rigggght. Of course. How could I have not realised that. What does 'coherent to nature mean'?
The article states very clearly that it is only possible by bone conduction.
It can have no relevance to hifi systems.
I've never tried one, as I'm usually trying to make signals better rather than worse. Perhaps you could suggest some for us to try?
Start the New Year With the "RL" Version of "Whole Lotta Love" | Analog Planet
This is Whole Lotta Love on You Tube posted on Analog Planet.
Interesting is that i can hear some noise ( hum ) before the music begins so Michael needs a better phonostage
I have trouble with this on headphones.
This is Whole Lotta Love on You Tube posted on Analog Planet.
Interesting is that i can hear some noise ( hum ) before the music begins so Michael needs a better phonostage
I have trouble with this on headphones.
Why are you posting under several identities? Please reread the forum rules. I'm disabling two of your accounts until you decide who you would actually like to be.The only thing worse than sock-puppeting is incompetent sock-puppeting. Forgetting to switch your identities is a rookie error.
In a system speakers are the worst component, what if the signal starting in the coils af the cartridge is worse in a better way then digital, what if the dynamic limitations and distortions coming from that simply suits the speakers limitations batter. Very often silo thinking with out of context evaluations leads to inferior results. I have the same feeling with high resolution digital formats, on paper they are better, but when you compare with the same track om CD, then the CD and CD-player always performs better. At least in the systems a have access to. It seems like whenever there's computers involved the results I get are in the wrong direction. I do prefer vinyl, but must also admit that it's quite demanding to get and set up a vinyl rig and RIAA that really gets the best from my vinyls.
Good point. Even though I like headphones with a mid range emphasis, vinyl surface noise is very annoying with headphones. Maybe the extreme stereo it causes?
Mulling this whole thing over couple of thoughts/questions.
Back on the noise issue. When I started out in my career GSM was just being developed, and there was a lot of research into 'comfort noise' as people didn't like the line seeming dead. So wondering if as well as the decorrelation effect mentioned in the first post is there any research to show if (at least for classical recordings) there is a link between preference and added noise.
The other musing was over the ambience issue. If the premise of the letter is correct then there must be other ways of extracting the ambience from 2-channel recordings beyond some of the simple systems that have been around 40 years or more such as the Hafler system. I've never played with any of the toys that come with surround receivers so completely clueless in this area, but must be areas to explore there? I have thought about going to 5.1 , but as have less than a dozen SACDs not sure its worth the expense, plus there are no cheap line level processors.
Back on the noise issue. When I started out in my career GSM was just being developed, and there was a lot of research into 'comfort noise' as people didn't like the line seeming dead. So wondering if as well as the decorrelation effect mentioned in the first post is there any research to show if (at least for classical recordings) there is a link between preference and added noise.
The other musing was over the ambience issue. If the premise of the letter is correct then there must be other ways of extracting the ambience from 2-channel recordings beyond some of the simple systems that have been around 40 years or more such as the Hafler system. I've never played with any of the toys that come with surround receivers so completely clueless in this area, but must be areas to explore there? I have thought about going to 5.1 , but as have less than a dozen SACDs not sure its worth the expense, plus there are no cheap line level processors.
An additional effect (continued)
Back in post 72 of this thread, I mentioned feedback through the air, back to the cartridge/tonearm as a factor affecting the sound.
I set up my system (music hall mmf-2 turntable) and set up a test record on with 7 cm/sec 1 kHz, adjusting the system gain to produce 5 V rms at the input to my speakers.
Keeping that gain, I measured the return signal, and found it was down only about 35 dB below the 7 cm/sec signal. That would seem to be high enough to be audible and have some bearing on the sound.
Dust cover up/down had less than 3 dB effect in my setup.
Now, perhaps your setup has a better turntable and more isolation, but I'd think a MMF-2 turntable is pretty representative of a lot of the decent, but not high end stuff out there.
Back in post 72 of this thread, I mentioned feedback through the air, back to the cartridge/tonearm as a factor affecting the sound.
I set up my system (music hall mmf-2 turntable) and set up a test record on with 7 cm/sec 1 kHz, adjusting the system gain to produce 5 V rms at the input to my speakers.
Keeping that gain, I measured the return signal, and found it was down only about 35 dB below the 7 cm/sec signal. That would seem to be high enough to be audible and have some bearing on the sound.
Dust cover up/down had less than 3 dB effect in my setup.
Now, perhaps your setup has a better turntable and more isolation, but I'd think a MMF-2 turntable is pretty representative of a lot of the decent, but not high end stuff out there.
How did you tell between airborne and floor borne noise. And what was the return signal without the speakers playing? Vinyl does sing to itself.
3dB from the dust cover is less than I would have expected, but worth having. Of course until we can work out what is acoustic feedback and what is other feedback we can't be sure. Don't suppose you have a friend with a minus-k you can borrow?
3dB from the dust cover is less than I would have expected, but worth having. Of course until we can work out what is acoustic feedback and what is other feedback we can't be sure. Don't suppose you have a friend with a minus-k you can borrow?
This is my long held position as well. I've hesitated to comment in this thread sensing a perpetual rat hole I did not want to fall into, but since it has been stated and against my better judgment I thought I would at least lend my meager support to this position.
I have both reasonable digital and LP playback hardware as some around here might suspect. In the case of LP playback I'm likely now approaching the limitations of the physical media itself. Electrical and mechanical noise contributions from my playback hardware generally are overwhelmed by the previously mentioned tracing noise, and if present cutter rumble.
Vinyl is a lot of work (and I don't just mean flipping a record here and there) and consequently I find the convenience of digital very alluring at times. It helps that the digital hardware I use on a daily basis actually is imho pretty transparent and free of most of the vices attributed to digital. (It's not perfect either, nor indeed are my aging ears or anything else.)
Which comes back around to how one removes the ritual (and effort)from the equation or even if that can be isolated. As you have to put the work in AND you only get 20-30 mins a side (less if spinning the sheffield track record and being a real saddo audiophile
) you tend to pay more attention to enjoy the show. Digital being so easy these days (I have a couple of thousand albums I can select in a few seconds on my server, many of you have many more than that). Perhaps there is even a bit of guilty pleasure at play. And apologies again to Jan as I haven't bought the latest LA to read up on the research and how they managed it. I blame his other authors for giving me a backlog
First one needs to look a bit at some of the perception issues. Current research seems to indicate that we try to put new experiences into leàrned ones. There is also some issue that habits once formed do not go away, but new similar or modified ones may be learned
Then there is the issue of how many factors really influence on the difference between vinyl recordings, CDs and other digital formats. To lump all digital together seems a bit silly.
JJ posits the errors in analog records are of the types the we are least sensitive to perceiving.
Then there is the issue of how the standards were developed for records. With by today's standards limited test equipment listening paid a much greater role.
The original CDs were done at 44.1 KHz to be comparable with existing video tape recorders. The first 16 bit converters were really only 9 bits linear and 7 bits added.
Now when you compare analog recordings to digital done at the same time from the same signal source then most folks who have this capability find the analog to be colored. That doesn't mean that some don't prefer the analog.
So I doubt there will ever be any definitive answer, only difference issues continue to emerge.
So I suspect the cued anticipation to perceived pleasure is a habit. Some may have it others not.
Typed on a cellphone so I won't go nuts trying to fix 3rrors.
Then there is the issue of how many factors really influence on the difference between vinyl recordings, CDs and other digital formats. To lump all digital together seems a bit silly.
JJ posits the errors in analog records are of the types the we are least sensitive to perceiving.
Then there is the issue of how the standards were developed for records. With by today's standards limited test equipment listening paid a much greater role.
The original CDs were done at 44.1 KHz to be comparable with existing video tape recorders. The first 16 bit converters were really only 9 bits linear and 7 bits added.
Now when you compare analog recordings to digital done at the same time from the same signal source then most folks who have this capability find the analog to be colored. That doesn't mean that some don't prefer the analog.
So I doubt there will ever be any definitive answer, only difference issues continue to emerge.
So I suspect the cued anticipation to perceived pleasure is a habit. Some may have it others not.
Typed on a cellphone so I won't go nuts trying to fix 3rrors.
Last edited:
Which comes back around to how one removes the ritual (and effort)from the equation or even if that can be isolated. As you have to put the work in AND you only get 20-30 mins a side (less if spinning the sheffield track record and being a real saddo audiophile
Since I design hardware I find it quite easy to be underwhelmed and indeed almost gave up on vinyl about 5 yrs ago perceiving the work required to be disproportionate to the reward received. You have followed my phono stage odyssey over the past few years and probably know that I consider 2 of the 4 designs I have shared to be complete but "interesting" failures. I enjoy the challenge of designing and building stuff, and if it sounds good while meeting the technical goals all the better, but it isn't universally better in many cases than what it follows. (I was reminded of this recently when I heard a line stage I designed 20yrs ago at a friend's house, and realized it actually sounded fine within the scope of my current criteria, a phono stage I did in that era did not fare nearly as well.)
For me the whole ritual thing and fascination with album covers is a distraction, I've been that way since I was a kid... lol
I'm often concerned that we may be discussing the limitations of the playback technology as much as anything; this I think goes for vinyl playback as well as digital playback. I still think that the quality of the engineering that goes in as well as the quality of the implementation plays a big role in the performance achieved. (Plenty of junk engineering in the high end frankly, and some of my own designs I will admit are crap)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.