Actually the word terrible I picked up from the poster I replied to, so you have two right there. Even initially, before the Lampi, there would be some who referred to the DCS sound as opposed to the MSB sound, whatever that meant.
Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
- Status
Actually the word terrible I picked up from the poster I replied to, so you have two right there. Even initially, before the Lampi, there would be some who referred to the DCS sound as opposed to the MSB sound, whatever that meant.
I believe this is a direct result of actions taken by management in the recent past. I, for one, thank Steve for being pro active.
I do as well guys and thank you all so much. When I read this article I thought it somewhat contentious and felt it might be a way to test the waters. I did have some iota of trepidation based on past events here. Having said this however I also felt that the noise meter here has been reduced to not only tolerable but also much desired conditions and IMO is a stepping stone to getting WBF back to the great discussions we used to have before all hell broke loose.
Thanks again guys for a wonderful discussion here and looking forward to more of the same all over the board
I believe that particular respondent was refering to a legacy DCS line of a decade ago when using that descriptive , a period that I agree produced a somewhat cold and over analytical presentation from DCS products, you were pronouncing upon the latest Vivaldi line in a similar vein that would place you distinctly in the minority I would say.
Last edited:
Yes, hardware issues are important, in fact, intrinsical inaccuracies in hardware -- resistors -- caused dCS to develop the Ring DAC topology in the first place!
Here is the technical explanation from RH's review of the dCS Vivaldi:
?The dCS Ring DAC
The Ring DAC, invented by dCS in 1987, is a brilliant solution to the challenge of converting digital data to an analog output signal. To understand the Ring DAC, let’s first consider how conventional DACs work. You can think of a multibit DAC as a ladder, with as many rungs on that ladder as there are bits in a sample. A 24-bit DAC will have 24 “rungs,” each one a resistor that corresponds to each bit in the digital sample. The resistors are connected to a current source through a switch; the digital data representing the audio signal open or close the switches to allow current to flow to the output or not.The currents of each rung are summed, with that summed value representing the audio signal’s amplitude.
The resistor values are “binary weighted.” This means that each resistor lower down on the rung must have double the resistance of the rung above it, and so forth, corresponding to the binary progression 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and so on. Because each bit in the digital code represents twice the value of the next lower bit, each resistor must have a value exactly half that of the resistor on the rung below it. One problem with these so-called “Binary-weighted” DACs is that it’s impossible to make resistors with the precision required for perfect binary weighting. The result is that the tolerances in resistor values introduce amplitude errors in the analog output. Moreover, those amplitude errors will occur in the same places on the audio waveform.
This problem becomes more acute the greater the number of rungs on the ladder. In a 16-bit resistor-ladder DAC the value of the lowest resistor rung should be exactly 0.0000152 the value of the highest resistor rung. In a 24-bit converter the lowest resistor value should be precisely 0.000000119209289550781 the value of the highest resistor. It is obviously not possible to achieve anywhere near this level of precision in resistor manufacturing, and any deviation from the resistor ratios translates to amplitude errors in the analog output. The now-defunct UltraAnalog company addressed this challenge by driving its 20-bit DACs (which were composed of two off-the-shelf 16-bit DACs ganged together) with 100,000 different digital codes, measuring the DAC output at each code value, calculating the degree of error in each specific resistor, and then having technicians hand-solder tiny precision metal-film resistors on the ladder rungs to bring them closer to the correct value.
A DAC technology that doesn’t rely on binary-weighted resistor ladders is the one-bit DAC. This device converts a multi-bit code into a single-bit data stream that has two values, one and zero. Unlike a multibit DAC, the one-bit DAC’s amplitude precision is very high, but the one-bit DAC suffers from very high noise that must be “shaped” (shifted away from the audioband). One-bit DACs are also very susceptible to jitter. dCS’s solution is the Ring DAC, which can be considered a hybrid of the two approaches. It is based on a five-bit code that drives resistors of identical value. Because the resistors in dCS’ Ring DAC are all the same nominal value their actual values are very close to one another. The five-bit code has a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than a one- bit datastream and requires an order of magnitude less noise shaping.
