CD/Record Comparison

[matthewpiano]

You can point out all the flaws in vinyl over and over again, but if it communicates the music in an involving and convincing way then that is ultimately all that really matters. You can't keep bringing everything back to facts and figures, some things have to be about the experience and, as drummerman says, emotion.

I don't dispute that. If it sounds "better" to you then that's fine by me and good for you. I think you are wrong but life is full of disagreements.

Chris

If only all the forum's disagreements could be so gentlemanly.

 

[juxter1]

Musical instruments are mainly analogue, human voice is only analogue.

In recording studio's the majority of master tapes were analogue. In creating a CD the music had to be digitised (one possible step in creating errors in the sound). When playing back a CD or an audio file ripped from a CD it has to pass through a digital to analogue converter (another possible step in creating errors in the sound)

Please note, I say possible step.

Vinyl is an analogue representation of analogue music.

Which would you think is more likely to contain less errors and be more accurate to the music as it was actually played?

Not trying to be confrontational at all, I know what I prefer due to ease of use is to have ripped CD's on a NAS playing through my Linn Majik DS-i but I still feel thet vinyl is a much nicer way to listen to music, when I can be bothered to take out one of my 873 LP's and put it on the turntable. I have over 3,000 CD's ripped so I have more choice when listening to ripped music or a CD.

 

[BigH]

Musical instruments are mainly analogue, human voice is only analogue.

In recording studio's the majority of master tapes were analogue. In creating a CD the music had to be digitised (one possible step in creating errors in the sound). When playing back a CD or an audio file ripped from a CD it has to pass through a digital to analogue converter (another possible step in creating errors in the sound)

Please note, I say possible step.

Vinyl is an analogue representation of analogue music.

I think most recordings are now digital, there have been digital recordings from the 70s.

 

[hammill]

Musical instruments are mainly analogue, human voice is only analogue.

In recording studio's the majority of master tapes were analogue. In creating a CD the music had to be digitised (one possible step in creating errors in the sound). When playing back a CD or an audio file ripped from a CD it has to pass through a digital to analogue converter (another possible step in creating errors in the sound)

Please note, I say possible step.

Vinyl is an analogue representation of analogue music.

Which would you think is more likely to contain less errors and be more accurate to the music as it was actually played?

Your question is unanswerable. A analogue recording can be accurate or inaccurate as can a digital one. You would need to carefully compare the two recording methods.

The human voice is not analogue, neither are musical instruments.

Analogue

adjectiverelating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage, etc.:analogue signalsthe information on a gramophone record is analogue

[/list]

 

[The_Lhc]

The human voice is not analogue, neither are musical instruments.

Analogue
relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage

Or perhaps a continuously variable physical quantity such as volume and frequency?

 

[juxter1]

Of course human voices and most musical instruments are analogue.

They produce perfect sine waves not digital representations of them.

This is a true and undisputable fact, there is no disputing it whatsoever.

Hundreds of years of research has gone into that fact unless you are now calling all scientists liars.

 

[hammill]

Of course human voices and most musical instruments are analogue.

They produce perfect sine waves not digital representations of them.

This is a true and undisputable fact, there is no disputing it whatsoever.

Hundreds of years of research has gone into that fact unless you are now calling all scientists liars.

You clearly don't understand the word analogue, even though I included a dictionary definition to help you. A record for example contains an analogue of the original sound. The original sound is not an analogue.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course human voices and most musical instruments are analogue.

They produce perfect sine waves not digital representations of them.

This is a true and undisputable fact, there is no disputing it whatsoever.

Hundreds of years of research has gone into that fact unless you are now calling all scientists liars.

You clearly don't understand the word analogue, even though I included a dictionary definition to help you. A record for example contains an analogue of the original sound. The original sound is not an analogue.

