Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 67

Thread: Perfecting Sound Forever

  1. #1
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886

    Perfecting Sound Forever

    That is the title of a book, published in 2009 or so, that I obtained recently on the used market. I heard about it from an old NPR interview with the author (Greg Milner) I uncovered online. I have posted this on a new thread as I believe this is not a technical reference per se. It is a fascinating history of music reproduction, emphasis on recording. It is exhaustively researched with a great deal of primary source work. It reinforces some episodes and corrects others. That and its thoroughness are why I find it so useful. Most importantly, it always gets the big picture. It is, IMO, a great read too.

    One thing I heard in the radio program I wanted to share (with a quote from the book) is about the fidelity of vinyl disks. I have, to repeat myself from other posts, an audio rig of unusual accuracy and like it that way. When I have heard apples to apples comparisons of vinyl and digital sources (CDs, downloads and streaming in 16/44.1 or higher), I have consistently noticed that the vinyl is softer sounding. Less detailed. Rounded edges. Missing some information that has nothing to do with artifacts and all that. It is easily verifiable that engineering has shown vinyl to be 13 or 14 bit equivalent capable at the most, and having lower equivalent sampling rates than CDs, for instance.

    I prefer the digital myself. Many prefer the vinyl source. All fine and nothing needs any defense or argument. What I am tired of is vinyl being touted as being more accurate. Pleasurable, sure. That's personal and unscientific. But more accurate? Here is the quote.

    To give it a little context, Bob Woods and others at Telarc were about to become the first commercial Soundstream adopters. Woods researched vinyl extensively.

    "We learned one very clear thing about LPs," Woods says. "All you gotta do is take the blank lacquer. have no signal coming down, cut a series of silent grooves, put it on to a turntable and what do you get? You get" - he makes a soft hissing sound - "a nice, soft, round pink noise. Everything you're listening to on an LP is being heard through that filter of pink noise. And so it has the tendency to feather the edges of things. It gives the record a sense of a little warmth. Violins sound like really special violins. But if you stand in front of a real violin, it's got some grit. It's got a little edge to it."

    The author goes on to say that digital tends to sound like real life but record buyers like the sound of records. In the radio interview, the author revealed that he loves the sound of vinyl and usually prefers it, so this is all coming from a believer in vinyl, not a skeptic.

    I am relieved to know that I am not imagining things when I notice how "soft" vinyl sounds. Anyway, good book, for history as well as facts.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  2. #2
    Senior Member BMWCCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,756
    I hadn't thought of what vinyl produces as a background and how it affects the sound quality but this makes perfectly good sense. It explains why vinyl-lovers love vinyl while explaining why I, too, prefer the digital source.

    Not that I feel vindicated because I could care less. I own three turntables and several disc players but I always turn to the digital source. I'd like to think many hi-fi buffs my age have had it with cleaning LPs, but that's just not so. I'd rather drop in 80-minutes of music and listen than spend time preening and cleaning styli. I gave the inventor of the Discwasher a big "atta-boy" when we met prior to the introduction of his invention, because I was already fed up with the chore of preparing an LP for listening. Of course this was before the introduction of the CD. From that point I seldom looked back and now the mastering of CDs has overcome the failed early versions and even Jazz from the 50's and 60's sound fantastic remastered to digital and presented on CD.
    ". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers

  3. #3
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    It is easily verifiable that engineering has shown vinyl to be 13 or 14 bit equivalent capable at the most, and having lower equivalent sampling rates than CDs, for instance.
    Actually I would suggest that vinyl is closer to 11 Bit! The bit depth is directly related to signal to noise ratio... vinyl is typically in the 45-60dB range for signal to noise, CDs are about 90dB (Theoretically 96.33dB is possible) and 24 bit audio is typically around 124dB (Theoretically 144.49dB is possible).

    While we can argue that bit depth is resolution, it is only one type of resolution. There are errors caused in the analog signal chain and different errors cased by the digital chain... take your pick.

    Widget

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Leesburg, VA
    Posts
    322
    I suspect the background noise of vinyl also tends to cover up any deficiencies in the recording, or in the playback equipment.

