[StanD]

No it's not alas sometimes it can crossover into badly grounded pick-ups.

You don't have to ground an F-150. 

 

[interpolate]

Do you mean the Ford truck or something else like my chances of winning the national lottery?
 

 

[StanD]

  Do you mean the Ford truck or something else like my chances of winning the national lottery?
 

Well we were talking about Pickups so don't expect a Ferrari. AS will throw in one of his CD Mats as an extra prize.

 

[interpolate]

Nice. About time I got my just deserts.

 

[old tech]

Hey, if you guys like a chuckle have a read of the comments by Fremer and some of the replies in the comments section of this you tube page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

 

[Gr8Desire]

    Also did you know, the lower harmonics of a turntable can be as low as 10Hz?
 
 

Also, did you know Einstein postulated that time slows down when traveling at the speed light?

Today you have about as much chance of traveling at the speed of light as accurately reproducing a 10 Hz tone from vinyl.  


Down with science!  There. That's better.

 

[interpolate]

http://www.instantrimshot.com

 

[interpolate]

Although to be serious for one moment.
 
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/vinyl-lp/70-tests/105-turntable-tests.html
 
See I am not talking total nonsense created by some wild yet vivid dream. 

 

[Gr8Desire]

  Although to be serious for one moment.
 
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/vinyl-lp/70-tests/105-turntable-tests.html
 
See I am not talking total nonsense created by some wild yet vivid dream. 

 
The problem with these measurements:  Back in the day, no one ever mastered content to support playback at these theoretical limits. Content below 100Hz was attenuated to avoid having the stylus jump from its track. Content was compressed to raise quiet passages above a high noise floor. Finally, all music was heavily EQ'd to try and create decent playback by archaic components. The Phil Spector "Wall of Sound" is the result of proprietary EQ and volume changes that simply made vinyl sound better on mediocre equipment.  

Nothing was real or accurate because vinyl was such a limited playback medium. Now that we finally have accurate recording and playback technology, some audiophiles say we must eschew it in favour of content and playback devices that were never very good in their day. A few dubious improvements in turntables can't change the physics - except in the heads of those who want to believe. 

>48K sampling and >16-bit dynamic range encoding has its place: Mastering of content can benefit from higher bits rates until the final mix down. Since most only play the final mix down, higher bit rates are superfluous - except in the heads of those who want to believe (see all threads with Pono in subject line for more)

So it is a wild yet vivid dream.  And it's a dream that never even happened.

 

[interpolate]

That's me told then....

But seriously, some good points made.

 

[arnyk]

10Hz is the about where any motor resonance from a belt drive would be. 7

 
 
Resonances in LP players in the vicinity of 10 Hz are due to the mass of the tone arm acting on the compliance of the needle suspension in the cartridge.

 

[miceblue]

You guys are cute.

Here's my proof ----  1400k > 320k.  5800k > 1400k.   More data = more sound = more accuracy.   Prove that wrong.


I have a 24bit brain, sorry you don't.  [Ok probably more like 20 bit, but def more than 16)

So you're saying you can hear a difference between this 24/96 track and a downsampled 16/44.1 version of it? I'd be impressed if you could.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2816447/2496vs1644.zip
53 MB

Or 24/96 vs 16/96?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2816447/2496vs1696.zip
43 MB


Be sure to post an ABX log with at least 10 trials too.

 

[RRod]

FFB rejects ABX as a viable test method for detecting differences between hi-res and Redbook format.

 

[upstateguy]

 

You guys are cute.

Here's my proof ----  1400k > 320k.  5800k > 1400k.   More data = more sound = more accuracy.   Prove that wrong.


I have a 24bit brain, sorry you don't.  [Ok probably more like 20 bit, but def more than 16)

So you're saying you can hear a difference between this 24/96 track and a downsampled 16/44.1 version of it? I'd be impressed if you could.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2816447/2496vs1644.zip
53 MB

Or 24/96 vs 16/96?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2816447/2496vs1696.zip
43 MB


Be sure to post an ABX log with at least 10 trials too.

 
Thanks for the links, I'm going to give them a listen and have a look at the wave forms.
 
And please link me to where you posted your 10 ABX trials.  I thought I saw them somewhere but don't remember where.

 

[icebear]

  My remastered 176.4/24 recording of the 1959 album Time Out by Dave Brubeck is the best sounding music I own.  Much better than my existing 44/16 recording of the same. Time Out was the first hi-res album I bought.  I was impressed.

Because of this album, I bought a few more.  All genres.  Some ADD like the Brubeck recording (including other Brubeck recordings) and some DDD.  None sound remarkably different than the equivalent 44/16 recording.  

I have good DACs that handle at least 176.4/24.  And average DACs that work fine at 44/16.  And then there is my iPhone 6 DAC.

Everything except this one Brubeck album sound pretty much the same.  What gives?

= = = 
 
​I have down sampled 176.4/24/24 to 44/16 and up sampled to 384/32.   Still, nothing changes much.

My decidedly non-audiophile conclusion:

The Brubeck recording was remastered extremely well.  Doesn't mater how I play it.  The sound is good.  

Other hi-res material I have is the opposite.  It doesn't sound much different at any sample / bit rate.  
I figure: The re-mastering (if any) was mediocre and so was the final result. 

Maybe people are focusing on the wrong facets of hi-res audio?

 
This one should be permanently pinned