Skip to main content

Topic: Archiving vinyl once only 96/24? (Read 11214 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #25
Please don't top-post.
  • Last Edit: 27 March, 2013, 11:54:07 AM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Mach-X
  • [*][*][*][*]
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #26
Indeed perhaps being naive about jitter, and not really understanding what "supposed" effect it has on audio, perhaps Ive bypassed the "audiophile" stage and saved myself a lot of money! When I hear an lp, I hear crackles and pops. When I hear a cassette, I hear tape hiss and dropouts. Those things to me are very real and displace any arguments about frequencies only bats can hear, supposed differences in mastering or *ahem* jitter. Not that im discouraging your project, not at all! Its a labour of love for your music collection and I support your project 100%. You will appreciate your music that much more as you go through each album.

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #27
Thats a bit rude isnt it?
Especially after all the really good advice and useful replies people have offered?
It’s not rude to recommend alternative approaches to etiquette, especially when they are specifically qualified as also likely to be beneficial to the person receiving the recommendation.

Quote
Re-read the mail I sent.
You can see its a thread I started and its a 'rhetorical question' in which I stated 'Another question maybe for another forum is' and was planning to do that!
Then why post it here? This doesn’t work as an excuse if you ask me. Also, by your standards, telling him to re-read your message is rude as it implies that his comprehension was deficient in the first instance. Now do you see why concern trolling is almost always an impediment?

  • matt_a
  • [*]
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #28
Quite right, I was too hasty on the keyboard, sorry if any offence was taken.
I will be posting the jitter question into another category.

  • matt_a
  • [*]
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #29
I forgot to mention that its interesting listening to some of my Vinyl rips as I wasnt sure initially how much of the vinyl sound could be captured digitally, the in room prescence that is often associated with a good quality vinyl pressing.

To my amazement it was!

I guess its caused by a combination of things such as specific eq that exists in the vinyl version compared to the bought CD, mid band projection etc.
I bet a CD rip can be made to sound like Vinyl with the correct filters. I didnt think it could as it was that magical untangible thing about LPs!

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #30
Thats a bit rude isnt it?
Rude or not, you'll get a lot out of reading the FAQ and trying the search function.

If you had, the fact that a CD quality copy perfectly recreates the sound of playing vinyl directly would not have come as a surprise.

Don't worry, we all have to learn. Good luck with the transfers.

Cheers,
David.

  • matt_a
  • [*]
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #31
I have had a really good read through all the FAQ etc and it was all jolly helpful.
The reality for me though as someone that has been a diehard analogue person for 25 years is still quite ear opening. I've got a good quality lp12 front end and always assumed that the digital process would ruin the 'magic'.
But in fact there is no magic presumably some Lps do/dont from a good quality master and some CDs do/don't.
Im sure on another forum I noticed someone offering methods using plugins within a daw for turning anaemic sounding CD rips if you have any into that vinyl sound.

Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #32
I'm curious though as to why digital interfaces provide 96k (or even 192) if 44/48 is good enough?


(1) Because they can do it.

(2) Because they don't want to be limited to smaller numbers than their competition.

Quote
Is it a manufacturing ploy to get people to buy new stuff?


If memory serves, 24/96 computer audio interfaces started showing up around the year 2000, and 24/192 maybe 4 years later.  Little or no price premium for 24/192,  if you bought a pro grade card with balanced I/O and such, it came ready to do 24/192.

So by now everybody who is buying anything but bottom-buck audio interfaces has a2 4/192 card.

Quote
I assumed that a 24 bit v 16 bit sample of a vinyl signal peak adjusted prior to the adc at the phono
stage to give a -3db peak would actually contain more info or am i missing something.


If you are digitizing vinyl with anything but a bottom buck I/O interface, the weakest link is the vinyl. Adding bits to the converters can't help a source with limited dynamic range.

Vinyl is usually thought to have 11-12 bits worth of resolution, at best. 9-10 bit resolution is not unusual.


  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #33
If you're going to sample at higher than Redbook rates, 88.2 is already overkill to account for even theoretical problems with A/D , and will yield a smaller filesize than 96kHz.

http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry...ality_audio.pdf
Quote
At 60 KHz sampling rate, the contribution of AD and DA to any attenuation in the audible range is negligible.
Although 60 KHz would be closer to the ideal; given the existing standards, 88.2 KHz and 96 KHz are closest
to the optimal sample rate.


  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #34
Sampling and playback at higher rates is (was?) useful in getting around limitations in analog anti-aliasing/imaging filters.

I imagine this is no longer a problem?
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • DonP
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #35
Sampling and playback at higher rates is (was?) useful in getting around limitations in analog anti-aliasing/imaging filters.

I imagine this is no longer a problem?


Pretty early on (first couple of years) some cd players (Philips) upsampled internally.  No need to actually store all that on disk
  • Last Edit: 29 March, 2013, 05:02:15 PM by DonP

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
Reply #36
Oversampling; sure.  I didn't mean to suggest that it should be stored this way.
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.