[Randy Yates]

"Arny Krueger" writes:

The general rule of thumb is that it is far easier to cut an agressive LP
than to track it.

Cutting doesn't have to be done in real-time.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" writes:

The general rule of thumb is that it is far easier to
cut an agressive LP than to track it.

Cutting doesn't have to be done in real-time.

Agreed, and there weren't a lot of viable options in the day of.

Today, we can playback vinyl at any speed that suits our other needs, and
still listen to it with natural pitch and timbre.

Unfortunately, slow playback won't help problems due to bass excursion, and
will make the tone arm fundamental resonance issues more intrusive because
they will move up the musical scale when we listen.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

snip, irrelevant to point below

I was spinning vinyl back in the days when the first elliptical styli came
out. Lots of us upgraded existing cartridges to use them, even though our
existing conicals were in good shape.

I agree with Arny on this. Ellipticals were a godsend and greatly improved
tracking, improved high-frequency sound, and reduced surface noise. There
was a mass migration and upgrade as a result.

When finelines came along, they carried this further but the improvment was
incremental, not massive.

[Stephen Worth]

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

You haven't been following the thread then. It was claimed that a $50
cartridge with a conical stylus at any tracking force, would cause less
groove damage than the most expensive cartridges available using line
contact or any other stylus shape.

Sorry. You're the one who hasn't been listening. That isn't what I said
at all. Are you trying to prop up a straw man?

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Conical styli are generally a step backwards. So we have a big step
backwards into an obsolete format, followed by a step backwards within the
technology of that obsolete format.

Pretty much sums it up. But at least he admits it's only to save money (even
that's doubtful) not that it's actually superior to CD, as many others feel
the need to claim.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

In article , Stephen Worth
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
Think about the shape of an elliptical stylus... imagine it contacting
the groove a little bit off angle. One side will contact harder than
the other. A conical stylus is symmetrical. It can be a little twisted
one way or the other and it still contacts the groove the same.

Not so, there are three axis that need to be aligned. Maybe the horizontal
plane will not affect a spherical tip, but the vertical plane and tracking
angle still have an effect, unless the stylus was a complete sphere.

Alignment does NOT stay the same. If you use your turntable regularly,
things move around as you handle the tonearm. Elliptical stylii need to
be aligned every three to six months with everyday use.

Yet my experience over some decades of using LP replay systems
with non-'conical' styli did not agree with your theory. Although
it has been some time since I used LP on an 'everyday' basis. But
I did do so for many years.

Doesn't match many others experience either. Maybe he is very heavy handed.

For all I know, you are correct. But I haven't found any assessable
evidence, not have you provided any, nor does my experience indicate
that you are right. So unless you are able to provide some specific
reference that I - and perhaps others - could examine, I am afraid I
will have to doubt your assertion. :-)

Given his lack of understanding of the alignment procedure, I would say that
is a wise move.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
You haven't been following the thread then. It was claimed that a $50
cartridge with a conical stylus at any tracking force, would cause less
groove damage than the most expensive cartridges available using line
contact or any other stylus shape.

Sorry. You're the one who hasn't been listening. That isn't what I said
at all. Are you trying to prop up a straw man?

I notice you snipped the part where I suggested any doubters merely use
Google groups to ascertain that is pretty much exactly what was claimed.
The thing I love about Usenet is that anybody can claim they didn't say
something, but the whole world can still read exactly what was said.

If you are now making a different claim, maybe you should tell us what it
is?

MrT.

[Mark D. Zacharias]

Stephen Worth wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'd be interested to see some references to some research/measurement
reports that support the above as a generalised assertion about
"elliptical tipped" cartridges.

This is info that goes back to the LP era. Do some googling. You'll
find it. You might try looking for references to stylus shapes
intended for transcription as opposed to everyday use.

Think about the shape of an elliptical stylus... imagine it contacting
the groove a little bit off angle. One side will contact harder than
the other. A conical stylus is symmetrical. It can be a little twisted
one way or the other and it still contacts the groove the same.

Alignment does NOT stay the same. If you use your turntable regularly,
things move around as you handle the tonearm. Elliptical stylii need
to be aligned every three to six months with everyday use.

See ya
Steve

If the cartridge is properly secured in place, the alignment should not
change with ordinary handling. This seems obvious.

In the under - 50.00 range, the Grado Prestige Black is a stone bargain.


Mark Z.

[Stephen Worth]

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

If you are now making a different claim, maybe you should tell us what it
is?

I said that it's perfectly possible to put together a good sounding
setup for playing vinyl LPs for $250 to $300.

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

[Randy Yates]

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" writes:

The general rule of thumb is that it is far easier to
cut an agressive LP than to track it.

Cutting doesn't have to be done in real-time.

Agreed, and there weren't a lot of viable options in the day of.

Today, we can playback vinyl at any speed that suits our other needs, and
still listen to it with natural pitch and timbre.

You mean with sample rate conversion? Yes, we could, but there would be
the problem of the delay as the buffer fills with enough data to go
real-time.

Unfortunately, slow playback won't help problems due to bass excursion, and
will make the tone arm fundamental resonance issues more intrusive because
they will move up the musical scale when we listen.

Huh? I would think that all those things WOULD be mitigated by slowed
playback. A resonance at 30 kHz is better than one at 15 kHz (e.g.)!
--
% Randy Yates % "Midnight, on the water...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % I saw... the ocean's daughter."
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head'
%%%% % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[[email protected]]

Randy Yates wrote:
"Arny Krueger" writes:
Unfortunately, slow playback won't help problems due to bass excursion, and
will make the tone arm fundamental resonance issues more intrusive because
they will move up the musical scale when we listen.

Huh? I would think that all those things WOULD be mitigated by slowed
playback. A resonance at 30 kHz is better than one at 15 kHz (e.g.)!

The fundamental arm/stylus resonance is more like 8-12 Hz, not
15 kHz. Playing it at half speed then converting to normal would move
for example, into the 16-24 Hz region.

[Randy Yates]

writes:

Randy Yates wrote:
"Arny Krueger" writes:
Unfortunately, slow playback won't help problems due to bass excursion, and
will make the tone arm fundamental resonance issues more intrusive because
they will move up the musical scale when we listen.

Huh? I would think that all those things WOULD be mitigated by slowed
playback. A resonance at 30 kHz is better than one at 15 kHz (e.g.)!

The fundamental arm/stylus resonance is more like 8-12 Hz, not
15 kHz. Playing it at half speed then converting to normal would move
for example, into the 16-24 Hz region.

Doh! I was thinking of tweeter resonance.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
ups.com...
The fundamental arm/stylus resonance is more like 8-12 Hz, not
15 kHz. Playing it at half speed then converting to normal would move
for example, into the 16-24 Hz region.


Yes, but since you are only copying to a computer, then it may not matter
all that much. Any artefacts below 30Hz can be filtered out, (usually
nothing below that on the record), and you needn't use monitor speakers, or
even stay in the room, so physical vibration induced problems will not be so
much of an issue.
However it would require the TT/cartridge system to have a relatively flat
response to 15 or 20 Hz, (to get 30 or 40Hz) which is not so easy to achieve
IME.

I also wonder just what benefits would be expected, since a good system can
play all the treble available on any record at normal speed, and the biggest
problem in many cases is in the bass region. Might be better to increase the
playback speed instead.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
I said that it's perfectly possible to put together a good sounding
setup for playing vinyl LPs for $250 to $300.

Lets see you said :

Dual 1228 ($75 to $100)
Used 70s preamp with phono input ($40)
New cartridge ($50)

OK so far, (depending on your definition of good sounding of course)
assuming you can actually find a Dual 1228 for that price. Just add a new
belt, and possibly replace motor, spindle and arm bearings :-) (assuming you
can actually get them) Good S/H Duals are pretty thin on the ground around
these parts though unfortunately.

Tell us what NEW $300 turntable/arm/cartridge you consider good sounding
with minimal record wear? I guess we should all trade our expensive TT's in
on the cheapest Pro-ject, which is the only thing I know that even comes
close to your price. Having heard one, I won't be trading mine any time
soon!

You also said :

"A $50 conical/spherical tip cartridge is kinder to records than the
most expensive elliptical, and it's a lot easier to keep in proper
alignment."

Which is what I objected to.
Current denial that you even said it, and lack of supporting evidence on
your part is noted.
Your misunderstanding about cartridge alignment is also noted.

MrT.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.
It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded
analog audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in the
region, and compared a short piece of wire with a device that put the
audio signal into CD format and then conveted it back to a regular audio
signal. We found no audible difference, using a variety of musicians,
audio engineers and experienced audiophiles as our listeners.

Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

Again, you're turning me off with your endless hair-splitting. If you want
an endless discussion of semantics, I suggest you find an appropriate Usenet
group. There are at least 3 Usenet groups with semantics in their names.


It's quite simple! The two words have *very* different meanings in a
research context. I accept that they're used interchangeably in the
popular/public media, but when you're talking about tests and evidence
you should, I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is that
so unreasonable?

I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or anything else, btw :-)

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
What are they?

I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I would
have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience.

Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?

Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think that yo would
naturally find a lot of people in a group of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to distinguish
sonic differences?


Yes - I did read the summary relating to the participants ...

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that the people involved
were possibly middle aged men?

No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the youngest were in their
20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio engineers, and audiophiles.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?

You are obviously clutching for straws.


.... who have two characteristics (at least) in common - professional
familiarity with audio, and (related) an element of expectation relating
to the results. Add to this peer pressure (the results matter to them in
a way that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year old child)
and I think I'm right to question method. It really isn't that difficult.

We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag (called 'Which?') a
while back - their tests 'revealed' audible differences in CD players
and amplifiers. This was fairly unanimously rejected as unscientific
drivel on this NG, and I did go to the trouble of writing to the
magazine editiors for clarification of their test protocols. They were
far more forthcoming - and aware of limitations - than you appear to be.
Why might that be?

[Rob]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.
It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded
analog audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in
the region, and compared a short piece of wire with a device that put
the audio signal into CD format and then conveted it back to a
regular audio signal. We found no audible difference, using a variety
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced audiophiles as our
listeners.


Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

Do you mean by "methodology" here, the reasons for the choice of the
specific experimental method and protocol used? If so, see below...


Yes

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this
thread.
What are they?


I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I
would have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience. Sample - did
you test their hearing acuity? It strikes me, and here I lapse into
stereotype, that the people involved were possibly middle aged men? Who
by training listen for and expect particular things? Whose hearing is
possibly past its best?!

In my experience it is not common in research reports or papers to give all
the details of why a given method was chosen.[1]

IME there isn't an explanation of methodology in 'vocational-academic'
journal papers. I feel this is in part due to the problem that
methodological issues are impossible to reconcile - at the end of the
day there is a subjective belief statement that underpins rationale. In
social science I would hope editors use a panel that appreciates this,
and opposing methodological positions. Often, no one methodology is
necessarily wrong.

Having said this many papers 'hang off' some well-trodden reasoning, and
they'll use a fleeting reference to (in my field) constructionism,
marxism, empiricism, whatever.

They would normally be
summarised or taken as assumed on the basis that those working in the field
can be expected to have read the relevant background material for
themselves and should know already the strengths, weaknesses, and purposes
of specific methods or protocols for that specific area of study. e.g. they
would already know what main confounding or interfering factors would need
to be controlled or dealt with by the means employed.

The main exception to the above is where a 'new' method is being introduced
(or challenged), and the reasons for this should then either be given, or
explicitily referred to so the reader can look at the reference(s) to
decide this for themselves.

The above is probably why it seems that many experimental scientists tend
not to concern themselves with this as they just use the 'usual tools from
the toolkit'. However when a method/protocol is well established the normal
expectation is that anyone who wishes to challenge it has the onus on them
to do so, and to give both (testable) reasons for their concerns and an
alternative which can be put into practice and judged by its behaviour.[2]

i.e. the methods/protocols themselves are also subject to the scientific
method.

Yep, no problem with any of that. But(!) you can see that some might
find this 'fiercely inductive' - particularly in the non-rigorous
context of this thread?! - CD resolution recording captures the entire
audible range of LP sound. Therefore [insert your own conclusion].

Concerning challenge to convention. I can't say more than 'paradigm
shifts' are a pretty hefty trick to manage, and that is *far* from
accepting that current paradigms are watertight. It's quite possible to
argue that we are at 'the end of history' in the physical world - we
know enough, in other words, to answer questions relating to audible
phenomena. I know you're not saying that, but that's where this thread
ends if people can't/won't talk about the reasoning behind the methods
they use.

Rob, if you are interested in the specifics for audio here, it might make
sense for you to join a body like the AES or find a suitable uni library.
This could probably lead to the info you require.

I've just had a quick look round the AES website. This caught my eye:

http://www.aes.org/publications/AudioCoding.cfm

Training people to listen for compression problems. Of course, that's
fine as it goes, and we all want a codec that captures as much of the
original in as small a space as possible. But wouldn't it be better for
non-scientists to listen to music?!

I don't have too much time to look into this, and predictably the work
server is down atm ;-). I only popped my head over the parapet to see if
anyone could shine some light on the reasoning behind these CD-LP
beliefs, and it seems the answer I have been asked to accept is that
convention dictates.

Of more practical use, I've been coerced into this:

http://www.musicintheround.co.uk/

So perhaps listening to live music, having a listen at home, and making
up my own mind (about media and equipment) is the way to go?! Life's too
short :-)

Rob


Slainte,

Jim

[1] Note, though, that this is mostly in areas quite different to audio
listening comparisons, etc.

[2] Doing so may then quickly lead to finding material already published
that covers the relevant points - or may not. Such is research. :-)

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob


In my experience it is not common in research reports or papers to
give all the details of why a given method was chosen.[1]

IME there isn't an explanation of methodology in 'vocational-academic'
journal papers. I feel this is in part due to the problem that
methodological issues are impossible to reconcile - at the end of the
day there is a subjective belief statement that underpins rationale.

Afraid I don't see that. The point of the scientific method is that it
defines the process by which its validity of application to a given topic
can be tested. This does not seem a 'subjective belief' to me. Perhaps I am
simply misunderstanding what you are saying.

The point is not that results are taken to always be 'final and absolute'
in any except 'trivial' cases. The results or conclusions are always
'provisional' and it is open to someone else to propose a 'better' idea, or
test method *which can be put into action and tested by its results*. But
that final clause is vital. Anyone can express doubts or speculate, but in
itself they gets us nowhere much. The vital test is, what method
(experiment) can we employ whose results would distingush between a 'new'
proposal or method and an 'old' one in terms of reliability of results and
giving us a useful description of how things work/behave?

The only basic 'belief' here seems to me to be that the observable may be
'real', and we can make some sense of it, as opposed to assuming that
everything is a dream, or the behaviour of reality changes according to
what we think.

Despite fancy titles or statements in popular science books or TV
programmes, science and experimental methods aren't about the 'truth'. That
is best left to theologians, lawyers, and mathematicians. Different union,
so we have to avoid demarkation disputes. :-) Scientific experiments are
about obtaining evidence to check ideas and see if they are reliable as
descriptions of how things behave - or not. If this approach can't be used,
then it isn't science.

[snip]

Concerning challenge to convention. I can't say more than 'paradigm
shifts' are a pretty hefty trick to manage, and that is *far* from
accepting that current paradigms are watertight. It's quite possible to
argue that we are at 'the end of history' in the physical world - we
know enough, in other words, to answer questions relating to audible
phenomena. I know you're not saying that, but that's where this thread
ends if people can't/won't talk about the reasoning behind the methods
they use.


FWIW It is many decades since many academic or professional scientists even
thought it would be *possible* to reach and 'end' of the kind you describe.
:-) Indeed, most of us would be horrified if it came about. No more
grants for that vital next bit of research. We'd all have to stop waving
our hands about and writing on the tablecloths. ;-


Rob, if you are interested in the specifics for audio here, it might
make sense for you to join a body like the AES or find a suitable uni
library. This could probably lead to the info you require.

I've just had a quick look round the AES website. This caught my eye:

http://www.aes.org/publications/AudioCoding.cfm

Training people to listen for compression problems. Of course, that's
fine as it goes, and we all want a codec that captures as much of the
original in as small a space as possible. But wouldn't it be better for
non-scientists to listen to music?!

That depends on if you want to listen to music, or if you want to test the
claims and ideas people have about why one system/item 'sounds different'
to another, etc. :-)

I don't have too much time to look into this, and predictably the work
server is down atm ;-). I only popped my head over the parapet to see if
anyone could shine some light on the reasoning behind these CD-LP
beliefs, and it seems the answer I have been asked to accept is that
convention dictates.

As yet, I am not sure if you have actually found the basis in experiment of
why people have developed the methods they now tend to use.

Of more practical use, I've been coerced into this:

http://www.musicintheround.co.uk/

So perhaps listening to live music, having a listen at home, and making
up my own mind (about media and equipment) is the way to go?! Life's too
short :-)

I gave up most attempts to compare items of equipment years ago. It is
useful if someone does this, but as you indicate, it does waste time you
could spend just enjoying the music. :-)

I now leave it to younger people who probably have better ears now than me,
more time to waste, and seem not to have got over being more interested in
the container than the contained. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" writes:

The general rule of thumb is that it is far easier to
cut an agressive LP than to track it.

Cutting doesn't have to be done in real-time.

Agreed, and there weren't a lot of viable options in the
day of.

Today, we can playback vinyl at any speed that suits our
other needs, and still listen to it with natural pitch
and timbre.

You mean with sample rate conversion? Yes, we could, but
there would be the problem of the delay as the buffer
fills with enough data to go real-time.

Real-time listening is not required.

Unfortunately, slow playback won't help problems due to
bass excursion, and will make the tone arm fundamental
resonance issues more intrusive because they will move
up the musical scale when we listen.

Huh? I would think that all those things WOULD be
mitigated by slowed playback. A resonance at 30 kHz is
better than one at 15 kHz (e.g.)!

Tone arm fundamental resonances are in the 6-12 Hz range. Play a LP at half
speed and bring up to playback pitch, and they are now in the 12-24 Hz
range. Remember, that's the center frequency of the resonance. Tone arm
resonances are moderately damped, so their effects afflict several octaves.

[Stephen Worth]

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

assuming you can actually find a Dual 1228 for that price. Just add a new
belt, and possibly replace motor, spindle and arm bearings :-) (assuming you
can actually get them) Good S/H Duals are pretty thin on the ground around
these parts though unfortunately.

I've bought three myself for between $50 and $100 at ebay. They were
all in great condition and needed no servicing. There are good Duals
for sale at ebay all the time.

Tell us what NEW $300 turntable/arm/cartridge you consider good sounding
with minimal record wear?

Turntables today are a very weak specialty market. They are either
overpriced cheap decks or way overpriced well made ones. It doesn't
make sense to buy new turntables for so much money, when there are so
many excellent used ones from the 70s that offer so much more value for
the money.

You're just arguing for arguing's sake. You know all this stuff already.

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is
that so unreasonable?

Why not just ask for what you want, instead of pontificating so much?

The goal of our method was that we wanted to develop a test for audio gear
that was as fair as possible and that could be self-administered.

The reasoning behind our method was to identify as many significant sources
of bias as we could, and manage them with a relatively simple piece of
hardware.


I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or anything
else, btw :-)
I also have a few issues with method mentioned
elsewhere in this thread. What are they?

I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in
this context. I would have thought any lay person would
point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating,
audience.

Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?

Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think
that yo would naturally find a lot of people in a group
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced
audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to
distinguish sonic differences?

Yes - I did read the summary relating to the participants

But, you haven't answered the question.

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that
the people involved were possibly middle aged men?

No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the
youngest were in their 20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio
engineers, and audiophiles.

Again, no answer.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?

You are obviously clutching for straws.

... who have two characteristics (at least) in common -
professional familiarity with audio, and (related) an
element of expectation relating to the results. Add to
this peer pressure (the results matter to them in a way
that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year
old child) and I think I'm right to question method. It
really isn't that difficult.

Again, you've really said nothing, just cast a few unfounded aspersions.

Since you won't answer any of my questions...

We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag (called
'Which?') a while back - their tests 'revealed' audible
differences in CD players and amplifiers. This was fairly
unanimously rejected as unscientific drivel on this NG,
and I did go to the trouble of writing to the magazine
editiors for clarification of their test protocols. They
were far more forthcoming - and aware of limitations -
than you appear to be. Why might that be?

What do you want to know about our test protocols that you can't easily find
out from the sources that have been cited?

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
The fundamental arm/stylus resonance is more like 8-12 Hz, not
15 kHz. Playing it at half speed then converting to normal would move
for example, into the 16-24 Hz region.

Yes, but since you are only copying to a computer, then it may not matter
all that much. Any artefacts below 30Hz can be filtered out, (usually
nothing below that on the record), and you needn't use monitor speakers, or
even stay in the room, so physical vibration induced problems will not be so
much of an issue.
However it would require the TT/cartridge system to have a relatively flat
response to 15 or 20 Hz, (to get 30 or 40Hz) which is not so easy to achieve
IME.

The mechanical system consisting of the tone arm
effective mass and the stylus compliance forms a
second order mechanical resonant system. As such,
that means it's a second-order high-pass filter with
the cutoff frequency corresponding to the resonant
frequency.

Pplaying an LP at half speed,a s one example, means
that ALL the information is shifted down one octave.
But that mechanical high-pass filter remains the same.
Thus, the effect, once the half-speed play is compensated
for, is to have that high-pass filter move up an octave.

That means that, under the somewhat optimistic
assumption that the resonance is damped enough
to give a Butterworth high-pass at, oh, 12 Hz, playing
at half speed and compensating makes it a high-pass
at 24 Hz.

In fact, the vast majority of turntable systems I examined
over the years were seriously UNDERdamped, with effective
Q's in the realm of 2-5, which meant a pretty sizeable peak
(in the range of +6 to +14 dB) at resonance (12 Hz). Now,
move that peak to 24 Hz, and we begin to see the problem.

Now, for sure, the response is minimum-phase, and
can be completely compensated for by a complementary
equalizer, but there are several issues:

1. How many people know, with reasonablt certainty,
precisely what the resonant frequency of the arm/
cartridge system REALLY is, and what is REALLY
the system Q at resonance? (hint: almost none)

2. Regardless of whether it is equalizable (it is), what
you have done by shifting all the audio down by low-
speed playing is that you have now placed it in the
realm of that (likely) under-damped resonance. Now
you face the problem that you have significantly MORE
signal to stimulate that resonance and, being under-
damped, increase the likelihood of potential mis-
tracking problems, rather than decreasing it.

I also wonder just what benefits would be expected,
since a good system can play all the treble available
on any record at normal speed, and the biggest
problem in many cases is in the bass region.
Might be better to increase the playback speed instead.

But you trade one set of problems for another.

Rather, IF people would take the time and effort (and it's
NOT easy) to make sure the arm cartidge resonance is
both at the right frequency AND has a Q in the realm of
about 0.6 to 0.8, then things will be fine.

The problem is that the normal practice of applying some
indiscriminant amount of damping goo DOES NOT WORK.
The ONLY way to do it is to apply the right amount of the
right jind of damping, and the ONLY way to do THAT is
to MEASURE the result with appropriate test equipment.

I have, in fact, done that and when properly done, results
in even rather "ordinary" LP playback equipment being
able to track damned near anything and, by the way, also
reduces isolation problems (an underdamped arm/cartridge
system is more prone to isolation issues, because you
have more gain at the resonant frequency, partically defeating
the low-pass filtering effect of the turntable suspension).

And, for those of you out there eager to jump in an tell
me that their tone arm IS properly damped and all, please,
spare me the waste of time. Of the many hundreds of turntables
examined, ranging to the most esoteric, I never saw ONE
that was even close to the proper Q.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
assuming you can actually find a Dual 1228 for that price. Just add a
new
belt, and possibly replace motor, spindle and arm bearings :-) (assuming
you
can actually get them) Good S/H Duals are pretty thin on the ground
around
these parts though unfortunately.

I've bought three myself for between $50 and $100 at ebay. They were
all in great condition and needed no servicing. There are good Duals
for sale at ebay all the time.

Shipping a cheap turntable from overseas though is not something I'd care
to do, but good luck to you.

Tell us what NEW $300 turntable/arm/cartridge you consider good sounding
with minimal record wear?

Turntables today are a very weak specialty market. They are either
overpriced cheap decks or way overpriced well made ones. It doesn't
make sense to buy new turntables for so much money, when there are so
many excellent used ones from the 70s that offer so much more value for
the money.

I agree, and it doesn't make sense to buy a turntable at all when CD players
offer "so much more value for the money" than any turntable. Except of
course to transcribe old records you have in your collection. Most people
with a record collection will already have an old turntable though. Those
that god rid of their TT usually got rid of their record collection too.

You're just arguing for arguing's sake.

Not at all, I STILL don't think a $50 cartridge is the equal of any CD
player.

You know all this stuff already.

Yes, the bit's that are actually correct anyway.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
ups.com...
The fundamental arm/stylus resonance is more like 8-12 Hz, not
15 kHz. Playing it at half speed then converting to normal would move
for example, into the 16-24 Hz region.

Yes, but since you are only copying to a computer, then it may not
matter
all that much. Any artefacts below 30Hz can be filtered out, (usually
nothing below that on the record), and you needn't use monitor speakers,
or
even stay in the room, so physical vibration induced problems will not
be so
much of an issue.
However it would require the TT/cartridge system to have a relatively
flat
response to 15 or 20 Hz, (to get 30 or 40Hz) which is not so easy to
achieve
IME.

The mechanical system consisting of the tone arm
effective mass and the stylus compliance forms a
second order mechanical resonant system. As such,
that means it's a second-order high-pass filter with
the cutoff frequency corresponding to the resonant
frequency.

Pplaying an LP at half speed,a s one example, means
that ALL the information is shifted down one octave.
But that mechanical high-pass filter remains the same.
Thus, the effect, once the half-speed play is compensated
for, is to have that high-pass filter move up an octave.

That means that, under the somewhat optimistic
assumption that the resonance is damped enough
to give a Butterworth high-pass at, oh, 12 Hz, playing
at half speed and compensating makes it a high-pass
at 24 Hz.

In fact, the vast majority of turntable systems I examined
over the years were seriously UNDERdamped, with effective
Q's in the realm of 2-5, which meant a pretty sizeable peak
(in the range of +6 to +14 dB) at resonance (12 Hz). Now,
move that peak to 24 Hz, and we begin to see the problem.

Now, for sure, the response is minimum-phase, and
can be completely compensated for by a complementary
equalizer, but there are several issues:

1. How many people know, with reasonablt certainty,
precisely what the resonant frequency of the arm/
cartridge system REALLY is, and what is REALLY
the system Q at resonance? (hint: almost none)

2. Regardless of whether it is equalizable (it is), what
you have done by shifting all the audio down by low-
speed playing is that you have now placed it in the
realm of that (likely) under-damped resonance. Now
you face the problem that you have significantly MORE
signal to stimulate that resonance and, being under-
damped, increase the likelihood of potential mis-
tracking problems, rather than decreasing it.

My point exactly. However as usual I simply cannot fault your willingness to
explain all the technical detail involved.
You truly are an asset to usenet Dick.

I also wonder just what benefits would be expected,
since a good system can play all the treble available
on any record at normal speed, and the biggest
problem in many cases is in the bass region.
Might be better to increase the playback speed instead.

But you trade one set of problems for another.
snip

Very true, I was not suggesting there was really anything to be gained with
a properly set up TT, just that it would make slightly more sense than
*reducing* playback speed IMO.

MrT.

[Stephen Worth]

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

Shipping a cheap turntable from overseas though is not something I'd care
to do, but good luck to you.

Now I know why you're so contrary. You're a foreigner.

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is
that so unreasonable?

Why not just ask for what you want, instead of pontificating so much?

The goal of our method was that we wanted to develop a test for audio gear
that was as fair as possible and that could be self-administered.

The reasoning behind our method was to identify as many significant sources
of bias as we could, and manage them with a relatively simple piece of
hardware.


Mmmm. That is the reason for the test, not the approach. This could go
on and on :-)



I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or anything
else, btw :-)
I also have a few issues with method mentioned
elsewhere in this thread. What are they?
I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in
this context. I would have thought any lay person would
point to:
Environmental variables - light, heat, seating,
audience.
Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?
Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think
that yo would naturally find a lot of people in a group
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced
audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to
distinguish sonic differences?
Yes - I did read the summary relating to the participants

But, you haven't answered the question.


I felt it was implied in my summary - professional experience, so yes
they could deduce difference to a degree.

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that
the people involved were possibly middle aged men?
No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the
youngest were in their 20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio
engineers, and audiophiles.

Again, no answer.


I thought that was a rhetorical point, not a question.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?
You are obviously clutching for straws.

... who have two characteristics (at least) in common -
professional familiarity with audio, and (related) an
element of expectation relating to the results. Add to
this peer pressure (the results matter to them in a way
that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year
old child) and I think I'm right to question method. It
really isn't that difficult.

Again, you've really said nothing, just cast a few unfounded aspersions.


Common sense I would have thought? The method resembles snowballing (not
the sexual version!) - fine in certain circumstances, but I can't fathom
the methodological context here.

Since you won't answer any of my questions...


?! Of course for me to reject your qs would be inexcusable!

We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag (called
'Which?') a while back - their tests 'revealed' audible
differences in CD players and amplifiers. This was fairly
unanimously rejected as unscientific drivel on this NG,
and I did go to the trouble of writing to the magazine
editiors for clarification of their test protocols. They
were far more forthcoming - and aware of limitations -
than you appear to be. Why might that be?

What do you want to know about our test protocols that you can't easily find
out from the sources that have been cited?


It's not really the test protocols, although I've raised a couple of
issues above relating to samples that you've dismissed.

[Rob]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob

In my experience it is not common in research reports or papers to
give all the details of why a given method was chosen.[1]

IME there isn't an explanation of methodology in 'vocational-academic'
journal papers. I feel this is in part due to the problem that
methodological issues are impossible to reconcile - at the end of the
day there is a subjective belief statement that underpins rationale.

Afraid I don't see that. The point of the scientific method is that it
defines the process by which its validity of application to a given topic
can be tested. This does not seem a 'subjective belief' to me. Perhaps I am
simply misunderstanding what you are saying.


Or I'm not explaining it very well! Ontological concerns are (IMO)
subjective - religion/etc is the classic 'fundamental' that's yet to be
disproved.

The point is not that results are taken to always be 'final and absolute'
in any except 'trivial' cases. The results or conclusions are always
'provisional' and it is open to someone else to propose a 'better' idea, or
test method *which can be put into action and tested by its results*. But
that final clause is vital. Anyone can express doubts or speculate, but in
itself they gets us nowhere much. The vital test is, what method
(experiment) can we employ whose results would distingush between a 'new'
proposal or method and an 'old' one in terms of reliability of results and
giving us a useful description of how things work/behave?


Yes, I agree. It'd be interesting if, say, I could suggest a tweak to
method that would produce unexpected results.

It just isn't going to happen because I don't know enough about this
subject. I simply have an unease with the methods suggested, so I'd like
to know the basis of them. Stephen Jay Gould and Burgess Shale
(Wonderful Life) is an example of what I'm getting at - and I certainly
ain't no SJG :-)

The only basic 'belief' here seems to me to be that the observable may be
'real', and we can make some sense of it, as opposed to assuming that
everything is a dream, or the behaviour of reality changes according to
what we think.

Despite fancy titles or statements in popular science books or TV
programmes, science and experimental methods aren't about the 'truth'. That
is best left to theologians, lawyers, and mathematicians. Different union,
so we have to avoid demarkation disputes. :-) Scientific experiments are
about obtaining evidence to check ideas and see if they are reliable as
descriptions of how things behave - or not. If this approach can't be used,
then it isn't science.


No I know. I'm not so dogmatic as to require truth. Tendency'll do.

[snip]

Concerning challenge to convention. I can't say more than 'paradigm
shifts' are a pretty hefty trick to manage, and that is *far* from
accepting that current paradigms are watertight. It's quite possible to
argue that we are at 'the end of history' in the physical world - we
know enough, in other words, to answer questions relating to audible
phenomena. I know you're not saying that, but that's where this thread
ends if people can't/won't talk about the reasoning behind the methods
they use.


FWIW It is many decades since many academic or professional scientists even
thought it would be *possible* to reach and 'end' of the kind you describe.
:-) Indeed, most of us would be horrified if it came about. No more
grants for that vital next bit of research. We'd all have to stop waving
our hands about and writing on the tablecloths. ;-


I wouldn't want to take the food off your - or Arny's - plate :-)

End of history is not me BTW - it's a feeble and (in fairness) sometimes
misrepresented hypothesis belonging to Francis Fukuyama.

Rob, if you are interested in the specifics for audio here, it might
make sense for you to join a body like the AES or find a suitable uni
library. This could probably lead to the info you require.

I've just had a quick look round the AES website. This caught my eye:

http://www.aes.org/publications/AudioCoding.cfm

Training people to listen for compression problems. Of course, that's
fine as it goes, and we all want a codec that captures as much of the
original in as small a space as possible. But wouldn't it be better for
non-scientists to listen to music?!

