IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
How Good Can Vinyl Sound?, Anyone got some sample clips?
Alex B
post May 16 2009, 15:25
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 16 2009, 10:10) *
... Apparently each of these can only be downloaded 10 times (rapidshare rule) but if there's persistent demand I can repost them. ...

You can create a free "Collector's Zone" account to avoid that limitation. Just choose the "Create Collector's Zone account" option when you upload a file to rapidshare.com. After that you can use the account for all uploads.

Also, if you are uploading a few files that are related to each other it might be advantageous to wrap them in a single zip or rar package because then the "free" downloaders can get them all at once without waiting 15 minutes after each downloaded file.

EDIT:

If someone finds comfortable to use RS I uploaded the "all clips.zip" package from Soap's link also to my RS/CZ account:
http://rapidshare.com/files/233730933/HA_t...2_all_clips.zip (50.5 MB)

This post has been edited by Alex B: May 16 2009, 19:16


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 16 2009, 17:21
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ May 16 2009, 09:00) *
Thanks a lot for the uploads, krabapple! Yes, the lowpass at 22 kHz is obvious. Plus the recordings are from the 60s or 70s. I don't think I will be able to ABX those against 16/44, so I won't smile.gif

I uploaded a 16/96 recording of a digitally controlled analog synth in this thread. Found this on a CD-R from 2004. It contains a lot of "musical content" above 22 kHz, up to 48 kHz. I might ABX that against the 44-kHz downsampled version soon.

Cheers,

Chris


I wouldn't say that the files actually uploaded appear to be lowpassed at 22 -- there is 'content' (background noise, mostly, with the occasional tendril ofhigher-energy content reaching above that). That's why I chose these, versus others I didn't upload which are unmistakably lowpassed (inky black above the cutoff frequency) -- like the Talking Heads DualDiscs.



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post May 16 2009, 17:50
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 3536
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 16 2009, 12:21) *
I wouldn't say that the files actually uploaded appear to be lowpassed at 22 -- there is 'content' (background noise, mostly, with the occasional tendril ofhigher-energy content reaching above that). That's why I chose these, versus others I didn't upload which are unmistakably lowpassed (inky black above the cutoff frequency) -- like the Talking Heads DualDiscs.


There's a lot of clipping on "Dreams"???
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 16 2009, 18:09
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Soap @ May 16 2009, 09:17) *
I fricking hate rapidshare and I doubt I am alone. Rather than complain, though, I have taken the liberty to rehost krabapple's samples (and added the entire collection in one .zip) at http://cleansoap.org/HA.
I haven't tested these files, I assume they downloaded and uploaded without error. Please PM me if you have any problems.

PS - the all.zip will not finish its upload until ~09:30 EDT.



Thanks! I'm no fan of rapidshare either (though I will establish a 'Collector's Zone' as suggested, and zip files in the future).

I realized I do have a few more recent, all-digital recordings (as well as one of the first all-digital -- Fagan's The Nightfly) on DVD-A, that I never ripped; I'm going to see what their spectra look like and upload clips if they're worthy.

Also realized that Audition conversion filtering quality was set to default -- ~300. While this is well within Audition's recommended range (100-400) I'll do future downsamples at 'highest quality' (999).


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 16 2009, 18:19
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ May 16 2009, 12:50) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ May 16 2009, 12:21) *
I wouldn't say that the files actually uploaded appear to be lowpassed at 22 -- there is 'content' (background noise, mostly, with the occasional tendril ofhigher-energy content reaching above that). That's why I chose these, versus others I didn't upload which are unmistakably lowpassed (inky black above the cutoff frequency) -- like the Talking Heads DualDiscs.


There's a lot of clipping on "Dreams"???



remarkable, innit? And it's not just individual peaks hitting 0dBFS, you can find actual flattops in there.

DVD-A mastering (and SACD too) is all over the map -- some discs exploit all the dynamic range they can , limited only by the master tape (like the Billy Cobham and Neil Young discs, and wonderful transfer of an 1977 quadraphonic recording of a Messiaen piece, that I'll be uploading a clip of later) , others are smashed like a modern pop CD, and others are in-between -- like the Fleetwood Mac disc. Which was one of the earliest DVD-As released!

