For Ortofon Fans III

the thin end of the wedge
Wised
member
member
Puerto Rico
Posts: 58
Joined: 18 Dec 2019 00:13

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Wised » 14 Feb 2020 12:41

dagfinn wrote:
14 Feb 2020 09:27
Wised wrote:
13 Feb 2020 23:08
Again I'm surprised how close it is with a simple recording setup that doesnt even break 1k meant for a DSLR ( Tascam 70D plus a Rode Video Mic X).
I'm surprised you think that mic and this setup sounds that good. I have Røde Stereo video mic Pro, and it's ok for it's purpose. It's a weak link, though. Also, when professionals mic up speakers, they do it in a very different way, to avoid ambience, for instance. There is really a loss of many musical/sonic elements, imaging, separation, dynamics and additions of lots of ambience in your method. The list goes on. Both channels of your mic can hear both speakeres at slightly different levels, so... crosstalk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstalk#In_audio
mics.JPG
Different mics, with different quality, properties and purposes - and ways of use to obtain different results. Recording sound the right way in high quality is a challenging task, and my ears is no longer TOL after many, many concerts and rehearsals at stupid levels without protection :( . Still I can hear lossy compression without problems, and really don't like it.

I'm here to learn, and perhaps return the favour, if I can, and to have good times with friends. You have a great system, enjoy it! Rickie Lee is on my top 5 list, and the track you shared a wonderful song... :D. I've been out of vinyl since The Magazine, and the album from your first video is now on my "must get" list, so thanks for that :D .
I have a video mic pro too. The new X version which I used here is in fact much better! The noise level of the original was fairly bad. The new one also has new and differently mounted bottles. Basically its an entirely different mic which is why it is also much more expensive. It is still an SLR model not a true studio device but punches way higher than you would expect.
Its not a 4000 dollar neumann or AKG, but still a solid mid quality microphone.

Wised
member
member
Puerto Rico
Posts: 58
Joined: 18 Dec 2019 00:13

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Wised » 14 Feb 2020 15:31

dagfinn wrote:
14 Feb 2020 09:27
Wised wrote:
13 Feb 2020 23:08
Again I'm surprised how close it is with a simple recording setup that doesnt even break 1k meant for a DSLR ( Tascam 70D plus a Rode Video Mic X).
I'm surprised you think that mic and this setup sounds that good. I have Røde Stereo video mic Pro, and it's ok for it's purpose. It's a weak link, though. Also, when professionals mic up speakers, they do it in a very different way, to avoid ambience, for instance. There is really a loss of many musical/sonic elements, imaging, separation, dynamics and additions of lots of ambience in your method. The list goes on. Both channels of your mic can hear both speakeres at slightly different levels, so... crosstalk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstalk#In_audio
mics.JPG
Different mics, with different quality, properties and purposes - and ways of use to obtain different results. Recording sound the right way in high quality is a challenging task, and my ears is no longer TOL after many, many concerts and rehearsals at stupid levels without protection :( . Still I can hear lossy compression without problems, and really don't like it.

I'm here to learn, and perhaps return the favour, if I can, and to have good times with friends. You have a great system, enjoy it! Rickie Lee is on my top 5 list, and the track you shared a wonderful song... :D. I've been out of vinyl since The Magazine, and the album from your first video is now on my "must get" list, so thanks for that :D .
You are absolutely correct, a single stereo mic is a less than perfect arrangement, its 2 mics at 90 degrees stuck together. A better arrangement would use 2 separate non directional mono mics. Recording is not anywhere close to my primary goal or hobby and Im learning on the fly too. Luckily my ears are still sharp as long as its 15k herz or less :) Sometime soon my next attempt will be to use the mic completely naked (another new feature of the X) to see how that affects the the overall sound. If you are interested in recording try the Rode X, you will be really surprised how it has improved over the original.
Like me you can keep the old one as a backup or "bequeath" it to a friend.
It will most probably be another track from the Thine, Ma, Meyer trio disc since its very easy to compare A/B with such a superb performance, recording and on a decent disc to boot.
Im glad you enjoyed Rickie I must confess I didnt know much of her before I bought tge record which is a compendium of female voices. Her voice, particularly on this track has an almost out of body phantasmagorical quality you can almost smell whiskey amongst a cloud of smoke. Very very cool indeed!

dagfinn
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 524
Joined: 09 Jun 2019 00:29

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by dagfinn » 14 Feb 2020 16:40

There's lots of stereo recording theory and techniques available, so enjoy your experiments. I think I have all the microphones that I will ever need, the Røde I use(d) for ambience and no need of upgrade.
But what is the name of that album? I like female voices :).

Wised
member
member
Puerto Rico
Posts: 58
Joined: 18 Dec 2019 00:13

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Wised » 14 Feb 2020 17:55

backtotheblack wrote:
14 Feb 2020 12:21
if you are saying those vids are a good representation of the actual music playing in the room then i would be very disappointed if i had spent all that cash and my system sounded like that. no seriously, its bad.

if your happy then thats all that matters and stuff the haters :wink:

it looks like you are not short of cash so if it were me i would get a professional in.
:lol: this is a representation of someone laughing.
Unless you stream the audio through a similar caliber system even that representation will not be very "representational"! Compared to the majority of stuff on youtube that's directly posted from a phone, its splendid. I have yet to see any vids of someone hooking up a studio quality recording to post on the "tube" if you have one please share!

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 827
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Bob Dillon » 14 Feb 2020 18:16

Wised wrote:
14 Feb 2020 17:55
I have yet to see any vids of someone hooking up a studio quality recording to post on the "tube" if you have one please share!
There's a number of vids on YT that are line recordings for demoing phono cartridges or what not.







etc.

dagfinn
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 524
Joined: 09 Jun 2019 00:29

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by dagfinn » 14 Feb 2020 19:09

I like to recommend this amazing composition and recording.

And get free, uncompressed hires stereo or multichannel audio here for comparison http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
These guys are good, 36 Grammy nominations since 2006. Only problem is no vinyl!

Wised
member
member
Puerto Rico
Posts: 58
Joined: 18 Dec 2019 00:13

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Wised » 14 Feb 2020 19:27

backtotheblack wrote:
14 Feb 2020 12:21
if you are saying those vids are a good representation of the actual music playing in the room then i would be very disappointed if i had spent all that cash and my system sounded like that. no seriously, its bad.

if your happy then thats all that matters and stuff the haters :wink:

it looks like you are not short of cash so if it were me i would get a professional in.
Good is a relative term. You can get a decent idea. Again if you don't stream it through your system at full rez through a decent system, its not going to be be very revealing. Most youtube equipment videos are straight out of a cellphone and bear no resemblance to what the actual sound that was produced. Compared to that this one is splendid! If you know of any youtube vids that are significantly better please share, we would all like to enjoy them!

Agrippa
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 300
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 01:07

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Agrippa » 14 Feb 2020 19:53

How exactly am I going to be able to stream them at full resolution when all that's available is low-bandwidt AAC and OPUS?

Agrippa
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 300
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 01:07

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Agrippa » 14 Feb 2020 19:59

dagfinn wrote:
14 Feb 2020 19:09
And get free, uncompressed hires stereo or multichannel audio here for comparison http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
Another endorsment for 2L, whose recordings are among the very, very best available anywhere. Absolute State of the Art in sound reproduction, equalling or bettering the best recodings from the best labels I know (such as Alpha, Harmonia Mundi, Alia Vox, MA Recordings & Hyperion).

Wised
member
member
Puerto Rico
Posts: 58
Joined: 18 Dec 2019 00:13

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Wised » 14 Feb 2020 21:17

Agrippa wrote:
14 Feb 2020 19:53
How exactly am I going to be able to stream them at full resolution when all that's available is low-bandwidt AAC and OPUS?
If you stream through your comp directly through your amp its at least 16/44 ergo CD quality. The vinyl videos above are great but also beyond the point since is they are all directly encoded from the turntable! They give zero inkling about what is happening downsteam or how it may sound how you listen through your speakers! At best its a representation of how it will sound through a headphone amp! As well pointed out is a great representation of what's happening in the phonograpph but keeps you clueless of how it would sound in your living room. You might as well play it on a portable SACD with headphones!

Bob Dillon
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 827
Joined: 03 Mar 2019 20:22

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Bob Dillon » 14 Feb 2020 21:36

Wised wrote:
14 Feb 2020 21:17

The vinyl videos above are great but also beyond the point since is they are all directly encoded from the turntable! They give zero inkling about what is happening downsteam or how it may sound how you listen through your speakers!
Okey-doke then.

Your thread title specifically singles out your cartridge as the bait so I didn't realize that you mean your entire hi-fi too. I haven't been reading this thread very closely. :)

Agrippa
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 300
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 01:07

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Agrippa » 14 Feb 2020 22:23

I'm increasingly suspicious of whether you understand what audio encoding/compression is and does. Or rather I was; now I'm convinced you have no idea.

I suggest you read this piece from Sound on Sound.

However, I'll give you a very simple example:

A 5min song recorded in 44.1kHz/16bit stereo WAV will be roughly 75MB in size. This is CD quality.

Compress the same song to 160kb/s stereo MP3, comparable to 128kb/s AAC in quality, and the size is now reduced to roughly 5.5MB. Some of this is due to compression, but compression is done only after a whole lot of information is discarded. This is the sound quality served up in your videos.

It makes exactly zero difference how you play the resulting audio stream/file: all the information which was discarded is lost and will forever remain lost. End of.

In my experience, in my system and with my ears, a minimum of 256kb/s MP3 (using the latest LAME encoding layer) is needed when you're ripping a CD with a typically mediocre sound quality in order to achieve relative subjective parity in terms of sound quality. A well recorded and mastered CD requires 320kb/s, while for a truly superbly recorded/mastered CD or anything better only lossless encoding will do (FLAC, ALAC, APE, OFR, etc).

So: regardless of how the audio from your YouTube efforts are played, regardless of the quality of the system used and with the best will in the world - the quality of that audio is severely degraded compared to the original recording.

The fact that you can't even hear this yourself considering the low quality of the stream is, to say the least, quite puzzling.

Wised
member
member
Puerto Rico
Posts: 58
Joined: 18 Dec 2019 00:13

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Wised » 14 Feb 2020 23:07

Agrippa wrote:
14 Feb 2020 22:23
I'm increasingly suspicious of whether you understand what audio encoding/compression is and does. Or rather I was; now I'm convinced you have no idea.

I suggest you read this piece from Sound on Sound.

However, I'll give you a very simple example:

A 5min song recorded in 44.1kHz/16bit stereo WAV will be roughly 75MB in size. This is CD quality.

Compress the same song to 160kb/s stereo MP3, comparable to 128kb/s AAC in quality, and the size is now reduced to roughly 5.5MB. Some of this is due to compression, but compression is done only after a whole lot of information is discarded. This is the sound quality served up in your videos.

It makes exactly zero difference how you play the resulting audio stream/file: all the information which was discarded is lost and will forever remain lost. End of.

In my experience, in my system and with my ears, a minimum of 256kb/s MP3 (using the latest LAME encoding layer) is needed when you're ripping a CD with a typically mediocre sound quality in order to achieve relative subjective parity in terms of sound quality. A well recorded and mastered CD requires 320kb/s, while for a truly superbly recorded/mastered CD or anything better only lossless encoding will do (FLAC, ALAC, APE, OFR, etc).

So: regardless of how the audio from your YouTube efforts are played, regardless of the quality of the system used and with the best will in the world - the quality of that audio is severely degraded compared to the original recording.

The fact that you can't even hear this yourself considering the low quality of the stream is, to say the least, quite puzzling.
Thanks for providing the information I already knew! Ive owned CD players since the first Sony ever showed up in the market. In fact before since I bought it Mainz Kastel where all the audio companies sold their "beta" models to soldiers before they were available anywhere else in the world. Many of the stuff never did! As pointed out the original recording performed by yours truly is 24/96. You tube encodes that info at 16/44. If you have experience with digital encoding you would know that all the super resolutions over 96 are basicly bogus since you can upsample anything to 1000hz it wont reveal anything not present in the original recording. I have listen to Mp3s that sound better than ultra high rez.
The most important fact is the quality and original mixing of the master! No amount of upsampling after that can fix what was originally bad. Its like polishing a turd.

Agrippa
senior member
senior member
Norway
Posts: 300
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 01:07

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Agrippa » 14 Feb 2020 23:59

Wised wrote:
14 Feb 2020 23:07
Thanks for providing the information I already knew!
That certainly doesn't appear to be the case.
Ive owned CD players since the first Sony ever showed up in the market
Are you saying that anyone and everyone who owns a CD player is automaticall fully conversant with audio encoding and compression?
In fact before since I bought it Mainz Kastel where all the audio companies sold their "beta" models to soldiers before they were available anywhere else in the world. Many of the stuff never did!
The relevance being?
As pointed out the original recording performed by yours truly is 24/96.
As pointed out by yours truly, that has extremely limited bearing on the quality served up by YouTube.
You tube encodes that info at 16/44.
Indeed it does. And that has little or nothing to do with the audio quality of the resulting stream. The bit-depth and sampling rate is not what's interesting here; it's the fact that your audio is compressed with a lossy encoding format, thereby being reduced to truly mediocre quality.
If you have experience with digital encoding you would know that all the super resolutions over 96 are basicly bogus since you can upsample anything to 1000hz it wont reveal anything not present in the original recording.
In other words you don't understand how sample rates are different to upsampling either. Colour me unsurprised.
The most important fact is the quality and original mixing of the master! No amount of upsampling after that can fix what was originally bad. Its like polishing a turd.
Which, again, has absolutely no bearing on the audio quality in your videos.

Probably just as well to let this lie. You obviously have no understanding of the technologies and techniques involved and are incapable of hearing the difference between 128kb/s AAC and CD quality or better audio.

Wised
member
member
Puerto Rico
Posts: 58
Joined: 18 Dec 2019 00:13

Re: For Ortofon Fans III

Post by Wised » 15 Feb 2020 00:27

Agrippa wrote:
14 Feb 2020 23:59
Wised wrote:
14 Feb 2020 23:07
Thanks for providing the information I already knew!
That certainly doesn't appear to be the case.
Ive owned CD players since the first Sony ever showed up in the market
Are you saying that anyone and everyone who owns a CD player is automaticall fully conversant with audio encoding and compression?
In fact before since I bought it Mainz Kastel where all the audio companies sold their "beta" models to soldiers before they were available anywhere else in the world. Many of the stuff never did!
The relevance being?
As pointed out the original recording performed by yours truly is 24/96.
As pointed out by yours truly, that has extremely limited bearing on the quality served up by YouTube.
You tube encodes that info at 16/44.
Indeed it does. And that has little or nothing to do with the audio quality of the resulting stream. The bit-depth and sampling rate is not what's interesting here; it's the fact that your audio is compressed with a lossy encoding format, thereby being reduced to truly mediocre quality.
If you have experience with digital encoding you would know that all the super resolutions over 96 are basicly bogus since you can upsample anything to 1000hz it wont reveal anything not present in the original recording.
In other words you don't understand how sample rates are different to upsampling either. Colour me unsurprised.
The most important fact is the quality and original mixing of the master! No amount of upsampling after that can fix what was originally bad. Its like polishing a turd.
Which, again, has absolutely no bearing on the audio quality in your videos.

Probably just as well to let this lie. You obviously have no understanding of the technologies and techniques involved and are incapable of hearing the difference between 128kb/s AAC and CD quality or better audio.
Please enlighten us with your impressive wisdom...
You certainly criticize fluently but show no knowledge at all. Maybe you can show us why no one can tell apart why ultra high DSD sampling rates are indistinguishable from each other and the same same thing for PCM. They are numbers for fools than people with ears.