Testing audiophile claims and myths

[71 dB]

I have nothing against liking vinyl/analog sound more. It's not my business what other people prefer, but people should realize they prefer vinyl over CD for the distortions. People like familiarity. Vinyl makes everything sound the same introducing same distortions to everything while CDs can sound very different from each other. Vinyls also have narrowed channel separation at low frequencies to keep the needle in the groove. This is essentially crossfeed and has benefit in headphone listening (althou I rather crossfeed the source signal in a controlled manner with a proper crossfeeder). So there are reasons to like vinyl sound, but it doesn't mean vinyl is technically better or more transparent. It's the other way around: people "like" vinyl because it's less transparent. CD being technically superior is a fact. Technical superiority doesn't mean you have to like it more. We like what we like. Just admit you prefer distorted less transparent sound. Nobody can attack you for doing so. There is no law saying you have to prefer technically superior formats.

I like how the demonstration of how good an LP can sound is encoded in AAC192 on youtube.

Well, AAC192 doesn't lose all the distortions introduced by vinyl...

 

[analogsurviver]

I would point out that the discussion becomes a lot more interesting when you talk about digital audio in general rather than RBCD in specific. Without getting into the discussions about whether it matters or not, it is true that vinyl can support a slightly wider bandwidth than RBCD, although it can't deliver an equivalent S/N ratio. HOWEVER, if we include 24/96k digital audio in the discussion, THAT digital format can deliver wider bandwith, much higher S/N, and much lower distortion. Therefore, I would be hard pressed to find any way in whcih vinyl can outperform 24/96k digital audio.

This points out what I see as the major distinction. Analog audio is essentially at its limit... whereas, with digital audio, you can always choose a higher sample rate, or a higher bit depth, if you want technically better performance, and the cost increase is minimal to do so.

I would point out that the discussion becomes a lot more interesting when you talk about digital audio in general rather than RBCD in specific. Without getting into the discussions about whether it matters or not, it is true that vinyl can support a slightly wider bandwidth than RBCD, although it can't deliver an equivalent S/N ratio. HOWEVER, if we include 24/96k digital audio in the discussion, THAT digital format can deliver wider bandwith, much higher S/N, and much lower distortion. Therefore, I would be hard pressed to find any way in whcih vinyl can outperform 24/96k digital audio.

This points out what I see as the major distinction. Analog audio is essentially at its limit... whereas, with digital audio, you can always choose a higher sample rate, or a higher bit depth, if you want technically better performance, and the cost increase is minimal to do so.

OK, I agree. The first thing that has to be clarified is your use of "slightly" higher bandwidth for analog than RBCD.

That slightly is as vague and as multi meaning as this :



Since digital camp does insist on accurate description of each and every bit and byte, I will counter with the undeniable fact :

ANALOG RECORD FREQUENCY RESPONSE IS NOT UNIFORMLY AND UNIVERSALLY DEFINED

What does it mean ? It means one can (hopefully not... ) play some super cut analog record with recorded signal past 100 kHz ( can be done, has been done ) with a $ 0.99 ceramic cartridge tracking at 10 gram vertical tracking force - getting a ragged response up to about 10 kHz and ruining an expensive record for good in a single play - OR can use a super cartridge with response past 120 kHz ( can be done, has been done ). These two are the maximum opposite extremes possible - with most real world equipment performing somewhere between those two extremes, preferably in the direction of the 120 khz cartridge.

Fast forward to 2019 - almost ANY moving coil phono cartridge in the market for sale today has frequency range AT VERY LEAST TO 50 kHz.
It is debatable how linear or with which deviation(s) from absolutely dead flat up to 50 khz, but cartridges that have survived in the market up to the present day can not have too wild excursions either way, up to, including and beyond 50 kHz - or the competition simply pinches them out of the contention in a rather short period.

So - IF we assume only the majority of MC cartridges available, FLAT response of digital whatever is required at least to 50 kHz in order to have a chance of even approaching their full capability. That clearly rules out RBCD, DAT ( 48k) and 96/24. Brick wall filtering and attendant problems you have so eloquently described for RBCD hold equally true at higher sampling rates - and 96/24 can not do justice to most MC cartridges available in stores today.

That leaves us with 192/24 as the first PCM capable of roughly meeting the FLAT frequency response capable of covering the frequency range of most MC cartridges today. And, since you ARE familiar with the quantization noise etc creeping up in level above certain frequency for any real world ADC/DAC, that means at least 384/24 capable "digitis" is required IF the noise above > 20 kHz is not to exceed certain limit.

DSD compounds the problem - because it is never filtered out so steeply as PCM, its frequency response starts SLOWLY AND GRADUALLY to fall off at much lower ferequencies than brickwall filtered PCM. Likewise, ultrasonic noise becomes reasonably manageable only with DSD256 - with DSD128 being an absolute minimum in this regard.

SACD - or more precisely, DSD64 - should have never become available ; it is because DSD64 that DSD in general has gotten bad rep in some circles..

I would like to stress that I used here entirely plausible and commercially available equipment that not only millionaires can afford; I did no go for the extreme final capability of analog record at 120+ khz - which will most likely remain as the record in its category, both for the ability to place it on record as well as to be able to play it back.

From this perspective, 96/24 PCM can still be regarded as kindergarten level - OK, make that primary school.

 

[gargani]

OK, I agree. The first thing that has to be clarified is your use of "slightly" higher bandwidth for analog than RBCD.

That slightly is as vague and as multi meaning as this :



Since digital camp does insist on accurate description of each and every bit and byte, I will counter with the undeniable fact :

ANALOG RECORD FREQUENCY RESPONSE IS NOT UNIFORMLY AND UNIVERSALLY DEFINED

What does it mean ? It means one can (hopefully not... ) play some super cut analog record with recorded signal past 100 kHz ( can be done, has been done ) with a $ 0.99 ceramic cartridge tracking at 10 gram vertical tracking force - getting a ragged response up to about 10 kHz and ruining an expensive record for good in a single play - OR can use a super cartridge with response past 120 kHz ( can be done, has been done ). These two are the maximum opposite extremes possible - with most real world equipment performing somewhere between those two extremes, preferably in the direction of the 120 khz cartridge.

Fast forward to 2019 - almost ANY moving coil phono cartridge in the market for sale today has frequency range AT VERY LEAST TO 50 kHz.
It is debatable how linear or with which deviation(s) from absolutely dead flat up to 50 khz, but cartridges that have survived in the market up to the present day can not have too wild excursions either way, up to, including and beyond 50 kHz - or the competition simply pinches them out of the contention in a rather short period.

So - IF we assume only the majority of MC cartridges available, FLAT response of digital whatever is required at least to 50 kHz in order to have a chance of even approaching their full capability. That clearly rules out RBCD, DAT ( 48k) and 96/24. Brick wall filtering and attendant problems you have so eloquently described for RBCD hold equally true at higher sampling rates - and 96/24 can not do justice to most MC cartridges available in stores today.

That leaves us with 192/24 as the first PCM capable of roughly meeting the FLAT frequency response capable of covering the frequency range of most MC cartridges today. And, since you ARE familiar with the quantization noise etc creeping up in level above certain frequency for any real world ADC/DAC, that means at least 384/24 capable "digitis" is required IF the noise above > 20 kHz is not to exceed certain limit.

DSD compounds the problem - because it is never filtered out so steeply as PCM, its frequency response starts SLOWLY AND GRADUALLY to fall off at much lower ferequencies than brickwall filtered PCM. Likewise, ultrasonic noise becomes reasonably manageable only with DSD256 - with DSD128 being an absolute minimum in this regard.

SACD - or more precisely, DSD64 - should have never become available ; it is because DSD64 that DSD in general has gotten bad rep in some circles..

I would like to stress that I used here entirely plausible and commercially available equipment that not only millionaires can afford; I did no go for the extreme final capability of analog record at 120+ khz - which will most likely remain as the record in its category, both for the ability to place it on record as well as to be able to play it back.

From this perspective, 96/24 PCM can still be regarded as kindergarten level - OK, make that primary school.

Wild excursions up to 20khz., okay; but wild excursions from 20khz. to 50khz. and beyond, is not going to determine a cartridge's success in the market.

 

[KeithEmo]

Absolutely....

Back in the original days of 4-channel, the CD-4 format utilized a high frequency subcarrier....
CD-4 phono cartridges required a frequency response up to somewhere around 48 kHz.

HOWEVER....
This requires a special cartridge, with a special stylus, most of which also required a very heavy tracking force (3 - 4 grams).
As a result, CD-4 records were claimed to be subject to rapid wear (it was claimed that the subcarrier would actually be worn off after some number of plays).
The subcarrier was also a form of modulated carrier wave (so it wasn't listened to directly as part of the audio signal).
It's aso probably worth noting that, since CD-4 is no longer used commercially....
those cartridges do NOT seem to be in demand as "sounding expecially good because of their extended frequency response".

It is true, however, that vinyl doesn't require the sharp low-pass limiting at 22 kHz required by RBCD.
However, because of the limits of various portions of the signal chain, vinyl cannot record high frequency signals at full amplitude.
For example, you cannot record a 0 dB 20 kHz signal onto vinyl......
(Both because the signal level would be dangerous for the mastering lathe... and because a standard playback cartridge would be unable to track it.)

Wild excursions up to 20khz., okay; but wild excursions from 20khz. to 50khz. and beyond, is not going to determine a cartridge's success in the market.

 

[old tech]

I would point out that the discussion becomes a lot more interesting when you talk about digital audio in general rather than RBCD in specific. Without getting into the discussions about whether it matters or not, it is true that vinyl can support a slightly wider bandwidth than RBCD, although it can't deliver an equivalent S/N ratio. HOWEVER, if we include 24/96k digital audio in the discussion, THAT digital format can deliver wider bandwith, much higher S/N, and much lower distortion. Therefore, I would be hard pressed to find any way in whcih vinyl can outperform 24/96k digital audio.

This points out what I see as the major distinction. Analog audio is essentially at its limit... whereas, with digital audio, you can always choose a higher sample rate, or a higher bit depth, if you want technically better performance, and the cost increase is minimal to do so.

I agree with what you say apart from that vinyl can deliver a slightly higher bandwidth.

Firstly, without taking into account linearity of frequency response, vinyl potentially can go higher than 20k khz but CDs can go lower at the other end of the bandwidth, right down to 0hz.

If we take into account how strong the signal is, compared to noise, then CD practically goes higher than vinyl. At 20khz it is still within 0.5db, whereas vinyl starts rolling off around 16khz.

Not that any of this matters, as we are now talking about frequencies outside the bounds of human hearing, but what is very relevant, is that CD (or digital generally) mantains its fidelity throughout the bandwidth, whereas vinyl is increasingly inaccurate outside the midrange.

 

[old tech]

Knopflers British Grove studios offer some the best analog recording studios around....and yes digital alsohttps://youtu.be/Sm6_JJXla-k

Yes, they cater to a wide market, it doesn't change their views. Additionally, sometimes analog processes are preferred for production to achieve a certain sound, eg the fatness of bass which analog tape can give as a byproduct of its distortion due to saturation. None of this is relevant to playback though.

 

[KeithEmo]

There are many technical limitations that affect vinyl and not RBCD.

Although you rarely see any attempts to measure them, I'm sure the THD and IMD of vinyl are much higher than RBCD....
(They are also going to vary depending on stylus profile, tracking force, arm geometry, record wear, and even room temperature.)

Another issue is that the RIAA curve used to record and play back vinyl requires relatively significant erualization.
This introduces many oportunities for errors, both during encoding, and during playback.
Many phono preamps have RIAA EQ that is less accurate than a typical CD player... and we have no way of knowing how accurate the EQ was at the cutting lathe.

It is worth noting, however, that most of this is moot.....
Most people who prefer vinyl do so because they find that it sounds "pleasant" and not because it sounds "accurate".

I should also point out somethign interesting......and it's psychological.
I believe that vinyl tends to appeal to audiophiles who prefer to consider audio in subjective terms.
In simplest terms....
Many audiophiles PREFER TO BELIEVE that they prefer accurate sound reproduction.
Therefore, they would prefer NOT to admit that they like vinyl because they LIKE the inaccuracies introduced by it.
So, in order to rationalize this choice, they prefer to believe that, in spite of the measured inaccuracies, there is some intangible way in which it is still more accurate.
(This also seems to be true of many tube aficionados.)

To me this is a sort of affectation....
It would be like me claiming thet Jamie Tyndall "is a great undiscovered artist" because I happen to like his particular style of fantasy art.
(The reality is that I like his art very much... but he probably isn't such a great artist.)

I agree with what you say apart from that vinyl can deliver a slightly higher bandwidth.

Firstly, without taking into account linearity of frequency response, vinyl potentially can go higher than 20k khz but CDs can go lower at the other end of the bandwidth, right down to 0hz.

If we take into account how strong the signal is, compared to noise, then CD practically goes higher than vinyl. At 20khz it is still within 0.5db, whereas vinyl starts rolling off around 16khz.

Not that any of this matters, as we are now talking about frequencies outside the bounds of human hearing, but what is very relevant, is that CD (or digital generally) mantains its fidelity throughout the bandwidth, whereas vinyl is increasingly inaccurate outside the midrange.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Yes, they cater to a wide market, it doesn't change their views. Additionally, sometimes analog processes are preferred for production to achieve a certain sound, eg the fatness of bass which analog tape can give as a byproduct of its distortion due to saturation. None of this is relevant to playback though.

Actually their views are pretty well documented.....they appear to use both mediums for their different strengths.According to Chuck Ainlay,Knopflers current producer/engineer part of the appeal of analog is the plug-in effects sound better than the digital versions...better distortion??

 

[old tech]

Actually their views are pretty well documented.....they appear to use both mediums for their different strengths.According to Chuck Ainlay,Knopflers current producer/engineer part of the appeal of analog is the plug-in effects sound better than the digital versions...better distortion??

Yes, when it comes to music production the choice of sound effects is endless, including distortions to produce that sound. Sometimes analog will produce the desired effects, other times digital.

 

[old tech]

That's a bingo!

I like how the demonstration of how good an LP can sound is encoded in AAC192 on youtube.

Yes it is ironic when you view some of these youtube video comparisons of vinyl vs CD. All they prove is that they are comparing different master sources which can be clearly heard on a lossy digital platform.

A few years back, I commented on a youtube video posted by Fremer comparing David Bowie's Hunky Dory LP against a Rykodisc CD of the same album. Funnily, half of the responders preferred the Rykodisc.

I posted saying that all he proved was the transparency of lossy digital formats which enabled viewers to hear the difference in the masterings. I also said that if he wanted a fairer comparison he should use the earlier RCA CD of Hunky Dory as it is considered the best sounding digital version of that album, rather than the Rykodisc remaster which is one of the least preferred masterings. He responded with an uncalled for vicious attack, which he later deleted.

I was in an audiophile forum once and a guy was waxing poetic about the sound of an SACD of Donald Fagan's The Nightfly. He went on and on about the superiority of the SACD format and how it allowed the sound of this album to be heard in a quality as good as the original vinyl pressing, which he said had better sound quality than the inferior CD. I guess he wasn't aware that the album was recorded 16/44.1. The CD was a direct port. The SACD was an upsample. The vinyl was a flawed approximation of the CD.

That's what you get when you rely on biased subjective impressions!

A bit like a thread on the Steve Hoffman forum where many of their vinyphiles say how superior the LP version of Brothers in Arms is compared to the CD, even though it is a 16/44 recording which the CD is a bit perfect copy of the master. Of course, one can prefer the sound of the LP but it must be less accurate to the original master when it sounds different.

 

[bigshot]

vinyl potentially can go higher than 20k khz.

My brother had a test record that had tones on it going all the way up to 18-20kHz. The liner notes on the album said that the highest frequencies on the album would only last for 15 plays or so before being turned to a mush of distortion. It explained that super high frequencies on LPs require very delicate groove modulations that just can't stand up to playing with a diamond needle. They recommended only playing those grooves when you really needed it. I think there was even a loop groove before those tracks to prevent you from playing through from an adjacent groove.

David Bowie's LPs sounded horrible. That was the era when RCA was doing Dynaflex. Yuck!

 

[analogsurviver]

Wild excursions up to 20khz., okay; but wild excursions from 20khz. to 50khz. and beyond, is not going to determine a cartridge's success in the market.

WRONG - it could not be wronger ( and I DO know "wronger" to be incorrect use of the English language ).

Do you actually use analog record playback machine at home or are you speaking only in general ? Two VERY different things...

If you were a regular listener to analog records, you would have known that the surface noise ( that can be clearly decomposed to tape hiss, ticks, pops, other unmentionables ) can vary a GREat DEAL - FROM THE SAME RECORD, BUT PLAYED TROUGH VARIOS PLAYBACK EQUIPMENT.

Records do not produce ticks and pop - ticks and pops are the consequence of record defects that excite (electro)mechanical resonances in phono stylus, cartridge, tonearm, platter, tonearm base , cables, phono preamplifier, etc - and, in general, the whole machine that is "record player" or "cartridge/tonearm/turntable/preamplifier" combination.

Go trough ANY decent, better phono cartridge review - subjective or, in recent times unfortunately extremely rare - objective phono cartridge review. One of the greatest recommendation any reviewer can give to any cartridge is the coveted "quietness in the groove". It is the Holy Grail in analog record playback... - and has been only recently seriously tackled on grander scale by most manufacturers.

We no longer have new , mint, unplayed records to listen to. Some are older than their listeners - myself included, at 58 years of age. Throughout their life, these records have been played by ??? equipment - some good, some bad, some atrocious. None of the cartridges whose design is now 10 or more years old can claim to have CONSCIOUSLY tackled this issue.

2-3 months ago, I conducted a VERY comprehensive test regarding stylus shape in an otherwise for all practical purpose identical cartridge. Using new, never played records, normally used but still good records - and those that would have been replaced by a mint copy ASAP - IF that was still available; which, of course, it no longer is in the majority of cases.

I did record ( 192/24 this time instead of the normally used DSD128 - for convinience of not having to convert the DSD to PCM for spectrum analysis, etc later ) both test signals from " over this test record went everything but a Russian tank " to mint test record . Ditto for the musical variety records.

Conclusion ? A super expected one, but now confirmed trough measurements/recordings. You can have GREAT sound from, a very good MM cartrifge equipped with an elliptical stylus - but ONLY IF your records are ALL mint. Now, with all the cleaning machines available, you can be sold a record in an immaculate outer sleeve, immaculate inner sleeve, appearing with no surface scratches, not even hairline... - BUT, the record has been played with a (elliptical ) stylus at too low tracking force and is - SHOT. Totally unlistenable with an elliptical stylus ....

I could bore you to tears with details of each stylus tip shape, frequency response of the cartridge to which that particular stylus is mounted to, etc.

BOTTOM LINE : THE BEST CHANCE FOR any RECORD ( UNLESS SCRATCHED SO BADLY TO CAUSE SKIPPING/JUMPING THE GROOVE, OF COURSE ...) HAS (drunroll ) :

The Cartridge with a Van den Hul/Micro Line ( or similar under different commercial names ) stylus shape and as wide and even/non-peaky frequency response as possible.

That rules out most MM cartridges, leaving only those MMs whose electrical parameters approach those of a typical MC cartridge.

Question for you: IF you were in a market for a new phono cartridge and there were two or more candidates to grace your turntable, which one would you choose - the one that every review on the planet hailed as being super quiet in the groove - or one of the rest where reviewers have been shying from commenting on this topic ?

Somewhat long reply - but hopefully answers WHY performance in phono cartridge WAY above 20 kHz is THE ultimate arbiter of quality and make or break of the deal.

 

[analogsurviver]

Absolutely....

Back in the original days of 4-channel, the CD-4 format utilized a high frequency subcarrier....
CD-4 phono cartridges required a frequency response up to somewhere around 48 kHz.

HOWEVER....
This requires a special cartridge, with a special stylus, most of which also required a very heavy tracking force (3 - 4 grams).
As a result, CD-4 records were claimed to be subject to rapid wear (it was claimed that the subcarrier would actually be worn off after some number of plays).
The subcarrier was also a form of modulated carrier wave (so it wasn't listened to directly as part of the audio signal).
It's aso probably worth noting that, since CD-4 is no longer used commercially....
those cartridges do NOT seem to be in demand as "sounding expecially good because of their extended frequency response".

It is true, however, that vinyl doesn't require the sharp low-pass limiting at 22 kHz required by RBCD.
However, because of the limits of various portions of the signal chain, vinyl cannot record high frequency signals at full amplitude.
For example, you cannot record a 0 dB 20 kHz signal onto vinyl......
(Both because the signal level would be dangerous for the mastering lathe... and because a standard playback cartridge would be unable to track it.)

