Mapman -
"I suppose this is the video equivalent of digital remastering in audio"
...except there is no body-doubles in the orchestra. |
Learsfool - Perhaps it was asked before, but don't they press some (or most) of the new LPs from digital master tapes? You said that "digital will never rival analog" - digital already won, seems to me. |
Shadorne - I recommend American Players Theatre in Spring Green Wisconsin. They play from original text on the hill in the forest (not Burnham Woods though but close).
My friend works for large recording studio. All analog (Apex) recorders were removed. He remembers good all times when they had to rewind (thousands of) tapes constantly (Few times a year each tape) otherwise it was copying itself from turn to turn (layer to layer) - I remember hearing this effect on some older LPs (in silence after loud passage). It was more of the ghost than soul of music. |
Newbee - I did say that 44kHz sampling, and not a CD, is a joke. I still enjoy the music on CD and practicallity of it. I remember seeing similar threads on SS amps lacking the soul compare to tube gear. |
Learsfool - I was just responding to your statement that digital will never rival analog. Music is recorded in digital (recently in DDS) not for convenience but for the sound. Analog is delivered from digital tapes and since extra element in the chain cannot improve sound in fact destroys purity of the original digital information. Studio quality equipment will be available at home in 5 or 10 years but analog will never improve - nobody will design newer standard of the LP - not enough customers. I don't know how you define dynamic range but LP does not even come close to 24 bit digital recording with it's poor S/N.
Again you have to realize that analog reproduction (LP) in not an improvement of the digital master tape it was derived from. As I said analog already lost to digital and it will loose even more when Wide 4 channel DDS will be in every home. In my opinion CDs will eventually disappear replaced by 24bit/192kHz (or better) downloads. You might be even able one day to dial-in sound simulation of the LP player (adding rumble, crosstalk, hiss, bloom, wooly bass, pops, and coloration). |
Chris - you are probably right. It is impression and not absolute numbers. My Benchmark DAC plays bit games increasing resolution to 24-bit and noise floor to -140dB. Impressions can often be misleading. Sound with small amount of harmonic distortion is "lively" and "dynamic" while absolutely pure sound is clinical and sterile. Having very little exposure to high quality audio I look at it from the practical perspective. Digital Master tape feeding DAC driving my amp has to sound better than the same digital tape feeding DAC that drives micro lathe machine to create LP master then pressing LP then pickup/tonearm, RIAA preamp then my amp. Original master tape has to sound purest because is original and LP is derived from it with a loss of quality. Therefore argument that digital will never rival analog is hard to understand. Not liking CD media with its 44kHz carrier limitation is another story.
Herbert von Karajan said once that digital recording surpasses everything we know so far. |
Muralmanl - pretty much everything is changing to oversamling (for better or worse). Analog Devices dropped almost all non-oversampling DACs, Class D amps are the same thing as sigma-delta modulator, SACD is oversampled recording and DDS studios started using for recording is like 4 channel SACD. I got first CD recorded from DDS and sound is beyond believe. |
Mapman - we're not talkin about comparing CD to vinyl. I just reacted to statement that digital will never rival analog. LPs are made from digital recording last 20 years - how it can be better than its origin? I has to go from digital to analog thru the DAC and in addition thru LP, pickup, RIAA preamp. How LP can improve sound of original master tape I don't know. LP is pretty much dead - (about 1 million record total sold last year) and nothing new on the horizon. How anybody can know for certain that LP will never be surpassed by digital? The word "denial" comes to mind. As I said we're not talking about 44kHz CDs. |
Muralmanl - I'm not saying that oversampling is better. It's just a matter of taste. Class D like Icepower modulator is pretty much sigma-delta as much as I can understand Karsten Nielsen doctorate work. |
Of course - I was only joking. |
And the LPs are made from digital master - that's funny... |
" If it ain't real, it's distorted" - really? I didn't know that. Are you serious? |
Mapman - Good question. I don't think they know how to handle it yet. They shot themselfs in the foot keeping high prices and poor recording quality of CDs and sales are down (empty stores). They also loose a lot of money on stuff being illegally copied and are dramatically searching for the new, well copy protected format (SACD, HDCD). Latest, I heard, is CODE pushed by some artist (N. Young, Mellencamp). It is 24bit/96kHz 2 channel recording on DVD media at the price of standard CD. Latest Mellencamp's record was released on CODE (so I heard). |
Albertporter -
"You're missing the point completely" - I'm not sure what point it is since you use a lot of words with just one conclusion that current CD format is not as good as LP. I never said it is, and there is no need to jump at me such unpleasant way. I merely reacted, if you read the tread, to statement that digital will never rival analog. I don't understand logic behind it - that's all. Many of my friends claimed the same at the beginning of digital photography and now all have digital cameras. I am not an angry person - just read my other post but it seems to me that with claimed experience and amount of dollars you "throw" at me you are a little arrogant. It might be better if you will not respond to my posts and I will do the same for you.
|
Albertporter - I'm sorry for my sharp response and my words toward you. We both feel the same dissapointment.
Maybe lack of better digital media is related to quite large number of audiophiles claiming that they will never buy digital or the greed of the companies selling SACDs for over $30 or the lack of the will from government to push for the standard. (We have in US many different cellular companies and two different non-compatible standards while whole Europe has one unified standard/billing and much better coverage).
My experience is very limited and more oriented toward electronics than audio but I enjoy good sound and practicallity of digital media. Better, smoother digital format is around the corner, I'd like to think, but the same time I'm buying a lot of standard CDs I will be stucked with.
I know, we should concentrate more on music than audio, but when I listen to thin sounding Julian Bream CD with hiss of analog recording in the background I don't enjoy it as much as I should especially after listening to beautiful recent Telearc DSD recording of David Russell with completely black and quiet background and full round reverberating sound. |
One would even argue that CRT-TV is better than HDTV (it has to - it's analog). It's not "edgy" or "bright" but has this pleasant softness and fuzziness.... |
Learsfool - could you clarify how do you know that digital processing cuts frequencies around 20kHz? I run test frequencies at different levels from standard CD and 20kHz is present at about 0dB (in relation to 1kHz level). |
Albertporter - you are probably right - I would pay more than $30 if for many recordings but not for some of the popular music - classical and jazz hits last longer. It takes marketing campain and often break-even prices to establish and popularize standard. Do you remember Iomega computer Zip drives? It never became standard because Iomega didn't want to lower media price and sued everybody who made compatible media.
Would recent digital masters in DSD improve SACD? (pretty much the same format). I remember Stereophile's very positive reviews of SACD.
I don't remember claimed equivalent of 2.8MHz bitstream but I thing it was something around 20bit/90kHz (with quantization noise pushed outside of audible range). Wouldn't CODE with 24bit/96kHz be better? Most of people have DVD players and my Benchmark accepts 24bit/192kHz. |
Mapman - Puccini is an oversampling player. It uses Ring-DACs - same DACs DCS sold license to ARCAM (FMJ-23). Arcam stopped making it because of DAC manufacturing yield problems (and stopped making FMJ23). Ring DAC possesses additional 4 current sources generating randomly 16 different sub LSB levels - basically noise. Adding noise to signal increases its resolution (dithering). Just a little bit tech info. |
"to soften the look of HDTV program content" - yes, because some actors asked for it. Whatever they do result is incredible. Both, analog and OTA HDTV occupy the same 6.5MHz bandwidth but you cannot even compare picture quality.
I think many people are in "digital denial" and HDTV/Analog is a great example.
(NTSC = Never Twice Same Color)
|
Mmakshak - Dithering is a postprocessing technique that came, as Mapman pointed out, from imaging. It ads noise on sub-LSB level just before filtering. Master tapes are recorded in 24bit and it is not needed there.
Mapman - Trickery is used mostly to fix deficiencies of the format (resolution and sampling rate). Benchmark is using equivalent of 1 million times oversampling again with a trickery but many people prefer NOS DACs' sound.
