Tuner better than CD player?

[Orpheus]

okay..... no, you're right... no recording is EXACTLY the same as the source. but to my ears, it's pretty damn close. close enough to say yes, it's the same. i use a MOTU 896. it's 96khz, 24bit * 8 channels. and it's supposed to be pretty darn good.... just a bit behind pro tools from what i've heard. not that pro tools is the best there is either... but the 896 is definately among the top tier. i think if you gave me a blind test and played a recording versus the live feed, i would not be able to tell the difference. and i doubt you can either. i used to have a Digidesign Audiomedia III card.... and at the time, it was $800 for 2 channel... and i remember it was pretty darn good too. i have never used a consumer card for recording. (i'm willing to put down $100 on a bet that you cannot hear a damn difference with recordings on my MOTU system in a blind test. in the area?--i'm serious.)

but i think you're still missing the point. whether the source is digital or analog MAKES NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to my argument.

the original question for this thread was whether radio sounds better than CD. well, under the assumption that radio is similar to vinyl, i argued that it is possible that radio/vinyl does sound better to some people, but that doesn't mean vinyl/radio is more accurate. my main point was that digital does accurately record sound, and the reason people don't like CD sound isn't because it's not accurate, but more because they don't like accuracy.

...my supporting argument was that people always state the same fallacy that an accurate recording should sound like the original performance. no i say--it sounds like the sound coming from the microphones, which don't sound at all like what a person would hear sitting in the audience.

again, whether the source is digital or not makes no difference to my argument whatsoever--because i am comparing the before and after effects of digital recording. the "source" is the before, whether from a digtal source or from a analog (miked) source, and the "recording" is what results from the ADC and is recorded to my hard drive.

i think i wrote clearly enough.... if you still don't understand the point... just reread until you do.

............anyway, the only recording i could see sounding like a real performance are those binaural ones... if you put a dummy head in the middle of the audience... then record that... well, then yes, theoretically should sound like the performance, cause that's how a person would hear it. but 99.999% of recordings are not done that way. so logically, such recordings will never sound like a live performance.

so.............. does radio/vinyl sound better than CD? i say, it's possible to some people. especially if they are looking for a more "i'm there" sound. because today's recording techniques can never logically put you there. and that's my conclusion.

 

[Orpheus]

geoffw,
Quote:

Actually that combination sounds muffled and distant. No, there is definitely something more than just EQ'ing going on with FM.

yes, it would sound muffled... maybe backing off a bit might help. but when you say "rich" sounding, i assumed you meant big in the midrange. but anyway............. i agree with you, there is definately more than frequency changes going on. there are many things that affect sound. but in my studio, the MMF turntable on EQ sounded pretty close to my CD player. i'm sure if i listened really carfully, i could tell the difference............. but i almost had a heart attack at the time, so i couldn't really concentrate so hard.

 

[JaZZ]

Orpheus...

...you missed the point of qwerty870's argumentation:

«When recording from a digital synth (via midi right?) you never leave the digital domain. NO conversion takes place. Of course your recording sounds like the actual thing.»

I'm not sure, but he may be wrong with this (I for one get no digital data out of my Roland JV-1010 MIDI synthesizer, but have to use my computer's line in instead, thus an analog path). Anyway, given that's the same in your case, IMO a digital source like a MIDI synthesizer already has an inherent «digital» timbre from the beginning, so there's substantially less obvious sound change due to A/D conversion than with an analog signal from a microphone.

When I record my MIDI composition onto my HD, the difference between before and after A/D conversion is very clear. Sure, the A/D converter in my SB Live Platinum is quite mediocre, but I guess even the best A/D converters have (at least) an individual sonic signature, which makes it impossible for the source sound to sound identical after conversion. It's very likely – due to its nature – that the coloration has a «digital» signature. In addition, I believe in a fundamental digital coloration from 16/44.1 or 16/48 digital, mainly due to the low sampling rate. That said, I don't rate analog – in the form of vinyl – as principally more true to the original, just differently coloring.

Back to the tuner. I agree about dynamic compression: it may be the main reason for the perceived increase of detail, maybe accompanied by some euphonic (second-/fourth-order) harmonic distortion.

 

[Orpheus]

jazz... there really isn't a point to qwerty's statement. yes, my source starts off as digital. yes, analog starts off with a real person's voice. so what? the question is whether a ADC can accurately record what was fed to it. doesn't matter if the source was some sound recorded in memory then passed through a DAC on the way to the ADC, or if it was pure analog to sart with. i don't know what the heck you guys are talking about. his statement has nothing to do with my argument for the millionth time!

Quote:

When I record my MIDI composition onto my HD, the difference between before and after A/D conversion is very clear. Sure, the A/D converter in my SB Live Platinum is quite mediocre, but I guess even the best A/D converters have (at least) an individual sonic signature, which makes it impossible for the source sound to sound identical after conversion. It's very likely ?due to its nature ?that the coloration has a «digital?signature. In addition, I believe in a fundamental digital coloration from 16/44.1 or 16/48 digital, mainly due to the low sampling rate. That said, I don't rate analog ?in the form of vinyl ?as principally more true to the original, just differently coloring.

now this of course is a valid argument. if you say that you can hear a difference.... then that would make my argument false, or at least weakens my original argument... i guess it wouldn't be exactly false, because vinyl/radio would change the sound even more drastically. but anyway......... i don't know about your soundblaster, but in my own MIDI recordings, i cannot hear the difference. so, as i have said, you in the area?--swing by and drop $100. we will have a bet. who knows, you might leave richer!

or you don't want the money.... feel free to come by anyway... i'll prove it to you. and i know how to make a good experiment... believe me. it will be quite accurate. all levels will be referenced. ...my major was in biology, and i've taken some sampling statistics.... i know what i'm doing--the results will be fairly valid.

Quote:

In addition, I believe in a fundamental digital coloration from 16/44.1 or 16/48 digital, mainly due to the low sampling rate.

well, i would have to say no to this too. there is no "fundamental" coloration due to sampling rate. such coloration, if you hear it, is not "logically" due to sampling rate. logically, sampling rate would not "fundamentally" make a difference in what you hear, as 44khz should cover your ear's hearing range. i am not saying it won't though... just that it is not a "fundamental" understanding. as far as i know, there is no scientific evidence concluding that 96khz sampling sounds better than 44khz to humans. of course, please correct me if there is. if there is coloration, it is probably due to other factors....

 

[Mike Walker]

This is actually a rather simple question to answer for an old radio guy (30 years in the business), who has been able for many years, in many control rooms, to compare sound coming straight "off the board" (through the audio console...a radio station's equivalent of a "preamp"), and "off the air"...sound which has been all the way through the station, in the audio processing gear, through the S-T-L (studio to transmitter link), out the transmitter, and received on an fm tuner in the control room. Quite simply, you like the sound of the processing used by your favorite station. What you're describing ("richness", "fullness", "presence", more "detail") is exactly what one hears on a properly tuned (by "tuned" I'm referring to the processing gear) fm signal, compared directly to the "source". There IS less high frequency content than a cd (or lp, for that matter) in a fully-modulated fm signal, because of fm's pre-emphasis. To reduce noise, fm stations boost highs with a 75us (microsecond) pre-emphasis curve, resulting in a 15db(!) boost at 15khz. At the receiving end, this boost is reduced by a like amount, and with it received noise, resulting in a much quieter signal than would be present otherwise.

