My Vanessa Record Arrived!

[zurielshimon]

I can make ones and zeros come out of my speakers, especially when I turn the modem on loud.

No.... you're hearing a broadband representation of a baseband signal. It's not the same thing.

What about when I play a data CD on a CD player?  What would you call that sound?

Sampled digital recordings, to put it simply, are just a series of numbers that tell at what position the microphone's diaphragm was at at each certain point of time a sample was taken.  This results in a stair-step wave that can, at best, be converted to a line-and-point graph resembling a sine wave (but no more than an equilateral polygon with 44,100 sides can resemble a true circle).

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Nyquist-Shannon tells me that with sufficient sample size (16 bit provides a 110 dB dynamic range at best, vinyl will be 60 dB best case), I can reconstruct the original signal perfectly from the sampled version if the sampling rate is twice that of the bandwidth of the signal.

Also, apparently you've never heard of a Delta-Sigma DAC. A stair-step wave would introduce harmonics into the recording that weren't there to begin with. That was a problem with early CD players that didn't use DS DACs. It hasn't been an issue, however, for twenty years.

And just what does a DAC do other than play connect-the-dot?  True sound has no dots, no matter how close together they may be.

[Will]

I can make ones and zeros come out of my speakers, especially when I turn the modem on loud.

No.... you're hearing a broadband representation of a baseband signal. It's not the same thing.

What about when I play a data CD on a CD player?  What would you call that sound?

If your CD player does anything with a data CD, it isn't designed properly. Data CDs don't have the formatting a redbook CD has. It's really gibberish and any sound you get from it might as well be pulled out your ass. It is meaningless.

Sampled digital recordings, to put it simply, are just a series of numbers that tell at what position the microphone's diaphragm was at at each certain point of time a sample was taken.  This results in a stair-step wave that can, at best, be converted to a line-and-point graph resembling a sine wave (but no more than an equilateral polygon with 44,100 sides can resemble a true circle).

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Nyquist-Shannon tells me that with sufficient sample size (16 bit provides a 110 dB dynamic range at best, vinyl will be 60 dB best case), I can reconstruct the original signal perfectly from the sampled version if the sampling rate is twice that of the bandwidth of the signal.

Also, apparently you've never heard of a Delta-Sigma DAC. A stair-step wave would introduce harmonics into the recording that weren't there to begin with. That was a problem with early CD players that didn't use DS DACs. It hasn't been an issue, however, for twenty years.

And just what does a DAC do other than play connect-the-dot?  True sound has no dots, no matter how close together they may be.

You obviously don't know anything about signal theory or information theory.

Digital audio is discrete. Analog audio is continuous. Just because samples are discrete doesn't mean that it is somehow lower quality than a continuous representation of the signal. In signal theory, we speak of the information content of a signal. For example, although 35mm photography provides a continuous image, it has a rather low information content compared to higher end digital gear. Various estimates have placed the information content of a fine grain 35mm print at 3.5-4 megapixels. The point is, just because a signal is analog doesn't mean that it automatically has infinite dynamic or time-domain resolution. It is just simply easier to quantify the information content in an digital system than it is to do in an analog system.

You are making the error that a continuous signal always has a higher information content than a discrete one. Vinyl provably has less time-domain resolution and dynamic resolution than a standard CD. Thus, it has a lower information content than a CD, despite the fact that the signal is continuous.

As for connecting the dots, please read up on the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem before you reply again. There are many intuitive, not very math heavy informal proofs for it out there.

[zurielshimon]

I would never presume that analog always has more information than digital.  A low-bias cassette tape doesn't have much (usable) information on it, for example.  But a continuous signal, in theory, has the capacity to hold more information.  What if, in theory, I had a record cutter that made grooves about two inches across?  Assuming all of my hardware is without flaw, I should be able to cut a wave into a piece of plastic that would hold a marvel of detail from the original sound wave.  Just like in a camera, where you can megapixel it to death, but there will always be a level of sharpness you can't achieve with dots, even if you interpolate between them.

As for Nyquist-Shannon, I'll read that tomorrow.  

And older CD players would play the buzzy, chattery nonsense of a data CD assuming it was supposed to be sound data, not knowing (or caring about) the difference.

[Will]

But a continuous signal, in theory, has the capacity to hold more information. What if, in theory, I had a record cutter that made grooves about two inches across?  Assuming all of my hardware is without flaw, I should be able to cut a wave into a piece of plastic that would hold a marvel of detail from the original sound wave.

You're absolutely correct. The problem is, you're comparing CD to commercial vinyl, not your theoretical vinyl system, which has too many engineering obstacles to ever be practical anyway.

There are some areas where analog recording methods still reign supreme. Large format photography is probably the best example. A strip of fine grain, large format film can capture so much that they put CCDs to shame. However, that is more of a problem with CCD technology being what it is than it is rather than film (and analog formats in general) being so great. The fact is, digital recording technology can now capture more aural information than the the ear can detect. While it is certainly possible to do this with magnetic media and analog recording, it is more expensive and inconvenient to do so. It would be possible to do it with vinyl, but it would be a royal pain in the ass, engineering-wise. So far, nobody has done it. There is no reason to, anyway.

Just like in a camera, where you can megapixel it to death, but there will always be a level of sharpness you can't achieve with dots, even if you interpolate between them.

You'll run into the same problem, even with high end film. No medium has infinite information capacity, continuous or discrete. I'm rather impressed with the work of the Gigapxl Project. They take a picture with fine grain large format film and scan it. You can see in the enlargements, however, that there is a definite limit to how much detail film can reproduce, even if huge resolutions are used. Analog is no panacea for loss of information.

[zurielshimon]

The fact is, digital recording technology can now capture more aural information than the the ear can detect.

Damn it!  Why did you have to go and ruin all of my wonderful theory with something as ineffectual as the human ear?! :x

[ILoveHanson]

woohoo i got an email saying mine was shipped! im excited. i never would have ordered it but for .79 cents i couldnt resist.

[BWilli]

woohoo i got an email saying mine was shipped! im excited. i never would have ordered it but for .79 cents i couldnt resist.

dayam...just ordered it.  nice and cheap  

[nosticker]

Mine is already on the way!

Fans of harmonic distortion, unite!



Dan/NS

[Will]

Fans of harmonic distortion, unite!

:-P

[Arwen]

Mine came in the mail yesterday! I love it.

[zurielshimon]

I'm glad to hear it!

Last time I was on the Tower site, it said "Low Stock".  I guess they haven't sold out yet?

[Emmyspiano]

*sigh* mine didnt come yet... :cry:

[zurielshimon]

*sigh* mine didnt come yet... :cry:

Hang in there; sometimes it just takes a few days.  Now it no longer says "Low Stock"; it says "Usually ships 1-2 weeks".  So maybe soon.

[jsbachsonata]

there's no point in defending vinyls... it's very true what Will said and he explained very well! (i won't have to repeat all of that explanation now  Cd IS a superior format in terms of sound quality. Of course, theoretically vinyl can exceed cd's limitations, it is not at all practical. I'm not saying that cd is better than vinyl in general. I'm saying that cd is always better than vinyl in its sound quality; there is NO argument to that. If you're looking for a picture label vinyl, or you are a scratch dj, or you just simply like the "vinyl sound", go ahead and buy this record at all means. As for the purposes of listening to a vanessa recording with the best sound quality you can get, just stick to the cd. After all, that is one of the big reasons that vinyls are NOT the major music format anymore and cd's are.

I find that some people just have a tendency to rebel to anything or want to be people that don't follow the traditional norms. Thus, there have been a lot of people spreading false myths glorifying vinyls for the sake of thinking it is so cool to be old skool and different from widespread use of cd's. I think that just makes you look dumber.

ok enough with my thoughts... and the last part was just my opinion and observation so if anyone was offended, GOOD FOR YOU! just kidding. I just hope everyone realized some things out all this.

[nosticker]

there's no point in defending vinyls... Cd IS a superior format in terms of sound quality. Of course, theoretically vinyl can exceed cd's limitations, it is not at all practical. I'm not saying that cd is better than vinyl in general. I'm saying that cd is always better than vinyl in its sound quality; there is NO argument to that.

As for the purposes of listening to a vanessa recording with the best sound quality you can get, just stick to the cd. After all, that is one of the big reasons that vinyls are NOT the major music format anymore and cd's are.

I find that some people just have a tendency to rebel to anything or want to be people that don't follow the traditional norms. Thus, there have been a lot of people spreading false myths glorifying vinyls for the sake of thinking it is so cool to be old skool and different from widespread use of cd's. I think that just makes you look dumber.

Lots of what you say is simply your opinion stated as fact, like "CD is always better than vinyl".  No argument to that?  Guess again!  Have you listened to many vinyl vs. CD issues?  I'll bet you haven't.  True, there is a geek factor involved with vinyl, and a few of us here do remember listening to vinyl in years past.  And let me point out that many early CD's sounded terrible.  Some CD's also sound terrible today, due to horrible overuse of EQ, compression, and maximization during mastering.  ANY medium is only as good as what you put into it--as I've said before, garbage in, garbage out.  Having said that, I like both formats.

Really, some people can't get past some of vinyl's weaknesses--pops, clicks, scratches, inner groove distortion, etc., which I understand, 'cause I don't like that either!  Add to this the fact that it takes a bit of tweaking to make a LP track properly and therefore sound good, whereas a CD can sound good from a Discman.

The bottom line is that, when all is said and done, it's all subjective.  No two people hear anything the same.  What you prefer is what you prefer, and there's no need to diss someone's else's taste.

CD's started outselling records in 1988.  It's more than nostalgia that keeps people coming back.


Dan/NS