tony sayer wrote:

I have noticed over time that a lot of people who are DJ's and do live
sound seem to be a bit hard of hearing;!(...

A sound man once explained that the lead musician in a certain
ceilidh band was a little deaf, and kept asking for more volume.
To satisfy him, the foldback was usually wound up, leaving FOH
comfortable for the rest of us.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 30/04/2014 11:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 30/04/2014 00:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
From the designers of the CD system (from the Philips side) at its
launch.

But Philip's prototype was only 60 minutes at 14 bits?

At the launch of the CD. Not a prototype.

I can't see any article that suggests that Philips were instigators of
the 74 minute 16 bit CD.

It was a joint Philips/Sony thing.

Maybe, but the 74 minute/16 bit has always been seen as chosen through
Sony's influence.

Can you indicate otherwise with cited documentation?

It makes no difference. The maximum playing time was dictated by the
mastering machine of the day.

That sounds like a "no".

I'll leave you to believe an urban myth, then.

I suppose you never wondered why it was such an odd figure? Why it wasn't
rounded up to 75 minutes?

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Norman Wells
writes




If the 'mainstream channels' wnated to broadcast higher bitrates, they
could surely do their bit to free up room by removing their largely
redundant and unnecessary +1 channels,

I actually occasionally find some of the +1 channels very useful
(especially when I suddenly realise I've missed something on the +0).





--
Ian

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:23:13 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 29/04/2014 19:29, Johny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:53:02 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 29/04/2014 16:18, Johny B Good wrote:

[1] around the equivilent performance of a high quality cassette deck
with accurately aligned dolby level. Realistically, a C90 TDK SA tape
would only manage the equivilent of 700MiB of storage.

Really? That implies a C90 is capable of similar quality levels to CD,
and I'd be very surprised if that was the case.


What you seem to have overlooked is the extra 18 minutes of run time
compared to a 74 minute CD (C90s were typically 46 minutes or so each
way).

No, I didn't. That takes it to 560-odd MB vs 700, ie it's holding 80% of
the information. Are cassettes really that good?


God no, of course not! (but neither was the older domestic tape
recorders using twice the speed and the older tape formulations they
were designed for).

I was using a simple formula of 32K samples per second of 16 bit
depth per channel to produce a simple MB equivilent figure that could
be used to give the uninitiated a feel for what space a C90 tape would
require to store its recorded content in a straight digital format in
order to arrive at a quick 'n' dirty answer to the original question
"But how much memory did it have?" in Bill's original posting.

Processing it to 192Kbps MP3 would reduce that to about 100MB without
any obvious loss of the original audio quality contained in a high
quality C90 cassette recording.

I haven't tried any of the lossless compression formats such as flac
and so on but I'd imagine the resultant filesizes would give a much
more accurate reflection of the data storage equivilency of analogue
tapes.
--
Regards, J B Good

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/04/14 20:23, Clive George wrote:
On 29/04/2014 19:29, Johny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:53:02 +0100, Clive George


the bandwidth is very low. AS is the SNR

Id say you can get about 4Khz bandwidth at about 55dB SNR.

ie about 10 bits deep and 4khz so 40Kbps.

4kHz bandwidth doesn't mean 4 samples/sec, and home cassettes and R2Rs
tend to be stereo. So your figure above seems to have missed a few factors.
However, regardless of that, "I'd say" isn't a basis for such a claim
beyond it being an assertion of faith. To try and help, I'd suggest people
base what they say on professionally measured results. e.g.

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/noisefig1.png

appeared in

Less noise in new UD
Hayama et al
Hitachi-Maxell, Kyoto, Japan
Preprint 918(G-3)
45th AES Convention May 1973

Note the measurements here were for cassette. You could expect
significantly better from R2R at 7.5ips. And using better tape.

I can access the primary sources as an AES member, so I don't know if
others can find them. However if you can find them, there are a number of
measurements. The above and

Tape noise in audio recording
Eric D. Daniel
Memorex
JAES V20#2 1972

are what I'd suggest for a good start, but you may find others you prefer.

If someone wants to really estimate the 'memory capacity' or channel
bandwidth in bps of such systems I suggest they take care to show they
understand:

A) The distinction between a full-band rms noise power and NPSD plot
values.

B) How to calculate the info capacity/rate values when the max signal and
NPSD aren't the same at all frequencies in band. Hint: it means having to
integrate the shannon equ weighted in accord across the range.

at least! Otherwise the values will probably be nonsense of the kind I've
seen more than once already in this thread! :-)


Really the cassette tape has nothing to recommend it anymore at all.

I'd agree. I gave up recording onto analogue cassette and R2R well over a
decade ago. That's not a reason to fantasise absurdly low (or high) values
for their capability, though.


Now I am looking at my first SSD/SD machine. NO spinning rust at all.

Another seminal moment..

You're a bit late coming... :-) I certainly wasn't one of the first
adopters, but all the computers I've bought in the last few years have used
SSD or other solid state 'hard disc' for the main drive(s). Use spinning
rust just as large removables.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Norman Wells
writes




If the 'mainstream channels' wnated to broadcast higher bitrates,
they could surely do their bit to free up room by removing their
largely redundant and unnecessary +1 channels,

I actually occasionally find some of the +1 channels very useful
(especially when I suddenly realise I've missed something on the +0).

I don't deny it. If they didn't exist, though, you'd not only have a
better incentive to remember the original, but still be able to watch it
later over t'internet. It's a question of whether we could do better
with the bandwidth.

In article , NY
wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...


The difference between analogue (especially vinyl) and digital (CD) is
VERY noticeable: vinyl suffers very badly from disc noise, even on a
brand new record from an expensive record label (ie not made on the
cheap), whereas CD sounds perfect. And dust and scratches are very hard
to avoid.

It depends.

Overall, I have been happy with *classical music* on CD. However this is
because of years pre 1984 struggling with trying to find copies of EMI LPs
of classical music that didn't have all kinds of very audible flaws. clicks
and pops, wow, shallow pressing distortion, etc.

However I've recently been buying some cheap 2nd hand LPs made in the same
era. Some are amazingly good. Some classical DGG ones sound essentially
perfect. No noticable background noise or clicks, centers holes the right
diameter in the right place, etc.

Whereas (sigh) many EMI classical music CDs have a grainy sound. One reason
for this turns out to be that they used ADCs for some time that had less
than 16bits and/or weren't monotonic, etc. i.e. very poorly converted from
the original tapes.

A *good* LP, carefully made and played can deliver good sound. So can a
*good* CD. Alas making a dog's dinner of either was common for some
companies. :-/

As an aside, I've always wondered about people who say they prefer vinyl
to CD. Do they prefer the imperfections and signal processing that
vinyl introduces, I wonder? Do they find a live performance (mic,
amplifier, speakers) as bad as a CD, or do they find that the
digitisation modifies the signal - can they distinguish live electronic
(all analogue) from CD?

One possible reason is that many pop/rock CDs are level compressed into
clipping at replay. LPs don't clip in the same way, so if you have a
cartridge that can track them, the result may sound better. A few years ago
a friend let me compare a doubleLP/CD release (Queen EMI). The CDs were
measurably and audibly worse than the LPs. Not my taste in music, but the
differences were pretty obvious and I found the LPs better for sure.

This has nothing to do with what the media are capable of. Everything to do
with the behaviour of the people making the discs from the master
recordings.

In the u.t.d-tv group I suspect that will chime with people's reactions to
the technical quality of much modern 'digital' TV...

The problem isn't what is possible. It is what is actually done, all too
sadly often!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Chris J Dixon
wrote:
NY wrote:

One was Albion Band at Fleetwood a good while ago;

Long enough ago that Cathy was singing with them? :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , tony sayer

wrote:


He did say that he didn't expect me to have heard it like that before as
the discs were pressed by a specialist company in Japan or Germany and
used much higher grade Vinyl than anyone would normally use.

I've recently been listening to some 2nd-hand German pressings of Jazz LPs
made in the 1970s. Even 2nd-hand had some of them sound superb.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Norman Wells wrote:

I don't deny it. If they didn't exist, though, you'd not only have a
better incentive to remember the original, but still be able to watch it
later over t'internet. It's a question of whether we could do better
with the bandwidth.

If God meant us to have +1 channels he wouldn't have given us PVRs.

Bill

On 30/04/2014 11:32, NY wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message
snip

I'm talking about audiophiles who prefer the *sound* of vinyl over CD.
Now they are perfectly entitled to, but I'm intrigued to work out what
it is that they prefer - they say that sound of CDs is cold and
clinical, and too perfect. Fine. But they make it sound as if the CD
process *introduces* something that the unrecorded electronic sound
doesn't have.


Ah, right. For myself it's a certain 'depth' that the sound brings,
that's especially persuasive on things like female vocal. Other words
like natural, coherent, lifelike, 3D. I'd suggest the CD leaves
something out. It really is a personal thing, and is overall a sound I like.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 30/04/2014 11:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
As an aside, I've always wondered about people who say they prefer vinyl
to CD. Do they prefer the imperfections and signal processing that
vinyl introduces, I wonder? Do they find a live performance (mic,
amplifier, speakers) as bad as a CD, or do they find that the
digitisation modifies the signal - can they distinguish live electronic
(all analogue) from CD?

Ignoring any surface noise etc, vinyl adds its own distortion. Which many
just happen to like.

If you carefully copy vinyl to CD I defy anyone to tell the difference in
a properly conducted blind test.

Do it the other way round - more difficult - and most can tell the
difference.

Which proves vinyl is distorting the original.


I understand the need for the use of the word distortion, and agree with
what you say. I'd just add that there's the possibility that somewhere
within medium and process, the alteration of the original signal makes
the sound more lifelike (preferable, better etc).

There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and fashion.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 30/04/2014 14:47, Bill Wright wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

I don't deny it. If they didn't exist, though, you'd not only have a
better incentive to remember the original, but still be able to watch
it later over t'internet. It's a question of whether we could do
better with the bandwidth.

If God meant us to have +1 channels he wouldn't have given us PVRs.

I very rarely watch stuff live, but still occasionally use the +1 to
record a programme I've only just noticed I want to watch later.

Bill Wright wrote:

If God meant us to have +1 channels he wouldn't have given us PVRs.

But even they are limited, and can trip over their own toes at
busy programme junctions.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
Ah, right. For myself it's a certain 'depth' that the sound brings,
that's especially persuasive on things like female vocal. Other words
like natural, coherent, lifelike, 3D. I'd suggest the CD leaves
something out. It really is a personal thing, and is overall a sound I
like.

CD doesn't leave anything out. It's vinyl which adds something.
Distortion. It's that you like.

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
Ignoring any surface noise etc, vinyl adds its own distortion. Which
many just happen to like.

If you carefully copy vinyl to CD I defy anyone to tell the difference in
a properly conducted blind test.

Do it the other way round - more difficult - and most can tell the
difference.

Which proves vinyl is distorting the original.


I understand the need for the use of the word distortion, and agree with
what you say. I'd just add that there's the possibility that somewhere
within medium and process, the alteration of the original signal makes
the sound more lifelike (preferable, better etc).

It may makes some sounds or instruments 'preferable' under some conditions.
But not more accurate to the original. Some types of distortion can make
some instruments sound more exciting. And others worse. Sadly, when it's
the end user system providing that distortion, it can't discriminate.

There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and fashion.

Many simply don't understand what they are listening to. And don't want to.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/04/14 13:47, Jim Lesurf wrote:
4kHz bandwidth doesn't mean 4 samples/sec, and home cassettes and R2Rs
tend to be stereo. So your figure above seems to have missed a few factors.
However, regardless of that, "I'd say" isn't a basis for such a claim
beyond it being an assertion of faith. To try and help, I'd suggest people
base what they say on professionally measured results. e.g.



You diagram shows exactly what I am saying the 'distance' between flat
distortionless signal and the noise floor is about 50db and ends around
4-5khz..

sample rate has nothing to do with anything. I merely calculated that a
4khz FRAME rate you got around 40Kbps throughput.

And extrapolated that to a reasonable fugure of what a digital recording
on a cassette MIGHT be able to do.

If you are talking about actual INFORMATION on a tape, well some would
say in the case of many recordings there is none of any value at all.

The fact is that most music will fit very adequately in about 128kbps at
full quality.

The less instruments there are the less it actually needs.

My ultimate test of a hi-fi system was never to listen to the music,
only to the applause afterwards. If you could hear each individual
handclap instead of a mush of white noise, you had a very top line
system indeed.

someone calculated that the information content of speech was about
50bps by the way.

In terms of getting an intelligible message across rather than a hifi one.


The interesting thing is that freeview is stat muxed. There is no
'bitrate' for any given channel.

so good audio depends on other channels being 'quiet' at that point in
time..


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 30/04/14 14:47, RJH wrote:
On 30/04/2014 11:32, NY wrote:
"RJH" wrote in message
snip

I'm talking about audiophiles who prefer the *sound* of vinyl over CD.
Now they are perfectly entitled to, but I'm intrigued to work out what
it is that they prefer - they say that sound of CDs is cold and
clinical, and too perfect. Fine. But they make it sound as if the CD
process *introduces* something that the unrecorded electronic sound
doesn't have.


Ah, right. For myself it's a certain 'depth' that the sound brings,
that's especially persuasive on things like female vocal.

where needle resonances and distortion predominate.

Other words
like natural, coherent, lifelike, 3D.

natural resonant IM disortion stuff that wasn't in the original
recording, yeah stuff like that..


I'd suggest the CD leaves
something out. It really is a personal thing, and is overall a sound I
like.


No it juts doesn't put anything IN.

I remember years ago - must have been te 70s - visiting a recoding
studio and admiring the wonderful array of monitor speakers.

And on top of the mixing console were two really cheap nasty speakers..

"What are those?"

"That's how we hear what it will sound like on a ghettoblaster in
Peckham high street" they said "if its that sort of market, we put stuff
in and take stuff out so it sounds as good as possible"

You think they didn't do the same for the average dork with a Garrard
SP25 and a cheap Shure cartridge?

That's why lot of 'digital remastering' and 'remixes' are going on of
classic material.

because it needs to be remixed for digital which doesn't have any of
those mechanical resonances and distortions in it.

stick a disc on a record player that isnt going round and start tapping.

the cartridge the arm, the deck..if its a valve amp the valves..every
one of those is a resonant system that can and will be picked up by the
amplifier.

Now try that on a CD...




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

CD doesn't leave anything out. It's vinyl which adds something.
Distortion. It's that you like.

I agree. Unless Rob can hear above 20kHz, then CD doesn't take
anything out. Vinyl takes out the very low frequencies and adds noise
plus distortion.

--
SteveT

On 30/04/14 14:57, RJH wrote:
On 30/04/2014 11:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
As an aside, I've always wondered about people who say they prefer vinyl
to CD. Do they prefer the imperfections and signal processing that
vinyl introduces, I wonder? Do they find a live performance (mic,
amplifier, speakers) as bad as a CD, or do they find that the
digitisation modifies the signal - can they distinguish live electronic
(all analogue) from CD?

Ignoring any surface noise etc, vinyl adds its own distortion. Which many
just happen to like.

If you carefully copy vinyl to CD I defy anyone to tell the difference in
a properly conducted blind test.

Do it the other way round - more difficult - and most can tell the
difference.

Which proves vinyl is distorting the original.


I understand the need for the use of the word distortion, and agree with
what you say. I'd just add that there's the possibility that somewhere
within medium and process, the alteration of the original signal makes
the sound more lifelike (preferable, better etc).


Oh SURE


YOU try plating an electric guitar through a hifi amp and speakers.

thin lifeless and uninspiring.

NOW add a bit of distortion a weird frequency response and some
cardboard speaker cones in a wooden box and you have what an acoustic
guitar has naturally. LOTS of resonance and distortions and all sorts of
stuff.




There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and fashion.

No there doesn't.

And add 'prejudice' to that list.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

RJH wrote:

there's the possibility that
somewhere within medium and process, the alteration of the original
signal makes the sound more lifelike (preferable, better etc).

Hang on! That is two quite separate things. More lifelike (i.e. more
like the original live sound signal)? No, of course not, how could it?
Preferable? Why yes, of course, if you like listening to distortion,
wonky gain curves and noise. And I'm not being sarcy: people
(including me) often seem to prefer "sweet" treble and "warm" bass, and
even-harmonic distortion can be pleasing, too.

There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and
fashion.

You aren't serious, are you? Firstly, they are just as human as you
and me, and therefore may prefer the sound of analogue-all-the-way,
regardless of it being less accurate, more noisy and more distorted
than CD. Secondly, like all humans, they are prone to irrational
thinking (that's why so many arty types buy Apple products), so they
will readily believe the nonsense claims that analogue-all-the-way is
somehow "better".

The fact that this "better" can never be measured or confirmed in any
audio laboratory makes them feel even more smug and special, because
they then believe they can perceive something too subtle for any
scientific instrumentation.

So no, there doesn't have to be a reason. At least, not a good reason.
:-)

--
SteveT

On 30/04/14 15:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Ignoring any surface noise etc, vinyl adds its own distortion. Which
many just happen to like.

If you carefully copy vinyl to CD I defy anyone to tell the difference in
a properly conducted blind test.

Do it the other way round - more difficult - and most can tell the
difference.

Which proves vinyl is distorting the original.


I understand the need for the use of the word distortion, and agree with
what you say. I'd just add that there's the possibility that somewhere
within medium and process, the alteration of the original signal makes
the sound more lifelike (preferable, better etc).

It may makes some sounds or instruments 'preferable' under some conditions.
But not more accurate to the original. Some types of distortion can make
some instruments sound more exciting. And others worse. Sadly, when it's
the end user system providing that distortion, it can't discriminate.


For once I can agree with you.

heavy 2nd harmonic distortion can make an instrument like a an electric
guitar sound like a reed instrument.

string instruments are nearly all odd harmonics, do to the symmetrical
nature of strings. reeds and brass are asymmetrical and have lots of
even harmonics. I think that the human voice does too. flutes and
recorders and (some voices of) organs are more more odd harmonic and
very low. at that. A flute can look pretty much like a sine wave if
played steadily.

intermodulation between harmonically related notes can create notes that
were never there, too.

Which the heavy metal boys use to create a 'full orchestra out of 'power
chords'



There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and fashion.

Many simply don't understand what they are listening to. And don't want to.


Exactly., Again the test for me was when I could no longer hear the
hifi, only the recording.


I am listening to radio 2 on my computer speakers. Its vile. Everything
has a thick cardboardy sound and a pronounced bass resonance about
200hz. That's the speakers of course.


But if you are used to it anything else sounds 'wrong'

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Jim Lesurf wrote:

One possible reason is that many pop/rock CDs are level compressed
into clipping at replay.

Do you mean actual wave clipping, with the subsequent array of odd
harmonics? If so, I can't say I've heard that on any of my CDs. It
seems hard to believe they'd do it - it's such a trivial thing to
identify any potential clipping before generating the digital audio
stream for the CD that it must surely be utterly routine, or even
automated, to avoid it.

If you mean over-compressed so the dynamic range is limited, I can
accept what you mean. Pop/rock often seems to have virtually the same
volume level for the "quiet" and "loud" bits regardless.

This has nothing to do with what the media are capable of. Everything
to do with the behaviour of the people making the discs from the
master recordings.

I think that is very well put. To be honest, though, I would have
thought they'd be more likely to compress the dynamic range on vinyl
than on CD, because vinyl has such a limited dynamic range and SNR.

--
SteveT

In article , RJH
wrote:

I understand the need for the use of the word distortion, and agree with
what you say. I'd just add that there's the possibility that somewhere
within medium and process, the alteration of the original signal makes
the sound more lifelike (preferable, better etc).

Its certainly possible that an LP and a CD of the 'same recording' will
sound different. However the problem is that there are many ways this can
happen that *don't* actually need to arise for any 'inherent' reason. But
are differences caused by those producing the LPs and CDs from the master
recording.

There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and fashion.

Alas, musicians aren't always a good judge of this. For example, some
violinists who tend to keep asking for their solo to be louder or more
bright relative to the orchestra. The reason being that when working they
have to have the violin almost against their ear. And are used to hearing
all the music at higher levels than is normal with domestic replay. if
you've sat in an orchestra as it plays, you'll know what I mean. Its not a
good place to judge what the audience are hearing unless you know the hall
very well. Which is even harder when the sound in a normal domestic room is
the end-point.

And wrt 'engineers' I think the reality is that most pro audio engineers
are quite happy with digital in my experience. Don't judge the bulk of,
say, AES members by what appears in consumer audio mags.

That said, I guess the actors, etc, in 'Jamaca Inn' also thought the'd got
the sound right... :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 29/04/2014 01:55, John Rumm wrote:

(I rip all my discs to flac just to be on the safe side ;-)

I rip them to wma lossless.
My daughter now does the same having bought a player that plays them.
MP3 is bad enough when on TV programs, its useless on music.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 30/04/14 14:47, RJH wrote:

I'd suggest the CD leaves
something out. It really is a personal thing, and is overall a sound I
like.

No it juts doesn't put anything IN.

Assuming there's nothing wrong with the ADC processing used to create the
CD, or the DAC for the listener.

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".

In article , NY
scribeth thus
"RJH" wrote in message
...
As an aside, I've always wondered about people who say they prefer vinyl
to CD. Do they prefer the imperfections and signal processing that vinyl
introduces, I wonder? Do they find a live performance (mic, amplifier,
speakers) as bad as a CD, or do they find that the digitisation modifies
the signal - can they distinguish live electronic (all analogue) from CD?


I don't think there's a single reason. Young folk, I suspect, like the
physical medium that's completely lost on mp3, and IMO largely absent on
CD. They like the tactile aspect, too. I don't think sound quality as such
figures to much of an extent - IME they don't have playback systems
capable of significant differentiation.

I can understand the preference for a physical, tangible copy of the
recording, though that's something which applies equally to records and CD
(and not to downloads).

I'm talking about audiophiles who prefer the *sound* of vinyl over CD. Now
they are perfectly entitled to, but I'm intrigued to work out what it is
that they prefer - they say that sound of CDs is cold and clinical, and too
perfect. Fine. But they make it sound as if the CD process *introduces*
something that the unrecorded electronic sound doesn't have.

Does anyone who whether anyone has carried out any trials of a live
performance (of whatever genre), reproduced to the test subjects:

1. by microphone, amplifier and loudspeaker

2. an identical sound mix by microphone, amplifier, CD mastering, CD
playback, amplifier, loudspeaker

to see whether they prefer one over the other. If they can't reliably
distinguish then all they are saying is that they prefer the imperfections
and modifications necessary to record on vinyl.


Well over time I've had the change to wander from a radio studio to the
control room (BBC Maida Vale studios) and its quite amazing sometimes
how good the reproduced sound could be, but I'd suspect given a decent
recorder system they'd not be a lot of deterioration on that.

However once it gets out it may well have the living daylights thrashed
out of it by too much adverse audio processing and the unspeakable bit
rates of UK crap DAB!...

--
Tony Sayer

On 30/04/2014 17:25, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 30/04/14 14:47, RJH wrote:

I'd suggest the CD leaves
something out. It really is a personal thing, and is overall a sound I
like.

No it juts doesn't put anything IN.

Assuming there's nothing wrong with the ADC processing used to create the
CD, or the DAC for the listener.


Something wrong in the architecture, perhaps. Or insufficient resolution.

But I'm also thinking there could be methodological issues with ADA
conversion.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 30/04/2014 16:33, Steve Thackery wrote:
RJH wrote:

there's the possibility that
somewhere within medium and process, the alteration of the original
signal makes the sound more lifelike (preferable, better etc).

Hang on! That is two quite separate things. More lifelike (i.e. more
like the original live sound signal)? No, of course not, how could it?
Preferable? Why yes, of course, if you like listening to distortion,
wonky gain curves and noise. And I'm not being sarcy: people
(including me) often seem to prefer "sweet" treble and "warm" bass, and
even-harmonic distortion can be pleasing, too.

