IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Frequency Response of Vinyl, Split from "To get into vinyl, or not?" (TOS #5)
krabapple
post Dec 5 2012, 15:19
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 2184
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



here it is ripped from the CD (1987 edition)







wish i could figure out image display here ... ermm.gif

But if you look at the full size pic, you can see the tone is straighter and cleaner than the needledrop...and of course the silence before it is blacker. Interesting to see to edit right into the 'lucy abby' bit compared to the needledrop. I presume the CD reflects what's on the the master tapes?

This post has been edited by krabapple: Dec 5 2012, 15:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Dec 5 2012, 17:31
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



The cartridge I was using before I sold my vinyl rig claims a frequency response up to 70kHz. No limits are given so it's pretty meaningless but I can't helpwondering how they tested it to come up with that figure. A test record that goes up to and beyond 70k?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mzil
post Dec 5 2012, 17:32
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 507
Joined: 5-August 07
Member No.: 45913



QUOTE (krabapple @ Dec 5 2012, 10:19) *
Interesting to see to edit right into the 'lucy abby' bit compared to the needledrop. I presume the CD reflects what's on the the master tapes?

According to this, the 15 kHz tone on the original UK LP version was added manually, and is not on the master tape:


"dog cut"

basic recording- none
additional recording- none
master tape- none
cut into first mono master disk 28 Apr 1967.
cut into first stereo master disk 1 May 1967.
generated 1987.

On LP this 15 KHz tone is not a recording at all, but was cut mechanically into the master disk after A Day in the Life. The dates shown are of the first disk cutting for Parlophone in the UK; it was recreated at unknown dates for other master disks, but was never cut into disks by Capitol for US release. For CD it was created electronically in 1987 and put into the master digital tape used for CD production. "

http://www.norwegianwood.org/beatles/disko/uklp/pepper.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Dec 5 2012, 18:29
Post #29


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5062
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (mzil @ Dec 5 2012, 16:32) *
On LP this 15 KHz tone is not a recording at all, but was cut mechanically into the master disk after A Day in the Life. The dates shown are of the first disk cutting for Parlophone in the UK; it was recreated at unknown dates for other master disks, but was never cut into disks by Capitol for US release. For CD it was created electronically in 1987 and put into the master digital tape used for CD production. "
I've read that before, but my ears (not to mention the graph above) tell me something is wrong or missing from this description - it's a fairly hissy/noisy and slightly distorted tone on the CDs. In its deficiencies, it seems at least comparable to some of the LPs (though that's a tough call to make).

My early 1970s pressing of Pepper has the reversed-speech run-out groove starting at a different point in the loop from my 1987 CD.

I fear we're heading off topic here wink.gif

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mzil
post Dec 5 2012, 21:40
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 507
Joined: 5-August 07
Member No.: 45913



I suspect the CD's version is simply an audio recording of the LP's 15 kHz tone section, record noise and all, hence the reason they are comparable to your ear.

The Beatles insist the random chatter, in this instance, is neither reversed nor has any secret message. It doesn't sound like backward speech to me unless played backward. [My turntable at the time could play backwards and I examined all of their stuff that was reversed, BTW]

There are several overlapping voices and in addition to the main voice I hear a secondary voice saying "[unintelligible] five by five".
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Dec 5 2012, 23:19
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 2184
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (mzil @ Dec 5 2012, 15:40) *
I suspect the CD's version is simply an audio recording of the LP's 15 kHz tone section, record noise and all, hence the reason they are comparable to your ear.



That 'looks' reasonable, since a pure tone would not have all that noise around it if generated and recorded digitally. But the one on the CD is still more stable-looking than the one in the needledrop posted. Difference in analog playback rigs?

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mzil
post Dec 6 2012, 00:25
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 507
Joined: 5-August 07
Member No.: 45913



Yes. We are not only seeing two different turntables/cartridges/phono preamps, we are also most likely seeing two different pressings, from two different cutting lathes, with different center spindle hole alignments (a notorious source of wow), from two different records which may have huge differences in wear. [And very high frequencies, especially recorded in the central area, are the first to go, or at least distort, from needle damage.]
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CherylJosie
post Dec 6 2012, 08:09
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 3-December 12
Member No.: 104939



QUOTE (BFG @ Dec 3 2012, 15:16) *
This whole conversation has me intrigued about the technical limitations of vinyl. For example, is there a minimum or maximum frequency that can be "encoded" in vinyl (akin to the ~20Hz and 44.1kHz cutoffs on digital CDs)? Does this differ for 33s, 45s, 78s? Is there a way (based on the needle tip and equipment setup) for a knowledgeable person to precalculate the bands that the most noise interference will likely be in, and thus minimize or remove it? Etc.

It's particularly pertinent as I'm planning to attempt a vinyl-to-FLAC encoding soon.


Since you still have not received a reply to this question, I will give it a shot, but truthfully you should be asking someone who is currently mastering vinyl and has the technical background to answer in practical rather than theoretical terms.

The information you have been given so far is mostly wrong. Infinite frequency can only be recorded with an infinitely small stylus, which does not exist in practical terms. Other factors, such as the grain size of the vinyl plastic molecules, and the tensile strength of the vinyl at high playing temperature for any given thickness of groove wall also enter into the equation in a way I cannot address, but keep in mind that as frequency goes up, the groove wall shifts orientation from side to side to front to back. It goes through a 90 degree rotation, and thins out too because the waves crowd closer together. All of these mathematically inescapable physical limitations play a part in the upper frequency limit. Complex geometrical calculations are required to determine the absolute theoretical limits under any given condition such as stylus geometry and groove velocity.

This example below assumes the viewpoint of cutting the master, because that is where the ultimate limits of the technology lie. Duplication errors reduce the performance from the master theoretical limit. Once the master is cut there is absolutely no way to improve the result on playback. Turntables are already optimized for playback at baseband.

The groove velocity (linear velocity of the groove as it traverses across the stylus from front to back) and the dimension of the stylus that lies along the groove (rather than across it) pretty much dictate the upper frequency limit. The reason can be summed up like this. If the frequency is infinite, the groove is essentially motionless, and the stylus retraces its path across groove that has already been cut on cycle n as it cuts cycle n+1.

Stated alternatively, for a fixed groove velocity and stylus dimension (length, let's call it, and keep in mind the length is longer at the top of the groove than at the bottom because the stylus is pointy) the maximum frequency that can be cut is the highest frequency for which the groove displacement is larger than the wavelength of the audio plus the stylus length. If the groove displacement is smaller than the wavelength plus the stylus length, the stylus will recut material that has already been cut, destroying the features of the cut groove.

Remember, as the wavelength gets shorter, so does the groove displacement, because the frequency goes up, shortening the time between peaks. At some limit the wavelength will shorten until it is equal to the length of the stylus, and at that point the leading edge of the stylus cannot cut any waves into the groove because it has already cut that part of the groove on the previous cycle with the trailing edge of the stylus.

Long before that point is reached, the amplitude of the wave that is cut into the vinyl will begin to go down because the stylus starts partially (as opposed to completely) retracing the cut of the wave into the groove when any part of the prior wavelength is still in contact with the stylus. This means that in addition to the absolute high frequency cutoff point where no signal at all can be recorded, there is also a rolloff point where the amplitude begins to decline at lower frequencies too, and a somewhat linear trace connects the two points together (in the dB world, anyway), assuming that the rolloff follows some usual curve. Then again, this particular rolloff is not due to resonance, but rather to overlapping waves, so who knows what it really looks like...

The dimension of the stylus must be added to the wavelength because half the stylus sticks out past time zero on the leading and trailing edge of the cut, so the leading edge of the stylus adds to the length of the trailing edge of the cut wave, and the trailing edge of the stylus adds to the length of the leading edge of the cut wave.

This is why shorter stylus of the elliptical or shibata profile, where the stylus is wide to contact the groove, but short to contact in as small a profile as possible, is the preferred stylus. It allows a stylus to trace higher frequency waves without mistracking or obliterating detail. Conical stylus essentially runs through your record like a snowplow, permanently destroying the high frequency content on the very first pass. Shibato or elliptical stylus concentrates the contact force into a smaller area, causing more rapid wear on the stylus that also damages grooves, so checking and replacing the stylus regularly is the single most important factor (after cleaning stylus and record, that is) to preserving fidelity.

This is why elliptical and Shibata stylus is preferable to conical. Shortening the stylus from front to back allows it to track a higher frequency accurately.

As already stated elsewhere on this forum, 70KHz may be the upper limit of vinyl, but no one I know specified either the stylus dimension or the groove velocity. Remember, single masters used full 12 inch LP form factor running at 78 rpm to maximize fidelity. I presume that is the format that will get you 70KHz but I do not know if that is measured at the outer edge where groove velocity is maximum, or at the inner edge where groove velocity is minimum. The average 33 1/3 rpm LP has noticeable high frequency rolloff and distortion on the innermost track fresh out of the wrapper, but at the outer edge where the groove velocity is higher, the noise has higher frequency components also, giving it a nice breezy whooshing character.

As far as filtering a commercially released LP is concerned, I would expect that your sound equipment already filters out anything outside the audible range of 20Hz to 20KHz and as such you should not need to add any additional filtering. Your preamp will handle it for you. The only additional filtering I would recommend would be a lowpass at 10KHz or 15KHz to denoise a particularly damaged LP, or a highpass at 60Hz or so to denoise a particularly badly warped LP that is making your woofers fly out of their baskets and thumping your pictures off the walls. However, I would apply the filtering at playback rather than at recording, because you might change your preferences depending on the listening environment. If you filter your recordings there is no way to go backward to the original sound...


There are a dozen or so other factors to consider also such as cartridge resonances and cutting amplifier limitations that also limit the frequency response. Take it from me, an engineer, what engineers do is start with an impossible specification in terms of time, budget, performance, and price, and massage it all until it sort of fits into the design space, then ship it quick before the market window closes. If vinyl does 70KHz in the best case, and 45KHz for quadraphonic frequency modulation, then we can assume that it just barely fills the frequency range of perfect human hearing, namely 20Hz to 22KHz, with some degree of linearity, and from what I recall, almost every cartridge specification except the very most expensive fail that specification in either the low or high end, or both, by more than 6db, when actually installed in a turntable. If you get 15KHz out of old vinyl you should consider yourself lucky. If you are over the age of 40 you should also consider yourself lucky if you can still hear 15KHz, especially if you are an audio junkie that warms up your rack of amplifiers every evening with a 6 pack of beer and a pizza and your best friend.

Good luck.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
splice
post Dec 7 2012, 03:02
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 23-July 03
Member No.: 7935



QUOTE (CherylJosie @ Dec 6 2012, 00:09) *
... The information you have been given so far is mostly wrong. ...


Regrettably, so is the information you have given, for the cutting part of the process at least. (The reproduction side info is OK.) Your explanation appears to assume that the cutting stylus has the same shape as a reproduction stylus, which is far from the case.

Cutting is done with a "chisel" profile stylus. It is basically a shallow triangle in profile as viewed from above. The major flat face faces the direction of cutting. There are minor facets cut on the "corners" to burnish (smooth) the walls after cutting, and often other slight modifications to the profile. The maximum frequency that can be cut by the stylus is determined by the size of the burnishing facets, and by the frequency / excursion / tracing speed product - if you move the stylus side to side too fast and too far, the back sides of the triangular stylus will slam into the previously cut walls.

In practice, the cutting HF limit is usually determined by the design of the stylus driving system. Remember that the signal being fed to the head has a reverse RIAA response curve - the HF energy is incredibly boosted. The drive coils in the head are very small and have a low thermal inertia. A second or two of excess HF energy will burn them out. CD-4 records, with frequencies up to 45 KHz, were actually cut at half speed (16 2/3 RPM). This only required 1/4 of the HF energy that full speed cutting required. They still had to be cut about 6 DB lower in level than a standard stereo disc.

For the original question, I would suggest applying whatever processing is required to make the result sound acceptable to the user. In my limited experience, it's not worth saving it "warts and all" unless there will be no opportunity to re-rip it later. The user may well find that a turntable or cartridge upgrade will result in reproduction better enough that he will want to re-rip anyway. I've found that most high-end turntable/arm/cartridge combos do a competent job of reproducing the music. They tend to differ more in how well they de-emphasise vinyl shortcomings such as surface noise.

This post has been edited by splice: Dec 7 2012, 03:05


--------------------
Regards,
Don Hills
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cliveb
post Dec 7 2012, 09:46
Post #35


WaveRepair developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 831
Joined: 28-July 04
Member No.: 15845



QUOTE (splice @ Dec 7 2012, 02:02) *
QUOTE (CherylJosie @ Dec 6 2012, 00:09) *
... The information you have been given so far is mostly wrong. ...


Regrettably, so is the information you have given, for the cutting part of the process at least. (The reproduction side info is OK.) Your explanation appears to assume that the cutting stylus has the same shape as a reproduction stylus, which is far from the case.

Cutting is done with a "chisel" profile stylus....[snip]

I think you may possibly be maligning CherylJosie. I got the impression that her discussion of stylus shapes (elliptical, Shibata, etc) was during a section talking about playback, but when she got to the bit about cutting, she makes no mention of stylus shape. For sure, as I read it I mentally noted that she failed to mention that the cutting head is not the same profile, but that doesn't necessarily mean she thinks that it is.

The discussion about cutting limitations applies in a general sense. The limits will vary according to cutting head profile, of course, but the fact that there are limits determined by basic geometry holds for any profile. I don't think it really matters that she didn't explain the cutting head profile when all she was trying to establish is that there are such limits.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
splice
post Dec 8 2012, 06:40
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 23-July 03
Member No.: 7935



QUOTE (cliveb @ Dec 7 2012, 00:46) *
... I think you may possibly be maligning CherylJosie. ...


On the technical points, I disagree. I could quote and rebut the specific points, but it's not that big a deal. I accept that I could have left out the first sentence of my post. I'm getting old, I need to fight the tendency to become grouchy as well.


--------------------
Regards,
Don Hills
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th July 2014 - 04:08