Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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 |
#202
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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. |
#203
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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. |
#204
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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/ |
#205
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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. |
#206
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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. |
#207
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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. |
#208
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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. |
#209
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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/ |
#210
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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 |
#211
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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. |
#213
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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. |
#214
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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. |
#215
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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? |
#216
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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. :-) |
#217
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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 |
#218
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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. |
#219
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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/ |
#220
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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? |
#221
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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. |
#222
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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. |
#223
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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. |
#224
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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/ |
#225
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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. |
#226
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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 :-) |
#227
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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. |
#228
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"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. |
#229
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Independent View Of LP versus CD | General | |||
Diamond Cut DC6 versus Adobe Audition versus GoldWave | Tech | |||
adobe audition: cd tracks, session files, and project view | Pro Audio | |||
Want To Release Your Own Independent CD? | Tech | |||
A comparative versus evaluative, double-blind vs. sighted control test | High End Audio |