[Mitsuman]

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.

Interesting we humans aren't we? I was referring to the "digital is better" side. 

[Freo-1]

Interesting we humans aren't we? I was referring to the "digital is better" side. 

I knew that...Could not resist taking the opening when presented...

[Pez]

I love Hi Rez, I love vinyl. More importantly I love a well recorded amazing performance regardless of format. I have been increasing my hi rez collection at a very rapid clip lately and it forces me to listen closer and appreciate what the artists intent is. I think to argue one is superior to another is missing the point. Which one can you do in your setup? Which one works for your media?

So I guess my point is perhaps this topic misses the point and most of it's participants are missing the point. Get the point? I doubt it. 

[Freo-1]

I've yet to hear on Redbook (computer or player) or DVD-A many pieces of music that represented the real sound of those instruments as they've sounded live. 

Damn have I tried - I tried to live only digital for several years - but, my subservience to the music above all else lured me back to vinyl.  I didn't WANT to go thru all those steps to fully enjoy vinyl, but it was the only way to fully enjoy live music sounds again in my listening room.

(EDIT: I should add that my listening areas are not gargantuan, so it tilts the balance in some ways to enjoying vinyl and not hear the full glory of more dynamic digital.  Vinyl simply works better in most homes with average spaces than digital, too)

Now, digital has come a very long way in sound quality in just the past 5 years, to a point where every player I've heard is now listenable at medium-to-low volumes.....but, NONE of the digital players has ever given my goosebumps; something that happens regularly with vinyl. 

If I ever pony up for a Strain Guage system from SoundSmith I might never listen to digital again.  It advances vinyl that far further from digital using no moving anything inside the cartridge body for as perfect tracking and reproduction as is possible on vinyl.

I hate all the fuss of vinyl - but, it serves the music more faithfully than digital (for now, at least )

Non-sequitor: Classical IS the absolute hardest music to reproduce successfully and while vinyl's sin is greater compression than hi-res, within that compressed window is still much more faithful reproduction of the delicacy of each classical instrument within it. 

John

When it comes to classical, do not concur.

As one who attends symphonies on a recurring basis, over the past couple of years, I have been able to obtain reference playback hardware and software material that gets "very close" to a live event. 

Vinyl (to me) is hopelessly limited on so many levels with classical it's maddening.   Symphonies that I've listened to live recently (Beethoven 7 and 9,  Rimsky Korsakov Scheherazade) with the DVD Audio /SACD discs gets pretty close, especially with the dynamics and absence of noise with the quiet passages.  Vinyl can't even begin to touch it.  There is NO DOUBT when you listen to vinyl that it's a recording.  With the current digital equipment and the ability to capture the surround effects, along with the absence of noise, it makes for a much more listenable experience (IMHO).

I have attempted to post the engineering reasons as to why digital has surpassed vinyl.  The old arguements about jitter, digital filtering, etc has largely been address and resolved. 

At this point, will leave it to each person to research this issue and come to their own conclusions. 

[dlaloum]

In response to the "digital is granular" argument (the one that says it is flawed because it is represented with 1's and 0's)....

Might I simply remind people that the universe, according to accepted physics theories, is in fact granular....

Photon's, electrons, atoms.... and although wave theory is used to describe the behaviour... the underlying structure is believed to be granular.

This effectively puts that whole argument on shaky ground.

If natural analogue (live sound) is in fact granular, then our issue is not whether it is granular, but how fine our granularity needs to be, and of what kind, to achieve a sufficiently accurate reproduction of the original even.

Consider:

Analogue tape is made up of a bunch of (Granular) magnetically charged molecules, each of which is carrying a GRANULAR distinct charge. (which are turned into GRANULAR electrons by the playback head)

Analogue tape speed is effectively the number of these molecules that are read by the head of the playback device per time period.
How is this different from the sampling rate? - More individual "bits" per second!

Psycho Acoustics is still a substantial field of research - if there is an acknowledged means of measuring sound quality (in psycho acoustic terms) - then it very obviously has not made it into the mainstream.
Right now we have a bunch of measurements without an immediately evident connection to sound quality. What % of THD is a problem?, what percentage of IMD is a problem? at what point do timing issues (Jitter, wow, flutter) become a problem?
We do know that these are a problem, but we don't really know their relative standings and interaction between them.
Engineering measurements and Psycho Acoustics are still not comfortable bedfellows!

Is Redbook 16/44 at sufficiently small a level of granularity? Probably not.
But then at one point analogue recordings were bandwidth limited to 8kHz.... and less. An edison cylinder is an analogue recording. - Anyone arguing that a CD is worse than a cylinder?

bye for now

David

[Tyson]

I think part of the area of misunderstanding here is that vinyl is indeed more compressed than hi rez (assuming good recordings of both), but most people listen via speakers that are already dynamically compressed, so the difference between hi rez and vinyl is less clear because of that bottleneck.

[Quiet Earth]

Good point Tyson. Maybe this thread should get compressed too. Then it would look like all of the great sounding recordings that we believe have wide dynamic range,,,,,,,,, but really don't. 

[rbbert]

I would think it should be clear to all readers here that the answer to the OP's original question is

NO
 

[Wayner]

I have recorded several orchestras with my good old trusty ReVox reel-to-reel over the years, including some vocal groups. I have also recorded several rock and roll bands. The orchestral music was by far the easiest to record (also not using any compressors or Dolby noise reduction) then the rock bands.

Those orchestra recordings (at 1/2 track, 7ips) made any stereo system sound better, then any other music or music source available. It simply sounded "real" and captured your attention.

Hard to reproduce? Try to reproduce UFO at real concert levels. Were my recordings "Grammy award" recordings? Of course not, but they did get air-play and I received many complements on the quality.

Most of classical music is in the mid-band frequencies, and easy to record. Try recording a rock band without a compressor when you have a drummer trying to drum his way to China, a bass player wheeling his ax with the amp totally cranked, a lead singer screaming into a microphone and some synthesizer buzzing away. You think that's easy to record/reproduce? If so, you obviously haven't done any recording.

Wayner

[Diamond Dog]

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.

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

Nice straw man, Wayner. But a straw man none the less.
People can read my posts, compare it to some of the bellicosity you've displayed as this thread has progressed (?) and draw their own conclusions.
You can say you started this thread to "stimulate some real-world thinking" but that would imply that you were open even in some small way to giving credence to opinions which did not completely mesh with yours. It is painfully apparent that this is not the case and that what you have done here is open up an argument clinic in the most Python-esque sense. Once again, have fun with that...
And yes, I do kiss my mother with this mouth and thank you for your curiously voyeuristic interest in this particular matter.

D.D.

[bummrush]

All depends on the recording  ,no mater what format.

[Wayner]

Nice straw man, Wayner. But a straw man none the less.
People can read my posts, compare it to some of the bellicosity you've displayed as this thread has progressed (?) and draw their own conclusions.
You can say you started this thread to "stimulate some real-world thinking" but that would imply that you were open even in some small way to giving credence to opinions which did not completely mesh with yours. It is painfully apparent that this is not the case and that what you have done here is open up an argument clinic in the most Python-esque sense. Once again, have fun with that...
And yes, I do kiss my mother with this mouth and thank you for your curiously voyeuristic interest in this particular matter.

D.D.

Well, when someone questions your ideology, out comes the swords. To also think that I pre-programmed this thread is a joke. If I did, I'm damn good at manipulation. Well, I did get you to hisssssssssssssssss.

I just read that the current high-res format may not be good enough and 384/32 is on it's way. Apparently, there are other folks that think digital is not the equal as of yet.

Happy Thanksgiving

[Mitsuman]

I want to simply say, I don't think Hi-Rez folks are vinyl wannabees. As someone who enjoys both formats, I can honestly say that I agree that digital is superior with regards to the "storing" of musical information. The physics that limit the vinyl medium can't be argued with if you look at it purely from a scientific, un-biased way.  But like Neil Young, I can't agree that when it comes to playback that analog is inferior. No amount of data, theory, measurement, etc., can change the way my brain and body react to the playback of digital vs. analog.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, enjoy the music. 

Craig

[cheap-Jack]

Hi.

(1) In response to the "digital is granular" argument (the one that says it is flawed because it is represented with 1's and 0's)....

(2) Is Redbook 16/44 at sufficiently small a level of granularity? Probably not.
But then at one point analogue recordings were bandwidth limited to 8kHz.... ..

David

(1) First off, you misunderstand the meaning of "granular" which already invalidated your argument.

During the digital conversion of the continuous waveform of a music signal, the entire waveform is CHOPPED to tiny MONOLITHIC column-shaped bits in a 101010 serie where "0" digit takes away the part of the signal for ever. Yet it is so claimed that the entire waveform of the choppped waveform can be 100% recovered during the digital-analogue conversion in the playback equipment, e.g. CD player.

MY question is: how can this be possible? If one cuts as cake into slices, can the slices make back up the same identical cake in its original shape?

Analogue audio does NOT involve such chopping up & patching back the very complex dynamic music waveforms.

NOthing is perfect. BUt which is the worse evil? Our ears can tell - digital is the worse evil, musically.

"Granular" is defined in Wiktionary as:-

"The essential characteristic of being "granular" is that something appears to be composed of small, discrete entities as OPPOSITE to being continuous OR "monotithic."

(2) Redbook is a joke when compared to DVD-audio (24bit 192KHz). Even DVD-audio can't touch analogue music.

For the sake of yr argument, do you know how sensitive is yr hearing at 8KHz?

c-J
     

[JohnR]

During the digital conversion of the continuous waveform of a music signal, the entire waveform is CHOPPED to tiny MONOLITHIC column-shaped bits in a 101010 serie where "0" digit takes away the part of the signal for ever.

Sorry, but this is just completely wrong. The "0s and 1s" are just convention to represent binary data. A string of them is a number. In the case of digitized audio, the number represents the amplitude of the waveform at each sample.

Yet it is so claimed that the entire waveform of the choppped waveform can be 100% recovered during the digital-analogue conversion in the playback equipment, e.g. CD player.

Not claimed, it's well known that this is true, within specific limitations of bandwidth and noise floor. Phase shift and non-iinearities in the analog circuitry also come into play.

MY question is: how can this be possible? If one cuts as cake into slices, can the slices make back up the same identical cake in its original shape?

What kind of cake is it?

[dlaloum]

Analogue audio does NOT involve such chopping up & patching back the very complex dynamic music waveforms.

Yes it does - the data is stored as discreet energy levels on molecules of Iron Oxide which make up the tape coating...
The analogue medium is and being made of matter MUST be based on "quanta" of energy - discrete, specifically sized packets.
By having lots of these the recording method averages out the desired signal by providing an overall "average" level that emulates the original recording being reproduced. (some FeO molecules are energised others aren't)
Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism
and from that article:

The spin of an electron, combined with its electric charge, results in a magnetic dipole moment and creates a small magnetic field. Although an electron can be visualized classically as a spinning ball of charge, spin is actually a quantum mechanical property with differences from the classical picture, such as the fact that it is quantized into discrete up/down states.

Effectively, magnetic tape (the principal analogue mastering medium) is made of a recording material that behaves digitally... it may not be based on two state (0,1) and may in fact have several discreet states - but it is absolutely not a waveform.

The whole argument of "keeping things analogue through the entire chain" is severely flawed.

Note that I am not arguing that one is better than the other.... just pointing out that the argument that one does not break the signal into discrete quantums to record it, is simply wrong.... both electricity and magnetism work based on electrons which work in discrete quanta of energy.

All one can say is that at a Macro level the result is X.
At a micro level very similar things are happening in the two methods of storage.

On analogue tape, a waveform is approximated by recording an averaged energy level across millions of particles.
On digital tape a waveform is approximated by mathematical representation, and then encoded by recording an averaged energy level across millions of particles.

In the first case the "chopping" into discrete levels is "dithered" by the averaging across millions of particles.
In the second, the dithering is consciously applied - and the same effect can be achieved.

Having more particles improves the resolution (more tape per second past the tape head) - the averaging becomes more precise.
Having more digital bits, also improves the resolution - whether going from 16 to 24bit or increasing the sample rate.....

The two methods are not all that different really...

Which do you prefer cassette tape or 24/192 digital?
(Mind you cassette tape puts up a damn good fight on my Revox deck...)

bye for now

David

[rbbert]

I've pointed these well accepted scientific and engineering facts before and received little but ignorance and ill will in return.  Given the general tenor of posts in this topic, I suspect that will continue.

[TheChairGuy]

I've pointed these well accepted scientific and engineering facts before and received little but ignorance and ill will in return.  Given the general tenor of posts in this topic, I suspect that will continue.

Post or don't post in this topic - either way it's okay - but, I just re-read your prior comments and they amount to opinion and no scientific or engineering facts.

They're YOUR facts, you're entitled to them, some would agree and some would disagree; but the 'ill will' in return you read seems mostly imagined.

In general thus far the responses have been adequately restrained and lacking personal attacks but I am finding myself have to check this topic too often to make sure tempers do not flare up and it's time consuming.

Unless we can make some positive breakthru and or have even tempered responses consistently I'm simply going to mothball this topic soon.  I kinda' doubt the possibility of either so this topic is careening towards oblivion now.

Thx, John / Facilitator

[Freo-1]

I want to simply say, I don't think Hi-Rez folks are vinyl wannabees. As someone who enjoys both formats, I can honestly say that I agree that digital is superior with regards to the "storing" of musical information. The physics that limit the vinyl medium can't be argued with if you look at it purely from a scientific, un-biased way.  But like Neil Young, I can't agree that when it comes to playback that analog is inferior. No amount of data, theory, measurement, etc., can change the way my brain and body react to the playback of digital vs. analog.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, enjoy the music. 

Craig

 Humans are indeed interesting.

First, would like to distinguish analog as either vinyl or reel to reel, as reel to reel has different engineering limitations.

Second, to me, vinyl in particular just sounds inferior with classical.  Neil Young's assertions about analog seems tied to his own music, which is much different than reproducing classical. 
 

[rbbert]

Post or don't post in this topic - either way it's okay - but, I just re-read your prior comments and they amount to opinion and no scientific or engineering facts.

They're YOUR facts, you're entitled to them, some would agree and some would disagree; but the 'ill will' in return you read seems mostly imagined.

In general thus far the responses have been adequately restrained and lacking personal attacks but I am finding myself have to check this topic too often to make sure tempers do not flare up and it's time consuming.

Unless we can make some positive breakthru and or have even tempered responses consistently I'm simply going to mothball this topic soon.  I kinda' doubt the possibility of either so this topic is careening towards oblivion now.

Thx, John / Facilitator

I think you misunderstood; I was referring to dialoum's comments (directly above) about the science of analog tape recording and of digital audio.  I don't think those are opinions, they are pretty much facts of engineering and our physical world.  I'm pretty sure that what I personally posted earlier about audiophile (and other) poll results is also true and not an opinion.  And the "ill will" I referred to was referencing the many responses I got to a Letter to the Editor published some time ago in Stereophile when I described the underlying quantum (digital) nature of analog sound, tape redording and our hearing, not to any responses here.