I hope my posted recording method made sense.
The goal is to find a recording level that is just loud enough to never cause clipping. If recording in 24 bit, you can then kill the pops in the digital file and bring the volume up without harm. (be gentle with the filter, they can be a little "too good").
Finding that level, or a compromise level, will take some time and effort. Once done you don't have to change it for all your subsequent recordings.
The goal is to find a recording level that is just loud enough to never cause clipping. If recording in 24 bit, you can then kill the pops in the digital file and bring the volume up without harm. (be gentle with the filter, they can be a little "too good").
Finding that level, or a compromise level, will take some time and effort. Once done you don't have to change it for all your subsequent recordings.
TerryO.....Never had a problem with disagreement, its when all that extra noise happens. I do get emails from post that have been even deleted so I know there is more noise that we see sometimes.
calling people names, making comments outside of the arguement does nothing. I went to high school 26 years ago so I have no idea what they "encourage" these days. I do not remember a discussion face to face where people would consistently call someone naive or the other terms that are direct attacks on the person more then the topic.
Then to post like analog people are the only real music lovers isnt exactly something that make sense either.
Either way, no one has argued against my main points posted several times they stand as facts to the differences in technologies. This is an analog forum so I know the majority is going to fight for the idea of analog (duh?). Digital requires a fair battle hence some of the points we raised about why its considered a superior technology.
Im cool with disagreement, Im cool with people posting that they set a very, very high priority on a specific sound and that sound comes from LPs. I posted already that I will not even disagree with that conclusion but that is just a choice and to have a proper discussion all factors involved with the two choices need to be posted. People can prioritize what they want from that point.
Obviously posting anything against analog is like walking into a lion's den during feeding time.......
calling people names, making comments outside of the arguement does nothing. I went to high school 26 years ago so I have no idea what they "encourage" these days. I do not remember a discussion face to face where people would consistently call someone naive or the other terms that are direct attacks on the person more then the topic.
Then to post like analog people are the only real music lovers isnt exactly something that make sense either.
Either way, no one has argued against my main points posted several times they stand as facts to the differences in technologies. This is an analog forum so I know the majority is going to fight for the idea of analog (duh?). Digital requires a fair battle hence some of the points we raised about why its considered a superior technology.
Im cool with disagreement, Im cool with people posting that they set a very, very high priority on a specific sound and that sound comes from LPs. I posted already that I will not even disagree with that conclusion but that is just a choice and to have a proper discussion all factors involved with the two choices need to be posted. People can prioritize what they want from that point.
Obviously posting anything against analog is like walking into a lion's den during feeding time.......
Last edited:
Digital is making a lot of headway, especially with Hi-Rez files and I agree that the ordinary Redbook CD is now way down sonically by comparison. It seems that a common complaint with even the current Hi-Rez digital, is in the area of treble. In those that I have been able to successfully identify as having a digital signature, and it's not consistent (IOW: I wasn't sure one way or the other), it seemed to be the treble that was the area that allowed me to detect most readily a difference. It seems that others in our group that have been successful, have also noted that as well.
There's been enormous efforts at the R&D labs (JVC, in particular) to push the sonic resolution beyond the point where analog has any advantage over digital. At this point in time, we're just not there yet...
Best Regards,
TerryO
What I've been trying to say. Once set it would be fine for most recordings but it's easy enough to check.
Not used any of the filtering software, but even so, I'm not sure that a digital clip from surface noise will sound any worse than most RIAA stages overloading with the same.
Yeah, probably true.
But I've heard SY's phono stage and it is unusually clean. AFAIK, dynamic too. I'll be curious to see what sort of levels he gets.
But I've heard SY's phono stage and it is unusually clean. AFAIK, dynamic too. I'll be curious to see what sort of levels he gets.
I've been interested in it too, so I might add one to the collection. It would be interesting to see how it copes with a Decca w/o the input Tx. I'll re read it over easter as I'm pretty sure I have all (well almost) the parts on hand and the existing RTP3 PS could easily be pushed into service here too, for testing at least.
an other very good CD . sorry , not available on vinyl , only on Hi-Fi equipement....
ambroisie AM130 Ophélie Gaillard Bruno Fontaine FAURÉ piano & cello.
ambroisie AM130 Ophélie Gaillard Bruno Fontaine FAURÉ piano & cello.
Does this have anything to do with it?
Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
In other words, the treble has to be smoothed, softened, whatever you want to call it, for vinyl. It is the unmolested treble that you identify in the digital as a "digital signature". You prefer the smoothed version.
I think this is a misconception with digital - I'm pretty sure that this is actually the sonic signature of jitter. When jitter is reduced this "pseudo detail" is removed & the smoothness of the sound becomes analogue-like!
Actually, we did some comparisons between a Master tape and a Hi-Rez file made from the tape. I understand that I didn't refer to the exact circumstances, but my remarks were made in regards to the statement made by RCruz. You mistakenly (and "perhaps" understandably) inferred something that wasn't stated. Just the same, I could have been clearer I suppose.
TerryO
Jeff,
Give the guy a break!
He's obviously trying to be witty, it's just that he has to draw on such limited resources.
Agreed!
Best Regards,
Terry
Last edited:
I agree with RCruz #1341!
To me it points out that the two (vinyl vs CD) are close, despite their differences, and extremist attitudes are just that. If they weren't close the OP question would never have been asked. And IMO any "battle for supremacy" is without purpose.
On another subject, I recently did some vinyl digitization and didn't worry about any pops that exceeded maximum dB. They were clipped of course, but removed during post-processing. I feel I do have quite a bit of experience cleaning up both digital and analog recordings. Albeit with only my modest equipment.
To me it points out that the two (vinyl vs CD) are close, despite their differences, and extremist attitudes are just that. If they weren't close the OP question would never have been asked. And IMO any "battle for supremacy" is without purpose.
On another subject, I recently did some vinyl digitization and didn't worry about any pops that exceeded maximum dB. They were clipped of course, but removed during post-processing. I feel I do have quite a bit of experience cleaning up both digital and analog recordings. Albeit with only my modest equipment.
why is higher than 44.1 sample rate superiority assumed - the JAES doesn't seem to have closure on this yet with Meyer, Moran and Pras, Guastavino coming to different conclusions only 1 year apart
engineering conservatism certainly suggests using the higher sample rates in mastering but the assertion that 44.1 is clearly audibly inferior is still in question
engineering conservatism certainly suggests using the higher sample rates in mastering but the assertion that 44.1 is clearly audibly inferior is still in question
as I said higher sample rates which clearly overbound demonstrated human frequency limit are preferrable to 44.1 as matter of engineering conservatisim in the face of uncertain requirements - but meyer, moran seems clear that any audible differences can't be in the "night and day" category
it also appears that audio marketing is running off the tracks again with the pushing of "24 bit" audio as "hi res" - for more money - but absurdly at still at 44.1 KHz sample rate (Beatles usb "box set" flac files)
it also appears that audio marketing is running off the tracks again with the pushing of "24 bit" audio as "hi res" - for more money - but absurdly at still at 44.1 KHz sample rate (Beatles usb "box set" flac files)
Obviously.
But could you clarify the practical consequences for our little hobby? Like what goes wrong? How much of it? And how audible is that much wrongness?
Do you have a theory about why you heard a difference? You are suggesting there is a difference between two wiggly lines; what caused that difference?
I once tried to compare Minidisc and CD, and arranged it so I could alternate between the two with the source switch of an amplifier. I monitored on headphones. I started both machines from 'pause' simultaneously and managed to get them perfectly synchronised first time. Unfortunately, when switching between sources, I heard what I was expecting: Minidisc clearly had less definition and 'bite'. I was very disappointed.
It was only later I realised that, when setting up the experiment, I had left my headphones plugged directly into the CD player, not the amplifier.
You are obviously immune from such psychological bias. When did you find that out?
Last edited:
Actually the battle had a purpose, it makes a big difference, and the battle is long over. The market judged the clear winner.
First of all about the comparison. If the player is a tweako audiophile unit, that by itself could explain the difference in results. Those are the ones that distort the sound to "improve" it. It's the cheapo 24bit/192 khz DVD players that are designed to spec and will perform best. There are also production variations which might explain slight differences. The equipment should be checked in a lab first to confirm performace. Then if there is any audible difference it might be explained by limitations of the system, not the particular selection of the equipment or how it is being used.
The other difference is that the cd will remain identical for many decades or who knows, maybe a hundred years or more. The vinyl won't. Not only will it deteriorate with playing, it will deteriorate even if it is stored in a carefully climate controlled environment and never played.
For the consumer there is a vast difference in cost and convenience too. You can pack dozens of hours of music on cd in something the size of a lunchbox and enjoy them on a vacation, even in a vehicle. No way that can happen with vinyl records. The difference was which would win the market once the cd was introduced. It was not a slam dunk. 8 tracks, open reel tape, and cassettes never captured the market away from vinyl. Quad sound failed when it was introduced in the 1970s too. For 30 years the money has been in cds, not in vinyl. Vinyl only remains alive for a tiny niche market.
Soundminded. Most of your argument for the superiority of CDs sounds like it comes from the Compact Disc marketing department. 😀
Hey, I can't argue with most of it, but if you're just sitting down to listen to an album, how much does it matter?
It's nice to be in love, but we don't all love the same thing. Some folks love the convenience of the CD. The marketplace loves it because it's cheap and easy. In many ways the CD is a great way to listen to music. That's a reason to love it. Some folks love vinyl for its physicality and sound. Kids getting into vinyl like the ritual and the idea of actually sitting down to listen to something - with friends.
But walk into a room where there is vinyl and CD playback - like at an audio show - a pick which is "better sounding". Unless there are major problems, you won't easily be able to.
"The market" has been stuck on giant action films with huge explosions for 20+ years. The music industry has been stuck on over produced, over compressed, over loud pop for even longer.
If the only thing that makes it better is that it sells more, that isn't much of an encouragement for me. In fact, quite the opposite. What the market chooses is not much of a guide for me.
Hey, I can't argue with most of it, but if you're just sitting down to listen to an album, how much does it matter?
It's nice to be in love, but we don't all love the same thing. Some folks love the convenience of the CD. The marketplace loves it because it's cheap and easy. In many ways the CD is a great way to listen to music. That's a reason to love it. Some folks love vinyl for its physicality and sound. Kids getting into vinyl like the ritual and the idea of actually sitting down to listen to something - with friends.
But walk into a room where there is vinyl and CD playback - like at an audio show - a pick which is "better sounding". Unless there are major problems, you won't easily be able to.
"The market" has been stuck on giant action films with huge explosions for 20+ years. The music industry has been stuck on over produced, over compressed, over loud pop for even longer.
If the only thing that makes it better is that it sells more, that isn't much of an encouragement for me. In fact, quite the opposite. What the market chooses is not much of a guide for me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.