Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: Digital Vinyl: Temporal Domain


Recommended Posts

You're wasting your breath. Anyone with an oscilloscope (or at least one functioning ear) can prove for themselves that vinyl has much worse temporal resolution than digital. But no-one who believes in the superiority of vinyl is going to risk having their paradigm shifted. As for the article, I used to embarrass myself like that too until I learned the underlying physics. (And no, I don't dislike vinyl. I actually enjoy listening to vinyl because I marvel at just how good it can sound in spite of its deficiencies.)

 

I enjoy listening to vinyl because some (perhaps a lot, unfortunately) of the mastering was better than you can get with CDs or downloads these days. (I'm speaking of my old original vinyl and times I've repurchased in the newer formats.) You may not be able to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but the music companies prove over and over that the opposite is quite possible.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Less than helpful.

 

One layperson's explanation of the Sampling Theorem:

 

 

Imagine a graph.

 

 

You have a signal (any signal, even the most complex musical signal, not just a sine wave) that is limited in how fast it can vary; in other words it is frequency-limited, say to 20,000KHz and below.

 

 

You take samples from that signal.

 

 

 

If you have taken one sample, you can draw an infinite number of curves (musical signals) that pass through that sample point on the graph.

 

 

 

When you have taken two samples, there are a lesser number of curves (musical signals) that will pass through both points.

 

 

 

What the Sampling Theorem proved mathematically is that as soon as you take a third sample point (as soon as you sample just above twice the highest frequency in your musical signal), there is only one signal in all the universe that will pass through all three points. Therefore, you have defined the signal not just at the sample points, but entirely, and you can then specify where the signal is at any point along its length, i.e., at arbitrarily small time intervals.

 

 

 

Thus the sample rate has nothing to do with the timing accuracy of a digitally sampled signal reconverted to analog.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
You either take the time to study the maths, or you trust those who have.

 

 

Of course on any subject outside of people's own knowledge, the determination of whether someone with expertise is trustworthy must depend on other criteria. Should I automatically trust the 3% of climate scientists who have "taken the time to study" anthropogenic global warming and concluded it does not exist?

 

 

 

In this case from what little I know as a layperson, you are mostly correct. It is absolutely true that the Sampling Theorem proves any sample rate adequate for a band-limited signal (above twice the highest "frequency of interest") defines the signal at all time points. However, the Sampling Theorem contains idealizing assumptions that don't exist in the real world - perfectly band-limited signals, infinite time to do the filtering to reconvert digital to analog, etc. So there is in fact in practicality a limit on how finely a real-world signal, digitally sampled and reconverted to analog, can be specified in time. It is much less than the time between samples. I believe Dennis (esldude) has this information and has mentioned it previously on the forum, but I don't remember it.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Are you suggesting there is anything but complete consensus among scientists and mathematicians regarding the validity of the sampling theorem?

 

 

You couldn't have missed the mark by more if you were trying (or perhaps you were trying).

 

 

 

Nope, you were asked, after saying quite cryptically that the writer was mistaken due to the Sampling Theorem, to explain how the Sampling Theorem made what he said about timing accuracy of analog signals reconstructed from digital samples incorrect.

 

 

 

You chose to misinterpret this as Chris questioning the Sampling Theorem itself. I tried to give you an example of how unhelpful your "You just have to trust the people who know" response was, and you chose to misinterpret that.

 

 

 

This strikes me as a lot of work to avoid an explanation you've now mostly given in real-world terms with the graphs above, so I'm not sure exactly what all of it got you.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

 

And you and he were quite correct. Chris then asked if you could put the reason for your conclusion on a level that would help others understand:

 

 

 

99.999% would really like help understanding how and why. It's over our heads.

 

 

 

All you had to do then was say, "I can't or won't boil down the way the Sampling Theorem works here, but look at these two graphs: One signal can be moved by a matter of nanoseconds in relation to the other, when both are reconstructed from a 44.1KHz-sampled signal (22 microsecond time interval). So nanosecond, or in fact picosecond, time accuracy is available from real world 44.1KHz digital sampling." After all, you wound up doing that anyway. But you made a great show of *not* explaining before you eventually did. Puzzling.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Yes, but can you resolve where the transient started within one 44Khz sample to the accuracy you were able to shift the constant sine wave in your example?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

 

As long as the transient doesn't involve frequencies equal to or higher than 22.05KHz (for a 44.1KHz sample rate), yes.

 

 

Edit: A little more detail - As I mentioned in my previous attempt at an explanation, once you have adequate sampling (the "third sample point" in my prior explanation), you have mathematically established exactly where the signal had to be at every point along its length.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Wow! This is denigrating into a "Cables-and-Interconnects-make-a-difference" conversation. I believe analog does sound better. I have a degree in Mathematics, studied the physics of sound (In 1973 I started by using the Helmholtz book "On the sensations of tone as a physiological basis for the theory of music" !?!), am a musician, recorded music in the two inch reel-to-reel days and......BIG DEAL.....I've heard all of my favorite music on vinyl and digital and vinyl wins. That being said I no longer have the physical space to store all the vinyl, all the equipment involved I would personally want, fussing over it.....I will stay with full on digital, hope for the best in future DAC's, enjoy many vinyl rips I own. But I still know that playing back The Allman Brothers "Hot Lanta" at full tilt never sounds as magnificent as it does on vinyl playback.

 

Mastering is certainly involved, and perhaps differences in analog and digital systems in terms of design and parts quality - I don't know what your analog and digital systems look like.

 

 

 

As an example of mastering differences in my experience, the Who's Tommy and Steely Dan's Gaucho DVD-A versions weren't a patch on my LPs, but the SHM-SACD versions of each sound great.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
I wasn't at my desk when I first replied. Also, theoretical explanations and experimental results are not mutually exclusive.

 

Thanks, my apologies for assuming it was simply stubbornness.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Jud, Are you sure? I am not asking if it can resolve the frequencies but where within the width of the sampling pulse the transient starts. MQA dont seem to think it can be done, that´'s why they have come up with different sampling and filtering methods

 

 

MQA has not found an exception to the Sampling Theorem. :)

 

 

 

What they are talking about is something different.

 

 

Mathematically, the more precise your filtering is in terms of time, the less precise it is in terms of frequency, which leads to the real world job of creating a filter that will find the appropriate balance between "time domain" distortions (ringing) and "frequency domain" distortions (aliasing and intermodulation distortion).

 

 

MQA has made a great show of moving its balance away from the place where the vast majority of people working in digital audio have chosen to put their emphasis. They have to some extent disdained trying to have correct response in the frequency domain. Whether this is enough to provide a better time domain response as MQA claims, we don't know, since we haven't seen any data/measurements thus far. What measurements we have seen in the frequency domain would indicate it is a good idea to be skeptical of MQA's claims.

 

 

None of this prevents you from listening to MQA and enjoying it if you like. But it doesn't appear to be any sort of game changer in technological terms.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Have you read their paper thar includes the triangular sampling? That is where they claim to be get better temporal accuracy in the ADC. The filtering is another part of their process.

I haven't heard any MQA'd music yet. I have a feeling I am going to be underwhelmed!

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

 

Here's Miska talking about MQA at the ADC stage (on Roon's forum):

 

 

 

No, they just run decimation (sample rate reduction) using their filter (kernel) at mastering stage to reduce the source to 88.2/96 kHz rate for encoding. Then they use shaped high level dither to hide distortion from the leaky filter and trying to maintain dynamic range at lower frequencies despite only few bits. They use the entire top octave for filter roll-off (and aliasing), because they think that frequencies above 20 kHz are not useful so those can be sacrificed to keep ringing of the filter to minimum.

 

 

 

See where he talks about the filter kernel? MQA uses a "triangular" filter kernel. This is part of "decimating" (reducing) the sample rate of the source. It is not magic and it does not provide starting points of between-sample signals that others cannot. And when Miska talks about "leaky" filtering he means the poor frequency response performance of the MQA filters on the DAC side.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
If you read Bob Stuarts Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 9178 ( sorry no link ) the "triangular" filter ( actually a b spline kernel, whatever that is), they do actually claim it can resolve starting points between samples because the samples overlap.

 

There is also some mention of this in one of their patents, unfortunately the diagrams are missing:-

 

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014108677A1

 

 

From the patent:

 

 

 

Preferably, the downsampler comprises a decimation filter specified at the first sample rate, wherein the asymmetric component of response of the decimation filter is characterised by an attenuation of at least 32dB at frequencies that would alias to the range 0-7 kHz on decimation. The range 0-7kHz is the range where the ear is most sensitive.

 

 

Holy s**t. Perhaps Miska and mansr have been too polite.

 

 

 

That being said: I have heard MQA sources where I also have the hi res files. I thought it sounded pretty good, not as good as the hi res. (mansr has mentioned that the bad frequency domain performance might not be audible.) And as I think is nearly always true, almost regardless of format, where Tidal has provided MQA masters that are superior to the masters for the RedBook-resolution files they had, I think the MQA version sounds better simply because of the mastering.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Well, from someone who has studied the math and knows as much about the subject as anyone alive (James Johnston, aka "JJ"):

 

The time resolution of a 16 bit, 44.1khz PCM channel is not limited to the 22.7µs time difference between samples. The actual minimum time resolution is equivalent to 1/(2pi * quantization levels * sample rate). For 16/44.1, that is 1/(2pi * 65536 * 44100), which is about 55 picoseconds. To put that in perspective, light travels less than an inch in that time.

 

 

 

 

Yes, but what about:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit - also:

 

 

 

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Yup. Good to see all the discussions on time domain and hopefully everyone becoming clear about the FACT that 16/44 is already capable of time domain resolution much lower than intersample spacing.

 

I wrote about this recently as well when having a peek at the MQA filter characteristics. Check out the Monty Show and Tell video starting at 17:20.

 

Obviously vinyl has poor time-domain fidelity. In fact, anyone who has any concerns about digital jitter should be absolutely freaked out about the limitations of vinyl playback!

 

IIRC, the time domain stuff (wow, flutter) and surface noise were the big bugaboos leading to development of CDs.

 

Let's not liken wow and flutter to the audible effects of jitter, though. That's another form of "analog thinking" we should leave behind.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Are you saying that sound quality was a leading factor in the creation of the CD?

 

Certainly the desire to be free of audible wow, flutter and surface noise were leading motivating factors in the development of digital audio media. This is not to say compromises weren't made, or that making money wasn't (as always) the single most important thing to the companies involved.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
I have that album, but have never listened to it because I don't have a turntable :~(

 

I'm so bummed!

 

You're certainly invited to bring it with you if you're ever in the neighborhood. :)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

PVC, I think you may want to speak to the President, or perhaps the Attorney General....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
This thread has cleared up my misconceptions on the accuracy achievable with normal sampling methods, and I thank Jud, esldude and others for taking the time. I am now left pondering why MQA use a different sampling method. From their wiki page:-

 

"One more difference to standard formats is the sampling process. The audio stream is sampled and convolved with a triangle function, and interpolated later during playback. The techniques employed, including the sampling of signals with a finite rate of innovation, were developed by a number of researchers over the preceding decade, including Pier Luigi Dragotti and others."

 

Does anyone have an explanation ( none cynical please)?

 

It actually is not a "different" sampling method than anyone else has used. Filters are constructed by convolving a filter "kernel" with a function, such as (classically) a sinc function. MQA uses one of the available kernel choices, a triangular kernel.

 

Miska describes a triangular kernel in technical terms as "crappy." :)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Easily confused, yes. That's why it is a common misconception. You are still making the same mistake in thinking that digital sampling resolution is limited to the time between samples.

 

This is an unfortunate choice of analogy. It argues for accuracy / resolution in amplitude, not time, which is also an area where digital has a large superiority in resolution over vinyl.

 

Here you repeat your misunderstanding. You say that an event that occurs between sample times can only be captured to a time matching the closest sample time. This is incorrect. It is captured accurately, to the resolution defined by the equation in my earlier post. Your continued failure to understand how this can be so shows you lack the "training and experience on the subject" you talked of above. Have you watched the video I posted the link to? Starting from about 17:20 it shows, in real life, with a cheap DAC at 16/44.1, a transient being accurately sampled in time between sample times.

 

Here you display a lack of understanding of digital oscillosopes and how they are used. The biggest difference is that they do not depend on being able to sample at twice the rate of the highest frequency being measured. It's quite common to use such a scope in an undersampled mode. But for our purposes (audio), we stick to the classic Shannon-Nyquist model.

 

Make up your mind. Either digital can resolve transients in between samples, or it can't.

 

In the rest of your post, all you have done is make the case that 16/44.1 is marginal (but close enough for rock'n'roll), and that 24/96 is enough to capture everything that might possibly be significant.

 

 

As long as there's nothing in the signal you're sampling above 48KHz.

 

 

Wonder how much of the response from vinyl above 20KHz is truly signal as opposed to noise.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

By the way: None of what's been said should obscure the fact that while CD is capable of greater dynamic range than vinyl, CDs are all too often actually produced with a squashed dynamic range. No hocus pocus is necessary to explain this, only production decisions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Said like someone who doesn't understand how to read an FFT. The graphs were done with a 256 k FFT. Such a graph would have the noise floor near -150 db for a noise level across the full band of -100db. The graph shown for the cartridge in fact would be a dynamic range as such is usually determined of maybe 60 db give or take a bit.

 

Here is a better view of that graph down this page.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33713[/ATTACH]

 

Then there is the RIAA curve vs. wow, and surface noise to consider, though surface noise can be "listened through." (The RIAA curve refers to low frequencies being diminished and high frequencies being boosted when a record is cut, and the reverse happening in the phono preamp at playback, to allow maximum playing time for a 33 /13 LP and minimize groove damage. The low frequency boost on playback is approximately 10db at the frequency - 400 Hz - where wow's perceived pitch distortions are centered.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
[/font]

 

Did you mean "nothing significant"? I left "for audio" off the end of my sentence. :-)

 

 

 

Yep. Thinking of harmonics for trumpet, and some percussion. (Cymbals can have 40% of their energy above 20kHz.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

How many tracks are typical of the big studio consoles these days?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Well it has been reported several places it was recorded to DAT. If not it really doesn't change anything about my conclusion. The gear was not the magic. The simple miking and lack of processing was along with someone carefully positioning everything for the recording. It would appear they didn't go with a DAT. Even primitive digital was pretty good, and simple recording was good before digital.

 

To repeat, the take home message from Trinity Sessions is about simple unprocessed recordings with simple microphones.

 

 

More complex workflows also have something to tell us about fidelity. Mark Knopfler's recent recordings, generally acknowledged to be of good sound quality, have at least frequently if not perhaps exclusively used a system of bouncing back and forth between digital and various analog consoles to get a desired sound. So whatever digital recording is being used in that process (I'm thinking they do it at 24/96 resolution, but I could easily be wrong about that) is pretty transparent.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
One of a few studios in a big Nashville studio.

 

https://www.blackbirdstudio.com/studio-a

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neve_8078

 

 

That's an analog console, which they run into a 48 or 96 track digital system. The digital system they use is advertised as permitting "up to 256 audio tracks with a single card system or up to 768 audio tracks with three cards. Mix up to 192 ins and outs. Get the power to run volumes more plug-ins."

 

 

 

Where I was headed is that as you add tracks, the resolution you can get per track with the computing power available has eventually got to be reduced. I don't know where the cutoff for 24/96 versus 24/44.1 or 16/44.1 is these days, let alone keeping things in DSD as much as possible as Channel and Blue Coast do, or DXD as 2L does.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Honest question, is vinyl capable of 100db dynamic range? Wouldn't the inherent noise of vinyl limit it's dynamic range?

 

Looking at the economics, at the price for the Goldfinger Statement, about $15,000, taking the typical 1000hr stylus life suggested by Ortofon, and averaging a 45 minute LP length, you would have to pay the meter approximately $11.25 every time you played an LP, a pretty expensive calculation no matter how you look at it.

 

I've read the ideal theoretical capability is 120dB, and allowing for various practical limitations, in an extraordinarily good situation around 80dB can be attained.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...