Dirty Digital

Dedicated to the silver disk spinner
Post Reply
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15711
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#1 Dirty Digital

Post by Nick »

Those that read Noels article on the evils of digital in the July HFW, might be intersted in the other side of the argument:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/ddd/DirtyDig ... sions.html
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Darren
Old Hand
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/Wales
Contact:

#2

Post by Darren »

Awful load of faff to read through,

Whatever the truth may be the underlying factor is that CD was audably a step backwards in some respects and a step forward in others over vinyl.

Which is better, or should I say which you would prefer to listen to, is ultimately down to the listeners preferences.

For me CD has no place in the home, but in the car.....Er...I prefer the radio...umm. I was about to say CD but then realised I rarely use them at all.

Others opinions will of course differer, and so it should

:D
Tony Moore
Old Hand
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:24 am
Location: New Brighton

#3

Post by Tony Moore »

Good article! And also a nice explanation of dither.

Thanks for the link!

Tony
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15711
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#4

Post by Nick »

Darren wrote:Awful load of faff to read through,

Whatever the truth may be the underlying factor is that CD was audably a step backwards in some respects and a step forward in others over vinyl.

Which is better, or should I say which you would prefer to listen to, is ultimately down to the listeners preferences.

For me CD has no place in the home, but in the car.....Er...I prefer the radio...umm. I was about to say CD but then realised I rarely use them at all.

Others opinions will of course differer, and so it should

:D
Yes, the problem is though, even if I prefer to listen to vinyl, there are a lot of recordings that I only can get on CD, so to not use CD at all would be to exclude a lot of music.

Personally I am starting to find that there is more that can be extracted from red book cd than I used to think, which is just as well given the above.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Darren
Old Hand
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/Wales
Contact:

#5

Post by Darren »

Yes that is a very valid point, I also have some good music that I really like on CD as well.

Trouble is that I find that its really easy to hear just how failing CD reproduction is. I have had, and still have many CD players as well as a couple of DVD players. Some are better than others admittedly.
But when you have the same recording on vinyl and CD I find the difference is often startling.
So much so that personally I am finding is all too easy to spot a CD playing which often spoils the listening. For me a t least, to the point that I'd rather not listen to it at all.

I suppose it all depends on the individual systems and players at your disposal and no doubt some would find CD superior in their circumstances.

Lets be honest, vinyl playback takes some commitment in hardware and finances when we consider that we need a cartridge, tonearm, phono stage, turntable and plinth. We could also include the cabling but then CD has this need also. Just less of it.
After that we must then consider the rest of the system, amps, speakers etc. If you don't get those right you may never get to hear what vinyl has to offer anyway.
Any one of these items has the potential to let Vinyl down if we introduce a miss-match.

But get it right and the magic of vinyl can be astonishing. Something that I personally believe CD would struggle to match let alone take a step ahead.

Just some personal thoughts, others may differ and if someone ever demonstrates a CD producing a comparative to vinyl I would indeed take serious notice.

The digital compact disc was invented in the late 1960s by James T. Russell. In the year 1979, Philips and Sony got together to design a new digital audio disc.

The bottom line is really quite a simple question

Does the CD digital format have what it takes? If not then no amount of hardware is going to be able to extract what isn't there.
If CD does indeed have what it takes, then why after 40 years have we not seen a rival (in audiophile terms) to vinyl?
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15711
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#6

Post by Nick »

Lets be honest, vinyl playback takes some commitment in hardware and finances when we consider that we need a cartridge, tonearm, phono stage, turntable and plinth. We could also include the cabling but then CD has this need also. Just less of it.
After that we must then consider the rest of the system, amps, speakers etc. If you don't get those right you may never get to hear what vinyl has to offer anyway.
Any one of these items has the potential to let Vinyl down if we introduce a miss-match.
Yes, I had my assumptions derailed a little when someone (actually the author of the page I posted a link to) suggested that were I to put as much effort into getting CD to sound the way I wanted it, as I had spent getting vinyl how I liked it, maybe I would find CD better than I expected.

I won't open the "better" can of worms, but I think seeing how good you can get it is worth the effort.

If we did the same to vinyl, get a cheap turn table, and any old cartridge, any old phono stage, take it out of the box, plug it in, put a LP on, and expect to be stunned, we might not get the best of vinyl.

But that in effect is what we tend to do with CD, then sit back and declare that vinyl is much better.
Does the CD digital format have what it takes? If not then no amount of hardware is going to be able to extract what isn't there.
If CD does indeed have what it takes, then why after 40 years have we not seen a rival (in audiophile terms) to vinyl?
The problem is (IMHO) is that if CD doesn't have the potential to be as good as vinyl, then a lot of what makes the world around us tick is wrong. Some would argue that CD has been the rival to vinyl for the last 40 years, and in many ways its won. But given that CD is now loosing ground to compressed formats its clear that quality isn't the most important feature for most folk.

All I am trying to do at the moment is try and understand just what it is that stops CD sounding better than vinyl, because IMHO in most cases it doesn't, but it should.

Unfortunatly I don't have the answer at the moment, and don't hold your breath :-(
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Clive
Old Hand
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Cheshire, England

#7

Post by Clive »

I find the best way to cope with vinyl & CD differences is to not compare them directly. When I listen to CDs I either only listen to CD that day or start out with CD and later move to vinyl.
Darren
Old Hand
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/Wales
Contact:

#8

Post by Darren »

Nick wrote:
Yes, I had my assumptions derailed a little when someone (actually the author of the page I posted a link to) suggested that were I to put as much effort into getting CD to sound the way I wanted it, as I had spent getting vinyl how I liked it, maybe I would find CD better than I expected.
You're not alone, myself included


I won't open the "better" can of worms, but I think seeing how good you can get it is worth the effort.

If we did the same to vinyl, get a cheap turn table, and any old cartridge, any old phono stage, take it out of the box, plug it in, put a LP on, and expect to be stunned, we might not get the best of vinyl.

But that in effect is what we tend to do with CD, then sit back and declare that vinyl is much better.
All too true

The problem is (IMHO) is that if CD doesn't have the potential to be as good as vinyl, then a lot of what makes the world around us tick is wrong.
I think they call that capitalism....good marketing and they have your money.
All I am trying to do at the moment is try and understand just what it is that stops CD sounding better than vinyl, because IMHO in most cases it doesn't, but it should.

Unfortunatly I don't have the answer at the moment, and don't hold your breath :-(
I wish you did, life would be much simpler in many respects.
Darren
Old Hand
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/Wales
Contact:

#9

Post by Darren »

Clive wrote:I find the best way to cope with vinyl & CD differences is to not compare them directly. When I listen to CDs I either only listen to CD that day or start out with CD and later move to vinyl.
You don't say why you move onto vinyl.... 8)
Clive
Old Hand
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Cheshire, England

#10

Post by Clive »

Darren wrote:
Clive wrote:I find the best way to cope with vinyl & CD differences is to not compare them directly. When I listen to CDs I either only listen to CD that day or start out with CD and later move to vinyl.
You don't say why you move onto vinyl.... 8)
For all the reasons that I prefer vinyl for and that I have most of my preferred music on vinyl. But....I have a lot of music on CD too and sometimes I want to focus on the music and not its reproduction.
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#11

Post by ed »

Nick wrote: Yes, I had my assumptions derailed a little when someone (actually the author of the page I posted a link to) suggested that were I to put as much effort into getting CD to sound the way I wanted it, as I had spent getting vinyl how I liked it, maybe I would find CD better than I expected.
GPWM

Vinyl is an inherently flawed medium.....we abrade it to play it and it gets attacked by all the nasty dusty things in the air...so long term its got to be less than optimum.....but, if you ignore the uv decay issue, then CD is a much better medium.....move on to the actual capability and with an amount of work put into the known flaws, i.e sample rate and jitter, then it should come out head and shoulders above vinyl.......the important word in that sentence is 'should'..........

I was in the pro vinyl camp for ages and ages, but realised that life is too short and attention to the equipment and the medium was getting in the way of enjoying the music....I know my pursuit of HDD digits and squeezebox is not the true answer, but at least I'm enjoying the music. In summary I think that supports what Darren is saying...each to their own and horses for courses.....lets face it, some people collect stamps!

I hope thats valid and on topic, I just felt the need to say something...

Ed
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
Darren
Old Hand
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: N/Wales
Contact:

#12

Post by Darren »

Talking of other formats,

I remember when I recorded may of my albums onto SVHS, oh way too long ago to admit now.
My memory tells me that VHS tape was a great medium for music. But then again it was a long time ago and my vinyl has improved a little since then as well as the rest of the gear.

Did anyone else try this?
iansr
Old Hand
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: West Riding

#13

Post by iansr »

Assuming that at some point in the future digital music will be readily available in bigger bit sizes/higher frequency sampling rates * (so that it starts to approach - beyond contention - an analog signal) then surely digital will surpass vinyl in terms of fidelity?? (I know digital reproduction has its problems, jitter etc, but hell, so has vinyl!)

*I'm actually optimistic this will happen as data storage capability goes up/gets smaller/cheaper. I think in such an environment music suppliers will look for a USP, and that just might turn out to be sound quality.
"Its good enough for Government work."
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15711
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#14

Post by Nick »

iansr wrote:Assuming that at some point in the future digital music will be readily available in bigger bit sizes/higher frequency sampling rates * (so that it starts to approach - beyond contention - an analog signal) then surely digital will surpass vinyl in terms of fidelity?? (I know digital reproduction has its problems, jitter etc, but hell, so has vinyl!)
Not wanting to be contentious, but next time you are round, I will play you a CD rendered in 8 and 14 bits. Also. a 0dBFS signal from a CD against a -80dbFS one.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
iansr
Old Hand
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: West Riding

#15

Post by iansr »

Actually Nick, now that you mention it, I acquired that early Mission CDP that uses the TDA 1540 (14 bit) DAC and, ignoring the distortion on one channel that needs sorting, it does some things really well I think. So was that me talking bollocks earlier on then? Most likely :lol:
"Its good enough for Government work."
Post Reply