 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)belb dogboy ...and 177 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2618562 Today 1 Topics 127845 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
theoretically, you could rip vinyl at half speed and get twice the fidelity when you play it back on the computer at normal speed. so recording at 48khz, with the record playing at half speed, would in effect net you a 96khz recording at normal speed.. right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that sounds about right, unless the software you're using dithers it somehow |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok, now that we've established this fact.. how far can we stretch it? if i play a record at 1/8th speed, and record it at 192khz, do i now have a 1.536mhz sample rate? at what point does this become redundant? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The problem is........33rpm isn't half of 45...Making it difficult to find the correct speed again |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
() |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wow. thanks for that link! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok, but lets say i have a strobe-calibrated turntable that can lock on to any rpm value i want.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hmm, you're implying that the 45bpm isn't getting "as much data" from the vinyl as the 33 beacuse it's spinning faster??? doesn't make sense .... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LOL VINYL |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is to do with the encoding of a track from vinyl to mp3..If you understand how sample rates work, the initial theory makes sense. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its a good theory,but it doesn't work because you still get everything at normal speed. The needle isn't going to miss anything at regular speed so theres no point in doing a half-speed recording then digitally speeding it up, you'd probably lose more data depending on how the 'speed up' algorithm works on your computer software. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
^^^ exactely |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
When you Sample a piece of audio you are basically taking snapshots of an analogue signal and converting it into digital information. How often these snapshots are taken determines how accurate the converted information will be. Playing a record at half the speed and taking half as many snapshots as you would at full speed should produce the same result when the track is sped up again (depending on the algorithm as Weathered stoner said) At least thats what my brain is telling me at the moment...I could be way off....Arguments are welcomed :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no.. i'm not talking about resampling (interpolation/dithering/etc). try to follow this logic. if you sample a track at 48khz, and the track is playing at full speed, you get 48,000 samples of data per real second of audio. if you sample a track at 48khz, and the track is playing at half speed, you get 96,000 samples of data per real second of audio. if you were to play this second example back at 48khz, you would hear the track at half speed. however, if you play it back at 96khz (no resampling, just going through the bits twice as fast), you would hear the track at normal speed, and with twice the fidelity of a 48khz recording. if you want to test this theory out, open up soundforge, and try using it's resample feature with the "set sample rate only (do not resample)" box checked.. you'll see that when you decrease a 44khz wave to 22khz without resampling, it suddenly plays at half speed/half pitch. the reverse is also true. in other words... slowing down a record allows the computer to obtain more samples per second. when the recorded wave is then set to play back at a faster sample rate, you get the speed back, and the extra audio data is retained. knowing the above is true, we can manipulate the situation to provide sample rates into the mhz.. my question is as follows.. where does this stop being useful? at what point does the sample rate surpass the amount of information available on the vinyl? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I dont think that would work unless the original artist recorded his music @ 96khz . So in theory it would work, but its useless because no one does music at 96khz |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah...im trying to form an analogy but my brain isn't coming up with the right words .... hmm |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The theory is sound enough but as weatheredloner states it wouldn't really make all that much difference I don't think. You can't upsample the original recording. It's like fitting twice as many stairs to reach the same level as the stairs you have got. More effort and the net result is no different. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah thats right...I think the best Vinyl Quality is 32Khz |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hmmm, interesting... Not sure though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, you will just be sampling a slow record at 48Khz, it dosen't matter if you speed it up or not the sample rate will be the same. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"the best Vinyl Quality is 32Khz" so you're saying vinyl has a lower sample rate than cds?... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Vinyl obviously doesn't have a sample rate so theoretically it is capable of recreating whatever resolution the original recording was. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wrong |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry, I will re-phrase...You are right...vinyl is an analogue medium..but There is not much point in digitally recording from vinyl over 32Khz...The frequency ranges aren't there. I think this is why everyone says vinyl sounds warm and cd's sound cold. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
According to this, I was giving vinyl too much credit..." the practical upper limits of a vinyl record are in the range of 16 to 18 kHz for albums destined for audiophile-quality systems and 8 to 16 kHz for the average reproduction system." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you want to play back a record at the speed at which it was cut... hypothetically, a *faster* rpm would give more sound, more "signal" per unit of time. then again, you've probably heard albums that sound better than some singles. the quality of the vinyl master will vary. notice that your videotapes look better when you record at a faster speed? same principle... i can't see any advantage to recording your records at a slower speed and then resampling them to the desired rate... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're getting frequency range mixed up with sample rates :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You also missed the mark. Your analogy is incorrect in that the point here would be recording a half speed TV program at the highest speed video setting...then doubling the speed of the video playback, which in theory would increase the quality of the recording when showing the TV show at normal speed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Human audible frequency bandwidth is 20Khz...The sample rate needed to capture that range most accurately is 40Khz...Nyquist Theorem Vinyl does not cover all of these frequency ranges and so is less accurate. I agree with what plaidzebra said, but The only way in which ChaosMachine's theory would work, is if we were sampling vinyl 16Khz at half speed...when sped back up we should have captured the equivelant of a 32Khz recording and covered the same frequency range. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No the Nyquist Theorum is the minimum rate in order to be able to accurately reconstruct an original audio signal, it makes no claims to be the optimal rate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There are other elements to take into account that would require a higher sample rate...but your ears can't tell the difference. Sorry if i have gone off on a weird tangent with all this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, but if you were sampling from the record for use in music production you certainly would be able to utilise a higher resolution sample. Also some ears can tell the difference, which is why high resolution CD's and also DVD's are beginning to be used. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fair Play man :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
long answer short, the answer is no, this would not work to get a "higher quality recording." a half speed tv program? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well with all due respect you are completely wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i should say, i'm talking about "ripping vinyl at half speed and getting twice the fidelity." again, a half speed program? maybe you could clarify what you're talking about here... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The same concept as this topic is referring to. If you are unable to grasp the concept by this stage then I fear it may be best for you to discontinue your input. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
whatever you say, professor encaniarb... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry I didn't mean to be short with you...I'm in a shitty mood. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Since the vinyl medium is analogue and has continuous data per unit of time, this theory would in fact work |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that said, it wouldnt achieve more than just recording in 96khz at normal speed this could be used if your card can play back 96khz but only record 48 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
: ( ----> : ) hope yer feelin' better soon... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:takes ball and runs with it: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
