Am I the only one having issues with the site today? I couldn't get in for some hours. Glad to be back in.
Thanks Frank.
Hiten,
My vote would be for your #4 pic, that seems to be about right to install the audio system and mount a flat screen on top of.
Hiten,
My vote would be for your #4 pic, that seems to be about right to install the audio system and mount a flat screen on top of.
Richard
Why do you feel the need for listening to Lead Belly, Howling Wolf and Co in HD format?
Should I start having second thoughts about Furtwaengler, Mitropoulos, Lanza, Gigli, Callas?
I mean it’s the ‘soul’, it’s the ‘feeling’, it’s the ‘blue’, it’s the ‘moment’.
George
and a lot of historical significance was recorded on atrocious equipment, poor quality, huge noise even for the day
most from before 1960 wouldn't challenge Philips Compact Cassette as a medium
most from before 1960 wouldn't challenge Philips Compact Cassette as a medium
Last edited:
Hi gpapag --- I agree. I dont listen to really old time blues that much because the sound recordings are so terrible. But the newer Blues stuff on average OK and I like listening to good blues. It move me deep inside. Other forms of music is generally better recorded.... most of the HD down loads are selected for quality. I wouldnt buy an old crappy sounding recording in HD.
There are many other types of music i like which is well enough recorded. In fact, I like most anything if well done musically and it moves me. That is why I buy it.
Its so much better when I can listen to what I like and it sounds really good as well. Then it is great listening.
THx-RNMarsh
There are many other types of music i like which is well enough recorded. In fact, I like most anything if well done musically and it moves me. That is why I buy it.
Its so much better when I can listen to what I like and it sounds really good as well. Then it is great listening.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Noob Query :
Suppose we know "specific" equipments used in historical recordings (Tapes, Mics,) and know their (equipments) inherent problems and limitations Can the recordings be cleaned and improved upon "specifically" to that recording ? Kind of like forensic appraisal.
Regards.
Suppose we know "specific" equipments used in historical recordings (Tapes, Mics,) and know their (equipments) inherent problems and limitations Can the recordings be cleaned and improved upon "specifically" to that recording ? Kind of like forensic appraisal.
Regards.
Very good paper on LP digitizing, thanks Jacco!
I guess we both have met Christian at a past ETF?
Jan
This just in from CNN.
Most audiophiles aren't rich
This just in: Most audiophiles aren't rich - CNET
Most audiophiles aren't rich
This just in: Most audiophiles aren't rich - CNET
If you're into House Rockin' music, can't go past Alligator Records - Genuine Houserockin' Music Since 1971. Extremely well recorded, this easily goes 11+ on the volume dial - my test CD for whether a system can deliver a groove that never lets up ...
Yes and it has been done
AES E-Library Restoration of Old Acoustic Recordings By Means Of Digital Signal Processing
http://daniellevitin.com/levitinlab/articles/1994-Levitin-SignalParent.pdf
George
>Edit: Recording company Soundstream did it commercially for RCA in 1976
Attachments
Last edited:
Well with a 22KHz bandwidth and if you want the noise floor 28 bits down from peak you will have to dissipate up to 25 watts in the I/V resistor of an I/V D/A, same again in the Gain setting resitor of the Amplifier. If you want a 30 bit clean system it goes up to 400+ watts dissipated in the A/D converter...
The Swiss banking aspect of Christian's initiative struck me as interesting.
Bespoke digitizing makes the startup self-financing, once a decent collection is available, paid downloads would supply the cash flow to enable further conversions at zero cost for the LP owner.
Same routine could work for upsampling (and/or a cleanup) of CDs.
'Digital' and the web may be the life savers of audio enthousiasm.
(Christian makes sure he's not forgotten, so I gathered from ETF emails
)
Swiss banking aspect? He is not criminal!
I think, he does not make money this way.
His TT alone costs at least 6'000.- Swiss Franks, the Tonearm goes for 2'000.- and his MC another 5 grands at least. Further some additional gadgets for a few grands,.
Furthermore its realtime transfer costing a fortune in our country, so its a pure hobby for the fun.
In know him personally and i use the same TT, a swiss made tonarm and my MC is the big brother of his, twice the price and i do not digitize my records, cost me just time and makes no fun. I just listen my records and enjoy the music without waste of money and time .
I think, he does not make money this way.
His TT alone costs at least 6'000.- Swiss Franks, the Tonearm goes for 2'000.- and his MC another 5 grands at least. Further some additional gadgets for a few grands,.
Furthermore its realtime transfer costing a fortune in our country, so its a pure hobby for the fun.
In know him personally and i use the same TT, a swiss made tonarm and my MC is the big brother of his, twice the price and i do not digitize my records, cost me just time and makes no fun. I just listen my records and enjoy the music without waste of money and time .
The phrase "ears-only listening test" as presented numerous times is a misnomer par excellence.
"No peeking allowed" is fine, but the results are in no way per se better or more correct.
Our perception does not work in a linear manner and it is not guaranteed that something like "ears only listening" is possible as we can´t seperate (up to now) between hearing (which means the physiological reaction to an auditory stimulus) and listening (which means the combined response of the physiological reaction and "brain" to this auditory stimulus) .
Elimination of one (more) bias effect does not provide correct results as long as numerous other bias effects are still at work.
Without testing for correct results on an appropriate sensitivity niveau you do know next to nothing about the existence of a perceptible difference, beside the obvious one, namely that the difference might probably not be earthshaking.
Jakob I agree that peeking is only one of many other possible (and probable) factors that can skew your listening perception. There's always the expectation that you will or will not be able to hear a difference (anxiety) etcetera, etcetara.
Yet, noting that nothing is this world is ideal, but that we try to get as close as possible to that unreachable ideal, I suggest that shutting off the peeking mode makes a giant stride forward towards some sort of trustworthy test.
If you don't, you've lost before you even start.
Jan
Yet, noting that nothing is this world is ideal, but that we try to get as close as possible to that unreachable ideal, I suggest that shutting off the peeking mode makes a giant stride forward towards some sort of trustworthy test.
If you don't, you've lost before you even start.
Jan
You are missing the point. If you cannot hear a difference 'blind', but prefer a certain sighted result and accept that it is YOUR bias that causes that preference, no one here is going to argue with you. It's when you deny bias and still claim your preference is easily audible that eyebrows are raised.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.