[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Several paragraphs of irrelevant comments snipped here Answer the question Art ! dont keep dodging the issue - where is vinyl technically better - just numbers no waffle please ! subjective debate has been done to death here - most folks in this debate prefer vinyl , fine , I have no issue with that at all, but just out of interest - where is it actually superior in technical terms - a very simple question.

The importance of a variable is inversely proportional to the ability to measure it.

Two amplifiers that are identical except for certain parts can sound differently - one bad and the other good - where the bad one measures good and the good one measures bad.

Some of the most important variables in sound quality are either unknown or unmeasurable.

You want numbers? How about digital being based on a 5 per cent sample of analog - a number of points on the curve of the waveform instead of the complete analog waveform. Digital connects these points together to reconstruct the whole waveform from the 5 per cent sample.

Doe 5 per cent of reality = the whole of reality?

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you can't hear a difference by putting two sounds right up next to each other and directly comparing them, the difference can't be very great. Why sweat stuff that's that hard to hear? There are things that make a much bigger difference to attend to.

Art: Take a CD and make a copy of it. Have an assistant cue up two identical CD players and try to pick out the original from the copy, in blind AB switching, by judging which is best. Assuming the copy was well made, it will be very hard to do - most people can't do it.

Take a month to listen to both you will be able to tell the difference and learn the sound. Ince you do you will not like the copy and will only want the original.

You do sweat the small stuf once you learn to here the difference, and it always takes time to learn sound quality differences.



Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Digital recording and playback isn't responsible for a "lean tone"... improper equalization is.

Art: Equalization adds or subtracts a certain type of coloration but has nothing to do with tone body leanness or richness. Some tubes are lean, like digital or solid state sound, while others add richness to the tone body, like vinyl or rich tube sound does.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is the thing I am interested in - this is page 10 and nobody has yet cited any source that shows that vinyl actually does have any technical i.e measurable real world superiority. In theory vinyl can extend higher in the upper frequencies but my understanding is that there are physical limitations which mean that its dynamic range in the upper frequencies is severely compromised i.e only a few db before the needle flies out and embeds itself in the ceiling compared to CDs 96db - can we see some real numbers that show where vinyl does do better that would be interesting.

Here's an article with a few format comparisons.

Unfortunately it doesn't show any measurements of transient response. It would have been interesting -- and revealed the weakness of the CD format: a poor transient response at higher frequencies as a result of the steep 21-kHz low-pass filter. Now turntables don't have perfect transient response as well, but they don't show the same uniform ringing (= delayed decay) -- the more so, the higher the frequency (= the closer to the filter frequency) -- because of a softer, more organic roll-off without a strict bandwidth limitation. Another reason for the more organic high-frequency reproduction is the relatively high harmonic distortion: it offers at least some high-frequency information without transient smearing. Also, surface noise and dust particles add a sort of atmosphere and a sense of realism (reminding of noises from the audience in a concert hall) that the CD lacks.

An eye-opener to me was the experience that LPs from digital masters sounded more «real» than CDs from the same master (The Nits - «Henk/Kilo»; Arthur Honegger - Symphonies No.1+3 and 2+4 on Erato). This is a clear indication of artificial euphonic effects. The more I concentrated on the phenomenon, the more sure I became that it's indeed the distortion and the surface noise which make most of the LP's «superiority» over the CD. But let's not forget the better, more organic high-frequency behavior of the LP! It's just that it shouldn't pay off in the case of a digital recording pressed on vinyl -- except for the artificially added euphonic effects.

I understand the preference for vinyl. The CD format suffers from a critical bandwidth limitation which is responsible for some of its «digital sound». The other part of it is the unused clarity and the absence of analog distortion. I'm absolutely ready to believe that the high-rez digital formats are close to an analog master tape, whereas the LP is not. In this context I can't speak for the CD, but somehow I have made friends with it since I own a very good digital player. I think it does most things better than the LP, at least in my setup.
.

 

[lini]

JaZZ: Hehe, maybe they should try implementing cell phone cngs in cd players...

Grinnings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[ssportclay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's an article with a few format comparisons. Unfortunately it doesn't show any measurements of transient response. It would have been interesting -- and revealed the weakness of the CD format: a poor transient response at higher frequencies as a result of the steep 21-kHz low-pass filter. Now turntables don't have perfect transient response as well, but they don't show the same uniform ringing (= delayed decay) -- the more so, the higher the frequency (= the closer to the filter frequency) -- because of a softer, more organic roll-off without a strict bandwidth limitation. Another reason for the more organic high-frequency reproduction is the relatively high harmonic distortion: it offers at least some high-frequency information without transient smearing. Also, surface noise and dust particles add a sort of atmosphere and a sense of realism (reminding of noises from the audience in a concert hall) that the CD lacks. An eye-opener to me was the experience that LPs from digital masters sounded more «real» than CDs from the same master (The Nits - «Henk/Kilo»; Arthur Honegger - Symphonies No.1+3 and 2+4 on Erato). This is a clear indication of artificial euphonic effects. The more I concentrated on the phenomenon, the more sure I became that it's indeed the distortion and the surface noise which make most of the LP's «superiority» over the CD. But let's not forget the better, more organic high-frequency behavior of the LP! It's just that it shouldn't pay off in the case of a digital recording pressed on vinyl -- except for the artificially added euphonic effects. I understand the preference for vinyl. The CD format suffers from a critical bandwidth limitation which is responsible for some of its «digital sound». The other part of it is the unused clarity and the absence of analog distortion. I'm absolutely ready to believe that the high-rez digital formats are close to an analog master tape, whereas the LP is not. In this context I can't speak for the CD, but somehow I have made friends with it since I own a very good digital player. I think it does most things better than the LP, at least in my setup. .

If it measures good and sounds bad,it is bad;if it measures bad and sounds good,you have measured the wrong thing.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssportclay /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing.

What exactly does «good» mean? You'd think it should mean accurate and neutral, according to the original high-fidelity ideal. But nowadays some people want «beautiful», romantic, «musical» sound -- it's called euphony --, and I think that's what the LP can deliver in first place, not so much unvarnished accuracy, for which digital reproduction may stand, although certainly not in perfection.

Depending on the measuring parameters, either the CD or the LP will measure more favorably. It will be hard to beat the hi-rez formats, though. After all not all people prefer LPs over either digital format (or vice versa), so your premises are somewhat arbitrary anyway. In any event, I'm convinced that most people like an at least slightly euphonized reproduction over a puristically accurate one -- with respect to audio formats or single device categories --, not least under the aspect that in every single stage within the signal path there are sonic imperfections which can use some masking or synergetic/euphonic compensations by others.
.

 

[ssportclay]

acoustical instruments in a good room sounds the best although live music may not measure the best depending on what gets measured and how.What sounds better,digital or analog? Whichever signal gets processed the least should sound the best.on the other hand,what ever sounds the best is the best.

 

[JaZZ]

Huuhh?

.

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Huuhh? .

LMAO

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Art: Take a CD and make a copy of it. Have an assistant cue up two identical CD players and try to pick out the original from the copy, in blind AB switching, by judging which is best. Assuming the copy was well made, it will be very hard to do - most people can't do it. Take a month to listen to both you will be able to tell the difference and learn the sound. Ince you do you will not like the copy and will only want the original.

I can "learn" to tell a CD-R from a CD?!

Yeah... right.

See ya
Steve

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssportclay /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it measures good and sounds bad,it is bad;if it measures bad and sounds good,you have measured the wrong thing.

Total harmonic distortion is often cited as the right thing to measure.

http://www.ampslab.com/index.html

 

[Jigglybootch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Art: Take a CD and make a copy of it. Have an assistant cue up two identical CD players and try to pick out the original from the copy, in blind AB switching, by judging which is best. Assuming the copy was well made, it will be very hard to do - most people can't do it. Take a month to listen to both you will be able to tell the difference and learn the sound. Ince you do you will not like the copy and will only want the original.

You do realize that digital copies are identical to the original, right?

 

[ssportclay]

Weather music is stored on vinyl or compact disc,the original signal that came off the microphones will be damaged to a certain degree depending upon the processing involved.It is easy to show that the CD has a higher signal to noise ratio and a higher dynamic range but nothing much gets said about percentage of signal damage.Digital audio alway sounds digital which is something I never hear in live music.Vinyl isn't perfect either but on the hole,it sounds closer to live music than any of the digital formats.

 

[drarthurwells]

Originally Posted by drarthurwells
Art: Take a CD and make a copy of it. Have an assistant cue up two identical CD players and try to pick out the original from the copy, in blind AB switching, by judging which is best. Assuming the copy was well made, it will be very hard to do - most people can't do it.

Take a month to listen to both you will be able to tell the difference and learn the sound. Ince you do you will not like the copy and will only want the original.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jigglybootch /img/forum/go_quote.gif You do realize that digital copies are identical to the original, right?

They are not.

Take a copy made from an original, then copy the copy, and then copy the last copy, and then copy the last copy. Now compare the fourth generation copy to the sound of the original.

If the copy were identical to the source CD then the fourth generation copy would be as good as the original.

I can easily tell a first generation copy from an original CD.

Pick out a vocal section on the original CD that is not too clear, but clear enough to make out. Then listen to this section on a copy - it will be less clear and harder to make out.

Now this assumes you use top rate headphone equipment.

You need headphones to eliminate phase distortion from reflected room sound with speakers.

You need top components since sound quality is reduced to the weakest link in your system chain, and this may mask differences that are really there in the CD and the copy.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssportclay /img/forum/go_quote.gif Weather music is stored on vinyl or compact disc,the original signal that came off the microphones will be damaged to a certain degree depending upon the processing involved.

That's totally wrong. If you patched a bunch of mike feeds directly into a digital recorder without balancing levels, EQing, adding reverb, or any other signal processing, it would sound like a mess.

The secret to good sound is BALANCE. It's good to keep the signal clean, but you don't have to be obsessive about it.

See ya
Steve