[analogsurviver]

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

Criticizing digital for interchannel timing error ( which is a constant error, if and when it occurs ) is perfectly legal. It is one of the two sources why - in real world - analog record can image better than digital.

The other source for the likelihood of analog imaging better than digital is the frequency response. Digital has to - at the very least - equal the frequency response of analog, but to alleviate the phase shifts etc associated with brickwall filtering, preferably surpass the frequency response of analog at least by the factor of 2.

What is ridiculous is that digital folks seldom - if ever - MEASURE both channels of their devices simultaneously . And ASSUME that their devices perform correctly, under all scenarios possible in real life.

 

[Davesrose]

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.

Eh, say what? I used that verbiage because it's easy to understand...that you're conflating it to be "oh, one must always say phono pre-amp"!! And if we are going to get into the RIAA standard, I'm sorry to say your arguments fall apart even more. So the first standardization of it, the higher frequencies were 10kHz. I'll say it again: how can a record be above 20kHz when the source didn't include ultrasonics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization#The_Mythical_"Neumann_pole"

 

[Davesrose]

What is ridiculous is that digital folks seldom - if ever - MEASURE both channels of their devices simultaneously . And ASSUME that their devices perform correctly, under all scenarios possible in real life.

Say what? Us digital folk can analyze our sound files. We can look at the sound file's audio channels and see they have a complete synchronization with waveforms.

 

[analogsurviver]

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.

You are new ( at least to me ) on head-fi Science threads.

The other guys from the "other camp" with considerable mileage in Science threads actually started it all by removing the actual content from a hi-rez recording and substituting the portion above 20 kHz by some ( white or pink ? ) noise and presenting this as listening test and/or ABX.
Or something to that effect - by consciously faking the real deal with some random noise.

This is the Original Sin proving that digital can be manipulated.

I have been shocked - and appalled - by the above, as I would never resort to such tactics. Neither back then, nor at present - or future.

 

[Davesrose]

You are new ( at least to me ) on head-fi Science threads.

The other guys from the "other camp" with considerable mileage in Science threads actually started it all by removing the actual content from a hi-rez recording and substituting the portion above 20 kHz by some ( white or pink ? ) noise and presenting this as listening test and/or ABX.
Or something to that effect - by consciously faking the real deal with some random noise.

This is the Original Sin proving that digital can be manipulated.

I have been shocked - and appalled - by the above, as I would never resort to such tactics. Neither back then, nor at present - or future.

Hey wait a minute, I was talking about dynamic range. So vinyl is quantifiably worst than CD when it comes to dynamic range. Then if you add in its other variables of static noise and wear, it's going to get worst. What I do think odd-you're telling me that since you don't recognize me, you're going to go on about pink noise with digital sources. Why then don't you have the same approach to analog sources? Academically we know a standard vinyl record can't have realized ultrasonics because the analogue sources could never get into that range. If you're genuine about pink noise: I'll try to reflect it on you. You want to say the spectrograph you see in a vinyl record means something: but how do you know it's not the pink noise of noise (personally I think it is so since vinyl doesn't get into that range with its mastering).

 

[analogsurviver]

Eh, say what? I used that verbiage because it's easy to understand...that you're conflating it to be "oh, one must always say phono pre-amp"!! And if we are going to get into the RIAA standard, I'm sorry to say your arguments fall apart even more. So the first standardization of it, the higher frequencies were 10kHz. I'll say it again: how can a record be above 20kHz when the source didn't include ultrasonics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization#The_Mythical_"Neumann_pole"

Theory, theory ... - of course I am familiar with the "Neumann pole". Which in reality has been - or has been NOT - actually used. Depends on the decision of the actual mastering engineer.

Since you are good at reading, check the Shure's Trackability charts - particularly those of their top cartridges. You will find theoretical limits and REALLY MEASURED recorded signal velocities ...
Really measured peak velocities in the treble region ( where practically all the action is in phono cartridges ) exceed anything Shure ever came up with - even the Ultra 500 could not track those velocities.
To achieve the tracking of these extreme recorded velocities found in the real world records, a further reduction of the effective mass of the stylus assembly has been required.
Shure's best efforts have been hovering around 0.15 mg effective mass, Technics went further - first down to 0.109mg, then to 0.055 mg ... with Yamaha finishing off at 0.044 mg.

That Yamaha is so scarce I have yet to see even a picture of the beast - let alone see it in person or listening to it.
For all practical reasons, it will remain a footnote - I do not have 25h/day required to spot one for sale, neither the finances to acquire it.

 

[Davesrose]

Theory, theory ... - of course I am familiar with the "Neumann pole". Which in reality has been - or has been NOT - actually used. Depends on the decision of the actual mastering engineer.

Yadda yadda....you're replying to something that was 3 posts past.

 

[analogsurviver]

Hey wait a minute, I was talking about dynamic range. So vinyl is quantifiably worst than CD when it comes to dynamic range. Then if you add in its other variables of static noise and wear, it's going to get worst. What I do think odd-you're telling me that since you don't recognize me, you're going to go on about pink noise with digital sources. Why then don't you have the same approach to analog sources? Academically we know a standard vinyl record can't have realized ultrasonics because the analogue sources could never get into that range. If you're genuine about pink noise: I'll try to reflect it on you. You want to say the spectrograph you see in a vinyl record means something: but how do you know it's not the pink noise of noise (personally I think it is so since vinyl doesn't get into that range with its mastering).

Theory... - again.

The highest frequency ever actually recorded ( even as if in error ) to record master has been the bias frequency of the reel-to-reel deck used as a source ... - at 120 kHz or so.
By the late Stan Ricker, using Neumann lathe with electronics modified by now also late Tim de Paravicini.

How do I know the signal above 20 kHz is not random noise, but musical content related ? Simple - by harmonics of the instruments, which can extend past 100 kHz. Like brass and strings - not to mention percussion.
The most unmistakable are - CHIMES. They have extremely precisely defined discrete "pitch" anywhere in the 30-60 kHz range, depending on the actual instrument. There is absolutely no output at those frequencies ( disregarding the vinyl noise, of course ) when chimes are not playing - and they lit like Las Vegas at night the moment they do start playing.

Yadda yadda....you're replying to something that was 3 posts past.

If the replying to something on the same page of the same thread only 3 posts past is yadda yadda to you, then our conversation is - regrettably - over.

Your reply was a futile attempt to channell the conversation away from the indisputable facts, given in my "3 posts (too) late" reply.

You are trying to dodge a bullet that can't be dodged ...

 

[bigshot]

Proof of Dunning Kruger!

I bet he’s lots of fun at a party.

 

[Davesrose]

You are trying to dodge a bullet that can't be dodged ...

Am I really?? You're the one claiming analog audio has fundamental recordings way past 20kHz (now claiming up to 120kHz). Even though none of us simple Head-Fi members can't measure anything of the sort, you're saying we're all crazy. What I think really telling: the audio source of something that might be over 20kHz is one reel to reel, and then when we get into a record "well I think instruments can get into that much more higher frequencies"

 

[bigshot]

I enjoy watching YouTube channels where they find interesting and funny clips from live streamed court proceedings from around the country. There’s a group of crazies they call sovereign citizens that wear fezzes and make spurious motions and objections that disrupt the proceedings. These sovcits are convinced that their legal objections are a get out of jail free card, so they keep reciting it over and over, even after the judge has dismissed their objections and pointed out that the law they cite isn’t real. They have the exact same kind of “damn the torpedos” approach and wiggly logic as this guy does. It ends up earning them a contempt of court charge and a few nights in jail. Some of them never learn and end up bouncing through court and jail on a regular basis.

 

[analogsurviver]

Am I really?? You're the one claiming analog audio has fundamental recordings way past 20kHz (now claiming up to 120kHz). Even though none of us simple Head-Fi members can't measure anything of the sort, you're saying we're all crazy. What I think really telling: the audio source of something that might be over 20kHz is one reel to reel, and then when we get into a record "well I think instruments can get into that much more higher frequencies"

Well, if if none of the simple Head-Fi members can't measure anything of the sort, it does not mean it does not exist.

By sticking with RBCD, you also never will.
The same by reading the analog lathe manuals by their manufacturers - the best contraceptive ever is still an aspirine between the knees, however the amount of joy attainable in this fashion is somewhat limited !

None of the really good sounding records have ever been mastered on stock mastering lathes.

Situation today is even worse, as cutting heads are supported only by some very rare usually ex-employees of cutting head manufacturers - with only VERY few new/young guys willing and/or capable of carrying the torch further.
That means that cutting levels/frequency response extension beyond 20 kHz ( which requires very high power - reaching in total 900 watts for the peak high frequency content - the reason why helium cooled cutter heads exist )- is today FAR more conservative than back in the day, where burning a cutter head meant "only" some 10k$ and few days waiting for the delivery of the replacement.
Today, it means a LOOONG wait for the repair - half a year if not more, before any of the remaining people that can repair a burnt cutter head can repair yours - meaning you are out of bussiness for that long ! Not to mention the $$$$$.
No prize for guessing why today's requirements for preparing the master for analog record are more restrictive than ever before - and why cutting today is way below what cutter heads can actually deliver under optimum conditions.

Further limitation lies in the thickness of the mastering blank acetates. Back in the day, when Pyral has been located in Asnieres ( Paris suburb ) in France, the thickness of the lacquer ( which limits the maximum vertical excursion of the cutting stylus ) has been at least 70 micrometers - today's Pyral in USA only produces 60 micrometer thickness lacquers.
This fact made mastering studios limit the mastering for analog record even further - this time in the bass.

Vinyl records contain - besides the actual musical content - also LOTS of mastering "oopsie-daisies" - like artefacts/drones with the very precisely defined frequencies, starting at around 15 kHz - and stretching al the way just a hair below 70 kHz. They are actually a very good forensic tool - preserving for the posterity all engraved in their grooves - be it good or bad.

This of course requires both analog and digital equipment that can do the extended bandwidth full justice.

The above also explains why vintage pressings can and do usually sound better than their current re-releases - even in those rare cases when the entire recording chain has been kept strictly analog, without the vast majority of the lathes being fed from a digital file, usually required for the cutting computer to squeeze the maximum playing time without crisscrossing the actual grooves.

Pure analog cutting lathes available today worldwide are counted - at best - on the fingers of both hands. And even they can't replicate the vintage quality, due to the lack of thicker acetate blanks.

 

[Davesrose]

And the burden of proof lies on you to substantiate this claim that a record has any meaningful information beyond 20kHz (instead of noise). Hint, it's going to be really hard since the source tapes don't have ultrasonic material.

 

[bigshot]

He’ll give you proof- more audiophile word salad.

 

[danadam]

Criticizing digital for interchannel timing error ( which is a constant error, if and when it occurs ) is perfectly legal.

Sure, it is legal but it doesn't mean it is not ridiculous at the same time, unless you can show it happens often enough to be worth worrying about.

What is ridiculous is that digital folks seldom - if ever - MEASURE both channels of their devices simultaneously . And ASSUME that their devices perform correctly, under all scenarios possible in real life.

You use the word "possible" again but how probable it is?