[rsjean]

Originally Posted by plasar

"I’m sorry, not to be rude but I think there is a whole lot of misguided misinformation being misunderstood here."

No offense taken, and I hope I didn't come across as rude. :

Not at all.

Originally Posted by plasar

I agree there is some misinformation here, that's why I posted. Let me address some points in your response. Also, you might read the articles that I posted first - lots of key info on vinyl mastering.


"Uh, hello… it is a pretty standard assumption in the audiophile world that vinyl is WORLDS better than CD. The ONLY thing a CD does better that you have listed is separation."

And you might say next that audiophiles assume tube amps are superior to solid state. I disagree that vinyl and tube amps are better than CD and solid state. I contend they both vinyl and tubes "distort" in a manner some perceive as "pleasing", and I perceive as plain "distortion".

You don't credit CD with a better dynamic range? Then you are frankly in denial - I'm looking for a reference for comparative specs now. :

Perceived and actual dynamic range is certainly better on CD but the debate has always been whether that is overemphasized due to the much lower noise floor of the medium. Tests run in Germany years ago as friends of mine were working with Philips on their IP for the CD to SACD transition format found the sound floor dynamics exceeded that of a good concert hall , most instruments and even small venues and was therefore not usable in much more than non-acoustic full electronic music or for motion picture sound tracks.

Originally Posted by plasar

And regarding frequency response, did you know that the treble is more accurate on the outer grooves of a record verses the inner grooves? That's why they frequently located ballads towards the center. (Read the articles...) Also, there was a RIAA wear standard about how high frequency response can drop off after a number of plays (Wikipedia article below). :

Treble in and of itself cannot be accurate. Treble can only be there or not be there at the correct frequency and amplitude. If a recorded tone is 16,250Hz @ +16dB, either it is or it is not. Frequency response of mastering studios calibration and test discs can match that of a 44.kHz 16bit CD reference disc. Without the need for dithering. And regarding the record wear VS high frequency debate, there are as many CD degraded substrate debates floating around as to how it hurts digital reproduction.

Originally Posted by plasar

Frankly, vinyl cannot come close to CD when looking at the specs - just admit it. The whole argument is in digital sampling and quantization error, and perhaps the ADCs and DACs themselves, and whether the sound is not "natural".:

You are right. The full specification picture on paper of a CD versus a vinyl disc goes to the CD. However both mediums are clearly flawed and compromised. It is generally accepted that CD’s flaws cause a non-musical error to the recording while vinyl is much kinder and preserves much more of the natural timbre, harmonic structure and warmth. There is a reason manufacturers are still trying to incorporate tube preamp sections into solid state digital equipment.

I hope you do not buy audio (or video) equipment by specs. We both know that man has yet to define the specification that determines true fidelity and total accuracy to source – or musicality for that matter.

Originally Posted by plasar

"The TRICKS to which you refer are done at the recording end of the process. They are present whether the playback end is digital (CD) or analogue (vinyl). Really doesn’t apply in a comparison between the two mediums. And the side-chain compression or broadband de-essing you refer to is just high frequency suppresion for the human voice sibilence that is done in most recording studios."

Epic wrong here - read the articles. Of course, you can use any processing you want at any time, but as I said, they are required in the mastering process for vinyl so that the info can fit on the record (without RIAA equalization bass cut, you'd get 5 min per side of LP) and so that the needle doesn't skip out of the groove (sibilance requiring de-essing). Ditto with virtually requiring low frequencies in "mono" - you can't pan left or right.

None of these mastering tricks required for CDs. Just sample directly from the digital or analog final mixes from the studio. Of course, you can "sweeten" the sound however you like at this point too, or leave it as is. :

Not only have I read the articles, but I have employed many of the technics at Bernie Grummun studios and mastering labs in LA. The RIAA EQ refer to certainly originated in an anologue world filled with phono cartridges, cutting lathes and vinyl records. But it is fully alive today as it’s principals and protections are what keeps CD’s capable of album length recording, keeps loudspeakers (analog devices by the way) from having their voice coils jump out of the magnet gap and allows consumers to listen to music on all sizes of loudspeakers and ear buds. In fact the RIAA standards for EQ in digital recordings were just reviewed at a symposium in the Netherlands last year and the application equalization algorithm was actually increased for digital recordings to allow better performance on ipods etc.. And De-Essing really serves an issue that starts at the microphone diaphragm (another analog device). None-the-less, all these are still employed in the studios before the masters are turned over for replication.

Originally Posted by plasar

The ‘color’ you attribute to vinyl pales in comparison to the ‘color’ from a medium that cannot even reproduce a sine wave – a fundamental coefficient of sound reproduction. The codecs used in CD can only recreate a stepladder facsimile of an acoustic sine wave. The missing parts must be interpolated and synthesized out of redundant information.

Yes, the CD stores a "stepladder facsimilie" of the sine wave (actually 2 for left/right channels) as sampled from the master as digital bits. After reading this facsimilie back on your CD player (the redundant info helps insure the digital bits are 100% identical to what was sampled at the studio), the DAC (Digital-to-Analog Converter) converts it back to an analog signal, and a smooth wave, ideally, the sine wave from the original master.

The standard CD sampling rate of 44kHz was chosen to provide frequency response to 22kHz. This means the stepladder is fine enough to record/playback to 22kHz. :

Actually the red and blue book standards for CD called for much much more and it was the commercial concession to the length of recording issue on a standard disc that pushed it back to the current deficient specification. Even the engineers behind CD at launch were pissed off. And with a step filter at 22K that has no roll off and no phase compensation and no recovery – where are the harmonics above 22kHz? Gone? Yes. Gone. What is the difference in sound between a Bösendorfer Imperial Grand Piano and a Yamaha electric piano that tries to sound like a Bösendorfer? Harmonics.

Originally Posted by plasar

We are comparing 100% accurate digital bit transmission copy to a sine wave signal causing a wiggle in a cutting lathe to cut a master presser from which plastic disks are created whose surface is scratched by a stylus that is wiggled back and forth and whose wiggles are then converted back in a sine wave? Look at all these physical transitions... with no error checking! :

Just the fact that CD requires error checking should tell you a bit.
If indeed the 44.1kHz 16 bit format were perfect – why did all of the founding manufacturers and their technical teams work so hard to push it to 46kHz, 92kHz, 196kHz and ultimately to 2.8gHz and keep increasing work width and depth from 4 to 8 to 16 to 1 (bitstream that you refer to)? The same team and companies that created CD (Sony and Philips – I worked for Philips) openly admitted that digital compact disc was a sonically compromised and flawed format. The benchmark they held in development of SuperAudio CD was analog. If fact we toyed with the concept of using ‘the analog of digital’ for the ad tag like and key message for SACD.

Originally Posted by plasar

Add to that all of the mastering tricks required, and yes - I'm saying that vinyl adds a lot more color than CD, and therefore, the CD is a much more accurate sound reproduction of what was recorded in the studio or live performance. :

Redundancy is sampled. Therefore it wan not nor will ebver nbe a real signal. It is interpolated and synthesized into the real music. And the phase shifts caused in AD and DA convwerters really messes with the harmonic structure and phase integrity of the music.

Originally Posted by plasar

"And the Sunfire Subs from dear old Bob carver are more suited to brutal earth shaking home theater LFE channels than too real music."

You might be right here, I've heard this said several times. I had it tuned great in Hong Kong, but here in San Fran, I can't get it to sound too good. When tuned properly, I liked it better than my REL Strata.

Wikipedia - Gramaphone Record
Uncyclopedia - Vinyl Record

Now, I am definitely not anti-distortion and anti-tube or anti-analog: I play guitar, have 4 tube amps, and I love the sound of analog synths (ex. the French band Air). And violins. I have no issue with any type of "harmonic distortion" in the instruments of the original performances. :

Why would you have 4 tubed guitar amplifiers with a world of solid state – even digital guitar amplifiers available to you? And they are cheaper, more rugged, smaller, lighter and more reliable. What draws you – and most musicians to tubed amplification?

Originally Posted by plasar

But I when I want good, loud, accurate sound reproduction, with low distortion and little color, it's digital and solid state all the way. (Leave the sweetener in the bowl...) :

And I respect your opinion and right to do just that. And I really like finding someone who is passionate about audio, music and the technology behind it. I think we have lost so much over the past few years with MP3 (you must admit it’s less than CD performance) and ear buds for $5 and no one caring about having a really nice system at home…. So sad. I count Jon Dahlquist, Saul Marantz, Stewart Hegeman, Peter Snell, Harold Beveridge, Dr. Roger West, Robert Carver, Joseph Grado and many more over the years among my friends and I just don’t see the throngs of avid audiophiles pushing the envelope any more