[Carey Carlan]

"Keith G" wrote in
:

No, I've never seen that numbering - I've got one or two sets numbered
1/4 & 2/3 and plenty numbered 1/2 & 3/4.

1/4 & 2/3 is designed for automatic record changers. Put the stack on the
changer. 1 drops first, then 2. Flip the two-record stack and put it back
on the changer. 3 will drop, then 4.

[Serge Auckland]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"dizzy" wrote in crossposted message
...
Marc Wielage wrote:

For some odd reason, there are people who foolishly convert MP3 files to
FLAC
(or APE), perhaps in the mistaken belief that it will make the signal
"sound"
better.

Sounds like those who buy "tubed" CD players, thinking that the one
tube stage at the player's output will somehow "fix" all the "harm"
done to the signal by all the solid-state stuff.



Why? Doesn't it?


Not to mention all those nasty digits which disappear into the vacuum of the
tubes......

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
news
Some labels, including Pathe, did put out center-start records during the
78
era. Some radio transcriptions were done that way, too. And radio
transcriptions of long shows were sometimes done alternating center-start
and rim-start, so there would be no jarring change in sound quality as the
operator switched from disc to disc.

I can just imagine that operator sometimes got confused which way was next
then :-)
Even if they are well marked, it's surely a recipe for disaster.

No, it's easy to tell by where the blank space is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Keith G]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...


"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"dizzy" wrote in crossposted message
...
Marc Wielage wrote:

For some odd reason, there are people who foolishly convert MP3
files to FLAC
(or APE), perhaps in the mistaken belief that it will make the
signal "sound"
better.

Sounds like those who buy "tubed" CD players, thinking that the one
tube stage at the player's output will somehow "fix" all the "harm"
done to the signal by all the solid-state stuff.



Why? Doesn't it?


Not to mention all those nasty digits which disappear into the vacuum
of the tubes......


I wonder how many CDs you can play before the valves fill up with lost
digits?

But, on a more serious note, I have often wondered if 'tubed' CDPs sound
any better (I've never heard one myself) - having witnessed a vast
number* of people here being staggered backwards to hear CDs (including
their own) played through valve amps for the first time!!


*OK, maybe half a dozen or so...??

[Scott Dorsey]

Keith G wrote:

But, on a more serious note, I have often wondered if 'tubed' CDPs sound
any better (I've never heard one myself) - having witnessed a vast
number* of people here being staggered backwards to hear CDs (including
their own) played through valve amps for the first time!!

I use Sheldon Stokes' DAC, which has a 6DJ8 output stage. It sounds good.
It probably sounds good more because it's well-designed with careful layout
than because the output stage is a tube, but it's pretty clean.

He does the I/V stage on the output of the ladder (a PCM-63) just with a
shunt resistor to ground and then pulliing off into the high-Z input of
the tube grid. This gives comparatively poor S/N, much worse than an
active I/V stage, but I think it sounds better than a conventional active
I/V stage. You could do the same thing with a FET-input op-amp and it
would probably sound just as good, though.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave wrote:
I have been disappointed with the audio quality of some CDs I have
bought recently. Is there a free program I can use to get an accepted
measurement of fidelity? (like a signal to noise ratio)

No, you can only listen.

I have my suspicious that some may have been stored an MP3s and then
"unripped" in the factory. So how can I tell for certain if my CD has
been an MP3, or other lossy format? I'd hope mp3 storage would leave
different markers than the original tape, for example.

This will never be the case for a major label release. However, as an
increasing number of records are issued by amateurs who don't necessarily
have a clue what they are doing, you may find this on some small releases.

More likely you are heaving the massive overcompression and limiting
which is currently fashionable. Everybody wants their recordings to be
louder, not necessarily to sound good.

To get a good measure I'd expect some Fourier transforms and signal
analysis to be done, so this should be relevant to sci.physics.

If you play back a recording made with a perceptual encoder like MP3
uses, and you look at the spectrum with an FFT (using a program like
SpectraFOO or some other free FFT application), it will be very obvious
that something goofy has been going on. You'll see these big square
blocks of spectrum popping in and out.

If, on the other hand, you play back a heavily limited recording on an
FFT application, you won't see much other than that the plot is a lot
denser than it otherwise would be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

"Dave" wrote ...

Have there been no bright PhD students sponsored by the music
industry, or are they too busy with their revenue stream? The noise
is what is not the notes. For a symphony you have an idea of what the
notes should be, because you have the sheet music, and you know what a
violin, flute etc should sound like. You may be able to measure
something more because that is what the brain does.

"Music is the space between the notes."
-- Franz Liszt


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Colin B. wrote:

I'd suggest that this isn't a recent phenomenon. I've got plenty of pop
vinyl from the 1970s and 1980s that has roughly no dynamics. Making crap
sound louder on the radio at the complete expense of quality is decades old.

That vinyl was pumped to hell and back with massive compression, BUT it
wasn't aggressively limited as well, because aggressive limiting didn't
really improve loudness on vinyl much.

Today with the CD there is a hard limit for level, and so you hear a lot of
heavy peak limiting today. That's more destructive to the overall sound.
The combination of the two is an absolute killer.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Serge Auckland wrote:

That's like asking if there's a computer program to confirm a wine is of
poor quality, or a piece of art work is of poor quality.

Precisely, and if you could do such a thing effectively in a way that would
correlate with human judgement, you could probably get a Turing award if
not a Nobel.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

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

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
news
Some labels, including Pathe, did put out center-start records during
the
78
era. Some radio transcriptions were done that way, too. And radio
transcriptions of long shows were sometimes done alternating
center-start
and rim-start, so there would be no jarring change in sound quality as
the
operator switched from disc to disc.

I can just imagine that operator sometimes got confused which way was next
then :-)
Even if they are well marked, it's surely a recipe for disaster.

The disaster would be short-lived and not on the air; a disc that's cut
center-out can't be cued up at the outside rim, as the groove is going in
the wrong direction. (Vice versa, of course.) So the operator would realize
the error during the cue-up process, which would typically be done as soon
as the previous changeover had been accomplished..

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

Classical 78 sets came out in two numbering schemes:

Manual - 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8

Automatic - 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5

For an automatic album, you used a changer and stacked the discs in order,
with 1 on the bottom and 4 on the top. When 4 was done, you flipped the
stack and played through to the end.

If someone was playing the discs on air, or in a "gramophone concert",
they'd need to either have two copies of the 4/5 disc or do some sort of a
break (commercial, commentary, etc.). But this very seldom happened, at
least in the USA; classical music on air, when it happened, was mostly live
up until the LP era. And we didn't have gramophone concerts much here.

As to who had the money for two turntables -- radio stations, that's who.
Before satellite networks, when microwave links and equalized phone lines
were the norm, some programs went out on transcription discs, 33-1/3
coarse-groove, 15 minutes per segment.

Peace,
Paul

[Richard Kuschel]

On Jun 26, 7:54 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
"Dave" wrote ...



Have there been no bright PhD students sponsored by the music
industry, or are they too busy with their revenue stream? The noise
is what is not the notes. For a symphony you have an idea of what the
notes should be, because you have the sheet music, and you know what a
violin, flute etc should sound like. You may be able to measure
something more because that is what the brain does.

"Music is the space between the notes."
-- Franz Liszt

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



I thought that "Music is the space between the notes." was John Cage,
but more research seems to attribute it to Claude Debussy. I would
imagine that it has been paraphrased a few times by other people.

[Keith G]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
Classical 78 sets came out in two numbering schemes:

Manual - 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8

Automatic - 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5

For an automatic album, you used a changer and stacked the discs in
order,
with 1 on the bottom and 4 on the top. When 4 was done, you flipped
the
stack and played through to the end.

If someone was playing the discs on air, or in a "gramophone concert",
they'd need to either have two copies of the 4/5 disc or do some sort
of a
break (commercial, commentary, etc.). But this very seldom happened,
at
least in the USA; classical music on air, when it happened, was mostly
live
up until the LP era. And we didn't have gramophone concerts much here.



I grew up in what was then a small village (in the UK) and I'm pretty
certain 'gramophone concerts' were held in the village hall from time to
time, but that would have been before I was old enough to go. The
nearest I got was 'music lessons' in the primary school I attended when
the headmaster played records to us and although I can't remember the
record player (gramophone?) too clearly, I'm certain it wasn't an
autochanger. I do vividly remember the music though - stuff like
Greensleeves, Grieg (Peer Gynt) and various Ketelbey tunes.

Anyway, this got me interested to Google and I found this site:

http://www.cph.rcm.ac.uk/MusicRoom/070115Summary.htm

There are some very interesting references and observations, including
the notion that the so-called 'WAF' is nearly 100 years old and I
particularly like this bit: "To catch a friend listening to the
gramophone alone would be equivalent to finding them 'sniffing cocaine'."

:-)

[Robert Orban]

In article .com,
says...


I have been disappointed with the audio quality of some CDs I have
bought recently. Is there a free program I can use to get an accepted
measurement of fidelity? (like a signal to noise ratio)

I have my suspicious that some may have been stored an MP3s and then
"unripped" in the factory. So how can I tell for certain if my CD has
been an MP3, or other lossy format? I'd hope mp3 storage would leave
different markers than the original tape, for example.

To get a good measure I'd expect some Fourier transforms and signal
analysis to be done, so this should be relevant to sci.physics.


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=34845

http://www.carnet.hr/CUC/cuc2004/pro...da/b1_full.pdf

http://opticom.de/

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Not as confusing as numbering 2-disc sets of LPs 1/4 and 2/3 for public
performance - where the playing order goes/went as follows:
Stack the albums with sides in this order from the top: 1/4, 3/2
Play Side 1, flip both discs together
Play Side 2, flip top disc only
Play Side 3, remove top disc
Play Side 4, remove disc, take bow, bring up house lights....

Yes totally stupid, those with 2 decks want disks 1/3 and 2/4 so the change
can be seamless.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
But, on a more serious note, I have often wondered if 'tubed' CDPs sound
any better (I've never heard one myself) - having witnessed a vast
number* of people here being staggered backwards to hear CDs (including
their own) played through valve amps for the first time!!

Of course they sound DIFFERENT.
"Better" is purely a *subjective opinion* in that case with large numbers in
each camp.
*Objectively* there is no contest though.
The distinction is lost on non technical people unfortunately.

MrT.

[Keith G]

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Not as confusing as numbering 2-disc sets of LPs 1/4 and 2/3 for
public
performance - where the playing order goes/went as follows:
Stack the albums with sides in this order from the top: 1/4, 3/2
Play Side 1, flip both discs together
Play Side 2, flip top disc only
Play Side 3, remove top disc
Play Side 4, remove disc, take bow, bring up house lights....

Yes totally stupid, those with 2 decks want disks 1/3 and 2/4 so the
change
can be seamless.


I'm not sure completely *seamless* was really ever the aim - more a case
of not having to try and handle two discs at the same time in a 'one
coming off and one going on' situation?

It's interesting that the much more common 1/2, 3/4 numbering system
doesn't allow a smooth changeover on a single deck, offers no advantage
over the above 'single deck' routine on two decks and doesn't even work
on an autochanger...??

[Keith G]

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
But, on a more serious note, I have often wondered if 'tubed' CDPs
sound
any better (I've never heard one myself) - having witnessed a vast
number* of people here being staggered backwards to hear CDs
(including
their own) played through valve amps for the first time!!

Of course they sound DIFFERENT.


But have you actually *heard* one...??


"Better" is purely a *subjective opinion* in that case with large
numbers in
each camp.
*Objectively* there is no contest though.
The distinction is lost on non technical people unfortunately.


Lost on me, that's for sure - what is the distinction?

(I suspect you are describing the scenario where someone has been
listening to the music and says he prefers a particular player and
someone else who has been *measuring* stuff says 'No, you are
*wrong*!!'...??)

[Keith G]

"Keith G" wrote


(I suspect you are describing the scenario where someone has been
listening to the music and says he prefers a particular player and
someone else who has been * easuring* stuff says 'No, you are
*wrong*!!'...??)


Found this m stuck to the screen...!!

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
But, on a more serious note, I have often wondered if 'tubed' CDPs
sound
any better (I've never heard one myself) - having witnessed a vast
number* of people here being staggered backwards to hear CDs
(including
their own) played through valve amps for the first time!!

Of course they sound DIFFERENT.

But have you actually *heard* one...??

Very many of each. Although "heard" may be the wrong term in the case of any
good amplifier. Any coloration you hear in almost all cases is the speakers
and the acoustic environment they are located in. If you do hear a major
difference caused by an amplifier, then the amp is seriously flawed.
And it's funny that when solid state amplifiers did get so close to the
ideal "piece of wire with gain" many years ago, some people started paying
big dollars for "better" cables :-)
Which is not to say there aren't some seriously flawed and even unstable
solid state designs around if you look hard enough. Just not as many as
seriously flawed tube designs these days.

