A very good ENGINEERING explanation of why analog can not be as good as digital.."They" (analog diehards) said the same about analog cameras (movie or still) vs digital cameras (movie or still)
Cheers George
A very good ENGINEERING explanation of why analog can not be as good as digital..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzRvSWPZQYk
There will still be some flat earthers who refuse to believe it....
Those should watch the video a second or third time :-)
There will still be some flat earthers who refuse to believe it....
Those should watch the video a second or third time :-)
137 responses Add your response
I do not think that more money necessarily equals better sound. I think that when an audio professional who listens to a variety of audio gear all the time and communicates frequently with the people who design and build the gear spends $123,000 on a turntable and probably has it set up by the guy who designed it, there is a good chance it will sound better than one you pay $5,000 for and set up yourself. I know that Valin doesn’t pay $123,000 nor would you pay list price for a $5,000 turntable. I’m just using the list prices for comparison purposes. |
By coincidence I received my January 2019 issue of The Absolute Sound yesterday. I’m looking through the table of contents and I see a review of the MSB Reference DAC and Transport. The blurb says, "After railing mightily against all things digital for almost thirty years, our Mr. Valin (Jonathan Valin) has finally found a DAC and transport he can live with long-term." A couple of quotes from the review: "As I just said it wasn’t as if Connick and Marsalis had developed the body and bloom of an LP on voice and sax. And yet, in spite of this, the MSB gear reproduced both singer and sax with such supernaturally lifelike immediacy, resolution of performance detail, neutrality of tone color and dynamic range that they sounded ’there’ enough to astonish me." "To be frank, when it comes to digital sources, I ain’t no Robert Harley. Still, I know real when I hear it, and with the Reference DAC/Transport I heard it to an extent I wouldn’t have thought possible the day before this MSB gear arrived - and I heard it on CD, SACD, high-res streaming, and (par excellence) MQA streaming." (me again) So it appears that there were no stairstep soundwaves coming out of Mr. Valin’s speakers, no missing information and no digital ice flecks blowing in his face. The base price of the DAC is $39,500 with a number of upgrade options ranging from $990 to $14,905 (for a femto 33 clock, the femto 77 clock costs $4,995 if you’re on a tight budget). The transport costs $18,500. This is not the top-of-the-line model either. The top-of-the-line model is supposed to be better in every way. That’s still a lot of money for a DAC and Transport, though, but it’s chicken feed compared to his analog gear. A couple of examples (he has much more): Acoustic Signature Invictus Jr /T-9000 $123,000 (no cartridge), Walker Audio Proscenium Black Diamond Mk V $110,000 (no cartridge). Add a few good cartridges , a couple of top rate phono stages, a good isolation base and rack, some cables of this caliber and you’re talking real money. So he was comparing the MSB digital gear to top shelf analog gear. So if you think that your turntable sounds better than the MSB Reference DAC and Transport in Valin’s system or that vinyl always sounds better than digital, you’re fooling yourself, and that will only get harder and harder to do as time goes on and digital continues its fast pace of improvement. But if you want to believe that vinyl is always better than digital or that digital is fundamentally flawed and can’t be fixed, that’s OK with me. |
Perhaps the human cutoff frequency of 20 khz is the problem here. While humans cannot perceive tones (continuous sine waves) above 20 khz or so, there may very well be a psycho-acoustic or other human response to high frequencies. The leading edge of a square wave, for example, has many ultrasonic frequency components. Those high frequencies may be perceived as an initial sound “attack” and may contibute to a sense of realism when reproduced correctly (proper phase and amplitude). As an electrical engineer, with reduced high frequecy perception due to aging, I cannot explain why adding a supertweeter to my system makes the sound more spacious and realistic. Btw, in my fairly pricey system, vinyl is superior to most digital, but both are very enjoyable. I think digital needs to increase the sampling rate throughout the entire recording to playback chain. |
| Post removed |
His points are valid in theory. However, when it comes to implementation, the story changes. First, for digital equipment to "smooth" the curve effectively, it must be well designed. Sure, there is plenty of equipment that is well designed and sounds very good. But, second is the software. He does make the point about the so-called loudness wars. As digital sound engineers increasingly use higher volume and more compression, the quality of the recording declines. Similarly, some analogue recordings are poorly produced. Overall it seems that the quality of most analogue recordings is better than the corresponding digital versions, and even more so with more modern music as the loudness wars have become more prevalent. So, if sound engineers focused more on producing great sounding recordings, rather than loud sounding recordings, I think you'd see that many more enthusiasts would embrace digital over vinyl. That's because the sound quality would be similar enough, but the digital versions are often easier to consume... like on the phone, in the car, over the internet, etc. In today's world, the sound quality problems start with the overly compressed recordings. This compression issue and the "loudness wars" is the reason I strongly prefer vinyl. Even though I do occasionally listen to a CD or SACD, and I stream when a record isn't convenient. |
