Re: Vinyl lovers---please describe the reasons for your preference over CD

by WongKK Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:07 pm

musicmusic, I did not say that I preferred vinyl over the DEQX. I said that when straight wire is compared to the ADC-DAC in the DEQX, the difference is easily audible.

The sound that you get out of a DEQX is decidedly low-res. Let me put it this way - I know what I am doing. I know how to take the measurements, gate it to remove room effects, interpret it, and program the DEQX. I can tune the DEQX so that all measured parameters are perfect - flat frequency response, no group delay, everything in phase, etc. Using my calibrated microphone - the measurements tell me everything is OK.

However, when you actually listen - the top end is shrill, timbre in instruments is gone, and the soundstage has collapsed. There is something which I am not measuring which is very wrong. I ended up discarding the measurements and tuning the system by ear - but even then it does not come close to what I can achieve with my Marchand analogue crossover.

Your conclusion "bad sound is good sound" is absolutely rubbish. The reality is more nuanced than that. My own conclusion is that the DEQX can be very useful if it is fed a digital signal, and the digital output sent to individual DAC's for processing (rather than relying on the low quality DAC in the DEQX). However - if you have a SACD or vinyl front end, giving the DEQX a digital feed is not an option. You must rely on the ADC - and that is where the problem starts.

And where did you get that ridiculous explanation for how the Organ of Corti works??? Try that answer in a Physiology 101 exam and you will fail! And before you ask - yes, I know how the Organ of Corti works. It would take a while to explain it, but it is so far off topic I don't see how it would benefit the discussion.

by musicmusic Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:46 pm

And where did you get that ridiculous explanation for how the Organ of Corti works??? Try that answer in a Physiology 101 exam and you will fail! And before you ask - yes, I know how the Organ of Corti works. It would take a while to explain it, but it is so far off topic I don't see how it would benefit the discussion.

But you wont explain the actual way, right? too complicate? It is simple q. The 16 bit 44.1khz wasn’t plucked out of thin air. Do you still stand by your statement that audio signals not transferred to pulses?

And is channel separation also wrong about vinyl?

by WongKK Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:08 pm

I will try to make this as simple as I can. The cochlea is a long tube. It is wide at one end and narrow at the other, like a cone, only that it has been folded up like a snail. Different parts of the tube are tuned to resonate at different frequencies. Hair follicles in the Organ of Corti at different parts of the tube directly capture motion from sound waves - so-called "tono-topic organization". Thus 20kHz is captured near the proximal end of the cochlea, while low frequencies are captured at the distal end. The brain knows which part of the cochlea has been stimulated, which is how it detects frequencies. More displacement of hair follices results in more nerves being fired, which is how we detect amplitude.

Low frequencies are not directly detected by the cochlea, it is thought that these ARE detected via pulse - i.e. volleys.

by **Hi-Fi 4 Sale** Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:39 pm

WongKK wrote:I will try to make this as simple as I can. The cochlea is a long tube. It is wide at one end and narrow at the other, like a cone, only that it has been folded up like a snail. Different parts of the tube are tuned to resonate at different frequencies. Hair follicles in the Organ of Corti at different parts of the tube directly capture motion from sound waves - so-called "tono-topic organization". Thus 20kHz is captured near the proximal end of the cochlea, while low frequencies are captured at the distal end. The brain knows which part of the cochlea has been stimulated, which is how it detects frequencies. More displacement of hair follices results in more nerves being fired, which is how we detect amplitude.

Low frequencies are not directly detected by the cochlea, it is thought that these ARE detected via pulse - i.e. volleys.

Good stuff, Dr.

It's not often you hear someone combining the science of hearing with our hobby. Clearly & concisely explained.

by musicmusic Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:36 pm

I will try to make this as simple as I can. The cochlea is a long tube. It is wide at one end and narrow at the other, like a cone, only that it has been folded up like a snail. Different parts of the tube are tuned to resonate at different frequencies. Hair follicles in the Organ of Corti at different parts of the tube directly capture motion from sound waves - so-called "tono-topic organization". Thus 20kHz is captured near the proximal end of the cochlea, while low frequencies are captured at the distal end. The brain knows which part of the cochlea has been stimulated, which is how it detects frequencies. More displacement of hair follices results in more nerves being fired, which is how we detect amplitude.

Low frequencies are not directly detected by the cochlea, it is thought that these ARE detected via pulse - i.e. volleys.
WongKK

How was the information communicated to the brain?

Isn’t it the movement of the basilar membrane causes electro-chemical processes in the organ of Corti and produces electric impulses by the array of the hair cells spread all along this membrane.

The electrical impulses generated by the hair cells are then transmitted through a network of nerves to the auditory cortex of the brain where the impulses processed as sound known to us.

The impulses are sort of hybrid signal. On- off like digital (but not digital) and each pulse may carry different amplitude of voltage(analogue).

Google around you will find hundreds of papers on this.

by **WongKN** Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:59 pm

New albums recorded in analog master tape, I have to check. I read about it a while ago but I don't bother to remember this sort of things as they are always only interesting trivia to me.

For a some time after CD was introduced, a number of labels recorded with SONY PCM recorders at 16bit by 48kHz. So for those albums, in theory CD is the closest to a perfect copy. I remember numerous Denon, Phillips, Angel/EMI, even the audiophile favourite Telarc were using this format. Scary huh !! Laughing

by sflam Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:59 pm

wongkn wrote:
a number of labels recorded with SONY PCM recorders at 16bit by 48kHz.

some used digital audio tape (dat).

interesting read, click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Tape

by cmboy Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:11 am

I'm unable to verify but someone made a remark to me in a casual chat about during the very early years studio analog to digital transfers. The ADC's used were like 8bit or 12bit at best. Obviously it improved as time went on with the latest available to them studios.

by carz Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:27 am

MusicMusic wrote:
"Our voice is analogue . Our ears mechanism also analogue like. Yet, the final information transferred to our brain is digital like. They are pulses. Tut..tut…tut..tut..like. 100hz is 100 pulses in one second."

Our ears are "digital", just like our eyes, tongue, nose etc are.

by **WongKN** Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:42 am

I think I have explained once before but maybe we can bring it up again. There is always a confusion between the term analogue, discrete, and digital. The confusion is always that if something is not analogue, then it is digital. NO.

Both analogue and discrete are natural phenomenons. Digital on the other hand, is a man-made phenomenon.

When something occurs continously, then it is analogue. If it occurs in fixed steps, then it is discrete. The biggest problem we have with our technology and our science is that they are discrete but many of nature's phenomenons are continous (you can say analogue in the context of this discussion). This stems from the fact that our science is based on our numbering system. It is not important what base the number system is, base-2, base-8, base-10, etc. In whatever specification currently in use in our science and in our knowledge, it is always discrete and it is INSUFFICIENT to let us understand nature completely. Confused ? Let me give you an example.

Take a piece of paper and a pen or pencil. Draw a straight line. Now, label one end with the number 0 and the other end with a number 1. I have attempted to recreate this drawing on screen with the crude ascii drawing below

+-----------+
0 1

This line REPRESENTS a REALITY. It is not important what ACTUAL object or construct it represents. It is not important in what form the actual line is (if pencil, then it is made up of fragments of carbon on a rough surface made up of bleeched wood fibre, i.e. paper, for e.g.) We don't want to get distracted by that. It is a REPRESENTATION. We can map it to some real phenomenons but now we deal with it conceptually.

Now, on the line, locate the HALFWAY point. You don't have to be exact, it is a REPRESENTATION. Now label the half-way point ACCORDING to the number scheme we started above. Done ?

What did you do ? If you use the decimal system, you will have written 0.5. Let's stick to the decimal system instead of using fractions like 1/2 because it is easier to understand and to work with when we go down deep later. Now compare the difference between the original numbers you wrote and this new number. The main difference is that the new number is ONE EXTRA LEVEL OF ACCURACY. I.e. we NEED to be accurate to half (0.5) before we can accurately label the halfway point while previously we work with whole numbers (0, 1, 2, etc). So if we want to be consistent, we now need to rewrite the two original numbers, as 0.0 and 1.0. So now the line has three points and three numbers representing it; 0.0, 0.5, 1.0.

Now this is where it gets scary.

Repeat the process again with the two halfs. I.e. mark the one-quarter and three-quarter point. Label it. AGAIN, the process repeats itself. To get an accurate representation, we need to ADD another layer of accuracy. I.e. the new points can only be accurately labelled by 0.25 and 0.75. BUT we used ONE decimal point earlier. So now we need to INCREASE our level of accuracy once again. So now we have FIVE points and numbers, 0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00.

Now, REPEAT again. And again. And again. EACH TIME we repeat we need to add a new level of accuracy, one more decimal digit. BUT DO YOU NOW NOTICE THIS....

THERE IS NO LIMIT TO HOW FAR WE CAN REPEAT. If we limit ourselves to this 'game', this 'experiment', then there WILL ALWAYS BE A HALF-WAY POINT, NO MATTER HOW FAR WE GO. The only limit is our REALITY, our technology or science if you will. How long did you draw the line ? On how large a piece of paper ? You run out of space very quickly. You reach the PHYSICAL limit of the OBJECTS you work with. So now instead of an A4 paper, you take a B3 paper and you draw the line from one edge to the other. It is now a much longer line. And so now if you redo the whole thing, you can get down maybe 20 or 30 layers. We can do this on even larger paper. How about a piece as large as a football field ? Or one 5km long ? Or one as long as the circumference of the earth ? Jupiter ? The Sun ? HOW LARGE CAN WE GO ? DOES IT END ?

I would think the forumers who already know all these before this post would be smiling by now. I think many would know what I am trying to explain by now. If you still have not, it is nothing wrong. Let me know and I will explain further with further illustrations and experiements. Just be prepared for some kind of change to the way you have known the world and your opinion about the 'wonders' of our technology (a bit dramatic la but in a way it is true).

by mugenfoo Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:00 am

There is a whole bucket list of mfg specs that they like to throw around to show why CD is the "perfect sound forever" format.
- wow & flutter below measureable limit
- THD 0.00X% (usually at 1KHz, 0 or -20dB)
- Separation 100+dB
- Dynamic Range 100+dB
... etc etc.

Anyone can read and get suckered into all these marketing BS.
A little bit of knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

But with easily 2 semesters DSP and EE background, one will know what these mfgs are NOT revealing to the consumer by just reading the owner's manual's spec page.

For examples:
- what is the real THD at 20KHz (near the Nyquist Freq), (ok ok , lets not use 20KHz, too extreme since most people's ears are insensitive to it already... so how about @ 10KHz instead ... )
- for that matter, what is the real THD even if its 1KHz at -60 or -90dB level.
- Jitter deviation
- Pre-ringing magnitude & duration
- post-ringing magnitude & duration
- Phase shifts (surprise surprise, even CDs got phase shift thanks to the digital filters)
- quantization error on-chip.
- Filter attenuation at the Nyquist Freq.
- Intermodulation Distortion near the Nyquist.
- D/A Linearity Error.
- etc etc etc....

But the true music lover will evaluate with their own ears. And thats what matters most.

