Kuoppis
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,203
Urs, I would love to claim that as my invention [emoji3].
But unfortunately it is indeed a very well known and thoroughly described scientific phenomenon.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
How Science Got Sound Wrong
- Thread starter MPW
- Start date
Urs, I would love to claim that as my invention [emoji3].
But unfortunately it is indeed a very well known and thoroughly described scientific phenomenon.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
u-sound
Active member
just trying to figure out the nails perspective.
what to do if the opponent has only a hammer as a tool?
what to do if the opponent has only a hammer as a tool?
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,095
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.
I’m glad I have the gear to listen to both analog and digital and I have my own pecking order of sound quality.
u-sound
Active member
i think generally the choice of a medium is based on the promise of the degree of active interaction. close and easy. hierarchy of behavior.
quality comes far later.
atmasphere
Active member
Something about the Nyquist theorem used in digital audio has always bothered me. And you'd think I'd know better, but here it is:
Nyquist (and those before, he was not the first) proposed the theorem in the 1920s. As far as I can make out, the sample is analog in nature (not digital values, which came along much later in that century). That is to say it has a specific numerical value, possibly with lots of digits to the right of the decimal point.
But in Redbook, the sample resolution is limited to 16 bits and not surprisingly, 24 or 32 bits sounds better.
So isn't it a stretch to say the Nyquist theorem is being used in digital audio? It seems more like an approximation is being used instead. What am I missing?
Nyquist (and those before, he was not the first) proposed the theorem in the 1920s. As far as I can make out, the sample is analog in nature (not digital values, which came along much later in that century). That is to say it has a specific numerical value, possibly with lots of digits to the right of the decimal point.
But in Redbook, the sample resolution is limited to 16 bits and not surprisingly, 24 or 32 bits sounds better.
So isn't it a stretch to say the Nyquist theorem is being used in digital audio? It seems more like an approximation is being used instead. What am I missing?
a.wayne
Well-known member
Im on the timing bandwagon myself , regardless of cost my main gripe about digital is always the electronic sound , sounds great , but always Hifi ‘ish ...
Regards
Regards
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! :weird
, 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 :audiophile
, 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?
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
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.
a.wayne
Well-known member
AJ,
Ever played with Reclocker’s ?USB cables ? , whats your take on them ..?
Ever played with Reclocker’s ?USB cables ? , whats your take on them ..?
a.wayne
Well-known member
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! :weird
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 :audiophile
So, can science be wrong not only in the discussion vinil vs Cd but in so many themes in the audio?
Not wrong at all , Incomplete .? Absolutely ....
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! :weird
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 :audiophile
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
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
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
a.wayne
Well-known member
If you get the chance try a reclocker . BTW whats the science behind USB cables making a difference..?
Marketing ..?
Marketing ..?
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
I will. Early Sunday for sure.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
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!
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!Probably true :thumbsup:
Well... A friend of mine has this project in mint condition for sale. I'm thinking...
Attachments
sb6
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2014
- Messages
- 165
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 ($$$) setup. However, I believe he's jumping the gun by inferring all digital is at a loss due to his supposition about brain processing frequency, if you will. I personally find in most modest priced systems with equally modest priced source components that digital is superior to vinyl until your budget floats up to 5 figures. All this is, of course besides the difference in playback convenience of source material.
a) There are errors abound throughout so credibility from the get go is questionable
b) He provides no evidence that prove our brain perceives sound in microsecond chunks that may render digital inferior to analog and
c) He conveniently omits many of the challenges with vinyl playback including wow and flutter, physical medium noise, turntable physical vibration challenges and bandwidth limitations to name a few.
I'm not saying that vinyl can't sound excellent, we all know it can - with the right ($$$) 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.
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
atmasphere
Active member
Just for the record, if you don't mind the expression, LPs have greater bandwidth than digital except perhaps in the bass. The low end is resticted by the tonearm mechanical resonance with the cartridge compliance. The upper end is probably about 40KHz. My mastering setup is bandwidth limited at 42KHz and its no problem recording a 35KHz tone and playing it back with ease on a Grado Gold MM cartridge using an ordinary 80s-era Japanese phono section.
Physical media noise is really variable. We did some projects through QRP that were pretty impressive- essentially the playback electronics defined the noise floor, regardless of the electronics. QRP did some mods to their pressing machines to eliminate vibration during the pressing process. It resulted in a much quieter noise floor- somewhere in the area of about 15dB from what I can make out- so about -90dB if I have my math right. FWIW if you have your stylus temperature right and otherwise have a good setup on the cutter head, the resulting groove of the lacquer has a very quiet noise floor. If you play a fresh cut lacquer you might wonder if the system is on until the music starts playing. That is what impressed us about the project we did at QRP- it had that some quality.
One other thing- as a phono section designer I noticed about 30 years ago that some phono sections generate ticks and pops while others don't. This has to do with poor high frequency overload margins, since there can be a rather pesky ultrasonic or RF electrical resonance caused by the inductance of the cartridge and the capacitance of the tonearm cable (and the input capacitance of the phono stage). In the case of LOMC cartridges which have a hi-Q coil, this peak can be a good 30dB! With higher output cartridges it is often 20dB. It sent into excitation this can overload the input of the phono section briefly, resulting in a tick.
So there is a tendency to conflate the media with individual examples of mediocrity, which while more common, don't in fact represent the capacity of the media.