    Francis
    Oppo BDP-95 DCX-2496 RMX-850 Parasound A21 First Watt J2 Dayton RSS390HF-4 MTM Quads of SEAS W18E001 511Bs TAD TD-2002

  5. #5
    RIP 2021 SEAWOLF97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    in "managed decline"
    Posts
    10,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    . It is easily verifiable that engineering has shown vinyl to be 13 or 14 bit equivalent capable at the most, and having lower equivalent sampling rates than CDs, for instance.
    How does that work ? , since vinyl actually has real world continual 100% sampling
    Some kind of happiness is measured out in miles

  6. #6
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,740
    Quote Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97 View Post
    How does that work ? , since vinyl actually has real world continual 100% sampling
    I must have read over the bit you're quoting to quickly the first time I read it. I think Clark is confusing bit depth and sampling frequency.

    Ckark, can you clarify?


    Widget

  7. #7
    Maron Horonzakz
    Guest
    Using a heated cutting stylus reduces the background hiss quit a bit,,

  8. #8
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    I must have read over the bit you're quoting to quickly the first time I read it. I think Clark is confusing bit depth and sampling frequency.

    Ckark, can you clarify?

    Widget
    I'm no engineer, but I was speaking to limitations. The continuous process of recording analog electrical phenomenon has, like everything else, limitations every step of the way. Microphones have become very good, tape's limitations and distortions are well known. The processes involved in cutting disk masters, stamping, and all the other steps to produce a vinyl record, and the playback process all necessarily fall short of reality.

    The sum of all this can be compared to any other system of producing the same intended result. What is the deviation, the distortion, of reality where the sound is reproduced for listeners? This can be compared. That is why I used the term EQUIVALENT. As bit depth can be compared to analog re: signal to noise, so can the distortion - the shortcomings - of analog recording ACCURACY be compared to sampling rate limitations. How much does the recorded and manufactured media's analog output differ from what was being recorded? This comparison also favors digital over analog capture, apples to apples. Reduce the examination to just the capture and it still favors digital for accuracy.

    The information can be, and is, sampled so frequently it overwhelms the limitations of any analog process we have developed. As much as I love silver based photography I have to concede that digital can capture more information. The practical limits of present technology barely limit digital resolution at all. In music or images. Thank goodness Harry Nyquist was able to tell us how much is good enough, or we would be going nuts with this. Oh, right, audiophiles are. 24/192 downloads, anyone?
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Leesburg, VA
    Posts
    322
    FWIW, Analog-to-Digital converters and Digital-to-Analog converters are often specified for Effective Number of Bits, ENOB. ENOB is essentially the SINAD (signal to noise and distortion ratio) in digital terms:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_number_of_bits

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINAD

    http://www.analog.com/static/importe...als/MT-003.pdf

    Francis
    Oppo BDP-95 DCX-2496 RMX-850 Parasound A21 First Watt J2 Dayton RSS390HF-4 MTM Quads of SEAS W18E001 511Bs TAD TD-2002

  10. #10
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    The sum of all this can be compared to any other system of producing the same intended result. What is the deviation, the distortion, of reality where the sound is reproduced for listeners? This can be compared....
    It isn't an easy comparison. Every remix be it different vinyl offerings of the same album or the SACD version, the CD version, the updated CD version, etc. all sound "different". I am not sure how to establish truth.


    Widget

  11. #11
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886
    I think the answer to that question lies up a realm or two above formats. Truth in sound will always be relative depending on choices that are being made, and have been since Thomas Edison. These choices, intentions really, are made by the listener as well as the purveyors and technicians. The most important of these choices are profound, not technical. Even listeners pursuing exact reproduction are each making assumptions that have more than one possible answer. At some point one encounters concepts like why we listen. Not ordinary topics of conversation, these concepts, but they inform everything downstream and always have. This is admirably laid out in the book I recommended.

    To break down my long, rambling answer, digital can throw more detail and finess all night long but analogue, to spell it ostentatiously, has to run out of gas at some point. At least now and in the foreseeable future. Until a quantum leap in related technology appears, if it ever can, analogue is fighting a losing battle in this respect, and from behind. It certainly has its charms and may even be preferred by most, but it does not have a technical leg to stand on anymore. That said, at this point in time it is just not about that for most listeners, casual or involved. As you well know!
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Christchurch, NZ
    Posts
    1,400
    I think the main reason analogue is losing out to digital has nothing to do with the quality of sound. The main reason is cost. Digital processing can be made to sound good with a handful of cheap components. However, analogue costs quite a lot of money for a good system. As for what sounds better, everyones ears are different so one mans good is another mans crap. The debate will rage on until the end of time.

    Allan.

  13. #13
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Allanvh5150 View Post
    I think the main reason analogue is losing out to digital has nothing to do with the quality of sound. The main reason is cost. Digital processing can be made to sound good with a handful of cheap components. However, analogue costs quite a lot of money for a good system. As for what sounds better, everyones ears are different so one mans good is another mans crap. The debate will rage on until the end of time.
    I think you nailed it on the head... that and convenience. Even spinning a CD is more convenient than playing a vinyl album as you can hear an entire album without getting up or if track 6 is a stinker, you just pop over it. Now with music servers you can create a playlist of your favorite songs, program an entire day's listening or what ever suits your fancy and never take your hand out of the Doritos bag.

    Of course none of this speaks to today's music listener who doesn't even buy their music... it magically streams for free.


    Widget

  14. #14
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    To break down my long, rambling answer, digital can throw more detail and finess all night long but analogue, to spell it ostentatiously, has to run out of gas at some point. At least now and in the foreseeable future. Until a quantum leap in related technology appears, if it ever can, analogue is fighting a losing battle in this respect, and from behind. It certainly has its charms and may even be preferred by most, but it does not have a technical leg to stand on anymore. That said, at this point in time it is just not about that for most listeners, casual or involved. As you well know!
    This is a purely subjective conversation, but I feel subjective can also be valid.

    I am not sure if your and my differing personal views on this are due to my having access to an exceptional analog playback chain or it is a matter of personal preference, but we are definitely on opposite sides on this one. Many months ago you made a thoughtful post along these lines and I meant to respond but never had the time. In gathering data for my response, I collected a number of SACDs, CDs, and vinyl albums of the same performances and carefully listened to them and took notes.

    Since few here have the patience to read a lengthy posting of my experiences, I'll spare you all... but the essence of what I perceived was that CDs tended to have a more center focused "mono" vocal with instruments spread nicely across the sound stage, but far less stage depth and sense of space between the instruments or singers. Vinyl tended to have a bit of a fatter bottom more diffuse vocal placement and far more stage depth. (This stage depth and diffuse vocal placement was greatly reduced on vinyl records from the early to mid '80s that were originally digitally recorded.) SACD was generally between the Vinyl and CD but in my system where I don't have a stellar SACD player (I'm using an older Lexicon DVD/SACD player that I believe is a modified Marantz) SACD performance is closer to that of CD. When I borrowed a very high end SACD player ($15K Mark Levinson) the SACD performance was much closer to vinyl.

    Those comments are a distillation of many careful listening sessions. I did find examples where the CD has a fatter more full bottom end than the vinyl album and many newer CDs and vinyl albums sound quite similar.


    Widget

  15. #15
    Maron Horonzakz
    Guest
    WIDGET... My experience was mostly classicle recording ,,The StLouis PHILHARMONIC and St LOUIS SYMPHONY ORCH..25 years.... You mention sound stage and sound depth image,, Our mics where hung from above,,,Plus I have many photos of other orchestras mic placements the same.....And you cant get SOUND STAGE OR IMAGE THAT WAY..,,Also multi micing destroyed that image and soudstage,,,,

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. JBL67000 ranked 4th in 2012-2013 stereo sound golden sound award
    By martin_wu99 in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 06-05-2013, 10:38 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-28-2011, 10:30 AM
  3. Return to Forever Returns
    By Rusnzha in forum Music
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-20-2009, 09:03 AM
  4. 123A surrounds last forever?
    By Mitch Noble in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-11-2005, 03:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •