Thread: How Science Got Sound Wrong

Interesting read. Posted on Analog Planet's social media feed today. Let the digital vs analog debate continue LOL

Is Vinyl Better Than Digital?

IF there were ever to be an ADC > DAC combination which perfectly implemented the mathematics of Nyquist's Theorem it would probably sound better than any current means of sound recording and reproduction. I'm not sure the ability to do that is even theoretically possible with current or near future technology. Perfect transient response? No way. No aliasing? Not with any available filter technologies. We do have pretty accurate clocking available, and many seem to feel that has notably improved digital audio, but it is mostly implemented in DACs (not ADCs) as far as I can tell, so even then addresses only half of that problem.

“How does all this translate into the language of technology? The guiding principle of a nervous system is to record only a single bit of amplitude at the exact time of arrival. Since amplitudes are fixed, all the information is in the timing.

On the other hand, the guiding principle of digitization is to record variable amplitudes at fixed times. For example, sampling with 24-bit amplitude resolution, every 23 microseconds (44 kHz). Since sample times are fixed, all the information is in the amplitude.

So unlike digital recorders, nervous systems care a lot about microtime, both in how they detect signals and how they interpret them. And the numbers really matter: Even the best CDs can only resolve time down to 23 microseconds, while our nervous systems need at least 10 times better resolution, in the neighborhood of two to three microseconds. In crass amplitude terms, that missing microtime resolution seems like “only” tiny percentage points. However, it carries a whopping 90% of the resolution information the nervous system cares about. We need that microtime to hear the presence and depth of sounds outside us and to sense others’ emotions inside us.

The old analog technologies, LPs and POTs phones, preserve that necessary 90%. Digitization destroys it. Neil Young was right.”

WOW! That explains so much.

Originally Posted by Mike

For example, sampling with 24-bit amplitude resolution, every 23 microseconds (44 kHz). Since sample times are fixed, all the information is in the amplitude.

WOW! That explains so much.

Yes, it explains why Softky, a physicist I respect, has an audiophile believer understanding of digital audio and is thereby parroting nonsense. Shame.
Time resolution of digital audio – Troll Audio

cheers,

AJ

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Yes, it explains why Softky, a physicist I respect, has an audiophile believer understanding of digital audio and is thereby parroting nonsense. Shame.

cheers,

AJ

Nonsense? Do you have a counter argument AJ?

I thought Softky's point about the "continuous-wave" of analog as apposed to time sliced approximation of digital was interesting. Could the preservation of time explain the appeal and desirability for many of LP*?



* Leaving aside that many modern vinyl records are produced from digital masters.

Originally Posted by kiwi_1282001

Nonsense? Do you have a counter argument AJ?

I thought Softky's point about the "continuous-wave" of analog as apposed to time sliced approximation of digital was interesting. Could the preservation of time explain the appeal and desirability for many of LP*?



* Leaving aside that many modern vinyl records are produced from digital masters.

Since one can’t very easily leave that last aside, given that so many posters claim to still prefer digitally mastered LP’s to the digital versions of those albums, perhaps it is some other aspect of LP sound that is preferable or appealing?

Originally Posted by nicoff

I actually recently transferred the 45rpm LPs in my collection to digital. The transfer was at 24/96 and it came out beautifully. Everyone that has heard the digitally ripped LP cannot tell a difference from the actual LP. And yes, all the noises from the record and the euphonic sound from the LP are there. To me that means that the Nyquist's Theorem was implemented perfectly, and even if not, whatever was left out was not substantial to make a difference in the sound.

And FWIW, most (if not all musicians) playing acoustical instruments and recording their own music today, are using ADC devices to convert their music to digital. Heck, today I bet that very few professional recording studios are using analog tape for their recordings. That means that they must be using ADCs to record the new music that we listen to today.

That said, each individual may have a preference depending on how they perceive the sound.

Seriously? You played a song from the LP for "everyone" and then played the digital version for "everyone" and no one could tell a difference?

Originally Posted by kiwi_1282001

Nonsense? Do you have a counter argument AJ?

You/browser/software? omitting my link in quoted post

Originally Posted by mep

Seriously? You played a song from the LP for "everyone" and then played the digital version for "everyone" and no one could tell a difference?

Refer also to Fremer's video from PSAudio, linked in another topic here. Although there have certainly been experiences like @nicoff's posted here and elsewhere, there are more like MF's.

