So What Is A Perfectly Clinical Microphone ?.....
U47's and U87's are coloured to hell....sure, they add a sonically nice character but they are not perfectly frequency or dynamically flat IMO (and as documented).
MP3 process involves throwing away stuff that is considered to be masked and therefore relatively inaudible....according to MP3 theory.
In practice, high bit rate (320k) MP3 recordings are quite acceptable for modern pop/rock music and serve a very useful purpose - indeed in my experience data compressed versions can be a sonic improvement relative to full data rate (wav) for some stuff.
One day we will have uber sample rate/uber bit depth recordings that can be transferred over uber rate data connections, but until then 44k/16 works quite well in standard real world playback environments for real world listeners.
For now, the trick is to get 44k/16 to sound decent, and really that is not all that difficult.
In my experience dithering adds a 'flavor' to the reproduced sound, and different oversamplings/ditherings have different acceptabilty.
To my ear, non oversampling/non dithering sounds best.
Dave.
U47's and U87's are coloured to hell....sure, they add a sonically nice character but they are not perfectly frequency or dynamically flat IMO (and as documented).
MP3 process involves throwing away stuff that is considered to be masked and therefore relatively inaudible....according to MP3 theory.
In practice, high bit rate (320k) MP3 recordings are quite acceptable for modern pop/rock music and serve a very useful purpose - indeed in my experience data compressed versions can be a sonic improvement relative to full data rate (wav) for some stuff.
One day we will have uber sample rate/uber bit depth recordings that can be transferred over uber rate data connections, but until then 44k/16 works quite well in standard real world playback environments for real world listeners.
For now, the trick is to get 44k/16 to sound decent, and really that is not all that difficult.
In my experience dithering adds a 'flavor' to the reproduced sound, and different oversamplings/ditherings have different acceptabilty.
To my ear, non oversampling/non dithering sounds best.
Dave.
Well, no one can argue what you like and don't like, but what you like (objectively) is a signal with significant waveform distortion. Chacun a son gout.
Definition Is Defined By The Lens In Use....
Once the data is acquired, the next step is to apply the appropriate analysis - if this process takes extreme time interval to perform this task this is ok by me...indeed modern astronomy relies on extreme processing over long time periods to discern data that is elsewise 'lost in the noise'.
The 'freeware' fft analysis software that I have trialled is limited in maximum frequency resoloution - anybody know of software that will discern down to very low Hz values ????.
Dave.
In practice, 100 % confidence, and in all levels of equipment.
Yeah, me neither. I have tried the likes of 'Diffmaker' but because of clock instabilities, test results are not conclusive. I need a high res pb/rec system that runs a high stability master clock (and high sample rate/high bit depth) and then I (we) have a chance to discern really fine differences, the likes of which JC and others are subjectively describing.
Once the data is acquired, the next step is to apply the appropriate analysis - if this process takes extreme time interval to perform this task this is ok by me...indeed modern astronomy relies on extreme processing over long time periods to discern data that is elsewise 'lost in the noise'.
The 'freeware' fft analysis software that I have trialled is limited in maximum frequency resoloution - anybody know of software that will discern down to very low Hz values ????.
Dave.
So if the files were copied (let's say 5 times), renamed, and coded, you could sort them with 100% accuracy?
Re your comment about software, low frequency limit and resolution are two different things. Which one are you trying to achieve?
Polishing A Turd....
IME Panasonic MASH drives me out of the room, and Sony OS/dithering is sonically acceptable but loses detail.
In my experience non OS done seriously correctly (p-p 3d, perfect grounding, perfect PS) is more 'real', but yes has higher measured distortion.
The likes of MASH argue that their distortions are less perceptable, but in my experience the overall sound ends up being less 'real'.
Dave.
Sure, what I am saying is that the distortion that I find preferable (ie less disagreeable) is non OS vs OS/dithering distortions.
IME Panasonic MASH drives me out of the room, and Sony OS/dithering is sonically acceptable but loses detail.
In my experience non OS done seriously correctly (p-p 3d, perfect grounding, perfect PS) is more 'real', but yes has higher measured distortion.
The likes of MASH argue that their distortions are less perceptable, but in my experience the overall sound ends up being less 'real'.
Dave.
There are several that support 1M point or larger FFT's. Gnu Octave is free and is memory size limited, I've tried 4M points with no problem.
if you really don't want to "lose" any bits: Arbitrary-precision arithmetic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The acid test is to burn a cd from a vinyl and then AB it against the vinyl. I'd advise using NON Audiophile equipment for the best likely results. If the copy can pass that test, the equipment has proven itself. Any dissatisfaction at that point would result from the way the equipment is used, not the equipment or system itself. In principle, a cd should be able to duplicate any vinyl phonograph record perfectly. The opposite obviously cannot be claimed.
CDs really proved their superiority for me playng recordings of music which is soft, compositions by Debussy for example. The absense of pops and clicks alone makes the cd far more desirable than vinyl. I have an approximately equal number of both but I rarely listen to vinyl anymore. Anything I owned in vinyl I bought duplicates of on cd.
We use 10's of thousands of high quality relays and reed switches on the test floor, I can't say that I ever saw one that won't do >-120dB. BTW a dead zone in the feedback path would put a hole in your Vos distributions, never saw that, ever in 38yr. We've been making amplifiers with 25uV guaranteed offset for 30yr. and they are all tested at a rate of hundreds an hour with several relays in series with each input.
Ed, I simply speak from literally 100's of man years of collective experiece, the stuff our guys have to measure would tax anyone's abilities. No one I know has ever seen a dead zone in a resistor or switch (that was not broken). Chopper amps now have 1uV offsets, we do test them.
Last edited:
This does not work as a blind test due to the noise but even with good headphones I have never found a 16/44.1 recording that fails to capture the vinyl experience.
I know I'm repeating myself but I prefer my transfers to the "offical" CD's of the old CSO Reiner recordings.
I am afraid that we are talking from two different world views.
I have spent more than 40 years listening and hoping that digital would do what it promised to do. In those early days, analog tape was really the best mode of sound recording and reproduction, with magnetic film recording a close second. Even phono, with the relatively lousy phono cartridges, tone arms and turntables of the time, tended to make magnetic tape MASTERS superior in almost every way. Still, I found that I could NOT record a 15ips/1/2 track master tape that sounded as GOOD as a quality vinyl record, and THEN they started to make DIRECT DISC RECORDS. These were actually better than a master tape, in most ways.
Digital was nasty in 1968, and it only got slightly better over the next decade. We tried everything, more bits, higher sample rate, analog shift registers (for delay lines), consulted PhD's to make the highest quality anti-aliasing filters, yet we always got less than perfect reproduction from digital.
This did NOT stop Sony, and many others, who seemed to be immune to digital artifacts, from decrying 'Perfect sound forever!' for the last 30 years.
Even still, we TRIED to 'fix' the problems by making better oscillators, lowering jitter, increasing bits, raising sampling rate, yet we still can hear the artifacts, even if they are now at an almost unconscious level.
Any SERIOUS listener can hear the difference between vinyl and digital. If you can't, then I would recommend another hobby. If you persist in audio for some reason, it would be appreciated if you would let the rest of us alone, to enjoy audio reproduction using our own expertise and experience to help others do so as well.
I have spent more than 40 years listening and hoping that digital would do what it promised to do. In those early days, analog tape was really the best mode of sound recording and reproduction, with magnetic film recording a close second. Even phono, with the relatively lousy phono cartridges, tone arms and turntables of the time, tended to make magnetic tape MASTERS superior in almost every way. Still, I found that I could NOT record a 15ips/1/2 track master tape that sounded as GOOD as a quality vinyl record, and THEN they started to make DIRECT DISC RECORDS. These were actually better than a master tape, in most ways.
Digital was nasty in 1968, and it only got slightly better over the next decade. We tried everything, more bits, higher sample rate, analog shift registers (for delay lines), consulted PhD's to make the highest quality anti-aliasing filters, yet we always got less than perfect reproduction from digital.
This did NOT stop Sony, and many others, who seemed to be immune to digital artifacts, from decrying 'Perfect sound forever!' for the last 30 years.
Even still, we TRIED to 'fix' the problems by making better oscillators, lowering jitter, increasing bits, raising sampling rate, yet we still can hear the artifacts, even if they are now at an almost unconscious level.
Any SERIOUS listener can hear the difference between vinyl and digital. If you can't, then I would recommend another hobby. If you persist in audio for some reason, it would be appreciated if you would let the rest of us alone, to enjoy audio reproduction using our own expertise and experience to help others do so as well.
Last edited:
Who argued that one couldn't? If I couldn't hear the difference going to a data storage and playback technology with 40dB better signal to noise, two orders of magnitude lower distortion, flatter frequency response, freedom from wow, flutter, rumble, mistracking, and tracing distortion, without mono-ed bass and gain-riding to prevent overcutting, hell, I'd absolutely get a different hobby!
This is a blind test that can not be done. There is no vinyl without a single pop or tick no matter how small. Again the same old arrogant put down, this hobby is for anyone who is interested. The world of people who spend $20,000 on a pre-amp is limited.
Who cares, I trust my ears. Many years ago, Dave Wilson made a recording where he put the 30 ips analog master on one side and a professional A/D-D/A processer added to the same source on other side. I doubt very much if there was much difference in the S/N or standard distortion measurements, but it still sounded different. That is why the vinyl record was made this way. Just to show and tell.
Yup when I tried to match up the two sides of that the amplitude differences were 3 to 6dB at some frequencies, I could never figure that. Didn't you and Dave put the uA741 right in the middle of the pack of SOTA op-amps?
What is it that some of us want, to invest time and money on hi end audio? Are the people interested in this stuff just people with too much money to spend? It's possible. You know, my 'usual' customer is an MD doctor, who can't party hard, due to his commitments related to his work, yet he needs to 'wind down' at the end of the day. Sometimes good food does this, but with some, a good, clean, effortless sound system is his pride and joy. I must have worked with a dozen such people over the last decade or so. The MD isn't stupid, usually well educated, yet not really technical, and this seems to help to avoid prejudice against what is sonically possible and what is not.
I have seen doctors gung ho about line cords, etc. These are the people that I serve best.
The reason is, they appreciate my efforts, hear the difference, and can afford what it takes.
Often, these people also like fine autos, and know the difference, and often order or bring fine wines, if and when they drink some with a good dinner. They certainly have more expensive tastes than I can afford.
If I can make an inexpensive product that is just as good sounding as my best efforts have been, I would be glad to release it into the marketplace.
I am now making my first IC based design and getting pretty good reviews. At least reviews commensurate with the time and effort spent, especially with passive parts. We shall see, but I will stick to discrete designs for personal listening.
I have seen doctors gung ho about line cords, etc. These are the people that I serve best.
The reason is, they appreciate my efforts, hear the difference, and can afford what it takes.
Often, these people also like fine autos, and know the difference, and often order or bring fine wines, if and when they drink some with a good dinner. They certainly have more expensive tastes than I can afford.
If I can make an inexpensive product that is just as good sounding as my best efforts have been, I would be glad to release it into the marketplace.
I am now making my first IC based design and getting pretty good reviews. At least reviews commensurate with the time and effort spent, especially with passive parts. We shall see, but I will stick to discrete designs for personal listening.
You have it wrong. We added an IC socket to do 'something' other than master the recording. I would have to ask Dave what it was for, BUT it became a TEST SOCKET where we could put any mini-dip spaced single op amp for test. Usually, what probably resided in that socket, if it was used for anything significant, would be a custom op amp hybrid, that was built by my technician that we charged about $75 for all the time and trouble it took to build it. Dave used the same 'op amps' as plug ins for the WAMM Equalizer. I hope this makes the situation clearer to you, and perhaps you should ask me first, if you get this sort of information, second hand.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.