Forums dot lukpac.org

"The analog LP has an infinite sampling rate, and therein lies that remaining 5% of the detail that digital throws away."

- Stephen W. Desper, recording engineer, about the Beach Boys' Sunflower album (which he engineered, mixed and cut in 1970).

Like this:



Ryan

Here's my response:

Thanks guys, but could you be a little more elaborate?

The statement is patently ridiculous. You cannot take digital-audio terminology and adapt it to analog in that way. An analog medium has no "sampling rate" and, if it did, the idea that it could possibly be "infinite" is appallingly stupid.

It sounds like this guy needs to compare notes with all of the other audiophools out there before he starts spouting off this gibberish. We all know that vinyl has infinite resolution, not an infinite sampling rate.

Assert that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and refer people to this thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/ind ... opic=33442

start with post #20 by cliveb. See also post #62.

Or just note that 'infinite sampling rate' implies, by the Shannon/Nyquist theorem, infinite bandwidth. Which no analog or digitial medium possesses, or ever will possess.

Also note that Desper exemplifies the 'recording engineer' who doesn't know jack about the science behind modern recording. A distressingly common species.

Or you could just get metaphysical, and ask how you can fit an infinite amount of information on a 12" plastic disc.

Another good koan would be: If you spun the LP at 66 2/3 RPM, would you get double infinite sampling? If so, what would that sound like?

Ryan

Mr. Desper's statement implies that an "infinite sampling rate" is the key to why analog sound is better than digital sound.

But *every* analog medium has an "infinite sampling rate," even a microcassette recorded at the slowest possible speed. Does that sound better than a CD as well?

Clearly, the man has made up his mind. What he's really saying is that LPs sound better than CDs, period, and he'll latch on to any absurd explanations that supports what he (thinks he) hears...which is the typical "audiophool" mentality. Why bother to respond to such a person?

Rspaight wrote:Or you could just get metaphysical, and ask how you can fit an infinite amount of information on a 12" plastic disc.

Well, he'd probably concede that you can't fit an infinite amount of information on an LP. But if he thought about it, he might be forced to admit that is indeed the case...not only that, but that even an infinitesimally small fraction of the LP contains infinite information.

He probably reasons that even one waveform from the LP would need an infinite amount of digital sampling (information) to reproduce with perfect accuracy. Going even further, he could apply that logic to the tiniest fraction of the waveform -- a millionth of a second, for instance. A continuous curve, no matter how short, has an infinite amount of points defining it. To reproduce it perfectly, you need an infinite amount of points.

I'd go with Ryan's and Dob's response. That is to say, if "analog is better because it has an infinite sampling rate", then surely *any* analog source will be better than digital. Have him switch to Edison cylinders.

http://www.audaud.com/audaud/NOV04/news/newsnov10.html

Edison Cylinders for the 21st Century - Shawn Bori has reopened Thomas Edison’s original l888 company, North American Phonograph, as a wax-cylinder-recording studio. He records tracks first on the wax cylinder, and then transfers them digitally using a state-of-the-art digital cylinder recorder called the Archeopone. Bori has been fascinated with wax cylinders since a child, and says it gives a presence to the recording that no other method can duplicate.

Pour écouter

Here is the thread: http://comiclist.com/smileysmile/viewtopic.php?t=9726

(Desper did not participate in that thread. He has a dedicated 42-pages-long thread from which the quote was taken. My goal was not to offend him. He has shared dozens of illuminating stories about recording and mixing, for which I am eternally grateful.)

He probably reasons that even one waveform from the LP would need an infinite amount of digital sampling (information) to reproduce with perfect accuracy.

But the LP isn't reproducing anything with "perfect accuracy." The LP is an imperfect reproduction (or "analog") of the stamper, which is an imperfect reproduction of the master tape, which is an imperfect reproduction of the mic feed, which is an imperfect reproduction of whatever's being recorded.

Some analog setups may well have a wider frequency response than redbook digital (though I doubt many analog *recordings* do). But they still aren't infinite. For that matter, sound is not infinite. It is a vibration with measurable frequency and amplitude characteristics. Any signal under 20kHz can be easily captured by redbook with no missing information with a dynamic range of 96dB. Not enough? Any signal under 90kHz can be captured by 24/192 DVD-A with a dynamic range of 144dB. (Why you would *want* to record a 90kHz signal, or any signal at 144dB, is a good question.)

Let's try this analogy: there are theoretically an infinite number of possible speeds between 0 and 60 MPH. Does that mean that when I travel at 60MPH I am traveling infinitely fast?

Ryan

OK Andreas, you can quote facts and figures, but the point is your ears and the sound they pick up.
PLEASE buy an original mint copy of Tommy and play the beginning of the track Sparks and tell me that ANY CD matches the way that the sound envelops you and literally jumps out of the grooves and speakers into your head. I mean it. Compare it.

"Literally."

The bad thing about trying to argue those points with a vinyl fanatic is that it's akin to trying to convince a born-again Christian that God doesn't exist.

The really intense pro-vinyl arguments oftentimes have pseudo-mystical overtones. The "true believers" have made the necessary leap of faith and the fact that science can easily disprove most (if not all) of their wild hypotheses is irrelevant.

You will rarely, if ever, hear a vinyl fanatic say that he prefers the medium because its inherent distortion sounds pleasing to his ears.

Of course. I mean, see the thing I quoted above. "Oh, your silly facts have nothing on my assertion that the sound will LITERALLY GRAB YOU BY THE HEAD AND SMACK YOU AROUND YOU HAIRY HOOKER when you play an A1 Steak Sauce pressing." It starts like an argument, and ends like a devotional.