View Full Version : Digital audio vs vinyl
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-emperors-new-server/
I must admit I agree with most of this article as I think it honestly compares the merits of both. I feel the final conclusion to be true but I am not so stuck in the vinyl camp as I was as I have heard a system that made me feel there could be room for digital in my life if only I had the cash.
From what I have heard the lines between excellent analog and state of the art digital are blurred even more. :)
Many ways of skinning a cat but I'd agree that Digital is approaching Vinyl now, even for the poorer of us as Technology improves.
magiccarpetride
17-05-2017, 21:57
Many ways of skinning a cat but I'd agree that Digital is approaching Vinyl now, even for the poorer of us as Technology improves.
The main reason people have abandoned vinyl is not digital technology, but the convenience of portability. That exodus started happening in the 1970s (I bought my first walkman in 1979).
As in everything else, ignorance is bliss. If you don't know any better, you may work diligently on building your state-of-the-art digital sound system. You may end up mighty pleased with how it sounds, and your friends may also get blown away by your system.
However, all it takes is a single exposure to a really good record playing system to dispel the dogmatic haze that's building around the digital sound reproduction kingdom. Listeners with sensitive, even average ears, will immediately notice that something is fundamentally different with analog playback. And most people will be forced to conclude that state-of-the-art vinyl is incredibly seductive.
magiccarpetride
17-05-2017, 22:00
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-emperors-new-server/
I must admit I agree with most of this article as I think it honestly compares the merits of both. I feel the final conclusion to be true but I am not so stuck in the vinyl camp as I was as I have heard a system that made me feel there could be room for digital in my life if only I had the cash.
From what I have heard the lines between excellent analog and state of the art digital are blurred even more. :)
I would agree that digital can approximate the sound quality of vinyl, but under one proviso: that we're comparing digital playback to the LP that hasn't been properly washed and vacuumed. But as soon as the LP gets properly cleaned, forget it!
The main reason people have abandoned vinyl is not digital technology, but the convenience of portability. That exodus started happening in the 1970s (I bought my first walkman in 1979).
As in everything else, ignorance is bliss. If you don't know any better, you may work diligently on building your state-of-the-art digital sound system. You may end up mighty pleased with how it sounds, and your friends may also get blown away by your system.
However, all it takes is a single exposure to a really good record playing system to dispel the dogmatic haze that's building around the digital sound reproduction kingdom. Listeners with sensitive, even average ears, will immediately notice that something is fundamentally different with analog playback. And most people will be forced to conclude that state-of-the-art vinyl is incredibly seductive.
Dont think i am ignorant of the sonic abilities of vinyl. ;)
However, all it takes is a single exposure to a really good record playing system to dispel the dogmatic haze that's building around the digital sound reproduction kingdom. Listeners with sensitive, even average ears, will immediately notice that something is fundamentally different with analog playback. And most people will be forced to conclude that state-of-the-art vinyl is incredibly seductive.
I would agree 100% with that, but coupled with the fact that most will never have heard what digital sound is *truly* capable of [haven't owned equipment able to reveal its full potential], and so in some ways limits their ability to judge just how much better vinyl is in comparison.
Trust me, that last bit is crucial to the whole concept of 'digital audio vs. vinyl' ;)
Marco.
magiccarpetride
17-05-2017, 22:34
I would agree 100% with that, but coupled with the fact that most will never have heard what digital sound is *truly* capable of [haven't owned equipment able to reveal its full potential], and so in some ways limits their ability to judge just how much better vinyl is in comparison.
Trust me, that last bit is crucial to the whole concept of 'digital audio vs. vinyl' ;)
Marco.
Are you referring to the 'excellent digital reproduction only underlines the digital nature of the signal'?
Not quite sure what you mean, sorry...
Marco.
magiccarpetride
17-05-2017, 22:55
Not quite sure what you mean, sorry...
Marco.
Just referring to the statement in the article linked by the OP, where the author talked how very good digital playback tends to potentiate the fact that it is a digital source being listened to.
For me, very good digital playback, quite simply doesn't sound 'digital', in the sense that many assume it, based on their experience to date of listening to it, as much of what's considered as wrong, simply doesn't exist, and merely an artefact of poor design.
As I've said before, if your turntable makes vinyl sound 'vinyl-ly', or your CD player makes CD sound 'digital', then they're most likely not making the most of their respective formats, as experience shows it doesn't need to be like that.
When either is truly *right*, one is too immersed in the music itself to remotely be concerned whether one is listening to vinyl or digital. That is the reality: the music is showcased in all its glory, first and foremost, not the respective traits of the playback equipment.
In that respect, it's rather like driving: you never notice the best drivers on the road, because they're just doing what they're good at, thus don't draw attention to themselves - and so it is with the best vinyl and digital sources. What's 'noticed', therefore, is simply the music :)
Marco.
magiccarpetride
17-05-2017, 23:54
For me, very good digital playback, quite simply doesn't sound 'digital', in the sense that many assume it, based on their experience to date of listening to it, as much of what's considered as wrong, simply doesn't exist, and merely an artefact of poor design.
As I've said before, if your turntable makes vinyl sound 'vinyl-ly', or your CD player makes CD sound 'digital', then they're most likely not making the most of their respective formats, as experience shows it doesn't need to be like that.
When either is truly *right*, one is too immersed in the music itself to remotely be concerned whether one is listening to vinyl or digital. That is the reality: the music is showcased in all its glory, first and foremost, not the respective traits of the playback equipment.
In that respect, it's rather like driving: you never notice the best drivers on the road, because they're just doing what they're good at, thus don't draw attention to themselves - and so it is with the best vinyl and digital sources. What's 'noticed', therefore, is simply the music :)
Marco.
That's a good analogy (good drivers vs bad drivers). I was actually referring to this quote from the above article:
"It is a painful irony that higher fidelity does not guarantee (or does not just guarantee) more lifelike sound. What it does guarantee, provided that the fidelity really is higher, is a more accurate recreation of what was recorded, of what the tapeheads heard and what the mastering engineers subsequently did to the mastertapes. It is an even more painful irony that, in the case of computer audio, higher-fidelity playback (and I will concede that computer audio can be higher fidelity) exposes the flaws of digital recordings even more clearly and, in so doing, often makes them even less compellingly listenable and lifelike, IMO, than the playback of certain stand-alone CD and SACD players—and generally less listenable and lifelike than analog sources like LP and tape."
magiccarpetride
18-05-2017, 01:19
For me, very good digital playback, quite simply doesn't sound 'digital', in the sense that many assume it, based on their experience to date of listening to it, as much of what's considered as wrong, simply doesn't exist, and merely an artefact of poor design.
As I've said before, if your turntable makes vinyl sound 'vinyl-ly', or your CD player makes CD sound 'digital', then they're most likely not making the most of their respective formats, as experience shows it doesn't need to be like that.
When either is truly *right*, one is too immersed in the music itself to remotely be concerned whether one is listening to vinyl or digital. That is the reality: the music is showcased in all its glory, first and foremost, not the respective traits of the playback equipment.
In that respect, it's rather like driving: you never notice the best drivers on the road, because they're just doing what they're good at, thus don't draw attention to themselves - and so it is with the best vinyl and digital sources. What's 'noticed', therefore, is simply the music :)
Marco.
Also, I take your point about music. Although, I gotta say sometimes there could be something else. For example, yesterday I bumped into Keith Jarrett's used LP "Arbour Zena". I know that album since I was very young, listened to it many, many times. I love it, especially the first track, "Runes".
And of course, I have it on CD. But it's been decades since I've listened to it on vinyl.
Anyway, yesterday I brought the LP home, cleaned and vacuumed it very carefully, and sat down for a dedicated listen.
My god, I was completely mesmerized by the sound of Jarrett's piano on "Runes"! I don't think I've ever heard piano being reproduced with such splendour, in its full glory. The notes were leaping from my Maggies and into the room, towards me. I was transfixed. I was in a trance.
So yes, the music was awesome, but on top of that, the very sound of the piano was overwhelmingly beautiful. Even if someone played some gibberish on that recording, just tickling the ivories on Jarrett's piano, it would've still been incredibly enchanting.
That is the power of listening to vinyl. I then played the same track on the CD, and meh...
The problem with the article is that the author clearly does not have a even a basic understanding of how digital audio works. So whilst his observations may be true his conclusion as to the reason for those observations is wildly incorrect.
As one of the commentators on the article points out:
One side note, your argument that "you simply cannot “sample” the continuous-time sound of instruments or vocalists, turn it into discrete-time numbers, and then turn those discrete-time numbers back into instruments or vocalists without losing some of the very continuousness of presentation" is false. It's really, really easy to prove this with some basic math and an oscilloscope
For me, very good digital playback, quite simply doesn't sound 'digital', in the sense that many assume it, based on their experience to date of listening to it, as much of what's considered as wrong, simply doesn't exist, and merely an artefact of poor design.
As I've said before, if your turntable makes vinyl sound 'vinyl-ly', or your CD player makes CD sound 'digital', then they're most likely not making the most of their respective formats, as experience shows it doesn't need to be like that.
When either is truly *right*, one is too immersed in the music itself to remotely be concerned whether one is listening to vinyl or digital. That is the reality: the music is showcased in all its glory, first and foremost, not the respective traits of the playback equipment.
In that respect, it's rather like driving: you never notice the best drivers on the road, because they're just doing what they're good at, thus don't draw attention to themselves - and so it is with the best vinyl and digital sources. What's 'noticed', therefore, is simply the music :)
Marco.
I agree that the very best digital systems do not sound "digital' nor do they sound like analog. I wager most folk have never really heard a very high end digital system and its capabilities.
I believe digital is slowly getting closer to an analog sound but it will never sound the same as it does not have the inherent problems or technical limitations of vinyl and has advantages vinyl will never be able to compete with.
However in terms of a live, believable, convincing reproduction of audio vinyl is very hard to match. It is probably an intrinsic part of the technical ways the whole analog system works which produces this versus the number crunching technical approach digital has to endeavour to deliver an audio signal.
For me personally digital music is great for all the reasons suggested in the article. It is portable, convenient, massive storage in a small space, requires little effort and for me probably the main reason I may one day buy a digital system, it can sound astonishingly good.
However I still think audibly I have a connection to the music via vinyl that makes it more real and seductive to listen to. Maybe it's the comfort of listening to analog being an analog creature by nature so it fits our hearing like a glove.
The real revelation for me was converting to a media server and Halide Bridge, which offers me an incredibly low 10ps jitter with my 44.1kHz files. CD transports tend to be 100s of ps or even ns levels of jitter. My DAC uses no reclocking, just a PLL, so responds well to low jitter. Let's just say my Audial Model S / Halide Bridge comfortably outperforms my vinyl setup in every way except for when the vinyl mastering is better, which it often can be.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
killie99
18-05-2017, 08:12
Not many people can afford a state of the art analogue system but for the cost of a pretty average cart you can have a pretty damn good digital playback system.
Digital has made big strides forward in the past few years. A Raspberry Pi and HAT DAC (£100) digital playback system will trounce a £500 turntable/arm/cart so it's easy to see why people prefer digital. For Joe Bloggs it's a no brainer as he's only interested in cost and convenience.
It's only us loonies on the fringes who are happy to accept the ritual of vinyl. The cleaning, the careful handling, the endless searching for 1st pressings, the hassle of continually buying and returning new vinyl due to pressing errors or poor quality, checking the TT is setup properly, servicing the TT, the expense ... the list goes on and on.
SO, whilst a good TT analogue system may be able to deliver audio nirvana, it's not for everyone, never has been and never will be.
Is the turntable THE BEST system I've ever heard? Nope. Best I've ever heard was a Studer R2R, never heard anything like it before or since.
Haselsh1
18-05-2017, 08:16
My partial abandonment of vinyl back in 1983 had absolutely nothing to do with portability but was as a result of being pissed off with surface noise which back then was obviously a major problem for me. I bought a Yamaha CDX1 and moved forward immediately. These days I would say that my CD system outperforms my vinyl system on most LP's but not all and is my favourite way of listening to music. Of course it could be that most of my music is simply not available on vinyl so that narrows down my choice considerably. I prefer to keep both sources in my system and use either as the mood takes me.
Hi Alex,
In terms of your quote from the article, I agree with the first part, but not this:
It is an even more painful irony that, in the case of computer audio, higher-fidelity playback (and I will concede that computer audio can be higher fidelity) exposes the flaws of digital recordings even more clearly and, in so doing, often makes them even less compellingly listenable and lifelike, IMO, than the playback of certain stand-alone CD and SACD players—and generally less listenable and lifelike than analog sources like LP and tape.
I've heard computer audio done well, not just in my own system, but much more expensively, and even better, in systems belonging to others, and for me it's the opposite of the above.
Yes, file-based audio has the capability (and indeed, when done right, does) produce higher-fidelity playback than CD (note however that said superiority is over CD itself, as a music carrying medium, not necessarily the playback of the same musical information by the best CD players), but in doing so it doesn't make digital recordings (providing that they're of a high sonic standard to start with) "less compellingly listenable".
Think about it.... How could it do that, if the results produced were genuinely more accurate (i.e. achieving higher fidelity)? The only way that could be so, would be if the recording was "less compellingly listenable" to start with. But if it's making a good recording "less compellingly listenable" in that way, then by definition, it's not achieving higher-fidelity.
In my experience, when computer audio is done well, and by the very nature of how it works, removes the fundamental errors and subsequent distortion created by a CD player's moving parts, it sounds more like GOOD vinyl, in that it removes key aspects of digital replay (inherent distortions) that detract from its 'listenability' to the human ear, something which Jim touches upon, in terms of vinyl 'connecting' him more to the music, which I concur with.
Subsequently, the best file-based sources I've heard sound like good turntables, in terms of that 'musical connection' factor.
Quite simply, the best playback equipment (analogue or digital), as far as possible, sonically removes itself from the equation, thus acts as faithful a carrier as possible for the musical information embedded in the source recording. That applies to both CD players and turntables, and when they do their job right, that's what you should hear.
All of the above has certainly been what my ears have told me so far :)
Marco.
My god, I was completely mesmerized by the sound of Jarrett's piano on "Runes"! I don't think I've ever heard piano being reproduced with such splendour, in its full glory. The notes were leaping from my Maggies and into the room, towards me. I was transfixed. I was in a trance.
