@Capeau I know the high end headroom of vinyl is limited due to the RIAA curve, but the point is, CD audio is brickwalled at 20kHz while vinyl audio is not. And the CD4 quadraphonic system proves that vinyl is capable of reproducing audio content up to 45kHz.
CD is brickwalled at 20kHz for a reason; the human ear cant hear higher tones than that anyway (in perfect state). Even a 16yr old doesnt heat up to 20kHz anymore . So it doesnt matter at all
@Capeau But the brickwall filter, used both during recording and during playback in the CD player itself, causes distortion down in the audible range (below 20 kHz) due to "ringing" and phase shift. Today's excessively bright-sounding CDs make this problem even worse.
@Capeau Yes, all good CD players contain a 20 kHz anti-aliasing filter, otherwise the audio spectrum will be aliased ("mirrored") above 20 kHz, which could literally burn out your tweeters! Since the 1990s, this filtering has been done digitially, but 1980s CD players used an analog anti-aliasing filter.
Brickwall filtering doesn't cause distortion, it's meant to prevent distortion. Even then, it's reasonable to be skeptical about whether or not anyone needs to use a brickwall filter because it's not obvious that frequencies above 22050 hz can have an audible effect on anything.
LPs really have better sound than CD. We can just feel it on the bass... It is impossible to a square wave to be like a sinewave. There'll be gaps that will be not fullfilled, and this is the digital compression.
@Mortison77577 This is obvious!!! Everything must be converted to an analog signal to be usefull. But if you record Analog and play Analog you have a lossless system. If you record an original analog audio source to a digital media you will have compression and so lose of quality. It will never be the same as the original.
No, you won't have "compression", that's something else. And no, when you convert it back to analog you won't necessarily have any loss of quality. Argument like that were reasonable maybe 30 years ago, but now they're just an embarassment.
@Shadowplaytime Instead of trashing my video, wouldn't it be more productive for you to make your own video using your own equipment? I would be glad to have you post it as a video response.
Oh, that's right... I looked on your channel, and as typical for haters, you have no videos of your own uploaded. I guess you can't afford a camera, because you spent all your money on "audiophile" components?
Well, it looks like your formatted mind is plenty of labels/tags such as "haters", "audiophile" and such, but judging by the kind of reply, perhaps the hater it's you at last...
My equipment doesn't need to have "studies" like yours as it's well proven:
@Shadowplaytime Those are all audiophile brands. I'm sure your phono cartridge cost more than my entire turntable did, but I'm fine with that -- after all, back in the '80s and '90s when all the rich people were buying CDs, I still listened to records because they were cheaper; and now that all the rich people are buying LPs again, I'm still listening to CDs because they are cheaper!
Look, I just don't want to start any kind of argument on this, anyway please get rid of those tags, there are no such "audiophile" brands, there is good equipment and not so good, down to bad, sometimes all those classes within the same brand (as Pioneer, and a few AT examples...).
Some equipment is surely overpriced, but as in every kind of hardware, we know that the cost of approaching perfection is not linear.
But at any price level, vinyl is always superior to CD...
Well done video and informative. Though I knew this to be the case, it's nice to see the proof graphically on your computer monitor. The biggest question is "are humans able to tell the difference?". I think that we can.
@giraya5 My Pioneer PL-990 turntable may be cheap, but it does use a good quality Audio-Technica AT3600 magnetic cartridge with an elliptical stylus. And if you want to pay me thousands of dollars for one of those "audiophool" turntables, I'd be glad to repeat the experiment!
Kool komparison! I chuckle (not quite LOL) at your application of tape strips on your computer display. You will have to admit that that is very old-fashioned, crusty, and analog.
Also, is there some way to ask dogs, cats, and bats to evaluate the loss of quality on CD-quality digital audio?
The human ear may not be able to hear beyond 20 to 21khz, but the presence of higher frequencies can effect the sound of the lower frequencies in which we can hear.
Thats why people often discribe vinyl as sounder richer and warmer. Its the higher frequencies having an effect on the lower frequencies.
Nothing beats a good cd-4 quadraphonic setup. I spit on 5.1 or 7.1 Dolby Surround which is based partly on QS Matrix. CD-4 is expensive and out of print. I would rather have a stack of LPs, Quadraphonic Reel to Reel, and Quadraphonic 8 tracks along with a nice Quadraphonic amp than purchase a surround sound receiver. So what if it doesn't have a remote control, no wonder why America is getter fatter. Don't get me started on XM known as tin can radio made by progresso soup.
OK. More high frequenties in a sound will give it more definition. (this is why we hear the difference between le's say a piano and a trumpet both producing the same note) When you record with a device that has a very low frequency width, all instuments will sound the same. If we go to the extreme and have a recorder that only records between 439 and 441 Hz, the sound of a piano playing an A will sound exactly the same as when a trumpet plays that same A.
But because all instruments produce different harmonics, we can distinguish if the A is played by a trumpet or a piano or a guitar or whatever instrument. So again : the more harmonics we can pick up from the instruments the more we'll hear the difference between instruments.
Now, In this video they show is that there's more high frequencies on an (old) album than on a modern CD. Bullcrap !!! Our good friend here, "shows" that there is sound above 22KHz, above 40KHz, even above 60 Khz. To hear this on your stereo there are quite some things absolutely necessary.
1. Let's start whith the recording. the music was played by a band/orchestra and recorded with microphones, yes? Now tell me wich microphone (in 1958) was able to "catch" frequencies above 20Khz ?
Then the signal (coming from the mic) had to be amplified through an amplifier or mixing console. Please tell me wich amplifier or mixing console) was able to handle frequencies above 20Khz in 1958 ?
Then the amplified signal had to be recorded to a tape. Tell me what (even professional) tape recorders could registrate and reproduce signals correctly with a frequency ABOVE 20 KHz ?
2. Then this tape goes to the record manufactoring. The sound (frequencies) go to a machine that mechanically "writes > scratches" the sound on a so called "laquer". This laquer gets inverted, and from this inverted plate vinyl LP's are produced. Tell me wich record manufacturer (in 1958) could guarantee me that it could produce higher frequencies on his final product (the vinyl album) then 20 Khz ?
3. The record ends up on your turn table. Wich stylus can correctly read and transform its mechanical movement into an electric signal ? From there this electrical signal has to get amplified in your amplifier (going from about 2 MILLI volts to several volts) without loosing or distorting any of the high frequencies. Agree, most (modern) amplifiers CAN reproduce frequencies higher than 20Khz nicely. But certainly NOT those who were built in 1958 !)
Then the last step are your speakers. Agree... some modern (extremely expensive) speakers go up to maybe 40Khz. (but certainly NOT those who were built in 1958 !)
Conclusion : IF the recording mics AND the recording process AND the vinyl manufacturing AND your stylus, AND your ampifiers AND your speakers ALL are capable to handle frequencies higher than 20 KHz, only THEN we COULD state that LP's have a higher bandwidth then CD's ...
What our good friend shows here on his graph (above those 20 KHz) is nothing but noise and harmonic distortion that is added by his stylus+amp(s)+converter and has NOTHING to do with the original orchestra playing the tune ...
Our friend actually compares apples and lemons. I would like him to do the same comparison when he hooks up the audio output of his CD player (through a reverse-RIAA-correction network) to the phono input of his amplifier and then feed the "tape record" output through his analogue-digital converter to his computer program.
Although ... some records "sound" better than CD's. But I think that this is only because (older) listeners are used to "harmonic distortion" that often gives the impression of a "warmer" sound. You like it or you don't. That's your own choice. But pleaaaase don't try to convince me that on your 1958 record are frequencies above 20 Khz...
I don't really understand how you would benefit from having such a high frequency when most humans can't hear sounds that go above 20kHz in frequency. Am I missing something here?
@pihlbus Human hearing doesn't cut off sharply at 20 kHz, like the CD does. It has a gradual rolloff of sensitivity above that point, like vinyl does.
@vwestlife Sir, with all due respect, that is your NOISE FLOOR that you're viewing. Did you notice that at 60kHz your "signal" was down to -108dB? The THEORETICAL noise floor for 24bit audio is -144dB, however, even the very best single a/d-d/a chain can barely hit 120dB of dynamic range. You're using a consumer a/d-d/a, plugged in via USB, which has it's own clocking noise, as well as the noise of the PLL (phase locked loop) used to link with the computer data bus.
@vwestlife You ARE correct that vinyl records will roll off in a gentle curve, probably somewhere around 30-35kHz, as that was about the limit of the microphone/mic preamp/console/tape/cutting lathe (and that small a chain if you're LUCKY) that was available at the time these were made. I agree with your principal, however, your science is faulty. Use an Oscilloscope if you want to see the TRUE signal characteristics!
I'm not exactly sure of your needle specs, but the advertised frequency range of a similar needle for that turntable is 20,000-22,000Hz. If that is the case, then where are the frequencies above 22,000Hz coming from?
Not sure if you knew this, but in the 70s when they were playing with quad stuff, there were quad LPs with a supersonic subcarrier in the 38 khz range to kick in the decoder. They had special stylii to pick it up. Thats where the Shibata tip profile came from. I'd wager if you had one of those, you'd pull in even more highs, though typical amplifier and speakers can't reproduce it, and most people can't hear over about 20k anyhow.
@TheUglyGnome I was about to say that. Depressingly, a lot of records from the past were cut from tapes that were several generations off the original masters, so they had poor frequency response and plenty of hiss. Apparently, digital delays were used from the late 70s onwards in some mastering studios. Then there's newer digital recordings that will never have anything above 22k, but on vinyl you can be fooled...
Wait im confuse now i really need to get this tell me if im wrong or if im right. The more khz frequency has the hardest it is to hear andthe less khz or if your still just under 999hz it sounds more potent or is it the other way around?
ok i understand the most the human ear can hear is 20khz. i see alot of difference beetween 20khz and 60 khz i mean even 20khz can cause hearing loss so imaging when its up too 60khz in headphones. Im going to the university for audio production im freshman year and im focusing alot on sound frequesncy because its important for sound in my opinion and i i think that from 1hz to 20khz i think you shouldnt even go over 5khz i mean have you heard the sound of a 20khz its too much for the human ear
I do (48k-32bit float-320kbps) MP3 masters for clients to upload to their iTunes and so on!!
These MP3 are playing well over 22kHz. and NONE of the clients can tell the diff from MP3 or Wav. file.. SO no matter how high you want to record your material, lets say 386kHz (Cinema), it all comes down to your ears. 22kHz brick wall.
Best way to get good down sampling is to record at 88.2kHz down to 44.1kHz for CD masters.
@girotube MP3 removes most audio frequencies above 16 kHz. Look at a spectrum graph of an MP3 as it's playing and you'll see this is true. You can even hear it if you play one back at half speed.
@vwestlife Depends how you encoded SO! I guess you did not read the comment I made well or you are not aware of what you can do with MP3 and a real Mastering Suite ..
(48kHz-32bit float-320kbps) These MP3 are playing well over 22kHz. and NONE of the clients can tell the diff from MP3 or Wav. file.
The MP3 on the Graph is over 22kHz buddy! If you want I'll send you the Graphs!
Like I said on the post. (48k-32bit float-320kbps) HD MP3.. Not your average trash mp3.. OK?
@vwestlife An Mp3 file encoded at 320cbr/joint stereo using one of the newest LAME encoders will cut off at about 21.5khz per channel. If you find your encodes cutting out at 16khz, then you're using an extremely poor encoder.
@vwestlife It also comes down to the quality of the source material. You could have a 24bit master that still cuts out at 16khz if it was poorly recorded in the first place. A lot of 60's music can cut off at pretty low frequencies. The real quality of old recordings come from the dynamic range, not the frequency range.
CD's have the adequate sample range for us Humans..
22k was double to 44k well beyond our ears.... If we were bats and our speakers cloud play back 96K, then all this would make a difference..
Recording at 96K is useless.. we can't hear none of the "subharmonics"... Only harmonics in the 20-20k of our hears and speakers range, we can hear...
AND I'm sure the gentleman on the video can't hear past 15Khz
Lets give this a rest.. Its all psycho acoustics...
Well... with SACD you would have a hard time finding audio sources that would use the capabilities of SACD to it's fullest.
The only thing I could think of is actual NTSC television signals, which would theoretically be stable on a TV despite the extreme blurriness and 1MHz cutoff
That is just so much how it should look. I don't care if it's not possible to hear the difference, it still bugs my mind. And looking at the spectrum in this video just gives me so much peace in mind. Thank you :)
I don't really understand the meaning of the video i mean the fact that CD are "bad". The human hear of a young man in good health condition, arrives up to 20 kHz!
The average ears are arriving up to 16 kHz.
The information sampled, contains all the required infos if it's sampled at least 2 times the max frequency.
so: who really cares about 30 kHz and more ???
The Ultrasound aspect of VINYL was used for Quadraphonic. Did you ever heard the 38-40kHz carrier?? no. of course
CDs are convenient. you can't exactly carry a record player around with you when you'r out and about but when it comes down to actually listening to a piece of music you can't beat vinyl.To me It's like taking the band home with you. It's not that records are too expensive to manufacture today it's just CDs are cheaper to produce and can be knocked out a lot faster but if you really want to listen to the music and not just hear it, vinyl will trump all everytime! Good vid man:)
Kudos Vwestlife. What people really don't understand is that when a recording happens in digital the mix of the hundreds of different audible freqs will sort of confuse the ADC and that is why the CD losses that lifelike sound. Then playind back the track on CD the DAC will try to copy what the ADC recorded in the first place. If anyone wants to get a visual, just zoom in on any digital picture and you will see the loss that happens. It is the same in audio as well. There is lots of loss in CDs
@megaohmz a very smart guy called Nyquist called your BS a long time ago. I suggest you read about the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem before making shit up about things you clearly know nothing about.
And by the way, to the person who made this video, good luck finding those state-of-the-art microphones made circa 1958 that captured that ultrasonic sound. I had heard all kind of whacky things to praise the sound of vinyl over CD, but this one tops the cake.
@GuillermoSTD Funny, last I checked Nyquist sampling rates only assured you'd get a triangle wave at the limits. Sound is a sine wave, not a triangle, you need to sample much faster than 2x the frequency to accurately make a sine wave again. This is where that "warmth" thing comes into play, the reproduction of almost all digital devices becomes more of a triangle wave as you approach the nyquist frequency. Go look at a CD's output on a scope, you'll see what I mean.
@dieselchevette Sound is a combination of waveforms, not just sine waves. A violin produces a triangle wave- the string sticks to the bow and then snaps back. A guitar produces a sine wave because it goes back and forth evenly. A lot depends also on the shape of the wave in terms of attack and decay (and harmonics). If music were only sine waves, you could get (boring...) music by plugging your speakers into an AC outlet.
Our ears are limited to lets say 20kHz... apart from the technical problems as pointed out here in recording high frequencies... this video proves nothing
@Gooseberry51 If you combine hundreds of frequencies in a given recording, the percieved freq. will be much higher than 20kHz. Look on a real oscope at some sine waves at 20k, 18k, 15k, 13k, 12k, etc and count the peaks at the top of the wave forms and calculate, you will see that the frequency is arbitrarily way more than 20kHz. That is why more detail is percieved on a vinyl record than a CD.
@Gooseberry51 You're right. No human can hear even 24khz... this video proves nothing. So even if you could record music say from 23khz up to 60 khz no humans can hear it anyway. Finally someone who remembers that the human hearing ability is the limit!
To sum it up: It means nothing that no cd can play above 22khz as it is beyond the range of human hearing anyway.
The problem with vinyl is that all you get above 15-20 kHz is just noise, because the needle is simply not small and light enough to play all those small bits, not to say it's not possible to record them appropriately on a piece of plastic.
Hey guys I've a question, I just bought a cr7002a, which can play cds, vinyls and cassettes, but the problem is that whenever I play a vinyl on this devise the sound quality is not as crisp as cds or any other digital formats!!! I heard before that vinyls should have a better quality when it comes to sound,but the quality of my devise is not even as equal as mp3!Please someone tell me how i can fix this, if at all!!!!
@TheLordOmen Those Crosley all-in-one systems use a cheap ceramic cartridge on the turntable, which gives very poor sound compared to a turntable with a magnetic cartridge.
@TheLordOmen Get yourself an seperates system. A NAD 3020 amp has a legendary phono output.With a reasonable record deck & speakers it blows cds away sound wise.All in one systems will always lack quality somewhere,especially if they have all the daft flashing lights etc. The very best amps have a volume,balance & source buttons along with the on/off,so signal paths are shorter etc.No bass or treble.Money gets spent on the guts rather than bells & whistles!
@TheLordOmen Most serial mass-production all-in-ones are made with the cheapest parts, especially in the different amplification stages. Probably the pre-amp for vynils is not set very well. What I suggest you is to go to your local audiophile store (or electronic repair centre, not computers) and have a talk with the most experienced guy in this place. You will find it interesting for sure. Maybe he will make you listen the difference between such audio formats, a pure delight for your ears!
What can be accomplished using vinyl is highly dependent on the equipment used. Waveforms above 50KHz have been cut and retrieved, but don't count on that with the average cartridge. What you can expect from an elliptical stylus is a response that starts to fall between 16-18KHz and still contains relevant information at 26-28KHz. With a Shibata stylus usable response can be extended to 45-50KHz. As you approach the limit, distortion increases so that will account for some of what's on the plot.
Uhhh............no. Neil Young was wrong. First of all, it's not clear what this guy is demonstrating with this video. It's not clear where those high frequencies actually came from. In addition, nobody can hear that high, so it doesn't matter.
Okay mister... to bring your point across the only right and decent way, you should have used two of the same recordings! One on vinyl and one on CD... This is a crap comparison!
Are you using vinyl player's built-in phono preamplifier or do you input phono signal to the sound card? If you are using player's built-in phono amplifier I don't think it will amplify frequencies above 22KHz.
@RandomConcepts Loudspeakers and headphones also use 1800s technology, and add their own mechanical distortion, too. Every piece of audio equipment has its own flaws and introduces its own degree of distortion and noise -- even the wiring. But with high quality components, these flaws can be minimized to the extent that they are unnoticeable to the listener. And speakers are always analog devices, so there is no inherent reason why analog audio sources can't be as good as digital sources.
was just saying its not the range in khz thats the problem with cds, or cycles or anything else.
the problem with digital is its plotting each indivdual points rather than having a smooth sine wave, so the amount of data needed is huge, a cd has less points plotted, where as an audio dvd has plotted enough to really make very little difference.
its the level of compression to fit the data on the limited storage on the disc thats the problem.
@jjovereats all cds have some sort of compression, the audio lacks depth and tend to sound flatter.
the music seams more of a flat oneness rather than the clarity of seperation and depth a good vinyl recording has, thats why most people prefer records cause the music sounds almost identical but has more depth and feels more alive
@cant1rac Not all CD's. MP3 CD's have audio data compression, regular CD's have either no compression or dynamic range compression. Liar, dumbass, idiot!
@jjovereats You're confusing digital data compression with dynamic range compression. CDs do not use digital data compression, but almost all CDs made within the last 15 years use lots of dynamic range compression -- often to an extreme degree, which really makes the music sound squashed, distorted, and lifeless. This is called the "CD loudness war".
@jjovereats you lose a crediblity when you start calling people rude name's, and you lose even more when you say mp3 is not compression.
weither its dynamic range or data digital compression, its clear mp3 is a very compressed format, and all cds are compressed too.
all i was saying was this is the biggest affect on sound quality is not the frequencys they can effectively play back on your home stereo, but the compression.
keep a civil tounge in your head i might even answer back.
@cant1rac You lose a lot of credibility when you tell falsehoods....
Not all CD's are compressed. CD's w/ MP3's are data compressed. Some rock pop CD's today are released dynamically compressed. Some + Some ≠ All!!!! You must know this! Check that the struck-through equation sign displays well on your PC.
@jjovereats MOST, not SOME. Look up the "loudness war". You'd be shocked to see (and hear) the amount of compression, limiting, and clipping that is used on modern CDs of all genres. This is a large part of why people are going back to vinyl again -- because today's CDs (and digital downloads) are too loud and too distorted!
@jjovereats look you start your comments calling people liars and some very childish language.
then you say state that mp3 are not compressed.
but MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 Audio Layer III, more commonly referred to as MP3, is a patented digital audio encoding format using a form of lossy data compression.
all cds have to use some form of compression, weithers its data, dynamic range or what ever, or the level off data could never fit on a 700mb cd.
that why dvd audio existed, to get over that limitation
may i point out the record companies said similar to what i have when marketing audio dvd's,
that is due to the greater capasity of dvd they can store more at a higher bit rate equaling vinyl in sound quality with the advantage of extra media
at the same highest quality bit rate on audio dvd to equal the sound quality of vinyl, you could only have 2-3 songs on the amount of storage space avilable before compression was nessacery.
@jjovereats im a musician, one thing i know about is compresion, because it affects the quality of what i put out, weither it ogg vorbis, mp3 (which are lossy forms of compression) or flac (which is lossless form of compression).
cd audio is slightly compressed lacking the depth to the listener that a good record has, on a piece of vinyl. the maximum bit rate on a audio dvd is 9.6 megabits per second before data on the dvd needs to be compressed, that equates to 16 tracks uncompressed.
@jjovereats on average audio dvd has 6.7 times the capasity of a cd.
so if 16 tracks at that 9,6 bit rate that would equal the audio quality of a piece of vinyl, how many tracks do you think you would fit on a cd at a similar bitrate, before compression...hmmm
not very much.
so all audio cd's have some kind of compression either dynamically or data or both depending on the length of the tracks, number of tracks, the audio range the recorded music is, etc or you couldnt fit it on the cd at all
@cant1rac Ok. Lets go with some technobabble here about losslessness and my idea.
My idea is "FLAC CD". It's using FLAC compression level 8 tracks on a Data CD, playable in any FLCDP.
Supported bitrate: About ~2100kbit/s for 4-channel 16-bit 44100kHz, allowed to go upwards when necessary
to achieve full surround-ready sound. So for a mono channel, you use about 400kbit/s. Add on another channel and you yield 700kbit/s. And it just goes on to about 2100kbit/s for full 4-channel stereo/surround.
Just do 96khz..anything overthat is overkill for commercial recorded audio. If you are doing live music though..by all means try to use as high end as possible for nice noise floor. Good comparison..many people are still confused I guess. :) cheers.
Very rare microphone picks up frequencies over 20 kHz. These are specialty mesurement mics. I don't think that any microphone usually used for recording, especially 60 years ago, would be able to do it. Upper frequency for analog tape is also about 20 kHz. So I have to agree with others claiming that what you see in the high part of the spectrum is most likely to be noise and distortion artifacts. Of course that doesn't mean that a vinyl sounds bad. I can't hear anything over 17k anyway.
@Parkinson9999 no way, you can get up to and over 38,000 KHZ on audio tape. Usually noise shaping and equalization makes it seem there is a limit to 20khz. Just take a variety of records and a Cart that is capable of handling full range, and look with audio scope that can do up to 96khz..and you will see very clear transients alot especially in good Jazz and classical and (some rock) you get not just distortion but clear hits above and beyond 32,000 cycles. No joke. I can prove it.
@oatstao By "distortion artifacts" I mean: let's say,the highest overtone that a microphone picks, is 20k. In a record, it won't be cut as a perfect sine: it will be a little imperfect - skewered,clipped, rounded. Those tiny imperfections would create more overtones, that extend all the way up. I GUESS so. The best way to check it would be analyzing a record that was definitely created digitally,with 20k ceiling,but pressed as a vinyl.If it still exhibits wider range than that - it's distortion.
This is a really good demonstration. Thank you for sharing. I compose music and I am really getting into bringing those clicks on pops back int music.
@RalphHify Sure, youre right, but it cant be noise as you can see the line jumping with the beat. It might be the harmonic oscillation of the cutter stylus (not the newer playback one, its designed not to oscillate) but it proves one thing- you can record ultrasonics on an lp, which is the point of this test. I think I read somewhere that engineers who worked on quadrophonic record cut a 140 khz sinewave onto an lp and played it back with a special cartridge.
It's very unlikley that any tape recorder or microphone used back in 1958 would have captured any sound much above 20khz or so. If it isn't on the record then what you are in fact seeing is not musical content but noise that could come from a number of sources not the least of which is the cartridge on your turntable - these invariaby all ring. Other sources of noice would include your computer , rfi or any of the devices you used to produce this demonstration.
@RalphHify Exactly what I was thinking. There is no way on earth that audio signals up to 60 kHz could have been recorded in 1958. The technology to achieve this simply didn't exist back then. What happens is that when the needle is exited by a say 10 kHz signal, it will also oscillate at 20 kHz, 40 kHz and so on. What you are actually recording between 20 and 60 kHz are subharmonics from the oscillating needle that is exited by the lower frequency audio signals.