Digital signal processing first “maps” whatever datastream is coming in (192kHz/24-bit, or the 2.8224MHz 1-bit code of DSD, for examples) into a unique five-bit code. This five-bit code opens and closes latches connected to a current source that drives one of 96 resistors of identical value. Because these resistors can never have exactly the same resistance, the Ring DAC employs an array of resistors and randomly shifts the audio signal between resistors in the array. The Ring DAC gets its name from this “passing around” of the signal from one resistor in the array to another, as in a ring. The effect is to convert what would be amplitude errors in the analog output into a very small amount of random white noise.
The Ring DAC is brilliant in concept, and achieves its highest realization in the Vivaldi. The commonality in sonic character between all dCS products—the density of information, the resolution of fine detail, the unique spatial qualities—are probably attributable in large part to the Ring DAC. RH
+1
And frankly coming from a person who used to do photography on a 4 x5 ... Digital is far better than anything anlog photography has ever dreamed of doing .. We are at a point where a smartphone takes incredible pictures.. an iPad has HDR ...
@everyone
I welcome the current turn of even where we can discuss ina civil manner about contentious subject this one being digital vd analog in its essence. I also congratualte both camps to stand their ground and simply state their belief.
On this I am now and staunchly Pro digital .. a few years ago, I wasn't
Yet I am not about to get rid of my Vinyl, Digitizing these however is a job much more complicated that people realize so much that I will not continue, So far I've needle-dropped the vast number of 25 LPs in the 2 years since I acquired a Korg and downloaded Audacity, only to realize this is not a job for the casually interested. It is sacerdotalWhen ripping, always invite a young priest and an older sacrificial priest in case one needs to exorcise Demonic-Digital-Glare.
Oh, be certain to keep one window open ...
Frantz, you might want to talk to Audiophile Bill, he's on a quest to digitally copy a lot of his lp library via Korg/Golden Gate.
I'm not sure what his tipple of choice is to ward off the insanity that must inevitably ensue
For me I've found a point on the scale where digital and analog have converged, and yet both remain as different as ever even though my respective players have stolen each other's clothes.
I'm not sure what his tipple of choice is to ward off the insanity that must inevitably ensue
For me I've found a point on the scale where digital and analog have converged, and yet both remain as different as ever even though my respective players have stolen each other's clothes.
+1 - I'm very much enjoying the lack of conflict about the place, and the interesting discussions being held in consequence.
On another topic, as someone that has dipped in and out of computer audio over the last 10 years or so, and built or owned most flavours of server and some reasonable dacs, I'm on the look out for a CD player, much as SoM describes. So far I have only heard a handful that get it right at a price anything like affordable for me. The Eera sounds like it should be added to that list.
There is no small joy in putting a CD in a player, sitting down and listening to it. Much like an LP.
My experience is that there is no small potential for frustration in ripping CD's, tagging them, futzing around with computers and dacs and worrying about interface optimisation etc. Digitising an LP collection aka needle drops would surely drive me to the demon drink. Why on earth anyone would want to spend their life making needle drops for the dubious pleasure of replaying their favourite LP in another medium is a little beyond me. I'd rather be listening to music. But to each their own.
It is also truism that, at least for classical (which is my primary interest) the vast majority of music is available on CD, not vinyl (sadly), as it is also true that some recordings simply sound better on CD with their inherently lower noise floor (and here I am thinking of some of my Moravec piano recordings which I have on both CD and vinyl).
Again I suppose it is what your hobby actually is, listening to music or futzing with gear. Ideally I'd like to have both excellent CD replay and excellent vinyl replay. And enjoy each for what they are. Computer audio, these days at least, holds less and less interest to me outside of Tidal, which is a terrific way to hear albums before you buy them.
Last edited:
I was already hesitant to take the computer audio plunge, so thanks for sharing your experiences. I think I'll keep spinning my CDs, the old-fashioned way…
Which also implies that I'll have to further improve my room the old-fashioned way as well, with good old tube traps, panels and the like. Fine by me, since I know that with digital room correction I'd be endlessly fiddling around with target curves etc. -- totally OCD inducing, I know myself too well, alas.
