what's wrong with that?
how does that help the 4.4 samples per cycle issue you adressed. how can 4.4 samples per cycle work more or work less depending on what?
what's crappy about it.
@charles darwin
btw to achieve 65dB dynamic range you need 11bit
Well it's safe to say that we disagree on every single point then isn't it
You cannot master vinyl in the same way;- no. The needle cannot move that fast - physics limits you in the need for stylus contact and the stylus to stay in the groove. These limitations prevent such hard over-driving of the signal.Actually that has nothing to do with the CD but with the mastering engineer. You could put the same master on vinyl (nowadays
So you're saying the Kaiser Chiefs record you listened to on CD will be mastered differently espescially for Vinyl?
In digital you can go from 32768 to -32767 in under 23us - try that with vinyl.
It gives you 6dB per bit is what it gives you, the noise is irrelevant. The problem is that those 16 bits are linear, hearing is logarithmic. This means that a signal on a CD at -60dB leaves you with a 6bit resolution. Is that hi-fi? I don't think so.
That is your opinion, not shared by me or many others. You need to read Nyquist properly because 44.1kHz gives problems of filtering, aliasing and phase accuracy at higher frequency. For instance at 22.05kHz how loud is the waveform? The answer is the loudness is arbitrary depending upon your interpretation of the crossing points - in theory you could have a loud signal at 22.05kHz register nothing in an ADC at 44.1kHz - or everything - as you move down to the lower frequencies you get beating etc. Then there is the need for a 96dB brick wall filter over less than an octave. Tricky at 44.1kHz, easier at 192kHz.
Both the low sampling rate and the terrible coarseness make quiet high frequency stuff rather distorted. Dithering just adds noise - it doesn't solve the problem, particularly at mid and high frequencies.
But I do.
I blame it because the low resolution makes stuff sound flat and lifeless unless you pump up the levels to clipping. It really wants to be 24bit, the compression used to get the most out of 16bits tells us that.
I blame it because we could have DVDs with 24bit/96kHz to buy, but the record companies are too lazy and greedy to sell us that, we are supposed to like what we are sold, but little of what they sell now is hi-fi.
Digital sound should be great, but we are stuck with a slow, coarsely digitized error prone source that is mangled at the source.
Cause it is. HD (radio) = Hybrid Digital not High Definition.
I like vinyl, despite the fact that I sold all my LPs 12 years ago. What an idiot! But I can still pick up a lot of goofy old LPs of strange music at thrift stores and swap meets for cheap. And I love goofy old music. Used to do the same with 78s, but that market is not what it used to be. There was sooo much cool stuff on 78 that never made it past that format.
I don't have a kilodollar vinyl setup, not needed for the records I have. Pioneer TT, Shure cart. But I still really enjoy it.
get over it...
vinyl rules, and digital sux (generally, and just my opinion).
Yes I know our hearing is logarithmic (look at the organ we use to hear with, a nice logarithmic spiral...). Yes I know that following Nyquist–Shannon theory, 2 points should be sufficient to allow us to reconstruct a waveform. And that doubling the frequency of the highest notes or frequency possible, should allow for a smooth waveform to be reproduced.
However, whether real or imagined, I find analog so much nicer to listen to. And panomaniac offers another good point: much music in the "78" format never made to 45's or LPs. The same can be said of very cool 45s and LPs never making it to cd or other digital formats. The shame here is the loss of music, not how one ought to listen to it or what one ought to listen to it played on.
These "cd vs. analog" threads quite bore me. And this discussion really does not belong in an analog thread. Perhaps we ought to outlaw them completely on the forums unless declared as such in the initial message in the thread.
peace.
vinyl rules, and digital sux (generally, and just my opinion).
Yes I know our hearing is logarithmic (look at the organ we use to hear with, a nice logarithmic spiral...). Yes I know that following Nyquist–Shannon theory, 2 points should be sufficient to allow us to reconstruct a waveform. And that doubling the frequency of the highest notes or frequency possible, should allow for a smooth waveform to be reproduced.
However, whether real or imagined, I find analog so much nicer to listen to. And panomaniac offers another good point: much music in the "78" format never made to 45's or LPs. The same can be said of very cool 45s and LPs never making it to cd or other digital formats. The shame here is the loss of music, not how one ought to listen to it or what one ought to listen to it played on.
These "cd vs. analog" threads quite bore me. And this discussion really does not belong in an analog thread. Perhaps we ought to outlaw them completely on the forums unless declared as such in the initial message in the thread.
peace.
Yes, you can get good bass with vinyl. And yes, many new LPs sound great, better than the CD if carefully made and from high-rez masters. But this will vary from album to album. Check online audio forums that discuss music and ask about particular titles.
What it really gets down to is what kind of music you like and how you tend to collect recordings.
Above a certain level (and a tuned up Thorens is there) LPs can sound fantastic, with very low surface noise. When I have visitors, they comment on how old records have NO surface noise on my LP12. (They do, but it's close to inaudible.) As your vinyl player improves, the noise decreases. Newer cartridges can access areas of the groove that older stylii never touched.
And, for a certain type of personality, its just fun to dig up old gems from used record shops. There's a wider selection of music on LPs than on any other format. (Excluding from the mid-90's to mid-00's, where there's more on CD.)
There are a lot of great records that never had good CD mastering, and may never will. The reissues weren't given the same care as the originals. In other cases, the master tapes have deteriorated. The LP was made from the fresh tape. And vinyl playback always seems to have room to grow. Each new gear improvement brings more rewards from the old records. With CD I find the upgrade steps seem smaller after a point.
But, this all depends on what you like. There's no point in getting into the vinyl format if what you like is not available. Check online and at your local shops and see what's out there, and whether the prices seem reasonable to you.
What it really gets down to is what kind of music you like and how you tend to collect recordings.
Above a certain level (and a tuned up Thorens is there) LPs can sound fantastic, with very low surface noise. When I have visitors, they comment on how old records have NO surface noise on my LP12. (They do, but it's close to inaudible.) As your vinyl player improves, the noise decreases. Newer cartridges can access areas of the groove that older stylii never touched.
And, for a certain type of personality, its just fun to dig up old gems from used record shops. There's a wider selection of music on LPs than on any other format. (Excluding from the mid-90's to mid-00's, where there's more on CD.)
There are a lot of great records that never had good CD mastering, and may never will. The reissues weren't given the same care as the originals. In other cases, the master tapes have deteriorated. The LP was made from the fresh tape. And vinyl playback always seems to have room to grow. Each new gear improvement brings more rewards from the old records. With CD I find the upgrade steps seem smaller after a point.
But, this all depends on what you like. There's no point in getting into the vinyl format if what you like is not available. Check online and at your local shops and see what's out there, and whether the prices seem reasonable to you.
Yes they do - at least some of them. Shure styli had some rubber pieces in them that harden with time rendering them useless. Had to replace a V15 type V stylus for that reason. Finest moving magnet ever built but no more styli to be had.
G²
Try Donald Fagen's Morph The Cat if you want bass out of vinyl.
allmusic ((( Morph the Cat > Overview )))
Good vinyl keeps getting better. Two or three songs per side and sometimes even spinning at 45RPM. Delicious..
/Hugo
The Stanton 881S was good too. Used to have one in the 80's. Some Grado are good nowadays and there is the Shelter 201 too.
Have you ever heard ANY LP with lower than 32Hz on it? The reason for that is all the various mechanical combinations of arm/cartridge resonances. Some players can handle it but the ones that can't will return the dis as 'defective' when in fact it's the player. Manufacturers don't make (they lose) money on returns so what's the point when there are no complaints with the 32Hz limit?
I had an LP cut in 1984 that had material below 32Hz on it. My Shure V15 type V in the Dual 721 table had no problems at all but the guy with the expensive Rega table had problems with skips. In any event, the LP was a sad copy of the original digital recording. The lacquer sounded pretty good but the vinyl was way noisier than the lacquer.
I we did _not_ have LPs and somebody said they were going to introduce a new medium based on cutting a groove representing the audio into a disc, most people would find that nuts. Next we'll be hearing about how wonderful the CRT is.
My earlier rant didn't include tracing distortion and tangent errors but those are problems as well.
If you like it, that's great but I surely don't miss vinyl - or CRTs or analog TV or typewriters or floppy discs or carburetors or distributors or inner tubes or vacuum tubes or ....
G²
Same with some new Shure I have read. Sumiko Pearl is good budget MM too BTW. Basically a Shelter 201 with a bit different stylus.
These points actually support your preference for Vinyl! The problem with logarithmic ears is that CDs have linear steps, so at high levels you get fantastic resolution (1/65535 of the waveform), but at low levels resolution drops to 1/32, 1/64 etc of the waveform extent. I.e distortion rises with falling levels.
Nyquist theory also does not support what CD afficionados usually claim, you need more than two points per cycle to represent phase and magnitude. At the 2 points per cycle limit your phase is fixed to the digital clock and magnitude is fixed to the digitital numbers, which because of aliasing errors in sampling will not be in the right place. If you sample at 22kHz on a 44.1kHz system you get a 0.05kHz or 50Hz beat frequency which when played back will come out as a 22.05kHz signal with a AM modulated 50Hz level variation.
24bit/96kHz close up these gaps to un-noticeable levels.
As I say - record companies do not care about quality. Stupid because they'd sell a lot more discs if they had 4GB of top quality music on them rather than 0.6GB of distorted, compressed and clipped copies that sound no better than MP3s.
Are people gullible enough to trust that CD has a real
20KHZ bandwith?...
For whoever think a little, there s blatant evidence that
the high range signals above 5khz are truncated.
Here a graph of a 15khz sine.
The sampling points are displayed by the green curve, i.e,
at the points where the curve abruptely change its slope.
Joining these points , as displayed, and has would do a DAC
converter , show that there s ineherently loss of information,
and that the reconstitued signal can in no way be similar to
the original signal, since the CD format sampling is a lossy conversion,
as its sample rate is way too low..
All the digital processing can do is to calculate a statistical
solution to compensate the absent information, exactly the
same way as it correct the disc bad surface induced missing bits,
replacing the original missing highs by a statisticaly equivalent noise..
20KHZ bandwith?...
For whoever think a little, there s blatant evidence that
the high range signals above 5khz are truncated.
Here a graph of a 15khz sine.
The sampling points are displayed by the green curve, i.e,
at the points where the curve abruptely change its slope.
Joining these points , as displayed, and has would do a DAC
converter , show that there s ineherently loss of information,
and that the reconstitued signal can in no way be similar to
the original signal, since the CD format sampling is a lossy conversion,
as its sample rate is way too low..
All the digital processing can do is to calculate a statistical
solution to compensate the absent information, exactly the
same way as it correct the disc bad surface induced missing bits,
replacing the original missing highs by a statisticaly equivalent noise..
Attachments
When resynthesizing from a code its far more processing than mere (imperfect) trancription from a groove which is just transducing. Another approach. Has to display differences even if in the best level for both ways. Should give a somewhat different presentation. Say magnetically reading a fast analogue open reel VS SACD. Reading VS synthesizing that is. Just a simplistic generalization. Never mind.
I found a picture to illustrate my point about aliasing near the Fsr/2 frequencies:
Any of the pictured sinewaves could be the original signal, at almost any level.
These beats/aliasing errors extend down into the midrange, getting smaller as they go of course: but I think we can still hear them as our ears are very very good in the midrange.
Realistically a decent (accurate reproduction) frequency response to 10kHz is pushing it for a CD. Nyquist never said you can go perfectly to Fsr/2 - people just think he did. He said that was the limit, after which the digital information can be interpreted as various different waveforms.
Vinyl 'just is', being analogue. If has a myriad of imperfections, but the sum is still often less than the CDs mistracking/digital errors + coarse sampling rate + coarse resolution at levels lower than max output. Where low level information on Vinyl is determined by molecule thickness down into the noise, the CD marches on down with 6dB/bit steps which make much of the claimed 96dB (16 x 6dB) dynamic range unusable, especially for classical music.
As for the person who mentioned tubes, the triode is still the most linear device known to audio
Any of the pictured sinewaves could be the original signal, at almost any level.
These beats/aliasing errors extend down into the midrange, getting smaller as they go of course: but I think we can still hear them as our ears are very very good in the midrange.
Realistically a decent (accurate reproduction) frequency response to 10kHz is pushing it for a CD. Nyquist never said you can go perfectly to Fsr/2 - people just think he did. He said that was the limit, after which the digital information can be interpreted as various different waveforms.
Vinyl 'just is', being analogue. If has a myriad of imperfections, but the sum is still often less than the CDs mistracking/digital errors + coarse sampling rate + coarse resolution at levels lower than max output. Where low level information on Vinyl is determined by molecule thickness down into the noise, the CD marches on down with 6dB/bit steps which make much of the claimed 96dB (16 x 6dB) dynamic range unusable, especially for classical music.
As for the person who mentioned tubes, the triode is still the most linear device known to audio
It is the quantisation errors, at full scale they are tiny: 1/(2^16) = 1/65536 of the p-p waveform. In a quiet passage 66dB down they will be 1/2^(16-11) = 1/32 of the p-p waveform.
So for quiet stuff you have the signal quantised into 32 chunks, 16 above and 16 below. Going to 24bit gives you 256 (2^8) times that - so 32 chunks becomes 8192 chunks: i.e.: back to hi-fi again.
This rising distortion with falling levels is deceptive and one of the major issues with CDs IMO.
Most of those threads can be "labelled" as (predictable) frantic tech war zones.
And consequently missing the entire situation at hand, some TT operators also finger fondle kilobuck transport/DAC combos.
For the CD/LP status, the gas/diesel analogy pops up again (predictable me, total brainflush by automobile industry classes at tech-u)
16-valve, 4-fold oversampling heads, CPU fuel injection with afterburner catalytic converters, seemed to push Diesel out of the picture.
Then came multi-valve, common-rail diesel, ULSD. Two-stroke low speed diesel still is the most fuel efficient combustion engine, and the US Navy is stepping up to algae bio bunker fuel.
Not primarily technology driven, it's the (global) limitations that drive the technology.
Y'all continue with the techy talk, hear.
OK just a little bit another perspective.
IMHO decimation filters definitely do not make records sound more natural or better then its analog original. However NOS true analog LPs are very expensive nowadays. Very few audiophiles can afford collecting NOS records (and poses top notch vinyl audio setup) that reveals full LP potential. I cannot.
Second hand heavily used for many years LP on entry level second-hand turntable might sound as not good as RedBook CD let say on Wadia decoding computer.
Pure IMHO, of course
IMHO decimation filters definitely do not make records sound more natural or better then its analog original. However NOS true analog LPs are very expensive nowadays. Very few audiophiles can afford collecting NOS records (and poses top notch vinyl audio setup) that reveals full LP potential. I cannot.
Second hand heavily used for many years LP on entry level second-hand turntable might sound as not good as RedBook CD let say on Wadia decoding computer.
Pure IMHO, of course
- Status
- Not open for further replies.