Re: High quality MP3 players?
Soundhaspriority
"CharlesBlackstone" <charlesbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
I'm looking to replace my rundown car with a really great Hyundai. I
haven't been pleased with what I've seen. Anyone know of a Hyundai that is
superior?
Get it, jerkoff?
Bob Morein
Eric Lindsay
Soundhaspriority <now...@nowhere.org> wrote:
Stop saving files as MP3. Use a player that handles a lossless format,
and put up with the reduced playing capacity (still way better than a
CD). Check Stereophile reviews for players that give reasonable results
with good earphones. The original iPod Shuffle gave good results from
the earphone connector (not much between DAC and socket).
A Hyundia will get you across town just as quick and easily as a Rolls
Royce.
Fleetie
their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.
Trouble is, as I said, my iPod Nano is the 4GB model, and at 40-odd MB (IIRC)
per song with lossless compression, you don't get much on there.
Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie
Harry Lavo
"Fleetie" <fle...@fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c9OdnWGt4tMyx6_Y...@bt.com...
The new Nanos now include an 8GB model.
Scott Dorsey
>Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
>their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
>The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
>expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
>no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.
You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
AZ Nomad
hee hee. five hundred watts?
Of course you mean mW...
Tim Padrick
news:slrnej4p6h....@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
very good sounding audio file to begin with.
Eeyore
Tim Padrick wrote:
> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
> The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
> very good sounding audio file to begin with.
You think 24/96 is lossy ?
Graham
Scott Dorsey
No. Input current on the Prism is about two amps. It gets pretty warm while
in normal use. I think the idle input current on the 5W Krell amp is something
in the two-amp range as well. That's about typical. I'm assuming 110V power
here.
Scott Dorsey
I think he is, in a somewhat less than coherent and direct way, referring to
converter issues.
Eeyore
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Tim Padrick wrote:
> >
> >> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
> >> The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
> >> very good sounding audio file to begin with.
> >
> >You think 24/96 is lossy ?
>
> I think he is, in a somewhat less than coherent and direct way, referring to
> converter issues.
I reckon today's 24 bit converters ought to be good enough for the job.
Graham
AZ Nomad
You have no concept of mp3 compression. It is completely different than
analog audio compression.
If you put a digital audio stream through a lossless mp3 compression algorithm,
it is indeed totally lossless. The digital data coming out is *exactly* the
same as the data going in.
AZ Nomad
Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
What planet are you from?
AZ Nomad
>Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Tim Padrick wrote:
>>
>>> Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
>>> The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
>>> very good sounding audio file to begin with.
>>
>>You think 24/96 is lossy ?
>I think he is, in a somewhat less than coherent and direct way, referring to
>converter issues.
He hasn't the slightest clue of what mp3 compression is.
Mr Fox
<azn...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>
>You have no concept of mp3 compression.
An Do you?
It is completely different than
>analog audio compression.
>
>If you put a digital audio stream through a lossless mp3 compression algorithm,
>it is indeed totally lossless. The digital data coming out is *exactly* the
>same as the data going in.
Tell me;' what mp3 compression algorithms are completely lossless?
Sander deWaal
>>>>You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
>>>>a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
>>>>possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
>>>>couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
>>>>headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
>>>>can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
>>>hee hee. five hundred watts?
>>>Of course you mean mW...
>>No. Input current on the Prism is about two amps. It gets pretty warm while
>>in normal use. I think the idle input current on the 5W Krell amp is something
>>in the two-amp range as well. That's about typical. I'm assuming 110V power
>>here.
>Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
>What planet are you from?
Is this a Nelson Pass design, perhaps? ;-)
--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."
Mr Fox
<Pad...@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't be shy-= speak in an authoritative manner if you know wat yr
talking about, Dilbert.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
>What planet are you from?
I'm not saying it needs it, but I'm saying it sure does sound good and
it measures pretty damn well too. Yes, it's overkill for the job but
there's nothing wrong with that. The constant attempt to cut every corner
possible in attempts to make things more cheap and more portable is not
beneficial to sound quality.
AZ Nomad
>AZ Nomad <azn...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>>
>>Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
>>What planet are you from?
>I'm not saying it needs it, but I'm saying it sure does sound good and
>it measures pretty damn well too. Yes, it's overkill for the job but
>there's nothing wrong with that. The constant attempt to cut every corner
>possible in attempts to make things more cheap and more portable is not
>beneficial to sound quality.
Not only that, but you can use it to heat a medium sized room.
Shit, my amp for my main speakers doesn't need 500W even at 40-50% efficiency.
Arny Krueger
message news:45326C2F...@hotmail.com
Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is "lossy" compared to
the "infinite resolution" and "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the
real world, as soon as music storage is involved, the bandwidth and
resoluation of analog is very much less than that of good digital, even the
"lowly" of the CD.
CharlesBlackstone
Jerkoff? Did something I said upset you? Taken your meds today?
Enjoy your life....
CharlesBlackstone
Thanks. Well, you CAN carry them on the bus.....but it would be a bit
awkward... :-)
George M. Middius
The Krooborg steps up to lead a Tolerance Prayer.
> an analog bigot
How was church today, Arnii?
I hope you told your pastor that you alienated yet another Kroopologist.
That should earn you some points toward your Satanic Merit Badge.
--
"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006
CharlesBlackstone
Hey George, I don't know you, but I'm glad of it.
George M. Middius
CharlesBlackstone said:
> > The Krooborg steps up to lead a Tolerance Prayer.
> > > an analog bigot
> > How was church today, Arnii?
> > I hope you told your pastor that you alienated yet another Kroopologist.
> > That should earn you some points toward your Satanic Merit Badge.
> Hey George, I don't know you, but I'm glad of it.
Apparently you don't know the Krooborg either. ;-)
Eeyore
Signal wrote:
> Mr Fox <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Who the fuck are you "Mr Fox" (yeah riiiight) and why are you posting
> with my email address?
Loads of ppl use that email address.
Graham
Bob Cain
There is a real Bob Morein who is a pretty good guy and doesn't post
in this abusive fashion. The wingnut responsible for the above
doesn't like Bob so he uses his identity (and his father's) to post
things that will make Bob look bad if you don't know what's going on.
After a just a bit you can tell the difference at a glance. Ignore
the wingnut.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Jenn
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
Good summary, Bob. Thanks.
Bret Ludwig
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> AZ Nomad <azn...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
> >
> >Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
> >What planet are you from?
>
> I'm not saying it needs it, but I'm saying it sure does sound good and
> it measures pretty damn well too. Yes, it's overkill for the job but
> there's nothing wrong with that. The constant attempt to cut every corner
> possible in attempts to make things more cheap and more portable is not
> beneficial to sound quality.
Any headphone solution using even fifty watts, let alone five hundred,
is obvious insanity.
I doubt it sounds any better than a good DAC and purpose designed
headphone amp such as the one in the Benchmark.
Bret Ludwig
Signal wrote:
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >>Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
> >>their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
> >>The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
> >>expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
> >>no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.
> >
> >You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
> >a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
> >possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
> >couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
> >headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
> >can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
> >--scott
>
> player, according to a Stereophile technical analysis I read a while
> back. The headphone output isn't perfect nor would I expect it to be,
> but apart from a rare bass problem I get with the Nano it delivers
> plenty good-enough sound, for the intended purpose.
Given the thermal and power budget the analog section of the iPod is
not tremendous, and a larger unit could do much better. Even the line
output isn't tremendous. In fact, from what I understand the earlier
iPods had better analog hardware than the current ones.
The iPod is nowhere near a "high end" solution, nor is it that great
for everyday use as it is no substitute for a PDA, as it should be
given its storage space and CPU power. For docked use it would be much
better if it offered a digital output, copper or optical. Getting good
headroom from something with that small a battery is asking way too
much.
I would prefer a device a little larger that accepts a user-accessible
standard battery and has a small screen like that of a Palm OS PDA. But
Apple didn't ask me, and as much as I hate Steve Jobs-I hope his cancer
spreads and removes him from Apple, and Earth, quite honestly-it has to
be said iPod works a hell of a lot better than its competitors.
paul packer
<charlesbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
George is an acquired taste. Very dry to the palette.
Kurt Albershardt
> Signal wrote:
>
>> From the line output iPod sound quality is as good as a competent CD
>> player, according to a Stereophile technical analysis I read a while
>> back. The headphone output isn't perfect nor would I expect it to be,
>> but apart from a rare bass problem I get with the Nano it delivers
>> plenty good-enough sound, for the intended purpose.
>
> Given the thermal and power budget the analog section of the iPod is
> not tremendous, and a larger unit could do much better. Even the line
> output isn't tremendous. In fact, from what I understand the earlier
> iPods had better analog hardware than the current ones.
>
> The iPod is nowhere near a "high end" solution, nor is it that great
> for everyday use as it is no substitute for a PDA, as it should be
> given its storage space and CPU power. For docked use it would be much
> better if it offered a digital output, copper or optical.
Not gonna happen, unless it's encrypted. Apple doesn't want you making
bit perfect copies of your (bit reduced) iTunes purchases.
Jenn
Kurt Albershardt <ku...@nv.net> wrote:
Can't say that I blame them.
Eeyore
Bret Ludwig wrote:
I don't think for one second he meant it seriously !
That Prism unit is 8 channels anyway. And the Krell is more than a headphone
amp.
Graham
CharlesBlackstone
Thanks for cluing me in. What's wrong with people? Oh well, at least
it's not real life. What if people let their real selves hang out in
real life, like they do here? Would be pretty intolerable.....
Phread
"CharlesBlackstone" <charlesbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1160974359.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Everyone'd be wearing, and using, six guns like they did a hundred +
years ago. And a lot of the blowhards on the newsgroups wouldn't be
around any more. They'd be up on boot hill. Where they belong.
Fred
Soundhaspriority
> Bob Cain wrote:
>> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
>>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>>> In article 1160874001.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
>>>> "CharlesBlackstone" <charlesbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
>>>>> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
>>>> I'm looking to replace my rundown car with a really great Hyundai. I
>>>> haven't been pleased with what I've seen. Anyone know of a Hyundai that is
>>>> superior?
>>>>
>>>> Get it, jerkoff?
>>>>
>>>> Bob Morein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jerkoff? Did something I said upset you? Taken your meds today?
>>> Enjoy your life....
>>>
>>
>
> it's not real life. What if people let their real selves hang out in
> real life, like they do here? Would be pretty intolerable.....
I always knew Crazy Robert Morein was, well, "crazy". A crackpot. A
nutbasket. Two burgers short of a Big Mac. Fudged in the head. You know,
"cuckoo" <insert ring around the ear gesture>. Ever since Crazy Bob turned
into Mark David Chapman and started believing he was me, and signing his
messages with my name, I became convinced this guy was a "lunatic among
lunatics" on Usenet, never mind just RAO!
http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html
http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html
http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html
Then, I didn't understand how a 7phd degreed physicist, audio engineer, film
director, member of SAG and the IEEE, could possibly have the time to spend
every waking moment of every waking day, turning his entire life into one
long mad "soundhaspriority" obsession campaign. Of course, by the same
token, I couldn't understand how Robert and others can believe that Dr.
Richard Graham, a London psychiatrist for adolescent behaviour, family man
and mathematics professor, who has announced that he's too busy to edit his
own newsletters and does not post on usenet, could possibly be me, posting
all these messages on RAO every day. But apparently, Robert and Ludovic
Mirabel and Shovels and Walt and Steven Sullivan and Powell can all somehow
understand this, and find Crazy Bob quite credible in his assumption that I
must be Graham, simply because we both used the phrase "soundhaspriority"
(along with a few thousand other people in the world... but who's
counting?).
Given the fact that I was always able to predict that Robert Morein would
jump on nearly every one of my messages within minutes of me posting it, no
matter what time of day or night, its clear this crazy usenet freak did not
have an actual job (if this crackpot doesn't respond to this message within
24 hours, call a mortician. Because it can only mean he's dead). I guess
when you're living in a mental institution as Crazy Bob must be, time is
basically all you have.
I received a letter from his old friend Brian McCarty today (reprinted
below), and what he says about Robert is a lot more credible than
anything Crazy Bob has ever said about him, me or anything, really.
Considering Robert Morein's obsessive agenda to libel and defame an
innocent man (Richard Graham) who has never posted here, it is Crazy
Bob himself who I find personifies "purposeless evil", as he calls it.
So now, the tale of "Crazy Bob Morein" is even clearer. As pathological
liars go, Morein makes Arny look like Mother Teresa. Morein is the
biggest bull****ter I've ever seen in the history of this newsgroup. He
doesn't know the meaning of sincerity or integrity. He does however,
know the meaning of "mad obsessive net stalker and delusional usenet
career troll". (How do you define a "career troll"? 7 years straight of
Crazy Bob obsessively netstalking people, with a promise of at least 7
more, pretty much does it).
THE BACKGROUND on Crazy Bob's (Robert Morein) Pathology:
Mark David Chapman, for those unaware, is the obsessive madman
responsible for shooting and killing John Lennon, who was a popular
figure who courted not an insignificant amount of controversy in his
public life. Chapman started out liking Lennon and The Beatles, but
later felt Lennon was a "phony", and sold out his ideals. He felt that
by killing Lennon, it would allow him to take Lennon's place.
Morein started out liking me, but now feels that I am a "phony", and a
sell-out. I've also been informed that Morein recently acquired a gun
license, and a handgun. Should I be worried that Crazy Bob will fly to
London to shoot Dr. Richard Graham (who he thinks is me), in order to
become Dr. Graham? Robert took a public vow recently to harass me
wherever I post on Usenet. As we have seen previous to that, Robert has
publicly admitted harassing the real Dr. Graham's colleagues at his
places of work at NHS and Priory, and as I have learned, our Crazy Bob
also harassed and threatened Graham's wife and Graham himself, at
around 3 in the morning, a couple of weeks ago.
It's disturbing enough that Robert Morein thinks he's me and posts under my
identity, but apart from hawking "morphic green *** cream", Crazy Bob has
now taken to signing his messages "Love, SHP". I'm worried that if Crazy Bob
is not physically on his way to London to shoot and kill Dr. Graham, a
completely innocent party to all of this, he's already half way there
'mentally'. It didn't take much to get Chapman on a plane from Hawaii to NY,
after all. If I ever find out that Crazy Bob Morein bought a copy of Catcher
In The Rye, then I'll be afraid for Dr. Graham's life and will definitely be
taking action against this crazy crackpot that you've got on your group!
The truth behind Robert Morein's crazy bulldoody:
You should be aware that the vast bulk of "incidents" cited by Morein
in his email to you (below) are either fictional, or were done by
Morein himself, I don't really know. At least some of the harassment
of others on usenet was done in order to justify his attacks on me, and
the email bombing and other internet harassment techniques he cites
were also done to me at the same time he was doing it to others.
Funnily, he tried his telephone schtick on my closest friends in LA,
who laughed in his face. He soon stopped that tactic. Virtually every
"fact" he posts about me is false, from my height and size to my
location and history.
The "fake endorsement" items he talks about ARE true, and putting them
up on a website kept him occupied for months trying to chase down every
item and "warn" these people. Chick Corea's manager and I are old
friends, and we had a good laugh about it - Morein left literally two
dozen messages at his office, insisting that he needed to personally
discuss the matter with Chick Corea! His grasp of fantasy vs reality is
so poor, you can get him to dance like a chimp with just a little
creative thinking. His major downfall is the internet, which for him
is his only reality, not understanding that it has little reflection on
reality. His letters to the Australian business regulators go into
their Robert Morein "crackpot" file, which I asked them to keep so that
Australian immigration can deny him a visitor's visa should he ever ask
for one. He's on the same kind of "watch" list as all terrorists.
It is notable that his stalking is confined to those overseas, who he
apparently believes won't go to Pennsylvania and kick his ass -
assuming that anyone even cares. I wish he was actually part of the
pro audio community, he'd then be at conferences with me like the AES
in Paris next month, and be easy to hunt down. Stories he tells about
"doing business with proxies" are just hot air - this is a guy that has
accomplished nothing in his life including business, where a modicum of
sanity is generally a prerequisite. His parents should be ashamed of
themselves for not kicking him out of their palatial home long ago.
Perhaps they knew he was incapable of coping in the real world, and
thought they were doing him a favor.
roughplanet
news:ehu4j211ch4qudg6j...@4ax.com...
AZ Nomad <azn...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> said:
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
ruff
Eric Lindsay
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Fleetie <fle...@fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not that the OP mentions
> >their type of MP3 player, does support a lossless compression method.
> >The file size isn't that good, but at least it's lossless, and I'd
> >expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a CD player;
> >no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern iPods offer this option.
>
> You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone preamps crammed into
> a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low power consumption as
> possible. I have trouble imagining that somethng that can operate off a
> couple NiCd cells is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and Krell
> headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W to run. Of course, you
> can't carry them on the bus, but that's another issue.
> --scott
If the DACs and pre-amps are increasingly small surface mount devices,
then what additional problem does a tiny little box make? In particular,
if a larger box is likely to solve a problem, then what is this problem?
The major problem I see at the moment is that the headphone socket is
now too large for the rest of the device (hearing aids point to one
solution for that).
Typical headphones are producing well over 100 dB per mW, so there is
little problem with using batteries. Except the obvious one of ear
damage via excessive SPL. Indeed, there is a setting in iPods to help
prevent that. The 10-20 hour working life between battery charges seems
to indicate that neither sound levels nor battery capacity are problems.
So who needs to be restricted to a noisy mains power supply?
Anyone asking about an MP3 player is certainly asking about portability.
If you are at home, you can use a computer as a source, and use a
headphone amplifier if you like, or even a custom external DAC.
If using the portable player while travelling, sound quality is going to
be compromised in any case. Planes, trains and automobiles are noisy
environments, totally unlike a well designed listening room. If walking,
there is traffic noise. It is probably no coincidence that popular music
now seems to have as little as 6 dB between the average sound level and
the peaks. It is used under lousy listening circumstances. I don't
bother to try to listen to classical music on a portable player -
traffic drowns the quiet passages (unless you have the volume right up).
Popular music suits portable players a lot better in typical use.
Looking at Apple comments on iTunes, it seems to me that there is now
more mention of using Lossless sound formats. The Macintosh internal
support is there for 24 bit operation at higher frequencies than CD.
Doing your own conversion of LPs and CDs may be the only options
available now, while SACD and DVD-A do not permit copies. However
mastering on a computer lets you choose not to work at 16 bit 44.1kHz.
I wonder what people will be complaining about when the top portable
players accept 24 bit sound, and have 24 bit DACs?
Ruud Broens
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:q66dnQ-qlM0-Bq_Y...@comcast.com...
: "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
Utter nonsense, of course.
analog 76 cm tape with dolby SR will ourperform cd by a wide margin
even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.
fact
check
Rudy
Laurence Payne
<Pad...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Losslesss compression? Neither the CD format nor even 24/96 are lossless.
>The compression methods are (audibly) lossless only if you did not have a
>very good sounding audio file to begin with.
Eh?
Arny Krueger
news:45336b82$0$75952$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:q66dnQ-qlM0-Bq_Y...@comcast.com...
>> Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is
>> "lossy" compared to the "infinite resolution" and
>> "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the real world,
>> as soon as music storage is involved, the bandwidth and
>> resoluation of analog is very much less than that of
>> good digital, even the "lowly" of the CD.
> Utter nonsense, of course.
> analog 76 cm tape with dolby SR will ourperform cd by a
> wide margin
Not at all.
Here's a spec sheet for what I believe is Dolby's most recent SR hardware:
http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/131_pa_sp_0403_740_Spec.pdf
Rudy, your challenge is to document your implicit claim of more than 96 dB
unweighted dynamic range, Frequency response 5-20 KHz +/- 0.1 dB or better,
nonlinear distortion better than 96 dB down, and level tracking within 0.1
dB or better.
What the spec sheet does say is that improvement in single bands of up to 12
dB are possible.
> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.
Those would be highly-weighted numbers, achieved over relatively narrow
frequency bands, with relatively poor level tracking and order-of-magnitude
poorer control over frequency response in the ranges where the ear is most
sensitive, or senitive at all.
See the above specs for the CD format and compare to what you can achieve
with companded analog tape. Companded analog tape can't offer unweighted
dynamic ranage, the lack of coloration and level tracking that we take for
granted with the CD format.
Arny Krueger
message news:4532D5D9...@hotmail.com
This sort of confusion is pretty common with Paul Dormer, AKA "Signal".
Jack
> "CharlesBlackstone" <charlesbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
>>haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
Have you listened to Apple's Lossless format
available into iTunes?
The Lossless files are obviously bigger than 256
kbps AAC, so your battery life will be reduced.
Personally, 256 kbps is an acceptable compromise
between file size and audio quality. For serious
listening sessions at home, I prefer to listen to
the original CD on a proper hi-fi.
You need to replace the standard iPOD earphones
with decent headphones like Sennheisers' mobile
models.
Arny Krueger
message
news:NOwebmasterSPAM-91...@freenews.iinet.net.au
> In article <egtn5k$4gl$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Fleetie <fle...@fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Well, it's worth remembering that the iPod Nano, not
>>> that the OP mentions their type of MP3 player, does
>>> support a lossless compression method.
>>> The file size isn't that good, but at least it's
>>> lossless, and I'd
>>> expect the sound quality to be equivalent to that of a
>>> CD player;
>>> no reason why it shouldn't be. Presumably all modern
>>> iPods offer this option.
>>
>> You're still stuck with D/A converters and headphone
>> preamps crammed into
>> a tiny little box and designed to operate with as low
>> power consumption as possible. I have trouble imagining
>> that somethng that can operate off a couple NiCd cells
>> is going to sound as good as the Prism converter and
>> Krell headphone amp, which probably take a total of 500W
>> to run. Of course, you can't carry them on the bus, but
>> that's another issue. --scott
>
> If the DACs and pre-amps are increasingly small surface
> mount devices, then what additional problem does a tiny
> little box make?
Trouble is that the boxes are getting so tiny. The one thing that has to fit
in the box that is a constant battle is the battery.
IME analog devices running at really low current levels and really low
voltages tend to be noisy and nonlinear. By modern standards 5 volts and 1
mA is huge.
Cell phones are currently being implemented with "headphone amps" that are
really crappy by audio standards, to keep the power levels way down.
> In particular, if a larger box is likely
> to solve a problem, then what is this problem?
Convenience, and a engineering law I've never seen documented. This
engineering law goes something like this: If you can make it smaller,
ultimately you can make it cheaper. The basic idea is that once you've
worked in all of the efficiencies in production and operation that you can,
size and weight matter the most.
> The major
> problem I see at the moment is that the headphone socket
> is now too large for the rest of the device (hearing aids
> point to one solution for that).
Interesting point.
> Typical headphones are producing well over 100 dB per mW,
> so there is little problem with using batteries.
Agreed, the real stumbling blocks are regulatory.
> Except the obvious one of ear damage via excessive SPL.
One problem here is that ear damage is a function of bout loudness and time.
An audiophile listening to wide dynamic range music with occasional very
short peaks of 110 dB and average levels of 80 dB is probably not going to
hurt his ears. A typical consumer listening to the highly-compressed
so-called music that is endemic today at a steady 110 dB, is going to hurt
his ears.
> Anyone asking about an MP3 player is certainly asking
> about portability. If you are at home, you can use a
> computer as a source, and use a headphone amplifier if
> you like, or even a custom external DAC.
Cords are not fun. I have several 25 foot headphone cords and they are a
hassle.
> If using the portable player while travelling, sound
> quality is going to be compromised in any case.
Compromise is what I think we are trying to avoid.
> Planes,
> trains and automobiles are noisy environments, totally
> unlike a well designed listening room. If walking, there
> is traffic noise. It is probably no coincidence that
> popular music now seems to have as little as 6 dB between
> the average sound level and the peaks. It is used under
> lousy listening circumstances. I don't bother to try to
> listen to classical music on a portable player - traffic
> drowns the quiet passages (unless you have the volume
> right up). Popular music suits portable players a lot
> better in typical use.
Relevant points. The dynamic range control hardware seems to be ideally
placed in the player. It seems to me to make sense to tie the dynamic range
control hardware to maximum level limiting to protect the listener's ears
while allowing more natural wide-dynamic-range music to be played with
higher peak levels.
> Looking at Apple comments on iTunes, it seems to me that
> there is now more mention of using Lossless sound
> formats.
Even highly portable mass storage is getting to be cheap and small. Right
now extremely portable mass storage in the 8 GB range seems to be practical.
I'm seeing 8 GB devices around $100. 1 GB can hold about 25 songs, so 8 GB
can hold 200. That seems to be enough for maybe a weeks worth of listening.
Based on past experience with MP3 CDs, I'd say that 200 songs can provide a
fairly non-boring week of fairly extensive listening. You then reload over
the weekend, which again seems reasonable for a music lover.
> The Macintosh internal support is there for 24
> bit operation at higher frequencies than CD.
AFAIK both PCs and Macs support just about any format of audio data storage
you can comprehend. 32 bit floating point offers just under 1,000 dB dynamic
range which seems to be more than enough. That all said, actually making and
listening to 16 bit recordings that exploit even 15 bits is beyond the
current SOTA when listening and recording enviroments are considered, and
they must be considered.
> Doing your
> own conversion of LPs and CDs may be the only options
> available now, while SACD and DVD-A do not permit copies.
Actually SACD and DVD-A media can be copied at will, with very high quality,
in real time, but you have to go through the analog domain to do it.
Relatively inexpensive analog converters with > 100 dB dynamic range are
readily available. They go way beyond real world limitations that we are
unable to do much about at this time, and probably won't ever surmount.
> However mastering on a computer lets you choose not to
> work at 16 bit 44.1kHz.
Yes, computers can do all sorts of things if you can come up with the
real-world interfaces and data. But if 16/44 were the relevant problem with
high quality portable listening, we'd be in audio nirvana.
> I wonder what people will be complaining about when the
> top portable players accept 24 bit sound, and have 24 bit
> DACs?
They already do have portable players with "24 bit converters" - 24/96 - see
the M-Audio Microtrack. But, don't try to look under the covers too closely,
as the real world will intrude.
Ruud Broens
: "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
: news:45336b82$0$75952$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl
:
: > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
: > news:q66dnQ-qlM0-Bq_Y...@comcast.com...
:
: >> Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is
: >> "lossy" compared to the "infinite resolution" and
: >> "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the real world,
: >> as soon as music storage is involved, the bandwidth and
: >> resoluation of analog is very much less than that of
: >> good digital, even the "lowly" of the CD.
:
: > Utter nonsense, of course.
: > analog 76 cm tape with dolby SR will ourperform cd by a
: > wide margin
:
: Not at all.
:
: Here's a spec sheet for what I believe is Dolby's most recent SR hardware:
:
: http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/131_pa_sp_0403_740_Spec.pdf
no, actually it says the unit is based on SR noise reduction circuitry
not intended for that :)
so can't see the relevancy here.
: Rudy, your challenge is to document your implicit claim of more than 96 dB
: unweighted dynamic range, Frequency response 5-20 KHz +/- 0.1 dB or better,
: nonlinear distortion better than 96 dB down, and level tracking within 0.1
: dB or better.
:
: What the spec sheet does say is that improvement in single bands of up to 12
: dB are possible.
:
: > even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
: > did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.
:
hm, isn't 30 > 20 that's an easy one, Arn
"nonlinear distortion better than 96 dB down"
red herring if ever there was one.
that is, in reference to a max output signal,
steadily increasing at lower and lower levels, eh ?
: Those would be highly-weighted numbers, achieved over relatively narrow
: frequency bands, with relatively poor level tracking and order-of-magnitude
: poorer control over frequency response in the ranges where the ear is most
: sensitive, or senitive at all.
:
believe me, AKG ck1+c451 recordings of some Zildjan cymbals,
using a dbx150 encoding/decoding do give rather splendid results
as i found out, wayyy back in the 80's.
: See the above specs for the CD format and compare to what you can achieve
: with companded analog tape. Companded analog tape can't offer unweighted
: dynamic ranage, the lack of coloration and level tracking that we take for
: granted with the CD format.
:
R.
Scott Dorsey
>
>That Prism unit is 8 channels anyway. And the Krell is more than a headphone
>amp.
No, I still have the older 2-channel Prism, as well as the old 2-channel
DREAM A/D.
And the Krell was SOLD as a headphone amp. Although I'll say that it will
drive a pair of LS 3/5as to reasonable listening levels. Then again, the
line output of the original Great River preamp will drive the LS 3/5a to
reasonable levels....
Scott Dorsey
>If the DACs and pre-amps are increasingly small surface mount devices,
>then what additional problem does a tiny little box make? In particular,
>if a larger box is likely to solve a problem, then what is this problem?
