4 ms·

That doesn't make any sense. RIAA EQ is a serialization format, that is then decoded by your audio equipment. That's what the phono jack is for on a receiver, p

That doesn't make any sense. RIAA EQ is a serialization format, that is then decoded by your audio equipment. That's what the phono jack is for on a receiver, pre-amp, etc. What people "hear" regarding LPs is generally their biases + their particular analog setup. My setup is going to sound totally different than yours, regardless if it's from a CD or an LP. There are some cases where an LP had a better -master- than a CD for the same release, but that is due to the publisher/owner of the master tracks and not the actual medium itself.

Yaa101 6y ago
I found out when digitizing vinyl that LP's before 1977, when digital mixing and mastering was not the norm that there is more data in the frequencies between 20 and 50kHz. I do my recording standard at 192kHz and analogue LP's often reach 48kHz of data while digital mastered ones do only 22kHz. After that date often the frequency is cutoff at 20-22kHz, probably to save memory room. Only after 2000-2010 there is enough memory to record at insane sample rates and bits per sample. Most awful are cds having only 16 bits and 41kHz sample rate, by modern standards really poor.
- andrewzah 6y ago
  "Most awful are cds having only 16 bits and 41kHz sample rate, by modern standards really poor." 44.1kHz is all that one needs for -perfect fidelity-, given that humans cannot hear higher than ~20kHz. See: Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem. [0] 16 bits of quantization gives a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of 96dB, and noise dithering increases that [1]. More bits are not necessary unless one is doing music production with that audio and warrants the extra headroom, before mixing back to 44.1kHz/16bit for distribution. [1] The only thing that higher bits/sampling rates do for a listener is waste CD and drive space, so it is odd to lament 44.1kHz/16bit as being "really poor". Even if your speaker setup can actually output extremely high frequencies, only your dog will be able to hear it... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20181109203430/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://web.archive.org/web/20181109203430/https://people.xi...
  - kurlberg 6y ago
    There is an extremely nice "Digital show and tell" video by Monty at https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml (part 1 at https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml is also very well worth watching.)
  - h2odragon 6y ago
    Some humans can hear much higher than 20khz. Very little of our recording and playback equipment does well above that point, however, so efforts to reproduce that part of the spectrum most often fail miserably. CD's are certainly good enough for now.
    - pezezin 6y ago
      The only source I could find about humans hearing above 20 kHz is this paper reporting that some people could detect tones up to 28 kHz: https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.2761883 https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.2761883 But that is for a pure tone under perfect laboratory conditions. Also, they report that the minimum hearing threshold at those frequencies was above 90 dB. So I don't think any human in this planet can actually hear anything above 20 kHz under normal circumstances, much less for music.
      - magicalhippo 6y ago
        Couldn't beat[1] in the audible range occur from signals above 20kHz? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics)
        h2odragon 6y ago
        Yes, but that'll be captured in the CD range with the rest of that signal. My feeling is that few instruments, no music and little transducer equipment exists for that range (>20khz), and so few are aware of it without the intermediation of technical assistance, that theres no point in attempting to record or reproduce any of that. all it can do is add noise. cf musopen. https://musopen.org/music/ https://musopen.org/music/ They've got some lovely high bitrate and bandwidth recordings there, and what they've caught is room and audience noise. They'd have benefited from more mics and mixing and less "throw bits at it"

Yaa101 6y ago

I found out when digitizing vinyl that LP's before 1977, when digital mixing and mastering was not the norm that there is more data in the frequencies between 20 and 50kHz. I do my recording standard at 192kHz and analogue LP's often reach 48kHz of data while digital mastered ones do only 22kHz. After that date often the frequency is cutoff at 20-22kHz, probably to save memory room. Only after 2000-2010 there is enough memory to record at insane sample rates and bits per sample. Most awful are cds having only 16 bits and 41kHz sample rate, by modern standards really poor.

andrewzah 6y ago
"Most awful are cds having only 16 bits and 41kHz sample rate, by modern standards really poor." 44.1kHz is all that one needs for -perfect fidelity-, given that humans cannot hear higher than ~20kHz. See: Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem. [0] 16 bits of quantization gives a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of 96dB, and noise dithering increases that [1]. More bits are not necessary unless one is doing music production with that audio and warrants the extra headroom, before mixing back to 44.1kHz/16bit for distribution. [1] The only thing that higher bits/sampling rates do for a listener is waste CD and drive space, so it is odd to lament 44.1kHz/16bit as being "really poor". Even if your speaker setup can actually output extremely high frequencies, only your dog will be able to hear it... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20181109203430/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://web.archive.org/web/20181109203430/https://people.xi...
- kurlberg 6y ago
  There is an extremely nice "Digital show and tell" video by Monty at https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml (part 1 at https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml is also very well worth watching.)
- h2odragon 6y ago
  Some humans can hear much higher than 20khz. Very little of our recording and playback equipment does well above that point, however, so efforts to reproduce that part of the spectrum most often fail miserably. CD's are certainly good enough for now.
  - pezezin 6y ago
    The only source I could find about humans hearing above 20 kHz is this paper reporting that some people could detect tones up to 28 kHz: https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.2761883 https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.2761883 But that is for a pure tone under perfect laboratory conditions. Also, they report that the minimum hearing threshold at those frequencies was above 90 dB. So I don't think any human in this planet can actually hear anything above 20 kHz under normal circumstances, much less for music.
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      Couldn't beat[1] in the audible range occur from signals above 20kHz? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics)
      - h2odragon 6y ago
        Yes, but that'll be captured in the CD range with the rest of that signal. My feeling is that few instruments, no music and little transducer equipment exists for that range (>20khz), and so few are aware of it without the intermediation of technical assistance, that theres no point in attempting to record or reproduce any of that. all it can do is add noise. cf musopen. https://musopen.org/music/ https://musopen.org/music/ They've got some lovely high bitrate and bandwidth recordings there, and what they've caught is room and audience noise. They'd have benefited from more mics and mixing and less "throw bits at it"