I Own A Turntable, Therefore I Am Better Than You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

So we agree to disagree. No sense flogging this dead horse. :)

---

I think we ascertained that a few years ago. Remember this discourse? I was searching for something else recently and revisited the entire thread.

I really enjoyed your humor. And for whatever reason, you never took the online DBT I referenced (and took myself) or told us about it since it is you who values them so highly. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

I think we ascertained that a few years ago. Remember this discourse? I was searching for something else recently and revisited the entire thread.

I really enjoyed your humor. And for whatever reason, you never took the online DBT I referenced (and took myself) or told us about it since it is you who values them so highly. :)

---

It hope you aren't being sarcastic when you say sense of humor. That would be derogatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

It hope you aren't being sarcastic when you say sense of humor. That would be derogatory.

---

Surely you were being facetious with responses like this:

<i>"The theory without getting overly technical is that a metal's electrons are easily ripped from their orbits around the nucleus. The easier the electrons are pulled from their orbit, the better a conductor that material makes and the less energy required to make that happen. The distance between the nucleus and orbit of the electrons is what determines how easy/hard it is to break the free electrons from their orbit.The greater that distance, the less potential is required to strip the electrons from their nucleus. Its simply an energy state relationship unlike the phono cartridge example you've supplied. </i>"

I thoroughly enjoyed your Captain Meteorite explanation. :)

edit: BTW, I never spoke of phono cartridges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

1. Most brickwall filters are not completely phase coherent and introduce audible artifacts at lower frequencies. Which is why much higher sampling rates are audibly better.

---

But higher sampling rate also use brick filtering due to reason 3db mentioned :)

Higher sampling rate sound better mainly due its harmonics frequency (above 20khz) being intact and not filtered out.

Quote:

---

2. Not all perception of music is "heard". There have been studies that have proven that humans do respond to supersonic content, even if it isn't directly "heard" as such.

---

That is true, in a sort of way. Supersoinc frequency (which probably can not be heard) are integral part of signal which shape its [lower] fundamental frequecy. Music signal is very complex and its complexity is due to having supersonic higher harmonic frequency which dictat how the signal look. If you remove those supersonic ftrequecy, you also change the shape of its fundamental frequency (which can be heard).

That is why higher sampling rate formats are more true to the original recording than Redbook CD. Vinyl doesn't even come close due to having more shortcomings than CD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

But higher sampling rate also use brick filtering due to reason 3db mentioned :)

---

Why would they? That makes no sense. Let's revisit the reason behind the use of brickwall filters in the Redbook world. With PCM systems, you must filter 100% of all content above the Nyquist frequency for that system. Which is half the sample rate which is 22050 in this case. So the transition band from full output (20k) to ZERO output (22k) is only 2k wide. You have to fully suppress ALL signal in 2k otherwise what remains is interpreted as 100% distortion.

In the case of 24/192, the Nyquist frequency is 96k and the transition band is 76k wide - 38 times <i>greater</i> than that of the Redbook case. Why on earth would anyone use a brickwall filter when a more gradual one with less phase shift would work perfectly well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Higher sampling rate sound better mainly due its harmonics frequency (above 20khz) being intact and not filtered out.

---

That is part of it and refutes 3db's assertion that the musical experience does not involve the perception of supersonic frequencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

That is true, in a sort of way. Supersoinc frequency (which probably can not be heard) are integral part of signal which shape its [lower] fundamental frequecy. Music signal is very complex and its complexity is due to having supersonic higher harmonic frequency which dictat how the signal look. If you remove those supersonic ftrequecy, you also change the shape of its fundamental frequency (which can be heard).

---

3db, are you getting this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Vinyl doesn't even come close due to having more shortcomings than CD.

---

Except of course at the top where the deleterious effects of the brickwall filter and severe bandwidth limiting don't exist in the analog world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

...
Except of course at the top {frequencies} where the deleterious effects of the brickwall filter and severe bandwidth limiting don't exist in the analog world.

---

Except of course that physical limitations of the vinyl medium and cartridge suspensions render the top frequencies hypothetical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Except of course that physical limitations of the vinyl medium and cartridge suspensions render the top frequencies hypothetical.

---

Hypothetical only to those whose exposure is entirely hypothetical.

Do you remember the CD-4 quadraphonic recordings of the 70s? While that format failed commercial success, it demonstrated the HF capability of the vinyl medium. If you recall, the back channels rode on a carrier at supersonic frequencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Hypothetical only to those whose exposure is entirely hypothetical.

Do you remember the CD-4 quadraphonic recordings of the 70s? While that format failed commercial success, it demonstrated the HF capability of the vinyl medium. If you recall, the back channels rode on a carrier at supersonic frequencies.

---

BTW, I'll remind you that own exposure isn't entirely hypothetical. I used a phono system for a dozen years before CD was even invented, and listened to LP and CD side by side for another decade after that

Yes, I remember the hoopla about Quadraphonic. One of the criticisms of the Quad was that the supersonic groves were very subject to rapid wear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

BTW, I'll remind you that own exposure isn't entirely hypothetical. I used a phono system for a dozen years before CD was even invented, and listened to LP and CD side by side for another decade after that

---

Just curious. Which moving coil cartridge(s) did you use on what arm(s)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

YOne of the criticisms of the Quad was that the supersonic groves were very subject to rapid wear.

---

The supersonic grooves. Yes, they were.

Which fostered the development of the so-called Shibata stylus shape. The basic Pickerings and Shures of that day were pretty crude.

Suspensions have improved in modern cartridges through continued engineering. Ortofon is one company that is still looking for new elastomers to improve their cartridges.

I would like to hear the Rega Apheta moving coil. It has neither foam dampers nor a suspension wire. When you set tracking force a visual check is needed to ensure the coils are centered in the generating system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

Suspensions have improved in modern cartridges through continued engineering. Ortofon is one company that is still looking for new elastomers to improve their cartridges.

---

That is largely a moving magnet only issue. They are inherently more limited attempting to reproduce the "eleventh" octave.

Which is why you don't find moving magnet tweeters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Just curious. Which moving coil cartridge(s) did you use on what arm(s)?
...

---

No, I never used an MC cartridge. In the heyday of my LP listening I used a Sonus Blue cartridge, Grace 707 tonearm, ERA belt-drive turntable, and APT Holman preamp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

No, I never used an MC cartridge. In the heyday of my LP listening I used a Sonus Blue cartridge, Grace 707 tonearm, ERA belt-drive turntable, and APT Holman preamp.

---

Sonus Blue on a Grace arm you say? That was a really nice combination! We sold quite a few of them at the shop where I worked part time in college. The arm was also very easy to set up unlike some of the others we sold. I too, had a Sonus Blue (Peter Pritchard's ultimate design) but used a Transcriptors Vestigal arm (a pain to set up correctly) on the Ariston RD-11s I have to this day. After transitioning to moving coils, I used a Grace 714. The pic with the Accuphase AC-2 is from '82 or so.

Moving magnet designs just don't have the extended HF capability of MCs.

I would love to have an Orofon A 90 and of course a table that would let it perform at it's best. The engineering needed to create the body and the suspension is very interesting.

MC A90 FSE and WRD

MC A90 Diamond and Coil

Maybe one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

I would love to have an Orofon A 90 and of course a table that would let it perform at it's best. The engineering needed to create the body and the suspension is very interesting.

---

Clearly, Ortofon has been at the forefront of cartridge design for many decades.

BTW, note the frequency response of the A90 cartridge as found on the technical data page: it's only 3db down at 80 kHz!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Surely you were being facetious with responses like this:

<i>"The theory without getting overly technical is that a metal's electrons are easily ripped from their orbits around the nucleus. The easier the electrons are pulled from their orbit, the better a conductor that material makes and the less energy required to make that happen. The distance between the nucleus and orbit of the electrons is what determines how easy/hard it is to break the free electrons from their orbit.The greater that distance, the less potential is required to strip the electrons from their nucleus. Its simply an energy state relationship unlike the phono cartridge example you've supplied. </i>"

I thoroughly enjoyed your Captain Meteorite explanation. :)

---

So you are being a derogatory flamer... i thought maybe you would grown but alas, your still very much simple minded my friend. peace out!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Hypothetical only to those whose exposure is entirely hypothetical.

