[Richard Crowley]

"jamesgangnc" wrote...
Tube amps would be fine if you didn't have to have that stupid transformer
at the end. Just no way to make a tube current amp. And no way to make a
transformer that is transparent from 20hz to 20khz.

By best recollection of the famous quote from Scott Dorsey:
"The 'sound' of tube equipment is mostly the 'sound' of the
transformers."

[Dave]

wrote in message
...

Forgive me for my impatience, Dave but, in a word, bull****.


No need to ask for forgiveness... bull**** is bull**** and you called it
like it is. I was repeating what I had been told at one time and did not
seek to mislead.

As per your comments, I seem not to be the only unenlightened one as it's a
commonly offered opinion.

Interestingly, I think you will find a lot of people who call themselves
"audiophiles" (and spend more than I make in a month on any given component
of their stereo system) who would parrot back the same arguement that I did
about the worthiness of LP's. I'm glad I didn't just spend 5 figures on a
turntable thinking it was the best sound around. I picked up my turntable
off the curb on garbage day.

Dave

[Richard Crowley]

"Dave" wrote...
Interestingly, I think you will find a lot of people who call themselves
"audiophiles" (and spend more than I make in a month on any given
component of their stereo system) who would parrot back the same arguement
that I did about the worthiness of LP's.

Hence the creation of the word "audiophools".
Fortunately, they have their own newsgroup. :-)

[jamesgangnc[_3_]]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"jamesgangnc" wrote...
Tube amps would be fine if you didn't have to have that stupid
transformer at the end. Just no way to make a tube current amp. And no
way to make a transformer that is transparent from 20hz to 20khz.

By best recollection of the famous quote from Scott Dorsey:
"The 'sound' of tube equipment is mostly the 'sound' of the
transformers."

Ah, I remember many lifetimes ago as a lowly tech winding transformers to be
used in a project with a 20hz ac signal. Me and the engineer I was working
for concluded that while we eventually got one that was passable that the
whole thing sucked. 20hz was just not the place to play with transformers.

[jamesgangnc[_3_]]

"WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message
...

I'm going to back up now, cuz I'm sure that is going to garner some
replies from those more qualified than I.



Sorta leaves the field wide open don't it? yukyuk

[Mr.T]

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
Usually nostalgia.

Nolstalgia? I'm in the camp that just wants my audio system to as
accurately as possible recreate the sound of the live performance.

Me too, that's why I gave up on vinyl over 20 years ago.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"jakdedert" wrote in message
...
That's just silly. Personally, I listen to the LPs because I have them,
have had them for 40 years or so, and have the equipment to listen to
them. I don't listen to them exclusively. I don't listen to them every
day. Most of what I have is available on MP3 or CD--but not all. I
don't listen to every single piece often enough to either digitize or
replace it with CD, as it would cost many thousands of dollars (many of
which I've already spent, years ago)...or countless hours.

An honest justification at least, however many other people find it
convenient to transfer to CD those that they listen to more than once in a
blue moon, but can't replace with a new CD. (or maybe just can't justify the
expense, and don't mind the extra work)


Personally, I prefer the ease and accessibility (and sound) of popping
in a CD, or pulling up a file; but I also enjoy pulling out an old track
I haven't even thought about in years....

No argument from me.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Of course there are! Just look on Amazon or in the larger record stores
(if
there are any left in your locality). There's plenty of new vinyl being
offered for sale. There's also a significant reissue market of classic LPs
being remastered and recut on 180gm vinyl. Now, why anyone would want to
pay
significantly more for the vinyl than for the same album on CD is beyond
me,
but having heard some abortions that pass for remastered CDs recently,
perhaps the vinyl *is* better.

What makes you think the remastering is better just because it is put on
vinyl?
Most likely it is exactly the same digital file, plus the necessary vinyl
eq, that is sent to the cutting lathe for new LP's.

For older LP's of course, most are indeed different.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
Compression, mp3s, is a sacrifice for portability. What are you going
to do to make the vinyl portable?

Copy them to cassette :-)
(what we all did before CD and MP3)

Personally I far prefer even 128kbs MP3 to cassette!

MrT.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Of course there are! Just look on Amazon or in the larger record stores
(if
there are any left in your locality). There's plenty of new vinyl being
offered for sale. There's also a significant reissue market of classic
LPs
being remastered and recut on 180gm vinyl. Now, why anyone would want to
pay
significantly more for the vinyl than for the same album on CD is beyond
me,
but having heard some abortions that pass for remastered CDs recently,
perhaps the vinyl *is* better.

