Frequency Response of L.P's


I have been trying to find out what the general Frequency Response of vinyl was over the other formats after reading an article in the Stereophile archives by John Atkinson called "What's going on up there?".Out to about 40Khz seemed to be the magic figure and he seemed to imply a lot of Classical music on the other hand might extend out to 30Khz.This compares favourably of course to cd with a cut-off of 22.05Khz and SACD with a lot of noise rising sharply above 40Khz and rolled off at 50Khz.DVD-A seems to partly match the extended response of vinyl but is digital not analogue.I have seen figures given of above 60Khz without proof for vinyl and some direct-to-disk recordings made in England extended out to 50Khz.In the 1950's a U.S recording company(RCA?)was recommending a player that provided 15Hz-35Khz for proper reproduction of vinyl in their advertising.Anyone care to impart their knowledge on this subject from among the learned members?
stefanl
There is the old story of Geoff Emerick the Beatles guy calling Rupert Neve in to suss a fault on a console,that he designed,and Emerick's "golden ears" were not happy with.It turned out that Emerick could hear a fault in 3 panels generated by a 3dB glitch at 54Khz.Some transformers were wired wrongly and he could hear it even though it seemed to be o.k.and people thought he was being fussy.Ultrasonics do effect hearing.stefanl
Stefanl: I'm sorry, but to me that story is likely mostly apocryphal. There were no monitors Emerick could have been using that would reproduce 54KHz flat even if he could hear that high (which I don't believe), and I doubt the response of his board was extended flat beyond that frequency either. If the story has a germ of basis in fact, I would have to assume that whatever was the fault in the board (a ringing spike caused by incipient oscillation? - certainly not a -3dB dip), it must have been precipitating some audible artifacts affecting frequencies down much closer to the range of normal human hearing.

Eldartford: I can understand that smooth ultrasonic extension will aid in maintaining waveform linearity lower in the audioband, and that glitch-free gradual ultrasonic roll-off beginning well above the audioband is probably never a bad quality to cultivate everywhere throughout the recording/reproduction chain (even if a lot of what goes on up there is probably noise). But to me it seems that when it comes time for such a signal to exit a speaker, most conventional designs will be capable of only such limited dispersion that one would have to listen perfectly on-axis with their head in a vise to receive much of the theoretical benefit...
The story about Geoff Emerick is true I have seen 2 Rupert Neve interviews online where he repeats it,and a discussion on a Pro-Audio forum talking about it and how well thought of he is.Anyway in a transcript I have,Mr.Neve talks about his 5106 Console and it goes 5Hz to 150Khz.He says all his designs of this time were of that order.The 5106 being designed by Geoff Watts who worked for Mr.Neve at that time.There is a Neve Webpage and redesigned versions of the early Consoles may be offered.stefanl
Fine as the console may have been, that doesn't answer the monitor question. Again, I don't doubt that there may be a germ of basis in fact for this story, but no matter what Mr. Neve theorizes, I don't believe it's because Mr. Emerick can hear minor response variations *at* 54KHz, even if the audible problem did turn out to be *correlated with* or *caused by* something occurring at that frequecy. Mr. Neve may be in a position to know what the end result of episode was, but IMO can't be certain about the mechanism for its original detection. It makes for a nice story though...
Yes,Mr.Neve says that he does not really know what makes us perceive sounds the way we do,but is a firm believer in wide bandwidth for commercial recordings.Anyway what goes on an LP in terms of bandwidth which was my original question and we seemed to have wandered off the topic.stefanl