Back to the Basics of Sound

[NORVIN]

I haven't bought a CD since 1997 which was "A Fistful Of Film Music: The Ennio Morricone Anthology". I got into vinyl last year. It's OK I guess. I have maybe 30-40 records. Do records sound better than digital? Some do and some don't. To me, it is kind of like comparing a type writer (vinyl) to a computer's word processor (digital).

As of now, whenever I want music, I just download FLAC versions using uTorrent. I actually hate doing this but it is like I am cornered because CDs, though I think they sound OK, are not that great. DVD-As and SACDs might be better, but I want one picked as the defacto audio format.

That brings me to my point. Why is no one really trying to get back to the basics of sound? What I mean by that is vinyl is analog and has a nice audio curve whereas digital looks like steps. Why doesn't some person or organization create an entirely new digital format that repeats the analog curves identically? If this existed, I would delete all my FLACs, eBay all my audio equipment along with CDs and records, and start all over again. Surely it would be the best audio experience other than coming straight from the band and the master recording(s) right?

I don't care if it is DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray, or something entirely new. I want two speakers and maybe a subwoofer. I don't care about surround sound. Who stands in the middle of a band anyway other than a band member?

God if someone could do it I would so start over. I don't want trade-offs or closeness. I want digital identical to analog in a stereo format. Is this too much to ask for?

 

[TLS Guy]

I haven't bought a CD since 1997 which was "A Fistful Of Film Music: The Ennio Morricone Anthology". I got into vinyl last year. It's OK I guess. I have maybe 30-40 records. Do records sound better than digital? Some do and some don't. To me, it is kind of like comparing a type writer (vinyl) to a computer's word processor (digital).

As of now, whenever I want music, I just download FLAC versions using uTorrent. I actually hate doing this but it is like I am cornered because CDs, though I think they sound OK, are not that great. DVD-As and SACDs might be better, but I want one picked as the defacto audio format.

That brings me to my point. Why is no one really trying to get back to the basics of sound? What I mean by that is vinyl is analog and has a nice audio curve whereas digital looks like steps. Why doesn't some person or organization create an entirely new digital format that repeats the analog curves identically? If this existed, I would delete all my FLACs, eBay all my audio equipment along with CDs and records, and start all over again. Surely it would be the best audio experience other than coming straight from the band and the master recording(s) right?

I don't care if it is DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray, or something entirely new. I want two speakers and maybe a subwoofer. I don't care about surround sound. Who stands in the middle of a band anyway other than a band member?

God if someone could do it I would so start over. I don't want trade-offs or closeness. I want digital identical to analog in a stereo format. Is this too much to ask for?

The answer is that digital pulses (bits), if you have enough of them do define a perfect curve.

If you think about it, the whole world is digital, even your so called analog recording. Every point on a sound waveform, is the mathematical sum of all the sound produced at a given time. The mathematical coordinates define a point on the curve. There is absolutely no difference whether is is defined by the coordinates of fast Fourier analysis , or a carefully timed and modulated digital pulse.

There comes a point at low level were there is the choice of pulse or no pulse, and the error (quantitization) becomes a 100%. So white noise is added (dither) and this eliminates the error completely. However it sets the noise floor and dynamic range just like analog! However you can increase bit and sampling rates to reduce the noise floor in digital systems, and this is not possible with analog systems that have their noise floor defined by media specific technical and mechanical problems.

Also bear in mind, that the ear is digital. The inner ear is an analog to digital converter, and the auditory (8th cranial nerve) transmits a digital signal to the brain's auditory center.

So what you are asking for already exists in all good digital formats. Yes, the digital age did bring us back to basics, by correctly, reliably and elegantly defining a point on a curve.

If you don't like what you hear on all sources and discs, then look to your playback system for the problem, especially your speakers.

Accurate speakers that handle the powers required are expensive formidable undertakings. What is really needed is improved technology to be able to produce transducers at affordable cost.

So your problem is that most speakers are in actuality really dreadful and way short of the mark. They can not handle the power required for accurate reproduction without severe thermal compression, high distortion and even burn out. Even at that we have not even got to the evils of poor frequency response on and off axis, assorted resonances, break up modes, poor phase and time response. These are some of the chief villains in need of slaying, not how you define a point on a curve.

Also most systems are woefully under powered.

 

[dkane360]

As of now, whenever I want music, I just download FLAC versions using uTorrent. I actually hate doing this but it is like I am cornered because CDs, though I think they sound OK, are not that great.

Where do you think those FLAC versions come from? Downloading FLACs from utorrent is stealing, and you're not even getting better sound quality (not saying it's ok if you did get better SQ). If the FLACs sound better than CDs, something is wrong with your equipment somewhere in the chain.

And I agree with Dr. Mark (TLS), your speakers could probably be the weakest link, as sound formats today can be extremely accurate and revealing.

