Turntable or Ipod!?

[Tuberoller]

I had the pleasure of attending Micheal Fremer's analog conference earlier this year at the Home Entertainment show.Admittably Mr.Fremer is a fanatic,but his arguments are completely factual and valid.They are as follows:1.Digital is at best a sample of the actual sound being recorded.By its very nature it can only capture parts of the sound being produced.It may be able to capture that sound across a wider frequency range but it is still not cable of capturing this sound as Accurately as an analog recording(LPs).2.DACs and Digital recorders are only cable of producing one tonal signal at any given time,perhaps for only a millisecond but still only one at a time.Analog is capable of recording and reproducing muliple tonal signals.


You must concede that only recently have CD players delivered on the initial promise of sound quality.It only took 20 years.It does not matter how good the master recording is,if the hardware available is incapable of reproducing the recorded signal accurately then the point is mute.Record players are far more capable of reproducing the recorded signal closest to it's original sound.You hear in analog.A digital signal has to be converted to analog in order for your ears and brain to understand it as recorded music.We all know that the fewer components there are in in a signal path the better.The quality of DACs has only gotten to the point of high quality sound reproduction in the past five years.Much of the sound quality improvements in the high definition digital formats such as SACD and DVD-audio is due to the much higher sample rates of the recording process and the playback hardware.

I can and will deal "inconviences"of LPs for the sake of "better"sound quality.I love my AH! NJOE TJOE 4000 tube CD player and I think it sounds as good as any standard(non SACD) player as I have personnally heard,but it does not sound as good as any of my four turntables.

 

[mikewang]

Quote:

Admittably Mr.Fremer is a fanatic,but his arguments are completely factual and valid.They are as follows: 1.Digital is at best a sample of the actual sound being recorded.By its very nature it can only capture parts of the sound being produced.It may be able to capture that sound across a wider frequency range but it is still not cable of capturing this sound as Accurately as an analog recording(LPs). 2.DACs and Digital recorders are only cable of producing one tonal signal at any given time,perhaps for only a millisecond but still only one at a time.Analog is capable of recording and reproducing muliple tonal signals.

Okay, I don't care if you think the LP sound is more "musical" or "involving" and that you prefer it over CDs. After all, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to go with whatever sounds better to you. But when you start give scientific or mathematical reasons for this preference, then you better know what the hell you're talking about before you open your mouth. Let me give you a hint: biased fanatics are not usually accurate sources of information.

1. Shannon, et al. have proved mathematically that digital sampling can perfectly reproduce any analog signal gven enough bits, and the more bits you use, the more bandwidth you can capture. Human listening has a bandwidth of 10-25,000Hz, at most. Believe it or not, it doesn't take that many bits to capture this frequency range. The vinyl fanatics like to pretend that just because their process is analog that it has infinite bandwidth and is free of all noise. Do you really think that a needle bouncing along a piece of vinyl has zero noise? The signal-to-noise ratio of vinyl degrades badly at the frequency extremes, because of the mechanical limitations of the process. It's not a difficult experiment to show that the reproduced signal coming from a CD is closer to the signal from the original master tape compared to the vinyl signal. Of course, people think that vinyl sounds better, but it sure isn't more "accurate", unless there's some special audiophile definition of "accurate" that I'm not aware of.

2. I don't know if you're mis-quoting this man or not, but what you said makes so little sense that I wonder if he even knows what a DAC does. At any given moment, the turntable takes the force on the needle, converts it to a voltage, and send it to the (phono) preamp. At any given moment, the DAC reads a number off the CD, converts it to a voltage, and send it to the preamp. The CD reads a number once every 1/44,000 of a second. Can you distinguish sounds 1/44,000 of a second apart? The turntable's limit is set by how fine the original lathe can cut the record, and each time you play the record, the bumps get worn a little bit and the resolution gets a little worse. And remember that the time resolution is directly related to the frequency response. How they're related is left as an exercise for the reader.

Enjoy your turntable. There's lots of great music which aren't on CDs, and with the way that producers butcher masters these days, it's not surprising that many records sound better than their CD counterparts. Just remember that vinyl is just as limited by the laws of information theory as CDs, and there's nothing inherently superior about analog storage vs. digital storage.

I think I'll actually leave the house, and take my iPod with me. Have fun strapping that turntable on your back.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Digital is at best a sample of the actual sound being recorded.

Vinyl is at best a sample of the actual sound being recorded as well. It's being stored in a vinyl groove rather than 1s and 0s, but it's essentially the same thing. You can't rub a record on your ears and hear the sound.

By its very nature it (digital) can only capture parts of the sound being produced.It may be able to capture that sound across a wider frequency range but it is still not cable of capturing this sound as Accurately as an analog recording(LPs).

Utter rubbish. Anyone who understands exactly how digital works (rather than having a vague, superficial knowledge of the process) knows this. You contradict yourself here... If digital can capture sound across a wider range (you probably meant dynamic range, but it doesn't matter), then how can you possibly assert that analog (more limited in range) is more accurate? That's like saying "about 3" is a more accurate representation of Pi than 3.14159. Nonsense.

DACs and Digital recorders are only cable of producing one tonal signal at any given time,perhaps for only a millisecond but still only one at a time.Analog is capable of recording and reproducing muliple tonal signals.

Again, not true. It's not like an ADC is capable of picking out only one instrument sound when it makes a sample. Whatever sound is present is recorded.

You must concede that only recently have CD players delivered on the initial promise of sound quality.

I don't have to concede anything as ridiculous as that statement. It's a myth that many vinyl afficionados cling to in order to justify the fact that they're using CD players more and more for music that simply isn't available on vinyl. Has CD sound improved since 20 years ago? Definitely. But it's not like it only just became good in the last 5 years. There have been great-sounding CD players all along. They're just a lot cheaper now than they were in 1985.

It does not matter how good the master recording is,if the hardware available is incapable of reproducing the recorded signal accurately then the point is mute.

1. The word you're looking for there is "moot," not "mute." Pet peeve of mine. 2. CD players have been producing sound more accurate to the source than vinyl since they were first invented. Vinyl colors the sound in many ways, and can be fairly accurate, but loses out on accuracy in dynamic range alone. Not to mention the fact that every time you play a record, you're killing some of the accuracy by the needle rubbing in the groove...

Besides, how do you account for vinyl pressings of digital master tapes? Is the vinyl somehow making the sound more accurate than the master tape?

A digital signal has to be converted to analog in order for your ears and brain to understand it as recorded music.

Uh huh... and when is the last time you saw someone rubbing a record on their ear to hear it? That groove has to be "converted" to a signal your ears are capable of hearing. But unlike digital, in which the conversion process is pretty clean, you have to deal with dust in the groove, grooves worn smooth by playing, needles damaged over time, etc.

The quality of DACs has only gotten to the point of high quality sound reproduction in the past five years.

Again, this is a myth that vinyl afficionados like to cling to. Almost all DACs sound similar enough to each other to be incredibly difficult to tell apart in blind testing. Some of the most expensive DACs available (and generally, highly-regarded) are easy to tell apart from consumer-grade DACs, but ironically are less accurate than the cheaper DACs. Roll off the highs a bit, and warm up the midrange a bit. Now you have a less accurate but more "vinyl-sounding" DAC.

I can and will deal "inconviences"of LPs for the sake of "better"sound quality.

Of your entire essay, this is the one line I take no issue with. "Better" is subjective, and many people enjoy the colored, less accurate sound of vinyl to digital. As I've said previously, I enjoy the sound of vinyl a great deal, but I'm under no misconceptions about its accuracy.

Russ "The Peripatetic Audiophile"

 

[Tuberoller]

Mike,
This is not my fight.Analog will never completely win over those who have converted or have never experienced it for themselves.

My younger brother is an electrical engineer and makes some of the same points you do.Then he sits down and listens to a turntable through a full tube setup.He cannot offer "scientific"reasons for his preference for the sound of this analog reproduction but it is real.Yet he does not feel the need to insult those who do not agree with his listening preferences.Please consult the Current article"Compessed audio VS CD,Can you tell the difference".At pcworld.com,do search for "compessed audio"to bring it up.This is a pretty unbiased and complete test of the different digital audio compression formats at different bit transfer rates.I only make this point because you say you listen to an ipod.If this is the medium from which you draw your reference for acceptable sound quality I do not feel the need to continue any further as your problem is evident.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

If vinyl sounds more 'musical' because its treble is rolled off and mids warmed up, I can do the same with my digital EQ...which incidentally costs me nothing and is probably more accurate than the most expensive analog EQ in the world! Just so happens that digital EQ can only be used with digital sources...

And with digital EQ being so inexpensive and powerful at the same time... it is my dream that future headphones will accept digital sources and come with an in-line EQ that perfects the frequency response in a way that no amount of driver and housing engineering will ever achieve!

Quote:

DACs and Digital recorders are only cable of producing one tonal signal at any given time,perhaps for only a millisecond but still only one at a time.Analog is capable of recording and reproducing muliple tonal signals.

CD audio records information in the time domain, same as vinyl

the 'perhaps for only a millisecond but still only one at a time' I take to be a reference to the time resolution of CD audio, which happens to be about 1/44100s, as mikewang has already pointed out--much much shorter than a millisecond. The time resolution of vinyl recordings cannot be defined so well--but 'undefined' in this case does not stand for 'infinite'--far from it.

As for the pcworld blind test--they are a bunch of monkeys with no idea about audio compression. WMA and RealAudio are trash, period.

MP3 can be encoded to near-source quality at ~180kbps VBR using LAME --r3mix / LAME --dm-preset-std, but pcworld chose to use MusicMatch Jukebox, which is bundled with one of the crappied mp3 encoders around--a FhG version with bugs that made its 'top quality' setting inferior to 'stand quality'. AAC is a future format that promises to give quality superior to MP3, but the version they use apparently won't go beyond 128kbps, at which basically *no* encoder can give audiophile-grade reproduction right now.

The average 128kbps CBR encoded mp3 that you download from the 'net *is* crap. However, if you have the original CD, it is possible to make much higher-quality encodes.

edit: I shouldn't unqualifiedly call RA and WMA crap. These codecs were geared towards low-bitrate encoding and should give better results than mp3 at <100kbps. Frankly I'm surprised that WMA did so poorly at 64kbps, however

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bloggs If vinyl sounds more 'musical' because its treble is rolled off and mids warmed up, I can do the same with my digital EQ...which incidentally costs me nothing and is probably more accurate than the most expensive analog EQ in the world!

Well, I didn't say you can make digital sound exactly like vinyl by rolling off the highs and warming up the mids. But it will sound more vinyl-like that way.

Still, there's something about vinyl that's nearly impossible to reproduce with digital. Maybe it's real, and maybe it's psychological. I don't want anyone to assume that I'm saying one's better than the other. I explained before that I have a small vinyl collection, but I haven't maintained it and I'm no longer adding to it. On those rare occasions when I play those records, I enjoy them immensely.

Russ "The Peripatetic Audiophile"

 

[Il Mostro]

I think whether one gets the musical attributes of vinyl and, at the same time, can grasp the sonic shortcomings of digital playback is very dependent on their associated equipment and experiences with audio equipment.

On a low-fi system, I can understand why someone might conclude that rolled off highs and warmed up mids are what gives vinyl its sonic signature, and that this sound might be replicated strictly through the use of EQ. Fact of the matter is, 99.9% of systems that reproduce source material in a detailed and accurate way don't have EQ. Sorry, Joe. Hell, most do not even have tone controls.

The same goes for digital. If your system does not resolve detail, you will never hear the grunge that is on the vast majority of discs. I am fortunate to have very good digital equipment in my main rig, that makes music for the most part. And, it took me a long time to get it to this point. However, when I switch the same material from digital to analog, the musical *truth* comes out.

