On 30/05/2023 04:13 pm, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 12:32:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/05/2023 08:32 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>>> R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've changed the order a little...
>>>
>>>> Wow
>>>> Flutter
>>>> Rumble
>>>> Hiss
>>>> Acoustic feedback
>>>> Crosstalk
>>>> EMI in the cable(s) (very few mV as opposed to line voltage)
>>>> Pre-amp noise
>>>> Limited frequency response
>>>
>>> All of the above normally not audible on good systems. Only pre-amp
>>> noise has raised it's head in my system in the last decade, that due
>>> to changes in my system to get HDMI hi-res audio but a new RIAA pre
>>> sorted that.
>>>
>>>> Scratches
>>>> Wear
>>>> Poor pressing
>>>
>>> That does happen.
>>>
>>> [Snip]
>>>
>>>> As previously stated anyone who believes vinyl and valve is better
>>>> than CD and semiconductor is demonstrating deaf faith.
>> +1.
>>>
>>> As it's written yes I agree with you. However, the word "better" is
>>> the issue. Had you written "anyone who finds the sound of vinyl
>>> preferable" then I wouldn't agree with you.
>>> Digital audio has come a long way since the early 80s when to my ears
>>> and many others, CD playback sounded not good at all. Today and for
>>> decades I've no problem with digital playback and would not want to
>>> go back to vinyl except for nostalgic moments.
>>> Vinyl sounds very good on my system, excellent in fact but it is
>>> woefully a right pain in practical terms but it's obvious you've not
>>> been exposed to good vinyl playback.
>
> If you track back in this group, you will see how I recounted that when my hearing was still good in the mid 1980's I would easily tell the difference between CD's and Vinyl when played over FM and through my car stereo driving up the M6* as broadcast by Signal Radio. I don't know what professional vinyl decks they used, but IMO it would be fair to assume that they were "good".
>
> Even now I can easily tell the difference between my vinyl Led Zep 4 and my CD version, although the former may be a little worn. OTOH I struggle to tell CD from a pirate MP3 LZ recording [legally bought in a public market between dawn and dusk decades ago] and CD.
>
> In the early days of CD player's, tracking may have been a bit off, timing relying on the read stream, D to A conversion not all 16 bits and most importantly little or no look ahead buffer to allow for re-read and / error correction. Old CD's may become scratched, dirty, warped or been exposed to the sun, but unless severe they are much less affected than vinyl. No look ahead results in distortion when missed samples are dropped.
>
> The main [valid] critique of vinyl lovers is the sampling rate on CD's which is pushing it for high frequencies, but Shannon tells us even they probably can't tell.
>
>>
>> I have heard that claim frequently (though not as frequently today as in
>> the 1980s and early 1990s), usually from hi-fi shop staff.
>>
>> I managed to extract the opinion that "good vinyl playback" was really
>> only available on a system that cost about the same as the price of a
>> nearly-new Mini.
>
> Not even then. The best I ever heard was about 1981/2, a visiting senior engineer boasted about his set up so I went to hear it. He had top deck and amp, big speakers (all in a small front room!) and had bought hugely expensive direct pressings of his favorite LP's that cost ££ even then. Sure it was better than my then down-market set up, but even as good as CD - I very much doubt it.
>
> * so fidelity loss in the FM segment, engine, road and wind noise etc.

Back in the early 1990s, when my son was about six, I was playing the CD
of "Sgt Pepper's...".

At the end, he asked me "What's that funny noise?". He meant the
15,000Hz tone, which was inaudible to me (though I could see it on the
VU meter of a cassette deck).
>

In article <5ab0475523bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> That reminds me of what Philips did with their 14 bit dacs and over
> sampling to get the 16 bit precision they needed.

Yes. It is also why *high rate* DACs and ADCs can use just a few bits per
sample. Think SACD/DSD which only uses *one* bit per sample. :-) ...but of
course a very high rate and then the devices use a *series* of samples to
combine and give accuracy for the audio band well below the SACD 'sample
rate'.

That said, Philips/Sony did mess up their early SACD devices and had to
rapidly change them as the fell into 'traps' which are almost impossible to
spot until you hit them with that approach. Links to 'Chaos Theory' . :-)

Nice on a Tee Shirt, but not on your music. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <u5na0j$o2gm$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> I wonder I understand this correctly. If you take multiple (eg 2)
> samples at 24 bits precision and then average them to a single sample
> at the final sampling speed for the released CD, then if the
> consecutive samples were 48 and 49 (for example) you can interpolate
> that to a single sample of 48.5 - ie you've "gained" an extra bit of
> precision that wasn't there in any of the original samples?

That's not quite the correct argument in theory. But it does hint at it,
yes.

The point is that Nyquist take as a given that you carefully used *all the
input from start to finish* to compute each individual output sample value.
That then does mean you get all the info for what "went on in between the
samples". It also means that for correctly sampled data you have minimised
quantisation error.

cf the free 'book' I referenced in my comments to Bob.

This is difficult, I know, for many as it relies on being able to fully
'make sense' of the maths behind the Nyquist equations, etc. And it may
seem counter-intuative. I did try to explain it in words as well in my old
lectures and the book based on them. But it is one of those things that
isn't at all obvious until you may twig it!

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5ab03a3072bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5ab032a08bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <u5krb9$c09b$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid>
> > wrote:

> > > Nyquist says that if you sample at n samples/sec, you can reproduce
> > > signal frequencies up to n/2 Hz.

> > Yes. However tha assumes some things which people often fail to
> > realise.

> I'm certainly failing right now. :-)

> > e.g. For every instant in the output your DAC is expected to use *all*
> > the samples in the full-length 'record. i.e. if you have a recording
> > 1000 seconds long then each individual instant you want out for the
> > 'analogue has to employ *all* 1000 x 44100 samples for that channel!

> I've read that and read it. I cannot understand it.

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/InformationAndMeasurement_PDF_Book_pf.pdf

The section on Sampling Theorem shows the calculation Nyquist relies upon.
I has to use *all* of the samples to covert all the info - which is spread
out across the entire pattern. In practice people use a smaller range and
'window' that in various ways depending on their judgement or specific
purpose.

> > And all the computation has to use enough precision to avoid *any*
> > data contributions from going AWOL in the process. So far more
> > precision than, say 24bit.

> I also fail to understand any of that.

As above.

> > Yes, some DAC designers try to get as wide a range employed. But only
> > get approximations that are "good enough" in someone's judgement.

> Jim, I don't want to attack, I want to understand could you expand
> please?

> My understanding is obviously very poor. Traditionally, I thought a
> single sample when fed to a dac produced a proportional current which is
> then converted to a spot voltage which is then fed to the
> re-construction filter.

The hidden depth is then in the "reconstrution filter". A 'filter' has to
have some form of 'memory'. i.e. what it outputs at any point depends on
more than just one sample *if* it is to show correctly what happened
*between* samples.

> The only calculations I'm aware of are to do with error correction prior
> to the dac getting the sample or up-sampling for systems that do that.

> Why more precision that 24 bit?

For similar reasons as above. When you start muliplying 24 bit values
together, for example, you need a much bigger range for output to cover and
avoid problems with truncation losses or clipping *and/or* dithering+ noise
shaping. Noise shaping (not actually 'noise' so misleading term, but the
standard one here, alas) is also important for avoiding or minimising
causing the output to be inaccurate.

> Myself, I think there is very little difference in hi-res audio ie.
> above CD quality but there are advantages to be found in the softer
> reconstruction filter with higher sample rates.

The problem with 44.1k 16 bit is that it requires a remarkably good
reconstruction filter to keep value error above, say 20kHz or below the
16th bit level. Using 96k gives the filter more 'elbow room' to shove crap
well above 20kHz. Makes life easier for the DAC.

FWIW Robin Watts is one of the few people who have made almost a quest of
having the DEC work as close to Nyquist as possible. Alas, the people in
the record biz may then have messed up getting that close in many cases by
poor processing of what they flog the punters to play.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <ke8vmvF6bgvU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 30/05/2023 09:45 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I managed to extract the opinion that "good vinyl playback" was
> >> really only available on a system that cost about the same as
> >> the price of a nearly-new Mini.
> >
> > Well, in fairness if someone is willing to pay for a decent
> > stereo based on, say CD, the cost of a decent deck, etc,
> > shouldn't be a bar to getting decent results *from a good LP*. I
> > doubt the cost of a small car is needed.

> According to the staff at that shop (and this was 1990), you had to
> be looking at £2,000 just for the turntable and cartridge.

Yes, I spent that sort of some decades ago, it's a fair bit more now
unfortunately.

Although I don't advocate this dead technology, if you buy good stuff
it costs big but sounds excellent.

I wouldn't buy anything like that today as a streamer and flac stored
on a NAS is very much more practical but less tactile and visual.

Bob.

On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 13:49:26 UTC+1, NY wrote:
> "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5ab03a...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> > In article <5ab032a...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> > Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <u5krb9$c09b$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> > Nyquist says that if you sample at n samples/sec, you can
> >> > reproduce signal frequencies up to n/2 Hz.
> >
> >> Yes. However tha assumes some things which people often fail to
> >> realise.
> >
> > I'm certainly failing right now. :-)
> >
> >> e.g. For every instant in the output your DAC is expected to use
> >> *all* the samples in the full-length 'record. i.e. if you have a
> >> recording 1000 seconds long then each individual instant you want
> >> out for the 'analogue has to employ *all* 1000 x 44100 samples for
> >> that channel!
> >
> > I've read that and read it. I cannot understand it.
> >
> >> And all the computation has to use enough precision to avoid *any*
> >> data contributions from going AWOL in the process. So far more
> >> precision than, say 24bit.
> >
> > I also fail to understand any of that.

What the two bits above mean is that the DAC has to be able to keep up with the data rate and be good enough to get convert all 16 bits accurately and the next stage able to slew fast enough to keep up. Not a problem with modern DAC's, but pushing it nearly 40 years ago.

