Which is best - vinyl or CD ? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21116

Posted: May 27 2007 at 10:02

^ it's fun! Tongue

Recently listened to:

oliverstoned View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308

Posted: May 27 2007 at 13:27

-First, the view sense is less developed than the ear.
So digital is more bearable in that domain. Digital is less catastrophic in the video field. Cause the human eye is easier to fool than the ear (and the whole body cause we feel sound with the whole body, especially extreme low)

But a top level (S)-VHS machine beats a DVD player in term of color's beauty, at less. Digital has its artifacts, its visible on some DVDs. Through a great DVD player (such as a high end Pioneer) the difference is huge from one movie remastering to another. Pink Floyd's More is awesome for example.
BTW, high technology cabling, power and vib-cancelling optimization aplies to video as well as to audio.

-Blue ray disc works better than DVD cause more info (always the same).

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ do you enjoy watching DVD? If so, you should know that the video signal is even more compressed than mp3 audio. If digital compression is a flawed concept per se, then why is it that nobody complains? Or take digital photographs as another obvious example ... You have to face the possibility that a digital recording may be perceived as being identical to the original if the resolution is high enough ... applies to video, images and of course audio too. And what's the correct resolution? Well, fortunately for audio there's the Nyquist theorem which is not a "theory", but a well proven fact of science.Sorry, but you're just sounding like the people who rejected tape recorders in the 60s ... you've built yourself a world of false assumptions and preconceptions, and you've spent so much time, efforts and money in the process that you now can't accept simple facts like the ones I presented above, as accepting them would imply that you've been wasting your time. I sympathize, but in some situation the only way to advance is ... to go back (simple example: A dead end street).

Edited by oliverstoned - May 27 2007 at 13:29

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21116

Posted: May 27 2007 at 13:42

oliverstoned wrote:

The view sense is less developed than the ear.
So digital is more bearable in that domain. Digital is less catastrophic in the video field. Cause the human eye is easier to fool than the ear (and the whole body cause we feel sound with the whole body, especially extreme low)

The human ear is quite easy to fool ... of course it is more demanding than the eye, because we communicate by sound. That's why the compression rate of video is usually much higher than that of audio ... or in other words: The greater sensitivity of the ear is handled by increasing the sampling frequency and dynamics.

BTW: Listening tests show that even on very high level equipment (certified by audiophiles) most participants are not able to tell the sources apart ... the most simple and almost impossibly to defeat point against your claims. Of course you can always say that you hear a difference ... but I rather trust a combination of common sense, science and anonymised testing than one person. Tongue

Recently listened to:

paolo.beenees View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 30 2007
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 1136

Posted: May 27 2007 at 13:52

Maybe I've got some unknown handicap, but I find it very, very, very hard to perceive any difference between vinyl and CD. The only things I can tell you for sure are that, on vinyls, the tracks which are closer to the centre of the disc always tend to be somehow disturbed or noisy, and after the - say - 80th listen CDs do not fry.

On the other hand, I really miss the old good wide covers, and I'm really disappointed about the CD price policies (at least in Italy).

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: May 27 2007 at 21:24

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ the sub sonic frequencies don't affect the sound, I'm very sure about that. You're free to disagree of course, but frequencies that deep are simply vibrations ... it's conceivable that in a real instrument such as a piano or a guitar these vibrations affect the overall sound, but I doubt that just because some people can "sense" these frequencies they're the reason why some people prefer vinyl. And the last time I watched (and listened to) my washing machine spinning it didn't strike me as being particularly musical ... Wink

I knew I shouldn't have put the phrase about feeling sub-sonics in my reply ,

If you do a Fourier Analysis of a complex waveform (such as a single note from a musical instrument, or even an entire passage of music) you get a full spectrum of pure tones (sinewaves) that the complex waveform is composed of. These will include ultra-sonics and sub-sonics. To re-create the original waveform exactly you apply the Inverse Transform (ie add up all the descrete waveforms that the analysis said were in the original). It is generally accepted that you can miss-out some of the lower amplitude signals without affecting the sound - however, miss out too many and the high-priced Epiphone guitar will sound no different to a cheap Encore guitar.
The sub-sonics are not constant drones like a washing machine, they are an integral part of the recorded music and are usually sub-harmonics of the note(s) being played.
A note of 440Hz and a sub-sonic of (say) 13.75Hz (5th sub-harmonic) when played together produces two new frequencies 453.75Hz and 426.25Hz [sin(A)+sin(B) and sin(A)-sin(B)] which you can hear and even though these new "notes" do not fit on the equal tempered scale they are still harmonically related to the fundamental tone and therefore affect the timbre, or colour, of the note.

The reason why this is doubly important on Digitised sound is because the signal is quantised in the Frequency Domain. This quantisation means you do not get an infinite number of frequencies across the spectrum - you get a finite number of descrete frequencies that are sub-harmonics of the sampling frequency.

Hence, the sampling frequency used on CD's (or on any digital media) will only accurately reproduce frequencies that are an exact division of the sampling frequency - all other frequecies are spread into adjacent sub-divisions and require all those subdivisions to recreate the original.

This goes beyond Nyquist - Nyquist simply states that the maximum frequency you can digitise is half the sampling frequency. Or, to put it another way, the Nyquist frequency is the first sub-harmonic of the sampling frequency. Try and digitise a frequency a few Hz below the Nyquist frequency and you will generate a whole spectrum of descrete frequencies that are sub-harmonics of the sampling frequence all the way down to 0Hz and you need to put all those frequencies back to recreate the original.

What?

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21116

Posted: May 28 2007 at 03:06

^ nice post!

I agree with most of the technical details that you mention ... but I draw different conclusions. First of all: There can be no doubt that whatever recording technique used (analog tape/vinyl, digitial) the original signal can never be recreated with 100% accuracy. The question is: Can the average listener tell the reproduction apart from the original ... or, since the original is usually not available (the original in this case being the master tapes), can the average listener tell the different formats apart which are used for reproduction?

I don't think so. As I explained earlier many people are biased towards a particular format and will tend to exaggerate its advantages while competing formats will receive a negative bias. Especially when comparing vinyl to CD you almost immediately recognize the vinyl - not necessarily because of the superior quality but because of the background noise, small pops (you cannot remove every particle of dust) and other particularities. Therefore you really can't conduct a double blind test between CD and vinyl ...

About the technical aspects of the low frequencies ... consider this excerpt from hydrogenaudio.org:

" How low of a frequency can LPs produce?

(thread)
The common wisdom is that they don't have much below 60hz, but there is evidence that the signal extends as low as 20hz and possibly lower on some LPs.
Note that low bass on vinyl records will be mono, but this is not a problem because low bass is non-directional. (The reason for this is that low bass signals cause the largest groove excursions, and of course the vertical (out of phase) component of the groove must never be so great that the groove rises above the surface of the record, so the out of phase component of the low bass is removed when mastering for vinyl)."

Being able to reproduce frequencies below 20 Hz is *not* an inherent feature of the vinyl format ... some discs contain these frequencies, some don't.

BTW: I found a nice website which allows you to experiment with fourier transformation ... I'll create a separate thread. Smile

Recently listened to: