Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[Judas]

Is it not ironic I posted that same video to prove the opposite. There are several benefits to higher sampling rates.

 

[Feelas]

Is it not ironic I posted that same video to prove the opposite. There are several benefits to higher sampling rates.

Can you point them out, while accounting that the sampling theorems exist?

I'm sorry, but you're not saying anything else, rather than "there are, but I won't tell you".

 

[Blumlein 88]

Is it not ironic I posted that same video to prove the opposite. There are several benefits to higher sampling rates.

You need to name some of them. You get greater bandwidth. You have any others?

 

[Robin L]

You need to name some of them. You get greater bandwidth. You have any others?

All of which is outside the range of our hearing. 20khz is the upper limit for people with really good hearing. Most adults have some reduction in the ability to detect the top octaves.

 

[Killingbeans]

Is it not ironic I posted that same video to prove the opposite.

I couldn't find it in your posts, so I assume it was on a different forum?

There are several benefits to higher sampling rates.

It's a deeply polarising topic. Should probably be continued in this thread:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/

 

[Judas]

I've moved on from such topics. i would rather be schooled on the latest developments. Of course if you(the collective you)have decided digital is perfect as it is... well.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've moved on from such topics. i would rather be schooled on the latest developments. Of course if you(the collective you)have decided digital is perfect as it is... well.

uh-huh!

 

[Robin L]

I've moved on from such topics. i would rather be schooled on the latest developments. Of course if you(the collective you)have decided digital is perfect as it is... well.

The issue is not "digital is perfect". Nothing's perfect. It's that not only is analog record/play less 'perfect', but the imperfections of analog record/playback are audible. The imperfections of digital record/play are not so audible. The two modes of record/playback sound different, people have preferences for one or another, but as regards audible distortions, analog record/play has more.

 

[Old Grey Punk]

So right now I'm listening to Warren Zevon's album 'The Wind', through some cheap headphones (AKG K92s), on Spotify, straight through the headphone socket of my old Thinkpad T400, and it sounds freakin' awesome!!! So much so that Knockin On Heavens Door has got me a bit emotional. Which I think goes to show that really enjoying listening to music is more about the emotional situation than the 'quality of the reproduction'. In other words, taking 'enjoying music' in isolation has nothing to do with the amount of money spent - not that I'm saying that there's no satisfaction to be taken from putting together a beautiful sounding and / or looking music reproduction system, but the enjoyment derived from that is about much much more than how 'good' the music sounds, because like I say the music sounds great to me right now (which in itself is somewhat ironic given the equipment I've got sat on the shelves directly behind where I'm sat right now.............)

 

[Judas]

Also worth noting, analog recording introduces wow & flutter & other types of speed variation, which deforms the signals captured by the microphone [which also distorts in its own sweet way]. Analog recording also has increasing distortion as levels go up. Digital recording has an absolute upper limit of dynamics. The two modes of recording will naturally sound different, but it's the digital recording that will successfully capture peak levels without distortion, assuming competent recording practices are observed. Bouncing from a digital recording to an analog tape recorder and back is a common practice in pop music as an 'effect'. And, as previously noted, LP playback introduces additional [and quite audible] distortions. The waveforms at the end of a digital chain have fewer distortions than the waveforms at the end of an analog chain.

Forgive me I had to respond. Amazing is it not all those problems and yet analog still manages to sound better than digital. Go figure. Audiophiles have spent boundless amounts of energy identifying and trying to cure analogs faults. It is quality not quantity that counts. You are never going to digital is good by saying analog is bad.
One fantastic thing about the renaissance of the LP is it has kept the pressure on digital to improve.

 

[Robin L]

Forgive me I had to respond. Amazing is it not all those problems and yet analog still manages to sound better than digital. Go figure. Audiophiles have spent boundless amounts of energy identifying and trying to cure analogs faults. It is quality not quantity that counts. You are never going to digital is good by saying analog is bad.
One fantastic thing about the renaissance of the LP is it has kept the pressure on digital to improve.

There's nothing to be done about inherent inner groove distortion. It's baked into the formula. You can say that analog reproduction via LPs is better for you, but viewed objectively, it's got a lot more measurable and audible distortion.

 

[Judas]

The issue is not "digital is perfect". Nothing's perfect. It's that not only is analog record/play less 'perfect', but the imperfections of analog record/playback are audible. The imperfections of digital record/play are not so audible. The two modes of record/playback sound different, people have preferences for one or another, but as regards audible distortions, analog record/play has more.

Nothing is perfect. Agreed
Analog is less perfect. I'm not sure how you quantify that
Lp imperfections are audible. Yes.
Digital Imperfections "are not so audible." I'm not so sure how to quantify that either. They are obvious to me.
I would not say audio has more distortions. They have more identified distortions. Ass for digital. Give it time.

 

[Robin L]

Nothing is perfect. Agreed
Analog is less perfect. I'm not sure how you quantify that
Lp imperfections are audible. Yes.
Digital Imperfections "are not so audible." I'm not so sure how to quantify that either. They are obvious to me.
I would not say audio has more distortions. They have more identified distortions. Ass for digital. Give it time.

Analog reproduction via LP is less perfect for reasons previously cited. Noise, distortion, speed eccentricities, wow and flutter, pop 'n' clicks, off center records, warped records, non-fill, overcut records.

 

[Judas]

There's nothing to be done about inherent inner groove distortion. It's baked into the formula. You can say that analog reproduction via LPs is better for you, but viewed objectively, it's got a lot more measurable and audible distortion.

How about linear tonearms. Or even more drastic Limited content where there is no musical content near the center

 

[SIY]

Digital Imperfections "are not so audible." I'm not so sure how to quantify that either. They are obvious to me.

What specific experiments have you done to validate that you can hear "digital imperfections"? What were the controls?

 

[Robin L]

How about linear tonearms. Or even more drastic Limited content where there is no musical content near the center

The inherent part of IGD is due to the velocity of the groove slowing as the stylus meets the deadwax. Linear tracking tonearms do not address this issue. Nothing can address this issue. The reduction of the speed of the groove as the stylus gets to the center of the LP cannot be eliminated. While a linear tracking arm can address the issues of a stylus being less than perfectly aligned, the greater issue is the reduction of the speed of the groove relative to the stylus.

 

[BDWoody]

Amazing is it not all those problems and yet analog still manages to sound better than digital. Go figure.

It doesn't sound better to me.
Go figure.
Now what?

I have 4 TT's, and hundreds of records that I add to regularly. I really enjoy my records, and the social aspect of playing them when people are over, talking about the cover art, etc. There is no part of me that thinks it's in any way better than digital.

So, you are saying that the sampling theorem is wrong, and we are in fact losing information?

 

[Killingbeans]

You are never going to digital is good by saying analog is bad.

It's not a question about good vs. bad. If the 50KHz frequency extension is the thing that makes vinyl superior, then 16bit/92KHz digital should be considered flawless to your ears. Technical superiority is one thing, preference is another. Nobody is gonna taunt you for enjoying the sound of LPs, but saying that this medium and digtal playback is pestered by audible artifacts to the same degree is a very bold statement.

If you make a digital recording of an LP, would you expect the recorded file to be "colored" by the fact that it's digital?

One fantastic thing about the renaissance of the LP is it has kept the pressure on digital to improve.

That's an.... interesting interpretation of the technological advancement in the audio industry (not saying mine is better, just very different).

Personally I see the vinyl renaissance as a result of the hipster culture mixed with nostalgia and the love for tactile experiences. And most of the digital "improvements" seem more like dumb excuses to keep people with upgraditis happy and get more product out the door. I mean... 32bit/768KHz, seriously? Why? But in no way do I see the link between those two phenomena.

 

[Phorize]

Ad hominem fallacies are considered to be uncivil and do not help creating a constructive atmosphere for dialogue to flourish. An ad hominem attack is an attack on the character of the target who tends to feel the necessity to defend himself or herself from the accusation of being hypocritical. Walton has noted that it is so powerful of an argument that it is employed in many political debates. Since it is associated with negativity and dirty tricks, it has gained a bad fame, …
Wikipedia · Text under CC-BY-SA license

special pleading

noun

1. argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.

 

[Phorize]

He's wrong. I have degree in math. This remedial for me.

I’m dying to know what you think about this:

http://parksaudiollc.com/