Analog vs. digitally recorded vinyl LP audio frequency range
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 ноя 2016
- A follow-up to my video "Audio frequency range of LP vs. CD": • Audio frequency range ...
Is the difference in audio frequency range of a digitally recorded LP versus a fully analog LP visible on a spectrum graph?
24-bit 96 kHz lossless FLAC recording of the analog LP audio: drive.google.com/open?id=0B_o... 
Наука
"HA! The copyright monitors didn't catch this. Now I am 10 seconds closer to ILLEGALLY copying these songs! Mwa haha!"
-What record companies seem to believe
Nothing like the tone of a vintage analog synth.
It's nice,I like it too!
What happens if you isolate the frequencies above 20KHz and play them in half-speed? Can you hear the instruments, or just noise?
I like this idea!
It's definitely audible. Kind of sounds like a Casio watch.
Yes! this is exactly what i thought After looking at this video. this way we Can see if the result is correlating with the sound
GoodIdea. :-) VWestlife, dig you think you can do a test, and make a follow up video?
dogs can hear it?
The first video I saw on RUclips about vinyl and cd audio was yours. I became a fan of these kind of videos and even made a few myself (in spanish, 'cos i'm from Argentina). I had not seen this one and is an eye (and ear) opener. Thank you!
The Synth music kind of reminds me of the sounds produced by the Gameboy and Gameboy Color. I swear it sounds like something straight out of a Wario Land game.
Wow! Talk about an eye opener. That was a fantastic demonstration. I had never thought about that before. Thanks for taking the time to make the video. The visuals were excellent.
I enjoy your channel, VWest. I particularly liked your comparison video of the AT3600L vs the Rega Carbon. Very informative and well done. Thanks for taking the time to do these videos fo us. Keep 'em coming!
Aloha and Mahalo Nui Loa! :)
It is nice being able to hear the comparisons properly. Just got hold of new headphones yesterday as my current ones were kind of crap and the speakers for my laptop and PC are crap.
The synth probably used square waves or something close. That is why you can see the equally spaced little peaks across the audio spectrum when the loud note is played. It is physically impossible for the stylus to trace a square wave or the cutter to cut it in mastering. So what you see is the tapering off high order harmonics or even distortion. Because our hearing rolls off at high frequency plus the fact that the audio has rolled off (down around -72 dB in the demo) these high frequencies are inaudible. Of course, some magic eared audiophile will argue otherwise.
JohnAudioTech Of course they will and not because it is magic. You should look into the latest thinking on human hearing instead of the tired, "we can't hear it and it is only distortion" perspective.
And just where, since you didn't bother to include a source, would we look to find this 'latest thinking' ? The same people that brought us the coming ice age in the 1970's? Sorry, if you want to make a point, back it up with research and include references, or you're just spouting hyperbole.
Interesting. I always assumed it was low pass filters in SOME stage of production that was responsible for heavy rounding of square waves introducing distortion. Understandable, a square wave is a very unnatural thing, and only really became intentional out of necessity due to limitations of early digital audio creation.
The fact the stylus itself does this automatically is not something I had thought about.
@Olav Viking But most digital music cuts out the frequencies above 20khz. This is not how natural sound is. Natural sound includes frequencies above 20khz. Vinyl also includes frequencies above 20khz which is why it sounds more natural to many people. I would rather listen to sounds that are closer to how nature intended them to be. Name calling people who point out this flaw in digital music is not going to solve this problem.
@ReaktorLeak Didn't you see the video where VWestlife reproduced ultrasonic sounds using a cheap record player? It proves that even cheap record players can reproduce ultrasonic sounds.
Vinyl sounds more natural because ultrasonic sounds exist in nature. So they should not be artificially removed as happens with digital music. Ultrasonic sounds have been shown to create alpha waves in the brain which gives positive feelings of relaxation. You don't get that with digital music stripped of ultrasonic sound.
I did not expect to see that. But I'd like to see a double-blind test with "vinyl is better" audiophiles listening to the original 96kHz recording of that synth song, vs. a version of the same song where everything above (say) 24kHz is cut off to simulate the frequency response of the first recording but with the music of the second recording.
I've never argued that the difference is audible. I've just demonstrated that it exists.
While analog records obviously do not have the cutoff that is seen for digital recordings, I am a bit skeptical of that second example really being a good demonstration, considering the LP is marked as a 4 channel recording it probably has supersonic content that encodes the difference used to reconstruct the 4 channels from the audible sum channels.
More importantly, though, is that the recording systems for a quadraphonic recording would likely include low pass filters to suppress the higher frequency content of the sound, so you would not get interference between the sum and diff channels.
For example, I believe the CD4 system specified only up to 15kHz for the audio.
Ts6451 The Enoch Light LP was encoded using the EV-4 system, not CD-4. EV-4 is a matrixed system and does not use any ultrasonic carriers.
Oh, I see. That does change things a bit, such a recording would probably not have such filters.
After thinking a bit about it, I now think that even if it was a CD-4 recording, it still would be a viable example that records could store sound above the audible range, as the system would rely on it being possible to reliably reproduce those frequencies. So, I withdraw my concerns on this point.
Yes. That's called a psychoacoustic phenomenon. When lower frequencies are cut, the remaining signal has less weight and the overall perception is brighter, clearer, cleaner and more spatial audio.
A lot of new vinyl reissues of classic albums are using digital masters because its quicker to send Wav files to the mastering company than send them the master tape. A lot of the WaxTime albums they sell at Half Price books are CD's that are now public domain material in Europe copied to vinyl.
I think that it is pretty much beyond dispute that vinyl can record up to 122 kHz is what I read. What I am unsure of is the benefit of recording frequencies beyond human hearing. Keep in mind that if there was merit to recording high frequencies that are well out of the range of human hearing, the Redbook Standard could have had a sampling rate of whatever was felt to be necessary. Maybe the CD would have had to be a bit bigger or a few minutes would have been taken off of the CD but the fact that 44.1 kHz was used seems to indicate that there was no need to using a higher sampling rate for audio.
compare DVD audio to vinyl.
Pure inaudible distortion. Do you believe that needle can vibrate precisely at these frequencies?
Can you prove it can't?
@@vwestlife in science whoever makes a claim is subject to the burdeon of proof, it's not up to me to dismiss a claim, it's up to you to prove it, so "can you prove it can't" is not a valid argument, you think it can, so it's up to you to prove it actually can.
Let's think of another example: you claim that unicorns exist, thus you have to show proof that they do exist, only if and when you provide proof then other scientist will peer review it and if they find the same result accept it as a fact. In science nothing is true until proven by peer reviewed studies, not the reverse
@Rocker01ndomablE let's assume you're right, it's not how science works of course; nothing is "obvious" in science. But for the sake of argument let's assume vinyls can indeed play sounds up to 45KHz, hell let's push this into the absurd, let's say it could play up to 100KHz. Would it matter? You cannot hear anything past 20KHz if your ears are flawless. And unless you're a newborn baby they aren't, but let's assume you can hear up to 20KHz. If your vinyl plays a 25KHz sound would you hear it? No. So does it matter than it did? Your dog could enjoy that higher frequency response but unless you replace your eardrum with that of a dog you will not hear it. And this is of course assuming your speaker can play 25KHz, because guess what: they're not built for dogs, so we don't bother making sure they can play frequencies that we're unable to hear. And even if they did play such tones, which some speakers can, the sound would still need to be heard by our eadrum which would act as a fiter for anything that isn't 20-20000Hz assuming flawless condition. And no matter how pure the sound is, no matter how much you spend on a vinyl player, amplifier and speaker set everything will still need to go through or millenia old, pretty inaccurare, and impossible to improve hearing apparatus. Stop trying to achieve perfection, no matter how hard you try you will never get any more quality than what your ears can hear. And they are far far from being perfect, even in their "advertised" 20-20000Hz range
@@tfwmemedumpster you're correct, and since Gilberto A.F. was was basically stating that the needle was not capable, the burden of proof is on HIM.
@@tfwmemedumpster you're just another (pseudo)science nerd with very poor understanding of anything. the actual CLAIM is that the needle CAN NOT reproduce such frequencies. burden of proof reversal is a format logical fallacy.
Good video. Frequencies above the audible range contribute directly to the sound dynamics. Most people would not tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 file with a 16kHz to 20kHz lowpass filter and a full range flac at 16bit. But it does make a difference to cutoff the ultrasonic portion of the sound.
I would recommend to you vwestlife to use a spectrogram with linear scale to view the high frequency range fast and clear. In my foobar2000 interface, it's a necessity for me in order to detect heavily encoded songs and to evaluate the quality of compression on the fly. It also shows any notch filters and interference waves.
Çerastes
When it comes to commercial material, you're absolutely right. However, some low-pass filters, standalone or even in codecs (MP3), can sometimes cut a good deal of the frequencies in the neighborhood of 20kHz
In digital photography, some shoot their pictures at the highest resolution possible and then re-sample them back to lower currently common commercial image sizes.
When archiving vinyl though, I'd prefer to go 24bit/48kHz at the least to ensure the best possible results.
If they're affecting the lower frequencies we can actually hear, surely when downsampled or filtered their contribution will be added to the low frequencies anyway, just the same as they would be in the ear with its limited range of sensory cells tuned to different frequencies? You can't have it both ways. Pressure waves and their recording aren't magic, they don't know whether it's a machine or a human receiving them.
This is exactly why I always try to buy original pressings of old albums and not the useless remasters, great video.
He used a quadraphonic record which is a 4 channel record that has the 2 front channels recorded in the 15KHz frequency range and the 2 rear channel encoded from 15Khz to 36Khz, it's gonna have a higher frequency response anyway. I also recommend reading about the R.I.A.A. standard.
Some remasters are done better than others. The Led Zeppelin vinyl remasters are good. Are they going to beat the Classic Records all analogue, or some editions of originals? No. They compare favorably, and are cheaper and bought new. Music On Vinyl puts out consistently good reissues using digital, but a lot of them are above 44.1K, like 96k/24bit. Useless ones are like Four Men With Beards, some Plain Records (Ween, Elliott Smith, Sonic Youth) stuff. 44/16 and yucky!
John Bliss; I cannot agree with you on the (current) price point of brand new vs. old/original records, regardless of their respective/comparable sound quality, (which is a whole other topic to dispute, which I'm not gonna go into here), but as far as current record *prices* go, the brand new pressings of albums which are available new in retail stores now are WAAAAY more expensive than their CD or downloadable MP3 versions are, which is extremely stupid marketing I think! (It's like the record companies are only trying to consider selling them to "audiophiles" or maybe DJs, more of which don't really care about the price than the average consumer does, which really pisses me off because it's just plain *greed*, simply because records are seeing a slight resurgence in popularity!)... From what I've continued to see for the last few years with every new album that comes out, is that if it's available in a vinyl version in the stores or on Amazon, etc., the vinyl version is always anywhere from 2-4 times as much as the CD version for example, quite often even more than that, which is totally ridiculous!...
I think that the vinyl versions of any given album, whether a new release or a "classic", definitely *should* be even less than the CD version, (or at the very most at least comparably priced to CD or MP3 versions of that same album), but I have yet even *once* to see that with any new album that I want to buy!... And as far as "classic" albums like Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Beatles stuff, etc., the "new" pressings/cuttings of these types of albums are sometimes close to around $100 or so!... That is just completely unreasonable!... With the current retail record/vinyl pricing strategy as it is now, if I'm gonna get a brand new release album then I always just buy it on CD because it's always much cheaper than the LP version is, and if I want to ever get a classic album on vinyl that I don't already have, then I'd much rather just get a very well taken care of original copy of it at a garage sale or the fleamarket, etc, as records at those types of sales can very commonly be had for $1 each or sometimes even less!
Well, heck, that's just a plain good idea even with CDs. I can show you even "remasters" of classic 80s rock albums that are utterly ruined vs the original release, and the difference can be heard well inside of 44.1/16 stereo, probably even if you downsampled to 22/8 mono (only bought the later copy because the first got damaged... I thought something had gone wrong with my hifi until I analysed the new one vs what my computer could read of the old).
For vinyl releases, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. And I'm not even a subscriber to the high sample rate / bitdepth religion, as impressive as the spectrograms in these videos are. I mean, the one thing that's actually encouraging about them is that the discs being shown off obviously have quite a bit of wear left in them... I think all the old vinyl I have, partly from my parents' collection and partly from second hand stores, has been played almost to death and the effective sampling quality in digital terms is now decidedly down around the 32khz/12bit range. Doesn't stop me enjoying the music, but it does have a rather characteristic, overly resonant, dulled treble, high noise floor sound to it, that the very few brand new discs I have (other than a couple of very cheaply pressed late 90s EPs) all lack, even those which are likely pressed from a digital source.
As for prices, I haven't found them to be _super_ expensive, but then I still remember the days of paying almost as much as a 12" costs now for CD releases, back when CD was king. Anything less than about £15 for an album is acceptable, under £10 is good, and upto £20 can be sort of justified if it's something amazing and the recording quality is good... beyond that, well, it had better be rare as hell. I've seen some places trying to charge £25+ for reissues of the White Album and so-on... I mean, come on, guys, stone cold classic it may be, but it's also common as muck and only the most pristine 60s originals are actually valuable.
No wonder the original pressing always sound better and go for lot more money.
great video, do think you could do a video for Analog vs. Digital with dynamic range. Plus, I have just upgraded from a conical needle (4211-d6) to an elliptical needle (4211-de) for my AT-3600 cartridge and have notice a huge improvement in sound quality, and wondered if you have you noticed the same thing
I wouldn't be surprised about that, particularly for singles and even moreso the "inner" tracks of a typical LP. With the sharper side angles and smaller front-to-back size of an elliptical stylus, it should have a much greater ability to reproduce high frequencies... although the absolute maximum frequency may actually be slightly lower, it'll have a much steeper roll-off at the top end and a much shallower one at the low-midrange end, so preserving a lot more of the high frequencies you can actually _hear_ .
Adding to a comment made about the frequencies >20khz being nothing but distortion/noise, it would make sense that the harmonics in the synth notes are probably caused by micro vibrations from the needle. Plus, a master tape from 1971 probably couldn't reproduce anything higher than 30khz, even though according to Wikipedia, some records go up to 50khz, and a high end phono cart can go in excess of 120khz. Of course, science is one thing, but obsessing over whether analog vs. digital is better is another. Good experiment.
Question is, how high an effective sample rate can the disc physically hold, and what can the needle read? As we're dealing with both a cutting head and a read stylus of certain minimum dimensions, and a medium passing them at a certain minimum and maximum speed, it should be possible to theorise what the genuine maximum sample rate of a given vinyl system is. Beyond the limits of your stylus, even if the master disc was been cut with an extremely fine head, and the pressing system and plastic substrate were of a suitable quality to preserve every last feature of that, you won't have the upper frequencies reproduced in any meaningful way because the edges of the needle will simply bridge over the narrowest points of each wave. I mean, they're generally oval, which helps to preserve the higher ranges somewhat because it only presents an effectively flat edge to the very smallest features, but it'll certainly start to suffer a drop in intensity from the point at which the disc features become smaller than its front-to-back size.
Like if you have a stylus that's half a millimetre front to back, and it's on the very outer edge of an LP (say, exactly 30cm out, which is just under 12 inches) turning at 33.3rpm... effective media speed is about 1.883m/s, or 1883 millimetres per second, that's a maximum unattenuated frequency of just 3766hz (equivalent to a sample rate of 7532hz, or roughly what you get from a telephone), and if we consider the edge of the needle to be as good as flat at the point where a front-to-back chord is only 1/10th that (at which point the side to side movement in response to even the largest amplitude high frequency wave will be very much reduced), it's an equivalent sample rate of "just" 75.3khz (and 48khz equivalent where it's about 1/6th to 1/7th). This is pretty good, but not quite up to the levels demonstrated, and will require quite a bit of treble boosting EQ for anything much over 10khz to be properly audible - hence the need for pre-EQing of the record at the factory to reduce bass frequencies and accentuate treble, so the needle has a chance of picking them up at all and isn't thrown totally out of the groove by strong bass, and a similar but not as strong reverse correction in the phono stage.
However, that's at the outside edge. If we move further in, to about the diameter of a 7" single, say 17cm once the lead-in is discounted, things are rather worse. Speed around the groove circumference reduces linearly thanks to c = 2 pi r, so instead of 1.883m/s it's now 1.067m/s; unattenuated frequency response is a mere 2134hz, equivalent to a 4268hz sample rate, and at our 1/10th size chord that's of course 42.7khz equivalent; raising the speed to 45rpm takes us up to 57.7khz equivalent, but it's still not quite as amazing, especially as we've got rather less amplitude (if I make a blind assumption that it's about 1/8th that of full travel, we've lost about 3 bits of resolution, or around 24 decibels of power).
Just before the lead-out, which I'm going to take as approx 10cm (I'll check this momentarily with a ruler and an actual disc), things are even worse; for the LP, equivalent sample rate is just 1/3rd what it originally was, or about 25.1khz, though the single isn't quite so bad, at a still-acceptable 33.9khz.
This is of course all a stab in the dark as I haven't got any stylus specs for maximum dimensions and degree of ovality to hand, but half a millimetre seems like a good place to start. I think I've bought at least one before that's about that size, and think I've seen them ranging from 0.3 to 0.7mm... the former giving you about 41khz equivalent still (after EQing, so the top end might be kinda noisy) at the inner edge of a disc.
Assuming of course it's been cut with a stylus that's the same size as it or smaller, of course, else the grooves themselves are going to be relatively smoothed out and lacking in the tiny details.
Really what I think this shows is that if you want the ultimate treble response from your records you need to play microgroove 78s... ;) ... even with a 0.7mm needle, going by my blind formula above, you'd see 42khz at the inner edge, and at the 10" outer diameter it'd be closer to 105khz equivalent (roughly matching what VW is getting on the spectrograph...)
Shawn Tewes I don't know where you obtained that information?
Follow up to my own comment: The stylus I have installed in my own deck at the moment turns out to be a 0.7 by 0.2mm type, which makes it damn near oblong and can probably be considered more or less rectangular (maybe at the level of 0.1mm, as there's *some* tail off, though it's very steep after that first half)... that raises the maximum frequency without attenuation to a healthy 9.4khz *at the outer edge* at 33.3rpm (actually that's for 12" diameter, real records are *slightly* smaller, but not enough to change this to any less than 9.3khz... and at the inner edge - no narrower than 4.75" for an LP - it's about 3.7khz; for 45s, 7.3khz at the outer edge and 4.5khz at the 4.25 inch inner diameter), and probably double that with only mild attenuation.
Funny, I figured that it was going to make the headroom figures higher but those seem lower if anything. Maybe we still have some meaningful reproduction out to where the stylus chord is only 0.05mm, IDK?
You're making good videos. 1986 good year. Greets from Emmet a city in the north of the Netherlands
That synth track has affected me, and not in a nice way. British viewers of a certain age will remember the phrase 'pages from Ceefax', and the awful music that accompanied them.
yes but do you like ceephax?
Did anyone actually sit down and watch "Pages from Ceefax", though?
I mean, given that it took the whole point of Ceefax- the ability to choose the page you were looking at- and removed that by converting it to a standard TV picture, just leaving you with a slowly-updated series of static pages... not much fun.
I guess it was useful for drunks, insomniacs, shift workers, and people with VCRs but no teletext function in their TV to catch up (in less than ten minutes flat) on certain things like the news headlines, weather forecast and stock prices, in an age before multichannel digital broadcasting, 24 rolling news channels, and the internet? And dead cheap for them to engineer... just set up a BBC Micro in Mode 7 with a teletext decoder and a small program to run through a particular set of pages, and direct its video output straight into the transmission chain. With a big ol' reel to reel tape running at 3.75ips providing the necessary 4 or 5 hours of unbroken electro easy listening in the background.
And, hey, at least it was easy to fall asleep to, and if you didn't want to do that you could just turn the sound off.
The weird thing is how many artists seem to have been making that sort of music around that time and even well before. I've got a record I picked up at a charity shop entirely at random (I liked the cover art...) and it sounds just like typical PFC fodder... except it's absolutely nothing to do with it. I've looked it up, seen who made the PFC music, checked out the band members of both that and the record in question... absolutely zero overlap. Totally bizarre. I can only really categorise it as "alternate universe ceefax music" even so.
In South Africa we called it Teledata, and it was shown after close of broadcast throughout the night. However, the music would be a standard radio station, so we never got indoctrinated by fax mach... I mean music of that type.
This is an interesting video. It's also worth noting that the majority of LPs produced since 1979 have been digitally mastered, due to the introduction of digital 'cutting delays' in the mastering chain.
A delay is used to pre-adjust the groove spacing ahead of changes in audio amplitude, in order to squeeze more music onto the disc, and also to generate the 'shiny spaces' between tracks.
Previously, a tape deck with two playback heads was used to provide the delay.
There might be a digital system measuring the amplitude in order to space the grooves properly, but does that necessarily mean that the audio itself is being permanently converted into a digital form and then that copy used to lay down the final track? Seems it would be a lot easier and cheaper to simply record the maximum amplitude every millisecond or so and simply use that for controlling how fast the cutting head moved inwards, with the actual signal chain from analogue master tape to analogue disc still being, well, the same old analogue setup they already had in place.
Man this is a great synth track. Enoch Light did great work, especially in quad like this one.
I bought a few Legacy re-releases not realizing they were digitally remastered, and I didn't really like the way they sounded. So I read up on how they are remastered and decided they aren't worth the money, I mean why convert digital back to analog it's not an improvement. I can do my own mastering.
Do you have this record album uploaded in any format or place? I can't find it, could you help me? Thanks for helping me ^^ ♥
Fantastic listening of the last recording, even on my 48 KHz you tube ipadpro rendition! Thank you.
RUclips only uses 44.1 kHz audio, not 48 kHz.
I mean the ipadpro is 48 KHz max
awesome demonstration. thnx a lot
Great video, once again...
Thanks man, now you nailed it.
Could a test recording be done in which an LP that has a frequency range below 20 Hz and above 20 kHz, in which we delete or mute only the 20-20 kHz frequencies so we can test our ears to see if we can truly hear or make out with our ears these remaining higher and lower frequencies? I have some Sony headphones that can go from 3-100 kHz. It would be a great test for me and other so we can either prove or disprove these "internet experts" that claim all human cant hear outside of these frequencies. But even if we can't, how can we prove that the combination of those higher and lower frequencies do not add to the other frequencies and/or compliment them?
Could you put the output from the vinyl through a high pass filter at 20kHz to remove what we normally hear, then bring down the pitch of what's left into the audible range? It would be interesting to hear what the extra information on vinyl actually is.
Actually reading the comments further I can see this has already been suggested.
I would also find that interesting
Vinyl has a much higher frequency response, but it also adds distortion. Digital has a limited but sufficient (and practically pefect as far as humans are concerned) frequency response with no distortion.
The way I see it....digital audio is like organic unseasoned food cooked in a microwave....while vinyl is like regular quality food cooked by a great chef.
Digital can be set to record any analog signal at any frequency. Just set the sampling rate and make sure the audio components can handle it.
I don't get one thing. Ok, you mentioned you removed the preamp so let's say the built-in circuitry does not limit frequency response to 20 KHz like many non-pro preamps perhaps will. But how do you get over 20 KHz spectrum if AT95E specs say that the stylus/cartridge frequency response is 20 to 20,000Hz. Can someone explain that ?
In the late '90s audio equipment manufacturers agreed to limit their frequency response tests to only 20 - 20,000 Hz because that is the commonly agreed range of human hearing. Before then you would often see tweeters and phono cartridges advertised as having response up to 30,000 or 35,000 Hz or sometimes even higher. This extended high frequency response can still exist in new audio equipment made today; it just isn't measured or advertised anymore.
I would also like to add, that even if it's rated to say 20kh, it will still capture/reproduce beyond said frequency. But it will be below some threshold they used to get the advertised rating. Not taking into account filters.
In analog equipment, the frequency response is where the equipment behaves between specified quality parameters, but it's not limited to those parameters, as what happens with digital.
Hey vwestlife can't you make a video about your favorite less known vinyl albums that would be awesome since you always choose such great tracks 😀👍
Atta-boy Kevin. I love honest, can't-be-disputed-for-what-it-represents PROOF. You are so eloquent, thank you.
Hi I love your video from 2010 and this one, I would like to know what PC software you are using , I would like to show my frinds also that LP's have a better range. Thank you very much for your time.
Adobe Audition 1.5
@@vwestlife thank you!
Hi, what program do you use to show the frequency modulations of the music being played?
Adobe Audition 1.5
We can only consciously hear up to a certain frequency. Perhaps at higher frequencies it becomes subconscious but still matters to how we feel about it. Perhaps the sense of the highs above 20 khz is there just below consciousness but still influences our feeling about the music. Bats locate insects between 20 kHz and 60 kHz. I'm not sure things have to be consciously noticed to be important. We govern and screen out certain sensory inputs to maintain mental control but those inputs still hit our brains.
most of the fequencies at the higher levels on the 2nd record - are to accomidate 4Channel de-muxing
I like how you show your An American Tail soundtrack on vinyl for this video.
I actually have that record in my collection.
@@AlMcWhigginShow cool.
using a fully digital medium to present the quality of an analog medium.interesting :-)
is Audio Tehnica turntable as good as Tehinics one was? (what the difrence anyway?)
Nice! What kind of specrum analyzer plugin are you using?
The one in Adobe Audition 1.5.
The apparent wider frequency response of the LP is a pointless "test" tbh...
You can't hear much above 20 KHz anyway (especially as we get older), and it's very likely that the original master recording chain would have had a low-pass filter too.
