Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 18:39:41 GMT
Just found this nugget of information in a series of files i have been given called "AUDIO FIDELITY 24kt Gold +SACD" essentially a 50 or so albums that have been remade from the original Master Tapes for SACD. Some bright spark has ripped them to DFF (?) so i'm now converting them to FLAC so i can keep a copy of sensible size files. What makes you of this? Digital Facts and realities: Most music is in the 50 Hz to 15 KHz range. The Human ear does not hear from the 20 Hz to the 20 KHz range. Almost all speakers, ear buds and headphones will not produce anything outside the 20 Hz to 20 KHz range. The best tape machines will not play anything above the 60 KHz range. So unless something is recorded digitally today 60 KHz is the maximum that can be played back from a Master tape. The sampling rate must be double the highest frequency rate. Since all of the above holds true with respect to equipment the industry settled on the 44100 for Redbook Cd’s. They will reproduce a 1Hz to 22.5 KHz range. Beyond most equipment’s capability and the human ears capability. The way a digital to analog converter (DAC) works it creates a smooth sine wave no matter what the sampling rate is. Therefor certainly anything above the 48 KHz range is a complete waste of space. The extra room above 40 KHz is used to dither noise. Hence the 44.1 and 48 KHz used on CD and Video. So much for the SACD in the sampling rate respect. A waste of space. The Bit rate comparison of 16 bit to 24 bit might be the only saving grace for the SACD. However it has its questionable aspects on a technical level as well. The main function of the bit rate is signal to noise ratio. Keep in mind that we go deaf at the 140 decibel level. 16 bit is capable of 100 DB and 24 bit is capable of 150+ DB. Again most equipment is not capable of over 127 DB level. A well Mastered 16 bit is actually capable of the 120 DB level and is called 20 Bit. Some of the 24 bit is actually 22 bit and the last 2 bits are zeroed out. So the difference between a 16 bit and 24 bit is just about a moot point. Mastering is the most important aspect when it comes to sound quality. A well mastered CD is absolutely better than a poorly mastered SACD. And vice a versa. First and foremost in deciding what is the best sounding choice should always be the mastering. Keeping in mind that larger is not better. With all of the above being true in most cases it is certainly a waste. Another consideration is age of the Master tapes with a lot of music. A good master done 20 years ago is potentially superior to a re-master today due to tape degradation. Sony is a company with one goal in mind. To make money by keeping sales high. They invented the SACD. With that in mind and all of the above facts as well as numerous testing that has been done showing that 99% cannot hear a difference at all in the SACD compared to a CD the conclusion must be that it is about sales. As far as Sony is concerned. Also if you own an SACD and do not have an SACD player you are actually getting the CD layer when listening to the actual SACD. I would think that the perfect media would be 48000-24. Not much larger than a CD and capturing any benefit a 24 bit might have. Which of course is questionable. Certainly not noticeable until you crank it up over the 100 DB range which almost none ever do. Again bigger is not better. The first link is from the makers of FLAC… xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.htmlwww.head-fi.org/t/356139/sacd-vs-cd-a-true-difference-or-simply-placebousers.ece.utexas.edu/~bevans/courses/realtime/lectures/10_Data_Conversion/AP_Understanding_PDM_Digital_Audio.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 12, 2019 18:53:50 GMT
It's all pretty much correct. There's some who argue we really need 48/18 to really cover all the bases - I think that was the spec of DAT - but in practical reality CD at 16/44.1 is actually over-specified.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 18:57:56 GMT
It's all pretty much correct. There's some who argue we really need 48/18 to really cover all the bases - I think that was the spec of DAT - but in practical reality CD at 16/44.1 is actually over-specified. Makes a lot of sense. I've been reading the links in the notes. Interesting stuff. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 20:19:24 GMT
That first article says most of what’s needed. And simply explained.
|
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Mar 12, 2019 21:38:23 GMT
I'm a fan of a thoughtfully done remaster, but see little need to do it at anything about 24/96, this keeps foldback in the DAC above the audio band and plenty of bit depth headroom to boot.
If they went straight from analogue tape to 1bit (sacd/DFF) then that's great, the issue with SACD is that you can't process the data, there is no such thing as SACD mastering, it has to be done in the PCM data space and then converted back to 1 bit. Given that virtually zero albums are performed and recorded as intended for say a DMM vinyl cut and production, chances are that the data has already been smashed through a million and one digital processes, or mixed and mastered the good old analogue way and already includes loads of noise and tape crap that would render the SACD conversion kinda pointless, surely?
If the material lends itself to a direct transfer, ie requires no mastering, which can't be done in 1bit, then fair enough. But if it needs mastering then there's a whole analogue degradation sat in the final master, or if it has been edited and mastered in PCM and then converted to 1bit which kind of defeats the object because all your PCM nastiness is burnt into the master track anyway.
There's a lot of people (music engineers) who just think SACD trades HF extension for 1 bit noise modulation. They're probably right.
As can be seen fro the above, it's pretty much impossible to be able to create a genuine unsullied 1 bit master that matches the PCM master, so why bother.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Mar 12, 2019 23:31:37 GMT
Analogue recording for commercial use anyway barely reaches 19khz, let alone higher and i remember the tapes I had used a top frequency line-up tone at 15kHz and usually full of fluttery-style 'mod noise' at that frequency. Dolby SR of the 80's may be slightly better, but not so much in increased frequency range I fear. Not sure tapes deteriorate that way so quickly, but the oxides can come unstuck on certain once popular brands due to moisture ingress, meaning they need 'baking' before they can be safely played just once apparently for a digital dub to be taken. My mastering engineer friend showed me tapes from the early 50's in perfect condition (spooled on reels with only one metal 'side'), yet he told me that when he mastered a Tom Jones compilation, the tapes were almost falling apart with shedding and they caught them just in time (his 60's hits that came out on a two CD set, Chris did one disc and his boss Tony Hawkins did the other). The Beatles material was mostly 1/4" tape at 15IPS I believe (not half inch two track at 30IPS as the first Blue Nile album was (I saw the latter tapes and heard some of them) and these were fine if a little dusty when time came to remaster them again ten years or so ago i remember reading. Listen to the remastering of the King Crimson albums (in original mixed form). The first stereo generation tapes were found as much as possible and the sound is period, but stunningly clear (Lizard was pretty darned good all along). Most of the multi track masters were found, digitised and Steve Wilson? had a whale of a time remixing them in stereo and 5 channel. SA-CD players I've seen tested, spew a hell of a lot of ultra-sonics out which we can't hear, but many tin-can metal dome tweeters resonating at 25 - 30kHz 'do.' Forget 1 bit DSD, Meridian lossless MQA and other new-fangled tech which has floundered. The pro's need 24/96 so they can master the music properly with no loss (not the case in the early 80's as the workstations and editors could mess severely with the music part of the digits). Nowt wrong with 16/44 these days once the work is done and it now seems that current DACs measure way better than red-book, making the differences academic really. I also believe our playback systems are better behaved generally and remember a CD recording (Four Seasons - Academy of Ancient Music - Pinnock) being unlistenable on our mid 80's gear, yet fine fifteen years later, the squeakier original instruments sounding more like musical instruments than instruments of torture  Just buy whatever disc you like and enjoy the music. We have no choice on the master material used and hope and trust the engineers use the best source material for us. Sometimes they get it wrong, but I believe much of it is reported now?
I think I have it fairly right above. You need to talk to people who work with these recordings and if they're friendly as I found, you learn so much even if you're not working with the stuff yourself.. I once heard the original huge Sony 1630 processor fed into a tape loop, A-D-A and I couldn't tell any difference whatsoever. The editing stations messed it up in the early days and that's why Decca made their own until Sony and others got it licked by the late 80's...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 23:53:39 GMT
It's a huge subject Dave and one that is very new to me.
I've largely ignored digital music but the Raspberry Pi/Allo Boss DAC has opened my eyes to the vast library that can be created, very quickly and enjoyed at the touch of a screen.
