The Sound of Analog, the Sound of Digital

[Lagonda]

I suspect most of us would agree that reproduction is not reality.

Sure depends on how drunk you are I could have sworn i made out with Emmylou Harris last night !

 

[Mike Lavigne]

for the fist 11 years in my current home, i had a jazz club-restaurant 7-8 minutes down the hill in the small town i live in. it was called Boxley's and had live jazz every night, with a decent Italian menu. it closed in 2016.

https://livingsnoqualmie.com/boxleys-announces-closing-says-music-will-live/

i would eat there once a month, the music would start, i'd finish my dinner, and i'd stay another 30 minutes. then drive home up the hill and go out to my room in the barn and listen. my ears were fresh from live acoustical music, then hearing my reproduced music.

these were related but different experiences. no doubt the immediacy and dynamic life of the 'live' was better, more physical (my system can be pretty physical itself), but tonality was more consistent from my system. the live had more real textures and timbre, my vinyl not quite there all the way. live did image, kinda.....but nothing like my system. i'd close my eyes with the live stuff and do an inventory with my audiophile brain, and a lot was missing compared to my system. yet i did not miss it with my eyes open.

one thing was clear; my system won hands down as far as musicianship. Boxley's performers were enthusiastic and willing, but very inconsistent. it was a laid back place where sometimes it would be local high school jazz bands, or small groups from those bands. at least half the time the quality of playing was pretty good.

this was an even match in many ways, but more different than one better or worse.

if i had to chose; i'm sitting in my chair playing vinyl. but the live stuff was also fun.

digital verses analog? my 45rpm jazz pressings (heavy artillery) were what i would play after these sessions, they could stand up to the compare. digital......not so much after live. levels of magnitude difference in musical substance. hard to find the right words here. the digital more relevant to the mic feed idea (accurate but not real or complete), but not on a musical energy and degrees of immersion aspect compared to live.

 

[PeterA]

Put audiophiles in a dark room with a light (sonically non-interfering) dark colored curtain so they can't see the stage. Then have real people play some jazz or whatever. Then close the curtains and ask them for comments along the lines of attributes that reviewers use. You'll be sure to get plenty of comments, including criticisms that it wasn't this or that... etc.

And will someone question the meaning of the term “natural” when used to describe what was just heard?

 

[Don C]

Paul of PS audio has said several times on his YouTube site that Vinyl is not as good as digital, and obsolete for SOTA music reproduction.

He sells primarily digital reproduction players, and has a financial- business bias.

I was vinyl only since 1975, and did not buy a CD until 2010, because no player satisfied me, until I bought a Sony 5400 CD/SACD player that "at best" was similar to analog, on some Cds and SACDs. I like the player but, I like vinyl better. Today's DACs have greatly improved in the last decade, but are not "perfect" yet.

I went through the CD Vinyl debates, and most CD people bragged that CDs sounded "crisp", and I had never felt live music was ever "crisp" IMO "crisp'" was high frequency distortion the CD. The steady state sinewave response of a CD is around 20KHz, however the music signal undistorted response is about 8 KHz. Music is not all pure sine waves, and this distortion is the "crisp" that digital people think is natural. Digital sounds good, until compared to properly setup high end vinyl. John Curl said on the Audio Asylum that he measured vinyl musical signals as high as 50 or 60 KHz which is a wider bandwidth than a CD or most High Rez digital. Natural sound is rich in complex, ever changing, harmonics that digital and improperly setup analog have difficulty with.

Paul simply does not know how to, or have the patience, to fine tune, and properly setup a high end turntable.

 

[Al M.]

The steady state sinewave response of a CD is around 20KHz, however the music signal undistorted response is about 8 KHz. Music is not all pure sine waves, and this distortion is the "crisp" that digital people think is natural.

Source please. This statement reeks as a typical technical misunderstanding of how digital works, probably coming from an "expert".

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . Paul simply does not know how to, or have the patience, to fine tune, and properly setup a high end turntable.

Paul is not here to defend himself at the moment, so I will ask, in his defense to this assertion, how do you know this?

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying I don't personally know. You may be correct, or you may be incorrect. I'm wondering how you personally know this to be a fact. Or is this a presumption mis-stated as a fact?

What is the basis of this assertion? Do you know Paul personally?

Did Paul tell you, or did he tell a mutual friend who told you, or did Paul post somewhere that we can all see, that he does not know how to properly set up a high-end turntable?

