KDinsmore Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Has anyone posted the graphs on this yet? Thanks! Furutech GTX-D, GTX Wall Plate,106-D Cover > NCF Clearline >Custom Computer>J River [Current] > Curious Cable Evolved USB > Chord Hugo MScaler > WAVE Storm Dual BNC> Chord DAVE>DCA Stealth>my ears > audiophile brain Link to comment
AudioExplorations Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Fingers crossed this is a legit release!! Link to comment
ron spencer Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Well....I had a coupon and have just bought. Please let me know the steps I need to do the get the graphs...Do I use Audacity? If you let me know EXACTLY what I need to do I will post.... Cheers -rs Link to comment
Garf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 On subjective thread, there is a waveform and spectrum of Satisfy My Soul. I would love to see more spectrums plots on this album before I pull the trigger. Anyone have any clues as to the source for this HDTracks offering? It appears to be the 2002 re-issue with the original album lengths and the two additional songs. Roon Rock running on a Gen 7 i5, Akasa Plao X7 fanless case. Schiit Lyr 2, Schiit Bifrost upgraded with Uber Analog and USB Gen 2, Grado RS1s, ADAM A3x Nearfield Monitors. Link to comment
Julf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Please let me know the steps I need to do the get the graphs...Do I use Audacity? If you let me know EXACTLY what I need to do I will post.... Yes, Audacity is a good tool. Load a track into Audacity. In Edit/Preferences/Intereface, make sure you select -145 dB range, and in Edit/Preferences/Spectrograms, check that you have "range" set to 144 dB and max frequency to 96000.The default view is the waveform plot - worth posting. Next, change the display of the track (from the pulldown on the left, normally showing the track name) toi "Spectrum (log f)" and post the result. Finally, select Analyze/Plot Spectrum and post the result of that too. Link to comment
wgscott Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 See also this thread, now a sticky at the top of the "objective and subjective" forum topic: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/threads/9354-Music-Analysis-Objective-Subjective Link to comment
ron spencer Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 @Julf and all...ok I did that...here we go: Link to comment
AudioExplorations Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I guess this looks legit? Link to comment
Julf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I guess this looks legit? Doesn't look upsampled. While the dynamic range doesn't seem that great, there doesn't look to be any clipping. So yes, legit. Link to comment
Julf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 @Julf and all...ok I did that...here we go: Great! Thanks! Link to comment
AudioExplorations Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Doesn't look upsampled. While the dynamic range doesn't seem that great, there doesn't look to be any clipping. So yes, legit. This is quite amazing... most of these recordings are taken from different recording sessions. If these have all been preserved in high res it seems probable that most of his discography can eventually be reissued as high res. Link to comment
Julf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 This is quite amazing... most of these recordings are taken from different recording sessions. If these have all been preserved in high res it seems probable that most of his discography can eventually be reissued as high res. Ahh... now... The graphs Ron posted were just one track. So your mileage might vary. And when I stated it looked legit, I only judged it from a point of not being an upsample from CD or something - but we have no idea how "hi res" the source really is. I notice the noise floor is between 90 and 96 dB, funny enough pretty much exactly the resolution of 16 bits. I am pretty sure everything above 27 kHz (and perhaps much higher) is just noise anyway. So no, it doesn't look like repackaged red book material, but a 24/96 copy of whatever source that I am pretty sure wasn't 24/96 to start with - if we are really lucky, it was a bona fide analog master tape, but who knows... Link to comment
ron spencer Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yet Another: Will do one more Link to comment
ron spencer Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Hopefully this should be enough....if anyone wants more then let me know... Link to comment
Julf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yet Another Great! One small thing - in the frequency analysis window, I suggest increasing the "size" setting to at least 4096, but more gives better precision. I also prefer having a logarithmic frequency axis. Link to comment
Julf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Hopefully this should be enough....if anyone wants more then let me know... Thanks! So not much real HF content, but there probably wasn't that much on the original tape... Link to comment
ron spencer Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 ok...thanks!!!! One more for good measure. Any conclusions? Looks ok I guess: Link to comment
Julf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 ok...thanks!!!! One more for good measure. Any conclusions? Looks ok I guess: Yes, OK as in "not much Hf stuff above 21 kHz, but there probably wasn't much to start with". Thanks for the plots! Link to comment
goldsdad Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 One more for good measure A couple of things about spectrograms for future reference... Your spectrograms (predominantly red and white graphs) have a logarithmic vertical axis. A log frequency scale expands the display of lowest frequency and progressively compresses the display as the frequency increases. This greatly reduces details in the higher frequencies where signs of possible up-sampling may be found. For a linear vertical axis, as almost always used in the CA forums, select "Spectrogram" instead of "Spectrogram log(f)" in the track display drop-down menu. The default settings in Preferences>Spectrograms are not optimised for frequency precision and they produce very speckly spectrograms. There's a trade-off between frequency precision and temporal precision in a spectrogram. When an entire track lasting a few minutes is to be displayed in an image with a width of only about one or two thousand pixels, temporal precision will be adequate at all available settings and the graph will have good horizontal resolution. However, an FFT window size (not to be confused with program window dimensions on the desktop) of at least 4096 should be used for good vertical resolution. See example below. Link to comment
Matias Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The Bob Marley's Exodus CD from MoFi is also excellent, and it is another example that MoFi should release their catalog in high-res downloads (along with their remaster of Yes' Fragile). 1. WiiM Pro - Mola Mola Makua - Apollon NCx500+SS2590 - March Audio Sointuva AWG 2. LG 77C1 - Marantz SR7005 - Apollon NC502MP+NC252MP - Monitor Audio PL100+PLC150+C265 - SVS SB-3000 3. PC - RME ADI-2 DAC FS - Neumann KH 80 DSP 4. Phone - Tanchjim Space - Truthear Zero Red 5. PC - Keysion ES2981 - Truthear Zero Red Link to comment
Julf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 A couple of things about spectrograms for future reference... We seem to agree on the buffer size advice, but I guess I am too used to reading logarithmic frequency scales, as they represent the way we perceive sound better - but yes, they give less resolution in the critical region. Link to comment
goldsdad Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 resolution in the critical region That's my rationale Link to comment
Julf Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 That's my rationale Can I counter with "But music is logarithmic. Linear looks unnatural! I can't bear looking at linear for more than seconds!" Link to comment
ron spencer Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 @goldsdad thanks for additional info. here are some more screen caps using your additions for a new song: Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now