Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe

Expand Messages
  • Robert Cham
    Interesting thread, if somewhat vague about standards. Speaking as someone involved with audio recording either full or part time since the 60s, I must say
    Message 1 of 57 , Dec 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe
      Interesting thread, if somewhat vague about standards.

      Speaking as someone involved with audio recording either full or part time since the '60s, I must say that 24 bit 192 KHz digital recording approaches the quality of a good analog tape machine at 15 ips.  CDs are a kludge forced upon the Audio Engineering Society, when they were trying to set a standard for digital recording in the early '80s.  The perpetrators were Sony and Phillips, who simply came to the first AES Digital Conference, and stated that the players and CDs would be available the following monday.  They were tired of spending money on research and that was that.  Power trumps basic research every time.  Just look at HD radio and TV.

      Now for some basic facts.  When digital runs out of bits there is either nothing, for small signals, or some rather obnoxious noises, for large signals (digital clipping).  Believe me, you'll never hear digital clipping.  The reason is that digital recording uses as it's "0" level 12 10 16 dBFS (decibels below full scale).  When analog clips hardly anyone notices so it uses at most 1 - 2 dBFS for it's "0" point.  So there goes 10 -14 dB of digitals supposed signal to noise ratio.

      Now we look at the bottom end of the loudness scale.  With digital 1 bit is the bottom.  There is NOTHING below one bit.  Analog is another matter.  Have you ever noticed that If your listening to a radio station in your car, you can finish listening to a song or story as you drive away and the
      station becomes noisy?  This is known as listening down into the noise.

      Research in the '70s and early '80s showed us that the AVERAGE person could discern information more than 30 dB down into the noise.  This is small signal information, the stuff that gives you the "air" around an instrument, and tells you the shape of the hall and where the side walls are.  In short, everything that makes a recording come alive!  Guess what falls below one bit on most digital recordings.

      So, if we agree that you don't use the top 12 - 16 dB in digital recordings, and analog recordings actually exist more than 30 dB below the noise floor, what has become of the "advantage" to digital recordings?

      Bob Cham

      I have to agree that current digital recordings far exceed old analog recordings at least from a pure capabilities standpoint. Don't want to offend but the nostalgia factor for vinyl is cool but the limitations of vinyl are easily proved when compared to digital. That is not to say that there aren't good analog recordings. But the advantages that digital offer make analog inferior. Biggest problem with recordings is the mastering, so much music is and was and is poorly mastered.

      Good recordings have very little to do with the playback technology. The biggest advantage of digital over analog is the available dynamic range. You lose about 50db when you step back to analog. Unfortunately recording engineers don't as a practice take advantage of it. Since the 50's compression has been a popular tool in the recording studio. Without all the boring details it is done to sell more records even today. The masses don't own a system that can resolve hifi quali ty so they don't care.

      There are some artist that insist on accurate and good mastering but if your favorite genre is rock or pop forget about it. You've been hosed for about 5 decades. There are a few good recordings in this genre but for every good one there are dozens that are unlistenable regardless of whether they are digital or analog. Actually the only audible difference between a digital and analog source of the same recording is a big loss in dynamic range on the analog version.

      Compare some digital tracks from a provider like HDTracks.com you will easily see how superior digital formats can be. Too bad the selections are so limited.


        From: "chimeralabs" [chimeraone@...]
        Sent: 12/04/2010 03:41 PM GMT
        To: dallasaudioclub@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [dallasaudioclub] Re: need turntabe

      Based on what my ears tell me, how we store and playback Music to maximize sound performance will be digital.

      There are very few analog recording studios left. I always thought a record offered better sound performance because it was recorded in analog. Using a Digital Master to cut an analog record doesn't make much sense to me.

      I have heard some superb audio systems where the Music is stored on a solid state hard drive or SD card, no jitter, and fed into a USB DAC. Here are some links you might find interesting.




      Digital done properly is getting aw fully good. Some people I know with large record collection are digitally recording them for conveniance and listening to their records less and less.

      In my opinion, using a computer to create your own "records" by selecting tracks from your favorite albums is a great way to listen to Music.

      Bob Cham
      KTRU FM
    • skrogh
      I posted some picks at PE of my latest build. not really a build, per se, but used some cabinets from some old north American Sound mini-Monitors that I
      Message 57 of 57 , Jul 28, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I posted some picks at PE of my latest build. not really a build, per se, but used some cabinets from some old north American Sound mini-Monitors that I slapped on a coat of rustoleum and screwed in the drivers. I still have my old NAS monitors that are below the garage speakers. Dave Thomas designed the XO and I just assemble them.  It's amazing what you can learn on You Tube!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.