"Digital ... don't got no balls!!!."

[mark1101]

I'm a little disappointed here to see that while this thread is titled "digital...." that absolutely everyone responded with comparisons based on CDs. Why? CDs are one of the least expensive ways and certainly not anywhere near the highest quality way to play to digital music. So why not compare a high quality way to play digital music with vinyl, since vinyl is a high quality analog method?

What's a GOOD vinyl rig cost, 5 grand or more? If you gave me 5 grand or more to build a digital source system I wouldn't even think of using a CD player. I would use a "no moving part" system with pure digital source fed into a VERY high quality converter component or set of components, then on to amplification.

We see small scale, lower quality systems of this configuration already, the new IPods, and PCs with a lot of memory feeding decent soundcards.

Digital can be MUCH better than what CDs bring us. Most of us just haven't gone there yet, so we haven't heard about it much.

With the huge memories out there just getting bigger, it IS going there. Pretty soon there will not be a need for the CD, just a means for getting the data onto your PC or player and then just a high quality converter for the audiophile.

Look at the "source" sales. It's all downloaded now, baby. CD sales have plummented. You can download in lossless formats that already obsolete the CD. I do it all the time. I just don't have that expensive converter, so what do I do? Either play direct from my PC soundcard (lower quality), or burn CDs (better quality).

Digial is not just CDs. []

[Duke Spinner]

Great observation, Mark ..

I use my Omnifx ... for 80% OF MY PLAYBACK ..

nOOOOO cd ....

[jdm56]

"Still, on purely objective terms no LP rig playing the best virgin heavy-vinyl can compare to any properly functioning CD player. That is pure and simple fact. Frequency response? CD wins hands down. Wow and flutter, S/N ratio, channel separation, distortion, etc, etc -no contest!"

If I have understood you correctly you have never owned a decent rig and presumably have never heard one. If that is the case - how can you comment?

Your pure and simple facts are simply - wrong.

"Frequency response? CD wins hands down. Wow and flutter, S/N ratio, channel separation, distortion, etc, etc -no contest! "

For arguements on frequency response look at the recent thread on compression. Never mind what the medium is theorectically capable of - what do you actually get for your money?

Wow and flutter? What exactly do you think the difference is between a decent turntable and an old nasty? Could it be the elmination of wow and flutter?

S/N Ratio: what is the source material for this CD of yours? Could it be - tape? Guess where most of the noise comes from (on your example of pristine virgin vinyl). If it is there on the tape and your CD is faithfully reproducing what it receives then it is there on the CD. If it is absent from the CD then there has been some serious manipulation of the signal to remove it. I wonder what else was lost during that process?

Channel separation. What do you mean here? How is it that the soundstage of a vinyl playback system is so much larger and more credible than a CD based system? Don't believe me? Do take a listen to a good setup and report back. See if you can find one that can switch from one format to another quickly to aid your comparisons. Obviously having the same album on CD and record is a must here - but do several - we dont want people coming back saying that the one you chose was simply a poor CD.

Distortion? Not my experience. Remember we are talking about a decent setup and a virgin vinyl record here. Unless there was a fault in the manufacturing there should be no distortion as long as you have a capable phono stage that properly follows the RIAA equalization curve.

"So exactly what, objectively speaking, does a record player spinning vinyl do better than CD?"

Play music.

Play music? Are you kidding? I'm talking objective comparison here, not personal perceptions. In what quantifiable measure of performance does a vinyl system of ANY price beat a typical run-of-the-mill CD player? None that I know of, except high frequency extension, which with some cartridges and new or pristine LP's may extend beyond the CD's 20kHz limit. But can you tell me of one other than that?

[pauln]

"Still, on purely objective terms no LP rig playing the best virgin heavy-vinyl can compare to any properly functioning CD player. That is pure and simple fact. Frequency response? CD wins hands down. Wow and flutter, S/N ratio, channel separation, distortion, etc, etc -no contest!"

If I have understood you correctly you have never owned a decent rig and presumably have never heard one. If that is the case - how can you comment?

Your pure and simple facts are simply - wrong.

"Frequency response? CD wins hands down. Wow and flutter, S/N ratio, channel separation, distortion, etc, etc -no contest! "

For arguements on frequency response look at the recent thread on compression. Never mind what the medium is theorectically capable of - what do you actually get for your money?

Wow and flutter? What exactly do you think the difference is between a decent turntable and an old nasty? Could it be the elmination of wow and flutter?

S/N Ratio: what is the source material for this CD of yours? Could it be - tape? Guess where most of the noise comes from (on your example of pristine virgin vinyl). If it is there on the tape and your CD is faithfully reproducing what it receives then it is there on the CD. If it is absent from the CD then there has been some serious manipulation of the signal to remove it. I wonder what else was lost during that process?

Channel separation. What do you mean here? How is it that the soundstage of a vinyl playback system is so much larger and more credible than a CD based system? Don't believe me? Do take a listen to a good setup and report back. See if you can find one that can switch from one format to another quickly to aid your comparisons. Obviously having the same album on CD and record is a must here - but do several - we dont want people coming back saying that the one you chose was simply a poor CD.

Distortion? Not my experience. Remember we are talking about a decent setup and a virgin vinyl record here. Unless there was a fault in the manufacturing there should be no distortion as long as you have a capable phono stage that properly follows the RIAA equalization curve.

"So exactly what, objectively speaking, does a record player spinning vinyl do better than CD?"

Play music.

Play music? Are you kidding? I'm talking objective comparison here, not personal perceptions. In what quantifiable measure of performance does a vinyl system of ANY price beat a typical run-of-the-mill CD player? None that I know of, except high frequency extension, which with some cartridges and new or pristine LP's may extend beyond the CD's 20kHz limit. But can you tell me of one other than that?

[ben.]

Play music? Are you kidding? I'm talking objective comparison here, not personal perceptions. In what quantifiable measure of performance does a vinyl system of ANY price beat a typical run-of-the-mill CD player? None that I know of, except high frequency extension, which with some cartridges and new or pristine LP's may extend beyond the CD's 20kHz limit. But can you tell me of one other than that?

Sure. That's easy as pie - resolution. Not that objectivity has much to do with the issue...

[DrWho]

And how do you define resolution? Cuz good digital has nearly infinite

resolution within its bandwidth...We just went over the mathematical

proof for this in class today. I won't even go into the resolution of the LP, but it's far from infinite.

[jdm56]

Play music? Are you kidding? I'm talking objective comparison here, not personal perceptions. In what quantifiable measure of performance does a vinyl system of ANY price beat a typical run-of-the-mill CD player? None that I know of, except high frequency extension, which with some cartridges and new or pristine LP's may extend beyond the CD's 20kHz limit. But can you tell me of one other than that?

Sure. That's easy as pie - resolution. Not that objectivity has much to do with the issue...

How do you quantify resolution in an analog medium? I would think frequency response and s/n ratio would be best. CD frequency response is typically flat 20-20000Hz while s/n ratio is generally around 90dB. LP frequency response is nowhere near as flat; 25-20000Hz +/-3dB would be very good performance though not the best absolutely achievable. S/N ratios of LP playback generally fall in the 55-65dB range. Am I missing something?

[DrWho]

How do you quantify resolution in an analog medium?

You can compare the input signal being stored onto the medium to the

output signal being read off the medium. The medium where the output

best matches the input is the better medium.

Btw, I should mention that in real practice digital comes nowhere near an infinite resolution.

[ben.]

Wow, for digiguys, you need to brush up on your terminology (and what school do you attend Who?). It's not an issue of how I define resolution. You know the number before the word bit? Dat dere is da resolution, hey. You line em up dere side by each...

So... this is a matter of textebook specification. Objective measurement? Not my preferred basis for evaluation, but if you insist on pressing the issue... The number of bits (or "word length" for you guys that are new to digital) determines the number of discrete levels of amplitude available in a digital signal for any given sample. This is referred to as the resolution. If you're still confused, call Sweetwater and tell them you're thinking of buying a digital recorder and ask them to explain the concept. They may treat you like a drummer, but at least they're earning a living in the meantime.

