+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

Thread: Mober Bearing and inner platter for Lp 12 YES.....

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    517
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TIU View Post
    Surely the higher frequencies at 22kHz and above are beyond what we can hear.
    they are but it's the harmonics that need to be recorded to ensure you get the shape of the waveform at 20Khz, if you sampled at 20Khz then you'd just get a horrid square wave as it would be either on or off.

    If you have a nice 20khz waveform you'll want to have reference points all across the wave to be able to accurately reproduce it.

    It's why CD's used to struggle and sound artificial at the top end as the resolution was lower.

    But if you're recording 20Khz and have 192Khz to sample it with then you're not going to have any issue getting all the information

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    11,147
    Rep Power
    1792665

    Default

    I don't know what sampling means.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    517
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Draw a waveform on some gridded paper.

    The horizontal lines are your amplitude resolution
    The vertical lines are your samples.

    So wherever you waveform meets an intersection on your grid you record where the signal was.

    Now, on another gridded piece of paper, using only the data points you recorded on the first one use that information to recreate the waveform.

    As you probably drew a nice curvy waveform you'll have no chance of recreating it.

    On CD audio you have 44100 vertical lines in your grid and 65536 horizontal lines, not bad for 1983!

    On HD digital your grid has 192000 vertical and 2147483647 horizontal lines on the same sized piece of paper so the improvement is stark.

    However compared to say 4K video this is a piddly amount of data to record and play back.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    Yes, it's a bit pointless to go higher as that's way beyond the 'resolution' of the human ear. From a data point of view though it's still tiny so if you wanted to have the perfect digital system you could record at something crazy but other than creating a large data file you're not going to make any difference to what you could hear.
    there has been tests showing that the harmonics far above our normal hearing range have an effect on what we do hear,not sure how high those harmonics go though BUT there have also been other tests showing that harmonics above our normal range don't affect what we hear! all I know is that never bothered with digital after buying a cd player years ago and found the sound quality lacking(still listen to CDs in the car though:-records tend to skip too much!):-this was after we were told CDs were perfect,would never skip/jump/play badly etc,all it proved to me was newer isn't always better,I've always thought the main reasons digital has and is still being pushed in various forms is because of convenience for the end user and more importantly easier and cheaper for the vendors:-there are quite a few processes less than releasing stuff on vinyl

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    11,147
    Rep Power
    1792665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    Draw a waveform on some gridded paper.

    The horizontal lines are your amplitude resolution
    The vertical lines are your samples.

    So wherever you waveform meets an intersection on your grid you record where the signal was.

    Now, on another gridded piece of paper, using only the data points you recorded on the first one use that information to recreate the waveform.

    As you probably drew a nice curvy waveform you'll have no chance of recreating it.

    On CD audio you have 44100 vertical lines in your grid and 65536 horizontal lines, not bad for 1983!

    On HD digital your grid has 192000 vertical and 2147483647 horizontal lines on the same sized piece of paper so the improvement is stark.

    However compared to say 4K video this is a piddly amount of data to record and play back.
    I understood the first word 'draw'.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The padded cell.
    Posts
    1,627
    Rep Power
    3389535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TIU View Post
    I understood the first word 'draw'.


    If only qube could 'draw' pictures like you do..... Oh what beatiful music there would be!!
    You can only be young once, but you can be immature for ever.....

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    517
    Rep Power
    0

    Default



    red wavy line is your original signal. the square version is your digital recreation. The higher the resolution of your sampling/bits the smaller those squares become.

    As long as you're at least 4x the maximum frequency you're wanting to record or using over-sampling then there are no square edges.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Next door to the Clangers
    Posts
    11,929
    Rep Power
    40382552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TIU View Post
    I don't think analogue record reproduction has the widest frequency range so it's compromised from the word go.?
    It's not the frequency range it's the dynamic range, CD has a theoretical much higher range between the quietest and the loudest sounds, thing is though for 99% of what we listen to the 20Hz - 20KHz and the dynamic range of vinyl leaves plenty of headroom. Anytime I listen to CD it sounds like a recording, whereas vinyl sounds like a performance, and the quietest sounds and the shapes of the sounds in general on vinyl sounds more realistic, it shouldn't, but it does.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    517
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The main problem with digital is in the mastering, because you've a big dynamic range there's a tendency to boost everything and compress it to make it loud. As people generally have smaller systems these days or earphones then this compressing ensures you can hear it. But if you play those recordings on a proper hi-fi then you hear all that shite and it sounds terrible.

    You can't do that to the same extent with vinyl you'd just snap your stylus and get a very short runtime on each side. Also as vinyl isn't really a portable format or played on little systems then they master it with a much more sympathetic ear.

    However the way a record sounds isn't magic, if you used the master for an LP complete with RIAA curve and put that onto a CD it would sound exactly the same as the record does, minus the surface noise and whatnot.

  10. #30

    Default

    I'd like to know how something that is sampled(which in fact means not everything is used) and then reassembled ever be as perfect as the pushers of all thing digital claim?if it's sampled surely it can't be?In the future if star trek transporter tech becomes a reality would you want to be sampled and then reassembled from that?how many times could you be sampled and reassembled before the bits missing from this sampling became an issue to you living?

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    517
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steve195527 View Post
    I'd like to know how something that is sampled(which in fact means not everything is used) and then reassembled ever be as perfect as the pushers of all thing digital claim?if it's sampled surely it can't be?In the future if star trek transporter tech becomes a reality would you want to be sampled and then reassembled from that?how many times could you be sampled and reassembled before the bits missing from this sampling became an issue to you living?
    Well it's how you define 'perfect', if you have enough information collected to recreate something to the point that it's indistinguishable from the source then continuing to up the resolution further becomes redundant.

    Given how easy it is to then endlessly duplicate digital information without altering it it ensures that the data is preserved. For audio if you ignore crosstalk, headroom, signal to noise, speed fluctuations, environmental effects, inconsistencies in tape quality, tape stretching, tape tension being different at the centre of the tape compared to the edges, sources degrading over time and so on every time you take a copy you're adding a new set of those artefacts on top again so it gets further and further away from the original source each time, you'd never want an analog transporter system.

    Take film, now it's well known that the human eye is rubbish, it's a terrible 'design' that can only see a tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, it's why they have night-vision goggles to let people see infra-red or have to use artificial colour to see objects in the night sky. You could make a camera that recorded everything from infra-red to ultra-violet so you're 100% sure that you've captured the full image, however unless you're a goldfish you're not going to be able to tell the difference so until they start genetically modifying humans or give people cybernetic eyes then they're only going to make cameras that capture the frequencies of light regular people can see, and displays that can reproduce that data.


    If you were to record someone singing, or an instrument, it's probable that frequencies were created that were either infra or ultrasonic but the microphone used isn't designed to be capable of recording those, the analog tape isn't either, if the ADC and digital system could do it it will have no input due to limitations of the microphone, so you're just creating a ton of empty data. But regardless, you then take your WAV recorded at say 128bits @ 1Mhz and then try to play it back, assuming the digital player has an appropriate DAC then the amplifier can't handle anything outside of 20-20000Hz so those will just get filtered out and even if the amp could cope with such a massive bandwidth then the speakers couldn't do it. But if you had a special transducer ultra-high tweeter that could then your eardrum won't notice those vibrations anyway so it all becomes pointless, providing your target audience are people.

    Whilst I very much agree that listening to vinyl has a nicer sound to CD it's not because the vinyl is more accurate, far from it.

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    Well it's how you define 'perfect', if you have enough information collected to recreate something to the point that it's indistinguishable from the source then continuing to up the resolution further becomes redundant.

    Given how easy it is to then endlessly duplicate digital information without altering it it ensures that the data is preserved. For audio if you ignore crosstalk, headroom, signal to noise, speed fluctuations, environmental effects, inconsistencies in tape quality, tape stretching, tape tension being different at the centre of the tape compared to the edges, sources degrading over time and so on every time you take a copy you're adding a new set of those artefacts on top again so it gets further and further away from the original source each time, you'd never want an analog transporter system.

    Take film, now it's well known that the human eye is rubbish, it's a terrible 'design' that can only see a tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, it's why they have night-vision goggles to let people see infra-red or have to use artificial colour to see objects in the night sky. You could make a camera that recorded everything from infra-red to ultra-violet so you're 100% sure that you've captured the full image, however unless you're a goldfish you're not going to be able to tell the difference so until they start genetically modifying humans or give people cybernetic eyes then they're only going to make cameras that capture the frequencies of light regular people can see, and displays that can reproduce that data.


    If you were to record someone singing, or an instrument, it's probable that frequencies were created that were either infra or ultrasonic but the microphone used isn't designed to be capable of recording those, the analog tape isn't either, if the ADC and digital system could do it it will have no input due to limitations of the microphone, so you're just creating a ton of empty data. But regardless, you then take your WAV recorded at say 128bits @ 1Mhz and then try to play it back, assuming the digital player has an appropriate DAC then the amplifier can't handle anything outside of 20-20000Hz so those will just get filtered out and even if the amp could cope with such a massive bandwidth then the speakers couldn't do it. But if you had a special transducer ultra-high tweeter that could then your eardrum won't notice those vibrations anyway so it all becomes pointless, providing your target audience are people.

    Whilst I very much agree that listening to vinyl has a nicer sound to CD it's not because the vinyl is more accurate, far from it.
    perfect isn't open to definition,the definition is within that word:-perfect! if it isn't perfect it isn't perfect it's near enough but not perfect
    Last edited by steve195527; 11th March 2017 at 11:24.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Carmarthenshire, West Wales.
    Posts
    1,016
    Rep Power
    155405

    Default

    Perfect is what's best for an individual's needs or desires..

    That's why the best (or perfection) will not suit all and is therefore completely unattainable. Seeking perfection is another matter.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    11,147
    Rep Power
    1792665

    Default

    Pure semantics gents. Does it really matter?

    Humans prefer an analogue sound. Androids prefer a digital sound. Sorted.
    Last edited by TIU; 11th March 2017 at 12:35.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Carmarthenshire, West Wales.
    Posts
    1,016
    Rep Power
    155405

    Default

    I can only agree with that analogy Gary : isn't life analogue?

    For today's audio, analogue signal is broken down into digital bits (1's & 0's) but then for us humans to hear and make sense of what's carried in the digital signal it has to be converted back into analogue. So why bother is the pertinent question?

    I guess it's inevitable that elements of the original signal is lost, or even something worse, (noise?) is added in the process?
    Last edited by John R; 11th March 2017 at 16:16.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    517
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I think it would be interesting for you to look into how the music we listen to is recorded, processed, chopped up, compressed, mastered etc before it comes anywhere near the system that plays it back.

    If your objective is 'perfection' i.e perfect
    adjective
    adjective: perfect
    ˈpəːfɪkt/

    1.
    having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

    So as close to the original master as possible then a high definition digital system achieves that far closer than any analog system.

    But the 'analog sound' that you get from vinyl isn't a mystery and can be recreated digitally if so required.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Carmarthenshire, West Wales.
    Posts
    1,016
    Rep Power
    155405

    Default

    Agreed to a point, but my argument is.

    Whatever somebody may think of as being perfect - i.e. meeting all their needs, may actually be way off the mark for somebody else?

    Unless perhaps they are a hopeless, or is that a hapless Linnie? When only their beloved 18.5k top spec LP12 SE is the best TT ever made - ever! This is universally agreed on the Linn forum.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    11,147
    Rep Power
    1792665

    Default

    One of the best sounding CDs I have is Communique by Dire Straits. It was the first CD I bought at the time the format was new. What did they get right then which perhaps they don't now?

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Carmarthenshire, West Wales.
    Posts
    1,016
    Rep Power
    155405

    Default

    And the best I have is Trinity Revisited by the Cowboy Junkies - awesome recording and on digital !

    I'll get me coat...

  20. #40

    Default

    I was aiming my comment at the vendors rather than what we consider perfection to be,they originally claimed digital was 100% perfect ,its not!:-being perfect is an objective measurement not a subjective opinion,the subjective version is "perfect for me"(or words to that effect,meaning the imperfections don't matter,even though they exist)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts