Digital vs. LP

[Macca]

I suppose it is worth pointing out that although both a cd and a turntable spin a disc and 'read' it, any similarity between how they work ends there.

The better the TT, arm and cartridge, the better the 'read' of the disc and this will transfer into perceived sound quality. This is not true of cd players. No matter how fancy and expensive the mech it will not read the disc any better that the transport on a £20 DVD player from Tesco. A cheap mech might potentially introduce noise to the signal due to vibration, and this may have an effect on sound quality, but it will not affect how accurately the disc is read.

In digital audio it really makes no difference whether the file is being read from an optical disc or a hard drive, this will have no effect on the accuracy of the read. yes the file is not being read in real time in the way a cd is read, this is why cd players have error correction. if there is a read error the error correction will sort it and you will get a perfect read. if the error correction fails you will get a drop out, or a nasty squeak or similar. it will be obvious. What you won't get is a slightly worse rendition of the music. it will either work perfectly or will not work at all.

Consequently there is no inherent benefit in terms of sound quality using file based audio compared to optical disc based audio.

of course there are many other things that will effect sound quality with digital audio. The design of the analogue output stage and the power supplies do seem to have a major effect, but this will apply to both CD players and a computer/DAC set up equally.

It is regrettable that the emphasis on improving digital replay seems to concentrate on things that don't make any difference to what we hear and little or no attention is paid to the things that do matter, mainly because they are not easily marketed to people with no understanding of how digital audio works, but that's commercial reality.

Regarding upsampling - upsampling a recording is not the same as playing back a recording that was originally recorded with mics able to capture frequencies up to 196khz (or whatever). Upsampling will change the perceived sound quality.

Note I say 'change' rather than improve. Whether you like the change is personal and subjective. I don't like it, for me it makes everything sound 'fluffy' and less defined. The important point is this should not be taken as evidence that so-called 'high resolution' recordings sound better because they contain frequencies beyond 22Khz (i.e the limit of human audibility) since it is not the same thing at all.

[Ali Tait]

I would like to hear how the new MQA encoded CD's sound. Who'd have thunk it, hi rez from CD..

[Macca]

MQA really needs to be killed with fire.

[Jimbo]

MQA really needs to be killed with fire.

Have you heard MQA?

Have you heard a file based system in your set up at home and compared it to your CD?

[Marco]

No matter how fancy and expensive the mech it will not read the disc any better that the transport on a £20 DVD player from Tesco. A cheap mech might potentially introduce noise to the signal due to vibration, and this may have an effect on sound quality, but it will not affect how accurately the disc is read.

It depends on what you mean by "read the disc any better"...

If you mean in terms of the accurate reading of noughts and ones, then no (providing that the error correction circuitry is functioning correctly), however, there's much more to it than that, if the most important thing of all is to be achieved: accurately reproducing the MUSIC contained on said disc!

So, if the cheap mech introduces noise to the signal, due to vibration, which I agree with, then why wouldn't one *specifically engineered* to combat that problem, not be better at the job, thus subsequently improve the SQ of the CD played?

For starters, think about why the very best transport mechs (such as VRDS NEO) are of an ALL METAL (as opposed to plastic) construction [and feature elaborate clamping systems], and what impact that might have on vibration...

All of that ultimately comes under the category of 'reading the disc better'.

It's VIBRATION, which is the culprit here in terms of reduced fidelity, not the ability of the mech to accurately read noughts and ones! That's why, with any CDP, the quality of mech matters, and is hugely influential in the sound of CD, no matter how good the partnering DAC is.

if there is a read error the error correction will sort it and you will get a perfect read. if the error correction fails you will get a drop out, or a nasty squeak or similar. it will be obvious. What you won't get is a slightly worse rendition of the music. it will either work perfectly or will not work at all.

How do you know that for sure? Perhaps the error occurring may trigger a knock-on effect, further down the circuit, due to something that you haven't considered? The fact is, whilst what you say is in isolation technically correct, it may not be as simple as that. Hi-fi rarely is!

My view is that *every* aspect of reproducing the musical information, contained on discs, matters from start to finish of the process [including the efficacy of the disc-reading process], if you're going to hear it properly, and therefore get a proper rendition of the music. I just think you're a little guilty of simplistic (or perhaps wishful) thinking.

When something's not 100% right, at any point in that chain, it will almost always adversely affect signal integrity, the knock-on effect of which [reduced fidelity], could be heard by anyone with good ears and a decent system.

However, I completely agree with you about up-sampling, as I don't like the effects of the change, and hear it rather like you do.

Marco.

[Firebottle]

In digital audio it really makes no difference whether the file is being read from an optical disc or a hard drive, this will have no effect on the accuracy of the read. yes the file is not being read in real time in the way a cd is read, this is why cd players have error correction. if there is a read error the error correction will sort it and you will get a perfect read. if the error correction fails you will get a drop out, or a nasty squeak or similar. it will be obvious. What you won't get is a slightly worse rendition of the music. it will either work perfectly or will not work at all.

There does seem to be a widespread misapprehension that any form of 'error correction' is going to be audible. It's not like the audio waveform is being manipulated by addition or subtraction as the 'signal', or data to be more precise, is still a string of bits.

The string is either correct after any correction, or incorrect due to too many errors or missing bits; that's the only time it will become audibly corrupt, due to lack off (sufficient) error correction.

[Macca]

Have you heard MQA?

Have you heard a file based system in your set up at home and compared it to your CD?

No and no.

MQA is just taking the existing recording and improving the mastering and/or adding some judicious eq to spice it all up a bit, and making you pay for proprietary hardware and software in the process. Yes, this might make it sound subjectively 'better' but they could do that with the same recording on a normal CD or file if they wanted to. They don't because

1) There is a market for so called high resolution and they want a piece of it
2) There would be no way to copy protect the improved master if released on a normal 16/44.1 cd

I could set up a file based system in my home and compare it to some cd players but whatever I preferred , or whatever sounded better, it would have nothing to do with the manner in which the file is being read, and everything to do with the myriad of other differences in the set up.

[Ali Tait]

But it can be used to encode a hi rez file onto cd, not just upsample a Red Book recording-

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes

Seems a pretty good idea to me.

[Marco]

I am sure you have optimised your CD to sound great in your system. What would be interesting to prove my point correct ( I may be wrong), would be hitch your CD player up to DAVE and A-B it against a file based version of the same recording. All would be revealed!

Indeed... Firstly, does DAVE have a digital coaxial input, to take the signal from the CDP? If not, then the 'game's a bogey'.

If it were possible, however, it would also be interesting comparing the Sony DAC with the DAVE, both using CD and a file-based sources, thus analysing the difference between old non-upsampling multi-bit technology,versus the 'best' of today's technology

From my point of view I have heard some very expensive CD players and they are easily beaten by FBA.

Cool, but that's where our experiences differ: some "very expensive CD players" I've heard beat FBA.

The Chord Blu 2 m-scaler does somewhat confuse the issue as it does significantly improve the sound of CD and its not subtle, but I feel this is the exception to the rule. Yes I agree upscaling sounds dodgy but done via the m-scaler into DAVE it is very good indeed.

I have no reason to doubt your ears, but to change my opinion on the matter, I'd need to hear it for myself, much as you need to do the same with what I'm claiming is possible with judiciously modified/optimised CDPs/DACs, built by Japanese majors, during the heyday of CD, when cost (to them) was no object...

Marco.

[Macca]

But it can be used to encode a hi rez file onto cd, not just upsample a Red Book recording-

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes

Seems a pretty good idea to me.

It doesn't really do that, though. It essentially upsamples (i.e makes an educated guess at) the portion of the signal above 22Khz.

We already had full fat hi rez on a disc with DVD-A and that was fifteen years ago and it died a death because no-one wanted it.