Why does vinyl (analog) sound better?

Risetime? That has to do with bandwidth. Unless you can hear above 22050 Hz, there is no benefit at all. That's how simple it is.

No, the redbook standard suffers from other problems. It has nothing to do with risetime.

Regards,
Jacco

 

I thought we were running out of popcorn... Carry on.............

 

Funny thing: common sense isn't always right. Aspects of sampling theory and digital audio are, for many people *counterintuitive*. That means they don't accord with common sense (despite being true).

I hesitate to bring quantum mechanics into the conversation (because it really has no bearing on audio qua audio, and every new age charlatan/scientific ignoramus likes to put 'quantum' in front of something to make it sound legit -- I'm looking at *you* Deepak ), but it's another example of something that tests as true, yet is offensive to 'common sense'.

What theory is this? A theory involving perfect transducers?

Yet our ears signal the brain with *digital* pulses. I feel so impure now.

 

Regards,
Jacco

 

Wise to read.

Regards,
Jacco

 

Because CD's are so fun to pick on.........

 

A cd player system should show an "overshoot" of 18 percent. If not, the brickwall filtering is altered and most probably the frequency response itself.

Regards,
Jacco

 

If your Adobe plugin allows searching, try looking for 'FIR'. Mentioned on page one, in fact. Later Lavry suggests the reader refer to introductory texts on digital signal processing, for more info on how FIR filters can be designed to provide nearly theoretical performance. Ringing is discussed throughout the paper.

People complain that these threads have all heat and no light (educational value). I've pointed to TWO REALLY GOOD EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES: Pohlmann's and Aldrich's books. Now here's a third, Lavry's white paper on sampling theory (written primarily to counter the idea higher sampling rates are necessarily better).

I wonder how many arguing here have actually gotten off their butts to edumacate themselves?

 

I asked the question since it is nowadays regarded as the problem. I am quite acquainted with the sampling theory and all the benefits of digital audio. But the ringing problem is still an issue. The pre and post replica's to be exact.

Regards,
Jacco

 

No it only discusses IIR filters, but we have had other papers sided here that go into a complete array of digital filters. As you and I both know the easiest way to get rid of the effects of a digital filter in the audio band is to jack up the sampling frequency so that you can move up the anti aliasing filter up in frequency and give it a more gentle slope. Welcome to the forum and play nice here, use your knowledge to help people.

 

I'm willing to accept the possibility that some people, myself included, like vinyl/analog playback because it introduces distortions that are pleasing to their ears, and that since these distortions are missing from the master tape and the digital disc made from it, we have a situation where particular listeners prefer the "less accurate" reproduction of what is on the master tape that vinyl provides. I doubt that it is that simple.

However, why should people care, and why should they read lengthy and exhaustive technical volumes about digital audio when their main goal is not to understand the technology in great detail, but rather to get the most enjoyment out of the music that they are listening to? I'm curious about the technology up to a certain point and like to understand what it is all about. But the most important thing to me is to enjoy the music and get the best perceived sound quality out of it. And if my perception is that "less accurate" or more of a certain kind of distortion is better, then so be it. It's ultimately about the final experience you have, isn't it? I don't understand why these threads always have to fill up with arguments that seem to be attempts to persuade people away from believing in their own experience and just enjoying it.

The original question was: Why does analog sound better? Reasons are proposed and then shot down by people who start with the premise that it does not sound better, nor can it possibly sound better because the theory says it can't. I understand now why the objectivist vs. subjectivist debates have been banned. It always comes down to this, under whatever guise or nominal topic it appears. Abstract and idealized theory versus human perception and experience. Does your worldview/philosophy determine your experience, or vice-versa?

 

Thanks. I will play nice.

The digital audio reproduction is about the IIR or FIR issue. I tend to the FIR solution, since it has a constant groupdelay. But this introduces a ripple in the frequency characteristic and this introduces a pre and post echo(s) in the timedomain.

Commercial implementations often use IIR filters as a solution. Because of chip area.

May be the compact disc is lost for ever in this respect and we need to go to higher sampling rates...But in a theoretical sense it is not common sense to conclude that cd sucks.

Regards,
Jacco

 

The statement should not be interpreted to mean vinyl. In the promotion of high-rez digital, the comparison to analog means high-quality analog studios using the best analog consoles and reel-to-reel tape machines (which tend to be favored by the majority of big-name pop/rock engineers/producers). Vinyl sounds nothing like an analog master tape.

 

Both. But it does not exclude each other. I am driven by a scientific way of working. With an open mind to begin with. Reality is too complex to grab in just one bold statement.

Regards,
Jacco

 

That's true. Science is a methodology, and one that has worked so well that is defines the only remaining intellectually acceptable knowledge paradigm for the modern world. I have sensed that there are folks who take it beyond a work approach though and make it into the sum total of their reality and an overarching personal philosophy or religion, and even associate it with morality, righteousness, and claim exclusive respectability for it. In other words it becomes an honored belief system in itself and something that people make an emotional commitment and allegiance to, and trust it more than anything else.

 

I wonder why pre-recorded open-reel tape has not entered into this debate. It certainly sounds much better than its vinyl counterpart. I know so because I still own a number of Barclay-Crocker open-reel tapes and three fully functional open-reel decks. The open-reel tapes also do not sound harsh like some CDs and have all the warmth of vinyl.

 

To the degree that they are indistinguishable?

 

If I ever get down to LA again, I'll take you up on it, but I've been in vinyl mastering rooms on both coasts and done this comparison before, and for me there were differences.

 

So your going to tell me that the arrival times of multiple reflections of the original sound (in the midrange, mind you) and the phase relations derived from those timing differences are not audible? Have you ever walked in front of a performer while they were playing, listened to the differences in sound dependent on your position relative to the performer and the room? Are you going to tell me that the accuracy of reproduction of the aggregate collection of various reverberations in live unamplified music (the one thing redbook is notorious for distorting) has nothing to do with rise time?

 

It's the truth...

 

Steve, Thank you so much. I am old enough to remember when I was a younger man and going to what eventually became HE 200X in NYC in the late 1980's. VAC and I believe VTL were there with their best gear and used pro Ampex RTR to demonstrate their gear. To this day that sound sticks in my head and when I hear the same sound on well made vinyl (like your DCC stuff) I simply smile.