Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

Keith G wrote:

A while back I made a reference to a woolly memory of something I had read
in HFW to do with Tim de P's views on bitrates and their vinyl equivalents
and said I would post a reference to it, if it ever appeared. Well it's
popped up out of the blue and is, of course, nothing like I remembered it.

It's on 2 pages of the April 2004 edition:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article01.jpg

plus the top left paragraph he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article02.jpg


The 'bitrates' are nothing to do with vinyl it seems - simply Tim De
P's idea of a minimum requirements for digital to come even close.


so Tim de P reckons that digital should be 24/400, eh?
Most people can't hear above 20kHz, and 400kHz would allow signals with
frequency content of up to 200kHz be reproduced perfectly. A bit of a
waste, isn't it? Though 200kHz would better capture the harmonics of a
square/triangle wave.

24-bit resolution would imply a dynamic range of 144dB. That's pretty loud!


Now, having said all this, I still have another memory that there are some
pretty impressive figures somewhere that compare vinyl 'information flow'
very favourably with digital bitrates,
but I've no idea where from and have
no intention of trying to find out. - I don't need to,


Vinyl only has (at best) 70 - 78 dB of dynamic range, which equates to
12 - 13 bits resolution, and I am sure vinyl is bandwidth limited as
well (cuts off at 16kHz?).

Isn't the extra "frequency content" associated with vinyl a byproduct of
the mechanical replay system?


I *know* there's more
detail in vinyl played on decent equipment. I can prove that to myself
anytime I feel the need with a number of CD/LP pairings.


I was going to say that the extra "detail" is a result of "induced 2nd
order harmonic distortion" but on second thought ...

;)

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

Keith G wrote:


Actually it gets better on the second page:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article03.jpg

... a 'Digital Mastering Consultant' who says "I'd rather listen to analogue
masters than digital" and "analogue still has the edge".....!!!


(Ya hafta larf....!!! :-)



but that would be his personal preference.


He also says "Analogue is superior, theoretically. A digital system will
have analogue front and back ends on the ADC and DAC, and as the digital
section cannot be completely transparent, a purely analogue system must
be better."


Que?

Can someone please explain
- "analogue is superior, theoretically"
- "the digital section cannot be completely transparent"

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

So if we should be buying Super-Tweeters if we want to properly listen to
our SACD systems (I don't have one) then what do we need to get the air
moving at 200KHz?

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

A while back I made a reference to a woolly memory of something I had
read
in HFW to do with Tim de P's views on bitrates and their vinyl
equivalents
and said I would post a reference to it, if it ever appeared. Well it's
popped up out of the blue and is, of course, nothing like I remembered
it.

It's on 2 pages of the April 2004 edition:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article01.jpg

plus the top left paragraph he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article02.jpg


The 'bitrates' are nothing to do with vinyl it seems - simply Tim De
P's idea of a minimum requirements for digital to come even close.


so Tim de P reckons that digital should be 24/400, eh?
Most people can't hear above 20kHz, and 400kHz would allow signals with
frequency content of up to 200kHz be reproduced perfectly. A bit of a
waste, isn't it? Though 200kHz would better capture the harmonics of a
square/triangle wave.

24-bit resolution would imply a dynamic range of 144dB. That's pretty
loud!


Now, having said all this, I still have another memory that there are
some
pretty impressive figures somewhere that compare vinyl 'information
flow'
very favourably with digital bitrates,
but I've no idea where from and have
no intention of trying to find out. - I don't need to,


Vinyl only has (at best) 70 - 78 dB of dynamic range, which equates to
12 - 13 bits resolution, and I am sure vinyl is bandwidth limited as
well (cuts off at 16kHz?).

Isn't the extra "frequency content" associated with vinyl a byproduct of
the mechanical replay system?


I *know* there's more
detail in vinyl played on decent equipment. I can prove that to myself
anytime I feel the need with a number of CD/LP pairings.


I was going to say that the extra "detail" is a result of "induced 2nd
order harmonic distortion" but on second thought ...

;)

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:


Actually it gets better on the second page:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article03.jpg

... a 'Digital Mastering Consultant' who says "I'd rather listen to
analogue masters than digital" and "analogue still has the edge".....!!!


(Ya hafta larf....!!! :-)



but that would be his personal preference.


So?

Interesting preference coming from a 'global' name in audio and recording,
don'tcha think?




He also says "Analogue is superior, theoretically. A digital system will
have analogue front and back ends on the ADC and DAC, and as the digital
section cannot be completely transparent, a purely analogue system must be
better."


Que?


Wake up Tat, it means that sound starts off analogue and ends up analogue
(for you to hear it) and is only 'digitised' in between to make it quick,
cheap and easy to transfer it, copy it, edit it, produce it etc. The fact
that the MI could have got you and a couple of billion others so sucked in
to it is, I have to admit, no mean feat....

(But then, look at the worldwide success of a certain drink made from brown,
sugary water....)

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Eiron wrote:

Keith G wrote:

A while back I made a reference to a woolly memory of something I had
read in HFW


Hi-Fi World is just the sort of mag that Keith would read and believe.
The web site is good for a laugh: http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk



I just nipped out (ouch...) and asked half a dozen people what they thought
of HFW - all of them said it was OK if you take what you read with a pinch
of salt. I then asked them if they had heard of 'Eiron' - four saif 'who
TF's he?', one said 'oh, he's king of the fairies in LOTR ain't he?' and the
last one said 'yeah, I've heard of him, he's a **** - last I heard he wuz
binned'.....



I read the Sept issue of it


Did you now? Doing it for a bet were you?


with an article stating (something like) "the new hi-res digital formats
have taken digital closer step towards matching analogue". You know, more
of the "analogue is superior" mantra.


Lean forward and listen closely - given that I prefer vinyl to CDs by a good
margin, I ain't likely to be reading a mag that sez 'LPs are ****e' on every
page, am I now...???



A quote from the article said (something like) "CD is based on technology
used for code developed in the 70s which was considered inferior even
then"

Classic!


**** Nose - I don't read those bits, serves you right for reading them.

Tat, I thought you were an OK guy but, sad to say, it seems you are just
another 'digi****' - I hereby grant you full status and honours as such and
look forward to reading even more crap about how you got sucked into the
'it's digital, ergo it's perfect' global mindset....

(Even that should be translated to 'it's bone idle, ergo it'll do.....')

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

A while back I made a reference to a woolly memory of something I had
read in HFW to do with Tim de P's views on bitrates and their vinyl
equivalents and said I would post a reference to it, if it ever appeared.
Well it's popped up out of the blue and is, of course, nothing like I
remembered it.

It's on 2 pages of the April 2004 edition:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article01.jpg

plus the top left paragraph he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article02.jpg


The 'bitrates' are nothing to do with vinyl it seems - simply Tim De
P's idea of a minimum requirements for digital to come even close.


so Tim de P reckons that digital should be 24/400, eh?
Most people can't hear above 20kHz, and 400kHz would allow signals with
frequency content of up to 200kHz be reproduced perfectly. A bit of a
waste, isn't it? Though 200kHz would better capture the harmonics of a
square/triangle wave.


Make yer mind up - a bit of a waste or not a bit of a waste?



24-bit resolution would imply a dynamic range of 144dB. That's pretty
loud!


Now, having said all this, I still have another memory that there are
some pretty impressive figures somewhere that compare vinyl 'information
flow' very favourably with digital bitrates, but I've no idea where from
and have no intention of trying to find out. - I don't need to,


Vinyl only has (at best) 70 - 78 dB of dynamic range, which equates to
12 - 13 bits resolution, and I am sure vinyl is bandwidth limited as well
(cuts off at 16kHz?).

Isn't the extra "frequency content" associated with vinyl a byproduct of
the mechanical replay system?


You're asking me?



I *know* there's more detail in vinyl played on decent equipment. I can
prove that to myself anytime I feel the need with a number of CD/LP
pairings.


I was going to say that the extra "detail" is a result of "induced 2nd
order harmonic distortion" but on second thought ...


No, do go on - I might not read/believe all the ******** in the comix, but I
take absolutely *everything* I read in this group as Gospel, despite the
efforts made by one or two prolific posters here to make themselves look a
little less than 100% credible from time to time.....

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

Ian Molton wrote:
New Geoff wrote:

"Ian Molton" almost choked on his de-caffinated espresso...

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

I dont think even a bat could hear the top end of the frequecy range
that allows.



But the point isn't the maximum frequency, it's the content of the
audible
waveform . . . .

Remember the idea . . . increased frequency of sampling allows you to
reconstruct a waveform closer to the original analogue form . . . .??


Up to a point, yes. but as someone else here pointed out - over ~8kHz
humans cant distinguish the difference between sine, triangle, sawtooth,
square at all. thats well below 22kHz.

I think the point made was over 8k sine and square was indistinguisable.
I would expect someone who's hearing went beyond 16k to tell the rest apart.

--
Nick

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

Tat Chan wrote:


24-bit resolution would imply a dynamic range of 144dB. That's pretty loud!


Minor point, only if you start at 0dB


Vinyl only has (at best) 70 - 78 dB of dynamic range, which equates to
12 - 13 bits resolution, and I am sure vinyl is bandwidth limited as
well (cuts off at 16kHz?).


I could show you a 20kHz sine from a test disk, if that helps.

Isn't the extra "frequency content" associated with vinyl a byproduct of
the mechanical replay system?


No argument that 2nd harmonics will poduce extra extension, but then
unlike CD, it CAN produce harmonics above 20k.

--
Nick

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:52:55 +0000 (UTC), "New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL
wrote:


"Ian Molton" almost choked on his de-caffinated espresso...

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

I dont think even a bat could hear the top end of the frequecy range
that allows.

But the point isn't the maximum frequency, it's the content of the audible
waveform . . . .

Remember the idea . . . increased frequency of sampling allows you to
reconstruct a waveform closer to the original analogue form . . . .??

Whoever came up with that 'idea' doesn't understand sampling theory.

And let's face it, a lot of 'musicality' is based on harmonics and the
interplay of notes, so you really do want a pretty big sampling rate to make
sure you catch it all . . .

If you can't hear it, it doesn't matter. Go learn some basics about
digital audio, or you'll sound just as idiotic as 'crazy Tim'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:37:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Keith G" wrote in message
...
A while back I made a reference to a woolly memory of something I had read
in HFW to do with Tim de P's views on bitrates and their vinyl equivalents
and said I would post a reference to it, if it ever appeared. Well it's
popped up out of the blue and is, of course, nothing like I remembered it.

It's on 2 pages of the April 2004 edition:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article01.jpg

plus the top left paragraph he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article02.jpg



Actually it gets better on the second page:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../article03.jpg

... a 'Digital Mastering Consultant' who says "I'd rather listen to analogue
masters than digital" and "analogue still has the edge".....!!!


(Ya hafta larf....!!! :-)

Indeed you do - I was rolling about on the floor.............. :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering