[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. I believe you are using Nyquist in opposite way. if it can handle 50kHz then it is represents as 25kHz to our ears. But, it really never accurately play any above 20kHz due to very obvious limitations. (one of reason why CD-4 was made, was to handle information accurately to 45kHz) And no, I am not talking about RIAA curve. I am talking about the process on mechanical/manufacture respects. And no again, you only talked half of the problems of why Vinyl cannot properly play treble. Way too many end-user playback devices attenuate those high-frequencies (which is smart, since those high-freq information is terribly inaccurate in the first place) thus there is little/no/worse performance compared to CD in reality. 2. Dynamic range of LP is much wider than 50db? As I said, at best it's 80db. Please, understand that it is bound by law of physics. There is no way you can manipulate law of physics. There is no way LP can compete with CD for this regard unless CD is terribly mastered. 3. I lost my words there. ALL machines have thing called "error". Errors are introduced in EVERY stage of the analog lines because they are all mechanical parts. Digital also have error being introduced, but the number of incidents are FAR FEWER.

1. Not true. You are mistaken how Nyquist works. You need a sampling rate at twice the highest frequency. 50khz = 100khz sampling rate which is over twice the resolution of CD.

2. There is no dynamic range issues with modern analog rigs. CDs perform better in this area technically but I have never heard even the most dynamic music like orchestral suffer in any way to even reference CD playback such as my friend's $14K Wadia player.

3. No doubt there are mechanical distortions in LP playback but are they sonically audible? On a fine turntable I have my doubts.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. Not true. You are mistaken how Nyquist works. You need a sampling rate at twice the highest frequency. 50khz = 100khz sampling rate which is over twice the resolution of CD. 2. There is no dynamic range issues with modern analog rigs. CDs perform better in this area technically but I have never heard even the most dynamic music like orchestral suffer in any way to even reference CD playback such as my friend's $14K Wadia player. 3. No doubt there are mechanical distortions in LP playback but are they sonically audible? On a fine turntable I have my doubts.

1. The higher frequency sampling gives greater bandwidth not resolution, which is dedpendent on bit-depth.

2. The Wadia has a 3db roll-off at 20K, this is not a good example of a technically superior (re dynamic range or bandwidth) product, not that anything at 20K is relevant to music anyway

3. Even the finest TT can't overcome the problems of dragging a rock through a canyon, bung on a copy of Mahler's 1st and start playing the 1st movement (with headphones) I guarantee you will hear playback noise.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif So many misconceptions here so I will correct: 1. Treble is not compressed on LP mastering/cutting at all. The RIAA curve is put in place (because of bass) but there's no real loss there. In fact, the LP can handle a 50khz signal which is equivalent via Nyquist to a 100khz sampling rate. I will post a Ludwig quote on this later. 2. Dynamic range on a good LP is very wide, much wider than 50db. In practice there is no real audible diminishment of dynamics. 3. Vinyl represents a continuous signal based usually on an analog master. You don't actually need error correction as you do in digital. Many people here don't realize how good the analog formats are. {sigh}

Two Track, You said on an earlier thread that you found demagnetising your LPs improved the sound.

I was just wandering if this improved the dynamic range or the resolution?

 

[wnmnkh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. Not true. You are mistaken how Nyquist works. You need a sampling rate at twice the highest frequency. 50khz = 100khz sampling rate which is over twice the resolution of CD. 2. There is no dynamic range issues with modern analog rigs. CDs perform better in this area technically but I have never heard even the most dynamic music like orchestral suffer in any way to even reference CD playback such as my friend's $14K Wadia player. 3. No doubt there are mechanical distortions in LP playback but are they sonically audible? On a fine turntable I have my doubts.

1.......


2. Did you read my sentence? Anyway, as I said earlier human beings have problem hearing dynamic range of 70db, so I just stop wasting my time here.


3. On what find turntable?

Did they finally invent material with zero friction coefficient? A perfect material that does not transfer vibration/stress? Do you understand what I said about "bound by law of physics?" And do you get the idea of analog not being capable of "error detection and correction"?

 

[wnmnkh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Two Track, You said on an earlier thread that you found demagnetising your LPs improved the sound. I was just wandering if this improved the dynamic range or the resolution?

Unless you provide actual quote and page that he really said that drivel, you are nothing more than creating even more useless flame here.

 

[grokit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vinyl represents a continuous signal based usually on an analog master. Many people -snip- don't realize how good the analog formats are.

The "continuous signal" is what matters to me, not the measurements.

It reminds me of the high-end cable arguments;

You can't quantify it, but it does sound better when properly implemented

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... SACD is usually regarded/distributed as 24bit/88.1kHz ... SACD is just not possible to rip at all. Terrible convenience that only can be played on standalone players...

Of course you can rip the LPCM downsampled SACD at 88.2 (that's what you meant, not 88.1) using a Vanity board from AudioPraise, or directly from the digital output of a Wadia CDP, and at 176.4 using a Sony PS/2 from the old days (any PS/2 with SACD playback will put 176.4 LPCM out the HDMI port, then insert any HDMI-to-SPDIF converter, which are less than $100, in to your chain -- I've posted all these details before). There are modified Oppo players that also do 88.2 from SACDs.

You have to title the file and add the tags yourself, so that's a little painful, but don't say that you can only listed to the SACD on your player, that's not true. I listen in foobar all the time, using the above techniques to capture the tracks.

And, if what you say is true, that SACDs are only using like 88.2 sampling (of course they can go 16 x higher) then you lose nothing in the downsampling.

Now back to the main theme. I have heard great turntable-based systems, with pristine LPs. I far prefer SACDs, not even close. Less noise, and therefore more audible detail, every time ... with both ss and tube electronics.

With fast enough sampling and high-end processors, now commonplace, A/D and D/A do not have to degrade sound, in fact they isolate against noise being introduced in various parts of the chain, since with today's inaudible-jitter devices and accurate clocking no processing or transmission errors creep in. And while I love the distortion, oops I meant warmth, that tubes deliver (I roll 12A?7's with the best of you out there, I have dozens and even a tester), eventually as engineers perfect true digital Class D amps, with everything digital from source up to the final D/A to actually move the diaphrams, analog will all fade away, even among us crazy people, except Doug and others who can afford Tape Project $500 per recording!

 

[oohms]

With digital, say at 44.1khz sample rate, it has a frequency response of up to 22khz. This is because the 22khz signal can be represented by 2 samples. For an 11khz signal represented by a 44.1khz format, it is represented by 4 samples. Because the sound that has the 22khz tone in it will be played for several cycles, a rough approximation of a 22khz tone is possible. But because of the way that DACs convert samples to a continuous wave pattern, the resulting sine wave will be remarkably similar to the original sound.

With analogue, especially LP's, this problem might not exist if the master was good and the equipment used is also good. But you will always get distortion from say particles of dust (even if they aren't big enough to cause a crackle)
Also, the analogy of dragging a big rock through a canyon is a good one. Every time an LP is played, it is worn ever so slightly more. So it might be nice to collect, and listen to very occasionally, but if you care a lot about sound quality, you wouldn't play them often.

 

[wnmnkh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course you can rip the LPCM downsampled SACD at 88.2 (that's what you meant, not 88.1) using a Vanity board from AudioPraise, or directly from the digital output of a Wadia CDP, and at 176.4 using a Sony PS/2 from the old days (any PS/2 with SACD playback will put 176.4 LPCM out the HDMI port, then insert any HDMI-to-SPDIF converter, which are less than $100, in to your chain -- I've posted all these details before). There are modified Oppo players that also do 88.2 from SACDs. You have to title the file and add the tags yourself, so that's a little painful, but don't say that you can only listed to the SACD on your player, that's not true. I listen in foobar all the time, using the above techniques to capture the tracks. And, if what you say is true, that SACDs are only using like 88.2 sampling (of course they can go 16 x higher) then you lose nothing in the downsampling. Now back to the main theme. I have heard great turntable-based systems, with pristine LPs. I far prefer SACDs, not even close. Less noise, and therefore more audible detail, every time ... with both ss and tube electronics. With fast enough sampling and high-end processors, now commonplace, A/D and D/A do not have to degrade sound, in fact they isolate against noise being introduced in various parts of the chain, since with today's inaudible-jitter devices and accurate clocking no processing or transmission errors creep in. And while I love the distortion, oops I meant warmth, that tubes deliver (I roll 12A?7's with the best of you out there, I have dozens and even a tester), eventually as engineers perfect true digital Class D amps, with everything digital from source up to the final D/A to actually move the diaphrams, analog will all fade away, even among us crazy people, except Doug and others who can afford Tape Project $500 per recording!

Yes, it's 88.2kHz. My bad.

The reason 88.2kHz is chosen, I believe, is that master tape for making SACD is also 24bit 88.2kHz.

176.4kHz is actually upsampling, as far as I know.


Plus : And yes, Linn Records seems to say 88.2kHz is the original sampling rate for their SACDs.

 

[wnmnkh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unless you provide actual quote and page that he really said that drivel, you are nothing more than creating even more useless flame here.

My lord, I indeed found that. Such claim is so ridiculous that I had to search for it if it was really true.... TwoTrack really said he demagnetizes LPs to improve the sound, on a different thread. And what he wrote there.... well... well...


Ok, well then indeed.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif My lord, I indeed found that. Such claim is so ridiculous that I had to search for it if it was really true.... TwoTrack really said he demagnetizes LPs to improve the sound, on a different thread. And what he wrote there.... well... well... Ok, well then indeed.

W,

You need to lay off the personal attacks. If you don't agree with my observations then fine but the needless attacks are not helpful to the forum.

Have you tried demagnetizing LPs? if so you would know they do improve the sound. I participated in a test with Classic Records where two LPs were sent to me. An exactly the same mastered and pressed carbon black LP and non-carbon black LP (their new Clarity product). I was asked to listen to both on my VPI table and compare & contrast the sound. I found the demagnetized (Clarity vinyl is not magnetic due to the absence of the carbon black) to be much quieter and as a result more dynamic sounding.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. The higher frequency sampling gives greater bandwidth not resolution, which is dedpendent on bit-depth. 2. The Wadia has a 3db roll-off at 20K, this is not a good example of a technically superior (re dynamic range or bandwidth) product, not that anything at 20K is relevant to music anyway 3. Even the finest TT can't overcome the problems of dragging a rock through a canyon, bung on a copy of Mahler's 1st and start playing the 1st movement (with headphones) I guarantee you will hear playback noise.

1. Nick, you're just wrong on this one, sorry. Ludwig is 100% correct here. Nyquist says that to place a Xhz signal on a digital format you need 2X sampling rate. Since an LP can hold 50khz, the equivalent digital format would need 100khz sampling rate, over twice the resolution of CD. But depth does not come into play in this analogy.

2. The Wadia line is widely considered the one of the finest sounding CD players. But in any event my comments hold for many other fine players I have heard from the dcs stack and puccini to the Audio Aero to the more affordable Oppo BD83.

3. You need to listen to finer turntables. Pops and clicks are largely a problem of the past. Some vinyl from the 70s created during the energy crises which altered the formula is noisy but most vinyl is very quiet.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif With fast enough sampling and high-end processors, now commonplace, A/D and D/A do not have to degrade sound, in fact they isolate against noise being introduced in various parts of the chain, since with today's inaudible-jitter devices and accurate clocking no processing or transmission errors creep in. And while I love the distortion, oops I meant warmth, that tubes deliver (I roll 12A?7's with the best of you out there, I have dozens and even a tester), eventually as engineers perfect true digital Class D amps, with everything digital from source up to the final D/A to actually move the diaphrams, analog will all fade away, even among us crazy people, except Doug and others who can afford Tape Project $500 per recording!

All A/D and D/A conversions have a negative sonic impact. Even the best digital technology does not correctly capture the analog waveform. In my experience listening to analog tape and hirez formats the DSD process comes the closest.

DSD is slightly better than 24/176 (which I record classical music in) or 24/192 and far better than 24/88.2 in my experience.

 

[TwoTrack]

Many, maybe most, SACDs are "pure DSD" sourced. Many are analog tape sourced. Some are PCM sourced and the sampling rate of the source materials varies from 16/44.1 to 24/192.

 

[TwoTrack]

Further reading:

Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

In essence, the theorem shows that a bandlimited analog signal that has been sampled can be perfectly reconstructed from an infinite sequence of samples if the sampling rate exceeds 2B samples per second, where B is the highest frequency in the original signal.