Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Confused: Vinyl(Analog) vs Digital
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Confused: Vinyl(Analog) vs Digital - Page 3

post #31 of 54

The problem with R2R is storage of the tapes, and the fact that nothing is released on them anymore :( 

 

Some day, I will be wealthy enough to buy a few record labels, and thus have access to their master tapes :D  Until then...
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyRay View Post

Its all about the mastering!
Screw CD’s and Vinyl.
Go directly to the source!!!!

 

http://www.head-fi.org/image/id/71639/width/1000/height/500


http://www.head-fi.org/image/id/71636/width/1000/height/500

 



 

post #32 of 54


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post




Oh man....that made me squirt coke out my nose! LOL!

 

I could post a nice paragraph on the topic of digital v. analogue but I am laughing too much. However, I will sum it up with the following:

 

IT'S ALL IN THE MASTERING!!!

The mastering has a great deal to do with sound quality but unfortunately digital artifacts cannot be mastered out of digital recordings nor can the artifacts discarded by the defined compact disc lossy codec standards be master back into digital recordings. These are things unrecognized by specifications which can be easily heard with normal hearing. The compact disc in nothing more than a lossy codec of somewhat higher quality than mp3 codecs. People who hang on to their vinyl collections aren't crazy old farts with with nostalgic ideals. Listening to music in the complete absence of lossy codecs has real advantages in high fidelity reproduction and the best mastering techniques technology has available cannot restore information that has been permanently lost. 
 


Edited by ssportclay - 6/10/10 at 5:56pm
post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssportclay View Post


 

The compact disc in nothing more than a lossy codec of somewhat higher quality than mp3 codecs.


The highest mp3 I've seen is 320 kbps. Most of my cd's are at 1411 kbps. I'd call that more than somewhat higher quality.

post #34 of 54

Oh yea, I forgot to come to the defense of my buddy Doug.

 

Someone wrote, as a challenge to Doug:

 

Nyquist theorm is only to detect a signal and not to reproduce.

 

That is false.  The Nyquist theorem is about exact recovery of a continuous signal from discrete samples (in particular, from fast enough samples of a bandwidth-limited signal, the sampling going on forever just as the signal does).

 

The recovery is exact mathematically.  This is a mathematical result, and it tells us something interesting, practical, and approximate-but-very-close about the real world too.  Very nice.  Very important.

 

Someone else pointed out, correctly, that there is a problem at the EXACT folding frequency B, and that is correct too.  But this is a well-known little side point, nothing more.

 

Back to the main point.  In the real world we don't have the exact values at the sample point, we have to quantize them (into 16 bit or 24 bit integers).  That means we have lost exactitude.  Also, computing circuits cannot exactly compute the mathematical (sine) functions needed for the exact interpolation, can't do division exactly when irrational numbers are involved, etc. ... so more error.

 

And the model is wrong, since audio signals cannot really be bandwidth limited in the mathematical sense since they are time-extant limited, as I described above. 

 

None of this matters.  What matters is how remarkably close to the real world the theoretical Nyquist result is (and it's not really Nyquist's, but you can check Wikipedia for all that).  DACs are great, sampling works.  In his paper Lavry says maybe 44.1 is a little too low, but 96 borders on overkill.  That seems right to me.  This does not mean that upsampling is useless -- just the opposite, it is a neat first step in some interpolaton algorithms.  I find some DACs sound better if I upsample externally to 96 first, even if the DAC upsamples on its own -- it all depends on the algorithm used.

 

An analog reproduction system makes all kinds of errors too -- tracking, etc.  Nonetheless, the best analog systems sound great.  So do the best digital systems.  Poor digital systems seem to introduce errors that annoy people a great deal, and that's what gave CD's their initial bad rap among audiophiles. 

 

Maintaining a first-class analog system takes a lot of manual work.  Especially when using a computer audio system, maintaining a first-class digital system is almost no work.  Both can sound fantastic.  Stick-shift vs automatic transmission ... is that a good analogy?  I never had a good, racing-quality automatic and thought a stick-shift in any high-performance car was necessary, but then in the early '90s I got to drive some automatic Fords with real performance boxes and I realized I was wrong. 

 

I'm getting a high-end turntable so I don't have to re-buy all my LPs, but everything I buy now is digital, even if vinyl is available.

 

Listen, and do what seems right to you.

post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ford2 View Post



 



I wonder if there is software that can put all the clicks and pops back into the digital signal to make you analogue fellow's happy.



It is not the pops and clicks that make records sound better and I think you are missing the point. Analog audio sounds better on good analog gear and it is as real as it gets, digital is like a fake representation of that analog signal. Whether the sound coming from the real world is sound waves being recorded by an analog microphone or played back through analog gear and speaker systems.

 

Hell even a hard drive is really in essence analog gear, it still uses magnetic heads, rotating disc platters to record digital 0's and 1's, still all in an analog way..

 

So the argument over whether analog is better than digital, well it is like saying real life is not as good as a computer simulation of it ?!? What the hell is that about.....

 

Analog will always be better, faster, and sound Real because duh' it is Real !!! Not just a fake simulation of reality. Until digital can copy the sound Reality exactly like analog equipment can, then I will personally wait for digital to play catch up. Like one person said, digital has allot of catching up to do.

 

Analog Engineers have at least a 70 years or more of experience actually doing and making and designing just that, really good analog gear.

 

Don't get me wrong I still use digital audio gear, computers and products every day, but I prefer to work in the analog World especially when there is no other way to get the sound quality I want and the realism I strive to create in my music and recordings. And to reproduce what I am actually hearing in real life.

 

So why don't they have completely digital speaker systems and or microphones with no moving voice coil magnet elements/speakers, because analog equipment is the only way to get the analog sound waves (music) across to your ears correctly.

 

Now if you lived on Planet X then maybe we could send analog sound waves wireless to our brains directly, but until we move to another planet and change our biology, I would just stick to good ol' Planet Earth Analog Sound and do it the way it has been done for over 70 years, and  If you count humans playing on analog instruments, then you can say for several thousands of years......

 

So Why does music recorded in the 1960's and 70's on 1" and 2" analog reel to reel tape sound so awesome even today ?!? Because the highest resolution and highest quality recordings ever made in History were recorded by really good Sound Engineers using really good quality analog gear and then mastered directly to analog reel to reel tape, uh' not records or vinyl, but good old reel tape !  Where do you think they got the Masters from for vinyl ?

 

The best Master recordings and highest resolution sound is still tape period, and sorry, the winner is not digital, not yet'..........but I suppose someday it will catch up ?


Edited by aarow - 10/25/10 at 9:45pm
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarow View Post





It is not the pops and clicks that make records sound better and I think you are missing the point. Analog audio sounds better on good analog gear and it is as real as it gets, digital is like a fake representation of that analog signal. Whether the sound coming from the real world is sound waves being recorded by an analog microphone or played back through analog gear and speaker systems.

 

Hell even a hard drive is really in essence analog gear, it still uses magnetic heads, rotating disc platters to record digital 0's and 1's, still all in an analog way..

 

So the argument over whether analog is better than digital, well it is like saying real life is not as good as a computer simulation of it ?!? What the hell is that about.....

 

Analog will always be better, faster, and sound Real because duh' it is Real !!! Not just a fake simulation of reality. Until digital can copy the sound Reality exactly like analog equipment can, then I will personally wait for digital to play catch up. Like one person said, digital has allot of catching up to do.

 

Analog Engineers have at least a 70 years or more of experience actually doing and making and designing just that, really good analog gear.

 

Don't get me wrong I still use digital audio gear, computers and products every day, but I prefer to work in the analog World especially when there is no other way to get the sound quality I want and the realism I strive to create in my music and recordings. And to reproduce what I am actually hearing in real life.

 

So why don't they have completely digital speaker systems and or microphones with no moving voice coil magnet elements/speakers, because analog equipment is the only way to get the analog sound waves (music) across to your ears correctly.

 

Now if you lived on Planet X then maybe we could send analog sound waves wireless to our brains directly, but until we move to another planet and change our biology, I would just stick to good ol' Planet Earth Analog Sound and do it the way it has been done for over 70 years, and  If you count humans playing on analog instruments, then you can say for several thousands of years......

 

So Why does music recorded in the 1960's and 70's on 1" and 2" analog reel to reel tape sound so awesome even today ?!? Because the highest resolution and highest quality recordings ever made in History were recorded by really good Sound Engineers using really good quality analog gear and then mastered directly to analog reel to reel tape, uh' not records or vinyl, but good old reel tape !  Where do you think they got the Masters from for vinyl ?

 

The best Master recordings and highest resolution sound is still tape period, and sorry, the winner is not digital, not yet'..........but I suppose someday it will catch up ?


You forgot to end with Amen.

post #37 of 54

 

Originally Posted by aarow View Post

It is not the pops and clicks that make records sound better and I think you are missing the point. Analog audio sounds better on good analog gear and it is as real as it gets, digital is like a fake representation of that analog signal.


I agree with you as far as the recording gear is concerned, but not really about the end-user record medium itself. Nothing sounds better than a Neumann U87 off a vintage preamp through a Trident board...that's the REAL phat sound most audiophiles are craving. It's the "musical" harmonic distortion that colors the music and makes it "holographic"/engaging...that's the "magical" sound tube/discrete audiophiles want to hear. A quick fix to this is vinyl, as it takes a lot more money to make digital not sound shrill and thin sounding in comparison. Most ppl fail DBT's when comparing vinyl against a digital recording of it...that proves my case IMO. And as far as 60/70's music is concerned, the best records I've heard were digitally remastered off the original mastertapes and then put on CD using killer dithering. Best of both worlds, a clean copy of a thick analog sound...my favorite smily_headphones1.gif


Edited by leeperry - 10/26/10 at 3:14pm
post #38 of 54

 

I think I have something to say here...
 
First of all, I have a few nice headphones but I haven't bothered with sources so far. 
 
Digital: I have PC with an integrated soundcard and when Im not home (or quite often also at home) I use my HTC Desire phone as a player (which is regarded in some reviews as having a good sound output which in context of this website probably means that it is somewhat average but not a complete crap) 
 
Vinyl: And I also own a crappy (crappy in that I bought it for $50 bucks from one guys mom) 30+ years old turntable built in soviet russia (Copy Paste "Сонет 208 С-2" in google to see a picture :)). 
 
My conclusion is that crappy vinyl is way better than average digital output. Even though with vinyl you get the "scratchy" noise (which I actually like to hear... but that is a whole another discussion :) ) and your equipment may not be good enough to get every detail out of the record the sound feels like it was recorded with real instruments and musicians as opposed to digital where you are looking for a better combo in order to make that stream of zeros and ones sound as close to the real thing as possible.  
 
And IMHO that may be the answer that many mere mortals are looking for. Because only a few can or are willling to invest the amount of money needed to get the best each (meaning digital and vinyl) has to offer.
 
Any comments?
post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurispunk View Post
Even though with vinyl you get the "scratchy" noise (which I actually like to hear...


None of my vinyl has clicks and pops! biggrin.gif

 

vpi165000800x600.jpg

 

 

post #40 of 54
Mine either, for the same reason. Love the VPI 16.5, and wet vacuum cleaning records is the real deal in terms of making them quiet.
post #41 of 54

i've heard a decent vinyl rig recently & i must admit to being impressed. color me confused or perhaps inquisitive mite be more appropriate but i have a few questions whats responsible for the superiority of vinyl aka analogue.

 

1.is it the vinyl medium itself thats better? 

or

2.is it the analogue recording/mastering medium thats better?

or 

3.is it the vinyl playback medium thats better?

 

as we all know, all 3 arent nessessarily the same.

post #42 of 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyRay View Post

None of my vinyl has clicks and pops! biggrin.gif

vpi165000800x600.jpg

 

 

... so do you prefer vinyl?

 

post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottiebabie View Post

i've heard a decent vinyl rig recently & i must admit to being impressed. color me confused or perhaps inquisitive mite be more appropriate but i have a few questions whats responsible for the superiority of vinyl aka analogue.

 

1.is it the vinyl medium itself thats better? 

or

2.is it the analogue recording/mastering medium thats better?

or 

3.is it the vinyl playback medium thats better?

 

as we all know, all 3 arent nessessarily the same.


Scottie, that's a hotly debated group of questions. One thing I think there is growing agreement on is that many vinyl releases are indeed better mastered than their CD counterparts. Especially recent vinyl versus heavily brick walled CDs.

That said, I still believe that vinyl has the potential to sound better than CD, in absolute terms. I don't care about the specs, most (but not all!) of which are in CD's favor. Clean vinyl played on a good, well set up turntable just sounds better to me. Digital audio is much more convenient, but vinyl sounds better, to me. There is a lot of great vinyl to be had, both new and used. And the used stuff can be very cheap!

Oh, and by the way, my vintage-loving brothah, there are a lot of kick-ass vintage TT's out there!
post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottiebabie View Post

i've heard a decent vinyl rig recently & i must admit to being impressed. color me confused or perhaps inquisitive mite be more appropriate but i have a few questions whats responsible for the superiority of vinyl aka analogue.

 

1.is it the vinyl medium itself thats better? 

or

2.is it the analogue recording/mastering medium thats better?

or 

3.is it the vinyl playback medium thats better?

 

as we all know, all 3 arent nessessarily the same.

1. I don't know. There's a lot of debate and I've gotten incredible sound from both digital and analog. With digital, I prefer hi-rez; I run both SACD and DVD-A. It is safe to say you can get great sound from both. Which is why I run both. Format snobbery is not going to get in the way of enjoying music.

2. Vinyl is often better mastered than the typical "Loudness War" CD you find today. But CDs can be mastered very, very well. One reason I love SACD is that it is sort of a guarantee that the mastering is done well. Though that argument is complicated because the vast majority of SACDs are classical and jazz, which tend to be mastered very well on CDs. Still, I'll pay a few extra dollars for hi-rez. I like to get the best possible recording.

3. Vinyl playback is tricky and capricious. The gear can be viciously expensive, then you have to set it up correctly. Even then, there's a bit of maintenance and upkeep. My hi-rez digital players are a lot easier to deal with. Still, I found it worthwhile to invest deeply in vinyl playback. The technology hasn't changed much, so I think the rig will be about as good as it gets for years. Digital changes every 18-24 months. I won't spend a lot on digital because something better and cheaper is usually on the horizon. For digital, I'll hang a generation or two behind and upgrade with used gear when it gets affordable. I don't think the Michell Orbe and SME IV will be much improved upon in the next 20-30 years, so I went whole hog. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. There isn't a lot of R&D being sunk into vinyl, so what's good today will probably be good in 2021 and beyond.
post #45 of 54

To me, vinyl sounds SO much more realistic to me than redbook 16/44.1 cds (never heard or seen an SACD or DVD-A disc before, dont know where to find it :P), but vinyl is better suited for speakers to make it sound like the band is in the room etc. IMHO. I have a job and no rent to pay for now so I have enough income to invest in a great vinyl setup BUT the thing is that vinyl can get scratched and have pops and fizzes.

 

I would have to get my vinyl used, and not all vinyl can be judged for condition based on looks, so I don't want to be playing vinyl through my speakers and POP a nice pop almost blew the speaker, and if it didn't blow then more importantly it scared the living CRAP out of me. This wouldn't happen with digital unless it was part of the music. I have had this happen before and I don't know if it is worth dealing with all the time.

 

I am not quite sure if I should invest in vinyl considering this major problem. Can cleaning them really guarantee no pops etc.? I don't think it can, and even if it could my gut would still be telling me that it is going to happen sooner or later, and have me agitated until it does and forever as long as I am listening to vinyl. If I can get digital to sound relatively as realistic as vinyl, I will go all digital. Any advice?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Confused: Vinyl(Analog) vs Digital