Compare for yourself: Vinyl vs. CD
Compare for yourself: Vinyl vs. CD
Apr 1 2003, 07:37
ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin
Group: Developer (Donating)
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 12
This is from a message I just posted to uk.rec.audio and rec.audio.opinion:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:53:58 GMT, Moi <zis_guy@NOxSPAMMxhotmail.com>
>This one is from Peter Kater's "Gateway" ca. 1988 (Gaia/Polygram
>Records). This one may in fact exist on CD, so somebody may be able
>to check perceived speed stability and etc. against the CD. The song
>is from side 1, track 2 titled "Talk Back."
>This one was also most likely recorded to digital before pressing the
>LP, and I'm not responsible for any possible digital ugliness you may
>Wish I could post longer samples, but space and downloading time
>constraints prevent it. As again, this one is about 3.5MB in size,
>and requires the LPAC decoder, available here:
>The sample itself can be downloaded here:
I changed the link to point to my server to remove the bandwidth load
from Moi's site.
Moi described his setup in an earlier message: TD-160/M97xE/Technics
I purchased the 1988 CD version of this album (< $10 used) and ripped
the same section as Moi's sample.
I time aligned it as best I could. The sample is about 34 seconds
long. The vinyl version takes about 60 msec longer to complete than
the CD version, so the speed accuracy of the turntable is about 0.2%
on the slow side if the CD can be considered the reference.
I applied -0.43 dB to the left channel of the CD version, and +0.26 dB
to the right channel. The volume was compared with the vinyl version
via average RMS. WavGain (which uses David Robinson's replaygain
algorithm) gives about the same answer as average RMS.
I applied a linear fadeout to about the last 4 seconds of the sample
to approximate what Moi had done with his sample.
I won't say what I hear just yet. If you think the difference is
sufficiently subtle to warrant the use of a double-blind tool, visit
one of the following sites:
Edit: Oops, I think I posted this to the wrong forum
This post has been edited by ff123: Apr 1 2003, 07:41
Apr 7 2003, 10:44
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409
QUOTE (tacitus10 @ Apr 7 2003 - 08:15 AM)
Unlike digital, with analogue you can hear well below the noise floor. Appogee, pioneers in dither, ADC & DAC realised this when they first formulated the concept of dither in digital recordings.
Was that a direct quote from their website? I think it's a bit, er, generous to Apogee. People were using dither in digital sampled systems before I was born! It was used in video in the 1960s. It was used and understood perfectly in audio at least a decade before UV22.
Digital just stops (distortion) at the noise floor. Analogue fades naturally, well below hiss or crackle.
The two fundamentals of digital audio are the anti-alias filter, and correct dither. Without these, digital is rubbish. With these, it's "perfect" within defined specifications. To say that "digital just stops (distortion) at the noise floor" without dither is rather like saying "LPs sound desperately harsh without correct RIAA equalisation" - of course! With dither, digital goes beyond the noise floor - audibly it goes at least as far as analogue, and measurably it goes down to the 27th bit in the best equipment.
The tragic thing is that there are still some digital devices designed by people who don't fully understand the fundamentals of dither and anti-aliasing; and used by people who don't even know that they exist.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 1st October 2014 - 22:39|