[KnowTalent]

This is a fair point. Although we peak at 20khz 'continuous'. An impulse attack (a quick rise and fall) has coefficients all across the frequency spectrum.

And yes, the height on the plot is voltage. Think of the vertical displacement as the responsiveness of the playback medium.

Let's say that you have 5 seconds to push a block forward, as far as you can, before having to start pushing back. If the block is really heavy, then it won't make it very far in 5 seconds before you have to start pushing it back (high inertia causes low vertical displacement). If the block is really light, then you can get it going really quick when you start to push it, so in 5 seconds you can push it a long way before having to change directions and push it back.

With vinyl, you're pushing a table. With a CD, you're pushing a house.

And, music is all about pushing an object back and forth (rise and fall). So, impulse response is a big deal.

If you're still skeptical that we can actually 'hear' the differences that are on that plot, then good; so am I. Next, I'd probably fall back on 'jitter'.

-Clayton

Not skeptical on the point you make about response time but maybe on what magnitude that difference plays regarding the ability to define a difference or declare a preference
I personally have not done any A/B testing to where I could make a definitive comment so I try to reserve criticism. I can fully understand how some people might find low level surface noise pleasing as with arguments proposed by distortion characteristics of various amp topologies and such though I think most of that fondness is due to nostalgia triggering a positive emotional response.
They like what they hear becasue it is familar and perhaps that relaxes and draws one into the performance?

I've read several papers on jitter with one saying there is a certain lower threshold ~250 (i forget if it was ps or ns) which blind testing showed people could not detect any difference.
Funny thing is I remember reading reviews in HiFiNews on Nagra and MBL cdps where the subjective listening feedback was glowing yet the test bench showed abnormally high amounts of jitter relative to more pedestrian mass produced offerings.
Logically I agree that less jitter is better but again I question as did the one test in particular where the threshold lies.

If I had more time and money I'd probably get a rig but for now I'm quite content with even lowly 16/44 when the recording/mastering is done properly.

[claytontstanley]

And the curveball with jitter is the same curveball with impulse response.

We have our low-level perceptual limits (e.g., 20-20khz), but we also do some rather wicked higher-level processing of audio signals (e.g., we can actually 'bind' signals to locations, so that we can pick out a conversation from a crowd talking).

With jitter, I'm more interested in our ability to detect 'correlated' jitter, as opposed to uncorrelated jitter, and most of the tests that I've come across always use randomly-distributed uncorrelated jitter; and [1] this isn't what DACs actually output; they output correlated jitter, and [2] we are constantly trying to pick out instruments and musical lines from the crowd, so our ears are highly sensitive to correlated jitter.

In the end, our ears are just really really difficult to fool; much more difficult than our eyes. Which is why we have 'audiophiles', and not so many 'visiophiles'...

-Clayton

[*Scotty*]

I am thinking the graph may not be worth a thousand words. Here is the article that the graph appears to have been lifted from. 
http://pacoup.com/2008/12/31/playing-the-best-sound-on-ps3-without-hdmi/
If you look closely at the caption under the graph you will see that the impulse duration is 3 MICROSECONDS long.
I think the graph is in some way illustrating bandwidth limitations of the digital recording systems.
The question of how the 3us analogue signal was generated and what corresponding acoustic instrument could have a rise time of this short a duration must be raised. I somehow doubt that a 3us impulse could be recorded on vinyl or played back by my phono-cartridge.  I don't think the graph means tells us that much about the superiority of analogue over digital playback.
Scotty
 

[KnowTalent]

And the curveball with jitter is the same curveball with impulse response.

We have our low-level perceptual limits (e.g., 20-20khz), but we also do some rather wicked higher-level processing of audio signals (e.g., we can actually 'bind' signals to locations, so that we can pick out a conversation from a crowd talking).

With jitter, I'm more interested in our ability to detect 'correlated' jitter, as opposed to uncorrelated jitter, and most of the tests that I've come across always use randomly-distributed uncorrelated jitter; and [1] this isn't what DACs actually output; they output correlated jitter, and [2] we are constantly trying to pick out instruments and musical lines from the crowd, so our ears are highly sensitive to correlated jitter.

In the end, our ears are just really really difficult to fool; much more difficult than our eyes. Which is why we have 'audiophiles', and not so many 'visiophiles'...

-Clayton

Yes I agree that random jitter results in something more akin to white noise and might actually provide a sort of pleasant dithering effect....

Problem for me is I read the articles but since I'm not an expert I more often am not able to ask the obvious questions that a skilled person would ask when reading impressions given by author(s) who may not be presenting "the whole picture" when discussing test results or how a particular experiment is conducted, etc...

[claytontstanley]

With respect to jitter, I think that correlated jitter and the binding problem are actually very much interrelated. What if... we solve the binding problem by minimizing the amount of correlated jitter that we hear. That is to say, that instruments are placed on the soundstage by higher-level perceptual processes figuring out how to minimize the correlated jitter in the signal. And then, if you introduce correlated jitter to the signal (as an artifact), you blur the soundstage.

[KnowTalent]

The question of how the 3us analogue signal was generated and what corresponding acoustic instrument could have a rise time of this short a duration must be raised. I somehow doubt that a 3us impulse could be recorded on vinyl or played back by my phono-cartridge.  I don't think the graph means tells us that much about the superiority of analogue over digital playback.
Scotty

Very good point!  That's why I usually fall into the skeptic camp as many use charts and graphs but do not always tell the whole story.

[KnowTalent]

With respect to jitter, I think that correlated jitter and the binding problem are actually very much interrelated. What if... we solve the binding problem by minimizing the amount of correlated jitter that we hear. That is to say, that instruments are placed on the soundstage by higher-level perceptual processes figuring out how to minimize the correlated jitter in the signal. And then, if you introduce correlated jitter to the signal (as an artifact), you blur the soundstage.

I not familar with "binding" ....did you mean "blinding" 

[claytontstanley]

I not familar with "binding" ....did you mean "blinding" 

They also call it the 'cocktail party phenomenon'. Our ability to pay attention to a particular conversation in a crowd of conversations. Or, pay attention to a particular instrument in a soundstage. This is not trivial, and (afaik) how we do this is not fully understood.

You can cover one of your ears and still do this. That means that we can take a single signal, and dissect it in our minds to 'bind', or separate, each of the conversations (or instruments) from each other.

[*Scotty*]

The best example of this I can think of is the ability of a top symphony orchestra conductor who can hear when one musician out of the entire orchestra is flat,sharp or out of time and calls him/her on it.\
Scotty

[KnowTalent]

The best example of this I can think of is the ability of a top symphony orchestra conductor who can hear when one musician out of the entire orchestra is flat,sharp or out of time and calls him/her on it.\
Scotty

some people just don't appreciate "alternate" tunings! 

[claytontstanley]

some people just don't appreciate "alternate" tunings! 

If we could figure out how we do this, we'd bring about a whole new approach to data encryption. We could literally hide the signal under the rug in the soundstage. And, unless someone knew where the rug in the soundstage was located, they would never be able to recover the signal from the noise.

[wow, have I digressed from the cd/vinyl debate...]

[werd]

werd,when you rip a copy of a CD onto your hard drive as a 16 bit wave-file where do the extra bits come from if they were not on the CD to begin with? Like wise,when a DAC locks onto an incoming data stream and identifies it as 16bit in nature is it lying and calling a 12 bit data stream 16 bit?
Scotty

I know and its only telling you the data it sees, its not going to tell you just musical data. That is the only answer i can give you i don't know the official reason behind that. but its true the music you hear isnt 16 bit on redbook but more like 14 or less.

[*Scotty*]

Here are a couple of links to info on CD standards and subcode
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPACT DISCS
http://www.mscience.com/faq.html#CD
http://www.mscience.com/faq.html
Subcode link
http://home.mira.net/~gnb/mac-cdis/cd4.html
It looks like all 16 bits are used for encoding analogue waveforms but there is more information on a compact disc than just the music.
Scotty

[werd]

Here are a couple of links to info on CD standards and subcode
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPACT DISCS
http://www.mscience.com/faq.html#CD
http://www.mscience.com/faq.html
Subcode link
http://home.mira.net/~gnb/mac-cdis/cd4.html
It looks like all 16 bits are used for encoding analogue waveforms but there is more information on a compact disc than just the music.
Scotty

Thanks Scotty

I will read that tomorrow when i am more focused and less in the wine fix..... 

[werd]

the source does not specify but I assume it's probably voltage?
though still not measuring near analog or DSD the newest evolution in apodizing filters goes a long way in eliminating pre and post ringing seen with more conventional filter designs 

I still flinch at the claim that vinyl is "superior" because the freq response extends well past 20khz as I haven't heard many dog whistles in my life and therefore fail to appreciate how such info and superduper tweeters can benefit playback unless it involves some subconcious stimulation or whatever???

Hi Kt

Vinyl is High rez. Vinyl is a pure analogue signal. Cd isn't. The whole thing about high rez digital playback isn't about making it sound more 3d or live, like it kind of enchants you into believing...lol. All it ends up being is less noisy. The whole goal in digital is to achieve a full analogue output. Right now it isnt. It(hi-rez) does not give you great dynamics compared to vinyl.  So what really happens is you get a lot a digital hash and noise at the output with cd. When you incorporate more bits(hi rez) the signal becomes more analogue and less digital. When this happens you also get a lot less digital noise that is present in the waveform.

All the stuff you hear  like oversampling and higher frequency bit output should never be compared to vinyl.  but only compared to  other digital ouputs  as it gets closer to full analogue. IOW 24 bits is better than 16 bits.

[neobop]

Once again I have read a reference comparing a CD to it's vinyl counterpart and I was inspired to start this thread.
Wayner

What myth?
neo

[Letitroll98]

I personally have not done any A/B testing to where I could make a definitive comment so I try to reserve criticism. I can fully understand how some people might find low level surface noise pleasing as with arguments proposed by distortion characteristics of various amp topologies and such though I think most of that fondness is due to nostalgia triggering a positive emotional response.
They like what they hear because it is familiar and perhaps that relaxes and draws one into the performance?

I've done quite a bit of ad hoc AB testing of the same vinyl and CD releases.  Of course the post production on each medium is different, but then it becomes part of the end product that you're listening to anyway, doesn't it.  I have medium quality front ends (e.g. no worse or better than most members here) that are fairly equivalent between the digital and analog side, and comparing said releases, the vinyl wins every time.  I really like my Red Book CDs and they sound very nice, but vinyl is so much more real, alive, and more of a whole than digital.  I'm happy with both formats, but for now vinyl rules the day.  When I get 'round to high rez digital perhaps that will change.   

[Wayner]

Why the myth? Because, according to several articles, and especially one I read recently by Kevin Gray at RTI, music that is recorded in the digital domain will have to be "toned down" when it goes to the cutting lathe. I have heard many people think that the CD and it's vinyl versions are cut from the same master and while that may be true, the vinyl version has been tinkered with by the cutting engineer at the lathe. Why? Because the frequency response of the digital medium is too hot for the LP medium and they are filtered at the top end, to prevent the cutting head from overloading, and subsequently our styluses. I also thought the low end may have been adjusted too, because the lower the frequency response, the wider the "vinyl river" has to be and this would result in much shorter playing times.

As far as dynamic range goes, both of my players have specs that claim 100db of dynamic range, tho I suspect there haven't been any CDs that can produce this much range, Telarc was notorious for producing untouched CDs (no compression) that were actually dangerous to the playback equipment. One such CD is Holst, The Planets, which starts off fairly low in volume, coaxing the listener to turn up the volume, only moments later run to the remote or volume control, hoping the amp, speakers or both were not seriously wounded.

This is why when I hear someone compare a CD to an LP, they are not comparing apples to apples.

Wayner 

[*Scotty*]

Unfortunately the audio community has lost a lot of knowledge about how vinyl technology is implemented as time has passed. People have forgotten or never have known how a vinyl record is created and the compromises that have to be made to make a playable record. The vinyl medium while enjoyable to listen to is far from perfect or even the same as listening to the master tape. A common practice when mastering a record was to make the bass below 50Hz mono as well as inducing a roll off below 50Hz to increase the available time on a side. My major gripe about the vinyl record is the frequent lack of bass extension that many records exhibit. If you have had to tinker with the bass of the recording you virtually have to roll off the highs as well to maintain the music's tonal balance  Compression was also freely used both to increase time and raise the signal above the noise floor of the vinyl. It was also used to catch the ear DJs making up playlists to increase the chances that they would notice the single and give it airplay.
Scotty

[Wayner]

Scotty,

Some of that may have to do with how well the RIAA equalization curve was implemented, but I certainly agree with you on your comments. I will say that I still enjoy vinyl to it's CD counterpart in many cases, however, by the nature of the music (intensity) I sometimes will always favor the CD.

The record's obvious flaw is the noise floor, which by it's least is the shear act of rubbing a hard surface against a soft surface.......... Wait a minute, that sounds fun...... But seriously, Some quieter recordings are way more fun to listen to on CD because of the noise floor issues.

Wayner