Here's the problem with pre-emphasis. Since 100 percent modulation has an absolute value....deviation of plus or minus 75khz from carrier center (the assigned frequency), obviously with highs boosted by as much as 15db, AVERAGE level in the midrange (where the ear preceives "loudness") would have to be quite low without LIMITING (the proper term for reducing sudden transients..."compression" refers to bringing UP low level/quiet information in average level). WITH limiting, sudden high frequency transients (cymbal crashes, the "bite" of a muted trumpet, drum smacks, the letters "s" and "t", for instance) can be "clamped"...reduced in level in a tiny fraction of a second. Bringing these ENORMOUS high frequency peaks under control allows the average level to be increased quite a bit. But it is quite literally not possible for an fm station to broadcast all the high frequency content present in recordings, and sound competitively loud at the same time. It can't be done.

What can be done is to use psycho-acoustic tricks to fool the ear into believing that it is hearing more than is actually present. With the ability to a/b between a direct feed from a cd player, and the same signal having passed through an fm air chain, it can be easily heard that transients are "softer". Drums "smacks" aren't as hard. Cymbal crashes don't have that enormous initial impact. Percussion instruments seem as if they're not being struck as hard by the player. ALL of these transient components (when present) can make sound seem "cold", "harsh", etc. Well take it from a musician...much of what occurs in real life IS "cold", "harsh", "biting", etc. Percussion and brass instruments (for example) produce ENORMOUS transients which are hard (though not impossible) to record, and nearly impossible to broadcast (while maintaining competitive loudness).

That's the "down side" of processing. The up-side is that drastically curtailing transients removes "harshness", "coldness", etc from the audio signal. This DOES make many, prehaps if truth be told most recordings easier to listen to in a typical home. But there's more! Compressing the overall dynamic envelop DOES (no matter what your audiophile friends may say) make low-level detail in recordings easier to hear. Think about it....tiny details which may have been 50db down in a recording suddenly are only 15-20db down. OF COURSE THEY'RE EASIER TO HEAR! Reverb "tails" are louder, so they can be heard with your volume control turned much lower than otherwise would be the case. Cymbals "ring" longer...because the absolute level of the fade to silence has been brought up. Notes played on bass instruments sustain longer (again, because they're higher in level), adding to the feeling that the fm signal is "richer". And these things certainly cannot be accomplished in the home with equalization, because they occur in the amplitude (volume) rather than merely the frequency domain.

Why are you surprised to hear fm sounding "this good"? Because in most homes, on most systems, fm is never heard to it's potential. Despite the above mentioned limitations, fm radio is FAR better than most people realize. They hear poor sound on fm largely because they have poor antennas and, to a lesser degree, poor tuners.

Strictly speaking, your cd players are INFINITELY more "accurate" than fm sound. But ears are not laboratory instruments! Say you like the sound of processed fm audio? No poop! Why do you think it's processed to begin with? Truth be told, MOST PEOPLE PREFER processed to truly accurate sound. TRUELY accurate reproduction of acoustic music is, like unamplified acoustic music itself, an acquired taste. Don't believe me? Check the sales figures for classical recordings and concert tickets, compared with more "modern" (i.e. amplified/processed) forms of music. I know it's blasphemy to "purists", but the truth is that the vast majority of us prefer our audio amplified, processed, and tinkered with 'till kingdom-come!

If you REALLY enjoy the processed sound of fm more than from a cd player, you might want to invest in a compressor (I would NEVER put one of the damn things in my system, but I can understand those who would doing so! I use compression/limiting/equalization in my studio every day!). There are several very nice models from Alesis, dbx, Pre-Sonus, and others available for under 200 dollars. You'll need adapters to adapt the 1/4" 'phone jacks on these devices to the rca plugs on your audio system. Tinker around with the threshold, attack, release, and hard/soft knee adjustments. My guess is that you will soon arrive at a setting which sounds remarkably similar to the "warm, full" sound of your favorite fm station. Should you use compression in your audio system? If you're a "purist" who only wants to hear what the artist/producer/engineer intended, ABSOLUTELY NOT! But if your goal is to get the subjectively "best" (rather than most accurate, not necessarily the same thing!) sound, then go for it. We have already established that you enjoy the sound of compression and limiting.

Now smile! You've discovered what many "flat-earth" audiophiles spend tons of money on separate transports/d to a converters/(sigh) cables/etc. and never learn...the "coldness" and "harshness" of digital recordings is actually a result of digital's being able to capture intact the hf transients which analog has always merely clipped, and scrambled (in time). Take it from a trumpet player...live music at close range (where microphones are usually placed, FAR closer than an audience actually sits) is neither "smooth", not is it "rich". It IS "sharp", "edgy", even harsh. Which is why in order to properly capture acoustic music as an audience may hear it, microphones should be pulled-way-the-hell back in the auditorium away from the orchestra to allow room acoustics and the air to help the music "bloom". But I'll tell you...if you ever hear a live recording of acoustic music (complete with brass and percussion) which sounds COMPLETELY "rich", and "warm" from beginning to end, it may be pleasant to listen to, but I guarantee you it's anything but ACCURATE!

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

Now smile! You've discovered what many "flat-earth" audiophiles spend tons of money on separate transports/d to a converters/(sigh) cables/etc. and never learn...the "coldness" and "harshness" of digital recordings is actually a result of digital's being able to capture intact the hf transients which analog has always merely clipped, and scrambled (in time). Take it from a trumpet player...live music at close range (where microphones are usually placed, FAR closer than an audience actually sits) is neither "smooth", not is it "rich". It IS "sharp", "edgy", even harsh. Which is why in order to properly capture acoustic music as an audience may hear it, microphones should be pulled-way-the-hell back in the auditorium away from the orchestra to allow room acoustics and the air to help the music "bloom". But I'll tell you...if you ever hear a live recording of acoustic music (complete with brass and percussion) which sounds COMPLETELY "rich", and "warm" from beginning to end, it may be pleasant to listen to, but I guarantee you it's anything but ACCURATE!

....hi mike. i think this was basically my point. thanks for the professional perspective!

 

[JaZZ]

Orpheus...

I'm really surprised! You're the first person who claims that D/A and A/D conversion makes no difference to the sound and the corresponding devices play no role at all. I can assure you that it's the case – I have tried different DACs (and CDPs) – all with their individual signatures – and ended up with a Bel Canto DAC2. If you don't believe me, ask Jude or Tuberoller! They are the DAC gurus on Head-Fi.

Quote:

There is no "fundamental" coloration due to sampling rate. Such coloration, if you hear it, is not "logically" due to sampling rate. logically, sampling rate would not "fundamentally" make a difference in what you hear, as 44khz should cover your ear's hearing range. i am not saying it won't though... just that it is not a "fundamental" understanding. as far as i know, there is no scientific evidence concluding that 96khz sampling sounds better than 44khz to humans.

There are at least lots of people who rate SACD and DVD-A as clearly better and natural sounding, with less digital coloration, myself included. It's logically justifiable. A 20 kHz sine wave, e.g., in its unfiltered form after D/A conversion shows a considerable amplitude modulation due to mathematically constituted interference of the sampling rate with the reproduced curve (see this graph!). Only the applied sharp low-pass filter makes a continuous sine wave out of it. But if you want to reproduce sine-wave bursts, you won't get anything but a continuous sine wave – there's nothing left of the original signal shape except for the frequency... due to the filter resonance, the typical ringing of CD players (except for some with a special, time-based filter). And this is – so I'm convinced – the main cause for the CD's «digital sound». With a sampling rate of 96 kHz, the filter (resonance) can be placed much farther away from the audible range, so the ringing has very little sonic impact now, if at all, and if there's any sharp filter applied.

I fully agree with Mike Walker's remarks about the sound of radio tuners (which are more or less what you already stated yourself). There may even be two additional effects which make digital recordings reproduced through a tuner more enjoyable and «analog»: the MPX filter, which possibly acts as a kind of «time-based» low-pass filter (comparable to Jan Meier's «Analoguer») as well as harmonic distortion (of which tuners provide a lot) masking the digital ringing at the upper end of the scale (~16 kHz).

