[sonitus mirus]

Not again.
 
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)
 

Myth: Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids anti-aliasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce[edit]

The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50 kHz and perhaps as high as 100 kHz. The most notable proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45 kHz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Amplitude deviations of 5-10 dB or greater are not uncommon in the 20 kHz range for many records.

More discussion: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98178

Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.

When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern styli this is not as much of a concern, though.

There are rarely, if ever, any ultrasonic frequencies for vinyl to preserve. In audio recordings, such frequencies, when present, are normally low-energy noise imparted by electrical equipment and storage media used during recording, mixing, and mastering. Although some musical instruments can produce low-energy overtones in the ultrasonic range, they could only be on the vinyl if every piece of equipment and storage medium in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages was able to preserve them—which is unlikely even in modern recordings, since the average microphone or mixing console is designed only with audible frequencies in mind. Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a low-pass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies.

Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22 kHz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, or that such frequencies affect anyone's perception of the audible range. There is no evidence that reconstruction and anti-aliasing issues are audible.

 

 

[wnmnkh]

As a one doing needledrop on my vinyl recordings, here is a tip: If you capture noise signature on 'silent' part of the records, then apply noise reduction, almost all of those high frequency responses magically disappear. They are not definitely coming from the microphone. They are noise created by mechanical imperfections of vinyl gears.

 

[reginalb]

  Not again.
 
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)
 
 

 
One thing that I'm not sure is correct is the quoted section is that there is no evidence that ultrasonics affect people's perception of the audible range. I thought ultrasonics were known to cause distortion in the audible range. So while you can't hear them, you can perceive them (in that they screw up audible sound). So we know that they can't be captured by recording equipment, and that it's actually noise created by the recording gear. And if you play it back, it can screw up the sound you're actually supposed to hear. Thus it's another argument that vinyl is inferior to CD. No?

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
One thing that I'm not sure is correct is the quoted section is that there is no evidence that ultrasonics affect people's perception of the audible range. I thought ultrasonics were known to cause distortion in the audible range. So while you can't hear them, you can perceive them (in that they screw up audible sound). So we know that they can't be captured by recording equipment, and that it's actually noise created by the recording gear. And if you play it back, it can screw up the sound you're actually supposed to hear. Thus it's another argument that vinyl is inferior to CD. No?

 
Yes, it seems that you may very well be right.
 
While I have not seen the listening test results or the methodology used, it is suggested that ultrasonics can potentially create audible IMD.
 
Quote:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.
 
Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.

 
Quote:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
There are a few ways to avoid the extra distortion:
 

• A dedicated ultrasonic-only speaker, amplifier, and crossover stage to separate and independently reproduce the ultrasonics you can't hear, just so they don't mess up the sounds you can.
• Amplifiers and transducers designed for wider frequency reproduction, so ultrasonics don't cause audible intermodulation. Given equal expense and complexity, this additional frequency range must come at the cost of some performance reduction in the audible portion of the spectrum.
• Speakers and amplifiers carefully designed not to reproduce ultrasonics anyway.
• Not encoding such a wide frequency range to begin with. You can't and won't have ultrasonic intermodulation distortion in the audible band if there's no ultrasonic content.

 
They all amount to the same thing, but only 4) makes any sense.

 
To make matters worse for LP lovers, it seems probable that any ultrasonics being played back are generated by equipment-related noise during the recording, mixing, and mastering processes, and not from musical instruments.  This noise could potentially be making the music sound worse.  

 

[dprimary]

   
One thing that I'm not sure is correct is the quoted section is that there is no evidence that ultrasonics affect people's perception of the audible range. I thought ultrasonics were known to cause distortion in the audible range. So while you can't hear them, you can perceive them (in that they screw up audible sound). So we know that they can't be captured by recording equipment, and that it's actually noise created by the recording gear. And if you play it back, it can screw up the sound you're actually supposed to hear. Thus it's another argument that vinyl is inferior to CD. No?

Yes, that is correct. It is pretty common have ultrasonics problems causing distortions in the audible range. About every case of something being audible over 20Kz is traced down to an ultrasonic problem causing distortions in the 10 to16K range.  Some professional amplifiers detect excess ultrasonic content and will activate a protection circuit to keep equipment from being destroyed. Consumer equipment will just burn up the speakers or headphone and you won't know why without test equipment. The example in the video might activate the protection in an amp. What he sees as proof I see as something seriously wrong. There just is not that much ultrasonic content in extended bandwidth recordings. 
 
 
In the article judgmentday linked to but apparently did not read. They ran into problems of huge amounts of 122KHz signal overloading the cutting head circuits and overheating the cutting head. A perfect example of ultrasonic causing major problems.
Now it looks like they cut it half speed so the head was running at 61KHz. It is hard to say if anything has chance of tracking that frequency. 
 
Quote:

 
Vinyl have been recorded @ 122kHz, see this:
http://positive-feedback.com/Issue2/mastering.htm
 

 
Bias current is about 3-6 times the level used to record the audio frequencies. If that was to make it back through your playback system the factory installed smoke would be let out through most of your system. As mentioned in the article they recut it after filtering the bias back out. The bias is normally filtered out to prevent this. Analog recording and playback has tons of filters and other processes in the chain to get it work at all. In analog recording you had to know tape and tape machines very well. You would adjust things, like bias levels, tape speed, even formula and brand, to the best compromise for what you planned on recording. It would take about an hour to do the minor calibrations on a 24 track and half track machines required before each session. Yes big 300-400 pound tape machines looked really cool but they required tons of constant work.

 

[jdriver]

So you prefer vinyl over digital. Good on you. But the basic sound of a stylus riding in a groove is a significant noise source by itself and thus to me makes it a non-starter. Add to that the permanent clicks and pops that come with the first and every subsequent playing. And I won't even get into how the high frequencies are basically wiped off the vinyl with each subsequent play.
 
Let's not kid ourselves, digital recording and playback technology has only become more pristine as the years have passed. Studio recording techniques are far more critical to achieving superior playback. We have state of the art gear in our pockets that would have cost thousands of dollars 15 years ago. Hell, even 5 years ago.
 
And that video? *facepalm* Imagining audible hypersonics from vinyl is exactly that, imaginary.

 

[jcx]

not imagining - just not questioning/testing audibility - or even giving a clear readable dB axis

 

[hogger129]

Vinyl produces more frequency than a CD?  Yeah maybe if you are counting the surface noise.  If you are measuring the actual music, give me a break.  That's not even considering that you can't hear frequencies outside the range of human hearing anyway.  If you like listening to vinyl records, cool.  But please don't try to make up facts to try to prove some non-existent superiority.

 

[cjl]

  Vinyl produces more frequency than a CD?  Yeah maybe if you are counting the surface noise.  If you are measuring the actual music, give me a break.  That's not even considering that you can't hear frequencies outside the range of human hearing anyway.  If you like listening to vinyl records, cool.  But please don't try to make up facts to try to prove some non-existent superiority.

Vinyl can definitely go up to 30+kHz in ideal conditions. You don't need that for audibly perfect sound reproduction, true, but with the right equipment, you can definitely get higher frequencies out of vinyl than out of a CD.

 

[jcx]

did someone not actually watch the OP video?
 
vinyl tracking limits make for severe amplitude limitation for increasingly high frequencies - likely even just assuming masking curves continued above 20 kHz would mean most "ultrasonic" harmonic content shown on the video wouldn't be audible given the amplitude of the fundamental and <20 kHz content even if human hearing sensitivity didn't drop like rock near 20 kHz

 

[hogger129]

  Vinyl can definitely go up to 30+kHz in ideal conditions. You don't need that for audibly perfect sound reproduction, true, but with the right equipment, you can definitely get higher frequencies out of vinyl than out of a CD.

 
You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

 

[jcx]

very odd comment - the fact is that vinyl does allow recording, playing back over 40 kHz - look up Quadraphonic recordings
 
its just that the amplitude that can be recorded, played on vinyl drops in proportion to increasing frequency above ~5-10 kHz
 
CD can't handle any audio content at all above the 22 kHz Nyquist frequency
 
vinyl simply does have the greater extension of frequencies as shown in 1st post video - that part isn't questioned by any understanding the technology
 
 
CD is much better everywhere below 20 kHz in amplitude flatness, smaller distortion, timing errors, better S/N when noise shaped dither is used (basically universally for several decades now)
 
but vinyl can have extended frequency response - where there is little good evidence we can hear

 

[reginalb]

 
but vinyl can have extended frequency response - where there is little good evidence we can hear

 
But again, where there is evidence that it can distort the stuff that we can hear. 

 

[Speedskater]

  Vinyl can definitely go up to 30+kHz in ideal conditions. You don't need that for audibly perfect sound reproduction, true, but with the right equipment, you can definitely get higher frequencies out of vinyl than out of a CD.

This is definitely true. Ticks and pops will make up much of this high frequency energy. But if we were to examine the sweep frequency response of different cartridge & pre-amp combinations, we would see that  the  curve resembles a roller coaster ride with huge peeks and dips.

 

[cjl]

   
You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

I could say the same thing back at you. It is quite factual that vinyl can encode well above 20kHz, though I haven't seen data on the signal to noise ratio or distortion at those high frequencies (I suspect they aren't great). Look up the CD-4 quadraphonic LP for example - in order to work, it absolutely required that the LP be able to reproduce signals as high as 45kHz, and it did indeed work. It really isn't a matter of debate whether LPs are capable of this kind of frequency response.
 
Now, in practice, the great majority of LPs will not contain anything but noise at these higher frequencies, and the vast majority of LP playback systems wouldn't play back such high frequencies anyways (and even if they could, there is no evidence that it would audibly change or improve sound quality), but it is absolutely a provable fact that vinyl is capable of 40+kHz frequency extension.