The Gadget Show
 

"David Pitt" wrote in message
...

I found the item interesting because I am just starting on the download
thing and am still making my mind up as to whether 320kb/s MP3 downloads
are
a satisfactory medium as against flac or a CD. I have found myself, from
time to time, having to resist the conclusion that 320kb/s does sound
better
than CD. This is of course impossible, or is it?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "better". If you mean "more
accurate" then yes, it is impossible. But maybe there is something about the
distortions produced by the mp3 coding that you like, just as many
audiophiles like the distortions generated by vinyl, or valves.

David.

The Gadget Show
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:
"David Pitt" wrote in message

Jim Lesurf wrote:

[snip]


A (plausible?) attempt at an answer to this is at :-

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...hp/t35530.html

This does ignore any affects of distortion.

It understates the fact that tracing distortion inherent in the LP
format is a big issue when you go much above 5-8 Khz with good quality
playback equipment. The performance of mainstream vinyl players in the
days of was well short of that.

Particularly when you avoid special cases like mono or single channel
only.

Not yet looked at the above page. Must have a look, but from your comments
I suspect they have gilded over the difficulties in assessment. If so,
though, I find that understandable given the potential complexity and the
task of choosing genuinely relevant assumptions, etc. :-)

That is true, the situation was much simplified, the best possible spin was
applied to vinyl and even so the derived bit rate comes out as lower than
that for CD. As I understand it in a simple application of Shannon's law
vinyl is a lower resolution than CD format because its signal to noise ratio
is less. The distortions inherent in vinyl will not make the comparison any
better. Assuming an S/N of 72dB for vinyl, and that is a big assume, then
only 12bits are required.

If that is valid, and that's another big assume, then anyone preferring
vinyl to CD is actually preferring the lower bit rate format. This is akin
to what the Gadget Show purported to show, a preference for a lower bit rate
format.

--
David Pitt

The Gadget Show
 

"David Looser" wrote:

"David Pitt" wrote in message
...

I found the item interesting because I am just starting on the download
thing and am still making my mind up as to whether 320kb/s MP3 downloads
are a satisfactory medium as against flac or a CD. I have found myself,
from time to time, having to resist the conclusion that 320kb/s does
sound better than CD. This is of course impossible, or is it?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "better". If you mean "more
accurate" then yes, it is impossible. But maybe there is something about
the distortions produced by the mp3 coding that you like, just as many
audiophiles like the distortions generated by vinyl, or valves.

I must admit I the thought of MP3 artefacts being "nice" had not occurred.

My brain has a well embedded prejudice that 320kb/s is such a large
reduction that it cannot possibly be any good, the ears are forming a
different opinion.

Anyway it's still early days here.

--
David Pitt

The Gadget Show
 

In article , David Pitt
wrote:

[snip]

That is true, the situation was much simplified, the best possible spin
was applied to vinyl and even so the derived bit rate comes out as lower
than that for CD. As I understand it in a simple application of
Shannon's law vinyl is a lower resolution than CD format because its
signal to noise ratio is less. The distortions inherent in vinyl will
not make the comparison any better. Assuming an S/N of 72dB for vinyl,
and that is a big assume, then only 12bits are required.

If that is valid, and that's another big assume,

It is. If you look at

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodr...ons/page2.html

you can see the values I got - based on measurements LP makers made on
their levels of noise, etc. In effect, their measured results for the 'best
possible' LPs at the time. 70dB seems wildly optimistic to me. Unless you
have weighted the values for LP and then aren't using the correct value for
Shannon, or comparing with CD on a 'like for like' basis.

People also sometimes assume you can get +20dB or more relative to the
reference level on LP, but then ignore that this is highly frequency
dependent, accompanied by gross distortion, etc. Ditto for claims about
signals well above 20kHz whilst ignoring the side effects and restrictions
that imposes. The result can be an 'optimistic' set of unrealistic
presumptions.


then anyone preferring vinyl to CD is actually preferring the lower bit
rate format. This is akin to what the Gadget Show purported to show, a
preference for a lower bit rate format.

The snag is to know what other changes might have been applied to the 'mp3
version'. This is similar to Iain's comments about modern CDs. (And some
reports that the CD and SACD layers of dual discs aren't actually produced
with the same details of level compressions, etc.) Very hard in many cases
to get the 'original source', or to do fair comparisons unless you generate
the versions yourself - which may mean you don't then use the same mp3
encoder/settings as someone else!

Also it isn't certain that the mp3 *decoding* is perfect.

Hence the results might sound 'different' and then you have to decide which
you 'prefer'. Not obvious that the more faithful rendition will always be
preferred. One of the distinctions between 'hi fi' and 'audio' systems is
that 'fidelity' doesn't care if you like the results or not if the source
was imperfect. :-)

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

The Gadget Show
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I don't think that is what David meant.
But there are quite a lot of CDs that were mastered
from metal matrices when analogue tapes were
not available.

'Quite a lot'? I'd say it's pretty rare.

I won't ask you on what experience you base your
statement:-)

Then I won't ask you either. Since you won't have any accurate figures so
would be guessing too. But ask yourself this question - why would long
obsolete 'metal matrices' be kept while master tapes thrown out?

Unless you're talking about
recordings made near 60 years ago.

There is quite a lot of 60s and 70s material. The fact is rarely if
ever mentioned on the sleeve. It was found also that polishing
and then washing/rinsing the metal matrix prior to transcription
was detrimental, so they were just cleaned with distilled water
and a soft brush to take away the spider's webs and any
muck that had been acquired during storage.

Retrieved from a skip, then? ;-)

Decca had a transcription room with a 401 and SME 12"
arm, (the metals are14 inches) and we used to do metal
transcriptions for a number of third party clients. This
type of work is probably not so comnmon any more,
as most catalogue material has already been reissued.

And preserving most if not all the nasties of 'vinyl'?



But it does sort of prove how good the medium is - a properly done
copy of vinyl to CD will sound identical to the vinyl. The other way
round not so.

Has this point ever been in dispute?

It certainly has by many who think vinyl inherently better than CD

Do you know of anyone who claims that?
I know of no-one who does not agree that CD
is technically superior.

You must have a short memory of things written here. ;-)

The problem is that
the potential of the medium is abused so
often, with dire results, that people get the
idea that vinyl is better.

Oh *we* may know that, but others have a simplistic answer. They prefer
the sound of vinyl therefore it is better. And produce all sorts of
rubbish to support this. It was even stated on the Gadget show that vinyl
being analogue must be better as it contains the whole signal rather than
samples...

Have you listened to the Ray Charles/Count Basie,
and compared the vinyl with the CD. Dave?
As a CD enthusiast, you will be disappointed.
This is not by any means an isolated case.

Why would a grotty re-release disappoint me? They're not exactly uncommon.
But then there are far more examples of CDs of the same recording being
far better than the vinyl.

A Swedish colleague of mine calls this
"a progression in mastering fashion" and
remarks that after the initial problems were sorted out,
some of the most blamelessly mastered pop CDs
were made in the mid-late 80s.

That could be true. But then that was the heyday of both mediums being
available.

Since then, the
medium has often been pushed well past its limits.
And, as the general level of acceptance is gradually
eroded away, less and less people actually care
about it. Louder is better don'tcha know!:-)

Indeed. Your industry has a lot to answer for. And you frequently look
down your nose at mine. ;-)

Judging by the current levels of pop .mp3 downloads,
people seem to prefer these to CD anyway. The
prediction that only classical and jazz material will
be sold on CD may well prove to be correct.

Driven by the needs of the ISPs to keep data to a minimum? Storage has
never been cheaper, after all.

We live in interesting times:-)

I'd call them something else. ;-)

--
*Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Gadget Show
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

You should play around with the idea before you comment.

OK, I've spent some time playing with it, interesting. For some
short-duration clicks riding on audio that doesn't have enough HF content to
mask them, your technique works very well. That's another technique for my
armoury - thanks.

However for longer-duration clicks, it's not so good. It turns a largely
rectangular pulse with a clearly defined beginning and end into something
that doesn't, and lasts a lot longer to boot.

Part of the art is getting the corner frequency low enough that you don't
get a thump.

The point about "thumps" is that they have spectral content right down to
bass frequencies. Removing them with a low-pass filter is like using a
low-pass filter to remove hum.

David.

The Gadget Show
 

In article ,
David Pitt wrote:
I wondered where they got the MP3 version from?


It is important in modern television not to confuse the audience with
facts. All that was said was that the sources were all from a 2003
remix.

Right. As I said I only caught some of the piece.

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/videos/sound-challenge-part-3

Doesn't seem to give any technical info there.

I found the item interesting because I am just starting on the download
thing and am still making my mind up as to whether 320kb/s MP3 downloads
are a satisfactory medium as against flac or a CD. I have found myself,
from time to time, having to resist the conclusion that 320kb/s does
sound better than CD. This is of course impossible, or is it? A factor
in all this is the quality of the replay devices and I am beginning to
have doubts about the more expensive of my two CD players, a Quad.

There are many variables.

The Gadget Show did not "prove" anything, it was far too glib for that
but it did illustrate a possible perception.

At a guess I would say that if that test was repeated often enough the
overall result would be close to random.

Other thing is that any data reduction algorithm may be fine on some
material and not others. So for personal use all that matters is that it
sounds fine on the things you listen to.

--
*Windows will never cease *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Gadget Show
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...


You may be right, it was a hazy recollection,

I *am* right! Not only do I have a copy of the complete circuit diagram,
I also have a copy of an article written by the designers ("A System
for Reducing Impulsive Noise on Gramophone Reproduction Equipment",
published in "The Radio and Electronic Engineer" Vol 50, No 7)

Could you perhaps make a copy of the above available? I'd be interested to
see the details.

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

The Gadget Show
 

In article , David Pitt
wrote:
"David Looser" wrote:

"David Pitt" wrote in message
...

I found the item interesting because I am just starting on the
download thing and am still making my mind up as to whether 320kb/s
MP3 downloads are a satisfactory medium as against flac or a CD. I
have found myself, from time to time, having to resist the
conclusion that 320kb/s does sound better than CD. This is of course
impossible, or is it?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "better". If you mean "more
accurate" then yes, it is impossible. But maybe there is something
about the distortions produced by the mp3 coding that you like, just
as many audiophiles like the distortions generated by vinyl, or valves.

I must admit I the thought of MP3 artefacts being "nice" had not
occurred.

My brain has a well embedded prejudice that 320kb/s is such a large
reduction that it cannot possibly be any good, the ears are forming a
different opinion.

I had a similar initial doubts about methods like those used for DTTV, yet
to my ears the results can sound very good - examples like Proms on BBC4.
This uses a nominally 'older' system with a lower bitrate, yet can sound
very enjoyable in my experience.

The Hatink/Concertgebouw 320kbps mp3s I've heard do sound good to me. But
of course this is no guarantee - any more than being on CD ensures the
results aren't crippled by excessive level compression, clipping, etc. Does
indicate that 320kbps has the potential to deliver good results, though.
Beyond that I'd guess it is like other media, to be decided on a
case-by-case basis.

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

The Gadget Show
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"TT" wrote in message
. au...


I prefer the least amount of processing as possible so I only go after
the very large and obvious pops/clicks.


Fair enough, that's your choice. Personally I find any audible click
annoying and prefer to remove as many as possible, so long as I can do so
without causing other audible damage to the audio. Attempting to clean-up
really badly damaged records, particularly 78s, can be worse than not
doing anything.


Agreed. The restoration of 78's is very specialised work.
There are some very good people in the UK. John R.T.
Davies who died a couple of years ago was one of the
finest. I knew him quite well. He was also a very accomplished
saxophone player. We had worked on several projects together

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ob...es-730507.html


For 78s, Audition (CEP) falls very short of the mark.
A system like Cedar is required.

One of my efforts:

Befo
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/Chloe01.mp3

After
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/Chloe02.mp3


The most successful restoration transcriptions seem
to be made from an acoustic gramophone and large
capsule condenser microphone. One of my colleages
had a large exponential horn made up as a
special attachment to his gramophone. He uses an
original Neumann U47 the first post-war condenser
from that company.

Iain