Well you can say it any way you like. The public have voted. The more I think about it the more crazy this thread is. One should not dispute taste.
We had this with beer. Our old style beer was ridiculed by big interests. Now it would not be possible to sell Keg Beer. I miss one thing. It was called Party 7. 7 pints of beer in a big can. Just about enough to get really drunk. There is no reason not to put good beer in the can and call it Party 7. Party 4 existed for the timid. Improved quality is a deception I can live with when it really is. IPA would make a good version.
We had this with beer. Our old style beer was ridiculed by big interests. Now it would not be possible to sell Keg Beer. I miss one thing. It was called Party 7. 7 pints of beer in a big can. Just about enough to get really drunk. There is no reason not to put good beer in the can and call it Party 7. Party 4 existed for the timid. Improved quality is a deception I can live with when it really is. IPA would make a good version.
Did you also listen to the original 1kHz test track from gpapag?
I also processed this track by notching out 1kHz and first several harmonics. This sounds very much like a long lead in groove, and sounds similar to my track processed with low pass filtered signal modulated with pink noise.
Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n6z7k24qur1lfsw/JVC QL-A2 & Stanton MK V cart 1k cut.wav?dl=0
I did too.
The first file ( JVC QL-A2 & Stanton MK V cart LP15Hz 1k modulation -14dBFS 1k added.wav) bears a good acoustic resemblance to the original, the modulation effect of the LF noise on the 1kHz tone is only a bit more pronounced than on the original.
The second file (JVC QL-A2 & Stanton MK V cart LP15Hz 1k modulation) doesn’t give me any clue as to what it is and what it shows.
The third file (JVC QL-A2 & Stanton MK V cart LP15Hz pink noise modulation) shows a very effective way to give an audible signature to the inaudible subsonic content of vinyl playback.
I want to thank Barleywater and I would love to read him explaining which way (technically) he produced these modulations (the explanation at post #714 confused me I admit).
George
>Edit. Barley, I cross posted with you. The 1kHz notched-out file sounds indeed as a lead-in groove
Last edited:
Hard to tell us apart. Brothers from a different mother. 😉
I don't understand how the "modulation with pink noise" was done. Can you help an idiot? 😱
As George says "shows a very effective way to give an audible signature to the inaudible subsonic content of vinyl playback." Indeed it does.
Understanding what you did would help us replicate it and understand the results.
Don't want to guess at it and get it wrong. Thanks
The modulation technique is very straight forward. For the source track, an identical length track is generated of test signal. The corresponding samples of source track and test signal track are multiplied resulting in processed track. When samples are all treated as normalized values the range is -1 to 1, thus all multiplications result in values -1 to 1.
Here is spectrum overlays of 50Hz at -36dBFS, 1kHz at 0dBFS, and result of modulation of the two frequencies by sample multiplication:
The modulation is 100%, none of the 50Hz and 1kHz signals remain. The spectral peaks are about -42dB and the waveform has peaks of -36dBFS, which is direct result of multiplication process.
Since side band formation is universal to phonograph systems, the process of sample multiplication appears to be an approximate model for the underlying principle allowing production of audible artifacts do to the presence of low frequency signals and of low frequency noise.
Here is spectrum overlays of 50Hz at -36dBFS, 1kHz at 0dBFS, and result of modulation of the two frequencies by sample multiplication:
The modulation is 100%, none of the 50Hz and 1kHz signals remain. The spectral peaks are about -42dB and the waveform has peaks of -36dBFS, which is direct result of multiplication process.
Since side band formation is universal to phonograph systems, the process of sample multiplication appears to be an approximate model for the underlying principle allowing production of audible artifacts do to the presence of low frequency signals and of low frequency noise.
What I still find hard to understand is when monitoring on large Tannoy speakers the cut sounds much like the mater. No one seems willing to think it true. So much so it could be very hard to say which is which if your life depended on it. The lathe is like an OK to good turntable ( SP10 SME M 12 inch ). The way this thread speaks is, as if the two sounds are very different. They are not. There are collorations that surprisingly are not too obvious. What I said before is, this thread is like writing a book on Australia without ever going there. OK the turntable you own is a further complication as is the pressing. Mostly reduced detail and HF. The idea that some magical low frequency antiphase garbage makes us euphoric isn't true. It is even bizare. As I said before vibrato is a well known musical quality. It makes things sound louder. It is very possible vibrato alone is the question with no reference to anything other. Logically vibrato is low in frequency. As this vibrato is on the LP even my very low rumble turntable will not get rid of it. To my ears low rumble is better if enough torque is available when the playback turntable. If someone wants to add some rumble and say low level detail seem better on CD I might buy that . When pick up arms are straight mostly they sound better. This is dependant on a reasonable slide bed coupling or whatever. A 12 inch arm is a good choice for many reasons. Mostly it's LF resonant point is much like most cutting set ups. Which again is factored into the cut. I have the impression some think cutting is like burning a CD. No it isn't. Ears and endless practice. Many LP's never get to be treasured. We forget most were not worth having. That still gives us plenty that are. The big CD sin was selling the back catalogue. Tapes not intended to be burnt to CD made into product, many that had faded. The real master so valuable it might be shipped with an armed gaurd. I held a Led Zeppelin master tape with Staireway to Heaven which we cut at 78 for fun on Sunset Boulevard . Goodness knows what it was worth.
