[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I seem to recall that Scott claims to have heard
differences due to cables, in a single-blind test.

More likely in a sighted test, like all the rest of his
listening "tests".

We call "single blind" tests "Egregiously flawed double
blind tests". ;-)

Yes, but what do you call sighted "tests" then :-)

They aren't tests at all.

That's why I put the word in inverted commas.

No joke.

You missed it, but otherwise correct.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Now where's the specs on the cutting lathe though :-(

The cutting lathe probably performs better than the
user's cartridge, etc.

I'm not so sure about that myself. I'm sure there were
worse cutting heads than my Shure V15VMR, and there are
FAR more expensive cartridges available.

Or there were and probably still are some bad cutting heads, but most that
were used to produce most records were pretty good.

In fact half
speed mastering was to reduce the deficiencies of the
cutting lathes,

Sort of. Half speed mastering mostly addressed HF losses and excess heating
in the cutting heads.

t a cartridge doesn't need to cut a
groove as it goes. (although some do :-)

That may seem to be intuitively clear, but there are some hidden details.
One hidden detail is that it is quite easy for a cutter to create a groove
that can't be properly tracked by *any* cartridge.

Still not sonically transparent, though.

Depends on whose "ears" are being used obviously, going
by all the other posts :-)

There's a very few die-hards who find accurate reproduction to be adverse to
their tastes.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I seem to recall that Scott claims to have heard
differences due to cables, in a single-blind test.

More likely in a sighted test, like all the rest of
his listening "tests".

We call "single blind" tests "Egregiously flawed double
blind tests". ;-)

Yes, but what do you call sighted "tests" then :-)

They aren't tests at all.

That's why I put the word in inverted commas.

It wasn't reproduced that way in OE.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl at
their best are neck and neck.

You live near a busy road and are plagued with road
noise in your listening room?

You have hearing problems, you say?

Or is it your legacy technology tubed audio components
that are mucking up the works?

You can whine about how
that doesn't fit the measurements but again that would
the classic scenerio of meter readers damning the
aesthetics becuase they don't meet thier expectations
based on the numbers.

I always thought that vinyl was noisy. Apparently so did
about 99% of the rest of the music lovers on earth.


Forget all that. The things that made CD so successful
are the things that are now killing it - miniaturisation,
ease of handling and lifestyle.

Nahh, it was the generally improved sound quality that made CD the hugely
sucessful product it became

Miniaturization, ease of handling and lifestyle without improved sound
quality had already been tried twice. The results were called 8-track and
compact cassette.

Joe Bloggs (Britain's No 1 music *buyer*) doesn't give a
******** about *quality* per se

A claim that is belied by all of the types of media that did have the
advantages of miniaturization, ease of handling and lifestyle, but failed to
be as sucessful as the CD.

- quite plainly proved byhis ready (eager?) acceptance of the lowering of
your
precious 'bitrates' in digital music...

A very unfair comparison, because the lowered bitrates were *sold* to the
public using a very compelling inducement: Free music that used to cost real
money.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

wrote in message
oups.com...

I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a
mastering engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying
that he often found the LPs he mastered often sounded
more lifelike than the original master tapes even when
he did a flat transfer with no processing.

The hidden agenda is that many masters that sound very lifelike on the
master tape or digital master, can't possibly be transferred to vinyl
without significant amounts of processing.

It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations
that lead to that effect.

Not at all. Nothing like a little LP tracing distortion to put a lost edge
back onto a poorly-made or tired analog tape master.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Forget all that. The things that made CD so successful are the things
that are now killing it - miniaturisation, ease of handling and
lifestyle.

Quite obviously not around or interested when it was released. I was both,
and like all my colleagues who were privileged to attend a pre-release
demo - using all sorts of programme material - was absolutely stunned by
the quality and instantly recognised it as a great step forward in
domestic playback systems. And at the time, the only ones who weren't
knocked sideways by it were those with a financial axe to grind - ie some
turntable makers with all their eggs in one basket - and a few flat earth
types of course. You get those in any society at any time.

Joe Bloggs (Britain's No 1 music *buyer*) doesn't give a ******** about
*quality* per se - quite plainly proved by his ready (eager?) acceptance
of the lowering of your precious 'bitrates' in digital music...

And your excuse for accepting a poor listening room, crappy single driver
horns, SET amps and vinyl is?

--
*The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Yes, but what do you call sighted "tests" then :-)

They aren't tests at all.

That's why I put the word in inverted commas.

It wasn't reproduced that way in OE.

Mr.T used quotation marks which aren't top set characters so may or may
not come out correctly on your reader depending on a number of things.
Same as the pound sign "£" (that could be fun) so should called gbp on
newsnet. For this reason most use inverted commas rather than quotation
marks as these are top set characters.

--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a mastering
engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying that he often found the
LPs he mastered often sounded more lifelike than the original master
tapes even when he did a flat transfer with no processing. It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations that lead to
that effect. Now while the idea of distortion may bother the meter
readers because it makes for uglier numbers, for those who ar
interested in sound quality this shouldn't create a philisophical
dilema. Sounds better is better. It's a simple and pure philosophy.

I note you quote Mr Ricker as saying 'often'. I wonder if he in fact said
'sometimes'? Any recording engineer worth the name knows that certain
instruments can benefit from controlled distortion under certain
circumstances, so it's possible a cutting engineer did too.
However, if he really meant 'most' LPs sounded better than their masters
he needed a holiday as his hearing or judgement had gone. Or of course was
just saying what you wanted to hear to shut you up...

