Jump to content
  • Pure Vinyl Club
    Pure Vinyl Club

    Digital Vinyl: Temporal Domain

    Note : The following article contains information that has been deemed incorrect by leading digital audio engineers. I attempted to corroborate the findings of this article by asking several digital audio experts. I was unable to find anyone who could back up the statements made, with any scientific data or theory. Consider the following article retracted.

     

    I am leaving the text of this article up on CA because it has enabled a good discussion to take place. By leaving it up, people can read what was claimed and read the followup arguments that the prove it incorrect. To remove the article completely only opens up a space for this to happen again, and again, and again.

     

     

    I take full responsibility for the publishing of this article. I should have had a technical editor check it before publication. I apologize to the CA Community for the error in judgement.

     

    - CC.

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png

    Temporal Domain of Signal, or What is More Important for Listening to Music, Static or Dynamic Characteristics of the Sound Signal?

     

    Every time my audiophile friends, who do not have an analog setup (TT), come to me and see huge piles of expensive, rare LPs, they get puzzled. They wonder, how can it be that LP lovers spend huge amounts of money on their "analog" hobby, while suffering such discomforts when listening to music. They say this method of listening in the 21st century is absolutely impractical. In addition, there are signal distortion and limitations in many of the technical aspects of vinyl.

     

    In response, I always say the same thing in support of analog - it's mainly because of the time domain signal. We (fans of analog audio) are willing to make these sacrifices and inconveniences for much better performance in a time aspect, the so-called dynamic characteristics. Static characteristics, those belonging to the spectral and dynamic domains (Dynamic Range, THD + N, Frequency Response, etc.) certainly are important for high-quality sound, but when it comes to listening to music in real time, in my opinion, it is the dynamic characteristics that matter most

     

     

    Often, in response to my comments, people react with skepticism. They say they are used to trusting technical information that can be measured and compared and what I say is very subjective and ephemeral.

     

    Also viewing comments here on СA, especially those connected with the current topics such as MQA, I have noticed that some members react rather skeptically to the arguments about MQA's improvements of characteristics in the time-domain. And, some even question the very existence of such improvements.

     

    Here it is shown that "High-resolution in temporal, spatial, spectral, and dynamic domains together determine the quality value of perceived music and ,sound and that temporal resolution may be the most important domain perceptually". Temporal resolution, is actually what I would like to briefly discuss with you.

     

    There's a deeply rooted opinion that frequency above 10 kHz, and moreover above 20 kHz, contains a small amount of music information. And yet research shows that, for example transients from cymbals contain significant frequency components extending even above 60 kHz. The trumpet playing fortissimo has transients components up through 40 kHz, and in the case of the violin even temporary frequency of 100 kHz occurs.

     

    As you can see quite a lot of music information is contained in frequencies above 20 kHz. Of course, immediately a question is raised: "Are we able to hear it?". To answer this, it is worth mentioning some rarely discussed issues. Commonly cited audibility up to 20 kHz frequency is derived from conventional hearing tests, which are based on the audibility of simple sounds. But there is an alternative look at the issue from the more "dynamic" side. This is the temporal resolution of the ear, not the "static" harmonic content and audibility of pure sinusoidal tones.

     

    This may be more appropriate in a case of music signals than the prospect of simple tones. The actual music signals have a very complex structure as a result of the imposition of the attack and decay of many instruments. More importantly, their frequency spectrum is very different between the short period of the initial attack, or the rise of sound, eg. as a result of pulling a string or striking a key of a piano, and the subsequent, much longer sound decay.

     

    There is a large group of instruments, which are characterized by a very "transient," dynamic nature of the initial attack phase of the sound. Xylophone, trumpet, cymbals and striking a drum achieve dynamic levels in between 120 and 130 dB within 10 ms or less. One thing we can say for sure, it is not possible for a CD-quality sample scattered at 22.7ms to have an opportunity to correct the commissioning attack phase of musical instruments, which are half the distance between two consecutive samples.

     

    And the attack phase is very important for audio reception. In experiments, in which the samples were of wind instruments dissected in a way that combined the short attack phase of one instrument with a longer sound decay of another one, listeners identified the sound that of the instrument with the short fragment attack, not the longer decay sound.

     

     

    image2.png

     

    The sound wave graph from a cymbal being struck by a stick. The sound increase is nearly instantaneous, followed by a long sustain of a rather uniform nature. - from highfidelity.pl

     

     

    When viewed from the hearing mechanism perspective, you can find information indicating that the signals which have pulsing character (i.e., generally transients), in contrast to simple tones, activate significantly larger areas of hearing cells than pure sinusoidal tones (which, in nature are almost non existent). In the case of pulses, the possible temporal resolution of the human ear may be up to 10 microseconds, corresponding to frequencies of 100 kHz.

     

    This information is also confirmed in the opinion of recognized practitioners. Art Dudley from "Stereophile" magazine, in an interesting interview from The Editors cycle, is of the opinion that the Nyquist frequency does not apply while there are working decimation and reconstruction filters of complex music signals. In his opinion, two samples may be used to describe a single frequency, but do not provide sufficient density samples to describe the speed at which the signal increases or decreases. This is crucial to distinguishing between music and ordinary sound.

     

    Also I would like to quote, in the context of the above information, an excerpt from my correspondence with Dr. Rob Robinson:

     

    "My thoughts are that with extended frequency response you are not capturing "audible" frequencies but rather preserving the critical time relationships in the music at all frequencies. Human hearing might not be able to "detect" sounds above 15 - 20 kHz or so, but on the other hand hearing, in conjunction with the brain, is very sensitive to temporal information. It's been reported that the human auditory system is capable of discerning temporal differences of tens of microseconds or less (and note, at 192 kHz the time between samples is 5 microseconds). This temporal discrimination is the reason we are able to accurately discern directional / spatial cues. Hearing evolved so that the location of threats, e.g., the cougar about to pounce, could be determined accurately, as key to survival. The spatial information comes not only from amplitude, but the time difference between the same sound arriving at each ear. And the more sensitive hearing is to temporal information, the more accurately that spatial cues can be located.

     

    A CD format brickwall filter will affect time relationships, part of the reason that CD format digital audio may sound less "natural" than analog (or live sound). Preserving temporal information is key to preserving lifelike sound and imaging. While all digital audio will affect temporal information, the influence diminishes the higher the sample rate, because the antialiasing and reconstruction filters are operating at ultrasonic frequencies. So, by using higher sample rates, even though we may be recording sounds that are inaudible, we have better preservation of the temporal information in the signal, which conveys a more lifelike presentation of the music. Besides using a high sample rate to capture the signal, we also have the ultra wide 5,000 kHz bandwidth (five thousand kilohertz, as contrasted with "just" 20 kilohertz as the generally accepted audible upper frequency limit) of the Seta preamplifier which again faithfully preserves temporal relationships in the music signal (internally, the front end circuitry has a risetime of less than 50 nanoseconds)." - Dr. Rob Robinson

     

    If we take into consideration the typical technical parameters of audio, which is mainly bandwidth and dynamics (signal-to-noise ratio), we can easily come to the conclusion that, omitting the variables associated with the physiology of hearing, audiophile devices should not differ from each other, and moreover sonically stand out in relation to the audio devices from the mass market.

     

    And yet, there are people willing to pay much higher prices for equipment and the typical specifications are often similar or even slightly worse than the cheaper devices of the mass segment.

     

    Most importantly, in many cases audiophiles agree on the description of the main attributes of the sound of the given device, although expressed in a specific descriptive dictionary, and not in strict technical parameters.

     

    This raises a difficult to challenge conclusion that if some audiophile characteristics are consistently perceived by a large number of people there's a good chance that behind this stands specific physical phenomena, though their nature can be complicated and can be difficult to express in simple numerical parameters, eg. dynamic range or frequency response.

     

    What may these phenomena be? If the key to the mystery lies not in the parameters of the frequency domain (frequency response) or dynamics (noise at a low level), then a single area remains, and that's phase issues, or timing aspects of the sound. In fact, these are the most fundamental parameters of the sound signal, because they underlie its creation, what a sound wave actually looks like in the time domain. The question is how much of the sound wave graph corresponds to the wave reaching the microphone registering this recording.

     

    The nuances of the tonal colors, to the greatest extent, are shaped by the sound wave characteristic from each instrument. And, it's not just a simple analysis of the contents of the so-called harmonics but more of dynamic aspects, mainly the so-called attacks, or the rising of sound at the moment of its creation. It is not difficult to imagine that the course of the rise in amplitude of the sound will be quite different for wind, string and plucked instruments. It's a very fine structure of transients, which over a very short period time, this new tone of a musical instrument provides the bulk of information about its color and texture. Studies show that the human ear is most sensitive to the initial part of the pulse of a new musical sound.

     

    Any disturbance or contamination of this sensitive time structure leads to a noticeable loss of sound quality from the perspective of people sensitive to audiophile aspects, such as nuances in fidelity transmission of all the colors of musical instruments.

     

    In other words, the time domain signal (issues phase, or timing aspects of the sound). In fact, these are the most fundamental parameters of the sound signal, because they lie in its creation - thus what a sound wave in the time domain actually looks like.

     

    So, one of the main advantages of vinyl is the lack of restrictions of temporal resolution in LP. One of the key challenges for us in the Pure Vinyl Club was to find a way (technology, a method of recording) the equipment to maintain a maximum level of temporal resolution from the LP while recording in digital. This does not mean that we were going to compromise or neglect other characteristics which are also important for the sound.

     

    Paweł Piwowarski in his article "PLIKI HI-RES - niezbędny krok do nirwany czy nadmiarowy gadżet?" on High Fidelity.pl in the October 2016 issue to which I referred above, noted that "The trumpet playing fortissimo contains transients of 40 kHz". I invite you to watch this little video using our LP rip, which clearly shows that transients of the trombone can get higher than 50 kHz, and trumpet reaches almost 70kHz!

     

    Later, in one of the following articles, which might be called "What is actually recorded on LP" I will showcase many interesting videos and screenshots, which clearly show that in many musical instruments transients exceed the 40-50 kHz threshold, and among them will be some unexpected ones (contrabass and sibilance of the human voice).

     

    Also, many audiophiles have prejudices about the LPs Dynamic Range. Here's a screenshot of the DR of an album's full side (Duration: 24:07, RAW Record).

     

     

     

    screnshot-DR.jpg

     

     

     

    I will focus on these and other interesting LP aspects in more detail in in the next articles of the Digital Vinyl series.

     

     

    Thank you,

     

    Igor

     

     

     

     

     

    Sound Samples

     

     

    Trippin (Kenny Drew – Trippin (1984, Japan) Promo WL, Baystate (RJL-8101))

    Official DR Value: DR13, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 14.00dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (103MB)

     

     

     

    Play Fiddle Play (Isao Suzuki Quartet + 1 – Blue City (1974, Japan) Three Blind Mice (TBM-24))

    Official DR Value: DR13, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 8.02dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (113MB)

     

     

     

    Make Someone Happy (Carmen McRae – Live At Sugar Hill San Francisco (1964, USA) Time Records (S/2104))

    Official DR Value: DR14, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 7.23dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (99MB)

     

     

     

    Early In The Morning (John Henry Barbee, 1963

    VA – The Best Of The Blues (Compilation) (RE 1973, West Germany) Storyville (671188))

    Official DR Value: DR14, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 10.63dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (75MB)

     

     

     

    La Cumparsita (Werner Müller And His Orchestra – Tango! (1967, USA) London Records (SP 44098))

    Official DR Value: DR11, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 0.00dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (104MB)

     

     

     

    Wild Is The Wind (The Dave Pike Quartet Featuring Bill Evans – Pike’s Peak 1962 (RE 1981, USA) Columbia (PC 37011))

    Official DR Value: DR12, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 10.31dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (109MB)

     

     

     

    People Are Strange (The Doors – 13 (1970, USA) Elektra (EKS-74079))

    Official DR Value: DR11, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 0.00dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (82MB)

     

     

     

    Let’s Groove (Earth, Wind and Fire – Raise! (1981, Japan) CBS/Sony (25AP 2210))

    Official DR Value: DR15, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 7.89dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (108MB)

     

     

     

    Smooth Operator (Sade – Smooth Operator (1984, Single, 45rpm, Japan) Epic (12・3P-581))

    Official DR Value: DR13, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 7.15dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (114MB)

     

     

     

    Fernando (Paul Mauriat – Feelings (1977, 45rpm, Japan) Philips (45S-14))

    Official DR Value: DR14, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 5.76dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (112MB)

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Well, from someone who has studied the math and knows as much about the subject as anyone alive (James Johnston, aka "JJ"):

     

    The time resolution of a 16 bit, 44.1khz PCM channel is not limited to the 22.7µs time difference between samples. The actual minimum time resolution is equivalent to 1/(2pi * quantization levels * sample rate). For 16/44.1, that is 1/(2pi * 65536 * 44100), which is about 55 picoseconds. To put that in perspective, light travels less than an inch in that time.

     

     

     

     

    Yes, but what about:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Edit - also:

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yup. Good to see all the discussions on time domain and hopefully everyone becoming clear about the FACT that 16/44 is already capable of time domain resolution much lower than intersample spacing.

     

    I wrote about this recently as well when having a peek at the MQA filter characteristics. Check out the Monty Show and Tell video starting at 17:20.

     

    Obviously vinyl has poor time-domain fidelity. In fact, anyone who has any concerns about digital jitter should be absolutely freaked out about the limitations of vinyl playback!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Alright I made a sine wave at 4410 hz at 352 khz 24 bit. The right channel is delayed by 2 samples vs the left. This would be 1/4 of a sample at 44.1 khz sample rates. I then downsampled to 44.1 khz 16 bit. Igor has indicated 44.1 khz could not show a shift in time of less than 22.7 microseconds at the 44.1 khz sample rate.

     

    I next up sampled the 44.1 khz file back to 352 khz. This is the second stereo file in the screenshot below. Notice at the marker point the two channels are offset at the zero crossing point by 2 samples just as originally. This indicates that 44.1 khz rates can show timing between channels of less than one sample period of 22.7 microseconds.

     

    The 3rd file in the image shows the file at 44.1 khz before upsampling. You will see though both channels are sampling a 4410 hz sine wave the sample levels are different. They are different because with the wave shifted in time different portions of the wave get sampled to different values. If you don't believe both will reconstruct to a real sine wave watch the video in my signature. The reconstructed wave due to the different sample values will shift the wave in time as reconstructed to amounts much smaller than the time between samples.

     

    Now I did all this in software. However, in the past I have done it with actual gear. I created a 192 khz file. Played that at 192 khz while recording at 44.1 khz. Each channel was offset by two samples. I took the recorded 44.1 khz file and played it back at 44.1 khz while recording at 192 khz. The result was the two channels were offset by 2 samples in the 192 khz recording. This is less than half a sample width at 44.1 khz. Showing that the theory works as declared.

     

    This may not explain to you how it works, but it shows that indeed 44.1 khz sampling can reproduced timing differences smaller than one sample period. If the how is still foggy ask questions I'll try and make it clear or others will. This is an old bit of misinformation that should have died long ago.

     

    4410 sine time shift.png

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks to those who've helped educate and explain things to those of us who want to learn more.

     

    I've reached out to a well respected third party for another opinion about this topic.

     

    More to follow ...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yup. Good to see all the discussions on time domain and hopefully everyone becoming clear about the FACT that 16/44 is already capable of time domain resolution much lower than intersample spacing.

     

    I wrote about this recently as well when having a peek at the MQA filter characteristics. Check out the Monty Show and Tell video starting at 17:20.

     

    Obviously vinyl has poor time-domain fidelity. In fact, anyone who has any concerns about digital jitter should be absolutely freaked out about the limitations of vinyl playback!

     

    IIRC, the time domain stuff (wow, flutter) and surface noise were the big bugaboos leading to development of CDs.

     

    Let's not liken wow and flutter to the audible effects of jitter, though. That's another form of "analog thinking" we should leave behind.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    IIRC, the time domain stuff (wow, flutter) and surface noise were the big bugaboos leading to development of CDs.

     

    Let's not liken wow and flutter to the audible effects of jitter, though. That's another form of "analog thinking" we should leave behind.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

     

    Are you saying that sound quality was a leading factor in the creation of the CD?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Perhaps this will help someone. Upper samples are 44.1 khz for a 11,025 hz sine wave that starts exactly on a sample time. The lower samples are for the same 11,025 hz sine wave that started exactly halfway between sample times. Remember the straight lines drawn between samples aren't how the wave reconstructs. Adobe Audition will show the correct wave, but I don't have that available. Both of these waves would playback identical 11,025 hz tones. One is shifted by roughly 11.35 microseconds vs the other.

     

    It is possible with some very simple trig and a hand calculator to show 44/16 can sample differently between timing of waves at 56 picoseconds though a bit laborious to work thru that way.

     

    11025 half sample shift.png

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Maybe this will help someone. Upper samples are for 11,025 hz wave that started exactly during a sample. The lower is 11,025 hz wave that started exactly halfway between samples. Please note that straight lines drawn between samples are not the actual wave shape. Adobe Audition will show the correct shape, but other software does not.

     

    As odd as these look, both will reconstruct identical sine waves that differ only by a timing shift of about 11.35 microseconds. The fact they were differently timed meant sample values were different. As Jud and others have pointed out there is one and only one wave that will fit sample values if the wave is below the Nyquist frequency. So a wave offset by a tiny time amount causes different sample values. This causes the wave to differ by a tiny time amount when reconstructed upon playback from such a sampled and reconstructed digital system.

     

    It is possible with simple trig and a scientific calculator to show how timing shifts of 56 picoseconds cause different sample values. Doing so is a bit tedious. It does mean you can get some handle on how this works without extremely advanced math. It still might not explain in your mind how reconstruction works. It is easy enough to demonstrate it works so you don't have to take it on faith even if you don't know how in your mind's eye.

     

    11025 half sample shift.png

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Oh yeah, I just remembered another example of vinyl's inferior time domain performance.

     

    Notice why we never talk about "wow & flutter" in the digital world? Simply because speed fluctuations (ie. timing) is not an issue...

    PlatterSpeed Technics SL-1200M3D

    PlatterSpeed Roksan TMS

    PlatterSpeed digital :-)

     

    Compare those PlatterSpeed results with 5-figure turntables if you like such as from Mike Fremer.

     

    Just to be clear. I do like my vinyl setup and LPs. As collectable items, nostalgia and for nice artwork. They sound good when the mastering is better than highly dynamically compressed CD or hi-res. For example, I know our host likes his Pearl Jam - Vitalogy remastered LP blows away the crappy HDtracks 24/96 version.

     

    Sure, there can be >22kHz high frequency signal in those grooves as well. But in every other way, the technical abilities of LPs are clearly inferior. Including temporal domain performance of course.

     

    No need to be romantically idealistic about analogue or LPs IMO. As much as there are great pressings, there are just as many crappy sounding ones out there... Not to mention the essential meticulous cleaning, turntable set-up, cartridge minutiae, impedance matching, RIAA phono pre-amp quality, inner groove distortion, and a ton of other details to obsess about (good or bad would also be subjective based on one's personality :-).

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Oh yeah, I just remembered another example of vinyl's inferior time domain performance.

     

    Notice why we never talk about "wow & flutter" in the digital world? Simply because speed fluctuations (ie. timing) is not an issue...

    PlatterSpeed Technics SL-1200M3D

    PlatterSpeed Roksan TMS

    PlatterSpeed digital :-)

     

    Compare those PlatterSpeed results with 5-figure turntables if you like such as from Mike Fremer.

     

    Just to be clear. I do like my vinyl setup and LPs. As collectable items, nostalgia and for nice artwork. They sound good when the mastering is better than highly dynamically compressed CD or hi-res. For example, I know our host likes his Pearl Jam - Vitalogy remastered LP blows away the crappy HDtracks 24/96 version.

     

    Sure, there can be >22kHz high frequency signal in those grooves as well. But in every other way, the technical abilities of LPs are clearly inferior. Including temporal domain performance of course.

     

    No need to be romantically idealistic about analogue or LPs IMO. As much as there are great pressings, there are just as many crappy sounding ones out there... Not to mention the essential meticulous cleaning, turntable set-up, cartridge minutiae, impedance matching, RIAA phono pre-amp quality, inner groove distortion, and a ton of other details to obsess about (good or bad would also be subjective based on one's personality :-).

     

    I have that album, but have never listened to it because I don't have a turntable :~(

     

    I'm so bummed!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    but where within the width of the sampling pulse the transient starts.

     

    Yes, it can and it does. End of.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I see no mention of "wow" or "flutter"...does this affect "temporal" accuracy?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I see no mention of "wow" or "flutter"...does this affect "temporal" accuracy?

     

    Wow and flutter are by definition temporal inaccuracies.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Are you saying that sound quality was a leading factor in the creation of the CD?

     

    Certainly the desire to be free of audible wow, flutter and surface noise were leading motivating factors in the development of digital audio media. This is not to say compromises weren't made, or that making money wasn't (as always) the single most important thing to the companies involved.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have that album, but have never listened to it because I don't have a turntable :~(

     

    I'm so bummed!

     

    You're certainly invited to bring it with you if you're ever in the neighborhood. :)

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Oh yeah, I just remembered another example of vinyl's inferior time domain performance.

     

    Notice why we never talk about "wow & flutter" in the digital world? Simply because speed fluctuations (ie. timing) is not an issue...

    PlatterSpeed Technics SL-1200M3D

    PlatterSpeed Roksan TMS

    PlatterSpeed digital :-)

     

    Compare those PlatterSpeed results with 5-figure turntables if you like such as from Mike Fremer.

     

    Just to be clear. I do like my vinyl setup and LPs. As collectable items, nostalgia and for nice artwork. They sound good when the mastering is better than highly dynamically compressed CD or hi-res. For example, I know our host likes his Pearl Jam - Vitalogy remastered LP blows away the crappy HDtracks 24/96 version.

     

    Sure, there can be >22kHz high frequency signal in those grooves as well. But in every other way, the technical abilities of LPs are clearly inferior. Including temporal domain performance of course.

     

    No need to be romantically idealistic about analogue or LPs IMO. As much as there are great pressings, there are just as many crappy sounding ones out there... Not to mention the essential meticulous cleaning, turntable set-up, cartridge minutiae, impedance matching, RIAA phono pre-amp quality, inner groove distortion, and a ton of other details to obsess about (good or bad would also be subjective based on one's personality :-).

    There is nothing romantically idealist about liking analogue, it sounds better than the majority of CD's, getting over excited about some irrelevant technical matter is just embarrassing.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Are you saying that sound quality was a leading factor in the creation of the CD?

     

    That was James Russell’s intent when he invented the optical technology for the compact disk. He wanted to eliminate sound degradation caused by wear on records. And improve the sound too.

     

    Since he is one of two men who taught me audio still alive I’m going to try and visit him this summer.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It is a real sign of our times that every time this temporal resolution issue comes up, both camps retreat to base principles that they believe best support a fairly absolutist view of 16/44 versus vinyl. Where is the intellectual curiosity that says: Ok, let me accept for a minute that both 16/44 and vinyl can achieve all of the temporal resolution my ears need, then what else accounts for my hearing differences or having a preference for one over the other?"

     

    Jud, Mansr, elsdude, Miska, Archimago and others have already contributed a lot in other threads to laying out some of those reasons and Jud cites what I believe is the key one: "However, the Sampling Theorem contains idealizing assumptions that don't exist in the real world - perfectly band-limited signals, infinite time to do the filtering to reconvert digital to analog, etc." So much of Miska's work in HQPlayer similarly focuses on the tradeoffs between filters and how those tradeoffs ultimately require some choice in preference between time domain accuracy and frequency accuracy. Meridian, even before MQA, spent a lot of time in their best CD players looking at ways to specifically eliminate pre-ringing and reviewers who loved those players clearly heard a difference they preferred from that focus on pre-ringing.

     

    If we are going to move the science of audio reproduction forward, it is these secondary principles, not the underlying Shannon Nyquist math, or the religious vinyl vs. digital debate that we need to be spending our time on.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    PVC, I think you may want to speak to the President, or perhaps the Attorney General....

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for answering that question. I too have used Channel D software for needledrops. It is excellent software.

     

    Frankly Chris I was dismayed to see this article on your site. If this had been a principle at Channel D it would have put a big dent in my respect for their company. Most of the article is untrue misinformation. Old myths that are factually not so. One need not perpetuate bad info to have a passion for vinyl.

    Hi elstude. I'm sorry for what I have for a long time did not respond to questions. I just have no experience of commenting on the CA and I wanted to wait and see what the discussion will go in the direction. The very title of this article lies the whole essence of what I wanted to discuss on the forum. Unlike "static" characteristics (spectral and dynamic domains), which are often discussed, I would like to emphasize the importance of what we hear in real time from our acoustic system - to "dynamic" characteristics (temporal and spatial domains ). And especially I like to emphasize the importance of temporal resolution for emotional perception when listening of music.

     

    And it has nothing to do with the digital aspect. I was not going to oppose an analog (vinyl, tape) and digital (CD, Hi-Res). Just what we hear from our speakers. This temporal resolution It may be worsened by your speaker or the speaker cables or phono preamp, or cartridge, ... Any component can "slow down" transients. Just what I wanted to say.

    Only once, I noticed that the CD format is not enough to reconstruct high time domain, also citing in this context (Art Dudley and Rob Robinson). But you are brought down to me hurricane criticism. All about what you say - it properly. It is generally accepted and does not require a large discus. But, once again I ask - how it relates to the topic of this article?

    Now a substantive response to your first question on this topic:

     

    It seems that temporal accuracy and temporal resolution are being confused here. Accuracy is a given, and for the sake of argument can be as high as one wishes - picoseconds, femtoseconds, etc.. When someone says a CD samples "accurately" to the picosecond level (that is, the sample clock is stable and has low jitter), that may be true, but that has nothing to do with the temporal resolution. The distinction between accuracy and precision / resolution is one of the prime topics emphasized early in college introductory physics and chemistry (or even grammar school advanced placement classes in the same subjects): the difference between accuracy and precision are critical in science and easily confused unless one has had experience or training in the subject.

     

    Take two balance scales that are, let's say, 100% accurate. One weighs to a precision (almost the same thing as resolution) of 1 gram, the other 10 grams. Put a 10 gram mass on both scales, they will both indicate 10 grams, with perfect accuracy. Place a 12 gram mass, the more *precise* of the two scales will indicate 12 grams. Remember both scales are 100 percent accurate - but you can't expect the second scale to resolve 12 grams, because it is below the measurement *precision* of the scale. The second scale will "accurately" report 10 grams for the 12 gram mass - within a resolution of +/- 5 grams. So, at best, you know that your measurement of the mass is 10 grams plus or minus 5 grams. A 16 gram mass would be measured as 16 grams on the first scale, 20 grams on the other, etc. The second scale is accurate, but only within the specified precision. On the other hand, a scale that is not "accurate" would have some discernible error in the measurement. For example, the scales report 11 and 20 grams in the first measurement - though the resolution is the same. For the optimum result, we need both good accuracy *and* precision.

     

    Now take the CD sampler accurate to 1 picosecond, given as an example. Yes, sample after sample are within one picosecond of the sample period (or even better is possible, with a super low jitter clock). But it simply cannot accurately resolve signal events with a temporal precision greater than the sample rate - approximately 23 microseconds (rounding to the nearest microsecond; 1/44100 is actually a transcendental number which can be represented to an arbitrary precision depending on the number of decimal places, which we don't care about here). So an event occurring at a given time can be resolved with certainty at best with a temporal resolution of roughly 23 microseconds. If you increase the sample rate to 192 kHz the temporal ACCURACY may be the same (at the same time coordinate, with the same picosecond or femtosecond accurate clock) but the temporal RESOLUTION is more than 4 times better - about 5 microseconds. (or to be precise, 5.2083333 microseconds with the 3 repeating on and on and on).

     

    Temporal resolution is defined by the sample rate.

     

    Taking an extreme example for illustration of a boundary condition, if the brain and auditory system only resolved sounds with TEMPORAL resolution at the second (1,000,000 microseconds) level, this would be problematic because a threat to survival such as a leopard pouncing from behind would not be detected as readily. Imagine an experiment where we played a sound of an animal springing for two human test subjects, from a loudspeaker positioned some moderate distance behind and above the subject. On the one hand the sound is sampled at 10 Hz. On the other we sample at 192 kHz. The first case has a TEMPORAL resolution of 100,000 microseconds (0.1 second), the other about 5 microseconds. Do you think that in both cases both subjects will be able to react in the same way, including detecting the position of the sound, to each stimulus? From the argument presented in one of the responses here one should be able to reconstruct the original waveform from the lower sample rate signal, ergo both subjects by the argument presented would be expected to react identically. Of course, I am saving the red herring, which is due to the fact that the 10 Hz sampled signal will be antialias filtered, removing frequencies above 5 Hz - so there would be nothing in the audio to react to! But the argument presented is that somehow one can reconstruct a signal by calculating the intersample waveform. The problem is there is no way "in the universe" to reconstruct the ORIGINAL "leopard pouncing" signal via such an operation.

     

    There is absolutely no way that a signal sampled at a given sample rate to a digital waveform has the same temporal resolution as a signal sampled at higher sample rates. If it did, then all the research labs in the world (using high speed analog to digital converters for signal sampling and recording) could just go and throw away all of our expensive high speed digital sampling hardware. Same thing with our 100 GHz sampling oscilloscopes. Why waste all that money when a 100 MHz scope has putatively the same temporal resolution? Because it does not.

     

    If a paper were submitted for publication to a peer reviewed technical journal and reported conclusions which depended on sampling a signal and the paper tried to infer that an event was determined to occur with a temporal precision greater than the sample rate, the paper would be rejected, with a suggestion to repeat with a more capable experimental measurement (that is, appropriate sample rate). Any argument that the original signal (that is, containing events faster than the sample rate) could be reconstructed perfectly from a lower sample rate signal would be ridiculed. There is absolutely no way this information could be extracted from a measurement made at a lower sample rate - which has lower TEMPORAL resolution. If the whole reaction we're trying to observe takes place in 100 nanoseconds and we can only sample at 1 microsecond, then we won't measure anything useful, let alone could we expect to somehow reconstruct the same data set that one would obtain at higher temporal resolution (sample rate).

     

    One cannot reconstruct an ORIGINAL signal containing spectral content at frequencies above half the sample rate, from one sampled at a lower sample rate, just because "there is only one (such) signal in all the universe," because the signal bandwidth of the "one signal in the universe" that fits the points has already been band limited by the antialiasing filter, and parts of the original signal discarded. The signal you get at the lower sample rate **only corresponds to band limited version of the original signal** - which is NOT the same as the original signal. There isn't any way to determine the ORIGINAL signal without sampling at a higher rate in the first place. You can certainly calculate the sample position at arbitrary inter-sample time intervals, but that will not give you the same result as sampling the ORIGINAL signal at a higher rate. Sure, one could sample the *band limited* signal at a higher rate, and in that case the result will be exactly the same - but there would be no practical reason to oversample (as in analog to digital conversion) a (severely, in the case of analog to digital conversion) band limited signal in the first place. The scenario with analog involves ORIGINAL signals which also are band limited; in the real world, all signals are band limited to some extent - it's a matter of the criteria applied; but analog is band limited to a much lesser extent than digital, and the characteristics of the band limiting are also quite different.

     

    Any signal which is lowpass filtered to prevent aliasing at lower sample rates is going to have a greater variation in group delay / phase shift near a fixed signal frequency (say, always at 10 kHz) than a signal sampled at a higher sample rate, presuming the antialias filtering is chosen appropriately for the sample rate (and it would always be, otherwise one wouldn't go to the trouble of using higher sample rates). A signal reproduced on a vinyl LP sourced from analog sources doesn't encounter the brickwall filter used in analog to digital converters / CDs. There is a high frequency roll off, but it is a gentle 6 dB per octave above the cutter head resonance of typically 50 kHz. By comparison the brickwall filter used to record CD format audio has a much steeper slope, about 100 dB of attenuation in a small fraction of an octave (antialiasing filters aren't even expressed in terms of dB per octave; just passband, stopband, ripple and attenuation). Furthermore, compared to our analog 6 dB per octave rolloff, there is a much greater phase shift variation among frequencies in the sampled signal. And just above about 20 kHz, there is NO signal left; on the other hand with analog, and vinyl, there is considerable signal energy, continuing for octaves above. And that is a key difference between analog and digital. So, in digital recording, we try to get closer to the TEMPORAL characteristics of analog by increasing the sample rate and pushing our brickwall filter higher and higher in frequency, so that the disruption of time relationships / coherence between the frequencies comprising our audible frequency range (up to 20 kHz, more or less) audio is minimized. Then, our music signal (or sound of the panther pouncing) is reproduced with the temporal relationships between different frequencies closer to (if not entirely preserved) compared to the actual sound found "in nature" and accordingly our auditory system / brain / emotional state responds more favorably by comparison. "Engaging, toe tapping, PRAT." As a bonus we can enjoy knowing about the technical elegance of capturing more of the frequency range of analog (and vinyl LPs) which extends strongly at least two octaves above the bandwidth limit of a CD (as proven by many measurements using spectrum analysis of signals from LPs, including those referenced in the post).

     

    Sorry for the long post.

    Good weekend!

     

    Regards

     

    Pure Vinyl Club

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Excuse me!

     

    It was another hacker attack from Russia to the United States!;-))))

     

    I'm still poorly understood with the forum and checked the English version of his post through Google translate and mistakenly sent the Russian transcription.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    [/font]One cannot reconstruct an ORIGINAL signal containing spectral content at frequencies above half the sample rate, from one sampled at a lower sample rate

     

    A signal reproduced on a vinyl LP sourced from analog sources doesn't encounter the brickwall filter used in analog to digital converters / CDs. There is a high frequency roll off, but it is a gentle 6 dB per octave above the cutter head resonance of typically 50 kHz. By comparison the brickwall filter used to record CD format audio has a much steeper slope, about 100 dB of attenuation in a small fraction of an octave (antialiasing filters aren't even expressed in terms of dB per octave; just passband, stopband, ripple and attenuation). Furthermore, compared to our analog 6 dB per octave rolloff, there is a much greater phase shift variation among frequencies in the sampled signal. And just above about 20 kHz, there is NO signal left; on the other hand with analog, and vinyl, there is considerable signal energy, continuing for octaves above. And that is a key difference between analog and digital.Pure Vinyl Club

     

    Maybe this needs a CA poll to go with it:

    a) do you believe the sonic differences between CD/Vinyl are attributable to spectral content over 20kHz?

    b) do you believe the important sonic differences are actually below 20kHz and are the result of filters and other D/A conversion artifacts that cause changes between 20Hz and 20kHz?

     

    For those, like me, who can't hear above 16kHz, I very much fall into the latter camp, but I also worry that in many cases even when we do the best in converting a 16/44 signal to analog, too much unrecoverable damage was already done at frequencies below 20kHz upstream in the recording and mastering process that cannot be fixed in the final D/A process.

     

    The argument Pure Vinyl seems to be trying to make here is that there can be two different 10kHz waveforms, where additional "precision" is required to reconstruct the two different, but same kHz tone waves. This has always struck me as the "my bass drum has an attack shape in its waveform that exists at 50Hz that makes it sound different than other 50kHz notes. Isn't the real science that my 50Hz bass drum wave is accompanied by higher spectral content, i.e. at 10kHz and 30kHz that further informs the sound and you need to preserve all of the content in order to capture the original sound?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi elstude. I'm sorry for what I have for a long time did not respond to questions. I just have no experience of commenting on the CA and I wanted to wait and see what the discussion will go in the direction. The very title of this article lies the whole essence of what I wanted to discuss on the forum. Unlike "static" characteristics (spectral and dynamic domains), which are often discussed, I would like to emphasize the importance of what we hear in real time from our acoustic system - to "dynamic" characteristics (temporal and spatial domains ). And especially I like to emphasize the importance of temporal resolution for emotional perception when listening of music.

     

    And it has nothing to do with the digital aspect. I was not going to oppose an analog (vinyl, tape) and digital (CD, Hi-Res). Just what we hear from our speakers. This temporal resolution It may be worsened by your speaker or the speaker cables or phono preamp, or cartridge, ... Any component can "slow down" transients. Just what I wanted to say.

    Only once, I noticed that the CD format is not enough to reconstruct high time domain, also citing in this context (Art Dudley and Rob Robinson). But you are brought down to me hurricane criticism. All about what you say - it properly. It is generally accepted and does not require a large discus. But, once again I ask - how it relates to the topic of this article?

    Now a substantive response to your first question on this topic:

     

    It seems that temporal accuracy and temporal resolution are being confused here. Accuracy is a given, and for the sake of argument can be as high as one wishes - picoseconds, femtoseconds, etc.. When someone says a CD samples "accurately" to the picosecond level (that is, the sample clock is stable and has low jitter), that may be true, but that has nothing to do with the temporal resolution. The distinction between accuracy and precision / resolution is one of the prime topics emphasized early in college introductory physics and chemistry (or even grammar school advanced placement classes in the same subjects): the difference between accuracy and precision are critical in science and easily confused unless one has had experience or training in the subject.

     

    Take two balance scales that are, let's say, 100% accurate. One weighs to a precision (almost the same thing as resolution) of 1 gram, the other 10 grams. Put a 10 gram mass on both scales, they will both indicate 10 grams, with perfect accuracy. Place a 12 gram mass, the more *precise* of the two scales will indicate 12 grams. Remember both scales are 100 percent accurate - but you can't expect the second scale to resolve 12 grams, because it is below the measurement *precision* of the scale. The second scale will "accurately" report 10 grams for the 12 gram mass - within a resolution of +/- 5 grams. So, at best, you know that your measurement of the mass is 10 grams plus or minus 5 grams. A 16 gram mass would be measured as 16 grams on the first scale, 20 grams on the other, etc. The second scale is accurate, but only within the specified precision. On the other hand, a scale that is not "accurate" would have some discernible error in the measurement. For example, the scales report 11 and 20 grams in the first measurement - though the resolution is the same. For the optimum result, we need both good accuracy *and* precision.

     

    Now take the CD sampler accurate to 1 picosecond, given as an example. Yes, sample after sample are within one picosecond of the sample period (or even better is possible, with a super low jitter clock). But it simply cannot accurately resolve signal events with a temporal precision greater than the sample rate - approximately 23 microseconds (rounding to the nearest microsecond; 1/44100 is actually a transcendental number which can be represented to an arbitrary precision depending on the number of decimal places, which we don't care about here). So an event occurring at a given time can be resolved with certainty at best with a temporal resolution of roughly 23 microseconds. If you increase the sample rate to 192 kHz the temporal ACCURACY may be the same (at the same time coordinate, with the same picosecond or femtosecond accurate clock) but the temporal RESOLUTION is more than 4 times better - about 5 microseconds. (or to be precise, 5.2083333 microseconds with the 3 repeating on and on and on).

     

     

     

    By the way I understand the difficulty of posting via translation.

     

    The timing precision of CD is less than the sample rate in terms of time periods. Yes it is +/- 56 picoseconds. Yes it can precisely inform between samples when a waveform began as long as the waveform is below 20 khz.

     

    Now are you thinking of events that begin, and conclude in less than 23 microseconds? That would be missed, but would also by definition be above 22,050 khz. So I cannot agree with the idea the timing precision (temporal resolution) is the 23 microsecond time of sampling rate. I have shown graphs where the precision was better than that.

     

    Can you give an example of a signal condition which has no content above 20 khz, and yet is not resolved between samples at the sample rate of 44.1 khz?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ...

    It seems that temporal accuracy and temporal resolution are being confused here. Accuracy is a given, and for the sake of argument can be as high as one wishes - picoseconds, femtoseconds, etc.. When someone says a CD samples "accurately" to the picosecond level (that is, the sample clock is stable and has low jitter), that may be true, but that has nothing to do with the temporal resolution. The distinction between accuracy and precision / resolution is one of the prime topics emphasized early in college introductory physics and chemistry (or even grammar school advanced placement classes in the same subjects): the difference between accuracy and precision are critical in science and easily confused unless one has had experience or training in the subject.

    Easily confused, yes. That's why it is a common misconception. You are still making the same mistake in thinking that digital sampling resolution is limited to the time between samples.

    Take two balance scales that are, let's say, 100% accurate. One weighs to a precision (almost the same thing as resolution) of 1 gram, the other 10 grams. Put a 10 gram mass on both scales, they will both indicate 10 grams, with perfect accuracy. Place a 12 gram mass, the more *precise* of the two scales will indicate 12 grams. Remember both scales are 100 percent accurate - but you can't expect the second scale to resolve 12 grams, because it is below the measurement *precision* of the scale. The second scale will "accurately" report 10 grams for the 12 gram mass - within a resolution of +/- 5 grams. So, at best, you know that your measurement of the mass is 10 grams plus or minus 5 grams. A 16 gram mass would be measured as 16 grams on the first scale, 20 grams on the other, etc. The second scale is accurate, but only within the specified precision. On the other hand, a scale that is not "accurate" would have some discernible error in the measurement. For example, the scales report 11 and 20 grams in the first measurement - though the resolution is the same. For the optimum result, we need both good accuracy *and* precision.

     

    This is an unfortunate choice of analogy. It argues for accuracy / resolution in amplitude, not time, which is also an area where digital has a large superiority in resolution over vinyl.

    Now take the CD sampler accurate to 1 picosecond, given as an example. Yes, sample after sample are within one picosecond of the sample period (or even better is possible, with a super low jitter clock). But it simply cannot accurately resolve signal events with a temporal precision greater than the sample rate - approximately 23 microseconds (rounding to the nearest microsecond; 1/44100 is actually a transcendental number which can be represented to an arbitrary precision depending on the number of decimal places, which we don't care about here). So an event occurring at a given time can be resolved with certainty at best with a temporal resolution of roughly 23 microseconds. If you increase the sample rate to 192 kHz the temporal ACCURACY may be the same (at the same time coordinate, with the same picosecond or femtosecond accurate clock) but the temporal RESOLUTION is more than 4 times better - about 5 microseconds. (or to be precise, 5.2083333 microseconds with the 3 repeating on and on and on).

     

    Here you repeat your misunderstanding. You say that an event that occurs between sample times can only be captured to a time matching the closest sample time. This is incorrect. It is captured accurately, to the resolution defined by the equation in my earlier post. Your continued failure to understand how this can be so shows you lack the "training and experience on the subject" you talked of above. Have you watched the video I posted the link to? Starting from about 17:20 it shows, in real life, with a cheap DAC at 16/44.1, a transient being accurately sampled in time between sample times.

    ... There is absolutely no way that a signal sampled at a given sample rate to a digital waveform has the same temporal resolution as a signal sampled at higher sample rates. If it did, then all the research labs in the world (using high speed analog to digital converters for signal sampling and recording) could just go and throw away all of our expensive high speed digital sampling hardware. Same thing with our 100 GHz sampling oscilloscopes. Why waste all that money when a 100 MHz scope has putatively the same temporal resolution? Because it does not.

     

    Here you display a lack of understanding of digital oscillosopes and how they are used. The biggest difference is that they do not depend on being able to sample at twice the rate of the highest frequency being measured. It's quite common to use such a scope in an undersampled mode. But for our purposes (audio), we stick to the classic Shannon-Nyquist model.

    ... You can certainly calculate the sample position at arbitrary inter-sample time intervals,...

     

    Make up your mind. Either digital can resolve transients in between samples, or it can't.

     

    In the rest of your post, all you have done is make the case that 16/44.1 is marginal (but close enough for rock'n'roll), and that 24/96 is enough to capture everything that might possibly be significant. You have also completely avoided mentioning the other part of the equation, namely the amplitude accuracy - often referred to as the "dynamic range" or "signal to noise ratio", an area where vinyl fares much worse than digital.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Here is something with an impulse. First signal at the top is single sample pulse at 176.4 khz. The right channel is one sample off from the left. This is 1/4 sample at 44.1 khz.

     

    Next is the same signal at 44.1 khz. You see the same sample peaks in each channel. Yet the size of the peaks is different and the sample values around the peak in the right channel are different. This will cause the same waveform to be constructed in each channel, but one shifted in time for the right channel as that is what will fit the different sample values.

     

    Finally the 44.1 khz signal at 176.4 khz again. I did amplify this some 17 db as energy in the peak that was above the cutoff frequency was lost when done at 44 khz. While rounded due to bandwidth limiting you see the the peak value in the right channel is offset exactly one sample vs the left channel. Indicating it maintained the timing between these two impulsive signals. The rounding and loss of energy would have been experienced by your ears as they too are bandwidth limited to 20 khz or less.

     

    impulse 176 vs 44.png

     

    Sample values for the 44.1 khz file around the impulse.

     

    time shift impulse.txt 2 channels (stereo)

    Left channel then Right channel on same line.

    Sample Rate: 44100 Hz. Sample values on dB scale.

    Length processed: 14 samples 0.00032 seconds.

     

     

    -30.34363 -28.46066

    -29.90276 -26.91358

    -29.53629 -25.27739

    -29.23927 -23.42638

    -29.01110 -21.12436

    -28.84828 -17.79784

    -28.75200 -11.27666

    -2.02987 -2.86174

    -28.75200 -18.34301

    -28.84828 -25.48005

    -29.01110 -31.55778

    -29.23927 -38.49449

    -29.53629 -51.19107

    -29.90276 -49.25235

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...