Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

Funny that I think many guys who hate digital are older guys like me who probably can't hear anymore beyond 14 Khz or so whereas the younger kids who should be affected are all into their ipods or maybe slightly better digital if tehy even care.

"Interesting question, Mapman, but I don't think that it has an answer. Since there are a great many ways in which each medium and its reproduction can be inaccurate, how does one weight each of those ways relative to the others, and tally up a net balance?"

I didn't think it would be an easy question to answer, which is part of the fun, at least a slightly different spin on a common debate.

I suppose one would have to create a model of some sort to determine. Best model wins, however that is determined.

I see digital as inherently more precise in that vinyl results can vary much more widely I think.

My gut tells me that decent digital is more accurate as well in that tolerances of digital gear is pretty tight with those relating to timing and jitter being the show stopper for many. Vinyl can be all over the place and requires a lot of owner loving care to even deliver whatever the level of inherent accuracy (of reproducing what was recorded) there is.

Also, I am not convinced that jitter is necessarily a significant show stopper these days if a pretty straightforward proper appraoch is taken for the home system building.

"I would say vinyl still has the edge. Through the whole process, it also keeps it in the same mechanical vibration format it started out in, and is reproduced by the speakers in that manner, the same as we hear."

I used to think that but having heard really good digital of late am not so sure these days.

Keeping things in the same (analogue) signal domain seems good in theory, but assures nothing in of itself. There is lots of good and bad in the non digital real world that we live in. If not being digital were the ticket, we would live in paradise perhaps.

The quality of execution of the overall process (design, tolerances, etc.) is what assures results. Digital has a lot of advantages in practice as well as theory in this regard that helps make the case.

MikeL,

I like your assessment and the mirror analogy.

Its a matter of degree though. You could say that the record is made of individual molecules but they fit together perfectly and occur at a scale that makes it insignificant. Similar with digital. It all depends on sampling frequency, sample size, (and accuracy of the device that creates the samples). Gets back to Nyquist Theorem or similar models assuming the minority opinion perhaps that Nyquist does not cut it as teh basis for CD format. I think it is an extremely close call in theory especially for younger better ears (although older ears are better trained perhaps even if not able to hear above 12-14Khz or so in general) but a good one in practice. Plus, as time goes on and technology improves and becomes more affordable, teh bar can be raised further if needed until it finally becomes clearly insignificant, like those molecules.

Digital is clearly improving all the time. Vinyl format stopped getting better probably almost 50 years ago now. The conclusion down the road seems inevitable if not already the case.

Do you really think vinyl playback has progressed much if at all over the last 50 years? How about 20?

Maybe for a price. The cost of the best rigs today is outrageous compared to those days. And there certainly are not many good new records being produced.

So lets assume there is some progress but at significant ocst that most will not be interested in to play poorly made overpriced modern lps. Digital is still moving ahead at light speed in comparison and my rig is evidence that very good digital can be had these days for not very much. A $72000 digital system makes me laugh especially when the final judgement is the vinyl is still better.

24/192 would be a safe bet i would say, an insurance policy perhaps more than anything, with a price.
16/44 is pretty good...good enough for most but does cut it somewhat close at least for younger better ears and technology today is capable of better.

my dac cannot do 24/192 but can handle some lesser high rez formats. i need to give hd tracks a try.

"OTOH vinyl has been improving dramatically over that same time. all levels of vinyl playback have improved. technology advances and market demand have pushed vinyl perfromance much higher due to the much higher potential of the format. there is simply lots of information in those grooves that improving playback gear keeps uncovering.
"

Maybe, but the cost seems to keep skyrocketing in order to cover whatever the heck is in those grooves that has never been heard before.

Digital is mre mainstream so more people are likely to be able to afford the improvements as the come.

How much does a Durand TElos tomearm cost? How about the whole vinyl rig needed to hear the previously unheard?

What are the technical innovations that have made modern vinyl rigs better?

I have no doubt there have been improvements in amplifier and speaker technology that would make the source sound better in general than prior but what about the source itself? Also what about the recordings? Have records improved?

We all like our digital HD TVs, right?

Someone explain to me how digital can seemingly do such a good and seemingly accurate job with video but much older and mature digital audio technology is incapable of doing the same with music? Timing? Pace, rhythm, perhaps? Digital clocks are extremely accurate these days. I just do not buy it in theory and both my eyes and ears agree.

IS vinyl the equivalent of HD in audio and digital not? Is analog even capable of doing what digital appears to do even today? I just do not see it.

Then again, I do not doubt that analog can sound better. It often does to me. Then again I have a movie buff friend that does not like to watch old movies in HD and preferes analog because the HD makes the recording look like a fake production whereas conventional analog TV allows it connect better for whatever reason (familiarity maybe). The video equivalent of what we audio kooks often refer to as being "musical" or engaging (which is clearly not the same thing as detailed or accurate) perhaps?

Only within the last couple years have I managed to achieve digital that is consistently engaging like good analog. It is also some of the most detailed sound I have ever owned and I suspect also reasonably "accurate". Now I know it can be done and for reasonable cost to boot.

Nyquist theory also applies in digital imaging, an area in which I am more technically familiar with from experience than digital audio.

What's missing in your digital camera images, or even in you digital HD TV picture?

What are your expectations? There is clearly something missing compared to live, but how much does it matter?

Digital audio including redbook CD format is very analogous.

Would you give your HD TV the boot and go back to analogue TV? What's missing there?

And IMAX is right out.....

CLearly if CD was an inherently flawed and outdated technology, newer hi res formats would have replaced it by now. You really think good digital audio is harder than good digital video? Guess again. The main reason CD is still around I suspect and has not been replaced has more to do with it being a very good solution than it does with our digital audio technology cannot cut it even these days.

Its funny to even think that if you look at the world around you and see with your own eyes what digital is capable of.

"The missing information from the digital samples must be added by the play back component, correct?"

This is incorrect, at least in theory. Read up on the Nysquist sampling theorem for more information.

Assuming the theory is sound, then the sampling is sufficient to capture all the information including high frequencies that matter, ie that most humans, even those with the best hearing, are capable of hearing.

Of course, not everyone may agree that the theory is sound and that the CD redbook implementation specifically is sufficient to capture everything that matters.

Then as you get into higher resolution digital audio sampling formats, the possible issues become even less likely to be real, so hi res is an insurance policy at minimum of sort.

The CD redbook format I think was well done in the sense of applying the best theory at the time towards being good enough to deliver very high quality sound, however, practically, a line had to be drawn in the sand at at that time now about 30 years ago regarding what was sufficient moving forward yet practical from a data volume and processing perspective at a commercial scale.

That fact that newer hi res formats have not caught on faster than they have 30 years later when the technology is far more advanced is testament actually to the robustness of teh original CD design.

NEwer CD recording and playback systems I find do increasingly better jobs of producing better recordings (when teh producers choose to) and a lot of progress has been made since CD was started in regards to providing better playback peformance with the now 30 year old format.

So it is extremely grey at best whether or not even the 30 year old redbook CD format is really missing anything of consequence to most as predicated by the theory it was based on.

Of course there may be "golden ears" out there that can hear something missing perhaps, but I take that with a grain of salt as well in that I do not know of any authority that certifies individuals as having golden ears.

I am not up to date these days unfortunately on the theory behind digital audio, so I am not sure if there is any newer theories out there or refinements to teh Nyquist principles applied 30 years ago that would indicate cleary that teh CD redbook format is now technically lacking in theory.

Maybe others know of something?

"If I sit and play an instrument for recording purposes onto an analog tape I will record all that I play. Is this also true for digital recording or is the device recording parts of the sound (sampling) I am playing and the computer puts it together sort of like digital morphing of one image to another. If it is the latter then why call it a sample you are just asking for trouble and confusion."

Both are somewhat imperfect reproductions of the original using two different approaches. The question is always "how somewhat????" and how much do whatever teh differences are matter? That is true be the approach digital or analog. We live in an imperfect world. There is no such thing as a perfect reproduction in most any case. The 16 bit sample size for CD redbook is perhaps the prime bottleneck with teh CD redbook format, but as ATMAS noted 16 bits gets you a lot of resolution ie 2 to 16th power individual levels.

I think that bottleneck can be heard in some cases, but not all and is very difficult to determine when done right, at least that is my subjective assessment having heard both really good analog and really good digital.

Atmasphere,

Just wondering how good is your hearing at 19-20Khz?

I am 52 years old. I do not hear those frequencies anymore as best I can tell.

When I was a young punk 18 year old budding audiophile, I recall getting up there pretty good with test tones and such.

Maybe thats why good systems sound better than ever to me these days in general?

I might be willing to assert that quality control with good modern digital formats is miles ahead of any ancient analog technology, regardless of the inherent advantages otherwise.

Assuming this, that would indicate that digital in practice rather than in theory is inherently more accurate and precise.

"The reason for no new formats is that there has been adverse consumer reaction to updating technology."

If CDs were inherently problematic this would probably be less true. The fact is they have held up quite well for 30 years.

The market for CDs at least in most economically mature countries around the world is probably saturated at this point. The fact is there is more music out there today and still in circulation between vinyl and CD formats than ever before.

Plus the competiton now comes from otehr streaming digital music sources readily available for free or for cost also with very good quality via internet.

Plus the end user experience possible with all these digital sources out there and so many ways to access and use them is richer than ever. Most people care about other aspects of the listening to music experience in additional to whatever degree they may care about how good it sounds.

"digital will *never* (which is a very long time) be better than analog- to do so would violate the laws of physics"

I'm stumped on that one. Why is that?

Even if so, I'd have to believe the difference would become somewhere between insignificant and essentially nil to pretty much all at some point if it has not already.

I think it was Mr Spock who I recall once saying:

"A difference that makes no difference is no difference"

Hard to argue logic with those Vulcans.

"Vinyl is king."

Small kingdom?

"Bit depth describes the dynamic range"

That is true for any particular application or format spec, like CD redbook, but not in general.

More bits can mean more accuracy and/or more dynamic range. So if the specified maximum dynamic range stays the same, more bits will mean finer resolution per sample in terms of representing amplitude more accurately.

"what do you feel is the more significant limiting factor for redbook, sample rate or bits per sample?"

I'm clearly not answering for Ralph, but for me I think it is the sample size that is the performance bottleneck for me, if there is one. I say if there is one becaue I still am not 100% convinced that the CD redbook format itself is deficient in any practical sense.

I say the sample size in that one of the things that I am not totally convinced CD redbook can match relative to vinyl is the ability to sustain a truly consistent level with the higher frequencies due to random variations associated with the sample magnitude value. The audible effect can often (but not always?) be subtle variations in pitch and/or high frequency transients such as those produced by massed strings, where extremely subtle transients are in play. Relatively few digital rigs do this well enough to challenge vinyl from what I have heard, but I have heard it done well so I believe it to be possible, which would mean that the implementation in play with most systems and not the format itself is the culprit.

I have heard a/b comparisons between CD and vinyl and even R2R where the analog formats clearly beat the digital, but again, I cannot say for certain that the CD format was the culprit as opposed to aspects of comparing different actual recordings in each format.

"Quantization of a 2 volt full-scale range into 64 bits
would mean that the least significant bit corresponds to
about 0.0000000000000000001 volts."

I wonder what the comparative resolution of vinyl in volts
can practically be?

How about compared to 16 bits even?

I doubt there are many if any lps constructed perfectly
enough for
it to matter.

Also since record playback involves movement of a stylus
that has mass, I've always believed that inertia is an
inherent barrier to what
can be achieved practically with vinyl playback, similar to
quantification parameters being the potential barrier with
any particular digital format.

Atmasphere,

Are you trying to change the subject?

The how we actually hear stuff is fine but I don't see how what you say applies to analog only. Both analog and digital are shooting for similar results as best I can tell and I have heard both do quite well despite the inherent limitations of each.

I suspect you may have some bias in your viewpoints regarding digital given your background and interests.

Nothing wrong with that, we all believe what we believe and are all biased in some way.

I like the idea of making comparisons in the common voltage domain and trying to quantify things there if possible? Not sure to what extent it is but I think it makes sense. Then we could talk in quantitative terms about what is really going on. That's the only way to ever really know.

I am on board with all the how we hear stuff, but I do not think good solutions in this regard is limited to any single paradigm or technology necessarily, though the challenges with each is clearly different.

Assuming fixed dynamic range, resolution results from a combo of the # bits used to quantify each digital signal amplitude value captured and how frequently (the frequency with which) the signal is quantified.

So a finer definition of amplitude contributes to higher POTENTIAL or maximum real resolution assuming the maximum dynamic range stays the same.

How much resolution is actually achieved is a different story that depends on how well executed the implementation is but more bits used will enable more resolution, all else held constant.

Alternately, increasing the dynamic range and quantifying using the same # of bits will result in lower potential or maximum resolution because the same # of possible digital values must now be used to represent a larger variation in amplitude.

So yes, theoretically smoother amplitude levels can occur. Whether these are audible or not still depends on other factors and makes things more challenging to model accurately.

"sample" is really not an accurate term to apply in the digital signal processing scenarios because a sample is a statistical concept as well and in stats means a small but representative subset of a population.

Whereas with digital audio and video the intent is to quantify the entire signal as completely as possible, not 'sample" it, which is different.

Maybe this is part of why there are so many misconceptions about digital audio?

"Had this problem been addressed properly from the get-go, I suspect that about 90% of the D vs A debate in the last 30 years simply would not have occurred. "

Would would constitute addressing it properly?

I do not hear the brightness you refer to categorically associated with CD or digital in most of my CDs compared to vinyl or other references I have heard. So my ears tell me that there is no redbook plague associated with the format that makes it incompatible to human ears (which I understand are not ruler flat in response, so what, we hear everything the same be it coming out of a stereo or real). I do understand though that it can be a common plague with many CD rigs and has been in mine as well in the past. But I do not understand how the format itself or even being digital precludes this.

I listen to CDs with Class D amps that use negative feedback and still have no issues I can go as loud as I want with my rig with little to no fatigue or brightness. So my experience does not correspond to what you are saying.

I will not question that digital and SS amps with negative feedback in practice have been more plagued by this. Only that it is not inherent to teh technologies categorically, end of story. It can be done extremely well in either format. I do suspect though that R2R is in another league though, for whatever that is worth practically to most.

Ralph,

At what frequencies does the harmonic issues occur?

I am not aware of any speaker system that is said to be able to pass a sin wave unaltered so perhaps nothing unusual in sin wave artifacts, chose your type or not.

Original OHM A or F full range Walshes perhaps, but I think even those only went to 16 khz or so.

Maybe when I was 18 years old and tested as able to hear pretty much up to 20khz I would have heard something.

I think for every digital artifact one could point out a different one with analog to counter, so chose your artifacts.

Some matter more than others . To me, if I don't hear it, it doesn't matter. If others do, I suppose it does.

One other thing I just thought of I will say is that my Dynaudios on my same system can sound a tad bright sometimes, perhaps more so with digital. THere is a consensus though with users that they can be a tad towards the bright side with some gear compared to others, so I attribute it to that. Nothing offensive either, just a slight propensity towards teh bright side. Few speakers are perfectly neutral.

My OHM Walshes though, are generally regarded as having pretty flat response and zero brightness with digital or analog there. They also use a Walsh style driver up to 8Khz or so, then a separate conventional tweeter kicks in. Perhaps there is something in the radically unconventional OHM CLS Walsh driver design that is the magic antidote?

I have heard digital on more conventional high end reference systems at dealers not sound bright either, so I think there is several ways at least perhaps to solve the problem you allude to from what I have heard.

Also I wonder: is there a record out there with a perfectly recorded sine recorded such that it can produce a perfect sin wave with no artifacts when played?

Medusa looks better when her photo is not accurate.

Aphrodite's beauty is portrayed best in an accurate photo.

SO in terms of gaining pleasure from our senses, this is best achieved with an accurate representation of something beautiful accordingly. This is closest to the audiophile scenario IMHO.

When something is not so beautiful to start with, less accurate representations might actually be preferred. Depends on how ugly it really is I suppose. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent.

"But just saying "live" music will be the standard by which we measure accuracy by.... is...i think...insufficient... since even "live" music is not a precise enough definition."

Yeah, maybe the fact is nothing is really sufficient. OR maybe it just really doesn't matter. Just enjoy the music!

Interesting discussion though.

What are some examples of music that does not sound like music? Isn't that a paradox?

Live, vinyl, 78 rpm, CD, mp3..... it all sounds like music to me. The thing is even all live music sounds different based on many factors that come into play in any particular case. Same true with recordings. One must be careful about making generalized statements like all ______ sound like this or have a problem with ______. Its all good in the end if used effectively. 78s (gen 1 technology) does have the most obvious limits, but I have a good feel even for what 78s should sound like so I expect nothing more which enables me to appreciate some of teh good things that even such a technically flawed format like that has to offer.

People make the rhythm, not the recordings, right?

I'm not sure how one format or another gets an advantage regarding rhythm.

Surely imperfections in record manufacturing including warping can have an effect on things. Not sure I understand how digital would normally have any rhythm issues. Resolution, maybe, but resolution and effects of that is different from rhythm at least with how I understand these things.

"It's always amazed me at how more realistic and lifelike some of my old mono lp are when compared to even new vinyl releases."

I find that mono can often be more realistic and lifelike also even with mono CDs, especially good remasters of older mono material.

Works especially well with blues, R&B, R&R, and other older forms of popular music. Beatles, Chuck Berry, Buffy Holly, Muddy Waters, Elvis are a few examples.

No doub't all senses in play at a live event.

I always close my eyes when attempting to assess listening live versus at home. Its a valuable exercise to use live events as a reference (as well as to listen to various "reference" systems in different settings) as long as you are able to filter out extraneous sensual factors and also take all the factors that make the difference with the sound alone (like room acoustics)into account. Otherwise, you are doomed to be continually chasing both a moving and nebulous target.

lf, i think it can be close enough to not matter to many. doesn't have to mean that hearing is bad.

Lacee,

I think often here, the existence of more esoteric products (high end turntables, tube amps, etc.) has to be justified to generate interest. Nothing wrong with that, these things are easily justified.

But the thing is I think often rather than merely letting these products stand on their own merits, there is a tendency to try to categorically debunk the mainstream competition, ie SS amps, digital, etc. Mainstream products from mainstream vendors are a bigger threat to the competition than vice versa. The little guy always has to work harder to justify their existence.

I agree if there is a huge difference between live and home listening in general, and it is something taht bothers you, there is probably something that can be done to close the gap.

I had that problem up until about two years ago. Since then it has become a non issue. The solution: keep tweaking until you get it right......

I have awoken after falling asleep in the middle of the night with teh music still playing and in that ttransition from sleep to awake been fooled momentarily. Then once all your senses come around, you know where you are and what you are listening to. Hard to get around that. I can close my eyes and convince myself that what I hear is close to live, but does it really or does it even matter? IF I am clearly not convinced otherwise, or otherwise put off by what I hear, then I think that is practically the most one can hope for and realistically achieve. The rest either doesn't really matter and/or may be a pipedream not worth pursuing.

It's hard to be happy with too much focus on "flaws" no matter what because they are always there, and not just in audio.

The unrelenting pursuit of perfection is a sure road to eventual unhappiness. The ability to wean pleasure out of most any decent hand you are dealt is the key.

Its a dilemma. You have to strike a realistic balance between both. Neither seeking perfection nor accepting imperfection alone is enough.