Wow. I've seen discussions of the audibility of everything from thin-film and thick-film resistors, to whether one of the RIAA time constants should be translated to frequency as "500 Hz" or "500.5 Hz", to whether 0.05dB amplitude accuracy is sufficient. And yet I have also seen, in this same discussion, mention of various digital implementations of the RIAA EQ curve that only match its amplitude characteristic.
The RIAA EQ curve specifies both an amplitude characteristic and a phase characteristic. A digital RIAA implementation does not match the phase characteristic unless it is specifically designed to do so. If one can hear the difference between a 500 Hz pole and a 500.5 Hz pole, then certainly one must be able to hear several degrees of phase shift!
See here for a similar discussion of the EIAJ de-emphasis curve -- the arguments are fundamentally the same for RIAA or any of the other phono EQ curves.
Hi,
first, the RIAA equalization is not a standard. And it will not become one, no matter how often it is called a standard. The RIAA is not a standards organization.
At most it could be called a "de facto standard" however "convention" would be a more correct term.
Second, does anyone have a record where the mastertape is recorded without processing (mixing) other than applying the RIAA equalization? IIRC even Brad Miller (MFSL) noted that he processed (mixed) his recordings of sounds of nature.
Third, for example I have the well known Telarc 1812 recording, three versions (2 mastered by Stan Ricker - one without markings, one with "SR", one by Bruce Leek "BL), they sound pretty different. So even if we assume that most recordings did follow the RIAA equalization within a +/- 0.25dB tolerance, does that really matter? I would assume that the sound engineer did much more to the sound than a 0,25dB deviation upon deequalization can do.
So do we really need to care?
Regards,
Tom
first, the RIAA equalization is not a standard. And it will not become one, no matter how often it is called a standard. The RIAA is not a standards organization.
At most it could be called a "de facto standard" however "convention" would be a more correct term.
Second, does anyone have a record where the mastertape is recorded without processing (mixing) other than applying the RIAA equalization? IIRC even Brad Miller (MFSL) noted that he processed (mixed) his recordings of sounds of nature.
Third, for example I have the well known Telarc 1812 recording, three versions (2 mastered by Stan Ricker - one without markings, one with "SR", one by Bruce Leek "BL), they sound pretty different. So even if we assume that most recordings did follow the RIAA equalization within a +/- 0.25dB tolerance, does that really matter? I would assume that the sound engineer did much more to the sound than a 0,25dB deviation upon deequalization can do.
So do we really need to care?
Regards,
Tom
The NAB document "AUDIO RECORDING AND REPRODUCING
STANDARDS FOR DISC RECORDING AND REPRODUCING" states:
"Reproducing characteristic-with constant velocity of the reproducing stylus tip the curve of voltage output of the reproducing system versus frequency shall be that which results from the combination of three curves as follows:
one falling with increasing frequency in conformity with the impedance of a parallel combination of a capacitance and a resistance
having a time constant of t1; (75 usec)
one falling with increasing frequency in conformity with the impedance of a series combination of a capacitance and a resistance having a time constant of t2 ; (318 usec.)
one rising with increasing frequency in conformity with the admittance of a series combination of a capacitance and a resistance having a constant of t3 ; (3180 usec.)
It is recommended that the system response below 30 cps and above 15,000 cps be attenuated at least 6 db per octave with the 3 db points at 20 cps and 16 kc."
STANDARDS FOR DISC RECORDING AND REPRODUCING" states:
"Reproducing characteristic-with constant velocity of the reproducing stylus tip the curve of voltage output of the reproducing system versus frequency shall be that which results from the combination of three curves as follows:
one falling with increasing frequency in conformity with the impedance of a parallel combination of a capacitance and a resistance
having a time constant of t1; (75 usec)
one falling with increasing frequency in conformity with the impedance of a series combination of a capacitance and a resistance having a time constant of t2 ; (318 usec.)
one rising with increasing frequency in conformity with the admittance of a series combination of a capacitance and a resistance having a constant of t3 ; (3180 usec.)
It is recommended that the system response below 30 cps and above 15,000 cps be attenuated at least 6 db per octave with the 3 db points at 20 cps and 16 kc."
From Wikipedia:
"RCA Victor and Columbia were in a "market war" concerning which recorded format was going to win: the Columbia LP versus the RCA Victor 45 rpm disc (released in February 1949). Besides also being a battle of disc size and record speed, there was a technical difference in the recording characteristics. RCA Victor was using "New Orthophonic" whereas Columbia was using the LP curve.
Ultimately the New Orthophonic curve was disclosed in a publication by R. C. Moyer of RCA Victor in 1953. He traced RCA Victor characteristics back to the Western Electric "rubber line" recorder in 1925 up to the early 1950s laying claim to long-held recording practices and reasons for major changes in the intervening years. The RCA Victor New Orthophonic curve was within the tolerances for the NAB/NARTB, Columbia LP, and AES curves. It eventually became the technical predecessor to the RIAA curve.
It is generally thought that by the time of the stereo LP in 1958, the RIAA curve, identical to the RCA Victor New Orthophonic curve, became standard throughout the national and international record markets"
"RCA Victor and Columbia were in a "market war" concerning which recorded format was going to win: the Columbia LP versus the RCA Victor 45 rpm disc (released in February 1949). Besides also being a battle of disc size and record speed, there was a technical difference in the recording characteristics. RCA Victor was using "New Orthophonic" whereas Columbia was using the LP curve.
Ultimately the New Orthophonic curve was disclosed in a publication by R. C. Moyer of RCA Victor in 1953. He traced RCA Victor characteristics back to the Western Electric "rubber line" recorder in 1925 up to the early 1950s laying claim to long-held recording practices and reasons for major changes in the intervening years. The RCA Victor New Orthophonic curve was within the tolerances for the NAB/NARTB, Columbia LP, and AES curves. It eventually became the technical predecessor to the RIAA curve.
It is generally thought that by the time of the stereo LP in 1958, the RIAA curve, identical to the RCA Victor New Orthophonic curve, became standard throughout the national and international record markets"
I found a very interesting reading with exhaustive info in our subject:
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/sound/anaudio/analoguesoundrestoration.pdf
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/sound/anaudio/analoguesoundrestoration.pdf
Here is how to evaluate nonsense that become standard? Time goes by and you can not live on. All boshemu number of engineers and students to become clear that there is a bug in the logic.
Does it make sense ispralyat paramentrov deviation of 0.3 -0.5 Hz when lost as much as 20 Hz at the origin? 20 / 0.5 = 40 (!) - LOL cheerful relationship of truth and error. Given that the theoretical dynamic range of head-type MM = 72 dB does it make sense to have fun with high-precision low-noise resistors phono-corrector?
Of course, all these investigations with the shares of decibels, and have a great attitude to mathematics, moderate attitude towards physics, and almost remote quality to the real sound.
But I must say a few words about the number pi. In 1927, a second letter koolitsionnogo unit UVR directly stated that this number is relatively constant exposure to fluctuations.Maybe not to be unfounded if I put the video electronic clock ran away yesterday at 1.5 hours for 5-7 minutes real time? Or refer to the "miracles" of the clock from Italy? I do not know ... The apparent before the eyes but no one wants to ignore it.
Maybe not to be unfounded if I put the video electronic clock ran away yesterday at 1.5 hours for 5-7 minutes real time? Or refer to the "miracles" of the clock from Italy? I do not know ... The apparent before the eyes but no one wants to ignore it.
Rely on such an unstable "constant" (pun indeed!) As Pi can not without an idiot with 6 characters after the decimal point, OK?
And about the noise frequency (7.5 - 7.85 Hz) would like to add that this is not just a characteristic of the magnetic field of the planet, but the frequency of alpha rhythm brain. And there are the derivatives 2 and 3 harmonic - beta and gamma. They are in a real live music. Again, we come up against a complicated theory study nizhengo limit audiootscheta 20 Hz ... What is there to smell the antics hit the enemy of man, eh?
People die for metal!
Does it make sense ispralyat paramentrov deviation of 0.3 -0.5 Hz when lost as much as 20 Hz at the origin? 20 / 0.5 = 40 (!) - LOL cheerful relationship of truth and error. Given that the theoretical dynamic range of head-type MM = 72 dB does it make sense to have fun with high-precision low-noise resistors phono-corrector?
Of course, all these investigations with the shares of decibels, and have a great attitude to mathematics, moderate attitude towards physics, and almost remote quality to the real sound.
But I must say a few words about the number pi. In 1927, a second letter koolitsionnogo unit UVR directly stated that this number is relatively constant exposure to fluctuations.Maybe not to be unfounded if I put the video electronic clock ran away yesterday at 1.5 hours for 5-7 minutes real time? Or refer to the "miracles" of the clock from Italy? I do not know ... The apparent before the eyes but no one wants to ignore it.
Maybe not to be unfounded if I put the video electronic clock ran away yesterday at 1.5 hours for 5-7 minutes real time? Or refer to the "miracles" of the clock from Italy? I do not know ... The apparent before the eyes but no one wants to ignore it.
Rely on such an unstable "constant" (pun indeed!) As Pi can not without an idiot with 6 characters after the decimal point, OK?
And about the noise frequency (7.5 - 7.85 Hz) would like to add that this is not just a characteristic of the magnetic field of the planet, but the frequency of alpha rhythm brain. And there are the derivatives 2 and 3 harmonic - beta and gamma. They are in a real live music. Again, we come up against a complicated theory study nizhengo limit audiootscheta 20 Hz ... What is there to smell the antics hit the enemy of man, eh?
People die for metal!
sorry
Sorry.
English is not my native language. At school I learned German - or rather playing football.
I'm trying to express their thoughts as possible. All this concerns the construction really lively music playing devices. And do not those who are well izmereyamye parameters (although up to 6 decimal points) but no sound.
Well I will not torment anybody - I wrote enough about his concept of the technology of live sound in Russian. This deysvitelno General will move into the third millennium. And frankly, too good numbers of measurements = 4 decimal points.
Sorry.
English is not my native language. At school I learned German - or rather playing football.
I'm trying to express their thoughts as possible. All this concerns the construction really lively music playing devices. And do not those who are well izmereyamye parameters (although up to 6 decimal points) but no sound.
Well I will not torment anybody - I wrote enough about his concept of the technology of live sound in Russian. This deysvitelno General will move into the third millennium. And frankly, too good numbers of measurements = 4 decimal points.
I think I understand your point. You mean not the absolute n-digit accuracy of the RIAA curve is most important, right?
In the original vacuum tube era they used 20% tolerance carbon resistors, paper capacitors, and other components (wood, tar) that would be discredited by today's standards, and still achieved great sound.
In the original vacuum tube era they used 20% tolerance carbon resistors, paper capacitors, and other components (wood, tar) that would be discredited by today's standards, and still achieved great sound.
Yes, that's what I think!
And not only think holding on ou n this course in the development of soih audio. My 10 year old audio practice in Russia showed that I was right.
For me wonder what people outside of Russia does not understand! Although everything is so clearly and so elementary that to solve all the puzzles without audio can be Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson.
For example Hugo Zukarelli was denied a U.S. passport and visa for refusing to transfer their innovations by NASA. It is amazing what is the relationship between NASA and the audio engineer Argentinean?
My teacher, Mr. Aleshin has seven patents related to audio Britain failed to win lawsuits from Sony. Although it was clear from an engineering point of view, so Aleshin patented sound processing on the frequency of 0 Hz, 20 Hz rather than.
Ability to make some numbers I quoted above patents (but something rubbed) will not be repeated.
For at least 60 years of audio evolution of visible force that wants to protect the rights of diapazaona below 20 Hz. Even at the expense of music and objectivity. What kind of dope? After all, it is obvious!
Increasing the bit and increase the sampling rate of growth will not be a musical fidelity. Because the error in the main - in the nature of sound. Sound waves do not.
Sound - is audiogologramma. There is a certain quantum state of an information element of the space and the distribution ofenergy all the way in this space. And not only purely acoustic,and magnetic and electric.
This is my fundamental axiom. That being her need to build their relationship with sound and technology to build its processing.
The cosmic law of "golden section" proportions and Fibonacci is present in the design of the process that we foolishly call the acoustic wave.
And not only think holding on ou n this course in the development of soih audio. My 10 year old audio practice in Russia showed that I was right.
For me wonder what people outside of Russia does not understand! Although everything is so clearly and so elementary that to solve all the puzzles without audio can be Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson.
For example Hugo Zukarelli was denied a U.S. passport and visa for refusing to transfer their innovations by NASA. It is amazing what is the relationship between NASA and the audio engineer Argentinean?
My teacher, Mr. Aleshin has seven patents related to audio Britain failed to win lawsuits from Sony. Although it was clear from an engineering point of view, so Aleshin patented sound processing on the frequency of 0 Hz, 20 Hz rather than.
Ability to make some numbers I quoted above patents (but something rubbed) will not be repeated.
For at least 60 years of audio evolution of visible force that wants to protect the rights of diapazaona below 20 Hz. Even at the expense of music and objectivity. What kind of dope? After all, it is obvious!
Increasing the bit and increase the sampling rate of growth will not be a musical fidelity. Because the error in the main - in the nature of sound. Sound waves do not.
Sound - is audiogologramma. There is a certain quantum state of an information element of the space and the distribution ofenergy all the way in this space. And not only purely acoustic,and magnetic and electric.
This is my fundamental axiom. That being her need to build their relationship with sound and technology to build its processing.
The cosmic law of "golden section" proportions and Fibonacci is present in the design of the process that we foolishly call the acoustic wave.
I'm telling you information about 2003 - 2004 year. I am about this osobznal and then made to move up the conclusions of a part of the engineering approach to audio. It saved me from silly mistakes in the children's progress created devices.After all, the principle - is universal. Especially when it is correct the results are very significant and rapid.
For sure bandwith is good, but getting close DC out of speakers is not possible....But for sure the low frequency pressures created in live music-transients would for sure be nice to have in the reproduced performance...!! This is where most audio systems fail and with good reason as the low frequency extension is the most costly part in the audio-reproduction chain...(big big speakers...or big big horns)
Also the shumann frequency i known to have influence om human well-being..weather it's beneficial for audio-reproduction I can't be the one to judge...
But to cut things short you're in the wrong thread...as down to 0 Hz reproduction is not an issue in a Riaa-curve discussion thread...as the turntable-cartridge system is mechanical storage.. so there is no physical room for such extension...
Also the shumann frequency i known to have influence om human well-being..weather it's beneficial for audio-reproduction I can't be the one to judge...
But to cut things short you're in the wrong thread...as down to 0 Hz reproduction is not an issue in a Riaa-curve discussion thread...as the turntable-cartridge system is mechanical storage.. so there is no physical room for such extension...
Last edited:
I don't completely understand what you two are discussing, but the RIAA is a 'standard' that audio designers use to equalize the output from a record to 'flat'.
Of course, it does NOT have to be .01 dB accurate, in fact it is almost impossible to do so, without great cost and effort. 0.1dB is possible and is often found with quality hi end audio products. 0.5dB or so, might be acceptable, but any worse gets one into trouble. You might say, what trouble? Well, Dr. Lipshitz 'trouble'. This is because this deviation has been reported even in double blind listening tests. Then, one can accuse an otherwise good design as being 'inaccurate' even though it might sound OK in a given audio system.
Many decades ago, 0.5dB might have been normal for several reasons. This is because the RIAA 'standard' was fairly lax, the phono cartridges had resonances within the audio bandwidth, AND we did not have super accurate RIAA pre-equalization, or easy computer simulation of the RIAA curve, back more than 30 years ago. Also, 1% resistors used to be fairly expensive, perhaps 50 times more than they cost today, in equivalent currency, and so they were used sparingly.
Today +/- .25 dB RIAA accuracy is fairly easy, and it then makes a given design directly comparable to another design, subjectively. It is pointless to deviate from this accuracy, except to improve on it.
Of course, it does NOT have to be .01 dB accurate, in fact it is almost impossible to do so, without great cost and effort. 0.1dB is possible and is often found with quality hi end audio products. 0.5dB or so, might be acceptable, but any worse gets one into trouble. You might say, what trouble? Well, Dr. Lipshitz 'trouble'. This is because this deviation has been reported even in double blind listening tests. Then, one can accuse an otherwise good design as being 'inaccurate' even though it might sound OK in a given audio system.
Many decades ago, 0.5dB might have been normal for several reasons. This is because the RIAA 'standard' was fairly lax, the phono cartridges had resonances within the audio bandwidth, AND we did not have super accurate RIAA pre-equalization, or easy computer simulation of the RIAA curve, back more than 30 years ago. Also, 1% resistors used to be fairly expensive, perhaps 50 times more than they cost today, in equivalent currency, and so they were used sparingly.
Today +/- .25 dB RIAA accuracy is fairly easy, and it then makes a given design directly comparable to another design, subjectively. It is pointless to deviate from this accuracy, except to improve on it.
Last edited:
What I aimed to discuss was not deviation or tolerances from the Riaa-curve, but merely to establish an overview of the existence of other emphasis curves, and also how common they are...for my personal use I think Riaa is sufficient, but for others with a greater classical and older vinyl collection than I have, it may be a good practice to implement other de-emphasis curves as well.
I agree that this is important, and I am busy developing a remote control version of the RIAA EQ in order to change it for other records, most importantly East European and perhaps Russian records. It seems to me that they moved the 75uS time constant to 50uS, which would be very 'European' of them. Is that right, or is it something else?
But this is a forum of fans of audio engineering. We stand up to pay the price!
But if, without humor, you will again fall into the trap. Does not necessarily make the dynamic of zero Hz. It really is a new word in the audio. Enough bandwidth to make electrical path from 0.1-0.5 Hz to reproduce without major distortions of the frequency of the Schumann
Also the shumann frequency i known to have influence om human well-being..weather it's beneficial for audio-reproduction I can't be the one to judge...
Sound change in a positive way, and this is significant progress!
Mechanical damping curve is smooth and fairly shallow level. So nikakh problems to restore all that there is no lower than 20 Hz on sovremnnoy electronic database.
Rather, it is not in physical capacity and the desire to practice test. You rely on someone else's experience, and I'm on my practice. We have different levels of weight of evidence.
In addition, I directly and unequivocally said above - the sound wave is not what it seems. This fact will outweigh all other arguments of my opponent. But before the opening must be practical to grow. Physics science of pure experience, in contrast to the glamorous mathematics.
Mathematics operates well-known figures. Physics is at the boundary of human knowledge. The difference between them is essential. This is one of the reasons why I do not trust the simulator - all famous programs simulate processes. But in reality the music more interesting!
I'm sure the last time math kostruktoram replaced intuition and a lot of practice. That's what I explain their success.
Well, not to be spieler I cook in the evening you 4 or 5 examples of ambiguity RIAA curve ... So be it.
Dear John, you do not think there Thurs oya in Russia and the bear sleep?
Russian engineers are quite adequate and differ from the 50uS --- 75uSeven if they drink a case of vodka.
In my record collection a lot of American records, as well as British and West German. The essence of the problem deeper! So gentlemen, wait until the evening - went to do.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.