... we know the dynamic range of cd’s is larger than vinyl ...
We know that CD has a greater potential dynamic range than LP but in practice, the opposite is often the case. Just look at the DR database.
LP has much better HF than CD.
Has anyone been able to define well or measure differences between vinyl and digital?
It’s obvious right? They sound different, and I’m sure they measure differently. Well we know the dynamic range of cd’s is larger than vinyl.
But do we have an agreed description or agreed measurements of the differences between vinyl and digital?
I know this is a hot topic so I am asking not for trouble but for well reasoned and detailed replies, if possible. And courtesy among us. Please.
I’ve always wondered why vinyl sounds more open, airy and transparent in the mid range. And of cd’s and most digital sounds quieter and yet lifeless than compared with vinyl. YMMV of course, I am looking for the reasons, and appreciation of one another’s experience.
137 responses Add your response
We all know where this thread is going, not going to be pretty.
@johnread57 Your post makes the first judgement by stating "vinyl sounds more open, airy and transparent in mid range", and "cd's and most digital sounds quieter and yet lifeless than compared to vinyl".
You do mention, YMMV which is an objective non-judgemental statement. My digital sounds nothing like your description, quite the opposite. My vinyl also is wonderful, no judgements of one vs other for me.
Why always the battle between the two? Very similar need to argue as conservative vs liberal battles, too few willing to state or believe both are capable of entirely satisfying sound quality.
To answer OP question. Based on my fairly long term experience with streaming, I'd suggest jitter is most valuable measurement for digital. Jitter mostly impacts sound stage size, organization, stability and more importantly flow of music, much more natural flow, I suspect we are far more sensitive to jitter than commonly assumed, even the most miniscule levels are perceived as sense of discomfort, aka digititus. Don't think there is comparable measurement for vinyl, wow and flutter likely closest? |
The place it counts is in the micro expression of transients and micro transients and the differences in level and timing between them. Vinyl does this surprisingly well, as does tube gear. And horn speakers are good solely in this small area of signal reproduction, having as much as 40% distortion in all other areas of the signal. The reason this is important, is this is how the ear hears, exclusively. The human ear hears and decodes just those bits, for the very larger part, in how it works. This is where digital and class d falls apart. Those are the points of greatest distortion, in digital and class D. thus, to the discerning ear, the one with listening talent and brains (some of it nurture, some of it nature), class D and digital sound like cack. when we measure the signals and the reproduced signals with engineering weighting, we find the opposite, on paper, as the engineering methodology uses the whole measured signal to discern which is more erroneous. This means diddly squat to the ear, as the ear only uses the small area where the vast majority of all distortion in audio reproduction --occurs. This is at odds with the linear minded types, the engineering types as they are just not getting the point, they are not getting the logic, they are not figuring out out, at all. In science, things are supposed to correlate to the situation at hand. Do you understand the question? Is the measurement relevant to the question at hand? If not, go back to the start and have a go at it again. Even when done, keep questioning the results and facts don’t exist..so that all finalized things can be gone over again and altered according to new results on the complex investigation of it all. That’s science. Engineering is specifically NOT exploration, engineering is designed for building things that work and use scientific theories turned into scientific law. Law...Which is a falsehood built for the engineering trade and training within it, for linear minds which are principally dogmatic in form and function. In audio, the measurement and the analysis is wrong, just plain wrong. Too many engineering minds on the job, trying to play it safe and keep things ordered & black and white. This is why the audiophile conundrum has existed for about 50 years. The ignorance of projection in the pundits that surround the engineering trade and ideals that are involved in the audio world. Interference (engineers from other areas) from outside audio (even more ignorant!!) helps keep the insanity frothing along nicely. To clarify, an engineer is not trained to commit to the scientific method or invention, they are trained to follow the books, as that is why they are engineers, not scientists who explore and change things as required when required. If you want to explore in formal sense, go back to school and get trained to see all as theories, which are subject to change from/on new data, tests and proofing, correlation, etc. Get trained as a scientist. When this mess erupts into fully blown projections in insanity of following the dogmatic rule books of engineering, we end up with things like ASR. The longer a problem sits unsolved, unresolved.. the more fundamental the error in the formulation of the question. Thus, the audiophile conundrum is deeper than this surface level stuff that people generally think it is. It’s deep in the minds involved, regarding how they explore reality. As long as dogmatic minds try to figure out what is wrong in audiophiles vs measurements, without moving to true and proper scientific method...the longer they’ll be spinning around and getting no real correlating clarity in any of it.
If one wants to have a audio forum that actually moves FORWARD, they'd put a post like this into a more even handed and rigorous form and fully fleshed out..and have that post or point be core to being accepted for posting on the given forum (required reading, checkmark required, etc), and the forum set up so that those who ignore it are chastised to some level, etc. Then the world of audio would be a less augmentative space. Much more comfortable for all. Find the point of grind and humanely eliminate it in as natural terms/ways as is possible. |
Good question. Seems a comparison could occur in the analog output of each to look for small differences that would reveal why there is a sound difference. Same with SS and Tubes, which I think has been done. One think I feel worth mentioning is the selections in the comparison. Comparing two copies reveals the difference between the copies, but I would prefer a comparison of the original to the copies. Advice I received long ago was to listen to live music and then go shopping for gear. For me, the baseline is live voice, or live drums, guitar . . . Then I want to know which recorded source format is closest to the real thing live. |
In my limited experience, Redbook, despite having a higher range, unless well recorded, doesn't sound particularly 'lifelike' as , say, vinyl. However, newer recordings at higher resolution, definitely seems to come closer to vinyl. Just re-issuing old recordings at higher resolution doesn't seem to offer the same results. Bob |
A thought I've been having lately is how noise changes our perception. I think some noise in the recording and perhaps even distortion gives the mind a place to go, to fill in what isn't actually there. When it's taken away there's no where for that to happen. Consider the dreaded soap opera effect with motion pictures. This happens when the frame rate is too high. The theatrical drama can be ruined even though it is technically superior. This may also be the case with too much resolution. I don't agree that digital messes up micro details or micro dynamics or somehow fails to reproduces some fine nuance of what we can hear. I suspect it's just the opposite, and the precision and lack of noise makes more bare and plain the limitations of using microphones to record music and then speakers, typically no more than two, to play it back. Another interesting thing with LP is crosstalk between the stereo channels, which is not just any old crosstalk but reversed in phase. Who knows what that does to our hearing perception but I've been playing with out of phase signals mixed with in phase from opposite channels and it can produce an amazing amount of spaciousness. Records do a little of this because of how the needle moves to create stereo. Digital doesn't do it at all. There's also pre-echo with LP. You can hear the neighboring groove before it's played, and I assume the trailing groove as well. LP mixes up some strange audio soup, and it's not surprising if people find some magic in that. |
I find that a system optimized for a particular TT and cartridge is not very likely to sound equally good with a digital source inserted into it., whatever it is. Your TT has a sound, and your streamer has a different sound. Optimizing for both in the same system is quite a challenge and I may be wrong, but I don't think enough people consider that. That a Linn LP12/Kendo/Sutherland combo is going to sound different from an Aurender/Mola Mola seems obvious. So, which one to you set up for? I'm still working on it. I think I'll go move my speakers... |
I think you are going to get a lot of upset comments because we have a more fundamental problem: Two digital sources can sound quite different, in so much that we cannot agree on common grounds for their performance, while the typical measurements will be so close that they statistically should not affect what we are hearing. Also, analog has a similar issue where two setups can sound so wildly different you think they come from different planets. So, depending on what kind of analog and digital folks have, they are going to give you diametrically opposite accounts.
What I have noticed is that at high levels they (A &D sources) start to sound closer and closer, and the defining feature will be how the recording was recorded: if it was recorded on a tape, it will sound analogue on BOTH digital and vinyl. When it was recorded in digital, it was sound exactly the same on BOTH digital and vinyl sources. For example, on my TT, the LPs recorded in digital format sound exactly as if I was listening to very high level digital source. That's what I am experiencing.
