I signed up here because of this thread: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...dio-interface-for-vinyl-a-d-archiving.349315/
In is some audiophile Naysayer is going on about bandwith and hearing ability. I see these discussions all over the internet and the naysayer is always touting the same thing. That the human ear cannot hear 96kHz or 192kHz etc. etc. But those numbers refer to "Bandwith". Hearing is "Frequency Range". So I will go on to read the rest of that thread as I am interested in a Phono to USB solution that goes at least up to a "Bandwith" of 24Bit 192kHz. I was unable to respond directly in that thread as this is my first post and apparently I can't respond to a post unless I first create an "Introduction" post? So below was my attempted post in the beginning of that thread:
Why do People in these conversations always confuse "Bandwidth" (Amount of data processed within a given window i.e. 24Bit / 96kHz) with "Frequency Range" (The lows and highs within and beyond audible hearing). They are 2 completely different things. One eg. 24Bit / 96khz has to do with how much detail is in the music. The amount of detail on vinyl far exceeds the amount of detail available on a CD. In fact I don't even understand why CD's were ever called "Lossless" since they are compressed in order to fit onto a CD with it's maximum "Bandwidth" capability of 16Bit / 44.1kHz. Frequency range 20hz to 20kHz (Maybe till we reach 12 years old or so), etc.. Is a completely different calculation and has nothing to do with "Bandwidth". It is not the "Frequency Range" that is missing on a CD. It is the detail in the music that has been removed in much the same way as it was (Or is I guess) For MP3's and other lossy formats. Please get your terminology straight and stop confusing the two when you are attempting incorrectly to say that CD's are superior or even equal to Vinyl. They aren't.
In is some audiophile Naysayer is going on about bandwith and hearing ability. I see these discussions all over the internet and the naysayer is always touting the same thing. That the human ear cannot hear 96kHz or 192kHz etc. etc. But those numbers refer to "Bandwith". Hearing is "Frequency Range". So I will go on to read the rest of that thread as I am interested in a Phono to USB solution that goes at least up to a "Bandwith" of 24Bit 192kHz. I was unable to respond directly in that thread as this is my first post and apparently I can't respond to a post unless I first create an "Introduction" post? So below was my attempted post in the beginning of that thread:
Why do People in these conversations always confuse "Bandwidth" (Amount of data processed within a given window i.e. 24Bit / 96kHz) with "Frequency Range" (The lows and highs within and beyond audible hearing). They are 2 completely different things. One eg. 24Bit / 96khz has to do with how much detail is in the music. The amount of detail on vinyl far exceeds the amount of detail available on a CD. In fact I don't even understand why CD's were ever called "Lossless" since they are compressed in order to fit onto a CD with it's maximum "Bandwidth" capability of 16Bit / 44.1kHz. Frequency range 20hz to 20kHz (Maybe till we reach 12 years old or so), etc.. Is a completely different calculation and has nothing to do with "Bandwidth". It is not the "Frequency Range" that is missing on a CD. It is the detail in the music that has been removed in much the same way as it was (Or is I guess) For MP3's and other lossy formats. Please get your terminology straight and stop confusing the two when you are attempting incorrectly to say that CD's are superior or even equal to Vinyl. They aren't.
Funny way to introduce oneself, but hey, why not?
Welcome and feel free to vent your grievances to the extent that you don't upset the moderators.
Otherwise go head, have fun, and don't start fights, it's not worth it.
Cheers.
Welcome and feel free to vent your grievances to the extent that you don't upset the moderators.
Otherwise go head, have fun, and don't start fights, it's not worth it.
Cheers.
Nah. Just getting tired of reading all these posts on a lot of different forums claiming that it makes no sense to go above 44.1kHz because we can only hear up to 15 or 20kHz. One has nothing to do with the other. 24Bit and 96kHz / 192kHz etc.. is a measurement of detail. not of hearing ability (Frequency wise). I do agree that it is infinitely harder to hear differences above 24Bit / 96kHz (At least for myself) but that's just because it is already so complete in detail that the nuances added at higher levels do become harder to hear. But a CD is compressed compared to an LP (assuming that the LP was recorded to it's capacity and the same music was then converted (Compressed) to enable it to fit onto a CD).
Granted there is probably quite a bit of modern music that was specifically made for CD and the masters were in fact recorded @ 16Bit / 44.1kHz. Those albums would not benefit from being converted to LP.
Granted there is probably quite a bit of modern music that was specifically made for CD and the masters were in fact recorded @ 16Bit / 44.1kHz. Those albums would not benefit from being converted to LP.
This is helpful. It says that Sony believe that the sample rate does have something to do with the intended audio frequency bandwidth.
Perhaps you'd start a thread in one of the subforums asking how it comes to be that it's sufficient...
Ok. Maybe I should start over. I came across the above mentioned thread because I ordered an Audio-Technica LP120XUSB-BZ Turntable to start archiving / digitizing my LP's. Up to now I have mostly downloaded digital versions of them and generally downloaded versions that are 24Bit / 96kHz, 192Khz and recently have been finding my SACD's online as ISO's or DSD files.
The one thing I hadn't checked on though was the USB Capabilities. (I have not actually received the turntable yet). I came across something that indicated it's max capabilities were only 16Bit / 48kHz and was not happy to see that. I really like the turntable though especially in this Bronze version.
So I was looking for a Phono to USB adapter / converter similar to the one requested in the thread I initially referenced (Old though I know it is). The discussion kind of annoyed me a bit with the one person hijacking the thread because he decided there was no point in trying to convert your vinyl to anything higher than 16Bit / 44.1 or 48kHz max.
This simply is not true. I can in most circumstances hear a definite difference in a DSD, 24bit/192kHz, 96kHz and CD quality of 16Bit / 44.1kHz unless as indicated above the music itself does not have much detail in it.
In any case I was trying to avoid using the line out option on the turntable but that actually seems like it is going to be my best option into a descent sound card with a quality line in capability.
But if anyone does know of a good (And not too expensive) adapter or device with a Phono level input and USB Output (Would have to be at least USB2 I would guess) that can do up to 24Bit / 192kHz I would definitely be interested in that info.
I am not sure if the quality of the RCA connections would be as clean as a conversion via such a USB device. Though I have read that the Line Output on this turntable is quite good and much improved over it's predecessor (LP120USB) which reportedly had some issues with that.
In any case it's 3:30am here now. I had better get some shut eye and will check on responses whenever I get up lol.
The one thing I hadn't checked on though was the USB Capabilities. (I have not actually received the turntable yet). I came across something that indicated it's max capabilities were only 16Bit / 48kHz and was not happy to see that. I really like the turntable though especially in this Bronze version.
So I was looking for a Phono to USB adapter / converter similar to the one requested in the thread I initially referenced (Old though I know it is). The discussion kind of annoyed me a bit with the one person hijacking the thread because he decided there was no point in trying to convert your vinyl to anything higher than 16Bit / 44.1 or 48kHz max.
This simply is not true. I can in most circumstances hear a definite difference in a DSD, 24bit/192kHz, 96kHz and CD quality of 16Bit / 44.1kHz unless as indicated above the music itself does not have much detail in it.
In any case I was trying to avoid using the line out option on the turntable but that actually seems like it is going to be my best option into a descent sound card with a quality line in capability.
But if anyone does know of a good (And not too expensive) adapter or device with a Phono level input and USB Output (Would have to be at least USB2 I would guess) that can do up to 24Bit / 192kHz I would definitely be interested in that info.
I am not sure if the quality of the RCA connections would be as clean as a conversion via such a USB device. Though I have read that the Line Output on this turntable is quite good and much improved over it's predecessor (LP120USB) which reportedly had some issues with that.
In any case it's 3:30am here now. I had better get some shut eye and will check on responses whenever I get up lol.
The "Bandwidth" (per your definition) of vinyl is ~12 Bit / ~40 kHz on a good day.
There is more than one definition of bandwidth. You just mentioned two.
Many of us feel that LPs sound in many ways superior to all digital formats. More detail, better dynamics, better low level resolution, more musicality. Unfortunately none of the technical metrics confirm this in any way. We simply have no idea what is the basis for the vinyl preference and why digital sounds relatively dead in comparison.
In every technical aspect CDs are uncontestedly superior to LPs.
Getting a better digital replay chain certainly goes a long way towards narrowing the gap, but it takes effort, dedication and funds.
And ... IMO... "good" digital masters / recordings are critical. All the chain can do is reliably play back what's there.
I have no evidence to support my theory, but I'm stuck with the idea that those that still go to the trouble to create LPs as an aggregate don't get caught up in the 'loudness wars' nonsense. IMO, the loudness wars moved a lot of the music available today toward having what I'd consider non-ideal dynamic range (as made available through whatever format => CDs / streaming etc.).
It's a given that the LP "format" may have a limited 'bandwidth' even when compared to the measly CD (simply due to physics). However, it seems that those that release CDs rarely take advantage of even a small portion of the bit depth available. There are some fantastic CDs if you look, but IMO it all starts and ends with what's on the disc (or streamed).
Edited to add - And of course... Welcome, @JcTcom!
Last edited:
I agree that vinyl can sound better than CDs as in analogue v digital.
But here's a question - many turntables now have a USB output so has anyone compared the SQ using this with the analogue output?
I would expect the USB to nullify the point of listening to LPs - you may as well buy the CD version.
I have. Sadly, the ADC (IMO) in the table was a hot mess, and the table itself wasn't close to average nevertheless ideal. It was one of those $299 (or so) tables meant for "converting LPs to digital". IMO, they both sounded equally "bad".
I think a more fair comparison might be to take the analog outputs of a 'decent' deck into a 'decent' ADC / DAC and see how that fairs, which I have not done.
Unless you reveal you’re in possession of an academic qualification in the is subject (electrical engineering, physics or information theory for example)’ perhaps ask the question in a non-confrontational way, and see what the folks come back with. You are in the company here of lots of PhD grads, MSc grads across a number of STEM disciplines and EE’s who are highly qualified in the subject and can probably provide an answer.
For me the argument isn't "Analogue" Vs. "Digital". It is "Vinyl" Vs. "CD". Vinyl being a high quality Analogue in most cases and CD being a low quality Digital (Again in most cases comparatively).
I listen to digital music all day long but most of it was created from either good quality Analogue converted to higher quality digital (Edit: Higher than CD that is), or high quality digital masters. Most of the music I purchase these days are Blu-Ray Audio discs because they are capable of having the full resolution audio on them and most of them do. Especially the Steve Wilson remixes lol. I also have a lot of SACD and DVD-A stuff and no one is ever going to convince me that the quality of those is the same as CD (Even putting multi-channel options aside).
Hey, annoyed vinyl warrior, welcome to the forum. 🙂
Your first post was really not great. 😉
If you don’t mind solution with three separate small USB devices and some 350$ cost, here is a top solution capable of 32bit/384kHz:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...a-70-to-outperform-apx555b-for-30-000.386001/
Check the whole first post for details.
So, if your beef is Red Book vs Hires, why involve vinyl at all?
Multiple threads have already addressed these issues. There is hardly much agreement when comparing Red Book to higher PCM sampling rates/bit depths and significant polarisation once dsd is involved.
What's the contribution this thread brings if it's not even clear what it is about?
I believe that vinyl die-hards would miss the crackles and pops, rumble, limited dynamic range, and the 'fix' of having to get up to turn it over or change it for another one after every twenty minutes' listening...
Vinyl is an equivalent of Japanese tea ceremony. All inconvenience is a part of enjoying the performance.