Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default No Interconnect is the Best

"flipper" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:16:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:46:29 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

snips


What really happened is that almost nobody has time
any more for listening to music exclusively. They
typically listen to music while they are doing
something else. In that sort of environment, dynamic
range is not always your friend.

Talk to people, Arny. You will find that most think
that compressed lossy formats and smiley EQ sound
"quite OK" That's the crux of the matter.


That may be debatable too. Like, if sliced, diced,
mulched, and mashed is all there is then what's to
compare against?

People like to listen to music, but they often don't
have the time to listen to it exclusively.

That is a fact not an explanation. The levels of
expectation have fallen dramatically.


I wonder if that's really true.


Its not true, if you expand your horizons.


If you go back to the 50's and 60's the situation was
not all that different with a rather small segment
involved with 'hi-fi' and the rest getting most of
their 'music' via TV, radio (home or in the car), the
malt shop juke box, a home 'record player' (not to be
confused with 'audiophile turntable'), portable radios
or,.later, 8 track and cassette tape players.


The discerning customer now has a complex HT system, and
great-sounding audio in his car and portable on foot.


That they shove a compressed to hell and back brick wall
clipped CD into.


That they also shove wide dynamic range CDs and DVDs into. But you can't
sand to admit that, can you flip-off?

But hey, that'll be 'fixed' by lossy MP3
(or the mangler of your choice) compression, right?


MP3 compression is not necessarily the same thing as mangling. It is a means
to an end, one that is fortunately less necessary than it has been in the
past.

If you think that MP3 is necessarily mangling, you ought to do some
bias-controlled listening tests and compare what the LP format does along
the lines of mangling music, as compared to a good high-bitrate MP3. It's
not a pretty picture, and the LP loses.

People ain't buying $300 IEMs because they can tolerate
mediocre sound quality.


I guess none of them buy CDs then.


Contrary to your limited view of reality flip-off, not all CDs are
compressed to Bagdahd and back again. In fact there is a large supply of CDs
and DVDs with excellent, even lifelike dynamic range and over-all sound
quality.

The abilitiies of the CD format to accurately handle wide dynamic range
contrasts with material recorded on LP, which was either played with
restrained dynamics or recorded with gain-riding, or automated compression,
because the LP format is at best marginally competent, and usually
incompetent to handle the demands of music that naturally has a wide dynamic
range.

Ever seriously listen to an Ipod or equivalent with high
quality IEMs? I didn't think so! :-(


Back to your figments again.


IOW flip-off, your answer is no. OK, you're ignorant of the full benefits of
modern technology. I can live with that! ;-)


  #162   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default No Interconnect is the Best

"flipper" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:22:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:22:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:35:29 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

What the current situation shows is
the total apathy of the public to a poor sounding
product

The usual sort of talking down the nose that we have
come to expect from Iain.

All he's doing is summarizing the results of various
studies on the matter.


Figments of your imagination, flip-off.


No, Mr. Blarny, it's a matter of reading for the purpose
of communication, as opposed to your purpose of picking
the next insult to hurl.


Thanks flip-off for describing yourself so well in the last phrase in that
sentence.

What really happened is that almost nobody has time any
more for listening to music exclusively. They typically
listen to music while they are doing something else. In
that sort of environment, dynamic range is not always
your friend.


And all you've done is offer a possible reason for the
apathy.


The apathy comes from the business and priorities of
modern life.


Which, as I said, is simply a possible reason for the
apathy.


You're going around in circles, flip-off.

People like to listen to music, but they often don't
have the time to listen to it exclusively.


That might explain why they don't 'notice' they're being
sold an inferior product.


Wrong again, flip-off. The product they are buying is
the product that they desire for the listening
environment in which they use it.


Please show me the study showing that, given the choice,
people 'desire' inferior quality.


Why would what they want, be inferior to them?

I'll give you one thing, though, it's a terrific sounding
excuse for what the studios acknowledge is a 'loudness
war' having not one thing to do with the 'listening
environment, 'style', or sound quality.


But it does have to do with the 'listening environment, 'style', and/or
sound quality. When people make a CD or MP3 with reduced dynamics, they
don't do it due to limitations of the medium. This contrasts with the LP
format, due to its inherently limited dynamic range.

The human mind has an incredible knack for 'adjusting'
to whatever is available, especially when there's no
comparison.


That explains why we tolerated analog media, including
the LP so long.


No, the original reason we 'tolerated' analog and the LP
for so long is they were the only choice for so long.


Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were
never available to you in the days of the LP?


Hate to ruin your fantasy but "open reel tapes... in the
days of the LP" were "analog,"


The point being that they were free of many of the audible limitations of
the LP.

As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range
than LPs. They were readily available consumer products
during most of the heyday of the stereo LP. Therefore,

the stereo LP was not the only choice when it was king.


I didn't say LP was the 'only choice'.


Yes you did. You mentioned no other medium than the LP.

If you really wanted to know why LP was more popular than
open reel tape I'd suggest you read my comments to Ian
about "convenience" but, then, you don't really want to
know anything, or have a rational discussion. You just
want to hurl insults around.


You started it, flip off. Your first post was a nasty attack.

"No wonder there's a 'debate' about vinyl being better. You've got the
digital CD folks arguing the quality of the medium but they put crap
on it. Then say "but there's no hiss or pops." Yeah, but the music
sounds like CRAP. But the CD has so much more dynamic range. Yeah, and
then they compress it to 6dB and make it CRAP."

Would it break your fingers to present a balanced view, flip-off?


Now
it's because the supposedly 'superior' media is crippled
by intentionally mangling the material put on it.


There is no supposedness to the superiority of the LP
format


I presume you meant audio CD format here.


True either way you want it.

The two formats are what they are. The CD format is not supposedly superior,
it is actually and undenyably superior. The LP format is not supposedly
superior, it is actually and undenyably and inferior.

over the mostly
long gone but not often lamented LP format.


Not gone.


That's why I said "mostly long gone". Talk about distorting what someone
types for the purpose of making up a disagreement where there was none!

It is a scientific fact. Sorry
to hear flip-off that like awareness of the benefits of
open reel tapes, you never learned about this.


Another "figments of your imagination" and here's a
surprise for you, Mr Blarny, I not only had a 7" open
reel tape recorder/player, in addition to my Dual 1219
turntable, I still have it, and in perfect working
condition.


"Perfect working condition" as applied to any analog medium is an oxymoron.

Yeah. The arguments about people listening mostly in
cars and iPODs is interesting ´

Those who doubt obviously need to get out more.


Guess what Mr. Blarny, I have an MP3 and car player too.


So then why to you say the ignorant things that you say, flip-off?

I didn't mean to argue with it because I haven't seen
the data, just the 'conclusions' and arguments drawn.
I mean, for example, did they ask people if they'd
rather have a good sounding CD or a crap loud one? Or
did they just ask if loud was 'good'?

Excluded middle argument.

Then go argue with the folks making the argument.


I was into you butted-in, flip-off.


Wrong, Mr Blarny. That was *my* conversation with Iain
that *you* butted into.


It went thusly


Me:

Yeah. The arguments about people listening mostly in cars
and iPODs is interesting

(plus what you snipped out)

Iain:

It's a bit more than an argument, it is the result of a
study
in which fairly large sections of the public were
interviewed
both in the EU and the States.


Ant my reply above that you butted into,


You both were talking trash, flip-off.

What happens to the compressed music is that it is
usually played at low levels. If it weren't compressed,
it would not be heard much of the time.


no response from either Iain or flip-off

The truth went untrashed by them, this just once!

Sounds like you're the one who needs to "get out more."


Wrong, flip-off. I personally find highly compressed
music so repulsive that I would prefer to not listen to
music at all, rather than to listen to such a thing.


Which just goes to prove your only purpose in any of this
is to be an ass.


If being an ass is a problem for you flip-off, why not cure yourself first?


But that's my personal preference, and one that is not
shared by everybody. I can live with that, and I don't
need to write ignorant posts


Then why do you spend so much time doing so?


As the saying goes flip-off, if you don't like my posts, don't respond to
them. That puts an end to them right quick! Sorry that you lack the
intelligence to figure this out for yourself. :-(

bemoaning it, or suggesting irrelevant solutions for the
problem, or suggesting ideas as new innovations when
they have already been sold on the market for some years.


I couldn't care less what someone else's 'preferences'
are, until they infringe on mine... like being unable to
get a properly mastered CD.


Fact is that getting properly mastered CDs is very possible. OK, you've been
disappointed a few times lately. Did you complain to anybody that could
actually make a difference?


  #163   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default No Interconnect is the Best

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were
never available to you in the days of the LP?

As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range
than LPs. They were readily available consumer products
during most of the heyday of the stereo LP. Therefore,
the stereo LP was not the only choice when it was king.



Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly
informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe,
or if you are just arguing with him for the sake
of argument.

Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed
duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips)


Yes.

They had no NR,


Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance.

and the FR was typically -3dB at 12kHz.


Not necessarily a problem.

The SNR was 50dB.


Simply false as a generality.

This is greatly inferior to the LP.


Wrong. Also, it is a cherry-picked set of parameters that ignore important
dimensions of the listening experience.

Perhaps you could not hear the difference?


Perhaps I didn't like the crappy low frequency response, the inner groove
and loud passage distortion, the tics and pops, etc., etc., etc. .


There was some discussion within the industry about
selling reel to reel tape copies at 15 ips made in
real-time (as supplied to radio stations) But this would
have meant the use of NAB reels, which most domestic machines
cannot accommodate,


That is all false. You can make 15 ips tapes with standard reels, been
there, done that.

and there was also fear about the
possibility of these being used to make pirate audio
cassettes.


As if the absence of good masters stopped anybody from doing that.

The cost too would have been much greater than the LP.


Just goes to show that the major producers didn't think that there was a
legitimate market for a product that good. Of course the first CD could do
just about everything that much better than even 15 ips tape.

So, the problems that they thought they would solve by not making good
pre-recorded tapes were on top of them in spades once they had to start
selling CDs.


  #164   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default No Interconnect is the Best

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed
duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips)
They had no NR, and the FR was typically -3dB
at 12kHz. The SNR was 50dB. This is
greatly inferior to the LP. Perhaps you could
not hear the difference?

There was some discussion within the industry about
selling reel to reel tape copies at 15 ips made in
real-time (as supplied to radio stations) But this
would have meant the use of NAB reels, which most domestic machines
cannot accommodate, and there was also fear about the
possibility of these being used to make pirate audio
cassettes. The cost too would have been much greater
than the LP.


PS Just had an e-mail. It seems that open reel tape
copies were also available in the US at 3 3/4 ips
on 5" reels. Now they *must* have been better than
the LP :-)))


They tried 3 3/4 ips open reel tapes near the end, and that pretty well
killed off the open reel as a consumer format. Been there, done that too.
It was pretty grevious.


  #165   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default No Interconnect is the Best


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were
never available to you in the days of the LP?

As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range
than LPs. They were readily available consumer products
during most of the heyday of the stereo LP. Therefore,
the stereo LP was not the only choice when it was king.



Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly
informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe,
or if you are just arguing with him for the sake
of argument.

Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed
duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips)


Yes.

They had no NR,


Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance.


Morning Arny.

To be more specific:
Dolby B in *very* limited quantity. The information I
have states that there were no Dolby A or SR tapes
made available retail to the general public.


and the FR was typically -3dB at 12kHz.


Not necessarily a problem.


But still nowhere near as good as the performance
of the LP, a format which you hold in such low
regard. There is no logic in your reasoning Arny.


The SNR was 50dB.


Simply false as a generality.


Spot on fact. I worked for two companies which
produced such tapes at 19 cm/s They were nothing
like as good as the LP, and never claimed to be, either.
In addition domestic tape recorders could rarely do
justice to the recording. There were of course
exceptions, the Revox being the best known.

This is greatly inferior to the LP.


Wrong. Also, it is a cherry-picked set of parameters that ignore important
dimensions of the listening experience.


Right. These parameters are those that determine
the technical quality of the product, and disprove
your absurd claim that commercial open-reel releases
where better than vinyl.

Perhaps you could not hear the difference?

Perhaps I didn't like the crappy low frequency response, the inner groove
and loud passage distortion, the tics and pops, etc., etc., etc.


Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl
replay system. You have made it clear what a penny
pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a
Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III
(or equivalent) can do. Spend some time with an
EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and
Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge.

Get yourself a good vinyl system, a Radford
tube amp, a pair of B+W 801D speakers,
and start to live a little, Arny. Investigate
your American musical heritage, Charles Ives,
Ernest Bloch, ( Swiss born:-)
Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein,
Arnold Schoenberg (Austrian born:-) etc etc.
A turntable is good for this because there is
a great deal of interesting material that has
never been released on CD. Hopefully
this will give you some other purpose in life
than heckling on R.A.T:-)

There was some discussion within the industry about
selling reel to reel tape copies at 15 ips made in
real-time (as supplied to radio stations) But this would
have meant the use of NAB reels, which most domestic machines
cannot accommodate,


That is all false. You can make 15 ips tapes with standard reels, been
there, done that.


Clearly you have been nowhere and done nothing:-)

Surveys at the time indicated that the main market
for high speed open-reel tape copies would have
been to classical music listeners. A complete
symphony cannot be accomodated on a 7" or
even an 8 1/4inch reel using standard play tape
at 38cm/s. That was the main reason no
high-speed commercial releases were made.
You appear to be woefully ignorant in these
matters, Arny.

The cost too would have been much greater than the LP.


Just goes to show that the major producers didn't think
that there was a
legitimate market for a product that good.


They were right. There wasn't:-)
A study showed the production cost to be some twenty
times that of a vinyl pressing in a gatefold sleeve. HS
tape duplication was in its infancy then, and did not really
mature until the arrival of the audio cassette.

Of course the first CD could do
just about everything that much better than even 15 ips tape.


No one denies the potential of the CD. The current
problem, as Flipper is so patiently trying to point out
to you, is that people with low levels of expectation,
and you appear to be one of them, seem to prefer heavily
equalised, heavily compressed and drasticlly clipped
CD production. As a result the full potential of CD
is, in many cases, not being realised, and those of us
with higher expectations are often sadly disappointed.

This in turn is giving many others the impression that
vinyl pressings (especially with the recent quantum
leap in quality) are superior.

I received the Sony German catalogue this morning.
They have a weekly supplement of new 180gr vinyl
releases. So there is still a demand for quality:-)

Iain


















  #166   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default No Interconnect is the Best

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were
never available to you in the days of the LP?

As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range
than LPs. They were readily available consumer
products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP.
Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when
it was king.


Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly
informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe,
or if you are just arguing with him for the sake
of argument.

Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed
duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips)


Yes.

They had no NR,


Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance.


To be more specific:


Dolby B in *very* limited quantity.


Not the same as *no NR*. So that makes you wrong again, Iain.

The information I
have states that there were no Dolby A or SR tapes
made available retail to the general public.


Neither of those formats is a consumer format. So naturally, they were not
used in consumer products.

and the FR was typically -3dB at 12kHz.


Not necessarily a problem.


But still nowhere near as good as the performance
of the LP, a format which you hold in such low
regard.


Wrong again, Iain. The hook this time is the -3 dB, or if you will +/- 1.5
dB. Consumer LP playback systems rarely if ever went there, even in the
midrange where a dB or two would matter quite a bit.

There is no logic in your reasoning Arny.


There is good logic you actually understand audio technology and know
that -3 dB at 12 KHz is minor misunderstanding compared to what LP playback
does to frequency response. There is if you actually ever saw a rack full of
open reel tapes with Dolby B.

The SNR was 50dB.


Simply false as a generality.


Spot on fact. I worked for two companies which
produced such tapes at 19 cm/s They were nothing
like as good as the LP, and never claimed to be, either.


Well you worked for them Iain. What should we expect?

In addition domestic tape recorders could rarely do
justice to the recording. There were of course
exceptions, the Revox being the best known.


Again Iain, you're talking trash. There were tons of Sony and Teac open reel
machines that would deliver 50 dB dynamic range. I personally sold dozens
of them! And Revox was a top-selling brand in the U.S.

This is greatly inferior to the LP.


Wrong. Also, it is a cherry-picked set of parameters
that ignore important dimensions of the listening
experience.


Right. These parameters are those that determine
the technical quality of the product,


Wrong again Iain. They are a subset of the parameters that determine the
perceived sound quality of the product. And you got most of them wrong such
as your false claim that there were no commercial open reel tapes that had
NR. Being 3 dB down the top frequency extremes is not nearly as audible as
the inherent trashing of the 500 Hz range in LPs.

and disprove
your absurd claim that commercial open-reel releases
where better than vinyl.


Only in your dreams, Iain. Sorry that open reel tape was such a POS in your
neck of the woods.

Perhaps you could not hear the difference?

Perhaps I didn't like the crappy low frequency response,
the inner groove and loud passage distortion, the tics
and pops, etc., etc., etc.


Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl
replay system.


Perhaps you are very full of yourself, Iain. If there was any doubt about my
access to good vinyl replay systems, consider the two days I spent
auditioning vinyl and tubes at HE2005.

You have made it clear what a penny
pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a
Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III
(or equivalent) can do.


I always thought that the Garrard 401 was beneath the interest of a Thorens
TD125 owner such as myself. I did own a SME arm and I did own Shure V15s II
through IV.

My current Rega-based system is not quite the same, but it gets the job
done.

Spend some time with an
EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and
Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge.


Been there, done that. All of the above, I think. And more.

And I also have a few new 180 gram vinyl pressings.

Trouble is, vinyl just can't hack it in 2008, except as a legacy recording
transcription object. However, this is only true if your hearing is still
functional enough to hear the obvious flaws in vinyl playback.


  #167   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default No Interconnect is the Best

On Feb 1, 11:00*am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl
replay system. You have made it clear what a penny
pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a
Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III
(or equivalent) can do. Spend some time with an
EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and
Shure V15, *EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge.

Get yourself a good vinyl system, a Radford
tube amp, a pair of B+W 801D speakers,
and start to live a little,



No need for tubes to get decent sound out of vinyl - and if one is
attempting to educate a skeptic, adding additional parameters is a bad
idea. Keep it simple and vary *only* one parameter at a time.

So, to convince one of the potential of decent sound from vinyl, I
would start with a linear-tracking tone-arm. Rabco and Revox come to
mind as excellent examples of those species. I keep both, but the
Rabco sees the most play.

From there an MC cartridge with an active head-amp. Ortophon. If MM,
Shure. The Ortophon is on the Rabco, the Shure on the Revox.

Amplification should be something the listener understands and trusts.
Similarly the speakers. This may require a separate phono-pre-amp,
which would be unfortunate but necessary.

Then, vary _ONLY_ the source. See what happens.

Sadly, the sound of vinyl is unmistakable such that a listener with
pre-conceived conclusions will be able to skew the test - unless one
has the ability to add miscellaneous random clicks and pops every so
often to another source to mask its nature. Put another way, this is
an issue of true-believers and the invincibly ignorant. Never the
twain shall meet.

As to the quality of RtR tapes, with the exception of a relatively few
machines (such as Revox, high-end Teac, some Tandbergs, and then those
with built-in noise-reduction (Dolby B for Revox & Tandberg, DBX for
Teac)) mass-produced 7" tapes at low speed did little to heighten the
experience of the music. Further to this, I know of NO pre-recorded
10" RtR tapes with noise-reduction made for the general public. So,
these wonderful machines (and I still have my Revox) were perfectly
capable of making excellent recordings, and playing back such
recordings - but there was no 'equivalent-of-vinyl' out there. So,
they remained a very tiny component of the Audio market and the realm
of the fanatical few. They have no place in any discussion comparing
the relative qualities of an given source, comes to it.

Along comes the CD, pretty much coincidental with the downward spiral
of the mass audio market from specialty sellers (Sam Goody, Zounds,
Silo, et. al.) to just another line in the big-box stores. And at
about the same time, US makers of mass-items such as AR, Dynaco,
Harmon-Kardon, Scott, Heath, Fisher, Marantz and many others either
stopped making electronics entirely or sold their trade-marks to the
Pacific Rim. Eventually they all went dark as dedicated specialists
and all became parts of congomerates run by bean-counters. All this
over a few years, of course *not* over night. Also coincidental to the
rise of the Personal Audio Device, AKA Walkman.

Meanwhile we trained an entire generation of TV-raised individuals
that sound came from a 3" speaker with a laugh-track. And that
discriminating listening was a waste of precious time when they could
be indulging in recreational pharmaceuticals or having sex. And they
trained their children that sounds come from ear-buds or 4-ounce
computer speakers - both speakers, the wire and the power-supply.

And you wonder where production music "professionals" got the idea
that "good enough" was actually "too good"?

Vinyl as it is "practiced" today is an esoteric medium and as such
represents an effort where the actual costs-of-production (vinyl,
lathes, packaging - NOT the musicians and such) are irrelevant to the
cost of the product. People will LISTEN to something they have paid
possibly-thousands to reproduce and serious bucks for the record. They
will NOTICE faults and they will make VALID comparisons to other
media. This does not require that their conclusions be valid, but it
does mean that they are not the typical listener who is also multi-
tasking on a Blackberry, driving a car or reading the newspaper, or
all four.

So, depending on one's peculiar point of view, the world is (pick
one):
a) in hell
b) on its way to hell
c) diving for the deeper reaches of hell
e) has already achieved the greatest depth possible in hell
f), g), h), i) Same list for heaven

Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.

Schiller


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
  #168   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default No Interconnect is the Best


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Feb 1, 11:00 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

No need for tubes to get decent sound out of vinyl - and if one is
attempting to educate a skeptic, adding additional parameters is a bad
idea. Keep it simple and vary *only* one parameter at a time.


Hello Peter. I enjoyed your post.

I haven't a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing
Arny of anything, particularly when he is in his
"My-mind-is-made-up. Don't-confuse-me-with-facts" mode.

And personally, I don't care either way, as long
as people are listening to music, and enjoying the
experience, they can use a wire recorder as far
as I am concerned:-)

The system I was suggesting was akin to something that was
used to listen to vinyl in the 60s and 70s. I suggested modern
speakers, the B+W 801s, as good vintage speakers are now
often beyond the reach of most of us.

So, to convince one of the potential of decent sound from vinyl, I
would start with a linear-tracking tone-arm. Rabco and Revox come to
mind as excellent examples of those species. I keep both, but the
Rabco sees the most play.


The Rabco is good. A colleague has one on a
Technics SL1100. Like you, I have several turntables,
including an EMT 948 - said by some to be the best
turntable in the world - Americans pay huge sums of
money for them. I also have a Garrard 401,
SME/Shure V15 setup and Revox B790.
Both the Garrard and the EMT are used for prof
transcriptions.

From there an MC cartridge with an active head-amp. Ortophon. If MM,
Shure. The Ortophon is on the Rabco, the Shure on the Revox.


The EMT has built in RIAA electronics, balanced output on
XLR. I have a number of third party professionally built
RIAA stages including a Decca studios original which I use
with the 401.

Sadly, the sound of vinyl is unmistakable such that a listener with
pre-conceived conclusions will be able to skew the test - unless one
has the ability to add miscellaneous random clicks and pops every so
often to another source to mask its nature. Put another way, this is
an issue of true-believers and the invincibly ignorant. Never the
twain shall meet.


Poor pressing quality was the Achilles' heel of the
record industry for so many years. It was no surprise
that the CD was made so welcome. It coiuld be
produced at one tenth of the cost of an LP,
and still retail at Euro 21

As to the quality of RtR tapes, with the exception of a relatively few
machines (such as Revox, high-end Teac, some Tandbergs, and then those
with built-in noise-reduction (Dolby B for Revox & Tandberg, DBX for
Teac)) mass-produced 7" tapes at low speed did little to heighten the
experience of the music.


Indeed. They were offered as an option, but were
never an improvement on the LP. HS tape duplication
was in its infancy at that time, and 4:2 copying was
pretty dire.

Further to this, I know of NO pre-recorded
10" RtR tapes with noise-reduction made for the general public.


That is correct. There were none as far as I know.
The trend started with the record companies making such
tapes available to radio stations. When the listeners got to
know about this, there were requests from the public for
them. The cost of production was too high to make this
feasible, and there was also fear of piracy from cassette
duplication. (Little did they know what was just around
the corner......:-)

So,
these wonderful machines (and I still have my Revox) were perfectly
capable of making excellent recordings, and playing back such
recordings - but there was no 'equivalent-of-vinyl' out there.


That was the point I was trying to make to Arny.

Along comes the CD, pretty much coincidental with the downward spiral
of the mass audio market from specialty sellers (Sam Goody, Zounds,
Silo, et. al.) to just another line in the big-box stores. And at
about the same time, US makers of mass-items such as AR, Dynaco,
Harmon-Kardon, Scott, Heath, Fisher, Marantz and many others either
stopped making electronics entirely or sold their trade-marks to the
Pacific Rim. Eventually they all went dark as dedicated specialists
and all became parts of congomerates run by bean-counters. All this
over a few years, of course *not* over night. Also coincidental to the
rise of the Personal Audio Device, AKA Walkman.


We seem to have fared perhaps a little better here in Europe,
although flagship firms like Quad and Leak are now in the
hands of the Chinese. But there are many smaller bespoke
equipment manufacturers supplying high end systems to a
well-heeled discerning clientele.

Meanwhile we trained an entire generation of TV-raised individuals
that sound came from a 3" speaker with a laugh-track. And that
discriminating listening was a waste of precious time when they could
be indulging in recreational pharmaceuticals or having sex. And they
trained their children that sounds come from ear-buds or 4-ounce
computer speakers - both speakers, the wire and the power-supply.


This is an area of considerable concern, and is directly
linked to the levels of acceptance that people apply.
Most people are happy with a dismally poor standard.

And you wonder where production music "professionals" got the idea
that "good enough" was actually "too good"?


MI research has revealed that the vast majority of
the CD buying public purchase chart material, which
they play on portable systems and in their car.
So, "loud is good". I know from talking to local
record distributors and QC people that the number
of "technical returns"are very small indeed. So
the majority of the punters must be happy with
their over-compressed clipped audio. The rest have
to suffer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

I tried to discuss with Arny the option that record companies
could supply "clean" (uncompressed, unclipped) CDs which
radio stations and also in car listeners could compress to their
own liking, if there were audio compressors fitted to car players.
Surely this would be a better option?

But all this may change as the percentage of .mp3 download
material has a greater and greater effect on CD sales. It may
then be that pop CDs will disappear, and only specialised
outlets selling classical and jazz CDs will be left, in the way
that we now have vinyl only shops. We loive in interesting
times.

Vinyl as it is "practiced" today is an esoteric medium and as such
represents an effort where the actual costs-of-production (vinyl,
lathes, packaging - NOT the musicians and such) are irrelevant to the
cost of the product. People will LISTEN to something they have paid
possibly-thousands to reproduce and serious bucks for the record.


A double LP from the US, Japan, Germany or the UK
costs the equivalent of USD45 here in Europe.
That is not a lot of money for something that will give
so much pleasure for so many years. Besides sounding
good, LPs are also terribly tactile. I have several Decca
classical boxed sets of recordings on which I worked.
These pressings are cleaned regularly, and in pristine
condition.

I put the first side on the turntable, open the four-colour
booklet and the score on my knee, take a sip from my
Irish coffee, press "Play" on the EMT and let the music
begin. I am never disappointed.

You may or may not have heard about this new
Ray Charles/Count Basie double LP, Peter.
I started a thread about it on this group which
did not attract any interest. It is an intriguing
project in that the vocals were peeled-off concert
recordings from London and Berlin in the 1970s
and the Count Basie Orchestra backing tracks
were rercorded in 2006.

This recording was released as a limited edition
double LP, in a fine gatefold sleeve, with a
multipage insert with colour pics etc. A vinyl
presentation at its best. I played my copy
(no 661) with great interest, and made a
transcription straight from the EMT to CD
There was not a click or pop on any of the
four sides. It is a fantastic listening experience,
bright, full and dynamic without a hint of compression.

They
will NOTICE faults and they will make VALID comparisons to other
media. This does not require that their conclusions be valid, but it
does mean that they are not the typical listener who is also multi-
tasking on a Blackberry, driving a car or reading the newspaper, or
all four.


Happily the type of music with which I am involved
is not subject to the "louder is better" syndrome, and
so most CDs are mastered immaculately.

So, depending on one's peculiar point of view, the world is (pick
one):
a) in hell
b) on its way to hell
c) diving for the deeper reaches of hell
e) has already achieved the greatest depth possible in hell
f), g), h), i) Same list for heaven


:-))

Personally, I am pretty happy with the situation.
I enjoy CDs if properly mastered and also good
vinyl. Even after 25 years, there is still a huge amount
of material not available on CD. I also play and
enjoy shellac 78s for the same reason.

Hi-Fi is not the hobby it was back in the
1970s. There are now a thousand other things
competing for your time. Most people seem to
want plug-and-play, instant gratification from music
which is here today and gone tomorrow.

Me? I'm happy on a carousel of Ellington, Charlie Parker,
John Coltrane, Jean Sibelius, Dvorak, Shostakovich, Thomas
Arne, Abba, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues etc etc.

Best regards

Iain








  #169   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default No Interconnect is the Best


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"flipper" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:35:29 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

What the current situation shows is
the total apathy of the public to a poor sounding
product

The usual sort of talking down the nose that we have
come to expect from Iain.

I am a recording professional, so is it not natural that
quality should be a concern for me?


That a truism, but one that is irrelevant to the context.


No, it is a reinforcement of the standards and
expectations which I as a recording professional
hold. To me it has 100% relevance. To a person
like yourself, who records and also probably
listens to music of a poor standard, high
expectations are not even something that can
be considered.


Your problem Iain is common to people like you who sit in ivory towers,
only touch tiny parts of the overall process, and never ever see the big
picture.


It is clear from the discussion so far, that most people
involved in professional recording have forgotten
more than you know about "the big picture" as
you call it. We see the project through from
planning to fruition, often a period of several months.

In contrast to a Jack of All Trades and Master of
Mediocrity like yourself, most people recognise
that many of the phases in producing a high-class
product, such as photography, artwork,
sleeve notes, translation, etc need special skills
which are best left to experts in those fields.
I wonder how "condensor" (sic) translates into
Japanese:-) LOL!

Why did not such a great recording talent as
yourself, being from Motown Detroit, rise
quickly upon the ladder of success with
Tamla? In those days, with your Bachelor's
you could perhaps have got a job as producers'
assistant (which is not the same as Assistant
Producer) if you could manage fill the Coke
machine and put the empty bottles back into
the crate the right way up:-)


I can also appreciate your view point. Having neither
the skill/dedication nor the patience to make a quality
recording, your levels of expectation are rock bottom.


Iain, that's libel, and very much worthy of person in
your mental state.


I wonder, Arny, if a computer repair man
(especially a sanctimonious born-again Baptist
who cannot manage without the crutch of religion
to compensate for his considerable social inadequacy)
is in a position to pass judgement on the mental state
of others, while he himself oozes the insincere
supercilious hypocrisy which so often turns good
and upright people away from dubious offshoot
religions.

Luke 6:42. I am told that Baptists use a
simplified translation. Were the words "mote" and
"beam" (one syllable and four letters each) too
difficult for you? :-)

What a bitter, miserable, humourless, sad individual
you have become, Arnold. Or were you always like that?
Give me Buddhism or the Russian Orthodox any day:-)

But actually my statement regarding your recording is
a substantiated fact, an opinion agreed upon unanimously
by all who have heard the tracks of yours which
"leaked out" Without exception, even a class of first year
RA students thought it was absolutely horrendous.
As I told you, one young lady, a gifted cellist, burst
into tears having heard your church choir recording.
She thought it was some cruel, insidious, sacrilegious
joke by the underground "666" label:-(

I am sure Tynan will be interested to hear it.

I've have a goodly number of recorded tracks out on the web, and they have
been heard by tens of thousands of people.


There are "admirers" of yours from RAO collecting
these very tracks as we speak.

Hopefully we may expect a compilation soon:-))

Iain

























  #170   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default No Interconnect is the Best

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Feb 1, 11:00 am, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl
replay system. You have made it clear what a penny
pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a
Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III
(or equivalent) can do. Spend some time with an
EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and
Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge.

Get yourself a good vinyl system, a Radford
tube amp, a pair of B+W 801D speakers,
and start to live a little,


No need for tubes to get decent sound out of vinyl - and
if one is attempting to educate a skeptic, adding
additional parameters is a bad idea. Keep it simple and
vary *only* one parameter at a time.


Really? I've got that covered with the Conrad Johnson preamp that I often
use with my LP system.


So, to convince one of the potential of decent sound from
vinyl, I would start with a linear-tracking tone-arm.


Actually, linear-tracking is the *only* way to avoid a source of bass
modulation distortion that is inherent in vinyl playback.

Rabco and Revox come to mind as excellent examples of
those species. I keep both, but the Rabco sees the most
play.


The last linear tracking tonearm I heard in a private vinyl system was by
Eminent Technology.



Sadly, the sound of vinyl is unmistakable such that a
listener with pre-conceived conclusions will be able to
skew the test - unless one has the ability to add
miscellaneous random clicks and pops every so often to
another source to mask its nature. Put another way, this
is an issue of true-believers and the invincibly
ignorant. Never the twain shall meet.


In this case, the invincibly ignorant are the LP bigots.

So, these
wonderful machines (and I still have my Revox) were
perfectly capable of making excellent recordings, and
playing back such recordings - but there was no
'equivalent-of-vinyl' out there. So, they remained a very
tiny component of the Audio market and the realm of the
fanatical few. They have no place in any discussion
comparing the relative qualities of an given source,
comes to it.


Actually, Revox and Tandburg tape machines hovered just around the edges of
the mainstream. Sony and Teac chimed in with a number of excellent machines
and were arguably mainstream.

In the heyday of analog one didn't see a lot of Revox and Tandburgs in the
newly-christened appliance store mid-fi salons, but one sure did see a lot
of Sony and Teac.

Along comes the CD, pretty much coincidental with the
downward spiral of the mass audio market from specialty
sellers (Sam Goody, Zounds, Silo, et. al.) to just
another line in the big-box stores.


A romantic, self-pitying thought, but one that is probably not exactly
factual.

Appliance store mid-fi was a breaking trend a very few years after I
returned to the US from Germany as a guest of Uncle Sam. That was the early
1970s. The CD didn't hit the US market until 1983. It appears to me that
the mass market for mid-fi was fully developed for the better part of a
decade before the CD hit.

And at about the same
time, US makers of mass-items such as AR, Dynaco,
Harmon-Kardon, Scott, Heath, Fisher, Marantz and many
others either stopped making electronics entirely or sold
their trade-marks to the Pacific Rim.


I seriousy doubt that there was ever any Heath or Dynaco finished product
that was made in the Pacific rim. They were kit brands, for the most part
and assembly was completed in the customer's home.

The trend towards pacific rim production was fully-fledged in the middle
1960s. First there were Japanese brands like Kenwood and Pioneer. The first
mainstream american brand to slip into offshore production from your list
was Marantz. Scott being among the weaker went broke and the brand name was
recusitated as a made-in Pacific rim brand, followed by Fisher.

Eventually they all
went dark as dedicated specialists and all became parts
of congomerates run by bean-counters.


Heath simply disappeared as low cost off-shore assembly eliminated its
reason to exist, and building it yourself ceased to be a thrill for most.
Dyna followed a similar path, only to be resuscitated as a tubophile brand.

All this over a few years, of course *not* over night. Also coincidental
to
the rise of the Personal Audio Device, AKA Walkman.


Again, a slipping brain runs aground on the facts. The Walkman was
introduced in 1979, while Heathkit was still fairly strong (they closed
their audio products out later in the mid-1980s) and the original Dynaco
were still introducting new products.


Meanwhile we trained an entire generation of TV-raised
individuals that sound came from a 3" speaker with a
laugh-track.


Peter, speak for yourself!

And that discriminating listening was a
waste of precious time when they could be indulging in
recreational pharmaceuticals or having sex.


I guess you are speaking autobiographically, Peter.

And they trained their children that sounds come from ear-buds or
4-ounce computer speakers - both speakers, the wire and
the power-supply.


And you wonder where production music "professionals" got
the idea that "good enough" was actually "too good"?


That idea comes from something you probably never ever tried Peter - that
idea comes from blind, level-matched, straight wire bypass tests.

Vinyl as it is "practiced" today is an esoteric medium
and as such represents an effort where the actual
costs-of-production (vinyl, lathes, packaging - NOT the
musicians and such) are irrelevant to the cost of the
product.


And the sound quality, barely failing at the best, is really not an issue.
It is all about sentimentality.

People will LISTEN to something they have paid
possibly-thousands to reproduce and serious bucks for the
record.


This is belied by all the whoops and hollaring about vinyl bought in thrift
stores for twenty-five cents or a dollar.





  #171   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default No Interconnect is the Best



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes were
never available to you in the days of the LP?

As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range
than LPs. They were readily available consumer
products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP.
Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when
it was king.


Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly
informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe,
or if you are just arguing with him for the sake
of argument.

Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed
duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips)

Yes.

They had no NR,

Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance.


To be more specific:


Dolby B in *very* limited quantity.


Not the same as *no NR*. So that makes you wrong again, Iain.


Some 2.5 percent of total tape sales.
Not enough to even consider in this context.

But still nowhere near as good as the performance
of the LP, a format which you hold in such low
regard.


Wrong again, Iain. The hook this time is the -3 dB, or if you will +/- 1.5
dB.


There is no "hook"Arny.
-3dB is *not* the same as +/- 1.5dB.

Consumer LP playback systems rarely if ever went there, even in the
midrange where a dB or two would matter quite a bit.


The implementation of the RIAA replay curve was not
a problem for any manufacturer here in the EU. Most
managed it well, particularly midrange.

There is no logic in your reasoning Arny.


There is good logic you actually understand audio technology and know
that -3 dB at 12 KHz is minor misunderstanding compared to what LP
playback does to frequency response.


Please make the effort to get the terminology correct,
even if you fumble with the facts. The abbreviation is
"kHz" with a lower-case "k"

I have test discs, cut at Decca with glide tones
20Hz to 25kHz using the Neumann cutter. I have
every reason to think that both the Lyrec and the Westrex
can perform to this standard also.

If there is something wrong with your LP "playback" as you
state above, then the fault is with your equipment not the format.


Spot on fact. I worked for two companies which
produced such tapes at 19 cm/s They were nothing
like as good as the LP, and never claimed to be, either.


Well you worked for them Iain. What should we expect?


They were as good as HD duplicating could make them at
the time. Both Decca and RCA were better than most.
These tapes were an alternative not a substitute for vinyl
just like the HS duplicated audio cassettes which followed
them.

justice to the recording. There were of course
exceptions, the Revox being the best known.


Wrong again Iain. They are a subset of the parameters that determine the
perceived sound quality of the product.


Arny. You cannot "perceive" it to be any
better than the manufacturer has made it,
how ever much you may wish to do so.

And you got most of them wrong such as your false claim that there were
no commercial open reel tapes that had NR.


The MTA report states 2.5%.

Being 3 dB down the top frequency extremes is not nearly as audible as the
inherent trashing of the 500 Hz range in LPs.


Nothing wrong with vinyl midband, and if an ageing Detroit car factory
worker cannot hear the HF tape losses, then that doesn't matter either:-)

Only in your dreams, Iain. Sorry that open reel tape was such a POS in
your neck of the woods.


European machines were actually good.
We had Studer, Ferrograph, Revox,Vortexion, Telefunken,
Lyrec, with fewer imports from Japan than you seem to
have had in the USA. The ex BBC Leevers Rich E200
in my music room is 20Hz to 18kHz +0/-1dB.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...LR/LRE200.html

Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl
replay system.


Perhaps you are very full of yourself, Iain. If there was any doubt about
my access to good vinyl replay systems, consider the two days I spent
auditioning vinyl and tubes at HE2005.


But you don't own a quality system for every day use?
Listening at audio fairs like HE2005 is almost worthless,
unless the equipment is set up in proper listening rooms,
acoustically isolated from each other. You need to listen
for several hours over many days.


You have made it clear what a penny
pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a
Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III
(or equivalent) can do.


I always thought that the Garrard 401 was beneath the interest of a
Thorens


Thorens were much cheaper.

Garrard 301 and 401 were the BBC/EBU and
record company turntable of choice, together
with EMT and Telefunken. Try to buy any of these
today, You will find yourself spending some very
serious money, particularly following the demise
of the USD.

TD125 owner such as myself. I did own a SME arm and I did own Shure V15s
II through IV.
My current Rega-based system is not quite the same, but it gets the job
done.



You were foolish to part with them. A good turntable
in addition to a vintage amp, is one of the few pieces
of equipment that goes up in value, and so offers both
enjoyment and investment value. With the exception
of the Studer, no-one wants an old CD player:-)

Now you are left with no option to compressed, poorly
mastered CDs or a Rega:-)


Spend some time with an
EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and
Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge.


Been there, done that. All of the above, I think. And more.


The chances that you have ever seen let alone heard an
SME 30/2 orVerdier turntable are slim to none:-)

Now put your hand on your Bible, and repeat
after me.........:-))

And I also have a few new 180 gram vinyl pressings.


And you still think that current CD production is superior?


Iain

Hey Arny. I am getting e-mails from people who think
I should not "be seen publicly discussing anything with
Kruborg". So I think I will give your posts a miss
in the future, and let George answer your questions.
George, are you the-) ??







  #172   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default No Interconnect is the Best

Arny:

Two small things to add into your largely circular reasoning - leaping
to conclusions -false premises bit of obfuscation:

I did not have or own a television in my house until I got married.
But when I got married, the audio system-in-place was worth almost as
much as the house I owned. Of course, long-gone are the days when one
could purchase a 2900 s.f. Victorian in decent condition in University
City (West Philadelphia) for well under $20,000.

And, since I have been making my living since I was 19, I had no time
for the pharmaceuticals - still don't and really never missed them.

Other than that, you are spot-on ;-b

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

  #173   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default No Interconnect is the Best

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Flip-off, I take that to mean that open reel tapes
were never available to you in the days of the LP?

As a rule, open reel tapes had far more dynamic range
than LPs. They were readily available consumer
products during most of the heyday of the stereo LP.
Therefore, the stereo LP was not the only choice when
it was king.


Arny. I cannot decide if you really are as poorly
informed as you are trying to make Flipper believe,
or if you are just arguing with him for the sake
of argument.

Open reel tapes were manufactured by high speed
duplication, for playback at 19cms (71/2 ips)

Yes.

They had no NR,

Dolby open reel tapes made an appearance.


To be more specific:


Dolby B in *very* limited quantity.


Not the same as *no NR*. So that makes you wrong again,
Iain.


Some 2.5 percent of total tape sales.


Let's put that in context - open reel was not killed off by the high quality
of the LP, it was killed off by the convenience of the cassette. Compared
to everything since, the cassette sucked for convenience and sound quality,
but compared to the LP, it wasn't all that intolerable.

Not enough to even consider in this context.


You're just embarassed to be proven wrong, Iain. Whine, whine, whine.

But still nowhere near as good as the performance
of the LP, a format which you hold in such low
regard.


Wrong again, Iain. The hook this time is the -3 dB, or
if you will +/- 1.5 dB.


There is no "hook"Arny.
-3dB is *not* the same as +/- 1.5dB.


Obviously it is different in detail, but both represent the same amount of
deviation. More to the point, -3dB at 12 KHz is sonically trivial compared
to what LPs do below 500 Hz.

Consumer LP playback systems rarely if ever went there,
even in the midrange where a dB or two would matter
quite a bit.


The implementation of the RIAA replay curve was not
a problem for any manufacturer here in the EU. Most
managed it well, particularly midrange.


Your error here Iain is that you seem to think that good RIAA eq is all that
matters for frequency response. Slight matter of cartridge mechanical morass
and the deep waters of tone arms.

There is no logic in your reasoning Arny.


There is good logic you actually understand audio
technology and know that -3 dB at 12 KHz is minor
misunderstanding compared to what LP playback does to
frequency response.


Please make the effort to get the terminology correct,
even if you fumble with the facts. The abbreviation is
"kHz" with a lower-case "k"


Nahh Iain, I get it right elsewhere but I do that here so that you can show
yourself to be the pedantic snob that you are. Doesn't change the argument,
which is obviously over your head.

I have test discs, cut at Decca with glide tones
20Hz to 25kHz using the Neumann cutter.


Obviously Iain you've never done any measurements over that range with them,
or you wouldn't be talking this trash!

Oh, I get it, your microscopic fragment of the record production cycle at
Decca didn't include such menial tasks as even reviewing the results of
playback tests with these discs, were such a thing to ever be done.

I have
every reason to think that both the Lyrec and the Westrex
can perform to this standard also.


Cutting test records is only half the job, Iain. You need to play them back
accurately!


If there is something wrong with your LP "playback" as you
state above, then the fault is with your equipment not
the format.


LOL!



  #174   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default No Interconnect is the Best

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi

Being 3 dB down the top frequency extremes is not nearly
as audible as the inherent trashing of the 500 Hz range

in LPs.


Nothing wrong with vinyl midband, and if an ageing
Detroit car factory worker cannot hear the HF tape
losses, then that doesn't matter either:-)


Who are you talking to Iain, some imaginary person?

Only in your dreams, Iain. Sorry that open reel tape was
such a POS in your neck of the woods.


European machines were actually good.
We had Studer, Ferrograph, Revox,Vortexion, Telefunken,
Lyrec, with fewer imports from Japan than you seem to
have had in the USA. The ex BBC Leevers Rich E200
in my music room is 20Hz to 18kHz +0/-1dB.


http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...LR/LRE200.html


No FR curves there, so we know that you are lying, Iain.


Perhaps you have never had access to a good vinyl
replay system.


Perhaps you are very full of yourself, Iain. If there
was any doubt about my access to good vinyl replay
systems, consider the two days I spent auditioning vinyl
and tubes at HE2005.


But you don't own a quality system for every day use?


Quality vinyl system is an oxymoron, Iain.

Listening at audio fairs like HE2005 is almost worthless,
unless the equipment is set up in proper listening rooms,
acoustically isolated from each other. You need to listen
for several hours over many days.




You have made it clear what a penny
pincher you are, and so probably don't know what a
Garrard 401, SME 3012 and Shure V15/III
(or equivalent) can do.


I always thought that the Garrard 401 was beneath the
interest of a Thorens


Thorens were much cheaper.


Really?

Garrard 301 and 401 were the BBC/EBU and
record company turntable of choice, together
with EMT and Telefunken.


Not in the US. Oh there were some about, but not exclusively.

Try to buy any of these
today, You will find yourself spending some very
serious money, particularly following the demise
of the USD.


Demise means death. The dollar is hardly dead. Learn your English word
definitions, Iain.

You were foolish to part with them.


Cashing them out bought lots of CDs.

good turntable
in addition to a vintage amp, is one of the few pieces
of equipment that goes up in value, and so offers both
enjoyment and investment value.


Audio gear is among the poorer antiques to invest in. I prefer stocks.

With the exception
of the Studer, no-one wants an old CD player:-)


Why should they? This is about today, Iain just to mention a land that you
have yet to enter...


Now you are left with no option to compressed, poorly
mastered CDs or a Rega:-)


As if poorly-mastered CDs are the only kinds of CDs. Perhaps they are all
you ever heard at Decca.

Spend some time with an
EMT, SME 30/2 or Verdier turntable, and
Shure V15, EMT or Ortofon MC cartridge.


Been there, done that. All of the above, I think. And
more.


The chances that you have ever seen let alone heard an
SME 30/2 orVerdier turntable are slim to none:-)


So what?

And I also have a few new 180 gram vinyl pressings.


And you still think that current CD production is
superior?


Absolutely.


  #175   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default No Interconnect is the Best



"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:35:29 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


It is interesting to note the re-appearance of VUs added to the
existing meter overbridge, particularly in mastering suites.

Well, you'd know more about the mastering studios than I would. All
know is how they work

I do find it interesting that people will jump onto a 'new way' and
then, maybe, 'rediscover' there was a 'useful reason' for the other
way after all.


Perhaps it is due to commercial pressure, who knows, but there
has been a tendency to switch to new technology while still not
taking advantage of all it has to offer.


Well, I think people generally accept new technology because it almost
invariably is 'better' with, perhaps, a few bumps in the road and some
wiggle room depending on how one defines 'better'.


Morning Flipper. I enjoyed your post.

Yeah, and that's what makes it so egregious. It's certainly
understandable when limitations force a compromise but not so
understandable when it's simply thrown away.


Agreed. The medium does not seem to be used anywhere
close to its full potential.

The artist is not to blame.

There seems to be some debate on that matter.


I have never heard the artist blamed. How can it
be his/her fault? The artist usually has nothing to say
about production or marketing.


Just going by what I've heard, that sometimes it is the artist
themselves, but I get the impression that, most of the time, it's the
producers.


Most artists have little or no say in the technical aspects of
the recording. Their area of influence becomes less and less
after mixing and presentation decisions (sleeve pics, notes etc)
have been made.

Indeed. It would be quite easy now that music is available
for download, to make a compressed .mp3 available for those
who seem to want that kind of sound, and an uncompressed .wav
file for those that don't. We shall see.


Wouldn't; that take two masters though? I mean, if your mastering with
the intent of scrunching it to hell and back you might not necessarily
do it the same as when going for best fidelity, right?


The final production master is made from a studio master (or pre-master)
which is usually blameless. Making a precise clone of this, without the
"improvements" is quite straightforward.

As I think I alluded to before, maybe that's a natural result of
'consumerism', as viewed by 'aficionados' who, often, were 'the
first'. Their priorities are different than the 'mass market'.


Yes. Agreed. The problem is that the ratio is about 100:1 :-)
with the "louder is better" brigade in the vast majority. But,
if the user had a player with compressor and EQ built in,
(simple- low cost) he/she could be given a clean product
to mangle or not as he/she wished. That would solve the
problem at a stroke.


But what percentage of the public are interested do you
think?


Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it? I don't know but
I'd bet not the 'majority', because that isn't the top of their
priority list.


Those are my feelings too. Most people have never had the
luxury of choice or comparison, and don't realise what
CD is capable of.

However, if they knew they could have 'better' music for free and that
the primary reason it isn't is for a supercilious 'loudness war' their
opinion might change... even whether they could 'tell' or not.

People don't generally like being ripped off and "well, you can't tell
anyway" sounds like a charlatan's excuse for doing so.


I get the impression that most people are satisfied, and so don't
feel they are being "ripped off" Those who lament the poor quality
do feel they are being offered a deliberately mangled product.


I didn't mean to argue with it because I haven't seen the data, just
the 'conclusions' and arguments drawn. I mean, for example, did they
ask people if they'd rather have a good sounding CD or a crap loud
one? Or did they just ask if loud was 'good'?



It is very easy to influence the outcome of a poll by asking
"leading questions", so some care must be taken in this. I
think the opening question has been "Are you satisfied with
the quality of CD production" (Most people said that they
were indeed satisfied) The second question was "Where
do you listen to music mainly." (To which the majority replied
"in the car" or "in-ear, while walking jogging etc etc"

I get the feeling that few people make time for
listening to music except as a background activity.
This is perhaps why there is no longer an accent
on quality.

They talked to people in the process of buying a record at a store,
and asked "Are you satisfied with the sound of CDs as currently
produced" Most were totally satisfied.


Studies are always interesting because data is data but conclusions
are not always as obvious as they might seem. Like, are people
'satisfied' because they have a 'standard of comparison', and the CDs
meet it, or because they've been told 'digital audio' is 'the best'
you can get and so, it 'must be'.?


Yes.

Even if they have a 'standard of comparison', what is it and how did
they arrive at it?

It might be interesting to ask people why they spend 'big bucks' on
'high quality' audio equipment when the CDs are mangled crap and I
imagine you might get a lot of "huh?"


Most systems see to be very low cost (albeit remarkably
good for the money - with the exception of speakers)

The numbers of "technical
returns" are very small indeed.


If it plays the music then what 'reason' would there be for a return
and what's the alternative if you did? An even worse MP3 of it or a
'perfect' FLAC copy of what you rejected?


The term "technical return" encompasses product
that has technical shortcomings, which strictly-speaking
a compressed of clipped CD has. But a lawyer would be
hard-pressed to convince a court that this was so. The
problem is that the customer returns his/her CD to the
shop, and the assistant compares it with another, identical,
CD from stock, and shows there is nothing wrong with it.
If the customer then says, "They are all bad" the sales assistant
is likely to call security.

I'm just suggesting that 'technical returns' might not be indicative.


The problem really is that people are pretty lethargic. I know
from talking to my local record shop owner, that many people buy
eight or ten CDs at a time, and so if one or two of them are a little
compressed, well "Hey. So what!"

It is interesting too that there is a very clear double standard here.
Most classical and jazz CDs are immaculately mastered.


I guess they figure those listeners are more discerning.... and have
cars with 'quieter' interiors

Or maybe, being 'perfectionists', they've mastered the use of a volume
knob.


I think it is because the manufacturers know they are dealing with
a more discerning audience, who don't listen to the recording a
couple of times, and by something else next Saturday, but add to
their collections and listejn to the music on a regular basis. It
is interesting also that in the EBU area at least, radio stations
playing classical music and jazz do not compress the music to
death as their popular counterpart stations are so keen to do.

Regards
Iain





Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Optical interconnect Dirk Bruere at NeoPax Pro Audio 6 September 5th 06 01:33 AM
Interconnect "Directionality" Norman M. Schwartz High End Audio 11 August 17th 05 12:30 AM
DIY Interconnect questions Colin Bigam Tech 85 January 27th 04 02:28 AM
SymbiLink Interconnect Sam Carleton Car Audio 0 July 22nd 03 12:48 AM
FS: XLO LIMITED 2m Interconnect 007 Marketplace 0 July 12th 03 02:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"