I suggest that some folks here get in front of a good reference system (and they do come in all shapes, sizes and flavors) and A/B identical digital and analog material. Even a good mid-fi system will reveal the differences. Tell me which sounds better.

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest, but I strongly suspect that a lot of the people who claim that digital is superior (almost alsways based on measurements) have never compared the respective formats on really good equipment. For most people CD's are, in fact, the equivalent of a system upgrade due to the very nature of their systems. Put a CD on a crappy rack or mini-system and it sounds better than other formats to most people. At least to those that own this kind of gear. This surely wasn't the case for people with better equipment -- and that represents a very small slice of the audio buying public. The inherent characteristics of digital are much more apparent on these systems.

So it really comes down to this... it all depends on your realtity. And that reality is based on your equipment and the extent of your audio experiences to a very large degree. I do have high hope for SACD (an SACD 1 is on my shopping list) as I need more than one format to keep me happy. I know several people who feel that SACD approaches the quality of vinyl playback and improves Redbook CD's as well.

 

[Tuberoller]

A scientific, measurement based argument is not valid here, I should never have taken that turn.Since I am not an expert in this field my case should be made from the perspective of a music lover,not an audiophile,not an engineer.There are obviously some experts who make use of this forum and I will leave the measurements and scientific and mathmatical arguments to them.


This leaves nothing but the human preference for a certain sonic quality,be it digital or analog.In almost every case that I have been involved in the ear migrates to love of analog.My 14 year old daughter,even though she was born during the digital age,prefers the sound of analog.The 40 year old tube reciever and and nice mid-fi turntable that I use in my office is what draws my co-workers in my workspace daily with records under-arm asking me to play them.MANY have been awed by this simple satisfying sysytem.I would suggest anyone still bearing doubt follow Il Mostro's advice and perform an A/B comparison of the different formats.

 

[tvhead]

Anyways....

I bought the iPod.

 

[mikewang]

Tuberoller:

As I said, I really don't care what you think sounds better to you. And even if I did, it wouldn't matter anyway. But when you start spewing technobabble to justify your opinion it becomes seriously misleading. The only issue I had with your post is the technical aspects of your quote, and I would love to listen to a high-end vinyl setup sometime to see what all the fuss is about.

tvhead:

Enjoy the iPod. It's a great piece of equipment! It might not satisfy the Voodoo-worshipping audiophiles, but it makes music available anywhere you go, and it's the music that matters in the end.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

It might not satisfy the Voodoo-worshipping audiophiles, but it makes music available anywhere you go, and it's the music that matters in the end.

"Voodoo-worshipping?" While there are some audiophiles that are clearly out there, most are people who simply want the best sound they can get. The iPod is great for its intended purpose -- portable music. It won't sound as good as a dedicated home rig, or even a high-end portable CD/amp rig, but it provides a lot of music that sounds pretty good.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

On a low-fi system, I can understand why someone might conclude that rolled off highs and warmed up mids are what gives vinyl its sonic signature, and that this sound might be replicated strictly through the use of EQ. Fact of the matter is, 99.9% of systems that reproduce source material in a detailed and accurate way don't have EQ. Sorry, Joe. Hell, most do not even have tone controls.

No need to be sorry

The way I use an EQ is to rip the CD to wav, process the wav with digital EQ and crossfeed, and burn the processed wav back onto CD. This way I get to use digital EQ with any and all my systems, which, by the way, all have no EQ

It's not quite convenient, but so far my most revelatory audio experiences have been through headphones listening to CDs tailored for that headphone

I doubt this will change even if I throw big bucks to upgrade my equipment. Even the most expensive headphones out there have irregularities all over the place. Besides, to ask headphone designers to make a headphone with flat frequency response if hard enough--asking them to design a headphone that would also fit the way acoustics change from loudspeaker to headphone source is plain impossible!

My most treasued collection will always be of my customized CDs... my version of SACDs

Only better

(of course, it will only get better if I get SACD material to do my processing on

)

Heh, forget it, everyone here thinks I'm nuts when I talk about this aspect of my 'audio-logy'