Temporal resolution

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
When looking at the source separately I am firm believer that the digital signal in absolute terms is better than any analogue is capable off. But in a system, analog has something to offer that no digital system can. It starts as the opposite process of the speaker transmitting the music, it's simply coded by the coils in the cartridge to be uncoded by the coils in the speakers. That is a layer no digital can ever reach and to me the reason why analog conways the pace rhythm and emotion of the music better and more natural than any digital source will ever be capable off . For me it makes no sense to discuss the signal as a separate part of the system.
 
When looking at the source separately I am firm believer that the digital signal in absolute terms is better than any analogue is capable off. But in a system, analog has something to offer that no digital system can. It starts as the opposite process of the speaker transmitting the music, it's simply coded by the coils in the cartridge to be uncoded by the coils in the speakers. That is a layer no digital can ever reach and to me the reason why analog conways the pace rhythm and emotion of the music better and more natural than any digital source will ever be capable off . For me it makes no sense to discuss the signal as a separate part of the system.

Yes MiiB and the listener is part of the system. The symmetry (or as near as possible) of the entire process is certainly a basic fundamental point...;) :D
 
Last edited:
This is actually very simple.
You find out where the 2 formats differ and then find out how humans perceive these differences. This is all tried and done...

Mohammed is not tried and done at all. This is a typical misconception that is only useful for the industry.....
You are stuck to physiological level at best. At musical level it is far from being done. It is an entirely different world.
 
... in a system, analog has something to offer that no digital system can. It starts as the opposite process of the speaker transmitting the music, it's simply coded by the coils in the cartridge to be uncoded by the coils in the speakers. That is a layer no digital can ever reach and to me the reason why analog conways the pace rhythm and emotion of the music better and more natural than any digital source will ever be capable off .
Words, words. You may as well declare the phonograph superior to LP because it doesn't use any of that new fangled electrickery, only mechanical vibration from beginning to end.
 
I wonder why Vinyl sales are growing 30% a year. because digital is superior..?? My bet is that more and more people a rediscovering what they lost in the digital frenzy and thus reverting to what once was. What is technically perfect for the industry scares me. So easy to make a judgement on something from a technical and engineering point of view. When it comes to music i hope we all know that technically better is not always musically better. It's so easy to look at specs and make the assumption that a 0.0001% distortion amplifier must sound a 1000 times better than at tube amp with vastly inferior specifications. BUT those of us that wander professionally around in this industry know that, exactly that, is not the case. Fact is at the more music button has not been invented. And that how things affects us from a psychoacoustic point of view has not been quantified to a degree that is useful for judging one set of parameters against another set.
 
Coppertop that is not what I Declared. Only that vinyl has an advantage over digital when it comes to playing a part of a system. Problem is that exactly that argument can't be challenged by digital and that it may just be the very reason why digital in most cases sounds inferior to vinyl. (not that digital cant be really good, because i know it can, and on most hi fi shows we only use digital)
 
I wonder why Vinyl sales are growing 30% a year. because digital is superior..??
30% of a small amount is still a small amount. You could equally well ask why digital took over from vinyl in the first place. The answer from a vinyl-o-phile would be that it was a marketing con, not the superiority of CD. It could be just the same reason for vinyl's growth today - a triumph of marketing over any technical considerations. Just a fad for kids wanting to be different from their boring parents:

“It’s a customer who wants to have vinyl in their home the same way they want books in their home,” Mr. Wishnow said. For such a customer, he added, the message is, “ ‘When I can have all the music in the world in the palm of my hand, what does it say about me that I spend $15 to $20 for this format that is a pain to store and move and is easily damaged?’ ”

Young vinyl collectors said digital technology had made it easy for anyone — even parents — to acquire vast, esoteric music collections. In that context, nothing seems hipper than old-fashioned inconvenience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fashion/31vinyl.html?pagewanted=all
 
Last edited:
I dont think that in absolute terms any digital format can get more than 12-14 bit resolution, the needed resistor tolerance and current noise simply doesn't allow for that. in relative terms I am not so sure, as what we listen to is differences between what is now and what was then.

Why is this digital thread in the analogue forum..??

"I don't think" is good summary and tagline here.

No reason to think about what engineering and science prove to be the case by the definitions of all elements constituting the system in question.

The effective bit depth of speaker systems is better to think about, or the bit depth of hearing perception, or the bit depth representing an all analog system.

Noboby producing vinyl records is doing it because it is better than digital media, they are doing it because a market has emerged to extract money from.

From people like '45'

How many record stampers care what source is used for cutting records?

How many musicians insist on analog only recording equipment?

What properties of going from digital to vinyl make the performance of the reproduction any better than moving DAC from in front of a record cutting head and plugging it directly into the listener's system?
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2004
speaking of temporal resolution

I found these old files and was able to do a high res FFT on them. This is a 1KHz reference tone from an RCA STR140 test record. The low end shows clearly the .55Hz rotational modulation and the tone is clearly spread over +-15Hz basicly an analog temporal dither that George and I (I think) agree is part of the LP experience.

EDIT - The reference levels are arbitrary the software reads code 32768 as 32,768kV
 

Attachments

  • g1.jpg
    g1.jpg
    104.8 KB · Views: 133
  • g2.jpg
    g2.jpg
    108.4 KB · Views: 220
Last edited:
Barely.. you are missing my point completely.. for processing line signals there's no doubt that digital is way good enough and probably the best way to have as close to no loss storage and processing of the recorded material. But then you need to get from that state and out into a real world through loudspeakers. In that process the coding that happens trough vinyl seems to be beneficial. I have many times had the opportunity to compare the same recording on both Vinyl and digital (well I can do it everyday with what is widely considered to be some of the best digital and analogue equipment). I have myself often been puzzled about the fact that (at least to me) the objectively inferior signal of the TT still master to conway more of the so important feeling, rhythm and drive of the recording. My fairly clear conclusion on that is that we have to look at what analogue can do that digital cannot. Hence the idea of the better coding or speaker friendly pre-emphasis from the TT as opposed to the NON emphasis from the digital source. Now one can say that then the speaker system is the one that carries the fault or is to blame and off-course that is a valid point of view. But still when all compromises has been weighed the traditional moving coils speaker hold the best overall sonic results. With that in mind it makes sense why the analogue TT still hold the musical edge over digital.
 
Noboby producing vinyl records is doing it because it is better than digital media, they are doing it because a market has emerged to extract money from.

Yes that's right that can well be the first reason but they can rely on a well developed technique over decades that works. Maybe it could be even better but at some point one has to accept limitations anyway. If I could get from digital the same experience I get from vinyl I would be more than happy. I don't for now and the more I search the more I am pessimistic....
Nonetheless I have CD's anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yes that's right that can well be the first reason but they can rely on a well developed technique over decades that works. Maybe it could be even better but at some point one has to accept limitations anyway. If I could get from digital the same experience I get from vinyl I would be more than happy. I don't for now and the more I search the more I am pessimistic....
Nonetheless I have CD's anyway.
The advances in analogue playback can be made. We can make analogue playback more dynamic and with less distortions. And it has been done, but the result is a playback system that is very close or equal to a digital playback system. You and the people who like analogue playback don't want that, you want the added distortions. These added distortion give the illusion of more low level detail and more impact. You are simply "chasing the dragon" when trying to "improve" analogue playback.

One other very important thing: It is a matter of taste if you like analogue playback or digital playback. You can not use absolute statements like "this playback system is better". Its like saying red is better than green, its non sense. All you can say is: "I like this playback system better".
 
Without really taking sides, my curiousity has been piqued. Most recording studios pass the finished mixes to the mastering engineer in the form of digital files. This is almost universal these days, and has been for several years. Are all those recordings hopelessly muddled up? Where does the true analogue afficianado find unmolested material?
Don't spoil a good p***ing contest, I mentioned exactly the same fact in the thread that got closed yesterday and received the same ignorance.
 
The advances in analogue playback can be made. We can make analogue playback more dynamic and with less distortions. And it has been done, but the result is a playback system that is very close or equal to a digital playback system. You and the people who like analogue playback don't want that, you want the added distortions. These added distortion give the illusion of more low level detail and more impact. You are simply "chasing the dragon" when trying to "improve" analogue playback.

One other very important thing: It is a matter of taste if you like analogue playback or digital playback. You can not use absolute statements like "this playback system is better". Its like saying red is better than green, its non sense. All you can say is: "I like this playback system better".

Improving the analogue was referred to the (analogue) recording mainly, for the rest I am fine. I have already posted elsewhere (the thread of vinyl vs CD) about my set-up and don't want to repeat it again. You can only refer to conventional playback. In my set-up opinions have been one way only until now, that's why I am so firm. Nothing like what you say..... you can take it badly or well but that is.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.