Do you remember the CD-4 quadraphonic recordings of the 70s? While that format failed commercial success, it demonstrated the HF capability of the vinyl medium. If you recall, the back channels rode on a carrier at supersonic frequencies.

---

What's your point? Just because it was done doesn't mean that the higher frequencies are recorded on the commercially available albums. And btw..viny tops out at 100KHz.


I still don't believe in the supersonic sound affecting sound perception unless you have proof from an independent lab. I'm not going take your hot air opinions as fact The energy in the higher frequencies is so low compared to that of the lower frequencies that its "modulation" effect of the lower frequencies is negligible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

So you are being a derogatory flamer... i thought maybe you would grown but alas, your still very much simple minded my friend. peace out!!

---

I guess that means - you don't have a sense of humor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

What's your point?

---

You just answered it below:

And btw..viny tops out at 100KHz.

Redbook CD tops out at 22 kHz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

I still don't believe in the supersonic sound affecting sound perception...

---

You still won't *believe* it because you've already made up your mind. :)

There's life above 20 kHz

More...

Tannoy on HF

Hypersonic effects

I really couldn't care less if you wish to bury your head in the sand over understanding the actual harmonic content of instruments. Wait - you already have!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

You just answered it below:

And btw..viny tops out at 100KHz.

Redbook CD tops out at 22 kHz


You still won't *believe* it because you've already made up your mind. :)

There's life above 20 kHz

More...

Tannoy on HF

Hypersonic effects

I really couldn't care less if you wish to bury your head in the sand over understanding the actual harmonic content of instruments. Wait - you already have!

---

I will take a read through the links. Thanks for posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

Thanks for posting.

---

You're welcome. Happy reading!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

What's your point? Just because it was done doesn't mean that the higher frequencies are recorded on the commercially available albums. And btw..viny tops out at 100KHz.


I still don't believe in the supersonic sound affecting sound perception unless you have proof from an independent lab. I'm not going take your hot air opinions as fact The energy in the higher frequencies is so low compared to that of the lower frequencies that its "modulation" effect of the lower frequencies is negligible.

---

When you look at the various bandwidth waveforms of Vinyl, CD, DVD-A, SACD(of the same recording), and ultra high resolution audio, Vinyl has at least the performance of DVD-A and SACD. Not many vinyl products reach that higher bandwidth, but the capacity to do so it definitely there.

What is largely missing from the anti bandwidth crowd is the benefits of hi rez within the audible bandwidth. More air, and better imaging are the biggest benefits. These benefits are audible with the right combination of recording equipment, carrier format, and speakers. The accurate reproduction of instruments with significant high energy components above 20 khz is also a benefit. That means muted trumpets, triangles, glockenspiels, and massed strings sound more natural when ALL of their harmonics are reproduced. The resolution of space(between instruments with acoustical material) and sound-stage depth and width is improved without a ringing brick-wall filter to hinder it. Oversampling and up-sampling filters have their issues, and are never a replacement for more bandwidth in the recording system. Let's face it, microphone technology has come a loooooooong way in the last decade. Fully 60% of my recent purchases of microphones for my studio have over 20 khz pickup capabilities - and the other 40% are used where their sonic attributes outweighed their bandwidth.

E-stat is dead right in his comments. The RIAA has a emphasis and de-emphasis curve applied to both sides of the equation. They are fully complimentary, and does not result in loss of bandwidth. This is solely for bandwidth difficulties for vinyl itself, and takes that burden off of the system. In saying that, I have seen waveforms of instruments with considerable HF information accurately rendered on vinyl.

You really don't need a lot of energy above 20khz to gain the benefits of it. You just need a more relaxed filter response from the reconstruction filter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

You really don't need a lot of energy above 20khz to gain the benefits of it. You just need a more relaxed filter response from the reconstruction filter.

---

Say, how time consuming a job is it to make a 24/88 version from a DXD master? Wouldn't it just be peachy if every label that sells CDs would also offer a downloadable 24/88 version - preferably in FLAC to reduce the bandwidth required?

Speaking of lossless formats, I don't think I've ever heard you comment on them. So, what do you think of a FLAC or AIFF version for any given word size/sample rate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Say, how time consuming a job is it to make a 24/88 version from a DXD master? Wouldn't it just be peachy if every label that sells CDs would also offer a downloadable 24/88 version - preferably in FLAC to reduce the bandwidth required?

Speaking of lossless formats, I don't think I've ever heard you comment on them. So, what do you think of a FLAC or AIFF version for any given word size/sample rate?

---

I'm looking forward to Sir T's opinion on these formats.

To my modest knowledge, FLAC and AIFF are audio-optimized, lossless compression schemes; (AIFF provides for metadata tags). Both are capable of storing hi-rez data.

Note that it's possible to make bit-perfect WAV, (uncompressed), files from either format. If WAV sounds better than FLAC/AIFF, it's because of real-time playback issues, not the data content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

If WAV sounds better than FLAC/AIFF, it's because of real-time playback issues, not the data content.

---

That has been my experience - especially as of late where I now listen to streamed lossless content exclusively in both music systems.

The Dell server I use has a quad core i7-860 processor that runs at under 1% CPU utilization decoding separate streams for each of the systems simultaneously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Say, how time consuming a job is it to make a 24/88 version from a DXD master? Wouldn't it just be peachy if every label that sells CDs would also offer a downloadable 24/88 version - preferably in FLAC to reduce the bandwidth required?

---

It is quite easy, and does not take any longer than any other encode. DXD really is a storage format, but there are processors out there (like my Grass Valley) that includes a DXD decoder, and can play back the files at 32/48/384khz or 48/352.4khz bit and sample rates. The amount of processing power to playback a direct DXD file is huge, hence why there are not that many sources that can do so.

Quote:

---

Speaking of lossless formats, I don't think I've ever heard you comment on them. So, what do you think of a FLAC or AIFF version for any given word size/sample rate?

---

Never used AIFF, but I love FLAC. I have never done any formal testing with it, but I know it works pretty similar to Meridian Lossless Packing found on Dolby TrueHD. I used FLAC to send soundtrack mixes to Bluray or DVD compression houses and sometimes to clients as well(easier download than PCM). I also have some FLAC downloads from 2-L, and the audio quality is fantastic. .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

The amount of processing power to playback a direct DXD file is huge, hence why there are not that many sources that can do so.

---

Of that I am sure. Even my pretty ordinary Dell server has equivalent dhrystone and whetstone benchmark performance as the Cray 2 Supercomputer - which was the fastest computer in the 80s. Today's high speed DXD mastering workstations are far more powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Never used AIFF, but I love FLAC... I also have some FLAC downloads from 2-L, and the audio quality is fantastic. .

---

Thanks for your assessment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir TT

When you look at the various bandwidth waveforms of Vinyl, CD, DVD-A, SACD(of the same recording), and ultra high resolution audio, Vinyl has at least the performance of DVD-A and SACD. Not many vinyl products reach that higher bandwidth, but the capacity to do so it definitely there.

---

I think if you look at master for Vinyl and better format such as masters used for CD, it tell different story regarding vinyl capabilities.

I am sure you know when CD first came out, alot of same master that was used for vinyl was used for CD and it sounded so bad due to limited dynamics and bandwidth of vinyl master (ex, LED Zepplin first generation CDs). And that is the first of many vinyl format limitations as we move down chain link :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

I think if you look at master for Vinyl and better format such as masters used for CD, it tell different story regarding vinyl capabilities.

---

Smokey, I think you have forgotten that I am one of the few people on this forum who has already done this. The reason two master are made is to enhance the inherent capabilities of the different formats, not point out its inadequacies. If the case was to point out inadequacies, then my master for CD would be filtered from 10khz up - as CD's performance in that area sucks quite frankly. All one has to look at is the various band-aids that have been applied to CD because of the Redbook standard. Oversampling, upsampling, and dither are all band-aids to increase the performance of the format. Let's not mention specialized filters such as the apodizing filters found in Meridian's digital products to counter playback issues. There are drawbacks with having a needle touch a vinyl surface, and having to use brickwall anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters. Pick your trade offs.

Quote:

---

I am sure you know when CD first came out, alot of same master that was used for vinyl was used for CD and it sounded so bad due to limited dynamics and bandwidth of vinyl master (ex, LED Zepplin first generation CDs). And that is the first of many vinyl format limitations as we move down chain link :)

---

Not so fast here. The problem with early CD had nothing to do with the dynamics or bandwidth of the masters themselves, but the equipment that reproduced them. Most all early Digital equipment had jitter issues, and ringing anti-aliasing(in the digitizing process) and reconstruction filter on the playback side. Take that same recording and eliminate those effects, and it sounds like a different product altogether.
Let's not mention that there are different recording practices for recording analog and digital. One size does not fit all in this case until you get out of the Redbook standard.

Tony Brown did an experiment a decade ago to prove that the filters used in CD players are the source of playback quality issues. He took a analog recording and digitized it for playback on CD. He then moved the response of the reconstruction filter up to 88.2khz which moved the filter response to 44.1khz. After doing this he A/B both the analog tape and the digital audio and could not tell which is which. He then moved the filter back down to 22.5khz(Redbook standard) and immediately the audio sounded digital, hazy and harsh from the filter effects and added dither.

While CD is ultimately more accurate than vinyl, there is no free lunch for either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

While CD is ultimately more accurate than vinyl, there is no free lunch for either.

---

Amen and hallelujah!

On another audio board, Charles Hansen of Ayre has discussed this very point of compromise. His players offer multiple filter profiles with different tradeoffs. You want (relatively) full bandwidth? Fine, then you suffer more phase errors and lack of resolution. You want minimal phase errors? Then you get truncated bandwidth.

As you said, there is no free lunch with the thirty year old Redbook standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Tony Brown did an experiment a decade ago to prove that the filters used in CD players are the source of playback quality issues. He took a analog recording and digitized it for playback on CD. He then moved the response of the reconstruction filter up to 88.2khz which moved the filter response to 44.1khz. After doing this he A/B both the analog tape and the digital audio and could not tell which is which. He then moved the filter back down to 22.5khz(Redbook standard) and immediately the audio sounded digital, hazy and harsh from the filter effects and added dither.

---

That just show how supersonic harmonics (above 20 khz) are important to the sound quality :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E=Stat

On another audio board, Charles Hansen of Ayre has discussed this very point of compromise. His players offer multiple filter profiles with different tradeoffs. You want (relatively) full bandwidth? Fine, then you suffer more phase errors and lack of resolution. You want minimal phase errors? Then you get truncated bandwidth.

---

I would say that is a fair statement.

If music industry had embraced high resolution format like video industry did with Bluray, I don't think we would have these conversations arguing about which inferiour audio formats sound better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

...
If music industry had embraced high resolution format like video industry did with Bluray, I don't think we would have these conversations arguing about which inferiour audio formats sound better.

---

What keeps coming around is that industry doesn't believe there is a significant market for hi-rez sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

What keeps coming around is that industry doesn't believe there is a significant market for hi-rez sound.

---

This would apply to some genres of music, but they do support high resolution in jazz and classical. All of the largest labels and a lot of smaller ones offer their songs as high resolution downloads on HDtracks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

This would apply to some genres of music, but they do support high resolution in jazz and classical. All of the largest labels and a lot of smaller ones offer their songs as high resolution downloads on HDtracks.

---

Yes, and this very worthwhile mentioning, however classical and jazz are (unfortunately) a tiny portion of the music market.

Further, the hi-rez selection is relatively limited even in these genre. For example, ArkivMusic, the classical specialist, has almost 3300 SACDs, but they feature almost 10,700 discontinued CD titles, not to mention tens of thousands of current CDs. HDTracks' classical selection is even less. So the SACD coverage is actually quite low.

no, i am LUCKIER than you.

