Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

11-08-11: Almarg
The difference in db between the maximum possible value as represented digitally (65,535 as expressed in decimal form) and one "level" less than that ... is:

20log(65535/65534) = 0.000132 db

A slight correction to this statement in my earlier post. Since a sign bit is involved, which defines + or -, the range of possible values expressed in decimal form is -32,768 to + 31,767. So the quoted equation should be:

20log(31767/31766) = 0.000273 db

Regards,
-- Al

The how we actually hear stuff is fine but I don't see how what you say applies to analog only. Both analog and digital are shooting for similar results as best I can tell and I have heard both do quite well despite the inherent limitations of each.

Mapman, not trying to change the subject, just pointing out that in the development of Redbook, human perceptual issues were largely ignored. To give a little more depth, we humans tend to not make things perfect, try as we might. In the case of digital, there tend to be in-harmonic distortions that are related to the scan frequency rather than harmonically related to the signal like we have in analog systems.

The problem is that the human ear takes higher-ordered content like this and interprets it as brightness. (this significance of this is that when you measure the digital system on the bench, it will appear to be ruler-flat in frequency response- it is our human perceptual rules that assign the brightness.) Had this problem been addressed properly from the get-go, I suspect that about 90% of the D vs A debate in the last 30 years simply would not have occurred.

This is an issue that has nothing to do with the misapplication of Nyquist, BTW. Now I have been accused of many things over the years, bias being one of them, but in this matter of digital, all I can say is I would really like it to work! I would much prefer to not have to provide space for all the vinyl I own, to fit it on a RAID array would be awesome! But my system is too revealing and the failings of digital are very obvious on it. Mind you, I've done no 'tuning' or 'voicing' or any particular treatments to somehow favor analog over digital. And I can put on a Redbook CD and enjoy it, but even my girlfriend who has no interest in audio at all comments on the obvious improvement that vinyl demonstrates over digital. I think too many people have not been exposed to decent analog playback (for example, improper setup of the equalization circuits in a phono preamp can exacerbate ticks and pops) and so the debate rages.

"Had this problem been addressed properly from the get-go, I suspect that about 90% of the D vs A debate in the last 30 years simply would not have occurred. "

Would would constitute addressing it properly?

I do not hear the brightness you refer to categorically associated with CD or digital in most of my CDs compared to vinyl or other references I have heard. So my ears tell me that there is no redbook plague associated with the format that makes it incompatible to human ears (which I understand are not ruler flat in response, so what, we hear everything the same be it coming out of a stereo or real). I do understand though that it can be a common plague with many CD rigs and has been in mine as well in the past. But I do not understand how the format itself or even being digital precludes this.

I listen to CDs with Class D amps that use negative feedback and still have no issues I can go as loud as I want with my rig with little to no fatigue or brightness. So my experience does not correspond to what you are saying.

I will not question that digital and SS amps with negative feedback in practice have been more plagued by this. Only that it is not inherent to teh technologies categorically, end of story. It can be done extremely well in either format. I do suspect though that R2R is in another league though, for whatever that is worth practically to most.

Thanks, Al :-)

Vbr,
Sam

Mapman, the in-harmonic issue is easily demonstrated. I have to admit I was shocked the first time it was demonstrated to me. You take a sine wave sweep tone and play it back- listen for the 'birdies'.

If your not hearing the brightness of digital there are really only three explanations- either you have a high frequency rolloff in the system that complements the digital artifact or you have a high frequency rolloff in your ears. The third explanation is you have not heard a good analog playback on your system. Of the three, the latter is the most common- most people can hear digital artifacts just fine- I know someone who was deaf in one ear and 50% in the other and he had no problems discerning digital vs analog.

It is very common to hear really excellent digital recordings these days that make you wonder if they are finally there. The real question is, no matter how good the digital, 'what would this have sounded like if an analog recording system was used?' For that I recommend to anyone to try it themselves, of course they might have a bit of a time chasing down the analog equipment :)

I run a recording studio so we see this sort of comparison all the time. I get asked, 'why do you have all this old analog crap?' all the time. I just sit them down and play the difference. They never leave with any questions.