I think you may be wrong

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Human_voice_is_a_digital_signal_or_analog_signal

And lots of other websites with similar answers

'The human voice is an analogue signal because the frequency of the sound varies in the sound waves as well as their amplitude that gives the power. Analog signal is defined as a signal that has a continuously varying amplitude or frequency. Human speech, and everything else a human hear, is in analog form.'

 

[The_Lhc]

The original sound is not an analogue.

I think you're confusing your adjective analogue with your noun analogue, eg:

an·a·logue also an·a·log[/b]
n.1. Something that bears an analogy to something else: Surimi is marketed as an analogue of crabmeat.2. Biology An organ or structure that is similar in function to one in another kind of organism but is of dissimilar evolutionary origin.3. Chemistry A structural derivative of a parent compound that often differs from it by a single element. adj.1. often analog Of, relating to, or being a device in which data are represented by continuously variable, measurable, physical quantities, such as length, width, voltage, or pressure.

So, whilst the human voice may not be AN analogue (although it could be an analogue of another sound), it IS analogue (note the last quantity in that quote, pressure, that's what sound is, varying pressure).

 

[juxter1]

All sound as percieved by the human ear is analogue.

It is a variable pressure wave, it has no steps in it's waveform, therefore it is analogue and cannot ever be concieved as digital.

This is basic high school learning, any biology or physics teacher could tell you that.

Come to that, so could any electrical engineer.

There is no getting around it at all, as I said it is completely undisputable and is a true fact.

But this is getting ridiculous, if a hi-fi forum, supposedly dedicated to the equipment and the music that basic facts get overlooked.

I give up.

 

[stevebrock]

All sound as percieved by the human ear is analogue.

It is a variable pressure wave, it has no steps in it's waveform, therefore it is analogue and cannot ever be concieved as digital.

This is basic high school learning, any biology or physics teacher could tell you that.

Come to that, so could any electrical engineer.

There is no getting around it at all, as I said it is completely undisputable and is a true fact.

But this is getting ridiculous, if a hi-fi forum, supposedly dedicated to the equipment and the music that basic facts get overlooked.

I give up.

+1

 

[Anonymous]

All sound as percieved by the human ear is analogue.

It is a variable pressure wave, it has no steps in it's waveform, therefore it is analogue and cannot ever be concieved as digital.

This is basic high school learning, any biology or physics teacher could tell you that.

Come to that, so could any electrical engineer.

There is no getting around it at all, as I said it is completely undisputable and is a true fact.

But this is getting ridiculous, if a hi-fi forum, supposedly dedicated to the equipment and the music that basic facts get overlooked.

I give up.

+1

Yup +1

 

[lindsayt]

Can you please tell me what affordable equipment can take a recording from vinyl to CD and make it sound exactly the same?

My vinyl to CD recording equipment is a looooooooooooooong way short of that.

And if vinyl is less hi-fi than CD, how come every recording that I have on both formats sounds better on vinyl? The difference isn't subtle either.

It seems to me, frog, that you don't realise how good vinyl can sound. Maybe you've never compared a genuinely top notch record player against CD?

A Phillips Cdr 760

http://www.cdrecorders.org.uk/cdr760.php

As I said in a previous post I have recorded rare pieces of vinyl to Cd using this machine and there is no difference at all that I can hear or indeed anybody else that has tried to tell the difference especially when they do not know whether it is the original or the copy they are hearing (blind test ) .

The Cdr copy captures everything including the original vinyl character colourations and warmth .

I know my vinyl replay system is not as good as some more modern equipment but it is still pretty reasonable

Oh I forgot to say the comparison was between vinyl played on my Linn based set up and the Cdr copy played on my EMC1up .

Thanks for that. I'll buy one if see a fully working one at the right price. And report back here if it can make CD recordings that sound exaclty the same as the vinyl source. Although I'd be just as happy to try an ADC / DAC / audio interface. Something that recorded to my computers hard disk from where I could either delete the recording or burn it to CD.

 

[MoJoe]

Since I bought some decent speakers and stopped using mp3's as my source I have found myself struggling to listen to some of my favourite early Dylan albums. The harmonica is so high is unbeatable at times. I hope buying a new cdp and amp combo will help although I intend to start trying to pick up vinyl releases of said albums as well.

 

[davedotco]

Since I bought some decent speakers and stopped using mp3's as my source I have found myself struggling to listen to some of my favourite early Dylan albums. The harmonica is so high is unbeatable at times. I hope buying a new cdp and amp combo will help although I intend to start trying to pick up vinyl releases of said albums as well.

As a (part time) Dylanista I find that all the various re-issues and re-mastered versions can sound very different.

I found myself ploughing through loads of different recordings, compilations and the rest searching for the definitive live recording of "Just like Tom Thumbs Blues", recorded at the Liverpool Odeon May 14th 1966, so far without any luck.

All the live versions of this song that I have found were taken from the concert at the Manchester Free Trade Hall a few days later and since we know that the recording is simply a 2 track master and not easily 'messed' with it is remarkable how different the various releases are.

Sorry for the diversion, but if you go onto Spotify you sould be able to try some of the different releases, not the greatest quality unless you have Premium, but you should get an idea of which issues are less strident.

Trivia Question.......

Bob Dylan's 1966 live album "The Royal Albert Hall Concert" was recorded in which English City?

Answer....Manchester

 

[andyjm]

All sound as percieved by the human ear is analogue.

It is a variable pressure wave, it has no steps in it's waveform, therefore it is analogue and cannot ever be concieved as digital.

This is basic high school learning, any biology or physics teacher could tell you that.

Come to that, so could any electrical engineer.

There is no getting around it at all, as I said it is completely undisputable and is a true fact.

But this is getting ridiculous, if a hi-fi forum, supposedly dedicated to the equipment and the music that basic facts get overlooked.

I give up.

+1

Yup +1

I am sorry guys, but you dont seem have the first clue how digital sampling and playback works. Those little staircases that you have in your mind are not an accurate description of what is going on here.

There are many situations in engineering where a sensible man with a decent education can grasp the fundamentals with some basic common sense. Digital sampling and playback isn't one of those situations. If your maths is up to it, google the Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem - its all there.

If not, you will have to take my word for it, with the right sample frequency and bit depth there are no little staircases - the output signal looks exactly like the input signal - smooth and anaolgue....

 

[chebby]

Since I bought some decent speakers and stopped using mp3's as my source I have found myself struggling to listen to some of my favourite early Dylan albums. The harmonica is so high is unbeatable at times.

'Unbeatable' or 'unbearable'?

 

[davedotco]

All sound as percieved by the human ear is analogue.

It is a variable pressure wave, it has no steps in it's waveform, therefore it is analogue and cannot ever be concieved as digital.

This is basic high school learning, any biology or physics teacher could tell you that.

Come to that, so could any electrical engineer.

There is no getting around it at all, as I said it is completely undisputable and is a true fact.

But this is getting ridiculous, if a hi-fi forum, supposedly dedicated to the equipment and the music that basic facts get overlooked.

I give up.

+1

Yup +1

I am sorry guys, but you dont seem have the first clue how digital sampling and playback works. Those little staircases that you have in your mind are not an accurate description of what is going on here.

There are many situations in engineering where a sensible man with a decent education can grasp the fundamentals with some basic common sense. Digital sampling and playback isn't one of those situations. If your maths is up to it, google the Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem - its all there.

If not, you will have to take my word for it, with the right sample frequency and bit depth there are no little staircases - the output signal looks exactly like the input signal - smooth and anaolgue....

There you go, bringing science into things again. We have all see the little diagrams, we know it is not true....

 

[The_Lhc]

All sound as percieved by the human ear is analogue.

It is a variable pressure wave, it has no steps in it's waveform, therefore it is analogue and cannot ever be concieved as digital.

This is basic high school learning, any biology or physics teacher could tell you that.

Come to that, so could any electrical engineer.

There is no getting around it at all, as I said it is completely undisputable and is a true fact.

But this is getting ridiculous, if a hi-fi forum, supposedly dedicated to the equipment and the music that basic facts get overlooked.

I give up.

+1

Yup +1

I am sorry guys, but you dont seem have the first clue how digital sampling and playback works. Those little staircases that you have in your mind are not an accurate description of what is going on here.

There are many situations in engineering where a sensible man with a decent education can grasp the fundamentals with some basic common sense. Digital sampling and playback isn't one of those situations. If your maths is up to it, google the Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem - its all there.

If not, you will have to take my word for it, with the right sample frequency and bit depth there are no little staircases - the output signal looks exactly like the input signal - smooth and anaolgue....

None of which has any bearing on the question as to whether the human voice is analogue or not, which is what we were talking about.

 

[andyjm]

All sound as percieved by the human ear is analogue.

It is a variable pressure wave, it has no steps in it's waveform, therefore it is analogue and cannot ever be concieved as digital.

This is basic high school learning, any biology or physics teacher could tell you that.

Come to that, so could any electrical engineer.

There is no getting around it at all, as I said it is completely undisputable and is a true fact.

But this is getting ridiculous, if a hi-fi forum, supposedly dedicated to the equipment and the music that basic facts get overlooked.

I give up.

+1

Yup +1

I am sorry guys, but you dont seem have the first clue how digital sampling and playback works. Those little staircases that you have in your mind are not an accurate description of what is going on here.

There are many situations in engineering where a sensible man with a decent education can grasp the fundamentals with some basic common sense. Digital sampling and playback isn't one of those situations. If your maths is up to it, google the Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem - its all there.

If not, you will have to take my word for it, with the right sample frequency and bit depth there are no little staircases - the output signal looks exactly like the input signal - smooth and anaolgue....

There you go, bringing science into things again. We have all see the little diagrams, we know it is not true....

Sigh, it is diagrams like this that have created the problem.

1.The squiggly analogue waveform clearly has frequency components way above the frequency of the 'staircase' sample rate in the bottom diagram - you need to sample at twice the highest frequency component in the analogue signal for this to work.

2. The staircase waveform is shown before the low pass recombination / anti alias filter. The output of a D2A converter chip has to be filtered.

If the correct sample rate was used, and the 'staircase' output filtered, it would match the analogue signal exactly.

 

[BigH]

Since I bought some decent speakers and stopped using mp3's as my source I have found myself struggling to listen to some of my favourite early Dylan albums. The harmonica is so high is unbeatable at times. I hope buying a new cdp and amp combo will help although I intend to start trying to pick up vinyl releases of said albums as well.

For cds of Dylan you want the 2004 remastered ones, the early Dylan cds were not very good.

 

[MoJoe]

Thats unbearable. Thank you for that info. Sorry for the tangent.

 

[abacus]

A quick couple of questions for the analogue aficionados

1. What format does the brain hear sound in?

2. What format does the brain transmit sound in?

(Remember it’s the Brain not the senses that were interested in)

Bill

 

[Anonymous]

A quick couple of questions for the analogue aficionados

1. What format does the brain hear sound in?

2. What format does the brain transmit sound in?

(Remember it’s the Brain not the senses that were interested in)

Bill

If you're really interested this is quite interesting

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060412223937.htm

 

[davedotco]

Sigh, it is diagrams like this that have created the problem.

1.The squiggly analogue waveform clearly has frequency components way above the frequency of the 'staircase' sample rate in the bottom diagram - you need to sample at twice the highest frequency component in the analogue signal for this to work.

2. The staircase waveform is shown before the low pass recombination / anti alias filter. The output of a D2A converter chip has to be filtered.

If the correct sample rate was used, and the 'staircase' output filtered, it would match the analogue signal exactly.

But, but, but, I can see the steps, it's obvious, it's going to sound all steppy.

Anyway, my ears are definitely analogue, if they were digital I would have 10 of them.