ONce I started looking at the data on 'high rez' discs, I started some threads on how a shocking number of discs marketed as 'high rez' are high-rez in *potential* only -- the actual signal mastered on them could just as well have been on Redbook.

this is a sort of master thread for that:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=65859

the first post there has a link to an AVSforum thread taht starts with a nice collection of waveforms, showing a range of mastering , er, philosophies.



This post has been edited by krabapple: May 16 2009, 18:24
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C.R.Helmrich
post May 16 2009, 19:33
Post #31





Group: Developer
Posts: 681
Joined: 6-December 08
From: Erlangen Germany
Member No.: 64012



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 16 2009, 18:21) *
I wouldn't say that the files actually uploaded appear to be lowpassed at 22 -- there is 'content' (background noise, mostly, with the occasional tendril ofhigher-energy content reaching above that). That's why I chose these, versus others I didn't upload which are unmistakably lowpassed (inky black above the cutoff frequency) -- like the Talking Heads DualDiscs.

True, I guess that's the natural lowpass of the source tapes then, and the stuff above 22 kHz is tape (machine) noise. Except maybe for the Fleetwood Mac excerpt, yes, the snares do reach above the mid 20's kHz. I think this is perfectly mastered, btw. Exploits the full dynamic range, and has just the right amount of level compression.

Going back to the original topic: does anyone have Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here on Vinyl? In Welcome to the Machine, there's a screaming analog synth whose overtones extend far beyond 20 kHz. That'd be a nice song to test the actual bandwidth of an LP (regardless of whether the tones "up there" are harmonic distortion or not).

Chris


--------------------
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
boondocks
post May 16 2009, 22:27
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 30-May 06
Member No.: 31317



QUOTE (Axon @ May 15 2009, 17:11) *
Many people get that "great vinyl sound" out of extremely inexpensive systems - in fact, they get it from systems that other people abhor for their poor sound quality.

I posit that "great vinyl sound" really doesn't have that much to do with the actual audio involved, but is more a reflection of the emotions of the listener, and the tactile response of the medium. Those are very real factors, and it's not particularly useful to ignore them, insofar as they reflect real aspects of the enjoyment of music. But you shouldn't confuse them with more substantive aspects of sound quality, and you shouldn't necessarily buy into vinyl always expecting to get that level of enjoyment. It's a largely subjective phenomenon.


That is stated very well, Axon. I agree completely.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 18 2009, 05:57
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ May 16 2009, 14:33) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ May 16 2009, 18:21) *
I wouldn't say that the files actually uploaded appear to be lowpassed at 22 -- there is 'content' (background noise, mostly, with the occasional tendril ofhigher-energy content reaching above that). That's why I chose these, versus others I didn't upload which are unmistakably lowpassed (inky black above the cutoff frequency) -- like the Talking Heads DualDiscs.

True, I guess that's the natural lowpass of the source tapes then, and the stuff above 22 kHz is tape (machine) noise. Except maybe for the Fleetwood Mac excerpt, yes, the snares do reach above the mid 20's kHz. I think this is perfectly mastered, btw. Exploits the full dynamic range, and has just the right amount of level compression.



The Neil Young and Muddy Waters stuff sounds just as good, and is mastered without constant peaking at 0 (and certainly no clipping like on the Fleetwood Mac track). Exploiting the full dynamic range, to me, means the just the truly loudest parts of the track hit 0dBFS -- this rarely happens more than once or a few times in a track. Not every drum hit, and certainly not every beat of a mellow 1977 rock tune like 'Dreams', should be pinning at 0.

Here;s another set of DVD-A rip clips, all having some content above 20 kHz. THe oldest is a 1977 recording of Messiaen's wild 'Turangalila Symphony' , a work whose orchestration including shrieking brass, a wailing theremin and masses of percussion. The other two are of 21st century vintage, one a Steely Dan piece, the other a CHesky live recording of jazzer Bucky Pizzarelli's combo -- the latter has the most >20kHz content I've seen. THe zip file includes hi-rez rips and 16/44 versions as before, for comparison.

http://rapidshare.com/files/234260425/examples.zip

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 18 2009, 06:24
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 18 2009, 11:13
Post #34


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ May 15 2009, 23:02) *
Edit: Here is the paper. Did not quite remember it correctly, but see for yourself.
Thanks for that - I was aware of the previous studies they referenced, but not that actual study.

Basically, above 20kHz you need about 90dB SPL or greater for a sound to be audible against silence.

You can't get close to that energy level at those frequencies with normal hi-fi. The tweeters melt.


Also, even for extreme content, if it's played so loud that the 20kHz+ region is at 90dB, the lower frequencies (i.e. the "normal" audible range) will be well over 100dB - i.e. well into the range where listening for a length of time will cause hearing damage.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 18 2009, 11:13
Post #35


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



delete duplicate post

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: May 18 2009, 11:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post May 18 2009, 16:35
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 3536
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 18 2009, 06:13) *
QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ May 15 2009, 23:02) *
Edit: Here is the paper. Did not quite remember it correctly, but see for yourself.
Thanks for that - I was aware of the previous studies they referenced, but not that actual study.

Basically, above 20kHz you need about 90dB SPL or greater for a sound to be audible against silence.



And then there is masking.

And then there is sitting anyplace but exactly on axis.

And then there is the fact that virtually all musical instruments end up with harmonics trailing off at no less than 12 dB/ocatve. " The world is a collection of second-order systems".

QUOTE
You can't get close to that energy level at those frequencies with normal hi-fi. The tweeters melt.


And, the absorbtion of high frequencies by air is non-trivial when you get that high. This can bite you in the listening room but it is murder at the life performance.

QUOTE
Also, even for extreme content, if it's played so loud that the 20kHz+ region is at 90dB, the lower frequencies (i.e. the "normal" audible range) will be well over 100dB - i.e. well into the range where listening for a length of time will cause hearing damage.


As JJ points out, when you do damage your hearing, the damage often starts at the highest frequencies (hairs that are closest to the point where sound enters the sensitive part of the ear).

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C.R.Helmrich
post May 18 2009, 21:49
Post #37





Group: Developer
Posts: 681
Joined: 6-December 08
From: Erlangen Germany
Member No.: 64012



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 18 2009, 06:57) *


Thanks a lot! This is about the stuff I was looking for.

There is less clipping on the Fleetwood Mac item than it might look like. That's why I consider it good mastering smile.gif The Steely Dan item has significantly more clipping, for example.

Chris


--------------------
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 19 2009, 00:30
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ May 18 2009, 16:49) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ May 18 2009, 06:57) *


Thanks a lot! This is about the stuff I was looking for.

There is less clipping on the Fleetwood Mac item than it might look like. That's why I consider it good mastering smile.gif The Steely Dan item has significantly more clipping, for example.

Chris



I'm familiar with seeing waveforms that 'look ' clipped at low resolution but aren't really, when you actually magnify them. And I'm used to seeing, and discounting , some occasional clipping where 'plateaus' are just a few samples wide.

That's not quite the case with the Mac track. It's really clipping. The first flattop I zoomed in on was maybe a dozen samples wide. Not saying every peak at 0dBFS is clipped, and not even saying I can hear it, but I just don't see the point of doing it in the first place. Later on I can run a quantitative clipping analysis on the full track, using Clive Backham's excellent Wave Repair tool. Wonder what I'll see?

What's happening with Steely Dan's 'high-rez' releases -- all of them so far, including the old 'Gaucho' album on DVD-A and SACD -- is just plain bizarre, in context of the Dan's legendary fastidiousness about sound.

The Chesky disc is a real showpiece for demonstrating high-rez. It's basically giving us what hi-rez was supposed to. Though again, I'm not saying it would sound any worse at 16/44. In fact I have yet to do the ABX myself!

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 19 2009, 00:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post May 19 2009, 03:24
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 3536
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 18 2009, 19:30) *
The Chesky disc is a real showpiece for demonstrating high-rez. It's basically giving us what hi-rez was supposed to. Though again, I'm not saying it would sound any worse at 16/44. In fact I have yet to do the ABX myself!


The Limehouse Blues track illustrates the vanishing amount of energy that exists > 20 KHz in most recordings.

If I brickwall lowpass filter this track at 20 KHz, there is no difference in peak and average levels out to 4 decimal places.

If I brickwall highpass filter this track at 20 KHz, the average amplitude of the information > 20 KHz is 50-55 dB down.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 19 2009, 21:00
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ May 18 2009, 22:24) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ May 18 2009, 19:30) *
The Chesky disc is a real showpiece for demonstrating high-rez. It's basically giving us what hi-rez was supposed to. Though again, I'm not saying it would sound any worse at 16/44. In fact I have yet to do the ABX myself!


The Limehouse Blues track illustrates the vanishing amount of energy that exists > 20 KHz in most recordings.


I wouldn't even say that, since the Chesky track impressed me visually as exceptional in the amount of >20khz content among all the 'high rez' track spectra I've looked at so far. And from it I chose a segment whose spectrum looked to contain a concentrated dose of that content. Perhaps you could you check the average amplitude of the other clips at > 20kHz, for comparison, and see if my impression was right?

So far to me what it suggests is that even with a 'best-case' commercial high rez recording and presentation of music, there's not much 'life', up there (despite what Boyk says).

What might also be interesting is if someone could close-mic some jangling keys (often cited as an 'ultrasonic' test case for the amount of >20kHz content generated) and record at 96/24 and see if a good 16/44 downconversion made any audible difference.

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 19 2009, 21:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post May 19 2009, 21:47
Post #41





Group: Developer
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (krabapple)
What might also be interesting is if someone could close-mic some jangling keys


Something like this - http://64.41.69.21/technical/reference/keys_2496.wav (PC ABX Reference Samples)?

Added: oops - guess who wrote this post: http://www.talkroot.com/203534-post2.html

This post has been edited by lvqcl: May 19 2009, 21:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post May 19 2009, 22:01
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 3536
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (lvqcl @ May 19 2009, 16:47) *
QUOTE (krabapple)
What might also be interesting is if someone could close-mic some jangling keys


Something like this - http://64.41.69.21/technical/reference/keys_2496.wav (PC ABX Reference Samples)?

They were made exactly for the purpose.

Added: oops - guess who wrote this post: http://www.talkroot.com/203534-post2.html


Same guy who wrote the following...

Ten (10) Requirements For Sensitive and Reliable Listening Tests

(1) Program material must include critical passages that enable audible differences to be most easily heard.

(2) Listeners must be sensitized to a audible differences, so that if an audible difference is generated by the equipment, the listener will notice it and have a useful reaction to it.

(3) Listeners must be trained to listen systematically so that audible problems are heard.

(4) Procedures should be "open" to detecting problems that aren't necessarily technically well-understood or even expected, at this time. A classic problem with measurements and some listening tests is that each one focuses on one or only a few problems, allowing others to escape notice.

(5) We must have confidence that the Unit Under Test (UUT) is representative of the kind of equipment it represents. In other words the UUT must not be broken, it must not be appreciably modified in some secret way, and must not be the wrong make or model, among other things.

(6) A suitable listening environment must be provided. It can't be too dull, too bright, too noisy, too reverberant, or too harsh. The speakers and other components have to be sufficiently free from distortion, the room must be noise-free, etc..

(7) Listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good physical condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for hearing deficiencies in the reproduced sound.

(8) Sample volume levels need to be matched to each other or else the listeners will perceive differences that are simply due to volume differences.

(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening".

(10) Listeners should control as many of the aspects of the listening test as possible. Self-controlled tests usually facilitate this. Most importantly, they should be able to switch among the alternatives at times of their choosing. The switchover should be as instantaneous and non-disruptive as possible.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C.R.Helmrich
post May 19 2009, 22:06
Post #43





Group: Developer
Posts: 681
Joined: 6-December 08
From: Erlangen Germany
Member No.: 64012



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ May 19 2009, 23:01) *
QUOTE (lvqcl @ May 19 2009, 16:47) *
QUOTE (krabapple)
What might also be interesting is if someone could close-mic some jangling keys


Something like this - http://64.41.69.21/technical/reference/keys_2496.wav (PC ABX Reference Samples)?

They were made exactly for the purpose.

Added: oops - guess who wrote this post: http://www.talkroot.com/203534-post2.html


Same guy who wrote the following...


biggrin.gif and guess who hosted this web site: http://64.41.69.21/technical/reference/. Thanks for that, by the way!

Chris


--------------------
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 20 2009, 05:12
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



Ah! I guess I was having a past-life memory.

I'm glad PCABX is back.

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 20 2009, 05:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post May 20 2009, 11:04
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 3536
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 20 2009, 00:12) *
Ah! I guess I was having a past-life memory.

I'm glad PCABX is back.


Sorry, it isn't.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audioapprentice
post Jun 24 2009, 03:39
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 19-August 08
Member No.: 57250



sshd:

My surviving turntable is a p-mount, factory set, all plastic, bottom of the range offering from the mid-80s: a Pioneer PL-460. I think it sounds great!

Here is a sample of "great vinyl sound" from a 30 year old record, with lots of miles on the clock, on a cheap-as-it-gets turntable. Enjoy!
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=72973

Of course, it's no CD.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
WmAx
post Jun 25 2009, 01:16
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 541
Joined: 22-May 04
Member No.: 14243



A very high pitch stable table with a low resonance chassis combined with a high grade arm with very low resonance, using a clean mint-like condition LP of high pressing quality and a low noise phono pre-amp can sound almost identical to a superbly produced CD, even in terms of the noise floor. However, this does not seem to be a common combination for most people. I have several albums that sound like CD quality for the most part. But my table is a very high quality unit with a superb low resonance tone arm and my phono pre has fantastic measured noise performance.

-Chris
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Jun 26 2009, 14:58
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 3536
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (WmAx @ Jun 24 2009, 20:16) *
A very high pitch stable table with a low resonance chassis combined with a high grade arm with very low resonance, using a clean mint-like condition LP of high pressing quality and a low noise phono pre-amp can sound almost identical to a superbly produced CD, even in terms of the noise floor


Apprently nobody who posts needle drops has that combination of LP equipment, because I've never heard or measured such a thing. Of course, if you have examples, feel free to post links to them...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 26 2009, 16:23
Post #49





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



It's sort of the spirit of this thread to post samples rather than give incredible anecdotal evidence that doesn't exactly comply with TOS #8.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
WmAx
post Jun 27 2009, 09:01
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 541
Joined: 22-May 04
Member No.: 14243



QUOTE (WmAx @ Jun 24 2009, 20:16) *
A very high pitch stable table with a low resonance chassis combined with a high grade arm with very low resonance, using a clean mint-like condition LP of high pressing quality and a low noise phono pre-amp can sound almost identical to a superbly produced CD, even in terms of the noise floor. However, this does not seem to be a common combination for most people. I have several albums that sound like CD quality for the most part. But my table is a very high quality unit with a superb low resonance tone arm and my phono pre has fantastic measured noise performance.

-Chris


By request, I 'withdraw' my statement. I can't actually withdraw it, as I don't see an EDIT function available. I suppose ADMIN has limited editing time window in the last year or so; it used to indefinite if memory serves me correctly.

If I get around to making specific recordings for you, I'll re-submit my statement later. But I did not originally intend to do this; I was sharing my direct experiences considering the similarity of audio I perceived under very specific conditions; that being lack of blatant artifacts or noise during music playback under those specific conditions.

-Chris
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th April 2014 - 03:00