[Sonnova]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:46:30 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


I'm not. The whole point of my participation in this
discussion is that if we can't make an audio system
convey the sense of realism associated with live music by
making each link in the chain as perfectly squeeky-clean
as is technologically possible, then perhaps that kind of
accuracy is not all that important to the reproduction of
music.

This is incredibly poor logic. It is as if we would be standing back in 1950
saying that since we can't fly man to the moon, doing so is unimportant, and
we should drop space exploration all together.

As usual you've missed the point I'm making completely. I'm not making a
statement here, I'm posing a question. Nobody is advocating that we stop
exploring the edge of the envelope in either audio or space!

In fact tremendous progress has been made with the over-all realism of
reproduction of music and drama, partcularly within cost and space
limitations.

I agree fully.

For example in the past two weeks I was at a friend's house, enjoying his
HDTV video and 8.2 channel multichannel sound system. He might have had
$10,000 invested in this system.

Easily. I have a similar system.

About 30 years earlier, we had a similar experience with the then-current
technology. Instead of the HDTV and Blu-ray player, a different host had set
up a then-modern motion picture theatre in his basement, complete with
contemporary 35 mm prints obtained by less-than-legal means, a modern 35mm
projector with arc lamp, and theatre-sized speakers. The only thing that was
down-sized was the screen. The investment was more like $100,000 not
including the media, which was essentially priceless.

I have a friend who STILL has a motion picture "theater" set up in his
garage. He has both 35mm and 16mm equipment although most of his films are
16mm. And since it's actually illegal to own a film print of a Hollywood
feature film, in either 16 or 35mm, all of his acquisitions are "illegal".
His films are also old because his main source was ex-military 'Special
Services" prints. Since videotape and now DVD came along, that source has
dried-up and they don't strike 16mm prints very much any more. Kind of a
parallel with LP vs digital, isn't it?

The modern system was based on off-the-shelf products, and off-the-shelf
media. Not only did it cost less than 1/10 th as much not including
inflation, but it simply worked better and was far easier to operate and
maintain.

Yep.


What you overlook is that I'm not making a statement here, I said "perhaps"
that makes my comment a rhetorical query . In other words I'm asking others
if this COULD be a possibility. I'm not saying that it is.

Also, you seem to have somewhere gotten the idea that prefer LP to CD. That's
not true at all. I have thousands of both. A much higher percentage of my CD
collection sounds excellent to superb than of my LP collection - most of
which are mediocre at best. BUT, I have several LPs that sound more like real
music than ANY CD I own or have heard and I'd like to understand why. I have
recorded for both LP and CD and I know the steps involved. For all intents
and purposes the LP mastering process is a nightmare, a lash-up that
shouldn't work at all. Yet it does. Many people don't understand that most
LPs were mastered from third generation tapes that have been specifically
EQ'd . Modern cutting heads require hundreds of Watts to get them to move at
all, and just a few more to burn them out! Therefore the electronics driving
the cutters and the lathe have acceleration limiters, power limiters, look
ahead tape pickups to allow the equipment to pre-condition the signal and set
the variable-pitch on the lathe, etc., etc, etc. So it's a wonder that they
work at all. But still, there is that occasional glimpse of reality that the
very best phonograph records produce that CD just doesn't seem to be able to
muster. It would be nice to know why.