That doesn't mean to say that vinyl is any less enjoyable a medium because of it, but the suggestion that it's somehow technically / objectively superior to modern digital recording formats is silly.
We have very well defined tests for gauging the quality of an audio recording vs the master recording.
Those are things like THD+N (Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise), and dynamic range tests.
Even if you argue that vinyl (or tape etc.) are more "linear", the objective tests are exactly how we can compare each type of recording medium though. They tell the whole story.
But, there is a lot to be said for the "character" and perceived added "warmth" of older recordings, and the tactile feel of actually collecting them etc.
There's also a LOT to be said for the crappy "loudness wars" thing on most modern recordings. It basically spoiled the quality of most CD music from the late 90s onwards.
Speaking of distortion - there's also a very high probability that all you are really seeing on the spectrogram is the distortion and harmonics caused by the needle itself bumping along the grooves in the vinyl, and unlikely to be any actual (wanted) recorded audio other than noise. Again, we can't hear that high up in frequency anyway.
Unless you know exactly how the recording was mastered, then this sort of test can't really show us much.
I expect 99.9% of humans wouldn't ever be able to tell the difference between an original vinyl pressing or a high-quality 24-bit / 96 KHz recording of the same vinyl in a blind test (with precisely the same volume levels / speakers / amp / equalisation etc.)
Of course, many of the older recordings started life on a studio tape deck too - If the aim is to get as close to that tape master as possible, then technically the modern digital standards win every time (if properly done).
EDIT: I get the point of the vid was to also show how many newer recordings are generally a bit crap though, and I can't disagree there. lol
EDIT2: Oh, and the sharp cut-off of frequencies above about 20 KHz in digital recordings is entirely expected, and necessary. Even for the higher sampling rate / bit depth recordings, there is a well defined standard for the amount of roll-off to get the best quality for the audible range. Showing the graph up to 100 KHz isn't going to show the slope of the low-pass filter properly, as it's not zoomed in enough. Again, anything about ~20-24 KHz on the vinyl recording is just unwanted noise anyway, and can only have a detrimental affect on the objective audio quality (unless you subjectively prefer the character of vinyl or tape etc., which is fine.)
I think this is about what is capable of the format only.
Yep, but there is a video previous to this which suggests that the LP is somehow "better" because it shows frequencies above the ~20KHz range of human hearing?
It's just going to be harmonics and noise above the normal recording anyway.
Ideally, the vinyl decks would have a built-in low-pass filter too, but it really doesn't matter because most amps (and speakers) will filter that too.
The low-pass on a CD is basically just the digital version of that. :p
It's also necessary for filtering out the unwanted "mirror" images of the normal 20KHz audible range, otherwise it could introduce unwanted noise.
What you think it "suggests" is not what I actually said.
CDs do have limitations. They are forever stuck with 1982 technology. 16-bit digital is noisy and the 44.1 kHz sampling rate requires a steep brickwall filter to prevent aliasing. Over the years the industry has come up with various "Band-Aid" fixes to alleviate these problems, such as dithering, noise shaping, oversampling, and HDCD, but it's still not perfect.
Today there is no reason why we shouldn't be offering 24-bit 96 kHz digital audio directly to the consumer, because these days any computer, smartphone, or iPod is more than powerful enough to play it, but we're still stuck with the same old 16-bit 44.1 kHz standard from 1982, now made even worse with lossy AAC or MP3 encoding (itself forever stuck with antiquated 1994 technology).
I completely agree. ;)
44.1 KHz was enough for the audible spectrum, but that of course could always be improved so the noise is way lower and there is less aliasing / mirroring.
I don't really download much music any more, but last time I did it was FLAC (96/24 where possible).
I very much agree with your findings and I have for years. I remember being a small child in the mid 80's when Wal-Mart took out the vinyl section. Sad day that way LOL However, I think that a big thing a lot of people fail to remember, let alone know, is that sound and music, which we enjoy, all has harmonics. I noticed for the spectrum analyzer you had going of these recordings, the amount of higher end harmonics that get lost in the CD quality digital recordings. When I played back the early 70's analog recording of the synthesizer, you provided, the sound was more full bodied. It's 'easier' on the ear, is the best way to describe it Like that sneeze that almost get there, but then vanishes, leaving you unfulfilled, is the best way to describe the difference between the old analog and newer digital sample rates (referring to CDs).
Clayton Jeremy Kucera
It's easier on the ears because it's distorted and the highs aren't that "high" the latter of which you can adjust with an EQ
The vinyl section is back at my Walmart
Look up the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem; the harmonics that get lost with the sampling rate of a CD (44.1kHz) are somewhat lower than half its sampling rate, because of low pass filtering to prevent aliasing, about 20kHz. So unless you can hear sounds above about 20kHz the limited sampling rate and therefore the "lost" harmonics of a CD recording are irrelevant
It would be interesting to compare the American Tail record to the exact parts of the music on the CD and see if there's any difference.
Perfect demonstration.
I'd be curious to compare the ranges of a SAME (pre-82) album, one in vinyl version, and the other in modern CD version. Eno's Music For Airports, The Wall, or any other pre CD LP actually, in any musical genre. You point would be more convincing if you werent comparing different albums/cd, Most interresting vid anyway. Cheers.
Cool video. Kind of curious what software you are using for the spectrum analysis.
It certainly looks like the higher frequency data is coming through on vinyl. I imagine, depending on everything else in your chain (phono amp, power amp, speakers) the higher frequency data will "sound" different due to harmonics. I think this is why various hack-fixes have been attempted to the CD audio format to improve its performance relative to analog sources. CD audio was a product of the digital electronics of its time. They weren't that good.
Adobe Audition 1.5.
Software is adobe audition. A fart produces higher freqency too, but we can't hear them. :x
Mesmerising.
I wonder what Quadraphonic format that Enoch Light 4 channel demonstration record was in. I don't have that speciffic album, but many other Enoch light albums were issued in EV Stereo-4 format which is probably the least common matrixed Quad format in the US... I'm lucky enough to own a Stereo-4 Decoder and ~8 albums encoded in that format.
Yes, it is EV-4.
I also have that LP of Enoch light, so nice
The sawtooth wave of the synth extends beyond 20khz.
I thought someone cleared my earwax or something.
Hey VWestlife. Is there any such thing as a phono pre amp made for the USB connection of any USB turntable? :) Thank you! :)
Yes.
What place(s) can I find one of those at? :) What is the price range on one of those pre amps made for the USB connection on a turntable? :)
Try Googling it.
What software is that where you can see the waveform in real time? Is that free to download?
Adobe Audition, and no, it is not free. But it's based on Cool Edit Pro, and there was a free version of that called Cool Edit 2000, with limited features.
What software did you use to view the audio frequency range?
Adobe Audition 1.5, which is really just an updated version of Cool Edit Pro.
fascinating and entertaining :)
The first record made by mca had wide frequency range than the Enoch light recording you just played
hey +VWestlife what's the track name of the analog synth song? Thanks!! Super video!! :)
You can download it in the description.
*****
thanks buddy didn't see it
Your the best mane.
Cool demonstration. Maybe some time you can also demonstrate a current LP release of a classic album, VS an original pressing (or at least a re-issue from the pre-digital days.) Then again, what's the point of that since we all know what the result would be. Anything past 15kHz is useless to me because that's what my hearing limit is, but what so many people didn't realize was that the point of this demonstration is to show that LPs have a higher frequency range.
Anything above 20kHz cannot be heard by human beings, though admittedly their cats and dogs can.
Those frequencies can't be heard in the conventional sense, but they can still be transmitted to the human mind and they have been shown to affect it in a positive way.
How would hi-res audio tracts compare? Would they be cutoff at 20k as well?
Alan Heady Hi-res flac and aac files have the same cut-off frequencies as CD digital audio unless remastered from the original session recordings (not the original master).
@Tisbonus That very much depends. If the original master is 24bit/96k (which very well may be - has been used for ages in the studios), then of course the high-res file can be the same format.
decnet100 yep. That's my point.
Why do people argue about sound that you can't hear? When I was 8 I could hear up to 18k. Now in my 30's I can hear up to 12.5k. I can still tell the difference in sound quality better then most self proclaimed audiofools. If a record goes above 12.5k I still don't care most sound is lower then that. Not many instruments even go to 10k.
While i agree with you on the discussion issue, an instrument goes to much more than 10k, since depending on the complexity of it's sound, it will create an infinite sum of harmonics, the harmonic series. This harmonic series, will have different intensities for each n making up the instrument timbre. Point is, we don't hear beyond a given number of harmonics that are in the perceived frequency range and it's true that we don't perceive tone for well, most of what is upper hearing (this might be related to our hearing evolution being very related to the human voice). There are also the inharmonic components, like ringing, or other aspects of the instrument that make up it's sound. Still, saying most instruments don't go upper than 10 kHz is reductive, or music would only be made of 10 kHz representations, and music is full up to at least 16 kHz spectrum. It's unfortunate you are on your 30's and don't hear from 12 kHz up, but there's still a lot of content from 10 kHz up.
Ever wondered why your voice sounds different over phone, Dave ? Max freq of it is about 200-300Hz, so 8 KHz should be more than enough, right ? So how come is sounds like crap even it seems you have enough room there ?
Sound waves interact with each other, sound is not pure tones. Even if you can't hear a pure tone above a frequency, you can hear the 'texture' it applies when superimposed onto lower frequencies.
@@MACTEP_CHOB Actually, the same applies to voice, we have a lot of harmonics,so the max frequency of a vocal is defenitely not 300 Hz, more like 5 to 8k if not more. Vocals also have a bunch of different components, depending on the mouth format generating comb filtering to form vowels, and different kinds of transients and sibiliants to form consonants . But the real problem with phones is not only bandwitch and more the linearity of the frequencies and a bunch of lows that are taken by low dynamic range also.
It’s worth noting that in the synthesizer track some sounds seem restricted to one channel only (or are much louder). This might exacerbate intermodulation distortion. It would be interesting to “see” a mono recording…
Even if that was all done, youtube compression would smash it all down. Doubt there is much audio above 16khz on youtube. Dynamic range also get's crushed.
the synth track is not in stereo but early 4 channel so how to compare ? also not at very competent cartridge and turntable so...
I've often said that that digital is preferable to analog for certain types of voice sources--such as electronic (synthesizer) music--and vice-versa... but this proves it. Even when transferred to what has come to be considered to crudest recording format ever devised, electronic music has proven itself to be of such sharp rise (attack) and fade (decay) that only digital media has the frequency response to do it justice.
I know this comment may be a bit off-subject, but I felt it deserved mention in light of the material used in this subject. And if anyone wants to argue that, tough!
How many dB down is the noise floor?
Quadraphonic LPs (CD4 format) of the early 70s relied on a sub-carrier frequency of 30khz to carry the extra 2 channels - much like music broadcast on a FM carrier. There is no doubt frequencies above 20khz can be cut into vinyl but in the case of CD4 - no one reported hearing it. Some of pointed out resonances in your cartridge may make it look like their is more music information above 20k as might digital specific distortions such as jitter in the ADC in your sound card.
This is not a CD-4 record, it is matrixed quad, which does not use an ultrasonic carrier. For an example of what a CD-4 record looks like on a spectrum graph, see this video: ruclips.net/video/8vX28oEKELI/видео.html
I didn't say it was.
Great! May I ask for the Software you are using?
Adobe Audition 1.5.
@@vwestlife Thanks!
I have recorded numerous LPs to CD interesting thing is they sound exactly the same. Have you tried that and then compared the sound of the two?
Yes.
and what did you find? did you hear a difference?
The instrumental that start @4:30 sound like a mash-up of Wario Land Music and Pokemon game boy music
It looks as though the vinyl derived from digital master tapes had pulses of activity clearly above 22kHz as well: 2:45
That 24bit track, I can tell on the on my HD600 for sure that its beyond anything a CD can sample. I am listening to the CD version of it on Spaced Out & Charged and, maybe the mastering is totally different, but the CD version sounds horrendous compared to your vinyl rip. Thanks for the ear candy btw!
And yes a lot of it is mastering, because even the youtube audio sounds 100x better than the CD. But with that said, there is a night and day between the youtube compression and your 24bit rip.
What software are yo using? I’d like to know
what software are you using to measure the spectrum?
Adobe Audition.
(neé Cool Edit Pro... really should pick it up myself one day, given that I really don't get on with Audacity and found CE's interface much more intuitive. Plus of course it has that nifty live spectrograph, which Audacity still doesn't have even in 2018 despite Cool Edit having it way back in at least the '96 version if not earlier... good to see that the live mode has been extended from 2048-band to at least 8192-band FFT though... that's probably about the limit for reasonable update speed, though. And really it's a bit pointless going that high with the linear chart, as you haven't that many pixels; 2048 would be perfectly good in this case and give a faster update speed (it's not that the computer can't handle it, it's just that the timebase for the analysis is smeared out over a great many more samples; 120,000 / 8192 is effectively a little under 15fps, whereas 2048 would be almost 60fps) without losing any visible resolution. Whereas 8192 would be much better for a log-scaled chart, retaining more resolution at the low frequency end that gets magnified in that view)
Just a thought, have you considered showing the difference using the actual spectrogram display for the whole wave? That can show up just how much high frequency content is present, and how finely tuned it is, probably even better than the live line-chart can. And of course you can put two versions of the same recording side by side, one digital and one analogue, to show how things differ both above and below the cutoff :)
Though of course its resolution is a bit more compromised than the live chart, because you have to fit two channels in sight, vertically stacked, within your vertical screen resolution, so anything beyond 512 bands will probably be a waste, whereas the live chart can almost show the full resolution of a 2048-band FFT horizontally, with both channels overlaid on each other... (assuming 1920x1080 pixels in both cases). Still, it can be worth it to see a lot more *time* all at once (one second, or one hour... whatever you feel like), rather than a series of 1/15th of a second snatches one after the other.
doesn't the synth still use a DAC when it's recorded?
These were analog synthesizers.
oh that is really cool 😀
I think someone should compare the frequency response of the vinyl, and master tape that the vinyl was produced from, and compare. Digitize each one at 96kHz/16-bit (24-bit is pointless) and compare. I have some modern SACD remasters of old analog recordings, and there's really nothing above 25-27kHz. Maybe 28-29kHz. And into the 40kHz range it's just noise. Now, I read this is because of DSD being different than standard PCM, but there's nothing up there. It would also be a good thing to see how an album that was digitally recorded at 96kHz looks like on vinyl compared to the master recording.
Most Audiofiles believe that analog is better because it is "infinite" when it's actually not it's still subject to bandwidth size and other issues but it does not have a fixed bit depth while most digital recordings are made in 16bit depth which is a bit low probably because it was more economical at the time.I personally think they should have chosen 20bits as standard resolution increasing 4bits doesn't sound like much but the bit depth is increased by a whopping 1500% without taking up much more space.
I'm one of those audiophile, musician and home recording studio types that agrees with what the science is telling us, e.g. that digital is more capable and that what is input is generally outputted the same etc, but I happen to have a preference for the sound of analogue tape and vinyl because to my ears it sounds and feels more musically pleasing. So when I say analogue is better than digital, it is meant in the context of preference rather than scientific fact.
The resolution affects the dynamic range. 16 bits gives you nearly 100 DB. I think that is more than adequate
It Support you are exactly right! It cracks me up when people confuse sample rate with resolution.😂😂
It's not pressed from a CD. ITt's pressed from a VHS PCM adapter that has the same sound quality as the CD (16/44.1)
BTW: I'm getting 48k Opus on this video.
Oh shit. I'm buying that Enoch Light record. It's one I don't have, and it has Kites Are Fun On it, so...
I think what they were getting at was, we can't hear above 20k, and they just said it wrong.
Tyler Watthanaphand Actually, one russian youtuber mentioned his video, and said that this is not a frequency range, this is harmonics and noise.
Daniel Hikkamorii That depends. In the case of a non-lowpassed analogue or >48khz recording, it wouldn't be just unwanted harmonics and noise, but natural harmonics from the instruments, reverberation, etc.
^ exactly,,hence the 'openness' of vinyl +SNESIvan
No it isn't misleading.
Trying to hear the subtle difference between two recordings can be very difficult. But hearing a test tone or not hearing a tone at all is extremely easy.
And you can easily test your own hearing range at home. Try this: www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/
I bet you don't hear the 16kHz tone. It has nothing to do with doctor's offices with fluorescent light.
Yeah but a test tone is not music.
Coincidentially, what's the total harmonic distortion of a typical vinyl system? I've seen measurements higher than 1% (-40dB) even on decent quality equipment, most of it being introduced during the cutting and playback process. So for a high frequency event such as a cymbal hit, you automatically receive several higher frequency signals, which I think is what's going on during the"from digital" recording - even if the master contained no information whatsoever beyond 22kHz, the vinyl cutting and playback process will result in some high frequency content that is simply unintentional and probably wasn't even present in the original music. If we're talking single note signals such as those analog synths, that sort of high-frequency content is not too much of a problem since nobody can hear it anyway (and a square wave synth will even create it's own infinite harmonics), but as soon as you're running into several notes and harmonics getting played simultaneously, you also run into intermodulation distortion, and that's a very audible phenomenon. Maybe some people like certain aspects of it, I personally prefer not to have it in my music.
The problem with vynil has never been frequency response; the issue is the S/N ratio. If at 40 khz you only get 20dB tops, then whats the use. Even in the hearing range Vynil has low S/N ratio. For analog resolution and S/N it's better to use a 2 inch magnetic tape at 30 ips. Just my opinion.
A 2-inch magnetic tape at 30 ips-even with noise reduction-is never going to match just 16-bit digital let alone 24-bit digital.
30 ips loses treble.. the best speed is 15ips
I don't see how that could be the case. If anything I'd expect it to lose some bass power. Are you sure you don't mean 7.5ips, rather then 30?
As for SNR, it seemed to be thought acceptable to use as a master including for CDs for a good long time, and seemed to have a perfectly fine noise floor (it's what would be used as the master for some of the old vinyls shown here, and they look to have a noise level comparable to CD, ie the graph tails off to less than -96db). And generally even on fully digital CDs, you're not really getting much more than 20db SNR at the higher frequencies, if you look on a spectrogram. It's now much the active frequencies add up vs the noise that's more important than the SNR of any given frequency (which simply sets about how loud it sounds... you can't have everything at 0db or even -6db, it'd be a total racket). That's the reason the floor needs to be set so low, well beyond the realm of hearing, so that even quiet sounds can come through in a legible way... 16-bit is fine for that, 12-bit is sketchy, 8-bit is hopeless and rather like a low quality ferric compact cassette, except with the added fun of the noise being the digital quantisation type rather than the softer analogue type where you can still pick out some subtle sounds through the hiss at -45db instead of them being lost to the scratchiness down at the least significant bit level.
Or let's put it another way... I used to have to do a lot of academic lecture-capture voice recordings, and background noise was always the enemy (projector and PC fans, outside noises if the sound insulation was imperfect, plus a hundred or more people breathing, coughing, muttering, moving papers around etc). Between trying to get the best mic setup, encouraging speakers to shout rather than whisper, and using as much digital noise filtering as I dared in post editing, it generally came out that about 20db is your limit for being able to produce an end product that sounds OK... 10-12db is the limit of being at all decipherable... and with anything over 30db you're good to go with hardly any editing at all - and that's the whole-spectrum intensity, not just a single band (which could often be as marginal as 6db and still be recoverable with only minor artefacts with a good noise reduction algorithm). So a single frequency band within a music recording having 20db SNR as-is should be fine... it would be like it being no quieter than about -27db on a cassette, and I'd bet if you had a piece of music with all its elements being that intensity or louder you wouldn't be able to make out the hiss (I figure anyone who says they can tell something's recorded on tape from listening to a full volume section, rather than a quiet intro or fade out, is probably lying; the entire foundation of mpeg audio encoding is based on psychoacoustic modelling of how the human auditory system automatically tunes out quiet noise in the presence of loud sounds after all).
Besides, anything that's been subject to modern production methods probably doesn't even have that much dynamic range full stop... Everything's crammed into about the top 12db. :-/
Vinyl*
The thing is if you listen to a real band play you will hear background noise from people at the venue. moving, talking etc. No one complains about that. In a way vinyl is more like the real world where there is always background noise present. CD's sound artificial to me.
So is your argument that vinyl is capable of preserving content upwards of 50k or that the content up there is in any way meaningful? The CD4 quad system relied on 45 kHz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced, but that was to embed an extra two channels’ worth of information. Most recordings don’t have any content above the range of human hearing, so attempting to preserve it seems pointless in most cases, at least when it comes to the final delivery mechanism. While vinyl *can* hold a very high frequency, it won’t do so for long due to wear and that high frequency is not going to be heard by anyone with human ears.
Wrong. Lou Dorren, developer of the CD-4 format, did tests of playing a CD-4-encoded LP 500 times on a cheap record player with a ceramic cartridge and conical stylus tracking at 4.5 grams, and after cleaning the record, it played and decoded perfectly on a CD-4-equipped turntable: www.amstereo.org/files/cd-4paper4.pdf
Okay, for argument’s sake, let’s assume that this is true. So what? Why use vinyl? I can play a digital recording one million times and it never loses even 0.000001% of quality.
There are no upsides to vinyl from a technical standpoint-digital can hold much more information if you want and more accurately to boot-and there are only downsides, unless you are in it for the nostalgia, the ritual, the album art, etc. One might argue that we should all go back to wire recorders or wax cylinders because older is somehow better.
I agree.
@ I think here "wax & wire" is the perfect example of Pierre De Fermat (yes, the author of the famous "last theorem") strong technique invented to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of one statement: the downwards regression to a point where it is impossible to descend further.
0:52 Wasn't digital sound always 44.1kHz/16-bit?
Not necessarily. There were many different digital audio formats used beginning in the late 1970s, ranging from 12-bit 32 kHz to 16-bit 50 kHz. 16-bit 44.1 kHz just happened to become the CD standard because it was easy to record onto Sony U-Matic tape, which was a common format for early digital audio in recording studios.
@@vwestlife Ok, thanks.
BTW you should do a review on the JFJ Easy Pro. I've heard it fixes damaged CDs/DVDs/Blu-rays and removes scratches
I don't have enough scratched discs to necessitate buying a device like that.
@@vwestlife Oh okay
4:29 this song sounds like an 8 bit games console.
I thought that stylus could only capture up to about 28k or something, and also human hearing stops at around 21khz, so all that musical information that your spectrograph shows, in the 30-60k range, isn't really there, it's just how your dac resolves it, its not real. Try to solo that range, if you have the means to (a highpass filter plugin) and set the filter to 30k/96db slope or brickwall. That means you will only hear that above 30k. I'm 100% positive you will hear ALOT even though that's impossible to do. Your vid is a very flawed representation of what is happening
Wow. I thought that CDs had a 70db dynamic range and that vinyl had a 50db range. Or am I mixing metrics here?
CDs have 90+ dB dynamic range, while most LPs are around 50 to 60 dB.
@@vwestlife thank you
@@BC-qb7tx Commercial CDs have 115+ dB DR because they use dithering.
Well for the fully analog recorded LP you use a 4 CHANNEL RECORD WHICH ENCODES THE REAR 2 CHANNELS IN THE HIGHER FREQUENCIES UP TO 36KHz SO OF COURSE IT'S GONNA GO UP IN FREQUENCY RESPONSE
No, you're thinking of CD-4. This is not a CD-4 disc. It is EV-4, which was a matrixed 4-channel system that did not use an ultrasonic subcarrier. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo-4
Well there goes my point.
Still a demonstration with a standard record would have been better and less confusing.
Do you have rare bootlegs?
No.
did you watch BBISHOPS youtube stream?!?!
sushi dream
No my dad has a lot of bootleg tapes
You compared a generated synth signal to a real recording, which as you apparently don't emphasize, does not record above 20kHz average. So can you please show a record which was not limited at the mastering chain and used microphones that could record above 20kHz?
Feel free to make such a video yourself. I'd love to see it and would be glad to add a link to it on this video.
I think the vibrating needle acts like a pendulum and does not immediately stop at the end of a note. And when recording, the equipment can never completely grab those tiny/ subtle end notes... so perhaps the LP adds them back in; thus a more accurate depiction of the original/ live sound recording.
what software are you using?
DUDE YOU CAN GET THAT ON AN LP?! I NEVER THOUGH DON BLOUTH WOULD HAVE VYNAL STUFF!!
The film came out in the early 80s, were you expecting it *wouldn't* have a soundtrack LP? Plus he was directing films before CD was even a thing.
Who says that vinyl had greater frequency response? I've never heard that till I saw this video. Why would anyone claim that? However, greater frequency range doesn't mean more pleasant. I don't know why sound quality (if that means pleasantness) is conflated with frequency range. Those may be different things.
E.g. music may be more pleasant as the distance between the lowest and highest frequencies increases and yet it could still be conceivable that at a certain point you get diminishing returns. I'm not an analog uber alles type. I've enjoyed them interchangeably my whole life. But I hear these questions posed in very confused ways.
You should try it with a pro-grade spectrum analyser, not a PC audio adapter.
44100 Hz on Vinyl?! So.... that means the CD of the OST to An American Tail (1986) sounds a tad better-ish. Okay, so.... Back to the Future Vinyl Soundtrack, 1985 vs 2010s-era ones. 2010s have compression (Loudness Wars) and 1980s has either 44.1 or greater Khz?
There's only one reason to argue about sound quality - money! Digital sound is easier to steal!! Manufacturers of sound products spend much less on digital sound than on analog, and earn much more through the Internet than selling CDs in stores. In my country, thousands of historians are just as passionate about proving my country's right... you know what:)
a fitting choice - considering whats happening today -
Back then digital was new no one figured it out yet until 90s