Why analogue (vinyl) sounds better that digital

As far as vinyl and CD comparisons, I do agree that LP sounds warmer than CD. Whether it sounds better or not is an individual preference. And the cost of maintaining an LP is a headache that many of us would rather avoid.

Ajinkya

Its not just warm sound, its a sense of Presence and Immediacy like the musicians are in the same room. That's the secret digitized audio fails to capture. CDs are just an application of technology to create a new mass market product. The 16 bit 44.1khz CCDA format is a "best compromise" to reduce cost for the content publishers and audio equipment manufacturers, using cold logic about the human hearing ability and ignoring the finer points of acoustics.

Just my chaar-anna.

Cheers
 
"In practice, neither of the two statements of the sampling theorem described above can be completely satisfied, and neither can the reconstruction formula be precisely implemented."

"Furthermore, in practice, a signal can never be perfectly bandlimited, since ideal "brick-wall" filters cannot be realized."

reignofchaos,

the above quotes are from your own link. and while i haven't read the article completely, just skimmed through, the above quotes seem to imply that though the theorem is perfect, its implementation seems to be impossible! so i don't understand you throwing a link that claims that digital is superior to vinyl especially when in the article quoted itself the theorem is made out to be idealistic but far from implementable. so perhaps the original post isn't completely 'a load of bull' and i certainly got 'enlightened' and convinced that vinyl is superior. after all what use is theory if you haven't been able to implement it for years now? :p and the waveform that the original poster cyrus has posted seem to be the norm. some perhaps following the waveform closer but definitely not 'perfect'.

what exactly do you mean when you say 'engineering parts in a CD player'? and do these parts contribute to some other aspect of music reproduction or do they relate only to reproducing the waveform? cos the waveform is under discussion not any other parts of the cd player right now. i dont think anyone would disagree that quality of parts affects sound quality. happens in vinyl too. to me it seems to be a clearcut case of digital recreated waveform not being perfectly true to original. period.

regards

I never said that digital is better than analog. All I said is that the first post in this thread is complete bull. It claims that the digital process itself is inexact which is false. The process has a thorough mathematical proof and as I mentioned, if there were exact ways of replicating the process in practice, we'd get an exact reproduction of sound. However this is obviously not possible due to many reasons which the wiki article itself mentions. Both the analog to digital conversion and then the reverse digital to analog conversion lead to perceptible imperfections in the sound. How badly mangled the signal is depends on how well this process was done.

There are good digital sources and there are mediocre digital sources. The same holds true for analog as well - i've heard to pretty mediocre turn tables while at the same time i've heard certain TTs that made my jaw drop on the floor. Hence making a sweeping across the board statement saying that vinyl is superior to digital is not just wrong, its ridiculous.

In all cases, how a system sounds is dependent upon how well it is designed. Designing an audio source is an engineering exercise - one has to work around the limitations of inexact parts with tolerances which cause the practical system to deviate from theory. This in essence is what we call distortion. The job of the designer is to engineer a system which has the least amount distortion.

But again measurements are not the end of it - there are very many super measuring digital sources that sound completely lifeless and dry. I'm of the belief that a system above all should sound good to our ears. If it doesn't its not a good source.
 
All I said is that the first post in this thread is complete bull. It claims that the digital process itself is inexact which is false.
QUOTE]

hi reignofchaos,

that's exactly what i strongly did not agree with. and that's what you yourself are pointing out once again! the digital process as it exists today in real life is inexact! it's only the theory which is perfect. so i still dont get why you're insisting the digital process is perfect :confused: the article clearly explains how things work in real life not some theoretical lab, so the diagram refers to a real life situation and is true. the day this perfect theory get implemented perfectly in real life, yeah you can claim that the digital process is perfect. till then? i don't think so! :) although whether even then digital will sound like vinyl is another question altogether.

as for vinyl vs cd i won't argue with you cos its a never ending debate but my parents old hmv player, connected to a philips radio player sounded far more lifelike than many thousand rupee cd players i have heard since. even other record players picked up from the roadside for under 5k. my love for vinyl stems from the fact that its far far more lifelike than cd reproduction and i've heard that from budget record players to a high end player. it gets better when you've optimized cartridge/arm/platter/table etc for me a sweeping statement would be 'you can hear how lifelike vinyl sounds even on a 3.5k player.' note i say 'lifelike' i am not getting into reproduction of highs/lows/midrange.


regards
 
hi reignofchaos,

that's exactly what i strongly did not agree with. and that's what you yourself are pointing out once again! the digital process as it exists today in real life is inexact! it's only the theory which is perfect. so i still dont get why you're insisting the digital process is perfect :confused: the article clearly explains how things work in real life not some theoretical lab, so the diagram refers to a real life situation and is true. the day this perfect theory get implemented perfectly in real life, yeah you can claim that the digital process is perfect. till then? i don't think so! :) although whether even then digital will sound like vinyl is another question altogether.

as for vinyl vs cd i won't argue with you cos its a never ending debate but my parents old hmv player, connected to a philips radio player sounded far more lifelike than many thousand rupee cd players i have heard since. even other record players picked up from the roadside for under 5k. my love for vinyl stems from the fact that its far far more lifelike than cd reproduction and i've heard that from budget record players to a high end player. it gets better when you've optimized cartridge/arm/platter/table etc for me a sweeping statement would be 'you can hear how lifelike vinyl sounds even on a 3.5k player.' note i say 'lifelike' i am not getting into reproduction of highs/lows/midrange.


regards

Again... I'd not argue on this - to each his own. However comparing roadside record players sold for 5k which might have costed an arm or a leg in its time to a random 1000 rupee cd player is not right. You'd want to compare apples to apples. Not apples to oranges. I'm curious as to what good digital source have you compared to what good analog source?
 
hi reign,

analog sources heard:
1. parents old hmv player
2. second hand hmv player picked up a year back from vt bombay roadside
3. project debut III
4. what i own, project rpm 9 with sumiko blue point no 2.

digital sources
1. nad 521 cd player
2. marantz cd player mid range dont remember model
3. nad cd player with reimyo dac
4. nad cd player with wadia 12 digital dac
5. jolida tube cd player
6. chord the three piece combo that costs some few lakhs
a few others i dont remember.

across all these the sheer lifelike presence of vinyl came through. sure you could point out that the highs were not defined, some thing with the lows, midrange etc. no contesting that. its just the overall sense of well ummmm... 'thereness' of the sound i've heard each time that just got me. and that's what surprised me. how even a cheap dirty second hand record player, rather how vinyl sounds even through a cheap dirty second hand player! and while my parents hmv player might have cost a bit in those days by today's standards, record players have moved way way ahead yet vinyl on it used to sound better than higher priced cd players in the aspect i've mentioned 'lifelike presence'. i dont pretend to understand how but its there.

its like a single ended tube amp. you can point out how the low end isnt controlled as well as solid state or the highs of a single driver are rolled off compared to a full range speaker but somehow the single ended amp makes up in 'magic' and seductive sound. whether one likes it or prizes other qualities is the question i think :)

regards
 
also the roadside players and hmv players are el cheapo ones in those days, not like the garrards (say a 301) of the day which retailed at much higher prices. i think comparison of the hmvs to a modern day entry level nad costing 20k is a fair one. i have not heard any random 1000buck cd players. am in fact doing the very opposite! i'm comparing cheap record players to mid range/high end digital rigs i've heard. the trick i think lies in the vinyl's intrinsic qualities and not the player, for bringing forth that seductive presence.

i'll also mention that vinyl is very temperamental. just yesterday i was playing a disc that sounded different on both sides! discs from the same pressing batch also sound different! there's even a site devoted to finding 'hot stampers', discs that sound superb that sell for crazy money! the guy actually listens to different pressings of the same album to find quality ones.

am also comparing second hand flea market records (uncleaned) to well cared for imported cd pressings so that's another negative that's against records. so you really need not worry that its skewed towards record players :)

again, this is my impression and listening experience. if it were everyone's, then i'm sure the whole world would be listening to vinyl right now hehe :D
 
used. little under 50k. a new one costs too much of a bomb. the cart is a superb one too. also got a garrard 301 which i'm setting up, which ought to sound much better. thanks to forum member rajiv for getting me onto the garrard trail. thanks rajiv if you read this!

come over if you want. i've got a few albums on cd as well as vinyl i'll clean the vinyl so we can chew the fat over the differences without trying to convert each other :p

digital source is nad cd 521 with wadia 12 dac.
 
actually hang on a while. am getting a tube phono from viren. currently using a temp solid state one that he's sent as a temp hold on measure. you have his tube pre so you'll know what that means ;)
 
used. little under 50k. a new one costs too much of a bomb. the cart is a superb one too. also got a garrard 301 which i'm setting up, which ought to sound much better. thanks to forum member rajiv for getting me onto the garrard trail. thanks rajiv if you read this!

come over if you want. i've got a few albums on cd as well as vinyl i'll clean the vinyl so we can chew the fat over the differences without trying to convert each other :p

digital source is nad cd 521 with wadia 12 dac.

