Yes, deflect and obfuscate , whats acceptable distortion Sy...
Still haven't looked at the literature?
In which case no Ferrari, Lambo or Aston Martin would be useful. You would most likely bash a dent in the roof with your head if the potholed road is the test reference.
And its still a subjective test. Perfectly fine when qualified correctly e.g.:
"Most of the best reproduced audio I have heard was from vinyl in a carefully set up system" vs. "Good digital can be very good but if you haven't heard good vinyl you haven't heard the best."
The first is clearly an opinion, the second states an opinion as an undeniable fact. That's why the second claim leads to flame wars and usually doesn't generate much intelligence. Unfortunately in the DIYaudio the qualifier that came after " Despite the distortion, noise, channel separation etc a well setup vinyl system is the best I have ever heard." will get lost in the flames over the first.
My original point was the question of whether the "better musical experience" came from or was some how keyed perceptually to the clearly identifiable aberrations of vinyl playback.
I dunno what youze guyz is tawkin aboot.
I dunno what youze guyz is tawkin aboot.
At this point it seems pretty obvious from both a technical/engineering/measurement and listening/subjective point of view that *all* of the recording/transfer mediums - meaning digital vs. analog and LP, tape, digital, and all the variations therein and thereof *are* not the same. And, they are to a great degree audibly different, and have different limitations and compromises.
If there are any doubters that "redbook" 16/44.1 is not a fairly big compromise in a number of important ways, you'd best go to the back of the bus, and do some more sleuthing, eh?
What we are seeking, if I can be so bold as to put this forth, is a medium that has the fewest compromises and the maximum performance, embodying the things our perceptions like the most (especially WRT the media we have now). We don't have one yet.
It's pretty clear that we are still in the nascent phase of digital. More bandwidth and higher sample rates, perhaps even alternate sampling schemes to come are likely to yield unambiguously superior sonic results some time in the not too distant future. The so-called "hi-rez" (24/192) digital is obviously better than 16/44.1, but not quite "perfect" yet. I suspect personally it is more on the 192khz side where the improvement is coming at present.
So vinyl and LP playback or even top notch analog tape is objectively inferior as noted with regard to S/N, but sonically still is perceived in a very positive way. The somewhat obvious conclusion is that our brains are wired to process *something* about the way this is being reproduced in a way that we *like*. The fact that it is technically better or worse is somewhat irrelevant.
The entire point of any playback system is to provide stimulus and cues that cause us to "decode" this information and make sense of it. Anything that causes confounding of this decoding process is a problem. Anything that closely parallels or "matches" what is expected by our brains in the stream of input that is decoded, aids in the decoding process. It almost does not matter if the cues come in a technically correct package - meaning the cues *might* be different than the original signal and still be "liked" more than the original signal! Why? Because they "match" the decoding template in some manner that is "better". (think high-ish distortion SE amp playing basic CD player...) Of course, everyone's "template" is different to a lesser or greater degree.
I dunno what youze guyz is tawkin aboot.
At this point it seems pretty obvious from both a technical/engineering/measurement and listening/subjective point of view that *all* of the recording/transfer mediums - meaning digital vs. analog and LP, tape, digital, and all the variations therein and thereof *are* not the same. And, they are to a great degree audibly different, and have different limitations and compromises.
If there are any doubters that "redbook" 16/44.1 is not a fairly big compromise in a number of important ways, you'd best go to the back of the bus, and do some more sleuthing, eh?
What we are seeking, if I can be so bold as to put this forth, is a medium that has the fewest compromises and the maximum performance, embodying the things our perceptions like the most (especially WRT the media we have now). We don't have one yet.
It's pretty clear that we are still in the nascent phase of digital. More bandwidth and higher sample rates, perhaps even alternate sampling schemes to come are likely to yield unambiguously superior sonic results some time in the not too distant future. The so-called "hi-rez" (24/192) digital is obviously better than 16/44.1, but not quite "perfect" yet. I suspect personally it is more on the 192khz side where the improvement is coming at present.
So vinyl and LP playback or even top notch analog tape is objectively inferior as noted with regard to S/N, but sonically still is perceived in a very positive way. The somewhat obvious conclusion is that our brains are wired to process *something* about the way this is being reproduced in a way that we *like*. The fact that it is technically better or worse is somewhat irrelevant.
The entire point of any playback system is to provide stimulus and cues that cause us to "decode" this information and make sense of it. Anything that causes confounding of this decoding process is a problem. Anything that closely parallels or "matches" what is expected by our brains in the stream of input that is decoded, aids in the decoding process. It almost does not matter if the cues come in a technically correct package - meaning the cues *might* be different than the original signal and still be "liked" more than the original signal! Why? Because they "match" the decoding template in some manner that is "better". (think high-ish distortion SE amp playing basic CD player...) Of course, everyone's "template" is different to a lesser or greater degree.
could it be the euphonic coloration of your tube amp is allowing you to enjoy your digital setup, some kind of synergy with your fixed ohm mini monitors ...
I thought one of your posts mentioned Cary, I'm too lazy to go back. Euphonic distortion would be an understatement in their case. If i'm wrong sorry.
if it measures good and sounds bad, i start looking for Stuart ...
Where this comes from I have not a clue. My experience is that measurements have little or no bearing people's subjective preferences, but that is all they are subjective preferences. I read a fairly neutral summary of the listening rooms at RMAF today, as I expected the writer lauded the vendors that booked repeat rooms and took some care in setup and treatment. He also praised the Wilson Audio room as far and away the show to beat, bass and dynamics up the wazoo for me run away (or at least bring ear plugs).
Last edited:
I thought it was the original is analog.
Electronic imaging implies processing i.e. manipulation. Storage with enough error correction encoding to ensure bit perfect transfer from one medium to another is not processing in that sense,
Maybe NAB pre-emphasis.de-emphasis and bias on a master tape is not processing either?
But it is more accurate. Recording and reproducing signals as analogues (e.g. voltage, stored magnetic flux, groove deviation) is hard and prone to error; digital is much easier once the required bit density is available. Any problems with digital come in the conversion stages, not the part in between.a.wayne said:
Both analogue and digital must necessarily throw some things away, as we don't have infinite bandwidth, zero noise, and unlimited money. So both get rid of HF stuff most people can't hear and most speakers can't reproduce. Both get rid of extreme LF; LP also has to destroy stereo for 'ordinary' LF. LP compromises on short-term pitch stability, in order to keep turntable mass (and hence weight) to a reasonable amount; in digital terms LP has appallingly poor jitter performance. LP compromises on dynamic range and frequency response in order to provide a reasonable side length (about 20 minutes?). Similarly, digital compromises on both (to get 74 mins - Beethoven 9?).
If we were used to digital sound, then someone invented LP we would all fall over laughing.
Since I don't attach 4 ohm loads to 8 ohm taps, that measurement would be a waste of my time. If you're curious, you can build the design and measure it. The "8 watt" stuff was pulled out of your nether regions and has no relationship to reality. Out of curiosity, have you ever designed anything? Even a volume control knob?
I've published the S/N of my amp- it's -85dB, unweighted, 20Hz-20kHz, noise floor better than -100dB. As a practical matter, Jan Didden had his ear right up against the speaker and thought the power was off.
-85dB re what? Noise floor -100dB re what, what fft bin width?
Not so , digital youngsters when exposed to analog would not agree with you, there's a reason why JC and others still produce phono stages , digital has yet to deliver on its sonic virtues , hard to comprehend if exposure is limited ..
Does this have anything to do with the industry sticking with a medium that primarily only offers 16-bit 44.1KHz sampling rate(minimum Nyquist bit rate)?
If the medium was distributed with a much higher digital resolution of say 24-bit 96-192KHz, would you say the same?
I think that 16-bit/44.1KHz is poor or old technology, in the fact that if you look at distortions of the ADC.DAC process, at lower signal levels it gets really bad. Lots of digital part spec's usually only give THD #'s at 0dBfs, but we all know music is very seldom at this level, the crest factor being considerable less, so this ADC/DAC stuff is done with poor performing conversions.
So I posture, this is the inherant issue with the digital medium, still today.
The attempt of improving the audio medium by using SACD was abandoned by the general public because?
No perceived advantages over the standard CD?
Royalties?
General public do not care?
No beef with Sy or his amp dutchie, Sy made unsubstantiated statements and made his amp the beef , even calling out his own qoutes, now do you find it interesting he has a problem with LP coloration, yet uses a tube amplifier.
Do you not have an issue with Sy not defining acceptable distortion ( his statement)..
Then refusing to post up squarewave responses after claiming low distortion, wide bandwidth ,high stability and no coloration.
Remember Sy cuts no quarter when he demands such from others, So, No , i have no beef with his amp, i did'nt even know about it until he brought it into play, Stuart needs to play to his own standards...
My 2C
Last edited:
I'm puzzled: acceptance of sub-% distortion in a valve amp prohibits criticism of multi-% distortion from LP. Have I missed something? We will put on one side for a moment the facts that a valve amp has wider bandwidth, lower noise floor and negligibly small jitter when compared with LP.
SY, is this an engineering error, or you normally measure plots like this??
The Heretical Preamp, p6
The Heretical Preamp, p6
Neither. It was using soundcards and software that I had on hand at the time. Nonetheless, it shows the essence of what I was trying to show- distortion and noise are very, very low, lower than I could measure with the HP3581A I got from John. These days, I use an M-Audio 192 and AudioTester.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.