61–70 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like DolbyNR for cassettes. What high hats?
It's a lot more clever than that. Because the music has the exact inverse transform applied it before it's cut to the master, you don't lose any signal, just noise.
The next thing will be electron microscope scans of of the instruments the artists used. I'm joking. I really want well digitized vinyl
PVC grains are typically 100s of um in size, but the monomers themselves are ~10nm. Note that with 120dB claimed dynamic range this would be 37nm of deflection (at 45deg or 25nm lateral) for full resolution. That is close (3x off) to molecular Atomic Force Microscopy.
Of course what is encoded is actually force/velocity which in turn is inductively coupled out, but it is no surprise that simple optical scanning gives you mediocre results. Even 10x lower dynamic range requires 250nm optical resolution. It's doable, but not easy.
These are so wonderfully distorted . I am getting somewhere between the signal in the movie "Contact" and whispers of the hive mind of the Borg. Amazing sounds, even if they aren't true to the recording.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For anyone else who was intrigued by this, I found this helpful animation: https://www.vinylrecorder.com/stereo.html
When I read the title I immediately thought of a "laser tip" that and reading the reflections of it, not something based on software that would "read" an an image. Following this animation I'm left thinking that you could do a bit of filtering to better extract the wave(s) from an image, though you'd require a particular setup for the lighting conditions to get the best possible quality out of it. And then back to my…
Now I'm dreaming about a program that would simply play a high-res photograph (scan) of a vinyl disk... This also reminds me of the idea to use paper for archival. This is based on two factors: that modern office paper is extremely durable (and is likely to outlast most of the other physical media out there), and that scanners are (and have been for years now) extremely high-resolution; so, you can simply print the b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For anyone else who was intrigued by this, I found this helpful animation: https://www.vinylrecorder.com/stereo.html
Wow, the best example of teaching minimalism I know. Even though the website fails on so many levels, ;-) I still get the message in 15 seconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Most awful are cds having only 16 bits and 41kHz sample rate, by modern standards really poor." 44.1kHz is all that one needs for -perfect fidelity-, given that humans cannot hear higher than ~20kHz. See: Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem. [0] 16 bits of quantization gives a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of 96dB, and noise dithering increases that [1]. More bits are not necessary unless one is doing music production wi…
Some humans can hear much higher than 20khz. Very little of our recording and playback equipment does well above that point, however, so efforts to reproduce that part of the spectrum most often fail miserably. CD's are certainly good enough for now.
But that is for a pure tone under perfect laboratory conditions. Also, they report that the minimum hearing threshold at those frequencies was above 90 dB. So I don't think any human in this planet can actually hear anything above 20 kHz under normal circumstances, much less for music.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am doing production with these recordings, tools are more precise at higher bit and sample rates. Also quality of listening equipment is a factor as hearing is not a flat frequency response, things as ambiance and resonance play a role, music is not a single frequency tone but a combination of complicated frequency additions, subtractions, multiplications and divisions. So more frequency room can produce nicer high…
>It is simplistic to state that 44.1/16bit is enough, if that is the case then any combination of recording, amplifier and speaker would suffice. No, that doesn't follow. It just means that recording at those bit rates and sampling frequencies isn't the "bottleneck" for the sound in the system. >But there really is a difference between a phone with a music app playing a 16bit/44.1kHz song on a medium quality headphon…
I agree. If there is a methodologically sound study showing that people can actually distinguish (>50%) between 44.1kHz/16bit and 192kHz/24bit on the same hardware [at exactly the same dB SPL], then I will be really surprised. It's not physically possible to hear those differences, as far as I understand it.