"B&D" wrote in message
news:drBKc.110799$a24.48626@attbi_s03...
On 7/17/04 10:56 PM, in article tFlKc.106153$%_6.75038@attbi_s01,
"S888Wheel" wrote:

And I
thought that the whole point of measurements was to show objectively
how
a product perform so as to help the potential customer evaluate...

I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe measurements
for
audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be made easier via
measurements.
I'm still going to make my final decisions based on listening though.

I don't think anyone would argue that measurements have no value -
*provided
you are measuring the right things* - doggedly sticking to measurement A,
B,
C through technologies and the years might help in some ways, but may not
be
correct in assisting someone to make a good buying decision. Hence
listening is important.

If the measurements are correct and thorough, one can indeed base his buying
decisions on them, the main reason to listen at this point in history, is to
make sure the measurements are indeed correct. That there are some people
who can't hear well, as appears to be the case with MF, should give readers
of SP pause. If however, they have competent people doing measurements, one
can take the subjective reviews of the tin ear reviewer with the grain of
salt they are worth.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:




"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:lqSKc.116938$a24.81398@attbi_s03...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 14 Jul 2004 01:26:08 GMT, "Greg Weaver"
wrote:

Stewart,

I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come
across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available
in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover
for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that
time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum,
could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.

That's absolute rubbish! I personally know at least five regular
concert-goers, and three semi-professional musicians, who prefer CD to
vinyl. Hence, your statement is both untrue *and* an obviously biased
flame.

Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents for
digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his book
"The
Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. "This
quandary --
LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art
digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP
playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction, there's
not
even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD."

Remember the late, great Gabe Weiner, the legendary sound engineer
behind PGM Records? He *always* preferred CD, and would have dismissed
Harley's rant as sheer 'audiophile' drivel.

Indeed, one of Gabe's favourite tests was to play someone an LP, and
then a digital recording of that LP. No visitor to his studio could
*ever* tell the difference, thereby proving the sonic transparency of
CD pretty effectively.

With that thought, I close my thread. I shall neither comment further
nor
expect any response. Again, this is not a "flame!" It is rather the
honest
incredulity of someone who has spent virtually every day of his adult
life
in and around this industry, the last 15 years of which have been as a
consultant and reviewer. Thanks.

Shame then, that you only appear to have listened to those who agree
with your own prejudice. If you wanted to, you could find plenty of
quotes from top musicians and industry professionals, to the effect
that vinyl is a parody of the original performance, and CD is *vastly*
superior. Indeed, the first real breakthrough of CD in the mass market
was in the classical field, where the clarity and sheer musicality was
appreciated by that band of generally critical listeners. I also
remember comments from the CD release of Sgt Pepper, where reviewers
raved about all the background subtleties that they had never heard on
the LP version! Of course, that was before it became *fashionable* to
prefer the well-known artifacts of vinyl................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I have dozens of hard-core audio enthisiasts friends, including hard-core
jazz
fans who transcribe wax, acetate, Lp, cassette, open reel and some other
formats I've forgotten to cd and Not One says that the Lp sounds "better"
than
cd.


The fact that they are "collectors" does not necessarily make them
connoisseurs of quality reproduced sound.

That's the basic high-end attitude. Anybody who doesn't agree with them is
somehow "lacking."


Indeed one of the more hard-core jazz fans (now in his 80s) who followed
every
format for 40 years in live recordings was over-joyed to get his hands on
a
cd-recorder to transfer his large collection of lp and live open reel and
later
DAT recordings to cd-r. He's even now acquiring lp material that he has
worn
out or wanted; through the internet to copy to cd-r.


Ditto the above, especially if he switched from open-reel to DAT and didn't
notice a difference (other than, arguably, convenience).

Sure he did. According to him DAT is transparent. Magnetic tape is not.

I record using
both, and the DAT's (Panasonic 3700's) definitely "lean out" and "sharpen"
the sound compared to tape and live feed (albeit this is subtle).

DAT and CD-R are wonderful archiving tools. They are not the last word in
sound reproduction media.

In your opinion. While neither is the "last word" they both beat the pants off
any analog media.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/19/2004 9:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: UmSKc.119337$%_6.112975@attbi_s01


I think it indicates that a bit of bass boost and some distortion may be
pleasing to some people.

Whoa. You are taking this out of context. There are speakers inolved you know.
Some otherwise outsteanding speakers may well sound good with a littl boost in
the bass.


Whoa. Isn't that exactly what Tom said?

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hDUKc.117584$a24.95616@attbi_s03

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/16/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:J%cJc.78334$%_6.34016@attbi_s01...
From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04

B&D wrote:

On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John
Atkinson" wrote:

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.

And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to
condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.

Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass
humps
before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like
it.

bob


Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the
WAVAC and
from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of
certainty
that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system*
MF
reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form
an
opinion on it's sonic merits?

Based on the measurements the only merit this amp would have is as a
really
expensive door stop. It would not have been considered a hi-fi amp since
the 1940's. Look at the graph of any decent SS amp and you will see the
distortion as a nearly flat line until full rated power is reached. With
the WAVAC it continues to get worse as you increase the volume. At
around 2
watts it's at 1% which is where THD becomes audible. If this amp were
$12.00 it would still be overpriced to anyone looking for a 150 watt amp.







Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp
and
believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music
should
revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements?

No, I'm suggesting that buying an amp with this kind of distortion, cannot
by definition sound more like live music


By definition? Let's not forget that no one listens to amplifiers. We listen to
recordings played back through amplifier speaker systems. I don't believe your
assertion is always true.

and that basing one's buying
decisions on their faulty memory of such events can only lead to inferior
sound.

When hifi retailer sets up a demp room with a live band we will be able to
circumvent the potential problems we face with aural memory. Till then it is
what we will have to rely on. I don't think it is quite so bad as some would
have us believe anytime a unit measures one way and is subjectively percieved
in another way.

It's not personal, nobody has reliable memory when it comes to audio.


This doesn't seem to become an issue when people talk about their impressions
of speakers or recordings. Why is that?

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: DjSKc.117270$MB3.113782@attbi_s04

On 18 Jul 2004 16:18:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/18/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52...
On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

LP compared to
CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal
to
noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.

All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them?

The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective
performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi.

Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of
LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much
less close to hifi.

Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the
market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very
best vinyl.

You might want to check your vinyl rig to make sure everything is working
well.

I do, regularly. It works just fine,


Then maybe you ought to consider that your biases are at work. This claim of
"gross" outperformance would seem like a red flag that something is up.


but thanks for the predictable
vinyl apologist response.

It was a logical thing to say to anyone who is having such trouble getting good
sound from their high end turntable. If it is "grossly" being outpreformed IME
it would be likely one of two things. The rig isn't working right, the records
are subpar in quality and/or condition or the listener is profoundly biased.



I have a few of the very CDs you claim *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even
the best vinyl. IME they don't exceed it at all. Some of the CDs you cited
were
at least competetive with the best vinyl and their vinyl counterparts while
some didn't really even contend.

In your humble opinion, of course.........

Of course, oh and *every single person* who has ever made the comparisons on my
system. This is of course anecdotal. But then we are comparing anecdotes.



I don't recall citing any CDs in this thread,

I was speaking of previous citations you have made on older threads.

but *all* of my
thirty-odd XRCDs exceed the fidelity of their vinyl equivalents, and
that is simply down to excellent mastering on a fundamentally superior
medium.

What titles are you talking about? Which LP issues did you compare them to? I
am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz
enthusiast.

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 7/19/2004 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 2CSKc.116030$JR4.38153@attbi_s54

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 7/17/2004 9:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:





Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from
this
amp
and
believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live
music
should
revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements?

I'd suggest they do some better comparisons between live music and
the
amp, rather than rely on their memories.


Your suggestion makes a couple pretty big unfounded assumptions
unless you
are
quite familiar with MFs personal experiences with live music and you
heard
the
system that MF heard and reviewed.

It's plain fact that audible memory is imperfect, sometimes grossly so.

Some times not grossly so. Big difference. It seems you are assuming
MF's is grossly imperfect because he liked an amp that measured in a
particular way. You don't know how familiar MF is with live music,
you don't know how good his aural memory is or is not and you don't
know what the WAVACs sounded like in his system. That about somes it
up.


To imply that Mr. Fremer is an exception to that rule, is a pretty big
unfounded
implication.

Never implied that he was an exception to that rule. Somehow I doubt
any of the people who are questioning his judgement now would be
doing so had he ripped the WAVACs a new proverbial output tap in his
review. I believe the disaproval of his perceptions is the source of
the questioning of his abilities in that area.


Let him prove his ability first, in a scientifically
acceptable manner.

I suspect he doesn't care that you doubt his abilities to assess what
he hears. No matter what side of the fence a reviewer sits on, he or
she will have their critics.

Otherwise he's just another 'golden ear' with perhaps
too much faith in his own abilities.

Or perhaps another poster child for those who are upset at the fact
that not everyone chooses the same path in this hobby as they do.

While we wait, please see Dick
Pierce's post from some months back, reporting result s of a test of
level-matching ability from memory (IIRC the only one who did well was
an orchestral conductor).


I don't think his test proved much as it was stated.

The datasheet is wrong. Also, consider the excellent Bryston
4B-SST,
which at less than one *hundredth* of the cost of the Wavac,
totally
destroys it as a high fidelity amplifier.

Sure - and I would buy it over that POS.

So now you are agreeing that it is a POS? What happen to your
statement
of not condemning it before you hear it? .
This thread and its offshoots have made for amazing reading. I was prompted
to write the following.
That WAVAC amp is a POS, and so are the designers (if you can call them
that). Where is it written in any technical journal that transmitter tubes
make excellent SET output tubes? Does anyone reading this NG know anything
about RF power amplification and AUDIO power amplification? The two are not
the same, not even on a beautiful Tuesday afternoon, and not even if the
very nice man at the audio salon says so. And the sooner the high end
educates itself, the sooner this type of product will cease being offered to
the gullible and ignorant. One more question. Does anyone on this NG know
the difference between RF interconnects and AUDIO interconnects? They can
be the same, but the criteria for AUDIO interconnects is NOT in any way
dictated by operation charactoristics found at RADIO FREQUENCIES. So skin
effect, impedance, dielectric composition, conductor spacing, have NO
bearing on interconnects used at AUDIO FREQUENCIES. They are friggin'
SHIELDED WIRES for moving 1 volt signals from point A to point B. For
heaven's sake, can anyone here grasp this? I love good sound, but most
important, I love good music. And you do not have to spend a king's ransom
and hours and hours and hours of fiddling, and futzing and fooling around to
get both. I love the sound of vinyl playback, but honestly, the hassle just
isn't worth it anymore. CD may not be the very best, but it's so damn close.
AND it doesn't degrade each time you listen to it.

Happy listening to all,

Tom

"B&D" wrote in message
...
On 7/14/04 6:29 PM, in article , "Tat Chan"
wrote:

Excerpt:
"One pitfall, however, is that cables and interconnects need time to
break in before they sound their best. Before break-in, a cable often
sounds bright, hard, fatiguing, congested, and lacking in soundstage
depth. These characteristics often disappear after several hours' use,
with days or weeks of use required for full break-in. You can't be sure,
however, if the cable is inherently bright- and hard-sounding, or if it
just needs breaking-in. Note that break-in wears off over time. Even if
a cable has had significant use, after a long period of not being used
it may not sound its best until you've put music through it for a few
days."

Hmmmm ... could it be that it is the listener who gets broken in, and
not the cable itself ...

That may be - but could there be any other explanations?

No there couldn't unless the cable is old enough and corroded enough, or has
sometinjg built into it to make something other than flat. Harley is as
usual, wrong as been proven many times.

I don't know of
any, but I have heard that sentence a lot to make me think it is not an
original thought... (i.e. A lot of people feel that way)

It's not original it was thought up by marketing departments at expensive
cable companies.

"B&D" wrote in message
news:APEJc.82992$JR4.774@attbi_s54...
On 7/15/04 12:30 PM, in article fiyJc.83777$MB3.69874@attbi_s04, "Norman
Schwartz" wrote:

"Greg Weaver" writes


I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and
not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come
across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily
available
in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover
for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same
recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that
time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum,
could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.

I have a cassette tape (RCDJ 61909-4) from which can be heard an
interview
with John Pfieffer, "Executive Producer, RCA Victor Living Stereo", who
picks CD over LP, not only once, but every time.


Especially when they would benefit from it personally in CD sales.

CD is far superior to vinyl in a number of ways, surface noise being one
of
them.

Vinyl, especially good vinyl, sounds excellent, and better than CD.

To you. Not to people who like uncolored sound.

I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the mastering
standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium.
Just
as SACD comes on the horizon.

Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about 10
minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the format.

On 7/19/04 7:21 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

Hmmmm ... could it be that it is the listener who gets broken in, and
not the cable itself ...

That may be - but could there be any other explanations?

No there couldn't unless the cable is old enough and corroded enough, or has
sometinjg built into it to make something other than flat. Harley is as
usual, wrong as been proven many times.

I don't know of
any, but I have heard that sentence a lot to make me think it is not an
original thought... (i.e. A lot of people feel that way)

It's not original it was thought up by marketing departments at expensive
cable companies.

That the listener, and not the cable gets broken in? I would think that the
marketing departments at the cable companies would NOT say that.

"Ban" wrote in message ...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Ban"
Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:

Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one.

No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just
look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very
early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful
but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the
measurements.

If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad.

I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly
well by the measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful
though.

Maybe in those
times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never
the less it would have shown the low level distortion.

They did by the measurements of the day. And they sounded quite bad.
And a great deal of meter reader minded audio jounalists claimed they
were quite sonically superior. Maybe measurement based biases can be
a problem when seeking excellent sound.

The main reason people bought
SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying
performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the
next.

Yes. Some people refer to that time as the dark ages of audio. The
meter readers were seen as the voice of authority then. Many say this
terrible time in audio was what lead to the birth of Stereophile.

I never heard about this "terrible" time or dark age. And I have been
around. I remember the introduction of stereophonic reproduction very
well,
it must have been around that time. And that I perceived as a step
forward,
in fact it was revolutionizing our hobby. You must have lived in Russia or
where?


Actually, the "stereo revolution" began in the '50's...1954 for tape and
1956 for LP. The transistor revolution happened a decade later...in the
mid-late '60's and was pretty well consumated completely by 1970 and
coincided with some truly awful sounding gear...Dynaco 120, Acoustech Pre
and Power Amp, etc. Not to mention the "receivers". Scott's that couldn't
put out bass; Japanese stuff that could weld sheet metal with their high
frequencies, etc. It was from that era that Stereophile was started and
later The Abso!ute Sound. From people who said "wait a minute, the Emperor
has not clothes (on)".

snip, not relevant to above

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:t6YKc.120975$%_6.14466@attbi_s01...
"t.hoehler" wrote in message
news:9mXKc.120706$%_6.77017@attbi_s01...


Ditto the above, especially if he switched from open-reel to DAT and
didn't
notice a difference (other than, arguably, convenience). I record
using
both, and the DAT's (Panasonic 3700's) definitely "lean out" and
"sharpen"
the sound compared to tape and live feed (albeit this is subtle).

DAT and CD-R are wonderful archiving tools. They are not the last
word
in
sound reproduction media.

But Harry, they _are_ the last word, for when all the vinyl is too
worn
to
play back, then our archived CD's or digital what have you's _will_
be
the
de facto standard. I realize that to this day, we are finding better
and
better ways to play back the 78 rpm format, and that is heartening.
BUT,
there is a fidelity limit with 78's and when you hit that wall,
brother,
you
have hit that wall. Same way with LP's. There is a limit to their
fidelity,
especially if that rare vinyl has some play on it, and the previous
playback
was done with equipment not kind to vinyl. Once the damage to the
grooves
is
done, it's done. All the hand wringing, all the super duper arms,
carts,
stable tables, magic moon rocks etc etc are NOT going to bring back
the
limited fidelity that was there in the first place. Sorry, but that's
the
plain truth, and no hoping and wishing will make it any different. So
get
cracking and transfer that vinyl before it's too late! This ain't the
fifties anymore, can't just run down to Tower Records and pick up a
pristine
copy of that old LP.
Regards,
Tom


Can't argue with you in theory, but the records and original tapes I
have
recorded to DAT lose enough that I have stopped and am exploring other
options...going directly to HD at 96k or perhaps to a Masterlink and
then
to
96k 24 bit disks. My beef isn't digital per se although it is only at
the
very highest level that it can compete with analog; it is the 44.1 /
16bit
CD standard per se as exemplified by the 3700 which I object to as
"perfect
sound forever".

Utter nonsense, be brave do a double blind comparison of 44.1 compared
to
any other digital format and see if you can tell any difference.

As to Vinyl vs CD think of the difference between VHS and DVD, that's
the
difference between LP and CD. Everything on the CD is cleaner sharper
and
more real.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hDUKc.117584$a24.95616@attbi_s03

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/16/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:J%cJc.78334$%_6.34016@attbi_s01...
From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04

B&D wrote:

On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article ,
"John
Atkinson" wrote:

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's
performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the
dark.

And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to
condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.

Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass
humps
before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't
like
it.

bob


Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of
the
WAVAC and
from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of
certainty
that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the
*system*
MF
reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to
form
an
opinion on it's sonic merits?

Based on the measurements the only merit this amp would have is as a
really
expensive door stop. It would not have been considered a hi-fi amp
since
the 1940's. Look at the graph of any decent SS amp and you will see
the
distortion as a nearly flat line until full rated power is reached.
With
the WAVAC it continues to get worse as you increase the volume. At
around 2
watts it's at 1% which is where THD becomes audible. If this amp were
$12.00 it would still be overpriced to anyone looking for a 150 watt
amp.







Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this
amp
and
believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live
music
should
revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements?

No, I'm suggesting that buying an amp with this kind of distortion,
cannot
by definition sound more like live music


By definition? Let's not forget that no one listens to amplifiers.

If you listen to music amplified by a WAVAC or any SET for that matter, you
are definitely listening to the amplifier.

We listen to
recordings played back through amplifier speaker systems. I don't believe
your
assertion is always true.

With CD and Solid State electronics, you'd be correct.

and that basing one's buying
decisions on their faulty memory of such events can only lead to inferior
sound.

When hifi retailer sets up a demp room with a live band we will be able
to
circumvent the potential problems we face with aural memory. Till then it
is
what we will have to rely on. I don't think it is quite so bad as some
would
have us believe anytime a unit measures one way and is subjectively
percieved
in another way.


That's a wonderful anecdote, the science of audio shows that fidelity
transfers to better listening.

It's not personal, nobody has reliable memory when it comes to audio.


This doesn't seem to become an issue when people talk about their
impressions
of speakers or recordings. Why is that?

In the case of speakers they have much more distortion than the rest of the
audio chain, as I'm reasonably sure you are aware of.

Recordings are subject to the bias of the recording engineer and the artist
involved, then they are played back through God knows what speakers in God
knows what rooms. The fact is you mazy not like the choices made by the
artist and the engineer, but if you listen through good equipment and in a
well set up room, to a CD recording, you'll be hearing what they intended
you hear, not some compromise made for LP or some colorized version provided
via the distortion induced from something like the WAVAC.

On 7/19/04 7:34 PM, in article cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the mastering
standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium. Just
as SACD comes on the horizon.

Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about 10
minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the format.

Which recording engineers would that be?

CD has some definite advantages over vinyl - more convenient, no surface
noise. And both have some real stinkers as far as mastering quality is
concerned - though I have noticed that the standards of quality have risen
generally so that there are more good CD's now than there ever have been - I
recall a lot of CD's that got released in the early days with hiss (!) and
other nasty artifacts from the analog transfer as well as recordings that
sounded rather emphasized on the high end (like fingers on a chalk board
passing as violin) or full of grain (like Karajan's conducting Beethoven's
5th the CD vs. the Vinyl is pretty clear).

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

.....snip to content......

"Nousaine" wrote in message

I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges since
the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that
CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your
comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to
optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure V15,
or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to the
opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music.

For Pete's sake; you are assuming that I've not been-there and done-that, which
is exactly why I no longer borther with vinyl. I have owned several Shure V15s;
and yes the best cartridge I ever owned was the last one. And yes I've owned MC
cartridges None of them could hold a candle to the V15.

This attitude is the last stronghold of the high-end apologist saying is
essence that I don't share your opinions because I haven't done the work, lack
the expertise and/or haven't owned the right equipment.


But before you
conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP;
otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of much
fine music).

I've always been willing to optimize my systems. But I am only willing tune an
obsolete technology so much before simply replacing it with a better one. For
what it's worth I've either acquired a re-issue or have an archived cd-r copy
of any programming I owned on lp that I considered important. My biggest
recording problem is that I have too many of them.

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung
Date: 7/18/2004 2:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1DBKc.114777$IQ4.80972@attbi_s02

Ban wrote:
S888Wheel wrote:

Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one.

No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just
look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very
early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful
but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the
measurements.

If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad. Maybe in those
times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never the less
it would have shown the low level distortion. The main reason people bought
SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying
performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the next.

I think the measurements in those days were acceptable in terms of
distortion, but the consumer might have put too much emphasis on a
single number: THD at 1 KHz at max. power Certainly some manufacturers did.


And it seems certain magazines did as well. unfortunately for some consumers
who took them at their word.

But that is an example of a consumer prejudiced by a poor review, *NOT*
an example prejudiced by a set of measurements. See the difference?



Measurements cannot "prejudice" customers.

Sure they can if they are lead to believe that they tell a story that they
don't really tell. funny how history repetes itself.

That's an example of a customer not being careful in understanding the
measurements, or putting too much faith in reviews.

Measurements cannot prejudice customers. Measurements are facts. Facts
do not prejudice customers. Only those who have incomplete facts or draw
the wrong conclusion from facts can prejudice themselves. Big difference
there.




It's the lack of
understanding of what measurements mean that could potentially mislead
customers.

THD did really seem to mean much with early SS amps did it? Yet it was the king
of all measurements.

Not to me. Perhaps you meant to certain marketing types and certain
reviewers?

How long have we known about cross-over distortion, and slew-rate
induced distortion? Since the '50's at least.


On the other hand, subjective reviews can definitely
prejudice customers.

Oh I see, only that with which the objectivists disagree is capable of creating
prejudice. Anything that a person associates with quality can prejudice a
customer. That can be a review or measurements depnding on the person's mind
set.

How can facts prejudice? Subjective reviews are not facts, they are
opinions, and expressions of personal impressions. A subjective review
says that an amp sounds great. The fact is that amp may not sound great
to everyone. On the other hand, measurements are repeatable and objective.



The careful audiophiles will read the Stereophile
subjective reviews for their entertainment values, and pay attention to
the measurements and feature sets to find out how the products really
behave.

One can be careful and find more than just mere entertainment value from many
Stereophile subjective reviews.

I am sure some do.






I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe
measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be
made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final
decisions based on listening though.

This "matching" is another myth invented by the Quacks. Exept the
loudspeaker impedance(4 or 8 ohms) there is little to observe, because
already in that time there were existing specs about input level(-10dBm),
RIAA EQ and impedance etc. In fact the HiFi criteria gives values for
almost
all important numbers. Any tuner, tape deck or amplifier can be connected
and will perform as stated if it was fulfilling the criteria. This is one
of
the reasons the HiFi gear gained such a popularity, as it was the case with
the computer.

At this point I would like to quote what Siegfried Linkwitz (a respected
speaker designer and electrical engineer) said:

"Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound
reproduction since anything else is a falsification. For many pieces of
recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so
highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference.
Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the
characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the
reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can
hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a
familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male
voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original ...".

Linkwitz's summary of sound reproduction is well worth reading for
anyone interested in audio reproduction:


It's fine to have a philosophy for achieving goals. But then there is this
thing known as practical application. That is when the better designers stick
with their philosophies until such a time as it does not wrought the best
result. Then one comprimises and finds the best practical solution. Wht will be
the best solution foe one person will not ofr another because it involves
subjective choices.


http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm

A point often missed by those who believe in "matching" equipment: you
cannot undo non-linear distortion.

You cannot avoid it either.

Nowadays, with the exception of mechanical transducers, you can maintain
linearity to a level where errors are not audible. So you can clearly
avoid them, in electronics.


That is, you cannot expect the
distortion created in one component to be undone by distortion created
by another.


I'm not sure that is true. The proof is in the final product though and not in
the path chosen.

Let say you have a SET amp, with its characteristic distortion which is
a function of signal level, frequency, speaker loading, AC power
conditions, temperature, variations in parts, etc. You think there is
some other component in the chain that has the inverse behavior so that
when you connect the two together, the distortions cancel out?



You have to choose components that individually have low
distortion.

Some people like to look at the trees some people like to look at the forrest.
I am a forrest kind of person.

You miss the point that you cannot have overall low distortion unless
the components themselves have low distortion. Of course, perhaps what
you meant is that you prefer some type of distortion.




Of course, someone may prefer certain types of distortion. But to think
that adding distortion in the reproduction path can somehow undo
distortion in the transducers (microphones and speakers) so that the
overall sound is "faithful to the live sound" is simply unrealistic.


I quite disagree. I think the pure path is a good starting point but that's it.
there comes a point where the recording engineers and the makers of audio
equipment have to choose between serving their philosophies and serving their
ears.

The best way to audio reproduction is to have the highest objective
fidelity possible, so that you can really hear what the artists and the
recording engineers want you to hear. And you want the audio equipment
to not inject *any* error.

You really ought to read Linkwitz's website.

Buster Mudd wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...

Really? Did you do a product perception evaluation before the listening
sessions? Was the brand masked? HAd anyone mentioned the fact that they
were Macintoshes? DId any of the listeners have any particular positive
feelings about tube amps?

1) Yes. I'm serious.
2) Yes, of course. Doesn't everyone?
3) Yes, of course. Wouldn't be a fair evaluation if they weren't,
would it?
4) No, that info would've unfairly biased the listeners, no doubt.
5) No. In fact, *all* feelings, either positive or negative, about
anything and everything in general, were forcibly removed from the
participants via a combination of mind-altering drugs and precise
nuerosurgical procedures. Any evaluation which does not take this
critical step is IMHO invalid, as the listener's feelings inevitably
will bias their perceptions.


But of course, feelings don't have ot be 'forcibly removed' -- the
biasing effects can be accounted for, by using a blind comparison
protocol.

It's no more onerous than, say, carrying around a load of ten-ton sarcasm
must be.






--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: jjSKc.121019$IQ4.107545@attbi_s02

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:26:52 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: "Ban"
Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:

Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one.

No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just
look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very
early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful
but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the
measurements.

If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad.

I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well by
the
measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though.

I suggest you do your homework on that one.

I did. These amps recieved glowing reviews for their measured performance and
their sonic performance. i can only wonder if listening tests were actually
done.

They had very high
crossover distortion, and very low slew rate, both of which were
easily measurable.

I suggest you take this up with the folks who claimed they measured well back
in the day. It's not my fault the reviewers were hung up on THD. It's not my
fault they praised amps that a lot of people figured out sounded awful just by
listening.


However it is your logical error when you conclude from this that bad
amps measure well. What you failed to understand is that there are some
bad amps that may have one parameter that measures well. But other
measured parameters clearly indicate that the amps are bad.

BTW, no one is blaming you personally for those faults you mentioned.

On 7/19/04 8:08 PM, in article 7oZKc.123142$IQ4.13449@attbi_s02, "Harry
Lavo" wrote:

"Ban" wrote in message ...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Ban"
Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:

Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one.

No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just
look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very
early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful
but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the
measurements.

If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad.

I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly
well by the measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful
though.

Maybe in those
times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never
the less it would have shown the low level distortion.

They did by the measurements of the day. And they sounded quite bad.
And a great deal of meter reader minded audio jounalists claimed they
were quite sonically superior. Maybe measurement based biases can be
a problem when seeking excellent sound.

The main reason people bought
SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying
performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the
next.

Yes. Some people refer to that time as the dark ages of audio. The
meter readers were seen as the voice of authority then. Many say this
terrible time in audio was what lead to the birth of Stereophile.

I never heard about this "terrible" time or dark age. And I have been
around. I remember the introduction of stereophonic reproduction very
well,
it must have been around that time. And that I perceived as a step
forward,
in fact it was revolutionizing our hobby. You must have lived in Russia or
where?


Actually, the "stereo revolution" began in the '50's...1954 for tape and
1956 for LP. The transistor revolution happened a decade later...in the
mid-late '60's and was pretty well consumated completely by 1970 and
coincided with some truly awful sounding gear...Dynaco 120, Acoustech Pre
and Power Amp, etc. Not to mention the "receivers". Scott's that couldn't
put out bass; Japanese stuff that could weld sheet metal with their high
frequencies, etc. It was from that era that Stereophile was started and
later The Abso!ute Sound. From people who said "wait a minute, the Emperor
has not clothes (on)".

Funny - I like those magazines, but they have seemed to have gone mainstream
and lost some of their edge. In some ways - they might be considered to be
"sewing the clothes of the emperor" - though I have found both to be
generally honest (please, no flames!) once you learn how to read the
reviews.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:




"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:lqSKc.116938$a24.81398@attbi_s03...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 14 Jul 2004 01:26:08 GMT, "Greg Weaver"
wrote:

Stewart,

I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and
not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come
across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily
available
in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music
lover
for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same
recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that
time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum,
could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.

That's absolute rubbish! I personally know at least five regular
concert-goers, and three semi-professional musicians, who prefer CD to
vinyl. Hence, your statement is both untrue *and* an obviously biased
flame.

Even Bob Harley, arguably one of (if not the) strongest proponents
for
digital playback, has gone on record with this statement from his
book
"The
Complete Guide to High-End Audio," Second Edition, p-325. "This
quandary --
LP vs. CD -- emerges from the fact that even today's state-of-the-art
digital audio doesn't approach the sound quality offered by a good LP
playback system. The very highest level of music reproduction,
there's
not
even a debate: LP is musically superior to CD."

Remember the late, great Gabe Weiner, the legendary sound engineer
behind PGM Records? He *always* preferred CD, and would have dismissed
Harley's rant as sheer 'audiophile' drivel.

Indeed, one of Gabe's favourite tests was to play someone an LP, and
then a digital recording of that LP. No visitor to his studio could
*ever* tell the difference, thereby proving the sonic transparency of
CD pretty effectively.

With that thought, I close my thread. I shall neither comment further
nor
expect any response. Again, this is not a "flame!" It is rather the
honest
incredulity of someone who has spent virtually every day of his adult
life
in and around this industry, the last 15 years of which have been as
a
consultant and reviewer. Thanks.

Shame then, that you only appear to have listened to those who agree
with your own prejudice. If you wanted to, you could find plenty of
quotes from top musicians and industry professionals, to the effect
that vinyl is a parody of the original performance, and CD is *vastly*
superior. Indeed, the first real breakthrough of CD in the mass market
was in the classical field, where the clarity and sheer musicality was
appreciated by that band of generally critical listeners. I also
remember comments from the CD release of Sgt Pepper, where reviewers
raved about all the background subtleties that they had never heard on
the LP version! Of course, that was before it became *fashionable* to
prefer the well-known artifacts of vinyl................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I have dozens of hard-core audio enthisiasts friends, including
hard-core
jazz
fans who transcribe wax, acetate, Lp, cassette, open reel and some
other
formats I've forgotten to cd and Not One says that the Lp sounds
"better"
than
cd.


The fact that they are "collectors" does not necessarily make them
connoisseurs of quality reproduced sound.

That's the basic high-end attitude. Anybody who doesn't agree with them is
somehow "lacking."


I think you had better think through your logic. What I said is a perfectly
logical, possible answer to the difference in perspective. Subtle sound
quality differences will escape people not particularly involved or
interested in listening for such differences.


Indeed one of the more hard-core jazz fans (now in his 80s) who
followed
every
format for 40 years in live recordings was over-joyed to get his hands
on
a
cd-recorder to transfer his large collection of lp and live open reel
and
later
DAT recordings to cd-r. He's even now acquiring lp material that he has
worn
out or wanted; through the internet to copy to cd-r.


Ditto the above, especially if he switched from open-reel to DAT and
didn't
notice a difference (other than, arguably, convenience).

Sure he did. According to him DAT is transparent. Magnetic tape is not.


And just as it is possible for reviewers to conclude that an amp with "edge"
is more transparent than another, it is also possible to mistake the
high-frequency "edge" of digital as contributing transparency. The real
issue is, which does more justice to the music being archieved when the
original is gone and only the archieve is around fifty years from now.
Ideally, a digital that sounds *exactly* like the analog. Commercial DAT
recorders do not quite achieve this goal, but until recently they were all
we had.

I record using
both, and the DAT's (Panasonic 3700's) definitely "lean out" and
"sharpen"
the sound compared to tape and live feed (albeit this is subtle).

DAT and CD-R are wonderful archiving tools. They are not the last word
in
sound reproduction media.

In your opinion. While neither is the "last word" they both beat the pants
off
any analog media.

Ideally, the "last word" will be digital and will not alter the character of
the analog sound. SACD and 96-192/24 PCM appear to meet this requirement.
What we need is a home-use version as well as studio version. So far, only
the Masterlink comes close.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

....snip to content......

"Nousaine" wrote in message

I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges
since
the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel
that
CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your
comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to
optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure
V15,
or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to
the
opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music.

For Pete's sake; you are assuming that I've not been-there and done-that,
which
is exactly why I no longer borther with vinyl. I have owned several Shure
V15s;
and yes the best cartridge I ever owned was the last one. And yes I've
owned MC
cartridges None of them could hold a candle to the V15.

This attitude is the last stronghold of the high-end apologist saying is
essence that I don't share your opinions because I haven't done the work,
lack
the expertise and/or haven't owned the right equipment.


But before you
conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP;
otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of
much
fine music).

I've always been willing to optimize my systems. But I am only willing
tune an
obsolete technology so much before simply replacing it with a better one.
For
what it's worth I've either acquired a re-issue or have an archived cd-r
copy
of any programming I owned on lp that I considered important. My biggest
recording problem is that I have too many of them.

If you are going to cut up my message, at least get the attribution correct.
You've got our quotations reversed.

As to your rationale for no longer using vinyl, I don't buy it. If you've
really gone to the trouble to optimize a system, it is not a big deal to
keep it in working order and enjoy the vinyl. Methinks a digital bias is
present and that you never had a vinyl system as good as digital to begin
with. It certain *is* possible if one cares to have it / do it.

"Greg Weaver" wrote in message
...
Stewart,



I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come
across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily available
in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover
for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that
time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum,
could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.

I'm a musician, and CD beats vinyl in every head-to-head same recording
comparison I've ever heard.

- Gary Rosen

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"B&D" wrote in message
news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52...
On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

Do you know how preposterous that sounds? I have been in and around
this
game since the late sixties, and I've yet to hear ANY well set-up
table/arm/cart - like the Music Hall MMF-2.1 for instance - "blown
away"
by
any similarly priced digital front end.

Your opinion, apparently not shared by many recording artists and engineers.

Then it seems you have a preference for that type of sound. LP
compared
to
CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression,
signal
to
noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.

All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them?

The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective
performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi.

Unfortunately, our beings our designed so that we do not listen
"objectively". All we can do is listen "subjectively". And on that
basis,
there are many who believe a top-flight LP system can outperform a
top-flight CD system.

Which is precisely why blind comparisons are useful. By not having a
reference of know flat amp, there is no good way of knowing if you are
hearing something that has a relation to fidelity.

This changes what exactly about the CD being better in every single
objective criteria?

People who want to hear what they were intended to hear choose CD and SS.

On 20 Jul 2004 02:03:46 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/19/04 7:34 PM, in article cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the mastering
standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium. Just
as SACD comes on the horizon.

Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about 10
minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the format.

Which recording engineers would that be?

The ones who did Dire Straits CDs, for a start.

CD has some definite advantages over vinyl - more convenient, no surface
noise. And both have some real stinkers as far as mastering quality is
concerned - though I have noticed that the standards of quality have risen
generally so that there are more good CD's now than there ever have been - I
recall a lot of CD's that got released in the early days with hiss (!)

Lots of them are still being released with hiss from the analogue
master tapes - why would that be a surprise? The difference is that on
CD you can *hear* the hiss...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 19 Jul 2004 22:29:36 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:dBBKc.113201$%_6.50861@attbi_s01...
On 17 Jul 2004 16:49:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
snip..snip..


Indeed there are - but many, many more who believe the reverse. And a
'top-flight' CD player need not of course be expensive, which allows
more money for what really matters - the speakers and the room.

Speaking of speakers, do you think we need $100,000 speakers to get an
accurate sound? or a $1000 mass market speakers will do?

It's been my experience that the best speakers at their price point
keep getting better all the way up to at least $50,000, which is the
most expensive I've heard. OTOH, a really good $2-3,000 pair of
minimonitors, combined with a high-quality subwoofer, gets *very*
close, and can be much easier to match to a room. For example, the
JMlabs Grande Utopia referenced above does not sound significantly
different from the Mini Utopia above 100Hz, to these tired old ears.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 19 Jul 2004 22:25:39 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/18/04 5:04 PM, in article dBBKc.113201$%_6.50861@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Unfortunately, our beings our designed so that we do not listen
"objectively". All we can do is listen "subjectively". And on that basis,
there are many who believe a top-flight LP system can outperform a
top-flight CD system.

Indeed there are - but many, many more who believe the reverse. And a
'top-flight' CD player need not of course be expensive, which allows
more money for what really matters - the speakers and the room.

Actually, for me it would be MUSIC.

Agreed - but a different argument.

And, yes, for comparable levels of reproduction CD is cheaper than turntable
stuff - and is more convenient and lasts longer without fuss.

Unfortunately for your theory, it would need a very cheap CD player to
get down to the ability of even the most expensive vinyl rig......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 19 Jul 2004 22:55:26 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: DjSKc.117270$MB3.113782@attbi_s04

On 18 Jul 2004 16:18:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/18/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52...
On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

LP compared to
CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression, signal
to
noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.

All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them?

The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of objective
performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi.

Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that of
LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much
less close to hifi.

Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the
market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very
best vinyl.

You might want to check your vinyl rig to make sure everything is working well.

I do, regularly. It works just fine,

Then maybe you ought to consider that your biases are at work. This claim of
"gross" outperformance would seem like a red flag that something is up.

When we're talking about one medium which has a hundred times lower
distortion and ten to a hundred times lower noise than the other,
'gross' seems like quite a mild term to me..................

but thanks for the predictable vinyl apologist response.

It was a logical thing to say to anyone who is having such trouble getting good
sound from their high end turntable.

Not what I said at all. I reckon that I get as good sound as anyone
else does from vinyl, it's just that the *medium* is fundamentally
limited.

If it is "grossly" being outpreformed IME
it would be likely one of two things. The rig isn't working right, the records
are subpar in quality and/or condition or the listener is profoundly biased.

Nope, CD simply outclasses vinyl in every possible way, as a high
fifdelity sound source.

but *all* of my
thirty-odd XRCDs exceed the fidelity of their vinyl equivalents, and
that is simply down to excellent mastering on a fundamentally superior
medium.

What titles are you talking about? Which LP issues did you compare them to? I
am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz
enthusiast.

Try the 'XXXXX with the Miles Davis Quintet' series. Every jazz
enthusiast has at least one version of those classics.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 19 Jul 2004 22:47:56 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

When you have the LP and CD systems sounding identical in timbre and
frequency, you can be assured that this aspect of LP reproduction is set
correctly. And in my system, it is.

Mine, too. It's easier when you start with a decently neutral
turntable, of course! :-)

And when it is, and identical
recordings are played on LP and CD, the LP's usually win on "depth of image"
and microdynamics.

That's not a 'win', that's just a preference for the added artifacts
and compression of vinyl over a truly accurate transcription of what
was on the master tape.

Also, a perfectly set up line-contact stylus and good
sounding headamp/preamp also minimize LP scratches and surface noise
(assuming the LP's are in good shape) to an inconsequential level so that
sometimes you really have to listen hard to hear any "noise" difference.

Only in the loud bits!

I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges since
the late '60's.

Me, too.

It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that
CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your
comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to
optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure V15,
or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to the
opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music.

No, I believe CDs are superior because I can make a CD-R copy of an LP
which sounds *exactly* like the original LP. That leads to the
reasonable conclusion that the digital medium is sonically
transparent, which LP most definitely isn't. I have had Goldring,
Thorens and Michell tables, Lenco, SME, Mission and Rega arms, and
Fidelity Research, Ortofon, Decca, and Audio-Technica carts. Oh yes,
and a V-15 which was certainly one of the better carts................

But before you
conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP;
otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of much
fine music).

Agreed. Now, since I've been there and done that - and so have lots of
others - did you have any point aside from your own personal
*preference* for vinyl?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...


I have been adjusting and optimizing turntables, arms, and cartridges
since
the late '60's. It is hard work and requires knowledge. If you feel that
CD's are superior to LP's because you don't have to do this work, or your
comparison is to a conventional LP player with no particular attention to
optimization, or the best cartridge your machine ever had was a Shure V15,
or you've never had a low-output MC in your system, you are welcome to the
opinion that CD's are better at reproduction of music. But before you
conclude that this is "intrinsic" you must be willing to optimize LP;
otherwise you are simply fooling yourself (and also robbing yourself of
much
fine music).

I have never fancied LP nor valve but my opinion has somewhat changed now.
It is not about accurate sound or better highs or lows between LP and CD but
what is pleasant to our ears. One need to hear a proper set up to appreciate
them. But again, it is all about individual preference.

It also depends on our generation. Whether we are sixties or 70s guys or our
music interest developed after CD entry to mass market. Most of the
youngster I know do go into LP because it is "the thing" for true
audiophile. However, they don't show as much devotion to LP as compared to
guys who started their collection with LP.

My 2 cents.

Absolute Sound
From: chung
Date: 7/19/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 811Lc.138430$XM6.28315@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: jjSKc.121019$IQ4.107545@attbi_s02

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:26:52 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: "Ban"
Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:

Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one.

No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just
look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very
early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful
but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the
measurements.

If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad.

I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well
by
the
measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though.

I suggest you do your homework on that one.

I did. These amps recieved glowing reviews for their measured performance
and
their sonic performance. i can only wonder if listening tests were actually
done.

They had very high
crossover distortion, and very low slew rate, both of which were
easily measurable.

I suggest you take this up with the folks who claimed they measured well
back
in the day. It's not my fault the reviewers were hung up on THD. It's not
my
fault they praised amps that a lot of people figured out sounded awful just
by
listening.


However it is your logical error when you conclude from this that bad
amps measure well.

No. That was the conclusion of the positive reviews of those amps at the time.

What you failed to understand is that there are some
bad amps that may have one parameter that measures well.

No, I didn't fail to understand that. I was simply pointing out that contrary
to your claim, being biased by measurements is nothing new.

But other
measured parameters clearly indicate that the amps are bad.

Not my fault the meter readers of that time didn't know what to look for. The
irony to me is the claims are the same but the measurements are new and
improved.


BTW, no one is blaming you personally for those faults you mentioned.


I am glad since I was just a small child at the time those eroneous reviews
based on measurements instead listening evaluations were published. I had
nothing to do with them.

From: "Ban"
Date: 7/19/2004 3:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Ban"
Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:

Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one.

No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just
look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very
early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful
but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the
measurements.

If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad.

I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly
well by the measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful
though.

Maybe in those
times a distortion measurement was difficult to execute, but never
the less it would have shown the low level distortion.

They did by the measurements of the day. And they sounded quite bad.
And a great deal of meter reader minded audio jounalists claimed they
were quite sonically superior. Maybe measurement based biases can be
a problem when seeking excellent sound.

The main reason people bought
SS amps then was the affordable price and the overall satisfying
performance. And that moment tubes disappeared from one year to the
next.

Yes. Some people refer to that time as the dark ages of audio. The
meter readers were seen as the voice of authority then. Many say this
terrible time in audio was what lead to the birth of Stereophile.

I never heard about this "terrible" time or dark age.

You can't say that anymore now can you. You have heard about them now.

And I have been
around.

Things happen that we don't know about even if we were around at the time.

I remember the introduction of stereophonic reproduction very well,
it must have been around that time.

No, that was a different time.

And that I perceived as a step forward,
in fact it was revolutionizing our hobby. You must have lived in Russia or
where?

Here in L.A. Doesn't really matter though. I didn't read those old reviews at
the time. I read them much later.




I think it ought to be. I think there is some use for smoe
measurements for audiophiles such as me. Matching equipment can be
made easier via measurements. I'm still going to make my final
decisions based on listening though.

This "matching" is another myth invented by the Quacks.

Hmm so you would put any cartridge on any arm, and any arm /cartridge
combo on any table? You would match any cartridge to any preamp? You
would mate any speaker with any amp? I think the "quacks" are right
and you are wrong here.

I was not talking about antiquated technology here.

Actually the subject was matching of audio equipment, I brought it up and I was
including everything I listed when I brought it up. I know some people like to
disparage LP playback by calling it antiquated but when did amps and speakers
become antiquated? That's a new one on me.

For me the principle of
a needle scratching in some groove on disks or cylinders is over a hundred
years old and outdated.

It still works quite well, in fact better than ever. Do you take the same
atitude towards artificial light sources and airplanes?

It was always a PITA to operate,

Many things are that produce outstanding results. I'm sure it is even more of a
problem if one believes matching components is a myth.

continuously the
needle was bent and the expensive disks were so delicate, a bit drunk or a
party and you would produce scratches that stayed forever. :-((

With enough abuse just about any piece of technology will malfunction.I say
blame the alcohol or the careless guests not the technology for those problems.