There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and
fashion.

You aren't serious, are you? Firstly, they are just as human as you
and me, and therefore may prefer the sound of analogue-all-the-way,
regardless of it being less accurate, more noisy and more distorted
than CD. Secondly, like all humans, they are prone to irrational
thinking (that's why so many arty types buy Apple products), so they
will readily believe the nonsense claims that analogue-all-the-way is
somehow "better".

The fact that this "better" can never be measured or confirmed in any
audio laboratory makes them feel even more smug and special, because
they then believe they can perceive something too subtle for any
scientific instrumentation.

So no, there doesn't have to be a reason. At least, not a good reason.
:-)


I hear what you say :-)

I'd just add/finish by saying that I wouldn't say 'better'. Just for me,
preferable in some circumstances.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
I think that is very well put. To be honest, though, I would have
thought they'd be more likely to compress the dynamic range on vinyl
than on CD, because vinyl has such a limited dynamic range and SNR.

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you?

I remember when cassettes were used for commercial pop demos. Usually
peaked to maximum and then some - I suppose in the hope someone might
think it sounded 'better' on a ghetto blaster or car system.

Then along came DAT. Exactly the same over-mods. On a system which had
inaudible noise and a dynamic range many times that of cassette.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/04/14 17:25, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 30/04/14 14:47, RJH wrote:

I'd suggest the CD leaves
something out. It really is a personal thing, and is overall a sound I
like.

No it juts doesn't put anything IN.

Assuming there's nothing wrong with the ADC processing used to create the
CD, or the DAC for the listener.

Fair point but ADCs are pretty well understood and you only need ONE and
DACS - well the oversampling lets play sillybuggers with statistics and
add random jitter have got them as good as it gets.


http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDat.../CS4353_F3.pdf

have a look and weep..if you used to design audio.

THD+noise is 90db and is still 30dB at -60dB signal


At 60dB down on a vinyl pickup you'd be lucky to have 10dB margin on the
noise.

And 60dB is 0.1% give or take.

And this is a cheap 3 quid chip you can stick in any CD player.


I've got a cartridge and deck that cost over £500 here that cant begin
to match what a £30 CD player can do..

One day I'll get all my old albums into .wav or FLAC and sell it..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 30/04/14 17:51, RJH wrote:
On 30/04/2014 17:25, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 30/04/14 14:47, RJH wrote:

I'd suggest the CD leaves
something out. It really is a personal thing, and is overall a sound I
like.

No it juts doesn't put anything IN.

Assuming there's nothing wrong with the ADC processing used to create the
CD, or the DAC for the listener.


Something wrong in the architecture, perhaps. Or insufficient resolution.

But I'm also thinking there could be methodological issues with ADA
conversion.

Think away, but someone has always been there before you.

IN the end that's why I got out of audio design,. It had, by and large,
all been done.

When I stared, the norm was 50-15khz, 1% distortion 50dB S/N and hot
valves hum and microphony. FM lucky to work at 1mV (mono).

When I left we were pushing 0-100Khz, at 0.001% distortion and 90dB SNR
with CDS, and FM worked OK down to a microvolt. And had decent stereo.
Thats the one bit I could have seen get better.

Short of going into chip designs there was nothing left to do - except
repackage someone else's chips and write bull****.

Loudspeakers were and are as dire as they ever were..heard em all,. Quad
ELS, electrovoice and tannoy, JBL.. BIG JBL rigs remain my favourite for
PA/disco work. But again, repackage em. No design left.

I probably did the definitive work on making transistor guitar amps
sound like valve amps. Everybody copied it, its now standard stuff. NO
design left to do there either.

So I changed careers to software.

And started listening to music again, instead of hifi and PA equipment..

Some of my better ideas are in today's chips and amps, some are not.

But those were adaptations in many ways of stuff I ripped off from other
places. in the end there are only so many ways to solder transistors
together to make amps.

Content now that practically anything I buy is better than I could now
design, and its all in a chip...


Half fancied doing a guitar amp in software - A to D, a processor and
RAM D to A and a bog standard 'fake valve' output..Vox are there already..

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guita...plifier-132706

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

RJH wrote:

There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and fashion.


Vanity and fashion are two of the main drivers of human behaviour. Their
presence is enough to explain almost any bizarre behaviour.

Bill

In article , RJH
scribeth thus
On 30/04/2014 11:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
As an aside, I've always wondered about people who say they prefer vinyl
to CD. Do they prefer the imperfections and signal processing that
vinyl introduces, I wonder? Do they find a live performance (mic,
amplifier, speakers) as bad as a CD, or do they find that the
digitisation modifies the signal - can they distinguish live electronic
(all analogue) from CD?

Ignoring any surface noise etc, vinyl adds its own distortion. Which many
just happen to like.

If you carefully copy vinyl to CD I defy anyone to tell the difference in
a properly conducted blind test.

Do it the other way round - more difficult - and most can tell the
difference.

Which proves vinyl is distorting the original.


I understand the need for the use of the word distortion, and agree with
what you say. I'd just add that there's the possibility that somewhere
within medium and process, the alteration of the original signal makes
the sound more lifelike (preferable, better etc).

There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and fashion.

For Distortion read coloration;!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Steve Thackery
scribeth thus
Jim Lesurf wrote:

One possible reason is that many pop/rock CDs are level compressed
into clipping at replay.

Do you mean actual wave clipping, with the subsequent array of odd
harmonics? If so, I can't say I've heard that on any of my CDs. It
seems hard to believe they'd do it - it's such a trivial thing to
identify any potential clipping before generating the digital audio
stream for the CD that it must surely be utterly routine, or even
automated, to avoid it.

If you mean over-compressed so the dynamic range is limited, I can
accept what you mean. Pop/rock often seems to have virtually the same
volume level for the "quiet" and "loud" bits regardless.

Thats a problem with modern music or recordings . Try some going back a
few years and the dynamic range is better. All before using broadcast type
processors came to be fashionable in production studios;(...


This has nothing to do with what the media are capable of. Everything
to do with the behaviour of the people making the discs from the
master recordings.

I think that is very well put.

Yep..

To be honest, though, I would have
thought they'd be more likely to compress the dynamic range on vinyl
than on CD, because vinyl has such a limited dynamic range and SNR.


Well it can do more than say 3-5 dB but thats lost on the producers;! ...
--
Tony Sayer

My ultimate test of a hi-fi system was never to listen to the music,
only to the applause afterwards. If you could hear each individual
handclap instead of a mush of white noise, you had a very top line
system indeed.

Natural sounding male voice is an excellent test as well....


someone calculated that the information content of speech was about
50bps by the way.

In terms of getting an intelligible message across rather than a hifi one.


The interesting thing is that freeview is stat muxed. There is no
'bitrate' for any given channel.

so good audio depends on other channels being 'quiet' at that point in
time..



--
Tony Sayer

RJH wrote:

.... I wouldn't say 'better'. Just for me, preferable in some
circumstances.

Cool, we understand each other. :-)

--
SteveT

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
My ultimate test of a hi-fi system was never to listen to the music,
only to the applause afterwards. If you could hear each individual
handclap instead of a mush of white noise, you had a very top line
system indeed.

Natural sounding male voice is an excellent test as well....

Far better test. Although it's getting more difficult to find a well
recorded one.

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Chris J Dixon
wrote:
NY wrote:

One was Albion Band at Fleetwood a good while ago;

Long enough ago that Cathy was singing with them? :-)

Indeed it was. Any relation?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Chris J Dixon
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Chris J Dixon
wrote:

One was Albion Band at Fleetwood a good while ago;

Long enough ago that Cathy was singing with them? :-)

Indeed it was. Any relation?

Niece - Uncle

What a small world it is.

I have lost count of the number of times I have done a dance she
wrote - Joe Taylor's Hornpipe.

To remain vaguely on-topic, Ashley never seemed to have his
singers very forward in the mix, yet whenever he was calling for
dances, you could hear every word, so it wasn't really a
limitation of the kit.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.