When and how did you, if at all, realize vinyl is better?

Geoff, please pay attention. Don't take my words and stuff them in your mouth when that was not my intention. ;-).

That comment was referring back to my original post. I was not talking about you, just indicating why I thought the person in my original post should have their (not your) system on Audiogon.

Best Regards,

Jim Perry

@jollytinker 

"I haven't spent more money on the digital side of the system because I just don't believe it will change the sound significantly enough to justify the outlay."

This is where I am at too.  I have an NAD Masters M51 DAC (Stereophile thought it was A list) and I can't get it to sound as good as my analog section either through Tidal's masters, through hi resolution downloaded files, or through CD to the DAC.  It does sound great though. Maybe the NAD is not the best, but if it's a Stereophile Class A I wonder how much more I'd need to spend and I'm not confident that it would get me to the land of Oz. 

jperry, no problem.

I would not have tripped over your post if, instead of writing,

"We are all entitled to our opinions Geoff. I think if you are going to make a comment saying someone's system, or portions of it are inadequate, you should show what you have as a comparison."

you had written,

"We are all entitled to our opinions. I think if someone is going to make a comment....he should show what he has as a comparison."

cheerios

Thanks for the correction

@jbhiller 

That NAD sounds interesting - I hadn't heard of it.  I like the Hugo a lot (people say it sounds 'analog' lol) but it's a bit high maintenance because of its small size, so one day I'd like to get something more hefty like the NAD.  with modern conveniences like HDMI inputs... 

But on the topic here - I honestly don't care whether people like analog or digital better. To each his own, and if people get a high from going down the rabbit hole of computer audio, more power to 'em. I do think there's an objective "truth" I'm hearing, but I also have to recognize that what sounds good to people is a result of training and culturally informed tastes. I grew up listening to vinyl, and I never liked CDs from the time they first came out. so maybe i like that sound because I'm used to it, and the clicks and pops don't bother me. My friends in their 20's are more 'digital native' and they just seem comfortable with that sound, even though to me it feels compressed and lifeless. who knows... 

But what bugs me - and I see it in this thread - is the assumption that people like analog because of some deficiency, like they're hearing impaired, or out of step with history, or too rich and elitist for their own good. In other words, the argument against analog at some point turns into an ad hominem attack, instead of an actual (factual) debate. Why?  

I've ALWAYS known vinyl was better. Didn't you?  Yes even through the dark days...

Jollytinker

Don’t know if you read it but if you can get a copy of the latest Stereophile you might want to read the first paragraph of Analog Corner by Michael Fremer to see just how heated this debate between analog and digital can get.

To answer your "why" I would only say there is nothing rational that could remotely answer that, as there is no clear answer for the political division in our country other than one simple thing to my mind, we have a tendency to talk past each other rather than to each other.

Looking for a digital solution that won't drop the sound quality drastically from my vinyl setup but listening to the LPs last night I am simply mesmerized by the sound quality- the soundstage, the flow of the music, the character of the sound.  I play a CD and it sounds un-natural and like someone is putting on the brakes after notes- no flow at all- stop start stop start....
I'm interested in the Sony ES server but from what I have read it uses some upscaling engine. That seems like processing / coloration although the times I have heard it I have liked it.  I still believe it will not sound as good as playing an LP though- but a trade off for convenience.  

The key to analog like sound with digital gear is to use a Non oversampling DAC like a Audio Note , Metrum , La scala , or Shitt multi bit . The other word of caution is that USB is a problem if not implemented right . The three keys to great digital are NOS DAC , clean power and the quality of the clock .    

@tubegroover thanks for your answer, that makes a lot of sense. In hindsight I thought my post was a bit shrill and I even considered deleting it.  But you have it right - it sort of goes with the territory, and the lack of "hearing" in our society can certainly be found on all sides.  

I've ALWAYS known vinyl was better than shellac. Didn't you?  Yes even through the dark days before 1878.

I'm a new convert or at least a recent returner.  Had vinyl in 70's early 80's.  Rented a home with a really nice lp collection and TT/amp /speakers.  I was instantly addicted. 

Three things.
Most of the music I enjoy was made for vinyl.  
The act handling the media , album covers, TT is enjoyable, relaxing.  
Hunting for bargain albums is fun.
The sound quality is far superior to anything I've had since the 80's

ok, that's four things.  I could go on.

To answer the original question posed by this forum, I realized vinyl was superior to silver discs about a year after purchasing my first CD player.  While digital disc playback has made leaps forward since then, in my system vinyl playback is still miles ahead.

@jsm71 you describe my own thoughts on this well! I’m sure that at the top end of the spectrum there’s a rough parity between vinyl and digital at this point. But there are a number of reasons why I don’t get the "bug" to go after that high end sound in digital format. For one thing, I spend so much time on a computer during the day that messing around with the file structure on my Baetis server when I’d rather be listening to music is really a buzzkill. And as you say, my LPs never stop working because of format changes or digital rights management. The best sounding digital files are at this point gigantic things that cost a lot of money. But a $4 dollar LP can sound just as good. or better. The other thing - and I can’t explain it either - is that LPs hold my attention as if I’m hearing the actual performance, whereas even the best digital reproduction (that I can muster - Hi Res, good DAC, etc) sounds like a very nice image, but just an image. I’m sure there’s a technical way to explain what I’m hearing, but I don’t know what it is…

There is something therapeutic about analog sound that relaxes me that digital simply lacks. I can't explain it.

Dr. Herbert Melcher has shown that the brain has tipping points. Normally music is processed by the limbic centers; this is where toe tapping and other emotional reactions come from. When things go awry with the sound, the brain seamlessly transfers processing to the cerebral cortex- the seat of the conscious portion of the brain. When this happens, the emotion content of the music is diminished or lost.

The problem for digital is that it contains harmonics unrelated to the fundamental tones (instead are intermodulations related to the scan frequency). The ear is used to hearing harmonics that relate to the fundamental tones in some way. Now this inharmonic distortion (aliasing) is not a great amount, but the ear is very sensitive to any harmonic content that is higher ordered (uses it to measure sound pressure so it has to be sensitive) and is also tuned to birdsong frequencies (where many of the aliasing artifacts occur).

In this regard the ear is usually more sensitive than test equipment.

In top of that, the aliasing does not come off as separate tones unless you use special techniques to detect it (an analog sweep tone works rather well though). So the ear converts the result as a tonality of some sort. This is why digital frequently has a crisp sound while analog some how sounds more 'round'. Its a coloration, and unlike analog one that cannot be separated from the music being reproduced.

The result: less emotionally involving/more boring.

@atmasphere  - wow that's really interesting and helpful, thanks. 

I was never completely convinced that vinyl sounded better than digital.  Back in the 80s I was quick to embrace the CD.  The absence of pops and clicks was enough for me abandon records.  Do to my modest analog setup I had never heard the true potential of vinyl.  CDs were a no brainer and seemed to sound better.  I played CDs exclusively for over a decade.  Sold my turntable but fortunately kept my records in storage.  Over time, as I acquired better speakers, amps/preamps etc. and as I started paying more attention to the criticisms of digital vs vinyl, my curiosity got the best of me and I purchased a basic VPI turntable.  Also at the same time I bought a VPI record cleaner.  Owning the highest quality turntable/tonearm/cartridge I had ever had in my life AND having the ability to properly clean my records were revelatory.  Clearly, my records had never sounded better and I spent countless hours revisiting my old record collection.  I ended up upgrading my analog system to a VPI Aries table with improved tonearm a cartridge.  The records just sounded better and better.  Still, I was not convinced that analog was better than digital; just that it was a lot better than I had ever experienced.  It wasn't really until about of month ago when I got my new Vandersteen Quatro CT speakers and listened to my first record that I finally "got it".  Now I finally understand what all the fuss was about.  My system had finally improved to the level where the sonic benefits of vinyl made itself obvious.  The more revealing my system has become, the more sonic characteristics made themselves known.  The speakers were the final and biggest step that convinced me.  Of course now that I have such revealing speakers I am also curious to try new digital sources as well.  So it goes....

Convinced that I would never go back to the clicks and pops of vinyl, I gave away my turntable and then let a friend stop by and "cherry pick" my album collection. He walked away with a pretty sizable stack. Thankfully he didn't care much for Lee Morgan, and he already owned lots of Coltrane! But  a good portion of my Blue Note collection was decimated. Oh well ...

Then my old college roommate decided to get back into vinyl. He picked up a Denon AVR, basic table, and Pro-ject phono preamp to go with B&W bookshelf speakers. The first time he cranked it up I was blown away by how much better it sounded than anything I'd heard on my all digital system!

There was a richness in sound and texture that I hadn't realized was missing. To me, the difference between digital and analog is like the difference between really good frozen yogurt and ice cream. Each is very good in its own right, but one is clearly better than the other (IMHO).That's how I found my way back.

Ralph, you have been probably the most consistently knowledgeable, helpful poster here (the whole forum) for the past decade or more (despite your biases - many of which I share).

The post above is very interesting.  Something along those lines definitely jives with my experience with digital music - there is something unnatural about it that no amount of expense or technology can seem to completely eradicate.  

With really good digital you won't notice it right away, which is one reason rooms with digital sources can win "Best of Show" awards, but it is always there in the end.

This includes digital recordings of vinyl made at high PCM resolutions and sample rates or DSD128 and studio-quality equipment.  You may think it sounds indistinguishable at first (I did), but eventually, once you are trained, you can hear, immediately, what it is that never fails to get to you over time.

The experience points to information uncorrelated with the input signal, as you say.

The way I look at it: the ticks and pops (which can be minimized with good phono preamp design, as a poor design will have a lot more ticks and pops) exist in space separate from the music. With digital, the coloration is inherent in the music itself.

Regarding the former: if the preamp is unstable, ticks and pops are exacerbated. This is nothing to do with bandwidth- its possible to design a phono preamp with 100KHz response and still have it be stable.

When I listened to a CD and was astonished by the spectacular sound and fidelity, then put a LP on and was astonished by the sound of a performance.

When CD was introduced;My friends and I didn't buy into it. We had too many LPs. A few yrs later, (3-4) , a couple of the guys each bought a player and their first CDs. Their take on it was that there were No tics and pops, better bass, better cymbals (?), and Long playing time.
 I didn't buy into it. I bought the LP12 that I still use. It blew me away! Records sounded better than ever. That was the start of my high end journey.

I knew vinyl was better when I saw this:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/love-the-world-s-first-intelligent-turntable-music-design--2#/

... Yeah, definitely gonna toss my VPI turntable in the garbage when  the Love comes out. can't wait!   

Actually to be honest, this thread has gotten me thinking again about improving my digital setup. Much as I love the Chord Hugo DAC, it’s not that user-friendly as home stereo component. Too small and travel-oriented. So there’s a lot of music going unlistened-to on my server. Maybe I need me one of them Tabletop Hugos... (he says while looking around to see what he can sell).

And another down side of vinyl: as I improve my analog system over time, I’ve come to realize that much of the vinyl I buy - maybe even a majority - just doesn’t sound that good. Either it’s poor recording or mastering, or it’s an old and trashed record that looked fine in the store. Cheap software is a key part of the equation for me, so this is kind of a PITA.

I will admit that ON AVERAGE digital files may be better than analog, because digital sources eliminate this whole issue.

Better? Than CD, presumably?

As soon as I learnt how CD worked, I knew it was two steps forward and three back. Just not enough resolution.

Actually listening to them (waaay back, before they were even for sale) confirmed my fears.

It was introduced before both AD/DA conversion and optical disc manufacture were mature technologies.

Had it waited a decade, for PCM resolution at least three or four times higher, and a disc able to  to accomodate the same 74 minutes (or more) of this increased amount of data, it might not have been the disaster it was.

I will admit that ON AVERAGE digital files may be better than analog, because digital sources eliminate this whole issue.

I've not found that to be the case! The fact that there are a lot of poor recordings out there has been going on a long time and digital, if anything, exacerbated that as there are so many more recordings done on laptops and the like with severe budget restraints.

The recording industry wanted digital to happen as the recording cost is so much lower- almost non-existent in many cases. Analog requires that you spend a fair bit on the tape for the multi-channel machine; 1" and 2" tape that only goes for 1/2 hour gets to be a hefty cost in very short order! But if you have a laptop and some cheap microphones you're in business with digital and a lot of such recordings have made their way into the marketplace. 

^^ Exactly, Rainer. Susi jo syntyessään... About CD we audiophiles used to say here back in the day :)

That flawless medium that after a while started to evolve even better , and gradually even better (more bits) and finally we got a super version of the format, the mighty SACD.  The hyper perfect audio disc. I just kept thinking how can a perfect thing get better all the time. And for convenience ? Well, it´s just a matter of taste but the damn cover was too large to put into pocket and liner notes too small to read.

CD never fooled me but it is alright when doing homework like vacuum cleaning (my new machine is very quiet ) and washing car :)

Music Hall MMF 2.1 (my first TT) on a freshly vacuumed copy of Rush 2112 (Nitty gritty 2.5) through a crappy RadioShack phono stage into a cheap Denon receiver and a pair of Mirage FXR-7's.  I have the same album on CD.  The vinyl sounded so much more smooth, the highs were not harsh...all the normal vinyl cliche's apply...liquid, dynamic, tight bass...Geddy's vocals sound amazing...Alex's guitar...

I have since upgraded everything...but vinyl still rules for me.  I have about 2,000-3,000 digital albums all ripped to my QNAP NAS, and I still listen to digital (mobile / car and when I'm lazy at home) but for critical listening, I love vinyl the best...particularly for jazz.  Pepper Adams all day long!

Current 2 channel rig is Music Hall MMF9.1/Goldring Eroica LX LOMC/Budgie SUT/Hagerman Bugle self-built-kit phono stage with dedicated power supply, Emotiva XMC-1/Emotiva XPA-1 Gen II monoblocks and GoldenEar Triton Ones.  I also have two pairs of Mirage M3si's with freshly re-foamed mids that I love and will never part with, and I sometimes put in an Audible Illusions Modulus II for the phono stage for some vacuum tube goodness added to the chain in lieu of the Hagerman.

Reviewing comments of those who abandoned vinyl in favor of cd only later to return to vinyl I am struck by how this reflects on the flaw inherent in blind a/b listening tests.

Like many others I whole heartedly embraced cd when it was first introduced.  Hard to deny it's convenience, lack of clicks and pops sharp highs and tight, impactful bass.   It was only after extended listening that digital's flaws became evident.  The air, bloom and smoothness just was not there.  In short most cd's were not musical.  This realization does not come from short term a/b comparison.

While more recent high rez digital files are very close if not the equal of analog, if I purchase music I want to be able to unpack it, hold it in my hands and place it in or on my player.  Knowing it is on my hard drive is just not the same.

The question is not yet complete, so we will likely not find the correct answer.

We are not finished defining the psychoacoustics of how the ear works - what the ear expects and needs to enable it to decode and identify a quality signal.

Engineering terms and weighting does not specifically or directly apply in perfection. That would be an assumption by those who use engineering terms, methods and weighting when measuring and comparing signal creation and reproduction methods.

However the generalization is strong.

That the ear does not use math, it uses a specific methodology in a physical realm.

Then we have the differences in each individual's physical aspects and their personal neural development and employment, as a genetic and upbringing scenario.

So we get to having different emphasis in desires and exceptions in those physical biological scenarios.

In that (the human biological package), the generalization is strong.

But both are not detailed specific related aspects, they are generalizations... and are laid on top of the scenario as if they are the perfected fundamentals of the question or equation.

Since the question obviously remains unanswered in a way clear enough for all involved, they are obviously not the specifics of a totally functional question.

But both are not detailed specific related aspects, they are generalizations... and are laid on top of the scenario as if they are the perfected fundamentals of the question or equation.

Since the question obviously remains unanswered in a way clear enough for all involved, they are obviously not the specifics of a totally functional question.

As best I can make out this statement is false.

We know that the ear converts distortion into tonality. Further, we know the kinds of distortions made by digital and analog systems.

We also know that the ear is tuned to be most sensitive at birdsong frequencies (Fletcher Munson). So any distortions occurring in that range will be easily detected by the ear.

The distortions of analog tend to be harmonics of the input signal.

The distortions of digital tend to be intermodulations between the scan frequency and the signal (aliasing).

Analog systems tend to lower ordered harmonics (particularly in the case of the LP, where the mastering process makes very little distortion; most of it occurs in playback). These tend to be less audible to the ear and are interpreted as 'warmth'.

The distortion (aliasing) of digital systems manifests as 'birdies'- so called because that's exactly what they sound like. These tend to be higher in frequency, and since the ear generally uses higher ordered harmonics as loudness cues and because the ear is particularly sensitive in this range, and also because the ear converts distortion into tonality, the result is a 'crispness', a brightness inherent in the recording.

Analog hiss, ticks and pops are not always inherent, and often sit in the speaker while the music itself exists in three dimensions. Thus its possible to listen past such artifacts (keeping in mind that the phono preamp can be a major contributor to ticks and pops if it has an unstable design, which is quite common), whereas with digital, the artifact is pretty well built into the resulting signal.

I am confident that this will change in time- it already has changed a lot since the bad old days of digital. Were this difference not there, digital would have replaced analog long ago, no looking back and no mistake and no endless analog digital debate (which is older than the Internet).

So in spite of my long diatribe, you really don't have to know anything more than the fact that analog is still very much here and alive when it really shouldn't be. The market likes it and kept it around for a reason.

So we can answer unequivocally that the highlighted statements are false and that we really do in fact have an answer on this. 

Industry wise, source wise, we’re looking at the takeover of the market by the one hit wonder.

A one hit wonder that will likely become a multimillionare overnight from said one hit.

The current leaderboard example of this coming trait, is in that most wired of countries, Korea. It is PSY, with ’Gangnam Style’.

Politics, business, and anything else you care to mention will move in the same direction. We’re seeing it happen now.

As the physical basis of memory and recollection in the masses is decreased to zero, their societal and cultural anchor points will be loosened and they can be changed (slowly) into whatever is of the will of the hands at the given controls.

Humanity will begin shifting fast in the next few decades. The question is into what. The physical mechanism of life in humans cannot change all that fast but the clothes of society and culture can change fairly quickly, in comparison. We now know, in recent work gone public (there is likely considerable work that may not be public) from multiple branches of medicine and similar areas (ie, genetics) that humans can change their genes fairly quickly and it is possible and in every person, that some minimum change in genetics can and does happen in the single lived life. Never mind that of passed on generational changes. So a careful manipulation of a society in a state of impermanence, ie a life in digital reflection, can and will inform genetics. It is our history that prevents this or slows it from occurring as quickly as it is truly capable of.

It’s like having the only copy of a program in active memory. If systems crash or mods and alterations fail or cause grief, there’s nothing left to recover. In such a scenario, the back-up is the physical reality of the physicality of the genotype in action. Which, at the given time, may not have a functional overlay in the thrust of the given society and culture.

This coming scenario, planned or not... will be taken advantage of by interested groups. Splits in humanity, or separations in to groupings that did not previously exist, may be the new norm. 500 years from now, we may have a new form of separation of genotypes that is so pronounced that it is easily recognizable and labelled. New science says it is not only possible and that minimal forms of it have always been happening, albeit in an atmosphere of noise so great that it levels out to moving toward a near zero. A micro upward trend, in some given direction. What we call evolution in an atmosphere of complexity.

The coming fluid or greased societies and cultures of a truly digital age, will allow for this phenomena to emerge in a more obvious fashion. The alpha-beta-delta-gamma nightmare, in it’s genesis point, possibly.

If those groups (of manipulators of scenarios) be nationalized, expect a nightmare of conflict, as the given manipulators, being humans, will make mistakes in their assessments of what they desire -and what they do.

Your records and CD’s going missing are only a small component of the signs of what is to come. They are a critical one, as they are about human desires and emotions, in the flow of life. Which are core components of human life. These sort of components (emotions and desires) are a core point in the how and why of those given genetic changes over time and in the given lifetime. It is most pronounced in the changes of the sperm of the male, at the time of fertilization. The male and it's life stresses and conditions prior to and in the production of sperm... are what enables these the most pronounced of these noted changes. That your stresses in life, at the moment of conception, informs your child's genetics. The past -70-100 years of conflict in the middle east serves as a potential example of how this works. There are other areas of the world that can show this effect, but the current one on most people's minds -who may be reading this- is of the Middle east. Baby boomers from war zones were actually the test bed that illustrated the genetic changes in sperm - as a reality.

So it becomes and audiophile (mostly male) scenario and question, to at least a small degree. Know what you are living through. Know what you are witnessing.

Music has always been that of living memory, so it is somewhat immune, in some ways, regarding manipulation. But digital overlays, a VR overlay of a sort, is a thing we are undergoing regarding this ’memory over time’ aspect of electronic music and the scenario surrounding it.

No answers here, just a logical expansion of the questions into their true space or envelope of connectivity in the overall human scenario.

Teo_audio are you speaking of genetic engineering in humans? Or epigenetics? Or both? 

Might I suggest using the term phenotype instead of the bulky 'the physical reality of the physicality of the genotype'? Unless you meant something other than phenotype by that phrase.

We're already seeing self selection of genes based on wealth.. I wonder what types of genetic correlations we'll see within these self selected groups. And if/when those differences become isolated and pronounced enough to produce what would be considered two separate species

I’m not an expert in the technical language or the exact descriptors, so my descriptions will be fraught with errors, misconveyed meaning, etc.. But the shape of the issue or considerations involved in this, can be seen. Look at the what is outlined, not at the technical language couching issues.

I apologize for not being perfect. (non-emoted statement, nothing intended) I’m trying to show that...the reality of what digital audio as a world of music and life in general is.. that this question and answer can be seen as a part of a story that is much greater. That this music scenario is just a symptom, a sign, etc.

When genetic testing costs and associated factors began to drop to the levels it is at today, scientists could embark on these more detailed and complex questions, with some form of answer now being possible to emerge.

IIRC, they may have started with stressing populations of mice. And then doing genetic testing generationally, and correlating back to the complex social behaviors in these captive populations.

They found all the correlation they thought they might, in human populations that have undergone much stressing, regarding upheaval and change.

Never mind things like the idea of a viral injection into a group as a vehicle for genetic shifting, or choosing genetics of a child, and so on...which are already strong possibilities and even realities... with today’s known science. That’s a totally separate question that can be included as backdrop addition, but likely not suitable for this forum.

That can of worms being opened has also shown this far faster shift in humans via environment, which is connected to the music in a visceral fashion. Eg, we’ve recently found via the sciences, that humans seem to process music in the same part of the brain we process and deal with sex. Which is core. As core as it gets. Total reptile base level stuff.

Which helps explain the issues that erupt on audio forums like this. The reptile brain takes over and disarms and defeats the so called consciousness aspects of the human. After all, that’s it’s job. Consciousness is a privilege or aspect of a complex social/environmental scene, it is not a core requirement for species survival.


Just to be clear, this is the Ken Hotte portion of Teo Audio, not Taras. So if you encounter Taras at a show... this little conversational bit is mine, not his. ;)

Consciousness is a privilege or aspect of a complex social/environmental scene, it is not a core requirement for species survival.

Really not sure about that statement. Lots of very old-school assumptions embedded there. I'd say 'consciousness' is a lot older and deeper than just humans, and long a key to "species survival." 

In other news, I appreciate Ralph's point about how the cheapness of digital recording contributed to its dominance. I can remember recording on analog equipment in the 80s, and marveling at the beauty of the playback on a good reel to reel machine (can't remember the make).  I don't recall ever having that feeling with digital recording.  

But on the other hand, one has to recognize that the cheapness and ease of digital recording and reproduction has led to an incredible amount of musical creativity, whether through digital sampling, listeners 'curating' huge collections of diverse music on their hard drives, or the democratization, to a point, of musical recording.  Digital has been detrimental but in the very limited (and elite) value of accurate musical reproduction in the home. 

Really not sure about that statement. Lots of very old-school assumptions embedded there. I’d say ’consciousness’ is a lot older and deeper than just humans, and long a key to "species survival."

