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

"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)

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

"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.

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.

-----------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
-

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
-

"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
-

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
-

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
-

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." |

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." |

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." |

Arny Krueger wrote:

SSJVCmag wrote:
And why are we using A-weighting here?

Because that's what the test software chose to do when it prepared
this report.

and why does the test software use A-weighting?

what does the C-weighting look like?

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |