First question is whether there are physical differences: the answer is, Yes. Next question is whether these are audible, and for me the answer is, Yes. With a bit of training if necessary, and the right playback system it would be trivial for someone who was interested in such things to distinguish these - unless someone had an agenda, to make sure that the person doing the test would not be capable of doing such.
Edit: I did say, 51.0000...
Edit: I did say, 51.0000...
Last edited:
Every piano is very different and it takes a real expert tuner to get the tuning correct for that particular piano. You can study all the frequency relationships and so on but that goes out of the window when you realise that tuning by that method alone gives poor results. The different stringing of different pianos means that ultimately, each will be tuned slightly differently to give the best result by ear although concert pitch at A440 is the primary constant for all modern pianos.
For extreme low bass on a piano try a Bosendorfer Imperial which has an extra octave on the bottom end. There has actually been music written for this specific instrument.
Does this link work to Bosendorfer audio and video files ?
BOSENDORFERIMPERIAL.COM
This shows the typical "stretching" of the octaves as done by a pro but there is no hard and fast mathematical model, each piano different.
Attachments
May i insist: "If only we could make audio that wrong with digital !" ?
No need for complicated listening tests to figure out immediately how a direct sound is damaged by any analog way to record or transmit-it.
I remember the hiss and losses of dynamic each magnetic tapes introduced in our recordings, and how much the dynamic was slowly getting down at each passage (and the are numerous) in front of the dynamic heads. The tapes self destroying with age, with the adds of pre and post echos etc...
Not to talk of the vinyl witch is to cry when you are the author or the 'master' tape !
While, we made this test so many times, no musician, producer etc... was able to discriminate a digital copy from an original, whatever it was, or with so little differences that's it does not really matters. And it stay as good with the time.
Sometimes, i don't understand-you, John.
If you look at the "Audio and Video Files" tab you can right click any of interest and (in IE) select "save target as" and download them direct.
Scott I checked my M-Audio Audiophile USB from 2001.
It uses a TUSB3200 and a 6.000 MHz external xtal to generate all the clock frequences needed for both USB operation and CODECs (as I read in the TI chip’s datasheet, even for a MCLKO of 24MHz, the programmable adjustment can be made to a resolution of 4Hz)
I fed the soundcard from a Hameg HM8030-3 function generator set at 997Hz to a card’s input level of –12.5dB (300mVrms ).
ASIO via USB, I use Steinberg Wavelab SW. The PC runs W XP SP2.
Results (attached) show no practical freq difference btn 44.1k and 48k recordings (considering the freq stability of the signal source which is neither PLL nor xtal stabilised)
In addition to these, on purpose, I initialized the SW a few times, each time setting the recording attributes, did many experimental recordings and measured the freq of the recorded signal on the spot.
At one instance the frequency of the recording turned to be 2.16kHz, although the signal generator was steadily sourcing 997Hz.
It happens that during SW loading, something happens that f the settings, producing erroneous results.
George
Attachments
Last edited:
Lighten up guys. I was mostly referring to my Sony FM tuner vs the Marantz 10.
Of course, it depends on what bothers you sonically, to decide if digital or analog is better. My reference system today has no IC's, except for servos, in the thru-path. Unfortunately, any digital source is packed with IC's and I suspect that is a major problem along with TYPICAL digital itself.
Of course, it depends on what bothers you sonically, to decide if digital or analog is better. My reference system today has no IC's, except for servos, in the thru-path. Unfortunately, any digital source is packed with IC's and I suspect that is a major problem along with TYPICAL digital itself.
I beg to differ, John. I don't think the problem has anything to do with ICs as such, but with ICs chosen for their low price rather then their sonic merits.
Only two things truly separate modern op amps from discrete: the PSU voltage limits and their current capability. This last we can easily do much about rather easily.
Only two things truly separate modern op amps from discrete: the PSU voltage limits and their current capability. This last we can easily do much about rather easily.
The big difference is still in the idle current of the output stage (IC cannot compete due to heat dissipation) and optimization of the output stage. There are other differences as well. By now, you will design a discrete circuit more suitable to highest audio demands than any IC is.
You can also get a big advantage from high supply voltage to make a circuit more linear (with discrete design).
You can also get a big advantage from high supply voltage to make a circuit more linear (with discrete design).
if you raise the sampling rate high enough it looks just like an analog signal.
-RNM
You mean like :
100001111000011001110001000101011010001001110111110000010
?
discrete fets still win on noise, I believe Wurcer's AD743/745 is still the low noise, low 1/f corner fet input monolithic op amp winner
in home digital audio DAC with consumer 2 Vrms line level there's not much need to be quieter than a 1 K R
and many fet input op amps are good when used in flat gain apps where A weighting makes the higher 1/f corners less audible
barring actual need for ultimate low noise performance, MC phono preamp front end with RIAA low frequency boost, you can do quite fine with todays best ICs, composite circuit topologies selected for the actual application demands by real engineers instead of audiophile the strawman caricature
output V swing for home audio consumer line levels is not a challenge for monolithic op amps >+20 dBu simply isn't needed in home audio line level applications
in home digital audio DAC with consumer 2 Vrms line level there's not much need to be quieter than a 1 K R
and many fet input op amps are good when used in flat gain apps where A weighting makes the higher 1/f corners less audible
barring actual need for ultimate low noise performance, MC phono preamp front end with RIAA low frequency boost, you can do quite fine with todays best ICs, composite circuit topologies selected for the actual application demands by real engineers instead of audiophile the strawman caricature
output V swing for home audio consumer line levels is not a challenge for monolithic op amps >+20 dBu simply isn't needed in home audio line level applications
Last edited:
What about this piano?
Stuart & Sons Handcrafted Grand Pianos Australia - Home
It has 102 keys and uses some special technology to decrease note decay and "purity".
I got one of their demo CDs when they were giving them away.
Stuart & Sons Handcrafted Grand Pianos Australia - Home
It has 102 keys and uses some special technology to decrease note decay and "purity".
I got one of their demo CDs when they were giving them away.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.