Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For what it's worth, I'm always amused by an unintentional test of sample rates and sample rate conversion that happened a few years back. A piece of professional mac software I use aimed at live performance and theatre sound contained a bug the meant all audio was down sampled to 44.1KHz, and then resampled to the rate of the hardware output. If you had, say, 96KHz files and hardware then the audio would be sampled down to 44.1 and back up before play out by apple's default sample rate conversion algorithm. The creators of the software were not aware of this, and nobody the world over in six or so years noticed. If there was such an extreme difference in audio quality as some would make out then surely somebody would have noticed.

Well, the signal path and the "in the box" sources are probably stellar, so everything's better from the get-go. And the sample rate conversions (algorithms?) are way better than they were in the 90's. We have such a wealth of great tech that it's pretty hard to make a "bad" recording or a bad software-based SRC, and of course with this new tech there's no excuse for bad live sound, either. Everybody wins and they didn't even know it!
 
Last edited:
I applaud their efforts; if it's indeed true.
12ce15.jpg
ht11.jpg
 
Last edited:
Except it is 100% true. That was the point of saying 'technically speaking.' On the technical end, CD's are superior in every way, this is a fact.

If measuring results is what you're after, then you might be right. If the experience of music is more important, then it cannot be 100 % true, since many, many people prefer vinyl because it simply sounds better to them.

But hey, we don't all have to agree on what is important with music reproduction!
 
Well, the signal path and the "in the box" sources are probably stellar, so everything's better from the get-go. And the sample rate conversions (algorithms?) are way better than they were in the 90's. We have such a wealth of great tech that it's pretty hard to make a "bad" recording or a bad software-based SRC, and of course with this new tech there's no excuse for bad live sound, either. Everybody wins and they didn't even know it!

Absolutely agree. A few years ago I needed to buy a number of live sound desks that would also produce multi-track recordings. They'd obviously be digital, just for shear practical advantages (size, connectivity, automation, features), and wanted to standardise on one recording interface method (I went with Dante for all the additional interconnection possibilities). I realised that other than preference for user interfaces there was really no such thing as a BAD desk and that sound quality was no longer an item on my list for comparison. Everything sounded great, although I'll admit there are differences in effects processors.

If measuring results is what you're after, then you might be right. If the experience of music is more important, then it cannot be 100 % true, since many, many people prefer vinyl because it simply sounds better to them.

But hey, we don't all have to agree on what is important with music reproduction!

"Better" is definable. "Prefer" does not conflict logically with vinyl being technically inferior, which it is in all ways that count.

In theory you could take a digital 44.1/16 recording and model the noise and distortions of vinyl onto it and get results that are indistinguishable, but the reverse would be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible. If you can hear it, it can be measured. Placebo or confirmation bias effects, not so much!

I wonder how many modern vinyl releases come from a "non HD" digital master, and still have people claim they are superior. I know of one live recording I made at 48KHz/24bit from a lower end Yamaha digital console over Dante, (with gasp! 50p network cables) all mixed to a 44.1/16bit dithered master. The limited run vinyl got reviews saying it sounded better than the CD. Perhaps I should get a "HD" version done by just up-sampling the master and see if the reaction is the same.
 
If measuring results is what you're after, then you might be right. If the experience of music is more important, then it cannot be 100 % true, since many, many people prefer vinyl because it simply sounds better to them.

There are many potential reasons someone would prefer vinyl as a format over CD such as:

1> Many records tend to produce even order distortion which sounds pleasant or "euphonic" to the human brain. This is why tube distortion effects for electric guitars sounds "good" to us humans even though it's clearly distorted and doesn't represent reality (like an acoustic guitar). Thus tube amplifiers tend to sound "good" when they start to overload into distortion (guitar effects are simply taken to extremes) whereas solid state amplifiers and digital processors when over-driven tend to produce odd order distortions which sound "harsh". Now clearly "high fidelity" sound reproduction should be reproducing the original signal and not introducing new distortions (pleasant or unpleasant) in the process, but the fact is that they can and do contribute particularly when there isn't enough power for a given speaker or device. Even when playing nothing at all, you hear surface noise which can be comforting for some in what might be an otherwise potentially very overly quiet almost spooky room AND it helps cover up annoying sounds you DON'T want to hear (outside noises, etc.) between tracks. I use a noise maker when I sleep for the latter reason. It's like staying at a hotel next to Niagara Falls (a good memory for me and thus comforting).

In short, yes, vinyl does sound "better" or at least is a better experience to many people. That cannot be denied. The arguments start when one side or the other tries to to venture into pseudo or non-scientific "reasons" why something sounds better that is closer to a religion than a fact. "It just sounds better" doesn't explain WHY it sounds better. People want to assume it's because it's more accurate. Studies have shown just the opposite. People often PREFER less accurate because even order distortion sounds "warmer, fuzzier, thicker" and background noise helps isolate you from overly quiet or overly noisy background environments and thus puts you at ease/comfort and more likely to enjoy yourself if those things bother you. For those that surface noise "bothers" rather than comforts, they will have the opposite experience and be annoyed by the extra noise and prefer the velvet silence of CDs and digital in general.

2> Turntables involve the listener in the music reproduction process in a way that digital simply doesn't. With a CD or a digital file, you just hit play and click on a track. You're done. Turntables require you to get off your butt and change the side halfway through or to move the stylus to a different track if you want to skip something. There's also rituals for cleaning records and aligning and maintaining your system to peak efficiency. This gives you something to do and makes you part of the process (i.e. a clean record is a happy record listener and a well maintained system sounds better than a poorly maintained one). You also get to pick from a large assortment "flavor" of cartridges that distort the sound differently (and thus change the sound when you get sick of it or feel you can afford "better specs").

