[Edmund[_2_]]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 03:43:05 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

Edmund wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:35:04 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
I can say with some certainty that there IS information at those
frequencies on almost every LP I have ever examined,
and I can say with equal cerainty that those signals have little if
anything to do with the original signal AND they were very likely NOT
present when fed to the cutter head.
They consist of noise, distortion artifacts and the like.

Do you know if there are records with real music recorded in high(er)
frequencies to what frequency and is there is such information
somewhere to be found on the internet?
What about the half speed cut records?

Sure, it's possible that it's the one cannot a priori discount that
possibility.

But two points: first, the RIAA curve is undefined past 20 kHz,
and any number of preamps throw another pole or two in to reduce the
bandwidth even further. Second, it's REALLY, REALLY hard to get the
stylus tip resonance much above 20 kHz, and that resonance represents
yet another 12 dB/octave low-pass filter.

So, it's on there, so what, it's not likely you can get it off.

Please, the effective "analog rolloff" is not some simple, nice 6- or
12-dB/octave, it's MUCH greater than that and VERY messy.

I appreciate what you are saying, really but I wonder how and why some
analog recordings sound so good...

First, define "so good." I might hazard to say that "so good" means "I
like it a lot." A perfectly legitimate definition, but one that has
definiable objective context behind it as it stands.

To my knowledge there is no unambiguous way to measure the quality of
reproduced music so I mean it in a pure subjective manner.

Secondly, you seem to be equating extended bandwith with "so good", as
if this were the sole or at least principle criteria defining what
"sounds good." It's not.

I really just think it is at least ONE of the things that matter.

There are ALL sorts of phenomenon that exist
well within the audio bandwidth that could be the source of such an
evocation.
Have you eliminatd all of those as a possibility. What if the technical
properties of the recording were, in fact, abysmal, yet the music, the
performance, even the album cover, overwhelmed the objective sound
attributes?

Third, where is the data suggesting even a correlation between those
analog recordings that "sound so good"
and extended bandwidth well above 20 kHz. Can you, in fact, show that
the recordings that "sound so good" have this information on them.

I do have heard a few SACD recordings from the concert hall in Amsterdam
which sound really good in to ears but I have no means to measure what is
really recorded.

Conversely, can you show that recordings that have information extending
well beyond 20 kHz necessarily "sound so good?"

No I cannot, I am curious and I like to know.
And as a matter of fact I am planning to do some research.

I think the Ansermet Beethoven 7th is one of those recordings that
"sound so good," yet I also know that the top end is fairly limited
(I've, in fact, measured it). It drops like a stone above about 16 kHz,
and, indeed, except for noise,
the specturm looks like it came out of a digital channel running at 38
kHz with a fast but sloppy 16 kHz anti-aliasing filter.

Yet it sounds so good, so much so that I'd rather listen to the LP than
and CD, simply because, to me, it is far an away the best performance,
to me.

When and if I ever find a CD of THAT performance, my opinion may change.

But it is MY opinion, dammit!
OK thanks



Edmund