Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl. (Read 208721 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #200 –
I agree, grain is not necessarily a product of artistic choice. And that's probably the case most of the time.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #201 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
It's an interesting question - if the noise floor of a source is at x dB below peak, and the next stage unavoidably adds its own noise at y dB below peak, what value of y gives a "good enough" rendition.
Funny that you bring this up. I've actually been thinking about it just a few days ago and also did some quick testing. I took two uncorrelated stereo noise sources with identical spectra. When the second source is added to the first, at a gradually increasing level, I start to hear a difference when the second source is about 12 dB softer. Please feel free to do your own test to verify this value.
Perhaps it would be interesting to do some more testing, e.g. by adding white noise (like dither) to gaussian noise, to find out at what level dither can become audible in the presence of analog noise.
If 12 dB is about correct, a digital recording with dither requires about 2 bits more "resolution" (SNR) than its input signal to avoid an audible increase of the noise floor. Does that make sense ?

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #202 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Assuming you don't want to change the existing noise spectrum by more than 0.1dB at any point, the second noise source needs to be at least 38dB below the first at every frequency.

Are you sure about that calculation? I only get 16 dB.

+1

+2


Here's a summary of real world situations:

Dynamic range of channel, dB   Dynamic range of signal, dB   Loss of dynamic range due to imperfect channel, dB

-96   -85   -0.332
-96   -80   -0.108
-96   -75   -0.034
-96   -73   -0.022
-96   -70   -0.011
-96   -65   -0.003
-96   -60   -0.001
-96   -55   0.000
-96   -50   0.000

Dynamic range of channel, dB   Dynamic range of signal, dB   Loss of dynamic range due to imperfect channel, dB

      
-93   -85   -0.639
-93   -80   -0.212
-93   -75   -0.068
-93   -73   -0.043
-93   -70   -0.022
-93   -65   -0.007
-93   -60   -0.002
-93   -55   -0.001
-93   -50   0.000

Dynamic range of channel, dB   Dynamic range of signal, dB   Loss of dynamic range due to imperfect channel, dB

      
-90   -85   -1.193
-90   -80   -0.414
-90   -75   -0.135
-90   -73   -0.086
-90   -70   -0.043
-90   -65   -0.014
-90   -60   -0.004
-90   -55   -0.001
-90   -50   0.000

Dynamic range of channel, dB   Dynamic range of signal, dB   Loss of dynamic range due to imperfect channel, dB

   
-85   -85   -3.010
-85   -80   -1.193
-85   -75   -0.414
-85   -73   -0.266
-85   -70   -0.135
-85   -65   -0.043
-85   -60   -0.014
-85   -55   -0.004
-85   -50   -0.001

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #203 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Here's a summary of real world situations:
These numbers are definitely interesting, but aren't necessarily linked to perceived loudness. The spectrum of the noise is important too, which is the whole point of noise shaping e.g.
Alexey Lukin has published some loudness comparisons of dither noises  on his website Rightmark. Note the discrepancy between measured noise levels and perceived loudness.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #204 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Here's a summary of real world situations:
These numbers are definitely interesting, but aren't necessarily linked to perceived loudness. The spectrum of the noise is important too, which is the whole point of noise shaping e.g.
Alexey Lukin has published some loudness comparisons of dither noises  on his website Rightmark. Note the discrepancy between measured noise levels and perceived loudness.


Yes, you are right in that my calculations presume that the noise in the program material and the noise in the channel are equally audible. If the noise in the channel is due to shaped dither, then it is likely to be less audible than the noise in the program material, which makes my numbers pessimistic.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #205 –
Quote from: Hanuman on
All fair enough points and it is true that visual analogies are only partially applicable to aural. I don't agree, though, with the implication that visible film grain is necessarily there by artistic choice. Obviously we've seen plenty of grain-for-effect and a cinematographer will be be mindful of grain characteristics when selecting a stock (and a speed) but for most shots in most films, grain just comes along for the ride, just like noise. Sometimes other creative decisions in the colour correction process raise the grain to levels that were never expected and aren't actually wanted. So, it goes out like that and ends up on the print and in the historical record (for some future archivist to perfectly preserve!).

