"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:W9bLc.144437$XM6.135514@attbi_s53...
On 19 Jul 2004 22:47:56 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

When you have the LP and CD systems sounding identical in timbre and
frequency, you can be assured that this aspect of LP reproduction is set
correctly. And in my system, it is.

Mine, too. It's easier when you start with a decently neutral
turntable, of course! :-)


Regardless, once you achieve this goal, the Linn is wonderfully transparent
in its ability to reveal detail. I've heard a direct comparison in same
system with VPI's next to top of the line TT / graham arm, and it is every
bit as revealing.

And when it is, and identical
recordings are played on LP and CD, the LP's usually win on "depth of
image"
and microdynamics.

That's not a 'win', that's just a preference for the added artifacts
and compression of vinyl over a truly accurate transcription of what
was on the master tape.


Here we differ in philosophy, perhaps. If it emulates what I hear in a
concert hall, easily and without any intervening artifacts, then it is "more
real"...which is my purpose in having a hi-fi rig to enjoy music on to begin
with.


Also, a perfectly set up line-contact stylus and good
sounding headamp/preamp also minimize LP scratches and surface noise
(assuming the LP's are in good shape) to an inconsequential level so that
sometimes you really have to listen hard to hear any "noise" difference.

Only in the loud bits!


Nope, the soft and average in-between as well. Anything else, and you've
got a mistreated record, an improperly set up line contact, a
non-line-contact stylus, or a headamp or preamp that fails to separate
groove noise from the recording underneath (the best do).

I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges
since
the late '60's.

Me, too.


Isn't it wonderful to be of a certain age? :-)

It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that
CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your
comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to
optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure
V15,
or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to
the
opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music.

No, I believe CDs are superior because I can make a CD-R copy of an LP
which sounds *exactly* like the original LP. That leads to the
reasonable conclusion that the digital medium is sonically
transparent, which LP most definitely isn't. I have had Goldring,
Thorens and Michell tables, Lenco, SME, Mission and Rega arms, and
Fidelity Research, Ortofon, Decca, and Audio-Technica carts. Oh yes,
and a V-15 which was certainly one of the better carts................


Quite frankly, Stewart, if the V-15 was one of your better carts, then you
haven't even begun to tap what a SOTA MC/headamp/preamp chain can do.

But before you
conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP;
otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of
much
fine music).

Agreed. Now, since I've been there and done that - and so have lots of
others - did you have any point aside from your own personal
*preference* for vinyl?

Yep. Why then, do people exposed to systems like mine (my own and others)
who have never heard a good vinyl setup, go away shaking their heads in
disbelief at how good it sounds. And why do they often end up investing in
their own vinyl rig (if they are audiophiles). That is certainly not based
on the technical superiority of CD.


Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Harry Lavo | Audio is Hobby - Arguing Incessantly is Boring