Re: [ARSCLIST] The value of the noise (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A/B testing: another approach)

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 28/01/08, Jon Noring wrote:
> Matthew wrote:
> 
>> Here's a link to an article from the October issue of Stereophile, in
>> which an interesting approach to blindfold testing is described:
>> 
>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/index.html
> 
> This article is utterly fascinating. For those here specifically
> interested in 78 transfer and restoration, the following two
> paragraphs of the article jumped out at me:
> 
> "In his keynote address, for example, Peter Craven demonstrated the
> improvement in sound quality of a digital transfer a 78rpm disc of a
> live electrical recording of an aria from Puccini's La BohA"me when
> the sample rate was increased from 44.1 to 192kHz. Even 16-bit PCM is
> overkill for the 1926 recording's limited dynamic range, and though
> the original's bandwidth was surprisingly wide, given its vintage,
> 44.1kHz sampling would be more than enough to capture everything in
> the music, according to conventional information theory. Those same
> skeptical pundits would therefore claim that any perceived
> improvements must be delusional.
> 
> "But of course, as Peter pointed out, with such a recording there is
> more to the sound than only the music. Specifically, there is the
> surface noise of the original shellac disc. The improvement in sound
> quality resulting from the use of a high-sampling-rate transfer
> involved this noise appearing to float more free of the music; with
> lower sample rates, it sounded more integrated into the music, and
> thus degraded it more."
> 
> This supports my prior contention that it is important to more
> accurately reproduce the noise, especially impulse noise, from 78
> transfers, and that high sample rate and bit resolution is necessary
> to achieve this, well beyond 44.1k/16bit.
> 
In my opinion they should be transferred in stereo for the same reason -
it is easier for the brain to separate the noise from the music.

The converse effect was heard on most vinyl transfers from 78s, where
the "noise reduction" was just a hard top cut. The noise is then very
hard to separate from the music (which also loses its higher
frequencies).


> This article also suggests how we may resolve whether 96k/24bit
> is sufficient for this purpose, or if we need to consider 192k
> sampling.
> 

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx