[bigshot]

I know all of the above.

Great! Then you know that upper frequencies don't exist in typical vinyl records or even in typical music, and you know that those frequencies have no impact on perceived sound quality. So therefore, it's very nice in theory if a cartridge can reproduce above 20kHz, but it has no practical reason to need to do that because those frequencies don't exist and they don't contribute to sound quality.

We're agreed! No reason to read or reply to anything more on this topic. Thanks!

Whew! This was beginning to seem like a cocktail party where one guy insists on dominating the discussion by going on and on about his own brand of religion or politics, when everyone else just wants to visit with each other and find out what's new. I'm glad we've gotten that out of our systems now.

 

[analogsurviver]

yeah, yeah. find anything with the potential to make some sound above 20khz no matter the actual level of fidelity, and call it superior to CD. this fallacy could pretty much have your name now. when you argue about that for DSD and highres vs CD, I lack evidence that it makes an audible difference, but at least I can grasp why you'd desire always MORE samples and higher frequency limit as a fidelity principle. in a 'why? because we can' kind of way. but the second you put vinyl above CD as a reproduction medium, you shoot yourself in the foot with an atomic bomb. and you do it all the time.
if only you could do like many folks here, just have your sample rate fetish on one hand, and your love of vinyl sound and turntable tweaks on the other, without foolishly trying to justify vinyls objectively with ultrasonic content. then you might start to make sense to us. several would still disagree, but in a "I think it's not audible" or "I don't like vinyl playback". that sort of disagreement. not the kind we have here where we can't help but question you sanity or honesty, because we have now pretty much ruled out the other options.

Well, I DO have a fetish. It is called as close resemblance to the live sound. Analogue record just happened to be the first medium to start to approach it - under the best possible conditions, at a price.

You will not like the answer WHY I bought my first CD player. From my postings, it could - obviously - not been for music listening. What then ? Well, try to buy a sine wave signal genereator for approx the outlay of an entry level CD - that has anything the THD spec as SINE WAVES from a test CD record played on said CD player. But, it is limited to 20 kHz, really usable to like 17 or so kHz, as back then CD players were not so nearly 100% linear all the way to 20 kHz as they are today.

I will post the DSD and some - rare in my case - 192/24 recordings. However - and that is a BIG HOWEVER - the way both you personally and most of the members on this thread react to "anything > 20 kHz is revelant" makes me more than a little bit hesitant to do so . Why ? I can not judge from afar, I have not listened to anyone's system ( be it loudspeaker or headphone based ) - but the notion ">20kHz does not matter" must have had some influence on selecting the components for anyone's system.

I can see - and hear, despite the age and attendant HF sine wave hearing capability loss - that a >20k or >>20K source would be lost on barely to 20 k - or even less - end transducer - be it speakers or headphone. Likewise, I can hear - when using everything wideband after the source - if the source is the limitting factor. And here the CD always fells short. The most audible - to me - are the following two things :

1.) When the source has an unusually high rate changing its volume over VERY short periods of time
2.) Sheer capability to depict the acousics venue - including all dimensions/directions

I wish I could *somehow* stash analogue sound in this pile of silicium and send it over internet over to your piles of silicium - unfortunately, this is no go.

So, for the most acid test of analogue record ( or HR - if available ) vs RBCD heard "live", not over internet ( obvious impossibility )
I would most probably use one of the songs by Lisa Gerrard - for the clarity ( no accompanying instruments or voices ) it would most probably be this one :



If that would not be convincing enough, this one is certain ( on high enough quality playback system ) to silence even the most rabid RBCD supporters :



The limited LP release ( from 1997 ) had the audacity to print

aaa

on the record jacket - a jab at the SPARSE codes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code printed on the early CD releases ( AAD, ADD, DDD ).

The reason WHY these two releases ( there are TWO volumes of Soul Connection, Vol.1 and Vol.2 ) have been afforded such lavish treatment in an othervise pretty rational catalogue of ENJA Records could not be simpler. The technique of trumpet playing of Dusko Goykowich is , if not unique, then cetrainly extraordinary - and you are NOT going to hear it on any RBCD.
What on analogue record ( I have to check if HR version exists ...) is brimming with life, is barely "meh" on the CD. Huge difference.

Or, in other words; the first one is the one that could fool you into thinking it is played live - as heard from the open window on the first floor on the pavement below. The second would have been DEFINITELY perceived as a recording.

Now... - was that honest enough for your taste ?

 

[castleofargh]

for vinyl I'll just conclude that you can't take your love googles off even for a second to see that it doesn't make sense at any level from measurement to engineering approach, to consider it superior in reproducing sound. just pressing a shape then have what are basically 2 transducers in series to turn the shapes into electrical signal, that should give anybody a clue that fidelity is not going to be great. in a playback chain, transducers are always the most drastic limiters in replicating a signal with high fidelity. anyway, we've discussed your belief to death, clearly evidences are never going to be worth anything against your subjective impressions and love story.






for ultrasounds having an audible impact on our experience of music, at a personal level I just have a lifetime of failure to setup a test where I would be able to tell 16/44 from higher rates(not counting all the times I could because the DAC or the playback app was screwing around). I also have my limited(not a doctor!) understanding of the hearing mechanism. with the typical acoustic rules, like how higher frequencies are more likely to be attenuated when trying to pass through different materials, like a eardrum and all the cool/weird stuff in our ear. I learned about this:

the accepted model of hearing so far has been pretty consistent and new discoveries only further confirm the basic principles. the vibrations that reach the cochlea enter in resonance at a given position depending on the frequency coming in, so the cells are more significantly triggered in the resonance area and our brain can deduce from which cells fired, the frequency and intensity of the sound. some frequencies are so slow that it is hypothesized that the brain relies more on the firing speed of the cells than just on the position, but for ultrasounds the cells simply can't follow the speed, so that's a dead end.

we're left with the position where the resonance occurs to perceive it. and that's the entrance for high freqs. the graph shows 20khz right on the base, that's not right and only is a simplified graph based on the assumption that 20khz is the limit of our hearing. in principle some cell can be triggered by even a very high frequency, the resonance point will just be right at the entrance and the energy will get almost totally dissipated by the rigidity of the bony stuff(not a doctor^_^) before it has traveled almost any distance inside the cochlea. but if there are cells there, some reaction can be expected with a high enough amplitude signal. it will still be a small reaction because the covered area will be tiny, and get tinier with a higher frequency up to the point where indeed we will simply have nothing to register the signal at all. but a reaction is possible for for freqs low enough to reach some cells. I wouldn't put much hope for anything above 25khz though.
the tiny little problem with that ray of hope, is how the cells right at the entrance are stimulated by basically all sounds all the time. it won't resonate right there, but it also won't be attenuated much if at all. so the amount of false positive is obviously going to be tremendous, making it unlikely for the brain to strongly rely on them firing to deduce anything. also the cells in that area are notoriously the first ones to get damaged or plain broken in service of the sound nation. and it happens because they are the most stimulated in the all system. basic rule of wear.
we have no reason to doubt that, it fits the acoustic and mechanical model. and is also clearly demonstrated by how kids can hear much higher than we do, and how the upper range is, outside of specific accidents, the first part to go in human hearing as we age and life goes on. so once you lose the few working cells in that high freq area with age, you're basically done with upper freqs. the chances for the smaller area with fewer cells receiving the most energy at the entrance to keep cells in working conditions, are really not something I would bet on, even if we did have them at birth. which is IMO a real issue when you wish to claim that you're perceiving the difference between having ultrasounds and not having them.

this model does not contradict listening tests. it is confirmed by guys who literally plug themselves onto the nerves going to the hair cells and measure what comes out of it when sounds are sent into the ear. so we can all be pretty confident about this. the only stuff I couldn't find a clear answer to, is how the cells are somehow in small groups with like a loner on the side and I can't find if that loner has a specific role or is just somehow a physiological accident. that's my real mystery so far about hearing. but I can't think of any excuse concept where that would explain ultrasounds being perceived. so here I am, with contemporary models following in a very intuitive way the known rules of acoustic and agreeing with listening tests, that we don't hear crap above a certain frequency. and that this threshold goes down with age as more cells are damaged at the entrance where high freqs are registered.

even if we were to dismiss all this and only rely on the propagation of frequencies and how many cells will fire up when face with a given frequency, higher freqs are still the clear loser as they get the fewer number or activations out of all other sounds. which is yet another logical reason not to consider ultrasounds as important as the correctly called audible range, even for a kid for whom ultrasounds up to a point are still audible.



and to oppose all that, I have your self confidence. please don't blame me for not placing much trust in that.

 

[pinnahertz]

I can see - and hear, despite the age and attendant HF sine wave hearing capability loss - that a >20k or >>20K source would be lost on barely to 20 k - or even less - end transducer - be it speakers or headphone. Likewise, I can hear - when using everything wideband after the source - if the source is the limitting factor. And here the CD always fells short. The most audible - to me - are the following two things :

1.) When the source has an unusually high rate changing its volume over VERY short periods of time
2.) Sheer capability to depict the acousics venue - including all dimensions/directions

I wish I could *somehow* stash analogue sound in this pile of silicium and send it over internet over to your piles of silicium - unfortunately, this is no go.

So, for the most acid test of analogue record ( or HR - if available ) vs RBCD heard "live", not over internet ( obvious impossibility )
I would most probably use one of the songs by Lisa Gerrard - for the clarity ( no accompanying instruments or voices ) it would most probably be this one :

Note the bold text above. Let's just see....

Here's the actual spectrum of the above recording:

If that would not be convincing enough, this one is certain ( on high enough quality playback system ) to silence even the most rabid RBCD supporters :

And here's the actual spectrum of the second example which is, by the way, a MONO recording as posted.

The reason WHY these two releases ( there are TWO volumes of Soul Connection, Vol.1 and Vol.2 ) have been afforded such lavish treatment in an othervise pretty rational catalogue of ENJA Records could not be simpler. The technique of trumpet playing of Dusko Goykowich is , if not unique, then cetrainly extraordinary - and you are NOT going to hear it on any RBCD.
What on analogue record ( I have to check if HR version exists ...) is brimming with life, is barely "meh" on the CD. Huge difference.

Or, in other words; the first one is the one that could fool you into thinking it is played live - as heard from the open window on the first floor on the pavement below. The second would have been DEFINITELY perceived as a recording.

Now... - was that honest enough for your taste ?

Not a bit. It's the usual audiophool nonsense.

First, there is no way for a recording to replicate a live event, and that's NOT the goal. Recordings have an entirely different purpose, which is to offer something which suggests the intentions of the producer, as heard via his monitors, which, in turn, represents the key characteristics of an event OR, more typically, represents an entirely unique sonic event that never has occurred anywhere before it was heard during the final mix.

Second, if you weren't there for the actual Lisa Gerard concert, who the heck would you now what it sounded like? You don't have any idea, so you have no frame of reference. Nothing about what was delivered on that recording was challenging for any professional recording system of the last 50 years.

As to the Dusko Goykowich...something's gone wrong here. You've posted a MONO recording to represent how the guy sounded live???? And check out THAT spectrum. So, this was recorded on a cassette then?

So...no evidence provided (as usual), argument failed. Your point 1. is complete nonsense, your point 2. not illustrated by the examples.

And, weeks and weeks after this pointless debate began, you have yet to post ANY ACTUAL DATA or EXAMPLES to substantiate any of your ridiculous claims. Not a single one. Hardly what anyone would call being a "survivor"! I'd use the term "fanatic" without reservation, though.

We talk about Sound Science here. Fanaticism has no place in the discussion. Arguments must be substantiated with evidence and data.

 

[pinnahertz]

You will not like the answer WHY I bought my first CD player. From my postings, it could - obviously - not been for music listening. What then ? Well, try to buy a sine wave signal genereator for approx the outlay of an entry level CD - that has anything the THD spec as SINE WAVES from a test CD record played on said CD player. But, it is limited to 20 kHz, really usable to like 17 or so kHz, as back then CD players were not so nearly 100% linear all the way to 20 kHz as they are today.

Based on that you must have purchased your first CD player in the mid 1990s when the cost came down substantially. There have been perfectly fine sine wave generators available at less cost than CD players from the inception of the CD until then. And there have always been inexpensive used test equipment for those who really needed something on a tight budget. Even in small European countries.

I will post the DSD and some - rare in my case - 192/24 recordings.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet against that.

 

[analogsurviver]

Note the bold text above. Let's just see....

Here's the actual spectrum of the above recording:

And here's the actual spectrum of the second example which is, by the way, a MONO recording as posted.

Not a bit. It's the usual audiophool nonsense.

First, there is no way for a recording to replicate a live event, and that's NOT the goal. Recordings have an entirely different purpose, which is to offer something which suggests the intentions of the producer, as heard via his monitors, which, in turn, represents the key characteristics of an event OR, more typically, represents an entirely unique sonic event that never has occurred anywhere before it was heard during the final mix.

Second, if you weren't there for the actual Lisa Gerard concert, who the heck would you now what it sounded like? You don't have any idea, so you have no frame of reference. Nothing about what was delivered on that recording was challenging for any professional recording system of the last 50 years.

As to the Dusko Goykowich...something's gone wrong here. You've posted a MONO recording to represent how the guy sounded live???? And check out THAT spectrum. So, this was recorded on a cassette then?

So...no evidence provided (as usual), argument failed. Your point 1. is complete nonsense, your point 2. not illustrated by the examples.

And, weeks and weeks after this pointless debate began, you have yet to post ANY ACTUAL DATA or EXAMPLES to substantiate any of your ridiculous claims. Not a single one. Hardly what anyone would call being a "survivor"! I'd use the term "fanatic" without reservation, though.

We talk about Sound Science here. Fanaticism has no place in the discussion. Arguments must be substantiated with evidence and data.

Hey @pinnahertz - since when is Youtube video a high quality audio source ? It does NOT support even RBCD, let alone HR ; the highest it gets is 48kHz sampling in a few (one? ) compressed formats . Please stop mocking yourself with the spectral analysis of YT videos...

These samples were only posted as some information about the music. Here the real deal(s) :

https://www.discogs.com/Dead-Can-Dance-Toward-The-Within/release/518176

https://www.discogs.com/Dusko-Goykovich-Soul-Connection-Vol-I/release/9852254

About the mono thing on YT ... - for some inexplicabe reason(s?) , sometimes the YT upload will end in mono - no matter what. Did happen with one of my recordings, and after several attempts and re-uplads and whatnots things did not progress a single bit, I demanded to be removed from the credits. What ended on YT was not even a pale shadow of the 48/16 file I supplied for the video purpose, let alone the DSD128 master.

The "joys" of digital - sometimes, we just can not make it work. Using the very same procedure for other YT videos worked just fine ...

I did took a delivery of a - to me new - used vintage turntable I have been eyeballing for almost a year. It is something still flying under the radar of all but the most determined. It entered a very rarefied group of TTs " Show me a TT that cost you less than the new currently in print NORMAL analogue record LP ( say no more than 30 $, prior to shipping ) with decent>excellent performance " . Naturally, one can not expect a used TT at anything even approaching this price to still have a good functioning cartridge/stylus, so fitting a really decent cartridge < 500 $ is allowed. And that is exactly what I am going to do right now - as I do have another sample of the cartridge needed currently not being precisely mounted to any other tonearm/headshell/turntable that can use the stylus that is still available and has been even improved recently. This sample I do have of this stylus has the most extended and most linear frequency response I have yet seen - IF helped a bit by a normal, smooth treble control - since back in 1973, when this cartridge has been made and produced to ?, no magnetic material with for all practical purposes zero loss with increasing frequency did not exist yet. That came a couple of years later, but definitely by 1979. Stylus itself is Jico SAS, discontinued about a year ago but still available at some dealers. So, with the little help of tone control (smooth rise from 1kHz, approx +1 dB @20 KhZ, approx +4dB@60 kHz ( to compensate for the magnetic material loss ), this thing produces the closest approximation to the perfect square wave of any audio device I have yet seen - with the possible exception to the > 192kHz sampling . Its sccaning radius is 2.5 micron /0.1 mil , which means in practice less than 2 dB difference in level at 20kHz between the outer and innermost grooves of a 33 1/3 RPM record. This cart/stylus in the innermost grooves, where the performance of analogue record is at the lowest, still runs rings around the RBCD as far as frequency response is concerned.

I will record both frequency response from a test record up to 67500 Hz as well as samples from the two LPs mentioned above. Since the HR files are huge, I have yet to decide which upload provider to choose - DSD128 12 minutes 40 seconds is 1GB , and agreed upon for this thread 192/24 PCM is not much smaller either...

 

[TheSonicTruth]

High-Res Deliverables: Satisfying dogs around the world for nearly ten years!!

 

[bfreedma]

Hey @pinnahertz - since when is Youtube video a high quality audio source ? It does NOT support even RBCD, let alone HR ; the highest it gets is 48kHz sampling in a few (one? ) compressed formats . Please stop mocking yourself with the spectral analysis of YT videos...

These samples were only posted as some information about the music. Here the real deal(s) :

https://www.discogs.com/Dead-Can-Dance-Toward-The-Within/release/518176

https://www.discogs.com/Dusko-Goykovich-Soul-Connection-Vol-I/release/9852254

About the mono thing on YT ... - for some inexplicabe reason(s?) , sometimes the YT upload will end in mono - no matter what. Did happen with one of my recordings, and after several attempts and re-uplads and whatnots things did not progress a single bit, I demanded to be removed from the credits. What ended on YT was not even a pale shadow of the 48/16 file I supplied for the video purpose, let alone the DSD128 master.

The "joys" of digital - sometimes, we just can not make it work. Using the very same procedure for other YT videos worked just fine ...

I did took a delivery of a - to me new - used vintage turntable I have been eyeballing for almost a year. It is something still flying under the radar of all but the most determined. It entered a very rarefied group of TTs " Show me a TT that cost you less than the new currently in print NORMAL analogue record LP ( say no more than 30 $, prior to shipping ) with decent>excellent performance " . Naturally, one can not expect a used TT at anything even approaching this price to still have a good functioning cartridge/stylus, so fitting a really decent cartridge < 500 $ is allowed. And that is exactly what I am going to do right now - as I do have another sample of the cartridge needed currently not being precisely mounted to any other tonearm/headshell/turntable that can use the stylus that is still available and has been even improved recently. This sample I do have of this stylus has the most extended and most linear frequency response I have yet seen - IF helped a bit by a normal, smooth treble control - since back in 1973, when this cartridge has been made and produced to ?, no magnetic material with for all practical purposes zero loss with increasing frequency did not exist yet. That came a couple of years later, but definitely by 1979. Stylus itself is Jico SAS, discontinued about a year ago but still available at some dealers. So, with the little help of tone control (smooth rise from 1kHz, approx +1 dB @20 KhZ, approx +4dB@60 kHz ( to compensate for the magnetic material loss ), this thing produces the closest approximation to the perfect square wave of any audio device I have yet seen - with the possible exception to the > 192kHz sampling . Its sccaning radius is 2.5 micron /0.1 mil , which means in practice less than 2 dB difference in level at 20kHz between the outer and innermost grooves of a 33 1/3 RPM record. This cart/stylus in the innermost grooves, where the performance of analogue record is at the lowest, still runs rings around the RBCD as far as frequency response is concerned.

I will record both frequency response from a test record up to 67500 Hz as well as samples from the two LPs mentioned above. Since the HR files are huge, I have yet to decide which upload provider to choose - DSD128 12 minutes 40 seconds is 1GB , and agreed upon for this thread 192/24 PCM is not much smaller either...

Since YouTube isn't acceptable, why did you post it as evidence? And blaming YouTube for mono rather than you, the uploader? Considering track record, "the dog ate my homework" doesn't resonate for me.

Still searching for a internet file storage site to post your evidence online? Perhaps fewer long posts would allow you the time to find it and post the various "proof" you've been touting as having for several years. I'm still staying up nights waiting for you to post the hard evidence you claimed to have around the measurable improvements made via using CD mats....

 

[71 dB]

Ten years ago or so I recorded a vinyl record with 88200 Hz sample rate out of curiosity with Olympus LS-5. Here is the magnitude spectrum of the A-side track, 60 seconds section from 2 minute mark to 3 minute mark:

Now, The spectrum starts to drop fast at 10 kHz and at 20 kHz it's about 60 dB below the highest levels between 60-100 Hz. It's ridiculous to think filtering frequencies above 20 kHz would make any kind of audible difference and in my case the age of 47 makes it impossible for me to hear much anything above 16 kHz. The vinyl in question is The Beatmasters with Merlin - Who's in the House - LEFT 31T - Rhythm King Records 1989.

 

[Steve999]

Interesting. Is the stuff below 50 hz low frequency rumble? I thought LPs had trouble going below 50 hz. Has it gotten better?

