Upscaling MP3 to DSD make nonsense to me
I usually record vinyls in DSD 5.6 Mhz 1bit format and then I convert it with TEAC/TASCAM Hi-Res Editor to WAV 192/32bit float to have the sound as analogue as possible and to make further optimizations with Adobe Audition 3.0 (denoise, remove clicks and crackles, Bass, Mid, Treble calibration, compression, normalization,...). Then, I use this 192/32bit wav "master tape" for archiving (wavpack) and for convert it to 48/32float WAV for auditions or for smartphone HQ mp3s. These are my best results so far and listening music from my PC or phone prolong the lifetime of my vinyls and the TT cartridge.
Upscaling MP3 to DSD make nonsense to me
I usually record vinyls in DSD 5.6 Mhz 1bit format and then I convert it with TEAC/TASCAM Hi-Res Editor to WAV 192/32bit float to have the sound as analogue [...] or for smartphone HQ mp3s.[...]
192/f32 and mp3... schizophrenia?
I understand the merits of floating-point for recording to whatever, but ...
The forum software needs a popcorn icon. In the meantime the TOS8 infraction has been noted.
sound as analogue as possible
Waiting for samples that need 32bit for best results :)
192/32bit float to have the sound as analogue as possible...
...and to make further optimizations with Adobe Audition 3.0 (denoise, remove clicks and crackles, Bass, Mid, Treble calibration, compression, normalization,...).
To make it less analog. :D :D :D
Waiting for samples that need 32bit for best results :)
The samples are extracted from new and original vinyl and CD
----------------------------
VINYL Barcode: 5099902988313
----------------------------
Recorded with SONY Hi-Res Audio Recorder (DSD 5.6 MHz)
-------------------------
CD Barcode: 5099902894423
-------------------------
---- CUETools DB Plugin V2.1.6
Submit result: n92sCGjxn.xYbNL18Fo8Zc6ziI4- has been confirmed
7 | (4414/4470) Accurately ripped, or (33/4470) differs in 61 samples @02:17:16,02:18:10
Between VINYL and CD there are some subtle differences or is just me. Finally, it's just about personal preferences.
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;sa=tmpattach;attach=post_tmp_128523_727d1ffc5705c8e3e69365344310779c;topic=116999) (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;sa=tmpattach;attach=post_tmp_128523_9f2811729d5390fa073f0cab849d64f3;topic=116999)
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;sa=tmpattach;attach=post_tmp_128523_e968e2db95aae5489969e86cb6e8a7be;topic=116999) (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;sa=tmpattach;attach=post_tmp_128523_d08dbe909a22cf4b68e44f798d749dde;topic=116999)
DVDdoug you have right ;-). But I enjoy to listen music like I am seated very close to the performers.
...and they need to be at 192/32 for best results?
No one here cares whether you can differentiate cd from vinyl or whether you prefer the vinyl version.
No one here cares whether you can differentiate cd from vinyl or whether you prefer the vinyl version.
From 192/32 wav I can convert to 44/32 wav that looks interesting for me. Despite the double wav size, I can feel the differences between CD and vinyl. Perhaps more clarity, harmonics, tones and soundstage. As you said before, it's a matter of preferences. I am waiting for my Sumiko Pearl TT cartridge bought from U.S., with its great channel separation (30dB) and huge freq response (12Hz-30kHz) to get the full vinyl sound quality. I am not a "audiophile church" worshipper, but I like to listen music in high quality. And I know the analogue sound can be heard only at the concert hall or at the original master tapes, all other are digital for these new reissues or remastered items.
TOS #8
Have you read it?
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,3974.html
[...] I can feel the differences between CD and vinyl [...] I am not a "audiophile church" worshipper
"bouble kill!"
Of course you can hear diff btw cd/vinyl, becouse cd-audio does not contain "garbage". But what you pass off as "quality" is not "quality" - it's just a "feeling".
Does anyone know a Studio that records and processes sound exclusively on analog equipment?
Does anyone know a Studio that records and processes sound exclusively on analog equipment?
mysticvalleystudio.com for example
mysticvalleystudio.com for example
ok, let it be. but...
faq page:
"4. I’ve Never Recorded To Tape Before, How Is This Different From Digital?
In many ways, it is not that different. Tape is a storage medium, just like digital is. The main difference is the editing capabilities and the amount of storage available.[...]"
wtf?!? where about Hz, where about Db, where about lifetime... deception for profit ? or just "forgotten" ?
From 192/32 wav I can convert to 44/32 wav that looks interesting for me. Despite the double wav size, I can feel the differences between CD and vinyl. Perhaps more clarity, harmonics, tones and soundstage. As you said before, it's a matter of preferences. I am waiting for my Sumiko Pearl TT cartridge bought from U.S., with its great channel separation (30dB) and huge freq response (12Hz-30kHz) to get the full vinyl sound quality. I am not a "audiophile church" worshipper, but I like to listen music in high quality. And I know the analogue sound can be heard only at the concert hall or at the original master tapes, all other are digital for these new reissues or remastered items.
My God you must have a extreme Sense of Hearing? :))
Anyway I am starting to think this debate is turning into another vinyl topic, which never seem to go very far.
No one here cares whether you can differentiate cd from vinyl or whether you prefer the vinyl version.
From 192/32 wav I can convert to 44/32 wav that looks interesting for me. Despite the double wav size, I can feel the differences between CD and vinyl. Perhaps more clarity, harmonics, tones and soundstage. As you said before, it's a matter of preferences. I am waiting for my Sumiko Pearl TT cartridge bought from U.S., with its great channel separation (30dB) and huge freq response (12Hz-30kHz) to get the full vinyl sound quality. I am not a "audiophile church" worshipper, but I like to listen music in high quality. And I know the analogue sound can be heard only at the concert hall or at the original master tapes, all other are digital for these new reissues or remastered items.
Been there done that. I have tried many high end cartridges such as Dynavector, Benz Wood and so on. The reality is that it doesn't matter how good the cartridge is as it quickly gets to a point where the vinyl records itself is the limitation. There is no point of a linear frequency response when vinyl is incapable of being linear or such a wide frequency response when vinyl is increasingly inaccurate outside the mid range, particularly as the play progresses towards the centre of the record.
If you have a subjective preference for the more distorted vinyl sound (albeit a ephonic distortion) that is fine. My CDs and other digital formats sound better than my vinyl records (and that is while it is played back on a high end turntable/cart/pre-amp combo, but then I am very choosy which CDs I purchase and will only go for the vinyl if it has better mastering or source material.
However, I don't get this "analog sounding' crap. Apart from the obvious that what comes out of a DAC is analog, just a more perfect analog, I would get mad if my high quality digital mastering sounded like it was being played from a turntable, tape deck or other ancient and imprecise analog devices.
I don't get this "analog sounding' crap.
Neither does he.
Again, the issue isn’t the preference, but the stated need for such a high data rate in order for digitized vinyl to “sound as close to analog as possible.”
Being generous, 48/14 will be adequate. Now it’s Bob’s job to prove me wrong.
He ducked out of his last idiotic foray over knowing better about tuning the lame encoder when asked to provide support. I’ll be damned if he gets away with it again in this topic.
If he can’t (or if he isn’t prepared to) prove me wrong then he has no business presenting such claims on this forum. He so much as agreed with this upon registering and will be held accountable for it. In short: put up or shut up. This doesn’t mean skulk away just to post more nonsense two months later.
We need a 'Feelings' sub forum.
We need a 'Feelings' sub forum.
Fox News sub. 😋
Waiting for samples that need 32bit for best results :)
Hold my beer while I patch a 140 dB peak into your music for destroying your (g)ear.
... hmmmm, could I have done with 24?
Christmas must have come earlier this year!
What a fun ride this is going to be! :))
this is a troll thread. 0/10
We should create a poll for most comical thread.
This one definitely takes the cake this year. :))
this is a troll thread. 0/10
we were discovered! run, trolls! run!
We should create a poll for most comical thread.
This one definitely takes the cake this year. :))
the one about radioactive rays from headphones was also raising some of the eyebrows
Somewhat telling that the OP hasn't returned to defend his position, however:
...to have the sound as analogue as possible...
Do you seriously believe there are degrees of analog? Digital vs analog is a clear-cut, black & white distinction. Can something be "slightly digital" or "mostly analog"? No, it either is analog or it is not analog. The only way to keep a recording "as analog as possible" is to USE an analog recording system.
Being generous, 48/14 will be adequate. Now it’s Bob’s job to prove me wrong.
Now there's a idea
Maybe BrilliantBob could do a listening test between 48/14bit & 192/32bit files, and come back with some results.
Somewhat telling that the OP hasn't returned to defend his position, however:
...to have the sound as analogue as possible...
Do you seriously believe there are degrees of analog? Digital vs analog is a clear-cut, black & white distinction. Can something be "slightly digital" or "mostly analog"? No, it either is analog or it is not analog. The only way to keep a recording "as analog as possible" is to USE an analog recording system.
or, you know, just play it. sound waves in air are not digital.
Do you seriously believe there are degrees of analog? Digital vs analog is a clear-cut, black & white distinction. Can something be "slightly digital" or "mostly analog"? No, it either is analog or it is not analog. The only way to keep a recording "as analog as possible" is to USE an analog recording system.
Is there anything correct here? I don't think so.
Pulse width modulation?
Somewhat telling that the OP hasn't returned to defend his position, however:
...to have the sound as analogue as possible...
Do you seriously believe there are degrees of analog? Digital vs analog is a clear-cut, black & white distinction. Can something be "slightly digital" or "mostly analog"? No, it either is analog or it is not analog. The only way to keep a recording "as analog as possible" is to USE an analog recording system.
Certainly you can capture a saturated analog sound digitally.
How many bits and what sample rate you need to achieve that is a different discussion.
Certainly you can capture an unsaturated analog sound as well.
where art thou? BrilliantBob
Came back
Why no more replies? :(
Maybe someone can record this message to vinyl, then record that in DSD 5.6 Mhz 1bit & then convert it to WAV 192/32bit float,
so BrilliantBob will hear Us?
Just a question on the OP's soundstage claim. Of course we all know that it is not possible for analog playback (especially vinyl) to have better sound stage than digital as the sound stage perception is part of the mastering using a combination of the two channels, and digital stereo separation is perfect.
However I have noticed on cheaper T/T cart combinations there does seem to be a somewhat artificial widening of the sound stage. It's hard to describe, almost like the fake surround sound some soundbars put out which of course, DSPs can emulate if that is one's thing.
I have never given this much thought but I presume it is due to phase shifts, which vinyl playback always has but more so with less well engineered or correctly aligned set-ups. Any thoughts on this?
If I take a look closer to my new Cds (EAC accurately ripped and so on), I can't understand why the "factory default" CD sound is likely flat, louder and way beyond the full scale (0 dB). All right, sounds good for a boombox but for my PC Hi-Fi system it's a little bit more harshly. I have to de-amplify to -12dB and then to make some compression and normalization to -3dB to get an acceptable sound from CD. I tested CDs from various artists, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Genesis, Alan Parsons, The Band, Fleetwood Mac, Manfred Mann's Earth Band and all sounds are way beyond the full scale (0 dB). Is this a CD standard? Not happend when I record the same LPs from new vinyls to DSD 5.6 MHz and then converted to wav 196/32, 96/32, 48/32 or 44/16.
[...] sounds good for a boombox but for my PC Hi-Fi system it's a little bit more harshly. [...]
use equalizer,
Luk Bob!
and way beyond the full scale (0 dB).
Measured how? What is your playback chain?
If you are making some strange stuff that runs your signals into digital clipping, then that should be easy to fix.
and way beyond the full scale (0 dB).
Measured how? What is your playback chain?
If you are making some strange stuff that runs your signals into digital clipping, then that should be easy to fix.
This is how it looks in Adobe Audition 3.0 the original CD wav, EAC Accurately Ripped (this example does not clip; is up to 0.1dB from full scale):
(https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?action=dlattach;sa=tmpattach;attach=post_tmp_128523_305a04842b653c52f1f989e9e6ec863f;topic=117030)
My PC playback chain is cheap but output good sound:
- Intel Skylake PCH-H - High Definition Audio Controller
- HD Audio Codec RealTek ALC887 v6.0.1.8158 (default format 24bits, 192000Hz, Studio Quality)
- Software Equalizer APO 1.2 with preamp and loudness correction
- WMP 12 with all effects disabled
- Microlab M 910 2.1 speakers with true frequency range: 30 Hz-20000 Hz, max SPL 80dB, room correction
If the wav does not clip in AA probably something is wrong in my playback chain (too much treble in equalizer).
If you "pre-amplify" or EQ above 0 dB, then you get above 0 dB, that is not so strange. But how did you measure > 0 dB?
And, given that you do so, why are you touting 192/32 rather than fixing the problems you are creating?
And, given that you do so, why are you touting 192/32 rather than fixing the problems you are creating?
Indeed!
Let’s stick with the topic at hand: 192/32 being needed for digital to
sound more like analog, specifically the digitization of vinyl.
CD mastering and what waveforms look like in AA3 or any other software are completely irrelevant.
However I have noticed on cheaper T/T cart combinations there does seem to be a somewhat artificial widening of the sound stage. It's hard to describe, almost like the fake surround sound some soundbars put out which of course, DSPs can emulate if that is one's thing.
I have never given this much thought but I presume it is due to phase shifts, which vinyl playback always has but more so with less well engineered or correctly aligned set-ups. Any thoughts on this?
If the cartridge is wired wrong the left & right channels can be out-of-phase (one channel inverted). You'll get the same "weird widening" effect if you reverse the wires to one speaker (or if you invert one channel in an audio editor). You'll also notice a loss of bass as the bass soundwaves cancel, and if you mix-down to mono (electrically or digitally) you'll get a "vocal removal" effect where the "center channel" information (the information common to left & right) gets canceled..
Yes there are foibles with vinyl playback.
Does their digitization need 192/32 in order for them to be recreated transparently to the listener?
If I take a look closer to my new Cds (EAC accurately ripped and so on), I can't understand why the "factory default" CD sound is likely flat, louder and way beyond the full scale (0 dB).
The "sound" is determined by the producer, recording engineer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer, etc.
Don't blame the CD format if you don't like the sound.
And CDs don't go "beyond" 0dB. They hard-clip at 0dB. There are commercial CDs that are clipped, or just hard-limited and compressed to death. That's the modern-popular constantly-loud style... Don't blame the format!
Sometimes the amplitude is decreased after limiting & compression (to match the perceived volume the various track on a CD) so
a hard-limited (or clipped) recording may not hit 0dB on the CD. BTW - If you make a vinyl recording from a clipped file the wave shape changes and you won't see flat-topped waveforms and the waveform "looks better' when you digitize it.. The crest factor will also increase which can give a better
measured/calculated dynamic range and a better
looking waveform and that makes some people think vinyl record has better dynamics, even if the record and CD are made from the same master. But making/playing a vinyl record doesn't remove the distortion or increase the sound of the dynamics.
Of course the vinyl recording will sound
different because of it's limitations and some people may prefer the sound of the vinyl.
have to de-amplify to -12dB and then to make some compression and normalization to -3dB to get an acceptable sound from CD. I tested CDs from various artists, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Genesis, Alan Parsons, The Band, Fleetwood Mac, Manfred Mann's Earth Band
And ,I like to use the "Hall" effect when I play music on my home theater system. Some people like to crank-up the bass... (I've used my speakers in a dance hall a couple of times, and I like the way they sounded in there too, without the artificial effects.)
If you make a vinyl recording from a clipped file the wave shape changes and you won't see flat-topped waveforms and the waveform "looks better' when you digitize it.
Does it need to be digitized at 192/32 in order to “sound” as analog as possible?
- Microlab M 910 2.1 speakers with true frequency range: 30 Hz-20000 Hz, max SPL 80dB, room correction
I am still not sure why you would need 192/32bit if they are your main speakers, or for that matter, for any speakers.
- Microlab M 910 2.1 speakers with true frequency range: 30 Hz-20000 Hz, max SPL 80dB, room correction
Fixed that for you.
I am still not sure why you would need 192/32bit if they are your main speakers, or for that matter, for any speakers.
I can imagine that 32 bits floating-point is good for those who notoriously mess up their conversions ... and I can't help myself thinking that such things happen deliberately for the purpose of creating a "problem with digital".
Although there is even well-reputed software which cannot convert reliably from floating-point to integer.
I can't help myself thinking that such things happen deliberately for the purpose of creating a "problem with digital".
They definitely can, though not if we confine the discussion to what it is necessary to digitize vinyl per the initial claim. The 80dB SPL would be the next limiting factor.
Vinyl needs 14 bits, tops. The OP is welcome to prove otherwise.
[Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Genesis, Alan Parsons, The Band, Fleetwood Mac, Manfred Mann's Earth Band and all sounds are way beyond the full scale (0 dB). Is this a CD standard?
It should not matter, but could you give us the year of these CD's were released, or code on the CD.
So someone here with the some CD's can double check to see if you are not doing something wrong.
If I take a look closer to my new Cds (EAC accurately ripped and so on), I can't understand why the "factory default" CD sound is likely flat, louder and way beyond the full scale (0 dB). All right, sounds good for a boombox but for my PC Hi-Fi system it's a little bit more harshly. I have to de-amplify to -12dB and then to make some compression and normalization to -3dB to get an acceptable sound from CD. I tested CDs from various artists, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Genesis, Alan Parsons, The Band, Fleetwood Mac, Manfred Mann's Earth Band and all sounds are way beyond the full scale (0 dB). Is this a CD standard? Not happend when I record the same LPs from new vinyls to DSD 5.6 MHz and then converted to wav 196/32, 96/32, 48/32 or 44/16.
You're definitately doing something wrong there. I have CDs of these bands and they sound great, though it probably depends on which issue or remaster. For example, I have the 1983 Dark Side of the Moon (non TO) black triangle CD which has the same tape source and Sony mastering as the excellent 1977 Japan Pro Use LP, which I also have. Comparing the two side by side they sound almost identical, with the edge to the CD being slightly more dynamic and consistent across the album, ie no IGD as the LP plays towards the centre. This CD, along with many other early Japan CDs has pre-emphasis, so if you do not de-emphasise the CD rip it will sound a little bit shrill.
However I have noticed on cheaper T/T cart combinations there does seem to be a somewhat artificial widening of the sound stage. It's hard to describe, almost like the fake surround sound some soundbars put out which of course, DSPs can emulate if that is one's thing.
I have never given this much thought but I presume it is due to phase shifts, which vinyl playback always has but more so with less well engineered or correctly aligned set-ups. Any thoughts on this?
If the cartridge is wired wrong the left & right channels can be out-of-phase (one channel inverted). You'll get the same "weird widening" effect if you reverse the wires to one speaker (or if you invert one channel in an audio editor). You'll also notice a loss of bass as the bass soundwaves cancel, and if you mix-down to mono (electrically or digitally) you'll get a "vocal removal" effect where the "center channel" information (the information common to left & right) gets canceled..
Thanks for the info but I and many others have noticed this under normal conditions where the wiring and polarity are correct. However, it does become less noticeable with higher quality cartridges/arms and proper alignment.
Could it just be an artefact of the one stylus trying to track two channels causing phase timing errors? If so, it would stand to reason that a better engineered cartridge/arm and alignment would bring the sound stage closer to the more precise digital reproduction.
I usually record vinyls in DSD 5.6 Mhz 1bit format and then I convert it with TEAC/TASCAM Hi-Res Editor to WAV 192/32bit float to have the sound as analogue as possible and to make further optimizations with Adobe Audition 3.0 (denoise, remove clicks and crackles, Bass, Mid, Treble calibration, compression, normalization,...). Then, I use this 192/32bit wav "master tape" for archiving (wavpack) and for convert it to 48/32float WAV for auditions or for smartphone HQ mp3s.
If & When the Zombie Apocalypse Happens
You will probably regret wasting your Time on such a pointless Exercise.
Cartridges can have significant crosstalk between channels. If this is (predominantly) out of phase, it could result in a slight widening effect.
Vinyl needs 14 bits, tops.
All I wanted for Christmas was one of those 14 bit ADCs and Santa didn't deliver. I'm in tears.
Can I ask you a question? How many actual vinyl rips have you ever done? Roughly. Is it in the 10s, 100s, 1,000s, etc.
Many thanks!
Vinyl needs 14 bits, tops.
All I wanted for Christmas was one of those 14 bit ADCs and Santa didn't deliver. I'm in tears.
Can I ask you a question? How many actual vinyl rips have you ever done? Roughly. Is it in the 10s, 100s, 1,000s, etc.
Many thanks!
You should have asked Santa for reading glasses. ;-)
Please present your measured 10s, 100s, 1,000s, etc. examples of >14bit dynamic range vinyl.
Many TIA
I’ve digitized 8,934 albums. None needed more than 14 bits.
Really though, it could have been zero. It isn’t up to me to show that vinyl needs more than 14 bits to be distinguished from the real McCoy.
Logical fallacy much, Groove, or does critical thinking escape you completely?
I’ve digitized 8,934 albums. None needed more than 14 bits.
You have me at a disadvantage, in so far as I can not work out whether that is a common garden variety lie or you are simply being facetious.
in either case it is not really a basis for any sort of rational discussion, but rather a case of you playing to your gallery, isn't it?
PS. I'll stick to my initial guesstimate of nil ;)
It is a very rational discussion. You don’t seem like you’re interested in having one, though.
To answer your question I’m speaking about what seems to be a compete lack of evidence that vinyl requires even 16 bits let alone 32. Do you have any!?!
Anyway, my dick is bigger so I guess that means I know more about something or other. Not quite sure what.
PS. I'll stick to my initial guesstimate of nil ;)
Sort of like the number of >14 bit vinyl examples you can provide
To answer your question I’m speaking about what seems to be a compete lack of evidence that vinyl requires even 16 bits let alone 32. Do you have any!?!
You haven't answered my question, but have instead evaded it. Again.
To answer **your** question, that all depends on what you mean my 'require'.
To make sure I fill up a 16 bit ADC, I would want to be peaking around -6 dB FS. That means driving the analog side of my chain fairly hard and generating quite a bit of soft clipping.
Conversely if I am using 24 bit - as I do - I have much more scope to play with the level of soft clipping I **choose** to introduce in the analog domain. depending on how saturated a sound I want to produce.
I have not once disputed that 16bits are theoretically enough to capture the dynamic range of vinyl, merely that in real world applications dogmatically held beliefs like that don't deliver the best results. Although ironically if the OP wants the most analog (/saturated) sound possible, he might as well stick to 16 bits and drive his analog gear as hard as he can.
Sort of like the number of >14 bit vinyl examples you can provide
Here ya go: http://bfy.tw/Sc9
[...]I have not once disputed that 16bits are theoretically enough to capture the dynamic range of vinyl [...]
based on the fact that the creation of "audio cd standard" 16/44.1 took with "stock", then for vinyl, a priori the lower-quality media, 16/44.1 is more than enough.
You haven't answered my question, but have instead evaded it. Again.
I already addressed your non-non sequitur.
Just assume I’ve made zero. How does this constitute evidence of audible differences per the discussion at hand?
To answer **your** question, that all depends on what you mean my 'require'.
Delivery format, peak normalized played under non-pathological circumstances. How you get there isn’t the topic, nor is how many vinyl captures I have made.
Unlike yours, **my** question is about the topic at hand.
To make sure I fill up a 16 bit ADC, I would want to be peaking around -6 dB FS. That means driving the analog side of my chain fairly hard and generating quite a bit of soft clipping.
Conversely if I am using 24 bit - as I do - I have much more scope to play with the level of soft clipping I **choose** to introduce in the analog domain. depending on how saturated a sound I want to produce.
Seems like you have an issue with your hardware or you don't have the faintest idea how this AD -> DA thing works.
merely that in real world applications dogmatically held beliefs like that don't deliver the best results.
Again, supported by what evidence?
Sort of like the number of >14 bit vinyl examples you can provide
Here ya go: http://bfy.tw/Sc9
Ironic (http://bfy.tw/LjAz).
To make sure I fill up a 16 bit ADC, I would want to be peaking around -6 dB FS. That means driving the analog side of my chain fairly hard and generating quite a bit of soft clipping.
If your analog-side is clipping that's and analog problem. An ADC clips at 0dB and nothing bad happens if you get close to 0dB.
Conversely if I am using 24 bit - as I do - I have much more scope to play with the level of soft clipping I **choose** to introduce in the analog domain. depending on how saturated a sound I want to produce.
Clipping (soft or otherwise)
reduces the dynamic range making it "easier" to digitize.
I have not once disputed that 16bits are theoretically enough to capture the dynamic range of vinyl, merely that in real world applications dogmatically held beliefs like that don't deliver the best results.
In the real world (and here at Hydrogen Audio) you'd need to demonstrate that you can hear a difference between 16-bits or higher.
If your analog-side is clipping that's and analog problem
As I have already alluded to, that really is objectively a matter of taste and subjective opinion.
Other than that I have nothing further to add.
It’s about resolution for transparency.
It has nothing to do with preference of ADC or the number of bits you use when digitizing. It has nothing to do the processing you do after digitizing, nor has it anything to do with whatever interface problems you create.
...it also has nothing to do with the size of your penis how many records you've digitized.
Other than that I have nothing further to add.
Add? You're giving yourself too much credit.
Other than that I have nothing further to add.
Add? You're giving yourself too much credit.
Indeed. Unlike you I am unable to bend time and space and define this discussion solely about delivery formats, in the process pretending that for example the preceding page about vinyl capture and recording did not take place.
Sort of like the number of >14 bit vinyl examples you can provide
Here ya go: http://bfy.tw/Sc9
The question was rhetorical, I knew you weren't going to tug a valid answer from your posterior
I have not once disputed that 16bits are theoretically enough to capture the dynamic range of vinyl, merely that in real world applications dogmatically held beliefs like that don't deliver the best results.
More posterior belief assertion, zero evidence
the preceding page about vinyl capture
What, brilliant bob tossing out fresh meat with his idiotic off-topic post that was ultimately split for the vultures? Yes, you're correct.
Regardless, why did you decide to draw my post into question and then expect an unrelated answer?
http://bfy.tw/HEhH
Then again, this was just an unimportant throwaway discussion, so why not challenge my post with an irrelevant logical fallacy, right?
I usually record vinyls in DSD 5.6 Mhz 1bit format and then I convert it with TEAC/TASCAM Hi-Res Editor to WAV 192/32bit float
This step what I don't get. Why go through DSD anyway? So far I thought of DSD as another representation of digital audio or it reminds me of those 1 bit DACs in old Philips CD players used. (I have a Technics with MASH which I thought is 1 bit but it is actually 4)
But back on topic, what does this step add or remove from the recording?
Nobody said there was anything wrong with recording at a high sample depth. You can set it to a 50% volume or so and it won't clip, then you record at 24 bit depth. Then you make sure your recording is not clipped in any way. Then you can peak scale it to maximum volume level, resting assured that you're not losing any precision. Then you perform your cleanup on the signal. Then you save your final result as a 44100/16 file in whatever format you want, knowing you probably won't be able to distinguish it from the analog original. Feel free to keep your multiple edit stages in 192/24 for future reference or future editing or re-cleaning, but it's really pointless to keep it at those settings for regular listening.
Nobody said there was anything wrong with recording at a high sample depth. You can set it to a 50% volume or so and it won't clip, then you record at 24 bit depth. Then you make sure your recording is not clipped in any way. Then you can peak scale it to maximum volume level, resting assured that you're not losing any precision. Then you perform your cleanup on the signal. Then you save your final result as a 44100/16 file in whatever format you want, knowing you probably won't be able to distinguish it from the analog original. Feel free to keep your multiple edit stages in 192/24 for future reference or future editing or re-cleaning, but it's really pointless to keep it at those settings for regular listening.
Makes sense to me. The marginal cost of recording at the maximum precision available is essentially 0. If that gives peace of mind, go for it.
For archival, editing or playback purposes, one might peak-normalize the file and store it at appropriate precision. If hard drive space is not an issue, keep the 24/96 or whatever. If hard drive space is an issue, reduce to 16/44.1 and possibly do lossy compression.
The important part is to disregard what 99% of the population say about "how to get good sound". For some reason, "everyone" has an opinion on that matter. Read a book. Try for yourself. Or ask at hydrogen audio. But don't let hifi journalists/sales people/lunatics drive you into wasting time and money on the things that does not affect your music and sound enjoyment.
-k
off topic but having some headroom above the vinyl dynamic range range in the digital dynamic range stops dust and scratches causing a clipped period.
Not advocating using less headroom than is necessary to keep peaks from going beyond full scale, but the chance of distinguishing a clipped peak resulting from dust or scratches from a non-clipped one is essentially zero.
Anyway for those who haven’t followed the decade+ worth of discussions on best practice of vinyl digitization and subsequent processing up to and including the final output format that is not driven by placebo, the previous posts will suffice.
Unless you're into that kind of thing, instead of overdriving your ADC, consider a pair of these or something similar:
http://xotic.us/effects/ep-booster
To go over the top try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibanez_Tube_Screamer
or something slightly less extreme: https://www.butleraudio.com/tubedriver.php
These are just a couple of possible ways to degrade the already lo-fi signal coming for your high-end phono cartridge that may indicate where my interests lie.
Preference is subjective after all. ;)
A clipped period ie a portion of the audio file that has digital clipping. A pop would sound different, or a scratch would sound different, if clipped.
Unlike an overshoot resulting in lossy encoding. Gotcha.