The other side of confusion is that measurement-based tests relate to a single example, not to the entirety of the format which will give a completely bad impression. Classic example of that is the LPs dynamic range, which is an absolute garbage piece of intel as the difference in dynamic range reproducible by a low and high level TTs is astronomical to say the least. Also, the measurmenets for analog and digital sources cannot be correlated to each other (A vs D), as the brain interprets analog noise VERY differently from digital noise, so the numbers that make sense to an oscilloscope or a microphone are nearly meaningless when trying to establish what the brain thinks of it.
On another note... let's say digital is Karate and analog is Kung Fu. (Let's stick to movie-style martial arts for now...) Q: How they measure, which is better? A: The one who is the master..... regardless the art. Chuck Norris will slay the clueless beginner Kung Fu-pups with his mere shadow, and Bruce Lee will drop the lot of the white belt karate kids with a single shriek....
Varietas delectat.... & no words nor theories can make up for personal experience. Enjoy your audio journey! ; |
Other issues emerge in this conversation such as phase shift pre echo vs pre ringing, and so on. I’ve always wondered how bass interacts with our hearing to subdue and enhance the listening experience. Good bass (whatever that is) seems to support subjective listening and hearing of music as if it carries the whole tune, although in many live situations it doesn’t carry so much as it supports yet remains individually separated. System synergy for one or the other source is a new insight for me. And noise itself, which may be frequency related or across the board can surely have differential effects, on hearing and listening. For those sensitive to clicks and pops an absolute distraction from the vinyl listening experience at times. |
A long time ago I read a couple of different articles about differences in dynamic range as well as separation and after that I gave up. The variability in mastering, not just from LP to CD or SACD but from release to release was so great. Some tests showed CD's having markedly reduced separation, or SACD being deliberately manipulated. It is possible that benefits to LPs today are in the hands of the ME's. Maybe they know the vinyl lover is pursuing a different sound than the MP3 downloader? At best, I think we could tell there was a trend with mastering engineers to get as loud as possible when CD’s hit. We’ve barely recovered from that in pop culture music. By all means, play what you enjoy! |
Thanks Eric and all others here. There is an almost immediate recognition but probably not foolproof double blind test differential between these two formats, isn’t there? The apparent open spaciousness and feeling of lightness airiness not on all tracks probably but in general to vinyl that isn’t the same in digital. These are instantly recognizable at least in enough cases that some here have agreed with the proposal. Not better, just different. Like was said earlier, better is a judgment of experience and that’s not my point here.
Its trying to describe and understand the differences.
Of course direct comparisons between tracks with same version is probably as close and discernible situation to hear those differences in. I’m sure there are YT example and experiments you can do at home. [Youtube limits aside, obviously] One of my reasons for asking is to poll our knowledge on this topic and hear the common and different perspectives of this topic. I see some common and divergent knowledge already. |
"Dynamic range" has multiple definitions even in professional sense. For starters, for a given recording one can derive large number of dynamic ranges based on even a single parameter of averaging over time. Then, if we go deeper, to psychoacoustics of music perception, we may start discerning different large sets of dynamic ranges for large number of frequency ranges, for "standard ear". Going deeper yet, we ought to take into account individual hearing systems differences. A typical teenager, for instance, may discern a wider dynamic range at 15KHz compared to a typical retiree. The standardized procedures are indeed useful, as they give general idea about the dynamic range of a given recording, allowing to compare different recordings in this regard, yet those are gross simplifications. Depending on the method of dynamic range measurement, most suitable in a certain sense for a given music piece and listener, ether CD or LP may be "proven" to have a greater potential dynamic range. |
A blind analog/digital test recently came to light which caused a great deal of consternation among the analog contingent of our hobby and brought doubt.to some of their claims of what they can hear. It was recently discovered that MoFi Labs had a digital step in the mastering - pressing chain of their Lps going back at least to 2011 and maybe even further back. MoFi found that record labels were often not willing to loan master tapes out to them, so they put together a portable Studer tape deck that they could take to the record label vaults to make copies of the master tapes that they then used to make their MoFi Lps, including the very expensive one-steps. MoFi started with the analog master tapes but they were recording them to DSD, plain old DSD in some cases but 4x DSD in most cases. Audiophiles bought these Lps for over a decade and loved them. There was the rare voice here and there that didn’t like them, but no more than with any album no matter how pure its lineage. Michael Fremer had a number of them on his 100 best sounding Lps list. Thousands and thousands of analog listeners could not tell that the MoFi Lps had been produced from a digital source even after many listens over a period of years on their own systems. So, MoFi definitely should have been upfront about the source for its Lps, but they weren’t, and no one could tell. I’m not saying that there aren’t differences between analog and digital, but there may be factors other than sound quality involved for those who find digital fundamentally flawed, In My Humble Opinion, YMMV.. |
