ben. Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 ---------------- On 8/2/2003 5:23:45 PM Griffinator wrote: ---------------- On 8/2/2003 12:44:48 PM bclarke421 wrote: I agree, Marvel. I've noticed a huge difference between 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 on my Akai DAW. ---------------- Of course you have. 24 bits yields a much better SNR than 16 bits. We're not talking about SNR here, we're talking about the audibility of ultrasonic frequencies. Bitrate has nothing to do with that. ---------------- My response to Marvel was somewhat of an aside, and not directed towards the ultrasonic issue. IMO, S/N ratios are not the big deal. 16 bits will give give you an excellent S/N. The difference is RESOLUTION. BTW, very nice debate here. Nobody's stomping out and slamming doors, and you both are actually condsidering the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerbache Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Just a quick pedantic note about the Nyquist rate and Shannon's proof is needed here. People keep harping on the fact that Nyquist made his observation in an attempt to save bandwidth, which is absolutely true. However, the theory behind the Nyquist rate has absolutely nothing to do with current frequency responses of CDs aside from the fact that it was used to arbitrarily decide what would be "high enough". Any signal which has frequencies of less than half the Nyquist rate will be completely described by the samples. The reason CDs only respond to 22kHz is because when the CD standard was originally proposed, they decided that was enough frequency response to cover the audio spectrum. Increasing the sampling rate to improve the sound quality in no way disputes the theory behind the Nyquist rate. When you increase the sampling rate, you get an exact representation of any waveform up to half that rate. The real discussion here involves absolutely nothing about the Nyquist rate and everything about whether or not high frequencies matter to our ears. That part of the argument I'll leave up to the psychologists, but as for the validity of Nyquist's work on frequency response, there's really no argument to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 You're absolutely correct. (a little late) Nyquist's theorem in no way dictates what the maximum frequency range should be. We have proven that, with precious few exceptions (myself included), the adult human ear cannot perceive frequencies above 20Khz. That was the reason for the Redbook standard being set at 44.1Khz. They believed that the mechanics of the brickwall filters used to eliminate ultrasonics would be inaudible at that frequency. What they did not understand was how much more there really was to the equation. Hence, we have a standard that, in all reality, sucks. Hail SACD and DVD-A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerbache Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Absolutely! I really don't think there's anything magical about analog recording that makes it superior to digital recording; it's just that so far we haven't been utilizing it properly. Personally, I'll probably still play vinyl, but that's more because I just happen to like it and think it's neat to collect, rather than some pursuit of the perfect sound quality. The biggest benefit of using a higher sampling rate is that it allows us to use filters that offer a much smoother phase in the audiable range, as opposed to the huge phase shifts that -must- occur when using a really steep filter design. Also, while on a technical topic, the current quantization in digital recording is probably really sufficient to handle most recording needs. We already don't use the quantization provided efficiently, thanks to the heavily compressed nature of most music nowadays. The only thing that would really be nice for making the quantization effect transparent would be if we used a logarithmic scale for the quantization rather than the current linear scale. Quantization only affects the amplitude, and thus volume, of the sound recording. Our ears function on a near logarithmic scale througout the range of volume which are distinctly audible (0 dB to around 130 dB for most people), so it only makes sense to record the power of music in a scale that most closely resembles the way it will be used. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone who utilizes PCM audio in this manner. Perhaps it's time for yet another new technology.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 13, 2003 Author Share Posted August 13, 2003 Welcome to the forum, BTW... I'm right with you on all those points. Digital audio is not flawed as much as the way we implement it is. As soon as we fix that problem, the super-high-end turntable manufacturers will quickly go out of business - because digital really will be superior to analog at that point. In the studio environment, 24/48 digital with top-notch converters on both ends is superior to analog, period. Unfortunately for studio owners like myself, those converters are still a bit out of reach for our budgets... BTW - did you have any thoughts on the white paper I referred to at the top of the thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Hey, wait a minute. While I don't own a "super high end turntable," I've a couple of decent ones, and while I'm not able to provide a real world number, most of the available recordings of music of all types is still pretty much an LP and other analog disc thing. So don't expect perfection of digital formats to eliminate TT's during your lifetime. Even when a really accurate, clean, afforadable digital medium takes hold, this wealth of analog resource is unlikely to be profitable enough to transfer. I've seen more new high end turntables in the past 10 years than in the previous 10. My Empire 597 Mk II 78 dedicated turntable will pass down to my son. I suspect he will appreciate it, as well as the discs that will go with it. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Griff, that's strong! And I am one that is rooting for this to happen, although unless an awefull lot of old material unavailable in digital format now will be made available for the winning format, I don't want the TT manufacturers to go out of business just yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 14, 2003 Author Share Posted August 14, 2003 ---------------- On 8/13/2003 11:50:26 PM Mallett wrote: Hey, wait a minute. While I don't own a "super high end turntable," I've a couple of decent ones, and while I'm not able to provide a real world number, most of the available recordings of music of all types is still pretty much an LP and other analog disc thing. So don't expect perfection of digital formats to eliminate TT's during your lifetime. Even when a really accurate, clean, afforadable digital medium takes hold, this wealth of analog resource is unlikely to be profitable enough to transfer. I've seen more new high end turntables in the past 10 years than in the previous 10. My Empire 597 Mk II 78 dedicated turntable will pass down to my son. I suspect he will appreciate it, as well as the discs that will go with it. Dave ---------------- Now see, you eliminate a piece and the whole statement gets misconstrued. The reason I said "super high end" turntables? No one will be chasing the perfect TT believing that it is the best available format if digital finally gets its act together and trumps high end analog the way it is capable. If no one is chasing the perfect TT anymore, the ultra-high-end companies won't be able to survive. Sure, there'll be a good 50-60 years worth of TT business for people who just don't want to replace their extensive collections - but most of that will be secondary market, and the rest will be Joe Sixpack who just happened to inherit a bunch of vinyl from his dead uncle and wants to groove (pardon the pun) to some moldy oldies... before he yardsales it... I love vinyl as much as the next guy around here - I have quite a lot of money in my record collection (and quite a lot more in my collection before I got robbed 8 years ago) and quite a few bucks over the years in tables to play it on, but I long for the day I can finally dump my worn out, scratched-up, well-used vinyl in the trash and replace it with clean, pristeen digital reproductions. Sure, I'll keep the discs that are still in good shape around, but stuff like my completely beat copy of The White Album that is just nasty distorted poppy clicky mess? Somebody get me a .50 caliber - it's time for ***** shooting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Actually, I expect some other means of reading LP's to come along, perhaps as an offshoot of some other technology. The laser turntable, developed here but now built in Japan, is an example. I don't know what it sounds like, though I do know it's out of my price range. I've often wondered if you could scan an LP with an very high res flatbed, then convert the image to sound via software. When I was young, I scoffed at Dick Tracy's two-way wrist radios and TV's. Now I realize that which man can concieve, he can create. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 The CD is a really nice, convenient replacement for the cassette tape. Couldn't live without a CD player in my car. I burn them from my LPs in the same manner I once recorded cassettes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Well, I prefer CD's in the car as well. OTOH, I was just testing a Crown D75 using my Sony Pro Walkman and a cassette I made in the mid-80's using top quality cassette and Dolby C. Certainly sounded better than CD, more like 24/88.2. Don't think I'll rush out and buy a box of those expensive, breakable puppies, though. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 15, 2003 Author Share Posted August 15, 2003 ---------------- On 8/14/2003 10:14:11 AM Mallett wrote: Well, I prefer CD's in the car as well. OTOH, I was just testing a Crown D75 using my Sony Pro Walkman and a cassette I made in the mid-80's using top quality cassette and Dolby C. Certainly sounded better than CD, more like 24/88.2. Don't think I'll rush out and buy a box of those expensive, breakable puppies, though. Dave ---------------- See, now we dabble in the personal, subjective experience and psychological influences. There is nothing superior about cassette as a format to CD. Closest thing to an exception to that rule would be the early 90's when the Dolby S standard pushed tape SNR to 105dB, a full 5 decibels better than the best CD player on the market (they've always been 100dB - save the very cheapest). On frequency spectrum, tape has never been able to hang with CD - the very best cassette players ever built couldn't manage any better than 18Khz on the top end. I submit that a great many people prefer cassette (and even vinyl, in some cases) to CD for one simple reason: they are acclimated to the sound of a given format. I personally cannot stand to listen to cassettes - even though I grew up with them. Why? Tape hiss. I cannot stand the sound of tape hiss. I've listened to CD and SACD remasters of analog recordings and they annoy me when I can hear the Studer (or whatever 24 track 2" they used) hissing audibly. It drives me bonkers. There are some, however, who find that tape hiss not only inoffensive, but inviting - they deliberately allow it on their recordings. This to me is a comfort thing - they're so thoroughly accustomed (through 8-track and cassette throughout their formative years) to the sound that they feel something is missing if it is not present. Just personal speculation, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Metal tape, Dolby C. There was no tape hiss. I used DBX and Dolby C for years without hearing any tape hiss, even when my ears were very extended. I certainly recall "preferring" tape hiss in that when I heard the first Advent cassette deck with Dolby, I was convinced the highs were being filtered because it went away when you turned Dolby on. There is no doubt in my mind that back then, hiss served to tell you both that the high end was present and what it was doing. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Dave, I had a link, now lost, of some guy who was actually scanning LPs on a flatbed scanner. He then processed the files using some complex programs he had written. They were awful, but he was proving that it could be done. The samples he had on his website were very noisy, had some flange effect on them (as I recall), some pitch changes, but they did work. One of the problems he had was having to stitch a couple scans together to get the whole side as one image. Griff, It seems unfortunate that a lot of technology is just about to really get refined when we jump onto something else. Tube amplification could be one of those, and we can all relate to it. When we finally get the technology and ability to make really, really good tube gear, we switched to solid state. Now the good tube progress is going on on the fringe. I shot news film back when it was still 'film.' Right when they got the gear good enough and light enough for me to carry (under 20 lbs.), they switched to video. What did we get for it? A 25-30 lb. camera with a separate 30 lb. 3/4 inch recorder to hang off your shoulder. And film still looks better, 16mm gives more detail and dynamic range than video. But video IS catching up. For news, the tradeoffs are worth it. I believe Dave is right here, a good cassette is very, very good, but you really need to pay attention to the gear and the tapes you use. Dolby SR kept studios way ahead of digital. But most have been willing to give up the speed, alignment, maintenance issues for the 'convenience' of digital. Those rolls of 2 inch tape are hard to handle, and are too expensive, but when set up correctly, are so good. Being subjective IS where its at. If it doesn't sound good to you you will use something else. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Amen on all counts, Marvel. I've been here long enough to have been through a number of these little debates. I've been able to learn and hone my theories enough between discussion and practical experimentation to be certain differences exist that are audible even to those of us with limited high frequency hearing. No one can state with any degree of certainty what another person hears. The debates that continue to rage prove beyond doubt that significant differences are there and that simple specifications or A/B tests are not adequate to define them. Looking back again, I can say there were no such huge debates when the world was analog and the high end was RR and LP. Over equipment and such, yes. Over the media, no. Lessor media, such as cassettes and 8 track, were exactly that and treated accordingly. I own something of almost every medium from Edision cylinders, to diamond discs, to wire, et al. Perfect sound is still a work in progress. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 16, 2003 Author Share Posted August 16, 2003 Once again, I'm not trying to forward the idea that any currently available digital format is "perfect" - only a lot quieter than cassettes. I love the idea of a laser instead of a needle on LPs - finally, a CD laser gets put to good use! I had Dolby S Sony decks ($800 range) that produced no hiss when HX and S were engaged - but the highs were so dead I couldn't stand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Cool enough. OTOH, quiet isn't everything. I can achieve 100% quiet by turning my system off. I just listened to my Kid Ory 78 of "Muskrat Ramble." S load of groove noise. But that music is so damn awesome and they don't take American Express. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 16, 2003 Author Share Posted August 16, 2003 LOL! Indeed, I've probably spent entirely too much time in the producer's office here lately. I was most dismayed tonight to find that during the move, our copy of Clouds by Joni Mitchell apparently took a heck of a beating - it's all clicks and pops and hiss and HF distortion - I couldn't stand to listen to it anymore, and I adore that album. I guess I'm still so sensitive to HF noise that I just can't stand listening to it underneath my music. OTOH, my copy of Iron Maiden's Number of the Beast was absolutely glorious this afternoon - Bruce's soaring voice, Adrian and Dave trading licks, Clive Burr working the hi-hat like a machine gun, Steve's "William Tell Overture" basslines - all clear as glass and so warm and earthy - the CD version just couldn't hang with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 My 16 year young son bought a Marantz 1040 amp and I fixed a couple things for him (power lamp was out and some adjustments) because he was complaining of some distortion. So when I was done, we hooked it up to my KG 4s and a cheap DVD player and I checked out one of my CDs and thought it sounded good, but said to him to put on the same music that was distorting for him earlier. He put on a CD by Silverstein and I had to immediately turn down the volume! Even though we had discussed this very issue, it kinda caught me off guard when I noticed... needless to say, there was no noticable distortion with a well mastered CD until the volume was waaaaay up. The CD he had sounded like...well...distortion! As to the laser player, http://www.elpj.com/ . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Delaflor Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 Well... MY cd does not sound harsh! http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue6/ade24.htm Anyone interested can read my own review, it is somewhere here on the forum, I think I posted it about a year ago or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.