Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Re-Discovering Vinyl......and learning a few things!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Re-Discovering Vinyl......and learning a few things! - Page 4

post #46 of 67
12/6/03 at 9:22pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Leporello
Well, I'm no expert but I certainly was under the impression that the quantization (amplitude) errors have more to do with bit depth than sample rate, no?
Oops, sorry - suboptimal wording from my side: For the 16 bit part, that should mean limited number of possible sample values.

As for Nyquist/Shannon, factor 2.0 should already be good enough to prevent aliasing. I was just too lazy to calculate the correct figure for redbook, though - thus the "~"...

And no, you're not completely at sea for the waveform part, either. The Fourier part should have alluded to that - well, at least I hoped so...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #47 of 67
12/7/03 at 3:23am
Explain to me how sampling a smooth waveform at 5khz less than 9 times, when in fact it has an infinite quantity of potential "points" which must be reproduced in order to get the exact shape correct, is not lossy.

44,100 possible samples per second / 5,000 hz = 8.82 sample points.

44,100 possible samples per second / 17,000 hz [my upper hearing limit] = 2.59 sample points. Yuck?

This is sixth grade math. How am I getting this wrong, does a sampling rate of 44.1khz magically sample a 5khz wave thousands of times?

Someone needs to help me better understand why I'm hearing exactly that: hashy distorted tinny fuzzy highs when going back to any digital after hearing an analog setup.

Cheers,
Geek
Reply
post #48 of 67
12/7/03 at 3:59am
Quote:
Originally posted by Geek
Someone needs to help me better understand why I'm hearing exactly that: hashy distorted tinny fuzzy highs when going back to any digital after hearing an analog setup.
Well, that's easy... you're deaf.

- Chris
Reply
post #49 of 67
12/7/03 at 4:05am
minya,

That's not nice. What explains the fact that listening at reasonable volumes on analog just doesn't have problems with highs?

That statement opens up a lot of potential pathways for flaming: are digital users deaf because they can't hear what I'm hearing? Is distorted fuzzy hashy edginess real life, when in fact THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF BEING A MUSICIAN SAY OTHERWISE?

Please stay away from ad hominem. I like these forums too much to have to ditch them because of such immaturity.

I will post no more on this thread.

Cheers,
Geek
Reply
post #50 of 67
12/7/03 at 4:21am
Quote:
Originally posted by Geek


This is sixth grade math. How am I getting this wrong, does a sampling rate of 44.1khz magically sample a 5khz wave thousands of times?
From what I have been able to understand, sampling theorem is somewhat different from sixth grade math.

Being a mathematically severely challenged (to put it mildly) person I cannot offer you the proof of the theorem.

The point - as far as I have been able to grasp it - is that those "2 + something" (at least) samples per cycle tell us everything there is to know about the waveform being sampled, counterintuitive as it may seem.

We know: 1. that the wave is a sine wave and 2. that the signal is bandlimited according to the Nyquist criteria (i.e. we are only sampling signals that are below half of the sampling rate). When these conditions are met, there is one and only one sine curve that can be drawn through the "dots". We do not have any uncertainty about what is happening between the dots.

Any comments (particularly from those more knowledgeable than me)?

Of course, there are good sounding cds and less than good sounding cds. But nothing has led me to think there is something inherently wrong with cds or digital audio in general. I certainly cannot hear the flaws you describe.


Regards,

L.
Reply
post #51 of 67
12/7/03 at 4:25am
Alright guys, let's not get uncivil. This thread was about someone coming back to vinyl and enjoying it, not about whether digital or vinyl is better. If people flame each other, I will delete their posts and close the thread. Let's keep the discussion civil and constructive.
Reply
post #52 of 67
12/9/03 at 2:18am
I keep hearing that vinyl is somehow "unnnatural" or "unneutral." That only CDs can sound realistic, and vinyl is just for old folks who like their sound euphonic and highly coloured. How rediculous. The most realisitically reproduced classical and jazz music I have ever heard was from vinyl (discounting for the moment 30ips reel to reel) the best of CD doesn't come close.

