|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.235.228.24
In Reply to: RE: Sittin' Here Thinkin of My Love" posted by Mr_Steady on September 26, 2015 at 10:01:13
Darn it, same track I had trouble with the first time. Reran it.
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Follow Ups:
Now I'm jacking it all up.
--------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Last one, then gotta go. I hope everyone posts away.
Here are some shots from Yes "Fragile." Some don't exhibit a lot of roll-off, because that happens further up and to the right of the chart.
Fragile I am confident is a transfer from tape to hi-res. Look at the organic randomness of the spectrographs. Fc is 43.4kHz.
After this review I still believe the source of JBMD was a 16/44 digital master. I certainly could be wrong.
> File: 09-Heart Of The Sunrise.flac
Audio format: PCM
Bit depth: 24 bit
Sample rate: 96.0 kHz
Cut-Off Frequency: 43.4 kHz
TPL Left: 0.1 dB
TPL Right: 0.4 dB
TPL Mid: -0.1 dB
TPL Side: -2.0 dB
RMS Left: -15.0 dB
RMS Right: -14.9 dB
RMS Mid: -16.0 dB
RMS Side: -21.7 dB
CREST Avg.: 9.9 dB
IS L/M: 2
IS R/S: 55
Max. M-Loudness: -6.9 dB
Max. S-Loudness: -7.5 dB
Integrated Loudness: -11.8 dB
Loudness Range: 10.5 dB
PLR Avg.: 7.8 dB
------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
> After this review I still believe the source of JBMD was a 16/44 digital
> master. I certainly could be wrong.
Again, with respect, you are misreading your own graphs. There is no sharp
cut-off at 22kHz with the "John Barleycorn Must Die" spectra. The sharp
cutoff due to the antialiasing converter occurs an octave higher. And while
the noisefloor of the Traffic transfers is higher than a 16-bit floor, it is
due to the presence of analog tape noise.
Your graphs suggest that the Traffic transfers appear to be high-
sample-rate transfers from an analog master, just as with the Yes Fragile
graphs you posted. Except that in that case, the original master had a
lot more HF content.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Here are four files that look suspicious to me. If you see any that you think are upsampled from a lower res copy, then please say so. I want to learn how to read these test results better.
Thanks,
Jamie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
> Here are four files that look suspicious to me.
Thank you.> If you see any that you think are upsampled from a lower res copy, then
> please say so.
None appeared to be upsampled.> I want to learn how to read these test results better.
What you are looking for is not the sort of gentle reduction in signal
level with increasing frequency that you are describing in your graphs
but the sharp cutoff at half the sample rate due to the antialiasing
filter. See the graph at the link below, which has two such cutoffs, one
at 16kHz and one at 22kHz, despite being a 96kHz file.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 09/29/15
There is one more I would like you to take a look at, then I will leave you alone. I didn't include it, because I thought it an obvious upsample.
It has an almost vertical cutoff, but looking at it again it has a Fc of 26.1kHz, so it's past the halfway point for the antialiasing filter.
Your thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
Jamie
------------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Well, I guess that's what you call a brickwall filter. It is very much a filter. Nothing like I've tested so far. It shouldn't be too hard to spot in the future.
I will be more circumspect with my analysis from now on.
Wort was the lifeblood of JB wasn't it? :)
Thanks John.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
> I guess that's what you call a brickwall filter. It is very much a filter.
> Nothing like I've tested so far. It shouldn't be too hard to spot in the
> future.
Yes that sharp cutoff is is exactly what you should be looking for.
> I will be more circumspect with my analysis from now on.
Even so, your posting the graphs is very useful.
> Wort was the lifeblood of JB wasn't it? :)
I am not the world's best typist - the W and S keys are too close to
each other. for "wort" read "sort" :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
None of them look suspicious to me.
Here are some examples of what upsampled 44.1k looks like in SACD format:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/07/list-suspected-44-or-48khz-pcm.html
Upsampled 44.1k in hi-res PCM format would look the same except without the ultrasonic hump in the noise floor above cutoff.
Dave, thanks for the input and the link. I will give it a another good look. Most of the brick-walls are very pronounced and some not. Chime in on a graph I post later if you want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Thank you for your input John. I will defer to you on the recording technology of 1970. If you say 1" tape, then I will go with that. You know much better than me what the Island Records studios might have been like at that time. Cut me a little slack that I didn't know some tape formats dropped off at 22kHz like 16/44.
I do wish you had chosen a couple of the tracks, and broken down what you saw.
I think I will have to buy and test the Bruce Springsteen album "Nebraska." I understand he recorded that album alone in a hotel room with a RadioShack four track cassette deck. To me it's a good sounding album.
I will post to you a couple of graphs that I believe are upsampled lower res files. I hope you will take the time to comment on them.
Thanks,
Jamie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: