Tubes and Vinyl: An Often-Misunderstood Audiophile Debate

[RobRoy]

Of course, that's always been the case. Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies to modern music made today, yesterday, the previous decade, the 1970's, 60's, 50's, 20's, 1800's, 1700's and so on.

Most of everything is crap.

It is, it was, and it always will be.

What happens over time is that the crap gets lost, forgotten, thrown away or ignored. The good stuff gets found, remembered, used, sold, bought, rediscovered and replayed. That inevitably makes the old stuff look better than the new stuff, but new stuff is really no worse than it ever was. It's simply that we haven't yet filtered out the good from the bad in the latest stuff.

But we will, and then we'll think today's new stuff -- which is tomorrow's old stuff -- is better than whatever the latest unfiltered stuff happens to be.

There is a lot of truth to that. It reminds me of what happened so often when I purchased albums new back in the 70's and early 80's: The track that caused me to purchase the album ended up not being my favorite track on the album.

The difference in every age is that there is some negative that is brought to the quality. Big band was crap to a person who loved symphonic because it was "simple" and "popular". And Classic rock was crap to a big band fanatic because it was "simple and Popular". Listen to the quality of musicianship behind a Sinatra song. It makes pretty much all "pop/rock" groups sound like crap.

But at the end of the day, art is subjective. I hated 50's rock because it was so simple. One day I discovered that that was actaully it's draw. i.e. art is subjective.

 

[RobRoy]

Of course, that's always been the case. Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies to modern music made today, yesterday, the previous decade, the 1970's, 60's, 50's, 20's, 1800's, 1700's and so on.

Most of everything is crap.

It is, it was, and it always will be.

What happens over time is that the crap gets lost, forgotten, thrown away or ignored. The good stuff gets found, remembered, used, sold, bought, rediscovered and replayed. That inevitably makes the old stuff look better than the new stuff, but new stuff is really no worse than it ever was. It's simply that we haven't yet filtered out the good from the bad in the latest stuff.

But we will, and then we'll think today's new stuff -- which is tomorrow's old stuff -- is better than whatever the latest unfiltered stuff happens to be.

I just had to share this. It makes the case you are making, and does it in a fairly entertaining way:

 

[sqlsavior]

Like I said about generalizations...

 

[arts]

You wouldn't want to run 2 Marshall heads as mono blocks

Actually,if you bypass the preamp section and run directly into the phase splitter,within their rated wattage limits these actually have fairly low distortion. And below max output,they have pretty good bandwidth.In fact,they are much better than a lot of tube ''hi-fi'' equipment.I ran them across the test bench long ago just for farts and giggles,and was really astonished at how good old Marshall iron performed.And I have to admit,I did try them in my system too.Not bad at all!!

Mind you, this is coming from a guy who used to run a pair of rackmount Hiwatt 200 power amps (formerly part of my road-going bass rig) in his stereo.
Those were the ultimate that I have ever heard for tube power amps in my system,but the heat output of a dozen EL34's was their undoing

 

[arts]

Any discussion of ''recorded music'' is a worthless debate comprised of nothing more than opinions.

Unless you have spent time here,during the actual recording process,you are not equipped to judge the veracity of either the recording,the medium or the playback system:

Or here:

Or even here:

 

[GChief]

Any discussion of ''recorded music'' is a worthless debate comprised of nothing more than opinions.

Unless you have spent time here,during the actual recording process,you are not equipped to judge the veracity of either the recording,the medium or the playback system:

Or here:

Or even here:

 

[Final_Baton]

Compression should never be applied on top of the song's mixdown (not meaning on individual instrument - but rather, applying a compression effect on the track mixdown itself. or to the whole song "project" in the DAW) in an ideal world.

Now compression applied to a specific instrument's recording(or to what a mic picks up, in other words) is another kettle of fish entirely and is totally fair game IMO. My fave example is the drums. Take the recording of each of its individual parts, say the snare. In the studio when recording, you definitely want to apply some compression on it to make it sound bigger than what the mic picks up, and reduce the gap between the initial transient("snap" at the moment you hit) and the rest of the sound wave(sustain). This will make sure that the snare is heard in the mix without any ear-piercing transients coming through. Compression also allow you to say, cut down the amount of snare you hear in the overhead mics. Or to filter out the excess bleeding of say, snare sound on the hi-hat track(some bleeding is fine, good even, but you don't want to much, otherwise the record will sound chaotic).

Remember that you listen to live music with one pair of ears, but a recording "ears" with many pairs of ears(AKA microphones) and there's a ton of overlapping sound information in there and some of it NEEDS to be discarded, otherwise the record will sound like a mess.

I used to be anti-compression for recording sessions but after I had a couple sessions in me I realized that you absolutely have to have some applied to some of the mics, if you want a great sounding record. Otherwise your record will sound "fine", but never great.

 

[WaynerN]

Disagree. Dynamic limiting is just as effective and leaves a lot of the original dynamics in place. Have you ever done any live recording? The master is not good if the material on it is convoluted. You can't "undo" mistakes once the mix is done if you don't have the original unadulterated material.

I done about 50 years of live recording. Without gain riding the VUs like a bastard (reel to reel) you can gain some dynamic range, but that is a very difficult task. It's neatly impossible with digital as there is no going into the red with these machines.

I have a couple of Telarc CDs that are recorded with full range dynamics, and the CD comes with a warning not to advance the volume control too much as there could be traumatic events within the CD. That is why music is compressed, so that it will work on most playback equipment without the fear of damage to that very equipment.

Disagree all you want, but compression is in the public's interest.

 

[RobRoy]

Any discussion of ''recorded music'' is a worthless debate comprised of nothing more than opinions.

Unless you have spent time here,during the actual recording process,you are not equipped to judge the veracity of either the recording,the medium or the playback system:

Or here:

Or even here:

HA! I've been in all three .The first two on trombone and the last two on Bass (yes, I did trombone and bass in the middle one)/

 

[sqlsavior]

Good thing I don't need to judge "veracity" then. I just go by how much I can hear. More is better.

Any discussion of ''recorded music'' is a worthless debate comprised of nothing more than opinions.

Unless you have spent time here,during the actual recording process,you are not equipped to judge the veracity of either the recording,the medium or the playback system:

Or here:

Or even here:

 

[infullview]

I done about 50 years of live recording. Without gain riding the VUs like a bastard (reel to reel) you can gain some dynamic range, but that is a very difficult task. It's neatly impossible with digital as there is no going into the red with these machines.

I have a couple of Telarc CDs that are recorded with full range dynamics, and the CD comes with a warning not to advance the volume control too much as there could be traumatic events within the CD. That is why music is compressed, so that it will work on most playback equipment without the fear of damage to that very equipment.

Disagree all you want, but compression is in the public's interest.

Dynamic limiting is a form of compression that is used in professional audio settings that does some of the same things that compression does - only a lot more gracefully. You can crank up the gain to take low volume passages out the tape hiss, and rely on dynamic limiting to kick in at a set level to start compressing the highly dynamic portion down to a level that is capable for the equipment to handle. A big hammer is not the solution for all types of fasteners.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

I vehemently disagree with that statement. There was much more experimentation back in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s with stereo as a medium. Most of the recordings were 'honest' in that they applied limiting as required to keep within spec on the cutting head for vinyl but f'ing with the dynamics by compressing the hell out of them still wasn't a practice. In the 50s compressors were not good, they were slow, and totally analog based. Attack and decay times were fixed by however they were designed at the time. Digital circuitry is to blame for making compression a 'thing' as these parameters could now easily be tweaked. Records cut in the 50s used very little processing and tended to have great dynamic range, the music was recorded live without multiple retakes because they didn't have a huge number of tracks, and you had to worry about tape hiss so over-tracking and remixing was very limited. I assert that the average stereo record recorded in the 50s was 1000% better than the modern crap produced today - and it was because they were forced to live within their technological means. It made the music honest and real. You have only to listen to Miles Davis, Kinda Blue to know what I'm saying is true.

Listening to Miles Davis, Kind of Blue only confirms my point that 90% of everything is crap; all you have to do is look -- or listen -- to everything else released in 1959.

