| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
Steven Sullivan wrote: ...transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback. I asked: Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback.... Mr. Sullivan answers: (snipped)... http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...bf206f370e89b5 I wouldn't expect you to have read these next posts of JJs, though. PLease do, since you asked. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=269 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post12206518 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post12207540 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post13631037 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post12246164 (snip) http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...rts-6---8.html Perhaps I missed it, but I see nothing in these posts to support your claim of inherent, audible "distortion inherent in vinyl playback." From the hometheaterhifi.com reference: "The stylus is attempting to translate both channels at the same time, and because the movement of the stylus shares some common direction (the stylus moves downward for both left and right channels), there is some bleeding of each channel into the other, called "crosstalk". In fact, channel separation is "only" about 30 dB. In other words, if you had a groove where there was a 1 kHz sine wave recorded only in the left channel, and you played it back at 100 dB from the left speaker, you would also hear that sine wave in the right channel at 70 dB." This compares with crosstalk on the order of 90+ dB down for the CD format. "Because the translation of the sound from the groove to the stylus requires that the stylus be falling into the valleys or pushed up with the peaks in the groove, having a out of phase information in the left vs. right channel causes some issues with the laws of physics. In other words, if there is a valley in the left channel at the exact same time there is a peak in the right channel, the stylus finds it a little difficult to be going in opposite directions at the same time. The result? Inaccurate signal reproduction at that instant in time. So, LPs cannot handle a lot of material that is out of phase between the left and right channels." The CD format has no such difficulties. "Here is a graph of the spectrum generated from the test CD. THD+N was 0.005%." "At 1 kHz, 0 dB, (LP) distortion was 7%. "Wow, that's a lot of distortion," you say. You bet it is..." etc., etc., etc. |
|
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Oct 21, 8:17�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Oct 21, 12:00?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: C. Leeds wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: ? ...transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback. I asked: Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine this? Please be specific... I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback result in this "inherent" result.... Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact? Mr. Sullivan answers: There is another option between 'just my opinion' and 'I have personally measured and verified the existence of these phenomena" - knowledge passed on from trusted authorities. Please feel free to cite other sources if you lack first-hand experience to justify your claims. Please be specific. FWIW, I own a Systemdek IIX table with a Shure V15TuypeIVMR cart, have done for decades now. It's basically mothballed, since the digital revolution, only hauled out to transfer the occasional LP to digital. As to other sources, the aforementioned James Johnston and Steware Pinkerton, for two. Please feel free to acknowledge the fact that you've encountered them and their arguments ? before, on, for example, this thread discussing LP sound: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e_frm/thread/6... There is nothing I could find in that thread stated by either Pinkerton or JJ that supports the assertion of the existance of inherent euphonic colorations in vinyl. I wouldn't expect you to have read these next posts of JJs, though. PLease do, since you asked. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=269 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post12206518 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post12207540 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post13631037 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post12246164 JJ makes the following specific claims in the posts you cited "But LP can sound like it has more dynamic range, because of the distortion/loudness growth issues. Likewise, it can have a wider, more complex soundstage for the same reasons. Many LP playback systems do enhancement of the L-R part of the stereo signal due to both stylus beam pivot issues as well as cartridge design issues." There is nothing in there that says or even implies that these things are inherent. "LP *can* sound like it has more dynamic range...." That simply does not claim or even imply that it is an inherent quality of LP playback. It simply is an assertion that it *can* happen. JJ however goes on to make some assertions that are at best vague if not misleading or simply factually incorrect. "LP can not have substantial low bass content in stereo. It's physics. So it gets mono'ed and limited. LP's can not provide nearly the dynamic range of a CD. So LP's to some extent have to be compressed, but not by a lot. " "Substantial" is too vague a word in this context to have any real meaning. The fact is most LPs have not had their bass summed to mono. this is a bit of an urban legend. It is also a fact that many an audiophile LP has been cut in full stereo with bass content that many inculding myself would argue is quite substantial. JJ makes a very interesting assertion here about a euphonic coloration of vinyl "LP's distort more (percentagewise, whateverwise) at higher levels. A polynomial model, in fact, seems to do a good representation of this until outright mistracking happens. The model is different for M and S (not L and R). This also turns out to be important, but not for the reason we're discussing here. This means that at low levels, the distortion is not very noticible. At high levels, with the usual kind of lowpassy audio signal one sees most often,it means that the spectrum will spread approximately two octaves higher, with some substantial energy there. This means that even though the energy will grow a bit, the loudness grows quite a bit. This creates the ILLUSION of more dynamic range. You can do the same thing by taking a sine wave at, say, 100 Hz, and starting to clip it. As you start to clip it, which has to absolutely result in less total energy, you will notice quickly that it gets LOUDER, not quieter, at first. This is another example (more extreme) of the same effect." While there seems to be some implication of universality here it isn't clear or explicit. JJ makes clear assertions about the existance and effects of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. "An LP does, demonstrably, have distortions that sound good. This is not news, this is something long since documented. Now, there's nothing wrong with liking those distortions, which in fact increase the sense of dynamic range and all-over spatial effect, among other things, but wouldn't it be better to add them to CD if you want to? And understand what you're doing?" Of course the big problem with all of this is it is pure testimonial. No, much of it is general knowlege among people who are familiar with the technical literature of the vinyl LP, some of which I've cited here on a number of occasions, including the last two days. This is just another argument by authority. you are just repeating the classic logical fallacy. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp "Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it. " This time instead of using JJ you are simply alluding to "general knowlege among people who are familiar with the technical literature of the vinyl LP." Again, I am not saying these assertions are false just that your argument is problematic for reasons stated above. I haven't seen the actual evidence upon which these assertions are being made. I would rather see the evidence before accpeting this alleged general knowledge as something more than another urban legend. As it stands all I see is a reasonable theory that has not actually been tested. More recently, this series of articles, including measurements: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...s/vinyl-vs.-cd... These articles substantiate many of the things that JJ said. An interesting article but it fails to go the whole nine yards and do controlled listening tests that isolate the alleged distortion and gauge it's effect on listeners. The articles explain why subjective tests must fail to provide definitive results. Basically, LPs are so sonically flawed in characteristic ways that listeners will often be able to identify which format they are listening to, and the so-called blind listening test will not be effectively blind, and will degenerate into a public opinion survey.- Hide quoted text - It seems you are saying this theory is untestable. I would think that would be very problematic for any assertion/theory. But I also think it is a very tesable assertion/theory actually. As I see it one way to test that there are *inherent euphonic* colorations in vinyl is to first identify the alleged colorations then master two sets of CDs from various sources, one version of each source would be a flat transfer a second version of each source would be an otherwise flat transfer only with the addition of the specific distortions that are allegedly having a euphoric effect. Then do blind comparisons. If the CDs with those specific added distortions prove to be found preferable in any way you have gone a long way towards varifying the theory of the euphonic nature of these distortions. I don't know that anyone has tried this yet with any success. I see that you and Steve have cited a long list of papers on the subject of LP playback published in the AESJ. Perhaps you could provide some relevant passages from these papers that assert the claim about the existance of *inherent euphonic* distortions. If so i might find it worth while to buy the whole paper from the AESJ. Please keep in mind, I am not contesting the claim that there are inherent distortions in LP playback. I have seen the arguments and the supporting evidence to accept this as fact. Nor am I contesting the existance of euphonic distortions. As I have said in another thread, I spent some big bucks on them. In fact I am not even contesting the assertion that there are inherent euphonic colorations. I'd just like to see the stuff upon which the assertion of fact is made. As a vinyl enthusiast I have no problem with the idea that there are inherent advantages to that medium via inherent euphonic colorations. Like I said, I already invested a substantial amount of money in euphonic colorations. It's just that those colorations aren't inherent in vinyl but to some degree unique to my TT rig. |
|
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