What makes you think the remastering is better just because it is put on
vinyl?
Most likely it is exactly the same digital file, plus the necessary vinyl
eq, that is sent to the cutting lathe for new LP's.

For older LP's of course, most are indeed different.

MrT.




You could be right, although I don't know how well an RIAA equalised
disc-cutter will handle the flat-topped clipped waveform that ends up on CDs
all too often these days.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[jamesgangnc[_3_]]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"jakdedert" wrote in message
...
That's just silly. Personally, I listen to the LPs because I have them,
have had them for 40 years or so, and have the equipment to listen to
them. I don't listen to them exclusively. I don't listen to them every
day. Most of what I have is available on MP3 or CD--but not all. I
don't listen to every single piece often enough to either digitize or
replace it with CD, as it would cost many thousands of dollars (many of
which I've already spent, years ago)...or countless hours.

An honest justification at least, however many other people find it
convenient to transfer to CD those that they listen to more than once in a
blue moon, but can't replace with a new CD. (or maybe just can't justify
the
expense, and don't mind the extra work)


Personally, I prefer the ease and accessibility (and sound) of popping
in a CD, or pulling up a file; but I also enjoy pulling out an old track
I haven't even thought about in years....

No argument from me.

MrT.

Yes, you could make a case that transfering them to cd is also going to
preserve the vinyl since you will be less likely to play it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave" wrote in message
news:hOwCj.108382$C61.35398@edtnps89
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
Usually nostalgia.

Nolstalgia? I'm in the camp that just wants my audio
system to as accurately as possible recreate the sound
of the live performance. But to each their own.

There is an arguement that the CD sampling rate of
44.1KHz does not provide enough bandwidth for truly
perfect sound reproduction.

The argument dies rapidly if you actually do a decent listening test to test
it.

There was recently a JAES article that made this point.

It's an easy enough test to do - just set up a back-to-back pair of
converters operating at 44/16 set for unity gain, and bypass it with a
switch operated by a hidden third party, while listening to the best
recording or live performance you can find.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
wrote in message
...
Compression, mp3s, is a sacrifice for portability. What
are you going to do to make the vinyl portable?

Copy them to cassette :-)
(what we all did before CD and MP3)

Ugh!

Personally I far prefer even 128kbs MP3 to cassette!

For sure.

[Arny Krueger]

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"jamesgangnc" wrote...
Tube amps would be fine if you didn't have to have that
stupid transformer at the end. Just no way to make a
tube current amp. And no way to make a transformer
that is transparent from 20hz to 20khz.

By best recollection of the famous quote from Scott
Dorsey: "The 'sound' of tube equipment is mostly the
'sound' of the transformers."

Ah, I remember many lifetimes ago as a lowly tech winding
transformers to be used in a project with a 20hz ac
signal. Me and the engineer I was working for concluded
that while we eventually got one that was passable that
the whole thing sucked. 20hz was just not the place to
play with transformers.

Go straight to Radio Shack and get their "Ground Isolator".

I've tested them on the bench, and they aren't all that bad.


I just did some bench tests of Radio Shack's "Ground Isolator" 270-054 using
test signals that maxed out around 2.5 v RMS. ZSource = 150 ohms, ZLoad =
5Kohms.


The measured performance was truely amazing for a pair of transformers case
and cables selling for only $16.65.


All IM, THD, and noise artifacts were at least 80 dB down with most in
the -100 dB range or better. Frequency response showed a 2 dB peak at 20 Hz
and then 10 dB down at 10 Hz. There was a 3 dB peak at about 51 KHz falling
to about 10 dB down around 100 KHz. +0.5 dB at 20 KHz.


I repeated the tests with the secondary loaded with 1.5K, and the peak at 51
Khz became well-damped with only about 0.6 dB rise.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Mar 14, 9:31 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS"
wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.

I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!
http://tinyurl.com/yjm842
I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000
listening to some other format.

If by album you mean LP, then you have to come up with a
number that relates to the fact that about 1% of all
sales of recordings is for LPs. 1 in 10,000 is IMO far
too few. Besdies, there are people who listen to LPs who
don't buy new LPs.

I'll bet for every album listener there are more like 50
listening exclusively to other formats. That would be a
more reasonable guess.