It would appear the question is only valid if one could be comparing identical recordings, one in vinyl format and one in digital. On systems of equal quality. Assuming this is possible. Otherwise, we must all agree a great recording in digital beats a poorly recorded/mastered piece of vinyl and visa versa. It all sems to be a lot of navel gazing. IMHO. |
@tomcy6 agree, the upshot being perhaps the difference is the analog source chain produces the magic that analog enthusiasts talk about. But is it a distortion, or a higher fidelity engine? |
+1 @asctim |
to those who say that phonograph recordings [whatever format] have better treble response [overall] than digital, you would not like what engineer tom dowd said about that assertion. he said there were very few LPs played on very few turntables that were actually flat out to 20k on the last track of each side, that on the majority of LPs played on the majority of equipment, the majority of the inner-groove trebles above 10k were in fact distorted. |
I am experiencing the exact opposite of asctim in that as my digital, analog and total system becomes ever more resolving, transparent I become more relaxed as my mind DOESN'T have to work as hard to fill in the blanks. Certainly, one can feel there is excessive resolution if the added resolution exposes some anomaly that was previously hidden.
I'll go back again to what I surmise what may be the main bother with digital, and that is jitter. Perhaps precision is the better word to describe what many hear with their digital setups. I've experienced this sense of excess precision at various times in the evolution of my digital setup. I always have the ability to directly compare my digital to nice analog setup, and I have my aural memory of the best of the best vinyl setups. Easy to hear this extra helping of precision vs analog if it occurs. With the recent addition of my custom build streamer in which latency/jitter was minimized to perhaps SOTA, I am finally hearing digital that flows very similarly to vinyl. None of the over precision, analytical, nervous, digititus that is commonly assumed to be inherent to digital. As another poster above stated, I too am hearing greater convergence of analog and digital over time.
I don't hear any of the other liabilities mentioned above either, like micro or macro dynamic loss, all recording dependent on my setups. At this point I'd have to say the greatest variability between analog and digital is recording quality. I hear overly compressed crap with both formats.
It is interesting that so many didn't hear the digital step used on Mofi recordings. Perhaps it proves point digital and analog sound converging. ADC and DAC is continually improving, my digital setups have reflected this improvement over many years.
Another consideration. Vinyl is a more mature format, top tier vinyl setups have existed my entire lifetime. Digital only became mass market in 1980's, we had to suffer pretty bad digital sound quality for many years. Both ADC and DAC equipment has gradually improved over the years, and our gear has reflected that. I'm assuming analog sound quality is the reference for best SQ for most, including audio equipment designers/engineers, therefore, it follows digital would reflect a convergence to analog over time. |
Reading the answers, @asctim ’s most resonates with me. Some of my favorite recordings are on vinyl. Some of my favorite recordings are digital. I don’t feel a need to declare vinyl better than digital to like it. Neither is my first born :-) I have never seen any argument that holds up that supports vinyl having any property better than digital. IMHO there is probably something to the magic that @asctim describes, flaws or not. Vinyl also ties one had behind the back of the person working on it. Does that force them to pay more attention to what they are doing? Groove space is a limited quantity. Make the most of every one and do it right or it will sound terrible. Digital? Throw whatever you want down, it will fit and come out the other end. @sns , I cannot speak for audio equipment in general, but for professional speakers (that some consumers buy), except for lunch room conversations, analog as a storage medium is not something that ever comes up. We never say, "we better feed this with a record player or tape player in case we missed something" though some people bring in needle drops. IMHO as well, I think the MOFI debacle should put to rest much of these discussions. It won't, but it probably should. We could be spending effort figuring out where the magic comes from, not making up properties that always fall apart under the magnifying glass.
