Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps? - Page 22

post #316 of 366
Honestly my problem with vinyl is that even listening to high-end $1000 turntables in audio stores I've not once been impressed compared to $200 or more DACs. It's overly warm in the mid bass, the bass doesn't extend deep enough, no matter how hard you try you'll always get some clicks/pops, and it seemed slightly rolled off in the highs.

I like listening to vinyl as an experience, but for serious audio I would never use it. No offence to anyone that does, I understand why... but I personally don't think it can compete with a serious DAC. Most people that I know that listen to turntables have never heard a properly designed DAC. They think some were properly designed, but they didn't sound good tongue.gif.
post #317 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddTheMetalGod View Post

Honestly my problem with vinyl is that even listening to high-end $1000 turntables in audio stores I've not once been impressed compared to $200 or more DACs. It's overly warm in the mid bass, the bass doesn't extend deep enough, no matter how hard you try you'll always get some clicks/pops, and it seemed slightly rolled off in the highs.

I like listening to vinyl as an experience, but for serious audio I would never use it. No offence to anyone that does, I understand why... but I personally don't think it can compete with a serious DAC. Most people that I know that listen to turntables have never heard a properly designed DAC. They think some were properly designed, but they didn't sound good tongue.gif.


Most never get to hear a really good vinyl rig. It seems mid-fi has it's share of great sounding digital. Actually right now digital is the audiophile bargain of a lifetime. Where vinyl fails at even $700 rigs. I used to have an old Thorens TD160 and even though it sounded warm they are known for having this wooly base that is not tight. Compare it to digital and what is available today and it's amazing those ancient Thorens still get a pretty penny in the used market.

The problem with vinyl is you need a decent cartridge then the table must be set up right. You need a phono-preamp and even then a 1/2 decent table costs a lot. New vinyl costs a lot and if you buy used, at times you can't even tell if they are going to have warps, surface noise or pops. Then you have to spend the amount of time to get your mind trained to filter out the pops because even perfect new records are going to have them.

The big payback is a fluid natural smooth sound with all instruments in their proper place. Super nice pace and timing that digital can't touch. But the biggest thing is the compression standard of 16 bit 44.1 kHz. Yep it's a compression that leaves out a good section of the bass. Most people that really know audio will tell you CDs are thin. On a nice mid- fi setup your going to hear the clarity of digital. Listen to vinyl on an 60k rig then change to a CD on the same 60k rig. If all setting are the same and even if the setup is perfect, you will hear the thin sound of compressed digital. Analogue had no compression standard none. All of us were swayed by the sound of CD for so long. But nowadays the equipment out there, especially with these headphone rigs, will let your ears hear why analogue is a superior format and always will be.

Digital looks good on paper and you even have audio professionals who feel digital is superior. If you play the same piece of music for them on vinyl then on CD they will tell you that maybe the CD is not mastered right. No matter what they never will even try to just hear the superiority of vinyl. To each his own.tongue.gif
Edited by Redcarmoose - 7/8/14 at 7:39am
post #318 of 366
Perhaps if I had the money to buy expensive equipment I would appreciate vinyl more, then again high end DACs (~$1000) are insanely good in their ability to make an accurate signal. I just don't see vinyl being worth it's cost in comparison to digital at the same price range. It's a dated technology that, in my opinion, cannot compete with the cheap manufacturing costs of modern DACs. A decade ago that would probably be the opposite. I don't hold it against anyway to choose vinyl though, it's their choice and there are merits to it.
post #319 of 366
That is the thing, DACs have finally come into mind blowing resolution and clarity. Digital is just a better deal anyway you look at it. Plus digital is exciting at this point in history. You have DSD, you have these amazing really clear little devices like the Chord products or AK products. and they don't need fancy interconnects because the wiring is all inside so it bypasses RCA cables. They run on DC so you don't need fancy power cables or power filtering. And you know what, digital is just going to get more and more low cost and more and more high tech.

In 9 years we will have small devices that will put all those expensive DACs to shame. Digital is really the most fun to be into now. A value that did not exist 10 years ago.



Vinyl is a huge hassle. I would bet that if digital even approximated 89% of the sound quality of vinyl guys would leave it alone and move on. Vinyl takes up space, the whole process is rickety and tethered together with string and chicken wire.

