• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Tubes and Vinyl: An Often-Misunderstood Audiophile Debate

Bodyblue said:
A lot of CDs that are crushed with loudness are not that way on Spotify Premium. I have several CDs from the 90s that I put in and had to take them out right away because they sounded so bad. The same album on Spotify sounded great. On the other hand vinyl will never have a virtually silent noise floor.....I am rather done with both of them.
Click to expand...
I have noticed that as well with some of my CDs. They also sometime have both the OG master and the remaster for certain albums
 
WaynerN said:
That is why the good DBX models had all that stuff.

So apparently, you hate all music that is recorded. Then why are you listening to it? Its all compressed to some degree or another. Don't worry, the industry is looking our for you, even tho you do not understand the whys and the wherefores.......
Click to expand...
Yes I am aware that DBX had all those controls, but unless you have some inside information, there's absolutely no way you could know how to set them to reverse the compression.
 
DaveVoorhis said:
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.
Click to expand...
I completely agree only I think it's closer to 95%. :)
 
Wow. I have about 2,000 records in my vinyl room, the rest in the storage room. Everyone is a joy to listen to, despite what you cats think are flaws. Just the other day, I put on Alan Parsons Project's Ammonia avenue, what a treat. If Alan Parsons ca't get it right, who can? I also listened to Fleet Foxes new LP, Crack-Up. Again, it is an audio wonder in my books. Should win a Grammy but wont because their not popular enough.

I think some have bought into the big lie that recorded music can sound like live music. That is just simply not the case. At least, not yet. The Dynamic range swings of a full orchestra would probably melt many under-powered amps and speakers it they were played at life like levels. The distortion levels would be very high as well.

It's Christmas eve. Why not just plan a day of listening to imperfect music. Played in an imperfect world. Someday, maybe someone will figure out how to reproduce the perfect musical event. It's not here yet.
 
I skipped to the end!
Why read a regurgitation of what has been said ad-nauseum??!

When CDs came out around 1985, I invested.
And kept all the wonderful music I already had.
Why would anybody replace what was already satisfying and entirely satisfactory?

And, don't really fully know why or care, why I stopped buying CDs long ago!
I like what I like.
 
nj pheonix said:
Guitar amps are designed to distort.
Stereo amps are not .
Really an apples to oranges comparison.
You wouldn't want to run 2 Marshall heads as mono blocks

Also tube amps made for musical instruments only had to be able to reproduce the frequency of the instrument.
Not all instruments and voices.
Click to expand...

Well, I thought that as well nj phoenix, but recently re-reading my book : "The history of Fender", in the back of it there is listed copies of original sales flyers, and to my surprise the frequency response specs for most of the 50ties guitar amps were listed as 20 Hz. to 20 kHz - 1 db. "with the tone controls set appropriately" !!

Though no power level was indicated for that measurement, which can have a decided effect on the flatness of bandwidth at higher power, especially at the lower frequencies.

Somewhat a surprise to me since I have been repairing musical amplifiers since 1975, but I don`t recall ever running a full bandwidth tests on any of them out of curiousness, nor on any Marshall amps either.

And the original design and use of the standard guitar/bass tube amps in the mid 50ties ~ early to mid 60ties was to try to avoid overdriving/clipping the guitar/bass sound..

Only later on did that intentional practice come in to popularity as an excepted musical guitar sound/tone, at least as I noticed(The Beach Boys, and the early The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, etc. were certainly not shredding their guitar tones !)

Just some 64 year old rock and roller observation/s..

Take care and have a great Christmas.
Kind regards, Billy Ferris
 
sqlsavior said:
If Spock favors mush for the masses, **** Spock.
Click to expand...
Not without dinner and a movie first.

It's mush for the masses that keeps the music industry going. Without the masses buying mush, the "music industry" would consist entirely of three of your neighbours playing in your nearest pub for a share of the tips.

For a few of us, that would be great, either because our neighbours are fortuitously musical or because we're very tolerant.

But for the rest of us... If you think your neighbours are annoying now, wait 'til you hear them playing violin or drums or (I use the term loosely here) "singing".
 
DaveVoorhis said:
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.
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.
Click to expand...

Quote from Audiophile Review

And why do I dare write that one of the most cherished recordings in the jazz lexicon is screwed? Because it has some fundamental (and repairable) technical flaws that make the recording far lower fidelity than it could have been.

The first and most pervasive flaw is flutter and wow. If you listen carefully to the piano, it's easy to hear the flutter's effects on its pitch, especially during the decay of the trailing notes. You can also hear the flutter on the decay of the saxes.

The second flaw is the microphone amplifier distortion on the saxes (and to a much lesser extent on the piano) on "All Blues." On earlier versions I've heard folks say the distortion was "spit" or the sound of the moisture in the sax's spit valve. Nope, it sounds a lot more like intermodulation distortion and clipping caused by misadjusted microphone levels than spit.

I find it kind of ironic that Kind of Blue as an example is used because it is a flawed recording. Does that make it unlistenable? Of course not! But you do have to listen to the music instead of recording flaws. So what does this have to do with vinyl vs. tubes? The more forgiving nature of vinyl and tubes make those flaws less noticeable.

As for everything in 1959 being crap, I cite this from All About Jazz 1959: The Most Creative Year In Jazz. Among other albums cited are Take 5, Cotrane's Giant Steps, Portrait in Jazz by Bill Evans, and Ornette Coleman's The Shape of Jazz to Come.

You don't necessarily have to like all of these recordings to allow that they were important albums.

Another place you might want to look at is https://www.besteveralbums.com/yearstats.php?y=1959. You'll find a lot familiar names like Elvis, LIttle Richard, Bo Diddley, Ray Charles, Sinatra, etc. The point is that if with so many Albums that come out in any year, you can find good and even classic stuff. Whether that is the best 10% or even 0.1% is besides the point although I would say that it is not a fixed % for any given year. I would argue that more classic rock albums came out in the 1960's and 70's than the 1980's and 90's.
 
Putterman said:
I would argue that more classic rock albums came out in the 1960's and 70's than the 1980's and 90's.
Click to expand...

I think 29yr old daughter and her friends would take you up on that argument as would the Classic Rock station I am listening to that just played Motley Crew, Pearl Jam and some Sublime back to back. I am not disagreeing with you, just saying that is a personal opinion like most things on this site.

:beerchug:
 
Putterman said:
As for everything in 1959 being crap, I cite this from All About Jazz...
Click to expand...
Nobody said everything in 1959 was crap.

I quoted Theodore Sturgeon, who famously said, “Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud.”

This is usually called Sturgeon's Law and typically paraphrased as "90% of everything is crap."

Note that "90%" is not meant to be rigorous. The whole phrase is just a zingy, pseudo-scientific way of saying most stuff is crap.

Which is as true now as it was in 1959.

...Note that it implies there's always some good to be found.

Which is also true.
 
Last edited:
Putterman said:
I find it kind of ironic that Kind of Blue as an example is used because it is a flawed recording. Does that make it unlistenable? Of course not! But you do have to listen to the music instead of recording flaws. So what does this have to do with vinyl vs. tubes? The more forgiving nature of vinyl and tubes make those flaws less noticeable.
Click to expand...
I was the one who used Kinda Blue as and example, and I never said it was perfect, I believe I said it was honest. Flawed , maybe by a degree - as most recordings go it was pretty damned good, not perfect, but then again neither were the people playing the music. That's what makes it so great, because it's out there mistakes and all and it entertains. If I wanted perfect, I'd fire up the computer and let the sampling engines do the work. It's great because it's real, and this recording brings me back in time to a place that is tangible and believable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom