"Frank" wrote in message
. ..
Keith G wrote:

"Ken" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:59:01 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

SACD:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat01.mp3

Vinyl (no declicking):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat02.mp3

Vinyl (declicked with Izotope, believe it or not)

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhat03.mp3


Enjoy!


Why does the second track sound better than the first one?

Higher level.



Actually, it isn't - if you look at the waveforms you will see the SACD
track (01) is louder in the right channel than the LP and the LP track
(02)
is louder than the SACD in the left channel.

It's the best compromise I could get: the SACD clip recorded at a much
lower
overall level than the LP and I had to bring up the volume and try to
match
it manually in the recording software at the 'crossover point' - a
kludge at
the best of times, but close enough for *listening* purposes.

Anyway, A/B comparisons like this are meaningless to anyone other than
'measurement freaks' - if anyone is looking for a 'winner' in
situations
like this, the only way to choose between SACD/CD and 'vinyl' is to
have
both, play both and see which one 'wins' (is played the most) over a
period
of time.

Something I did a long time ago....

@;-)


I don't look at the waveforms, I only listen.
Second track sounds higher.



This is an audio newsgroup full of audio newsgroup types: I don't think
it's unreasonable to expect that at least the majority of said audio
newsgroup types would either look at waveforms or at least be able to
look at waveforms in situations like these. 'Loudest = best' is for your
*auntie*, not for audio newsgroup types - try using a volume control
somewhere along the line....



No no no ... I said that the second track sounded better not louder.



That's perfectly understood Frank - I was merely responding to Ken's remark
that the second clip was louder.


The second and the third even sound like at different pitch from the first
one ... and different overall.


I'm not aware of any problems with my deck and there is a strobe light on it
which never seems to change or need adjustment, but you can never rule out
pitch differences with turntables! (And I have been known to run a turntable
3.3% fast for a couple of weeks, a few years ago!! ;-)

Keith G wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message
. ..

The second and the third even sound like at different pitch from the
first one ... and different overall.


I'm not aware of any problems with my deck and there is a strobe light
on it which never seems to change or need adjustment, but you can never
rule out pitch differences with turntables! (And I have been known to
run a turntable 3.3% fast for a couple of weeks, a few years ago!! ;-)

Again, it's all in the sleeve notes for the 75th anniversary edition of
'Kind of Blue',
which is where the track on Keith's SACD sampler came from.
Apparently the LP and all previous CDs were a bit fast.

--
Eiron.

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message
. ..

The second and the third even sound like at different pitch from the
first one ... and different overall.


I'm not aware of any problems with my deck and there is a strobe light on
it which never seems to change or need adjustment, but you can never rule
out pitch differences with turntables! (And I have been known to run a
turntable 3.3% fast for a couple of weeks, a few years ago!! ;-)

Again, it's all in the sleeve notes for the 75th anniversary edition of
'Kind of Blue',
which is where the track on Keith's SACD sampler came from.
Apparently the LP and all previous CDs were a bit fast.


Looks like it - I've recorded the SACD and LP versions again, mono'd them
both and pasted the resultant mono tracks into a stereo window (SACD over
LP) with an exact 2 seconds lead into the beginning of both tracks to lift
them clear of the frame edge:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatBOTH.jpg

If I've read the tricky little numbers correct, the SACD track is 9m 20.5s
long while the LP track is only 8m 55.5sec long - a difference of 25
seconds! That's not inconsiderable, is it?

No wonder the SACD version sounds 'dreary' by comparison to what I am used
to...!!

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatBOTH.jpg



Is it compression that makes the lower track look fatter or it is simply
more dymnamic? Are we sure they are the same track ;-)?

I do enjoy this.

Frank

"Frank" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatBOTH.jpg



Is it compression that makes the lower track look fatter or it is simply
more dymnamic? Are we sure they are the same track ;-)?

I do enjoy this.



OK, just for you and with no expense spared, I have uploaded the mono wavs
whose waveforms are in the pic so you can check and make all the comparisons
you want for yourself:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...atSACDMONO.wav

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...WhatLPMONO.wav


(How broad is your band? They are getting on for 50 Meg apiece!! ;-)

The interesting thing here is that I have always believed that what we get
used to becomes a 'norm' for us (speakers in particular) - to me, the SACD
version sounds comparatively dull/flat/tired/whatever and I wouldn't choose
it over the LP, even if the LP version is *officially* too quick!!

Now, is that *vinyl denial* or what?

@:-))

Keith G ha scritto:

"Frank" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/SoWhatBOTH.jpg



Is it compression that makes the lower track look fatter or it is
simply more dymnamic? Are we sure they are the same track ;-)?

I do enjoy this.



OK, just for you and with no expense spared, I have uploaded the mono
wavs whose waveforms are in the pic so you can check and make all the
comparisons you want for yourself:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...atSACDMONO.wav

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...WhatLPMONO.wav


(How broad is your band? They are getting on for 50 Meg apiece!! ;-)

The interesting thing here is that I have always believed that what we
get used to becomes a 'norm' for us (speakers in particular) - to me,
the SACD version sounds comparatively dull/flat/tired/whatever and I
wouldn't choose it over the LP, even if the LP version is *officially*
too quick!!

Now, is that *vinyl denial* or what?

@:-))




Took 2 mins to dl the both of them. I'm curious about what's your setup
for playing vinyl. By the way, lpmono version sounds a bit dirty but a
lot more natural.
So there is no need for me to buy a sacd player and my tt collection
will surely outlive me ...

Frank

"Frank" wrote in message
.. .
Keith G ha scritto:


OK, just for you and with no expense spared, I have uploaded the mono
wavs whose waveforms are in the pic so you can check and make all the
comparisons you want for yourself:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...atSACDMONO.wav

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...WhatLPMONO.wav


(How broad is your band? They are getting on for 50 Meg apiece!! ;-)



Took 2 mins to dl the both of them.



Took a lot longer than that to upload them!


I'm curious about what's your setup
for playing vinyl.


Nothing but the best of everything:

Main Vinyl Rig (into Fidelios, extreme right):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...inyl%20Rig.jpg

Digitising Rig:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...sing%20Rig.jpg


(Excuse 'quick and lazy' crap pic quality!)


By the way, lpmono version sounds a bit dirty


I think it's a rather well-used copy but I'll give it a shampoo and set with
the next batch for cleaning, probably tomorrow!


but a
lot more natural.


Is my main argument for vinyl....


So there is no need for me to buy a sacd player and my tt collection will
surely outlive me ...


Same here!!

@:-)

Keith G said...

Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.


Not surprised!! You mustn't leave a 'hole in the middle' with wide speaker
arrangements!

I was getting a good solid central image but with exaggerated width,
and stereo was of the ping pong variety, visitors enjoyed it.
It's surprising how many people have never heard a reasonable stereo
image . Wow! Is this multichannel? you can't hear the speakers. etc.

I've moved them closer together and further out from the back wall now,
the wide placement was yet another unsuccessful experiment to tame the
room boom in my 8 x 12 x 16 ft auditioning environment. It would appear
that acoustics don't get much priority when designing sheltered
accommodation.

They probably think we'll be deaf anyway. Speaking of which, I had a
comprehensive hearing test earlier this year and the audiologist was
surprised how good mine was at age 58.5 . He remarked that if he were
to judge my age from the results he would place me in the 25 to 30 age
bracket. Me very chuffed.


[quoted text muted]
http://jproc.ca/crypto/bid150.html



Nice Show N Tell and interesting pix of encrypted comms kit - digital
descendants of SIGSALY I guess?

I'd never heard of SIGSALY till I googled it just now, interesting.
Like all the secret squirrel kit, we were never told how it worked or
where it came from, just how to operate it and do basic maintenance,
though in that case the punch cards were a bit of a give away.

I came across the BID150 link when I was trying to find out what
sampling rate and bit depth it operated at. I've tried simulating with
various programs but can't get low enough to approach the effect that
it had on voices. I would guess at a depth of 2 bits. Listening to
voices with it was most strange, It removed nearly all dynamic range
and the tiny inflections that make an individuals voice recognizable.
Only the most gross regional accents survived the process, but speech
was still perfectly intelligible.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Keith G said...

Ditto here, but "noises off" are most obviously way off over there.


Not surprised!! You mustn't leave a 'hole in the middle' with wide
speaker
arrangements!

I was getting a good solid central image but with exaggerated width,
and stereo was of the ping pong variety, visitors enjoyed it.
It's surprising how many people have never heard a reasonable stereo
image . Wow! Is this multichannel? you can't hear the speakers. etc.


Been there and done that no end of times!



I've moved them closer together and further out from the back wall now,
the wide placement was yet another unsuccessful experiment to tame the
room boom in my 8 x 12 x 16 ft auditioning environment. It would appear
that acoustics don't get much priority when designing sheltered
accommodation.


The easiest 'room treatment' in my book is to fill the room with soft
furniture. It's hard, reflective surfaces combined with wide, open spaces
that give you problems.



They probably think we'll be deaf anyway. Speaking of which, I had a
comprehensive hearing test earlier this year and the audiologist was
surprised how good mine was at age 58.5 . He remarked that if he were
to judge my age from the results he would place me in the 25 to 30 age
bracket. Me very chuffed.


That's excellent, but I suspect a good 'audiologist' is one who knows how to
conduct his tests properly but also sends his customers away feeling good
about themselves and things generally...

;-)


I'd never heard of SIGSALY till I googled it just now, interesting.
Like all the secret squirrel kit, we were never told how it worked or
where it came from, just how to operate it and do basic maintenance,
though in that case the punch cards were a bit of a give away.


There is a ton of very interesting 'audio' stuff once you get away from
'domestic hifi' it seems - mainly defence and Post Office and almost all of
it going back to the good old days of valves, from what I can see of it.
There is a continual dribble of very interesting programmes on these sort of
topics on BBC 4 and BBC 2 at various, odd times which I have recorded for
me!



I came across the BID150 link when I was trying to find out what
sampling rate and bit depth it operated at. I've tried simulating with
various programs but can't get low enough to approach the effect that
it had on voices. I would guess at a depth of 2 bits. Listening to
voices with it was most strange, It removed nearly all dynamic range
and the tiny inflections that make an individuals voice recognizable.
Only the most gross regional accents survived the process, but speech
was still perfectly intelligible.



Not my bag, but all very interesting....

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

One sees that cheaper labels often have their own stand in the corner of
the shop, which they seem to service themselves.

"One" may see that, but I haven't seen it in decades.

Budget labels.
Pickwick/Hallmark/Allegro, and others were doing this with vinyl in
the1960s.


Indeed they were, but ISTM that the 1960s were their heyday. Who are the
"budget labels" today?

Naxos is the first that comes to mind.

Most classical companies have budget issues, and so if you are
not insistent upon the "latest" recording, some gems can
be found at low cost.

Iain