Are there any freeware packages that can get 24/192 or 24/96 data rates from vinyl playback?
Further, are there any lossless compression packages that can reduce the datarate without losing any of the sampled signal.
Finally, if we start with a high datarate and then lossy compress it to a manageable datarate, can we detect that replay performance is better than CD's 16/44.1 Can this been done with freeware?
Further, are there any lossless compression packages that can reduce the datarate without losing any of the sampled signal.
Finally, if we start with a high datarate and then lossy compress it to a manageable datarate, can we detect that replay performance is better than CD's 16/44.1 Can this been done with freeware?
AndrewT said:
I use audacity: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
the interface is fairly easy to use and it's free
of course you need hardware that will support your data ratetry flac: http://flac.sourceforge.net/ it will reduce the file size without reducing datarate (which i think is what you want). reducing datarate is lossy. I haven't used flac much but i've read some good things about it.
Hi!
Why don't you try soundforge-sony software, or wave Lab lite- steinberg?Also you can find Clean studio pinnacle to clean up vinyl rec., noises...etc.
I made many recordings from vinyls on hard disc on wave format.wav, the best, and than burrned to audio cd.
Ps:I used a quite poor and cheep turntable, that's what i have now and terratec phase 22 sound card.
result: very good natural sound, but still not like Vinyl played at the real time.....analog playing.
Why don't you try soundforge-sony software, or wave Lab lite- steinberg?Also you can find Clean studio pinnacle to clean up vinyl rec., noises...etc.
I made many recordings from vinyls on hard disc on wave format.wav, the best, and than burrned to audio cd.
Ps:I used a quite poor and cheep turntable, that's what i have now and terratec phase 22 sound card.
result: very good natural sound, but still not like Vinyl played at the real time.....analog playing.
AndrewT said:
I guess it depends on what you are psychologically happy with, I suppose. But what you are psychologically comfortable with and what actually gets the job done can often be two completely different things, eh.
In terms of demonstrated coloration, no audible degree of it existed with good quality ADC->DAC process at 44.1kHz/16 bits PCM in the extended JAES published and peer reviewed *test of recent time where almost a year of research(DBTs in all manner of high end systems and studio monitor systems with many different expert listeners) results in no significant difference found with original high resolution audio recordings vs. the high resolution recording analog output put through the ADC->DAC process using a 44.1kHz/16 bit unit.
I highly doubt vinyl has anything special to offer over high-res recordings that would make the tests come out any differently if they had used a high quality turntable and cartridge instead of hi-res digital sources.
Don't get me wrong, I love vinyl for what it is, and I have invested a considerable amount of money into a very high quality turntable for my own use. I'm just trying to give perspective. Assuming the sound card used has a high performance 44.1kHz mode, it does not appear there would be any issue using this sample rate to capture the vinyl playback. Perhaps use 24 bits extended bit depth for initial recording for purposes of editing/processing the tracks is a good idea and then reducing to 16 bits with the appropriate dithering for the final version.
-Chris
*Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback
E. BRAD MEYER, DAVID R. MORAN
J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September, Pages 775-779
AndrewT said:
Computer power has very little to do with the specification of CD, so the comparison with 70's computers is really not valid.
WmAx said:
I broadly agree.
Given the choice between a good turntable and a competent 44.1kHz/24b ADC, or a mediocre turntable and a very good 96kHz ADC, I would pick the first combination every time.
the computer power available in the 70's determined the bit rate and bit depth at the time they were fixing the red book standard.
The speed of the computing chip controlled the speed of the DACs and the ADCs.
It had to be producible at an economic cost. They could not afford to develop faster computers (computing power) just to allow a higher bit rate for CD.
Now that faster computers are available they introduce the DVDa standard, but the damage is done and the manufacturers seem unable to undo it. Few want to pay the premium for SACD and DVDa, neither the players nor the discs.
The speed of the computing chip controlled the speed of the DACs and the ADCs.
It had to be producible at an economic cost. They could not afford to develop faster computers (computing power) just to allow a higher bit rate for CD.
Now that faster computers are available they introduce the DVDa standard, but the damage is done and the manufacturers seem unable to undo it. Few want to pay the premium for SACD and DVDa, neither the players nor the discs.
>The speed of the computing chip controlled the speed of the DACs and the ADCs.
Nope.
The accuracy and speed of contemporary ADCs and DACs has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of computers of that era. The limitations of ADCs and DACs exist mainly in the analogue domain and were confined at that time by the available 10 to 5 um bipolar and BiCMOS processes.
The highest hurdle for CD most probably was the whole electro-optical shebang. Getting 2 channels of 44.1kHz/16b on and then off a cheap plastic disc in real time and without appreciable read errors, and this in a consumer product, was quite a technical feat.
But again, this has precious little to do with
computers, apart from the fact that these too belong to the consumer electronics industry.
Nope.
The accuracy and speed of contemporary ADCs and DACs has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of computers of that era. The limitations of ADCs and DACs exist mainly in the analogue domain and were confined at that time by the available 10 to 5 um bipolar and BiCMOS processes.
The highest hurdle for CD most probably was the whole electro-optical shebang. Getting 2 channels of 44.1kHz/16b on and then off a cheap plastic disc in real time and without appreciable read errors, and this in a consumer product, was quite a technical feat.
But again, this has precious little to do with
computers, apart from the fact that these too belong to the consumer electronics industry.
And, just how much data could be stored on the disc. I read a letter in Wireless World where the author suggested using something like 12 bits and big floppy discs as a music medium. Thankfully we got 16/44 and 74 minutes. [Which rather makes stuff like lossy compressed digital radio seem like a giant leap backwards in audio quality.]
Vinyl is capable of bandwidth far greater than the 22k cutoff of CD (look at the CD-4 discrete 4 channel system which modulated the surround channels up above 30 kHz or so). Whether humans can hear that information is doubtful, but it sort of justifies sampling at higher rates.
I haven't got around to digitizing any vinyl yet, but it'd be the same ADC and audio card combo I've used for capturing cassette and VHS HiFi recordings, mostly at mostly 24bit/48k:
Behringer SRC-2496 ADC/DAC/SRC,
Optical S/PDIF to...
Audigy 2 ZS PCI card, configured for "bit-accurate" recording.
Audacity, although its penchant for leaving "orphaned blockfiles" was infuriating. (That may be solved in the latest release, since when I opened a previously munged project it reappeared intact.)
The Hagtech Bugle looks like a good value as a simple but high-quality (and RIAA-accurate) preamp. There's often kits available on eBay (possibly unauthorized) at attractive prices. I'm leaning towards putting together a slightly POOGED version of the UREI 1620 phono stage, since I figure it'd be period-correct for the '70s and '80s albums and singles.
I'm particularly looking forward to capturing a couple of rareish direct-to-disc albums, and will take enormous delight in editing out the pops that showed up after I treated those discs with Sound Guard. (snake oil that was supposed to extend record life...)
Vinyl is capable of bandwidth far greater than the 22k cutoff of CD (look at the CD-4 discrete 4 channel system which modulated the surround channels up above 30 kHz or so). Whether humans can hear that information is doubtful, but it sort of justifies sampling at higher rates.
I haven't got around to digitizing any vinyl yet, but it'd be the same ADC and audio card combo I've used for capturing cassette and VHS HiFi recordings, mostly at mostly 24bit/48k:
Behringer SRC-2496 ADC/DAC/SRC,
Optical S/PDIF to...
Audigy 2 ZS PCI card, configured for "bit-accurate" recording.
Audacity, although its penchant for leaving "orphaned blockfiles" was infuriating. (That may be solved in the latest release, since when I opened a previously munged project it reappeared intact.)
The Hagtech Bugle looks like a good value as a simple but high-quality (and RIAA-accurate) preamp. There's often kits available on eBay (possibly unauthorized) at attractive prices. I'm leaning towards putting together a slightly POOGED version of the UREI 1620 phono stage, since I figure it'd be period-correct for the '70s and '80s albums and singles.
I'm particularly looking forward to capturing a couple of rareish direct-to-disc albums, and will take enormous delight in editing out the pops that showed up after I treated those discs with Sound Guard. (snake oil that was supposed to extend record life...)
>Vinyl is capable of bandwidth far greater than the 22k cutoff of CD (look at the CD-4 discrete 4 channel system which modulated the surround channels up above 30 kHz or so).
Not really.
In lab conditions I would agree, but on commercial mass-produced pressings it's not that simple.
I have been looking at LP spectra for quite a while now, and so far I have identified one (1) LP in my collection that contains some signal in the band 25-30kHz that I can not trace back to harmonic distortion of the base signal. Still, I don't know what that HF signal is, and if it is related to the music / intended at all(*).
All other records I tested droop steeply above 15kHz or so, and reach a minimum in the 18-22kHz band. Above that the spectra rise again,
but as said, that is just distortion of the lower-f signal.
CD-4 and other quad records were half-speed mastered. Otherwise the 30kHz carrier could not be captured. Half-speed mastering was/is not widely used in industry, and comes with its own set of problems.
In short: the LP as mass distribution medium really is not that wideband at all.
(* My current hypothesis is either an artefact of an 80s drum machine, or else an oscillation in a gated channel.)
Not really.
In lab conditions I would agree, but on commercial mass-produced pressings it's not that simple.
I have been looking at LP spectra for quite a while now, and so far I have identified one (1) LP in my collection that contains some signal in the band 25-30kHz that I can not trace back to harmonic distortion of the base signal. Still, I don't know what that HF signal is, and if it is related to the music / intended at all(*).
All other records I tested droop steeply above 15kHz or so, and reach a minimum in the 18-22kHz band. Above that the spectra rise again,
but as said, that is just distortion of the lower-f signal.
CD-4 and other quad records were half-speed mastered. Otherwise the 30kHz carrier could not be captured. Half-speed mastering was/is not widely used in industry, and comes with its own set of problems.
In short: the LP as mass distribution medium really is not that wideband at all.
(* My current hypothesis is either an artefact of an 80s drum machine, or else an oscillation in a gated channel.)
It must be the resolution capability of the vinyl replay chain that beats 16/44.1zoranaudio said:
It took the industry ~70years of development to get to that sort of performance.
The CD standard was a few years of thought, followed by some years of development, that should never have been released to the public.
But add 20years to that and they come up with 24/96 and 24/192.
If CD had never arrived, then I suspect these two standards could have been reached in half the time and at affordable cost.
Now let's get back to recommendations on "how to"
Look, I know that double blind testing annoys people in this forum. They always insist that it's too difficult, too impractical.
But in this case, the tests have been performed. It has been shown that there is NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE between material captured and mastered at high resolution, then converted to 24 bit / 192 khz, and that same material then converted to 16 bit / 44khz.
So stop looking to the wider frequency reproduction of vinyl as the explanation. You're looking in the wrong place. Perhaps, instead, try blaming the imperfect filters used in the DAC process. Maybe that's not the answer either, but it makes more sense to me.
But in this case, the tests have been performed. It has been shown that there is NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE between material captured and mastered at high resolution, then converted to 24 bit / 192 khz, and that same material then converted to 16 bit / 44khz.
So stop looking to the wider frequency reproduction of vinyl as the explanation. You're looking in the wrong place. Perhaps, instead, try blaming the imperfect filters used in the DAC process. Maybe that's not the answer either, but it makes more sense to me.
I think the image which can show us a good vinyl is too wide, natural space we can see in the music, about freqyency range freq band (never measured), but never heard Bass sounding so clear & natural, won't speak about the highs and middles.I think that the vinyl is unbeaten for so many years....what a shine future!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.