Needle dropping sound quality: ears(1st) vs. 96/24 playback(2nd)

[kap'n krunch]

Logic would dictate no difference between what you hear and its playback after recorded, but as a rule of thumb, the needle drop sounds better.
Maybe it's how the signal flow since I'm monitoring what GOES into the card, not "software monitoring"; but even so, I am listening to both through the same system , a MOTU 828 mk II connected optically to the receiver.

I'm not implying that the recording adds anything extra, but that it has a more powerful scan and resolution, so it's more detailed.
I always like to use the photo metaphor. You see a beautiful landscape and take a photo of it, let's say, a slide, not digital- just for kicks. Now , the Photo will , most of the time , appear much prettier than your memory of the sight itself (to be fair, no other factors should be considered, smells, state of mind , etc.)

Any thoughts or am I just hallucinating daisies (again)?

 

[ssully]

Just to be clear, your TT is hooked to the receiver phono inputs, and your MOTU is also monitoring the TT/pre output for recording, as well as being hooked to your S/PDIF optical for playback. And when you switch between inputs, the TT sounds better? (you're using ears for both so it's not ears vs 96/24)

 

[EMB]

Well....although the photo might appear 'prettier,' it's just an electronic device rendering what you aimed it at...and your mind can play tricks with reality, which is why we can cope with so much crap and tragedy, etc., and still live on. You filter everything through a brain, which is sent signals through everything your body has to offer it.

In other words, sometimes you DO hear things better on vinyl than you do through digital..and the reverse can be true of course. It's not all in the mastering, but the signal, the source, the processing it takes to get any master tape to a slab of vinyl, commercial tape, or CD or Blu-Ray or whatever. And along the way others can tweak and adjust what you'll hear for yourself beyond your own sound system's limitations, room acoustics, etc.

This is not something you want to dwell on much, really. If you do, then you attempt perfection where none really exists. Sometimes it's just best to feel good about a moment, what you're hearing, and you're probably right, knowing that anything can look, see and feel better at any time. It would all be boring otherwise, right?

ED

 

[kap'n krunch]

Actually the TT is hooked up to a preamp that feeds the MOTU, and the MOTU feed the receiver.
When I record I monitor what the preamp is hearing and sending to the MOTU. If I wanted to "monitor off the recording head" I would have to choose "Software monitoring" in Logic.

 

[ssully]

So how are you actually comparing 96/24 digitization of the preamp output, to the preamp output itself? IOW, how are you switching between them? (The next questions of course being whether it's blind and level-matched).

 

[kap'n krunch]

So how are you actually comparing 96/24 digitization of the preamp output, to the preamp output itself? IOW, how are you switching between them? (The next questions of course being whether it's blind and level-matched).

Yes, I am comparing the output of the phono preamp that is fed to the MOTU , with the 96/24 playback. I switch in the receiver from "Phono" to "Mac Opt In" .
Obviously that's why a higher sampling rate(or faster recording and playback speeds with analog: 33 vs 45 , 15 ips vs 30 ips, anyone?)) will yield better sounding results...the more info you can cram ... the better it will sound..mostly...

 

[EMB]

I know a few diehard collectors who swear by vintage rock 78's of the 1950's, that a mint copy can often sound superior to the 45rpm pressing, which in turn tends to be a bit better than the more compressed sound you'd find on the average 33 1/3 Lp. Obviously, the faster speed is less a factor than the wider grooves of the 78.

This was also the argument for the reel-to-reel tape as the best sound medium of its time. This of course assumed optimum duplication and mastering, and that the tape would NOT be compressed as the Lp master would have been (though that was never a guarantee). But we need only hear the results of digital masterings of quad reels (as opposed to most 8-tracks and vinyl) to verify that superior quality.

Obviously, the sampling rate plays a role in the end result, too, though I'd suspect not as much as the quality of the original source and the transfer of that source to digital. The artifacts I've heard on some CD-4 transfers leaves much to be desired, though apparently are extremely difficult to downplay, let alone mask or obscure as much as possible. And the hiss inherent to most 8-tracks must be a bitch to minimize without also dampening the high frequencies inherent to the recording.

Or is the transfer from vinyl or tape to digital easier than that?

ED

 

[ssully]

Yes, I am comparing the output of the phono preamp that is fed to the MOTU , with the 96/24 playback. I switch in the receiver from "Phono" to "Mac Opt In" .
Obviously that's why a higher sampling rate(or faster recording and playback speeds with analog: 33 vs 45 , 15 ips vs 30 ips, anyone?)) will yield better sounding results...the more info you can cram ... the better it will sound..mostly...

No, that's an example of 'common sense' that is actually refuted by science. There is a law of diminishing returns, and beyond a point there is no point to 'cramming' any more 'information' into the file.

Furthermore, the LP doesn't have more 'scan and resolution' than the 96/24 recording of it; the LP is actually by far the noisier (and thus less resolving) of the two formats.

Demonstrating that you're not just reporting result of some sort of expectation/confirmation bias, or results of a playback level mismatch, requires a lot more effort than you've gone to.











.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Science..
science is a big mystery to me...
science doesn't even know how the brain works in reality.
science doesn't have any explanation for the 21 grams that a person loses the moment they die ...(the soul? what kind of hoohaa is that?)
science doesn't acknowledge extraterrestrial civilizations and thinks we are the only beings in the Universe...

If you can't really distinguish the difference between a 15 ips and 30 ips, it's your loss, and that has been firmly established in previous threads,
but then ,
that would make all of the engineers and professionals who developed these progressively better technologies a bunch of idiots and you are claiming to be above them.
Is that YOUR science?

My perception is mine only.
You do not share it and that's cool.
But don't give me "science has proved..." position.
Science is crooked and payed to have results that favor the sponsor in 90% of the cases.

If anyone else here (who actually can perceive a difference between a cd and a DVDA- @96/24) has had this kind of experience can chime in.
I still think that the 96/24 recording playback of an LP sounds better than the LP playback itself because the recording has more resolution, like using a more powerful lens in a microscope.

 

[sukothai]

I still think that the 96/24 recording playback of an LP sounds better than the LP playback itself because the recording has more resolution

I believe you may think it sounds better and indeed it may be better to your ears, but the above statement is not correct. No digital recording has better resolution than the original analog. The analog signal has infinite resolution that digital sampling is only attempting to aproximate. Your 96/24 recording may sound better because your digital path is possibly coloring or filtering the sound in a way that makes it more pleasant to your ears, but it is not because of more resolution.

 

[ssully]

Science..
science is a big mystery to me...
science doesn't even know how the brain works in reality.
science doesn't have any explanation for the 21 grams that a person loses the moment they die ...(the soul? what kind of hoohaa is that?)
science doesn't acknowledge extraterrestrial civilizations and thinks we are the only beings in the Universe...

Yes, I see that science is a big mystery to you.

If you can't really distinguish the difference between a 15 ips and 30 ips, it's your loss, and that has been firmly established in previous threads,
but then , that would make all of the engineers and professionals who developed these progressively better technologies a bunch of idiots and you are claiming to be above them.
Is that YOUR science?

I wasn't talking about 15 vs 30ips tape speed...which science predicts will make a difference.

My perception is mine only.
You do not share it and that's cool.
But don't give me "science has proved..." position.
Science is crooked and payed to have results that favor the sponsor in 90% of the cases.

For someone who claims 'science is a mystery to me', that's a pretty bold assertion...and not one that accords with my 20 years in science.

Btw, who do you think is the 'sponsor' of much of the science in this country, Captain? Do you think the NIH and NSF pay scientists to achieve certain results?
Who decides what those results must be?

If anyone else here (who actually can perceive a difference between a cd and a DVDA- @96/24) has had this kind of experience can chime in.

Many have , in many places like this forum. The number who have taken the precaution to rule out everyday human error or simple differences in mastering: zero.

I still think that the 96/24 recording playback of an LP sounds better than the LP playback itself because the recording has more resolution, like using a more powerful lens in a microscope.

It can't sound better unless it changes something. The only way you'd increase signal/noise would be by applying noise reduction -- that would in a loose sense increase the 'resolution' in that you might be able to better hear
low-level details that were obscured by surface noise. But 96/24 of itself doesn't do that; it's not an automatic noise reduction system.

One thing that fools people into thinking one version of something sounds 'better' or 'more resolving' than another , is if it's a little bit louder. That's why close level matching (along with control for human bias) is critical for a fair comparison.

 

[ssully]

I believe you may think it sounds better and indeed it may be better to your ears, but the above statement is not correct. No digital recording has better resolution than the original analog. The analog signal has infinite resolution that digital sampling is only attempting to aproximate. Your 96/24 recording may sound better because your digital path is possibly coloring or filtering the sound in a way that makes it more pleasant to your ears, but it is not because of more resolution.

No analog signal coming off a recorded medium (like an LP) has 'infinite resolution'. Every recording system/medium in the real world has a noise floor, and that limits resolution. So does every playback system.
Your ears don't have infinite resolution either; even in an anaechoic chamber, you can 'hear' the background noise of random air molecules impinging on your ears. This is the limit of human 'resolution'...the quietest noise we can hear.

 

[sukothai]

No analog signal coming off a recorded medium (like an LP) has 'infinite resolution'. Every recording system/medium in the real world has a noise floor, and that limits resolution. So does every playback system.
Your ears don't have infinite resolution either; even in an anaechoic chamber, you can 'hear' the background noise of random air molecules impinging on your ears. This is the limit of human 'resolution'...the quietest noise we can hear.

I understand our equipment limits the recorded resolution, but digital sampling is still trying to capture an infinite analog sound wave, with its noise and all. My point was you could sample at 192Khz or 384Khz or 768Khz and still have only a *sample* of the orginal analog.

 

[ssully]

You are confusing 'continuous' with 'infinite'. And in a digital system, you reconstruct that digitally sampled continuous wave into....a continuous wave. The output is not discrete samples, or rapidly-presented frames like a movie.

There will be some level of error introduced by the process. There will be some level of error also when you try to represent an analog waveform as a carving in a piece of vinyl, or as an arrangement of magnetic particles on tape.

Simply put, no audio capture method is error-free. But the amount of error in a good digital capture, within its Nyquist bandwidth, will be smaller than that from an analog capture as waveforms carved into plastic, or tape recording.

And these do not even begin to take into the account the massive amounts of error introduced at the electromechanical transducer stages -- microphone at the beginning, and loudspeaker at the end.

 

[sukothai]

You are confusing 'continuous' with 'infinite'.

Yes, the wave is continuous, but I'm just trying to communicate that you could sample an analog wave an infinitely higher number of times and still not have the exact live analog wave. I know, our human ears can't tell the difference. I know about Nyquist-Shannon, but these assume a theoretical maximum bandlimited signal. These do not exist in real life, but we pretend they do to make things practical.

I think we have officially hi-jacked this thread.:banana:

 

[Almen]

I understand our equipment limits the recorded resolution, but digital sampling is still trying to capture an infinite analog sound wave, with its noise and all. My point was you could sample at 192Khz or 384Khz or 768Khz and still have only a *sample* of the orginal analog.

Well, no. When sampling with 192 kHz, you first filter away everything above 96 kHz. Below 96 kHz, the signal is stored and reproduced with infinite resolution, both in time and amplitude, noise and all.

I repeat: all information below 96 kHz is stored digitally, and can later be reproduced. It is not "only a sample".

So the question is more whether you think there is any useful information above fs/2 or not.

 

[sukothai]

So the question is more whether you think there is any useful information above fs/2 or not.

I don't, but that is not my point. My point is there is information up there and it is not captured. And it is only a sample. We call it a sample.

I think I'm being punished for hi-jacking this thread.

 

[ssully]

Yes, the wave is continuous, but I'm just trying to communicate that you could sample an analog wave an infinitely higher number of times and still not have the exact live analog wave. I know, our human ears can't tell the difference. I know about Nyquist-Shannon, but these assume a theoretical maximum bandlimited signal. These do not exist in real life, but we pretend they do to make things practical.

Do you recognize that NO recording mechanism, including tape or LP, will give you the 'exact live analog wave' you are talking about? So why do you hold digital to this standard?

 

[ssully]

I don't, but that is not my point. My point is there is information up there and it is not captured. And it is only a sample. We call it a sample.

I think I'm being punished for hi-jacking this thread.

What information is up there that is not captured -- assuming you adjust the sample rate to encompass 'up there'?

 

[sukothai]

Do you recognize that NO recording mechanism, including tape or LP, will give you the 'exact live analog wave' you are talking about? So why do you hold digital to this standard?

This is too funny. Believe me, I'm am digital's biggest fan. I'm just trying to clear up that digital can never be more accurate than the original analog signal.

Please Kap'n, forgive me and take your thread back. I promise I won't hijack it again.