[JRace]

I find it a hassle to download anything from the computer; lots of extra steps, extra equipment, extra processing. I do understand the importance of hi rez recording, though.

A vinyl lp is so  easy. When you want to listen to music, all you have to do is pull the lp from the shelf, put it on the turntable and, presto you have music.

Its my understanding that a properly cut lp, the cutter can etch frequencies up to 40,000 cycles per second, and can be retrieved by the cartridge.  Assuming your preamp, amp, and speakers can reproduce it, 40,000 cps ( extremely faint inaudible overtones of only some instruments) will beat with the lower audible frequencies to create that glorious realistic sound of a life concert.

Alas the cd is limited to 20k, but that's pretty good for most. and its also so very, very convenient.

Rob

So to play a record all you have to do is put the record on the platter and drop the needle?
There is no setup of the turntable required?

Once my music is on my hard drive it is much more convenient. Try playing one song from 5 different albums without leaving your listening chair with your analog rig. Granted getting to the playback point may have more steps, but once there it is infinitely easier.

[spinner]

  That's a load  . You are well to get 1500cps after the first playing. How in f/*c# are you going to get ultrasonic on such a limited source?  If you want a pissing contest let go...........

[rmurray]

 Dream on...........

[redbook]

 I grew up with the phonograph as well (circa 1961). To me the digital age has brought a renaissance to my musical enjoyment. Hey , to each his own. Better is not the word but perhaps different is the term to use.. and save a lot of... urine.... .

[jackman]

I'm not going to get in the middle of a vinyl versus digital debate.  That's worse than a "which caps sound better" or cable discussion.  I happen to like both, and I appreciate the advantages both offer and the sound a person can achieve from a well refined system. 

One MAJOR advantage of digital music is convenience.  Once all of your tunes are downloaded to a computer or server, it's so convenient to be able to instantly choose any song from your collection without leaving your chair!  I used to leave albums and CD's laying all over the place and I often had to dig around for the one I wanted.  Computer audio puts everything in an easy to find place. 

I'm still learning about which DAC's sound better but I can say very good digital sound is much more in reach than it was a couple years ago.  I hope this discussion gets back to bitrates, etc., because I'm trying to learn more about this topic.

[spinner]

  Yes you are right on both accounts. Thanks for the reminder because we do tend to wander at times...... I too am still learning of the digital mystique 

[adprom]

I'm still learning about which DAC's sound better but I can say very good digital sound is much more in reach than it was a couple years ago.  I hope this discussion gets back to bitrates, etc., because I'm trying to learn more about this topic.

I strongly recommend reading the following wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

It describes the single biggest issue currently with cds - the compression of dynamic range. It has nothing to do with an issue in the format itself, but a larger cultural issue and recording engineers who simply abuse the production process.

[jackman]

I strongly recommend reading the following wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

It describes the single biggest issue currently with cds - the compression of dynamic range. It has nothing to do with an issue in the format itself, but a larger cultural issue and recording engineers who simply abuse the production process.

Very familiar with the loudness wars.  Thanks for the link.  I'm not saying all CD recordings are great, but the topic is bitrate and if it improves CD quality.  The topic has gotten off track and I am enjoying the discussion.  I'm a fan of both and, so far, I still prefer the sound of a good LP based system.  The convenience of a good computer based system can't be beat and the sound of some modern hi rez options is much better than the sound of CD's or digital from a few short years ago and equal or better than many analog systems.  Just my opinion.

[PDR]

Once my music is on my hard drive it is much more convenient. Try playing one song from 5 different albums without leaving your listening chair with your analog rig.

Not talking Quality or convenience here....but this seems to be detriment to the industry  in my opinion. Remember the days when you placed the needle and listened to a whole side, or a whole CD? Seems most people I know these days are hand picking one or two songs an artist and thats it. I'm sure we have all bought an album or CD and had to play it more than a few times to really start liking a song or group of songs on it.....eventually it/they became your favs. Instead of listening to a concept of an album, seems most are hand picking singles....not sure if thats going to improve
whats being produce.   My 2 cents.

[adprom]

I'm not saying all CD recordings are great, but the topic is bitrate and if it improves CD quality.

Well that has to be split into a few other areas..

Lossy vs Lossless compression

Lossless is fairly straightforward as it simply decodes to a PCM signal at some point. i.e. a 16/24 bit signal at 44.1/88.2/96/176.4/192KHz.

Lossy gets a little more complex. Other things which need to be considered are constant bit rate (CBR) or variable bit rate (VBR). In theory a VBR file at the same bitrate as a CBR file should end up with better quality as data is prioritised for more complex wave forms. In CBR the same amount of data is used whether even if it is pure silence whereas this can be compressed for no quality loss far lower, while upping the bitrate above the average for something that is harder to compress and you get a more accurate waveform.

If you take a lossless format and apply lossy compression, the output HAS to be less accurate than the original. That said, it is theoretically possible that a high bitrate mp3 from a good source will sound better than a poorer quality PCM source. However, that's really a source issue. The main purpose of lossy compression though is decreasing the file size while trying to maintain as much quality as possible - but not all.

With Lossless Compression (i.e. flac) the filesize from the original PCM encoding will dbe roughly 50-60%. With lossless, a filesize of closer to 5-6% can be achieved (according to wiki anyway). Lossy compression is a tradeoff in other words.

Personally - data is so cheap now (or at least it will be again when HDD prices come back down) that storing audio as flac or another lossless format is standard for me. At 300-400MB per album rip, I don't think it makes sense to apply lossy compression especially considering the cost of a hard drive is fairly insignificant compared to audio hardware (works out at around 3-5c per lossless rip on a 1TB drive). It also has the other benefit that you can quickly transcode from the original lossless source to a lossy format as required - for example portable media players

[vegasdave]

There was nothing opinion or debatable in what I wrote... You quoted what the 'effective' sampling rate of vinyl is and I quoted the actual sampling rate and frequency response of PCM 44.1 (i.e. cd). Vinyl's frequency range isn't limited in the same way 44.1 PCM is. However you lose accuracy immediately simply due to wear - i.e. a vinyl never plays exactly the same twice. The frequency range of vinyl is actually limited at lower frequencies (as per wiki) but the playback process introduces other artifacts.

Now for the opinion bit... There are two distinct cases where a consumer prefers LP IMO. Firstly when that is what they are use to, and the associated distortion characteristics. Or where the process of playing an LP contributes to the greater experience. These users I'd think are on the older side on average.

The second case is where a CD is poorly mastered and is actually an inferior recording, or due to bad post processing (i.e. dynamic compression). I think this case is more likely as so many cds are quite poorly mastered and everything is just boosted and compressed killing the dynamic range. I find this annoying, because it kills one of the best benefits of cd - the exceptional dynamic range.

I don't care, vinyl is still king to me, and if vinyl were so bad, why does Bryston make state of the art phono equipment?

And there's no such thing as loss of accuracy due to wear. I've played records hundreds of times with no loss in audio quality. A properly set up turntable and cartridge avoids it.

[Diamond Dog]

Not talking Quality or convenience here....but this seems to be detriment to the industry  in my opinion. Remember the days when you placed the needle and listened to a whole side, or a whole CD? Seems most people I know these days are hand picking one or two songs an artist and thats it. I'm sure we have all bought an album or CD and had to play it more than a few times to really start liking a song or group of songs on it.....eventually it/they became your favs. Instead of listening to a concept of an album, seems most are hand picking singles....not sure if thats going to improve
whats being produce.   My 2 cents.

It's like the early Sixties all over again in that respect - the industry is geared to turning out and marketing singles artists- Beyonce, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Rhianna, Bruno Mars...the list goes on. Some of them are locked in mortal combat to see who can rack up more hit singles off a single album. Things changed back then and artists began to focus on album-oriented work. Can it happen again? Tough to say - the market is pretty fragmented now. Let's hope.

D.D. 

[adprom]

I don't care, vinyl is still king to me, and if vinyl were so bad, why does Bryston make state of the art phono equipment?

And there's no such thing as loss of accuracy due to wear. I've played records hundreds of times with no loss in audio quality. A properly set up turntable and cartridge avoids it.

It might be... Like it or not, playing an LP is a physical process. The best set up equipment will minimise wear through the needle but it can't completely eliminate it. This is not opinion but fact - over time it will degrade.  Scientifically, it is impossible for the continuous friction not to affect the surface that is being played.

As for why they make phono equipment - there is a market for it. The technicality of digital vs LP is irrelevant... There are people who want good quality LP equipment and there is a profitable business case, so companies manufacture for it. If the market was driven by what was the highest quality, then SACD and DVD-Audio would have been for more successful. MP3 is technically inferior, but good quality devices are designed to play it. For much the same reason, people want to play digital formats so Bryston has the BDP-1.

There is a certain romance about LP that many still enjoy, and that's fine. The reasons why certain people prefer it go beyond what is technically and objectively superior though, as I've explained. Listening to music is a subjective process.. Some people like more accurate speakers, amplifiers etc whereas others prefer a brighter, or maybe warmer sound which isn't as accurate. That is fine - but it isn't the same as talking about accuracy which can be measured. As I said, people who grew up with LP and Valve amps often prefer the sound that they give because they are used to hearing the distortion characteristics which are present.

This is why many of those people are typically older, and the younger generations (those interested in HQ audio) prefer transistors and digital audio. It is something which they are used to. I figure that in 50 years time when there is more advanced technology than our current transistors that the older people might prefer the older bipolar transistors as to whatever is most accurate then (possibly D class amplifiers at this stage).

[SHV]

"This is why many of those people are typically older, and the younger generations (those interested in HQ audio) prefer transistors and digital audio."
********
I think that there have been two major changes in music playback during the past century, for the end user; the transition from the purely mechanical phonograph to the electro/mechanical and then the transition to Hi-Fi in the late 50s-early 60s.  I wasn't around for the first but the change from the consumer grade 78 rpm phonograph to "Hi-Fi", tubes then SS in the 1950s/1960s, was dramatic.  The difference in quality of MacIntosh or Marantz tube gear pushing high end speakers of the day (I had Bozak Concert Grands) in the 60s and high end today is minor compared to the change from early 50s to ~1965.  I don't expect that there will be a similar dramatic change unless/until we see direct stimulation of the auditory cortex, bypassing our electromechanical transducers,(ears).

Steve

[Cheeseboy]

Clinical accuracy is really just some numbers on a paper and measurements on a screen.  Rather than approach the subject as an analog versus digital issue lets focus on an actual music experiance and how it is transduced and reproduced in a music system. 

Are you hearing a live guitar or are you hearing what you have been taught and conditioned that a guitar sounds like.

Perhaps it is an age issue.  The older user has a listening experience has presented many more guitars over time.  Real and recorded.  There is a compelling urge to hear the more musical live guitar with all of its room related recorded distortions by the older user. 

[redbook]

 I'm from the sixties and at this point cd digital has been my best audio source. There's no RIAA curve to deal with(vinyl) plus the loss of highs due to physical wear. Bryston made the phono stage when digital was a very poor medium. At this time with well engineered recordings I have no reason to look back. It was a great time coming up from my mom's 78s and through the much better LP era but I am in the best hi-fi place with my awful, terrible sounding cd collection  . In the end we all have our subjective hearing differences and I think that is what gives rise to these pointless debates about which is superior.......... P.S. Is it true that Bryston is bringing out a turntable this year? 

[HsvHeelFan]

The world is analog.

Even digital computers, when you look "behind the scenes" are analog.  A digital bit is either a 1 "on" or 0 "off".

At it's core, the bit is actually a little transistor circuit that's getting turned on or off.

Moving digital data around can help the system ignore crosstalk or external noise sources (but they're still really there) and impedance control, plane decoupling and noise analysis are all important aspects of proper electronic design whether they're digital, analog, or a mix.

Impedance control, adequate shielding and plane coupling in the digital world are all key elements to having digital systems that work properly.

At the end of the day, it's all physics.  For a handy reference on electronics, grab an ARRL handbook.  It covers the basics.

What's important is that you enjoy the music, no matter how it gets to your ears! 

HsvHeelFan

[redbook]

  Well said........

[geezer]

The world is analog.

Maybe not.

It's looking more and more that the world is actually discrete.

[Cheeseboy]

I can agree.  Are you enjoying the music? 

I guess what I am trying to say is what gets in the way of enjoyment for me is when the recording doesn't sound right.  I'll still tap my toes and can say I'm enjoying the music.  If a guitar sounds clinical and not musical I'll be dismissive of the moment.   CD or Vinyl. 

That just makes me a hobbyist.  I do look back at my generation and listen to the music of my era.  In doing this I find the best recordings to be on vinyl.  Moving forward today with the upgraded techniques in mastering for digital media I find the best recordings to be in digital.  I search for the best recording of that musical event.