Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

I'm a believer! Lp's really do sound better!


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
202 replies to this topic

#201 of 203 OFFLINE   Arthur S

Arthur S

    Screenwriter



  • 2,572 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 1999

Posted May 25 2006 - 07:57 AM

I wouldn't argue that vinyl sounds different than CD. The question is, what is the cause of those differences. Scientific examination of vinyl revealed significant problems, including phase, FR, bass limitations, etc., with vinyl. If I could make an analogy, Sunfire makes some amps that have both current based and voltage based outputs. They definitely sound different, because the FR is not flat with the current based outputs. That doesn't make it better, just different. Euphonics. It's all about euphonics.

#202 of 203 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,632 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted May 25 2006 - 08:44 AM

[quote]

It's all about euphonics

[quote]Yes, the classic "give me accuracy" vs. "give me what I like" debate.

#203 of 203 OFFLINE   LanceJ

LanceJ

    Producer



  • 3,168 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2002

Posted May 28 2006 - 03:31 PM

The digital photo analogy doesn't really work in this case. Wow, I thought this old urban legend died out long ago: the waveform exiting a CD player is not a chunky "staircase". It is a smooth sine wave, just like what exits a turntable's or tape deck's output. Digital photos do use individual pieces, but they are just too small for our eyes to make out so we think we're seeing a smooth continuous image (same deal with a motion picture & its 24 frames per second). Anyhoo, sine waves are easy to make & we've been doing that for decades before digital music ever came along. When the DAC in a CD player is given the 16bit binary number (sample word) from the transport, it then waits for a second one and then it has the info available to generate a part of a sine wave with the correct slope. Then another sample word comes along & the DAC creates another sloping section of a sine wave. And on and on it goes. As far as MP3s are concerned, I am 99% sure this is true of them also but have never formally looked this up (MP3s still use sample points like PCM does, but most of them get thrown out). As far as missing pieces of the original sine wave, i.e. those that are "between" a 44.1kHz/16bit analog-to-digital convertor's sampling points, that is not really a concern......unless you believe that the average human hears past 20kHz.* There is research that suggests higher frequencies MAY be sensed in other ways, but I have yet to see any report with positive proof of this (I'm surprised it is taking so long to find the answer to this). Others believe that those ultrasonic frequencies affect the audible ones - which can happen but if the affected waves *are* in the audible range why wouldn't the recording gear be recording those waves too? So to make 44.1kHz more accurate, a longer sampling word is needed, not more sample points. A longer sample word gives the ADCs and DACs many more and much more finely divided voltage levels to choose from - now those components can encode and then rebuild a sinewave that more closely mirrors the original one. And comparing PCM to DSD is an apple-to-oranges comparison. DSD's 2.8mHz sampling rate sounds impressive but each sampling point for DSD consists of only 1 number, zero or one. This can only tell the DACs one of two things, "change" or "no change". PCM's sample word on the other hand, whether 16/20/24/etc bits long, tells the DAC a specific voltage level to generate. So when the overall amount of DSD data is considered, it actually is a bit less than a 192kHz/24bit PCM data steam. Where the significant differences lie between DSD and PCM is how they are actually converted to analog, but y'all get to do your own research on that!! * to capture more of those pieces, you have to increase the sampling frequency which also rasies the upper frequency limit of the recording. >>> But those pieces consist of frequencies HIGHER than 20kHz, so..........




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users