IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
How Good Can Vinyl Sound?, Anyone got some sample clips?
2Bdecided
post Feb 4 2010, 10:24
Post #76


ReplayGain developer


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



QUOTE (Cavaille @ Feb 4 2010, 01:13) *
QUOTE (jamie_P84 @ Feb 3 2010, 21:47) *
Despite my having registered and logged in, these downloads do not work for me.
The filenames are listed but they are not links. Am I missing something here?
Yes, its true. Ive deleted them since I needed the space here for other files
@Cavaille - do you mind if I put them on MediaFire? Or maybe you can?

Cheers,
David.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cavaille
post Feb 4 2010, 15:04
Post #77





Group: Members
Posts: 370
Joined: 20-May 06
Member No.: 30963



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Feb 4 2010, 10:24) *
QUOTE (Cavaille @ Feb 4 2010, 01:13) *
QUOTE (jamie_P84 @ Feb 3 2010, 21:47) *
Despite my having registered and logged in, these downloads do not work for me.
The filenames are listed but they are not links. Am I missing something here?
Yes, its true. Ive deleted them since I needed the space here for other files
@Cavaille - do you mind if I put them on MediaFire? Or maybe you can?

Cheers,
David.
Daivd, if you still have them please feel free to do so. Im afraid that I have erased them also on my harddrive. headbang.gif I could do them anew but theyd be different then. Thank you very much in advance.


--------------------
marlene-d.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Feb 4 2010, 15:34
Post #78


ReplayGain developer


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



Here you go:

/?sharekey=605ee2b5f85656f5e62ea590dc5e5dbb912f3b9b32a4a38fa4648785df63f216

add the above to the end of www.mediafire.com (which the HA board software has just prevented me from linking to!) to get the URL.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Feb 4 2010, 15:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Feb 4 2010, 17:03
Post #79





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3327
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



Based on this incident, we have upped the user storage limit. You should be able to store more now Cavaille. David, by the way, as a developer, your upload limits are quite high.

Mediafire is blocked to encourage users to use the built-in upload functions as these web-upload sites are not usually particularly trustworthy.

This post has been edited by Canar: Feb 4 2010, 17:05


--------------------
∑:<
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Feb 4 2010, 18:03
Post #80


ReplayGain developer


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



QUOTE (Canar @ Feb 4 2010, 16:03) *
Based on this incident, we have upped the user storage limit. You should be able to store more now Cavaille. David, by the way, as a developer, your upload limits are quite high.

Mediafire is blocked to encourage users to use the built-in upload functions as these web-upload sites are not usually particularly trustworthy.
Yes, I see my limits are quite high. Still, they're not my files so it seemed unfair to upload them myself. Plus it would automatically wipe out some old attachments of mine, wouldn't it? I'm sure most are out-of-date, but some might get referred back to occasionally.

There are some very dodgy file sharing websites out there, but mediafire seems OK (at the moment).

I understand that requiring people to upload to HA will help enforce the TOS (e.g. 30 second rule) more easily.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation (and for not telling me off!).

Cheers,
David.

P.S. originally tried to send this as a PM only, but your mailbox is full Canar.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cavaille
post Feb 5 2010, 04:51
Post #81





Group: Members
Posts: 370
Joined: 20-May 06
Member No.: 30963



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Feb 4 2010, 15:34) *
Here you go:

/?sharekey=605ee2b5f85656f5e62ea590dc5e5dbb912f3b9b32a4a38fa4648785df63f216

add the above to the end of www.mediafire.com (which the HA board software has just prevented me from linking to!) to get the URL.
Thank you very much!


QUOTE (Canar @ Feb 4 2010, 17:03) *
Based on this incident, we have upped the user storage limit. You should be able to store more now Cavaille.
Wow. Just Wow. This is great. I think Ill prepare some other, additional files.