Digital is so much more easy to store and retrieve in seconds. It is naturally in alphabetical order. If anyone had gone into the depression from breaking off their expensive cartridge needle, then they just know the trauma that is dealing with records. Having to adjust cartridge alignment. But those who love records are used to the trade off.
Edited by Redcarmoose - 7/8/14 at 8:01am
post #320 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post


Most never get to hear a really good vinyl rig. It seems mid-fi has it's share of great sounding digital. Actually right now digital is the audiophile bargain of a lifetime. Where vinyl fails at even $700 rigs. I used to have an old Thorens TD160 and even though it sounded warm they are known for having this wooly base that is not tight. Compare it to digital and what is available today and it's amazing those ancient Thorens still get a pretty penny in the used market.

The problem with vinyl is you need a decent cartridge then the table must be set up right. You need a phono-preamp and even then a 1/2 decent table costs a lot. New vinyl costs a lot and if you buy used, at times you can't even tell if they are going to have warps, surface noise or pops. Then you have to spend the amount of time to get your mind trained to filter out the pops because even perfect new records are going to have them.

The big payback is a fluid natural smooth sound with all instruments in their proper place. Super nice pace and timing that digital can't touch. But the biggest thing is the compression standard of 16 bit 44.1 kHz. Yep it's a compression that leaves out a good section of the bass. Most people that really know audio will tell you CDs are thin. On a nice mid- fi setup your going to hear the clarity of digital. Listen to vinyl on an 60k rig then change to a CD on the same 60k rig. If all setting are the same and even if the setup is perfect, you will hear the thin sound of compressed digital. Analogue had no compression standard none. All of us were swayed by the sound of CD for so long. But nowadays the equipment out there, especially with these headphone rigs, will let your ears hear why analogue is a superior format and always will be.

Cheers.


Been awhile since I have read such hogwash on this forum.  And it doesn't belong here. 

 

You must think we have a memory of about two weeks or something.  Analogue had no compression standard?  Did you get high to dream this up?  By its very nature vinyl required compression to even make a disk in almost all cases.  It is one medium where you can know some sort of compression was used in more than 99.9% of all vinyl ever made.  So you get a fail on this one. 

 

CD may be compressed in mastering, but need not be.  That is why digital recordings at 44.1 khz of excellent vinyl rigs sound.......voila like the LP itself.  Because that is transparent to the source of the vinyl LP and digital is capable of a performance envelope that exceeds what is possible on vinyl.  (and again with this crap that if you don't prefer vinyl it is because you haven't heard a good vinyl rig).

 

Then we get the super nice pace and timing (again digital recordings don't lose it when recording LP).  Yet LP has timing and speed stability issues orders of magnitudes worse.  This is sound science, you need more than BS listening impressions for your assertions here.

 

If you are impressed by system cost, I can say listening on 40k-120k rigs,digital recordings of LP sound just like LP.  So the issue isn't any compression or loss by digital.  When you otherwise listen on CD vs LP you aren't getting the same mastering.  Partly because LP can't match the response of CD, and partly for other reasons in most cases.

 

If this were closely moderated your post would be disallowed in this forum.

post #321 of 366

I just find it amusing that you evidently need to spend several ten-thousands of dollars on a vinyl rig to even compete with a cheap portable media player.

Leave those old analogue systems for the fetishists, the rest of us have moved on.

post #322 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post


Been awhile since I have read such hogwash on this forum.  And it doesn't belong here. 

You must think we have a memory of about two weeks or something.  Analogue had no compression standard?  Did you get high to dream this up?  By its very nature vinyl required compression to even make a disk in almost all cases.  It is one medium where you can know some sort of compression was used in more than 99.9% of all vinyl ever made.  So you get a fail on this one. 

CD may be compressed in mastering, but need not be.  That is why digital recordings at 44.1 khz of excellent vinyl rigs sound.......voila like the LP itself.  Because that is transparent to the source of the vinyl LP and digital is capable of a performance envelope that exceeds what is possible on vinyl.  (and again with this crap that if you don't prefer vinyl it is because you haven't heard a good vinyl rig).

Then we get the super nice pace and timing (again digital recordings don't lose it when recording LP).  Yet LP has timing and speed stability issues orders of magnitudes worse.  This is sound science, you need more than BS listening impressions for your assertions here.

If you are impressed by system cost, I can say listening on 40k-120k rigs,digital recordings of LP sound just like LP.  So the issue isn't any compression or loss by digital.  When you otherwise listen on CD vs LP you aren't getting the same mastering.  Partly because LP can't match the response of CD, and partly for other reasons in most cases.

If this were closely moderated your post would be disallowed in this forum.





