This is quite a complete test... They put graphs on to see whats better...
I dont think they believed us until AFTER THE TESTS
http://web.archive.org/web/20070203071752/http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html
I dont think they believed us until AFTER THE TESTS
http://web.archive.org/web/20070203071752/http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html
Last edited:
From the concluding remarks:
"But it is also true that LPs have higher distortion levels which translate to ultrasonic frequency harmonics."
This was discernible in the plots shown. What was not discussed is the "harmonics" from the distortion of the analog vinyl playback system that lie within the audible region of the spectrum. It would be interesting to see what these distortion products look like - are they "tubey" even order products or something else? It's been documented that even order distortion like that produced from vacuum tubes is "pleasing to the ear", nevertheless it is content that is NOT present in the original signal. This might explain why CDs sound "lifeless" to vinylphiles...
-Charlie
"But it is also true that LPs have higher distortion levels which translate to ultrasonic frequency harmonics."
This was discernible in the plots shown. What was not discussed is the "harmonics" from the distortion of the analog vinyl playback system that lie within the audible region of the spectrum. It would be interesting to see what these distortion products look like - are they "tubey" even order products or something else? It's been documented that even order distortion like that produced from vacuum tubes is "pleasing to the ear", nevertheless it is content that is NOT present in the original signal. This might explain why CDs sound "lifeless" to vinylphiles...
-Charlie
FWIW, this article is from 2004, so quite old.
Digital technology has progressed quite a bit since then.
Particularly 192khz /24 bit hi-res digital (provided it was recorded in this format rather than upsampled) is a major step or two up from standard CD Red Book format (44.1khz / 16 bit).
I have listened to some of these hi res files and to my ears anyway, they are much better than standard CD.
Digital technology has progressed quite a bit since then.
Particularly 192khz /24 bit hi-res digital (provided it was recorded in this format rather than upsampled) is a major step or two up from standard CD Red Book format (44.1khz / 16 bit).
I have listened to some of these hi res files and to my ears anyway, they are much better than standard CD.
Yes but only for about 30 plays and then it deteriorates to the point that you cannot get anything out of it what you could get out of CD (again and again until the CD laminations deteriorate).
This is a fools errand. Vinyl isn't a superior technology over digital transport formats it is however annoying that Digital requires a great deal of care for the signal whereas Vinyl is a lot easier to care for, basically you just need the right speed, the right pickup and a cheap preamp (with better results coming from more money thrown at the preamp) to get great results from vinyl.
Digital really is a pain to setup, no really, I've gotta spend $200 on a USB to I2S converter just so I can get decent sound out of those audio files on my media center.
I wish there was better care taken of Digital formats but I'm afraid its really treated like an old rag most of the time.
That article really is pointing fingers at the masters and mixers of the audio recordings not of the inventors of all digital formats. Remember when CD was shunned for sounding artificial? Well guess what, the master formats were okay, they were recorded on analog tape back then, but it was the guys who were remastering those CDs for a digital world who screwed up.
http://mastering-media.blogspot.com.au/2008/10/metallica-death-magnetic-vinyl-sounds.html
Mastering requires great care and attention, some care and attention is given to CDs today but no where near as much.
The CD format itself is good. Trust me on that one.
Yet more proof that the CD format itself is great, its just the fools at the controls who screw things up.
Unless you have a good DAC then CD will never sound great no matter how much you want it to. That is why 99% of people think it sucks.
And a comment below:
Really? So I don't sit down and listen for 4 hours a day infront of my setup? Wow, you must really know me then.
I love every minute of it btw, and this is coming from someone who grew up loving Analog over Digital and might have been converted in the last few months.
Whats surpising even to me is that CD copies of music that I've also bought on Vinyl sound better than the vinyl does. on an ortofon om10 super feeding a kt88 se amp in triode mode....
Amazing what a little old TDA1541 from 1986 can do for you!
Last edited:
Analogue, recordings have all of the required phasing and harmonics that give the listener a much nicer listening experience, as if live. CD, MD and DAT remove harmonics to aid compression. See the Red book from Sony. Anything that is not essential is removed or filtered out. Many years ago, Yamaha Electronics produced the CD3. That player, like the early Philips players, added back dynamics which helped with classical music reproduction but one cannot add the phase and harmonics that were removed, the algorithm does not allow it. LP's and vinyl have all the information. That is why Analogue is better.
Ultrasonics from vinyl and a moving coil cartridge that is running through an RIAA equalizer? Definitely no chance! All HF is filtered out. Any Ultrasonics come from somewhere else.
Agreed 100%, the universe is analog and our brains are (kinda) analog, not wholly digital, so therefore an analog format is perfect for audio reproduction.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-human-brain-analog-or-digital
I'll put it another way, Digital is a man made invention which nature rejects in most parts, we don't have sea shells on the sea shore arranged in binary, its random and perfectly random too nothing syntehsized from a DAC, We have merely grasped it as a tool for our means.
If you were to sit on the edge of a beach and listen to the waves with perfect hearing (from your younger years) you would realize that the entire world is full of high frequency information, massive amounts of it flow into your brain like an overload of various neurons firing at an amazing parallel information processing speed.
Now tell my brain to limit itself to 16 bits/44.100KHz or 22Khz and whatever a couple of poorly placed microphones can AND then represent it ats either 0 or a 1, THEN press it onto a compact disc designed in the 1980s and I'd scream.
If there was a 1 inch tape consumer format released (like VHS) which catered entirely to stereo analog reproduction then I'm sure I would buy into it on the spot. What would be even better was if it was film-like in nature, an optical format which doesn't need to contact the surface of the 'tape' film but instead simply pass as laser through it.
Convenience is what will win Digital fans back to Analog, otherwise we are all doomed for eternity to be playing inconvenient Vinyls for the rest of our lives. And my definition of a digital fan is everyone, everyone who owns a stereo.
Last edited:
Vinyl can do what all digital formats fail to do, it may be that the inferioity af signals you can measure from vinyl compared to digital is exactly what gives vinyl it's posetive edge.
You fail if you take the signal from the source an compare it there. It must be evaluated through a complete chain. On vinyl the electrical signal starts as movement in a magnet system, this transition is by no means perfect and has dynamic errors, it creates a preemphasis layered on the music signal,the luck is that this dynamic emphasis is exactly the opposite of the same type of dynamic effects created by coil movement of the speaker.
More and more audiophiles realize this an we see analogue numbers growing again.
You fail if you take the signal from the source an compare it there. It must be evaluated through a complete chain. On vinyl the electrical signal starts as movement in a magnet system, this transition is by no means perfect and has dynamic errors, it creates a preemphasis layered on the music signal,the luck is that this dynamic emphasis is exactly the opposite of the same type of dynamic effects created by coil movement of the speaker.
More and more audiophiles realize this an we see analogue numbers growing again.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...k-analog-digital-ikea-sanity-column/17634517/
I never thought (card)board games would make a comeback.
Then again I didn't think Cassette would make a comeback either.
or Vinyl.
I know backyard gardening is making a comeback though
****-a-Doodle-Doo!! Get a rabbit. they are quieter and you can sleep in!http://www.askaudiomag.com/articles/the-return-of-the-analog-recording-studio
Last edited:
I mostly see the number of morons listening to digital recordings, digitally mastered and stamped on LPs growing
I don't see that digital recording or mastering being an issue, the benefit of the vinyl is primarily in the playback chain. When that is said, some of the very best recordings are recorded from the 50ies and up throug the 70ies. But even today really good well recorded vinyl is being made.
Morons just who are you addressing with that title..??
Morons just who are you addressing with that title..??
I always like to point out that the Shannon-Hartley Channel Capacity Theorem applies to analog "channels" which would include tape or vinyl recording/playback
Shannon?Hartley theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
vinylphiles have no leg to stand on re audio band S/N, Linearity, "jitter" performance numbers re flagship monolithic audio ADC and DAC, 192k should even be good enough for Quadraphonic CD-4 30kHz subcarrier
Shannon?Hartley theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
vinylphiles have no leg to stand on re audio band S/N, Linearity, "jitter" performance numbers re flagship monolithic audio ADC and DAC, 192k should even be good enough for Quadraphonic CD-4 30kHz subcarrier
Jcx- you miss the point, isolating performance in one part of the system may compromise other aspects, I newer claimed that digital is an inferior source, my only claim is the it does not interface as good as vinyl. It doesn't matter how good the digital source is, when the speakers need a certain dynamic coding to sound their best. Like correcting an error with an opposite error. Mayby the equation would change if coil less full range speakers were invented
The in band IMD from vinyl reproduction is easily measured and quite horrifying.
As an storage and playback medium, digital PCM is superior to analog archiving and playback mediums. Digital does indeed provide the possibility of PERFECT archiving and waveform reproduction in any practical sense. The problems with practical digital audio systems have greatly to do with technical implementation short-cuts, most of which are cost driven.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.