[gregorio]

Let's first do digital; it just does not image anything even approaching real live sound unless sampling rate - from the original recording to the actual delivery media, whatever it is, is not at least 88.2 kHz - preferably a lot higher.

Not that I want to get into it again, but clearly this assertion is incorrect. Obviously it’s true that digital audio “just does not image anything even approaching real live sound” because digital audio does not image, record or have anything to do with “real live sound”, it just encodes analogue audio signals into digital data (and back again) and this is ALWAYS the case, regardless of the sample rate.

G

 

[analogsurviver]

At first I didn't know which post you refer to here, but then I noticed there's "hidden" post(s). Analogsurviver is on my ignore list, because he is totally reluctant to learn anything or change his mind if need be. His posts don't have educational or information value. They are like reading crazy theories by a flat earther about how the seasonal changes are explained. It would be one thing if he just preferred analog sound/formats for subjective reasons (I could respect that), but his mind has been consumed by his fanatism of analog audio.

It is sad that you, 71dB, are totally reluctant to learn anything or change your mind if need be - let alone actually try to ever listen to anything beyond RBCD.

I could respect if you said that analog is way more expensive than digital for the same perceived sound quality ( because it is , sadly, very true ); to answer directly, your mind has been totally consumed by fanboyism for RBCD.

I am not against digital in principle - just against RBCD or even any lower resolution of digital. Although these low resolution digital formats can serve their purpose - primarily by reducing the amount of data/storage/bandwidth required, they do not even start approaching sound heard live - nor the better/best of what analog has (had) to offer that spans, by now, over 60 years ago.
I refuse to listen to impoverished RBCD version of any well recorded analog from the mentioned period, with some superb recordings even older than 60 years that lose much appeal when truncated into what RBCD can deliver.

Decent digital audio has attained the level of quality no analog system can resist for much longer; and, decent digital will prevail in the end.

RBCD will , eventually, be remembered as the period of time in which the sound of music has been deliberately recorded with subpar "it is good enough" quality - not with the best technology had to offer.
Quite unlike as in early stereo days, when labels have been in trying to get the best sound possible in order to compete in the market actually employed SOTA equipment at the time - costs be damned.
There is a whole generation of musicians recorded since the introduction of RBCD, of whom we will therefore NEVER have a decent and realistically sounding recording. That in itself is, at least in my book, a crime par excellence.

I did not put you on the ignore list yet, contrary to some others; but, you are nearing such decision.

 

[bigshot]

It takes a lot of stubborn ignoring of the facts to be that wrong about a subject.

 

[analogsurviver]

It takes a lot of stubborn ignoring of the facts to be that wrong about a subject.

Ditto

 

[bigshot]

The difference is that I’ve been working and learning about analog audio since the 70s and you know very little about digital. I have turntables and over ten thousand LPs and 78s, as well as having a reel to reel deck and cassette player. I’ve worked in the studio with a 24 track professional tape machine. I know all about analog sound reproduction. I know its strengths and its weaknesses. If all the ducks are in a row, It’s capable of excellent sound quality, but it is far from being perfect and fool proof. The fidelity of a professional analog tape deck doesn’t match the fidelity of an $8 Apple dongle- not on any metric of specs you want to mention.

I know about digital and I know about analog. You really don’t know much of any value about either. It’s a waste of time answering your foolishness because you don’t want to know the truth. You want to rattle though your fanciful routines, prattling on and on about the things you’ve made up. And you want us to sit and quietly listen without contradicting obvious falsehoods. I’m happy to not contradict you point by point. I have better things to do. The level of your wrongness reaches a point where I’m not going to worry that there might be some tiny nugget of truth in there. I can safely dismiss you with a blanket dismissal.

Maybe you know about something in another subject. I don’t know. But on the subject of audio, you are the Encyclopedia Brittanica of wrong.

 

[analogsurviver]

The difference is that I’ve been working and learning about analog audio since the 70s and you know very little about digital. I have turntables and over ten thousand LPs and 78s, as well as having a reel to reel deck and cassette player. I’ve worked in the studio with a 24 track professional tape machine. I know all about analog sound reproduction. I know its strengths and its weaknesses. If all the ducks are in a row, It’s capable of excellent sound quality, but it is far from being perfect and fool proof. The fidelity of a professional analog tape deck doesn’t match the fidelity of an $8 Apple dongle- not on any metric of specs you want to mention.

I know about digital and I know about analog. You really don’t know much of any value about either. It’s a waste of time answering your foolishness because you don’t want to know the truth. You want to rattle though your fanciful routines, prattling on and on about the things you’ve made up. And you want us to sit and quietly listen without contradicting obvious falsehoods. I’m happy to not contradict you point by point. I have better things to do. The level of your wrongness reaches a point where I’m not going to worry that there might be some tiny nugget of truth in there. I can safely dismiss you with a blanket dismissal.

Maybe you know about something in another subject. I don’t know. But on the subject of audio, you are the Encyclopedia Brittanica of wrong.

It is a pity... - with your kind of attitude, you'll never know, let alone hear what is in the grooves of your LPs.

