1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Testing audiophile claims and myths

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by prog rock man, May 3, 2010.
First
 
Back
824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833
835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844
Next
 
Last
  1. 71 dB
    Vinyl is easy to tell apart from CD. The difference of vinyl and CD is significant. CD and hi-res? We are talking about the possibility of a file someone maybe can tell apart! Man, that's transparent! I concentrate on music when I listen to music so even near transparent would be good enough, because me attention is in the music. This forum is insane.
     
  2. SonyFan121
    From my experience, it's hard not to get angry when faced with ignorance, arrogance and above all else - stupidity. Being Scottish (I'm from Scotland - a small country within the British Isles), It is not in my nature to give up. Some of these Americans are so laid back they could be horizontal :joy: They would not last long in my country!
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2019
  3. bigshot
    A horizontal scotsman would reveal a lot about himself to the passing public... or perhaps very little.
     
  4. SonyFan121
    Some of the greatest scientists to have ever lived came from Scotland.
     
  5. analogsurviver
    This is how vinyl records are "distorted" in the last song(s) :



    ( Jico SAS stylus, original boron cantilever (discontinued), but still available at approx $ 300 )
     
  6. bigshot
    How many clowns can come out of the same tiny car?

    AS, go back and read my post. Notice that I specifically said that I wasn't talking about cartridges or tracking angles. I was talking about the distance the needle travels in the groove during each revolution. The problem with LPs is that the spiral makes the grooves lose sound quality the closer you get to the center of the record because the circumference is smaller towards the center. Try to wrap your head around the concept.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2019
  7. analogsurviver
    How many police officers it takes to count them ?
     
  8. Glmoneydawg
    Well...i have to admit Johny Walker is a genius
     
  9. bigshot
    What about Gordon Ramsey?
     
    Glmoneydawg likes this.
  10. Glmoneydawg
    Right!....although i suspect Ramsey will admit to boinking the odd sheep....the whole kilt thing you know:)
     
  11. SonyFan121
    And LP's/record players still sound warmer, fuller with richer mid's and 100 times more lifelike/realistic than the nihilistic approach of digital which sounds ruler flat, thin, dull and artificial in comparison. Isn't it amazing?!
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2019
  12. castleofargh Contributor
    that's because of Earth curvature. the UK decided they were at the center of the planet and made maps that way since long ago, resulting in the balancing of Earth that we know today. since, only you guys can stand up straight an not fall(I'm in France so I'm also almost completely straight. we got lucky when we decided to stay close to you). but the US are pretty far on the side, so they need to lean in the opposite direction simply to stand and avoid slipping down into space. people on the West cost often fail to stay where they are, and you see them slowly going backward despite trying hard to resist. usually without help, they end up falling at the edge of the planet. so people have started to call that way of struggling, the moon walk, as that's where those poor people are likely to end up.






    here is evidence of the ground not being flat with a random crowd waiting for their train at a US airport.
    Michael-anti-gravityl.jpg
    QED
     
    gargani likes this.
  13. bigshot
    We're being trolled again. When someone craps all over without adding anything of substance themselves, it's a total waste of energy to entertain them. It's also unwise because replying to them only encourages them. Internet 101. Give them a chance, and if they don't rise to the occasion, dismiss them without a further thought about it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2019
  14. analogsurviver
    BS, that is understood per se - that is why I talked mostly about the inner grooves, where the performance of the analog record is at its worst.

    Even there, at its very worst, it manages twice the bandwidth of the RBCD. Do I need to calculate for you just how many more - exactly - times better it is at the beginning of the record ?




     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
  15. gregorio
    1. Huh, of course I do. The CD redbook standard itself was Philips (and Sony's) proprietary technology, so if you wanted to make CDs or CD players you had to "adopt" (licence) Philips' proprietary technology anyway!

    2. No one is disputing there were other digital formats back in the late '70's, some of them with higher than 44.1kHz sample rates, I've mentioned them myself. But it's SELF EVIDENT that "it's unreasonable to expect studios to adopt them" if there's no way to store/transfer them!
    2a. Again, this is complete nonsense! What Philips (or anyone else's) recorders could store/transfer 48kHz 16bit in the late '70's?

    3. That's even more ridiculous! The whole point of digital audio was the preservation of audio information, the virtual elimination of the cumulative distortion and noise that is effectively doubled with EVERY generation/copy of analogue tape. Your solution to the problem of storing/transferring the digital information is not to, just carry on using analogue tapes as they always had, maintain the cumulative generational distortion and noise and defeat the whole purpose of digital audio in the first place!

    4. And AGAIN, what is that "something"? There was nothing, which is why CD was invented in the first place! In a bizarre way you are correct, 44.1kHz was chosen because it was easier and more convenient. It was more convenient to store/transfer 44.1kHz than to use a higher sample rate and then wait 10 years for "something" to be invented that made it possible to reliably transfer it!!
    1. So the practical solution to transferring digital audio data is to transfer it as analogue audio. That's the LEAST practical solution imaginable! Again, transferring the mix from the recording studio to the mastering studio on analogue tape introduces 1 generation of analogue tape distortion and noise, then that tape is mastered and the master is recorded to another analogue tape, so now we have at least two generations of tape noise and distortion, approximately 4 times the amount of noise and distortion than if we'd transferred the audio as digital data, which is the whole point of digital audio in the first place!!

    2. That's what I don't get about your posts, why do you "really need to mention" a falsehood/lie/misinformation??? ...
    2a. No, that is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE! U-Matic recorders used by studios in the 1980's were designed as TV broadcast video recorders and therefore designed to work at TV video resolutions. Digital audio sample rates were not even the slightest of design considerations!
    2b. No they were not! They were ONLY designed to store analogue broadcast TV video signals, the specific number of fields per second and horizontal lines per field determined by TV broadcast standards (NTSC or PAL). Sony invented an adapter for U-Matic machines that allowed the available analogue TV lines and fields per second to store digital audio data. As ALREADY stated, the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE was 3 stereo 16bit samples per line and therefore: 3 x 245 (lines) x 60 (fields/second) = 44,100!
    2c. They were expensive, only stored about 200MB, had to be used in a "clean room" and were totally unsuitable for reliable transfer.
    2d. In 1980 (when redbook was published) the biggest hard drive available was about 5MB, cost $1,500 and you would have needed about 150 of them to store one CD's worth of digital audio data!

    3. What analogue master tape? The whole point of inventing CD in the first place was to distribute digital recordings/masters, not analogue masters. Your suggestion does NOT make "the most sense", it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!

    Exactly as predicted, you defend your ridiculous assertion with even more ridiculous assertions/suggestions. Record with a higher than 44.1kHz sample rate and then wait many years for technology to be invented to transfer it OR just as ridiculously, that using a higher than 44.1kHz sample rate plus at least two generations of tape distortion and noise is somehow superior to using a 44.1kHz sample rate (that already has a 10% safety margin anyway).
    Round and round and round we go!!

    G
     
First
 
Back
824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833
835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844
Next
 
Last

Share This Page