[GearMe]

Correct on most counts. Decision which version - analog or digital - is preferred, has also much to do with what has been the first version heard. That normally becomes "reference".

Not for me...I started with very nice vinyl setups and had no issues moving to digital from a listening and an end-user experience perspective!

I do acknowledge the limitations and imperfections of analog record vs even - brrr - RBCD. Please see answer to another member later in the day for specifics.

That's good to hear...at times it seems like you're saying/implying that vinyl is superior or equal from a technological perspective. From a logical (and practical) perspective, I'm not sure how folks get to this spot.

To me this is a classic case of trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Under normal, consumer circumstances much can be or go 'wrong' with a vinyl playback system including media limitations/wear/damage, proper turntable/arm/cartridge selection, setup, calibration, and maintenance, and lastly, the total lack of convenience. This last reason was enough for me even if I thought vinyl sounded equal -- which it didn't (to my ears).

That said, it seems many people enjoy the experience from a nostalgic/tactile/wholistic/etc. perspective.

I have a tube amp system (in addition to my SS system) for similar reasons -- nothing wrong with that. However, if I'm honest with myself, I'll acknowledge that this system introduces more distortion during playback and requires additional setup/maintenance to properly utilize that the SS equipment doesn't. Not sure why saying something like this is such a tough thing to do on this and other audiophile forums for some folks...

 

[71 dB]

I have added analogsurviver to my ignore list. His recent post about how 192 kHz sampling rate isn't enough because of the quantization noise above 20 kHz was too much for me. This member has never wrote anything that interests me. It's all bs about how you cut vinyl to reproduce bat frequencies… …madness.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

Hz kHz dB

Can't you people learn to write Hz, kHz and dB instead of Khz/db…? How ****ing hard is it?

I always try to avoid typos, including units, but wow....
You could crush rocks with that sphincter.
Can I send you some Valium?
... or some charcoal briquettes to make diamonds?

 

[KeithEmo]

2)
Assuming you specify a frequency response of "20 Hz to 20 kHz" as your design requirement - then response to 22 kHz is a 10% safety margin. The math there seems pretty simple to me.

3) & 4a)
Yes, oversampling was available, if you were willing to adopt what was, at the time, Philips proprietary technology. And, in that case, you seem to think it was perfectly reasonable to do so. However, there were plenty of formats which supported sample rates besides 44.1k, even in those days. Except, in that case, you seem to think it's unreasonable to expect studios to adopt them. So, just as consumers could use that new oversampling technology, studios could buy some new equipment to handle 48k.... or even higher sample rates... if they wanted to. I'm sure Philpis would have been happy to sell them all recorders that could handle 48k - to go with their oversampling DACs.

Of course, if the studios were actually unable to produce digital masters for the production of CDs, I guess they could have just sent their analog tapes to the CD plant. I'm sure the CD mastering facility could afford a few analog master tape machines to use to convert them to digital. (And don't even suggest that they didn't trust them to do so. Before digital was widely used, studios sent analog master tapes to the vinyl pressing facility to use to cut masters. They could have applied exactly the same workflow to produce CD masters instead.... )

As for "what would have worked better than U-matic"..... the answer would be "something that handles whatever sample rate you required rather than constraining you to use the one it's capable of".

Why do you always have to go down this route? You make some clearly false assertion and instead of admitting it or even not admitting it but stop making that assertion, you spend pages futilely trying to defend it, with ever more ridiculous, nonsensical or impossible misinformation. Where does that get you? It makes you look foolish, derails the thread, implies you're deliberately trying to pervert/insult this forum and for what benefit, what do you or the company you represent get out of it? So, let's carry on with this pointless game and refute your latest bunch of misinformation:

1. Disk size wasn't "especially important", I've already told you why 44.1kHz was chosen.

2. With musical material, 20kHz is already beyond what any adult can hear, 16-18kHz being the practical limit in virtually all cases. Even being conservative and taking the 20kHz figure, what is 10% higher than 20kHz and what is the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1kHz sample rate?

3. No it's not, your point is the EXACT OPPOSITE, it's one of impracticality and impossibility!!
3a. It wasn't "difficult to implement"! As already mentioned, by about the time of CD's launch, Philips already had a 4 x oversampling CD player, so how "difficult" was it to implement 2 x oversampling?
3b. A slightly larger disk would not have been a particularly big issue. However, how could that 48kHz digital data have been transferred? Your statement that "perhaps some studios would have needed to adjust their workflow" is nonsense! All studios would have had to change their workflow, by NOT transferring the digital audio to other studios, to mastering studios or to the CD pressing plants. So no mastering and no CDs, that's your "simply practical" is it???

4. You're sorry for what, posting more falsehoods/misinformation?
4a. And what do you suggest studios should have spent "a lot of money on" in 1980? Maybe a CD-R burner, a thumb drive, a web cloud account or how about some other technology that still hasn't been invented yet?
4b. U-Matic was capable of bit perfect transfer, so what exactly do you think "would have worked better" than bit perfect? OF COURSE I'm "suggesting they would have been unwilling to abandon the outdated U-Matic format" because abandoning it would have meant no CDs (!) as there was no practical alternative to get the digital data from the studios to the CD pressing plants and there wouldn't be any practical alternative (that worked equally well) for more than a decade AFTER redbook was published! Additionally, U-Matic was NOT an outdated format, in fact EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! it was a NEW broadcast media technology, that was released at the same time that the redbook standard started being developed (1976) and was in the process of revolutionising certain areas of the TV broadcast industry!

5. In addition to being a "bit facetious", you're being disingenuous because "in defence of your point", you are making false assertions!! "Best performance" was already achieved by U-Matic and it was only replaced many years later as the means of data storage/transfer when lower cost and more convenient bit perfect transfer technology became available (DAT for example).
5b. AGAIN, they chose 44.1kHz because it worked perfectly AND because there was a practical way of transferring it. And incidentally, the "tape equipment they [the studios] already had" was NOT U-Matic, why would a music recording studio have spent thousands on a professional video machine? Studios only bought U-Matic machines (with the digital audio adapter) specifically to store/transfer digital audio data, after redbook was published!

Round and round and round we go!

G

 

[bfreedma]

2)
Assuming you specify a frequency response of "20 Hz to 20 kHz" as your design requirement - then response to 22 kHz is a 10% safety margin. The math there seems pretty simple to me.

3) & 4a)
Yes, oversampling was available, if you were willing to adopt what was, at the time, Philips proprietary technology. And, in that case, you seem to think it was perfectly reasonable to do so. However, there were plenty of formats which supported sample rates besides 44.1k, even in those days. Except, in that case, you seem to think it's unreasonable to expect studios to adopt them. So, just as consumers could use that new oversampling technology, studios could buy some new equipment to handle 48k.... or even higher sample rates... if they wanted to. I'm sure Philpis would have been happy to sell them all recorders that could handle 48k - to go with their oversampling DACs.

Of course, if the studios were actually unable to produce digital masters for the production of CDs, I guess they could have just sent their analog tapes to the CD plant. I'm sure the CD mastering facility could afford a few analog master tape machines to use to convert them to digital. (And don't even suggest that they didn't trust them to do so. Before digital was widely used, studios sent analog master tapes to the vinyl pressing facility to use to cut masters. They could have applied exactly the same workflow to produce CD masters instead.... )

As for "what would have worked better than U-matic"..... the answer would be "something that handles whatever sample rate you required rather than constraining you to use the one it's capable of".

If only every business in the audio production chain had bought equipment they didn’t need or didn’t yet exist, you’re arguements would hold water...

 

[KeithEmo]

You're absolutely right....

It's perfectly reasonable to create a new standard that can only be implemented properly by using not-yet-available technology like oversampling (knowing it will soon become available).
However, expecting STUDIOS to do the same thing, by by repcifying a 48k (or higher) sample rate, which would require them to purchase new technology to handle it, would be totlaly unreasonable.
(And it would be a very different world if manufacturers and producers put the needs of consumers over their own convenience or "established practices".)

Please note that I'n not disagreeing with you....
One of the reasons that 44k was chosen was that it was easily handled by the studios and production folks.
(It really wasn't that important that, in order to get adequate performance, CONSUMERS would have to choose between new technology like oversmapling, and sharp analog filters, whcih were expensive and performed poorly.)

And, no, I don't think that I'm overstating the issue....
When you market a new format like RBCD you have two customers - the studios who you hope will use it and the customers who you hope will buy it.
Therefore, one goal was to deliver a standard that would provide adequate performance - and attract consumers to buy it.
And another goal was to do so without requiging studios to be excessively inconvenienced by having to change their work flow or purchase a lot of new and expensive equipment.
Notice, however, that neither of those reads: "To develop a standard that was audibly perfectly transparent".

