I tried your Clapton file. It's not bad. I also tried it through a low pass filter from 17-19kHz to get rid of any high freq ADC noise.
Doesn't sound as good as I remember tape to be but still has a kind of magic compared to the sterility of CD music.
I had a few walkmans growing up. The last one was a WM DD33 like this one:
Sony Walkman Wm Dd33 Quartz Lock Mint Condition For Sale in Lucan, Dublin from dkx64
One of the holy grail walkmans according to the advert 😀
I still have it, but not in this country.
Anyway, it has a quartz lock drive so there's very little wow even when running with it and it also has dolby b noise reduction and a bass boost.
I remember I used to like listening to dolby tracks with the dolby turned off to get a treble boost.
Also the tapes made a huge difference with the type 1 ferric tapes being cheap and nasty and type 2 tapes noticeably much lower noise.
I think it would be interesting to do the compare between the tape and CD tracks.
Doesn't sound as good as I remember tape to be but still has a kind of magic compared to the sterility of CD music.
I had a few walkmans growing up. The last one was a WM DD33 like this one:
Sony Walkman Wm Dd33 Quartz Lock Mint Condition For Sale in Lucan, Dublin from dkx64
One of the holy grail walkmans according to the advert 😀
I still have it, but not in this country.
Anyway, it has a quartz lock drive so there's very little wow even when running with it and it also has dolby b noise reduction and a bass boost.
I remember I used to like listening to dolby tracks with the dolby turned off to get a treble boost.
Also the tapes made a huge difference with the type 1 ferric tapes being cheap and nasty and type 2 tapes noticeably much lower noise.
I think it would be interesting to do the compare between the tape and CD tracks.
Yes it has, but I am afraid it is the hiss (dither), HF roll-off and dynamic intentionally reduced (due to cassette noise issues) what we may like on these vintage sound recordings. We lived with them and grown up with them. I admit it may sound pleasant. Sterility of the CD records may be just a result of technical limitations of the mike - speaker chain, that is masked with tape irregularities and limitations. Higher resolution is not necessarily always pleasing.
Last edited:
In mine, I exported it to a spreadsheet and drew lines between the points. The lines have a fixed width and so show up even if the spectral peak is narrower than a single pixel.
I originally didn't notice that you had used peak hold and so thought your spectrum may be innacurate. Your spectrum may be an accurate reflection of peaks. It's difficult to know if the narrow peaks are displayed properly or not.
I don't know whether the peaks or the time average is a better measure of the potential risk to hearing. It's probably some combination of both.
Last edited:
Actually, on reflection, I still don't think your FFT can be accurate because if mine shows a 19kHz peak higher than yours, why didn't your peak capture show it?
Cassette and CD files for comparison. Level matching is not perefect, it was impossible for these two files. Cassette file is the same as yesterday, so no need to download both files for those who have already downloaded the foot_tapper.
foot_tapper.zip - FileFactory
tapper_silenced.zip - FileFactory
Please feel free to make any FFT analysis, as there is no space for HF noise speculations now. But there is more than enough space for discussion about hiss contribution and high frequency roll-off to sound preferences.
Spectra attached as well.
foot_tapper.zip - FileFactory
tapper_silenced.zip - FileFactory
Please feel free to make any FFT analysis, as there is no space for HF noise speculations now. But there is more than enough space for discussion about hiss contribution and high frequency roll-off to sound preferences.
Spectra attached as well.
Attachments
Last edited:
Even if blue had a ground loop, it still could have sounded better than green by being more direct. There was no right answer in that test.
My opinion is approaching very close to that of SY and kgrlee. I have underestimated possible public reactions, better say I could not have imagined what some members would try to dig out.
This thread and the previous one have some overlap. You responded to Jay's comment above which included a reference to green and blue. I responded to that. All posts should probably have been in the other thread.
If you think there was a right answer between green and blue, what was it?
Personally, I would prefer a direct connection with no ground loop which is neither green nor blue.
I give up.
Clue: "Based on sonics which do you prefer." at the top of the page.
Can you not answer a simple question?
Clue: "Based on sonics which do you prefer." at the top of the page.
Can you not answer a simple question?
heb1001, regarding ground loops, you hear -125dBFS which is 20dB below overall system noise level, and you hear it in presence of music that is -19dBFS in average? Please try to think over your comments.
I give up as well.
I give up as well.
Attachments
Last edited:
Hehehe so you think that I think I have credibility here. You wouldn't know if you're always looking into a mirror.
When PMA stated that he could easily hear the difference between Ruby and Opal but had no preference, it sounded strange to me. But after listening myself I couldn't decide myself. Usually I prefer a sound with superior sonic and musicality but without fatiguing effect.
At first seconds I could hear that Ruby has that emotional content and also sonic and musicality. But it didn't make me able to make up my mind. Because Opal is not more fatiguing. I listened for Ruby in a loop (as it was my best candidate) and I feel tired. It was obvious that Ruby has more perceived HF contents. Short listening of Opal seemed create less fatigue so I knew Ruby was not direct.
I could have voted for Ruby at work (with 1" speaker) but I wanted to listen more at home. Same conclusion like always, except that I could hear more clearly the guitar and drum attack in Ruby. If I'm forced to choose, I will choose Ruby for the enjoyment due to the musicality. But if I'm not forced, I will not choose.
My point here is: Nobody likes to choose between 2 bad things. We really need good quality samples if we're looking for preference.
Actually, I voted can't decide for the green blue test but I did have a feeling green was cleaner.
Those who could decide, did generally say they thought it has a slightly cleaner sound.
I don't know the limits of human hearing but if you look in Audacity, someone has helpfully labelled the scale with -120dB as the limit of human hearing which would be -139dBFS with music at -19dBFS and about where the high frequency noise corresponding to the ground loop would be.
If the FFT can resolve signals deep into random noise, why do you have a problem with your brain doing the same thing? The hairs in your cochlea respond to a specific frequency range so your ear is basically doing a FFT anyway. There's no reason why the neurons wouldn't have some kind of time averaging effect. Who knows how it all works in there?
Last edited:
" Who knows how it all works in there?"
Lots of people do - it is called science, based on measurements and testing.
Lots of people do - it is called science, based on measurements and testing.
Yes, exactly. For me, the fruity op amps, opal and ruby are all too bad to bother with and green and blue were both so good I couldn't reliably detect a difference. Now that I think I know what was going on in green/blue I don't want to pick either.
If you like, I think opal and ruby are equally good/bad since for me they are dominated by the high frequency noise that people have claimed is imperceptible. It isn't imperceptible. It's not even outside the nominal 20Hz to 20kHz range of human hearing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.