2. misc-audio
  3. 152310-137844

Vinyl / Digital / and can you have too much information.

I am copying this from a thread of digital vs. analog spending, but thought it may be an interesting --- Discussion ---, not to pick which is better, but to have a conversation about an aspect of why some may prefer vinyl.
FIRST - A bit of an example to set the "mood"

A CD is 1411 bkps to achieve 44100 samples/second at 16 bits and 2 channels. What if we had an uncompressed signal at 128kbps? ... That would allow us to do say 2 channels, 10 bits, 6400 samples/sec or 3.2KHz. We could do 8 bits, at get up to 4KHz. Not too terribly impressive huh?

How do you think 8 bits at 8ksps would sound compared to a 128kbps MP3 or AAC? It would sound awful by comparison even though technically both have the same amount of information. Why does the MP3 sound better for the same raw information? Because the MP3 concentrates the information into areas in which the brain can make use of it.

Let's consider vinyl:   Perhaps due to dynamic compression during the mixing/mastering process, other intentional choices made during mixing and mastering, even what we consider limitations during playback, we are maximizing the audio information that the brain can take in. Perhaps that inherent "filtering" that a turntable does maximizes the useful audio information that the brain can take in my minimizing extraneous information that can cause information overload. I am more of a digital guy, but even I feel this happens at times.

That information limit will be different for different people. That could even explain why some love vinyl, and some, not so much. I think it could also speak to the listening fatigue that some claim to experience when listening to digital. It is simply information overload, especially when coupled with "loudness wars" information levels which could be considered extreme.

I can certainly make arguments against this:
  • Why are high end DACs" then viewed as being closer to vinyl? A counter is who is making those statements and why is their brain telling them that? Why do some of those DACs measure so poorly? Are those DACs even being "voiced"
  •  Why do non-OS R2R DACs sounds better (only to some). A counter is perhaps the high frequency artifacts that modulate into the audio band mask additional information allowing the brain to concentrate on what it most wants to hear?
  • Why do many then claim that analog tapes are the ultimate?  A counter is, again, some claim that.  I can also find many people that claim that digital sounds much closer to what the real instruments they hear, play and record sound like. 1/4" tape formats have "information limits" as well.

There is no right and wrong answer and this is not a topic of which is better, it is about understanding perception.
atdavid
atdavid OP
736 posts
 
Millercarbon,

I will simply put your reply down to not understanding my post; not understanding that "perhaps" means I was not stating a fact; not understanding that even that rose is made up of pieces; not understanding that every time you play a record, the SNR of the playback chain means it is slightly different every time, hence a digital version can be every bit as complete and accurate; not understanding that a record, by virtue of its limitations in signal to noise, channel separation, dynamic range, etc., is a significant "filter"; or not understanding all the ways even at the cutting stage that the analog signal can be distorted.


A reality check Millercarbon, would have you realize that Everything about my post was about us human beings doing the measuring.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
You’re certainly not getting all of the information that’s on CDs. The reason is because of scattered laser light interference, mechanical vibration of electronics and the vibration and flutter of the CD itself whilst spinning. There are other reasons, too, but those three are a good place to start.
atdavid OP
736 posts
 
I don't use CDs, and any music I listen to that came from CDs are bit perfect extractions as can be proven from the error codes, or more specifically the lack of them when the ripping process was done.
That would be 1, 2 and 3 strikes .... you're out.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
As per usual you conveniently side-stepped by comments. That’s called a logical fallacy, remember? Bit perfect? Yeah, right! Lots of laughs! That’s exactly how CDs have always been marketed, Perfect Sound Forever! Hooray for Reed Solomon Codes!! Two old timers who did the best they couid under the circumstances, I suppose.
atdavid OP
736 posts
 
1) Streaming online then eliminates all your arguments.2) Two old guys who know infinitely more about error correction codes than you, a bunch of guys who know far more about optics, and sensing created a system, that has 25% of the data for error correction, so that the vast majority of the errors on a disk that is only partially scratched, can be eliminated.3) CD ripper software can run slow, do multiple passes, etc.
4) I can take a wave file, burn it to a writeable CD, then read it back and do bit comparisons.5) You are shilling a product. Where is the independent proof. This is not a matter of listening, this is pure data integrity.
More to discover