Dr X Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 You sure a theorem about digital sampling rates also covers distortion in a purely analog system. No it says nothing about vinyl, the fact it's technically better (better dynamic range, lower noise floor) than vinyl is a side product/observation. We didn't need to invent vinyl to invent the CD.
proftournesol Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 But do they? well the 4 different transports I've tried do. Remember 'sounds' is a subjective experience. It may or may not be the case that they measure differently from each other. Perhaps that suggests that what is measured is valid, but is an incomplete investigation of the total experience. Subjective and objective are not antagonistic concepts but complimentary to each other
Drizt Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 well the 4 different transports I've tried do. Remember 'sounds' is a subjective experience. It may or may not be the case that they measure differently from each other. Perhaps that suggests that what is measured is valid, but is an incomplete investigation of the total experience. Subjective and objective are not antagonistic concepts but complimentary to each other Sorry, I don't want to seem argumentative but I have to disagree with you . Sounds could be 'objective' or 'subjective' depending on home much rigour is placed on the methodology used to come to the conclusion that it 'sounds' different. Casual sighted observation is a subjective opinion that it sounds different. An objective person would say in this case the person 'claims' it makes a difference. The claimed difference may in fact be non-existent. Without further investigation we would never know. Rigorous, non-sighted observations are an objective observations. This opinion can be reliably and repeatedly demonstrated. I am 'ONLY' talking about what is 'audible' (what the ears 'can' hear). I am not arguing about peoples subjective 'experiences'. But to be clear.... a subjective observation can not be used as proof that something does or does not exist.
ArthurDent Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 No it says nothing about vinyl, the fact it's technically better (better dynamic range, lower noise floor) than vinyl is a side product/observation. We didn't need to invent vinyl to invent the CD. And yet you wrote this... The nyquist theorem says that all audio information perceivable by humans can be captured and reconstructed while at the same time adding less audible distortions than vinyl. And no comments on the second part of my post, the part where I responded to you after you said there wasn't any difference between the formats. On the practical side as far as I know...experimentation has never revealed a case where someone has been able to demonstrate their ability to differentiate vinyl from a digital version in a properly controlled ABX test.
ArthurDent Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 ...the fact it's technically better (better dynamic range, lower noise floor) than vinyl is a side product/observation. So the suppossed technical superiority of CD all comes down to this
Orpheus Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 So the suppossed technical superiority of CD all comes down to this Not sure whether this is all that is being claimed. However, I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would dispute that it has a higher noise floor and not the same macro-dynamic range as opposed to CD.
Dr X Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) And yet you wrote this... You're just being a bit augmentative there, you know exactly what I mean. Yes I should have written it a tad more clearly but have since clarified what I wrote, you're just choosing to be a silly billy now. And no comments on the second part of my post, the part where I responded to you after you said there wasn't any difference between the formats. Let me clarify again again again...I know of no known demonstrations where vinyl has been differentiated from a (ADC to a DAC) of the same signal in an a properly controlled virtually instantaneous ABX switching test. Do you know of any? Please let us know if you do. Edited November 30, 2011 by Dr X
ArthurDent Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Not sure whether this is all that is being claimed. But they were the only things sited hence the question and I'm sure Dr X will be back soon to list everything else that makes CD better.
Dr X Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) But they were the only things sited hence the question and I'm sure Dr X will be back soon to list everything else that makes CD better. Until someone can come up with some evidence that CD is not a virtually transparent medium, there is nothing much else to talk about. Have you got any evidence to suggest vinyl is a virtually transparent medium? Watch out for that SNAP-CRACKLE-POP baby! Edited November 30, 2011 by Dr X Grammar
ozcal Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 If you are getting snap , crackle and pop to the point where it detracts from the performance the you are not taking proper care of your records
Drizt Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 If you are getting snap , crackle and pop to the point where it detracts from the performance the you are not taking proper care of your records Or like me, they are overly sensitive to it.
ozcal Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Or like me, they are overly sensitive to it. Ye , I know D , was just having a funny
Drizt Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Ye , I know D , was just having a funny Aren't we all
Catostylus Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Gordon's comment is certainly true of the previous owners of most of my LPs.
warrengday Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 The nyquist theorem says that all audio information perceivable by humans can be captured and reconstructed while at the same time adding less audible distortions than vinyl. Rubbish. Nyquist's theorem says if you want to reproduce frequency F by sampling it digitally you need to sample at >2F. Nothing more. It doesn't mention bit depth at all. Sampling with only a couple of bits will sound like horrible white noise regardless of sampling speed. Equally 24 bit is clearly vastly superior to 16 bit, which is all CD is. Also sending any signal through a ADC-DAC pair is very different from comparing with a CD recording. From having done it several times.
