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

[MarkusBarkus]

Then all that's left is my lack of experience and my laziness.

...we're all looking for a protractor and a "goose-neck" to solve those items.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

SmarTractor

 

[tima]

Please don’t get me wrong I prefer vinyl over digital and agree with you but vinyl contains conversion too. Electrical signal captured by microphones is converted to motion or vibration by being etched into the grooves during cutting process. The same applies to tape but this time it is converted to magnetic field. So, there is a conversion on all formats but digital causes fatigue for me while analog counterparts don’t.

I thought the conversion started at the microphone with sound converted to electricity. I suppose you could take this back to breath and muscle converting to sound or even further back if you like. Conservation of energy and all that. I don't think conversion from one form of energy to another is what distinquishes analog from digital.

Correct me if I get this wrong ... the distinction between analog and digital is that the former is continuous and the latter is discontinuous. Perhaps this can be described in terms of the sampling rate or the sampling unit. Can one say that analog has a sampling rate of 1? Whereas digital has a sampling rate of ... well pick your frequency format ... I can't keep track of how many of those there are ... some group of bits across time.

 

[tima]

My apologies to those whose feathers I ruffled.

Sometimes information is gleaned amidst the ruffles.

 

[tima]

I hear you about maintaining a well-dialed in LP set up. As I've aged my eyes have lost more acuity than most, and it feels just about impossible for me to dial in a cartridge with a protractor. In my 40's I was quite confident in it; now, subcontracting seems appropriate. I am looking for a good goosenecked USB scope to aid my eyes. That likely would make all the difference.

Along with a few small bright flashlights, I find this magnifier quite helpful ...




Donegan DA-S1 OptiVISOR -- has 6 glass lenses, 1.5x to 3.5x

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

Along with a few small bright flashlights, I find this magnifier quite helpful ...

View attachment 153932


Donegan DA-S1 OptiVISOR -- has 6 glass lenses, 1.5x to 3.5x

Hi 'tima',
Which interchangeable lens do you use the most with the Donegan DA-S1 OPtiVISOR kit ?

 

[tima]

Hi 'tima',
Which interchangeable lens do you use the most with the Donegan DA-S1 OPtiVISOR kit ?

Hi BJ -- The one I use almost all the time is number 4, which translates to 2x, iirc. I like this kit for the interchangeable lenses and it lets you go hands free. I have not used the light or the monocle.

I also have a couple of loupes, 5x and 10x. Almost exclusively I use these for cartridge work. The loupes work well with the Brakemeier UNI-Protractor (fancier version of the SmartTractor) which does have a magnifier but the loupes let me get closer, one straight on down the cantilever and one at a right angle to see the stylus in relation to the 'exact spot' which is a pinpoint size hole that the point of the stylus will drop into.

 

[microstrip]

I thought the conversion started at the microphone with sound converted to electricity. I suppose you could take this back to breath and muscle converting to sound or even further back if you like. Conservation of energy and all that. I don't think conversion from one form of energy to another is what distinquishes analog from digital.

You forget about the neural energy - it is a key point in this absurd discussion.

Correct me if I get this wrong ... the distinction between analog and digital is that the former is continuous and the latter is discontinuous.

Yes. But at some time the amplitude of noise in analog tape exceeds by far the amplitude between digital steps. Surely some people prefer the effects of noise in stereo - shaping noise is a key point in the high-end. However most audiophiles feel uneasy discussing it - the prefer magic.

Perhaps this can be described in terms of the sampling rate or the sampling unit. Can one say that analog has a sampling rate of 1?

Sorry , no. It is meaningless. A sampling rate of 1 would have a bandwidth of half Hz maximum ...

Whereas digital has a sampling rate of ... well pick your frequency format ... I can't keep track of how many of those there are ... some group of bits across time.

Technically current top digital surpasses analog - I think no one will question it. The vinyl versus digital controversy is just a subjective talk where loudness , persistence, eloquence and aggressiveness of the poster have an weight of about 99% in WBF.

 

[mtemur]

I thought the conversion started at the microphone with sound converted to electricity. I suppose you could take this back to breath and muscle converting to sound or even further back if you like. Conservation of energy and all that. I don't think conversion from one form of energy to another is what distinquishes analog from digital.

Correct me if I get this wrong ... the distinction between analog and digital is that the former is continuous and the latter is discontinuous. Perhaps this can be described in terms of the sampling rate or the sampling unit. Can one say that analog has a sampling rate of 1? Whereas digital has a sampling rate of ... well pick your frequency format ... I can't keep track of how many of those there are ... some group of bits across time.

I agree with you.

Digital involves a kind of discontinuous conversion — sampling a waveform — while analog is continuous. However, once a digital signal is converted back to analog, it becomes continuous again.

With my previous post, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that all mediums involve some kind of conversion, one way or another. Whether one is better or more “continuous” is another discussion. At the end of the day, analog mediums also convert the electrical audio signal — to magnetic flux (tape) or physical engravings (vinyl). Personally, I prefer the type of conversion that analog mediums use over digital conversion.

 

[Al M.]

I agree with you.

Digital involves a kind of discontinuous conversion — sampling a waveform — while analog is continuous. However, once a digital signal is converted back to analog, it becomes continuous again.

With my previous post, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that all mediums involve some kind of conversion, one way or another. Whether one is better or more “continuous” is another discussion. At the end of the day, analog mediums also convert the electrical audio signal — to magnetic flux (tape) or physical engravings (vinyl). Personally, I prefer the type of conversion that analog mediums use over digital conversion.

Your observation that digital in the step back to analog becomes continuous again hits the crux of the matter: Nobody listens to digital, we all listen to analog wave forms.

Personal preferences aside, the real pertinent question is not whether one conversion involves a step of discontinuity or not.

The real question is which conversion introduces quantitatively more, and/or more psychoacoustically relevant, distortion (i.e., deviation from the original music signal) through the entire process from beginning to end. People may have different opinions on that matter, but that is the real question.

 

[tima]

Personal preferences aside, the real pertinent question is not whether one conversion involves a step of discontinuity or not.

The real question is which conversion introduces quantitatively more, and/or more psychoacoustically relevant, distortion through the entire process from beginning to end. People may have different opinions on that matter, but that is the real question.

It's not a question. Pointing out the continuity and discontinuity of the source signal is a description of the fundamental difference between analog and digital. Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't have anything to do with what one prefers.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Your observation that digital in the step back to analog becomes continuous again hits the crux of the matter: Nobody listens to digital, we all listen to analog wave forms.

Personal preferences aside, the real pertinent question is not whether one conversion involves a step of discontinuity or not.

The real question is which conversion introduces quantitatively more, and/or more psychoacoustically relevant, distortion (i.e., deviation from the original music signal) through the entire process from beginning to end. People may have different opinions on that matter, but that is the real question.

equally It's not a question. Pointing out the continuity and discontinuity of the source signal is a description of the fundamental difference between analog and digital. Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't have anything to do with what one prefers.

coming from one who is as equally committed to digital as analog, empirically @mtermur 's and @tima 's perspective fits exactly into my experience.

 

[tima]

Nobody listens to digital, we all listen to analog wave forms.

I will remember you saying this the next time you say 'most modern records are digitally recorded'.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Technically current top digital surpasses analog - I think no one will question it.

" Technically the NASA Mars lander surpasses all audio gear "

Lol .
I really think you need other speakers micro .
My designs will reveal your flawed logic pretty quick .

Telefunken M15 A / Old tech / good tapes score 10 . 10 K
Top digital score 7 . 100 K

 

[Al M.]

I will remember you saying this the next time you say 'most modern records are digitally recorded'.

What does one have to do with the other? And why does it anger you when someone points out that fact, and that therefore most modern vinyl is not the all-analog experience of yesteryear?

 

[Al M.]

It's not a question. Pointing out the continuity and discontinuity of the source signal is a description of the fundamental difference between analog and digital. Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't have anything to do with what one prefers.

Of course digital has a step of discontinuity, and this is no question as you point out.

Let me reformulate my previous statement so that things are clearer as to what I meant:

Personal preferences aside, the real issue regarding final sound quality is not that one conversion involves a step of discontinuity and the other does not.

The real question in this regard is which conversion introduces quantitatively more, and/or more psychoacoustically relevant, distortion (i.e., deviation from the analog waveform of the original music signal) at the end of the process. People may have different opinions on that matter, but that is the real question.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

Your observation that digital in the step back to analog becomes continuous again hits the crux of the matter: Nobody listens to digital, we all listen to analog wave forms.

Personal preferences aside, the real pertinent question is not whether one conversion involves a step of discontinuity or not.

The real question is which conversion introduces quantitatively more, and/or more psychoacoustically relevant, distortion (i.e., deviation from the original music signal) through the entire process from beginning to end. People may have different opinions on that matter, but that is the real question.

da conversion is like trying to reglue a sliced salami

 

[andromedaaudio]

Technically current top digital surpasses analog - I think no one will question it

 

[bonzo75]

most modern vinyl is not the all-analog experience of yesteryear?

But I though you compared 5 pop records from 70s and found that yesteryear vinyl was not as good as modern.

 

[tima]

What does one have to do with the other? And why does it anger you when someone points out that fact, and that therefore most modern vinyl is not the all-analog experience of yesteryear?

Anger? You misjudge. It's the Salon -- you can't live in the salon if you are angry. Thinking one has nothing to do with the other? You misjudge. 90% of that someone is you. The repetition is annoying, like someone constantly telling you they have a PhD.

While I can usually hear a difference between the different SPARS code versions ending in A, when given the choice between digitally remastered recordings of classic performances or nothing, I'll choose the music. I understand the differences though I'm not as ardent as some.

The real question in this regard is which conversion introduces quantitatively more, and/or more psychoacoustically relevant, distortion (i.e., deviation from the analog waveform of the original music signal) at the end of the process. People may have different opinions on that matter, but that is the real question.

Choose your distortion. I don't buy into the notion that sets a technical measurement (more or less distortion) as the predicate for universal relative sonic goodness. It's all a matter of personal choice so there is no "real question". The "real question" if you must have one is: "What do you prefer?"