Dynamic range of vinyl recordings

[struth]

I though dynamic range was limited with vinyl because of the limitations of the stylus being able to track a groove?

was talking absolutes, not in practice. think cd(16 bit) undithered is about 96db but with dither goes up somewhat, and is commonly kept up near the top. this is what audiophiles dont like). Although there is technically no maximum of analogue, on vinyl its about 70+ but rarely always up there as it would cause issues. With vinyl mastering they obviously adjust down the bass a bit and usually up the high freq, then the amp equalizes it(afaik)

[Pigmy Pony]

Also the amount of space on a vinyl record is limited. And the speed, 45 is better than 33. Compare the 12 inch single to the album track of the same song. Add to that surface noise and there are big limitations on the dynamic range of vinyl whereas digital is only limited by the bit depth of the format, which, in theory, can be infinite.

Sorry if this digresses a bit, but why is 45rpm better-sounding than 33? I'd always assumed it may be to do with how much of the record the stylus can pass through in a given period of time! Also one reason why reel to reel sounds better than compact cassette (due to the higher speed) and why the 'long play' facility on VCRs was never as good.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

As an audio forum collective we need to push boundaries further, rather than being surrounded by them.

For instance from the article https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
"I'm sure you've heard this many, many times: The human hearing range spans 20Hz to 20kHz. It's important to know how researchers arrive at those specific numbers"

This is safe and very nice for manufacturers of equipment, in fact so much so, you will I predict see deterioration of those specifications as time moves on.
As example 0.4db drop of frequency here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-286-amp.6443/

Rather we should insist on understanding hearing as perception of frequencies outside that range as identified by David Blackmer
https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-conte...yond-20kHz.pdf

[Light Dependant Resistor]

We need equipment capable like this again http://www.theabsolutesound.com/arti...wer-amplifier/
Look at the frequency response of this https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_li...ation-17.shtml

[phonomac]

I couldn't agree more. If as a species all we had ever heard was 20kHz sinusoidal frequency range we wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.

As an audio forum collective we need to push boundaries further, rather than being surrounded by them.

For instance from the article https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
"I'm sure you've heard this many, many times: The human hearing range spans 20Hz to 20kHz. It's important to know how researchers arrive at those specific numbers"

This is safe and very nice for manufacturers of equipment, in fact so much so, you will I predict see deterioration of those specifications as time moves on.
As example 0.4db drop of frequency here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-286-amp.6443/

Rather we should insist on understanding hearing as perception of frequencies outside that range as identified by David Blackmer
https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-conte...yond-20kHz.pdf

[Macca]

As an audio forum collective we need to push boundaries further, rather than being surrounded by them.

For instance from the article https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
"I'm sure you've heard this many, many times: The human hearing range spans 20Hz to 20kHz. It's important to know how researchers arrive at those specific numbers"

This is safe and very nice for manufacturers of equipment, in fact so much so, you will I predict see deterioration of those specifications as time moves on.
As example 0.4db drop of frequency here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-286-amp.6443/

Rather we should insist on understanding hearing as perception of frequencies outside that range as identified by David Blackmer
https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-conte...yond-20kHz.pdf

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.' - no they don't, at least not when put to the test. The difference between this article and the previous two is that in this article a bloke is trying to sell you something.

[Bigman80]

What about intermodulation?

[Marco]

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.' - no they don't, at least not when put to the test.

How do you *know* that for sure, Martin - when was the last time you tested a sample section of listeners for such? Or do you just automatically accept as fact, what you've read somewhere, and which on the surface, appears to support your argument?

Marco.

[alphaGT]

'Many listeners hear a great difference when 20kHz band-limited audio signals are compared with wide band signals.' - no they don't, at least not when put to the test. The difference between this article and the previous two is that in this article a bloke is trying to sell you something.

As I’ve posted on this forum before, when I was just a kid in school, a doctor came around to test everyone’s hearing. When it came my turn, the nurse called the doctor in, and he ran the tests over and over, and the machine could not stump me, my hearing exceeded the freq. gen. they were using that topped out over 24KHz, so yes, a proven, lab tested result of me hearing well above 20KHz, documented. (I suppose they kept records, but I don’t have them, it was very long ago). No doubt I do not hear as well as I did when I was 12, but we can say that some humans can hear over 20KHz, in fact, over 24KHz, as he could not stump me, we don’t know how high my hearing would have tested.

I read an article, probably 20 or more years ago, I wish I could find it but wouldn’t know where to look, but this acoustic scientist was testing high frequency effects on human hearing. He had some graphs showing that while subjects could not hear frequencies upward of 40KHz, brain scan MRI showed that there was brain activity when the subjects were exposed to frequencies from 20K to 40KHz. What does that mean? It’s hard to say, how does the brain know about things you can’t hear? Or are these frequencies managed by the brain differently from sound information?

The biggest problem with A/B testing for such things is the test subjects, if they are an average run of the mill population, then there will be some with good hearing, and some with lesser hearing, and some with bad hearing. If we tested test subjects and only chose the ones who could hear at 20KHz or greater, then the test may provide some meaningful results?

Russell

[Macca]

How do you *know* that for sure, Martin - when was the last time you tested a sample section of listeners for such? Or do you just automatically accept as fact, what you've read somewhere, and which on the surface, appears to support your argument?

Marco.

It's not 'my argument'. It's a fact that in all the trials conducted no-one was able to distinguish the difference between 'hi res' music and the same at 16/44.1 - Unsurprisingly these results correlate perfectly with all of the other research done over the past 100 years into the limitations of human hearing.

I think you need to get away from the idea that arguments I present are something I dreamed up myself. They are based on considerable amounts of study of the existing research, all of which was done with an open mind and with no bias. There is no 'I want to believe' with me, and I don't have any horse in the race or any axe to grind. I'm only interested in the truth of the matter, whatever that turns out to be.