On Feb 3, 6:23*pm, Swingman wrote:

One of the main reason why music recorded to analog tape and reproduced
by vinyl records sounds "better" to most listeners ... mostly noticed by
an increase in the qualities of depth, clarity and definition in a side
by side comparison ... than digitally recorded/reproduced audio.

I'd argue with that - I have recordings of vinyl on minidisc and CD
which sound every bit as good as from the record itself. My own
personal view is that it is likely the mildly compressed nature of the
vinyl audio signal, and the (possible) low bass rumble of the vinyl
will make the music more pleasing - there is a notion that dynamic
compression is a bad thing in audio recording, and when it is over
done, it is. But used properly, it isn't, and vinyl has a lower
dynamic range than CD.

Things to consider:

1. Source.

What is the source material?
What is the capacity of this source material to contain frequencies
beyond the 'normal' reproduction values i.e. if records DO produce
higher-frequency sonics, how are these processed through the
associated electronics?
For CDs, how well can the DAC circuitry deal with the higher freqs.?

2. Amplifier.

What is the bandwidth of the amplifier?
What are the characteristics of the amp? i.e. does it amplify the
ultrasound in the same manner as the audible stuff?

3. Loudspeakers.

Are the LS actually capable of reproducing these ultrasonics?

4. Ears.

Are you capable of hearing the ultrasonics?
Many tests of people 'hearing' ultrasonics are conducted with a
transducer against the skull - if they were reproduced by a
conventional loudspeaker, would they be produced loud enough to have a
discernible effect? What is the attenuation of ultrasonics like?

There are many, MANY variables to look at, and by-and-large albums are
not produced with anything like the care needed to get your nerd on
about very very technical aspects of audio technology - it is NOT
about music. A few years ago a chap named Jose Gonzales released an
album called Veneer to much critical acclaim, and indeed it contained
a number of lovely songs, but the technical aspect of the quality of
the sound was, frankly, dreadful. But it did not matter, as the
technical aspect is a small part of that album. Not to say that it
wouldn't have improved the album - it would, but listening to a ****ty
copy of Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits on cassette is still
enjoyable, it's just DIFFERENT from the CD releases.

No vinyl or CD can come close to a 24 bit, 192Khz digital file for
*potential accuracy* though, and nothing EVER lives up to your MEMORY
of the sound!

To paraphrase a nuclear physicist who is also an avid music enthusiast
I once asked about this, cables make bugger-all difference in a home
setting, so long as they are of the minimum or greater electrical
specification.

Please don't think I am trying to flat-out say "Ah, you're wrong!", I
am not, rather, I am trying to convey that everyone is different,
everyone has different preferences for how what they listen to is
reproduced (I like a good bit of bass, and find treble that many
others would find OK to be oppressive and tiring, for example) and
there are so many technical aspects to the electronics used that it is
akin to tilting at windmills to say "this is definite" - I have no
religion, and if I did, I wouldn't choose audio!