Re: People that have or do listen to both Vinyl and Cd: Basic survey/poll

[S888Wheel]

>
>I am very interested to hear about people's experiences with both
>formats. Please keep the threads limited to individual responses (no
>debates as this isn't and should have nothing to do with an analysis
>of the two formats). This is purely subjective and extremely
>appreciated by me for those that complete the following two questions:
>
>1) When listening to music, what format do you listen to more often,
>every time, etc.?
>
>
>2) What are the TWO primary differences you hear between the two (If
>you do not hear any or the differences are very subtle, please say
>so)?
>
>
>

Usually the differences are more an aspect of the mastering than the medium but
in the case of my personal comparisons of what I believe to be the best
sounding recordings by labels that are not likely to screw up the mastering on
either medium I find the LPs to be preferable to the CDs. They sound
richer,warmer, more complex and more tangable in the same ways that live music
sounds richer, warmer, more complex and more tangable than playback. So the LP
brings more of the intrinsic beauty I hear in live music.

[S888Wheel]

>
>I am very interested to hear about people's experiences with both
>formats. Please keep the threads limited to individual responses (no
>debates as this isn't and should have nothing to do with an analysis
>of the two formats). This is purely subjective and extremely
>appreciated by me for those that complete the following two questions:
>
>1) When listening to music, what format do you listen to more often,
>every time, etc.?
>
>
>2) What are the TWO primary differences you hear between the two (If
>you do not hear any or the differences are very subtle, please say
>so)?
>
>
>

I forgot to mention i listen to LPs far more often than CDs. Never did the math
to figure out the ratios.

The advantage I hear with CDs is no surface noise and no effects that can be
heard on defective records.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> Usually the differences are more an aspect of the mastering than the
> medium but in the case of my personal comparisons of what I believe
> to be the best sounding recordings by labels that are not likely to
> screw up the mastering on either medium I find the LPs to be
> preferable to the CDs. They sound richer,warmer, more complex and
> more tangable in the same ways that live music sounds richer, warmer,
> more complex and more tangable than playback. So the LP brings more
> of the intrinsic beauty I hear in live music.

Typical of people who have balanced their systems to favor LPs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike" > wrote in message
om

> I am very interested to hear about people's experiences with both
> formats. Please keep the threads limited to individual responses (no
> debates as this isn't and should have nothing to do with an analysis
> of the two formats). This is purely subjective and extremely
> appreciated by me for those that complete the following two questions:

> 1) When listening to music, what format do you listen to more often,
> every time, etc.?

CDs and derivatives (i.e., .wav files, MP3s, etc.) including CDs made from
live performances recorded by myselves and friends, and CD's made from LPs
that were transcribed and processed digitally to remove their grosser
audible shortcomings.

> 2) What are the TWO primary differences you hear between the two (If
> you do not hear any or the differences are very subtle, please say
> so)?

CDs sound like music and LPs sound like either concentrated or dilute crap.

Sure, I've balanced my systems to sound best with CDs, but that's only
because I got so freakin' tired of about 30 years of forced listening to the
egregious noise and distortion inherent in LP playback. LP playback is only
tolerable to me with additional digital post-processing such as tic and pop
removal, as well as timbre adjustments and dynamics correction.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>
>> Usually the differences are more an aspect of the mastering than the
>> medium but in the case of my personal comparisons of what I believe
>> to be the best sounding recordings by labels that are not likely to
>> screw up the mastering on either medium I find the LPs to be
>> preferable to the CDs. They sound richer,warmer, more complex and
>> more tangable in the same ways that live music sounds richer, warmer,
>> more complex and more tangable than playback. So the LP brings more
>> of the intrinsic beauty I hear in live music.
>
>Typical of people who have balanced their systems to favor LPs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Typical OSAF without supportive documentation from a proven anti-vinyl poster.
(Has repeated same derogatory rant in response to 2 posters prefering vinyl).






Bruce J. Richman

[Max Holubitsky]

>
> egregious noise and distortion inherent in LP playback. LP playback is only
> tolerable to me with additional digital post-processing such as tic and pop
> removal, as well as timbre adjustments and dynamics correction.

Do you take care of your records, and have a turntable that holds speed? If so,
the only problem here should be dynamics... but unless your room is dead quiet
even that shouldn't be a problem. I'd take the original dynamic range of an LP
over listening to music though some sort of volume expander. My biggest issue
with LPs is distortion caused by over modulation, and tracing distortion (I
think that's what it's called, when it sounds worse near the centre of the
disc?)

[Bruce J. Richman]

Krueger tries to perpetuate his deceptive deletion of posts made by me:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Krueger decides, as his obnoxious custom, to generate one of his
>> usual idiotic personal attacks:
>>
>>
>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> A very good question. Especially so, given the fact that neither
>>>> poster reporting a preference for vinyl thus far, has said anything
>>>> about how their system is "balanced" (a term not defined btw by the
>>>> poster making this unsupported claim).
>>>
>>> Obviously Richman, you can't read. I guess that Ideologically-Induced
>>> Reading Comprehension Syndrome (IIRCS) have returned to RAO despite
>>> the apparent exit of Singh.
>>>
>>
>> Your stupidity has once again been demonstrtated, Krueger.
>
>
>Your lies and deceptions have been demonstrated once again, Richman.
>

A lie, Krueger. I reposted, without deletion, your unprovoked personal attack
against Mr. Holubitsky, my response to it, and of course your irrelevant
response in which you lied about what I said.







>I caught you in a big mistake, but you deleted discussion of it and changed
>the topic to something else.
>

Unfortunately for your lying self, the Google record demonstrates otherwise.
You made unsupported claims about "balanced" systems of those who prefer vinyl
- which was the original topic - not the topic to which you tried to
deceptively change it. You just can't help yourseklf from lying again,
Krueger. This surprises nobody, of course, except you and your pathetically
small group of endorsers such as Dim Tim Brown and McKelvy.

Please feel free to keep lying and deleting and deceptively editing my posts
and those of others. By so doing, you simply add to the ever-increasing number
of people who despise you on RAO.

LOL!







>Since you seem to have problems actually quoting the post that you are
>pretending to respond to, here it is again:
>
>Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> A very good question. Especially so, given the fact that neither
>>> poster reporting a preference for vinyl thus far, has said anything
>>> about how their system is "balanced" (a term not defined btw by the
>>> poster making this unsupported claim).
>>
>> Obviously Richman, you can't read. I guess that Ideologically-Induced
>> Reading Comprehension Syndrome (IIRCS) have returned to RAO despite
>> the apparent exit of Singh.
>>
>> Richman, just to save you the trouble of looking around for your
>> brain:
>>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> "I find the LPs to be preferable to the CDs. They sound
>> richer,warmer, more complex and more tangable in the same ways that
>> live music
>> sounds richer, warmer, more complex and more tangable than playback.
>> So the LP
>> brings more of the intrinsic beauty I hear in live music."
>>
>> Richman, what's unclear about "I find the LPs to be preferable to the
>> CDs."?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message


>> egregious noise and distortion inherent in LP playback. LP playback
>> is only tolerable to me with additional digital post-processing such
>> as tic and pop removal, as well as timbre adjustments and dynamics
>> correction.

> Do you take care of your records,

Such few as I have. Right now my interest in LPs is digitizing them, for
others.

My comments mostly relate to the days when vinyl was all we had, back
through the early 80's.

> and have a turntable that holds speed?

Not only does my Rega hold speed (since the new belt) but it's the right
speed. It started out a tad fast and IME a lot of turntables run fast. My
previous turntable (from the early 80s) was a TD-125 with a SME 3009-II arm.
It had a strobe that you could easily monitor while playing.

I've found that a number of MP3's I've downloaded that were made by vinyl
enthusiasts are also running fast enough to create an audible effect.
Perhaps this is where some of the *excitement* comes from.

>If so, the only problem here should be dynamics... but unless
> your room is dead quiet even that shouldn't be a problem.

My living room is very quiet when the windows are shut.

> I'd take
> the original dynamic range of an LP over listening to music though
> some sort of volume expander.

True when the LPs aren't compressed, and not all of them seem to be
compressed.

>My biggest issue with LPs is distortion
> caused by over modulation, and tracing distortion (I think that's
> what it's called, when it sounds worse near the centre of the disc?)

That, too.

Since I frequently make my own CDs from live performances I recorded, I know
exactly what the live/mix/CD playback situation is.

[Robert Morein]

"Mike" > wrote in message
om...
> I am very interested to hear about people's experiences with both
> formats. Please keep the threads limited to individual responses (no
> debates as this isn't and should have nothing to do with an analysis
> of the two formats). This is purely subjective and extremely
> appreciated by me for those that complete the following two questions:
>
> 1) When listening to music, what format do you listen to more often,
> every time, etc.?
>
>
> 2) What are the TWO primary differences you hear between the two (If
> you do not hear any or the differences are very subtle, please say
> so)?

I listen to CDs almost exclusively. However, late at night, I listen to PBS
broadcasts of alternative music, and jazz on WRTI, Philadelphia's excellent
jazz station.

Subjectively:
The best CDs are better than the best vinyl.
The worst CDs are worse than the worst vinyl.
Apparently, CDs are more variable.

CDs have better frequency response, lower distortion, greater dynamic range,
and a complete absence of wow, flutter, and rumble.
In spite of all this, poorly mastered CDs can provide a subjectively bad
listening experience. Before 1990, this was complicated by A/D equipment
which was not fully evolved. Now days, it can still result from negligence,
or in the case of popular titles, deliberate intent.

[Arny Krueger]

Deleting the usual Richman smoke and mirrors:

>> Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>

>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> A very good question. Especially so, given the fact that neither
>>>> poster reporting a preference for vinyl thus far, has said anything
>>>> about how their system is "balanced" (a term not defined btw by the
>>>> poster making this unsupported claim).
>>>
>>> Obviously Richman, you can't read. I guess that
>>> Ideologically-Induced Reading Comprehension Syndrome (IIRCS) have
>>> returned to RAO despite the apparent exit of Singh.
>>>
>>> Richman, just to save you the trouble of looking around for your
>>> brain:
>>>
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>> "I find the LPs to be preferable to the CDs. They sound
>>> richer,warmer, more complex and more tangable in the same ways that
>>> live music
>>> sounds richer, warmer, more complex and more tangable than playback.
>>> So the LP
>>> brings more of the intrinsic beauty I hear in live music."
>>>
>>> Richman, what's unclear about "I find the LPs to be preferable to
>>> the CDs."?

Richman, why not just answer the question instead of spending so much time
and effort to talk around it?

[Bruce J. Richman]

Krueger continues to delete relevant content and lie;

<Deletion of pathetic attempts by Krueger to avoid taking responsibility for
unprovoked personal attack and deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote>

No point in repeating the lies of this habitual anti-vinyl flamer and poster of
unprovoked personal attacks. The Google record clearly indicates Krueger's
lies, deceptive editing, name-calling and unprovoked personal attack against
me.



Bruce J. Richman

[Thine Deville]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:55:07 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote:

>I tried to balance my system for Billy Joel, but now it would rather
>laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

And I suppose Arnii didn't start the fire. Were it not for new-for-old
insurance policies, what kind of hi-fi would Arnii presently own?

--
(fade in) Thine (fade out)

[Thine Deville]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:12:47 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>> I tried to balance my system for Billy Joel, but now it would rather
>> laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.
>
>Does that mean Krooger is going to live to a rotten old age?

Hopefully someone's gun will lie to him.

--
(black) Thine ( ( ( (white/radiance)

[Bruce J. Richman]

Thine Deville wrote:


>On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:12:47 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:
>
>>> I tried to balance my system for Billy Joel, but now it would rather
>>> laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.
>>
>>Does that mean Krooger is going to live to a rotten old age?
>
>Hopefully someone's gun will lie to him.
>
>--
>(black) Thine ( ( ( (white/radiance)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I always figured his favorite "singer" woulds be Pinocchio. (or for those SNL
fans in the US, Tommy Flanagan).



Bruce J. Richman

[Margaret von Busenhalter]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> CDs and derivatives (i.e., .wav files, MP3s, etc.) including CDs made from
> live performances recorded by myselves

So the truth finally came out.

No more guessing.


Cheers,

MvB

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>
>
>> A very good question. Especially so, given the fact that neither
>> poster reporting a preference for vinyl thus far, has said anything
>> about how their system is "balanced" (a term not defined btw by the
>> poster making this unsupported claim).
>
> Obviously Richman, you can't read. I guess that Ideologically-Induced
> Reading Comprehension Syndrome (IIRCS) have returned to RAO despite
> the apparent exit of Singh.
>
> Richman, just to save you the trouble of looking around for your
> brain:
>
> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>
>
> "I find the LPs to be preferable to the CDs. They sound
> richer,warmer, more complex and more tangable in the same ways that
> live music
> sounds richer, warmer, more complex and more tangable than playback.
> So the LP
> brings more of the intrinsic beauty I hear in live music."
>
> Richman, what's unclear about "I find the LPs to be preferable to the
> CDs."?

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
Thine Deville > wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:55:07 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >I tried to balance my system for Billy Joel, but now it would rather
> >laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.
>
> And I suppose Arnii didn't start the fire. Were it not for new-for-old
> insurance policies, what kind of hi-fi would Arnii presently own?

He'd get something in the back, in the discount rack, like another can
of beans.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNE 109 said:

> > > I tried to balance my system for Billy Joel, but now it would rather
> > > laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

> > Does that mean Krooger is going to live to a rotten old age?

> Yes.

I assume you, like my telephone, are lying.

[George M. Middius]

Arniis Kroofeceses has struck again!

> performances recorded by myselves

In that fractured plane of existence, I'll bet you each hear a
different lie from each software application. Must be terribly
uplifting.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNE 109 said:
>
> > > > I tried to balance my system for Billy Joel, but now it would rather
> > > > laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.
>
> > > Does that mean Krooger is going to live to a rotten old age?
>
> > Yes.
>
> I assume you, like my telephone, are lying.
>
>
>

Honesty is such a lonely word

Stephen

[Bruce J. Richman]

Stephen wrote:


>In article >,
> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>> MiNE 109 said:
>>
>> > I tried to balance my system for Billy Joel, but now it would rather
>> > laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.
>>
>> Does that mean Krooger is going to live to a rotten old age?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>

It looks like he's "been there, done that" .........LOTS!




Bruce J. Richman

[Jacob Kramer]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:13:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Richman, why not just answer the question instead of spending so much time
>and effort to talk around it?

Why don't you just answer the original question or shut the **** up,
you incomprehensible son of a bitch?

--

Jacob Kramer

[S888Wheel]

I said

>> Usually the differences are more an aspect of the mastering than the
>> medium but in the case of my personal comparisons of what I believe
>> to be the best sounding recordings by labels that are not likely to
>> screw up the mastering on either medium I find the LPs to be
>> preferable to the CDs. They sound richer,warmer, more complex and
>> more tangable in the same ways that live music sounds richer, warmer,
>> more complex and more tangable than playback. So the LP brings more
>> of the intrinsic beauty I hear in live music.
>

Arny said


>Typical of people who have balanced their systems to favor LPs.

Please cite an example of such a typical system balanced to favor LPs and
explain how such a system would favor LPs.

[Thine Deville]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:32:07 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>Arniis Kroofeceses has struck again!
>
>> performances recorded by myselves
>
>In that fractured plane of existence, I'll bet you each hear a
>different lie from each software application. Must be terribly
>uplifting.

Ooops! Coffee spewage. LOL!

--
Thine

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> I said
>
>>> Usually the differences are more an aspect of the mastering than the
>>> medium but in the case of my personal comparisons of what I believe
>>> to be the best sounding recordings by labels that are not likely to
>>> screw up the mastering on either medium I find the LPs to be
>>> preferable to the CDs. They sound richer,warmer, more complex and
>>> more tangable in the same ways that live music sounds richer,
>>> warmer, more complex and more tangable than playback. So the LP
>>> brings more of the intrinsic beauty I hear in live music.
>>
>
> Arny said
>
>
>> Typical of people who have balanced their systems to favor LPs.
>
> Please cite an example of such a typical system balanced to favor LPs
> and explain how such a system would favor LPs.

Been there, done that.

[S888Wheel]

I said

>aol.com
>> I said
>>
>>>> Usually the differences are more an aspect of the mastering than the
>>>> medium but in the case of my personal comparisons of what I believe
>>>> to be the best sounding recordings by labels that are not likely to
>>>> screw up the mastering on either medium I find the LPs to be

>medium I find the LPs to be
>>>> preferable to the CDs. They sound richer,warmer, more complex and
>>>> more tangable in the same ways that live music sounds richer,
>>>> warmer, more complex and more tangable than playback. So the LP
>>>> brings more of the intrinsic beauty I hear in live music.
>>>

>
>> Arny said
>>
>>
>>> Typical of people who have balanced their systems to favor LPs.

I said

>
>> Please cite an example of such a typical system balanced to favor LPs
>> and explain how such a system would favor LPs.

Arny said

>
>Been there, done that.
>

Bull****.

[Tim Anderson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message ...
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> om

> CDs sound like music and LPs sound like either concentrated or dilute crap.

Your system is broken.

Tim

[Tim Anderson]

"Mike" > wrote in message om...

> 1) When listening to music, what format do you listen to more often,
> every time, etc.?

25% vinyl
75% cd

> 2) What are the TWO primary differences you hear between the two (If
> you do not hear any or the differences are very subtle, please say
> so)?

Aside from occasional surface noise, I tend to the view that the original
recording along with the mastering are the biggest factors influencing sound
quality. Provided you have a competent player, which in the case of LP
means something quite expensive sadly.

However, the best sound I've heard is from LP. Defining "best" in terms of the
ability to create an illusion of a live performance. I don't buy many LPs
these days although I have numerous instances of the same recording on
both formats. I repurchased items mainly for the convenience of CD. Thus,
my comments mostly apply to older recordings.

I do find the sound degrades towards the inner groove of an LP - there
are pretty obvious physical reasons for this.

Reserving judgment on SACD, DVDA.

Tim

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim Anderson" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> om

>> CDs sound like music and LPs sound like either concentrated or
>> dilute crap.

> Your system is broken.

Prove it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim Anderson" > wrote in message


> However, the best sound I've heard is from LP. Defining "best" in
> terms of the ability to create an illusion of a live performance.

Either your system is broke, you're deaf, or you haven't got a clue what a
live performance of acoustical instruments and unamplified singers sounds
like.

[Thine Deville]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:43:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>> CDs sound like music and LPs sound like either concentrated or
>>> dilute crap.
>
>> Your system is broken.
>
>Prove it.

You removed the pictures.

--
Thine

[Tim Anderson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message ...
> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in message
>
>
> > However, the best sound I've heard is from LP. Defining "best" in
> > terms of the ability to create an illusion of a live performance.
>
> Either your system is broke, you're deaf, or you haven't got a clue what a
> live performance of acoustical instruments and unamplified singers sounds
> like.

You missed (d) None of the above.

Tim

[Mikkel Breiler]

(Mike) wrote:

>I am very interested to hear about people's experiences with both
>formats. Please keep the threads limited to individual responses (no
>debates as this isn't and should have nothing to do with an analysis
>of the two formats). This is purely subjective and extremely
>appreciated by me for those that complete the following two questions:
>
>1) When listening to music, what format do you listen to more often,
>every time, etc.?

MP3 all the time, every day.
Vinyl often, most weeks.
CD sometimes, several times a month.
Open Reel on ocasion.
MD, when commuting.
MC, rarely.

I listen to vinyl the least but most MP3/CD/MD stuff I listen to are my own Vinyl
just transferred to avoid wearing out the surface, I transfer to CD, then make MP3
and select tracks for MD.
Open Reel is for when I run out of harddrive space transcribing vinyl I lend off
someone, or CDR or want to listen to an old broadcast. Or need to record in good
quality for a long time, but not compressed or with a computer on all thetime.
MD are not used that often, but I do not get to commute much at the moment - I need a
job to commute to....
MC is for old broadcast from the radio or albums from the library from my time in
school, when I could not afford to buy the albums.

Also I just bought a DAT, (Sony DTC-77ES) to try get into that as well. I have no
preferred use of it yet.

That's it in a nutshell.

>2) What are the TWO primary differences you hear between the two (If
>you do not hear any or the differences are very subtle, please say
>so)?

Artifacts, the two medias present different artifacts depending on the material.
These are either an oversight from a careless publisher (old material, unequalized
and or clipped) or a glitch in production or media.

I have no other _primary_ difference to report between CD and Vinyl.

-breiler

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim Anderson" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in message
>>
>
>>>> CDs sound like music and LPs sound like either concentrated or
>>>> dilute crap.
>>
>>> Your system is broken.
>
>> Prove it.

> 1) To most people, LPs played on a good system do not sound as you
> describe.

Sure they do. 99.5% of everybody has stopped buying records because they
sounded like crap. That's why LP market share is down to about 0.5%, even
including "turntablists" whose use of LPs is irrelevant to high fidelity.

You can say that people scrapped LPs because of convenience, but even
convenience nets out to be a sound quality discussion. Most of the
inconvenience of playing LPs related to attempting to preserve their sound
quality.

> 2) LPs played on your system sound as you describe (by your account)

So do records played on many other systems that I've listened to.

For example 20 years ago 100% of everybody in my audio club (about 80
members) had vinyl and played little but. Today I can't find even one person
who listens to LPs regularly, except by means of CD-R proxies and/or for the
purpose of making CD-R proxies.

> 3) Ergo, your system is not good, i.e.. broken.

Ergo, I have more acute hearing than you do, and so do the majority of all
music lovers, and the members of my audio club. Some people listen to crap
and hear beautiful music and I guess more power to them. However, most
people, even most audiophiles listen to LPs and hear crap and have abandoned
LPs never to return.

Why there are so many LP bigots on RAO seems to be very atypical based on
the people I know and meet in real life. Even the RAO vinyl bigots are now
admitting that they listen to LPs half or less of the time. My only question
is what took them so long?

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim Anderson" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> However, the best sound I've heard is from LP. Defining "best" in
>>> terms of the ability to create an illusion of a live performance.
>>
>> Either your system is broke, you're deaf, or you haven't got a clue
>> what a live performance of acoustical instruments and unamplified
>> singers sounds like.
>
> You missed (d) None of the above.

Prove it, and do a better job than the hack that you posted on that other
subthread.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:45:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Tim Anderson" > wrote in message

>
>> However, the best sound I've heard is from LP. Defining "best" in
>> terms of the ability to create an illusion of a live performance.
>
>Either your system is broke, you're deaf, or you haven't got a clue what a
>live performance of acoustical instruments and unamplified singers sounds
>like.

Prove it!

<guffaw>

[dave weil]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:55:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Tim Anderson" > wrote in message

>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> However, the best sound I've heard is from LP. Defining "best" in
>>>> terms of the ability to create an illusion of a live performance.
>>>
>>> Either your system is broke, you're deaf, or you haven't got a clue
>>> what a live performance of acoustical instruments and unamplified
>>> singers sounds like.
>>
>> You missed (d) None of the above.
>
>Prove it, and do a better job than the hack that you posted on that other
>subthread.

He did, because you didn't write (d) None of the above.

You lose.

Again.

[Tim Anderson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message ...

> > You missed (d) None of the above.
>
> Prove it, and do a better job than the hack that you posted on that other
> subthread.

As I said, you missed it. The newsgroup is my witness.

Tim

[dave weil]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:32:58 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Tim Anderson said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>> > > You missed (d) None of the above.
>> >
>> > Prove it, and do a better job than the hack that you posted on that other
>> > subthread.
>>
>> As I said, you missed it. The newsgroup is my witness.
>
>Those in the group who can stand to look at that sack of ****, anyway.

Without turning into a pillar of salt you mean...

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim Anderson" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> You missed (d) None of the above.
>>
>> Prove it, and do a better job than the hack that you posted on that
>> other subthread.
>
> As I said, you missed it. The newsgroup is my witness.

Lie on, dude.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:32:58 -0400, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Tim Anderson said to ****-for-Brains:
> >
> >> > > You missed (d) None of the above.
> >> >
> >> > Prove it, and do a better job than the hack that you posted on that
> >> > other
> >> > subthread.
> >>
> >> As I said, you missed it. The newsgroup is my witness.
> >
> >Those in the group who can stand to look at that sack of ****, anyway.
>
> Without turning into a pillar of salt you mean...

LoTs!

[dave weil]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:06:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Tim Anderson" > wrote in message

>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> 1) To most people, LPs played on a good system do not sound as you
>>>> describe.
>>>
>>> Sure they do. 99.5% of everybody has stopped buying records because
>>> they sounded like crap. That's why LP market share is down to about
>>> 0.5%, even including "turntablists" whose use of LPs is irrelevant
>>> to high fidelity.
>>
>> How do you "know" this?
>
>RIAA statistics.

Sooooo, the RIAA statistics have a category for why people stopped
buying records and one of those categories is "sounds like crap".

I'd like to see you produce the figures.

[George M. Middius]

MiNE 109 said:

> > >Tim Anderson said to ****-for-Brains:
> > >
> > >> > > You missed (d) None of the above.
> > >> >
> > >> > Prove it, and do a better job than the hack that you posted on that
> > >> > other
> > >> > subthread.
> > >>
> > >> As I said, you missed it. The newsgroup is my witness.
> > >
> > >Those in the group who can stand to look at that sack of ****, anyway.
> >
> > Without turning into a pillar of salt you mean...
>
> LoTs!

Zing!

I never knew that's what the Kroo meant.......

[Browntimdc]

"Tim Anderson" > wrote in
:

>
> ??? CDs are smaller, easier to load into the player, play in the car,
> play for longer without attention, etc etc. These are all primarily to
> do with convenience.
>
> Further, a competent CD player is much cheaper than a competent
> turntable assembly. Another big factor.
>

All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
record on cassettes from the beginning. Only recently are CD recorders
affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in their day,
but the superior versatility, durability and sound quality of the CD have
all but buried the cassette tape


> A lot of people have never heard a decent LP replay system, you
> included by the sounds of it. That's not a value judgement, just a
> fact.

Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay system,
which is superior to LP.

TB

[Tim Anderson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message ...
> > How do you "know" this?
>
> RIAA statistics.

Reference please.

NB you do not prove any case if there are stats on "superior sound quality." Your
contention is that LPs sound like excrement. Surprising to see this in an RIAA
survey, but go on, produce the evidence.

> >> You can say that people scrapped LPs because of convenience, but even
> >> convenience nets out to be a sound quality discussion. Most of the
> >> inconvenience of playing LPs related to attempting to preserve their
> >> sound quality.
> I never said that all of the benefits of CDs relate to sound quality, now
> did I.

'Fraid so. "it nets out to be a sound quality discussion" were the very words.
They are quoted 4 lines above your retraction. Never mind ears, what about
eyes?

> The fact of the matter is that CDs made their strongest market share gains
> when both the recordings and the players cost more than comparable
> LP-related items.

I know this is false with respect to the players. I purchased a player in
the early days of CD - Philips CD 104 - and it cost way less than a
decent turntable/arm/cartridge.

The software was more, but so what?

> A lot of people have never heard a decent LP replay system, you
> > included by the sounds of it.

> >That's not a value judgment, just a fact.
>
> Just because its a fact doesn't mean that its relevant or meaningful. In
> fact, its just a whine.

Of course it's relevant. You are arguing that most people think LPs sound
like excrement. Yet you agree that most people have never heard decent
LP playback. In which case what most people think has little to do with
the sound quality discussion.

> Come on Tim I wasn't born yesterday and neither were most of the readers of
> RAO. The debating trade trick called "You don't believe this because you
> never heard a good one" is as old as the hills.

I am doing you a favour, because the other possibility is that you are not
telling the truth about what you heard.

> > Hearing is fine thanks. Can't recall you ever measuring its acuity
> > though.
>
> Tim, the inadequacy of your hearing is proven by the fact that you can't
> properly hear the obvious audible deficiencies inherent in LP playback.

Who said I can't? Not me, in fact I referred to audible deficiencies.
However I dispute your excremental contention.

Tim

[Tim Anderson]

"Browntimdc" > wrote in message ...
> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in
> :
>
> All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
> record on cassettes from the beginning.

This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.

There were a few other factors ... they were always a bit frail and
got chewed up by the players from time to time, and they never
really cracked the hiss problem. Dolby C got rid of hiss but messed
up the sound. The packaging of cassettes was also somewhat
cheap-looking; CDs were better marketed.

> affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in their day,
> but the superior versatility, durability and sound quality of the CD have
> all but buried the cassette tape

This is uncontentious. There isn't the level of affection for cassettes that
persists for LPs (among a small minority).

> Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay system,
> which is superior to LP.

Agreed.

Tim

[Bruce J. Richman]

Tim Anderson wrote:


>"Browntimdc" > wrote in message
...
>> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
>> record on cassettes from the beginning.
>
>This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
>might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.
>

And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did not exactly
use very good tape or recording procedures, given the need for mass production.
Those who record for their own personal use, as I do for a rather
sophisticated mobile audio system in my car, can easily do a lot better with
reasonably priced modern equipment and tape.



>There were a few other factors ... they were always a bit frail and
>got chewed up by the players from time to time, and they never
>really cracked the hiss problem. Dolby C got rid of hiss but messed
>up the sound. The packaging of cassettes was also somewhat
>cheap-looking; CDs were better marketed.
>
>> affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in their day,
>> but the superior versatility, durability and sound quality of the CD have
>> all but buried the cassette tape
>
>This is uncontentious. There isn't the level of affection for cassettes that
>persists for LPs (among a small minority).
>

Very true. And what is more remarkable is the level and degree of that
persistence, given the fact that the commercial LP dates from prior to 1950.
Also quite remarkable is the fact that new vinyl is manufactured by several
pretty well known companies (Classic Records, Cisco Records, Acoustic Sounds,
etc.) and that many new popular releases, at least among some of the more
well-known artists, are issued on vinyl as well as CD almost simultaneously.


>> Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay system,
>> which is superior to LP.
>
>Agreed.
>

Even in their heyday, open-reel tape never achieved widespread popularity, in
part because of the cost of the hardware. Open-reel Teacs, Revoxes, Tandbergs,
etc. were relatively costly compared to other playback equipment.
The best open reel playback I ever heard was on Otari deck - but this pro-level
equipment used by local FM radio station for which I was a DJ at the time - it
definitely wasn't something the average home user could afford.









>Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Tim wrote:


>On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:16:59 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
> wrote in >:
>
>>I do find the sound degrades towards the inner groove of an LP - there
>>are pretty obvious physical reasons for this.
>
>Get a cartridge with a line-contact stylus. The sound still degrades
>toward the inner grooves, but it's much less noticeable -- in some
>cases, completely unnoticeable.
>
>---

Agreed. Other options, although relatively expensive in some cases, include
the use of a linear tracking tonearm such as the EminentTechnology ET-2 or
ET-2.5, or use of a pivoted arm with a relatively long pivot point - to -
stylus distance, such as one of the VPI Tonearms which vary from 9" to 12" in
length.


>"It occurred to me that audio engineers will someday be replaced by
>computers. I feel better now -- at least you can turn a computer off."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Moi]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:21:46 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
> wrote in >:

>> A lot of people have never heard a decent LP replay system, you
>> > included by the sounds of it.
>
>> >That's not a value judgment, just a fact.
>>
>> Just because its a fact doesn't mean that its relevant or meaningful. In
>> fact, its just a whine.
>
>Of course it's relevant. You are arguing that most people think LPs sound
>like excrement. Yet you agree that most people have never heard decent
>LP playback. In which case what most people think has little to do with
>the sound quality discussion.

Arnii's definition of "relevance" doesn't fit any known logic.
Rather, what he considers relevant is relevant -- and if you don't
agree with him, *you* are irrelevant.

The sooner you learn this, the sooner you'll stop wasting your time
trying to hold a rational discussion with the Kroog, and start
speaking to him (if at all) in a language he understands. You have to
stroke his ego -- either through praise, or through flames. Otherwise,
I just wouldn't bother -- the guy is an irrational, self-centered and
self-absorbed nutcase. He is not a tech guru or engineer, he just
plays one on the Net.

Hope this helps...

---
"It occurred to me that audio engineers will someday be replaced by
computers. I feel better now -- at least you can turn a computer off."

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim Anderson" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...


>> That's why LP market share is down to about
>> 0.5%, even including "turntablists" whose use of LPs is irrelevant
>> to high fidelity.

>>> How do you "know" this?

>> RIAA statistics.

> Reference please.

See google, I've presented this information many times. If you don't have
time to look it up, neither do I.

> NB you do not prove any case if there are stats on "superior sound
> quality." Your contention is that LPs sound like excrement.
> Surprising to see this in an RIAA survey, but go on, produce the
> evidence.

>>>> You can say that people scrapped LPs because of convenience, but
>>>> even convenience nets out to be a sound quality discussion. Most
>>>> of the inconvenience of playing LPs related to attempting to
>>>> preserve their sound quality.

>> I never said that all of the benefits of CDs relate to sound
>> quality, now did I.

> 'Fraid so. "it nets out to be a sound quality discussion" were the
> very words.

What's unclear about the word "Most".

>They are quoted 4 lines above your retraction.

There is no retraction.

> Never mind ears, what about eyes?

???

>> The fact of the matter is that CDs made their strongest market
>> share gains when both the recordings and the players cost more than
>> comparable LP-related items.

> I know this is false with respect to the players. I purchased a
> player in the early days of CD - Philips CD 104 - and it cost way
> less than a decent turntable/arm/cartridge.

I guess that depends on how you define "decent". Given that early CD players
cost $600-900 you must have a very elevated idea of "decent".

> The software was more, but so what?

Thanks for showing that when faced with undeniable relevant evidence, you
just dismiss it.

>> A lot of people have never heard a decent LP replay system, you
>>> included by the sounds of it.

>>> That's not a value judgment, just a fact.

>> Just because its a fact doesn't mean that its relevant or
>> meaningful. In fact, its just a whine.

> Of course it's relevant. You are arguing that most people think LPs
> sound like excrement.

Right, and that would be based on whatever means they used to hear it.
You've already effectively said even in the early 80's one had to pay
substantially more than $600-900 for a decent LP playback system. Shortly,
good CD players were under $200. The consequence of all this is that to most
people LPs sounded like crap, if only because so-called decent LP playback
equipment was prohibitively expensive. Of course, that isn't the only
reason - there's the slight problem of the egregious technical deficiencies
of the LP that are for all practical purposes unsolvable.

>Yet you agree that most people have never heard
> decent LP playback.

Where did I say THAT?

I think that *decent* LP playback has been available for say, $300-500 for a
very long time. I think that an AR turntable with a good Shure cartridge
represented a *decent* LP playback system for about $125 in the late 1960's.

>In which case what most people think has little
> to do with the sound quality discussion.

Thanks for showing that when faced with undeniable relevant evidence, you
just dismiss it. This whole discussion started with a discussion of what
most people (I believe my number was 99.5%) think based on how their
purchase decisions.

>> Come on Tim I wasn't born yesterday and neither were most of the
>> readers of RAO. The debating trade trick called "You don't believe
>> this because you never heard a good one" is as old as the hills.

> I am doing you a favour, because the other possibility is that you
> are not telling the truth about what you heard.

Irrelevant, and again dismissive.

Tim Anderson" > wrote in message


"1) To most people, LPs played on a good system do not sound as you
describe."

I'm going to take a flyer here and presume that you include yourself as
being like "most people".

In essence, you are saying that you can't hear anything THAT wrong with LPs.

>>> Hearing is fine thanks. Can't recall you ever measuring its acuity
>>> though.

>> Tim, the inadequacy of your hearing is proven by the fact that you
>> can't properly hear the obvious audible deficiencies inherent in LP
>> playback.

> Who said I can't? Not me, in fact I referred to audible deficiencies.

Say what? You said that most people think that LPs don't sound bad at all.
You deleted that to revise history, but I put it back in to reestablish the
context you deceptively removed.



> However I dispute your excremental contention.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

> Tim Anderson wrote:
>
>
>> "Browntimdc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>> All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
>>> record on cassettes from the beginning.
>>
>> This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
>> might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.
>>
>
> And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did
> not exactly use very good tape or recording procedures, given the
> need for mass production. Those who record for their own personal
> use, as I do for a rather sophisticated mobile audio system in my
> car, can easily do a lot better with reasonably priced modern
> equipment and tape.

You can do marginally better. However, to get out of the low speed, narrow
track analog tape trap, you need a lot more than a marginal improvement.

>> There were a few other factors ... they were always a bit frail and
>> got chewed up by the players from time to time, and they never
>> really cracked the hiss problem. Dolby C got rid of hiss but messed
>> up the sound. The packaging of cassettes was also somewhat
>> cheap-looking; CDs were better marketed.

>>> affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in
>>> their day, but the superior versatility, durability and sound
>>> quality of the CD have all but buried the cassette tape

>> This is uncontentious. There isn't the level of affection for
>> cassettes that persists for LPs (among a small minority).

> Very true. And what is more remarkable is the level and degree of
> that persistence, given the fact that the commercial LP dates from
> prior to 1950. Also quite remarkable is the fact that new vinyl is
> manufactured by several pretty well known companies (Classic Records,
> Cisco Records, Acoustic Sounds, etc.) and that many new popular
> releases, at least among some of the more well-known artists, are
> issued on vinyl as well as CD almost simultaneously.

Let's hear an actual number for say, last year that we can compare to the
number of new releases of CDs in the same year.

<be prepared for either rapid dissembling by Richman, total deletion, or a
great example of a drop in a bucket>

>>> Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay
>>> system, which is superior to LP.

>> Agreed.

Irrelevant. The LP is dead as anything but a dying niche and raw meat for
turntablists.

> Even in their heyday, open-reel tape never achieved widespread
> popularity, in part because of the cost of the hardware. Open-reel
> Teacs, Revoxes, Tandbergs, etc. were relatively costly compared to
> other playback equipment.

Not true. A Revox A77 in its heyday it listed for $579 which was pretty well
matched or exceeded by the cost of a Thorens TD 125, a SME 3009 II, and a
Shure V-15. Tell me about it, I had both!

Audio Classics says the list price of a TD125 was $500.
Audio Classics lists the list price of a SME 3009 as $199 and I think the
model II was like $249.
My recollection is that a V15 III listed for $125.

Obviously this totals way more than the Revox.

<be prepared for either rapid dissembling by Richman or total deletion of
proof that he's wrong>

>The best open reel playback I ever heard
> was on Otari deck - but this pro-level equipment used by local FM
> radio station for which I was a DJ at the time - it definitely wasn't
> something the average home user could afford.

The last Otaris were something else - even difficult but not impossible to
distinguish from a CD.

[Arny Krueger]

"Moi" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:16:59 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
> > wrote in >:
>
>> I do find the sound degrades towards the inner groove of an LP -
>> there are pretty obvious physical reasons for this.
>
> Get a cartridge with a line-contact stylus. The sound still degrades
> toward the inner grooves, but it's much less noticeable -- in some
> cases, completely unnoticeable.

Yet another reason why LP's sound more lifelike than CDs in the book of Moi.
CD's don't have all that nice inner groove distortion. Quite a disadvantage
when it comes to lifelike reproduction, doncha think?

[Tim Anderson]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message ...
> Tim wrote:
>
>
> >On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:16:59 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
> > wrote in >:
> >
> >>I do find the sound degrades towards the inner groove of an LP - there
> >>are pretty obvious physical reasons for this.
> >
> >Get a cartridge with a line-contact stylus. The sound still degrades
> >toward the inner grooves, but it's much less noticeable -- in some
> >cases, completely unnoticeable.

Yes I have one. Agreed the inner groove still sounds OK, however the
sound is noticeably less good than on the outer grooves. That strikes me as
inevitable.

> Agreed. Other options, although relatively expensive in some cases, include
> the use of a linear tracking tonearm such as the EminentTechnology ET-2 or
> ET-2.5, or use of a pivoted arm with a relatively long pivot point - to -
> stylus distance, such as one of the VPI Tonearms which vary from 9" to 12" in
> length.

Not heard either of these.

Tim

[Bruce J. Richman]

Krueger tries, pathetically, to spread his anti-vinyl, anti-preference
propaganda further:

>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Tim Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Browntimdc" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
>>>> record on cassettes from the beginning.
>>>
>>> This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
>>> might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.
>>>
>>
>> And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did
>> not exactly use very good tape or recording procedures, given the
>> need for mass production. Those who record for their own personal
>> use, as I do for a rather sophisticated mobile audio system in my
>> car, can easily do a lot better with reasonably priced modern
>> equipment and tape.
>
>You can do marginally better. However, to get out of the low speed, narrow
>track analog tape trap, you need a lot more than a marginal improvement.
>

The usual prejudicial OSAF. <note the lack of supportive evidence to back up
this anti-analog, hgihly predictable piece of propaganda>

> >> There were a few other factors ... they were always a bit frail and
>>> got chewed up by the players from time to time, and they never
>>> really cracked the hiss problem. Dolby C got rid of hiss but messed
>>> up the sound. The packaging of cassettes was also somewhat
>>> cheap-looking; CDs were better marketed.
>
>>>> affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in
>>>> their day, but the superior versatility, durability and sound
>>>> quality of the CD have all but buried the cassette tape
>
>>> This is uncontentious. There isn't the level of affection for
>>> cassettes that persists for LPs (among a small minority).
>
>> Very true. And what is more remarkable is the level and degree of
>> that persistence, given the fact that the commercial LP dates from
>> prior to 1950. Also quite remarkable is the fact that new vinyl is
>> manufactured by several pretty well known companies (Classic Records,
>> Cisco Records, Acoustic Sounds, etc.) and that many new popular
>> releases, at least among some of the more well-known artists, are
>> issued on vinyl as well as CD almost simultaneously.
>
>Let's hear an actual number for say, last year that we can compare to the
>number of new releases of CDs in the same year.
>
><be prepared for either rapid dissembling by Richman, total deletion, or a
>great example of a drop in a bucket>
>

Clearly an example of moronic mind-reading by Krueger. My statement had
nothing to do with numbers, so he obviously was juist trying to misrepresetn
what I said and change the topic.

<no doubt, this will be followed by Krueger's primitive attempts to justify his
attempt to lie with statistics via the old McDonald's argument re. DD's - which
is of course totally relevant to the fact that LP production and enjoyment
persists after over 50 years>



>>>> Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay
>>>> system, which is superior to LP.
>
>>> Agreed.
>
>Irrelevant. The LP is dead as anything but a dying niche and raw meat for
>turntablists.
>

More anti-vinyl propaganda, with no supportive evidence to support it. The
usual anti-vinyl spewage from RAO's leading garbage purveyor.



>> Even in their heyday, open-reel tape never achieved widespread
>> popularity, in part because of the cost of the hardware. Open-reel
>> Teacs, Revoxes, Tandbergs, etc. were relatively costly compared to
>> other playback equipment.
>
>Not true. A Revox A77 in its heyday it listed for $579 which was pretty well
>matched or exceeded by the cost of a Thorens TD 125, a SME 3009 II, and a
>Shure V-15. Tell me about it, I had both!
>
>Audio Classics says the list price of a TD125 was $500.
>Audio Classics lists the list price of a SME 3009 as $199 and I think the
>model II was like $249.
>My recollection is that a V15 III listed for $125.
>
>Obviously this totals way more than the Revox.
>
><be prepared for either rapid dissembling by Richman or total deletion of
>proof that he's wrong>
>

Once again, Krueger tries to use selected facts that ignore other facts to
promote his anti-vinyl arguments and propagands. Many open-reel machines swere
more costly than less expensive turntables at that point in time. The Thorens,
SME and Shure, cherrypicked by the liar, Krueger, to try and "prove" his
invalid price comparison, disregards the facts that there were less expensive
turntables (with integrated, less expensive arms), and less expensive
cartgridges available at that point in time.

<expect Krueger to shift into another ad hominem personal attack to try and
cover up his transparent ineptitude at pushing his anti-vinyl, anti-preference,
anti-subjective-opinion propaganda. How hypocritical that he tries to exclude
lower priced equipment from his devious and fraudulent representation of
turntable gear of the day.>



>>The best open reel playback I ever heard
>> was on Otari deck - but this pro-level equipment used by local FM
>> radio station for which I was a DJ at the time - it definitely wasn't
>> something the average home user could afford.
>
>The last Otaris were something else - even difficult but not impossible to
>distinguish from a CD.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Tim wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>> Tim wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:16:59 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
>> > wrote in >:
>> >
>> >>I do find the sound degrades towards the inner groove of an LP - there
>> >>are pretty obvious physical reasons for this.
>> >
>> >Get a cartridge with a line-contact stylus. The sound still degrades
>> >toward the inner grooves, but it's much less noticeable -- in some
>> >cases, completely unnoticeable.
>
>Yes I have one. Agreed the inner groove still sounds OK, however the
>sound is noticeably less good than on the outer grooves. That strikes me as
>inevitable.
>
>> Agreed. Other options, although relatively expensive in some cases,
>include
>> the use of a linear tracking tonearm such as the EminentTechnology ET-2 or
>> ET-2.5, or use of a pivoted arm with a relatively long pivot point - to -
>> stylus distance, such as one of the VPI Tonearms which vary from 9" to 12"
>in
>> length.
>
>Not heard either of these.
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

They ae probably not as popular in the UK as in the US, but VPI is one of the
most widely known American manufracturers of turntables, tonearms, a very
popular record cleaning machine, and other assorted analog gear. They have
been turning out turntables for over 20 years, and are based in the New York
area. One of the nice things about many of their turntable models is that they
are internbally upgradeable, via replacing just the platter/bearing assembly
or just the plinth. Their tonearms are a unipivot design and have generally
received very high reviews in the audiophile press. The designer believes that
because of their relatively long length they significantly cut down on inner
groove distortion effects and also don't require anti-skate adjustments. The
Eminent Technology Linear Tracking Tonearms are manufactured in Flroida, and
are an air-bearing type (a blessing and a curse, since they require an air
pump/surge tank to be used with them - which is a somewhat noisy affair -
although reducing tonearm friction below that most of competing designs). This
too is a mature design that is been around for at least 10 years. In
comparison with similar European designs such as the Souther/Clearaudio or Air
Tangent linear trackiing tonearms, it is much less expensive (and would be on
your side of the pond also), although still expensive compared to Regas, Linns,
Nottinghyams, etc.



Bruce J. Richman

[Margaret von Busenhalter]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
>
> >> That's why LP market share is down to about
> >> 0.5%, even including "turntablists" whose use of LPs is irrelevant
> >> to high fidelity.
>
> >>> How do you "know" this?
>
> >> RIAA statistics.
>
> > Reference please.
>
> See google, I've presented this information many times. If you don't have
> time to look it up, neither do I.
>

Yep, it is right there along with Arny's history as a child pornographer and
molester. Very sad indeed.

MvB

[Tim Brown]

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message >...
> Tim Anderson wrote:
>
>
> >"Browntimdc" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
> >> record on cassettes from the beginning.
> >
> >This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
> >might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.
> >
>
> And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did not exactly
> use very good tape or recording procedures, given the need for mass production.
> Those who record for their own personal use, as I do for a rather
> sophisticated mobile audio system in my car, can easily do a lot better with
> reasonably priced modern equipment and tape.
>

Wow!

I'm surprised Bruce. You're actually talking about audio in response
to comments I made about audio. Why aren't you ranting senselessly and
calling me names?

TB

[Bruce J. Richman]

Dim Tim Brown decides to justify his well-earned reputation as Krueger's
imitator and fellow compulosive liar:

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
>...
>> Tim Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>> >"Browntimdc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Tim Anderson" > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
>> >> record on cassettes from the beginning.
>> >
>> >This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
>> >might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.
>> >
>>
>> And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did not
>exactly
>> use very good tape or recording procedures, given the need for mass
>production.
>> Those who record for their own personal use, as I do for a rather
>> sophisticated mobile audio system in my car, can easily do a lot better
>with
>> reasonably priced modern equipment and tape.
>>
>
>Wow!
>
>I'm surprised Bruce. You're actually talking about audio in response
>to comments I made about audio.

<to make Dim Tim feel at home, the rest of his comments - consisting of the
usual unprovoked personal insults - like his role model, Krueger - are snipped>

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance once again, Tim. The Google record
will show that when responding to posts about audio (wihout the gratuitious ad
hominem attacks typical of Krueger, Fesrstler, McKelvey & Brown), I respond in
a similar vein. Of course, when dealing with chronic flamers like these four,
it is only logical to treat them with the same degree of contempt that thay
give to others. In Tim's case, one also has to make alloowances for his
fabrications and delusions as well. His latest post quite conveniently
provides all on RAO with more evicence of that fact.




Bruce J. Richman