digital vs vinyl thoughts


i suspect i have been comparing apples and oranges. i just bought a project debut 111 with a shure m97x and after a month have been less than overwhelmed. when i go back to my emotiva cd/musical fidelity v-dac the performance just blows the table away. i have checked everything several times. i have concluded that due to using power cords and ics[all morrow audio] on my set up that each equals the price of the table i was expecting too much from an entry level table. the vinyl reproduction is not distorted, seems to be tracking ok, is set up with good isolation, and after a month of use...broke in. but the fact that the project has a hard wired ac cord and less than stellar phono wires and a inexpensive cartridge must be the reason. the rest of the system is emotiva usp-1 pre and xpa-2 power with mmgs. any ideas? thanks john
hotmailjbc

Showing 3 responses by almarg

IMO the fact that digital is sampled is not in itself a persuasive argument in favor of vinyl. I think that most people, especially those with an understanding of sampling theory and digital signal processing, would agree that there must be SOME sample rate, and SOME finite number of bits per sample, which when implemented in well designed hardware in both the recording and playback parts of the chain, would result in digital inarguably being the better format.

Whether or not that point has been reached, or is foreseeable, or is even technologically possible, is of course debatable. But the obvious bottom line would seem to be that for each listener the proof is in the pudding (or more specifically, in the listening). Personally I enjoy both formats, and I find that the differences between formats are generally greatly overshadowed by the differences in the quality of the engineering and mic'ing of the particular recordings.

Regards,
-- Al
02-23-12: Marqmike
I understand digital has the theoretical potential to be better than analog as we know it. Analog might read more of the signal originally by the microphone but after that it is at the mercy of everything downstream. Digital has the POTENTIAL [emphasis added] to actually rebuild the signal to the closest identity.... Just my thoughts but I may be wrong. Tell me.
That's basically correct, IMO. The theory behind digital recording and reproduction stems from the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, according to which absolutely no relevant information whatsoever will be lost as a result of sampling if the following hypothetical (and in some cases unattainable) conditions are satisfied:

1)The sampling rate is more than twice the frequency of the highest frequency component of the signal being sampled.
2)Each sample has an infinite number of bits.
3)The waveform being sampled is infinitely long.
4)Frequency components that might be present in the signal being sampled and converted to digital that are greater than one-half of the sampling rate are filtered out of the signal prior to sampling, by means of a filter that has no side effects on the remaining frequency components.
5)The frequency components that are filtered out in no. 4, if any, are at frequencies that are too high to matter.
6)Frequency components of the reconstructed analog signal, following digital to analog conversion, that represent sampling artifacts can be filtered out without side effects on the analog signal.

Obviously all of those conditions cannot be perfectly satisfied in the real world. To the extent that they are not satisfied, digital is an approximation. Which of those conditions is the most significant limiting factor in present day digital, with most music and assuming that the hardware implementation is optimal and that the recording is well engineered (and those of course are often invalid assumptions) is speculative.

FWIW, my own feeling (which I certainly can't prove, and other opinions will often differ) is that with the redbook CD format (44.1 kHz sampling with 16 bits per sample) number 4 (the "no side effects" part) is the most significant limiting factor. Hi rez formats, especially 192 kHz sampling with 24 bits per sample, can IF WELL IMPLEMENTED (in both the recording and the playback processes) greatly improve that and several of the other factors.

Regards,
-- Al
Minorl, agreed on all counts.

Learsfool, and others who are interested in classical music, when and if the opportunity arises I would recommend that you find and purchase the following out-of-print CD's. They just may cause you to modify, at least a little bit, your feelings about how good the medium can sound. In fact, you just might be amazed:

Chesky CD31, Dvorak's "New World Symphony" + Wagner's "Flying Dutchman Overture" and "Siegfried Idyll," Jascha Horenstein conducting the Royal Philharmonic (recorded in 1962!)

Wilson Audio WCD-9129, Chopin's "Sonata No. 3" and other Chopin works, performed by Hyperion Knight.

The Chesky is available in both unused and used form from various sellers at Amazon, at high prices. The Wilson is very hard to find.

Interestingly, both recordings were transferred to CD from analog masters (obviously in the case of the Chesky, given the recording date; the Wilson was recorded in 1991).

Best regards,
-- Al