For all you Vinyl junkies . . .
- Thread starter Rich
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Cool pics, Rich. I wonder if those were pictures of a "clean" record? It would be interesting to see before and after cleaning shots.
aussersein
Active member
Beautiful. I wonder which record was the subject of the photo. Also, although it would probably be about 1/100 of a second long, I wonder what sounds come from the areas photographed.
amey01
Well-known member
Did you see this?
Attachments
Bernard
Well-known member
Considering the (at least) 3 different sizes of pits I see on the CD picture, are those ones, zeroes and maybes? 
Wardsweb
Well-known member
Considering the (at least) 3 different sizes of pits I see on the CD picture, are those ones, zeroes and maybes?
Now you see the inherent flaw in digital technology. It can be very very close but it is not one for one analog. Can most people tell? Probably not but there is a difference.
Digital by definition is dots and dashes, x's and o's. The digital to analog converter takes this information and through an algorithm creates a analog output. The more data points it has to work with the more "filled in" the line of output is.
my 2 cents
RichTeer
Well-known member
Very cool!
Cool post Rich.........at first I thought it was a new bobsled track.
amey01
Well-known member
I thought the longer dashes were multiple ones/zeros in a row? Not sure. More research!
Attachments
Last edited:
amey01
Well-known member
Actually:
Here's the answer - "pit and land do not represent binary data directly. Instead, transitions from pit-to-land or land-to-pit represent binary one, while all other surfaces (land or pit bottom) represent binary zero."
So Wardsweb, no sorry, digital is not "inherently flawed".
Here's the answer - "pit and land do not represent binary data directly. Instead, transitions from pit-to-land or land-to-pit represent binary one, while all other surfaces (land or pit bottom) represent binary zero."
So Wardsweb, no sorry, digital is not "inherently flawed".
Last edited:
Those are interesting pics. I see that some have see some relevence related to sound quality?? I'll tell you , seeing the vinyl pic makes me wonder how it could eversound good. I visualize a stylus wobbling back and forth picking up bits of info here and there. The proof is in the hearing. It still amazes me how it all even works anyway.
I wouldn't go as far to say that digital is inherently "flawed" but it does have an inherent challenge to overcome compared to vinyl.
The digital signal inherently has minute gaps in the music signal and those gaps are filled in by an algorithm. The algorithm is a best guess (averaging) of what that music signal is supposed to be.
The grooves on a vinyl record represent a more complete and true analog soundwave with no need to alter or modify it other than the RIAA or other equalization. What comes out of the speaker is an analog signal and vinyl is more true to form and begins and ends as an analog signal.
Digital always has to be converted to analog but of course today's technology is very good at performing this task and high-rez digital is very close to the original analog signal.
Both vinyl and digital each have their pros and cons. I don't think anyone would argue that vinyl has the most cons to deal with. But at least vinyl has the advantage of starting out with a more true-to-form analog signal.
The digital signal inherently has minute gaps in the music signal and those gaps are filled in by an algorithm. The algorithm is a best guess (averaging) of what that music signal is supposed to be.
The grooves on a vinyl record represent a more complete and true analog soundwave with no need to alter or modify it other than the RIAA or other equalization. What comes out of the speaker is an analog signal and vinyl is more true to form and begins and ends as an analog signal.
Digital always has to be converted to analog but of course today's technology is very good at performing this task and high-rez digital is very close to the original analog signal.
Both vinyl and digital each have their pros and cons. I don't think anyone would argue that vinyl has the most cons to deal with. But at least vinyl has the advantage of starting out with a more true-to-form analog signal.
Last edited:
amey01
Well-known member
No way - because we know that music is sinewave. Therefore, even at 20,000Hz (where only two samples per cycle are represented), the analogue waveform can be reconstructed perfectly!
Yes, digital has many flaws, but the "size of the pits" [Wardsweb, above] or "gaps in the music" are not two of them.
Last edited:
Bernard
Well-known member
Not true. If we listened to pure sine waves we could reconstruct them perfectly, but music is a combination of sine waves, so you can miss part of the wave. Just look at any irregular curve and take two samples. Now all you have are those two samples. How do you reconstuct the irregularity between them, given that you do not have a single-frequency sine wave between them ?
It is impossible for digital to perfectly represent a sinewave.
A sinewave is a (sinusoidal shape) and a digital representation of sound consists of ones and zeros (or blocks) and therefore can never perfectly represent a sinusoidal wave. As resolution of the digital signal increases the closer it comes but will never achieve a true sinusoidal sinewave. Although, it can come close enough to achieve the illusion of a true analog sinewave.
It is impossible to create a curve by filling in squares on a sheet of graph paper but you can create the illusion of a curve.
Last edited:
tonepub
Senior Member
I've heard great examples of both and I've heard terrible examples of both. It's a crazy argument that just makes everyone angry.
The bigger question is does this really matter, given the fact that our ears convert the sounds they capture into electrical impulses, which they send to our brain for decoding. Are our synapses capable of recreating a perfect sine wave? Or does our brain also use an "algorithm" of its own to interpret what the electrical impulses mean?
I'm not implying that an analog source is any better than digital or vice-versa nor am I trying to strike a nerve. That would be like claiming that a picture composed of pixels can't look as good as one from film. Those are crazy arguments and I'm not attached to any one particular format.
User211
Well-known member
Actually, Adam is right - he didn't express it brilliantly, but he is basically right.
Craig - I used to think like you. But it isn't right. Consider the following:
"if you sample at twice the highest frequency of interest, you will recover the waveform exactly, not approximately, not synthesised, but exactly, to the limits of the number of bits of quantisation. 2 samples at 20kHz will recover the 20kHz exactly. Don't forget that all music consists of sinewaves of varying amplitudes and frequencies, and in varying phase relationships, so as long as the system will record and reproduce those sinewaves accurately, then the system is transparent.
In the case of red-book, that provides for a dynamic range of 96dB and a bandwidth of 20kHz. That record companies prefer to restrict the dynamic range to 3dB less than bugger-all, has nothing to do with what the medium can support, and everything to do with what they think their customers want."
Got this from a UK forum thread, where I got told I was talking BS, and I was, I fully admit it. At some stage at school, I'm sure I did understand it - then my mind got warped by BS on the net... and other factors, like bad hi-fi mag articles.
Here is that thread if you want to understand digital processing - but you'll need some time...
What does sounding analogue mean?
Watch me get pulverised by Serge
Last edited:
