[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally posted by theaudiohobby Dream on, I think you need to rewind to the 70s/80s. I think you seem to forget that LPs the oh so wonderful format was in decline even before the advent of CDs. The reason the quality of LPs is higher today is It is now a Low Volume Venture That's is it's raison etre, without that it is dead!dead!dead! Back in the day, variable quality was just as much a problem as is it is with CD today. CD may have had it's day, though it was good for the time, just like 78's did and the shellac before it. But has digital audio had it's day, I think not, rather it is taking great strides and is argueably capable of high fidelity that vinyl can only dream of. The fact that music producers are now engineering crackle into CDs makes stuff like this all more laughable. As said in another post, Yes, LPs will continue to exist but only in the same way old Roll Royces and such desirable oldies do, that is as cherised relics of a bygone era. In simple terms, Give me a Honda Accord and a RR Silver Shadow as cost no object offer, I know which one I will taking. However is a RR Silver Shadow a match for the Mercedes S500, No way. But if many people are given the choice I bet you they will choose the RR because it does have some qualities that are quite simply incompatible with the way the Merc is built. PS: An article appeared in the FT today proclaiming death to the Stereo paradigm on the account of falling sales and the rise of Home Theatre. Funny in the eyes of the general public, the LP is already dead and the CD on the way to it's deathbed. Stereo fades into History

If I believed the same crap you swear by, then I would really believe that CDs sound better than LPs,and would be ignorant to the fact that sales of records have increased by an average of 40% per year for the last eight years. I would also be completely,utterly blind to the further fact that there are more tables being produced today that at any time in the last 10 years. Make this same argument again in 10 years,when the CD is really gone and LPs are still around. Perhaps some new format will come along that satisfies people like yourself who will buy anything you are sold and believe everything you read and you'll be so happy with it you won't have time to waste on this subject. Until that time I'll buy all the records(or they'll just give them to me) of all the idiots who rid themselves of all that great music.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch One word -- dither. Many words: http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/digital/02.html http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~pfk/mpp/dither.html http://www.digitalprosound.com/Htm/A..._vs_Dither.htm

Thanks for posting those links -- very decent explanations there. As the first one says, with dither "what we're esentially doing is to make a trade - distortion for noise." Either way, you can't perfectly reconstruct the original signal. Noise is a better poison than distortion, of course.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy Thanks for posting those links -- very decent explanations there. As the first one says, with dither "what we're esentially doing is to make a trade - distortion for noise." Either way, you can't perfectly reconstruct the original signal. Noise is a better poison than distortion, of course.

True... although the noise is typically only 0.5 to 1 bits, which leaves most of the 96dB dynamic range still available. If you use noise-shaped dither it's at about 21 KHz or so rather than broad spectrum white noise -- outside the range of audibility for probably 99.999% of the population.

As far as "perfect" goes, that's true... nothing's perfect. With digital at 24 bits (or even a million bits) you still have to add dither to avoid quantization artifacts, although clearly it becomes less and less a problem. As far as the actual nyquist theorem, it appears to hold true... you can perfectly reproduce a *frequency* at 1/2 the sampling rate (so 44.1 KHz can reproduce up to 22.05 Khz).

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy Fewtch is kind of right about today's generation of digital amps -- many do indeed use DACs, even though there's no technical necessity to do so. Case in point: I recently discovered that the Sharp line of digital amps converts from digital -> analog -> digital again before amplifying -- not at all what you expect. Second, Czilla, you're misapplying Nyquist's sampling theorem. Nyquist tells us that given infinite resolution samples, then 44.1 kHz sampling is enough. 16-bit integer quantization is hardly infinite resolution. Always double-check your axioms before applying a theorem.

I'd buy into that Linkin Park's Reanimation DVD-A is 24bit/44.1khz and sounds really good, I imagine that 32 bit would be even better... So far though, the best I've heard is 24bit/192khz.

As far as SACD goes (and maybe it's because I'm a child of digital... well for the most part, I had records as a small child and tapes through the early part of my teens) it sounds kinda grainy to me (could have been the recording as well) although I haven't heard enough of it to really judge.

As far as CD's go, while I agree that it's great for its portability since PCDP's are small and the music can be ripped and put on a hard disk or stored on flash, I find that highs aren't very articulate and that DVD-A does a much better job here. Which brings me to another comment... This could be more of an issue with my DAC (even in my home player) not being up to snuff... So then if that's the case, and most of us settle for less then optimal digital to analog conversion, what exactly would be the downside to making DVD-A or SACD portalbe? In the case of DVD-A, an inexpensive 24/96 DAC will generally sound better than a cheap 16/44.1 DAC will it not? and one of Sony's arguments for DSD is that it's cheaper to make a good DSD DAC than a good PCM DAC...

 

[ADS]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy Not with quantized samples, I'm afraid.

Very true, but these quantization errors affect the SNR, which in CDs is beyond what most people can hear anyway (including me). Dithering also helps to reduce the effects that quantization has on the sound for those with amazing ears. I certainly agree that a CD does not reproduce the original signal perfectly, but I think that the effect on the sound from being put onto CD is minimal compared to the effect the DAC and underlying circuitry has. We should be designing better DACs, not better formats.

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberoller Perhaps some new format will come along that satisfies people like yourself who will buy anything you are sold and believe everything you read and you'll be so happy with it you won't have time to waste on this subject. Until that time I'll buy all the records(or they'll just give them to me) of all the idiots who rid themselves of all that great music.

Tuberoller,

I do not have believe anything, the sales figures already tell a sobering story. Both the CD and LP in a couple of years time will be relics of a bygone era. Both will be cherished by audio enthusiasts like myself whilst reminisencing about a bygone era and enjoying the music that was released in that era. As I said in another thread, I have no illusions about vinyl when I was growing up vinyl and radio was all I had. Like it or not, Vinyl LP no longer has any significant research $$$ being invested in it and it is now largely a pursuit of specialist manufacturers, whereas loads of $$$ are still being invested in digital audio. Vinyl can and does sound great in the right systems and will be cherished by those who appreciate the music on it and I daresay at present it is very fashionable in some circles but it will never again be a mass market format that time has past. The LP is a specialist market and it will remain so and the sales figures of LPs vis as vis DVDs and even CDs reflect that. FWIW How many turntables are being produced vis a vis DVD Players or even MP3 Players. How many LP's was sold last year in comparison to the number of DVDs and CDs.

I will reemphasize my previous point, sound quality is the only raison etre of turntables/LPs hence the quality of LPs vis a vis CDs. if not why bother? That imagined superior sound quality has to be maintained at all costs otherwise the industry will simply disappear all together. 25 years ago when TTs were of a more ropey quality, I remember shopping for replacements styluses because the previous ones had worn out. Of course once the CD came into being. TTs could not continue in that vein hence the new of era of super TTs. I am sure you will agree with me, that quality of TTs are higher today than they have ever been, the reason is simple good ole competition from the other side of the fence.

One last point, Are CDs being threatened by LPs? No, they are only a drop in the ocean, it is DVD that have come and taken the the place of CD. whilst, I do not have figures in front of me, I am willing wager that the total number of LPs sold last year is less than the total sales of the top 5 DVDs.

Arguments about the sound quality of LPs vis a vis digital audio have long lost any sense of objectivity. But I can assure you, In ten years time, there will be a collector's market for CDs much in the same way as there is a collector's market for LPs. Will the collectors be audiophiles? that is a question that you should ask me in 10 years time

 

[Canman]

Quote:

Originally posted by Czilla9000 Fewtch.... Digital Amplifiers work by converting a PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) signal into PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) via a digital to digital converter. Most digiamps use 350 kHz Pulse Width Modulation. So the best digiformat of all would use it, to eliminate PCM to PWM conversion. However, PCM to PWM does not create much of a problem.

This is what makes DSD and Class D amplifier technology interesting to me. DSD is a fancy way of saying PWM. You could <directly?> signal the switching output transistors with a DSD signal. This makes SACD very interesting, especially due to the fact that it is recognized as an excellent recording format.
I thought that the Sharp DAC and amp combo would do something like this. I am very surprised that they do not.

One caveat is tha replacing the DAC with a Class D amplifier may not make the audio path much simpler. The current implementation of Class D technology is rather new (although the technology itself dates back more than 50 years) so there are probably considerations we are not thinking about. Either way, there are still complications with Class D amplifiers that remain very similar to the complications of a DAC, namely switching noise and phase linearity. There are also various load considerations.

I think this will be the wave of the future. Class D op-amps are already widely used in cell phones and PDA's due to their low consumption of battery power.

And Czilla, about time someone showed some love for the CD! It's not all that bad...and in the least not a pain in the ass like LP's are!

 

[markl]

tuberoller,
I think you are taking this a little too personally. There are many paths to audio Nirvana.

I've never owned a turntable or albums, I went straight to cassettes in the early 80s when I started buying my own music. Although my father owned a turntable, I was not socialized to think of the LP when I thought of music. I think in this regard I am representative of my generation and obviously of those even younger than me. I don't see 10 year olds today bugging Mom & Dad for that spiffy new turntable or hot new Grado cartridge. How many kids today have ever even *seen* an LP, let alone bought a turntable? The clock just can't be turned back. Vinyl will persist, but only as long as there are still people who grew up on it, and are socialized to love it. When they're gone, so goes vinyl.

CD has a lot of advantages over vinyl, but these appear to be primarily in terms of convenience and durability rather than sound quality. Personally, based on what I've heard, I'm satisfied that either DVD-Audio or SACD are perfectly acceptable answers to the criticisms of digital. CD is a feeble format that is way past it's prime, vinyl will never come back to be THE format for music, not a chance.

The real danger, IMO, is in the generation after me, who were not socialized to purchase music at all, and have accepted a crappy lossy version (mp3) of a crappy lossy medium (the CD). Will this group ever be convinced to pay for music, or to adopt any medium superior to mp3? Do they care about sound quality at all?

Mark

 

[DsLFoolisH]

its apparent LPs have better sound quality on paper than cds.

however, practicality wise (hence what people view as better), its subjectional.

some people only care about sound quality, and others durability. portability etc.

that being said, do you guys agree LPs hae best sound quality? do you guys agree cds are more portable? more durable? more practical?

i guess people have different values they evaluate to determine if something is "better". you cant argue sound quality with portability, durability with degration etc. etc.

personally, i have heard both LP and cd substantially and i speak for myself that all the other advantages compact discs hold over LP more than covers for the trade off of sound quality. again, it is how you define better.

 

[Czilla9000]

Quote:

Originally posted by Canman This is what makes DSD and Class D amplifier technology interesting to me. DSD is a fancy way of saying PWM. You could <directly?> signal the switching output transistors with a DSD signal. This makes SACD very interesting, especially due to the fact that it is recognized as an excellent recording format. I thought that the Sharp DAC and amp combo would do something like this. I am very surprised that they do not.

Wodgy is correct - the Sharp 1-bit Amps convert from D-A-D. I did not post this earlier because there are many HeadFiers who own the Sharp equipment and I did not want to burst their bubble.
(Go to classd.org for more info.)

Canman - DSD is NOT a fancy way of saying PWM. DSD is a fancy way of saying PDM (Pulse Density Modulation) (Delta Sigma = PDM). However, the mistake you just made is common and I used to say it as well.

One of the disadvanges of DSD is it must be converted to PCM before being converted to PWM (I do not know why). For instance the Sony's own "S-Master" digiamps with SACD ability to the following - 1/2.8 MHz DSD ----> 24/96 PCM -----> 768 KHz PWM.

No one know's why Sony chose the 768 kHz switching frequency over the traditional 350-400 kHz. At that high a frequency you encounter switching losses and DOUBLE distortion. (The Sony digital amps have REALLY high THD)

I say either stick with the CD or come out with a format which is natively in Pulse Width Modulation.

(Having said this, going from DSD--->PCM----> PWM is probably better than going from DSD--->analog.)

 

[aeberbach]

There is just no reason to compare CDs to LPs or to be trying to convince each other that one is "better". They satisfy two completely different markets. I believe a top vinyl setup produces better sound than a top CD but only when you're playing a record in perfect condition on a relatively expensive turntable. Clearly that is difficult and expensive to achieve and most people did not have anything like that experience when LPs were king. When the CD came suddenly they were harder to damage and consumer-level units did sound better - even the early "harsh" digital sound was better than a cheap turntable owned by a user with no idea of tone arm adjustment, cartridge lifetime, record cleaning or spending more than $200.

If turntables don't have "significant" research funds these days it is because the format is well understood as are the requirements for a good turntable. Every aspect of vinyl can be as good as you care to pay for. CD perfection is a lot more iffy.

CDs may have been the best thing to ever happen to LPs. They moved vinyl to an audiophile segment where companies could really specialize and aim at the top of the market without having to care about building junk to be sold in Sears. Would anyone deny that the equipment available (new) today is as good if not better than what was available in 1983? If you want to buy a cutthroat razor these days you still can, but you'll have a hard time finding one that isn't made in Solingen and isn't a thing of beauty and craftsmanship. That's where turntables are today.

 

[tanfenton]

Quote:

Originally posted by DsLFoolisH its apparent LPs have better sound quality on paper than cds.

Huh?

NGF

 

[JaZZ]

The high hopes I had in the CD format actually weren't really fulfilled, at least with the early players, but as a tech freak I accepted a certain change of sound towards a more «technical», cleaner flavor with the advantage of much better convenience and the lack of crackle.

Meanwhile, with much better equipment, I'm quite satisfied with the sound of the CD. But when I switch to SACD, I realize that after all it's nevertheless kind of lossy format. Two and a half samples per cycle (or even less) is not enough to define a natural waveform (see this graph), and the so-called «reconstruction» filter simply makes a continuous sine wave out of a complex high-frequency signal, thanks to its low-pass-filter resonance. Nyquist didn't define the quality of the reproduced signal in view of audiophile demands, just stated that the frequency could be reproduced with at least the two-fold sampling rate. In fact it's nothing but the frequency we get from the CD at the upper end of the audio spectrum, not any form of usable signal. Otherwise it would be amplitude modulated anyway, as the graph shows.

Now this filter ringing responsible for the signal smearing is a natural function of such a steap low-pass filter -- that's why it's often seen as meaningless when it comes to audibility. But why should it be? It is audible, very obviously so. It is the main reason for the inferiority to the high-rez formats. The other reason is the lower resolution in the dynamics domain. 24 bit sounds audibly better than 16 bit.

However, the CD is a very practical and convenient format and I wouldn't want to miss it (not least in the portable domain, where well-encoded MP3 is good enough for me). But it's certainly not the non plus ultra of audio storage, it doesn't offer the best imaginable sound quality. It's the format on which currently the most good music is available. Not more.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Why do I love the CD:

1. Everything I buy has to fit into a piece of luggage and packed into a plane and survive a trip to Ecuador where I will listen to it. The records and turntable would not survive the trip due to the airline's treatment of out luggage.

2. Weight: I only have (2) suitcases at 70lbs each, plus one carry-on, in which to bring everything I need to survive and work here for two years at a time. Fitting a few hundred LPs into my luggage would mean almost all my weight would be taken up in LPs alone.

3. Size: obviously, in the same space you can fit about 10 LPs I can stuff more than 200 CDs.

4. As others have stated here, I can loan my CDs out to friends and they can play them back. I don't know a single person here who owns a turntable. None. But I know every single person here has a computer or laptop with a CDP in it, thus they can all listen to my CDs.


Having said that, I do wish I could have a nice vinyl rig to listen to. I am the same age as MarkL, but I grew up listening to my dad's records, and a number of my own, along with the casettes of the time. It is a lot less convenient to own a turntable, but I haven't heard one in so long I wonder just how much better they are for music. One thing I will never get used to with vinyl is the dust that gets into the grooves of a record. A real pain to deal with, especially down here where there are something like 22 volcanoes messing with the atmostphere and polluting everything with dust. Really dusty environment here.

 

[Mr.PD]

I like CDs because they are very portable, and sound just fine.
Maybe they don't have the top notch audiophile sound quality of new vinyl, but they do plenty well enough for millions of people.
I have some old records. I didn't treat them well and they probably sound horrible now. Pops and scratches. I don't have a turntable to see how they sound. But, how can anybody say that vinyl is the best, when it wears with each play? One slight mishandling of it will leave noise artifacts. That is why CDs are so popular. They are much more user friendly, you gotta really abuse a CD to make it not play. CDs won't wear out like cassette tapes. I have a lot of old tapes that I can't get to play anymore, and just before they quit they didn't sound the same as when they were new.

Not everybody is a nut about the purest possible sound. Not everybody can afford the cost of "good" turntables and not everybody wants the hassle of such a fragile medium as vinyl. I personally have never heard a record that didn't have at least a few pops in it. That is probably because I have never been to a true audiophiles house.