In Reply to: Beware of false information posted by J. Phelan on April 15, 2017 at 16:54:24:
Any LP system has bandwidth to at least 35KHz. Stock cutter systems designed in the late 1950s went to over 50KHz and were usually bandwidth limited at about 40-45KHz; ours is set at 42KHz).
This bandwidth exists in playback- we can easily cut a 35KHz signal and play it back on very modest equipment without distortion.
The second thing is a type of distortion that the digital industry does not like to talk about! This is known in several guises: 'Inharmonic distortion, which is in this case a form of IMD where the spurious tones generated are related to intermodulations between the scan frequency and the actual fundamental tone.
The digital industry does not like to admit to distortion so they call this 'aliasing'. The problem with it is not detectable unless you use an analog source. This is because digital algorithms are designed to avoid the problem!
To easily hear the issue, use an analog sweep generator and set up a slow rising tone from 20Hz to 20Khz. Record; in playback you will hear the spurious intermodulations as 'birdies' (the term coined by the radio industry decades ago).
These spurious tones only occur in analog systems with a serious malfunction!
Since the music usually played by audiophiles is not sweep tones, the spurious tones are not audible as tones- the ear converts them though to the brightness for which digital is traditionally known.
Analog lacks such brightness or any tonality for that matter (those being properties of some recordings but not others- clearly an issue of recording gear, its use and that of the playback as well). Its biggest problem is noise floor, but if set up correctly and if the LP is mastered and pressed with care it has no problem being quieter than the electronics used to play it back.
That does not sound like digital is 'better' to me, the suggestion of such sounds like an opinion that really isn't based on a sound understanding of the issues.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Several problems digital has that analog seems to not have: - Ralph 13:18:04 04/17/17 (40)
- RE: Several problems digital has that analog seems to not have: - tomservo 07:20:33 04/19/17 (11)
- well, yeah and no. - Analog Scott 12:00:15 04/19/17 (0)
- RE: Generation Loss? - Ralph 08:03:40 04/19/17 (9)
- RE: Generation Loss? - tomservo 08:42:31 04/19/17 (8)
- RE: Generation Loss? - Ralph 09:02:41 04/19/17 (7)
- RE: Generation Loss? - J. Phelan 10:54:49 04/19/17 (1)
- "sound accuracy movement?" - Analog Scott 12:02:16 04/19/17 (0)
- RE: Generation Loss? - tomservo 10:40:27 04/19/17 (4)
- +1 nt - Ralph 12:25:50 04/19/17 (3)
- RE: +1 nt - J. Phelan 14:24:40 04/19/17 (2)
- He sure seemed to have a lot of them laying around when I last saw him... nt - Ralph 14:53:51 04/19/17 (1)
- RE: He sure seemed to have a lot of them laying around when I last saw him... nt - J. Phelan 14:59:19 04/19/17 (0)
- RE: Several problems digital has that analog seems to not have: - J. Phelan 15:35:59 04/17/17 (27)
- Revisionist history - E-Stat 06:56:34 04/19/17 (0)
- RE: "Analog on playback is limited to 15-16 kHz, not 35 kHz." FINALLY! - Ivan303 16:48:17 04/17/17 (0)
- RE: Several problems digital has that analog seems to not have: - Tre' 16:33:27 04/17/17 (24)
- We need to find out what... - mkuller 20:47:56 04/17/17 (0)
- RE: Several problems digital has that analog seems to not have: - J. Phelan 16:46:32 04/17/17 (22)
- This is incorrect! - Ralph 10:14:03 04/18/17 (0)
- RE: Several problems digital has that analog seems to not have: - J. Phelan 17:32:53 04/17/17 (19)
- RE: Several problems digital has that analog seems to not have: - Tre' 17:57:29 04/17/17 (18)
- RE: Several problems digital has that analog seems to not have: - morricab 07:59:36 04/18/17 (0)
- RE: Several problems digital has that analog seems to not have: - J. Phelan 18:07:20 04/17/17 (16)
- wrong again - Analog Scott 18:11:12 04/17/17 (15)
- He seems to have a way of doing that. nt - Ralph 10:15:21 04/18/17 (0)
- RE: wrong again - J. Phelan 18:17:41 04/17/17 (13)
- RE: wrong again - Analog Scott 20:50:29 04/17/17 (0)
- RE: wrong again - Tre' 18:31:32 04/17/17 (11)
- RE: wrong again - J. Phelan 19:10:54 04/17/17 (10)
- RE: wrong again - Tre' 07:31:03 04/18/17 (5)
- RE: wrong again - J. Phelan 11:22:51 04/18/17 (1)
- Perhaps you should read your own *references* more closely - E-Stat 07:24:11 04/19/17 (0)
- RE: wrong again - SpotcheckBilly12345 08:00:27 04/18/17 (2)
- Thanks! nt - Ralph 10:24:29 04/18/17 (0)
- That's good advice. Thanks. (nt) - Tre' 09:19:48 04/18/17 (0)
- RE: wrong again - Analog Scott 20:58:26 04/17/17 (3)
- RE: wrong again - J. Phelan 06:53:54 04/18/17 (2)
- Bwahahaha - E-Stat 05:48:00 04/19/17 (0)
- Who is Roger Sanders? - Analog Scott 06:58:21 04/18/17 (0)
- RE: "This one is right off Google"... - Ivan303 16:49:40 04/17/17 (0)