I've got the 4x10HD. I believe George has the 2x4, but he might have the HD version, although he is running at 48kHz internal rate, I'll be running full 96kHz.
Hi milkshake. No need to rush. Take your time.
The spectrums may differ (viny surface noise for certain) and this is important for the aural perception.
I don’t think that someone said otherwise. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You mean the wrong part is the fixed number of 20dB?
Oh yes, sure. That number was kind of a safety belt.
Or do you mean something else?
Howie had something to say on this, and I listen to him when he talks
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/298896-digitizing-vinyl-3.html#post4877495
This matches my understanding but I don’t know if it reflects the reality (I haven’t really read information theory, only what I remember from Shannon’s paper at Bell’s journal) .
I guess you mean the AD/DA is better in terms of noise floor, when in the vinyl playback system noise, one includes the surface noise of the vinyl record.
George
Hi Ricardo
I have the old 2x4 but I think I can spare 100Eu to buy the HD 2x4 if there is some good justification for doing it. (at least it would be more useful for me to spend this money on the HD than on a cartridge)
What is exactly that you want to know, I may be able to provide the answer
And I have to answer some more questions, I’ll do 🙂
George
Yes. Scott's brainchild works flawlessly in my old 2x4 MiniDSP (48KHz)
Digitizing vinyl - Page 23 - diyAudio
We are still in search of what (and if something) needs to be corrected in the other thread
This one too
😀
Ricardo
The old 2x4 MiniDSP and the new 2x4HD MiniDSP do IIRs. The old one lucks the computational power to do FIRs. In theory, the new2x4HD is sufficiently equipped for FIRs. I read there are some serious limitations though and I haven’t seem FIR implementations in 2x4HD out there.
The syntax is exactly the same when importing IIR filters as biquads whether in the old 2x4MiniDSP (48KHz) or in the new 2x4HD MiniDSP (I have tested it).
For MiniDSPs you use the standard syntax for the biquads, only you have to sign invert the “a” coefficients (see the link above)
See how they import FIRs in the Open DRC family of MiniDSP
FIR Designer
George
Of course this does confuse a lot of people*. If the noise floor is 75dB down from 0dB and the hottest signals (excluding pathological tics) is 18dB up you are already at 93dB dynamic range before you add headroom. Of course lots of dither from the vinyl noise floor but easy to see why 24bit A/D is seen as a good thing for ripping.
*I vary between clueless and confused.🙂
If noise is noise, then why do we have different names for different types of noise?
Also, while the specs for any modern AD/DA may be better than phono specs, that doesn't mean a phonograph record digitized and played back with some modern AD/DA would necessarily be indistinguishable from doing the same thing with some other modern AD/DA.
Last edited:
White noise is white noise, brown noise is brown noise. Only the spectrum changes. It doesn't matter if its digital or analogue, the same rules apply to both.
Some digital systems are indeed designed by i#io*$ and produce audible artefacts.
But the second generation of digital consumer electronics was completely transparent (no audible difference between input and output).
Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article
Digital technology is pretty impressive once you get past the counter intuitive stuff.
They like you are a bit light on any analysis to back up their positions. Not what I would consider a well written article.
I would say quantizing noise sounds quite different from pink noise. They are both noise in the sense they are not the desired signal, but otherwise pretty different. And Barkhausen noise is different from each one of them.
Regarding the Boston Audio Society ABX testing you refer to, it is not credible to me or many other people. In fact, that particular test reminds me of the list of studies here: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm
Last edited:
You don't have to believe me.
And I don't have to point out the vast amount of research done on the subject.
Milkshake you're missing the primary point we are interested in digitizing some LP's arguing digital vs LP in general is a waste of time here. Any analog noise waveform properly sampled will sound the same played back on a good DAC, where did anyone here say anything different?
Last edited:
Presumably YOU have conducted similar tests to a similar rigorous standard.
If so, please link to any publically released results or tell us details of how you have done these.
Then the amount of information that vinyl and digital can reproduce seems to me relevant.
From a paper you posted here: http://www.channld.com/aes123.pdf
Vinyl has a dynamic range of about 7 bits, more than enough for even the cheapest converters out there.
There are a couple of files here digitized from tape and level matched to within 0.1 dB: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9r5kiiptr00seub/AAC5zEynkg-ZmriNSkQxFPaEa?dl=0
They were made with two high quality professional ADCs from about 10 years ago, long after the Boston Audio Society study. They sound different to me, and I think they demonstrate that not all "good" converters sound the same, or even necessarily all that "good."
If anyone would like to see for themselves, they would be quite welcome. Then if anybody cares, I can tell you more about which ADCs were used, and more about how the files were made.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.