quote:

Originally posted by stevësto harriz is right. vinyl 12" SINGLES are currently the best sound quality format available. first, you guys argue that the original source is digital, so it doesnt matter. so harriz points out the original is 24bit 96khz reduced to 16bit 44khz for cds, whereas there is no reducing when going to vinyl. so then the argument becomes oh well you cant tell the difference between 24bit96khz and 16bit44khz. haha! and then another gimp correlates the sampling rate to audio frequency range stating the ear cant hear above 22khz and cds are 44khz so you cant hear that supersonic range anyway. fukn hilarious! guys, the higher sampling rate is not so you can record higher audio frequency. the sampling rate is how many chunks of data per second. its the resolution, the fidelity. the higher the sampling rate the better. some other douche said the rich bass is because of feedback. hahahahahahahahhahahahaha. oh my lord. my sides hurt. when listening to vinyl, you are listening to a tiny microphone pickup, much like the ones used on an electric guitar. its a live sound. when listening to a cd, you're actually listening to a DAC (digital to audio converter). DACs don't sound as good as the real thing. they take of what limited data availble per second and try to produce an analog version.

Actually, you bring up the very reason sampling at 44 kHz is fine. DAC. DAC sends an electromagnetic signal to an amplifying source, commonly the driver of a loudspeaker. this caused the loud speaker to move forward or backward depending on the polarity of the electric signal. 44 kHz sends 2.2 of such signals for each period of a 20 kHz wave. Enough, get this, for both peaks. PCM then makes sure that these samples occur such that the full peak is acheived for each such period. In between samples, the driver has to spend a measurable amount of time moving from the first sample intensity to the second. This makes the resulting sound wholly analogue. It is impossible for a DAC to sound worse than an analogue source, because it is an analogue source.

In fact, by this logic, there is no such thing as a "squarized" digital effect, as they, ulitmately all produce an analogue result.

Further proof of this is that it is physically impossible for air pressure to vary so discontinuously over a distance of 0 m, not even with a membrane because that membrane would be physical, and therefore would occupy space.

And no, laughing at someone's assertions does not refute them, so tell us what does cause the "warmth and richness" in vinyl if not the feedback.

___________________

www.jexmusic.com - My website

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex , so tell us what does cause the "warmth and richness" in vinyl if not the feedback.

The richness of vinyl comes from the fact that you are listening to a superior, 24 bit 96k recording.
The warmth comes from the RIAA saturation.

quote:

Actually, you bring up the very reason sampling at 44 kHz is fine. DAC. DAC sends an electromagnetic signal to an amplifying source, commonly the driver of a loudspeaker. this caused the loud speaker to move forward or backward depending on the polarity of the electric signal. 44 kHz sends 2.2 of such signals for each period of a 20 kHz wave. Enough, get this, for both peaks. PCM then makes sure that these samples occur such that the full peak is acheived for each such period. In between samples, the driver has to spend a measurable amount of time moving from the first sample intensity to the second. This makes the resulting sound wholly analogue. It is impossible for a DAC to sound worse than an analogue source, because it is an analogue source.

There are digital to analog converters and digital to analog converers.
Get a clue... they ain't all the same.
The difference is in how well they can compute and how well they handle error correction.
That will have a trementous impact on sound quality.
Most of the convertors in 24/bit 96k professional audio are handled by Asahi Kasei AK5393vsp chips.
That shit is expensive and accurate.
It's used in high end TC electronic effects, apogee converters e.c.t.
The cheaper consumer grade stuff gets a shit-load of errors.
Errors result in shit digital sound.

i love playing cds too. especially the cdj1000s with the ability to change pitch and tempo independently of each other, that feature alone opens a whole new world. just wanted to get any suspicion of bias aside.

did you know a microphone and speaker are practically the same thing? sometimes you can plug a small speaker into the microphone jack and actually pick up some sound. a microphone is just a small speaker with a more sensitive diaphram. instead of applying voltage and driving the diaphram, a microphone's diaphram is moved back and forth from sound vibrations, this moves the magnet by the electrocoil which creates a small voltage signal. for the most live pure sound, it doesn't get much simpler than straightforward amplifying that small signal to a larger diaphram electrocoil. now what makes you thing digitizing that signal with an ADC, and then compiling it back together with a DAC, is going to sound just as good, (or better as some are hinting) as just a straight microphone amplified to speaker?

its remarkable when you think about it, almost a century later, and the speaker is still pretty much the same. no matter how awesome your digital format is, you still need to push it to a very crude mechanical device ... the speaker.

not all DACs are created equal. they have improved over the years. manufacturers use different algorithms to smooth out the digital sound and fill in the gaps of the broken waveform that is cd audio.

your "44khz = 2.2 per 20khz wave therefore no need to go higher than 44khz" and your "amplifying source, commonly the driver of a loudspeaker" shows you dont know what you're talking about. a loudspeaker's driver is an amplifying source? heh. you're mixing up sound frquency with digital sampling rate. imagine drawing a soundwave, now imagine drawing it with connect-the-dots. that's a simplified way of explaining it. the higher the sampling rate, the more dots and the closer it comes to looking like you didnt draw by connect-the-dots. "impossible for a DAC to sound worse than an analog source" ??? right, all DACs sound the same, from the cell phone to the cd deck.

the warmth/richness whatever the hell people describe of vinyl, is because its a higher fidelity format. also because they're most likely talking about a 12" SINGLE, where one whole side is devoted to a few mins. 12" singles sound much better than albums because you can have a deeper groove with more physical area in the groove, this allows much more movement of the needle and thus you can create a louder signal. because there is more material devoted, the record also lasts much longer. the decreasing sound quality argument is so overrated. i have 15 year old records ive played atleast 200 times and they still sound better than the same song on a cd.

___________________
DJ TORZ - dubstep portion of live set Mar 14th 2009

quote:

Originally posted by harriz The richness of vinyl comes from the fact that you are listening to a superior, 24 bit 96k recording. The warmth comes from the RIAA saturation.

Nice, you didn't even read my posts, you just counted them. LOL

You're a tool, through and through. Your fate is sealed, and I can't wait for karma to bite you in ass, for the thousands you've wasted on a hobby you'll never understand or be any good at.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex Actually, you bring up the very reason sampling at 44 kHz is fine. DAC. DAC sends an electromagnetic signal to an amplifying source, commonly the driver of a loudspeaker. this caused the loud speaker to move forward or backward depending on the polarity of the electric signal. 44 kHz sends 2.2 of such signals for each period of a 20 kHz wave. Enough, get this, for both peaks. PCM then makes sure that these samples occur such that the full peak is acheived for each such period. In between samples, the driver has to spend a measurable amount of time moving from the first sample intensity to the second. This makes the resulting sound wholly analogue. It is impossible for a DAC to sound worse than an analogue source, because it is an analogue source. In fact, by this logic, there is no such thing as a "squarized" digital effect, as they, ulitmately all produce an analogue result. Further proof of this is that it is physically impossible for air pressure to vary so discontinuously over a distance of 0 m, not even with a membrane because that membrane would be physical, and therefore would occupy space. And no, laughing at someone's assertions does not refute them, so tell us what does cause the "warmth and richness" in vinyl if not the feedback.

Hey man I think I get what your saying. Heres what I learned to be true when i comes to cd sample rates and A/D coversion.
There are two fundimental concepts in digital recording: the sample rate and quantization. Nyquist theory states that the sampling frequency must be at least twice the highest recorded frequency. So lets take CDs for example, recorded at a sample rate of 44.1kHz. 44.1/2= 22.05kHz. This is just out side the limit of human hearing. When this law is broken we get a distortion called aliasing.
Now the other part to this is quantization. Quantization is a binary value which digitally represents the amplitude of an audio siganl at a given point in time. We can use 1 and 0 to represent the compressions and rarefactions of an analogue wave. As a result, the actual amplitude values are not exact, but are close appoximations.
So how do sample rate and quantization come together? When you feed an analogue signal into a A/D coverter, and say its set to convert at CD quality, 44,100 audio snapshots (samples) are taken every sec. Each one of these audio snapshots is descrived that a quantization value in bits. The higher the sample rate the more snapshots we get, resulting in a more complete audio picture.

Just thought people might like to know how the A/D conversion thing works. Hope this helps and doesnt confuse you more

If only somebody could create an invention that makes vinyl cheap, I mean, that is the only reason it is dying, because digital is so much cheaper and "good enough" for most people. If vinyl was cheap to produce, use, and carry around then maybe it would have a better chance of surviving.

Surely somebody out there can invent some sort of analog storage media that is cheap and quality, that could very well solve all these file sharing dramas too since digital is the reason the files are so easy to copy in the first place. There just has to b some sort of research going on that could make a disc which does not warp, or a disc which is smaller and cheaper to make, something that can be transfered easily, anything.

