Last post by pelmazo -
The actual story is, in my opinion and from what I recall going on back then, more like this: Randi was simply unaware of the full range of nonsense that infests high end audio hardware. He naively thought that 'cables' means cables (insulated wires + terminals). He was unaware , for example, that some high end cables -- speaker cables AND interconnect cables -- come with in-line 'magic boxes' that might or might not act as crude equalizers. When he was apprised of the existence of such shenanigans (by people having much more experience with the idiocy of audiophiles), he more or less decided to wash his hands of such tiresome crapola rather than give pompous little jerks like Fremer a chance to 'win' on such a weasely technicality.I think he's technically knowledgeable enough to know that such 'magic boxes' may contain circuitry that does alter the sound appreciably, and hence is detectable by an ordinary listening test. That's part of the game of goalpost shifting that one has to expect in these cases. Perhaps he had to ask somebody about the technical details, but he certainly had the right instincts.
If you include such "extreme" constructions in the general term "cable", then one has to admit that cables can alter the sound. Which is probably their whole point of existence of such contraptions. The better question, then, is why cables are supposed to alter the sound in the first place. If people were reasonable, they would work from the grounds that cables have no business altering the sound, hence any cable product offer promising better sound would automatically be viewed with suspicion. Once you see it this way, the basis for boutique cables all but disappears.
At least we have to agree if the format itself is capable of recording content over 20kHz. I mean I'm pretty sure if you would record from a digital source (that has content way above 20kHz) a Vinyl at double speed it would be all recorded accurately (same goes for tapes I guess too). Now how much the format itself as-is can retain frequencies above the 20kHz range it's a subject that is hard because I feel like the mastering/pressing, conditions and quality of Vinyl material play such a huge role that is hard to base an opinion from a variety of random releases over the years. You would need to answer with having in mind the best case scenario, which we need to agree first what is the best case scenario?
I'm bumping this topicaka "restarting the boat"
Last post by ajinfla -
Randi weaselRandi was simply unaware of the full range of nonsense that infests high end audio hardware.
That's the smaller picture. The larger picture, is Randi had been exposing fraudsters, shysters, con men and scammers for decades.
From Geller et al on thru the cable peddlers.
That's not good for shyster conman business. Ditto for Meyer and Moran, exposing how fraudulent "Hi Re$" is being peddled to cripple minded consumers (most willing, starving for scams audiophiles). Randi and M&M et at are not good for shyster con busine$$. That's going to put them on opposite sides of coin.
It has nothing to do with attitude. You want to find evidence right? I am merely suggesting a method so that you can prove it yourself. As I stated in my previous post already, I only care about transparency, whether vinyl can or cannot have real signal above 20khz is unimportant to me. I am not speaking for the wiki or greynol.
Please... back off with the attitude :-).
I'm of the impression/conviction that vinyl doesn't contain (much) content above 20 kHz, and what it does contain is noise/distortion. Therefore I find it confusing/misleading that the HA wiki says that it does contain supersonic audio, but the wiki doesn't provide any sources for this. In other words: I don't think the wiki should include this phrasing if there's no evidence to back it up. That is after all the golden rule of this website: evidence.
I think you are and I on the same side. I am perfectly aware that vinyl is the least transparent media available today (if we leave out cassette tapes). That is not my point. My point is simply: Why is the above (supersonic musical content) included in the wiki if it's not substantiated?
And just to make it clear: I don't care whether an audio signal contains audio content above 20 kHz or not. I have already done ABX tests of hi-rez vs. CD quality and couldn't hear any difference. That is still beside the point.
What I care about is only one thing: transparency. But if you are so eager to prove something...
How about sending your hi-res files or test signal to a vinyl cutting service and verify it yourself? Remember to film the whole process then upload to somewhere like Youtube or Facebook. Maybe you can even earn a lot from audiophool product sponsors by doing this!
I'm bumping this topic after a long break, as I forgot about the thread.
I think Greynol is mainly the person editing the vinyl myths wiki entry, so hopefully he reads this. In any case, I still find the following quoted section a bit confusing and contradictory (I highlighted what I found most confusing/contradictory), and I didn't see any references to these claims (which are fairly recent). A quick Google search didn't reveal anything that backed up the claims of "common 23-24 kHz audio content at significant amplitude on vinyl records" (but a more thorough search might reveal this). I still haven't found any concrete evidence that shows that vinyl records have actual musical content to 23-24 kHz, where it is shown that the peaks above 20 kHz are actually music present on the master it was cut from, rather than just noise or distortion.
tests have been conducted which deonstrate that a record can be played up to 1000 times before there is any measurable increase in distortion as a result of record wear.
thanks for your replyI think this question cannot be answered in a technical aspect. Since you purchased the file from a Japanese website, if you suspect the file is a bootleg, how about seeking help from the authority, for example JASRAC?