# Why Buy A Turntable...A Discussion Continued



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Try listening to a better quality turntable with a good cartridge and you'll find that it does, indeed, sound better than a CD - just my humble opinion.


+1. A table well done can reproduce a 50khz tone which equates to a 100khz sampling rate based on the Nyquist Theorem. That is over 2X the resolution of the 44.1khz sampling rate of CD. Analog is warmer and smoother like real instruments. Digital can be harsh and edgy.

_MODERATOR'S NOTE: THIS SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF A THREAD ABOUT QUALITY PRODUCTS GENERALLY. IT HAS BEEN MOVED HERE AND SET APART FROM THAT CONVERSATION TO ALLOW THIS RATHER DETAILED -- THOUGH OFTEN OFF-THE-ORIGINAL-TOPIC DISCUSSION -- TO CONTINUE._


----------



## RJmaiorano (Feb 12, 2007)

Artisan Fan said:


> +1. A table well done can reproduce a 50khz tone which equates to a 100khz sampling rate based on the Nyquist Theorem. That is over 2X the resolution of the 44.1khz sampling rate of CD. Analog is warmer and smoother like real instruments. Digital can be harsh and edgy.


+2.... While not germane to the thread, the 'warmth' that accompanies a vinyl record as opposed to digital lies in the breakup of the sound waves. Essentially in the fact that natural sound is Analog and continous.

Analog is not broken into smallers units... it as a continious flow of the sound waves, it is smooth. On the other hand digital, as in a CD, is broken up into 44,000 smaller units per second (I could be wrong on the exact #)... and with MP3 it is even worse, with every fourth unit removed so as to better compress the sound. Thus it is more difficult for a brain to absorb the sound. While it is not perceptable, our brain actually fills in the missing sound in digital and thus actually fatigues the brain, making it less enjoyable to listen to. I recent study actually proved this through brain imagining and just my luck I can't find a citation, I'll try and find it and bore you guys some more:icon_smile_wink:...


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

RJmaiorano said:


> +2.... While not germane to the thread, the 'warmth' that accompanies a vinyl record as opposed to digital lies in the breakup of the sound waves. Essentially in the fact that natural sound is Analog and continous.
> 
> Analog is not broken into smallers units... it as a continious flow of the sound waves, it is smooth. On the other hand digital, as in a CD, is broken up into 44,000 smaller units per second (I could be wrong on the exact #)... and with MP3 it is even worse, with every fourth unit removed so as to better compress the sound. Thus it is more difficult for a brain to absorb the sound. While it is not perceptable, our brain actually fills in the missing sound in digital and thus actually fatigues the brain, making it less enjoyable to listen to. I recent study actually proved this through brain imagining and just my luck I can't find a citation, I'll try and find it and bore you guys some more:icon_smile_wink:...


Precisely. Unfortunately, few people my age know the real value of a good phonograph.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

RJmaiorano said:


> +2.... While not germane to the thread, the 'warmth' that accompanies a vinyl record as opposed to digital lies in the breakup of the sound waves. Essentially in the fact that natural sound is Analog and continous.
> 
> Analog is not broken into smallers units... it as a continious flow of the sound waves, it is smooth. On the other hand digital, as in a CD, is broken up into 44,000 smaller units per second (I could be wrong on the exact #)... and with MP3 it is even worse, with every fourth unit removed so as to better compress the sound. Thus it is more difficult for a brain to absorb the sound. While it is not perceptable, our brain actually fills in the missing sound in digital and thus actually fatigues the brain, making it less enjoyable to listen to. I recent study actually proved this through brain imagining and just my luck I can't find a citation, I'll try and find it and bore you guys some more:icon_smile_wink:...


The "red book" CD standard sampling rate is 44,100 samples per second. As to whether this is perceptible to our brains, it isn't. Our eyes are fooled by the 29.97 frames per second of digital film, so saying 44,100 "frames" per second of sound can't fool us just doesn't make sense. Our brains aren't that sensitive to breaks like this because we aren't "expected" to experience them in nature.

Actually, someone did a study of vinyl vs. cd, and his results were _very_ interesting. He's a vinyl-head, and he measured the outputs of both (same recordings) to see what he could see. What was interesting was that the commercial vinyl always sounded "warmer" than the commercial cd of the same recording to him...no surprise. However, the cd recordings of vinyl he himself made were indistinguishable from the sources, anathema to what he'd previously thought. He then tried something: he recorded the resonance frequency of the lead-in groove, flipped its polarity on his computer, and then recorded that LP onto cd _while simultaneously adding the negative version of the lead-in groove,_ which he reasoned would cancel the positive version of the lead-in groove's resonance frequency. The result was a recorded cd that sounded like the commercial cd. Why? Vinyl itself -- and the cartrige shell -- had a resonance frequency that "warmed" the sound; once eliminated, he concluded that the sound was actually more neutral (i.e. not tainted by the vinyl process), and was thus more _natural._

Let's also not forget that so many LP masters were made directly after finishing the recording/editing process, while the CD masters of the same recordings were made years or decades later, meaning the celulose tapes were sitting around deteriorating for a long time (celulose shows serious signs of deterioration after about twenty years). This makes a huge difference, too.

If someone prefers the LP sound, I have no problem with that at all. We all like what we like, and that's just great as far as I'm concerned. However, it has yet to be demonstrated that it is in any way a more realistic sound than that of properly recorded "red book" material.

(This, by the way, is brought to you by a guy who owns a fairly expensive Denon DP-57L turntable -- highly reviewed and fetching many hundreds of dollars on the used market -- and SHure V15VMR cart.)

ADDENDUM: I've been trying to find the study, but I've been unseccessful. I'll keep trying...!


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

StephenRG said:


> I'm inclined to disagree - it inspires awe etc in those who know nothing about technology. What is required to produce the modern quartz watch with attendant features is an incredibly impressive feat of science and technology, while a good mechanical watch is impressive only in the workmanship required to perpetuate an obsolete (and decadent) process - it's like admiring horn gramophones and preferring them to modern CD players. By all means enjoy the look and workmanship, but _prefer_ them to CD players ? Nope.
> 
> But not everyone agrees with me, for some reason


Mechanical watches are by no means obsolete. I love automatic watches as there is no need for a battery.

I'm another one who's in favour of phonograph records. The sound is really the only reason that makes them better. Of course, there are many disadvantages to the phonograph record: I can't play them in my car like a CD, and they aren't very durable as they warp and wear out with a lot of play. But they still last. I still listen to 1960's LPs. I would never buy MP3's because they are way overpriced for the sound you get. I buy CDs because they are more useful, also the sound quality lacks. This reminds me of the people that try to convince us that fused suits are just as good as canvassed. Yet, I can't think of an argument for fused suits, except that they are usually more affordable.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why but a Brioni suit ? or Lobb shoes.*

Thanks for your many responses to my question . On the subject of audio , one must remember that a concert grand piano , a violin , trumpet etc. produces analog music not digital music. digital music is produced using discrete units. 
Digital music has greater dynamics , analog music more detail. 
There has always been the pursuit of producing music with greater dynamics 
going back to the old phonograph player. 
Music waves have round curves , which is analog , digital music has square 
curves , therefor the tips of the round curve is chopped off removing some of the detail but adding better dynamics.

The why question would also appear here as well , if one spends thousands for an audio system is one an elitist ? I and several of my friends have spent thousands of dollars in the pursuit of excellence in music reproduction equipment.
I own a pair of Lansing Hartsfield , Marantz 7c preamp, 10B tuner , two model 9 power amps , Transcripter turntable , SME tonearm , Revox open reel tape recorder and also some digital equipment such as recorder , and players.

The audio equipment listed above might be compared to Kiton , Brioni or John Lobb in clothing. Expensive and well made. Not for everyone. I would think for those who seek the finest in any purchase there is a place for those people.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Our brains aren't that sensitive to breaks like this because we aren't "expected" to experience them in nature.


I have to call you out on this Teacher as I work part-time as a audiophile recording engineer for an independent record label. Audio is my serious hobby and sometimes profession...

The human ear can hear unbelievably small changes in music. Studies have shown the ear can detect timing differences as low as nanoseconds and some experts believe picoseconds.

With digital the analog wave form is broken up into sampling along the X axis and height of the waveform along the Y axis. Here is the critical part today - the X axis corresponds to time (hence time coding). The problem with digital is that often the sampled value of Y does not arrive at the exactly precise time so the waveform is blurred. This is in part why even good CD players can sound vastly different from one another as can professional audio chip sets used in the A to D converter used in the original recording.

In the world of analog tape, this never happens as the records signal/waveform stays in the analog domain all the way to the LP. Thus LPs sound more like real music (at least to most professionals ears) as there is no corresponsing A to D and D to A conversion process which has gotten much better but is still highly complex and very problematic.

There is a middle ground in DVD Audio and SACD (which I prefer). DSD the base format for SACD overcomes many problems by capturing the waveform differently (it looks at changes in height of the wave) and increasing sampling dramatically. My team uses standard PCM encoding at 24/176 and 24/192 recording to come close but that is only because the SACD recording chains are much more expensive to implement and we are not there yet.

:teacha:


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Artisan Fan said:


> I have to call you out on this Teacher as I work part-time as a audiophile recording engineer for an independent record label. Audio is my serious hobby and sometimes profession...
> 
> The human ear can hear unbelievably small changes in music. Studies have shown the ear can detect timing differences as low as nanoseconds and some experts believe picoseconds.
> 
> ...


It is a mystery to me why this format didn't catch on. I remeber when I first heard SACD, I thought this is orders of magnitude better than what I am listening to now. The amazing thing, to me, was that this was a stand alone test. I heard the superiority of the SACD playing by itself with no comparison to a "regular" cd.


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

I have a feeling this thread needs to be continued in the Interchange.



RJmaiorano said:


> Essentially in the fact that natural sound is Analog and continous.


No it is not. Analog is called "analog" precisely because it is an analogy of what happens in the real world: you are turning acoustic pressure variations into voltage and current variations --- they are analogs of the real thing. It is no more natural to have an analog recording of sound than it is to have a digital recording of sound.

Even the nature of sound itself is discrete: we have huge numbers of discrete air molecules pushing each other around to make sound. The continuous approximation we make for everyday use is just for convenience and computational tractibility.



> On the other hand digital, as in a CD, is broken up into 44,000 smaller units per second (I could be wrong on the exact #)... and with MP3 it is even worse, with every fourth unit removed so as to better compress the sound.


That's not how digital sound or perceptual coding (eg. MP3) works. Please don't use false technical claims to justify your personal preference for analog.



> While it is not perceptable, our brain actually fills in the missing sound in digital and thus actually fatigues the brain, making it less enjoyable to listen to. I recent study actually proved this through brain imagining and just my luck I can't find a citation, I'll try and find it and bore you guys some more:icon_smile_wink:...


I sincerely doubt there is such a study, because what you are describing doesn't happen. The output lowpass filter of a digital-to-analog converter makes the digital samples into a continuous waveform.



Artisan Fan said:


> +1. A table well done can reproduce a 50khz tone which equates to a 100khz sampling rate based on the Nyquist Theorem. That is over 2X the resolution of the 44.1khz sampling rate of CD. Analog is warmer and smoother like real instruments. Digital can be harsh and edgy.


Analog can be harsh and edgy as well. I'd like to hear about instruments with fundamentals at 50 kHz that are musically relevant. Also, I'd really like to hear about how a 50 kHz tone is perceived by a human being. Especially with atmospheric absorbtion, and limited bandwidth in recording equipment. I'd also like to hear about phono preamps, amps, and speakers that can reproduce 50 kHz. And finally, I'd like to hear about a turntable that can consistently reproduce with low distortion and noise anything above 10 kHz.



Artisan Fan said:


> The human ear can hear unbelievably small changes in music. Studies have shown the ear can detect timing differences as low as nanoseconds and some experts believe picoseconds.


You should be careful as the ear is not hearing nanosecond timing differences directly, and instead may be hearing (in the case of jitter as you quote Bob Katz's article) the effects that small timing differences can have on badly designed equipment. You must differentiate between for example, delaying the left channel relative to the right channel by 1 nanosecond, and the effects of jitter on DSPs, reconstruction filters, DACs, etc. The former is a direct effect, while the latter is an indirect effect.

Since you worry about such small quantities, what is the smallest perceptible interchannel delay? Surely if one worries about 10e-12 second phenomena, the big things must already be working fine.



> The problem with digital is that often the sampled value of Y does not arrive at the exactly precise time so the waveform is blurred. This is in part why even good CD players can sound vastly different from one another as can professional audio chip sets used in the A to D converter used in the original recording.


Every technology has its limitations. The goal is to use a good implementation of the technology and to be aware of what its true (as opposed to audiophile propaganda) limitations are. I could similarly point out how analog really sucks because it has signal-dependent bandwidth and distortion limitations at all recording levels. With a good digital implementation, jitter is not an issue.

I think the best feature of analog is that it is a relatively forgiving medium to work in and degrades rather euphonically when you mess up. Digital is pretty unforgiving, and you have to know what you're doing.



> Thus LPs sound more like real music (at least to most professionals ears) as there is no corresponsing A to D and D to A conversion process which has gotten much better but is still highly complex and very problematic.


