[DJ_ZUKO]

well,that not suprise me at all.and that's why i feel being ripped off after i got this phone.it sounds worse then my stanton pro 60(this one come really close to ksc 75.)and i think the high is not that good on V700dj also.

 

[Ubijza]

bigshot
Thanks for the reply, interesting points there... I didn't get though: did you understand what I meant about the human ear's inability to pick up FULL tones over 20something kHz and its ability to pick up not full tones, but overtones with frequencies up to 55kHz? You just sort of ignored that (vital) point... Or was your answer to that, that it is impossible to record at such frequencies?

 

[bigshot]

Just because you can hear something, it doesn't mean that it's important to the music. Overtones are important up to a point, but when it gets beyond the normal range of hearing, it really isn't that important.

There was a study done... I can't remember the webpage I read about it on, but someone else here might know... the study took average people and played them a musical piece and asked them to rate the sound quality. One of the tracks was a full 20 to 20 recording. Another had all of the high end above 14khz rolled off. People rated those two tracks as sounding equally as good, even if they could easily hear frequencies higher than 14khz.

While vinyl may be theoretically capable of reproducing frequencies beyond 20khz; in practice, it really isn't. The main limitation is the master source... 24 track 30 ips 2 inch recording tape isn't capable of reproducing frequencies as high as that. It's conceivable that a direct to disk recording might have super-audible information in the grooves, but most cartridges used in home turntables don't reproduce that high. To say that vinyl is superior to digital because it reproduces higher frequencies just isn't correct in the real world. And even if it did have a broader frequency response, it really wouldn't matter, because balance is much more important than range to our ears.

Vinyl does have better resolution at extremely low volume levels than 16 bit digital. But that is mitigated by the fact that vinyl has a higher noise floor, and our ears aren't as picky about resolution at low volume levels. Some people argue that digital sampling rates are too low, but it's my experience that a really good vinyl recording well transferred to the digital realm is for all intents and purposes pretty much indistinguishable from the original.

The factors that make a huge difference are...

The microphones and room resonance employed in the recording

The balance of frequency response between 100hz and 12khz

The choice of sound balance, equalization and compression levels in the mix

The absence of digital artifacting due to file compression or glitches

The quality of your speakers or headphones (and the ability of your amp to push them...)

See ya
Steve

 

[Ubijza]

bigshot
Thanks for the detailed answer!
I did not follow aur explanation about Quote:

master source... 24 track 30 ips 2 inch recording tape isn't capable of reproducing frequencies as high as that

Not educated enough unfortunately (not yet, anyway)

But I understand that there are some techical limitations...
Strongly disagree here Quote:

Just because you can hear something, it doesn't mean that it's important to the music. Overtones are important up to a point, but when it gets beyond the normal range of hearing, it really isn't that important.

though! well not really

it just seems to me you are underestimating the great power of overtones

I am grade 9 on a piano, and I know a big difference between a good cross stringed instrument and a cheap "piece of furnuture" one

Same with violins, and so on... Major difference between good and bad acoustic instrument is the "richness" of overtones.
Human ear can comfortably hear them up to 40kHz certainly(apparently young people can hear up to 53, but with age that number begins to shrink), so having all of that chopped off is a bad thing, period.

Quote:

the study took average people and played them a musical piece and asked them to rate the sound quality

Key words - "average people"

But its like giving a great piece of liturature to an average newspaper reading citizen and asking his opinion on it...

Balance is THE important thing, agreed, but balance can be/could be achieved without sacrificing the overtones!

 

[bigshot]

The 24 track is the tape recorder that was used to record and master just about all modern era LP records. It wasn't capable of recording frequencies above 20khz. So, even if the vinyl record itself is theoretically capable of reproducing above 20khz, it doesn't matter, because those frequencies aren't in the master recording.

The only way for frequencies above that to be present on a vinyl record is if they recorded direct to the cutting lathe with no tape recorder inbetween. There were a few audiophile LPs made that way back in the 70s and early 80s, but the process required recording straight through a whole 20 minute album side in one long continuous take... not easy on the musicians... It also limited the number of disks that could be pressed, because they had no master recording to use to cut new wax masters when the first one wore out.

See ya
Steve

 

[Ubijza]

bigshot
Right, I understand. The prof did say something about this as well; something like : "try to get recordings by *some german audio label* from *1960? 80? cant remeber*- they were truly great; after that everything went downhill... "so on so forth.
Do you agree with my mini rant on overtones?

Thanks for the interesting conversation!