Just a small example of what is missing in the tone and pace of digital. Wow looks like you really believe the digital BS. Enjoy it!
post #323 of 366

What do you think, Red, will these two 3kHz tones sound the same, or different?

post #324 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post





Just a small example of what is missing in the tone and pace of digital. Wow looks like you really believe the digital BS. Enjoy it!

Really looks like you don't understand it.  I could link to the xiph.org video, but it has been posted many times here.  That is the one where they feed an analog sourced wave like you picture above into an inexpensive AD, then do the DA, and get back the sine wave they started with on the analog based monitoring scope.  Not the lie you have in your post above.  Yes I see where you got it, and they need to fix that page.

 

So can you acknowledge the truth of what happens or do you need distortions like above to feel okay about your scientifically untenable position?

post #325 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

... But the biggest thing is the compression standard of 16 bit 44.1 kHz. Yep it's a compression that leaves out a good section of the bass. ...

This is really, really funny to anyone who knows even a hint of signal processing. 16 bit PCM extends down to DC - the limitations on its frequency response are on the high end (at the Nyquist frequency of 22.05kHz, which is still high enough for any audible sound anyways). There is no restriction on the minimum frequency that can be represented.

 

Similarly, your stairstep waveform image shows a gross misunderstanding of how PCM audio is reconstructed from the sampled signal. If you take the sample points and run them through a proper band-limited reconstruction, you'll get a nice smooth sine wave out for both the CD and DVD audio waves. The only place you ever see stairsteps in digital audio is in misleading visualizations of the samples. As esldude said, there's a video on xiph.org that has been linked here a number of times that goes through this in great detail to show how things actually work.

post #326 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post





Just a small example of what is missing in the tone and pace of digital. Wow looks like you really believe the digital BS. Enjoy it!

 

I defer to your obvious expertise in digital BS!

post #327 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post

 

At that point then, if you prefer digital, why not convert all your vinyls?

 

If only there were enough hours in the day!

post #328 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post






Just a small example of what is missing in the tone and pace of digital. Wow looks like you really believe the digital BS. Enjoy it!

this is a false representation of something that doesn't exist, to show something that is not true. sure it's appealing, because you can "understand" the graph even when you know nothing about digital conversion. but the graph is wrong from the start so you understand something that is not.

I had doubts like you when I first stumbled upon this kind of graphs. so I looked into it. 

even with the basics you realize that this graph has no link whatsoever with reality, and the more I learn about DACs the more obvious it is. this is showing on the same graph the analog signal and the digital version of it. but we're not listening to any digital version without conversion to analog so they have nothing to do together on the same graph to begin with. as it happens the analog signal from the digital data of both cd and dvd does look exactly like the raw signal so no actual loss of data.

 just plug your headphone into the digital out of your source and conclude that digital sound sucks? that just as relevant as this graph.

 

and even if you don't have the time or the will to learn about the reality of DACs and samplerates, just think about this. how could a dac end up with less that 0.005%distortion if all it did was apply what's represented on that stupid graph in the analog domain? you must see how impossible that would be. this would lead to several % of distortion (and I don't wanna know how it would sound). this graph is supposed to make believe that the digital data is transposed as is in the analog domain. that's just not how it ever worked. even if you decide to join the points of each sample in that frightening staircase way for no reason, that wouldn't even give an idea of what is happening in the digital domain as the digital signal is only 0 or 1. and how would the digital domain matter to you as long as the resulting analog signal is the closest to an original sound that you'll ever get in your entire audio chain?

amps don't get that close to the original, headphones and speakers are far from it, so how do you justify saying that this is the reason why the sound is not good?

that's exactly saying that instead of 100+100+100=300 your sound is 100.005+100.01+100.5 and it doesn't equal to 300 mostly because of 100.005

 

and even if in some situations, going for 192khz would help the DAC go from 0.005% distortion to maybe 0.003%. would that make any difference when everything else from 10 to a hundred times worst than the worst case scenario of the DAC?

here you just came after digital lack of fidelity when at the same time accepting in full that you favor tubes even if they might not be the most accurate amps. you're fighting the wrong war here.

post #329 of 366
LoL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post




Just a small example of what is missing in the tone and pace of digital. Wow looks like you really believe the digital BS. Enjoy it!

This is a good read: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-vs-mp3-vs-m4a-experiment-94/
Edited by GrindingThud - 7/8/14 at 3:08pm
post #330 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

If only there were enough hours in the day!

 

Someone should manufacture some kind of automated "jukebox" vinyl ripper where you could just pile on the discs and have them all ripped automatically.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps?