Ah missed that post. All I can find is http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...prefer-vinyl-douglas-self-36.html#post4572833 where you say it sort of works. I will admit to feeling very dim this afternoon looking at it and wondering what on earth was going on with that feedback and too embarrassed to ask.
I just took a look at it, and can't see how it can possibly work as drawn, surely not if driven from a voltage source..........?
Although its not fully worked through in terms of components I am coming back to this topology as 'feeling' right http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...than-just-high-pass-filter-3.html#post3573990
This is L+R to M+S conversion, filter M at (say) 20Hz and S at (say) 150Hz then convert back. Piece of cake in DSP but does take a few opamps and has the advantage of being able to filter horizontal and vertical issues differently.
Other way might be to generate S and filter then do L-S and R+S (where S is (L-R)/2), but I think that still needs about 8 op-amps unless you implicitly trust your source impedance.
This is L+R to M+S conversion, filter M at (say) 20Hz and S at (say) 150Hz then convert back. Piece of cake in DSP but does take a few opamps and has the advantage of being able to filter horizontal and vertical issues differently.
Other way might be to generate S and filter then do L-S and R+S (where S is (L-R)/2), but I think that still needs about 8 op-amps unless you implicitly trust your source impedance.
Yes, conceptually that would do the job. Have to beware discarding building ambience in classical recordings, as already discussed.
The general question then becomes philosophical - is that audioband content part of the intentional authentic sound? I think if the original release was only on vinyl, the answer might be yes, even if it was never thought about back in the day. In which case, should one be looking for ways to synthesise it and add it in to digital media playback, not remove it from vinyl??
The question I ask is why does the mastertape sound like the vinyl? Surely the vinyl would sound much better if the conjecture it correct. It is very good, but not better. Interesting all the same to suggest it could be better. It is implied it is by trusting this conjecture. In terms of EQ the arm LF resonace most likely SME 12 inch is factored in. It is done by ear so perhaps some sound engineering takes place in the discussed region.
If all of this enhancement is true all humans need an approximation to dither. This is totally reasonable as the workings are digital in style. Little hairs that send pulses to the brain. They should need initial engergy to work better. It is unrealistic to have the dynamic ranges of live music when at home. However I always prefer low rumble tuntables. Maybe the LP is precooked and needs no more salt? To be honest I doubt the phase of the rumble matters. Just rumble, or more so noice.
A possibly similar experiance. A luxury car has a beautiful low frequency noise that true luxury has refined into a near musical adventure. The electric car will not have this. I suspect the sound of a luxury car will be missed. The cheaper cars might have little noises that come and go. They won't be loved. I will live with that as I need to go shopping. Driving is a need, music is a choice. I love cars enough to realise that isn't the world of others. Given the choice cars come second. I spend easilly 8 to 10 hours a day using a sound system. I drive on average 30 minutes a day. A friend said since owing a nice car the sound system was switched off so as to hear the engine. His car would have had the noises we might imagine here. His main love was how quiet the car was and yet how he could hear the power coming alive. Maybe that supports the conjecture.
Digital LP's are the worst of all worlds. They sound like CD's and have less ambinece than typical analoge recording. If the conjecture is right they would sound exactly like analogues LP's only better. They absolutely don't. I suspect some aspects of being nearer the digital master are heard ( less errors ). I am sure to make the conjecture fit the sound we would have to find digitally recorded LP's had no out of phase imformation as the ambience is still missing.
If the dither principle is correct the vinyl roar will do dither very nicely. I will buy that. However the digital LP's sound like CD. That's an Elephant in the room. If I am wrong I must get out all of my digital LP's and listen again. Maybe this time I will hear it differently. How many times had I dreamed they would.
I think if this is taken to it's logical conclusion good analogue beats just about OK digital. OK digital is the best Phillips could give us way back in the day. The timing requirements that would have seemed stupid to put it mildly are now accepted for 16 bit. Tim de Paravacini has an interesting take on this. He likens a studio tape machine to 200 kHz sampling. That is the bias frequency. He says the way it works is like a digital circuit with no gradual change. The difference being there is no decoding of that part on playback. He said as soon as 192 kHz digital was in studios the sound improved back to what it was. What is slightly strange is that LP could show that.That says despite how obviously very bad LP's are they show some aspects of the original mastertape. If it was a horse you wouldn't put money on it and yet here it is winning.
One thing that might come of this is when a box of tricks can be made. I will take the evidence to people who master CD's. It won't be used for classical I can tell you. For Rock it certainly would. It could be worth 40% more sales at a modest estimate. I doubt they will be convinced unless totally obvious. That's where all debate ends if hard cash is handed over. The public vote with their cradit cards. I have a feeling this horse will come in last. Happy to be wrong.
This unit was used long before CD's. It would support the conjecture in spirit.
Waves Aphex Vintage Aural Exciter Review | Mixonline
If all of this enhancement is true all humans need an approximation to dither. This is totally reasonable as the workings are digital in style. Little hairs that send pulses to the brain. They should need initial engergy to work better. It is unrealistic to have the dynamic ranges of live music when at home. However I always prefer low rumble tuntables. Maybe the LP is precooked and needs no more salt? To be honest I doubt the phase of the rumble matters. Just rumble, or more so noice.
A possibly similar experiance. A luxury car has a beautiful low frequency noise that true luxury has refined into a near musical adventure. The electric car will not have this. I suspect the sound of a luxury car will be missed. The cheaper cars might have little noises that come and go. They won't be loved. I will live with that as I need to go shopping. Driving is a need, music is a choice. I love cars enough to realise that isn't the world of others. Given the choice cars come second. I spend easilly 8 to 10 hours a day using a sound system. I drive on average 30 minutes a day. A friend said since owing a nice car the sound system was switched off so as to hear the engine. His car would have had the noises we might imagine here. His main love was how quiet the car was and yet how he could hear the power coming alive. Maybe that supports the conjecture.
Digital LP's are the worst of all worlds. They sound like CD's and have less ambinece than typical analoge recording. If the conjecture is right they would sound exactly like analogues LP's only better. They absolutely don't. I suspect some aspects of being nearer the digital master are heard ( less errors ). I am sure to make the conjecture fit the sound we would have to find digitally recorded LP's had no out of phase imformation as the ambience is still missing.
If the dither principle is correct the vinyl roar will do dither very nicely. I will buy that. However the digital LP's sound like CD. That's an Elephant in the room. If I am wrong I must get out all of my digital LP's and listen again. Maybe this time I will hear it differently. How many times had I dreamed they would.
I think if this is taken to it's logical conclusion good analogue beats just about OK digital. OK digital is the best Phillips could give us way back in the day. The timing requirements that would have seemed stupid to put it mildly are now accepted for 16 bit. Tim de Paravacini has an interesting take on this. He likens a studio tape machine to 200 kHz sampling. That is the bias frequency. He says the way it works is like a digital circuit with no gradual change. The difference being there is no decoding of that part on playback. He said as soon as 192 kHz digital was in studios the sound improved back to what it was. What is slightly strange is that LP could show that.That says despite how obviously very bad LP's are they show some aspects of the original mastertape. If it was a horse you wouldn't put money on it and yet here it is winning.
One thing that might come of this is when a box of tricks can be made. I will take the evidence to people who master CD's. It won't be used for classical I can tell you. For Rock it certainly would. It could be worth 40% more sales at a modest estimate. I doubt they will be convinced unless totally obvious. That's where all debate ends if hard cash is handed over. The public vote with their cradit cards. I have a feeling this horse will come in last. Happy to be wrong.
This unit was used long before CD's. It would support the conjecture in spirit.
Waves Aphex Vintage Aural Exciter Review | Mixonline
This is certainly testable. I do have a sub that I need to recomission. Sadly can't put it centrally as the digital piano is in the way.
I know many do not like my posts as it casts a vast net with little chance of people relating to things they would have no chance of verifying. I tend to use science as my aid and not my guide. This means I have to use something best described as faith to get me to an answer. As Conan Doyle would have Holmes point out " when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
If you construct a reverse RIAA you will find some of vinyl sound is explained. It is also very useful to have one. It doesn't have to be fantastically accurate as a pick up cartridge isn't. Most of the bloom we hear will be this alone. It should sound like a very good digital LP if fed with a good CD player. The Rega ones seem very good of recent ones. Also Rega looks after it's customers, that's an understatement.
If you construct a reverse RIAA you will find some of vinyl sound is explained. It is also very useful to have one. It doesn't have to be fantastically accurate as a pick up cartridge isn't. Most of the bloom we hear will be this alone. It should sound like a very good digital LP if fed with a good CD player. The Rega ones seem very good of recent ones. Also Rega looks after it's customers, that's an understatement.
Don't encourage him! I spent half an hour trying to find a post by Douglas last night in the noise and failed.
Very long and wordy post...... and it still doesn't quite read as I would like
I once came across a boxed Deutsche Grammophon set of 5 discs (Schubert Symphonies) that was unplayable. Holding the discs to the light revealed a 'rotted' mottled appearance, in fact you could read a newspaper through them. All 5 were the same.
I've CD's going back to day 1 and none have become unplayable, in fact all are outwardly in mint condition. A couple of Philips discs from boxed sets have some pretty large pin holes but these don't seem to cause any issues. One disc has a weird manufacturing defect that renders it 'fussy' on the equipment used to play it back. The outer part of the reflective layer has a perfect 'arc' of missing data... imagine a solar eclipse and the moon starting to bite out a chunk of the solar disc. Its like that, but just a single 'hair breadth' arc line of no data. At the top of the curve where the arc becomes parallel to the data is where it can skip.
I also (shh !) polish all new CD's using a silicon and wax polish (called Excel by Servisol, a 'trade' refinishing polish) and find that after 30+ years all my discs are as new, visually and play-ably.
I took the posting of that as being more than a little tongue in cheek
(its a great read though)
As to this thread Hypothesis as to why some prefer vinyl
and to the vinyl vs CD experience, well I thought this quote from a BBC radio program (the Life Scientific... fantastic series by the way) says a lot,
... that measurement and science does not 'do' and can not describe the subjective experience.
I have my own theory(s) as to why some prefer vinyl and some CD, and why CD seems to 'work' on some systems and not others, and it starts not with the carrier of the music but with us, with our hearing and quite simply, what we like.
Vinyl and CD are both imperfect but in very different ways.
When the music ends up on vinyl it has already been 'coded' into something pleasing to the ear. Don't underestimate that. By coded I mean that the process of drawing a facsimile of the audio onto a bendy plastic disc, and retrieving that information by dragging a fragment of gemstone along it actually gives a result we find pleasant. That's an absolutely amazing thing to say in the 21st century but it seems to be true. So at this point we are starting with an already 'pleasing' audio signal and strive to amplify that as best as possible and with the least alteration and distortion to finally apply to the speaker. I would go as far as to say that the subtleties of the amplifier design are less important here simply because the starting point, the signal 'off disc' is already in a form that pleases the ear and we would have to mangle that rather a lot to make it unpleasant.
With CD its a little different. The digital processes involved introduce a totally different form of 'degradation' to the audio. There is near perfect channel separation (try getting 80 or 90 db separation from vinyl at 10kHz), far lower distortion... the list goes on and on. But then there are also the uncomfortable question marks such as low level detail and quantisation errors. We 'know' we can hear relatively subtle changes in the audio chain. CD players can sound subtly different from each other (and in the audiophile sense very different). Spec wise though and the numbers do not reveal those differences.
So where is all this leading......
Its my belief that the systems that play back 'digital' most convincingly are those that seem to have imperfections in the amplifying chain. Those systems are the ones that start with the digital music carrier (CD) and in some way treat that signal less analytically (OK, lets be honest and say 'via a chain that introduces distortions and imperfections'). That 'chain' is difficult to get the right balance for but when you do digital comes alive, the fatigue issues that some mention disappear. An audio system that might sound OK with a few discs in a collection suddenly works its magic with most.
And again the statement ... that measurement and science does not 'do' and can not describe the subjective experience.
seems to be very relevant. I say that because this has been my personal experience. The designs that have chased ever lower levels of distortion and ever higher levels of linearity have over many years been the designs that have disappointed the most. That's commercial as well as diy offerings.
So what's going on... well the answer imo has to be that both formats, vinyl and digital must ultimately produce something pleasing at the ear, but starting with different carriers means that the approach to do that differs. What works for one does not work for the other and vice versa.
Its heresy for a designer to suggest that 'less perfect' may actually work better with digital, but the true measure of that are the designs that seem to pull off that trick.
Does rumble and extreme LF figure in why vinyl can work so well... I personally don't think its that simple or that that is the reason.
I once came across a boxed Deutsche Grammophon set of 5 discs (Schubert Symphonies) that was unplayable. Holding the discs to the light revealed a 'rotted' mottled appearance, in fact you could read a newspaper through them. All 5 were the same.
I've CD's going back to day 1 and none have become unplayable, in fact all are outwardly in mint condition. A couple of Philips discs from boxed sets have some pretty large pin holes but these don't seem to cause any issues. One disc has a weird manufacturing defect that renders it 'fussy' on the equipment used to play it back. The outer part of the reflective layer has a perfect 'arc' of missing data... imagine a solar eclipse and the moon starting to bite out a chunk of the solar disc. Its like that, but just a single 'hair breadth' arc line of no data. At the top of the curve where the arc becomes parallel to the data is where it can skip.
I also (shh !) polish all new CD's using a silicon and wax polish (called Excel by Servisol, a 'trade' refinishing polish) and find that after 30+ years all my discs are as new, visually and play-ably.
I took the posting of that as being more than a little tongue in cheek
(its a great read though)As to this thread Hypothesis as to why some prefer vinyl
and to the vinyl vs CD experience, well I thought this quote from a BBC radio program (the Life Scientific... fantastic series by the way) says a lot,
... that measurement and science does not 'do' and can not describe the subjective experience.
I have my own theory(s) as to why some prefer vinyl and some CD, and why CD seems to 'work' on some systems and not others, and it starts not with the carrier of the music but with us, with our hearing and quite simply, what we like.
Vinyl and CD are both imperfect but in very different ways.
When the music ends up on vinyl it has already been 'coded' into something pleasing to the ear. Don't underestimate that. By coded I mean that the process of drawing a facsimile of the audio onto a bendy plastic disc, and retrieving that information by dragging a fragment of gemstone along it actually gives a result we find pleasant. That's an absolutely amazing thing to say in the 21st century but it seems to be true. So at this point we are starting with an already 'pleasing' audio signal and strive to amplify that as best as possible and with the least alteration and distortion to finally apply to the speaker. I would go as far as to say that the subtleties of the amplifier design are less important here simply because the starting point, the signal 'off disc' is already in a form that pleases the ear and we would have to mangle that rather a lot to make it unpleasant.
With CD its a little different. The digital processes involved introduce a totally different form of 'degradation' to the audio. There is near perfect channel separation (try getting 80 or 90 db separation from vinyl at 10kHz), far lower distortion... the list goes on and on. But then there are also the uncomfortable question marks such as low level detail and quantisation errors. We 'know' we can hear relatively subtle changes in the audio chain. CD players can sound subtly different from each other (and in the audiophile sense very different). Spec wise though and the numbers do not reveal those differences.
So where is all this leading......
Its my belief that the systems that play back 'digital' most convincingly are those that seem to have imperfections in the amplifying chain. Those systems are the ones that start with the digital music carrier (CD) and in some way treat that signal less analytically (OK, lets be honest and say 'via a chain that introduces distortions and imperfections'). That 'chain' is difficult to get the right balance for but when you do digital comes alive, the fatigue issues that some mention disappear. An audio system that might sound OK with a few discs in a collection suddenly works its magic with most.
And again the statement ... that measurement and science does not 'do' and can not describe the subjective experience.
seems to be very relevant. I say that because this has been my personal experience. The designs that have chased ever lower levels of distortion and ever higher levels of linearity have over many years been the designs that have disappointed the most. That's commercial as well as diy offerings.
So what's going on... well the answer imo has to be that both formats, vinyl and digital must ultimately produce something pleasing at the ear, but starting with different carriers means that the approach to do that differs. What works for one does not work for the other and vice versa.
Its heresy for a designer to suggest that 'less perfect' may actually work better with digital, but the true measure of that are the designs that seem to pull off that trick.
Does rumble and extreme LF figure in why vinyl can work so well... I personally don't think its that simple or that that is the reason.
Trying to crawl back to topic I can think of two ways to test this without building hardware. One is tricky, one should be easy.
Method 1. Take 2 full range speakers, one sub and miniDSP. By varying the frequency that you crossover to the sub you can filter out the L-R. Many gotchas not least having the equipment, but in principle workable
Method2. Rip a classical recording and produce various samples with different amounts of L-R filtering and issue as anonymised files and hope that the spectrum peaking kill joys don't ruin it. I might be able to help out here, but my ripping would be limited to PC onboard sound.
I think we could agree on a protocol for method 2 without too much argy bargy? Agreeing on a suitable recording with lots of the right ambience will probably take a while.
@Nigel: If the thread was called 'why do people love vinyl' I would not have any problem with your posting. It's not, its about a specific hypothesis. Hence my focus. It has lead me to a lot of other musings, but they will go in other threads. Going completely OT I should really come to Oxford and buy you a beer sometime and wibble to our hearts contents.
Method 1. Take 2 full range speakers, one sub and miniDSP. By varying the frequency that you crossover to the sub you can filter out the L-R. Many gotchas not least having the equipment, but in principle workable
Method2. Rip a classical recording and produce various samples with different amounts of L-R filtering and issue as anonymised files and hope that the spectrum peaking kill joys don't ruin it. I might be able to help out here, but my ripping would be limited to PC onboard sound.
I think we could agree on a protocol for method 2 without too much argy bargy? Agreeing on a suitable recording with lots of the right ambience will probably take a while.
@Nigel: If the thread was called 'why do people love vinyl' I would not have any problem with your posting. It's not, its about a specific hypothesis. Hence my focus. It has lead me to a lot of other musings, but they will go in other threads. Going completely OT I should really come to Oxford and buy you a beer sometime and wibble to our hearts contents.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.