CDs and digital files offer NONE of this except to buy the most expensive DAC possible (although the snake oil industry has tried really hard to invent ways to "improve" things; try looking up Shatki stones, green CD pens, CD mats that always make the player behave WORSE by loading down the motor), massively overpriced interconnect cables that essentially do NOTHING audible, etc. etc., but yet even a multi-kilobuck DAC probably only differs from a $20 one by perhaps 0.05dB at most at any given frequency. In short, you don't hear any difference and you tend to feel ripped off by the process where getting a good cartridge can improve specs by several dB at crucial frequencies (or at least change them). Cartridges are basically high priced disposable equalizers. The sad thing is that the same people who would never touch a graphic or parametric equalizer in their entire life gladly buy different cartridges to get a "better "sound. They don't seem to realize they are mostly changing the frequency response (although tracking ability and inner groove distortion can really be improved a lot).

In short, turntables make audio into a HOBBY and not just a pass-time. Digital just cannot compete as a "hobby".

3> Artwork. LPs have huge surfaces on the jacket covers for album artwork. CDs have tiny little artwork areas. Digital files may have NO artwork or a tiny little image displayed or whatever. There can be no doubt that pop/rock album artwork is a big part of a given full "album" and not seeing it detracts from the experience. Now you CAN make a large artwork on a projector or large TV if it's detailed, etc., but you can't hold it in your hand the same way. It lacks realism to the touch, etc. It tends to become a song instead of part of an album in a way that is hard to put into words. Alone, this might mean little. Add it to the above two and you've got a regular SYSTEM going on that propels a certain percentage of the population to just "prefer" vinyl.

4> It's HIP. You cannot discount the power of pop culture and groups like so-called Hipsters that suddenly take a liking to things like Pabst Blue Ribbon (that most people rejected long ago as sour macro beer) and the cultural/social "Me Too cuz it's cool daddy-O" effect and peer pressure that comes along with it. People tend to congregate in PACKS (like animals) and it's hard to stand alone in the crowd that is all saying Vinyl is "Cool" and MP3s are for your parents (all the while their parents' parents listened to vinyl, but hey Gramps is a way cooler Kat than Dad ever was! Don't be like your parents, but RETRO generations beyond their generation is COOL. Actually, your parents may have listened to vinyl too, but perhaps they rejected it as OLD and HORRIBLE and so your drive to like it is even greater. Or perhaps some respect their parents and choose vinyl because they DID like it. All these things drive the psychological factors in someone liking "something" just because they do.

To quote the current Queen of Pop (Katy Perry) pushing retro as vintage in "This is How We Do":

----
......
Playing ping pong all night long, everything's all neon and hazy
(This is how we do)

Chanel this, Chanel that, hell yeah
All my girls vintage Chanel baby

This is how we do, yeah, chilling, laid back
Straight stuntin' yeah we do it like that
This is how we do, do do do do, this is how we do
......
----

Now tell me someone like Katy Perry doesn't affect huge MASSES of people (Chanel's sales probably went through the roof with that lyric but then Chanel Chance is pretty awesome on a woman, but not "vintage" like say #5). Ping-Pong? Since when is Ping-Pong COOL? Not my generation (and she's only 10 years younger than me), but my mother's generation? Yeah, she was into Ping Pong. "Popular" seems to come in circles. I never got it, really (I've always tend to chosen things that are less popular like stick shifts over manuals, computers when they weren't cool, Pink Floyd when everyone else in my generation was listening to Bon Jovi, etc.)

In summary, there's more than one reason a person could prefer vinyl and a potential collective effect as well. Well maintained vinyl on a good system does sound very comparable to CDs to my ears and clearly some people get something else out of it from the above or possibly something I haven't even thought about as well. But I've never seen ANY scientific test that proves vinyl sounds more ACCURATE than digital and it's been proven time and time again in double blind testing (typically using ABX switches) that a digital recording of a record player is indistinguishable from the actual record player. The opposite is NOT true (vinyl distorts sound in all kinds of ways and is far less accurate than CD audio.

Now if someone still PREFERS vinyl over CD despite the accuracy issue, well who is going to argue with opinions and preferences? The problem is when these people start telling others that there is something inaccurate or missing or "wrong" with digital because their ears tell them so. Yeah, your senses are easily fooled. Rose-colored glasses present a look preferable to some people. That doesn't make them accurate or preferable to everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: milo
Here's a question for people that think there's something wrong with digital audio (at the CD level at least).

Why isn't a new analog format offered today?


I thought about this idea some time ago and I've just assumed the reason it's never been done is that the market is convinced there isn't enough of a market for it and many of the above reasons I gave for preferring analog vinyl doesn't apply when analog becomes CD level accurate.

Namely, my idea for a modern analog format that gets rid of all the problems with tape and vinyl is based on Blu-Ray style blue lasers combined with Laserdisc style analog audio (most people probably don't know that laserdiscs were only ANALOG video and ANALOG audio originally and that digital audio was added as a 2nd audio track option later. Video on laserdisc is still analog!) Combine blue lasers with analog laserdisc style audio and you can easily create a CD sized or even a Mini-Disc sized SEALED disc (just like larger laserdisc) that could contain the highest imaginable analog quality while retaining easy track selection and a SEALED format that would not be affected by dust like LPs when you try to read them with a laser-based turntable setup (that mars the sound badly).