--
*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl at
their best are neck and neck.

You live near a busy road and are plagued with road
noise in your listening room?

You have hearing problems, you say?

Or is it your legacy technology tubed audio components
that are mucking up the works?

You can whine about how
that doesn't fit the measurements but again that would
the classic scenerio of meter readers damning the
aesthetics becuase they don't meet thier expectations
based on the numbers.

I always thought that vinyl was noisy. Apparently so did
about 99% of the rest of the music lovers on earth.


Forget all that. The things that made CD so successful
are the things that are now killing it - miniaturisation,
ease of handling and lifestyle.

Nahh, it was the generally improved sound quality that made CD the hugely
sucessful product it became

Miniaturization, ease of handling and lifestyle without improved sound
quality had already been tried twice. The results were called 8-track and
compact cassette.


8 track was a great rarity in the UK (IIRC) and cassettes were *anything
but* easy handling - the spooling and rewinding put most people off them,
once the novelty had worn off. Cassettes only held a certain popularity due
the player being installed in 'upmarket' car audio systems for a long time
and even then most people only used them to take a copy of their LPs along
for the ride - as I do with CDR....



Joe Bloggs (Britain's No 1 music *buyer*) doesn't give a
******** about *quality* per se

A claim that is belied by all of the types of media that did have the
advantages of miniaturization, ease of handling and lifestyle, but failed
to be as sucessful as the CD.


Much of CD's success was due to the plentiful supply of reasonably-priced
hardware, after the market had been opened up. It had the attractive
*technology twinkle* that'll sell anything until Joe Bloggs gets bored with
it (witness the mass take-up of iPods and stupidly specced mobile phones
today) as well as the welter of titles that quickly became available, once
production got going - most of which, as you know, were straight from the
vinyl masters in the early days.

SACD and DVD-A could have had the same success if the MI hadn't been so
greedy with the price of new releases and at least one hardware manufacturer
had had the foresight to make a DVD video player with additional 5.1 *audio
only* capability available at a reasonable price. I'm amazed that Pioneer
didn't think of that, if no-one else - unless I missed summat...??



- quite plainly proved byhis ready (eager?) acceptance of the lowering of
your
precious 'bitrates' in digital music...

A very unfair comparison, because the lowered bitrates were *sold* to the
public using a very compelling inducement: Free music that used to cost
real money.


No, that's been exaggerated by the above-mentioned greedy MI - there were
figures a while back that allegedly proved CD sales had actually picked up
due to the Napster-style downloading...??? One of your fellow countryman put
it best somewhere on the Net a number of years ago: Ordinary people are not
stupid and don't want to steal - at 10 (or even 20) cents a track for
virtual music, that person said he would buy like a demon, but at a greedy
99c per track, he's in there *downloading* with the rest...

(When the MI is happy *still* to take 16 quid a pop for CDs from kids I say
**** 'em, they get what they deserve...)

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

wrote in message
oups.com...

I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a
mastering engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying
that he often found the LPs he mastered often sounded
more lifelike than the original master tapes even when
he did a flat transfer with no processing.

The hidden agenda is that many masters that sound very lifelike on the
master tape or digital master, can't possibly be transferred to vinyl
without significant amounts of processing.

It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations
that lead to that effect.

Not at all. Nothing like a little LP tracing distortion to put a lost edge
back onto a poorly-made or tired analog tape master.



I didn't say any of that, but who cares what processing goes into to make
the final product, if that product is desirable/preferred....??

(Most vinylists I'm aware of go on to *process* the sound further with their
own kit selection and tweakery - not everyone simply slaps it down on a
cheap plank deck and starts bitching about *rumble* and *bearing
noise*....!! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl
at their best are neck and neck.

You live near a busy road and are plagued with road
noise in your listening room?

You have hearing problems, you say?

Or is it your legacy technology tubed audio components
that are mucking up the works?

You can whine about how
that doesn't fit the measurements but again that would
the classic scenerio of meter readers damning the
aesthetics becuase they don't meet thier expectations
based on the numbers.

I always thought that vinyl was noisy. Apparently so
did about 99% of the rest of the music lovers on earth.

Forget all that. The things that made CD so successful
are the things that are now killing it -
miniaturisation, ease of handling and lifestyle.

Nahh, it was the generally improved sound quality that
made CD the hugely sucessful product it became

Miniaturization, ease of handling and lifestyle without
improved sound quality had already been tried twice. The
results were called 8-track and compact cassette.

8 track was a great rarity in the UK (IIRC) and cassettes
were *anything but* easy handling - the spooling and
rewinding put most people off them, once the novelty had
worn off.

Nahhh. I rarely if ever spooled or rewound cassettes. Just played them
end-to-end.

Cassettes only held a certain popularity due
the player being installed in 'upmarket' car audio
systems for a long time and even then most people only
used them to take a copy of their LPs along for the ride
- as I do with CDR....

Cassettes achived considerable popularity in the US as for personal stereos,
both Walkman, and boom-boxes.

Cassettes achieved about 25% market share in the US, if memory serves. Back
in the days when we had record stores, casettes were being stocked long
after LPs were trash-canned. However even with chrome tape and Dolby, the SQ
was never in the same league as CD.

