[SpeakerBox]

It's funny your source is myths about vinyl...

So these sources are saying LP is 20KHZ. The best is your link on myths....which says "Commonly there is audio content up to 23-24 kHz on many vinyl records.". Again, I previously mentioned source content was up to 20khz...during the age of analog, there was no consistent >20khz reproduction.

Myths or not, these links support my assertion that vinyl can go beyond 20khz. One of links talks about the ability to successfully put 122khz (experimentally) on vinyl and the fact that quadraphonic had 50khz content which kind of blows the 20khz limit you had mentioned out of the water (not sure how they did it). I also wonder what direct to disk recording limits are also (going to look into that). Also I believe that newer audiophile recordings are not necessarily limited like the analog age recordings were. In any case this is a fascinating discussion that I consider valuable, although probably not changing hard held opinions. We have beat this horse pretty hard.

Edit: Here is another link that supports higher frequencies on vinyl and mentions that tape machines were flat to 20KHZ and rolled off at only 6 to 12 DB per octave. So there could be significant info at 40KHZ.

http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html

 

[Davesrose]

Myths or not, these links support my assertion that vinyl can go beyond 20khz. One of links talks about the ability to successfully put 122khz (experimentally) on vinyl and the fact the quadraphonic had 50khz content which kind of blows the 20khz limit you had mentioned out of the water (not sure how they did it). I also wonder what direct to disk recording limits are also (going to look into that). Also I believe that newer audiophile recordings are not necessarily limited like the analog age recordings were. In any case this is a fascinating discussion that I consider valuable, although probably not changing hard help opinions. We have beat this horse pretty hard.

I can't take ultra-high frequencies with vinyl seriously if there was a +-5-10 DB at 20khz. I do think it's odd that you're keen about ulra-high frequencies, which are going to be more accurate with digital recording, and then state your disdain for digital recordings.

 

[SpeakerBox]

I can't take ultra-high frequencies with vinyl seriously if there was a +-5-10 DB at 20khz. I do think it's odd that you're keen about ulra-high frequencies, which are going to be more accurate with digital recording, and then state your disdain for digital recordings.

Not really more accurate - there is a hard roll off at 22KHZ on CDs. The resulting phase shift is probably what I hear as harshness.

 

[Davesrose]

Not really more accurate - there is a hard roll off at 22KHZ on CDs. The resulting phase shift is probably what I hear as harshness.

I'm really skeptical that you could hear the difference at 20khz with whatever turntable or CD player you were listening to. I do think it more likely you're into the "musicality" of turn tables. You say you don't like CDs or SACDs, even though the high resolution digital technologies introduced have the best quantization and accuracy from a model standpoint.

 

[bigshot]

SpeakerBox, I'd answer point by point, but I don't think you really want any interaction. You just want us to validate your incorrect assumptions. That isn't going to happen in Sound Science. I'm afraid you might be becoming too defensive in your arguments. That limits your ability to learn from the people around you. Sound Science is very fortunate to have a lot of very knowledgeable people, and they are generous in their willingness to share. But your own attitude is going to determine if you can take advantage of that. If you're going to go into Dunning Krueger mode, you should probably just go back to the rest of Head-Fi where people can have opinions without being challenged.

 

[SpeakerBox]

SpeakerBox, I'd answer point by point, but I don't think you really want any interaction. You just want us to validate your incorrect assumptions. That isn't going to happen in Sound Science. I'm afraid you might be becoming too defensive in your arguments. That limits your ability to learn from the people around you. Sound Science is very fortunate to have a lot of very knowledgeable people, and they are generous in their willingness to share. But your own attitude is going to determine if you can take advantage of that. If you're going to go into Dunning Krueger mode, you should probably just go back to the rest of Head-Fi where people can have opinions without being challenged.

What do you think my assumptions are?

 

[bigshot]

You have quite a few assumptions about the source of the problems in your system..."Digital harshness" assumes that the harshness is caused by digital audio but you don't know that for sure. You assume that what you hear isn't influenced by bias and perceptual error due to lack of level matching and auditory memory. You assume that music contains super audible frequencies and those are what makes it sound good. You assume the advertorial and manufacturer tear sheets are telling you the truth. Honestly, with all those assumptions, I don't know why you even bother to post here. You believe you know everything you need to know. You aren't going to learn anything from us.

The big problem with your approach is that you think you can arrive at answers without asking questions. That is fine if you want to play it that way. But you're just wasting everyone's time, particularly your own. I don't choose to waste my time like that. If you want to listen and are willing to ask questions of yourself, I'll participate with you. If not, I'll talk past you to the other people in the thread and consider your comments as textual excelsior. That's what I do with a few people around here who are disingenuous like this.

Can you cite your source? As from my understanding, most vinyl is from studio tapes: which the best quality ones approached 20khz. There may be new pressings coming from digital productions...but from what I can see of the physical medium, vinyl is still not able to extend past 21khz.

ironically, a lot of his current LPs are mastered from digital sources. The fact that they don't have "digital harshness" by the time they are playing back on his turntable is proof that the upper frequencies are being rolled off.

I have about 10,000 records. I like records. But as much of a fan as I am, I don't claim that LPs have better sound fidelity than CDs. LPs are capable of sounding very good. But they can also be inconsistent and subject to all kinds of problems, from warping to surface noise to inner groove distortion. CDs are higher quality and more convenient.

 

[SpeakerBox]

ironically, a lot of his current LPs are mastered from digital sources. The fact that they don't have "digital harshness" by the time they are playing back on his turntable is proof that the upper frequencies are being rolled off.

I have about 10,000 records. I like records. But as much of a fan as I am, I don't claim that LPs have better sound fidelity than CDs. LPs are capable of sounding very good. But they can also be inconsistent and subject to all kinds of problems, from warping to surface noise to inner groove distortion. CDs are higher quality and more convenient.

How do you know how my records were mastered. Most of mine is vintage vinyl bought used in various local stores or given to me. The one digital master I have (Lee Ritenour / Earth Run) sounds like crap.

 

[bigshot]

I've actually produced music that has been released on LP, CD and on television. I've worked with people who did LP mastering.

As a record collector, you might be interested in seeing this... it's one wall in my library. This is about half of my record collection.

If you like Lee Ritenour, you should hear Six String Theory. It's in multichannel and sounds fantastic. One of the best sounding albums I've ever heard. Overtime is fantastic too.

 

[Davesrose]

ironically, a lot of his current LPs are mastered from digital sources. The fact that they don't have "digital harshness" by the time they are playing back on his turntable is proof that the upper frequencies are being rolled off.

I have about 10,000 records. I like records. But as much of a fan as I am, I don't claim that LPs have better sound fidelity than CDs. LPs are capable of sounding very good. But they can also be inconsistent and subject to all kinds of problems, from warping to surface noise to inner groove distortion. CDs are higher quality and more convenient.

Yeah, I have vinyl inherited from my granparents and mainly used records I've bought from record stores (also have a record cleaner to keep them in tip top shape). I've mainly just viewed records as a source for good studio masters before the 1980s. I've only bought one new record (a Jack White record)....mainly to see what one of the new hologram pressings looks like.

 

[SpeakerBox]

I've actually produced music that has been released on LP, CD and on television. I've worked with people who did LP mastering.

As a record collector, you might be interested in seeing this... it's one wall in my library. This is about half of my record collection.

Does this wall mean you know how my records were mastered?

 

[SpeakerBox]

So here is how I think this went:

1.) I said I thought I heard an improvement in sound using CAT5E.
2.) I was asked what equipment was passing high frequencies (although I never claimed to be sure the improvement was ultrasonics - it was a question).
3.) I listed the equipment out and was told vinyl can't do that.
4.) I gave references that said it can (although I never claimed to be sure I can hear ultrasonics).
5.) Have mentioned I don't like CDs.
6.) Was told they have better frequency response than vinyl.
7.) I showed that was not necessarily true.
8.) I'm told I have preconceived assumptions (what are they?).

Anyway - I do enjoy talking with you guys.

 

[bigshot]

I've mainly just viewed records as a source for good studio masters before the 1980s.

Some mastering is better, some worse. It all depends on the circumstances. The best part of LPs is that there is a lot of music that was never re-released on CD.

I have audiophile albums too... Sheffield Lab direct to discs, MFSL half speed mastered and their black box hand pulled pressings... I know how good an LP can sound. They can sound very very good. But I also know how good digital audio can sound. CDs are capable of sounding just as good as the master tape. That wasn't possible back in the era of LPs. It was always a compromise.

 

[SpeakerBox]

You have quite a few assumptions about the source of the problems in your system..."Digital harshness" assumes that the harshness is caused by digital audio but you don't know that for sure. You assume that what you hear isn't influenced by bias and perceptual error due to lack of level matching and auditory memory. You assume that music contains super audible frequencies and those are what makes it sound good. You assume the advertorial and manufacturer tear sheets are telling you the truth. Honestly, with all those assumptions, I don't know why you even bother to post here. You believe you know everything you need to know. You aren't going to learn anything from us.

Yes, I have assumed that that the harshness I hear is digital. Maybe a mistake - will give that. That said, I never said that I was in any way sure that higher frequencies made the improvement I heard, as posted earlier it was a question that I am still pondering. Yes, I tend to believe specs but agree they could be wrong - if you have better info I am listening. Contrary to what you think I am thinking I really enjoy the back and forth of this discussion and am not defensive - just trying to answer questions the best I can.

 

[bigshot]

The first thing to do would be to try to isolate the source of your problem. Do you have any friends with good home audio systems that play digital? You might listen to see if the problem is universal, or if it is limited to just your system. I seriously doubt that it is universal, because there are lots of hi fi nuts who love the sound of their CDs. I suggested that the harshness might be a high frequency response imbalance. You could check to see if that is the case by playing back a CD and adjusting the high end roll off with an equalizer. If you don't have one, you could try a primitive version of that by just turning down the treble control and seeing if the harshness goes away. it could also be capacitors going south. Is your amp old? It could also be your ears. I know that I am very sensitive to high level high frequency sound. An equalizer can fix that easily.

Harshness is not an inherent aspect of digital audio. It's an indication of some sort of imbalance or distortion in the way you are playing it back. Isolating where that imbalance is would be the first thing to try to track down. If you know where it's occurring you can correct it.