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

"Digital Vinyl"? - Page 3

post #31 of 152
I was talking about low frequencies and what it takes to reproduce them accurately in a home stereo situation. Getting a flat frequency response down to the lowest audible octave requires VERY good speakers, a LOT of power, and a VERY large room. The point I was making about the length of the wave was that unless your room is large enough to present a wave that large without breaking it up by bouncing it off walls, you flat out aren't going to hear it anyway. Frequencies that low are on the edge of human hearing, and are felt more than they are heard anyway.

The other aspect is the cutting head on the lathe that cuts the lacquer master for the LP. In order to reproduce a 20Hz signal at any kind of volume, the grooves are going to get unmanageably large. When the engineer is cutting a disk, he balances the playability of the groove against the frequency response. Frequencies that matter are preserved. Those that don't that might cause problems are rolled off.

The last octave on each end of the frequency spectrum isn't what makes one recording format sound better than another. The frequencies that really matter are in the middle of the spectrum. LPs don't sound better than CDs because vinyl is a more accurate recording medium. They sound better because the mixing and mastering is often better. Transfer an LP to digital using care and good equipment, and you get the best of both worlds. It sounds EXACTLY the same as the original. I've done this and made the comparisons.

See ya
Steve

P.S. The big reason FM radio sounds bad has nothing to do with frequency response. It's compression... brute force, clumsy, one-size-fits-all, ham handed compression.
post #32 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by sejarzo View Post
So are you saying that CD would benefit from something conceptually like RIAA equalization, so that the sub-40 Hz content could be brought back up to proper levels?

Following that line of logic, you'd have to admit that vinyl is also bandwidth challenged and needs the crutch of RIAA eq to make up for its limitations, wouldn't you?

What I find odd about your claim is that the mid-'80's to early-'90's Telarc classical CD's were all made using very flat omni mics, uncompressed and un-EQ'ed, and they sound pretty good to me.....more believable/solid bass than I ever heard on vinyl (and I had a top notch TT, Fidelity Research arm, Denon MC cartridges back in the day.....)

I take it that your contention is that the average level of a classical recording must be dropped to a point so the low end will "fit" the Redbook limitations, and that the resolution in the higher frequency ranges suffers.....but likewise, vinyl has a noise floor, and classical LP's were often compressed to bring the lower level passages up so the noise wouldn't be such an issue.
Ah well classic music is a different kettle of incontinence pads. The argument goes that most hi-fi equipment really doesn't reproduce 20-40hz in any comparible magnitude, meaning bass does often sound better on cds which do their bass better to that depth. I don't know about your equipment... I think a lot sub 40hz bass is removed (not just eqed out) from popular music because it's just wasted energy on most systems. Classical music however is typically enjoyed by those who have that kind of cutter. Perhaps CDs would benefit from some form of RIAA eq, however this would differ from CD to CD depending on overall levels making it impractical.
post #33 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
By the way, your argument falls under the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent...

(1) If sound is being altered, it might be the DAC
(2) There is a DAC in the chain
Therefore
(3) The DAC is altering the sound

Classic logical fallacy.

See ya
Steve
Actually no, but thanks for the typical highschool philosophy student error. It would be good of you to implement all points of the argument in question not merely the ones you disagree with. Had you done so you would have been able to follow through sequentially with all points and discovered that my argument is true most often and has one other major benefit, that of occam's razor.

Do we blame a difference in sound on some perception, imaginary or not, highly untestable? Or do we blame it on the fact that there is an ACTUAL NOVEL piece of GEAR in the chain?

Hmmm.... tough one that.

The sad thing Steve is that you obviously have a vast amount of knowledge which is highly beneficial to a site like this. I know I myself have learned a lot from your posts. The problem? The chip on your shoulder and your god complex. Bigshot was the perfect alias and I suppose Hollywood is about the only place capable of containing the massive ego.

I mean this sincerely when I indicate I have much to learn from folks like you. You know a lot about audio but you don't know everything, no one does. Food for thought.
post #34 of 152
A successful transfer is highly dependent on a high quality pressing of a good recording, played through a high quality TT with a high quality cartridge, then through a great phono preamp and from their into a DSD recorder at a hi rez sampling rate, like 24/192 or 1-bit at 5.6MHz.

I've had great success using a Pro-ject RM10 with a Sumiko HOMC Blackbird cartridge into a Pro-ject Tube Box II and from there into a Korg MR1000 hard drive recorder sampling at 5.6MHz. You can't tell the two apart. The high sampling rate preserves the transparency and dynamics of a good LP.

That USB device is only going to be satisfactory for people that simply want to archive some old LPs and don't care much about sound quality (99% of the users).

Anyone looking for high quality digital archives of the treasured D2D recordings and other non-replaceble LPs should look into the Korg.

Dave

Dave
post #35 of 152
Personally I have considered such devices myself, and toss the idea before even getting any impulse to buy or even try it out.

Why? Well, simply think that it will sound IDENTICAL would be incorrect, as with CDs, LP have RIAA phono amp that everyone got their own idea about. Which the reason why there are so many manufacturer and tuners that got their own dedicated RIAA amp and tuning, just like there are so many manufacturers of DACs.


If someone is selling a fully integrated LP recorder that have it ALL, and only charge you for $99. I'll first seriously question the quality of the unit, and yes it may be well worth the $99 spent on it. However, would it really be money well spent on the stereo/computer setup that you already have? I really don't think it is really possible to build something like that for $99. From the description, I'm not sure it even have RIAA equalization, and it might all been done in software.


IMHO, like other Headfiers had said, it might be a better just digitize it after your standard LP gear and phono amp.
post #36 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkovsky View Post
Ah well classic music is a different kettle of incontinence pads.
I'm not certain if I should ask for a complete explanation of that, or leave it alone entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkovsky View Post
The argument goes that most hi-fi equipment really doesn't reproduce 20-40hz in any comparible magnitude, meaning bass does often sound better on cds which do their bass better to that depth. I don't know about your equipment...
Marantz SA8001 or E-MU 0404 USB, CKKIII, HD600's. Speaker rig uses those sources into ICEpower monoblocks, driving Paradigm Studio 40v3's directly, or for kicks, I throw in an Outlaw ICBM and send all the sub-40 Hz content to a Hsu VTF-3. Even without the sub, room measurements show that I could get flat to ~28 Hz by eq'ing out some "humps". IMHO, the system sounds better w/o the sub on music....even though measurements show that it could get down to ~18 Hz flat with the sub in the chain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkovsky View Post
I think a lot sub 40hz bass is removed (not just eqed out) from popular music because it's just wasted energy on most systems.
What's the difference between removed and EQ'ed out?

[/QUOTE] Classical music however is typically enjoyed by those who have that kind of cutter. Perhaps CDs would benefit from some form of RIAA eq, however this would differ from CD to CD depending on overall levels making it impractical.[/QUOTE]

Why should it vary from CD to CD any more than RIAA eq should vary from LP to LP? In fact, it seems to me that it would be done with much less potential for audible artifacts in the digital domain versus the analog, as is required for RIAA eq in a phono preamp.
post #37 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanth View Post
The sad thing Steve is that you obviously have a vast amount of knowledge which is highly beneficial to a site like this. I know I myself have learned a lot from your posts. The problem? The chip on your shoulder and your god complex. Bigshot was the perfect alias and I suppose Hollywood is about the only place capable of containing the massive ego.
Look, kid. I'm discussing techniques for getting better sound out of stereo components. I'm not passing judgement on anyone. The irony of the whole situation is that you're the one who insists on making it more and more personal in each reply. Shut up about me and stick to the topic. This is your shot across the bow.

See ya
Steve
post #38 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
A successful transfer is highly dependent on a high quality pressing of a good recording, played through a high quality TT with a high quality cartridge, then through a great phono preamp and from their into a DSD recorder at a hi rez sampling rate, like 24/192 or 1-bit at 5.6MHz.
If you set your input peak level correctly, high bitrate isn't necessary. All that does is give you more resolution at extremely low volume levels. Since an LP has a narrower dynamic range and a higher noise floor than redbook, it isn't going to benefit from the difference between 16 and 24. I've done comparisons and there is no difference.

See ya
Steve
post #39 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by sejarzo View Post
Why should it vary from CD to CD any more than RIAA eq should vary from LP to LP?
Because the RIAA curve is a fixed standard, and since the early digital era, recording technology has drifted further and further away from a standardized overall response curve in favor of "dumbing down" the sound for the "typical home speakers".

See ya
Steve
post #40 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by sejarzo View Post
I'm not certain if I should ask for a complete explanation of that, or leave it alone entirely.



Marantz SA8001 or E-MU 0404 USB, CKKIII, HD600's. Speaker rig uses those sources into ICEpower monoblocks, driving Paradigm Studio 40v3's directly, or for kicks, I throw in an Outlaw ICBM and send all the sub-40 Hz content to a Hsu VTF-3. Even without the sub, room measurements show that I could get flat to ~28 Hz by eq'ing out some "humps". IMHO, the system sounds better w/o the sub on music....even though measurements show that it could get down to ~18 Hz flat with the sub in the chain.



What's the difference between removed and EQ'ed out?

Classical music however is typically enjoyed by those who have that kind of cutter. Perhaps CDs would benefit from some form of RIAA eq, however this would differ from CD to CD depending on overall levels making it impractical.

Why should it vary from CD to CD any more than RIAA eq should vary from LP to LP? In fact, it seems to me that it would be done with much less potential for audible artefacts in the digital domain versus the analog, as is required for RIAA eq in a phono preamp.
Yeah that's a nice system alright. Now the point about no RIAA on cds is well covered by bigshot, but I'll elaborate, because deep bass response on a cd is subject to the amplitude of all sound above it restorative EQing on cds would have to be continuously variable.
By removed as opposed to EQed I was highlighting volition and extent.
post #41 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Since an LP has a narrower dynamic range and a higher noise floor than redbook, it isn't going to benefit from the difference between 16 and 24.
Here is something as an aside that has always puzzled me. For as long as I know the arguments about the limitations of LP have stated a figure of about 75 db for dynamic range and SNR of (good) LP compared with about 96db (16 x 6) theoretical and better than 100db with some technical jiggery pokery for CD.

Here is my question has anybody reputable, i.e without an an axe to grind either way done any actual decent measurements for the SNR and Dynamic range of a typical decent commercial LP, i.e not an uber-half-speed-quad-DD-blessed-by-the-pope , in normal conditions. I keep seeing these figures bandied about and I get the technical reasons for the limits of LP but I cant recall ever seeing any reliable real world measurements. How in any case could you do it independent of the playback set up i.e cart/phono stage or the actual recording ?

Just curious
post #42 of 152
Steve,

What's your opinion of those completely digital turntables that read LP's in a similar fashion to the way CD's are read, by a laser or some other non-contact method to measure the pits?
post #43 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
Here is my question has anybody reputable, i.e without an an axe to grind either way done any actual decent measurements for the SNR and Dynamic range of a typical decent commercial LP
It varies. Loud rock albums which are compressed usually have 30 to 40dB. Classical music on good pressings are around 60dB. I have a couple of LPs of digitally recorded opera (Karajan's Parsifal is one) that get up to about 70dB, but it's unlistenable, because the only way to hear the quiet passages is to have the volume cranked up to ear splitting levels for the peaks.

Comfortable volume level for focused listening to most kinds of music is between 40 and 50dB.

See ya
Steve
post #44 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeChuck View Post
What's your opinion of those completely digital turntables that read LP's in a similar fashion to the way CD's are read, by a laser or some other non-contact method to measure the pits?
I think they're overpriced. They also won't play colored vinyl, only black. Wear from normal playback really isn't that much of an issue if your needle is in good shape and your turntable is properly adjusted. So I don't see the point in going to that hassle. The main purpose of a laser pickup like that is to play cracked or broken 78s.

Whenever I listen to vinyl, I just run a transfer of it and stick the record back in the closet. But with tens of thousands of records, it's going to take me a lifetime to work my way through transferring all of them. (If there's anyone in Los Angeles who is interested in classical music, I'll trade my LPs for good digitized copies.)

See ya
Steve
post #45 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
It varies. Loud rock albums which are compressed usually have 30 to 40dB. Classical music on good pressings are around 60dB. I have a couple of LPs of digitally recorded opera (Karajan's Parsifal is one) that get up to about 70dB, but it's unlistenable, because the only way to hear the quiet passages is to have the volume cranked up to ear splitting levels for the peaks.

Comfortable volume level for focused listening to most kinds of music is between 40 and 50dB.

See ya
Steve
I am sorry to go Jeremy Paxman on you (a British reference) but how did you calculate/measure these numbers ?
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"?