Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - LP records (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/714432-lp-records.html)

where do you buy those distorter chips that make your digital system sound like an LP record is playing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 7463527)

where do you buy those distorter chips that make your digital system sound like an LP record is playing?

Not sure what you mean, which one is distorted?

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/question487.gif

Looks like the CD digital sample is most distorted to me.

Some source is better in digital, some source is better in analog... there are a lot of factors that contribute to this.

Some old sources aren't even available nor will ever be commercially available in digital.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajundaddy (Post 7463413)

^^^^ This!

I have hundreds of albums and 78s that are long out of production and unavailable on CD/MP3. I am preparing to do A/D for preservation and want to do it right. I have gotten excellent A/D results in the past with high quality A/D converters to 320 bit MP3s. I plan to do these archives in WAV. I have worked in the professional music production side and while I don't consider myself a "golden ears audiophile" I do have minimum standards. $100 turntable simply won't do.

For reference, a full digital audio file is 1411.2 bit. MP3 compression ratio looks like this 128=11/1(9%), 256=5.5/1 (18%), 320=4.4/1(23%)

Can you hear the difference between sample rates? Take the test: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test!

LOL. I played both twice. I couldn't really hear much difference- but felt one was "fuller" than the other (and actually sounded like it had more analog noise).

That was the 320kbs. I've already demonstrated to my own satisfaction I really can't tell the difference between 256kbs and 320kbs. The quality of the encoder has FAR more effect on the end result.

FLAC should be completely reversible - so even for archival, it should be acceptable. Although with the cost of storage (and unique recordings), I can quite see the temptation not even to go there..

"lossy" and "lossless" are frequently misunderstood terms; even bad encoders shouldn't ever throw any information - although forcing bitrate restrictions means that something has to go, obviously.

Quote:

:- Lossy compression

Note: Actually this is not a compression (i.e. redundancy reduction = reversible), but an irrelevance coding (i.e. an irrelevance reduction).

As opposed to lossless compression, where information redundancy is reduced, most lossy compression reduces perceptual redundancy; sounds which are considered perceptually irrelevant are coded with decreased accuracy or not coded at all.

Do you remember when Oracle turntables were $15,000, ah the good memories

I still have boxes of LP's, some audiophile ones too

Now if I remember right the LPs were 33 rpm and the 45's were well 45 rpm! The latter had one song per side. Now we are going back to the 1960's. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajundaddy (Post 7463413)

Can you hear the difference between sample rates? Take the test: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test!

Interesting that most people think 128kbps (47,992 votes) sounds better than 320kbps (43,696 votes)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stealthn (Post 7464033)

Do you remember when Oracle turntables were $15,000, ah the good memories

I still have boxes of LP's, some audiophile ones too

now we have these:

HigherFi-Ultimate - The Worlds Best and Most Expensive Turntables

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dad911 (Post 7464088)

Interesting that most people think 128kbps (47,992 votes) sounds better than 320kbps (43,696 votes)

Yes it is! Perception is everything I guess. I have noticeable hearing loss that falls off sharply above 12khz from many years of loud rock music, and the 320 still sounds more natural to me. For many, the fine details are simply less important for the enjoyment of music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajundaddy (Post 7464296)

What sounds good is perceptive. What is accurate is not. The 320kHz sample has far greater extension and aire.

Phsycoacoustics is a whole topic unto itself; they way we hear, what sounds good to us, effects of even order distortion vs odd order distortion, etc.

The fact that there is a slight preference to the lower sample rate just goes to show that not all of us can tell the difference one way or the other.

Somehow I missed the turntable thread during all my 911 research...

Here's my set up. Good too see there are a couple other VPIs on the forum!
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1371103338.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayles (Post 7495732)

Somehow I missed the turntable thread during all my 911 research...

Here's my set up. Good too see there are a couple other VPIs on the forum!
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1371103338.jpg

Real great setup, looks like an older ARC Preamp. I had an LS22 in the day and kind of miss it, but went with a more integrated tube product as I went into minimalist mode.

What are you using for a phono pre or is it built into the ARC?

Seattle.. it figures. I work for an Amazon subsidiary and all the cool people are in Seattle ;)

It's an ARC SP-6A phono pre from the late 70s or early 80s. Very bare bones, no tone controls etc... I love ARC stuff, especially that the look hasn't really changed just evolved(kind of like a 911!). I am using Chinese tube amp. It's not up to par with the rest of the system but priorities have shifted to getting the car on the road.

Seattle is great! I don't work for Amazon, but it's pretty close by.