LPs do not sound like real music. (Monophonic bass? Give me a break!) No current technology even sounds close to real music, and LP is further away than CD.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Analog can be harsh and edgy as well.


??? Not in my experience. Andre, do you have any recording experience? Have you heard a master tape?



> You should be careful as the ear is not hearing nanosecond timing differences directly


A couple of things to consider...I have personal experience listening to picosecond differences by inserting master clocks into and out of the recording chain. This produces a known change in the picosecond range. I can hear this quite easily as can many engineers. It's very dramatic when you go from nanosecond range (without the clock) to picosecond range (with the clock).

Secondly there have been academic studies printed in the AES Journal by folks like Julian Dunn and others that have corroborated this in listening tests and theory.



> LPs do not sound like real music.


With all due rsepect Andre, you need to study this area more. Real music is an acoustic waveform. We create analog waves by playing instruments and we hear in analog as the waveform reaches the ear. Even digital music is recorded and retrieved in an analog process of a laser hitting the pits and land of a CD. That is why CD transports are so important.

LPs get closer to real music by keeping the music in analog all the way through. It would be complex to go over all the A/D and D/A issues found in digital. Remember, I record in digital for convenience but experience with many formats leads me to prefer good ole analog. Listen to some early UK issue Rolling Stones and Beatles LPs and then compare those to the current CDs. There is no contest as the LPs sound so much better.



> And finally, I'd like to hear about a turntable that can consistently reproduce with low distortion and noise anything above 10 kHz.


Perhaps this is your problem; you have never heard a good turntable. Good tables like mine regularly produce high frequencies well above 10K.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Thank you Teacher,
good read.

Z



Teacher said:


> The "red book" CD standard sampling rate is 44,100 samples per second. As to whether this is perceptible to our brains, it isn't. Our eyes are fooled by the 29.97 frames per second of digital film, so saying 44,100 "frames" per second of sound can't fool us just doesn't make sense. Our brains aren't that sensitive to breaks like this because we aren't "expected" to experience them in nature.
> 
> Actually, someone did a study of vinyl vs. cd, and his results were _very_ interesting. He's a vinyl-head, and he measured the outputs of both (same recordings) to see what he could see. What was interesting was that the commercial vinyl always sounded "warmer" than the commercial cd of the same recording to him...no surprise. However, the cd recordings of vinyl he himself made were indistinguishable from the sources, anathema to what he'd previously thought. He then tried something: he recorded the resonance frequency of the lead-in groove, flipped its polarity on his computer, and then recorded that LP onto cd _while simultaneously adding the negative version of the lead-in groove,_ which he reasoned would cancel the positive version of the lead-in groove's resonance frequency. The result was a recorded cd that sounded like the commercial cd. Why? Vinyl itself -- and the cartrige shell -- had a resonance frequency that "warmed" the sound; once eliminated, he concluded that the sound was actually more neutral (i.e. not tainted by the vinyl process), and was thus more _natural._
> 
> ...


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

A principle which can be generalised: I do not feel superior to people who do not like classical music, but I do feel superior to those people who, not liking it themselves, think that the reason I listen to it is to feel superior.

BTW as far as analogue v. digital is concerned, I find that in general the supporters of analogue tend to listen to rock music and the like, and I don't know a single friend of mine who likes classical music who prefers it to digital.

I also find that the defenders of analogue tend to resort to special pleading - the ear is this incredibly sensitive instrument which can detect the most subtle errors of digital, and yet somehow is entirely incapable of detecting so many of the flaws of analogue...e.g. what is involved in RIAA equalisation that the ear is entirely and unaccountably unable to hear...


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why buy a Brioni or Lobb shoes ?*

The quality of what you hear in audio equipment is based on the quality of your audio equipment . To hear the differences between analog and digital requires excellent audio gear. Otherwise a simple A-B cannot be realized.
At today's prices I would estimate quality audio equipment to be priced in the area of $20,000 +. Excluding video.

Men's clothing is no different , a pair of Edward Green shoes , Brioni Suit , Borrelli shirt , Kiton tie , Rolex President watch , etc, , would probably cost more than $20,000. Quality men's clothing and audio equipment is not cheap.

Would the person who spent all that money for audio equipment and clothing be called an elitist ? or a lover of fine clothing and music reproduction equipment ?
Quality analog equipment is generally more expensive that digital equipment.
The people who usually prefer analog to digital or audiophiles a dying breed.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I also find that the defenders of analogue tend to resort to special pleading - the ear is this incredibly sensitive instrument which can detect the most subtle errors of digital, and yet somehow is entirely incapable of detecting so many of the flaws of analogue...e.g. what is involved in RIAA equalisation that the ear is entirely and unaccountably unable to hear...


I did not say anything about analog not having flaws. All physical media have flaws as Andre said. But there is a widespread misunderstanding of the quality of analog versus digital in part due to the "Perfect Sound Forever" campaign that Sony did at the launch of CD in 1983. For instance, LPs have a more limited dynamic range but that does not equate to a lack of reproduction of dynamics.



> The quality of what you hear in audio equipment is based on the quality of your audio equipment . To hear the differences between analog and digital requires excellent audio gear.


True, however you can start to hear the benefits of analog with even a humble Rega P1 table at $350.

One of the key benefits of analog is the vast catalog of material, much of which is not on CD, and the ability to get another layer of resolution above that found in 16/44.1 CD.

We now return you to your regular programming...


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

StephenRG said:


> BTW as far as analogue v. digital is concerned, I find that in general the supporters of analogue tend to listen to rock music and the like, and I don't know a single friend of mine who likes classical music who prefers it to digital.


Here's one who likes classical music on analogue. I also listen to a lot of jazz on phonograph too. As for other analogue vs digital, analogue synthesizer keyboards sound much better than digital. I'm talking about sounds that aren't meant to replicate anything, like you would hear in a lot of 1970's jazz fusion (Chick Corea, Weather Report, Pat Metheny Group (well beyond 1970's). While digital synthesizers can attempt to replicate sounds of real instruments, and they have come a long way, they still sound artificial and always will.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why buy a Brioni suit or Lobb shoes ?*

The issue was elitism as it applies to men's clothing. Elitism can be applied to any and everything. High end items whether it be men's clothing , cars , watches , yachts , cameras , women's purses , ink pens , etc., etc, We do live in a consumer driven economy here in America. People are judged by personal wealth in America.

My friend that I quoted sees the spending of $ 4000 for a suit as a waste. That suit was not made for him. My friend also feels that anyone who buys a car that is more expensive than a Toyota Camry is wasting money and is an elitist. We agree to disagree , I respect his opinion. , I don't agree with him.
Some you agree and diagree with that position.

Audio today is very different than it was 40 years ago , the audiophile has almost disappeared. Video is in, surround sound is now the interest. Audio has taken a back seat. Music has changed , as Johnny Mathis said when ask what
was the difference between today's music and when he first started recording in 1957 his answer was " decibels " . if one had the audio equipment capable of producing excellent sound than one can play an old Frank Sinatra recording , you should be able to hear more detail if it is analog , but you can play it louder without background noise if it is digital. On an analog recording you can hear Mr. Sinatra's breath , that's detail , but not on a digital recording. On an analog recording you can here the bite of the cymbals on a jazz analog recording by jazz drummer Tony Williams , not so with a digital
recording , but you can play it louder with little background noise. Again it depends on the audio equipment.


----------



## Wildman (Sep 5, 2007)

One friend of mine broke down analog vs. digital as follows: "analog has better tone; digital has better clarity."



Matt S said:


> While digital synthesizers can attempt to replicate sounds of real instruments, and they have come a long way, they still sound artificial and always will.


Aesthetically I'm sort of a Futurist (a term that now evokes quaint nostalgia, ironically) in that I believe that space age/modern materials (plastics, etc.) and equipment (digital synthesizers) are in their best form when they do things that older materials (wood, metal, etc.) and equipment (actual instruments) simply can't do. A plastic imitation of an Adriondack chair is just that, but a plastic bubble chair is in a class all its own.

...................................

Well, if anyone read the Bourdieu excerpt, the basic argument is that the Parisian _haute bourgeoisie_ of the 1960s (when the study was conducted) regarded their tastes as being "natural", or as the result of admirable efforts... those efforts stemming from admirable qualities. In the West, at the root of this is the Kantian aesthetic, where authentic aesthetic qualities are treated as essential rather than as intersubjective.

However, for such judgment to come so naturally, the subject must be deeply socialized beginning in early childhood in a _very_ specific intersection of class (upper class), culture (Parisian _haute bourgeoisie_, as opposed to _nouveaux riche_, _petit bourgeoisie_, or the working classes), education (elite preparatory schools, tutors, knowledge imparted by parents, etc.), and so on. So when they wonder how everyone else could be such rubes, it's like a Greenlandic musk ox being shown photographs of animals on the Serenghetti and wondering why on earth they haven't grown themselves substantial coats of shaggy fur like any sensible animal would.

In many cases others don't share, and seem incapable of appreciating such tastes simply because they were not socialized into them (beginning in early childhood) and therefore don't have the capacity to do so. In rareified settings, 12 year olds can understand the modern atonal (or, 12-tone if you prefer) radicalism of Schoenberg, but to Joe Blow it sounds like someone overturned the silverware drawer. This is generalizable when speaking of the visual and plastic arts, cuisine, even sport/liesure in many cases.

Well, then you have the (would be) upwardly mobile who adopt sartorial/aesthetic ambitions: new money/nouveaux riche, young urban professionals, etc. Granted, you can't reduce taste to socioeconomic status; however, you can't gloss over it, either.

Me personally, I can't tell good wine from bad wine - grape soda is great, though, and I've got Welch's in the fridge - and if given the choice would opt for basic Irish whiskey because it does the trick and doesn't taste funny. Maybe cut it with ginger ale. Others keep handing me a glass of something or other and spending two minutes telling me what it is and why it's good... *GULP* "[Wildman], you have to _sip_ it!" *urp* "Eh?" However, I am guilty of being a proud beer snob. Mainly because I once worked as a barback at an English-style pub.


----------



## Thracozaag (Sep 5, 2002)

Teacher said:


> The "red book" CD standard sampling rate is 44,100 samples per second. As to whether this is perceptible to our brains, it isn't. Our eyes are fooled by the 29.97 frames per second of digital film, so saying 44,100 "frames" per second of sound can't fool us just doesn't make sense. Our brains aren't that sensitive to breaks like this because we aren't "expected" to experience them in nature.
> 
> Actually, someone did a study of vinyl vs. cd, and his results were _very_ interesting. He's a vinyl-head, and he measured the outputs of both (same recordings) to see what he could see. What was interesting was that the commercial vinyl always sounded "warmer" than the commercial cd of the same recording to him...no surprise. However, the cd recordings of vinyl he himself made were indistinguishable from the sources, anathema to what he'd previously thought. He then tried something: he recorded the resonance frequency of the lead-in groove, flipped its polarity on his computer, and then recorded that LP onto cd _while simultaneously adding the negative version of the lead-in groove,_ which he reasoned would cancel the positive version of the lead-in groove's resonance frequency. The result was a recorded cd that sounded like the commercial cd. Why? Vinyl itself -- and the cartrige shell -- had a resonance frequency that "warmed" the sound; once eliminated, he concluded that the sound was actually more neutral (i.e. not tainted by the vinyl process), and was thus more _natural._
> 
> ...


 I'm curious as to what type of music he was comparing; there's a vast, vast difference in sound quality to my ears between CD and vinyl with regards to piano, and particularly orchestral music.

koji


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Thracozaag said:


> I'm curious as to what type of music he was comparing; there's a vast, vast difference in sound quality to my ears between CD and vinyl with regards to piano, and particularly orchestral music.
> 
> koji


If I remember correctly, it was orchestral. However, I have not had the same experience as you.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

StephenRG said:


> BTW as far as analogue v. digital is concerned, I find that in general the supporters of analogue tend to listen to rock music and the like, and I don't know a single friend of mine who likes classical music who prefers it to digital.


I much prefer the sound of analogue to digital. Listening to analogue recordings of chamber music is absolutely lovely. Ditto for vocal music - the great voices of the past sound absolutely glorious in analogue. Analogue really makes voices bloom and instrumental timbre sounds so much richer.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> ??? Not in my experience. Andre, do you have any recording experience? Have you heard a master tape?
> 
> A couple of things to consider...I have personal experience listening to picosecond differences by inserting master clocks into and out of the recording chain. This produces a known change in the picosecond range. I can hear this quite easily as can many engineers. It's very dramatic when you go from nanosecond range (without the clock) to picosecond range (with the clock).
> 
> ...


A couple of things:

First, do you honestly believe you can hear much beyond 14-15,000 kH? The vast majority of studies show people can't. So what is the advantage of hearing 50,000 kH?

Second, is there any empirical double-blind evidence? We all know that anecdotal evidence...indcluding my own...is basically useless. It is just as justifiable to say one has convinced one's self that one has heard differences as it is to explain that one has actually heard the differences. There are countless examples of this in psychology textbooks.

Last, I will recount (if not cite, because I once again can't find it) the example from _Audio Review_ [I think, but I could be misremembering] from several years back. They were testing speaker wire, including examples from mid-range and high-end companies, including balanced and unbalanced wire configurations. Since noise wasn't a problem, balanced wire didn't seem to make a difference. In fact, the _only_ wire that was even the slightest bit different to the pannel of listeners was made of sterling silver. The most astounding part? This was an ABX (double-blind) test, and many of the listeners were "golden-ears." These are people who probably bought such things as speaker wire stands, amp clamps, and "special" (DEAR LORD:icon_smile_big: ) green marker to mask the edges of their CDs so that extra light wouldn't escape.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I only see a problem when you disrespect those who cannot afford the luxury items. I'll admit, I see this issue through the glasses of someone who cannot afford these items and does not have them, though.
> 
> Go ahead and spend your own money as you wish. Not everyone who likes and can afford nice nices is a snob.
> 
> However, if you do not respect everyone who deserves your respect, you will lose out in many ways, even if you do not notice it.


Oh I aggree completely...there's a difference between flaunting what you have, and making others feel bad, just because they don't have it..I think only a true @$$hole would put somebody down for not being able to afford to have whatever...


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> First, do you honestly believe you can hear much beyond 14-15,000 kH? The vast majority of studies show people can't. So what is the advantage of hearing 50,000 kH?


My hearing gets tested every two years. Last time around I heard up to 19khz, not bad for someone in their 40s. My dogs do even better. 

The 50khz is important for determining resolution as it gets to the amount of real musical information that can be captured, however it has been shown that very high frequencies reflect in lower band harmonic structures. There have been several AES papers on this.



> Second, is there any empirical double-blind evidence? We all know that anecdotal evidence...indcluding my own...is basically useless.


In audio, some people think only measurements matter (objectivists) while others like myself think that both measurments and qualitative tests matter (subjectivists). I believe that audio is a complex phenomena that cannot be fully measured so subtle differences must be gauged by critical listening. As well there are many problems with double blind testing as applied to audio. That's a complex and ultimately "religious" discussion that I don't want to go into here. In short, the best way to test audio gear is to take it home and listen to it over a period of days. A good independent high end retailer will let you do this.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Three lessons in life taught me that audio cannot easily be measured:

1. Low distortion amps - In the late 70s my Dad bought an expensive amp based on Stereo Reviews touting of low distortion ratings which they said was the only real measure. The amp sounded terrible so my Dad returned it after two weeks. The next amp measured less well in distortion but sounded notably better.

_Lesson: Metrics don't capture everything._

2. In the 80s when I was in college, I began to notice that certain CD players sounded better than others even with the same DAC chips. Why was this? Stereophile later discovered via the good work of Bob Harley that time based distortion called jitter was the primary factor at work. High end mags began to measure jitter. The scientific community raised their hand all of a sudden and said "oh yeah, we know about jitter, we discovered that in the 60s but had forgotten about it or felt it was less applicable here."

_Lesson: Sometimes you don't know what you need to measure._

3. I was working part-time for an audiophile record label in the 90s when we began to record some of the music in the new 24/96 PCM format which samples the music wave over 2X more than "redbook" CD. Some scientists at the time said we were wasting time as the Nyquist Theorem clearly shows *theoretically *that 44.1khz sampling is good enough for up to 20khz. We felt different and recorded in 24/96. It was immediately evident that the higher sampling rate was adding value in terms of instrument tonality and soundstaging. Later audio researchers confirmed the value of the higher sampling rate, even in double blind tests.

_Lesson: Use your ears as the best instrument of all._


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

I find this thread quite frightening. 

Firstly, because it has started to discuss music. My (bad) experiences posting at Classical.net taught me nothing is more divisive - not even sex, politics or religion induces as much hysteria. 

Secondly, because I have agreed with everything AF has said. I keep rubbing my eyes but it is true. Maybe we should discuss Kiton to get things back on track...


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why buy a Brioni or lobb shoes ?*

Off the subject , but many years ago at Powell Symphony Hall in St.Louis
Rudy Bozak the founder of Bozak speakers , used a test in which he put a small ensemble of musicians behind a curtain with his bozak speakers. Mr. Bozak than had an A-B test real sound versus reproduced sound. 
The results was very close. Some of us could not tell the difference. 
I was one of those that had difficulty telling the difference.

Years ago there was many A-B test , Avery Fisher the founder of Fisher Radio did the same test in 1963 in St.Louis. 
The quality of the audio equipment had to be excellent to hear the difference.
The equipment used in both cases was analog.
Tube amps , tube tape decks and analog mikes. Later McIntosh tried a similar demonstration in St.Louis using McIntosh transistor amps , it was much easier to tell the difference although the systems was still analog.

I agree taking an amp or speaker home can greatly assist one in making a correct decision when purchasing audio equipment. 
Most people today especially young people have not been exposed to tube or analog audio equipment , so I understand the confusion. Money young people have never heard an LP. Tube equipment today is very expensive , also speaker technology has changed , most young people are not aware of the large speaker systems that produced unaided bass and uncolored highs that are so prevalent today.
That was the days of the audiophiles , as in the case of beautiful music , we can only hope , times has changed.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I should add one thing:

Audiophiles pursue a path to better sound which often results in a very fine stereo, often expensive. Unfortunately that sometimes leads to an elitist attitude that turns many off of the hobby for the wrong reasons.

What is less known, not unlike fine clothes and arguably more so, is that you don't need to spend a fortune to find and enjoy good sound. A little knowledge goes a long way. Even the humble iPod has great sound quality when playing Apple lossless files. You just need to invest in some good headphones.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why buy Brioni suit or Lobb shoes*

Agreed Artisan Fan , one does not have to spend a fortune to find and enjoy music. One also does not have to spend a fortune to have nice men's clothing. Comparing iPod to an excellent audio system is the same as comparing a J.C. Penny Stafford suit to an Oxxford suit.

I would assume using your example the person that buys the Oxxford suit is an elitist.
A little knowledge goes a long way. Audiophiles are no different than clothesphiles , they seek the finest. 
A Bozak Concert Grand has the ability to reproduce sound that one has to hear to believe. There is no way an iPod can come close to reproducing music anywhere close to the Bozak speaker ! Than again there is that Stafford suit made in the U.S.A. of imported fabric ? You need only to invest in a good belt.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> In audio, some people think only measurements matter (objectivists) while others like myself think that both measurments and qualitative tests matter (subjectivists). I believe that audio is a complex phenomena that cannot be fully measured so subtle differences must be gauged by critical listening. As well there are many problems with double blind testing as applied to audio. That's a complex and ultimately "religious" discussion that I don't want to go into here. In short, the best way to test audio gear is to take it home and listen to it over a period of days. *A good independent high end retailer will let you do this.*


Why would they $ay anything el$e?:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> ??? Not in my experience. Andre, do you have any recording experience? Have you heard a master tape?


The fact that you don't believe analog can be harsh and edgy doesn't build much confidence in your experience. Analog is not a panacea that makes everything sound nice --- it can and has been abused to make really lousy-sounding recordings.

As for recording, I've had an even better experience: live vs. live mic feed where I could compare in real-time. High-end stuff like modified Coles ribbons in a Blumlein config to mic preamps built and used by Sheffield Labs. We were even listening through tubed amps, though that was unnecessary. No storage medium to get in the way.

And like many other people, I've heard plenty of live music, so I know what that sounds like.



> A couple of things to consider...I have personal experience listening to picosecond differences by inserting master clocks into and out of the recording chain.


I don't disbelieve that you heard what you heard. What I would ask next is whether these differences were caused by:

1. Badly designed equipment, which is not uncommon at all.
2. Some other effect not due to the timing difference. Did you run a proper listening test to confirm that the use of a high precision clock is what caused the difference you heard? Running a good listening test is very hard, time-consuming, and barely done outside research facilities.



> Secondly there have been academic studies printed in the AES Journal by folks like Julian Dunn and others that have corroborated this in listening tests and theory.


You wouldn't say this if you've actually read Dunn, as he doesn't actually corroborate your claims. He lays out certain mechanisms by which jitter could cause audible differences, and he has a very interesting measurement for jitter. The last good audible test I read, which was done by Dolby, had jitter thresholds closer to nanoseconds than picoseconds.

And in case you'd like to read his papers:

https://www.nanophon.com/audio/index.htm



> With all due rsepect Andre, you need to study this area more. Real music is an acoustic waveform. We create analog waves by playing instruments and we hear in analog as the waveform reaches the ear.


We do not create analog waves when we play instruments. We cause some surface to vibrate, which in turn pushes and pulls against immense numbers of discrete air molecules which then push and pull against our ear drum, which causes liquid in our inner ear to move stimulating hair cells whose wiggling sends discrete signals to the brain. The way these hairs are stimulated and the way these signals are generated are very interesting and have very deep implications for what we can and can't hear.

For example, it is physiologically impossible for this mechanism to transmit much if any suprasonic (>20 kHz) sounds because the hairs aren't moved by suprasonic signals.

Analog enters nowhere into this whole process until you try to transcribe the physical phenomena just described to a recording medium. Analog is not nature --- it is a man-made tool for copying nature.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, which you apparently have not read, analog is a convenient approximation of a physical phenomenon that makes dealing with reality in a structured way possible.



> LPs get closer to real music by keeping the music in analog all the way through. It would be complex to go over all the A/D and D/A issues found in digital.


OMGz! What is so simple about dragging a big hunk of rock in a plastic valley whose walls encode not L and R, but L+R and L-R. Further to overcome certain physical limitations, this signal has to be pre-equalized before pressing, and reequalized on playback by a standard that isn't that easy to get right? Of course, that's above the bass, because the plastic valleys are so narrow (to get more playback time) that they can't record two-channel bass, and bass is monophonic on an LP.

Add to this the inherent limitations of a physical transcription system (eg. your turntable system) whose physical dimensions are the same order of magnitude as the signal wavelengths it's trying to reproduce --- in plain English, the thing can't get out of its own way --- and you're telling me this is simple?



> Remember, I record in digital for convenience but experience with many formats leads me to prefer good ole analog. Listen to some early UK issue Rolling Stones and Beatles LPs and then compare those to the current CDs. There is no contest as the LPs sound so much better.


Apples to oranges. There are so many other factors at play here that you cannot attribute improvement solely to LP as the carrier medium. When you can pick an LP that's been through an ADC and DAC chain that's level matched, double-blinded against a straight wire, then I'll believe that LP has something audible that good digital cannot reproduce.



> Perhaps this is your problem; you have never heard a good turntable. Good tables like mine regularly produce high frequencies well above 10K.


Ah yes, the classic audiophile proof by "your equipment's not good enough". Rockport doesn't count?

I've also heard CD-Rs made by Michael Fremer, not using a great ADC, of his LPs, and even before he had identified where they were from, the LP distortion was pretty obvious.

To be clear, I have nothing against people enjoying LPs --- they can sound very good, and it's a personal preference. But trying to prop them up with bogus technical claims about their technical superiority isn't really doing them or yourself any favors.

--Andre


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> 1. Low distortion amps - In the late 70s my Dad bought an expensive amp based on Stereo Reviews touting of low distortion ratings which they said was the only real measure. The amp sounded terrible so my Dad returned it after two weeks. The next amp measured less well in distortion but sounded notably better.


Measurements are only as good as the person interpreting them. Stereo Review is also not the end-all-be-all of audio measurement. In fact, all of the magazines are pretty terrible.

The distortion specs you refer to is the single-value THD+N measurement, which is a completely useless measurement if you even thought about it for a few minutes. Unfortunately, people today still spec this number and pretend like it means something.

What's better? How about a wide-spectrum multi-tone test that's measured against a model of human hearing that at least predicts masking? Or if not that, how about a PNR measurement on some standard signal?



> Stereophile later discovered via the good work of Bob Harley that time based distortion called jitter was the primary factor at work. High end mags began to measure jitter. The scientific community raised their hand all of a sudden and said "oh yeah, we know about jitter, we discovered that in the 60s but had forgotten about it or felt it was less applicable here."
> 
> _Lesson: Sometimes you don't know what you need to measure._


I hate to break it to you, but the audio community messed this one up. It sucks that the majority of audio designers are so terribly uneducated and not well-read that they didn't know about something that's been known since the early part of the 20th century. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up except to point out the incompetence of most audio designers. Obviously people like Bob Stuart at Meridian who produced low-jitter CD players years before Stereophile hyped up jitter knew what they were doing.

A better lesson:

_Lesson: You should read about what other people have done._



> Later audio researchers confirmed the value of the higher sampling rate, even in double blind tests.


This I'd like to see, as there have no published listening tests that prove the value of having twice the signal bandwidth in terms of direct audibility. There are other advantages that you haven't mentioned, but getting 20+ kHz signals to the ear (assuming they even made it out of the speaker) isn't one of them.

And since you've read the Dunn papers, you should be able to enunciate the advantages of high rate sampling.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I noticed with an new/older amp the CD got alot warmer.
> I wonder how much of it has to do with the circuitry?


Well I've heard the same issues on $20K Weiss, dcs, and EMM converters so I'm fairly convinced of the limitations of 16/44.1 but is getting better. My view is that there is not enough musical information being captured. Part of this is the 16 bit and part is the low 44.1khz sampling rate. 24/88.2 or higher is a significant improvement on any good system.



> Analog is not a panacea that makes everything sound nice --- it can and has been abused to make really lousy-sounding recordings.


Well I agree to a point, but when comparing formats it is best to use the same recording if possible. There are some SACDs that use analog tape transfered to DSD versus an original CD recording that was done at the same time. The DSD which is a very close approximation blows the doors off the CD in every instance.

You must also use a good example of mastering in each case as well or else you can get confused by mastering differences.



> You wouldn't say this if you've actually read Dunn, as he doesn't actually corroborate your claims. He lays out certain mechanisms by which jitter could cause audible differences, and he has a very interesting measurement for jitter. The last good audible test I read, which was done by Dolby, had jitter thresholds closer to nanoseconds than picoseconds.


I actually exchanged emails with Julian before his untimely death. He showed how nanosecond changes were audible in one paper. Since then, further experiments suggest our threshold may be in the picosecond range.

I described how a master clock with a known reduction in jitter can lower the timing distortion (as tested in the lab) from low nano to low pico range (Google Lucid Audio). We insert this sole device into a known recording chain and A/B and the results are perceptible.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> We do not create analog waves when we play instruments. We cause some surface to vibrate, which in turn pushes and pulls against immense numbers of discrete air molecules which then push and pull against our ear drum, which causes liquid in our inner ear to move stimulating hair cells whose wiggling sends discrete signals to the brain.


Incorrect. The ear use an analog process that is connected to a neural network which weights various stimulae in an analog fashion. It does not like a CD break down a soundwave digitally.



> What is so simple about dragging a big hunk of rock in a plastic valley whose walls encode not L and R, but L+R and L-R. Further to overcome certain physical limitations, this signal has to be pre-equalized before pressing, and reequalized on playback by a standard that isn't that easy to get right? Of course, that's above the bass, because the plastic valleys are so narrow (to get more playback time) that they can't record two-channel bass, and bass is monophonic on an LP.


First off, bass is non-directional so it does not matter. That's why you can move your sub around the room with no problems.

Second, the physical limitations of LPs rarely impact the audible band. It does require a bit more work to get all the information out of the grooves but the rewards are worth it.



> Obviously people like Bob Stuart at Meridian who produced low-jitter CD players years before Stereophile hyped up jitter knew what they were doing.


Bob is a good guy and I've been to his NA facility here in Atlanta. Still few at the time knew that jitter was the limiting factor and Bob himself took a while to figure out exactly how to perfect the implementation. The point remains that important areas of measurement take a while to find. Another example are MLSSA plots of speakers.



> To be clear, I have nothing against people enjoying LPs --- they can sound very good, and it's a personal preference. But trying to prop them up with bogus technical claims about their technical superiority isn't really doing them or yourself any favors.


Your personal insults do not make for an informed argument Andre. These are not bogus claims but real findings from real world recording experience. We have never claimed LPs are perfect but that they are more resolving than CDs and that my friend is true.


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Well I agree to a point, but when comparing formats it is best to use the same recording if possible. There are some SACDs that use analog tape transfered to DSD versus an original CD recording that was done at the same time. The DSD which is a very close approximation blows the doors off the CD in every instance.


Again, apples to oranges. The analog tape was digitized by a DSD ADC, while the 44.1 kHz CD signal was probably digitally upsampled to DSD rates. And you don't know how the CD was mastered compared to the analog master tape. The mastering alone could have accounted for the differences.



> I actually exchanged emails with Julian before his untimely death. He showed how nanosecond changes were audible in one paper. Since then, further experiments suggest our threshold may be in the picosecond range.


OK, so he confirmed Dolby's later tests. And I never said ps jitter was not audible, only that you have pretty broken equipment if they're that sensitive, assuming you had valid testing protocols in place.



> I described how a master clock with a known reduction in jitter can lower the timing distortion (as tested in the lab) from low nano to low pico range (Google Lucid Audio). We insert this sole device into a known recording chain and A/B and the results are perceptible.


Besides the usual obvious questions like blinding protocol and level-matching, you don't have a control measurement that shows the clock's jitter is actually an improvement on the DAC's internal jitter. What if the clock actually made the DAC technically worse by injecting RF into the DAC and caused more jitter, and you preferred the technically inferior sound?



Artisan Fan said:


> Incorrect. The ear use an analog process that is connected to a neural network which weights various stimulae in an analog fashion. It does not like a CD break down a soundwave digitally.


You really need to go read a book on how the human ear works, or at least do a Google search. What you write above is basically an oversimplification that completely ignores the mechanical aspects of the ear which is so important to how it works. Do you know what the inner hair cells do to signals that come in? Do you know how masking is caused by the inner hair cells? Or how the ion channels in the nerves attached to the hairs work?

And the ear is not analog. It is not digital. It is the ear. Analog and digital are human constructs that are used to let us get a handle on the real world. Neither is a more natural representation of what the ear does. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.



> First off, bass is non-directional so it does not matter. That's why you can move your sub around the room with no problems.


For someone who worries about picosecond jitter, you really don't understand some fundamental issues that are at least 7 orders of magnitude (that's about 10 million times) higher in scale. You absolutely cannot move your sub around the room with no problems. This is obvious even to newbies when they try to set up their sub for the first time, and find that different locations excite different room modes. Room location is paramount for optimal subwoofer setup.

Bass is not directional, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hold important spatial cues or that both ears hear the same signal at the same time. For example, an 0.8 ms interchannel delay at 60 Hz is trivially audible. If you have access to Matlab and a pair of headphones, you can hear this for yourself.

0.8 ms corresponds to the human interaural (ie. ear-to-ear, or the half circumference of your head, roughly) delay. So if I'm in a concert hall, and someone whacks a bass drum, which are usually stage right and not centered, I will hear the note in one ear before the other ear.

This interaural delay, and in fact it's much more complicated as it's thought that the variation in interchannel delay at bass frequencies that's important, is a vital cue for one's sense of envelopment. As you may know, concert hall designers work very, very hard to enhance a hall's sense of envelopment. Monophonic bass, like on an LP, completely tosses this cue and all of their hard work away.

There are some composers who arguably unconsciously take advantage of this cue as well. The opening of Mahler's "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen ..." from his Rückert Lieder has a low bass line, which serves to wrap the listener in a cocoon in preparation for the introspective resignation of the coming song. Sustained bass notes from organs also serve a very similar function of enveloping the listener to bring them into a new sound world, like the beginning of Strauss's "Also sprach Zarathustra."

LP tosses this all away.



> Second, the physical limitations of LPs rarely impact the audible band. It does require a bit more work to get all the information out of the grooves but the rewards are worth it.


Besides the obvious pops, ticks, and surface noise, how about the frequency-dependent L-R enhancement that gives LP its euphonic sense of space? Or mechanical resonances that enhance or attenuate certain frequencies? Or since you worry about jitter, how about LP's jitter which is better known as wow, and is at least 10 orders of magnitude higher?



> Another example are MLSSA plots of speakers.


KEF wrote about MLS testing in the 70s. Nothing new here. Speaker measurements done by good people these days are well beyond that, though MLS is still a good tool.



> These are not bogus claims but real findings from real world recording experience. We have never claimed LPs are perfect but that they are more resolving than CDs and that my friend is true.


There are many holes in your real world recording experience and knowledge, and I've pointed out quite a few of them.

I respect that you like LPs, but I have no patience when people prop up bogus technical claims to justify their personal preferences.

--Andre


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

One thing I have to wonder: if the human ear is so sensitive that it can detect picosecond breaks, what on Earth would dust particles -- wich WILL, despite the best cleaning equipment, accumulate in the grooves -- do to the overall sound? Surely, a dust particle would create distortion tens of thousands of times greater than a picosecond break.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why buy a Brioni suit? or Lobb shoes ?*

I don't own a Brioni suit or a pair of Lobb shoes. I do own many of the other clothing items discussed on AA. 
I have been made aware of many men's clothing by reading AA , and I might add how to take care of the clothing I do have. Now retired , the problem is not buying new clothing but finding a time and place to wear the clothing I have accumulated over the years.

Since audio was added to this thread , I was an audiophile for years dating back to the late 1950's. My equipment is both tube and transistor. Analog and digital. As an old audiophile I favor tube vs transistor and analog vs digital.
I have met Rudy Bozak , Saul Marantz , and Avery Fisher pioneers in the audio industry. Years ago it was not unusual for the giants of audio to appear
at audio shows in the Midwest where I live.

The debate live vs recorded sound was a hot topic in the late 50's and early 60's. Times have changed , in my opinion as the music has changed so has the reproduction of music changed.

I think Frank Sinatra an audiophile himself said in the movie " That's entertainment " We can wait around and hope but we will never see this again " The Cary Grants , Fred Astaire , or the Saul Marantz and Rudy Bozak's. Whether times have changed for the better , only history will tell.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> And you don't know how the CD was mastered compared to the analog master tape. The mastering alone could have accounted for the differences.


Andre, I work as a recording engineer. I get to hear the original recording pre-mastering in 16/44. 24/88, 24/176, 24/192, and analog tape. That is why I am passionate on the differences. They are not subtle.

Ultimately you may favor 16/44 digital which is fine as it is very convenient, but I like the hirez formats whether LP or hirez PCM or DSD. They are a clear improvement based on my 20 years in professional audio.



> And I never said ps jitter was not audible, only that you have pretty broken equipment if they're that sensitive, assuming you had valid testing protocols in place.


That makes no sense. You need higher resolution gear to hear subtle differences. Our recording chain is state of the art. It does help to record acoustically and simpler more tonally correct music is easier to listen to for changes. My earlier point was that picosecond differences show the extreme sensitivity of the human ear.



> LP tosses this all away.


There is plenty of bass on an analog master tape which then winds up on the final LP record.



> KEF wrote about MLS testing in the 70s.


Yes they did, much like jitter was known but the audio community did not actively apply the knowledge to testing speakers until much later.



> Besides the usual obvious questions like blinding protocol and level-matching, you don't have a control measurement that shows the clock's jitter is actually an improvement on the DAC's internal jitter. What if the clock actually made the DAC technically worse by injecting RF into the DAC and caused more jitter, and you preferred the technically inferior sound?


Clearly you don't have any real knowledge in recording music or you would have known that the master clock is designed specifically to enhance the clocking such that jitter is lowered. There are test instruments at Lucid that confirm this lower jitter and testing is done against most major recording devices.

You also mention volume levels. The levels remain the same. We daisy chain recording boxes off the mic preamp at a set volume level. Some boxes get the master clock, some do not. So the recording signal is exactly the same except for the effect of the clock. Those with the clock show improvements in imaging and clarity. It's a no brainer.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Teacher said:


> One thing I have to wonder: if the human ear is so sensitive that it can detect picosecond breaks, what on Earth would dust particles -- wich WILL, despite the best cleaning equipment, accumulate in the grooves -- do to the overall sound? Surely, a dust particle would create distortion tens of thousands of times greater than a picosecond break.


It really isn't audible on digital discs and for LP a record cleaning machine removes either all or 98% of it.

People have bad memories of the LP format for a number of reasons I have learned:

1. Older pressings have been bad.
2. Older turntables not from the high end vendors often sounded noisy and horrible with speed stability issues, etc.
3. People tend to intuitively think that digital is better because it is clean in terms of capturing errors, using ones and zeros, and perfect replication. Unfortunately there are problems in each of these errors. Believe it or not, even CD replication plants can exhibit pressing jitter which results from the pits and land being made poorly. That is why some audiophile labels are picky about who manufactures their CD.

No question that the added convenience of CD and downloaded iTunes songs is very important to the consumer. I like to think that some knowledge of what is missing musically could go a long way to getting us music lovers even better sound quality in downloads or physical discs like the resurgent vinyl new issues. Blue Note just announced they are making jazz 45rpms available for instance. www.musicmattersjazz.com


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Teacher said:


> One thing I have to wonder: if the human ear is so sensitive that it can detect picosecond breaks, what on Earth would dust particles -- wich WILL, despite the best cleaning equipment, accumulate in the grooves -- do to the overall sound? Surely, a dust particle would create distortion tens of thousands of times greater than a picosecond break.


The human ear does not directly hear picosecond changes (jitter) in the digital clock. It hears the effect of picosecond jitter in the digital clock in the form of distortion jitter causes in the analog output of a digital-to-analog converter. Jitter frequency modulates the analog output. It's exactly like wow on an LP, except higher in frequency.

A DAC that is that sensitive is a bad design, and considered broken by normal engineering standards. A DAC sensitive to nanosecond jitter is also considered broken. Unfortunately, most DACs (at least 99 percent?) on the market are broken.

Fortunately, these effects are very, very tiny, and there are bigger, real problems in digital to worry about (none of which have even been brought up in this thread by the anti-digital crowd).

--Andre


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Anti-digital crowd? Who's that?

All I see here are people who are rightfully criticising the Red Book format (as opposed to DSD for instance). And someone else trying to pick a dated analogue vs digital fight like it was 1990 all over again.


----------



## trimaldo (Jul 29, 2007)

Artisan Fan said:


> Andre, I work as a recording engineer. I get to hear the original recording pre-mastering in 16/44. 24/88, 24/176, 24/192, and analog tape. That is why I am passionate on the differences. They are not subtle.
> 
> Ultimately you may favor 16/44 digital which is fine as it is very convenient, but I like the hirez formats whether LP or hirez PCM or DSD. They are a clear improvement based on my 20 years in professional audio.
> 
> ...


This discussion is very hard to follow for us newbs. Andre seems like he has a lot of tecnical expertise and I am inclined to believe his point of view.

Can you tell us more about your experience in the sound recording field. At the beginning it sounded like you had dabbled a bit, but now you claim twenty years of in studio experience. That is a lot of hours and I think that if you clarified your experience it would help solidify your arguments.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Further reading on LPs in case members are interested.



> A DAC that is that sensitive is a bad design, and considered broken by normal engineering standards. A DAC sensitive to nanosecond jitter is also considered broken. Unfortunately, most DACs (at least 99 percent?) on the market are broken.


It's not a matter of broken or not but one of what chips exhibit lower jitter. Those that do sound better.



> All I see here are people who are rightfully criticising the Red Book format (as opposed to DSD for instance).


Correct. I'm not anti-digital. I just want a higher sampling rate and word length like 24/176 or at least 24/88 that will get use closer to the music.

Listen to a cymbal crash on a well recorded jazz album on an LP. It has the nice shimmer effect when kept in analog that is lifelike and natural. Now listen to a 16/44 CD of the same with a good mastering. It invariably sounds like someone shaking tinfoil in the background. No comparison imho.


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Andre, I work as a recording engineer. I get to hear the original recording pre-mastering in 16/44. 24/88, 24/176, 24/192, and analog tape. That is why I am passionate on the differences. They are not subtle.


Good for you. Tell me exactly how this relates to the discussion we were having on vintage recordings sounding different on SACD and Redbook? Surely you aren't claiming to be present at the mastering sessions of the old recordings we were discussing?



> That makes no sense. You need higher resolution gear to hear subtle differences. Our recording chain is state of the art. It does help to record acoustically and simpler more tonally correct music is easier to listen to for changes. My earlier point was that picosecond differences show the extreme sensitivity of the human ear.


You are missing the point. A good DAC is immune to jitter, especially jitter as small as picoseconds. If you have a DAC whose analog outputs change because it received some picosecond-level jitter on its digital inputs, you have a badly designed DAC. It is sensitive for precisely all the wrong reasons.

And you still don't understand that the human ear does not hear picosecond differences directly. It hears the effect of picosecond jitter on the analog output of a DAC. Such high jitter susceptibility says nothing about the sensitivity of the human ear: it only indicts the equipment being used. It's like bragging that your amp blows up when it sees something non-resistive on its outputs.



> There is plenty of bass on an analog master tape which then winds up on the final LP record.


That's nice, but the bass is still monophonic which is the point of the discussion. And I won't even mention the phase shifts.



> Clearly you don't have any real knowledge in recording music or you would have known that the master clock is designed specifically to enhance the clocking such that jitter is lowered. There are test instruments at Lucid that confirm this lower jitter and testing is done against most major recording devices.


You have a naive view of the world. Why are you assuming that a master clock has no other effect on downstream equipment other than lowering jitter? How do you know the interaction between the master clock and the DAC lowers the artifacts on the DAC's analog outputs? How do you know the the master clock did not increase the susceptibility of your whole recording chain to RF? Why do you assume that if it sounds better to you, it must be technically better? What if you actually prefer a sound that has more jitter, RF, etc.?

Also, Lucid is hardly the last word on state-of-the-art digital.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Can you tell us more about your experience in the sound recording field.


I worked for an audiophile record label part-time as an assistant recording engineer and assistant producer from 1990-1998 (credits on over a dozen recording sessions) at which point I worked with a small company that does live to 2 track recordings focused primarily on jazz, classical, and choral. I am currently producing an album of classical works for a prominent label.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Good for you. Tell me exactly how this relates to the discussion we were having on vintage recordings sounding different on SACD and Redbook? Surely you aren't claiming to be present at the mastering sessions of the old recordings we were discussing?


You miss the point. What I am saying is that my A/B comparisons are valid since I am hearing a live event in a controlled recording and playback chain where the only difference is one of formats.



> And you still don't understand that the human ear does not hear picosecond differences directly. It hears the effect of picosecond jitter on the analog output of a DAC.


That is what I am saying in fact. The ear is still hearing the effect of picosecond timing differences and that is what we are discussing here. The original statement by Teacher is what started this. The ear is an amazing instrument.



> You have a naive view of the world. Why are you assuming that a master clock has no other effect on downstream equipment other than lowering jitter? How do you know the interaction between the master clock and the DAC lowers the artifacts on the DAC's analog outputs? How do you know the the master clock did not increase the susceptibility of your whole recording chain to RF? Why do you assume that if it sounds better to you, it must be technically better? What if you actually prefer a sound that has more jitter, RF, etc.?


Please stop with the personal attacks or I am done here. It's insulting given my level of experience in the field. We know what RFI and EMI sound like and our recording locations are not susceptible to those problems. Those are overcome by treating the mic stand anyway. If the masterclock introduced RF we would be able to tell.

By the way, my opinion like any good engineer is not only informed by my own personal experiences but the opinions of others who have shown good judgment in listening such as producers or musicians I work with. Some people have invested the time to learn critical listening skills and they can be valuable sources of corroboration or differing views. The key is to be as objective as possible as you search for the gear that will accurately reproduce the live event.

Why can't you simply admit what *every* recording engineer in the country knows: master clocks can add value?


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> It's not a matter of broken or not but one of what chips exhibit lower jitter. Those that do sound better.


If you think jitter is controlled by only what chips you use, then I'm glad you're not designing DACs, and it shows that you don't really know what you're talking about on the technical aspects of these issues. Control of jitter goes far, far beyond picking chips, and in fact has almost nothing to do with picking chips that exhibit lower jitter.

Board layout, a secondary PLL, common-mode noise isolation and rejection, power supply cleanliness and robustness of its grounding and bypass structures all play far more important roles.

Take apart a Benchmark DAC1, and you'll see many of these techniques put to good use.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> If you think jitter is controlled by only what chips you use


I never said that Andre. Quit putting words in my mouth. Chips are only part of the equation.

Implementation is equally important of course. As for Benchmark, well we use the ADC1 and DAC1 both. They are fine devices.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

This discussion is making me want to go out and buy a Coby from the Sabra Shopping Network ("Sony guts!!!").


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

RJman said:


> This discussion is making me want to go out and buy a Coby from the Sabra Shopping Network ("Sony guts!!!").


How many hours does it take to build a Coby? :devil:


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

iammatt said:


> How many hours does it take to build a Coby? :devil:


Let's cut it open. :idea:


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> You miss the point. What I am saying is that my A/B comparisons are valid since I am hearing a live event in a controlled recording and playback chain where the only difference is one of formats.


Nope. I've heard live vs. recorded things, too, but I don't have the hubris to claim that I know how recordings done 40 years ago were mastered to the point that the delivery medium caused all the audible differences.



> That is what I am saying in fact. The ear is still hearing the effect of picosecond timing differences and that is what we are discussing here. The original statement by Teacher is what started this. The ear is an amazing instrument.


It doesn't show ear sensitivity. It shows DAC sensitivity and susceptibility. A badly-designed DAC can greatly amplify small timing differences so that it's obvious what those differences are. They shouldn't do that, but some do.



> We know what RFI and EMI sound like and our recording locations are not susceptible to those problems. Those are overcome by treating the mic stand anyway. If the masterclock introduced RF we would be able to tell.


This makes no sense at all. "Treating the mic stand"? What does that have to do with RFI? Do you see all those seams in the component boxes between the screw holes? They are all antennae as well as entrances for RFI for wavelengths proportional to their physical length.

And if you've actually dealt with RFI in any kind of detail, you also know that its effect on audio is very unpredictable. Take a look at Stereophile's jitter measurements. What do you think all of those unidentified spikes are that the Miller analyzer can't classify?

RF isn't just hearing the radio or someone's cell phone on your speakers.



> Why can't you simply admit what *every* recording engineer in the country knows: master clocks can add value?


I'm impressed that you're in touch with *every* recording engineer in the country. I'm also glad to see that if something is labeled "master clock", that it "adds value", whatever that means.

--Andre


----------



## Panzeraxe (Jan 11, 2004)

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. And what's this with the 'jitters' - is it contagious?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Nope. I've heard live vs. recorded things, too, but I don't have the hubris to claim that I know how recordings done 40 years ago were mastered to the point that the delivery medium caused all the audible differences.


I think you are confusing things Andre. The older recordings are done in analog tape so there are advantages to keeping an "all analog" chain and releasing LPs as one does not have to suffer the sonic defects present in A/D and D/A conversion. Later we spoke of comparing formats. Ideally that is done with "all else being equal" which can only happen during the recording which is what my field work allows me to.



> It doesn't show ear sensitivity.


Sure it does as we can hear it! If we can hear timing differences that small then we can hear quite a lot.



> It shows DAC sensitivity and susceptibility. A badly-designed DAC can greatly amplify small timing differences


We use the latest and greatest chips and are always upgrading and the master clock makes a difference. Apparently there is much room for improvement in chip design and implementation. It gets better over time but we keep using whatever gear provides for the best sound.



> This makes no sense at all. "Treating the mic stand"? What does that have to do with RFI? Do you see all those seams in the component boxes between the screw holes? They are all antennae as well as entrances for RFI for wavelengths proportional to their physical length.


I think this highlights our two different approaches to the problem. You are an electrical engineer looking at this from a circuit and theory standpoint. I am a recording engineer looking at the practical application as to what matters to the sound.

We used to record in big cities. There is lots of EMI and RFI (you could sometimes hear local radio stations on test tracks) so we actually drape aluminum foil over parts of the mic stand to eliminate the radio frequencies. We don't encounter this problem fortunately in Atlanta.

I'm not sure where we go now in this debate. You seem sold on 16/44 digital and I've come to learn, after initial skepticism, about some serious limitations with this lower quality redbook sampling.

Have you heard a good hirez playback system? I ask because even my friends who are digital fans can't stand 16/44 after hearing the benefits of extra word length and faster sampling rates.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why buy a Brioni suit or Lobb shoes ?*

Would some of you audio buffs list your audio equipment. It appears to me that none of you have bothered to purchase decent audio gear. 
I might add that the LP's prior to the 1990's made in the United States were very bad. R.C. A . Columbia , Capital , and Decca the four major labels all made very poor recordings.

Many of my audiophile friends bought their records from Europe. As good audio equipment only highlighted the poor pressings produced by the major American recording companies. London , Philips , and Grammophon all European labels did an excellent job of producing listenable LP recordings.
The European divisions of both R.C.A. and Columbia also made excellent 
LP recordings.

The American recording companies felt that the market was to small to spend the extra money needed to produce recording equal to what the European market was producing , excellent LP's. 
Today very few Americans listen to LP's. Since video and surround sound is in why bother. There are a very few very small companies that bother to produce excellent LP's , but there was very small American recording companies that did that 40 years ago.
I would say that over 95% of Americans especially young Americans today has never listen to or even seen a high-end audio system. Times have changed.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter

For all those that haven't a clue what AF and AY are on about:icon_smile_big:

As you may have gathered from my moniker, I have a professional interest in all this, having earned a full time living as an engineer in both the studio and then live environment for over twenty years. Most of my experience is in multitrack, but I did do a fair bit of direct to stereo jazz/big band/classical.

Diplomatically, I'll say that I agree with points that have been made by both sides. But for the misty eyed analogists, having heard original master tapes played through extremely expensive studio monitor set-ups, versus the vinyl product played through very high end Hi-fi, they aint the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.....

I


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> But for the misty eyed analogists, having heard original master tapes played through extremely expensive studio monitor set-ups, versus the vinyl product played through very high end Hi-fi, they aint the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.....


I agree that master tapes sound a bit better than the final LP. We did analog tapes in the 90s and the sound was fantastic. Still I would argue you get closer to that tape with a quality LP than you do with a 16/44.1khz CD.


----------



## Thracozaag (Sep 5, 2002)

All quibbling aside, I've actually enjoyed the back-and-forth between Andrew and Artisan Fan--very informative stuff. I know and trust what sounds good to my ears, but it's quite interesting to read about the technical details.

koji


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> Would some of you audio buffs list your audio equipment. It appears to me that none of you have bothered to purchase decent audio gear.
> I might add that the LP's prior to the 1990's made in the United States were very bad. R.C. A . Columbia , Capital , and Decca the four major labels all made very poor recordings.
> 
> Many of my audiophile friends bought their records from Europe. As good audio equipment only highlighted the poor pressings produced by the major American recording companies. London , Philips , and Grammophon all European labels did an excellent job of producing listenable LP recordings.
> ...


I'm totally ignorant in this area.
I'll look for Euro pressings when I'm digging around.
My turntable is still sitting around, a Thorens, maybe I'll crank it up.
Thanks!
P.S. Do you know of any sites explaining the mechanics of the Euro pressings?


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

Artisan Fan said:


> I agree that master tapes sound a bit better than the final LP. We did analog tapes in the 90s and the sound was fantastic. Still I would argue you get closer to that tape with a quality LP than you do with a 16/44.1khz CD.


I agree with you at the "bespoke" end if you like, direct to stereo,minimal mother father stamp pressing degredation, but in the commercial world it's all a damage limitation exercise. I think many would be horrified what actually goes on I know I was

Edit;just to add, I agree about 24/192 as well. The trouble with theoretical discussions versus reality is that in this case very rarely was 16 bits actually used due to the dynamic nature of music (especially jazz/classical). Hence in reality it was at best a 12<14 bit recording medium with even worse mastering standards. The point about 24/192 is that at least you are getting a decent threshold going for the quiet bits, and can actually hear those reverb tails.

I


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I think many would be horrified what actually goes on I know I was


But enough about ProTools... It's the compression that gets me angry. Typically little no dynamic range ironically for a format that improved on the dynamic range possibilities.


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> I think you are confusing things Andre. The older recordings are done in analog tape so there are advantages to keeping an "all analog" chain and releasing LPs as one does not have to suffer the sonic defects present in A/D and D/A conversion.


You conjecture that perhaps an extra AD/DA conversion may degrade it or that somehow keeping things "all analog" may enhance it, but there is a bigger elephant in the room.

How do you know that the LP transfer of old analog recordings sound better solely because of the carrier medium? That is, how do you know that it wasn't better mastering lavished on the LP version that made it sound better instead of anything to do with how it was delivered to the consumer?



> We used to record in big cities. There is lots of EMI and RFI (you could sometimes hear local radio stations on test tracks) so we actually drape aluminum foil over parts of the mic stand to eliminate the radio frequencies. We don't encounter this problem fortunately in Atlanta.


Just so you know, draping aluminum foil on mic stands doesn't do jack for rejecting EMI/RFI. And the EMI I'm talking about is much more subtle than hearing a radio station on your recording.



> You seem sold on 16/44 digital and I've come to learn, after initial skepticism, about some serious limitations with this lower quality redbook sampling.


And I am baffled as to how you reached this conclusion. You haven't even bothered asking me what I think 16/44.1's limits are, and I haven't said anything about its quality, other than it's better than LP.



> I ask because even my friends who are digital fans can't stand 16/44 after hearing the benefits of extra word length and faster sampling rates.


I have quite a collection of multichannel SACDs and a couple of DVD-As. As for people preferring hi-res digital, no one has shown that the higher sampling rates and extra word length are the direct causes of their preference. There are lots of other things to recommend these recordings (like the fact that they're multichannel), but being recorded at higher bandwidth in and of itself hasn't been proven to be directly audible.

Someone asked about dynamic range of actual recordings. Bob Katz has said that his most dynamic stuff (which is pretty darn dynamic) doesn't exceed 40 dB. That's about 6.5 bits. Obviously, that shows how completely silly using the number of bits to measure fidelity is, and how simple measures like sampling rate and word length serve to obscure rather than illuminate. Unfortunately, like "thick MOP buttons" or "fatte a mano", they're convenient handles for people to swing their opinions around without further thought.

--Andre


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

AF,AY found this googling 'digital distortion'
https://www.cadenzarecording.com/papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf

Alot of what is in this paper rings true with my professional experience.

I


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Infrasonic said:


> AF,AY found this googling 'digital distortion'
> https://www.cadenzarecording.com/papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf


Absolutely, and 0 dBFS+ issues were one of the real digital problems I was thinking about. It's even more insidious because it's so prevelent due to the loudness war going on in many modern recordings, different audio designs react differently to it, and standard digital meters (those that don't do intersample peak detection) are completely oblivious to it.

The reactions of audio equipment to 0 dBFS+ range from pretty benign to potentially speaker-damaging (ask me how I know). So it's an invisible problem that affects a lot of people in unpredictable ways: the worst kind of problem to have.

Nika's paper is good, but the cited Nielsen/Lund papers, which were the first papers AFAIK to point this out and explain the problem in fairly high detail, are also available from the TC website:

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> And I am baffled as to how you reached this conclusion. You haven't even bothered asking me what I think 16/44.1's limits are, and I haven't said anything about its quality, other than it's better than LP.


Andre,

Having worked on dozens of recording sessions, I have heard hundreds of takes of songs where I was able to listen to the original performance and then play back the recording on different formats and understand by critical listening which format most resembles the original performance. In early sessions the team recorded in analog tape and 16/44. The analog tape sounded much closer to my ears. Later we tried a mix of 16/44 and 24/96 and the higher sampling and word lenth sounded far more realistic to me capturing the naturalness and smoothness of live acoustic music. I don't mind if you disagree but this is my honest take:

In order of increasing sound quality:
MP3, AAC, 16/44, 24/96, closely followed by DSD and LP

I'm curious as to what your opinion is on redbook CD versus hirez and LP.

Bob Katz and I have worked together. He believes in hirez digital as well and generally works in 24/88 or higher.



> Just so you know, draping aluminum foil on mic stands doesn't do jack for rejecting EMI/RFI.


This is simply wrong. It worked wonderfully in eliminating it from the mic stand. Again, you seem to have a theoretician's view but no practical experience.

Infra,

This paper is interesting but having read many of Nika's papers and discussions, I do not always agree with him.

Getting back to the value of hirez digital, I do have another prominent supporter in addition to Katz - Bob Stuart of Meridian Audio. He believes 24 bits and 50khz+ sampling rates are important. I will look for a link to his paper.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Here is Bob's landmark paper:



Among its conclusions:

**Redbook or 16/44 is inadequate.
**Audible transparency is achieved at 58khz and 20 bits in flat noise floor.


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> I'm curious as to what your opinion is on redbook CD versus hirez and LP.


For technical accuracy, LP << CD < hi-res. DSD has its own issues, but it does sound pretty good for what is essentially a cynical marketing exercise. You may have your preference, but the technical issues are incontrovertible.



> He believes in hirez digital as well and generally works in 24/88 or higher.


For production purposes, more bits definitely makes more sense, and a higher sampling rate can be more forgiving for certain processes, but for a delivery format, it's not clear at all. Ask Bob Katz about the test he ran comparing low-pass filters near 20 kHz, and why he ran that particular test and what he found out.

Also, I'd be interested in finding a DAC with 24-bit wideband resolution. Except for one very special device (and it's a mic preamp), they don't exist. Again, this makes the use of 24 bits for a delivery format questionable.



> It worked wonderfully in eliminating it from the mic stand. Again, you seem to have a theoretician's view but no practical experience.


First of all, I have no idea how RFI affects mic stands. If you think it does, it's not a matter of reality vs. theory. It's reality vs. fantasy.

Second, since my day job involves producing electronic devices that have several multi-hundred megahertz clocks that have to pass CE and FCC class B ratings, I think I have a clue about RFI. If I could have wrapped aluminum foil around those devices and get them passing emissions testing, I would have fewer white hairs. Al foil is about as useful for solving RF problems as stones and twigs are for sewing a suit.

If I had to guess what happened with your foil, you probably moved some cables around in the process of applying the foil, and that changed the susceptibility of the mics and/or cables to the RFI.

And that still doesn't change the fact that I was discussing a completely different kind of RFI. As I've mentioned before, the phenomena I'm talking about is much more subtle than hearing radio stations, but it sounds like you're not even remotely curious.



> This paper is interesting but having read many of Nika's papers and discussions, I do not always agree with him.


That's nice, but do you have anything interesting or useful to say about the issue of 0 dBFS+?



> Getting back to the value of hirez digital, I do have another prominent supporter in addition to Katz - Bob Stuart of Meridian Audio. He believes 24 bits and 50khz+ sampling rates are important. I will look for a link to his paper.


Yes, I know the paper, but:

1. 58 kHz doesn't equal 88.2, 96, 192, or 2822.4 kHz. 
2. Stuart claims 20 bits for a rectangular channel or 14 bits for a shaped channel is sufficient, not 24 as you mention.
3. A direct quote from the paper: "Sampling at 88.2kHz or 96kHz is too high, and therefore wasteful of data"
4. Another direct quote: "The use of sampling rates above 96kHz to convey a wider audio bandwidth cannot currently be justified"

Yes, he does claim that 44.1/16 is inadequate, but I'm not sure you understand the reasons why.

In general, Stuart's recommendations try to ensure accurate capture of everything that could conceivably be audible. Nowhere does he claim that this would lead to better sound, only that it would be guaranteed that humans could not exceed the limits dictated by the format.

Blindly listing these numbers without understanding the reasons behind them isn't really a good idea, and does nothing to support your position.

--Andre


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Sure it does as we can hear it! If we can hear timing differences that small then we can hear quite a lot.


Sorry I have to come back to this one, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues. If I have a device that makes some audible indication (like a loud beep) when it sees 1 ps of jitter on its inputs, does that make the human ear sensitive to 1 ps or does it mean the device is sensitive to 1 ps?

A DAC which makes audibly different outputs when it gets picoseconds of jitter isn't showing the sensitivity of the human ear. It's showing the sensitivity of the DAC design to infinitesimally tiny timing variations, and that's a bad thing.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> For production purposes, more bits definitely makes more sense


One of Bob's favorite sayings is "more bits please."



> Second, since my day job involves producing electronic devices that have several multi-hundred megahertz clocks that have to pass CE and FCC class B ratings, I think I have a clue about RFI. If I could have wrapped aluminum foil around those devices and get them passing emissions testing


I'm not sure what EE job you have but the foil works by shielding the RFI from what engineers have told me. Again, practical application rules the day. We had the aluminum foil and the RFI goes away. We take it away and it returns. Mind you we use very sensitive modded mics with thin diaphragms.



> Sorry I have to come back to this one, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues. If I have a device that makes some audible indication (like a loud beep) when it sees 1 ps of jitter on its inputs, does that make the human ear sensitive to 1 ps or does it mean the device is sensitive to 1 ps?


Again, practical application trumps your EE textbook. If we insert one device with an observed and tested lower jitter amount and the sound quality improves with all else being equal then the human ear has noted the improvement in timing of the music. See Julian Dunn's work for an explanation for how this is audible to nanosecond range. Many researchers now believe audibility is down to picosecond range as well. This seems borne out by usage of better CD transports and players as well.



> A DAC which makes audibly different outputs when it gets picoseconds of jitter isn't showing the sensitivity of the human ear. It's showing the sensitivity of the DAC design to infinitesimally tiny timing variations, and that's a bad thing.


I'm not sure Andre how much more clear I can be except to demonstrate this effect in person at a recording session. One person on my recording team is an Electrical Engineer from Ga Tech and has studied this issue in detail and agrees with me. If you are only changing the master clock then what else could the improvement in sound be from?



> Yes, I know the paper, but:
> 
> 1. 58 kHz doesn't equal 88.2, 96, 192, or 2822.4 kHz.
> 2. Stuart claims 20 bits for a rectangular channel or 14 bits for a shaped channel is sufficient, not 24 as you mention.
> ...


It's an older paper but Stuart has seen the benefit of higher sampling rates recently. In fact there are a few papers presented to the AES that discuss the impact on harmonic structure of higher frequencies.



> For technical accuracy, LP << CD < hi-res.


You must not have an adequate turntable as the LP clearly bests CD quality assuming good mastering of each sample.


----------



## trimaldo (Jul 29, 2007)

Andre Yew said:


> First of all, I have no idea how RFI affects mic stands. If you think it does, it's not a matter of reality vs. theory. It's reality vs. fantasy.
> 
> Second, since my day job involves producing electronic devices that have several multi-hundred megahertz clocks that have to pass CE and FCC class B ratings, I think I have a clue about RFI. If I could have wrapped aluminum foil around those devices and get them passing emissions testing, I would have fewer white hairs. Al foil is about as useful for solving RF problems as stones and twigs are for sewing a suit.
> 
> ...


Aluminum foil is excellent for communicating with the inhabitants of other galaxies. You have to be careful when construction your aluminum hat to make sure that it is just right (the more time you take on this the better), but at the end of the day, a high quality aluminum foil hat will allow you to communicate with people who will fill your mind with all sorts of propaganda.

Granted, aluminum foil is no match for the great tin foils of yesteryear, but there are some excellent aluminum foil mills who make a quality aluminum foil that will give you years of use.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why buy a Brioni suit or Lobb shoes*

It appears that most of the discussion surrounding audio is done by those who don't listen to music. One can use equipment to test audio equipment LP's , tapes , CD's , DVD's , speakers , Amp's turntables , tuners , etc.
it is the listening experience , that is what music reproducing systems is about. digital music has outstanding dynamics , analog music has excellent definition for those who listen with their ears and not a piece of test equipment.

I asked Artisan Fan , Andrew Yen and infrasonic to list their home audio equipment . I will add what type off music do they listen to ? The ears are not test equipment. a piece of audio gear can test excellent on test equipment and sound terrible when listen to ! 
M. Kielty wanted to know about European pressings. First doing the 50's ,60's 
70's and 80's stereo recording made in the U.S. by the major recording companies were cut with an exaggeration of the highs for customers with consoles and low fi audio equipment , which was the majority of listeners.
As a result audiophiles either bought LP's made in Europe or mono recordings.
Of note older LP's in mono are more valuable than those in stereo because of the poor quality.

I listed on a previous post the European labels that did an excellent job of pressing LP's. I will add that music has changed over the years as had audio equipment , music is louder and less defined than it was 40 years ago. A result of that is more dynamics less definition. It is the beat not the lyrics that defines popular music today. After-all how can one whistle or hum today's popular music. Try and remember the lyrics of music recorded last year. I hope you get my point.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I asked Artisan Fan , Andrew Yen and infrasonic to list their home audio equipment . I will add what type off music do they listen to ? The ears are not test equipment. a piece of audio gear can test excellent on test equipment and sound terrible when listen to !


I'm sorry I forgot to list mine. Audio Research electronics, Magnepan speakers, Sony SACD player, VPI turntable, Cardas cables, Monster Cable (Richard Marsh designed) power conditioning. Around 1,500 CDs and 400 LPs. Mostly jazz and classical music with an increasing selection of classic rock and 80s pop bands. Everything Van Morrison has done to Fritz Reiner. I also have about a dozen master tapes from sessions I have worked on, mostly in hirez digital at 24/88 or higher and the corresponding 16/44.1.

I do listen to music in a treated listening room in my basement. I was listening last night for three hours. I just love music and I've made the investment to get more resolution and go to tube equipment since I find it more faithful to the music. Some audiophiles buy gear to show off but I use mine for the utility of playing back music as best I can. It's all about the performance at the end of the day.

As for LP pressing, the recent reissues are also quite good. I like the following labels: Cisco, Classic, Speaker's Corner, Pure Pleasure, APO, the new Warner series, some of the Lost Highway LPs, the ABKCO Rolling Stones DSD series, and most anything on Quiex II vinyl from the 80s.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

For those reading this thread, please keep in mind that you don't need expensive gear for good sound. The audiophile brands have been offering stellar sonics at better prices for several years now. I'm amazed how good some of the less expensive gear is now.

Brands like Rega, Paradigm, PSB, Music Hall, etc. are all terrific at the lower price points.

Besides, if you are at this forum you already have other expensive hobbies.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why but a Brioni suit ? or Lobb shoes.*

Audio equipment is no different than clothing. There is very good inexpensive 
men's clothing that some would consider very good. Examples Cole Han shoes , London Fog rain coats , Men's Warehouse suits , Hathaway shirts etc. Riga , Paradigm , PSB , Music Hall etc., would be comparable to the clothing listed above in quality.

One does not need expensive clothing to achieve excellent results. Why shouldn't AA members appreciate fine clothing and fine music reproducing equipment. 
Reissue are just that reissues. It is not by acccident that Miles Davis recording of " Kind of Blue " issued in mono is very expensive. The stereo issue is much less expensive , the CD version even less expensive.

Most rock music was recorded using inferior recording methods in the 70's and 80's when major labels produced very poor recording. The few decent recording made by the major labels was classical , rock recordings was terrible. One could buy a popular recording by Frank Sinatra on a European label not so with rock ! pressing or better today but popular music has declined. Tubes are sweeter and softer than transistors , but tube equipment is very expensive , upkeep is also very expensive , sounds familiar.
Remember as Johnny Mathis stated when asked the difference between today's music and music of 30 to 40 years ago his answer was" decibels" MUSIC TODAY IS LOWER LESS DEFINED.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Most rock music was recorded using inferior recording methods in the 70's and 80's when major labels produced very poor recording.


Not true, many studio sessions sounded great but the LP pressings were poor. The good news is now these analog tapes are getting a proper reissue. Listen to the new Linda Ronstadt albums or Eagles LPs from the era. They are superb recordings.

In fact, in many ways we have lost ground due to processing from Pro Tools and the compression war that makes everything sound loud.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

Artisan Fan said:


> Not true, many studio sessions sounded great but the LP pressings were poor. The good news is now these analog tapes are getting a proper reissue. Listen to the new Linda Ronstadt albums or Eagles LPs from the era. They are superb recordings.
> 
> In fact, in many ways we have lost ground due to processing from Pro Tools and the compression war that makes everything sound loud.


Agreed. 
"Normalisation" has a lot to answer for. Bring back putting opera divas on greased rail trolleys to limit their dynamic range:icon_smile_big:

The other problem is that you now have the "mix engineer" with a background as a DJ, not an apprenticeship as an audio engineer.

It used to wind up George Massenburg no end, having his master tapes ruined by some record company appointed "hot" re-mix buffoon.
(Although _some_ of the guys in the pop re-mix world do justify their pay {and now points!!})

Funnily enough, I was sat in a club the other night and the DJ was having a bit of a nostalgia trip, playing 70's Bowie, 80's pop etc. Even through the appalling pa system it was really interesting to hear the marked differences in engineering and production values. Bowie, artistically great, but loads of phase issues, lack of top end (due to bounce downs probably) etc. 80's Duran Duran, ABC. All very in your face mixes, especially the ABC stuff (Trevor Horn) with loud, louder and loudest seeming to be the order of the day. All the synclavier samples compressed to the max!!

I came into the profession on the cusp of the digital revolution, if pressed I could still do a mean editing job with razor blade and splicing block:icon_smile_big:

The ultimate compliment you could get years ago was for a mastering engineer to say "didn't touch it", meaning they had mastered it without any changes. I wonder how many sessions they get like that now

For all those interested in the issues that have been discussed by AF and AY, check out these website links.
https://www.rogernichols.com/

It will at least give you an insight into what goes on before you listen to your favourite wax cylinder/shellac 78/33.3/45rpmLP/CD/SACD/HDCD/DVD


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

> If we insert one device with an observed and tested lower jitter amount and the sound quality improves with all else being equal then the human ear has noted the improvement in timing of the music.


You still don't understand my point. We are not directly hearing picosecond differences. We are hearing the reaction of the DAC to picosecond differences. Do you understand this?

What you are saying is directly equivalent to saying that the human ear can hear 88.7 MHz radio waves and multipath distortion because I can hear distorted music from my FM radio. Obviously, the human ear does not decode 88.7 MHz FM-modulated music. It listens to a radio that does that task. Similarly, picosecond jitter is not perceived directly by the ear. We are hearing the reaction of the DAC to picosecond jitter. A good DAC has no reaction to picosecond jitter.



> Many researchers now believe audibility is down to picosecond range as well.


You seem to make up facts as you go along to suit your preferences. Please cite some of this research.



> If you are only changing the master clock then what else could the improvement in sound be from?


You may prefer the sound with more jitter. The master clock could increase the jitter of the DAC. You may prefer the sound with more RF. The masterclock's output is filled with RF noise, and the DAC's behavior could have changed because of that.

You claim you have measured the jitter of the DAC with the masterclock in place. Did you run a J-test of the analog output of the DAC to confirm that the noise floor was cleaner? Did you directly measure the clock input of the DAC chip to confirm that the noise floor was cleaner?



> It's an older paper but Stuart has seen the benefit of higher sampling rates recently. In fact there are a few papers presented to the AES that discuss the impact on harmonic structure of higher frequencies.


How convenient and disingenuous. Now you're saying the paper you cited doesn't support your position? Did you even read it?

Your second sentence is also a nonsequitur: what has an impact on the harmonic structure of what higher frequencies?



> You must not have an adequate turntable as the LP clearly bests CD quality assuming good mastering of each sample.


This has never been my experience. By implication, you're saying Rockports, SMEs, and Michells aren't good turntables?

--Andre


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> It appears that most of the discussion surrounding audio is done by those who don't listen to music.


This characterization is highly offensive, inaccurate, and unfortunately common in the audio community. Are you saying that it is impossible for someone to be interested in the technical details and not love music? Do you think technical advances in audio reproduction were done in a vacuum outside of music?

And what gives people who love LPs the right to question the musical motivations of people who disagree with them?



> I asked Artisan Fan , Andrew Yen and infrasonic to list their home audio equipment.


I find this request to be ironic given the label you've tried to apply to me. If you're so into music, shouldn't you be asking us what instruments we play, what concerts we attend, and how we volunteer to help and support our local music organizations instead?

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> This has never been my experience. By implication, you're saying Rockports, SMEs, and Michells aren't good turntables?


Those are quality brands; I never referenced any of those. I'm puzzled why you don't hear better sonics as I have heard several Michells and Rockports over the years and they do sound better than CD to my ears.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Your second sentence is also a nonsequitur: what has an impact on the harmonic structure of what higher frequencies?


I've read that better HF reproduction also extends into the audible range via harmonic structure.

Bob Stuart's paper does support me. Did you read it?

Honestly Andre your tone and nastiness in the replies cannot make up for the fact that you have zero studio experience. Your knowledge as a chip designer does not make you an expert on record engineering. And your dismissal of my real world field experience is arrogant and factually wrong.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Here is an AES paper that finds higher sampling improve time axis resolution:

Does High Sampling Frequency Improve Perceptual Time-Axis Resolution of Digital Audio Signal?


> The effect of frequency bandwidth on perceptual time-axis resolution of a digital audio signal was studied experimentally. Four kinds of pulse train having constant intervals were used for the test signal. To make the test signal, the upper frequencies were limited using an FIR low-pass filter. Cutoff frequencies of the FIR low-pass filter were 40 kHz and 20 kHz. The experiment was performed in a room with a volume of 54.7 m3, reverberation time of 0.36 s (at 1 kHz), and noise level of NC-25. As the reference signals, pulse trains having designated intervals 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.125 s were used. On the other hand, pulse train having slightly different intervals from the reference signals (maximum+20% to -20% were used as the test signals. Reference signals and test signals were presented alternately to the subjects. The subjects were asked whether the test signal is equal to the reference signal or not by hearing. The subjects were 11 males, age 22 to 24, having normal hearing. Purpose of this experiment is to confirm the following hypothesis. Since the waveform of a pulse signal reproduced by the 40-kHz bandwidth system is more similar to the original signal than by the 20-kHz bandwidth system. We can assume that the subjects would be able to identify the interval of the test signal more easily and more correctly using the 40-kHz system thab using the 20-kHz system. When the interval of the test signal is short, identification becomes easier, but when it becomes long, identification becomes rather difficult. *As a result of the experiment, we found that widening the frequency band improves perceptual time-axis resolution of a digital audio signal. Adoption of higher sampling frequency will be helpful from the viewpoint of improving the time-axis resolution*.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Another which discusses the wide range of human hearing:



> Why Direct Stream Digital (DSD) is the best choice as a digital audio format.
> In this paper, an overview of Direct Stream Digital (DSD) signal processing is given. It is shown that 1-bit DSD signals can be dithered properly, *so the resulting dithered DSD stream does not contain audible artifacts in a band from 0-100~kHz. It is also shown that signal processing can be done best in a high rate, multi-bit domain. Arguments are given that the minimal frequency span needed to comply with the human auditory system is roughly 0-300~kHz*. Following the signal processing, final conversion to DSD is made. It is demonstrated that Super Audio CD (SACD) is a very efficient consumer format: it is the format which, while maintaining all necessary psycho-acoustical characteristics such has high band width, filtering with wide transition bands etc, uses the least bits from the disk; hence offering the longest playing time.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

On LP versus CD differences there is a famous quote from the famous mastering engineer Bob Ludwig of Gateway Sound:



> It is customary to believe that the CD is superior to the LP in terms of bandwidth, but this is not the case. The CD is limited to 22,000 cycles, whereas the LP is able to reproduce frequencies up to 50,000 cycles, which in the PCM world equals a sampling rate at 100 kHz. The bottom line is that LPs mastered with DMM still sound really good.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I am not going to read all of the posts today so this may be redundant. I buy these things, mechanical watches for the quality I perceive they have over quartz. I buy a good turntable because I like vinyl and have much of it and my Music Hall fits the bill. I buy Italian and classic expensive clothing because I like how they fit, how I look in them, how they make me feel..... I spend money I can afford on the things I enjoy, I am not spending what I cannot pay for, or what will take food out of my child's mouth. I see people wearing things I would not be caught dead in, that is their choice...


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> I've read that better HF reproduction also extends into the audible range via harmonic structure.


Where did you read that? That sentence is a technical nonsequitur. It's like saying 2+2 = 5 because cheese hears the moon. For one thing, if you have ever seen a spectrum of any instrument, harmonics go up in frequency, not down.



> Bob Stuart's paper does support me. Did you read it?


Yes, I've read it. So saying that 88.2 and 96 kHz is unnecessary and wasteful supports your position? 14 bits is enough supports your position?



> Honestly Andre your tone and nastiness in the replies cannot make up for the fact that you have zero studio experience.


Now you know what my experience is? Did you read my mind? Why do you expect people to be nice to you when you keep doing things like this to them?



Artisan Fan said:


> Here is an AES paper that finds higher sampling improve time axis resolution:
> Does High Sampling Frequency Improve Perceptual Time-Axis Resolution of Digital Audio Signal?


This is where your technical knowledge fails you. If time resolution is what you're after (and I thought you were after "harmonic structure", but any port in a storm, I suppose), then you can easily simulate the same result with a low pass filter with a lower cutoff but a gentler slope. Someone even wrote about how to do this with CoolEdit.

I don't understand why audiophiles have to back up their preferences with technical reasons. Why is not OK to say, "I like analog tape and LP because music always sounds better to me on those media than any digital system I've heard," and leave it at that? Why must you drag in technical details which you obviously have no clue about, and then get defensive when someone calls you on it?



Artisan Fan said:


> Another which discusses the wide range of human hearing:


Oh great, a DSD apology paper --- be sure to collect the whole series. The only reason DSD needs a ridiculously large bandwidth is because it has to put all that noise it generates somewhere.



Artisan Fan said:


> On LP versus CD differences there is a famous quote from the famous mastering engineer Bob Ludwig of Gateway Sound:


Nice try, but too bad he doesn't say CD sounds bad, only that LP has more bandwidth and can sound pretty good. I thought we were done with this, but let me ask you (one more time): what is the bandwidth of your recording and playback system? Also is 50 kHz still important if it's filled with noise and distortion? And most importantly, is it important if it's not audible to humans?

--Andre


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Wow, did I miss the boat,

all this time I thought the best sound was had by smokin' a joint and going to see the Symphony...... live!


----------



## trimaldo (Jul 29, 2007)

Andre, don't worry yourself. This is, as they say in the music biz, at least take three for Artisan Fan. You can't think that this is the first time where he has decided to disregard all factual evidence to hold on to his point of view.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Yes, I've read it. So saying that 88.2 and 96 kHz is unnecessary and wasteful supports your position? 14 bits is enough supports your position?


The paper clearly states that 16/44.1 is not enough for transparency. That supports my point that redbook CD is not rich enough in data.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Why is not OK to say, "I like analog tape and LP because music always sounds better to me on those media than any digital system I've heard," and leave it at that? Why must you drag in technical details which you obviously have no clue about, and then get defensive when someone calls you on it?


??? This is exactly what I said in the earlier posts Andre. I explained at least three times that analog tape and hirez digital get much closer to the live event we are recording than redbook CD. There are very few engineers that would disagree with this. CD at 16/44.1 just doesn't have enough resolution to match the extra information in hirez formats like LP and 24/96 or DSD.

P.S. I showed the time resolution paper since I could not find a link to the harmonic structure paper I read recently. I think there was mention of it in Stereophile so I will check there.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

This is a paper that gets into the ability of critical listeners to detect ultra high frequencies.



> Perceptual Discrimination of Very High Frequency Components in Musical Sound Recorded with a Newly Developed Wide Frequency Range Microphone
> Subjective evaluation tests on perceptual discrimination between musical sounds with and without very high frequency (above 20 kHz) components have been conducted. To make a precise evaluation, the test system is designed to exclude any influence from very high frequency components in the audible frequency range. Moreover, various sound stimuli are originally recorded by a newly developed very wide frequency range microphone, in order to contain enough components in very high frequency range. Tests showed that some subjects might be able to discriminate between musical sounds with and without very high frequency components. This paper describes these subjective evaluations, and discusses the possibility of such discrimination as well as the high resolution audio recording of music.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*Moderator's Note*

All of the 89 postings in this thread (up to this point) were originally part of a Fashion Forum conversation titled *"Why buy a Brioni suit? or Lobb shoes? a turntable? a mechanical watch?"* Given the subject and substance of these aforementioned postings, they have now been split off into this new thread which you are now reading. I believe I have moved all the relevant postings...and have copied those that seemed appropriate to both discussions, but if there are messages that should be placed differently, please let me know.


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> This is a paper that gets into the ability of critical listeners to detect ultra high frequencies.


You ought to list enough information to track down these papers, but if this is the Karou/Shogo AES paper from 2001, then it's an unintentional demonstration of non-linearity in speakers than suprasonic hearing. Even the part you quote is full of equivocations.



> CD at 16/44.1 just doesn't have enough resolution to match the extra information in hirez formats like LP and 24/96 or DSD


And here you go again. If you had just said "I think LP sounds better than CD", it would have ended at that. But when you make unfounded and completely incorrect technical assertions like LP has more information or more resolution than CD, then you are just inviting trouble.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> And here you go again. If you had just said "I think LP sounds better than CD", it would have ended at that. But when you make unfounded and completely incorrect technical assertions like LP has more information or more resolution than CD, then you are just inviting trouble.


I think we are at an impasse Andre as everything I have learned in my 20+ years in pro and hobbyist audio has led me to decide that CD has limitations and LP offers more resolution even with some limits in other areas.



> But when you make unfounded and completely incorrect technical assertions like LP has more information or more resolution than CD, then you are just inviting trouble.


It's not unfounded when one can record a 50khz tone on an LP and one can't do that on CD. By definition that is more resolution.

I've presented evidence from world class experts: numerous AES researchers, Bob Ludwig, Bob Katz, and Bob Stuart who support my view that 16/44.1 has real issues. You have decided to ignore these experts presumably since they contradict your statements.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Further reading: https://www.ambisonic.net/pdf/hiresaudio.pdf

This is the best explanation I've read so far for why we hear improvements above 16/44.1:


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

And another good paper:


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> It's not unfounded when one can record a 50khz tone on an LP and one can't do that on CD. By definition that is more resolution.


You don't even use the technical terms correctly. That is not more resolution, that is more bandwidth. We are talking in circles here, because I will ask you to tell me why 50 kHz is relevant to human hearing, and we're back to some earlier post. In the audible range of 20 to 20 kHz, LP has far less measurable resolution and bandwidth than CD, and is far less linear.

In terms of spatial resolution and fidelity, CD walks all over LP as LP has mono bass, and frequency-dependent L-R enhancement further up in frequency.



> I've presented evidence from world class experts: numerous AES researchers, Bob Ludwig, Bob Katz, and Bob Stuart who support my view that 16/44.1 has real issues. You have decided to ignore these experts presumably since they contradict your statements.


Or could it be you will listen to them only because they support your statements? What a conundrum we have here.

I never said 16/44.1 was adequate, and I acknowledge its limitations in at least two posts. I simply said that it is far superior in technical terms to LP.

Your listening experience with LP may be far better than CD, and I have no arguments with that.

As for the dCS papers, they are claiming the same things as the temporal resolution paper you quoted earlier. As I explained earlier, these effects are not exclusive to high-rate digital sampling, and can be effected in 44.1 kHz sampling. The HDCD system does this by switching reconstruction filters on the fly according to the embedded code. Meitner's BiDAT did this in the early 90s, too, through real time analysis of the signal. Both with 44.1.

Richard Elen, the author of the high-res paper on Ambisonic.net, is not exactly the most technically astute writer out there. He's mainly a mouthpiece for Meridian, and his piece is a restatement (and even cites) the papers you mentioned already. So one guy repeating some other guy's writing with no evidence of his own is not convincing.

Since you hold Bob Stuart in high regard, you should ask him what he thinks about DSD as a hi-res format. He's written a bit about it (like ). Is he wrong?

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> You don't even use the technical terms correctly. That is not more resolution, that is more bandwidth. We are talking in circles here, because I will ask you to tell me why 50 kHz is relevant to human hearing, and we're back to some earlier post. In the audible range of 20 to 20 kHz, LP has far less measurable resolution and bandwidth than CD, and is far less linear.


Ludwig's point is that using the Nyquist Theorem, this equates to a 100khz sampling rate which is more resolution than 44.1khz CD.



> Since you hold Bob Stuart in high regard, you should ask him what he thinks about DSD as a hi-res format. He's written a bit about it (like ). Is he wrong?


He is wrong but we would expect this since SACD pretty much kicked DVD-Audio's butt in the format war and Bob designed much of the coding behind DVD-Audio. What I care about is good sound and Ray Kimber's recordings in DSD are a great example of the naturalness and transparency DSD is capable of. His T-5 recording is the best vocal recording I have heard.



> Your listening experience with LP may be far better than CD, and I have no arguments with that.


Indeed my LP playback experiences have created better sound than CDs. I've compared original recordings I have worked on where I was familiar with the live performance and the LP simply gets closer.

I don't have the audio research expertise to convince you of the technical merits of the LP but I do know that it sounds better based on my record engineering experience.


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Ludwig's point is that using the Nyquist Theorem, this equates to a 100khz sampling rate which is more resolution than 44.1khz CD.


Once more with feeling: that's not resolution. That's bandwidth. Nyquist or the sampling theorem also assumes a linear channel, which the LP is hardly even close to, so you and Ludwig are comparing apples to oranges.



> He is wrong but we would expect this since SACD pretty much kicked DVD-Audio's butt in the format war and Bob designed much of the coding behind DVD-Audio.


Check your history: the ARA's condemnation of DSD came out before the whole SACD and DVD-A thing happened. The reason for ARA's existence was to influence the form of the high-res audio format (which split into the SACD/DVD-A formats later on), so it isn't due to sour grapes that he writes what he writes.

In fact he is correct in his technical assesment of DSD, but I find it interesting that he's only right when he agrees with you, and he's wrong when he doesn't. For example, do you deny that DSD cannot be DSP-processed in its 1-bit form?

Meridian designed the lossless packing used in DVD-A (based on earlier work by Gerzon). The rest of it is standard DVD format.

No one kicked anyone's butt in the format war, except maybe for their own when it was over. No one won the format war --- everyone lost, and deservedly so for being so stupid as to have a war in the first place.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Who is ARA? I thought we were talking about Meridian?



> In fact he is correct in his technical assesment of DSD, but I find it interesting that he's only right when he agrees with you, and he's wrong when he doesn't.


Bob makes some good points but I do feel the extreme upper band noise is not audible based on my recording work or hearing Ray Kimber's work.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Who is ARA?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Interesting. I had never seen this before.


----------



## Andre Yew (Sep 2, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Bob makes some good points but I do feel the extreme upper band noise is not audible based on my recording work or hearing Ray Kimber's work.


So you want to record and deliver 50 kHz signals that will be many orders of magnitude lower than the 20-20kHz band and have never been shown to be perceptually important, but you don't worry about wideband ultrasonic noise that's often higher in level than the 20-20kHz content, and has been shown to cause instability and distortion in amplifiers among other things?

That seems very contradictory.

--Andre


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I would think the best way for DSD to improve, based on what I have read, is to go to a 5.8mhz sampling rate which would allow them to further push out the ultraband noise.

Nevertheless, I can't seem to hear any noticeable sonic degradation based on my recordings or what I have heard from Ray Kimber's work. John Atkinson of Stereophile who is also an audiophile engineer tells me he cannot hear any problem with it as well.

DSD has not caused any problems in my system as far as the amplifier or preamp stage.

Lee



Andre Yew said:


> So you want to record and deliver 50 kHz signals that will be many orders of magnitude lower than the 20-20kHz band and have never been shown to be perceptually important, but you don't worry about wideband ultrasonic noise that's often higher in level than the 20-20kHz content, and has been shown to cause instability and distortion in amplifiers among other things?
> 
> That seems very contradictory.
> 
> --Andre


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

As a long standing audiophile myself, I feel impelled to add my own thoughts on the subject.

I will not go down the ultratechnicality route as this has been more than covered in this thread and eslewhere. 

I am definitely of the analog camp and only listen to CD as background music. LP for serrious listening and enjoyment.

I have had many sceptics at my home who have raised eybrows when I have played side by side identical recordings switching between sources and noticed the huge difference between almost every LP/CD that I have played for them. This is a fact. In fact, they are even more astonished when I play them a cd recorded from an LP and it sounds better than the original factory CD.

Facts: 

What comes out of speakers is only as good as the recording of the music will allow. There are well and badly recorded Lp's and CD's.

Many Cd's are poorly produced with the emphasis on boosting the sound in order to please Joe Public.

Lp's are nowadays mainly produced for the audiophile market and therefore special attention is paid to selecting the best possible recordings and using the best materials to achieve a product that will appeal to the audiophile. 

I prefer to describe the sound of Lp's as organic.

Some of the best remasterings today are being produced by Steve Hoffman who prefers analog and tubes. He has his own forum where these issues have been discussed thoroughly.

Whilst CD sales continue to fall, LP sales continue to rise.

CD's are convenient but there is a lot to be said for the ritual involved in the playing of an LP.

Artwork on Lp's is in larger format and much more fun.

Essentially an LP that is well recorded will almost invariably sound better than it's well recorded CD counterpart. On a half decent system, you can listen to LP's for hours whereas after a while the sound of CD's begins to tire the ears - at least for serious listening.

In Ask Andy terms the difference between the two could be described as putting on a brand new jacket or pair of shoes (cd) or a nicely worn in ones (LP).


----------



## HigdonPens (Feb 11, 2008)

Here is my thought to follow up Mambo's point of "pleasing Joe Public":

There is a lot of image quality to be gained on televisions, particularly back in the rear projection days, by changing the default settings from the factory. They are set to look good in a Best Buy or similar giant, overlit with metal halide bulb, boxes of a store. If you take this blasted overdone signal and put it in your home then it looks terrible. We don't get the chance to alter the recording settings on a CD to our liking and it is hard to imagine they had audiophiles or audiophile wanabe's in mind when they pressed the CDs.

For the record I do prefer vinyl on an old McIntosh tube and some older Apogee Acoustic hybrid loudspeakers. Not top of the line by a long shot but it sounds good.


----------



## skyals80 (Jul 26, 2010)

Hello,

There are lots of ways when listening to music but if you would choose to have a turntable rather than the other musical equipments and instruments like CDs, we must be sure to ourselves that it is truly we would like to have. Make sure that it is working properly, belt and platter mat are in good condition. And your amplifier should have a phono stage so that it will work in your system, and a magnet phono cartridge.
As long as we can listen to the music with its good sounds, then it will be good. 

Enjoy listening..


----------

