I don't believe digital is inherently more accurate. It has its strengths but is has its flaws. It takes an analogue signal and chops it up into little digital packets where to play back a microprocessor tries to reassemble the packets to recreate an analogue wave form.
I've been trying to think of a visual analogy so if I may.
16 bit digital is like looking through a screen door. You see the outside world image but the screen effectively blocks the image into little packets invariably obscuring the cleanliness of what the real world image should look like. Higher rez digital just has a less apparent screen door effect. Your mind sees the outside world image and can understand it but the mesh is acting like an A to D converter effectively breaks the image into its little block pattern. I hope this makes sense. Analogue recording is like looking out a window without screen but through a pane of glass that may not be perfectly crystal clear and may even have a film of dust and dirt on it. You see the outside world image. Your brain can understand it but its imperfections in the window glass and maybe the film of dust obscures it from perfection. Both formats suffer inaccuracies but maybe different ones. IMO we humans are more willing and accept and maybe even enjoy the inaccuracies of the typical analogue playback over inaccuracies over the digital ones.
Where digital can be quieter and can have expansive dynamic range etc it also in the A to D and D to A process suffers and loses things humans not only can hear but can sense.
Fact is whether one records on analogue or digital from the master on down to the final consumer product we must accept errors and inaccuracies in the final sound.
There are certain luxuries for a engineer to record in digital but so to there are luxuries to record in analogue. Its about what compromises you are willing to accept.
Just one point to compare in this simple regard:
Push a signal above digital 0db and you run out of bits and instant massive clipped distortion. Go too far into the red on an analogue recording and you get a general but progressively higher distortion.
Pick your poison I guess. |
Les, you're talking about OLD digital technology.
Using DSD @ 5.6MHz the "packets" are as dense as the oxide particles on tape and dozens of times denser than the 16-bit technology you're using as a reference. I agree with you about old 16-bit with harse filters and other shortcomings, but the new digital is leaping forward by an order of magnitude every few months. Your arguement no longer holds water.
A DSD, i-bit, 5.6MHz sample does NOT lose data in replication. It's truly archival. Using professional-level programs you can copy the file and it will be "bit-perfect" in ALL generations. This issues you address have all been addressed and corrected.
With 130dB of headroom I hardly need to worry about overload; however, if I am worried I can add attenuation or a filter. The 130dB is only the starting point, but it gives the recordist tons of options to never reach clipping.
Let me think a little. I've read some good summaries of today's state of the art. You seem interested enough that if I can find you some links you'll start getting up to date. Have you heard good DVD-A? It's not as good as DSD, which has twice the resolution, but it'll give you some idea of what's possible in the digital domain.
Please note, I still have a very good TT, tube, phono-preamp and a big library of LPs. I believe that digital is just now catching up with analog, but, based on what I hear, it's the gap has disappeared. Unfortunately, you can't buy much at the highest possible resolutions.
Dave |
"I believe that digital is just now catching up with analog, but, based on what I hear, it's the gap has disappeared. Unfortunately, you can't buy much at the highest possible resolutions."
I totally agree with this statement. To me, standard redbook audio is inherently flawed due to its low resolution. When the redbook standard was invented, the ability to fit 650 MB/60-70 minutes of audio on a small plastic disc was amazing, considering hard drives at the time could store about 10 megabytes. They most likely chose 16 bit 44.1 kHz because it allowed a full 60-70 minutes of audio on this 650 megabyte disc, and also because they found that that sampling rate still captured the frequency range of normal human hearing. If they would have had the technology to put more than 650 megabytes onto a disc at that time, they most likely would have chosen a much higher sampling rate. |
Dave,
Yes I have heard DVD-A and it is generally quite nice. I find it still has an edge to it that sounds not quite right but if I never was into good quality vinyl playback and was willing to re-buy my digital CD library in DVD-A it would be a good choice. I'll say the same with SACD but both formats are all but dead.
The DSD you talk about is obviously not a format for consumers (yet if ever at all). But if it is as good as you say it will be very nice with only one caveat. It again requires the listener to re-buy their libraries in this format. Add to that untold millions of records that where produced on vinyl and even cassette tape will likely never see this format. It will probably be pricey if/when it becomes a consumer format and will suffer the potential of it falling on its face as SACD and DVD-A has.
Sadly all too many consumers have been brainwashed and PURE LIED TO that lossy MP3 and iPod type sound is as good as even CD sound. So they accept it given no real test of reference to even a good CD sound let alone quality vinyl DVD-A, SACD. So the industry has cut its nose to spite itself (nothing new with the recording industry) and it will likely do the same if this DSD type format becomes a consumer format. It will cut its nose off again because it will price it too high for the general consumer to want to buy into.
The magic of vinyl regardless of it being a digital or an anlogue master is the used library world wide is MASSIVE! New vinyl is being made as a niche (GREAT!) and it has a sensation to it in ways digital media seems to lack.
As I said if a master is made of a great high-rez digital format and then cut a vinyl disc from it I'm 100% fine with it. If they make an affordable optical discs from it that can be easily played (not likely going to happen) then great too. But short of what will be a niche market even high-rez digital is in trouble today.
I appreciate you educating me some basics of DSD stuff you note and if it can capture and recreate the nuance of audio/sounds as a mastering format so that it is as good or better than the best analogue masters and can then be used to cut new vinyl from personally I WILL LOVE IT!!! because it requires me not to have to buy a new playback unit or whatever to hear it. |
I've had both analog and digital in my stereo system concurrently since 1983. I prefer vinyl for high-end sound, but can enjoy cd's too. Some pieces of music have never been available on digital (usually orchestral or jazz from the classic era), and some more contemporary music has only been ava ilable on cd. The point I'd like to make is that I'd r ather see people sit down and listen to music and get themselves involved in it, understand it, do their homework about the artists and pieces, and truly enjoy it, no matter what the medium. To say that one medium is more modern, wont be around in the future,or is bandwidth-limited, misses the point, IMHO.--Mrmitch |
Mrmitch,
You mirror much of how I feel on the topic.
Back in the early 80's I was getting into the hobby and of course the LP record reigned supreme for the consumer. I began to read up on digital though and the CD and was pulled into it by its hype and marketing. Yes it sounded different, it had a cleanliness to it and combined with the hype of telling us what we cannot hear (clicks and pops) we were told that it was Perfect Sound Forever. I have said here in earlier posts that I was hooked into digital not realising what I was losing in terms of vinyl. By the fall of '86 I had switched to CD's 100%. My old turntable and a few dozen LP's were boxed away and some even sold off.
It remained for me until just after Christmas 2002. I began to read online about vinyl and record players being made. I found my old JVC LA-11, vulcanised platter mat, bent Shure cartridge stylus, a slipping belt, and my remaining LP's. Hooked it up and cued up some Alan Parsons Projects. Um it was like being hit in the head with a book. I realised even with this wonky old setup was playing something I had not heard in 16 years.
Soon I had bought a new turntable in my case to wet my appetite it was a Music Hall mmf2.1 and began shopping thrift stores for used vinyl. Reading up online trying tweaks etc. and a rebirth to vinyl for me.
It was so revealing for me I had to then get a better CD player. Soon I had a new Cambridge Audio D-300se and even though it still lacked something compared to my vinyl rig it was close enough for me to still enjoy throwing in a CD when I wanted to.
You are correct some LP's are not available on CD and many CD's will never be made on vinyl. I was originally turned off my CD's once I got my mmf2.1 but the D-300se helped get me to accept CD's. Time and other tweaks along with just not getting to anal about it all has helped me see that hey a well made CD (sadly most made in the last 10 years suck in how they are recorded) can sound very good using decent gear. Some CD's are not much off an LP version and lets face facts not all of the millions of LP's pressed were well made. I have a few DOGS!
5 years down my rebirth into vinyl I kick myself for losing 16 years of its fun, feeling and sonic pleasure. But I can't change that now. I have really reshaped my mind into thinking more about that it is about the music and a good CD on a nice player can sound great. Yes, I prefer vinyl most of all, from the sound to the hunt of shopping thrift store and the ritual of playing vinyl. It is one of the best parts of this hobby BUT! I am more than happy to have and use CD's too. Recently after doing reading online I took an old PlayStation unit and did some tweaks to it and discovered that it can be tweaked into a decent ol' CD player. In fact I was happy and thrilled enough after I tweaked it out a bit to sell my D-300se to put that money into other electronic toys for my system. Honestly to me the PlayStation unit tweaked sounds almost analogue-like. The D-300se had a better overall sound but the PlayStation has a more precise sound and I like it. BTW tweaks include a full tear down and cleaning making sure all parts are cleaned, shielding is in place and a full flat black painting to help keep out stray light. I used differing materials to pad and dampen parts that can rub and resonate. I drilled out more holes for added cooling and for making home made spiked feet. I built a sprung iso platform to seat the unit and its spike feet onto and the spikes sit into brass plates. It truly sounds pleasant and it cost me next to nothing to tweak.
Anyways back to your point. I can enjoy good CD sound and good vinyl sound. As I said, I prefer vinyl first but am not averse to using my CD player. I to have taken it to bring back by buying a nice 3 head cassette deck into my system for the fun of cassette recordings. I have a stand alone Pioneer CD recorder and it is used to make digital copies of my fav LPs etc. but I wanted to return back to using a good cassette deck to make good analogue copies of some of my fav. vinyl. Along with having another source to playback the multitude of use cassettes at trifts too.
Now I can shop for vinyl first and foremost, CD's as a second choice and analogue cassettes as a third.
As time progresses for me it is about having pleasant sounding gear and maybe playing the upgrade game over time for each. |
Les, my priorities are close to yours; vinyl first, SACD or DVD-A second, CD third, LossLess Download fourth and that's it, no tape for me, anymore. I think Dolby screws up good recordings and I gave up on costly reel-to-reel decades ago. Those high speed tapes make $50 LPs seem cheap.
Within a year or so I'll have a hard drive music server with true hi rez digital archiving and wireless transfer throughout the house. It's not available today at a reasonable price, but it will be very soon. Of course, I'll keep all my old LPs, CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, etc.
Dave |
Well I am definitely a fan of vinyl. For a number of years I, too, only bought CDs (well a few records here and there). I know this is a familiar story but I just listened to music a lot less as time went on. When I got back into listening to music part of the reason was that I was back into vinyl. A new amp and speakers and now I listen to music all the time.
I was lucky in that I never sold my TT or my records so I still have them all.
That said I still listen to CDs, they still give me great musical experiences. I just prefer vinyl, it just sounds better. Oh, and the fun of having vinyl and taking care of it is part of the experience too.
DS |
Les, in a sense, analogue also suffers from resolution limits, for example, the tape that is used cannot resolve the sound to smaller discrete packages than the size of the magnetic particles on the tape. And, of course, the playback of the tape is really just an integration (reassembling)of discrete particles of information into a coherent ensemble. The math behind the digital is superior to the 'mechanical' method of integration used by analogue.
Nyquist theory, anyone?
Bob P. |
I think if they just packaged CDs into larger format LP-like packaging with some interesting artwork, etc., like the olden days, I would be very happy. I have thought about storing CDs of albums that I burn myself back in the original LP covers in protective sleeves, along with the vinyl. Haven't perfected this approach quite yet though.
Although I do like the sound of good vinyl, it's mostly the fun factor (and readability) of the whole package that appeals to me more so than the inherent sonics of vinyl alone.
Nothing the size of a CD will ever be as much fun as LPs were/are as long as it is packaged into a tiny, mostly unreadable case, as are CDs.
THese days, you get a lot more information about music online than you do anywhere else, so the days of fancy physical packaging of music may be over, I'm afraid. |
I agree with the packaging and fun factor of collecting vinyl, I was just in London and picked up this funk compilation album "FUNK DROPS: Breaks, Nuggets and Rarities from the Vaults of Atlantic, Atco, Reprise and Warner Bros 1968-1974" (I wasn't even born yet) and it comes with these liner notes with a brief history of the songs and the musicians...very cool.
I also just got a tube preamp (first one, tube anything) and hooked up my crappy turntable and it sounds awesome... I was just A/B-ing the gear with some friends.. and I'm beginning to see what what people on Audiogon mean about soundstaging, speakers disappearing and "holographic" images.
Very happy with my $40 turntable today.... can't wait to get a proper power amp that is a good impedance match.
Played a 1969 live John Mayall record too.. and it seems fine musicians playing acoustic instruments sound so much better on vinyl.... I don't think it matters as much when I'm playing JT (Justin Timberlake) but I think I saw Sexyback on LP.... (just kidding... sorta) |
Some of the new albums come in both digital (CD) and anglog (LP) format.
If you prefer LP in general, have you compared CD and LP for newly released albums?
The only new album I have for both CD and LP is Norah Jones' Come Away with me. On my system, Norah Jones' LP sounds a little bit (very subtle) better with warmth, depth and detail than CD. But my wife does not think so. She just cannot feel any difference. Well, my wife at least recognizes the difference between CD and LP for those early 60/70's LPs and their reissue CDs -- She think LP is much better.
My systme is
Clearaudio bluemotion with Aurum Classic Wood Cartridge, Clearaudio microbasic preamp, Yaqin MC10L tube amplifier (with Siemens EL34 and RCA 6922s replacing Chinse 6N1s), Tyler Taylo 7U speakers, Zu Wax biwire cable, and NAD C541i.
I just wonder whether $30 for Norah's LP was well spent for the the marginal difference.
Anyway, for those of you who have both Norah's LP and CD, do they sound quite close in your systems or quite different? |
I have to wonder how much the warmth and appeal of many older well recorded LPs from the 60s, etc., is due to the fact that they were LPs so much as the fact that these recordings were mastered using the analog tape and tube recording systems of the day, whereas these days most new recordings (like Norah Jones, I would assume) are mastered using SS and digital? |
03-19-08: Ihcho said:
"...I just wonder whether $30 for Norah's LP was well spent for the the marginal difference.
Anyway, for those of you who have both Norah's LP and CD, do they sound quite close in your systems or quite different?"
I've got both and much prefer the LP. It's not just overall sound quality, but the mix seems better. I don't know why they wouldn't come from the same two-channel master, but the CD is more compressed and the vocals not as rich, among other things.
Dave |
"I've got both and much prefer the LP. It's not just overall sound quality, but the mix seems better. I don't know why they wouldn't come from the same two-channel master, but the CD is more compressed and the vocals not as rich, among other things."
I also prefer Norah's LP, but probably not as much as you do. My listening may not be as refined as yours, or my analog system is not as good as yours, but difference I hear is, well, subtle or marginal. Rather spending $30, I would go for $6 used CD. Maybe, when I become well off to spend for higher quality cartridge and amplifier (and speaker), I would not spend $30 for newly released albums; I would rather spend $30 for 10 used LPs.
There is an exception - I would not hesitate to spend $30 for albums like Muddy Waters' folk singer. Its sound quality is absolutely superb. |
I am new to vinyl; I purchased a turntable in January. CD and vinyl presentations are very different. I enjoy them both. Since January, I have spent 90% of my time listening to my turntable mostly because it is new. However, today I listened to a B-tribe CD, which only comes in CD and it was extremely enjoyable. I dont think there needs to be a B-tribe vinyl record, although; it might be interesting to hear B-tribe on vinyl.
I got interested in audiophile equipment a couple of years ago, so this is basically all new to me. It took me about two years to figure out how to get all the parts of my Audio system and environment to work synergistically together and to sound good. Since the rest of my system was set up fairly well when I got my turntable, all Ive had to do since then, is learn what is necessary to make the turntable sound good in my system. That has taken about two months and I am still learning.
The turntable presentation in my system is a little bit thicker, a little bit more forward, has more of a feel to it, is slightly more 3-d and makes me feel like I am in the middle of it. The CD presentation is weaker in treble, the soundstage appears to be a little further back, and gives the impression of watching from a distance or the outside. They offer two different ways of enjoying the same presentation. Both my CD player and turntable are sweet sounding (especially after I figured out that you have to clean the needle every once in a while); both are very good at what they do and both are very enjoyable.
The way I see it, as long as I have a CD player, I am going to make sure it sounds good and is enjoyable. The same goes for my turntable. After two years of playing around with my system, there is one thing Ive learned: I can always change something in my system to alter its sound and make it sound better, if I dont like the way it sounds.
I have a lot of good SACDs and CDs; and I am building a nice collection of vinyl records. I like music so I will buy music in whatever format it comes. I probably have enough music so that if I were to decide to go through my whole collection, it might take me a few months. Basically, I probably dont need any new CDs, SACDs or vinyl so if any of the formats disappeared, I could live with it as long as I could get parts for my CD player and turntable.
I really dont think either CD or vinyl is going to disappear, though. CDs are convenient and can be very enjoyable in a properly set up audio system. Vinyl on the other hand is gaining a well-deserved reputation for a good quality rendition of music, which is attracting new comers like myself and a friend of mine who also bought a turntable a couple of months before I did. |
norah jones is not my cup of tea, but beyond the sound quality issue, 10yrs from now what will the cd version be worth and which one will you still be listening to? which one will you pull out to try and introduce your children to the music you love?. records have been spinning for over 100yrs, cds dead before they are 30. vinyl, i believe, will out live us all. |