--------------------
marlene-d.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yamfox
post Jun 5 2010, 01:06
Post #82





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 5-June 10
Member No.: 81192



This good:
Link
That's my vinyl rip, with a used $20 Pioneer and an even cheaper Shure cartridge. I get the vinyl sound.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Jun 7 2010, 15:39
Post #83





Group: Members
Posts: 3534
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (cliveb @ Feb 4 2010, 04:28) *
QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Feb 3 2010, 21:25) *
The purpose of the delay was to facilitate automated setting of groove pitch. The delay provided a "look ahead" signal that was used to increase groove pitch for loud passages beofre the louder, wider pitch groove was cut. About a half second delay would suffice.

Before the days of digital delays, this was achieved by having an additional playback head in advance of the main one. I realise that using a digital delay is unlikely to add audible degradation, but on the basis that you should pass the signal through as little circuitry as possible, the older method strikes me as theoretically superior. So, do you have any idea why this was replaced by digital delays? I'm just curious to know the reason.


The extra "look-ahead" tape head for pre-setting cutting ptich was considered to be messy and inconvenient. At 15 ips one second worth of delay required a 15" loop of tape between the look-ahead tape head and the reproduce head, which could get to be a little awkward to set up.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Glenn Gundlach
post Jun 7 2010, 18:20
Post #84





Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 19-April 08
From: LA
Member No.: 52914



QUOTE (yamfox @ Jun 4 2010, 16:06) *
This good:
Link
That's my vinyl rip, with a used $20 Pioneer and an even cheaper Shure cartridge. I get the vinyl sound.


Thanks for reminding me what vinyl sounds like. Now I remember why I no longer use it.

I also listened to the Abbey Road clip someone else did in January this year. OUCH

G

This post has been edited by Glenn Gundlach: Jun 7 2010, 18:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doctorcilantro
post Sep 1 2010, 22:16
Post #85





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 2-July 09
Member No.: 71158



Here is a 24/192 sample.

And here is a 96kHz version SRC'd with Izoptope.

Short sample off album Kind of Blue. Cart. still needs break-in and azimuth isn't 100% correct, and......

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 1 2010, 22:28
Post #86





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



I can understand the 8 extra bits headroom and processing though I'm sure it could be done well @16 under fairly controlled conditions (it is only vinyl, afterall), but why @192? Does your hardware not do justice to the capabilities of 44.1 (or 48 depending on the format)? EDIT: If so, is it problem with aliasing and/or something else? I'm not familiar with the current gamut of A/D converters. Are there corroborative studies demonstrating audible problems when sampling at 44.1kHz? 48kHz?

Would anyone care to down-sample using at least two of the commonly recommended/highly-respected programs to 44.1/16 so that they can be used for a public listening test?

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 1 2010, 22:42


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Sep 2 2010, 00:10
Post #87





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3327
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 1 2010, 16:16) *
The link doesn't work for me.

Also, it'd be nice to have a sample without so much masking noise, here imparted via what, hi-hat? Cymbal? RMS power barely ever drops below -30dB. Not much dynamic range there at all...

Then again, we are cherry-picking for places where vinyl sounds good, and such a case is exactly it.

This post has been edited by Canar: Sep 2 2010, 00:15


--------------------
∑:<
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doctorcilantro
post Sep 2 2010, 00:16
Post #88





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 2-July 09
Member No.: 71158



QUOTE (Canar @ Sep 2 2010, 01:10) *
QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 1 2010, 16:16) *
The link doesn't work for me.


Sorry, copied from an old email.

Try this:

96
192


change links to .wav if need be
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doctorcilantro
post Sep 2 2010, 00:20
Post #89





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 2-July 09
Member No.: 71158



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 1 2010, 23:28) *
I can understand the 8 extra bits headroom and processing though I'm sure it could be done well @16 under fairly controlled conditions (it is only vinyl, afterall), but why @192? Does your hardware not do justice to the capabilities of 44.1 (or 48 depending on the format)? EDIT: If so, is it problem with aliasing and/or something else? I'm not familiar with the current gamut of A/D converters. Are there corroborative studies demonstrating audible problems when sampling at 44.1kHz? 48kHz?

Would anyone care to down-sample using at least two of the commonly recommended/highly-respected programs to 44.1/16 so that they can be used for a public listening test?


I'm doing digital RIAA, manual click removal (none needed here), and also normalized to -.03db. 192kHz seems to allow best manual declicking. I usually SRC down to 96 with Izotope.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Sep 2 2010, 00:23
Post #90





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3327
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 1 2010, 16:28) *
Would anyone care to down-sample using at least two of the commonly recommended/highly-respected programs to 44.1/16 so that they can be used for a public listening test?
foobar2000 dither, SoX, 90% passband, minimum phase, advanced limiter to catch any potential clipping. http://baryon.ca/temp/kindofblue.flac

Someone else can do the other one. wink.gif

This post has been edited by Canar: Sep 2 2010, 00:25


--------------------
∑:<
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doctorcilantro
post Sep 2 2010, 01:18
Post #91





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 2-July 09
Member No.: 71158



QUOTE (Canar @ Sep 2 2010, 01:10) *
QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 1 2010, 16:16) *
The link doesn't work for me.

Also, it'd be nice to have a sample without so much masking noise, here imparted via what, hi-hat? Cymbal? RMS power barely ever drops below -30dB. Not much dynamic range there at all...

Then again, we are cherry-picking for places where vinyl sounds good, and such a case is exactly it.


So vinyl doesn't sound good unless it has only a massive dynamic range? This is the remaster Kind of Blue on blue vinyl. Maybe it's compressed. I don't know. I will find you want some other stuff when I have my table setup correctly. There are still some issues to be sorted out too.

@ Greynol, I'm sure if you are asking for a needledrop or a diatribe on why I use 192kHz? Surely, that is for another thread???

FYI, this was recorded at 64bit float (: ) and Mbit+ Ultra Normal dither was used, to 24bit.

This post has been edited by doctorcilantro: Sep 2 2010, 01:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Sep 2 2010, 02:10
Post #92





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3327
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 1 2010, 19:18) *
So vinyl doesn't sound good unless it has only a massive dynamic range?
No, but low dynamic range masks the imperfections of the format and does not provide a full picture of what your equipment is truly capable of.

This post has been edited by Canar: Sep 2 2010, 02:11


--------------------
∑:<
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 2 2010, 03:39
Post #93





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



QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 1 2010, 17:18) *
@ Greynol, I'm sure if you are asking for a needledrop or a diatribe on why I use 192kHz? Surely, that is for another thread???

A needledrop would be fine. Considering the title is "How Good Can Vinyl Sound?" I don't see why questioning the benefits of increased resolution are not germain to the discussion.

Is there any evidence that de-clicking requires such a high sample rate?

I'm looking for any and all justifications that are not placebo-based.

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 2 2010, 03:41


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Sep 2 2010, 04:43
Post #94





Group: Members
Posts: 2157
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 1 2010, 17:16) *
Here is a 24/192 sample.

And here is a 96kHz version SRC'd with Izoptope.

Short sample off album Kind of Blue. Cart. still needs break-in and azimuth isn't 100% correct, and......



please post again after the cartridge has 'broken in'. I'd like to hear the effect
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doctorcilantro
post Sep 2 2010, 04:53
Post #95





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 2-July 09
Member No.: 71158



QUOTE (krabapple @ Sep 2 2010, 05:43) *
QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 1 2010, 17:16) *
Here is a 24/192 sample.

And here is a 96kHz version SRC'd with Izoptope.

Short sample off album Kind of Blue. Cart. still needs break-in and azimuth isn't 100% correct, and......



please post again after the cartridge has 'broken in'. I'd like to hear the effect


No sure if there will be one. once the cantilever's suspension has broken in, the Grados usually sit a tad lower, so we'll see.

I can post the UTR 1kHz-10hz sweep and a few unmodulated groove tracks, but I need to make an adjustment to some wiring to fix some work someone did for me...backwards.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doctorcilantro
post Sep 2 2010, 04:56
Post #96





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 2-July 09
Member No.: 71158



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 2 2010, 04:39) *
QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 1 2010, 17:18) *
@ Greynol, I'm sure if you are asking for a needledrop or a diatribe on why I use 192kHz? Surely, that is for another thread???

A needledrop would be fine. Considering the title is "How Good Can Vinyl Sound?" I don't see why questioning the benefits of increased resolution are not germain to the discussion.

Is there any evidence that de-clicking requires such a high sample rate?

I'm looking for any and all justifications that are not placebo-based.


Sure, np. There are plenty of threads to sift through here at HA. I'm not an expert, just playing around with this stuff. I usually just bother Axon with asinine questions and try to learn a bit ; )
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doctorcilantro
post Sep 2 2010, 04:58
Post #97





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 2-July 09
Member No.: 71158



QUOTE (Canar @ Sep 2 2010, 03:10) *
QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 1 2010, 19:18) *
So vinyl doesn't sound good unless it has only a massive dynamic range?
No, but low dynamic range masks the imperfections of the format and does not provide a full picture of what your equipment is truly capable of.


Okay, np, I was hoping that's what you meant.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 2 2010, 09:38
Post #98


ReplayGain developer


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



QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 2 2010, 01:18) *
FYI, this was recorded at 64bit float (: ) and Mbit+ Ultra Normal dither was used, to 24bit.
Are you joking, or do you really think you have a 64-bit floating point ADC?!

Cheers,
David.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 2 2010, 09:56
Post #99


ReplayGain developer


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



QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 2 2010, 00:16) *
Try this:

96
192
I think that sounds really nice. Maybe a little bright, but no noise or distortion to impair the enjoyment of the music. Which IMO is true of vinyl playback of most pop music. And is true of CD playback of all music.

FWIW, and I could very well be wrong, but it looks like the only surviving original musical content is below 20kHz. Everything above 20kHz looks like replay distortion. Very close examination of the hi-hat hits shows the above 20kHz content to be a string of impulses, mostly centred on the peaks of the sub-20kHz waveform. IIRC wide bandwidth recordings of cymbals don't look like this at all, but vinyl groove distortion can (albeit usually seen and head at lower frequencies).

So it's fine - but it's not better than 16/44.1 - objectively or subjectively (unless someone can ABX the 16/44.1 version from Canar against the 96k or 192k versions).

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doctorcilantro
post Sep 2 2010, 11:21
Post #100





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 2-July 09
Member No.: 71158



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 2 2010, 10:38) *
QUOTE (doctorcilantro @ Sep 2 2010, 01:18) *
FYI, this was recorded at 64bit float (: ) and Mbit+ Ultra Normal dither was used, to 24bit.
Are you joking, or do you really think you have a 64-bit floating point ADC?!

Cheers,
David.



The Lynx driver, like most, communicates at 24bit as we all know. WL6 recorded at 64bit float; digital riaa, editing clicks, and normalization. overkill? Maybe. 32bit float would be fine (and many would argue 24bit).

I didn't really perceive it as bright, but it is a horn and maybe a more varied sample of instruments would useful. Many have discussed horns should be bitting, of course not painfully bright. Anyway, I'll do the same needledrop again.

I think the interesting discussion is what Axon brought up about the sourcing of the vinyl master. Many seemed to pass this off as unimportant. I'm interested in taking a closer look at new releases, not really arguing about bit depth or sample rates which has been done ad infinitum here. Thanks for listening!

This post has been edited by doctorcilantro: Sep 2 2010, 12:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
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: 17th April 2014 - 08:56