Articles/studies on digital formats and vinyl.

[Sleestack]

Can anyone point me to some good articles or papers on the comparison between digital formats and vinyl?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Can anyone point me to some good articles or papers on the comparison between digital formats and vinyl?

What are you after?

"The Romance of the Record" E. Brad Meyer, Stereo Review, Jan 1996, page 67-70

Compares CD and vinyl recording. You should be able to get this through Inter library loan procedures.

 

[Sleestack]

I'm looking for something that compares the technical merits and deficiencies of both formats.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'm looking for something that compares the technical merits and deficiencies of both formats.

Read this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/browse_frm/thread/b5b3d74ebf5195d9/653de88007541118?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&prev=/groups?hl=en&group=rec.audio.high-end#653de88007541118

Richard Pierce is not a nobody, or Krueger

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

CD is flat in FR, dynamic range to 96 dB, no wow or flutter, full level capability at 20Hz to 20kHz, that is full scale. No groove wear.

 

[audiofox]

There is no question in my mind that the technology behind CDs can theoretically provide superior sound to that of vinyl LPs. I started to doubt this obvious fact when I bought a CD of Leo Kottke's 6 and 12 String Guitar back in the early days of the new format. The vinyl copy I had owned for 20 years sounded so much better than the CD that even the non-audiophiles in my family (pretty much everyone else) made mention of the difference. At that point I realized that superior technology is not sufficient-it takes knowledgeable people to use the technology correctly (which was NOT the case with the first Kottke CD release). The best reproduction technology is pretty much a waste unless one has a source that is processed correctly so that the full capability is actually audible, which was not the case with many CDs in the early days. The lesson I learned from this experience was that the mastering and reproduction of the original source material was significantly more important than the recording medium used-if the tape used has a 20 dB dynamic range and an SNR of 30 dB, the CD will faithfully reproduce that and no more. The programmers call it GIGO-garbage in, garbage out.

 

[tbewick]

There's an excellent paper by Robert Stuart available at the Meridian Audio website:

http://www.meridian-audio.com/lib_pap.htm - It's the one called 'Coding High Quality Digital Audio'

The graphs I've posted are from the above paper, which uses a model of human hearing, available here:

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Noise_estimating%20significance%20and%20threshold.PDF

'Noise: Methods for Estimating Detectability and Threshold'.

What I've read so far of the first paper has indicated that criticisms of 16 bits is directed more towards bad practice in production and also perhaps the use of poorly designed digital equipment:

'Single undithered truncations at the 16-bit level are regrettably all too common in practice. Not only do inadvertent truncations arise in the hardware filters of very many converters, but the editing and mastering processes often include level shifts, mixing events or DC filtering processes that have not been dithered correctly. There have therefore been reasonable grounds to criticise the sound of some digital recordings – even though (as laboured earlier) this particular defect can be avoided by combining good engineering with good practice.

...In many ways, the pity for PCM to date has been that it is so robust – which is to say that the sound survives this kind of abuse because it is superficially the same.'

I'm a bit uncertain about the part on frequency response. He argues that there is enough evidence to justify a more extended frequency response than is available through 44.1 kHz. This is based on some findings presented in AES convention papers. To offer an alternative point of view:

Oohashi et al, 'Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect', Journal of Neurophysiology.
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/3548

Ashihara et al 'Hearing threshold for pure tones above 20 kHz', Acoust. Sci. & Tech.
http://joi.jlc.jst.go.jp/JST.JSTAGE/ast/27.12?from=Google

The first looks at brain scans which show alterations in response to high frequency stimuli, while the other concentrates on audibility.

 

[WmAx]

T
I'm a bit uncertain about the part on frequency response. He argues that there is enough evidence to justify a more extended frequency response than is available through 44.1 kHz. This is based on some findings presented in AES convention papers. To offer an alternative point of view:

No one has yet presented evidence that withstood scrutiny of peer review.

