There's a commercial product upon apparently similar lines, which describes its mode of operation and general circuit topology. I have no affiliation and never seen or tested one.
The Derumbleizer cancels rumble 3 octaves higher than any filter
Well it's 64 k (as in 1k is 2^10) values. The bit depth determines the number of bytes in each value.
Jan
Did anyone try these tests in real mono? I think you will find vinyl is always vinyl. Try a real mono recording if you can. Not sure it helps anyone here, but think it should be tried by anyone who isn't into technical guessing. Mono played as stereo can be slightly different. Make it real mono. Stereo played as mono will tell you something.
If you play MP3 encoded 78's they seem to retain the magic. To my ears that begs the question is good 1930's mono better than everyday stereo. The back to front separation can sometimes be just as impressive as the side to the side of stereo. That is a question worth asking. Why is it CD often seems not to offer good stereo nor mono? To be honest digital mastered LP's are not much better. It's worth saying digital LP's are often closer to the mastertape ( or whatever). That is it would have been 48 kHz sampling witout conversion. A bit like chlorine in water spoils the taste is what I hear. BBC Nicam is better on this. not sure it exists today as my ears tell me FM is a better DAB feed.
If wondering I do have very good CD. The transport is a Marantz CD67 SE and DAC is a Crystal 20 bit as fitted to Quad CD 67 ( Same number, Quad CD 66 was nothing special, 67 was I think Alan Mornington West ). I am totally happy with it. The Marantz CD 67 is nasty, 10 minutes and I go watch TV. I have a generic of CD 67 named as CD 53. The difference used as a transport is not subtle. I have heard better CD, I feel what I have gets me 95 % as far as I could get. I have zero belief in transports sounding different. On the other hand I love music and have to give in to what I hear. A Lenco GL75 would be much better music. I also have a Naim CDi that needs a new DAC. On balance I prefer my lash up. My Crystal DAC is makers recomended PCB with a very simple quiet PSU. I should explore fitting it to the Naim.
Gilbert Briggs made a very good point in the late 1950's. If wanting stereo buy the speakers first. As we have two ears it will be better in mono to have two speakers. He then went on to say most lower cost stereo he had heard was nothing like as good as two speaker mono. This is somethinng many wouldn't know. A Garrard 301, Leak TL12 ( not plus although a fine amp ) and Quad ESL should still blow anyones socks off. That's 1954, 1947, 1957. All three are still references to this very day. The overal distortion of that system will not be equalled by most modern day hi fi that people hold to be better. I don't mean in my heart. I mean the numbers. The 301 can be improved in rumble if any thinks it is a problem ( I don't ). The version I helped make is 78 dB weighted ( reviews in German if required ) . Most belt drives are worse.
A story if you will forgive that I feel worth retelling. A man I assume to be Peter Andre the record producer wanted to buy a Sansui SR222 turntable from me. He had BMW 801 speakers and Quad amps supplied by his employer. I think I begged him to have a Thorens TD160. After accpeting it was the SR222 or nothing I said . " How do you explain the lower standard of sound recordings these day". He was not happy and asked me to give dates and examples. I am sure I saw a tear in his eye when he said " They were mine ". He went on to say he had to pass the same exam as a conductor to get the job. The job interview ended in " Do you think you might learn how to edit tapes " ? Gradually the question was " can you repair recording equipement and do you like music " ? His point was they who came later could not understand a musical score and could not tell the recording to be worthless. The Beatles were lucky and had a similar producer. If that means nothing to you.........? Mr Andre ( I was too polite to ask but knew the recordiings ) confirmed they did cut direct from the mater and had invented their own digital recorder. My friend from DGG and he had what sounded almost like a fight over words on a sleve. That's unexspected and well done both of them.
When I made my version of the 301 I was worried the rumble might be the magic. No it isn't. The - 78db has magic you wouldn't begin to imagine. The records still have some rumble so I can't say a factor removed. Other low rumble turntables lack verve. My fear was vibrato is what I liked? I don't think so. Vibrato is a far more likely reason why something bad sounds good. I have just help scure the Garrard licence for 10 more years for that project. This time we were left to do it and make sure it was in Gradiente's name.
If you play MP3 encoded 78's they seem to retain the magic. To my ears that begs the question is good 1930's mono better than everyday stereo. The back to front separation can sometimes be just as impressive as the side to the side of stereo. That is a question worth asking. Why is it CD often seems not to offer good stereo nor mono? To be honest digital mastered LP's are not much better. It's worth saying digital LP's are often closer to the mastertape ( or whatever). That is it would have been 48 kHz sampling witout conversion. A bit like chlorine in water spoils the taste is what I hear. BBC Nicam is better on this. not sure it exists today as my ears tell me FM is a better DAB feed.
If wondering I do have very good CD. The transport is a Marantz CD67 SE and DAC is a Crystal 20 bit as fitted to Quad CD 67 ( Same number, Quad CD 66 was nothing special, 67 was I think Alan Mornington West ). I am totally happy with it. The Marantz CD 67 is nasty, 10 minutes and I go watch TV. I have a generic of CD 67 named as CD 53. The difference used as a transport is not subtle. I have heard better CD, I feel what I have gets me 95 % as far as I could get. I have zero belief in transports sounding different. On the other hand I love music and have to give in to what I hear. A Lenco GL75 would be much better music. I also have a Naim CDi that needs a new DAC. On balance I prefer my lash up. My Crystal DAC is makers recomended PCB with a very simple quiet PSU. I should explore fitting it to the Naim.
Gilbert Briggs made a very good point in the late 1950's. If wanting stereo buy the speakers first. As we have two ears it will be better in mono to have two speakers. He then went on to say most lower cost stereo he had heard was nothing like as good as two speaker mono. This is somethinng many wouldn't know. A Garrard 301, Leak TL12 ( not plus although a fine amp ) and Quad ESL should still blow anyones socks off. That's 1954, 1947, 1957. All three are still references to this very day. The overal distortion of that system will not be equalled by most modern day hi fi that people hold to be better. I don't mean in my heart. I mean the numbers. The 301 can be improved in rumble if any thinks it is a problem ( I don't ). The version I helped make is 78 dB weighted ( reviews in German if required ) . Most belt drives are worse.
A story if you will forgive that I feel worth retelling. A man I assume to be Peter Andre the record producer wanted to buy a Sansui SR222 turntable from me. He had BMW 801 speakers and Quad amps supplied by his employer. I think I begged him to have a Thorens TD160. After accpeting it was the SR222 or nothing I said . " How do you explain the lower standard of sound recordings these day". He was not happy and asked me to give dates and examples. I am sure I saw a tear in his eye when he said " They were mine ". He went on to say he had to pass the same exam as a conductor to get the job. The job interview ended in " Do you think you might learn how to edit tapes " ? Gradually the question was " can you repair recording equipement and do you like music " ? His point was they who came later could not understand a musical score and could not tell the recording to be worthless. The Beatles were lucky and had a similar producer. If that means nothing to you.........? Mr Andre ( I was too polite to ask but knew the recordiings ) confirmed they did cut direct from the mater and had invented their own digital recorder. My friend from DGG and he had what sounded almost like a fight over words on a sleve. That's unexspected and well done both of them.
When I made my version of the 301 I was worried the rumble might be the magic. No it isn't. The - 78db has magic you wouldn't begin to imagine. The records still have some rumble so I can't say a factor removed. Other low rumble turntables lack verve. My fear was vibrato is what I liked? I don't think so. Vibrato is a far more likely reason why something bad sounds good. I have just help scure the Garrard licence for 10 more years for that project. This time we were left to do it and make sure it was in Gradiente's name.
Here's my thought,
Everything old is new again, we have reached a pinnacle in objective audio where it has just become mundane and boring. Forget trying to recreate the event because it was never truly there, just distorted by its source to begin with.
. A little distortion can make a better audio experience, maybe not to all, but to many, and as much as Doug may hate it it is what it is. There is a connection to a physical medium that isn't always quantifiable by trying to justify through math, imperfections and all it just feels more real.
I think if you approach it psychologically you might find to many noise is comforting, noise is real. and a part of life, the degree of which is debatable and different from one to the next. Just looking around, besides the potential of great sound, what other medium can we physically hold in our hand these days and read the credits?, cd is, almost deader than vinyl was in 1993. Just as much as our mood can affect perceived sound our human psychological feelings I feel can affect our kindship toward mediums.
At the end of the day, I'm glad Doug that you are asking these questions, because you are reaching out to the potential next breed of audio enthusiasts too, I don't believe in fashion audio as has been stated, but I do believe that great audio pertains to the individual and what they like as and individual.
Colin
Everything old is new again, we have reached a pinnacle in objective audio where it has just become mundane and boring. Forget trying to recreate the event because it was never truly there, just distorted by its source to begin with.
. A little distortion can make a better audio experience, maybe not to all, but to many, and as much as Doug may hate it it is what it is. There is a connection to a physical medium that isn't always quantifiable by trying to justify through math, imperfections and all it just feels more real. I think if you approach it psychologically you might find to many noise is comforting, noise is real. and a part of life, the degree of which is debatable and different from one to the next. Just looking around, besides the potential of great sound, what other medium can we physically hold in our hand these days and read the credits?, cd is, almost deader than vinyl was in 1993. Just as much as our mood can affect perceived sound our human psychological feelings I feel can affect our kindship toward mediums.
At the end of the day, I'm glad Doug that you are asking these questions, because you are reaching out to the potential next breed of audio enthusiasts too, I don't believe in fashion audio as has been stated, but I do believe that great audio pertains to the individual and what they like as and individual.
Colin
Thank you sir. I am seeing a little bit advantage of linear tonearms in this situation. Also light damped tonearm with high compliance cartridge would also benefit. Right ?
---
Coming back to thread topic. I guess it is already said somewhere. Vinyl sales are increasing but comparatively it is less historically. I wonder if its compared to music in digital format it would be less too. Probably vinyl sales are driven by small number of audio enthusiasts and somewhat younger generation.
Vinyl sales comparison.
Regards.
Having delved more to make sure I am not being completely stupid I have a concern over the devinylising process because, unless I have missed something the bandwidth of the out of phase artifacts will be a lot higher than 100Hz or. If we define the 'ambience' that the OP mentions as any imperfections or contaminants that cause a purely vertical (out of phase) stylus motion then we can infer it will contain some low level stuff and some more impulsive events.
Ambient recovery systems in general seem to work up to around 7KHz and I don't see any obvious reason why the ambience noise on vinyl would not go this high or higher. So any low frequency removal of anti-phase signals would do something, but may just leave a lot of the signals behind.
I've worked out how to extract antiphase signals using audacity, but as of yet have not setup a way to rip some vinyl, which seems to be a good starting point!
Ambient recovery systems in general seem to work up to around 7KHz and I don't see any obvious reason why the ambience noise on vinyl would not go this high or higher. So any low frequency removal of anti-phase signals would do something, but may just leave a lot of the signals behind.
I've worked out how to extract antiphase signals using audacity, but as of yet have not setup a way to rip some vinyl, which seems to be a good starting point!
Newton was faced with a similar problem. People thought a prism made the pretty colours. Newton devised a very simple experiment to say the prism did not make the pretty colours. At this point some will say obvious. Not really. It seems perfectly possible that the the prism makes the pretty colours to me. The experiment is so convincing that one has to go with Newton.
The suggestion here is vinyl gives a sence of something coming. More so the analogue mastertapes. As classical music usually has plenty of room noise how come CD often sounds as if recorded in dry acoustic. Some engineers will add reverb.
The suggestion here is vinyl gives a sence of something coming. More so the analogue mastertapes. As classical music usually has plenty of room noise how come CD often sounds as if recorded in dry acoustic. Some engineers will add reverb.
The test is easy to do and needs more than that. People have for years said glass is a specail liquid. It isn't. Telescopes are the proof.
I shall soon build my twin subs. This inspired me in about 1980.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...iman-velocity-coupled-infra-bass-speaker.html
I shall soon build my twin subs. This inspired me in about 1980.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...iman-velocity-coupled-infra-bass-speaker.html
Found this article "Record specifications". Just below the center of the website there is a graph showing Left and right groove pressure ratio corresponding to radius of the groove. Though little difficult for me to comprehend fully.
Regards
Regards
That's very sad.
I hope a few who have a genuine interest to learn more would like to do experiments.
To recap. Inverse RIAA. This should be very similar to LP sound. Remember I am very pro LP so being very objective.
Mono good or bad? This would say the hypothisis is unlikely if real mono shows same triats.
My own experiance is filtering the LP makes it sound more like CD. That can not be true as by quantity of bass the CD must have should be more. Preamps I have made for people have been modified to have the last bean of bass. Personally I didn't like that. Mine were about 7 Hz -3dB. They state it's the very hard driving bass of LP they like.
People can test the absolute " hypothesis ". They will find it harder than these tests. I should be able to soon by chance of my next move.
I think not understanding the analogy with " is glass a liquid theory" is odd. My friend who was for 30 years + was a technical glass blower. He always called it a super cooled liquid. Universitiy of Oxford, his glass seen in the film the Saint.
Quantum computing will be a reality soon. The concepts are almost awful and seem so unlikely. As the people who do this are not fools I have to think it's time is near. Goodness knows what trouble it might bring. Like Cold Fussion it might not work. I really hope so. Quantum for many years was distrusted at best. Now it is a science. The key thing is an open mind. I read Quantum people were asked the same as you just asked me in the early part of the 1900's. If I am not wrong Einstein wasn't a believer? As I never met him I can not say as fact.
I am very frustrated by the sound of CD. I spend money and don't think it is very good ( 20 % are ). My LP's get older and older. I too would like to think it's just my imgination. Mr Andre told me somthing. When LP's arrived the war was over and some went into computers and others hi fi. The hi fi people were in their opinion recording for the first time music as it it really is. CD is people selling a product. I think that's the truth. The people who went into hi fi choose lower saleries. The war was awful. It had given them skills as engineers that many younger people today I doubt will match. Not that they couldn't. Just there is not the force of education making these skills come alive. Mr Andre also said his friends had seen dreadful things and this was a way of putting things right.
I suspect some people were born knowing glass is not a liquid. Me, I wasn't.
I hope a few who have a genuine interest to learn more would like to do experiments.
To recap. Inverse RIAA. This should be very similar to LP sound. Remember I am very pro LP so being very objective.
Mono good or bad? This would say the hypothisis is unlikely if real mono shows same triats.
My own experiance is filtering the LP makes it sound more like CD. That can not be true as by quantity of bass the CD must have should be more. Preamps I have made for people have been modified to have the last bean of bass. Personally I didn't like that. Mine were about 7 Hz -3dB. They state it's the very hard driving bass of LP they like.
People can test the absolute " hypothesis ". They will find it harder than these tests. I should be able to soon by chance of my next move.
I think not understanding the analogy with " is glass a liquid theory" is odd. My friend who was for 30 years + was a technical glass blower. He always called it a super cooled liquid. Universitiy of Oxford, his glass seen in the film the Saint.
Quantum computing will be a reality soon. The concepts are almost awful and seem so unlikely. As the people who do this are not fools I have to think it's time is near. Goodness knows what trouble it might bring. Like Cold Fussion it might not work. I really hope so. Quantum for many years was distrusted at best. Now it is a science. The key thing is an open mind. I read Quantum people were asked the same as you just asked me in the early part of the 1900's. If I am not wrong Einstein wasn't a believer? As I never met him I can not say as fact.
I am very frustrated by the sound of CD. I spend money and don't think it is very good ( 20 % are ). My LP's get older and older. I too would like to think it's just my imgination. Mr Andre told me somthing. When LP's arrived the war was over and some went into computers and others hi fi. The hi fi people were in their opinion recording for the first time music as it it really is. CD is people selling a product. I think that's the truth. The people who went into hi fi choose lower saleries. The war was awful. It had given them skills as engineers that many younger people today I doubt will match. Not that they couldn't. Just there is not the force of education making these skills come alive. Mr Andre also said his friends had seen dreadful things and this was a way of putting things right.
I suspect some people were born knowing glass is not a liquid. Me, I wasn't.
"super cooled liquid" is what I was taught way back when I was still a teenager.
Could the science have moved on such that, that is no longer true?
I don't know much/enough about this but this page seems to imply that supercooled liquid is a bit different from amorphous solid. the two appear at nearly opposite sides of the plot.
INOUE Superliquid Class | ERATO
This and many others refer to glass as a supercooled liquid.
http://www.ropex.com/english/index.html
Is there a possibility that amorphous solid and supercooled liquid overlap at some point and that glass is in both camps?
INOUE Superliquid Class | ERATO
This and many others refer to glass as a supercooled liquid.
http://www.ropex.com/english/index.html
Is there a possibility that amorphous solid and supercooled liquid overlap at some point and that glass is in both camps?
Last edited:
Not quite. To make solid glass you supercool liquid glass but it solidifies and becomes amorphous. There is no order to the solid. Best way of thinking about it is a liquid that stops being a liquid.
Still nothing to do with out of phase ambience.
Me too Andrew. Telescopes need to be highly accurate. Some now are 100 years old plus and show no change from when made. This caused the stated fact to be questioned. My friends super cooled liquid was sitting on the fence I guess. I am having a drink with him tonight so must ask. The other friend designs digital stuff. I don't mean audio. I am doing up his Lenco 75. He loves vinyl.
Guys, please stay on topic.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.