Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

vinyl rip vs cd - Page 22

post #316 of 330
rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

A turntable is MUCH more likely to monkey with soundstage due to crosstalk than an A2D converter that has no crosstalk at all and specs that FAR exceed vinyl specs. If you aren't able to rip an LP to CD and come out with an identical sounding copy, you are doing something wrong somewhere. The most likely suspects would be the level of the capture causing clipping or a A2D converter that isn't audibly transparent (i.e.: junk)

...not again.

rolleyes.gif
post #317 of 330

I did a capture of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues 2 (Sheffield Lab D2D) and in direct A/B switched line level matched comparison, the digital copy was indistinguishable from the original LP. If you are interested in learning about how to make perfect LP rips, I'd be happy to fill you in.

post #318 of 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I did a capture of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues 2 (Sheffield Lab D2D) and in direct A/B switched line level matched comparison, the digital copy was indistinguishable from the original LP. If you are interested in learning about how to make perfect LP rips, I'd be happy to fill you in.

You just can't help yourself. There's a cure, or at least a way to handle the symptoms, you know. Meds have come a long way.

smily_headphones1.gif
post #319 of 330

Some folks actually are interested in sharing techniques on how to do vinyl rips you know. I have no idea why you are posting on this thread if you aren't interested.

post #320 of 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Some folks actually are interested in sharing techniques on how to do vinyl rips you know. I have no idea why you are posting on this thread if you aren't interested.

I shared my experience and spoke with another individual who's in a similar position. I have no desire to debate anything. I hope that's clear.

Edit: I truly mean no offence, your previous posts - yes, I sometimes read them for fun - show zero indication that you're familiar with good sound. As such, please stop.
Edited by Shaffer - 2/11/15 at 12:08pm
post #321 of 330

It's best to use a really good capture device. The one I use has RCA in, but here is a good one with XLR. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/QuadCapture?adpos=1o2&creative=55225946401&device=c&matchtype=&network=g&gclid=CIn0u8X42sMCFRNafgodB0UAdg

 

The most important thing to getting a really good capture off an LP record is to make sure your level is set properly. It's a good idea to have an adjustable preamp between your turntable and the capture device so you can adjust the line level to avoid clipping, or to be so low in level that the noise floor is raised. (Remember, you always need a turntable pre too to apply the RIAA curve.) Capture to your computer using a program like BIAS Peak.

 

Once you have captured the track, there are three kinds of noise reduction you can use. Some are very good, and others are very bad.

 

Broad Band Noise Reduction: This is the bad one. This basically applies a muffling filter over the top end. You want to avoid this one.

 

Dynamic Pattern Based Noise Reduction: Used with discretion, this can be helpful to reduce surface noise. The filter analyzes a silent section between tracks and determines the frequencies where the surface noise and rumble resides. Then you can adjust it to roll in based on the dynamics of the music- higher in silent passages, out completely once the music is loud enough to mask the surface noise. It can take a little trial and error and experience to know how to use this. A good example of this sort of filter is SoundSoap 4.

 

Impulse Noise Reduction: This is the most useful form of NR for LPs. It senses sharp transient clicks and pops, and applies a filter only to the fraction of a second where the noise occurs. It analyzes the sound before and after the click to create pink noise that bridges the gap perfectly. Since the noise reduction is only applied to the tiny sliver of time where pops and clicks occur, and the filtration is completely disengaged the rest of the time, it can only help the sound quality, it can't hurt it.

 

Once you have finished applying NR, normalize your track up to about 90% and listen to it. You might want to apply some judicious equalization. Often LPs had high and low end rolloffs to accommodate tracking and record wear problems. Sometimes a little sub bass and upper frequency boost can help freshen up an LP transfer.

post #322 of 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

It's best to use a really good capture device. The one I use has RCA in, but here is a good one with XLR. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/QuadCapture?adpos=1o2&creative=55225946401&device=c&matchtype=&network=g&gclid=CIn0u8X42sMCFRNafgodB0UAdg

The most important thing to getting a really good capture off an LP record is to make sure your level is set properly. It's a good idea to have an adjustable preamp between your turntable and the capture device so you can adjust the line level to avoid clipping, or to be so low in level that the noise floor is raised. (Remember, you always need a turntable pre too to apply the RIAA curve.) Capture to your computer using a program like BIAS Peak.

Once you have captured the track, there are three kinds of noise reduction you can use. Some are very good, and others are very bad.

Broad Band Noise Reduction: This is the bad one. This basically applies a muffling filter over the top end. You want to avoid this one.

Dynamic Pattern Based Noise Reduction: Used with discretion, this can be helpful to reduce surface noise. The filter analyzes a silent section between tracks and determines the frequencies where the surface noise and rumble resides. Then you can adjust it to roll in based on the dynamics of the music- higher in silent passages, out completely once the music is loud enough to mask the surface noise. It can take a little trial and error and experience to know how to use this. A good example of this sort of filter is SoundSoap 4.

Impulse Noise Reduction: This is the most useful form of NR for LPs. It senses sharp transient clicks and pops, and applies a filter only to the fraction of a second where the noise occurs. It analyzes the sound before and after the click to create pink noise that bridges the gap perfectly. Since the noise reduction is only applied to the tiny sliver of time where pops and clicks occur, and the filtration is completely disengaged the rest of the time, it can only help the sound quality, it can't hurt it.

Once you have finished applying NR, normalize your track up to about 90% and listen to it. You might want to apply some judicious equalization. Often LPs had high and low end rolloffs to accommodate tracking and record wear problems. Sometimes a little sub bass and upper frequency boost can help freshen up an LP transfer.

You're insulting my intelligence. Who knows, maybe someone will find this useful. Noise reduction, setting levels, RIAA EQ - lol. Mickey Mouse Club.

Edit: Thanks, I guess.
Edited by Shaffer - 2/11/15 at 3:18pm
post #323 of 330

I was talking past you to the people who actually have an interest in doing vinyl rips! Feel free to depart.

post #324 of 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

It's best to use a really good capture device. The one I use has RCA in, but here is a good one with XLR. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/QuadCapture?adpos=1o2&creative=55225946401&device=c&matchtype=&network=g&gclid=CIn0u8X42sMCFRNafgodB0UAdg

The most important thing to getting a really good capture off an LP record is to make sure your level is set properly. It's a good idea to have an adjustable preamp between your turntable and the capture device so you can adjust the line level to avoid clipping, or to be so low in level that the noise floor is raised. (Remember, you always need a turntable pre too to apply the RIAA curve.) Capture to your computer using a program like BIAS Peak.

Once you have captured the track, there are three kinds of noise reduction you can use. Some are very good, and others are very bad.

Broad Band Noise Reduction: This is the bad one. This basically applies a muffling filter over the top end. You want to avoid this one.

Dynamic Pattern Based Noise Reduction: Used with discretion, this can be helpful to reduce surface noise. The filter analyzes a silent section between tracks and determines the frequencies where the surface noise and rumble resides. Then you can adjust it to roll in based on the dynamics of the music- higher in silent passages, out completely once the music is loud enough to mask the surface noise. It can take a little trial and error and experience to know how to use this. A good example of this sort of filter is SoundSoap 4.

Impulse Noise Reduction: This is the most useful form of NR for LPs. It senses sharp transient clicks and pops, and applies a filter only to the fraction of a second where the noise occurs. It analyzes the sound before and after the click to create pink noise that bridges the gap perfectly. Since the noise reduction is only applied to the tiny sliver of time where pops and clicks occur, and the filtration is completely disengaged the rest of the time, it can only help the sound quality, it can't hurt it.

Once you have finished applying NR, normalize your track up to about 90% and listen to it. You might want to apply some judicious equalization. Often LPs had high and low end rolloffs to accommodate tracking and record wear problems. Sometimes a little sub bass and upper frequency boost can help freshen up an LP transfer.

You're insulting my intelligence. Who knows, maybe someone will find this useful. Noise reduction, setting levels, RIAA EQ - lol. Mickey Mouse Club.

Edit: Thanks, I guess.


I am also not at all interested in noise reduction and cutting out clicks and pops or whatsoever. To me it is not the question what the frequency range of a LP is and what format would be required to capture "just" that range, or whether or how much there is crosstalk. I just wanna preserve my LPs and what is on it exactly as they are, in the best possible quality. That's all.

After this was achieved, then anybody who likes can battle clicks and pops or whatever. But that's nothing I want (then I really better look for a master-copy in high res).

Compared to such post-ripping processing it is much more important to do the basic settings correct, and this is by far not done with "setting the level properly".

It is mainly the ultra precise cartridge adjustment (...actually a major source of mistake...), matching the RIAA preamp settings to the cartridge (...in my experience there is more "good" compromise around than perfect or at least close to perfect matches...), cabling and last but not least the adequate D/A conversion (...my preference here still is DSD...).
Any mistake done in the analogue process you can never make good for in the digital domain. To me, in the analogue process and in D/A conversion is the key to quality not in using digital filter gimmicks; how "intelligent" they might be.


Edited by musikaladin - 2/12/15 at 11:30pm
post #325 of 330

Whenever you do noise reduction on a track, always archive your raw transfer. Noise reduction technology has jumped by leaps and bounds in the past decade. Who knows what they may be able to do in a few years. I remember when I was first starting out, CEDAR was the state of the art in digital noise reduction. A CEDAR workstation cost tens of thousands of dollars. Now, the exact same thing that CEDAR did is built into consumer audio editing software. In fact, some of the declickers are even better than CEDAR.

 

And you are absolutely right, if your turntable isn't set up properly, you aren't going to get the best transfers. But I figured most people have already dealt with that issue.

post #326 of 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

 

That's the sound of me, laughing at you. Go and look at the screen caps.

 

 

I read through this forum a couple days ago and, since then, have failed to forget the injustice you shamelessly brought onto this forum. By stating you opinion as fact and denouncing others to help argue a point, you proved how immature and really how unintelligent you are. 

 

As Earnest Hemingway once said, "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self." I dearly hope that one day, you will truly understand the meaning of this quote. 

 

But, even with that said, I will gladly be the person to kick you off of your high horse. A vast majority of what you said is more or less false. I am glad you have read a couple articles on sampling and modulation, but there is so much more to it than theory. You can't understand the way sounds are processed by the human body by looking at them as just signals through a medium or vibrations in the ear. This would employ a reductionist approach, where you are completely disregarding any emergent properties arising. To state you cant hear above 22.1Khz or discern between a 44.1Khz and 96Khz sampling rate is simply untrue and I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from posting such misinformation in the future.

 

Just to give you a background of my experience in this field, I study transform theory at one of the top schools in the world. One example of what we do is collaborate with Neuro and Cognitive Scientists to better understand the transfer of signals from the system(s) to the brain. Further, I have designed analog amplifiers (integrated and discrete), filters (hp, lp, bp, band reject, butterworth, etc.), researched solid state physics, and done much more just not at the same level of depth.  

 

And just on a side note, that video you posted of the coffee challenge isn't as black and white as you might think it is. The brain chemistry actually changes when told to expect a better sample. The coffee actually tasted differently for the people in the experiment. 

post #327 of 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niterider View Post
 

To state you cant hear above 22.1Khz or discern between a 44.1Khz and 96Khz sampling rate is simply untrue

 

I have done careful listening tests between 44.1 and 96kHz and I can't discern a difference. I don't know anyone who can either. As for hearing above 22.1kHz, I believe the highest frequency that a human has been able to hear on record is 25kHz. Many people don't even hear past 17kHz. For the purposes of listening to recorded music, super audible frequencies are completely useless. They add nothing to the perceived sound quality.

post #328 of 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I have done careful listening tests between 44.1 and 96kHz and I can't discern a difference. I don't know anyone who can either. As for hearing above 22.1kHz, I believe the highest frequency that a human has been able to hear on record is 25kHz. Many people don't even hear past 17kHz. For the purposes of listening to recorded music, super audible frequencies are completely useless. They add nothing to the perceived sound quality.

Your're forgetting about the subharmonics of high frequencies, which clue the brain as to a given recording's extension. Some of this is driven by one's point of reference, which you seem to lack.

There's a note from a well known engineer, I won't name, who kept complaining about a channel on his Neve desk. A number of techs tested it and found nothing wrong, Still, he kept complaining. Finally, Neve sent their techs from the UK to look at the desk. They found an anomaly at 50K (!). Clearly, no human can hear that high. He was hearing the results of the subharmonics of that frequency; hence, his never-ending complaints.

Reductionism, as applied to audio, is simply ignorance at play (no pun intended).
Edited by Shaffer - 3/25/15 at 9:41am
post #329 of 330

Subharmonics within the audible range are perfectly reproduced by 44.1.

 

Super audible frequencies that are very loud can certainly be irritating. They use bullhorns putting out ultra high frequencies at riots to induce painful headaches in the crowd so they disperse. Frequencies above the range of human hearing can also produce harmonic distortion in the audible range in playback equipment not designed to deal with them, which is why recording engineers usually employ a low pass filter to eliminate them.

 

What super audible frequencies can't do is make music sound better. There was a study at the AES that indicated that not only did frequencies above 20kHz do absolutely nothing for perceived sound quality, they could even do a slow rolloff through the whole top octave of human hearing, and people said it didn't affect their enjoyment of the music.

 

Ultra high frequencies can only hurt, they can't help.


Edited by bigshot - 3/25/15 at 10:47am
post #330 of 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Subharmonics within the audible range are perfectly reproduced by 44.1.

Super audible frequencies that are very loud can certainly be irritating. They use bullhorns putting out ultra high frequencies at riots to induce painful headaches in the crowd so they disperse. Frequencies above the range of human hearing can also produce harmonic distortion in the audible range in playback equipment not designed to deal with them, which is why recording engineers usually employ a low pass filter to eliminate them.

What super audible frequencies can't do is make music sound better. There was a study at the AES that indicated that not only did frequencies above 20kHz do absolutely nothing for perceived sound quality, they could even do a slow rolloff through the whole top octave of human hearing, and people said it didn't affect their enjoyment of the music.

Ultra high frequencies can only hurt, they can't help.

...it's pointless.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd