When it comes to microphones S/N ratio does not equal dynamic range.
S/N ratio is measured with a 94dBspl input which is remarkably low and mics can usually take 135dBspl or more giving mic a typical dynamic range of 120dB or so.
The pre amps in a good mixing console usually have EINs in the region of -120 to -127dB. -120dB is considered quite noisy.
I used to have a mobile mixer that ran off a number of D sized batteries that managed an Equivalent Input Noise of -126dB, only 4dB more than the self noise of the 150 Ohm resistor typically used in these tests.
My power amps have a S/N ratio of 108dB unweighted.
In my stereo the source (cd or vinyl) add more noise than any other component.
The main (or possibly even only) problem with digital is that it makes excessive editing aka over-production quick, easy and available to everyone.
Digital recordings which have been left well alone are sublime but ones that have been edited, comped, beat-detected, autotuned and finally overcompressed are sheer hell.
Spot on! We have a CD somewhere of a recording of a local kids choir made in a village hall by a guy with a decent portable digital rig who knew how to use it. Those kids can sure sing and the sound quality is amazing.
Sometimes listening to digital recordings can be stressful, often it's artist dependent, Sting for example demands high quality recording work so he can depress us in high definition.
Sometimes listening to digital recordings can be stressful, often it's artist dependent, Sting for example demands high quality recording work so he can depress us in high definition.
Last edited:
I've heard several very nice recordings done by forum members. Just as smooth, warm and "analog" as you could ever want. What they had in common was very good analog electronics and little or no processing. The digital recorders where nothing special.
As smooth and warm and natural as you could want, but digitally recorded.
As smooth and warm and natural as you could want, but digitally recorded.
I don't know exactly if the word "wear" is applicable to CD's, but I have adouble CD "Dos en la carretera" from Ana Belén and Víctor Manuel and guess, https://www.discogs.com/Ana-Belén-Víctor-Manuel-Dos-En-La-Carretera-En-Directo/release/7731420 which became unreadable, whose internal brilliant layer (aluminium?) has about a dozen of minute holes in it, when you see trough it, from a light source. No external damage at all.
Fortunately the record company BMG gives me a copy of it.
lol some used reggae lp's i have heard certainly gained additional sonic impact over the years. Putting pinhole burns on the surface aside, the background crackling log fire effect can be quite nostalgic i suppose.
Those EIN numbers are before preamp gain which is at least 20db, often 30 and sometimes even 60db ( ribbon mics). This increases the mic noise GE same amount. And just because a mic can handle 130db spl dosnt mean that's what it's getting. A mic a few feet from a violin will be 40 db shy of that.
Exactly. And exactly as a vast body of carefully conducted experiments and measurements has shown for decades.
The thing is, our brains are primitive things, largely unchanged from the days when we thought big trees and big rocks were Gods. Our natural human instincts pull us powerfully towards superstitious nonsense. It can be quite emotionally compelling to believe complete nonsense such as "analog formats record infinitely smooth audio, while digital formats chop it up into jagged stair-steps."
Remember, it was equally compelling, not so long ago, for church officials to believe thousands of women were witches, so evil that they had to be burned alive, in an act of horrifying cruelty that was repeated thousands of times by people supposedly working as agents of a loving God.
Remember, billions of people still find it compelling to believe that the positions of the stars somehow affect the course of their daily lives.
Remember, almost all seven and a half billion of us humans believe in "good luck", though a moments thought shows the idea is utterly ridiculous. (Who or what is responsible for this "luck", anyway? How is it enforced? What decides if your green shirt is "lucky" or not?)
The lesson for us humans is that we have to step away from our natural - and very silly - instincts if we want any kind of sanity. The "heart" is not wiser than the brain, as so many people believe; in fact, those "heart" feelings don't come from the blood-pump in your chest, but from the same brain you distrust so much! Seriously, how is it that cultural belief hasn't even caught up with basic human anatomy that's been known for centuries?
Collectively, at some level, we humans already know that we can't trust all our natural human instincts. Every modern country has laws that go against basic human instincts, because our instincts lead to a horrible, cruel, world. And so, no, you can't kill your neighbour just because he annoys you.
There are no laws against other silly human beliefs, but all the same, no, the stars don't determine your fortune. No, she isn't actually an angel, just because she is very beautiful; plenty of beautiful women turn out to be nasty people. No, analog recordings aren't better than digital ones. No, your ears and emotions do not trump accurate measurements and a body of mathematics created by some of the most brilliant minds ever to have existed.
And no, you didn't learn everything you need to know in Kindergarten!
Digital is better. It's an engineering and mathematical fact. It takes technical knowledge, and difficult mathematics, to understand why sampling a sine wave at only two points per cycle can still recreate a perfect sine wave (though it takes a perfect brick-wall filter to do it.) It's much more tempting to believe that the apparently smooth wiggles of the groove in an LP are more accurate.
But "tempting to believe" does not equal truth. It very rarely does. Our brains are silly, and out of date, and there's nothing we can do about it, other than learn how the scientific method works, and do our best to ignore our instincts when it comes to things intellectual.
-Gnobuddy
It doesn't, I also find the need for EAC is highly overstated (it's still a great effort). I took a CD that was walked over on my car floor for weeks and was unplayable to compare recovery with "any old" CD rip and found 1 missing sample in 23 min.
Agree on EAC. A good effort, but overkill. I use dBPoweramp and let it do its thing. Usually it has a checksum for what I am ripping. If not, it checks as best it can - and that's OK by me.
When I still played with CD-R I made it a practice to scan the discs and keep records of their C1 / C2 error rates, it was stressful.
C1 and C2 I also being used in DAT, which brings a question, what type of ECC does analogue tape have?
C1 and C2 I also being used in DAT, which brings a question, what type of ECC does analogue tape have?
(Snipped some worthwhile content to save bandwidth)
Good post, I would add that your arguments are exactly the arguments that some people use to argue that the scientific method is unnatural. It is something we picked up but doesn't really fit our predispositions. Critical review of our own work,really??
That's what makes it so hard to accept.
Jan
Of course you do not believe in overkill in any aspect of audio 😛
I have only really needed the rescan about once on EAC with a very unhappy disk where it chewed on it for about 30 mins, but its free, and freedb isn't too rubbish. Not yet managed to set it up to auto decode the few HDCDs I have but that is on the list.
Its the same plug in as dbpoweramp uses (HDCD.exe) but seems you can setup to rip, decode then flac the 24bit file.
I know there is some argument its not a full HDCD decode, but better than nothing.
I know there is some argument its not a full HDCD decode, but better than nothing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.