"Better" is purely a *subjective opinion* in that case with large
numbers in
each camp.
*Objectively* there is no contest though.
The distinction is lost on non technical people unfortunately.

Lost on me, that's for sure - what is the distinction?

If you don't understand the difference between objective testing, and
subjective opinion, I suggest you do some basic research.

(I suspect you are describing the scenario where someone has been
listening to the music and says he prefers a particular player and
someone else who has been *measuring* stuff says 'No, you are
*wrong*!!'...??)

Put simply, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of it's
relationship to physical reality.
You cannot disprove someone's personal subjective opinion, despite the
number of flame fests on Usenet trying to do so.
But as the saying goes "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and
they're often full of ****".

MrT.

[Keith G]

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
But, on a more serious note, I have often wondered if 'tubed' CDPs
sound
any better (I've never heard one myself) - having witnessed a vast
number* of people here being staggered backwards to hear CDs
(including
their own) played through valve amps for the first time!!

Of course they sound DIFFERENT.

But have you actually *heard* one...??

Very many of each. Although "heard" may be the wrong term in the case
of any
good amplifier.



I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?



"Better" is purely a *subjective opinion* in that case with large
numbers in
each camp.
*Objectively* there is no contest though.
The distinction is lost on non technical people unfortunately.

Lost on me, that's for sure - what is the distinction?

If you don't understand the difference between objective testing, and
subjective opinion, I suggest you do some basic research.


No. You just tell me what the distinction is.


(I suspect you are describing the scenario where someone has been
listening to the music and says he prefers a particular player and
someone else who has been *measuring* stuff says 'No, you are
*wrong*!!'...??)

Put simply, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of
it's
relationship to physical reality.


What physical reality? That they are *wrong*??


You cannot disprove someone's personal subjective opinion, despite the
number of flame fests on Usenet trying to do so.
But as the saying goes "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one
and
they're often full of ****".


Not really relevant here - we are talking about an 'opinion' which is
expressed by *choice* (presumably after some physical comparisons)
rather than an opinon expressed as an *observation*, are we not?

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?

Yes, so what?

If you don't understand the difference between objective testing, and
subjective opinion, I suggest you do some basic research.

No. You just tell me what the distinction is.

Does your nappy need changing too?

Not really relevant here - we are talking about an 'opinion' which is
expressed by *choice* (presumably after some physical comparisons)
rather than an opinon expressed as an *observation*, are we not?

Opinions are always a choice, physical reality goes on regardless.

MrT.

[Keith G]

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?

Yes, so what?


So, do you think they sound *better*?


If you don't understand the difference between objective testing,
and
subjective opinion, I suggest you do some basic research.

No. You just tell me what the distinction is.

Does your nappy need changing too?


Why, are you volunteering?



Not really relevant here - we are talking about an 'opinion' which is
expressed by *choice* (presumably after some physical comparisons)
rather than an opinon expressed as an *observation*, are we not?

Opinions are always a choice, physical reality goes on regardless.


OK, I retract my earlier remark about there being some benefits to
crossposting - meaningless waffle, insults and a seriously stupid
'Usenet name' are still all par for the course, it seems....

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?

Yes, so what?


So, do you think they sound *better*?

Yes, everything sounds *better* to me with audible noise and distortion
added in. ;-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?

I know you've put it in parenthesis, but a genuine valve CD player would
be the size of a house...

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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

[Richard Crowley]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote ...
Keith G wrote:
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?

I know you've put it in parenthesis, but a genuine
valve CD player would be the size of a house...

And a single tube/valve CD player would consume more
power than all the CFLs in the British Isles are saving. :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?

I know you've put it in parenthesis, but a genuine valve
CD player would be the size of a house...

It might be larger, and would have so many tubes that it many never actually
have enough good tubes in place to work.

There might also be some problems with data rates. Tubed computers never got
real fast.

[Keith G]

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

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?

Yes, so what?


So, do you think they sound *better*?

Yes, everything sounds *better* to me with audible noise and
distortion added in. ;-)


It actually *does* though, doesn't it?

:-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote ...
Keith G wrote:
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?

I know you've put it in parenthesis, but a genuine
valve CD player would be the size of a house...

And a single tube/valve CD player would consume more
power than all the CFLs in the British Isles are saving. :-)

I dunno. With a sigma-delta system, the main switch and the integrator
and analogue section are all that you'd have to use tubes for. You
could argue the constant voltage source had to be tubed as well, but
the digital side could be all solid state.

Doing this you could probably do the whole thing in fewer than a dozen
tubes, but the main switch would need to have very wide bandwidth and
a nice square switching waveform. Frame grid tubes wouldn't cut it,
gas tubes are way too slow. You might be borderline for a nuvistor.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote ...
Keith G wrote:
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?

I know you've put it in parenthesis, but a genuine
valve CD player would be the size of a house...

And a single tube/valve CD player would consume more
power than all the CFLs in the British Isles are saving. :-)

I dunno. With a sigma-delta system, the main switch and the
integrator
and analogue section are all that you'd have to use tubes for. You
could argue the constant voltage source had to be tubed as well, but
the digital side could be all solid state.

Doing this you could probably do the whole thing in fewer than a dozen
tubes, but the main switch would need to have very wide bandwidth and
a nice square switching waveform. Frame grid tubes wouldn't cut it,
gas tubes are way too slow. You might be borderline for a nuvistor.

But it takes the equivalent of thousands of transistors
just for the motor drivers, head positioning, fine pickup
position servos, etc. etc. Surely doing all that "housekeeping"
stuff with nice warm-sounding tubes will improve the sound
of the output. And, of course, you need a good incandescent
light source, properly filtered and focused, to put some
"life" into those ones and zeroes that are being read off the
spinning disc. :-)

There is more computing power in my optical mouse than
in any of the tube-based computers.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I meant have you heard a 'tubed' CD player?
Yes, so what?
So, do you think they sound *better*?

Better than what?
Do you think they all sound the same?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
So, do you think they sound *better*?

Yes, everything sounds *better* to me with audible noise and
distortion added in. ;-)

It actually *does* though, doesn't it?

Once again you forgot to add the important "In YOUR opinion".

Oh wait, you haven't looked up the definition of opinion yet.

MrT.

[Colin B.]

In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Colin B." wrote


I'd suggest that this isn't a recent phenomenon. I've got plenty of
pop
vinyl from the 1970s and 1980s that has roughly no dynamics.

Yep, you bought it so *they* kept on supplying it - same thing's
happening today, apparently. Where's the problem?

Yep. Some of it I did, and when I was under 12 years old, I didn't notice
the difference. That doesn't mean that it's their moral perogative to
contiue producing crap.

Much of it I've picked up recently, for $0.50 per album at garage sales
and used record shops. On a whim, I got Kim Carnes' "Mistaken Identity"
tossed in when I bought a turntable a while back. Thing is about 0.03db
between the loudest and quietest passages. Horrible to listen to.

Compressed audio like 'Classic FM' on a car radio works very well,
actually....

True, car audio is a different beast in many ways. Many of my favorite
albums (on CD, that is) don't come with me in the car, because the volume
I need to listen to 70% of them makes the remaining 30% painfully loud.
But they sound brilliant at home.

Colin

[Keith G]

"Colin B." wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

I did, but it was a long time ago...



"Colin B." wrote


I'd suggest that this isn't a recent phenomenon. I've got plenty of
pop
vinyl from the 1970s and 1980s that has roughly no dynamics.

Yep, you bought it so *they* kept on supplying it - same thing's
happening today, apparently. Where's the problem?

Yep. Some of it I did, and when I was under 12 years old, I didn't
notice
the difference. That doesn't mean that it's their moral perogative to
contiue producing crap.


The equation is a simple one - if crap is bought, then crap will be
produced...


Much of it I've picked up recently, for $0.50 per album at garage
sales
and used record shops. On a whim, I got Kim Carnes' "Mistaken
Identity"
tossed in when I bought a turntable a while back. Thing is about
0.03db
between the loudest and quietest passages. Horrible to listen to.


The days of good 'threefers' and 'forfers' (charity shop 'bundled vinyl'
offers) are gone. Worthwhile vinyl is a few quid a slice now and no
longer peanuts off Fleabay, what with the postage, these days...



Compressed audio like 'Classic FM' on a car radio works very well,
actually....

True, car audio is a different beast in many ways. Many of my favorite
albums (on CD, that is) don't come with me in the car, because the
volume
I need to listen to 70% of them makes the remaining 30% painfully
loud.


That's a *ding*....

:-)

[Colin B.]

In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Colin B." wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

I did, but it was a long time ago...

I know. I've been on holidays for three weeks. :-)

"Colin B." wrote

I'd suggest that this isn't a recent phenomenon. I've got plenty of
pop
vinyl from the 1970s and 1980s that has roughly no dynamics.

Yep, you bought it so *they* kept on supplying it - same thing's
happening today, apparently. Where's the problem?

Yep. Some of it I did, and when I was under 12 years old, I didn't
notice
the difference. That doesn't mean that it's their moral perogative to
contiue producing crap.

The equation is a simple one - if crap is bought, then crap will be
produced...

The equation is even simpler than that: Companies will do as little as
possible to make a profit. Quality costs money. As long as they can find
a way of selling things without 'wasting' money on quality, they will.

Or even simpler: Companies suck.

The days of good 'threefers' and 'forfers' (charity shop 'bundled vinyl'
offers) are gone. Worthwhile vinyl is a few quid a slice now and no
longer peanuts off Fleabay, what with the postage, these days...

Nah. I've picked up a handful of good cheap vinyl, but it's harder to find.
Got "Twisting by the Pool" a few months ago for a buck, and it had hardly
been played. Good sound all 'round. For half a buck or so, I can take a few
risks to get a worthwhile album now and then.

As often as not these days though, I find that I'll download a decent MP3
of a remastered album before deciding whether or not to buy it. I don't
think I've bought an album without hearing it in a few years now, except
for concert albums. (Although I'm really kicking myself for not buying an
album I heard in a record store in central Holland a few weeks ago, because
I can't find it available anywhere in North America, now that I'm back
home).

Colin

[Keith G]

"Colin B." wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Colin B." wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

I did, but it was a long time ago...

I know. I've been on holidays for three weeks. :-)


OK. Where's my stick of rock then?

(That's very *UK* - might come over poorly if you are a crossposting
Yank, like another Brit evergreen: 'I'm dying for a fag'... :-)



The equation is a simple one - if crap is bought, then crap will be
produced...

Or even simpler: Companies suck.


That is a simpler equation and very largely true...


The days of good 'threefers' and 'forfers' (charity shop 'bundled
vinyl'
offers) are gone. Worthwhile vinyl is a few quid a slice now and no
longer peanuts off Fleabay, what with the postage, these days...

Nah.


??

Is that *teen* for 'I disagree'...??

(We don't see that in ukra too often, these days - not since Pinky
****ed off.... :-)


I've picked up a handful of good cheap vinyl, but it's harder to find.
Got "Twisting by the Pool" a few months ago for a buck, and it had
hardly
been played. Good sound all 'round. For half a buck or so, I can take
a few
risks to get a worthwhile album now and then.


Sure, but I can't do 'good cheap vinyl' and "Twisting by the Pool" in
the same sentence - I was thinking of this kinda thing:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...4311&rd=1&rd=1

Time was (before I shot my mouth off about the all valve/analogue
'Slavic' recordings and obviously sparked off a bit of a rush) you could
have one of these arrive for about 3 quid. Now, it's double that and
rising...



As often as not these days though, I find that I'll download a decent
MP3
of a remastered album before deciding whether or not to buy it. I
don't
think I've bought an album without hearing it in a few years now,
except
for concert albums.


Hearing secondhand classical is nigh impossible on the UK - secondhand
record shops rarely carry it and charity shops (that do carry it)
understandably don't have the facilities. Mind you some of the cueing
disasters I've witnessed in the secondhand shops (on very dubious decks)
mean that you usually don't ask them to play a second one...

(FWIW, I've never been disappointed with any eBay vinyl yet - the worst
was a *brand new* Bladerunner bootleg that was pretty dire and the
Seller sent me *two* more FOC to 'try and get a good one' and promised
to kick his supplier's arse over the quality for the *next batch*...!!
:-)



(Although I'm really kicking myself for not buying an
album I heard in a record store in central Holland a few weeks ago,
because
I can't find it available anywhere in North America, now that I'm back
home).


Contact the shop (must be findable) - even the Dutch have international
post now...

:-)