Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
recursor wrote:
On 12/24/2011 10:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
The human ear/brain combo may very well construct notes which aren't
there. However the ear can hear down to 50 Hz and good vinyl
recordings can reproduce the 50 Hz frequencies made by the double
bass and the celtic harp. No doubt in the recording studio superior
bass amplification techniques/equipment are needed for this to happen
but my part in this thread was only a reply to Arny who said that
notes below 100 Hz are not present on vinyl...which is ********.
Arny didn't say that. Just that vinyl can't *accurately* reproduce
signals below 100 Hz.

Which is ********.

You snipped the rest of the post which told the truth about vinyl.
But you're obviously in denial.


There’ll always be Big-Enders and Little-Enders, but sometimes eggs are
eggs. One man’s fish is another man’s poisson.

Bill

In article ,
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

[Snip]

You digitised your entire record collection? IMO it's not economical to
digitise vinyl in DIY as long as the same albums are available on CD
commercially. You'll spend 2 hours minimum recording, post processing
and burning the tracks of a single album, and that is not counting the
time for scanning the artwork. Unless you value or own free time very
low, just buying the same album on CD is much more cost effective.

It might be more cost effective to buy CDs, but doing it yourself doesn't
involve financial outlay. I have 300+ LPs in the loft. To replace them
with CD would cost a lot of money which, since I live on a pension, isn't a
practical proposition. My time only costs me if by digitising a CD I have
to pay someone else to do another job that I could do myself. And in any
case, I can do other things when the LP is playing, I don't need to monitor
it all the time.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

charles wrote:
In article ,
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

[Snip]

You digitised your entire record collection? IMO it's not economical to
digitise vinyl in DIY as long as the same albums are available on CD
commercially. You'll spend 2 hours minimum recording, post processing
and burning the tracks of a single album, and that is not counting the
time for scanning the artwork. Unless you value or own free time very
low, just buying the same album on CD is much more cost effective.

It might be more cost effective to buy CDs, but doing it yourself doesn't
involve financial outlay. I have 300+ LPs in the loft. To replace them
with CD would cost a lot of money which, since I live on a pension, isn't a
practical proposition. My time only costs me if by digitising a CD I have
to pay someone else to do another job that I could do myself. And in any
case, I can do other things when the LP is playing, I don't need to monitor
it all the time.

The whole question of what value to put on one's time is very
complicated. One rule I have is that if it's raining and I'm getting wet
the value of my time doubles.

Bill

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:25:58 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

Two random remarks:

Java Jive wrote in
:

I also rejigged the pickup wiring underneath the arm mounting so that
it drops off at a smaller radius. As the arm tracks through its
maximum sweep, the drop-off point now only moves through an arc of
about 5mm in length, whereas after the first rewiring it was moving
through about 50mm, and as expected this has greatly improved the
tracking.

A tangential tracking turntable would be a solution.

Hardly a solution, but maybe a slight improvement. Although I suspect
if redressing the leads is proving to be an issue, implementing
tangential tracking will be a rather larger one.


Yes this worked. I've now re-recorded the entire collection, and
listened critically to the most important half or so of it.

You digitised your entire record collection? IMO it's not economical to
digitise vinyl in DIY as long as the same albums are available on CD
commercially. You'll spend 2 hours minimum recording, post processing
and burning the tracks of a single album, and that is not counting the
time for scanning the artwork. Unless you value or own free time very
low, just buying the same album on CD is much more cost effective.

This all very well, but I have found that the both mix and mastering
tend to get wrecked when old vinyl recordings are re-issued as CDs. I
have recorded most of my vinyl onto hard drives and performed some
reasonably radical cosmetic surgery to remove the crackles, hiss and
rumble. These are now recordings I will listen to quite often.

d

On Saturday, December 24th, 2011, at 11:35:08h +0000,
Bill Wright observed:

One man’s fish is another man’s poisson.

Attention au poisson d'avril!

In article ,
recursor
wrote:
On 12/24/2011 09:54 AM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In articleVvWdnfBXheId12jTnZ2dnUVZ8gadnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk,
recursor wrote:


All fine in terms of 'pitch', but misleading if anyone then jumps to
the (generally wrong) conclusion that the above means that most of the
emitted energy is always at the fundamental frequency for that pitch.

Look at the ideas of 'place theory' and 'temporal theory' for human
pitch perception. These outline how human hearing detects the details
of the waveform/spectrum to 'hear' a lower frequency - which may not
be present at all.

The human ear/brain combo may very well construct notes which aren't
there. However the ear can hear down to 50 Hz and good vinyl recordings
can reproduce the 50 Hz frequencies made by the double bass and the
celtic harp.

I'm not clear why you believe that about "vinyl", beyond basing it on your
earlier assertion about what you 'hear' when listening to something like a
'double' bassoon on LP. As has been pointed out, the fundamental may be
absent or attenuated yet still sound OK because the fundamental may play
little or no part in the perceived sound when its frequency and level are
low even for the live instrument.

No doubt in the recording studio superior bass
amplification techniques/equipment are needed for this to happen but my
part in this thread was only a reply to Arny who said that notes below
100 Hz are not present on vinyl...which is ********.

Erm...You may have forgotten that you also wrote

On 22 Dec in uk.rec.audio, recursor wrote:

Well I wonder where I got the idea that they can accurately reproduce
low frequency down to 50 hz. All these years I must have been mistaken.

and

On 22 Dec in uk.rec.audio, recursor wrote:
I said I believed my ears because I was hearing the low notes of the
double bassoon being accurately reproduced.

So it isn't quite correct to now say that your "only part in this thread
was only a reply to Arny who said that notes below 100 Hz are not present
on vinyl." You have explicitly based what you say to the above assertion
about hearing the "double bassoon" on LP... Which - as been pointed out -
may not require the "vinyl" to "accurately" represent the fundamental.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

In article ,
recursor wrote:
On 12/24/2011 10:42 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Arny didn't say that. Just that vinyl can't *accurately* reproduce
signals below 100 Hz.

Which is ********.

You snipped the rest of the post which told my imagined truth about
vinyl.

Fixes your post for you, no need to thank me, it's a free service.

A second thing you need treatment for. How many more?

--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *

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

In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

[Snip]

You digitised your entire record collection? IMO it's not economical
to digitise vinyl in DIY as long as the same albums are available on
CD commercially. You'll spend 2 hours minimum recording, post
processing and burning the tracks of a single album, and that is not
counting the time for scanning the artwork. Unless you value or own
free time very low, just buying the same album on CD is much more
cost effective.

It might be more cost effective to buy CDs, but doing it yourself
doesn't involve financial outlay. I have 300+ LPs in the loft.

In addition, modern CDs may well have been "remastered". Alas, for many
rock/pop/etc forms of 'popular' music that can mean the dynamics have been
compressed and the overall sound mucked about.

Well produced CDs can sound superb. I can cite here two current favourites.

The 'Decca Sound' 50 CD box

The 'William Steinberg" 20CD box (EMI)

These have some lovely CD versions of old recordings that were originally
released on LP. For anyone who likes 'classical' music and wants enjoyable
performances with excellent stereo images, I'd recommend both the above.

But other kinds of music can be fouled up, and may not sound the same as an
old LP in good condition because the people doing the 'remastering'
couldn't resist tampering.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Saturday, December 24th, 2011, at 11:35:08h +0000,
Bill Wright observed:

One man‘s fish is another man‘s poisson.

Attention au poisson d'avril!

"le poison d'un homme et le poisson d'un autre" is a better translation.
You can see why the French call us Les Rosbiffs when that proverb is said
in idiomatic English.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
recursor wrote:
On 12/24/2011 10:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
The human ear/brain combo may very well construct notes which aren't
there. However the ear can hear down to 50 Hz and good vinyl
recordings can reproduce the 50 Hz frequencies made by the double
bass and the celtic harp. No doubt in the recording studio superior
bass amplification techniques/equipment are needed for this to happen
but my part in this thread was only a reply to Arny who said that
notes below 100 Hz are not present on vinyl...which is ********.
Arny didn't say that. Just that vinyl can't *accurately* reproduce
signals below 100 Hz.

Which is ********.

You snipped the rest of the post which told the truth about vinyl.
But you're obviously in denial.


There’ll always be Big-Enders and Little-Enders, but sometimes eggs are
eggs. One man’s fish is another man’s poisson.

Really? And I thought you made use of instruments when rigging aerials.
You mention signal strengths often enough.

So try using a distortion analyser with vinyl. They don't lie.

--
*How can I miss you if you won't go away?

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