 

[qwerty870]

Quote:

jazz... there really isn't a point to qwerty's statement. yes, my source starts off as digital. yes, analog starts off with a real person's voice. so what?

What do you mean? You said that your source and your recording sound exactly alike. When your surce is digital it would be impossible for it not too. When the source is analog it would be impossible for it to sound exactly alike. This is not arguable; it is fact. That is my point plain and simple.

OTOH, I for one do not assosiate (well recorded CDs) with unnecessary "digital harshness". My somewhat modest DAC is fully capable of producing good sound from CDs. However, when I listen to well recorded CDs I notice that string instruments never sound completely tonally natural. Actually I have never heard a stereo playing any medium that reproduced strings completely naturally. Yet I hear (on well recorded LPs) a greater tonal accuracy. Sure LP has some serious faults (as does CD), but to each person different aspects of recording are more important to others. Neither format perfectly records live sound.

 

[JaZZ]

qwerty870...

...I subscribe your whole posting.

 

[Orpheus]

qwerty,

Quote:

What do you mean? You said that your source and your recording sound exactly alike. When your surce is digital it would be impossible for it not too. When the source is analog it would be impossible for it to sound exactly alike. This is not arguable; it is fact. That is my point plain and simple.

no....i am not saying whether something "sounds more digital" or not............ we are arguing about whether digital recording is accurate. maybe the issue of digtal/analog source is confusing you. let's make it really simple: we have a CD player. pop in a CD and play it. that's the "original" sound, or pre-recording, k? now, we will record that CD to the computer. that's the "recorded" sound, or post-recording sound, k? now... some people say that the "recorded" sound should be different from the "original." i am saying that on my system it is very hard to tell a difference, if there is one to be heard. do you understand? that's why it doesn't matter whether the source is digital or analog... we are trying to argue whether the recording process is accurate. if it is not accurate, a digital source will sound distorted, JUST LIKE an analog source. i am saying you can't hear a noticeable difference. so i concluded that digital recordings are accurate.

or even if we put in the context of that quote.... a digital source will sound MORE digital after recording, while an analog source will sound MORE digital too. see?--it still doesn't matter whether you start with analog or digital--we are looking at the effects of recording.

get it?

--------or perhaps you are confused at the recording process. when i say digital synth, i mean a keyboard or module. the signal is carried in analog, and still goes through the same ADC as a microphone signal would. i am not saying i am using SPDIF or AES/EBU for the synth.... it is using the same connection as the microphone.

now....

Jazz,

i am not saying that ADC's and DAC's are perfect. they are not. what i am saying is that you cannot hear the difference on a high-end system, or the difference is really damn small.

i cannot convince you of this of course with any logical means, except for that fact that modern biology and physics says you cannot hear the difference between 44khz and 96khz if both converters are of the same quality.

anyway............. if you want, you can come over and i WILL prove it to you, or lose $100 in the process. i am not offering this as evidence for my argument.... it is not my "well, you won't come over.... so i'm right" kind of thing. so don't flame me for this. i'm just saying, i am confident i am right.

there are plenty of people who attended my last head-fi meet.... and they can vouch i have plenty of equipment here. including a full patchbay and proper metering. if you want to conduct the experiment, i have the means and technical knowledge.

 

[GeoffW]

Mike, great post and very informative! It explains a lot of what I'm hearing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Walker To reduce noise, fm stations boost highs with a 75us (microsecond) pre-emphasis curve, resulting in a 15db(!) boost at 15khz. At the receiving end, this boost is reduced by a like amount, and with it received noise, resulting in a much quieter signal than would be present otherwise.

I've definitely noticed this. Unlike some CD's, the background in FM is dead black with no hiss whatsoever, allowing for great contrast. There is some fuzziness in bad weather, but it's rare.

Quote:

If you REALLY enjoy the processed sound of fm more than from a cd player, you might want to invest in a compressor (I would NEVER put one of the damn things in my system, but I can understand those who would doing so!

I do enjoy the effect for FM listening late at night, but I don't think I'd put it my system either. Now that I think about it, I do have a "compressor" effect on my synthesizer. It does make some patches (especially guitars) sound richer and more enjoyable.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus ...or perhaps you are confused at the recording process. when i say digital synth, i mean a keyboard or module. the signal is carried in analog, and still goes through the same ADC as a microphone signal would.

That's exactly the information which was missing until now! Nevertheless I stand by my word: Instruments/sounds which already have a digital coloration will suffer less from additional digitalization.

Quote:

I am not saying that ADC's and DAC's are perfect. they are not. what i am saying is that you cannot hear the difference on a high-end system, or the difference is really damn small. i cannot convince you of this of course with any logical means, except for that fact that modern biology and physics says you cannot hear the difference between 44khz and 96khz if both converters are of the same quality.

So may I assume you haven't read my last posting except for the «headlines»... It's funny you name biology and physics in this context.

Did I ever pretend human hearing is affected by ultrasonics? Please read my last posting again; I have clearly explained my standpoint and why the redbook resolution is not sufficient for the human hearing (at least for audiophile demands). It's not the missing frequencies that count, but the missing accuracy.

How about the expensive DACs some people puchase, just to get the best out of the redbook format? And still - despite your claimed «perfection» on this level - there are huge sonic differences! I can't take your opinion seriously. Although I have no experience with ADCs, there's no reason to expect minor differences and minor flaws among them than with DACs. The ADC in my soundcard tells me enough about the possible differences there may be. Moreover I suggest you to reflect about the fact that almost (if not) all people who seriously have listened to some high-res formats rate these clearly above the CD format in terms of naturality and accuracy. But be sure even with high-res there's anough margin for considerable sonic differences between the corresponding devices.

If you look at the left side of my posting, you see why I can't accept your invitation for an audition. Anyway, it's not that simple to judge sonic subtleties from a completely unnown setup in an unfamiliar acoustic environment. If your ADC is a high-end type, it could indeed be a risky challenge under these circumstances.

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

If you look at the left side of my posting, you see why I can't accept your invitation for an audition. Anyway, it's not that simple to judge sonic subtleties from a completely unnown setup in an unfamiliar acoustic environment. If your ADC is a high-end type, it could indeed be a risky challenge under these circumstances.

yes, i understand. that's why i'm not holding it against anyone who's not willing to take me up on it. ....but heck... if you're ever in the area...

but you know, you do say there is a BIG difference between the source and recordings when using outboard DACs... and surely your "big difference" will overcome any unfamiliarity with my system. if there is a difference... it sure ain't as big as you say it is. so i guess my offer is for those who say they hear a "big" or "huge" difference...

...yeah, i read your post in its entirety. i didn't really understand the thing about "sine wave bursts" though. ....as far as i know (i am not an expert.... so please correct me)... but as far as i know, any waveform that a DAC cannot reproduce would be out of its sampling frequency. so, if the 44khz DAC cannot reproduce this fine sine wave, well, it's all good cause you can't hear it anyway. same with the 96khz DAC.... can't do a small sine wave?--a dog can't even hear that one. that's the whole point of frequency-dependent sampling i think. yes, the waveform recorded/reproduced is not the same as the source/original.... only in that it lacks waveforms outside its sampling rate. so... i am not sure about the resonance effect you're talking about. i read those sterophile articles though where atkinson does meaurements on DACs and CD players.... and i realize that there's a lot more going on. resonance?--maybe. i dunno. maybe it's something inherit in today's DAC/ADC designs. ....but it's been my experience in my own system that i can't hear a difference. and i don't think my hearing is any worse than the average person, and i doubt yours is any better than average either.

i realize that what i'm saying is close to audiophile blasphemy. there are people who spend more than i would spend on a car on DACs and stuff. and there are those that don't take me seriously because of these comments. but i'm just calling it as i hear it, just like you.