7 Feb
2007
7 Feb
'07
11:46 a.m.
The analog to digital transition is not significant at
all, really.
Once the audio is in those two RCA connectors or phono plugs, it does
not really matter if it is coming or going to digital or analog
source.
Absolutely false.
The reason early CDs sounded so bad was they often started with the
Master mixdown tapes from the LP, which had a lot of bad juju done
to them due to the limitations of the vinyl medium.
That's why so much work has been put into remastering from original
multitracks, when possible.
The problem is people EXPECT the music to sound like what they heard
on vinyl. Getting the remix to sound 'right' is tough to do.
Pretty much all of
this is mainstream, anyway, so the record companies do the
conversions.
This won't happen, as people have said, for stuff out of the mainstream.
When it's done, it is often from vinyl, since the original tapes have
been lost.
.. getting this back to preservation, at least we work (mostly) with
digital saturation recording.
7 Feb
7 Feb
12:26 p.m.
The analog to
digital transition is not significant at all, really.
Once the audio is in those two RCA connectors or phono plugs, it does
not really matter if it is coming or going to digital or analog
source.
Absolutely false. 
12:33 p.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
Yes, I know getting the signal from the original
multitracks is the
best way to do it, however, these days there is some very
sophisticated processing that can happen once the signal is on the
wires. Obviously there are some things you just can not get back, but
in general, you can make a lot of things sound very good. This is not
like software - a small degradation in the signal quality is not going
to trash the whole thing.
*$#@!* You have not read the fine print on the CD format.
(Too low a sampling rate )
1:02 p.m.
On 07/02/07, woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
William Donzelli wrote:
*$#@!* You have not read the fine print on the CD format.
(Too low a sampling rate )
I don't think the sampling rate of CD's is too low. Early A/D
converters may have cut out a bit too early, but for the last decade
or so, with oversampling A/Ds the 3dB cutoff has crept very close to
Nyquist.
And noone here (western industrialized culture)- except a very select
few - will have any significant perception of sounds exceeding 18kHz.
Either you'll be in an age group (above X years) where you hearing
naturally degrades or (below X years) where you will have had
sufficient exposure to damage the high-frequency hair cells due to
environmental noise or good old Rock'n'Roll.
A few years ago, I asked a sound engineer (classical music, Martha de
Francisco at McGill) about the early CDs and why so many people
thought it was too "dry" or "clinical": her claim was that the noise
floor of the medium is too low. In effect - just as it says on some
AAD CDs these days - the CD will expose flaws in the master tape. (The
particular problem is/was ambience: on modern recordings more
microphones are added, far away from the performers; this adds late
reverb that with LPs would fall below the noise level)
I don't think any LP has frequency content above 20kHz that is not
near-gaussian noise created by physical imperfections in the LP
material.
Sorry this is way off-topic and is almost guaranteed to incite an
audiophile flamewar... :-)
Joe.
2:06 p.m.
I don't think the sampling rate of CD's is too
low. Early A/D
converters may have cut out a bit too early, but for the last decade
or so, with oversampling A/Ds the 3dB cutoff has crept very close to
Nyquist.
For a CD at 16-bit 44.1 kHz there is a difference, for a SA-CD or DVD-A at
24-bit 96 kHz basically no one will here a difference. I for one would love
to have the Mercury Living Presense and RCA Living Stereo classical releases
they did on SA-CD, as it's almost impossible to find good LP's at an
affordable price. At the moment I own one dual format CD/SA-CD, but don't
even have an SA-CD player. Oh, well, I normally listen to the LP of that
album anyway.
I don't think any LP has frequency content above
20kHz that is not
near-gaussian noise created by physical imperfections in the LP
material.
I'm honestly not sure where it falls with LP's or 45's. With a 78, it
depends on the publisher, or even when it was done, but anything over
10-12kHz is noise on a 78.
Sorry this is way off-topic and is almost guaranteed
to incite an
audiophile flamewar... :-)
No doubt :^)
Zane
3:54 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
For a CD at 16-bit 44.1 kHz there is a difference, for
a SA-CD or DVD-A at
24-bit 96 kHz basically no one will here a difference.
Well I got a DVD-A player, and *THREE* DVD-A disks. I can't get 24 96Khz
out because you need a 5 channel system. I have *stereo* system for listening
to the music, but the software thinks we all need 5 channels, and it defaults
back to CD quality.
I for one would love
to have the Mercury Living Presense and RCA Living Stereo classical releases
they did on SA-CD, as it's almost impossible to find good LP's at an
affordable price. At the moment I own one dual format CD/SA-CD, but don't
even have an SA-CD player. Oh, well, I normally listen to the LP of that
album anyway.
Now does anybody give real specs on why a DVD/CD player ranges from $29
to $2,900 and all the box sayes is *improved video*?
For some information about how people that like music, ended up as
the minority can be found here.
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/index.html
4:57 p.m.
Joachim Thiemann wrote:
On 07/02/07, woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
wrote:
Exactly, the sampling rate is fine.
Now, the amplitude... that is indeed not enough. There is an audible
difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings in the quiet parts.
Thankfully, DVD-Audio and SACD have both addressed that.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
William Donzelli wrote:
*$#@!* You have not read the fine print on the CD format.
(Too low a sampling rate )
I don't think the sampling rate of CD's is too low.
7:45 p.m.
On 07/02/07, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
Exactly, the sampling rate is fine.
Now, the amplitude... that is indeed not enough. There is an audible
difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings in the quiet parts.
Thankfully, DVD-Audio and SACD have both addressed that.
I agree. To bring the topic back to computers, it's that silly
facination with powers-of-2 wordsizes: 16 bits only give 96dB dynamic
range; most music that is interesting (and IMHO this _requires_
dynamics :-) needs at least 120dB (each extra bit gives you about
6dB). And unfortunately, nonlinear A/D or D/A's are difficult to
build and calibrate past 10 bits or so - no uLaw/ALaw which would
otherwise help.
See e.g. Louis D. Fielder, "Dynamic-Range Issues in the Modern Digital
Environment" JAES Vol. 43, No. 5, 1995 May.
Joe.
8 Feb
8 Feb
1:13 a.m.
Hi,
Jim Leonard said:
Joachim Thiemann wrote:
Another problem is the digital to analog transition. Most cd players
use sharp cut-off "brick-wall" filters to remove the digital steps from
the d2a converter. This type of filter is notorious for large amplitude
and phase shift swings near the cut-off frequency. At least one firm
made money by taking Sony cd players and installing their own electronics
with lower slope and thus "cleaner" filters, allegedly with good results.
There is a classic computer connection, one of the firms was Linn who
funded the development of the Rekursiv computer and the Lingo
programming language back in the '80s.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb at dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
On 07/02/07, woodelf <bfranchuk at
jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
Exactly, the sampling rate is fine.
Now, the amplitude... that is indeed not enough. There is an audible
difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings in the quiet parts.
Thankfully, DVD-Audio and SACD have both addressed that. William Donzelli wrote:
*$#@!* You have not read the fine print on the CD format.
(Too low a sampling rate )
I don't think the sampling rate of CD's is too low. 
7 Feb
7 Feb
1:26 p.m.
The reason early CDs sounded so bad was they often
started with the
Master mixdown tapes from the LP, which had a lot of bad juju done
to them due to the limitations of the vinyl medium.
That's why so much work has been put into remastering from original
multitracks, when possible.
The problem is people EXPECT the music to sound like what they heard
on vinyl. Getting the remix to sound 'right' is tough to do.
What can be really interesting is playing a CD and an LP done at the same
time. In one example I have, I can hear things on the LP (parts of the
song), that simply aren't on the CD. OTOH, production qualities were so low
in the 80's for LP's that the CD's vs LP's of the same album will often
sound better.
These days I listen almost exclusively to vinyl. While this leaves out
certain artists (unless I break down and buy the CD), there is still a
significant amount of new music released on LP's, and unlike the 80's, they
are typically on high quality vinyl.
Pretty much
all of
this is mainstream, anyway, so the record companies do the
conversions.
This won't happen, as people have said, for stuff out of the mainstream.
When it's done, it is often from vinyl, since the original tapes have
been lost. .. getting this back to preservation, at least we work
(mostly) with
digital saturation recording.
Personally, right now I'm working with 78's. Getting those to sound right
can be a very interesting experience do to all of the different equalization
curves that were used. Once you start to get it right, it is surprising how
good they can sound. Though there is still quite a bit of surface noise on
most. Removing the surface noise, along with the pops and clicks, without
distorting the audio can be interesting, and definitely takes practice.
High-end computers along with specialized software have been used in this
area for a long enough period that it's even more or less on-topic.
Zane
8 Feb
8 Feb
3:10 p.m.
On 2/7/07 8:46 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
The reason early CDs sounded so bad was they often
started with the
Master mixdown tapes from the LP, which had a lot of bad juju done
to them due to the limitations of the vinyl medium.
That's why so much work has been put into remastering from original
multitracks, when possible.
Mastering isn't done from multitrack tapes, that's mixing. Mastering is done
after the mixdown to stereo (or mono, in the olden days).
,xtG
.tsooJ
--
When someone asks if you're a god, say "yes."
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>
6532
days inactive
6533
days old
12 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
joachim.thiemann＠gmail.com -
jvdg＠sparcpark.net -
stanb＠dial.pipex.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com