Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: Digital Vinyl: Temporal Domain


Pure Vinyl Club
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this has been covered, but are you somehow part of the Channel D group that have the Pure Vinyl software? I am guessing yes?

 

Do you know that 10 microsecond temporal resolution of pulses does not require 100 khz bandwidth? And that CD is not limited to resolution of 22.7 microseconds because that is the spacing of samples?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listen to many kinds of music, but my primary interest is current--I will call it, for lack of a better term--avant-garde jazz, particularly as it can be heard in New York and Brooklyn. There are almost no vinyl recordings of this music. As I live in Brooklyn, however, I regularly hear it live. For example, I heard Mike Bisio and Kirk Knuffke play the music on the CD "Row for William O'" before it was recorded. Of course, there is no comparison between a live performance and a recording. They are just different things. A good CD recording and good system, however, will deliver an excellent experience of the music. Audiophiles are often more interested in audio than music.

 

Incidentally, I am not ignorant of vinyl. I was around many years before digital audio appeared. I have no interest in going back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure some of them are, but most that I know are far more interested in music. Either way, what does it matter? A person can like what they like and it doesn't bother me at all.

 

However: I react badly to the tone of sentences like this one:

 

"Any disturbance or contamination of this sensitive time structure leads to a noticeable loss of sound quality from the perspective of people sensitive to audiophile aspects, such as nuances in fidelity transmission of all the colors of musical instruments."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However: I react badly to the tone of sentences like this one:

 

"Any disturbance or contamination of this sensitive time structure leads to a noticeable loss of sound quality from the perspective of people sensitive to audiophile aspects, such as nuances in fidelity transmission of all the colors of musical instruments."

 

Why react at all? Is there a rule about something I don't know?

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Igor, for your great post. I've been blown away by the TIDAL 192-24 MQA content (on a Mytek Brooklyn) and believe it's the enhanced temporal domain information that makes it so compelling and enjoyable. I'm finding it hard to go back to Redbook audio—it's missing too much information. Maybe there's vinyl in my future!

 

The anti-MQA rhetoric reminds me of the initial reviews of the iPad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Do you know that 10 microsecond temporal resolution of pulses does not require 100 khz bandwidth? And that CD is not limited to resolution of 22.7 microseconds because that is the spacing of samples?

 

You're wasting your breath. Anyone with an oscilloscope (or at least one functioning ear) can prove for themselves that vinyl has much worse temporal resolution than digital. But no-one who believes in the superiority of vinyl is going to risk having their paradigm shifted. As for the article, I used to embarrass myself like that too until I learned the underlying physics. (And no, I don't dislike vinyl. I actually enjoy listening to vinyl because I marvel at just how good it can sound in spite of its deficiencies.)

"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're wasting your breath. Anyone with an oscilloscope (or at least one functioning ear) can prove for themselves that vinyl has much worse temporal resolution than digital. But no-one who believes in the superiority of vinyl is going to risk having their paradigm shifted. As for the article, I used to embarrass myself like that too until I learned the underlying physics. (And no, I don't dislike vinyl. I actually enjoy listening to vinyl because I marvel at just how good it can sound in spite of its deficiencies.)

 

I enjoy listening to vinyl because some (perhaps a lot, unfortunately) of the mastering was better than you can get with CDs or downloads these days. (I'm speaking of my old original vinyl and times I've repurchased in the newer formats.) You may not be able to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but the music companies prove over and over that the opposite is quite possible.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been covered, but are you somehow part of the Channel D group that have the Pure Vinyl software? I am guessing yes?

 

Do you know that 10 microsecond temporal resolution of pulses does not require 100 khz bandwidth? And that CD is not limited to resolution of 22.7 microseconds because that is the spacing of samples?

 

Hi esldude. The article does not describe the spacing of samples, but the temporal resolution. How close it can be placed in time one sound from another sound that the human ear could be the difference.

And if you want to be precise, 192 kHz is 5.2 microseconds,

96 kHz is 10.4 microseconds

48 kHz is 20.8 microseconds.

(Note, time resolution doesn't depend on the word length, e.g., 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 have exactly the same temporal resolution - 22.7 microseconds.)

 

Best

 

Pure Vinyl Club

 

Listen to short demos of the LP Records

and share your experience and observations.

Pure Vinyl Club

 

Listen to short demos of the LP Records

and share your experience and observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been covered, but are you somehow part of the Channel D group that have the Pure Vinyl software? I am guessing yes?

 

Do you know that 10 microsecond temporal resolution of pulses does not require 100 khz bandwidth? And that CD is not limited to resolution of 22.7 microseconds because that is the spacing of samples?

 

Hi esldude - Igor has used and researched many products for ripping vinyl. He has incredible passion for his project. He settled on the Pure Vinyl product as being the best, but he has absolutely zero relation to the company.

 

I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at, but I wanted to clarify for everyone.

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi esldude. The article does not describe the spacing of samples, but the temporal resolution. How close it can be placed in time one sound from another sound that the human ear could be the difference.

And if you want to be precise, 192 kHz is 5.2 microseconds,

96 kHz is 10.4 microseconds

48 kHz is 20.8 microseconds.

(Note, time resolution doesn't depend on the word length, e.g., 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 have exactly the same temporal resolution - 22.7 microseconds.)

 

You're mistaken, exactly as esldude suspected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy listening to vinyl because some (perhaps a lot, unfortunately) of the mastering was better than you can get with CDs or downloads these days. (I'm speaking of my old original vinyl and times I've repurchased in the newer formats.) You may not be able to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but the music companies prove over and over that the opposite is quite possible.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

That is expected. Preference depends on the medium you are familiar with.

 

It was cited in Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings

John M. Geringer and Patrick Dunnigan

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education.

 

Available online.

 

p.s. I still owe you one more link in the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Less than helpful.

 

One layperson's explanation of the Sampling Theorem:

 

 

Imagine a graph.

 

 

You have a signal (any signal, even the most complex musical signal, not just a sine wave) that is limited in how fast it can vary; in other words it is frequency-limited, say to 20,000KHz and below.

 

 

You take samples from that signal.

 

 

 

If you have taken one sample, you can draw an infinite number of curves (musical signals) that pass through that sample point on the graph.

 

 

 

When you have taken two samples, there are a lesser number of curves (musical signals) that will pass through both points.

 

 

 

What the Sampling Theorem proved mathematically is that as soon as you take a third sample point (as soon as you sample just above twice the highest frequency in your musical signal), there is only one signal in all the universe that will pass through all three points. Therefore, you have defined the signal not just at the sample points, but entirely, and you can then specify where the signal is at any point along its length, i.e., at arbitrarily small time intervals.

 

 

 

Thus the sample rate has nothing to do with the timing accuracy of a digitally sampled signal reconverted to analog.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You either take the time to study the maths, or you trust those who have.

 

 

Of course on any subject outside of people's own knowledge, the determination of whether someone with expertise is trustworthy must depend on other criteria. Should I automatically trust the 3% of climate scientists who have "taken the time to study" anthropogenic global warming and concluded it does not exist?

 

 

 

In this case from what little I know as a layperson, you are mostly correct. It is absolutely true that the Sampling Theorem proves any sample rate adequate for a band-limited signal (above twice the highest "frequency of interest") defines the signal at all time points. However, the Sampling Theorem contains idealizing assumptions that don't exist in the real world - perfectly band-limited signals, infinite time to do the filtering to reconvert digital to analog, etc. So there is in fact in practicality a limit on how finely a real-world signal, digitally sampled and reconverted to analog, can be specified in time. It is much less than the time between samples. I believe Dennis (esldude) has this information and has mentioned it previously on the forum, but I don't remember it.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...