I guess anything can happen, I imagine someody out there is working on a format that is quality and convenient at the same time, I wonder how long it will take to arrive, at the moment most people are choosing convenience over quality.

quote:

Originally posted by stevësto its remarkable when you think about it, almost a century later, and the speaker is still pretty much the same. no matter how awesome your digital format is, you still need to push it to a very crude mechanical device ... the speaker.

It's remarkable that so many people don't understand the psychology of sound, centuries later.

It's pushed through a speaker, and into one of our most limited sensory inputs -- our ears.

From there, our brain determines the rest, depending on environment and habit.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Correct. PS: The word "warmth" contributed to "analogue" is one of the most bullshit things ever created by man. It's an error, and it's fixed now, but instead we give it a positive term like "warmth" to make up for the flaw and save our asses. It's all bullshit. If they had called it "low-end distortion" instead of "warmth", you can bet your ass you wouldn't be standing so firmly behind this illusion of an idea today. Language is an amazing tool, isn't it? PSS: Your low hum feedback can be recreated through digital VSTis too. In a variety of ways limited only to the programmer. You can run your set through many other neat VSTis also, the sky is the limit.

Hey clueless 'screw head' unlike digital distortion, the worst sound man has brought to mankind, the warmth of analog second harmonic distortion is a pleasant effect no one can deny.
A great example of that is the 500$ Studio Projects T3 tube Mic.
This is the microphone that Gabriel & Dresden had Jes sing into on the song "As the Rush Comes''.
That mic matches her voice and the mood of the track perfectly.
They could afford to use a far more transparent microphone that costs several times the price of that but what they used matched the source in the best way possible.
Listen to that track you will hear the 'mud' and 'dirt' in her voice making it much more airy and human sounding.
It's all idillic sophisticated and pleasant as trance-cracker, wanna-be reviewer System-j would say.

There is tube equipment that costs several thousands of dollars to distort the signal in a pleasant way.
There are people in audio research paying the best programmers of the world millions of dollars to digitally emulate distortion and saturation in plug ins.
And I am talking TDM resolution stuff not cheap vst shit.


Get a fu cking clue before you open your mouth again.

quote:

Originally posted by stevësto did you know a microphone and speaker are practically the same thing? sometimes you can plug a small speaker into the microphone jack and actually pick up some sound. a microphone is just a small speaker with a more sensitive diaphram. instead of applying voltage and driving the diaphram, a microphone's diaphram is moved back and forth from sound vibrations, this moves the magnet by the electrocoil which creates a small voltage signal. for the most live pure sound, it doesn't get much simpler than straightforward amplifying that small signal to a larger diaphram electrocoil. now what makes you thing digitizing that signal with an ADC, and then compiling it back together with a DAC, is going to sound just as good, (or better as some are hinting) as just a straight microphone amplified to speaker?

To the average human? Yes. As both Shibby and I have stated. The majority of the problems that occur are inaudible in all but the most extreme situation, and are constantly being improved upon.

quote:

a loudspeaker's driver is an amplifying source? heh.

It amplifies a wave form, doesn't it? Very well, how about sound producing source? You pick something, because I don't have time to argue about semantics.

This isn't even part of my argument.

quote:

you're mixing up sound frquency with digital sampling rate.

No. I'm not. I'm pointing out their correlation, which you are subsequently ignoring and trivializing.

quote:

imagine drawing a soundwave,

Gladly:



It's not a shining example, but it gets the point across, I think.

quote:

"impossible for a DAC to sound worse than an analog source" ??? right, all DACs sound the same, from the cell phone to the cd deck.

The problem in cell phones isn't due to the DAC. Cells actually do have shit-poor sample rates, not to mention their speakers lack the volume to reproduce an audible bass noise. The DAC creates as high-fidelity a sound as it can with what it's given.

quote:

the warmth/richness whatever the hell people describe of vinyl, is because its a higher fidelity format. also because they're most likely talking about a 12" SINGLE, where one whole side is devoted to a few mins. 12" singles sound much better than albums because you can have a deeper groove with more physical area in the groove, this allows much more movement of the needle and thus you can create a louder signal. because there is more material devoted, the record also lasts much longer.

Wrong. Simply wrong. The one thing that anyone who's even given an iota of thought to psychoacoustics can tell you is that "warmth" is a word that is commonly attached to a sound that is rich in low end, and as I have essentially said more times than I can count, 44.1 kHz is more than enough to reproduce any sound in the low end. Fidelity, in fact, does not create warmth. Fidelity creates a clean, shining sound with a great deal of high end, because the high end doesn't attenuate.

quote:

the decreasing sound quality argument is so overrated. i have 15 year old records ive played atleast 200 times and they still sound better than the same song on a cd.

This says one of three things.

You take incredibly good care of your records. (Clean before and after use, take all precautions to reduce wear, have the highest quality needle that money can buy, etc.)

You can't hear the attenuation, and shouldn't be taking the audiophile's stance in the first place.

You've been taken in by the only somewhat meritous notion that the imperfections inherent in vinyl make the sound somehow "better."

It says nothing about vinyl itself.

___________________

www.jexmusic.com - My website

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex Wrong. Simply wrong. The one thing that anyone who's even given an iota of thought to psychoacoustics can tell you is that "warmth" is a word that is commonly attached to a sound that is rich in low end, and as I have essentially said more times than I can count, 44.1 kHz is more than enough to reproduce any sound in the low end. Fidelity, in fact, does not create warmth. Fidelity creates a clean, shining sound with a great deal of high end, because the high end doesn't attenuate.

Damn right it's shinning.
Shinny and and brittle is the word to describe redbook.
Lets assume for a second that you are right and red-book is just as good sonically as DVD-A...
A sample of 24 bit 96.000 is just as good in terms of clarity and depth as a sample of 16 bit 44.100...
Tell me...
Why do studios since the early 90s record at DVD-A and not at red-book fidelity?
Why do they dither to cover up the linearity of digital?
Why does most professional digital audio equipment operate at least at 24 bit 96k resolution?

If you are right they wouldn't need those cpu intensive sample rates...
Everything would be redbook...
But it is not redbook anymore is it?
Why?
Redbook is just as good according to you...

quote:

The DAC creates as high-fidelity a sound as it can with what it's given.

There are several DAC and come in different prices...
Which DAC are you talking about?

LOL @ this thread..

quote:

Originally posted by harriz Why does most professional digital audio equipment operate at least at 24 bit 96k resolution?

Because RECORDING at 24bit reduces noise in final processing. You can't hear any difference, if you record a vinyl to harddisk at 44,1/16 or 96/24. 44,1/16 sounds exactly like the original vinyl source, for your ears. If you hear ultrasounds above 20kHz, then I'm wrong. Ok, 24bits add more dynamics to the sound, below the 96dBs of dynamic range. Is there any record available which uses those dynamics? Vinyl has less dynamics than CD.
96kHz and 192kHz are salesman's bullshit, 48kHz is a standard in studios and almost every vinyl record is from 44,1 or 48kHz source. And actually, I do know vinyl mastering engineers who only accept their mastering source in CD-format. 44,1/24 is the standard, though. What do you think about that?

You should read some theory about sampling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquis...ampling_theorem

Last edited by humilis on Aug-29-2006 at 07:57

quote:

Originally posted by humilis Ok, 24bits add more dynamics to the sound, below the 96dBs of dynamic range.

Boy you are truly clueless....
Recording at a higher sample rate does not ''add'' any dynamics to the sound you idiot.
It is just capable of capturing the sound far more accurately due to the higher resolution. There is more room for rounding errors as it goes from thousands to millions.

quote:

48kHz is a standard in studios and almost every vinyl record is from 44,1 or 48kHz source. 44,1/24 is the standard, though.

I think that it's true only for the older records.
You don't buy these for their super awesome fidelity you buy them because you like the music and it's damn cool to own it on vinyl.

quote:

What do you think about that?

I think you don't know what you are talking about.
If it' s 24 bit there is more continuous fu cking bass there.
The longer waveforms of the low end sound better if you are listening to 24 bits.

(Real) studios work at 24bit 96k and so do high end audio equipment.
All things in the analog stage equal the higher the sample rate the better the sound.

quote:

Vinyl has less dynamics than CD.

Wrong again.

quote:

96kHz and 192kHz are salesman's bullshit...

I am sure that after the people working at these studios (bothering with they high sample rates) read your very convincing post they will then realize they are being marketed upon by ''salesmen bullshit'' and they will sell everything and start using redbook as if it was 85 all over again...
Those naive people are being marketed upon to believe they need 24 bit 96k gear when they build commercial recording facilities.
They should come visit trance addict and hear what humils has to say about digital audio.
They will listen to the 'vandykclubber' as well.
They will start recording everything straight to the superior sound of mp3.