warrengday Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Until someone can come up with some evidence that CD is not a virtually transparent medium, there is nothing much else to talk about. CD isn't as enjoyable as listening to as a proper studio level digital recording (or vinyl) - I'm listening to a 24/192 as we speak and it clearly vastly more real than the 16/44 CD of the same performance, which I've also heard live. Depending on your definition of "virtually" anything could fit or nothing could fit. Edited November 30, 2011 by warrengday
Dr X Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Rubbish.Nyquist's theorem says if you want to reproduce frequency F by sampling it digitally you need to sample at >2F. Nothing more. It doesn't mention bit depth at all. Sampling with only a couple of bits will sound like horrible white noise regardless of sampling speed. Equally 24 bit is clearly vastly superior to 16 bit, which is all CD is. Also sending any signal through a ADC-DAC pair is very different from comparing with a CD recording. From having done it several times. You're right a couple of bits sounds pretty bad but seeing as though CD is 16 bit I didn't think it really needed mentioning, yawn. I'll ignore your subjective opinions because I'm not interested in them. Edited November 30, 2011 by Dr X Spelling
nofixedaddress Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Until someone can come up with some evidence that CD is not a virtually transparent medium, there is nothing much else to talk about. Sadly Nyquist theorem is not realistic for audio. For it to work and produce a transparent (i.e. perfect reproduction) for all frequencies below the 1/2 sample rate, the follows needs to occur. The wave sampled must be of infinite length. The wave must be sampled to an infinite resolution and use absolutly perfect timing. The equipment measuring the wave must be perfect and have no errors. The reconstruction equipment must also be perfect and contain no errors. The wave being sampled must contain no frequencies above the 1/2 sample nor any residual artefacts due to their removal. None of this is possible. If you want to use Nyquist as a tool to prove the superiority of digital, please show how none of the above failed conditions have no affect on the reconstructed signal in the audible spectrum. You will need to quantify the amount of distortion and the characteristic nature of that distortion. To make it difficult, Zenelectro had posted a while ago that digital (I think it was RBCD format) when placed on a scope will show a distorted HF. So the distorted HF maybe a good place to start. No one challenged Zen on that statement. I've just shown how Nyquist doesn't work perfectly- So the work is now yours to prove that it does. That is my challenge to you. You constantly challenge people to produce experiments to back up their statements, now I challenge you to quantify the amount of distortion inherent in RBCD process and prove that is absolutely not audible. NFA Edited November 30, 2011 by nofixedaddress
Drizt Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 ...and prove that is absolutely not audible. NFA There is only one method available that can 'prove' that.
ArthurDent Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 So it's not just old vinyl that sounds better than CD... http://www.cepro.com/article/dont_blame_the_format_for_bad_sound_blame_the_suits/ Vinyl with better dynamic range than CD!!!
proftournesol Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Sorry, I don't want to seem argumentative but I have to disagree with you .Sounds could be 'objective' or 'subjective' depending on home much rigour is placed on the methodology used to come to the conclusion that it 'sounds' different. Casual sighted observation is a subjective opinion that it sounds different. An objective person would say in this case the person 'claims' it makes a difference. The claimed difference may in fact be non-existent. Without further investigation we would never know. Rigorous, non-sighted observations are an objective observations. This opinion can be reliably and repeatedly demonstrated. I am 'ONLY' talking about what is 'audible' (what the ears 'can' hear). I am not arguing about peoples subjective 'experiences'. But to be clear.... a subjective observation can not be used as proof that something does or does not exist. Drizt surely it is subjective and objective. The objective part is the measurement - 'I can measure a difference' or rather a difference is measured by my instrument. The subjective part by necessity is ' I can hear a difference'. A methodology systematises and standardises the experience, but the experience of listening is purely subjective. The question digital advocates would be asking is 'why is it that if all the objective measurements show the clear superiority of digital reproduction in replicating the digitally encoded experience, do so many people subjectively prefer analog?' Is there an objective phenomenon that we have not measured, is the difference purely subjective preference, or is it both?'
Orpheus Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Prof, the answer is that if you only measure two things, being noise floor and macro-dynamic range, digital is superior to analogue. So far in this thread, no claim beyond this has plausibly made for the superiority of digital over vinyl.
proftournesol Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Prof, the answer is that if you only measure two things, being noise floor and macro-dynamic range, digital is superior to analogue.So far in this thread, no claim beyond this has plausibly made for the superiority of digital over vinyl. ....and once any measurement involves listening, the measurement is also subjective
metal beat Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Hmmm. I see this mas-debate is still going on. Well, you know where I stand. What sounds better? - clean looked after vinyl played with a correctly set up turntable. besides, it is so much more fun holding those nice big LP covers, reading the lyrics and basically being part of the music. back to the music
Drizt Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 No matter what you do or how you slice it, sighted testing is 'subjective'. To 'prove' you can actually hear a difference (that is not a placebo) effect you have to do 'objective' testing. Prof, let's break it down in to its most basic terms. Do you feel that a sighted test can 'prove' an 'audible' difference actually exists? If so, how do you know that it is not a placebo effect? How do you remove the chance that someone 'thinks' they hear a difference? I contend that it is impossible! (This is the heart of my argument - If you want to 'prove' what is 'audible' you have to do 'objective' testing). If someone 'thinks' something sounds better and they get enjoyment out of that, even if the difference is not real, I have ZERO problem with that. If someone wants to claim that what they hear is 'real', then I don't see the problem in asking for 'proof'. I hope I am not crossing any boundaries here. If so please let me know and I will stop posting. Drizt surely it is subjective and objective. The objective part is the measurement - 'I can measure a difference' or rather a difference is measured by my instrument. The subjective part by necessity is ' I can hear a difference'. A methodology systematises and standardises the experience, but the experience of listening is purely subjective. The question digital advocates would be asking is 'why is it that if all the objective measurements show the clear superiority of digital reproduction in replicating the digitally encoded experience, do so many people subjectively prefer analog?' Is there an objective phenomenon that we have not measured, is the difference purely subjective preference, or is it both?'
Recommended Posts