Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

It's not a nice neat world Mike, it is having access to all the pieces along the way and knowing what comes out the other end, and knowing what is there and what is missing. It's having had access to the people making music and listening to what comes out and their comments. 24/192 digital in it's pure form, has far more "information" than is possible by any measure on 15ips tape, and way more than vinyl. When you strip away what happens in mixing and mastering and just look at what the format is capable of, 24/192 digital is unmatched, and 24/96 is not too far behind for practical purposes. Vinyl definitely colors what passes through, and even tape will create colorations. Digital is pure, it's detailed, its busy, everything is there ... and maybe that is too raw for most people. Musicians say it sounds truest to what they hear coming from the instrument, but they don't say it sounds the most pleasant. Throw in the cross-talk of vinyl and you have some other interesting psycho-acoustic effects unmatched by other formats.


Strangely enough, a really low noise floor (white noise), may even be a detriment. As Raul alluded, the at some level quantized aspect our auditory system coupled with its non-linear nature means that signal detection can be improved in some instances by adding noise. It's called Stochastic Resonance.


I have absolutely no doubt that high-res digital carries significantly more information than vinyl or analog tape. I have no doubt on a macro level that it is more true to the original sound.


What I have doubts about it whether digital/high-res digital is optimized for getting information into the brain

mikelavigne1,557 posts06-29-2020 3:45pm

Some may prefer vinyl but it can’t hold the information that a digital file can it’s impossible. If a square wave won’t play then something is wrong. No such thing as " all analog".

i completely understand your reluctance to allow actual listening to intrude on your nice neat world view. it does require a bit of effort.

@geoffkait, Has anyone every told you that you project (In the psychological sense), an awful lot? I don’t think I have seen one post from you that indicated you had any significant knowledge in any area important to audio. Pretty much most posts are blathering about CD players, and perhaps vibration, no matter what the topic and whether that was relevant.

geoffkait23,012 posts06-29-2020 4:00pmRobberrttddidd is a pseudo scientist. He is the very definition of one. Notice he doesn’t debate the subject, apparently he would rather pretend to have all the answers and call names.

Wasn’t it Niels Bohr who said never think you have all the answers?

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.

Based on the lack of creativity and repeated use of the same insults, same topics, etc., maybe @geoffkait is actually a BOT. That would explain the 23,000 posts. Jokes on us.

Cleeds,

I am not sure why you are taking such an adversarial tone. The links you posted really do not discuss this topic, and this is not a conversation about "mastering", which if done differently for the formats, will make them all sound much much different.

This is a discussion about high resolution digital, good quality analog tape, and vinyl and what they are capable of. The link that CD318 posted gets into this, but dig further, and you realize that even though the first post makes it look like an exact comparison, read farther into the thread and it is not (as I posted), not to mention at that time he didn't even want to discuss high res formats due to, at that time, lack of availability. There is little discussion of the playback chain as well.


I never mentioned distortion at all with regards to vinyl. I specifically said "analog processing". That is a critical difference. Again the link that CD318 posted is interesting as Steve says they could tell CD and vinyl apart by listening to the tails on sounds (which does make me question their digital signal chain), and that tape and acetate master sounded the same (to him). I could sit someone down and in about 10-15 minutes teach them how to easily identify vinyl at least with headphones and near-field monitors, based on how the "sound-stage" changes. In normal listening environments because of the interaction of speakers, room, and cross-talk, the effect is not as consistent. Notice I said changes, not better, worse, but different and you don't hear that differences between high res digital and tape.

I am familiar with Mike's tests, and see that you have different results. I know that Mike has very high end equipment, but in the audiophile world, with digital, that could work against the most transparent result.  Most high end audiophile companies claim to make products "tuned" for the best sound (to whoever was doing the tuning by ear). There is a difference between technically transparent, and "tuned". If the DAC is "tuned", then it is not a faithful transparent reproduction of the digital capture. This is similar to some high end DACs now having user selectable filters, which all sound a bit different, but without knowing what the original source material sounds like, how do you know which one is most transparent?  It's the same with MQA. Claims technical superiority, but is it transparent or tuned? 


Cleeds, you saw my posts w.r.t. azimuth tuning on a turntable, and how tonearm pivot effects azimuth with height changes. Should be obvious from those posts I am not a neophyte w.r.t. vinyl. You did, however, make my point with your last line. I never said as a group you are preventing advancing, nor did I say that enjoying LPs was flawed (just the opposite actually). What I said is that blind devotion to a format based on perceived superiority, that may not actually be the case, can prevent you from moving forward. You could call that blind devotion, blind aversion as well. It would be akin to not buying a 2020 Hyundai based on how bad the 1980's vintage Hyundai Excel was.

"The suggestion that those of us enjoying LPs may be "preventing the next leap" is just absurd. Many of us have made that "leap" and found the potential of digital is often not realized."

This applies both ways too. There is a lot of blind devotion to Redbook CD capturing all the possible range of human experience.

cd318, I remember that post well, it created a lot of confusion, frustration, and annoyance if that is the right word? ... check out page 2:

Ian Lascell said: ↑

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the same exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.

Steve Hoffmann: Glad you understand what I was trying to say. I am never sure it's coming out exactly like I mean it to.. Especially when typing in the back seat of a Taxi..

Not sure what generation of Pacific Microsonics unit they were using and can't remember if it was HDCD encoded, which had a "sound".

There, fixed it for you, both in accuracy, and in brevity. This will be the only attention I give you in this thread, so I would enjoy it while you can.

geoffkait22,775 posts06-18-2020 4:05pmAs far as I know I’m the only goofball here.

Somewhere out there Mike, there is a guy called George who would say your amplifiers are crap because they don't double in power output when you 1/2 the speaker impedance  :-) ...  and no I am not the one saying that and I don't agree with him.

What I will say is that even the peak watt meters will response somewhat "slow", and if there is a vast difference between the vinyl and digital wattage readings, that's the mastering, not whatever the source is, unless the source is artificially creating a "softer" sound.

Compared to CD, tape at 15, even 7.5 will have an extended frequency response past 20KHz. Compared to 24/96 or 24/192, the digital will have a much better frequency response >20KHz.
Musicians seem to most note the difference between vinyl and digital. They like how they sound on vinyl, but feel that high res digital is closer to reality (with all its warts).

No offence to Mike, but his room, his equipment, his sound, is still tuned to the sound he prefers, and that may even be a popular preference, but still a preference.

My personal experience when I have been working directly with musicians, and it is a view I have seen reported often (even here), is that when musicians hear recordings, they will identify high-res digital recordings as a more accurate representation of the sound of their playing. Note I did not say pleasing, I said more accurate. I find listening to our main system far more pleasing than reference headphones, but when I need to pick out fine details, the reference headphones are my go to, and even those I have a few of and they all sound different.


Not everyone who has heard Mike's system loves it:  https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-visit-to-mike-lavignes-home-and-sound-g...

@kren0006, get the DAC. That will give you access to a larger body of music played through a component capable of supporting a wider range of formats including 24/192,4/8x DSD, etc. that are unlikely to be found in physical media.

For what it is worth Mike, I am not terribly "welcome" on the ASR website as I far too often called out the errors in either Amir's measurements and/or conclusions based on his measurements. It was pretty brave having him over given his reputation and you can't win all hearts.  I find him pig-headed, and rare to admit his errors, but not dishonest, and his feelings about your system, while perhaps tainted by bias, may have very well been honest. We all have different likes.


The reason why, with rare exception I choose to be anonymous online, is working in an industry that crosses technical and creative boundaries in an era of cancel culture, I can't afford to "piss-off" someone who may be a revenue stream for people that count on me, simply due to a difference of opinion, not to mention I have had colleagues cyber stalked purely because of those opinions, and we are not talking political/cultural opinions, we are talking purely about technical opinions and personal preferences.

My perspective on the differences come from being very close to the creation, and being true to what is being created, or at least the ability to be accurate. My feeling is if you have accuracy, you can always tune for preference, but you can't go the other way.

mikelavigne,

I have worked in an aspect of the audio industry that has given me "access" to musicians and recording processes in fairly recent history, including some boutique all analog work flows.

Raul, et. all, please note one key aspect of what I posted. I stand by 24/192 containing far more "raw" information than vinyl/tape. However, note, that I also stated (in different words), that that does not mean that more information makes it into the brain, at least useful information from a musical appreciation stand point. This has nothing to do with technically ignorant hypotheses w.r.t. "continuous vs. discontinuous", timing, etc. which are born out of a lack of understand of signal processing.  It goes to more fundamental aspects of how humans "hear" music. Reduced total information can allow easier processing of the remaining information. Noise can improve signal detection. Cross-talk can reduce complexity (information), but also creates different spatial perceptions, and can even cause acoustic cancellation improving actual separation at the ears (especially with near field listening).

Well except for all those tapes lost in the UMG fire, and the ones that have been degraded so likely the best is a copy of a master.

I think I saw a 30ips remark above. Generally 30ips is useless as there is no bass response left on the tape. 15 is the best trade-off between bass and treble extension and mechanical stability and averaging out surface errors.  7.5 is better for deep bass.

To clear up a misconception though, tape is very much not "perfect" and can impart its own sound even just variances in alignment from recording and playback, especially when you get into bass frequencies.


Just some graphs for those not familiar with tape realities:    http://www.endino.com/graphs/

These next graphs look really good, but I expect there was some smoothing in the responses:   https://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?t=20460 
One interesting thing to note is the high frequency compression at 7.5ips if you push beyond 0db at relatively audible frequencies, and at >10KHz at 15ips. That can tone down high frequency peaks which can be pleasant and contribute to a "warm" sound.

Interesting article by Richard Hess on tape degradation and preservation. It's from 2008, so some comments

A combination of compression and making the quieter parts louder so that the dynamic range of the recording is compressed. It sounds loud on the radio and CD. It started with records in the 70s-80s, but really continued with CD, because records are limited in their average volume, more volume = wider tracks = less songs per side. CD of course does not have that limitation.

Try to replicate anything that looks like a square wave on vinyl, especially at anything close to high amplitude... it's not pretty. Music isn't square waves, but that gives an idea of bandwidth/timing/phase accuracy. There is far more "information" in a high-res digital recording than is possible on vinyl. One could make an argument for increased bandwidth in vinyl vs. CD, but one you go high-res or at least high sample rate with appropriate bandwidth, i.e. 24/96 or 24/192, that does away.

Good question! Maybe you can answer it as being non-technical on the topic has never stopped you before.

geoffkait23,053 posts07-01-2020 6:53am
How can a non technical person be expected to decide which argument is correct. Answer at 11. Cue glubson for clever retort.

Unfortunately Mr. Pebbles, there is no round hole, for your square peg in this topic. Try to find another topic to troll with your off-topic obsessions.

Mike, I will try to take you up on that offer to come listen after this whole Covid thing dies down which unfortunately looks like it won't be any time soon. I may even bring my own digital source. I would be interested in your thoughts compared to your reference unit.

@rauliruegas


If someone says cable A sounds better than cable B, that is a Subjective opinion. If that same someone can reliably differentiate between cable A and cable B in a controlled blind test, then we have Objective proof the cables are different.

Anyone who doesn't believe in blind testing really does not trust their ears no matter what they may claim.

I wonder who wrote this .... and whether they are a real scientist, or a quack?

"Götterdämmerung
Let’s say a recording was made of a live performance of Götterdämmerung with the Berliner Philharmoniker on July 21, 1930 between 12 Noon and 5 PM. During the performance the actual time coordinates of what was then Present Time - a unique time coordinate for each instant of the performance - are somehow captured on the recording along with the acoustic information of the musical instruments and singers. When the recording of Götterdämmerung is played at some point in the future - say, one day in 2010 - the stream of time coordinates from July 21, 1930 is projected into the listening room by the speakers along along with the acoustic information. The two out-of-synch streams of time coordinates - the Past Time coordinates from July 21, 1930 and the Present Time coordinates - confuse the listener and reduce his sensory acuity. So, even though the glorious sound of the Berliner Philharmoniker is reproduced in the room the listener cannot hear it in all its glory. "

p.s. the paragraph about predators and the internal clock ... ya, that is all pretty much quackery too, not to mention we evolved from animals that had the ability to measure direction and location with sound site, 10's of millions of years before the "dawn of man", of course many lower animals can do this as well.

It is quite clear that the pseudo scientist is the one who does not even understand what empirical evidence is. Sad really that he works so hard, 16 hours a day,  to mislead others. Not sure what is the motivation for that.

When a dude who lies about his qualifications as a physicist (I read old posts), sells Magic Pebbles to improve sound, and claims to improve audio via a telephone call .. just the call, not a call about audio, ...calls you a pseudo scientist, I will take that as high praise.  Must really burn your Geoff that you never got published, not once, after that paper in what Junior High and people who actually contribute to science like me get published, cited, even invited to speak. Your envy and jealously is really ugly but keep doing you.

Your repeated Wrong use of the term empirical evidence shows you do not know how to do research and I expect you never have. What you describe as empirical evidence is anecdotal evidence. I borrowed someone else's words but here, let me spell it out for you. Maybe you will learn something.

Anecdotal evidence is using your personal experiences and stories to illustrate your point. Empirical evidence is measured, unbiased, and replicable.

As a layperson in research I can understand your error. Empirical evidence can be observational, not hard measured, and you make the leap that that includes anecdotal evidence but it does not. It still needs to meet the scientific requirements of unbiased and repeatable


Here, this article may help:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/

I think I will order it as well, even to provide a common reference for discussions.

Obviously the rubber knives are because he is not trusted with anything sharper.

No worries glupson, if a few of us have it in analog, it will be something to discuss. I am always interested in the state of the art, no matter the media.

On another topic, it seems a certain pseudo scientist likes to dish it out, but doesn't like the taste when he is fed it. Do you think he is triggered by my posts that reference actual science related to audio?  Maybe? To this day I have yet to see a piece of electronic equipment that used magic pebbles for emi shielding.

Orange is the new black.

The whole concept of "K2" is stuck in the 80's sort of like Mr. Pebbles. This is a completely meaningless concept within any modern studio or playback system ... and not even really "modern".  Note they are "recording engineers", so not really "Engineers" w.r.t. having a proper understanding of the underlying technology. Most recording engineers have shockingly little understanding of the underlying technology they are working with.

Development History of K2

The development of K2 was started in response to calls from recording engineers in Victor Studio. They objected to the common idea that there was absolutely no change in sound quality no matter how many times the original data was copied when the music media is transferred from analog records across to digital CDs. Because digitalizing sound is encoded in combinations of zeros and ones. Although no changes occur in theory, the studio engineers claimed that there was a clear difference between the sound quality of the original master and the copied sub-master. So the engineers at JVCKENWOOD set about to clarify the reason for this. Subsequently, it was discovered that although the digital data was exactly the same, electrical distortion (jitter, rippling), etc. occurred when the data was being recorded and saved, which had an adverse effect when converting music played back in digital into analog, thereby proving that changes did occur in sound quality. An attempt by the two engineers to improve the changes in sound quality that occurred at this time led to the original version of K2, which was named the “K2 Interface.”

You are cute when you are triggered. It is easy to tell, your language will become more and more on the vulgar side. You like to dish it out, but you don't take it too well. Isn't that the sign of an insecure bully?

geoffkait23,260 posts07-06-2020 2:40pmStuck in the 80s? Looking in the mirror again, eh, Mr. Know-it-all? I am from the future, but sadly for you it’s not your future because you don’t listen to your superiors. You only run your mouth. That’s why you can’t progress past the newbie stage. God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. roberttdid same jackass as roberttcan.

I wonder if the irony is lost on Mr. Pebbles that I am the OP for this thread. Yup, pretty much a given.

I make mistakes, but at least I don't have to keep track of my lies ...

A few days ago I looked my my "Related to you" posts summary. The last word in the first seven entries was by no one other than our illustrious Mr. Pebbles. However, upon inspection, I had posted in 6 of those 7 threads before Mr. Pebbles. You doth protest to much Mr. Pebbles, for the stalker is thee. It would be interesting if you had something remotely worthy of a reasoned response every once in a while, but alas, all I have to look forward to are attempts at pithy ad-homs. How droll (and predictable).


All hail the greatness of the University of Virginia Engineering program:
#39 in Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (tie) At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate


No point in looking at the rankings for post-graduate with you as you never made it past under-grad. I believe you were the butt of a joke in Big-Bang-Theory once.

Isn't past your bedtime Mr. Pebbles? Put on those Depends and have a good evening.

Wikipedia doesn't have much in the way of jokes. You should be less hard on Mr. Pebbles.