Sorry I know this doesnt exactly relate to the last few posts, but I wanted to get it off my chest.
Reply
post #53 of 67
12/9/03 at 2:30am
Quote:
Originally posted by qwerty870
I keep hearing that vinyl is somehow "unnnatural" or "unneutral." That only CDs can sound realistic, and vinyl is just for old folks who like their sound euphonic and highly coloured.
Eh?!

Everyone that I know has said that vinyl is MORE natural than CD... and I'd have to agree with them!
Reply
post #54 of 67
12/9/03 at 2:35am
Quote:
Originally posted by eric343
Eh?!

Everyone that I know has said that vinyl is MORE natural than CD... and I'd have to agree with them!
I'd say vinyl often (not always - depends on the recording) sounds more natural than CD. But more neutral? In a measurable sense? CD takes the prize bigtime there, although I'm not sure how it really matters except maybe to an engineer who likes looking at the prettier graph.
Reply
post #55 of 67
12/9/03 at 3:12pm
I'm a big vinyl lover and prefer it, but some of my favorite LPs are too noisy for full enjoyment with headphones. Listening on speakers tends to disperse the noise. Also some older LPs don't image very well with cans. But my very favorite listening is with well recorded, clean vinyl and headphones!

Welcome back, Joelongwood!
Reply
post #56 of 67
12/9/03 at 8:00pm
Quote:
I'd say vinyl often (not always - depends on the recording) sounds more natural than CD. But more neutral? In a measurable sense? CD takes the prize bigtime there, although I'm not sure how it really matters except maybe to an engineer who likes looking at the prettier graph.

This is what I was complaining about in my previous post. The concept that in terms of neurality "CD takes the prize bigtime..." I beleive this to be completely false. I beleive that CD is inherently farther from absolute neutrality that vinyl. If by neutrality we mean closer to the actual tonality of real music.

(there is no real measurement for neutrality)
Reply
post #57 of 67
12/9/03 at 8:04pm
Quote:
Originally posted by qwerty870
This is what I was complaining about in my previous post. The concept that in terms of neurality "CD takes the prize bigtime..." I beleive this to be completely false. I beleive that CD is inherently farther from absolute neutrality that vinyl. If by neutrality we mean closer to the actual tonality of real music.

(there is no real measurement for neutrality)
Yes there is... a comparison against the original master tapes in terms of frequency response (flat), lack of distortion, etc. Neutrality can be defined to at least some extent through measurements, probably to a great extent. Naturalness cannot be defined by measurements at all, but only by the human ear.

Sorry to say it, but CD measures much better than vinyl when compared to the master recording. The noise floor is much lower, dynamic range is better, distortion is significantly lower, etc. In that respect, CD is more neutral. As far as "actual tonality of real music" -- I'm not sure what you mean. Don't you mean naturalness here?

BTW, I'm a big fan of vinyl (see my sig) and often prefer it to digital -- it just pleases my ears more. But if you try to approach the "vinyl vs. digital" thing via the numbers, vinyl loses every time. I think some people have been trying to suggest that digital is technically deficient compared to vinyl, and that's where their arguments just flop like fish out of water. If you say vinyl sounds more natural and truer to the music than digital, I wholeheartedly agree. If you say that digital measures poorly compared to vinyl and is less neutral... don't make me laugh.
Reply
post #58 of 67
12/9/03 at 8:33pm

vinyl or CDs

Hey guys i am old enough to remember when there were no CDS.
Have listened to some of the best turntables that you could buy
Have many of the same albums on cd as i had i vinyl 30 and 40
years ago.I like CDs i like the ease of using them. Many of the things you guys talk about is about listening to systems not the music while i cant say i am not guilty of this at times i find i can get as much enjoyment out of either.Both are very good at getting across what the artist is trying to convey.I grew up playing rock and roll and litening to many performers i always thought CDs or vinyl was a way to get a private showing of something goinging on in some ones heart. They both do that very well. PS Thank God for headphones to listen to both.
Reply
post #59 of 67
12/9/03 at 10:22pm
Man, I'm listening to Sarah Vaughan/heavy vinyl on my speaker rig right now, and it just sounds so lush and sweet, there's no way I could pull myself away long enough to argue about formats...



Reply
post #60 of 67
12/10/03 at 1:15am

artwork

RickG's post raises the whole issue of LP cover art. Those little CD foldups are pretty lame by comparison!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Re-Discovering Vinyl......and learning a few things!