[bigshot]

I don't know of any inexpensive modern record players that are worth a damn with 78s. The cheap ones have a 78 speed, but the needle is for LPs. You need a flip over needle with LP on one side and 78 on the other. That's what the schoolhouse phonos have.

This is my schoolhouse phono in action with a beater hundred year old record. This one is an acoustic recording, no microphones or electricity, just a horn and counterweights to drive the cutting lathe. I need to dig this phonograph out and play with it again. It's a lot of fun.

 

[Davesrose]

I don't know of any inexpensive modern record players that are worth a damn with 78s. The cheap ones have a 78 speed, but the needle is for LPs. You need a flip over needle with LP on one side and 78 on the other. That's what the schoolhouse phonos have.

Oh, record players are like any other commodity now. I watch the YouTube channel techmoan: he's even gone over some recent incarnations of the Edison gramaphone. When it comes to the quality of those: well can't imagine the original was that great to begin with when we get into our expectations. The 78s I have, I'm thinking it's more nostalgia (where my grandparents liked Theodore Bikel and Pete Seeger, and the 78s are earlier from that).

 

[bigshot]

There’s a ton of music that only exists on 78s. It’s not modern sound, but it presents the music well.

 

[Davesrose]

There’s a ton of music that only exists on 78s. It’s not modern sound, but it presents the music well.

When it comes to what is good music, it's always going to boil down to musician/conductor. For example, I collected SACD classical and jazz albums. I have some that I really like. I did get one that was a Vienna symphony of Mozart's Requiem.....while theoretically it might have been more "impressive", I just didn't like it as much as Neville Marriner's interpretation (that was analog recording, digital produced CD....or also now TrueHD surround Amadeus track). But then also in the world of music, there are particular virtuosos that we can only hear from the age of 78s.

 

[71 dB]

I suppose I was expecting to see the graph more "filled up" ... but I can appreciate the way you've deciphered it.

It is a vinyl myth that they have ultrasonic content. While CD can't have content above ~20 kHz, there isn't such abrupt limit for vinyl, but this doesn't mean there is music content above 20 kHz and even if there was, humans can't hear above 20 kHz! You said you are 51. You probably can't hear anything above 15-16 kHz. Since vinyl is an analog format, it's spectrum continues theoretically to infinity, but it tapers of and what is there is uncorrelated noise and correlated distortion. To really hear that stuff you need to be a bat or dolphin. Or play the music at much slower speed to transfer the content on frequencies we human can hear.

To rip vinyls into digital format, 16/44.1 is enough. It will sound identical to the vinyl. Vinyls have only 10 bits (60 dB) worth of dynamic range at best and there is no need to go beyond 20 kHz. So, you could leave 30 dBs dynamic margin on the 16/44.1 rips and still have all the dynamics from the vinyl. That's why you don't need to rip at very high level. You can adjust the level digitally afterwards.

 

[Zeppmeister]

I appreciate all the feedback and helping me to understand more about this.

The surround mix of Animals on the blu-ray is spectacular.

It's quite good, and I like the updated mix in general, but I still prefer the surround on Wish You Were Here.

 

[gregorio]

For a track that is supposed to be 24/192, it seems lacking.

I think maybe this is at the heart of your misunderstanding: 24/192 is the container format, not what the track is supposed to be.

With analogue audio there’s no hard limit, there’s a somewhat vague limit beyond which the signal gradually becomes more noise and/or distortion and less musical/desired signal. This is in contrast to digital audio which does have a hard/precise limit but is essentially perfect up to that limit, even very close to it.

As already mentioned, the maximum dynamic range of vinyl is around 55dB, beyond which it’s increasingly just noise/distortion so by around -60dB there’s virtually no musical signal, only noise/distortion. And with frequency response, around 15kHz is usable maximum and by around 20kHz it’s pretty much only distortion. This equates to about 10bit/40kHz, so if that’s what your putting into your 24/192 container then that’s what the track is supposed to be.

Looking at your spectrogram, we can see some red patches, indicating -20dB (or higher) and some purple and blue at/above 20kHz, which is -100dB to -110dB. That’s at least 80dB to 90dB below the peak level which is well beyond the dynamic range capability of vinyl and is therefore just noise/distortion. Not to mention that it would be inaudible even it it were in a more sensitive hearing range.

Not sure if that explanation helps any?

G

 

[Zeppmeister]

I think maybe this is at the heart of your misunderstanding: 24/192 is the container format, not what the track is supposed to be.

With analogue audio there’s no hard limit, there’s a somewhat vague limit beyond which the signal gradually becomes more noise and/or distortion and less musical/desired signal. This is in contrast to digital audio which does have a hard/precise limit but is essentially perfect up to that limit, even very close to it.

As already mentioned, the maximum dynamic range of vinyl is around 55dB, beyond which it’s increasingly just noise/distortion so by around -60dB there’s virtually no musical signal, only noise/distortion. And with frequency response, around 15kHz is usable maximum and by around 20kHz it’s pretty much only distortion. This equates to about 10bit/40kHz, so if that’s what your putting into your 24/192 container then that’s what the track is supposed to be.

Looking at your spectrogram, we can see some red patches, indicating -20dB (or higher) and some purple and blue at/above 20kHz, which is -100dB to -110dB. That’s at least 80dB to 90dB below the peak level which is well beyond the dynamic range capability of vinyl and is therefore just noise/distortion. Not to mention that it would be inaudible even it it were in a more sensitive hearing range.

Not sure if that explanation helps any?

G

Yes indeed. Thank you!

 

[gregorio]

Yes indeed. Thank you!

You’re welcome.

Incidentally, you notice on your spectrogram that most of it is effectively empty (black, indicating -120dB or lower), there’s effectively nothing above about 30kHz. If you had recorded at 24/96 instead of 24/192, the only difference would have been less black area (nothing). You would have black (nothing) between 30kHz and 48kHz, instead of between 30kHz and 96kHz. So, literally you would have lost nothing but your file size would be half.

Personally, I’d have used 24/48. Which would get rid of nearly all of the “nothing” plus the last few kHz of inaudible distortion, which I personally don’t want anyway.

G

 

[71 dB]

Personally, I’d have used 24/48.

G

Personally I think that's still overkill for ripping vinyls. Since there is only 10 bits worth of dynamic range at best, using 16 bit and recording at level -18 dBFS for peaks would leave 3 bits safety margin on both ends of the dynamic range. Also, why use 48 kHz instead of 44.1 kHz unless the sound file is going to be used in a video production?

 

[gregorio]

Personally I think that's still overkill for ripping vinyls. Since there is only 10 bits worth of dynamic range at best, using 16 bit and recording at level -18 dBFS for peaks would leave 3 bits safety margin on both ends of the dynamic range.

There’s only 10bits worth of musical signal dynamic range at best but there’s potentially more than that if we include distortion/faults. For example if we want to capture the flavour of vinyl, including all the clicks/pops then it can be difficult to judge how much headroom we need and therefore 24bit might be the safer option.

Also, why use 48 kHz instead of 44.1 kHz unless the sound file is going to be used in a video production?

When I’ve ripped vinyl it was for video and film use and I specifically wanted vinyl distortion/artefacts (and even artificially enhanced them a bit), so 24/48 ensured I captured everything I personally wanted. If I were only concerned about capturing the whole musical signal, then 16/44.1 would be fine.

G

 

[71 dB]

There’s only 10bits worth of musical signal dynamic range at best but there’s potentially more than that if we include distortion/faults. For example if we want to capture the flavour of vinyl, including all the clicks/pops then it can be difficult to judge how much headroom we need and therefore 24bit might be the safer option.

When I’ve ripped vinyl it was for video and film use and I specifically wanted vinyl distortion/artefacts (and even artificially enhanced them a bit), so 24/48 ensured I captured everything I personally wanted. If I were only concerned about capturing the whole musical signal, then 16/44.1 would be fine.

G

I believe Zeppmeister is ultimately only interested of whole musical signal. He can correct me if I am mistaken. 20 years ago when I bothered to rip vinyls (for whole musical signal) I noticed how 16 bit is easily enough. It didn't matter if clicks/pops shot over 0 dBFS and clipped, because I removed them anyway before burning the music on CD-R.

 

[gregorio]

I believe Zeppmeister is ultimately only interested of whole musical signal.

Probably but I don’t know for sure and, I clearly stated what I personally would use, not necessarily what Zeppmeister should/would use.

G

 

[Zeppmeister]

You’re welcome.

Incidentally, you notice on your spectrogram that most of it is effectively empty (black, indicating -120dB or lower), there’s effectively nothing above about 30kHz. If you had recorded at 24/96 instead of 24/192, the only difference would have been less black area (nothing). You would have black (nothing) between 30kHz and 48kHz, instead of between 30kHz and 96kHz. So, literally you would have lost nothing but your file size would be half.

Personally, I’d have used 24/48. Which would get rid of nearly all of the “nothing” plus the last few kHz of inaudible distortion, which I personally don’t want anyway.

G

Yes, this crossed my mind as well. Good perspective.

 

[old tech]

The other thing that many don't appreciate is that most of these older recordings (eg PF Animals) were recorded on analogue tape. It is not possible to magically make the recordiings hi res simply by releasing it in a hi res format. The sound quality benefits from the 'hi res' releases typically arise from remastering or in some cases better remixing.