Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Don Pearce wrote: On 8 Jul 2006 13:46:48 -0700, wrote: A gallon is 3.8 liters. A cubic foot is 28.3 liters. Therefore there are 28.3/3.8 or just about 7.5 gallons per cubic foot. That means a gallon is 1/7.5 gallons/ft^3 or 0.13 cubic feet per gallon. No, you are thinking of those mean, short-measure US gallons. A *real* gallon of water weighs 10 pounds. And there are 4.546 litres (*not* liters) in a gallon. There are 0.16 cubic feet per gallon. Yes, that's true in some third-world countries. :-) |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote in message oups.com... jakdedert wrote: Carey Carlan wrote: Eiron wrote in : Scott Dorsey wrote: snip And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg. I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually. A litre of water weighs 1kg. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Harold wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... jakdedert wrote: Carey Carlan wrote: Eiron wrote in : Scott Dorsey wrote: snip And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg. I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually. A litre of water weighs 1kg. What are you on about? A little less than what? You'd have to quote enough context for anyone to understand the above. I don't. jak |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
In message , jakdedert
writes Harold wrote: wrote in message groups.com... jakdedert wrote: Carey Carlan wrote: Eiron wrote in : Scott Dorsey wrote: snip And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg. I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually. A litre of water weighs 1kg. What are you on about? A little less than what? You'd have to quote enough context for anyone to understand the above. I don't. jak A little less that 100 kilogrammes I would expect after reading what was written! -- Chris Morriss |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
jakdedert wrote to harold:
Harold wrote: wrote in message oups.com... And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg. I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually. What are you on about? A little less than what? You'd have to quote enough context for anyone to understand the above. I don't. All the context you need will be found above. Look again. -- St. John Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined. -Samuel Goldwyn |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
St. John Smythe wrote:
jakdedert wrote to harold: Harold wrote: wrote in message oups.com... And since a liter of water is 1000 cm^3 of water, and a cc of water is 1 gram, therefor a liter of water is 1000 kg. I'd believe a little less .. um, a whole lot less actually. What are you on about? A little less than what? You'd have to quote enough context for anyone to understand the above. I don't. All the context you need will be found above. Look again. OOPs! Sorry. It does indeed. My bad.... jak |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote:
If the acoustic stylus was not for 78s, then what kind of records were they for? I am not sure what you mean by "acoustic stylus." There are two basic kinds of 78s: electrically-recorded discs and older acoustically-recorded discs. Electrics are easy and mostly have grooves between 2 and 3 mil although sometimes you might want an oversized stylus to play the top of the groove if the rest of the groove is worn out. Acoustics are more problematic and need a larger stylus, usually in the 3 to 4 mil range but occasionally larger or smaller. This is why it's important, if you do a lot of work with 78s, to have a wide selection of styli available. There were no groove width and depth standards so every record is a little different. There HAVE been a couple microgroove 78s cut to be played on a modern 1 mil LP stylus, but all post-1960, and all by crazy folk-music luddites. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote:
So if I have alot of 78's, ranging from the 20's to probably whenever they stopped making them, and I'm not sure which are which, what should I be looking for turntable wise? Are they called "over sized" stylus...so I could ask for that? Well, earlier on in this thread I suggested the following: - Thorens TD-126 turntable - Re-Equalizer (available from Esoteric Sound in Chicago) - Grado DJ-100 cartridge - 2.7 mil "78" stylus for Grado DJ-100 This is a good entry level configuration and you should be able to get everything for around $800 if you find the turntable used. The Thorens does not have enough speed range to deal with some acoustic recordings, some of which were MUCH faster than 78. And the 2.7 mil stylus is sort of a compromise; it will play back any of the 78s without wrecking them but it won't be optimal for most of them. But for the price you can't complain, and it's a good starter set that will do most of what you want. You can more or less assume that anything from the twenties is probably an acoustic and anything from the thirties is probably an electric, but that's not always the case. But you'll sure know the difference when you listen. I'm assuming hand-cleaning everything in the sink with Alconox lab cleaner or something similar, then putting into new sleeves (Audio 78 Archival Supplies has good prices on 10" sleeves). Cleanliness is a big part of the whole procedure; a lot of recordings are packed with dust from ground-up steel styli and decades of dust and cleaning them will dramatically help the noise floor. Ultrasonic cleaning is more effective but also more expensive. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Thanks. So basically one cartridge with 2 interchanging stylus.
Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: So if I have alot of 78's, ranging from the 20's to probably whenever they stopped making them, and I'm not sure which are which, what should I be looking for turntable wise? Are they called "over sized" stylus...so I could ask for that? Well, earlier on in this thread I suggested the following: - Thorens TD-126 turntable - Re-Equalizer (available from Esoteric Sound in Chicago) - Grado DJ-100 cartridge - 2.7 mil "78" stylus for Grado DJ-100 This is a good entry level configuration and you should be able to get everything for around $800 if you find the turntable used. The Thorens does not have enough speed range to deal with some acoustic recordings, some of which were MUCH faster than 78. And the 2.7 mil stylus is sort of a compromise; it will play back any of the 78s without wrecking them but it won't be optimal for most of them. But for the price you can't complain, and it's a good starter set that will do most of what you want. You can more or less assume that anything from the twenties is probably an acoustic and anything from the thirties is probably an electric, but that's not always the case. But you'll sure know the difference when you listen. I'm assuming hand-cleaning everything in the sink with Alconox lab cleaner or something similar, then putting into new sleeves (Audio 78 Archival Supplies has good prices on 10" sleeves). Cleanliness is a big part of the whole procedure; a lot of recordings are packed with dust from ground-up steel styli and decades of dust and cleaning them will dramatically help the noise floor. Ultrasonic cleaning is more effective but also more expensive. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
wrote:
Thanks. So basically one cartridge with 2 interchanging stylus. Right. And I mention the Grado DJ-100 since it has a 2.7 mil stylus available for it, it tracks reasonably well, and it is inexpensive. Alternately, you could go for something like the Stanton 681, which has hundreds of different semicustom styli available for it. But that's a considerably larger amount of money (and it's not as good a performer on LPs either). The Thorens, though, has interchangeable arms, so if you decide you want to use one cartridge for 78s and another cartridge, say a van den Hul that tracks better, on LPs, you can do that in the future. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... You can more or less assume that anything from the twenties is probably an acoustic and anything from the thirties is probably an electric, but that's not always the case. Uh-uh. The electrical recording process was announced in 1924 and adopted by almost every record company in 1925; by the end of 1925 almost everything was being recorded electrically except for a couple of small labels. That means the burst of musical creativity in the second half of the 1920s (hillbilly recordings, country blues, plus a *lot* of pop music) was recorded for the most part on electrically-cut recordings. Indeed, in the case of hillbilly and country blues, it almost had to be electrical, as acoustical recording equipment was so large it virtually forced the performers to come to the studio. Electrical equipment could be taken on the road (with the help of a moving van), making possible sessions like the famous Bristol, TN marathon which gave the world its first recordings by, among others, the Carter Family and Jimmie Rodgers. Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926 (and a bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were cut at around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe 99% of the "78s" out there. Peace, Paul |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926 (and a bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were cut at around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe 99% of the "78s" out there. And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed required anyway. Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is even excellent freeware for that purpose available. I'm amazed at the number of people who think they always need to do things the hard way. MrT. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u... "Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926 (and a bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were cut at around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe 99% of the "78s" out there. And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed required anyway. Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is even excellent freeware for that purpose available. I'm amazed at the number of people who think they always need to do things the hard way. So am I. I've adjusted speed in the computer (open the plug in, select your speed change, choose between "change pitch", "change tempo" and "change both", click "OK") and I've adjusted it by turning a knob on the turntable. Which do *you* think is easier? That said, I occasionally use the computer for speed adjustments when I decide I was wrong when I transferred the disc. Peace, Paul |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed required anyway. I'm amazed at the number of people who think they always need to do things the hard way. So am I. I've adjusted speed in the computer (open the plug in, select your speed change, choose between "change pitch", "change tempo" and "change both", click "OK") and I've adjusted it by turning a knob on the turntable. Which do *you* think is easier? What has that got to do with what was said though? The software method is *FAR* easier if your turntable lacks sufficient speed range, which is what I pointed out. MrT. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Mr.T wrote:
What has that got to do with what was said though? The software method is *FAR* easier if your turntable lacks sufficient speed range, which is what I pointed out. I hope you remember to re-equalize it after playing it at the wrong speed. -- Eiron No good deed ever goes unpunished. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926 (and a bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were cut at around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe 99% of the "78s" out there. And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed required anyway. Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is even excellent freeware for that purpose available. Yes, but the end result is that you have changed all your EQ constants in the de-emphasis network. Probably not too critical if you're making a minor speed change on a 78 where the de-emphasis is being selected by ear, but it makes half-speed playing of RIAA discs very problematic. I'm amazed at the number of people who think they always need to do things the hard way. What's so hard about turning the knob until it sounds right? The easy way is to have the right turntable with the right control, and you turn the knob until it's in tune. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Eiron" wrote in message
... Mr.T wrote: What has that got to do with what was said though? The software method is *FAR* easier if your turntable lacks sufficient speed range, which is what I pointed out. I hope you remember to re-equalize it after playing it at the wrong speed. Not really an issue; the difference in equalization between 75 rpm and 78 rpm is a hair over 1/3 of a dB, and equalizations on 78s aren't near that level of precision. Peace, Paul |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Paul Stamler wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... What's so hard about turning the knob until it sounds right? The easy way is to have the right turntable with the right control, and you turn the knob until it's in tune. Of course, "in tune" is problematical when you're doing a recording where the musicians may not be tuned to A440 concert pitch, like the string band stuff I work on. Sometimes you need to use a spectrum analyzer and look for a 60Hz component, and see whether it's really 60Hz, tweaking the speed if it's not. I used to use a parametric for that... just set it as tight as possible and set it for boost, then sweep it back and forth until the hum is severely exaggerated. Widen it out a little bit so you have some room, then turn on an electric motor and beat the two notes together by ear. Don't use the ceiling fan, though. It's an induction motor designed to always be operated stalled, so it can sound more than a whole note flat. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Back to our topic: variable speed is indeed an issue up to about 1926 (and a bit later for some labels). Most acoustic Victors, for example, were cut at around 75 or 76.5 rpm, while most acoustic Columbias were 80 rpm. In practice, those are about the limits of what you'll need to transcribe 99% of the "78s" out there. And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed required anyway. Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is even excellent freeware for that purpose available. Yes, but the end result is that you have changed all your EQ constants in the de-emphasis network. Probably not too critical if you're making a minor speed change on a 78 where the de-emphasis is being selected by ear, but it makes half-speed playing of RIAA discs very problematic. Sure, but not what we were talking about, and not much point anyway. However the EQ *can* be fixed in software even in that case. What's so hard about turning the knob until it sounds right? The easy way is to have the right turntable with the right control, and you turn the knob until it's in tune. Maybe if you actually *read* what I originally replied to, you would see the problem with twiddling a knob that does *not* have sufficient speed range for the purpose. If *you* would rather buy a new turntable just to get sufficient speed control, rather than simply resampling in software, then don't let me stop you. MrT. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... Of course, "in tune" is problematical when you're doing a recording where the musicians may not be tuned to A440 concert pitch, like the string band stuff I work on. Sometimes you need to use a spectrum analyzer and look for a 60Hz component, and see whether it's really 60Hz, tweaking the speed if it's not. Assuming the few percent variation allowable on the mains frequency is not an issue for you. (the long term frequency variation is usually adjusted, but short term fluctuations are permissible in all the generating plants I'm aware of) Still it's often a quick way to get pretty close if the error is much higher than that, as long as you realise much of the world is 50Hz rather than 60Hz. If you go adjusting British or Australian recordings for 60Hz hum, you're going to be a LONG way out! MrT. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u... "Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... Of course, "in tune" is problematical when you're doing a recording where the musicians may not be tuned to A440 concert pitch, like the string band stuff I work on. Sometimes you need to use a spectrum analyzer and look for a 60Hz component, and see whether it's really 60Hz, tweaking the speed if it's not. Assuming the few percent variation allowable on the mains frequency is not an issue for you. (the long term frequency variation is usually adjusted, but short term fluctuations are permissible in all the generating plants I'm aware of) Still it's often a quick way to get pretty close if the error is much higher than that, as long as you realise much of the world is 50Hz rather than 60Hz. If you go adjusting British or Australian recordings for 60Hz hum, you're going to be a LONG way out! Of course. Given the kind of music I like, I don't see many of those, although a couple of days ago I was working on a disc by Gigli that was recorded in Europe. Mostly, though, I do old-time music from the USA. Peace, Paul |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:44:18 +0100, Paul Stamler
wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... You can more or less assume that anything from the twenties is probably an acoustic and anything from the thirties is probably an electric, but that's not always the case. Uh-uh. The electrical recording process was announced in 1924 and adopted by almost every record company in 1925; by the end of 1925 almost everything was being recorded electrically except for a couple of small labels. I know this is a little late but it might be worth pointing out that a large number of electrically recorded records from the 20's and 30's actually clearly state that the are electrical recordings. I guess electrical recording in the 20's held the same status as digital recording did in the 80's. Cheers James. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"James Perrett" wrote in message news Uh-uh. The electrical recording process was announced in 1924 and adopted by almost every record company in 1925; by the end of 1925 almost everything was being recorded electrically except for a couple of small labels. I know this is a little late but it might be worth pointing out that a large number of electrically recorded records from the 20's and 30's actually clearly state that the are electrical recordings. I guess electrical recording in the 20's held the same status as digital recording did in the 80's. And some of the logos they used to announce the electrical recordings were very cool. Lots of lightning streaks. Peace, Paul |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed required anyway. Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is even excellent freeware for that purpose available. Don't even think about it! Get the speed right to start with otherwise your equalisation will go up the spout and the interpolation will play havoc with the surface noise. Changing speed digitally is a last-ditch resort for when you can't go back and re-record it properly. Get all the mechanical/analogue bits right first and use the most basic software you can get away with. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message lid.invalid... And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed required anyway. Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is even excellent freeware for that purpose available. Don't even think about it! Get the speed right to start with otherwise your equalisation will go up the spout I have already explained why that is a non issue, IF you know how to use all the EQ controls in your wave editor. Anyhow if you are talking about small changes from the nominal speed, the EQ will still be that required for the nominal speed. And the EQ is not usually part of the turntable in any case. (new turntables often have the RIAA pre-amp in built though) and the interpolation will play havoc with the surface noise. What a load of crap!!!!!!!!! Just how many decades old is YOUR software? There is NONE that I know of that would increase the noise from even the best vinyl record, by more than an infitessimal amount. So close to zero that it can be ignored as a problem. Certainly much less than even the very best golden ear could pick. There is *very* good resampling *freeware* available, so there is no excuse for using crap. Changing speed digitally is a last-ditch resort for when you can't go back and re-record it properly. It's a perfectly fine resort for when your turntable does not provide the necessary speed. Get all the mechanical/analogue bits right first and use the most basic software you can get away with. Sure, if you feel more comfortable working that way, and don't mind the extra expense. MrT. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
lid.invalid... "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: And of course you don't need a variable turntable to get *ANY* speed required anyway. Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the sample rate wave file header. Many wave editors can do this, and there is even excellent freeware for that purpose available. Don't even think about it! Get the speed right to start with otherwise your equalisation will go up the spout and the interpolation will play havoc with the surface noise. Changing speed digitally is a last-ditch resort for when you can't go back and re-record it properly. Get all the mechanical/analogue bits right first and use the most basic software you can get away with. I agree with your conclusion, but for a different reason: the more you do to a signal, the more you damage it. Equalisation isn't much of an issue, though. Most of the discs that are seriously off-speed ref. 78 rpm are acoustically recorded, and their frequency response (thanks to horn cutoffs and resonances) is all over the map anyway. And even a drastic change (going from, say, 75 rpm to 80 rpm) affects the turnover points minimally -- less than 0.6dB response error. Hell, most 78s have more change in frequency response than that between the outer and inner grooves. Peace, Paul |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Paul Stamler wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message lid.invalid... "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: Simply use software that changes the actual sample rate without changing the sample rate wave file header. [...] Don't even think about it! [...]. Get all the mechanical/analogue bits right first and use the most basic software you can get away with. I agree with your conclusion, but for a different reason: the more you do to a signal, the more you damage it. You have hit the nail on the head; that is a basic principle of restoration. There is also the matter of using the right tool for the job. Equalisation isn't much of an issue, though. [...] As you say, electrical recordings are less critical - and they are less liable to be recorded more than a few percent away from true 78 rpm. With acoustic recordings there are much larger variations. Some of the peaks and troughs for correcting acoustic recording need to be quite accurately placed, the rapid phase changes are quite audible if the equalisation characteristic doesn't quite coincide with the original recording-horn characteristic. I have even been able to spot an incorrect playback speed because it did not appear to match the correction characteristics for a particular recording horn. With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation will either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to analogue. Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and generate a whole load of digital rubbish. The problem with digital rubbish is that it cannot be undone without creating even more digital rubbish. It would be much better on all counts if they can be persuaded to sort out analogue problems in the analogue domain; digitising the signal should be the final step in the chain. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
(new turntables often have the RIAA pre-amp in built though) [...] Just how many decades old is YOUR software? There is NONE that I know of that would increase the noise from even the best vinyl record, by more than an infitessimal amount. I was talking about shellac '78s' , very few (if any) LPs would have been recorded at the wrong speed - I presume you realise that 78s do not use RIAA equalisation? Software interpolation does not show up as badly on vinyl or nitrate surface noise as it does on soild stock 'shellac' pressings. If you have not noticed this, I am left wondering how much of your professional work involves 78s? -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message id.invalid... Just how many decades old is YOUR software? There is NONE that I know of that would increase the noise from even the best vinyl record, by more than an infitessimal amount. I was talking about shellac '78s' And you said that resampling would ADD noise, which is total bull****. , very few (if any) LPs would have been recorded at the wrong speed - I have one that is. Or more likely the tape recorder was running slow when they made the master. I presume you realise that 78s do not use RIAA equalisation? Of course. Software interpolation does not show up as badly on vinyl or nitrate surface noise as it does on soild stock 'shellac' pressings. Doesn't add anything at all, if the program is half way decent. And I certainly know of no shellac, or any other pressing with better than 90dB S/N ratio anyway, do you? If you have not noticed this, I am left wondering how much of your professional work involves 78s? None at all, but I am quite familiar with *proper* resampling, which isn't in any way specific to 78 recordings. MrT. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
id.invalid... Some of the peaks and troughs for correcting acoustic recording need to be quite accurately placed, the rapid phase changes are quite audible if the equalisation characteristic doesn't quite coincide with the original recording-horn characteristic. I have even been able to spot an incorrect playback speed because it did not appear to match the correction characteristics for a particular recording horn. With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation will either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to analogue. Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and generate a whole load of digital rubbish. The problem with digital rubbish is that it cannot be undone without creating even more digital rubbish. Well, if I *had* to correct speed on an acoustic recording in the computer, I'd do the equalization first, then the speed change. It would be much better on all counts if they can be persuaded to sort out analogue problems in the analogue domain; digitising the signal should be the final step in the chain. Yup. Peace, Paul |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message id.invalid... With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation will either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to analogue. Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and generate a whole load of digital rubbish. And someone who doesn't understand digital, will call it rubbish regardless of the actual performance. Anyone who believes any analog disc, and especially old 78 recordings, are somehow better than current digital recording technology, is in serious denial. The problem with digital rubbish is that it cannot be undone without creating even more digital rubbish. Fortunately there is no need to use digital "rubbish". MrT. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Anyone who believes any analog disc, and especially old 78 recordings, are somehow better than current digital recording technology, is in serious denial. If it's got Django on it, it's better. The problem with digital rubbish is that it cannot be undone without creating even more digital rubbish. Fortunately there is no need to use digital "rubbish". The point is basically that you want to avoid any processing of any sort. Get it right the first time. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
|
#75
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message id.invalid... With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation will either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to analogue. Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and generate a whole load of digital rubbish. And someone who doesn't understand digital, will call it rubbish regardless of the actual performance. I'm sorry if I didn't make clear what I meant. I do not regard digitial recordings as rubbish, I use them a lot and never fail to be impressed by just how good they can be. My 'rubbish' reference was to what would be termed 'intermodulation products' if they occured in the analogue domain. Anyone who believes any analog disc, and especially old 78 recordings, are somehow better than current digital recording technology, is in serious denial. You are attributing to me an opinion which I did not express and do not hold. I do not consider digital recordings are 'bad' just because some are made incorrectly. In the same way, I would hope you do not assume all recordings on78s are 'bad' because you might have heard worn pressings on poor playback equipment. The recording engineers of old were faced with a different set of problems from us - and the best of them did a damn good job with what they had at their disposal... ...then, for commercial reasons, the record companies issued their superb recordings on crap material (at least in the UK). A good digital recording can be breathtaking, so can a good 78 recording if it is properly reproduced. The bandwidths are different; one is in stereo, the other mono, the S/N ratios are hugely different - and yet the 78 can be just as spectacular in its own way. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Old turntable question
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message alid.invalid... With the signal already in the digital domain, the re-equalisation will either have to be done digitally or by returning the signal to analogue. Someone who has been told (and believes) that everything can be done better in software than in hardware will take the digital route and generate a whole load of digital rubbish. And someone who doesn't understand digital, will call it rubbish regardless of the actual performance. I'm sorry if I didn't make clear what I meant. I do not regard digitial recordings as rubbish, I use them a lot and never fail to be impressed by just how good they can be. My 'rubbish' reference was to what would be termed 'intermodulation products' if they occured in the analogue domain. Yes, 'intermodulation products' are more of a problem with analog recording. Any added by digital recording is almost unmeasureable these days, and certainly inaudible. Anyone who believes any analog disc, and especially old 78 recordings, are somehow better than current digital recording technology, is in serious denial. You are attributing to me an opinion which I did not express and do not hold. Actually no. The level of attribution is shown by the number of ,s I was commenting on the statement, whoever made it. I do not consider digital recordings are 'bad' just because some are made incorrectly. In the same way, I would hope you do not assume all recordings on78s are 'bad' because you might have heard worn pressings on poor playback equipment. Never said they were *bad*, just because they are not as good as modern technology allows. The recording engineers of old were faced with a different set of problems from us - and the best of them did a damn good job with what they had at their disposal... Agreed. ...then, for commercial reasons, the record companies issued their superb recordings on crap material (at least in the UK). Also true, for more than just the UK. A good digital recording can be breathtaking, so can a good 78 recording if it is properly reproduced. The bandwidths are different; one is in stereo, the other mono, the S/N ratios are hugely different - and yet the 78 can be just as spectacular in its own way. And can be faithfully transferred to CD, the only real limitation being the disc itself, and the analog playback equipment. That was my point. MrT. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Old turntable question | Pro Audio | |||
Question of value of stereo equipment | Audio Opinions | |||
Need help with interpreting turntable strobe | Tech | |||
Panasonic Turntable Repair | Tech |