The Signal-to-Quantization-Noise-Ratio (SQNR) is proportional to the number of bits in a PCM system: Signal-to-quantization-noise ratio - Wikipedia therefore, less quantization noise in a 24-bit system (higher SQNR).
Remember reading an article about quantization distortion and hi-rez in the past but can't track it down. Maybe it was higher intermodulation distortion.? Does High-Resolution Audio Sound Better? Potential Disadvantages of High-Resolution Audio We have seen much discussion in consumer and professional audio publications of the potential advantages of high-end audio, but little discussion of the potential technical disadvantages – disadvantages that are likely more audible than an increase in dynamic range or frequency response Increased Distortion: The main audible flaw of high-resolution audio involves intermodulation distortion (IMD), the effect created when two audio tones interfere with each other. With IMD, sum and difference tones are created, usually at frequencies that are not harmonically related to the two original tones. IMD occurs in all audio equipment to some degree, but decades of design evolution have reduced it to insignificance. However, IMD is a more common problem at ultrasonic frequencies. Equipment not designed to reproduce such high frequencies – including many amplifiers and most of the high-frequency drivers (tweeters) used in today’s speakers – may produce substantial IMD if forced to operate at frequencies they were not designed to handle. Unfortunately, the effects of IMD are not limited to high frequencies. For example, if a high-resolution recording contains tones at 28 and 30 kHz, a speaker or amplifier that is prone to high-frequency IMD will reproduce (or attempt to reproduce) not only the 28 and 30 kHz tones, but also the sum and difference tones. The difference tone – 30,000 minus 28,000 – will occur at 2 kHz, right in the middle of the frequency range in which the human ear is most sensitive. Thus, the assumption that extending an audio system’s high-frequency capability will always be beneficial is incorrect. A 2001 paper titled “Detection of Threshold for Tones Above 22 kHz,” by researchers working in Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, confirmed this thesis. The researchers used test signals that combined a 2 kHz tone played with and without ultrasonic harmonics. When a single speaker was used to reproduce the sound, IMD occurring in the playback system allowed listeners to detect the presence of the ultrasonic harmonics. When a second speaker/amplifier system was used to reproduce the ultrasonic harmonics, and the original speaker/amplifier system reproduced only the 2 kHz tone, the listeners could not detect the ultrasonic tones. This suggests that while the IMD caused by the ultrasonic tones was audible, the ultrasonic tones were not, even though they were recorded at the same level as the 2 kHz tone. Potential Reduction in Equipment Lifespan: Typical tweeters start to reach their breakup modes – the frequencies at which their physical components behave in a non-linear manner – at frequencies between 25 and 30 kHz. When breakup modes occur, the tweeter diaphragm (dome) distorts out of its original shape, creating wave patterns in the formerly smooth diaphragm. Constantly distorting the diaphragm by exciting these breakup modes can result in physical fatigue of the diaphragm and other mechanical components of the driver, causing distortion and possible failure of the driver. Most mass-market amplifier and preamplifier circuits filter out ultrasonic frequencies in order to avoid oscillation, a state in which the circuit spontaneously generates high-amplitude, high-frequency tones and quickly burns itself out. However, this filtering is not total or perfect. As any amplifier technician can probably attest from personal experience, forcing an audio circuit to reproduce high frequencies at high levels often causes failure of the electrical components in the circuit. This may not be a problem with the best high-end amplifiers and preamps, because many of them are specifically designed to handle ultrasonic frequencies. But it can be a problem with lower-quality components connected to a high-end system, or with lower-quality systems elsewhere in a home.
looking back on all of this, I think the whole debate is based on thinking there just must be "something more", when in reality there simply is not. That measurements are not capable of actually "measuring" all there is, when they are capable of doing just that. That analog somehow is capturing "something" that digital can not quite grasp or capture. That human hearing is somehow infinite....when again it is not.
Or that imperfection and distortion can sometimes sound more enhanced and pleasing that perfect reproduction.
Nah its the distortion embedded in some digital recordings that's the problem. Luckily for some they are not bothered by it.
Any decent digital recording has way less distortion and nearly none of the many defects that analog recordings have, and those are way more noticeable. ( high noisefloor, distortion, clicks and pops or tape dropouts, wow and flutter, low channel separation, low dynamic range), so why bother for a single little flaw of digital and not bother (or ptetend not to) for the many bigger flaws of analog?
More harmonic distortion in vinyl .This distortion can sound pleasing to some. Similar to how some prefer tube amps over SS amps. Check out this demonstration video from 2m.25s - 3m.00s. Will show the real difference between digital and analogue.
I was noticing the difference between my vinyl and CD copies of Haircut 100's Pelican West 40 last night and this video pretty much nails it. The CD sounds good but reserved and somewhat lifeless/flat compared to the vinyl. The vinyl of course is colored by whatever stylus and system you are using. In my case a Nagaoka MP-200 on Technics SL-1210GR going through the phono pre-amp of a Yamaha A-S1100, while the CD was played on a Yamaha CD-S300 going into the A-S1100. The vinyl blooms. It sounds full and rich and present, while the CD sounds flat. The vinyl sounds like it has more energy and there's more liveliness to the sound. That said volume levels also have an impact. As I turn up the CD more of that life comes in, but with vinyl it's as if it's always there. I believe this is the reason why some say vinyl sounds better - more musical compared to CD/digital which is essentially music in a void, meaning zero background noise. Of course all of it depends on the mastering. I have some CDs that bloom and sound just as good if not better than vinyl. So, it just depends. I collect both CD and vinyl for that reason.
Sound quality is all about the mastering rather than the format. Vinyl tends to be more sympathetically mastered than CD simply because the format cannot take the sort of loudness and bass levels that digital can tolerate. (Rather than anyone deliberately trying to make one version sound better than the other). Saying that there is normally at least one CD version of any given album that sounds a good as the vinyl equivalent. With regard to Haircut 100 - Pelican West that would be the 2001 re-issue. ARISTA 74321 895802 (which is actually a straight transfer of the original master). Sounds as good as the vinyl version and is still cheap and easy to find.
I agree regarding mastering, but there is definitely a difference between carts. So although the statement regarding mastering is true in general, different carts and different systems also play into what you hear. If that wasn't the case then there wouldn't be so many different carts out there. And good to know regarding the 2001 Pelican West. Thank you! I have that copy as well.
Why not BETTER!! Given the CD was created just to solve all the problems of vinyl! Do anyone remember that? (distortion, rumble, noise, clicks, wow and flutter, channel separation, linearity, dynamics etc..) I always read a bias in most of the answers here, like it's given that vinyl has to sound better while that's more than debatable.
The REALITY is most digital recordings are poor, here's a REAL WORLD example of digital gone wrong versus analog: https://www.youtube.com/live/CKFCErG3QR0?feature=share
Most?? I am not sure what you mean. Most I have heard, the limitations are the mics, how they are set up and mastering. Has close to nothing to do with a recording being digital or analog at all. I have to ask, what world do you live in where MOST digital recordings are poor???
The reality is that most recording are adequate and average at best, whether they're digital or analog. Great recordings are relatively few. But it's much easier to make a good sounding digital recording given they incredibly lower noise floor (and what that allows you to do with gain staging), the lack of destructive playback, the lack of mechanical pitch inconsistency, the necessary calibration and other work to keep analog running up to snuff, etc. Analog recordings are often much poorer in terms of pitch inconsistency (have you heard some of the incredible transformations of the Plangent Process), clipping on dynamic peaks in the performances, high levels of hiss and other noise, artifacts like print through -- all before you even get to the problems with vinyl playback. Still, either way, whether or not you have a great recording is going to depend on the room you're recording in, the mics and mic techniques of the engineer, the caliber of the signal chain, and the caliber of the recording equipment (whether it's analog or digital) and how well maintained it is (and of course the performance). All things being equal -- great room, great mics and mic pres, great mic technique, great performer, great performance, you'll probably get a better results with, say, 24/96K digital than anything you can do with something like analog tape, though you can make that sound good too and with good noise reduction and careful gain staging, if you're recording music that's not too dynamic and doesn't have long ppp to p stretches, maybe you wouldn't much know the difference.
Yes digital recordings should be great but very often aren't. What went wrong in the case of the video I posted above do you think?
I don't know, I didn't watch the video. It's two hours long. I'm never going to devote 2 hours to that. Can you describe what happens in the video? I'll be glad to read your description but not to spend 2 hours watching that video. Having done a lot of recording going back to the late 1970s when we had to do everything analog, I find you can get much better results today from digital than from analog on the main, though of course you can get some good results from analog too, but it's the room, the mics and associated equipment, the choices about signal processing, etc, that winds up determining how something sounds. I mean, have you listened to the Channel Classics recordings? Do you really think they sound bad in some way? You do a close mic'ed, iso recorded, piecemeal recording direct into the board, layer on a lot of effects, and compress the hell out of it at mastering, it's not going to sound great regardless of whether it's analog or digital. I remember about 10 years ago Dave Grohl made a big deal of making a Foo Fighters' album, Wasting Light, all analog and old school, and the album sounded like crap. Can you give me an example of a recording I can listen to not on YouTube but one a lossless streaming platform that you think sounds lousy because it's digital and tell me what about it's digital recording makes it sound bad that I can listen for?
No, I remember saying the difference was not great at all, like some tend to over exaggerate differences. I did say, that most of the time, it sounds quite similar to lossless. I would for sure have a hard time telling them apart, even with my studio phones, as most recorded material seems to not showcase differences. But nice jab at me, it made me laugh a bit...
I actually think that Wasting Light album is pretty good, lol. Unlike the Red Hot Chilli Peppers analog album Unlimited Love which just sounds dead.
My Acid test. Every analog recording which sounds great to me, which is many for sure, can easily be transparently transferred to digital and I have with many and they sound identical. The medium is therefore in my logic not the indicator of great sound, but more the "era" and/or how it was recorded and subsequently mastered.
I have a home studio with professional grade 24 trak digital recorder. I record and then mix a stereo master in 24 bits and think I hear a difference between that and 16, but it’s probably expectation bias. Thinking about it, the comparison I make is between the playback of a 24 bit WAV file vs the same exact recording burned to a redbook cd. I wonder if that is the difference? ( is it the conversion to cd? The difference in the sound of the DACS in my OPPO ( cd playback) vs the ones in my Marantz ( WAV file) ? ).
