71 dB
Headphoneus Supremus
Hz kHz dB
Can't you people learn to write Hz, kHz and dB instead of Khz/db…? How ****ing hard is it?
Can't you people learn to write Hz, kHz and dB instead of Khz/db…? How ****ing hard is it?
Matsushita happens ...Hz kHz dB
Can't you people learn to write Hz, kHz and dB instead of Khz/db…? How ****ing hard is it?
Correct on most counts. Decision which version - analog or digital - is preferred, has also much to do with what has been the first version heard. That normally becomes "reference".
I do acknowledge the limitations and imperfections of analog record vs even - brrr - RBCD. Please see answer to another member later in the day for specifics.
I always try to avoid typos, including units, but wow....Hz kHz dB
Can't you people learn to write Hz, kHz and dB instead of Khz/db…? How ****ing hard is it?
Why do you always have to go down this route? You make some clearly false assertion and instead of admitting it or even not admitting it but stop making that assertion, you spend pages futilely trying to defend it, with ever more ridiculous, nonsensical or impossible misinformation. Where does that get you? It makes you look foolish, derails the thread, implies you're deliberately trying to pervert/insult this forum and for what benefit, what do you or the company you represent get out of it? So, let's carry on with this pointless game and refute your latest bunch of misinformation:
1. Disk size wasn't "especially important", I've already told you why 44.1kHz was chosen.
2. With musical material, 20kHz is already beyond what any adult can hear, 16-18kHz being the practical limit in virtually all cases. Even being conservative and taking the 20kHz figure, what is 10% higher than 20kHz and what is the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1kHz sample rate?
3. No it's not, your point is the EXACT OPPOSITE, it's one of impracticality and impossibility!!
3a. It wasn't "difficult to implement"! As already mentioned, by about the time of CD's launch, Philips already had a 4 x oversampling CD player, so how "difficult" was it to implement 2 x oversampling?
3b. A slightly larger disk would not have been a particularly big issue. However, how could that 48kHz digital data have been transferred? Your statement that "perhaps some studios would have needed to adjust their workflow" is nonsense! All studios would have had to change their workflow, by NOT transferring the digital audio to other studios, to mastering studios or to the CD pressing plants. So no mastering and no CDs, that's your "simply practical" is it???
4. You're sorry for what, posting more falsehoods/misinformation?
4a. And what do you suggest studios should have spent "a lot of money on" in 1980? Maybe a CD-R burner, a thumb drive, a web cloud account or how about some other technology that still hasn't been invented yet?
4b. U-Matic was capable of bit perfect transfer, so what exactly do you think "would have worked better" than bit perfect? OF COURSE I'm "suggesting they would have been unwilling to abandon the outdated U-Matic format" because abandoning it would have meant no CDs (!) as there was no practical alternative to get the digital data from the studios to the CD pressing plants and there wouldn't be any practical alternative (that worked equally well) for more than a decade AFTER redbook was published! Additionally, U-Matic was NOT an outdated format, in fact EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! it was a NEW broadcast media technology, that was released at the same time that the redbook standard started being developed (1976) and was in the process of revolutionising certain areas of the TV broadcast industry!
5. In addition to being a "bit facetious", you're being disingenuous because "in defence of your point", you are making false assertions!! "Best performance" was already achieved by U-Matic and it was only replaced many years later as the means of data storage/transfer when lower cost and more convenient bit perfect transfer technology became available (DAT for example).
5b. AGAIN, they chose 44.1kHz because it worked perfectly AND because there was a practical way of transferring it. And incidentally, the "tape equipment they [the studios] already had" was NOT U-Matic, why would a music recording studio have spent thousands on a professional video machine? Studios only bought U-Matic machines (with the digital audio adapter) specifically to store/transfer digital audio data, after redbook was published!
Round and round and round we go!
G
2)
Assuming you specify a frequency response of "20 Hz to 20 kHz" as your design requirement - then response to 22 kHz is a 10% safety margin. The math there seems pretty simple to me.
3) & 4a)
Yes, oversampling was available, if you were willing to adopt what was, at the time, Philips proprietary technology. And, in that case, you seem to think it was perfectly reasonable to do so. However, there were plenty of formats which supported sample rates besides 44.1k, even in those days. Except, in that case, you seem to think it's unreasonable to expect studios to adopt them. So, just as consumers could use that new oversampling technology, studios could buy some new equipment to handle 48k.... or even higher sample rates... if they wanted to. I'm sure Philpis would have been happy to sell them all recorders that could handle 48k - to go with their oversampling DACs.
Of course, if the studios were actually unable to produce digital masters for the production of CDs, I guess they could have just sent their analog tapes to the CD plant. I'm sure the CD mastering facility could afford a few analog master tape machines to use to convert them to digital. (And don't even suggest that they didn't trust them to do so. Before digital was widely used, studios sent analog master tapes to the vinyl pressing facility to use to cut masters. They could have applied exactly the same workflow to produce CD masters instead.... )
As for "what would have worked better than U-matic"..... the answer would be "something that handles whatever sample rate you required rather than constraining you to use the one it's capable of".
If only every business in the audio production chain had bought equipment they didn’t need or didn’t yet exist, you’re arguements would hold water...
There is a fly in your ointment.. - the usual mistake.Earlier there was talk about CX LP. I want to comment on that.
CX LP definitely did not have 100 dB dynamic range! Vinyl as it is has 60 dB dynamic range at best and CX expanded that 20 dB. Realistically the dynamic range of CX LP is about 75 dB, which is actually near how much one needs in commercial audio. CX was not very aggressive, because it tried to be playable also without a CX expander unit. There's also dbx, which was more aggressive and required dbx expander. That system reached dynamic range up to 90 dB (100 dB in marketing brochures )!
CX (or even dbx) didn't make vinyl "better than" CD. It doesn't remove distortion and CD achieves > 80 dB dynamic range with ease, with shaped dither even 115 dB of perceptual dynamic range! The compression/expansion dynamic range trick can be done with CDs too and has been used: HDCD, but ultimately it's pointless because there's already enough dynamic range for commercial audio (~80 dB) anyway.
1. It really wasn't that important that, in order to get adequate performance, CONSUMERS would have to choose between new technology like oversmapling, and sharp analog filters, whcih were expensive and performed poorly.
2. HOWEVER, that's not exactly the same as claiming that "it is audibly perfect and so there is no room for improvement".
(There is no way Philips could have compared the audible performance of RBCD using a modern well-produced high-resolution digital master - because they didn't exist at the time.)
3. I'm simply noting that assuming that "it has been proven to be audibly perfect" is somewhat premature...
4. Incidentally, and just for the record, I do agree that RBCDs CAN sound really really good...
And, from current products, it seems clear that most are limited by poor production values and not technological limitations...
Generalizing - not me.Whenever people quote specs for LPs, they always quote the specs for the outer grooves which is best case scenario. By the time it gets down to the inner grooves distortion and noise floor has risen massively... sometimes cassettes sound better than LPs on the last couple of songs. A CD is capable of perfect sound from beginning to end, and it can hold a two record set on a much smaller disc. As a format, CDs trounce LPs on just about every measure. LPs can sound darn good, but not as good as CDs.
It doesn't matter what the cartridge or stylus is capable of... That is completely irrelevant to the post you quoted and replied to.
The fact is that the inner groove of an LP record has significantly less bandwidth because it is moving slower than the outside grooves, so there is less real estate to cram the modulations into. The record itself isn't capable of producing low noise, distortion free sound at the inner grooves. You can have the best stylus and cartridge made and the most linear tracking tone arm possible, and it will still have significantly higher distortion and noise at the inner grooves-- AUDIBLE distortion and noise. The longer the running time of the albums side, the more distortion and noise.
The run in groove at the beginning of the side is the best an LP can sound. As the needle travels further, the ability of the LP to reproduce the highest fidelity sound progressively degrades. This isn't a problem with CDs. They produce better sound than even the best an LP can produce, and they do it consistently throughout the entire running time.