Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › "Digital Vinyl"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Digital Vinyl"? - Page 8

post #106 of 152
24/96 doesn't make music sound clearer. The resolution at normal volumes is exactly the same as 16/44.1. The added resolution in 24 bit sound is in the extreme low level volume passages. This is important when you record, because you might need to boost something in the mix to make it read clearly. But for everyday listening at fixed volume levels, the added dynamic range at the lowest end of the spectrum is totally unnecessary.

See ya
Steve
post #107 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
24/96 doesn't make music sound clearer. The resolution at normal volumes is exactly the same as 16/44.1. The added resolution in 24 bit sound is in the extreme low level volume passages. This is important when you record, because you might need to boost something in the mix to make it read clearly.
The big advantage I find with recording at high resolution is in the subsequent manual editing. For example, with a pristine LP I might have a few "heavy" clicks but many more unobtrusive ones. With a 24-96 file, I find it extremely fast and easy (even fun) to manually find the blemish and interpolate that blemish so as to eliminate the audible flaw. I find this much harder and frustrating at, say 16-48, as the small blemishes are harder to distinguish from the music visually speaking when looking at the waveform on my DAW. So high resolution editing is for me a big brain / headache saver and just makes this process more precise and less prone to error.
post #108 of 152
24 bit is only useful in the mixdown? Do you mean in terms of vinyl transposition or in general? If you mean the latter I disagree. I can definitely tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit recordings especially on drums which have a high transient response above the mix. But each to their own.

Furthermore the word size in most DAWs is 32 bit float. Whereas the files themselves are recorded at 24 bit. This is important during digital summation of the mixed tracks - otherwise several tracks at 24bit would clip into next week on the master fader!
Did you mean engineer monitors the mix at 24 bit? That much is true.
post #109 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
As far as I know The Library of Congress use a Technics SP15 ($900 in 1988) for their digital preservation of records. I sort of remember these being made primarily for radio stations ? These can be picked up for $300 or so.
I'm not sure what they're using now, but 10 years ago they were using Simon Yorke turntables. His current top of the line retails for $20K. Not sure if that includes a tonearm or not.

Stereophile: Simon Yorke Designs Series 7 Precision LP Playback System
post #110 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADD View Post
The big advantage I find with recording at high resolution is in the subsequent manual editing
I used to manually declick. But then I got Spark XL and the declicker on that did a million times better job than I was able to do. In the past few years, pro grade digital declick filters have been perfected. No need to manually edit any more, and the auto declicker gets stuff that you can't get to manually.

See ya
Steve
post #111 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkovsky View Post
24 bit is only useful in the mixdown? Do you mean in terms of vinyl transposition or in general? If you mean the latter I disagree. I can definitely tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit recordings especially on drums which have a high transient response above the mix. But each to their own.
The added resolution in 24 bit sound is at the bottom of the dynamic range down nearer the noise floor, not at the top up at the peaks. The advantage of this is clear when you are trying to balance a multi-track mix and you need to boost some element a great deal. You don't bring up mush, you bring up clear sound.

But at normal listening levels, there is absolutely no audible difference. You're mistaken about the high transients. It's the low level stuff that has more resolution in 24 bit, not the peaks. If you're interested in why, I'm sure someone with a more technical background around here can explain why with Nyquist curves and all that stuff.

See ya
Steve
post #112 of 152
LOL I think it's you who needs the lesson. It was I who explained to earlier about the greater detail in low sound because of the large wavelength of subbass (which a kick drum amongst other instruments generates). Again in mixing I think you've misunderstood, bringing up levels is done by turning down and in this way the higher resolution of 24bit is used. And again, as I have already tried to explain to you that in the digital domain these signals are handled at 32bit, not 24.

I'm twenty and have pretty good ears (I used to hear above 22l, but my threshold is about 20k atm) and I can hear it in terms of the compression that is used to bring quiet passages to a sensible level of resolution at 16 bit and the way drums sit above the mix. But perhaps my ears are failing me and actually engineering audio as a hobby has taught me nothing.
post #113 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADD View Post

Then there is the huge variability of the master tapes, which gets back to my EQing. The balance and soundstage of a 1957 European Decca is nothing like a DG from the same era, a Mercury, RCA or anything else. Or even a 1961 Decca. They are all so different. I am transcribing a 1957 Decca today (Curzon Emperor Concerto) and quite honestly it needs some judicious manipulation to get the sound right - those old tapes were sometimes a bit brittle and tinny sounding. But a Kenneth Wilkinson effort from the same era sounds much better balanced and eerily modern. Some recordings are starkly bright, some are relatively dark, some sound "hard" because of an early roll-off in the high frequencies and subsequent lack of "air". Some have a soundstage that seems like you are the conductor, some sound like you are halfway down the hall. These are all things that can be subtly manipulated in the digital domain so as to obtain a bit more sonic consistency from one's collection, but there is nothing you can do in the analogue domain.
That's not entirely true. The problem with recordings like that generally is that the RIAA curve wasn't completely standardised at that time varying from one company to the next.

There is usually nothing wrong with the tapes from this period which were more or less completely perfected by that time. Ditto the mics which are amazing. People pay really silly money for old Neumans from this time.

You can fix these problems with a phonostage which allows you to vary the curves but these are really expensive. On the whole it's always going to be better to get this right in the analogue stages rather than do it digitally although the latter works fine.

Didn't you say you were upgrading your deck recently? you'll notice imediately if and when you do that the transcriptions you've made on the old one won't sound the same and this is way more noticable on headphones in terms of the difference a better engineered turntable will make compared to cheaper one.
post #114 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkovsky View Post
LOL I think it's you who needs the lesson. It was I who explained to earlier about the greater detail in low sound because of the large wavelength of subbass (which a kick drum amongst other instruments generates).
BigShot was talking about low level sounds not low frequencies.

Quote:
But perhaps my ears are failing me and actually engineering audio as a hobby has taught me nothing.
It isnt a matter of how good your ears, or anybody else's ears for that matter are, the fact remains that at the time of writing nobody (see Meyer and Moran, 2007, who conducted over 500 blind listening trials of high-res vs 16/44.1) has shown an ability to detect the difference between 24 bits and 16 bits in normal listening. Perhaps you can, straining at gnats over a mixing console at high gain , but for consumer listening the difference between 24 bits and 16 bits seems to be inaudible in all controlled listening tests conducted to date. If you have some (non anecdotal) results that contradict this I would be genuinely interested in hearing about them, the point is moot for my 49 year old ears but it would be interesting nonetheless.

FooBar has a ABX comparator plug-in which you can use to run blind trials.
post #115 of 152
Well this subject has been debated ad nauseum and all it does is go round in circles. What I will say is that the tests carried out thus far are a pretty small samples of the human population. It's like trying to find a future grandmaster chess player but just looking at kids going to one school. Thus far I doubt more than 0.0007% of the world's population has been tested on this - likely much, much less. Perhaps if and when much higher proportions of the population were measured the results of such tests might be different. It will only take one human to consistently hear the differences between 16 and 24 bit and low and high sampling rates to debunk the thoery that it is impossible to hear the difference.

I will never argue the fact that it appears the overwhelming majority of humans can't hear differences. But I don't agree that some humans can't.

I have run my own blind tests (some of which I have discussed here previously) and have no trouble distinguishing between various bit depths and sample rates (all the way to 192 khz) with classical orchestral music. I can't tell the differences with anything else though.
post #116 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by memepool View Post
That's not entirely true. The problem with recordings like that generally is that the RIAA curve wasn't completely standardised at that time varying from one company to the next.

There is usually nothing wrong with the tapes from this period which were more or less completely perfected by that time. Ditto the mics which are amazing. People pay really silly money for old Neumans from this time.

You can fix these problems with a phonostage which allows you to vary the curves but these are really expensive. On the whole it's always going to be better to get this right in the analogue stages rather than do it digitally although the latter works fine.

Didn't you say you were upgrading your deck recently? you'll notice imediately if and when you do that the transcriptions you've made on the old one won't sound the same and this is way more noticable on headphones in terms of the difference a better engineered turntable will make compared to cheaper one.
Yes, I am the proud owner of a Project RPM5 with Goldring 1022GX cartridge and TubeBox II phono amp (with 12AX7 LPS Sovtek tubes). And yes, the difference was absolutely huge, so I have had no option but to ditch the old transcriptions and start over. But this source combination as so good for me I can't ever see a need to change it - I think it is giving me as much as I am ever going to get when listening over headphones.

But I am still glad I got the Debut III last year, as it taught me many things and gave me the confidence and experience to upgrade to the RPM5. I'm not sure I would have wanted to handle and setup an RPM5 and Goldring 1022GX without any prior experience, for example.
post #117 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADD View Post
Yes, I am the proud owner of a Project RPM5 with Goldring 1022GX cartridge and TubeBox II phono amp (with 12AX7 LPS Sovtek tubes). And yes, the difference was absolutely huge, so I have had no option but to ditch the old transcriptions and start over. But this source combination as so good for me I can't ever see a need to change it - I think it is giving me as much as I am ever going to get when listening over headphones.
famous last words ...

but seriously congratulations the RPM5 is lovely looking and those Goldrings are amongst the best Moving Magnet carts available, certainly a big big improvement over the Debut.
I have too many records and not enough time to be that picky but yeah every time I change a component I am sorely tempted....
post #118 of 152

20Hz

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Frequencies that low are on the edge of human hearing, and are felt more than they are heard anyway.
Human hearing? I refuse to treat my elephant to anything less than the best elephant-audible sound money can't buy!
post #119 of 152
LOL! Yes, the RPM5 is tremendous, and a bargain over here in Australia in the mid $800s. It is living proof of how important the actual platform and tonearm is. The Goldring was recommended to me by Teresa Goodwin who runs the Analog Lovers site. I had heaps of tracking problems with my previous Debut III - it just couldn't handle my beloved Mercury reissues in particular - it just hopelessly mistracked causing lots of audible distortion and sibilance, espcially on the last inch of the grooves where the distortion just made the whole vinyl experience a very painful one.

I tried about 3 different alignments (including a Stevenson) which barely made any difference at all. I even tried an Ortofon 2M Black which just made matters a whole lot worse - a first class demonstration that the turntable and tonearm come first, then the cartridge. I wasn't going to spend money to try umpteen different cartridges, so I just bought the one she recommended because she has the same tonearm, listens to the same stuff and didn't have the tracking problems I was having.

Anyway, to be honest I have to stick with this new combination. There are some 60 plus still-in-print LPs that I still wish to acquire...while they are still in print. And that does not count about 2 or 3 new releases I want every month. At this rate I wonder how I will ever keep up or even catch up.

As for the transcriptions, luckily I had barely got into them with the old turntable. I have spent probably 95% of the last 6 months learning the tricks of the transcription trade and trying to find the best hardware / software combinations and technique to get the desired result. So just about all the time was spent learning and doing "test" runs. I only ended up doing 2 LPs because of that and pretty soon I realised that the time I was going to have to invest in this warranted a much better front end.

Afterall, I reckon I probably expend something like 10 - 15 hours per LP because I am a near-perfectionist and by choice (for sonic reasons) do all the noise reduction manually via interpolation. So I want the best source files that I can possibly get.
post #120 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkovsky View Post
But perhaps my ears are failing me and actually engineering audio as a hobby has taught me nothing.
My ears are normal. What I know is the result of being a recording and post-production sound supervisor on CDs, rock videos and television programs for the past 20 years.

See ya
Steve
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › "Digital Vinyl"?