Post by KeithL on Sept 28, 2014 13:26:23 GMT -5
I like stirring up trouble.... so I think I'll start here. 
As you all know by now, I'm a major fan of digital audio. I think it's "'the future", and I personally find it much preferable to analog audio. I always found storing and cleaning records to be a nuisance, every tick and pop I heard marred my enjoyment, and the "impermanence" of records always worried me. (By that I mean that, every time you play a record, you have to wonder if it's exactly the same as last time - and it it will be the same next time or will be marred by some new scratch or symptom of wear). I guess I SHOULD be able to ignore the medium and just enjoy the MUSIC, but I can't. Just like a dirty windshield, or dirt on a camera lens - ticks, pops, and even the surface noise inevitable with records and tapes, DISTRACT me and take away from my enjoyment. I'm one of those guys who, if I really liked an album, would buy one or two spare copies and keep them sealed - so I wouldn't ever end up not having that album - just in case the original got damaged or worn.
I found CDs - even with their limitations - to be a huge step up, and I think the new digital recording formats and other technologies have pretty well eliminated most of those original limitations. With a modern digital audio file, even though it may sound different on different playback equipment, the file itself remains inviolate. It never changes, and I can ensure this by making backup copies, and confirm it using checksums. I never have to wonder if it will sound the same next time. If my current DAC somehow botches the playback, I can buy a better one - but I never have to wonder if the record got damaged in the process. Likewise, if there IS some flaw in the recording, it IS part of the recording itself. There's no reason to consider buying more copies hoping for a "cleaner pressing" or keeping spares against mechanical wear and damage. Happily, lately we have been getting new versions where, due to better mastering, the sound quality has been improved... but, with a digital "pressing", I never have to worry about whether I got the first copy off the pressing mother, or the one near the end of its life, when it was starting to get worn out.
Do I think digital audio is perfect?
No.
But the current arguments against digital reproduction are ridiculous. Yes, it's true, digital reproduction of high-frequency transients is imperfect. There's always some ringing on those nasty digital filters, and, while you can decide whether you prefer pre-ringing or post-ringing, you can't get rid of it entirely. (The alternative, to use a non-oversampling topology, has such major drawbacks it isn't really a viable option.)
HOWEVER, what analog fans seem to forget is that analog storage technology is FAR more flawed than current digital technology. The point ISN'T that a digital recording of an album won't be perfect. The point is that a good quality digital recording is a more accurate rendition of THE ORIGINAL.
It's easy to make a digital recording of an album, and then point out the tiny differences between the recording and the "original record". But, instead, let's try making an LP record copy of a DIGITAL original and see how close THAT is to the original CD. Luckily for vinyl fans, that's so difficult and expensive to do that I don't believe it's ever been done. (Comparing a high-res download of a modern digitally-mastered recording to the "audiophile vinyl" copy they offer for sale is probably the closest you can get. Although you must START by admitting that the digital recording IS the original, and any differences you hear in the vinyl are inaccuracies - regardless of how pleasant you may find them to sound.) Vinyl fans have a nasty habit of acting (and thinking) like the vinyl record is the original.... Well, sorry guys, it's not.
Neither vinyl nor digital copies are perfect, but digital copies are (by the numbers) far more accurate than vinyl or analog tape copies. There's a reason why nobody bothers to quote THD for vinyl, or S/N, or to show pictures of pretty square waves with nice sharp edges and steep skirts....
In a phono cartridge, you have a mechanical stylus, doing its best to follow the undulations of a tiny groove cut into the surface of a soft plastic disc. This system includes the inertia of the stylus, the flex in the cantilever, the springiness of the support suspension, and any and all mechanical limitations and resonances of the whole mechanism. This mechanism is mounted on an arm, on a turntable, each with their own resonances, vibrations, and inertias. All of this is used to produce a mechanical signal, which is then converted to an electrical signal - usually by turning the movements of a magnet in relation to a coil into electricity. Of course coils and their associated circuitry also have resonances and other electrical nonlinearities. And this is just the playback system. The recording lathe has heavier moving parts, and much more extreme performance requirements, which cause even more problems. All in all, I would say the sound quality achievable with modern records is an accomplishment that makes putting a man on the Moon look simple by comparison. But, because of all the issues, the results are still far from perfect. Have you ever seen a picture of a square wave, recorded on vinyl, and reproduced by a cartridge on a turntable? Have you ever seen a spec of the THD - from 20 Hz to 20 kHz - on a record? (Honestly, I probably did - back in the days when the numbers involved wouldn't have been downright embarrassing - but you sure don't see them published lately.)
In contrast, recording and playing back a digital audio recording is quite simple....
To make a digital recording, all you have to do is to measure a voltage every so often and store the results; to play it back, all you have to do is to read the numbers you have stored and turn them back into voltages. Compared to handling all the mechanical and electrical issues associated with analog recordings, this process is downright simple and straightforward.
So, do I appreciate a fine mechanical watch, with all its precise little wheels, gears, and levers?
Sure.
Do I think a Rolex, accurate to 30 seconds a month (or even better), using those wheels and gears, is a marvel of engineering?
You betchya.
But I WEAR a cheap Casio digital watch.... because my goal in a watch is to tell time.... and even a $20 plastic digital watch keeps time more accurately than the best and most expensive mechanical watch. (Just like even a cheap car can outrun the world's fastest horse.)
Analog recording introduces certain colorations to the music that some people like. They're also different than the (much smaller) colorations introduced by current digital recording and playback technology, so it's possible that some people who can hear both actually prefer the analog colorations to the digital ones. It's also possible that, excluding accuracy altogether, some people simply like the way some analog colorations sound - which is certainly their choice. Likewise, there are still many people who ride horses - almost certainly not because they're faster, have a smooth ride, or have better air conditioning than a car. And, just like some folks enjoy "the experience" of a fine mechanical watch, some like the experience of unsleeving a record, putting it on the platter, and gently lowering the tone arm (after carefully cleaning it, of course). Personally, I prefer cars for getting from point A to point B, and digital audio for reproducing audio content efficiently and accurately.
But let's hear YOUR opinion...
As you all know by now, I'm a major fan of digital audio. I think it's "'the future", and I personally find it much preferable to analog audio. I always found storing and cleaning records to be a nuisance, every tick and pop I heard marred my enjoyment, and the "impermanence" of records always worried me. (By that I mean that, every time you play a record, you have to wonder if it's exactly the same as last time - and it it will be the same next time or will be marred by some new scratch or symptom of wear). I guess I SHOULD be able to ignore the medium and just enjoy the MUSIC, but I can't. Just like a dirty windshield, or dirt on a camera lens - ticks, pops, and even the surface noise inevitable with records and tapes, DISTRACT me and take away from my enjoyment. I'm one of those guys who, if I really liked an album, would buy one or two spare copies and keep them sealed - so I wouldn't ever end up not having that album - just in case the original got damaged or worn.
I found CDs - even with their limitations - to be a huge step up, and I think the new digital recording formats and other technologies have pretty well eliminated most of those original limitations. With a modern digital audio file, even though it may sound different on different playback equipment, the file itself remains inviolate. It never changes, and I can ensure this by making backup copies, and confirm it using checksums. I never have to wonder if it will sound the same next time. If my current DAC somehow botches the playback, I can buy a better one - but I never have to wonder if the record got damaged in the process. Likewise, if there IS some flaw in the recording, it IS part of the recording itself. There's no reason to consider buying more copies hoping for a "cleaner pressing" or keeping spares against mechanical wear and damage. Happily, lately we have been getting new versions where, due to better mastering, the sound quality has been improved... but, with a digital "pressing", I never have to worry about whether I got the first copy off the pressing mother, or the one near the end of its life, when it was starting to get worn out.
Do I think digital audio is perfect?
No.
But the current arguments against digital reproduction are ridiculous. Yes, it's true, digital reproduction of high-frequency transients is imperfect. There's always some ringing on those nasty digital filters, and, while you can decide whether you prefer pre-ringing or post-ringing, you can't get rid of it entirely. (The alternative, to use a non-oversampling topology, has such major drawbacks it isn't really a viable option.)
HOWEVER, what analog fans seem to forget is that analog storage technology is FAR more flawed than current digital technology. The point ISN'T that a digital recording of an album won't be perfect. The point is that a good quality digital recording is a more accurate rendition of THE ORIGINAL.
It's easy to make a digital recording of an album, and then point out the tiny differences between the recording and the "original record". But, instead, let's try making an LP record copy of a DIGITAL original and see how close THAT is to the original CD. Luckily for vinyl fans, that's so difficult and expensive to do that I don't believe it's ever been done. (Comparing a high-res download of a modern digitally-mastered recording to the "audiophile vinyl" copy they offer for sale is probably the closest you can get. Although you must START by admitting that the digital recording IS the original, and any differences you hear in the vinyl are inaccuracies - regardless of how pleasant you may find them to sound.) Vinyl fans have a nasty habit of acting (and thinking) like the vinyl record is the original.... Well, sorry guys, it's not.
Neither vinyl nor digital copies are perfect, but digital copies are (by the numbers) far more accurate than vinyl or analog tape copies. There's a reason why nobody bothers to quote THD for vinyl, or S/N, or to show pictures of pretty square waves with nice sharp edges and steep skirts....
In a phono cartridge, you have a mechanical stylus, doing its best to follow the undulations of a tiny groove cut into the surface of a soft plastic disc. This system includes the inertia of the stylus, the flex in the cantilever, the springiness of the support suspension, and any and all mechanical limitations and resonances of the whole mechanism. This mechanism is mounted on an arm, on a turntable, each with their own resonances, vibrations, and inertias. All of this is used to produce a mechanical signal, which is then converted to an electrical signal - usually by turning the movements of a magnet in relation to a coil into electricity. Of course coils and their associated circuitry also have resonances and other electrical nonlinearities. And this is just the playback system. The recording lathe has heavier moving parts, and much more extreme performance requirements, which cause even more problems. All in all, I would say the sound quality achievable with modern records is an accomplishment that makes putting a man on the Moon look simple by comparison. But, because of all the issues, the results are still far from perfect. Have you ever seen a picture of a square wave, recorded on vinyl, and reproduced by a cartridge on a turntable? Have you ever seen a spec of the THD - from 20 Hz to 20 kHz - on a record? (Honestly, I probably did - back in the days when the numbers involved wouldn't have been downright embarrassing - but you sure don't see them published lately.)
In contrast, recording and playing back a digital audio recording is quite simple....
To make a digital recording, all you have to do is to measure a voltage every so often and store the results; to play it back, all you have to do is to read the numbers you have stored and turn them back into voltages. Compared to handling all the mechanical and electrical issues associated with analog recordings, this process is downright simple and straightforward.
So, do I appreciate a fine mechanical watch, with all its precise little wheels, gears, and levers?
Sure.
Do I think a Rolex, accurate to 30 seconds a month (or even better), using those wheels and gears, is a marvel of engineering?
You betchya.
But I WEAR a cheap Casio digital watch.... because my goal in a watch is to tell time.... and even a $20 plastic digital watch keeps time more accurately than the best and most expensive mechanical watch. (Just like even a cheap car can outrun the world's fastest horse.)
Analog recording introduces certain colorations to the music that some people like. They're also different than the (much smaller) colorations introduced by current digital recording and playback technology, so it's possible that some people who can hear both actually prefer the analog colorations to the digital ones. It's also possible that, excluding accuracy altogether, some people simply like the way some analog colorations sound - which is certainly their choice. Likewise, there are still many people who ride horses - almost certainly not because they're faster, have a smooth ride, or have better air conditioning than a car. And, just like some folks enjoy "the experience" of a fine mechanical watch, some like the experience of unsleeving a record, putting it on the platter, and gently lowering the tone arm (after carefully cleaning it, of course). Personally, I prefer cars for getting from point A to point B, and digital audio for reproducing audio content efficiently and accurately.
But let's hear YOUR opinion...
:0