Some very famous looking films - such as The Godfather Trilogy - were deliberately photographed and printed to create a grainy image.

I agree with you that most recent films are photographed to reduce grain as much as possible, and this is the trend in recent film stocks such as the new Kodak Vision3.

But just because grain is generally out of fashion now doesn't mean that was always the case. It was impossible to produce film images that weren't grainy before the 1970s, and remember, it is the grainy structure of the crystals on the film that make recording an image possible in the first place.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #206 –
Quote from: SoAnIs on
Assuming a total groove width of 50 x 10^-6m, the maximum movement of the cutter is physically bounded at about half that.

I don't know where you got that from.


As obvious from this picture, where red lines represent one millimetre, the width of one groove is approximately one tenth of a millimetre, or 1*10-4 meters. Half of that is 0.5*10-4 meters which is 50*10-6 meters, so you were off by one order of magnitude.

Also, where did you get the information that the size of a PVC molecule is 100000 angstroms? That's 100000*10-10 or 1*10-5 meters which is only a fifth of the above value (5*10-5) - so PVC molecules should be visible in the very picture shown above if that was right! (No, those dots and specks you see in the picture are dust.) Perhaps you were talking about the potential length of a PVC molecule, but once we're aware of the PVC's molecular structure:


it's obvious that it's only the width of the molecule that matters in this case.

Since this is the structure of a PVC molecule:


being very pessimistic and ignoring the fact that this is only a 2D representation, one could estimate that the width of a PVC molecule is three times the covalent radius of a hydrogen atom, plus the covalent radius of a chlorine atom. Taking values from that table I linked to, the covalent radius of a hydrogen atom is 31 pm, which is 31*10-12 meters, and the covalent radius of a chlorine atom is 102 pm, which is 102*10-12. Therefore, our extremely rough and overshot estimation of the width of a PVC molecule would be 195*10-12 meters.

Since we've got that the movement of the needle is physically bounded at 50*10-6 meters, through simple division we get that the number of unique positions is approximately 256410. Now we take the logarithm to base two of that and we find that the resolution is actually equivalent to approximately 18 bits, certainly more than 16 bits. And that's with really overestimating the width of a PVC molecule!

So, sorry, but this argument of yours fails because your calculations and/or informations were erroneous.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #207 –
Perhaps, but your calculations assume that data at a single-molecular level can be accurately reproduced, which is quite the assumption. Furthermore, when properly dithered, CD has a perceptual noise floor equivalent to 20 bits (120dB at 6dB/bit), which still gives the edge to CD.

We're completely ignoring material degradation, dust, and many other potential flaws of the record here. Realize that measurements usually peg vinyl's noise floor at 80dB, which is 14-bit.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #208 –
Quote from: Canar on
Perhaps, but your calculations assume that data at a single-molecular level can be accurately reproduced, which is quite the assumption. Furthermore, when properly dithered, CD has a perceptual noise floor equivalent to 20 bits (120dB at 6dB/bit), which still gives the edge to CD.

We're completely ignoring material degradation, dust, and many other potential flaws of the record here. Realize that measurements usually peg vinyl's noise floor at 80dB, which is 14-bit.

I was not arguing over whether vinyl has better sound quality than audio CDs or trying to dispute the fact that CDs (can) have better sound quality than vinyl (in fact I think/know that CDs (can) sound better as I've listened to both, myself, on many occasions), I was merely pointing out that trying to prove it by going down to molecular level doesn't work because, theoretically, molecular structure of PVC obviously still gives the possibility of providing same or even better sound quality than CDs.

Now, the fact that reproducing from PVC with such precision is virtually impossible is a completely different matter. But it's important to point out that it's not because PVC's molecules are too big and/or the grooves are too thin.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #209 –
(It won't let me edit the previous post, so I have to double-post...)

And besides, the vinyl-fans do not claim that vinyl is superior because of greater depth of noise floor, but because of greater sampling frequency, or rather, lack of.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #210 –
Quote from: doccolinni on
being very pessimistic and ignoring the fact that this is only a 2D representation, one could estimate that the width of a PVC molecule is three times the covalent radius of a hydrogen atom, plus the covalent radius of a chlorine atom. Taking values from that table I linked to, the covalent radius of a hydrogen atom is 31 pm, which is 31*10-12 meters, and the covalent radius of a chlorine atom is 102 pm, which is 102*10-12. Therefore, our extremely rough and overshot estimation of the width of a PVC molecule would be 195*10-12 meters.

