I am just reporting what you see in a .WAV file (in spectral view), since
you can't directly hear it.  Noise does not look at all like music most of
the time.  What you see extending up above 22 kHz in the spectral view of a
hi-def .WAV file is the extension of certain tones that have a lot of upper
frequency content right up into the stratosphere.  I looks just like music
looks, not random noise.  Could it be "ringing" set off by that note?
 Perhaps.  But I would expect that kind of corruption of particular notes
to have some kind of audible effect in the range I can hear, or to be
visible as in increase in energy at upper levels, which would not happen
with musical overtones (not what you see).  All I can say I how it looks.
 Many LPs do appear to have content up there above 22 kHz, and good
cartridges can capture that.  What happens in the rest of an audio system
chain is up for grabs.

Since I started doing restoration work at 96/24, I have noticed some
things.  I can also do it at 192 sampling rate, but when you do that you
get a .WAV file having a very visible layer of quantization noise (an upper
thick cloud of noise blanketing the top of the "picture") above 96 kHz.
 It's not audible, but why put the equipment and the media thru all the
trouble to produce/reproduce that, when (because it is noise) it cannot
possibly add anything to the musical signal?  At 96/24, all of this noise
is eliminated, and the audio signal at 96/24 is audibly indistinguishable,
to me, from the same signal recorded at 192.  At that point, whatever
benefit might be gained by using 192 has become insignificant in the real
world--i.e., not audible, and as Tom points out, possibly damaging to
equipment.  But that is not true at all for the comparison between 44/16
and 96/24, which is very much audible.

I think a lot of early CD's had stinky upper frequency sound because of
phasing errors caused by the way upper frequencies above 22 kHz were
filtered out, causing "side effects" in the audible signal.  Not to
mention, human beings were doing the audio work, and not everyone really
knows what they are doing, or cares, then and now.  I don't think any of
the bad rap that early CD's got were the fault of the medium itself.  But I
agree that many of the earliest CD releases do not sound right, having a
"hard," unnatural treble.  I think that situation improved drastically as
time wore on, and generally a CD issue would sound better than a prior LP
issue, because (1) we got rid of the groove noise, and (2) the CD's were
often the result of a return to the master tape.  But these days, I don't
assume anything.  I listen to a lot of CD transfers that do not sound as
good as the materials they were created from.  That's the human factor at
work again, not to mention variations in equipment used, as pointed out by


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Mark Durenberger <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> One refers to Rupert Neve's thoughts on why coherent super-audible
> response is useful if not necessary.
> Someone else on the list may know where his paper was delivered...I have
> the audio of his remarks for anyone interested.
> Regards,
> Mark Durenberger, CPBE
> -----Original Message----- From: Gray, Mike
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:03 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile
> Way to Own Music"
> Seconding Tom's comments - what exactly *is* that energy above 20kHz?
> Mike