@mojoblues66 Exactly, that's why everything flattens out significantly above 40 kHz and the bumps and rolls cease to exist or become visible harmonics of the lower spectral bumps. I bet if the 40 - 60 kHz audio was captured and spectrally reduced to an audible range it would be white noise & faint echoes
its true the limit of human hearing is more or less from 20hz to 20khz. and Cd goes to 22.5khz. however the frequencies above 20khz to 25khz, 26khz, despite that we cant hear them, they still afect all the other ones.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But, surely, this is a pointless video? Because you are not actually playing the record/cd's "live" as it were, you are playing them through your laptop which converts everything to digital anyway. Also, when playing the sampled records you are prving to me that digital CAN capture all the frequency responce, because, if it coud'n't it wouldn't of shown up on the graph! Just goes to show how perfect digital recordings are! Trash vinly! Its a poor method of listening to music! Love cd's forever!
@richhead2011 You missed the point. Watch the video again and pay attention. CDs are only 44.1 kHz, whereas you need at least a 96 kHz digital recording, or preferably even 192 kHz, to capture most of the frequency range that an LP can reproduce.
@richhead2011 you're a modern comedian. Funny guy ;) It says you have received too many negative votes..I think people missed the point..Unless you are truly clueless.
Here's the simple test for who wins this stupid comparison. Try to play 64,000 cycles on a CD. Sorry you cannot. A Vinyl LP with quality mastering of full dynamics and competant Cartridge you can easily see 32,000 cycles per channel. Impossible oN CD. I can get a good sounding CD of Burned Vinyl..just can't better vinyl though
Of course the 96khz would never get the 60 Khz! the limit to hear the 60 khz would be 120 khz and it will be the redline! I heard the difference on an studio with 192khz audio 24bit vs vinyl on Dynaudio M3. It almost can't hit the analog!
@RandomConcepts, WTF are you talking about? Isn't anything that goes through a speaker a "Mechanical Facsimile" of an analog waveform. As far as being technically flawed... You have that backwards. The CD is technically flawed... Digital is all smoke and mirrors...
So, first off I have to say that I have Vinyl LPs, MP3, MiniDisc, CD, DVD Audio & SACD stereo & multichannel.. To me the vinyl sounds the best... The only thing that I've heard that comes close is SACD which is DSD 1 Bit, 2.8224 Mbps sampling rate. Just listen to Dark Side Of The Moon on CD then LP then SACD. Plus it's multi-channel. This is a great video as far as the fidelity goes and the explanation about the Nyquist Theorm (Half of 44.1 KHz)
You are right my freind.I am studio engyneer too,am often i .ve sampling from lp because in esence they are pretty pure music next to realyty.Have u hear how it sound a LP it a cristal NIDLE??Haven!I thing if u permeted me !I thing u made a litlle mistake.U can t hear from your comp dh audio u need a sound card to transform ad to da hd and then throw a good onest speakers.Any way still your way can hear the diference.Imagine my way to hear.People don t know or simple don-t heear.Cheers!
Lol, this test is so wrong i dont even know where to start.
First of all, mastering houses cut frequencies from vinyl even more than they cut them from CD's because vinyl's physical limitations.
Also the +40khz data, is probably noise from artifacts.
Capeau 4 days ago
@Capeau I know the high end headroom of vinyl is limited due to the RIAA curve, but the point is, CD audio is brickwalled at 20kHz while vinyl audio is not. And the CD4 quadraphonic system proves that vinyl is capable of reproducing audio content up to 45kHz.
vwest7ife 4 days ago
@vwest7ife
CD is brickwalled at 20kHz for a reason; the human ear cant hear higher tones than that anyway (in perfect state). Even a 16yr old doesnt heat up to 20kHz anymore . So it doesnt matter at all
Capeau 3 days ago
@Capeau But the brickwall filter, used both during recording and during playback in the CD player itself, causes distortion down in the audible range (below 20 kHz) due to "ringing" and phase shift. Today's excessively bright-sounding CDs make this problem even worse.
vwestlife 3 days ago
@vwestlife
Brickwall filter inside a cd player itself? Wtf?
Capeau 3 days ago
@Capeau Yes, all good CD players contain a 20 kHz anti-aliasing filter, otherwise the audio spectrum will be aliased ("mirrored") above 20 kHz, which could literally burn out your tweeters! Since the 1990s, this filtering has been done digitially, but 1980s CD players used an analog anti-aliasing filter.
vwestlife 3 days ago
@vwestlife
Yes i know, but its there to make things sound better, not bad. Anyway im not going to reply on this anymore... got work to do :d
Capeau 3 days ago
@vwestlife
Brickwall filtering doesn't cause distortion, it's meant to prevent distortion. Even then, it's reasonable to be skeptical about whether or not anyone needs to use a brickwall filter because it's not obvious that frequencies above 22050 hz can have an audible effect on anything.
Mortison77577 1 day ago
LPs really have better sound than CD. We can just feel it on the bass... It is impossible to a square wave to be like a sinewave. There'll be gaps that will be not fullfilled, and this is the digital compression.
soundofreis78 5 days ago
@soundofreis78
CDs don't output square waves, they output sine waves. The digital to analog converters convert it from a square wave to a sine waves.
Mortison77577 1 day ago
@Mortison77577 This is obvious!!! Everything must be converted to an analog signal to be usefull. But if you record Analog and play Analog you have a lossless system. If you record an original analog audio source to a digital media you will have compression and so lose of quality. It will never be the same as the original.
soundofreis78 1 day ago
@soundofreis78
No, you won't have "compression", that's something else. And no, when you convert it back to analog you won't necessarily have any loss of quality. Argument like that were reasonable maybe 30 years ago, but now they're just an embarassment.
Mortison77577 1 day ago
Sorry, but it seems that for your "scientific" experiment you did chose the crapiest turntable/tonearm/cartridge available...
What garbage bin did you found it in?
And do you think the High Fidelity is related to frequency range alone?
You're just sighting the tip of the iceberg from a huge distance...
Shadowplaytime 6 days ago
@Shadowplaytime Instead of trashing my video, wouldn't it be more productive for you to make your own video using your own equipment? I would be glad to have you post it as a video response.
Oh, that's right... I looked on your channel, and as typical for haters, you have no videos of your own uploaded. I guess you can't afford a camera, because you spent all your money on "audiophile" components?
vwestlife 6 days ago
@vwestlife
Well, it looks like your formatted mind is plenty of labels/tags such as "haters", "audiophile" and such, but judging by the kind of reply, perhaps the hater it's you at last...
My equipment doesn't need to have "studies" like yours as it's well proven:
Townshend, Rega, Ariston Audio, Ortofon, Digitrac, Meridian, Cambridge Audio, Heco, etc., etc.
All weird names for you I guess, all pretty good and all affordable, so still some money left for a nice Canon EOS with Sigma lenses.
Shadowplaytime 6 days ago
@Shadowplaytime Those are all audiophile brands. I'm sure your phono cartridge cost more than my entire turntable did, but I'm fine with that -- after all, back in the '80s and '90s when all the rich people were buying CDs, I still listened to records because they were cheaper; and now that all the rich people are buying LPs again, I'm still listening to CDs because they are cheaper!
vwestlife 6 days ago
@vwestlife
Hi again.
Look, I just don't want to start any kind of argument on this, anyway please get rid of those tags, there are no such "audiophile" brands, there is good equipment and not so good, down to bad, sometimes all those classes within the same brand (as Pioneer, and a few AT examples...).
Some equipment is surely overpriced, but as in every kind of hardware, we know that the cost of approaching perfection is not linear.
But at any price level, vinyl is always superior to CD...
Shadowplaytime 5 days ago
@Shadowplaytime
CD kicks vinyl's ass as playback medium. It's just that some CDs aren't mastered very well.
Mortison77577 1 day ago
@Mortison77577
Yes, just the same way that Earth is flat, it's just that we don't sight far enough to make sure it is... :-D
Shadowplaytime 1 day ago
I guess you are doing something wrong.
Show me the 1980 studio equipment which would allow up to 60 Khz sound processing. You are displaying artefacts of unknown origin.
MucusFelidae 1 week ago
How did you make sure that those high frequencies are not a result of harmonic distortion?
Mawerick77 1 week ago
Well done video and informative. Though I knew this to be the case, it's nice to see the proof graphically on your computer monitor. The biggest question is "are humans able to tell the difference?". I think that we can.
MrAAA3330 1 week ago
Didn't you have a video of comparing a song by Four Seasons on vinyl to the CD?
GenesisKnights 2 weeks ago
@GenesisKnights Yes, but I had to take it down due to copyright restrictions.
vwestlife 2 weeks ago
what program are you using in this video
vinylforever1 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@vinylforever1 Adobe Audition 1.5.
vwestlife 2 weeks ago
go to work and buy a real turntable!!!
giraya5 2 weeks ago
why a cheap turntable with ceramyc needle? why not a michell gyrodeck with a ortopon hi end series?your measures are joke.
giraya5 2 weeks ago
@giraya5 My Pioneer PL-990 turntable may be cheap, but it does use a good quality Audio-Technica AT3600 magnetic cartridge with an elliptical stylus. And if you want to pay me thousands of dollars for one of those "audiophool" turntables, I'd be glad to repeat the experiment!
vwestlife 2 weeks ago 4
Kool komparison! I chuckle (not quite LOL) at your application of tape strips on your computer display. You will have to admit that that is very old-fashioned, crusty, and analog.
Also, is there some way to ask dogs, cats, and bats to evaluate the loss of quality on CD-quality digital audio?
GregoryTheGr8ster 1 month ago
Good job, but wasn't there a better cd to compare to? that symphonic queen CD sounds like a casio keyboard demo!
epalmotion 1 month ago 2
The human ear may not be able to hear beyond 20 to 21khz, but the presence of higher frequencies can effect the sound of the lower frequencies in which we can hear.
Thats why people often discribe vinyl as sounder richer and warmer. Its the higher frequencies having an effect on the lower frequencies.
TranceBeforeWeDie 1 month ago
IMO anything above around 14khz is irrelevant to music.
transdrole 1 month ago
Even with a vinyl LP ripped to MP3 it still sound so much more "lively" than CD version.
CD quality lacks sound details in the music.
I listened an EWF album both vinyl rip and CD remastered version.
Surprisingly the LP sound more detailed and on CD it often sound flat something like horns
percussion and drums really tells it.
Even though i sound like someone who don't know anything in sound recording,LP is the clear
winner in sound quality.
brainysnaeha 1 month ago
Nothing beats a good cd-4 quadraphonic setup. I spit on 5.1 or 7.1 Dolby Surround which is based partly on QS Matrix. CD-4 is expensive and out of print. I would rather have a stack of LPs, Quadraphonic Reel to Reel, and Quadraphonic 8 tracks along with a nice Quadraphonic amp than purchase a surround sound receiver. So what if it doesn't have a remote control, no wonder why America is getter fatter. Don't get me started on XM known as tin can radio made by progresso soup.
willdav713 1 month ago
Sorry guys, but I just don't believe it.
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
OK. More high frequenties in a sound will give it more definition. (this is why we hear the difference between le's say a piano and a trumpet both producing the same note) When you record with a device that has a very low frequency width, all instuments will sound the same. If we go to the extreme and have a recorder that only records between 439 and 441 Hz, the sound of a piano playing an A will sound exactly the same as when a trumpet plays that same A.
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
But because all instruments produce different harmonics, we can distinguish if the A is played by a trumpet or a piano or a guitar or whatever instrument. So again : the more harmonics we can pick up from the instruments the more we'll hear the difference between instruments.
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
Now, In this video they show is that there's more high frequencies on an (old) album than on a modern CD. Bullcrap !!! Our good friend here, "shows" that there is sound above 22KHz, above 40KHz, even above 60 Khz. To hear this on your stereo there are quite some things absolutely necessary.
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
1. Let's start whith the recording. the music was played by a band/orchestra and recorded with microphones, yes? Now tell me wich microphone (in 1958) was able to "catch" frequencies above 20Khz ?
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
Then the signal (coming from the mic) had to be amplified through an amplifier or mixing console. Please tell me wich amplifier or mixing console) was able to handle frequencies above 20Khz in 1958 ?
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
Then the amplified signal had to be recorded to a tape. Tell me what (even professional) tape recorders could registrate and reproduce signals correctly with a frequency ABOVE 20 KHz ?
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
2. Then this tape goes to the record manufactoring. The sound (frequencies) go to a machine that mechanically "writes > scratches" the sound on a so called "laquer". This laquer gets inverted, and from this inverted plate vinyl LP's are produced. Tell me wich record manufacturer (in 1958) could guarantee me that it could produce higher frequencies on his final product (the vinyl album) then 20 Khz ?
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
3. The record ends up on your turn table. Wich stylus can correctly read and transform its mechanical movement into an electric signal ? From there this electrical signal has to get amplified in your amplifier (going from about 2 MILLI volts to several volts) without loosing or distorting any of the high frequencies. Agree, most (modern) amplifiers CAN reproduce frequencies higher than 20Khz nicely. But certainly NOT those who were built in 1958 !)
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
Then the last step are your speakers. Agree... some modern (extremely expensive) speakers go up to maybe 40Khz. (but certainly NOT those who were built in 1958 !)
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
Conclusion : IF the recording mics AND the recording process AND the vinyl manufacturing AND your stylus, AND your ampifiers AND your speakers ALL are capable to handle frequencies higher than 20 KHz, only THEN we COULD state that LP's have a higher bandwidth then CD's ...
What our good friend shows here on his graph (above those 20 KHz) is nothing but noise and harmonic distortion that is added by his stylus+amp(s)+converter and has NOTHING to do with the original orchestra playing the tune ...
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
Our friend actually compares apples and lemons. I would like him to do the same comparison when he hooks up the audio output of his CD player (through a reverse-RIAA-correction network) to the phono input of his amplifier and then feed the "tape record" output through his analogue-digital converter to his computer program.
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
Although ... some records "sound" better than CD's. But I think that this is only because (older) listeners are used to "harmonic distortion" that often gives the impression of a "warmer" sound. You like it or you don't. That's your own choice. But pleaaaase don't try to convince me that on your 1958 record are frequencies above 20 Khz...
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
Comment removed
paulvandenbossche 1 month ago
I don't really understand how you would benefit from having such a high frequency when most humans can't hear sounds that go above 20kHz in frequency. Am I missing something here?
pihlbus 1 month ago 2
@pihlbus Human hearing doesn't cut off sharply at 20 kHz, like the CD does. It has a gradual rolloff of sensitivity above that point, like vinyl does.
vwestlife 1 month ago 9
@vwestlife Sir, with all due respect, that is your NOISE FLOOR that you're viewing. Did you notice that at 60kHz your "signal" was down to -108dB? The THEORETICAL noise floor for 24bit audio is -144dB, however, even the very best single a/d-d/a chain can barely hit 120dB of dynamic range. You're using a consumer a/d-d/a, plugged in via USB, which has it's own clocking noise, as well as the noise of the PLL (phase locked loop) used to link with the computer data bus.
jimmyklane 1 month ago
@vwestlife You ARE correct that vinyl records will roll off in a gentle curve, probably somewhere around 30-35kHz, as that was about the limit of the microphone/mic preamp/console/tape/cutting lathe (and that small a chain if you're LUCKY) that was available at the time these were made. I agree with your principal, however, your science is faulty. Use an Oscilloscope if you want to see the TRUE signal characteristics!
I hope this finds you well!
jimmyklane 1 month ago
@vwestlife Almost nobody can hear anything higher than 20k hz.
Mortison77577 6 days ago
@vwestlife
No, most people can't hear above 20K Hz and it's actually pretty rare to be able to hear above 16 K hz.
Mortison77577 1 day ago
@pihlbus its called "air" and also the difference between 16 and 24 bit, but in a nutshell, you are correct
TheeAldeen 1 month ago
I'm not exactly sure of your needle specs, but the advertised frequency range of a similar needle for that turntable is 20,000-22,000Hz. If that is the case, then where are the frequencies above 22,000Hz coming from?
AeroVortex92 1 month ago
@AeroVortex92 That's because analog has a gradual rolloff of audio response above the stated frequency range, not a sharp cutoff like with digital.
vwestlife 1 month ago 2
Not sure if you knew this, but in the 70s when they were playing with quad stuff, there were quad LPs with a supersonic subcarrier in the 38 khz range to kick in the decoder. They had special stylii to pick it up. Thats where the Shibata tip profile came from. I'd wager if you had one of those, you'd pull in even more highs, though typical amplifier and speakers can't reproduce it, and most people can't hear over about 20k anyhow.
gadget73 2 months ago
@gadget73 I still use my Nagaoka with the Shibata tip!
Nietsdoen 1 month ago
Did it come to you mind, that ultrasonic information you recorded is actually harmonic DISTORTION generated by your LP player?
TheUglyGnome 2 months ago
@TheUglyGnome I was about to say that. Depressingly, a lot of records from the past were cut from tapes that were several generations off the original masters, so they had poor frequency response and plenty of hiss. Apparently, digital delays were used from the late 70s onwards in some mastering studios. Then there's newer digital recordings that will never have anything above 22k, but on vinyl you can be fooled...
Satlam 2 months ago
Well, vinyl sounds a little better than cd, A.) Big surprise B.) not so much better that it makes the song better or worse. So I don't care.
Coldmystery 2 months ago
Wow, that recording of the CD sounded so bland compared to the vinyl record. I'm curious what the spectrogram would show at 192kHz.
treeware 2 months ago
Wait im confuse now i really need to get this tell me if im wrong or if im right. The more khz frequency has the hardest it is to hear andthe less khz or if your still just under 999hz it sounds more potent or is it the other way around?
ZZWWW23 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok i understand the most the human ear can hear is 20khz. i see alot of difference beetween 20khz and 60 khz i mean even 20khz can cause hearing loss so imaging when its up too 60khz in headphones. Im going to the university for audio production im freshman year and im focusing alot on sound frequesncy because its important for sound in my opinion and i i think that from 1hz to 20khz i think you shouldnt even go over 5khz i mean have you heard the sound of a 20khz its too much for the human ear
ZZWWW23 2 months ago
Comment removed
ZZWWW23 2 months ago
A well codec would make MP3s just as good.
I do (48k-32bit float-320kbps) MP3 masters for clients to upload to their iTunes and so on!!
These MP3 are playing well over 22kHz. and NONE of the clients can tell the diff from MP3 or Wav. file.. SO no matter how high you want to record your material, lets say 386kHz (Cinema), it all comes down to your ears. 22kHz brick wall.
Best way to get good down sampling is to record at 88.2kHz down to 44.1kHz for CD masters.
cheers to all and happy holidays
girotube 2 months ago
@girotube MP3 removes most audio frequencies above 16 kHz. Look at a spectrum graph of an MP3 as it's playing and you'll see this is true. You can even hear it if you play one back at half speed.
vwestlife 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vwestlife Depends how you encoded SO! I guess you did not read the comment I made well or you are not aware of what you can do with MP3 and a real Mastering Suite ..
(48kHz-32bit float-320kbps) These MP3 are playing well over 22kHz. and NONE of the clients can tell the diff from MP3 or Wav. file.
The MP3 on the Graph is over 22kHz buddy! If you want I'll send you the Graphs!
Like I said on the post. (48k-32bit float-320kbps) HD MP3.. Not your average trash mp3.. OK?
cheers
girotube 2 months ago
@vwestlife An Mp3 file encoded at 320cbr/joint stereo using one of the newest LAME encoders will cut off at about 21.5khz per channel. If you find your encodes cutting out at 16khz, then you're using an extremely poor encoder.
TranceBeforeWeDie 1 month ago
@vwestlife It also comes down to the quality of the source material. You could have a 24bit master that still cuts out at 16khz if it was poorly recorded in the first place. A lot of 60's music can cut off at pretty low frequencies. The real quality of old recordings come from the dynamic range, not the frequency range.
TranceBeforeWeDie 1 month ago
CD's have the adequate sample range for us Humans..
22k was double to 44k well beyond our ears.... If we were bats and our speakers cloud play back 96K, then all this would make a difference..
Recording at 96K is useless.. we can't hear none of the "subharmonics"... Only harmonics in the 20-20k of our hears and speakers range, we can hear...
AND I'm sure the gentleman on the video can't hear past 15Khz
Lets give this a rest.. Its all psycho acoustics...
girotube 2 months ago
hooked on classics
EXTREME4YEARSTOCOME 2 months ago
Thanks, you have given me a whole new outlook on lp`s vs cd.
mrbizzarro 2 months ago
Cool Edit Pro/ Adobe Audition rulez!
Lalli1987 2 months ago
@Lalli1987 mmmh! WAVELAB 7 rules you mean.. :)
cheers
girotube 2 months ago
I havae the same computer
kawikatube 2 months ago
In this case I backup all my vinyls using FLAC format instead of Mp3 (Free Lossless Audio Codec).
mramo 3 months ago
Your video was very descriptive & informative. Well done "vwestlife".
mramo 3 months ago
Well... with SACD you would have a hard time finding audio sources that would use the capabilities of SACD to it's fullest.
The only thing I could think of is actual NTSC television signals, which would theoretically be stable on a TV despite the extreme blurriness and 1MHz cutoff
kargaroc386 3 months ago
If you used a better turntable and cartridge you will get much better results.I still like lps but i do think cds are getting better.
2574mcu 3 months ago
amazing !
I have heard that LP's sound is better than the CD's sound but I didn't know how much high the difference between they can be.
I prefer the sound of the LP compared with the sound of the CD because the drums and the high frequency are powerfull with the LP ... even old
Thanks for the post, I have learn something tonight.
great video
cassettes51 3 months ago
That is just so much how it should look. I don't care if it's not possible to hear the difference, it still bugs my mind. And looking at the spectrum in this video just gives me so much peace in mind. Thank you :)
majcherek128 3 months ago
I don't really understand the meaning of the video i mean the fact that CD are "bad". The human hear of a young man in good health condition, arrives up to 20 kHz!
The average ears are arriving up to 16 kHz.
The information sampled, contains all the required infos if it's sampled at least 2 times the max frequency.
so: who really cares about 30 kHz and more ???
The Ultrasound aspect of VINYL was used for Quadraphonic. Did you ever heard the 38-40kHz carrier?? no. of course
iw2mln 3 months ago
2:36 then why do the example.. its a sonic difference, forget spectrums.. u cant feel or hear what you see
mikechecks 4 months ago
you clown. sidebands
riddik6792 4 months ago
CDs are convenient. you can't exactly carry a record player around with you when you'r out and about but when it comes down to actually listening to a piece of music you can't beat vinyl.To me It's like taking the band home with you. It's not that records are too expensive to manufacture today it's just CDs are cheaper to produce and can be knocked out a lot faster but if you really want to listen to the music and not just hear it, vinyl will trump all everytime! Good vid man:)
morrismagic08 4 months ago
Kudos Vwestlife. What people really don't understand is that when a recording happens in digital the mix of the hundreds of different audible freqs will sort of confuse the ADC and that is why the CD losses that lifelike sound. Then playind back the track on CD the DAC will try to copy what the ADC recorded in the first place. If anyone wants to get a visual, just zoom in on any digital picture and you will see the loss that happens. It is the same in audio as well. There is lots of loss in CDs
megaohmz 5 months ago
@megaohmz a very smart guy called Nyquist called your BS a long time ago. I suggest you read about the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem before making shit up about things you clearly know nothing about.
And by the way, to the person who made this video, good luck finding those state-of-the-art microphones made circa 1958 that captured that ultrasonic sound. I had heard all kind of whacky things to praise the sound of vinyl over CD, but this one tops the cake.
GuillermoSTD 3 months ago
@GuillermoSTD Funny, last I checked Nyquist sampling rates only assured you'd get a triangle wave at the limits. Sound is a sine wave, not a triangle, you need to sample much faster than 2x the frequency to accurately make a sine wave again. This is where that "warmth" thing comes into play, the reproduction of almost all digital devices becomes more of a triangle wave as you approach the nyquist frequency. Go look at a CD's output on a scope, you'll see what I mean.
dieselchevette 2 months ago
@dieselchevette Sound is a combination of waveforms, not just sine waves. A violin produces a triangle wave- the string sticks to the bow and then snaps back. A guitar produces a sine wave because it goes back and forth evenly. A lot depends also on the shape of the wave in terms of attack and decay (and harmonics). If music were only sine waves, you could get (boring...) music by plugging your speakers into an AC outlet.
Mark5W8Comer 2 months ago
Our ears are limited to lets say 20kHz... apart from the technical problems as pointed out here in recording high frequencies... this video proves nothing
Gooseberry51 5 months ago
@Gooseberry51 If you combine hundreds of frequencies in a given recording, the percieved freq. will be much higher than 20kHz. Look on a real oscope at some sine waves at 20k, 18k, 15k, 13k, 12k, etc and count the peaks at the top of the wave forms and calculate, you will see that the frequency is arbitrarily way more than 20kHz. That is why more detail is percieved on a vinyl record than a CD.
megaohmz 5 months ago
@Gooseberry51 You're right. No human can hear even 24khz... this video proves nothing. So even if you could record music say from 23khz up to 60 khz no humans can hear it anyway. Finally someone who remembers that the human hearing ability is the limit!
To sum it up: It means nothing that no cd can play above 22khz as it is beyond the range of human hearing anyway.
reffaz007 4 months ago
The problem with vinyl is that all you get above 15-20 kHz is just noise, because the needle is simply not small and light enough to play all those small bits, not to say it's not possible to record them appropriately on a piece of plastic.
Zephear 5 months ago
Hey guys I've a question, I just bought a cr7002a, which can play cds, vinyls and cassettes, but the problem is that whenever I play a vinyl on this devise the sound quality is not as crisp as cds or any other digital formats!!! I heard before that vinyls should have a better quality when it comes to sound,but the quality of my devise is not even as equal as mp3!Please someone tell me how i can fix this, if at all!!!!
TheLordOmen 5 months ago
@TheLordOmen Those Crosley all-in-one systems use a cheap ceramic cartridge on the turntable, which gives very poor sound compared to a turntable with a magnetic cartridge.
vwestlife 5 months ago
@TheLordOmen Get yourself an seperates system. A NAD 3020 amp has a legendary phono output.With a reasonable record deck & speakers it blows cds away sound wise.All in one systems will always lack quality somewhere,especially if they have all the daft flashing lights etc. The very best amps have a volume,balance & source buttons along with the on/off,so signal paths are shorter etc.No bass or treble.Money gets spent on the guts rather than bells & whistles!
stevobath 5 months ago 2
@TheLordOmen Most serial mass-production all-in-ones are made with the cheapest parts, especially in the different amplification stages. Probably the pre-amp for vynils is not set very well. What I suggest you is to go to your local audiophile store (or electronic repair centre, not computers) and have a talk with the most experienced guy in this place. You will find it interesting for sure. Maybe he will make you listen the difference between such audio formats, a pure delight for your ears!
kerebaka 3 months ago
@TheLordOmen get a 70s or 80s turntable with a good cartridge and a good stylus
kainthevampireduck 2 months ago
What can be accomplished using vinyl is highly dependent on the equipment used. Waveforms above 50KHz have been cut and retrieved, but don't count on that with the average cartridge. What you can expect from an elliptical stylus is a response that starts to fall between 16-18KHz and still contains relevant information at 26-28KHz. With a Shibata stylus usable response can be extended to 45-50KHz. As you approach the limit, distortion increases so that will account for some of what's on the plot.
bryede 5 months ago
So that means Neil Young was right after all... I heard him talk about this in the early 90's, but i did not believe it.
Hammerik 6 months ago
@Hammerik
Uhhh............no. Neil Young was wrong. First of all, it's not clear what this guy is demonstrating with this video. It's not clear where those high frequencies actually came from. In addition, nobody can hear that high, so it doesn't matter.
Mortison77577 1 day ago
All of the music here is just lovely. Sounds great.
DeathToTheseWalls 6 months ago
Comment removed
DeathToTheseWalls 6 months ago
Comment removed
DeathToTheseWalls 6 months ago
I figure that te best sound recording would be a record with a gramophone style horn on it.
luigi90900 6 months ago
Besides all of that what is said before: the vinyl part sounds like completely earbleeding crap.
nonseans 6 months ago
@nonseans Why?
vwestlife 6 months ago
@vwestlife "Why" what?
nonseans 6 months ago
@nonseans Why do you think "the vinyl part sounds like completely earbleeding crap"?
vwestlife 6 months ago
@vwestlife Because it does.
nonseans 6 months ago
@nonseans Well, then happily for you, I offer a 100% moneyback guarantee on all my videos.
vwestlife 6 months ago 6
Okay mister... to bring your point across the only right and decent way, you should have used two of the same recordings! One on vinyl and one on CD... This is a crap comparison!
Lupus1 6 months ago
Are you using vinyl player's built-in phono preamplifier or do you input phono signal to the sound card? If you are using player's built-in phono amplifier I don't think it will amplify frequencies above 22KHz.
zukaka84 6 months ago
@RandomConcepts Loudspeakers and headphones also use 1800s technology, and add their own mechanical distortion, too. Every piece of audio equipment has its own flaws and introduces its own degree of distortion and noise -- even the wiring. But with high quality components, these flaws can be minimized to the extent that they are unnoticeable to the listener. And speakers are always analog devices, so there is no inherent reason why analog audio sources can't be as good as digital sources.
vwestlife 6 months ago
the difference between vinyl and cd has only one difference and that is compression.
not what in khz you cant hear above 20hz.
to record digitally what you hear on an analoge format like vinyl, you need a huge amount of storage space
thats why dvd audio was marketed " as good as vinyl" because it had the storage capasity to hold a full album without compressing.
so testing what holds more frequencies above or lower than most human ears is a complete red hearing, its the quality of what you can!
cant1rac 6 months ago
@cant1rac 20hz is vvvvvveeeeeerrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy low. 20KHz is our limit. 18kHz is older people, 12kHz is what the 110s hear.
jjovereats 6 months ago
@jjovereats sorry i ment 20khz, typo.
was just saying its not the range in khz thats the problem with cds, or cycles or anything else.
the problem with digital is its plotting each indivdual points rather than having a smooth sine wave, so the amount of data needed is huge, a cd has less points plotted, where as an audio dvd has plotted enough to really make very little difference.
its the level of compression to fit the data on the limited storage on the disc thats the problem.
cant1rac 6 months ago
@jjovereats all cds have some sort of compression, the audio lacks depth and tend to sound flatter.
the music seams more of a flat oneness rather than the clarity of seperation and depth a good vinyl recording has, thats why most people prefer records cause the music sounds almost identical but has more depth and feels more alive
cant1rac 6 months ago
@cant1rac Not all CD's. MP3 CD's have audio data compression, regular CD's have either no compression or dynamic range compression. Liar, dumbass, idiot!
jjovereats 6 months ago
@jjovereats You're confusing digital data compression with dynamic range compression. CDs do not use digital data compression, but almost all CDs made within the last 15 years use lots of dynamic range compression -- often to an extreme degree, which really makes the music sound squashed, distorted, and lifeless. This is called the "CD loudness war".
vwestlife 6 months ago
Comment removed
cant1rac 6 months ago
@vwestlife I was not. I was making clear the stufft.
jjovereats 6 months ago
@jjovereats you lose a crediblity when you start calling people rude name's, and you lose even more when you say mp3 is not compression.
weither its dynamic range or data digital compression, its clear mp3 is a very compressed format, and all cds are compressed too.
all i was saying was this is the biggest affect on sound quality is not the frequencys they can effectively play back on your home stereo, but the compression.
keep a civil tounge in your head i might even answer back.
cant1rac 6 months ago
@cant1rac You lose a lot of credibility when you tell falsehoods....
Not all CD's are compressed. CD's w/ MP3's are data compressed. Some rock pop CD's today are released dynamically compressed. Some + Some ≠ All!!!! You must know this! Check that the struck-through equation sign displays well on your PC.
jjovereats 6 months ago
@jjovereats MOST, not SOME. Look up the "loudness war". You'd be shocked to see (and hear) the amount of compression, limiting, and clipping that is used on modern CDs of all genres. This is a large part of why people are going back to vinyl again -- because today's CDs (and digital downloads) are too loud and too distorted!
vwestlife 6 months ago
@vwestlife Most + Some ≠ All. Todays "garage-band" CD's are smooth, and not DRCed.
jjovereats 6 months ago
@jjovereats look you start your comments calling people liars and some very childish language.
then you say state that mp3 are not compressed.
but MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 Audio Layer III, more commonly referred to as MP3, is a patented digital audio encoding format using a form of lossy data compression.
all cds have to use some form of compression, weithers its data, dynamic range or what ever, or the level off data could never fit on a 700mb cd.
that why dvd audio existed, to get over that limitation
cant1rac 6 months ago
@cant1rac No. Not all CD's use DRC or ADC. The level of data WOULD fit on a 700MiB CD for a non-dynamic-compressed CD for about 70 minutes.
jjovereats 6 months ago
Comment removed
cant1rac 6 months ago
@jjovereats more civil, thank you.
may i point out the record companies said similar to what i have when marketing audio dvd's,
that is due to the greater capasity of dvd they can store more at a higher bit rate equaling vinyl in sound quality with the advantage of extra media
at the same highest quality bit rate on audio dvd to equal the sound quality of vinyl, you could only have 2-3 songs on the amount of storage space avilable before compression was nessacery.
as i understand it.
cant1rac 6 months ago
@jjovereats im a musician, one thing i know about is compresion, because it affects the quality of what i put out, weither it ogg vorbis, mp3 (which are lossy forms of compression) or flac (which is lossless form of compression).
cd audio is slightly compressed lacking the depth to the listener that a good record has, on a piece of vinyl. the maximum bit rate on a audio dvd is 9.6 megabits per second before data on the dvd needs to be compressed, that equates to 16 tracks uncompressed.
cant1rac 6 months ago
@jjovereats on average audio dvd has 6.7 times the capasity of a cd.
so if 16 tracks at that 9,6 bit rate that would equal the audio quality of a piece of vinyl, how many tracks do you think you would fit on a cd at a similar bitrate, before compression...hmmm
not very much.
so all audio cd's have some kind of compression either dynamically or data or both depending on the length of the tracks, number of tracks, the audio range the recorded music is, etc or you couldnt fit it on the cd at all
cant1rac 6 months ago
@cant1rac Ok. Lets go with some technobabble here about losslessness and my idea.
My idea is "FLAC CD". It's using FLAC compression level 8 tracks on a Data CD, playable in any FLCDP.
Supported bitrate: About ~2100kbit/s for 4-channel 16-bit 44100kHz, allowed to go upwards when necessary
to achieve full surround-ready sound. So for a mono channel, you use about 400kbit/s. Add on another channel and you yield 700kbit/s. And it just goes on to about 2100kbit/s for full 4-channel stereo/surround.
jjovereats 6 months ago
This is good but would be better if u could use the same song for comarison
garyc2 6 months ago
Just do 96khz..anything overthat is overkill for commercial recorded audio. If you are doing live music though..by all means try to use as high end as possible for nice noise floor. Good comparison..many people are still confused I guess. :) cheers.
oatstao 6 months ago
Very rare microphone picks up frequencies over 20 kHz. These are specialty mesurement mics. I don't think that any microphone usually used for recording, especially 60 years ago, would be able to do it. Upper frequency for analog tape is also about 20 kHz. So I have to agree with others claiming that what you see in the high part of the spectrum is most likely to be noise and distortion artifacts. Of course that doesn't mean that a vinyl sounds bad. I can't hear anything over 17k anyway.
Parkinson9999 6 months ago
@Parkinson9999 no way, you can get up to and over 38,000 KHZ on audio tape. Usually noise shaping and equalization makes it seem there is a limit to 20khz. Just take a variety of records and a Cart that is capable of handling full range, and look with audio scope that can do up to 96khz..and you will see very clear transients alot especially in good Jazz and classical and (some rock) you get not just distortion but clear hits above and beyond 32,000 cycles. No joke. I can prove it.
oatstao 6 months ago
@oatstao By "distortion artifacts" I mean: let's say,the highest overtone that a microphone picks, is 20k. In a record, it won't be cut as a perfect sine: it will be a little imperfect - skewered,clipped, rounded. Those tiny imperfections would create more overtones, that extend all the way up. I GUESS so. The best way to check it would be analyzing a record that was definitely created digitally,with 20k ceiling,but pressed as a vinyl.If it still exhibits wider range than that - it's distortion.
Parkinson9999 6 months ago
This is a really good demonstration. Thank you for sharing. I compose music and I am really getting into bringing those clicks on pops back int music.
savetara 7 months ago
@RalphHify Sure, youre right, but it cant be noise as you can see the line jumping with the beat. It might be the harmonic oscillation of the cutter stylus (not the newer playback one, its designed not to oscillate) but it proves one thing- you can record ultrasonics on an lp, which is the point of this test. I think I read somewhere that engineers who worked on quadrophonic record cut a 140 khz sinewave onto an lp and played it back with a special cartridge.
RadioMaks 7 months ago
Totally pointless on that turntable. -- It needs to be a lot better than a thing like that.
viking1au 7 months ago
It's very unlikley that any tape recorder or microphone used back in 1958 would have captured any sound much above 20khz or so. If it isn't on the record then what you are in fact seeing is not musical content but noise that could come from a number of sources not the least of which is the cartridge on your turntable - these invariaby all ring. Other sources of noice would include your computer , rfi or any of the devices you used to produce this demonstration.
RalphHify 7 months ago 2
@RalphHify Exactly what I was thinking. There is no way on earth that audio signals up to 60 kHz could have been recorded in 1958. The technology to achieve this simply didn't exist back then. What happens is that when the needle is exited by a say 10 kHz signal, it will also oscillate at 20 kHz, 40 kHz and so on. What you are actually recording between 20 and 60 kHz are subharmonics from the oscillating needle that is exited by the lower frequency audio signals.
mojoblues66 7 months ago 10
@mojoblues66 Exactly, that's why everything flattens out significantly above 40 kHz and the bumps and rolls cease to exist or become visible harmonics of the lower spectral bumps. I bet if the 40 - 60 kHz audio was captured and spectrally reduced to an audible range it would be white noise & faint echoes
vaughanweather 2 months ago
excelente explicacion, que bien..... gracias
magas1963 7 months ago
its true the limit of human hearing is more or less from 20hz to 20khz. and Cd goes to 22.5khz. however the frequencies above 20khz to 25khz, 26khz, despite that we cant hear them, they still afect all the other ones.
jimclashair 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But, surely, this is a pointless video? Because you are not actually playing the record/cd's "live" as it were, you are playing them through your laptop which converts everything to digital anyway. Also, when playing the sampled records you are prving to me that digital CAN capture all the frequency responce, because, if it coud'n't it wouldn't of shown up on the graph! Just goes to show how perfect digital recordings are! Trash vinly! Its a poor method of listening to music! Love cd's forever!
richhead2011 8 months ago
@richhead2011 You missed the point. Watch the video again and pay attention. CDs are only 44.1 kHz, whereas you need at least a 96 kHz digital recording, or preferably even 192 kHz, to capture most of the frequency range that an LP can reproduce.
vwestlife 8 months ago 4
@richhead2011 you're a modern comedian. Funny guy ;) It says you have received too many negative votes..I think people missed the point..Unless you are truly clueless.
Here's the simple test for who wins this stupid comparison. Try to play 64,000 cycles on a CD. Sorry you cannot. A Vinyl LP with quality mastering of full dynamics and competant Cartridge you can easily see 32,000 cycles per channel. Impossible oN CD. I can get a good sounding CD of Burned Vinyl..just can't better vinyl though
oatstao 6 months ago
Of course the 96khz would never get the 60 Khz! the limit to hear the 60 khz would be 120 khz and it will be the redline! I heard the difference on an studio with 192khz audio 24bit vs vinyl on Dynaudio M3. It almost can't hit the analog!
alelpbmx 8 months ago
yup, nothing says quality like recycled plastic lids.
strifeii 8 months ago
Can you do a comparison of Compact Cassette to Compact Discs?
Morahman7vnNo2 8 months ago
@RandomConcepts, WTF are you talking about? Isn't anything that goes through a speaker a "Mechanical Facsimile" of an analog waveform. As far as being technically flawed... You have that backwards. The CD is technically flawed... Digital is all smoke and mirrors...
sinsagoodmansbrother 8 months ago
can't argue with a 96Khz sample rate, but seriously, how good is your hearing ??
rickcrouch 8 months ago
it would have been better if you did the same song
megarocker100 8 months ago
So, first off I have to say that I have Vinyl LPs, MP3, MiniDisc, CD, DVD Audio & SACD stereo & multichannel.. To me the vinyl sounds the best... The only thing that I've heard that comes close is SACD which is DSD 1 Bit, 2.8224 Mbps sampling rate. Just listen to Dark Side Of The Moon on CD then LP then SACD. Plus it's multi-channel. This is a great video as far as the fidelity goes and the explanation about the Nyquist Theorm (Half of 44.1 KHz)
sinsagoodmansbrother 8 months ago
CDs dont have a continuous frequency spectrum, whereas LP does, so you get all the other frequencies in-between too.
infinitesimotel 8 months ago
@infinitesimotel
That's outside the range of human hearing.
Mortison77577 1 day ago
@Mortison77577 Yes, but not out of notice ;-)
infinitesimotel 1 day ago
That first song is amazing! Sure doesn't sound like a 1958 recording... what /is/ that?
flapjackspeeder 8 months ago
@flapjackspeeder The first song clip is "Hooked On Tchaikovsky" from 1981 and the second is "Rhapsody In Blue" from 1958.
vwestlife 8 months ago
You are right my freind.I am studio engyneer too,am often i .ve sampling from lp because in esence they are pretty pure music next to realyty.Have u hear how it sound a LP it a cristal NIDLE??Haven!I thing if u permeted me !I thing u made a litlle mistake.U can t hear from your comp dh audio u need a sound card to transform ad to da hd and then throw a good onest speakers.Any way still your way can hear the diference.Imagine my way to hear.People don t know or simple don-t heear.Cheers!
soulessdelu 8 months ago