There are always certain conservative persons sticking to any outdated
technology, the legacy lovers.

I am sure there are but in the case of LP playback I'm not sure that I know
any.

They still use the C64 and say it is better
than my notebook.

I haven't run into anyone who has expressed a ppreference for slower
proccessors.

I admit, some might prefer that round look, well most of those have migrated
to the Tupperware apples tho.


Exept the
loudspeaker impedance(4 or 8 ohms) there is little to observe,
because already in that time there were existing specs about input
level(-10dBm), RIAA EQ and impedance etc. In fact the HiFi criteria
gives values for almost all important numbers. Any tuner, tape deck
or amplifier can be connected and will perform as stated if it was
fulfilling the criteria. This is one of the reasons the HiFi gear
gained such a popularity, as it was the case with the computer.

OK......If you say so. If you say so to your friends will you replace
their damaged equipment?

This is the most extreme statement I have seen so far. Damaged equipment?

Sure. Certain mismatches can easily lead to damage. You don't think so?

Do
you connect the mains to the speaker terminals or RCA-plugs?

Nope

Or do you
hot-plug your turntable into the preamp with volume full on?

Nope.

Sorry please
give some examples, I cannot conceive of any.

Really? You cannot concieve of the potential damgae that can happen between an
amp and speakers if amp is under powered or over powered?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:53:17 GMT, in article 1rBKc.110798$a24.64900@attbi_s03,
S888Wheel stated:

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 7/17/2004 9:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:





Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp
and
believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music
should
revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements?

I'd suggest they do some better comparisons between live music and the
amp, rather than rely on their memories.


Your suggestion makes a couple pretty big unfounded assumptions unless you are
quite familiar with MFs personal experiences with live music and you heard the
system that MF heard and reviewed.



I already answered your question. If the measurements show some minor problems,
no. If the measurements are just bloody awful, as in this case, the reviewer
should indeed engage in some very hard self-examination about the value of his
subjective opinions. I do not question MFs honesty, but I do question the
information content of his subjective conclusions. If Stereophile wants me to
pay for the listening impressions of an acute, skilled reviewer on the theory
that his conclusions are likely to be somewhat generalizable (and thus of use to
others), that is fine. If on the other and MFs review is just an anecdote of
how some guy felt emotionally and instinctively about the equipment and is not
grounded in any demonstrably more objective (and therefore generalizable)
standard, thats somewhat entertaining but at the end of the day, not really
worth the time to read. IMHO.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 4:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02

"B&D" wrote in message
news:APEJc.82992$JR4.774@attbi_s54...
On 7/15/04 12:30 PM, in article fiyJc.83777$MB3.69874@attbi_s04, "Norman
Schwartz" wrote:

"Greg Weaver" writes


I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and
not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come
across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily
available
in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music lover
for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same
recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over that
time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this forum,
could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.

I have a cassette tape (RCDJ 61909-4) from which can be heard an
interview
with John Pfieffer, "Executive Producer, RCA Victor Living Stereo", who
picks CD over LP, not only once, but every time.


Especially when they would benefit from it personally in CD sales.

CD is far superior to vinyl in a number of ways, surface noise being one
of
them.

Vinyl, especially good vinyl, sounds excellent, and better than CD.

To you. Not to people who like uncolored sound.

This is absolute nonsense. Recording engineers such as Stan Ricker, Kavi
Alexander and James Boyk all claim to prefer uncolored sound and all claim to
prefer vinyl. They, unlike any of us, have reported direct comparisons between
direct cut laquers, analog tape records and digital recordings to direct mic
feeds. Clearly there are people with tremendous knowledge of audio recording
and playback who like uncolored sound and not only like LP playback but prefer
it as the highest fidelity source.


I think, though, it is an apples to oranges a bit - because the mastering
standards of CD has only recently reached the potential of the medium.
Just
as SACD comes on the horizon.

Nonsense. There have been great sounding CD's and Mastering since about 10
minutes after the first recording engineers got their hands on the format.

Examples?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:KebLc.143803$Oq2.140604@attbi_s52...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 4:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: cUYKc.122965$IQ4.70903@attbi_s02

"B&D" wrote in message
news:APEJc.82992$JR4.774@attbi_s54...
On 7/15/04 12:30 PM, in article fiyJc.83777$MB3.69874@attbi_s04,
"Norman
Schwartz" wrote:

"Greg Weaver" writes


I just don't know what to say that could be taken constructively and
not
appear to be some type of flaming, as that IS NOT how I want to come
across.
However, in the past 22 years, since the CD format was readily
available
in
homes, not one time, NOT ONCE, has a musician (or any other music
lover
for
that matter) EVER picked CD over vinyl in a head-to-head, same
recording
comparison. We are talking about hundreds of demonstrations over
that
time.
Hundreds! I just can't believe that anyone, especially on this
forum,
could
so adamantly argue that side of the coin.

I have a cassette tape (RCDJ 61909-4) from which can be heard an
interview
with John Pfieffer, "Executive Producer, RCA Victor Living Stereo",
who
picks CD over LP, not only once, but every time.


Especially when they would benefit from it personally in CD sales.

CD is far superior to vinyl in a number of ways, surface noise being
one
of
them.

Vinyl, especially good vinyl, sounds excellent, and better than CD.

To you. Not to people who like uncolored sound.

This is absolute nonsense. Recording engineers such as Stan Ricker, Kavi
Alexander and James Boyk all claim to prefer uncolored sound and all claim
to
prefer vinyl. They, unlike any of us, have reported direct comparisons
between
direct cut laquers, analog tape records and digital recordings to direct
mic
feeds. Clearly there are people with tremendous knowledge of audio
recording
and playback who like uncolored sound and not only like LP playback but
prefer
it as the highest fidelity source.


Just a few minutes ago, in preparation for a listening session with a friend
(professor of music), I listened to Stereophile's recording of Robert
Silverman playing Brahms. I am a friend of a professional pianist and have
recorded nine-foot Steinway "D"s often. This is one fine sounding
recording, one of the best stereo recordings I've ever heard of classical
grand piano, done with minimalist XY microphones (crossed figure-eights) in
an acoustically live church. It was done by Kavi Alexandar. It was done
using tubed mics (EARs), tubed preamp (EAR), tubed recorder (Ampex 351).
Nothing but "uncolored". Exceedingly lifelike.

snip, not relevant to above

S888Wheel wrote:
Absolute Sound
From: chung
Date: 7/19/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 811Lc.138430$XM6.28315@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: jjSKc.121019$IQ4.107545@attbi_s02

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:26:52 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: "Ban"
Date: 7/17/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: rnoKc.119468$Oq2.36942@attbi_s52

S888Wheel wrote:

Measurements "pejudicing" (sic) customers? That's a new one.

No, It's nothing new.( except my unique spelling perhaps) Heck, just
look at all the folks that jumped on the band wagon with the very
early SS amps of the sixties. Some of them were really quite awful
but the meter reasers thought they were the cat's meow based on the
measurements.

If the sound was awful, they will have also measured bad.

I suggest you do your homework on that one. They measured amazingly well
by
the
measurements made in that time. They sounded pretty awful though.

I suggest you do your homework on that one.

I did. These amps recieved glowing reviews for their measured performance
and
their sonic performance. i can only wonder if listening tests were actually
done.

They had very high
crossover distortion, and very low slew rate, both of which were
easily measurable.

I suggest you take this up with the folks who claimed they measured well
back
in the day. It's not my fault the reviewers were hung up on THD. It's not
my
fault they praised amps that a lot of people figured out sounded awful just
by
listening.


However it is your logical error when you conclude from this that bad
amps measure well.

No. That was the conclusion of the positive reviews of those amps at the time.

What you failed to understand is that there are some
bad amps that may have one parameter that measures well.