First of all, you are now _stuck_ using these increasingly small surface
mount devices... your choices for components are much more limited and
discrete stuff is out of the question. With traces all jammed together,
capacitive coupling becomes a big issue and PC board layout has to be a lot
more careful to keep digital junk from leaking into the analogue lines.
>The major problem I see at the moment is that the headphone socket is
>now too large for the rest of the device (hearing aids point to one
>solution for that).
Not to mention that the sockets break off all the time.
>Typical headphones are producing well over 100 dB per mW, so there is
>little problem with using batteries. Except the obvious one of ear
>damage via excessive SPL. Indeed, there is a setting in iPods to help
>prevent that. The 10-20 hour working life between battery charges seems
>to indicate that neither sound levels nor battery capacity are problems.
>So who needs to be restricted to a noisy mains power supply?
Yes, but the sound quality suffers. Yes, you can get amazingly good
efficiency using those little class-D amplifiers. The only problem
is that they don't sound good. Now, if you're on the subway, they may
be completely acceptable, but that's the difference between gear designed
for critical listening and gear intended for use on the subway.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Here's a spec sheet for what I believe is Dolby's most recent SR hardware:
>
>http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/131_pa_sp_0403_740_Spec.pdf
>
>Rudy, your challenge is to document your implicit claim of more than 96 dB
>unweighted dynamic range, Frequency response 5-20 KHz +/- 0.1 dB or better,
>nonlinear distortion better than 96 dB down, and level tracking within 0.1
>dB or better.
>
>What the spec sheet does say is that improvement in single bands of up to 12
>dB are possible.
I can't do 96 dB unweighted, but I can do 84 dB A-weighted with SR on the
ATR-100 at 15 ips, and if you can tell the difference between that and 96,
I'll buy you a beer.
30 ips might give you better numbers but I find the quality of the noise
is more annoying.
The major difference in terms of measured specifications is the flutter,
which can be amazingly low in the digital world. On the ATR-100 you can't
hear anything that sounds like flutter, but you can hear a blending of
instruments that is probably the result of low level flutter issues.
>See the above specs for the CD format and compare to what you can achieve
>with companded analog tape. Companded analog tape can't offer unweighted
>dynamic ranage, the lack of coloration and level tracking that we take for
>granted with the CD format.
It comes damn close, though. But again, at a severe cost.
drichard
described your post as a "Fact check".
I never heard of anything remotely close to 100 db dynamic range with
the old Teac machines and DBX. 80db was typical, 85 db on a good
machine. That's especially true because you need to lower the levels to
get any transient response. And the frequency response was not very
accurate. DBX compression magnifies any frequency response errors in
the machine by a 2:1 ratio, which was very significant on the Teac
machines. (The 80-8 had a 3db head bump at 60hz, which became a 6db
bump when using DBX. Godawful.) And the dynamic response was anything
but snappy. I'm not sure if a measure of "slew rate" could be applied
to noise reduction, but recordings using DBX often sounded "mushy", and
tests for transient response showed why.
I had a Teac multitrack with DBX back in the day, also a couple of
casette decks with DBX. I eventually stopped using DBX, and found other
ways to minimize the tape hiss on my multitrack. And I used Dolby on
the cassette decks.
The CD format, when used properly, is far, far better than any old Teac
machine with DBX. I don't have Dolby SR, so I can't comment on that.
Dean
tubegarden
Sorry, I sort of enjoyed reading this topic, but, was trying to figure
out what it was doing on rec.audio.tubes ... nobody mentioned any tube
gear. Then I realized it was cross posted to everywhere, perhaps in a
bid for 15 nanoseconds of fame :)
I am old and may actually die without ever having heard an MP3 player.
Oh, the horror ;)
Happy Ears!
Al
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ObqdnXKBtNaF4q7Y...@comcast.com...
>> "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>> news:45336b82$0$75952$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:q66dnQ-qlM0-Bq_Y...@comcast.com...
>>
>>>> Remember that in the eyes of an analog bigot, 24/96 is
>>>> "lossy" compared to the "infinite resolution" and
>>>> "infinite bandwidth" of analog. Back in the real
>>>> world, as soon as music storage is involved, the
>>>> bandwidth and resoluation of analog is very much less
>>>> than that of good digital, even the "lowly" of the CD.
>>
>>> Utter nonsense, of course.
>>> analog 76 cm tape with dolby SR will ourperform cd by a
>>> wide margin
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Here's a spec sheet for what I believe is Dolby's most
>> recent SR hardware:
>>
>> http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/131_pa_sp_0403_740_Spec.pdf
>>
>
> no, actually it says the unit is based on SR noise
> reduction circuitry not intended for that :)
> so can't see the relevancy here.
That leaves:
http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/127_m.br.0104.363onesheet.pdf
"Typical Obtainable Dynamic Range SR: 90–95 dB" at 38 cm/s (15 ips) tape
speed.
Not exactly CD-quality, especially given that weighting used for the
measurement is not specified. Probably A-weighted.
Also, the level tracking errors can be up to 1 dB, whch is vastly more than
CD format.
>> Rudy, your challenge is to document your implicit claim
>> of more than 96 dB unweighted dynamic range, Frequency
>> response 5-20 KHz +/- 0.1 dB or better, nonlinear
>> distortion better than 96 dB down, and level tracking
>> within 0.1 dB or better.
>>> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal
>>> tape, did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz
>>> bw.
Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:
http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf
"Recorder Section
Record Channel: 4-track single direction
Noise Reduction: dbx* Type II
Overall Frequency Response:
40 Hz to 10 kHz, ±3 dB (wihtout dbx)
Overall Signal-to-Noise Ratio: 85 dB
(at 1 kHz, ref. to 3% THD, “A” weighted,
with dbx)
Total Harmonic Distortion (THD): 2.0%
(at 1 kHz, nominal input level, with dbx)"
All vastly inferior to CD format.
Eeyore
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >That Prism unit is 8 channels anyway. And the Krell is more than a headphone
> >amp.
>
> No, I still have the older 2-channel Prism, as well as the old 2-channel
> DREAM A/D.
>
> And the Krell was SOLD as a headphone amp.
It was ? LOL !
> Although I'll say that it will
> drive a pair of LS 3/5as to reasonable listening levels. Then again, the
> line output of the original Great River preamp will drive the LS 3/5a to
> reasonable levels....
Hmm....
Graham
Scott Dorsey
>
>Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:
>
>http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf
Uhh.... this machine is kind of different than a studio recorder.
Like a Ford Escort is kind of different than a Mack truck...
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> And the Krell was SOLD as a headphone amp.
>
>It was ? LOL !
It was. It has since been discontinued, but it's a baby compared with
the regular Krell amps. Five watts RMS output, and that's pretty
conservatively rated, very solid class A output stage, and it'll drive
a dozen Grado SR-60s in parallel without a problem.
>> Although I'll say that it will
>> drive a pair of LS 3/5as to reasonable listening levels. Then again, the
>> line output of the original Great River preamp will drive the LS 3/5a to
>> reasonable levels....
>
>Hmm....
Hell, I remember mixing consoles with 6V6 output stages that could swing
10W into a 600 ohm load as being considered "about average" for broadcast
work. How our standards have dropped these days....
Arny Krueger
news:eh0aar$t4b$1...@panix2.panix.com
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>> news:45336b82$0$75952$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl
>> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
>> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.
>> Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:
>>
>> http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf
> Uhh.... this machine is kind of different than a studio
> recorder. Like a Ford Escort is kind of different than a
> Mack truck... --scott
Note that the OP said "consumer Teac with DBX onboard". Using a piece of
low-end studio equipment seems relevant, no?
Scott Dorsey
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:eh0aar$t4b$1...@panix2.panix.com
>> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:45336b82$0$75952$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl
>
>>> even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
>>> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw.
>
>>> Looking at current DBX models, this seems typical:
>>>
>>> http://www.tascam.com/Products/414mkII/Porta_414mkII_manual.pdf
>
>> Uhh.... this machine is kind of different than a studio
>> recorder. Like a Ford Escort is kind of different than a
>> Mack truck...
>
>low-end studio equipment seems relevant, no?
I think he was referring to a 2-track Teac machine and not a 4-track cassette.
The difference is pretty substantial.
pr...@prep.synonet.com
> Are you seriously argueing that a headphone amp needs five hundred watts?
> What planet are you from?
About that for a Koss Electrostatic. Pair of 600W Crowns made a good
headphone amp. as long as you didn't have to move them ;)
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Lorin David Schultz
>
> I always knew [bizarre ramblings snipped]
To whoever actually wrote all that nonsense:
Stop it. Please? The rest of us don't care.
Just take your fuckin' meds, PLEASE.
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good
(Remove spamblock to reply)
Arny Krueger
However, Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
"even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK open-reel metal
tape was never a significant factor in the market. IOW, Rudy's claim is
based on media that has been unobtanium for a long time, if it was ever
really on the open market. And as we know, just putting metal tape in a tape
machine does not make the whole tape machine golden.
Secondly, the performance of DBX is partially limited by the fact that it is
based on companding, and making companders with > 95 dB dynamic range is a
bit of a trick itself, particularly in home audio-grade equipment.
Thirdly, DBX trades off both static and dynamic level-tracking for dynamic
range, so it is not an audible win-win situation.
John Atkinson
Arny Krueger wrote:
Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
> "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal tape,
> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
>
> Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because AFAIK
> open-reel metal tape was never a significant factor in the market.
Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is stated
implicitly that this was in the past when, presumably, metal-based
open-reel tape was available.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Eeyore
John Atkinson wrote:
I don't recall there being any TBH.
Graham
Arny Krueger
message news:4534D672...@hotmail.com
It may have been a lab test, or something that was demoed privately but it
never made it to the market.
It is my understanding that the benefits of metal analog tape go down as the
track width and speed go up.
drichard
Obviously metal tape was available in the cassette market, and many
cassette decks of the time offered DBX. There were several Teac decks
with DBX built in. I assumed that's what Rudy was referring to, and why
I replied with my comments about DBX in that format. I had an outboard
unit and tried using it with my 2-track too, but it never sounded good
to me.
Over time, I grew to hate DBX. I finally stopped using it. I used
Dolby-C on a Fostex B-16 and on my cassette decks, and was much
happier. But, even so, I never felt it compared to the sound quality
that digital and CD offer.
Dean
Ruud Broens
:
:
It was branded as EE tape.
Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)
of course, you're free to set the dbx ref level where you want
it, so trade some of that range for lower distortion and better
fr at high levels by recording at modest levels is what one does.
the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
implicit belief, that better adherence to some set technical
standard means we get better reproduction !
is this true ? is virtually flat 5Hz to 20 kHz
brickwall filtered above
better then some deviation from flat but
*no brick wall*
saying yes would be largely a technical answer,
but , of course, the significant answer has to come
from the final judge, the listeners perceptive system
some thoughts,
Rudy
Eeyore
Ruud Broens wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Plenty of ppl found dbx objectionable though.
Incidentally British Grove Studios London has a 1" 2 track ATR 100 ! I'll
bet that's good just as it stands.
Graham
Scott Dorsey
Aside from digital open-reel tapes, there really wasn't any commercially
available. SOME folks in the late nineties did actually use the digital
tapes for analogue audio; an ATR-100 will JUST BARELY bias them up properly
and there is ukubillion dB of headroom.
My assumption was that he was talking about EE tapes, which were actually
a chromium dioxide formulation (and actually capable of less S/N than
many of the professional American and European oxide types of the era).
Jenn
drichard wrote:
> Hi Arny
>
> Obviously metal tape was available in the cassette market, and many
> cassette decks of the time offered DBX. There were several Teac decks
> with DBX built in. I assumed that's what Rudy was referring to, and why
> I replied with my comments about DBX in that format. I had an outboard
> unit and tried using it with my 2-track too, but it never sounded good
> to me.
>
> Over time, I grew to hate DBX. I finally stopped using it. I used
> Dolby-C on a Fostex B-16 and on my cassette decks, and was much
> happier. But, even so, I never felt it compared to the sound quality
> that digital and CD offer.
>
> Dean
I still have a Teac DBX cassette deck that I bought in the 80s. It
sounded so bad using DBX out of the box that I thought that perhaps it
was broken or callibrated incorrectly. I took it to the Teac service
center in SoCal (City of Commerce?) and they cheked it out, reporting
that it was working perfectly. I liked the Dolby C much more.
Scott Dorsey
>It was branded as EE tape.
EE tape was a chrome formulation, not metal. This was part of the whole
wacky Japanese consumer concept of making tape formulations with standard
bias levels, so that folks could drop a tape onto a machine with no adjustments.
First there was a standard JIS format tape, then as technology improved,
they came out with JIS-EE tape.
>Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
>with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
>ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
> ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
>tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)
In fact, the JIS-EE tapes actually didn't have any higher operating level
than 456. And I question ALL of those response numbers. I would be very
skeptical of anyone getting 23 KHz response out of a Trashcan 38 and even
more skeptical of any of the consumer machines having any usable response
above 20 KHz. The heads are the limiting factor here. Not to mention
that most of those consumer machines were runnng at 7.5ips or lower and
had doubtful azimuth stability.
On the other hand, my ATR-100 is down 3 dB at 35 KHz with Quantegy 406.
The top end corner on ANY tape machine is going to be set by the head gap
width and the bias frequency, and this is more important than the tape
in most cases. However, the high frequency noise floor is related to the
tape formulation.
>the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
>implicit belief, that better adherence to some set technical
>standard means we get better reproduction !
That's not necessarily a bad belief. However, the problem is that you need
to pick the right technical standards. The Japanese notion of standardizing
on a tape formulation so that consumers would never have to align their
recorders meant that most people wound up with misaligned recorders and
it also caused development of higher output tape formulations to stagnate
in Japan.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Incidentally British Grove Studios London has a 1" 2 track ATR 100 ! I'll
>bet that's good just as it stands.
There are an increasing number of these and it's becoming a popular mastering
format. ATR Services Company makes the capstan and stack retrofits, while
Flux Magnetics makes the heads.
Frankly, the idea gives me the willies. The thing I love the most about the
ATR-100 is the extreme azimuth stability... after years of junky machines
like the Ampex 350 whose azimuth changes if you look at it hard, the ATR-100
is just rock solid. Quadrupling the track width so the azimuth error becomes
four times as bad seems like a way to keep it from being so rock-solid.
Ruud Broens
:
:
cool...the running costs, though..
even on that modest 38, a demo costing several dollars a minute,
80's dolares, that is,
nowadays pennies to do that onto a HD
kids don't know how lucky they are :-)
Rudy
Arny Krueger
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:4534D672...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Rudy made a very substantial performance claim:
>>>> "even consumer Teac's, with dbx onboard, using metal
>>>> tape,
>>>> did over a 100 dB dynamic range with over 30 kHz bw."
>>>>
>>>> Part of this claim would then be kinda magical because
>>>> AFAIK open-reel metal tape was never a significant
>>>> factor in the market.
>>>
>>> Note the tense usage in Rudy's post: "did," ie, it is
>>> stated implicitly that this was in the past when,
>>> presumably, metal-based open-reel tape was available.
>>
>> I don't recall there being any TBH.
>>
>> Graham
> It was branded as EE tape.
Whazzat?
> Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
> with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
> ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
> ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
> tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)
OK, so you've basically vacated most of your claim.
> of course, you're free to set the dbx ref level where you
> want it, so trade some of that range for lower distortion
> and better fr at high levels by recording at modest
> levels is what one does.
Nothing like comparable to the CD format.
> the real discussion, however, should be about Arny's
> implicit belief, that better adherence to some set
> technical standard means we get better reproduction !
That would be something that you made up, Rudy.
> is this true ? is virtually flat 5Hz to 20 kHz
> brickwall filtered above
> better then some deviation from flat but
> *no brick wall*
Absolutely. 1 dB variation in the midband is audibly *big*, compared to
the effects of a well-designed 500 dB/octave low pass @ 22 KHz.
> saying yes would be largely a technical answer,
Well, it is also very practical.
Since Jenn likes to be critical of my samples, I'd be willing to add some
items to my pcabx web site to demo level and FR differences, if she would
provide a copyright-free .wav file that she thought was appropriate, for me
to base them on.
> but , of course, the significant answer has to come
> from the final judge, the listeners perceptive system
Thanks for mentioning the big hole in your numbers-only based assertions,
Rudy.
hank alrich
I dare you to put that 30 Khz up on a scope and take a look.
--
ha
Ruud Broens
Not much wrong with that ATR, for sure ;-)
I didn't measure those numbers, this is afaik what the
factory documentation spec's were.
analog tape could be pushed further,
dsp controlled biasing, anyone ?
but 24bits/96 kHz digital recording is more practical, a lot cheaper,
and just about as good as it needs to be.
Rudy
Arny Krueger
news:1hnce58.smy9y51rxxnawN%walk...@thegrid.net
Last time I looked at even just 15 KHz coming off a supposedly very good
15ips tape machine, it had major amounts of amplitude modulation. 30 KHz
could only be dicier.
Compare this to digital - rock solid.
Eeyore
Ruud Broens wrote:
Luckily British Grove doesn't have the same kind of financial worries as some
do.
Scott may be interseted to know they also have 7 Prism ADA-8XRs.
Graham
Scott Dorsey
>
>Last time I looked at even just 15 KHz coming off a supposedly very good
>15ips tape machine, it had major amounts of amplitude modulation. 30 KHz
>could only be dicier.
And this, in short, is the main difference between a "very good" machine
and tape and "excellent" machines and tape.
The poor slitting on 456 makes it VERY hard to get a good 16KC azimuth
pattern... it just bounces around. GP9 seems to be slit a lot better but
the old BASF tapes had slitting far more accurate than anything Quantegy
ever did.
Harry Lavo
>>It was branded as EE tape.
>>snip>
>>Tascam 38, using Ampex 456 tape, had a s/n of 68 dB,
>>with type I dbx about 100 dB (weighted)
>>ok, slight exag., fr was 2 dB down 30 Hz - 23 kHz,
>> ironically the consumer machines that *did* use EE (metal)
>>tape made it to 27 kHz iirc (that's mid 80's, eh)
>
> In fact, the JIS-EE tapes actually didn't have any higher operating level
> than 456. And I question ALL of those response numbers. I would be very
> skeptical of anyone getting 23 KHz response out of a Trashcan 38 and even
> more skeptical of any of the consumer machines having any usable response
> above 20 KHz. The heads are the limiting factor here. Not to mention
> that most of those consumer machines were runnng at 7.5ips or lower and
> had doubtful azimuth stability.
>
Scott, I rarely take issue with you, but for years I owned a semi-pro, two &
four track 7.5-15ips Teac 7030SL (very similar to the Tascam). I also owned
factory playback Ampex calibration tapes (this was when I was running a
portable 440B and a Revox AII as well), and years ago plotted the playback
calibration, then used a test tone generator to plot record/playback
frequency response. It was pretty much as Rudy states....down two db at 30
and 23khz at 7.5ips. At 15ips the figures changed to an amazing 40 and
27khz. IIRC, this was done using BASF high output / low noise tape which
was my standard back then.
BTW, I also did charts for the 4070 reversible home machine that I still use
in my audio system...and got only slightly poorer high frequency response at
7.5ips...down 2db at 20khz. At 3-3/4ips its response was down 2db at 14khz.
Peter Wieck
CharlesBlackstone wrote:
> Hey George, I don't know you, but I'm glad of it.
Charles,
"Commander" George is a sockpuppet put on for the specific and only
purpose of sniffing up Mr. Kreuger's behind. It has nothing to offer
otherwise past or future and is best ignored entirely. On the face of
it, the activity is futile, the invective childish and the results
dubious. But it does give the "Commander" a reason to exist even as a
puppet... sadly it has no other.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
mrlefty
> Secondly, the performance of DBX is partially limited by the fact that it
> is based on companding, and making companders with > 95 dB dynamic range
> is a bit of a trick itself, particularly in home audio-grade equipment.
>
> Thirdly, DBX trades off both static and dynamic level-tracking for dynamic
> range, so it is not an audible win-win situation.
when listening to audio with dbx encoding, especially music with wide
dynamics, you can hear "ghosting" as the passeges get louder and softer. I
would almost rather have less dynamic range and tape hiss than the ghosting
artifact.
Eeyore
mrlefty wrote:
The classic defect of wideband compansion.
Dolby gets round it by applying it selectively and in limited amounts. 4 bands
in the original pro-audio A version.
Graham
Harry Lavo
"mrlefty" <mrl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cTeZg.13877$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
All this was known "back in the day".....that's why DBX never really took
off. Lots of pumping and artifacts...and Dolby was there with many fewer
problems. This was one case where the better technology won.
paul packer
wrote:
>I still have a Teac DBX cassette deck that I bought in the 80s. It
>sounded so bad using DBX out of the box that I thought that perhaps it
>was broken or callibrated incorrectly. I took it to the Teac service
>center in SoCal (City of Commerce?) and they cheked it out, reporting
>that it was working perfectly. I liked the Dolby C much more.
>
Ditto. Dolby C worked a treat, as did HX Pro (not noise reduction) at
improving high frequency response, the bug-bear of cassette. The 3
head Yamaha I had was actually very good, but still not a patch on
minidisc once the latter had got to the Atrac 4 level.
exp(j*pi/2)
Bob Cain wrote:
snip....snip
> There is a real Bob Morein who is a pretty good guy and doesn't post
> in this abusive fashion. The wingnut responsible for the above
> doesn't like Bob so he uses his identity (and his father's) to post
> things that will make Bob look bad if you don't know what's going on.
Sounds a lot like the impersonation tactics used by Bob Cain to defame
Gary Sokolich.
CharlesBlackstone
Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "CharlesBlackstone" wrote:
> > Bob Cain wrote:
> >> CharlesBlackstone wrote:
> >>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
> >>>> In article 1160874001.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
> >>>> "CharlesBlackstone" <charlesbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Anybody know of an MP3 player that has superior sound quality? I
> >>>>> haven't been pleased with what I've heard. Clean, flat sound...
> >>>> I'm looking to replace my rundown car with a really great Hyundai. I
> >>>> haven't been pleased with what I've seen. Anyone know of a Hyundai that is
> >>>> superior?
> >>>>
> >>>> Get it, jerkoff?
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob Morein
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jerkoff? Did something I said upset you? Taken your meds today?
> >>> Enjoy your life....
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for cluing me in. What's wrong with people? Oh well, at least
> > it's not real life. What if people let their real selves hang out in
> > real life, like they do here? Would be pretty intolerable.....
>
> I always knew Crazy Robert Morein was, well, "crazy". A crackpot. A
> nutbasket. Two burgers short of a Big Mac. Fudged in the head. You know,
> "cuckoo" <insert ring around the ear gesture>. Ever since Crazy Bob turned
> into Mark David Chapman and started believing he was me, and signing his
> messages with my name, I became convinced this guy was a "lunatic among
> lunatics" on Usenet, never mind just RAO!
>
> http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html
> http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html
> http://photosbysylvan.fotopic.net/c1070076.html
>
> Then, I didn't understand how a 7phd degreed physicist, audio engineer, film
> director, member of SAG and the IEEE, could possibly have the time to spend
> every waking moment of every waking day, turning his entire life into one
> long mad "soundhaspriority" obsession campaign. Of course, by the same
> token, I couldn't understand how Robert and others can believe that Dr.
> Richard Graham, a London psychiatrist for adolescent behaviour, family man
> and mathematics professor, who has announced that he's too busy to edit his
> own newsletters and does not post on usenet, could possibly be me, posting
> all these messages on RAO every day. But apparently, Robert and Ludovic
> Mirabel and Shovels and Walt and Steven Sullivan and Powell can all somehow
> understand this, and find Crazy Bob quite credible in his assumption that I
> must be Graham, simply because we both used the phrase "soundhaspriority"
> (along with a few thousand other people in the world... but who's
> counting?).
>
> Given the fact that I was always able to predict that Robert Morein would
> jump on nearly every one of my messages within minutes of me posting it, no
> matter what time of day or night, its clear this crazy usenet freak did not
> have an actual job (if this crackpot doesn't respond to this message within
> 24 hours, call a mortician. Because it can only mean he's dead). I guess
> when you're living in a mental institution as Crazy Bob must be, time is
> basically all you have.
>
> I received a letter from his old friend Brian McCarty today (reprinted
> below), and what he says about Robert is a lot more credible than
> anything Crazy Bob has ever said about him, me or anything, really.
> Considering Robert Morein's obsessive agenda to libel and defame an
> innocent man (Richard Graham) who has never posted here, it is Crazy
> Bob himself who I find personifies "purposeless evil", as he calls it.
> So now, the tale of "Crazy Bob Morein" is even clearer. As pathological
> liars go, Morein makes Arny look like Mother Teresa. Morein is the
> biggest bull****ter I've ever seen in the history of this newsgroup. He
> doesn't know the meaning of sincerity or integrity. He does however,
> know the meaning of "mad obsessive net stalker and delusional usenet
> career troll". (How do you define a "career troll"? 7 years straight of
> Crazy Bob obsessively netstalking people, with a promise of at least 7
> more, pretty much does it).
>
> THE BACKGROUND on Crazy Bob's (Robert Morein) Pathology:
>
> Mark David Chapman, for those unaware, is the obsessive madman
> responsible for shooting and killing John Lennon, who was a popular
> figure who courted not an insignificant amount of controversy in his
> public life. Chapman started out liking Lennon and The Beatles, but
> later felt Lennon was a "phony", and sold out his ideals. He felt that
> by killing Lennon, it would allow him to take Lennon's place.
>
> Morein started out liking me, but now feels that I am a "phony", and a
> sell-out. I've also been informed that Morein recently acquired a gun
> license, and a handgun. Should I be worried that Crazy Bob will fly to
> London to shoot Dr. Richard Graham (who he thinks is me), in order to
> become Dr. Graham? Robert took a public vow recently to harass me
> wherever I post on Usenet. As we have seen previous to that, Robert has
> publicly admitted harassing the real Dr. Graham's colleagues at his
> places of work at NHS and Priory, and as I have learned, our Crazy Bob
> also harassed and threatened Graham's wife and Graham himself, at
> around 3 in the morning, a couple of weeks ago.
>
> It's disturbing enough that Robert Morein thinks he's me and posts under my
> identity, but apart from hawking "morphic green *** cream", Crazy Bob has
> now taken to signing his messages "Love, SHP". I'm worried that if Crazy Bob
> is not physically on his way to London to shoot and kill Dr. Graham, a
> completely innocent party to all of this, he's already half way there
> 'mentally'. It didn't take much to get Chapman on a plane from Hawaii to NY,
> after all. If I ever find out that Crazy Bob Morein bought a copy of Catcher
> In The Rye, then I'll be afraid for Dr. Graham's life and will definitely be
> taking action against this crazy crackpot that you've got on your group!
>
> The truth behind Robert Morein's crazy bulldoody:
>
> You should be aware that the vast bulk of "incidents" cited by Morein
> in his email to you (below) are either fictional, or were done by
> Morein himself, I don't really know. At least some of the harassment
> of others on usenet was done in order to justify his attacks on me, and
> the email bombing and other internet harassment techniques he cites
> were also done to me at the same time he was doing it to others.
> Funnily, he tried his telephone schtick on my closest friends in LA,
> who laughed in his face. He soon stopped that tactic. Virtually every
> "fact" he posts about me is false, from my height and size to my
> location and history.
>
> The "fake endorsement" items he talks about ARE true, and putting them
> up on a website kept him occupied for months trying to chase down every
> item and "warn" these people. Chick Corea's manager and I are old
> friends, and we had a good laugh about it - Morein left literally two
> dozen messages at his office, insisting that he needed to personally
> discuss the matter with Chick Corea! His grasp of fantasy vs reality is
> so poor, you can get him to dance like a chimp with just a little
> creative thinking. His major downfall is the internet, which for him
> is his only reality, not understanding that it has little reflection on
> reality. His letters to the Australian business regulators go into
> their Robert Morein "crackpot" file, which I asked them to keep so that
> Australian immigration can deny him a visitor's visa should he ever ask
> for one. He's on the same kind of "watch" list as all terrorists.
>
> It is notable that his stalking is confined to those overseas, who he
> apparently believes won't go to Pennsylvania and kick his ass -
> assuming that anyone even cares. I wish he was actually part of the
> pro audio community, he'd then be at conferences with me like the AES
> in Paris next month, and be easy to hunt down. Stories he tells about
> "doing business with proxies" are just hot air - this is a guy that has
> accomplished nothing in his life including business, where a modicum of
> sanity is generally a prerequisite. His parents should be ashamed of
> themselves for not kicking him out of their palatial home long ago.
> Perhaps they knew he was incapable of coping in the real world, and
> thought they were doing him a favor.
Good lord, son. You just spent half your night witing a usenet post
nobody will read.