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

[ssully]

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.

So now we're talking about 'accuracy'? That word's new to the thread.

Accuracy is measurable. No analog-to-analog or analog-to-digital copy can be perfectly accurate (much less 'more accurate'). A digital-to-digital copy can be perfectly accurate.

For, say, a recording of a string quartet, the 'original' acoustic signal is sound waves in air. That's not an analog of anything (though by convention we call continuous phenomena 'analog' and sampled phenomena 'digital'). The first analog of those sound waves is created at the microphone stage: an electrical analog. Then an analog to that is made when voltages are printed to magnetic tape. Then another as tape is transcribed to vinyl. There are accuracy losses from step to step here, with each step being the 'original signal' for the next step, and cumulative losses of accuracy compared to the original sound waves. Those losses can be reduced if digital stages are introduced after the microphone stage. But you get another whack against accuracy at the louspeaker stage. Such is life.

So why, again, is digital being singled out for 'inaccuracy' here?

 

[sukothai]

So why, again, is digital being singled out for 'inaccuracy' here?

Because digital in this context is trying to reproduce what already exists in analog.

 

[Almen]

Because digital in this context is trying to reproduce what already exists in analog.

For me, digital is a way of storing a signal, and of course we will have to convert it to analog before listening.

But it seems that your points have nothing to do with what we in fact hear, but instead are some sort of platonian view on an untouched original, virginal analog signal in the idea world, that once stained by "digital" is destroyed? Why are the microphones not a problem in this regard? Or the mike pre-amplifier?

Is it only the lowpass filtering that you oppose? This is performed also in the analog domain, since choice of instruments, choice of microphones, an analog tape recorder, vinyl, etc, also filters the signal.

 

[ssully]

Because digital in this context is trying to reproduce what already exists in analog.

So is an analog recording.

Technically all recordings are 'analogs'. Just because 'analog' is a term nontechnically applied to both a recording/playback method, and to the original soundwave in air (which isn't an analog of ANYTHING, really unless you count the vibrating object that moved the air in the first place), doesn't mean that an analog recording/playback method is 'naturally' best for sound waves.

And the analog recording will certainly be *inaccurate*compared to source...and less accurate than the digital recording, unless you really screw up the latter.

Your argument is like saying that two-channel audio playback is a superior rendition of an audio event than multichannel, because we have two ears. Or like the homeopathic law of similars, i.e., that 'like treats like'.
It's pseudo-logic, the sort of thing that gives 'common sense' a dubious name. Common sense may be common and it may 'make sense' at a superficial level, but it's not necessarily right.

I'm just trying to clear up that an analog recording can never be more accurate than the original 'analog' signal.

 

[ssully]

Is it only the lowpass filtering that you oppose? This is performed also in the analog domain, since choice of instruments, choice of microphones, an analog tape recorder, vinyl, etc, also filters the signal.

As does our human auditory system. It's a lowpass filter too.

 

[sukothai]

analog recording will certainly be *inaccurate*compared to source...and less accurate than the digital recording, unless you really screw up the latter.

We are talking about trying to create a replica of the original analog recording. Digital is perfect for that if as you say "you don't screw up" the digital parameters. You are absolutely correct in that an analog copy would degrade the original. I love digital if used properly. Where did I say I didn't? My only point was that digital is only trying to make a replica of the original analog and therefore can never be better than the orginal. If you think it sounds better, then some additional processing has been applied to the original analog signal and the digital copy is more than just a capture of the analog.

- Ben

 

[ssully]

We are talking about trying to create a replica of the original analog recording.

Yes, and if you are replicating a *recording*, then an analog copy -- whether on tape or LP -- will CERTAINLY be less accurate than a competent digital replica of it. And it is not hard to make a digital copy that is more accurate than even the best tape or LP copy of the same source.

Digital is perfect for that if as you say "you don't screw up" the digital parameters. You are absolutely correct in that an analog copy would degrade the original. I love digital if used properly. Where did I say I didn't? My only point was that digital is only trying to make a replica of the original analog and therefore can never be better than the orginal. If you think it sounds better, then some additional processing has been applied to the original analog signal and the digital copy is more than just a capture of the analog.

- Ben

Of course. No one said a digital copy *must* sound 'better' than the original.

*Any* copy -- be it analog or digital -- *might* be tweaked to sound 'better' than the original, e.g., if the original is damaged or contains distortion that can be hidden/removed in the copy. Though of course 'better' will always be a subjective judgement unless it's defined by objective measures first.

NO ONE claimed a copy is 'more accurate than the original' -- that doesn't even make sense. One can only speak of one copy being more accurate than another copy, compared to their source -- the 'original'.

 

[sukothai]

NO ONE claimed a copy is 'more accurate than the original' -- that doesn't even make sense. One can only speak of one copy being more accurate than another copy, compared to their source -- the 'original'.

ssully, I think we are on the same page and I don't know why you have chosen to dissect my posts in the most minute detail. Please read the opening post of this thread. Kap'n Krunch did imply that the digital "needle drop" capture sounded better than the original analog. I was responding to that claim. I apologise if I gave you or anyone the wrong impression. I will not be posting in this thread again.

 

[kap'n krunch]

I'm sure that , since it's a different signal path (from the TT as opposed to the Computer), the DACs make it sound brighter...

Still, I love me a good needledrop...

 

[ssully]

I'm sure that , since it's a different signal path (from the TT as opposed to the Computer), the DACs make it sound brighter...

why...? because analog signal paths inevitably fail at accurate high frequency response?