This is incorrect: The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart. cd is limited to its top limit after which it is ALL distortion, and its lower limit which cannot capture sounds below the noise floor. analog can go both over the redline with minor diminution in fidelity and below the noise floor where sounds are still captured.

analog also will yield faster soft to loud transitions and has a greater startle or jump factor. transients also are better captured in analog format than redbook as sometimes the ictus of the transient signal falls after the beginning of one of the 44.1k samples and thereby loses some of its life.

the luckier part is that i never crumbled to the onslaught of digital with the release of redbook cd playback. i kept my LPs and waited until good sounding affordable cd players were available. i then found out that the same music recording on vinyl sounded better and more real than its cd counterpart (most of the time).

its not like i don't enjoy my cd collection. they became more valuable when i got my first sacd player due to upsampling and its effect on the sound. that and the fact that sacd sounds much closer to analog than rbcd. i am ready to accept the hi-rez downloads when it becomes a turnkey operation and the software prices fall to affordable levels. i would hope that ALL releases will be done this way thereby reducing the production cost.

"cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl" i can oly see this statement as incorrect. the upper limit of rbcd is ostensibly 22k and realistically 19k whereas vinyl can go to approximately 40k as was required by CD4 records. its not to say we can hear that but we can hear the freedom from stress when the capability is there.

here come the flames.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Yes, and this very worthwhile mentioning, however classical and jazz are (unfortunately) a tiny portion of the music market.

Further, the hi-rez selection is relatively limited even in these genre. For example, ArkivMusic, the classical specialist, has almost 3300 SACDs, but they feature almost 10,700 discontinued CD titles, not to mention tens of thousands of current CDs. HDTracks' classical selection is even less. So the SACD coverage is actually quite low.

---

I guess it is also worthwhile to mention that downloads are only about 5 years old, SACD is 13 years old, and the CD is 30 years old. Also HD tracks is but one of many downloading sites that offer classical and Jazz.

I am sure that vinyl enthusiasts made the same argument about the amount of titles released on CD early in its life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hifitommy

no, i am LUCKIER than you.

This is incorrect: The dynamic range of a CD is far greater than its vinyl counterpart. cd is limited to its top limit after which it is ALL distortion, and its lower limit which cannot capture sounds below the noise floor. analog can go both over the redline with minor diminution in fidelity and below the noise floor where sounds are still captured.

analog also will yield faster soft to loud transitions and has a greater startle or jump factor. transients also are better captured in analog format than redbook as sometimes the ictus of the transient signal falls after the beginning of one of the 44.1k samples and thereby loses some of its life.

the luckier part is that i never crumbled to the onslaught of digital with the release of redbook cd playback. i kept my LPs and waited until good sounding affordable cd players were available. i then found out that the same music recording on vinyl sounded better and more real than its cd counterpart (most of the time).

its not like i don't enjoy my cd collection. they became more valuable when i got my first sacd player due to upsampling and its effect on the sound. that and the fact that sacd sounds much closer to analog than rbcd. i am ready to accept the hi-rez downloads when it becomes a turnkey operation and the software prices fall to affordable levels. i would hope that ALL releases will be done this way thereby reducing the production cost.

"cd does have more bandwidth than vinyl" i can oly see this statement as incorrect. the upper limit of rbcd is ostensibly 22k and realistically 19k whereas vinyl can go to approximately 40k as was required by CD4 records. its not to say we can hear that but we can hear the freedom from stress when the capability is there.

here come the flames.

---

You are entitled to your preferences. However, you are not correct in stating that CD cannot reproduce anything below the digital noise floor of -90.31 dB. Some audio writers thought that, and some may still believe it. However, Stereophile has routinely measured the low level linearity of CD players down to -120 dB. How is it done? With dither. A dithered signal can resolve well below -90 dB. Here is one example. Check out Fig. 5.

Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player Measurements | Stereophile.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat D

However, Stereophile has routinely measured the low level linearity of CD players down to -120 dB.

---

That must be right. Just look at the square wave response at -90db that is virtually indistinguishable from its original! :)

it seems that you are being snide, Ralph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hifitommy

it seems that you are being snide, Ralph.

---

I prefer "facetious", implying humor. Hence the smiley face.

That square wave is about as mangled as you can get. Which illustrates your point pretty well I think!