I don't know about that last bit about CD audio issues only the quality of the conversion.
There are some other issues that additional sampling rates would help.
I would suspect that the way our ears work, with little hairs running down a coiled tube filled with fluid. The tube gradually tapers in size along with the hairs.
The frequency response of our ears drops off somewhere around 20,000 Hz. However, because our ears detect sounds as patterns in these hairs, I suspect that we can hear ultrasonic effects in sound even though we cannot hear ultrasound itself.
Our ears are both remarkablly sensitive to some sounds and utterly insensitive to other artifacts. I suspect that most of the noise in a well-designed analog system is inaudible.
But our ears are remarkably good at listening to artifacts in the leading attacks of sounds. Since the 44kHz current sample rate is only a multiple about 2x what our ears can hear, I'm pretty sure that there are aliasing artifacts to these leading edges that the little hairs in our ears CAN detect.
For me, even the very best CDs have a somewhat crystalline sound that feels artificial. It was really really bad when CD players were first introduced. I thought they sounded astonishingly bad at first. But they are getting better now, even listenable.
There very well may be much more noise on a analog recording, but because analog actually rounds off the ultrasonic effects, you don't get so many unpleasant artifacts in the sound.
The worst thing that bothers me now about CD audio is the rather artifical sounding imaging you get, especially on instruments with high pitched overtones like cymbals, piano, and violin.
But I do agree on the inconvenience of playing analog. I mostly listen to the CD, but I don't harbor any illusions that the sound is Better than analog. It iis certanly better than bad analog, but when analog is right it is ever so sweet.
There are some other issues that additional sampling rates would help.
I would suspect that the way our ears work, with little hairs running down a coiled tube filled with fluid. The tube gradually tapers in size along with the hairs.
The frequency response of our ears drops off somewhere around 20,000 Hz. However, because our ears detect sounds as patterns in these hairs, I suspect that we can hear ultrasonic effects in sound even though we cannot hear ultrasound itself.
Our ears are both remarkablly sensitive to some sounds and utterly insensitive to other artifacts. I suspect that most of the noise in a well-designed analog system is inaudible.
But our ears are remarkably good at listening to artifacts in the leading attacks of sounds. Since the 44kHz current sample rate is only a multiple about 2x what our ears can hear, I'm pretty sure that there are aliasing artifacts to these leading edges that the little hairs in our ears CAN detect.
For me, even the very best CDs have a somewhat crystalline sound that feels artificial. It was really really bad when CD players were first introduced. I thought they sounded astonishingly bad at first. But they are getting better now, even listenable.
There very well may be much more noise on a analog recording, but because analog actually rounds off the ultrasonic effects, you don't get so many unpleasant artifacts in the sound.
The worst thing that bothers me now about CD audio is the rather artifical sounding imaging you get, especially on instruments with high pitched overtones like cymbals, piano, and violin.
But I do agree on the inconvenience of playing analog. I mostly listen to the CD, but I don't harbor any illusions that the sound is Better than analog. It iis certanly better than bad analog, but when analog is right it is ever so sweet.
carlosfm said:
Analog has infinite resoution, while digital is always limited by numbers.
You can't compare directly the two things.
A good vinyl source passes 20khz without problems, and has a slow roll-off at the upper frequencies.
SACD is mosty noise above 20khz.
I say listen with your ears.
Carlos,
Whilst I agree with most things you say, I have to take you to task about this statement.
I hope you're not suggesting that LPs have infinite dynamic range?! They're going to be limited not just by thermal noise from the components, but by e.g. the size of the magnetic particles in a tape, or the grain of a vinyl pressing. Whatever the mechanism, there are going to be definite limits to the information stored.
As far as frequency response goes, tell me what the s/n ration at 20kHz is for a good vinyl pressing. Our ears are remarkable noise filters, and I won't deny that a decent analogue setup can sound stunning, but 192KHz DVD-A can have the same level of noise and channel separation at 90kHz as it does at 20Hz. But tlets not get into an analogue vs digital discussion, the board is I'm sure full of them...
Happy listening
sss said:
why should i record dvda and sacd to and old analog tape ?
Do you want a better way to record SACD with all the bandwidth?
Do you have a way to make a direct digital copy of an SACD disc?
It may sound funny, but the best way to do it now is... analog.
Please don't copy it to a CD.
carlosfm said:
Definition of Dynamic range:
"1. In a system or device, the ratio of (a) a specified maximum level of a parameter, such as power, current, voltage, or frequency to (b) the minimum detectable value of that parameter."
In other words, the total range of possible values, from the highest to the lowest. So dynamic range is precisely tied in with the minimum difference in amplitude that can be recorded. Below this minimum level, you're going to get noise, applicable to ANY analogue signal.
The difference in end result is that noise in a digital system is generated at the beginning (before the ADC) and at the end (after the DAC) whereas in an analogue system it is introduced at every stage in between - editing, storage and transmission of a digital signal adds no noise to the data (or else no computer program would be able to run from CD etc.)
Try reading up on "dither" to see how digital systems are able to lower the noise floor even further.
carlosfm said:
Do you want a better way to record SACD with all the bandwidth?
Do you have a way to make a direct digital copy of an SACD disc?
It may sound funny, but the best way to do it now is... analog.
Please don't copy it to a CD.
Please could you give me the make and model of any tape deck that has the same bandwidth as SACD, as all the ones I can see for sale reach 20kHz max.
This reminds me of the early days of CD when analogue afficionados would work around some of CD's nasties (back in the days of 14bit switching DACs) by copying music to tape for playback. Of course, nothing was gained, but tape perfomed a useful filtering action on the spurious signals produced by bad analogue filters, and the extra noise added helped to sooth some of the limitations of the time. Also, it helped to roll of the treble thus taming the sound.
It's a bit like comparing the first days of photography to the way things are now... at the end of the 19th century, who would have preferred a black-and-white photograph to the results of a skilled artist using canvas and oil? The fact is that the photographic world moved on a lot, as digital has done since it's early days. It's called PROGRESS
Oh, and there's a very good reason why Sony don't want people being able to copy SACDs digitally...
carlosfm said:
I'm talking amplitude resolution.
So what's your definition of amplitude resolution? Since both amplitude resolution and dynamic range are directly related to the bit depth, it appears that these terms are interchangable, at least in this context (to be clear, I'm not talking about the dynamic range of the music, but the maximum dynamic range that the medium can represent).
carlosfm said:
Even not talking about vinyl, you can buy an old Nagra 4S tape recorder or a Nakamichi 1000ZXL and record your DVD-As and SACDs and vinyl.
Analog is not just vinyl, you know?
And vinyl is a good source.
Well, according to
this review it appears the 1000XL can reach 22700Hz -3dB; hardly SACD territory. Even the manufacturers specification indicates 18-25kHz within 3dB.
Figures like 0.4%THD, 50dB channel separation and 75dB s/n ratio (WITH Dolby C) are hardly state-of-the-art these days.
carlosfm said:It doesn't have a brickwall, so rolloff is smooth.
SACD is mostly noise above that, anyway.
SACD might be, but DVD-A (PCM) isn't.
Don't you believe it! I've got a WM-D6C, the Sony Walkman Pro which was (is) also held in high regard. Once the frequency resonse dips, it goes down very fast.
I seem to recall reviews of SACD players indicating the option of more gentle rolloffs than the brick wall variety (which can anyway be implemented much better using FIR filters).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.