Well you obviously have a lot to learn; might as well start today. 🙂
Lesson 1: you have never heard digital audio. You have only heard analogue audio.
Lesson 2: the only question is: which analog output most closely resembles the analogue input to the recorder?
Lesson 3: all recorder/player systems are imperfect translators. All translate analogue electrical signal to an intermediary medium or language, then re-translate back to analogue electrical signal. One is a codifier, one is a magnetizer, one is a scarifier (scratcher). All three are equally translators: none of them are speaking the native language of the input signal. None. The idea that any of them are 'direct' or 'pure' is a sad joke on those who believe it.
Lesson 4: the codifier player's output is vastly less distorted and noisy, hence more accurate to the analogue input, than the magnetizer or the scarifier players'. Those machines are crude and ugly analogue producers, by modern codifier standards. We respect and exalt their inventors and designers for what they did in their day. They deserve it!
Lesson 5: the codifier is the best analogue production machine in existence. And of course it's not better than analogue. It is analogue!
Lesson 1: you have never heard digital audio. You have only heard analogue audio.
Lesson 2: the only question is: which analog output most closely resembles the analogue input to the recorder?
Lesson 3: all recorder/player systems are imperfect translators. All translate analogue electrical signal to an intermediary medium or language, then re-translate back to analogue electrical signal. One is a codifier, one is a magnetizer, one is a scarifier (scratcher). All three are equally translators: none of them are speaking the native language of the input signal. None. The idea that any of them are 'direct' or 'pure' is a sad joke on those who believe it.
Lesson 4: the codifier player's output is vastly less distorted and noisy, hence more accurate to the analogue input, than the magnetizer or the scarifier players'. Those machines are crude and ugly analogue producers, by modern codifier standards. We respect and exalt their inventors and designers for what they did in their day. They deserve it!
Lesson 5: the codifier is the best analogue production machine in existence. And of course it's not better than analogue. It is analogue!
Yet most recording these days is done digitally, is digital TV flat/artificial garbage compared to the old analogue TV... No and exactly the same applies to music, the higher resolution less noisy digital beets analogue... that is a fact that cannot be denied unless you lie to yourself.
All the evidence is that digital is a far better medium, these are hard facts that cannot be ignored or swept away... I have both records and an extensive digital collection and enjoy both, but I am aware of the failings of the LP playback system and the fact that it is old technology that has been superseded by better methods of storing and playing back music. Knowing this does not diminish my enjoyment of LPs.
It's not accuracy, that's for sure. If you want that, record digitally, and play back digitally. Encoding and decoding onto a mechanical medium can add nothing but distortion.
The eternal question: analog vs. digital
Analog vs. digital seems to be a question that tends to start a war of opinions most of the time when audio enthusiasts are involved. I would suggest to accept that listening preferences are a very personal thing - most of all for enthusiasts.
Personally, I've listened to analog devices that performed shockingly poor, and others that were simply breathtaking. And the same is absolutely true for digital devices.
I'm sure that most of us are more interested in the 'breathtaking' side than the opposite.
Recent years' proceedings in digital audio reproduction have led to the current situation that - considering a certain limited budget - you would be better off to invest in state of the art digital equipment to come close to that 'breathtaking' state - just my personal opinion. If anybody has a different one, that's absolutely fine for me.
If money doesn't play a major role, anyone should follow his personal taste and decide whether to physically handle good old vinyl or to flip through hires files stored on an audio server using a remote app on a tablet. IMO, both can be fun.
Just my two cents.
Analog vs. digital seems to be a question that tends to start a war of opinions most of the time when audio enthusiasts are involved. I would suggest to accept that listening preferences are a very personal thing - most of all for enthusiasts.
Personally, I've listened to analog devices that performed shockingly poor, and others that were simply breathtaking. And the same is absolutely true for digital devices.
I'm sure that most of us are more interested in the 'breathtaking' side than the opposite.
Recent years' proceedings in digital audio reproduction have led to the current situation that - considering a certain limited budget - you would be better off to invest in state of the art digital equipment to come close to that 'breathtaking' state - just my personal opinion. If anybody has a different one, that's absolutely fine for me.
If money doesn't play a major role, anyone should follow his personal taste and decide whether to physically handle good old vinyl or to flip through hires files stored on an audio server using a remote app on a tablet. IMO, both can be fun.
Just my two cents.
My grandmother's kitchen radio does something very special for me. Of course this can be linked to childhood memories and whatnot.
Fortunately my grandmother is still alive and needs that radio. Unfortunately she lives 6h away from me. Otherwise I would just measure that radio and see what it does. Some kind of distortion or some frequency peaks.
Apart from that I rather here good music through a crappy system then the other way around.
Fortunately my grandmother is still alive and needs that radio. Unfortunately she lives 6h away from me. Otherwise I would just measure that radio and see what it does. Some kind of distortion or some frequency peaks.
Apart from that I rather here good music through a crappy system then the other way around.
Analog vs digital. I prefer analog media becuase I am a collector and I like "things". Collecting files and looking at them doesn't give me the same feeling as collecting records and tapes.
Therefore even if digital files and reproduction of these would give me higher fidelity I would still prefer the analog media.
I also like using mercury rectifiers. They have some technical advantages over vacuum rectifiers. But these advantages I could have to a much greater extent with much less hassle from solide state shunt regulators. I prefer the mercury rectifiers because I think they are cool and it makes me feel good when the blue light turns on.
Therefore even if digital files and reproduction of these would give me higher fidelity I would still prefer the analog media.
I also like using mercury rectifiers. They have some technical advantages over vacuum rectifiers. But these advantages I could have to a much greater extent with much less hassle from solide state shunt regulators. I prefer the mercury rectifiers because I think they are cool and it makes me feel good when the blue light turns on.
Last edited:
I can understand that! Seeing the gentle glow of those KT66 and EF86 on my Quad II monoblocks provides about the same feeling - for me! That's personal. Two weeks ago an author writing for audio journals tried to convince me that the solid state amps built by Quad are superior to my elderly tube amps. Maybe he's right - but he could not provide that gentle glow.
I have around 1000 LP's from days gone by and spin them on an SP-10 mkII in panzerholz with an added 9 lb copper/acrylic/carbon fibre mat, a dynavector 507 mkII tonearm and Benz H2O cartridge. It's a really good setup.
Does it sound as good as well recorded/mastered digital? No. Not to me. There is a sound to mechanical reproduction. Good setups do minimize this, but I've not yet heard one where it is absent.
Does it sound as good as well recorded/mastered digital? No. Not to me. There is a sound to mechanical reproduction. Good setups do minimize this, but I've not yet heard one where it is absent.
Maybe it's also a problem with the copy process. In theory digital data can be copied without distortion or loss. (let's just leave it at that...)
I once was in a studio where they do direct to disc recordings. A comparison of a master and a vinyl pressing of that master on the same turntable was a world of a difference. Really a massive difference in sound quality.
Well, the copy/encode process is necessarily going to introduce error. The decoding process even more.....
The encoding and decoding the music into oscillations on the groove wall is not only a lossy process, but one that creates a characteristic sound.
Especially when considering things like tonearm resonance. As you might know, tuning this resonance is necessary to tailor the sound -- too dead and the sound is dead, too lively and you risk mistracking. Tailoring this to some intermediate value is necessary for the music to have some "life" to it.
This goes above matching cartridge compliance to the tonearm.....which again may have a sonic effect, from mistracking to excessive woofer movement.
Now, add the tracing error of a pivoting arm, and the speed stability of the rotating platter....not to mention the accuracy of the phono section with respect to the RIAA curve.
There really is no part of the decoding process which is error free.
Since at one point, I only had LP's I was a late adopter of digital. I remember when it first came out. It was awful. It is much better now.
I would say that if I did not already have LPs, I certainly would not start collecting them now.
The encoding and decoding the music into oscillations on the groove wall is not only a lossy process, but one that creates a characteristic sound.
Especially when considering things like tonearm resonance. As you might know, tuning this resonance is necessary to tailor the sound -- too dead and the sound is dead, too lively and you risk mistracking. Tailoring this to some intermediate value is necessary for the music to have some "life" to it.
This goes above matching cartridge compliance to the tonearm.....which again may have a sonic effect, from mistracking to excessive woofer movement.
Now, add the tracing error of a pivoting arm, and the speed stability of the rotating platter....not to mention the accuracy of the phono section with respect to the RIAA curve.
There really is no part of the decoding process which is error free.
Since at one point, I only had LP's I was a late adopter of digital. I remember when it first came out. It was awful. It is much better now.
I would say that if I did not already have LPs, I certainly would not start collecting them now.
Fact: Bit identical binary files contain exactly the same data.
Fact: We can transmit and copy bit perfect data.
Fact: Binary files to not degrade with copying or pick up noise or distortion, the information is encoded in the bit pattern, if that does not change (see above) then the contents are EXACTLY the same.
This is true for all digital media, transporting and moving binary files is not a problem nor does it introduce gremlins, hence why digital recording has been used for masters for many years, copies do not degrade from one generation to another.
Hi there,
I am as satisfied with my 47 labs 0647 CD player (DIY kit) as I am with my Pro-Ject 6perspex turntable. It has a TEAC audio CD drive, top loading mechanism with cover. It uses a Philips TDA1543 16-bit DAC, non over-sampling, no analog filter and directly converts to analog by using the I2S input format. Unfortunately, 47 labs discontinued the kit business.
Michael
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I am as satisfied with my 47 labs 0647 CD player (DIY kit) as I am with my Pro-Ject 6perspex turntable. It has a TEAC audio CD drive, top loading mechanism with cover. It uses a Philips TDA1543 16-bit DAC, non over-sampling, no analog filter and directly converts to analog by using the I2S input format. Unfortunately, 47 labs discontinued the kit business.
Michael
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Aliasing is on the record end. Imaging from lack of reconstruction filter is the issue on the playback end.
I think Jay was being a bit facetious.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.