>
> Yes, I'm wondering whether I have forgotten or misunderstood what I learned
> at university about signal reproduction - it was 40-odd year ago.
> >> Yes, some DAC designers try to get as wide a range employed. But
> >> only get approximations that are "good enough" in someone's
> >> judgement.
> >
> > Jim, I don't want to attack, I want to understand could you expand
> > please?
> >
> > My understanding is obviously very poor. Traditionally, I thought a
> > single sample when fed to a dac produced a proportional current which
> > is then converted to a spot voltage which is then fed to the
> > re-construction filter.
> >
> > The only calculations I'm aware of are to do with error correction
> > prior to the dac getting the sample or up-sampling for systems that
> > do that.
> >
> > Why more precision that 24 bit?
>
>
> I wonder I understand this correctly. If you take multiple (eg 2) samples at
> 24 bits precision and then average them to a single sample at the final
> sampling speed for the released CD, then if the consecutive samples were 48
> and 49 (for example) you can interpolate that to a single sample of 48.5 -
> ie you've "gained" an extra bit of precision that wasn't there in any of the
> original samples?

Or just use a capacitor of the right value...

In article <unqg7i989pk4juuplikqlkve2m7rn4tj4l@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>On Thu, 01 Jun 23 09:45:02 UTC, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>> I record some of my LPs using my PC and a 192KHz 24 bit ADC. Admittedly
>>> I've have removed some clues like the stylus hitting the groove but
>>> nothing much.
>>
>>Big advantage of that is you can then clean up clicks, etc. Then listen in
>>situations where a lp and turntable would be problematic.
>
>There's an even bigger advantage in listening to a recording that
>doesn't have any clicks etc in the first place, because the digital
>recording process doesn't create them. Then you don't have to do
>anything to it at all.
>
>A lot of LPs are made from digital masters, and are thus effectively
>copies made by an analogue process that is full of distortions. How
>can these copies possibly sound better than the originals?
>
>Rod.

Cos they got a luverly "tone" guv:)...
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <fe575f8c-94f4-4ebc-b08b-cc32405e992en@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>On Friday, 2 June 2023 at 16:58:17 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
>> On 02/06/2023 13:35, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > In the world of broadcasting (where I used to work) the same signal is
>> > sent to many people who will proably have different preferences, so
>> > the general aim is that the equipment should affect the signal as
>> > little as possible (after which it's up to the customers what they do
>> > with it). In this setting, more objective measures can be appilied,
>> > and digital wins hands down.
>> </snip>
>> I do listen to broadcast music from time to time. My experience is that
>> the lossy compression applied to get the sound into a much too low
>> bandwidth causes audible distortion.
>>
>> It _could_ be really good, given the technology. But the dictates of
>> commerce mean more stations make more money than fewer better ones.
>>
>> Andy
>
>Stereo FM better than vinyl, almost as good as direct CD (see comments early in
>thread about listening to records over it), although signal needs to be fairly
>strong not to get noticeable hiss. Some young people can hear the 19kHz tone
>used to separate the channels.
>
>Stereo in DVB/T or DVB/T - second best, but not far behind.
>
>High bit rate DAB - OK, probably comparable to vinyl.

What Radio 3 DAB i on A good 192 K bit day;)..
>
>Standard DAB - poor - significantly worse than vinyl.
>

Sometimes -- provided the source is as it ought be no transcoding

48K AAC plus is very good for DAB radio..

>AM - very poor and only mono, but when I was a kid listening to Radio Luxembourg

>under the bed covers I thought it was great...

Content weren't it:)..

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <u5a2mk$2pmo6$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid>
scribeth thus
>"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:5aadacc905bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>> In article <5aad1b258cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> More accurate to say that 'Vinyl' *can* sound very good. Just as CD
>>> can. But not all examples of either will or do.
>
>> I'll accept that.
>
>Both *can* sound good, but CD will always win because it is not marred by
>dust/scratch/surface-roughness noise. I have yet to hear any vinyl record
>which even comes *close* to a CD for lack of background noise. A vinyl
>record may have been mastered perfectly, but as soon as physical contact
>between groove and needle is involved, very intrusive background noise
>enters the frame.
>

I remember years ago having Dr Derek Scotland of Audiolab demo'ing some
QUAD ESL 63 units via IIRC a Lentek amp..

The source was Vinyl but it was bloody excellent far better then I'd
have thought possible can't remember the deck arm or cart, think that
was moving coil but it was very impressive.

There then came a lecture, as he was wont, about pressing standards in
the UK and Germany and in the UK plastics "engineering" was little
better than kids piss pots whilst in Germany a plastics ENGINEER was a
good profession with such firms as Bayer BASF etc..

And that was why the Vinyl was as good as it was the pressing Quality
over there being much better than over here!.

He was right, they at one point had a problem getting a spark eroded
finish on the control knobs seemed in the end they were moulded in
Germany!..

All to do with if your son was Oxbridge material he'd be a Lawyer,
Doctor accountant a recognised professional not a bloody Plastics
engineer !!

Mind you this was some time ago now, are engineers more thought of and
paid as well as Lawyers doctor's and the like?..

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

> In article <unqg7i989pk4juuplikqlkve2m7rn4tj4l@4ax.com>, Roderick
> Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

> > How can these copies possibly sound better than the
> >originals?

Who said they did, I missed that?

Bob.

In article <8b6b94e6-07ce-4f97-92ca-ce9f4bb0b274n@googlegroups.com>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 13:49:26 UTC+1, NY wrote:
> > "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:5ab03a...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> > > In article <5ab032a...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> > > Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> In article <u5krb9$c09b$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Nyquist says that if you sample at n samples/sec, you can
> > >> > reproduce signal frequencies up to n/2 Hz.
> > >
> > >> Yes. However tha assumes some things which people often fail
> > >> to realise.
> > >
> > > I'm certainly failing right now. :-)
> > >
> > >> e.g. For every instant in the output your DAC is expected to
> > >> use *all* the samples in the full-length 'record. i.e. if you
> > >> have a recording 1000 seconds long then each individual
> > >> instant you want out for the 'analogue has to employ *all*
> > >> 1000 x 44100 samples for that channel!
> > >
> > > I've read that and read it. I cannot understand it.
> > >
> > >> And all the computation has to use enough precision to avoid
> > >> *any* data contributions from going AWOL in the process. So
> > >> far more precision than, say 24bit.
> > >
> > > I also fail to understand any of that.

> What the two bits above mean is that the DAC has to be able to keep
> up with the data rate and be good enough to get convert all 16 bits
> accurately and the next stage able to slew fast enough to keep up.
> Not a problem with modern DAC's, but pushing it nearly 40 years
> ago.

What two bits? Where does memory come into that then?

From my simplistic picture I think this is more about the
reconstruction filter than the DAC but I'm not pretending to
understand it.

> > Yes, I'm wondering whether I have forgotten or misunderstood what
> > I learned at university about signal reproduction - it was 40-odd
> > year ago.
> > >> Yes, some DAC designers try to get as wide a range employed.
> > >> But only get approximations that are "good enough" in
> > >> someone's judgement.
> > >
> > > Jim, I don't want to attack, I want to understand could you
> > > expand please?
> > >
> > > My understanding is obviously very poor. Traditionally, I
> > > thought a single sample when fed to a dac produced a
> > > proportional current which is then converted to a spot voltage
> > > which is then fed to the re-construction filter.
> > >
> > > The only calculations I'm aware of are to do with error
> > > correction prior to the dac getting the sample or up-sampling
> > > for systems that do that.
> > >
> > > Why more precision that 24 bit?
> >
> >
> > I wonder I understand this correctly. If you take multiple (eg 2)
> > samples at 24 bits precision and then average them to a single
> > sample at the final sampling speed for the released CD, then if
> > the consecutive samples were 48 and 49 (for example) you can
> > interpolate that to a single sample of 48.5 - ie you've "gained"
> > an extra bit of precision that wasn't there in any of the
> > original samples?

> Or just use a capacitor of the right value...

On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 21:35:12 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <u5a2mk$2pmo6$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid>
> scribeth thus

SNIP

>
> All to do with if your son was Oxbridge material he'd be a Lawyer,
> Doctor accountant a recognised professional not a bloody Plastics
> engineer !!

Lawyer maybe, but even gaining Oxbridge entrance doesn't mean one can hack it on a medical degree and further training, nor is it necessarily easier to get on the course.

>
> Mind you this was some time ago now, are engineers more thought of and
> paid as well as Lawyers doctor's and the like?..

[senior / experienced] Doctors are paid £££,£££, but typically have studied and trained post school for up to ten years (e.g. to be a GP) before being able to practice unsupervised.

Some lawyers are paid oodles, but staffers in low-ranking firms in this list: -
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-law-firm-offices-ranked-worst-best
typically will be worse paid than engineers.

I am retired now, but in my middle years as a freelance software engineer I grossed more than quacks, briefs or bean counters.

> --
> Tony Sayer
>
>
> Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
>
> Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <5ab0af7aa1bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> What two bits? Where does memory come into that then?

> From my simplistic picture I think this is more about the reconstruction
> filter than the DAC

Yes.

> but I'm not pretending to understand it.

Few people do, alas. Many of them in the audio biz - alas-squared!

The basic concept of 'digital sampling' is fairly simple to explain.
However what is then required to fully capture an undistorted 'recording'
of the info and then use it to ideally regenerate a copy of what fed the
ADC is rather more complex. No surprise that many of the people writing in
magazines, etc, essentially don't understand it! Alas,

Indeed, many undergrad level *textbooks* fail to explain this properly.
Many just copy across what some other textbook contained without realisng
it isn't correct! The result is students who can get the right answers in
exams, but not have the understanding to apply the methods optimally.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <8b6b94e6-07ce-4f97-92ca-ce9f4bb0b274n@googlegroups.com>, R.
Mark Clayton <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> What the two bits above mean is that the DAC has to be able to keep up
> with the data rate and be good enough to get convert all 16 bits
> accurately and the next stage able to slew fast enough to keep up. Not
> a problem with modern DAC's, but pushing it nearly 40 years ago.

Yes. Alas, many early *ADCs* were also poorly made in terms of the
'regularity' of their sample steps. Thus 'baking in' various forms of
distortion to the digital capture. Add to that clueless misuse by the
studio people. Again, lots of examples of how that then messed up the
results on CD are shown on my webpages.

> > >
> > > Why more precision that 24 bit?
> >
> >
> > I wonder I understand this correctly. If you take multiple (eg 2)
> > samples at 24 bits precision and then average them to a single sample
> > at the final sampling speed for the released CD, then if the
> > consecutive samples were 48 and 49 (for example) you can interpolate
> > that to a single sample of 48.5 - ie you've "gained" an extra bit of
> > precision that wasn't there in any of the original samples?

> Or just use a capacitor of the right value...

Not quite as a 1st order 'RC' also produces dispersion as well as only
approximating the required result. Nyquist can't easily be fooled. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <ke8vmvF6bgvU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 30/05/2023 09:45 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I managed to extract the opinion that "good vinyl playback" was
> >> really only available on a system that cost about the same as the
> >> price of a nearly-new Mini.
> >
> > Well, in fairness if someone is willing to pay for a decent stereo
> > based on, say CD, the cost of a decent deck, etc, shouldn't be a bar
> > to getting decent results *from a good LP*. I doubt the cost of a
> > small car is needed.

> According to the staff at that shop (and this was 1990), you had to be
> looking at £2,000 just for the turntable and cartridge.

Try a different shop. 8-] Yes, some dealers will say you must have costly
kit. And mags like HFN focus on 'high end'.

> > FWIW If you want examples of the 'best' LPs, I'd say try the "Dragon's
> > Dream" ones. They *are* expensive as they are direct cuts. But done
> > with great care, and very impressive on a good system.

> I buy according to the content, not the label!

Well, I was pointing out DD as an example of outstanding care when making
LPs - from recording to pressing. What content they have that you might
otherwise choose is for your taste to select. I got some 'big band' jazz
and some other items from them. And for me they are great music, well
played, and very well produced via the resulting LPs.

Since they do 'Direct to Disc' those versions tend to run out of stock in
time. And high priced/ But they do example what *is* possible from LP.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 07 Jun, noise@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
> In article <ke8vmvF6bgvU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> > On 30/05/2023 09:45 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > > Well, in fairness if someone is willing to pay for a decent stereo
> > > based on, say CD, the cost of a decent deck, etc, shouldn't be a bar
> > > to getting decent results *from a good LP*. I doubt the cost of a
> > > small car is needed.

> > According to the staff at that shop (and this was 1990), you had to be
> > looking at £2,000 just for the turntable and cartridge.

> Try a different shop. 8-] Yes, some dealers will say you must have
> costly kit. And mags like HFN focus on 'high end'.

Someone just pointed out this to me as an example

https://www.analogueseduction.net/turntables/rega-planar-1-plus-eco-deck-green-grade-turntable.html

It isn't the best in the world. But Rega are OK as a company.

So I suspect it would provide results many might enjoy. That said, I've
continued to use my decades-old Technics deck + Shure V15. I tend to prefer
Direct Drive TT and a good MM cart. YMMV.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 01/06/2023 01:30 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <5aadb31d4cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <u5a2mk$2pmo6$1@dont-email.me>,
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:5aadacc905bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>>> In article <5aad1b258cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
>>>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> More accurate to say that 'Vinyl' *can* sound very good. Just as CD
>>>>> can. But not all examples of either will or do.
>
>>>> I'll accept that.
>
>>> Both *can* sound good, but CD will always win because it is not
>>> marred by dust/scratch/surface-roughness noise. I have yet to hear
>>> any vinyl record which even comes *close* to a CD for lack of
>>> background noise. A vinyl record may have been mastered perfectly,
>>> but as soon as physical contact between groove and needle is
>>> involved, very intrusive background noise enters the frame.
>
>> I've never argued that Vinyl can get near CD for unwanted noise or
>> durability or playing time or a host of other things.
>
>> However, It's not hard to find CDs that don't sound as good as the
>> Vinyl. I refer to one in another post. For the majority of recording
>> that don't have clicks, pops etc. telling which you're listening to
>> is tricky, remove all the tiny clicks digitally and it's very
>> difficult certainly on rock/pop with decent gear.
>
>> Once more! Vinyl is badly flawed, it has a multitude of sins but on
>> good gear and a clean record it sounds excellent. I'm not in anyway
>> advocating vinyl but it is being unfairly rubbished by prejudice and
>> lack of experience.
>
> Please remember that until 1979, all we had to listed to were LPs.

In my case, it was probably some time in the 1970s, after I bought a
stereo cassette deck. Even then, the improved performance was only
gained via pre-recorded musicassettes or via recording off-air from
Radios 2, 3 and 4. Other recordings teneded to have originated on the
record turntable.

But I remember that I used to tune out groove noises and clicks. When I
first heard a track which started with faded-in windchimes on the first
CD I bought (1990), it was a revelation...

On 01/06/2023 03:56 pm, NY wrote:
>
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:582911af-b735-4784-b6b5-cfd3a62f4064n@googlegroups.com...
>> On Thursday, 1 June 2023 at 14:30:06 UTC+1, charles wrote:
>>> In article <5aadb3...@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>>
>> Snip
>
>>> Please remember that until 1979, all we had to listed to were LPs.
>
>> and then in 1985 along came something better...
>
> It was before 1985. I remember in my first year at university (so 1982)
> going with some friends to hear a demo of a CD player at a hifi shop.

ISTR compact disc being demonstrated on BBC "Tomorrow's World". It
seemed like distant sci-fi. The uploader says he thinks it was 1981
(though I think it was a bit later than that).

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMp1pSVxoqw>

"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kebs2sFjr8fU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 01/06/2023 03:56 pm, NY wrote:
>>
>>
>> "R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:582911af-b735-4784-b6b5-cfd3a62f4064n@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Thursday, 1 June 2023 at 14:30:06 UTC+1, charles wrote:
>>>> In article <5aadb3...@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>>>
>>> Snip
>>
>>>> Please remember that until 1979, all we had to listed to were LPs.
>>
>>> and then in 1985 along came something better...
>>
>> It was before 1985. I remember in my first year at university (so 1982)
>> going with some friends to hear a demo of a CD player at a hifi shop.
>
> ISTR compact disc being demonstrated on BBC "Tomorrow's World". It seemed
> like distant sci-fi. The uploader says he thinks it was 1981 (though I
> think it was a bit later than that).
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMp1pSVxoqw>

I first heard a CD demonstrated for real (ie not on Tomorrow's World where
the weakest link is the TV sound transmission and reproduction) in my first
year at university, so autumn 1981 at the earliest.

The salesman chose various dramatic orchestral and rock tracks, and the
improved dynamic range was fantastic: so far they only time I'd head
anything approaching it was FM radio. But, canny lad that he was, he then
chose some very quiet music where the volume had to be turned up, and we
realised that the equivalent record would be marred by record noise (dust,
scratches, crud on the bottom of the groove).

The final bit of the demo was about the durability of CDs. He took out a
demo CD and made a radial scratch with a sewing needle. He played it and
there was no noise at all. (OK, to demonstrate the error-correction, he
really should have made a circumferential scratch!) My mate, a great big
burly Mancunian who was built like a brick shithouse, said "Giz it here" and
he gouged a trench in the disc. The salesman went pale, but he played the
disk. There was a rhythmic ticking and occasional skipping. "*Now* I'm
*really* impressed," my mate said. "Do that to a record and you'd rip the
f-ing needle off".

Things have come a long way since then. CD players can all now be programmed
to play a set of tracks, either in a fixed order or in random order. You can
skip to the beginning of any track without any of the imprecision over
cueing and the thump as the needle goes down. Some CD players can even
interrogate a central database and display the name of the disc and the list
of tracks. Quite why the CD standard didn't include that information on the
disc is a complete mystery to me - they missed a trick there.

But we then have player software, either on dedicated hardware or on a PC.
And that can play from a computer disc (hard, USB, SSD etc) without a
removable physical medium being necessary. OK. it brings in the dreaded
subject of lossy compression on MP3, but as with anything in engineering,
there is a compromise between file size and sound quality. I find that I
cannot distinguish between 256 kbps MP3 file and (uncompressed) WAV file
from which it was generated. Only when you get down to 128 kbps can a slight
grittiness and bubbling-mud sound be heard - but you have to listen hard at
a normal playing volume.

I have kept all my CDs as backups, even if for convenience I tend to play
the iTunes copy that I made from the CD. I also have an external USB HDD
with a copy of my music library, just in case.

I do have a box of LPs as well - older music that predates CDs. The sound
quality is still very good - as long as you can mentally filter out the
background crap (dust-tick, scratch-click and constant roaring sound of the
crud in the grooves). Some records are a lot better than others.
Choral/organ music (I was digitising some old LPs belong to my
parents-in-law) sounds DIRE: horrendous distortion and obnoxious background
crap. Most music seems to be better, though the dynamic compression of pop
music makes the background crap much less noticeable than the very wide
dynamic range and quiet sections of classic music.

I made WAV copies of some of the LPs for my dad, having cleaned the records
with a damp (or even dripping wet!) cloth to try to wash out the crud from
the grooves, and in a few cases I had to play tracks "wet" (drip a puddle of
water onto the track so it covers it fairly uniformly and let the needle sit
in the water on the grooves. There was a bit of loss of high frequencies,
but that was often preferable to background noise. Maybe some of those old
LPs are now available in CD form or even on Youtube.

In article <u5qrs8$18012$1@dont-email.me>,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> OK. it brings in the dreaded subject of lossy compression on MP3,
> but as with anything in engineering, there is a compromise between
> file size and sound quality. I find that I cannot distinguish
> between 256 kbps MP3 file and (uncompressed) WAV file from which it
> was generated. Only when you get down to 128 kbps can a slight
> grittiness and bubbling-mud sound be heard - but you have to listen
> hard at a normal playing volume.

> I made WAV copies of some of the LPs for my dad, having cleaned the
> records with a damp (or even dripping wet!) cloth to try to wash
> out the crud from the grooves, and in a few cases I had to play
> tracks "wet" (drip a puddle of water onto the track so it covers it
> fairly uniformly and let the needle sit in the water on the
> grooves.

In all of that I've not noticed any mention of flac.

Having spent an horrendous amount of time ripping CDs and a few LPs
over at least 12 years I have some experience.

One advantage getting a good tool to rip CDs (I use dBpoweramp) is
that not only will it rip directly to flac (and/or anything else) but
for 99.9% of the time it will fill in all the tag data for you
including picture art etc.. It also creates a CRC check of your rip
and compares it to an on line data base. It then tells you that you
have an accurate rip.

Yes, ok you can't distinguish mp3 that's fine for you right now. But
what about if for some reason you ever play your music on more
revealing kit, remember the information thrown away by lossy
compression is like the B&Q sale, when it's gone it's gone. It's a
bit like when we were kids, having a tape recording of an album was
good but not the same as having the album.

Flac cannot give the massive compression that lossy compression can
but it still compresses a lot and retains all information so that the
original WAV could be recreated from it if you wished.

Storage of flac files as a master on a NAS is very cheap these days,
I have nearly 4 thousand flac albums now backed up on three second
hand NAS boxes.

An mp3 copy of the flac (useful for portable devices) can be created
in seconds.

Flac really is the way to do it, you know it makes sense and you'll
never have a reason to rip your CDs ever again. You have the full
data, not a fax of it and the full tag data. Win, Win.

Bob.

In article <u5qrs8$18012$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kebs2sFjr8fU1@mid.individual.net...
> > On 01/06/2023 03:56 pm, NY wrote:
> Some CD players can even interrogate a central database and display the
> name of the disc and the list of tracks. Quite why the CD standard
> didn't include that information on the disc is a complete mystery to me
> - they missed a trick there.

The 'Book' allows for a stream of text to be included and displayed. I have
had one player that duly showed a text stream as it played the Audio CD.

However, most makers of players simply didn't bother to provide this
ability, so their players give the user no sign it is present on a CD.
Similarly, most commercial discs fail to include it.

So Sony/Philips did think of this and impliment it. But makers of discs and
players generally couldn't be bothered.

> I do have a box of LPs as well - older music that predates CDs. The
> sound quality is still very good - as long as you can mentally filter
> out the background crap (dust-tick, scratch-click and constant roaring
> sound of the crud in the grooves). Some records are a lot better than
> others.

The main flaws I found with LPs were due to poor pressing and handling
before it came over the counter in the shop. Clicks and pops, and warps,
and off-center being the usual suspects. Surface noise levels can vary with
the choice of cartridge, etc. Matter of where in the groove it makes
contact, HF tip resonance, etc.

JIm

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5ab1388728bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Having spent an horrendous amount of time ripping CDs and a few LPs over
> at least 12 years I have some experience.

I just got in the habit of making a digital transfer when I fancied
listening to an LP I'd not already done.

> One advantage getting a good tool to rip CDs (I use dBpoweramp) is that
> not only will it rip directly to flac (and/or anything else) but for
> 99.9% of the time it will fill in all the tag data for you including
> picture art etc.. It also creates a CRC check of your rip and compares
> it to an on line data base. It then tells you that you have an accurate
> rip.

FWIW I use cdparanoia which shows a running report on how it is doing and
listing any difficulties/problems as it goes. It retries each chunk until
happy.

> Yes, ok you can't distinguish mp3 that's fine for you right now.

Given that memory is cheap as chips these days I can't see the point of
ripping to a lossy format. Flac is fine.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 07/06/2023 22:12, NY wrote:
>
> Things have come a long way since then. CD players can all now be
> programmed to play a set of tracks, either in a fixed order or in random
> order. You can skip to the beginning of any track without any of the
> imprecision over cueing and the thump as the needle goes down. Some CD
> players can even interrogate a central database and display the name of
> the disc and the list of tracks. Quite why the CD standard didn't
> include that information on the disc is a complete mystery to me - they
> missed a trick there.

It is in the standard.

Now.

It wasn't at the beginning, and most CDs still don't have it. My wife's
car picks it up, and the digitised LPs I made have it on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-Text

Andy

"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:u6219e$2arqv$1@dont-email.me...
> On 07/06/2023 22:12, NY wrote:
>>
>> Things have come a long way since then. CD players can all now be
>> programmed to play a set of tracks, either in a fixed order or in random
>> order. You can skip to the beginning of any track without any of the
>> imprecision over cueing and the thump as the needle goes down. Some CD
>> players can even interrogate a central database and display the name of
>> the disc and the list of tracks. Quite why the CD standard didn't include
>> that information on the disc is a complete mystery to me - they missed a
>> trick there.
>
> It is in the standard.
>
> Now.
>
> It wasn't at the beginning, and most CDs still don't have it. My wife's
> car picks it up, and the digitised LPs I made have it on.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-Text

Odd that it took until 1996 for it to be part of the standard - or more
accurately, to become an optional odd-on that isn't used on all discs and
isn't read on all players.

From the very first time I saw a CD demonstrated in the early 80s I thought
"wouldn't it be good if the disc and track names were stored on the disc and
displayed on the player". I wonder why the same thought didn't occur to
those people who defined the original standard in the late 70s, so it became
a mandatory part of a CD-compliant player and a CD-compliant disc.

I wonder if I bought any CDs since 1996 which may (or may not) have the
information on them. My CD player is definitely too old (bought in the late
80s), but I imagine that computer CD drives can pick it up and CD-player
software can display it - if the disc has the info.

On 07/06/2023 10:12 pm, NY wrote:
> "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kebs2sFjr8fU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 01/06/2023 03:56 pm, NY wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:582911af-b735-4784-b6b5-cfd3a62f4064n@googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Thursday, 1 June 2023 at 14:30:06 UTC+1, charles wrote:
>>>>> In article <5aadb3...@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>>>>
>>>> Snip
>>>
>>>>> Please remember that until 1979, all we had to listed to were LPs.
>>>
>>>> and then in 1985 along came something better...
>>>
>>> It was before 1985. I remember in my first year at university (so
>>> 1982) going with some friends to hear a demo of a CD player at a hifi
>>> shop.
>>
>> ISTR compact disc being demonstrated on BBC "Tomorrow's World". It
>> seemed like distant sci-fi. The uploader says he thinks it was 1981
>> (though I think it was a bit later than that).
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMp1pSVxoqw>
>
> I first heard a CD demonstrated for real (ie not on Tomorrow's World
> where the weakest link is the TV sound transmission and reproduction) in
> my first year at university, so autumn 1981 at the earliest.

My earliest exposure (other than it being mentioned in print) was that
edition of "Tomorrow's World". The presenter (can't remember who) said
to camera that viewers ought to be able to hear the difference between
vinyl and CD versions over the air. Whether I did or not is something I
don't recall, but it is easy to kid yourself in these circumstances.
>
> The salesman chose various dramatic orchestral and rock tracks, and the
> improved dynamic range was fantastic: so far they only time I'd head
> anything approaching it was FM radio. But, canny lad that he was, he
> then chose some very quiet music where the volume had to be turned up,
> and we realised that the equivalent record would be marred by record
> noise (dust, scratches, crud on the bottom of the groove).

For me, the moment the penny finally dropped was when I bought a £3.99
CD in 1990 (because it contained one track I needed) and played back -
on headphones - a track which started with a long, quiet intro on
orchestral windchimes. I already that on vinyl, but for the first time,
I was hearing it without surface noise and clicks.
>
> The final bit of the demo was about the durability of CDs. He took out a
> demo CD and made a radial scratch with a sewing needle. He played it and
> there was no noise at all. (OK, to demonstrate the error-correction, he
> really should have made a circumferential scratch!) My mate, a great big
> burly Mancunian who was built like a brick shithouse, said "Giz it here"
> and he gouged a trench in the disc. The salesman went pale, but he
> played the disk. There was a rhythmic ticking and occasional skipping.
> "*Now* I'm *really* impressed," my mate said. "Do that to a record and
> you'd rip the f-ing needle off".
>
> Things have come a long way since then. CD players can all now be
> programmed to play a set of tracks, either in a fixed order or in random
> order. You can skip to the beginning of any track without any of the
> imprecision over cueing and the thump as the needle goes down. Some CD
> players can even interrogate a central database and display the name of
> the disc and the list of tracks. Quite why the CD standard didn't
> include that information on the disc is a complete mystery to me - they
> missed a trick there.

The Sergeant Pepper CD can apparently be played back so that "Her
Majesty" isn't chopped in two. I think it'd be more convincing if I
ripped to *.wav and rearranged the section seamlessly on Audition.
>
> But we then have player software, either on dedicated hardware or on a
> PC. And that can play from a computer disc (hard, USB, SSD etc) without
> a removable physical medium being necessary. OK. it brings in the
> dreaded subject of lossy compression on MP3, but as with anything in
> engineering, there is a compromise between file size and sound quality.
> I find that I cannot distinguish between 256 kbps MP3 file and
> (uncompressed) WAV file from which it was generated. Only when you get
> down to 128 kbps can a slight grittiness and bubbling-mud sound be heard
> - but you have to listen hard at a normal playing volume.
>
> I have kept all my CDs as backups, even if for convenience I tend to
> play the iTunes copy that I made from the CD. I also have an external
> USB HDD with a copy of my music library, just in case.
>
> I do have a box of LPs as well - older music that predates CDs. The
> sound quality is still very good - as long as you can mentally filter
> out the background crap (dust-tick, scratch-click and constant roaring
> sound of the crud in the grooves).

That's the problem, isn't it?

> Some records are a lot better than
> others. Choral/organ music (I was digitising some old LPs belong to my
> parents-in-law) sounds DIRE: horrendous distortion and obnoxious
> background crap. Most music seems to be better, though the dynamic
> compression of pop music makes the background crap much less noticeable
> than the very wide dynamic range and quiet sections of classic music.
>
> I made WAV copies of some of the LPs for my dad, having cleaned the
> records with a damp (or even dripping wet!) cloth to try to wash out the
> crud from the grooves, and in a few cases I had to play tracks "wet"
> (drip a puddle of water onto the track so it covers it fairly uniformly
> and let the needle sit in the water on the grooves. There was a bit of
> loss of high frequencies, but that was often preferable to background
> noise. Maybe some of those old LPs are now available in CD form or even
> on Youtube.

Adobe Audition (or even predecessor app Cool Edit Pro, if your PC will
run it still) has excellent vinyl restoration tools within it.