Has Paul told you, or did he tell a mutual friend who told you, or did Paul post somewhere that we can all see, that he doesn't have the patience to fine-tune cartridge or tonearm alignment?

 

[Don C]

Source please. This statement reeks as a typical technical misunderstanding of how digital works, probably coming from an "expert".[/QUOT

Frequency response is a steady state sine wave response not a complex music waveform. A cd can not reproduce even a good 10 kHz undistorted square wave. You do not understand physics. Also musical content such as horns have measured harmonics as high as 100KHz. Limiting the bandwidth at very high frequencies causes phase shits and loss of harmonic structure in the audible range. Many listeners find the ultra high frequency response of MC cartridges and tape preferable to CD. That is due in part to wider bandwith and extended frequency response much higher than 20 KHz.

Screw up the ultra high frequencies screws up audio below 20 Khz!

Al do you consider yourself an expert?

Do you have an EE and years of experience?

February 27, 2016 by Paul McGowan
“At least one member of each instrument family (strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion) produces energy to 40 kHz or above, and the spectra of some instruments extend beyond 100 kHz. Harmonics of muted trumpet extend to 80 kHz; violin and oboe, to above 40 kHz; and a cymbal crash was still strong at 100 kHz.”
Studies show we cannot hear beyond 20 kHz, most of us less than that. Yet we recognize higher sample rates sound better – and higher means higher than we can hear – which the measurementists claim is poppycock. But, what if we can hearabove 20kHz? Might that explain some of why we like extended bandwidth equipment?
James Boyk, of the Caltech Music Lab (yeah – I thought they only did spaceships too) wrote a fascinating paper entitled There’s Life Above 20 kHz .

Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20 kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above 20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al. claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz “induces activation of alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality.”
Oohashi and his colleagues recorded gamelan to a bandwidth of 60 kHz, and played back the recording to listeners through a speaker system with an extra tweeter for the range above 26 kHz. This tweeter was driven by its own amplifier, and the 26 kHz electronic crossover before the amplifier used steep filters. The experimenters found that the listeners’ EEGs and their subjective ratings of the sound quality were affected by whether this “ultra-tweeter” was on or off, even though the listeners explicitly denied that the reproduced sound was affected by the ultra-tweeter, and also denied, when presented with the ultrasonics alone, that any sound at all was being played.
From the fact that changes in subjects’ EEGs “persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation,” Oohashi and his colleagues infer that in audio comparisons, a substantial silent period is required between successive samples to avoid the second evaluation’s being corrupted by “hangover” of reaction to the first.​

Boyk’s own conclusion suggest that if true, and there seems ample evidence it might be, then hard filtering everything above 20 kHz, as in a CD, might just be the worst thing we can do – and explain much about why higher sample rates makes sense, even though we can’t technically hear above them.
It’s just one more possible nail in the coffin of the measurementists who steadfastly refuse to recognize what many of us perceive just might be right.

 

[Don C]

Paul is not here to defend himself at the moment, so I will ask, in his defense to this assertion, how do you know this?

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying I don't personally know. You may be correct, or you may be incorrect. I'm wondering how you personally know this to be a fact. Or is this a presumption mis-stated as a fact?

What is the basis of this assertion? Do you know Paul personally?

Did Paul tell you, or did he tell a mutual friend who told you, or did Paul post somewhere that we can all see, that he does not know how to properly set up a high-end turntable?

Has Paul told you, or did he tell a mutual friend who told you, or did Paul post somewhere that we can all see, that he doesn't have the patience to fine-tune cartridge or tonearm alignment?

Paul has said in his website turntables and arm adjustments are too "hard to fiddle with to get sound better than CD quality".

But he said only Mikey Fremer could do it.

You can find that on his Youtube ranting. I will not take the time to find his thoughts, but they are there.

Paul does not like to adjust arms to the ninth degree for SOTA sound.

Have you read all Pauls rants? Do you believe he is always correct? I do not.

Paul currently does no design work anymore, he only hires others.

What great SOTA audio product has he ever designed?

Why am I arguing with a rich former hedge fund manager that does not know crap about audio design???

 

[Ron Resnick]

Paul has said in his website turntables and arm adjustments are too "hard to fiddle with to get sound better than CD quality".

But he said only Mikey Fremer could do it.

You can find that on his Youtube ranting. I will not take the time to find his thoughts, but they are there.

Paul does not like to adjust arms to the ninth degree for SOTA sound.

Have you read all Pauls rants? Do you believe he is always correct? I do not.

Paul currently does no design work anymore, he only hires others.

What great SOTA audio product has he ever designed?

Why am I arguing with a rich former hedge fund manager that does not know crap about audio design???

Thank you for taking my question seriously, and for your reply.

I think it would have been better to provide in your Post #144 an exact quote by Paul in support of your assertion impugning him, rather than characterizing something he wrote.

Your last three sentences -- about audio design -- have nothing whatsoever to do with responding to my request for evidence supporting your earlier statement that "Paul simply does not know how to, or have the patience, to fine tune, and properly setup a high end turntable."

 

[Don C]

I remember hearing a video with his opinion on his site.

I do not want to spend hours finding the exact quote In his huge site.

Do you think I am lying? Why wold I lie?

Paul said that in a YouTube video, and I do not want to clip and cut, or search, a hundred videos.

 

[Al M.]

Frequency response is a steady state sine wave response not a complex music waveform. A cd can not reproduce even a good 10 kHz undistorted square wave. You do not understand physics. Also musical content such as horns have measured harmonics as high as 100KHz. Limiting the bandwidth at very high frequencies causes phase shits and loss of harmonic structure in the audible range. Many listeners find the ultra high frequency response of MC cartridges and tape preferable to CD. That is due in part to wider bandwith and extended frequency response much higher than 20 KHz.

Screw up the ultra high frequencies screws up audio below 20 Khz!

Al do you consider yourself an expert?

Do you have an EE and years of experience?

February 27, 2016 by Paul McGowan
“At least one member of each instrument family (strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion) produces energy to 40 kHz or above, and the spectra of some instruments extend beyond 100 kHz. Harmonics of muted trumpet extend to 80 kHz; violin and oboe, to above 40 kHz; and a cymbal crash was still strong at 100 kHz.”
Studies show we cannot hear beyond 20 kHz, most of us less than that. Yet we recognize higher sample rates sound better – and higher means higher than we can hear – which the measurementists claim is poppycock. But, what if we can hearabove 20kHz? Might that explain some of why we like extended bandwidth equipment?
James Boyk, of the Caltech Music Lab (yeah – I thought they only did spaceships too) wrote a fascinating paper entitled There’s Life Above 20 kHz .

Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20 kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above 20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al. claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz “induces activation of alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality.”​

Oohashi and his colleagues recorded gamelan to a bandwidth of 60 kHz, and played back the recording to listeners through a speaker system with an extra tweeter for the range above 26 kHz. This tweeter was driven by its own amplifier, and the 26 kHz electronic crossover before the amplifier used steep filters. The experimenters found that the listeners’ EEGs and their subjective ratings of the sound quality were affected by whether this “ultra-tweeter” was on or off, even though the listeners explicitly denied that the reproduced sound was affected by the ultra-tweeter, and also denied, when presented with the ultrasonics alone, that any sound at all was being played.​

From the fact that changes in subjects’ EEGs “persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation,” Oohashi and his colleagues infer that in audio comparisons, a substantial silent period is required between successive samples to avoid the second evaluation’s being corrupted by “hangover” of reaction to the first.​

Boyk’s own conclusion suggest that if true, and there seems ample evidence it might be, then hard filtering everything above 20 kHz, as in a CD, might just be the worst thing we can do – and explain much about why higher sample rates makes sense, even though we can’t technically hear above them.
It’s just one more possible nail in the coffin of the measurementists who steadfastly refuse to recognize what many of us perceive just might be right.

Oh boy.

We've discussed this kind of stuff to death, and if anything above 20 kHz matters.

Here is a thread that also touches on the above article that you quote:

Redbook 44.1 kHz standard: theoretically sufficient timbral resolution?

As for a 10 kHz square wave, you should inform yourself about the concept of limited bandwidth, central to digital technology and to human perception. Post #22 by Amir in that thread is very useful.

Honestly, I am not interested in relitigating here the discussion in that thread. If you feel compelled to post anything new after reading that entire thread, you should do it there.

 

[Don C]

Oh boy.

We've discussed this kind of stuff to death, and if anything above 20 kHz matters.

Here is a thread that also touches on the above article that you quote:

Redbook 44.1 kHz standard: theoretically sufficient timbral resolution?

As for a 10 kHz square wave, you should inform yourself about the concept of limited bandwidth, central to digital technology and to human perception. Post #22 by Amir in that thread is very useful.

Honestly, I am not interested in relitigating here the discussion in that thread. If you feel compelled to post anything new after reading that entire thread, you should do it there.

There are also AES papers proving higher rez digital sounds better than CD quality.

Most people believe CD quality is perfect, and many think MP3 is perfect.

CD has high frequency issues that many find not natural.

MC cartridge and tape playback, (which has a wider bandwidth than CD,) does not damage high frequency musical sound under 20Khz as much as CD! Or sound "crisp"!

""CRISP" sound coloration in most Cds, that most people hear, is not sufficient timbal resolution, but distortion!

That is pertinent to this thread.

 

[tima]

On his PS Audio blog today Paul McGowan posted a piece titled: "The meaning of analog." Paul writes: "There’s no such thing as the sound of analog and digital. They are antiquated terms . . ."
...
Is Paul correct in your view?

Using him here as a foil, I wonder if a more interesting question is whether Paul's view/theory can ever be correct?

In reality, continuity and discontinuity are not and cannot be identical, wavy hand linquistics and quantum mechanics be they as they may.

Here in In WBF World, in terms of "one's personal experience" can one attain a suspension of disbelief that digital is analog?

Heh.

Living la Vida Analog,
tima

 

[Blue58]

The Weiss Dac includes a vinyl emulation filter. Jump to measurements to read what it actually does.https://www.stereophile.com/content/weiss-engineering-dac502-da-processor
You can have the best if both worlds now

 

[Al M.]

There are also AES papers proving higher rez digital sounds better than CD quality.

Most people believe CD quality is perfect, and many think MP3 is perfect.

CD has high frequency issues that many find not natural.

MC cartridge and tape playback, (which has a wider bandwidth than CD,) does not damage high frequency musical sound under 20Khz as much as CD! Or sound "crisp"!

""CRISP" sound coloration in most Cds, that most people hear, is not sufficient timbal resolution, but distortion!

That is pertinent to this thread.

As I said, I am not going to relitigate technical misunderstandings about how digital works. I am not an expert either, but with the help of experts I understand digital theory now sufficiently to know that claims of "distortion above 8 kHz" or the like are nonsense (and my ears tell.me the same). Read the thread that I suggested.

If you hear the problems with CD sound that you describe, it has to do with flawed practical implementation of digital theory in your playback, not with inherent mistakes in the theory itself that you apparently misinterpret.

 

[microstrip]

There are also AES papers proving higher rez digital sounds better than CD quality.

Most people believe CD quality is perfect, and many think MP3 is perfect.

CD has high frequency issues that many find not natural.

MC cartridge and tape playback, (which has a wider bandwidth than CD,) does not damage high frequency musical sound under 20Khz as much as CD! Or sound "crisp"!

""CRISP" sound coloration in most Cds, that most people hear, is not sufficient timbal resolution, but distortion!

That is pertinent to this thread.

You should read the many papers of the 60's and 70's on the intrinsic problems of tape and vinyl. It will show how childish is this kind of argumentation - which has more defects?

 

[microstrip]

Using him here as a foil, I wonder if a more interesting question is whether Paul's view/theory can ever be correct? (...)
tima

How can you check whether Paul's view/theory can ever be correct? Carrying a poll in AnalogPlanet? I am sure that top DAC manufacturers will support him!

 

[Al M.]

In reality, continuity and discontinuity are not and cannot be identical, wavy hand linquistics and quantum mechanics be they as they may.

There is no discontinuity in digital. Claims thereof are based on a misunderstanding of sampling theory.

 

[tima]

There is no discontinuity in digital. Claims thereof are based on a misunderstanding of sampling theory.

I know little about the practice of statistics, Al, but what I read about sampling theory is that it takes samples.

 

[Al M.]

I know little about the practice of statistics, Al, but what I read about sampling theory is that it takes samples.

And it reconstructs those samples into the original analog wave which is fully represented, in a continuous manner upon analog reconstruction, in those samples as long as the signal is bandwidth-limited, as it is in digital (at a frequency above the threshold of human hearing).

See:
Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem.

There is no discontinuity in the way of "stair steps" or the like, as it is often suggested in false representations of digital.

Here are two very good videos on the subject. It is really worth watching them in their entirety, with an open mind, to gain better understanding: