ndiamone
600 Club - QQ All-Star
Doing it at ALL and doing it WELL are two different things.I don't follow this.Won't 24/96 capture up to 48 Khz?I believe there are people here that have made digital files of CD-4 records and played them through a demod with success. Would that prove anything?
Remember, at 96K there's only two samples per cycle of the highest frequency, which would indeed be 48K. The CENTER FREQUENCY of CD-4 is 30K, then it modulates down to 20K and up to 45K. So it depends on how good of a resolution you want for the top end of the albeit-limited program bandwidth, but also how good of a resolution you want for the top end of your demodulation frequency. See below under ``resolution''.
At the very minimum, yes.Yes. Thus you'd need 100KHz sampling rate to safely capture non-decoded CD-4 audio.
Simple arithmetic will prove that statement incorrect, as I posted previously. The LOWEST resolution you can get is 2x highest frequency for digital sampling. However if you have only two snapshots of the peak of one wave and the valley of the other, it gives almost no characteristics of the spaces between the two samples, just where they ended up at, not how they got there.No. Unless you want to believe what some audiophile magazines (devoid of science and common sense) publish.
The only thing you can capture perfectly in digital with two samples/cycle is a pure sine, square, saw, etc wave.
Which, again goes to the MINIMUM sampling rate, and then only for a pure sine wave, nothing with any modulation in it.No, that isn't true. Review the nyquist sampling theorem.
It's the same as in film or TV. If all you needed was the minimum, why have they developed 1080p and why are they developing in Japan 16K ganging together multiple 4K or 8K scanners and now the newest ones 24K scanning when supposedly 2K scanning is already smaller than the film grain resolution it's trying to capture?
diamone said:But in order for the computer to EFFECTIVELY capture...
Which, again only gives MINIMUMS otherwise why would there be 24/96 STEREO ONLY DVD Pro-Audio etc (nevermind 5.1). EVERYBODY can't be a ``stereophile-idiot''.No, that isn't true. Review PCM and its theory.
diamone said:The only computer that can do that on a regular basis is the Cray Supercomputer...
Kid, you get on my nerves. You ask a question about sampling CD4 into a computer EFFECTIVELY and getting a good result, then you whine and cry and argue and complain with engineers who have been in the field since before you were born. If you knew the answer, why did you come here to ask us for?That is not relevant. Please stay on topic.
Whatever book you got that out of is incorrect. And even if it WERE correct, that STILL gives problems in the lower ends of the bass and the higher ends of the treble in REAL TIME nevermind half-speed or 2/3rds speed or 3/4 speed (i.e. cutting at 33 for 45 playback).1. Feedback cutters, which exist since 1958, do have a perfect flat response from 40Hz to at least 16KHz, providing you use enough feedback.
Go over on the Lathe Troll Forums http://lathetrolls.phpbbweb.com/lathetrolls.html and make that same statement and see how fast you get ROUNDLY trounced.
Wrong again. You even agree there's bass problems in the technology on your OWN POST! http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/188876-riaa-equalization-standard-10.html#post2585729. I suggest you go check out the2]. Half-speed cutting was already perfected by the Decca/Telefunken team in 1958....They do have enough bass.
Lathe Trollers or any of the other ``prehistoric'' cutting forums populated by ``prehistoric'' engineers that have been in this field since before you were born and see the responses you get.
Or, better yet, go call up Steve Marcussen or Doug Sax or Bernie Grundman or anybody like that and see what kind of response you get from them .
diamone said:So that's why you really couldn't master the ``two-channel modulated program'' into the computer....
This is your Disneyland Storyteller. You can follow along in your book.1]. You were talking about cutting records at half speed and now you're talking about transcribing CD4 records to digital. Non sequitur!
Just turn the page when you hear the :raspberry:.
The rest of you guys, if you want to laugh, go slide down to some of his other posts in the DIY and other related forums he belongs to and see how He Can't Handle the Truth.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/188876-riaa-equalization-standard-10.html#post2585794 Like we live to prove a kid wrong. Please.
Which gives you the same problems with the audio as capturing or recording at half speed does everyplace else without newer technological improvement.2]. Well, they DO capture the supersonic (>60KHz) bias...And ...it can be done with a 192KHz DAC at half-speed. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6302179-post19.html
Gearslutz. :raspberry:.That's like saying you get all your World News from the National Enquirer.
And, you'll notice in Jamie's response that conventional electronics you espouse so fondly are a hit-and-miss affair AT BEST nevermind anything anybody would actually advise using.
Pick a side, kid and stick with it. You can't play both sides on the middle.
Like you should read your Gearslutz postings more carefully before you include them in your argument.2]. You just posted that for capturing the 50KHz bandwidth of CD4 you need 90000KHz of sampling frequency. This isn't true. Thus, I insist you should check out the Nyquist sampling theorem.
Kids and their book-learning. . Kayyyyyyyy....next topic!
Like nobody should be wasting time and money making brand-new Edison cylinders either with modern music on (Madonna on a 4-minute Amberol anybody?) and a hundred other things.There is no rhyme or reason to an Analogue CD4 medium today.....
Which is not to say we should not have CD4 rigs - the vintage material is there and should be enjoyed!
Sure it is. Just like the people who are STILL to this day trying to improve on C Y L I N D E R technology TO USE. Nobody spends millions of research and development dollar or grant monies ``for the fun of it.''If someone is already making a multi-track recording and wants to issue it in CD4 for those who prefer the rituals of analogue to those of digital - cool! But it is just a fun thing to have and not an attempt to produce something superior.
No aregument there.Standard stereo LP's can sound superb, and do so to a substantial degree because of the efforts that went into making CD4 work - they led to a quantum jump in record technology/capabilities throughout the chain.
Well the second half of that is right. If the first half was right, they wouldn't STILL be making eight-track two-inch recorders that are ALL-TUBE besides.Let's face it - Digital is superior in 99.9% of cases and almost all top end recordings today are done digitally...
I know what the mastering engineers are saying, that it's only when you try to overdrive an amp that you can tell between the solid state/digital technology that amplifies the ODD harmonics, giving the music an edgy feel vs. that of the tube amp which amplifies the EVEN overtones giving the music a warmer feel, but how many engineers even in those days liked to stay within parameters?
And there are companies today making a VERY good living at producing reproductions of all kinds of vintage technology from piano rolls (I have Gloria Estefan doing Bad Boy from Three Men and a Baby soundtrack done in a Gay 90's music-hall style and cut for a player piano that has all kinds of band attachments to it - horn section drum section, xylophone section, you name it.Producing CD4 recordings today is like producing Pianola rolls.... nothing wrong with it and good fun. But lets not stress about it!
I put it up and play it for company just to trip people out next to my Madonna Blue Amberol cylinder re-creation of her singing Crazy for You from Vision Quest on a restored 1925 player.
Claghorn here Senator Claghorn that is. I'm from the South. I'll never go to the Yankee Stadium `less `en it's a Southpaw pitchin. That's a joke, son. Get to laughin'. Don't all you kids be a-pooh-pooh-in' people's efforts so fast to be bringin' back and improvin' vintage technologies. Set-a-spell and ya might ah-say ya might learn somethin' boy.
Last edited: