Je vinil prihodnost fiziènega formata?

[ambasador]

[ambasador]

Mislim da ni offtopic kadar korenine doloèene problematike navidezno segajo na druga podroèja:
harmonska sestava zvoka mora pri poslušanju biti uravnotežena.
To se upošteva pri sestavi hifi verige. Torej po vrsti narašèajoèe harmonske komponente zvokov morajo po vrednosti zvezno upadati.

Ti lahko v verigo vneseš napravo s prevladujoèimi neparnimi harmoniki a moraš to kompenzirati z drugo napravo (ali zvoèniki, odjemno dozo itd). Na koncu slišiš seštevek in odštevek vsega.

Isto velja za posnetke. Naredi s suhoparno digitalijo - moraš kompenzirati z neèim drugim: kot @jazzz lepo pove ali to pretlaèiš skozi lampaša ali preko LP ali preko analognega magnetofona.
Ne zbežiš, ni drugih izhodov. Èe to opustiš, dobiš rezultat ki ne velja.

Tako je Blumenhofer preko LP-ja naredil mastre za CD in to je danes eden od referenènih CD-jev. Pa se križajte kamor hoèete. Ta CD sem imel doma, sedaj je v drugih rokah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zanimiv eksperiment je bil tale: lampaški predojaèevalec, ki moèno obogati zvok iz CD playerja, mu doda tretjo dimenzijo, težo, detajle, zvok dvorane, perspektivo globine..
Pa sem se vprašal kako se to sliši na gramofon.
Priklopil sem ga na integrirani ojaèevalec preko dveh vhodov - eden je bil direkt na phono stage, drugi je iz phono stage (ta ima dva izhoda) šel na lampaški pre in iz njega na integrirca. Je bolj enostavno kot sem zapisal.
Skratka z daljincem sem bil v stanju iz kavèa preklapljati in v realnem èasu primerjati rezultate.

Medtem ko je zvok na CD signalu lampa lepo zaokrožila/obogatila zvok - na analognem signalu ni naredila niè. Sem mislil da bo overdose popaèenj. Ne. Je ostalo praktièno isto, rahlo samo obtežilo reprodukcijo, vendar presenetljivo podobno. Ker je zvok iz gramofona že prišel tak, sem zakljuèil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sem nekje prebral, ma zgleda da drži - digitalne èipe delajo IT inženirji ki se na audio problematiko bolj malo spoznajo. Pa delajo podobne napake kot so jih japonski inženirji v obdobju ojaèevalcev masivnega feedbacka. Krasno na meritvah, zvoka pa od nikoder.
Ta 'hudi' projektanti ne uporabljajo fertik D/A èipov. Vzamejo DSP in sami napišejo protokole in s svojimi prijemi speljejo signal do konca. Stane, se pa tudi sliši.
_________________
Carpe Diem

[JAZZZ]

[longplay]

Tako vinil snema krtek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggSL8cAXAyQ

In posluša morph:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8idlS_l2noE

[benma]

[ambasador]

[vintagesonic]

[ambasador]

[vintagesonic]

[benma]

[benma]

[jacoby]

Keith O. Johnson: Reference Recordings

Holt: You've just cited Holt's First Rule of Recording: "The better the recording, the worse the performance, and vice versa."

Johnson: What's so frustrating to me is that most of my favorite recordings are older ones, and the newer ones are becoming increasingly harsh and grainy and unlistenable.

Holt: You must feel that way, and even more so, about Compact Discs, which are by and large awful.

Johnson: That's again a frustrating one. We use the Sony system at Reference Recordings for backup in our sessions, and it's a remarkably good piece of equipment considering all the things that are against it. But once you're dealing with a really good analog recording system like what we have, and use good microphones and the bare minimum of electronic processing, then the shortcomings of the Sony system become very apparent. At least from the standpoint of very serious recording.

If I were an audiophile or someone buying a system, and had a choice between a reel-to-reel machine and the Sony PCM—and I'm talking about the reel-to-reel machines generally available to serious hobbyists—and I was going to use it for recording from records, the decision would be in favor of the digital. But once you start dealing with a real microphone feed, and the microphone setup is working right for you, and you have a live group in a very good hall, at that point it's a different ball game. Then there are things that are wrong with the digital. And the problems that I've encountered are very similar to what other people have heard and described. I've looked into the causes of these distortions and in most cases they're things that are readily measurable and are something you can put your hands on. It's not mythology.

Holt: But then why would they show up only when you feed them from microphones? How can the PCM make such almost-perfect copies of analog tapes?

Johnson: Actually it doesn't. Most analog tapes brought to me for mastering are second-or third-generation copies, made on good but not great equipment; a cassette machine will make almost perfect copies of these. But there are a lot of things I can hear the matter with PCM copies of my own tapes.

Holt: But your tapes are hardly typical of other master tapes.

Johnson: No, they aren't, but we're trying to make a product for release, not just something to listen to for our own enjoyment. And one of the biggest frustrations is, here we have master tape that has been recorded to the highest standards we can achieve, and then we go to the phonograph records with all the ticks and pops and the mechanical sounds of the record cutter and the playback system arm resonances, not to mention the wear that occurs later on—all of which degrades the signal so much that we sometimes wonder if it's worth all the effort.

Holt: So virtually no consumers are hearing anything like the sound of your master tapes.

Johnson: Oh no, they aren't. This is a major problem with all record reproduction.

Holt: In that respect, then, digital can do a better job, as a conveyance between the master tape and the average consumer.

Johnson: Not necessarily. Maybe average consumers, but not on a good audiophile system.

Holt: You mean on a helluva good audiophile system.

Johnson: A very good one. What we lose in the digital copy is very interesting. The inner detail is gone, and when things get complex, like in the Symphonie Fantastique, even though the string section is subdued and distant, in the master you can pick out a number of the individual violins that are playing in there. It is not a "massed string sound" like you hear in commercial recordings. But once you've gone through the digital process you start losing the discrete-instrument sense, particularly in complex sustained-sound programs. Tightly mixed studio recordings of popular music more easily survive digital. One can achieve heightened imaging by contrasting tiny pinpoint-type sounds with diffuse random-phase information. The contrast between the two (analog and digital) increases the sense of both space and articulation, even though the recording has less of each. If either the inner detail is lost because of complex nonharmonic distortions, or space is lost from running out of digital bits at low levels, the overall contrast diminishes.

The other thing that is very perplexing and bothersome with the digital is that it draws attention to the loudspeakers. The Symphonie Fantastique (footnote 3) and the latest recordings that we're working on have been recorded in Medina Temple, which has a wonderful sense of acoustical space.

I work very hard to put the instruments in that acoustical space in the recordings, and to make the playback loudspeakers seem to disappear. Digital recording destroys this.

Digital has certain distortions which are not related either harmonically or by phase to the input signal, so the distortion products appearing in each channel are entirely different. Together they produce no virtual stereo image at all, so there is no spread or apparent depth to their sound. They appear right at each speaker, and the speakers can no longer seem to disappear. The whole sense of that lovely acoustic space just collapses. Not only that, but this distortion—as subtle as it may be—acts as a diffusing filter over the sound, like a veil that obscures much of its detail. Hence, we degrade the space/articulation contrast, and a dull spacelessness occurs.

Holt: Do you feel, then, that these problems are inherent in Sony's PCM system rather than related to the quality of, say, the analog circuitry in the Sony PCM-F1?

Johnson: I don't think the analog circuitry is where most of the problem lies. One of the tests I did on the digital system, just to see what was going on here, used what I called a tone cluster. The signal source consisted of many different frequencies, which is what you find in music.

In this case, just to be as nasty as possible about it, I chose the cluster frequencies to be harmonically related to the digital bit flow and sampling rate. Then in playback I notched out the original frequencies, and what was left was something you wouldn't want to hear—some particularly nasty-sounding stuff. In terms of measurements it is a very small percentage of the original signals, but it is a terrible-sounding distortion and it is not masked by the signal because much of it is so far removed from the frequen-cies of the original signal—even though it might be 30 or 40dB below the signal.

Holt: Well what does it sound like? Is it a sort of shattery quality or what?

Johnson: It sounds like a swarm of nasty little buzzes and harmonics and grating sounds. It's a very ugly sound.

Holt: You feel, then, that the problem is with the digital system itself.

Johnson: Absolutely. With these particular system standards and design ground rules that the industry has adopted.
_________________
The only way to do great work is to love what you do

[LightBit]

Ne moreš reèi, da je nekaj zaniè, zato ker dela pravilno (z manj popaèenja).
Pa mislim da ni problem v CDP.

Stvar okusa in navad.
Èe ti ustreza bolj "analogen" zvok se da tudi CD-je "obogatiti" kot sta opisala JAZZZ in ambasador.
Obratno na žalost ne gre.

[vintagesonic]

[jacoby]

Torej 24/192 digital, rešuje vse probleme audia?

Sploh èe digi mastre vleèejo èez lampaše da dobijo mal juice-a

Morda si ti takrat vozil Yugota, jaz paè ne, sem zaèel z R4.
_________________
The only way to do great work is to love what you do