Why not? At a certain level of "quality" a digitised copy will be indistinguishable from the original. The only variable is the "quality" involved.
That kinda side steps the real question... what is the fastest tr we need to be able to record/reproduce? The fastest explosive sounds ( C4) would be about Tr of 5 u sec (average).
Other than that type of 'sound', 10 usec seems reasonable. But that would be thru the entire system... to the speaker output.
Nonlinearities and Synchronization in Musical Acoustics and Music Psychology - Rolf Bader - Google Books
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
That is if you assume the digital conversion was so sufficiently bad as to not record the overall effect of a vinyl playback. We're not talking an envelope/threshold detection. And for testing purposes, you absolutely want that consistency.
Take whatever opinion you want about the interpretation, but it seems way too simplistic and driven from other motivations to throw the baby out with the bath water like that, Mark.
Take whatever opinion you want about the interpretation, but it seems way too simplistic and driven from other motivations to throw the baby out with the bath water like that, Mark.
Well given that Mark can write a paragraph on the differences between two identical files 
.
@RNM: The Telarc 1812 is always cited as an extreme track and 38Hz at FS certainly requires more bass output than the average person has, but short rise time it's certainly not. 10us rise time equates to what, about 25kHz? Doesn't seem unreasonable for the electronics to need to handle that although the speakers might have an issue with it and my ears are deaf well before then!
. @RNM: The Telarc 1812 is always cited as an extreme track and 38Hz at FS certainly requires more bass output than the average person has, but short rise time it's certainly not. 10us rise time equates to what, about 25kHz? Doesn't seem unreasonable for the electronics to need to handle that although the speakers might have an issue with it and my ears are deaf well before then!
Well given that Mark can write a paragraph on the differences between two identical files
You keep saying that from time to time, but don't know where you get it. Link please?
Thanks.
Well given that Mark can write a paragraph on the differences between two identical files
@RNM: The Telarc 1812 is always cited as an extreme track and 38Hz at FS certainly requires more bass output than the average person has, but short rise time it's certainly not. 10us rise time equates to what, about 25kHz? Doesn't seem unreasonable for the electronics to need to handle that although the speakers might have an issue with it and my ears are deaf well before then!
yes, about 35Khz. I've always used the rule of thumb of -3dB at 40KHz as a number to remember. As we know, to keep a signal's Tr of 10 usec requires a system wider than that by 5-10 times.
??
And, speakers will have an issue with 35+Khz for sure. Another good reason the transients from my JBL M2 speakers seem more 'real'. Some ESL also.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
1812 overture
Let's talk about cannon pyro from a Hi-Fi p.o.w... C-4 is a so called "high explosive" type with a detonation velocity of around ~8000m/s while the good old venerable black powder, which technically speaking isn't actually exploding, deflagrates at a burn velocity (according to some sources) roughly around 200-400m/s producing a much flatter pressure wave, perhaps a reason why cannons "sounds better" with the right type of explosives.
Let's talk about cannon pyro from a Hi-Fi p.o.w... C-4 is a so called "high explosive" type with a detonation velocity of around ~8000m/s while the good old venerable black powder, which technically speaking isn't actually exploding, deflagrates at a burn velocity (according to some sources) roughly around 200-400m/s producing a much flatter pressure wave, perhaps a reason why cannons "sounds better" with the right type of explosives.
Although it is not far from my opinion, what would be the meaning of such a test of which you give the answer in advance?
I dont understand this controversy about recorders Analog Vs digital. Neither this vinyl nostalgia. I'm the first to say that numbers don't tell everything. but when something measure so much better in all domains ( bandwidth, linearity, dynamic, distortion ) and offers so much advantages (wear free, dust free, unlimited clone copies at X the speed, dematerialization, instant access etc.) the only thing left for us to do is to try to further improve what can be.
No point. It cannot, possibly be better (to rip a CD to vinyl). The ONLY vinyl that can be superior to CD is that which has never been near a digital recording system. Again: Sheffield Labs recordings are, arguably, the best examples of this. No analogue tape, no digital anything. Just straight to the cutting lathe.
Digitizing a copy of phonograph record and playing it back may or may not be indistinguishable from the absence of digitization. Running digital audio through a DJ digital turntable may or may not audibly affect sound quality. They are many variables that *could* affect the outcome of an experiment. It's up the the experimenter(s) to show they are properly accounted for and did not inadvertently affect the experimental outcome. It is often the case that simpler is better, just because there are fewer variables to rule out as possibly influencing experimental outcome.
The other thing I didn't mention previously was that it looked like there were only a few experimental test subjects (11?), and they listened on whatever digital systems they happened to have at home, which were apparently uncalibrated and remain unnamed.
So, if one were to take a beautiful phonogragh record and very high quality record player, then digitize it through possibly low quality A/D, then run it through possibly poor quality DJ digital turntable DSP, the run it though some random computer sound card, all at 16/44, how might be be surprising if someone preferred the CD which hasn't been though nearly so much possibly digital trash? Or, then again maybe it was all very high quality. Just take a look at the paper and see what the measurements show, if you can find any that is.
The other thing I didn't mention previously was that it looked like there were only a few experimental test subjects (11?), and they listened on whatever digital systems they happened to have at home, which were apparently uncalibrated and remain unnamed.
So, if one were to take a beautiful phonogragh record and very high quality record player, then digitize it through possibly low quality A/D, then run it through possibly poor quality DJ digital turntable DSP, the run it though some random computer sound card, all at 16/44, how might be be surprising if someone preferred the CD which hasn't been though nearly so much possibly digital trash? Or, then again maybe it was all very high quality. Just take a look at the paper and see what the measurements show, if you can find any that is.
NO problems with decent amplification and speakers. Even the venerable Infinity EMIT will exceed 10uS rise time:
http://www.davidsaudio.com/Infinity_Epsilon_WhitePaper.pdf
There are faster HF drivers available and have been for many years:
http://www.audax.com/archives/hd3p.pdf
Speakers - Ribbons
And, for sometime a little more recent:
http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/r3004-662000.pdf
Not to forget, the very cheap Audax TW 8B, 50 years old, able to go up to 40KHz (and very bad sounding on my opinion;-)
i was the one in the famous ELIPSON 4050:
http://www.hifi-antique.com/images/762427.jpg
http://www.melaudia.net/zfoto/rueil0805/IMG_9049-400x600.JPG
Ok so we have established that 10 usec is reasonable and that we - afterwards - need wider BW to preserve the 10usec. say >350KHz -3dB. And do so with low noise and distortion.
The Low distortion is important --- electro-mechanical devices like phono carts and speakers have a lot of issues still..... distortion, dynamic range, resonances, damping, channel separation, compression, etc.
Are we there, yet?
THx-RNMarsh
The Low distortion is important --- electro-mechanical devices like phono carts and speakers have a lot of issues still..... distortion, dynamic range, resonances, damping, channel separation, compression, etc.
Are we there, yet?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Plenty of point. Just because you seem to be stuck in an early 80s Linn advert doesn't mean is it not of interest to see the difference. Telarc took a lot of care in their recordings with Soundstream, such that I am suprised at the clipping and would like to see how distorted the 38Hz fundamental of the cannon is. I suspect horribly, but personally am interested in finding out. Some people seem closed to discovering new stuff, which is a shame.
And IMO there is no way that ANY vinyl can be superior to even redbook. Pleasantly euphonic yes. Preferable to those who like the distortions, of course, but superior no.
(1978 AAM/hogwood currently on the turntable).
Zaphod, you got it right. Only direct disc vinyl recordings like Sheffield and others did in the past, or 1/2 speed recordings to the lathe from 30 ips full track analog recorders can be true analog references, AND they can approach 10us rise-times, though an MC cartridge.
Everything else is a compromise, and not the ultimate listening standard.
The MM cartridge can come close to MC bandwidth, as it was done with the Shure V15-5 years ago, but not without a good deal of engineering and added expense.
Now should MC cartridges be so expensive, especially for the best ones? NO! The percentage markup from the 60's is 100 times, which it too much. From $75 for an Ortofon MC in 1966, to perhaps $7500 for something similar from Ortofon today, or some other high end manufacturer.
I resent this, just like the rest of you, but when I last compared high end digital with high end analog, they used an Ortofon cartridge and I would use it in my system if I could afford it.
Everything else is a compromise, and not the ultimate listening standard.
The MM cartridge can come close to MC bandwidth, as it was done with the Shure V15-5 years ago, but not without a good deal of engineering and added expense.
Now should MC cartridges be so expensive, especially for the best ones? NO! The percentage markup from the 60's is 100 times, which it too much. From $75 for an Ortofon MC in 1966, to perhaps $7500 for something similar from Ortofon today, or some other high end manufacturer.
I resent this, just like the rest of you, but when I last compared high end digital with high end analog, they used an Ortofon cartridge and I would use it in my system if I could afford it.
J.C., what is your interest in spending time on this ? It is like to be a specialist in Roman chariot wheels.
Why don't you concentrate on the analog part of modern digital players, trying to improve what you don't like in the way they sound ?
I can only say that the recorded sound of the canons is a far cry compared to the blast produced from a Bofor 40mm anti-aircraft gun (I remember it as an aimer sitting on the turret mount). Ask Jan for confirmation
But such explosive sounds have nothing to do with music.
At the attachment you see 1kHz@7cm/sec (lateral mono) read by a Denon DL-103 and flat amplified through an AD620 x53 gain (24bit/96kHz recording).
The risetime for the 1kHz sine is 500usec.
The risetime for this scratch signal is 31usec. This corresponds to 16kHz@14cm/sec, close to the limit of what is possible with vinyl.
If you pass such a signal through the audio system and you record the output at each component output (preamplifier, amplifier, loudspeaker?) you will know where there maybe a problem.
George
Attachments
Dunno if I agree with you there. I was fortunate to be in the company of the Garrott Brothers, here in Australia, before their untimely demise. I attended their workshop and peered through one of their binocular microscopes, with which they carefully replaced diamonds on cartridges. I took with me, a brand new Stanton 681EEE. A pretty decent example of a MM cartridge. They showed me the diamond. It was a standard elliptical diamond. Through the microscope I could see the tiny flaws in the diamond. I returned a few days later and they showed me the result. I asked for a boron cantilever and line contact diamond to be fitted. It was beautiful. To see the light reflected from the facets of the perfect diamond was a sight to behold. They then explained that such a stylus should be good for at least 3,000 hours (three times longer than standard), because their diamonds were grain-oriented. The result was very expensive (around 3 times the cost of a new 681EEE), but sonically the best MM I had ever heard.
Anyway, I guess I am trying to say that modern cantilevers (boron, diamond, et al), along with modern line contact stylii, carefully mounted do cost more. That and, of course, the economies of scale have left the business.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.