Hypothesis as to why some prefer vinyl: Douglas Self

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
dont know, maybe because we like to keep an eye on our fledglings :rolleyes:

btw, England is just one country in the United Kingdom so asking a brit about England is like asking a New Yorker about New Mexico.
Sorry, didn't know that was insulting, and wasn't meant to be. You can ask me about New Mexico, I just won't know the answer.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
late replies, because I haven't been keeping up.

Yup, I associate that anticipation with the utter lack of dynamic range inherent in most digital recordings, especially CD, which isn't lost so much on good vinyl recordings.

I was referring to the sound of the lead-in, where there isn't ANY intentional signal yet. There is noise in the absence of signal, so pretty much zero dynamic range for the "good vinyl" at that point.

That Cowboy Junkies recording mentioned earlier, on CD, also seems to have a similar anticipation effect, a liveness that apparently is due to LF background noise. Everywhere people are (or nearly so) there is background LF, different character probably is responsible for the feeling of a new "place" being sonically established.

Back to low freq. noise. Easiest "proof" I can think of is to filter out the LF of a record with music that dosnt have much LF and see if the music sounds worse. I kinda doubt it.

I think that test has been run for many tens of years. Lots of stereos have included switchable "Low Cut" or "Rumble" filters. At least when I was doing stereo servicing in the 70s and 80s, I looked out of curiosity at how many boxes came in with the "Low Cut" filter engaged. I don't recall there were ever any. And a lot of these people had really crap turntables.
 
JCX Thank you for your helpful response. Of course, you are right when you point out that the reference you gave is not intended to be a mathematical treatise, and so my criticism was inappropriate.

So I also thank the kind person who wrote that helpful web content. No disrespect to either of you, but I am unconvinced - but since this discussion appears to be tiresomely off-topic to some, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
I withdraw this statement. It is not straightforward at all.

May be daft but this has got me mulling on ambience recovery as the whole thread is about that and trying to see if I can tenuously link some things together for further testing.

1. It has been said on many occasions that adding a subwoofer to the somewhat bass shy speakers we brits are wont to like aids ambience. I've not been able to test this up until now. 17 years to get a sub integrated into my system is a bit lax I will admit. Now (and correct me if I have missed something). A standard sub X-feeds the signals and, if placed centrally between the speakers should replicate the effect we are looking for if used with full range speakers and the ability to vary the cross-over frequency. With vinyl there should be minimal effect and with CD a lot more if the assertions are correct.

2. Given that the basis of hafler surround is to extract the antiphase signals this could be an interesting way to compare sources.

There is the other point that miniDSP might make this a lot easier to setup. I must finish getting mine in its case.

I know adding more hardware isn't normally a help but unless I have missed something fundamental either of these might make the hunt for the effect easier.
 
From experience I really prefer stereo woofers, they do provide separation through most of the bass spectrum. Once you reach the lower registers that basically just shake the room is when it becomes omni directional. I fell into the 5.1 trap for awhile, which is great for movies, but falls short musically. 5.1 sacds were an interesting gimmick at first, but I went back to stereo, and Don't regret it.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
I really have been going off topic. I had a full 5.1 set of monitor audio speakers which are excellent sounding British speakers, and switched to klipsch 8 inch mtms and could not be happier. Not super bass heavy, but they get the job done.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 
but I'm not sure what you can object to with Monty's video, his Analog signal gens, spectrum analyzers and scope displays all on camera, with signals behaving as described?

How about the video where he insists that, when presented with a sine digitized wave as the input, the output of a DAC is a nearly perfect sine not "stairs" like uneducated people would guess?

He conveniently omitted to mention what he understands by DAC (the whole box or just the chip) and where exactly he probed (on the chip legs or on the analog output of the box).

I'm challenging him to repeat the demo with a 1 bit DAC too. Nothing fancy in a box where we can't see what he's probing. Just a logic gate on a breadboard.
 
I'm challenging him to repeat the demo with a 1 bit DAC too. Nothing fancy in a box where we can't see what he's probing. Just a logic gate on a breadboard.
Which is how DSD works and the audiophile community always claim this is the most "analog" sounding. Enough said:rolleyes:

Now can we get back to Dougs topic on LF noise?

Presumably the 3180 us RIAA time constant is important, anything in the music at 50Hz or below is not reduced by the equalisation. The infamous tube trains must be causing fairly large groove modulation
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
not really, RIAA is to reduce groove velocity on high frequency signals as cartridges are velocity based (bar a few oddities like the soundsmith strain gauges. so whilst the modulation might be high, the velocity is low so the cartridge can track it. And the rumble is relatively low level compared to the music.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.