The 'vinyl is better than digital' thing is a myth

Originally posted by PBE6
Some written discussion of audio myths from Ethan Winer's website (much shorter than the video):

http://www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html

That guy is for sure brilliant. I corresponded with him a bit.

One blast from the past, his mention of Mike Rivers. I knew Mike from way long ago, around 1970 in DC along with some other local characters, Mike Stewart, AKA Backwards Sam Firk, my main guitar teach, Gene Rosenthal of Adelphi records.
I remember Mike Rivers for his incredible guitar technique, acoustic stuff, awesome player.

Gene's sister Carol Rosenthal, married to Firk, died at the age of 28 of a heart attack. She was our blues sweetheart. Gene blamed her death on Firk, blackballed him from recording on his label, which he had already recorded three albums on with his buddy Delta X, Stephan Michelson, another great guitarist. Mike Died last year (RIP) but Delta X is still around.

Who could forget Chester Gentry, another local blues character, he and Firk decided one day it was time for me to get stoned, but that's another story🙂

Firks claim to fame was being buddies with Tom Hoskins (Fang) where they found an early map of Mississippi, found the town of Avalon which Mississippi John Hurt mentioned in a song (Avalon is my home) and went down there, found the town and found John Hurt. He called Firk, who drove down and the three of them drove up to Firk's place in Potomac Md where he stayed for about 3 months getting used to modern life again (Partying all night, getting drunk, playing guitar, singing, etc. All the while Firk is absorbing everything John did).

Firk was an incredible blues guitarist, acoustic blues. I remember Archie Edwards in DC, huge long thumb making long sweeping loops playing the guitar, Ed Morris, one of Firks other students, who died also. Mike Rivers was part of that crew, a really great guitarist in his own right, I was in awe of his playing. BTW, John Hurt was re-discovered in 1963 and I got up to DC in 68, just after he died, so missed my chance to meet him. Sigh. Back in the good old days.....

Originally posted by PBE6
Does anyone actually want to discuss the pros and cons of "the 'vinyl is better than digital' thing is a myth"? Or should we all just reminisce?

There sure is something organic about listening to vinyl, whether absolute differences with high quality digital are there or not.

There is an album, now way way out of print in vinyl, still available in digital format, CD's, is a friend of mine, Eugene O'donnell, a great Irish fiddler, master of airs, recorded a record in one take with his buddy James McCaffery, a great Irish pianist.

This record I have kept in primo shape, making sure it is clean before playing, it's called Irish Airs and Jigs for violin and piano,

it is just cream coming out of the speakers.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There sure is something organic about listening to vinyl, whether absolute differences with high quality digital are there or not.

There is an album, now way way out of print in vinyl, still available in digital format, CD's, is a friend of mine, Eugene O'donnell, a great Irish fiddler, master of airs, recorded a record in one take with his buddy James ...[text shortened]... d Irish Airs and Jigs for violin and piano,

it is just cream coming out of the speakers.

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you played that particular record? And has the sound quality (as you perceive it subjectively) gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse during subsequent plays? If the quality has changed in either direction, what changes are you noticing? What differences do you notice when comparing the record with the CD version (assuming you own the CD as well)?

Originally posted by PBE6
Just out of curiosity, how many times have you played that particular record? And has the sound quality (as you perceive it subjectively) gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse during subsequent plays? If the quality has changed in either direction, what changes are you noticing? What differences do you notice when comparing the record with the CD version (assuming you own the CD as well)?

My panasonic direct drive turntable (Which I got at a yard sale for would you believe TWO dollars!!) runs very well with just a gram of force, I have scale that measures that and diamond needle of course. I have played that record probable 50 times in the past ten years and notice no difference in sound.

In that time I have upgraded my sound system several times so it might not be a very reliable test, the latest one, gotten from hock shops, you know the drill, for instance, I bought a relatively high end Olympus dslr a couple years ago for my wife for christmas, wanted to upgrade, it cost me 1100 bucks with all the accessories and closeup lenses and such, asked at the same store I bought it, how much trade in value it has, he says oh, about 50 bucks!🙁
So in two years what was close to the highest technology is down about 95 percent in value. So the same with audio equipment. I went to a local hock shop and got some really nice Sony amps and such so got a great upgrade for about 150 bucks, the original cost was about 1500.

I say all that just to say the quality of the sound went up when I snatched that good amp so can't say for sure how much deterioration happened. But I listen with good earphones also and hear not much difference. For sure you can't stop the dust from entering the grooves unless you play them in a cleanroom but it sounds just as pristine as the day I got it with the addition of a few more pops from the dust.

I think the same could not be said of magnetic tape, they lose some presence after a few years sitting on the reel. That would be the more professional gear, like my Teac 3340 or the real expensive 2 inch drives, tape loses a bit of highs after a few years due to random demags going on inside the magnetic oxide, not much but it does not stop losing bits of magnetic polarization of the signal each year.

When I was a kid my dad had an interesting machine, a WIRE recorder, this was in the late 40's, early 50's. The reel was about 2 or 3 inches in diameter, pretty wide, about an inch wide and the wire was not much thicker than hair and it recorded rather well. We kept that machine up into the 70's and I dug it up one day and listened to the recordings (wish I had them now!, got lost) and they had clearly lost some magnetic charge, the S/N ratio went way down, loss of highs. Of course that kind of machine was only mono, unless someone had thought to use a two wire process but I don't think that ever happened, wire technology reached it's peak in the late 40's and superseded by tape.

I remember a reel of tape I got one time at a garage sale, 7 inch reel, from Germany, they were into tape way before the rest of the world and this tape was not made of plastic, it was made of paper, pretty strong and probably superior in some respects, like stretching, it didn't stretch, it just broke under stress. But it was thicker than the 1.5 or 1.0 mil plastic tapes that came later so it didn't record as much time as later tapes but it was interesting to see.

The wire recorder is another instance of hell for archivists. So the history buff finds a box of wire reels, maybe it's a recording of a past presidential speech or something and of historical interest, what does he do to find a working wire playback machine? Could maybe a cassette recorder be modified to pick up wire? That's what I mean about the archive problem. So many generations of new and improved methods of storing sound and images but with past media, the archivist has a real problem. Scientific American ran a piece on that subject a few years ago. It's a big problem.

I have cassettes I recorded in the 70's of my band and solo stuff but my tape players are beginning to deteriorate, rubber drive wheels drying out, same with reel to reel. I have a 10 inch professional tape done of our band but my teac bit the dust and I spent 1400 bucks on Ebay for about 6 replacements and none of the dam things worked very well. A good lesson for me vs Ebay.

I wanted to convert those tapes of our band to digital media but my machine broke before I could get the job done so I am left with some dude at a studio doing if for me for the price of 400 bucks....

Which sucks considering I have used pro audio equipment for 30 years and can't get the job done at home.

Originally posted by sonhouse
My panasonic direct drive turntable (Which I got at a yard sale for would you believe TWO dollars!!) runs very well with just a gram of force, I have scale that measures that and diamond needle of course. I have played that record probable 50 times in the past ten years and notice no difference in sound.

In that time I have upgraded my sound system sever ...[text shortened]... I have used pro audio equipment for 30 years and can't get the job done at home.

So have you compared the record to the CD?

Originally posted by PBE6
So have you compared the record to the CD?

I have not. I just know it is on cd because I googled Eugene and found it was re-issued. You can hear some of the cuts if you google Eugene O'donnell.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I have not. I just know it is on cd because I googled Eugene and found it was re-issued. You can hear some of the cuts if you google Eugene O'donnell.

Which side of the fence would you say you're on? And for what reason?

Originally posted by PBE6
Does anyone actually want to discuss the pros and cons of "the 'vinyl is better than digital' thing is a myth"? Or should we all just reminisce?

Ah yes. The memories. I miss the days when people reminisced less.

Originally posted by sonhouse
it is just cream coming out of the speakers.

Good amp and speakers plus a good equalizer [if you deem it necessary] can extract cream from a CD too, surely.

Originally posted by PBE6
Which side of the fence would you say you're on? And for what reason?

Actually, I listen to both and it's hard to tell the dif, since the real thing is the music which I get lost in. Don't forget, people got lost in the music from 78's a hundred years ago, then 45's, then the measurably better 33's, then reel to reel, then cassettes, then CD's, then sticks and such, hd recordings. The thing that gets me is not the media but the music inside.

In some ways, a good 78 outperforms 33's, certainly not in S/N level but sometimes clarity and dynamic range. I have a buddy, Joe Bussard, lives in Maryland, owns Fonotone records, is one of the most knowledgeable 78 collectors on the planet, with 25,000 primo records from the first days of any recording. His equipment can make incredible sounds from just old 78's.

My main guitar teach, Backwards Sam Firk, and John Fahey, recorded 78's with him in 1962, some as duets, even before Firk and Fang re-discovered John Hurt.

Joe has put a lot of Fonotone records, his own recordings of bluegrass and blues, and re-recording of his 78's (he specialized in getting the best of the best in terms of as close to unplayed as possible).

It's funny, he hates stereo, says it's not needed.

When he recorded his people back in the day, they only had one mic in the center of the musicians and he recorded them into an early Ampex machine which he still has and it still works!

He stopped making 78's around 20 years ago.

Listening to his playback in his basement of the early 78's was a real revelation in terms of the quality of the sound even though it was only mono.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The Cramps once declared that they preferred valve amplifiers because valves “turned the music to fire”; amps containing silicon chips, on the other hand, deadened the music by routing it through pieces of stone.
http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2011/06/09/everything-old-is-new-again/

More properly, through pieces of sand.....