Most people get disenchanted with LP because it really is a hassle to setup. And it doesn't help that the multitude of decks, arms and carts make for an endless pitfall of mismatches and trial/errors. But once a decently compatible setup is achieved, the level is something that no CD or 24/96 format can achieve to date. Maybe 24/192 can go toe-2-toe with a good LP frontend ? Perhaps... But until recording labels start releasing native 24/192 material to the consumer market (and not the watered down 24/48 crap).... the CD format is still a vastly inferior medium for music reproduction.

Did someone mention SACD? Sounds good to me... But again, its severely lacking in software material to date. The best technology or Format in the world is useless if there is no application or software material for it. Case in point: "Betamax". Anyone remembers "Betamax" ?

by mugenfoo Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:11 am

WongKN wrote:
Now this is where it gets scary.

Repeat the process again with the two halfs. I.e. mark the one-quarter and three-quarter point. Label it. AGAIN, the process repeats itself. To get an accurate representation, we need to ADD another layer of accuracy. I.e. the new points can only be accurately labelled by 0.25 and 0.75. BUT we used ONE decimal point earlier. So now we need to INCREASE our level of accuracy once again. So now we have FIVE points and numbers, 0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00.

Now, REPEAT again. And again. And again. EACH TIME we repeat we need to add a new level of accuracy, one more decimal digit. BUT DO YOU NOW NOTICE THIS....

THERE IS NO LIMIT TO HOW FAR WE CAN REPEAT. If we limit ourselves to this 'game', this 'experiment', then there WILL ALWAYS BE A HALF-WAY POINT, NO MATTER HOW FAR WE GO. The only limit is our REALITY, our technology or science if you will. How long did you draw the line ? On how large a piece of paper ? You run out of space very quickly. You reach the PHYSICAL limit of the OBJECTS you work with. So now instead of an A4 paper, you take a B3 paper and you draw the line from one edge to the other. It is now a much longer line. And so now if you redo the whole thing, you can get down maybe 20 or 30 layers. We can do this on even larger paper. How about a piece as large as a football field ? Or one 5km long ? Or one as long as the circumference of the earth ? Jupiter ? The Sun ? HOW LARGE CAN WE GO ? DOES IT END ?

In all fairness, and since we are all humans .. it ends when "it doesnt matter anymore" at the boundary limits of human perception already.

Back to the Display screen resolution example .. if a screen maker can do LCD display with say ... 500ppi resolution on a consumer device, and the user doesnt get too anal and start reading his/her iPod touch Gen.7 with a magnifying glass ... then we can safely say that the screen has reached its maximum visual potential , to the consumer's eyes already.

So , when digital gets to be say 32bits and 768KHz resolution, with jitter errors that are below say 0.000001femtosecond errors .... that would probably be beyond the capabilities of human discrimination already.

But at today's formats like redbook, 24/96 and even SACD ..., far from it .
Smile

by mugenfoo Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:32 am

musicmusic wrote:
I will try to make this as simple as I can. The cochlea is a long tube. It is wide at one end and narrow at the other, like a cone, only that it has been folded up like a snail. Different parts of the tube are tuned to resonate at different frequencies. Hair follicles in the Organ of Corti at different parts of the tube directly capture motion from sound waves - so-called "tono-topic organization". Thus 20kHz is captured near the proximal end of the cochlea, while low frequencies are captured at the distal end. The brain knows which part of the cochlea has been stimulated, which is how it detects frequencies. More displacement of hair follices results in more nerves being fired, which is how we detect amplitude.

Low frequencies are not directly detected by the cochlea, it is thought that these ARE detected via pulse - i.e. volleys.
WongKK

How was the information communicated to the brain?

Isn’t it the movement of the basilar membrane causes electro-chemical processes in the organ of Corti and produces electric impulses by the array of the hair cells spread all along this membrane.

The electrical impulses generated by the hair cells are then transmitted through a network of nerves to the auditory cortex of the brain where the impulses processed as sound known to us.

The impulses are sort of hybrid signal. On- off like digital (but not digital) and each pulse may carry different amplitude of voltage(analogue).

Google around you will find hundreds of papers on this.

Whoaaa.... Googling around for Papers and articles vs a qualified Medical Doctor's take ...

This i gotta learn! Finally, all the answers to life are available online and all the universities can pack it up already !

lol!

On a more serious note:
"On- off like digital (but not digital)" can actually be represented by components of sine waves. Go and wiki-up these terms: "Fourier Series" and "Fourier Transform". 'Nuff said.

One could then Google around summore and read up in 1 hour (or less) and surpass what a normal person needs to take 3 or 4 years in Uni to graduate as an EE engineer !

study

by adrian4454 Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:38 am

haha, in the end of this argument, 16/44kHz is the best format ever~

Adequate for all madness that we are into, As consumer or avg consumer like me?.

I just realized something when Mugen pull out the screen resolution thing; like the digital camera.. talking about the voluminous pixel rate the photo sensor is capable of. Fact is, we can't tell the different between 4Mb or 20Mb sensor resolution taken picture printed in A4.

The high high resolution 24/96, 192, is more for editing use.. we should be contented with CD at 16/44.. and technology continue to make progress on this stand instead of pumping in more bits that still can't be processed properly..

So imagine the digital camera scene... 6Mb sensor, with today camera tech.. it should be 1 of the fastest write to memory card with the lowest noise and best dynamic range... sadly we still idolize the crazy mega bytes that only professional studio use for high end editing..

Hmm.. anyway, my point doesnt sound so valid, as some of us just as good or maybe better than the sound/editing engineer in the studio~

by WongKK Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:41 am

Yeah, I am not going bother responding to his last post. He clearly doesn't understand either digital or nerve conduction, so what's the point!

by mugenfoo Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:55 am

i tried to set the tracking force of my KSS-240a pickup lens over the weekend with my Shure SFG-2 Stylus Force gauge...

Surprisingly, i failed miserably. Must be because i was not hardworking enough to Google-up enough documents and articles on how to properly do it !

lol!

by musicmusic Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:01 pm

Fact is, we can't tell the different between 4Mb or 20Mb sensor resolution taken picture printed in A4.

Maybe videophiles could. Wink

But sadly no one noticed when watching Pirates of Carribean 4, The Hobbit, Leverage or ER. And Cameron is shooting Avatar II all in digital because he wasn’t satisfied with Avatar 1 picture quality.***

And yes the latest discovery. Vinyls specs exceeded CD in all aspects. This one..you cannot find on google but experts here will testify through their ears.

Any experts can provide a rebuttal? Oh …google info tak main? How about ..nevermind no time to layan…who cannot have a decent discussion.

***Caveat- This information is not valid because it is available on google. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…syok sendirilah like someone.

by mugenfoo Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:17 pm

wrote:
And yes the latest discovery. Vinyls specs exceeded CD in all aspects. This one..you cannot find on google but experts here will testify through their ears.

Not just here, but all around the world:
- Harry Pearson
- J G Holt
- Robert Harley
- Michael Fremer
- Leo Fung
... etc .....

But looks like someone here (who probably is not a qualified medical practitioner nor from an EE/Acoustic Eng. background) thinks otherwise.

This must be the "Mother of all Syiok Sendiri" here.

The rest of us would prefer to Syiok the music instead.
LMAO.

by **WongKN** Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:45 pm

The main point is to understand that many natural processes are discrete -as we know it- but they are -not- digital. Discrete being for e.g. information being send in pulses or 'packets', like our nerve transmissions. But each pulse or packet is a 'glob' of data. E.g. an electrical pulse can be in a range from anything between 0V to 1V, it can be 0V, or 0.1V, or 0.1567V or 0.78996V, or any value. And in how much resolution ? As explained above, the REAL LIFE is infinite because the actual pulse is analog in nature.

Digital means base-2. In the case above, it FORCES each pulse to have only two values. So it is NOT a real phenomenon because we MUST convert a series of it to represent a real data. It is MAN-MADE. As I tried to explain, it cannot handle the realities of nature.

But as mugen rightfully points out, for the sake of our use, our technology, we stop when it doesn't matter to us anymore - i.e. when we are unable to make use of the difference. Sometimes it is because our numbering system, or our science itself cannot handle the resolution anymore.

Want an example ? In my earlier post, take the line you drew and identify the ONE-THIRD point on the line. Now, label that point. PRECISELY, EXACTLY. How many 3's do you need ? (Answer, you cannot do this because our numbering system is not able to handle it. It is too limited).

But the other important thing to consider is that our brain is a very adaptive and powerful organ. And we have five senses which works IN CONJUNCTION with each other frequently. When we dissect a natural process, we ISOLATE it into its primary ingredients. So we often isolates the sense of hearing to itself alone, INSISTING that we must look at it in isolation and ignoring the fact that hearing is affected by SIGHT as well as FEEL. It is a necessity in order for us to properly understand nature (in its original form it might be too complex for us to handle). And by doing this, we often falls into a trap.

I remember one case I read about when I was very young and was instrumental to my current belief. This case clearly illustrates this issue. Scientists were experimenting to disprove the belief that the indian snake charmer is controlling the snake by his music but is actually by his own body movement.

So to check the validity of this claim, they devised an experiment whereby the snake was put in an evironment where supposedly it can only hear and cannot sense anything else. But they had to redo the experiment several times because they continued to miss some unexpected factors. For e.g. they had the snake in the standard snake charmers basket. Then they put the cover on and they notice when the charmer plays, the snake still 'dances'. Then they realized the snake could see the charmer through the gaps in the basket cover. Then they put a cloth over the cover. But the snake still danced. Then they realized the snake can see the shadow of the charmer moving through the cloth. Eventually they had to put a physical shield between the charmer and the snake before the snake stopped dancing. It was only then that they could prove that the original belief that the snake was hearing the music was wrong and that it was the charmer's body movement which was charming the snake.

Similarly, depending on our theories and limited knowledge to tell us that this and this is the way our body is supposed to work carries this pitfall. So it is wise to be careful about 'facts' like we can't hear certain frequencies, or we don't care about distortion beyond a certain paper specification. For e.g. we are not supposed to be able to hear low frequencies below 20+Hz. But we want subwoofers that reaches 15Hz and below and their benefits to movies are universally heard. And this is because we FEEL the low frequencies, not hear it. Thus AV/HT fans says "FEEL THE RUMBLING BASS MAN !!!". So, the question becomes is the enjoyment of the movie STRICTLY limited to hearing and seeing only, just because our science says so ? Is Transformers better when we have a glass of wine, beer, soft-drink and a bowl of kacang beside us when we watch it ? Or our science says we can only 'see' (the picture) and 'hear' (the soundtrack) so we shouldn't eat or drink when watching Transformers ?

So in the end, it is simply HOW we enjoy the music, or the movie that counts. And carried to its natural conclusion, we JUDGE something by OUR SENSES, NOT by its paper specifications.

Anyway, that is my approach. And my friends knows I enjoy my passion for music and movies very much so for my own personal requirements, I must be right ! Laughing

by musicmusic Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:46 pm

Yeah, I am not going bother responding to his last post. He clearly doesn't understand either digital or nerve conduction, so what's the point!

The point is all claims that analogue sound is superior because it is continuous wave like nature is no longer valid because nature itself is not sending the signal to the brain in continues form. Disprove this. You passed your 101 paper so I am sure you can disprove this.
Please don’t use reference from magazine sellers such as the author from The Absolute Shit or ShitOphile.
You are entitled to belittle someone but it must be based on the truth.

by Nil Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:07 pm

When someone is losing in a battle, only Shit Shit kind of words known to speak out from the loser's mouth, what a pity Razz

by tycham Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:18 pm

mugenfoo wrote:i tried to set the tracking force of my KSS-240a pickup lens over the weekend with my Shure SFG-2 Stylus Force gauge...

Surprisingly, i failed miserably. Must be because i was not hardworking enough to Google-up enough documents and articles on how to properly do it !

You forgot to change the tension on the spring!

Twisted Evil

by **WongKN** Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:24 pm

I told mugen he is not using a hi-spec enough tracking force guage. His guage is only 24bits. He needs to use one with 128bits. Then only will work ! lol!

by **htkaki** Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:06 pm

WongKN wrote:Similarly, depending on our theories and limited knowledge to tell us that this and this is the way our body is supposed to work carries this pitfall. So it is wise to be careful about 'facts' like we can't hear certain frequencies, or we don't care about distortion beyond a certain paper specification. For e.g. we are not supposed to be able to hear low frequencies below 20+Hz. But we want subwoofers that reaches 15Hz and below and their benefits to movies are universally heard. And this is because we FEEL the low frequencies, not hear it. Thus AV/HT fans says "FEEL THE RUMBLING BASS MAN !!!". So, the question becomes is the enjoyment of the movie STRICTLY limited to hearing and seeing only, just because our science says so ? Is Transformers better when we have a glass of wine, beer, soft-drink and a bowl of kacang beside us when we watch it ? Or our science says we can only 'see' (the picture) and 'hear' (the soundtrack) so we shouldn't eat or drink when watching Transformers ?

So in the end, it is simply HOW we enjoy the music, or the movie that counts. And carried to its natural conclusion, we JUDGE something by OUR SENSES, NOT by its paper specifications.

I like that esp when you mentioned about the ULF from a capable sub (Btw, I ain't really that kind of sub freak Embarassed

)

Sometimes, I feel that some of us get too bogged down by the papers and forget about the enjoyment derives from music / movie. When it sounds good to your ears, it is best to forget about matching equipment via paper specifications especially if it tells you otherwise.

by musicmusic Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:08 pm

Nil said "When someone is losing in a battle, only Shit Shit kind of words known to speak out from the loser's mouth, what a pity"

You are right Ms. All reference to shit withdrawn.

Kill me in this battle by showing that neuron transmission is not impulses.

by mugenfoo Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:37 pm

tycham wrote:
mugenfoo wrote:i tried to set the tracking force of my KSS-240a pickup lens over the weekend with my Shure SFG-2 Stylus Force gauge...

Surprisingly, i failed miserably. Must be because i was not hardworking enough to Google-up enough documents and articles on how to properly do it !

You forgot to change the tension on the spring!

WongKN wrote:I told mugen he is not using a hi-spec enough tracking force guage. His guage is only 24bits. He needs to use one with 128bits. Then only will work !

What to do .... didn't manage to find any article from Google !
You guys should write a wiki on it ! Sure will "Laku" one !

lol!

by WongKK Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:05 pm

musicmusic, I don't need to look up TAS or Stereophile to know how digital works, or how the brain works. I just know. Conventional university education. What you said about hearing being "digital" is only half true. It is clear to me that you do not understand the phenomenon which is why you made a statement which is excessively strong and without nuance.

A PCM digital signal works as a "word". A series of pulses are sent sequentially. The receiver knows what rate the data is being sent at, so it "listens" for a set period of time, which will correspond to a certain number of bits (in this case, 16 bits). When 16 bits are received according to a clock, the word is read and the whole 16 bits interpreted at once. The receiver then waits for the next 16-bit word.

The cochlea communicates with the brain via pulses. The neurons ARE "digital" in that they either exist in a polarized or depolarized state, i.e. 1 and 0. However, what the brain does when it receives the signal is something else entirely. It does not wait for a "word" to arrive, rather the arrival of signal or multiple signals triggers a cascade of secondary depolarization which in turn excites other neurones. More signals arriving at once = greater depolarization.

However, what is decidedly non-digital about the hearing system is that the sampled waveform is not quantized in discrete quantities. A 16-bit ADC listens to an audio signal and decides if its value corresponds to (say) 32,768 or 32,769. The organ of Corti has no such limitation - if a value falls between the two, it will simply excite enough neurones to produce a continuously variable signal that is truly analogue.

by **htkaki** Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:23 pm

mugenfoo wrote:What to do .... didn't manage to find any article from Google !
You guys should write a wiki on it ! Sure will "Laku" one !

Did you try askWongKN.com ? lol!

Pretty sure that it will be a very lengthy answer for a simple question.

by WongKK Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:24 pm

BTW, I should also go on the record (pun not intended) that I do not
necessarily believe that analogue sounds superior to digital.

On every technical measurement - channel seperation, dynamic range, frequency response, speed stability, harmonic distortion - even the cheapest CD player kills LP. But in vitro is not the same as in vivo - or put it in another way, what happens in the lab is not what happens in real life. Common mistake made by some engineers. Doctors never make that mistake Smile

So what's going on?

I have a large library of recordings on all sorts of formats - early
analogue on LP vs. early analogue on SACD; early digital on LP vs early
digital on SACD; and pure DSD recordings on SACD. Which format "wins" is
entirely on a case by case basis. The best sounding recordings in my collection have to be DSD on SACD. But - LP's with analogue masters sound better compared to analogue master on digital every time. So my first proposal is - which format sounds better depends on how your music was mastered.

I also believe that vinyl has more scope for tuning the sound of your
system. For example, if your system has poor dynamics and poor bass, you
can tune your vinyl setup by choosing a more dynamic cartridge with
excellent bass. You can also tune your vinyl to deliver on your musical
preferences. With digital, you are stuck. On many systems like these,
vinyl usually sounds better than digital.

I don't buy into the argument that vinyl sounds better because it is analogue. I think vinyl sounds better because the problems in digital have not yet been fully worked out. There is still argument about how much jitter is acceptable, and even in digital rigs which claim to completely eliminate jitter - e.g. high end DCS rigs and my SACD player - the sound is still not as good as analogue.

However, the AES do not seem to be interested in improving digital. They continued to insist in the 1980's that digital was perfect, and superior to vinyl. It was only the Japanese, who were not working with the AES, who discovered jitter and worked on engineering solutions for it.

The AES continues to be disconnected from audiophiles, and continues to insist that audiophiles are deluded and they know best. What they are pursuing is not what we want. We want higher quality, higher resolution, and answers as to why the venerable analogue format still sounds better than digital. The AES responds by denying that analogue is superior, and publishes DBT's that "prove" that hi-res digital is no better to low-res digital.

While there is this divide between the enthusiasts and the engineers, there will be no progress.

by musicmusic Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:31 pm

What you said about hearing being "digital" is only half true.

KK, I never said hearing is digital. All I am saying it was digital like in the sense the signals to brain transmitted via pulses.

It is no longer a continuous signal as in analogue.

I am a vinyl lover too. It is just that the justification to claim vinyl supposedly to be superior on technical grounds is false. Could it be the mastering technique then? There are a lot to discuss about that.

by sflam Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:32 pm

mugenfoo wrote:

when digital gets to be say 32bits and 768KHz resolution, with jitter errors that are below say 0.000001femtosecond errors .... that would probably be beyond the capabilities of human discrimination already.

i think dxd format (24bits 352.8Khz) which is now used by some studios shld be "beyond the capabilities of human discrimination" and shld equal analogue.

i am still waiting for this technology to filter down to the consumer market.

by mugenfoo Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:39 pm

sflam wrote:
mugenfoo wrote:

when digital gets to be say 32bits and 768KHz resolution, with jitter errors that are below say 0.000001femtosecond errors .... that would probably be beyond the capabilities of human discrimination already.

i think dxd format (24bits 352.8Khz) which is now used by some studios shld be "beyond the capabilities of human discrimination" and shld equal analogue.

i am still waiting for this technology to filter down to the consumer market.

You could be right, but just remember that 24/352 (or whatever XXbits/YYYSampling) is just ONE piece of the picture.

There is still alot more to Digital audio Technology (and its inherent limitations) than what your average joe-consumer would understand (or care to bother) and then try to argue stubbornly with what little half-baked knowledge they might think they know; As illustrated here recently.

by musicmusic Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:46 pm

i think dxd format (24bits 352.8Khz) which is now used by some studios shld be
"beyond the capabilities of human discrimination" and shld equal analogue.

They already implemented that. In fact that is the only feasible tool to edit DSD.

Forget about jitter unless you are some super genius who could not get employed in high tech company who can hear below the industry standard.

Careful...some genius can measure PF of the wall.

Smile

)

by ryder Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:50 pm

mugenfoo wrote:
This i gotta learn! Finally, all the answers to life are available online and all the universities can pack it up already !

One could then Google around summore and read up in 1 hour (or less) and surpass what a normal person needs to take 3 or 4 years in Uni to graduate as an EE engineer !

ROTFLMAO

by bimmerman Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:06 pm

I think some credit has got to be given to the folks at Wadia who were among the first who realized that there was something sonically wrong with the sound of early CD playback and created products to address the issues.

Also Kudos to the folks at Audio Alchemy who realised the same and made a host of Jitter reduction devices and implemented I2S for their devices to transfer digital with as little jitter as possible. And they did it for the budget of the common working man such as myself. But by doing so, they done themselves in. Crying or Very sad

Also, early CD recording and mastering was also to blame as recording engineers (probably caught up in the early digital buzz) made their mixes analytical and overly clean to show off the new format. Just like the demo videos played on new fangled LCD TV with colours unrealistically leaping out at you. Real life don't look like that but real life played on a new fangled LCD probably won't win you over either. But when you bring one of these TVs home, you're almost certain to tone down the colour somewhat to reflect real life.

CD recording, mastering and remastering has come a very long way since the 1980s. The format may be lacking in light of the other formats mentioned but if Redbook is so fundamentally flawed beyond any hope of producing enjoyable music, the folks at TAD would probably not have made a RM120,000 CD player.

Anyone had the good fortune of listening to or owning a TAD flagship CD player lately???

I certainly have not but my lesser CD playback setup don't sound half bad at a fraction of the cost. I have found peace with my music with it.

by adrian4454 Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:18 pm

Hi bimmerman,

Thanks for supporting the CDs! It makes 2 of us. Still havent got the best out of it yet.. Maybe the TAD CD will appear in the KLIAV.. hope it wont disappoint!

by mugenfoo Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:38 pm

beemerman,

When you'd get around to have your TD150 properly sorted out and with a decent cart and phono box, then only would you see the complete picture from both sides of this format debacle.

Otherwise if your collection of LPs are such a burden and is crying out for a better home, I'm first in line here ok ?

Some people would compare say an entry level CD playback system to a RM500 "Soundstage" made in China plastic deck turntable with whatever god awful pin or needle. Would this be the basis for any argument? Is it fair to compare a BMW-318 against an Audi RS4, and then conclude that BMW is so vastly inferior to Audi ?

But for you, when you're free, either lug your TT over, or i'll bring my tools of the trade over .. and we'll give that ol' lady a total makeover. Just pick a date dude, and then u can safely say you've seen/heard both sides of the pond and then draw your own informed conclusions.

BTW, ...TAD what ? Lets take a 3-Box Scarlatti (Transport, Clock & DAC) system costing a cool RM180K. Throw in the Scarlatti upsampler and you'd have breached the RM200K mark already. Wink

by Mikapoh Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:43 pm

adrian4454,

Go after the songs of your preference. If they are mostly available in CD format, then by all means buy more CDs or vice versa. I am not surprised you've supported CDs and many of us do. Owning a CDP has formed the most basic gear! Most songs can still be found in CD format, simple as that. Life is short, why bother those technical superiority over one another. In the end, music does matter the most!

by musicmusic Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:50 pm

if Redbook is so fundamentally flawed beyond any hope of producing enjoyable music, the folks at TAD would probably not have made a RM120,000 CD player.

Bcoz, TAD did not get expert’s opinion from hifi4sale to know the limitation of redbook.

TAD is super expensive because they replace the pickup lens with stylus just like someone here attempted to do the exact opposite.

lol!

by bimmerman Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:42 pm

mugenfoo wrote:beemerman,

When you'd get around to have your TD150 properly sorted out and with a decent cart and phono box, then only would you see the complete picture from both sides of this format debacle.

Otherwise if your collection of LPs are such a burden and is crying out for a better home, I'm first in line here ok ?

Some people would compare say an entry level CD playback system to a RM500 "Soundstage" made in China plastic deck turntable with whatever god awful pin or needle. Would this be the basis for any argument? Is it fair to compare a BMW-318 against an Audi RS4, and then conclude that BMW is so vastly inferior to Audi ?

Moogoofoogoo,

Well, for me I have no argument with anybody here there or anywhere. I believe that CD is better than LP anyday but LP beats CD anytime. Depending on how you look at it. My goal is to extract good music from both my CD and LP collection and I humbly feel I've already suceeded with my CD setup but sadly my LPs have not been getting much attention lately. The other day an esteemed gentleman amoung our circles came over to my place and commented that my digital sounds like analog and vice versa. We had a good laugh. I know it's high time I did something for my LP playback but sigh... So many ideas and not enough money... Been eyeing that Trichord Dino for years now!!! Maybe next year bro as I'm so weary of credit card debt pale

So weary I tell you. I really should have listened to my parents and became a gynaecologist. But blood and other bodily ooze make me queasy. pale

I could maybe hope for a next life but my religion forbids it. I'm screwed right?

Now, about that 318i vs Audi RS4, i'm the sort of guy who might still vote the 318i as the winner. Why? because i'd rather not drive a bone jarring, pavement shovelling go kart Audi in downtown KL with all the horsepower and torque I can't use. It'll leave me with frazzled nerves. With the 318i, i'm blissfully whistling a happy tune as I motor along the busy streets of KL without the slightest bother in the world. But what's really on my mind right now is a Merc 190E 2.5 EVOII. Hell, just give me a regular 90bhp anemic 190E and i'll plonk in that Altezza Beams Dual VVTI 4-potter. Yeah baby!!! cheers

by sflam Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:50 pm

bimmerman wrote:

With the 318i, i'm blissfully whistling a happy tune as I motor along the busy streets of KL without the slightest bother in the world.

and don't forget the hot chicks looking at u while u r cooly driving along. u can always give them a ride to yr home and u can always show them yr stylus... Very Happy

by adrian4454 Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:58 pm

Think tonearm is much appropriate... stylus is bit too small..hahaha.

by mugenfoo Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:10 pm

bimmerman wrote:
Now, about that 318i vs Audi RS4, i'm the sort of guy who might still vote the 318i as the winner. Why? because i'd rather not drive a bone jarring, pavement shovelling go kart Audi in downtown KL with all the horsepower and torque I can't use. It'll leave me with frazzled nerves. With the 318i, i'm blissfully whistling a happy tune as I motor along the busy streets of KL without the slightest bother in the world. But what's really on my mind right now is a Merc 190E 2.5 EVOII. Hell, just give me a regular 90bhp anemic 190E and i'll plonk in that Altezza Beams Dual VVTI 4-potter. Yeah baby!!!

Beemiemoolie,
... that is the crux of the matter. You see, there is such a thing in a car called a "gas pedal". So You really only use what you think you're gonna use. An RS4 is just as happy at 1500rpms crawling in traffic with a 318i. So lets say they're pretty much even here.
But you're not gonna be driving in jams and stop-go traffic all your motoring life right ? There would be just those moments that you WILL enter thru a tollgate, and the highway opens and beckons for you to leave some rubber down. And for those oh-so-rare ocassions that you might visit the Sepang circuit & not via the main entrance but via the pitlane access.... 318? well, you get the idea.