See here for more reading on Laserdisc Analog Audio

Specs on this page (I believe the S/N ratio could be easily improved with a higher capture rate and blue lasers):
(http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Why-laserdisc-soundtracks-are-better/id/15519)



Imagine a Mini-Disc style 2.5" disc with a hard protective case that contained 100% analog sound without most of the inherent problems of analog on tape or vinyl.

-No degradation over time.
-Random track access and no disc flipping required
-No surface noise or clicks or pops since dust isn't really an issue on a sealed clear disc read by a laser
-Better than master tape quality capability on a DISC format yet it's still 100% analog

And the industry would love:

-UNCOPYABLE as ANALOG by all current methods (you could rip it with digital sampling, but then you're back to digital and not analog so there's no point). Yes, you could make a disc recorder that records it, but since it doesn't currently exist, it would be easier to control with patents, etc. for a time at least and it would probably never be as popular as digital since you can't store it on a hard drive and mass distribute it over the Internet without changing it to digital!



Now to ME, as a firm believer that TRUE Analog audiophiles will NEVER accept any digital format over Analog, this is the ultimate holy grail of high-end analog audio! And it's EASY TO DO with current lasers designed for blu-ray. You can use a CD-sized format (so that players can play both analog and digital recordings and it would hold more or use a higher rate of information recording) for convenience or you could go "Mini-Disc Shell" and make it nice and portable and protected from fingerprints, etc. Either way, it would eliminate any need for analog tape or vinyl to reproduce high quality analog on the playback end and solve all real world problems with vinyl and tape in general.

So why hasn't it been done? Has no one thought it of it (I guess I should have applied for a patent instead, although it uses prior patents in the design so....) or is there simply NO MARKET FOR IT? (i.e. LPs have plenty of media floating around; this would require selling people PURELY on the "analog" nature of the format and in in terms of accuracy, I'm afraid it would sound IDENTICAL to digital at that point since it wouldn't have ANY of the above post's non-accuracy reasons for people to prefer vinyl or analog tape including artwork size.

Of course, you COULD just keep the "albums" at the Laserdisc/Vinyl 12" size and retain the artwork benefits and you could probably use a conventional red laser and still have 5-7 channels of analog audio (without a video signal present there is a lot more room for audio tracks). Or you could go BLUE laser at that size and get HD analog VIDEO as well or even a combination of HD digital video with multi-channel ANALOG sound with digital tracks as well if you wanted.

The point is that all these things are technically possible and even easy to do since the technologies have already been invented on prior products (laserdisc + blu-ray wavelength lasers) and thus it would be economical to manufacture them. The ONLY question is whether there would be enough of a market to bother. Sadly for analog lovers, I don't think most people care when they have Blu-Rays with DTS-HD Audio already (no reason music couldn't be distributed on Blu-Rays with HD audio on existing players with minimal video or artwork/lyrics shown). But if one really BELIEVES that ANALOG is the reason vinyl sounds better, one would think that trying to get support for this type of format would be far preferable over any type of Digital method.
 
The point is that all these things are technically possible and even easy to do since the technologies have already been invented on prior products (laserdisc + blu-ray wavelength lasers) and thus it would be economical to manufacture them. The ONLY question is whether there would be enough of a market to bother. Sadly for analog lovers, I don't think most people care when they have Blu-Rays with DTS-HD Audio already (no reason music couldn't be distributed on Blu-Rays with HD audio on existing players with minimal video or artwork/lyrics shown). But if one really BELIEVES that ANALOG is the reason vinyl sounds better, one would think that trying to get support for this type of format would be far preferable over any type of Digital method.

I like your thinking here. It's a genuinely worthwhile question.

From my point of view as someone who can only see practical disadvantages of analogue as a recording medium for distribution I suspect we'd never see such a thing for a few reasons.

1. Cost. Designing a new medium would be hugely expensive for what seems like a tiny market. I suspect, but can't know for sure, that building a player like you describe would be more expensive to hit the same quality point, and that the pressed media would be much more expensive.

2. Portable players. Portable CD and minidisc players had varying levels of success dealing with vibration, but could be hit and miss if, for instance, out for a jog. Even car players are not always perfectly immune to vibration. An analogue version would not have the simple luxury of buffering and re-reading the data.

3. Convenience. Time and time again the winning medium has always been the most convenient, regardless of quality. Cassettes largely replaces Vinyl, not because they were of better quality, but because they were smaller, cheaper, could be recorded onto, and were probably more durable.

If you look at the contested graph on Meridians MQA site, we might disagree with the quality line, but the convenience line agrees. LP was more convenient and easier to use than Reel to Reel. Cassette more convenient (smaller, lighter, more durable, recordable) than LP, CD a more so than Cassette (due to random access). DVD-A/SACD is less convenient simply do to the scarcity of playback devices (no portables, car players) and was not a success. Then Download and stream took over. Other forgotten mediums like Mini Disc, DCC, DAT etc simply did not offer a convenience advantage over the prevailing media of the day so failed.

convenience-graph.png


For a new analogue medium to be a success, and justify the expenditure, it would have to be somehow more convenient than CD, downloads, AND streaming.

So whilst "audiophiles" can moan and complain all they want the mainstream music industry could not care less as they represent a minuscule part of the picture. Arguing for increased sample and bit rates is an achievable goal for the snake oil salesmen, a whole new analogue format with support form record labels is not, and they know it.
 
Here's a question for people that think there's something wrong with digital audio (at the CD level at least).

Why isn't a new analog format offered today?


I thought about this idea some time ago and I've just assumed the reason it's never been done is that the market is convinced there isn't enough of a market for it and many of the above reasons I gave for preferring analog vinyl doesn't apply when analog becomes CD level accurate.

Namely, my idea for a modern analog format that gets rid of all the problems with tape and vinyl is based on Blu-Ray style blue lasers combined with Laserdisc style analog audio (most people probably don't know that laserdiscs were only ANALOG video and ANALOG audio originally and that digital audio was added as a 2nd audio track option later. Video on laserdisc is still analog!) Combine blue lasers with analog laserdisc style audio and you can easily create a CD sized or even a Mini-Disc sized SEALED disc (just like larger laserdisc) that could contain the highest imaginable analog quality while retaining easy track selection and a SEALED format that would not be affected by dust like LPs when you try to read them with a laser-based turntable setup (that mars the sound badly).

See here for more reading on Laserdisc Analog Audio

Specs on this page (I believe the S/N ratio could be easily improved with a higher capture rate and blue lasers):
(http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Why-laserdisc-soundtracks-are-better/id/15519)



Imagine a Mini-Disc style 2.5" disc with a hard protective case that contained 100% analog sound without most of the inherent problems of analog on tape or vinyl.

-No degradation over time.
-Random track access and no disc flipping required
-No surface noise or clicks or pops since dust isn't really an issue on a sealed clear disc read by a laser
-Better than master tape quality capability on a DISC format yet it's still 100% analog

And the industry would love:

-UNCOPYABLE as ANALOG by all current methods (you could rip it with digital sampling, but then you're back to digital and not analog so there's no point). Yes, you could make a disc recorder that records it, but since it doesn't currently exist, it would be easier to control with patents, etc. for a time at least and it would probably never be as popular as digital since you can't store it on a hard drive and mass distribute it over the Internet without changing it to digital!



Now to ME, as a firm believer that TRUE Analog audiophiles will NEVER accept any digital format over Analog, this is the ultimate holy grail of high-end analog audio! And it's EASY TO DO with current lasers designed for blu-ray. You can use a CD-sized format (so that players can play both analog and digital recordings and it would hold more or use a higher rate of information recording) for convenience or you could go "Mini-Disc Shell" and make it nice and portable and protected from fingerprints, etc. Either way, it would eliminate any need for analog tape or vinyl to reproduce high quality analog on the playback end and solve all real world problems with vinyl and tape in general.

So why hasn't it been done? Has no one thought it of it (I guess I should have applied for a patent instead, although it uses prior patents in the design so....) or is there simply NO MARKET FOR IT? (i.e. LPs have plenty of media floating around; this would require selling people PURELY on the "analog" nature of the format and in in terms of accuracy, I'm afraid it would sound IDENTICAL to digital at that point since it wouldn't have ANY of the above post's non-accuracy reasons for people to prefer vinyl or analog tape including artwork size.

Of course, you COULD just keep the "albums" at the Laserdisc/Vinyl 12" size and retain the artwork benefits and you could probably use a conventional red laser and still have 5-7 channels of analog audio (without a video signal present there is a lot more room for audio tracks). Or you could go BLUE laser at that size and get HD analog VIDEO as well or even a combination of HD digital video with multi-channel ANALOG sound with digital tracks as well if you wanted.

The point is that all these things are technically possible and even easy to do since the technologies have already been invented on prior products (laserdisc + blu-ray wavelength lasers) and thus it would be economical to manufacture them. The ONLY question is whether there would be enough of a market to bother. Sadly for analog lovers, I don't think most people care when they have Blu-Rays with DTS-HD Audio already (no reason music couldn't be distributed on Blu-Rays with HD audio on existing players with minimal video or artwork/lyrics shown). But if one really BELIEVES that ANALOG is the reason vinyl sounds better, one would think that trying to get support for this type of format would be far preferable over any type of Digital method.

I like your idea. However, it would completely change the recording and mastering process, to say nothing of the editing process. Hundreds of millions of dollars would have to be reinvested in analogue studios, and supporting industries, in order to deliver an AAA product. Expert multitrack tape editors would suddenly be in demand again. And how many original master analogue tapes still exist to re-transfer to this new format? If there are any that haven't been baked and destroyed transferring to digital, or duplicated so many times as part of preservation tactics, that the sound quality is worse than an archived vinyl copy? I would think to make such a playback system viable, an analogue recording device would be an integral part of it, so that the audiophiles who buy it can transfer all of their own collections, which would sort of negate any piracy benefits. And the cost will almost certainly not appeal to the current customer embracing vinyl again, so it will have a limited audience.

I'd like to see it, but I'm just not sure there's a market that can sustain it. And I'm dubious that the available product wouldn't actually be something more akin to DDA, which sort of negates any benifits to the audiophile for embracing this format. Even musicians who record on analogue tape now, almost universally end up dumping their tracks into ProTools to edit and master them. That would all have to change to make this format something more than a gimmick.
 
I like your idea. However, it would completely change the recording and mastering process, to say nothing of the editing process. Hundreds of millions of dollars would have to be reinvested in analogue studios, and supporting industries, in order to deliver an AAA product.

I've just had a quick search and NOBODY makes analogue multitrack or mastering recorders anymore, so yes the barrier to returning to AAA production is enormous.
 
I like your idea. However, it would completely change the recording and mastering process, to say nothing of the editing process. Hundreds of millions of dollars would have to be reinvested in analogue studios, and supporting industries, in order to deliver an AAA product.

I was thinking more along the lines of a niche product using existing technologies (laserdisc FM encoding analog method with a higher density disc is all you really need.)

Blu-Ray master + LD FM Analog encoding method at higher rate + Analog source = New Format (on the same discs).

In other words, the only real cost to make this system using a BD sized format and tech would be to modify the laser transport to use a Laserdisc style read head at Blu-Ray wavelengths. Such a design would be a hybrid format so one could readily make this "Super Analog" player out of an existing (modified) Blu-Ray player design and it could then play both movies and music in the format. Honestly, I think you could modify Blu-Ray itself to be like laserdisc and carry analog AND digital channels on the same disc, even for movies. The technology already exists, so the development costs aren't really an issue, IMO. The REAL issue would be getting licensing to make the music discs from so many record labels. But if vinyl and cassette makers can do it, why NOT a hybrid BD Analog format if it's not hurting anything? I personally don't think it's needed (I don't personally subscribe to the idea there's something 'wrong' with digital audio itself), but it would still be an interesting project. Music laserdiscs already had analog tracks on them superior to vinyl that never degraded (outside the odd laser rot issue caused by some poor manufacturing). I think most people used the digital tracks anyway.

Of course, analog to digital, it's basically inches per second (or equivalent FM waveforms etched on disc) versus bits/sampling rate. In reality, analog is not "infinite" as some might believe, but limited by the bandwidth the same as digital.

The immediate use would be in place of Vinyl for pure analog distribution. That means making a "BD Analog" master from existing Master Tapes while you still can. It means recordings of live events like orchestras and live concerts could be made on the fly (whether mastered to the new format or to tape and then to the new format, it will "work" either way). The only people that would have trouble with the new format would be artists wanting to make PURE ANALOG new albums in multi-track. However, many vinyl fans already accept 24/96 and 24/192 mastered vinyl records as preferable to SACD (I assume for whatever size/hobby/art/participation/collectiing and even comforting surface noise or euphonic reason combinations). Thus, there would be no trouble making use of the format immediately and it might even ultimately lead to more sales of older designs and equipment (already sought after by many artists for "retro sounds".)

I have this nagging feeling, however, that vinyl fans wouldn't like it at all, regardless. They'd say there's something "wrong" with it and that's because it doesn't/won't have the euphonic distortions to the same level as vinyl and thus it would sound too much like digital. In fact, if they're OK with 24/96 or 24/192, they'd be pushing to get music on SACD and not vinyl in the first place (why listen to a distorted version of a master recording when you can listen to the master itself?)
 
A side note for all of this listening: For those of us that grew up with "non-linear" analog equipment, distortion increasing as you turn up the master volume was a cue that "hey, this is getting really, really loud." at about 90dB C-weighted. The new HTS, powered monitors, earbuds, headphones, and the ever-present subwoofers are generally so "clean and linear" that they don't begin to give these loudness cues of distortion until your peaks are well past 120dB. Non-stop playlists are (especially via headphones/earbuds) are likely putting out more dB than we may realize.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...udio-devices-are-destroying-your-ears/249521/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
"Better" is definable. "Prefer" does not conflict logically with vinyl being technically inferior, which it is in all ways that count.

In theory you could take a digital 44.1/16 recording and model the noise and distortions of vinyl onto it and get results that are indistinguishable, but the reverse would be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible. If you can hear it, it can be measured. Placebo or confirmation bias effects, not so much!

Better is definable. Absolutely. But the vast majority of music buyers will say that if you enjoy music more on a specific format, then that format is better. Whatever technical reasons you and I might have for why we prefer one format are irrelevant. If it sounds better, it is better. And what is better for me, might not be better for you. Yes, I have one or two cd's that sound better than my vinyl equivalent. They are better, but more than 99 % of all comparisons I've done have come out in favour of vinyl.

Perhaps I should get a "HD" version done by just up-sampling the master and see if the reaction is the same.

That'd be fun! But then again – streaming an album from a hard drive to a great music system sounds way better than the same album from a cd player. The comparison must, of course, be a fair one with a great cd player and a great streaming box, roughly at the same price. I was lucky enough to attend a session comparing a cd player costing USD 24 000 with a streaming box from the same company at a quarter of that price. No-one in the audience preferred the cd player.

Both digital and analog music have their future. And both give more listening pleasure to their respective audiences, and are therefore better. That's a fact.
 
I was lucky enough to attend a session comparing a cd player costing USD 24 000 with a streaming box from the same company at a quarter of that price. No-one in the audience preferred the cd player.

All one really has to do to get someone who insists vinyl sounds better to them to prefer a CD is to record the vinyl record and play it back blind so the vinyl person can't see it's a recording and tell them the CD is the turntable and the turntable is the CD and then ask them which one sounds better and they will 100% of the time say it's the vinyl one (which is actually the CD) and this is because it's 100% in their head psychological at that point to simply spit out their preference as they've made up their mind ahead of time (in fact, the two sound identical when it's a recording of the vinyl since CD is ACCURATE and captures all the DISTORTIONS they enjoy so much but won't admit are distortions).

