downloader, ghostery, https everywhere, etc).
I was a fan of Opera (the browser) way back when, not so much the last decade or so though. Edge is very much Microsoft's Chrome, and it is pretty good, but without decent IE-specific backward compatibility it doesn't really have much of a reason to exist. Microsoft unquestionably has the personnel to do really superior emulation should they so desire, but I assume even they do not want to keep the shambling, undead corpse of IE around, if at all possible. It's a serviceable out of the box browser, to be sure, but it doesn't appear to offer any advantage over existing solutions, and may itself have some disadvantages.
Functionally it's possible to get Ryzen (and any consumer Intel chips since Skylake) running in Windows 7, but I don't believe USB 3.1 (gen 2), or more importantly, NVMe boot drives are typically supported, at least not without some effort.
Win10 is a good effort, but the privacy issues have not really been resolved, which undercuts it a bit. That said, even using a fair number of websites or services (Google for instance) has inherent privacy issues of probably even greater concern. In my mind, it's hard to be upset at Microsoft if you have Gmail, etc. I use both, and Android, to boot, so I'm thoroughly tagged and tracked. And of course there's the telecoms, and the .gov, et al.
I use chrome for Netflix, and general browsing with Firefox myself. Edge gets kicked to the curb with Cortana and biometric logins. Maybe if they hadn't killed their smartphone OS there would be a good case for Edge other than as the built in default; full service autosync and services across console, phone and full-fat OS'. I can't imagine anyone installing Edge on iOS or droid, so Apple or Alphabet are gatekeepers.
No, I have a memory and have a penchant for searching efficiently; but if it makes you feel better to dismiss me as a troll collecting ammo against placebophiles, you're more than welcome. It's a conspiracy after all.
But that raises an interesting question, my raising the term conspiracy, that is: exactly when were you accused of being a placebophile before my pointing out the obvious?
Oh Clive, c'mon now.So you had to go back over 10 years to find something I said that you feel puts me in that camp?
Actually, I'm in awe that you were able to find them in under 23 minutes. Almost as if you keep close at hand a cache of members' posts that you might want to use as ammo.