In rec.audio.tech David Looser wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
around 15kHz, the click spectrum would go much higher than that so
preserving the fast risetime of the clicks would be of value to automatic
click detection software. On the other hand the S/N ratio of no better than
70dB requires only a 13-bit ADC, leaving a margin of 3 bits (18dB) for click
headroom/ post digitising amplification even when using a 16-bit converter.
And it doesn't matter if high-amplitude clicks are clipped, as long as the
rise-time is preserved.

I would be astonished if anyone could tell the difference between an
original 24-bit digitisation and a 16-bit one when digitising vinyl.

You must not visit 'audiophile' forums much. Such claims are routine
-- as is the claim that neither digitization will sound as good as the
vinyl. They';re never backed up with anything like hard evidence, of course
but they're not at all uncommon. So if you ever feel like being thus astonished,
or perhaps depressed, visit audioasylum.com or stevehoffman.tv



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Steven Sullivan wrote:


[someone typed]

I would be astonished if anyone could tell the difference between an
original 24-bit digitisation and a 16-bit one when digitising vinyl.

You must not visit 'audiophile' forums much. Such claims are routine

For the wordlenght difference to matter in RECORDING there has to be signal
that is either truncated or hit by converter unlinearities. The latter
hardly applies in case of the same converter and the former does not apply
for vinyl. The only advantage in sampling at 24 or 32 bits is in the
workflow because a file format conversion can be skipped.

-- as is the claim that neither digitization will sound as good as the
vinyl. They';re never backed up with anything like hard evidence, of
course but they're not at all uncommon.

First of all it will not sound like grammophone playback that is influenced
via the grammophone hearing the loudspeakers. This is not a new issue. For
quality playback the grammophone has to be in another room than the one you
listen in. Next there is the issue of number of analog components the signal
passes through prior to being digitized.

The issue that matters is that the digitized recording does not deteriorate
further and that the life of the backup version, the vinyl disk, is greatly
extended by it not being played back.

-S


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


[someone typed]

I would be astonished if anyone could tell the difference between an
original 24-bit digitisation and a 16-bit one when digitising vinyl.

You must not visit 'audiophile' forums much. Such claims are routine

For the wordlenght difference to matter in RECORDING there has to be signal
that is either truncated or hit by converter unlinearities. The latter
hardly applies in case of the same converter and the former does not apply
for vinyl. The only advantage in sampling at 24 or 32 bits is in the
workflow because a file format conversion can be skipped.

Look, I'm just reporting what *they* claim. Not what I think.

-- as is the claim that neither digitization will sound as good as the
vinyl. They';re never backed up with anything like hard evidence, of
course but they're not at all uncommon.

First of all it will not sound like grammophone playback that is influenced
via the grammophone hearing the loudspeakers. This is not a new issue. For
quality playback the grammophone has to be in another room than the one you
listen in. Next there is the issue of number of analog components the signal
passes through prior to being digitized.

If you record the output of the grammophone/cart/pre, you are capturing whatever the
grammaphone is 'hearing' from the loudspeakers.

The issue that matters is that the digitized recording does not deteriorate
further and that the life of the backup version, the vinyl disk, is greatly
extended by it not being played back.


You seem to be confusing me with someone who actually *believes* the audiophile
nosnense.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you record the output of the grammophone/cart/pre, you are
capturing whatever the grammaphone is 'hearing' from the loudspeakers.

That would be an incompetent thing to do, it is indeed one of the many
errors I too have made, but it is is not new knowledge.

You seem to be confusing me with someone who actually *believes* the
audiophile nosnense.

I did get that impression yes, my apology.

-S


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you record the output of the grammophone/cart/pre, you are
capturing whatever the grammaphone is 'hearing' from the loudspeakers.

That would be an incompetent thing to do, it is indeed one of the many
errors I too have made, but it is is not new knowledge.


? How do *you* digitize an LP, if not from the analog output?

Or are you just saying that when you do, you make sure there is not acoustic feedback from
nearby loudspeakers to the turntable?




___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you record the output of the grammophone/cart/pre, you are
capturing whatever the grammaphone is 'hearing' from the
loudspeakers.

That would be an incompetent thing to do, it is indeed one of the
many errors I too have made, but it is is not new knowledge.

? How do *you* digitize an LP, if not from the analog output?

Or are you just saying that when you do, you make sure there is not
acoustic feedback from nearby loudspeakers to the turntable?

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl enthusiasts miss. Other
just enjoy the larger actually produced dynamic range on vinyl.

-S

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you record the output of the grammophone/cart/pre, you are
capturing whatever the grammaphone is 'hearing' from the
loudspeakers.

That would be an incompetent thing to do, it is indeed one of the
many errors I too have made, but it is is not new knowledge.

? How do *you* digitize an LP, if not from the analog output?

Or are you just saying that when you do, you make sure there is not
acoustic feedback from nearby loudspeakers to the turntable?

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl enthusiasts miss. Other
just enjoy the larger actually produced dynamic range on vinyl.

Vinyl does not 'actually produce' a larger dynamic range, unless the CD's dynamic range has
been intentionally reduced.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech David Looser
wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
around 15kHz, the click spectrum would go much higher
than that so preserving the fast risetime of the clicks
would be of value to automatic click detection software.
On the other hand the S/N ratio of no better than 70dB
requires only a 13-bit ADC, leaving a margin of 3 bits
(18dB) for click headroom/ post digitising amplification
even when using a 16-bit converter. And it doesn't
matter if high-amplitude clicks are clipped, as long as
the rise-time is preserved.

I would be astonished if anyone could tell the
difference between an original 24-bit digitisation and a
16-bit one when digitising vinyl.

Agreed.

You must not visit 'audiophile' forums much. Such claims
are routine -- as is the claim that neither digitization
will sound as good as the
vinyl. They';re never backed up with anything like hard
evidence, of course
but they're not at all uncommon. So if you ever feel like
being thus astonished, or perhaps depressed, visit
audioasylum.com or stevehoffman.tv

I was discussing the results of some of my recent tests of MP3 coders with a
friend who had a long, sucessful career transferring analog tape to movie
film optical sound tracks. When I described how modern MP3 coders tend to
reduce information content by bringing up the noise level between musical
tones, he said: "You mean like vinyl or analog tape"?

LOL!

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech David Looser wrote:

I would be astonished if anyone could tell the difference between an
original 24-bit digitisation and a 16-bit one when digitising vinyl.

You must not visit 'audiophile' forums much. Such claims are routine
-- as is the claim that neither digitization will sound as good as the
vinyl. They';re never backed up with anything like hard evidence, of
course
but they're not at all uncommon. So if you ever feel like being thus
astonished,
or perhaps depressed, visit audioasylum.com or stevehoffman.tv


I try not to. I can only take so much of people obsessing over the
improvement in sound quality they get by replacing the mains leads with
silver-plated wire, or changing the make of GZ32 rectifier used, or some
other minor (but usually expensive) alteration.

IMO if a difference doesn't show up in a DBT it doesn't exist, whatever the
audiophiles may claim. But if you've just bought an expensive new gizmo of
course it's going to sound better *to you*.

I'm no longer astonished at the claims made in such forums, but it would be
straightforward to mount a DBT of CD transfers from vinyl made using 16 and
24 bit ADCs (everything else identical of course, including ADC
architecture). If the DBT showed a clear preference for the 24-bit version I
would be astonished, and withdraw my comments.

David.

In rec.audio.tech David Looser wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech David Looser wrote:

I would be astonished if anyone could tell the difference between an
original 24-bit digitisation and a 16-bit one when digitising vinyl.

You must not visit 'audiophile' forums much. Such claims are routine
-- as is the claim that neither digitization will sound as good as the
vinyl. They';re never backed up with anything like hard evidence, of
course
but they're not at all uncommon. So if you ever feel like being thus
astonished,
or perhaps depressed, visit audioasylum.com or stevehoffman.tv


I try not to. I can only take so much of people obsessing over the
improvement in sound quality they get by replacing the mains leads with
silver-plated wire, or changing the make of GZ32 rectifier used, or some
other minor (but usually expensive) alteration.

IMO if a difference doesn't show up in a DBT it doesn't exist, whatever the
audiophiles may claim. But if you've just bought an expensive new gizmo of
course it's going to sound better *to you*.


IF an audiophile makes a claim of a certain difference, and then cannot
pass a DBT, then I consider it unlikely that he actually heard one.

As DBTs are scientific measures, with results analysed in terms of
probability, they never 'prove' in the vernacular sense, that no
difference could possibly exist. Science doesn't require that level of
'proof' anyway, to draw a reasonable conclusion. But 'audiophile' tend to
misconstrue this to mean that it's still likely that someone else could
hear a difference. IN fact, we don't know whether it's *likely*. We just
know that it is not ruled out. There is a huge difference there, one that
audiophiles gloss over when they criticize DBTs (and science
generally)--which they do with mind-numbing regularity on such forums.


I'm no longer astonished at the claims made in such forums, but it would be
straightforward to mount a DBT of CD transfers from vinyl made using 16 and
24 bit ADCs (everything else identical of course, including ADC
architecture). If the DBT showed a clear preference for the 24-bit version I
would be astonished, and withdraw my comments.

IIRC Bob Katz , a highly tech-savvy mastering engineer, has done REdbook
vs hi-rez rate comparisons with subjects in the engineering community, and
found that any differences were down to filters, not the rates themselves.
More recently, E. Brad Meyer and David Moran in JAES published results of
a long term, multi-subject, multi-gear blind comparison of SACD vs SACD
downconverted to Redbook rates, and found that even 'golden ear' listeners
cannot tell the difference, unless playback levels are very high.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason