Vacuum Tube Motherboard?

[James]

"Most" people? I think not. Go into any mainstream music store and try to find any vinyl at all. You'd even be hard pressed to find cassettes.

Are you joking, James? All professional DJs in night clubs use vinyl. When was the last time you went to one?

That's two different questions. I hate nightclubs and don't visit them. But do professional DJs use vinyl because they have better sound? I don't think so, it's largely because the tools for the DJ job are more evolved around vinyl than CDs and the medium is more flexible at the moment (of course this will change). Plus, I suspect there's more chachet around using vinyl.

Anyway, I fail to see your point. Are professional DJs the majority of the public? No. Does the fact that some professional DJs still use vinyl change the fact that you basically cannot buy vinyl in music stores? No. You seem to be building up your own arguments to disagree with.

 

[NRG = mc²]

If you compare a waveform from a phonograph with the equivalent from a CD player, the CD will always provide a more accurate reproduction. This even applies at high frequencies, where the sampling rate is only two to three times, because phonographs simply can't track well at these frequencies. And in any case the good old human ear is incapable of discerning the wave shape at the upper end of most people's hearing.

What I meant to compare was digital and analog, not specifically CD. Do you not agree that an analog waveform is theoretically a better representation of a soundwave than a digital one?

Your point about phonographs is taken, though.

It's also worth pointing out that all pressings have already undergone an A-D and D-A conversion

I was just visiting to post about this - modern music may be digital to start with or be converted and edited digitally, but what I was saying was targeted at music that is originally analog and remained that way.

it's largely because the tools for the DJ job are more evolved around vinyl than CDs and the medium is more flexible at the moment (of course this will change).

True. DJ's couldn't give a damn about quality, as long as its loud :roll:

 

[The Grammar Police]

Do you not agree that an analog waveform is theoretically a better representation of a soundwave than a digital one?

No.

If you take poorly-executed examples of each, you get distortion. The analogue waveform has insufficent dynamic range, poor ability to represent sudden variations in SPL (i.e., poor slew rate) and above all, random noise. The digital waveform (again, if poorly executed) merely approximates the actual waveform with a series of discrete steps. The question then becomes "which one of these particular two waveforms happens to have the worst distortions?" and the answer depends on which of the two is the most flawed. For every example showing one answer, there is another showing the opposite, and it's impossible to draw any sensible conclusion.

So let's take well-executed examples of each and compare. The analogue waveform will still have limited dynamic range, restricted slew-rate, and some amount of noise - though in a really good analogue system these factors will be so well attended to that the untrained ear can't tell the difference, and it's quite possible that even a really well-trained musician couldn't either.

On the other hand, provided that the digital waveform has a sufficient degree of granularity, it will be perfect. The secret to this is simple: once the smallest single unit in the digital representation is smaller than the smallest human-detectable variation in air pressure (which is what sound is, after all) the difference between the digital waveform and the original waveform cannot be noticed by the human being.

Notice the subtle difference: a good analogue system can produce a waveform which is indistinguisable from the original in practice, even though there is a throretical difference. Wheras a good digital system can produce a waveform which is indistinguishable from the original in practice and even in theory.

In reality, of course, we must consider two other factors:

(a) It's much easier to produce a tolerably good digital system.

(b) No matter how perfect the electronic side of things becomes (and even a consumer-level digital system is pretty close to perfect), the end result (the sound you hear) is limited by your transducers. We have reached perfection (or close enough not to matter) in the all-electronic parts of our sound systems, but transducers remain today what they have always been: the Achillies heel of sound quality. No transducer yet invented (microphone, record stylus, analogue tape head, speaker system) is perfect. They are pretty damn good, but it is probably not possible to manufacture a perfect transducer. If you could have a digital transducer, then you could make the thing perfect. (In fact you can do this with certain classes of transducers - the tape head on a DAT machine is an example.) But a digital primary transducer (microphone, guitar pick-up, speaker) is a logical impossibility.

(Unless you have digital ears, of course.)

(And even they wouldn't work unless you had a digital brain.)

 

[Prof.Wizard]

I didn't think it was possible for someone to be more than 100% wrong, but full marks to Pee Wee for setting the pace. Dynamic range of a vinyl recording is limited to about 60dB, which is better than normal audio cassette by about 10dB, but sure as hell isn't unlimited. For a CD, it's 90dB, which is a comfortable margin over what we are ever likely to experience in reality.

In other words, you have it completely back to front, but there's no such thing as unlimited anyway. Do you have any understanding whatsoever how a phonograph works?

It's also worth pointing out that all pressings have already undergone an A-D and D-A conversion, even if the original master was analogue. The only way you could approach your fantasy would be with an original Edison cylinder.

The A-D-A devices used in studios are multi-million devices that can really make a seemless conversion.

It's not about the dynamic range you say, yes I know how a phonograph works. No one said the sound of vinyl is crystal clear (it's always filled with little scratches), but the playing of the instruments and recorded voices it's much more near the real thing...

The sound of CDs is written digital, that is expressed in 011101010 with limited kbps. Analog sound is represented by different distorsions of the sound wave according to the quality of the "hills and grooves" of the disk and the quality of the needle used to read.

Oh and please, most DJs I know are also hobbyists. They don't buy vinyl only for professional work but also because of its genuine sound and their audio collection (discoteque). Most others (including you and me) prefer the CDs because they're compact and can be played in your car's player... It's a matter of ergonomics.

This guy laments the lack of utilization of CD bandwidth:

http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

As for DJs who use vinyl, their time is limited. Read what this DJ has to say about the "quality" of club sound:

http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,47398,00.html

These links you provide don't prove anything to me. If you do a good search you can find the opposite side saying the opposite things...

 

[Prof.Wizard]

That's two different questions. I hate nightclubs and don't visit them. But do professional DJs use vinyl because they have better sound? I don't think so, it's largely because the tools for the DJ job are more evolved around vinyl than CDs and the medium is more flexible at the moment (of course this will change). Plus, I suspect there's more chachet around using vinyl.

Anyway, I fail to see your point. Are professional DJs the majority of the public? No. Does the fact that some professional DJs still use vinyl change the fact that you basically cannot buy vinyl in music stores? No. You seem to be building up your own arguments to disagree with.

You're OT.

Anything about quality and analog vs. digital?

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Jee dudes, just do a search in Google for "analog vs digital sound vinyl" and then come append this thread again.

Here's a small excerpt:

Digital VS. Analog

Ok, here it goes. Digital has the rep for being fo higher quality for mainly this reason; digital's full potential is much easier reached than analog's. Since digital is merely numbers how you actually read the numbers (as long as they're in correct sequence and timing) is irrelevent. You don't need to worry about resonances in that part of the front end. However, digital cannot be played of recorded because music isn't digital, it's analog. This means that you need something to convert the numbers into sound. Hence, the D/A (digital to analog, A/D (analog to digital) converter. But you must remember that with every added step into the system distortion and coloration is innevitably added. And here's another thing to think about: when you listen to digital, you're not hearing sound, you're hearing "pieces" of sound. Even though the pieces move so fast that you can't consciencely hear the pieces, your brain can hear the diffrence and it does make a diffrence on the soundstaging and overall enjoyment of the music. Now onto analog. As I pointed out earlier, analog's potential is not near as easily achieved as digital's. Analog insists on being picky (much like my girlfriend). But also like my girlfriend, when every step is carefully considered and all pickyness is satisfied, the overall enjoyment of the relationship is hightened. The signal that is imbeded on the LP is read by the cartridge, or technically the stylus. The best way to view the stylus is as an ear. The stylus "hears" the music and then tells the cartridge what it's hearing. So any unwanted resonces that make it's way to the stylus or even the cartridge is going to be viewed as part of the music. This is unlike the laser of the cd player that acts as an "eye." The laser "sees" the numbers and any other sound that makes its way the laser can't be viewed and won't make its way into the signal. This is the biggest reason analog gets it's bad name. Any kind of disturbances on the LP cause the well known "snap, crackle, pop." Plus you must take into consideration that the tone arm has a resonance frequency just like every other piece of matter in the universe and that natural vibration can travel its way to the stylus and into the music that you hear. When the resonance is under control and the stylus is well protected from any vibration, analog oversteps digital. Remember that when you listen to analog you're hearing the real music, but with digital you're hearing pieces of the music. And when analog's pickyness is satisfied it's potential is way above any digital playback. As I'm sure you've realized, analog is not for the weak hearted and poor walleted.
@http://audiophileamerica.com/tutorials/third.html


Anyway, I won't be responding you in this thread anymore cause I have to travel for a day (back to Greece) now AND because I think I can't persuade you nor can you me...

Let's all keep running happily our CDs... leave the vinyl for the real audiophiles... :wink:

PS. It's funny that some guys here (time?) try so much to get me wrong on something so obvious... If I didn't know, I wouldn't post... remember that!

 

[The Grammar Police]

Oh what a load of unscientific gibberish, my dear Profesor.Let's do some Physics 101, shall we?

What is "sound"?

Sound is a rapid sequence of variations in air pressure.

How can we conceptualise sound, especially complex sounds?

There are two main ways.

(a) We can take the complex actual waveform (i.e. the series of instantaneous variations in air pressure that make the sound) and break it up into a number of subsiduary, simpler waveforms. It is most useful if we do this with sine waves. For any actual sound, there exists a theoretical set of superimposed sine waves such that the sum of the sine waves is equal to the original complex waveform.

In fact, this is exactly what our ears do, although not particularly efficiently. To over-simplify for a moment, when you hear (for example) a musician pluck the fifth course of a twelve string guitar, you actually hear two notes which are both more or less sine waves: one with a frequency of 440Hz, the other with a frequency of 880Hz. Now most people are not able to distinguish them, they are simply aware that even though the note is an "A" it somehow sounds "higher" than the "A" produced by the fifth course of a six string guitar. The six string guitar has only a single string per course, and thus produces a relatively pure tone at 440Hz. The twelve string guitar, having two strings per course, one of them being tuned an octave above the other, produces two "pure tones" at the same time: one at 440Hz, the other at 880Hz.

