|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.72.208.26
Dear Audio Friends, do you happen to agree with the findings of this report?Question...
Is the sound on vinyl records better than on CDs or DVDs?"howstuffworks"
The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).
-------------------------I thought I would share this interesting piece of info and very cool web site.
If you know of any other graphs that go even deeper into the frequency ranges please feel free to share.
I think most know by ear that LP's are more accurate than CD's. The sound is absolutely most satisfying.
Best Regards,
Vinyleer
Follow Ups:
.
Close to the Edge, down by the river....
-Ray
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
Instead of explaining the math here, I will simply link to a helpful image posted by a HydrogenAudio regular. It is a picture of an oscilloscope trace of a 14khz sine wave, played back at 44.1khz sampling rate, on a PC motherboard's AC97 sound output. I will also link to the original thread this came from. (Thanks uart!)This image shows that the operation of digital-to-analog converters, as shown by the chart you link, simply does not occur with even the cheapest DACs available today. As long as you trust how this reading was taken - and I assure you, it should take very little faith - then sample & hold doesn't exist, and that chart is a lie.
Please follow the link and compare it to the samples that are actually stored on disk. The look quite a bit like the image you're posting. There are a couple differences - Audacity uses linear interpolation to draw lines between samples, instead of sample&hold as what you're describing - and the frequencies are a bit different. But the fundamental similarity is the same. What you see on a computer monitor is not what actually happens on the wire.
Of course this chart does match reality for NOS DACs with no output filters, but those are defective to begin with. Razz them out all you want, and I'll agree with you. They have no bearing on how DACs are supposed to be designed, nor on what even the cheapest DACs actually do.
If you're willing to keep supporting this argument (that this chart has some basis in reality), you should actually provide some physical evidence that DAC outputs behave like this. As in, wire up a scope, and plot it. Otherwise, you are sprouting nothing but hot air cooked up by marketing types and non-engineers.
"...linear interpolation..."
...between plotting the points stored on the CD and what a DAC actually does with them.(anyone want to post a fake article on how CD's cause cancer so Teresa can add it to her site?) :-)
From my web site:The History of the De-Evolution of Sound Quality
From Tubes to Solid State.
From 2 Track to 4 Track reel to reel
From real time duplication to high-speed duplication of Reel to Reels.
From RCA Living Stereo to RCA Dynagroove LPs.
From Virgin Vinyl to recycled Vinyl.
From Analog mastered LPs to Digitally mastered LPs
From Analog recorded LPs to Digitally recorded LPs
From LPs to CDs.The introduction of SACD and DVD-Audio while a vast improvement over CD still has not caught up with to the high resolution of the Vinyl LP.
Proposed required warning on Digitally recorded & Digitally remastered LPs.
WARNING! At some stage in the production of this LP "Digital Techniques" were used. Those suffering from Digitalis or having adverse reactions to digitized music may wish to avoid.
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
The words that come to mind are preposterous, absurd, ridiculous, Fugetabout it !Seriously great sound, good sound or even acceptable sound isn't quantifiable, way too many variables and the fact that the human perceptions are involved.
I have a 45 SET (Single ended triode) Tube Amplifier with an output of a bit less than 2 watts/ch. which isn't the problem one would assume as my loudspeakers are extremely efficient, (full range Back Horns)
this Amp looks like Dog Doo Doo, the builder John Hogan is a true artist/ crank, he actually prefers ancient Webster Transformers which are widely reputed to be flawed, he apparently prefers or at least has no problem using old improvised cases / chassis, my Power supply . rectifier section box was formerly God knows what ? he covered all the extra orifices with friction tape the sparse labelling is scrawled handwriting with what appears to be Type writer correction fluid.When I first got this Amp, I took it to a close friends lab, he's a brilliant EE, he hooked it up to his $30K Dual trace oscilloscope
he farted around doing all kinds of things and examining the curves
or whatever they are ?
and after he was satisfied, he pronounced my new amp as a real POS
I was horrified, as I'd traded off a $1,400.00 High tech OTL amp
with a huge array of MiG Tubes.I asked him to show me, he ran a few representative curves
explained what they represented as far as the frequency response
etc. then he hooked up his Ultra Low End Best Buy POS Receiver
$150 max ! and ran the same curves it has very flat very linear etc.I took it home hooked it up to my back Horns, allowed 20 Minutes
warm up, and instead of the horseshit sound my friend had set me up for, I was greeted by the most emotionally engageing music I've ever experienced in any system and room, I've ever had in 40 + years
and aside from the emotional gut thing, the image projected was crystallines, Cymbals shimmering above and behind me decayed like they were real, I could go on and on, it was breathtaking !
light years better than my 2 previous tube amps as well as my Moon 1.5 75 watt Solid state Integrated amp, which i think was $2,500 to $3,000 and was widely considered quite musical and great value for the money.And if you think that what I was hearing was delusion based on
my needing to hear great stuff, you're wrong, virtually any and every guest including the Mail Man, Tennants Family, employees
even the Cops that issued me a warning for my rowdy Dogs running loose, basically anyone(victim) I could Shanghai, every person amongst them who actually loves music, was blown away, surprised delighted, amazed, engaged etc. none of their reactions were anything but quite positive (The responses I noted BTW, were based on the looks on their faces their body language etc. (not
cursory polite verbal responses) by how beautiful it sounded, BTW without any Build up whatsoever, I'd initially just ask them what Artist/ or Genre they'd prefer. Go figure eh ?Art vs. Science ?
Right now I'm seriously broke, and yet I wouldn't part with my John Hogan 45 SET Amp for twice what the Amp I swapped for it was valued at. If someone piled up some serious amount of $$$ at some point I'd have to relent, but, I'd probably cry as they walked out with it.
I wonder how you or I would look on an EEG as far as gauging the intensity or depth of our emotions ?
Thanks, this information is so clear, well written that anyone can understand it.Tomorrow evening's update will have links to both articles “Is the sound on vinyl records better than on CDs or DVDs?” And “How Analog and Digital Recording Works by Marshall Brain” and the graph!
Thanks again!
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
"Thanks, this information is so clear, well written that anyone can understand it."As others said, too bad it is incomplete, misleading, and wrong.
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"What's wrong with mathematics? Math can be outright beautiful.
tomorrow evening.Did you have a good cry?
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
...after their moniker/name, you certainly keep a tenaciuos grip on your beliefs and dogmas. You could try being a little more open minded to other peoples ideas, and maybe your dogmas could learn new tricks.It's your choice...you can continue to stomp on anyone that holds a differing opinion to yours, but at least put a smiley emoticon at the end of your verbal strikes. Makes it read more friendly and less venomous....
You're not venomous.....right ? ;^)
Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. I happen to believe what fits my own listening experiences. And those two articles Werner trashed describe analog and digital perfectly.Have you every seen my web site: analoglovers.com? It is not Digital friendly, I am not Digital friendly either. Digital does not play music for me and I do not give it lip service or a free ride. If you are able to enjoy digitized music that is fine, but do not push you preferences on others.
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
Tomorrow evening? So I'll have to wait till Monday for a good laugh?
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
At some point perhaps you'll see the difference, and tone down your rhetoric.
and what is the truth but a mental approach anyway? don't talk about the truth.digital is a 'sample' bit by bit. that about says it all. and that's the truth.
"and what is the truth but a mental approach anyway?"since this makes absolutely no sense in any phonetic, physiological or psychological way, it explains a lot about your attraction to Teresa.
"don't talk about the truth."
First, don't tell me what I can or cannot talk about. Last I checked, this is an open forum. Then, carefully read the order of the posts. That's it. Note how dear, dear Teresa brings up the "truth" issue. See how I was merely responding to her "mental approach" to the truth? There ya' go! Wasn't so hard, was it? Reading comprehension is an often overlooked skill!
"since this makes absolutely no sense in any phonetic, physiological or psychological way, it explains a lot about your attraction to Teresa."psychological and philosphical: truth is relative.
my apologies. I certainly respect your (and Teresa's) right to post your opinion(s) on this site.I think Teresa should corral her zealotry a bit-she seems to suffer no ones opinion but her own. That is what annoys me, not her enjoyment of the analog medium.
For my web site I search for the musical truth unlike the Digital brigade that does nothing but make excuses for why real world Digital doesn't sound as good as it is supposed to on paper.They cannot and will never fool me.
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
Not the truth, but what you are going to present as the truth
to a guy who, oh ...
-holds two master's degrees in related fields
-worked with turntable manufacturer John Michell
-designs his own anti-aliasing filters for CD production
-designs his own phonostages
-studied disk cutters and their circuits and problems into some detail
-studied music mastering practices (then and now) in some detail
-talks to cartridge designers from time to time
-talks to mastering engineers from time to time
-knows a thing or two about auditory perception (though not enough by far)
-is involved with digital and analogue design every day
-knows the sound of analogue and digital multitrack and mastering tapes in the studio
-knows the difference between objective facts and subjective preferences (both are valuable and valid)
-understands that 'audio' is one big misunderstanding
-has respect for analogue/LP's achievements, despite its drawbacks
-has respect for digital/CD's achievements, despite its drawbacks
-understands that the medium or technology is pretty irrelevant provided one uses high production standards and displays competence at the recording/mastering stages
Sweet dreams ...
W
bla bla bla
.
you protest a little too much ...!
"the original waveform is recovered by smoothing the staircase with a low pass filter"To claim that Digital Audio does not recover an analog signal that is staircased is ludicrous. There is NO information between the samples in Digital, it is not continuous like analog.
As to the other claims made in those two well-written articles that even a layman could understand. You are free to disagree with them, personally I do not as they explain what I heard from Digital perfectly.
I choose to agree you are the one disagreeing with these two articles are you not?
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
you can believe whatever you want. If it makes you feel good. That doesn't mean it is the truth.The linked article is wrong sentence by sentence. There is barely a correct sentence in it.
But you don't care about that. It "feels" right to you.
Stick to reviewing music. Reviewing technical information is not a matter of opinion. That is what you don't seem to understand.
Also higher resolution digital was invented to increase the amount of samples per second to decrease the staircased recovered analog waveform. And the proof is high resolution digital does sound smoother than low resolution digital.Boy Oh boy sometimes you really take the cake, tunenut!
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
:)
This graph accurately reports what is MEASURED with a CD or DVD. This is simply the nature of sampled systems. Keeping in mind that at 10kHz, real audio signals are much smaller than they are at 20 Hz, which is why the CD has only a few bits.Now, the OUTPUT of a CD or DVD is very different than this, but it is also different than the original analog signal, UNLESS it is a very long, continuouse sine wave (not music). In that case the nyquest rules do apply and the analog signal is accurately reproduced.
I must agree that this doesn't really completely explain why vinyl is better than CDs/DVDs (the answer is also in the D/A conversion problem), but it is a useful, but over simplified, way to show the layman that the CD and DVD really don't truely capture the original signal.
"UNLESS it is a very long, continuouse sine wave (not music)"That is also blatantly wrong.
There is no requirement for a steady-state signal, much less a sine, in the whole Nyquist-Shannon-Kotelnikow shebang. You may want to dig out
Shannon's formulation of the sampling theorem and his proof. The proof is built entirely on the Fourier transform, which does not preclude transient/finite-time signals as it transforms signals to continuous spectra. (Perhaps you confuse with the Fourier series, which transforms periodic signals to a discrete spectrum.)
Hmm... so you are saying that phase and all is accurate with a single sine fragment? I don't think so. There simply is not enough information, especially at the limit of only two samples per cycle (at 20kHz). A key assumption in the formulation is that it is a repeating signal for some period of time. Such is the nature of frequency domain thinking.Sorry to disagree, but that's what this forum is for!
Phase and all is accurate within the constraints imposed by the Theorem, i.e. that the signal to be sampled has its Fourier transform confined to a band with the width of fs/2.The latter implies that after band-limiting to fs/2 the signal-to-be-sampled cannot have any fast changes anymore close to fs/2. This is the nature of band-limited signals, and has nothing to do with the sampling theorem per se. If you feel this is a problem then all you have to do is to increase fs.
---
I have said it many times before: if there is something wrong with digital audio then it is not because of the sampling theorem being wrong or partly-true (it is correct), but because there is no clue given, let alone a magic bullet(*), to make the band-limiting process painless, given the lowish sample rate of CD. And this gave the recording (gear) industry an opportunity to screw things up bigtime.
(* In fact there are copper bullets, if not silver ones, but too few people are aware of them. Keith Johnson was one of the first who understood this, I think.)
that website is full of psuedo science that has been discussed here before. Vinyl may sound the best for you, and maybe for me, but that graph is ridiculous.
But the graph to me is a clear example of the overall differences between compact sounds vs. a clearer analog.Thought the graph may be grossly out of true range, its visual description is a good one.
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
analog and vinyl have nothing to do with each other. a 10k in the abstract and 10 k tone on vinyl or a cd or anything else, are not the same thing.
The CD Audio output is not a staircase function as illustrated. This is another case of not understanding the whole Nyquist sampling theorem. If what that figure illustrates was in fact true, you couldn't even begin to listen to a CD.
or Digital would sound even worse than it does now.Did you ever see the brochure for the early Sony SACD and DAT players showing the staircase digital signal? They actually seemed to be proud of it.
This information is so clear, well written that I am adding both articles to my link page on my web site analoglovers.com.
“Is the sound on vinyl records better than on CDs or DVDs?” and “How Analog and Digital Recording Works by Marshall Brain”
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
The sample rate of a 44.1khz 16 bit cd is really close to the upper limits of a human ear hearing any difference between a DA signal and an analog master tape.A DVD-A recording at 96khz eclipses any possibility that the human ear can hear a difference in the signal. You might hear a difference between the playback devices but not in the signal itself.
The staircase description shown by the graph is completely wrong. I have seen the actual graphs done by the HDCD people and 20 bit 44.1khz actually sounds pretty awesome to my ears. HDCD was designed to completely match the limits of human hearing in the DA signal to an analog master tape. Just read their published literature if you want to learn more about the perceived inadequacy of CD redbook recordings.
Dithering is a whole different issue all together. Dithering does not smooth the staircase. It actually adds a noise floor to the digital recording. Without it the human ear could not hear the low level detail in the music. The background would be so silent that the human ear could not hear the quiet inner detail at all.
This was discovered very early by Philips engineers.
Dithering is added by a studio to be just what is necessary to uncover the low level details and is generally much lower noise than a Master tape hiss and certainly much lower than an LP's surface noise.
I wish we could stop digital bashing. Software is software. It is neither good nor bad it is simply a reproduction of what had been a performance. Enjoy the music not the media. I am after the magic of the performance not the technology of the playback.
"I wish we could stop digital bashing. Software is software. It is neither good nor bad it is simply a reproduction of what had been a performance. Enjoy the music not the media. I am after the magic of the performance not the technology of the playback."Sums it up nicely, I think.
But hey... different strokes, I guess.
Low resolution CD is a music destroyer. High resolution digital (96kHz 24 Bit PCM and DSD) can sound almost as good but it lacks the "soul" and "body" of analog.It's the music that matters and that is why Digital is a BIG problem. But it doesn't have to be as there are so many analog muscial alterntative plus George Mann's upcoming optical read analog format. Digital is not necessary.
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
Dave
Later Gator,
Crank up your talking machine, grab a jar of your favorite "kick-back", sit down, relax, and let the good times roll.The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
"Dither reduces quantization artifacts, allows the system to resolve information lower in amplitude than one-half of the least significant bit, and makes digital audio sound more like analog. Among other benefits, dither improves low-level resolution and smoothes reverberation decay. Without dither, reverberation decay gets granular in texture, then seems to drop off in a black hole. It's ironic that a small amount of analog noise can greatly improve the performance of digital audio."I stand corrected on one item, "the original waveform is recovered by smoothing the staircase with a low pass filter" p. 418.
It appears that the low pass filter is makes the original waveform look smoother, and both the low pass filter and dithering is required to make the original waveform sound smoother.
But nothing is as smooth as an analog waveform as it is continuous.
44.1kHz Digital is not acceptable as a music carrier. 24 Bit 96kHz and DSD are just barely acceptable. But any recording available in both high-resolution digital and pure analog, the analog is superior sometimes to a huge degree.
Digital does it own bashing in the playing of it?
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
Like me, he takes a physical phenomena and tries to describe it in laymen audiophile terms.Dither is simply a superimposed noise floor--Nothing more nothing less. Noise does not shape or smooth a wave form it simply adds a background noise level from which low level detail can be more easily heard.
The low pass cap filter on an analog output section is chosen to provide the smoothest sound. It does not smooth the signal itself. By the way the caps on your solid state and tube preamps and amplifiers do the exact same thing. It would be fair to say that every electronic component in a high resolution circuit was selected and voiced to provide the smoothest frequency response, the best overall sound quality and generate the highest s/n possible. Harley was describing a components effect on the sound and oversimplifying even on this.
Please refer to AES papers on digital waveforms and playback. Not to Harley's guide as a professional reference. I bet Harley would tell you the same thing.
I believe the big difference in digital is when you buy the more expensive models and get a better analog output amp. Many skimp on this figuring the DA will be done at the receiver or HT control unit rather than at the device level.
I have no great love for digital, I am spending my budget on LP's. Not because they are better or even as good as a CD, simply because they are cheap and people are dropping off their collections to thrift stores in huge numbers. I get to reap the rewards of having a better than average playback system and lots of inexpensive software to select from.
on a side note, dither can be interesting because of how it is implemented.I had some records go out for mastering recently to my usual mastering guy and they came back a little, well, cloudy sounding. I inquired about this and we tracked it down to the new dither that was being used. When the dither was changed the whole thing snapped back into focus, which I would never normally believe with something like dither, but then with digital you have to get the stuff in there and sometimes the way you do it can block information. One of the thinmgs i have learned from making records is that idea that digital is digital is as ridiculous a notion as analog is analog.
The Steinway software offers a variety of dithering options.Plus I find that certain analog to digital conversion software also seems to soften or thicken the music compared to others.
I prefer Cubase LE on my EMU 1212 processor for the cleanest and clearest window on recording my LP's to CDR or DVD-A.
I have no great love for digital, I am spending my budget on LP's. Not because they are better or even as good as a CD, simply because they are cheap and people are dropping off their collections to thrift stores in huge numbers. I get to reap the rewards of having a better than average playback system and lots of inexpensive software to select from.It sounds like you are not into vinyl, but into cheap.
I only use my gun whenever kindness fails
I go for the used LP's every time. 20 times more fun for the same dough!All music is good. DVD-A, SACD, CD, Tape or LP. It is all good.
Dave
Later Gator,
Crank up your talking machine, grab a jar of your favorite "kick-back", sit down, relax, and let the good times roll.The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I almost laugh watching the young uns going to the store and plunking down 30+ bucks for their cds when I could have a new album to listen to each day of the month for the same amount.
do me a favor and measure the freq response from a scully westrex cutting head at 331/3 and then we can talk. it gets really funny above 8k.
Also there are other types of reproduced Analog besides LPs what about the 2 Track/4 Track 7 1/2/15 IPS Reel to Reel analog formats many of us, me included own as well?I've never cut records but based on what I hear the best LPs sound like they compensate for any inaccuracies in frequency response of the cutting machine.
All one has to do is listen to the best recordings available in each format to confirm, it is really that easy.
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
you are right about the ebst recordings, but we may disagree because i think you are biased to an extent. you had a mastering place?
It was called Aesthetic Audio and the recordings were from Merlin Fidelity + of the UK they were Direct to Stereo. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab duplicated the cassettes for me on BASF chrome in Real Time from my 2 Track 15-IPS Dolby A Master copies. I never released any LPs so I am not familiar with the cutters.BTW nothing I have ever heard sounds as good as a 15 IPS reel to reel.
"Analog is Music, Digital is mathematics"
Happy listening,
Teresa
Thanks anyway.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: