Analog vinyl records are not more accurate than digital.

[MattiasNYC]

so i am not going to quote and do that thing as my point seems to be not taken at face value.

a cd has a fixed amount of range but a record does not.

You have dynamic range ("volume") and you have frequency range. From Wikipedia on Dynamic range: "Vinyl microgroove phonograph records typically yield 55-65 dB" and "The 16-bit compact disc has a theoretical dynamic range of about 96 dB". Which has a wider range?

And if you're talking about frequency you said "no real point over 24bit 96 and even that is overkill" so what point is it having frequencies that we can't hear? If you're going to say that 24/96 is overkill then clearly going above 44.1kHz is of no value which in turn means that it can't be the frequency range that is the problem.

So what "fixed amount of range" is it that CD is missing?

with a cd if you want super bass like most modern stuff has you have to sacrifice the quality of the high end, but a record you can have both (or more of both.)

Where did you get that from? Try cutting a vinyl record with lots of low-end bass in stereo.

and with 32bit i was ogling the wave forms from fixed point

Not sure what you mean. There are virtually no a/d/a converters that run 32bit fixed point. And the majority of 32-bit floating point usage is in the act of processing digital audio. So when I work on something my computer will take data stored at 24-bit, convert to 32-bit float on the fly, process it, and by the time it's done and it reaches my converters it's back to 24-bits.

[[DANGERDAN]]

Playback bit rate for absolute reproduction of dynamic range requires only 16 bits, we threshold damage at about 120db. We target 80-85db of dynamic range for any and all reproduction material. Hence the use of 16 bit with 96db range all that is being needed.
24 bit is featured only for mastering and engineering digital signals in studios, this enables more headroom and manipulation of the signal to reproduce a finer result (also reduces quantization error). None the less 16 bit is all that is needed for playback regardless.
Sampling rate is simple and is governed by the nyquist theorem, quite simply any frequency needed to be reproduced shall require twice that number from a sampling rate. Basic maths, 20khz = 40khz samples.
The only possible improvement made by going higher in sampling rate will come from the reconstruction filter used to limit the frequencies from reaching beyond the nyquist and causing aliasing distortion. Having more headroom to create the filter probably allows a better rolloff which could in some way prevent added distortion from non linear characteristics from complex filter implementation.

So as it is the current CD format is unarguably all that is needed, 16/44.1. If you hear any difference it will be more because of badly designed DSP systems and not directly related to the bit or sample increase.

[[DANGERDAN]]

So if we look at a clear "problem" with digital, quantization errors (distortion) at low amplitude (volume) we'll see how it doesn't matter in real life. When the incoming analog signal drops and there is only a bit left to describe it we end up with a square wave. Since the squares will fluctuate based on the incoming signal it will sound to us as very nasty distortion of the music. The solution is very simple: Simply shift that lowest bit more or less randomly regardless of the signal. This "dithering" sounds like noise to us. So the very lowest levels on a properly done CD will sound like noise when there is music happening. Why is this acceptable? Because the theoretical range of dynamics is about 96dB, and your average living room where you listen to the CD will have ambient noise around 40dB. The noise of the CD will merge and become "one" with the noise of the real world. The music simply disappears into that.

The basic point I'm making now is that digital can represent the signal accurately enough, and the inaccuracy that remains is not a problem. Technically, vinyl records present bigger "changes" than CDs. But it just happens to sound like pleasant "changes" that many prefer.

Exactly!
Sigma delta modulation in certain dacs improves the quantization error even further with noise shaping, system memory helps average out error and creates a lower noise level.

The benifits from digital outweigh now any positive qualitys that LP have, if there are any left.
There are plenty more distortions from LP than proper digital introduce into the final signal.

[MattiasNYC]

finally someone who speaks Swedish....

[[DANGERDAN]]

I hadn't actually read the thread or the article, which I have now.
The article is severly wrong, even the picture is not a true representation of a 16 bit sine. I'm sure he's only using that image to prove his point more clearly but it is still not accurate, the real signal follows more closely.
What people are trying to argue is easy, they want to state that a signal is continuous and it is. Continuous both in amplitude and time. Because of this you would think digital could not capture the entire signal properly because it is recorded in digital levels, both samples (time) and bit depth (amplitude). And that's true, digital is not continuous and stores information in digital levels. Basic knowledge of dsp would grant you this understanding but if you can't even grasp that you shouldn't even be arguing. (Not accusing anyone I am sure we are all here to learn.)
Then people assume that the stair step levels is the final output, thinking that the signal is not smooth. Which is not true. Understanding electronics will show you that reconstruction filters (capacitors) are assigned to smooth out the levels through means of interpolation. Because capacitors take time to rise and fall they average out the signal where information is missing, this is done smoothly and accurately.


People comparing the technology are doing themselves more harm than good, comparing any half decent LP against any regular digital to analog converter is a piss poor job comparison. There are differences between digital processors and very good dacs like nad m51 and audiolab m-dac will be as good or imo better than all vinyl systems.
As it has been said by a friend of mine "The very best digital will beat the very best analog."

[[DANGERDAN]]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE

https://www.xiph.org/video/

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

The lecture on delta sigma modulators is hugely complex so don't bother trying to understand it unless you are serious about putting full time research into DSP. However there are good explanations in there that Martin does well explaining in handwaving ways. Could be helpful and interesting for others.

[rouge]

Can't you guys just enjoy music without obsessing through every microsecond of sound looking for flaws? Just turn that $h)t up noise and all and enjoy it.... f%#$ perfection.

[PaganII]

Vinyl can be Quite a bit More accurate than CD, SACD or DVDA if it's Only available on vinyl

[yojimbo197]

Vinyl can be Quite a bit More accurate than CD, SACD or DVDA if it's Only available on vinyl

Not true. Even the vinyl record master doesn't capture everything:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....hs_%28Vinyl%29
"The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at Hydrogenaudio."

[[XC] Oj101]

Not true. Even the vinyl record master doesn't capture everything:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....hs_%28Vinyl%29
"The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at Hydrogenaudio."

Hehe, re-read what PaganII said, he's 100 % correct

[MattiasNYC]

Hehe, re-read what PaganII said, he's 100 % correct

Yeah, nice necro-trolling eh?