I just felt this was an interesting read and wondered how much was actually fact Vs fiction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 2:02:09 GMT
It's been said before by others: just because our hearing is limited to what it is, it doesn't mean you can chop the range down to that without effect, because of the effects of fundamentals. Back in the 70s a bloke called Graham Holliman (I think) was a one man band advocate of infrabass and made speakers that went down to whatever it was. He wrote passionately to the mags and gave demonstrations. He wasn't taken seriously by the mags and they would simply say: what's the point of having speakers that go as low as yours when 1) we cannot hear that low down and 2) there's no information in that range on an LP to reproduce?
Surely it obvious to anyone that the quality of mastering overides issues of bits and what-have-you. Here's one extreme example: stereo from a mono source. Which would you rather listen to?
I do hope Mr Phonomac hasn't got a weak heart...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 7:58:20 GMT
It's been said before by others: just because our hearing is limited to what it is, it doesn't mean you can chop the range down to that without effect, because of the effects of fundamentals. Back in the 70s a bloke called Graham Holliman (I think) was a one man band advocate of infrabass and made speakers that went down to whatever it was. He wrote passionately to the mags and gave demonstrations. He wasn't taken seriously by the mags and they would simply say: what's the point of having speakers that go as low as yours when 1) we cannot hear that low down and 2) there's no information in that range on an LP to reproduce? Surely it obvious to anyone that the quality of mastering overides issues of bits and what-have-you. Here's one extreme example: stereo from a mono source. Which would you rather listen to? I do hope Mr Phonomac hasn't got a weak heart... Infra bass. I'll have to Google that. I don't get the Phonomac reference? |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 13, 2019 8:11:17 GMT
It's been said before by others: just because our hearing is limited to what it is, it doesn't mean you can chop the range down to that without effect, because of the effects of fundamentals. Back in the 70s a bloke called Graham Holliman (I think) was a one man band advocate of infrabass and made speakers that went down to whatever it was. He wrote passionately to the mags and gave demonstrations. He wasn't taken seriously by the mags and they would simply say: what's the point of having speakers that go as low as yours when 1) we cannot hear that low down and 2) there's no information in that range on an LP to reproduce? Why worry about what you are chopping off when it isn't there in the first place? No analogue recording has anything above 20Khz, the microphones used in the studio couldn't pick it up and the tape machines could not record it. If it isn't there in the first place it is impossible to lose it.
At the other end of the scale CD will go right down to 1 Hz if you really want that, not that you would in reality.
What do people think are the frequency limitations of vinyl and reel to reel tape? I know that it's an accepted myth that vinyl has an FR out to 90Khz or something equally ridiculous, in fact it doesn't do much better than 15KHz, anything above that is noise. RTR tape does not do much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Mar 13, 2019 8:42:15 GMT
Graham Holliman was a service engineer at KJ Watford and a friend of mine. He passed away a few years ago now and no idea what happened to his gear including his home-made JBL Paragon cabinet. No doubt that amps that cut off below 20hz can sound a bit 'clipped' perhaps, maybe due to other reasons.
'Digital' sounds fine these days if the speakers don't mess up at higher frequencies or the crossover region. Hopefully most of us use it with no issues now? Next point of issue in the chain is the amplification, which mostly is worse than the digital source fed it (class A or AB or D is irrelevant here I believe). Speakers of course are the pits really and distort terribly, but we do the best with what we have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 9:10:29 GMT
Graham Holliman was a service engineer at KJ Watford and a friend of mine. He passed away a few years ago now and no idea what happened to his gear including his home-made JBL Paragon cabinet. No doubt that amps that cut off below 20hz can sound a bit 'clipped' perhaps, maybe due to other reasons. 'Digital' sounds fine these days if the speakers don't mess up at higher frequencies or the crossover region. Hopefully most of us use it with no issues now? Next point of issue in the chain is the amplification, which mostly is worse than the digital source fed it (class A or AB or D is irrelevant here I believe). Speakers of course are the pits really and distort terribly, but we do the best with what we have. I heard the JBL Paragon a couple of times back in the seventies. I can't imagine why somebody would build a copy. I thought them badly coloured. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 13, 2019 9:29:42 GMT
'Digital' sounds fine these days if the speakers don't mess up at higher frequencies or the crossover region. Hopefully most of us use it with no issues now? Next point of issue in the chain is the amplification, which mostly is worse than the digital source fed it (class A or AB or D is irrelevant here I believe). Speakers of course are the pits really and distort terribly, but we do the best with what we have. Digital has always sounded fine, I even bought one of the original Marantz players last year in order to test that theory. it may not be as good as more modern players but it doesn't sound hard or harsh or indeed cack in any way.
As for speakers they only add distortion in low frequencies(unless they're rubbish). I've got some IMFs here from the early 1970s that have less than 1% distortion at any frequency. Small speakers with small drivers distort a lot but then that's as true now as it was in 1972. 'Ye cannae change the laws of physics.'
Amplification is and was the big problem. Vinyl and tape forgive poor amplifiers, digital doesn't. Regrettably because few people understand or accept this we carry on with the rainbow chasing 'high resolution' nonsense.
I read that Julian Veraker of Naim said back in the early 1970s that he could make his amplifiers better but there was no point because no-one would notice the benefit until turntables improved in quality. If you think about a CD player (or streaming device) as a much better turntable then it all starts to make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Mar 13, 2019 11:05:15 GMT
I think where speakers were concerned, that you forget the speakers 'we flat earthers' were selling in the early 80's. kans which shrieked due to the KEF bass unit being allowed it's head (wall mounting restored about a third to half the balance, but not enough), two of the three pairs of Isobariks I owned had a hollow cuppy mid and nasty peaks in the 'David Gilmour guitar' region and of course the CB Naim stuff has masses of odd order distortion with crossover artefacts too (I saw a new pair of 135 boards being measured at the factory and even these had it despite better matched input devices I was told - and 135's used to be clearly better than all the others sonically). Mustn't forget vinyl back then, dull up top and in the case of the LP12/Ittok, soggy lower down - and we set our amp and speaker choices around it. Even Top End US deck/arm/cartridge systems were pretty soft toned to be honest. Speaker distortion back then wasn't hugely low as it can be now, but I suppose being spread well, it may not have mattered so much?
People with Quad amps (yes I know, band limited back then but no worse than an original Linn Lk1/Lk2) and Quad 57's or 63's, better Spendors [BC1/SP1/SA1 rather than the smaller SA2's and so on] and Rogers well out from walls and floors never had an issue with 'digital' and Jimmy H used to come home every week with armfuls of mint classical vinyl LP's that new converts to CD had dumped in a local used record store.
Your IMF's macca have a slightly recessed midband as IMF and TDL tended to do in many models. the Super Compact which replaced my rearlier Compacts were similar and the Pro Monitor III was a sluggard by the early Linn-Naim 80's. With an amp such as yours and the D-150 we used to dem them with, the bloated bass as heard from a Naim 250 into these doesn't/shouldn't really happen (a friend had TLS80mk1's with a 250, then 135's, they then gave way to my best Isobarik pair and laterly ATC 50A's driven from his Naim preamp I remember (I don't think he bought an AVI preamp but it's a long time ago and my life was full of newly married things by then, which took all my attention)...
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 13, 2019 18:06:00 GMT
I agree Dave speakers certainly played a part. In the early 1980s vinyl was king especially for a Linn or Naim user so no doubt their speakers were voiced using vinyl. Not sure that would necessarily translate into a weird frequency response, it would still make sense to have a flat anechoic response (IMFs do) but more in terms of how the speaker handled leading edges. They'd want to ramp that up so the speaker sounded 'fast' and lithe with vinyl. Which would make them tend towards stridency with a neutral-ish digital source.
I've seen some in-room measurements of Kans and they are crazy. Most speakers that measure flat anechoically will be bass up and top down in a domestic room. The Kans were about 6db up in the midband and right down at the top and bottom. They'd certainly help a 'soggy' 1980s LP12 to punch out a bit but no wonder none of those boys thought digital was much cop a the time.
Now they've mostly moved on to (ahem) better engineered speakers (and probably better amplifiers too) they think that the reason their digital source now sounds okay is that digital has improved.
Funny how the cart gets put before the horse so much in hi-fi.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 13, 2019 18:17:19 GMT
And while we're on the subject, what about jitter? So much marketing and nonsense in the magazines about jitter being the reason CD sounded harsh and hard. But there were two problems with that assertion:
1) Even the first CD players on the market had jitter way below audible levels and less than the best RTR tape deck or turntable. Experiments have shown that jitter has to be ramped up to huge levels before people can reliably distinguish it from the same music with no jitter.
2) Audible jitter does not make the sound harsh and hard in any case. There are some downloads on line somewhere that let you listen to some clips, with no jitter and with shedloads of jitter so you can see what jitter actually sounds like.
It sounds exactly like tape wow and flutter. If you've ever had a cheap tape deck or belt drive TT you will have heard this effect on a sustained note, especially piano. You do sometimes here this on a CD but that is because it is an analogue recording and your listening to the wow and flutter on the studio tape decks used to record and the tape deck that they took the digital transcript off of. It isn't the CD player adding it. Just swap in an all digital recording of a piano to confirm this.
So the whole jitter thing and the myriad of cures that were offered to sort it, not to mention all the gizmos added to CD players to supposedly deal with the problem were a total blind alley.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Mar 13, 2019 18:44:01 GMT
My Micro Seiki CD-M2 had a trichord Clock 2 fitted by an expert engineer and I can assure you it improved the performance (not so much a directly related CD94). I can say this as our engineer had the very same player and we did before and after comparisons to ascertain my own machine was fine before and how 'different' it was afterwards. To put a cat amongst the pigeons above, his player was then sat on a Sicomin platform, which we thought equalised the differences. he decided to return full time to his 401-based vinyl and sold the player, and I bought the Sicomin platform cheaply, so had 'both' the 'upgrades'  Still have them too... |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 13, 2019 18:53:02 GMT
My Micro Seiki CD-M2 had a trichord Clock 2 fitted by an expert engineer and I can assure you it improved the performance (not so much a directly related CD94). I can say this as our engineer had the very same player and we did before and after comparisons to ascertain my own machine was fine before and how 'different' it was afterwards. . I notice a lot of people say this about clock upgrades and other associated devices like jitterbusters. Although in some case I've no doubt differences are imaginary I'd say I for the cases where they are not you have to consider that you've changed a load of gubbins in the player or added a another box of it to the circuit and that is what is making the difference. To assume the sound is different because jitter has been reduced you would first have to have audible jitter to begin with. Which you didn't. if we agree that different types of resistor and capacitor can affect the tonal quality of the sound - and most audio engineers do - then you have your answer. When you've eliminated the impossible, etc... |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Mar 13, 2019 20:20:31 GMT
My Micro Seiki CD-M2 had a trichord Clock 2 fitted by an expert engineer and I can assure you it improved the performance (not so much a directly related CD94). I can say this as our engineer had the very same player and we did before and after comparisons to ascertain my own machine was fine before and how 'different' it was afterwards. . I notice a lot of people say this about clock upgrades and other associated devices like jitterbusters. Although in some case I've no doubt differences are imaginary I'd say I for the cases where they are not you have to consider that you've changed a load of gubbins in the player or added a another box of it to the circuit and that is what is making the difference. To assume the sound is different because jitter has been reduced you would first have to have audible jitter to begin with. Which you didn't. if we agree that different types of resistor and capacitor can affect the tonal quality of the sound - and most audio engineers do - then you have your answer. When you've eliminated the impossible, etc... This tweak was done twenty years ago to replace a rather 'basic looking' Philips clock (crystal and a couple of resistors) and no doubt that today, a modern design would make this irrelevant. As I said, the same mod done to the almost identical (in this part of the circuit) CD94 made beggar-all difference. My machine is very different in the audio output side though and I have no doubt the superior sound from the M-S output board is probably added distortion... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 23:47:07 GMT
It's been said before by others: just because our hearing is limited to what it is, it doesn't mean you can chop the range down to that without effect, because of the effects of fundamentals. Back in the 70s a bloke called Graham Holliman (I think) was a one man band advocate of infrabass and made speakers that went down to whatever it was. He wrote passionately to the mags and gave demonstrations. He wasn't taken seriously by the mags and they would simply say: what's the point of having speakers that go as low as yours when 1) we cannot hear that low down and 2) there's no information in that range on an LP to reproduce? Surely it obvious to anyone that the quality of mastering overides issues of bits and what-have-you. Here's one extreme example: stereo from a mono source. Which would you rather listen to? I do hope Mr Phonomac hasn't got a weak heart... Infra bass. I'll have to Google that. I don't get the Phonomac reference? I doubt you'll find any reference of infrabass in connection with hi-fi. The Phonomac comment was in reference to your comment about digital becoming the future for you. I just imagined him reading it and taking an adverse reaction to it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 0:07:36 GMT
Infra bass. I'll have to Google that. I don't get the Phonomac reference? I doubt you'll find any reference of infrabass in connection with hi-fi. The Phonomac comment was in reference to your comment about digital becoming the future for you. I just imagined him reading it and taking an adverse reaction to it. Oh! Haha, yes you might be right. To be fair, the vinyl was played extensively today so it's not in any real Danger of being thrown out, I just think my previous opinion of digital has to be updated. The difference isn't as great as it once was and I have a new bit of kit in the way that may close the gap a little further. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 0:32:02 GMT
It's been said before by others: just because our hearing is limited to what it is, it doesn't mean you can chop the range down to that without effect, because of the effects of fundamentals. Back in the 70s a bloke called Graham Holliman (I think) was a one man band advocate of infrabass and made speakers that went down to whatever it was. He wrote passionately to the mags and gave demonstrations. He wasn't taken seriously by the mags and they would simply say: what's the point of having speakers that go as low as yours when 1) we cannot hear that low down and 2) there's no information in that range on an LP to reproduce? Why worry about what you are chopping off when it isn't there in the first place? No analogue recording has anything above 20Khz, the microphones used in the studio couldn't pick it up and the tape machines could not record it. If it isn't there in the first place it is impossible to lose it.
At the other end of the scale CD will go right down to 1 Hz if you really want that, not that you would in reality.
What do people think are the frequency limitations of vinyl and reel to reel tape? I know that it's an accepted myth that vinyl has an FR out to 90Khz or something equally ridiculous, in fact it doesn't do much better than 15KHz, anything above that is noise. RTR tape does not do much better.
What about Quad cartridges which went to 50K or so for the carrier signal? Why do/did some amplifier manufacturers advocate wide-bandwidth designs? Harmon Karron used to. Why bother when there's just the 20/20 range to accommodate? Why do Pioneer bother with the Legato Link DAC? When there's nothing above 20K, why bother? Bit surprised to learn that it wasn't even their idea. Apparently, it was Wadia that had the original idea. Going back to Mr Holliman, why continue with the idea of infrabass when convention would tell you that you would more than likely only get cone-flap from record warps and your amp working overtime only reproducing noise? Here's something. How is it that adding a sub-woofer can apparently effect the the opposite end of the spectrum? Doesn't make any sense, does it? Years ago Noel Keyword added 4 12" drivers to some Celestial SL600s in di-pole mode. When everything was dialed in satisfactory and he came to listen, one surprising aspect he found was the top-end of the spectrum gained from the addition. It wasn't, of course, in the sense of it having more sparkle or what-have-you. What it did get was a sense of space or air. And it wasn't an isolated incident. I've read others have found the same. What's going on there? No comments about the videos from anyone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 0:44:07 GMT
And while we're at it...
What about recording engineers who couldn't work with digital for any length of time when it came out? Fleetwood Mac's studio went all digital at the time of Tusk, if I remember right and had to be mixed a second time on account of how it sounded originally. I'll have to dig that out.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 14, 2019 7:31:32 GMT
And while we're at it... What about recording engineers who couldn't work with digital for any length of time when it came out? Fleetwood Mac's studio went all digital at the time of Tusk, if I remember right and had to be mixed a second time on account of how it sounded originally. I'll have to dig that out. Do I believe measurements tell us all we need to know about sound? No. Do I believe we understand all we need to in terms of reproduced sound? No. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 14, 2019 7:33:46 GMT
And while we're at it... What about recording engineers who couldn't work with digital for any length of time when it came out? Fleetwood Mac's studio went all digital at the time of Tusk, if I remember right and had to be mixed a second time on account of how it sounded originally. I'll have to dig that out. Tusk was an all-analogue recording, digitally mastered. Most amplifiers are not band limited but that's for another reason (I don't recall what, someone else might know) Legato Link was just a marketing gimmick like HDCD, Bitstream, MASH etc the purpose was to get you to buy a new CD player. Quad 4 had the difference channels at 30 Khz not 50 khz, and that's not the same thing as replaying a 30Khz recording. The recordings on QUAD 4 did not have that bandwidth as it was impossible to record 30 KHz signals at the time. There's still no getting away from the fact that if the mics and the tape decks could not record it, it can't be reproduced regardless of the playback technology. As regards low bass improving treble, that's an entirely subjective observation. No doubt having low bass will reproduce ambiance of the recording venue and I'm all for that but it's no argument for recording or reproducing high frequencies we cannot perceive. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 14, 2019 7:47:56 GMT
And while we're at it... What about recording engineers who couldn't work with digital for any length of time when it came out? Fleetwood Mac's studio went all digital at the time of Tusk, if I remember right and had to be mixed a second time on account of how it sounded originally. I'll have to dig that out. Do I believe measurements tell us all we need to know about sound? No. Do I believe we understand all we need to in terms of reproduced sound? No. Recording and playback are fully understood. How and why we appreciate sound/music in the brain is still a grey area. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 14, 2019 8:01:09 GMT
Vinyl is in fact heavily limited in terms or reproducing accurate and extended high frequencies: cutadub.com/Limitations-Vinyl-Records
Next limitation: treble. You can put as much treble on a DAT or CD as you want. Unfortunately this is not true on a record (or analog tape for that matter). Although 25kHz response is possible, excessive transients are a problem. There are several reasons for this. It was decided with the advent of the first electrical transcription phonograph record, to reduce bass and boost treble in the cutting of the master record. This reduces bass wiggles and makes treble louder. And we aren’t talking about a little bit of cut and boost here, we’re talking about a 40 dB change from bottom to top!
Without the bass cut, you’d only have about 5 minutes on your LP side. Without the treble boost, you would hear mostly surface noise. You don’t have to worry about this drastic cut and boost sounding funny, because the phono preamplifier in your amplifier or receiver has an inverse curve which boosts the bass and reduces the treble by the same amounts used in cutting, so the whole process comes out linear. This was standardized worldwide in 1953 and is called the RIAA record and reproduce curves.
I said you don’t have to worry about the RIAA curve, but the cutting engineer sure does! Power amplifiers (100 to 400 plus watts) are used to drive the tiny coils (one for each channel) in the cutting head. They’re like miniature speakers which instead of just moving air, push the stylus that etches the groove in your record. With 20 dB of treble boost, you can only imagine the beating that the cutting head takes from cymbal crashes and the like. The coils are helium cooled but still can reach 200 degrees Centigrade. A circuit breaker is used to prevent catastrophic destruction. This doesn’t all add up to the limitation it seems, because it is still possible to cut levels higher than can be played back.
Let’s take a look at cymbals and vocal sibilance (those loud ‘S’ sounds). “Why”, do you ask, “Do they sound OK on the tape but sometimes so awful on the record?” The answer is twofold. First, the problem is aggravated by the high frequency boost we just discussed. Further excessive boost in your mix makes it that much worse. Unlike a cymbal crash in which the impulse is short (the actual hit of the stick on the cymbal), the duration of an ‘S’ is considerably longer, so it is even more pronounced. And second, the worst part: Remember the river? Suppose the river’s twists and turns are actually tighter than your raft? Ever watch a raft attempting rapids? Well, that is exactly what your stylus is doing when it hits a loud cymbal crash or a loud ‘S’ in the record groove. At the instant that the curvature of the groove is tighter than the tip radius of your stylus (raft), it goes over instead of through ‘the rapids’, and you have 100 percent distortion. The higher the frequency and or level, the greater the curvature and distortion. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Mar 14, 2019 9:23:24 GMT
And while we're at it... What about recording engineers who couldn't work with digital for any length of time when it came out? Fleetwood Mac's studio went all digital at the time of Tusk, if I remember right and had to be mixed a second time on account of how it sounded originally. I'll have to dig that out. Do I believe measurements tell us all we need to know about sound? No. Do I believe we understand all we need to in terms of reproduced sound? No. That's because you and I perhaps don't fully understand the ins and outs of it all although I'm trying to understand better (I'm not patronising here I swear)... The danger is that arch objectivists are also as blinkered as many subjective audiophiles can be, so badness on both extremes which doesn't help anyone. I think the electronics side has been pretty well sorted now by those who know what they're doing, as the gear that really does change the sound has been designed to do so to stand out imo. Whether you/we LIKE 'neutrality' is another matter of course.
The very best vinyl systems do sound rather different and better to the stuff most of us use and own I feel. I was surprised thirty years ago how good vinyl could sound over a typical top spec late 80's LP12 and have been pleasantly surprised again how this latter deck system has come on (at stupid money in engineering terms compared to the often superb oil-rig types out there). I'm trying to learn as much as my old brain will allow and enjoying every minute of it - helps take me away from real life right now |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 14, 2019 18:33:14 GMT
Do I believe measurements tell us all we need to know about sound? No. Do I believe we understand all we need to in terms of reproduced sound? No. That's because you and I perhaps don't fully understand the ins and outs of it all although I'm trying to understand better (I'm not patronising here I swear)... The danger is that arch objectivists are also as blinkered as many subjective audiophiles can be, so badness on both extremes which doesn't help anyone. I think the electronics side has been pretty well sorted now by those who know what they're doing, as the gear that really does change the sound has been designed to do so to stand out imo. Whether you/we LIKE 'neutrality' is another matter of course.
Well personal preference is always going to come into it. We are not all chasing the same rainbow, or at least not the same end of it. However I'll still maintain that some amplifiers are just better than others and it isn't necessarily because of them not being neutral. The Krell KSA50 was compared to a Luxman pro power amp at Penkridge. Both 50w class A power amps, both from highly respected marques. But the Krell was noticeably better and that opinion seemed to be unanimous. Not that the Luxman was not a good listen. But the Krell had that extra something. To get back tot he subject, since we were testing phono stages Ollies SP10 was the source for the day. But I'd brought my Technics SL1200 along and chucked it in during the lunch break. We were using an active pre - Firebottle KIN - and it was interesting to note how the sound was just slightly roughend up and veiled compared to how it sounds at home in my system (which pretty much was the Penkridge system except for the pre-amp and interconnects) compared to the SP10 which sounded like the voice of God through the exact same set up. No-one could be blamed for thinking this was simply the difference between the best of digital and vinyl done properly. Really there was no contest, the TT sounded a lot better than probably one of the best CD players ever made. Exactly what we have all experienced over the years when comparing vinyl with CD. However if we'd had the zero gain DCB1 pre-amp there at the time and put that in I can guarantee that the SLP1200 would have at the very least held its own against its Technics analogue counterpart. Conclusion - The quality of the amplification matter a lot more with digital than they do with vinyl. I'm just not really sure why. I used to think it was active pre-amps that were the problem. What's the point of another gain stage you don't need, it can only make things worse,. But then I've since heard some active preamps that allowed digital to sound at it's best, they were just really, really expensive. So I don't know. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 14, 2019 18:39:11 GMT
That’s a really interesting observation about amp quality affecting digital more. Not heard that notion before. I have no personal experience to support or contest it but then I haven’t even entertained such a possibility so aoulsntbhvar looked for it.
|
|
Still have them too...
