[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by myself, aka me How can something with 44.1K samples/second be physically better than something with infinite samples/second? Not possible. The CD may SOUND better, but the LP is PHYSICALLY better.

That's not accurate at all. Remember, the audio tape takes "samples" too, consisting of its magnetic particles. It is by no means continuous, but there is a difference, in that the samples taken by tape are "random". that randomness may be heard differently by some people, but I can hear the tape hiss.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti That's not accurate at all. Remember, the audio tape takes "samples" too, consisting of its magnetic particles. It is by no means continuous, but there is a difference, in that the samples taken by tape are "random". that randomness may be heard differently by some people, but I can hear the tape hiss.

There are no real «samples» like in a digital system: no steps which need to be smoothed by an antialiasing filter, and the data depth also isn't defined by steps, but by a continuous, analog dynamic range. There's only a bandwidth resriction in the form of a smooth low-pass filter, but no strict cut-off frequency. The resolution of an analog tape is much higher than that of the CD format. It's just the noise floor which limits the dynamic range.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti ...the question is, was it better than CD's, and in my opinion the answer is no.

Hey Mike... the first time you use the phrase: «in my opinion».

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ There are no real «samples» like in a digital system: no steps which need to be smoothed by an antialiasing filter, and the data depth also isn't defined by steps, but by a continuous, analog dynamic range. There's only a bandwidth resriction in the form of a smooth low-pass filter, but no strict cut-off frequency. The resolution of an analog tape is much higher than that of the CD format. It's just the noise floor which limits the dynamic range.

Each particle in a magnetic tape is independent of all the others, and each has its own magnetic field. The passing tape takes a "sample" of the magnetism passing through the head. It's true that it's not a "digital" sample that has to be converted, but it's a sample nothethless, and thus the claim that the resolutionis "infinite" is clearly false. For that to be true the particles would have to infinitely small or the tape speed would have to be infinitely high.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti Each particle in a magnetic tape is independent of all the others, and each has its own magnetic field. The passing tape takes a "sample" of the magnetism passing through the head. It's true that it's not a "digital" sample that has to be converted, but it's a sample nothethless, and thus the claim that the resolutionis "infinite" is clearly false. For that to be true the particles would have to infinitely small or the tape speed would have to be infinitely high.

Mike, the resolution of a magnetic tape isn't «infinitely» high, but it's clearly higher than CD. This applies also to the analog disc. The term «infinite samples» was a simplifying description for the smooth vinyl groove of an LP compared to the sample/depth grid of the CD. And you may know, analog discs can also be cut without a tape recorder (direct-to-disc recording).

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ Mike, the resolution of a magnetic tape isn't «infinitely» high, but it's clearly higher than CD. This applies also to the analog disc. The term «infinite samples» was a simplifying description for the smooth vinyl groove of an LP compared to the sample/depth grid of the CD. And you may know, analog discs can also be cut without a tape recorder (direct-to-disc recording).

Well, that's what you said (sigh). Yes, I know that direct discs can be made, but they're not unlimited either. They're limited by the viscosity of the substrate into which the stylus is cutting, friction, the dynamic range of the cutting head, the angular velocity of the cutting, in short: all kinds of things. The phonograph has a much more limited dynamic and frequency range than tape, and for obvious reasons. Tape can be run up to 30 ips or more on commercial machines, whereas discs have to be cut at 33 1/3 or 45 rpm (or lower, if you follow MFSL practise, which means only from tape).

 

[JaZZ]

Mike...

...there are – of course – limitating factors with both LP and tape not mentioned so far. But we were talking of resolution, and as this one's concerned, analog has (proved by physics!

) clearly the edge over redbook digital. Anyway, resolution – like e.g. transient speed with sound transducer

– isn't the «only most important factor» when it comes to the over-all quality of a music recording format. So there's indeed no reason to postulate: «analog is better than digital».

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ Mike... ...there are – of course – limitating factors with both LP and tape not mentioned so far. But we were talking of resolution, and as this one's concerned, analog has (proved by physics! ) clearly the edge over redbook digital. Anyway, resolution – like e.g. transient speed with sound transducer – isn't the «only most important factor» when it comes to the over-all quality of a music recording format. So there's indeed no reason to postulate: «analog is better than digital».

The objection that is false is that analog is "continuous". It isn't. It's just random. The number of particles of tape or vinyl passing by an analog reproducer may vary from one moment to the next, but this is not the case in digital, whose sampling rate is fixed.

 

[ericysun]

Holy crap, you guy are still going on about this?

Haha!

From what I understand, most of the distortion in in an Analog LP is additive, that is, surface noise some bits of fuzzyness, added harmonics, etc. Most of the original information is down there in the grooves along with this distortion.

Distortion inherent in digital is both additive and subtractive, the additive resulting from oversampling and post conversion filter processes. The subtractive distortion results from information lost when the analog live feed was converted to digital, and again when it is resampled, mixed, and again downsampled to 16 bit. The sheer number of AD/DD/DA conversions end up subtracting information out of it. From what I understand, some commercially recorded CD's result from something more like an AD/DD/DD/DA/AD/DA process.

Even when Lp's are pressed from digital recordings, original master tapes are usually 20 to 24 bit 96khz recording mastered to Lp before they are down sampled and down converted to 16 bit 44khz.

I have never heard a studio live feed of a master tape, but every Engineer I've ever read about has been quoted about the large disparity between the Live feed and the digital masters, as well as the loss in quality between the ,asters they work with and the final 16 bit CD product they end up with.

You cannot escape distortion, only minimize it and choose what kinds of distortion you are more willing to live with. I like both formats.

I am however, pretty sure that advances in digital recording as well as new format stuff like SACD will eventually give us the best of all worlds. The current crop of SACD players (at least the ones I've heard) hasn't impressed me enough to get one, though.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Scarpitti The objection that is false is that analog is "continuous". It isn't. It's just random. The number of particles of tape or vinyl passing by an analog reproducer may vary from one moment to the next, but this is not the case in digital, whose sampling rate is fixed.

So what? To what extent does this affect the superiority of analog in terms of resolution? If you take a JPEG picture of 24,000 x 16,000 pixels with some random compression artifacts, this has nevertheless the clearly higher resolution than any TIFF picture of 640 x 480 pixels. In turn the low-pass filter needed to smooth the steps with digital creates a considerable amount of arbitrary waveform corruption due to the resonance it implies. Thus highest-frequency resolution is objectively near zero.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ So what? To what extent does this affect the superiority of analog in terms of resolution? If you take a JPEG picture of 24,000 x 16,000 pixels with some random compression artifacts, this has nevertheless the clearly higher resolution than any TIFF picture of 640 x 480 pixels. In turn the low-pass filter needed to smooth the steps with digital creates a considerable amount of arbitrary waveform corruption due to the resonance it implies. Thus highest-frequency resolution is objectively near zero.

This is true, but what I'd point out is that people have been claiming that the REASON analog sounds better is that it is CONTINUOUS and this is simply false, OK? Analog is NOT CONTINUOUS, it's made of pieces too, but their distribution is RANDOM, and this is indeed different from didgital. It is not at all clear, however, that this is in and of itself the reason that some people don't like digital, but it's the only explanation they had thought of.

 

[nArKeD]

The fact of the matter is that CD's are much more practical than any analog format. CD's don't deteriorate over time, become warped, and are far more common. I can buy almost any release available on redbook, not so w/ cassette or vinyl. The amount of new releases on vinyl is so pathetic that it alone almost closes vinyl's coffin. I can listen to CD's in my car, on the run, or on other people's home setups. Not so with vinyl. IMO most CD Players look cooler (aesthetically) than a Phono

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by nArKeD 1.The fact of the matter is that CD's are much more practical than any analog format. 2. CD's don't deteriorate over time, become warped, and are far more common. 3. I can buy almost any release available on redbook, not so w/ cassette or vinyl. 4.The amount [number] of new releases on vinyl is so pathetic that it alone almost closes vinyl's coffin. 5. I can listen to CD's in my car, on the run, or on other people's home setups. Not so with vinyl. 6. IMO most CD Players look cooler (aesthetically) than a Phono

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Agree
5. Agree
6. Disagree. A nice-looking turntable and arm can also have a lot of visual appeal, I'd call it a tie!

 

[Sentral Dogma]

i've realized I waste too much time on head-fi. but, i've found a way to save a little time. ignore every single post by mike.

re: electrstatic vs dynamic

"to each his own"........ i'm sorry i mean "to each mike's own."

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sentral Dogma i've realized I waste too much time on head-fi. but, i've found a way to save a little time. ignore every single post by mike. re: electrstatic vs dynamic "to each his own"........ i'm sorry i mean "to each mike's own."

Do you understand the difference between:

Belief, Opinion, and Knowledge?