Originally Posted by rbbert

Refer also to Fremer's video from PSAudio, linked in another topic here. Although there have certainly been experiences like @nicoff's posted here and elsewhere, there are more like MF's.

Yeah, Fremer's video said "everyone" was blown away at how much better the LP sounded. It's hard to believe that you could play an LP for "everyone" and "no one" can tell the differences between the LP and the digital copy of the LP. I'm not buying it.

Originally Posted by mep

It's hard to believe that you could play an LP for "everyone" and "no one" can tell the differences between the LP and the digital copy of the LP. I'm not buying it.

I'd be happy to run that test on you, as long as its public for all to see the results via Youtube.

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

I'd be happy to run that test on you, as long as its public for all to see the results via Youtube.

You and your tests...

I would trust you as much as I would trust Ethan Winer to conduct a test which is a trust factor of 0.0.

So much for your ability to "hear" digital vs LP. Factor 0.0

Mark's no fun, he'd never do the test.
Of course I knew that before asking
I got the same results as you, but of course I don't rip, all real time analysis, so even record wear/playback variability is accounted for.
Both streams are always real time. Lots of fun.

cheers

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Mark's no fun, he'd never do the test.
Of course I knew that before asking
I got the same results as you, but of course I don't rip, all real time analysis, so even record wear/playback variability is accounted for.
Both streams are always real time. Lots of fun.

cheers

Yeah AJ. I’m really going to hop on a plane to fly to Florida to listen to a system of unknown components to subject myself to your version of a test which doesn’t consist of listening to an LP through your system and then comparing a recorded version of the LP played back.

Originally Posted by mep

Yeah AJ. I’m really going to hop on a plane to fly to Florida

I've seen you at Mike's place. In Florida.

Originally Posted by mep

to listen to a system of unknown components

Aha, I forgot audiophiles have to see/know to hear. That's key. Makes sense.

Originally Posted by mep

your version of a test which doesn’t consist of listening to an LP through your system and then comparing a recorded version of the LP played back.

Correct. It's listening to a straight analog version of LP as you always do, then comparing to a level matched version of itself, the exact same, real time signal, passed through a "Digital" ADA. So a valid "analog" vs "digital" version of the exact same "master". Nothing recorded. Except correct/incorrect scores.
Which of course you would have zero problems distinguishing, given the audible superiority of analog vs digital and all the "sound" associated with digitizing.
Unless of course, that leads to apprehension and evasion. And of course nothing to share with world via Youtube.
Perfectly understandable.

Anyone familiar with Maslow’s Hammer?

It’s an observed principle in science, basically stating that if a hammer is the only tool you’ve got, every problem will look like a nail to you. And then of course you’ll treat it as such. Simplified, you ask a Mathematician and he’ll use math, you ask an engineer and he’ll use whatever he’s got in his engineer toolbox.

This is the reason why in today’s science most breakthrough discoveries happen at the fringes of research, where different sciences intersect. This is, as in those cases usually someone has looked at an old problem in new ways. Recent example: the first and most potent Covid vaccines are mRNA vaccines, which is a new way of developing vaccines.

Similarly, just because we only know some ways to measure the difference between analog and digital today, that does not mean that this is the ultimate and final truth. It’s just the current state. Maybe more obvious, if we compare live vs. a recording, the measured frequencies in a closely-miked recording might even be “better”. But nevertheless, in terms of the musical experience, there is nothing like the live event.

And, today we all agree that mp3 sounds like crap. But the tech is still valid, as you cannot technically differentiate between congruent frequencies from different sources when they overlap in a recording. In terms of measurement it’s just the same frequencies.

Ergo: While we can hear what we can measure, we’re not able to measure everything we hear. This is no new news.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’m still amazed that so many audiophiles don’t own turntables. I personally find it so enjoyable and have for over 40 years. I’ve never not had a turntable, even in the 90’s when my wife teased me for playing records.

From the collecting to the purity of sound to the enjoyment of listening to the album from beginning to end, it’s just a wonderful part of the hobby.

I hear all the arguments against vinyl, daily. But I still don’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by u-sound

lol, great one kuoppis!!
i might use that one in the future.

Urs, I would love to claim that as my invention .

But unfortunately it is indeed a very well known and thoroughly described scientific phenomenon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Analog vs. digital threads are always a train wreck. I’m way beyond trying to convince anyone of the superiority of one format over another. What shouldn’t be debatable is that there are no SQ differences between the two and thus they are indistinguishable.

