The Paradox Of Why Vinyl Sounds Better.....

[flavio81]

Next is this idea that "Nyquist sampling theorum" actually accounts for a "complete" sample of any frequenices within the 20 Hz to 20 Khz spectrum. In my opinion it doesn't.

In your opinion. But factually, it does.

The Nyquist sampling theorum at 44.1 kbs sampling frequency breaks down due to all the instantanious or spurious information generated within normal music production .
Several reasons for this , including the fact that various musical instruments actually produce ultrasonic information within thier inidividual ranges. (IE CYmbals are a perfect example) If you consider that those ultrasonic frequencies actually modulate or re-modulate the frequencies within the spectrum that we can hear , then you've got some issues.

No, because such "frequencies within the spectrum" will be then captured perfectly by any hi-fi recording system, analog or digital.

[DJO]

Ah another bunch of subjectivists ! I like it !

[f1eng]

Adding a bit of post echo to music can sound good. This is inevitable on a turntable because of the delayed mechanically borne and airborne musical vibrations that add to what the stylus picks up from the record. This contribution can be tuned by the design of the turntable, its location and how it is mounted.
When I worked at Garrard we had a huge block of concrete hung on springs from the corners of a huge ugly frame. We put any turntable we measured on it because otherwise our instruments could pick up busses driving by 4 floors down across the car park. No deck was ever immune to this pickup, all that varies is the amount and frequency shape of the feedback from deck to deck, which is one of the major sources of the different sounds of the various decks.

A second thing, adding uncorrelated noise to a signal gives an airy impression and one of more depth (as long as the "noise" is not enough to be obviously noise). Correlated noise has an even greater effect.
Turntables have the potential to add both these nice sounding artefacts. CD and tape do not.

[DrFFT]

Ah another bunch of subjectivists ! I like it !

Sorry but factually it doesn't !
Nyquist relies on that concept that any sampling done at 44 khz will allow for at least 2 samples per cycle at any given frequency , with which to re-create a particular waveform.
If you consider that the period (TIme) that those sampling cycles are actually on is in fact only 1/4 of the period of the complete cycle.
then you run into some issues.
First example, what happens if the frequency being generated happens to be exactly out of phase or at zero phase during a particular sampling cycle.
Then you end up with sampling cancellation or an interpreted result that is 1/2 the frequency intended.
THis off course would be an extremely rare occurance for a frequency to be in exact sync with the clocking frequency of the sampler . but indciates some potential for problems at 44.1 khz.
Next if you do a fast fourier analysis of a highly complex waveform (ie Multiple simultanious signals) then do the same analysis for a standard CD copy of the same signal you get some interesting differences in the histograms of the the sample.
THe CD version always looks like it has less information ,indicating something has gone missing.
Of course the sampling on most FFT measurement devices typically always starts at 100 Khz so your immediately looking at a more accurate sample.
Various mathematical statisical proof papers have been drafted on this basis.

[swingburn]

Adding a bit of post echo to music can sound good. This is inevitable on a turntable because of the delayed mechanically borne and airborne musical vibrations that add to what the stylus picks up from the record. This contribution can be tuned by the design of the turntable, its location and how it is mounted.
When I worked at Garrard we had a huge block of concrete hung on springs from the corners of a huge ugly frame. We put any turntable we measured on it because otherwise our instruments could pick up busses driving by 4 floors down across the car park. No deck was ever immune to this pickup, all that varies is the amount and frequency shape of the feedback from deck to deck, which is one of the major sources of the different sounds of the various decks.

A second thing, adding uncorrelated noise to a signal gives an airy impression and one of more depth (as long as the "noise" is not enough to be obviously noise). Correlated noise has an even greater effect.
Turntables have the potential to add both these nice sounding artefacts. CD and tape do not.

Very interesting post! I had never considered that the music coming from the speakers must work it's way back into the stylus, thus causing minor "echo" or feedback. Maybe this explains why the holographic-ness I seem to hear disappears when I listen through headphones. Or maybe not, but something to consider.

[A9X]

Vinyl sounds better....

Better than what? Better than a CD? No, it does not.

Good mastered LPs sound better than badly mastered CDs. And viceversa. If you enjoy the sound of the LP compared to an identically mastered CD (i.e. a modern production) , then surely it's due to the copious amounts of added 2nd harmonic distortion on the LP. Which won't be present if you use an advanced stylus such as the MicroLine, by the way.

Though an infrequent poster, I must agree that the quote above sums it up well. I'm also amazed that people will spend 3x more for a recent LP (+international shipping) for music that was recorded digitally than the equivalent CD and proclaim it's better.

I love the physicality of the large discs and the often great artwork, but I'm enough of a realist to know hat vinyl is not inherently superior to LP.

[jake]

Absolutely agree, vinyl and LP are equal.
CD's suck, however

[A9X]

but I'm enough of a realist to know hat vinyl is not inherently superior to CD.

Fixed. Not caught typo inprevious post, but the intent was surely obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

[covalongacurta]

Ah another bunch of subjectivists ! I like it !

Sorry but factually it doesn't !
Nyquist relies on that concept that any sampling done at 44 khz will allow for at least 2 samples per cycle at any given frequency , with which to re-create a particular waveform.
If you consider that the period (TIme) that those sampling cycles are actually on is in fact only 1/4 of the period of the complete cycle.
then you run into some issues.
First example, what happens if the frequency being generated happens to be exactly out of phase or at zero phase during a particular sampling cycle.
Then you end up with sampling cancellation or an interpreted result that is 1/2 the frequency intended.
THis off course would be an extremely rare occurance for a frequency to be in exact sync with the clocking frequency of the sampler . but indciates some potential for problems at 44.1 khz.
Next if you do a fast fourier analysis of a highly complex waveform (ie Multiple simultanious signals) then do the same analysis for a standard CD copy of the same signal you get some interesting differences in the histograms of the the sample.
THe CD version always looks like it has less information ,indicating something has gone missing.
Of course the sampling on most FFT measurement devices typically always starts at 100 Khz so your immediately looking at a more accurate sample.
Various mathematical statisical proof papers have been drafted on this basis.

2 samples per cycle or second mean 2hz. The binary code of cd's is sampled at 44.1 khz or 44100 samples per second. Huge difference isn't it?

[A9X]

2 samples per cycle or second mean 2hz.

No it doesn't. For example, two samples per cycle of 20kHz is 40000 samples per second.

[covalongacurta]

2 samples per cycle or second mean 2hz.

No it doesn't. Foe example, two samples per cycle of 20kHz is 40000 samples per second.

thanks for your oppinion

[A9X]

No 'opinion', simple mathematics.

[covalongacurta]

No 'opinion', simple mathematics.

simple maths? The music you listen when you listen to a cd is an average of 44100 samples per second. Imagine an average of 2 samples per second. Ridiculous. It seems pretty obvious but it isn't. The binary code of cd's is sampled at 2 times the maxium frequency a human being can hear (in fact a lot more like 22050 hz) not 2 samples per second. Can you see the difference ?

[A9X]

You are still getting it wrong. If you sample a single sine wave twice in one cycle you get two samples. If there are 20000 cycles/second (20kHz) each cycle sampled twice, then you have 40000 samples/second.

If you want to put it in terms of RBCD, then substitute 22050Hz for 20000Hz and 44100 samples/sec for 40000 samples/sec.

There is plenty of information out there on sampling theorem, take some time and read it.