CD Got Absolutely Crushed By Vinyl

Dear @bsmg:  """ ears are analog. " Whom told you that. Things are that we all have in our brain/ears an ADC. In reality our ears are digital:

"""  The Inner ear:

By now, the audio signal has reached the inner ear, and that means the cochlea. This snail‑shaped organ is filled with liquid. Logically enough, it must be waterproof, in order to prevent any fluid leaking. This explains the purpose of the round window, a small, elastic membrane on the surface of the cochlea. Its purpose is to allow movement of the fluid inside the cochlea. Liquids are incompressible, and without this membrane, the fluid enclosed inside the cochlea would completely block the ossicle movements. Indeed, stiffening of the oval window can lead to hearing losses of about 60dB.

Inside the cochlean we find the tectorial membrane, which moves along with the pressure variations of the cochlear fluid. As shown in Figure 3, above, this membrane is in contact with the cilia on the top of the hair cells. There are two kinds of hair cells. The outer hair cells are the actual receptors. When the tectorial membrane moves, so does the hair on the the outer cells. This movement is then encoded into electrical digital signals and goes to the brain through the cochlear nerve. The inner cells have a different role: when the audio signal gets louder, they stick themselves to the tectorial membrane in order to limit its movements, playing the role of another dynamic compressor.Figure 3: Inside the cochlea.   """

This is not about analog vs digital but about each one knowledge levels.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R. 

Such a BS statement! Keep telling yourself that….

@prof 

(And if that is a refrain of the tired old "analog captures the sound continuously, digital chops it up and misses parts" then that’s just a myth and a misunderstanding).

You know that digital does not record the entire analog waveform right? It’s called “sampling” for a reason, that it takes a representative sample of the original analog signal, and then on playback, it reconstructs a likeness of the original analog waveform, using the recorded samples, and synthesizing the information between the samples. 

The question becomes, after one reviews all of the complicated mathematics: “in practice, does it satisfy my expectations?”

For some people, the answer is “yes, and I don’t need to worry about the process” for other people the answer is “yes, and I believe the process is sufficiently capable of reproducing sound quality within the range of tolerances that my ears need”. For still other people, the answer is  “no, because I dislike the concept of digitizing an analog signal, no matter how convincing the playback result is”. Finally, there are some who say “I just can’t accept that the sampling process is faithful enough to produce playback that is perfectly the same as the original analog source, and they are therefore predisposed to not want to be satisfied by digital. 

There are probably as many perspectives as there are hifi enthusiasts. All that matters is that each individual has the freedom to pursue the medium that suits their predisposition. 

For the record, my predisposition is that digital has a specific time and place, where I do non-critical listening. Those digital formats include CD, satellite radio, podcasts and streaming. One day, I hope to add 4xDSD to that format one day, for archiving my extensive vinyl collection. After I’ve experienced 4xDSD in my application, I’ll evaluate it and I hope, it will fit the bill for my expectations in critical listening. 

@sleepwalker65

You know that digital does not record the entire analog waveform right?

Actually, in practice, it does capture the entire waveform. It simply does it differently than analog.

It’s like saying "You know a FLAC file doesn’t capture the entire musical file, right?"

Sure, it’s true a FLAC file is "physically different" from the original file, at about 1/2 the size. But in the sense that matters for the purpose - capturing and transmitting the *same information* - it DOES capture all the relevant information.

Essentially the same premise holds for digital recording. Look at the links I already provided.

The question becomes, after one reviews all of the complicated mathematics: “in practice, does it satisfy my expectations?”

In the context of the issue you are responding to, that’s an awkward way to put it, and blurs the issues being discussed.

We have to delineate between someone’s subjective perception of what he hears and likes, vs coming up with technical explanations.


As we’ve seen, some audiophiles who prefer analog over digital, in trying to justify or explain this, adopt incorrect technical ideas, such as the claim that digital can not or does not recreate the original wave form and analog does. That’s just wrong.

Talk of preferences will bring in all sorts of differing opinions, which is fine, but I was responding to the promulgation of incorrect technical claims.

@prof 

Talk of preferences will bring in all sorts of differing opinions, which is fine, but I was responding to the promulgation of incorrect technical claims. 

You are wrong if you claim that digital reproduces the original analog with 100% accuracy in 100% completeness is every time.