Too much of the tech info, I'm afraid, but I just mentioned ring-dacs since you enjoyed the sound. |
Mapman - I looked into DCs Ring Dacs to see how they get more detail thru dithering and found out that they don't. Addition of noise in not intentional - it's just byproduct of their scheme. If I understand it correctly now, they use number of current sources at lower bits and rotate them constantly to even out bit-weight. Extra resolution they try to preserve comes from digital oversampling filter. I found this description of differences between Multibit, Onebit and Ring Dacs :
"Multi-bit Nonlinearity — In multi-bit DACs there is a resistor associated with a current source for each bit. Each resistor is half the value of the one before it. So the ratio goes something like this 1 : 0.5 : 0.25 : 0.125 : 0.0625 etc. By the time we divide by two 24 times, the theoretically correct value of the last resistor is 0.000000119209289550781 of the first. Because it is physically impossible to achieve this type of accuracy, all multi-bit DACs suffer from some non-linearity (they distort the signal). This distortion becomes greater as you move from more significant bits to less significant (loud stuff to background detail). Typically, somewhere around the 20th bit the ability to resolve any additional detail is lost.
One-Bit Noise — In Bitstream (1-bit) DACs the resistor matching problem is eliminated and linearity is very good. However, the signal to noise ratio is terrible (6dB). A technique called oversampling is used to improve the signal to noise ratio to acceptable levels. However, the high oversampling frequencies result in narrow pulse widths. Timing errors now become significant, jitter increases, and the end result is thesame. The signal is distorted and the resolution of low level detail is degraded.
dCS Elgar Ring DAC — The dCS Ring DAC uses a patented 5-bit unitary weighted design (i.e., all the resistor values are the same). Oversampling frequencies are low (i.e., it’s less vulnerable to clock frequency errors). But, even this design isn’t perfect. Small variations in resistor value could still have an adverse effect on performance. Even with the carefully matched resistors used in the Elgar their resistance can change with age or temperature. To address this the Ring DAC, instead of using one resistor per bit, uses a large array of resistors. By using a proprietary algorithm (or is it Elgar-ithm) to continuously vary the number and positions of the selected resistors from sample to sample, as though around a circle (hence the name "Ring DAC"), the inevitable slight variations in the values of the resistors are randomly distributed throughout the quantizing range. This effectively turns any tolerance errors into random white noise, which is far more benign than the distortion that would otherwise have occurred. Finally, sophisticated noise shaping is used to move the bulk of the random noise into the high frequency spectrum above 100 kHz, where it is easily removed with analog filtering."
So, previous description I read (from Arcam if I remember correctly) was claiming extra resolution by random switching of current sources and dithering (adding noise). Now I found that they only try to preserve resolution coming from low order oversampler by rotating resistors in multibit converter (that follows) to keep necessary linearity - that would make more sense. |
It's very strange that audio is so difficult to reproduce in digital. We are able to make beautiful real like HDTV but not the perfect audio. I suspect that in the future audio DACs will become so complicated (sound processors) only designers will be able to understand principles of operation. Maybe it is time to stop asking. Computer users stopped asking questions long time ago. |
Rob321
"I mean beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
Perhaps spelling error?! - it should be "beauty is in the eye of beerholder" |
LPs tend to have better mixing/mastering (or are selected from good recordings to start with). Poorly recorded very low quality LPs won't sell since currently it is only audiophile market while CD will sell no matter how bad as long as music is popular. As Muralman said there are some exceptional CDs showing that media has potential and can challenge many LPs. Audiophiles don't have any buying power in CD sales and cannot influence quality of recordings. The only reason, in my opinion, for pushing better sounding schemes like HDCD or SACD was to bring very strong copy protection. SACD doesn't cost more to print than CD but they felt that charging 100% more is OK. |
Jabo - it is probably penny difference.
They sell us same DVDs for $20 that they sell in China for $2. In order to protect their insane profits they forced DVD player makers to play only one region (otherwise somebody would export DVDs from China to US). They would not sell in China (and other places)at loss. How is it possible that things like CDs or DVDs that supposed to cost couple of dollars cost so much - the same way breakfast serial cost $4 instead of $1 - phony competition and monopoly. |
Jabo - Not only they did't fall in love with Chinese people enough to sell them DVDs below cost but they admitted small profit at $1.25 Let me be generous, in spite of such admission, and agree that $3 is the price in China. What the heck - lets make it $5. Why do we have to pay $20?
What regional code is for? It is simply to prevent shipping DVDs back to US (with a profit) - no other reason. |
Nevillekapadia - SACD is DSD |
Learsfool,
IMHO people object to digital playback and not the recording itself. Most of the LP material comes from digital masters but very few object to that. Perhaps the real problem is in the playback where in redbook CD (16/44.1) higher frequencies are represented by just few samples while resolution is only 1 part in 65k. Making 10 kHz sinewave in 4 points is very difficult while 20kHz in 2 points is practically impossible. AFAIK Nyquist requirement guarantees only preservation of the frequency (no aliasing) and not the amplitude. SACD is roughly equivalent to 20/96 and is already much better sounding than redbook CD. I've never heard 24/192 masters but few people who did said that sound is incredible. |
Learsfool, My friend who works for very large recording studio said that they got rid of very expensive analog tape recorders more than 10 years ago and everything since is done digital. Your ears, being in orchestra, plus experience with live instrument sounds, is better than mine (I'm sure), but how many people can tell just by listening if LP was recorded from analog or digital tape? I cannot do that, but even if I could detect small sound difference I would still prefer version without hiss of analog tape.
Such hiss can be suppressed in CD playback by de-emphasis but as far as I know cannot be removed from LP playback. On the other hand - de-emphasis feature of CD players is almost never used since everything is recorded digital (no tape noise) these days. |
Learsfool, I'm pretty sure there are one mike digital recordings but agree that digital is promoting multi-microphone use. I'd like to know why they do it since one mike recording seems the most natural to me. They have to gain something by placing more microphones since it is more complicated. Is it an option to use deficient (cheaper) recording hall.
Long, long time ago I had decent TT but did not take enough care of records, I admit. Over time I got overly sensitive to pops and clicks. Today I would be very careful and also buy better quality vinyl - but it is expensive and buying used wouldn't be an option to me. It adds cost of the media to my previous list of turn offs.
I agree that with proper care I can get dozens or even hundreds of playbacks without clicks or pops but it also means that my favorite records will be gone first.
I see often these threads stating that digital has no soul, no quality etc. while my home system, being half decent, already sounds very good to my ears and has plenty of soul. Analog lovers are a little bit like communists - won't rest until everyone else shares their believes. |
For me it is only issue of playback, since I cannot tell analog from digital master (other than hiss of tape). I believe it is better to allocate all resources into digital than building two systems (since LP selection is so limited).
Again, LP playback might be perfect but it doesn't "sound" good to my ears:
- clicks and pops
- wear of the media
- very limited selection
- inability to listen to whole record at once
- difficulty in changing tracks
- no playlists
- no way to make backup
- no server
- no wireless
- no remote
- constant cleaning
- maintenance of the hardware
- cost of supplies (including stylus)
- wow and flutter
- rumble
- feedback |
Frank - you're right about the house. Unfortunately it is the most expensive part of any audio system. With much less than perfect room, varying quality of the recordings, synergy of all components and taste/preference of the listener, discussing if best digital is as good as best analog (on even Tuesdays) is strictly academic, at least to me.
One thing I know - wise man told me once "Don't have a cow, man" so I sold my TT. |
OK, here it comes...
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
Wesołych Świąt i szczęśliwego Nowego Roku
Kellemes karácsonyi ünnepeket és Boldog újévet!
Noeliniz Ve Yeni Yiliniz Kutlu Olsun !
Nollaig chridheil agus Bliadhna mhath ur!
Pozdrevlyayu s prazdnikom Rozhdestva i s Novim Godom !
Boas Festas e um feliz Ano Novo
Fröhliche Weihnachten und ein glückliches Neues Jahr
Prieci'gus Ziemsve'tkus un Laimi'gu Jauno Gadu!
Linksmu Kaledu ir laimingu Nauju metu
Shinnen omedeto. Kurisumasu Omedeto !
E gueti Wïnâchte & E glecklichs Nej Johr
Edo bri'cho o rish d'shato brich'to
Tezze Iliniz Yashi Olsun !
Winshuyu sa Svyatkami i z Novym godam !
Nedeleg laouen na bloav ezh mat !
Chestita Koleda i Shtastliva Nova Godina
Zorionak eta Urte Berri On !
Sretan Bozic!
Prejeme Vam Vesele Vanoce a Stastny novy rok
Glædelig Jul og godt nytår
Rõõmsaid Jõulupühi ja Head uut aastat
Joyeux Noël et Bonne Année!
Kala Christougenna Ki'eftihismenos O Kenourios Chronos
Gilotsavt Krist'es Shobas & Gilosavt akhal ts'els
Feliz Navidad y Próspero Año Nuevo
Mo'adim Lesimkha. Shanah Tova !
Nollaig Shona Dhuit !
Srekan Bozik I Nova Godina
Bon Pasco i Feliz Aña Nobo
Wilujeng Natal Sareng Warsa Enggal !
Nadolig LLawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda
Craciun fericit si un An Nou fericit
Geseende Kerfees en 'n gelukkige nuwe jaa
Gëzuar Krishlindjet Vitin e Ri
Juullimi Ukiortaassamilu Pilluarit
Schéi Krëschtdeeg an e Schéint Néi Joer
Krist Yesu Ko Shuva Janma Utsav Ko Upalaxhma Hardik Shuva & Naya
Barsa Ko harkik Shuvakamana
E ku odun, e hu iye' dun
Christmas Shubhakaankshalu & Nootana Samvatchara Subhakanshalu
Noflike Krystdagen en in protte Lok en Seine yn it Nije Jier
Gleðileg Jól og Farsaelt Komandi ár
Nathar Puthu Varuda Valthukkal
God Jul och Gott Nytt År
Vesele bozicne praznike in srecno novo leto
Hyvää Joulua - 0nnellista uutta vuotta
Bon Nadal e Bo Ani Novo
Bon Natale e Bon capu d' annu
Selamat Hari Natal & Selamat Tahun Baru
Sung Tan Chuk Ha
Bonn e Erez Ane
Zul saryn bolon shine ony mend devshuulye
Sretan Bozic. Vesela Nova Godine
Subha nath thalak Vewa. Subha Aluth Awrudhak Vewa
Vesele Vianoce a stastny novy rok
Veseloho Vam Rizdva i Shchastlyvoho Novoho Roku
Buon Natale e Felice Anno Nuovo
Hoesenestotse & Aa'e Emona'e
Gajan Kristnaskon & Bonan Novjaron
Mele Kalikimaka & Hauoli Makahiki Hou
Pax hominibus bonae voluntatis
Vrolijk Kerstfeest en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar! |
Alex, I'm sure there are many great TTs but in my small world it often resembles discussion about performance of Rolls-Royce vs. Bentley. For the money I could spend on decent TT I upgraded speakers from average to great but could also upgrade main amp or DAC. LP music selection is very poor especially with less popular genres (World Music, Indian Classical) therefore my main system will always be digital. I will include TT as soon as I get best speakers and amp money can buy and will still have money to spend. Perhaps for all this to happen I would have to win the Lotto or kill my wife. |
"gee, I think the factory down the road just finished for the day; hmmm, I wonder if Cathy has her computer on in her bedroom; man, another one of those steamy, humid days"
Frank, as I said "on even Tuesdays" |
I'd like to mention that 192kHz applies to incoming signal while DACs have much lower THD distortions around 100kHz. For that reason Benchmark decided to ouput data to DAC at around 110kHz. |
Mekong56 speaks death in his 666 post - be careful! |
I depends on implementation. Good SMPS will be superior to linear power supply. It will be quieter plus line and load regulated. Yes they are smaller and more effective but it is not the reason Jeff Rowland uses them in Capri Preamp.
