Does vinyl really sound better?

Cacofonix

imalone said:

(...)
What you can hear. The ear is a pretty bizarre device, we do know a fair bit about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlea frequency is spatially encoded along the cochlea: how far a particular vibration makes it along the length determines which cells get excited and in turn what frequency you hear (a bit like seeing green or red because those cells are excited). I'd put money on being able to hear a constant tone below the noise decibel level because effectively there's a degree of time averaging and because noise power is spread out over a spectrum, while the spread of a pure tone depends on your sampling duration.
Not going to spend all evening reading background on this, but this is one of the first papers I turned up http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705086/ effectively these monkeys hear tones at 20dB below the presented noise SPL, increasing noise means it makes them take longer to respond, while the threshold they respond at also goes up accordingly.

I'm not sure how data on monkeys translates, and I've got a busy day tomorrow.  I am thinking more along the lines of reification and closure, and in that context, a sonic signal can be 'heard' even within a significantly noisy system.

Paul_C

This thread has become so high-pitched I can't hear it any more.

UnclePsychosis

The only thing this thread has taught me is that Britain's physics teachers really need to up their game.

Cacofonix

Summary:

vinyl is better.

Or CD.

or vinyl.

or CD.

I'm going back to trawling the amps threads now, to see what's amazing in the world of loud things.

ICBM

Reel-to-reel tape is best.

richardhomer

And MP3s are not as bad as some people think.

Or they are worse than some people think.

Or some people think they know more than they do....

Cirrus

ICBM said:

Reel-to-reel tape is best.

It's actually kind of sad that now everyone thinks of tape as a compressy, hissy, distorty "warm" thing that's used as an effect, at their height a well calibrated and serviced tape machine running a good 2" tape was DA BES

Cirrus

UnclePsychosis;425357" said:

The only thing this thread has taught me is that Britain's physics teachers really need to up their game.

Cynical and Patronising, all wrapped up succinctly in one neat sentence. You always know when you're on a British guitar forum.  )

Danny1969

I don't know why but this thread has been more interesting and enjoying for me than all the "what dirt pedal is best and what amps take pedals best" combined 

There's some interesting stuff in it

hungrymark

Cacofonix;425224" said:

monquixote said:



Cacofonix said:






monquixote said:



Cacofonix said:As to citation, no, it was in Sound on Sound a couple of years ago.  However, your implication seems to be that if I can't quote it, I may be lying about it.  That's true, I might be. My unproven assertion against yours.  Yours relies on factualising a theory or two, mine relies on pure assertion as to audionics and the existence of a job advert long since expired.



Nope, genuinely interested to learn something if you have a link.

The other stuff in your post didn't make a lot of sense so I'll leave it there. 





Why, because it exposed your so-called proofs as theoretical only? The graph says everything.  There is no true noise floor, only a hypothetical data loss as data saturation reaches a hypothetical infinity, which in the case of a wire is the point at which it acts as a fuse, and blows, and most audio equipment won't get to that stage.



Article here: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan10/articles/forensics.htm

Job was in same issue IIRC.










I'm at the stage where I'm not sure if you are trolling. 

You do know that gravity and evolution along with everything else in science are just theories right?

You may not believe in the second law of thermodynamics, but I don't think it's up to me to explain it to you.





I am aware that gravity and the scientific method are about hypotheses, yes, but I am also aware that antithesis often results in lots of heat and not much light, as seems to have been the case here.  You have not proved your assertion.



Additionally, insulting references rather than analysis of a countervailing view do not advance knowledge, it seems to me.



I am confused that you are asserting as fact matters which exist only on a probability spectrum, and using arguments and theories which actually contradict your assertions, specifically in a real world situation such as frequencies within a vinyl recording.  You are entitled to your view on which is better, but to assert a position is fine, it seems to me, if it is based on fact rather than assertions and pseudo-proofs.



You stated as a truth that there is a noise floor, based on thermodynamics, and pointed me to a theory which creates its own conclusion by imposing a hypothetical bottleneck on receipt of data when in other respects it hypothesises a perfect system.



To what extent is a theory valid when its presuppositions lead inexorably to its conclusion?  There must be a saturation limit because our testing apparatus is necessarily limited in scope.  This puts the cart before the horse. 



That theory can be rephrased as "there is no such thing as light because my eyes are closed".



That said, I was testing your assertion that there could be no audio data on a vinyl recording above the imposed limit on a CD recording.  The theories that you have pointed out tend to oppose, rather than support, that assertion.



Incidentally I had an interesting chat to a former professor of physics on the entropy principle.  If the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts, and those parts are expanding outwards, entropy is increasing.  However, if there are an infinite number of black holes, then there is a situation where entropy is decreasing in localised areas, and there is therefore a plausible argument that entropy will at some point be reversed as the black holes agglomerate sufficient matter (with the additional pull of their whole being greater etc) to exert a countervailing pull.  Unsure how the data on waves being able to escape black holes fits in, but I'm working on it. 



Do you think that merits a Nobel prize?  What's your theory?

It's well known that entropy can decrease in localised areas - the womb for example, or anywhere where construction happens. Entropy within a closed system, however, will always increase. Shut the womb off from outside influence, for example, and the baby dies.

Cacofonix

hungrymark said:

To what extent is a theory valid when its presuppositions lead inexorably to its conclusion?  There must be a saturation limit because our testing apparatus is necessarily limited in scope.  This puts the cart before the horse. 



That theory can be rephrased as "there is no such thing as light because my eyes are closed".



That said, I was testing your assertion that there could be no audio data on a vinyl recording above the imposed limit on a CD recording.  The theories that you have pointed out tend to oppose, rather than support, that assertion.



Incidentally I had an interesting chat to a former professor of physics on the entropy principle.  If the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts, and those parts are expanding outwards, entropy is increasing.  However, if there are an infinite number of black holes, then there is a situation where entropy is decreasing in localised areas, and there is therefore a plausible argument that entropy will at some point be reversed as the black holes agglomerate sufficient matter (with the additional pull of their whole being greater etc) to exert a countervailing pull.  Unsure how the data on waves being able to escape black holes fits in, but I'm working on it. 



Do you think that merits a Nobel prize?  What's your theory?

It's well known that entropy can decrease in localised areas - the womb for example, or anywhere where construction happens. Entropy within a closed system, however, will always increase. Shut the womb off from outside influence, for example, and the baby dies.

Noted.  However, a black hole is not entropic.  It may be localised, but that is due to density rather than any inherent separation.

I was wondering how the ecosystem was entropic.  It seems to me that a properly functioning ecosystem is temperature-sustaining.  Of course isolating any individual part of it may cause entropy but that is a different thing.  That is an example of the act of observation (actually it's changing the system rather than merely observing it, but I'm splitting hairs here) creating the result it's designed to test for.

Axe_meister

I would be interesting to know if you could build a truly lossless analogue  recording/playback medium? Some sort of diffraction pattern in a hologram or a laser burning the true analogue signal on a CD, and then do the comparison.

Obviously the analogue mixing desk would have to be just as lossless, compared to a digital desk.

hungrymark

Cacofonix;425773" said:

hungrymark said:









To what extent is a theory valid when its presuppositions lead inexorably to its conclusion?  There must be a saturation limit because our testing apparatus is necessarily limited in scope.  This puts the cart before the horse. 







That theory can be rephrased as "there is no such thing as light because my eyes are closed".







That said, I was testing your assertion that there could be no audio data on a vinyl recording above the imposed limit on a CD recording.  The theories that you have pointed out tend to oppose, rather than support, that assertion.







Incidentally I had an interesting chat to a former professor of physics on the entropy principle.  If the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts, and those parts are expanding outwards, entropy is increasing.  However, if there are an infinite number of black holes, then there is a situation where entropy is decreasing in localised areas, and there is therefore a plausible argument that entropy will at some point be reversed as the black holes agglomerate sufficient matter (with the additional pull of their whole being greater etc) to exert a countervailing pull.  Unsure how the data on waves being able to escape black holes fits in, but I'm working on it. 







Do you think that merits a Nobel prize?  What's your theory?

It's well known that entropy can decrease in localised areas - the womb for example, or anywhere where construction happens. Entropy within a closed system, however, will always increase. Shut the womb off from outside influence, for example, and the baby dies.










Noted.  However, a black hole is not entropic.  It may be localised, but that is due to density rather than any inherent separation.



I was wondering how the ecosystem was entropic.  It seems to me that a properly functioning ecosystem is temperature-sustaining.  Of course isolating any individual part of it may cause entropy but that is a different thing.  That is an example of the act of observation (actually it's changing the system rather than merely observing it, but I'm splitting hairs here) creating the result it's designed to test for.

An ecosystem isn't usually a closed system in itself, unless it has been completely isolated. It's part of the isolated system that is the universe, which is entropic. If a system decreases its entropy, it tends to be at the expense of increasing entropy elsewhere.

monquixote

Axe_meister;425815" said:

I would be interesting to know if you could build a truly lossless analogue  recording/playback medium? Some sort of diffraction pattern in a hologram or a laser burning the true analogue signal on a CD, and then do the comparison.

Obviously the analogue mixing desk would have to be just as lossless, compared to a digital desk.

No you can't.
It would break the second law of thermodynamics.
It's the same reason you can't build a perpetual motion machine.

Clarky

still this thread fails to mention the single most important audio impacting part of the process..

how it was recorded / mixed and processed in the first place..

you can vinyl and CD all ya like, and compare all sorts of graphs and kit..

the thing that really matters is the source audio..

do so called audiophiles really actually love music??

cos some [possibly more than half] of the music I'd personally consider to be wonderful / stunning / etc etc isn't actually recorded that well in the first place..

so as well as preferring CD's.. I'm mostly in the 'who gives a fk, just listen to the song' camp

monquixote

hungrymark said:

It's well known that entropy can decrease in localised areas - the womb for example, or anywhere where construction happens. Entropy within a closed system, however, will always increase. Shut the womb off from outside influence, for example, and the baby dies.

Entropy can increase in a local area, but never be reversed.

For example if you burn down a tree the entropy of the forrest increases. 

If two new trees grow in it's place then the local entropy of the forrest decreases (but at the expense of total entropy increasing for example in the sun). 

What you can't however do is unburndown a tree which would be the same as turning thermal noise back into data.

Drew_TNBD

Wombs don't count. Coz they're evil.

Phil_aka_Pip

Drew_fx said:

Wombs don't count. Coz they're evil.

I'd never have thought that you came from somewhere evil

Snap

Some observations in my own audio adventures........

I really like vinyl so intrinsically I want it to sound better, so therefore in my head, it does sound better.

I've noticed a real difference in audio quality, when using my PC, depending on the audio playback software. I fin Foobar sounds a lot better than WMP, which sounds woolly.

Foobar, out into an audio interface, into powered monitors, playing audio master recordings = greatness.

For my own music recordings, I tend to export the mkaster in 192, which makes for each track being half a gig or so, but the difference between that recording, and say a 320k MP3 of the same is startling. So,I guess, the more you can get in the source, the better.