As the title says "Audio frequency range of LP vs. CD"​

1st off, don't take this too serious because the testing environment and equipment used was very amateurish but i thought i would share it to spark up some simple feedback.
​

Cheers ​

 

Frequency range is just technical data. There are other a lot more important reasons and physics behind LP's why they sound better. One of reason are vibrations.

 

Could you explain further about this ?

 

Ok maybe word vibration is not right word here, but fundamental thing is, signal from media to "reading" head travel mechanicaly(have direct contact) and coil and magnet are very good analog system(at this point are lost very litle audio informations if parts are in great shape) to transform that signal further to electrical wave.

 

The only way to closely compare vinyl vs CD would be to have two identical recordings, 1 made with all analogue gear 1 made with all digital gear but both in the same room with same musicians playing exactly with the same feel and emotion.
Then those 2 recording would need to be pressed exactly in the same manner.. actually not:
Vinyl should be pressed using analogue equipment while CD using digital.
At that point we would need the best possible vinyl playback system side by side to the best digital system both playing the same recording with perfect level matching.

Only then we would be able to have an informed comparison.

Also it is worth bearing in mind that:
- In the last 20 years or so all LPs are pressed using digitally controlled cutting machines sporting high grade AD-DA converters.
- In the early LP vs CD war LPs were compared to CDs which had been pressed from vinyl masters using less than perfect (is there such?) AD converters (and often badly remastered in the process)...

...and yet...

... a decent turntable costing a few hundred$ will most likely outperfom CD players costing twice as much.

I am lucky to have a decent turntable (about 1200$ worth) and a more than decent CD player (about 2000$ worth) and to my ears most well recorded LPs sound better that equivalent good CD recordings.

Why? Fox's knows! It just does. And not just according to me but to all those who have listened to my HIFI gear.

 

Here's my take:

LP keeps a range up to a certain point, then, thereafter the frequency response is corrupted. Somewhere like 12-18k. This i read somewhere.

Now for ultrasonics, You'll get ultrasonics almost always, not just on analog sourced. I have a theory: transients make bumps, and when the playhead jumps it makes an impulse. OMG THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE LP IS BETTER!!!! It also depends on the playback & recording system.

For analog mediums, what's pressed, is not exactly what you put in. And what you get out, is not exactly what you pressed.

They key is WELL RECORDED. For modern albums, if the LP master has more dynamics than the CD, ofc it will sound better.

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29 < This is a good article explaining (other) myths.

 

Simple answer: Vinyl has a higher frequency range while CDs have a fixed limit by design.
However, while CD sound quality is fairly predictable on a vast number of players, vinyl is a totally different story.
And not only does the high frequency content vary greatly over time, but also there is a physical limit to the maximum usable levels. Then, hf playback quality degrades a lot over time, mainly due to the effect of wear.

So even if the recording, mastering and vinyl manufacturing processes were all preserving, say, an audio range of up to 50kHz, it is very questionable how useful it would actually be.

One historical application was the "Quadradisc" vinyl system which added separate 30kHz carriers to both stereo channels.
The frequency-modulated carriers held (difference) information of two additional channels and was one of the better predecessors of Dolby Surround in 1972, at a time when FM was not yet even considered for serious music synthesis.
If the high frequency portion fluctuated during playback or got weaker by time, the effect would not have been too dramatic - in the worst case, the "rear surround" signals would have sounded just like the main stereo signal.