High Def Beach Boys Downloads

[wilojarston]

Not sure if there's another thread around here for this topic, but I don't see one.  There are incredible-sounding high def versions of almost all the Boys' albums available now on sites like HDTracks, Ponomusic and Prostudiomasters.  Within the next few weeks they'll all be available.  I can't believe how amazing some of these sound, especially Sunflower.  Check 'em out!

[silodweller]

Hi-Def?  Nah, no thanks. 

*Ah, sorry for the lack of enthusiasm but these re-releases just become thinner and thinner sounding to me*

[wilojarston]

Really???  If you're open to the possibility some of these high def remasters might actually sound great, take a few minutes to go to one of the sites I've mentioned (or acousticsounds.com as well) and listen to the samples of Sunflower.  You don't need to listen through an expensive system to hear the difference.  Maybe you'll decide you like what you hear and will enjoy hearing these albums in a way you've never heard them before, as many others are doing.  We're not just drinking the Kool Aid...

[Alan Smith]

If your grabbing High Def files, I would take care re HD Tracks for any of the albums that have been or are planned to be reissued under the current Analogue Productions program.

Anything on the street at the moment that hasn't yet been made available on the A/P site (ie, Sunflower/Surf's Up/Holland) may not be the Kevin Gray remastered items (if that's what you're chasing - and you should be, they're freakin' great).  Take care to make sure you read who is responsible for the mastering.

And remember, the definitive Sunflower listening experiences are on Stephen D's study vid's site!

[wilojarston]

Hi Alan and thanks for sharing your thoughts about these vs. the AP releases.  I have a few of the AP SACDs and think they sound very good, although not necessarily better then the high def flac files I've purchased of the same titles.  I know some folks are loyal to certain engineers, but what I've been getting at HDTracks and other online stores has been mostly top-rate, regardless of who's getting credit for the mastering.

[Alan Smith]

And thanks for sharing yours re the quality of the high def files, wilojarston!

Yes, the cult of mastering engineer can get in the way of the core thing that unites us all, which is of course, the music. 

I think there will always be a tendency to refer to the A/P reissues as the "Kevin Gray's" as the have the current novelty of coming from original analogue sources (except where they're from digital  ).
 
What are your thoughts on the other albums aside from Sunflower? 

Additionally, I haven't ventured much into streaming land for a couple of reasons (including inner-house geography) - how are you playing back (media player, or PC/laptop/device into a DAC)?  I've been rolling my own DVD-As using lplex where the bit rate is supported - cheers - A

[Stephen W. Desper]

Not sure if there's another thread around here for this topic, but I don't see one.  There are incredible-sounding high def versions of almost all the Boys' albums available now on sites like HDTracks, Ponomusic and Prostudiomasters.  Within the next few weeks they'll all be available.  I can't believe how amazing some of these sound, especially Sunflower.  Check 'em out!

COMMENT:

I just don't understand how fans, such as yourself, would rather listen to Sunflower mastered by someone who was a child when Carl Wilson was mastering the album and has no clue concerning the final adjustments that were performed in 1970. Why buy an HD track with a dynamic range of 120dB when the album only requires 30 dB of dynamic range, far exceeded by a standard CD. Why listen to digital in the first place?

If you wish to be true to the original production, buy the original production, including the correct mastering by Carl Wilson -- available on any Artisan Record. That would be analog. That would be the complete waveform, not one made up of samples with a computer filling in the blanks, no matter how highly defined.

I can't provide you with a true analog playback, but I can get you as close as is possible to hearing what Carl and I heard in the mastering sessions for this album. That would include resolution of all the microphone arrays, something about which none of the current "new" offerings have any clue.  Make your own copy of the properly mastered album, or at least listen by visiting >>> http://swdstudyvideos.com.

I can offer no more. ~swd

[wilojarston]

Hi Stephen and thank you for taking the time to follow this thread and to respond, you are the best possible person to be a part of this thread!  I will follow the link you've provided here and look forward to exploring all you're sharing with the community.

Keeping the conversation in the digital domain for another post, if I may, I wanted to ask a couple more questions.  After comparing this newest digital remastering of Sunflower with previous digital releases I'm hearing details that I've never heard before within these recordings, and they're not all attributable to EQ or dynamic range.  Is it possible this is the first time the first-generation tapes have been used for a digital transfer of this title?  If not, what else might you attribute the upgraded sound to?  The $1,000,000 question for me is how close this version sounds to what you were hearing when mastering the album originally in analog...

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts here, so much appreciated.

Rob

COMMENT:

I just don't understand how fans, such as yourself, would rather listen to Sunflower mastered by someone who was a child when Carl Wilson was mastering the album and has no clue concerning the final adjustments that were performed in 1970. Why buy an HD track with a dynamic range of 120dB when the album only requires 30 dB of dynamic range, far exceeded by a standard CD. Why listen to digital in the first place?

If you wish to be true to the original production, buy the original production, including the correct mastering by Carl Wilson -- available on any Artisan Record. That would be analog. That would be the complete waveform, not one made up of samples with a computer filling in the blanks, no matter how highly defined.

I can't provide you with a true analog playback, but I can get you as close as is possible to hearing what Carl and I heard in the mastering sessions for this album. That would include resolution of all the microphone arrays, something about which none of the current "new" offerings have any clue.  Make your own copy of the properly mastered album, or at least listen by visiting >>> http://swdstudyvideos.com.

I can offer no more. ~swd
[/quote]

[ForHerCryingSoul]

Here is an intriguing question: do Vimeo videos upload in a lossless audio format?

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[Stephen W. Desper]

Hi Stephen and thank you for taking the time to follow this thread and to respond, you are the best possible person to be a part of this thread!  I will follow the link you've provided here and look forward to exploring all you're sharing with the community.

Keeping the conversation in the digital domain for another post, if I may, I wanted to ask a couple more questions.  After comparing this newest digital remastering of Sunflower with previous digital releases I'm hearing details that I've never heard before within these recordings, and they're not all attributable to EQ or dynamic range.  Is it possible this is the first time the first-generation tapes have been used for a digital transfer of this title?  If not, what else might you attribute the upgraded sound to?  The $1,000,000 question for me is how close this version sounds to what you were hearing when mastering the album originally in analog...

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts here, so much appreciated.

Rob

COMMENT:

For answers to your questions, I would refer you to my website (http://swdstudyvideos.com). When there, read the book Recording The Beach Boys in which the first part is about Sunflower. If you go through and listen to the entire thing I think you will come away with a greater perspective.

If you can connect the audio of your computer to your stereo system and follow my directions in the study-video, you will be sonically rewarded.

Go to the website, and then take it from there.  ~swd

[lukpac]

If you wish to be true to the original production, buy the original production, including the correct mastering by Carl Wilson -- available on any Artisan Record. That would be analog. That would be the complete waveform, not one made up of samples with a computer filling in the blanks, no matter how highly defined.

Digital audio produces a complete waveform, just like analog audio. There are no "blanks" to be filled in. Given a noise floor and a bandwidth limitation, the original audio can be reproduced exactly. While there are issues such as jitter that prevent a "perfect" reproduction, the same is true of analog systems, it's just that the issues are different.

The idea that digital audio "fills in the blanks" and isn't a "complete waveform" is completely false.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep07/articles/digitalmyths.htm

[Stephen W. Desper]

If you wish to be true to the original production, buy the original production, including the correct mastering by Carl Wilson -- available on any Artisan Record. That would be analog. That would be the complete waveform, not one made up of samples with a computer filling in the blanks, no matter how highly defined.

Digital audio produces a complete waveform, just like analog audio. There are no "blanks" to be filled in. Given a noise floor and a bandwidth limitation, the original audio can be reproduced exactly. While there are issues such as jitter that prevent a "perfect" reproduction, the same is true of analog systems, it's just that the issues are different.

The idea that digital audio "fills in the blanks" and isn't a "complete waveform" is completely false. 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep07/articles/digitalmyths.htm

COMMENT:

Thank you for the enlightenment of digital accuracy as pointed out in the 8-year old article by my friends at SOS. I’ve been written about and quoted by that magazine in the past, and find them very professional.

However, all the article did was elaborate on what I said, that analog is the complete waveform and digital is made up of samples with the computer filling in the blanks.  And of course the article points this out, as that is what digital does, and is.

I get a kick out of these “scientific” breakdowns of the digital technique which try to prove there authenticity with lots of numbers and formulas, forgetting that we don’t listen to numbers and formulas.

I would be surprised if you, Mr. Lukpac, have ever heard an analog source reproduced over a reasonably good analog sound system. I would also speculate that you have never heard an analog recording of the Beach Boys reproduced over any reasonably good analog sound system. Only speculation. Maybe you have.
 
Let’s consider a few points together.

Point One) Reality is analog not digital.

Point Two) Analog sound is the STANDARD against which digital sound is measured for accuracy.

Point Three) The human ear/brain mechanism is the final judge.

Point Four) The Analog Vinyl LP is the fastest growing mass distribution system today.

Point Five) Sales of turntables and analog phono pickups exceeds worldwide sales of digital CD players.

Point Six) World Class Recording Studios are World Class because they enable analog multi-track recording and mixdown facilities.

