For some reason this didn't go to the list. Here it is. Sorry, David--not
aimed only at you.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Haley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile Way to Own Music"
To: DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>
LPs do have more upper frequency content than standard CD's, When you copy
a good LP to a .WAV file at 96/24 and look at it in a wav editor on the
computer in spectral view that shows frequency content, you can see that
there is plenty of audio content above the cut-off point for standard CD's,
which is 22 kHz. The cut-off point for a 96/24 .WAV file is 48kHz, which
is a little more than an octave above 22 kHz (the cycles per second double
It always helps to remember that cycles-per-second (Hertz) is nothing more
than a way of expressing musical pitches. The top C on a piano
keyboard is 4186.01
Hz (cycles per second), meaning that the sound wave for that note pulses a
complete sound wave cycle four thousand one hundred and eighty-six times each
second (never mind the extra hundredth for now). Double that twice for two
more octaves above the piano keyboard, and you are at 16.744 kHz. 22 kHz
is almost to the F above that C. This is where human hearing tops out, not
quite two and a half octaves above the piano keyboard. LPs can hold audio
content for at least an octave above that (not being precise--and whether
your equipment can reproduce it is a different issue).
What is up there is mostly overtones that we can't hear (tho dogs can), yet
there is no doubt that SACD's and other "hi-def" audio media sound better
than standard CD's. Defining that difference is not so easy, but it is
nevertheless quite tangible and easy to hear. For example, when I copy a
really good sounding LP to a 96/24 .WAV file, the copy really, really
sounds like the LP, whereas a standard CD copy (Redbook), is almost there,
but just ... not quite. (And copying to .mp3 or other lossy format, no
comparison--that's really closing a window on the music).
Now if you happen to be a dog ...
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:51 AM, DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Perhaps, but I think what he is actually saying is that according to the
> Nyquist formula, the CD mathematically contains all of the frequencies that
> an LP does. The LP should actually have superior high frequency harmonic
> content because these harmonics are at a low level and thus are only being
> rendered by very few bits on a CD. This is one of the reasons that SACDs
> sound so superior to CDs.
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:08:02 AM, Clark Johnsen <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yeah that was a good one.
> >To give the guy credit, what he must have been thinking was,
> >informationally-mathematically. But that undermines his thinking by
> >conceding that LPs have it all, too.
> >On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Ellis Burman <[log in to unmask]
> >> Love this quote: "According to science, a CD and a vinyl record being
> >> pulled from the same original material are mathematically identical"
> >> An analog disc is mathematically identical to a digital disc? Please do
> >> tell!
> >> Ellis
> >> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]
> >> >wrote:
> >> > But you can't take it with you!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Nothing particularly new here, but well written.
> >> >
> >> --
> >> Ellis
> >> [log in to unmask]
> >> 818-846-5525