So yes, the music was awesome, but on top of that, the very sound of the piano was overwhelmingly beautiful. Even if someone played some gibberish on that recording, just tickling the ivories on Jarrett's piano, it would've still been incredibly enchanting.
That is the power of listening to vinyl. I then played the same track on the CD, and meh...
Yes, but once again you're making the fatal error of automatically blaming CD, rather than the possibility that your current player is unable to reproduce the format at its BEST, and to the same standard as your turntable achieves with vinyl ;)
Only when you wrap your head around that notion, and successfully address it, should you be so inclined, will you ever get closer to effectively judging how digital (at its best) compares with vinyl (at its best), when using respective test recordings of the highest sonic calibre.
Marco.
I agree that the very best digital systems do not sound "digital' nor do they sound like analog. I wager most folk have never really heard a very high end digital system and its capabilities.
Indeed, which is why few are in a position to make any conclusive pronouncements on 'digital audio vs. vinyl'. And incidentally, "a very high end digital system" doesn't need to be (all) modern, or cost as much as a luxury car either... ;)
Marco.
Marco have you noticed differences between file based digital audio vs CD? Personally I have found the best I have heard is via file based audio even when the material has been ripped from CD. However CD is certainly not dead yet as I have heard an alternative take on CD which upscales the output to remarkable effect. The system allows A-B comparison between plain Vanilla CD output and upscaled version.
I am not about to throw away my discs yet!
I am sure you can get good results from older equipment as I trust your ears mate.:)
Is the turntable THE BEST system I've ever heard? Nope. Best I've ever heard was a Studer R2R, never heard anything like it before or since.
Good point, Stuart. R2R, done well, playing high-fidelity studio master tapes, has the potential to trounce ANY turntable - and most certainly ANY digital source!
*But* the best T/Ts, playing the finest recordings on vinyl, can get pretty close, and more often than not, usurp what even the best of digital audio can produce.
Marco.
Dauntless
18-05-2017, 09:17
The best black stuff set up I've ever heard was fronted by the Kronos Turntable. You could buy a detached house up here for the cost of that system. This system sounded great and shows what records can be capable of. If you have an LP12 or something similar then you are nowhere near the Kronos based system. This is the trouble with analogue. To get the best from it you need to invest so heavily, the Kronos is not for most. I was shocked by this turntable! I've had Logic dm101's, all singing and dancing LP12's and a Rock Reference and I wasn't even close. My digital set up easily competes with what I had in analogue so unless I have a big lottery win I will just have to be happy with that!
Hi Jim,
Marco have you noticed differences between file based digital audio vs CD? Personally I have found the best I have heard is via file based audio even when the material has been ripped from CD.
Yes I've heard numerous differences, with sometimes files sounding better than CDs, and vice versa, when reproduced by their respective playback equipment. Ultimately however, recording quality aside, it all comes down to the ability (or inability) of the playback equipment, and associated ancillaries, to preserve the musical information contained in the source format.
However, all else being equal, especially in instances where noise has been effectively addressed, and the highest quality of DAC is used, file-based audio should shade it.
However CD is certainly not dead yet as I have heard an alternative take on CD which upscales the output to remarkable effect. The system allows A-B comparison between plain Vanilla CD output and upscaled version.
Lol... Been there, done that and heard it, about 10 years ago, with an (undeniably superb) and very expensive DCS combination.
I know where you're coming from, but trust me, when you get your ears around it, the up-sampling process carries its own (distinctive) sonic signature [there always exists some form of payback when manipulating the music signal], and as much as I can hear what it does right, I can also hear what it does wrong... ;)
Everything in audio of course is a compromise, but for me there are better ways of hearing CD at its best, than through today's high-end up-sampling players.
I am sure you can get good results from older equipment as I trust your ears mate
Cheers mate, as I do yours. You definitely can, but it's not so easy to obtain truly excellent ones :)
One fact you have to consider with CDPs, is that during the heyday of their production, when there existed demand for it from wealthy customers worldwide, the major Japanese companies with the technical and financial wherewithal to produce 'no compromise' designs (particularly Sony), engineered them to a such a high standard that, quite simply, no players made today can compete with in that area.
In that respect, I'm talking primarily about CD transports, and the quality of their design and implementation, DAC chip selection and the knowledge of how to fully optimise performance, and most crucially of all, the use of massively over-specced PSUs [witness there how heavy the best vintage players are in comparison with their modern counterparts], together with the optimal implementation of such - all of which costs vast sums of money in both tooling and know-how.
And *that* is why vintage high-end Jap 'battleship build' CD players can sound so amazing, *especially* when certain ageing electronic components are replaced and upgraded accordingly, which will not only have drifted well out of spec in the ensuing years since originally being fitted, but are rendered as obsolete now by the best of what's produced today.
Today's players, in comparison, which albeit in terms of judicious software implementation, are able to produce excellent sound, simply aren't as well-engineered - and *that*, when almost all else is equal (after successful component upgrades have been carried out in the best vintage CDPs/DACs), is what will always put, even the best of today's players, at a distinct disadvantage against the cream of the 'old guard'.
For me, what limits the performance of most of today's high-end players is the quality of their transport mechs (if they employ the use of the plastic-constructed DVD-ROM variety. Anything less than a TEAC Esoteric VRDS Neo, for me is a no-no), and/or switch-mode PSUs, which for me, regardless of how supposedly 'well done', I wouldn't have near any of my kit, or IMO, any audio equipment that purports to be the best.
Marco.
The real revelation for me was converting to a media server and Halide Bridge, which offers me an incredibly low 10ps jitter with my 44.1kHz files. CD transports tend to be 100s of ps or even ns levels of jitter. My DAC uses no reclocking, just a PLL, so responds well to low jitter. Let's just say my Audial Model S / Halide Bridge comfortably outperforms my vinyl setup in every way except for when the vinyl mastering is better, which it often can be.
I know where you're coming from, Neil, and agree. However, who knows what would happen, in that respect, were you to invest more money in every aspect of your vinyl set-up, which successfully addressed key areas of its performance, thus allowing it to compete with your digital set up?
I'm afraid when I hear folk saying how 'so much better' their CDP or digital source is than their turntable, or vice versa, my first thought is: get a better turntable or CD player, and attempt to level the playing field, than necessarily that the music format itself, belonging to the preferred playback equipment, is inferior or superior... ;)
One thing you're unquestionably right about is that *all* CD transports introduce jitter, to varying degrees, and so the complete absence of that effect with a file-based set up, is one of the main reasons why, all else being equal, it has the potential to outperform any CD player.
Marco.
Important points to remember when comparing and evaluating the formats;
Imprinting with vinyl sound early in life, this forming a sort of reference,
The mastering of vinyl almost certainly was done by those who understood the limitations of the medium and hence adjusted the recording for optimising with it, The direct transfer of this to CD may be very flawed, showing vinyl type adjustment compromises clearly.
To me both are capable of giving great pleasure but vinyl is so maintenance intensive that time does not allow it.
Digital will improve, and there will always be purists who want non compromised audio to ensure full quality is available.
For me the weakest link is now speakers.
As a personal request, I have a Linn Valhalla which I have never really liked*, and on which I changed the Ittock II for a RB300.
Accepting that vinyl is a compromise I would like to change it for one which is as good or better, but which has that 'something' which makes it an attractive artefact.
Recommendations please; considered TD 124 but seems too maintenance intensive, Nottingham, and Michell. Also I love the Alphason H1100S. SMEIV, Townsend, RB300? I would prefer small footprint.
*Like the feeling one gets when introduced to someone one does not like, and one just cringes and baulks at everything they seem to be, as happens on occasions.
As a personal request, I have a Linn Valhalla which I have never really liked*, and on which I changed the Ittock II for a RB300.
Accepting that vinyl is a compromise I would like to change it for one which is as good or better, but which has that 'something' which makes it an attractive artefact.
Recommendations please; considered TD 124 but seems too maintenance intensive, Nottingham, and Michell. Also I love the Alphason H1100S. SMEIV, Townsend, RB300? I would prefer small footprint.
Best start a new thread in Analogue Art for that one, Dennis :)
Marco.
Audio Al
18-05-2017, 10:39
Best I've ever heard was a Studer R2R, never heard anything like it before or since.
Shh don't tell everyone or they will all want one ;)
I
One thing you're unquestionably right about is that *all* CD transports introduce jitter, to varying degrees, and so the complete absence of that effect with a file-based set up, is one of the main reasons why, all else being equal, it has the potential to outperform any CD player.
Marco.
This isn't really correct, any transfer of digital info can create jitter, it isn't confined to CD transports or players. The good news is that it is completely inaudible. If you don't believe this consider that a turntable, even the best turntable, has jitter (aka wow & flutter) at much higher levels (several orders of magnitude) than the worst of digital, and you can't hear that either.
Digital's real problems lie elsewhere.
Here we go....jitter ! , getting like cables :D
I know where you're coming from, Neil, and agree. However, who knows what would happen, in that respect, were you to invest more money in every aspect of your vinyl set-up, which successfully addressed key areas of its performance, thus allowing it to compete with your digital set up?
I'm afraid when I hear folk saying how 'so much better' their CDP or digital source is than their turntable, or vice versa, my first thought is: get a better turntable or CD player, and attempt to level the playing field, than necessarily that the music format itself, belonging to the preferred playback equipment, is inferior or superior... ;)
One thing you're unquestionably right about is that *all* CD transports introduce jitter, to varying degrees, and so the complete absence of that effect with a file-based set up, is one of the main reasons why, all else being equal, it has the potential to outperform any CD player.
Marco.
Hi Marco, yeah I hear ya, thing is, I think I'd need to spend five figures (or at least high four figures) to get to that point with my vinyl, and as it's a secondary listening source I don't think it's a wise investment. Don't get me wrong I really enjoy using the turntable, but yeah concede that the investment has been made in digital. ;)
Firebottle
18-05-2017, 12:20
Everything in audio of course is a compromise, ..................... quite simply, no players made today can compete with.
Hi Marco,
The compromise in the system James is referring to is cost, pure and simple.
I've personally heard the DAC part of it, from a file based system, and it is streets ahead of anything else digital I have heard, including your Sony.
You really need to hear the Chord top of the line stuff, the advances made in the digital filtering (the software) are awesome. I only use that word when it is fitting.
I am even tempted to go down that route for my CD playback but the cost is not insubstantial.
Cheers,
Alan
This isn't really correct, any transfer of digital info can create jitter, it isn't confined to CD transports or players. The good news is that it is completely inaudible. If you don't believe this consider that a turntable, even the best turntable, has jitter (aka wow & flutter) at much higher levels (several orders of magnitude) than the worst of digital, and you can't hear that either.
Digital's real problems lie elsewhere.
If jitter is inaudible, why can I distinguish between my USB front end and my CD transport in a blind test? Bear in mind that my DAC uses no re-clocking, and is dependent on being fed with a low jitter signal. However, reclocking can introduce all sorts of variables & is not perfect, which is why many designers of the 'minimal school' decide not to use it.
Ali Tait
18-05-2017, 12:44
Hi Marco,
The compromise in the system James is referring to is cost, pure and simple.
I've personally heard the DAC part of it, from a file based system, and it is streets ahead of anything else digital I have heard, including your Sony.
You really need to hear the Chord top of the line stuff, the advances made in the digital filtering (the software) are awesome. I only use that word when it is fitting.
I am even tempted to go down that route for my CD playback but the cost is not insubstantial.
Cheers,
Alan
From some of my reading, the new Mytek dacs are in the same ballpark for a lot less wonga Alan.
Light Dependant Resistor
18-05-2017, 12:49
I know where you're coming from, Neil, and agree. However, who knows what would happen, in that respect, were you to invest more money in every aspect of your vinyl set-up, which successfully addressed key areas of its performance, thus allowing it to compete with your digital set up?
I'm afraid when I hear folk saying how 'so much better' their CDP or digital source is than their turntable, or vice versa, my first thought is: get a better turntable or CD player, and attempt to level the playing field, than necessarily that the music format itself, belonging to the preferred playback equipment, is inferior or superior... ;)
One thing you're unquestionably right about is that *all* CD transports introduce jitter, to varying degrees, and the complete absence of that effect with a file-based set up, is one of the main reasons why, all else being equal, it has the potential to outperform any CD player.
Marco.
And all SPDIF links similarly introduce some jitter. In 1997 I had published method of overcoming SPDIF
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0401/deficienciesofspdif.htm
Which involved Bitclock Data and LRCK each transferred separately using a 3 wire link between a pioneer PDS701 and a
Audio synthesis DSM. Listening tests between the linked set up and a PDS 801 into another DSM using
SPDIF revealed how superior the link set was over SPDIF.
Which is to say that if you want the best from digital, you have to look a bit further than what is commercially available
Also the brickwall filter in CD players is looked at here:
http://wilson-benesch.com/reviews/Life_Beyond_20kHz_Blackmer_SVC_Sep-1998.pdf
What needs to be done is to extend the frequency response of CD, not just its dynamic range
as is being done recently. Organizations like AES can start to examine what is needed to
do this, and propose new standards to be introduced http://www.aes.org/
We then would start to see digital really moving forward,
Whilst a turntable cartridge and a phono amplifying stage and its connecting cable, are celebrated as analog
along with reel to reels, in an electronics view a phono stage represents adjusting for correcting what is called RIAA
So an understanding of RIAA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization shows that frequency is much higher
in available bandwidth at the cutting lathe - up to 100Khz ( see eRIAA in the above link )
RIAA has much similarity to the invention of emphasis and de-emphasis proposed by Murray Crosby
which is also a integral part of companding,used in Dolby and DBX noise reduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding
Dolby mainly, but also DBX have been used in almost every recording since 1965
to extend at the recording, the available dynamic range. But even in 2017 you
are not hearing yet the capability of those recordings. In the case of DBX there
is and was the ability to make the recording medium ( usually 30ips reel to reel )
capture up to 120db vs the limitations of CD players today most below 100db.
The good thing is that dynamic range is still within those recordings.
The available bandwidth of LP starts to give meaning to why analog might be preferred when done well.
Those with a LP of Thelma Houston's Pressure Cooker know just what can be done with a analog
direct to disc recording.
However on the downside is no research being done to determine if modern day LP's originate from CD masters
hence the meaning of analog is likely being changed to possibly now be a RIAA curve of a CD master.
Sadly I suspect this is now occurring as the mothers of recordings are no longer capable of
transferring - being worn out, so the next best thing is a CD master to make an LP from.
On the plus side those with LP collections dating before CD ie 1983, have escaped this transfer process,
But the fact that a equalization curve like RIAA was used I think may greatly assist a CD master
of a RIAA LP transfer to retain some of the ability of an otherwise all analog recording and LP
production.
Cheers / Chris
If jitter is inaudible, why can I distinguish between my USB front end and my CD transport in a blind test? Bear in mind that my DAC uses no re-clocking, and is dependent on being fed with a low jitter signal. However, reclocking can introduce all sorts of variables & is not perfect, which is why many designers of the 'minimal school' decide not to use it.
There could be a lot of variables involved there. Jitter is just distortion so if you have enough jitter and the programme material is sufficiently simple (i.e a very good recording of just one instrument) it is potentially audible when compared to playback with zero jitter. (Blind tests have been done for this I believe, but they did use a shedload of jitter).
I'm just pointing out that it is incorrect to assume that any issue with digital playback sound quality is due to jitter, since it is very unlikely/impossible to be the cause of any audible problems when listening to 'normal' music regardless of what sales and marketing might say.
magiccarpetride
18-05-2017, 16:28
Good point, Stuart. R2R, done well, playing high-fidelity studio master tapes, has the potential to trounce ANY turntable - and most certainly ANY digital source!
*But* the best T/Ts, playing the finest recordings on vinyl, can get pretty close, and more often than not, usurp what even the best of digital audio can produce.
Marco.
Plus, we're now slowly discovering that vinyl is a good archival medium. Contrary to some of the propaganda back in the 1980s - 90s, which claimed that LPs deteriorate, we're now seeing that even 50 - 60 years old LPs, if properly taken care of, completely retain the information imprinted into them. While at the same time it is a proven fact that magnetic tapes irreversibly deteriorate with the passage of time, which doesn't make them a good archival choice.
magiccarpetride
18-05-2017, 18:02
Think about it.... How could it do that, if the results produced were genuinely more accurate (i.e. achieving higher fidelity)? The only way that could be so, would be if the recording was "less compellingly listenable" to start with. But if it's making a good recording "less compellingly listenable" in that way, then by definition, it's not achieving higher-fidelity.
Hi Marco,
You make a number of good points. In principle, I totally agree with you. But being of an inquisitive nature, I cannot help myself but continue to turn every stone along the pathway. So I don't want you to think that, just because I'm examining some of your statements, I'm disagreeing with you.
Here is an example I came up with that could possibly shed some light on the issue we're discussing: I am a big fan of Van Gogh's paintings, and I love to study them any time I get an opportunity. Of course, traveling the world to meet those canvases is expensive and exhausting. So we resort to books and visiting online exhibitions.
Now, I think we'll all agree that experiencing Van Gogh's paintings by looking at reproductions is not really going to give us the full appreciation. But it's a nice approximation. Various books offer reproductions of various quality, and it is what it is.
With the advent of digital technology, we can now visit Van Gogh's museum online, and select one of his paintings, and then zoom in to the magnificent details. I don't know if you've ever tried this, but the level of magnification is magnificent! I don't think that even in person, standing in front of one of his canvases, I'd be able to zero in on such fine details.
Still, despite the largely improved accuracy of the digitally magnified details of the canvas, the experience is less compellingly lifelike! true, in real life encounter with the canvas, I cannot experience such level of accuracy as I can when experiencing it via the digital simulacrum, but nevertheless it cannot get even close to the real life experience.
I think the same principle may apply to the differences between experiencing musical reproduction via digital system vs experiencing the same reproduction via vinyl playback.
What do you say?
Haselsh1
18-05-2017, 18:43
Hmmm... well, I am engrossed in this thread so I have spent the last three hours of my life listening to my system via CD and vinyl.
Software: Shedding Skin by Ghostpoet, CD and vinyl
I am very aware that these two copies could well have been mixed and mastered differently but in my system, here is what I found.
The CD playback was similar to a Sergeant Major inches from your nose shouting out orders. It was very upfront and aggressive/dynamic. The bass was extremely propulsive, tight and forceful. I found the whole sound was tight to the point of sounding robotic. Stereo image was stunning with the right material. Stereo depth was OK.
Vinyl playback was massively different with huge stereo depth way back behind the loudspeakers. The whole sound was altogether softer and a lot more palatable. The bass was also softer and more rounded. Altogether the sound was a lot more 'organic' whatever that means but it seems to be a good word to describe what I was hearing. The sound was way more realistic. I found that the 3D stereo effect was not as great as it was from CD with sounds appearing 180 degrees either side of my ears with CD but not with vinyl.
So, I prefer the gentle nature of my vinyl system but really prefer the stereo imaging from CD. Fortunately I do not really have to make a decision one way or the other. I have both and I am keeping both.
Hi Marco,
The compromise in the system James is referring to is cost, pure and simple.
I've personally heard the DAC part of it, from a file based system, and it is streets ahead of anything else digital I have heard, including your Sony.
You really need to hear the Chord top of the line stuff, the advances made in the digital filtering (the software) are awesome. I only use that word when it is fitting.
I am even tempted to go down that route for my CD playback but the cost is not insubstantial.
Cheers,
Alan
I don't think any filtered DAC can match a filterless DAC in terms of reproducing transients & having the dynamic contrast & 3D soundstage like good vinyl has, but you lose a bit of resolution & some frequency response at the top end. Rob Watts mentions that the 'perfect' FIR filter is of infinite taps, the Hugo has 26,000 yet he has heard 'better' as the taps increase, but at the same time, there are people doing cutting-edge work with zero filtering that for me sounds more like vinyl or tape in terms of that naturalness. Maybe the DAVE gets close to reproducing the vision of infinite filter taps, with resultant sound quality (I haven't heard it) - at a price!
magiccarpetride
18-05-2017, 19:53
Hmmm... well, I am engrossed in this thread so I have spent the last three hours of my life listening to my system via CD and vinyl.
Software: Shedding Skin by Ghostpoet, CD and vinyl
I am very aware that these two copies could well have been mixed and mastered differently but in my system, here is what I found.
The CD playback was similar to a Sergeant Major inches from your nose shouting out orders. It was very upfront and aggressive/dynamic. The bass was extremely propulsive, tight and forceful. I found the whole sound was tight to the point of sounding robotic. Stereo image was stunning with the right material. Stereo depth was OK.
Vinyl playback was massively different with huge stereo depth way back behind the loudspeakers. The whole sound was altogether softer and a lot more palatable. The bass was also softer and more rounded. Altogether the sound was a lot more 'organic' whatever that means but it seems to be a good word to describe what I was hearing. The sound was way more realistic. I found that the 3D stereo effect was not as great as it was from CD with sounds appearing 180 degrees either side of my ears with CD but not with vinyl.
So, I prefer the gentle nature of my vinyl system but really prefer the stereo imaging from CD. Fortunately I do not really have to make a decision one way or the other. I have both and I am keeping both.
Nice description. Let me try and share my impressions:
Listened to John McLaughlin's "Extrapolation" in Red book and vinyl format. Redbook first (AIFF rip of the official CD):
Clean, polite presentation. The cymbals are clear, and somewhat cut-out of the sonic picture (almost like a collage). All the notes the quartet is playing are clearly distinguishable. Nothing stands out as being remarkable. Overall impression -- clinically clean.
Now impressions listening to the 45 years old original Marmalade/Polydor pressing:
Whoa! The bass leaps out of the left speaker. Super impolite! McLaughlin's guitar in the right channel sounds angry, dissatisfied with something. The cymbals are searing, fully immersed in the soundscape (possibly a bit less clear, less etched in space than on the digital playback). Surman's baritone sax enters like a heavy weight world boxing champion.
Verdict: vinyl playback is almost too much. Brash, unapologetic, with a lot, and I mean a lot of garlic on it. Digital playback in comparison feels sheepish, almost timid. Overall, vinyl is much more engaging, and feels more faithful to the actual event recorded that day.
Yes guys this is what I refer to as the dynamic contrast and 3D soundstage that good vinyl brings. Digital filtering can squash the sound flat not to mention make things harsh, not just at the playback end but also at the recording and production end. Digitally remastered vinyl pressings seem to suffer too.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
This isn't really correct, any transfer of digital info can create jitter, it isn't confined to CD transports or players. The good news is that it is completely inaudible. If you don't believe this consider that a turntable, even the best turntable, has jitter (aka wow & flutter) at much higher levels (several orders of magnitude) than the worst of digital, and you can't hear that either.
Sorry mate, but in my experience that simply isn't true.
When I was having the Sony(s) modified, Mark (from Audiocom) allowed me to listen to the effect at almost every step of the way [good job I had some suitable boxes for shipping them back and forth to him, lol], certainly after anything major had been carried out, such as re-clocking.
One thing he told me was that jitter was a major reason why digital replay can often sound 'hard' and unnatural, compared with analogue, and when I analysed the effect for myself (before and after mods), it was obvious what he was saying was right.
I'll see if I can get him to come on and explain things from a technical point of view, in terms of the work he did on the Sonys to address jitter, as Mark really knows his stuff :)
As for your point about turntables, certain phenomena can manifest themselves in different ways, so whether the effect of any one in isolation may not be audible, the knock on effect elsewhere often is. That's certainly the case with W&F, as T/Ts that (measurably) suffer significantly in that area, to my ears, never sound right, and tend to 'slur' bass lines, which also adversely affects pitch.
So even if you can't pin it down and say that wow and flutter is conclusively responsible for what you're hearing, it's a contributory factor for why T/Ts, which measure badly in that area, IME, never sound right, musically - and the same goes for high levels of jitter in CD players or transports.
Marco.
Hi Marco, yeah I hear ya, thing is, I think I'd need to spend five figures (or at least high four figures) to get to that point with my vinyl, and as it's a secondary listening source I don't think it's a wise investment. Don't get me wrong I really enjoy using the turntable, but yeah concede that the investment has been made in digital. ;)
No worries, mate. I totally get that. I just think that the only way anyone can properly compare the capabilities of their digital and vinyl sources, is when there exists a level playing field, both in terms of financial expenditure, and simply how much time and effort has been spent by the owner, in terms of 'maxing them out' :)
Marco.
Hi Alan,
I've personally heard the DAC part of it, from a file based system, and it is streets ahead of anything else digital I have heard, including your Sony.
You really need to hear the Chord top of the line stuff, the advances made in the digital filtering (the software) are awesome. I only use that word when it is fitting.
That's interesting, as I've always been on the lookout for a modern DAC that could compete with or outperform the Sony, not that I'd ever sell the latter as it has a unique sound of its own, but I'd value owning a modern high-end DAC in my system, simply to get a different 'take' on the music, as well as using it in conjunction with the RPi.
In that respect, I'd love to hear the Chord in question, but as ever in audio, I suspect that both the Sony and it would have their strengths and weaknesses, with neither outperforming the other overall in every area, as that rarely happens with two very capable pieces of kit :)
The thing for me with the Sony, as indeed Macca loves about his Technics, is the sheer weight and authority it has in the bass, which 'underpins' music with such palpable gravitas, thus making anything that benefits from a 'chunky' bass line, sound so lifelike and real.
So far, as there's always a trade off with any kit, I've never heard that effect, to the same degree, from any modern DAC, as they tend to major in 'rez', a little at the expense of 'fullness'. Note, however, I don't mean bass bloat, but rather the weight and authority I referred to earlier.
That really adds to the fun factor of the listening experience, and much of that effect, I now know from experience, is down to the sonic signature of the TDA 1541 chips, employed in the Sony DAC. It's a sound that, although other vintage players have in abundance, the way it manifests itself on the music, for me is unique to those DAC chips, when properly implemented, and indeed to multi-bit DACs in general.
In effect, they have a beautifully judged, very solid, 'analogue like' musical presentation, which is probably why there is little discrepancy, sonically, in my system between digital and vinyl sources.
Marco.
What needs to be done is to extend the frequency response of CD, not just its dynamic range
as is being done recently. Organizations like AES can start to examine what is needed to
do this, and propose new standards to be introduced http://www.aes.org/
We then would start to see digital really moving forward,
Whilst a turntable cartridge and a phono amplifying stage and its connecting cable, are celebrated as analog
along with reel to reels, in an electronics view a phono stage represents adjusting for correcting what is called RIAA
So an understanding of RIAA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization shows that frequency is much higher
in available bandwidth at the cutting lathe - up to 100Khz ( see eRIAA in the above link )
<Snip>
The available bandwidth of LP starts to give meaning to why analog might be preferred when done well.
Those with a LP of Thelma Houston's Pressure Cooker know just what can be done with a analog
direct to disc recording.
Some good points there, Chris, which if technically correct, may indeed go some way to explaining why, despite its technical limitations, music reproduced on vinyl (when done well), to many ears, ultimately sounds more 'real' than digital.
Marco.
Haselsh1
19-05-2017, 09:32
vinyl playback is almost too much. Brash, unapologetic, with a lot, and I mean a lot of garlic on it. Digital playback in comparison feels sheepish, almost timid. Overall, vinyl is much more engaging, and feels more faithful to the actual event recorded that day.
Very interesting as my findings were the complete opposite. In my system the CD replay was completely over the top and in your face. There is nothing refined about my CD replay whereas with vinyl it is completely laid back and rounded.
It is just so soothing to listen to.
Hi Alex,
You make a number of good points. In principle, I totally agree with you. But being of an inquisitive nature, I cannot help myself but continue to turn every stone along the pathway. So I don't want you to think that, just because I'm examining some of your statements, I'm disagreeing with you.
Here is an example I came up with that could possibly shed some light on the issue we're discussing: I am a big fan of Van Gogh's paintings, and I love to study them any time I get an opportunity. Of course, traveling the world to meet those canvases is expensive and exhausting. So we resort to books and visiting online exhibitions.
Now, I think we'll all agree that experiencing Van Gogh's paintings by looking at reproductions is not really going to give us the full appreciation. But it's a nice approximation. Various books offer reproductions of various quality, and it is what it is.
With the advent of digital technology, we can now visit Van Gogh's museum online, and select one of his paintings, and then zoom in to the magnificent details. I don't know if you've ever tried this, but the level of magnification is magnificent! I don't think that even in person, standing in front of one of his canvases, I'd be able to zero in on such fine details.
Still, despite the largely improved accuracy of the digitally magnified details of the canvas, the experience is less compellingly lifelike! true, in real life encounter with the canvas, I cannot experience such level of accuracy as I can when experiencing it via the digital simulacrum, but nevertheless it cannot get even close to the real life experience.
I think the same principle may apply to the differences between experiencing musical reproduction via digital system vs experiencing the same reproduction via vinyl playback.
What do you say?
Well, for me it's simply because, in reality (out with of what's purported as being 'accurate'), what you're seeing in actuality, isn't, but rather as good as is currently possible for today's technology to produce. Therefore, no matter how convincingly lifelike a Van Gogh painting may appear on a computer screen, it's ultimately only a digitally created facsimile of the real thing; not actually the REAL THING itself...
In that respect, it's pretty obvious that what the naked human eye sees in real life, is infinitely more detailed and real than anything currently created and produced by man - and the same applies to our ears, which is why what we hear in audio, yet seemingly can't measure, I believe we mostly genuinely experience, even though it seemingly can't be proven, via any known means.
However, how that correlates with the 'digital vs. vinyl playback' debate is of course open to interpretation.
My view would be that, the ways in which many of us hear vinyl replay (at its best) as sounding more 'musically lifelike', compared with its digital counterpart, is simply down to the fact that, as already mentioned, much of what we can genuinely see and hear as humans, we haven't yet found a way of measuring, and thus proving that what we're seeing or hearing, in that respect, is real.
I'm convinced, however, that it is, and yes that applies to the superiority of vinyl playback, claimed by you and I (and many others), despite some of it technically not being backed up by measurements.
Marco.
Very interesting as my findings were the complete opposite. In my system the CD replay was completely over the top and in your face. There is nothing refined about my CD replay whereas with vinyl it is completely laid back and rounded.
It is just so soothing to listen to.
Yes, but that could simply be down to the sonic limitations of your CD player, in comparison with those of your turntable, rather than said effect automatically being attributed to CD replay itself.
Marco.
barring the finer details which you often need high quality gear and ears to pick up, I find the mastering is all important to how each sounds. Why else would some recordings sound world class and others sound the pits
Firebottle
19-05-2017, 10:13
Hi Alan,
That's interesting, as I've always been on the lookout for a modern DAC that could compete with or outperform the Sony, not that I'd ever sell the latter as it has a unique sound of its own, but I'd value owning a modern high-end DAC in my system, simply to get a different 'take' on the music, as well as using it in conjunction with the RPi.
In that respect, I'd love to hear the Chord in question, but as ever in audio, I suspect that both the Sony and it would have their strengths and weaknesses, with neither outperforming the other overall in every area, as that rarely happens with two very capable pieces of kit :)
The thing for me with the Sony, as indeed Macca loves about his Technics, is the sheer weight and authority it has in the bass, which 'underpins' music with such palpable gravitas, thus making anything that benefits from a 'chunky' bass line, sound so lifelike and real.
So far, as there's always a trade off with any kit, I've never heard that effect, to the same degree, from any modern DAC, as they tend to major in 'rez', a little at the expense of 'fullness'. Note, however, I don't mean bass bloat, but rather the weight and authority I referred to earlier.
That really adds to the fun factor of the listening experience, and much of that effect, I now know from experience, is down to the sonic signature of the TDA 1541 chips, employed in the Sony DAC. It's a sound that, although other vintage players have in abundance, the way it manifests itself on the music, for me is unique to those DAC chips, when properly implemented, and indeed to multi-bit DACs in general.
Marco.
I really really wish you could hear it. It is the DAVE dac system that Jimbo has heard (and introduced me to) and so eloquently described in previous posts.
It doesn't use a proprietary dac chip, the dac is a programmed gate array (don't worry about the technicalities) that is a sea change in performance.
The bass performance of the system on demo could have been classed as a weapon :eek:, it was almost beyond description in power and clarity, or weight and authority in your words. I was totally gobsmacked .........
Having heard what can be achieved with the Chord technologies makes me want some of the performance. The DAVE is stupidly priced, from an affordability aspect, but Chord have just updated their HUGO dac/headphone amplifier which I am seriously tempted to audition.
One small problem, I don't have a CD transport or deck with digital outputs. If/when I get one I'll happily bring it along to yours for a sesh :thumbsup:
:cool:
barring the finer details which you often need high quality gear and ears to pick up, I find the mastering is all important to how each sounds. Why else would some recordings sound world class and others sound the pits
Yes, mastering is all-important, and indeed the quality of such is significantly responsible for the results of what we hear through our systems with recorded music.
However, out with of that, there are undeniable, fundamental, sonic and musical presentational differences between vinyl and digital replay, although the respective playing field can be levelled to such a degree, by the judicious selection of associated equipment, that it matters not which one is being listened to.
Marco.
I really really wish you could hear it. It is the DAVE dac system that Jimbo has heard (and introduced me to) and so eloquently described in previous posts.
It doesn't use a proprietary dac chip, the dac is a programmed gate array (don't worry about the technicalities) that is a sea change in performance.
The bass performance of the system on demo could have been classed as a weapon :eek:, it was almost beyond description in power and clarity, or weight and authority in your words. I was totally gobsmacked .........
Having heard what can be achieved with the Chord technologies makes me want some of the performance. The DAVE is stupidly priced, from an affordability aspect, but Chord have just updated their HUGO dac/headphone amplifier which I am seriously tempted to audition.
One small problem, I don't have a CD transport or deck with digital outputs. If/when I get one I'll happily bring it along to yours for a sesh :thumbsup:
:cool:
Sounds great, mate. I'm always up for stuff like that, as hearing new gear is the only way you learn! So exactly how much is the Dave? If it's not too ridiculous, and when I heard it in the context of my own system and sufficiently liked it, I'd just go out and buy one - end of :)
Marco.
brian2957
19-05-2017, 10:51
I really really wish you could hear it. It is the DAVE dac system that Jimbo has heard (and introduced me to) and so eloquently described in previous posts.
It doesn't use a proprietary dac chip, the dac is a programmed gate array (don't worry about the technicalities) that is a sea change in performance.
The bass performance of the system on demo could have been classed as a weapon :eek:, it was almost beyond description in power and clarity, or weight and authority in your words. I was totally gobsmacked .........
Having heard what can be achieved with the Chord technologies makes me want some of the performance. The DAVE is stupidly priced, from an affordability aspect, but Chord have just updated their HUGO dac/headphone amplifier which I am seriously tempted to audition.
One small problem, I don't have a CD transport or deck with digital outputs. If/when I get one I'll happily bring it along to yours for a sesh :thumbsup:
:cool:
Yup , James kindly took me over to hear the system you're describing Alan and I agree with everything you've said I this post :)
Sorry mate, but in my experience that simply isn't true.
When I was having the Sony(s) modified, Mark (from Audiocom) allowed me to listen to the effect at almost every step of the way [good job I had some suitable boxes for shipping them back and forth to him, lol], certainly after anything major had been carried out, such as re-clocking.
One thing he told me was that jitter was a major reason why digital replay can often sound 'hard' and unnatural, compared with analogue, and when I analysed the effect for myself (before and after mods), it was obvious what he was saying was right.
I'll see if I can get him to come on and explain things from a technical point of view, in terms of the work he did on the Sonys to address jitter, as Mark really knows his stuff :)
Marco.
yes see if you can get him to explain what mods he made, would be interesting.
I suspect what is happening here is that various things are being modded but the reason for improvement is being ascribed to jitter when it is actually something else.
For those interested this thread http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/close-in-jitter.1621/ is a reasonably understandable discussion of jitter in digital systems.
Haselsh1
19-05-2017, 11:20
Yes, but that could simply be down to the sonic limitations of your CD player, in comparison with those of your turntable, rather than said effect automatically being attributed to CD replay itself.
Marco.
Indeed it could easily be down to the characteristics of CD replay equipment versus vinyl replay equipment. Each and every one of us suffer from this as there are clear differences with replay equipment otherwise why would we bother..?
Outside of this it comes down to characteristics that can only be measured by laboratory equipment and this I have no interest in as it has no significant importance on the enjoyment I get from my sound system. Every piece of equipment we own as individuals has its own limitations and these connect to each other to produce our systems characteristics. No system is without this synergy, this in itself making some systems sound wonderful and others sound ordinary. However, this in itself is largely governed by what we actually hear and how it influences our mood on a subconscious level. Thankfully we are all very different to each other in what stirs our emotions so the sonic limitations of my system are so different to the sonic limitations of your system but they clearly exist in all cases and it could be one of those limitations that ultimately makes us feel what we feel when we play music.
yes see if you can get him to explain what mods he made, would be interesting.
I suspect what is happening here is that various things are being modded but the reason for improvement is being ascribed to jitter when it is actually something else.
Yes indeed, or that you (and whoever else is stating the same about jitter) perhaps is wrong... ;)
My view is that it's most likely one of those technical areas where various experts simply disagree, and that no-one is unquestionably right. At the end of the day, however, all that matters is what our ears tell us, in respect of how any perceived effect translates itself to and/or affects our enjoyment of recorded music.
Just because the so-called 'facts' appear to contradict my views on jitter, doesn't automatically mean that they're right. In any case, I've emailed Mark, and asked him to contribute to the discussion, so hopefully he'll do that :)
Marco.
£8k:eyebrows:
Not cheap, but *if* it was as good as Alan claims, I'd consider it. However, for those who know the Dave DAC, could you please confirm a) if it uses up-sampling technology, and b) if it features the use of a proper (linear) PSU, as opposed to SMPS?
Both factors would be crucial in terms of the likelihood of me buying one.
Marco.
Indeed it could easily be down to the characteristics of CD replay equipment versus vinyl replay equipment. Each and every one of us suffer from this as there are clear differences with replay equipment otherwise why would we bother..?
Outside of this it comes down to characteristics that can only be measured by laboratory equipment and this I have no interest in as it has no significant importance on the enjoyment I get from my sound system. Every piece of equipment we own as individuals has its own limitations and these connect to each other to produce our systems characteristics. No system is without this synergy, this in itself making some systems sound wonderful and others sound ordinary. However, this in itself is largely governed by what we actually hear and how it influences our mood on a subconscious level. Thankfully we are all very different to each other in what stirs our emotions so the sonic limitations of my system are so different to the sonic limitations of your system but they clearly exist in all cases and it could be one of those limitations that ultimately makes us feel what we feel when we play music.
Absolutely, Shaun, I completely agree. The point I was making, however, was in reference to what I wrote earlier on the matter:
I just think that the only way anyone can properly compare the capabilities of their digital and vinyl sources, is when there exists a level playing field, both in terms of financial expenditure, and simply how much time and effort has been spent by the owner, in terms of 'maxing them out'.
For me, unless that's the case, one simply isn't properly qualified to make any *definitive* pronouncements on the respective merits of CD and vinyl replay.
Marco.
must be an internal psu as it has a iec on back
https://images.cdn.whathifi.com/sites/whathifi.com/files/styles/big-image/public/brands/Chord/chord_dave_05.jpg?itok=it8GVryO
Yes indeed, or that you (and whoever else is stating the same about jitter) perhaps is wrong... ;)
My view is that it's most likely one of those technical areas where various experts simply disagree, and that no-one is unquestionably right. At the end of the day, however, all that matters is what our ears tell us, in respect of how any perceived effect translates itself to and/or affects our enjoyment of recorded music.
Marco.
Well it is interesting that those 'experts' who disagree tend to have a vested financial interest. Also interesting that they claim that the effect of jitter is not to create audible distortion (the famous 'digital harshness') but to curtail soundstaging and imaging.
On a wider note has anyone considered that their preference for analogue and their perception that it sounds more 'real' might be caused by something as simple as second harmonic distortion? And nothing to do with the 'purity' of analogue?
This seems to be the area where the article linked to in the O/P makes its biggest error: the assumption that with digital we are trying to make steak tartar into mince and that is the cause of the problem. The steak tartar analogy is just plain wrong, as is any analogy to digital video or photography. The latter is like trying to make assumptions about the performance of a car by studying the performance of a boat.
Haselsh1
19-05-2017, 12:03
I completely agree that there should be a baseline measure from which all of these things are taken. Without a baseline there is no scientific basis and if that baseline has to be the financial cost of the equipment then there you go. Financial cost of one way of getting a level playing field (baseline) but it has little scientific value in real terms. That then brings us back to laboratory measurements but as already stated, I have no interest in these things from a musical point of view. I hear a big difference between the same music on CD and vinyl within my system which I would think is very definitely due to the differing characteristics of the two sources, outside of that it comes down to scientific measurement.
Firebottle
19-05-2017, 12:08
Not cheap, but *if* it was as good as Alan claims, I'd consider it. However, for those who know the Dave DAC, could you please confirm a) if it uses up-sampling technology, and b) if it features the use of a proper (linear) PSU, as opposed to SMPS?
Both factors would be crucial in terms of the likelihood of me buying one. Put that behind you.
Marco.
Here is a conundrum. I make an MC phono stage that uses a SMPS as its power source and it performs very well, and squashes the belief that this couldn't work.
The DAVE dac is different in so many factors that upsampling and SMPS use is irrelevant, believe me. It is difficult for non techie people to appreciate the subtlety of the differences, but one of the overriding factors that gives the transparency and lack of digital nasties of DAVE and HUGO is the noise shaping software.
Think of it as part of the 'filtering' that is necessary when converting to analogue, traditional approaches with proprietary dac chips use FIR filtering, a well understood way of performing the filtering function in the digital domain. However with traditional approaches the residual noise, or 'noise floor' is modulated (affected in ultimate level) and this tends to mask the very low level signals that give the air and depth to the sonic image.
The different filter and noise shaping of DAVE gives immeasurable changes/modulation of the noise floor and results in spectacular transparency.
When I say the Chord technology is different I mean it is so advanced that no one else is using it, it is proprietary to Rob Watts and Chord.
:)
Here is a conundrum. I make an MC phono stage that uses a SMPS as its power source and it performs very well, and squashes the belief that this couldn't work.
The DAVE dac is different in so many factors that upsampling and SMPS use is irrelevant, believe me. It is difficult for non techie people to appreciate the subtlety of the differences, but one of the overriding factors that gives the transparency and lack of digital nasties of DAVE and HUGO is the noise shaping software.
Think of it as part of the 'filtering' that is necessary when converting to analogue, traditional approaches with proprietary dac chips use FIR filtering, a well understood way of performing the filtering function in the digital domain. However with traditional approaches the residual noise, or 'noise floor' is modulated (affected in ultimate level) and this tends to mask the very low level signals that give the air and depth to the sonic image.
The different filter and noise shaping of DAVE gives immeasurable changes/modulation of the noise floor and results in spectacular transparency.
When I say the Chord technology is different I mean it is so advanced that no one else is using it, it is proprietary to Rob Watts and Chord.
:)
I could post up what Rob Watts actually says about the power supply for DAVE but most people, including myself would not understand hardly any of it.
The only way to understand DAVE is to experience it and as you found out it is an experience you can never forget. It fundamentally changes your experience of hearing anything in hifi both vinyl or digital and now with the BLU 2 and m-scaler digital audio has been taken to another level.
Well it is interesting that those 'experts' who disagree tend to have a vested financial interest. Also interesting that they claim that the effect of jitter is not to create audible distortion (the famous 'digital harshness') but to curtail soundstaging and imaging.
Well, in terms of the latter, one simply hears what one hears, or measures what one measures, and attributes an effect to it accordingly (or not). However, none of that necessarily acts as conclusive proof of anything.
As for the 'vested interest' thing, perhaps, but equally it could be that *some* of said experts have actually hit upon something that works, and fundamentally addresses a very real phenomenon, and therefore have designed and sold products which achieve that, for the benefit of their customers.
Such things aren't always necessarily a 'scam', as deemed so by your cynical mind ;)
On a wider note has anyone considered that their preference for analogue and their perception that it sounds more 'real' might be caused by something as simple as second harmonic distortion? And nothing to do with the 'purity' of analogue?
Yes of course. Anyone with a genuinely open mind would've done that, me included. The concept, however, of simply being 'seduced by euphonic distortion', in that respect, is old hat, although that's not to say it's not possible.
Thing is, when you've been in this game for as long as others and I have, dabbled *extensively* in the domain of both digital and vinyl replay, have spent considerable sums of money doing so, own a large music collection that facilitates both, currently have digital and vinyl sources of equally high calibre, and subsequently for what you consider as valid reasons, out with of the distortion argument, your ears have continually told you that vinyl replay (at its best) still sounds more 'real' than its digital counterpart, then the considerable experience you've amassed, over all those years, quite simply outweighs the 'facts' which appear to indicate the contrary.
That's why at the end of the day, ultimately, we trust our ears over currently accepted 'facts' or measurements, until such times are we consider (based on OUR judgement criteria) that the latter indisputably render what we've experienced to date as invalid.
It's called being a subjectivist :)
Marco.
Here is a conundrum. I make an MC phono stage that uses a SMPS as its power source and it performs very well, and squashes the belief that this couldn't work.
The DAVE dac is different in so many factors that upsampling and SMPS use is irrelevant, believe me. It is difficult for non techie people to appreciate the subtlety of the differences, but one of the overriding factors that gives the transparency and lack of digital nasties of DAVE and HUGO is the noise shaping software.
Think of it as part of the 'filtering' that is necessary when converting to analogue, traditional approaches with proprietary dac chips use FIR filtering, a well understood way of performing the filtering function in the digital domain. However with traditional approaches the residual noise, or 'noise floor' is modulated (affected in ultimate level) and this tends to mask the very low level signals that give the air and depth to the sonic image.
The different filter and noise shaping of DAVE gives immeasurable changes/modulation of the noise floor and results in spectacular transparency.
When I say the Chord technology is different I mean it is so advanced that no one else is using it, it is proprietary to Rob Watts and Chord.
I'll take that then as a 'yes', that the Dave uses SMPS and up-sampling technology? ;)
No worries though, I take on board what you've said, and am in no position to dispute it. My argument though would be that out-and-out engineering quality plays a huge part in the performance of ANY piece of hi-fi equipment, and in a way that can't be levelled by technological advances alone.
However, as you know with me, such advances mean HEE-HAW unless *my* ears tell me that it makes the product in question sonically and musically superior to what I currently have, and so there's only one way to resolve that, which for me is to hear the Dave for myself, against my current benchmark in my own system.
So if you can do that, then I look forward to it. I can promise you one thing, Alan, me being me, if to my ears it trounces the Sony DAC, then quite simply I'll want one :)
Marco.
I completely agree that there should be a baseline measure from which all of these things are taken. Without a baseline there is no scientific basis and if that baseline has to be the financial cost of the equipment then there you go. Financial cost of one way of getting a level playing field (baseline) but it has little scientific value in real terms. That then brings us back to laboratory measurements but as already stated, I have no interest in these things from a musical point of view. I hear a big difference between the same music on CD and vinyl within my system which I would think is very definitely due to the differing characteristics of the two sources, outside of that it comes down to scientific measurement.
...or the possibility that your current player isn't up to the task of allowing you to hear CD at its best, and crucially, in a less capable way than your turntable is allowing you to do the same with vinyl, hence why you're hearing such big differences between both.
Other than that, we're in agreement :)
Marco.
Stratmangler
19-05-2017, 13:02
I'll take that then as a 'yes', that the Dave uses SMPS and up-sampling technology? ;)
SMPS, yes. The device auto senses voltage and adjusts itself accordingly.
Upsampling, probably not.
Don't forget that Chord is one company that does SMPS properly, and builds the damn things properly - you're not talking about the cheap as chips wall wart rubbish that's supplied with most everything today.
SMPS, yes. The device auto senses voltage and adjusts itself accordingly.
Upsampling, probably not.
Cheers, Chris :)
However, it would be interesting to know how the circuit it uses manipulates the music signal, in order for the product to achieve its design goals. Quite simply, any such manipulation leaves an audible 'footprint', which is why no DAC, or no anything, is genuinely 'transparent'.
In that respect, therefore, it'd be interesting to know how in that way, the Dave doesn't deliver 'a free lunch', as it were.
Don't forget that Chord is one company that does SMPS properly, and builds the damn things properly - you're not talking about the cheap as chips wall wart rubbish that's supplied with most everything today.
Absolutely, but it's just a personal thing with me (including the noise they subsequently inject into the local mains supply), but wouldn't allow it to be a deal breaker, if the Dave proved to be exceptionally good.
Marco.
Stratmangler
19-05-2017, 13:48
I would expect the Chord SMPS to be exceptionally quiet in respect of spraying RF all over the local mains.
You'd need your most favourite bit of apparatus (an oscilloscope) to check this out :)
Lol.... Or just use my ears to hear, for example, if merely by having the Chord plugged into the mains, whilst listening to the Sony, the sound deteriorated and/or improved when the former was removed ;)
But yes, I take your point, and would expect the Chord to use 'the daddy' of all SMPS.
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
19-05-2017, 15:08
There's nothing wrong with SMPS if used wisely. An SMPS followed by a linear regulator is pretty much the best of all worlds as you get high efficiency, low noise and total freedom from mains voltage compatibility and fluctuation issues as many SMPS can operate from 90 - 260V without adjustment and maintain the output voltage correctly over this range. It can be tricky using a conventional supply with linear regulator to get the thing to work happily over the range of being in a 220V country and the mains is a bit low that day (210V say) and being in this country with its 240V mains and allowing for days when it reaches say 255V. In the first extreme the supply can drop out of regulation and in the second things can get rather toasty warm!
magiccarpetride
19-05-2017, 16:51
Very interesting as my findings were the complete opposite. In my system the CD replay was completely over the top and in your face. There is nothing refined about my CD replay whereas with vinyl it is completely laid back and rounded.
It is just so soothing to listen to.
We could be comparing apples to oranges here, you know. The only way to really compare notes would be if you could get a copy of the original Extrapolation LP and the official CD, and then play them side-by-side on your system. Or, me getting the analog and digital copies of the tracks you were listening.
I do agree with you that, depending on the LP, some may sound laid back, mellow, 'organic' (as you say), soothing, while some other LPs may sound more vivacious, gutsy, impolite, garlicky, hot and spicy. All those things would largely depend on how hot the instruments were being tracked in the recording venue, as well as how were the tracks mixed and mastered.
Lastly, a lot of it would also depend on the pressing. I've heard different pressings of the same LP sound drastically different -- one smooth, mellow, non-aggressive, the other forward, pushy, aggressive. Same track, different pressings. Believe it or not.
No worries, mate. I totally get that. I just think that the only way anyone can properly compare the capabilities of their digital and vinyl sources, is when there exists a level playing field, both in terms of financial expenditure, and simply how much time and effort has been spent by the owner, in terms of 'maxing them out' :)
Marco.
You aren't far from me, so possibly I could come round and we can compare my 'new school' TDA1541A DAC with your 'old school'. For me to approach my digital setup I would need a turntable like yours, or perhaps a maxed out Pink Triangle Anniversary, Townshend Rock etc. to beat this. Having said this my point is that top-class sound is far more expensive via the pure analogue route than vs. well-sorted digital i.e. I think £2k of proper digital will take over £10k of proper analogue to beat.
magiccarpetride
19-05-2017, 17:06
Hi Alex,
Well, for me it's simply because, in reality (out with of what's purported as being 'accurate'), what you're seeing in actuality, isn't, but rather as good as is currently possible for today's technology to produce. Therefore, no matter how convincingly lifelike a Van Gogh painting may appear on a computer screen, it's ultimately only a digitally created facsimile of the real thing; not actually the REAL THING itself...
In that respect, it's pretty obvious that what the naked human eye sees in real life, is infinitely more detailed and real than anything currently created and produced by man - and the same applies to our ears, which is why what we hear in audio, yet seemingly can't measure, I believe we mostly genuinely experience, even though it seemingly can't be proven, via any known means.
However, how that correlates with the 'digital vs. vinyl playback' debate is of course open to interpretation.
My view would be that, the ways in which many of us hear vinyl replay (at its best) as sounding more 'musically lifelike', compared with its digital counterpart, is simply down to the fact that, as already mentioned, much of what we can genuinely see and hear as humans, we haven't yet found a way of measuring, and thus proving that what we're seeing or hearing, in that respect, is real.
I'm convinced, however, that it is, and yes that applies to the superiority of vinyl playback, claimed by you and I (and many others), despite some of it technically not being backed up by measurements.
Marco.
Hi Marco, interesting discussion. You bring up the point that is very important to me, and I'm a firm believer that our limitless arrogance poses a barrier to our ability to truly understand what's going on. I'm referring to your statement 'much of what we can genuinely see and hear as humans, we haven't yet found a way of measuring, and thus proving that what we're seeing or hearing, in that respect, is real.'
It is our incredible arrogance which gives us the license to firmly believe that, as of right now, 2017, we have absolutely reached the limit of what can be measured and explored in the world of psycho-acoustics. That's just bollocks, or as our American friends say, baloney.
When you 'drop the needle' into the grooves, if you turn the volume off and place your ear close to the cartridge, you will HEAR MUSIC! So that's the REAL THING! When you push Play on a CD player and watch the CD spin and place your ear close to it, you will hear NOTHING!
When you 'drop the needle' into the grooves, if you turn the volume off and place your ear close to the cartridge, you're will HEAR MUSIC! !
Yes, but that's not a good thing.
I agree with you about the psychoacoustics though. That is where the answer to the vinyl magic lies I think.
magiccarpetride
19-05-2017, 17:40
Yes, but that's not a good thing.
I agree with you about the psychoacoustics though. That is where the answer to the vinyl magic lies I think.
Why is that not a good thing?
Arkless Electronics
19-05-2017, 17:44
Hi Marco, interesting discussion. You bring up the point that is very important to me, and I'm a firm believer that our limitless arrogance poses a barrier to our ability to truly understand what's going on. I'm referring to your statement 'much of what we can genuinely see and hear as humans, we haven't yet found a way of measuring, and thus proving that what we're seeing or hearing, in that respect, is real.'
It is our incredible arrogance which gives us the license to firmly believe that, as of right now, 2017, we have absolutely reached the limit of what can be measured and explored in the world of psycho-acoustics. That's just bollocks, or as our American friends say, baloney.
When you 'drop the needle' into the grooves, if you turn the volume off and place your ear close to the cartridge, you're will HEAR MUSIC! So that's the REAL THING! When you push Play on a CD player and watch the CD spin and place your ear close to it, you will hear NOTHING!
In the interests of pedantry, suppression of hypocrisy, and exposure of double standards to the full public glare of the spotlight.... If I'd claimed the opposite was "bollocks" it wouldn't have been acceptable here on AOS... apparently... It would seem one can argue with a vehemence that requires use of terms such as "bollocks", "a load of nonsense" or "only an idiot would make such claims" so long as one is singing from the same hymn book as "The Management"... but as soon as you are arguing against certain entrenched opinions, the use of such terms suddenly becomes "unacceptable", "playing the man not the ball" or "insulting to forum members".... Just saying:D
:sofa:
magiccarpetride
19-05-2017, 17:57
In the interests of pedantry, suppression of hypocrisy, and exposure of double standards to the full public glare of the spotlight.... If I'd claimed the opposite was "bollocks" it wouldn't have been acceptable here on AOS... apparently... It would seem one can argue with a vehemence that requires use of terms such as "bollocks", "a load of nonsense" or "only an idiot would make such claims" so long as one is singing from the same hymn book as "The Management"... but as soon as you are arguing against certain entrenched opinions, the use of such terms suddenly becomes "unacceptable", "playing the man not the ball" or "insulting to forum members".... Just saying:D
:sofa:
Point taken. I shouldn't have used such strong language. If I had a time machine, I'd travel back in the past and change that word to 'arrogant'.
Yes, Alex, slap yourself on the bum! :eyebrows:
I hear you Jez, and it's a fair point, but Alex only typed his 'objectionable remark' an hour and a half ago, and indeed whilst I was out. Therefore, having only got back in, I've just seen your post and his! If I'd seen it, before, I'd have sorted it.
Do remember in future that both the mods and I have lives outside of AoS, and so that not everything posted on the forum will always be picked up on instantly ;)
Marco.
You aren't far from me, so possibly I could come round and we can compare my 'new school' TDA1541A DAC with your 'old school'. For me to approach my digital setup I would need a turntable like yours, or perhaps a maxed out Pink Triangle Anniversary, Townshend Rock etc. to beat this. Having said this my point is that top-class sound is far more expensive via the pure analogue route than vs. well-sorted digital i.e. I think £2k of proper digital will take over £10k of proper analogue to beat.
I'd be WELL up for that, Neil, so we'll definitely do it. Just need to get our new kitchen finished first, as the hi-fi room is currently full of kitchen shite! :rolleyes:
Should be done before the end of June though, so we'll hook up then :cool:
Marco.
Arrogance seems to have two functions;
To backfoot and disturb the recipients into a subservient disposition by intimidation, and/or
To allow the arrogant person to believe unrealistically that he knows more, is superior, or has a much stronger position than he has in reality.
In both people it is an imaginary status which is operating in the minds.
Light Dependant Resistor
20-05-2017, 00:27
The cause of arrogance, or why it is displayed, is loneliness.
The cause of arrogance, or why it is displayed, is loneliness.
Or maybe they are lonely because they are arrogant?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Arrogance seems to have two functions;
To backfoot and disturb the recipients into a subservient disposition by intimidation, and/or
To allow the arrogant person to believe unrealistically that he knows more, is superior, or has a much stronger position than he has in reality.
In both people it is an imaginary status which is operating in the minds.
What prompted those comments, Dennis? I don't see what relevance they have on this thread.... :scratch:
Marco.
Yup , James kindly took me over to hear the system you're describing Alan and I agree with everything you've said I this post :)
Hi Brian,
Could I just confirm which member owns the system you're referring to and where he lives? :)
Marco.
Post 81
Ah yes, I see now. It was because Dennis' remark appeared immediately after my post (#83), that it seemed somewhat 'random'. I didn't realise it was in reference to something written two posts before it...
What I always do in instances like that, is quote *exactly* what I'm referring to (from the post in question), then reply directly underneath that, which makes it absolutely clear what my post is in reference to :)
Marco.
Hi Brian,
Could I just confirm which member owns the system you're referring to and where he lives? :)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
When I first joined this site one of the first people I met on AOS was a chap called Steve who kindly offered to clean some records for me as he is only 5 minutes round the corner. Steve now has a business selling high end equipment and has become a good friend over the years.
Not only does he sell very good equipment he also has an extraordinary environment in which to listen, it is unique and very special.
I don't want to say anything more about him on this post but if you would like to know more just PM or give me a call.
Jim:cool:
Fair enough mate, why not ask him to join AoS, contribute to discussions and sell some of his stuff? :)
We need to have a sesh anyway, as we've talked about for a while, so when I pop down to your place, we can perhaps 'kill two birds', as it were :cool:
Essentially, I'd like to bring my Sony DAC down and hear it in Steve's system, against the Chord Dave. You can tell him that he may have a potential customer.
Marco.
P.S Just noticed you appear to be saying that he's already a member here?
Another fan of the black art.:)
https://www.cnet.com/news/does-music-sound-better-when-its-digital-or-analog/#ftag=rss.audiophiliac.ftag
I have a lot of experience with regard to the digital vs vinyl debate and have been known to take quite a firm stance - but let me try to explain how I see things.
Since the invention of CD I've done masses, perhaps hundreds, of digital versus analogue comparisons - most A/B in systems other than my own but also some in my own system. I've compared budget solutions and state of the art equipment costing many, many thousands. In recent years most of these demos or comparisons have involved playing files (as opposed to a CD) or streaming. Now I'm heavily invested (financially, physically and emotionally) in vinyl and have a record collection dating from my early teens (so over thirty years), but I'm not blind/deaf to what digital can offer, or the faults of vinyl. In fact I would go so far as to say that if CD sounds very hard to you (these days) and vinyl is all warm and welcoming, then something is very wrong - probably with your speaker/amp/room interface but almost certainly with your turntable (pleasant sounding as it may be).
Back in the day when CD was introduced and Philips promised 'Perfect Sound Forever' it was quite profoundly different to the sound of 'good' analogue. The vinyl was all about drive and dynamic swing but a bit opaque and rolled off at the extremes. The CD was all about leading edge attack and flat response (not the magazine) but low on visceral impact and hard verging on unrelenting in delivery. Speakers with slightly peaky tweeters were common because vinyl didn't stress them and a bit of 'sparkle' was appreciated - CD sent the same tweeters into a breakup mode freak out that endangered the enamel of your teeth.
Move on to the current day and CD is a whole lot better. In fact, it's not only more polite than before, it's sometimes too polite! The best CD players still cost quite a lot of money though and budget ones, whilst not hard and brittle, are pretty bland affairs. On the other hand streaming and files are a real moveable feast - high res files can sound amazing but at its worst streaming can sound like second rate MP3 (unfortunately common in fact).
So what about vinyl? Well, the truth is that I'm more experienced with budget digital than budget vinyl and pretty much all my experience in the last 15 years (or so) has been with vinyl rigs costing many, many thousands. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that if you want really good performance vinyl costs - but then it does deliver in a quite different way than more 'reasonably priced' vinyl setups. The best vinyl systems are now tonally pretty much identical to a very good digital solution and the differences boil down to stereo imagery, depth and subtle aspects like lyricism and palpability.
Sorry, I might write a bit more in a bit, I seem to have written a bit of an essay.
walpurgis
20-05-2017, 20:25
Nice analysis Mark.
I think I agree, but it all depends on budget really. I've spent rather more on CD replay than on my very good sounding record playing setup, but I get equally satisfying results from both.
I have a lot of experience with regard to the digital vs vinyl debate and have been known to take quite a firm stance - but let me try to explain how I see things.
Since the invention of CD I've done masses, perhaps hundreds, of digital versus analogue comparisons - most A/B in systems other than my own but also some in my own system. I've compared budget solutions and state of the art equipment costing many, many thousands. In recent years most of these demos or comparisons have involved playing files (as opposed to a CD) or streaming. Now I'm heavily invested (financially, physically and emotionally) in vinyl and have a record collection dating from my early teens (so over thirty years), but I'm not blind/deaf to what digital can offer, or the faults of vinyl. In fact I would go so far as to say that if CD sounds very hard to you (these days) and vinyl is all warm and welcoming, then something is very wrong - probably with your speaker/amp/room interface but almost certainly with your turntable (pleasant sounding as it may be).
Back in the day when CD was introduced and Philips promised 'Perfect Sound Forever' it was quite profoundly different to the sound of 'good' analogue. The vinyl was all about drive and dynamic swing but a bit opaque and rolled off at the extremes. The CD was all about leading edge attack and flat response (not the magazine) but low on visceral impact and hard verging on unrelenting in delivery. Speakers with slightly peaky tweeters were common because vinyl didn't stress them and a bit of 'sparkle' was appreciated - CD sent the same tweeters into a breakup mode freak out that endangered the enamel of your teeth.
Move on to the current day and CD is a whole lot better. In fact, it's not only more polite than before, it's sometimes too polite! The best CD players still cost quite a lot of money though and budget ones, whilst not hard and brittle, are pretty bland affairs. On the other hand streaming and files are a real moveable feast - high res files can sound amazing but at its worst streaming can sound like second rate MP3 (unfortunately common in fact).
So what about vinyl? Well, the truth is that I'm more experienced with budget digital than budget vinyl and pretty much all my experience in the last 15 years (or so) has been with vinyl rigs costing many, many thousands. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that if you want really good performance vinyl costs - but then it does deliver in a quite different way than more 'reasonably priced' vinyl setups. The best vinyl systems are now tonally pretty much identical to a very good digital solution and the differences boil down to stereo imagery, depth and subtle aspects like lyricism and palpability.
Superb post, Mark! I concur 110% with what you've written (especially the bit in bold), as it mirrors my own experience. I think we're also coming at it from similar directions :)
Marco,
I,m following you Mark and agree with all your observations.
For me it's not really worth using CD as a benchmark for digital as file based systems quite easily better any CD player out there and I have heard some mega bucks stuff. Quite simply although CD has its place the future for really great digital I feel will be from file based systems via the best DACs out there.
However as digital systems slowly unravel the potential in digital recordings they seem to strangely start to sound more analog which is not a bad thing. Ultimately the sound is still not yet for me as good as a great vinyl system which delivers a presentation and acoustic rendition of a recording that digital cannot quite achieve. It may come down to the fact that delivering music from these two very different technologies will never be the same and there will always be discernible differences as there are between say valves and transistors.
Digital will I believe always have it own sound as will vinyl. Some folk extol the technical virtues of digital which on paper trounce vinyl but in practice don't quite cut the mustard. Somehow the prehistoric mechanical nature of vinyl delivers analog sound that our ears and soul loves. Digital seems to forever inhabit another universe which does not quite connect with the brain in the same way.
Now I have heard digital completely blow me away and do things vinyl could only dream of but I always feel slightly disconnected.
All the debate about the technicalities for me is meaningless and trying to translate those technicalities to win an argument one way or the other is pointless. Ultimately you need to just sit down and listen and that will tell you all you need to know.:)
still quite like cd personally. I am as per usual out of step :doh:
I think that the most ardent digital fanboy would get a shock, and a rather rude awakening, listening to truly top-notch vinyl replay (which many of them simply have never heard and have little concept of); indeed I've seen evidence of that at bake-offs, where you can see the look on their faces of 'WTF is happening here, then?' :eek::eyebrows:
These are usually folk who've been brainwashed by the 'facts' presented by technical specifications or measurements, and struggle to grasp why what they've been told by supposed 'experts' simply doesn't tally with what their lugs are clearly hearing! :D
Anyway, with regards to this:
However as digital systems slowly unravel the potential in digital recordings they seem to strangely start to sound more analog which is not a bad thing.
It's like I've been saying all along, mate. The LEAST any vinyl or digital source imposes its own sonic signature on the music, the MORE you hear of both the music itself, and the true capabilities of the format. Most of what's perceived as wrong with 'digital sound' isn't the CDs or files themselves (given a good recording), but the limitations of the associated playback equipment.
It's as simple as that :)
Marco.
I think that the most ardent digital fanboy would get a shock, and a rather rude awakening, listening to truly top-notch vinyl replay (which many of them simply have never head and have little concept of); indeed I have seen evidence of that at bake-offs, where you can see the look on their faces of 'WTF is happening here?' :eek::D
These are usually folk who've been brainwashed by the 'facts' presented by technical specifications or measurements and struggle to grasp why what they've been told by supposed 'experts' simply doesn't tally with what their lugs are clearly revealing!
Anyway, with regards to this:
It's like I've been saying all along, mate. The LEAST any vinyl or digital source imposes its own sonic signature on the music, the more you hear of both the music itself, and the true capabilities of the format, and most of what's wrong with 'digital sound' isn't the CDs or files, but the limitations of playback equipment.
It's as simple as that :)
Marco.
I agree with both of your statements there Marco. Regarding your last statement about the limitations of playback equipment this is so true. Pity the really good stuff is so expensive!:rolleyes::)
:cool:
brian2957
20-05-2017, 21:45
Hi Marco,
When I first joined this site one of the first people I met on AOS was a chap called Steve who kindly offered to clean some records for me as he is only 5 minutes round the corner. Steve now has a business selling high end equipment and has become a good friend over the years.
Not only does he sell very good equipment he also has an extraordinary environment in which to listen, it is unique and very special.
I don't want to say anything more about him on this post but if you would like to know more just PM or give me a call.
Jim:cool:
This is the gent Marco . James took me for a visit . You owe it to yourself to have a listen to this system :)
If he's ok with it, Brian, then I fully intend to :cool:
Marco.
farflungstar
20-05-2017, 22:53
The last time I had a CD based system was back in the late eighties. One of the best money could buy back then before oligarchs created a market for ridiculous prices and interconnects that cost more than a car.
It was the then top of the line Roksan two box player that looked like something out of star trek, coupled to Audio Innovations 2nd audio triode monoblocks plus preamp hooked up with twin and earth to KEF R107 2s. It was superb and gave me years of pleasure. It didn't require tweaking or anything else - switch it on and settle back.
Fast forward to 2017 and an all Analogue rig, again with some of the best components (within normality, well maybe a little outside of it) and it's a different story. I'm quite sure it's superior (except speakers) - and it gives me great pleasure but tweaking is now the order of the day - just a few fractions of a gram out and the sound changes, a change in temperature and the sound changes - and so whilst the sound is sublime it takes a little pampering to be at its best.
One of the reasons I won't put a CD player into the system (though im tempted) is that laziness and convenience plus consistency might take me away from vinyl, not to mention prices and availability. My last purchase cost me 170€ for vinyl - the same album €10 on CD.
magiccarpetride
21-05-2017, 15:07
One of the reasons I won't put a CD player into the system (though im tempted) is that laziness and convenience plus consistency might take me away from vinyl, not to mention prices and availability. My last purchase cost me 170€ for vinyl - the same album €10 on CD.
One of the reasons I like vinyl is the potential for building good library of LPs on shoestring budget. Yesterday I bought six LPs for $12.00. Yes, they're used, but after cleaning them in my RCM, they sound almost mint.
magiccarpetride
21-05-2017, 15:19
The best vinyl systems are now tonally pretty much identical to a very good digital solution and the differences boil down to stereo imagery, depth and subtle aspects like lyricism and palpability.
I like how you describe the differences, and I think the key word may be 'palpability'. Personally, I could look at this debate using two kinds of reasoning: inductive and deductive.
If inductive (i.e. 'where there is smoke there is fire') I can use my direct experience of listening to vinyl and listening to digital, and conclude which one is better. No theory, no 'but this or that expert says that one or the other is better', merely my subjective experience.
If deductive, I can start from the so-call first principles (or fundamentals). What is music? Music is a phenomenon that results from the moving parts. Certain objects move mechanically, they stir the air molecules, and the next thing we know, we hear music.
Viewing things in that light, I see that vinyl reproduction is the result of mechanically moving parts. The turntable platter rotates, the stylus travels inside the grooves, it vibrates, the cartridge body vibrates, and so on. If you place your ear close to the cartridge while it's on the rotating LP, you will hear MUSIC (providing that you switch the volume off).
If you play digital source, when you switch the volume off, you won't hear a thing. That means that digital is not the result of moving parts, but is rather a result of algorithms. In other words, digital is made from NOTHING.
Which is remarkable, but certainly not palpable. So personally, I'd always go for the palpable experience.
So the largest hifi show and probably the best on the planet is coming to an end in Munich and up pops a small review of the show covering the different technologies on offer.
I wonder which one the reviewer feels is the most popular, current and preferred at the show. The last paragraph captures the reasons why.
https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2017/05/21/high-end-2017-turntables-digital-cd-and-the-future-of-music-mediums/
As I have written in other threads, if you visited my home and heard both the same music from my CD player and my record player, in the first 3 minutes you would declare Digital the winner! But, it is after listening for a time, that one album spurs me on to play the next. Before that record is over, I've decided on the next one to play! The vinyl compels me to keep listening. For some Audible reason that's hard to put a finger on. The CD seems to do every "thing", better. Palpability may be the reason? Hard to say.
I've always made the analogy that analog is like looking at yourself in the mirror, while digital is like seeing yourself in a photograph. Of course, that doesn't really apply to the subject here, as most vinyl records are digitally mastered these days. This subject is more about the physical playback mechanism. It can be hard for some to separate their fondness of the mechanical nature of vinyl playback, where they buy hand made cartridges and have the ability to set the VTF and VTA, etc. much more hands on and tweakable. While others enjoy the convenience of digital, no adjustments to make, insert a disc, or pull up a file, and play, no worries about washing and flipping half way. I would guess that most desire one format or the other for these reasons, more so than sound quality. Even myself, owning both, I will play a CD if I'm working around the house, or not in the mood to tend to it. And I will spin records if I am actively listening, or entertaining. So, the convenience or desire to participate does influence which format I choose. One of my best friends has a killer vinyl collection! But he hasn't had a working record player in years, and has over a thousand CD's in his collection, his decision is completely based on convenience, he has no desire to tend to the needs of a record player. I'm in the process of trying to buy most of his records now. So what I'm getting at is, it could be very easy to rationalize which is best, based on our underlying desire to use a particular format.
But from cost no object systems I've heard in the past, and even some reasonable systems, one can build a most satisfying stereo around either format. Neither has a clear lead over the other, and there are plenty to be found in either camp.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Simon_LDT
22-05-2017, 11:59
I never understand why these kind of threads crop up all the time on audio forums, seems a bit silly to me personally - seems like going around in circles every few months or so. My opinion is that there really is no clear winner as both formats have pros and cons but if you ask me both can be superb to listen to if the recording and how it is contained allows it.
Mastering and lineage is key. I may only have a budget system compared to most but I enjoy both CD, streaming and Vinyl playback and while there is a very slight different sound signature between them if the mastering is good I really don't favour either and enjoy whatever format I'm in the mood/have time for. I find that where a recording is all analog, vinyl will usually (but not always) shine better than if it were pressed from digital files. However I do have some Vinyl pressed from hi-res digital files which sound amazing. I do also have lots of ''modern'' LP's which I suspect are pressed using CD mastered files and you can really tell. The LP will usually sound a tad less brittle/harsh but no sonic revelation over the CD. I also find that all digital recordings (DDD) will usually sound best if kept digital and mastered well.
I think it really just comes down to what people prefer as no matter what the source there will always be differences, however small because even though speakers and amps will be the same, an LP has to go through a stylus/cart/arm/phono and CD/files through a laser/processor/DAC. I also believe some people are just biased from the get go, nothing wrong with that but seems pointless if not giving an equal chance.
So for me, I enjoy all formats - if it sounds good it's bloody good no matter what it is being played on. Mastering will always be key. You can't make something sound good if it has been compromised somewhere along the chain before it even reaches your playback chain.
I do agree, Simon, but I guess forums would die pretty quickly without some form of discussion, especially on 'hop topics' such as this. Incidentally, I feel exactly the same about threads revolving around the notion of: 'Do Cables Make A Difference?' :eek:;)
Marco.
Simon_LDT
22-05-2017, 12:10
I do agree, Simon, but I guess forums would die pretty quickly without some form of discussion, especially on 'hop topics' such as this. Incidentally, I feel exactly the same about threads revolving around the notion of: 'Do Cables Make A Difference?' :eek:;)
Marco.
True, haha. :lol:
Nothing wrong with healthy discussion and I do enjoy reading different views, some can get a bit mad at times though haha.
Dynamics
22-05-2017, 19:08
The answer is don't worry about this. Spend your money on amplification and speakers as this easily makes up for any difference and some, over and above formats. It always has. Usually if you get caught up in this, spend your money elsewhere for better benefits.
Arkless Electronics
22-05-2017, 20:47
I do agree, Simon, but I guess forums would die pretty quickly without some form of discussion, especially on 'hop topics' such as this. Incidentally, I feel exactly the same about threads revolving around the notion of: 'Do Cables Make A Difference?' :eek:;)
Marco.
That's a very interesting point though Marco.... So, do cables make a difference? Maybe someone could start a thread on that?
:sofa::uhho::sofa: :D
walpurgis
22-05-2017, 20:49
So, do cables make a difference? Maybe someone could start a thread on that?
Are you volunteering Jez? ;)
Arkless Electronics
22-05-2017, 20:56
Are you volunteering Jez? ;)
Strangely enough I thought maybe someone with vastly more than my measly 3475 posts should grasp the mantle of such a far reaching and rarely discussed phenomena :eyebrows:
That's a very interesting point though Marco.... So, do cables make a difference? Maybe someone could start a thread on that?
:sofa::uhho::sofa: :D
Well, if there were none in your system, you'd hear 'hee-haw', so I guess they do make a difference! ;)
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
22-05-2017, 21:14
Well, if there were none in your system, you'd hear 'hee-haw', so I guess they do make a difference! ;)
Marco.
Without these distortion causing abhorrences in our systems the silences are inky black and have a depth of realism that you just wouldn't believe apparently! The dynamics are truly shite though :D
Light Dependant Resistor
22-05-2017, 21:21
You can't make something sound good if it has been compromised somewhere along the chain before it even reaches your playback chain.
Similarly you can start to make your playback chain sound good, if it has compromises after the recording reaches you.
As example an understanding of recording processes shows there is potential of 30 db of untapped dynamic range awaiting, still
in most of your recordings, but you are not hearing it.
A just over 20Khz filter like a big road sign limiting frequency response for digital, is stopping it progressing further.
http://wilson-benesch.com/reviews/Life_Beyond_20kHz_Blackmer_SVC_Sep-1998.pdf
This raises a very interesting point if frequencies above 20khz have been lost during analog to digital conversion, or
if they are still there, but only lost by the playback side limiting that frequency.
Similarly you can start to make your playback chain sound good, if it has compromises after the recording reaches you.
As example an understanding of recording processes shows there is potential of 30 db of untapped dynamic range awaiting, still
in most of your recordings, but you are not hearing it.
A just over 20Khz filter like a big road sign limiting frequency response for digital, is stopping it progressing further.
http://wilson-benesch.com/reviews/Life_Beyond_20kHz_Blackmer_SVC_Sep-1998.pdf
This raises a very interesting point if frequencies above 20khz have been lost during analog to digital conversion, or
if they are still there, but only lost by the playback side limiting that frequency.
Interesting point, but Hi Rez digital files that are recorded in 24 bit, 196KHz, supposedly top out at 26KHz. This is often why people think it sounds better than 16 bit audio. Those harmonics hiding up there that we don't know we are hearing. Of course that isn't the only reason it sounds better, greater resolution is the main reason.
Many good phono cartridges claim high frequencies way up there 30KHz and up! Is there high frequency information on vinyl records that is being chopped off of 16bit Red Book CD's? Very possible, even if a vinyl record is from a digital master, that master could be 24bit, even 32bit. And contain high frequency information beyond the 20K filter on Red Book CD's. Perhaps we could get a government grant to study this issue? 100 million should get us started? It is important that we as a species know these things!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I do agree, Simon, but I guess forums would die pretty quickly without some form of discussion, especially on 'hop topics' such as this. Incidentally, I feel exactly the same about threads revolving around the notion of: 'Do Cables Make A Difference?' :eek:;)
Marco.
Cables make a difference? Why wasn't I told about this? ;)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
We were keeping it a secret, in order to protect the innocent.
Marco.
Interesting point, but Hi Rez digital files that are recorded in 24 bit, 196KHz, supposedly top out at 26KHz. This is often why people think it sounds better than 16 bit audio. Those harmonics hiding up there that we don't know we are hearing. Of course that isn't the only reason it sounds better, greater resolution is the main reason.
Not the case although this is the myth that has grown up and inexplicably persists, as though hi rez audio is like hi rez tv, with more pixels per square inch adding more detail.
In fact 'resolution' is no different to red book cd. The only possible advantage to hi-res audio is the ability to reproduce frequencies over 22Khz (if they exist on the recording and if the speakers are capable).
This is why when you compare like with like it is near impossible to tell the difference.
Stratmangler
23-05-2017, 07:35
This raises a very interesting point if frequencies above 20khz have been lost during analog to digital conversion, or
if they are still there, but only lost by the playback side limiting that frequency.
Time and again this gets raised, and it's a red herring.
Most microphones don't have a response that gives usable signal at 20KHz.
Not the case although this is the myth that has grown up and inexplicably persists, as though hi rez audio is like hi rez tv, with more pixels per square inch adding more detail.
In fact 'resolution' is no different to red book cd. The only possible advantage to hi-res audio is the ability to reproduce frequencies over 22Khz (if they exist on the recording and if the speakers are capable).
This is why when you compare like with like it is near impossible to tell the difference.
Dunno (we've been here before with this subject), I think Russell could have a point about 'hidden harmonics', although the mechanism for such is questionable.
As you know, with the Raspberry Pi/IQ Audio DAC, which is technically capable of reproducing high-res files, I have access to 10TB of music, on both my hard-drives, and amongst them are 1000s of high-res recordings, a number of which I also have the identical album/music (same mastering) on standard red book. And I can switch back and forth between them, with a click of a mouse.
Unquestionably, to my ears, the finest examples of the high-res recordings that I have available, sound significantly better than their red book counterparts - and I can hear that (very clear) difference on a 50-year old pair of Tannoys... ;)
I'll demonstrate it to you next time you come over, and see what you make of it.
Marco.
Light Dependant Resistor
23-05-2017, 09:44
Time and again this gets raised, and it's a red herring.
Most microphones don't have a response that gives usable signal at 20KHz.
Hi Chris
But some will, and there needs to be encouragement for designs that do this
ie Earthworks http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
manages a frequency response to 50Khz, which is extraordinary , but proves it
can be done, also Sennheiser 8050 goes to 50Khz
others like the Sanken manage to an amazing 100khz http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400
Similarly tweeters the very popular Kef T27 manages 40Khz ... wouldn't it be nice to hear its other half of capability,
which requires taking on board that our hearing has perception not necessarily measured frequency, beyond 20 Khz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Blackmer Blackmer worked on extending the frequency response of audio electronics
beyond the conventionally accepted audible range of 20 kHz. He also published research on the value of ultrasonic frequencies
in sound reproduction, claiming that the time resolution of human hearing is 5 microseconds or better—which would correspond
to a frequency of 200 kHz, requiring audio equipment ideally to have a flat response to that frequency"
A 1976 amplifier the Harmon Kardon Citation 12 managed 70khz Wow!
The Denon cartridge DL103 manages frequency to 45khz - awesome !
Cheers / Chris
Microphones are not digital, and even if the maker claims it goes to 20KHz, that is flat response to 20KHz, it does have output at 22K and 25K, but at some point less than flat. Say, 3db or 6db below flat. Unless it is equipped with a brick wall filter, and I'm not aware of any they do.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Dunno (we've been here before with this subject), I think Russell could have a point about 'hidden harmonics', although the mechanism for such is questionable.
As you know, with the Raspberry Pi/IQ Audio DAC, which is technically capable of reproducing high-res files, I have access to 10TB of music, on both my hard-drives, and amongst them are 1000s of high-res recordings, a number of which I also have the identical album/music (same mastering) on standard red book. And I can switch back and forth between them, with a click of a mouse.
Unquestionably, to my ears, the finest examples of the high-res recordings that I have available, sound significantly better than their red book counterparts - and I can hear that (very clear) difference on a 50-year old pair of Tannoys... ;)
.
I'm not disputing that you can hear clear differences but the explanation for that is that the files are not identical, or something else is going on in the way that they are processed and output. So me listening to them won't change that, you need someone who knows what they are doing to look at the files and the system and identify the real reason as to why they sound so different. I guarantee it won't be because they contain frequencies above 22Khz.
Stratmangler
23-05-2017, 13:04
Hi Chris
But some will, and there needs to be encouragement for designs that do this
ie Earthworks http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
manages a frequency response to 50Khz, which is extraordinary , but proves it
can be done, also Sennheiser 8050 goes to 50Khz
The fact remains that the majority of microphones used to record many of the classic albums of the 60s and 70s (which still make up the majority of recordings that get rehashed as "Hi Res") didn't do.
Take yer good old Shure SM-57 - it's quoted frequency response is 40Hz-15KHz.
It was developed for recording orchestras.
It's not known as "the sound of rock" for nothing, because it's suitable for any job - drums, guitar, vocals, you name it, and it has been used for all of those jobs over the decades.
It is still widely used.
It's similar with the Shure SM-58, only it's response is 50Hz-15KHz.
It's still the first choice stage mic of many artists, and it's still used in studios too.
That's just two legendary microphones.
Look at something more recent from Neumann, such as the TLM 103 - its response is quoted as 20Hz-20KHz, but it nose dives from around 16KHz.
They're all great sounding mics, and will continue to be used for decades to come.
They're not going to get thrown out because the frequency response doesn't go up high into the areas where bats use sound for echo location.
I'm not saying that microphones that can capture sound above human hearing aren't out there.
They are, and they're expensive.
They're usually in the domain of the top flight recording studio, and they're getting thinner on the ground as each year passes. Even the mighty Abbey Road Studios has had its share of financial insecurity in recent times.
And when you weigh up that you can buy ten SM-57s, for the cost of one Sennheiser 8050, which do you think is going to continue to be the most widely used?
I'm not disputing that you can hear clear differences but the explanation for that is that the files are not identical, or something else is going on in the way that they are processed and output. So me listening to them won't change that, you need someone who knows what they are doing to look at the files and the system and identify the real reason as to why they sound so different. I guarantee it won't be because they contain frequencies above 22Khz.
With respect, much like me with regard to this subject, you're not qualified to guarantee anything. It's simply your educated opinion. That said, you're right, there could be other variables at play responsible for those differences occurring.
However, it just seems a bit of coincidence that the sonic improvements are repeated, time and time again, with 100s of different examples of music, whenever I carry out said comparison (as previously detailed), with the high-res files ALWAYS, and I mean *always* (without exception) sounding better......... ;)
Marco.
With respect, much like me with regard to this subject, you're not qualified to guarantee anything. It's simply your educated opinion. That said, you're right, there could be other variables at play responsible for those differences occurring.
However, it just seems a bit of coincidence that the sonic improvements are repeated, time and time again, with 100s of different examples of music, whenever I carry out said comparison (as previously detailed), with the high-res files ALWAYS, and I mean *always* (without exception) sounding better......... ;)
Marco.
I am surprised your Hi Rez files always sound better as this had not been my experience as some of the mastering can be s@!t on Hi Rez material?
With respect, much like me with regard to this subject, you're not qualified to guarantee anything. It's simply your educated opinion. That said, you're right, there could be other variables at play responsible for those differences occurring.
However, it just seems a bit of coincidence that the sonic improvements are repeated, time and time again, with 100s of different examples of music, whenever I carry out said comparison (as previously detailed), with the high-res files ALWAYS, and I mean *always* (without exception) sounding better......... ;)
Marco.
okay replace 'guarantee' with 'bet any amount of money you like' ;)
I am surprised your Hi Rez files always sound better as this had not been my experience as some of the mastering can be s@!t on Hi Rez material?
Hi Jim,
I should've said that they only always sound better, *given* that the recording and mastering quality allows so :)
Marco.
okay replace 'guarantee' with 'bet any amount of money you like' ;)
Ha - you shouldn't issue me with challenges like that, as I have a habit of ensuring that it bites those on the bum, issuing me with such a challenge! :eyebrows:
Marco.
In this case I'm safe as houses
Light Dependant Resistor
23-05-2017, 16:26
Hi Chris
But not all sounds recorded were via microphones, Keyboards and synthesizers possibly had some output at those frequencies
where connected directly to a recording device. Sadly mixers would tend to limit upper frequencies, but also adding frequencies of
their own.
Without researching every instrument used by every band in every recording capable of having frequencies above 20khz that might or could have been recorded directly - now there's a task for a Sunday afternoon just after a good lunch and a quick read of Three words daily to
prepare one's self , evidence points that the recording devices were capable. Here are graphs of 15ips tape machines frequency response, http://www.endino.com/graphs/ quite a few showing rising frequency response above 20khz. a 30ips would improve further. A Neumann VMS70 lathe used in direct to disc recording its SX74 cutting head had frequency capability of minus 3db at 25Khz
Adding to the complexity of discussing frequency is of course speed stability and phase coherency. It is perhaps where these
attributes of a recording are attained, that frequencies above 20khz become possible to preserve correctly.
And there is always the future, where 50khz recording devices can be used.
Cheers / Chris
The fact remains that the majority of microphones used to record many of the classic albums of the 60s and 70s (which still make up the majority of recordings that get rehashed as "Hi Res") didn't do.
Take yer good old Shure SM-57 - it's quoted frequency response is 40Hz-15KHz.
It was developed for recording orchestras.
It's not known as "the sound of rock" for nothing, because it's suitable for any job - drums, guitar, vocals, you name it, and it has been used for all of those jobs over the decades.
It is still widely used.
It's similar with the Shure SM-58, only it's response is 50Hz-15KHz.
It's still the first choice stage mic of many artists, and it's still used in studios too.
That's just two legendary microphones.
Look at something more recent from Neumann, such as the TLM 103 - its response is quoted as 20Hz-20KHz, but it nose dives from around 16KHz.
They're all great sounding mics, and will continue to be used for decades to come.
They're not going to get thrown out because the frequency response doesn't go up high into the areas where bats use sound for echo location.
I'm not saying that microphones that can capture sound above human hearing aren't out there.
They are, and they're expensive.
They're usually in the domain of the top flight recording studio, and they're getting thinner on the ground as each year passes. Even the mighty Abbey Road Studios has had its share of financial insecurity in recent times.
And when you weigh up that you can buy ten SM-57s, for the cost of one Sennheiser 8050, which do you think is going to continue to be the most widely used?
But this overlooks a fundamental which is that we can't hear these frequencies. The idea that frequencies above 20Khz affect how we hear frequencies that are audible is, as far as I am aware, idle speculation/clutching at straws. If anyone has a link to something suggesting otherwise please post it.
But this overlooks a fundamental which is that we can't hear these frequencies. The idea that frequencies above 20Khz affect how we hear frequencies that are audible is, as far as I am aware, idle speculation/clutching at straws. If anyone has a link to something suggesting otherwise please post it.
EDIT with direct injection recording the frequency limitations of the desk must also be take into consideration
Light Dependant Resistor
23-05-2017, 17:15
EDIT with direct injection recording the frequency limitations of the desk must also be take into consideration
See Post 124 and this article http://wilson-benesch.com/reviews/Life_Beyond_20kHz_Blackmer_SVC_Sep-1998.pdf
the work done by David Blackmer into the ability of human hearing to perceive sounds above 20khz
Yes mixing desks are capable of limiting frequency, and must be improved. On the plus side fets and mosfets
are capable out to 100's of Mhz if not Ghz
It open's many possibilities when we think above 20khz for both recording and playback.
walpurgis
23-05-2017, 17:50
But this overlooks a fundamental which is that we can't hear these frequencies. The idea that frequencies above 20Khz affect how we hear frequencies that are audible is, as far as I am aware, idle speculation/clutching at straws. If anyone has a link to something suggesting otherwise please post it.
I find a supertweeter affects what I can hear quite noticeable and I can't consciously perceive sounds above 10kHz.
Arkless Electronics
23-05-2017, 18:05
Not a lot of people know this... (and I only said to blow the bloody doors off!:D) but phase changes begin to have an effect around 10 times earlier in frequency (at both extremes) than amplitude. This is one of the reasons I usually produce kit with <1Hz - 200KHz+ type frequency responses.. Also the ear is far from linear and can produce intermodulation distortion so, if we have two frequencies of say 24KHz and 26KHz there will be some 2KHz and 50KHz produced ;)
That's not the same thing though is it? Isn't it the case that most amplifiers are not bandwidth-limited is not because we can actually hear anything at that frequency but for other reasons unrelated to audible frequency reaponse?
Concerning the perception of frequencies > 20kHz, I believe that although one cannot hear such frequencies directly, their presence could have an influence on sounds lower in frequency.
Although not directly related, owing to my age, I cannot directly hear frequencies above 10kHz, yet can 'hear' the difference to a violin playing whereby the top end is rolled off. To experience this effect, JBL produced a record called 'Sessions' as a device to demonstrate and promote their speakers.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/915-muurbCL._SY355_.jpg
On it there is a track (track 3 on side 2) of a violin playing, first full-range, then with high frequencies above 15kHz filtered out. The filtering then occurs at 12kHz, and finally at 10kHz. As I say, I can't hear above 10kHz, but I can hear quite distinctly when the response is rolled off at 15kHz.
See Post 124 and this article http://wilson-benesch.com/reviews/Life_Beyond_20kHz_Blackmer_SVC_Sep-1998.pdf
the work done by David Blackmer into the ability of human hearing to perceive sounds above 20khz
Yes mixing desks are capable of limiting frequency, and must be improved. On the plus side fets and mosfets
are capable out to 100's of Mhz if not Ghz
It open's many possibilities when we think above 20khz for both recording and playback.
It s just an article though, in which he speculates and does not have any references to anything more concrete. Not saying that there is no possibility in the idea but at the moment the academic studies suggest otherwise.
People cannot reliably tell whether the super high HF content is present or not. Even if there is a genuine effect is it not so tiny as to not be worth bothering with? When we could be looking at far more effective ways of improving replay quality?
Concerning the perception of frequencies > 20kHz, I believe that although one cannot hear such frequencies directly, their presence could have an influence on sounds lower in frequency.
Although not directly related, owing to my age, I cannot directly hear frequencies above 10kHz, yet can 'hear' the difference to a violin playing whereby the top end is rolled off. To experience this effect, JBL produced a record called 'Sessions' as a device to demonstrate and promote their speakers.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/915-muurbCL._SY355_.jpg
On it there is a track (track 3 on side 2) of a violin playing, first full-range, then with high frequencies above 15kHz filtered out. The filtering then occurs at 12kHz, and finally at 10kHz. As I say, I can't hear above 10kHz, but I can hear quite distinctly when the response is rolled of at 15kHz.
yes i would agree some perception is there. I put a super tweeter in at a freq I couldnt hear but could tell the difference. I felt it altered my perception of the lower bass freq.
Not saying that there is no possibility in the idea but at the moment the academic studies suggest otherwise.
And of course they automatically know best ;)
Marco.
yes i would agree some perception is there. I put a super tweeter in at a freq I couldnt hear but could tell the difference. I felt it altered my perception of the lower bass freq.
Indeed, and Barry makes a good point, which I suspect has relevance to the whole high-res thing. Some folk like to simplify audio way too much, and compartmentalise it into little boxes of 'black and white facts', when in actuality there is much more going on that can't yet be so 'neatly filed'...
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
23-05-2017, 18:48
And of course they automatically know best ;)
Marco.
Of course!
And of course they automatically know best ;)
Marco.
Well no, I'm not saying that. But when you hear no difference and then you find out that according to what we know to date you shouldn't be able to hear any difference then it does make you stop and think.
Arkless Electronics
23-05-2017, 18:53
That's not the same thing though is it? Isn't it the case that most amplifiers are not bandwidth-limited is not because we can actually hear anything at that frequency but for other reasons unrelated to audible frequency reaponse?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.... Some amps struggle to manage even 20KHz due to their own limitations and may be a dB or so down at this point, others may manage 2MHz + and may be allowed to get on with doing this, others still may manage 2MHz + but the designer may choose to add an artificial roll off.. often -3dB @ 50KHz or so.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.... Some amps struggle to manage even 20KHz due to their own limitations and may be a dB or so down at this point, others may manage 2MHz + and may be allowed to get on with doing this, others still may manage 2MHz + but the designer may choose to add an artificial roll off.. often -3dB @ 50KHz or so.
I jut recall reading somewhere a discussion on whether extended or limited bandwidth (in a power amp) was the best approach for SQ and it was nothing to do with there being any musical content at those frequencies that needed transmitting.
Well no, I'm not saying that. But when you hear no difference and then you find out that according to what we know to date you shouldn't be able to hear any difference then it does make you stop and think.
Indeed... I stop and think, after which I conclude that there are lots of things we can definitely hear, but which as of yet aren't covered by academic studies ;)
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
23-05-2017, 19:26
I jut recall reading somewhere a discussion on whether extended or limited bandwidth (in a power amp) was the best approach for SQ and it was nothing to do with there being any musical content at those frequencies that needed transmitting.
Ah! That's a much bigger question than you probably realise and the answer would take pages, be full of ifs and buts and put most readers to sleep...
Ah! That's a much bigger question than you probably realise and the answer would take pages, be full of ifs and buts and put most readers to sleep...
And I wouldn't understand it anyway. My point is at no point is the amp designer thinking 'Well, if I band-limit then people won't be able to hear all of the air and space around 1st violin'.
Or is he?
In the early 70s as a broadcasting engineer, one of the seniors stated that someone had written a treatise on the precise frequency response profile that an audio amp should have.
I cannot remember the precise nature of it, but it was along the lines of being flat to about 50k and then sloping off at so many dB per octave, and then being flat again etc. It was very precisely detailed, and seemed odd at the time.
Arkless Electronics
24-05-2017, 12:04
And I wouldn't understand it anyway. My point is at no point is the amp designer thinking 'Well, if I band-limit then people won't be able to hear all of the air and space around 1st violin'.
Or is he?
Some may but very unlikely generally... Naim stuff is very bandwidth limited for example...
The whole matter of bandwidth and negative feedback (they are intrinsically linked) and the implications of it, the reasons for it, its effect on stability, squarewave response, step response, settling time, changing the predominance of odd/even distortion harmonics etc etc is one of the most important issues in hi fi and has HUGE effect on the sound we hear even at low frequencies.... It would therefore be of zero interest to audiophiles :D
Extend the bandwidth to 250kHz and you can have a free AM tuner to listen to Radio 4 on long wave.
Arkless Electronics
24-05-2017, 12:44
Extend the bandwidth to 250kHz and you can have a free AM tuner to listen to Radio 4 on long wave.
Only if it demodulates the AM.... Often more likely in reduced bandwidth designs. Now as an AM transmitter....
Only if it demodulates the AM.... Often more likely in reduced bandwidth designs. Now as an AM transmitter....
I would have thought the first semiconductor junction would do that.
Arkless Electronics
24-05-2017, 12:53
I would have thought the first semiconductor junction would do that.
As an RF EE yourself you will be well aware that it depends on many factors!
As an RF EE yourself you will be well aware that it depends on many factors!
I wasn't being entirely serious, was thinking about the crystal set I had as a child. Yes - a tuned circuit would help.
RothwellAudio
24-05-2017, 13:05
I made a power amp a few years ago which had a very poor bandwidth compared to what is possible - but it sounded fantastic! Unfortunately, it had a tendency to blow up :doh:
I've been meaning to revisit that project but haven't got round to it.
Anyway, the point is this: restricted bandwidth (though still beyond 20kHz) certainly didn't seem to have a negative impact on sound quality.
The whole matter of bandwidth and negative feedback (they are intrinsically linked) and the implications of it, the reasons for it, its effect on stability, squarewave response, step response, settling time, changing the predominance of odd/even distortion harmonics etc etc is one of the most important issues in hi fi and has HUGE effect on the sound we hear even at low frequencies.... It would therefore be of zero interest to audiophiles :D
Why so? Even if we don't understand or concern ourselves with the technical 'whys and wherefores', we're certainly very interested in the end result... ;)
When I upgraded the coupling caps in my Croft preamp, I couldn't tell you, technically, why it made such a massive difference to sound, but that didn't detract from me loving the effect!!
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.