BTW, if you've a taken a ride between a 740Li ( F02) and the A8L (D4) recently, then you'll know hands down, which one would ride, bump and shake your bones like a go kart....Honestly! Even if you may not like the answer... Twisted Evil

But dont fret it , here's a consolation for you. The Bavarian candidate still touches the 100-mark 0.3 seconds sooner than its peer from Ingolstadt. Cool

Back to a more related note... why are you or your buddies even comparing whether something sounds "more analog" or "more digital"? Or hearing if one sounds like the other or vice versa ? scratch

Shouldn't it just be a simple case of which is "closer to the original music" ? Food for thought. cherry

by sflam Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:53 pm

mugenfoo wrote:

why are you or your buddies even comparing whether something sounds "more analog" or "more digital"?

i hv noticed that people tend to equate smooth and warmish sound from a digital source to "analogue sound".

by bimmerman Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:16 pm

SfLam, Adrian, has anybody ever told you guys that you should consider doing stand-up? Well you should! tongue

Actually Adrian, SFlam is right you know. All the pleasure is derived from the stylus and less so the tonearm. Once you hit the "G" correctly, you experience ecstacy irregardless of whether you're doing the inner or outer groove. Or in and out and in and out the grooves.

by bimmerman Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:19 pm

sflam wrote:
mugenfoo wrote:

why are you or your buddies even comparing whether something sounds "more analog" or "more digital"?

i hv noticed that people tend to equate smooth and warmish sound from a digital source to "analogue sound".

Well, my friend was just making a passing remark that my vinyl sounded kind of harsh, thin and hollow compared to my CD.

by bimmerman Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:34 pm

mugenfoo wrote:
bimmerman wrote:
Now, about that 318i vs Audi RS4, i'm the sort of guy who might still vote the 318i as the winner. Why? because i'd rather not drive a bone jarring, pavement shovelling go kart Audi in downtown KL with all the horsepower and torque I can't use. It'll leave me with frazzled nerves. With the 318i, i'm blissfully whistling a happy tune as I motor along the busy streets of KL without the slightest bother in the world. But what's really on my mind right now is a Merc 190E 2.5 EVOII. Hell, just give me a regular 90bhp anemic 190E and i'll plonk in that Altezza Beams Dual VVTI 4-potter. Yeah baby!!!

Beemiemoolie,
... that is the crux of the matter. You see, there is such a thing in a car called a "gas pedal". So You really only use what you think you're gonna use. An RS4 is just as happy at 1500rpms crawling in traffic with a 318i. So lets say they're pretty much even here.
But you're not gonna be driving in jams and stop-go traffic all your motoring life right ? There would be just those moments that you WILL enter thru a tollgate, and the highway opens and beckons for you to leave some rubber down. And for those oh-so-rare ocassions that you might visit the Sepang circuit & not via the main entrance but via the pitlane access.... 318? well, you get the idea.

BTW, if you've a taken a ride between a 740Li ( F02) and the A8L (D4) recently, then you'll know hands down, which one would ride, bump and shake your bones like a go kart....Honestly! Even if you may not like the answer...

But dont fret it , here's a consolation for you. The Bavarian candidate still touches the 100-mark 0.3 seconds sooner than its peer from Ingolstadt.

Back to a more related note... why are you or your buddies even comparing whether something sounds "more analog" or "more digital"? Or hearing if one sounds like the other or vice versa ?

Shouldn't it just be a simple case of which is "closer to the original music" ? Food for thought.

Moogeepoogee,

Well I have driven a V8 engined E34 and a straight 6 and I can tell you the V8 was no fun in start stop traffic. The smaller displacement straight 6 was more happy to motor along. As I remember quite clearly, both cars did have a variable gas paddle.

I don't know about Audi bro. Last I heard from Jeremy Clarkson, an Audi with big wheels never rides well. He goes as far as to say that the Audi engineers cry themselves to sleep every night trying to figure out how Merc and BMW make cars that handle and ride well. Audi's can be made to either ride well or handle well. Not both.

But that was a long time ago and I have not had the good fortune to sample any Audis of late. Because I disobeyed my parents, I don't get to hang out with the billionaire boys club while they wait for Hans in the white labcoat download telemetry from their cars while Gaston whips up a Cafe Latte and Soufle while they wait for their cars to get fixed.

I just hang out at a junkyard with Ah Ming Chai the mechanic and haggle over a used ABS controller. So I'll never ever know how good a RS4 drives in down town traffic and the open highway. For that I have friends like you to tell me. Ain't I a lucky b@57ard Razz

by mugenfoo Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:37 pm

bimmerman wrote:
sflam wrote:
mugenfoo wrote:

why are you or your buddies even comparing whether something sounds "more analog" or "more digital"?

i hv noticed that people tend to equate smooth and warmish sound from a digital source to "analogue sound".

Well, my friend was just making a passing remark that my vinyl sounded kind of harsh, thin and hollow compared to my CD.

Beemeister,

When was the last time you did a tune-up on your deck ?

Are you sure the alignment's spot on ? That Kugelarm is a pain to hit its pivot point and align properly if you're using a 1-point protractor.

Also ... perhaps the cartridge has finally given up the ghost (carts are after all, consumables u know) and its suspension has hardened up already?

And what phono stage is your deck plugged into?

So many questions .... so little time !

by musicmusic Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:20 pm

Whenever vinyl sounds bad it must be bad adjustments or worn off parts or incompetent users.

Vinyl itself is godly and always sound superior than anything else.

by bimmerman Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:03 am

Moog,

Well, as I've said, I have not paid much attention to my LP setup for a long while now. The cartridge has not seen much use but I could do with a higher spec one. And that NAD PP2, well... nuff said. Can't expect too much at the moment. Too little time... Too little money... But hey, let's see what that KLAV 2011 has to offer Very Happy

Everyone,

For the record, I am neutral to any audio format out there, except compact casettes!!! Die compact casette die!!!

And as for LP vs CD, I stand firm on my belief that CD beats LP anytime and LP wallops CD anyday. Or coin your own phrase to the same effect. Long live LP! As for CD, well, I'm not sure how long they will continue to exist but I do hope for another 10 years. Very Happy

by Sponsored content