Personally my take away is that you are saying this for others, not as a jab at me. Seems logical. I mean no such thing as you describe. The opposite in fact. But it is a debatable aspect of life tied to biological systems, as we know them. Stated as a off to one side factual manner as we are rarely in an environment, concerning forums and the written word, where a balanced open view is functional, in it’s intent, for the majority. Overstated and offside, so more can get the point. Layered psychological subterfuge and intent in the written word.

Better compared to what? 8 Track?

I really enjoyed Sabbath’s Paranoid on 8 track, when I was ~7. does that count? ;)

Also had ’Live at Folsom Prison’ on 8-track. Let’s sing along now: ’Early next mornin’ at a half-past 9, took a shot of cocaine and away I run....."

The graduation from Pinocchio and puff the magic dragon, was possibly a bit sharp.

Dr. Herbert Melcher has shown that the brain has tipping points. Normally music is processed by the limbic centers; this is where toe tapping and other emotional reactions come from. When things go awry with the sound, the brain seamlessly transfers processing to the cerebral cortex- the seat of the conscious portion of the brain. When this happens, the emotion content of the music is diminished or lost.

The problem for digital is that it contains harmonics unrelated to the fundamental tones (instead are intermodulations related to the scan frequency). The ear is used to hearing harmonics that relate to the fundamental tones in some way. Now this inharmonic distortion (aliasing) is not a great amount, but the ear is very sensitive to any harmonic content that is higher ordered (uses it to measure sound pressure so it has to be sensitive) and is also tuned to birdsong frequencies (where many of the aliasing artifacts occur).

Hello Ralph, I missed that bit just prior to my last few posts.

that’s the part I’ve been looking for, with regard to having an argument that people accept. I’ve gone on about the harmonics, essentially inharmonic non-music related signal in class D amps and digital audio..for quite some time.

Engineering weighting says it is not important.

Human hearing says it is important. Fundamental. So fundamental that the inclusion of said inharmonic signal make the music and the gear...unlistenable for a notable number of listeners. That’s been my take on it since the beginnings of digital and looking at those waveforms on a scope or paper.

Then the folks who don’t find it to be objectionable, or not a problem.

The explanation seems to illustrate the issue of how and why different people listen. So the data to complete the question to most people’s satisfaction, regrading the potential correct answers, is in place. Thank you for that.

All my attempts at working with Class D amplifies, surround the idea of getting rid of that specific residual. I’ve had some success, but the purveyors of said modules, will not allow a modified module to be sold to the public, as that modded unit would be likely be perceived as better than all others of their manufacture, which may be installed in the given proffered finished product.

They said no, unless they could do the modifications for me at the manufacturing level, in house. Which means they wanted to sell my work to everyone (eventually sell to all others, or immediately tinker with the intellectual aspects) and retain their position in the drivers seat, in the finished amplifier manufacturing equation...as the provider of generic amplifier modules that everyone gets to eat (black box forced consumption of an unknown with different livery), and builders of amplifiers.... could just be a vehicle for their product. Like they are right now.

It’s a good business plan, if you can make it work, but a bit cold and hard, for my tastes. Manufacturers of class D modules have managed to get it to work so far, but my explorations in this area have certainly laid bare the business tactic, for me.

(KHotte of Teo Audio)

Dean de Thazel, The same happened here too, suddenly new vinyl records disappeared ! I should had bought as many as possible because the prices had already been getting lower and lower all the time. Hundreds, even many sealed original albums from the 70´s for ridiculous prices. I just couldn´t see what was happening... A very big mistake in my audio career.

For whatever reasons CDs never fulfilled their promise of huge dynamic range - in the way they sounded - even before the industry decided to aggressively compress dynamic range what, 20 years ago. You know the line, 90 dB SNR and 90 dB Dynamic Range. That’s 100 times higher than analog systems. Hel-loo! Yet vinyl - when not compressed - actually sounds more dynamic, generally speaking. Not to mention CD generally whimpy and non-coherent. Go figure. Go back, back to the future! Cassettes that were released BEFORE the start of the aggressive compression have greater dynamic range - when you hear them - than either the vinyl or the CD. Check it out!