| Post removed |
This misses the point. If people and a goodly size population say they prefer vinyl then the job is to explain why they do. Unless you can do this scientifically then you are failing to apply the rules you espouse to others to yourself. I don’t believe the answer lies in expectation bias caused by the cultural rituals associated with vinyl either just like addiction to cocain isn’t because people love jabbing themselves with needles. i suggest the answer lies in the sound differences between the two media. And I’ve not seen much scientific information or study identifying the differences and then comparing preferences in blind tests either. There’s great scope for study here. |
| Post removed |
@mahler "who cares if the cutting head has to make a continuous path, if the the information contained in that path is from a discontnous waveform?" Obviously, you don't get it. As I said, it also applies to every tympanic membrane responding to pressure waves in air (microphone, speaker, eardrum) as well. This is the crux of the matter. Think about it. |
@stevecham who cares if the cutting head has to make a continuous path, if the the information contained in that path is from a discontnous waveform? Vinylistas are reacting to some byproduct of the whole vinyl reproduction chain that they identify as pleasurable, and the rest of us hear as artifactual or distortion. Vinylistas always are clamoring for digital systems that sound “analog like”. Before I sold off my analog system, I tried to make it sound as non analog as possible. I had a battery powered pre amp because it was quieter with darker backgrounds and I was fanatic about trying to improve speed stability, reduce surface noise, wow, flutter, you name it. Eventually I decided this is crazy and will go 100% digital. |
Of course, sound quality notwithstanding, the sheer joy in finding old collections of records, cleaning the promising ones with my ultrasonic RCM, and cueing them up is often just so amazing. As kind of a known audio-guy and owner of a busy bakery/cafe, sometimes customers will just give me their old record collection. If I was a digital only guy, due to digital’s better specs, I’d never have discovered so much obscure music. I challenge anyone to find “The Sounds of the Loon” in any digital format. But the 45 or so minutes of this old monophonic record were a delight. The narrator explained all about the behavior of the Loon with lots of really well recorded audio. So so the debate for me is moot. I love it all. ~Oran |
| Post removed |
Actually you can find an explanation somewhere for whatever you want. Analog is more accurate than digital, digital is more accurate than analog. What have you. But this all overlooks the many serious problems in digital playback systems, not to mention the horrendous dynamic range compression that has been going on for the last twenty years. Maybe things will be different some day. Sigh! |
I do not want to convert any vinyl people to cd or ask any digiphobes to listen to digital. I have no problem with anyone listening to vinyl exclusively or part-time. Same goes for digital. What I would like to assert is that both analog and digital can sound very good and very bad. So can systems assembled to play one or both of the formats. People hear differently and have different tastes. So there are no absolutes. In the real world of our listening rooms, not theory, vinyl doesn’t always sound better than digital and vice versa. It’s a matter of a combination of specific recordings, systems and people. You know that Stereophile has a feature each year called, "Records to Die For" or R2D4. Each writer contributes two recordings that excel both musically and in sound quality. Now, IMHO, Stereophile leans vinyl in overall tone, but I think many people would be surprised at how many of the recommendations are cds year after year. These are people who make their living listening to music. So I think that it’s true that both formats can sound very good or very bad and we don’t have to argue about which is better. We should listen to the format(s) we enjoy and let the other guy listen to what he enjoys, without condescension. I have a funny feeling that that won’t happen though. |
"So if they prefer lps made from corrupt digital discontnous sampled waveforms, that preference must be based upon something completely unrelated to that waveform." The cutting head stylus cannot magically appear at the extreme displacement in one direction, disappear, and then reappear at the other extreme; it had to physically travel from point A to point B and at every physical point in between. This is why, even fed an analog signal from a digital filter, vinyl has to sound "like analog." The same goes for the playback stylus and the magnets/coils in the cartridge. The same holds true for the motion of speaker cones and your ear drums. |
kijank For any signal to be perfectly band limited it would have to extend infinitely in time.I’m not sure what this means, but nothing is perfect. There are many other shortcomings like less than perfect brickwall filters with uneven group delays, jitter in A/D or D/A conversionAgreed, of course. Digital audio is not perfect. However, the notion that it is not continuous, and is comprised of "stair-step" signals, is a misnomer. It is a false claim and that can be proven visually, as in the video that I linked, as well as mathematically. |
..the transient need only to fall within the bandwidth of the system. It’s why digital audio works. For any signal to be perfectly band limited it would have to extend infinitely in time. There are many other shortcomings like less than perfect brickwall filters with uneven group delays, jitter in A/D or D/A conversion etc. |
kijanki This theorem only states that you can recover continuous signal by sampling at least two times per period. It does not say you can do that when waveform constantly changesActually, that’s exactly what the Fourier Transform addresses and proves - the transient need only to fall within the bandwidth of the system. It’s why digital audio works. Again, I’m very much an analog guy. But to claim the digital audio isn’t continuous like analog is misunderstanding how digital audio works. It has problems, but non-existent stairsteps aren’t part of them. |
On a more practical level, vinylistas don’t seem to care that most current lp issuues Of Classic albums use digital masters, due to the sticky tape phenomenon. Vinyl bigots like Fremer and Dudley were embarrassingly silent on this after touting many of these releases only to have the remastering engineers spill the beans. So if they prefer lps made from corrupt digital discontnous sampled waveforms, that preference must be based upon something completely unrelated to that waveform |
And to all vinylistas, who highlight the "shortcomings" of sampling, do you think that the small groove of a record is large enough to be able to store all frequencies from 20 - 20 khz, not to mention the relative intensities, ie the dynamic range. You think all that information is FAITHFULLY written into 20 - 25 micro meters (typical width of a groove for 33rpm vinyl). No way, since it is limited by PHYSICAL SPACE. With digital, there is no limit, all you need is a bigger disk. One can sample at higher frequencies as well as amplitudes. The typical 16 bit deep CD can store 65k different ranges. Increase that to 32 bits, and it will be 4 billion. As I said before, I also DO like listening (I should say looking at) to vinyl but not because it sounds better but because it LOOKS better :-) |
audioengr Digital is sampled, not continuous. The reproduction accuracy with digital is a function of the sample-rate and filtering to "smooth" those steps. The Fourier Transform proves otherwise, and the transform really has more than one proof. One is in the video, but there's mathematical proof, too, if you really want to dive deep into it.
The Nyquist theorem is true and often cited, however, it makes some assumptions such as the waveform is continuous and not transient.It relies on the Fourier math. Transient waveforms cause the Nyquist theorem to break-down ... the sample rate required to get an accurate transient reproduced is much higher that Nyquist would predict. If you could disprove the Nyquist Theorem, you'd be famous. It's already been proven. That's why it's a theorem. |
It’s a common misnomer that digital has "steps." To be fair, it seems intuitive that it does. But it doesn’t, as proven here. And analog has limited resolution, too - just as with digital. It is certainly not proven with this youtube. Digital is sampled, not continuous. The reproduction accuracy with digital is a function of the sample-rate and filtering to "smooth" those steps. Any NOS D/A chip will output these stair-steps and requires filtering to eliminate them. If you disable or raise the frequency of the digital filtering from any Delta-Sigma D/A chip, it will have these stair-steps. I have seen it on my scope. There most certainly is a Nyquist theorem. A fairly good explanation of it is here. The Nyquist theorem is true and often cited, however, it makes some assumptions such as the waveform is continuous and not transient. Transient waveforms cause the Nyquist theorem to break-down. Not that it doesn't apply, but the sample rate required to get an accurate transient reproduced is much higher that Nyquist would predict. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
tom1000 There are no steps, no divisions, or resolution with analog, but there is with digital.It’s a common misnomer that digital has "steps." To be fair, it seems intuitive that it does. But it doesn’t, as proven here. And analog has limited resolution, too - just as with digital. There is no Nyquist theorem, which based on an approximation.There most certainly is a Nyquist theorem. A fairly good explanation of it is here. Please note that the Nyquist principle is a theorem, not a theory. That means it’s actually provable, using math and science. I’m much more of an analog guy that a digital guy, but it’s important to understand how digital audio actually works if we hope to ever see it improved. |
"When the atoms of the steak were disassembled and then reassembled the porterhouse steak looked still like a real steak but when it was broiled and tasted it didn’t taste like a real steak..."If the description of the movie is accurate, it is not exactly what these debates about digital suggest. That steak retained all the particles and all of them were used to reassemble while digital is said to be missing some parts. "...like the fresh raw porterhouse steak in the movie..."Maybe it would have not tasted good had it been broiled before being disassembled, either. Maybe the problem was the steak and not the process of transportation. |
Analogue is a 'real' copy of the sound impressions where Digital is merely coded ones and zeros read by a machine and sound is produced in the process. There is no 'there' there with digital. There are NO sonic impressions. Just a digital program reading directions in binary code. Zappa's Jazz From Hell album is a good example. Brilliant and performed without any musicians. Cold,. hard and exact. But even that album becomes musical when the vinyl copy is played next to the digital. Flat-earthers indeed! To those who prefer musicians to machines as music makers I think the analogue/digital divide needs to be judged by our ears, not another machine. Those with the sensitivities to hear music will make the same choices and judgements and do not need to have a machine tell them what and how to 'hear'. As Captain Beefheart put it, "How'd you get a name like Crazy Little Thing?" |
Digital is like the fresh raw porterhouse steak in the movie The Fly that Jeff Goldblum teleported from one pod to the other. When the atoms of the steak were disassembled and then reassembled the porterhouse steak looked still like a real steak but when it was broiled and tasted it didn’t taste like a real steak 🥩. Yuk! |
This is a much better read about the subject and about the limitations of science/engineer thinking: https://www.stereophile.com/reference/23/index.html |
"Isn't that true for analog (vinyl in most of the above posts), too? It is an approximation, attempt to reproduce, the original event. " The microphone to the recording system, what ever it maybe is an analog device. There are no steps, no divisions, or resolution with analog, but there is with digital. This is what I was pointing at. There is no Nyquist theorem, which based on an approximation. A recording will not be able to truly duplicate the original performance. But you can tell the difference between an analog original and a digital original. On the other hand, these days I am not sure you can really call the recording engineers produced in a trade school an engineer. Engineering schools are ABET accredited, are there any trade recording school that can meet the criteria? I don't know of any. |
"No matter what the resolution and data rate a digital representation of a sound, it will always be an approximation of the original event."Isn't that true for analog (vinyl in most of the above posts), too? It is an approximation, attempt to reproduce, the original event. No matter what quality of an analog recording it is. Any recording is, essentially, fake. Be it analog or digital. You may prefer the way one is manipulated more than the other, but true representation they are not. When it comes to "reproducing live concert (unamplified, let's say classical music)", I am yet to hear the equipment/sound-carrier combo that can sound as bland. Any recording seems to sound richer. I suspect that many of us who babble about how the system should sound would quit these debates if we went for concerts more often. Blacker blacks, rounder mids, all that poetry is gone in a concert hall. It may something to do with a venue, but not all of it. |
| Post removed |
If we all had master tapes of the music we like and professional reel-to-reel decks, then analog would be king. It's actually a lot cheaper and more convenient to do really good digital. Every bit as good. The master tapes are used to create the digital tracks after all. I'm talking about Ethernet renderer with really low jitter driven by good software: Linn Kinsky/Minimserver/BubbleUPnP, using good cabling. Those still trying to get the ultimate SQ from USB or a transport need not apply. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
I strongly urge those interested to read, "Why Hasn't Everything Disappeared Already?" by Jean Baudrillard. A long time philosophical critic of the 'screen' and the digital/visual nexus, Baudrillard presents a rich approach to understanding the "analogue" through photography and digital visual recording as the death of the real. It all applies to analogue music and vinyl reproduction. In fact he styles the death of the analogue as "murder". I too was insulted being told what I can and cannot hear. I have two separate systems with cd players and turntables, 1 Rega 6 w/ Ortophon Bronze and 1 late 1970s Thorens in great shape and with the same new cartridge. I can not only tell the differrence between playbacks I can tell the difference between the 2 systems. The 2 cd players do not sound the same! Neither do the turntables. And in all 'systems' there are many links and each one can determine the final quality of sound. Dave Brubeck's Take Five album in 180gs is awesome and the high end on the second cut on the first side rings out with the sweetest percussion no digital player can possible match. If I suffer from notalgia, it is with joy and sorrow. Sorrow that music is murdered digitally and joy that I am lucky enough to know the difference. There is nothing wrong with missing something that is very good. The cd is still good on cleaning day when I run the vacuum. |
Science to the rescue. Forget your ears, listen to the CODEC, which, by definition, SUBTRACTS bits and then "tries" to put them back in. Better yet, listen to a "digital" B-3 and/or "electronic" drums and then the originals. Different, but which one is the B-3? If you can't tell, then anything you listen to is fine with you and me. Doesn't make you "wrong" and me "right" any more than liking a food or car that I don't care for does. I suggest that you listen to the MUSIC and not worry so much about all this silliness. Enjoy. |
If you oriced they video did go in to issues with digital. Mostly compression and the overly mastered music to ale up for the compression. Without getting in toy which is better, I wonder if someone who has spent 30 ears doing digital can master an analog recording properly ithout bringing gains way up in fat sections. |
