Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[amirm]

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?

Sampling theorem is proven using the same math we use elsewhere to describe our physical world. If that math is wrong, our world as we know it comes to an end.

And how are the groves cut into something resin or magnetic particles in a tape related to sound waves in the air in an obvious manner?

Just because we don't understand something, it doesn't mean it can't be real. Einstein's relativity theory is used to correct errors in GPS system. Due to their distance and speed, if you did not apply that correction, your location shown in the GPS would be way, way off. Time dilation is not something as lay people we can intuit yet every time we use our navigation systems, it is in play. In just two minutes, the clock on the GPS satellite and the GPS receiver in your smartphone would drift apart. The locational error per day would be around 10 kilometers! Do we sit here and say that relativity is a "theoretical" thing and hence can't be valid?

 

[Al M.]

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.

If you think that digital is intrinsically incomplete or missing something, or only accurate 'at points in time', then I suggest you learn a bit more about sampling theory.

This video might help:

https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

 

[rbbert]

Both analog and digital recording/reproducing systems (as they currently exist) must subtract, it's undeniable that neither accurately and completely records what is "sent" to them. Whether or not they add anything is a different issue, IMHO.

 

[Al M.]

Sampling theorem is proven using the same math we use elsewhere to describe our physical world. If that math is wrong, our world as we know it comes to an end.

And how are the groves cut into something resin or magnetic particles in a tape related to sound waves in the air in an obvious manner?

Just because we don't understand something, it doesn't mean it can't be real. Einstein's relativity theory is used to correct errors in GPS system. Due to their distance and speed, if you did not apply that correction, your location shown in the GPS would be way, way off. Time dilation is not something as lay people we can intuit yet every time we use our navigation systems, it is in play. In just two minutes, the clock on the GPS satellite and the GPS receiver in your smartphone would drift apart. The locational error per day would be around 10 kilometers! Do we sit here and say that relativity is a "theoretical" thing and hence can't be valid?

Great post, Amir.

 

[amirm]

no. analog (vinyl or tape) does represent what it's sent. it just adds a bit of something in the process.

What is a "bit?" That sounds like a digital problem .

accurate......or complete. our ears tell us which we like better.

I recently bought a Piano recording on tape. One the left channel the background hiss gradually rises higher and higher and then it turns into a bit of static and then dies off. Only to repeat this again. Between tracks there is no such issue so this was in the recording. Peter Breuninger on his forum raved about the fidelity of this tape. I contacted the distributor and problems I heard were tracked and confirmed to be in the equipment chain that was used.

To me, the tape is unlistenable because of this problem. It is so distracting. It is like someone is sitting behind the left speaker and keeps winding up a noise maker.

So maybe the disagreement here is due to the fact that not everyone hears these analog distortions?

 

[ddk]

I wonder if he would say the same about a direct uncompressed video feed from a state of the art...digital...6K professional video camera like a Red Dragon. If that isn't an acceptable - albeit 2D rectangular - emulation of what I see in reality, then I think I should be donating my eyeballs to science! Even though it is "inferior" digital technology and deconstruction and reconstruction is arguably far more complex and processor intensive than anything audio!

As compared to what? 70mm wide screen Panavision? Not sure if there's any correlation between digital video and digital audio and the way eye/brain process light and ear/brain process sound. Capturing light directly onto a sensor is also very different and converting an analog signal to binary nos. Without entering into any "which is better discussions" I think that we can agree that the end results are different from one another in video too when the entire process including playback is kept in original formats. I don't shoot video but as a long time art photographer I have plenty of experience with both digital and film still photography. I'm 100% digital these days out of necessity and go through thousands of images annually, digitally reconstruction many of them for digital consumption and some print. Even using the latest and greatest 100mp MF back I still see two areas of deficiency with the digital reconstruction. Its great in the grays but barely has depth, if any in the blacks and lacks the tonal depth and range of emulsion process when recreating ambient light. Both areas are very important to me and something that I miss very much and no matter how hard I try to reconstruct it with software, best I can do is fool the eye a bit.

david

 

[ddk]

Sampling theorem is proven using the same math we use elsewhere to describe our physical world.

Describe, not recreate! Not all theories are proven either!

If that math is wrong, our world as we know it comes to an end.

Who's math?

Just because we don't understand something, it doesn't mean it can't be real.

But in this case we understand it well, we created it! This world will stop if the math is wrong !

