jtaylor991 said:

I didn't know 20x the amount of information (analog) was inferior to a small 1/20 snapshot that is digital...
And you contradicted yourself where I bolded


 

Click to expand...

I don't see how I have contradicted myself. The signal path does not provide any coloration. Whatever you do at the source is an issue aside.

And you should know that the amount of information available is defined by the smallest discernible change. In both analog and digital systems this is defined by the noise floor. e.g. if an analog source has a noise floor of -84dBFS then that is equivalent to having 14 bits of information.
This is a fundamental concept in sampling theory, and has been mathematically proven.

With digital systems it is a lot easier to achieve a low noise floor than it is with analog systems, and therefore there is actually more information present.
A 24-bit system has with dither a theoretical maximum dynamic range of 138dB. That is a number so huge that it is practically impossible to achieve with even the best audio equipment, whether it is analog or digital.
And since it is easier to achieve lower distortion with digital than it is with analog systems, digital audio provides more information than analog does.

Additionally there is the issue of sampling rate. You should read up on the Nyquist frequency.

The sampling theorem shows that aliasing can be avoided if the Nyquist frequency is greater than the bandwidth, or maximum component frequency, of the signal being sampled.

Click to expand...

That means that if you have a sampling rate of 44.1kHz you can reconstruct signals containing frequencies up to 22.05kHz. This covers the entire auditory range. Having higher sampling rates does not mean the frequencies are better represented.

That's good to know. So analog isn't sonically superior to digital? Well damn, I've put so much into vinyl and now reel-to-reel...oh well, they're still nice to have I guess, my dad already had a large vinyl collection

Thank you for that post Tilpo. I was under the impression Vinyl was better as well. Now I understand. However, how good a set up would it take to surpass the quality of Vinyl?

saintkeat said:

Thank you for that post Tilpo. I was under the impression Vinyl was better as well. Now I understand. However, how good a set up would it take to surpass the quality of Vinyl?

Click to expand...

As far as noise and 'audio quality' in an objective sense is concerned vinyl is very easily surpassed by digital. However the reason we still use vinyl is because it offers more intimacy with the music unlike that found with digital audio.

Slowly building up a collection of records, each with their own memory and beautiful picture attached. The unique cracks and pops you start to memorize and the whole process of putting the disc in the turn table and gently lowering the needle... It just offers an unique experience that is harder to find with digital audio. Also the sound signature is different with vinyl, and I can understand that one might prefer that.

Right.... Thanks again for clearing that up. I was looking into purchasing a belt driven turntable a couple years back. But the cost of records here put me off the idea, and its not like I have a preexisting collection from my father either. Chalk it up to "someday".

So one post from somebody on a forum and you have completely changed your mind on the subject?
 
There is so much more to sound quality than 1's and 0's and specs on a bunch of chips. A well recorded Vinyl album will (IMO) sound better than a CD recorded in the same manner due to compression. Digital recording is capable of amazing resolution and if you can get the .wav or .flac at full 24/192 the sound is amazing. To get that music onto a CD it is compressed dramatically whereas the vinyl has the complete amount of uncompressed audio information. 
 
This is such a subjective field and there is no definitive black and white answer as to what is 'better'. I am not rich so don't have the best of the best in either vinyl or digital but I have the best I can afford for now. I listen to vinyl mostly through my speaker system due to the ritual involved (brushing the record, turning sides etc.) that has me walking around the place while listening and I love that more active role I play in that experience. When listening to digital audio I go to the headphones more often than not because of the convenience of being able to load up a playlist in decibel and being able to sit back and completely immerse myself in a different kind of listening experience. 
 
I guess my point is that there is no right answer to the question of what is 'better' due to the very personal and subjective nature of this hobby. I do believe that the improvement in sound quality is more dramatic with improving your vinyl setup and more subtle with improving your digital one (i.e.: upgrading turntable, cartridge, or phono stage will give you a more noticeable improvement vs. upgrading DAC which IMO yields subtler changes in sound quality) but is also more expensive over the long run. 
 
This whole audiophile experience is really up to what you personally enjoy and how you want to go about it. If vinyl sounds better to you it is better, if digital is what rocks you then digital is clearly superior. If all you can afford is a budget setup you are just as much as an audiophile as the person who can afford a hundred thousand dollar set up. This is a hobby of passions and the appreciation of art and all the measurements, graphs, theories, and scientific articles in the world (although they are useful as a guide if you cannot audition equipment personally) won't matter at all once your ears have had their say. 
 
 
Quote:

saintkeat said:

Thank you for that post Tilpo. I was under the impression Vinyl was better as well. Now I understand. However, how good a set up would it take to surpass the quality of Vinyl?

Click to expand...

 

Oh snap, here we go!

Thanks for "with-holding judgement".
 
As I've stated, I'm not in a financial position to experiment now, but I intend to when I can, to find my own conclusions on the subject. I appreciated his efforts to explain himself clearly, in a very logical well put argument.
 
It is obvious to me this is a subject that has been discussed and debated upon for as long as digital format was first introduced. As such there clearly isn't any need to point out this is a subjective topic to begin with.
 
Thanks for your cent on the subject though.

detoxguy said:

So one post from somebody on a forum and you have completely changed your mind on the subject?
 
There is so much more to sound quality than 1's and 0's and specs on a bunch of chips. A well recorded Vinyl album will (IMO) sound better than a CD recorded in the same manner due to compression. Digital recording is capable of amazing resolution and if you can get the .wav or .flac at full 24/192 the sound is amazing. To get that music onto a CD it is compressed dramatically whereas the vinyl has the complete amount of uncompressed audio information. 

Click to expand...

Ultimately the resolution at playback is completely dependent on the noise floor of the system. 96dB (16 bits) is an incredible dynamic range, and I doubt it's possible to hear the difference in resolution between 16 bit or 20 bit. For your information, very few hi-fi systems are able to surpass a 20 bit resolution.

And like I said having 192kHz instead of 44.1 is completely useless as far as resolution is concerned. The reason why it can make a difference in sound quality is due to the fact that the filters used in a DAC react better to signals with a higher bandwidth.

Therefore I don't really think that compression is much of an issue with digital. In fact, it's harder to get a high resolution from vinyl than it is from a CD because of the usually higher noise floor.

This is such a subjective field and there is no definitive black and white answer as to what is 'better'. I am not rich so don't have the best of the best in either vinyl or digital but I have the best I can afford for now. I listen to vinyl mostly through my speaker system due to the ritual involved (brushing the record, turning sides etc.) that has me walking around the place while listening and I love that more active role I play in that experience. When listening to digital audio I go to the headphones more often than not because of the convenience of being able to load up a playlist in decibel and being able to sit back and completely immerse myself in a different kind of listening experience. 
 
I guess my point is that there is no right answer to the question of what is 'better' due to the very personal and subjective nature of this hobby. I do believe that the improvement in sound quality is more dramatic with improving your vinyl setup and more subtle with improving your digital one (i.e.: upgrading turntable, cartridge, or phono stage will give you a more noticeable improvement vs. upgrading DAC which IMO yields subtler changes in sound quality) but is also more expensive over the long run. 
 
This whole audiophile experience is really up to what you personally enjoy and how you want to go about it. If vinyl sounds better to you it is better, if digital is what rocks you then digital is clearly superior. If all you can afford is a budget setup you are just as much as an audiophile as the person who can afford a hundred thousand dollar set up. This is a hobby of passions and the appreciation of art and all the measurements, graphs, theories, and scientific articles in the world (although they are useful as a guide if you cannot audition equipment personally) won't matter at all once your ears have had their say. 
 
 


 

Click to expand...

I never said that digital was better than vinyl. Vinyl has it's own lovely character which I also like to enjoy on a semi-frequent basis.
I was simply pointing out that as far as resolution and specs in general are concerned that digital is far superior. Vinyl may sound better on a subjective basis, but it is still technically inferior.

I'm new to vinyl and don't even have a properly setup system at the moment, but I have to say that digital will always be limited by the fact that it is made up of 1s and 0s. Zoomed in enough and it will always have a 'set of stairs' frequency curve. Digital does seem better for anaytical listening though due to the noise floor and other concerns of analog and the little bit of 'edge' it seems to add will always bring out the details a bit better. Of course now a days, it comes down to the mastering more than the format. A lot of bands work hard on vinyl masters only to brickwall the digital. Instead of trying to find the superior format it's more of an issue of finding which format the artists you listen to work with best.

mohawkus said:

I'm new to vinyl and don't even have a properly setup system at the moment, but I have to say that digital will always be limited by the fact that it is made up of 1s and 0s. Zoomed in enough and it will always have a 'set of stairs' frequency curve. Digital does seem better for anaytical listening though due to the noise floor and other concerns of analog and the little bit of 'edge' it seems to add will always bring out the details a bit better. Of course now a days, it comes down to the mastering more than the format. A lot of bands work hard on vinyl masters only to brickwall the digital. Instead of trying to find the superior format it's more of an issue of finding which format the artists you listen to work with best.

Click to expand...

I maybe repeating myself, but resolution is dependent on the noise floor. A vinyl recording is not without noise either, and the total amount of discernible steps is dependent on the dynamic range of the recording even if you would have a 'perfect' system.

If the loudest point on a vinyl record is -12dBFS and the noise floor is at -83dBFS then the amount of discernible steps is 10^(7.1) = 12.6 million, which is the same as 10.2 bits. There is no possible way, not even in theory, to get more information out if it.
A digital system is limited by 1's and 0's, but an analog one is limited by its noise floor. Both define the number of discernible steps, i.e. the resolution of the system.

If you zoom in on a vinyl record you will have a white noise frequency curve, which is just as meaningless as the 'set of stairs' of a digital one. Not only that, even on digital recordings the noise floor (and hence the effective resolution) will almost always be lower than the 24-bit resolution they might offer.

 
Quote:

detoxguy said:

So one post from somebody on a forum and you have completely changed your mind on the subject?
 

Click to expand...

 
Quote:

tilpo said:

Ultimately the resolution at playback is completely dependent on the noise floor of the system. 96dB (16 bits) is an incredible dynamic range, and I doubt it's possible to hear the difference in resolution between 16 bit or 20 bit. For your information, very few hi-fi systems are able to surpass a 20 bit resolution.
And like I said having 192kHz instead of 44.1 is completely useless as far as resolution is concerned. The reason why it can make a difference in sound quality is due to the fact that the filters used in a DAC react better to signals with a higher bandwidth.
Therefore I don't really think that compression is much of an issue with digital. In fact, it's harder to get a high resolution from vinyl than it is from a CD because of the usually higher noise floor.
I never said that digital was better than vinyl. Vinyl has it's own lovely character which I also like to enjoy on a semi-frequent basis.
I was simply pointing out that as far as resolution and specs in general are concerned that digital is far superior. Vinyl may sound better on a subjective basis, but it is still technically inferior.

Click to expand...

 
Quote:

mohawkus said:

I'm new to vinyl and don't even have a properly setup system at the moment, but I have to say that digital will always be limited by the fact that it is made up of 1s and 0s. Zoomed in enough and it will always have a 'set of stairs' frequency curve. Digital does seem better for anaytical listening though due to the noise floor and other concerns of analog and the little bit of 'edge' it seems to add will always bring out the details a bit better. Of course now a days, it comes down to the mastering more than the format. A lot of bands work hard on vinyl masters only to brickwall the digital. Instead of trying to find the superior format it's more of an issue of finding which format the artists you listen to work with best.

Click to expand...

OK.. well my knowledge is fairly basic, and I was barely able to understand everything said in these comments. I know both principles top to bottom, however not in great detail.
 
What I wanted to say from the beginning of the debate (which is sooo of topic) is that advances in technology affected recording technology more dramatically, rather than playback. As to which one is better (digital or analog), it is almost impossible to judge because of several variables. First of all, when I am comparing the two, I dont mean at a "reasonable price" or very expensive, I mean only the absolute top tier high end audio. Such as 150k turntables and 30k DACs. When a car goes for the Guinnes Book of records Top Speed, its normally a Bugatti Veyron or a Mclaren. They dont bother comparing a toyota vs nissan.
 
It is impossible to judge because of a few factors, but mainly ONE which is the most important. PERCEPTION - which is the most variable thing in the world! Hearing ability - maybe the technology is nearly perfected, but if you are a 70 year old audiophile (no offence anyone), you wont be able to judge objectively for obvious reasons. Biased opinions - a person who only appreciates vinyl would be rather hard to convince that digital is as good as that.
 
Therefore, its pointless to argue that. "Your rig or listening room would be as good the weakest component" - which is the human in this case! That is why the opinions here are so divided. That is why ive been going insane over my K701s. So many different opinions about amping! It is very subjective! 

Quote:

mikiphile said:

 
 
 

OK.. well my knowledge is fairly basic, and I was barely able to understand everything said in these comments. I know both principles top to bottom, however not in great detail.
 
What I wanted to say from the beginning of the debate (which is sooo of topic) is that advances in technology affected recording technology more dramatically, rather than playback. As to which one is better (digital or analog), it is almost impossible to judge because of several variables. First of all, when I am comparing the two, I dont mean at a "reasonable price" or very expensive, I mean only the absolute top tier high end audio. Such as 150k turntables and 30k DACs. When a car goes for the Guinnes Book of records Top Speed, its normally a Bugatti Veyron or a Mclaren. They dont bother comparing a toyota vs nissan.
 
It is impossible to judge because of a few factors, but mainly ONE which is the most important. PERCEPTION - which is the most variable thing in the world! Hearing ability - maybe the technology is nearly perfected, but if you are a 70 year old audiophile (no offence anyone), you wont be able to judge objectively for obvious reasons. Biased opinions - a person who only appreciates vinyl would be rather hard to convince that digital is as good as that.
 
Therefore, its pointless to argue that. "Your rig or listening room would be as good the weakest component" - which is the human in this case! That is why the opinions here are so divided. That is why ive been going insane over my K701s. So many different opinions about amping! It is very subjective! 

Click to expand...

Wow! I would really appreciate if this discussion could be moved into it's own thread where these ideas could be discussed. This guy was able to understand everything said in the comments, but I am not as smart, so I do not. Is it possible to point me to some resources on this, or even just start a new QA thread to discuss this?
 

there is poor sounding vinyl and great sounding digitial. It's about how the thing was recorded, mastered, transferred etc. If anyone in that chain drops the ball, the result is less than awesome. I'm listening to the cult 'love' on both vinyl and cd and it's one of the few from that era that sound nicer on cd. But put the cult's 'electric' on a decent turntable and whoa nelly, that is some sound !

Quote:

thelostmidrange said:

there is poor sounding vinyl and great sounding digitial. It's about how the thing was recorded, mastered, transferred etc. If anyone in that chain drops the ball, the result is less than awesome. I'm listening to the cult 'love' on both vinyl and cd and it's one of the few from that era that sound nicer on cd. But put the cult's 'electric' on a decent turntable and whoa nelly, that is some sound !

Click to expand...

"Electric" and "Sonic Temple" are definitely on my vinyl wish list