CD/Record Comparison

[andyjm]

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.

The is an argument to be made that ears are in fact digital. Sound pressure waves are transferred into fluid flow in the cochlear. This in turn stimulates hairs, that in turn cause neurons to fire that send nerve impulses to the brain. The neurons are discrete - either they fire or they dont. Sounds digital to me (if you will excuse the pun).

 

[juxter1]

The human hearing is an analogue system.

The human brain is an analogue/digital hybrid system that we still don't know enough about to say for certain as to how it really works.

Digital sampling is a flawed system and will always be for as long as the standards set out when CD's were first invented. Anything that has to use filters can make an impact on the actual conversion back into an analogue sound that we actually hear. You only have to listen to several different CD players to realise that manufacurers create their own sound by tweaking the filters. Errors can also creep into the whole general sort of mish mash before we get to hear a reconstituted waveform that gets pumped into analogue amplifiers and analogue loudspeakers or headphones.

It is fairly obvious that anything that can affect the signal we hear is not always a good thing. Add in the terrible mixing of the music that most music has to go through and I begin to doubt that there will ever be a true way of hearing how the music really sounds without hearing live music, it's always going to be someones interpretation as to what we should be hearing.

This is also true of analogue recordings so we are stuck with it

 

[Covenanter]

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....

Amen to that.

Chris

 

[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.

The is an argument to be made that ears are in fact digital. Sound pressure waves are transferred into fluid flow in the cochlear. This in turn stimulates hairs, that in turn cause neurons to fire that send nerve impulses to the brain. The neurons are discrete - either they fire or they dont. Sounds digital to me (if you will excuse the pun).

So I do have 10 ears, always thought so....... :?

 

[Covenanter]

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.

The is an argument to be made that ears are in fact digital. Sound pressure waves are transferred into fluid flow in the cochlear. This in turn stimulates hairs, that in turn cause neurons to fire that send nerve impulses to the brain. The neurons are discrete - either they fire or they dont. Sounds digital to me (if you will excuse the pun).

So I do have 10 ears, always thought so....... :?

No you have two ears. It's a binary system!

Chris

 

[juxter1]

Until we reach a level where sampling rate is actually real time and not a fraction of it there can always be the possibility that some of the audio frequencies are being fudged or guessed at.

We need to move away from the old methods of sampling rates and bit depth, I'm sure that modern computers can deal with the maths required.

When it comes to recording studios, we are at their mercy regarding what they do with the instrument levels and amount of distortion or loudness levels introduced because someone thinks it sounds better to their ears.

 

[andyjm]

Until we reach a level where sampling rate is actually real time and not a fraction of it there can always be the possibility that some of the audio frequencies are being fudged or guessed at.

No there is not. Sample at twice the maximum frequency and you will get 100% of the information, no ifs, no buts.

This stuff is not intuitive I know, but that is how it works. Modern communication theory is based upon this, and it has been proved to be correct time and time again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

If you dont want to wade through the link, the summary is:

If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart.

In other words, sample at twice the maximum frequency, and you have got it all.....

 

[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.

The is an argument to be made that ears are in fact digital. Sound pressure waves are transferred into fluid flow in the cochlear. This in turn stimulates hairs, that in turn cause neurons to fire that send nerve impulses to the brain. The neurons are discrete - either they fire or they dont. Sounds digital to me (if you will excuse the pun).

So I do have 10 ears, always thought so....... :?

No you have two ears. It's a binary system!

Chris

Thats what I said, didn't I?

 

[chebby]

The oldest binary joke (and the only binary joke I hope).

 

[juxter1]

No, afraid not.

There are 10 types of people in the world, those who know binary and those who don't.

That's the only one I know

 

[letsavit2]

It is a emotional thing, Music is about memories, experiences and how it makes you feel, today I blasted faithless, sounds great on my system and reminded me of the music festivals that I have seen them at. Now CD worked just fine for faithless today and is the type of music (electronic) I have no concern to collect on vinyl.

Now Pink floyd, well that must be played on vinyl, its the law.....!

What about new music? The vast bulk of my listening is to new acts (or new material) that i have not heard before. To me it is essential that I hear the music as close to the original sound as possible.

As for Pink Floyd, as a teenager I missed school to see them at the Arts Lab and the UFO club, the last days of Sid Barratt, when he bothered to turn up. I also saw first ever live performances of Atom Heart Mother, DSOTM and WYWH, started to lose interest after this point and the dreadfull rubbish ("The Wall") that followed.

last album I purchased was daft punk and didn't even think about buying it on vinyl, only just got a turntable and for now it's only playing stuff I originally purchased on vinyl. think CD will stay my primary source.

cool you seeing floyd in the Sid days, he was long gone by the time I got into them, I'm only 39 years young agree the wall is rubbish, roger waters getting carried away!

 

[BigH]

It is a emotional thing, Music is about memories, experiences and how it makes you feel, today I blasted faithless, sounds great on my system and reminded me of the music festivals that I have seen them at. Now CD worked just fine for faithless today and is the type of music (electronic) I have no concern to collect on vinyl.

Now Pink floyd, well that must be played on vinyl, its the law.....!

What about new music? The vast bulk of my listening is to new acts (or new material) that i have not heard before. To me it is essential that I hear the music as close to the original sound as possible.

As for Pink Floyd, as a teenager I missed school to see them at the Arts Lab and the UFO club, the last days of Sid Barratt, when he bothered to turn up. I also saw first ever live performances of Atom Heart Mother, DSOTM and WYWH, started to lose interest after this point and the dreadfull rubbish ("The Wall") that followed.

last album I purchased was daft punk and didn't even think about buying it on vinyl, only just got a turntable and for now it's only playing stuff I originally purchased on vinyl. think CD will stay my primary source. cool you seeing floyd in the Sid days, he was long gone by the time I got into them, I'm only 39 years young agree the wall is rubbish, roger waters getting carried away!

Yes agree about Pink Floyd after Animals that was it for me.

For me the problem with vinyl is all the other noises you get with it apart from the music.

 

[letsavit2]

It is a emotional thing, Music is about memories, experiences and how it makes you feel, today I blasted faithless, sounds great on my system and reminded me of the music festivals that I have seen them at. Now CD worked just fine for faithless today and is the type of music (electronic) I have no concern to collect on vinyl.

Now Pink floyd, well that must be played on vinyl, its the law.....!

I thought multi-channel was the way to play DSOTM and WYWH?

i only have two ears and two speakers.

dont like sounds behind me, think being brought up in hackney makes you like that!

 

[MoJoe]

There was a bit of chat about mastering of CDs in this thread and as it turns out I have the Dylan CDs (John Wesley Harding) mastered in 2003 and the harmonica still is so inturusive and unbearable its enough to make me decide to seek out another album. Is my cdp and amp from 1990 to blame or do I need to buy it on wax?

As a newcomer to this field I have so many questions but I see other people asking best amp, best speakers etc who are lazy in finding out for themselves so I'm keeping my questions for the ones that need asking.

Thanks in advance.

 

[MoJoe]

Inturusive is how we say it where I come from. Not intrusive.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I have long fallen out of love with vinyl, never really got too involved with it, too expensive (to late) - and the fact no matter how well I cleaned the disk, I would never be able to listen to one full side of an album, having to clean the needle at some point.

it is about preference though. CD really does have supior dynamics and clarity and less 'floor' noise. I'd really love to hear some of the systems out there.

 

[davedotco]

Yes agree about Pink Floyd after Animals that was it for me.

For me the problem with vinyl is all the other noises you get with it apart from the music.

Then you need a better player.

One of the big advantages of a really good player is it's ability to somehow separate the noise from the music.

If you have never experienced this effect it is hard to describe, the noise is still there but on a really stable player it is often somewhat muted.

More importantly is the fact that the noise is now not part of the music, it does not appear in the soundstage, it is somehow separate and for some reason easily ignored.

Once heard it is not forgotton and hard to live without, one of the primary reasons that I gave up on vinyl.

 

[BigH]

Yes agree about Pink Floyd after Animals that was it for me.

For me the problem with vinyl is all the other noises you get with it apart from the music.

Then you need a better player.

One of the big advantages of a really good player is it's ability to somehow separate the noise from the music.

If you have never experienced this effect it is hard to describe, the noise is still there but on a really stable player it is often somewhat muted.

More importantly is the fact that the noise is now not part of the music, it does not appear in the soundstage, it is somehow separate and for some reason easily ignored.

Once heard it is not forgotton and hard to live without, one of the primary reasons that I gave up on vinyl.

Thanks and you maybe right but at the moment I don't want to spend £1,000s on a vinyl system.

 

[davedotco]

Yes agree about Pink Floyd after Animals that was it for me.

For me the problem with vinyl is all the other noises you get with it apart from the music.

Then you need a better player.

One of the big advantages of a really good player is it's ability to somehow separate the noise from the music.

If you have never experienced this effect it is hard to describe, the noise is still there but on a really stable player it is often somewhat muted.

More importantly is the fact that the noise is now not part of the music, it does not appear in the soundstage, it is somehow separate and for some reason easily ignored.

Once heard it is not forgotton and hard to live without, one of the primary reasons that I gave up on vinyl.

Thanks and you maybe right but at the moment I don't want to spend £1,000s on a vinyl system.

This is very much the issue, only very good players can manage that trick and they are serious money. As I said, the main reason I gave up vinyl.

 

[BigH]

There was a bit of chat about mastering of CDs in this thread and as it turns out I have the Dylan CDs (John Wesley Harding) mastered in 2003 and the harmonica still is so inturusive and unbearable its enough to make me decide to seek out another album. Is my cdp and amp from 1990 to blame or do I need to buy it on wax?

As a newcomer to this field I have so many questions but I see other people asking best amp, best speakers etc who are lazy in finding out for themselves so I'm keeping my questions for the ones that need asking.

Thanks in advance.

Steve Hoffman forum is probably a better site for record remastering than on here, also this Bob Dylan site maybe of interest: http://www.bobdylanisis.com/contents/en-uk/d94.html

It seems JWH is not that good on the 2003 remasters and your best bet is a mono recording, however these seem to be only available in mono box sets either LP or CD.

 

[Covenanter]

But even if you ignore the noise, it still remains an indisputable fact that vinyl does not, and indeed cannot, reproduce the original signal in the same way that a digital source can.

Chris

 

[BenLaw]

Inturusive is how we say it where I come from. Not intrusive.

If someone hasn't replied to you yet, you can edit your post.

 

[Frank Harvey]

But even if you ignore the noise, it still remains an indisputable fact that vinyl does not, and indeed cannot, reproduce the original signal in the same way that a digital source can.

Chris

Swings and roundabouts.

 

[MoJoe]

Thank you for directing me to that article on Dylan Remastered. I had done a couple of google searches to try and find the information but never got too far. I thought my Dylan album purchases were up to date but it seems not. If I download those albums as FLAC files I wouldn't feel too guilty not paying for them.

This forum is great. Thanks again.

 

[drummerman]

I think what has been said about technical accuracy of a good digital transcription over an analogue vinyl cut is correct.

The digital file will be more accurate.

As to the very subjective argument about musicality, things may not be so clear cut.

From ADM's 9.1 to Cambridge Audio's 840v2 components I have had here, none seemed overtly 'musical' to me compared to some other, less accurate systems. Not to paint in to broad a brush, some of these perhaps not-so-accurate systems were shall we say compromised too, that includes 'musicality'.

Perhaps its the low noise floor/ultra low distortion which can make for every micro detail's exposure? - No idea but perhaps a little even distortion, a slightly lower S/N ratio can help binding these notes and signals into a more cohesive whole, easier for the brain (my brain) to decipher whithout working to hard on putting it all together.

There is no doubt more to playback than accuracy. Anything which deals with emotions would be similar.

I too, by the way, tend to side on accuracy rather than a pink painted copy of it but have to admit that some of my better vinyl has an incredible enjoyment/emotional factor which makes it easier for me to connect with the artist.

regards