Both digital and analog music have their future. And both give more listening pleasure to their respective audiences, and are therefore better. That's a fact.

Analog, or at least "true" analog really doesn't have a future for one simple reason. All the analog masters are approaching ages where they are falling apart and the gear isn't made anymore as Richard_Cooper pointed out. MOST of the vinyl being made NEW these days is made from either CD masters or 24/96 or 24/192 masters. In FACT, you are ALREADY LISTENING TO DIGITAL that's been converted to an analog format when you buy these records. It makes no logical sense to play back a digital recording on a format that will distort that recording when you can play it back directly from the digital format and have it "perfect". The only way that makes sense that someone would prefer the vinyl record made from digital is if they LIKE the DISTORTIONS it creates or really want to hold a big record jacket in their hand for the art or the ceremony of working a turntable rig.

That is why I keep saying whatever it is that people like about vinyl records, it's not in the master recording or the music itself. It's how the format takes away something and adds noise that has nothing to do with the original music or recording. And that's FINE (if you like it you like it), but some of us do get tired of people telling us records are "more like real music" or "more accurate" when it's nonsense. They are more distorted. PERIOD. If you prefer distorted music with added NOISE in it, by all means have at it. But some of us actually appreciate the original MUSIC instead of the added NOISE of vinyl.


That doesn't mean I haven't compared. Many CDs were remastered for CD and so the closest you get to the original analog master is to find a pressing on record from it (preferably 1st generation if you want to hear what people actually heard back when it was released). Many CDs are artificially compressed compared to the original releases and so there are reasons to look for vinyl versions that have nothing to do with the format itself, but the mastering and THAT is what screws up recordings the most, not the format.

I've got dozens of records sitting 30 feet away from me. I've got the last 180 gram version of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon that is 100% ANALOG (the masters are degraded to the point where they baked them for the last time to transfer them to a 24/192 digital master and are now pretty much toast so the last "40th Anniversary" vinyl is DIGITAL transferred to record. I've got the 30th Anniversary which was an ANALOG transfer to record. In other words, that's the end of the line for Dark Side of the Moon as a pure analog format. Ironically, you can still buy the 30th Anniversary online because supposedly 1/2 the records produced had something wrong with the production and they are noisy as hell and horrible sounding (1 star reviews all over the place if you look). The other half were perfect (5 star reviews). I got a quiet one. I recorded it on its 1st play through and it was DEAD QUIET (no clicks, pops and barely any discernible surface noise). Every time it's played now, the clicks, pops and surface noise will increase (i.e. the needle damages the record when it's played and dust starts getting in the grooves once the seal is broken, etc. etc.)

I recorded it precisely because I know it has a limited lifespan and since digital can capture the output accurately, I don't have to wear the original record every time I want to listen to it. I can listen to the original clean output version from the digital file. Even so, I've A/B compared the recording to the original playing straight off the deck. They sound identical except for the original is getting some more minor surface noise added the more often it's played (cleaning helps, but it's never the same as its first play). A lot of vinyl made in the 70s was made from recycled vinyl and it's noisy on DAY 1. Virgin vinyl is so much better, but sadly due to the oil crisis and the rise of tree huggers, they started using recycled vinyl and it's noisy. So ironically, the 30th Anniversary Dark Side of the Moon may be quieter than stamped out albums made in the late 70s and early 80s on record since the 30th is virgin vinyl.

All I'm saying is that vinyl quality varies too. It's not like every record I have is just awesome sounding (that Pink Floyd one is probably the best quality sounding one I have that isn't from a digital master). By contrast, MOST albums I have on vinyl are demonstrably INFERIOR sounding to the CD version (e.g. Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut" I have sounds like a somewhat muddled recording of the CD version; "Wish You Were Here" that I have seems to have noisy recycled vinyl and its bass content is far below that of the Mobile Fidelity record or the Mastersound CD). In other words, "just" being vinyl doesn't in any way make it "better" even if there is a vinyl version that's better sounding than a given CD release. Trying to find that one version is quite a task (there are sites that keep track of every single vinyl version and you can easily find out in most cases exactly where and when your record was made by looking at the serial number on the inner groove wall or on the label or record jacket in some cases.

Albums like Pink Floyd went through many generations of stampers and as an album gets towards the end of a given line, it's going to sound much worse than the first ones made from a stamper as well. This might explain (or just a bad pressing) why I have two different Wild Cherry "Only The Wild Survive" albums (both brand new in shrink wrap when I got them last year from the original stampers and made in the late '70s) and they sound very different. One has the center hole slightly off axis (which presents a challenge to a turntable on playback), but the other one has a groove error at the end of "Don't Wait Too Long" and does a slight skip there every single time.

A friend of mine who used to get buy vinyl all the time back in the day would always return/exchange noisy LPs because he figured he'd gotten a bad pressing or one towards the end of the life of the stamper. CDs either work or don't work for the most part. You're virtually assured the pressing is OK if it plays back fine on more than one player. In fact, if there's an error, it won't rip correctly (I got a bad Roger Waters "Amused To Death" CD with the new re-release on BD/CD, but I didn't bother sending it back since I made a 24/96 rip and then just put it in ALAC. I don't actually listen to CDs anymore. I rip them and play back on my car via USB stick and my house via Airplay or SMB access. I already have the original and Mastersound versions which I like better anyway.

Ultimately, my point is that even IF there WAS something to "pure analog" reproduction, those days are numbered and in some cases already gone. If you can't find a used copy of an analog production in good shape, you don't get to hear the analog recording because ALL the re-releases from the 60-70s are now digital because the masters have rotted away and if they can get one last transfer out of them, they're making it digital. For lesser selling albums, the analog stampers may still be in good enough condition to make another run, but sooner or later they will degrade from use and no "true" analog version can be made so all that's left are used and collectors versions. The only people making true "analog" recordings today are using used equipment that isn't made anymore so unless someone can convince manufacturers (or one-off high priced shops) to make them new gear or repair their old gear, sooner or later that's it. Without a new analog format, it's basically dead in the water. Digital on Vinyl (DDA) is NOT analog. It's digital to analog and you can already get that by just playing a digital format through a DAC and skipping the analog medium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesPDX and milo
That'd be fun! But then again – streaming an album from a hard drive to a great music system sounds way better than the same album from a cd player. The comparison must, of course, be a fair one with a great cd player and a great streaming box, roughly at the same price. I was lucky enough to attend a session comparing a cd player costing USD 24 000 with a streaming box from the same company at a quarter of that price. No-one in the audience preferred the cd player.

Both digital and analog music have their future. And both give more listening pleasure to their respective audiences, and are therefore better. That's a fact.

I've yet to see any evidence that the same data coming from a hard disk sounds better than a CD player. It simply doesn't stand up to simple logic, unless there is something unrelated to the data storage format is going on, i.e. in you test the CD player was in some way degraded or defective, or the data was different.

As said above, it's not a fact, analogue is on it's deathbed, and that's why we see the snake-oil salesmen at places like Meridian and Pono clamour for silly high sample/bit rate formats. They know that the analogue days are over and their market is simply too small to support it long term. I know that there's been a bounce in vinyl sales, but that's fashion and not driven by the audiophile market. You don't think that if everyone bought MQA hardware and recordings that would be the end of it, job done. No they'd be back with MQA-Ultra with a claim that 384KHz is what's really needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: milo
I've yet to see any evidence that the same data coming from a hard disk sounds better than a CD player. It simply doesn't stand up to simple logic, unless there is something unrelated to the data storage format is going on, i.e. in you test the CD player was in some way degraded or defective, or the data was different.

In the blind test I attended everyone heard a significant difference to the streamer's advantage. No, the cd player was not defective or degraded. You might find your reason why it is impossible. Still everyone attending was absolutely sure about what they heard. Streaming was the much better alternative.

As said above, it's not a fact, analogue is on it's deathbed

Yes, some parts of analogue, quite possibly. But since vinyl sales have been higher worldwide every year since 2006 it's too big a statement to say it's on it's deathbed.

I know that there's been a bounce in vinyl sales, but that's fashion and not driven by the audiophile market.

How can you possibly tell the reason is the same for everyone that has gone from cd to vinyl, and that it has nothing to do with audio quality? Many people, me included, have tried cd , but compared to vinyl we feel cd is inferior. I did it for four years, and was a bit sad when I realised I preferred analogue records instead of cd.

And it's interesting you say a steady sales rise for 10 consecutive years is "a bounce".

Please go on with cd for all you like. Whatever makes you happy. But don't tell other people their listening experience is wrong.
 
In the blind test I attended everyone heard a significant difference to the streamer's advantage. No, the cd player was not defective or degraded.


If the CD player had a much worse DAC that would explain the difference although it would be totally unrelated to CD versus streaming. A CD player with a great DAC is going to sound better than a streaming box with a crappy DAC. If both sent the signal out digital outputs to the same external DAC the sound quality would be identical or it would mean that something was not working right with the gear.

Overall it's a terrible idea to make generalizations based on hearing two pieces of gear of different types. That's a wrong conclusion, not wrong listening experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
The immediate use would be in place of Vinyl for pure analog distribution. That means making a "BD Analog" master from existing Master Tapes while you still can. It means recordings of live events like orchestras and live concerts could be made on the fly (whether mastered to the new format or to tape and then to the new format, it will "work" either way). The only people that would have trouble with the new format would be artists wanting to make PURE ANALOG new albums in multi-track. However, many vinyl fans already accept 24/96 and 24/192 mastered vinyl records as preferable to SACD (I assume for whatever size/hobby/art/participation/collectiing and even comforting surface noise or euphonic reason combinations). Thus, there would be no trouble making use of the format immediately and it might even ultimately lead to more sales of older designs and equipment (already sought after by many artists for "retro sounds".)

I'm not sure how many original AAA masters still exist at this point. And that's really the whole point, right? However, it might make for a great archival tool to preserve all those digital recordings that essentially exist in the ether -- that or print the code onto paper tomes.

I suppose if recordable Laserdisc equipment existed, there might be a resurgence of AAA live recordings. Though there's a lot of ambient noise in those environments that sort of negates the benifits.

Unfortunately, what drives the music business is studio multitrack recordings, especially since most new artists can't sing without the aid of auto tuning ... And those will be out of reach from all but the most wealthy recording artists, given there's no infrastructure to record that way anymore. Even if if the product drove a renewed interest in new analogue equipment and supplies, it would take a while to get that machine back up to the same speed it was previously running.

I'm not sure exactly why any vinyl audiophile is willing to accept a DDA recording, but that seems like a more realistic use of the technology -- then musicians can record music on their new HQ equipped iPhones and transfer it! Then Apple can sell the digital copies that audiophiles will buy on laserdiscs. Hey, maybe you're on to something!

At the end of the day, if all they are looking for is warmth, then let's just go back to tube amps instead. It will be cheaper in the long run.
 
If the CD player had a much worse DAC that would explain the difference although it would be totally unrelated to CD versus streaming. A CD player with a great DAC is going to sound better than a streaming box with a crappy DAC. If both sent the signal out digital outputs to the same external DAC the sound quality would be identical or it would mean that something was not working right with the gear.

Actually, the two different players were from the same company. The cd player (price winner in several tests) was the top of the line, and absolutely nothing was wrong with it. The streamer was, as I've said before, a quarter of the cd player price. On top of that the company offered an even better streamer, which I've heard later in a comparison.

Overall it's a terrible idea to make generalizations based on hearing two pieces of gear of different types. That's a wrong conclusion, not wrong listening experience.

That's just an example, absolutely not stating every streamer is better than its respective counterpart from the same manufacturer. But the best streamer I've heard is way better than the best cd player I've heard.

For anyone interested – this is one of several companies explaining why streaming the same cd is better. http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Why_Linn_DS_is_the_best_way_to_play_CDs

Whether you believe it can be true or not is up to you, but you can only be sure if you've done the comparison on a real high-end system (or several). I have.
 
Actually, the two different players were from the same company.


Again, if they listened to the analog outputs on each device, different DAC don't all sound the same. That's true of any digital audio device and has nothing to do with CD versus streaming. Generally the differences on recent, reasonably high quality gear should be minor but for all we know they could have some added EQ or other processing on their streaming boxes to exaggerate a difference.
 
Again, if they listened to the analog outputs on each device, different DAC don't all sound the same. That's true of any digital audio device and has nothing to do with CD versus streaming. Generally the differences on recent, reasonably high quality gear should be minor but for all we know they could have some added EQ or other processing on their streaming boxes to exaggerate a difference.

Did you bother to read the link I provided before you answered?

No, absolutely no EQ or other audio changing equipment was added. The player company does not sell anything with EQ or other audio changing algorithms. And "exaggerate a difference" ... I didn't say anything about different. I said better. As in way better.

Unfortunately differences on recent, reasonably high quality gear are not minor by any means.
 
Did you bother to read the link I provided before you answered?


Yep, read it (and some of those points could be valid in theory but in the article they are way overblown). Was the listening test you attended Linn, or some other company?

Of course they wouldn't tell the audience that they were intentionally changing the sound. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. If they had a financial incentive to sell streaming boxes there are certainly things they could do to try and goose the test to make one sound "better".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Actually, the two different players were from the same company. The cd player (price winner in several tests) was the top of the line, and absolutely nothing was wrong with it. The streamer was, as I've said before, a quarter of the cd player price. On top of that the company offered an even better streamer, which I've heard later in a comparison.



That's just an example, absolutely not stating every streamer is better than its respective counterpart from the same manufacturer. But the best streamer I've heard is way better than the best cd player I've heard.

For anyone interested – this is one of several companies explaining why streaming the same cd is better. http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Why_Linn_DS_is_the_best_way_to_play_CDs

Whether you believe it can be true or not is up to you, but you can only be sure if you've done the comparison on a real high-end system (or several). I have.

Yawn, that Linn article if full of half said or unsaid things to support their sales pitch.

It makes claims about read errors (well duh if you can't read big chunks of data of course there will be problems) but completely fails to mention that audio CDs feature an error correction system that uses, gasp, checksums. So if the disk cannot be read properly, something is broken as I said.

They talk in fluffy terms about the packet based streaming over TCP/IP vs serial SPDIF or USB due to clocking issues, whilst also claiming that having the CD mechanism in the same box as the DAC causes other problems, so where is this SPDIF or USB link?

Apparently there are no sources of electrical or magnetic noise in the streamer vs the CD player? No power supplies etc? Are they not up to designing proper shielding for the CD player?

They talk about up sampling but give no indication of why this would be better or worse in the streaming product vs CD player.

They talk about ground noise, that again could be applied equally to either type of product.

At best this is an attempt at explaining why their streamer is better than their CD players, but it's mostly marketing fluff and certainly does not make a convincing case for streamers being "the best way to listen to play CD's".

Most interesting of course comes from the "LinnDocs:General disclaimer" which states "LinnDocs makes no guarentee of validity" and "Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information."

Was your test a true double blind test? Was there any chance to verify that identical sources were used?

EDIT: Of course I've also just noticed that with the advent of their streaming players Linn stopped making CD Players, so you could not compare similar generations. It also obviously sets out the motivation for claiming streaming is better than CD.
 
Last edited:
Yep, read it (and some of those points could be valid in theory but in the article they are way overblown). Was the listening test you attended Linn, or some other company?

Yes, I've listened the Linn systems a few times. And several others. If you have compared Linn systems you could have the answer to if the points are way overblown, otherwise you can't. Have you?

Of course they wouldn't tell the audience that they were intentionally changing the sound. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. If they had a financial incentive to sell streaming boxes there are certainly things they could do to try and goose the test to make one sound "better".

No-one has in the eight years I've listened to, and read loads about, suggested that streaming audio could be better because some audio changing algorithm or circuit. You are really the first with that idea.

Try a Linn Klimax DS/DSM for yourself and realise there's a great difference. To the same audio file. Linn is not exaggerating. And if you don't like Linn, try another company, like Naim, Cambridge or whatever. I didn't believe either. Until I heard with my own ears, that is.

===

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines." Nelson Pass
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.