Oohashi et al, 'Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect', Journal of Neurophysiology.
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/3548

A researcher of questionable credibility, based on various things I have read elsewhere. It is interesting to note that the paper at that link was only published because it was paid for as an advertisement in the journal. Not exactly re-assuring. Refer to the end of the PDF, where this is disclosed[or at least used to be], unless they have removed this from current version of the PDF download. I believe that mtrycrafts also called and confirmed this fact from the journal. The paper did not meet the standards of the JAES to be published, and NHK Labs tried to [1] reproduce the questionable 'hearing test' portion of the paper, and failed to do so, and NHK used far better methodology as compared to Oohashi. Realize that Ooashi claims audibility with this hearing test portion of the paper.

Ashihara et al 'Hearing threshold for pure tones above 20 kHz', Acoust. Sci. & Tech.
http://joi.jlc.jst.go.jp/JST.JSTAGE/ast/27.12?from=Google

Pure tones are not directly applicable to music. For example, it is well known that high frequencies are at a far lower level of amplitude in relation to the other frequency bands in music. Also, the other bands act as a sort of mask, and as well, the short intervals that the high frequency content exists also increased difficulty to discern compared to a steady state signal. Typically, 16 kHz is all that is needed for almost all music to be reproduced transparently, according to the [2] credible perceptual research, using many trained audio professionals as subjects. The exception to this is some select synthesized music that has high frequency tones that resembles steady state waveforms and are high in relative amplitude. In these rare circumstances, of course, a more extended bandwidth would be beneficial, assuming the listener does not have hearing loss past 16kHz.

-Chris

Footnotes
[1]
Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components
AES Preprint: 5876
Toshiyuki Nishiguchi, Kimio Hamasaki, Masakazu Iwaki, and Akio Ando

[2]
Which Bandwidth Is Necessary for Optimal Sound Transmission?
G. PLENGE, H. JAKUBOWSKI, AND P. SCHONE
JAES, Volume 28 Number 3 pp. 114-119; March 1980

 

[mtrycrafts]

A researcher of questionable credibility, based on various things I have read elsewhere. It is interesting to note that the paper at that link was only published because it was paid for as an advertisement in the journal.

I called that Journal some time back to get to the bottom of this. Apparently, all the articles are paid for, a practice for that Journal. Perhaps it has credibility issues too.
That author printed that paper in AES but only as a Conference paper, not peer reviewed. Wonder if it was rejected for that. Also, Jneutron looked at that Journal paper, wasn't impressed one bit.
Besides, just because the brain has some amount of activity that is paintable by such scanning doesn't mean the individual is aware of those sound waves. And in fact, they are not, from other papers.
So, in the end, it is not a useful paper when others show that listeners just cannot hear it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There's an excellent paper by Robert Stuart available at the Meridian Audio website:

http://www.meridian-audio.com/lib_pap.htm - It's the one called 'Coding High Quality Digital Audio'

The graphs I've posted are from the above paper, which uses a model of human hearing, available here:

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Noise_estimating%20significance%20and%20threshold.PDF

'Noise: Methods for Estimating Detectability and Threshold'.

What I've read so far of the first paper has indicated that criticisms of 16 bits is directed more towards bad practice in production and also perhaps the use of poorly designed digital equipment:

'Single undithered truncations at the 16-bit level are regrettably all too common in practice. Not only do inadvertent truncations arise in the hardware filters of very many converters, but the editing and mastering processes often include level shifts, mixing events or DC filtering processes that have not been dithered correctly. There have therefore been reasonable grounds to criticise the sound of some digital recordings – even though (as laboured earlier) this particular defect can be avoided by combining good engineering with good practice.

...In many ways, the pity for PCM to date has been that it is so robust – which is to say that the sound survives this kind of abuse because it is superficially the same.'

I'm a bit uncertain about the part on frequency response. He argues that there is enough evidence to justify a more extended frequency response than is available through 44.1 kHz. This is based on some findings presented in AES convention papers. To offer an alternative point of view:
.

Thanks for these
I think I read where J. Stewart is on record for 48kHz sampling or perhaps it was 58kHz. but no need for 96 at all.
Also, when you overlap the listening room noise floor, I thing that 16 bits will fall well below it, although J. Stewart likes 18 bits. A pucker factor?

 

[tbewick]

Thanks for these
I think I read where J. Stewart is on record for 48kHz sampling or perhaps it was 58kHz. but no need for 96 at all.
Also, when you overlap the listening room noise floor, I thing that 16 bits will fall well below it, although J. Stewart likes 18 bits. A pucker factor?

I'll have a look at the rec.audio.high-end Arny Krueger link. He gets into some vociferous arguments on that forum, doesn't he?

I'll probably have a look around for the 96 kHz listening test by Bob Katz (referred to in the Stuart paper), since it was posted on the rec.audio.pro forum.

A researcher of questionable credibility, based on various things I have read elsewhere. It is interesting to note that the paper at that link was only published because it was paid for as an advertisement in the journal.

That author printed that paper in AES but only as a Conference paper, not peer reviewed. Wonder if it was rejected for that. Also, Jneutron looked at that Journal paper, wasn't impressed one bit.

That's rather surprising. I haven't read the paper, but skimming through, it all looks very scientific. Robert Stuart cites papers (probably the AES conference papers you're talking about) by the author Tsutomu Oohashi in the Meridian paper.

 

[mtrycrafts]

That's rather surprising. I haven't read the paper, but skimming through, it all looks very scientific. Robert Stuart cites papers (probably the AES conference papers you're talking about) by the author Tsutomu Oohashi in the Meridian paper.

Yes, Stuart's reference is to the AES Conference paper. I have both and it seems that the one in the Journal and AES are the same.

I checked Stuart's AES version of your link, which I also happen to have. In there is in the conclusion is where he is stating 58kHz and 14 bits with appropriate noise shaping or 20 bits with flat noise floor.
Also, 88.2kHz and 96kHz is waste.

 

[Sleestack]

Thanks for the links everyone. I just wanted some data to be able to more fully understand what I already believed. I had a top notch vinyl setup with prisitne vinyl and currently have some great digital setups. I have always felt that that Redbook was more than cable of achieving transparency that vinyl simply could not. While I can't argue with people's preference for vinyl, I don't think techincal merits are vinyl's forte. Of course, I also think there is a big problem with the way most modern Redbook recordings are mastered. Unfortunately, this leads to misconceptions about the format. Neverthless, I primarily listen to jazz and classic rock and have found plenty of properly mastered material to keep my ears happy.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thanks for the links everyone. I just wanted some data to be able to more fully understand what I already believed. I had a top notch vinyl setup with prisitne vinyl and currently have some great digital setups. I have always felt that that Redbook was more than cable of achieving transparency that vinyl simply could not. While I can't argue with people's preference for vinyl, I don't think techincal merits are vinyl's forte. Of course, I also think there is a big problem with the way most modern Redbook recordings are mastered. Unfortunately, this leads to misconceptions about the format. Neverthless, I primarily listen to jazz and classic rock and have found plenty of properly mastered material to keep my ears happy.

Some audiophiles just cannot say goodbye to their old technology. Or, they are just enamored with it, like SET amps.
One would have to ask how could a physically/mechanically dependent transfer technology could be superior.

 

[Geno]

Having started in this hobby/obsession when vinyl was the only thing, I still have several hundred LPs. My turntable has been mothballed for a few years, so I recently resurrected it and fired it up for another trip down memory lane. Admittedly, I haven't spend 25K on a turntable/arm/cartridge, but my old Thorens has always done well with that format. I also took very good care of my records, storing them in new plastic sleeves and cleaning them faithfully. After putting on a few of my favorite classical, jazz, and rock discs (mainly Steely Dan), I was reminded why I switched to digital several years ago. Hiss, click, pop, rumble. Lord, who wants to go back to that? Admittedly, if you ignored the surface noise, the recordings themselves were pretty good, but compared to a multi-channel DVD-A or SACD, there just ain't no going back. Same with rotary dial phones, TRS-80s, '72 Pintos, and Chef Boy-Ar-Dee spaghetti.
Of course, like always, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.

 

[Swerd]

I called that Journal some time back to get to the bottom of this. Apparently, all the articles are paid for, a practice for that Journal. Perhaps it has credibility issues too.
That author printed that paper in AES but only as a Conference paper, not peer reviewed. Wonder if it was rejected for that. Also, Jneutron looked at that Journal paper, wasn't impressed one bit.
Besides, just because the brain has some amount of activity that is paintable by such scanning doesn't mean the individual is aware of those sound waves. And in fact, they are not, from other papers.
So, in the end, it is not a useful paper when others show that listeners just cannot hear it.

Paying printing costs for scientific papers has been a standard practice in most or all scientific journals for as long as I can remember. When a paper is accepted for publication, the author (or his employer) pays nominal editing and printing costs, about $40-50 per page. Most scientific journals are not for profit, and although many do run advertisements, some of the publishing expenses are paid by those who write the articles. I don't remember when but some time back, a Federal law on truth in advertising was applied to scientific journals, requiring them to print a notice for each paper saying that the authors paid printing costs for this paper, and therefore it must be considered a paid advertisement. No one worries too much about it. A decent journal won't publish something that doesn't pass muster with its editors and if it doesn't get acceptably reviewied by (usually) 3 scientific peers. That is far more important than who pays the printing costs.

And that is just the beginning. A decent paper will prompt others to reproduce its findings and to try to develop them further. If no one can do that, the paper may get challenged or refuted by someone who tried to reproduce its findings. If no one cares enough to bother, the paper ends up being a dead end that no one cares about. Scientific journals are full of these.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Paying printing costs for scientific papers has been a standard practice in most or all scientific journals for as long as I can remember. When a paper is accepted for publication, the author (or his employer) pays nominal editing and printing costs, about $40-50 per page. Most scientific journals are not for profit, and although many do run advertisements, some of the publishing expenses are paid by those who write the articles. I don't remember when but some time back, a Federal law on truth in advertising was applied to scientific journals, requiring them to print a notice for each paper saying that the authors paid printing costs for this paper, and therefore it must be considered a paid advertisement. No one worries too much about it. A decent journal won't publish something that doesn't pass muster with its editors and if it doesn't get acceptably reviewied by (usually) 3 scientific peers. That is far more important than who pays the printing costs.

And that is just the beginning. A decent paper will prompt others to reproduce its findings and to try to develop them further. If no one can do that, the paper may get challenged or refuted by someone who tried to reproduce its findings. If no one cares enough to bother, the paper ends up being a dead end that no one cares about. Scientific journals are full of these.

Now that I think more about it when I talked with the people at the Journal, they said something similar to this.

This being audio related, I think it will just be a dead end paper

 

[mtrycrafts]

Having started in this hobby/obsession when vinyl was the only thing, I still have several hundred LPs. My turntable has been mothballed for a few years, so I recently resurrected it and fired it up for another trip down memory lane. Admittedly, I haven't spend 25K on a turntable/arm/cartridge, but my old Thorens has always done well with that format. I also took very good care of my records, storing them in new plastic sleeves and cleaning them faithfully. After putting on a few of my favorite classical, jazz, and rock discs (mainly Steely Dan), I was reminded why I switched to digital several years ago. Hiss, click, pop, rumble. Lord, who wants to go back to that? Admittedly, if you ignored the surface noise, the recordings themselves were pretty good, but compared to a multi-channel DVD-A or SACD, there just ain't no going back. Same with rotary dial phones, TRS-80s, '72 Pintos, and Chef Boy-Ar-Dee spaghetti.
Of course, like always, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.

Same here, but I didn't keep the records. Bit the bullet and sold them.

 

[astrodon]

Paying printing costs for scientific papers has been a standard practice in most or all scientific journals for as long as I can remember. When a paper is accepted for publication, the author (or his employer) pays nominal editing and printing costs, about $40-50 per page.

Wow, $40-50 per page! Most of the American astronomy and astrophysics (refereed) journals (and there are not many of these) charge $120-140 per page and much more than this if you have color in your figures. These journals however have no advertsing in them.