Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?

[morricab]

What we are after are the magnitude of those components that we don’t expect to be present. Those contributions are that ones that tell the story.

Yes, they might be small but psychoacoustics shows that they can be very detrimental to good sound. No one debates the distortion is objectively small. Same debate about SS amps vs. tube amps(particularly SETs), which measure objectively worse but many woukd argue sound much better.

 

[morricab]

The problem with high-end audio digital cables is that they are not compliant or certified to any standards. A simple eye-pattern test would go a long way at evaluating their differences.

Again, I used the same cable for each format. Obviously the XLR cable has an extra leg. Whether they have the right impedance is a fair question. However, I have heard the same relative difference regardless of the cable brand…so the major difference seems to reside in something other than the cable.

 

[Al M.]

AI says: It is not possible for an ADC-DAC system to reproduce an analog signal with 100% accuracy. There are inherent limitations and sources of error that prevent perfect reconstruction of the original analog signal.

Some of the key reasons why 100% accurate analog signal reproduction is not achievable with an ADC-DAC system include:

1. Quantization Error:
- The ADC can only represent the analog signal with a finite number of digital levels, based on its bit depth.
- This introduces quantization error, where the digital representation cannot perfectly match the continuous analog value.
- Even with high-resolution ADCs, there will always be some level of quantization error.

2. Sampling Limitations:
- The ADC can only capture the analog signal at discrete time intervals, based on the sampling rate.
- Any information between the sampling points is lost, leading to potential aliasing and distortion.
- Perfect reconstruction requires the sampling rate to be infinitely high, which is not practical.

3. Reconstruction Filter Limitations:
- The DAC requires a reconstruction filter to remove high-frequency artifacts introduced during the digital-to-analog conversion.
- However, the reconstruction filter cannot be an ideal brickwall filter, and it will always introduce some level of frequency-domain distortion.

4. Timing and Synchronization Errors:
- Precise timing and synchronization between the ADC and DAC sampling clocks are crucial for accurate signal reconstruction.
- Any jitter or timing mismatch between the clocks will result in timing errors, leading to signal degradation.

Due to these fundamental limitations, it is not possible to achieve 100% accurate analog signal reproduction using an ADC-DAC system. The best achievable performance will depend on factors like the ADC and DAC specifications, the system design, and the specific application requirements.

In practice, the goal is to minimize the various sources of error and achieve the highest possible fidelity within the constraints of the system. However, some level of error and deviation from the original analog signal will always be present.

Well, the output of AI is crap if the human input into it is also crap.

Point 2) stems from a typical misunderstanding of how digital in general and the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem in particular works. The theorem states:

If a system uniformly samples an analog signal at a rate that exceeds the signal’s highest frequency by at least a factor of two, the original analog signal can be perfectly recovered from the discrete values produced by sampling.

From:

The Nyquist–Shannon Theorem: Understanding Sampled Systems - Technical Articles

The Nyquist sampling theorem, or more accurately the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, is a fundamental theoretical principle that governs the design of mixed-signal electronic systems.

www.allaboutcircuits.com

The crucial thing is bandwidth limiting the signal in frequency. Under correct bandwidth limiting the points made:

- Any information between the sampling points is lost, leading to potential aliasing and distortion.
- Perfect reconstruction requires the sampling rate to be infinitely high, which is not practical.

...are nonsense. There is no information between the sampling points that is lost, therefore the sampling rate does not need to be infinitely high.

 

[thedudeabides]

don't confuse forum persona generally with actual personal activity. i'm assuming most don't take themselves that seriously.

Not confused and recognize there are the "usual suspects" that typically post on this topic. For my part, I'm here to learn, do not take sides and fully recognize that this hobby, and what one likes and dislikes, is unequivocally subjective. And the back and forth quibbling is so unnecessary and self serving. Regarding the vast majority, they likely enjoy the message much more than the messenger and could care less about this never ending A v D discussion.

 

[Carlos269]

Yes, they might be small but psychoacoustics shows that they can be very detrimental to good sound. No one debates the distortion is objectively small. Same debate about SS amps vs. tube amps(particularly SETs), which measure objectively worse but many woukd argue sound much better.

The interesting thing becomes when manufacturers deliberately write code in DSP cores or FPGA to alter the response to deviate away from neutral. This would be exposed with the Sine wave reconstruction test.

 

[rDin]

If a system uniformly samples an analog signal at a rate that exceeds the signal’s highest frequency by at least a factor of two, the original analog signal can be perfectly recovered from the discrete values produced by sampling.

This is only true mathematically, ie in theory. In practice, the circuits physical limitations. This is why we have different DAC architectures. Each attempting to solve the problem in a different way.

 

[Carlos269]

Again, I used the same cable for each format. Obviously the XLR cable has an extra leg. Whether they have the right impedance is a fair question. However, I have heard the same relative difference regardless of the cable brand…so the major difference seems to reside in something other than the cable.

Are these cables digital cables? AES/EBU cables are 110 Ohms while SPDIF cables are 75 Ohms.

 

[Carlos269]

This is only true mathematically, ie in theory. In practice, the circuits physical limitations. This is why we have different DAC architectures. Each attempting to solve the problem in a different way.

If you perform random samples at a very high rate, you can actually overcome and exceed the Nyquist sample frequency bandwidth predictions and limitations. This is beyond the realm of audio but an interesting fact and development for those involved in very high speed electronics.

 

[morricab]

Are these cables digital cables? AES/EBU cables are 110 Ohms while SPDIF cables are 75 Ohms.

Yes, of course

 

[Al M.]

This is only true mathematically, ie in theory. In practice, the circuits physical limitations. This is why we have different DAC architectures. Each attempting to solve the problem in a different way.

Certainly, there are practical limitations in digital to theoretical perfection, just like there are practical limitations in vinyl production and playback.

What I did address is the fact that the AI answer, like so many critics of digital, got even the theory wrong on a most basic level, causing it to unnecessarily spout nonsense.

 

[PeterA]

How accurately the signal at outputs compares to the data at the inputs, it’s that simple. That is the only frame for evaluation of accuracy.

Agreed. The issue then is how realistic the information is in the first place. Accuracy along the chain is great. My final judgement is of the listening experience at the listening seat. That is where we hear the music.

 

[PeterA]

Don’t take it from me, Dave McNair @Mcsnare who is a mastering engineer by profession and a contributing writer for audiophile outlets, has done numerous tests with his own recordings and Mastering’s. After listening to both the analog and digital playback of his recordings he concluded that digital IS more accurate. We can speak theoretically all day but his statements are some of the best empirical evidence and testimonials that you are going to get.

At the end of the day, the empirical evidence that matters most is what each listener thinks and prefers from his own comparisons. In my opinion.

 

[facten]

Sitting here listening to the wonderful guitar playing of brothers Noah & Josh Thompson of Roman Street via my Neodio Origine S2 Cd player. Sounds damm good. It's better to sit back and enjoy some music versus arguing about this

 

[Carlos269]

Agreed. The issue then is how realistic the information is in the first place. Accuracy along the chain is great. My final judgement is of the listening experience at the listening seat. That is where the we hear the music.

The Dac can only convert what is send to its inputs. Ideally the dac should not editorialize but just convert.

You are judging components and audio systems by something that they have very little control of. If what you are looking to hear is not in the source material then it is very unlikely that you will hear what you want to hear.

This brings me to what I have been saying now for decades, the source material is the dominat factor. The mastering is the dominant factor. That is why HQPLAYER and adjusting the source material is where you can more effectively influence the resultant sound.

In order words you might be expecting of a component or system what it can’t possibly deliver if it is not in the source material.

I will not go into what I have said in the past but hopefully you understand what I’m saying and the ways to overcome these limitations.

 

[Carlos269]

At the end of the day, the empirical evidence that matters most is what each listener thinks and prefers from his own comparisons. In my opinion.

Well you can refute the data but a compelling testimonial it is. Almost all listeners do not have an opportunity to perform the comparisons that Dave McNair has been able to carry out.

 

[Al M.]

At the end of the day, the empirical evidence that matters most is what each listener thinks and prefers from his own comparisons. In my opinion.

I agree. We both have made our respective choices and are happy with them.

 

[thedudeabides]

At the end of the day, the empirical evidence that matters most is what each listener thinks and prefers from his own comparisons.

Makes perfect sense. Why others would suggest otherwise is beyond my pay grade. All things being equal, how can anyone claim that they know how something sounds tò someone else and what they should prefer?

 

[tima]

The reissue just won’t have the dynamic range this has. The later editions from EMI of this were poor. Then it is boring to listen to

I'd rather have the reissue option than not. My copy is on Pathe Marconi. I ordered the Warner Classics, so it will interesting to compare.

 

[hopkins]

Post in thread 'Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...nyl-sound-and-at-what-price.37142/post-935142

Post in thread 'Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...nyl-sound-and-at-what-price.37142/post-935151

Is this first statement....

"Many times, the mixes and mastering are different from the digital version. So it's really comparing apples to oranges."

Consistent with this one?

"I much prefer to listen to vinyl at home because I love the colorations from the cutting process. It simply sounds more engaging to me - even if I know that the digital is more true to source."

True to what source?

 

[Ron Resnick]

After listening to both the analog and digital playback of his recordings [Dave McNair]* concluded that digital IS more accurate.

My issue here is that this view pre-judges a critically important predicate step. That predicate step is "What is my high-end audio objective?"

Possible objectives:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

If one selects, in advance, the objective of "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," then "which is more accurate?" is a logical question to ask.

But if one selects, in advance, the objective of "create a sound that seems live" then assessing which is more "accurate" becomes spurious.


* Whom I adore, by the way.