Back on topic, which partly is for me 44KHz sampling frequency: An analogue flat lowpass rounds edges, a steep one rings, while an oversampling digital one pre-rings. These are different waveforms. Our ears (should) contain hair-to-nerve cells immediately behind the ear-drum hence should be able to register these waveforms. In loudspeakers we have seen, that impulse response within audio bandwidth matters. Why should impulse response not matter at limits of audio bandwidth? Softer Ride (B-side of Paper Plane) sounds better than Them Or Us (DDD, 1984), which sounds better than The Jeremy Days (DDD, 1989). Stress is a subjective thing, so some people may have no fun listening to CDs at all. They may listen to vinyl, DIY 24/96 or Super-CD or how it is called instead. When the CD was developed, this was foreseeable, hence the notion that the CD was perfect was a lie.
OK, now I'm starting to think that you're not being creative, but are just using an Audiophile Nonsense Random Phrase Generator. I am disappointed.
Hate to drag this up from a week ago, but I believe some bias tone does stay on the tape. I do not have direct experience with this, but some years ago there were a couple of guys who devolved a process for using the bias tone on the tape to correct speed variations in recording. The process was digital. Basically they assumed that the bias frequency was stable, and used it to cancel out wow, flutter, sprocket noise, etc. I heard it - it was remarkable. Don't know if it's still around.
OK, carry on.
Even if there is a trace of bias left on the tape it would still not be evidence for sampling, as was being claimed.
If the recording is digital just what do you gain by playing vinyl copies, apart from a load of extra noise?
I just don't get it, digital done well is stunning and it's still improving. I'll never go back to having racks and boxes of records and tapes all over the house and all that hiss and crackle (when i finally found what i wanted to play).
I just don't get it, digital done well is stunning and it's still improving. I'll never go back to having racks and boxes of records and tapes all over the house and all that hiss and crackle (when i finally found what i wanted to play).
The reason is that the digital is in a high resolution format and down-sampled into the cd.
For the vinyl copy : the original metal tape or hard drive copy high res digital is grooved into the master disk without down-sampling.
I listened to 192khz 24 bit digital and it is the equivalent to the vinyl, I find it sounds way better than the cds. Vinyl will add euphoria and high distortion 1% to 5 % which some people like and recreates the ambiance of the SET amplification in some levels. One could also claim that the stereo image is more natural because of vinyl crosstalk, or that it hold better instrument timbre and separation vs. dac's limitation to convert bits to sounds.
AC bias is not random, unlike dither. Tapes are not quantized, unless you consider random tape noise to be some form of signal quantisation.Max Headroom said:
So we have moved from false assertions that tape is sampled, to false assertions that tape is quantised. What next: tape sound betters through a NOS equaliser?
Quite true.
I just wanted it to be clear for the record that some of the bias HF seems to remain, and can be useful for certain things.If there occur fartefact=-fsampling/2+fsignal for fsampling/2<fsignal<fsampling, this is aliasing by definition. If there is aliasing, the signal has been sampled.
Magnetical hysteresis causes crossover distortion, say all sound below a certain level is ignored. This is most basic rasterization, or as you call it quantization. And it explains aformentioned sampling in analogue tape decks:
Mixing HF bias with signal modulates rasterization time points by signal, what causes aliasing, if signal frequency is too high.
I would like to correct myself. Radio does not sample, DF96 was right in this regard.
Any analogue signal denotes a certain subset of all functions of amplitude versus time, namely a function which is rounded, continuous, mathematically derivable. By sampling amplitude at certain points in time we can introduce abrupt changes of amplitude, say steps. When we are sampling a random signal of origin, we cannot rule out points of discontinuity. Hence we have broken analogueness.
Radio combines a sinusoidal, analogue carrier and an analogue signal in any of such ways, which do not introduce steps, so there is no sampling.
Any analogue signal denotes a certain subset of all functions of amplitude versus time, namely a function which is rounded, continuous, mathematically derivable. By sampling amplitude at certain points in time we can introduce abrupt changes of amplitude, say steps. When we are sampling a random signal of origin, we cannot rule out points of discontinuity. Hence we have broken analogueness.
Radio combines a sinusoidal, analogue carrier and an analogue signal in any of such ways, which do not introduce steps, so there is no sampling.
Pano is referencing the plangent process. The odd thing is that none of the commercial corrections they have done use any high frequency information taken off the tape. Almost as if its not actually there. That or these old tapes are too valuable to post to them...
New tape recorders record digital if I am not abusing myself.
A relative told me that which works in the NAC ottawa orchestra
A relative told me that which works in the NAC ottawa orchestra
Why put so much effort into trying to correct the misinformation in threads like this? I've never seen any success. Audiofoolery type beliefs always remain intact no matter how strenuously attacked.
You mean like a slide rule?
(I had a teacher in high school ask a student to say it, the teacher wrote on the board "sly drool" and said "that's what you said.")
The old obsolete ones, with lots of distortion and noise, go for big bucks.
I was going to mention discrete-time (like the title of the renamed Oppenheim-Shafer book) and discrete-amplitude (the belated LM3915 - have all the most fun chips gone obsolete, or have I lived too long?), but why bother.
You mean like an old-fashioned analog CRT TV screen?
My values, in regard to this forum, are to be as technically correct as I reasonably can. I think that most nearly reflects reality, at least the samples of it I post here.
I managed to do analog wrong in college when I could only afford a $10 phono cartridge.
"Analog" LP sales have been increasing in recent years, so much that the remaining vinyl record presses are running 24/7. Admittedly, the vast majority of these are from digital sound files, and even some of the analog recording are suspect because some record cutters use a digital delay to pre-adjust the groove width for modulation volume.
Does anyone have an exact reference for this, like thread name and post #?
OMG! And I thought a 12-step program was hard...
So, one objection to digital is the medium? One of the advantages of digital is it can be copied so you only have to read the CD once.
Though I do recall an old thread on the difference in sound between playing digital files from a FLASH drive vs. a hard drive. You might want to read up on that. Perhaps I shouldn't mention it, I vaguely recall it being ended by a mod locking it.
I thought of making one of those on the Internet, but one thought tells me it's been done already, just translate these new-age words into audiophile words:
Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra
I think the big dependence is on tape speed (coupled with recording head gap size - it's a wavelength issue of max recordable frequency). Tape going at 15IPS as in studio recorders tends to record the bias signal, cassettes going a 1 7/8 IPS tend not to.
Oh, if only the master tapes from the 1970s could have been pre-shedded.
It depends on what "new" is. Before there was a Compact Disc, Telarc made some LPs recorded on a digital tape recorder.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.