Editing Talk:Myths (Vinyl)

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in.

Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 46: Line 46:
 
Just a slight correction... digital accuracy exceeds analog accuracy well below 20 bits.  If it is accepted that bit depth defines the dynamic range and the related signal to noise ratio, then working back from these measurements can demonstrate that studio quality 2" analog tape running at 30 ips has equivalent measurements to about 13 -14 bits, without dither.  Vinyl can vary from 10 to 13 bits depending on the frequency and the position on the LP, while analog cassette tape is about 8 bits.  See XPIH.org for references.
 
Just a slight correction... digital accuracy exceeds analog accuracy well below 20 bits.  If it is accepted that bit depth defines the dynamic range and the related signal to noise ratio, then working back from these measurements can demonstrate that studio quality 2" analog tape running at 30 ips has equivalent measurements to about 13 -14 bits, without dither.  Vinyl can vary from 10 to 13 bits depending on the frequency and the position on the LP, while analog cassette tape is about 8 bits.  See XPIH.org for references.
  
In "Vinyl sounds better than CD", I think you have the terms subjective and objective reversed.  Objective means perception so it take precedence.  When people look at numbers they can ignore objective perception and thus becomes a strong bias that does not match reality.  Unless a real explanation is made for the discrepancy between perception and numbers then I have to assume the numbers to be wrong, missing, or misinterpreted.
+
In "Vinyl sounds better than CD", I think you have the terms subjective and objective reversed.  Objective means perception so it take precedence.  When people look at numbers they can ignore objective perception and thus becomes a strong bias that does not match reality.  Unless a real explanation is made for the dependency between perception and numbers then I have to assume the numbers to be wrong, missing, or misinterpreted.
[Incorrect, subjective means relating to feelings/taste, objective is without feelings/taste. For example 10km race is longer distance than 100m race this is objective; where as 10km race is harder than a 100m race is subjective. Note that more people are likely to feel differently about the second statement than the first. Same with music, you may feel that one format sounds better than another, and that is your subjective opinion and is your own personal 'truth', but is not universally true. You might also beleive that a 12" vinyl is smaller than a 12cm CD, however you would just be wrong with no wiggle room as this is an objective measurement. Now here the objective measurements are saying in these aspects that the digital is closer to the original than the vinyl; there is then a jump in some people's minds that mean that digital is better than vinyl, There maybe other objective measurements not taken/understood that have a greater weighting on perception that aren't yet known about. The weighting of such objective observations would be subjective.]
+
 
+
Something I find odd when people talk about Nyquist frequency, this is the sample rate where a frequency 'can' be represented, however this ignores phase of the recorded wave and assumes in phase. So if your amplitude is 1 for 20kHz and in phase cosine wave with a sample rate of 40kHz, then given perfect ADC and DAC processing, it has amplitude 1,(I.e. it stores 1,-1,1,-1,...) now knock the phase by a quarter cycle and the amplitude drops to zero (I.e. stores 0,0,0,0,...). Now take a sample rate of 160kHz and the worse case scenario is 10xlog(cos(22.5deg)=~ -0.34dB. Which to me seems like a nice practical limit where subjectively I doubt people could benefit from a higher sample rate.  However at sample rate 44.1kHz where these frequencies with a slowly changing phase (likely in practical scenario with real instruments and mics), is it not possible for vinyl to be more faithful starting somewhere north of 5.5kHz upwards to top of normal hearing, in a way that could be subjectively heard as better?
+
 
+
Has there been any proper studies comparing difference between vinyl full analog path from cartridge to speaker coil, compared to putting high end realtime ADC and DAC into the same chain? My personal hunch is vinyl's tend to be mastered 'better' for audiophiles and vinyl's tend to have less high frequency transients, that can be fatiguing.
+

Please note that all contributions to Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 (see Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)