The Return of Vinyl

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by jkennett

Not to derail the thread in yet another direction, but what is a good "budget conscious" record player? I can't drop $1200 on a direct drive Technics...

The Rega P1 at $349 is superbly built and sounds good.

 

[jkennett]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

The Rega P1 at $349 is superbly built and sounds good.

Awesome. The reviews I've read so far make it look like a good bet. Thanks for the quick response.

 

[poly800rock]

there is a consumer level technics 1200 available as well.

 

[Philosoph]

I did a little reading on the sampling theorem. I think the problem with it is that it represents an ideal condition. It requires a signal to be both bandlimited and timelimited. But no timelimited signal can ever be bandlimited because a function and its Fourier transform cannot both have finite support. So in practice the sampling theorem will always lead to an imperfect reconstruction of the original signal.

I'll concede that I really don't have the technical knowledge to take this argument further. This is already a little beyond me, but I'm not at all convinced that in practice an analog signal can be fully emulated by a digital one, even if I don't know exactly how to prove it.

However, I'm very aware that vinyl is an imperfect medium. To my ear, it still sounds better than a CD, though I wish we had a really good modern analog format to make a better comparison. Every format has its limitations, though, so I'll continue to prefer live music over everything.

 

[Babar]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

If Nyquist is the last word on bandwidth to the limits of human hearing, why does Super Audio or DVD Audio sound so much better than 16/44.1 CD? Clearly something is missing.

The general consesus is that it is due to better mastering. Play a SACD with a 16/44.1 bottleneck and you aren't likely to hear a difference.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by Philosoph

I did a little reading on the sampling theorem. I think the problem with it is that it represents an ideal condition. It requires a signal to be both bandlimited and timelimited. But no timelimited signal can ever be bandlimited because a function and its Fourier transform cannot both have finite support. So in practice the sampling theorem will always lead to an imperfect reconstruction of the original signal.

Fourier Transform is just a convenient tool to prove the sampling theorem. I believe you mean that a signal being sampled cannot be time limited. In practical terms, time limiting just limits how close to DC (ie. 0 Hz) you can get in the bass (1/total time window), so it's not a real issue. And if your window is smooth and long enough, the high-frequency content it produces is negligible.

To my ear, it still sounds better than a CD, though I wish we had a really good modern analog format to make a better comparison. Every format has its limitations, though, so I'll continue to prefer live music over everything.

I have no argument with any of this. I only have problems with people who feel they have to make up some kind of technical reason to justify their preferences whether it's for analog or digital. And live music is definitely the best --- audio reproduction isn't even close to the real thing.

--Andre

 

[Philosoph]

^ I'm giving up on technical arguments

It doesn't help that CD production seems to relentlessly prefer a kind of "processed" overly loud sound with little dynamic contrast. It's also unfortunate that recording is also typically done in isolation or even put together from samples. Not digital sampling, I mean taking clips of recordings and putting them together to make the final product. I recently listened to a CD that was well-mastered and had been recorded in a group setting. Each final track was a single take. This disc sounded much more alive and warm than anything I've heard in a while. So maybe we should forget the digital/analog argument and blame the mastering and producing.

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by Babar

The general consesus is that it is due to better mastering. Play a SACD with a 16/44.1 bottleneck and you aren't likely to hear a difference.

This is not correct. SACD is a big improvement over redbook. I work on recordings and can hear both hirez digital masters and analog master tapes. SACD gets closer to what is on those tapes. It's not even close.

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by Philosoph

^ I'm giving up on technical arguments

I recently listened to a CD that was well-mastered and had been recorded in a group setting. Each final track was a single take. This disc sounded much more alive and warm than anything I've heard in a while. So maybe we should forget the digital/analog argument and blame the mastering and producing.

The mastering is important but not everything. There are, in my experience, three things that determine the final sound quality of a CD or LP:

1. Original recording quality (chain, mic placement, power regulation, etc.)
2. Sampling rate of recording, higher the resolution the better.
3. Quality of the mastering engineer and his equipment.

 

[Babar]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

This is not correct. SACD is a big improvement over redbook. I work on recordings and can hear both hirez digital masters and analog master tapes. SACD gets closer to what is on those tapes. It's not even close.

Well, so you've done blind tests of SACDs and 16/44.1 versions made directly from them? I would like to see the results..

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by Babar

Well, so you've done blind tests of SACDs and 16/44.1 versions made directly from them? I would like to see the results..

We have done lots of blind tests. Anyone with critical listening skills aces them. The same holds for 16/44 versus 24/96. AES studies have shown the same results as well.

 

[Babar]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

We have done lots of blind tests. Anyone with critical listening skills aces them. The same holds for 16/44 versus 24/96. AES studies have shown the same results as well.

Umm, any references!?

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by Philosoph

I recently listened to a CD that was well-mastered and had been recorded in a group setting. Each final track was a single take. This disc sounded much more alive and warm than anything I've heard in a while. So maybe we should forget the digital/analog argument and blame the mastering and producing.

+1. The way music is produced today for pop records is ridiculous and completely anti-musical. No amount of fancy recording equipment or digital fanciness or analog goodness is going to make mediocre music-making sound good.

Really heavy compression also has pretty bad, obvious artifacts that are unique to digital, but for some reason audiophiles seem to ignore this stuff in favor of technically-hobbled half-baked fantasies.

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

The same holds for 16/44 versus 24/96. AES studies have shown the same results as well.

You've made this claim in the past, but have always failed to come up with a reference. I don't believe such a definitive result for the superiority of any high-res digital over CD exists.

--Andre

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Here is a view on analog that matches mine:

http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13645_1-9....html?tag=more

He's mostly stating his preferences. What's wrong with that? He has some common misconceptions in there, like claiming that the ear hears analog, but that's par for course for audiophiles.

**Yet analog sounds better to my ears so maybe these things don't explain it all.

And once more with feeling: just because something sounds better doesn't mean it is more accurate.

--Andre

 

[Artisan Fan]

Perceptual Discrimination of Very High Frequency Components in Musical Sound Recorded with a Newly Developed Wide Frequency Range Microphone
Subjective evaluation tests on perceptual discrimination between musical sounds with and without very high frequency (above 20 kHz) components have been conducted. To make a precise evaluation, the test system is designed to exclude any influence from very high frequency components in the audible frequency range. Moreover, various sound stimuli are originally recorded by a newly developed very wide frequency range microphone, in order to contain enough components in very high frequency range. Tests showed that some subjects might be able to discriminate between musical sounds with and without very high frequency components. This paper describes these subjective evaluations, and discusses the possibility of such discrimination as well as the high resolution audio recording of music.
Preprint Number: 6298 Convention: 117 (October 2004)
Authors: Ando, Akio; Hamasaki, Kimio; Nisiguchi, Toshiyuki; Ono, Kazuho
E-lib Location: (CD 117Papers) /tmp/117/6298.pdf