Joe Bloggs (Britain's No 1 music *buyer*) doesn't give a
******** about *quality* per se

A claim that is belied by all of the types of media that
did have the advantages of miniaturization, ease of
handling and lifestyle, but failed to be as sucessful as
the CD.

Much of CD's success was due to the plentiful supply of
reasonably-priced hardware, after the market had been
opened up.

CDs whipped the LP even while CD players were more expensive than LP
players.

It had the attractive *technology twinkle*
that'll sell anything until Joe Bloggs gets bored with it
(witness the mass take-up of iPods and stupidly specced
mobile phones today) as well as the welter of titles that
quickly became available, once production got going -
most of which, as you know, were straight from the vinyl
masters in the early days.

You'll make just about anything but the truth in order to support your
agenda, eh Keith?

SACD and DVD-A could have had the same success if the MI
hadn't been so greedy with the price of new releases

SACD and DVD-A discs are and were sold for about the same price as CDs.
When the sales failed to take off, nobody with a brain invested in more new
titles.

and
at least one hardware manufacturer had had the foresight
to make a DVD video player with additional 5.1 *audio
only* capability available at a reasonable price.

Three words for SACD and DVD-A: No SQ advantage.

I'm amazed that Pioneer didn't think of that, if no-one else
- unless I missed summat...??

As a rule DVD players do just fine with 5.1 discs that are essentially
music-only.

- quite plainly proved byhis ready (eager?) acceptance
of the lowering of your
precious 'bitrates' in digital music...

A very unfair comparison, because the lowered bitrates
were *sold* to the public using a very compelling
inducement: Free music that used to cost real money.

No, that's been exaggerated by the above-mentioned greedy
MI

Millions of happy downloaders can't be wrong. When free downloading was at
its peak I very often saw gigabytes in downloads on customer PCs. CD-Rs
were flying off the office supply store shelves like they were going to go
away tomorrow.

- there were figures a while back that allegedly
proved CD sales had actually picked up due to the
Napster-style downloading...???

Irrelevant to the false SQ issue you're trying to press.

One of your fellow
countryman put it best somewhere on the Net a number of
years ago: Ordinary people are not stupid and don't want
to steal - at 10 (or even 20) cents a track for virtual
music, that person said he would buy like a demon, but at
a greedy 99c per track, he's in there *downloading* with
the rest...

Well, now you're supporting my claim that what sold bitrate audio was free
music.

(When the MI is happy *still* to take 16 quid a pop for
CDs from kids I say **** 'em, they get what they
deserve...)

Thanks for coming around, Keith.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl
at their best are neck and neck.

You live near a busy road and are plagued with road
noise in your listening room?

You have hearing problems, you say?

Or is it your legacy technology tubed audio components
that are mucking up the works?

You can whine about how
that doesn't fit the measurements but again that would
the classic scenerio of meter readers damning the
aesthetics becuase they don't meet thier expectations
based on the numbers.

I always thought that vinyl was noisy. Apparently so
did about 99% of the rest of the music lovers on earth.

Forget all that. The things that made CD so successful
are the things that are now killing it -
miniaturisation, ease of handling and lifestyle.

Nahh, it was the generally improved sound quality that
made CD the hugely sucessful product it became

Miniaturization, ease of handling and lifestyle without
improved sound quality had already been tried twice. The
results were called 8-track and compact cassette.

8 track was a great rarity in the UK (IIRC) and cassettes
were *anything but* easy handling - the spooling and
rewinding put most people off them, once the novelty had
worn off.

Nahhh. I rarely if ever spooled or rewound cassettes. Just played them
end-to-end.


Figures. 'Track Search' (or whatever it was called) was always punted as a
desirable feature on the more advanced tape deck...



Cassettes only held a certain popularity due
the player being installed in 'upmarket' car audio
systems for a long time and even then most people only
used them to take a copy of their LPs along for the ride
- as I do with CDR....

Cassettes achived considerable popularity in the US as for personal
stereos, both Walkman, and boom-boxes.



Sure, every Brit was mad about them for a fortnight as well....



Cassettes achieved about 25% market share in the US, if memory serves.
Back in the days when we had record stores, casettes were being stocked
long after LPs were trash-canned. However even with chrome tape and Dolby,
the SQ was never in the same league as CD.

Joe Bloggs (Britain's No 1 music *buyer*) doesn't give a
******** about *quality* per se

A claim that is belied by all of the types of media that
did have the advantages of miniaturization, ease of
handling and lifestyle, but failed to be as sucessful as
the CD.

Much of CD's success was due to the plentiful supply of
reasonably-priced hardware, after the market had been
opened up.

CDs whipped the LP even while CD players were more expensive than LP
players.



They don't even do that now....


It had the attractive *technology twinkle*
that'll sell anything until Joe Bloggs gets bored with it
(witness the mass take-up of iPods and stupidly specced
mobile phones today) as well as the welter of titles that
quickly became available, once production got going -
most of which, as you know, were straight from the vinyl
masters in the early days.

You'll make just about anything but the truth in order to support your
agenda, eh Keith?


What agenda? I don't give a **** what people buy or use - it's you digital
bigots who rush up screaming every time LPs get mention here. I always
wonder what it is you are all so scared of...??




SACD and DVD-A could have had the same success if the MI
hadn't been so greedy with the price of new releases

SACD and DVD-A discs are and were sold for about the same price as CDs.
When the sales failed to take off, nobody with a brain invested in more
new titles.



I remember quite clearly SACDS first hit the shelves at 24.99 in the UK...



and
at least one hardware manufacturer had had the foresight
to make a DVD video player with additional 5.1 *audio
only* capability available at a reasonable price.

Three words for SACD and DVD-A: No SQ advantage.

I'm amazed that Pioneer didn't think of that, if no-one else
- unless I missed summat...??

As a rule DVD players do just fine with 5.1 discs that are essentially
music-only.


But only two channels....



- quite plainly proved byhis ready (eager?) acceptance
of the lowering of your
precious 'bitrates' in digital music...

A very unfair comparison, because the lowered bitrates
were *sold* to the public using a very compelling
inducement: Free music that used to cost real money.

No, that's been exaggerated by the above-mentioned greedy
MI

Millions of happy downloaders can't be wrong. When free downloading was
at its peak I very often saw gigabytes in downloads on customer PCs.
CD-Rs were flying off the office supply store shelves like they were going
to go away tomorrow.

- there were figures a while back that allegedly
proved CD sales had actually picked up due to the
Napster-style downloading...???

Irrelevant to the false SQ issue you're trying to press.


You split my point because it interfered with your agenda...???



One of your fellow
countryman put it best somewhere on the Net a number of
years ago: Ordinary people are not stupid and don't want
to steal - at 10 (or even 20) cents a track for virtual
music, that person said he would buy like a demon, but at
a greedy 99c per track, he's in there *downloading* with
the rest...

Well, now you're supporting my claim that what sold bitrate audio was free
music.


Not really, what I'm saying *would* have sold more 'bitrate music' was
reasonable pricing. Your argument is tantamount to saying more CDs moved off
the shelves because they were more easily shoplifted....



(When the MI is happy *still* to take 16 quid a pop for
CDs from kids I say **** 'em, they get what they
deserve...)

Thanks for coming around, Keith.


Didn't know I was invited.....

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

wrote in message
oups.com...

I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a
mastering engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying
that he often found the LPs he mastered often sounded
more lifelike than the original master tapes even when
he did a flat transfer with no processing.

The hidden agenda is that many masters that sound very
lifelike on the master tape or digital master, can't
possibly be transferred to vinyl without significant
amounts of processing.
It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations
that lead to that effect.

Not at all. Nothing like a little LP tracing distortion
to put a lost edge back onto a poorly-made or tired
analog tape master.

I didn't say any of that, but who cares what processing
goes into to make the final product, if that product is
desirable/preferred....??

Preferred by who?

The answer is preferred by a noisy minority who buy mostly used records
anyway.

(Most vinylists I'm aware of go on to *process* the sound
further with their own kit selection and tweakery - not
everyone simply slaps it down on a cheap plank deck and
starts bitching about *rumble* and *bearing noise*....!!
;-)

Agreed that turntable rumble and bearing noise are not characteristic of
quality LP playback equipment. But also noted that "grain noise" added
during the production process gets more and more audible, the higher the
quality of the LP playback equipment.

[Jeff Findley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I always thought that vinyl was noisy. Apparently so did about 99% of the
rest of the music lovers on earth.

Me too. Even on so called "high end" turntables and with meticulous
cleaning of the album with expensive cleaning solution and fancy cleaning
brushes, I've always heard clicks, pops, and a constant crackle, especially
on parts of albums where you were supposed to be hearing near silence.

After living with CD's for the past few decades, it's hard to go back to
LP's, except for those few LP's I've got that I couldn't find CD copies of.
Like most of the LP's I got from my grandparents long after their record
player died. The more important LP's I've already copied to CD-R, and given
my grandmother copies of to play in her CD player, which I thought was the
topic of discussion here.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Jeff Findley]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Forget all that. The things that made CD so successful are the things that
are now killing it - miniaturisation, ease of handling and lifestyle.

I beg to differ. What's killing the CD is the fact that today you can
either pay $20 for a new CD that's got maybe one or two songs you like on it
(because the rest are simply crap), or you can go to iTunes or some other
online store and pay $1 or $2 to get just the songs you want.

My wife recently bought the new CD by Evanescense (spelling?) and I found
some of the tracks are simply *awful*. Not only is the music not very good,
but I swear I heard extremely hideous distortion on one of the tracks.

Today's CD's tend to be over compressed and over amplified to the point that
they're clipping badly on the CD. All you have to do to verify this is to
load up a track in Audacity and look at the waveform. It will go all the
way to the top and stay there for some time before coming back down.

Then your typical FM radio station runs that same CD through another
compressor and turns up the volume even more so they sound louder than the
competition and it sounds even worse. Compare that to a compressed track
from iTunes and it's no wonder people think the quality of downloaded music
is "good enough". :-P

Joe Bloggs (Britain's No 1 music *buyer*) doesn't give a ******** about
*quality* per se - quite plainly proved by his ready (eager?) acceptance
of the lowering of your precious 'bitrates' in digital music...

Joe Bloggs likely cares more about buying the music he wants and is
comparing what he buys to what he hears on the radio. As more people switch
to digital radio (i.e. XM, Sirius, and the like) and the bandwidth available
for digital radio increases (XM just launched another satellite), I'd expect
that listeners will expect higher bitrates in their purchased (downloaded)
music as well.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

wrote in message
oups.com...

I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a
mastering engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying
that he often found the LPs he mastered often sounded
more lifelike than the original master tapes even when
he did a flat transfer with no processing.

The hidden agenda is that many masters that sound very
lifelike on the master tape or digital master, can't
possibly be transferred to vinyl without significant
amounts of processing.
It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations
that lead to that effect.

Not at all. Nothing like a little LP tracing distortion
to put a lost edge back onto a poorly-made or tired
analog tape master.

I didn't say any of that, but who cares what processing
goes into to make the final product, if that product is
desirable/preferred....??

Preferred by who?

The answer is preferred by a noisy minority who buy mostly used records
anyway.


Hmm, I suspect the noisy minority in here is *me* - simply because I'm the
only one willing to resist the efforts of another *frantic* noisy minority
here who attack vinyl like it's been rodgering their mothers and want it
banned from this group! (Sorry to disoblige...!! :-)

Speaking for myself, I don't buy much new vinyl as it isn't much my sort of
thing these days, but asitappens I still have this pic of a very recent crop
of *brand new* vinyl, bought only a week or so ago on my Show N Tell page:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/New%20Records.JPG

I grabbed a quarter of a metric tonne of secondhand vinyl from charity shops
when it was at sensible prices, but never visit them now. What secondhand
vinyl I do buy these days is usually/mostly from eBay...

The last time I was in the Heart Shop (where I used to be a regular) the
gorgeous young manageress rushed up and asked if I would go up to the stock
room with her and take her from behind - quickly and roughly, like an
uncontrollable dog with my eyes rolling and tongue lolling...

Er....

No...

Sorry, she didn't say that! (I don't know where that came from....??)

She rushed up to tell me gleefully that the records were back down to
sensible prices! But, even at 79p a go, I simply can't handle Max Bygraves
(or Phil Collins, come to that) - with or without inner sleeves!!



(Most vinylists I'm aware of go on to *process* the sound
further with their own kit selection and tweakery - not
everyone simply slaps it down on a cheap plank deck and
starts bitching about *rumble* and *bearing noise*....!!
;-)

Agreed that turntable rumble and bearing noise are not characteristic of
quality LP playback equipment. But also noted that "grain noise" added
during the production process gets more and more audible, the higher the
quality of the LP playback equipment.


Grain....???

Ah, you'll be talking about vinyl with ss ampflication here - sorry, I've
got no sympathy for anyone who can't get vinyl *right* and use a decent
valve amp....

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message


(Most vinylists I'm aware of go on to *process* the
sound further with their own kit selection and tweakery
- not everyone simply slaps it down on a cheap plank
deck and starts bitching about *rumble* and *bearing
noise*....!! ;-)

Agreed that turntable rumble and bearing noise are not
characteristic of quality LP playback equipment. But
also noted that "grain noise" added during the
production process gets more and more audible, the
higher the quality of the LP playback equipment.


Grain....???


Gotcha Keith. One of the complaints you hear from guys who really learned
vinyl inside and out from the days when vinyl was practially all that we
had, is that you don't know vinyl technology well.

Well, read this and learn: http://eil.com/explore/guide/vinyl_making.asp

Grain noise was a low almsot rumble-like noise that was due to hasty nickel
plating.

Ah, you'll be talking about vinyl with ss ampflication
here - sorry, I've got no sympathy for anyone who can't
get vinyl *right* and use a decent valve amp....

[Keith G]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Forget all that. The things that made CD so successful are the things
that are now killing it - miniaturisation, ease of handling and
lifestyle.

I beg to differ. What's killing the CD is the fact that today you can
either pay $20 for a new CD that's got maybe one or two songs you like on
it (because the rest are simply crap), or you can go to iTunes or some
other online store and pay $1 or $2 to get just the songs you want.


OK, the day's wrecked anyway now - I'll bite...



My wife recently bought the new CD by Evanescense (spelling?) and I found
some of the tracks are simply *awful*. Not only is the music not very
good, but I swear I heard extremely hideous distortion on one of the
tracks.


Impossible!! You *are* talking about a CD here, you know!!



Today's CD's tend to be over compressed and over amplified to the point
that they're clipping badly on the CD. All you have to do to verify this
is to load up a track in Audacity and look at the waveform. It will go
all the way to the top and stay there for some time before coming back
down.


Like I haven't seen that 20 million times, ripping CDs to MP3 on this
computer....

;-)


Then your typical FM radio station runs that same CD through another
compressor and turns up the volume even more so they sound louder than the
competition and it sounds even worse. Compare that to a compressed track
from iTunes and it's no wonder people think the quality of downloaded
music is "good enough". :-P


Good point...



Joe Bloggs (Britain's No 1 music *buyer*) doesn't give a ******** about
*quality* per se - quite plainly proved by his ready (eager?) acceptance
of the lowering of your precious 'bitrates' in digital music...

Joe Bloggs likely cares more about buying the music he wants and is
comparing what he buys to what he hears on the radio. As more people
switch to digital radio (i.e. XM, Sirius, and the like) and the bandwidth
available for digital radio increases (XM just launched another
satellite), I'd expect that listeners will expect higher bitrates in their
purchased (downloaded) music as well.


No idea, I don't download anything. I downloaded a few legitimate 'publicity
tracks' from new names when Audiogalaxy was about but they were mostly ****e
anyway....

(There is a certain computer store not far from here where the proprietor
has at least one machine *dedicated* to downloading pirate movies all day
long! Who the **** could be arsed with it...??)