I’m glad I have the gear to listen to both analog and digital and I have my own pecking order of sound quality.

For example, sampling with 24-bit amplitude resolution, every 23 microseconds (44 kHz). Since sample times are fixed, all the information is in the amplitude.

So unlike digital recorders, nervous systems care a lot about microtime, both in how they detect signals and how they interpret them. And the numbers really matter: Even the best CDs can only resolve time down to 23 microseconds, while our nervous systems need at least 10 times better resolution

A frequent claim by detractors of digital audio is that the time resolution is equal to the sampling interval, 22.7 μs for the CD format. This is incorrect. Although there is a limit, it is much smaller, and it does not depend on the sample rate.
tmin=12πfa(2b–1)
With CD quality audio, 16 bits at 44.1 kHz, the best-case time resolution is obtained with a full-scale signal at 22.05 kHz. The above formula then yields tmin=1/(2π×22050 Hz×1×(216–1))=110 ps. For a more typical 1 kHz signal at -20 dB, i.e. with an amplitude of 0.1, the same calculation produces a value of 24 ns. Although not nearly as good as the best case, it is still 1000 times better than the erroneously claimed limit of one sample interval.
Time resolution of digital audio – Troll Audio
The Fair Observer article is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Spock

Excellent reading!
Thanks for sharing!

Very, very interesting indeed. Even though I'm a CD man today, I don't know if I'll ever go back to origins, to vinyl. I find it difficult because, from what I am reading, many vinyl recordings today are not worth the effort (and the Money! ), while, from what I am seeing, some current CD productions are truly phenomenal, which results in a high quality listening and full satisfaction.
So what would take me back to vinyl? Probably the memory of a certain sound that stayed in my head from the days when i had a turntable. The transposition to CD of some of these vinyl albums from the 80´s and 90´s didn't even come close in quality sound.
We all have many examples, I will stick to just one. One of my favorite classical works, of which I currently have 3 versions (I already had more due the search for the best recording, not so much from the interpretation), is Beethoven's violin concerto. In the superb interpretation of Stern Bernstein, together with the New York Philharmonic, on vinyl, I recall the most natural and wonderful violin sound I have ever been able to experience in home music reproduction. I am sure that whoever knows something about violin brands, listening through the vinyl, certainly identifies the violin brand. Something that we do not have from far or near in the CD copy. But we can argue that the supremacy of vinyl stems from the original recording being analog, Ok, I will then go further and say that I have not yet heard a similar violin in any of the best and current digital recordings. Not even close! Let´s say that there is something unparalleled between an excellent (old) analog recording and an excellent (modern) digital one.
So why don't I even have a turntable? In conversations with audiophile friends I usually say that audio is a maze. Vinyl may be even more so! Turntables, arms, cartridges, fine tuning… Add to this the fact that audiophile quality is also not the rule in many records edited in the golden years of vinyl and today´s quality it is defrauded by copies of digital recordings. Let's say that in the golden years of vinyl, the audiophile concern was not so present in most productions, being today hampered by the predominance of digital recordings.

Returning to the article, I don't know if it explains everything, because the audiophile issue is not just vinyl vs. digital. Could the science mistake be found in so many wars that we all know very well, like MC vs MM; multi bit vs bitstream; valves vs Transistors, copper vs silver; sealed vs ported; etc etc? Everything is conflict in the audio, everything is discussed in opposite fields. But perhaps the part I want to highlight and incorporate in the context of the article, since it refers to and supports the brain's unsuspected ability to deal with and recognize minimal variations in sound properties, to reinforce the idea of the danger of apologizing for certain so-called scientific truths that so many audiophiles continually defend, and that due to the rationality of the arguments they are trying to impose. We know so little about the capabilities of our brain, and, in the same way, the knowledge of physics is not yet sufficient to explain and solve all the phenomena that result from the vibration of the air at different frequencies that results in the phenomenon that we classify as sound. For this reason, I, who have always noticed differences in sound in relation to everything (or almost everything ), sometimes feel insulted (to use the language of the text) when so many say that I cannot hear what i hear, just because science says so. How? If i were the only one to hear strange things i would be silent. But when so many around the world testify to hearing diferences (in cables for example), the true science does not disdain, but investigates. Trying to explain by the psychoacoustic phenomenon and placebo effect is not explaining anything. Because it is not science. It's just speech.
So, can science be wrong not only in the discussion vinil vs Cd but in so many themes in the audio?

If you don’t want to go back to vinyl for purity of sound, staying in the analog domain, no crummy studio A2D process and so many other reasons, than yes, I wouldn’t bother. Digital today is outstanding, but I couldn’t give up my turntable and the sheer enjoyment of AAA recordings/pressings for anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by a.wayne

AJ,
Ever played with Reclocker’s ?USB cables ? , whats your take on them ..?

Cables yes, reclockers no. I was not susceptible to them, but as always (as below), YMMV.
Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness | PNAS

cheers

Originally Posted by a.wayne

If you get the chance try a reclocker . BTW whats the science behind USB cables making a difference..?


Marketing ..?

Try some and you’ll see. Big differences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by a.wayne

If you get the chance try a reclocker .

I will. Early Sunday for sure.

I did notice a difference when I went to two of the AQ Coffee USB cables. I also notice a nice improvement with a basic reclocker, the W4S Recovery. Dan wrote a very nice review of the Recovery after Charles and I gave high recommendation for it!

By the way, I love my digital but Mike got me hooked on Vinyl again. I send curses your way Mr. Mike ... But so many records sound so fantastic!

Way too much to unpack in text but a quick go at it from a partial read through. IMO

a) There are errors abound throughout so credibility from the get go is questionable
b) He provides no evidence that prove our brain perceives sound in microsecond chunks that may render digital inferior to analog and
c) He conveniently omits many of the challenges with vinyl playback including wow and flutter, physical medium noise, turntable physical vibration challenges and bandwidth limitations to name a few.

I'm not saying that vinyl can't sound excellent, we all know it can - with the right ($$$) setup. However, I believe he's jumping the gun by inferring all digital is at a loss due to his supposition about brain processing frequency, if you will. I personally find in most modest priced systems with equally modest priced source components that digital is superior to vinyl until your budget floats up to 5 figures. All this is, of course besides the difference in playback convenience of source material.

Originally Posted by Spock

Probably true



Well... A friend of mine has this project in mint condition for sale. I'm thinking...

I don’t know your budget, but if this is the max you want to spend, then go for it.

Unlike DAC’s and one particular forum where they seem to get all bent out of shape regarding tables and carts, I don’t care what table someone has - as long as they have one. Yes a better table/arm/cart will usually sound better, but the point of vinyl is the music, the collecting, the passion for the pressings. When I go to friends to listen to vinyl, I don’t even know what table, arm, cart they have unless I care to look. But I sure do want to see their juicy collection of first pressings and UHQR’s and one steps and the like.

Oh and here’s a shocker: a great table today, was a great table 20 years ago and will be a great table in 20 years. Look at the plethora of VPI’s, Linn’s and SME’s and many many others around still today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How is frequency response to 40 kHz “better than digital”??

Originally Posted by rbbert

How is frequency response to 40 kHz “better than digital”??

I don’t think he said 40Khz is better than digital, just stating what he’s observed in measurement terms.

Removing A2D2A process from pre-1980 recordings is the advantage of analog IMO. With modern recordings going straight to digital, stay in the digital domain.

My two cents...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

"LPs have greater bandwidth than digital except perhaps in the bass. The low end is restricted by the tonearm mechanical resonance with the cartridge compliance. The upper end is probably about 40KHz."

LP's do not have greater bandwidth than digital, unless one is discussing 16/44.1 PCM (or MP3, MQA and other lossy codecs)

WAV, FLAC, AIFF and ALC are all "containers" for lossless PCM files, currently "maxing out" at 32/768 resolution (hardware and software limited; I don't know if there are actual limits in the coding for those containers)

Originally Posted by Mike

I’m still amazed that so many audiophiles don’t own turntables. I personally find it so enjoyable and have for over 40 years. I’ve never not had a turntable, even in the 90’s when my wife teased me for playing records.

From the collecting to the purity of sound to the enjoyment of listening to the album from beginning to end, it’s just a wonderful part of the hobby.

I hear all the arguments against vinyl, daily. But I still don’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.. I have a TT but it hasn’t been hooked up in 5 years since I got rid of my phono-preamp. There’s something to be said about the warmth of the sound.. but as I’ve moved up the digital ladder into a very high end DAC, I just don’t see going back. Flipping through songs on my iPad is just too easy. The only time I want to get up is to get another beer, not flip a record.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk