Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Martin wrote:
Could the hostess gift be something I ran over on the way to the house? Nah, Lanis wouldn't like it, and besides, my wife is responsible for all gift giving occasions... True story from one of my piano students: About 4 a.m. early last week the family was mostly asleep, with the dad just drowsing pre-awakening. The was a loud "crack" and a following "bang" and another loud "smash" that awakened them fully but there didn't seem to be anything obvious, so they all fell back asleep. When they rose for the day the daughter noticed the horses weren't in the corral. They went out to look and found that the wooden gate had been smashed, apparently by the horses escaping the corral. There was a funny smell in the air, kind of like a skunk. The mom opened the barn door and at first in the relatively dark interior didn't see anything. Then as her eyes got used to the lack of light she noticed a heap on the barn floor. It turned out to be a wild turkey that had flown into the power lines over the corral, been electrocuted, then crashed through the barn door, which scared the horses who ran right through the closed gate. The rest of the turkey flock was peacefully enjoying breakfast out in the field. They've butchered, dressed and frozen the bird meat and I look forward to dinner at their house. So some forms of kill, in this case "air kill" are acceptable. Carry on. -- ha -- ha |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
"hank alrich" wrote:
Carry on. Groan... -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#443
|
|||
|
|||
On 4/24/05 6:20 PM, in article UYUae.61706$vt1.15948@edtnps90, "Lorin David
Schultz" wrote: "hank alrich" wrote: Carry on. Groan... AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
#444
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:40:31 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote: On 4/24/05 6:20 PM, in article UYUae.61706$vt1.15948@edtnps90, "Lorin David Schultz" wrote: "hank alrich" wrote: Carry on. Groan... AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey, delivered, half-fried already. What else could you want? Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org |
#445
|
|||
|
|||
"J_West" wrote in message oups.com... Some good tips on vinyl care at this site http://home.intekom.com/restore/Taki..._Of_Vinyl.html I wouldn't call them "good" or complete. They recommend an alcohol-based solution with no surfactant and no mention of the importance of using distilled water. If you use tap water, you're just depositing minerals onto the record surface. No mention of a carbon fiber brush (camel hair brush is an archaic, lesser option) nor of placing the lp's in a new sleeve. |
#446
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote:
They've butchered, dressed and frozen the bird meat and I look forward to dinner at their house. So some forms of kill, in this case "air kill" are acceptable. Sounds fine to me. |
#447
|
|||
|
|||
-----------8---------------------- I have a little side business restoring old recordings, and one of the tricks in my technique is to put the LP/78/45 on a spindle, spray it with an organic cleaner solution and run 70?F water into the grooves at a shallow angle. It makes a night & day difference and enables me to start with a better sounding master before I apply digital cleanup tools. Pardon me, but which cleaner? --I wash vinyl troughtout and shellac too (with old records, one must be very careful -- there were I've had excellent results with an organic cleaning solution based on Maleleuca plants. Some company in the late 1980s marketed a range of organic cleaners based on the oils from this plant and one of them was called SoluGuard, if I recall the name correctly. I mixed a 10% solution, the rest water and use it in a pump spray bottle. I have cleaned a variety of old recordings, including 78s, 45s and LPs. Some of the challengers were the home recorded discs--those smaller 78 discs that are based on cardboard or steel as the substrate and coated with laquer. The steel ones were almost always cracked and peeling laquer, so I could only restore portions of those and obviously could not wash them, due to their disintigrating condition. But for the rest, it works great. -- Best Regards, Mark A. Weiss, P.E. www.mwcomms.com - |
#448
|
|||
|
|||
Don't mean to rehash this old debate, but to capture that 45k would require a specialized mic which would probably not also happen to be the ideal mic for the job...In other words, you'd have to choose between a great sounding 20-20k or a less-than-great 20-45k recording (I'd take the former any day). Secondly, even if you are lucky enough to have a playback system that can generate 25k, it's doubtful that other people will who might get the recording. And that's with the benefit of the doubt assuming you could feel/hear those frequencies even if it were possible to capture and reproduce them accurately. The main reason I'm excited about higher sample rate recordings is that it will allow more headroom and a larger rolloff Q for anti-aliasing filters, which I've found to very "buggy" in some systems. Combined with the higher bit depth for larger dynamic range and SNR it should be able to approach the fidelity of analog.....and even if not, I'd love to see a record player do 5.1 =) Jonny Durango I agree on the reasoning and the AA filtering issues/benefits, but the mics I'm using are spec'd for 20-20K, but have useful response from 4Hz to 45KHz, as my testing has confirmed. I tested the low end today using a "poor man's infrasonic generator"--a closet with a swing door. Swinging it back and forth, causes air to displaced at a subsonic rate. I recorded this from 15' away and ran an FFT on the result. Big amplitude at 4Hz, another at 19Hz and the rest was the sound of computer PC fans above that. I think that 24/96 actually does equal or even exceed the quality of analog. Certainly for bell-like sounds with serious HF transients, it is king. I haven't seen analog tape, not even with dbx type I NR in the loop, that could handle the keys jangling test without aliasing-like distortion and tape saturation problems. The high bit depth makes a huge difference, and even brings the benefit of being able to do all manner of digital manipulation afterwards to bring up certain sounds through EQ and gain boosting. I recently made a 5 channel recording of the frogs and peepers in my back yard pond. Dragged five studio condensers, stands, the MOTU 896 and my VAIO laptop out there and made a 22-min recording at sunset. The critters were relatively soft in the early part of the recording, and to my ears, I heard them and nothing else. And when I played the recording at the same soft level, it sounded the same. But something interesting happened when I boosted the gain digitally on the files: I could hear neighborhood traffic from a mile or so away, and I heard jet air traffic many miles away. I then tried boosting the 20Hz range by 36dB using two graphic EQs and a parametric EQ in series and I heard the rumble of traffic from an interstate about 3 miles away, conducted through the earth. I later boosted the 15KHz range by 50dB using multiple passes of EQ in SoundForge, and I heard the overtones of the peepers, but still not a trace of any hiss. I KNOW I could never do that with analog. As quiet as dbx is, it is still a masking/tracking NR and doesn't handle transients well, and modulates the tape noise underneath the program. 16-bits is granular, but 24-bits sounds good to my ears. -- Best Regards, Mark A. Weiss, P.E. www.mwcomms.com - |
#449
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote: I'm already making recordings of everything from keys jangling to fireworks (and hopefully this fall, a regional symphony orchestra) and let me tell you, there is NO noise and much of what's recorded falls outside of human hearing. The keys, for instance, have harmonics up to 45KHz, on the FFT analysis. Here's the recordings and ana analysis of my keys jangling: http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm How do they compare? ;-) Pretty nice samples. I wonder what the various different kinds of keys's harmonic overtones/tonal balance are like. Things like size, thickness, shape, etc, may produce distinct FFT graphs. I put some graphs and a sample keys jangling 24/96 file at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm Scroll about 3/4 way down the page to the Microphone Tests. These mics are spec'd 20-20K, but they obviously have a useful range well outside that flat range. 24/96 is a wonderful thing. More than 114dB s/n ratio and ultrawideband response. Too bad you have to hook that idealistic 24/96 up to real-world mics in a real-world room. The results are pretty damned good in my book. But yeah, even some of the quietest theaters have HVAC noise, and, as I'm discovering with this setup, the world is a lot noisier below the threshold of human hearing than I ever imagined! :-) -- Best Regards, Mark A. Weiss, P.E. www.mwcomms.com - |
#450
|
|||
|
|||
Looks real good on paper, and sounds good, too. But I can't help but think that much of the "24/96 improvement" is a result of two things - First, better technology (=more accurate A/D and D/A conversion) and second, the expectation that it should sound better than the old stuff so we work harder at not buggering it up. Naturally, the progression of technology has made improvements in all the sample depths, but we can't discount that different people have different levels of hearing left intact. For many of us 50+ crowd, we would have a hard time telling the difference between a high quality FM broadcast 15KHz and a CD 20KHz. :-) A couple of years ago, Bob Katz (the mastering engineer who wrote the good book) wanted to see how what was above 20 kHz affected what he heard. He experimented with brick wall low pass filters and found that he was unable to identify when a filter was active. One test doesn't prove that there's no need to record at higher sample rates, and he was dealing with mixed material, but it's a pretty good indication that whatever improvements or enhancements we hear with higher sample rates aren't a result of content above 20 kHz. Certainly true if you can't hear much above 15KHz due to age-related hearing loss. But a small child with musical training may be more equipped to hear such subtleties. I remember when I was younger, I could hear 25KHz with relative ease. I could even hear the early ultrasonic alarm systems in department stores. However, for me, more important is the bit depth. Assuming the brickwall filtering is not an issue, the bit depth reveals things. CDs of classical music with soft passages reveal a graininess or 'grit' to the sound. I'm also quite convinced that the stereo image, stage depth and spacial information is somewhat lost by the lower sample rate of CD. Not so much the audible harmonic content, but those couple of microsecond separations between instruments in an orchestra, are what seem to get blurred at 44.1KHz. Now primary recording at a higher sample rate, and of course at greater digital resolution, allows us to do less harm when processing a recording, so it's not a bad trick to have in our bag. But it's not the reason why DVDs sound better than CDs. Give 'em a couple of years for the loudness war to catch up and they'll start making bad sounding DVDs. I don't like ANY processing in a recording. I want it as it is, natural. That's my goal with this symphony project. -- Best Regards, Mark A. Weiss, P.E. www.mwcomms.com - |
#451
|
|||
|
|||
I could even hear the early ultrasonic alarm systems in department
stores. I was 57 a week ago, but if I'm in the wrong place in a store, I can still hear that obnoxious sound ! Tom "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" wrote in message ink.net... Looks real good on paper, and sounds good, too. But I can't help but think that much of the "24/96 improvement" is a result of two things - First, better technology (=more accurate A/D and D/A conversion) and second, the expectation that it should sound better than the old stuff so we work harder at not buggering it up. Naturally, the progression of technology has made improvements in all the sample depths, but we can't discount that different people have different levels of hearing left intact. For many of us 50+ crowd, we would have a hard time telling the difference between a high quality FM broadcast 15KHz and a CD 20KHz. :-) A couple of years ago, Bob Katz (the mastering engineer who wrote the good book) wanted to see how what was above 20 kHz affected what he heard. He experimented with brick wall low pass filters and found that he was unable to identify when a filter was active. One test doesn't prove that there's no need to record at higher sample rates, and he was dealing with mixed material, but it's a pretty good indication that whatever improvements or enhancements we hear with higher sample rates aren't a result of content above 20 kHz. Certainly true if you can't hear much above 15KHz due to age-related hearing loss. But a small child with musical training may be more equipped to hear such subtleties. I remember when I was younger, I could hear 25KHz with relative ease. I could even hear the early ultrasonic alarm systems in department stores. However, for me, more important is the bit depth. Assuming the brickwall filtering is not an issue, the bit depth reveals things. CDs of classical music with soft passages reveal a graininess or 'grit' to the sound. I'm also quite convinced that the stereo image, stage depth and spacial information is somewhat lost by the lower sample rate of CD. Not so much the audible harmonic content, but those couple of microsecond separations between instruments in an orchestra, are what seem to get blurred at 44.1KHz. Now primary recording at a higher sample rate, and of course at greater digital resolution, allows us to do less harm when processing a recording, so it's not a bad trick to have in our bag. But it's not the reason why DVDs sound better than CDs. Give 'em a couple of years for the loudness war to catch up and they'll start making bad sounding DVDs. I don't like ANY processing in a recording. I want it as it is, natural. That's my goal with this symphony project. -- Best Regards, Mark A. Weiss, P.E. www.mwcomms.com - |
#452
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Rutlidge rutlidge@NO_SPAM wrote:
Increasing the sampling frequency to extend the upper frequency limit to twice that of CD at least pushes the potential phase and distortion problems encountered at the upper end of the audible range (18 - 20kHz) created by CD brickwall sampling limitations out well beyond what we can clearly hear. To my ears even 16/48 discs sound better than the same recording on CD at 16/44.1 so upsample the 16/44.1 to 16/88.2, and lose the brickwall filter. hell. upsample as much as you can. and where do you get these mythical 16/48 discs? was there ever a redbook-like standard for such a thing? -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | |
#453
|
|||
|
|||
vinyl believer wrote:
Bob I recently transferred some albums to digital (Alesis Masterink). At 24/96 I cannot hear the difference between the source and the recorded material. However when it is 'rendered' to 16/44 I can clearly hear the difference between the source and the "CD" resolution...... The problems are evident. Unnatural highs, overall graininess, decreased depth and dimension,..... (Little of which can be 'measured' by instruments btw, but clearly heard.) it's possible that the masterlink more accurately renders at 24/96 than it does at 16/44. a better test with this equipment would be to perform sample rate conversion from 24/96 to 16/44 and then back to 24/96, and then listen to both signals. the down/upsampled one will contain no more information than a 16/44 signal. (of course that brings into question the algorithms used for the up/downsample, but I suspect the convertor behavior difference will swamp this.) -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | |
#454
|
|||
|
|||
david morley wrote:
You are right and I am a loony for absurdly prefering the sound I get from my Vinyl to the sound I get from the same music on CD. "prefer" is not the same as "technically better". the two may or may not be correlated. I also have the same problem in that I prefer Gibsons to Fenders. Damn, I need help. especially when run through smallish tube amps. By the way, stating that a $50 DVD player will beat or equal any turntable is just wrong. Sorry. by every objective measurement, yes. this still has NO BEARING on which one you PREFER the sound of. -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | |
#455
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Let's do some critical listening | Audio Opinions | |||
More on Equalizers from Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
Run Rabbit Run | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Anyone noticing vinyl seems to be making a minor comeback? | Pro Audio | |||
People that have or do listen to both Vinyl and Cd: Basicsurvey/poll | Audio Opinions |