Ten years ago or so I recorded a vinyl record with 88200 Hz sample rate out of curiosity with Olympus LS-5. Here is the magnitude spectrum of the A-side track, 60 seconds section from 2 minute mark to 3 minute mark:



Now, The spectrum starts to drop fast at 10 kHz and at 20 kHz it's about 60 dB below the highest levels between 60-100 Hz. It's ridiculous to think filtering frequencies above 20 kHz would make any kind of audible difference and in my case the age of 47 makes it impossible for me to hear much anything above 16 kHz. The vinyl in question is The Beatmasters with Merlin - Who's in the House - LEFT 31T - Rhythm King Records 1989.

 

[71 dB]

Interesting. Is the stuff below 50 hz low frequency rumble? I thought LPs had trouble going below 50 hz. Has it gotten better?

The stuff below 20 Hz is all rumble. It's easy to filter away, but this is raw recording.

 

[KeithEmo]

I am ABSOLUTELY going to avoid "yet another discussion about what cannot possibly be audible".....

HOWEVER, I feel obligated to point out something about the graph included here....

We have a single graph representing the energy spectrum summed over a 60 second period of the sample.
By definition, this means that what we see on that graph is an average, taken over that 60 second interval.
So, for example, the amount of energy in that sample at 20 kHz, WHEN SUMMED OVER A SIXTY SECOND PERIOD, is about 60 dB lower than the average for the entire audio spectrum.
This shows that the average amount of energy at 20 kHz is quite low (and probably insignificant.).

However......
- by definition, averaging the result eliminates our ability to see short term variations
- we could get that result if the energy level at 20 kHz was a smooth consistent -60 dB over the entire 60 second period
- we could ALSO get the SAME result if the energy level at 20 kHz was -80 dB for 58 seconds, but our sample also included a 20 kHz tone at -20 dB for 2 seconds

If you want to suggest that "in the entire recording there is nothing significant at 20 kHz" then you need to show that the level of 20 kHz content never reaches a significant level AT ANY SINGLE TIME DURING THE RECORDING.
For that you would want to use a PEAK indicator of some sort.
Most programs that offer signal analysis will offer the ability of tracking peaks....
- so you would want to show that "the highest peak level of signal content at 20 Khz NEVER EXCEEDED" some low number (maybe -60 dB).
- simply showing that the average is very low may suggest that "there isn't much there", but doesn't suggest that "there isn't occasionally something significant there for short periods of time".

In layman's terms, if I were to sit here and tap on my coffee mug with my pencil every few seconds, and record and analyze the resulting sound....
The AVERAGE sound level would be very very low.... but the individual taps, each of which was quite loud, but only for a very brief interval of time, would be clearly audible.
So, if you were attempting to prove "whether there were audible sounds or not", a graph of the average would be the wrong tool for the job.

If the recording itself is limited to frequencies below 20 kHz, then we would expect the PEAK level at 20 kHz to NEVER significantly exceed the noise floor.
(Or, if it does exceed the noise floor on occasion, we would want to show that those excurssions were caused by noise spikes, perhaps caused by surface ticks, rather than by potentially useful musical content.)

Ten years ago or so I recorded a vinyl record with 88200 Hz sample rate out of curiosity with Olympus LS-5. Here is the magnitude spectrum of the A-side track, 60 seconds section from 2 minute mark to 3 minute mark:



Now, The spectrum starts to drop fast at 10 kHz and at 20 kHz it's about 60 dB below the highest levels between 60-100 Hz. It's ridiculous to think filtering frequencies above 20 kHz would make any kind of audible difference and in my case the age of 47 makes it impossible for me to hear much anything above 16 kHz. The vinyl in question is The Beatmasters with Merlin - Who's in the House - LEFT 31T - Rhythm King Records 1989.

 

[Steve999]

Sorry to go OT here. I have not been feeling well the last couple of days and so have been posting a lot. I'll go away more probably starting tomorrow, nose back to the grindstone.

But Dusko Goykovich! He was always being played on the Music Choice jazz audio channel on Comcast cable in its early days. And I'd sit there like, who the heck is this Dusko Goykovich? It became [edit: the subject of a significant amount of interest--thanks AnalogSurviver!].

As for signals over 20 khz having a perceptual effect on humans, I really, truly want to be open to new evidence, but right now I'd have to say I'm a non-believer. If someone showed me a controlled study showing the opposite or even tending to break some new ground I'd definitely take a good look. I can imagine reasons it could be otherwise, heck, I could make some up just for fun, but seriously, not based on what I've seen, read, and heard, I really don't think so. The posting of the ear diagram was great. I like learning. I also like being silly. And I'm also a professionally trained arguer. I'm legitimately sorry if the three come together in an unfortunate and disruptive way sometimes. I will try to use my powers for the forces of good instead of chaos.

Now that a cartridge might be able to track to 50 khz, color me impressed and fascinated. But it's not relevant to the audio chain based on my understanding of things.

I'd say the diagram of the ear structure and the corresponding frequencies, with the caveats provided, belong in first post of the sticky thread. People need to see why about these things, in an accessible form, not just that studies they don't understand are not consistent with their beliefs in cold and foreboding black fonts.

And bigshot's post about loudness controls yesterday, that belongs in the first post of the sticky thread too, IMHO. So much confusion and argument on that subject finally put to rest.

As to the Dusko Goykowich...something's gone wrong here.

 

[pinnahertz]

Hey @pinnahertz - since when is Youtube video a high quality audio source ? It does NOT support even RBCD, let alone HR ; the highest it gets is 48kHz sampling in a few (one? ) compressed formats . Please stop mocking yourself with the spectral analysis of YT videos...

You are the one posting them as “evidence”. Just look at the spectrum before the 15kHz LPF and extrapolate. You think that will make any difference at all?

About the mono thing on YT ... - for some inexplicabe reason(s?) , sometimes the YT upload will end in mono - no matter what. Did happen with one of my recordings, and after several attempts and re-uplads and whatnots things did not progress a single bit, I demanded to be removed from the credits. What ended on YT was not even a pale shadow of the 48/16 file I supplied for the video purpose, let alone the DSD128 master.

It’s operator error. YouTube doesn’t randomly change anything.m

The "joys" of digital - sometimes, we just can not make it work. Using the very same procedure for other YT videos worked just fine ...

No, you’ve made an error. YouTube does not change audio randomly, it’s fully predictable.

 

[analogsurviver]

Sorry to go OT here. I have not been feeling well the last couple of days and so have been posting a lot. I'll go away more probably starting tomorrow, nose back to the grindstone.

But Dusko Goykovich! He was always being played on the Music Choice jazz audio channel on Comcast cable in its early days. And I'd sit there like, who the heck is this Dusko Guykovich? It became a running joke for me. And here he is!

As for signals over 20 khz having a perceptual effect on humans, I really, truly want to be open to new evidence, but right now I'd have to say I'm a non-believer. If someone showed me a controlled study showing the opposite or even tending to break some new ground I'd definitely take a good look. I can imagine reasons it could be otherwise, heck, I could make some up just for fun, but seriously, not based on what I've seen, read, and heard, I really don't think so. The posting of the ear diagram was great. I like learning. I also like being silly. And I'm also a professionally trained arguer. I'm legitimately sorry if the three come together in an unfortunate and disruptive way sometimes. I will try to use my powers for the forces of good instead of chaos.

Now that a cartridge might be able to track to 50 khz, color me impressed and fascinated. But it's not relevant to the audio chain based on my understanding of things.

I'd say the diagram of the ear structure and the corresponding frequencies, with the caveats provided, belong in first post of the sticky thread. People need to see why about these things, in an accessible form, not just that studies they don't understand are not consistent with their beliefs in cold and foreboding black fonts.

And bigshot's post about loudness controls yesterday, that belongs in the first post of the sticky thread too, IMHO. So much confusion and argument on that subject finally put to rest.

Well, Duško Gojković ( English Dushko Goykovich ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duško_Gojković
NEVER was anyone's running joke - one of the few trumpet players endorsed by no smaller figures than Miles Davies .

As great as the ear diagram post by @castleofargh is, I can not possibly find another difference in PERCEPTION of mentioned Dushko Gojkovich recordings in pure aaa format or that converted to CD ( probably AAD ) to anything but frequency response and/or timing errors. Analog record reproduced on quality cartridge/arm/turntable mops the floor with the CD - like it or not. And although it has been decades since I have last heard him play live, I do remember him as being a truly exceptional trumpet player - something like this one does not forget easily.

Cartridge may - not might - be able to track to 50 kHz. I would call me impressed if given a chance to measure those carts ( few, maybe enough to need all fingers of one hand in order to count them ) that go to or exceed 100 kHz.