CD vs LP and speaker frequency

[mizuno]

ok, now i'm completely clueless...

I just read in Stereophile that master recordings of orchestra music shows multiple instances of frequencies ranging well above 22khz (upto 70khz and higher).

LP playback of the master recordings stay quite close to the master recording in terms of frequency reproduction. CDs however don't exceed 22khz by design. This is being used as a rationale for why LPs truly sound better.

Now, if LPs sound better because they allow us to playback frequencies above the CD cut-off, this would be a case for speakers having high end frequency cut-off above 22khz too in order to be able to reproduce these high frequencies. Yet, most speakers even very high quality ones typically show a hF 3db cut-off around 20-25 khz. Is that because we can't hear frequencies about 22khz?

But in that case, why would LPs sound better if we can't hear it anyhow? Are audiophiles then people who like the listen to frequencies they can't hear?

help...

 

[OttoMatic]

Yeah, most people really can't hear above 20 kHz. Heck, most people probably can't hear well above 15 kHz. I had my hearing tested not that long ago, and I don't recall the result, but it was decent, and I could definitely not hear up in the high teens (I was dropping off at 16 or 17 kHz, something like that). So, to me, that means that simply because a storage medium, or a speaker, can handle frequencies that high, that it doesn't relate to it being "better".

Some claim that the quantization inherent in digital audio sampling causes audio loss, or that it's impossible to recreate a signal based on only (potentially) two samples per cycle. Being a EE that did a lot of studies in DSP, I know that it is possible to recreate the original analog signal. It's been a while, and I don't use DSP theory on a daily basis (or even an annual basis, for that matter), but I know that the underlying math is solid, and that it works.

Now, those things said, please understand that I'm not trying to bash vinyl. Vinyl is capable of capturing audio recordings at a reasonable level of quality. However, when compared technologically to properly executed digital storage, I believe it pales. Nonetheless, I have incorporated into my system an turntable, and I find it terribly enjoyable for its sound, its emotion and its nostalgia. To me, it definitely has a laid back, rolled off sound that it enjoyable, and I think a lot of people embrace it for the same reasons.

Of course, both mediums have their proponents, and to argue which is better is an endless and pointless journey. They both have merit, though the inherent "science-y-ness" of digital makes agruments for digital easier, and more logical. You have to embrace your softer side to argue for vinyl, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I find there to be no point in trying to "convince" one side or the other that they are "right" or "wrong". You just have to enjoy either for what it is.

 

[WmAx]

OP: Not a SINGLE CREDIBLE case has been made for needing the bandwidth over what CD produces for human hearing. CD's bandwidth was originally [1] established by careful scientific trials, blinded, on human subjects - highly trained ones at that from various professional sectors of audio. CD's bandwidth has again and again been proven in test after test. Shortly after CD's introduction, a high profile audiophile which also claimed substantial differences was taken to test by a college professor, and a randomized trial DBT [2] was conducted on his high end all analog stereo compared to a CD format digital loop placed in the system to switch from straight analog to CD format ADC to DAC and back in the loop. No difference was found blinded, of course, for music playback. A very recent [3] and VERY substantial test was another JAES published peer reviewed work, that down sampled high-res digital recordings(with very broad response) to that of CD, and compared this to the original high-res, with once again, many audio 'experts' used as the subjects. Once again, and no surprise, no one could tell a difference in music playback. This test was carried over a year, on various studio monitor systems and high end audiophile home systems, with many different listeners.

The people making the anti-CD claims frankly, are basing it upon sighted and/or highly flawed evaluations, not proper bias-free randomized blind tests. The Stereophile report you read was just some lone guy's opinion, if you will take notice....

One article that audiophiles like to claim as significant is a brain scan study [4] that also included listening tests and claimed audible differences with extended bandwidth. It turns out, the test was technically a paid for advertisement in the single journal in which it was published(it says so right in the last page in the fine print), and it was refused by JAES, since JAES has extremely high standards for articles to be published in the journal. NRK labs, a large Japanese corporate entity, spent a great deal of money and fabricated special speakers, hardware and made special recordings to ensure lots of ultra-sonic information, and carried out the blinded tests[5] on many audio experts with various age spans. They tried to reproduce the audibility claims made by [4] and could not reproduce their claims.

As for 'significant 70kHz content they claim, this is just not true in mid or far field recordings. The particular engineer, I believe, uses a lot of close mic positions for certain instruments. Of course if you close mic a triangle or something, you'll get ridiculous extended harmonics.... in fact ... these high frequencies can cause audible distortions in some hardware [6] if present in any substantial amplitude! This would result in a 'audible' difference - a coloration due to hardware non-linearities!

-Chris

References

[1]Which Bandwidth Is Necessary for Optimal Sound Transmission?
G. PLENGE, H. JAKUBOWSKI, AND P. SCHONE
JAES, Volume 28 Number 3 pp. 114-119; March 1980

[2]http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
From the BAS Speaker Aug.-Sept. 1984
The Digital Challenge: A Report
by Stanley P. Lipshitz
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario Canada

[3]Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback
E. BRAD MEYER, DAVID R. MORAN
J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September, Pages 775-779

[4]Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect
Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yoshitaka Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama, and Hiroshi Shibasaki4
The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000, pp. 3548-3558

[5]Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components
AES Preprint: 5876
Toshiyuki Nishiguchi, Kimio Hamasaki, Masakazu Iwaki, and Akio Ando

[6] Perception of mid-frequency and high frequency intermodulation distortion in loudspeakers, and it's relation to hi-definition audio
David Griesinger
Lexicon Labarotory

 

[3db]

Good post Ottoman. My music collection is covered in both formats and some of these titles are in both formats. Funny thing is, neither format is a clean winner as its really dependent on the skill of recording engineer.

 

[Swerd]

I agree with everything WmAx says here. In fact, I'd like to add to what he says.

The Japanese brain scan study (Oohashi 2000) that WmAx mentioned has been often mentioned as evidence of human ultra-high frequency (above 20 kHz) hearing, but this result is not believed today by any neuroscientists. Too many reputable scientists tried to reproduce those results – and failed. Despite the electroencephalograms and PET scans recorded in subjects exposed to ultra-high frequency sounds, no convincing evidence was presented to show that the subjects experienced hearing sounds when these brain activities were recorded.

WmAx points out that this paper is technically a paid advertisement because it says:

"The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S. Code Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact."
​

In fairness, most scientific journals in the bio-medical world charge authors a small amount of publishing money as "page charges". These are reputable peer-reviewed journals with high publishing standards, and the fact that every author publishing a paper in them paid these charges does not affect their credibility. But there were plenty of other reasons why that paper was wrong.

Virtually all modern dome tweeters cannot produce sound above 20 kHz. In fact, most metal dome tweeters produce a large resonant break-up peak in the 25-30 kHz range. If we could hear that, it would be noticeably unpleasant. No speaker manufacturer that I know of makes any effort to filter out any of the high frequency noise that tweeters can produce.

It is debatable whether vinyl records can produce high frequency sound after normal use, let alone ultra-high frequency sound. See this Wikipedia link, where it describes high frequency loss due to vinyl wear from improperly aligned tonearms. It is not clear what kind of losses occur due "normal" use. But what is clear that ultra-high frequencies would suffer worse from wear.

"The frequency response of vinyl records may be degraded by frequent playback if the cartridge is set to track too heavily, or the stylus is not compliant enough to trace the high frequency grooves accurately, or the cartridge/tonearm is not properly aligned. The best cartridges and styli have response as high as 76 kHz. The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays. While this degradation is possible if the record is played on improperly set up equipment, many collectors of LPs report excellent sound quality on LPs played many more times when using care and high quality equipment…"
​

Finally, my last point is that human hearing appears to have evolved to work best at frequencies significantly lower than 20 kHz. This is unlike other smaller mammals, especially the carnivores.

Greenberg, S. (1995). The ears have it: The auditory basis of speech perception. The Proc of the ICPhS. 3:34-41. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~steveng/PDF/The_Ears_Have_It.pdf

The author explains that our auditory system imposes constraints on the acoustic nature of speech. I always had thought that our hearing had adapted over time to work best at hearing the spoken word. The author claims it's the other way around. The acoustic range of our speech adapted to work best with our auditory system. This certainly makes mores sense because early primates could hear long before humans could speak. I’ll summarize some of the points he covers in his introduction on the first 3 pages:

• No speech contains significant energy higher than 10 kHz, and most is less than 4 kHz.
  
  
• The long term power spectrum of speech is concentrated at or below 2.5 kHz.
  
  
• Humans are sensitive to sound frequencies between 50 Hz and 18 kHz, and the most sensitive range is between 250 Hz and 8 kHz.
  
  
• This upper audible limit of our hearing may be related to the frequency range over which interaural intensity cues are available for precise sound localization in the horizontal and vertical planes. Because the human head is relatively large (~25 cm diameter), it is possible to extract reliable sound localization information based on differential intensity cues for frequencies as low as 4-6 kHz. Because the ears on a small headed mammal, such as a mouse, are much closer together, comparable sound localization cues are only available well above 20 kHz. As a result, small headed mammals tend to be sensitive to far higher frequencies than their larger headed counterparts. Humans and other large-headed mammals need not be sensitive to the ultra-high frequency portion of the audio spectrum because they can exploit both interaural time and intensity cues at lower frequencies.

So to sum up my rather long response , ultra-high frequency sound as a factor in vinyl vs. CD audio is a non-issue because:

1. Most modern tweeters cannot reproduce ultra-high frequencies.
   
   
2. Vinyl records may, after use, have poor high frequency sound.
   
   
3. Human hearing appears to have evolved to work best at frequencies much lower than 20 kHz.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
So to sum up my rather long response , ultra-high frequency sound as a factor in vinyl vs. CD audio is a non-issue because:

1. Most modern tweeters cannot reproduce ultra-high frequencies.
   
   
2. Vinyl records may, after use, have poor high frequency sound.
   
   
3. Human hearing appears to have evolved to work best at frequencies much lower than 20 kHz.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your great post, as usual

 

[mtrycrafts]

ok, now i'm completely clueless...

I just read in Stereophile that master recordings of orchestra music shows multiple instances of frequencies ranging well above 22khz (upto 70khz and higher).

LP playback of the master recordings stay quite close to the master recording in terms of frequency reproduction. CDs however don't exceed 22khz by design. This is being used as a rationale for why LPs truly sound better.

...But in that case, why would LPs sound better if we can't hear it anyhow? Are audiophiles then people who like the listen to frequencies they can't hear?

help...

Audiophiles some of them or many of them are in fantasy land and are easilly convinced by anecdotes and run from fact based evidence. One only has to visit Audio Asylum to see

I seriously doubt needles can reproduce such high frequencies properly and at high enough level to matter in the first place.
The threshold of detecting sound at around 20kHz is around 100dB spl compared to the mid bands.

Stereophile is not a good source for audio facts, usually, as it caters to audiophiles and the advertisers.

As was mentioned, the ultra high recordings were recorded up close. Ultrasound is dispersed and absorbed rather quickly with distance, in air. Interesting I never see such recordings made from normal listening distances

Yes, the ultrasound is a rationalization, but nothing more as it is not fact based.

 

[mizuno]

Thanks

Thank you all for the great responses. You all made a very compelling case

I guess i don't have to throw my cds out and buy speakers with frequency response up to 40khz +

 

[WmAx]

Thank you all for the great responses. You all made a very compelling case

I guess i don't have to throw my cds out and buy speakers with frequency response up to 40khz +

To be clear: LPs may have better master sources used in many cases compared to the CD version, with the LP master featuring less compression mainly, leading to more natural sound reproduction. Even I ended up getting a very high quality LP player so that I could listen to best version of an album, whether it was on CD or LP. The CD having higher compression is a result of modern marketing practices, trying to optimze he CD for use in 30 dollar boom boxes, car stereos and iPod earbuds.

-Chris

 

[fmw]

But in that case, why would LPs sound better if we can't hear it anyhow? Are audiophiles then people who like the listen to frequencies they can't hear?

help...

That gave me a chuckle. Yes audiophiles are people who revel in all kinds of things they can't really hear. They only believe they can hear them. Stereophile is embroiled right in the center of all that nonsense. The magazine can be entertaining to read but I wouldn't put any stock at all in what the writers write about sonics.

 

[Brick Top]

To be clear: LPs may have better master sources used in many cases compared to the CD version, with the LP master featuring less compression mainly, leading to more natural sound reproduction. Even I ended up getting a very high quality LP player so that I could listen to best version of an album, whether it was on CD or LP. The CD having higher compression is a result of modern marketing practices, trying to optimze he CD for use in 30 dollar boom boxes, car stereos and iPod earbuds.

-Chris

This is an interesting post. Whether it's true or not...I don't know. But logical to some aspect. Something to ponder...thanks.

I read alot of these posts where cd's are better than or equal to Lp, or how one can't hear the difference from an mps to lossless recording....and I just have to disagree.

Our hearing cannot be measured by instruments. Just because our hearing doesn't go above 20K....that doesn't mean it has no effect on how we hear it. Hell...men start to lose their upper end hearing very quickly after 30...but most audiophiles would be over 30. Am I saying audiophiles have the only answer when it comes to sound. Of course not. But I do believe we all trust our own hearing...at least I do. And if something sounds better to me...whether it does to the dude sitting next to me or not....I believe it's better.

There is a grey area in sound that scientific measuring instruments do not detect. Only the human ear can hear the way it does.

