What is the resolution of Vacum tubes and LPs?

[Goosemaster]

Honestly, people brag about their LPs and Vacum tubes, but what are the numbers associated with them?

Mainstream high-resolution audio such as SACD and DVD-Audio boast resolutions of 192/96, so what is the resolution of the analog data inscribed on LPs...what about the capacity of Vacum tubes?

I assume there are various quality levels, so what is the best?

thanks

 

[NutBucket]

Uhm, its analog. That means there is no "resolution" in a digital sense. That's the whole point. Its infinitely variable.

That said, I love my LP collection😀

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Honestly, people brag about their LPs and Vacum tubes, but what are the numbers associated with them?

Mainstream high-resolution audio such as SACD and DVD-Audio boast resolutions of 192/96, so what is the resolution of the analog data inscribed on LPs...what about the capacity of Vacum tubes?

I assume there are various quality levels, so what is the best?

thanks

Analog doesn't have resolution. I believe that's a digital-only trait.

 

[silverpig]

Analog doesn't have a resolution like that. There are no discrete steps in an analog recording at all; that's the nature of analog.

 

[MrChad]

While I can't comment on vaccuum tube amps, analog LPs don't really have a "resolution." Digital audio is an approximation of the analog sound waves. Higher resolution digital formats, such as DVD-Audio and SACD, sample the analog waveform more frequently per second (96KHz) and more accurately (192-bit) than CDs (44KHz, 16-bit). The higher resolution formats give a better approximation of the original sound source, and therefore sound closer to analog.

The reason many audiophiles prefer LPs is because they provide an analog source; there is no digital approximation. This gives a "warmer" and more natural sound over digital sources. The difficulty with LPs is transferring the analog data from the LP to the speaker with minimal noise interference (i.e. high signal-to-noise ratio). This requires very expensive audio equipment, and most people with cheap amps and cheap turntables will not notice an improvement in sound over CDs. Of course, SACD and DVD-Audio are extremely good approximations of the original analog waveform, so the gap between analog and digital media is shrinking.

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: MrChad
While I can't comment on vaccuum tube amps, analog LPs don't really have a "resolution." Digital audio is an approximation of the analog sound waves. Higher resolution digital formats, such as DVD-Audio and SACD, sample the analog waveform more frequently per second (96KHz) and more accurately (192-bit) than CDs (44KHz, 16-bit). The higher resolution formats give a better approximation of the original sound source, and therefore sound closer to analog.

The reason many audiophiles prefer LPs is because they provide an analog source; there is no digital approximation. This gives a "warmer" and more natural sound over digital sources. The difficulty with LPs is transferring the analog data from the LP to the speaker with minimal noise interference (i.e. high signal-to-noise ratio). This requires very expensive audio equipment, and most people with cheap amps and cheap turntables will not notice an improvement in sound over CDs. Of course, SACD and DVD-Audio are extremely good approximations of the original analog waveform, so the gap between analog and digital media is shrinking.

I'll disagree with you on the point about noticing a difference in sound quality. I know I don't own near audiophile quality stuff and I notice a huge difference. I have a $200 (bought it clearance years ago) Pioneer receiver (Pro Logic only) and a pair of Bose 201's (didn't know any better at the time) with a 8" Yamaha sub. I'm using an Onkyo turntable I bought for $25 at a swapmeet (tho I did get a decent AudioTechnica cart. for it) and the difference between that my Pioneer CD player is huge. I have some new releases on vinyl and those just sound wonderful.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: MrChad
While I can't comment on vaccuum tube amps, analog LPs don't really have a "resolution." Digital audio is an approximation of the analog sound waves. Higher resolution digital formats, such as DVD-Audio and SACD, sample the analog waveform more frequently per second (96KHz) and more accurately (192-bit) than CDs (44KHz, 16-bit). The higher resolution formats give a better approximation of the original sound source, and therefore sound closer to analog.

The reason many audiophiles prefer LPs is because they provide an analog source; there is no digital approximation. This gives a "warmer" and more natural sound over digital sources. The difficulty with LPs is transferring the analog data from the LP to the speaker with minimal noise interference (i.e. high signal-to-noise ratio). This requires very expensive audio equipment, and most people with cheap amps and cheap turntables will not notice an improvement in sound over CDs. Of course, SACD and DVD-Audio are extremely good approximations of the original analog waveform, so the gap between analog and digital media is shrinking.

I'll disagree with you on the point about noticing a difference in sound quality. I know I don't own near audiophile quality stuff and I notice a huge difference. I have a $200 (bought it clearance years ago) Pioneer receiver (Pro Logic only) and a pair of Bose 201's (didn't know any better at the time) with a 8" Yamaha sub. I'm using an Onkyo turntable I bought for $25 at a swapmeet (tho I did get a decent AudioTechnica cart. for it) and the difference between that my Pioneer CD player is huge. I have some new releases on vinyl and those just sound wonderful.

I stand corrected. 😱

 

[Goosemaster]

But what about frequencies for example? I assume the machines that produce LPs have limits....that's my question.

Analog is infiinite...I'll agree to that.

Basically, can LPS have frequencies below 5hz?


I see a lot of HIGH-END equipment with frequency ranges that go below 10hz....it this reserved for LPs...?


Thanks

 

[NutBucket]

Well, the range is also a function of the stylus/cartridge. The one I use, AudioTechnica ATP-2XN has range of 15-22,000 Hz. To most people, however, vinyl won't sound as "clear" because a CD is in herently "bright" due to low sampling at higher frequencies. Those tend to sound "harsher" because of it. So it would seem like an LP doesn't reproduce highs as well. What is true, is that the highs wear out first, so a worn out LP will be missing them.

 

[fyleow]

Well a lot of manufacturers claim to have a crazy frequency response but for the most part it's never like that. Sony claims earbuds that go down to 4 hz, that's impossible and the rolloff in reality is much higher. IMO a lot of it is just marketing gimmick.

The Stax Classic System 3030 headphones I have claim 4 - 70,000hz, but the bass is not tactile and sometimes it's beaten by cheap headphones. My current Sennheiser HD 600s are 12-39,000hz and the bass is much better even though the rating says it isn't.

I personally wouldn't look too much into frequency response ranges, just listen to it and you'll know which one you enjoy more.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: fyleow
Well a lot of manufacturers claim to have a crazy frequency response but for the most part it's never like that. Sony claims earbuds that go down to 4 hz, that's impossible and the rolloff in reality is much higher. IMO a lot of it is just marketing gimmick.

The Stax Classic System 3030 headphones I have claim 4 - 70,000hz, but the bass is not tactile and sometimes it's beaten by cheap headphones. My current Sennheiser HD 600s are 12-39,000hz and the bass is much better even though the rating says it isn't.

I personally wouldn't look too much into frequency response ranges, just listen to it and you'll know which one you enjoy more.

heh..I'm NOT talking about sony.....


I'm talkign the lieks of Anthem, Krell, Carver, McIntosh, Parasound etc...