Helen Schmidt wrote:
Hi,

I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described
"newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important
point. I repeat the post he

-------------
My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in
any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because
I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is
it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.

Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is
extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.
------------

The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl,
with its obvious flaws?

The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external
stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts.

Traditionally, science has investigated only the external
manifestations of response to stimuli, because only the external can be
observed in an objective way. Internal percepts (the personal
"experience of what happens") have remained off-limits to hard science.
But philosophers and Zen monks have always been able to investigate
internal percepts. Musicians and all creative artists are carrying out
their own investigations, in a way.

What is obvious to those who care to introspect is that "listening is
not listening." The crucial question is, "What are you listening for?"
It is also obvious to those who care to introspect that different
people draw on a different set of potential concepts; that is, concepts
stored in memory that can be "activated" by stimuli. New listeners to
music generally relate music to potential concepts that they have
already developed from non-musical experience with sound: "loud,"
"soft," "fast," "slow". The "beat" may seem a musical concept, but it
is closely related to the heartbeat and other phenomena of nature, so
that potential concept of "beat" is sitting in unconscious memory
waiting to be activated even in the non-musician.

On the other hand, very experienced listeners of music, and even more
so musicians, have more highly developed abstractions as potential
concepts. An experienced listener hears aspect of form and subtle
nuances of expression: this is an entirely different set of potential
concepts from the beginner. Again, it is obvious from introspection
that as experience develops, the earlier potential concepts diminish in
importance and are replaced by more abstract potential concepts.

In other words, the surface noise of an LP corresponds to a relatively
juvenile potential concept, which is immediately derived from normal,
non-musical experience. The beginner will weight this concept highly,
and since it is normally a non-musical experience, it will interfere
quite a lot with listening. In the experienced listener, the weight of
this concept has diminished greatly and is superceded by the abstract
concepts of musical expression and form. In simple terms, what this
boils down to is that the experienced listener "hears through" the
noise into the music.

This kinds of experience seems impossible to the beginner; they simply
haven't developed the necessary potential concepts yet, just as a child
wouldn't normally have the ability to comprehend something abstract
like subtle competition in a political debate.

I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive,
philosophically. They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the
knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact,
I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea
and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This
misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not
"objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be
integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can
explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments
collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety.

Helen


FWIW, I've been a professional musician for over 30 years, and a
professional audio engineer for nearly 28. I have indeed learned to
"hear through" the clicks, pops, & other surface noise artifacts of
vinyl playback in order to appreciate aspects of form and subtle
nuances of musical expression.

But I choose not to. Those same aspects of form and subtle nuances of
musical expression are just as accurately conveyed in a good digital
recording of the performance, and a well-mastered compact disc happily
yields all that information without the additional surface noise that I
would otherwise have to "hear through". Why bother adding an obstacle
to enjoyment, even if it's an obstacle which through time & experience
I've learned to ignore?