A trained musician, however, can distinguish between the two notes and immediately say that "this is a twelve string guitar".

Now, I said I was going to over-simplify a moment ago, and before all the guys who passed their high school physics classes leap in and jump all over me, I better sort that out. The description above is actually only true of an instrument that produces "pure" tones, such as a Moog synthesiser or a wave generator. No-one listens to those for pleasure, however. Certain "real world" instruments produce approximately "pure" tones - notably the flute - but to a greater or lesser extent, all actual musical instruments and voices produce a complex mix of tones. The "A" string on my six-string guitar, for example, vibrates in a complex, more-or-less circular fashion, pushing against the air and body of the guitar in a similarly complex and varied fashion, and producing a matched set of complex and varied changes in the pressure of the air in the room - and the frequencies at which it vibrates are manifold. The primary frequency is indeed an "A" at 440Hz, but there are a host of other frequencies, mostly at even fractions of 440Hz, that are present to a greater or lesser degree too. If you put the sound made by my "A" string through a frequency analyser, you'll soon discover that 440Hz is dominant but there are also strong signals at (for example) 660, 880, and 586Hz. It is the particular balance between these different tones and overtones, and the attack and decay carecteristics of the note, that give a guitar its distinctive sound (as opposed to a trombone or a grand piano). It is more subtle variations in these balances that distinguish between individual instruments and individual musicians.

To summarise, we can take our original waveform, and divide it up and divide it up until we have a vast array of sine waves at different frequencies and volumes, and when we add them all together (each one adding its own contribution to the overall instantaneous air pressure variation) we arrive back at the original sound.

(b) We can ignore all that stuff above, and simply look at the series of sound pressure variatons that the sound was in the first place.

Which of these methods is better?

Neither. Both. Use whichever one is more convenient to you. They will give you the exact same answer. If they don't, go back and check your maths; you have made a mistake.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Oh what a load of unscientific gibberish, my dear Profesor.

Unscientific gibberish?! :-?
... OK, that says it all.

Thanx dude, but I don't need your help. I've done loads of Physics, Medical Physics, and Human Physiology in university-level courses. I know how sound works and grasp how humans perceive it and what's objectively better and more genuine in sound quality and, above all, fidelity.

LOL, I just thought that the whole discourse can go on for a fight between analog (chemical) and digital photography. Same issues there...

PS. Stick to your department, Grammar Police. :wink:

 

[time]

These links you provide don't prove anything to me. If you do a good search you can find the opposite side saying the opposite things...

Searching Google for "the earth is round" yields about a million results. But I get almost as many with "the earth is flat". I think I can use your argument to refute anything.
I quoted those sites for your benefit, not mine. I made all my statements from existing knowledge, but did a couple of quick searches to check my memory of numbers etc.

It's funny that some guys here (time?) try so much to get me wrong on something so obvious... If I didn't know, I wouldn't post...

If you want me to pursue you relentlessly, just spout rubbish without a shred of logical, mathematical or scientific reasoning to back it up. I don't care about being right personally, but I do care about others actively spreading misinformation.

When CDs first came out, we rejoiced that at last the jiggery pokery associated with turntables, cartridges, etc would disappear. Surely now all manufacturers should be capable of building an excellent audio source. We completely underestimated the human love affair with quackery.

Yes, you can tell the difference between a vinyl recording and a CD. That's largely because the CD is virtually noiseless, whereas phono records inject continuous noise into the sound. People get used to it and some miss it when it's not there, complaining of the "sterility" of "digital" sound.

when you listen to digital, you're not hearing sound, you're hearing "pieces" of sound. Even though the pieces move so fast that you can't consciencely hear the pieces, your brain can hear the diffrence and it does make a diffrence on the soundstaging and overall enjoyment of the music.

How many people realize that the power supply in your computer (and other appliances) is digital? Do you think that the poor CPU sees "pieces" of electricity rather than a continuous supply?

The term "digital" refers to how the audio information is stored, not the ultimate output. As The Grammar Police point out, transducers are not digital. In fact, most would struggle to reproduce even 44kHz, let alone the higher sampling frequencies in use.

 

[The Grammar Police]

Why do some people say that digital sound is "pieces of the sound"?

Because they imagine that, in taking a series of samples of the instantaneous variations in air pressure, and translating each of these samples into a number before converting it back via a DAC, an amplifier, and a set of speakers, will result in a "stepped" waveform that is composed of a number of square waves and looks something like a staircase instead of like a smooth curve.

Is here any sense to that point of view?

Well, if you had a really primitive D/A converter, yes, it would make sense. If you were working with a very low sampling rate (15Khz, for example), or with a seriously restricted set of available sampling levels (4 bit or 8 bit) that is exactly what you would get. And it would sound terrible. Real Darth Vader stuff.

But provided you have a high sampling rate (the figure usually cited is 44.1KHz) and a sufficently large number of bits with which to represent the air pressure variation levels (16-bits are usually considered sufficient, though some people claim that you can get improved results with even more levels), the view makes no sense at all.

Why not?

Well, we can show this either of two ways. That's why I introduced the topic of Fourier analysis in my previous post. Here is method (a).

a: Looking at the sound as a complex set of sine waves (as we did in the previous post), if you examine the two signals - the original sound, and the digitally recorded image of it - and we ignore transducer error (because no matter which recording method we use, sooner or later we must pass the original sound through a microphone and a speaker) there is one difference and only one difference between the two. This is the millions of tiny "steps" in the digital representation of the sound.

So what we do is we start subtracting the individividual sine waves from both signals until we have subtracted everything except the "steps". Now we continue with the analysis, in the exact same way, and observe the set of sine wave frequencies that the "steps" resolve into.

And right away, we notice something: every single frequency we have added to the signal through the process of digitisation is well above the limit of human hearing. We have added frequencies at 50, 80, 190KHz. And these are frequencies that (a) no human being can hear, that (b) no competently designed power amp will pass through, and (c) no earthly set of tweeters can reproduce anyway. Whichever way you look at it, the "step" theory is hogwash.

Let's try method (b).

b: Considering the two signals as entire signals now (in other words as simply lists of individual variations in air pressure, one of them continuous the other discrete), we again find that the differences are tiny, and are concentrated in those same miniscule "steps". However, when we play the sound back through speakers, as Time observed, the steps are so small and so momentary that the speakers are unable to reproduce them. The speakers, in fact, are unable to reproduce the overall curve (be it analog or digital) in more than a rather approximate way. The physical movement of the speaker does not and cannot faithfully duplicate the extremely rapid accellerations and decellerations implied by the digital "steps", being limited by physical mass and electrical impedence, it simply takes an average figure, never quite catching up to the intended signal. (Or, to look at it using method (a) again for a moment, it can't reproduce the implied extreme high frequencies.)

But let's imagine that some young Einstein has invented an infinitely rigid speaker system with zero mass and zero impedence. What difference would it make to you, the listener, so far as the analogue/digital question goes? Why, none at all. For your ears are not sufficiently sensitive to hear those tiny differences, let alone pick up those impossibly high frequencies. Provided the sampling frequency is at least twice the highest frequency detectable by the ear, there is no discernable difference. Except the hisses, poor slew rate, and restricted dynamic range of the analogue medium, of course.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Audiophiles and musicians can hear the difference. Obviously you can't...

I don't need your subjective links. I'm speaking always through strict and orthological science. There is some serious physics behind analog reproduction that goes beyond the dB-range and the kbps of digital media.

Too bad I'll have to shut down the PC and pack now. Do the search yourself, you can find most of these things I'm saying in serious audiophile sites around the 'Net.

And we can bet you WILL find them... :wink:
...but then again, ignorance is bliss, oh don't you know that so well, time?!

 

[The Grammar Police]

Now, for the final part of my three-part post, the most fundamental point of all. Luckily, and contrary to my usual habit, I'm going to make this one short and sweet.

What sort of device is the human ear?

Digital.

Huh? Then why are we talking about this digital/analogue thing anyway?

Beats me. It's pretty senseless, isn't it.

Well, go on. Explain.

OK then. I guess the Prof could explain this better than me - he is the budding young neuro-surgeon after all - but I'll stumble along as best I can. I'm going to use the example of the human eye first, just because I remember that part of my first year psychology better. After I do that, I'll apply the result to the ear.

The business end of the eye is the retina. Esentially, it is a great big array of photo-sensitive cells, each one connected to the optic nerve. The cells don't actually respond to light, they respond to changes in light intensity. Note that well - for like every other single sensory organ we have, they are sensitive to changes, not absolute levels. You can easily confirm this for yourself.

Sit back in your armchair and place your head such that it is easy to keep it absolutely still. Close one eye. Now, place your finger lightly but firmly against the skin covering the eyeball of your open eye. Push just hard enough to stop your eyeball moving, not so hard that it's painful or as to press your eye closed. Now wait for 30 seconds or so. After a little while, having been robbed of the three normal movements (moving your head, gross eyeball movements where we look to one side or another, and the tiny, unconscious, jiggling movements that our eyes make all the time), your retinal cells will cease to register any changes, and thus stop "firing". With no retinal signals flowing up the optic nerve, our vision fades to black.

Now each retinal cell, like all other nerve cells, can do one of two things. It can fire (send a small electro-chemical signal of (from memory) about 0.6V up the chain to the next nerve cell in the network), or it can not fire. On, or off. Zero or one, if you want to think about it that way.

If we are looking at a bright light, lots of cells fire. If we are looking at a dull light, most of the cells are not stimulated enough by the photons falling on them to be triggered and we see a dimmer, less detailed outline. And if we are looking up at the inside of Prof. Wizard's fundament down a coal mine at midnight, (a) none of the retinal cells fire (bar a little background randomness) and (b) neither the Prof nor you as the observer feel terribly happy about matters. :wink:

The ear, of course, works in much the same manner. I have managed to forget the complex series of structures that begin the process - there is the ear drum itself, three little bones, and a tube of fluid involved - but the end result is that the instantaneous air pressure variations (the sound) create a vibration in a fluid-filled canal, and this canal is lined with thousands of tiny hairs (or hair-like structures, at any rate - no doubt our good Prof can remind me of the details). And these hairs - you guessed it - either trigger a nerve impulse, or they don't trigger a nerve impulse. Yes or no. On or off. One or zero. The ear, in other words, is a digital device.

(Or, more strictly speaking, the ear is analogue, but the auditory nerves are digital.)

 

[Stereodude]

I see I don't pay any attention to a thread and the fun goes on without me.

The professor is on crack. He's making absurd claims without any real knowledge of how digital audio really works. It does not have a jagged output. There are no "stair-steps" in the output from the DAs. It puts out smooth waveforms. However this doesn't matter to any "audiophile". Science is irrelevent to an "audiophile". There is no place for reality to them. The only thing that that matters is the world as they see it.

There once was a man name Nyquist and he has something to say to all of you. Your sampling frequency only needs to be 2x that of the highest frequency you're trying to capture. Unless you'd like to formulate a proof on how Nyquist was wrong I'd suggest keeping your mouth shut and avoiding further embarassment.

Stereodude

 

[Stereodude]

LOL, I just thought that the whole discourse can go on for a fight between analog (chemical) and digital photography. Same issues there...

This is really another thread, but most serious photographers know and will readily admit that a digital camera coupled to the latest injet photo printer will make short work of a film based darkroom process. Of course you're going to swear that they're all wrong.

That's just the extreme audio snobs. Who are too foolish to admit that they're wrong and there's no basis for their claims.

We know that there isn't an audible difference in CD-R blanks. We know that bits are bits. We know double blind test are valid and can disprove pretty much every claim the nutcase audiophiles make.

Stereodude

 

[Cliptin]

LOL, I just thought that the whole discourse can go on for a fight between analog (chemical) and digital photography. Same issues there...

This is really another thread, but most serious photographers know and will readily admit that a digital camera coupled to the latest injet photo printer will make short work of a film based darkroom process. Of course you're going to swear that they're all wrong.

That's just the extreme audio snobs. Who are too foolish to admit that they're wrong and there's no basis for their claims.

We know that there isn't an audible difference in CD-R blanks. We know that bits are bits. We know double blind test are valid and can disprove pretty much every claim the nutcase audiophiles make.

Stereodude

Are you sure you want to leave the statemnet that vague?

 

[Stereodude]

Are you sure you want to leave the statemnet that vague?

I was referring to something like a Canon EOS D60.

Stereodude

 

[Pradeep]

I don't think digital can compete with film for large blow ups of images. A 6 MP camera is okay for A3 perhaps, anything bigger ain't too good. Perhaps in a couple of years. Unless we are talking about a Hasselblad with 20 MP back or some such esoterica.

 

[James]

You're OT.

Anything about quality and analog vs. digital?

:roll: Okay, here's my original post in its entirety :

Most people, including myself, like analog's oldy sound quality...

"Most" people? I think not. Go into any mainstream music store and try to find any vinyl at all. You'd even be hard pressed to find cassettes.

... ie. if most people prefered vinyl, you'd be able to buy them in the shops. Simple supply and demand. You're the one bringing in professional DJs etc. who are still not "most" people as I pointed out in my last post.

Here's a hint for you : Continually expanding the list of things you're arguing about does not increase your chances of being right.

 

[Mercutio]

OTOH, I know of a guy who goes to kiddie sporting events with a reasonably high-quality Olympus Digital Camera, takes fabulous shots of whatever their in-game heroics are, and makes a living selling the results, output on a midrange Epson printer, to parents.

That says a lot to me right there about the quality of digital photography and inkjet printing.

The key to understanding audiophiles is that they are people listening to their equipment, not to the music that's played on it. It's funny to hear them argue, especially when they get WAY out of the realm of sensibility - guys mounting their 'fridges in sandboxes to minimize vibrations that might be coloring the output from their phonograph, but Prof:

They don't really know what they're talking about.

Believe me, I've worked and gone to school with recording engineers. Every one of them has his/her own little voodoo, and they all know it. There are guys that go off the deep end. The rest just shake their heads.

 

[Handruin]

OTOH, I know of a guy who goes to kiddie sporting events with a reasonably high-quality Olympus Digital Camera, takes fabulous shots of whatever their in-game heroics are, and makes a living selling the results, output on a midrange Epson printer, to parents.

That says a lot to me right there about the quality of digital photography and inkjet printing.

The key to understanding audiophiles is that they are people listening to their equipment, not to the music that's played on it. It's funny to hear them argue, especially when they get WAY out of the realm of sensibility - guys mounting their 'fridges in sandboxes to minimize vibrations that might be coloring the output from their phonograph, but Prof:

They don't really know what they're talking about.