Ya think? Seems unlikely to me. Where do you get your
1%?

RIAA recorded music sales stats.

And 1% equals 1 in a 100, not 1 in 50. And assumes
an equal distribution of sales. And I'm betting that the
lp listeners don't fit that profile. There are no "new" lps.

Yes there are.

And,some people still listen to the old ones.

Sentimentality.

[Mr.T]

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
Yes, you could make a case that transfering them to cd is also going to
preserve the vinyl since you will be less likely to play it.

I don't think there is any doubt about that.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
What makes you think the remastering is better just because it is put on
vinyl?
Most likely it is exactly the same digital file, plus the necessary
vinyl
eq, that is sent to the cutting lathe for new LP's.

For older LP's of course, most are indeed different.


You could be right, although I don't know how well an RIAA equalised
disc-cutter will handle the flat-topped clipped waveform that ends up on
CDs
all too often these days.


When I say the extra EQ, I don't just mean the RIAA curve, things like high
frequency levels and bass levels especially have to be taken into account
before being sent to the cutting lathe. And of course a lot of the expertise
that was once available for vinyl mastering is now no longer available, or
being re-learned the hard way in some cases.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
There was recently a JAES article that made this point.

It's an easy enough test to do - just set up a back-to-back pair of
converters operating at 44/16 set for unity gain, and bypass it with a
switch operated by a hidden third party, while listening to the best
recording or live performance you can find.

Something I have been doing, and espousing on Usenet for over a decade!
Any HQ computer sound card is adequate for the purpose these days.
I have yet to find anyone who can reliably identify which is which when
properly done. (levels matched as you also point out quite often)
That doesn't always convince them they are wrong of course!

MrT.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
What makes you think the remastering is better just because it is put
on
vinyl?
Most likely it is exactly the same digital file, plus the necessary
vinyl
eq, that is sent to the cutting lathe for new LP's.

For older LP's of course, most are indeed different.


You could be right, although I don't know how well an RIAA equalised
disc-cutter will handle the flat-topped clipped waveform that ends up on
CDs
all too often these days.


When I say the extra EQ, I don't just mean the RIAA curve, things like
high
frequency levels and bass levels especially have to be taken into account
before being sent to the cutting lathe. And of course a lot of the
expertise
that was once available for vinyl mastering is now no longer available, or
being re-learned the hard way in some cases.

MrT.



Which is much of my point about vinyl mastering *possibly* being better than
CD mastering. As far as I know, the heavy compression and even clipping of
CDs takes place in the mastering process, after the final mixdown.
Consequently, if an LP was mastered for LP cutting from the digital final
mix, a different set of decisions would be made for all the reasons you
stated. The end result could well be a better sounding LP than the squashed
and clipped CD. I'm not saying for a moment that LPs sound better than CDs,
just that it is possible that a CD mastered for mass consumption, heavily
compressed and clipped, ends up sounding worse than an LP that has had
competent LP mastering.

It is really irritating that the CD medium, which is for all intents and
purposes transparent, with wide dynamic range, low distortion, noise etc is
now so abused as to make it worse than the old bandwidth limited, noisy,
distorting LPs.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Mr.T]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Which is much of my point about vinyl mastering *possibly* being better
than
CD mastering. As far as I know, the heavy compression and even clipping of
CDs takes place in the mastering process, after the final mixdown.

Pretty much, and that's probably what they would re-EQ for vinyl, given the
minimal amount of sales on that format.


Consequently, if an LP was mastered for LP cutting from the digital final
mix, a different set of decisions would be made for all the reasons you
stated. The end result could well be a better sounding LP than the
squashed
and clipped CD. I'm not saying for a moment that LPs sound better than
CDs,
just that it is possible that a CD mastered for mass consumption, heavily
compressed and clipped, ends up sounding worse than an LP that has had
competent LP mastering.

But just what makes you think they would now want a better/competent job
done for 1% of the sales?
That's the bit that I strongly doubt.


It is really irritating that the CD medium, which is for all intents and
purposes transparent, with wide dynamic range, low distortion, noise etc
is
now so abused as to make it worse than the old bandwidth limited, noisy,
distorting LPs.

Amazing isn't it that with 96dB dynamic range, they fight to use only 10dB.
But really that is has nothing to do with CD vs. vinyl, but all to do with
how it sounds on radio, TV and portable players to the target audience.
Classical releases are rarely clipped because the target audience is
different.

MrT.