Linear power supply, as I said before, is also SMPS - a very primitive one (that switches at max voltage) and without regulation, at least in power amps. |
Albertporter - I agree. CD sampling rate of 44kHz is a joke but it has nothing to do with being analog or digital. Imagine fast internet downloads in true 24bits/192kHz (around the corner). Would analog made from this material still be better?
Some people will always say so because they invested tens of thousand of dollars in the dead format and now are in denial. How great of the format it is if you cannot get most of the records you want and you have to settle for what they throw at you. Sure, there is a lot of used records (won't last forever) but what about new exciting artist/releases available only in digital.
According to RIAA total amount of LPs sold in 2007 was 1 million — a joke.
I bet you'll find people who believe that analog TV was better than HDTV calling HDTV too sharp, too bright and lacking the soul.
As for golden ear music teachers — all that I've ever met had horrible audio systems. |
Learsfool - everything depends on the quality of processing. It does not remove high or any other frequencies (it can be easily proved) but suffers on details of conversion. It might be, I hope, one day possible, to get perfect quality of digital master at home. It is getting better and better. Jitter you mentioned is just noise in time domain and now is effectively removed in some DACs. There is also another type of jitter - one in A/D processing and that one cannot be removed. A lot of older recording were transfered to digital media for storage with poor A/D clock and jitter stays forever unless analog recording still exists somewhere.
I probably don't have as good ears as yours because top quality gear and great SACD recording would make me very happy. One compromise I agree on is practicality of digital media while the other is my limited budget. I don't want to invest now a lot of money in analog - it's just to late for me and my priorities are quite different now than 20 years ago. I have long way to go in audio from where I am now and when I get "there" technology will improve greatly, I'm sure. |
No Jaybo - They sell originall DVDs for $2 there. That what regional code was for. In 2006 Time Warner was selling DVDs for 10 yuan ($1.25) while Twentieth Century Fox was planning to sell DVDs for 20-25 yuan (about $3). Both companies admitted that profit will be very low and main reason is to "combat" piracy (read: better small profit than nothing). At price of $1.25 they still admitted profit - insane. Competition is phony (collude) and we're being screwed. At least piracy levels the field there and forces big companies to sell at normal prices (good for the people).
All royalties and cost of printing comes to about $1 per audio CD. Rest of it (remaining $14) is a profit. Even if you double production cost for SACD it is $2 versus $30 selling price.
Nothing new to it - a little bit of cornflakes and cardboard box ends up magically $4. TV station started investigation and next day they became silent. I suspect they were threatened to loose all advertising.
|
Ivan, I would like to disagree with you on the subject of switching power supplies. Every power supply is "switching" if you think about it. Linear power supply takes energy from the mains in narrow current spikes. Width of these spikes is proportional to load (PWM) while "switching" frequency is 120Hz. Problem is that 120Hz noise is much more difficult to remove than high frequency noise. You most likely think of crude computer switchers that made bad rap for all of them. Modern switching supplies can be so quiet that some designers use them in preamps where efficiency is none of concern. Such switchers have many advantages over linear power supplies. To start with they are line and load regulated. They are also quieter switching at zero voltage/zero current (linear switches at max voltage). Remaining noise is much easier to filter out. They are also much smaller. Transformer switching at 100kHz can be 10x smaller than one switching at 120Hz for the same power not to mention huge capacitance necessary to remove 120Hz ripple and provide any load stability in linear supplies. Because of all that designers used them for class AB amps as well. Newest class AB Rowland Model 625 amp uses SMPTs switching at 1MHz. Why, then, there are still so many linear supplies? Perhaps because switcher is much more complex to design properly while market tends to believe (including you) that it has to be big and heavy. There is also catchy word "linear" that is very misleading. It is big, unregulated, noisy and it is also a switcher - a very crude one. |