Einstein's relativity theory is used to correct errors in GPS system. Due to their distance and speed, if you did not apply that correction, your location shown in the GPS would be way, way off. Time dilation is not something as lay people we can intuit yet every time we use our navigation systems, it is in play. In just two minutes, the clock on the GPS satellite and the GPS receiver in your smartphone would drift apart. The locational error per day would be around 10 kilometers! Do we sit here and say that relativity is a "theoretical" thing and hence can't be valid?

What does any of this have to do with recreating a sound signal from a theoretical, mathematical model and claiming that its an exact copy with all attributes of original kept intact?

david

 

[FrantzM]

Al and Andrew Stenhouse posted while I was away .. I just submitted my lasty post and need to add to their point of view.


Piano is a difficult instrument to reproduce. I have had a piano in my house since I was born and always though that, perhaps, the piano I heard on records aka LP were very different from what I had at home. Records always sounded like something else , not what I knew to be the piano.. I dismissed it for a good while... Went to study in the US in my early 20's and ... went to various concerts and pianos did sound like I remember but still never did on LP.. Fast forward few years , Reference Recording came up with a "Nojima PLays Lizt" Lp ... Interesting .. that was a reasonable reproduction but not quite.. Something was off but not enough to not enjoy the extraordinary accuracy of the piano sound on this LP .. then came the CD of said works and then .. it became very interesting. When I heard the Nojima CD first through the Spectral CD player then to be stunning and from that point on a Burmester fanboy, on the Burmester 870 DAC a preamp/DAC which was IMHO one of the best early DAC. It remains capable of teaching a few things to some today's DAC and that since 1987!!! It came clear to me that the CD was doing a much better when it came to piano repoduction . At last I could recognize the piano the way I know these to sound.

I am digressing but the point is that solo piano on CD, assuming some care is taken not to multi-mike the instrument and spread it on those 2 ch .. (They often put one set of keys on the left and the rest on the right .. Ohh the horror !!... To come back Piano solo on CD is superior to LP, no contest even if one accounts for varying tastes. Piano solo ... To come back to this particular Nojima plays Lizt .. No contest, the CD is superior too... Then I came to meet in person the departed Wilma Cozart Fine who candidly told everyone in the assistance that she found the CD as enjoyable as the LP and sometimes more .. Some of us , including your very humble servant scoffed a little bit, politely, thinking that she wouldn't say one bad word about her own works but .. she was was right and to me the CDs are superior in most aspect of sound I care about ... There are various works for which in my opinion, the digital version is superior but alas not all is so well in Audioland .. I have noticed that too often the CD is inferior especially when the original was analogue , not in the case of the RCA, Mercury or Decca re-issues, I must say but it would be a rule that the digital seems to go through a different mastering philosophy ... Often it is as if the mastering was performed on a different planet , the one on which CD is Perfect Sound Forever .

I have been very pleased by the level of civility in this debate and wanted to add my 2 cents. I will sign off by saying that for the most part many people see digital like sawing off of a music and presenting an approximation well it ain't so people .. Digital within the passband, that is the bandwidth of the signal presented, keeps the information pertaining to this signal. The number of bits determine the dynamic range and in the case of the 24 Bits that is more than any analog can dream of .. True a CD, even in the best of cases will not reproduce anything above 22.05 KHz, For most of us, the above 40 years old on WBF there is nothing to hear there ..We barely hit 16 KHz on a good day and at very high SPL .. still digital has an answer if we need to approach the 50 KHz that is purportedly the upper reach of LP, 192 KHz will gladly reproduce any harmonics up to 96 KHz while none of us can hear that high and never did, it is good enough for our pet bats and pet dolphins. The reason of this digital-cuts-the-music-in-pieces is multi-fold but the main culprit is the "approximation" graphs of digital with the step-stairs that would make music. it remains truly complicated to understand Nyquist Theory but it is far from a "theory" it is applied every day when every one places a phone call and is able to hear the voice of loved and not-so-loved ones... Turning your TV and enjoying a great Blu-Ray is a testimonial to Nyquist Theory strength but also to the efficiency strength and accuracy of modern compression techniques .. a different subject altogether ...

Enjoy the music and a healthy debate!

 

[amirm]

Describe, not recreate! Not all theories are proven either!

This one is I am afraid or practically the entire world around you would cease to work.

Who's math?

College level math. Not sure who that is registered to .

What does any of this have to do with recreating a sound signal from a theoretical, mathematical model and claiming that its an exact copy with all attributes of original kept intact?

david

Your logic with respect to sampling theorem being an unnatural thing because it doesn't make lay sense. Physics doesn't owe you simplicity. Sometimes you do need to understand college level mathematics in order to understand what we are discussing. You can't use that in reverse saying because you don't understand it, it must not work. And be out of this universe, or the quote from Neil Young.

 

[Al M.]

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 l

My relationship with digital and analog has been complicated.

I have always been pro-digital in the sense that since a long time I have listened to digital only.

Two reasons:
1) CD was a blessing for me -- no more clicks and pops that had driven me crazy
2) Almost all of the new classical avantgarde music that interests me, as well as jazz avantgarde, some favorite classical performances etc. are only available on CD

At the same time, since being an audiophile beginning in 1990 I always have known about the shortcomings of digital and the sonic virtues of analog.

Some concerns had been solved over the years. For example, I always knew that digital had a problem with rhythm & timing, the foot-tapping quality of music, something that comes much easier and more naturally to analog. I finally got jazz to work on my old Wadia 12 DAC as it was fed through a Tice power conditioner (clean power is critical for digital). Yet rock remained a problem. Then came along the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 that I bought for other reasons (you of course have that DAC too). At some point, about two months after purchase, I discovered that it was a total rhythmic bad-ass, a veritable rock & roll beast. CD had bridged the gap with analog in this area. Since then I have listened to much more rock on my system than I ever anticipated. It's just so thrilling! -- Also, the Berkeley DAC revealed timbral resolution from CD that previously I didn't think possible.

Yet then I discovered again in other people's systems (mainly Peter A. and Madfloyd) how good great analog really is, and that it can often sound timbrally more convincing than my and all the other digital that I had heard thus far, e.g., on solo violin or sax (tenor, baritone), both in tone and resolution. Yes, the Berkeley DAC could sound great on solo violin too, but only on a few select recordings, and it still did not quite have the resolution, and sax was just never quite convincing.

Were there undue limitations to the CD medium? As for digital theory, I became convinced --- helped greatly by knowledgeable people on WBF, Amir and others -- that it had to be sound, and that Nyquist sampling theoretically must be correct, but what about digital in practice? Could it ever sufficiently approach theory?

Yet finally, I discovered that the dCS Rossini solved all the timbral issues brilliantly, and that the aforementioned solo violin and sax sounds were, at least to my ears, as convincing in tone and resolution as great analog (Peter A. who only listens to analog at home and was with me at the session was impressed too). And what is more, standard Redbook CD was sufficient for all this, opening up the vastest catalog of music for reproduction with tremendous tone and timbral resolution, provided that basic good care was taken in recording and mastering techniques. (And now I also had audible proof of the soundness of digital theory! Sure reproduction perhaps can be even better, but it was convincing enough.) Glad that I skipped all the high-res craze (I never owned a single SACD either). Will analog on some things still be better? Perhaps. But I am not sweating it. Given how far we have come, I am confident these potential issues will be solved.

The digital future is bright.

 

[Al M.]

Al and Andrew Stenhouse posted while I was away .. I just submitted my lasty post and need to add to their point of view.

Piano is a difficult instrument to reproduce. I have had a piano in my house since I was born and always though that perhaps the piano I heard on records aka LP were very different from what I had at home. Records always sounded like something else , not what I knew to be the piano.. I dismissed it for a good while... Wen to study in the US in my early 20's and ... went to various concerts and pianos did sound like I remember but still never did.. Fast forward few years , Reference Recording came up with a "Nojima PLays Lizt" Lp ... Interesting .. that was a reasonable reproduction but not quite.. Something was off but not enough to enjoy the extraordinary accuracy of the piano sound on this LP .. then came the CD of said works and then .. it became very interesting when I heard the CD first through the Spectral CD player then to be stunned and from that point on a Burmester fanboy on the Burmester 870 DAC a preamp/DAC which was IMHO one of the best early DAC. It remains capable of teaching a few things to some today's DAC and that since 1987!!!
I am digressing but the point is that solo piano on CD assuming some care is taken not to multi-mike the instrument and spread it on those 2 ch .. (They often put one set of keys on the left and the rest on the right .. Ohh the horror !!... To come back Piano solo on CD is superior to LP, no contest even if one accounts for varying tastes. Piano solo ... To come back to this particular Nojima plays Lizt .. No contest, the CD is superior too... Then I came to meet in person the departed Wilma Cozart Fine who candidly told everyone in the assistance that she found the CD as enjoyable as the LP and sometimes more .. Some of us , including your very humble servant scoffed a little bit, politely, thinking that she wouldn't say one bad word about her own works but .. she was was right and to me the CDs are superior in most aspect of sound I care about ... There are various works for which in my opinion, the digital version is superior but alas not all is so well in Audioland .. I have noticed that too often the CD is inferior especially when the original was analogue , not in the case of the RCA, Mercury or Decca re-issues, I must say but it would be a rule that the digital seems to go through a different mastering philosophy ... Often it is as if the mastering was performed on a different planet , the one on which CD is Perfect Sound Forever .

Very interesting, Frantz!

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

I don't shoot video but as a long time art photographer I have plenty of experience with both digital and film still photography. I'm 100% digital these days out of necessity and go through thousands of images annually, digitally reconstruction many of them for digital consumption and some print. Even using the latest and greatest 100mp MF back I still see two areas of deficiency with the digital reconstruction. Its great in the grays but barely has depth, if any in the blacks and lacks the tonal depth and range of emulsion process when recreating ambient light. Both areas are very important to me and something that I miss very much and no matter how hard I try to reconstruct it with software, best I can do is fool the eye a bit.

Without wanting to get OT, if you don't have studio film / video experience and are only approaching this from still photograph experience, then it would be difficult for me to accept critical comments related to the capabilities of modern digital video. There is a world of difference between state of the art professional 6K uncompressed video these days and what people see on their blu-ray disks, let alone typical broadcast quality. All the things you criticise are shortcomings of compression processes in video. Furthermore, if we are talking about fidelity to the real thing, analogue film - still or motion - is precisely akin to vinyl or perhaps more accurately, open reel analogue tape. It distorts reality in an aesthetically pleasant way which I too find pleasing. But if you have not regularly seen uncompressed feeds from $50,000 6K professional cameras, then I'm not sure you can sustain a critical argument about what digital video can or cannot do in 2016. It would be like me criticising digital versus analogue audio when I do not hear a dCS system on a regular basis. And since I haven't (well, only twice), I tend to keep away from pro-active arguments one way or another these days as much as possible. Except when it comes to CD, where on account of my experience of completely failing to make an inaudible transition from high sampling rate 24 bit to 16/44.1 after literally years trying, I will never agree it is transparent.

 

[ddk]

This one is I am afraid or practically the entire world around you would cease to work.

??? How so Amir? Will my spoken word suddenly cease to exist because I stop hitting keys? The only thing that will stop is wasted time for this nonsense !

College level math. Not sure who that is registered to .

Highschool Physics, says otherwise.

Your logic with respect to sampling theorem being an unnatural thing because it doesn't make lay sense. Physics doesn't owe you simplicity. Sometimes you do need to understand college level mathematics in order to understand what we are discussing. You can't use that in reverse saying because you don't understand it, it must not work. And be out of this universe, or the quote from Neil Young.

Physics, Physical Universe. Sampling Theorem, Theoretical Universe!

Its not my logic, the word theorem is self explanatory, it means speculation. Since you're the only one who understands it ALL Amir please enlighten Dr. Smith in his incorrect understanding and usage of "reconstruct" in regards to this subject matter and while you're at it tell him not to say "if" because it might lead us to believe that there's a speculative aspect to the "theorem" !

http://www.dspguide.com/ch3/2.htm

david

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

One the left channel the background hiss gradually rises higher and higher and then it turns into a bit of static and then dies off. Only to repeat this again. Between tracks there is no such issue so this was in the recording. Peter Breuninger on his forum raved about the fidelity of this tape. I contacted the distributor and problems I heard were tracked and confirmed to be in the equipment chain that was used.

That reminds me of my criticism of the appalling level of wow in a recent Analogue Productions reissue. Reviews raved about this reissue. I complained to Analogue Productions and two weeks later received a personal reply from Chad Kassam himself. Only to tell me I was right and that they only investigated it because of my complaint! The whole series has been scrapped as a result, to be remastered all over again!

Mind you, I also bought a 24/192 download of the Schumann Symphonies (Rattle / Berlin Phil). I can hear a number of edit points quite clearly. Some were done so badly that the reverb tails are effected as one take is spliced into another. A pity as the recording itself is exceptional. Thankfully though you'd have to be listening very intently on very resolving equipment to hear them, but I know for a fact digital editing can be done much better than this. It should be completely inaudible.

 

[ddk]

Without wanting to get OT, if you don't have studio film / video experience and are only approaching this from still photograph experience, then it would be difficult for me to accept critical comments related to the capabilities of modern digital video. There is a world of difference between state of the art professional 6K uncompressed video these days and what people see on their blu-ray disks, let alone typical broadcast quality. All the things you criticise are shortcomings of compression processes in video. Furthermore, if we are talking about fidelity to the real thing, analogue film - still or motion - is precisely akin to vinyl or perhaps more accurately, open reel analogue tape. It distorts reality in an aesthetically pleasant way which I too find pleasing. But if you have not regularly seen uncompressed feeds from $50,000 6K professional cameras, then I'm not sure you can sustain a critical argument about what digital video can or cannot do in 2016. It would be like me criticising digital versus analogue audio when I do not hear a dCS system on a regular basis. And since I haven't (well, only twice), I tend to keep away from pro-active arguments one way or another these days as much as possible. Except when it comes to CD, where on account of my experience of completely failing to make an inaudible transition from high sampling rate 24 bit to 16/44.1 after literally years trying, I will never agree it is transparent.

FF, we're on the same page, I have nothing worthwhile to discuss in regards to digital video, nor did I attempt to do so. I only asked what you were you comparing it to out of curiosity.

david

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . 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. . . .
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.

Al, when Peter takes me to visit you, before we get to drinking, you will have to try to explain this to me, because I do not understand this at all. (And this post does not even make any sense to me.)

1) To plagiarize an earlier post in this thread (Peter A, I think) if the dCS gears allows you to conclude that digital theory, properly implemented, gets you a perfect reproduction of the musical waveform (and not as I think an approximation thereof) then how can digital ever be improved upon from here?

2) A higher sampling rate must get digital closer to reproducing a complete waveform. How can it not?

 

[PeterA]

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.

f1eng, does the sound picked up by the microphones during a live recording session and played through speakers in the recording studio, sound anything like the original performance in the other room? How much is lost in the process of converting pressure fluctuations in the air to an electrical signal to be played through the studio monitors, in your opinion? I am trying to understand if a perfect digital copy of that direct mic feed will ever sound like the original live performance once it has gone through the various conversions and is replayed through a pair of speakers.

Many people remain unconvinced by digital reproduction, even though it is a better copy of the original digital recording. If an analog recording sounds more real, or like the original live performance, to many people, can a case not be made that it is a more accurate reproduction of the original music event, regardless of the intermediary steps or the accuracy of the digital copy to the original digital recording, or to what comes out of the mic?

My priority, as the end user, is what final product sounds most like the original music event, not the accuracy of intermediate steps.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

Pending Al's effort to disabuse me of my misunderstanding of digital theory, this is what I believe, too.

 

[ddk]

f1eng, does the sound picked up by the microphones during a live recording session and played through speakers in the recording studio, sound anything like the original performance in the other room? How much is lost in the process of converting pressure fluctuations in the air to an electrical signal to be played through the studio monitors, in your opinion? I am trying to understand if a perfect digital copy of that direct mic feed will ever sound like the original live performance once it has gone through the various conversions and is replayed through a pair of speakers.

Many people remain unconvinced by digital reproduction, even though it is a better copy of the original digital recording. If an analog recording sounds more real, or like the original live performance, to many people, can a case not be made that it is a more accurate reproduction of the original music event, regardless of the intermediary steps or the accuracy of the digital copy to the original digital recording, or to what comes out of the mic?

My priority, as the end user, is what final product sounds most like the original music event, not the accuracy of intermediate steps.

The accuracy in this case Peter is still highly speculative, not proven nor achieved. All we have is a digitized facsimile.

david

 

[PeterA]

What is a "bit?" That sounds like a digital problem .


I recently bought a Piano recording on tape. One the left channel the background hiss gradually rises higher and higher and then it turns into a bit of static and then dies off. Only to repeat this again. Between tracks there is no such issue so this was in the recording. Peter Breuninger on his forum raved about the fidelity of this tape. I contacted the distributor and problems I heard were tracked and confirmed to be in the equipment chain that was used.

To me, the tape is unlistenable because of this problem. It is so distracting. It is like someone is sitting behind the left speaker and keeps winding up a noise maker.

So maybe the disagreement here is due to the fact that not everyone hears these analog distortions?

Amir, you may be onto something with this comment in bold. For some time now I have heard what I describe as digital glare, to a greater or lesser degree, from every system that has a digital source component. Some people, but not all of them, and rarely the owner, hears this artifact. Some do hear it, but it does not bother them the way it does me. If it is bad enough, I quickly get fatigued and cut the session short. Interestingly, I have not hear this artifact in my recent exposure to three specific digital players/DACs: the dCS Vivaldi, the Rossini, and the Nadac (only with quad DSD). These three units had remarkable levels of resolution with absolutely no sense of fatigue.

I can not explain why some other listeners in the room could not hear this same distortion when I described it to them. Some could, but others could not.

I don't know what to make of your comment about Peter Breuninger's listening abilities. Perhaps the system he used to listen to that tape for his review was not as revealing as your system.