Sure would love to. I'll get along my Audiozone NOS DAC as well. You tell me the time and date :). I have his tube phono stage in my preamp. If you want i can get that too.
 
Last edited:
cool. will let you know when viren finishes the phonostage. hopefully i get the garrard up and running so you'll get a taste of both, belt drive and idler drive record players. what NOS stand for? new old stock tubes??
 
cool. will let you know when viren finishes the phonostage. hopefully i get the garrard up and running so you'll get a taste of both, belt drive and idler drive record players. what NOS stand for? new old stock tubes??

NOS=Non oversampling. It doesn't have any output stage filters either. Its one of the simplest designs you can get with minimal components. Some folks say it nos dacs sound closer to analog than most digital sources. How true it is, I do not know.
 
cool. will let you know when viren finishes the phonostage. hopefully i get the garrard up and running so you'll get a taste of both, belt drive and idler drive record players. what NOS stand for? new old stock tubes??

I grew up with a Garrard and a very good sounding Philips amp which my Dad sold for rupees 4000/- when I was in hostel along with the speakers and the entire Vinyl collection!! :eek: sigh!! :(

I just spent close to 60K last December on a setup that doesn't compare or come close to reproducing that sound!! I feel so heartbroken!! :(

How much does a Garrard cost these days?

where can I find old Garrard and Philips models and specs catalouged from the 1970s? My parents have no recollection of the model numbers...

Regards
 
The theorem of information theory mentioned here should be used only as a guide. The reason that it cannot be implemented ideally in a CD player or a DAC is NOT that there are engineering or practical limitations of making a perfect low-pass filter. Even if we could make perfect low pass filters that will bandlimit an audio signal to have a max frequency of 22KHz (less than half of the CD sampling freq of 44.1KHz, according to the theorem), we would NOT have the original analog audio signal reproduced.

Why?

I actually have explained the reason in simple terms in post no.4 in the following thread:
http://www.hifivision.com/cd-players/2930-24-bit-192khz pointless.html

Let me try to say this again briefly both in simple terms and a bit technically.

In simple terms, the data contained in a redbook CD (16 bit, 44.1KHz) is a finite amount of data (finite amount of time, finite no. of sampled data points etc). The original signal has infinite no of data points. It is NOT possible to get infinite output from finite no of data, as simple as that. So, one needs to put in mocked up data by hand to fill the gap between the sampled points of time. In scientific terms this process is called INTERPOLATION.

Actually the proof of the theorem effectively assumes

1) a (denumerably) infinite sampling points which obviously cannot ever be realized in the case of discretising and digitizing a continuous (analog) signal which exists for a finite time, and

2) a bandlimited signal (i.e., a signal which has a certain maximum freq), which again mathematically is NOT realizable for a signal which exists for a finite time.

The first of the above assumptions again has to do with superposition of an infinite number of "sinc" functions (one each for each discrete point of time).

The impossibility of the second assumption shows that even if we could make perfect low pass filters which would block frequencies above a certain number perfectly, it would not help reproduce the original continuous signal.

Two things can come to help here. One is surely lack of the human perception of frequencies above a certain maximum. A well implemented CD player or DAC would actually try to push the differences of the reproduced analog signal with the original analog signal to frequencies well above the human perception limit.

This is where a bit of maths is involved, apart from good engineering. Even for standard CD players with sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, a good scheme for interpolation of the discretized data is required. The theorem does NOT ensure that.

One approach has been to upsample, that is increase the data points by a good mathematical programme by increasing the sampling freq. Most people naively think that this is an artificial way of adding more data that was not there in the first place. True. But even if you do not upsample, you need to put in data (by some interpolation) by hand to make a bunch of discrete data points continuous. THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THIS, no matter what you do.

Many people also think that the only job of upsampling is to increase the max freq of the bandlimited input audio signal so that a less than perfect low-pass filter does not introduce serious imperfections. True. But that's not the only way the upsampling can be used. The proof of the theorem clearly shows that an increase in the sampling points helps to have a better interpolation, something also consistent with common sense.

Now, I like to add my practical experience in this. I have a recorder that records into some kind of memory and can record upto 24 bit 96 KHz. It's a Sony professional product. Most of us think that Sony makes only mass market products. Not quite true. They also make professional quality AV equipments which are usually not there in their usual website. For example my recorder Sony PCM DM-50 is shown only in the Sony professional website. It does studio quality recording at much better resolution than redbook CDs.

Now I have used this recorder to record live music at a variety of bits and sampling frequencies, from 16 bit 44.1 KHz upto 24 bit 96 KHz. When I playback the recordings through my analog amplifier (with the DA conversion taking place inside the recorder) the difference is obvious. One does NOT need to be an expert to find out that the 24 bit 96 Khz is by far the best.

At the end, one question: I am actually a bit confused about the proof of the theorem. It seems to say that one can get non-denumerable infinity from a denumerable infinity, something I thought was mathematically NOT possible. Can anybody knowledgeable explain? Probably this is why the bandlimitation of the original signal comes in, so that Fourier modes (i.e.frequencies) above a certain number are not involved.
 
I do not want to get into the vinyl v/s cd debate. But if you speak to mastering experts like Steve Hoffman, they will tell you it all depends on the mastering and not the format. Unfortunately most cds available today in the market are poorly mastered. Either no noise has been used or compression. This is true for classics like Floyd, Doors and for the newer releases. Ditto most Indian albums available on cds have been messed up at the mastering stage. The vinyls for these albums will always sound better because of superior mastering.

I do not own a vinyl rig but have personally heard cds of many albums sounding much superior to their vinyl counterparts on similar priced rigs. Try listening to a DCC pressed Doors cd and a commercially available Doors lp. The cd is superior to the vinyl. Stevieboy, you can check this out on the DCCblowout site which you were referring to in one of your earlier posts. Their hot stampers would probably be superior to any cd version but i have never heard any of their hot stampers. Ditto for many other classic rock albums where the cd is superior to vinyl. In the case of Indian albums the 1980s UK pressed cds is superior to the vinyl counterparts. However in case of Beatles the cd mastering is terrible. Vinyl always wins here.

I thought i would just add a different perspective to this debate. The view that the mastering is more important than the format is a view shared by many reviewers too.
 
Asit,
My observations below:

Actually the proof of the theorem effectively assumes
1) a (denumerably) infinite sampling points which obviously cannot ever be realized in the case of discretising and digitizing a continuous (analog) signal which exists for a finite time,

It does not. It only assumes that the sampling has to be done at or above a certain frequency called the 'Nyquist frequency (Nf)'. For signals which start from 0 Hz upto some B Hz, the Nf is 2B Hz. For signals that start from A Hz to B Hz, another formula exists which is similar.

2) a bandlimited signal (i.e., a signal which has a certain maximum freq), which again mathematically is NOT realizable for a signal which exists for a finite time.

Yes, it assumes a bandlimited signal. This is the condition needed to encompass all the 'time' information into the 'frequency domain' in a compact, mathematically describable way.
This is very much realisable for ANY 'well-behaved' (continuous, following Dirichlet's conditions ...) signal, finite or infinite in time, via the Fourier Transform. For periodic signals, we use the Fourier Series. Any practical signal in the world does NOT have infinite frequencies. Musical signals certainly do not.

The first of the above assumptions again has to do with superposition of an infinite number of "sinc" functions (one each for each discrete point of time).

It does not. I think you are confusing infinite 'resolution/precision' of the sample points (which means that each sample point ideally is a real number with infinite precision). We do not need infinite sinc functions since the signal is bandlimited. Also, sinc functions are the freq. domain equivalent for an impulse in time (if memory serves me correctly). Why are they in the picture at this stage? Or are you talking about 'sine' functions?

The impossibility of the second assumption shows that even if we could make perfect low pass filters which would block frequencies above a certain number perfectly, it would not help reproduce the original continuous signal.
I do not see why not. In fact, it is the practical impossibility of making such filters that creates many of the problems in the digital process. Mathematically, it is completely well defined.
If memory serves me, an ideal low-pass filter is non-causal, which means it is physically not realisable. But someone please correct me if I'm mistaken on this point (about non-causality).

At the end, one question: I am actually a bit confused about the proof of the theorem. It seems to say that one can get non-denumerable infinity from a denumerable infinity, something I thought was mathematically NOT possible. Can anybody knowledgeable explain? Probably this is why the bandlimitation of the original signal comes in, so that Fourier modes (i.e.frequencies) above a certain number are not involved.
[/QUOTE]

The theorem does not say that. All the theorem is doing is putting a strict condition on the frequency content of a signal in time (making it bandlimited). So it is limiting infinite frequencies to finite ones in the Laplace/'s'/frequency domain with this assumption itself. At this point, the signal is not 'infinite' for the freq domain operations. Once we convert the time-domain signal to the freq-domain, via the Fourier Transform, we are then free to play in the freq-domain, with the guarantee that as long as all our operations are mathematically valid, we will always be able to convert the signal content back to it's time-domain representation, WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION LOSS (ideally), as long as we have followed the Nyquist sampling criterion.

The trick (if you want to call it that) is to limit information in one space (freq), convert the signal from time to that space, and reconvert it as desired. This is purely a mathematical operation, which can be done because mathematicians realised that the real domain and the complex domain can be interchanged, if the time function (signal) follows certain restrictions, to make it amenable to compact representation in the complex domain.

Just to reiterate RoC post, the sampling theorem is mathematically precise and correct. It is the physical implementation of it that causes all the issues with digital production. In addition, quantisation (representing infinite precision real numbers with finite 16/24 bit values) causes compression of the dynamic range of the final signal. This also leads to the 'cold', 'metallic' nature of the digital medium.

regards,
Ajinkya.
 
hope this Garrard501, 401, 301 and Loricraft Audio hi-fi Turntable Accessories helps.

I grew up with a Garrard and a very good sounding Philips amp which my Dad sold for rupees 4000/- when I was in hostel along with the speakers and the entire Vinyl collection!! :eek: sigh!! :(

I just spent close to 60K last December on a setup that doesn't compare or come close to reproducing that sound!! I feel so heartbroken!! :(

How much does a Garrard cost these days?

where can I find old Garrard and Philips models and specs catalouged from the 1970s? My parents have no recollection of the model numbers...

Regards
 
Hi Stevie,

Fact of the matter is, LP (analog) has more resolution than CD (16 bit) currently does. However, with higher sampling, the 'original' signal will be almost perfectly matched to the quantised signal. Enough anyway, for practical reproduction at the output of the DAC. And the small niggles in the quantised digital signal will not be significant for us to hear. I really admire the bandwidth and sensitivity of the human ear but let's not go overboard with what it can do (or hear).


regards,
Ajinkya.

No digital has outdone analogue vinyl as of yet.

The practical problem with this portion of your statement is that the companies implementing this technology have so far used bogus standard information to assess what is "good enough" or "just enough" to constrain costs because their immediate market is the masses so it has to be made cheaply.

For example, everyone has drilled into their heads that humans hear 20hz to 20khz. This is crap. Asmatics as one example are documented to hear to 30k and beyond. Is vinyl reproducing to 30K? I dunno. We all hear differences between vinyl and digital (if we pay attention and listen) but I have never seen anyone show a difference in the final analogue "wave" headed to the amp/preamp so we can quantify what we clearly hear. Our current instrumentation to make measures have limits on resolution which can affect the signal being measured often giving false results (the act of monitoring affects the results).

So while I do believe that eventually "just enough" technology COULD surpass what we humans can discern with our ears we ain't there yet and I am not holding my breath.

Your comment does essentially sell our ears short yet again. I recall when digital (leading to CD's) were first released/evaluated in the early 80's the sampling rate was half what was implemented for CD (yes, 22khz samples instead of 44khz) because the engineers thought it was good enough for everyone. Luckily that was clearly audible to others when the technology was first demonstrated and bumped up. I grow very concerned when folks casually throw out "will not be significant for us to hear" as you have.
 
Last edited:
Order your Rega Turntables & Amplifiers from HiFiMART.com - India's reputed online dealer.
Back
Top