Lies about vinyl vs digital

[marce]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

There is a massive proliferation of misinformation regarding vinyl in relation to digital. I realize much of that is just willful ignorance on the part of non-audiophiles / class warfare activists, etc.... however all senior audiophiles seem to know that LPs crush CD and streaming, but if you to get a technical or even theoretical basis for that phenomena by researching it all you find is misinformation about why digital is better.

 

Lie: vinyl suffers from heavy dynamic compression — so why do my LPs display vastly better dynamic power/force?

Lie: vinyl has less resolution — macro resolution is greater in my digital that’s true, but why is inner detail and tonal color so much better on vinyl?

Lie: vinyl suffers from a lot of distortion — perhaps, but why do my LPs sound more live and lifelike than my digital?

 

So what’s going on here? Could the issue be that these aren’t lies so much as not accounting for awful ADCs and digital mastering techniques?

A prime example of the rubbish spouted by senior (lol) audiophiles, its just repeating the same mantras and totally ignoring reality and facts...

How do you become a senior audiophile by the way.... 

[marce]

On 11/13/2018 at 8:02 AM, ajay556 said:

Time and time again vinyl has been sweeter and smoother than digital. And the proof is in the engineering of storing and retrieving data. Cannot agree with science.

 And please don't get me started with digital cameras and film cameras. Film photos is far superior in quality than digital's resolution -  any day

 

A very good comparison is a sketch artist

One draws a picture of a person based on data given by another person  - DIGITAL

Other draws a picture of the person from the person sitting right infront - ANALOG

 

Go figure which picture will be more accurate!!!!

Except it isn't the truth just a distorted reality that you want to believe....

[marce]

18 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I find modern digital photos to be quite satisfactory. I have made 16 X 20 prints of some of my digital photos and they look very good. However I know that the difference between a 20 Megapixel Raw digital  image blown up to fit a 100" screen and a Kodachrome color slide projected with a Leitz Pradolux projector on the same 100" screen would favor the Kodachrome absolutely, the digital picture wouldn't suffer too badly! 

20 Megapixels... 50-100 are common for large blow ups these days.

[marce]

I prefer gas lighting as well when I am listening to my system...

 

As a storage medium digital is better... But this is consumer audio so reality can be ignored...

 

As to digital vs analogue photography is just a circle of confusion....

[marce]

A good photo is a good photo however it was created... Far more to it than whether you use film (not truly analogue) or digital, the lens for a start off and the photographers ability to capture the scene.

[marce]

7 hours ago, GUTB said:

If you needed to have a license to be an audiophile you wouldn't have these kids buying $100 Chinese DACs hooked up to $200 powered speakers placed on a computer desk and calling themselves audiophiles. The reason why is because the licensing body would be made up of experienced audiophiles who know how to get good sound and who can prove it through a large body of work in the audiophile space. There may be some "engineers" who don't know the least bit about good sound but the majority of the body would set forth the licensing guidelines.

No engineers or scientists, or even audiologists...

The blind leading the blind, where only myths abound.

You could call yourselves the ALS, audiophile Luddite society.

[marce]

45 minutes ago, hifitommy said:

it is amusing to me that the chorus here is all in lock step with the glorification of digits.  the gang is banded together to exclude any variation from the mantra.  regardless, analog sounds more natural than most digital .  

Of course when the wave is reconstituted it is an analogue waveform, the same as the waveform that was initially picked up by transducers... with a bit of mastering of course. So the argument is a bit moot...

In the same tone do you watch a CRT based TV from videos or even analogue channels, if you can find them.

[marce]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

That is totally beyond me. Unless of course you claim that all digital sounds the same (which you do, inherently and implicitly). IOW, if it only were that simple.

This is totally beyond me. Unless you have totally missed the change from analogue signal transmission to digital signal signal transmission and here I do not just mean Ethernet, USB, etc. but the fact that analogue signals are digitised as soon as possible these days and the information transmitted as digital... Things like CERN and LIGO are examples of the accuracy analogue/digital can achieve.

[marce]

16 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Now I don't have a clue what you are talking about. And no, I don't listen to any form of radio any more. Completely unlistenable because of your "hobby horse" (?).

marce, this is not your work. This is au-di-o.

 

For the 100th time (to you): so nothing makes a difference, right ?

(it would be the first time that you are going to respond to this, so keep that up)

I would ask you not to be so patronising, it is audio electronics, whether the ADC/DAC is audio or some other analogue signal the principles are the same.... Also I have work on a wide range of audio based designs.

As to putting words into my mouth regarding everything sounding the same DON'T.

[marce]

21 hours ago, hifitommy said:

it is amusing to me that the chorus here is all in lock step with the glorification of digits.  the gang is banded together to exclude any variation from the mantra.  regardless, analog sounds more natural than most digital .  

Despite your misguided beliefs digital is a far better medium for storing music than any of the analogue systems that are available, maybe that's why we are banded together as you say... It can store more dynamic range, is not prone to degrading when copying and playing and is far better in terms of timing variations than analogue storage mediums...

So you can troll as much as you like, it is not going to change the reality of the situation.

[marce]

Recording resolution is theoretically 24 bits max, though in reality its below this due to circuit noise.

[marce]

44 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

How can you possibly disagree when you haven't even seen or heard  the discs !!!

 

That's exactly the problem in this forum. We have numerous members in another area of the forum (Rajiv's huge thread

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/ )

 doing what they refer to as " bleeding edge" investigations, and on the other hand numerous qualified E.E. and S/W people disputing these reports based on purely theoretical grounds from what they were taught at Uni DECADES ago.

Yawn, same rubbish time after time...

A lot of those E.E. and S/W people are probably working in electronics, maybe you should think of that and possible on more cutting edge stuff than audio...

You need to get your head out of the sand and stop trolling threads with the same repeated stuff...

[marce]

8 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

No need for hostility.

 

I assumed the degradation mentioned related to compressing files, so uncompressed files were the way to go.  Now I see you mean that a zip file somehow prevents the music file from being degraded.

Millions of files sent zipped and unzipped get there unadulterated every day, why does only the freaky stuff happen with audiophile's data!!!

[marce]

4 minutes ago, RickyV said:

The  freaky stuff happens all the time to all data but you know that.

The problem comes when the crappy switches and routers are connected to sensitive DACs.

It's noise

Would love to see some measurements and information then if its such a big issue....

Of  course it does not say a lot for all those designers of audio DAC's that have totally forgotten to do their EMC testing... 

[marce]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Mansr

 I don't give a damn whether you or Marce believe me or not .I am simply reporting what I have found.

 I have also found that many YouTube videos with .aac audio at bit rates as low as 125kbps can sound quite noticeably better if re-encoded at a typical 576kbs with suitable Video S/W such as TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works.

 

Not that I expect either of you to believe that either.

Just refer to us as M&M I would hate to be responsible for RSI due to having to type both our names repeatedly, we even come in easy to open packets...

http://www.mms.com/

 

[marce]

36 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

For data corruption? Depends upon the storage system, but about 1 in every 10^17 bits becoming silently corrupted and not detected is a safe measurement. Was 10^16 not that long ago, but big data processes that trigger parity reads, RAIDS, filesystems like ZFS, and so on have reduced the undetected cosmic ray zaps significantly. Home systems are rapidly approaching the older 10^16 error threshold though.

As for files changing over the internet

 

 

 

Er I was talking about noise! I dont worry about files sent over the internet, they get there and back intact.

Interesting comment about Adobe, I use an old version of lightroom that I still own... haven't moved to the subscription yet.

[marce]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

IGNORED

Sorry, how can you ignore something if you are posting the fact that it is ignored and you have edited the text, Head in the SandyK my old fiend, many respected English language professors and teachers have also viewed my reply and agree with the logic in well controlled double blind reading tests😉

[marce]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Paul

 My system is not low powered. It uses an Intel i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz  and would be more electrically quiet than most desktop PCs due to additional internal low noise (<4uV) voltage regulation (+12V to +5V) to both the OS and Music SSDs etc.

Alex

Yes of course...

[marce]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

Lol, thanks for the file and graphs though, very interesting for those that can hear a clear difference. 

NO perceive a difference.

[marce]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

This is an Audiophile forum, NOT Hydrogen Audio or similar, where Subjective reports are not permitted.

 Although I do have some technical qualifications due to 40 years with Telstra(Au.) as a Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer, and do own the basics such as a CRO, DMM, Signal Generator, Dual polarity Bench PSU etc.  , I am not about to drag out this stuff every time somebody demands levels be accurately matched to within a fraction of a dB.

In the case of Paul's files this wouldn't have helped too much anyway due to frequency response variations.

Note also that many from the Subjective side who reply in the General Forum area are unlikely to have come from a technical background, and should NOT have to learn to do things that Dennis and several other members demand. 

In fact, asking non trained members to do these things may even result in equipment damage due to such silly things as an accidental s/c on speaker leads .

 

There are more suitable forums for these kinds of things.

Yet many are discussing and playing with technical things, making claims, surely they would want to educate themselves a bit more about what is happening... Oh often they do and as soon as anyone tries explaining some technical aspects to dive in and derail the thread.

[marce]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 You are forgetting that Photoshop is self calibrating. Were you even able to HEAR the obvious added HF detail with Audio of one version ?

Did you receive my recent email ?

 

 Perhaps there is a high level of smog in the northern hemisphere ?

What do you mean self calibrating... Its a photo editing program, self calibrating would make it a bit useless...

[marce]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I will make this perfectly clear. I have absolutely Zero interest in the contents of the vast majority of posts that you make, other than to skim through them to make sure they aren't yet another personal attack. It was bad enough with your sniping against myself and Electronics  tech. Erin from Melbourne more than 10 years ago in DIY Audio. 

Never sniped Alex, only asked questions or questioned the reality of what you where claiming, there is a difference. Whatever I post you pull down anyway. 

 

Funnily enough you use Erin's name yet we got along very well thank you... Stop bringing others into you poisonous little world, because reading the latest posts here from you make me wonder...

[marce]

10 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

I realize that this is OT but as a long time Photoshop user I thought I’d ask what you mean by that statement? It’s not something I’ve ever heard of.  

It means it will mask the huge differences between the files posted😀 so I would be wary of using it for photo editing.

0.5*(M&M)

[marce]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Ask Paul. He is the one that brought it up with me in private emails.

 

 I still have occasional contact with Erin via email and he is still supportive, in fact he suggested trying images instead of Audio.

The "poisonous little world"  is of your own making when you refused to accept the results of 6 correctly performed separate DBT sessions conducted by a highly experienced E.E. and technical writer, each with 8 separate comparisons . That is a total of 48 out of 48 POSITIVE results.

 Care to explain that ? 

DBTs are supposed to be the Gold Standard, but apparently for some, ONLY when the results go the way you want them to.

 

On second thought , don't bother trying to explain ,as I really have no interest in anything further you have to  say.

 

 From a recent PM from a High Profile Senior A.S. member who is a qualified E.E. and heard differences :

 " …….  But I get your point. Zip is supposed to be lossless, and there shouldn’t be any difference between compressed and not compressed"

 

Recent, 7 years...

Also the content of the email you posted differs from your last sentence are we talking rips or compressed data😶

The crux of the matter is that if the digital data is identical in each file then the information this digital contains is the same, so where would the extra information be hidden?

But then I often spend many a happy evening counting the angels on a pin head...

[marce]

41 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

You never tried to open a music file after downloading and have it refuse to open and say for instance "unable to open, corrupted file". I have, in which case I downloaded it again and the second download opened and played. I have also had a "Textedit" document on my hard drive become corrupt and refuse to open, in which case I deleted it, and loaded the backup copy from my backup drive. Surely I'm not the only one who has these like of gremlins happen to them.

 

We transfer hundreds of often quite large files a week, I can't honestly remember when we last had a data corruption due to transmitting via the internet. Had the odd CAD file get corrupted in the past. but that happens and most of the major CAD packages have some form of cleaning up the corrupt file. These days its not something I concern myself with.  I do keep multiple backups of music files, photographs etc. as part of my backup routines as media can go bang...