[rbbert]

I know from various surveys and poll results (from audiophile web sites and the like) that there are many serious listeners like me who spent a couple of decades or more with vinyl LP's as our primary source, but now listen only to digital.  Do you really think it's because we never heard LP's done "right"??  I still listen to LP's at shows and in others' systems, but have no desire to go back; is that so hard to understand?  LP's only rarely have more of that "magic", nearly always I prefer well mastered digital, hires even more so.

[Wayner]

I'd say it's a toss up on who has the most condescending and very mean spirited post; Norman Tracy or Diamond Dog with Freo-1 as a 2 runner up.

You people are mean and nasty. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth.

I started this thread, not to piss off high-res people, but to stimulate some real world thinking on the mission of digital. That mission, is to sound like analog. That is where all the sound came from. It's been recorded in many different mediums a.k.a. reel to reel, dat, computer and even direct to disc.

All this in hopes that something recorded (put into a storage condition, to be played back later), sounds the same when played back.

Analog wants to stay analog, as it is the highest resolution of all. Digital wants to be analog. Listen to how a cymbal decays in an analog recording and then on a digital recording. They are not the same.

So, are High Res Folks just vinyl wannabies? I think so, they just don't want the black disc, but they want the sound of the vinyl.

To hard to swallow that concept? What was condescending about any of it?

Wayner 

[Freo-1]

I'd say it's a toss up on who has the most condescending and very mean spirited post; Norman Tracy or Diamond Dog with Freo-1 as a 2 runner up.

You people are mean and nasty. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth.

I started this thread, not to piss off high-res people, but to stimulate some real world thinking on the mission of digital. That mission, is to sound like analog. That is where all the sound came from. It's been recorded in many different mediums a.k.a. reel to reel, dat, computer and even direct to disc.

All this in hopes that something recorded (put into a storage condition, to be played back later), sounds the same when played back.

Analog wants to stay analog, as it is the highest resolution of all. Digital wants to be analog. Listen to how a cymbal decays in an analog recording and then on a digital recording. They are not the same.

So, are High Res Folks just vinyl wannabies? I think so, they just don't want the black disc, but they want the sound of the vinyl.

To hard to swallow that concept? What was condescending about any of it?

Wayner 

The argument you present is not making a whole lot of sense. 

No one attacked you (or is attacking you) personally.  The position you took was challenged, based on a whole host of factors.  The real world physics involved with the two mediums are fair game for analysis and comparisons.  The physical limitations involved with vinyl playback medium are well documented, and indeed are fair game for comparison to digital.  Granted, digital for a number of years had lots of issues with sound quality, but the advances with jitter, oversampling, 24 and now 32bit DAC’s have improved digital playback to the point where it is now a superior playback medium to vinyl (especially with classical).  The engineering behind this should not be in dispute. 

When one attempts to “stir the pot” with a provocative thread such as this one does, one should expect to be challenged on the positions taken.  Having someone disagree with you is not nasty, especially after stating a position is “a load of crap” without something to back it up. 

Your premise of this thread was challenged, not you individually.

[*Scotty*]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but given the prevalence of 24/96 and 24/192 mastering in the recording industry it should be obvious that in many cases our vinyl records were made from a digital master.
 It seems logical that if we can get our hands on a copy of the master to listen to we will be ahead of of the game.
For myself I am looking forward to being able to get music I want to listen to at 24/96 resolution.
Especially if it costs less than a record made from the same 24/96 master.
Scotty

[Crimson]

I know from various surveys and poll results (from audiophile web sites and the like) that there are many serious listeners like me who spent a couple of decades or more with vinyl LP's as our primary source, but now listen only to digital.  Do you really think it's because we never heard LP's done "right"??  I still listen to LP's at shows and in others' systems, but have no desire to go back; is that so hard to understand?  LP's only rarely have more of that "magic", nearly always I prefer well mastered digital, hires even more so.

+1

Technology doesn't sit still.

Well done hi res is better than well done vinyl nowadays.

[Mitsuman]

+1

Technology doesn't sit still.

Well done hi res can be better than well done vinyl from digital masters nowadays.

Fixored 

[cheap-Jack]

Hi.  Freo-1

Now, your "digital sounds better better than analogue" premise is technically challenged.

(1) Only Wayner did not explain it scientifically enough & I've posted above to make up what was missing. This should make sense to his comments.

(2) I think you've put the cart befodre the horse. When all the recordings are digitally encoded by PCM, the original performance information is already discounted due to this 101010 bit-sampling as explained in my post above earlier. NOmatter now advanced be the digital-analogue digital playback equipment we use, we can only get better but still such advanced digital topology fails to retrieve the missed info of the original performances due to the pitfalls of the bit-sampling in the analogue-digital conversion.

So please provide yr "engineering behind this" to back up yr claim.

I said it again, I've been playing DVD-audio discs cut form 24but 192KHz masters
for many years before I took up vinyls of analogue masters which bring me back the engagement, emotion & being-there spartial information which digitals lack.

c-J

[Freo-1]

Well, unless one is totally devoid of understandig basic physics,  suggest a review the following links:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

Read the parts about dynamic range

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4033509/Vinyl-vs-CD-myths-refuse-to-die

Please note the other links at the bottom of the article on the second link.  This is written by the EE folks, not some golden ear.


Then, go research ALL the various distortions asscoiated with the turntable/cartrigdge/tomearm setup (wow, flutter, inner groove, alignment errors, record wear, surfaace noise on vinyl).  I could go on and on, but one should do their homework on this. 

[Mitsuman]

I think this might be a good read for those who haven't read it............or forgot about it. 

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/so_whats_so_good_about_digital_anyway/

[Mitsuman]

Well, unless one is totally devoid of understandig basic physics,  suggest a review the following links:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

Read the parts about dynamic range

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4033509/Vinyl-vs-CD-myths-refuse-to-die

Please note the other links at the bottom of the article on the second link.  This is written by the EE folks, not some golden ear.


Then, go research ALL the various distortions asscoiated with the turntable/cartrigdge/tomearm setup (wow, flutter, inner groove, alignment errors, record wear, surfaace noise on vinyl).  I could go on and on, but one should do their homework on this.

Petitio Principii is what comes to mind when I read the above. 

[Tyson]

Good hirez (24-176 or better), that is well mastered, equals vinyl in tone and musicality and is superior in terms of micro and macro dynamics.  IMO, of course.  Only caveats - not much source material on hirez, and large storage space is needed for the files.

[Tyson]

I'd say it's a toss up on who has the most condescending and very mean spirited post; Norman Tracy or Diamond Dog with Freo-1 as a 2 runner up.

You people are mean and nasty. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth.

I started this thread, not to piss off high-res people, but to stimulate some real world thinking on the mission of digital. That mission, is to sound like analog. That is where all the sound came from. It's been recorded in many different mediums a.k.a. reel to reel, dat, computer and even direct to disc.

All this in hopes that something recorded (put into a storage condition, to be played back later), sounds the same when played back.

Analog wants to stay analog, as it is the highest resolution of all. Digital wants to be analog. Listen to how a cymbal decays in an analog recording and then on a digital recording. They are not the same.

So, are High Res Folks just vinyl wannabies? I think so, they just don't want the black disc, but they want the sound of the vinyl.

To hard to swallow that concept? What was condescending about any of it?

Wayner 

Your premise is wrong - the goal of digital is not to sound "analog".  It's to sound like real life.  This is the same goal as analog.

[Mitsuman]

Your premise is wrong - the goal of digital is not to sound "analog".  It's to sound like real life.  This is the same goal as analog.

Where I grew up, real life is analog. 

[Wayner]

Your premise is wrong - the goal of digital is not to sound "analog".  It's to sound like real life.  This is the same goal as analog.

Analog is real life. It's the same wave form captured by the microphone, put onto tape, put onto the record, played back by the stylus, amplified and fed to your speakers.

Digital is "synthesized", re-constituted material. Zeros and ones. It's resolution tries to imitate a complex analog musical passage.

Wayner

[Tyson]

I think a strong parallel can be drawn between audio and photography - in the beginning, analog photography was clearly, and in all ways, superior to digital photography.  But as resolution (and other factors) have increased, digital has caught up rapidly.  I'd say the same it true in audio, albeit the pace has been a lot slower.

[doug s.]

Analog is real life. It's the same wave form captured by the microphone, put onto tape, put onto the record, played back by the stylus, amplified and fed to your speakers.

Digital is "synthesized", re-constituted material. Zeros and ones. It's resolution tries to imitate a complex analog musical passage.

Wayner

analog is real life, yes.  but an analog recording is yust that - a recording.  it is not the real ewent; it is not real life.  so, i agree w/the premise that both analog and digital are attempting to mimic an ewent.  (personally, i think analog wins, and digital has a way to go.  tho i am able to enjoy digital software now...)

doug s.

[rbbert]

Vinyl proponents speak of vinyl LP's as though they were the pinnacle of the home playback source.  I'm willing to concede superiority of professional reel-to-reel over digital in some sonic characteristics, but that doesn't necessarily carry over to LP's, and most of the vinyl detractors are concerned with the problems specifically inherent to LP playback. Furthermore, real life may be analog, but it (sound) is very poorly recorded by existing analog recording techniques, and there's not a lot of theoretical (much less practical) improvement to be made there.  OTOH, we're just scratching the surface of possible digital recording capabilities.

AM radio is analog; is that the sound we're striving for?

[inspiredsports]

There are lots of spirited discussions popping up in forums all over the internet about this topic.

I've been listening to vinyl for over 40 years (and for over 8 hours a day the past 3 days) and warts and all, love every minute of it.

I think most of the time convenience wins out over sound quality. CD player manufacturers have spent the past 26 or 27 years comparing their wares to the de-facto standard; vinyl, so I don't see any reason the high resolution hard drive based folks would be any different.

Add a tube or two to the mix and now you're talking!

[Freo-1]

Petitio Principii is what comes to mind when I read the above. 

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4033509/Vinyl-vs-CD-myths-refuse-to-die

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4033468/Audio-myth-Vinyl-better-than-CD-

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4033495/Vinyl-LP-comeback--wishful-thinking

If one is arguing the "vinyl is better" side of this,  would tend to agree. 

[Wayner]

Vinyl proponents speak of vinyl LP's as though they were the pinnacle of the home playback source.  I'm willing to concede superiority of professional reel-to-reel over digital in some sonic characteristics, but that doesn't necessarily carry over to LP's, and most of the vinyl detractors are concerned with the problems specifically inherent to LP playback. Furthermore, real life may be analog, but it (sound) is very poorly recorded by existing analog recording techniques, and there's not a lot of theoretical (much less practical) improvement to be made there.  OTOH, we're just scratching the surface of possible digital recording capabilities.

AM radio is analog; is that the sound we're striving for?

Am radio is "amplitude modulation" ignoring many aspects of a "real" sine wave. That is why they created FM, which is Frequency Modulated. The later, being a much superior form of transmission. Probably not part of this topic.

W