True Audiophile

[venkatcr]

I am yet to see a post in this thread where someone has truly compared (sonically) good digital and good analogue of similar league and preferred digital. What does that indicate ?

Actually I have. I have been, on and off, listening to a brand new Thorens with a Parasound amplifier driving a pair of Sonus Faber Liuto speakers. I am not denying that it does sound good. But somehow, at least to my ears, it does not seem to have the soundstage, separation and all that that my digital system provides.

My preference is based on a number of other factors. In my mind the upgrade path in a TT system is time consuming, expensive, and filled with doubts. You really have to move to a 10K$ TT to have a meaningful upgrade to your source. Then you need to look at expensive pre-amp. After you do all that, the very point of not being sure of the TT speed, of the knowledge that every time you play you are grinding the album, you are worried about dust, levelling the turntable, vertical tracking angle, tracking weight, tracking azimuth......

Compare this to a digital system. The source? a PC that will faithfully deliver the song with the same accuracy a million times. The pre-amp? A DAC. The only upgrade you may ever need is a DAC, and a 1500$ DAC has been proven to be 99% accurate. This is measurable by instruments.

The rest of the chain is the same in both.

We should actually run a comparison with a analogue system and a digital system costing about the same and listen to the same songs on both. Let me see if I can set up a test run sometime.

Cheers

 

[Asit]

How do we arrive at a proof?

Without proof, are we left with only belief? And is that too bad?

Proofs exist only in mathematics, nowhere else. Experiments, real or computational, only provide a piece of evidence in favor or against a proposition.

For example, in Physics, take the case of classical mechanics. Try to prove Newton's second law of motion. We know it works, given an abstract concept of mass and force (only directly calculable quantity is the kinematic quantity called the acceleration), that's all. Similar is the case with the Maxwell's equations of classical electrodynamics, they are just embodiment of a few phenomenological observations. Can you prove the equations? No. In quantum mechanics, a proposition is made whereby position of particle and its momentum cannot be determined precisely together simultaneously. Can one prove this proposition? Again, a resounding no. However, quantum mechanics is known to work very well for microscopic observables very well.

Talking about proof, yes one can prove the Shannon-Nyquist theorem, with a couple of assumptions, using the theory of Fourier transforms. One of the assumptions has to do with the input continuous (analog) signal being extended in time from infinite past to infinite future. This signal is then read discretely with a particular sampling frequency. The theorem then shows under what conditions a bandwidth-limited signal that is also continuous in time is finally recoverable.

In practice, the analog signal to be discretized/digitized exists for a finite amount of time, and hence the assumption of the theorem is NEVER valid. I have tried already to explain these things in two of my posts:
1) http://www.hifivision.com/phono-tur...-vinyl-sounds-better-digital-4.html#post37340
2) http://www.hifivision.com/phono-tur...-vinyl-sounds-better-digital-5.html#post37385

Actually, there can be serious artifacts in real life due to violations of the assumptions of the theorem. This is discussed in my post
http://www.hifivision.com/cassette-tape-decks/12804-vinyl-better-than-cd-6.html#post178184
and in the links given in that post.

BTW, these are very well known facts for the last hundred years. The sampling of 44.1kHz IS a serious limitation, believe it or not or whatever the CD-gurus would like one to believe. Serious interpolation between discretized data points is the order of the day, because getting an infinite amount of data (the final continuous analog output) is NOT possible from a finite number of discrete data (input to DAC).

I have no problem with beliefs provided it is an honest one and is one which is respectful of other beliefs. I have also no problem with religion provided it is not a fundamentalist concept. What is unacceptable though is disrespect in the name of pseudo-science or pseudo-logic.

I honestly think the current debate is pointless to a large extent and that's why I do not like to take part in it. Whenever I see these sorts of debate, I remind myself of the goal of our hobby which is about primarily about music, and not basically about equipments. A little bit of musical appreciation can clarify many doubts in listening, and it takes a life-long journey to acquire that musical appreciation through hard work, and it is not available on the net or in any textbook.

BTW, I listen to 3 kinds of sources:, CDs, audio cassettes, and vinyls. Lately more than 80% of my listening is from vinyls in my modest stereo rig.

Regards.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Oh I was just saying that if we dont want to get into real auditioning and just try proving things theoretically then even mp3 advocates have a point to match the CDs. I am yet to see a post in this thread where someone has truly compared (sonically) good digital and good analogue of similar league and preferred digital. What does that indicate ?

That you don't read my posts!

(Or Venkat's ... ).

I don't admit to any intrinsic superiority of vinyl, and I don't accept that not having listened to something vastly expensive disqualifies me from that.

I have said that I am not satisfied with mu current setup, but that it is an analogue problem, not a digital one. I have also said that I cannot think of any LP that I would play if I had the CD.

I don't doubt that some CDs are badly produced, but I don't doubt that that that applies to vinyl too.

A couple of decades ago, convenience/portability meant making cassette tapes from our albums. The parameters of cassette tape are certainly inferior to Vinyl (the reduced dynamic range came in handy when trying to reduce the impact of a scratch) but, with good decks we made some very good tapes from our albums. One could use a three-head machine, and switch back and forth, monitoring the vinyl source and the recorded tape, and finding little difference. Now we have digital recording, which is greatly superior, but, for some reason, meets with prejudice. Nobody used to attack tape; there were not tape v. LP battles.

Digital is not only greatly superior to cassette tape, but it is an evolving technology. You have bat ears and want bat sounds? If you can't get it today, come back in a while and see where sample rates have reached.

Human hearing runs out at 20,000. Not only does a CD exceed that, but sample rates of twice, or even much more than that are available.

Digital will deliver the full range of the music --- and if you want to distort it to sound like analogue, you have that freedom too hyeah:

 

[arj]

I hope that outburst was not directed towards me. I didn't (and usually don't) post internet links. In fact, I was the one who was telling Hiten not to trust random stuff found on the internet.

definitely not directed at you...although in hindsight it may appear from my post.

But triggered by it though at those who have never really compared the true potential of either but have too much of an inflexible stand based on a what's available on theweb. I have a pretty mid fi digital and 1k+ CDs and only around 150 lps and a TT which is still in its formative stagehand I do like both for its merits and their demerits...I don't think there is substantive proof to debunk either mediums based on just hearing .

In the end this is not a science and no one can prove anything...it needs to be experienced..and in spite of that there will always be 2 camps still.

All i am saying is that there is no sense in claiming superiority of any 1 medium over another as these are personal choices...but please don't take hardstands based on science and what you read...music is an emotional experience and that cannot be objectivised and scientifically dissected from our limited knowledge today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dr.Bass]

That you don't read my posts!

(Or Venkat's ... ).

Human hearing runs out at 20,000. Not only does a CD exceed that, but sample rates of twice, or even much more than that are available.

Digital will deliver the full range of the music --- and if you want to distort it to sound like analogue, you have that freedom too hyeah:

The only upgrade you may ever need is a DAC, and a 1500$ DAC has been proven to be 99% accurate. This is measurable by instruments.

I read both your's and Venkat's post and all you guys have to say is quoted above. That is the whole essence of your view points.

The only difference is, I have been going around listening to various top quality digital players (between $5k - $30k) in the last few years and to various mid to high end Vinyl players ($2k - $25k) in the last 6 months or so. And still I do not dismiss one medium for the other!

 

[anilva]

How do we arrive at a proof?

Without proof, are we left with only belief? And is that too bad?

Proofs exist only in mathematics, nowhere else. Experiments, real or computational, only provide a piece of evidence in favor or against a proposition.

For example, in Physics, take the case of classical mechanics. Try to prove Newton's second law of motion. We know it works, given an abstract concept of mass and force (only directly calculable quantity is the kinematic quantity called the acceleration), that's all. Similar is the case with the Maxwell's equations of classical electrodynamics, they are just embodiment of a few phenomenological observations. Can you prove the equations? No. In quantum mechanics, a proposition is made whereby position of particle and its momentum cannot be determined precisely together simultaneously. Can one prove this proposition? Again, a resounding no. However, quantum mechanics is known to work very well for microscopic observables very well.

Talking about proof, yes one can prove the Shannon-Nyquist theorem, with a couple of assumptions, using the theory of Fourier transforms. One of the assumptions has to do with the input continuous (analog) signal being extended in time from infinite past to infinite future. This signal is then read discretely with a particular sampling frequency. The theorem then shows under what conditions a bandwidth-limited signal that is also continuous in time is finally recoverable.

In practice, the analog signal to be discretized/digitized exists for a finite amount of time, and hence the assumption of the theorem is NEVER valid. I have tried already to explain these things in two of my posts:
1) http://www.hifivision.com/phono-tur...-vinyl-sounds-better-digital-4.html#post37340
2) http://www.hifivision.com/phono-tur...-vinyl-sounds-better-digital-5.html#post37385

Actually, there can be serious artifacts in real life due to violations of the assumptions of the theorem. This is discussed in my post
http://www.hifivision.com/cassette-tape-decks/12804-vinyl-better-than-cd-6.html#post178184
and in the links given in that post.

BTW, these are very well known facts for the last hundred years. The sampling of 44.1kHz IS a serious limitation, believe it or not or whatever the CD-gurus would like one to believe. Serious interpolation between discretized data points is the order of the day, because getting an infinite amount of data (the final continuous analog output) is NOT possible from a finite number of discrete data (input to DAC).

I have no problem with beliefs provided it is an honest one and is one which is respectful of other beliefs. I have also no problem with religion provided it is not a fundamentalist concept. What is unacceptable though is disrespect in the name of pseudo-science or pseudo-logic.

I honestly think the current debate is pointless to a large extent and that's why I do not like to take part in it. Whenever I see these sorts of debate, I remind myself of the goal of our hobby which is about primarily about music, and not basically about equipments. A little bit of musical appreciation can clarify many doubts in listening, and it takes a life-long journey to acquire that musical appreciation through hard work, and it is not available on the net or in any textbook.

BTW, I listen to 3 kinds of sources:, CDs, audio cassettes, and vinyls. Lately more than 80% of my listening is from vinyls in my modest stereo rig.

Regards.

I agree with Asit, completely. There is no point in giving proofs or theorems of one against the other. After all, we trust our ears using the equipment set up we have. If you like one or the other, be happy. If you like both - great! If you want to convince the whole World on your view - bad luck. It is not going to happen. Just move on. While it is interesting initially to have a good debate on this topic, the battle lines are clearly getting drawn. No point.

For me, I will enjoy both.

Cheers.

 

[ajay124]

If an outsider unwittingly drifted into this thread, he would discover two amicably fueding factions who are gradually hardening their positions. Nobody is willing to give an inch or lose an inch.

Ideally a thesis and anti thesis should yield a synthesis. If it dosen't then after a reasonable amount of time the debate will either simmer down into good natured banter or explode into acrimony.

My conclusion from the ongoing debate is that finally I don't care about the alleged superiority of analogue or digital. It does not matter as long as you are happy with your hifi and your music.

I am willing to listen to both objective and subjective arguments as long as they have logic, passion or humour on there side. I am not interested in hyperbole or parroted responses. I am happy to discover new insights into hifi which are based on actual auditions or on critical surfing on the world wibe web.

I pay more attention to reviewers and forum members who constantly relate their hi fi experience to the music they are listening to. Their passion for hifi moves hand in hand with their passion for music. But there are many on hi fi forums world wide whose passion is solely for hi fi. Music is incidental for them because ultimately you have to feed the source something. Perhaps a dedicated non musical audiophile should buy 'limited audiophile editions' of nature sounds because it would serve the purpose of feeding the source. 'Non musical' audiophiles can never find satisfaction because no hifi system is ever going to satisfy them for long. Because manufacturers need to file profits in their annual statements and will therefore keep releasing new 'signature' and 'reference' series for 'critical' listeners

 

[prem]

As i had mentioned earlier, it does not matter what you are listening on as long as you enjoy the music. My son enjoys his music more on his ipod. Even when i am playing music he likes on my system, he prefers listening to them on his ipod. He likes to multitask when listening to music and ipod gives him that luxury.

 

[arj]

We should actually run a comparison with a analogue system and a digital system costing about the same and listen to the same songs on both. Let me see if I can set up a test run sometime.

Cheers

maybe I am wrong, but was that not done in the bangalore HifiV meet ?

 

[arj]

If an outsider unwittingly drifted into this thread, he would discover two amicably fueding factions who are gradually hardening their positions. Nobody is willing to give an inch or lose an inch.

Actually ajay, there is more in common than a difference. All of of us folks Love music and thats why we are all in this Hobby. We have all experimented (hopefully) with different configurations/systems/components/mediums and musical genre before arriving at our preferred configuration which may or may not evolve.

It seems like the attitude here is "you may have experienced something but as per what I have read/understood and measured, you dont know what you are talking about" and what "I" have experienced is the best. :sad:

anyway this is a debate all over the net and i dont think we are going to 'Solve" the case...most we can do is accept the difference and accept that fact that all of us have a lot more to learn in this hobby..

 

[Dr.Bass]

Ironically, most of the times, the people who benefit from such threads are the ones who did not participate actively in the discussion

 

[jls001]

Nobody used to attack tape; there were not tape v. LP battles.

If the internet had been invented in those days, I am sure there would have been similar, hard fought battles. Prior to the advent of the 'Net, the only forum where people could express their likes/dislikes, tastes/distastes, musical affiliation, etc., were print magazines. I remember the raging debate on Rock Street Journal magazine about the relative superiority of Messrs Saul Hudson (a.k.a Slash) and Joe Satriani as guitar players. Unsurprisingly, there was no absolute conclusion to such debates. Another hard-fought battle in literature was the civil war between the two sides in Gulliver's Travel. The bone of contention? Whether an egg should be broken on the pointed end or the rounder end. Guys, got the drift about the pointlessness of this whole debate?

 

[ajay124]

Most debates are 'pointless' but the good ones contain nuggets of truth which can be excavated from the mountains of verbiage. The wise philosophers who battled it out in the agora's of Greece and the forums of Rome were equally vehement in their opinions and beliefs. Internet forums are virtual descendants of these public forums and assemblies.

One nugget of truth which may have emerged from this thread is that we can debate without rancour and acrimony. I remember earlier threads which suddenly descended into chaos. Perhaps we have grown up.

I hope that this trend is sustained in the future and we can continue debating, pointlessly perhaps, but happily and as friends

 

[malvai]

very true ajay!

another thing that I gleaned was the fact that audiophiles are stubborn in their beliefs about what kind of sound they like and no amount of facts, arguments and discussion will budge one from their original POV!

so let's just say amen and continue listening to the music!

 

[jls001]

so let's just say amen and continue listening to the music!

Amen to that. And I will continue to enjoy the best of what digital and analog have to offer :yahoo:

 

[hydra]

This is a very interesting thread and it makes for great reading. I don't think this is a pointless discussion, as I think this discussion has brought forth a lot of information from both schools of thought.

I'm somebody who has not really formed an opinion as yet, about which sounds better.

In fact, I really couldn't, as my exposure to analogue sources is limited to playing audio cassettes on really ordinary gear (= walkmans and cheap 2-in-ones). I've listened to a vinyl setup only once. I have not listened to a good vinyl setup yet, so I don't have a standard of reference.

My exposure to digital sources is reasonable, but I haven't really listened to so many setups to consider myself "knowledgeable" enough to take a position. None of the digital setups I've listened to are really expensive, so I don't know what a really expensive CD Player can sound like.

The Setup Issue
From what I've read here and on the other threads in the forum, I've formed the impression that a digital source is easier to get right. There are far lesser variables involved in getting a digital source to sound its best, than in setting up a TT to sound its best. And it seems to me that the more expensive the TT, the more complex the setup. It also seems to me as though keeping a good TT setup right is a challenge. Please understand that this is an understanding based only on reading various posts, and I'm completely open to be corrected.

This "setup" issue is putting me off. I'm no stranger to endlessly tweaking positioning, distances etc., and know I am a "compulsive tweaker". But even I feel pretty daunted by the effort it seems I will have to take to get a TT sound right.

Getting stuff I can play
Another issue I have with vinyl is that managing to get good quality records of the kind of music we like seems to be a dark art in itself. I'm not sure if the money and effort spent in getting playable records is worth the results. I may change my mind when I get to listen to a good TT setup, but it had better sound really out of this world if I have to change my mind about this.

I'm interested in knowing this: With a total system outlay of say under $3000-3200, can an analogue setup sound better than a digital setup (both using brand new gear)?

 

[Hiten]

@thatguy
I guess most of the experienced members are aware that net can give you information any which way one wants it to be. Net is flooded with Real data, junk, common sense, total rubbish, logical conclusions. Specially in subjective thing called audio amplification

Guys, we are talking about things that can be measured.

Bro, if measurements are required and regardless of ones hearing capacity Isn't it true that technically vinyls recording capabilities can almost go up to 50Khz? Doesn't that speak of this media's capability? I guess vinyls only have issues at low end of the frequency response but it is very well taken care of and human hearing is less sensitive to very low frequencies.

Idea of debate is not to fight and it is not meaningless to debate and discuss, otherwise we will all be happily listening to our music privately and have nothing to say. A dull place in a forum to be. Idea is.... to share views. as Prem has said to give a guide or as Manav has said giving the choice of the way one wants to listen to music.

If anyone doesn't like the vinyl media. Dont listen to it but don't look down upon it or bash it. If you read various digital vs analogue debates you will notice that vinyl dudes rarely say CDs are crap etc. etc. That speaks a lot about how honest vinyl guys approach to this hobby is. So here is to buddies who listen to vinyls :beer:.

 

[malvai]

I'm interested in knowing this: With a total system outlay of say under $3000-3200, can an analogue setup sound better than a digital setup (both using brand new gear)?

yes. its possible.

here's how it goes:

1. Project RPM 1.3 about 24k ($500)
2. Project Phonobox 10k ($200)
3. Marantz 8001 Integrated amp dont know the exact price but should be about 50k ($1000)
4. Speakers - a whole plethora avaialble under 1L ($2000)

total:
In Rs: 1.84L apporx
In $: 3,700 approx)

Now will it sound better than a digital set up of the same price range? i'd say yes!

the reasons: at 34 K (the amiunt you'd spend on the RPM 1.3 + phono with the RPMs stock cart) you'd only get a very entry level CDP... which the vinyl rig will easily outdo!

 

[venkatcr]

the reasons: at 34 K (the amiunt you'd spend on the RPM 1.3 + phono with the RPMs stock cart) you'd only get a very entry level CDP... which the vinyl rig will easily outdo!

Malvai, the idea is not to go with CDP. It is to go with Audio PC based player with an 8K Asus card. I am not sure even an entry level PC with a Asus card being the sound extractor and DAC will be that easily beaten. The rest being the same of course.

Cheers

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

<Crossposted with Venkat> ... leave out the DAC, and still, the analogue out won't be easily beaten :lol:

I read both your's and Venkat's post and all you guys have to say is quoted above. That is the whole essence of your view

I may be wrong, but I do not remember Venkat ever saying that one has to spend thousands of $ on digital equipment. Certainly I never have done, so again, I don't think you really read our posts. <Posted before seeing his last post>

One may talk about measurements such as "99% perfect." Various levels of perfection can be had with various equipments. Sometimes it is proportional to cost. Venkat and I have certain technical differences, but, simply, we both believe in digital sound being not only adequate but excellent. Neither of us, I'm sure, has any wish to rid the world of turntables or their fans --- but I would be quite happy to rid the world of stupid, uninformed arguments like, "See this graph going up to 50Khz: this proves that vinyl is superior."

My recipe for digital sound is a sound card, with budget starting at of 8,000 or 12,000 -ish. I have my prejudices, as previously mentioned. However... If you watched the Ethan Winer presentation I linked to, though, one of the things you would have seen would have been a comparison of of very expensive interface with a cheap soundblaster, and ...guess what? He went on to show how little degradation was evident even on twenty play/record passes through the cheap sound card. You might well, and justifiably, have thought, "So much for Thad's argument that we have to buy sound cards from the pro-audio manufacturers!" hyeah:

And still I do not dismiss one medium for the other!

In practice, neither do I. I know which I prefer to use, though.