There are several issues represented here and that is confusing the issues and arguments. Digital vs vinyl. good hearing vs bad or faulty hearing. Etc. lets clear up some things first before really getting into the "is digital or vinyl actuall better than the other" argument.
1. As an Electrical Engineer specializing in analog/digital design, I can tell you absolutely there is no way a digital signal is as accurate as an analog signal. The digital medium acutally takes samples from the signal and then converts that digitized signal back into an analog wave form. in and of itself, the "sampling" will specifically mean that some of the signal is lost, because it was no sampled. Now if the signal sampled is a simple sine wave, then you can extrapolate ahead and "guess" what the next piece will be with about 100% accuracy. However, with an analog musical signal, there is no way you will be 100% accurate in your extrapolations and some data will be lost. This is not to say that you can't sample the signal at such a high rate of speed that you will not be close. As a matter of fact, the higher the sample rate, the better. The problem with this is that the recording equipment may sample at such a high rate of speed, say for example 44kHz or 92kHz, but the digital to analog converter or your specific CD players itself may not be at a matched sample rate and again, you lose signal. In any case, you are still losing some data. For analog, all of the signal is there. To me, it really comes down to convienience of operation and also how much one wants to spend on digital or analog equipment to meet their goal of sound reproduction and accuracy in their homes.
I do recommend that people go and have a detailed hearing test performed to determine what their hearing is now. You will be suprised what you will find out. Second, it really comes to preferences, but if you really want to see (hear) if there are differences. Go to a really good high end store or a person's home with stupidly expensive great high end analog and digital playback equipment and get the albums and digital recording and A/B them. One more thing, and this is really important. It also depends on how the recording was done in the first place. Music that was digitally recorded and then converted to analog from the digital master to an album has the inherent flaws of digital recordings. i.e. it was sampled and reconstituted. A recording session that was recorded with analog recording equipment and then placed onto an album vs the same recording session recorded with analog equipment but then made into a cd, well that would be an interesting listening session. either way, enjoy the music please. When it sounds and feels to me as if something is wrong or missing, and I'm getting listening fatigue or shifting, then well, something is not right. Also, I do have vinyl that was poorly recorded also and sounds terrible. So, it can go either way. My CD/DAC system is wonderful and sounds pretty darn good and I can listen without fatigue, unless the recording is bad. However, my analog playback system sounds much more open, airy, detailed, etc. but, vinyl listening means that I have to clean the disc, and get up every few minutes to turn over the album. So, there are drawbacks for both playback mediums.
Go to a store that has both in high end equipment and listen for yourself.
just enjoy |
The great thing about this "hobby" is that subjects like this always come back for discussion. That is a good thing. As I have stated many times, when comparing equipment, one should compare apples to apples. I encourage that price point comparisons are always the way to go. Do your homework on equipment, then afterwards determine your price point, then and only then start comparing equipment within that price point. For Analog (vinyl vs digital), lets just say that I have many LPs that are poorly recorded and sound terrible no matter how expensive the TT/Arm/Cartridge, etc is. However, the same can be said for CD recordings. In the early years, the advantage of CDs over vinyl was that it was simply easier to use. No elaborate cleaning involved, no pops, scratches, etc. But the early CDs were compressed to death and the recording quality (not the music), was crap. It even got to the point where CDs were showing how they were recorded, AAD, DDD, etc. just to convince people of their quality. I have many, many early CDs that I simply can't listen to. The music is wonderful, but they are so poorly recorded that it hurts my ears. A good friend of mine brought over her favorite music on CD to listen to and her favorite music sounded terrible. She now can hear the difference between bad CDs and good recorded CDs. All that said, I have a really nice CD/DAC setup that is absolutely wonderful. I also have a really nice TT/ARM/Cartridge/Phono Stage setup that still routinely sounds better (wider soundstage, more open, etc.) that the CD system. That is not to say that the CD system isn't great. it is. But as an Engineer also, you can't tell me that sampling an analog signal into pieces doesn't lose information. it does. Copying CD to CD you don't lose information because it copies bit for bit. But recording an analog signal to digital, no matter the sample rate, you are going to lose information. Everyone has their preferences. Vinyl was never perfect also remember. RIAA has inherent flaws also. However, I'll take both until something new comes along that is better, which I can afford. Last night after the Superbowl at my house, we turned on the system to listen. I played songs from Eva Cassidy Songbird CD and also had it on vinyl and played the same song on vinly. While listening to the CD, everyone absolutely loved the sound and was really into the music and her wonderful voice. When I switched (one push of a button on my pre-amp's remote control), to vinyl, everyone in the room heard differences to the point that each and every one loved the vinyl better. But, don't forget, before we switched, they loved the CD also. It was just that the vinyl was more open, more depth, etc. It was fun. My digital rig, cost when new, probably about the same as my analog rig. well, close. But, I'll take both right now. But in conclusion, to tell you the truth, the best sound I have heard came from a reel-to-reel setup.
enjoy |
I don't think there will ever be a resolution of this issue. we just move on with new formats and hope they get it right. But, they won't. Their job is to separate us from our money. New format means that you have to get your same recordings again in the new format. Analog vinyl to tape to CD (always easier to use). Video (VCR, Beta, VCR, LD, DVD), always easier to use. My only real issue with this subject is that I have found for most younger people, they have grown up getting use to sound reproduction that is absolutely terrible and thinking it is correct. Cymbols don't sound like real cymbols, etc. but they never have heard a real french horn, violin, bass, etc. They hear, highly compressed, poorly formatted/recorded digital music played back on some inexpensive mp3 setup, and they see no reason to spend thousands of dollars on a good system because their music is okay to them. I remember when my Daughter was young and I took her to a concert a long time ago to hear a really great female vocal singer perform. I didn't need to say anything afterwards. My Daughter finally heard real singing from a person that didn't do vocal calisthenics to mask the fact that they can't really hold a note. She was amazed and became a admirer of that singer to this day. So, no disrespect to anyone here, but every now and then I really want to hear the music as correctly as I possibly can. Hence, my analog rig. I've played classical vioin, sax, clarinet, oboe, bassoon, etc. I've played in orchestras, bands, etc. I know what a real drum, sax, violin, cymbol, etc. sound like. Some fancy magazine always states that their reference is live unamplified music. I don't agree with that at all. My reference is knowing what the music is supposed to sound like in the first place. But this is really hard to achieve. If you weren't in the recording room, you have no idea what they were trying to accomplish. But, for me in my living room, if a violin is playing, it better sound like a real violin, or a stand up bass, etc. is there a sound stage? Where are the performers on the stage? can I "see" them?, how deep is it? If I close my eyes and I can tell I'm listening to speakers, something is wrong. We aren't there yet. Digital to me means that I don't have to keep getting up to turn the album over, or clean the disc or the stylus. (easier to use digital playback than vinyl). My music server through my DAC doesn't sound nearly as good as my single disc CD transport through my DAC, so I still have to get up to change discs. Oh well. Music server listening for when I just want to sit and hear music. CD playback for when I really want to hear it. Analog playback for when I want to disappear into the song. We will have this discussion when the next latest and greatest music reproduction format comes out. I just hope I'm around and healthy enough to hear and experience it. Life is good.
enjoy |
Unsound, I absolutely agreement with you. Tmsorosk, "mombo jumbo"? where is this animosity coming from? I was stating basic Electrical Engineering. Nothing else. I never said that you or anyone else wouldn't like their digital system's sound. I certainly like mine. But, before you attack me, which I can't understand why you are doing so, please re-read my post. no way on this planet is a digital signal that has been sampled over an analog signal as accurate as an analog signal. That is all I said. So, there will be some inherent data losses in digital taken from analog. Digital to digital sampling has no losses because it goes back and checks each bit with the original digital signal. This can't happen with digital sampled from analog. However, what I did say is that if you up the sampling rate and also up the playback sampling rate to match, you can get close. But never 100%. But, mombo jumbo? Sorry, it definitely isn't. it is called Engineering and the theories behind it, and that is exactly what any electrical system's designer must know before they can design and build anything. This isn't a religious battle between digital vs vinyl. So, stay calm |
Learsfool; I like what you wrote.
Thanks, |
Thanks Almarg; I wasn't arguing that because digital was sampled it is a more persuasive argument for vinly. Sorry, if I may have giving that impression. I was stating an engineering fact that to sample a signal at a specific sampling frequency absolutely means that some of the signal will simply not be there. Analog means that all of the signal is there. Of course there are distortions and benefits and negatives to vinly. RIAA has it's own issues. It has been cleaned up and sort of perfected over the many years, but.... What I meant was that if one takes a recording session with good acoustics, mikes, etc. and recording it using both digital and analog recording equipment, (decent equipment mind you), the digital recording will inherently be missing some data because it was sampled. But, as mentioned earlier, if the recording session is strickly digital instruments, or highly compressed music, then the digital recording will be fairly accurate and the analog recording will require a DAC just to get it recorded into analog. I appologize if I stepped on toes. Didn't mean to. Just stating Engineering facts.
enjoy anyway. |
Thanks Almarg for the response. But you nailed it in your response. "Digital is an approximation" of the analog signal. There will be losses. Up the sampling and scan playback rates significantly, and that minimizes the losses. I just know that when I listen to an analog recoding, (recorded analog to master tape) of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue and listen to the digital recording side by side, very audible differences. And It is always a shock to me when I find music that I really love and enjoy in digital format, get use to it and then find that same music in analog format and play it and most times I hear audible differences. Again, please don't attack me. I really enjoyed the digital music also. My problem is that I refuse to accept music that doesn't sound "real". This is true for both analog or digital. I know what a real violin, cello, bass, drums, cymbals, etc. sound like and so when I hear it reproduced incorrectly, it drives me out of the room. Music that has been mastered over and over, compressed and then uncompressed, etc. loses some of the detail. The more electronics the original signal passes through before the final recording the more losses and distortions it will suffer. I'm not a big fan of electronic music, but sometimes I hear something that blows me away. But electronic music really has a detailed clear loss of dimension to me. Music that is properly miked and recorded, well, wonderful. I've worked in some sound recording rooms and let me tell you I have seen the most expensive best recording and mastering equipment being used, including the best cables, and I have also seen really crappy recording, mikes, cables, mixing boards being used also. I believe that how the music was miked and recorded and mixed is the most important aspect to the music's quality. Digital vs vinyl takes a back seat to that. Because if it isn't recorded correctly in the first place, well, nothing you do on the back end will make up for it.
no really, enjoy |