When the CD standard was developed and marketed, it was NOT beiong compared to 24/96k PCM, or any other modern format.
Neither was it being compared to "theoretical perfection".
It was being compaerd to the two other formats available at the time - vinyl and tape.
And it had major advantages over both of those to the consumer.
CDs also had major advantages to manufacturers and resellers (they were easier to manufacture, easier to ship, and harder to damage).
And they managed all this without excessively inconveniencing the current production studios.
As such, RBCD really is a brilliantly designed product, and one that is clearly superior to the previous options.
HOWEVER, that's not exactly the same as claiming that "it is audibly perfect and so there is no room for improvement".
(There is no way Philips could have compared the audible performance of RBCD using a modern well-produced high-resolution digital master - because they didn't exist at the time.)

This is not at all an indictment of the RBCD standard...
I'm simply noting that assuming that "it has been proven to be audibly perfect" is somewhat premature...

Incidentally, and just for the record, I do agree that RBCDs CAN sound really really good...
And, from current products, it seems clear that most are limited by poor production values and not technological limitations...

If only every business in the audio production chain had bought equipment they didn’t need or didn’t yet exist, you’re arguements would hold water...

 

[71 dB]

Earlier there was talk about CX LP. I want to comment on that.

CX LP definitely did not have 100 dB dynamic range! Vinyl as it is has 60 dB dynamic range at best and CX expanded that 20 dB. Realistically the dynamic range of CX LP is about 75 dB, which is actually near how much one needs in commercial audio. CX was not very aggressive, because it tried to be playable also without a CX expander unit. There's also dbx, which was more aggressive and required dbx expander. That system reached dynamic range up to 90 dB (100 dB in marketing brochures )!

CX (or even dbx) didn't make vinyl "better than" CD. It doesn't remove distortion and CD achieves > 80 dB dynamic range with ease, with shaped dither even 115 dB of perceptual dynamic range! The compression/expansion dynamic range trick can be done with CDs too and has been used: HDCD, but ultimately it's pointless because there's already enough dynamic range for commercial audio (~80 dB) anyway.

 

[analogsurviver]

Earlier there was talk about CX LP. I want to comment on that.

CX LP definitely did not have 100 dB dynamic range! Vinyl as it is has 60 dB dynamic range at best and CX expanded that 20 dB. Realistically the dynamic range of CX LP is about 75 dB, which is actually near how much one needs in commercial audio. CX was not very aggressive, because it tried to be playable also without a CX expander unit. There's also dbx, which was more aggressive and required dbx expander. That system reached dynamic range up to 90 dB (100 dB in marketing brochures )!

CX (or even dbx) didn't make vinyl "better than" CD. It doesn't remove distortion and CD achieves > 80 dB dynamic range with ease, with shaped dither even 115 dB of perceptual dynamic range! The compression/expansion dynamic range trick can be done with CDs too and has been used: HDCD, but ultimately it's pointless because there's already enough dynamic range for commercial audio (~80 dB) anyway.

There is a fly in your ointment.. - the usual mistake.


S/N of analog record is 60 dB ( a couple dB up or down ) - referenced to 0 dB, which is 3,54cm/sec recording velocity.

Unlike digital, analog can - and DOES - go over nominal 0 dB level. Analog record does go at least to + 18dB - which is , usually, the limit for tracking ability testing, usually at 300 Hz and in lateral direction ( mono ) , which in turn corresponds to between 89 and 90 micrometer amplitude at this frequency.

There are test records -and cartridges - that can extend this to 110, sometimes even 120 micrometers - without mistracking. That is about +20dB compared to 60 dB S/N ref 0dB - or dynamic range between 78-80 dB. Prior to any noise reduction system.

Add to that 20 or so dB due to noise reduction system - and you DO arrive at 100 or so dB.

Truth to be told, up to +18dB level most commercially available recordings NEVER arrive - because only a handful of perfectly aligned cartridges woul be able to play such levels back without gross mistracking/severe distortion that can not be expressed in %.

Deduct 10 dB ( both for more noisy vinyl and reduced cutting leve combined ) - there is still 88-90 dB of dynamic range available.

In other words : enough.

 

[71 dB]

1. It really wasn't that important that, in order to get adequate performance, CONSUMERS would have to choose between new technology like oversmapling, and sharp analog filters, whcih were expensive and performed poorly.

2. HOWEVER, that's not exactly the same as claiming that "it is audibly perfect and so there is no room for improvement".
(There is no way Philips could have compared the audible performance of RBCD using a modern well-produced high-resolution digital master - because they didn't exist at the time.)

3. I'm simply noting that assuming that "it has been proven to be audibly perfect" is somewhat premature...

4. Incidentally, and just for the record, I do agree that RBCDs CAN sound really really good...
And, from current products, it seems clear that most are limited by poor production values and not technological limitations...

1. CD was a premium product when it was launched, but the prices dropped fast within a few years.

2. There was room for improvement outside the RBCD standard itself. Digital technology matured so that 16 bit / 44.1 kHz really can be considered perfect.

3. Speakers, room acoustics and headphones make sure nothing is audibly perfect. Analog, CD, hi-res. Doesn't matter. Speakers and headphones aren't perfect. Compared to these it's ridiculous to even think about CD, because even it it wasn't audibly perfect, it would still be nothing compared to other things in the audio reproduction chain. CD has been insanely successful music format. I have over 1000 CDs. Kind of makes listening to CDs appealing don't you think? Should I throw my CDs away just because you think "it hasn't been proven to be audibly perfect yet" … …what am I supposed to get out of your criticism? I started buying CDs in 1990. There was no hi-res back then. CD was the KING (it had just "killed" vinyl) and it still today rules despite hi-res. Maybe I am lucky and my music taste helps me avoid loudness war crap (the only rock I really listen to is King Crimson who are NOT into loudness war), but I am very pleased with CD and I consider it perfect for stereo sound. It lacks multichannel support, but SACD gives that. I have never experienced a moment when I wished CD had a higher samplerate or more bit depth. Never. The problems are always related to artistic choices (I simply don't like the music) and mistakes in production (too much reverberation, not enough bass, harpsichord recorded too hot, bad spatiality etc.). Never the RBCD standard itself. The same doesn't apply to my DVD collection. I really wish DVDs had HD video! DVD is so far from the needed resolution. I wish my J-horror DVDs had HD video, because the availability of J-horror on Blu-ray is very limited so upgrading the picture quality is difficult/impossible. Blu-ray on the other hand is enough for me and I don't see much reason to upgrade to 4K unless one uses very large screen compared to the watching distance.

4. Exactly.

 

[bigshot]

Whenever people quote specs for LPs, they always quote the specs for the outer grooves which is best case scenario. By the time it gets down to the inner grooves distortion and noise floor has risen massively... sometimes cassettes sound better than LPs on the last couple of songs. A CD is capable of perfect sound from beginning to end, and it can hold a two record set on a much smaller disc. As a format, CDs trounce LPs on just about every measure. LPs can sound darn good, but not as good as CDs.

 

[analogsurviver]

Whenever people quote specs for LPs, they always quote the specs for the outer grooves which is best case scenario. By the time it gets down to the inner grooves distortion and noise floor has risen massively... sometimes cassettes sound better than LPs on the last couple of songs. A CD is capable of perfect sound from beginning to end, and it can hold a two record set on a much smaller disc. As a format, CDs trounce LPs on just about every measure. LPs can sound darn good, but not as good as CDs.

Generalizing - not me.

I DID state that the best stylus designs that are perfectly aligned are capable of 90 kHz bandwidth - also on INNER grooves ( worst case scenario ) - didn't I ?

They can - CLEARLY - reproduce approx 40 kHz ringing known to be an artefact of the cutting head recorded on the CBS STR112 test record - 1 kHz square wave group ( left, right, horizontal, vertical modulation ) . Not only on outer grooves ( where even a conical stylus gives good, if not excellent results ) , but where it is the toughest - close to the end of the record side, near the label area.

Specifically, this calibre of performance is available from Namiki produced Micro Line stylus ( also known as Jico SAS ) - the cartridges using these styli do not exhibit any audible inner groove distortion, even at regular 33 1/3 RPM. The small scanning radius of these styli is between 2 and 2.5 micrometers - and Micro Line ( Ridge, Reach, Scanner, SAS ... ) does NOT "spread" as all other styli do with wear ; it remains essentially the same for approx 1000 hours of operation.

https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=22894

 

[bigshot]

It doesn't matter what the cartridge or stylus is capable of... That is completely irrelevant to the post you quoted and replied to.

The fact is that the inner groove of an LP record has significantly less bandwidth because it is moving slower than the outside grooves, so there is less real estate to cram the modulations into. The record itself isn't capable of producing low noise, distortion free sound at the inner grooves. You can have the best stylus and cartridge made and the most linear tracking tone arm possible, and it will still have significantly higher distortion and noise at the inner grooves-- AUDIBLE distortion and noise. The longer the running time of the albums side, the more distortion and noise.

The run in groove at the beginning of the side is the best an LP can sound. As the needle travels further, the ability of the LP to reproduce the highest fidelity sound progressively degrades. This isn't a problem with CDs. They produce better sound than even the best an LP can produce, and they do it consistently throughout the entire running time.

 

[analogsurviver]

It doesn't matter what the cartridge or stylus is capable of... That is completely irrelevant to the post you quoted and replied to.

The fact is that the inner groove of an LP record has significantly less bandwidth because it is moving slower than the outside grooves, so there is less real estate to cram the modulations into. The record itself isn't capable of producing low noise, distortion free sound at the inner grooves. You can have the best stylus and cartridge made and the most linear tracking tone arm possible, and it will still have significantly higher distortion and noise at the inner grooves-- AUDIBLE distortion and noise. The longer the running time of the albums side, the more distortion and noise.

The run in groove at the beginning of the side is the best an LP can sound. As the needle travels further, the ability of the LP to reproduce the highest fidelity sound progressively degrades. This isn't a problem with CDs. They produce better sound than even the best an LP can produce, and they do it consistently throughout the entire running time.

It is true that the quality of reproduction of analog record is dependant on the size a wavelength of signal can occupy in the groove - and this is directly proportional to the distance from the record centre.

With the best styli, analog record can still manage > 40 kHz at the inner most record grooves - right down to the run out groove at the label edge. WITHOUT any pinch effect to cause vertical movement of stylus on horizontal only modulation - the FALSE "ambience" less experienced analog aficionados mistake for "better".

So, at its worst, still twice better than RBCD.

Not all styli can have small scanning radius of 2 micrometers - an ordinary elliptical has 8 micrometers small scanning radius, which allows only for 10 kHz bandwidth without considerable level loss and distortion at inner grooves.

The record itself does not have any more problems with noise at the inner grooves as it does at the beginning of the side. It is perfectly capable of adequate performance.- IF the playback gear is of high enough quality-

Micro Line styli and linear tracking arms can play with authority right up to the label edge - without any sonic problems.

No CD can have the soundstage a perfectly aligned and adjusted high quality turntable can convey; it is NOT only about the channel separation ( in excess of 35 dB in higher quality cartridges that have been aligned correctly ) , but also in increased bandwidth with no/low/lower phase shift in the treble than brick filtering inherent to RBCD.

And HERE lies the "catch 22" why some/most people prefer analog over RBCD... - low enough noise, distortion, high enough channel separation - AND the ability to handle yet another octave above 20 kHz if not exactly with aplomb, certainly better than RBCD that can not - must not - perform at these frequencies at all.

Pray to digital god you never get exposed to the sound of any of the musical test records accompaniying any of the Technics EPC-100C series of cartridges - the degree of high frequency detail is overwhelming even for seasoned top quality level analog listener - let alone one on strictly CD diet ...

 

[bigshot]

The signal to noise and distortion in the center groove of an LP is more than an order of magnitude greater than at the outer groove. It's clearly audible on many records. Whenever you see specs quoted, it's always the outer groove they're talking about- a best case scenario that progressively degrades little by little with each rotation of the record. If they cited the specs for the inner groove instead of the outer groove, a cassette tape would have better specs than an LP.

It doesn't matter if a cartridge can reproduce super audible frequencies because those frequencies DON'T EXIST on LP records. If they did, records would degrade into a mush of distortion in just a few plays. It is standard practice in LP mastering to roll off the frequencies starting at about 16kHz to prevent premature record wear. The only super audible frequencies present on LP records are nothing more than noise and distortion.

Even if there were inaudible frequencies in the grooves of LP records, they would be as useless as teats on a bull hog. You can't hear them. They add nothing to the perception of sound quality in music. The performance of LPs in the audible range where it counts is so far below that of CDs, there is no contest when it comes to sound quality. Why would anyone trade compromised sound fidelity in the range they CAN hear, for theoretical sound they know they CAN'T? That is just plain dumb.

LPs can sound good. Open reel tape can sound great. CDs can sound perfect. Perfect is all you need. Anything beyond that is just a waste of time, money and effort.

 

[71 dB]

My acoustics teacher in the university (this was back in mid 90's) said during a lecture about audio formats that the idea of vinyl records is horrible: You scratch a plastic plate with a small rock and try to get good sound out of that!