Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: Digital Vinyl: Temporal Domain


Recommended Posts

Ah- there's the disconnect.

 

This article is about the Temporal domain. Not the time domain.

 

The spatial and temporal domains have been used for imagery resolution for 70+ years.

 

If you are willing to accept certain simplifications, such as all sound is only sinusoidal plane waves. That is a proposition.

 

Sheffield Labs did a good job 35+ years ago demonstrating that 50kHz clearly demonstrated a number of audiophonic differences. On just stereo platters. Open fields vs closed halls vs anechoic chambers. Placing microphones on instruments vs placing microphones at a listener's distance and location.

 

MQA starts off with a simple dismissal that above 30 kHz contributions for phase and harmonics are not "requirements". That's a sales proposition.

 

Since Fourier's time- our understanding of sound and perception has changed greatly. So you will need a tool kit larger than just the one. Which in part is the the thesis of this article's author.

 

There are now at least 6 attributions. (IMHO- at least a 7th, soundscape, should be a peer to the other six.)

 

Even when one tries to do the cepstral domain using Fourier (the cepstrum is defined as the inverse DFT of the log magnitude of the DFT of a signal) has given rise to these other attribution sets. {Cepstral domain was an attempt to get a signal that looks more like what our ears would actually hear it as opposed to how it actually looks according to the electronic sensors.}

 

The flag flown in our face ought to be the recording industry's own representations. I am putting a picture here of the encoders. Note the psychoacoustic model box. Another estimation (not authentic or mathematical certainty) of the original sound. Unless "signal" for a radio transceiver is the same as the perceived sound.

 

And this author starts from a position that his cognition isn't satisfied by that simplification.

Link to comment
Ah- there's the disconnect.

This article is about the Temporal domain. Not the time domain.

...

 

And the difference is... ?

"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
the cepstrum is defined as the inverse DFT of the log magnitude of the DFT of a signal

 

 

OK, found this portion of the copy-and-paste from a Texas A&M University Intro to Speech Processing course. Wonder where the rest came from?

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 Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Since Fourier's time- our understanding of sound and perception has changed greatly. So you will need a tool kit larger than just the one. Which in part is the the thesis of this article's author.

 

The Fourier transform is still valid. It's a proven mathematical fact, and as such it will always be true.

 

Nothing of what you say makes any sense.

Link to comment
Moreover, those mathemagicians were concerned with mathematics. Not sound, not audio, not perception.

And when they wanted some music they could go out and attend a WAM gig.

 

Hey! I've been to a WHAM gig, Good times!

Link to comment
Regardless of any merit the article may have, one has to be suspicious when Art Dudley is used as a reference for a technological discussion.

 

This article is specifically written in a clear, easy form, which would be 90% of the readers on the CA, which are not interested in all this higher mathematics and who just want to know what they need for good listening to your favorite music.

It was not meant for technological discussion. And only a small passage contains some technical information and is the cause of all this disagreement and criticism (due to misunderstanding or unwillingness to understand that in fact the article is written about something else).

Maybe it's my fault, because I do not know good English and I use Google translator.

 

Quotation from an interview with Art Dudley was used precisely because it is directly related to the material of this article. And it is to this passage. Or is Art Dudley not good enough to quote? To make it clear what exactly Art Dudley wanted to say, and in the context of which he said this, I provide a larger excerpt from this interview. Sorry, but the interview is only in Polish and I again have to use Google translator:

 

"Wojciech Pacuła: What are then the greatest sins of modern audio?

Art Dudley: In my opinion the two sins are the worst:

1) We wrangled down, with every movement, by those who point to this or that element of design or construction, and say, "It does not matter." I have one answer for them: "Bullshit, EVERYTHING is important!"

We hear, however, again and again. Manufacturers claim that it does not matter what material performed amplifier housing. From engineers to remasteringiem who think it does not matter that the board LP was incised with digital tape (or using a digital delay). From the people, by which high resolution is not important, because the Nyquist frequency for CD 44.1 kHz is sufficient.

The latter is particularly problematic when we realize that the Nyquist frequency does not apply to work and reconstruction filters decymacyjnych composite signal. Indeed, the two samples may be used to describe a single frequency, but do not provide a sufficient density of the samples to describe the speed with which the signal increases or decreases - and this is a key distinction between the music and mere sound."

 

High Fidelity

Pure Vinyl Club

 

Listen to short demos of the LP Records

and share your experience and observations.

Link to comment
This article is specifically written in a clear, easy form,

 

Clear, easy, and 100% wrong.

 

which would be 90% of the readers on the CA, which are not interested in all this higher mathematics and who just want to know what they need for good listening to your favorite music.

It was not meant for technological discussion. And only a small passage contains some technical information and is the cause of all this disagreement and criticism (due to misunderstanding or unwillingness to understand that in fact the article is written about something else).

Maybe it's my fault, because I do not know good English and I use Google translator.

 

Quotation from an interview with Art Dudley was used precisely because it is directly related to the material of this article. And it is to this passage. Or is Art Dudley not good enough to quote? To make it clear what exactly Art Dudley wanted to say, and in the context of which he said this, I provide a larger excerpt from this interview. Sorry, but the interview is only in Polish and I again have to use Google translator:

 

"Wojciech Pacuła: What are then the greatest sins of modern audio?

Art Dudley: In my opinion the two sins are the worst:

1) We wrangled down, with every movement, by those who point to this or that element of design or construction, and say, "It does not matter." I have one answer for them: "Bullshit, EVERYTHING is important!"

We hear, however, again and again. Manufacturers claim that it does not matter what material performed amplifier housing. From engineers to remasteringiem who think it does not matter that the board LP was incised with digital tape (or using a digital delay). From the people, by which high resolution is not important, because the Nyquist frequency for CD 44.1 kHz is sufficient.

The latter is particularly problematic when we realize that the Nyquist frequency does not apply to work and reconstruction filters decymacyjnych composite signal. Indeed, the two samples may be used to describe a single frequency, but do not provide a sufficient density of the samples to describe the speed with which the signal increases or decreases - and this is a key distinction between the music and mere sound."

 

High Fidelity

 

Bullshit. That quote is a perfect example of why Art Dudley is not to be trusted on technical matters. He talks a lot, but he clearly has no clue whatsoever.

Link to comment
This article is specifically written in a clear, easy form, which would be 90% of the readers on the CA, which are not interested in all this higher mathematics and who just want to know what they need for good listening to your favorite music.

"Wojciech Pacuła: What are then the greatest sins of modern audio?

Art Dudley: In my opinion the two sins are the worst:

1) We wrangled down, with every movement, by those who point to this or that element of design or construction, and say, "It does not matter." I have one answer for them: "Bullshit, EVERYTHING is important!"

We hear, however, again and again. Manufacturers claim that it does not matter what material performed amplifier housing. From engineers to remasteringiem who think it does not matter that the board LP was incised with digital tape (or using a digital delay). From the people, by which high resolution is not important, because the Nyquist frequency for CD 44.1 kHz is sufficient.

The latter is particularly problematic when we realize that the Nyquist frequency does not apply to work and reconstruction filters decymacyjnych composite signal. Indeed, the two samples may be used to describe a single frequency, but do not provide a sufficient density of the samples to describe the speed with which the signal increases or decreases - and this is a key distinction between the music and mere sound."

 

High Fidelity

I think it's a great shame that rather than sticking to "I like the sound of this", people have to grasp for pseudo-technical explanation for their preferences. AS with Mr Dudley's interview, the article in the OP produces entirely spurious arguments for the preference for vinyl. This is painfully obvious, but for some reason it is a persistent mistake. The heart of the matter does not lie in physics, maths or information theory but in psychoacoustics. Human beings (even audiophiles) are not sound quality measuring machines; or if they are they are not good ones. The experience of hearing depends only partially on fluctuations in air pressure in the region of the ears which we call "sound": it depends to a very large extent on layers of processing of the neural information generated by those sound pressure waves and other sensory information (including sight). People sometimes like distortion and noise even if they think that they are enjoying something else.

 

It is easy to explain why (some) people prefer vinyl (sometimes) in terms which do not require one to mangle, trivialise or distort any laws of physics, maths or information theory, or to imagine that one can hear sounds over 20khz when one in fact probably can't hear over 15khz. The only difficult thing about it is giving up the notion that what one loves is fidelity/accuracy etc in any objective sense.

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to comment

 

Or is Art Dudley not good enough to quote?

 

 

[/i]High Fidelity

 

Exactly. He is not qualified to discuss the science or mathematics involved in sound reproduction.

 

By using the quote you did, you are implying that he is an expert in the technology of digital recording. In fact, he as no scientific or mathematical qualifications and has never written anything that would lead one to believe otherwise. His forte is discussing what he hears, not the technology behind it.

 

Quote him about what he hears, not why.

Link to comment
I think it's a great shame that rather than sticking to "I like the sound of this", people have to grasp for pseudo-technical explanation for their preferences. AS with Mr Dudley's interview, the article in the OP produces entirely spurious arguments for the preference for vinyl. This is painfully obvious, but for some reason it is a persistent mistake. The heart of the matter does not lie in physics, maths or information theory but in psychoacoustics. Human beings (even audiophiles) are not sound quality measuring machines; or if they are they are not good ones. The experience of hearing depends only partially on fluctuations in air pressure in the region of the ears which we call "sound": it depends to a very large extent on layers of processing of the neural information generated by those sound pressure waves and other sensory information (including sight). People sometimes like distortion and noise even if they think that they are enjoying something else.

 

It is easy to explain why (some) people prefer vinyl (sometimes) in terms which do not require one to mangle, trivialise or distort any laws of physics, maths or information theory, or to imagine that one can hear sounds over 20khz when one in fact probably can't hear over 15khz. The only difficult thing about it is giving up the notion that what one loves is fidelity/accuracy etc in any objective sense.

 

It seems, this whole thing has also just degenerated into yet another "CD vs. vinyl" religious war. You always accuse me of opposing vinyl and digital. Show me a place in my two articles and comments, where I praise LP and disparage DIGITAL. All just the opposite. There is no TT in any of my sound systems. And I do not have any of my LPs, none at all! And never will be!

 

TT, on which I make rips with LP is in the studio and it is integrated into professional equipment. And even in the studio, I never hear an "analog" sound from the LP, only DIGITAL. Because the phono preamp that I use for recording does not have a RIAA curve corrector. Only the "flat" XLR output and RIAA are superimposed in the digital domain. I always hear from the LP only a digital sound and I really like what I hear.

 

This is the essence of this project - to make the most effective TT and with the help of high-class professional equipment to make the most effective LP rip. And that's all! Farewell to LP! Put it on the shelf in the old closet and forget how terrible a dream, all those inconveniences and problems with LP. Just this! It is the high quality of the DIGITAL equipment and software that has allowed to achieve very good results. Now you can write down everything that is on LP, with great reserve, absolutely all the information.

 

And yes, I really like high fidelity when listening to music. In the studio, I listen to professional monitors. But at home I do not have any tube amplifiers. Only active pro monitors of different sizes (4", 5", 6", 8"). And my main setup is the Grimm Audio LS-1, which many consider the most high fidelity system in the world.

Pure Vinyl Club

 

Listen to short demos of the LP Records

and share your experience and observations.

Link to comment
It seems, this whole thing has also just degenerated into yet another "CD vs. vinyl" religious war. You always accuse me of opposing vinyl and digital. Show me a place in my two articles and comments, where I praise LP and disparage DIGITAL. All just the opposite. There is no TT in any of my sound systems. And I do not have any of my LPs, none at all! And never will be!

 

TT, on which I make rips with LP is in the studio and it is integrated into professional equipment. And even in the studio, I never hear an "analog" sound from the LP, only DIGITAL. Because the phono preamp that I use for recording does not have a RIAA curve corrector. Only the "flat" XLR output and RIAA are superimposed in the digital domain. I always hear from the LP only a digital sound and I really

 

"So, one of the main advantages of vinyl is the lack of restrictions of temporal resolution in LP. "

I can't help it if you can't follow your own argument. There is no such advantage. If you want to capture everything on an LP., make sure you record at least 10/32

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to comment

 

"Wojciech Pacuła: What are then the greatest sins of modern audio?

Art Dudley: In my opinion the two sins are the worst:

1) We wrangled down, with every movement, by those who point to this or that element of design or construction, and say, "It does not matter." I have one answer for them: "Bullshit, EVERYTHING is important!"

We hear, however, again and again. Manufacturers claim that it does not matter what material performed amplifier housing. From engineers to remasteringiem who think it does not matter that the board LP was incised with digital tape (or using a digital delay). From the people, by which high resolution is not important, because the Nyquist frequency for CD 44.1 kHz is sufficient.

The latter is particularly problematic when we realize that the Nyquist frequency does not apply to work and reconstruction filters decymacyjnych composite signal. Indeed, the two samples may be used to describe a single frequency, but do not provide a sufficient density of the samples to describe the speed with which the signal increases or decreases - and this is a key distinction between the music and mere sound."

 

High Fidelity

 

What? If your two samples are sampling a large signal the sample values would be higher. If a lower signal it will be lower. If it goes from low to high rapidly sample values will increase rapidly. If the signal changes too much between samples you have clipping (from too large a signal). If the signal changes one way and then diminishes in the other direction it by definition is a frequency above the sample rate. In competent gear that will have been filtered out so as not to happen.

 

Another name for the speed at which a signal changes is slew rate. Slew rate is not just about frequency. People think 30 khz is fast the rate of change is so rapid. Yet a 3000 hz tone at max level has the same max slew rate as 30,000 hz at -20 db. Even cymbals have their ultrasonic level down more than 20 db versus the max level at lower frequencies. The speed of change is not even close to a problem. If it is CD then it will have been filtered out, but the rate of change is not stressing the digital sampling.

 

Here is a page with cymbal reviews by John E Johnson Jr.

Cymbal Reviews with Spectral Analysis - DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM

 

Better still here are some files recorded with an Earthworks microphone calibrated to 30 khz. It likely responds pretty nicely beyond 30 khz, but that is the calibrated bandwidth. Recordings were at 176 khz/24.

 

Welcome Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity

 

The other deceptive picture people have in their heads is things like guitar strings and cymbals get plucked or smacked and go straight to high frequency max level. This however is not the case. It takes a few cycles to build to max level.

 

Here is a picture of the fastest beginning transient I found on that page with the recorded cymbals. I didn't look at all of them, but this is one of the faster ones. Notice it takes something like 8 cycles to go from silent to maximum sound level after it is struck. I have seen similar behaviour from stringed instruments, and brass instruments during 'sharp' transients. After reaching max level it goes into approximately an exponential decay.

 

initial transient mega power ride ping.png

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
Another name for the speed at which a signal changes is slew rate. Slew rate is not just about frequency. People think 30 khz is fast the rate of change is so rapid. Yet a 3000 hz tone at max level has the same max slew rate as 30,000 hz at -20 db.

 

Slew rate is proportional to frequency times amplitude. This is why opamps are usually specified with a gain-bandwidth product.

Link to comment

Here you can see the absence of temporary errors in vinyl and DSD:

 

13.gif

 

Here in the DAC's NOS:NOS

 

There should be two categories of recordings:For home: DSD 5.6MHz and at least 30dB dynamic range - or, if preferred PCM, 24/192 and at least 30dB dynamic range. In this case recommend the use of DAC's NOS.For the car: DSD 2.8MHz and at least 10dB dynamic range - or 16/48 and at least 10dB dynamic range.The DSD does not even need a DAC to be played:http://Http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/273474-best-dac-no-dac.htmlDynamic range problems have been reported for years by Recording Engineers, and those of temporary errors by such well-known engineers as Bob Stuart of Meridian.Let us imagine that we are talking about the fraud of the VW emissions, which was kept secret, and when it was discovered the legislators legislated in favor of the consumer, the injured, and against the manufacturer, the fraudster.

The situation in Audio is as if the legislators had punished to the consumers to contaminate in the case of the emissions. Record companies and musicians have seriously degraded the quality of the recordings, applying more and more compression, which currently tends towards the 4dB of dynamic range, but charging them as if they were products of the highest quality, and legislators have punished the Consumers for not wanting to pay for substandard products.Lawmakers should oblige record companies and musicians to respect the quality standards I have exposed, since they are the fraudsters, not the consumers, and see how the situation changes and consumers pay for good products, the proof is in the vinyl.And there would be a rather simple way of eliminating, if it would seriously hinder piracy, but it is something that I certainly will not talk about as long as this consumer fraud situation persists. Fraud that lasts for more than 35 years, is enough.Greetings.

Link to comment
Here you can see the absence of temporary errors in vinyl and DSD:

 

13.gif

 

Here in the DAC's NOS:NOS

 

There should be two categories of recordings:For home: DSD 5.6MHz and at least 30dB dynamic range - or, if preferred PCM, 24/192 and at least 30dB dynamic range. In this case recommend the use of DAC's NOS.For the car: DSD 2.8MHz and at least 10dB dynamic range - or 16/48 and at least 10dB dynamic range.The DSD does not even need a DAC to be played:http://Http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/273474-best-dac-no-dac.htmlDynamic range problems have been reported for years by Recording Engineers, and those of temporary errors by such well-known engineers as Bob Stuart of Meridian.Let us imagine that we are talking about the fraud of the VW emissions, which was kept secret, and when it was discovered the legislators legislated in favor of the consumer, the injured, and against the manufacturer, the fraudster.

The situation in Audio is as if the legislators had punished to the consumers to contaminate in the case of the emissions. Record companies and musicians have seriously degraded the quality of the recordings, applying more and more compression, which currently tends towards the 4dB of dynamic range, but charging them as if they were products of the highest quality, and legislators have punished the Consumers for not wanting to pay for substandard products.Lawmakers should oblige record companies and musicians to respect the quality standards I have exposed, since they are the fraudsters, not the consumers, and see how the situation changes and consumers pay for good products, the proof is in the vinyl.And there would be a rather simple way of eliminating, if it would seriously hinder piracy, but it is something that I certainly will not talk about as long as this consumer fraud situation persists. Fraud that lasts for more than 35 years, is enough.Greetings.

 

Really pitiful post. Apparently your first as well.

 

The analog fiction in the graphic, I hope you realize your analog is not really going to look like that. At least not on tape or on LP. That signal as an input would have a bandwidth of several hundred kilohertz. So no surprise that a band limited digital recording doesn't reproduce it completely. Equally fictitious is the DSD representation. DSD incorporates an ultrasonic filter at the output and with it in place it won't look like the fiction in the graphic when it comes out the other end.

 

People do love fiction.

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
The graphic is from a Professional Audio company, it is not fiction. Fiction is the so-called 'perfection' of digital audio.---The correct link: The Best DAC is no DAC - diyAudio

 

Yes, it is fiction. Yes the graph was drawn up by a commercial audio company, and it still is fiction. If there is something in that other forum directly relevant it would be good to link to it. Not likely to read 177 pages for whatever is related to your post.

 

Try running the impulse of the graph thru a tape machine or across the cutter head for an LP and let me know how it comes out. Do you think your eardrum can respond like the impulse?

 

Digital audio is not perfect. It is very good, and it does what it is claimed to do. Pretending otherwise doesn't help matters. But that lacks a self-satisfying narrative.

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

It is worth pointing out that a nos dac demonstrably produces the wrong value at all points between the sampling instants. These are gross time domain errors and occur at all frequencies, unlike those of the pcm system which are tiny errors occurring only at the transition zone of the anti imaging/ anti aliasing frequencies. Of course in order to understand that one has to be interested in the facts not Sony marketing brochures.

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to comment
Here you can see the absence of temporary errors in vinyl and DSD:

 

13.gif

 

Here you are slightly incorrectly pointing to vinyl, although in fact here it is said about ANALOG (that is what a best microphone can register). Vinyl will never be able to repeat this result without loss - too much interference will occur in the way of the LP creation process. And even more distortion will be when trying to play LP on your TT.

 

In fact, this is a popular picture with a chart showing ANALOG (signal from the best microphone), as a reference standard. And the loss (or lack of loss, as they represent -))), in the case of DSD) in the temporal domain of the impulse response and energy when trying to register and then reconstruct this signal with the help of various digital standards (48, 96,192 and DSD).

Pure Vinyl Club

 

Listen to short demos of the LP Records

and share your experience and observations.

Link to comment
Here you can see the absence of temporary errors in vinyl and DSD:

 

13.gif

 

Here you are slightly incorrectly pointing to vinyl, although in fact here it is said about ANALOG (that is what a best microphone can register). Vinyl will never be able to repeat this result without loss - too much interference will occur in the way of the LP creation process. And even more distortion will be when trying to play LP on your TT.

 

In fact, this is a popular picture with a chart showing ANALOG (signal from the best microphone), as a reference standard. And the loss (or lack of loss, as they represent -))), in the case of DSD) in the temporal domain of the impulse response and energy when trying to register and then reconstruct this signal with the help of various digital standards (48, 96,192 and DSD).

Pure Vinyl Club

 

Listen to short demos of the LP Records

and share your experience and observations.

Link to comment

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



×
×
  • Create New...