[analogsurviver]

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.

Yes - with digital audio in broad sense. But, that digital has to be at least PCM 88.2 kHz sampling or DSD128.

Frequency response of RBCD is by default and definition inferior to that of a decent turntable.

Only the clout to push the CD onto the market ASAP at any cost and greed has prevented LPs that are next to equal or even better in signal to noise ratio and dynamic range to digital to reach music buying public at large - and these LPs could therefore never really establish themselves. Those did not reveal themselves as record by the second one drops needle.

There were two competing formats - CX and DBX encoded records. It is a long and very, very sad story about capitalism and greed for money.

 

[old tech]

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. That's why RBCD sounds - at best - like a life size cardboard images ( of politicians in a voter campaigns ) compared to the real people standing in the same space. This kind of image lacks depth - and RBCD supporters can't do absolutely nothing to disprove the above fact in a direct comparison with a GOOD/EXCELLENT analog - be it record or tape.

Oh come on, seriously? this is a sound science forum. RBCD is a higher fidelity format than vinyl, including all the measurements which leads to an accurate reproduction of the soundstage in the recording mix, you know like crosstalk and frequency response. If RBCD sounds like carboard images then vinyl is those same cardboard images but more opaque and shaking around a bit in a way that is unrelated to the recording.

It is really up to you to prove otherwise (not the other way round) as you are making the extraordinary claim which goes against audio science and measurements. While you are at it, perhaps read up and try and understand a bit about sampling in the digital audio context - hint, there is no stair steps and RBCD more accurately records and/or reproduces a recording in the 0 to 20khz band more accurately than what is possible with analogue tape, let alone the more compromised vinyl.

 

[bigshot]

Yes - with digital audio in broad sense. But, that digital has to be at least PCM 88.2 kHz sampling or DSD128.

No. Even lossy audio is capable of achieving audible transparency.

Frequency response of RBCD is by default and definition inferior to that of a decent turntable.

It's significantly better than LPs themselves. LPs have a high end roll off so they don't wear out prematurely. Anything those super deluxe cartridges reproduce above 15kHz or so is noise. And CDs don't require response encoding/decoding like the RIAA curve.

There were two competing formats - CX and DBX encoded records.

Too little. Too late. CDs still have better fidelity than that format.

 

[Davesrose]

When I was growing up, my dad gave me a hand me down tape deck that had CX noise reduction. I honestly did find it better than Dolby B or C for not having any hiss and still being dynamic. But of course, that was the analog world. Who cares now when memory is cheap and you can store endless music with mp3 320kbps. When SACD was a thing, I did collect some discs: it was mainly getting studio masters of stuff that was never released on CD: or some that are out of print and quadrophonic sound. I do have a Boléro album that was first analog, but the SACD does highlight a much better dynamic range (IE no noise with a title that starts of whisper quiet to being loud). If it was mastered well, it would also be just as good on CD. I do have earlier classical CDs that might have some technical issues with how AAD was mastered, but it doesn’t take away from the artistry of the performance (and I’ve found them more resolving than some newer performances with whatever hi-res format).

 

[bigshot]

The RCA Living Stereo LPs are famous for their sound quality. They released them on SACD and they sounded even better, some of them in 3:0 sound. Then they released box sets of them that used the SACD mastering and they sounded just as good. I only bought the SACDs with the center channel. There was no point because I owned the box sets of CDs.

 

[Davesrose]

The RCA Living Stereo LPs are famous for their sound quality. They released them on SACD and they sounded even better, some of them in 3:0 sound. Then they released box sets of them that used the SACD mastering and they sounded just as good. I only bought the SACDs with the center channel. There was no point because I owned the box sets of CDs.

Yes, RCA Living Stereo was good. I also had been studying classical guitar and enjoyed titles like their Julian Bream. But they’re not as coveted as titles like that Boléro, or my Bach Toccatas. The Toccatas were originally a recording in the 70s for quadrophonic sound of a German cathedral with 4 full organs. The SACD is better also as you now can have a LFE getting to lowest notes. Now that the SACD has been out of print, I’ve also noticed the used price is astronomically high.

 

[gregorio]

To think is to know nothing.

So not to think is to know everything? Or maybe you mean that to think irrationally and make up complete nonsense is just as valid as rational thinking? Did you just make up this assertion?

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

True but why are you arguing against yourself? You are claiming inter-channel delays with PCM that not only exist but exist at amounts that are actually audible but without any rational explanation or even any reliable evidence, “let alone proof”!

Only the clout to push the CD onto the market ASAP at any cost and greed has prevented LPs that are next to equal or even better in signal to noise ratio and dynamic range to digital to reach music buying public at large …

What do you mean “Only”? It is also the laws of physics/science or at least the practical application of them that has prevented LPs from having equal/better dynamic range but don’t let that stop you in a science discussion forum! lol

G

 

[bigshot]

Is this guy the same as the guy that was all focusee on hot mastering. He has the same sort of Dunning Kruger.

 

[71 dB]

While you are at it, perhaps read up and try and understand a bit about sampling in the digital audio context - hint, there is no stair steps and RBCD more accurately records and/or reproduces a recording in the 0 to 20khz band more accurately than what is possible with analogue tape, let alone the more compromised vinyl.

I'm afraid it is no use to encourage analogsurviver to educate himself about these things.

 

[castleofargh]

Is this guy the same as the guy that was all focusee on hot mastering. He has the same sort of Dunning Kruger.

What he has are the googles of love. He knows more about vinyls than I ever will, but some of what he accepts as fine for audio on it, is paradoxical when facing what he also doesn't accept on CDs. How can timing error be a serious issue at some level, but be fine when it's everywhere, has more sources, and reaches up to several magnitudes above CD on a turntable? IDK. But lovers are like that sometimes.

 

[bigshot]

An evangelical fundamentalist for a hunk of plastic!

I guess if you’re going to frenetically cherry pick, it’s easier to maintain if you limit yourself to a single subject. Then when you’re faced with evidence to the contrary, you can just launch into a tried and true routine about cartridges and frequency response and not address the fact that the record the cartridge is playing doesn’t have all of those jolly high frequencies.

 

[71 dB]

An evangelical fundamentalist for a hunk of plastic!

When I was in the university (the 90s), the lecturer of an acoustics course described vinyl saying:

"A plastic disc is scratched with a small stone and sound is generated from that action. It's a miracle the sound quality is as good as it is!"

The message was vinyl might have okay sound, but even 30 years ago it was ridiculously cumbersome method of doing high fidelity sound compared to digital audio.

 

[VNandor]

Is this guy the same as the guy that was all focusee on hot mastering. He has the same sort of Dunning Kruger.

You're thinking of @TheSonicTruth. I keep tabs on the more interesting posters.

 

[analogsurviver]

No. Even lossy audio is capable of achieving audible transparency.


It's significantly better than LPs themselves. LPs have a high end roll off so they don't wear out prematurely. Anything those super deluxe cartridges reproduce above 15kHz or so is noise. And CDs don't require response encoding/decoding like the RIAA curve.


Too little. Too late. CDs still have better fidelity than that format.

Audible transparency is a debatable. It depends how much is one exposed to live music and how much of that can be reproduced by whatever system one listens to.

The idea that LPs do not contain recorded signal beyond 15 kHz is true only when the record mastering has been intentionally limited - for whatever reason. A properly recorded and mastered LP can and does contain response at least to 30 kHz. To properly play up to 30 kHz, no super exotic cartridges are required.

There are cartridges that do not operate on magnetic induction principle and are therefore not velocity transducers. Those amplitude transducers require far less, in some cases even almost no EQ to achieve the intended flat frequency response. True, they are a scant minority, but they are making a comeback in recent years.

I agree that both CX and DBX encoded analog records came to late. But, at least CX faced such powerful opposition that it was next to impossible for it to gain any serious traction. CX was CBS' attempt to prolong the vinyl record life - and, it was CBS Laboratories brainchild.
The same CBS Laboratories that have been giving Sony and Philips nightmare after nightmare; basically, a whole string of measure that would absolutely prevent making a digital clone of a CD, forcing any copier to go through D/A and again A/D process, thus making the digital copy by default inferior to the original CD. With the clear intent in mind - to protect the copyright, to continue to provide funding the musicians, recording studios, in short everyone involved in playing, recording and distributing the music

In its myopic rage, what did Sony do ? It simply bought the entire CBS. With a single stroke, killed two flies; first, it came in the possession of roughly 20-35% of recorded music in the world ( to be re-released on CD ) AND got to disband the CBS Laboratories in the quickest time possible - punishment for giving them grief over the years.

Sony went further - by requesting the shops to return all unsold CX encoded records - so that they could destroy them and reuse the vinyl for another normal pressings.
That's why it has been very hard to get any CX encoded records quickly after Sony Music came to be - and it is extremely hard to get any CX encoded records today.

Sony had some of the best turntables and best phono cartridges at the time CD appeared on the scene - and they let those quietly fade away into oblivion, ceasing any analog record related production by 1993 at the latest.

We all know what has been the final result of the adopting CD; almost total devaluation of the music bussiness, musicians, recording, distribution, etc.

 

[bigshot]

Audible transparency isn't debatable because it's easily determined with a simple ABX test. CDs, SACDs, Blu-ray audio and high data rate lossy are all audibly transparent.

LPs don't have signal above 15kHz normally. The groove modulation required to reproduce very high frequencies at any kind of volume level lead to premature record wear. The needle turns those frequencies to a distorted mush in just a few plays, so disk mastering involves a high end roll off. There can be stuff up above 15kHz, but it's basically surface noise and distortion.

There was no reason to squeeze a little more dynamic range out of LPs in the 1980s because the handwriting was on the wall for analog. Digital was higher fidelity, less expensive, quality control was easier and the format was more convenient for users. Today the LP format has nostalgia value, but that is about it. LPs have lower fidelity than CDs on every metric you can name.