What actually has been stated is that if the information arrives at the destination with exactly the same bit pattern then the information it contains is exactly the same...
Wait a second.
If you look at the full rise capability of a sine, the CD has a bandwidth of 6 Khz: it is rise time limited due too the low sampling frequency. No that's not a copy (of the ideal tractor with a plough, how apt) at all.
But I would agree with the statement that a needle will destroy many a track after a few playings . . many needles let the vinyl melt in complex passages; it becomes like a real plough on micro scale. After some time, what you listen to is a damaged track; however some needles are just fine and some music is also mixed just right.
If you look at the full rise capability of a sine, the CD has a bandwidth of 6 Khz: it is rise time limited due too the low sampling frequency. No that's not a copy (of the ideal tractor with a plough, how apt) at all.
But I would agree with the statement that a needle will destroy many a track after a few playings . . many needles let the vinyl melt in complex passages; it becomes like a real plough on micro scale. After some time, what you listen to is a damaged track; however some needles are just fine and some music is also mixed just right.
In this case root cause is EMI and software will not eliminate this. An external soundcard with good EMI rejection will solve this and free your rusted nut.
So no one is happy with their digital sources? The big issue with digital is the lack of resolution, speech is blurred, choir sound bad, bass is weak.
Triode_al , a proper turntable can play hundred of times a record without audible difference. I read it is important to remove all dust and play with the lid on. My cd's wear out faster , a small scratch and it is unplayable.
Triode_al , a proper turntable can play hundred of times a record without audible difference. I read it is important to remove all dust and play with the lid on. My cd's wear out faster , a small scratch and it is unplayable.
Actually, no. The Nation Research Council of Canada ( NRC ) has done tests on this. All frequencies above 19K or 20K ( I can't remember exactly ) are erased on the first play of a vinyl record. Each successive play erases more and more from the high end, the reported that surprisingly few plays are needed to remove all above 16K. ( Can't find the article at the moment ).
Yes and no. The hardware not being sufficiently robust to all manner of interference effects is the culprit, but using the "right" software helps - simply by 'accidently' provoking the least level of interference which has audible impact, for a particular machine. Trial and error works that out - like trying out a number of nominally similar shoes in a shop, and finding the one which was made using a last which most closely matched your own foot.
Last edited:
130 pages in and people have still not spotted that Frank enjoys this and will never see reason?
Bill, I can't ... haven't got a subscription to the 'right' journals - Truth is doing a good job evading me still, I'm afraid ...
Most people have little sensitivity to sound "distortion", so... it is hard for them to understand it's existence. Physics is difficult, but even if you explain the Physics, not everyone can buy. They will usually talk about audibility thresholds.
Honestly I think that if there is open mind and logical thinking, it can at least be accepted as "hypothesis".
First, make sure we understand if we are sensitive to sound differences and distortion or not. If NOT, never use our ears to draw conclusion...
Many people clearly have cloth ears, but they blind test the effect of X and they found no effect so they conclude/decide that X has no effect. The problem is not the conclusion, but the ILLOGICAL process to draw a conclusion. Strong logic is needed to draw conclusion when there is almost no line connecting the dots.
IMD, how much we know about it?
Jay, I'm pretty sure most people appreciate the difference between good and not so good sound, especially if they're not working flat out mentally, trying to analyse it in the normal audiophile way. They might think, "Gee, that's sounding good!", without understanding why - and if you were asked them to describe "why", they might struggle to come with what's to them meaningful phrases. And what they're likely reacting to is the lack of the usual 'hifi' artifacts - they're so used to the typical qualities of audio reproduction they expect them to be there - and if they're not they're a bit puzzled, "That's not the way it's supposed to work!!".
However, one can learn to recognise what's going on, and then begin narrowing in one's hearing, to immediately recognise the typical artifacts that conventional audio replay produces. Then, you start listening for a system that has less of those issues, and finally hopefully none - it's the "normalness" of high quality sound that many might find disturbing; some could prefer the tarted up, overcooked qualities that some "high end" equipment has - and those people might never "get" convincing sound ...
However, one can learn to recognise what's going on, and then begin narrowing in one's hearing, to immediately recognise the typical artifacts that conventional audio replay produces. Then, you start listening for a system that has less of those issues, and finally hopefully none - it's the "normalness" of high quality sound that many might find disturbing; some could prefer the tarted up, overcooked qualities that some "high end" equipment has - and those people might never "get" convincing sound ...
But you cannot hide the fact that not everyone have sensitive ears. This is not equivalent to being deaf!! (which will close the case).
My hypothesis has been: "even if you cannot hear distortion, it doesn't mean that you are not affected by it".
Maybe you should actually read this thread, and possibly others regarding digital. Your sweeping statement is so inaccurate in every way and obviously so biased that you cant except the truth....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.