I don't claim to have a background in science of sound...or an audiophile ear...or even a pro sound background. But I do know that since I was very young...I knew when I was listening to good sound as opposed to crappy sound. Many of my friends through the years just don't get it...as they think most every system sounds similar. I have always strived for better sound in home stereo. I have seen many a format come and go(8 track, cassette, MD, ect ect...). Here we are decades after the LP was dead....and the LP still causes arguments in sound quality. Why is that? Because properly recorded analogue still sounds better than a digital bit of the same recording. At least it does to these ears...and they're the ones that count.

Cheers,
BT

 

[mtrycrafts]

I guess i don't have to throw my cds out and buy speakers with frequency response up to 40khz +

But in that case, you'd still miss out on the range from 40kHz to 75+ kHz.

 

[mtrycrafts]

This is an interesting post. Whether it's true or not...I don't know. But logical to some aspect. Something to ponder...thanks.

I read alot of these posts where cd's are better than or equal to Lp, or how one can't hear the difference from an mps to lossless recording....and I just have to disagree.

Our hearing cannot be measured by instruments. Just because our hearing doesn't go above 20K....that doesn't mean it has no effect on how we hear it. Hell...men start to lose their upper end hearing very quickly after 30...but most audiophiles would be over 30. Am I saying audiophiles have the only answer when it comes to sound. Of course not. But I do believe we all trust our own hearing...at least I do. And if something sounds better to me...whether it does to the dude sitting next to me or not....I believe it's better.

There is a grey area in sound that scientific measuring instruments do not detect. Only the human ear can hear the way it does.

I don't claim to have a background in science of sound...or an audiophile ear...or even a pro sound background. But I do know that since I was very young...I knew when I was listening to good sound as opposed to crappy sound. Many of my friends through the years just don't get it...as they think most every system sounds similar. I have always strived for better sound in home stereo. I have seen many a format come and go(8 track, cassette, MD, ect ect...). Here we are decades after the LP was dead....and the LP still causes arguments in sound quality. Why is that? Because properly recorded analogue still sounds better than a digital bit of the same recording. At least it does to these ears...and they're the ones that count.

Cheers,
BT

Fortunately science can measure what we can and cannot hear and very well indeed. The CD medium is indeed superior technically to the vinyl medium in all respects. This is indisputable and beliefs otherwise will not change it.
Implementation at the recording and mastering studios is another issue altogether.
Audiophiles at times are in fantasyland, so I would not trust them anymore than some others in fantasyland. They don't have immunity from imagining things as we all can.

 

[fmw]

Our hearing cannot be measured by instruments.

Of course it can. Have you ever been to an audiologist?

Just because our hearing doesn't go above 20K....that doesn't mean it has no effect on how we hear it.

It has no effect because we do not hear it.

Hell...men start to lose their upper end hearing very quickly after 30...but most audiophiles would be over 30.

I belive by the time we've reached 12, we can no longer hear 20 khz. At 30 we're lucky to be able to hear 15 khz.

Am I saying audiophiles have the only answer when it comes to sound. Of course not. But I do believe we all trust our own hearing...at least I do. And if something sounds better to me...whether it does to the dude sitting next to me or not....I believe it's better.

And it is. Some of us are just trying to explain to you that some of these audible differences arise not from the equipment or the recording but from human perception, bias and preference.

There is a grey area in sound that scientific measuring instruments do not detect. Only the human ear can hear the way it does.

Sorry, completely, totally false. Measuring instruments can outdo human hearing by a quantum leap.

I don't claim to have a background in science of sound...or an audiophile ear...or even a pro sound background. But I do know that since I was very young...I knew when I was listening to good sound as opposed to crappy sound. Many of my friends through the years just don't get it...as they think most every system sounds similar. I have always strived for better sound in home stereo. I have seen many a format come and go(8 track, cassette, MD, ect ect...). Here we are decades after the LP was dead....and the LP still causes arguments in sound quality. Why is that?

I don't think anybody knows definitively. My guess is that playing a vinyl record involves a bit of a process. Getting it played is more work than getting digital audio played. I think many hobbyists enjoy the work. Purely opinion on my part. I have no idea why vinyl appeals to people in this day and age. I still have thousands of vinyl records. All of them have been converted to digital.

Because properly recorded analogue still sounds better than a digital bit of the same recording. At least it does to these ears...and they're the ones that count.

Well, there's no arguing against preference.

 

[R-Carpenter]

I cannot hear very well above 16 kHz. My friend who claims his hearing is fenominal just found out that he can't hear past 15khz. So unless you want to pleas your dog the extended high frequency makes little difference.

As to LP vs CD argument, my opinion is that people prefer one type of distortion to another and it has little to do this CD superiority to LP.