wrote in message
...
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.
I find flat, unjustified, unsupported dismissal of the work of a well-known
technician to be unacceptable.
One cannot draw such
universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium
based on such a limited sampling.
Scott, that would be proof positive that you haven't bothered to do your
reading. You asked for the references, which makes you responsible for
reviewing them before you dismiss them.
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.
Prove it.
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.
Only if one has not done his homework.
18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular
reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
It's only a tautology to people who are unfamiliar with the technical
literature of LP technology. References to a goodly sample of that
literature has been posted here in good bibliographical style. Pretending
it doesn't exist would not appear to be a well-justified course of action.
Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6
dB
better. IOW, 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.
The only people who know little about what distortions are inherent in the
various aspects
LP technology are those who have at this point intentionally ignored the
supplied references to the technical literature of LP technology. The two
samples of real-world performance at hand are representative of what the LP
format does, and is consistent with a body of knowledge that is available to
the general public and has been published over the past 40 years.
Anybody who thinks they can obtain better performance from their LP playback
systems need only invest in one or more test records and make effective use
of a reasonably up-to-date PC or Mac. Thus, it is up to them to obtain
reliable evidence that supports their beliefs or have their beliefs
dismissed on the ground that they are unwilling to provide reasonable
support for their beliefs.