Only in your mind. Let's be practical, an LP side is say 30 min., I've recorded many. The data record is finite, you can check for no clipped samples and/or massage the data any way you like. I've confirmed 1/f noise of base current down to ~11uHz by taking data for 4 days. All that data and the plots were pretty smooth. I could point you to papers that have used 4 months of data. The age of the universe stuff is just a misdirection, folks know how to instrument these experiments and interpret the data. The uncertainty limits, error bars, etc. are all computable with a knowledge of statistics. Crest factor probability distributions, variance of rms reading vs BW and measurement time, been there I could bury you with the literature on the subject.
The low frequency noise on an LP is easily observed (it is large) vs the music or better yet a 20Hz test tone.
Last edited:
jcx,
I am not proposing that by random chance someone will finally stumble upon perpetual motion, I don't believe that is possible. What I am saying that with an ultimate goal, even with a flawed premise there are other discoveries coincidental to that pursuit. This morning I read of a new type of ram for memory in a computer. It is based on a new combination of rare earth material in an unnatural state. The material shows magnetic properties even though it has no magnetic material in any sense. I should have linked to that post but surely didn't think this type of conversation would come up today. Just when we think we have it all figured out something unknown comes along.
I am not proposing that by random chance someone will finally stumble upon perpetual motion, I don't believe that is possible. What I am saying that with an ultimate goal, even with a flawed premise there are other discoveries coincidental to that pursuit. This morning I read of a new type of ram for memory in a computer. It is based on a new combination of rare earth material in an unnatural state. The material shows magnetic properties even though it has no magnetic material in any sense. I should have linked to that post but surely didn't think this type of conversation would come up today. Just when we think we have it all figured out something unknown comes along.
If the flawed premise is a non-understanding of basic physics, then even an accidental discovery will be overlooked. If you look at ALL fundamental discoveries in physics for the past 200 years, the paries involved had an excellent grasp of the stuff they were displacing.
You're getting there. (Although I suspect you didn't read the post completely.) The Quantech was an attempt to build a purpose built noise test set. (A reasonably good attempt.)
The approach today is to use an A/D and capture the data for analysis. So your answer to the limits would be based on the length of the music passage or record side. The sampling rate would be adequate to capture the highest frequencies of interest. (A scratch would approach a unit impulse but the rest of the system would band limit that.)
Now do you have a representative selection of LP noise? Then of course the next issue is what weight should be applied. I would try inverse Fletcher Munson curves for the actual reproduced noise level.
However what we would consider noise is also an issue. As distortion products are perceived and masked to some extent by our perception engine, that may require different weighting.
Was this accidental fall out? I read about the discovery of a fundamentally new blue pigment by complete accident, the research being done had nothing to do with the optical properties.
Yes but it's ahhhh natural to our earbuds, so it's not interpreted as noise, unless really obnoxious, not like digital noise which is unnatural, this we actually sense more than hear, similar to Image noise in digital photography. actually it's surprising both work so well , one just requires more input than the other ..
Another enters the fray ......
'Ultra LP' Version Of Jack White's New Album Has Some Crazy Surprises : All Songs Considered : NPR
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...-whites-driving-blues-just-one-drink-20140516
Last edited:
No, none of this necessary the claim is made in black and white terms, noise removed in preference to "music". I might have slipped up there, the demon might know test tones are not music.
Yes but it's ahhhh natural to our earbuds, so it's not interpreted as noise,
Another enters the fray ......
Them why remove it? This is not the issue the claim is.
I love it! Big square tonearm and crystal cart? The new vinyl lovers engine.
It is not natural. And it is easily interpreted as noise - take a recording of classical music with low level parts of music and you are there, in noise. Mastering engineers had to manipulate with volume very unnaturally to be able to place classical music to LP. Or take headphones and you suddenly have all the groove noise audible.
Vinyl has very limited capabilities to capture real music dynamic range and it does not reveal details, it masks them. Plus distortion plus horrible crosstalk. It is not natural, just generations used to listen to this kind of recorded music and not necessarily they appreciate higher technical quality and resolution of uncompressed digital.
OK we passed in the night. I was talking about general methods to measure audio system noise, you are talking about testing magic boxes.
The box is not magic if it also removes signals that have a similar signature to the noise.
For example a diode "Ignition noise clipper" under some conditions might be a useful device as it does improve final s/n ratio. But it also does remove some signal. However as the signal is mostly below the clipping threshold and much more of the noise is above it, the clipper works. So such a device is not magic, even though it does not work as a frequency based filter.
Now in theory you could build an adaptive DSP filter that would recognize the note being played and the instrument playing it. By collecting information about the instrument note combination every time it is repeated, the gizmo could actually reduce noise, although some signal would also be lost.
Now for some strange reason you have trouble understanding how some devices claim to do the adaptive gig in real time without any active processes?
Now if one wished to test a generic magic box, it might be useful to try signals that resemble the target noise and see what is lost.
And that brings us full circle as to how do you measure noise, for which you gave an answer.
Last edited:
Them why remove it? This is not the issue the claim is.
I love it! Big square tonearm and crystal cart? The new vinyl lovers engine.
Yep then you sell up to Bybee's and JC1 phono pre's with 8 leg chips..
It's a good thing vinyl is dying , hey wait, some kid wants to buy my TT....
Well my 1812 Mercury CD does sound better than my Mercury LP version, but just and my LP is a bit worn. Then again my Carmina Burana LP creams the telarc CD version....
So it seems to enjoy the best, I need both, living in harmony, well for now ...
PS: Those pesky kids , havent they heard ...
"Jack White's new LP Lazaretto easily smashed a 20-year-old record. The Nashville rock god sold 40,000 vinyl copies of his new LP in the first sales week since the album's June 10 debut."
Bring on those phono pre's John...!!!
So it seems to enjoy the best, I need both, living in harmony, well for now ...
PS: Those pesky kids , havent they heard ...
"Jack White's new LP Lazaretto easily smashed a 20-year-old record. The Nashville rock god sold 40,000 vinyl copies of his new LP in the first sales week since the album's June 10 debut."
Bring on those phono pre's John...!!!
Last edited:
One friend has a reasonably complete collection of 78 RPM shellac records with the performances by Artur Schnabel. State of the art for the 1940's. Noisy..duh yes. Ticks & pops, of course. Worth listening too? Of Course.
Now some of this has been "remastered" and issued as CDs. No master tape, the records "Cleaned up."
No real surprise the records are more musical and the better "Listen."
Now a reissue of a performance that was on tape and distributed by records or CDs, then the issue could be tape fade and the "mastering" quality.
Now we can argue about what is a well done digital recording, as so many really aren't. A while back I lost everything. As I have need of test CDs, I asked a local radio station (Well I built it..) to save me their normal discards. I intended to go through them and pick out some I could use. They gave me their to be recycled pile, about 500 CDs. I listen to all of them, kept five.
I see a.wayne beat me to the comment about the 40,000 vinyl albums in one week so along with what I have been seeing I wouldn't count album sales dead just yet.
Scott,
The article I read was short and not a lot of details but here is the link.
Researchers target new form of RAM from rare materials | ZDNet
Sy,
You keep in my mind making the same assumption that people do not know basic physics when they go and do something that is outside the norm. As I said they may have an idea, and that idea may even have a false premise to it but they are willing to take a look and see what they find. Through serendipity, even stupid mistakes things are found that you would not normally look at. Yes you have to be smart enough to realize you have found something or stumbled upon it by accident or by some misapplied information but that does not mean you can't discover something new this way. As we said a while ago certain plastics were discovered quite by accident, a simple mistake in a lab attempting to do something completely different. Didn't mean that the person didn't understand physics or even chemistry, but it was something that they weren't doing on purpose. An accidental discovery is just that. Today we have computers combining all kinds of molecules to produce new polymers, but if you only go by what you know and what has already been done you won't make many major discovery, you will make refinements and simple changes, you aren't going to put two or even three elements together that you don't think will give you some known type of result. If you always think in a linear fashion the end results are already fairly well known, sometimes you do have to break the rules to have a breakthrough.
Scott,
The article I read was short and not a lot of details but here is the link.
Researchers target new form of RAM from rare materials | ZDNet
Sy,
You keep in my mind making the same assumption that people do not know basic physics when they go and do something that is outside the norm. As I said they may have an idea, and that idea may even have a false premise to it but they are willing to take a look and see what they find. Through serendipity, even stupid mistakes things are found that you would not normally look at. Yes you have to be smart enough to realize you have found something or stumbled upon it by accident or by some misapplied information but that does not mean you can't discover something new this way. As we said a while ago certain plastics were discovered quite by accident, a simple mistake in a lab attempting to do something completely different. Didn't mean that the person didn't understand physics or even chemistry, but it was something that they weren't doing on purpose. An accidental discovery is just that. Today we have computers combining all kinds of molecules to produce new polymers, but if you only go by what you know and what has already been done you won't make many major discovery, you will make refinements and simple changes, you aren't going to put two or even three elements together that you don't think will give you some known type of result. If you always think in a linear fashion the end results are already fairly well known, sometimes you do have to break the rules to have a breakthrough.
If they're chasing something outside of first principles, they do not know basic physics. Period.
Serendipitous discoveries still happen, but they are rarely fundamental and when they are (think Penzias, for example), they are made and recognized by people with a solid grounding in fundamental science. Even the discovery of Teflon (which wasn't fundamental science, but still done by a very smart, well-trained, and realistic scientist, who knew enough to know what he had stumbled upon).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.