I actually once wanted to give you access to something that would most definitely improve the reproduction from every of your LPs - something you've been lamenting about being wrong with LPs. No prize for guessing what changed my mind.

FYI - I also have turntables, have been working with audio since mid 70s, own about 3000 LPs and have been working as consultant to and QC at Benz Micro Switzerland - called Empire Scientific Switzerland at the time.
One does not get a position like that easily or for nothing - I acted at first as what today would be called a beta tester, evaluating new designs or improvements in the current line - BEFORE any of the reviewers got hold of something that was not really representable.

 

[analogsurviver]

Google is your friend...just make sure what you get is authoritative. Or check those of us who have actually had our hands-on.

"Phase shift", as a figure, needs more information with it, in particular a frequency or group. 90 degrees at 850 would be a gigantic amount for interchannel phase in any recording system, completely unacceptable, because the electronic path of recording channel should match almost perfectly, the physical aspects of interchannel timing produce time misalignment, which results in variable phase shift with frequency, but never to that degree. Electrical crosstalk in cartridges and heads may include some phase shift, but really not much, certainly nothing like 90 @ 850Hz.

A poorly guided 1/4" tape path might exhibit wandering channel phase of +/- 45 degrees at 15kHz, or that same degree of change offset to a range of 0 to 90 degrees lead or lag, but that's not enough to shift image. Unfortunately that kind of physical alignment problem is usually accompanied by HF response problems, which can shift image.

Some of the worst tape guidance in the pro audio world was found in stereo broadcast tape cartridges. The big concern was mono sum (compatibility), and you could get 180 degrees at 3kHz on the bad ones. As that format moved on the issues were largely fixed, and at sunset of the format stereo broadcast carts were as good as average reel-to-reel.

For vinyl, no there would never been even close to that much without something being broken. +/- 30 degrees at 20kHz would be well below average.

Interchannel phase for all digital recording formats was/is 0 degrees and stable throughout the pass band.

Correct on everything analog - but interchannel phase in PCM most certainly is not always guaranteed to be 0 degrees and stable troughout the pass band.
These errors are certainly clearly audible - as errors in imaging, most notably in subjectively perceived narrowing of the soundstage.

There are cases of various PCM software and hardware combinations to develop a condition under which one channel starts only after the other has already completed its work - the delay between the two channels is exactly the rise time of the square wave.

So, even when the recorded digital is only RBCD ( 44.1/16), upsampling or playing back that at higher sampling rate results in lesser interchannel phase/delay - and that IS audible. That delay is inversely proportional to the sampling frequency - the higher the sampling frequency, the lower the interchannell delay and therefore more precise imaging.

Analog record playback seldom reaches more than 30 degree error at 20 kHz - with particularly precise styli, this error can be within 1 degree or less, even at 20 kHz.
Both of these conditions FAR exceed the quality/precision of what PCM can do under above described REAL WORLD conditions.

In such a case, analog record has unquestionably better imaging.

 

[analogsurviver]

Square waves are real world? An LP record playing back a 20kHz signal?

Sorry, there is ANY amount of evidence of LP playing back 1 kHz square waves from real world test records. As square wave is defined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave
its harmonics go in theory to infinity.

Real world analog record playback has limitations in frequency response - but any semi decent MC cartridge in production today will have response extended at minimum to 40 kHz.

Below are few representatives from back in the day;

https://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/audio_01-1979_adc.html

The above has been adapted from the original published in the Audio Magazine, January 1979 ( scroll down to page 92 ):
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1979-01.pdf

Please note that ADC is a MM cartridge that due to its electrical properties rolls off above approx 30 kHz.

Here, the same/similar for a really good MC cartridge :

https://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/audio_08-1986_technics.html
( At the bottom of each of these gammaelectronics adaptations, there are further links to objective measurements of phono equipment - do take time to explore what vinyl has been offering, by now over 40 years ago ... ! )

Scroll down to page 56:
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1986-08.pdf

There were better objective reviews than published by the US press from Europe; particularly those published by the Italian magazine Suono and Stereoplay
( this later having also its German version ).

All of these objective measurements have been made by Instituto del'Alta Fedelta - IAF Roma . Contrary to most US reviews, which in the majority of cases do not measure phono cartridges beyond 20 kHz , Italian reviews from the period ALWAYS provide both picture of the square wave reproduction ( from CBS STR 112 test record )and frequency response to 50 kHz ( using either Bruel & Kjaer, JVC or Denon test records with sweep to 50 kHz ).
( At the moment, I can't find the Italian reviews in PDF - but, I can scan the original magazines from my library if the PDFs online are really gone )

However, latest stylus tip profiles made available AFTER any of the period objective phono cartridge reviews available online have extended the frequency response even higher up in range, directly proportional to the reduction of the scanning radius of the stylus.
The first generation of Namiki's Micro Line stylus had 3.5 micrometer scanning radius ( the best found in the period reviews ) , current has 2.5 micrometers; this gives a near perfect square wave reproduction, even at the innermost grooves of the 33 1/3 RPM record .

https://www.discogs.com/release/805...quare-Wave-Tracking-And-Intermodulation-Tests

Even at the innermost grooves, today's best cartridges make mockery out of anything RBCD can come up with regarding the extended frequency response.

Then, the final coup de grace to the RBCD can be delivered by having the truly state of the art vintage cartridges retipped with the latest Namiki Micro Line stylus; .
These can then exceed - with ease - 100 kHz .

Latest digital equipment has - finally (!) - caught up the level of quality to do justice to such extraordinary phono cartridges - requiring decent PCM of 384 kHz ( or higher ) sampling or DSD256 ( or higher ) to accurately capture the output of the medium that - according to some - can not reach 20 kHz ...

 

[bigshot]

The cartridge isn't the limiting factor, the records themselves are. What's the use of reproducing 40kHz if the record itself only goes up to 15kHz at best? And what's the point of a stone quiet noise floor on an expensive turntable when the record itself has a hefty amount of noise? And why spend a fortune on a fancy phono amp with low distortion when the inner groove of the LP is slathered with distortion? These are all issues even with audiophile pressings.

It isn't about the equipment. It's about the medium. LPs can sound very good if you're lucky enough to get a good pressing. But CD produces audibly transparent playback flawlessly all the time. And that is all you need.

 

[analogsurviver]

The cartridge isn't the limiting factor, the records themselves are. What's the use of reproducing 40kHz if the record itself only goes up to 15kHz at best? And what's the point of a stone quiet noise floor on an expensive turntable when the record itself has a hefty amount of noise? And why spend a fortune on a fancy phono amp with low distortion when the inner groove of the LP is slathered with distortion? These are all issues even with audiophile pressings.

It isn't about the equipment. It's about the medium. LPs can sound very good if you're lucky enough to get a good pressing. But CD produces audibly transparent playback flawlessly all the time. And that is all you need.

I agree that records are not perfect. The most limiting factor, the distortion, can be minimized enough trough the use of linear tracking and stylus tip profile. Record noise can be minimized trough the use of the appropriate turntable and tonearm.

However, LPs are most certainly NOT limited to 15 kHz.

By negating everything I have ever said on this forum and mocking me to death, you have sewn the wind.
Now, brace yourself - to reap the whirlwind.

 

[gregorio]

interchannel phase in PCM most certainly is not always guaranteed to be 0 degrees and stable troughout the pass band.

You’ve just made that up! If it were true, then you can show us an example of where the inter-channel phase in PCM is not 0°.

These errors are certainly clearly audible

As there is no error, how can they be “clearly audible”?

There are cases of various PCM software and hardware combinations to develop a condition under which one channel starts only after the other has already completed its work …

Is it possible to use some software to deliberately screw-up the inter-channel phase? Sure, you can screw-up anything with software if you want, you can made the finest digital recording sound like the oldest, most damaged wax cylinder, even beyond the point of it being recognisably a music recording if you want but what DACs do that?

the delay between the two channels is exactly the rise time of the square wave.

Great, so you admit it then. A square wave has no rise time, the rise time is exactly zero, which as you state is exactly the same as the inter-channel delay, ZERO!

So, even when the recorded digital is only RBCD ( 44.1/16), upsampling or playing back that at higher sampling rate results in lesser interchannel phase/delay - and that IS audible.

You’ve just admitted that the inter-channel delay is zero (the rise time of a square wave), so how can you get lesser inter-channel phase/delay than zero and how could it then be audible?

That delay is inversely proportional to the sampling frequency - the higher the sampling frequency, the lower the interchannell delay and therefore more precise imaging.

And what exactly is inversely proportional to zero? You cannot have lower inter-channel delay than none at all (zero) and therefore how can it be more precise?

Here we go again, not only completely made-up BS but completely made-up BS that even contradicts itself!

G

 

[71 dB]

Great, so you admit it then. A square wave has no rise time, the rise time is exactly zero, which as you state is exactly the same as the inter-channel delay, ZERO!

You’ve just admitted that the inter-channel delay is zero (the rise time of a square wave), so how can you get lesser inter-channel phase/delay than zero and how could it then be audible?

G

Band-limited square waves of course have non-zero rise time, but why would there be a delay between the channels of that size?

 

[bigshot]

I think he makes this stuff up. It probably impresses people who don’t know better in audiophile forums.

 

[analogsurviver]

I think he makes this stuff up. It probably impresses people who don’t know better in audiophile forums.

To think is to know nothing.

If you have paid attention to my previous post and not dismiss the claims that the effects of interchannelL delay that can occur with PCM are audible
WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION - LET ALONE PROOF
you would not have ended in a mess you have been preparing for yourself and your yes-men.

 

[bigshot]

Distortion, frequency response, timing (wow and flutter), signal to noise and dynamic range are all better with digital audio than they are with LPs. If you were going to argue that reel to reel tape traveling at 15ips was audibly transparent, I'd be closer to agreeing with you, but it's self evident that an LP isn't audibly transparent from the second you drop the needle. You can immediately hear the surface of the record. Why jump through expensive hoops to patch up those problems through signal processing when digital audio is accurate out of the box? LPs are capable of sounding very good. I'm not arguing that. It's just that digital is audibly better.