That's a bad analogy. A better one would be:
Mr. LP builds a tractor that requires all of his skill and physical abilities to construct. Mr. Digital takes a quick look at Mr. LP's tractor. He's not impressed. But, without breaking a sweat he builds a perfect copy that does the exact same farm work and feels the exact same way to drive.
What does that say about Mr. Digital's skill and physical abilities?
I guess. Until someone disproves it.
Last edited:
Have you discovered a digital source, that satisfies you, as much as your Turntable?
One thing CD lovers claim is the silence of their system, say 100 dB; which is muck because the top 15 bits depth is used for overhead. My LP source is quiet. And livelier, more dynamic than digital.
I think we should aim for coloring, and specifically the coloring related to music.
Digital imho does not reproduce as well, although some artifacts (such as some TDA1543 implementations) do sound rather 'natural', i.e. with a vibrancy, that fits certain music; other music lives well with e.g. a TDA1541. etc etc. What we talk about then is the sound the DAC or I/V adds to the bits.
And then again it is the mixing we listen to, having a higher impact on sound than the bits. Some mixers like to reduce dynamics (sounds good on headphones or MP3) while only a few marter technicians restrain from foibling and fooling around...
Why I stopped using Spotify is the even more compressed nature of their tracks (they seem to code them that way) and the lack of highs. No fun.
But alas my LP's - do have two heaps, one well mixed, the other one with a cheap sound. So really that is no reference either.
OK: at the end, I must admit I have both LPs and CDs that have a fantastic sound (20-40%?) the rest is on a falling slope.
So as to the question of the OP:
One thing CD lovers claim is the silence of their system, say 100 dB; which is muck because the top 15 bits depth is used for overhead. My LP source is quiet. And livelier, more dynamic than digital.
I think we should aim for coloring, and specifically the coloring related to music.
Digital imho does not reproduce as well, although some artifacts (such as some TDA1543 implementations) do sound rather 'natural', i.e. with a vibrancy, that fits certain music; other music lives well with e.g. a TDA1541. etc etc. What we talk about then is the sound the DAC or I/V adds to the bits.
And then again it is the mixing we listen to, having a higher impact on sound than the bits. Some mixers like to reduce dynamics (sounds good on headphones or MP3) while only a few marter technicians restrain from foibling and fooling around...
Why I stopped using Spotify is the even more compressed nature of their tracks (they seem to code them that way) and the lack of highs. No fun.
But alas my LP's - do have two heaps, one well mixed, the other one with a cheap sound. So really that is no reference either.
OK: at the end, I must admit I have both LPs and CDs that have a fantastic sound (20-40%?) the rest is on a falling slope.
So as to the question of the OP:
But that is not what you wrote. Let me paraphrase your previous post:
Since "playing a recording of vinyl playback trough a digital source sound exactly like the actual vinyl playback, it suggests that the colouring from vinyl playback enhances the perceived "quality" of the sound."
There is a bunch of logic missing between the digital playback and the suggestion...
Taking a digital source and cutting/playing an LP is a problem. The LF information found on an LP is mixed to mono to reduce mistracking. No such mixing has to take place on the CD.
By design, the LP is inferior because it is not an accurate reproduction of the input signal. For much music, you will not notice as they are mixed in the same manner, but for others you will.
Maybe I should add: "Mr. LP's tractors are not perfect. The handling is a little funny, and the paint job is a bit off. But some of the farmers don't seem to mind that. They see the faults as being charming. Mr. Digital can build a close to perfect tractor, but the farmers dislike it. "It's sterile!", they say. Poor Mr. Digital..."
Pressing bits down into a disk makes them more docile to repeat their song.
If you squeeze the bits into a needle electromagnetic movement with 100% feedback you actually transfer the 'quintessence' of their materiality.
It is very easy with a needle and magnet to then bring back that vibration into an AC signal.
To bring 0 and 1 with delta/sigma microscopic transistors directly to a musical AC signal is asking for the impossible.
Further, the multiple op-amps colors the sound with filters and such, which really lacks in my non-feedback top end tube phono (Bugle boys are singing in there 🙂.
Being redundant, the ladder gates of the tda1541 is the only dac which gives an easy distinction of voices, and sounds best in single chip going to high feedback active i/v matched high speed BJT in class B, class AB output ,regulated PS.
If you squeeze the bits into a needle electromagnetic movement with 100% feedback you actually transfer the 'quintessence' of their materiality.
It is very easy with a needle and magnet to then bring back that vibration into an AC signal.
To bring 0 and 1 with delta/sigma microscopic transistors directly to a musical AC signal is asking for the impossible.
Further, the multiple op-amps colors the sound with filters and such, which really lacks in my non-feedback top end tube phono (Bugle boys are singing in there 🙂.
Being redundant, the ladder gates of the tda1541 is the only dac which gives an easy distinction of voices, and sounds best in single chip going to high feedback active i/v matched high speed BJT in class B, class AB output ,regulated PS.
Last edited:
I see. That bit of subjective testing aces my subjective testing - because you were at one lot of it happening, but not at the other lot ...
I agree, very logical thinking ... 🙂
As a side note, this is the sort of material I use for seeing what my progress is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krF8bU43GRw. I have a budget CD of greatest hits of theirs, and I tried it again last night - makes it trivially easy to pick differences .. the goal is to be able to run this at high volume, with subjectively complete clarity, all the elements and soundstaging within can be discerned, and there is no sense of any distortion, 🙂.
I did actually. Like you, I could only detect the other signal when the primary was at very low level.
It's all about the brain - it locks into the primary message, which is obviously the loud musical event, and switches off what is irrelevant. Same principle as when listening to someone playing an acoustic guitar in your home, and a loud car goes past at some stage - while those really "bad bits" of noise are happening the quality of the guitar playing doesn't degrade, your hearing is quite capable of ignoring the nuisance sound, because it doesn't correlate in any shape or form to the music. If it did correlate to some degree then you might start feeling annoyed, because it was getting "harder" to filter out what you wanted to hear.
Edit: Yes, the thought of getting gear to "prove" things has appealed, but it would be the old story - the results would have to be 10 times, 100 times "better" than they actually needed to be, to have any impact - a rusted on nut needs a lot of work ... 😉
Last edited:
Mr. LP's tractors are not perfect. The handling is a little funny, and the paint job is a bit off. But some of the farmers don't seem to mind that. They see the faults as being irrelevant. Mr. Digital can build a close to perfect tractor. It utilizes power steering technology, and consists of fully active 8 cylinders. The compression ration is 4 times higher. But the farmers dislike it for unknown or unrelated reason. "We seem to gather less crop in previous harvest!", they say. Poor Mr. Digital...
Frank, you cannot beat cogitech. He has successfully taught 3 geckos on Logic subject, with direct supervision from SY himself. Only Snup who can beat him 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.