Believe me, I've worked and gone to school with recording engineers. Every one of them has his/her own little voodoo, and they all know it. There are guys that go off the deep end. The rest just shake their heads.

I wanted to be one of those crazy audiophiles, but in the end I know it wasn't worth it for me. My basic 5.1 Digital amp with my basic DVD player works well...and I don't own the million dollar home with a specially built room to utilize the speakers, so there is not point of going any further.

I'll stop going off topic now...

 

[Dozer]

I worked in graphic design and art direction for the marketing department of a bakery here in Tennessee. We utilized several high-end digital photographers to shoot various images for our printed materials. The image quality was amazing, but we're talking about $100,000+ cameras. Most of the cameras that our photographers used were specifically designed to shoot stills, not moving objects, and photographed still media with clarity rivaling film. However, your image quality is only as good as the printing quality of the output device. I think the issue boils down to convenience. With a digital image, I could take a food display to the photographer, arrange the products, shoot the rack once, and have it on file. Then I could rearrange product on the shelves in Photoshop as need dictated it. It is just so much more convenient to have digital image files rather than have to go to the time and expense of developing film.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Sterodude, it's a pity. I thought you knew something about real audio experience but probably your name is a misnomer. Suggest you change it to misnomer.

Real music is analog. Go listen your compact disks now... I really don't give a shit about it.

PS. And your mother is on crack. Not me.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

No top-notch audiophile ISN'T having an analog player.
No top-notch photographer ISN'T having an analog camera.

Both use them for their real moments, for the rest they might use their digital counterparts.

I wonder where you got that nick, Monodude.

 

[NRG = mc²]

Whoa, cool down Prof...

OK, your (Grammar Police et all) explanations convinced me.

The A-D-A devices used in studios are multi-million devices that can really make a seemless conversion.

I have to disagree with you on that

 

[Prof.Wizard]

And why?

 

[Prof.Wizard]

(Or, more strictly speaking, the ear is analogue, but the auditory nerves are digital.)

You tried to play it smart to me GP, but this is definitely MY field... 8)

How about telling you that consciousness and visual awareness, that is: what really matters, are again analog?!

 

[time]

Sterodude, it's a pity. I thought you knew something about real audio experience but probably your name is a misnomer. Suggest you change it to misnomer.

Professor - One who professes.

Wizard - A skilled or clever person.

I assume the conjunction means that you profess to be a clever person, therefore no-one could ever accuse you of using an inappropriate nick.

How about telling you that consciousness and visual awareness, that is: what really matters, are again analog?!

I know you don't seem to have much respect for computer science or mathematics, but try not to confuse them with Psych 101.

 

[CougTek]

PS. And your mother is on crack. Not me.

This is beyond the acceptable line IMO. Would I be moderator, this line would have been edited and you would have received a firm warning. Having an argument turning against you isn't a valid reason to display such childish, school yard level, behavior.

 

[Stereodude]

No top-notch audiophile ISN'T having an analog player.
No top-notch photographer ISN'T having an analog camera.

Both use them for their real moments, for the rest they might use their digital counterparts.

I wonder where you got that nick, Monodude.

Aww... did I hurt someone's feeling when I tried to plug your views into reality. See this is just the icing on the cake. Reality and Audiophilia don't mix. The Wizard has now taken the liberty of proving my point. If you can't attack the facts you attack the person. That and try to muddy up the argument.

The simple fact is that highend digital cameras are making serious inroads. Sports Illustrated has use images from digital SLRs in two page photo spreads in their magazines and they're not the only ones. Film based cameras will go the way of the dinosaur. Your refusal to admit this doesn't change reality any.

Stereodude

 

[Prof.Wizard]

This is beyond the acceptable line IMO. Would I be moderator, this line would have been edited and you would have received a firm warning. Having an argument turning against you isn't a valid reason to display such childish, school yard level, behavior.

1st. I don't have ANY argument turning against me. Just because everyone or almost anyone believes here digital sound is better than analog, which is against physics and Fourier transformation equations, doesn't mean I'm wrong. There's no rule saying that just because the majority says something it's definitely right. Actually, most misunderstandings in human history arise from this.

2nd. I don't find acceptable Stereodude saying that I'm smoking crack so easily either. He doesn't know me and I would never leave something like this without response. I wonder if you (moderators) warned him too. Even with a PM.

 

[Cliptin]

PS. And your mother is on crack. Not me.

This is beyond the acceptable line IMO. Would I be moderator, this line would have been edited and you would have received a firm warning. Having an argument turning against you isn't a valid reason to display such childish, school yard level, behavior.

Prof, You need to behave and leave out the personal insults.
Stereodude, Tone it down a notch.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Aww... did I hurt someone's feeling when I tried to plug your views into reality. See this is just the icing on the cake. Reality and Audiophilia don't mix. The Wizard has now taken the liberty of proving my point. If you can't attack the facts you attack the person. That and try to muddy up the argument.

The simple fact is that highend digital cameras are making serious inroads. Sports Illustrated has use images from digital SLRs in two page photo spreads in their magazines and they're not the only ones. Film based cameras will go the way of the dinosaur. Your refusal to admit this doesn't change reality any.

Stereodude

You didn't hurt no one pal. I can't be hurt so easily. Especially from somone who uses a misnomer to prove his "knowledge" in how sound works.

Trust me, I love and believe in new technology. Besides I'm jounger than you. I'm no conservatist.

Actually, I possess digital cameras, analog cameras, CD players, and vinyl turntables. I've read extensive articles in paper magazines and journals in these fields and I've spoken to both professional photographers and musicians about both issues.

For the time being: Analog audio (in a top-notch system) and analog photo (in every level- comparing same-price solutions) can't be beaten.

Stick to your CDs and cheapo $100 digital camera... might cost less, but you got NO system to boast for...

 

[time]

The only personal insult I can see from Stereodude was his suggestion that the Prof was on crack. In internet forums, this is a common metaphor to indicate how out of touch with reality you think someone is.

Stereodude was blunt, but I think that approach was appropriate by that stage of the thread at least. And I have no problem with him defending himself. He was certainly more restrained than I would have been.

BTW, Prof didn't say he himself was an audiophile. He just supports some of their claims.

I think people have continued to post in this thread because PW's style of arguing is annoying the hell out of quite a few people. He's effectively saying "Nya nya!".

He hinted that Fourier Transforms support his case, albeit without any specifics. But he has implied that there is no expert we can bring as witness against his own immense knowledge of phsyics and mathematics. So this link is for everyone else, courtesy of Stereodude who unlike me, can remember names:

http://www.geocities.com/bioelectrochemistry/nyquist.htm

 

[adriel]

As any kind of HiFi, they suck badly and always have.

Tubes such as the EF86, 300B, 845, etc are some of the lowest distortion electronic amplifying devices ever made.

For the time being: Analog audio (in a top-notch system) and analog photo (in every level- comparing same-price solutions) can't be beaten.

I know the audio part is true; open reel analog tape masters are the highest fidelity recordings we have. It is due to these tape masters that hi-rez digital formats are even worthwhile. Recordings of music at 16-bit/48kHz made over the past 20 years aren't worthwhile of conversion to SACD or DVD-A, while on the other hand the analog tape masters are.

I'm not sure about film photo, but I do know that 35mm film for motion pictures isn't going away anytime soon. The technical aspect is, until digital camcorders get up to 2k-4k resolution they won't equal film, and once they do they still need to get up to at least a 100:1 contrast ratio. As for the aesthetic aspect, the film medium is still much more advanced and evolved as an art form. A movie in the theaters looks like a movie, while a video shot at home lacks the movie look and instead has the soap opera look. Saturation, grain, stock, 24 full fps, etc. is part of the film aesthetic and is highly developed. Digital video is another medium and has a different aesthetic potential. People need to explore it more, applying some methods developed from film (lighting, lenses, depth of field) until its own aesthetic becomes firmly established. So far it lags behind film.

 

[Stereodude]

I'm not sure about film photo, but I do know that 35mm film for motion pictures isn't going away anytime soon. The technical aspect is, until digital camcorders get up to 2k-4k resolution they won't equal film, and once they do they still need to get up to at least a 100:1 contrast ratio. As for the aesthetic aspect, the film medium is still much more advanced and evolved as an art form. A movie in the theaters looks like a movie, while a video shot at home lacks the movie look and instead has the soap opera look. Saturation, grain, stock, 24 full fps, etc. is part of the film aesthetic and is highly developed. Digital video is another medium and has a different aesthetic potential. People need to explore it more, applying some methods developed from film (lighting, lenses, depth of field) until its own aesthetic becomes firmly established. So far it lags behind film.

Tell that to George Lucas. I saw Episode II digitally and I saw it via "analog" (conventional projection). There is no doubt in my mind (or anyone else that I talked to who saw both) that the digital presentation was far superior to film despite the limited resolution of the projector. The movie was shot entirely on digital in case you were not aware of that.

Stereodude

 

[Stereodude]

For the time being: Analog audio (in a top-notch system) and analog photo (in every level- comparing same-price solutions) can't be beaten.

Nothing like wording your argument in such a way that it in theory is nearly impossible to refute. You've narrowed down what's "acceptable" in your hypothesis so much that it's just not really possible to come to any other conclusion.

I wil disagree with you about top notch audio systems. A digital amplifier and a SACD as the source will wipe the floor with vinyl and a tube amp, but you're not going to ever admit that.

For audio you want to play at the top of the game where you're comparing a $100k analog setup to a perhaps equally expensive digital setup. You declare the analog the winner. (You could spend 1/25th as much and match it with digital, but we won't go there right now...) For photography you want to compare a $100 film camera to a $100 digital camera. You can't have it both ways. You can't go extreme in one case and low end in the next.

But, I suppose I can play this game too:

If you compare $500 stereos one being CD based vs. one that's vinyl based the digital one will easily win. And if I compare a $100k digital camera to a equivalent film based camera the digital will win again.

Gee... isn't that neat. I can readily control the outcome of reality through very careful screening too.

Stereodude

 

[Prof.Wizard]

The only personal insult I can see from Stereodude was his suggestion that the Prof was on crack. In internet forums, this is a common metaphor to indicate how out of touch with reality you think someone is.

Never seen it before.
Whatever the case, it was a direct attack. You don't start/enter in a thread like this.

Stereodude was blunt, but I think that approach was appropriate by that stage of the thread at least. And I have no problem with him defending himself. He was certainly more restrained than I would have been.

Ah yeah, when we all agree it's a so-much better world. However, hell and damnation for the one decides to go against the flow, telling another opinion. Well, when representing something so straight as physics, I'm willing to take the burden. No, I'm not a modern Socrates, just Constantine. A 4th-year med student.

BTW, Prof didn't say he himself was an audiophile. He just supports some of their claims.

I'm not an audiophile. But I know a great buch of people who are (and real photographers) and I know what they choose. Oh, and they HAVE money to spend on expensive equipment...
If I ever become an audiophile I'll surely invest money to analog equipment.

I think people have continued to post in this thread because PW's style of arguing is annoying the hell out of quite a few people. He's effectively saying "Nya nya!".

No, I think the problem is that I'm the ONLY in this forum supporting that analog is better, while the rest of you try to convince me for something that is against physics. Too bad cause if you do a Google search with the key words of our issue you'll most probably find more people (and audiophile sites) supporting my position and not yours. And with facts that go beyond my time to post them here. (Yes, you may have time-to-lose, time, but I do not. I'm on vacation now.)

He hinted that Fourier Transforms support his case, albeit without any specifics. But he has implied that there is no expert we can bring as witness against his own immense knowledge of phsyics and mathematics. So this link is for everyone else, courtesy of Stereodude who unlike me, can remember names:

Fourier equations explain (among other things) the digitization of sound and other waves. It's no secret.
BTW, I DON'T have immense knowledge of physics and mathematics, but I have another advantage you don't have... I know what I know and I know what I don't know.
Knowing the limits of your knowledge and being conscious of what you're saying is paramount when getting into a serious scientific (but also political, historical, emotional, whatever) debate.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Tell that to George Lucas. I saw Episode II digitally and I saw it via "analog" (conventional projection). There is no doubt in my mind (or anyone else that I talked to who saw both) that the digital presentation was far superior to film despite the limited resolution of the projector. The movie was shot entirely on digital in case you were not aware of that.

Stereodude

Hilarious statement.

Of course digital movies look better on digital projectors. Tried that on a normal (conventional) movie?

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Nothing like wording your argument in such a way that it in theory is nearly impossible to refute. You've narrowed down what's "acceptable" in your hypothesis so much that it's just not really possible to come to any other conclusion.

I wil disagree with you about top notch audio systems. A digital amplifier and a SACD as the source will wipe the floor with vinyl and a tube amp, but you're not going to ever admit that.

Top technology will always cost because it is... exactly, top technology. However watch its down-spiraling price with the passing of time.

Whatever though. You're statement is inaccurate. It's like if I'm saying that because a Bentley costs more than a Ferrari it has to run faster too. Well, hell not. Of course both cars have top-notch performance but the one that "runs better" is the analog... erm, Ferrari. :wink:

If you compare $500 stereos one being CD based vs. one that's vinyl based the digital one will easily win. And if I compare a $100k digital camera to a equivalent film based camera the digital will win again.

Gee... isn't that neat. I can readily control the outcome of reality through very careful screening too.

Stereodude

$500 is little for good analog equipment. Are you familiar with the prices of golden-needle pic-ups?

Get an issue of whatever Photography magazine you want supporting your second statement, and scan it and post it here.

 

[James]

I don't think anyone disagrees that many audiophiles say that analogue is better. The issue here is whether it is actually any better. "Better in what way?" is the real question.

I see enormous arguments in audiophile forums about for example which $250 (or more) / meter speaker cable is better. As has been said earlier, at that stage you are mostly listening to the equipment and not the sound. It's the same with overclocking. Can you today really tell the difference between a PC overlocked to 1450MHz vs one at 1500MHz (or 1600MHz)? I think it all has a lot to do with bragging rights and wanting to fit in with a community of peers and rather less to do with reality. Perhaps you can measure some tiny difference, but if you can't feel it there seems precious little advantage in achieving that minute difference.

Perhaps analogue equipment has a particular tonal quality that some people like and are prepared to pay big dollars for. But I know I can get a more accurate reproduction of the sound from a digital system and for a lot less money. And I know too that the recording of a piece of music on a CD is going to last much longer through repeated plays than an equivalent recording on vinyl.

I'm afraid I see the ranks of audiophiles as being a very closed club of snobs where the price of entry is the right bunch of highly expensive equipment. I don't see them as the ultimate holders of the piece of truth that "analogue is better than all other forms of audio reproduction." I see them as a group with a vested interest in pushing an agenda and as such I don't have a lot of time for them.