 

[NORVIN]

Where do you think those FLAC versions come from? Downloading FLACs from utorrent is stealing, and you're not even getting better sound quality.

I really don't care. Once the perfect digital format comes out, I think myself and many others would stop downloading stuff for free. What is available now isn't it. I don't waste my time with MP3s, MP4s, OGGs, or any other lossy format. Just loseless FLAC, used vinyls, and used CDs.

 

[dkane360]

I really don't care. Once the perfect digital format comes out, I think myself and many others would stop downloading stuff for free. What is available now isn't it. I don't waste my time with MP3s, MP4s, OGGs, or any other lossy format. Just loseless FLAC, used vinyls, and used CDs.

I'm just saying that the FLACs are ripped from the CD. You have no reason to download them when you could buy the CD legally and rip it yourself.

 

[TLS Guy]

I really don't care. Once the perfect digital format comes out, I think myself and many others would stop downloading stuff for free. What is available now isn't it. I don't waste my time with MP3s, MP4s, OGGs, or any other lossy format. Just loseless FLAC, used vinyls, and used CDs.

I did not notice the Bit Torrent angle, so it seems you are not just a thief, but an ignorant thief.

What you are asking for already exists. A 96/24 PCM stream more than meets your requirements. You can download them, not steal them, at HD tracks.

That provides a resolution, signal to noise, dynamic range and freedom from distortion sufficient for ANY musical program.

From the nature of your post I would really doubt your system has anywhere near the resolution to benefit.

 

[96cobra10101]

I'm just saying that the FLACs are ripped from the CD. You have no reason to download them when you could buy the CD legally and rip it yourself.

I'm of the mindset that anything you download may have some degradation anyway. I realize that he may be downloading a loss-less format, but can't some loss occur? From the original rip from probably a cheap computer CD mechanism and who knows what software, then uploading and sending it through cable or phone lines that may be less than perfect, to lines in your home which are usually cheap and old, and then downloading again and the burning to a cd or dvd, vs taking an original cd recording and popping it in you disc player, I think there would definately be a sound difference.
Plus, have you perused Ebay or Craigslist? CD's are cheap. Sure there are some rarities out there that will cost you, but overall most can be had for less than $5.00. Plus the legality of it all, why risk getting in trouble with the RIAA or other agencies who watch this stuff? In fact I just won Led Zeppelin's box set (4 CDs) in mint condition, for $20.00!! So now I have a recording the way the artist and engineers intended for it to sound, I got it legally, and I got all the extra fluff you get when you buy it!

 

[BMXTRIX]

Interesting... I don't agree with people railing you on your choice to download from a torrent site. To each their own and all that. But it is important that you realize that FLAC and CD are typically the same in terms of quality. Generally a FLAC is ripped from a CD and instead of being converted to a MP3, it is converted to a FLAC, so you get a bit-for-bit copy of a CD. No more, no less.

If you want more from digital, then you need to go to a higher resolution format. SACD and DVD-A hit some targets with that, but music on Blu-ray is likely going to offer even more, with greater cross industry standardization. This, of course, has a digital equivalent, such as that linked above which can deliver it to you in a portable format already.

I think that you do have to consider your equipment and gear very much in this entire matter, as that does factor in a great deal for every listening experience.

Of course, I'm not a big analog fan. I don't dislike it either. It just costs far more money to reproduce records properly and requires a lot more effort than I'm willing to put into it to keep that quality level up. Digital sounds the same on the 1st playback as it does on the 10 millionth playback. And cheap source gear can sound really good.

But, a good amplifier, and good speakers, in a good room, will make a huge difference to the overall sound and the listening experience, so it's important to get that right.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I'm of the mindset that anything you download may have some degradation anyway. I realize that he may be downloading a loss-less format, but can't some loss occur? From the original rip from probably a cheap computer CD mechanism and who knows what software, then uploading and sending it through cable or phone lines that may be less than perfect, to lines in your home which are usually cheap and old, and then downloading again and the burning to a cd or dvd, vs taking an original cd recording and popping it in you disc player, I think there would definately be a sound difference.

Generally speaking - no.

CDs are stored as data on an optical disc, and the cheapest CD players now in computers reliably read that data without any issues whatsoever. They do it phenomenally reliably. Far better than the BEST record player ever could. Then, the programs to encode it follow the same pattern. They apply a standardized algorythm to the encode. FLAC, especially, holds this to be true because it is like creating a zip file of the music. If it were ever converted from a FLAC back to a master WAV file, it would look 100% identical to what is on the CD.

Data loss for files also doesn't happen very often. It didn't happen often 15 years ago in the days of Napster, and happens even less now. The reason being that data is checked for accuracy during transfers to ensure quality. In the early days, it was a big issue, so proper safeguards were put in place, and now those safeguards are so dialed in that it makes it nearly impossible to get bad data. More likely a 100% loss of playback is the end result... a corrupt file. Not a 'downgraded' file.

Of course, some people may covert a mp3 to a FLAC without realizing that the damage has already been done and you don't have a quality source to begin with. But, if it is a FLAC from a CD, then that download will most likely be 1:1 original to the CD version.

Of course, unless you made the FLAC yourself, who knows where it originally came from?

 

[tattoo_Dan]

Downloading FLACs from utorrent is stealing,.

that ,and torrent is LOADED with viruses & spyware/adware.

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm of the mindset that anything you download may have some degradation anyway. I realize that he may be downloading a loss-less format, but can't some loss occur? From the original rip from probably a cheap computer CD mechanism and who knows what software, then uploading and sending it through cable or phone lines that may be less than perfect, to lines in your home which are usually cheap and old, and then downloading again and the burning to a cd or dvd, vs taking an original cd recording and popping it in you disc player, I think there would definately be a sound difference.
Plus, have you perused Ebay or Craigslist? CD's are cheap. Sure there are some rarities out there that will cost you, but overall most can be had for less than $5.00. Plus the legality of it all, why risk getting in trouble with the RIAA or other agencies who watch this stuff? In fact I just won Led Zeppelin's box set (4 CDs) in mint condition, for $20.00!! So now I have a recording the way the artist and engineers intended for it to sound, I got it legally, and I got all the extra fluff you get when you buy it!

Well your mindset is on the wrong course!

This thread is really exposing misconceptions of the elegance of digital audio.

When you copy in the digital domain it frees you from the degradation of making a copy.

You certainly will have many bit errors in any digital playback system, downloads and copying.

However these errors are corrected by the Reed Solomon codes. After error correction there is no degradation from the original.

If there errors exceed the ability of the correction system, then you get obvious severe side effects, including drop outs and silence.

If on playback there are no obvious harsh side effects and silence, then the error correction system is working within its limits and your copy will sound the same as the original.

 

[GranteedEV]

What I mean by that is vinyl is analog and has a nice audio curve whereas digital looks like steps.

You must realize, that these digital "steps" are so high in resolution that they are inaudible. A CD, for example, has excellent resolution up to 22khz, which is way beyond our hearing. A 192khz Blu Ray has four times THAT already excellent resolution.

Is this too much to ask for?

The problem is, you're asking for something well beyond the threshold of not only YOUR hearing, but also the ability of your system as a whole to resolve.

You're thinking the problem is in the recording format, when it isn't. It might be in the mixing/mastering process, and is also likely just in your own system's abilities.

I'm of the mindset that anything you download may have some degradation anyway. I realize that he may be downloading a loss-less format, but can't some loss occur? From the original rip from probably a cheap computer CD mechanism and who knows what software, then uploading and sending it through cable or phone lines that may be less than perfect, to lines in your home which are usually cheap and old, and then downloading again and the burning to a cd or dvd, vs taking an original cd recording and popping it in you disc player, I think there would definately be a sound difference.

The thing you need to realize is the concept of check sums. A copy can EASILY be digitally verified side by side to an original.

 

[NORVIN]

Lots of interesting comments in this thread, lol.

I guess I am a heartless thief. I have downloaded FLACs only on and off for about 5 years or more using many safeguards to keep me anonymous. They work.

Using the morality that has been argued against me here, the flip side of the coin is buying used also is stealing in that the original artist doesn't get any money just the previous owner of the CD, vinyl, etc.

I think my original question may have been taken a little out of context. What I want is simply the perfect digital representation of the analog sound wave that exists on vinyl. After all, would this not give the perfect sound without the failings of vinyl (i.e. needle noise, dirty vinyl, etc.)?

I am not asking for some digital sound wave that doesn't fall into the range of human hearing. I just want the smoothness of the analog sound wave in a digital format (i.e. no more of those "steps" seen on a digital sound wave).

On FLAC, I choose FLAC because it is loseless and is a very good format to work with. I don't make CDs from them, but (if I did) most CD burning software takes the FLAC and recreates the CD audio file perfectly.

I listen to FLACs on my computer which uses an HD sound chipset outputting 24-bit 192 kHz. I use a 15 year old set of Altec Lansing 2.1 speakers. They sound GREAT!

Like I said, I would start all over again if what I wanted existed.

 

[GranteedEV]

I am not asking for some digital sound wave that doesn't fall into the range of human hearing. I just want the smoothness of the analog sound wave in a digital format (i.e. no more of those "steps" seen on a digital sound wave).

...WHY? If they sound 100% the same, does it MATTER?

 

[NORVIN]

...WHY? If they sound 100% the same, does it MATTER?

They don't. This is why people are buying vinyl records or DVD-A or SACD all of which sound better than CDs, but still the DVD-As and SACDs do not perfectly represent the analog sound wave.

 

[dkane360]

They don't. This is why people are buying vinyl records or DVD-A or SACD all of which sound better than CDs

What is your definition of "better sound"? If it's accuracy and detail, vinyl is in no way better than CD. Vinyl sounds different, which some may view as more pleasing to listen to.

PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.

PCM is sometimes characterized as producing a jagged, "stair-step" waveform. This is only partially correct; analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) does indeed use a sample-and-hold circuit to measure an approximate, average amplitude across the duration of the sample, and digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) does the same kind of thing, generating a rectangular-ish waveform, but this output is always then subjected to additional filtering to smooth it out. Effectively, the ADC output sample values are interpreted as a series of points intersected by the waveform; the DAC output is a smooth curve, not a stair-step at all. Additionally, modern ADC and DAC chips are engineered to reduce below the threshold of audibility, if not completely eliminate, any other sources of noise in this conversion process, resulting in an extremely high correlation between the input and output signals.

PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof here.)

With a correct implementation using dither, signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only adds wideband noise to the signal, not quantization distortion. If this dither noise is well below the already-present noise floor, it is inaudible.

Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including harmonic distortion, noise and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.

The term "analog", by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an "analogue" of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.

In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.

Myths (Vinyl) - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase

 

[NORVIN]

If CD is better than vinyl, why are a lot of people flocking to vinyl? I am not one of those people. I buy vinyl to get music I can't find elsewhere.

If CD is so perfect, why the move to Blu-Ray, DVD-A, and SACD? My guess would be that they sound better than CD thus CD is not so perfect. Perhaps their higher rates allow a closeness to an analog sound wave that CD cannot?

 

[zhimbo]

If CD is better than vinyl, why are a lot of people flocking to vinyl? I am not one of those people. I buy vinyl to get music I can't find elsewhere.

If CD is so perfect, why the move to Blu-Ray, DVD-A, and SACD? My guess would be that they sound better than CD thus CD is not so perfect. Perhaps their higher rates allow a closeness to an analog sound wave that CD cannot?

Surely you aren't relying on the Wisdom of the Masses to judge reality?

 

[dkane360]

If CD is better than vinyl, why are a lot of people flocking to vinyl? I am not one of those people. I buy vinyl to get music I can't find elsewhere.

If CD is so perfect, why the move to Blu-Ray, DVD-A, and SACD? My guess would be that they sound better than CD thus CD is not so perfect. Perhaps their higher rates allow a closeness to an analog sound wave that CD cannot?

I didn't say CD's are perfect and neither did anyone else. People move to Blu-ray, SACD and DVD-A because as stated by before, they are higher resolution.

People are probably flocking to vinyl because it's got that cool retro feel to it (sorry to those who grew up with it ), or because they are misinformed from people telling them that vinyl has the best sound quality.

The limiting factor in sound quality at this point in time is your equipment and the equipment used to record/master the audio, not the available formats. A poorly mastered album is going to sound atrocious on any format, but a well mastered one will sound good on vinyl and even better on the newer digital formats.

I'm not sure if we could ever get a digital format as perfect as you want, but if we ever did, I'm sure you would be hard-pressed to hear the difference between that and something like TrueHD and DTS-HD.

 

[GranteedEV]

If CD is better than vinyl, why are a lot of people flocking to vinyl? I am not one of those people. I buy vinyl to get music I can't find elsewhere.

Ofter better mastering, prefering an audible noise floor for a ''vintage feel'', and believing what they want to believe would be the main ones.

If CD is so perfect, why the move to Blu-Ray, DVD-A, and SACD? My guess would be that they sound better than CD thus CD is not so perfect. Perhaps their higher rates allow a closeness to an analog sound wave that CD cannot?

For starters, the ability to hold surround is a big one. discrete multichannel music just flat out sounds better. You don't need to have early artificial room reflections for ambience, because surround channels do that more effectively. So a more diffuse room can be implemented rather than a live room which is arguably vital for stereo formats - the result being preservation of ambience while increasing preservation of the recording - very difficult with stereo.

Second since they're audiophile niche formats, the masters are generally less compromised.

Third, maybe they do sound a smidgen better in the top octave. I couldn't tell you as i haven't done a proper controlled listening test. But I can say that the difference is so irellevant compared to every other aspect of sound reproduction. How many tweeters are truly accurate in the top octave? Certainly no 1" dome that beams that octave.

CDs sound extremely good when they are well mastered, and yes there is a technical reason why blu rays are called 'master level' but that doesn't automatically imply its audibility. Fact is the blu ray format has a LOT of inexpensive space so why NOT fill it up? Blu Ray is DEFINITELY better than analog.