No, I didn't fail to understand that. I was simply pointing out that contrary
to your claim, being biased by measurements is nothing new.

So those consumers who read the reviews you referred to were prejudiced
by poor reviewers who did not understand measurements. See the difference?

The measurements do not prejudice. It is the lack of understanding of
what the measurements mean that prejudice the reviewers/consumers
potentially.


But other
measured parameters clearly indicate that the amps are bad.

Not my fault the meter readers of that time didn't know what to look for.

So do not blame the measurements, blame the reviewers then.

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/20/2004 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: y9bLc.143763$Oq2.122370@attbi_s52

On 19 Jul 2004 22:55:26 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: DjSKc.117270$MB3.113782@attbi_s04

On 18 Jul 2004 16:18:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/18/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52...
On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article ,
"Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

LP compared to
CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression,
signal
to
noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.

All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them?

The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of
objective
performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi.

Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that
of
LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much
less close to hifi.

Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the
market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very
best vinyl.

You might want to check your vinyl rig to make sure everything is working
well.

I do, regularly. It works just fine,

Then maybe you ought to consider that your biases are at work. This claim of
"gross" outperformance would seem like a red flag that something is up.

When we're talking about one medium which has a hundred times lower
distortion and ten to a hundred times lower noise than the other,
'gross' seems like quite a mild term to me..................

Oh, I thought you might actually be talking about the actual listening
experience, an experience that is inherently riddled with distortions that
arguably look gross compared to either CD or high end LP.


but thanks for the predictable vinyl apologist response.

It was a logical thing to say to anyone who is having such trouble getting
good
sound from their high end turntable.

Not what I said at all.

"Grossly outperformed" would indicate a sign of trouble to me. especially when
CDs rarely out perform LPs on my system. But I didn't realize you were talking
measurements and not listening experience.

I reckon that I get as good sound as anyone
else does from vinyl,

I doubt that but that is another topic.

it's just that the *medium* is fundamentally
limited.

Every medium is limited. You were refering to gross outperformance. I made the
mistake of assuming you were speaking of what you were hearing.


If it is "grossly" being outpreformed IME
it would be likely one of two things. The rig isn't working right, the
records
are subpar in quality and/or condition or the listener is profoundly biased.

Nope, CD simply outclasses vinyl in every possible way, as a high
fifdelity sound source.

And yet I keep getting better sound from my records most of the time.


but *all* of my
thirty-odd XRCDs exceed the fidelity of their vinyl equivalents, and
that is simply down to excellent mastering on a fundamentally superior
medium.

What titles are you talking about? Which LP issues did you compare them to?
I
am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz
enthusiast.

Try the 'XXXXX with the Miles Davis Quintet' series. Every jazz
enthusiast has at least one version of those classics.

I am not familiar with this title. Is it a compliation? I have just about
everything the Miles Davis Quintet released on vinyl though. What LPs did you
compare this particular CD release with?

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/19/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"B&D" wrote in message
...
On 7/17/04 10:36 AM, in article , "S888Wheel"
wrote:

Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this
amp and
believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music
should
revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements?

IN this case, who knows. But the general consensus amongst so-called
"objectivists" is that the data sheet tells you just about everything you
need to know.

Then it should be no trouble to provide a quote of that.

probably not. Just run google searches on some the most frequent posters on
RAHE and indeed you should have no trouble finding one.


If an amplifier sounds nice, but the data sheet does not back
it up - then somehow your ears are fooling themselves.

Sorry what my ears tells me is what counts. I will not adjust my perceptions to
suit the measurements.


More likely you prefer a type of sound that is not faithful to the original,
or the spec sheet is wrong.

You are just speculating.

Fooling yourself is however very common in
audio.

I'm sure it is. I'm suspect that any number of meter readers are fooling
themselves. But who am I to spoil their fun. You would think that the folks who
make such a fuss about bias effects wouldn't get sucked into them so easily.


There is some truth
to that approach - and in a lot of ways should be the way one gets past
the
first cut in selecting gear.

In most audio equipment, at least the competently made stuff there is no
signature sound of it's own. This excludes loudspeakers and phono
cartridges.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: DjSKc.117270$MB3.113782@attbi_s04

On 18 Jul 2004 16:18:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/18/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52...
On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article ,
"Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

LP compared to
CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression,
signal
to
noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.

All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them?

The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of
objective
performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi.

Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than
that of
LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's
much
less close to hifi.

Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the
market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very
best vinyl.

You might want to check your vinyl rig to make sure everything is
working
well.

I do, regularly. It works just fine,


Then maybe you ought to consider that your biases are at work. This claim
of
"gross" outperformance would seem like a red flag that something is up.


but thanks for the predictable
vinyl apologist response.

It was a logical thing to say to anyone who is having such trouble getting
good
sound from their high end turntable. If it is "grossly" being outpreformed
IME
it would be likely one of two things. The rig isn't working right, the
records
are subpar in quality and/or condition or the listener is profoundly
biased.



I have a few of the very CDs you claim *grossly* exceed the fidelity of
even
the best vinyl. IME they don't exceed it at all. Some of the CDs you
cited
were
at least competetive with the best vinyl and their vinyl counterparts
while
some didn't really even contend.

In your humble opinion, of course.........

Of course, oh and *every single person* who has ever made the comparisons
on my
system. This is of course anecdotal. But then we are comparing anecdotes.



I don't recall citing any CDs in this thread,

I was speaking of previous citations you have made on older threads.

but *all* of my
thirty-odd XRCDs exceed the fidelity of their vinyl equivalents, and
that is simply down to excellent mastering on a fundamentally superior
medium.

What titles are you talking about?

Every album I replaced with a CD that I owned as an LP. From Pink Floyd to
Bach.

Which LP issues did you compare them to?

See above.

I
am always on the look out for better masterings. And I am quite a jazz
enthusiast.


John Handy Excursion in Blue is excellent on CD.

Anything from GRP.

What does it matter, you don't like CD sound so you'll claim your LP's out
perform the CD. The problem is they don't but you like LP sound better,
even though you're missing out on the increased transient response, lower
noise and no possibility of tracking error.

You like what you like, but it's still inferior to CD.

On 7/20/04 11:45 AM, in article U6bLc.143743$Oq2.22642@attbi_s52, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

People who want to hear what they were intended to hear choose CD and SS.

That is your opinion. Most tube designs and good SS sound about the same
anyway - and if both are backed out of compression - they both sound great.
If tubes are compressing - they still tend to sound better than SS's
compression. SO it all depends.

I will agree that it is far more affordable to get good sound out of a CD/SS
setup - and much more convenient. This is why this is my basic setup.

I would further say, though, that to say that somehow vinyl and tube is
flawed and colored sound and somehow unacceptable - that is overstating the
claim as well.

On 7/20/04 11:46 AM, in article w7bLc.108245$WX.83238@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 19 Jul 2004 22:25:39 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/18/04 5:04 PM, in article dBBKc.113201$%_6.50861@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Unfortunately, our beings our designed so that we do not listen
"objectively". All we can do is listen "subjectively". And on that
basis,
there are many who believe a top-flight LP system can outperform a
top-flight CD system.

Indeed there are - but many, many more who believe the reverse. And a
'top-flight' CD player need not of course be expensive, which allows
more money for what really matters - the speakers and the room.

Actually, for me it would be MUSIC.

Agreed - but a different argument.

Sure - but I wanted to remind people it is more about the music than the
gear. Gear is a means to an end.


And, yes, for comparable levels of reproduction CD is cheaper than turntable
stuff - and is more convenient and lasts longer without fuss.

Unfortunately for your theory, it would need a very cheap CD player to
get down to the ability of even the most expensive vinyl rig......

Here we disagree. I think a $1500 CD player would compare to a $5k vinyl
rig (turntable, tonearm, cartridge), though. Assuming the vinyl and CD's
used for evaluation were pristine.