Maybe either the graph has no correlation to what we're hearing and/or the interpretation can be faulty. What was he really measuring in those graphs? The pure analog signal, tonearm, cartridge, rumble, motor, platter noise, floor vibrations, airborne vibrations, worn out grooves, etc., etc., etc.? Was his measuring device the best tool for such measurement? None of these variables seem to be mentioned when putting up such graphs, how was the digital 1khz tone generated? What was it measured off of? Was it a pure digital signal? Was it an analog signal off the computer? What would that signal look like if measured through the same playback chain as the vinyl? I see too many factors in this chain for a simple graph to mean anything.
As there are with digital! How much is left on the so called cutting floor when you convert the analog signal to digital? How is lost to down sampling to 16/44? Is 16/44 the ideal signal for our ears to evaluate or is it a commercial compromise? We already know that higher rates sound better to our ears. And then how much do you leave on that cutting floor when reconstructing that digitized signal and converting it back to analog? How about the compromises in the CD cutting plants? Weren't they touting Gold Cd's as a must if you expect any kind of quality? Which digital model shall we go for, DSD, PCM, or other propriety formats? Since they all sound so different they can't all be right, which one leaves the least on that cutting floor? Which adds the most constructed data into the mix?
How does this theory hold water with so many different digital ways to degrade the signal? Do we even know the types of degradation we're dealing with in digital to theorize about? Preserve? Purity of which signal, the analog or reconstructed digital model of it? And if as you mention that the digital engineers were that incompetent not to foresee the practical implantation of the tech, why you want to buy into theories of a bunch of ignoramus? Actually the couple of digital design engineers I know are extremely intelligent and as pioneers were well aware of digital's pitfalls and shortcomings right from the start. I assure you that both Sony & Philips who've been involved in every aspect of the industry starting with the actual recordings to final playback systems and everything in between for decades knew all of digital's drawbacks long before claiming perfection for ever!
Never said that all digital is bad and there are even subjectively better DACs & transports out there than the dCS just that digital is lacking in significant parts when compared to analog, at least those of us with same values which apparently includes you too.
Its not an argument Al, its a fact! You are taking something from the "Physical Universe" into the "Theoretical Universe" completely destroying its essence in the process then using construction materials of the said universe, i.e. bits to construct a very Theoretical model of that something Physical and then use another process to spit it out into the "Physical Universe" for our consumption. This process will always remain a reconstruction but do you believe that someday the theoretical will be able to recreate all the attributes of the physical with bits? How can it ever match and/or supersede a physical signal carefully preserved in the Physical Universe?
david
PS I have to run, please forgive any grammatical and spelling errors for now.
Ok, you have stated your opinions, David, and I'll leave it mostly at that. Yet let me answer the issue about sampling rate.
It has been claimed that the CD sampling rate was a (significant) compromise. Yet I am afraid this is engaging in revisionist history from current hindsight and audiophile consensus. Yes, it may be that at the origin of digital audio some engineers said a much higher sampling rate is needed, but that does not appear to have been the consensus. In fact, the consensus appears to have been more or less Nyquist (double sampling rate over frequency range presented), and still is to a large part (outside of audiophile circles), see AES guidelines below.
From:
Telarc, Frederick Fennell, and an Overture to Digital Recording
Telarc, founded in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1977 by Jack Renner and Robert Woods, both of whom were classically trained musicians and educators, made its first two recordings in the then-typical direct-to-disc format. At the same time, Renner and Woods were inspired by the new digital recording technology of Tom Stockham’s Salt Lake City-based Soundstream, Inc., the first commercial digital recording company in the United States. Stockham, whom Renner calls “the father of digital signal processing,” had developed a 16-bit digital audio recorder using a high speed instrument magnetic tape recorder and demonstrated the recordings at the fall of 1976 AES convention. Renner and Woods formed a partnership with Stockham. They requested that he increase his digital system’s high frequency response, from 17 kHz to 22.5 kHz at a sampling rate of 50 kHz, an unprecedented level.
As you can see, Nyquist (obviously with a few extra kHz sampling space to allow for filtering).
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz
In the early 1980s, a 32 kHz sampling rate was used in broadcast (esp. in UK and Japan), because this was sufficient for FM stereo broadcasts, which had 15 kHz bandwidth.
Again, Nyquist.
The current AES recommended practice for professional audio is 48 kHz, which is not too far from 44.1 kHz (2008, revised 2013):
Abstract: A sampling frequency of 48 kHz is recommended for the origination, processing, and interchange of audio programs employing pulse-code modulation. Recognition is also given to the use of a 44.1-kHz sampling frequency related to certain consumer digital applications, the use of a 32-kHz sampling frequency for transmission-related applications, and the use of a 96-kHz sampling frequency for applications requiring a higher bandwidth or more relaxed anti-alias filtering. This revision further quantifies the preferred choices for higher sampling frequencies. (8 pages)
Again, basically Nyquist at 48 kHz, with a few extra kHz sampling space to allow for filtering.
Yes, there may have been a debate about 48 kHz vs. 44.1 kHz even in the beginning (and 44.1 kHz won because of available video equipment for recording), but here we are not talking about vastly different sampling rates -- that was not a 192 kHz vs. 44.1 kHz discussion, not by a long shot.
***
And again, given my experience on the dCS gear with plain 44.1 kHz Redbook CD that delivered sonically superior results than the hi-res that I have heard elsewhere, and very life-like timbral believability, it has become clear to me that Nyquist must be correct. It is all about the practical implementation to make the approach to theory as close as possible, and that implementation is superior on the dCS gear, to my ears.
Higher sampling rates do not appear to be strictly necessary. These are just a practical vehicle to more easily approach theoretical perfection, but not required by theory.
Last edited:
It is not the "analogueness" which is at issue here but the accuracy of the "transport" mechanism. The sound picked up by the microphones is pressure fluctuations in the air. There are both analogue and digital ways of recording the electrical output of the microphones and storing it. These methods allow later reproduction of something like the original pressure fluctuations in the air by decoding the recording and powering loudspeakers.
As a recording and reproduction method digital will certainly both store a more accurate recording of the original electrical output of the microphone, and certainly reproduce it more accurately, even than analogue tape which is much more accurate than LP can ever possibly be.
If the output sounds more "real" to somebody that is not because it is a better reproduction but because the inaccuracies in reproduction appeal to the taste of the listener, which is fair enough.
In the most exigent data recording cases I have experienced no analogue method was good enough to get, store and then reproduce the data well enough to be much use at all. Digital recording then reproduction were the only way that anything useful was learned.
Frantz, you might want to talk to Audiophile Bill, he's on a quest to digitally copy a lot of his lp library via Korg/Golden Gate.
I'm not sure what his tipple of choice is to ward off the insanity that must inevitably ensue
For me I've found a point on the scale where digital and analog have converged, and yet both remain as different as ever even though my respective players have stolen each other's clothes.
Not really the digital glare is not present on decently performed needle-drops. The issue is the lenght of time to perform just one .. then the copying of the program/liner notes/cover. then the actual rip, then the actual audition and all of this will take you easily more than 90 mins per LP provided said LPs are already clean. If you try it even once you can understand and appreciate with almost gratitude the works performed by our very own Astrotoy. Settings on Audacity are the easiest part. And the learning curve on Audacity is rather steep.
I am pleased you have found that equilibrium. I am not invested enough in the LP medium to look for such an outcome. In a few months perhaps. Right now my music is 90% Digital from various sources, including Tidal, Spotify , Yes! Spot-i-fy, of course ripped CDs and a dozen or so of DSD downloads. It is unlikely I will ever purchase one more LP unless it is the only medium for a particular piece I like.
The problem is that analog can't represent what is sent to it either David. That is why digital was invented
no. analog (vinyl or tape) does represent what it's sent. it just adds a bit of something in the process.
digital is more accurate at points in time, but misses a lot of what's there in the process.
accurate......or complete. our ears tell us which we like better.
- Status
Similar threads
