[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozz /img/forum/go_quote.gif i used to have a vinyl set up and a nice cd player at the same time and imo the cd won out and i remember stereo review giving cd the seal of approval but in all this talk no one has mentioned the closer the cartridge to the center of the record the better something i remembered from 35 years ago unlike cd same fidelity all the way through.

This is a good point, while it has progressed a fair bit with more accurate tools, the weakest link in traditional LP transcription is tonearm geometry. In fact it's the weak link in the mastering chain also.........

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by khbaur330162 /img/forum/go_quote.gif To a certain extent, yes. I don't see how it couldn't. Care to explain?

If you have a specific type of DAC - a DAC with no antialiasing filter, which usually involves NOS - then what you are saying is true. There is a one-to-one mapping between the sample values you feed in, and the voltages you get out. It is not a secret that such DACs, shall we say, "impart a color" to the sound. Such DACs, to the best of my knowledge, have never been used in mainstream audio products - only in fairly esoteric stuff.

But as soon as you have an antialiasing filter - which is an analog filter - then the set of allowed output voltages becomes a continuous range. The "rectangular" impulse for each sample becomes a smoothed impulse. (More specifically, when used with an oversampling DAC, the impulse is oversampled to become a discrete windowed sinc function, and the antialiasing filter smooths the impulse further.) From what I understand, it's almost impossible to find a DAC used in a mainstream audio product that does not use both oversampling and antialiasing.

If what you are proposing is true, and the real-world DAC output is quantized to discrete voltages, then the frequency response of the DAC as it approached the Nyquist limit (22khz) would change dramatically, -3db to be exact. This should be testable in RMAA. You could also wire the audio output to a 22khz highpass filter and wire that to a scope, to observe the fast voltage swings between discrete voltages that you describe. They will exist, but at a very very low level.

It's worth revisiting Dan Lavry's classic paper on sampling theory on this: http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf . The section on practical vs theoretical filters goes into detail on this, and it's quite clear that the output of these filters is analog, not digital. Just like vinyl!

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by khbaur330162 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I tried to change that part of my post before you'd see it because it was a dumb mistake with my choice of word. If you reread my post I say value (meaning voltage value). My bad.

Forgiven

Quote:

Edit: Reread that article and it says the sample rate of any analogue system is dependent upon the noise floor because any value output of that system will be +/- the average uncertainty of that value. But what I don't understand is both the uncertainty of the "sample rate" and the original signal itself should be inherently infinite since they are both dependent upon an inherently infinite system themselves; physics. I'm sorry if this is excruciatingly obvious for the rest of us, but I think I'm just failing to see the correct logic here, lol.

Nope you are assuming an infinite system but information theory tells us otherwise. A bandwidth limited system (doesnt matter whether it is 20 - 20K or 20 - 2000K) with a finite dynamic range is finite and thus the resolution power in this case the number of unambiguous voltage levels is defined as the maximum level divided by the dynamic range.

So for CD you have 96db which equates to 65536 steps (2^ 16 - each 6db doubles the power) and a maximum of say 2V thus the best resolution is about 0.000030517578125V or 0.03mv, take a simplified example when the recorded signal is say 1.00000v no problem , when the voltage is 1.00003v no problem the difference is big enough to make sure they are rendered as different , when the voltage is 1.000015 oops the system cannot render it closer than being at either 1.00000 and 1.00003 V this uncertainty is noise but it is at a very low level. For a vinyl system the principle is just the same but the voltages are different.

 

[double LL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by khbaur330162 /img/forum/go_quote.gif He's talking about the simple harmonics of a bow rubbed up against a string. The vibrations this combination creates displaces air creating sound. When a diamond tip scrapes on vinyl it similarly vibrates, however, in our application, its displacement of air is a rather moot point. Instead, this motion creates an infinitely complex sinusoidal pulse of electrical current which is then amplified (and amplified again) and sent to some type of transducer. A laser reading data pits can not, nor can it ever truly with today's technological faults, create as infinitely complex wave signals when compared to either of the two previous scenarios. The subjective aspects are whether human perception can differentiate between CD/SACD sample rates to that of an infinite process, and whether or not vinyl with it's old recording processes can create not only a mere perfect wave signal, but one accurate to the source.

Thanks Khbaur for the explanation of my view.I am just a simple guy who's not much into technical jargon,but I damn shure know what sounds good ,and analog to me seems to be the best way for great sound reproduction.YOU'RE THE MAN .THANKS

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by double LL /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks Khbaur for the explanation of my view.I am just a simple guy who's not much into technical jargon,but I damn shure know what sounds good ,and analog to me seems to be the best way for great sound reproduction.YOU'RE THE MAN .THANKS

Sigh. A preference for analog is fine, analog and digital have different methods for capturing sound but they are both finite systems. You can empirically prove just how finite the systems are , but you dont even need that. Think about a stylus in a groove. It works by reacting to the shape of the groove, this is limited by how the groove is cut, now vinyl itself is not infinitely smooth you only have to go down to the molecular level to see that, in fact you need it not to be or you dont get sound as you would have a frictionless system and no stylus vibration. So the stylus hits resistance vibrates and generates a signal, however even a fine fine stylus is quite gross on a molecular level it cannot react instantly to every minor change in the groove, we know that it misses some, thus information is lost, not too much but some, also unless the stylus has the exact same shape (and I mean exact) as the specific cutter it will not read the groove in the same way thus more information loss. Also a cartridge does not have an infinitely small rise time, it needs several microseconds to generate a pulse, i.e it is finite.

 

[double LL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sigh. A preference for analog is fine, analog and digital have different methods for capturing sound but they are both finite systems. You can empirically prove just how finite the systems are , but you dont even need that. Think about a stylus in a groove. It works by reacting to the shape of the groove, this is limited by how the groove is cut, now vinyl itself is not infinitely smooth you only have to go down to the molecular level to see that, in fact you need it not to be or you dont get sound as you would have a frictionless system and no stylus vibration. So the stylus hits resistance vibrates and generates a signal, however even a fine fine stylus is quite gross on a molecular level it cannot react instantly to every minor change in the groove, we know that it misses some, thus information is lost, not too much but some, also unless the stylus has the exact same shape (and I mean exact) as the specific cutter it will not read the groove in the same way thus more information loss. Also a cartridge does not have an infinitely small rise time, it needs several microseconds to generate a pulse, i.e it is finite.

Thanks for the explanation HCIMAN,you strike me as a very intellegent person who can explain anything on any level.What is your thoughts on audio tape?I assume you have read my opinions about that.I have a srtong opinion that tape (analog) having a constant connection to the head ,with no fluctuations could probably give the best recordings and playbacks as long as the system is a all around prescion unit.Particularly the reel to reels such as Revox,Akai,Teac and so on. I know there is digital audio tape ,but I guess that's a side issue.What is your preference ,analog or digital?

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by double LL /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is your thoughts on audio tape?I assume you have read my opinions about that.I have a srtong opinion that tape (analog) having a constant connection to the head ,with no fluctuations could probably give the best recordings and playbacks as long as the system is a all around prescion unit.Particularly the reel to reels such as Revox,Akai,Teac and so on. I know there is digital audio tape ,but I guess that's a side issue.What is your preference ,analog or digital?

I am not partcularly knowledgeable about tape be it analog or digital, I would ask BigShot, tourmaline or memepool they are much more up on this than me. I havent used tape at all since the early 90s and that was just consumer quality cassette, sorry.

As for general preference, I will take the limitations of CD over LP, mostly to be honest I just find LP too noisy for me especially the quiet passages of classical music listened to on headphones. Maybe I could avoid this with a better TT , careful positioning and careful adjustment, but you know, I can bung on a CD in my $60 DVD player and apart from the music it is silent as the proverbial.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for general preference, I will take the limitations of CD over LP, mostly to be honest I just find LP too noisy for me especially the quiet passages of classical music listened to on headphones. Maybe I could avoid this with a better TT , careful positioning and careful adjustment, but you know, I can bung on a CD in my $60 DVD player and apart from the music it is silent as the proverbial.

This is so true! The LP is fantastic and I love it but when it comes to convinience, the CD is a winner. I do a lot of LP transfers and one of the hardest things to do with an old classical record is getting it to be tollerable on headphones during the quiet passages without affecting the music. A real pain in the arse! Unless the LP is MINT or brand new, I'd stick with the CD as well.

 

[ssportclay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is so true! The LP is fantastic and I love it but when it comes to convinience, the CD is a winner. I do a lot of LP transfers and one of the hardest things to do with an old classical record is getting it to be tollerable on headphones during the quiet passages without affecting the music. A real pain in the arse! Unless the LP is MINT or brand new, I'd stick with the CD as well.

I use to think CDs were more convenient than LPs when I used belt drive tables but now that I mostly use a Technics 1200MK2 with an Origin Live tonearm,I find the formats at about a tie in terms of convenience.I would never even consider transferring my LPs to CD for decreased sound quality.

 

[double LL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is so true! The LP is fantastic and I love it but when it comes to convinience, the CD is a winner. I do a lot of LP transfers and one of the hardest things to do with an old classical record is getting it to be tollerable on headphones during the quiet passages without affecting the music. A real pain in the arse! Unless the LP is MINT or brand new, I'd stick with the CD as well.

Yes,cds and digital formats win every time when it comes to convinience,and putting on an lp and taking it off and putting on another one and keeping them clean ,plus having to clean the stylus,and change it every now and then ,plus buying plastic non static sleeves,yes it is a little work.But,they are making a small comeback,because they do have that special sound.This time around ,I think it will be confined to a smaller group of people who will take care of their vinyl,instead of taking it for granted.

 

[serpico]

I think the vinyl process explained above is all about the listening experience. It's not about how many steps it takes.

 

[stevenkelby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozz /img/forum/go_quote.gif in all this talk no one has mentioned the closer the cartridge to the center of the record the better something i remembered from 35 years ago unlike cd same fidelity all the way through.

Nonsense, a brilliant linear arm can be had for a few grand. People spend more than that on headphones!

 

[ozz]

i have had all kinds of audio equipment except a dat but so far nothing
has come close to the dynamics of the 1812 overture from telarc on
sacd.

 

[jcx]

I'm always amazed how long these threads can go on without the Shannon-Hartley Channel Capacity Theorem being pointed to as the definitive explaination that a finite bandwidth, finite S/N "channel" such as any analog recording/playback signal chain (including the playback of vinyl recordings) can only convey a finite amount of information - which is handily measured in bits,
then using the channel capacity equation and measured limits of the vinyl recording/playback process it is clear that hi rez digital recordings have several times the information capacity that vinyl playback has - Redbook CD audio information capacity is fairly close to good vinyl playback information capacity but shapes the "sides" of the box a little differently

read up on the channel capacity theorem and see the meridian paper on high rez digital audio formats
http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

 

[Hellenback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most people who say that Vinyl clearly beats Digital arrive at that conclusion by comparing a hi-fi Vinyl rig that has been tweaked to perfection with a simple mid-fi Digital rig. It is no wonder they arrive at the conclusion they do. I'm not convinced yet though... Digital can sound absolutely amazing. My Digital rig is pretty good, but having heard Bozebuttons rig at the first National meet I know that I have a long way to go before I achieve perfection.

I was at the Toronto meet and heard Mr. Phil-o-dox's gear. If HE thinks HE's got a long way to go before perfection, what hope is there for the rest of us?!
I've been comparing a few fairly decent portables lately, and let me tell you; I've come to the conclusion that some people spend a FORTUNE for infinitesimal improvements in sound. That, in my humble, poor man's opinion, has less to do with the enjoyment of music than the pursuit of perfection, which while a noble endeavor, has very little to do with getting your groove on! In fact, if you are not careful to distinguish between the two, it becomes near impossible to "Daaance to the Muuusic". Just my 3 cents!