On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-4, Bob Masta wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'd just like to point out the obvious, that musical
> instrument amps are in a totally different universe from
> "high fidelity". When you are creating the original sound,
> their is no fidelity to anything... it's whatever sounds
> good to the musician and audience.
>
> And note that such amps are usually really amp-plus-speaker
> combinations, and the speakers are also definitely not "high
> fidelity". They typically have very limited high-end
> response, for example. And I don't know if anyone even
> bothers to measure speaker distortion in these rigs, but
> note that since they are typically handling only one
> instrument at a time, IMD is not an issue, nor is Doppler
> from high-frequency instruments riding on the woofer.
>
> So even an amp that does a perfect emulation of a Marshall
> or Fender stack may not give acceptable performance when
> used as a home stereo amp.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Masta
>
Bob - yes you're absolutely correct. I was just trying to give examples of modeling tube performance. In many of the modelers you can also model the cabinet and mic placement - how well it really works, I don't know.
What happens in many cases - if you've modeled the amp and cabinet and then you feed this into a guitar amp - you want the guitar amp to introduce as little effect as possible otherwise it tends to muddy up the signal and what comes out of the amp isn't really what you had in mind.
Cheers,
Dave
Reply by Les Cargill●March 12, 20152015-03-12
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On 3/12/15 1:25 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
>> N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) writes:
>>> [...]
>>> I'd just like to point out the obvious, that musical
>>> instrument amps are in a totally different universe from
>>> "high fidelity". When you are creating the original sound,
>>> their is no fidelity to anything... it's whatever sounds
>>> good to the musician and audience.
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Excellent point. I would state it like this: "Musical instrument amps
>> (and speakers) are part of the music; audio reproduction amps (and
>> speakers) aren't (or shouldn't be)."
>
> it's sorta what i was trying to say about a guitar amp being part of the
> "effects processing". whereas a linear amp can be just-as-well
> implemented as solid state as with tubes. maybe better (until you get
> out of the linear range).
>
>>
>> (Although when I was a teenager I loved the sound of records played
>> through my 145 Leslie - seemed to have great bass!)
>>
>> http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/5180/leslie145or142speakers0.jpg
>
> there was a prog-rock hard-rock band in the 70s called "Captain Beyond"
> that occasionally ran their distorted lead guitar through a Leslie. i
> think someone should build (and market) a modern Leslie. can't imagine
> there would be surviving patents still in effect.
>
>
Reply by robert bristow-johnson●March 12, 20152015-03-12
On 3/12/15 1:25 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
> N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) writes:
>> [...]
>> I'd just like to point out the obvious, that musical
>> instrument amps are in a totally different universe from
>> "high fidelity". When you are creating the original sound,
>> their is no fidelity to anything... it's whatever sounds
>> good to the musician and audience.
>
> Bob,
>
> Excellent point. I would state it like this: "Musical instrument amps
> (and speakers) are part of the music; audio reproduction amps (and
> speakers) aren't (or shouldn't be)."
it's sorta what i was trying to say about a guitar amp being part of the
"effects processing". whereas a linear amp can be just-as-well
implemented as solid state as with tubes. maybe better (until you get
out of the linear range).
there was a prog-rock hard-rock band in the 70s called "Captain Beyond"
that occasionally ran their distorted lead guitar through a Leslie. i
think someone should build (and market) a modern Leslie. can't imagine
there would be surviving patents still in effect.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by Randy Yates●March 12, 20152015-03-12
N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) writes:
> [...]
> I'd just like to point out the obvious, that musical
> instrument amps are in a totally different universe from
> "high fidelity". When you are creating the original sound,
> their is no fidelity to anything... it's whatever sounds
> good to the musician and audience.
Bob,
Excellent point. I would state it like this: "Musical instrument amps
(and speakers) are part of the music; audio reproduction amps (and
speakers) aren't (or shouldn't be)."
(Although when I was a teenager I loved the sound of records played
through my 145 Leslie - seemed to have great bass!)
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/5180/leslie145or142speakers0.jpg
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by Bob Masta●March 12, 20152015-03-12
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 06:26:29 -0700 (PDT), Dave
<dspguy2@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 12:39:51 PM UTC-4, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> Bob Masta <N0Spam@daqarta.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:38:31 -0700 (PDT),
>> > gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
>> =20
>> (snip on valve/tube amps)
>>=20
>> > Valve or tube amps that are overdriven sound better than
>> > solid state amps that are overdriven. That's because solid
>> > state amps have hard clipping when they reach their supply
>> > limits. That produces lots of nasty high-frequency
>> > distortion products. Tube amps saturate more softly as they
>> > approach their limits, so instead of clipping the peaks they
>> > have more rounded tops, with less of the higher-frequency
>> > products.
>>=20
>> It shouldn't be that hard to make a softer clip on a transistor
>> amplifier, but you have to do that before it reaches the peak.
>>=20
>
>(snip)
>
>A few companies have done this. Tech 21 is one. They had their Sansamp prod=
>uct. They have newer version of the Sansamp and their Character series of p=
>edals. The Sansamp has a bunch of switches allowing you to control the gain=
>, presence, and a few other factors which give you Marshall, Fender and Mes=
>a Boogie type
>sounds. These pedals are solid state rather than the DSP modelling route. T=
>he newer Character pedals seem to focus on one particular type of amp for e=
>ach pedal. I don't know what they've changed in going from the Sansamp to t=
>he Character pedals. Their website is: http://www.tech21nyc.com/products/sa=
>nsamp/classic.html=20
>
>Line 6 has also combined the modeling with an actual tube amp. Reinhold Bog=
>ner designed the tube amps for them. I think Peavey also had combined Tube =
>amps with modeling in some of their product line.
>
>So there are definitely companies out there combining various forms of tech=
>nology.
>
>Cheers,
>Dave
>
I'd just like to point out the obvious, that musical
instrument amps are in a totally different universe from
"high fidelity". When you are creating the original sound,
their is no fidelity to anything... it's whatever sounds
good to the musician and audience.
And note that such amps are usually really amp-plus-speaker
combinations, and the speakers are also definitely not "high
fidelity". They typically have very limited high-end
response, for example. And I don't know if anyone even
bothers to measure speaker distortion in these rigs, but
note that since they are typically handling only one
instrument at a time, IMD is not an issue, nor is Doppler
from high-frequency instruments riding on the woofer.
So even an amp that does a perfect emulation of a Marshall
or Fender stack may not give acceptable performance when
used as a home stereo amp.
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v7.60
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusiq generator
Science with your sound card!
Reply by Bob Masta●March 12, 20152015-03-12
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:34:11 -0400, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>On 3/11/15 6:49 PM, Michael Shonle wrote:
>> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 12:38:35 PM UTC-4, gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> appears to be popular again. Just a gimmick or does it really sound better? It analogue after all. The noise is worse of course but could there be any advantage at all? Then we have valve amps. What's the fuss about them? Do they sound better?
>>
>> One theory I heard (not sure if it was on the Internet or not so I don't if it's true or not, but it would actually be a testable theory) was that since the pops and crackles are different every time, each time you listen to it is different which may increase the attention paid to it and hence "improve" the sound. YMMV. Void where prohibited.
>>
>
>some of the pops happen at the same place. certainly pops due to
>scratches and defects will correlate.
>
>what i thought might be a way to recover audio on vinyl, when the master
>disks or original tapes had been lost, might be to have different copies
>of the same 70s vinyl record (like Wishbone Ash "New England" might be
>an example of something never re-released on CD) and digitally record as
>many copies of the same vinyl album as you can get. then use something
>like cross-correlation to line up corresponding segments of the audio
>and then do some kinda median filtering on the lined-up samples to kick
>out the clicks and pops and crackle that's different on the different
>vinyl records.
>
>i dunno. someone else likely has a patent claim on it.
Along similar lines, but using only a single record, would
be to "read" the groove at different depths. Since the
playback stylus tends to travel the same path each time the
record is played, the damage would presumably be along that
path. Higher or lower in the groove might still be
reasonably pristine, and even if not (due to playing on
different systems, or random surface damage like scratches,
for example) there should be differences at different depths
that could be used to deduce the original... much like
playing multiple records.
To read the groove at different depths you could use a
laser, or a physical scanner like a scanning tunnelling
microscope. Slow, but only needs to be done once.
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v7.60
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusiq generator
Science with your sound card!
Reply by robert bristow-johnson●March 11, 20152015-03-11
On 3/11/15 9:08 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson<rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> what i thought might be a way to recover audio on vinyl, when the master
>> disks or original tapes had been lost, might be to have different copies
>> of the same 70s vinyl record (like Wishbone Ash "New England" might be
>> an example of something never re-released on CD) and digitally record as
>> many copies of the same vinyl album as you can get. then use something
>> like cross-correlation to line up corresponding segments of the audio
>> and then do some kinda median filtering on the lined-up samples to kick
>> out the clicks and pops and crackle that's different on the different
>> vinyl records.
>
> Seems like you can also reduce some other kinds of noise, too, by
> averaging over the different copies.
i would want to kick out outliers first. then average over only the
simultaneous samples that are within some range of the median.
> Maybe even ones from different
> masters. (Do they do that, after too many have been made off one?)
>
if i remember right, there was a single master, sometimes called a
"father". and then from that, like a negative form, clam-shell
"mothers" are made which press the vinyl of the product records. when a
mother wears out, they make another one. i might have it wrong. there
might be another step or form (and another generation of noise).
>> i dunno. someone else likely has a patent claim on it.
>
> If not, hurry and patent it yourself.
>
i dunno.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by glen herrmannsfeldt●March 11, 20152015-03-11
robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
(snip)
> some of the pops happen at the same place. certainly pops due to
> scratches and defects will correlate.
> what i thought might be a way to recover audio on vinyl, when the master
> disks or original tapes had been lost, might be to have different copies
> of the same 70s vinyl record (like Wishbone Ash "New England" might be
> an example of something never re-released on CD) and digitally record as
> many copies of the same vinyl album as you can get. then use something
> like cross-correlation to line up corresponding segments of the audio
> and then do some kinda median filtering on the lined-up samples to kick
> out the clicks and pops and crackle that's different on the different
> vinyl records.
Seems like you can also reduce some other kinds of noise, too, by
averaging over the different copies. Maybe even ones from different
masters. (Do they do that, after too many have been made off one?)
> i dunno. someone else likely has a patent claim on it.
If not, hurry and patent it yourself.
-- glen
Reply by robert bristow-johnson●March 11, 20152015-03-11
On 3/11/15 6:49 PM, Michael Shonle wrote:
> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 12:38:35 PM UTC-4, gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
>> appears to be popular again. Just a gimmick or does it really sound better? It analogue after all. The noise is worse of course but could there be any advantage at all? Then we have valve amps. What's the fuss about them? Do they sound better?
>
> One theory I heard (not sure if it was on the Internet or not so I don't if it's true or not, but it would actually be a testable theory) was that since the pops and crackles are different every time, each time you listen to it is different which may increase the attention paid to it and hence "improve" the sound. YMMV. Void where prohibited.
>
some of the pops happen at the same place. certainly pops due to
scratches and defects will correlate.
what i thought might be a way to recover audio on vinyl, when the master
disks or original tapes had been lost, might be to have different copies
of the same 70s vinyl record (like Wishbone Ash "New England" might be
an example of something never re-released on CD) and digitally record as
many copies of the same vinyl album as you can get. then use something
like cross-correlation to line up corresponding segments of the audio
and then do some kinda median filtering on the lined-up samples to kick
out the clicks and pops and crackle that's different on the different
vinyl records.
i dunno. someone else likely has a patent claim on it.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by Michael Shonle●March 11, 20152015-03-11
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 12:38:35 PM UTC-4, gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
> appears to be popular again. Just a gimmick or does it really sound better? It analogue after all. The noise is worse of course but could there be any advantage at all? Then we have valve amps. What's the fuss about them? Do they sound better?
One theory I heard (not sure if it was on the Internet or not so I don't if it's true or not, but it would actually be a testable theory) was that since the pops and crackles are different every time, each time you listen to it is different which may increase the attention paid to it and hence "improve" the sound. YMMV. Void where prohibited.
-Mike