Nigel, like it or not Douglas proposed a hypothesis at the top of the thread. A few here have found it reasonable enough to attempt testing it. Nothing wrong with that. So far, the tests are inconclusive.
Douglas;
What luckythedog shows for mono recording with stereo cartridge is all you can really do.
You are trying to do is treat two signals as four.
left groove wall, left groove wall noise, right groove wall, and right groove wall noise. All four signals have potential to move stylus both vertically, and horizontally.
And of course, all acquired signals from cartridge are simultaneously transformed by non-linear behavior of cantilever suspension.
Wallace is saying that low level low frequency sounds are audible, and contain enough information to change stereo sound field. This is rubbish.
Barleywater,
A big thank you to you and gpapag for all your work and your posts! A question, if I might: When you “multiply” the source track and the test signal track, are you effectively amplitude modulating the source track with the test signal track, which accounts for the sidebands at 950 and 1050HZ? I’ve been following this thread and am not clear on the choice of 50HZ as the “multiplying” test signal instead of something else, say, the mass/compliance resonance frequency ~8-12HZ? In your software modeling, is it possible to frequency modulate the source track with the test signal? Low frequency displacement of the arm/cartridge body wrt the record surface typically resolves itself into stylus motion along the groove (FM). Thanks,
Ray K
Nigel,
You’ve struck a chord with me on that. I’m interested in hearing your observations on this in more detail. Figure 20 on page 7 of the B&K paper shows a correlation between wow/flutter and offset angle.
Thanks,
Ray K
Is it? Your modulated files seem to tell us that the VLF sounds may not be directly audible, but can have an influence on higher frequency stereo placement.
I can see that. Rather than say inconclusive I would call it progress. I am trying to support the hypothisis in a more logical way. Vibrato should make it different ( must ). The hypothesis is too complicated without need. The difference between my suggestion and the hypothsis is very small.
Please trust what I hear in the cutting stage. Nothing is vastly different. If it were the master-tape would sound less " musical " than the cut. It doesn't. The cut sounds mostly as good with the slight jelly like qualities wow and flutter brings. Colloration is that the peaks sound even more as analogue always does. It is implied that like whisky a pure and not very drinkable liquid goes into the cask and is transformed. Sorry, this isn't true of LP. It's worse in a way that is neither helpful nor harmful.
Now lets consider LP's made from digital masters. These are the worst of all worlds. They do not go into the cask then sounding analogue on the cutting or exiting the cask. They sound like lower grade CD's if you own a good CD player. If you own a low grade CD player the LP might sound better. It has a chance as often they are made from 48 kHz masters that have not been converted to 44.1kHz. thankfully digital has grown up and much is history. If I had only ever heard Minidisc I might have been impressed. It claims so little.
My understanding is that Barley is specifically objecting the idea that low level low frequency sounds can change the stereophonic impression
George
Ray
The 50Hz was used at post #746 as a form of LF example.
In this example the modulation tried is AM
As for the question on the type of modulation used on the three linked files of post #714, me too was interested to know.
Investigating the files, I can say that files 1 and 2 are the result of AM modulation.
I have doubts for the type of modulation on file 3 (modulated noise)
I started experimenting with modulation using Nyquist promp in Audacity.
I will post (relatively 😀) soon on the outcome.
George
What the video shows is not a demonstration of vibrato. The rate of change is too slow.
I’ve posted again that in Music Theory books it is mentioned:
5Hz to 7Hz is the optimum modulation frequency range for vibrato effect (frequency modulation).
3Hz to 5Hz is the optimum modulation frequency range for tremolo effect (amplitude modulation).
What the text in the link says is also misleading.
Playing violin intentionally with no trace of vibrato is very rare and listening to it turns to be a ‘difficult’ experience.
Only masters of the instrument attempt to perform 'dry' in public.
Example is Bach violin sonatas recordings by old masters.
George
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.