Hi Jan,
That sounds interesting.
Any idea what algorithm is behind this sort of 'vinilyzer'?
Or maybe you even have a link to this software.
Regards,
Hans
How many you need 😉?
Start here: https://www.izotope.com/en/products/create-and-design/vinyl.html
You got to love the 'year' dial!
Or 'willy vinylli': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEYIiUUvq38
In fact, pretty much any analog equipment from yesterday is now available as a plug-in: http://www.waves.com/plugins/analog...st-view|paging:currentPage=0|paging:number=20
Jan
Last edited:
So you want to add noise, wow and flutter, play with phase and add hardware artefacts Seems like a lot of effort to make music sound worse. ( don't forget the clicks and pops). But then again it seems that a lot of audiophiles tend towards worse when there only metric is there hearing.
While it's nice to present this to the AES, I don't understand the valiant effort involved when all this can be, and has been, done easily in the digital domain. There were a number of examples posted in this thread.
We never really came to much of a conclusion as to whether added or removing the low frequency out of phase noise achieved much. It seems many more tests were needed. So I don't really understand the point of the hardware devices and the AES talk.
We never really came to much of a conclusion as to whether added or removing the low frequency out of phase noise achieved much. It seems many more tests were needed. So I don't really understand the point of the hardware devices and the AES talk.
Maybe, the reason why folks 'prefer' vinyl over digital has to do with expectation bias.
You expect it to sound not so good (>100 year old technology, a needle riding in a dirty groove, low mV signals, crackles and pops etc). And yet, when you play it - wow, actually a very nice sound.
Further, you are getting loads of low order harmonics (especially 2nds) and often not correlated between the channels that are just wonderfully euphonic.
While I wont get into an argument about which sounds better, I can say vinyl to my ears sounds very good.
You expect it to sound not so good (>100 year old technology, a needle riding in a dirty groove, low mV signals, crackles and pops etc). And yet, when you play it - wow, actually a very nice sound.
Further, you are getting loads of low order harmonics (especially 2nds) and often not correlated between the channels that are just wonderfully euphonic.
While I wont get into an argument about which sounds better, I can say vinyl to my ears sounds very good.
As long as we are continuing to confuse better with preferred we'll keep going in circles for the next few decades as well....
Jan
Vinyl very low level content, which is distortionless/non quantised down to zero level is buried down in vinyl surface/recorded tape noise, which is pretty consistent except for clicks/pop.
It is easy to ignore/'hear through' the consistent/stationary noise and hear that low level content, unlike digital systems where quantisation steps/distortion becomes significant at very low signal levels and reduces perceived audio resolution.
I believe this is a major benefit of vinyl.
Yes,
I have a CD of the exact digital vinyl version. The vinyl has way more resolution even with all the problems and obvious high order distortion. You can hear the singer clearly, the bells and high frequency has more resolution, the bass has more definition but some distortion.
I did many tests like this with friends and family and it was just 100% obvious.
What I said about the 192kbps and 24 bits is that the NEW DACS and Internet high res downloads enable us to play the master digital recording used to press vinyl or make CD, DVD, SACD etc.
What I said is that the same recording sounds only quite similar on DACs and vinyl if you listen to the DAC original high res digital...
There is a huge difference with a brand new over 2K$ turntable with 5K$ phono and your 500$ DJ or old turntable, people should take this into consideration.
Last edited:
Isn´t that exactly what makes the whole discussion so diffuse.
There are so many incomparable elements in the chain.
Carts, arms, turntables and phono preamps. Old ones / new ones, very cheap / very expensive.
Almost the same is true with crappy old CD players up to very high grade state of the art D/A converters.
Only having the best possible equipment in both chains, enables to extract maximal information from the used medium and start comparing.
And even then, Jan hits the nail on the head, preferred is absolutely not the same as better.
In the June issue of Stereoplay, a German Magazine, a CD is included holding unprocessed LP recordings of various artists, recorded in 24/192.
For this, a high grade Thorens TD 907 with a Lyra Etna Cart and a fully balanced Musical Fidelity MX Vinyl without Rumble Filter was used.
Since I have several songs in CD and LP form, I'm very anxious to hear this CD if and see how it compares to one or the other.
And if you think 24/192 isn't a fair match, many popular PC programs like iTunes or JRiver can downgrade this to 16/44.1.
While no rumble filter was used, it it also interesting to see how modern equipment copes with this much discussed aspect.
You are probably right, the recording of 24/192 might not be possible to be transferred on a CD, but I couldn't locate a magazine yet, so I don't know.
Do you have the CD ?
Hans
No I don't have the CD......Aus.
This sounds like an exercise in Hi-Res capture of the vinyl, and then SRC/dithered to Red Book.
This ought to result in cleaner sound than straight 16/44k capture.
Dan.
I´d like to know what are the equipment used with vinyl. I hope for something better than 500$ walmart hifi setup
maybe the TD 550
I would prefer if they had used a Kuzma
Cartridge>>>>>Tonearm>>>>Plater>>>Turntable
Stabi XL4 2008-2014 - Kuzma Professional Turntables, Tonearms and Accessories
I would prefer if they had used a Kuzma
Cartridge>>>>>Tonearm>>>>Plater>>>Turntable
Stabi XL4 2008-2014 - Kuzma Professional Turntables, Tonearms and Accessories
My son visited me this afternoon and brought me the Stereoplay CD.
And indeed, although Stereoplay did not mention this, content was downgraded from 24/192 to 16/44.1.
I took one file to start with, Blue in Green from Miles Davis, from the LP Kind of Blue, because this is an excellent recording from 1959 !
And immediately it became obvious how hard it is to do this sort of things, because the sonic character of the Stereoplay chain obviously differed from mine.
My conclusion is that making a proper and useful compare like this one can only be made from my own record player and from my own LP, to keep at least as much as possible unchanged.
Now I'm comparing apples to oranges.
But nevertheless, the quality of the recording was impeccable as referred to hiss, cracks or whatever, given the fact that no postprocessing other than downsampling had been done.
I preferred the sound of my Kind of Blue LP, shortly followed to my surprise by my own CD and than with some distance the Stereoplay CD, which was absolutely against my expectation.
The same was true with Toccata&Fuge d-moll from Bach, played by Jacques Loussier. I preferred my own CD above the Stereoplay CD.
So this experiment showed how little differences can influence perception of the sound and how careful one should be to come to any sort of conclusion.
Nevertheless, for investigating how much rumble and warp artefacts are generated with a modern high quality record player even when playing LP's from the sixties, it could still be a perfect CD for the sort of experiments Douglas self is doing.
Hans
And indeed, although Stereoplay did not mention this, content was downgraded from 24/192 to 16/44.1.
I took one file to start with, Blue in Green from Miles Davis, from the LP Kind of Blue, because this is an excellent recording from 1959 !
And immediately it became obvious how hard it is to do this sort of things, because the sonic character of the Stereoplay chain obviously differed from mine.
My conclusion is that making a proper and useful compare like this one can only be made from my own record player and from my own LP, to keep at least as much as possible unchanged.
Now I'm comparing apples to oranges.
But nevertheless, the quality of the recording was impeccable as referred to hiss, cracks or whatever, given the fact that no postprocessing other than downsampling had been done.
I preferred the sound of my Kind of Blue LP, shortly followed to my surprise by my own CD and than with some distance the Stereoplay CD, which was absolutely against my expectation.
The same was true with Toccata&Fuge d-moll from Bach, played by Jacques Loussier. I preferred my own CD above the Stereoplay CD.
So this experiment showed how little differences can influence perception of the sound and how careful one should be to come to any sort of conclusion.
Nevertheless, for investigating how much rumble and warp artefacts are generated with a modern high quality record player even when playing LP's from the sixties, it could still be a perfect CD for the sort of experiments Douglas self is doing.
Hans
Why are you asking, it was described in detail in posting #971.
A record player including Cart, worth ca. 13.500,- Euro.
Hans
I don't believe a good vinyl system has better low level resolution than 44/16 digital. The dynamic range on an EXCELLENT LP is 60 dB on a good day. CD non-linearity is buried in the system noise, and the ear is not going to be accurately resolving harmonics of any sort at -90 dB. Technically, vinyl is not a superior format, yet we still like it. Which brings me to my main point. The ear might have a helluva dynamic range, but what we like and prefer has nothing to do with it, but everything to do with the brain.
I reckon the perceived dynamic range of vinyl is better than specs because of the ears ability to hear through/ignore relatively stationary noise.
Vinyl itself adds its own quality to the sound, which is an 'organic' signature we generally like.
Dan.
Agree. I have been measuring many tables, cartridges and combinations. I have never found one with less than a few % THD, never more the 35dB channel separation, never more that 50, 55dB of S/N.
Of course I enjoy my records (Kuzma here as well although not such a fancy one).
But, as I said, if we keep on confusing better with preferred, we're going nowhere fast. As we have been going the last quarter century.
jan
Compare LP's to pictures taken by Cartier Bresson.
These pictures have a low S/N, have not even colors and are not ultra sharp.
From a technical point of view an modern iPhone can do better. But the perception is quite the opposite, his pictures are alive and kicking.
So talking about dynamic range and all those other technical aspects do not help us to "prove" anything at all when comparing LP's to CD's.
Sometimes less is more.
Hans
These pictures have a low S/N, have not even colors and are not ultra sharp.
From a technical point of view an modern iPhone can do better. But the perception is quite the opposite, his pictures are alive and kicking.
So talking about dynamic range and all those other technical aspects do not help us to "prove" anything at all when comparing LP's to CD's.
Sometimes less is more.
Hans
- Status
- Not open for further replies.