Since we've got that the movement of the needle is physically bounded at 50*10-6 meters, through simple division we get that the number of unique positions is approximately 256410. Now we take the logarithm to base two of that and we find that the resolution is actually equivalent to approximately 18 bits, certainly more than 16 bits. And that's with really overestimating the width of a PVC molecule!


This extimate of possible dynamic range would make some sense if we could line the vinyl molecules up and stack them like logs.  Then, we'd have to be able to trace them with something that was equally small. And, we'd have to protect all of this from dirt and dust in the atmosphere.

In reality, the observed dynamic range of vinyl playback ranges from about 40 to 60 dB, unweighted. 

I have some needle drops that were made by no less than Michael Fremer, Stereophile columnist and world class vinyl advocate, using his personal > $200,000 stereo system.

Actual broadband dynamic range is about 40 dB.  A 20-20 KHz filtering with 12 dB/octave slopes improves that to 45 dB. A weighted, it is about 70 dB.  Applying the ITU 468 weighting which is very severe, improves that to about 75 dB.

Vinyl also suffers from acute power bandwidth problems.  Recorded frequencies much higher than 8 KHz cannot be tracked at amplitudes that can be cut with low distortion. Then there is the groove echo, etc.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #211 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
This extimate of possible dynamic range would make some sense if we could line the vinyl molecules up and stack them like logs.  Then, we'd have to be able to trace them with something that was equally small. And, we'd have to protect all of this from dirt and dust in the atmosphere.

Yes, I know all that, and I agree with that and everything else in your post - I was just pointing out that the OP's calculations and conclusion were erroneous. He claimed that the huge size of PVC molecules is the reason why vinyl doesn't have as much dynamic range as CDs - that's simply wrong.

Like I've said in my previous post, the grooves and PVC molecules are big enough and small enough, respectively, that it is entirely physically and theoretically possible to get as much dynamic range from vinyl as from CDs. Practically and virtually, however, that's nearly impossible, because, like you've said yourself:
  • you'd need a cutter that is able to remove one PVC molecule at a time (that is possible, but making a single vinyl record in that way would take decades!), and
  • you'd need a needle and a pick-up system which are able to detect as tiny bumps as a single molecule.

In fact, since the precision of a single molecule in both cutter and needle/pick-up system would obviously yield 18-bits of depth and most probably even more (as per my calculation and the largely overestimated width of PVC molecules therein), to achieve the same dynamic range as 16 bits of CDs you'd need to be able to remove/detect four PVC molecules. That's still a laughable idea, of course.

Since the dynamic range of vinyl is equivalent to 14 bits, it's easy to roughly estimate that the cutters actually remove no less than 218-14 = 24 = 16 PVC molecules at a time. That number is most certainly a bit greater, because I'm still talking about the oversized model of PVC molecule I talked about.

If only we could design cutters and needles that are 16 times more precise...

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #212 –
Actually the size of a vinyl molecule is completely pointless since the cutter was NOT cutting vinyl molecules. Vinyl does not enter the scene until it is molded to the master, and then the molecules can deform to almost perfectly match the surface of the master.

As has been pointed out, even this has no meaning since groove conformance to the audio waveform is completely overshadowed by other factors.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #213 –
Quote from: pdq on
Actually the size of a vinyl molecule is completely pointless since the cutter was NOT cutting vinyl molecules.


Right, masters are made out of lacquer or in a newer but little-used process, metal.

Quote
Vinyl does not enter the scene until it is molded to the master, and then the molecules can deform to almost perfectly match the surface of the master.


Evidence?  Not seriously doubting, just curious if the assertion is well-grounded or about right anyway.

Quote
As has been pointed out, even this has no meaning since groove conformance to the audio waveform is completely overshadowed by other factors.


When the molecules say 18 bits and reality is often worse than 8 bits, there are a lot of other signfiicant influences.  LOTS!

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #215 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote
Vinyl does not enter the scene until it is molded to the master, and then the molecules can deform to almost perfectly match the surface of the master.


