digital vs vinyl thoughts

" Go to a store that has both in high end equipment and listen for yourself " who hasn't. In fact you can go to your own system if your sources are equal and listen, I have, and my digital and analog systems are very close, but different, except the analog rig cost nearly three times as much. You can quote all kinds of mumbo jumbo but what you haven't taken into account is that people all determine what they like best and what they prefer, it may not be what you prefer, but the old adage, "to each his own " still applies.

Add to that some analog info can in fact be missing - a scratch on the LP for example.

I'm not bashning analog at all; please see my previous posts.

Unsound, another way to say what Minor1 is saying is that surface noise is just that - on the surface, and can be listened through to the music. Digital distortions are more seriously disruptive to the sound of the music itself than analog distortions (even though there usually are more distortions in analog). Part of this is that typical analog distortions occur at much lower frequencies than in digital, where they are at higher and therefore more annoyingly disruptive frequencies. Digital always sounds less "real" for this reason, especially if we are talking about unamplified, acoustically produced music (mainly classical and jazz). Electronically produced music does not suffer nearly so much from digital reproduction, so if you are only into rock, it's not that big a difference between the two. And far too often, excessive amplification ruins acoustic timbres anyway. One of the most frustrating aspects of my job is playing a pops show where the "sound guys" mike the hell out of everything and then set up a bunch of monitors blasting all around the stage, trying to solve the problem that no one can hear each other by making it even louder. And this occurs all the time in the very finest halls in the world. Sigh. But I digress. The other much more controversial point is that many audiophiles don't actually listen beyond the surface of the music, even if they do have good hearing. Just because one has good hearing does not necessarily mean that one actually trains and uses their ears to hear and understand music well.

"Digital always sounds less "real" for this reason"

An absolute statement that is simply not true in my experience.

Digital often sounds more real to me.

Just my opinion....

Learsfool, thank you for your thoughtful response. I respectfully disagree with your assessment re: analog and digital.
On the other hand , I couldn't agree more with you regarding the over amplification of music at live venues. In fact, I would go so far as to say, at many live venues any amplification is irritatingly superfluous. Unfortunately too many modern musicians use it as a crutch to hide the fact that they haven't properly developed their chops or listening skills.

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

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.

Agree with Almarg.

The intent of the "sampling" with digital audio is to sample in a manner that does capture all the relevant information. How well any particular digital format like redbook CD actually accomplishes this in practice is debatable but the intent is to quantify the analog signal sufficently to capture all the relevant information present.

Sampling, or digital quantification of an analog signal in digital signal processing is apples and pranges different than sampling in statistical theory where a relatively small representative sample is used to statistically represent a population as a whole.

I think the overloading of the term "sampling" and how it is different in the context of digital signal processing theory compared to statistical theory is a cause of misunderstanding and confusion in many cases.

Al, I couldn't agree more. As I've said before, I have yet to hear the consistent superiority of one format over the other.

Agreed Almarg. These are just my thoughts by reading the many posts and I am not an engineer or schooled in either of these formats outside of my home use. 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 to actually rebuild the signal to the closest identity. And as some have stated it might be getting pretty close. It might even be there already just some of us have experienced it yet. Just my thoughts but I may be wrong. Tell me.

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

Hi Unsound - while what you say about some performers using the mike to hide things is certainly true in some situations, in many cases they defer to the "sound guys," usually with very unfortunate consequences. These guys can be VERY infuriating, often completely ignoring the comments of very widely respected artists (not to mention the comments of the people who work in the hall on a daily basis, what could we possibly know). They usually want it to sound how they want it to sound, and there is often nothing the musicians can do about it.

This is one reason why I also agree with Al's comment that the mike set up is a much bigger factor than many audiophiles realize, especially for classical music. The vast majority of "sound guys" have no formal training whatsoever - they learn from other guys they work with, who also had no formal training. There are a few schools that offer sound engineering degrees, but I have no idea what they are taught there, as there are no really good texts on the subject. Sadly, the vast majority of them are just winging it most of the time, yet are too arrogant to take suggestions from the people they are recording, who usually have a very good idea exactly what they want to sound like.

This was not really true back in the so-called "golden age" of analog recording, from the late 50's through the late 70's, say. There were great engineers at every major label. With the advent of digital recording and the myriad of possibilities it created for using many more mikes and set ups, every single engineer does things completely different, and unfortunately any idiot can becoming a recording engineer now. Many musicians, not realizing that the engineers are so little trained, just assume that the engineer knows better, and then are very disappointed in the results.

We have some great responses. I think I feel that it is still so recording dependent. Back in my earlier days, late 60's, if I got a good recording that is what made my system sound more accurate, right, better in those ways. Equipment couldn't do that to the same extent for me. Of course I couldn't own the prevailing best at the time and what I did have was just something a couple levels better than the average person. When I think about it in the light of this discussion I think I am still there in wishing the recording was better more so than the playback source, and not as concerned about analog or digital to the same degree as the recording itself when it come to better sound but not better music. I drifted the thread a bit, sorry.

No attack was intended, my apologies. I simply meant, basic engineering principals can't describe how music sounds, or what type of sound one will prefer.

The Phase Linear scandal of the early 80's was a good example. They designed and built an amp with text book measurements, but the sound was considered horrible by all that heard it.
Tim

"I think I feel that it is still so recording dependent."

IF both your digital and vinyl sound are good to start, no doubt how individual recordings are made is without doubt the biggest factor by far in comparing. ITs like a major league baseball season. One format may dominate depending on a lot of factors, but neither is likely to go 164-0.

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

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

"Digital is an approximation" of the analog signal"

So is a record. Different means to the same end.

Good point Mapman. With my system it's about 50/50 as to which music I prefer on a format. Both are good but in different ways, there's no contraversy in my room.