Analog vs. Digital - a neurologist's take

I take your point - but in the case of the 10 albums I listened to today there wasn’t any ambiguity about whether the whispered phrase is there or not. It’s very clear, even when played through my laptop speakers.

That’s the point, you know it’s there and you will hear it.

The whole premise of the article and the mathematical analysis is incorrect, anyway.

1 Like

That is pretty much true. I’ve often come across “hidden” detail on a hires or remastered recording that I coudn’t hear before; but once heard it is audible on older recordings, too. Maybe more difficult to hear , but audible.

1 Like

Is there a moral to this story? Buy the most resolving system there is. Hear all there is to hear from your collection. Sell it and buy a crappy system as your brain will fill in the gaps and live happily ever after.
tongue firmly in cheek

2 Likes

@Chrislayeruk, I know what you’re saying - I spent 15 years teaching psychology - but the point I’m making is that there’s absolutely no ambiguity about it on the 10 versions I have. It’s not ultra-quiet, or difficult to hear - it’s obviously there.

1 Like

Thats a plan as long as you don’t find anymore new music.

My “moral” is that Nyquist did the math. There is no need for more data than a (well mastered) 16 bits / 44.1 kHz source for music listening.

Production? Yes, but for reproduction in your living room, high res formats is most about psychology. And bad timing is about (bad) equipment, not the playback format.

.

Agreed. I can hear it on YouTube through some crappy old laptop speakers. Anyone can.

This guy hears it as well (at 7.50)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbb-7LffF6k

Check out this guys reaction at 5.06. He’s not so sure:

Whilst I agree that Nyquist was correct, in that there is no need whatsoever for ‘more than’ 16/44.1 for the accurate digital capture of music, it is the digital to analogue process that has been ‘lacking’ since the launch of digital audio forty-years ago.
My recent experience with Rob Watts’ WTA filters/upscaling in the Chord M Scaler ‘proves’ to my ears (at least) that with accurate reproduction of the digital stream to an analogue waveform, there is arguably no need whatsoever for ‘High-Res’ music files.

https://chordelectronics.co.uk/news/explained-rob-watts-filter-technology-in-chord-electronics-dacs/

According to Nyquist ALL information within the limited bandwidth is preserved, including time. And I tend to adhere to the theorem. The problem lies in “the limited bandwidth” since it is impossible to limit audio bandwidth without degrading the time information as a result of the filtering. This is where the invent grade of the audio industry seek improvement, Chord, PS-Audio and others use expensive digital filtering while MQA uses a clever compromise combined with higher sampling rates. I have made a video on the subject: https://youtu.be/geaoEt-9V-w

But in the Nyquist Theorem, “I <= f/2” sets the maximum information you can retrieve. It in no way implies that that maximuim will ever be achieved, or even be close to being retrieved. Also, it does not define by what they mean by “information”. A very long dissertation would be needed to totally define what information clearly means. Also, the Theorem was based on knowledge that was known decades ago. Knowing what we know now, does it still hold up?? Maybe, maybe not. It also assumes that everyone hears about the same (far from the truth).
But, hi res is clearly giving me improvement in sound, everything else being the same. I listen to my Roon library in “Shuffle”, and very often check the Res on the recording (well into the recording, where I have already determined it’s accuracy). When it goes from a 44.1/16 to a 192/24 track, the difference is startling the vast majority of the time. And I determine that before I check the resolution. And DSD sounds noticeably better that 192/24. It isn’t because of bias, as I don’t know the Res before I determine the improvement. I just check that AFTER I have detected the change in SQ ( I jump back to determine the Res of the previous track). Rarely, the 44.1/16 might sound better that the 192/24, but in all likelihood, it is because it was mastered better.

I disagree, Numerous times I hear something in one recording, but not in others. Very often, it’s either a remaster having it, but not an earlier mastering, or I hear it in a vinyl LP on my VPI Prime Signature w/ Ortofon Cadenza Bronze fed into my PS Audio Stellar Phone Preamp, or in a DSD recording, but not in anything else. But numerous times, I hear it in one version, but not another. But that is just me, on my system. Maybe I’m an exception to the rule, or maybe many others are like me. I don’t know.

The best DAC is a turntable :slight_smile:
Music is analog not digital, I have learned the hardway, but i have to admit that a good turntable sounds better than any difgital dac i have heard

thats the reason i am looking now for a good turntable, i use ROON now for background music :slight_smile:

Does anyone know what percentage of new albums are mastered analog vs digital?
If it is mastered digitally, how can one explain superiority of a vinyl record from a digital master?
Studio DACs are way better than the ones we own, I suppose?

You can’t, Scott.
If the original recording was digital, and therefore it was mixed digitally, and the master is a digital ‘copy’, then there’s no way in a million years an analogue vinyl record could ‘beat’ the digital version.
All you get ‘extra’ is added distortion, phase problems and a whole load of surface noise to boot.
And this is coming from someone who loves his Linn LP12 turntable, and vinyl collection.

3 Likes

Right. Let’s face it, there are so many steps between when sound vibration comes out of its source to our ears via recorded sound I don’t see how one path is necessarily sonically superior. There are a ton of choices being made along the way and many are subjective (like microphones, the mix, etc.).
If someone prefers to have the head of their music system be analog, that’s fine. Digital music has come a long way. For me, its at the point that my musical enjoyment is heavily influenced by the advantages of digital (convenience and the interactive nature of exploration through Roon). The sound trade-offs for me are really minor.
These are personal choices. But it’s hard to get worked up about which is ‘better’.

Most vinyl today is digitally mastered, go figure. For truly analog sound you need a recording made on tape and cut to disc with no digital processing at all.
REGA record this way but your material will be limited to old vinyl and limited analog vinyl, if you can find it.

What we need is a system which certifies that the original master is accurately reproduced in our home. Surprised no one has thought of that. Then I’m sure everyone would be happy. :grimacing:

Now, I think you have an idea… Let’s call it Master Quality Authenticated :joy:

Ducks down and gets ready to be flagged… :joy: such fun…

1 Like