So, the resolution of vinyl you ask? Infinite. Or at the very least, it would correspond to the physical limitations at a microscopic level of the stylus when compared to the speed of the groove moving past the stylus.

I wasn't talking about S/N or frequency response, though there are surely arguments to be made that quality vinyl reproduction can surpass redbook in those categories as well. 24/96? well, that's probably another story if the source is not compromised along the way...

[ben.]

Crossed posts there, Who, but I'll leave my statements as I wrote them. I'm glad that you at least recognize the limitations of digital resolution. However, I'm still troubled by your assertion that one can objectively ascertain which is a better medium by comparing source signal to output and thinking that is the whole shot.

I think that even though vinyl reproduction adds information that is not on the recording and obfuscates other information that is, what it does right matters more to our brains than the little screw ups.

Forget about using what is on paper as an absolute assessment of quality. You are being taught about those quantifiable parameters because they do provide valuable information, but they don't tell the whole story. Think of it like first semester written music theory. You learn how Bach and his contemporaries wrote because it is useful, not because it encompasses the whole truth of music. Is it useful? Should be. Is it defining? No. Hendrix matters too.

[DrWho]

Wow, for digiguys, you need to brush up on your

terminology (and what school do you attend Who?). It's not an

issue of how I define resolution. You know the number before the word bit? Dat dere is da resolution, hey. You line em up dere side by each...

I'm in the ECE (electrical and computer engineering college) at

UIUC...and I think we're using the same term for different things, but

I know where you're going with the bit rate. However, there are certain

criteria under which you can still achieve a perfect reproduction of

the original signal and most of the audio spectrum falls within that

window...or at least that's what they tell us [] I have seen numerous

comparisons on the same osciliscope between analog signals and analog

signals with an AD/DA conversion thrown in the middle and I'm yet to

see a difference.

[Rivendell61]

Ben,

You are essentially correct. But the error in digital is defined by the noise floor.

It is a myth to think that digital captures some 'less resolved' more 'broken' or estimated wave form than analog--it captures it exactly--within the bandwidth prescribed by the sample rate. And to the resolution of the noise floor of the system.

Mark

[ben.]

Wow, for digiguys, you need to brush up on your terminology (and what school do you attend Who?). It's not an issue of how I define resolution. You know the number before the word bit? Dat dere is da resolution, hey. You line em up dere side by each...

I'm in the ECE (electrical and computer engineering college) at UIUC...and I think we're using the same term for different things, but I know where you're going with the bit rate. However, there are certain criteria under which you can still achieve a perfect reproduction of the original signal and most of the audio spectrum falls within that window...or at least that's what they tell us [] I have seen numerous comparisons on the same osciliscope between analog signals and analog signals with an AD/DA conversion thrown in the middle and I'm yet to see a difference.

Southern Ill, right? I know a guy in a band called the Rumrunners down there. Based in Carbondale, I think...

Anyway, keep in mind in all things that measurements only take a snapshot. They can be very useful, but have their limitations. A photo of a flower can be very pleasing and provide a sense of what that flower is really like, but it does not convey the totality of that flower. With music reproduction, we're all choosing what is left out or added. The scope is a very crude tool when compared to your ears and brain.

[ben.]

Ben,

You are essentially correct. But the error in digital is defined by the noise floor.

It is a myth to think that digital captures some 'less resolved' more 'broken' or estimated wave form than analog--it captures it exactly--within the bandwidth prescribed by the sample rate. And to the resolution of the noise floor of the system.

Mark

Well, first of all you qualify it by the bandwidth prescribed by the sample rate, which analog does not suffer from.

But anyway... given a waveform expressed graphically in the traditional way... Amplitude is in the vertical plane, and time is horizontal. Everyone can agree that the horizontal is limited by the sample rate. So we have some distortion of the waveform in that way.

How does the format overcome the limits of the vertical plane imposed by the word length? There are only so many numbers available within 16, 20, 24 or whatever bits you may have.... This limitation results in distortion of the waveform in the vertical plane when expressed graphically.

Honestly, I don't know what you mean by "to the resolution of the noise floor of the system." I have a feeling that the term "resolution" may be a bit misunderstood and used in a broader context than it should be.

[Rivendell61]

What is meant is that there is no 'distortion' or error in the waveform that is above the noise floor. The 'error' is below that 96db (or lower in 16 bit with dither) floor. It is the noise. Above that floor the digitized form is identical to the incoming signal.

So you see how very small the error ('lack of resolution') is in modern digital.

Mark

[ben.]

What is meant is that there is no 'distortion' or error in the waveform that is above the noise floor. The 'error' is below that 96db (or lower in 16 bit with dither) floor. It is the noise. Above that floor the digitized form is identical to the incoming signal.

So you see how very small the error ('lack of resolution') is in modern digital.

Mark

There's a difference between "very small" and "no error". It excludes the use of the word "identical", to be sure...

[DrWho]

crossing posts again, lol

I think that even though vinyl reproduction adds

information that is not on the recording and obfuscates other

information that is, what it does right matters more to our brains than

the little screw ups.

Forget about using what is on paper as an

absolute assessment of quality. You are being taught about those

quantifiable parameters because they do provide valuable information,

but they don't tell the whole story..

What does the vinyl "do right" that analog tape doesn't do right? The

reason I ask is because my experience with high end reel to reel still

doesn't always better mediocre digital.

I must confess though that I kinda enjoy arguing for the digital side

just cuz it's fun to apply stuff we're learning in school. But when I'm

actually working in the studio I see both mediums as tools that each

have their own advantages and disadvantages. So I'm well aware that

there is more to the story...but my engineering mind still tells me

that we should be able to quantify the rest of the story too. In fact,

one of my favorite things about ECE is that they are pushing the

students to push the envelope and challenge everything being

taught...and the profs even come straight out and say that all the

models are completely false, but they work good enough and are a good

way to teach underlying principles (the goal being that we will

revolutionize everything). Anyways, I actually prefer to keep most

everything analog all the way up until the final mixdown, though I'll

usually have a few channels tracked to digital because of the nature of

the instrument (for example, vocals and guitar sound way better when

run through tape - you have to be very careful with drums though, and

the majority of tape isn't very accurate below 30, 40Hz which makes it

a bad medium for very deep bass guitar and synths...im not saying

analog can't handle it, just that digital usually does a better job).

And for what it's worth, I'm dying to hear something that sounds better

than the best of digital. Greece is a bit far of a trip, but if I ever

make it over to the east coast I know there are a bunch of guys dying

to prove me wrong []

(hey, maybe I can catch a ride after the pilgrimage and then just fly

back to Indy...with student discounts a single one-way flight should be

rather cheap).

[DrWho]

But anyway... given a waveform expressed graphically

in the traditional way... Amplitude is in the vertical

plane, and time is horizontal. Everyone can agree that the

horizontal is limited by the sample rate. So we have some

distortion of the waveform in that way.

There is actually no distortion in the horizontal plane of the graph

because we are operating within a fixed bandwidth. In just the same way

that we can derive the function of an Nth order polynomial with only N

points, we can fully specify the input function because the frequency

bandwidth is limited (in other words, we're dealing with frequencies

between 0 and 22,100 Hz).

The problem you're talking about with the amplitude occurs when bits

are trying to be assigned to represent the different voltages. I

haven't sat down and done the math myself, but I have been told that

the amplitude gaps in digital are on the same order as the physical

limitations of any analog medium...though the analog mediums definetly

express these "gaps" in different ways (the whole "rounding effect").

But assuming 100dB of dynamic range on a CD, you're looking at the gaps

being 0.00152587890625dB wide with a CD. Last I checked, 1dB was hard

to hear let alone 0.002dB. I would sooner invest in expensive cables

than I would moving up to a better medium []

(though I can see how the .002 quickly adds up).

[PrestonTom]

Well, so far this discussion has confused a number of issues.

Sampling rate (along with the reconstruction filter) will determine the bandwidth reproduced. This may in fact be wider than what was originally recorded, so the effective bandwidth reproduced could be smaller. No comparison: CDs have better bandwidth capability. Is this a factor for your enjoyment? Good question since there is relatively little energy in the music as you get to the higher frequencies. Even if there is energy, males living in an industrialized society probably have, or will, have less hearing sensitivity to these frequencies.

Number of bits will determine one possible noise floor. This is defined as quantization noise and will be about 90 -100 dB down. This is the definition of resolution when you describe digital encoding/decoding and is proportional to 6dB per bit (more bits the better & historically referred to as "word length"). This is not much noise; however, it ends up not being the limiting noise. Noise in your listening room will raise this "floor" by 10s of dB. Even in a quiet room there will still be "noise" and distortion from the electronics and also produced by the mechanical transduction within the speaker. Back to the issue of vinyl vs digital (and ignoring what ever compression and levels the engineer may have dialed in - which could be significant): CDs again will measure better both for a lower noise floor and probably a greater dynamic range. Will you be able to always appreciate the benefit? Good question, depends on the recording, electronics and noise within your room. This caveat is not trivial.

If it is not clear enough already, these are limiting cases. What ever the material was to begin with will determine whether a particular CD will sound "better" or worse than vinyl. This is very much a function of the recording engineer etc. Even if it is the "same" material (e.g. Miles Davis, Kind of Blue) they may have been re-mastered very differently when re-released. So it is difficult to compare.

Beyond this recording issue comes the issue of reproduction. Various benefits of digital (or deficits of vinyl) can certainly be masked during the playback. Most of us have a surprisingly high "noise floor" in our living rooms and the softer passages (if recorded properly) will be obscured. Add to this the various forms of distortion that occur in the amp and speaker (which is the weak link - highest source of some kinds of distortion), then the dynamics & S/N ratio afforded by the CD will be lost.

Incidentally, the comparably high levels of distortion during electrical to mechanical transduction (the speaker) is why I am so high on high-efficiency speakers. It is the one chance we have really clean up the signal.

Good Luck,

-Tom

[3dzapper]

"What does the vinyl "do right" that analog tape doesn't do right? The reason I ask is because my experience with high end reel to reel still doesn't always better mediocre digital."

Home analog 1/2" tape players are in no way the equivelant of studio 1" mastering recorders. The magnetic gap might be different, the tracks narrower, the saturation levels lower, the speed slower. The more tracks that were put on a home recorder the lower the ultimate fidelity. A unidirectional 1/2" machine has two tracks nearly 1/4" wide ( broadcast standard), 4 track bi-directional stereo 1/8", a quad track stereo bi-directional has 1/16" tracks about the same as an audio cassette. It's only advantage is tape speed.

Vinyl and remixed CDs are taken from the wide fast master tape. Most likely on a 30"/sec machine with 8 1/4" tracks and narrow highly saturated magnetic gaps.

Why can vinyl sound better than CDs? CDs are two dimentional. Their strenght is the large dynamic range up and down, 1s and 0s. LPs are, at the least 4 dimentional. Up, down, left, right and also to a degree as the cutter head swings in its arc, other phase relationships are created. That is where the advantage of analog lies and why analog produces a better soundstage image, phasing. Things like decay, ambiance and tonal interactions between metal and wood are better captured on vinyl by their various phase relationships.

I have demo'ed my system for a number of people by sync'ing an LP and the SACD version of an album like Santana's "Abraxas" or Brubeck's "Take Five". Without a doubt, the vinyl version, even with a higher noise floor, is superior with the sole exception of a click here and there. The noise floor is not evident as it is below the background level of both LP and SACD.

If digital recording was in fact superior to vinyl, all the money spent and effort by audio companies to equal the sound produced by analog would cease immediately. Instead "new" digital formats are constantly being developed in an attempt to equal vinyl reproduction.

Rick