Analog Corner

Having predicted it on The Today Show in the early 1990s, during a segment on how to transfer LPs to cassette (!), and having advocated vinyl and analog on MTV in 1993 (footnote 2), and on The Howard Stern Show in 2001, etc., I am not confounded by the LP's resurgence, nor do I wonder what's going on here. Thanks to reader tips, I've been monitoring the intensity of the backlash to the vinyl resurgence for years, and it seems to be directly proportional to the extent of the resurgence.

Some people engage with vinyl lovers at their own peril. For instance, if you were a loudspeaker manufacturer, would it make sense to alienate even a small portion of your potential clientele by strongly rejecting their preference for vinyl, and even mocking them for it? On the Harbeth User Group forum, Harbeth Audio's chief designer and owner, Alan A. Shaw, has been doing just that. Without the current vinyl resurgence, probably none of it would have appeared, but for some reason the vinyl uptick drives some people absolutely bonkers. I'm not sure why a 2% market share threatens them, but apparently it does.

A reader alerted me to a thread on the Harbeth Forum (footnote 3). To put it mildly, Shaw does not share our enthusiasm for vinyl. Nor, for that matter, does he seem keen to use ears to judge audio gear for purchase, which he thinks is best done "scientifically."

How humans survived without double-blind tests of tiger attacks, I'll never know. But doesn't the thread's subtitle, "Romance v. Reality," set up a false dichotomy? Is a (nonlinear) microphone feed "reality"? Will a mastering job done using speakers other than the ones you listen to at home result in "reality" in your listening room?

Shaw decided to "scientifically" compare LPs to CDs, but first he set up his turntable:

"I've spent an afternoon carefully calibrating and cleaning my turntable and made some more test recordings. The most recent vinyl LP I have is 1989, Michael Jackson's Bad, which I also have on four different CDs, the oldest also being dated 1989. Once I was sure that the turntable was as good as I could make it, I made some recordings off Bad vinyl [an attempt at humor?—MF] and can directly compare with the ripped CD."

This purported attempt at a scientific comparison doesn't tell readers which turntable or cartridge or phono preamp or CD player Shaw used, or what he means by "calibrating." Clearly, Shaw didn't appear to be interested in what might be the "state of the art" of LPs, record players, and setup procedures, and in that he's not alone. For most digital diehards, the analog world stopped improving the day CDs went on sale. When, at audio shows, I play CD-Rs made from vinyl, instead of complaining about the problems of vinyl, listeners most often say, "Which CD version is that? Mine doesn't sound nearly as good."

Shaw points to "rumble" as an insurmountable problem, as if it were a recent revelation that vinyl fans need to know about. In fact, he points to all of the well-known problems of vinyl as if they need to be divulged to vinyl friends and foes alike. We know the problems. Has anyone reading this been perturbed or disturbed by audible rumble?

Yes, we all know that the lathes that cut the lacquers probably add some low-frequency noise to LPs, and that some turntables add more—so why is it, when I play LPs made from performances recorded in London's Kingsway Hall, that the audible room "rumble" completely disappears between movements? Why is it that, although my speakers go very low, rumble is a complete nonissue? I don't "choose to ignore it," as some suggest—I just don't hear it.

Yes, I occasionally do hear a pop or a tick, though far less often than the anti-vinylists seem to. When I do, I do choose to ignore them—just as I tune out those who sneeze, belch, pass gas, cough, clear their throats, and occasionally drop dead at Avery Fisher Hall. Should I just stay home and listen to CDs because I'd then hear none of that—only sound that, to my ears, in no way resembles what I hear at concerts?

In the end, Shaw is more understanding of personal preferences. You can prefer analog to digital, but in terms of which is the more advanced technology, there can be no argument:

"Both [analogue and digital] can co-exist, happily. But in a court of law, under objective scrutiny, only one is a universal truth. Please can we always keep in mind when comparing (any) analogue with digital, that like it or not, one is a painting and one a photograph."

I would say that analog and digital are fundamentally different technologies, and that both are imperfect. To call one a "universal truth"—particularly a file of CD resolution (16-bit/44.1kHz), as opposed to a high-resolution digital master recording, or especially an analog master recording—is not science but religion.

I think that both technologies are flawed, the newer one in ways not yet fully understood in terms of how the brain interprets and reacts to what it hears, regardless of "perfect" measurements based on analog standards. Flat frequency response isn't everything, any more than a flat on-axis response tells us everything about a loudspeaker's sound.

Why, in 2014, do people still listen to vinyl, and in ever-increasing numbers?
I posted a long letter on the Harbeth site asserting that the choice is not one of "romance v. reality." Because no microphone is perfectly flat, microphone feeds are not reality—something known by anyone who's heard a demonstration of live sound vs a microphone feed of that same sound.

Considering that there are no universally agreed-on standards of audio monitoring—as there are, say, for the calibration of video monitors—and since every audio mastering engineer does his own thing, just what is audio "reality"? Why should any mastering engineer's reality be my reality? Unless I listen to an engineer's mastering on the same speakers he used, and in the same space, how can his reality be mine? Knowing that there is no attainable ultimate "reality" on which we all can agree, why shouldn't each listener set up a system based on his or her sonic preferences? After all, that's what the engineers making the recordings do.

My ear/brain system tells me that the fundamentally different analog and digital technologies produce results that differ in ways far beyond a measured frequency response or dynamic range. Do these fundamental differences have to do with the minute timing problems of digital being more impactful and more difficult to "listen around" than such gross, easily audible problems like a turntable's wow and flutter? I don't know. I'm happy to let others figure it out while I spin LPs.

If CDs are so "perfect," why do so many people return to vinyl, and express both mental relief and a realization that they are again sitting and listening to music hour after hour—something many of them haven't been able to do for years? Why, when listening to vinyl, despite the measured and audible noise differences, do many people experience greater mental "quiet" and relaxation?

The grouchy tone taken by digital scolds tells me that, despite their belief in the perfection of their preferred means of reproducing music, they're not enjoying it all that much. Otherwise, why would they care so much, and object so strongly to our little 2% (and growing) world? Envy?

At the 2014 Consumer Electronics Show, veteran LP mastering engineer Doug Sax delivered an interesting talk, in the room of ATC Loudspeakers, on high-resolution audio and vinyl. As much as Sax appreciates the vinyl resurgence and the business it has brought him, based on what he said at CES—and at a mastering seminar at the 2013 South by Southwest Festival, in which I participated with Bob Ludwig—he sees vinyl as a flawed and limited medium that still manages to produce surprisingly good results.

Sax said he was glad that young people are getting into vinyl, both "just because," and because he thinks it's a "gateway" to appreciating high-resolution digital audio. But when asked why young people like vinyl so much and are gravitating toward it in ever-growing numbers, he said (I paraphrase), "I don't know, but they tell me when they listen to it, it draws them in."

"Draws them in": that's what the vinyl sales spike is really all about. It draws them in—and makes them want to listen and experience recorded music in ways no digital audio technology—particularly MP3—does. The vinyl experience is spreading virally among young people.

That's what it's really all about. "All else is gaslight."

Footnote 3: http://tinyurl.com/ovw6hn7