Bound to drive some of you crazy, since the use the old "not enough
samples" technical explanation, but the article relates that vinyl sales
doubled last year...then they review three turntables...a Sony, a Goldring,
and an MMF. And they generally describe the sound of vinyl as superior to
all digital other than SACD and DVD-A.
The forum thus excited is quite active...interesting comments sinc they are
not all from audiophiles.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7860_7-...ml?tag=nl.e404

Harry

'Superior'? In what way? Not pitch accuracy. Not freedom from speed
fluctuations, aka wow and flutter. Not freedom from POPS and CLICKS.
Not freeedom from inner groove distortion. Not freedom from stylus and
record wear.

I had a very nice turtable (Thorens TD125/ Mk2) tone arm (Magnepan) and
cartridge (Stax CPY-2) and I thought it was about as you could get for
the money 23 years ago. I also owned 1200 LPs. The turntable and LPs
are gone, and I say 'good riddance'. I like not having to get up in the
middle of an album and flip over the record. I have a nice CD payer
(Sony 508 ESD) with some mods.

Never want to own records ever again.

Harry Lavo wrote:
Bound to drive some of you crazy, since the use the old "not enough
samples" technical explanation, but the article relates that vinyl sales
doubled last year...then they review three turntables...a Sony, a Goldring,
and an MMF. And they generally describe the sound of vinyl as superior to
all digital other than SACD and DVD-A.
The forum thus excited is quite active...interesting comments sinc they are
not all from audiophiles.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7860_7-...ml?tag=nl.e404

Harry

Harry Lavo wrote:
Bound to drive some of you crazy, since the use the old "not enough
samples" technical explanation,

Sigh. Clueless subjectivist reviewers are not confined to the
audiophile press.

but the article relates that vinyl sales
doubled last year

Which they didn't. They didn't even double in 2004, which is the year
he was talking about. We've been over these numbers before, Harry, so
you should know better.

There is exactly one piece of hard evidence that vinyl sales are
growing at all--a 2004 consumer survey by the RIAA. That same survey
found that digital downloads declined 30% in 2004, so I wouldn't put
much stock in it.

...then they review three turntables...a Sony, a Goldring,
and an MMF. And they generally describe the sound of vinyl as superior to
all digital other than SACD and DVD-A.

Yeah. A $300 table "will trounce any CD/DVD player you've ever heard."
Guess we won't hear any more complaints that digital fans just haven't
heard a real high-end vinyl rig, will we?

BTW, the Sony they reviewed tracks at about 4 grams--perfect for the
vinylphile who never plans to listen to his records more than once.
You'd think a sharp reviewer would have noticed something like that,
wouldn't you?

bob

"bob" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Bound to drive some of you crazy, since the use the old "not enough
samples" technical explanation,

Sigh. Clueless subjectivist reviewers are not confined to the
audiophile press.

but the article relates that vinyl sales
doubled last year

Which they didn't. They didn't even double in 2004, which is the year
he was talking about. We've been over these numbers before, Harry, so
you should know better.

There is exactly one piece of hard evidence that vinyl sales are
growing at all--a 2004 consumer survey by the RIAA. That same survey
found that digital downloads declined 30% in 2004, so I wouldn't put
much stock in it.

...then they review three turntables...a Sony, a Goldring,
and an MMF. And they generally describe the sound of vinyl as superior
to
all digital other than SACD and DVD-A.

Yeah. A $300 table "will trounce any CD/DVD player you've ever heard."
Guess we won't hear any more complaints that digital fans just haven't
heard a real high-end vinyl rig, will we?

BTW, the Sony they reviewed tracks at about 4 grams--perfect for the
vinylphile who never plans to listen to his records more than once.
You'd think a sharp reviewer would have noticed something like that,
wouldn't you?

Bob -

I agree with you that it was a pretty crappy article. It was the forum
comments I found more interesting, both pro and con, since they represent
more of an "everyman" perspective rather than an audiophile perspective.

As to the numbers.....who knows. I know the RIAA numbers get bandied about
here when they support CD sales, but I guess not for SACD or LP, huh?

And assuming you are correct that it was 2004, don't forget that that was
the first full year (if memory serves me correct, which is admittedly dodgy
these days) then downloads might very well *have* declined...remember the
disintegration of Napster and the RIAA's lawsuit binge.

Harry

bob wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
Bound to drive some of you crazy, since the use the old "not enough
samples" technical explanation,

Sigh. Clueless subjectivist reviewers are not confined to the
audiophile press.

I see that Harry received the type of response he was looking for.
Stirring up emotions makes for good entertainment.


but the article relates that vinyl sales
doubled last year

Which they didn't. They didn't even double in 2004, which is the year
he was talking about. We've been over these numbers before, Harry, so
you should know better.

There is exactly one piece of hard evidence that vinyl sales are
growing at all--a 2004 consumer survey by the RIAA. That same survey
found that digital downloads declined 30% in 2004, so I wouldn't put
much stock in it.


My only comment on this topic is that I can find vinyl in more
locations now than I could a few years ago. There must be some growth,
or I would have to travel 100 miles to find any. The "100 mile thing"
was my situation 5 years ago. Now I can find a vinyl section in almost
every local music store. Very limited, but it's there.

...then they review three turntables...a Sony, a Goldring,
and an MMF. And they generally describe the sound of vinyl as superior to
all digital other than SACD and DVD-A.

Yeah. A $300 table "will trounce any CD/DVD player you've ever heard."
Guess we won't hear any more complaints that digital fans just haven't
heard a real high-end vinyl rig, will we?


This is an exaggeration both ways! And I think that you both know it.

I wouldn't be so quick to equate cost with quality. More than often,
you do get what you pay for, but good performance and low cost are not
always mutually exclusive. I remember purchasing my first Linn Sondek
for 100 quid while I was visitng Scotland in the mid 70's. This was
before Linn was recognized for their great turntables. I mounted an
SME arm on with an ADC XLM cartridge and it was a sold, neutral
performer for many years. (mind yuu, I used a lot of different
cartridges as well, over time)

BTW, the Sony they reviewed tracks at about 4 grams--perfect for the
vinylphile who never plans to listen to his records more than once.
You'd think a sharp reviewer would have noticed something like that,
wouldn't you?


Tracking forces of 4 to 5 grammes are not out of the question, or
necessarily damaging to your vinyl. It depends on the stylus tip
configuration and the tonearm effective mass.

Some of the elliptical stylus types had to be set up to track very
lightly (0.75 to 1.25 grammes), while the common conical styii usually
performed best at 1.5 to 3 grammes. Later developments like the
Shibata, multifacedted, and decahedron stylii really increased the
amount of surface contact between the stylus tip and the record groove.
Because of the increased contact, or bearing area, these types can
utilize far larger amounts of tracking pressure successfully while
incurring LESS groove wear than the conical and elliptical stylii.

I remember using a very high end Decca cartridge that absolutely
performed its best at the 5 gramme tracking pressure.

There is more damage done when tracking too light. Or poorly adjusted
anti skating.compensation. These conditions can lead to instances of
mistracking, and stylus overshoot oscillations that will damage a
record in short order.

Best regards,
Phil Simpson.

wrote:
'Superior'? In what way? Not pitch accuracy. Not freedom from speed
fluctuations, aka wow and flutter. Not freedom from POPS and CLICKS.
Not freeedom from inner groove distortion. Not freedom from stylus and
record wear.


**The speed fluctuations, wow & flutter, rumble, are not an issue when
you are using a good turntable. (Your Thorens should have delivered
very good results.)

**The POPS and CLICKS are not an issue if you purchase good pressings,
and maintain them. I sometimes use wet playback for some troublesome
ones, and this works wonders. As a last resort, Ball Soundgard can
deliver amazing results reducing noise.

**Inner groove distortion is a very minimal issue if you are using a
good tonearm/cartridge setup with tracking force and anti skating set
properly. (Never cared for the Magnepan tonarm offerings, great
speakers though)

**Record and stylus wear can be minimized to a very low rate if the
records and stylus are maintained clean and static free. I have some
LP's that have been played up to 200 times with very minimal evidence
of wear.


The primary reason that I maintain a couple of vinyl rigs is to enjoy
the older recordings that were engineered and mixed for the LP format.
I need two rigs, because I have two rooms that I like to use for
listening, with different speaker setups.

The digital remasterings are working with horrible, old master tapes
that are a much poorer quality after being stored for years. Print
through, loss of high frequencies, tape stretching, etc... There are
some great attempts at salvaging the old tapes, but at best it is a
compromise that does not truthfully reflect the original pressings.

Also, there are some favourite direct-to-disc recordings that are at
their best in the native, vinyl format.

Aside from these instances, I agree with using digital. Lots of
obvious advantages.

Best regards,
Phil Simpson.

Harry Lavo wrote:
And assuming you are correct that it was 2004, don't forget that that was
the first full year (if memory serves me correct, which is admittedly dodgy
these days) then downloads might very well *have* declined...remember the
disintegration of Napster and the RIAA's lawsuit binge.

The disintegration of Napster had nothing to do with download *sales*.

OTOH, I think you were about to get at the point that 2004 was the
first full year that Apple's iTunes Music Store was in operation. Some
numbers to chew on:

Digital Download sales, per RIAA consumer survey:
2003: $154 million
2004: $109 million

Apple iTunes Music Store sales (approx.):
2003: 25 million
2004: 200 million

See the disconnect? There's something really wrong with that survey.
The 2004 sample skews slightly older, which might explain a bit of it,
but not much. More likely, this is just a case that statistical error
is much greater at the extremes, and 1% market share is definitely at
the extremes. Year to year, you're going to get wild swings, which is
why a single year's performance means so little. That's all I'm saying.

bob

UnclePhil wrote:
bob wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
Bound to drive some of you crazy, since the use the old "not enough
samples" technical explanation,

Sigh. Clueless subjectivist reviewers are not confined to the
audiophile press.

I see that Harry received the type of response he was looking for.
Stirring up emotions makes for good entertainment.

Yeah, isn't that the point? :-)

but the article relates that vinyl sales
doubled last year

Which they didn't. They didn't even double in 2004, which is the year
he was talking about. We've been over these numbers before, Harry, so
you should know better.

There is exactly one piece of hard evidence that vinyl sales are
growing at all--a 2004 consumer survey by the RIAA. That same survey
found that digital downloads declined 30% in 2004, so I wouldn't put
much stock in it.


My only comment on this topic is that I can find vinyl in more
locations now than I could a few years ago. There must be some growth,
or I would have to travel 100 miles to find any. The "100 mile thing"
was my situation 5 years ago. Now I can find a vinyl section in almost
every local music store. Very limited, but it's there.

Interesting. The only places around me that carry new vinyl are the
used record shops. Though I can't say I've gone looking for vinyl in
Best Buy, so maybe there's a bin there somewhere. I don't buy new vinyl
anymore, unless it's something that's not available on CD. I buy used
vinyl because it's a cheap way to hear something "new."

The idea that the market for vinyl is growing isn't preposterous.
Boomers have reached their peak earning years, and nostalgia and gear
lust kick in ("I've read about that. The male menopause, they call
it."--Sybil Fawlty). Hard evidence is thin, however.

...then they review three turntables...a Sony, a Goldring,
and an MMF. And they generally describe the sound of vinyl as superior to
all digital other than SACD and DVD-A.

Yeah. A $300 table "will trounce any CD/DVD player you've ever heard."
Guess we won't hear any more complaints that digital fans just haven't
heard a real high-end vinyl rig, will we?


This is an exaggeration both ways! And I think that you both know it.

Well, I'm exaggerating in the sense that, no, I don't think we will
stop hearing this lame excuse from vinylphiles.

I wouldn't be so quick to equate cost with quality. More than often,
you do get what you pay for, but good performance and low cost are not
always mutually exclusive. I remember purchasing my first Linn Sondek
for 100 quid while I was visitng Scotland in the mid 70's. This was
before Linn was recognized for their great turntables. I mounted an
SME arm on with an ADC XLM cartridge and it was a sold, neutral
performer for many years. (mind yuu, I used a lot of different
cartridges as well, over time)

BTW, the Sony they reviewed tracks at about 4 grams--perfect for the
vinylphile who never plans to listen to his records more than once.
You'd think a sharp reviewer would have noticed something like that,
wouldn't you?


Tracking forces of 4 to 5 grammes are not out of the question, or
necessarily damaging to your vinyl. It depends on the stylus tip
configuration and the tonearm effective mass.

Some of the elliptical stylus types had to be set up to track very
lightly (0.75 to 1.25 grammes), while the common conical styii usually
performed best at 1.5 to 3 grammes. Later developments like the
Shibata, multifacedted, and decahedron stylii really increased the
amount of surface contact between the stylus tip and the record groove.
Because of the increased contact, or bearing area, these types can
utilize far larger amounts of tracking pressure successfully while
incurring LESS groove wear than the conical and elliptical stylii.

I remember using a very high end Decca cartridge that absolutely
performed its best at the 5 gramme tracking pressure.

There is more damage done when tracking too light. Or poorly adjusted
anti skating.compensation. These conditions can lead to instances of
mistracking, and stylus overshoot oscillations that will damage a
record in short order.

All true. And all probably beside the point when we are talking about a
$100 turntable, cartridge (that cannot be upgraded) included. But
surely you'd agree that a reviewer for a *technology* Web site should
have gotten out is tracking force gauge and checked this. (Then again,
this guy's grasp of analog technology may be no better than his grasp
of digital.)

bob

UnclePhil wrote:
wrote:
'Superior'? In what way? Not pitch accuracy. Not freedom from speed
fluctuations, aka wow and flutter. Not freedom from POPS and CLICKS.
Not freeedom from inner groove distortion. Not freedom from stylus and
record wear.


**The speed fluctuations, wow & flutter, rumble, are not an issue when
you are using a good turntable. (Your Thorens should have delivered
very good results.)

You must also have good pressings: not warped, not off-center.
And even the best LP systems can't approach the speed/pitch
accuracy of digital. You must know this.


**The POPS and CLICKS are not an issue if you purchase good pressings,
and maintain them. I sometimes use wet playback for some troublesome
ones, and this works wonders. As a last resort, Ball Soundgard can
deliver amazing results reducing noise.


There is *always* surface noise. And I'm highly skeptical of people
who insist their records contain NO audible pops or clicks. It is
certainly an *issue* if one must routinely use 'wet playback', or
LP vaccuums, or level 3 containment facility practices, to keep ones LPs
pop/click-free.


**Inner groove distortion is a very minimal issue if you are using a
good tonearm/cartridge setup with tracking force and anti skating set
properly. (Never cared for the Magnepan tonarm offerings, great
speakers though)


'Very minimal' is in the ear of the beholder. It's certainly always
there.


**Record and stylus wear can be minimized to a very low rate if the
records and stylus are maintained clean and static free. I have some
LP's that have been played up to 200 times with very minimal evidence
of wear.

Depends on how you gathered the evidence. Unless you made an excellent
recording of the LP on first play, or bought a duplicate
copy, you really have nothing but memory to tell you how it sounds now,
compared to *then*.


The primary reason that I maintain a couple of vinyl rigs is to enjoy
the older recordings that were engineered and mixed for the LP format.
I need two rigs, because I have two rooms that I like to use for
listening, with different speaker setups.

The digital remasterings are working with horrible, old master tapes
that are a much poorer quality after being stored for years. Print
through, loss of high frequencies, tape stretching, etc... There are
some great attempts at salvaging the old tapes, but at best it is a
compromise that does not truthfully reflect the original pressings.

Some verbal sleight-of-hand going on here....if you want to reflect the
sound of hte original *pressings*, the original masters might not be the
best place to go even if they were in pristine condition. You might
be better of with the LP-equalized production masters. Or with a
needle drop of the LP itself.

And if you want the sound of the original masters, it's not true
that they have ALWAYS deteriorated.

Also, there are some favourite direct-to-disc recordings that are at
their best in the native, vinyl format.

Aside from these instances, I agree with using digital. Lots of
obvious advantages.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
(Snip)
**The speed fluctuations, wow & flutter, rumble, are not an issue when
you are using a good turntable. (Your Thorens should have delivered
very good results.)

You must also have good pressings: not warped, not off-center.
And even the best LP systems can't approach the speed/pitch
accuracy of digital. You must know this.

You must absolutely have good pressings. I would always return any
discernable out of roundness or warping to my record shop. The
proprietor, Tony, never gave me any static regarding this. He would
get his restock from the supplier and I was usually purchasing a
minimum of 3 LP's every week.

I did not contest any measureable speed and pitch superiority that
digital possesses.

I do maintain that any well engineered turntable drive system will not
exhibit speed or pitch fluctuations in any meaningful amount. A well
executed drive system will be very conparable to the accuracy of an
atomic clock.

Even thoughn the digital recording process is categorically superior in
speed and pitch control, the differences when compared to a well
engineered turntable drive are absolutely negligiable.

**The POPS and CLICKS are not an issue if you purchase good pressings,
and maintain them. I sometimes use wet playback for some troublesome
ones, and this works wonders. As a last resort, Ball Soundgard can
deliver amazing results reducing noise.


There is *always* surface noise. And I'm highly skeptical of people
who insist their records contain NO audible pops or clicks. It is
certainly an *issue* if one must routinely use 'wet playback', or
LP vaccuums, or level 3 containment facility practices, to keep ones LPs
pop/click-free.

Yes, there is always some level of surface noise. However if the
pressing is good, and the playback is in a clean, static free state, it
really is not that much of any issue MOST of the time.

I do not consider the care and maintenance of my playback system an
issue. Owning a Keith Monks record cleaning machine, a Zerostat, a
Decca record brush, stylus cleaning brush, etc... All this was
conditioned into me back in the early 70's. Wet playback has been used
since the 1950's. It is a process that was pioneered by Deuche
Grammaphone to lower surface noise and improve fidelity. It is not a
big deal, or an issue to me.

These are procedures, and preconditions that any serious audiophile (in
the 70's) was likely to experiment and engage to improve the high
fidelity experience.

**Inner groove distortion is a very minimal issue if you are using a
good tonearm/cartridge setup with tracking force and anti skating set
properly. (Never cared for the Magnepan tonarm offerings, great
speakers though)


'Very minimal' is in the ear of the beholder. It's certainly always
there.

Just because you may have been told that it is there, does not
necessarily mean that you will be able to hear the difference.
Especially if the tracking setup is perfect.

Move it over to my Transcriptors table with the Rabco SL8 that tracks
the record exactly in the manner that the masters were cut, and the
result is zero inner groove distortion as the tangency is maintained
perfectly.

**Record and stylus wear can be minimized to a very low rate if the
records and stylus are maintained clean and static free. I have some
LP's that have been played up to 200 times with very minimal evidence
of wear.

Depends on how you gathered the evidence. Unless you made an excellent
recording of the LP on first play, or bought a duplicate
copy, you really have nothing but memory to tell you how it sounds now,
compared to *then*.

Tried the "excellent recording stuff" with my Studer, but I found that
recordings degenerate over time. Most of my important LP purchases
made after 1975 were "doubled up". I got onto this as I found that
later date pressings did not usually sound as good as the earlier ones.
A few variables here. Mothers that had been used too long, Master
pressing discs that had made too many mothers, and Master Tapes that
had degenerated and were incapable of producting original quality
Master pressing discs, etc...

The primary reason that I maintain a couple of vinyl rigs is to enjoy
the older recordings that were engineered and mixed for the LP format.
I need two rigs, because I have two rooms that I like to use for
listening, with different speaker setups.

The digital remasterings are working with horrible, old master tapes
that are a much poorer quality after being stored for years. Print
through, loss of high frequencies, tape stretching, etc... There are
some great attempts at salvaging the old tapes, but at best it is a
compromise that does not truthfully reflect the original pressings.

Some verbal sleight-of-hand going on here....if you want to reflect the
sound of hte original *pressings*, the original masters might not be the
best place to go even if they were in pristine condition. You might
be better of with the LP-equalized production masters. Or with a
needle drop of the LP itself.

What I'm normally trying to find is fidelity to the original Master
tapes. If the tape is over 10 years old however, the results are
usually less than accurate. If the tape is over 15 years old, I have
never heard one that is even very close.

The RIAA equalization is not normally applied to the Master tapes. The
preamp going into the cutting lathe that cuts the master pressing disc
is normally where this equalization is applied. If there were original
master pressing discs that were excellent condition, then good pressing
mothers could be created. Unfortunately, if the recording was very
popular, the original master pressing discs got used up and replaced
numerous times.

And if you want the sound of the original masters, it's not true
that they have ALWAYS deteriorated.

Magnetic tape, if stored correctly will last quite a while. But to
quote common physics and Neil Young... "Rust Never Sleeps". The tapes
will always deteriorate with time regardless of the storage methods.
(well maybe cryogenic?) But I'm talking real life here.

When Jimmy Page was assembling all the tapes of the old Zep material
for the DVD, he found the great majority of the tapes were falling
apart and sounded horrible. It took a lot of work restoring that
material to make it sound good for the DVD. And it does sound good.
But faithful to the original... I think not,

Again, I want to stress that digital is a more accurate and trouble
free medium. It is however, only as good as it's source.
Unfortunately, I find still to this day that it is the source material
or mixdown that is majority issue with recordings.

Best regards,
Phil Simpson.

bob wrote:
UnclePhil wrote:
bob wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
Bound to drive some of you crazy, since the use the old "not enough
samples" technical explanation,

Sigh. Clueless subjectivist reviewers are not confined to the
audiophile press.

I see that Harry received the type of response he was looking for.
Stirring up emotions makes for good entertainment.

Yeah, isn't that the point? :-)

but the article relates that vinyl sales
doubled last year

Which they didn't. They didn't even double in 2004, which is the year
he was talking about. We've been over these numbers before, Harry, so
you should know better.

There is exactly one piece of hard evidence that vinyl sales are
growing at all--a 2004 consumer survey by the RIAA. That same survey
found that digital downloads declined 30% in 2004, so I wouldn't put
much stock in it.


My only comment on this topic is that I can find vinyl in more
locations now than I could a few years ago. There must be some growth,
or I would have to travel 100 miles to find any. The "100 mile thing"
was my situation 5 years ago. Now I can find a vinyl section in almost
every local music store. Very limited, but it's there.

Interesting. The only places around me that carry new vinyl are the
used record shops. Though I can't say I've gone looking for vinyl in
Best Buy, so maybe there's a bin there somewhere. I don't buy new vinyl
anymore, unless it's something that's not available on CD. I buy used
vinyl because it's a cheap way to hear something "new."

The idea that the market for vinyl is growing isn't preposterous.
Boomers have reached their peak earning years, and nostalgia and gear
lust kick in ("I've read about that. The male menopause, they call
it."--Sybil Fawlty). Hard evidence is thin, however.

Yeah, the nostalgia craving is getting bigger by the minute. To be
"retro" and have working examples of "retro tech" is very much in
vogue. Humans are strange.

On the vinyl availability issue. I can't say that I see any in the
Best Buy, Circuit City, or Wal Mart kind of stores. I do see it in the
"music only" stores that sell CD's, DVD's, posters, technical
paraphernalia, tee shirts, etc... I don't think the mass merchandisers
are interested in this yet.

...then they review three turntables...a Sony, a Goldring,
and an MMF. And they generally describe the sound of vinyl as superior to
all digital other than SACD and DVD-A.

Yeah. A $300 table "will trounce any CD/DVD player you've ever heard."
Guess we won't hear any more complaints that digital fans just haven't
heard a real high-end vinyl rig, will we?


This is an exaggeration both ways! And I think that you both know it.

Well, I'm exaggerating in the sense that, no, I don't think we will
stop hearing this lame excuse from vinylphiles.

Regretable on all counts, but true.

I wouldn't be so quick to equate cost with quality. More than often,
you do get what you pay for, but good performance and low cost are not
always mutually exclusive. I remember purchasing my first Linn Sondek
for 100 quid while I was visitng Scotland in the mid 70's. This was
before Linn was recognized for their great turntables. I mounted an
SME arm on with an ADC XLM cartridge and it was a sold, neutral
performer for many years. (mind yuu, I used a lot of different
cartridges as well, over time)

BTW, the Sony they reviewed tracks at about 4 grams--perfect for the
vinylphile who never plans to listen to his records more than once.
You'd think a sharp reviewer would have noticed something like that,
wouldn't you?


Tracking forces of 4 to 5 grammes are not out of the question, or
necessarily damaging to your vinyl. It depends on the stylus tip
configuration and the tonearm effective mass.

Some of the elliptical stylus types had to be set up to track very
lightly (0.75 to 1.25 grammes), while the common conical styii usually
performed best at 1.5 to 3 grammes. Later developments like the
Shibata, multifacedted, and decahedron stylii really increased the
amount of surface contact between the stylus tip and the record groove.
Because of the increased contact, or bearing area, these types can
utilize far larger amounts of tracking pressure successfully while
incurring LESS groove wear than the conical and elliptical stylii.

I remember using a very high end Decca cartridge that absolutely
performed its best at the 5 gramme tracking pressure.

There is more damage done when tracking too light. Or poorly adjusted
anti skating.compensation. These conditions can lead to instances of
mistracking, and stylus overshoot oscillations that will damage a
record in short order.

All true. And all probably beside the point when we are talking about a
$100 turntable, cartridge (that cannot be upgraded) included. But
surely you'd agree that a reviewer for a *technology* Web site should
have gotten out is tracking force gauge and checked this. (Then again,
this guy's grasp of analog technology may be no better than his grasp
of digital.)

Must admit that I did not get into reading the reviews. It seemed very
pedestrian, and amateurish. Could not find the morbid curiousity to
delve into it for details. If he truly had the tonearm/cartridge setup
all wrong... it could begin to qualify for a Monty Python sketch. Noiw
you have me curious and I will probably drag my ass back to the
website. D'oh!

There is however a ton of quality vinyl rigs that can be had for a
fraction of their original values if anyone gets a craving for some
true analogue. (it does seem to be a bit trendy again)

Take care Bob,
Phil Simpson.

On 4 Mar 2006 16:13:11 GMT, "UnclePhil"
wrote:

Move it over to my Transcriptors table with the Rabco SL8 that tracks
the record exactly in the manner that the masters were cut, and the
result is zero inner groove distortion as the tangency is maintained
perfectly.

Wrong. *Tracing* distortion is eliminated by the correct use of a
tangential arm (which has it's own problems with massive lateral
effective mass), but inner groove distortion is a function of groove
speed, and the tonearm design has no effect on this.

What I'm normally trying to find is fidelity to the original Master
tapes. If the tape is over 10 years old however, the results are
usually less than accurate. If the tape is over 15 years old, I have
never heard one that is even very close.

Really? Clearly, you have never used digital tapes, which remain
*exactly* the same forever, provided that you clone them every ten
years or so. Such tapes were first used for music recording more than
twenty-five years ago.....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

UnclePhil wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Some verbal sleight-of-hand going on here....if you want to reflect the
sound of hte original *pressings*, the original masters might not be the
best place to go even if they were in pristine condition. You might
be better of with the LP-equalized production masters. Or with a
needle drop of the LP itself.

What I'm normally trying to find is fidelity to the original Master
tapes. If the tape is over 10 years old however, the results are
usually less than accurate. If the tape is over 15 years old, I have
never heard one that is even very close.

The level of 'fidelity to the original master tapes' is something you're *least* likely to
know for a commercial release -- unless you have access to the master tapes for comparison.
It's certainly not safe to conclude that even the first-pressing LP is the highest-fidelity
reproduction of the original master tapes.



And if you want the sound of the original masters, it's not true
that they have ALWAYS deteriorated.

Magnetic tape, if stored correctly will last quite a while. But to
quote common physics and Neil Young... "Rust Never Sleeps". The tapes
will always deteriorate with time regardless of the storage methods.
(well maybe cryogenic?) But I'm talking real life here.

You've argued, correctly, that not all *measurable* degradation
of quality is audible. That holds true here as well. And tapes can be,
and have been, stored correctly in temperature and humidity controlled
environments. I don't know of any studies that have quantitated
deterioration over time, under different conditions, though...do you?

When Jimmy Page was assembling all the tapes of the old Zep material
for the DVD, he found the great majority of the tapes were falling
apart and sounded horrible. It took a lot of work restoring that
material to make it sound good for the DVD. And it does sound good.
But faithful to the original... I think not,

First , not all tapes are stored the way Led Zeppelin stors theirs.
Second, the DVD was assembled from concert performance tapes...I'm not
even sure those came from the same 'vault' (or trunk of some car) that
the LZ *studio* album tapes come from. So I think you're taking a
worst-case scenario and applying it as a rule.

*NO ONE* is saying that a digital master is *necessarily* 'faithful to
the original master tapes' -- they are saying that the most accurate
copy of a souce tape is achievable via digital, rather than analog.

Again, I want to stress that digital is a more accurate and trouble
free medium. It is however, only as good as it's source.


No one has ever questioned that.



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Hello Stewart,
Pleasure to make your acquaintance,

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Mar 2006 16:13:11 GMT, "UnclePhil"
wrote:

Move it over to my Transcriptors table with the Rabco SL8 that tracks
the record exactly in the manner that the masters were cut, and the
result is zero inner groove distortion as the tangency is maintained
perfectly.

Wrong. *Tracing* distortion is eliminated by the correct use of a
tangential arm (which has it's own problems with massive lateral
effective mass), but inner groove distortion is a function of groove
speed, and the tonearm design has no effect on this.

I knew this was coming not 5 minutes after I had posted too hastily
without getting my mind in proper gear. Fair dinkum.

Inner groove distortion can be related to tracking errors from poor
tangency, but not the source cause, as you have identified, but not
very completely.

"Tracing" distortion, as I have understood the nomenclature, is when
the pickup stylus is not seated in the record groove with optimum
engagement to the sides of the groove walls. This can be a result of
poor anti skating compensation, insufficient tracking force, vertical
inconsistencies of the groove depth, warped record surface, improper
cartridge alignment, and tangency error. (probably a couple more that I
have overlooked in this moment of brevity)

A properly functioning straight line tonearm tracking system does
minimise (does not eliminate) issues with stylus/cartridge tangency, or
tracking error and anti skating induced issues. A useful byproduct of
this design allows for a much less massive tonearm that is simpler to
suspend and control.

The issue presented by inner groove distortion is largely proportional
to the skills of the cutting lathe engineer. As the recorded grooves
become smaller in diameter, the surface speed of the record decreases.
This increases the density of the recorded information and may result
in overloading the medium. Uncompensated results are reduced high
frequency headroom and response, increased distortion impurities.

A skilled, experienced cutting lathe engineer is aware of these issues
and normally will lobby for as large of a "runout area" at the end of
each side of the disc as possible. It depends upon the nature of the
recording, but normally a well engineered LP will not much exceed 20
minutes per side. This metric is dependant upon how complex and
"crowded" the program material is, and how much deep bass is present as
well.

As the cutting head of the lathe progresses to the centre of the master
disc, a skilled engineer will increase the lateral speed. This allows
more groove width for the increased density of the slower surface speed
as the cutter head approaches the end of the master disc. Careful
control of the cutting head stylus heat setting is also very important,
and must be trimmed to optimise the cutting condition of the inner
grooves.

When procedure, skill, and care is exercised while generating a lacquer
master disc, there should be very minimal inner groove distortions.
Really inconsequential when done properly.

I readily admit that there is plenty of vinyl product that does not
perfectly conform to these optimum conditions. On the other hand, I
know that there were plenty of pressings that were produced to very
good effect of minimising inner groove issues.

What I'm normally trying to find is fidelity to the original Master
tapes. If the tape is over 10 years old however, the results are
usually less than accurate. If the tape is over 15 years old, I have
never heard one that is even very close.

Really? Clearly, you have never used digital tapes, which remain
*exactly* the same forever, provided that you clone them every ten
years or so. Such tapes were first used for music recording more than
twenty-five years ago.....

Yeah, I never got into using any kind of DAT setup. For my personal
reference recordings, I always found my Studer and Tandberg to be very
capable machines. Recently, I have been transferring from my original
masters to a computer hard drive. Results vary, it's a learning
process.

As far as the published music that I anguish over... hell it's almost
always over 25 years old. The LP's that I cling to are from the 50's,
60's, and 70's. Sorry about my luck there, eh? At least I usually
purchased doubles for most of the ones that I really valued.

There hasn't been a great deal of music that has really excited me in
the last 25 years. It's mostly variations on a previous theme that has
already been done. Or various newly interpreted permutations of
previously well performed classics. There are always some exceptions
that I have enjoyed and collected, but as you observed, there is not
nearly the issues when dealing with newer source material that is
mastered digitally.

By the way Stewart, I agree that music is art... But audio is not
engineering. Audio is the result of an engineering effort that is
driven by art. Engineering is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Best regards,
Phil Simpson.

UnclePhil wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
(Snip)

You must absolutely have good pressings.

That, IME, has always been one of the major disappointments in vinyl.
Then number of pressing of just Rennaisance albums I went through (Sire
records - pitiful) was ridiculous. Some labels were just *bad*...

I would always return any
discernable out of roundness or warping to my record shop. The
proprietor, Tony, never gave me any static regarding this. He would
get his restock from the supplier and I was usually purchasing a
minimum of 3 LP's every week.

Clearly you don't live in a vinyl-hostile environment. Growing up in
Phoenix Arizona, LP's were only guaranteed until you left the store -
you had to remove the overwrap and inspect before you left. Too many
people drove home from the record store with LP's in a 112°F car, then
brought them back as defective. Unfortunately, for 4-5 months a year,
not *that* many flat LP's made it *into* the store. Polycarbonate's
been a lifesaver for us desert rats.

Keith Hughes

Steven Sullivan wrote:
UnclePhil wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Some verbal sleight-of-hand going on here....if you want to reflect the
sound of hte original *pressings*, the original masters might not be the
best place to go even if they were in pristine condition. You might
be better of with the LP-equalized production masters. Or with a
needle drop of the LP itself.

What I'm normally trying to find is fidelity to the original Master
tapes. If the tape is over 10 years old however, the results are
usually less than accurate. If the tape is over 15 years old, I have
never heard one that is even very close.

The level of 'fidelity to the original master tapes' is something you're *least* likely to
know for a commercial release -- unless you have access to the master tapes for comparison.


There are other ways of finding out. Sometimes it's a matter of asking
the mastering engineers what they did. This won't always give a
definitive answer but it will give a ballpark answer. You can usualy
ind out what kind of shape the tape was in from the mastering engneers
as well.



It's certainly not safe to conclude that even the first-pressing LP is the highest-fidelity
reproduction of the original master tapes.


True. Although it is often safe to conclude that it likely had the
stamp of approval from the folks who made the recording, for what that
is worth. It is also not safe to assume the original master tapes
(depending on what constitutes an original master) is not always
representative of what the artists wanted and often the last tweaks
were added to the cutting master and approved based on the tests
pressings. So when reissuing a recording one could be faced with a
choice of session tapes, original mix down tape and final cutting tape.
without artist input it is a crap shoot. Well, except the folks doing
the reissue can listen to all the diferent possible sources and even
lisen to original pressings and make (gasp) a decision based on what
they think sounds best.





And if you want the sound of the original masters, it's not true
that they have ALWAYS deteriorated.

Magnetic tape, if stored correctly will last quite a while. But to
quote common physics and Neil Young... "Rust Never Sleeps". The tapes
will always deteriorate with time regardless of the storage methods.
(well maybe cryogenic?) But I'm talking real life here.

You've argued, correctly, that not all *measurable* degradation
of quality is audible. That holds true here as well. And tapes can be,
and have been, stored correctly in temperature and humidity controlled
environments. I don't know of any studies that have quantitated
deterioration over time, under different conditions, though...do you?


I do know this much. The tapes used in the 70s has a really short shelf
life and whatever is going to be done with that material needs to be
done soon. Ironically the tapes used in the 60s and 50s has a much
longe shelf life and they have produced some great sounding reissues.
As fans of the music of the 70's folks such as you and me need to worry
the most about this situation.



When Jimmy Page was assembling all the tapes of the old Zep material
for the DVD, he found the great majority of the tapes were falling
apart and sounded horrible. It took a lot of work restoring that
material to make it sound good for the DVD. And it does sound good.
But faithful to the original... I think not,

First , not all tapes are stored the way Led Zeppelin stors theirs.
Second, the DVD was assembled from concert performance tapes...I'm not
even sure those came from the same 'vault' (or trunk of some car) that
the LZ *studio* album tapes come from. So I think you're taking a
worst-case scenario and applying it as a rule.


But it is happening with so much of the great music of that era. It is
a crisis IMO.




*NO ONE* is saying that a digital master is *necessarily* 'faithful to
the original master tapes' -- they are saying that the most accurate
copy of a souce tape is achievable via digital, rather than analog.


I would say that is finally true.




Again, I want to stress that digital is a more accurate and trouble
free medium. It is however, only as good as it's source.


No one has ever questioned that.


It has been questioned many times. But now with the advances in hi rez
digital it seems to have finally come to pass. Thank goodness.




Scott

Steven Sullivan wrote:
UnclePhil wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Some verbal sleight-of-hand going on here....if you want to reflect the
sound of hte original *pressings*, the original masters might not be the
best place to go even if they were in pristine condition. You might
be better of with the LP-equalized production masters. Or with a
needle drop of the LP itself.

What I'm normally trying to find is fidelity to the original Master
tapes. If the tape is over 10 years old however, the results are
usually less than accurate. If the tape is over 15 years old, I have
never heard one that is even very close.

The level of 'fidelity to the original master tapes' is something you're *least* likely to
know for a commercial release -- unless you have access to the master tapes for comparison.
It's certainly not safe to conclude that even the first-pressing LP is the highest-fidelity
reproduction of the original master tapes.

The very first pressings are produced with the first generation master
lacquers, that were cut with the first, finished production master
tape. This represents the finished product in it's freshest form. I
feel quite secure that this is the most proper and accurate starting
point. There are likely exceptions, but I refuse to basically waste my
time considering isolated, inconsistent occurences.

And if you want the sound of the original masters, it's not true
that they have ALWAYS deteriorated.

Magnetic tape, if stored correctly will last quite a while. But to
quote common physics and Neil Young... "Rust Never Sleeps". The tapes
will always deteriorate with time regardless of the storage methods.
(well maybe cryogenic?) But I'm talking real life here.

You've argued, correctly, that not all *measurable* degradation
of quality is audible. That holds true here as well. And tapes can be,
and have been, stored correctly in temperature and humidity controlled
environments. I don't know of any studies that have quantitated
deterioration over time, under different conditions, though...do you?

It is rrue that not all measureable degradation, or impurities are
audible. I will concur that the degree of audible degradation is
anything but a solid metric as well. The type of tape used, the
saturation of the tape, the quality of the tape "pack" prior to
storage, backcoated - or not backcoated, the controls of temperature
and humidity during storage, the length of time in storage, etc...

There are a ton of assignable causes that can be introduced, or
overlooked that can and will accelerate the degradation that is taking
place regardless of precaution.

With there being many variables, it would likely be time consumeing,
and costly to produce meaningful studies on magnetic tape recording
degradation. I don't know if it would be worth the effort either.
It's not very mysterious. It is an insidious, unstoppable degradation
that can only be slowed but not stopped.

When Jimmy Page was assembling all the tapes of the old Zep material
for the DVD, he found the great majority of the tapes were falling
apart and sounded horrible. It took a lot of work restoring that
material to make it sound good for the DVD. And it does sound good.
But faithful to the original... I think not,

First , not all tapes are stored the way Led Zeppelin stors theirs.
Second, the DVD was assembled from concert performance tapes...I'm not
even sure those came from the same 'vault' (or trunk of some car) that
the LZ *studio* album tapes come from. So I think you're taking a
worst-case scenario and applying it as a rule.

I would not feel secure in stating whether these tapes from the Zep
performances were stored any worse, or any better than the majority of
commercially popular master tapes that are archived. Being that Jimmy
and the Zep production team over the years were very professional and
groundbreaking in many ways, I would find it a little weird if their
tape records were not at least stored as well as anyone elses.

I'm sorry to have influenced you to think that I was attempting to take
a type of "worst case scenario" and applying it as a rule. My
intention was to provide a fairly recent, well know production scenario
that was compromised by the condition of the source material.

By no means is this scenario either the best or worst that is possible.
It is just an example that illustrates the degradation taking place
with archived, analogue magnetic tapes.

*NO ONE* is saying that a digital master is *necessarily* 'faithful to
the original master tapes' -- they are saying that the most accurate
copy of a souce tape is achievable via digital, rather than analog.

I would certainly hope that a remastered digital master would be as
faithful as possible to the original master tape. (You know, the one
that was used to cut the first lacquer master discs) Any losses or
impurities should only be assignable to the condition of the source
material that is available.

Again, I want to stress that digital is a more accurate and trouble
free medium. It is however, only as good as it's source.


No one has ever questioned that.

Oh, I know that I am perfectly safe in saying that this topic has been
questioned continually since digital arrived. It is still being
questioned by critical listeners, producers, musicians, audiophiles,
etc... The recent development of a higher resolution generation in
digital recording and delivery is most likely the result of all this
questioning.

Let the questions continue. Let the progress continue. We are still
not even close to truly replicating a sonic event. Using either
analogue, or digital means.

Best regards,
Phil Simpson.

Keith Hughes wrote:
UnclePhil wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
(Snip)

You must absolutely have good pressings.

That, IME, has always been one of the major disappointments in vinyl.
Then number of pressing of just Rennaisance albums I went through (Sire
records - pitiful) was ridiculous. Some labels were just *bad*...

Sorry about your luck. It is a sad situation for anyone that does not
have any original pressings manufactured when the older masters were
new, and fresh. I am fortunate to have been an avid collector through
the 60's and 70's.

I would always return any
discernable out of roundness or warping to my record shop. The
proprietor, Tony, never gave me any static regarding this. He would
get his restock from the supplier and I was usually purchasing a
minimum of 3 LP's every week.

Clearly you don't live in a vinyl-hostile environment. Growing up in
Phoenix Arizona, LP's were only guaranteed until you left the store -
you had to remove the overwrap and inspect before you left. Too many
people drove home from the record store with LP's in a 112=B0F car, then
brought them back as defective. Unfortunately, for 4-5 months a year,
not *that* many flat LP's made it *into* the store. Polycarbonate's
been a lifesaver for us desert rats.

The proprieter of "Records On Wheels" in Sudbury Ontario, was where I
purchased most of my vinyl. The proprietor of the store was a friend
from high school, and I was a steady and loyal consumer. He knew that
hifi was my hobby, and he knew how well I cared for my records. He
also knew that I was very particular regarding pressing quality.

I probably paid a little much for some of my purchases that I could
have bought cheaper at a department store. But I valued the personal
service and relationship that I could count on from Tony.

Keith Hughes

UnclePhil wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:


Sorry about your luck. It is a sad situation for anyone that does not
have any original pressings manufactured when the older masters were
new, and fresh. I am fortunate to have been an avid collector through
the 60's and 70's.

Actually, I still have about 600 LP's, most of which were purchased from
the very early 70's through the 80's. Some were great, some (like the
Sire pressings which all used too much regrind) were uniformly bad. One
of the great boons of the CD era, to me, has been (in addition to what I
believe is far better reproduction quality, in every aspect) the number
of remastered reissues. For albums from less popular groups, such as
Renaissance, where "good" pressings were never available, the CD's
reissues have been a godsend.

I would always return any
discernable out of roundness or warping to my record shop. The
proprietor, Tony, never gave me any static regarding this. He would
get his restock from the supplier and I was usually purchasing a
minimum of 3 LP's every week.

Well, when Odysey and Tower records hit town, the mom and pop stores
like you describe all died out.

Keith Hughes

Keith Hughes wrote:
UnclePhil wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
(Snip)

You must absolutely have good pressings.

That, IME, has always been one of the major disappointments in vinyl.
Then number of pressing of just Rennaisance albums I went through (Sire
records - pitiful) was ridiculous. Some labels were just *bad*...

Have you tried the remasters on the German Repertoire label? (CD, of
course.) I haven't heard them specifically--my interest in art-rock
having faded over the years. But if they did as good a job on those as
they did on the Yardbirds catalog, they will be stunning.

bob

Keith Hughes wrote:
UnclePhil wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:


Sorry about your luck. It is a sad situation for anyone that does not
have any original pressings manufactured when the older masters were
new, and fresh. I am fortunate to have been an avid collector through
the 60's and 70's.

Actually, I still have about 600 LP's, most of which were purchased from
the very early 70's through the 80's. Some were great, some (like the
Sire pressings which all used too much regrind) were uniformly bad. One
of the great boons of the CD era, to me, has been (in addition to what I
believe is far better reproduction quality, in every aspect) the number
of remastered reissues. For albums from less popular groups, such as
Renaissance, where "good" pressings were never available, the CD's
reissues have been a godsend.


Interesting. I have all of their albums in various froms and did not
have the same bad luck as you. I have pressings from UK, Japan and the
US that are all quite excellent. It seemed like it took quite a while
for their catalog to be reissued on CD. If you are interested in a
discussion on which Renaissance CDs are the ones to get this may be of
interest to you.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ht=renaissance

Scott

wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

UnclePhil wrote:

Keith Hughes wrote:


Sorry about your luck. It is a sad situation for anyone that does not
have any original pressings manufactured when the older masters were
new, and fresh. I am fortunate to have been an avid collector through
the 60's and 70's.

Actually, I still have about 600 LP's, most of which were purchased from
the very early 70's through the 80's. Some were great, some (like the
Sire pressings which all used too much regrind) were uniformly bad. One
of the great boons of the CD era, to me, has been (in addition to what I
believe is far better reproduction quality, in every aspect) the number
of remastered reissues. For albums from less popular groups, such as
Renaissance, where "good" pressings were never available, the CD's
reissues have been a godsend.



Interesting. I have all of their albums in various froms and did not
have the same bad luck as you.

Really? Are you talking about contemporaneous pressings (i.e. mid
'70s)? I went through multiple copies of Novella, Turn Of The Cards,
and Sheherazade around the time they were released, and they were all
quite pitiful. Very noisy (tics and pops) and bad on the inner grooves.
The worst part, however, was that you could hear them degrade almost
with each play - something that was *not* a common problem with other
labels at the time (using a Dual 1219 with a Shure V15I IIRC).

I have pressings from UK, Japan and the
US that are all quite excellent.

Such were not available in my world at the time.

It seemed like it took quite a while
for their catalog to be reissued on CD.

Yes, a very long time. And two compilation CDs were the only thing
available for quite some time.

If you are interested in a
discussion on which Renaissance CDs are the ones to get this may be of
interest to you.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ht=renaissance

Interesting. I've never heard of "wounded bird" CDs before.

Keith Hughes

"bob" wrote in message
...

BTW, the Sony they reviewed tracks at about 4 grams--perfect for the
vinylphile who never plans to listen to his records more than once.

That's rather an exaggeration, isn't it?


--