Is this what people hear as the difference between the 2 mediums
Analog >>> bits and bites >> clocked >> dithered >>> converted back to analog>>> = Better
Analog LP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analog = Error ?
As a storage medium , digital rules , for music .. err, silver , no gold .. Yet!!!!......
Analog >>> bits and bites >> clocked >> dithered >>> converted back to analog>>> = Better
Analog LP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analog = Error ?
As a storage medium , digital rules , for music .. err, silver , no gold .. Yet!!!!......
Um, a.wayne haven't we been over dither before? And are signals changing faster than 44100 times a second?
Well, at least this isn't a thread about cables or capacitors, but the outcome may be the same...circular.
Yes, analog has distortion-- but it sure beats digital (in my system and to my ears).
Yes, analog has distortion-- but it sure beats digital (in my system and to my ears).
Who wrote this nonsense? Really, you cannot trust everything you read online😀
Quite simply, this is wrong. The tone won't be distorted - if there's ultrasonic content it won't make it through the recording channel. But this has nothing to do with the step size, it has to do with the sample rate. Also the use of 'accuracy' in that article is wrong - the number of bits has little to do with accuracy, the number of bits is a measure of precision.
Nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps here the meaning of 'mirrors' is a allusion to the kinds of mirrors found in amusement parks - the ones that make thin people look fat and short people tall. That's because there's such a thing as RIAA equalization going on before the waveform hits the disc - a linear distortion of the original waveform. It most assuredly does not mean that no information is lost.
But of course, when faced with a disagreeing market the true professional commits suicide. I'm sure you would do the same in a similar situation.
True. After all, isn't it an analogue of some original event.
But to set things straight, what do you mean precisely?
1) an LP does not sound audibly different from the master tape
Despite the things that happen on the way to the cutter head, such as
bass summing (often up to 500Hz), bass cutting, treble limiting (smash!! it goes), a bit of creative EQ, RIAA inaccuracies, and, in many cases, a digital delay line.
2) an LP does not sound audible different from the cutter's monitor output
Desprite lacquer springback, plating errors, mother/father generations, stamper wear.
3) an LP does not sound audibly different from system to system, given that all systems attain a certain minimum quality
Despite numerous enthusiasts testifying to the audible differences between turntables, tonearms, cartridges, setup methods, ...
4) or do you mean that the sum of innate replay distortions, amply documented at Yosh's site, plus the distortions added by the cartridge, pictured herewith, simply are inaudible on all records, to all people?
5) or is it just so that you don't mind all of the above and simply subjectively prefer the sounds your record machine produces ...
Attachments
abrax, Werner,
Thanks, for responding to a.wayne's post. I was halfway through typing my own respnse yesterday when I decided that I didn't really wan't to engage in any more debating-correcting such basic mis-information about digital.
Thanks, for responding to a.wayne's post. I was halfway through typing my own respnse yesterday when I decided that I didn't really wan't to engage in any more debating-correcting such basic mis-information about digital.
Posting pics like this one,there must be something that doesn't make it.
Staying out of bed,because of the internet?
That looks pretty grim for LPs!!
But wait a moment, many people find LPs sound better than CDs..
... so if despite all the faults and processes of an LP they still can sound better than CDs - isn't that pretty grim for CDs?
Think about it, if a CD cannot even sound better than a diamond scooting along a plastic groove with loads of EQ to put the groove there and a bunch more EQ to get the sound out - CDs must be pretty rubbish - no?
It also shows that most people are willing to defend something that sounds inferior to analog .
Regardless of how good digital could be , what is currently available to the consumer as hardware and software is inferior to what is available to one using analog and until that changes with 24/96 setups , analog rules...
Some here cannot seem to grasp that ..........
Regardless of how good digital could be , what is currently available to the consumer as hardware and software is inferior to what is available to one using analog and until that changes with 24/96 setups , analog rules...
Some here cannot seem to grasp that ..........
Last edited:
It also shows that most people are willing to defend something that sounds inferior to analog .
Regardless of how good digital could be , what is currently available to the consumer as hardware and software is inferior to what is available to one using analog and until that changes with 24/96 setups , analog rules...
Some here cannot seem to grasp that ..........
There are many reasons,too many,for defending it.How about greenbucks,for starters ? There are exceptions though,like those having hearing problems and don't know it.
B.L.
my two cents ... short I hope
This is all interresting but can be very exhaustive. 🙂
My knowledge and experience tells me that...
No, Ove, do not try that lengthy exhaustive part again, please .... 😡
Sorry, if anybody ever take some of my senteses for real (you have to read quite a bit), I want to tell you that I'm very open for any good sound in audio.
I'm learning, and Digital against Analog is no fight that I want, .Just good sound and good audio.
This is all interresting but can be very exhaustive. 🙂
My knowledge and experience tells me that...
No, Ove, do not try that lengthy exhaustive part again, please .... 😡
Sorry, if anybody ever take some of my senteses for real (you have to read quite a bit), I want to tell you that I'm very open for any good sound in audio.
I'm learning, and Digital against Analog is no fight that I want, .Just good sound and good audio.
How abouts enjoying BOTH mediums? I personally think/feel it boils down to how good an album (obiqutious usage) is produced anyways. I've got some garbage sounding vinyl, and some garbage sounding CDs. Why does anybody need to pick a side anyways? Even then, I could add a third medium I listen all the time. Internet radio! What sounds better... Internet radio or vinyl? i jest of course, only toying with the subject.
Vinyl and Cd's (at their best) sound different.. that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Vinyl and Cd's (at their best) sound different.. that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Why were early digitally mastered LPs not annoying?
One of the more fascinating observations/experiences I had regarding digital and CD digital was in the early 80's, prior to the release of CD. I had two Telarc released vinyl LPs that were produced from 'soundstream' digital masters. One was of Stravinski's Firebird and the other was of John Williams' movie themes. I very much enjoyed those two LP. Clear, clean, dynamic and MUSICAL, with none of the, now, familiar CD irritations and fatigue. This only became fascinating after I purchased my first CD player and those same albums on CD. I hated them, so much so, I thought that my new player must be defective - alas, it wasn't.
Whether the CD format is at fault, or what, I'm not quite sure. What those experiences do tell me is that digital music encoding/decoding can be musical and non-fatiguing. I wonder if anyone else had similar positive experiences with pre-CD digitally mastered vinyl LPs?
One of the more fascinating observations/experiences I had regarding digital and CD digital was in the early 80's, prior to the release of CD. I had two Telarc released vinyl LPs that were produced from 'soundstream' digital masters. One was of Stravinski's Firebird and the other was of John Williams' movie themes. I very much enjoyed those two LP. Clear, clean, dynamic and MUSICAL, with none of the, now, familiar CD irritations and fatigue. This only became fascinating after I purchased my first CD player and those same albums on CD. I hated them, so much so, I thought that my new player must be defective - alas, it wasn't.
Whether the CD format is at fault, or what, I'm not quite sure. What those experiences do tell me is that digital music encoding/decoding can be musical and non-fatiguing. I wonder if anyone else had similar positive experiences with pre-CD digitally mastered vinyl LPs?
Really? I have the 1st of those two. Played once and set aside... the digital artifacts were very annoying.
dave
So? Many people (probably way more than there are audiophiles) prefer to have their bass control all the way up and the treble all the way down. How can you argue about what sounds "better" to them? "Better" in that context is a purely personal issue. Which medium delivers the most accurate electrical signal with respect to what's coming out of the microphones?
When you can detect the presence of a 16/44 AD-DA in an analog stream (LP or tape or what-have-you) without peeking and without doing bizarre level tricks (like the effective 10 bit range used by Lipshitz in his experiments), get back to me about which is the more accurate medium.
I love my LPs (and still find the occasional seed in the fold of double albums😀), spent more on it than on my digital sources, even wrote an article about phono stage design, but I have no illusions about the medium's severe shortcomings.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.