On Oct 23, 5:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message
"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
is "inherent" in LP playback.
Please compare
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...8/vinyl-vs-cd-...
Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the
second harmonic about 20
dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear
distortion. 10% �distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.
As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference
is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a
modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which
mislead me.
�But more importantly, how do you
differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the
distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the
test record?
One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they
used an adequate test record.
I find that presumption to be unacceptable. One cannot draw such
universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium
based on such a limited sampling.
to:
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
second and third
harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one
percent second and third harmonic distortion.
OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the
inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that
is unique to your rig and the test record?
I used a SOTA test record. �My modest rig �outperformed a highly-expensive
rig.
I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
vinyl mastering.
Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is
partially due to the test record �in the sense that as a rule, no test like
this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is
LP playback.
This is a faulty logical argument.
18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular
reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the
premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not
immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic
touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology
because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged
manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB
better, �they are in the same rather pathetic range.
It still tells us very little about what distortions are inherent in
the technology and what distortions are unique to each device. It does
tell us that one device clearly must have some distortion that is not
inherent in the medium. We have no way of determining how much of that
measured distortion is inherent in the medium and how much is added by
the specific propperties of that rig and that test record. We simply
can deduct that at least some of it is indeed added by that specific
rig and/or that specific test record. This leaves us with your rig,
The one with the lower measured distortion. One would have to presume
that your rig and test record are both SOTA and free from any of the
added distortion we can deduct is likely present in the other rig and
test record to assume that these measurments are purely a measurement
of only the inherent colorations of the medium. I think this would be
a terribly irrational presumption with no foundation. This leaves us
in the same situation we started. We don't know how much of the
measured distortion in either test is inherent in the medium. You
simply can't determine this just by these two examples.
What playback equipment
have you used to determine this?
Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have
quite a range of
equipment.
I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig
would be found to be SOTA.
You've missed the point - the cheaper �rig which most would agree is far
less SOTA than the more expensive one, outperformed the more expensive rig
by a signficant margin.
My point is that one cannot deduct from these two sets of
measurements what distortions are inherent in the medium. This was
never about the subjective evaluation of additional distortions that
are unique to each rig. That is an entirely different subject.
If you are looking for the
thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a
disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art
mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport
Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top
model Transrotor rig.
Persons with such equipment are free to publish their results. They haven't,
and that is because their results won't be signficantly better (i.e., 10
times better) than either of the above tests.
This is a faulty argument.
12. Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow".
This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not
necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical
connection is implied where none exists.
The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble -
Turntable was a Rega
Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN
Test LP . Preamp was a
Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure
M44-7 or a Rega
Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not
that dissimilar.
I think it matters tremendously.
The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10
Turntable with factory
cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very
elegant. It seems to have
been set up with great care.
I'm sure it was.
Please be specific:
turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono
preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback
characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented
with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any
measurements which document your claim?
I've done this kind of test many times over the decades,
and the results I
posted
athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htmare
very
typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I
could get as good
performance out of a $100 plastic USB
turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm
saying that in a state of ignorace and negative
prejudice. ;-)
I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get
a handle on inherent colorations one has to be extremely
careful to differentiate colorations that are inherent
from those that are unique to the rig and test record.
But, I've already show that a humble, apparently outdated rig can outperform
a modern, far more apparently sophisticated expensive one. � If you check
the timing of the tests, my test predated the test of the expensive rig by
about 7 years.
It tells nothing about what measured distortions in your rig and your
test record are inherent in the medium and what distortions are not
inherent in the medium.
The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance
posted
athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...
I call that really poor performance, and we don't even
have a frequency
response curve that actually involves playing vinyl.
But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without
even knowing what it sounds like?
We already know what both rigs sound like
No we don't. You have some idea what one of them sounds like under
sighted conditions with your personal sound system which makes your
opinions limited in scope and subject to your biases. Neither one of
us has even listened to the other rig.