Features

Let me get this straight, Michael. You found someone with an electrical eng. degree who backs your anti-CD views with a paper that is an embarrassment. Meantime, all the elec engs who disagree with you are cloth-eared philistines? If you have any interest in the truth of a topic, cherry-picking a small minority of favourable papers is exactly the wrong way to do it. It doesn't look good.

The reasons LP can sound better than CD are well known and conventional science: [1] 'loudness war' mastering ruining some CD's, and [2] the psychology of unconscious bias in many listeners making for a 'favourable receptivity' for LP in their minds that is driven by non-sonic factors and have sufficient strength to over-ride the actual sound wave differences. For example, Michael, you have such a tragic case of [2] that no CD has a chance under audition with you, no matter what its sonics.

So please, stick to reviews, and stick to LP reviews.

Assume that your listening room is as quiet as a library [https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm] with a background noise level of 40dB. Add to that the 96dB dynamic range and the peak output level from your speakers would need to be 136dB to experience the full dynamic range from a CD. A sound level of 136dB is jet engine loud.

Now, assume that your speakers are relatively efficient and can produce a sound level of 96dB with an input power of 1 watt. How much power is then required for those speakers to produce a sound level of 136dB (40dB higher than the level at 1 watt input)? 10,000 watts would be needed to achieve that 136dB level [http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-db.htm]. Can your amplifier output 10,000 watts? Can your speakers handle 10,000 watts? Can you tolerate a sound level of 136dB? If not, then the dynamic range issue is a moot point.

MF wrote: "He argues that vinyl actually has wider dynamics and he's got the numbers to prove it"

No where does Michael demand that this report be taken as gospel, nor is he calling people 'cloth-eared philistines.' He merely suggested we read the article. No need to get your back up against the wall. Enjoy your CD's - I'm sticking with vinyl - the difference I hear I prefer.

When I first heard a CD in the 1980's, I noted its gain was louder than my phono section. At the time I was running a low output MC thru a head amp and into a highly regarded preamp. The bass was fuller on CD's because bass had been systematically lowered on all vinyl for decades so that the records would play on inferior turntables snd CD;s didn't need this compensation. Given the choice, people most often prefer the louder source with more bass (Beats anyone?). But louder isn't always better, it's just louder.
http://www.cdplanet.com is still available if any CD lovers would like to purchase it and blog there. This is analog planet, uh, it's what we do.

The theoretical dynamic range of a CD is always given as ~95 dB, calculated as the difference between 16 zeroes and 16 1's.

That's not how it's calculated. You need logarithms.

First off 2 bits are for error correction (bit errors not musical ones sadly)

None of the 16 audio data bits are used for error correction. The dual-interleaved Reed-Solomon error correction coding adds many extra bits which are used to detect and correct errors. And before you jump on me and say, "but the error correction changes the audio data," let me say: no, it doesn't. You install (or used to install) computer programs from data CDs and DVDs, and those media use the same sort of error-correction-coding and it works. How do we know? If it didn't, the programs you installed would crash your computer.

Next, maximum level is dropped several dB as computers just don't like all 1's

"All 1s" is called clipping, and if you ran your analog signal above the rail you get the same effect. So analog recording levels have to allow for sufficient headroom to avoid clipping, too.

Also about 10 - 15 dB of dither is added at the bottom to counter the extinction effect observed at low frequencies.

You don't understand what dither is, or why it is used. There is no such thing as "extinction effect." Dither has nothing to do with "low frequencies" vs any other frequencies.

. Add it all up and you get a usable DR of about 60 - 65 dB, still impressive but certainly not the ungodly 95 many digiphiles swear by.

If you add it up your way, you get "about 60 dB," but your math is wrong, as is your understanding of the entire process.

To me, the engineering of the record or CD makes all the difference. A Caddy for Daddy by Hank Mobley sounds great in ll formats. But Maiden Voyage by Herbie Hancock sounds lousy in all formats.

That said, when I first started playing LP's again after a 20 year lay-off, using a new $500 turntable, my wife, who does not listen to much music was amazed by the sound of the LP's I was playng.

I listen to & buy both LP's & CD's and enjoy both.

"No doubt, we can more readily hear music embedded in thermal noise than in quantization noise. Why? Digital noise destroys information, whereas thermal noise adds innocu- ous, unrelated information to music."

Said another way, the absolute extremes between softest and loudness can be greater with 16/44 but the relevant changes in dynamics that occurs between the extremes is LESS.

Concluding "CDs have 96db S/N ratio and so that's that" is yet another example of measuring the wrong thing when labeling something as superior.

As a nice bonus, the author mentions how Nyquist is irrelevant ... not because Nyquist was wrong but that it's merely never addressing all the relevant aspects of music reproduction.

Some of you guys are pretty opinionated, you must have a lot of money invested one way or another...
Anyway, He talks a lot about Dynamic Range of the cart and preamp, etc... But then goes on to mention how, as soon as you put the stylus on a moving record, you lose a huge chunk of that range.

Could a record be created which had no surface noise, at all? Maybe someday. Meantime, folks, isn't the relevant thing the real world performance we actually DO get? Sure, CD's are more dynamic. But engineers are ruining them in mastering due to the loudness trend. If it wasn't for that, vinyls sound advantage would be pretty small.

Meantime, I'm buying vinyl 100% of the time, so don't get me wrong.

-- not numbers. The digital zealots will usually 'win' the numbers game on their own terms versus analog's numbers for the most conventional of measurements. Even digital's Nyquist theorem is fully accurate and relevant only for test tones, as the author here points out. But it will take an open-minded engineer with a working background in signal processing to deconstruct it for most of the folks getting into these lose-lose analog vs digital arguments. Most people are confused by dynamic compression (ie 'loudness wars') vs digital storage compression (ie mp3), so mainstream discourse of the Nyquist Theorem beyond half the sampling rate frequency limits are best not encouraged. So Mikey be careful of touting "MATH" in your headline, when the math in this paper is used primarily to establish a noise floor for a cartridge-preamp pairing.

This paper brings up two issues that don't seem to have had rigorous research recently. (Please correct me if I've missed a paper, as this isn't what I seek out for my reading pleasure!) The first is digital's time-domain performance with musical signals and appropriate measurements. The second is digital's noise floor definition and sonics with low-level music, and comparisons with an analog medium of choice using the same criteria. It underscores the quote that "Analog noise is separate from the music and can be listened through; digital noise is intertwined into the music and the brain cannot separate the two."

Both of these issues have improved in the past twenty years, but the 16/44.1 CD limitation is worth (re)investigating even as higher-rez digital makes it easier for designers to work around them. As we know, many still regard CD-resolution as the gold standard.

This paper is prescient for two decades ago. There have certainly been improvements in both the analog and digital recording and playback chains since then. I don't know if I'm convinced by his LP dynamic range analysis, but this kind of outside-the-box thinking is exactly what's needed if these tired old arguments (and measurements) are going to move forward. MF, I would be most interested if you succeed at contacting the author for an "update."

I'm sure this fellow is a fine EE, but anyone who has a basic understanding of sampling theory will recognize that many of his suppositions about digital audio are simply made up. The problem is that digital doesn't follow the same "logic" that analog does. I don't see any citations next to almost any of the "facts" that he states about digital. Just a few examples (I don't have time to list them all):

Quote: The effect of digital quantization noise is entirely different and nonlinear (The author compares this with "random analog noise, uncorrelated with the music.")

Hmm...I guess the author never read about DITHER. Dither is added before quantization and it replaces quantization noise entirely, whereupon said noise can become completely uncorrelated with the signal if desired. In other words, it's the same as the coveted analog noise (except superior, since we can control the level of dither and it's spectral distribution, which allows us to make it as unobtrusive as possible). This is such a basic error that I have little confidence the author has even the most rudimentary understanding of how digital sampling and quantization work.

Not to mention, this dither would already be WELL below the noise floor of any analog tape, so that would be self-dithering to some degree. At 24 bits, the dither would be well below thermal noise of any analog equipment used in the process.

Quote: The [Shannon-Nyquist] theorem fails to directly mention recovering the phase or amplitude of the signal.

I'm at a loss for why he states this. Why would sampling disregard the phase of the waveform? It seems like our complex musical signals would sound terrible if all the sine waves were not kept in proper phase! Also, the "amplitude of the signal" is certainly captured during the quantization step, which, the author refers to in other parts of the article but evidently does not understand.

Those are just two objections. I find issue with just about every statement this author makes about digital audio. It's also not well-sourced. I think it's a good idea to at least do one's research before trying to write a paper about something. This author simply repeats some standard audiophile anti-digital dogma and throws in some of his own "facts" which he surmises might be the way digital technology works.

Mr. Fremer, posting things like this can only undermine your arguments in favor of analog. Just like you, this author obviously prefers vinyl to CDs. That is perfectly valid and completely subjective. Who could argue that point? No one can argue against your subjective preferences. However, that does not mean that your subjective preferences can in any way translate to valid objective scientific facts. Why try to convince everyone that they do?

The author of your linked article is not secure enough in his preferences to simply state what they are. For some reason, he feels the need to prove that vinyl is technically superior to CD, contrary to all established (and extensive) scientific knowledge and research. He should be able to accept that he prefers vinyl even though it has less dynamic range and more noise than CD. I am perfectly okay with someone stating that they rely on their personal preferences rather than measurements, or that they believe that measurements can't tell us what sounds good. Fine. I won't argue that. But gross misinformation such as what appears in this article absolutely can, and should, be argued against. Giving incorrect "mathematical proofs" of why vinyl is better than CD is well outside the realm of subjective preference. It is an insult to those, like myself, who often prefer a given vinyl record to its CD counterpart but don't feel the constant need to claim that digital is therefore somehow "wrong."

In my view, attempts to demonstrate vinyl superiority by means of tech and math are still futile. What we need is a good pair of ears and a bit of attention.

To me,Analog is better in ways beyond all our math and science.

Kind of a "god given" magic if you will(of course, nothing wrong in trying to understand.....)

But musical appreciation is and will always be subjective, so, each person can have his or her preferences and they always will. That is something I respect.
To me, vinyl by far.

If a guy is going to try to make a paper as some kind of authority, perhaps he should have some idea of what the sampling rate of CD is. I believe he said 41 Khz.. twice. Talk about discrediting yourself.

And a 'God Given Magic' of vinyl? Dear me. It's definitely encroaching on the spiritual when a signal sent down a wire from two different sources shows, with more accuracy than the ear ever could, that digital is a lot closer to the original. Just have faith, I guess. Still, the poor engineering has me on the vinyl side. But you have to be real about the psychological factors here. It's the nostalgia. The Hands on process. The ritual of it all. It's more involving for the listener, and that appeals to us. Me too.

I've know for years the cassette, 8 track, reel to reel, record players are much more dynamic than digital sources. my ears say they do contrary to the speck sheets. 30 years ago Sony told me cd could reveal limitations of the analog source tape on the back of the cd long box. i remember reading all these lies. if cd sound is perfect why did sony invent super audio cd? sony is a pathalogical liar and would say anything thats not true. i play prerecorded cassettes in my car all the time. they sound great. cd sound and speck sheets are overated

I have to tell you a short story:
some ten years ago when I went back to vinyl, BTW using some very low end gear(Stanton cartridge on thecnics table),one day my father listened to some music I was playing not knowing what the format was (and don't particularly caring, he is not interested in audio)and he was not only amazed by the sound but also enjoying the music so much that he and my family asked me to show them my system and that wonderful sounding cd I was playing.
When I told them it was not a cd but an old LP record they couldn't believe me and I have to led them to the room my system was, for them to believe.
Being me a doctor in medicine, I am familiar with the scientific method. What we do that day(not planned of course) was a blind trial. So blind actually that it was totally not intended.
So, I wonder where is the nostalgia or psychological factor there?
What psychological delusion took over my entire family that afternoon?
Can anyone explain to me??????

I think of those "sine waves" that show up in Mr. Atkinson's measurements of DACs. You know, the ones like this one

Astell&Kern AK240

at -90dB. Now clearly music at -90dB is, as someone pointed out above, going to be pretty much inaudible in any real-world listening room.

But the same principle applies.

16 bits of resolution at 0dB; 15 bits at -6dB; 14 at -12dB; 13 bits at -18dB...

And clearly compressed music tends to the 0dB end of things, not the -18dB end of things.

But how much distortion (THD, IMD, TIM, whatever) do we see in a 14bit DAC, which is what our 16bit DACs are when they are dealing with certain parts of our music?

And how does that compare with what comes out of an analogue chain in the same circumstances?

Let's face it we don't all listen to 0dB all the time.

And speaking of what we listen to, those brick wall filters... yikes! Look at at that same test link above. That ringing we see is around 9-10% of the total height of the wave form. That's 9-10% distortion... of some kind.

And this is the GOOD digital filter (no - or not much - pre-ringing).

So, I'm not saying digital's garbage; I'm not saying analogue is way better (or way worse). I'm just saying the digital testing done by Stereophile shows us the kind of distortion we can expect with digital music, and I'd like to see how the analogue gear relates to that. What is the impulse response of a Lyra Titan? How does its waveform appearance compare to a digital rendering of the same kind of impulse?

Maybe this kind of comparison could help us understand what the differences are...

Michael is correct is saying that records don't ring. Bad phono preamp design does, though, produce harmonics just like any amplifier. This is caused by inferior amplification chips or a mismatch in the input impedance of the opamp and the selected load or impedance of the cartridge, which should be at least 10:1. I can back this up by stating I have performed tests on many opamps, and other forms of amplification. Using a spectrum analyzer, which is the correct way to measure this, one can easily see the harmonics. This is something a scope cannot do.
Besides, who listens to a square wave anyways.

SOUND WARS - EVERYONE AGREES THAT VINYL SOUNDS BETTER THAN...
Submitted by christopherf on Sat, 2015-01-31 13:37

This is the cover story in LA Weekly: "EVERYONE AGREES THAT VINYL SOUNDS BETTER THAN DIGITAL - EXCEPT AUDIO ENGINEERS, AND THE PEOPLE WHO INVENTED THE COMPACT DISC"

This has to be the most unbalanced article; perhaps you will write a rebuttal in the form of a letter to the editor. Bob Clearmountain and Bob Ludwig are referenced in the piece; it seems such an old argument; I thought each format has its' own strengths but this article is very patronizing; it says what vinyl lovers are enjoying are "distortions"; the tone is patronizing; you can like vinyl but don't say it is better than CD; indeed!

Here is the link to the piece: http://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vin...

I am amazed that you have not grown weary of addressing this with the "experts" in this case the engineers; I regret that most people who read this article will take it as gospel.

for days now my kids a listening to "Heidi" (a fairy tale). The records are played through a Nagaoka MP100 cartridge (100$). This cartridge is not able to pull all the highs and lows and get all the microdynamic right, it cannot put the music on a big stage etc., all the things we HiFi nuts are after, but still, more than once approaching the listening room fooled me that I thought real person are talking. We have the same on CD. Which in HiFi terms betters the sound of the Nagaoka MP100, but it never happend with the CD that I was fooled.
So you tell me what measurement(s) are responsible for this kind of deception. It is not a fairy tale what happened to me:-)

For those who have evidence of ringing please feel free to post pictures. I would love to see the photos. Please also include the opamps used in the amplification, loading, and spectrum analyzer results. Given a high quality phono preamp and correct loading, I have yet to see ringing. I can induce it using poor opamps or loading but not see it naturally occur in a high quality phono preamp. Also a square is not necessary. You should be able to use a 1khz test tone. But make sure your test tone was not recorded with harmonics.

I have so much to say on this topic, but ya know what? I'll limit myself to just one comment. Michael, as a journalist, has outdone himself with this piece. Not because I agree 100% with his assertions or his references -- pencil me in at about 85% -- but because this piece spawned one of the most provocative discussions I've seen of such a nuanced and complex issue. When TechNet, Gizomodo, or even CNET (one of my ex-employers) covers this ground, you know that the inhouse author and the posting readers are likely to have no idea of what they're talking about. This page, though, despite the fact that I disagree with a respectable minority of the posters, was a breath of fresh air. Thank you again Michael. You remain one of my all-time favorite journalists.

I hate to tell you all this, but vinyl is not the wave of the future. Can you admit to yourself you are investing hundreds, if not thousands, in a technology that will probably be dead in the next 20 years? It’s hard, I know, I look at my shelf of CDs and know those will soon be nothing more than fodder for my digitizing computer.
You don’t see Picard, busting out a vinyl record on the Enterprise. I’m not saying CDs or hi-rez digital downloads sound better than records; I wouldn’t touch that topic with a 10 foot pole on this website, but you must realize you are on borrowed time. But, really, come on, you know I am right.
Enjoy it as long as you can, and really do enjoy what ya got, but vinyl isn’t the long term solution. You can collect, and enjoy, and then even somewhat digitize your collection, but it isn’t going to last. Do CDs have flaws, yes—totally; do hi-rez downloads have flaws, yes, but less than CDs? Do I know what the future holds—no! But I can say, with decent certainty, it is not going to be a 12 inch black platter.
At least what I have can be cleanly uploaded into my computer, free of DRM, and I can continue to enjoy it without a subscription. Don’t get me wrong, I have no animosity. I remember hearing Lalo Schifrin on Dad’s Garrard turntable and being blown away, but I’m not going to invest money on a dying dog.
Eventually a standardized clean, clear, and hi-rez format is going to rear its head and you are all going to feel like goobers holding your unwieldy disks reminiscing about the past. So spending money on turntables and disks seems as long term logical as throwing it in a hole.
Something great sounding is eventually going to come to fruition with the ability to pause, rewind, resume, and skip—something sorely missing with vinyl. Those deficits make it instantly antiquated. Wait a moment and save your money for the next standardized format.
Instead, devote your money on better amps and speakers because those seem to have greater enduring value.

First, Dr. Fremer, we met back in the '90s through the pages of Stereophile and I want to say thank you for many enjoyable and informative articles (“Don’t Be a Jerk” is my personal fav). More so, thanks for being a big part of me getting an LP in my system.

As for the topic at hand, I know I'm a little late to the show here, but... I'm an EE whose focus was in Digital Signal Processing (DSP), though I'm not active in the tech stuff anymore. I studied DSP largely because of my interest in Hi-Fi and CD players in the late '80s. I learned more about digital signals than I care to recall and I know and experimented digital limits- ringing, harmonics and artifacts that don't make much sense to ears but are easily explained with Fourier transforms and abstract math. I used to go to the lab and manufacture different kinds of digital signals because I wanted to see how they would sound- kind of like Jody Foster listening to electronic noise from washing machines in the movie "Contact".

Anyhow, fast forward a few years and I had a subscription to Audio Electronics in April of '96 (along with Stereophile and Glass Audio) and read the original printing of Mr. Bauman’s article. That article was a game changer for me- the math made sense, the electronics made sense, and the statistics made sense (though I don't believe the results have a high statistical confidence- but they weren't represented or intended to. I didn't 'buy off' on LPs because of an article though- rather I gave the medium a credible chance. It didn't take much time to confirm with my ears what Mr. Bauman’s article presented as a possibility.

So here I sit today with a CD transport (sorry Michael) and LP in my system. I enjoy my CD transport and external DAC to this day (in fact right now). Nothing is quite like a media that you can damn near play Frisbee with and then play through a Hi-Fi setup. The CD is for comfort and convenience and sounds good. My LP however is for when I want to really experience music, because it really does sound better (pops, noise, dynamic range and all). I don't know why it sounds better and frankly, after my almost Tron-like deep dive into the digital signal domain, I don't friggin care to know or explain it. My ears tell me vinyl sounds better and my ego about the DSP certificate resting on top of my EE degree is secure enough to not try to convince my head that a (at least my) CD Transport sounds better than an LP because I understand the theory at each and every step that the 1's and 0's take on their way to my amp...