90% of everything from the 50s, 60s, and early 70s was crap. 90% of everything was crap in the late 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s, too. 90% of everything will be crap in the 2020s, 2030s, 2040s. 90% of everything was crap in the 1940s, 1930s, and on back as far as you want to go, and 90% of everything will be crap as long as humans keep making stuff.

It's certainly true that the technology and constraints have changed over the years, but that only changes how we humans produce good stuff and crap stuff. It doesn't change the ratio of crap vs good in the slightest. That consistently hovers around 9:1, no matter how or when you make it.

 

[infullview]

Listening to Miles Davis, Kind of Blue only confirms my point that 90% of everything is crap; all you have to do is look -- or listen -- to everything else released in 1959.

90% of everything from the 50s, 60s, and early 70s was crap. 90% of everything was crap in the late 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s, too. 90% of everything will be crap in the 2020s, 2030s, 2040s. 90% of everything was crap in the 1940s, 1930s, and on back as far as you want to go, and 90% of everything will be crap as long as humans keep making stuff.

It's certainly true that the technology and constraints have changed over the years, but that only changes how we humans produce good stuff and crap stuff. It doesn't change the ratio of crap vs good in the slightest. That consistently hovers around 9:1, no matter how or when you make it.

I would agree with you that 90 percent of music was crap, but this thread was never about the music. Go back and look at the original post.

 

[infullview]

Listening to Miles Davis, Kind of Blue only confirms my point that 90% of everything is crap; all you have to do is look -- or listen -- to everything else released in 1959.

90% of everything from the 50s, 60s, and early 70s was crap. 90% of everything was crap in the late 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s, too. 90% of everything will be crap in the 2020s, 2030s, 2040s. 90% of everything was crap in the 1940s, 1930s, and on back as far as you want to go, and 90% of everything will be crap as long as humans keep making stuff.

It's certainly true that the technology and constraints have changed over the years, but that only changes how we humans produce good stuff and crap stuff. It doesn't change the ratio of crap vs good in the slightest. That consistently hovers around 9:1, no matter how or when you make it.

And one more thing, crap is entirely subjective. What's crap to you may not not be crap to others.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

I would agree with you that 90 percent of music was crap, but this thread was never about the music. Go back and look at the original post.

Look at post #36 and you'll see what I was replying to.

And one more thing, crap is entirely subjective. What's crap to you may not not be crap to others.

You're absolutely right. 90% of everything is crap, but no one agrees on exactly which 90% is the crap.

 

[infullview]

Look at post #36 and you'll see what I was replying to.

You're absolutely right. 90% of everything is crap, but no one agrees on exactly which 90% is the crap.

I think where we diverged is post 35 was also making the point that the loudness wars damaged the quality of the music, and I agree with this.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

I think where we diverged is post 35 was also making the point that the loudness wars damaged the quality of the music, and I agree with this.

I agree too.

 

[WaynerN]

Huge dynamic range is fine for outdoor concerts or concert hall, our smaller living rooms offer a different challenge, and the dynamics of those larger venues would not work in our living rooms. Mine is 28' X 32' and its loud enough with the state of current music.

 

[infullview]

Huge dynamic range is fine for outdoor concerts or concert hall, our smaller living rooms offer a different challenge, and the dynamics of those larger venues would not work in our living rooms. Mine is 28' X 32' and its loud enough with the state of current music.

But you as the consumer should be able to make that choice. That's why many AV amps have a "night mode" which compresses the audio so you can hear both loud and soft parts at low volume,

 

[Nixxuz]

Any discussion of ''recorded music'' is a worthless debate comprised of nothing more than opinions.

Unless you have spent time here,during the actual recording process,you are not equipped to judge the veracity of either the recording,the medium or the playback system:

Or here:

Or even here:

It's absolutely good to know what an instrument is supposed to sound like, conversely though, I can say MOST of the musicians I've met in my life couldn't mix or master their way out of a wet paper bag. There's such a thing as myopia when it comes to the studio in many cases. It's often best to have someone who has some distance from the actual performance getting the sound right. There are outliers obviously.