Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24/96 vinyl rips don't sound any better
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24/96 vinyl rips don't sound any better - Page 2

post #16 of 71

You don't have any choice with digitizing 78s. There is no standard EQ.

post #17 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

You don't have any choice with digitizing 78s. There is no standard EQ.

 

Actually, there are several well defined standards from major companies, and a ton of others, and the label plus a bit of research on the date will tell you what they did.  I guess that makes 78 EQ non-standard.  

 

There are preamps that have the few major curves, plus a few variables so you can nail the others.  Sorry, I don't have it at finger tips, there's a post-digitizing EQ plug that has all the standard 78 curves in it, can't recall what it is just now.  It can also assume you used an RIAA pre and apply the correction to land on the right 78 curve.  

 

If you're digitizing 78s, you need the right stylus, the groove is bigger and the "micro-groove" dimension stylus we all have rides on the bottom of the 78 groove and rattles around in it.  Shure makes one (I have it), makes a HUGE difference in distortion. You also need to pick the quietest and lowest distortion combination of L, R, or sum.  Depending on record wear, there's a significant difference.

 

Pfff...just after I wrote that, I googled...always google first...it's all available with a plug for  Audacity, covers the common curves, and then there's a table for just about every other variant so you can dial it in.

 

Info is here.

 

At the end of it, they suggestion you listen, if it doesn't sound right, it isn't. 

post #18 of 71

And I supposed we can't call digitized 78s "vinyl rips" since there's no vinyl involved. "Shellac rip" has a nice ring....

post #19 of 71

The defined curves for specific companies was a manufacturing criteria for that brand's players, but it wasn't always followed by the recording engineers. Every studio location had its own peculiar variation on the curve. I've played with those stock EQ curves for 78s. They don't even begin to cover the range, particularly with acoustic recordings.

post #20 of 71

Yeah, acoustic recordings had some very weird characteristics, the recording horns resonated, the play horns resonated, the stylus and diaphragms...you get the idea. It gets down to, come as close as you can, then tune by ear.  The problem I've always had was there is some high frequency material, but there's so much surface noise you can't really have it.

 

But, here's something:  We've had records for somewhere around 125 years, and can still play them all today.  Outside of some dust, if they've been stored vertically, they are as playable today as ever, and with some very simple equipment.  

 

What do you think CDs will do in 125 years?  

 

bigshot: ever tried to play a metal mother?  It's possible, just not nice.

post #21 of 71

The newest digital crackle filters do gangbusters on 78 surface noise. It's all impulse so it is very easy for the computer to sort out noise from music.

 

Never played a metal mother. It takes a V shaped stylus doesn't it?

post #22 of 71

Yes, it's a V shape, probably very few in the world now.  

 

Many of the pop/click filters depend on ultrasonic content, and look at L-R (channel difference) information, so with those you need to digitize at 96KHz, and in stereo, even if you pick a channel or sum them to mono later. 

post #23 of 71

I found that as you dial the declicker up up, the super audible frequency detection slides down into the audible range. So you can do redbook and just dial it way up. No content above 10kHz on a 78. Stereo definitely.

post #24 of 71

Interesting.  The old hardware declickers looked at 25KHz+, L-R.   Burwen and SAE used two different methods, the SAE switched to a delayed version of the material just before the click, the Burwen just muted during the click.  The SAE worked better on big clunks, the Burwen WAY better on small ticks, but you couldn't really set and forget either one, they had to be tweaked to program.

 

No content above 10KHz on 78?  HA! Not much above 5KHz either!  

post #25 of 71

The digital declickers are a totally different animal than the old Burwens. Believe it or not, there are FFRR 78s.

post #26 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 Believe it or not, there are FFRR 78s.

Oh, I know about those.  London/Decca,  250Hz turnover, just before the LP.  

post #27 of 71

I don't understand the point of vinyl rips.  By digitizing the music, you take away whatever is "special" about vinyl.  It doesn't make any sense to me.  Vinyl sounds different, and sometimes better, but the only way to appreciate that is to actually play the vinyl.

post #28 of 71

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzyorange View Post
 

I don't understand the point of vinyl rips.  By digitizing the music, you take away whatever is "special" about vinyl.  It doesn't make any sense to me.  Vinyl sounds different, and sometimes better, but the only way to appreciate that is to actually play the vinyl.

 

I no longer have a record spinner but if i did I would digitize my vinyl so that I did not have to degrade the LP with further plays and to allow it to be put on portable devices or simply have a more convenient playback method such as instant track access. A good digitization will accurately capture all the special analogness plus all the speed variations, the wow and flutter, bearing noise, grunty in the grooves, mistracking, lead-in noise, lead-out noise, mains hum noise, bearing noise ( I used to have a Rega, now in an attic in Nuneaton), worn stylus noise and so on;). A decent 16/44.1 ADC will do this perfectly adequately for 99.9% of LPs as it has a superior noise floor (better dynamic range and SNR) and there is seldom anything above 20K worth worrying about. This has been tested to death elsewhere for example 

 


Edited by nick_charles - 9/11/13 at 4:41pm
post #29 of 71

+1, Nick!

 

One of the biggest frustrations in my audio life was spending my hard-earned money on a brand new record, playing it a few times, and hearing the wear increase.  Solo piano records had about 3 good plays, then downhill it goes.  I used to record my first plays on tape or cassette just to avoid this.  The turntable today gets used for a single play of vinyl, digitized, and not touched again.  And no, the process subtracts nothing from the sound at all.  

post #30 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post


The problem with going straight to digital and doing RIAA there is the device that the cartridge connects to.  Unless its one designed for the purpose, and I know of at least one, the cartridge load won't be right, so the cartridge response won't be right, so the digital RIAA won't either.  I keep hearing of people feeding the cartridge into a line input or mic input, adjusting the gain and applying RIAA...yikes.  That gets you close...like "close" as applied to atomic weapons.   24 bits isn't required to the RIAA right because of the spectral distribution of music.  

My personal preference is a good phono pre with RIAA in it, done right, the your ADC with bit-rate flavor of the week. 

Well yes, you would need to provide proper cartridge loading. And those I know of who are going straight to digital are.

se
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24/96 vinyl rips don't sound any better