Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Tech Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Which is best - vinyl or CD ?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhich is best - vinyl or CD ?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 13>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 08:57
Yeah, but the improvment is there. And it's incredible.

But indeed, you can do better by using top power cable from the home counter to the plugs

Edited by oliverstoned
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 09:22

Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

Yeah, but the improvment is there. And it's incredible.

But indeed, you can do better by using top power cable from the home counter to the plugs

Where's the point - I thought that you also use a "filter"? So there should be no need to shield a power line against interference when it later get's filtered.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 10:06
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

"Science certainly has the ability to make digital every bit (no pun intended) as good as analog"

I don't think so. Digital will always be inferior because of missing informations. And the human ear/brain detect it. The sad fact is that science created a technology (numeric) which doesn't works and that will never really do.
But yes, it enables to save old documents. But the price to pay is a big loss on quality.

It is possible to create a digital format with less missing information than the analogue master tape which records are created from. Remember how tape works - magnetic particles which can be aligned in either one direction or another. Although I don't know any figures, and clearly the resolution is much higher than any useable digital systems, if your only complaint against digital systems is that they lose information, it's certainly possible for them to beat any magnetic-based analogue system even in that respect, and while vinyl does in theory have infinite resolution (I think), it's not a very viable mastering format
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 11:32
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

Yeah, but the improvment is there. And it's incredible. But indeed, you can do better by using top power cable from the home counter to the plugs


Where's the point - I thought that you also use a "filter"? So there should be no need to shield a power line against interference when it later get's filtered.



No filter is perfect actually. So the purest the current is when arriving to the power filter, the best it is.
Same when you replace the ordinary power cable of the filter by a race power cable.
We even double or triple filter, especially with digital.

Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 11:38
Originally posted by goose goose wrote:

Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

"Science certainly has the ability to make digital every bit (no pun intended) as good as analog"

I don't think so. Digital will always be inferior because of missing informations. And the human ear/brain detect it. The sad fact is that science created a technology (numeric) which doesn't works and that will never really do.
But yes, it enables to save old documents. But the price to pay is a big loss on quality.

It is possible to create a digital format with less missing information than the analogue master tape which records are created from. Remember how tape works - magnetic particles which can be aligned in either one direction or another. Although I don't know any figures, and clearly the resolution is much higher than any useable digital systems, if your only complaint against digital systems is that they lose information, it's certainly possible for them to beat any magnetic-based analogue system even in that respect, and while vinyl does in theory have infinite resolution (I think), it's not a very viable mastering format


I think the tape format's magnetic particle's is a false issue. BTW it's used
for DAT professional numeric format (metal tape).

"if your only complaint against digital systems is that they lose information, it's certainly possible for them to beat any magnetic-based analogue system even in that respect"

What do you mean?
With numeric, the signal is simplified -ruined- at the beggining. So?

Yes, big digital with separate Drive/converter can compensate that -like the fantastic Brinkmann Zenith III converter i.e, and it costs "only" 1500€ max on second hand- but when you put good analog beside...
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 12:27
^ that's annoyingly ridiculous. How can a "ruined" signal be "compensated" by a CD player? If it is ruined, the information is lost and cannot simply be "restored" by any possible device.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 13:34
Boy you guys are really talking over my head now. But I do have a question: Is it better to have your CD unit hooked up with a fiber optic cable like mine as opposed to analog cables regardless of quality?

Edited by marktheshark
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 13:39
No, optic fiber doesn't work. Not musical.
For what? i don't know!!

Here's mine: (the black one)

It's Nordost, an american brand.



Cardas





Edited by oliverstoned
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 15:17
^ the digital connection will transfer the audio from the CD to the amp exactly as it is. When you use the analog connection you'll get the audio from the CD converted to analog by the player. Which one you prefer obviously depends on the quality of the D/A conversion.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Flyingsod View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: March 19 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 564 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 19:34
A note on power cord shields: its there to stop interference FROM the cord as will as interference TO the cord. That's why every last little bit is shielded. 
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2006 at 19:57
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by marktheshark marktheshark wrote:

You have a good point oliver, even at 50,000 kps the holes will never be filled.


That is a conceit. The human ear is very well understood by science, and one of the estabilshed facts is that it doesn't have an unlimited resolution. It is true that the standard audio CD resolution is at the threshold ... there are situations (depending on the waveform of the signal) where the digital signal contains small mistakes which are audible. But these mistakes are really not audible as "harshness". Oliver (and others) will always deny that and say that they can easily hear the difference on their system. But on the other hand that hasn't been proven yet ... which I find strange. IF the difference would be so easy to hear, even sceptics like myself could not possibly deny it. So a company selling audiophile equipment could simply set up "listening centers" all over the world where people can go and hear the difference for themselves.


That hasn't been done yet. Why? Because the difference is not nearly has big or easy to hear. It is in fact so small that audiophiles are even afraid of listening tests (at least they keep avoiding them). 


I don't know Mike, even with the best CD re-masters I can detect some transparency in the sound. But not to the point where it really bothers me like it did when CDs first came out.

When I bought my first CD unit in '86 the first CD I played was the Who's Tommy. And to me it sounded like a very loud and clear portable radio. After years of being spoiled from listening to audiophile LPs, I have to say I wasn't all that impressed at the time. Then in '88 the same company that I bought most of my audiophile LPs from came up with the 24 carat gold Ultradisc CD in which I got Floyd's DSOTM. Big improvement without all the transparent blaring noise that gives you ear fatigue. Since then, a lot of conventional CD manufactures followed suit and upgraded to higher bit rates and using gold plated foils to get a warmer sound.

Anyway, here's something I seem to remember that back in the late 80's some company like Denon or Baing & Olfsen or somebody came up with an analog turntable with a laser stylus! This stylus would read the grooves of the LP like it would read the digital readout on a CD and transcribe them into an audio signal without any contact at all. Nothing came out of it though probably because the price tag was too high and unmarketable. Do you guys ever remember reading about that?
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2006 at 01:13
I've heard about this japanese invention which used a laser beam to read records. According to my reliable source, it was not working well -on a musical level- for some reason.

But the idea was interesting.

Like said Mark, there are big improvments on Cd technology, but unfortunatly there's a very bad trend these days in CD remastering, which is to bump the low, which gives a ridiculous huge low, but which dribbles a lot.
On another hand, highs are often less harsh and edgy.
Sometimes, i prefer the old editions as there are more equilibrated (not bumped).
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2006 at 05:15
Originally posted by marktheshark marktheshark wrote:

Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by marktheshark marktheshark wrote:

You have a good point oliver, even at 50,000 kps the holes will never be filled.


That is a conceit. The human ear is very well understood by science, and one of the estabilshed facts is that it doesn't have an unlimited resolution. It is true that the standard audio CD resolution is at the threshold ... there are situations (depending on the waveform of the signal) where the digital signal contains small mistakes which are audible. But these mistakes are really not audible as "harshness". Oliver (and others) will always deny that and say that they can easily hear the difference on their system. But on the other hand that hasn't been proven yet ... which I find strange. IF the difference would be so easy to hear, even sceptics like myself could not possibly deny it. So a company selling audiophile equipment could simply set up "listening centers" all over the world where people can go and hear the difference for themselves.


That hasn't been done yet. Why? Because the difference is not nearly has big or easy to hear. It is in fact so small that audiophiles are even afraid of listening tests (at least they keep avoiding them). 


I don't know Mike, even with the best CD re-masters I can detect some transparency in the sound. But not to the point where it really bothers me like it did when CDs first came out.

When I bought my first CD unit in '86 the first CD I played was the Who's Tommy. And to me it sounded like a very loud and clear portable radio. After years of being spoiled from listening to audiophile LPs, I have to say I wasn't all that impressed at the time. Then in '88 the same company that I bought most of my audiophile LPs from came up with the 24 carat gold Ultradisc CD in which I got Floyd's DSOTM. Big improvement without all the transparent blaring noise that gives you ear fatigue. Since then, a lot of conventional CD manufactures followed suit and upgraded to higher bit rates and using gold plated foils to get a warmer sound.

I have one "24bit" 24 carat CD ... Frank Zappa's One Size Fits All. It sounds really nice, but there's a lot of "voodoo" about what actually improves the sound on these CDs. What they do is simply filtering and effects. It really works, but it is more an emulation of analog mastering than an actual improvement of the digital recording technique.

Originally posted by marktheshark marktheshark wrote:



Anyway, here's something I seem to remember that back in the late 80's some company like Denon or Baing & Olfsen or somebody came up with an analog turntable with a laser stylus! This stylus would read the grooves of the LP like it would read the digital readout on a CD and transcribe them into an audio signal without any contact at all. Nothing came out of it though probably because the price tag was too high and unmarketable. Do you guys ever remember reading about that?

 
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2006 at 05:26
There's really an improvment with 20/24 bits technology, but as you point out, the remastering work, which suppose a lot of steps, must be done very carefully.

Here, Bob Ludwig expose briefly some tools he uses:

http://www.soundstage.com/music/features/interview_bob_ludwi g.htm
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2006 at 05:30

Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

There's really an improvment with 20/24 bits technology, but as you point out, the remastering work, which suppose a lot of steps, must be done very carefully.

Here, Bob Ludwig expose briefly some tools he uses:

http://www.soundstage.com/music/features/interview_bob_ludwi g.htm

 sounds/reads impressive ... but you should remember that whatever they do to the source, in the end it is converted to 16bit/44.1khz. so even if they used 24bit/192khz, that would in the end have to be downsampled.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2006 at 11:16
More Bob Ludwig


http://www.musictap.net/Interviews/LudwigBobInterview.html
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2006 at 12:13
^ I read it ... as interesting as the other interview, but I still don't see the relevance.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2006 at 12:20
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

Originally posted by goose goose wrote:


It is possible to create a digital format with less missing information than the analogue master tape which records are created from. Remember how tape works - magnetic particles which can be aligned in either one direction or another. Although I don't know any figures, and clearly the resolution is much higher than any useable digital systems, if your only complaint against digital systems is that they lose information, it's certainly possible for them to beat any magnetic-based analogue system even in that respect, and while vinyl does in theory have infinite resolution (I think), it's not a very viable format for use in studios

I think the tape format's magnetic particle's is a false issue. BTW it's used
for DAT professional numeric format (metal tape).

How do you mean false issue? I'm talking about 24-track tape used for recording, not DAT tape - I realise of course that the information stored on DAT is basically the same as any other PCM digital format.

My point is this: Because of the way analogue magnetic tape works (not records or wax cylinders or any other analogue format I can think of, but specifically magnetic ones), it would be possible to create a digital format that lost less information than tape - I have no idea about the figures, but something ridiculous like 2,048-bit and a 10GHz sample-rate would almost certainly do it. Of course that's clearly not feasible or even desirable...
Quote
"if your only complaint against digital systems is that they lose information, it's certainly possible for them to beat any magnetic-based analogue system even in that respect"

What do you mean?
With numeric, the signal is simplified -ruined- at the beggining. So?

So analogue tape will always simplify the signal too; obviously to a much lesser degree.
Quote

Yes, big digital with separate Drive/converter can compensate that -like the fantastic Brinkmann Zenith III converter i.e, and it costs "only" 1500€ max on second hand- but when you put good analog beside...

I'd rather have transparency than a compensated sound; that way I know that what I record will come out of the speakers

Edited by goose
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2006 at 12:54

Originally posted by goose goose wrote:

How do you mean false issue? I'm talking about 24-track tape used for recording, not DAT tape - I realise of course that the information stored on DAT is basically the same as any other PCM digital format.

My point is this: Because of the way analogue magnetic tape works (not records or wax cylinders or any other analogue format I can think of, but specifically magnetic ones), it would be possible to create a digital format that lost less information than tape - I have no idea about the figures, but something ridiculous like 2,048-bit and a 10GHz sample-rate would almost certainly do it. Of course that's clearly not feasible or even desirable... 

I know what you mean. But it's really not necessary to use that much precision, because the human ear itself has limited capabilities. Any dog has a much better ear than any human ... and any cat has much better eyes than any human. Still audiophiles continue to claim that analoge tape has unlimited resolution and that that is absolutely necessary to ensure the perfect listening experience.

Bullcrap! Nonsense!

 
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2006 at 16:42
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by goose goose wrote:


How do you mean false issue? I'm talking about 24-track tape used for recording, not DAT tape - I realise of course that the information stored on DAT is basically the same as any other PCM digital format. My point is this: Because of the way analogue magnetic tape works (not records or wax cylinders or any other analogue format I can think of, but specifically magnetic ones), it would be possible to create a digital format that lost less information than tape - I have no idea about the figures, but something ridiculous like 2,048-bit and a 10GHz sample-rate would almost certainly do it. Of course that's clearly not feasible or even desirable... 



I know what you mean. But it's really not necessary to use that much precision, because the human ear itself has limited capabilities. Any dog has a much better ear than any human ... and any cat has much better eyes than any human. Still audiophiles continue to claim that analoge tape has unlimited resolution and that that is absolutely necessary to ensure the perfect listening experience.


Bullcrap! Nonsense!


 


Oh, I agree entirely that that much precision is useless; I'm only pointing out that any argument saying that digital systems can't possibly sound so good as analogue ones because they throw out information is flawed, because tape does exactly the same thing!

Thus, to avoid losing any information we must record directly onto vinyl, or wax cylinders .
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 13>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.160 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.