Evidence?  Not seriously doubting, just curious if the assertion is well-grounded or about right anyway.

The bond lengths and bond angles are pretty much fixed, but the bond rotation is fairly unhindered. Think of it as a lot of long, skinny worms packed into a container and you will have a fairly accurate picture of the situation.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #216 –
Quote from: doccolinni on
  • you'd need a cutter that is able to remove one PVC molecule at a time (that is possible, but making a single vinyl record in that way would take decades!), and
  • you'd need a needle and a pick-up system which are able to detect as tiny bumps as a single molecule.

...and also (in this unreality) you'd need the gaps between the molecules to be always smaller than a single molecule, or the edge of the stylus being larger than a single molecule - otherwise the noise limit wouldn't be due to the size of the molecules equating to some kind of quantisation error, but to the molecule sized stylus bumping down into the holes between molecules.

If that makes any sense!

Cheers,
David.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #217 –
I just read the first page, but I want to remind you all that assuming we understand anything in the nano scale of reality is just a dream for now. Crazy, crazy, CRAZY things happens there (not really that crazy but chaotic/logical enough for us to be dumbfounded by it).

bottom line, you like how something sounds?, good for you, please enjoy it, 'cuz ultimately it really doesn't matter much how many samples or definition or anything like that is on that sound, the only thing that matter is if you like it, and how much you like it.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #218 –
Quote from: 3amsleep on
I just read the first page, but I want to remind you all that assuming we understand anything in the nano scale of reality is just a dream for now.

We're nowhere near that level.  We are firmly in the realm of understood physical properties.  Much of modern petrochemical mechanical science exists because we understand physical properties so well at this scale.

Quote from: 3amsleep on
bottom line, you like how something sounds?, good for you, please enjoy it, 'cuz ultimately it really doesn't matter much how many samples or definition or anything like that is on that sound, the only thing that matter is if you like it, and how much you like it.

I don't believe any of the regulars here would dispute this on its face.  The point of threads like this, though, is not to be an attack on someone's subjective enjoyment, but rather to foster understanding of the what and why. 

It is one thing to say "I like the sound of vinyl records." it is another thing entirely to say "I like the sound of vinyl records because they more accurately reproduce the original performance."
The first line is an honest statement of opinion and can lead to interesting discussions and creates no misconceptions.  The second statement, though, makes demonstrably false assertions, the kind of false assertions being "attacked" in threads like this.  Calm, objective, threads such as this one help to decipher the reams of misinformation out there and allow people the tools needed to make their own decision, be that a decision based on objective measurements or a decision based on the aesthetics.
I see no incompatibilities between your opinion that "the only thing that matter is if your like it" and the discussion here.  BUT I think it is important to realize the value of opinions being informed opinions.
Creature of habit.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #219 –
Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: 3amsleep on
I just read the first page, but I want to remind you all that assuming we understand anything in the nano scale of reality is just a dream for now.

We're nowhere near that level.  We are firmly in the realm of understood physical properties.  Much of modern petrochemical mechanical science exists because we understand physical properties so well at this scale.

Quote from: 3amsleep on
bottom line, you like how something sounds?, good for you, please enjoy it, 'cuz ultimately it really doesn't matter much how many samples or definition or anything like that is on that sound, the only thing that matter is if you like it, and how much you like it.

I don't believe any of the regulars here would dispute this on its face.  The point of threads like this, though, is not to be an attack on someone's subjective enjoyment, but rather to foster understanding of the what and why. 

It is one thing to say "I like the sound of vinyl records." it is another thing entirely to say "I like the sound of vinyl records because they more accurately reproduce the original performance."
The first line is an honest statement of opinion and can lead to interesting discussions and creates no misconceptions.  The second statement, though, makes demonstrably false assertions, the kind of false assertions being "attacked" in threads like this.  Calm, objective, threads such as this one help to decipher the reams of misinformation out there and allow people the tools needed to make their own decision, be that a decision based on objective measurements or a decision based on the aesthetics.
I see no incompatibilities between your opinion that "the only thing that matter is if your like it" and the discussion here.  BUT I think it is important to realize the value of opinions being informed opinions.


I understand, maybe I was too impatient and just posted without much thought and elaboration on my opinion. Actually I completely agree with you in everything you said except for one thing; when I said we didn't understand anything in the nano scale of reality I was referring to the people in this forum, basically because all the math/physics I've seen on this thread and others are just ridiculous (I mean no offense to the ones that formulated them). The main problem is that a) they're addressing a physics problem in a non-scientifical, mathematical way and, b) they're using an inadequate, over simplified, generic physics approach (which doesn't work on this particular scale), when the conceptual problem calls for a quantum mechanics problematization.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #220 –
Quote from: 3amsleep on
b) they're using an inadequate, over simplified, generic physics approach (which doesn't work on this particular scale), when the conceptual problem calls for a quantum mechanics problematization.

Nope, as I first stated, we are not at the scale where quantum physics is needed to describe the interactions involved.  The typical definitions of quantum mechanics may start to talk about it being applied at the super-atomic level, the molecular level, but that's smaller molecules.  The vinyls are huge molecules with pretty well understood physical properties, long-chain hydrocarbons are pretty well understood, and the effects of something as large as a stylus are clearly in the realm of classical physics, not quantum.
Creature of habit.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #221 –
The equations are assuming Newtonian interactions at levels that begin to approach quantum interactions. The point that's being made is simple: even given absurdly high precision on the vinyl side, giving vinyl every benefit of the doubt we can find, it is still quite clearly inferior to CD at its purpose: accurately reproducing an audio signal.

Now, the unscientific, artistic sort is welcome to express preference for vinyl's inferior audio reproduction characteristics, citing preference for the distinctive loss patterns of vinyl as rationale. To anyone concerned with high-fidelity audio reproduction, this is absurdity. In almost every way that can be measured, vinyl is quantifiably inferior to CD. The only measurable way that vinyl actually exceeds CD is in frequency response, which is inaudible anyhow. Moreover, digital audio has arbitrary maximum sampling rates, and we are not restricted to CD's 44.1kHz.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #222 –
Quote from: Canar on
The equations are assuming Newtonian interactions at levels that begin to approach quantum interactions. The point that's being made is simple: even given absurdly high precision on the vinyl side, giving vinyl every benefit of the doubt we can find, it is still quite clearly inferior to CD at its purpose: accurately reproducing an audio signal.

Now, the unscientific, artistic sort is welcome to express preference for vinyl's inferior audio reproduction characteristics, citing preference for the distinctive loss patterns of vinyl as rationale. To anyone concerned with high-fidelity audio reproduction, this is absurdity. In almost every way that can be measured, vinyl is quantifiably inferior to CD. The only measurable way that vinyl actually exceeds CD is in frequency response, which is inaudible anyhow. Moreover, digital audio has arbitrary maximum sampling rates, and we are not restricted to CD's 44.1kHz.


"Unscientific artistic sort?" One of my best friends is a molecular genetic biologist with a distinct preference for vinyl with most titles we have compared together. "Inferior?" For one to claim superiortity or inferiority one has to first determine what is being "measured" and by what reference it is being measured against and how it is being measured. One way it can be measured is by subjective perception. By that measure I found vinyl to be superior (not dramatically) in the one and only comparison I have been able to make in which the source used was of the highest quality, was taken from the same exact mic feed, was untampered with in the mastering and was in every way an attempt to produce the most transparent CD and LP of the original performance. not that any of that really matters much. The differences in mastering and vinyl playback equipment will almost always far exceed any inherent differences in the sound of the two media.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #223 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Canar on
The equations are assuming Newtonian interactions at levels that begin to approach quantum interactions. The point that's being made is simple: even given absurdly high precision on the vinyl side, giving vinyl every benefit of the doubt we can find, it is still quite clearly inferior to CD at its purpose: accurately reproducing an audio signal.

Now, the unscientific, artistic sort is welcome to express preference for vinyl's inferior audio reproduction characteristics, citing preference for the distinctive loss patterns of vinyl as rationale. To anyone concerned with high-fidelity audio reproduction, this is absurdity. In almost every way that can be measured, vinyl is quantifiably inferior to CD.




agreed.

Quote
The only measurable way that vinyl actually exceeds CD is in frequency response, which is inaudible anyhow.


Actually, in terms of useful, low distortion frequency response extension, the LP is very inferior to the CD. Above about 8 KHz the vinyl medium is inherently limited in terms of the amplitudes that can be recorded and played back with low distortion.

Quote
Moreover, digital audio has arbitrary maximum sampling rates, and we are not restricted to CD's 44.1kHz.


We also know by many reliable means that any frequency response extensions beyond CDs limitation of 22.05 KHz max and 20 KHz practical (your 44.1 KHz number is in error), simply has no detectable effects on people as a general rule.

Quote
"Unscientific artistic sort?" One of my best friends is a molecular genetic biologist with a distinct preference for vinyl with most titles we have compared together.


It is well known that many people who are even highly sucessful in certain areas of science but stumble and fall when they go outside of their area of expertise. Linus Pauling the physicist did well. His ideas about human nutritiion were straignt out of the world of pulp health food ragazines.

Quote
"Inferior?"


Time to go back and read what the man said:

"...it (the LP)  is still quite clearly inferior to CD at its purpose: accurately reproducing an audio signal."

We're obviously talking about accuracy in a scientific sense. Do the waves that come out of a LP resemble the waves that go into it, more or less than the CD?  That has been long known with extreme accuracy and reliability. In short: CD is vastly superior to the LP. Most people did not applaud and exploit the introduction of the CD for no reason or because they were mislead. The evidence of their ears was more than enough to make them abandon the LP with a big smile on their face. There was this tiny noisy minority of misfits, though.

Quote
For one to claim superiortity or inferiority one has to first determine what is being "measured" and by what reference it is being measured against and how it is being measured.


The answer to that quesiton is well known and generally agreed upon. When we scientifically compare the CD format to the LP format, the reference in each case is the audio signal that was recorded on the media, exclusive of any artistic or production processing that preceeded the actual coding of an audio signal on the medium.  What we compare those to is the audio wave that we can obtain by the best means that are available to the general public.

Quote
One way it can be measured is by subjective perception.


Been there, done that. Again, there is a scientific way to do that. You match the levels, you synchronize the playback, and you control listener bias. I'm quite sure that you have not done this in your evaluations. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote
By that measure I found vinyl to be superior (not dramatically) in the one and only comparison I have been able to make in which the source used was of the highest quality, was taken from the same exact mic feed, was untampered with in the mastering nd was in every way an attempt to produce the most transparent CD and LP of the original performance.


The comparison you describe can't be done well, because of the necessary delays between cutting a LP and playing  a mass-produced version of it back. It takes the better part of a day. By the time you get to hear the LP, you pretty well completely forgot the subtle details of what the origional live performance sounded like.

Furthermore, you may have done this comparison once or a few times in your life, but there's people around here like me who have done a far better and more general and relevant comparison uncountable numbers of times.

I have often, and for hours and hours sat in my choice of seats in a good performance hall, and been able to compare a direct feed from a microphone or microphone array to the actual live sound. They always sound signficiantly different.

I have also had the opportunity to in essence compare the sound being recorded on a CD to the sound that went into the CD production process. Finding an reliable and signficant audible difference is impossible.

If you understand how LPs are made, and their inherent limitations, you would simply know better than to compare their sonic accuracy to any number of modern forms of music reproduction, including a high-bitrate MP3.

Quote
not that any of that really matters much. The differences in mastering and vinyl playback equipment will almost always far exceed any inherent differences in the sound of the two media.


The differences in mastering and biases in the comparisons that people usually do partially explain why a tiny, noisy minority can actually stand to  and even say they prefer to listen to LPs, except under duress.

However, the best general explanation is personal bias. Take  the romance and interpersonal interactions away, and vinyl is just not all that attractive to almost everybody. Something about the audible distoriton and noise, I think.
 

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #224 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
It is well known that many people who are even highly sucessful in certain areas of science but stumble and fall when they go outside of their area of expertise. Linus Pauling the physicist did well. His ideas about human nutritiion were straignt out of the world of pulp health food ragazines.

As a chemist myself I think of Linus Pauling as primarily a chemist rather than a physicist. His book "The Nature of the Chemical Bond" (1939) is considered one of the most significant scientific publications of the twentieth century.