That depends on if you want to listen to music, or if you want to test the
claims and ideas people have about why one system/item 'sounds different'
to another, etc. :-)


Both is nice - it's always good to know why. But there does seem to a
sense of 'wrong way round' and self-fulfillment here?!

I don't have too much time to look into this, and predictably the work
server is down atm ;-). I only popped my head over the parapet to see if
anyone could shine some light on the reasoning behind these CD-LP
beliefs, and it seems the answer I have been asked to accept is that
convention dictates.

As yet, I am not sure if you have actually found the basis in experiment of
why people have developed the methods they now tend to use.


No, but I'm getting there by asking around. I have considerable
difficulty with 'lines in the sand' i'm afraid, which in part explains
why I get plenty of things started, but very little finished :-)

Of more practical use, I've been coerced into this:

http://www.musicintheround.co.uk/

So perhaps listening to live music, having a listen at home, and making
up my own mind (about media and equipment) is the way to go?! Life's too
short :-)

I gave up most attempts to compare items of equipment years ago. It is
useful if someone does this, but as you indicate, it does waste time you
could spend just enjoying the music. :-)

I now leave it to younger people who probably have better ears now than me,
more time to waste, and seem not to have got over being more interested in
the container than the contained. ;-


Which is in fact my whole point :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is
that so unreasonable?

Why not just ask for what you want, instead of
pontificating so much? The goal of our method was that we wanted to
develop a
test for audio gear that was as fair as possible and
that could be self-administered. The reasoning behind our method was to
identify as many
significant sources of bias as we could, and manage them
with a relatively simple piece of hardware.


Mmmm. That is the reason for the test, not the approach.
This could go on and on :-)



I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or
anything else, btw :-)
I also have a few issues with method mentioned
elsewhere in this thread. What are they?
I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in
this context. I would have thought any lay person
would point to:
Environmental variables - light, heat, seating,
audience.
Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?
Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think
that yo would naturally find a lot of people in a group
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced
audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to
distinguish sonic differences?
Yes - I did read the summary relating to the
participants

But, you haven't answered the question.


I felt it was implied in my summary - professional
experience, so yes they could deduce difference to a
degree.
It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that
the people involved were possibly middle aged men?
No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the
youngest were in their 20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular
things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio
engineers, and audiophiles.

Again, no answer.


I thought that was a rhetorical point, not a question.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?
You are obviously clutching for straws.

... who have two characteristics (at least) in common -
professional familiarity with audio, and (related) an
element of expectation relating to the results. Add to
this peer pressure (the results matter to them in a way
that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year
old child) and I think I'm right to question method. It
really isn't that difficult.

Again, you've really said nothing, just cast a few
unfounded aspersions.

Common sense I would have thought? The method resembles
snowballing (not the sexual version!) - fine in certain
circumstances, but I can't fathom the methodological
context here.
Since you won't answer any of my questions...


?! Of course for me to reject your qs would be
inexcusable!
We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag
(called 'Which?') a while back - their tests 'revealed'
audible differences in CD players and amplifiers. This
was fairly unanimously rejected as unscientific drivel
on this NG, and I did go to the trouble of writing to
the magazine editiors for clarification of their test
protocols. They were far more forthcoming - and aware
of limitations - than you appear to be. Why might that
be?

What do you want to know about our test protocols that
you can't easily find out from the sources that have
been cited?

It's not really the test protocols, although I've raised
a couple of issues above relating to samples that you've
dismissed.

By saying nothing that makes any sense, you've released me from further
comments, I think.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
Now I know why you're so contrary. You're a foreigner.

So we can add Xenophobia to your list of mental problems then.

MrT.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Jim Lesurf wrote:

Despite fancy titles or statements in popular science books or TV
programmes, science and experimental methods aren't about the 'truth'. That
is best left to theologians, lawyers, and mathematicians. Different union,
so we have to avoid demarkation disputes. :-) Scientific experiments are
about obtaining evidence to check ideas and see if they are reliable as
descriptions of how things behave - or not. If this approach can't be used,
then it isn't science.

IOW, science is about building testable *models* of reality. I'm not
sure why the OP has a problem with this.

Of more practical use, I've been coerced into this:

http://www.musicintheround.co.uk/

So perhaps listening to live music, having a listen at home, and making
up my own mind (about media and equipment) is the way to go?! Life's too
short :-)

I gave up most attempts to compare items of equipment years ago. It is
useful if someone does this, but as you indicate, it does waste time you
could spend just enjoying the music. :-)

But then one should follow Wittgenstein's dictum, "Whereof one cannot speak,
thereof one must be silent."

I have found 'shucks, just stop all this hifalutin' analysis stuff and
just listen to the music' to be a typical, false-dichotomy last resort of
'debaters' on these issues who have realized they're shooting blanks.

If the OP's stance is *really* in the end that 'life's too short' to
investigate the why of LP and CD sound, then why has he gone to such effort
of twirling all his philosophico-semantic hoops about the matter here?
It must have been tedious to write, and it was surely tedious to read.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason