The State Of Analog

[RBFC]

When it comes to making good recordings, it's not that we lack the method. We lack the inclination. RCA Living Stereo was making great records back in the fifties. We had to start all over when digital was rammed down our throat. Digital was perfect forever. There was no need to develop it. But for the pressure form the high end it would have remained it the dark ages. Digital got better because of the presence of vinyl. Despite your argument the absence of vinyl would cause the digital world to once again rest on their laurels. As modest as those laurels are. As I have stated before digital has already lost an unopposed election. It enjoys its current position solely because of its monopolistic stranglehold on the market.

This is a great post.

Vinyl is/was a medium that had over 60 years to mature. The rudimentary playback rigs of the 1960's would sound like Fisher-Price close&plays against a modest rig of today. Such have been the advancements in how to extract a faithful signal from a storage medium that contains a fixed amount of data.

Digital, on the other hand, suffered early on from the claims of perfection. This pompous attitude stifled the natural progression of improvement that is a hallmark of electronic devices of all types. The first handheld calculators were almost the size of an iPad and performed only basic functions, yet were lauded as the greatest thing ever for $100 and more. How long did that last? They quickly developed into far more capable devices at far lower prices.

Digital, despite its mathematical perfection, still suffers from imperfect implementation. Noise shaping, filtering, linearity of DACs, getting a true 16-bit playback, and internal noise from drive servos are all examples of problems that have received solutions with varying amounts of success. Yes, "1"s and "0"s are set in stone. I believe it to be foolish to think that anything we as humans have created (well, except maybe our kids...) is perfect. I do believe that digital has the potential to surpass all vinyl playback, but it depends on what one begins a listening session with in their mind. It also depends upon the inspiration of today's digital engineers to improve on the current product.

If I walk into Andy Payor's demo of the new Sirius V, and am telling myself that I will no longer enjoy the session once I've heard the first "pop" or "tick", you can see how our preset preferences are determining the outcome. Ultimately, it lies in human nature to compete. That is why this thread and a million others like it exist in forums of all types. Personally, I think the debate is tired and that we cut ourselves off from enjoyment by focusing on the tree instead of the forest.

Lee

 

[Gregadd]

Texas Instruments donated the first generation calculators to our small college when I was a junior. I had spent the previous year learning to use a slide rule. The batteries were totally inadequate. I hated that slide rule. My work study job was teaching computer programming and acquainting my fellow students with the calculators. I saw right away that the slide rule was headed for the museum.
Not really related to audio.

 

[jimtavegia]

From my trials here, if you take LP needle drops to 2496 it is the bomb.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Wow. I recommend you guys listen to an early CD player, followed by a lossless file through a SOTA Dac. Perfect sound forever was never anything more than a marketing slogan. No more meaningful that "Sony. No baloney." But digital has continued to evolve...playback, but especially recording, and like most things in this era, it has evolved much more rapidly than the old technologies that preceded it. In the meantime, vinyl has been pushed to a back burner of a hobbyist market where the companies and resources (human and otherwise) are very small and limited. Yes decks have improved, incrementally. But they've never been the biggest hurdle for that technology. It has always been the medium itself that is the limitation.

Oh well. Believe what you must. But I still wonder why you insist on discussing it so much here in the digital forum. It's like a small gathering of fundamentalists preaching their faith loudly in a Buddhist temple where they are sure the heathens will not miss the point. If it were across sites instead of forums, it would be called trolling.

P

 

[RBFC]

I haven't had a turntable for 12 years. I heard things from my TT in midrange clarity, etc. that surpasses much of the digital I hear today. No, my vinyl would not beat digital in all the areas where digital obviously surpasses the performance of vinyl. I think you're so set in regurgitating your server-to-active small monitors speech, that you aren't that interested in trying to understand what is being said.

Has digital matured to the same level of refinement that analog did? Nevermind the performance specs, that's not in question. The issue is how close to the performance asymptote is digital now? How much better can it get? What specific technical problems must be addressed to improve it?

I'm sure your system sounds incredible. So does mine, using only digital sources. But, how can we (the industry, more precisely) make it better?

Lee

 

[Gregadd]

As good as digital has gotten and it has gotten very good. I'd rather stick needles in my ear then listen to an early cd player. As for the term lossless ,that must be a marketing term also. By definition all digital is a sample. By definiton that means something is missing.

 

[Ron Party]

Greg, this is about the 3rd or 4th time you've posted something akin to this. Honestly, please learn the definition of the terminology. The ongoing mistaken understanding of the terminology doesn't advance the discussion but it sure does advance mythology.

 

[Ron Party]

This is a great post.

Vinyl is/was a medium that had over 60 years to mature. The rudimentary playback rigs of the 1960's would sound like Fisher-Price close&plays against a modest rig of today. Such have been the advancements in how to extract a faithful signal from a storage medium that contains a fixed amount of data.

Digital, on the other hand, suffered early on from the claims of perfection. This pompous attitude stifled the natural progression of improvement that is a hallmark of electronic devices of all types. The first handheld calculators were almost the size of an iPad and performed only basic functions, yet were lauded as the greatest thing ever for $100 and more. How long did that last? They quickly developed into far more capable devices at far lower prices.

Digital, despite its mathematical perfection, still suffers from imperfect implementation. Noise shaping, filtering, linearity of DACs, getting a true 16-bit playback, and internal noise from drive servos are all examples of problems that have received solutions with varying amounts of success. Yes, "1"s and "0"s are set in stone. I believe it to be foolish to think that anything we as humans have created (well, except maybe our kids...) is perfect. I do believe that digital has the potential to surpass all vinyl playback, but it depends on what one begins a listening session with in their mind. It also depends upon the inspiration of today's digital engineers to improve on the current product.

If I walk into Andy Payor's demo of the new Sirius V, and am telling myself that I will no longer enjoy the session once I've heard the first "pop" or "tick", you can see how our preset preferences are determining the outcome. Ultimately, it lies in human nature to compete. That is why this thread and a million others like it exist in forums of all types. Personally, I think the debate is tired and that we cut ourselves off from enjoyment by focusing on the tree instead of the forest.

Lee

Lee, I would say that the first line of your post applies perfectly to your own post.

 

[Gregadd]

Your point is well taken. please enlighten me

 

[Gregadd]

Greg, this is about the 3rd or 4th time you've posted something akin to this. Honestly, please learn the definition of the terminology. The ongoing mistaken understanding of the terminology doesn't advance the discussion but it sure does advance mythology.

Ron I took this definition of lossless and lossy from Wikepedia. Not necessarily the digital bible.
Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. The term lossless is in contrast to lossy data compression, which only allows an approximation of the original data to be reconstructed, in exchange for better compression rates.

Lossless data compression is used in many applications. For example, it is used in the popular ZIP file format and in the Unix tool gzip. It is also often used as a component within lossy data compression technologies (e.g. lossless mid/side joint stereo preprocessing by the LAME MP3 encoder and other lossy audio encoders).

Lossless compression is used in cases where it is important that the original and the decompressed data be identical, or where deviations from the original data could be deleterious. Typical examples are executable programs, text documents and source code. Some image file formats, like PNG or GIF, use only lossless compression, while others like TIFF and MNG may use either lossless or lossy methods. Lossless audio formats are most often used for archiving or production purposes, with smaller lossy audio files being typically used on portable players and in other cases where storage space is limited and/or exact replication of the audio is unnecessary.

That definition is probably good enough for me.

I have heard the digital experts on this site refer to MP3 as lossy and CD as losless. They have different sampling rates. Now as Wikepedia implies lossless a perfect reproduction of the compressed data. Perhaps I was thinking they were implying a perfect reproduction of the analog waveform. Indeed it wa suggested many claimed lossless algorithms don't really reproduce an exact replica of the compressed data.
So you my be quite correct that I have confused the two. My belief that they are intentionally confusing is not relevant.

Please enlighten me further should you feel necessary.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Your enlightenment could begin here:

By definition all digital is a sample. By definiton that means something is missing.

Find yourself a more accurate definition somewhere. Wikipedia may do.

You guys are making my case for me. Digital has continued to develop, evolve and improve. How can it get better? The audiophile answer seems to be hi-res, premium usb cables, DACs with output stages to make them sound more analog...but I'm not so sure. Hi-res can probably deliver some improvement, but I think there is a lot more to be gained in better recording and mastering and...God help me I'm about to blaspheme...better lossy codecs, or smaller lossless compression. So we can get this stuff from wherever it is to our computers, servers and portable devices faster and better. And by the way, some of my favorite speakers are passive. I do think properly-implemented active systems deliver an advantage that is more substantive and palpable than the overwhelming majority of tweaks and upgrades we've been doing to our passive systems for decades, but I completely understand why it doesn't appeal to so many people.

Are we talking about digital in the digital forum now? Good. That's progress.

P

 

[Gregadd]

Find yourself a more accurate definition[of digital] somewhere. Wikipedia may do.


I may not be familiar with industry jargon but I know digital

 

[RBFC]

Lee, I would say that the first line of your post applies perfectly to your own post.

Thanks, Ron. I appreciate the kind words. Too much audiophilia nervosa saps the happiness, doesn't it?

Lee

 

[Old Listener]

Since Steve seems to like analog playback, I assume he meant to stir up controversy. He succeeded.

Indeed it wa suggested many claimed lossless algorithms don't really reproduce an exact replica of the compressed data.

Thought you'd get some mileage from citing internet fables about lossless not being producing "an exact replica of the compressed data"?

Ask Amir how much effort went into verifying that decompressing a WMA lossless file did indeed produce exactly the same data as in the original uncompressed audio file. Of course, many man years of careful testing is no match for a few minutes of listening by a golden ear audiophile. Or even a opinion by such an audiophile based on no experience at all.

> I have heard the digital experts on this site refer to MP3 as lossy and CD as losless.
> They have different sampling rates.

An MP3 file normally has the same sample rate as the material on the CD from which it was ripped. Perhaps you meant the bit rate.

> By definition all digital is a sample. By definiton that means something is missing.

Has it escaped you that no step in the chain from analog recording, editing, copying to playback is perfect. And that just copying analog material is lossy?

You might consider what "analog" means "by definition."

Bill

 

[Gregadd]

I think my post was designed to show Ron I had done myhomework assignment. I think Ron correctly pointed out that I was mixing a compression format with sampling rate. Perhaps I was alone in interpreting lossy vs loslsless to imply different levels in quality. Curiously you seem to use it that way.(Has it escaped you that no step in the chain from analog recording, editing, copying to playback is perfect. And that just copying analog material is lossy? )

It is a common technique nowadays to switch terminoly to strip something of its previous negative connotations. Like in Iraq they are not resistance but insurgents, Resistance being a term to for those who fight against an occupying force. Insurgents being those wo rise up agianst an established government The fact is the shortcomings of vinyl is more the results of errors in execution. That is to say vinyl is not a flawed medium. Done right it comes perilously close to real music. Digital in its current format remains a flawed medium. Its' faults lies not only in its design but also in its execution.
Audiophiles have lamented the shortcomings of digital ab intio. Two popular areas are jitter and sampling rate. Some of the problems are being addressed by some of the digital world. Progress has been made. OTOH some seem to think digital is good enough and sat on thier laurels or even too good and are headed in the other direction. What are we 30 years into digital domination?

I am sure AMIRM is a honest hard worker. I am sure he knows it's results that count. That's all that matters.
Those who are so concerned about my digital education might consider this potentially profitable exercise. Write a book called Digital Recording and Playback for DUMMIES. I would buy it.

