Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On 07/08/11 14:13, Anthony Anson wrote:
Well, it does - to get the information on a CD readable by domestic equipment - even high-end - the bottom and the top of the audio spectrum is chopped off. While the actual frequencies are either inaudible to the human ear, or getting that way, the interference patterns they cause tend to make the sound from a CD seem dry and brittle.
Sorry going off topic a little here......
Interesting that you would choose frequency response as an argument for vinyl......
Don't get me wrong...I own and enjoy an extensive vinyl collection and a very nice turntable.
Nothing against the format but choosing frequency response as a counter argument against CD's when in fact any vinyl cut to RIAA spec will be incapable of exceeding 20k even on first play (and due to the nature of record wear hitting the highpoints of the cut first the frequency response actually decreases with wear) strikes me as a little odd.
My information is that on tests, LPs were played continuously - well, allowing for autoreturn of stylus, continually - for a year, and little wear was evident, and there was no detectable difference in frequency range.
If someone has cut a record with more headroom than 20k then I would be interested to hear about it and even more interested to hear how many plays that extended headroom lasts for and what pickup and phono stage is capable of reproducing it. RIAA figures for frequency response vs number of plays are scary but I presume are assuming a fairly low standard of playback equipment as they talk about something like 13khz after 30 plays ! I am sure with well set up and good quality equipment this can be more than slightly bettered.
ITYF that CDs' frequencies are considerably below vinyl's at the high end, and above at the low.
Then at the other end there isn't much room for improvement either...the Red Book I believe says 20hz for CD's....if you let much below 20hz through a phono stage it will be dominated by tracking noise,surface noise and warp to the extent that it will be useless and/or detrimental to the listening experience. Unless of course you are willing to go to the trouble of playing your records wet :)
I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the intro of Also Sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss.
May I respecfully suggest that the Shed is invited to the list (charabanc outing) where more, much more controversy could be generated amongst the freshly-released electrons (spinning widdershins) using unidirectional silver-plated ZOX copper interconnects, and silver Z-section speaker cables woen from 99·999% pure silver wire (at more than £3,000 per metre)?
If *I* was to go on a pro vinyl debate I wouldn't be using frequency response as a bullet point :)
Much more permanent - if that isn't an oxymoron, permanence being an absolute...
The hardness you hear is more likely to be down to quantization in the digital stream or more likely some really bad choices being made when mixing the thing for a digital format...some stuff on CD gets the hell compressed out of it so that it sounds good in a car and "louder" than it really is. I have a couple of albums both on CD and Vinyl and the CD counterpart sounds terrible (when I know my CD player can do better). Transvision Vamp "Velveteen" is a really good example of this...but put it on a scope and you'll see why.
Not aware of that album - Spem in Allium by Thomas Tallis is more in my line...
Nothing to do with the format, just the numpty that mastered it for the digital format.
I shall have to bear that in mind when remastering the rag record...
(Damn! That's the second time in ten minutes that the GPRS connectivity has dropped-out.)