Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

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.

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, 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've even had people here, pointing it out to *me* on my own sodding
kit...!! ;-)

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

Keith G wrote:

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.

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

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

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"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....!!! :-)

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"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 . . . .??

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 . . .

________
Geoff B

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL wrote in message
...

"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 . . . .



Molton, eh?

(I wondered what tit had made that remark!! :-)

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

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

--
Eiron.

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

Keith G wrote:

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.

OMFG. 400kHz sampling?

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

But Tim de Paravincini obviously thinks he can hear it. Just shows how
out-to-lunch he is.

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL wrote in message

"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 . . . .??


That idea is well-known to be false.

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 . . .

Dumb, dumb, dumber!

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

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.

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

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 read the Sept issue of it 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.

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!

:P

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

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:12:05 -0000, "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.

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident on
planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

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.

Commercial vinyl has a dynamic range of 75dB on the best day of its
life, and a bandwidth of less than 20kHz, regardless of what the
cartridge *could* respond to. This may be fully captured by a 13-bit
digital sampling system running at 40k samples/sec, so in fact the
'information density' is significantly less than that of CD.

- I don't need to, I *know* there's more
detail in vinyl played on decent equipment.

Sure you do, dearie, and you've been told just how this *trick* is
done....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

In article , 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.

Stepping back, the work of Fletcher & Munson and many others seems to
remain at the core of human hearing research. Indeed about 20 kHz
clearly remains the accepted upper limit for what we can hear.

There have been a few papers on human perception of ultrasound but
compared to the bulk of the literature it is clear that these are
exploring the margins rather than the fundamentals.

A quick search reveals a couple of examples:

- http://home.dmv.com/~tbastian/files/ultrsonc.txt

- http://www.hearultraquiet.com/Pages/...%20Hearing.pdf

It certainly seems that there may be some perception of ultrasound but
just how much that changes how we experience music and other audio is
still not clear. Those who say 44.1 kHz sampling is not enough may
possibly end up with an objective case. Nevertheless, just how much
difference it makes in reality to our experience is a long way from
being established.

We may want to go that way, but it is clear that compared to 44.1 kHz
the effect of upping the sample rate will be distinctly marginal rather
than fundamental.

--
John Phillips

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

In article , 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 . . . .??

Only if the 'original waveform' contained components at frequencies above
half the original sampling rate chosen.

And that would only matter if we are able to percieve the effect of the
presence/absence of the high frequency components that the lower sampling
rate was not adequate to capture.

Sampling Theorem.

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 . . .

Only for the harmonics, etc, at frequencies that have an audible effect.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

In article , Tat Chan
wrote:


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!

I wonder what analog audio system TdeP uses that has a performance that
delivers audio signals to his ears over the bandwidth up to 200kHz with
144dB dynamic range...

Hope he doesn't use it to play SACD's as well... :-)

Still, it must be useful when he is working on valve power amps to be able
to hear it when the amp oscillates at 100 kHz. Perhaps that's why some
magazines like his designs so much... ;-

For some reason, 'bats' come to mind here. 8-]

Although as John has pointed out, there is some work that shows that
'ultrasound' may have audible effects at times.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

In article , The EggKing
wrote:
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?

Above about 50kHz the main output from SACD will be the 'hash' from the 1
bit noise shaping scheme. I don't think Philips really want us to hear
that...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:
Tat Chan wrote:



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.

But at what level, and with how much distortion? And at what point on the
LP?

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.

Indeed. But how much of them are due to distortion?

i.e. how well can you record and replay signals at, say, 40kHz via vinyl
LP? (As distinct from finding distortion products.)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message


Ian Molton wrote:

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.

...to review, that's because the first harmonic that is present in the square
wave is at 24 Khz.

The triangle, being symmertrical also has its first present harmonic at 24
KHz.

The sawtooth lacks half-wave symmetry and therefore has substantial content
at 16 KHz.

I would expect someone who's hearing went beyond 16k to tell the rest
apart.

That is not obvious, because masking can prevent people from perceiving the
lack of signal at frequencies that are lower than the limit of hearing for
pure high frequency sine waves. However, the second harmonic of a 8 KHz
sawtooth is probably strong enough to be noticable.

Actually doing this experiment might be non-trivial because it can be hard
to get really good sawtooth waves to work with.

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....!!! :-)

Agreed.

but that would be his personal preference.

It reflects badly on his work.

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."

He's wrong.

Que?

Can someone please explain

- "analogue is superior, theoretically"

In a sense this is largely correct because acostic instruments effectively
work in the analog domain. There are technical losses in conversion to
digital, even when they are inaudible. However, simply amplifiying and
processing analog also involves technical losses. Analog really falls apart
when you try to distribute it widely.

- "the digital section cannot be completely transparent"

He's wrong. Yet another guy who embarasses himself in public because he is
poorly-informed.

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"The EggKing" wrote in message

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?

super super tweeters.

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:30:45 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident on
planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

He still has far more credibility in the biz than you have Pinky.

Prove it.

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

but that would be his personal preference.

It reflects badly on his work.

Yaah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Yes, right.

He's the pro' mastering engineer...

Meaning exactly what?

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident on
planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

He still has far more credibility in the biz than you have Pinky.

Prove it.

Prove that you are not mentally ill.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:30:45 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident on
planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

He still has far more credibility in the biz than you have Pinky.



Unnecessarily overstated Kurt, if you don't mind me saying so - you really
only needed to have said:

"He has credibility in the biz"......


(Yer mate there isn't *in* the biz and therefore has none...)

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:35:46 -0000, Keith G used
to say...


"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:30:45 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident on
planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

He still has far more credibility in the biz than you have Pinky.



Unnecessarily overstated Kurt, if you don't mind me saying so - you really
only needed to have said:

"He has credibility in the biz"......


(Yer mate there isn't *in* the biz and therefore has none...)

I'm just wondering where in fact he does actually have any credibility
:)


Not here, that's for sure! :-)

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:42:03 +0000, Paul Dormer used
to say...

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident on
planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

He still has far more credibility in the biz than you have Pinky.

Prove it.

Prove that you are not mentally ill.

1) Arny is kill filed, he knows it so WTF he's replying I have no idea.



Same here, but it's obvious from others' replies to him that he answers my
posts also - how fekkin' sad is that!!??

:-)

Ya hafta fekkin' larf.....!!!!

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:50:17 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Still, it must be useful when he is working on valve power amps to be able
to hear it when the amp oscillates at 100 kHz. Perhaps that's why some
magazines like his designs so much... ;-

For some reason, 'bats' come to mind here. 8-]

Are you sure that isn't "comes to mind"? ;-)

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:51:20 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:42:03 +0000, Paul Dormer used
to say...

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident on
planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

He still has far more credibility in the biz than you have Pinky.

Prove it.

Prove that you are not mentally ill.

1) Arny is kill filed, he knows it so WTF he's replying I have no idea.



Same here, but it's obvious from others' replies to him that he answers my
posts also - how fekkin' sad is that!!??

:-)

Ya hafta fekkin' larf.....!!!!



Yes it is always funny when somebody huffs and puffs and killfiles
people, and then just carries on reading their posts over other
people's shoulders.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:42:03 +0000, Paul Dormer used
to say...

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident on
planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

He still has far more credibility in the biz than you have Pinky.

Prove it.

Prove that you are not mentally ill.

1) Arny is kill filed, he knows it so WTF he's replying I have no
idea.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:51:20 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:42:03 +0000, Paul Dormer used
to say...

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident
on planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

He still has far more credibility in the biz than you have Pinky.

Prove it.

Prove that you are not mentally ill.

1) Arny is kill filed, he knows it so WTF he's replying I have no
idea.



Same here, but it's obvious from others' replies to him that he
answers my posts also - how fekkin' sad is that!!??

:-)

Ya hafta fekkin' larf.....!!!!



Yes it is always funny when somebody huffs and puffs and killfiles
people, and then just carries on reading their posts over other
people's shoulders.

Score!

Vinyl 'bitrates'
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:04:34 GMT, Don Pearce used
to say...

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:51:20 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:42:03 +0000, Paul Dormer used
to say...

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

And we're all well aware that 'crazy Tim'is not fully resident on
planet Earth. Typical valvie, on current evidence............

He still has far more credibility in the biz than you have Pinky.

Prove it.

Prove that you are not mentally ill.

1) Arny is kill filed, he knows it so WTF he's replying I have no idea.



Same here, but it's obvious from others' replies to him that he answers
my
posts also - how fekkin' sad is that!!??

:-)

Ya hafta fekkin' larf.....!!!!



Yes it is always funny when somebody huffs and puffs and killfiles
people, and then just carries on reading their posts over other
people's shoulders.

Personally I read the response to Arny not realising what the post was
until I'd read it but YMMV



Keep yer 'ead still Kurt, I'm trying to see what he's on about!

Huffs?

Puffs?

:-)


It's all going on in his little pointy noodle, innit?? :-)


Ya hafta fekkin' larf.....!!!!