[analogsurviver]

Audible transparency isn't debatable because it's easily determined with a simple ABX test.

LPs don't have signal above 15kHz normally. The groove modulation required to reproduce very high frequencies at any kind of volume level lead to premature record wear. The needle turns those frequencies to a distorted mush in just a few plays, so disk mastering involves a high end roll off. There can be stuff up above 15kHz, but it's basically surface noise.

ABX test is usable - for gross differences.
And even that depends - if performed on low bandwidth equipment, it can give perfectly "legal" false positive result - that higher bandwidth recordings and/or gear do not bring any audible improvement.

LPs are the same as life - a box of chocolates, one never ( or at lest, seldom ) knows what one is getting. The sheer range of actual quality engraved in analog record is vastly broader than in any digital format - ranging from truly poor to superb.

All - and I do mean ALL - analog records I really like and cherish for sound quality have one thing in common - extended high frequency response, always way past 20 kHz.
That from my teens onward - and now confirmed by spectrum analysis available at almost no cost today.

The records that do not go beyond 20 kHz - unfortunately many recordings of classical music by major labels - always end on the low playing count. Rarely excerpted for outstanding musicianship ... - but always accompanied by wandering WHAT IF the recording had been better.

There IS a reason why Decca issued their Legends CD series
https://www.discogs.com/release/15795302-Various-Decca-Legends-Collection/image/SW1hZ2U6NDgyOTUzNjg=
( IIRC - THIRD attempt to convert the sound from the original analog tapes into digital )
with 96/24 kHz mastering - and even those RBCDs can not hold candle to their original vinyl pressing counterparts.

The most successful transfer to CD in my experience have been classical music recordings from the ETERNA catalogue ( VEB Schallplatten, DDR ).
Available under several labels - Berlin Classics, EDEL, and even budget under budget label - CCC.
Some of these are available on EMI, Denon, etc - but striving for the original always rewards the effort.

 

[danadam]

There are cases of various PCM software and hardware combinations to develop a condition under which one channel starts only after the other has already completed its work

There are cases of clocks that show correct time only twice a day therefore sun dials are superior

 

[analogsurviver]

There are cases of clocks that show correct time only twice a day therefore sun dials are superior

The problem with PCM in such cases is that it is constantly off - all the time. Never even two times a day correct.

 

[bigshot]

[video]

 

[bigshot]

Wrong!

Wrong again!

Still wrong!

 

[danadam]

The problem with PCM in such cases is that it is constantly off - all the time. Never even two times a day correct.

Sigh... way to miss the point.

The point isn't whether it is correct once or never. The point is that it's a broken clock. The point is, don't disparage all clocks based on what a broken one is showing. There are plenty of working clocks, use them instead.

How often is this condition you're talking about encountered? I have here internal DACs in a laptop and 3 phones and 4 external DACs (3 of them cheap). I use them on windows and linux. They don't show symptoms you are describing in any combination.

 

[Davesrose]

The only record format I've read that got up to 30kHz was quadrophonic albums using the JVC CD-4 format: and given the technology, there'd be even less channel separation. Personally, trying to form an argument that 20kHz and above is some gold standard with vinyl (when we know it's not part of the original signal) seems silly to me when there's always going to be a perceptible noise floor.

PCs have been able to run parallel processing for longer than I've been alive. And even if there would be a hypothetical "bad" processor, the thousandths of a second delay would be imperceptible.

 

[analogsurviver]

Sigh... way to miss the point.

The point isn't whether it is correct once or never. The point is that it's a broken clock. The point is, don't disparage all clocks based on what a broken one is showing. There are plenty of working clocks, use them instead.

How often is this condition you're talking about encountered? I have here internal DACs in a laptop and 3 phones and 4 external DACs (3 of them cheap). I use them on windows and linux. They don't show symptoms you are describing in any combination.

I agree not to disparage all clocks if one is broken.

However, PCM can develop such error - whereas DSD is inherently not capable of such interchannel delay - by default. Neither is the analog record - to a degree, but even under worst of conditions, with lesser interchannel delay than PCM going south.

I will have to make the recordings under the conditions so far found that can develop the interchannel error described.

Along with the spectrum analyzer results from the real world cartridges playing real world analog records. There are MANY things a decent turntable setup can reveal from real world records - both good and bad.
FAR more than any RBCD can - with its brickwall filtering - by default and definition indispensable.

The good news is that the information contained in the grooves can not be manipulated.
That permanent excuse for anything digital "depending on the master used" simply is not applicable - the information in the vinyl groove is permanent.
Most vinyl records ever made available are listed in Discogs - and by stating THE EXACT PRESSING of any given title the master is inherently known/fixed.

The only question is how much of the information contained within the grooves can be retrieved by the "record player" - stylus/cartridge/arm/turntable combo.
And how much of that information can be digitized in order to be analyzed properly.

All of the above - with the exact problem(s) described with evidence - will take quite some time. As I intend to do it thoroughly.

 

[analogsurviver]

The only record format I've read that got up to 30kHz was quadrophonic albums using the JVC CD-4 format: and given the technology, there'd be even less channel separation. Personally, trying to form an argument that 20kHz and above is some gold standard with vinyl (when we know it's not part of the original signal) seems silly to me when there's always going to be a perceptible noise floor.

PCs have been able to run parallel processing for longer than I've been alive. And even if there would be a hypothetical "bad" processor, the thousandths of a second delay would be imperceptible.

You have perfectly described yourself with this post - read (about) JVC CD-4 ( introduced IIRC in 1972 ) and being younger than the PCs have been able to run parallel processing..

I mean no disrespect, but given the above two facts, it is easy to conclude you are unlikely to have much first hand experience with analog records - and what they are really capable of.

 

[Davesrose]

You have perfectly described yourself with this post - read (about) JVC CD-4 ( introduced IIRC in 1972 ) and being younger than the PCs have been able to run parallel processing..

I mean no disrespect, but given the above two facts, it is easy to conclude you are unlikely to have much first hand experience with analog records - and what they are really capable of.

Oh, you're going to resort to making assumptions instead of addressing the evidence about only a rare vinyl format having ultrasonic frequencies in the actual signal.

I have been around long enough to see that you're making word salad about digital technology as well as analog: it seems as a way to justify your subjective preference for vinyl. IE claiming a record groove is permanent: the medium isn't: it wears down over time.

And I actually do have 1st hand experience with TTs: inheriting old records from family, collecting some used ones from a local record shop, and getting a few new ones (that have new features like special holograms). I do have a properly calibrated TT, record cleaner, and TT pre-amp (it's harder to have one in my house which easily picks up RF). I have some classic rock, folk, classical, or B-sides that never made it to digital. They do sound lively on my system-but there's not a dead silent noise floor like digital, and digital doesn't sound "sterile" on my room calibrated amp.

 

[danadam]

PCM can develop such error

With what probability?

I will have to make the recordings under the conditions so far found that can develop the interchannel error described.

Please describe the conditions. Frankly, that will be more interesting than the recording.

The good news is that the information contained in the grooves can not be manipulated.

Really? I thought it is manipulated every time it is played

But anyway, the information contained in the pits and lands of a CD also can't be manipulated.

All of the above ... will take quite some time.

I wish you best although I remain sceptical that it will ever happen.

 

[Davesrose]

But anyway, the information contained in the pits and lands of a CD also can't be manipulated.

I'd actually say that digital is the only format that can't be manipulated (unless mishandled or subject to disc rot). A groove does get manipulated over time: as it wears, its dynamic range reduces.

 

[Davesrose]

As we're having an exchange about hi-fidelity: I think the future for marketing of music might be less hi-res albums than making them surround. I mentioned how I can enjoy an album more for the artist(s)' performance over the technical specs of the medium. For Mozart, I've always enjoyed Neville Marriner's interpretation...and did collect all the CDs. Now I have an Apple Music subscription through my cell phone plan, and I've noticed much of his Mozart series is now available as Lossless Dolby Atmos. Listening to classical music over my Atmos config speakers, I do think there can be an improvement with soundstage (though also that's true for blu-ray concerts in 5.1). Engineers do make it believable as far as performers being a larger stage in front of you. For rock or country albums, there can be more mixing of instruments going directly behind you.

 

[bigshot]

Criticizing digital for timing error is ridiculous when you compare it to wow and flutter in turntables and tape transports.

 

[analogsurviver]

Oh, you're going to resort to making assumptions instead of addressing the evidence about only a rare vinyl format having ultrasonic frequencies in the actual signal.

I have been around long enough to see that you're making word salad about digital technology as well as analog: it seems as a way to justify your subjective preference for vinyl. IE claiming a record groove is permanent: the medium isn't: it wears down over time.

And I actually do have 1st hand experience with TTs: inheriting old records from family, collecting some used ones from a local record shop, and getting a few new ones (that have new features like special holograms). I do have a properly calibrated TT, record cleaner, and TT pre-amp (it's harder to have one in my house which easily picks up RF). I have some classic rock, folk, classical, or B-sides that never made it to digital. They do sound lively on my system-but there's not a dead silent noise floor like digital, and digital doesn't sound "sterile" on my room calibrated amp.

No, I am not resorting to making assumptions - because assumptions ALWAYS lead to something best described as false.

Of course I recognize the analog record degrades over the number of plays it has been used; back in the day, Shure even published a study/paper by how much vinyl noise increases ( or dynamic range decreases ) with the number of plays. You can be "Shure" that I have read almost anything/everything on analog record reproduction - and am trying the best that can be done in order to preserve the record condition best that can be humanly possible.

So, I see that you do have enough experience with analog records to recognize the #1 enemy of analog today - RFI. It is getting ever more difficult to set up an analog record setup in ever increasing RFI "smog" - WIFI, routers, alarms of every description, ... , ( with only the one above knowing them all - IF lucky enough not to miss anything.)

The wording that makes me suspicious is "TT pre-amp". Its proper name is phono preamplifier ( with phono being so "archaic" word that spelling check always underwrites it with red, such as in error ... ).
Much of the dispute if records contain recorded SIGNAL over 20 kHz lies in the official definition of the RIAA curve; it is NOT specified above 20 kHz. So the designers have free hands what to do with the response above 20 kHz of their phono preamps and their RIAA compensation they must have.

The easiest way is to use the path of the least resistance; leveling off the ever increasing 6dB/octave RIAA response above 2120 Hz at some convenient frequency, say 30 kHz - because thereabouts phono preamp circuits usually run out of dynamic and/or feedback range that can sustain ever rising response into higher frequencies. The net effect is that from say said 30 kHz the RIAA response is now rolling off at 6dB/octave above 30 kHz.

There - sadly were - phono preamps available that extend RIAA response without the above described leveling off/rolling off above say 30 kHz - with proper response following RIAA slope at least to 100 kHz. The three I know of and use regularly are ( in alphabetical order ) AGI 511H. Perreaux SM-2 and Technics SU-9070.
These ( and others I have missed, but which do allow for RIAA up to 100 kHz ) will allow whatever a phono cartridge can give to be faithfully reproduced - up to at least100 kHz.

Today it is possible not to use phono preamp at all - by using a LINEAR preamp with appropriate loading and gain for the cartridge used and then doing the RIAA filtering by DSP in computer. For the RIAA response not to be rolled off at some frequency before 96 kHz is reached, the digital recording has to be made at least PCM 352.8 kHz sampling frequency . Anything lower than that results in the response with a rollof starting at 60-70 kHz, depending on the software used.

However, this is no longer pure analog ... - acceptable if the desired result is the digital recording of the analog record, but not for the normal casual listening.
I have yet to hear any digital gizmo that approches pure analog to the point it can be deemed indistingushable from the pure analog reproduction of the highest possible quality.