Why every music lover needs to buy a turntable - discuss.

[JackD201]

Couldn't agree with you more! It really bites to buy a new release and have it poorly pressed or recorded; I'd prefer the digital. A couple of recent examples of great albums with poorly recorded or crappy vinyl:

Phosphorescent "Muchacho"
Damien Jurado "Brothers and Sisters of the Eternal Son"

Hmm...maybe someone should start a "New Release That Sounds Like &%@# on Vinyl" thread

Adele 19 and 21
U2 How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
Ultravox Lament (JP Press)
Lang Lang Chopin (sounds like I'm using a very low MC into a 50 gain pre, bum copy or are all of them like this?)
All my Radio Heads

Just some where the CD was actually more listenable

 

[garylkoh]

See John Atkinson's analysis of Beck's Morning Phase here:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/beck-track-11

even though Bob Ludwig weighed in - "As the mastering engineer for Beck's "Morning Phase" album I can guarantee with 100% certainty that the album was mixed and mastered at 96kHz/24 bit. There were no Mp3 mixes, nor any mixes at any sampling rate other than 96kHz that were used."

It looks like HDTracks wasn't provided with the master files for their expensive download.

Jack,

I agree about the two Adele albums. Of all the copies I have, mp3 was actually the most listenable. From the view of commercial interests, that would have been the right way to go: make the biggest money spinner the best quality. Kinda opposite to what I said in the OP.

 

[Gregadd]

The problem with digital is it discards the original analog waveform. Vinyl proponents fixate on sampling.rates.they lose sight of the following fact that the entire waveform is gone. The samples are a code of samples of the wave that allow the waves to be reconstructed.
Now let's take missing portion of the wave. Between any two points there are an infinite number of lines that will connect them. That means filling in those gaps is extremely difficult. Errors in reconstruction may account for the digital sound.

 

[jazdoc]

Adele 19 and 21
U2 How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
Ultravox Lament (JP Press)
Lang Lang Chopin (sounds like I'm using a very low MC into a 50 gain pre, bum copy or are all of them like this?)
All my Radio Heads

Just some where the CD was actually more listenable

Here are a few more

Cults "Static"
Eisley "Currents"
Bangles "Sweetheart of the Sun"
Lenny Kravitz "Black and White"
Papercuts "Fading Parade"
Raphael Saadiq "Stone Rollin'"

 

[Don Hills]

The problem with digital is it discards the original analog waveform. Vinyl proponents fixate on sampling.rates.they lose sight of the following fact that the entire waveform is gone. The samples are a code of samples of the wave that allow the waves to be reconstructed.
Now let's take missing portion of the wave. Between any two points there are an infinite number of lines that will connect them. That means filling in those gaps is extremely difficult. Errors in reconstruction may account for the digital sound.

Your understanding of "the way it works" is incorrect.
Given a digitised signal containing no frequencies higher than half of the sampling rate, there is only one "line" that will connect the output samples. The reconstruction filter creates that "line" to whatever degree of accuracy you wish to pursue.

"But", you might say, "I can draw an infinite number of lines that connect the output samples." That's where you go wrong. Any line other than the only correct line will contain frequencies higher than half the sampling frequency.

This is explained quite well here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
Watch the 40 seconds from 6:10 to 7:30.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Yes, and what about that beloved professional tape deck. Guess what, all those bits of rust on the tape are aligned one direction or the other as we peer down at the micro level and, that's digital, and some don't align, noise ..can anyone say dither.....and those "smooth" grooves in your LP, get serious folks....we are in a digital world....it is confusing for those without a strong background. However, while some here claim to hear the difference between an LP and a digital recording of a LP, it appears from for example posts previous in this thread, most can not do it. Thus, digital can sound "vinyl", if you feed it vinyl. The conclusion for most is unless you do controlled blind testing, you will never know, only "feel". And of course, by now, we all know vinyl and digital are very much differently mastered. Or we should know. The folks who master digital obviously prefer what they master, folks, quit blaming the medium for the mastering engineers preference of what he likes in sound....that's my stance.

C'mon Tom that junk was already debunked in another thread. Repeating it a million times doesn't make it true.

 

[JackD201]

Tom, ask any honest digital engineer and they will tell you that the engineering is still not up 100% to the math.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Nope, Myles, nothing I said there is not true, its how it works, its facts. As you go down, drill down, you come to the digital world, the quantum world, and you don't have to drill down far to see the effects in tape, for vinyl, you have to have a bit more imagination but none the less that's the way it is.

anyway, by now there must be enough evidence to suggest that its all in the mastering, and not the format, for either format really, only the vinyl one you can only compress so far, as in men at work album..down under fame...that's a compressed album for its time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsJ0BldwB5w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TlQo9k827c

these two examples should not be new news to audiophiles.

Not true, Tom. There are pretty dramatic differences in IMD, THD, crosstalk, noise floor, FR linearity and extension...inherent in the media, regardless of the quality of the playback equipment.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

Nope, Myles, nothing I said there is not true, its how it works, its facts. As you go down, drill down, you come to the digital world, the quantum world, and you don't have to drill down far to see the effects in tape, for vinyl, you have to have a bit more imagination but none the less that's the way it is.

anyway, by now there must be enough evidence to suggest that its all in the mastering, and not the format, for either format really, only the vinyl one you can only compress so far, as in men at work album..down under fame...that's a compressed album for its time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsJ0BldwB5w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TlQo9k827c

these two examples should not be new news to audiophiles.

A million and one.

 

[Gregadd]

Your understanding of "the way it works" is incorrect.
Given a digitised signal containing no frequencies higher than half of the sampling rate, there is only one "line" that will connect the output samples. The reconstruction filter creates that "line" to whatever degree of accuracy you wish to pursue.

"But", you might say, "I can draw an infinite number of lines that connect the output samples." That's where you go wrong. Any line other than the only correct line will contain frequencies higher than half the sampling frequency.
I don't think you disagree with argumemt it's my implied conclusions that bothers you. We listen to music that is stored digitally. That means you are correct to a certain degree. When see it can be done to any degree of accura
cy you like that means there's is the potential for in accuracy
Moreover unlike vinyl the degree of accuracy is chosen for me.

This is explained quite well here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
Watch the 40 seconds from 6:10 to 7:30.

I was not able to use your link.

 

[Don Hills]

I was not able to use your link.

You can't see Youtube clips? How strange.

Try the original:

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

If that still doesn't work, there are download links at the bottom of that page to get the file.

 

[Don Hills]

Tom, ask any honest digital engineer and they will tell you that the engineering is still not up 100% to the math.

Hi Jack, uhm, just don't quite get what you are saying here. Late at night, brain is tired...

If I understand Jack correctly, he's saying that although the math is exact, the physical implementation of it can fall short of being exact.
For example, the math formula for a perfect D/A reconstruction filter is known, but implementing it would be prohibitively expensive. The designers make a tradeoff between the amount of error (deviation from perfection) and cost / complexity. Fortunately, the ever-decreasing cost of processing power makes it cost-effective to more and more closely approach perfection. Another example is the 24-bit ADC /DAC. None of them approach the theoretical 24-bit resolution because of internal noise.

 

[JackD201]

You understood me perfectly.

 

[rbbert]

Although according to Stereophile's measurements the DAC's from Vivaldi, Auralic and Benchmark do achieve 24 bit resolution. I don't know about the ADC end.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

We're talking about the imperfect measurements of DACs in a thread about how everyone should own a turntable? Shakespeare could learn about irony here.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Ironic indeed. Neither is perfect.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Ironic indeed. Neither is perfect.

Agreed, and not even in debate. I can't recall seeing a digital defender here ever make that claim.

Tim

 

[LL21]

Ironic indeed. Neither is perfect.

Hi Jack...just tried to send you a PM...but your inbox is FULL!!!

 

[Gregadd]

This is an endless debate.
We needf only know that there are vinyl recordings worth having that are better than or not avaable on digital. If so you will need a turntable to play them. The premise has been conceded

 

[microstrip]

Ironic indeed. Neither is perfect.

Yes, Jack. We learned it from Shakespeare:

But no perfection is so absolute, That some impurity doth not pollute. -- William Shakespeare, The Rape of Lucrece

What we should be looking to in order to understand our preferences are the just the impurities of digital.