P.S. Let's try to remember this is a hobby and we are suppose to have fun here. Let's try to leave the nasty politics to CNN, MSNBC and FOX.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think my post was designed to show Ron I had done myhomework assignment. I think Ron correctly pointed out that I was mixing a compression format with sampling rate. Perhaps I was alone in interpreting lossy vs loslsless to imply different levels in quality. Curiously you seem to use it that way.(Has it escaped you that no step in the chain from analog recording, editing, copying to playback is perfect. And that just copying analog material is lossy? )

It is a common technique nowadays to switch terminoly to strip something of its previous negative connotations. Like in Iraq they are not resistance but insurgents, Resistance being a term to for those who fight against an occupying force. Insurgents being those wo rise up agianst an established government The fact is the shortcomings of vinyl is more the results of errors in execution. That is to say vinyl is not a flawed medium. Done right it comes perilously close to real music. Digital in its current format remains a flawed medium. Its' faults lies not only in its design but also in its execution.
Audiophiles have lamented the shortcomings of digital ab intio. Two popular areas are jitter and sampling rate. Some of the problems are being addressed by some of the digital world. Progress has been made. OTOH some seem to think digital is good enough and sat on thier laurels or even too good and are headed in the other direction. What are we 30 years into digital domination?

I am sure AMIRM is a honest hard worker. I am sure he knows it's results that count. That's all that matters.
Those who are so concerned about my digital education might consider this potentially profitable exercise. Write a book called Digital Recording and Playback for DUMMIES. I would buy it.

P.S. Let's try to remember this is a hobby and we are suppose to have fun here. Let's try to leave the nasty politics to CNN, MSNBC and FOX.

I'm sorry Gregg, when you repeat and perpetuate erroneous audiophile myths about digital (and analog) audio, challenging you is not "nasty politics," it is simply refusing to let misinformation stand, lending it the appearance of legitimacy in the process. And if there is any "nasty politics" here, it is from that core group of vinyl devotees who seem to be on a campaign to spread the myths across this community, even to where they clearly don't belong. They're in Olive and Winer's forums. They're here in Digital. They've taken their testimony to the doors of the unbelievers. Somehow they've even recruited a few who don't even own turntables to spread their word. They have been quick to accuse me of having an agenda, not just an opinion. You call it "nasty politics." But when I can be found in the Turntables, Reel to Reel and Tweaks forums, spreading my POV, I'll will be spreading agendas and playing politics with the vinyl party. Until then, I'm just hanging out where I belong, expressing my own point of view, challenging misinformation and, always, inviting you to enjoy what you enjoy...though I think you might need to buy a turntable first.

P

 

[Gregadd]

PP when you respond to my quote about nasty politics you remind me of the girl in the crowd when someone shouts, Hey ugly! She turns around crying protesting she is not ugly. Everyone else in the crowd was secure enough to ignore it.The fact that you think I'm talking about you speaks volumes.
With regard to "perpetuating erroneous audio myths" well one mans myth is another mans gospel. The proof's in the pudding. We aint gonna make no make no puddin on this site. All we can do is exchange recipes. So I think you and I have exchanged enough recipes.

With regard to turntables I own two. One is broken. So what I really need is a phono preamp and cartridge.

 

[amirm]

I am sure AMIRM is a honest hard worker. I am sure he knows it's results that count. That's all that matters.
Those who are so concerned about my digital education might consider this potentially profitable exercise. Write a book called Digital Recording and Playback for DUMMIES. I would buy it.

Here is the thing about writing technical books: the pay is worse that slavery . I wrote one once, it took me two years to do justice to it (hate it when people create bibles full of screen snapshots and rehash of software manuals) only to make $8K out of it for royalties.

But here is an offer: I will explain any topic you like in this area in the technical forum (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/forumdisplay.php?120-What-s-Best-In-Tech-Talk). Just ask and I will write one.

For now, here is an introduction to lossless audio: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/LosslessAudio.html

Let me finish with a trick teaser: lossless audio is lossless in the way it reproduces the audio *samples* not the audio *signal*!

 

[FrantzM]

Let me finish with a trick teaser: lossless audio is lossless in the way it reproduces the audio *samples* not the audio *signal*!

The laws of physics are against that .. Unfortunately analog capture of a signal is subject to the same laws ...

 

[amirm]

The laws of physics are against that ..

Why would that be the case Frantz? And let's assume that the capture is perfect for now.