WRONG - COULD NOT BE WRONGER.

On all counts - INCLUDING 20 kHz recorded at 0dB. That is exceptional and recorded to only two test records I am familiar with - but they DO exist, as well as cartridges that can play this 0 dB at 2o kHz with full RIAA aplied, as for the normal music records ( that never contain 20 kHz at 0dB level - nor does music live or consequently any recording ). Admittedly, cartridges with this capability are extremely rare and WERE the pinnacle of all times - no longer in production and can be counted - at best - on fingers of a person's both hands.

I have absolutely not the foggiest where you came up with the vertical tracking force of 3-4 gram with... none of the CD-4 capable cartridges I am aware of track at these VTF

Here, THE proper info from the originator of CD-4 - JVC itself. And its, to this day, Holy Grail cartridge - the mighty X-1 :

https://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/x1.shtml

Most CD-4 designs following in the wake of JVC's success have VTF below 2 grams - and the contact surface area of a Shibata stylus is at least TWICE LARGER than an elliptical used before; meaning that a Shibata stylus is easier on the groove tracking at 2 grams than is an elliptical trying to track at 1 gram.

It has been noted early on that increased bandwidth cartridges sounded better in stereo, too - and have as such been used for stereo, too. Cost consideration drove to a compromise - styli somewhere in between the elliptical and true Shibata, with commercial names as Stereohedron ( Stanton/Pickering ), Fine Line ( Ortofon ), Line Contact ( Audio Technica ), Hyperelliptic ( Shure ), Alliptic ( ADC ), etc, etc.

Late 70s saw stylus design brought to the present standard - Van den Hul and , under its first known commercially used name, Micro Scanner ( by the late Garrott brothers ). These ( and various similar designs, varying in nothing essential but named differently in order to avoid having to pay royalties to the original patent holders ) went beyond the Shibata - and are capable of playing back info as high as 90 kHz - at INNER grooves of the record played at 33 1/3 RPM and even higher in case of 45RPM record.

CD-4 - although it failed in the market, mostly due to the american vinyl being MUCH softer than the JVC's specially for CD-4 developed vinyl formula, resulting in carrier frequency to be erased in just few plays, rendering quadro ineffective - did give the greatest boost in phono cartridge development in history - and the consequences of its effects are still present in any current high quality cartridge.

 

[analogsurviver]

There are many technical limitations that affect vinyl and not RBCD.

Although you rarely see any attempts to measure them, I'm sure the THD and IMD of vinyl are much higher than RBCD....
(They are also going to vary depending on stylus profile, tracking force, arm geometry, record wear, and even room temperature.)

Another issue is that the RIAA curve used to record and play back vinyl requires relatively significant erualization.
This introduces many oportunities for errors, both during encoding, and during playback.
Many phono preamps have RIAA EQ that is less accurate than a typical CD player... and we have no way of knowing how accurate the EQ was at the cutting lathe.

It is worth noting, however, that most of this is moot.....
Most people who prefer vinyl do so because they find that it sounds "pleasant" and not because it sounds "accurate".

I should also point out somethign interesting......and it's psychological.
I believe that vinyl tends to appeal to audiophiles who prefer to consider audio in subjective terms.
In simplest terms....
Many audiophiles PREFER TO BELIEVE that they prefer accurate sound reproduction.
Therefore, they would prefer NOT to admit that they like vinyl because they LIKE the inaccuracies introduced by it.
So, in order to rationalize this choice, they prefer to believe that, in spite of the measured inaccuracies, there is some intangible way in which it is still more accurate.
(This also seems to be true of many tube aficionados.)

To me this is a sort of affectation....
It would be like me claiming thet Jamie Tyndall "is a great undiscovered artist" because I happen to like his particular style of fantasy art.
(The reality is that I like his art very much... but he probably isn't such a great artist.)

Correct on most counts. Decision which version - analog or digital - is preferred, has also much to do with what has been the first version heard. That normally becomes "reference".

I do acknowledge the limitations and imperfections of analog record vs even - brrr - RBCD. Please see answer to another member later in the day for specifics.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I would have used a sample rate of 48k ... That would have limited the capacity of discs at the current size to about 45 minutes, or required discs to be about 1/2" larger to achieve the same capacity, neither of which seems especially important.
[2] To any competent engineer, designing anything with a safety margin of less than 10% is generally not considered to be a good idea....
[3] My other point is simply one of practicality....
[3a] Creating a standard that is difficult to implement is usually a bad idea because it leads to poor implementations... whcih deprecate the usefulness of your standard in the minds of customers....
[3b] (There was no physcial limitation associated with 44k..... the ONLY drawback to using 48k would have been the need for a slightly larger disc...... and perhaps the need for some studios to adjust their workflow.)
[4] And, I'm sorry, but "the need" to transfer content using NTSC tape was a matter of economics and convenience.
[4a] In every other discussion we've had you seem to have insisted that studios are generally willing to spend a lot of money to achieve the best possible sound quality.
[4b] Are you suggesting that, in this case, they would have been UNWILLING to abandon the outdated U-matic format and replace it with one that would have worked better?
[5] I'm being a bit facetious, but in defense of my point, which is that, when the CD format was developed, "low cost" and "convenience of implementation" were prioritized far above "best performance".
[5b] (They did NOT choose 44.1k because it "worked perfectly"; they chose it because it was easy to put on the tape equipment thwey already had.)

Why do you always have to go down this route? You make some clearly false assertion and instead of admitting it or even not admitting it but stop making that assertion, you spend pages futilely trying to defend it, with ever more ridiculous, nonsensical or impossible misinformation. Where does that get you? It makes you look foolish, derails the thread, implies you're deliberately trying to pervert/insult this forum and for what benefit, what do you or the company you represent get out of it? So, let's carry on with this pointless game and refute your latest bunch of misinformation:

1. Disk size wasn't "especially important", I've already told you why 44.1kHz was chosen.

2. With musical material, 20kHz is already beyond what any adult can hear, 16-18kHz being the practical limit in virtually all cases. Even being conservative and taking the 20kHz figure, what is 10% higher than 20kHz and what is the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1kHz sample rate?

3. No it's not, your point is the EXACT OPPOSITE, it's one of impracticality and impossibility!!
3a. It wasn't "difficult to implement"! As already mentioned, by about the time of CD's launch, Philips already had a 4 x oversampling CD player, so how "difficult" was it to implement 2 x oversampling?
3b. A slightly larger disk would not have been a particularly big issue. However, how could that 48kHz digital data have been transferred? Your statement that "perhaps some studios would have needed to adjust their workflow" is nonsense! All studios would have had to change their workflow, by NOT transferring the digital audio to other studios, to mastering studios or to the CD pressing plants. So no mastering and no CDs, that's your "simply practical" is it???

4. You're sorry for what, posting more falsehoods/misinformation?
4a. And what do you suggest studios should have spent "a lot of money on" in 1980? Maybe a CD-R burner, a thumb drive, a web cloud account or how about some other technology that still hasn't been invented yet?
4b. U-Matic was capable of bit perfect transfer, so what exactly do you think "would have worked better" than bit perfect? OF COURSE I'm "suggesting they would have been unwilling to abandon the outdated U-Matic format" because abandoning it would have meant no CDs (!) as there was no practical alternative to get the digital data from the studios to the CD pressing plants and there wouldn't be any practical alternative (that worked equally well) for more than a decade AFTER redbook was published! Additionally, U-Matic was NOT an outdated format, in fact EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! it was a NEW broadcast media technology, that was released at the same time that the redbook standard started being developed (1976) and was in the process of revolutionising certain areas of the TV broadcast industry!

5. In addition to being a "bit facetious", you're being disingenuous because "in defence of your point", you are making false assertions!! "Best performance" was already achieved by U-Matic and it was only replaced many years later as the means of data storage/transfer when lower cost and more convenient bit perfect transfer technology became available (DAT for example).
5b. AGAIN, they chose 44.1kHz because it worked perfectly AND because there was a practical way of transferring it. And incidentally, the "tape equipment they [the studios] already had" was NOT U-Matic, why would a music recording studio have spent thousands on a professional video machine? Studios only bought U-Matic machines (with the digital audio adapter) specifically to store/transfer digital audio data, after redbook was published!

Round and round and round we go!

G