C. Leeds wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: ...transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback. More recently, this series of articles, including measurements: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...rts-6---8.html Steven, you might find this to be an interesting comparison: Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...raph-large.gif 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. There's no question as to its audibility under a wide variety of conditions. And, it should be given no special allowance or tolerance on the ground that it is a so-called "euphonic" harmonic - the same nonlinearity *must* create equally egregious amounts of IM when playing real-world music. 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. Simple question - which LP player is doing the better job of providing a relatively low-distortion rendition of the recording being played - the one with a stated 7% THD+N or the one with less than 0.7% THD+N? |
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
|
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message C. Leeds wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: ...transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in vinyl playback. More recently, this series of articles, including measurements: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...rts-6---8.html Steven, you might find this to be an interesting comparison: Please compare http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...raph-large.gif 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. There's no question as to its audibility under a wide variety of conditions. And, it should be given no special allowance or tolerance on the ground that it is a so-called "euphonic" harmonic - the same nonlinearity *must* create equally egregious amounts of IM when playing real-world music. 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. Simple question - which LP player is doing the better job of providing a relatively low-distortion rendition of the recording being played - the one with a stated 7% THD+N or the one with less than 0.7% THD+N? The Rega/Grado combo, by that metric. However, if the Secrets' author's contention hat 2nd order harmonic distortion is euphonic is true, then some listeners might subjectively prefer MORE of it, via the Macintosh rig! Either way you marked the Rega/Grado as 'Poor' in that category. http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/ That 'jitter distortion' measurment is interesting, I don't recall Stereophile calling it that when they test vinyl rigs ; Also intersting to compare the TT/cart results to something digital as humble as, say...a Sony portable CDP http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_D-220/index.htm -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
|
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
wrote in message
On Oct 21, 8:17�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message "An LP does, demonstrably, have distortions that sound good. This is not news, this is something long since documented. Now, there's nothing wrong with liking those distortions, which in fact increase the sense of dynamic range and all-over spatial effect, among other things, but wouldn't it be better to add them to CD if you want to? And understand what you're doing?" Of course the big problem with all of this is it is pure testimonial. No, much of it is general knowledge among people who are familiar with the technical literature of the vinyl LP, some of which I've cited here on a number of occasions, including the last two days. This is just another argument by authority. It's an argument by authority until you analyze the technical papers for their conformance with generally accepted knowledge about the laws of Physics and Math, and in my case, independently confirm their results for yourself. Now I grant you that the concept of hard fast physical laws might seem like religious faith to people that are a bit shy of technical training on the scale of extensive study for an advanced degree in Engineering (following successfully obtaining a BSE), and decades of hands-on experience in various technical fields, both analytical and practical. I guess such folks need to bear with those of us who have "Been There And Done That". More recently, this series of articles, including measurements: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...s/vinyl-vs.-cd... These articles substantiate many of the things that JJ said. An interesting article but it fails to go the whole nine yards and do controlled listening tests that isolate the alleged distortion and gauge it's effect on listeners. The articles explain why subjective tests must fail to provide definitive results. Basically, LPs are so sonically flawed in characteristic ways that listeners will often be able to identify which format they are listening to, and the so-called blind listening test will not be effectively blind, and will degenerate into a public opinion survey.- Hide quoted text - It seems you are saying this theory is untestable. Actually, I'm saying that the audible difference is so obvious that it bollixes up most attempts to actually do a serious blind test. Gosh, I'm sounding like... ;-) I would think that would be very problematic for any assertion/theory. But I also think it is a very testable assertion/theory actually. As I see it one way to test that there are *inherent euphonic* colorations in vinyl is to first identify the alleged colorations then master two sets of CDs from various sources, one version of each source would be a flat transfer a second version of each source would be an otherwise flat transfer only with the addition of the specific distortions that are allegedly having a euphoric effect. Been there and done that via a slightly different but equivalent technique for the now departed www.pcabx.com web site. Then do blind comparisons. www.pcabx.com even let folks do their own blind comparisons. There was no real news for well-informed audiophiles and technicians. 7% second harmonic distortion is audible. THD+N of 10% is pretty easy to hear as compared to CD quality. Nothing new there! If the CDs with those specific added distortions prove to be found preferable in any way you have gone a long way towards verifying the theory of the euphonic nature of these distortions. Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! I see that you and Steve have cited a long list of papers on the subject of LP playback published in the AESJ. I believe that you have already dismissed JJ's summary of them as "proof by authority" and/or "proof by assertion". Therefore, I feel no need to produce any further compendiums of them, as my efforts are likely to be inferior to JJ's excellent work. |
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Oct 22, 11:22�am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: It seems you are saying this theory is untestable. I would think that would be very problematic for any assertion/theory. But I also think it is a very tesable assertion/theory actually. As I see it one way to test that there are *inherent euphonic* colorations in vinyl is to first identify the alleged colorations then master two sets of CDs from various sources, one version of each source would be a flat transfer a second version of each source would be an otherwise flat transfer only with the �addition of the specific distortions that are allegedly having a euphoric effect. Or, carefully transcribe an LP from a well-recorded CD master. Play it on a good rig. �Match levels with the CD. Compare double blind to see if there's an audible difference. Whatever that difference is, can be reasonably concluded to be coming from the LP production/playback process. That would be a very good test as well. One would have to be very careful not to ascribe the specific colorations of the equipment used to being an unherent coloration of the medium. I think to avoid that one would have to use at least a few SOTA TT rigs and very carefully measure all the various distortions from each rig. Only the common distortions can be considered possibly inherent. But your proposal isn't that much different than mine. I was assuming the alleged euphonic distortion was well enough understood that it could be generated without actually using any TT rigs or cutting lathes. Your proposal is actually probably better than mine but should consider enough SOTA TT rigs to isolate unique colorations of any given rig from inherent colorations fo the medium. It's funny that after demanding that I do the research in the first place, What? You did the research after you made the assertion? I was assuming you had already done the research. you guys are now requesting the particular sentences from particular articles about inherent euphonic distortion -- each one at $20 a pop. Exactly. I really don't want to spend a couple hundred bucks only to find out you cited a bunch of irrelevant material. I only asked for excerpts so I can see for myself the stuff is relevant before laying down some serious coin for a bunch of AESJ papers. That's money I can spend on records. I'm not buying sight unseen. �I wonder if we'll be questioning the existence of 'euphonic' analog tape compression next. � Quite possibly. Apparentlyy it's the 'inherent' part that causes issues with some of you. If so, please render opinions on three things: No. I have stated that I am quite convinced that there are inherent colorations in vinyl playback. 1) under what condition the possible, and well documented, sources of distortion in the LP chain, are rendered inaudible First we have to establish what the well documented inherent colorations actually are. Lets take one; surface noise. Under what condition is that in audible? simple when the dynamic range of the source material allows the signal to mask it at all times. What's next? Cross talk? That's a tougher one to answer as to what conditions would render it inaudible. Mono playback? I think this is a tricky one to nail down. The effects can be quite sublime. Wow, flutter, rumble? Those can be reduced to levels bellow the thresholds of human hearing. They are present in any number of less than ideal setups but they are not inherent *audible* colorations. Thank goodness the good folks involed in designing Turntables, pickup arms and cartridges along with the good folks updating and modifying cutting lathes have been making meaningful progress in reducing these colorations from the equipment to levels below the thresholds of human hearing. So if you do decide to post some relevant excerpts from any of those AESJ papers please understand that I will be critical of their vintage. The state of the art in producing and playing back of vinyl has been an ever improving target. 2) an estimate of how often these conditions are met by vinyl product and vinylphiles' home setups (commonly? �rarely?) I could not begin to make any meaningful estimate. 3) how this squares with the ubiquity of the report of 'vinyl sound' by those who prefer vinyl. �That is to say, is it LIKELY that all the people who prefer vinyl, are doing so under conditions where euphonic distortion is NOT present? �If so, this would suggest the difference is mainly, if not wholly, due to mastering differences, which is one of the two reason I gave originally, and not the format itself. I agree that mastering is a major issue and plays into sound quality far more than any inherent colorations of LP CDs SACDs etc. I think with LPs the equipment unfortunately also plays a major factor. |
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Steven, you might find this to be an interesting comparison: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/image...raph-large.gif 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. There's no question as to its audibility under a wide variety of conditions. And, it should be given no special allowance or tolerance on the ground that it is a so-called "euphonic" harmonic - the same nonlinearity *must* create equally egregious amounts of IM when playing real-world music. 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. Simple question - which LP player is doing the better job of providing a relatively low-distortion rendition of the recording being played - the one with a stated 7% THD+N or the one with less than 0.7% THD+N? The Rega/Grado combo, by that metric. However, if the Secrets' author's contention that 2nd order harmonic distortion is euphonic is true, then some listeners might subjectively prefer MORE of it, via the Macintosh rig! That cartridge in the Mac player had to be tricked-up at the factory to have so much distortion. If someone wants 2nd order nonlinear distortion in such large quantities, why not just build a nonlinear transfer device using analog Multiplier or VCA chips, or just do it in the digital domain with a DSP? It seems to me that building cartridges or amplifiers with a certain distortion profile is the hard, non-adjustable way to go. Creating nonlinear distortion in Audition or CEP is very easy - that's how I built the test files for the old pcabx site. Either way you marked the Rega/Grado as 'Poor' in that category. http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/ Yes, I compared the Rega player to the same standard I use for digital players. The relatively poor jitter and dynamic range issues dominated the evaluation. That 'jitter distortion' measurement is interesting, I don't recall Stereophile calling it that when they test vinyl rigs ; It's all FM distortion, whether you call it jitter or flutter or wow. SP don't seem to use the same standards or even the same nomenclature for digital players as vinyl or tubes. Also interesting to compare the TT/cart results to something digital as humble as, say...a Sony portable CDP http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_D-220/index.htm By modern standards that old Sony is pretty humble. I just don't understand this double/triple standard stuff. We listen to it all with the same ears and brain, right? |
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Oct 22, 3:28�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Oct 21, 8:17 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message "An LP does, demonstrably, have distortions that sound good. This is not news, this is something long since documented. Now, there's nothing wrong with liking those distortions, which in fact increase the sense of dynamic range and all-over spatial effect, among other things, but wouldn't it be better to add them to CD if you want to? And understand what you're doing?" Of course the big problem with all of this is it is pure testimonial. No, much of it is general knowledge among people who are familiar with the technical literature of the vinyl LP, some of which I've cited here on a number of occasions, including the last two days. This is just another argument by authority. It's an argument by authority until you analyze the technical papers for their conformance with generally accepted knowledge about the laws of Physics and Math, and in my case, independently confirm their results for yourself. Actually your argument was an argument by authority regardless of what I do or what I know. Faulty logic is faulty logic even if it is used in support of a legitimate position. I would be quite happy to read any relevant AESJ papers on the inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. I only ask that someone demonstrate to my satisfaction that the papers actually are relevant before I buy them. If you feel that is an unreasonable position then we are at an impasse. But how important is it that I accept Steve Sullivan's and your assertions as fact? I accept them as reasonable theories. I should hope it is clear to you and anybody else reading these posts that I have no philisophical problems with the enjoyment of euphonic colorations given the amount of coin I've dropped on such colorations for my own system. Now I grant you that the concept of hard fast physical laws might seem like religious faith to people that are a bit shy of technical training on the scale of extensive study for an advanced degree in Engineering (following successfully obtaining a BSE), and decades of hands-on experience in various technical fields, both analytical and practical. I guess such folks need to bear with those of us who have "Been There And Done That". No they don't. I belive it is healthy to question authority. Real authorities should have no trouble in presenting more compelling arguments than "because I said so." So if you are trying to justify arguments by authority I'm sorry to say I'm not interested. Argument by authority is a faulty method of argument no matter how you dress it. More recently, this series of articles, including measurements: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/featu...s/vinyl-vs.-cd... These articles substantiate many of the things that JJ said. An interesting article but it fails to go the whole nine yards and do controlled listening tests that isolate the alleged distortion and gauge it's effect on listeners. The articles explain why subjective tests must fail to provide definitive results. Basically, LPs are so sonically flawed in characteristic ways that listeners will often be able to identify which format they are listening to, and the so-called blind listening test will not be effectively blind, and will degenerate into a public opinion survey.- Hide quoted text - It seems you are saying this theory is untestable. Actually, I'm saying that the audible difference is so obvious that it bollixes up most attempts to actually do a serious blind test. Gosh, I'm sounding like... �;-) How does the obviousness of the differences prevent a blind test from determining the qualitative impression those differences will have on listeners? The question is about "euphonic" distortions. I �would think that would be very problematic for any assertion/theory. But I also think it is a very testable assertion/theory actually. As I see it one way to test that there are *inherent euphonic* colorations in vinyl is to first identify the alleged colorations then master two sets of CDs from various sources, one version of each source would be a flat transfer a second version of each source would be an otherwise flat transfer only with the addition of the specific distortions that are allegedly having a euphoric effect. Been there and done that via a slightly different but equivalent technique for the now departedwww.pcabx.comweb site. But you just said "I'm saying that the audible difference is so obvious that it bollixes up most attempts to actually do a serious blind test." Perhaps you could give us the details of these tests. Then do blind comparisons. www.pcabx.comeven let folks do their own blind comparisons. I can compare a flat transfer of a recording to CD vs. a transfer of the same recording that is also flat other than the addition of the alleged euphonic distortions that are determined to be intrinsic in vinyl playback? How did you manage to isolate the "inherent euphonic" colorations of vinyl and how did you replicate them for such a test? There was no real news for well-informed audiophiles and technicians. 7% second harmonic distortion is audible. � THD+N of 10% is pretty easy to hear as compared to CD quality. Nothing new there! We are talking about alleged "intrinsic euphonic" distortions here. That at best shows some of the specific distortions of that rig with that specific test disc. And in the end it tells very little about the sound. If �the CDs with those specific added distortions prove to be found preferable in any way you have gone a long way towards verifying the theory of the euphonic nature of these distortions. Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as �they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! Thank you for your blessings. Given that most of those same music lovers are happily listening to music that is painfully compressed through less than excellent playback equipment, I don't give their lack of interest in such things much weight. I prefer to decide the merits of such things via personal experience. You have clearly communicated *your* feelings about SETs and vinyl playback. But I don't see the relevance of your opinions about such things to the question of the existance of these alleged inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. I see that you and Steve have cited a long list of papers on the subject of LP playback published in the AESJ. I believe that you have already dismissed JJ's summary of them as "proof by authority" and/or "proof by assertion". No. I have pointed out that Steve's and your citation of his summary on it's own is still an just an argument by authority. I am not sure how this is relevant to my request that someone post some relevant excerpts of the AESJ papers you and Steve have cited so I can see for myself that they are actually relevant to the subject of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. Therefore, I feel no need to produce any further compendiums of them, as my efforts are likely to be inferior to JJ's excellent work.- Hide quoted text - Perhaps I have more confidence in the merits of the contents of those AESJ papers than you. All I ask is that someone post some excerpts to show the relevance of those papers to the subject at hand. Oh and the dates. I do worry about the material being too dated to be relevant to todays state of the art. But it really isn't that important that I accept your assertions as fact. I accept them as reasonable theories. - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
|
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
wrote in message
On Oct 22, 3:28�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Oct 21, 8:17 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message "An LP does, demonstrably, have distortions that sound good. This is not news, this is something long since documented. Now, there's nothing wrong with liking those distortions, which in fact increase the sense of dynamic range and all-over spatial effect, among other things, but wouldn't it be better to add them to CD if you want to? And understand what you're doing?" Of course the big problem with all of this is it is pure testimonial. No, much of it is general knowledge among people who are familiar with the technical literature of the vinyl LP, some of which I've cited here on a number of occasions, including the last two days. This is just another argument by authority. It's an argument by authority until you analyze the technical papers for their conformance with generally accepted knowledge about the laws of Physics and Math, and in my case, independently confirm their results for yourself. Actually your argument was an argument by authority regardless of what I do or what I know. It wasn't an argument by authority. Faulty logic is faulty logic even if it is used in support of a legitimate position. Arguing over logic is what people do when the facts are running against them very strongly. I would be quite happy to read any relevant AESJ papers on the inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. They've been cited on Usenet for at least 20 years. I only ask that someone demonstrate to my satisfaction that the papers actually are relevant before I buy them. That would appear to be a highly elusive goal. If you feel that is an unreasonable position then we are at an impasse. The clause "my satisfaction" creates the impasse. Are you familiar with the concept and execution of "Academic Research"? If one does academic research, one does not ask anybody to demonstrate the validity or relevance of documents before you study them for yourself. That is your job! One ends up spending time and money on the chance that said documents might be valid or relevant.Often 90% or more of the documents that one reviews fail to be adequately valid and/or relevant. But how important is it that I accept Steve Sullivan's and your assertions as fact? It is completely unimportant to me. My job is to create a forum in which reasonable efforts are made to expose the relevant facts. I have no illusions about turning communists into capitalists by the force of my words. I accept them as reasonable theories. Then you've already admitted that the papers are relevant, because they contain as you say, "reasonable theories". |
|
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Obviously, there are many other factors involved. Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. |
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD. It wasn't convenience, because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. Obviously, there are many other factors involved. When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change. Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. Evidence? They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. Evidence? |
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD. Sure. Most people had scratchy, dirty records and played them on bad gear. So yes, CDs sounded better. But the point is about what happens NOW. It wasn't convenience, because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more expensive than good TTs. Obviously, there are many other factors involved. When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change. Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. Evidence? The majority of people spend more time listening to car radio/iPods with stock earbuds than they do to quality gear. They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. Evidence? Sales of CDs are falling as sales of downloads are increasing. |
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:40:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD. It wasn't convenience, because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. Obviously, there are many other factors involved. When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change. Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. Evidence? Uh, how about low bit-rate MP3 as evidence? That's what most people put on their iPods and that's what Apple and many others sell on their on-line music stores. They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. Evidence? They buy low bit-rate downloads (because that's mostly what's sold), and they RIP their own at low bit rates. The name of the game today seems to be quantity, not quality. |
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
In article ,
ScottW wrote: On Oct 23, 3:24*pm, Jenn wrote: In article , *"Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as *they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. *Obviously, there are many other factors involved. *Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. *They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. Not particularly relevant to the world of "high-end" But relevant to Arny's point. nor very accurate IMO. Which part? Compare the sound quality of the low bitrate MP3 player to the sound quality of the compact record players complete with 45 changers that stack 3" high that once was the mainstay of teen music reproduction. The low end of audio has certainly made quantum leaps in quality for that audience over the years. I agree. But that's beside the point. The point is low bitrate MP3 vs. CD. Sales of the former are rising as sales of the later are falling. It seems that for most folks, the former is OK. |
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
Arny Krueger wrote:
Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less expensive than the best turntable rigs of the era. When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change. Some were impatient, many weren't. There was a recession at the time of CD's debut, and a great many audiophiles took a "wait and see" attitude toward the technology. There are always "early adopters" of new products. |
|
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
ScottW wrote:
I can see the woofers oddly dancing at a frequency quite a bit higher than a record warp produces. Your woofers dance? How strange! I can also see the woofers dancing during silent passages between songs on some records so if it was acoustic feedback during silence, I have no idea how music would leave the stylus in the groove. Tone arm resonance shouldn't be so record dependent, so I am left to conclude that what I see is a problem cut in the vinyl. How to account for the fact that so many others don't have this problem? The problem is not "cut in the vinyl," and that's why things like proper turntable isolation and record clamps are so effective. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD. Sure. Most people had scratchy, dirty records and played them on bad gear. However, those of us who had new clean records and good-quality playback equipment such as myself and many of my hifi friends, were very impressed with the CD and were early adopters. In those days SME and Rabco tone arms, top-of-the-line Thorens and Linn turntables, and a variety of cartridges by Shure, ADC, and others were considered to be close to the SOTA. That's the kind of equipment that we had. And we had our DustBusters, ZeroStats, and record Preeners. So yes, CDs sounded better. We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP playback equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest link is the media. BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post it, Let's see if its better than mine! But the point is about what happens NOW. What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any price because it all still plays vinyl LPs. The geometry problems of 1975 have never been solved. It wasn't convenience, because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more expensive than good TTs. I surely do, because I paid for them both. My Thorens/SME/Shure system cost me less than my CDP-101. Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers at the time. What can they remember if it never happened to them? Obviously, there are many other factors involved. When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change. Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. Evidence? The majority of people spend more time listening to car radio/iPods with stock earbuds than they do to quality gear. That's always been true, except that the gap between average and very good was far greater in the past. Car audio can be amazingly good, even for base systems. iPods with stock earbuds sound far better than a ca. 1983 "brown goods" LP playback system, or a typical ca 1983 table model FM radio. *Upgrade* IEM and speakers for portable digital players are a huge market that never existed until lately. I don't know if you are aware of this, but according to industry stats I've seen, the market for IEM and speaker upgrades for portable digital players has had far more dollars in it than all of home A/V. That's exclusive of the players themselves. BTW, I suspect that the HDTV switchover will alter this balance for this year and the next few years. They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. Evidence? Sales of CDs are falling as sales of downloads are increasing. Proof that downloads always sound worse than CDs? |
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less expensive than the best turntable rigs of the era. This would be an excluded-middle argument because the CD players in question were all that was available and were therefore mainstream, while the most expensive LP playback equipment was boutique equipment in the hands of very few. When talking about prices, I'm talking about LP playback equipment with top-of-the line Thorens and Linn turntables, etc. When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change. Some were impatient, many weren't. Proof? Looks like an unsupported assertion to me. There was a recession at the time of CD's debut, Not in my house! ;-) I bought a new car, an IBM PC, and the CDP 101 at that time. and a great many audiophiles took a "wait and see" attitude toward the technology. "Many" is extremely vague. In fact the roll-out of the CD was the most successful and quickest media format change in the history of HiFi up until that time. There are always "early adopters" of new products. There are always "late adopters" of legacy technology, which proves exactly what? |
|
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:40:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change. Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. Evidence? Uh, how about low bit-rate MP3 as evidence? What's "Low Bitrate"? That's what most people put on their iPods and that's what Apple and many others sell on their on-line music stores. AFAIK iTunes stock-and-trade is 128 kb AAC, which is roughly the equal of 192 kb MP3, which are generally agreed to be OK. In the day of, JJ told us that AAC had SQ equal to a twice-bitrate MP3 at modest bitrates. They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. Evidence? They buy low bit-rate downloads (because that's mostly what's sold), Ever personally do a formal comparison of an 128 kb AAC to a .wav file from the same CD source? I have. It can be tough. |
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
"ScottW" wrote in message
... On Oct 23, 3:24 pm, Jenn wrote: Compare the sound quality of the low bitrate MP3 player to the sound quality of the compact record players complete with 45 changers that stack 3" high that once was the mainstay of teen music reproduction. Not to mention: many adults. Compare the SQ of one of iTunes AAC (MP4) downloads to a "brown goods" stereo of the 1970s and early 1980s. Us LP elitists have to remember that the mainstream LP playback system of the day was based on a Voice Of Music changer with a 2-pole motor, a cheap plastic tone arm, and a crystal cartridge; playing through a single-ended zero NFB pentode power amp that ran directly off the power line with no power transformer and output transformers the size of walnuts. Mainstream LP playback systems were based on speakers with no backs on their baffles. The speakers were intentionally made with limited bass response to avoid acoustic feedback problems because they were in the same cabinet as the changer. The low end of audio has certainly made quantum leaps in quality for that audience over the years. Agreed, and with a bullet. Personally, I appreciate the prevalence of headphones over boom boxes for teen music today. Cuts down on noise pollution, at the very least. |
|
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On 2008-10-24, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD. Sure. Most people had scratchy, dirty records and played them on bad gear. However, those of us who had new clean records and good-quality playback equipment such as myself and many of my hifi friends, were very impressed with the CD and were early adopters. In those days SME and Rabco tone arms, top-of-the-line Thorens and Linn turntables, and a variety of cartridges by Shure, ADC, and others were considered to be close to the SOTA. That's the kind of equipment that we had. And we had our DustBusters, ZeroStats, and record Preeners. You forgot to include the record clamp, camel hair artist's brush to clean the needle along with denatured alcohol, & the anti-static turntable mat :-) One also needed to get the anti-static record sleeve for each record being bought. Ahhh, the routine one had to go thru to play 1 side of the record; quite blissful after converting desired records to cd for listening... [quoted text deleted -- deb] |
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
Perhaps its synchronicity, but a few threads have popped up related to this topic on other
forums lately , independent of this one here;s one on hydrogenaudio about a device that basiclly purports to re-create vinyl euphopnic distortion. Despite the initial negative reaction, the author of the site in question (Richard Brice) doesn't seem to be the flooby type -- he's got a technical background, has written a respectable book on music engineering, and responds intelligently on that thread , to critiques and questions. He does seem to have done measurements , too, to confirm something about LP playback that can make certain kinds of recording (e.g., from cardioids) 'sound better'in terms of imaging, to him, than even the master tapes, due to addition of what he calls 'beneficial distortion', a synonym for 'euphonic distortion'. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...showtopic=6644 and here's his current site http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm Btw, there's a quote on that HA thread from Brice's book that mirrors a hypothesis I have put forward before -- and one that JJ has also hinted at on some posts on other forums -- to explain the 'vinyl sound's' fanbase, namely, that some kinds of distortion might happen to compensate for deficiencies of some recording: (p. 313): "Interestingly investigations reveal that distortion mechanisms in reproduction form vinyl and other analogue media may indeed be just those required to bring about an improvement in the realism of the reproduced stereo image. This suggests that ther may be something in the hi-fi cognoscenti's preference for vinyl over CD and for many recording musicians' preference for analogue over the, apparently better, digital alternative -- though not, as they invariably suppose, due to digital mysteriously taking something away but due to the analogue equipment adding beneficial distortion." -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:07:38 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD. Sure. Most people had scratchy, dirty records and played them on bad gear. So yes, CDs sounded better. But the point is about what happens NOW. It wasn't convenience, because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more expensive than good TTs. Neither do I. But I do remember that the first generation players sounded terrible (the little 14-bit Philips/Magnavox FD-1000 @ about $US600 sounded best) and the CDs themselves weren't any better. Playback was characterized by screechy highs, very dry acoustics, and lack-luster bass. I remember that I had the LP of the famous Telarc recording of the two Holst Suites for Military Band. When the bass drum player whacked that drum-head on the LP, the whole house shook. I was giddy with anticipation when I got the CD (one of the first titles available). What a disappointment! That mind-blowing bass drum had turned from the thunder of the gods into a wet fart. Thus began my decade-long disillusionment with CD. |
|
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Oct 23, 3:23�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Oct 22, 3:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Oct 21, 8:17 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message "An LP does, demonstrably, have distortions that sound good. This is not news, this is something long since documented. Now, there's nothing wrong with liking those distortions, which in fact increase the sense of dynamic range and all-over spatial effect, among other things, but wouldn't it be better to add them to CD if you want to? And understand what you're doing?" Of course the big problem with all of this is it is pure testimonial. No, much of it is general knowledge among people who are familiar with the technical literature of the vinyl LP, some of which I've cited here on a number of occasions, including the last two days. This is just another argument by authority. It's an argument by authority until you analyze the technical papers for their conformance with generally accepted knowledge about the laws of Physics and Math, and in my case, independently confirm their results for yourself. Actually your argument was an argument by authority regardless of what I do or what I know. It wasn't an argument by authority. You said "No, much of it is general knowledge among people who are familiar with the technical literature of the vinyl LP," Clearly that is an argument by authority. Faulty logic is faulty logic even if it is used in support of a legitimate position. Arguing over logic is what people do when the facts are running against them very strongly. No, it is also done when people are actually using faulty logic to argue their points. Ironically this is yet another argument that uses faulty logic 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. It is not only fair but also helpful in any such discussion like this to point out the use of faulty logic when it is present. I would be quite happy to read any relevant AESJ papers on the inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. They've been cited on Usenet for at least 20 years. That does not make them available free of cost. Between Steve and yourself there are a few hundred dollars worth of papers being cited and I don't even know if they are relevant. I'm simply not going to spend money on papers that might not even be relevant. It's just not worth it to me. I only ask that someone demonstrate to my satisfaction that the papers actually are relevant before I buy them. That would appear to be a highly elusive goal. What do you base that conclusion on? You haven't even tried to quote any passages from any of the cited papers to show that they are actually relevant to the subject of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. Is it too dificult to find any excerpts from any of those papers that would show quite clearly that they even relate to the existance of inherent euphonic colorations in vinyl much less establish their existance? If you feel that is an unreasonable position then we are at an impasse. The clause "my satisfaction" creates the impasse. How would you know that without even posting an excerpt that establishes the relevance of any of these papers to the subject of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl to your satisfaction? How do you know my standards of satisfaction are unreasonable? Are you familiar with the concept and execution of "Academic Research"? Yes. �If one does academic research, one does not ask anybody to demonstrate the validity or relevance of documents before you study them for yourself. That is your job! I disagree. If you are making an argument and citing established research by title only it is on you to establish the relevance of the papers to the issue being argued. One ends up spending time and money on the chance that said documents might be valid or relevant.Often 90% or more of the documents that one reviews fail to be adequately valid and/or relevant. Thank you for making my point. I'm not going to spend money on these papers just because you claim they are relevant. If they are relevant you can easily establish that by posting any excerpt that establishes relevance. I do not understand why you would choose not to do so if you really believe these papers are actually relevant. Why bother citing them by title if you are unwilling to demonstrate their relevance by simply posting any excerpt which would easily demonstrate their relevance? I honestly don't understand that. But how important is it that I accept Steve Sullivan's and your assertions as fact? It is completely unimportant to me. My job is to create a forum in which reasonable efforts are made to expose the relevant facts. I have no illusions about turning communists into capitalists by the force of my words. What is stopping you from simply posting excerpts from the citations to show their relevance? How would that be an unreasonable effort? �I accept them as reasonable theories. Then you've already admitted that the papers are relevant, because they contain as you say, "reasonable theories." I did not say the papers contain "reasonable theories." I siad the assertions you and Steve have made about the existance of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl seem like a reasonable theory to me. I don't know what any of those papers you have cited say about the existance of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. |
|
