Jim Smith in his book "get better sounds" said something about the recording he did once. It was a classic concert and he startet to record a few seconds before the maestro came on stage. He used an tape recorder and a digital recording maschine. There were 2,3 women talking very quitly before the concert startet.
After the concert he checked both recordings. The whispering of the women could be heard on the Tape, slightly, as the tape noise was almost as high. But there was no signal at all on the CD recorder. Of course it was an older older digital technique, maybe in the 90th, this problem might be fixed nowadays.
But again it is no Nyquest processsing is to blame in this instance.
I would love to have a digital processing where I could listen as long as to my analog rig.
But in my case it might be of no use. I mainly listen to music before the 80th. All music of that time was recorded analog.
|
When I am right I believe Nyquist is not important at all when it comes to the overall quality of listing. Put it is way: if Nyquest would be wrong than there would be only one more reason to blame digtal for. But Nyquest works, I believe this without being able to unterstand in complete the mathematic behind.
When there is a problem that it must be before it reaches the Nyquest calculations or after. If I am at a concert and listen to an instrument my InEar Nyquest calculation works perfektly as well, with one difference to the digital process: the data coming, arethe right data and the data coming in come in the exact time.
Now we go to digital: Assuming a CD. When a CD is produced pits and lands are graved it (at least on of these). But I am shure that on another CD producing machine they are graved in with slightly differently. So when at the end the 2 CD are read by the CD player at home some of the pits and lands are interpreted different at least in time. That means your beautiful Nyquest does not get the exact signal which was recorded once. That is why JPC wanted a complete perfect recording and manufacturing process once, but Sony wantet the more cheap one. And they succeded.
0 and 1 is a data format. For data calculation it is perfect. There is no doubt about the values stored. But it is a not very satifying way to use this as a kind of music data. Because when you read or transport the data you always have to not only interpret the value coorectly but in time as well. Noteasy for all this capacitaors, coils or resitors. Different electronic will do a different job. This means additional: your perfect Nyquest might perform different because again the values may not be what they have been at the recording.
And what about transporting your data. Errors might happen again.
And in the Generation of voltage or current (not sure what comes out) there might be problems again
What I mean is that even Nyquest theorem does not touch the problems of using a computer storage format as a musical transport format where time is important.
Additional there might be 2 things which have even further consequences: the unability of digital to recognise if the data is a real data or if it is error data. In Analog it is much easier :-)And where in Analog the errors are kind of linear, in digital it is stange. It makes an difference it the wrong data of for exmaple 16 bit is a low bit or a high bit. The calculated value of his is very different.
Just some thoughts. I might be wrong, but my main argument is that I am sure that the problem with digital is not if Nyquest workes or not. But I believe it is very hard to make digital right. The process is to awkward. The main advantage of digital is storage and manipulation. Outside where time kicks is is where it gets difficult for digital. Analog cicuits do not like to have to deal of interpretation of tons of values to exact times.
It might be that some people have more problems with digital errors as with analog erros. I am one of those. I cannot stand digital. I wish I could!
But most of all: Enjoy music.
|
Thanks cleeds,
I may be wrong, but my question is what goes in the Nyquest. That it is all about frequency, which by definition is all about time, I am aware of. Which bits go in when.
There is a hearable difference at least to my ears :-) between analog an digital. Digital does all better, but than why I feel it still lacks the vital engagement when listening.
|
Thanks audio2design,
It is nice to get a more detailled analysis. As I said this problem might not occur today. It was more thought as an example because at that period people that 16 bit is perfect. It could be there is still more we do not know today even we have 24bit.
My digital side ist reasonable modern and cost around 3500 Euro; my analog side is double as expensive. Listenimg to the latest CDs of known HighFidelity manufacturer I feel there are lots of dynamic, details, name it. I love it, but after a few songs it still does not touch me. My analog records are ordinary, most of them, some bought new, some came as gift, some found on the flee market. Cheap recording sound defenitely cheap. But most records, even still not in the HiFi league of the best CDs, catch my interest in a way digital does not.
Again I believe everything is right with digital from a pure mathematical point, but why than it is still wrong for some? It must not be in the many calculatons, it must be what goes in the calculatens and what changes between calculations over time. There is a difference even the difference is only perceived by some unlucky people like me.
Additional there is that filtering thing which does or had once the effect of preringing of 16 bit CDs. It might be a thing of the past as 96KHz does shift things to a frequence area where it should not be perceivable. Or is it not? We know so much about matahmatics, but so less about our hearing. But what worries me is that people invented the CD format knowing of that problem, which is an uncertainty, as knowbody can be sure how listener reacts on an complete unnatural behavior. All we end up is that we know a lot but still not all.
|
Thanks Audio2desgin,
we should not call it a mistake, more likely a personal preference :-)
Whatever it is I prefer it. I need it. If you are right, that this is more a sign of inferity, than I should look for a DAC with a "over-saturated vinyl" button. If you are right, that should work for me. If not, maybe there is more. I am not saying there is only I wonder.Vinyl is defenitely far from perfect. Tape is proabably better. I only wish instead of 0 and 1s they would have released a laser which reads all in the analog domain. Unfortanetly Philipps/Sony did win.
|
Thanks Audio2desgin,just remember there is one of this advocats, a producer of HiRes. A nice gentleman indeed.But he tells a story where a manufacturer of cables visist him and gives a comment to his HiRes demonstartion saying that the highs are to much for his ears. The comment of the HiRes producer is like yours. He says something like that this man is used to euphonic sound and therefore dislikes the more real picture of his HiRes demonstration.Hearing his story I always ask why he did not ask the next question to this cable manufacturer? He should ask him: if you hear this piece of music live would you think that you would hear the same unnautural highs?If he would feel fine hearing it live, but not hearing it on this HiRes demonstration what than has to be concluded?It does not means that HiRes is worse than vinyl, it would only mean HiRes is not in every aspect for every listener superior to vinyl. There could be explanations like:It could simply mean that for some people they prefer less highs listening to reproduced music, be it digital or analog.
It could mean that the highs of the HiRes are indeed unnatural to some, or something is missing, so that the highs standing out. Or Or....I could come up with many more explanations. But again nobody knows.As long we do not understand our hearing I fear there is no chance to settle this argument.There is one fact not to be ignored: besides some people listen to CD and Vinyl, there is a big crowd of audiophiles who prefer always CDs over Vinyl or the other way around. And most of them have stayed with their preference although they have listen in different rooms, with alway changing equipment (we are all Highenders :-)) , with different settings, , with different digital sources (CD, streaminf, 96KHz) or recording. And what those woh prefer one format say is always alike. So why they report this as a constant attitude, although there listening enviroment has changes radical over the years. Why we use almost the same words? My equipemnt is 200% different to other vinyl who likes. Or do our settings all miss something that does flavor Vinyl. Unlikely. Is it stuborn? Or is it because they get used to one format as the HiRes manufacturer believes? Even it is: but I feel more attached to analog and more detachet to digital.
Maybe it will change with upcoming next digital equipment. After 16bit, SACD, HiRes I would be surprised. But I will have an open ear.
|
Dear audio2design,
thanks. I already thought about an buying NOS Dac myself again and again. But being somehow disappointet with my digital solutions I tried over the years I believe I rather have to stay in vinyl. I think it is a good attitude what you said in your post to talk about "personal preference" when it comes to digital versus vinyl. Although I do accept the superiority of digital by paper - I am a programmer - I wonder myself sometimes why I cannot get more involved in digital produced music. Therefore I grasp for reasons which some of them I wrote in the post, but knowing that all of them are only assumptions.I will defenitely have an open ear on digital formats and solutions.
Best regardsWolfgang
|
01-15-2021 9:37amDear audio2design,
but one more thing I believe is rather curios. If digital is defenitely superior, why than there are so many different solutions? Like using a chip form a manufacturer versus programming your own chip. NOS versus DAC with Filter. PCM versus DSD. Upsampling vs No Upsampling etc. Sometimes I feel the dissonance beween different digital opponents is bigger even than in analog where you have the dd versus rim versus belt discussions.This uncertainty about how to process digital best does not neccessarilymean that digital is inferior. What it shows to me is: solutions in digital or analog are easier to build than to be explained :-)
|
I am a little bit lost with all this discussion of microdynamic and timbre. It is good discussion, but I for myself are not able to exactly discribe the difference or the reason why I feel more attached to analog.I would call it ambience. Low Level.Listening to digital I hear every insrument beautiful rendered, often betters analog. There is enough of everything, but still somehow it is presented as it is recorded in space. Where on analog the music is more like craftet.
|
Dear frogman, I trust my ears and they tell me that ON BALANCE, well implemented analog gets closer to the sound of real than does digital. Not always by a lot, but enough for it to matter to me based on my sonic and musical priorities Summarizes my feeling what I believe too. And this although digital has so many advantages. All that all I come up is that it does not help to compare single parameters. In this respect digital wins always hands down. But there might be at least one criteria which lets down the superity of digital. But fortunate for the industry it effect less people. Whatever they might be, still has been overlooked in their performance or they are still unknown. All I can express are some words which I used to explain why I still prefer analog over digital, words which I did use in earlier posts. But whatever describing words be they "ambience" or "drirectness" I come up with the digital community will tell me immediately that digital is also better in this respect now by a large margin. I am lost for (describing) words. :-) |
My own experience is that audio S.Q. is proportional to the rightfully embeddings controls and treatment in the mechanical, electrical, amd acoustical dimensions way more than solely the choice of an electronic component.... On the other hand with an ordinary system not rightfully acoustically embedded, i think analog is more robust and able to give a more truthful experience of timbre than digital in the same quality level system and conditions... But for superior system and very good embeddings i dont think so.... But here it is also my limited opinion...
Dear Mahgister, we all know it is a pain to set up analog. I am not able to get all the vta , sra etc. right. Listing again and again to small changes makes me start to hate analog :-). All I do is roughtly to get the setup work o.k.. But still at the end I always prefer analog over the years - mainly in terms of tiring free listening. Although I had several equipments which played in serveral rooms during the years. You are saying that analog is more robust, if the system is not acoustically embebbded good enough, which in my case has been always true. For example the place for my speaker has always been the place where the speakers have to be placed from a visial point of view.Additional I assume that most people like me do not have the skills to set up a system perfectly and let the system work with the room and not against. Because of this would one not expect more people prefer analog? And why you believe an analog system is more robust. |
Yesterday I again put one of the worst record on my turntable. I do not talk about K-Tel records and the like with their lowest possible HiFi sound.
Again I cannot get really in touch with this record. Sometimes it seems to work, a kind of, but most of the time I am detached. There is something really wrong with the recording. The bits and pieces are somehow unconnectet. All sounds rather artifical. Most worse is the piano. This is not a piano. This is something. A space instrument. The sax is o.k. Now before you hit me :-) I will mention in defence the record is only a "nice price" pressing. But I have other "nice price" pressing which are very good.The record is often used even as a reference recording by some. I really wonder why. It is Joe Jackson body and soul.On the back it is listet that it is a digital recording. Now I know that today digital records are much better, but still, for me the recording shows that digital at the start was inferior to good all tape recording. I wonder why such a format could take of.
Well we all have lustet for something new. I remember selling all my vinyl at that time. |
mijostone,
My ESLs are one way. No crossover.
Well than you are pretty well off. If you point the ESL to your ears like sanders recommends with his speakers than you do not have much room influence abouve 100 HZ at all especially for esl line source speakers. Probably that is what you doing anyway. In this case when it comes to timing and correct phase you are already ahead of all speakers which use passive crossovers. Whatever the speaker manufacturer comes up with they start from a loosing point and can at best only accomplished what your no crossover speaker does from the start. I am aware of the differeneces which between left and right speaker could accour. Of course I never experienced what it would meand to have exact same speakers. But Is it really benefitical to add a AD/DA additional calculation only to squeezed out the latest bits and pieces of the speakers? I wonder.Additional some authors said that our ears get used to the room the speakers are in and to correct what the brain already corrects may not be without disadvantages. mean above 100 Hz. But I would like to hear such a solution - for sure :-) |
Read yesterday an artical where a professional HiRes suporter argues against MQA. Even within the digital domain there is a cut and thrust between people. The same goes on within the analoge community. There is no proof on either side. Best to enjoy what one likes in whatever format it comes.
