Microtime - does this article help to explain why analogue might sound better??

noiseboy72

Couldn't think where this post fitted best, so here it is.

First, please grab a coffee and read the article. It's quite long, so get comfortable.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                How Science Got Sound Wrong                                                                                                        In this edition of Tech Turncoat Truths, William Softky asks whether analog LP records are more authentic than digitally compressed sound.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                www.fairobserver.com                                                                               
The author makes a strong case for micro-time and how it affects the brain - and the way we sense sound. Although I don't agree with everything in the article, I do think there's something in this. There's no doubt that digital technology opens up a vast array of competing services - which may be why our concentration spans seem to be getting smaller with every generation, but just maybe we are losing that attachment to what we see and hear on a neural level.

Thoughts and comments...

Numpty112233

Interesting read and I will go back to it more thoroughly when I have more time. Far more eloquent and knowledgeable than my own "Vinyl is dead..." post
(As an aside and not to derail this thread but the comment about theory versus experiment had me contemplating the cable differences argument)

Khankat

Many thanks for this. It really is most interesting.

oldcootstereo

Here is the level of research that we should be paying attention to.  Not saying I understand most of it, but the conclusions are quite potent for the audio industry.  Merely stating that our ears/brain/neurons don't process sensory inputs the same way as digital electronics does is not a substantive enough platform for the author's premise.  Our ears/brains don't handle audio inputs the same as analog electronics either, there is no continuous application/flow of voltage/current in our electro-chemical neurology.  There is some research that contends our ears act as rectifiers, only passing on "positive" waveforms.  But we can still hear reproduced sounds very well, even poorly executed ones.

Granted the below research runs afoul of the headphone issue that Softky points out, it is otherwise very rigorous.

In short, Chang et.al. demonstrate that humans can discern pitch changes more easily when presented in a rhythmic context vs. arhythmic. So listening to tones or music in an uncontrolled, ad hoc "test" to attempt to determine system micro-time performance may be a fool's errand.

Bottom line, research is just beginning to uncover the subtle intricacies of psychoacoustics. Is micro-time a major bugbear or simply another interesting phenomena that cannot be fully controlled in real life (like room reflections).

BlueWizard

Even if Analog has an ineffable “presence” It still has to be recorded on fragile magnetic tape. And it has to be played back of fragile Vinyl or somewhat fragile and compromised cassettes. Though I suppose purist could use reel-to-reel which uses better tape and has better sound quality, but still flawed.

Next clearly there are types of Digital Compression that are worse than others. MP3 throws data away to make the file smaller, and in the day of limited bandwidth and storage capacity that might have made some sense. Today, FLAC and similar are Bit Perfect when decompressed. Now some audiophile say they can hear a difference because of the de-compression time. I suspect most wouldn't notice it though.

But, and this is a pretty big but, storage today is dirt cheap. You don't even have to compress your files. Simply save them in WAV format, and rather than 5000 albums per terabyte you will only get 2500 albums. Assuming you actually have a collection extending up to 2500 ALBUMS.

For me the problem with music is not the format of analog vs digital, the problem is in the mixing, in the audio compression that is added to the music itself. Digital sound has the potential for MASSIVE Dynamic Range, which is promptly compressed out of the music. What good is that Dynamic Range if you don't use it? This is especially true in POP music that just drones along with no dynamics at all.

Just a few preliminary thoughts. As I browse the article more, I may have more comments.

But in my mind the Analog vs Digital is a pointless argument. PLAY WHAT YOU HAVE!

I'm old so I have vinyl consequently ... I play vinyl

I have a few CDs consequently ... I play a few CDs.

Occasionally I Stream music because it is convenient, and I just need background music.

Every format has it place in every system that wants it. If you don't want Vinyl, then ...simple... don't have Vinyl. But just because you don't want it, doesn't mean others don't. No need to bash others because of your preferences. If you do want Vinyl (or whatever) then have it, and to hell with what others think.

To me the issue is never the integrity of the Format, it is a question of the integrity of the Content.

Just a few thoughts in the moment.

Steve/bluewizard

oldcootstereo

Toole's "Circle of Confusion" strikes again...

Once your system/room is good enough to reveal the differences in recording/mixing/mastering technology and techniques (including compression) you are getting somewhere.  I think too many audio hobbyists get caught in chasing one "sound" from their system and miss the point that musicians/engineers deliberately (and often inadvertently) create very different sonic challenges for listeners and their home systems.  Digital source gets lumbered with being inherently "bad" when poorly engineered content is produced, often using less than excellent studio monitoring gear/rooms.

mushii

My problem with the Author’s theory is that the final output medium is assumed to be digital also, yet as good as speakers have got they are still an analogue device and with that they still have all of the ‘imperfections’ that an analogue speaker posses. The author assumes that speakers are so surgically precise they can convey the sampled digital slices without blending and blurring them together. Additionally he assumes that music is listened to in a vacuum with zero ambient noise. The human brain is continuously processing sound it does not only operate to listen to just one source of sound, it can happily process multiple sound sources and resolve them simultaneously. It is also deft at ‘filling the gaps’ where it recognises a lack of information, given the preceding data, it can happily extrapolate missing information and improvise it. Finally vinyl is not a pure medium it uses compression algorithms (RIAA Curve) to manage bass data. If it did not, the low frequency bass lines of drums in a single track would fill an entire album in seconds and it is highly unlikely the RIAA de-emphasis filter on your phono stage 100% matches the RIAA curve, so again data lost. Overall a brilliant discussion that I am sure will have the same polarity as Brexit.

dannnielll

The point about higher bandwidth and a 3 microsecond human resolution is interesting  . It is worth exploring, but the stuff about POTs Analogue FM  ,and Vinyl being capable of that resolution is bunkum..and he should know that. He has identified his credentials

noiseboy72

I think the point is that digital audio is snapshots - freeze frames of audio and analogue is infinite in terms of time domain.

The difficulty is finding any high quality source that has not been through a digital process at some point. Virtually all transmission streams - including analogue radio sources and distribution and all common recording formats are now digital and I doubt there's any new vinyl releases that won't be digitally re-mastered or processed at some point prior to release in analogue format.

You really need to be listening to albums from the 70s or mid 80s to get the full analogue experience - and you need to be listening on a true analogue amplifier as well. Pretty much all AVRs have digital processing somewhere along the line, even in "Pure Stereo" and similar modes, particularly if they use Class D/T/H amplification which is essentially a digital amplifier in any case.

This is not about pure and totally accurate audio rendition - as to a certain extent digital will always do this much better than analogue, but the fact that the brain can process analogue with more precision and extract more of the nuances from it due to the tiny changes that happen between samples and that our brain must now try to interpolate.

I guess it explains why 24/192KHz sounds better, as the snapshots have become so much smaller and less of the nuances are lost. The problem is how you measure this and quantify the differences.

Fidelity verses accuracy, now that's a debate!

oldcootstereo

Hadn't looked that the RIAA curve since my college days... had forgotten that this was a drawn-out attempt to get the recording industry to standardize shellac and vinyl, lateral/vertical groove equalization curves. RCA eventually won the pi**ing match that time, but it took many decades.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                RIAA equalization - Wikipedia                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        en.wikipedia.org                                                                               
Why do the industry players never learn, the public will NEVER care which standard is slightly "better" technically, it is ease of use and accessibility/cost that wins the day. But at great cost to the "losing" manufacturers and the public that bought into those products.  Instead of playing "beggar thy neighbour", how about settling on a reasonable compromise for an emerging technology and give the market a break. A few prominent examples:
Phillips compact cassettes vs. 8-track vs. RCA tape cartridge vs. Sony Elcaset
U-matic vs VHS vs Beta
RCA Videodisc vs. CD/DVD vs Blue Ray

At least with digital music there is the potential for at least some equalization of the most glaring deficiencies (volume level, too much/little bass or mids or highs).  iTunes has a rudimentary EQ that can be applied to individual songs or albums, but it is a time consuming manual process.  Apple also does the "mastered for iTunes" thing, and it is reasonable for such purchases... until you play a CD you loaded into your local iTunes Library or all those ancient Napster/Limewire downloads.

But how to deal with micro-timing (assuming it is a major problem) is another kettle of fish loaded with many cans of worms.