last_lemming, the irony is it wasn’t even your generalization. 😬
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
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
last_lemming Y’all need to listen to Peter’s (Soundsmith) latest talk at 2018 RMAF. He says even analog is digital and it appears to be true. >>>>Well, you could also say that digital is to a large degree analog. last_lemming Now compare that to my brother, a NASA rocket engineer who desires efficient, exact design with minimal error, what do you think he listens to? >>>>I’m a NASA rocket engineer and listen mostly to analog. Go figure. 🚀 |
I believe digital or vinyl completely depends on the personality type, not so much which one necessarily sounds better. I dont believe the personality manifests itself the same in everybody, but I believe each persons road to vinyl is chosen due to certain qualities in life they have experienced and desire. And it’s how and why they learn to desire these qualities that directs them to their particular format. For instance, I’m an architect, for me having createable control with something authentic is important. So you can see that being able to pick the pieces (cart, table, phono pre, loading, alighnment, etc), and having a piece of vinyl with physical gooves you can see and feel (but don’t!) with your eyes and hands, and finally placing it on the table watching the platter spin, then dropping the needle and hearing the drop has a tangle quality that would appeal to me. It is "me" that controls the final sound, and it is me that reaps the benefits or not, thus there is a greater reward for all my diligence. It takes a certain level of craft in TT design that appeals to an architect as well. There is also the uniqueness aspect for me, being that every LP is unique (ticks, pops, pressing, etc) that adds to its authenticity. Now compare that to my brother, a NASA rocket engineer who desires efficient, exact design with minimal error, what do you think he listens to? BTW I’m sure there are many engineers who listen to vinyl, I’m saying given my brothers specific life experiences, anyone who would meet him would bet,he’d be a digital guy - and you’d be right. |
Seconded. If ever there was a pointless debate/schism, then this is it. If you don't like one or the other, don't listen to it. If someone else likes what you don't like, how exactly is that an issue you need to concern yourself with? As for what's best: anybody who has progressed beyond play school ought to know that where human preference is concerned there's no such thing as "best". |
It literally doesn't matter. As in, it cannot matter less. Why do cinephiles make a huge deal out of seeing a movie that was shot on film projected from the 70mm print??... because they love the way it looks. It's romance. A 1972 Porsche 911 is a fraction as fast as a new Subaru but even car guys have enough sense to know that it's a waste of time to debate those merits. That's why they have different forums. Save it. |
Exhibit A - digitally remastered cassettes. The best of both worlds? High dynamic range and low noise without all the digitalis produced by the digital playback system. The digitally remastered cassette demonstrates that it’s not (rpt not) necessarily the digital medium per se that’s the problem, but the CD playback system. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes. |
Analog recording attempts to reproduce faithfully the original sound, and if done properly, you can get it. Digital recording attempts to reproduce approximately the original sound. By using a large number of bits you can get as close as a one million of a percent difference, but never the exact thing. So, the correct statement is: digital reproduction can be as close as one wants to the original sound, so small the difference that indeed it could not be detected by ear, but it is never an exact replica. So, digital recording and reproduction can be as good as analog, but NEVER better. |
You’re correct, I spent $6K on my CD player and $28K on my analog set-up. I won’t spend more than $20K on CD playback but I will spend up to $40K or $50K for LP playback. Until you’ve heard my system or my friends systems who have near SOTA CD playback, you haven’t heard great CD sound, only inferior CD sound. My cable manufacturer friend and I hated CDs until the mid-2000s when the equipment improved sufficiently to make us realize how good it can sound. I am not part of an unwashed mass who accepts crap sound. I am also a part time recording/transfer engineer and have friends who are world reknown mastering engineers. Too bad you haven’t enjoyed the pleasures of fine CD playback (or maybe what you’re listening to was poorly mastered). |
Its not just a question of Vinyl vs. Digital. Spend big money and effort on a problem and you will likely find success. Music is emotional and so are audiophiles. This will affect the judgment of the comparison. There are great differences between recordings, analog and digital. Many recordings on both formats leave much to be desired. Much more emphasis should be placed on recording technology. Quality of every part in the recordong studio, and mike placement etc plays a big role in the outcome. It is hard to fix a recording after it is done. Redbook 16/44.1 is a standard that is very old, but acceptable to the great unwashed masses who are OK with mp3 and AM broadcast, and who thinks rap and techno is music. SACD and DVDAudio is easily better than the old Redbook format but they failed commercially for the above reasons. It would not cost much more to make than Redbook recordings. Recording studios use higher resolution equipment and resample it down to Redbook standard. Bad. The masters likely sound better. 192KHz 32bit is easy today, and the distribution on discs is obsolete. We need better source material, more life like and more natural sounding. Higher sampling rates and bit resolution should be a snap with today's technology. Copyrights will block the progress to better sound redistribution. With good base technology reproduction should not be that hard nor super expensive. Spending $120,000 to listen to truncated 16 bit audio just does not make sense. |
Recently I've made an experiment. I've run DSotM Mfsl uhqr record on Sony PS-X9 connected to Exclusive C7 preamp with rec out1 connected to Studer D19m AD. It's digital output was connected to Sony 703 das. C7 rec out2 and Sony das analog output were connected to Stax headphone amp with SR009. Then I've done A/B switching headphone preamp input. It was a difference but the difference between analog and SACD/CD versions was huge. So I've made the conclusion - the digital is not so bad but the problem is CD/SACD mastering. PS: Tidal is just no comments - CD/SACD or HD tracks files is far better. |
I have the Keith Jarrett piano live performance. Sounds live on my Ethernet driven DAC system. More live than anything I have heard at ANY tradeshow or showroom. Most exhibitors shy away from playing piano in their rooms because they know it will show all of their system warts. I play piano recordings at every show. It also sounds live played on my Oppo with the Synchro-Mesh reclocking it. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
This many years after the cd was forced upon us, I have yet to hear a "normal" cd of solo piano that gave me as complete an aural image as many recordings have on vinyl, clicks and pops notwithstanding. That said, the SACD version of Keith Jarrett's Sun Bear has come closest, but that's 35 years of development later... |
tomcy6 quotes Valin saying positive things about digital & so he does while simultaneously criticizing the same HW for major soundstaging issues that analog does not have, again proclaiming it is overall the better more truthful medium. Someone else asks basically, why we cannot just enjoy the medium w/o comparing. We can & cannot simultaneously as our hobby has that as intrinsic. Like anything else - it’s a balance that must be struck. An eternally sought after sweet spot between both. Much as must be done everywhere else in life. stl brings up a really slippery point that too many hide behind (I would not include him in this & view it as intriguingly though provoking). What sounds good? What sounds best? I’ve given this some thought over the years & just as there are guidelines & widespread agreement as to what makes great paintings great (in terms of composition, colour, texture, grace, spirit & much else conveyed among much else still) so too is it similar with audio. Subjectivity is not an excuse to let emotions run roughshod over the intuition. One is free to like the illustrations on hallmark cards - even preferring it to say, Rembrandt, Michelangelo & Van Gogh, but insisting others share your tastes is distinctly problematic. There are standards & while departing from them is an inevitability in audio - only to a degree. Valin often writes about the 3 types of listeners but always insists that anyone with any integrity in any type respects the preference of the others as long as it adheres to some kind of agreed-upon truthfulness. |
why is it always about what sounds better, both have their merits both can engage the listener. For those that have no vinyl then yeah digital makes more sense but for those of us who have collected vinyl records for decades then vinyl makes sense as well. I like both and use both depending on what format I have the music I want to listen to on, or maybe convivence like casual listening. I also, gasp, listen to MPR radio that stuff over the air waves I know shocking. why do we have to have two camps lets all listen together can you Imagine (pun intended). |
I’m always a little surprised to almost never encounter any reference to the top (or really any other) audio reviewers when sound quality is discussed in AG forums. Valin (perhaps the most respected) of Ab Sound has said digital can sound excellent but is no match for analog as far as low-level information is concerned in numerous areas. john, From my post on page 2, here is what Valin said about the MSB Reference DAC and Transport in this month’s TAS. Any gap that vinyl has over digital is becoming very narrow and in the real world where we don’t listen to state of the art systems, it’s a matter of preference and skill in assembling a system to play one or both formats. You and everyone else are free to prefer vinyl without being constantly reminded that it's an inferior format. I just wish you would grant the same consideration to people who prefer digital. Valin: "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." |
LPs were a compromise development as well. 78s could have killed the sound quality of LPs (note the high end pressings at 45 rpm) but marketing/listening considerations won out. Edison invented a 6 minute 10" and a 10 minute 12" 78 rpm record in 1910 and made about 300 sides. Marston Records has released some of these recordings. Using current recording, mastering and pressing technology. 78 rpm records on vinyl could sound utterly magnificent with shorter playing times as the only constraint (minimal RIAA correction with more stereo bass under 50 Hz with the appropriately larger stylus size). No one is considering this. However, I share my love for the LP and CDs despite their shortcomings. I do not like MP3s because they are missing too much information. I do like well recorded 78s for their dynamics and tone quality (after eq corrected). I've heard 15 ips master tapes in studios and they sounded outstanding. The LP playback chain has probably hit it's limit in technology. The CD playback chain probably has not. whereby further technology improvement can render it more analog-like (humans have analog hearing so more analog like is a positive premise for reproduction of music). My own recordings using RR tape have been fantastic even at 7.5 ips 1/4" 2 track while everyone also appreciates my 2 track 16/44 digital recordings. |
I’m not surprised. They missed the boat on scattered background laser light. They missed the boat on deciding to use polycarbonate for the clear layer as it’s transparency is only 92%. They missed the boat on making sure the physical CDs were completely round. They missed the boat that CDs are susceptible to static electric charge and magnetic fields. They also missed the boat that the spring system supporting the laser is susceptible to seismic vibration. But all things considered, CDs worked and they were convenient. 😛 They weren’t audiophiles, they were a technical standards committee. |
How did Sony management in the early 80s judge or determine who can hear what? Did they have a bevy of audiophiles on staff? I suspect it’s more likely the Redbook CD committee decided on 16/44 based on technical considerations and constraints only. Sony and the IEC missed the boat on the importance of jitter however. It turned-out to be much more important than they thought. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
Digital waveforms are continuous, but with a lot of spurious information in the highest frequencies.... and due to the way they are made, they may have artifacts which in particular, create a kind of annoying treble. Nonsense. If there is anything fatiguing about digital, it is due to jitter, poor digital filtering or software artifacts. All of these can be eliminated with the right digital interfaces, playback software and a quality DAC with minimized effects of digital filtering. You have just listened to the wrong equipment. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
And then there was MP3, which was a hijacked technology that removed 90% of the information afforded by 16/44 and yet most people couldn't even tell the difference, let alone care. Convenience mattered. Transfer over the internet mattered. Free music mattered. In the end did it damage the music industry? Vinyl is on the rise, albeit a very small fraction of the total sales. CDs will make a comeback too. |
To our Canadian friend... From a proud U.S. citizen. You think that’s bad? You should see what goes on in U.S. between the many different cultures that make-up this great land. ______________________________________________________ To stay on topic, What sounds good? What sounds best? What’s the best way to reproduce music? It’s all a matter of opinion and we’re all entitled to our opinions. ______________________________________________________ I bid you a fond farewell from the most dangerous city in the U.S. |
Cleeds & others here point to the issues of the "evidence" presented by the question. The virtues of analog are an inconvenient truth for those not at all prepared to do genuine comparative testing & do not trust or have developed their intuition to properly & deeply do so. I'm always a little surprised to almost never encounter any reference to the top (or really any other) audio reviewers when sound quality is discussed in AG forums. Valin (perhaps the most respected) of Ab Sound has said digital can sound excellent but is no match for analog as far as low-level information is concerned in numerous areas. It's like not trusting your eyes to evaluate Art & needing scientific tests to verify what you think you see - or want to. Anyone who claims the long discredited history of putting science before listening is miraculously been overturned will always try to falsely claim they've found data that "proves" their point. |
teo_audio
If one wants to equal the inter channel timing of transients and phase coherence that an LP is capable of, the minimum is an appoximate 7 million sample per second rate, at about a minimum of 20 bits of depth and with absolutely zero jitter in dc to lightspeed bandwidth. This was known and spoken of in the early 90’s. Odd that it is somehow forgotten or not mentioned.This is just silly. Were it true, you could fit the entire Godfather film series on a single LP side. |
Other than you, who has made this claim? You’re suggesting that an LP can hold more data than a CD. That simply isn’t even remotely true.It’s the mechanical aspects of the LP’s capacity to hold transient phase coherence, timing coherence of the same, across the two channels. Since this is deeply connected to how the ear works, it tends to be fundamentally important. To the ear. if you look at how the ear works, this little bit of a point becomes critical. If one wants to equal the inter channel timing of transients and phase coherence that an LP is capable of, the minimum is an approximate 7 million sample per second rate, at about a minimum of 20 bits of depth and with absolutely zero jitter in dc to lightspeed bandwidth. This was known and spoken of in the early 90’s. Odd that it is somehow forgotten or not mentioned. Look at the whole question and answer set. Math is nice and is a great descriptor of things, as a tool or what not. But it cannot do anything in being a tool unless the tool user is equipped with the correct questions and the math is shaped well enough to be useful in those calculations. In other words one has to have to have the right question in front of them. Most folks don’t. Thus the circular arguments. eg, if one thinks that this spec is not important as it is swamped by noise, wow and flutter, etc, one might remind them that the world’s finest FFT and intelligent filtering system known, is built right into them. The human body creates an incredible amount of noise for the ear. The ear/brain system filters this out. So much so we are not consciously aware of this huge wobbly and insanely polluted noise floor inside our own hearing. The ear as being dumb and the instrument and math smarter, more capable? It would be difficult to be more wrong, if one said or thought such a thing. |
New formats I.e., digital audio/video standards brought higher resolution, for example DVD and SACD. Higher sampling rates and longer bit words. Then along came Blu Ray with its much smaller nanoscale laser beam width allowing even greater bits/sampling rate. And discs could by then be fabricated with correspondingly greater data density per disc. By the way the Blu Ray laser technically isn’t blue. Also, ironically, higher but rates and or sampling rates apparently don’t necessarily equate to better sound. OMG! |
This is such a subjective issue yet so many opinions try to be objective. It’s like what is the best colour car to buy? Yes, there are colours that sell better than others but it’s the buyer that decides. I have albums that sound better than cd’s and cd’s that sound better than albums in my opinion. There is no best here. My James Taylor remaster of Sweet Baby James and MFSL’s Supertramp Crime of the Century can’t be duplicated on any CD based/file sharing format to sound anything like my albums. That’s all that should matter!!! But to the members that made the Canadian comment, I’m a proud Canadian and you made yourself out to sound like everything that is wrong with your country today! You’d be surprised how the rest of the world views you but we keep our opinions to ourselves rather than barfing them on everyone else. Keep the comments so everyone can read them and not be offended. Respectfully, |
elizabeth The 15ips thing caught my eye... On a tape machine.. with it running at 15ips.. Well each magnetized particle of material on the tape could be thought of as a ON/OFF digital particle. So one could calculate the number of magnetized individual particles moving past the head gap per second and get a real bit rate...This might be a way to get some analog to digital comparison?That won’t work because a tape head can’t read a single magnetized tape particle in isolation. The head has a gap that reads a whole bunch of " magnetized individual particles " all at once. The notion that any traditional analog media - such as tape or LP - can hold an amount of data equal to that in a CD just isn’t valid. And that’s exactly what led to the invention of the CD in the first place. |
| Post removed |
teo_audio It is said that to equal an LP, a digital system would have to sample at minimum of 7 million samples a second, and with ~zero jitter~ in that spec to be met.Other than you, who has made this claim? You're suggesting that an LP can hold more data than a CD. That simply isn't even remotely true. |
stevecham The sampling rate of lacquer/metal/vinyl is the number of polymer molecules flying past the stylus at the outer edge, ~15 ips, to ~ 8 ips at the inner part of the groove. That number is astronomical and blows away any conceivable, let alone practical, digital sampling rates.For that to be true, each molecule would have to be capable of registering either a 1 or a zero. Were that the case, we’d be loading computer software such as Windows and MS Office from LP - there’d be no need for a CD-ROM. We wouldn't need the DVD, either - we could put entire movies on a single LP side. But of course that isn’t even remotely true. CD can store substantially more data than any LP. |
| Post removed |
In the late 90s, the president of Sony Music said that at the dawn of the CD era, it was decided that the industry’s sampling rate for CDs was to be in large part shaped by marketing considerations. Specifically, it was determined that 95% of music consumers preferred convenience to quality and could not hear the difference between vinyl and CD at the sampling rate settled on. Therefore, there was no reason to cut into profits by spending more money on a higher sampling rate for the 5% of the market that could hear it. I have worked in advertising and marketing as a creative director for decades, and at least for me, it is not at all difficult to understand this industry approach. I have posted this information many many times in several forums. For many people: their hearing is so bad on this topic that they must be among that 95%. Anyone who does not take into account industry’s self interest in this debate is naive. |
The sampling rate of lacquer/metal/vinyl is the number of polymer molecules flying past the stylus at the outer edge, ~15 ips, to ~ 8 ips at the inner part of the groove. This is what limits the resolution of the physical wave form on the lacquer/metal/vinyl. That number is astronomical and blows away any conceivable, let alone practical, digital sampling rates. |
Past job our office was near this company, https://www.vanausdall.com/history/. One they invited us over to view their Thomas Edison Wax Cylinder collection. That's the way to go. |
It is said that to equal an LP, a digital system would have to sample at minimum of 7 million samples a second, and with ~zero jitter~ in that spec to be met. The interchannel timing accuracy of an LP is way out of the league of the Best digital out there. This was known by the mid 90’s. In complex harmonic signals, which is what music is.... the human hearing..meeting that spec with digital... might require a minimal sample rate of a few million samples a second. Just to hear a single short bell tone in proper space, acoustically, in a triangle or equilateral set up of listener and speakers, at 8 feet apart, etc..a digital system would have to sample at a minimum of 225k samples er second, at a 20 bit depth, with ZERO jitter. that’s a minimum, for a single short pure tone. If the point source seems to move to the ears, by one inch of placement in space and we can hear that easily (we can!)..well..that ’s the minimum spec (225/20) required to get that out properly. Now add in an entire orchestra and accompanying space. We were discussing this on line and arguing about it, again, by the mid 90’s. On the bulletin board systems in the "rec.highend" discussions. None of these critical specs have miraculously changed. Neither has the argument from those espousing digital as superior. Such arguments don’t take into account the ear and how it works, nor do they take into account the fundamental physical specifications of an LP, in a complete way. It’s the standard case of cherry picking one’s ignorance into a false premise. 23-24 years later these tedious arguments still come around. |