I'm afraid I see vinyl like a joint of roast beef - bags of hassle and
expensive but *well worth* the effort, whereas 'digital music' is like
burgers - ubiquitious, cheap and utterly obnoxious/nauseating, except the
ones from the van outside B&Q which have bacon and cheese in them...

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....
I'm puzzled as to what you think he means? Can a sense of "realism"
(whatever that really means)

If you don't know what that means you really aren't qualified to
discuss hifi.

It's not in any engineering text I've read,

LOL and that is where the world of audio begins and ends for dorks like
you.


Scott

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message


(Most vinylists I'm aware of go on to *process* the
sound further with their own kit selection and tweakery
- not everyone simply slaps it down on a cheap plank
deck and starts bitching about *rumble* and *bearing
noise*....!! ;-)

Agreed that turntable rumble and bearing noise are not
characteristic of quality LP playback equipment. But
also noted that "grain noise" added during the
production process gets more and more audible, the
higher the quality of the LP playback equipment.


Grain....???


Gotcha Keith. One of the complaints you hear from guys who really learned
vinyl inside and out from the days when vinyl was practially all that we
had, is that you don't know vinyl technology well.

Well, read this and learn: http://eil.com/explore/guide/vinyl_making.asp

Grain noise was a low almsot rumble-like noise that was due to hasty
nickel plating.


Gawd...

Stoppit FFS! I only play the damn things - I don't *manufacture* them!!
(Although, if wuz younger....)

You're trying way too hard, Arny - it's this simple:

We have *hundreds* of bloody CDs here and maybe more than a dozen different
gadgets that can play them. Once in a while I'll put one of a very small,
select few on (no LP equivalents) and, sure as eggs, I'll wander off after a
while and quite simply *not hear* the rest of it. I can't recall the last
time I was ever able to sit through an entire CD - it must be *years* ago
now!!

LPs? One after the other, usually - sometimes 'til the wee small hours,
unable to stop slapping them on to the turntable!!

Get the idea? No-one to impress, no-one taking note.....

Now, if you (or anyone else) get anything like the same pleasure from your
CDs, I am utterly *delighted* for you!! :-)

[Keith G]

wrote in message
ups.com...

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....
I'm puzzled as to what you think he means? Can a sense of "realism"
(whatever that really means)

If you don't know what that means you really aren't qualified to
discuss hifi.

It's not in any engineering text I've read,

LOL and that is where the world of audio begins and ends for dorks like
you.



What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise there is no small degree
of *engineering* in vinyl and vinyl playback systems...

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Which is all I'm complaining about, the unprovable claim that vinyl is
better than CD (rather than simply saying - some CD's are dreadful
despite
the mediums huge technical superiority.)


Hey mr science dude. How on earth is the claim unbprovable? It's a
simple claim to test and it has been tested with vinyl coming out on
top. You can wave your arms all you want but that reality will not
change.

So where is this "proof"?


Talk to the guy who made the world's only recording that was made
specifically to test this.

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

::crickets chirping::


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Who was it that said I don't get irony? Don Plowman? Dick Pearce? You
can't remember this thread while you were posting to it?

Scott, Dick Pierce and Don Pearce are two different people.

Funny thing about the meter reders, they actualy do all sound th same.



Both are capable of laying your arguments to waste,


So they choose to make asses of themselves instead? Odd choice.


so perhaps
that's what's confused you.


I wasn't confused. Thank you for finally taking the bait. I had all but
given up on my punchline about all meter readers sounding the same.

Strange you are so against using technology to aid judgment.

I'm not. I use my glasses to help my eye sight.


But are so
keen to name drop all the engineers you 'know'. You sound like you don't
know one end of a soldering iron from the other and think that all the
equipment you use was hatched from an egg rather than designed by an
engineer...

One would think from your post that one's ability to solder has
something to do with one's ability to make aesthetic judgements. Do I
hve to tell you just how stupid that idea is? Engineers do the work the
hobbyists consume it. One does not need to know anything about
engineering to evaluate the results. It seems that in the case of the
meter readers a little bit of knowledge is a destructive force. Sad. To
see you posture one would think you have this wacky idea that you were
actually a somebody in the world of audio.

Scott

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

(redundant bull**** from a chronic underachiever snipped)

Arny, you are just a troll. It is the best you can do in life. That is
sad. I know we are not supposed to feed trolls but sometimes you are
just too funny not to toy with. But alas, in the long run you are
boring. Same old crap day in and day out for years. Years from now, if
you are still alive, I could check in and with out a doubt see you
saying the same crap. I am done toying with you for now. This your cue
to declare victory and do your Usenet loser victory dance. Seriously,
if I were you I'd think about putting a bullet through my head. I
shudder to think what it must be like to have your ego and be a life
time under achiever.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl at their best are
neck and neck.

Perceived? You can't hear the difference of more than 20 dB? Explains a
lot.


What the **** would you know about it? you've never made a reasonable
comparison. You cant get past the numbers.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Please do tell us how the claim that vinyl inherently sounds more life
like than CD in stereo playback violates any laws of physics.

Try find any vinyl with natural sounding speech on it. You won't...

Wrong.

Sonnyboy Williamson Keepin it to Ourselves. APO. But thanks for failing
to answer the question. Bull**** posturing about physics is exposed for
what it is.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
WTF cares who the engineers are?

I must be psychic, I predicted you didn't know squat about the subject.
Gosh who the **** cares about who mastered their favorite music?
Audiophiles that are in it for the enjoyment of music. You see dip****
if you know who is mastering your recordings and you have an idea of
the quality of their work it makes it easier to narrow down the likely
sonic winners and losers.

As I thought. You've no interest in music at all. Unless it's wearing the
correct badge.

Jeez, Come up with something original. You don't even attempt to make
any logical argument. You just parrot what I said about you. What's
next? "I know your but what am I?"
Man I feel like I am beating up a crippled midget.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Oh that isn't a problem for incompetent engineers. However, to make an
LP sound as good as a well recorded CD is impossible. And that's the
crux of the matter.

Depends on what sounds 'good' to the listener. If you like the 'sound'
of the LP medium, then a CD won't ever sound as good as LP unless you
transfer the LP to CD (or develop a mastering scheme that replicates
that sound).

An LP transcripted to CD using the finest equipment and the greatest care
still won't 'sound' the same to vinyl nuts. Their 'realism' comes from
watching the turntable go round and round...


Well when all your arguements are shot down this is all you have. Of
course you have to ignore simple facts infront of your face. When I
said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a 24/96 copy of that LP
did you..
1. not understand it
2. chose to ignore it because it violated your religious preconceptions
about vinyl enthusiasts.

Typical strategy of meter readers when all their arguments are laid to
waste. Just make **** up about the people you are arguing with and
point to that as proof you are right about everything. pathetic. maybe
you should search this post for typos and spelling errors so you can
feel better about your pathetic self.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a mastering
engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying that he often found the
LPs he mastered often sounded more lifelike than the original master
tapes even when he did a flat transfer with no processing.

Says it all about some mastering people. "My job is to improve the master"

You really are a moron. what didn't you understand about "flat transfer
with no processing?" You think that is a mastering enginee's attempt to
"improve the master?" **** you really are amazingly stupid.


Scott

[Chris Isbell]

On 30 Oct 2006 19:43:01 -0800, wrote:

Knowledge? Like what? The ridiculous claim that all LPs were mastered
with summed bass and HF roll off? Dude, you've been suckered. sorry if
pointing these things out is so painful.

No, just tedious.

Plonk.

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

[Keith G]

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Please do tell us how the claim that vinyl inherently sounds more life
like than CD in stereo playback violates any laws of physics.

Try find any vinyl with natural sounding speech on it. You won't...

Wrong.

Sonnyboy Williamson Keepin it to Ourselves. APO. But thanks for failing
to answer the question. Bull**** posturing about physics is exposed for
what it is.


Scott



Scott, before you finally squish the whiney little maggot to death, whisper
the words 'Jeff Wayne's War Of The Worlds' into his little cloth ears.

Second thoughts, make that *shout* the words.....!!


YHFL....!! :-)

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Which is all I'm complaining about, the unprovable
claim that vinyl is better than CD (rather than simply
saying - some CD's are dreadful despite the mediums
huge technical superiority.)


Hey mr science dude. How on earth is the claim
unbprovable? It's a simple claim to test and it has
been tested with vinyl coming out on top. You can wave
your arms all you want but that reality will not change.

So where is this "proof"?

Talk to the guy who made the world's only recording that
was made specifically to test this.


I can easily believe that Boyk, a well-known analog bigot, made a recording
designed to conceal the well-known audible deficiencies of the LP format.

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

Not a neutral source and very much at odds with the refereed scientific
papers I cited.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

Scott makes up a straw man argument:

One would think from your post that one's ability to
solder has something to do with one's ability to make
aesthetic judgements. Do I hve to tell you just how
stupid that idea is?

No Scott, you told us how stupid that idea is when you made it up.

Engineers do the work the hobbyists
consume it.

Scott might have us believe that all engineers:

(1) never make aesthetic judgements.

(2) have no interest in aesthetics

One does not need to know anything about
engineering to evaluate the results.

Simply not true. It takes technical knowlege to properly evaluate a
technological product.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article

.com,
wrote:
IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl at
their best are neck and neck.

Perceived? You can't hear the difference of more than 20
dB? Explains a lot.


What the **** would you know about it


Scott's 19th meltdown.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message


(Most vinylists I'm aware of go on to *process* the
sound further with their own kit selection and
tweakery - not everyone simply slaps it down on a
cheap plank deck and starts bitching about *rumble*
and *bearing noise*....!! ;-)

Agreed that turntable rumble and bearing noise are not
characteristic of quality LP playback equipment. But
also noted that "grain noise" added during the
production process gets more and more audible, the
higher the quality of the LP playback equipment.


Grain....???


Gotcha Keith. One of the complaints you hear from guys
who really learned vinyl inside and out from the days
when vinyl was practially all that we had, is that you
don't know vinyl technology well. Well, read this and learn:
http://eil.com/explore/guide/vinyl_making.asp Grain noise was a low
almsot rumble-like noise that was
due to hasty nickel plating.


Gawd...

Stoppit FFS! I only play the damn things - I don't
*manufacture* them!! (Although, if wuz younger....)

Information like this was frequently published in consumer audio magazines
back in the day.


You're trying way too hard, Arny - it's this simple:

We have *hundreds* of bloody CDs here and maybe more than
a dozen different gadgets that can play them. Once in a
while I'll put one of a very small, select few on (no LP
equivalents) and, sure as eggs, I'll wander off after a
while and quite simply *not hear* the rest of it. I can't
recall the last time I was ever able to sit through an
entire CD - it must be *years* ago now!!

Speaks to your prejudices.

LPs? One after the other, usually - sometimes 'til the
wee small hours, unable to stop slapping them on to the
turntable!!

OK, you've got an obsession with playing LPs, or maybe a fetish.

Get the idea? No-one to impress, no-one taking note.....

Enjoy!, but don't run around blaming your prejudices, obsessions and
fetishes on failings of the CD format.

Now, if you (or anyone else) get anything like the same
pleasure from your CDs, I am utterly *delighted* for
you!! :-)

Given the wonderful variety of music available on digital formats, being
able to listen to them for hours and hours is some kind of a wonderful gift.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com

Scott makes up a straw man argument:

One would think from your post that one's ability to
solder has something to do with one's ability to make
aesthetic judgements. Do I hve to tell you just how
stupid that idea is?

No Scott, you told us how stupid that idea is when you made it up.

Engineers do the work the hobbyists
consume it.

Scott might have us believe that all engineers:

(1) never make aesthetic judgements.

(2) have no interest in aesthetics

One does not need to know anything about
engineering to evaluate the results.

Simply not true. It takes technical knowlege to properly evaluate a
technological product.



Utter ********, consumers are the best evaluators of *any* product - every
crock produced since the Beginning Of Time has been graded/passed as 'OK' by
someone, for some reason or other.....

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

(redundant bull**** from a chronic underachiever snipped)

Arny, you are just a troll. It is the best you can do in
life. That is sad. I know we are not supposed to feed
trolls but sometimes you are just too funny not to toy
with. But alas, in the long run you are boring. Same old
crap day in and day out for years. Years from now, if you
are still alive, I could check in and with out a doubt
see you saying the same crap. I am done toying with you
for now. This your cue to declare victory and do your
Usenet loser victory dance. Seriously, if I were you I'd
think about putting a bullet through my head. I shudder
to think what it must be like to have your ego and be a
life time under achiever.

Scott's obviously out of his league - his posts are either peppered with
insults or just plain insulting.

Here's some helpful advice Scott - find a good newsgroup about some area
where you have some expertise in, like makeup.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message


(Most vinylists I'm aware of go on to *process* the
sound further with their own kit selection and
tweakery - not everyone simply slaps it down on a
cheap plank deck and starts bitching about *rumble*
and *bearing noise*....!! ;-)

Agreed that turntable rumble and bearing noise are not
characteristic of quality LP playback equipment. But
also noted that "grain noise" added during the
production process gets more and more audible, the
higher the quality of the LP playback equipment.


Grain....???


Gotcha Keith. One of the complaints you hear from guys
who really learned vinyl inside and out from the days
when vinyl was practially all that we had, is that you
don't know vinyl technology well. Well, read this and learn:
http://eil.com/explore/guide/vinyl_making.asp Grain noise was a low
almsot rumble-like noise that was
due to hasty nickel plating.


Gawd...

Stoppit FFS! I only play the damn things - I don't
*manufacture* them!! (Although, if wuz younger....)

Information like this was frequently published in consumer audio magazines
back in the day.


No idea. I had a lot better things to do than read magazines, back in 'the
day'....

.....now I'm feeling real bad about the time I spend on this bloody
newsgroup....

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

(redundant bull**** from a chronic underachiever snipped)

Arny, you are just a troll. It is the best you can do in
life. That is sad. I know we are not supposed to feed
trolls but sometimes you are just too funny not to toy
with. But alas, in the long run you are boring. Same old
crap day in and day out for years. Years from now, if you
are still alive, I could check in and with out a doubt
see you saying the same crap. I am done toying with you
for now. This your cue to declare victory and do your
Usenet loser victory dance. Seriously, if I were you I'd
think about putting a bullet through my head. I shudder
to think what it must be like to have your ego and be a
life time under achiever.

Scott's obviously out of his league - his posts are either peppered with
insults or just plain insulting.

Here's some helpful advice Scott - find a good newsgroup about some area
where you have some expertise in, like makeup.



???

'his posts are either peppered with
insults or just plain insulting.'

**** me! The *hypocrisy* of it....???

(Surely it's not just me that sees it....???)

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com

Scott makes up a straw man argument:

One would think from your post that one's ability to
solder has something to do with one's ability to make
aesthetic judgements. Do I hve to tell you just how
stupid that idea is?

No Scott, you told us how stupid that idea is when you
made it up.
Engineers do the work the hobbyists
consume it.

Scott might have us believe that all engineers:

(1) never make aesthetic judgements.

(2) have no interest in aesthetics

One does not need to know anything about
engineering to evaluate the results.

Simply not true. It takes technical knowlege to properly
evaluate a technological product.



Utter ********, consumers are the best evaluators of
*any* product -

Speaks to your ignorance of modern product evaluation, Keith.

Product evaluation takes place on many levels and involves many different
people with various skills.

Consumers are the *final* evaluators of any product.

However, products get evaluated many times during their development.

Particularly in the earlier stages, skilled evaluators are invaluable.

every crock produced since the Beginning
Of Time has been graded/passed as 'OK' by someone, for
some reason or other...

In many cases, the people who graded the subsequently failing product as
being OK were themselves consumers.