Got me a record player!

Huh? What about all the music?

Taking reasonably frequent samples will get you some of the music, increasing the sample rate gets you a bit more. As the sample rate tends to infinity (as with a turntable or analogue tape), you will eventually recover all of the music, assuming of course that the replay is perfect.

This has absolutely nothing to do with audio frequencies whatsoever.

 

I'm sorry to say this James but that is a load of nonsense.

The whole "what's missing in the gaps" argument is a very tired one trotted out by analogue fans from time to time who clearly understand very little about how digital audio works.

Music is merely a collection of audio frequencies, nothing more so this has everything to do with audio frequencies. A sample rate of 44.1Khz will faithfully capture every frequency upto 22.05Khz whether it's a single sine wave or a very complex waveform of music. A 44.1Khz DAC will be able to faithfully reconstruct that waveform. It's a total fallacy to think that there's anything being "lost" between the samples. If there is a movement of the waveform in between two samples then that movement must necessarily be at a frequency higher than 22Khz and therefore is inaudible to the human ear and so irrelevant.

It's the point I was trying to make before. It doesn't matter if the original waveform between the two samples was a smooth line or a jaggedy mess, it's not audible and therefore it doesn't matter whether it's captured or not (which it wouldn't be).

Michael.

 

Merely a collection of frequencies? What about the time domain? I may well be talking nonsense about sampling rates, but I really don't think that I am. I would ask again why the newer digital formats have a far higher sampling rate than audio-CD.

I've heard the difference between 96 & 44.1kHz, (it is far from subtle) and I don't think that you have. A lot of low level detail just totally disappears at the lower (audio-CD) rate. Which is hardly terribly surprising since a lot of information has been thrown away.

 

I didn't express myself well: music is merely an audio frequency waveform, which includes the time domain. The 44.1Khz sample rate can capture eveything that's audible in the waveform.

Why the newer formats use higher sampling rates I don't know. The words "jump" and "bandwagon" spring to mind What would make a much more significant difference is the word length (16 bit vs. 20 or 24 bit) and this is really why the new formats sound so much better (allthough word length doesn't really apply to SACD/DSD because it's a different, and IMO much better, paradigm alltogether).

When people talk about high rez format the thing that makes them high rez is the 24 bits, not the higher sample frequency. When you heard the 96 vs 44.1 comparison was the 96kHz recording 16bit? If not then it's a totally meaningless comparison.

Michael.

 

OK Guys, so what's this got to do with vinyl

Seriously, please do read the text in the link below right through. Warning, it's seriously techy!

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

I think you will find the answers that you are both looking for in it, and yes it does suggest that the red book format is flawed

I would have to agree, and do feel that it is in two areas where analogue still has an edge. Firstly the purity of the upper treble, and secondly the retrieval of low level detail. This assumes optimal set up of course, something that is hard to guarantee. But I would have to say that we need a higher resolution digital medium to offer parity in these areas. For that we do need a greater bit depth than 16 and a higher sampling rate than 44.1khz.

As the text points out, this has little to do with increased ultrasonic information as is usually assumed. It's purpose is to offer reproduction over a 25khz banwidth without audible artifacts.

So no amount of upsampling, oversampling, interpolation and dither will address the problems that listening to analogue has made me aware of Time to get me a DVD player I think

 

Sorry I've been out for a while bloody BT adsl went tits up at work
James, Mike has hit the nail on the head (I did mention this earlier), resolution rates, if you record the same track at say 96khz 16 bits and the other at 24 bits still at 96khz, I feel much more of a difference will be heard than say recording one @96 the other@192khz. just my point of view, which is really meaniless as we all are a different plane here, and we aint firing pot shots at each other, man this is a first WM

 

Blimey, seriously techy and seriously long! A summary: CD is cack.

Ha ha only kidding. But seriously, seriously. A rega planar three with an RB 300 and a decent MC cartridge, all properly set up will sound a lot more realistic than the best CD player in the world. Move on to a mid-spec LP 12 and it's all over.

Michael, you really owe it to yourself to get a turntable. You will not regret it.

 

Move on to a mid-spec LP 12 and it's all over. Too right it is
and down the pan as well at least get a decent TT if you going to shout about it, it gunna take more than a trick psu and acart to save your set up James, try a Well temepered or a VPI, this will give what you are missing for sure, you owe to yourself to stop being deluded go on ditch that Ninja winger and get a good un WM

 

sorry merlin but meridian writing a paper as to why cd is poo and higher sampling rates are necessary is like linn writing a paper saying that the lp12 is the pinacle of vinyl replay. not exactly objective.
meridian has a serious vested interest in everyone dumping their cd collections for multichannel dvd-a (snigger) as they'll make millions from mlp (MERIDIAN lossless compression) the mandated format to squeeze 5.1 channels of 192 /24 music onto a dvd.

the loss of upper detail is mainly down to the cost / technological compromises inherent in current digital filter design. audionote have created very 'analog' sounding dacs and cd players by ditching this stage all together and using a very simple analog filter to filter some ultrasonics out of the waveform. chord use clever processing to make a reasonably expensive digital filter perform like a stratosphericly expensive digital filter.

the thing that boggles my mind is that all the vinylista are harping on about vinyl having an infinite sample rate and being better than 24 /96 or 24 / 192 sacd / dvd-a playhers when turntables are limited to about 27khz by mechanical constraints.

but of course they'll only read half my posting and reply completely out of context... they really should join the priesthood with an attitude like that.

cheers



julian

 

Glad you liked it James But I should stress that we are not really comparing kit here but the formats concerned.

For my money, speaking personally, it is clear that vinyl is inherently superior to CD in a number of areas, something I would have seriously doubted until recent events.

The problem for me is that vinyl playback is a very complex and fragile thing, and it takes a great deal of effort to get it to perform to the optimum. Even then, it can drift, and the performance has some variation, even during one side of an LP. CD on the other hand is robust....flawed but dependable. So I agree that your LP12 is capable of delivering greater fidelity than my P30, which certainly leads to greater involvment in the music

Sadly, I believe it's also true that it will only demonstrate this superiority in optimal conditions with new software It's a real drag, because this week seen some of the all time highs and lows for me!

Now WM could we stay away from the one upmanship mate, this has been a very interesting thread with great input from most of the forums members.

 

This is a great thread!

One of the things I cant help noticing though is that people are tending to use their own kit to make definitive judgements as to whether vinyl is better than CD or vice versa. I know this is inevitable, but I think it makes for a rather flawed argument.

for example:-

Surely Merlin, all you can say is that your TT is better than your CDP in a number of areas. I dont think you can extrapolate your experience with 2 bits of kit to make a blanket 'vinyl is better than CD' statement.

All I feel confident in saying is that each medium has its strengths and in the end it comes down to personal preference. I dont think you can say one is better than the other, they are just different.

Sitting on the fence I know,

Robbo

 

Julian, I take your point, but if indeed the case put forward is promoting DVDA, then I don't understand why Stuart states that 20 bit/ 66.2khz sample rate is adequate and anything else is somewhat superflous. If that's the case, then surely that could be fitted onto a dvd without the need for lossless compression

Or am I just reading it wrong

 

Robbo I'm not actually saying that What I think I am trying to get at is that, with all things equal (which of course they could never be), then the information contained on vinyl is superior to that contained on a CD. I'm talking about the formats rather than the kit used to play them back here.

Certainly my limited exposure to vinyl has served to make me aware of the limitations of my CD. And of course vice versa, although in this case more from a convenience and reliability point of view. Put it another way, get vinyl replay right, and the results are magical. Get CD right, and for me the results are impressive rather than magical. Difficult to explain really

 

Merlin,

U got PM

 

Merlin one upmanship perish the thought. I couldn't compete with your goodself, I'm far too modest, be sides, they are far better set up's than mine out there ( even the odd TT one as well), but I fear not , don't need to change the 'sound it gives every 5 mins', just improve upon what is there, I'm looking for the nth degree of thwack, not the Nth degree of the nth degree.

Merlin was quite honest here

"For my money, speaking personally, it is clear that vinyl is inherently superior to CD in a number of areas, something I would have seriously doubted until recent events."

Prehaps the Tact and all the accompanying ensommble just wern't giving you that 'something' and even by adding a Teac and power leads & Hydra, you still felt that a TT was better?. I spose in the same way I'm looking for more musical dynamics and thwack in my mods & fiddling !!!!? yes I could by a TT, but I need to have some substancial better, to cause me to invest, and I just aint heard it yet, enough for me to say wow I have that now, maybe I will soon, but at what cost?.
Yes analogue is some thing good when done well, no arguement here at all, but based on what we/you/I/The world has indivdualy heard?, maybe Robbo/Mike B/Antonio/Dev have all heard different setups at different times, we all have differernt preceptual idea's of how/what/why it will sound, based on what we use a our own personal references.
I was going to go into great big post but I can't be arsed
This debate will roll on for enternity, until the next CD replacement comes out, and then it'll start all over again
Just stick with what you like, even if it sounds naff, but hey I can cope with a flawed, inheinently inferior and grim sounding medium Got to say though, the Vinyl lovers do get to have gate-fold sleeves, sort a bit unfair really WM

 

I agree with you, Robbo.

Could someone please explain why anyone needs to make judgements about whether vinyl is better than CD or vice versa?

Clearly, both formats have their strengths and weaknesses. I enjoy listening to music with both formats (although not generally at the same time). Do I have to give one up?

Steve

 

Yep fair points all

They both have strengths, I guess it's just with the vinyl I got a glimpse of maybe what I personally have missed for a long time.

Inherently superior Well yes, in theory, quite possibly. But it's our own applications and preferences that count at the end of the day. I guess I now want my cake and to eat it It's not gonna happen, and I don't fancy having major cash tied up in kit that I use only occasionaly.

I am interested to know if WM has tried a top end pre + TT combo in his rig at home, if so, what were your thoughts. I know you get to hear the stuff at other places, but have you ever lived with alternatives at home mate

 

Very well put Merlin. That's exactly my experience.

-- Ian

 

Valid point, not a proper install as you would call it, so to be honest NO, closest is a top notch full monty Orbe and 30 bits of tricker back to back against the wadia's without the p1-a, using the same speakers/amp/preamp/cables, but with the wadia on the floor and the TT on a clearlight rack, and as every one described, more bass weight, fluidity and flow (but not by a large margin at all), bass was bloated and slower and not where near as tight or the sound a punchy, both had their pluses and the vinyl was better, but not by any wear near the margin, you would expect, surprised everone in the room, maybe on a sink and the P1-a plus all my power leads then may be closer still, at home I can't say, maybe things could be quite different, but I fear with my room nodes at the bottom the morer fuller bass of the TT would excite things too much.
When I move, who knows but we are now doing tone arm cables for those who wanna rock 'n' roll so who know's WM

 

I don't think so, Steve, I also have both and enjoy both. I have this problem that I can't hear a difference between my LP12/Ekos/Klyde and my Mimik. Actually, I do listen to them at the same time - my favourite trick is to put on the vinyl and the CD of Pinnock's recording of Handel's Water Music (a recording I know backwards) simultaneously, switch between them and try to tell which one's which. It's easy - the vinyl clicks and pops and the CD doesn't, and that's all (no kidding). I personally don't regard this as a problem, as it means that I don't have to spend endless amounts of money in trying to improve what I can't hear. I have no problem with folk who find vinyl stunningly superior, (un)lucky them, I say. I just hope that they remember that it can't be extrapolated from their specific case to a general case. Ultimately it all lies in the ears of the beholder, be they good or bad.