digital vs vinyl thoughts

Agreed Almarg. These are just my thoughts by reading the many posts and I am not an engineer or schooled in either of these formats outside of my home use. I understand digital has the theoretical potential to be better than analog as we know it. Analog might read more of the signal originally by the microphone but after that it is at the mercy of everything downstream. Digital has the potential to actually rebuild the signal to the closest identity. And as some have stated it might be getting pretty close. It might even be there already just some of us have experienced it yet. Just my thoughts but I may be wrong. Tell me.

02-23-12: Marqmike
I understand digital has the theoretical potential to be better than analog as we know it. Analog might read more of the signal originally by the microphone but after that it is at the mercy of everything downstream. Digital has the POTENTIAL [emphasis added] to actually rebuild the signal to the closest identity.... Just my thoughts but I may be wrong. Tell me.

That's basically correct, IMO. The theory behind digital recording and reproduction stems from the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, according to which absolutely no relevant information whatsoever will be lost as a result of sampling if the following hypothetical (and in some cases unattainable) conditions are satisfied:

1)The sampling rate is more than twice the frequency of the highest frequency component of the signal being sampled.
2)Each sample has an infinite number of bits.
3)The waveform being sampled is infinitely long.
4)Frequency components that might be present in the signal being sampled and converted to digital that are greater than one-half of the sampling rate are filtered out of the signal prior to sampling, by means of a filter that has no side effects on the remaining frequency components.
5)The frequency components that are filtered out in no. 4, if any, are at frequencies that are too high to matter.
6)Frequency components of the reconstructed analog signal, following digital to analog conversion, that represent sampling artifacts can be filtered out without side effects on the analog signal.

Obviously all of those conditions cannot be perfectly satisfied in the real world. To the extent that they are not satisfied, digital is an approximation. Which of those conditions is the most significant limiting factor in present day digital, with most music and assuming that the hardware implementation is optimal and that the recording is well engineered (and those of course are often invalid assumptions) is speculative.

FWIW, my own feeling (which I certainly can't prove, and other opinions will often differ) is that with the redbook CD format (44.1 kHz sampling with 16 bits per sample) number 4 (the "no side effects" part) is the most significant limiting factor. Hi rez formats, especially 192 kHz sampling with 24 bits per sample, can IF WELL IMPLEMENTED (in both the recording and the playback processes) greatly improve that and several of the other factors.

Regards,
-- Al

Hi Unsound - while what you say about some performers using the mike to hide things is certainly true in some situations, in many cases they defer to the "sound guys," usually with very unfortunate consequences. These guys can be VERY infuriating, often completely ignoring the comments of very widely respected artists (not to mention the comments of the people who work in the hall on a daily basis, what could we possibly know). They usually want it to sound how they want it to sound, and there is often nothing the musicians can do about it.

This is one reason why I also agree with Al's comment that the mike set up is a much bigger factor than many audiophiles realize, especially for classical music. The vast majority of "sound guys" have no formal training whatsoever - they learn from other guys they work with, who also had no formal training. There are a few schools that offer sound engineering degrees, but I have no idea what they are taught there, as there are no really good texts on the subject. Sadly, the vast majority of them are just winging it most of the time, yet are too arrogant to take suggestions from the people they are recording, who usually have a very good idea exactly what they want to sound like.

This was not really true back in the so-called "golden age" of analog recording, from the late 50's through the late 70's, say. There were great engineers at every major label. With the advent of digital recording and the myriad of possibilities it created for using many more mikes and set ups, every single engineer does things completely different, and unfortunately any idiot can becoming a recording engineer now. Many musicians, not realizing that the engineers are so little trained, just assume that the engineer knows better, and then are very disappointed in the results.

We have some great responses. I think I feel that it is still so recording dependent. Back in my earlier days, late 60's, if I got a good recording that is what made my system sound more accurate, right, better in those ways. Equipment couldn't do that to the same extent for me. Of course I couldn't own the prevailing best at the time and what I did have was just something a couple levels better than the average person. When I think about it in the light of this discussion I think I am still there in wishing the recording was better more so than the playback source, and not as concerned about analog or digital to the same degree as the recording itself when it come to better sound but not better music. I drifted the thread a bit, sorry.

No attack was intended, my apologies. I simply meant, basic engineering principals can't describe how music sounds, or what type of sound one will prefer.

The Phase Linear scandal of the early 80's was a good example. They designed and built an amp with text book measurements, but the sound was considered horrible by all that heard it.
Tim