Stupid human Tricks (big time Rant inside)

[Deleted]

Sol
This time I was listening to both tracks directly from the HDD, using Creative's Media Source Player, which bypasses the Microsoft mixer. Perhaps if I had burned both files to a CD-R, the differences may have been more obvious ? In any case, my best tracks compilations will now all be on Kodak Gold Archival CD-s which definitely sound better, most likely because of their superior readability,and less jitter ? As I also have said previously, perhaps the gold Mobile Fidelity releases aren't just a marketing gimmick? I would also like in the future to try the gold DVD-R discs to see if they translate to superior video also.
Alex

[dotnet]

Jun 18, 2008 7:18:45 GMT @sandyk said:

Steffen
The only Mac I would ever get would be a Big Mac !

LOL! So, am I correct assuming that you're not camping outside the new Apple Store tonight?

Cheers
Steffen.

[Sol]

Jun 18, 2008 8:29:32 GMT @sandyk said:

In any case, my best tracks compilations will now all be on Kodak Gold Archival CD-s which definitely sound better, most likely because of their superior readability,and less jitter ?

I'm wondering if your results could be inproved with a different CD read/writer in your system also ... it would make sense that the hardware component would have an effect ... ISTR that philips CD RWs were thought as superior .. and indeed IIRC they are used as a basis for some transports in DIY CD players because of their stability & supperior performance.

I've a couple of MFSL CDs on gold, and they have definate superior dynamic range, better overall involvement, so I would tend to agree with you, it's not just a marketing hype.

[Deleted]

Sol
I have 2 DVD writers, a Pioneer 111 and a Pioneer 212 SATA. Both received excellent reviews for performance and low errors, which is why I purchased them originally. The copies they make on normal good quality CD/DVD-R are virtually indistinguishable from the original disc. There are many other excellent burners available these days.
Alex

[rowuk]

Jun 13, 2008 23:03:23 GMT @sandyk said:

Robin
Are you able to do it at 24/96 ? A friend of mine is archiving his vinyl that way at present.
A good soundcard is a necessity of course. It's good insurance, particularly when you consider that most of your precious recordings are unlikely to ever be obtainable in the future, let alone, now !
Alex

Alex,
yes, I am doing it at 24/96. I am using a home made discrete phono preamp, Ortofon T30 transformer, a Luxman MC cartridge with Van den Hul stylus on a home made record deck (15 KG plinth out of marble) with a Dual anti resonance tone arm, an Audio Technica vacuum platter to suck the record essentially perfectly flat, Focusrite 10 channel firewire AD/DA converter with a home made +/- 18VAC PS and my mac for the transformation. I use Cubase4 software so that I can digitally equalise with low phase distortion (Wave plug in) as necessary. Many of the record companies did not follow the RIAA preemphasis curve very accurately.

In many cases the recording is more enjoyable after digitizing because the frequency response has been corrected with much less sonic signature than with my old analog Crown studio quality equalizer.

[rickcr42]

Many of the record companies did not follow the RIAA preemphasis curve very accurately.

It is my opinion though i have nothing to back it up other than "gut feeling" it was intentionally so.What can be called "house sound" when played back via an a true RIAA curve so actually IS accurate because that is the end sound they were looking for when the disc was matered and if you change it you are in effect remastering the disc.

RCA came out with the "New-Orthophonic" curve that later went on to be the standard "RIAA" curve so maybe the closest to TRUE accuracy would be the classic RCA manual phono stage




from this (11 MB Download !....but THE Tube Bible for designing with tubes )

THE RIAA YEARS - 1952-present: Hi-fi enthusiasts called for a single curve that all records would be made in. In 1952, RCA developed the New Orthophonic curve with all of the solutions to problems listed above compounded into one set of record and reproduce curves. Within a year, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) adopted this curve. By 1955, most American labels had adopted the RIAA standard.



The only changes to the curve were definitions adopted in 1974 to set the ultrasonic and infrasonic characteristics of records and playback pre-amps. This change was prompted by the introduction of the CD-4 quadraphonic disc system with its ultrasonic carrier. Note that some European companies did not make the change to RIAA until the 1960s, and some Russian and Asian companies didn't standardize until 1975.[/quote]

www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/mixphono.htm



Because I own discs going all the way back to 78 mono discs I am considering a sort of "modded" JE Labs phono stage project


The "Octal" RCA Phono Stage



The JEL Octal/Mono Multi-EQ Phono stage







where i take the Mono version "multi-EQ" design and try to make it work with the RIAA Stereo version and maybe for true multi-format use add a flat position for use as a microphone amp and a NAB/IEC tape EQ section for use with an open-reel deck though the last likely will have to be deck specific due to the wqay various machines spec out.

The RIAA Version in either the original Novals or the JE Labs Octals is a cakewalk,the possible additions maybe not so very with the best way an external EQ box that would switch into the EQ loop when the RIAA stage switch is in the "External" position but man,at gains this high noise entering the loop is a real issue so I won't know if it is a workable solution until i do a "proof of concept" mockup which may lead to "everything in the damn box jerky ! You SHOULD know better !"

High on the list of Sumertime Builds which to be honest are few and far between there being way too much to do outside this time of year

[rowuk]

Rick,
the RIAA theory is a great start, but many recording engineers had a different agenda that resulted in very strident highs and excessive bass. Even if we can get the playback curve to within .5 dB, we may need another go at polishing up the ragged original product. The CD remasters of older recordings often took the sonic agenda with it. The EQ can at least minimize the pain. If it is rerecorded, the changes can be made more permanent.

[rickcr42]

Rick,the RIAA theory is a great start, but many recording engineers had a different agenda that resulted in very strident highs and excessive bass. Even if we can get the playback curve to within .5 dB, we may need another go at polishing up the ragged original product. The CD remasters of older recordings often took the sonic agenda with it. The EQ can at least minimize the pain. If it is rerecorded, the changes can be made more permanent.

You have to take into consideration what the intended audience was and what their socio-economic possibilities might be so for instance those 'strident" highs may have been mixed to play back on a system below mid-level hi-fi (the average blue collar working family teen if popular music) which would be a real boon in asystem with recessed highs.
That same engineer would likely also boost the bass to the "bloated" point to make up for system bass deficiencies and especially so in a time before home theater and the "psycoacoustic" bass bump to give the impression of bass fundamental notes when all you are getting is an increase in the overtones.

The above (and other reasons ) BTW is EXACTLY why we need to have control over the frequency domain of our systems and why losing the tone controls entirely then making it unfashionable to re-introduce them was a wrong headed idea until or unless we are blessed with perfect systems playing perfect recordings and we have surgically enhanced perfect hearing that is identical to every single other human beings hearing.

doesn't say shit about taste but I'll let the ad men take care of that since they have pretty much won every other battle on the SQ front ;D

[rickcr42]

Looking for some info on NAB tape head Eq i came across a couple of topical links that provide some interesting reading :

www.wavecor.co.uk/oldtopics.htm

www.webace.com.au/~electron/tubes/preamp.html



I'm starting to come to the beleif that all analog playback networks need to be "tweakable" with the only question being where and how.

option #1 would be to use variable "air-dielectric" capacitors for the fixed capacitor EQ elementsb ecause if the variable element is resistive then operating points of the circuit will vary and that variance in a way that would be damn hard to foresee without having a serious spreadsheet of all possibles in front of me while doing the "tweak".

option #2 would be to use a "re-equalizer" like the Rek-O-Kut device so the actual RIAA EQ stays "fixed" in values adhering to the RIAA standard while the actual curve will be according to the combination of the two devices

option #3 is to use a series of filters and a good tone control.This last allows a person to not only adjust the tonal balance back to perceived nuetral but has the additional function of being able to "compensate" for any hearing deficiencies,musical taste and even for CD correction for when THEY are anything but ruler flat in the frequency domain,a very common thing is my guess considering they too are mastered to the intended consumer with that being the lowest common denominator or more actual a 'typical" playback system with the same flaws as in previous years with the exception that there is more "apparent" bass creating a situation where on a good playback system the tone is way too leaned out

BTW-worrying about phase errors introduced by any tone control mechanism is damn near comical in an age where you either have brick wall anti-aliasing filters or false sampling increases to plavce the filter at a higher frequency but that STILL has consequences in the audible band so another dart thrown at the "anti' tone control crowd who would suffer unplayable recordings just to be up to date with the latest thinking in high end audio where some mystical "straight wire with gain" is the goal yet in a time where recordings are anything BUT correct damn close to extreme idiocy IMO,not that it means squat....

[rowuk]

You can do all of the equalization in the digital domain with very little if any additional sonic signature. You just have to get over your resistance to digital.
Record the stuff without turning on the speakers, the airborne vibrations will screw up the playback. Once digitaized, there is NO FURTHER DETERIORATION as is when you play the vinyl. When you compare the cleaned up digital replica to the original, the advantage of the digital repeatability is very great. Also no additional devices in the chain - adding an extra EQ means additional interconnects, noise and distortion - if we can ignore the phase shift (I think sometimes that we can). It is also possible to back up vast amounts of archived material with minimal effort. That is not possible with analog.
I have a Revox A77 in the cellar with a bunch of original tapes. The problem is that on some of the tapes, the magnetic coating is coming off. The bonding agent is dying. On others, I have some serious bleedthrough. Thank God I took the time to back this stuff up digitally (unfortunately "only" 44.1K 16bit - the best I had at the time - one of the first PCM to video tape adapters in Europe, made by Technics/Panasonic). At least the memory is preserved. My tapes are stored in a dry cool place and got rewinded 2 or 3 times a year. I have baked the ones (method recomended by the Studer engineers that I know) that I haven't transcribed to get the magnetic coating "fixed" to the substrate and am copying them, bleedthrough and all. Better than just throwing them away!

My recommendation to all vinyl junkies: get a backup. It may take 10 or 20 years, but you will thank me for this bit of advice!