Skip to main content
Topic: CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound" (Read 30095 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Does mpc encoder support 24bit/96KHz encoding?
can i store such a signal on a wav file?

i am thinking of recording sound from an LP with an external Analog to Digital convertor and sample it to 24bit.
can i convert it into mpc and still preserve the high precision sampling and large dynamic range?
"La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid."

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #1
I know that MPC only supports one setting, and I don't believe that's it. AAC may be the way to go, it will do just about anything.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #2
Oh my god!.... [span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](does anyone else see the same humor here that i do?)[/span]
No, MPC supports up to 48khz.
Yes, you can store such a signal on a wav file.
I suggest you to not use 96khz, it's ridiculously unnecessary, so is 24bit, at most use 48khz. You don't intend to do anything with it anyway right? Just listen to it.. so 24bit is not necessary.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #3
from http://musepack.org/faq/ :
Quote
Q: What about sample frequencies other than 44.1 kHz?
A: Streamversion 4-7 only supports 44.1 kHz. It is planned to include native support of 32, 48, and 96khz files in SV8. The main problem is that you must tune every sample frequency to achieve good results. 48 kHz may not be a big problem.
not sure how would that be implemented, but probably 96 will get downsampled prior to encoding?

edit: i guess the faq is a bit out of date, mppenc reports something like:
Code: [Select]
Currently only 32, 37.8, 44.1 and 48 kHz, 1...8 channels, 8...32 bit linear PCM
is supported.
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #4
Oh well I was expecting that kind of narrow minded answer. While the 96 KHz range is arguable. 24bit sampling is not. If you really want to go into it: I don't know what kind of hardware people use here, and what kind of music they listen too, but don't make any generalizations.

I don't think that because sound is transported from a computer it has to be crap, and 16bit sampled sound is crap. Even on 1000$ loudspeakers you can hear the 16bit sampling granularity, you can hear it perfectly well even on a 10,000$ high end CD transports.

24bit sampling gets you much closer to something we had a long time ago, warm analog sound. While I agree that the technical hassle of listening to LPs is more then I can bare these days, I still miss that sound and want to try and reproduce it.
High end audio equipment has allot to gain from 24bit sampling, especially if D/A is done properly and outside the electrically noisy computer case. And since storage prices are practically funny these days, a 50% increase in sampling size is not an issue.

Smok3, I am happy to see that 96Kz will have native support on SV8, but what about 24bit sampling?
SK1 , do you know of somethign more importent to do with sound other then listening to it?

smoke3, What the hell is 32bit sampling? I am hanging around recording studios allot and I have never heard of 32bit sampling...
"La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid."

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #5
Quote
what about 24bit sampling?
allready supported:
Code: [Select]
8...32 bit linear PCM is supported.

32 bit? dunno, maybe it is like 24+8 so 8 bits is used for alpha channel?    (joking)

edit: just tested with the 24 bit input, it is actualy converted to 16bit, at least that is what i get back from mppdec. (which was kinda expected since we are talking about lossy encoder)
edit3: deleted some bs.
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #6
joke or no joke, it would be nice to see audio hardware taken as seriously as display hardware ...
"La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid."

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #7
Quote
I don't think that because sound is transported from a computer it has to be crap, and 16bit sampled sound is crap

Well fuck that man!! All your CDs are CRAP!!!

Please stop spreading BS, and calling people narrow minded.
And other stuff i don't feel like commenting on.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #8
You know what, i will comment..
Yes, i know other stuff to do with "sound", edit it, mix it with more sound, and various other stuff, use your imagination.
Quote
24bit sampling gets you much closer to something we had a long time ago, warm analog sound. While I agree that the technical hassle of listening to LPs is more then I can bare these days, I still miss that sound and want to try and reproduce it.

Look, i live in Israel too, and i know that in Israel this bullshit talk is everywhere, all those weirdo lamoh audiophiles, HERE though, many people usually know what they're saying, that's why i love this forum.

Quote
High end audio equipment has allot to gain from 24bit sampling, especially if D/A is done properly and outside the electrically noisy computer case.

I just love those claims...SHOW me, PROVE to me if you say stuff, anyway, you don't know what you're talking about, so please.

Quote
smoke3, What the hell is 32bit sampling? I am hanging around recording studios allot and I have never heard of 32bit sampling...

32bit sampling is 32bit sampling. I wonder what recording studios you need to hang out to see 32bit sampling  ... anyway, you don't need recording studios for that.

edit: I AM -SICK- of that israeli "audiophile" talk!!! It's everywhere here! MAN! Now i see exactly the same here, can't escape it damnit...

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #9
Quote
Oh well I was expecting that kind of narrow minded answer. While the 96 KHz range is arguable. 24bit sampling is not. If you really want to go into it: I don't know what kind of hardware people use here, and what kind of music they listen too, but don't make any generalizations.

I don't think that because sound is transported from a computer it has to be crap, and 16bit sampled sound is crap. Even on 1000$ loudspeakers you can hear the 16bit sampling granularity, you can hear it perfectly well even on a 10,000$ high end CD transports.

24bit sampling gets you much closer to something we had a long time ago, warm analog sound. While I agree that the technical hassle of listening to LPs is more then I can bare these days, I still miss that sound and want to try and reproduce it.
High end audio equipment has allot to gain from 24bit sampling, especially if D/A is done properly and outside the electrically noisy computer case. And since storage prices are practically funny these days, a 50% increase in sampling size is not an issue.

Smok3, I am happy to see that 96Kz will have native support on SV8, but what about 24bit sampling?
SK1 , do you know of somethign more importent to do with sound other then listening to it?

smoke3, What the hell is 32bit sampling? I am hanging around recording studios allot and I have never heard of 32bit sampling...

According to ABX blind testing, very few people can tell the difference between 16-bit truncation and 16-bit dithering. If adding noise to a signal (either way adds a different style of noise, in a manner of speaking) does not decrease transparency, it's added below the level of transparency. Try the test yourself. Download the MAD plugin for Winamp, as well as the standard one. Download ABC/HR (a link's somewhere around here). Compare the two WAVs. If you can't ABX the two, you can't hear what's going on at that 16-bit level. Thus, the 24-bit stuff is useless. It is statistically unlikely that you'll be able to do this. In fact, you'll probably notice MP3 artifacting before you'll notice the bit of error in decoding. And if your hearing is truly that good, after you've blind tested to make sure that you're not hearing placebo, chances are you'll want to go with lossless.

I read somewhere that the tube amp sounds warmer because of subtle signal processing that it performs. I wouldn't doubt that the warmer sound of vinyl is similar. CD reproduces the exact sound the producer intends. It will not warp, and it can be read exactly. Vinyl cannot do this. I've heard that some people can notice a difference in vinyl's sound after one listening, and although this sounds bogus to me, it's also a possibility because vinyl is read by rubbing the stylus against the record.

Edit:
Alternately, use these "high quality" 24/96 files of yours and dither/truncate them down to 16-bit.

Edit mkII:
Something else I realized: What is the original source of the vinyl information? A digital source? That'd be a lossy transcode to vinyl, there, while the CD version would merely be a down-sampling. Otherwise, what's original source? A tape? I think the flaws of tape-based analog media are pretty well defined. Or is it directly recorded on vinyl?

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #10
Let's try to keep the discussion civil please...

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #11
The only way it'll be able to be civil is if i'll go now, which i'm gonna do .
Sorry about all this, this triggered a hatered of mine i'd much prefer to forget, and i'm in a pretty bad mood! Sorry! See you later.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #12
"24bit sampling gets you much closer to something we had a long time ago, warm analog sound. While I agree that the technical hassle of listening to LPs is more then I can bare these days, I still miss that sound and want to try and reproduce it."

"High end audio equipment has allot to gain from 24bit sampling, especially if D/A is done properly and outside the electrically noisy computer case."

Someone is clearly misinformed and making it up along the way...


CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #13
Quote
24bit sampling gets you much closer to something we had a long time ago, warm analog sound. While I agree that the technical hassle of listening to LPs is more then I can bare these days, I still miss that sound and want to try and reproduce it.

Blah... more than you can bear?  Yes, dropping a needle can be hard work, and the agonies of having to flip a record every 20-30 minutes... 

Edit -- OK, yeah it's a pain in the tail (which is why I "rip" most of my vinyl).  But as you can see, you won't get much sympathy from anyone in this forum.  Strangely enough, if the hi-rez formats catch on then I suspect redbook CD will be viewed as a "degraded" or "obsolete" format by nearly everyone, and will be considered sonically deficient.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #14
Quote
Strangely enough, if the hi-rez formats catch on then I suspect redbook CD will be viewed as a "degraded" or "obsolete" format by nearly everyone, and will be considered sonically deficient.

I'm more apt to think that the community will respond: "You can't ABX the difference, so who cares which CD you buy?" Maybe they'll even get annoyed at the hi-rez formats for attempting to fix something that isn't broken.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #15
The problem with using any standard lossy audio compression technique to compress 24/96 material is that they are all designed around standard psychoacoustic perception models. These models all predict that 24/96 material sounds exactly like 16/44, so obviously they are not going to bother encoding any of the extra information present in the 24/96.

On the other hand, WavPack's lossy mode works very well with 24/96 material because it is not a perceptual encoder (and in fact does nothing in the frequency domain at all). Instead, it simply requantizes the signal as accurately as possible given the target bitrate using algorithms originally designed for lossless encoding (which it also can perform). The only characteristic is has that could be considered "perceptual" is that at higher sampling rates it uses first order noise shaping to reduce the audibility of the quantization noise by shifting its frequency upward.

I have had very good results compressing 24/96 source material to bitrates between about 1024 and 1280 kbps. Obviously these are pretty high bitrates for compressed audio, but they compare pretty well to uncompressed (or even losslessly compressed) CD audio.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #16
Quote
I don't think that because sound is transported from a computer it has to be crap, and 16bit sampled sound is crap. Even on 1000$ loudspeakers you can hear the 16bit sampling granularity, you can hear it perfectly well even on a 10,000$ high end CD transports.
  I will not argue whether you can hear the low resolution with music, but I seriously doubt that the resolution on a vinyl disc is better. The quantization noise on a CD is well below the noise on your material.

The "warm and fuzzy feeling"® you get is not caused by higher precision but by introduced distortion.

Using 24-bit for capture and processing is very reasonable, but thinking that any lossy codec can reproduce this resolution is nonsense (that's how they work!).

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #17
Quote
Oh well I was expecting that kind of narrow minded answer.

Moonwatcher,

dont try to convince people here about  this, IMHO you are bound to fail. Most of the readers here never heard a good Linn LP12 or a Thorens TD 166, and probably will never ever have the chance to do so, or be interested to do so. Spare your time, its not worth it. People interested in compressing music very likely wont want to mess with the bad handling, inconvenient storing and increased effort of playing analog LPs.

I had plenty of similar discussions here about this, what frequency range could be important to human hearing ( i dont say i can hear a 40 KHz sine, no ) in one way or another, like supporting the human brain in building up a correct stereo image by rendering very short transients ( those otherwise are lost in the setup ), etc

One thing strikes me though in your question :

You're talking about highest possible sound quality and really want to apply lossy compression on music ? I fully agree that there is a remarkable sound difference between a 16/44.1 and 24/96 signal when being listened to on a high quality, audiophile stereo system, no need to convince me here ... but why at all are you expecting a lossy compressed 24/96 ( no matter what codec ) audio track to sound comparable to a losslessly compressed 16/44.1 track ?

Losslessly compressed 24/96 may be the only sensible way to go for you my friend, at least if you are trying to save space and want to record and store your LPs in best possible sound quality ....

Just my 2 cents


Christian

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #18
Quote
IMHO you are bound to fail. Most of the readers here never heard a good Linn LP12 or a Thorens TD 166, and probably will never ever have the chance to do so, or be interested to do so. Spare your time, its not worth it. People interested in compressing music very likely wont want to mess with the bad handling, inconvenient storing and increased effort of playing analog LPs.

Well, we all like great listening equipment. BUT these days, the weakest link should really be the listener or the transducters themselves..  NOT the storage media !

Quote
Losslessly compressed 24/96 may be the only sensible way to go for you my friend, at least if you are trying to save space and want to record and store your LPs in best possible sound quality ....

This is a myth.  Do your homework, the frequency response of Vinyl (even the best media) goes nowhere near 40kHz. Also the measured noise floor is worse than 12 bits of resolution.

Quote
i dont say i can hear a 40 KHz sine, no

Well, that's a good thing, because reliably hearing a 40kHz tone would require a level of > 300 dBA, which would make no good to your ears' tissue.

The only accurate statement you made, is that 24 bits of resolution can be audibly better than 16 bit, using an optimum listening environment and DIGITAL MEDIA or mastering tape that is.

The warm feeling of Vinyl, which is pleasant to your ear, is caused by phase dirtorsion and a smooth lowpass gently starting @ ~12kHz depending on the turntable and LP. As a matter of fact, this feeling is still there after a proper transfer to 16bit/44 kHz.

You're spreading false information. By the way, I'd like to see your blind test results on 96khz vs 44kHz.

EDIT: typos.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #19
Quote
You're spreading false information


I am not spreading information. I was telling my honest opinion, without making any claims. And also i told Monnwatcher he shouldnt start such a discussion here, as it will lead to nowhere, like all of the numerous similar discussions before, here and elsewhere.

Just one question : if its the distortion from the analog player that the human ear 'likes', why dont cheap turntables offering more of this distortion not sound better than the good ones ? BTW : study some technical papers from Technics from the early 70ies, claiming that some of their MC pickups do offer a frequency responce of up to 100 KHz. If its somebody making wrong claims here, mainly based on assumptions and prejudices about analog players ( i guess you never had one ), its you my friend.

Quote
By the way, I'd like to see your blind test results on 96khz vs 44kHz.


You're invited to visit the listening room of a friend of mine ( http://www.foersteraudiotechnik.de ) close to Munich, where we could easily differentiate a 24/96 recording of various Chesky Recordings ( Sahra K. Livingston Taylor, etc. ) with the 16/44.1 versions of the very same recordss. While he finished with 95% match rate from 20 blind sessions i closed with a poor 75%, telling clearly who the master was and who the padawan, aiming for perfection .

Of course, we have to rely on Chesky here, stating that both versions were mastered same way, with unaltered dynamics range and from the same source master.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #20
Quote
Of course, we have to rely on Chesky here, stating that both versions were mastered same way, with unaltered dynamics range and from the same source master.

You cannot seriously assume this. If you haven't created the signal yourself (e.g. by downsampling the 96/24 master to CD-format) how would you know if the two signals represent the same information? I even doubt that the output volume is matched.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #21
this is an awful thread, but to you who started this thread, go back to school!
It's quite obvious you'd benefit from a few more years of studying - may I suggest electrotechnincs.

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #22
Moonwatcher:

As I've been working in studio for more than 20 years, my advice is: buy yourself at least Michell Gyrodec turntable, invest at least $ 20 000 into the pre-amp, amplifier, cables and speakers AND STOP SPREADING THIS BS you wrote so far... No analogue recording (it really doesn't matter what is its source) can ever achieve the sound quality of a D-D-D CD (when seriously and professionally mastered...) Bye bye 

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #23
Quote
I am not spreading information. I was telling my honest opinion, without making any claims.

I tend to disagree. Remember that many people will read these threads, and IMHO they could be misled by a few statements that were expressed here.
Remember, in this forum, when a newbie reads information, he/she will most likely take it as objective - thus the border between opinions and claims will be very slight.

Quote
Just one question : if its the distortion from the analog player that the human ear 'likes', why dont cheap turntables offering more of this distortion not sound better than the good ones ?

Well, it all depends on the kind of distortion. Also, the cheap turntables will have a too low SNR, which is another reason why they'll sound worse than good ones.

Quote
BTW : study some technical papers from Technics from the early 70ies, claiming that some of their MC pickups do offer a frequency responce of up to 100 KHz. If its somebody making wrong claims here, mainly based on assumptions and prejudices about analog players ( i guess you never had one ), its you my friend.

Very well, now tell me:
- how you can store, and retrieve a 100kHz sine wave properly, physically, in the groove of a Vinyl ?  Even from a mechanical/physical point of view, it is nonsense.
- what useful signal can the Technics MC gather from the Vinyl in this frequency band ? Again, after a quick measure you'll see that it will be just white noise.

Quote
You're invited to visit the listening room of a friend of mine ( http://www.foersteraudiotechnik.de ) close to Munich, where we could easily differentiate a 24/96 recording of various Chesky Recordings ( Sahra K. Livingston Taylor, etc. ) with the 16/44.1 versions of the very same recordss.

That is a kind invitation, thank you.
However, please consider the following two facts:
- I have already agreed that 24-bit can bring an audible improvement.
- I would only accept to compare the 96kHz and 44kHz recordings, if both were downsampled directly from the same 24-bit source. I mean, otherwise, even a slight sound level difference or the slightest change in mastering would result in audibly different sounds.

Quote
Of course, we have to rely on Chesky here, stating that both versions were mastered same way, with unaltered dynamics range and from the same source master.

Indeed. And that is very unlikely, which is why I think the 96kHz should be taken as source, and carefully filtered/downsampled to 44kHz for the test.
Also, it could be more interesting to separate the 16-bit vs 24-bit comparison (which can lead to audible difference), from the 44kHz vs 96kHz comparison (which I doubt to offer any concrete improvement).

Cheers

CAN we re-create the "vinyl sound"

Reply #24
Quote
Moonwatcher:

As I've been working in studio for more than 20 years, my advice is: buy yourself at least Michell Gyrodec turntable, invest at least $ 20 000 into the pre-amp, amplifier, cables and speakers AND STOP SPREADING THIS BS you wrote so far... No analogue recording (it really doesn't matter what is its source) can ever achieve the sound quality of a D-D-D CD (when seriously and professionally mastered...) Bye bye  :rolleyes:

The Mastering Engineer has spoken 
Budgie, .. welcome !

guys.. I knew he would become useful on these forums sometime 

ok, I'll stop being a pain now 

->  budgie:  I have a few questions for you:
- what is a D-D-D  CD ?  does it mean, recorded without passage through the analog domain ? 
- do you believe in 96 kHz ? 

Regards

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019