"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were
never available to you in the days of the LP?
As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range
than LPs. They were readily available consumer
products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP.
Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when
it was king.
Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly
informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe,
or if you are just arguing with him for the sake
of argument.
Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed
duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips)
Yes.
They had no NR,
Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance.
To be more specific:
Dolby B in *very* limited quantity.
Not the same as *no NR*. So that makes you wrong again, Iain.
Some 2.5 percent of total tape sales.
Not enough to even consider in this context.
But still nowhere near as good as the performance
of the LP, a format which you hold in such low
regard.
Wrong again, Iain. The hook this time is the -3 dB, or if you will +/- 1.5
dB.
There is no "hook"Arny.
-3dB is *not* the same as +/- 1.5dB.
Consumer LP playback systems rarely if ever went there, even in the
midrange where a dB or two would matter quite a bit.
The implementation of the RIAA replay curve was not
a problem for any manufacturer here in the EU. Most
managed it well, particularly midrange.
There is no logic in your reasoning Arny.
There is good logic you actually understand audio technology and know
that -3 dB at 12 KHz is minor misunderstanding compared to what LP
playback does to frequency response.
Please make the effort to get the terminology correct,
even if you fumble with the facts. The abbreviation is
"kHz" with a lower-case "k"
I have test discs, cut at Decca with glide tones
20Hz to 25kHz using the Neumann cutter. I have
every reason to think that both the Lyrec and the Westrex
can perform to this standard also.
If there is something wrong with your LP "playback" as you
state above, then the fault is with your equipment not the format.
Spot on fact. I worked for two companies which
produced such tapes at 19 cm/s They were nothing
like as good as the LP, and never claimed to be, either.
Well you worked for them Iain. What should we expect?
They were as good as HD duplicating could make them at
the time. Both Decca and RCA were better than most.
These tapes were an alternative not a substitute for vinyl
just like the HS duplicated audio cassettes which followed
them.
justice to the recording. There were of course
exceptions, the Revox being the best known.
Wrong again Iain. They are a subset of the parameters that determine the
perceived sound quality of the product.
Arny. You cannot "perceive" it to be any
better than the manufacturer has made it,
how ever much you may wish to do so.
And you got most of them wrong such as your false claim that there were
no commercial open reel tapes that had NR.
The MTA report states 2.5%.
Being 3 dB down the top frequency extremes is not nearly as audible as the
inherent trashing of the 500 Hz range in LPs.
Nothing wrong with vinyl midband, and if an ageing Detroit car factory
worker cannot hear the HF tape losses, then that doesn't matter either:-)
Only in your dreams, Iain. Sorry that open reel tape was such a POS in
your neck of the woods.
European machines were actually good.
We had Studer, Ferrograph, Revox,Vortexion, Telefunken,
Lyrec, with fewer imports from Japan than you seem to
have had in the USA. The ex BBC Leevers Rich E200
in my music room is 20Hz to 18kHz +0/-1dB.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...LR/LRE200.html
Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl
replay system.
Perhaps you are very full of yourself, Iain. If there was any doubt about
my access to good vinyl replay systems, consider the two days I spent
auditioning vinyl and tubes at HE2005.
But you don't own a quality system for every day use?
Listening at audio fairs like HE2005 is almost worthless,
unless the equipment is set up in proper listening rooms,
acoustically isolated from each other. You need to listen
for several hours over many days.
You have made it clear what a penny
pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a
Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III
(or equivalent) can do.
I always thought that the Garrard 401 was beneath the interest of a
Thorens
Thorens were much cheaper.
Garrard 301 and 401 were the BBC/EBU and
record company turntable of choice, together
with EMT and Telefunken. Try to buy any of these
today, You will find yourself spending some very
serious money, particularly following the demise
of the USD.
TD125 owner such as myself. I did own a SME arm and I did own Shure V15s
II through IV.
My current Rega-based system is not quite the same, but it gets the job
done.
You were foolish to part with them. A good turntable
in addition to a vintage amp, is one of the few pieces
of equipment that goes up in value, and so offers both
enjoyment and investment value. With the exception
of the Studer, no-one wants an old CD player:-)
Now you are left with no option to compressed, poorly
mastered CDs or a Rega:-)
Spend some time with an
EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and
Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge.
Been there, done that. All of the above, I think. And more.
The chances that you have ever seen let alone heard an
SME 30/2 orVerdier turntable are slim to none:-)
Now put your hand on your Bible, and repeat
after me.........:-))
And I also have a few new 180 gram vinyl pressings.
And you still think that current CD production is superior?
Iain
Hey Arny. I am getting e-mails from people who think
I should not "be seen publicly discussing anything with
Kruborg". So I think I will give your posts a miss
in the future, and let George answer your questions.
George, are you the-) ??