|
I have found that vinyl records sounded better than the same album on CD. My girlfriend whole heartedly agreed. I wondered why the CDs sounded relatively crispy and lacking in richness and fullness. I suspected frequency response, but this is hard to test on an LP playback chain. How do you test it? Is there a record with a sweep tone on it that can be used as a reference point? I couldn’t find one so I resorted to comparing the spectral content of the same song played through my CD player or through the LP chain. What I found was a nice gradual roll off of the highs on the LP compared to the CD. This was consistent across multiple albums. So using a digital equalizer I replicated that roll off for the CD player and the CDs sounded much better! I tricked my girlfriend with the equalizer. So that’s another interesting point about LP playback. What really is the frequency response? A gradual treble roll off does not necessarily create an impression of a lack of highs. It can sound bigger, fuller, deeper, more spacious. It might even sound more detailed if the overall balance in the listening room comes across better. If someone has experience with calibrating frequency response on cartridges and phono stages I’d like to learn more about that. If it turns out they really are producing flat playback response on most high end systems that would be interesting to know. My system was not high end, just a Sumiko Blue Point on a Project One turntable playing into a Creek integrated amp. Stereophile, I think, had put me on to that setup as a decent budget rig that could beat most digital. |
@asctim , here you go. https://www.audiogon.com/listings?q=test+record RCOA test systems record has a frequency sweep. So does the Stereo Review one but it is pretty old. Some newer ones here: https://store.acousticsounds.com/g/48/Test_Record
Perhaps you can post how to do your phase test and the frequency roll off. I wonder if that is unique to your setup? |
Thanks! So I assume those records have perhaps sweeps and pink noise, white noise, etc, which you could get a line level reading off of the phono stage output to analyze. Anybody here tried that? I did my testing using a Behringer DEQ2496 and calibrated microphone fixed on a tripod in front of one of the speakers. I didn't do a phase test. It had a real time analyzer on it and I’d just play the music on LP and watch that real time analyzer with it’s peak hold feature. I’d take a picture of it at the end of the song, re-set the peak hold, and then play the same song on the CD and compare the peak hold values at the end. It was crude but I could definitely see a consistent difference with the highs not coming up so much on the LP playback. I never tested the Sumiko Oyster cartridge I had before the Blue Point but I’d bet it was even more rolled off. That was a moving magnet cartridge and I had a Carver Pre-amp with the right settings for that. |
Interesting story indeed. Thank you for sharing. Plain DSD format, otherwise known as DSD64, uses 1 bit at 2.8224 MHz. Thus the density of recorded information is 2.8224 MegaBits per second. CD uses 16 bits at 44.1 KHz. The corresponding density is 16 x 44.1 = 705.6 KiloBits per second = 0.7056 MegaBits per second. 2.8224 / 0.7056 = 4.0. Thus, DSD encodes 4x amount of information per second compared to CD. DSD 4x, otherwise known as DSD256, encodes 16x the amount of information per second compared to CD. 11.2896 MegaBits per second. That's quite a difference. Why is that important? It is important because research of human hearing system resulted in understanding that the rate of flow of information from cochlea to brain is between 3.5 MegaBits per second and 4.0 MegaBits per second. Auditory processing circuits in the brain drastically compress this flow of information: this explains why lossy encoding works so well. Still, if some part of the original 3.5. to 4.0 MegaBits per second flow is arbitrarily removed, artifacts may occur. As we can see, CD falls about 5.7x short of the target of complete digital transparency. DSD64 falls about 1.4x short. DSD128 encodes more information, by factor of 1.4x, than the nerves running between cochlea and brain can transport. DSD256 exceeds the sufficiency threshold by factor of 2.8x, and thus shall be considered far more than enough. How does this compare to other common PCM formats? Let's see. 24 bits x 48 KHz = 1.152 MegaBits per second. Falls short of sufficient 4.0 by factor of 2.88x. 24 bits x 96 KHz = 2.304 MegaBits per second. Falls short of the sufficient 4.0 MegaBits per second by factor of 1.44x. About the same in this regard as DSD64. And finally, 24 bits x 192 KHz = 4.608 MegaBits per second. This exceeds the sufficiency threshold. Fittingly, this is the predominant format professional studios use for mixing the most complex recordings. So, two of the most commonly used formats, DSD128 and PCM 24/192, can be considered as transparent to human ear as any analog format can possibly be. The real tragedy of the 20th century is that so much music was published in the insufficient for full transparency format: CD of 16 bits x 44.1 KHz. |
Is there really any proof that remasters have compressed dynamic range (the so called loudness war)? Is it just a mostly baseless term intended to invoke an emotion? |
@fair , I see one major flaw in your logic. CD and two channel DSD is just that, two channels. When I am in a room, out in the wilds, or anywhere, there could be an infinite number of sound sources, that all contribute to that data you mention. When I am at home, there is only 2 sound sources. They may bounce off the walls, the floor, the windows, but there is only 2 sources. In another thread we are talking about ATMOS with 9, 11 or more speaker which still only simulates all that we can hear. Use that 11 speaker example at CD data rates. The rate is 7.8 mbits / second. 11 speakers is not enough. 24? Now 16.8 mbits/second. Well beyond your 3.5 - 4 mbits/second. I don't think you can correlate the data rate for the cochlea with the brain, which I suspect is a WAG, from sound information that comes from all directions, with what comes out of 2 speakers.
|
Yes there is. Many Cds have been dynamically compressed since the early 90s. You can find dynamic range numbers for a lot of albums at the Dynamic Range Database: Album list - Dynamic Range DB (loudness-war.info) There you can find which versions of a particular album have more or less dynamic range. You can then go to Discogs, an Lp and Cd marketplace, to buy the version you’re looking for: Discogs - Music Database and Marketplace Albums are supposed to be listed there by specific reissue so you can find the reissue that is supposed to sound the best or 2nd or 3d best. Check with the seller to make sure his albums are listed under the correct listing before buying. Reputedly better sounding Cds and Lps (e.g.less compressed) sell for more $ and sellers don’t always list their Cds and Lps under the correct listing. Probably just an honest mistake, but I suggest checking before buying anyway. On a related note the dynamic ranges of Lps and Cds on the DR database cannot be compared directly. It has something to do with the way the site measures DR that makes direct comparison between the formats inaccurate. I’ve read an explanation before, but I can’t remember what it is. |
"An album with DR 6 doesn't necessarily sound overtly bad. And an album with DR 12 doesn't necessarily sound good (but the DR isn't to be blamed at least). For rock/metal a DR of 8 and above is considered okay. Electronic music can still sound okay with DR 5 because it is less dense." |
Is the impact of 2 channel speaker systems equal for either source? Regarding Atmos as a multi source format, I wonder how robust it is vs say binaural recording playback. My impression also is that Auro3D is more ‘immersive’ and therefore more accurate in capturing natural environments. Oth ambiophonics offers another method of playback that reveals the power of certain types of immersive systems. |
We are in the early days of ATMOS and Auro3D. I have heard some bad recordings and some exceptional ones. I think it will be difficult to find a sweet spot with users, most will not put in that many speakers. In theory the object oriented nature of ATMOS takes this into account, but my gut is it may be difficult to translate recorded live events with multiple microphones to a different speaker array. Of course, where all the speakers get a signal manufactured for them through mixing, then it likely will work fine. These formats on headphones will be popular far before they are for speaker systems. Can you imagine the remixes from older material? Scary! I do not know what you mean is the image of 2 channel speaker systems equal? |
@wturkey do you have a link? G’day @thespeakerdude An esoteric question I admit, just wondering if 2 channel speakers present digital and analog audio in the same way or do the different audio profiles get presented in different ways by the same speakers/system? Maybe system dependent. And I’m sad to say that Auro3D looks gone before it had a chance to grow. This format used less speakers to create a solid immersive experience. Shame Dolby didn’t buy it. |
How much have you experimented with binaural recordings? Done right, at 24/192, they provide convincing illusion of being there. Until listener turns his or her head. Turning the head, moving it, standing up and moving body around, going to an adjacent room, and so on. Those of course break the illusion. Yet this is an orthogonal consideration. Naturally, physical movement and physical action may change what the listener hears, with all else staying same. What I was discussing wasn't Complete Illusion of Being There. That would heavily depend on the degrees of freedom the listener possesses. For instance, let's restrain the listener to only rotating the head 60 degrees left and 60 degrees right. Then we'd need to increase the amount of information 121x, in a brute force approach. 121 variants of binaural recording made for this particular listener with the rotation resolution of one degree would maintain convincing illusion of still being there, as his or her head rotation is tracked. There are ingenious compression schemes cutting down the amount of information that needs to be recorded in such case, yet, as with any lossy format, one must carefully think about compression artifacts elimination. What I was discussing is rather different: the amount of audio information that needs to reach each ear, every second, such that further increase of this amount can't change what the listener perceives. If there isn't enough information - because it just can't be encoded in a given format - then there is a possibility of the listener noticing the artifacts beyond those inherent in the audio setup. The artifacts may ruin music enjoyment. Yet another relevant consideration is that high amount of information may not even be contained in a second of a specific piece of music. "A girl and a guitar" and "full symphonic orchestra" have quite different information-generating capabilities. In this context, I claimed that CD format is insufficient for capturing full information inherently transmittable by stereo setup, whereas stereo DSD128 and PCM 24/192 formats are sufficient. So, discussion of Analog vs Digital ought to take into consideration what is meant by "Digital". It is true regarding "Analog" as well of course, yet the context of this discussion was clear on that, the Analog being stereo LP format. |
Thanks all for not letting this devolve! The concensus seems to be pointing to "desirable" noise and/or distortions such as even harmonics, cross talk, phasing etc creating (or the illusion of) a difference, preferred or not . Im thinking of all of the ways a sound in nature propogates. Reverbs, numerous random reflections (creating distortions and affecting phase in frequency dependent way) density variations in the air, etc. Indeed maybe our brains might "expect" less than ideal waveforms. Perhaps "ideal" might be best approximated by something like DDD studio recordings on highly resolving systems (dither its own issue). While potentially similar but not proof, in digital signal processing some computations converge best, even require, some additive digital noise (variations in the digitized stream). Maybe our ear/brain pair expects similar to be happy. Im asking, but do full digitally recorded live performances suffer as much as studio recordings to folks? Or is the point of divergence at playback? Perhaps a recording "live" in a venue (think natural distortions) mitigates the "perfect" waveform idea, even if it is a DDD recording. Strike a tuning fork at any frequency. Play the same pure frequency on a modern electronic device. Conduct a poll as to which sounds subjectively better. Seems obsurd but extrapolate to a guitar and even virtuoso performer on a hypothetical "pure note" guitar. Enjoy what you find most pleasing, but i too am curious like the OP. Im guessing this topic never goes away. |
I am familiar with binaural representations of full immersive audio space. It is still only a representation of a full immersive space and sound sources. Do you have a link to these data points? I think I have seen that before or had it mentioned to me and there is another error in your interpretation, probably more significant than the one I mentioned. The hair cells each respond to a range of frequencies and triggers the nerve associated with it. The cell next to it does the same. There is a large overlap of the frequencies between cells / nerves, but each one generates a signal, or data based on your inference. Because there is overlap and the range of frequencies is large for each cell/nerve, then there must be massive data redundancy. There may be what looks like 3.5-4.0 megabits of data, but most of it is redundant, and if combined to generate a single data stream, the amount of data would be far less. We cannot hear over 20Khz. In a listening room, 90db exceeds the full range of human hearing from the quietest detectable sound above the noise floor to the loudest sound we can tolerate, and at those levels, much of it distorted. Are you familiar with Shannon Hartley formulas, C(bps) = B * log2(1+SNR) ? This states that the maximum data that can be transmitted in a channel is Bandwidth * log2(SNR+1). This provides the CD data rate. |