I'm not suggesting that vinyl has the same dynamic range as CD just that in my experience you can't tell the medium while listening to music in a normal domestic environment if the tell-tale vinyl clues (pops, clicks etc) are not present on the piece being listened to. I guess I should qualify that by saying that I'm assuming the music level is well above the noise floor
I have (a few) records that are indistinguishable from CDs.
What about the experiments in which an analog audio stream was converted to digital and back to analog, and none of the listeners were able to distinguish them?
Indeed, my original point was that I believe that music originally recorded using an entirely analog process can be reproduced with the greatest fidelity by an analog, tube based stereo system. So far, I haven't seen anything in this thread that would lead me to question this.
At normal listening volumes when played back on a professional Teac cassette deck, I hear no significant difference between these recordings and the VBR MP3 encodings of the same original CDs. I have close to zero analogue "warmth" to lose due to there being next to none in these cassette recordings in the first place. They're just almost perfect replicas of the original source signal as far as a typical human ear is concerned. Closer analysis of these tapes shows that the vast majority of the original HF content remains intact many years after the initial recordings were made.No doubt some readers of this post will scoff at the idea of an almost perceptually transparent cassette deck, but they honestly did exist and were sold in their hundreds of thousands. It was just a matter of doing your homework before purchasing and being prepared to pay for one.
Not only is the cassette format not sonically transparent, neither is its big brother, two-track high speed analog tape.Please see http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm
' date='Oct 29 2008, 17:37' post='596389']Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 29 October, 2008, 05:11:31 PMNot only is the cassette format not sonically transparent, neither is its big brother, two-track high speed analog tape.Please see http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htmI may not be the person to refute your post, but I see several details that i can't but put it here:First, the person you're quoting stated about first generation copies, where in your link, it talks about second and fourth generation copies (on a supposedly better storage method)
Next, there's something I don't get:Correct p less than193 / 340 = 57% 0.007May I ask.... since when a 57% of correct guesses is a 0.007 probability of guessing?
ARNY SPEAKS!Took ya long enough to get here
I never said that the cassette format was sonically transparent, just that it was capable of coming close given a good example of appropriate machine and tape. Even more so if the machine is accurately calibrated in terms of recording bias level to suit the tape in question.
I'd like to be able to take the ABX results seriously on the Otari MTR-10 and MTR-20 decks, but as no mention is made of the age of the machines, the condition of the heads, the specific tape used, nor whether the optional Dolby SR noise reduction offered with these machines was either installed or used during the testing process, the results are meaningless in reality.
Quote from: Axon on 03 June, 2008, 03:20:53 PMOh, nice! Another flat transfer partisan. Welcome to the club.I have to wonder, what does all that RIAA curve do to your overall gain structure and dynamic range, then.
Oh, nice! Another flat transfer partisan. Welcome to the club.
I guess I think that "close" is hard to get a precise handle on. Take my post as an errr... umm... clarification. ;-)
Dolby SR was not used. The machines had been just tested and aligned by one of the very best analog tape technicans around, who also did the tests. I seem to recall they were brand new machines being checked out by the dealer's best tech, preparatory for delivery. The tape choice was of course optimal for thase machines at that time. I think there is a corresponding AES paper, but I don't know if it was for a conference or a section meeting.
Quote from: Woodinville on 03 June, 2008, 03:26:06 PMQuote from: Axon on 03 June, 2008, 03:20:53 PMOh, nice! Another flat transfer partisan. Welcome to the club.I have to wonder, what does all that RIAA curve do to your overall gain structure and dynamic range, then.It is not pretty!
@Axon: I hope you're providing the recommended capacitive loading for the cartridge, preferably directly at the cartridge. If the graphs you showed us in a recent thread showing noticeable HF ringing are anything to go by, I suspect not. Cheers, Slipstreem.
Right now I'm recording flat with a Yamaha GO46 (quieter/cheaper than an Emu 0404 USB!). It's about 10-20db quieter at all frequencies than the vinyl noise floors I'm recording, except for some 1khz peaks and diverse harmonics thereof at +20db above the vinyl noise floor (which are not audible at real listening levels, and are not predicted to be audible due to spectral masking), and a really wide hump at 700hz that's perhaps 5db up IIRC. That's probably audible, but even with my dynamic LPs it's an incredibly minor concern. The noise floor while recording is -72db, and I do manage to clip on very rare occasion with real music.
Soldering the leads on a cart is an easy way to fry it. However, wiring the network up parallel to the headshell leads would work pretty well...
Never had any problem with applying loading capacitance at the preamp end. Indeed, my main phono preamp in the days of vinyl was based on NE5534 ICs, and had tuning capacitors wired across the inputs.
So, educate me! ;-)Dynamic range has two parts - noise floor and headroom. YOu seem to be OK on the noise floor end, but what's happening with headroom? Before you apply eq in the digital domain, how close do peak levels come to FS?
Done the headshell trip, and it works, but adds some mass. Soldered to the clips that slip onto the cartrdige pins.