TurnTables Sound better than Digital !!! - Really ???

[thatguy]

Post deleted.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Music for bats .... ROFL!
Them should be hearing 'noise' not music
AND bats too are nocturnal. Someone's given them privileged company

You can be sure that I'll be keeping the bats company

He He! Finally a dog enters our discussion.

... ... ...

Any way, harmonics are very important for all music, in fact the more of it, the better.

The reason for the dogs, bats and even whales, whatever, is that as well as hearing the special sounds that they make and rely on in life and nature, they hear what we hear too --- but they must hear it differently, because they hear more.

This is wild conjecture, and of almost no practical use, because we can never experience sounds as a dog does, but I suggest that it is possible that there is a point beyond which the harmonics of a musical note might not sound so good. And I also admit that, to a dog, their absence might sound terrible

The work of instrument maker, singer and instrumentalist is to produce the right harmonics in the right amounts. This is what they do, within the sphere of audible sound which, by definition, is all they can do. Possibly they are also unconsciously working with inaudible harmonics, and, if they are, it adds weight to the argument that we should record and play them.

But more might not always be better.

 

[Saket]

But more might not always be better.

Just as if humans could have heard Infrasonics...less than 20HZ, we would have gone mad by hearing our own moving muscles & that lifelong heart beat!
So, lets be happy with whatever we have got. I guess adults loose some high frequency hearing capability just to ensure they do not get 'overly disturbed' by their screaming wifeys So that serves a domestic purpose.

 

[ranjeetrain]

I don't think anyone is saying Class AB is bad and Class A is the only way to go.

Not directly, but hints are here and there. Here is an example...

in spite of the advances made in the Class AB topology, they can't still quite match the sonic superiority of well designed Class A Amps IMO. Incidentally I'm also in the list of those who are "chasing the gains of pure Class A" and building Pass DIY F5 Turbo.

And that is my gripe. Class A is no longer "superior". It may be cheap, it may be easy to design, but it is no way "superior". There are enough class AB amps doing it better than class A counterparts.

Not that's what is called a "sweeping statement"

Not really. Here is an example of what is called a sweeping statement.

IMHO the fluidity of music flowing through a good Class A amplifier will be superior to that of a Class AB amplifier in a a given chain consisting of gear that are resolving enough.

 

[ranjeetrain]

take an analog signal, pass it through a good quality ADC and DAC. feed both of the signals to a comparator ckt (opamp based should do). if you get an output (or should I say significant output), you know that nyquist is lying:lol:.

How about the same test is done on Analog

Like pass the current from the microphone to an analog analyzer and then pass the current from the cartridge and see if the signals are same or not?

 

[Gerry_the_Merry]

Let me repeat my earlier question - what about harmonics (which are of higher frequency AND very low amplitude compared to main notes) being represented on the LP grooves in the form of extremely fine undulations, which are at risk of being materially changed by dust particles or by simple wearing out (even a rock develops a smooth face over time if water keeps running over it)...? So why should "LPs give a more realistic sound based on conveying higher harmonics more wholesomely (paraphrasing a comment made earlier somewhere)"?

 

[ranjeetrain]

Once the signal is stored in the computer as a series of bits (now with reduced fidelity because of the limited word length per sample), this stored signal can be used to completely and faithfully reproduce the original analog signal, according to the sampling theorem (and in reality), taking into account again that the magnitude of the output signal may not be the exact value of the original signal (to repeat, because of the limit of the finite word-length representation). At this point, except for the "rounding error" (which is what I assume Ranjeetrain means in his post?) this signal contains ALL the information in the original analog signal. There is NO loss in this representation. I am repeating the same statement to drive home the point, so apologies to those who've already grasped it :|

Hi Ajinkya, first of all thank you for taking your time to write such a detailed post, it was very informative and a pleasure to read it. However, I disagree with the point you made here which I have highlighted.

There IS a very small amount of loss during signal approximation. It is not debatable. The only thing debatable is - HOW SIGNIFICANT is that "loss". Is that loss audible by ordinary humans?

Let me try to clarify my point. Take a graph paper (the one kids use in school to draw plots) and draw a sine wave, with the constraint that you must follow the lines on the graph paper (This constraint is the real world constrain digital imposes on us. And this constraint is what higher resolution media tries to minimize). You will see that the wave form doesn't look natural (free flowing). It has edges. How prominent these edges are will depend on how densely printed the graph paper is. If the paper has squares of a centimeter size, you will struggle very hard to create a proper wave form. When square sizes become small, the edges start becoming more and more round. As the squares approach a millimeter size you will almost see a perfect wave form (looked from a few feet away).

That's precisely what happens when an audio signal is sampled digitally (or video signal for that matter). Larger the sampling depth, less the edges, smoother the sound. To make is easily understandable I will take a visual example. On a B&W monitor you can see the bands easily if the monitor is capable of displaying only 16 shades. Situation will get better if it can display 64 shades, but our eyes can still see the banding. Unless it displays more than 256 shades of greys (limit of human eyes) we can see banding. With respect to color monitors the situation is even more serious. Human eyes can easily recongnize hundreds of thousand of colors (when seen in isolation) and even more when combined with varying levels of hues and saturations.

The same holds true for Audio. Human ear can easily hear signals as low as 5-6 dBs up to 120+ dB. I am mentioning this because some people claim on internet that human hearing range is only 40-60 dBs. I did a test on myself and I will provide details of that test if FMs like to know. But I was easily able to hear audio samples in the entire range of my amplifier used for test (about 100 dBs).

Why a longer word length (or the sampling size) is important is that - higher sampling size allows for capturing the analog signal with greater precision. As I concluded from my test, human ear is capable of about 140 dB range which is quite a lot. With the increased word length it doesn't only become possible to sample the analog signal with greater precision, but also stuff more dynamic range into the digital recording.

Finally, for the non believers in the word-length doesn't matter, please PM me your email, I will send you samples of same recording at various sampling depths, you will instantly hear the difference.

To conclude, digital does have approximation round-offs. With increased word length and increased sampling frequency these round-offs are attempted to be made as close to NIL as possible.

Only of you Ajinkya, since you are mathematically gifted: think of it in terms of Calculous. As the sampling frequency and sampling depth increases, approximation round-offs approach zero (and consequently the resultant signal is as close to the original signal as possible).

Disclaimer: I have typed all this stuff in a huff. Please ignore typos and point any factual errors politely. I didn't write it in manner it be read by editors at the Royal Society

 

[captrajesh]

Class A is no longer "superior". It may be cheap, it may be easy to design, but it is no way "superior". There are enough class AB amps doing it better than class A counterparts.

Not really. Here is an example of what is called a sweeping statement.

Sorry for the confusion. I should've mentioned "At a given price point" That is why Ive added it here. Hope you now agree.

 

[gobble]

Let me repeat my earlier question - what about harmonics (which are of higher frequency AND very low amplitude compared to main notes) being represented on the LP grooves in the form of extremely fine undulations, which are at risk of being materially changed by dust particles or by simple wearing out (even a rock develops a smooth face over time if water keeps running over it)...? So why should "LPs give a more realistic sound based on conveying higher harmonics more wholesomely (paraphrasing a comment made earlier somewhere)"?

All I understand from listening is that it is the rough edges to the sound from an LP that gives a more realistic effect. The major flaw of a CD recording/playback lies in the smoothness of its sound. Now dont mistake rough edges for distortion and you will understand.

--G0bble

 

[heliumflight]

All I understand from listening is that it is the rough edges to the sound from an LP that gives a more realistic effect. The major flaw of a CD recording/playback lies in the smoothness of its sound. Now dont mistake rough edges for distortion and you will understand.

--G0bble

Smoothen the edges with a scotch.

helium
HiFi I - CA 640c V2 + Sansui AU-317 + Vintage B&W DM4 + Pure Silver cables
HiFi II - SB Classic + MARANTZ PM6100SA & SM6100SA + Wharfedale Denton 80th Anniversary LE + Lyrita IC & Speaker cables

 

[ranjeetrain]

Sorry for the confusion. I should've mentioned "At a given price point" That is why Ive added it here. Hope you now agree.

Well, pricing depends more on the manufacturer than the class of the device

Here is an example: Take Threshold S/500 and Pass Labs X150.5. Both the amps are based on the same design, both have very similar specs, but Threshold costs just $3000 and the Pass Labs $4500. So, the price is actually more based on the reputation of the brand. And here it can't be argued that it is due to better components in Pass Labs. I was considering the Pass Labs amp and while studying it came to know about Threshold. Finally managed to hear both of them and found that the Threshold is actually a better sounding amp than the Pass Lab.

There will be tons more examples. I took this particular example because both the amps are based on same design, have similar spec, so are very comparable. Not like an apple vs orange comparison. And most importantly I have heard them both to come to conclude that the Threshold was a much better value.

So, I have learned that pricing depends more on the manufacturer than any other factor.

 

[tirthankar]

I was considering the Pass Labs amp and while studying it came to know about Threshold. Finally managed to hear both of them and found that the Threshold is actually a better sounding amp than the Pass Lab.

Not really surprising. The best stuff Nelson Pass made were when he was with Threshold and the older Pass Labs stuff.

 

[ranjeetrain]

The pass labs possibly looks more impressive. But what makes you think it houses better components inside?

You read it upside down. I said, "it can't be argued that it is due to better components in Pass Labs.".

 

[tirthankar]

You read it upside down. I said, "it can't be argued that it is due to better components in Pass Labs.".

Oops..I am sorry . Post edited.

So did you get the Threshold?

 

[gobble]

Smoothen the edges with a scotch.

helium

Read again ... I said I don't want them smooth ...

Moral: Do not drink and post

--G0bble

 

[ranjeetrain]

Oops..I am sorry . Post edited.

So did you get the Threshold?

No harm

I'd have gotten it in a heartbeat if price was reasonable. But the dealer had a huge affinity with it. His asking price was about 3 times the US price in used market. Besides, I don't get impressed easily. I found it good, but I have heard better, so this won't make a cut with me until I got a super deal.

The dealer isn't too far from me. He has a full stack of Sonic Frontiers components. Those beauties are on my radar now. I am going to listen to the whole stack of Sonic Frontiers and take some call later. I had heard the Sonic Frontier amp sometime ago and I was quite impressed. Also I am torn between tube and SS these days. I have auditioned some great tube gear but keep going back to SS for the attack and decays sake

 

[tirthankar]

^^ In the first pic you posted of the amps, the floorstanders just behind the ones in front.. did you listen to them? Impressions?

If not please go and have a listen with the Threshold if it is possible for you, and post your impressions..

BTW.. those speakers like to have some space around them.. they are completely suffocated where they are now.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Not sure which one are you referring to but I didn't get to them. One of them was a JPW, another one was an old Tannoy, and one B&W 802 S3. None of them are my type of speakers. But time permitting I will audition the 802 at least. Just to gauge how it fares compared to other similarly priced speakers. Specially it will be great to pitt it against the Wilson Benesch Square, which seems to be pretty popular in Europe.

 

[tirthankar]

Not sure which one are you referring to but I didn't get to them. One of them was a JPW, another one was an old Tannoy, and one B&W 802 S3. None of them are my type of speakers. But time permitting I will audition the 802 at least. Just to gauge how it fares compared to other similarly priced speakers. Specially it will be great to pitt it against the Wilson Benesch Square, which seems to be pretty popular in Europe.

I was talking about the B&W. How much is the dealer asking for them?

 

[ranjeetrain]

Approx 2 lacs. Condition seemed good to look at. Though I didn't look closely or hear them.