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Oct 24, 7:22�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD. Sure. �Most people had scratchy, dirty records and played them on bad gear. However, those of us who had new clean records and good-quality playback equipment such as myself and many of my hifi friends, were very impressed with the CD and were early adopters. In those days SME and Rabco tone arms, top-of-the-line Thorens and Linn turntables, and a variety of cartridges by Shure, ADC, and others were considered to be close to the SOTA. That's the kind of equipment that we had. And we had our DustBusters, ZeroStats, and record Preeners. You and your friends were and are entitled to your opinions but they are hardly preresentative of any universal opinions of the audiophiles of the day that owned or were at least exposed to SOTA or near SOTA vinyl playback of that day. Many such audiophiles were very dissatisfied with the sound they were hearing from CDs. Jenn's point was that the vast majority of us, myself included embracced CD sound back then because it was much better than our far far less than SOTA vinyl playback equipment. �So yes, CDs sounded better. We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP playback equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest link is the media. I haven't seen any such evidence. We also have to consider the subjective nature of the term "better." Not everyone agrees on what is better. BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post it, Let's see if its better than mine! Better by what measure? �But the point is about what happens �NOW. What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any price because it all still plays vinyl LPs. �The geometry problems of 1975 have never been solved. That is a faulty 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. It also ignores the many significant incremental advances in the technology since 1975. Advances that have made a substantial difference in the performace of vinyl production and playback. It wasn't convenience, because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more expensive than good TTs. I surely do, because I paid for them both. �My Thorens/SME/Shure system cost me less than my CDP-101. �Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers at the time. What can they remember if it never happened to them? But at that point the CD market was actually a pretty small niche market. CD sales did not take off until the advent of portable systems. |
|
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD. Sure. Most people had scratchy, dirty records and played them on bad gear. However, those of us who had new clean records and good-quality playback equipment such as myself and many of my hifi friends, were very impressed with the CD and were early adopters. In those days SME and Rabco tone arms, top-of-the-line Thorens and Linn turntables, and a variety of cartridges by Shure, ADC, and others were considered to be close to the SOTA. That's the kind of equipment that we had. And we had our DustBusters, ZeroStats, and record Preeners. I was very impressed with the CD and was an early adopter as well. So yes, CDs sounded better. We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP playback equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest link is the media. Evidence? BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post it, Let's see if its better than mine! As you know, I'm technologically incompetent and therefore don't do tests. But the point is about what happens NOW. What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any price because it all still plays vinyl LPs. The geometry problems of 1975 have never been solved. It wasn't convenience, because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive. Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more expensive than good TTs. I surely do, because I paid for them both. My Thorens/SME/Shure system cost me less than my CDP-101. My TT at the time of the first CD players was a Denon DP-72L. It cost more than my first generation CD player, a Sanyo. Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers at the time. What can they remember if it never happened to them? I'm not sure of your point here. Obviously, there are many other factors involved. When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change. Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. Evidence? The majority of people spend more time listening to car radio/iPods with stock earbuds than they do to quality gear. That's always been true, Of course; no argument. except that the gap between average and very good was far greater in the past. I agree. Car audio can be amazingly good, even for base systems. iPods with stock earbuds sound far better than a ca. 1983 "brown goods" LP playback system, or a typical ca 1983 table model FM radio. No argument. *Upgrade* IEM and speakers for portable digital players are a huge market that never existed until lately. I don't know if you are aware of this, but according to industry stats I've seen, the market for IEM and speaker upgrades for portable digital players has had far more dollars in it than all of home A/V. That's exclusive of the players themselves. I wouldn't be surprised, but I miss your point. BTW, I suspect that the HDTV switchover will alter this balance for this year and the next few years. They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. Evidence? Sales of CDs are falling as sales of downloads are increasing. Proof that downloads always sound worse than CDs? No, and that wasn't my assertion, as you know. |
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more expensive than good TTs. Neither do I. But I do remember that the first generation players sounded terrible (the little 14-bit Philips/Magnavox FD-1000 @ about $US600 sounded best) and the CDs themselves weren't any better. Playback was characterized by screechy highs, very dry acoustics, and lack-luster bass. I remember that I had the LP of the famous Telarc recording of the two Holst Suites for Military Band. When the bass drum player whacked that drum-head on the LP, the whole house shook. I was giddy with anticipation when I got the CD (one of the first titles available). What a disappointment! That mind-blowing bass drum had turned from the thunder of the gods into a wet fart. Thus began my decade-long disillusionment with CD. LOL I know what you mean. I think that the sound on that Telarc was quite good, but the LP BD left the CD BD in the dust. I was present at the session for that recording. Such great playing. |
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:17:10 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more expensive than good TTs. Neither do I. But I do remember that the first generation players sounded terrible (the little 14-bit Philips/Magnavox FD-1000 @ about $US600 sounded best) and the CDs themselves weren't any better. Playback was characterized by screechy highs, very dry acoustics, and lack-luster bass. I remember that I had the LP of the famous Telarc recording of the two Holst Suites for Military Band. When the bass drum player whacked that drum-head on the LP, the whole house shook. I was giddy with anticipation when I got the CD (one of the first titles available). What a disappointment! That mind-blowing bass drum had turned from the thunder of the gods into a wet fart. Thus began my decade-long disillusionment with CD. LOL I know what you mean. I think that the sound on that Telarc was quite good, but the LP BD left the CD BD in the dust. I was present at the session for that recording. Such great playing. Lucky you!* I heard the digital "master" of the Holst played back in the Soundstream room at an AES convention at the Waldorf Astoria in New York several years (IIRC) before the LP came out. I went back over and over to hear it again. The LP sounded MUCH more like that Soundstream demo than the CD EVER did. *didn't get yo hear that one, but I was present at the recording session for one of the most famous jazz albums of all time: Stan Getz and Charlie Byrd's 1962 recording of "Jazz Samba" made by Verve on 35mm magnetic film. |
|
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:27:16 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:40:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change. Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. Evidence? Uh, how about low bit-rate MP3 as evidence? What's "Low Bitrate"? That's what most people put on their iPods and that's what Apple and many others sell on their on-line music stores. AFAIK iTunes stock-and-trade is 128 kb AAC, which is roughly the equal of 192 kb MP3, which are generally agreed to be OK. In the day of, JJ told us that AAC had SQ equal to a twice-bitrate MP3 at modest bitrates. It might be OK for pop music. But I listen mostly to classical and the occasional film score. Everything that I have ever purchased and downloaded from iTunes has been unlistenable and I have been forced to go buy the CD after having already payed for the useless download. I'm a quick study, it only took me two different downloads at two different times to convince me that the first unlistenable result was not a coincidence. They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. Evidence? They buy low bit-rate downloads (because that's mostly what's sold), Ever personally do a formal comparison of an 128 kb AAC to a .wav file from the same CD source? I have. It can be tough. I've downloaded music from iTunes and found the quality so unacceptably bad that I ended up going out and buying the CDs. That was enough for me. |
|
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
ScottW wrote:
Clamping something as pliable as vinyl as far from the sylus as a record clamp typically is...is simply futile Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. LP clamping is a very effective means of improving isolation, from the simple screw down clamps (such as was popularized by Oracle) to the more elaborate peripheral clamps, such as VPIs. As you yourself note: Effective isolation is easily confirmed... Those who've experimented with these clamping systems can confirm their effectiveness. |
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
ScottW wrote:
On Oct 24, 6:14*am, Jenn wrote: In article , *ScottW wrote: On Oct 23, 3:24*pm, Jenn wrote: In article , *"Arny Krueger" wrote: Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of their way to get it, as long as *they can avoid it by staying in the mainstream. There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them! You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. *Obviously, there are many other factors involved. *Additionally, most people don't seem to be very interested in quality sound at all. *They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit rate downloads. *Not particularly relevant to the world of "high-end" But relevant to Arny's point. No, Arny was talking of people spending large amounts of money which is clearly indicative of the high end market. How expensive an MP3 player can one buy these days? I suppose a tube stage output MP3 player is inevitable  .not sure if any tubed gear is available, but Wadia has naturally filled the pressing demand for audiophile-quality iPod docks. http://www.musicdirect.com/product/83363 I agree. *But that's beside the point. *The point is low bitrate MP3 vs. CD. It's a point that isn't relevant to the high end market a portion of which forgoes accuracy. Of course many people find the cost and convenience of MP3 far outweighs the superior performance of CD. But they aren't part of the high end segment of the market. And consumers of the 'high end segment; would often find it tough, perhaps impossible, to distinguish a good medium-bitrate MP3 from source, in a blind test. At the very least one hopes they'd find it humbling. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:17:10 -0700, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more expensive than good TTs. Neither do I. But I do remember that the first generation players sounded terrible (the little 14-bit Philips/Magnavox FD-1000 @ about $US600 sounded best) and the CDs themselves weren't any better. Playback was characterized by screechy highs, very dry acoustics, and lack-luster bass. I remember that I had the LP of the famous Telarc recording of the two Holst Suites for Military Band. When the bass drum player whacked that drum-head on the LP, the whole house shook. I was giddy with anticipation when I got the CD (one of the first titles available). What a disappointment! That mind-blowing bass drum had turned from the thunder of the gods into a wet fart. Thus began my decade-long disillusionment with CD. LOL I know what you mean. I think that the sound on that Telarc was quite good, but the LP BD left the CD BD in the dust. I was present at the session for that recording. Such great playing. Lucky you!* Yes, I was very lucky. I was just 4 months out of undergrad school, teaching elementary music in Palm Springs. Fred Fennell had taken a professional interest in me the previous summer, seeing some potential in my work at a workshop, and he became my mentor. I miss him every day. This was the first digital symphonic recording made in the U.S. and I also was able to witness the third session with Fred and the winds/percussion of the Cleveland Orchestra (music of Grainger, et al). I heard the digital "master" of the Holst played back in the Soundstream room at an AES convention at the Waldorf Astoria in New York several years (IIRC) before the LP came out. The LP hit the streets 6 months after the recording date. I went back over and over to hear it again. The LP sounded MUCH more like that Soundstream demo than the CD EVER did. The recording was done at 50k sampling rate. Could that have made a difference? *didn't get yo hear that one, but I was present at the recording session for one of the most famous jazz albums of all time: Stan Getz and Charlie Byrd's 1962 recording of "Jazz Samba" made by Verve on 35mm magnetic film. Cool. A legendary recording for sure. |
|
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
wrote in message ...
On Oct 24, 7:22?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message You and your friends were and are entitled to your opinions but they are hardly representative of any universal opinions of the audiophiles of the day that owned or were at least exposed to SOTA or near SOTA vinyl playback of that day. This claim is based on what statistical market research information assembled by an authoritative source such as the RIAA? Many such audiophiles were very dissatisfied with the sound they were hearing from CDs. The word "many" is meaningless. Jenn's point was that the vast majority of us, myself included embraced CD sound back then because it was much better than our far less than SOTA vinyl playback equipment. There is nothing but anecdotes to support the idea that so-called SOTA vinyl playback equipment has any performance advantage over the equipment that my friends and I used. Furthermore, we had been exposed to that sort of boutique equipment all along, and we were aware of its lack of anything but visual performance. ?So yes, CDs sounded better. We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP playback equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest link is the media. I haven't seen any such evidence. Sure you have, and you dismissed it, out of hand. We also have to consider the subjective nature of the term "better." Not everyone agrees on what is better. To be better something has to be different, and there is no reliable evidence that boutique vinyl playback gear performs any different from what we had, only anecdotes. BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post it, Let's see if its better than mine! Better by what measure? Sound quality based on reliable comparisons with the source material. ?But the point is about what happens ?NOW. What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any price because it all still plays vinyl LPs. ?The geometry problems of 1975 have never been solved. That is a faulty argument. 18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The statement "The geometry problems of 1975 have never been solved." is not a tautology. It is however a statement that you are unprepared to evaluate, because by your own admission, you have no idea what the geometry problems of 1975 were. Please correct me if I am wrong. |
|
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Oct 25, 8:28�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ... On Oct 24, 7:22?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message You and your friends were and are entitled to your opinions but they are hardly representative of any universal opinions of the audiophiles of the day that owned or were at least exposed to SOTA or near SOTA vinyl playback of that day. This claim is based on what statistical market research information assembled by an authoritative source such as the RIAA? Just as the stated opinions by you on behalf of your friends, it is not based on any such research. To the best of my knowledge, the RIAA never researched the opinions of audiophiles who owned or were exposed to SOTA or near SOTA vinyl playback. You recalled the opinions of your friends of the day. I simply pointed out that your anecdote did not represent a universal opinion at that time. I base this on a clear memory of converstaions with other aduiophiles back then along with a number of reviews and letters to the editors of the underground audio publications written back then. Are you going to take the position that the the opinions you related to us in your anecdote about your friends' opinions on CD sound v. vinyl sound back in the early 80s was a univversal opinion among audiophiles who were exposed in one way or another to SOTA or near SOTA vinyl playback? If you really wish to assert that I will find testimonials of audiophiles that did have a very different opinion. Many such audiophiles were very dissatisfied with the sound they were hearing from CDs. (Semantic argument snipped) Jenn's point was that the vast majority of us, myself included embraced CD sound back then because it was much better than our far less than SOTA vinyl playback equipment. There is nothing but anecdotes to support the idea that so-called SOTA vinyl playback equipment has any performance advantage over the equipment that my friends and I used. Where are the measurements of SOTA vinyl playback to support this assertion? I have yet to see any such measurements performed on the Rockport Sirius III or the Continuum Caliburn? Without such measurments any assertion that these rigs have the same levels of audible distortion as the rigs your friends and you used is also quite anecdotal. Furthermore, we had been exposed to that sort of boutique equipment all along, and we were aware of its lack of anything but visual performance. You and your friends are entitled to their subjective opinions. ?So yes, CDs sounded better. We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP playback equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest link is the media. I haven't seen any such evidence. Sure you have, and you dismissed it, out of hand. No. I have not seen any evidence to support the assertion that "expensive modern LP equipment performs no better than legacy equipment." If you have some results from some independent blind listening comparisons that support this assertion I'd be happy to look at them. Of course the big problem here is the wide variety of "expensive modern LP playback equipment" that is out there. I am sure given the wide variety one may find something that they don't like or something that is an expensive bad idea brought to market. I would never assert that *all* expensive gear is actually good by any measure. So one would have to be very careful to choose a wide enough variety of modern turntable rigs to really represent today's state of the art. Of course one also has to ask what you mean by "legacy" equipment as well. One could argue that The Continuum Caliburn is "legacy equipment" since some of the technology developed in the design of that rig has trickled down into Continuum's second turntable design. We also have to consider the subjective nature of the term "better." Not everyone agrees on what is better. To be better something has to be different, and there is no reliable evidence that boutique vinyl playback gear performs any different from what we had, only anecdotes. Are you sure about that? BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post it, Let's see if its better than mine! Better by what measure? Sound quality based on reliable comparisons with the source material. I have done many single blind listening tests of various turntables, pickup arms and cartridges. Among those comparisons were some that involed various incarnations of various Regas including the Rega 2. By my subjective measure under blind conditions the Regas did not fare well. YMMV ?But the point is about what happens ?NOW. What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any price because it all still plays vinyl LPs. ?The geometry problems of 1975 have never been solved. That is a faulty argument. 18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The statement �"The geometry problems of 1975 have �never been solved." is not a tautology. You are correct. The argument that "there has been no significant objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any price because it all still plays vinyl LPs." is a tautology. That was my point. It is however a statement that you are unprepared to evaluate, because by your own admission, you have no idea what the geometry problems of 1975 were. Please correct me if I am wrong. I believe you are wrong. I have made no such admission that I know of. The geometry of vinyl cutting and playback is pretty well known and straight forward. If you think there is any aspect of it that you believe I don't understand please fill me in. I am happy to learn something more about the geometry of vinyl playback. |
|
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Oct 25, 7:28�am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
ScottW wrote: Clamping something as pliable as vinyl as far from the sylus as a record clamp typically is...is simply futile Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. LP clamping is a very effective means of improving isolation, from the simple screw down clamps (such as was popularized by Oracle) to the more elaborate peripheral clamps, such as VPIs. As you yourself note: �Effective isolation is easily confirmed... Those who've experimented with these clamping systems can confirm their effectiveness. Clamps don't improve isolation. They do couple the records to the vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl 2. they allow for better damping of the vinyl. Clamping a record to the platter allows the record to literally take on more of the characteristics of that platter. If you have a stiff, well damped platter, those characteristics will better transcribe to the vinyl when better coupled to the platter. The thing is isolation and damping achieve similar results, the reduction of added vibration to the system. |
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
wrote in message ...
Clamps don't improve isolation. They do couple the records to the vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl Must not be what you mean, because you can't change the stiffness of vinyl without changing the vinyl itself. What a clamp might do is mechanically couple the vinyl to something that is stiffer than it is, which would make the vinyl part of something that is stiffer. Stiffening would raise the resonance of the vinyl sheet, which would probably move it into a frequency range where its vibration would be more audible. So, just because the LP is stiffened, is not necessarily an advantage. 2. they allow for better damping of the vinyl. This would only happen if the vinyl were put into more intimate contact with something that is itself dampening. The degree of clamping would need to be optimized, not too little, not too much. If the record is clamped to the damper too tightly, then the damping due to sliding between the two elements would be lost. Clamping a record to the platter allows the record to literally take on more of the characteristics of that platter. If that is what you mean by improving the stiffness of the vinyl, then yes this can happen. If you have a stiff, well damped platter, those characteristics will better transcribe to the vinyl when better coupled to the platter. If this vibration of the LP has no audible effects, then dampening this vibration will have no audible effects. When measuring the frequency response and noise from a LP, these vibrations should have some measurable effects. I can't remember seeing any, and see no signs of them in the published test results we have discussed. Note that these measurements *do* pick up vibrations that are very tiny. Many of the vibrations that we *can* measure are masked by other sound sources including the music that is recorded on the LP. The thing is isolation and damping achieve similar results, the reduction of added vibration to the system. I'm surprised that clamps don't help flatten records out. One of the rather obvious problems of the LP is jitter or FM distortion due to the LP not being perfectly flat. |
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
On Oct 28, 5:17�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ... Clamps don't improve isolation. They do couple the records to the vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl Must not be what you mean, because you can't change the stiffness of vinyl without changing the vinyl itself. No it is exactly what I mean. Hold a vinyl record in the air and try to flex it. It is quite easy. Now place it against a platter and couple it with a record clamp. It won't flex in the direction of the platter. so it is effectively stiffer. What a clamp might do is mechanically couple the vinyl to something that is stiffer than it is, which would make the vinyl part of something that is stiffer. �Stiffening would raise the resonance of the vinyl sheet, which would probably move it into a frequency range where its vibration would be more audible. So, just because the LP is stiffened, is not necessarily an advantage. That is true. That is why platter design is a lot more complicated than just making it out of the stiffest material out there. Platters and mats need to be damped and need to be carefully designed with careful choice of materials to insure complimentary internal resonant frequencies. You don't want a platter that rings like a bell. Well I don't. There are some designs out there with some pretty stiff undamped light weight platters. I tend to find these designs to be noticably unpleasantly colored. You will find this a common design feature in the Rega line of turntables. Sorry Arny. Nothing personal. But I don't like the Regas. 2. they allow for better damping of the vinyl. This would only happen if the vinyl were put into more intimate contact with something that is itself dampening. The degree of clamping would need to be optimized, not too little, not too much. If the record is clamped to the damper too tightly, then the damping due to sliding between the two elements would be lost. You are absolutely right here. that is why we often find the most successful designs incorperate clamps that are specifically designed to go with the platter. Clamping a record to the platter allows the record to literally take on more of the characteristics of that platter. If that is what you mean by improving the stiffness of the vinyl, then yes this can happen. Yes, that is what I meant. �If you have a stiff, well damped platter, those characteristics will better transcribe to the vinyl when better coupled to the platter. If this vibration of the LP has no audible effects, then dampening this vibration will have no audible effects. That is true but we can't get around the fact that the stylus is riding the vinyl. Clealry any added vibration to the vinyl will be fed directly into the stylus. Also the stylus is putting energy directly into the vinyl. If the vinyl is flexing that is very bad. If it is taking that energy that is being directly applied to it and reflecting it back because the vinyl is coupled to a stiff undamped platter that rings like a bell, you have yet another significant coloration. turntable design is a pretty complicated endevour. When measuring the frequency response and noise from a LP, these vibrations should have some measurable effects. I can't remember seeing any, and see no signs of them in the published test results we have discussed. Note that these measurements *do* pick up vibrations that are very tiny. Many of the vibrations that we *can* measure are masked by other sound sources including the music that is recorded on the LP. How do determine what is causing what when you look at your measurements? The thing is isolation and damping achieve similar results, the reduction of added vibration to the system. I'm surprised that clamps don't help flatten records out. One of the rather obvious problems of the LP is jitter or FM distortion due to the LP not being perfectly flat. Thank you for adding that. Clamps also help flatten out records. |
|
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best way/quality to record vinyl...
"ScottW" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Oct 25, 7:28?am, "C. Leeds" wrote: ScottW wrote: Clamping something as pliable as vinyl as far from the sylus as a record clamp typically is...is simply futile Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. LP clamping is a very effective means of improving isolation, from the simple screw down clamps (such as was popularized by Oracle) to the more elaborate peripheral clamps, such as VPIs. As you yourself note: ?Effective isolation is easily confirmed... Those who've experimented with these clamping systems can confirm their effectiveness. Clamps don't improve isolation. Exactly, If anything it must diminish it by improving coupling to the platter. This may change the resonance of the system but not at the distance and with a material as compliant as vinyl. They do couple the records to the vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl Only if you sandwiched the entire record. Vinyl is pretty compliant and as such wont conduct vibration or force over any distance in the vertical axis or thinnest dimension of the record. A clamp at the center won't improve coupling of the record to the platter inches away. ScottW I'd agree to an extent. Since this thread about clamps started I've run some listening tests comparing both vacuum Vs spindle clamping. On my vacuum clamp SOTA turntable, it is trivially easy to see the affects by switching out vacuum pump. With the pump on there is a discernibly lower noise floor i.e a 'blacker' background less surface noise, imaging and general focus improves. Without vacuum but using the SOTA centre 'pull down' clamp the benefits are not as good but better than no clamp at all. I don't have the periphery clamping ring so I can't comment about that one. I've also heard the Basis vacuum turntable that exhibited similiar results. This suggest to me that centre clamping athough good is not as successful as vacuum clamping. Just my 2p's worth... Mike |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| How to pirate a vinyl record | Tech | |||
| How to pirate a vinyl record | Tech | |||
| Vinyl record coating?? | Pro Audio | |||
| Vinyl record coating?? | Pro Audio | |||
| getting a 7" vinyl record pressed? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