DETAILS:

Point One) Reality is analog not digital. There is no doubt that digital is accurate, since it deals in only two absolutes – on & off. But this makes a problem when dealing with something that is continuously variable. Digital only knows on or off. So it must examine or sample enough instant points of amplitude/time to represent a continuous flow of amplitude/time. However, an algorithm must extract the position of amplitude/time between each instant sample. This is where waveform details become inaccurate as various extrapolation schemes and approaches try to fill in the gaps. Most of the inaccuracies are in the upper frequencies. This is due to the samples being too far apart to capture all the tiny variations that are happening in-between samples.

It may not seem like much, but the ear can hear it, if – an important if – the listener is listening over a quality, first class sound system in a quiet room.

If you scale it down, and look at two watches; analog, digital. The second hand of the analog watch sweeps past each second in one connected, flowing motion. The digital watch advances from second to second with one quick move. The start of each second is accurate to within .0001 of a second. But we are blind to know anything about what is going on until the next second. The analog watch indicates the time as far down as you wish to split a second.
 
Viewed from another point of view, what if you were taken from the continuous analog reality you enjoy now, and placed in a digital reality where you would get a highly accurate view of actuality once per second. Your reality would appear as a jerky series of conceptions. After a time you might get use to it so that you could move around and function. But if you stepped off a curb into what you saw as a clear street, within that missing one second, your life could end after a car, unknown to you, turns the corner just as you step off. Scale this up to music frequencies and you have missing Sonics.
 
Point Two) Analog sound is the STANDARD against which digital sound is measured for accuracy. I once heard a demonstration in which an analog and a digital copy were each made from an original source. Next the copy was electronically subtracted from the original. The result, of course, is what is missing during the duplication. The analog was virtually silent. The digital had a sheen or peaked high-frequency noise that resembled the music. It revealed the veil that is introduced by digital. A powerful demonstration.

Point Three) The human ear/brain mechanism is the final judge. Separated from any esthetic preferences, the human ear/brain mechanism has an analog resolution that far surpasses the best digital resolution by a factor of 1000. It is capable of detecting pressure variations of less than one billionth of atmospheric pressure. The threshold of hearing corresponds to air vibrations on the order of a tenth of an atomic diameter. This incredible sensitivity is enhanced by an effective amplification of the sound signal by the outer and middle ear structures. This is what dynamic range is all about. As HD digital gets closer to the dynamic range of analog, it sounds better. By dynamic range, I’m speaking of micro-dynamic range, not overall dynamic range. Micro-dynamics lay between the samples. Micro-dynamics are what the computer algorithm seeks to recreate by guess. It’s an intelligent guess, but it is not reality. The reality between sample points is only revealed by the analog signal. The truth is in the details. The human ear can hear the details if the resolution of the playback system is good enough.

Point Four) The Analog Vinyl LP is the fastest growing mass distribution system today.  That is to say, the vinyl’s rate of increase is greater than any CD, DVD, or streaming sales, not the overall sales. But it does stress that people who can afford to have a good stereo system soon find that the easiest way to realize a realistic and enjoyable listening experience is by using an analog source such as the vinyl.

Point Five) Sales of turntables and analog phono pickups exceeds worldwide sales of digital CD players. CD’s are fast being replaced by streaming. I believe streaming sales now outpace all other distribution schemes. So, CD players are hard to find. Most of the good ones are available along with turntables and phono pickups from the same distributors who specialize in high-quality source equipment.

Point Six) World Class Recording Studios are World Class because they enable analog multi-track recording and mixdown facilities. Look in the control room of any top studio and you will find a 24-track analog 2” machine. Why? Because they are used. Listening over a professional monitoring system, analog is more musical, less plastic sounding. Analog is preferred.

PERSONAL NOTE:

I have been a professional recording engineer since the days of mono. I watched mono beget stereo beget quadraphonic beget surround sound beget Atmos. Full-track beget 4-track beget 8-track beget 16-track beget 24-track beget 48-track. Stereo Tape beget Stereo LP beget Compact Cassette beget CD beget DVD beget Blu-ray beget 4-K streaming beget 8-k streaming. (always wanted to use that word) And I’m certain it will further evolve – maybe direct-to-brain. I’ve been involved in many analog-digital comparison sessions – some double blind. All were conducted using an excellent high-end system in a quiet room. When I owned Spatializer Audio Laboratories, we did many such analog-digital comparisons under strict scientific requirements, because we were designing and building equipment for recording studios and well as the consumer.  For the most part, our listeners would say that analog is more musical and natural sounding then the digital. The very top-end is sweeter and more listen-able. This has been my listening experience as well. Digital becomes harder to listen to over time. With analog, there is no fatigue. I live with three very good two-channel systems. All are tuned flat and true. One is in an acoustic designed home theater. I listen about 40% digital and 60% analog. There is room for both in my life, but in absolute terms analog is king to my ears.

I hate to bring in esoteric reasoning, but I do believe the way in which each technology stores its information about the music has much to do with the way we react to the final recreation. Analog stores by way of energy, whereas digital stores by way of information.

When a Beach Boy’s vocal cords vibrate, a microphone diaphragm is set into corresponding motion to produce an electrical signal representing the acoustic waveform the vocal cord creates. In analog recording, the actual energy produced by those vibrating vocal cords is reduced and stored. In playback the analog signal is enlarged enough to move a speaker cone, again corresponding to the acoustic waveform. Thus in analog, a Beach Boy originally produced what you hear.

In digital recording, the electrical energy is probed and analyzed by a computer program to extract information representing the waveform and is stored. In playback the information is used by a computer to reconstruct a representation of the acoustic waveform, which is enlarged enough to move the speaker cone. Thus in digital, a computer produces what you hear. The computer mimics the Beach Boy’s vibrating vocal cords, but it is not energy produced by a Beach Boy that we hear as in analog, what we hear in digital is a computer, completely independent and severed from any Beach Boy’s larynx.

I sometimes wonder (and here’s where it becomes esoteric) if there is something more that is also captured and rides along with the energy to be sensed in playback. Is this “something” missing when the computer eliminates the original energy and substitutes its own? Is a connection secured between the artist and the listener by way of hearing the actual energy of those vocal cords? . . . and is this connection severed by digital?

I would say that I have heard more Beach Boy singing than anyone on the planet at this time. I have heard them up close, in concert, in recording, for years and years. When the group is gathered around a microphone in the studio, it is heard over the monitors without any storage system. It is pure analog. Eventually this is recorded, either using analog or digital. This is when you get to hear the best comparisons of the two technologies. Directly comparing the storage technologies to the live sound signal over quality loudspeakers in an acoustically balanced room. I’ve had this privilege for years. I can tell you with all the experience behind me that analog gives a more musical and satisfying or natural playback of Beach Boy vocal cords than digital. It’s fuller, has more small details that gives the harmonic blends a greater realism.

Despite the fact that digital measures better than analog, including distortion components, most engineers would rather listen to analog. Recent research is showing that the human ear actually likes hearing even-order harmonic distortion components with music. It translates into a more musical sound when the distortion is present. This may be the reason some audiophiles are willing to pay $10,000 for a five-watt tube amplifier with 3% harmonic distortion over a solid-state version that produces 250-watts with .003% distortion – and believe it sounds better, is more open, fluid and non-fatiguing AND is willing to back up this experience with some big bucks – not just lip-service!

In today’s world there is certainly a need for what digital can do. For the general listener, digital offers more for less, up to a point. But beyond that point the preferences seem to peak and then go back the other way, toward energy storage technologies versus information storage schemes, especially when high resolution reproductive sound systems are used for the playback. Systems that make what happens in-between the points of the samples hearable, and not just extrapolated or guessed about. Analog lets you hear a Stradivarius, not just a violin; a Zildjian, not just a cymbal, and makes plain the differences between a Martin and a Gibson. Analog brings musicality to Beach Boy harmonies versus a computer-generated facsimile.

Many sample points are good, but continuous is best. This is why I said that if you want to hear the original, listen to the original, and not some computer algorithm filling in the blanks.

With Good Listening, ~Stephen W. Desper

[bgas]

MAN!!!   
I just LOVE when we get a post by someone that really knows their sh*t, explaining it all in minute detail. 

Thanks Stephen!! 
OH! Wish I had heard even a small part of your "fly on the wall" BBs sessions...

[lukpac]

Thank you for the enlightenment of digital accuracy as pointed out in the 8-year old article by my friends at SOS.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

However, all the article did was elaborate on what I said, that analog is the complete waveform and digital is made up of samples with the computer filling in the blanks.

No, it did not. That is an entirely incorrect description of how digital audio works, and also what is written in the article. There are no "blanks" to be "filled in". From the article:

"Let's be clear. When the samples in a digital signal are converted back into an analogue signal, they pass through a device called a reconstruction filter. This is the process that makes the Sampling Theorem work in the real world. If there are enough samples and they are of sufficient resolution, the signal that emerges is not only smooth but virtually identical to the analogue signal from which the samples were originally derived. Of course, it's possible to design a poor reconstruction filter that introduces unwanted changes and artifacts but, again, this is an engineering consideration, not a deficiency in the concept itself."

The entire point of the sampling theorem is that given a bandwidth limited system, and given a sufficient sampling frequency (at least double that of the highest frequency of the system), a finite series of samples can reconstruct a waveform with complete accuracy. There's no "guessing" involved.

I get a kick out of these “scientific” breakdowns of the digital technique which try to prove there authenticity with lots of numbers and formulas, forgetting that we don’t listen to numbers and formulas.

The concept of digital sampling is based on numbers and formulas, so it helps to understand what those numbers and formulas are when discussing it. Without understanding those, one can't speak with any authority on the issue.

Point One) Reality is analog not digital. There is no doubt that digital is accurate, since it deals in only two absolutes – on & off. But this makes a problem when dealing with something that is continuously variable. Digital only knows on or off. So it must examine or sample enough instant points of amplitude/time to represent a continuous flow of amplitude/time. However, an algorithm must extract the position of amplitude/time between each instant sample. This is where waveform details become inaccurate as various extrapolation schemes and approaches try to fill in the gaps. Most of the inaccuracies are in the upper frequencies. This is due to the samples being too far apart to capture all the tiny variations that are happening in-between samples.

Entirely incorrect. Please see above.

When a Beach Boy’s vocal cords vibrate, a microphone diaphragm is set into corresponding motion to produce an electrical signal representing the acoustic waveform the vocal cord creates. In analog recording, the actual energy produced by those vibrating vocal cords is reduced and stored. In playback the analog signal is enlarged enough to move a speaker cone, again corresponding to the acoustic waveform. Thus in analog, a Beach Boy originally produced what you hear.

It may be worth pointing out at this point that Edison cylinders are analog systems. One can go on about "actual energy" until the cows come home, but no sane person would argue that an Edison cylinder is an accurate representation of the original audio, and certainly not more accurate than a CD or even an MP3.

That is to say, the fact that something is analog does not necessarily make it any more accurate than something digital. Often the opposite is true.

Many sample points are good, but continuous is best. This is why I said that if you want to hear the original, listen to the original, and not some computer algorithm filling in the blanks.

Which is why we should all be thankful that there are no "blanks" to be "filled in" with digital audio.

MAN!!!  
I just LOVE when we get a post by someone that really knows their sh*t, explaining it all in minute detail.

You're welcome. Glad I could be of assistance to you.

[Stephen W. Desper]

COMMENT:  For me to say more is just beating a dead horse. When you start from the premise that reality, that is actuality, is not Analog -- I can make no statement that will make sense to you. What is reality then; sugar cookies and brightly wrapped atoms?

Just because some article in a magazine says there is no difference between analog waveforms and digital waveforms, does not make it so. Buy the real point is that if there are no differences, what the hell are all manner of professional and amateur listeners hearing. Is the difference just so much flubbydust?

Go listen in analog for a few months. Then re-visit all these arguments after the empirical evidence has set into your memories. You might change your mind.

~swd

[lukpac]

COMMENT:  For me to say more is just beating a dead horse. When you start from the premise that reality, that is actuality, is not Analog -- I can make no statement that will make sense to you. What is reality then; sugar cookies and brightly wrapped atoms?

Just because some article in a magazine says there is no difference between analog waveforms and digital waveforms, does not make it so. Buy the real point is that if there are no differences, what the hell are all manner of professional and amateur listeners hearing. Is the difference just so much flubbydust?

Go listen in analog for a few months. Then re-visit all these arguments after the empirical evidence has set into your memories. You might change your mind.

Nobody has claimed that "reality, that is actuality, is not Analog", so there's no point in starting there.

I currently own two turntables, multiple cartridges and styli, and hundreds of LPs and 45s. I also own a cassette deck and two open reel decks. I've used countless other analog reproducers over the years. To imply that I am unfamiliar with analog reproduction would be grossly incorrect.

But that's entirely irrelevant. The point is that the premises that digital audio is comprised of "gaps" that are "filled in", and that analog reproduction is inherently more accurate than digital reproduction are completely bogus. Some analog systems can be more accurate than some digital systems, just as some digital systems can be more accurate than some analog systems. To suggest otherwise indicates either a gross misunderstanding of the technologies in play, or outright deception/lying.

Can some analog systems sound better than some digital systems? Definitely. Better specifications, better implementation, etc. And regardless of the technicalities, mastering choices can sometimes make recordings that are less accurate more pleasing to the human ear. But that door swings both ways: just as analog can be better (or "better", depending on the situation) sometimes, so can digital.

Also, three words: inner groove distortion.

[Stephen W. Desper]

COMMENT:

Did I read this wrong? 

Point One) Reality is analog not digital.

Entirely incorrect. Please see above.

[lukpac]

Did I read this wrong?

It's nice to see that you agree with all of my other statements.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Did I read this wrong?

It's nice to see that you agree with all of my other statements.

COMMENT:  Having trouble with the posting. It did not post my entire entry. Here it is (hopefully). I'm an analog engineer, you know.

COMMENT:

Did I read this wrong?  

          I ask . . . Point One) Reality is analog not digital.

          You replied . . .  Entirely incorrect. Please see above.

I'm very happy to hear that you are into LP listening. But given that background you should have empirical evidence to support my sentiments. If not, try using an audiophile grade of headphones for comparisons.

Yes, it does take a good reproduction system to hear some differences, but this is not about reproduction systems, it's about storage mediums.

Perhaps I've not stated it clearly, but I'm not saying that there is no signal between sampling points, only that  the spaces between the sample points are extrapolated (that's the job of a reconstruction filter) to move forward, based on past movements. Most extrapolations follow analog reality, but some miss the mark and do not. The ear is very sensitive and can hear these differences, if provided to them. Yes, you do need a good sound system.

Both technologies provide a complete waveform. But the analog waveform is a total copy of the waveform, in contrast to the stepped copy of the digital representation. Analog is analog. Digital is never analog. Interestingly, it is almost impossible for analog to be digital.

Of course both analog and digital have their respectable places in today's world. I said I was 40/60 percent in my listening. My rule is this:

If the original recording was analog -- listen using an analog source. If digital, use a digital source. It is the conversion from one to the other where problems occur. But on the other hand, if you do listen to a digital source, it must always be converted to analog before you can hear it. Otherwise it sounds like an old telephone-sent fax. Therefore, analog has the advantage of never being sliced and diced as does the digital. This makes an analog source reproduced in analog truer to the original than if the same analog source is stored in digital and then reproduced in analog. Until we can hear digital signals (bits) I'm afraid there is always to be some type of extrapolation going on and influencing the fidelity with digital reproduction. ~swd


 

[lukpac]

Perhaps I've not stated it clearly, but I'm not saying that there is no signal between sampling points, only that  the spaces between the sample points are extrapolated (that's the job of a reconstruction filter) to move forward, based on past movements. Most extrapolations follow analog reality, but some miss the mark and do not. The ear is very sensitive and can hear these differences, if provided to them. Yes, you do need a good sound system.

No, they are *not* extrapolated. There's no "guessing". This is a fundamental misunderstanding of digital audio. And this is where you continue to get it wrong. The *only* information "lost" is that above highest frequency for the system. For CDs, that's 22.05kHz. For the downloads referenced in this thread, that's 96kHz. There's no "guessing" for sound below those frequencies.

Both technologies provide a complete waveform. But the analog waveform is a total copy of the waveform, in contrast to the stepped copy of the digital representation. Analog is analog. Digital is never analog. Interestingly, it is almost impossible for analog to be digital.

Your first comment is correct. Your subsequent comments contradict that and are incorrect. Digital is not a "stepped copy", nor is it correct to say that "digital is never analog". The output of a digital system most definitely is analog. And an analog waveform is not "a total copy of the waveform". If it was, you could make an infinite number of analog copies with no change to the sound. Can you do that? Is an LP indistinguishable from the master tape? Is a cassette indistinguishable from the master tape? Of course not. But...those are all analog, are they not?

The fact that a particular system is analog does not speak to that system's accuracy.

If the original recording was analog -- listen using an analog source. If digital, use a digital source. It is the conversion from one to the other where problems occur. But on the other hand, if you do listen to a digital source, it must always be converted to analog before you can hear it. Otherwise it sounds like an old telephone-sent fax. Therefore, analog has the advantage of never being sliced and diced as does the digital. This makes an analog source reproduced in analog truer to the original than if the same analog source is stored in digital and then reproduced in analog. Until we can hear digital signals (bits) I'm afraid there is always to be some type of extrapolation going on and influencing the fidelity with digital reproduction. [/size]

Again, your comment about extrapolation is entirely incorrect.

And as I've already stated, claiming that something is necessarily better because it is analog is completely absurd. Sounds like an old telephone-sent fax? I'm not sure what faxes sound like, but what would you say sounds more like that? An analog Edison cylinder, or a digital CD? Which is more true to life? Which is a more accurate representation of the original source?

[Stephen W. Desper]

Perhaps I've not stated it clearly, but I'm not saying that there is no signal between sampling points, only that  the spaces between the sample points are extrapolated (that's the job of a reconstruction filter) to move forward, based on past movements. Most extrapolations follow analog reality, but some miss the mark and do not. The ear is very sensitive and can hear these differences, if provided to them. Yes, you do need a good sound system.

No, they are *not* extrapolated. There's no "guessing". This is a fundamental misunderstanding of digital audio. And this is where you continue to get it wrong. The *only* information "lost" is that above highest frequency for the system. For CDs, that's 22.05kHz. For the downloads referenced in this thread, that's 96kHz. There's no "guessing" for sound below those frequencies.

Please refer to this A.E.S. paper "A Method for Extrapolation of Missing Digital Audio Data."  It will give you insight into this subject.   >>>>  http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rmaher/publications/maher_aes_1093_3715.pdf

Both technologies provide a complete waveform. But the analog waveform is a total copy of the waveform, in contrast to the stepped copy of the digital representation. Analog is analog. Digital is never analog. Interestingly, it is almost impossible for analog to be digital.

Your first comment is correct. Your subsequent comments contradict that and are incorrect. Digital is not a "stepped copy", nor is it correct to say that "digital is never analog". The output of a digital system most definitely is analog.

Wait a minute!  You did not really mean to say that "digital is analog," did you?  If that's the case, there is no difference. -- end of discussion.

 Please tell me if you see the stepped representation of the analog waveform in this link. >>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/digit.html. The stepping is on the input side of a digital converter, not the output. The output of a digital system is smoothed because of the action of the extrapolation topology. It can be accurate or not, depending on many variables.

And an analog waveform is not "a total copy of the waveform". If it was, you could make an infinite number of analog copies with no change to the sound.  Can you do that? Is an LP indistinguishable from the master tape? Is a cassette indistinguishable from the master tape? Of course not. But...those are all analog, are they not?

I think we are discussing theoretical differences in practical terms. Yes the analog does deteriorate when copied. But so does the digital, otherwise there would be no need for error-correcting-circuits. Copy digital over and over and it too will deteriorate. To make my point, DNA is a digital framework that defines our physical being. The body cells are replicated every day. That is, DNA copies itself over and over. Aging is the name we give to the results of DNA failing to exactly copy itself. Errors creep in.  Without error-correction-circuits a digital copy would never work.

The fact that a particular system is analog does not speak to that system's accuracy.
Again, we are not discussing systems. We are discussing methods. it's not about one system versus another, this discussion is about whether digital represents analog with fidelity or not. I say I would rather listen to analog if it is the original source. Conversion from analog to digital always introduces a loss of fidelity. Making a copy of an analog source to an analog source is a more accurate copy, since it does not discard part of the waveform. It may add some noise (which is usually below the lowest musical dynamic) and some distortion, but this is musical in nature and not a deviation from a mathematical formula. 

If the original recording was analog -- listen using an analog source. If digital, use a digital source. It is the conversion from one to the other where problems occur. But on the other hand, if you do listen to a digital source, it must always be converted to analog before you can hear it. Otherwise it sounds like an old telephone-sent fax. Therefore, analog has the advantage of never being sliced and diced as does the digital. This makes an analog source reproduced in analog truer to the original than if the same analog source is stored in digital and then reproduced in analog. Until we can hear digital signals (bits) I'm afraid there is always to be some type of extrapolation going on and influencing the fidelity with digital reproduction. [/size]

Again, your comment about extrapolation is entirely incorrect. I have designed and built digital to analog converters. Without extrapolation digital would sound like crap.
Extrapolation is real and an integral and essential part of the digital interface with analog.

And as I've already stated, claiming that something is necessarily better because it is analog is completely absurd. Sounds like an old telephone-sent fax? I'm not sure what faxes sound like, but what would you say sounds more like that? An analog Edison cylinder, or a digital CD? Which is more true to life? Which is a more accurate representation of the original source?

If you make a digital CD copy of an Edison cylinder (I have three in my collection) it will be inferior to the Edison cylinder. If you make an analog tape copy of an Edison cylinder, it will contain a more accurate representation of the cylinder than will a digital copy.

I also have a large collection of 78 records. Why would anyone want to listen to those old scratchy and range-limited antiques of fidelity?  Have you ever listened to an acoustic 78 RPM record over an acoustic horn player?  It is an amazing experience.  I could give a flyingfuck about the fidelity or lack thereof. What you experience is a direct -- DIRECT -- connection with the players. What they do with their instruments or voice is what is making the sound in your living room. There is nothing in-between. Talk about being connected !!  Wow! ((Did you know you can still buy 78's of Good Vibrations? In mono, of course.)) It is impossible to recreate the direct acoustic connection between artist and listener that one can experience with an acoustic player and an acoustic source. Once you introduce any modern storage medium, it never is the same. ~swd

[GetHappy!!]

Good luck Luke. Maybe you should mention those "Good Vibrations" 78s were cut from a hi-res digital file. Not saying you have to, but you could.

[GetHappy!!]

In the interest of fairness, I should say I respect Mr. Desper's work immensely. It's just the flowery terms used to describe analog playback are a bit much.

[lukpac]

Please refer to this A.E.S. paper "A Method for Extrapolation of Missing Digital Audio Data."  It will give you insight into this subject.   >>>>  http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rmaher/publications/maher_aes_1093_3715.pdf

That subject has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Per the introduction, it is specifically about "missing or corrupted data". That is, when there is damage to the digital stream.

Wait a minute!  You did not really mean to say that "digital is analog," did you?  If that's the case, there is no difference. -- end of discussion.

I said the output of a digital system is analog. Which it most certainly is.

Please tell me if you see the stepped representation of the analog waveform in this link. >>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/digit.html. The stepping is on the input side of a digital converter, not the output. The output of a digital system is smoothed because of the action of the extrapolation topology. It can be accurate or not, depending on many variables. [/size]

Incorrect. The "stair step" graphics are not an accurate representation of what digital audio is. This does a good job going over how that representation is wrong:

https://wiki.xiph.org/Videos/Digital_Show_and_Tell#Stairsteps

"A stairstep is a continuous-time function. It's jagged, and it's piecewise, but it has a defined value at every point in time. A sampled signal is entirely different. It's discrete-time; it's only got a value right at each instantaneous sample point and it's undefined, there is no value at all, everywhere between. A discrete-time signal is properly drawn as a lollipop graph. The continuous, analog counterpart of a digital signal passes smoothly through each sample point, and that's just as true for high frequencies as it is for low.

The interesting and non-obvious bit is that there's only one bandlimited signal that passes exactly through each sample point; it's a unique solution. If you sample a bandlimited signal and then convert it back, the original input is also the only possible output. A signal that differs even minutely from the original includes frequency content at or beyond Nyquist, breaks the bandlimiting requirement and isn't a valid solution."

I think we are discussing theoretical differences in practical terms. Yes the analog does deteriorate when copied. But so does the digital, otherwise there would be no need for error-correcting-circuits. Copy digital over and over and it too will deteriorate. To make my point, DNA is a digital framework that defines our physical being. The body cells are replicated every day. That is, DNA copies itself over and over. Aging is the name we give to the results of DNA failing to exactly copy itself. Errors creep in.  Without error-correction-circuits a digital copy would never work.

First of all, no, copying digital over and over will not make it deteriorate. You can make a 1,000th generation copy that is identical to the original. That is, unless the system is broken.

Again, we are not discussing systems. We are discussing methods. it's not about one system versus another, this discussion is about whether digital represents analog with fidelity or not. I say I would rather listen to analog if it is the original source. Conversion from analog to digital always introduces a loss of fidelity. Making a copy of an analog source to an analog source is a more accurate copy, since it does not discard part of the waveform. It may add some noise (which is usually below the lowest musical dynamic) and some distortion, but this is musical in nature and not a deviation from a mathematical formula. 

Again, incorrect. Making an analog copy *does* effectively "discard part of the waveform". That noise and distortion you mention is exactly that.

If you make a digital CD copy of an Edison cylinder (I have three in my collection) it will be inferior to the Edison cylinder. If you make an analog tape copy of an Edison cylinder, it will contain a more accurate representation of the cylinder than will a digital copy.

If you copy an Edison cylinder to another Edison cylinder, that's an entirely analog process. But clearly not more accurate than making a digital copy with sufficient resolution (i.e., CD quality).

I also have a large collection of 78 records. Why would anyone want to listen to those old scratchy and range-limited antiques of fidelity?  Have you ever listened to an acoustic 78 RPM record over an acoustic horn player?  It is an amazing experience.  I could give a flyingfuck about the fidelity or lack thereof. What you experience is a direct -- DIRECT -- connection with the players. What they do with their instruments or voice is what is making the sound in your living room. There is nothing in-between. Talk about being connected !!  Wow! ((Did you know you can still buy 78's of Good Vibrations? In mono, of course.)) It is impossible to recreate the direct acoustic connection between artist and listener that one can experience with an acoustic player and an acoustic source. Once you introduce any modern storage medium, it never is the same. ~swd

You don't care about fidelity but you're complaining about the fidelity of digital?

Also, I don't think you're going to convince many people that acoustic 78s are somehow superior to everything that's come since, since they are a "direct connection". Two tin cans and a piece of string comprise a "direct connection". So? All-analog "direct connection" or not, it still sounds bad.