Frequenc Spectrum of CDs vs. LPs (1 Viewer)

[Mark All]

Species Approximate Range (Hz)
human 64-23,000
dog 67-45,000
cat 45-64,000
cow 23-35,000
horse 55-33,500
sheep 100-30,000
rabbit 360-42,000
rat 200-76,000
mouse 1,000-91,000
gerbil 100-60,000
guinea pig 54-50,000
hedgehog 250-45,000
raccoon 100-40,000
ferret 16-44,000
opossum 500-64,000
chinchilla 90-22,800
bat 2,000-110,000
beluga whale 1,000-123,000
elephant 16-12,000
porpoise 75-150,000
goldfish 20-3,000
catfish 50-4,000
tuna 50-1,100
bullfrog 100-3,000
tree frog 50-4,000
canary 250-8,000
parakeet 200-8,500
cockatiel 250-8,000
owl 200-12,000
chicken 125-2,000

No, I didn't measure these myself!

 

[RobertR]

Hmmm, so one of the acknowledged weaknesses of LP (relatively poor dynamic range and S/N ratio) is mitigated with super compressed music. Of course, that doesn't apply to a very wide range of other music...

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Mark,

That's amazing! Where in the world did you find that info?

Mattias,

Yes it's true the dynamic range of recorded music is very similar in CDs vs. vinly. You won't get any argument from me on that point.

However, you can't say the full dynamic range of the CD medium is "never used" just because music is intentionally recorded with limited dynamic range. You do indeed get the full dynamic range of the medium - between tracks: CD's fade to virual total silence (96dB); records fade to the sound of a needle dragging across vinyl (typically 65dB or less).

If you believe such a signficant reduction of the noise floor (which is the same as an increase in dynamic range) is pointless or useless (or "uninteresting to talk about," as you put it) then of course you're free to feel that way. But the rest of us consider it to be a worthwhile and substantial improvement.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[Chu Gai]

If the range is limited, then whose fault is that?

 

[Craig_Kg]

64Hz lower hearing limit for humans??

Mattias_ka, I suggest you go and listen to a CD from a brand like Chesky or Reference Recordings - the dynamic range is huge.

 

[Mark All]

The approximate ranges were compiled (from decades of research by others) by a Professor of Veterinary Medicine at LSU who specializes in hearing loss in animals. He cautions that the stimulus-response methodologies were different for different species and the ranges shouldn't be taken as exact. For example, the volume of stimulus frequencies may not have been high enough in some tests to elicit a response from some species.

Even a catfish can appreciate most of the music people listen to since most instruments and voices don't have much musical content above 4kHz. Supposedly the frequencies that are most "easy on the ears" and considered musical by most people are in the 1kHz to 4 kHz range.

Craig,
My guess on the 64Hz human limit cited by the guy is that it was adjusted to fit the methodologies used for most of the other species tests and measures only hearing, not sensing low frequency sound. I can agree with his upper limit because I remember getting my hearing tested when I was an undergraduate and picking up a 22kHz test tone. Don't know if I still can though.

 

[Mattias_ka]

Well, to have total silence is good but does not matter.
If the dynamic range of the music only use 10-15 dB it is a vast of dynamic range.
So I say, look at what the specific issue sounds and compare it to the CD instead of talking about the format.
We don't talk about DVD's as having ALL as good picture quality because of the DVD formats specs.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

mark, very interesting data. I think thought that it inly takes into acount what our ears hears, and not what humnas are actually capbale of sensing.

 

[RobertR]

Which records? How many? It's interesting that when you talk about CDs, you want to talk about the limitations of commercially produced recordings, but when you talk about LPs, you want to cherry pick only the best of the best.

 

[Craig_Kg]

I know I can hear down to 25Hz with headphones so the 64Hz limit seems weird to me.
I have no probs with the upper limit - I know mine used to be > 20kHz when I was (much) younger but it's now ~ 17kHz.

Mattias_ka, have you heard a CD from the labels that I mentioned?

 

[Mattias_ka]

I did not ask him what titles and I don't really care because the point is already made.

Well, I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE; I don't think we should talk about formats when both formats don't use it's limitations.
It's MUCH MUCH more intresting to talk about an album and on what format and issue is sounds best.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

No, you have never said that. Robert's right: You've consistantly talked about best-case for vinly and average-case for CDs, in post after post.

 

[Mat_M]

Well after all this banter I'm going to go ahead and make the conclusion that the salesman was full of s%!t. Not a single measured source has been given forth showing anything remotely close to his claim (30kHz??? come on...that's not even half of 88kHz). So you folk with your turntables, go on with your bad selves, and I'll stick to my CD's.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Actually, it's not as bad as it appears. Remember, every time you double the frequency number you've gone up only one octave in range. So the difference between 30kHz and 88kHz is less than an octave and a half.

Still - according to Mark All's data, no one will care about that except dogs, rodents and livestock...

 

[Mattias_ka]

Well, it's incorrect. You may be cannot hear the high frequency it self but the effect that frequency have on lower frequency is still heard. So you will lose sound quality that way.

 

[Chu Gai]

What effect would that be?

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

That's assuming that there is recorded signal source going that high - which there isn't. There is no musical instrument that generates a signal that high - not even electronic synthesizers. And there will be no lower-frequency harmonics where there was no fundamental to begin with.

I don't know why you're arguing this anyway. You said youself in one of your early posts here that best-case, records are only good to 25kHz. Or are you going to deny that too?

 

[Chu Gai]

That's actually a reasonable statement but it further leads down a very dimly lit road. Consider for example that cartridges vary in their ability to extract information, often trading one set of performance criteria at the expense of another. Then we get into how some cartridges actually benefit from being hooked up to a phono preamp that allows adjustment of capacitance loading as well as other features. It's very slippery as far as I'm concerned.

Now if one wants to discuss pros and cons of different performances of some classical piece by different symphonies, or different venues, that might make for some interest.

 

[LanceJ]

Just thought I would throw this in: from what I've been reading on the Music forum and on some pro audio sites, many (most?) studio recording microphones barely make it past 20kHz, so uh............

LJ

 

[Chu Gai]

Shhhhh....