|
Dear audio2design,
no how can I say. I did not mean the likes like K-Tel or others. They are not worthy to be mention at all. I wanted them to be not mentioned, therefore I mentioned them. Thus this makes it more clear :-) |
Dear audio2design, unfortunately I do not understand the theory as deep as you. And my knowledge of the english language does not help in this respect:-) So I could not follow in detail about the "pre-ringing". I thought it does or did exist. And I thought it is bad, as it does not occur in natural. But again what additional I can extract from your very profound answer is my idea that digital music by many in the industry is too much understood as belonging to a computer domain as you wrote: Unless you know exactly the signal chain that arrived at that signal, you can’t reverse it. It is so easy to do manipulation, 0s and 1s are exactly build for this, but so hard to understand what this implies. Therefore like in the analog domain there are so many differnent ideas what is best. So many people who defend one idea against the others. Well I keep talking now the same thing over and over :-) |
Hi again, as said before I’m a vinyl lover, but I came across mastering recordings from Barry Diament (Soundkeeper Recordings) that got me thinking. He’s a well-known recording engineer who has long hated loundness settings, had one breakdown and then came up with a pretty simple recording technique: just 2 microphones. And no loudness manipulations, no overdubbing, more or less nothing that we are so used to with modern mastering. Although his recordings have an average dynamic range of 15-17 dB, some parts or songs are rather quiet. Only when the music demands it does it get louder. Something we are no longer used to. The way in which the musicians are presented reminds me more of analog recordings. Very precise located, communicative and the musicians pretty much the right size. On the other hand, if you look at traditional recordings like Diana Krall’s, they also have their own advantages, her voice is more present, but also a touch perhaps too big, perhaps too direct; The piano is massive, but also a little bit too big. It’s more of an in-your-face recording. A beautiful recording, maybe in its own way. And Diana Krall recordings are very good, but when you listen you are always aware that it is a recording, no matter how fantastic, but still a recording and not music. Recording of Barry Diamneds are much better in this respect. It may lack the euphonoic of mechanical scanning that we all love when we listen to vinyl, but so far, and this is important for me, I haven’t been able to notice the typical digital fatigue that always comes to me when listening to digital, sooner or later, even with such good recordings as form Diana Krall. Also said before when I listen to Soundkeeper Recordings I don’t have the impression that, as usual with Digital, the players were recorded in space. Instead I have the impression they play in one room at the same time. Maybe digital is still not the problem, only that the ease of manipulation which is used in excess by the recording engineers. The advantage of using digital as perhaps more advanced analog technology has been given up for the many digital possibilities which, according to official belief, can be used as often and as often as you want without loss. So the consumer never had a chance to hear if digital is as good or even better than vinyl. Here are two statements from other people:
Be sure to turn the volume up a bit as there is no compression so quiet sounds can be buried
. All guitars (acoustic, electric, pedal steel and mandolin) emit an inherent sheen, like 180 gram vinyl. This is really an audiophile recording. I downloaded the "Americas" recording, there all qualities are visible, only as a small critic the piano alone is perhaps too restrained for my taste. But the recording gets quite loud, when required, when the drummer hits it, the sound becomes wonderfully loud and real.The other recording I own is "Wind of Change" , just a great recording. Maybe I’ll get the "Confluence". I only bought 16bit so far. But how many minimal microphone usage and manipulation-free recordings are there today? How many nondigital digital recordings. In this form I would, still cautiously, see it as an real alternative to vinyl. Both are fatigue-free, only with their own strengths and weaknesses. Sure there are others, but overall there are too few Barry Diaments ... I hope for the ones like Mr. "Timbre" that it is an worthy, an intelligent comment I made, because I have not used the word "timbre". It is not meant to be offensive, just a little joking remark :-) Stay tuned Wolfgang |
Well, this might be true of things that don’t matter much to us. Who will care much about Coke? But if, for example, you served me really good food, no matter how you serve it, I will probably still find the better food better, although circumstances will have a slight influence.
And records are not always the ones that are presented more beautifully than a CD. The record sleeve may be externally damaged and generally worn, there may be a few light scratches on the record. Some dust may have accumulated on the plate, or it may be greasy in some places. Why should I prefer the record to an always shiny CD in such a case? 30% of my record collection looks like this - a typical purchase at the flea market.
Believe me, if CDs were always better sounding than vinyl, I would be jumping on the digital bandwagon in no time.
Greetings Wolfgang
|
