2. digital
  3. 1391368183

What is behind a "warm" or "vinyl"sound?

I found an interesting article in The Saturday Toronto Star's entertainment section on the resurgence of vinyl.

What I found most interesting in this article was a description of why people describe vinyl as "warm". Peter J Moore, the famous producer/mastering engineer of the legendary one microphone recording of the Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Sessions recording says it all comes down to the fact that humans do not like square waves - ie. when you go from super quiet to super loud at no time at all. He gives the example that if someone was to slap two pieces of wood together right beside your ear would be about the only time one would feel a square wave - and that would make you jump right out of your skin! He says digital, particularly MP3s reproduce square waves like crazy, which triggers fear which also produces fatigue. He says if those same two pieces of wood were slapped together across the room, the square wave would be rounded off by the time the sound reached our ears. Turntables cannot reproduce square waves due to through time it takes for sound to get though the length of wire and the magnet that the wire is wrapped around in the cartridge. By the time the signal gets through that the sharpness, he ugliness, has been rounded and that, he says, is what people are talking about when they describe vinyl as "warm" sounding. Interesting!

I find there are a bunch of digital manufacturers, like Lumin, that are striving for a vinyl sound. I wonder if they are somehow rounding off the square waves in the digital signal to do so? If this is the case, "perfect" reproduction may NOT actually be beneficial to the sound...at least for someone who really wants a vinyl sound experience. Better may not actually be better when it comes to digital sound reproduction!
camb
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,178 posts
 
Its the discrete electronic equivalent of building with blocks that are all the same size and shape. Each block is conceptually a bit. Electronic signals, which are analog in nature, are "modulated" to form the electronic digital equivalent of blocks. To build the musical signal castle accurately, you need enough blocks and the ability to put them in place very accurately over a period of time.

CD Redbook defines how many blocks you need and have to work with based on the Nyquist principle.

Clearly, if the blocks you have are not assembled with great precision and accuracy, your castle may show defects.

If you follow the instructions, and do it right, you are in good shape!

Using more, smaller blocks alone may not get you any farther otherwise, and in fact will make things even harder to do right. Like doing a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle compared to 1000 piece.
czarivey
5,946 posts
 
Steve,

It's not only modulated carrier frequency, but also could be modulated phase or amplitude (AM signal is Amplitude Modulated)
Most RF is really analog
Why most? Square waves cannot propagate through the air unless there's again carrying frequency and in case of digital encoding phase modulation is used to define 1 or 0 in the air.
In all of the cases mentioned above and even more than above of this post we deal and deal and deal with carying frequency
Digital is discrete states and levels
It's not what Al said or even books. It will never be discrete or sudden. Before it forms "square wave" there's a process and certainly components that build it step by step so nothing is discrete for sure.

Mapman,

My objective was not to critisize digital playback vs. an analogue, but to express points where digital playback is inferior to analogue. There are bunch of points where analogue playback is inferior to digital as well...
Technology grows and there are far better formats than red book CD as well and post Y2K CDs in vast cases sound substantially better, but taken that and consumed, still I can spin records whole day while even after 2...3 perfectly mastered and recorded CDs I have to dial 'Analogue' function on my recently purchased DAC-preamp(hoped to boost my poor digital collection, but it's huh still poor). I'm also glad that my record shop visit more and more of teens and students who may or maynot have the idea why analogue is so cool, but they certainly hit on great past music of our analogue 60's, 70's and 80's :-).
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
If I were to think of the single most important thing standing in the way of getting better sound it's vibration, seismic type low frequency vibration, acoustic vibration and the vibration produced by the transformer and CD transport mechanism in the player that gets transmitted directly to the printed circuit boards.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Czarivey wrote,

"Technology grows and there are far better formats than red book CD as well and post Y2K CDs in vast cases sound substantially better, but taken that and consumed, still I can spin records whole day while even after 2...3 perfectly mastered and recorded CDs I have to dial 'Analogue' function on my recently purchased DAC-preamp(hoped to boost my poor digital collection, but it's huh still poor)."

The funny thing is that analog CDs, I.e. AAD, sound much more organic, open and correct than later ADD and DDD CDs. For all it's obvious potential for much higher dynamic range and signal to noise ratio than vinyl digital audio just doesn't sound like it's achieving it's potential.
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
"The funny thing is that analog CDs, I.e. AAD, sound much more organic, open and correct than later ADD and DDD CDs."

This is primarily due to the mediocre DSP software that abounds. There is some good software out there though, such as Sonic Studio. Unfortunately not every recording studio uses it.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
More to discover