Audio, hi-fi and car audio - Dirty Digital [sic.]

Audio Banter (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi) (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/)

- - Dirty Digital [sic.] (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/7456-dirty-digital-sic.html)

Dirty Digital [sic.]

tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
Eeyore scribeth thus

But where would the kilohertz come from ?

We're only talking about a couple of kHz..

So where from then and why would it be 'warbling' ? There are obviously multiple
fixed frequency closely related tones there, as seems to be used in track
signalling.

Aren't they mixed with one another?..

In any event I recall there was no trouble with earthing,

Thats prolly easily apparent..

Uh ?

nor would that explain
why the pickup got a bit louder nearer the railway track.

Which pickup?, the guitar and piggysnout amp?..

And my 'probe'. Radford noise meter etc etc.

And what become of the original recording then?..

Graham

I see an absence of an answer.

You are all FOOLS.

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]

Rob wrote:

I remain curious about why I find some records sound better than CDs.
Part of the explanation could be 'in the mix'.

That's down to 'mastering'.

After the master tape leaves the studio it may be 'tweaked' by degrees; by the
'mastering engineer' for reasons I won't even begin to attempt to explain now.

As a result, an LP and a CD 'may' sound quite different.

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]

Rob wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
Couple of the Wki things - 24 bit recording isn't always
dithered,
As a practical matter *every* real-world 24 bit audio recording *is*
dithered by random noise from other parts of the recording chain.

You'd be be hard preseed NOT to dither a 24 bit recording - LMAO !

Silly beyond extreme.

No point shooting messenger people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantiz...und_processing)

I intentionally didn't look up the reference since I was much more
interested in your interpretation of it.

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]

"Rob" wrote in message
...

You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims of
manufacturers and reviewers.

I wouldn't give you the time of day for the claims of manufacturers or
reviewers. I lost faith in the latter (and stopped buying HiFi mags) after
reading a review of the Linn Sondek turntable sometime around 1980, which
was so absurdly and ridiciculoudly OTT in it's praise for it that, had it
been an advert, it would have contravened ASA rules.

I'm also confused by the fact that most of you tech aware types seem to
have spent many, many, times more than necessary on your CDP hardware to
achieve nothing of sonic benefit.

I used my Philips CD104 until it started going wrong faster than I could
keep repairing it. These days I use a modest Panasonic DVD player for CD
playback.

I just don't know. It's very rare that I listen to a whole CD - one or two
tracks tops.

Odd, very odd.

It's very rare that I interrupt an LP.

Well it's a lot more difficult to interupt to interupt one. In any case it
will "interupt" itself half-way through.

For some reason I find uncompressed computer rips (of a CD) played through
a CDPs DAC less 'unpleasant'

I wonder whether you could "really" tell the difference in a double-blind
test? Somehow I doubt it.

David.

Dirty Digital [sic.]

Eeyore wrote:

Rob wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
Couple of the Wki things - 24 bit recording isn't always
dithered,
As a practical matter *every* real-world 24 bit audio recording *is*
dithered by random noise from other parts of the recording chain.
You'd be be hard preseed NOT to dither a 24 bit recording - LMAO !

Silly beyond extreme.
No point shooting messenger people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantiz...und_processing)

I intentionally didn't look up the reference since I was much more
interested in your interpretation of it.

Graham

"24-bit audio is sometimes used undithered"

Is mine a misinterpretation?

Rob

Dirty Digital [sic.]

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims of
manufacturers and reviewers.

I wouldn't give you the time of day for the claims of manufacturers or
reviewers. I lost faith in the latter (and stopped buying HiFi mags) after
reading a review of the Linn Sondek turntable sometime around 1980, which
was so absurdly and ridiciculoudly OTT in it's praise for it that, had it
been an advert, it would have contravened ASA rules.

And given the objective analysis available, you'd (well, I'd) think this
sort of thing:

http://www.arcam.co.uk/prod_fmj_CD37_intro.cfm

wouldn't be allowed.

I'm also confused by the fact that most of you tech aware types seem to
have spent many, many, times more than necessary on your CDP hardware to
achieve nothing of sonic benefit.

I used my Philips CD104 until it started going wrong faster than I could
keep repairing it. These days I use a modest Panasonic DVD player for CD
playback.

I just don't know. It's very rare that I listen to a whole CD - one or two
tracks tops.

Odd, very odd.

It's very rare that I interrupt an LP.

Well it's a lot more difficult to interupt to interupt one. In any case it
will "interupt" itself half-way through.

For some reason I find uncompressed computer rips (of a CD) played through
a CDPs DAC less 'unpleasant'

I wonder whether you could "really" tell the difference in a double-blind
test? Somehow I doubt it.

I wonder too; it doesn't make sense.

Rob

Dirty Digital [sic.]

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Not quite. There are many ways of "doing digital" which may be less
than optimal. It also depends on the *purpose* of the "digital". But
if you wish to make recordings of musical waveforms, etc, then dither
(or an equivalent) is required if you don't want to unnecessarily add
distortion to the results.

OK, and the reason for trying to establish the 'one way' point of
digital hardware is an attempt to understand if different CDPs (for
example) can sound different. The answer it seems is on thr whole 'no'.

That has been my own general conclusion from experience. However this
doesn't mean a given player may not either have a specific problem, or has
been designed to alter the results in a way that isn't part of the info in
the recording. So one player might have difficulty reading discs another
can play, and thus lose data to the level where error effects become
audible. Or another may have a reconstruction filter that audibly changes
the result.

Point here is that there are a virtually infinite number of ways in which
things can go wrong, or be done sub-optimally. But my experience is that
what mainly affects the sound of a CD player is essentially down to the
choice of the disc you play. :-)

....and, alas, sometimes what the people making the CD decided to do to
'improve' sic the results.

You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims
of manufacturers and reviewers. I'm also confused by the fact that most
of you tech aware types seem to have spent many, many, times more than
necessary on your CDP hardware to achieve nothing of sonic benefit.

In my case I bought a Marantz CD73 back in 1984 and used it happily for a
decade. I then bought a Meridian 200/263, but still have the Marantz.

I have since been dithering on the edge of deciding I can hear any
difference between the two. :-)

However the 263 DAC works nicely, and I now use it for my AV system, taking
its output from the DTTV RX, I bought a second-hand Meridian 563 DAC to
replace it in the main hifi system. Going between the two systems - in
different rooms - the change in room acoustic is obvious. But I am far from
sure I could tell one DAC from another.

I can tell the Meridian 200 player from others, though. I struggles to play
some discs - typically CDRs - and just fails with a TOC or Err XX. :-)

I remain curious about why I find some records sound better than CDs.
Part of the explanation could be 'in the mix'.

Quite likely. If you look at the analysis I did for HFN some time ago I
found clear and measureable differences between the 'same recording' on LP
and CD in a number of cases. Nothing to do with what the formats can do.
Everything to do with the decisions made by those producing each disc to
'improve' the sound. Similarly, if you read the analysis I did of
velocities and accellerations on LPs you can see all kinds of effects like
the L-R difference stats often being quite unlike the L+R stats. Implying
the vertical modulation levels have been doctored to keep within the
mechanical ability of LP recording and replay.

So measurements do show that the signals recorded onto CD or LP may well
have been fiddled with in different ways to 'improve' the results. Hardly
surprising if you can hear some of that. (Ditto for factors like the
changes in frequency response caused by an arm/cartridge combination.)
The surprise (for me) is that people do it with CD as the format simply
does not require it. Fortunately from my POV, although it seems common with
pop CDs it seems rarer with classical music. But I wish the boogers didn't
do it *unless* creating new material where the musicians specifically want
the effect of zero dynamic range.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Dirty Digital [sic.]

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in message
...

You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims of
manufacturers and reviewers.

I wouldn't give you the time of day for the claims of manufacturers or
reviewers. I lost faith in the latter (and stopped buying HiFi mags) after
reading a review of the Linn Sondek turntable sometime around 1980, which
was so absurdly and ridiciculoudly OTT in it's praise for it that, had it
been an advert, it would have contravened ASA rules.

Yes, remember those reviews. The infamous league table, which started with
a Rega and went to the "ultimate" Linn/Grace/Supex?

Purely on the basis of those reviews I decided never, ever, to buy anything
made by Linn. Or Naim. These many years on I reckon I guessed right.

GMac

Dirty Digital [sic.]

"Geoff Mackenzie" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in message
...

You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims
of manufacturers and reviewers.

I wouldn't give you the time of day for the claims of manufacturers or
reviewers. I lost faith in the latter (and stopped buying HiFi mags)
after reading a review of the Linn Sondek turntable sometime around 1980,
which was so absurdly and ridiciculoudly OTT in it's praise for it that,
had it been an advert, it would have contravened ASA rules.

Yes, remember those reviews. The infamous league table, which started
with a Rega and went to the "ultimate" Linn/Grace/Supex?

I wish I'd kept that article, just for fun. I do remember the claim made
that *any* system with a Linn Sondek in it would sound better than any other
system with any other turntable (and this was just the turntable they were
reviewing, no arm or cartridge). There also some talk about a "walk round
the back of the gasworks", I never could work out what that had to do with
HiFi!

Purely on the basis of those reviews I decided never, ever, to buy
anything made by Linn. Or Naim. These many years on I reckon I guessed
right.

That review changed my perception of the world of "HiFi", I realised that
the pseuds had taken over. Although I retained my interest in audio
engineering (which was also my job in any case), I left the "HiFi" to those
who cared more about one-upmanship than audio. No, I've never bought
anything from Linn or Naim either.

David.