What exactly is an Aural Exciter artifact?

[CJ Shearn]

Which version? I have the McMaster, skipped the RVG and didn't buy the SHM b/c the McMaster sounds fine to me.  Though I know the SHM is probably great, like the paltry 3 I own.

[.:.impossible]

It's a McMaster from Newberry Comics retail... UK sticker on the back. I've actually never heard any other versions, or thought about upgrading, but I've listened to this CD as many times as I have anything else in my collection. 

[erwbol]

There is no SHM of Street of Dreams. I wish there was! The HD Tracks download which uses the same Bernie Grundman transfers sounds much better than the McMaster, though. So much so that I now find the McMaster, one of those 20bit SBM Connoisseurs, hard to listen to. (I didn't like the RVG of any album with Larry Young on it.)

Edited August 21, 2015 by erwbol

[Jim Alfredson]

Aphex introduced the Aural Exciter before digital recording was a factor. It was meant to function in the analog world. I was introduced to it at Streeterville studios in Chicago in November of 1977 while we were recording Air Time. Streeterville claimed it was the first unit in Chicago.

Yes, but solid-state recording was all the rage and some people missed the sound of tube preamps, tube mics, tube EQs, etc. I think the original Aural Exciter was a reaction to the increasingly solid-state studio and recording techniques. And most solid-state devices don't sound good when they add harmonic distortion because it's usually odd harmonics.

 

If the music is killing Scott, it doesn't matter to me either. Though there are people like that Michael Fremer guy who swears anything digital sucks, that's an attitude I can't get with.

Digital is only as good as what you put in it. If you want it to sound lo-fi, you can do that. If you want it to be pristine, you can do that, too. Good digital has no sound.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

     Digital is only as good as what you put in it. If you want it to sound lo-fi, you can do that. If you want it to be pristine, you can do that, too. Good digital has no sound.

This is very true. All of the artifacts that are generated during vinyl playback can be digitized. I have done it. The resulting CD-R plays back sounding like vinyl. I've A/B'ed the two and there really is no difference. Digital is quite capable of capturing the vinyl "warmth".

Once you get past the "digital can't replicate vinyl's warmth" argument, you usually get the "Digital cuts off at 22,000 Hz" argument. It's true that digital can't capture anything above 22,000 Hz. This is usually where the craziness comes into the discussion. No one can hear 22,000 Hz, no matter what they say and any harmonics of the signals created up there (part 2 of the "those frequencies can be heard" argument) are so, so, so far down in relation to the signal that they're in the noise and very difficult to measure, much less hear.

I'm sure there's a digital plug in that makes your audio sound like vinyl or sound like it's being played back through a single-ended tube amp (push-pull tube amps also generate even order harmonics). All it takes is analyzing the sound you want and working the knobs to get it.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Kevin Bresnahan

[CJ Shearn]

There is no SHM of Street of Dreams. I wish there was! The HD Tracks download which uses the same Bernie Grundman transfers sounds much better than the McMaster, though. So much so that I now find the McMaster, one of those 20bit SBM Connoisseurs, hard to listen to. (I didn't like the RVG of any album with Larry Young on it.)

Really? thought that was one of that title. The McMaster is a plain old SBM 20 bit remaster from 1998.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

it was used a lot in pop/rock in the late 70s and early 80s- phil collins face value has aural exciter all over it

[Scott Dolan]

     Digital is only as good as what you put in it. If you want it to sound lo-fi, you can do that. If you want it to be pristine, you can do that, too. Good digital has no sound.

This is very true. All of the artifacts that are generated during vinyl playback can be digitized. I have done it. The resulting CD-R plays back sounding like vinyl. I've A/B'ed the two and there really is no difference. Digital is quite capable of capturing the vinyl "warmth".

Once you get past the "digital can't replicate vinyl's warmth" argument, you usually get the "Digital cuts off at 22,000 Hz" argument. It's true that digital can't capture anything above 22,000 Hz. This is usually where the craziness comes into the discussion. No one can hear 22,000 Hz, no matter what they say and any harmonics of the signals created up there (part 2 of the "those frequencies can be heard" argument) are so, so, so far down in relation to the signal that they're in the noise and very difficult to measure, much less hear.

I'm sure there's a digital plug in that makes your audio sound like vinyl or sound like it's being played back through a single-ended tube amp (push-pull tube amps also generate even order harmonics). All it takes is analyzing the sound you want and working the knobs to get it.

Huh? 

Aren't LP's usually cut off around 18kHz? 

How do vinyl enthusiasts even justify making such a silly argument? 

[Jim Alfredson]

I got back and forth in regards to high sample rates. It isn't necessarily about hearing the higher frequencies, because that's simply impossible due to the limitations of our auditory system. It is more about pushing the steep cutoff required to limit the bandwidth of the signal far past the audio range in order to essentially nullify aliasing. That said, a sampling rate of 60kHz should be plenty but what we're given instead is 88.2kHz, 96kHz, and 192kHz, the latter being completely ridiculous.

What most people find appealing about analog is the 'warmth', which is a product of even order harmonic distortion and very subtle pitch modulations due to fluctuations in the RPM of the motors driving the reels or the turntable. But that is all achievable in digital, more easily now than ever.

While I think the vinyl craze is neat, I have no interest in buying LPs. I think hi-res digital surround is much more exciting and enjoyable.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I got back and forth in regards to high sample rates. It isn't necessarily about hearing the higher frequencies, because that's simply impossible due to the limitations of our auditory system. It is more about pushing the steep cutoff required to limit the bandwidth of the signal far past the audio range in order to essentially nullify aliasing. That said, a sampling rate of 60kHz should be plenty but what we're given instead is 88.2kHz, 96kHz, and 192kHz, the latter being completely ridiculous.

What most people find appealing about analog is the 'warmth', which is a product of even order harmonic distortion and very subtle pitch modulations due to fluctuations in the RPM of the motors driving the reels or the turntable. But that is all achievable in digital, more easily now than ever.

While I think the vinyl craze is neat, I have no interest in buying LPs. I think hi-res digital surround is much more exciting and enjoyable.

Standard CD sampling rate is 44.1 kHz so any filter you use for that frequency is not going to affect any audible frequencies either.

[Jim Alfredson]

I got back and forth in regards to high sample rates. It isn't necessarily about hearing the higher frequencies, because that's simply impossible due to the limitations of our auditory system. It is more about pushing the steep cutoff required to limit the bandwidth of the signal far past the audio range in order to essentially nullify aliasing. That said, a sampling rate of 60kHz should be plenty but what we're given instead is 88.2kHz, 96kHz, and 192kHz, the latter being completely ridiculous.

What most people find appealing about analog is the 'warmth', which is a product of even order harmonic distortion and very subtle pitch modulations due to fluctuations in the RPM of the motors driving the reels or the turntable. But that is all achievable in digital, more easily now than ever.

While I think the vinyl craze is neat, I have no interest in buying LPs. I think hi-res digital surround is much more exciting and enjoyable.

Standard CD sampling rate is 44.1 kHz so any filter you use for that frequency is not going to affect any audible frequencies either.

In theory, yes but in practice it's not quite high enough, especially with the brutal cut-off employed. It really depends on the quality of the converter. Properly designed, yes 44.1kHz should be more than enough for the end product. But for the recording process / mixing / processing / plug-ins, a higher sampling rate is definitely better.

 

[CJ Shearn]

The differences I notice with hi res downloads vs CD and DVD and blu ray audio on concert discs is things breath more up top and bottom.  It really depends on the quality of mastering though.  I wonder with the three SHM's BN's I have what makes the masterings so superior, when I've read here that some SHM discs use older masterings or the same as recent US issues.

[AllenLowe]

just a note, have been recording in 24/88 and 24/96, and even with my aging ears and some hearing loss, the difference is significant.  Even on my little Tascam DA 40.

[jazzbo]

The differences I notice with hi res downloads vs CD and DVD and blu ray audio on concert discs is things breath more up top and bottom.  It really depends on the quality of mastering though.  I wonder with the three SHM's BN's I have what makes the masterings so superior, when I've read here that some SHM discs use older masterings or the same as recent US issues.

CJ, I think all the 75th anniversary series use new masterings. There was discussion of a "budget" reissue batch that came out this year that used older masterings, these were not SHM-CD.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

just a note, have been recording in 24/88 and 24/96, and even with my aging ears and some hearing loss, the difference is significant.  Even on my little Tascam DA 40.

I assume your playback is from the 24/88 or 24/96 source. If you dither and play these same files back at 16/44.1, do you still hear a significant difference?

[AllenLowe]

yes, absolutely. Reduced down it sounds better; which is basically why our commercial CDs - at 16/44 - sound better when originally recorded at 24/96. I say this from multi-recording experience.

[CJ Shearn]

The differences I notice with hi res downloads vs CD and DVD and blu ray audio on concert discs is things breath more up top and bottom.  It really depends on the quality of mastering though.  I wonder with the three SHM's BN's I have what makes the masterings so superior, when I've read here that some SHM discs use older masterings or the same as recent US issues.

CJ, I think all the 75th anniversary series use new masterings. There was discussion of a "budget" reissue batch that came out this year that used older masterings, these were not SHM-CD.

Yeah Lon, you're right.  Some of the new budget reissues are older RVG or TOCJ ones?  There was a point where all RVG masterings were shared from the US and Japan.......  Still would like to get more of these before they dissapear.