Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › On the superiority of vinyl
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

On the superiority of vinyl - Page 38

post #556 of 836
"Perfectly reproduce", rubbish.

The redbook CD format is bandwidth limited, whether you can hear the difference between that and an analog player is another matter.

SACD on the otherhand comes much closer IMO.
post #557 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman View Post
Well, I am studying Music Production at NYU and this is also the figure they provided me with.
Please can you point us to the citation ? This question is driving me nuts.
post #558 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 View Post
Explain then why the addition of even modest 16bit AD/DA chains is transparent. If the sampling had such a deleterious effect it would be obvious ,certainly it should have been obvious to Ivor Tiefenbrun who faled miserably to correctly detect analog or analog/AD/DA chains.
Sampling at 44,100 times per second is sufficient to fool most people most of the time.

Compare the CD to a master tape made from the same microphone feed that fed to the A/D converter in digital recording and I think most people would be able to hear the difference most of the time in favor of the master tape. The master tape receives over a million time intervals of musical data per second (actually continuous and not sampled, so could be a billion) in musical recording compared to the 44,100 times per second of musical recording received digitally.

Do you agree?

Transfering from the master tape to the vinyl cut does not reduce the recorded sample much from the over million times a second on the tape. This rnaster tape to vinyl cut is also continuous and not sampled. However the vinyl is not as good as the master tape as there are some added or changed auditory elements, but no reduction of data content as in digital conversion from analog.

Do you agree?

Many people say vinyl sounds more alive and realistic than digital. Many others can't hear any difference - can't tell if it digital or not.

Do you agree?

This must not be because of some added adulteration in vinyl, but must be because of a closer sound to the original than digital offers, because they say it sounds more real or can't hear the differnce.

Do you agree?
post #559 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by memepool View Post
The word "bandlimited" is the problem. obviously it's not only about conventional frequency response. It's things like harmonics which arn't being measured properly and therefore not captured at all. Like someone said earlier this is why CD's sound so much more real listened to via tubes/valves. Walk into almost any Protools suite now and they use a Focusrite valve microphone preamp. Valves make the sound more "natural" to the ear by re-introducing some of the harmonic information discarded during the original digital recording process. Obviously they can't recreate the same harmonics but they give a pleasing colouration to the sound which somehow makes it seem more natural. Valve pre-amps are an atempt to engineer this into the actual recording process.
This is more of a problem for the bandwidth that you choose to capture in the digital domain. If there are higher order harmonics that still make an impact on the perception of the sound then the bandwidth needs to be increased accordingly. But there is a limit to the bandwidth that we as humans can physically perceive. So as long as the parameters of the digital medium are correct, there should not be any problems with using it for playback. We are at the stage where our storage medium is extraordinarily larger than what was available when redbook was first developed. Personally, I welcome the DVD-A and SACD standards that take advantage of this but the lack of adoption by the consumers has pretty much reduced them to a rarity.
post #560 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 View Post
Art, you still havent produced the Hirsch article, I have read almost 9 years of Stereo Review (1972 - 1981) and I cannot find it.
It was on two facing pages - as you open the page it is on both pages left and right.

It describes the new forthcoming digital age of CDs.

I don't know what date it was.

Keep looking. It is there.

Where did you find the Stero Reviews - online?

The point is, digital samples analog reality at the rate of 44,100 times per second.

Analog reality probably could be divided into over a million intervals a second if we had the advanced tech.

This means that analog is sampled in digital conversion of less than 5 per cent - perhaps far less.
post #561 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells View Post
Where did you find the Stero Reviews - online?
He described in an earlier post that he reviewed them in hardcopy at the University of Pennsylvania library.

Quote:
Analog reality probably could be divided into over a million intervals a second if we had the advanced tech.
If analog is continuous, could it not be divided into an infinite number of samples?

I'm not suggesting that we have the technology to measure at an infinite resolution, but if analog is "continuous," then does it not necessarily follow that it cannot be captured in a finite number of samples?

Edit: for the sake of clarity, when I use the phrase "analog" in this question, I am referring to the original audio, not an analog recording of it.
post #562 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 View Post
No, some people prefer Vinyl to CD.

The question if you read the first message is about what technical limits exist with CD or LP i.e the OP talks about what cannot be captured on LP. This is a debate about the technical capabilities of the media, that some prefer one to another is a whole different question. For instance the SNR, THD, speed constancy, dynamic range and FR of CD and LP can be easily measured. Look at in these terms what is on the original tape and what is on the final CD or LP - which comes closer to being a transparent copy of the master.
Exactly. It's just that the sole comparison of measuring data and the superiority of the CD in most corresponding criteria don't tell if it really is superior in terms of preceived accuracy -- with respect to the master tape. Add to this that every CDP sounds different, just as every LP playback system.

Quote:
Explain then why the addition of even modest 16bit AD/DA chains is transparent. If the sampling had such a deleterious effect it would be obvious, certainly it should have been obvious to Ivor Tiefenbrun who faled miserably to correctly detect analog or analog/AD/DA chains.
The fact that somebody failed in a blind test doesn't prove that a system/format is transparent. Although the mentioned high-end Sony transport/DAC system undoubtedly was of high quality, I haven't met two digital players that sound the same, so I doubt that it really is transparent in every way. However, it was good enough to pass a blind test, which is no surprise, as many blind tests result in zero differences. (I remember when I first heard an SACD from the then best player [Accuphase] in a hi-fi shop through an unfamiliar speaker setup and unfamiliar acoustics -- I had troubles detecting a difference to the CD layer.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidelity View Post
"Perfectly reproduce", rubbish.

The redbook CD format is bandwidth limited, whether you can hear the difference between that and an analog player is another matter.

SACD on the otherhand comes much closer IMO.
I agree that there's a fundamental sonic difference. And I tend to believe that the CD's «bandwidth limitation» -- or rather its characteristic in the form of a sharp brickwall filter (which nonetheless has nothing to do with just 5% of the original data ) -- may be one of the main culprits. Anyway, since none of us has the master tape at his/her disposal, it's «unscientific» to draw premature conclusions about signal accuracy; the LP has clear metrological weaknesses, and the electromechanical «recording» and playback processes make it hard to postulate «transparency» for it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells View Post
Transfering from the master tape to the vinyl cut does not reduce the recorded sample much from the over million times a second on the tape. This rnaster tape to vinyl cut is also continuous and not sampled. However the vinyl is not as good as the master tape as there are some added or changed auditory elements, but no reduction of data content as in digital conversion from analog.
Sampling is not the problem, in contrast to sharp low-pass filtering. Compared to the LP, there's not much data lost (if at all), since the latter is bandwidth limited as well -- and ultrasonics per se don't matter anyway, but moreso the absence of the sharp low-pass filter. -- And remember: what comes out of a CDP/DAC is a continuous analog signal, no matter how it's gained!

Quote:
Many people say vinyl sounds more alive and realistic than digital. Many others can't hear any difference - can't tell if it digital or not.
Yes, many people can hear the difference, and many people like vinyl better. Does this prove the greater accuracy and neutrality? No. It's possible to explain the preference and even the higher subjective realism with euphonic colorations and distortions added from the vinyl, even the surface noise may be perceived as reviving component, and quite likely so the harmonic-distortion products.
.
post #563 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells View Post
Sampling at 44,100 times per second is sufficient to fool most people most of the time.

Compare the CD to a master tape made from the same microphone feed that fed to the A/D converter in digital recording and I think most people would be able to hear the difference most of the time in favor of the master tape. The master tape receives over a million time intervals of musical data per second (actually continuous and not sampled, so could be a billion) in musical recording compared to the 44,100 times per second of musical recording received digitally.

Do you agree?
When this master tape/CD comparsion has been done (for instance by both Stewart Pinkerton and Arny Kreuger) nobody has been able to detect the difference. Whereas when a LP/master tape comp is done the difference is audible. Do a search on RAO if you do not believe me.

Quote:
Transfering from the master tape to the vinyl cut does not reduce the recorded sample much from the over million times a second on the tape. This rnaster tape to vinyl cut is also continuous and not sampled. However the vinyl is not as good as the master tape as there are some added or changed auditory elements, but no reduction of data content as in digital conversion from analog.

Do you agree?
No, all I have read so far indicates that this particular assertion is wholly wrong. You just need to read the performance specs on LP and master tape to see just how limited the final data density is when it hits LP. Good Analog tape can get up to 88db of dynamic range and an SNR of close to 90db. Vinyl just does not get anywhere close to that, 78db being damn good for DR and that on exceptional recordings. There is clearly a massive data loss going from tape to LP. Unless you can prove me wrong with some numbers.


Quote:
Many people say vinyl sounds more alive and realistic than digital. Many others can't hear any difference - can't tell if it digital or not.

Do you agree?
Some people prefer vinyl, that has never been in question. Some cannot tell the difference.

Quote:
This must not be because of some added adulteration in vinyl, but must be because of a closer sound to the original than digital offers, because they say it sounds more real or can't hear the differnce.

Do you agree?
No, that does not follow at all. That is a wholly spurious argument. Some prefer vinyl, for whatever reason, that means nothing at all about which is closer to the original, that can only be ascertained by paired comparisons between original/Cd and original/LP. When the difference is more detectable then the transfer is more faulty or less transparent. When the difference is not detectable then the transfer is more transparent.
post #564 of 836
I apologize. My numbers actually differ from Art's a bit.

My number is 768,000, actually. That is the approximate number of different sounds that can be achieved in a 16bit recording.
post #565 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
If analog is continuous, could it not be divided into an infinite number of samples?
No, not quite, because you hit the molecular (or atomic) level , so for instance sound waves are comprised of air movements i.e are the transfer of energy from one air molecule to another in a longitudinal manner. The speed of sound (in air) is known (~344M/S) and we can calculate the displacement of air particles over time, knowing the density of air we can calculate the rate of transfer of energy between molecules. It is highly finite so although you can divide it by as many as you like the resolution is limited by phsyics. So you get to the point where nx2 samples is no better than n samples.

As an analogy imagine a golf club hitting a ball, there is a finite lag between the contact and the ball flying away, watch the Golf on a sunday where they do slow-mo of Joe Golfer hitting the ball you can see the ball compress before it goes off it, does not fly of instantly. If the energy transfer of air molecules was infinite sound would move faster than light.
post #566 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman View Post
I apologize. My numbers actually differ from Art's a bit.

My number is 768,000, actually. That is the approximate number of different sounds that can be achieved in a 16bit recording.
I am not quite sure I get it.

Bit depth (16 bits) just tells you the dynamic range i.e the legendary 65536 levels (give or take) (96db) , the sampling rate gives you the bandwidth (0 - 22.05k give or take) and when multiplied by the bit-depth gives you how much data is stored in unit time so for CD you have 16 bits x 44,100 = 705,600 x 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits per second /8 = 176,400 Bytes per second.

Er also 768,000 is coincidentally the bits/second for a 48K 16 bit system per channel ?
post #567 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Stuart View Post
I can't believe how long this thread is becoming - it's a joke and why?

The title of this thread is - On the superiority of vinyl - that's it. If you want to start a new thread on how to waste time arguing semantics - then do so.

Facts - lots of older posters have said on this thread and many others why they are getting back into vinyl - not opinion - fact. There are also, so many threads with young ones who were'nt alive in the heyday of vinyl, who rave about the difference in what they hear with vinyl, compared to CD. So on that basis alone, quite clearly, vinyl (analogue) is superior to CD (digital).

Why would anyone, rationally argue against this reality?

Look at the arguments expounded by the digital brigade - the human ear cannot hear beyond a certain limit, so, ergo the digital brickwall filter does'nt matter, because it is already beyond the capability of humans - what a load of rubbish.

I used to live in a seaside town on the south coast of England, about 54 miles south of London. At wekends many Londoners would visit. I could always easily define who were Londoners and who were local, how, because Londoners shout, why, because they live like all big city dwellers in a totally noisy environment, the same goes for those that have to work in noisy environments - you simply lose the ability to hear detail.

Others have complained how recording engineeers are forced to make hard sounding music, why, because the piece must sound good in a moving car, why, simply because the music industry execs. perceive that that is and other noisy environments are where people will mostly listen to music (see memepool's comments about Motown recordings).

Art's comments about the 'total hearing' are absolutely spot on. This is something the digital brigade don't ever comment on, simply because it does'nt suit their argument. I wonder how many of them actually live in a noisy city?

I remember an American friend commenting a long time ago about inviting a New Yorker to come camping with him in the deserts of New Mexico - it did'nt last very long this vacation and why - the New Yorker got the screaming habdabs. he simply could'nt handle the space or the 'silence'. This city boy talked about being 'crushed' by the desert and by the 'awful' silence.

Of course the desert is'nt silent - it's full of sound but not sound this city freak could handle. It's full of 'nuances' of sound. It was this huge totality of sound/vibrations and nuances that got to him - there was nothing 'cut and dried' about it - this seems to me a perfect analogy for vinyl and digital.

I live for now in what can only be called 'big country' and to most city dwellers from northern Europe and for many Spanish as well - it simply terrifies them. When I stand still in the Tierras Malas (Badlands) I can hear nothing of the 'modern world' and it's wonderful but it is'nt silent - it's full of real sound - which is - all analogue.
Stuart, while i for the main part agree with ya, i wanna point out that on the absolute high end level, the difference is trivial! Not even worth mentioning.

So, in order to get cd right, you need much more money then a good record player...i agree totally on cheaper systems, in this domain i think records reign without any question. Problem is cd is easier without any hasle...repeat, just let it loop etc. for a record you need to go to the recordplayer and turn it over...or place the needle on the spot again...deteriation of the signal with every time you play the record...so, if you play a record lots of times, in the end a cd might be better.

That is why i think mp3 is so widely accepted, it is inferior but it is easy to handle especially for portable players...in this case lazyness is prefered over the quality of sound.

I am all for the quaity of sound.

As i said before..it's more like a tube amp versus a solid state amp...a matter of preference...both can sound really good!

Don't forget that a good vinyl rig can also cost easally thousands of dollars!

To sum it all up:

In this fast and moving society ease and speed is the essence, not taking the time and really listen and enjoy the music...

we, the people on headfi are the exception of the fast majority!

I don't hope cd, sacd and dvd-audio are dying out fast....downloadable content is taking over fast, with the deteriation as a trade off.

Stuart, it is not wrong to try to understand why one is superior over the other or why not...and it is in the context of this thread.

It states "the superiority of vinyl" so, prove vinyl IS superior...
post #568 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
player...i agree totally on cheaper systems, in this domain i think records reign without any question. ...a matter of preference...both can sound really good!
Er, my DVD player is currently ~$60 and sounds damn good to me, can a $60 TT match this ?, can you even buy a new $60 TT
post #569 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 View Post
No, not quite, because you hit the molecular (or atomic) level , so for instance sound waves are comprised of air movements i.e are the transfer of energy from one air molecule to another in a longitudinal manner. The speed of sound (in air) is known (~344M/S) and we can calculate the displacement of air particles over time, knowing the density of air we can calculate the rate of transfer of energy between molecules. It is highly finite so although you can divide it by as many as you like the resolution is limited by phsyics. So you get to the point where nx2 samples is no better than n samples.

As an analogy imagine a golf club hitting a ball, there is a finite lag between the contact and the ball flying away, watch the Golf on a sunday where they do slow-mo of Joe Golfer hitting the ball you can see the ball compress before it goes off it, does not fly of instantly. If the energy transfer of air molecules was infinite sound would move faster than light.
Is this why analogue sound is much harder to reproduce accurately then say a digital sound from a synthesizer??? Classical instruments sound more complex then a single pure tone from a synthesizer wich is easy to pick out, while every classical instrument smeares harmonics into it's own sound and that of other instruments...

e.g. a digital track(synthesizer music or any other digital music) sounds usually much clearer and better then classical instruments wich are smeared...it takes a good cdplayer to also reproduce good classical instruments...
post #570 of 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 View Post
Er, my DVD player is currently ~$60 and sounds damn good to me, can a $60 TT match this ?, can you even buy a new $60 TT
yes there are...and in some aspects, they do sound better...

But a 2000 dollar cdplayer is much better and in that realm, there are also really good recordplayers wich trash these players. Let alone a 60 bucks cdplayer.

I won't say your 60 bucks player won't sound any good but assumably a 2000 dollar player sounds better.

proof: 65 dollar record player...http://www0.shopping.com/xPO-Audio-Technica-AT-PL50
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › On the superiority of vinyl