"Harry Lavo" wrote:

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

Beg pardon, but if Stylasted as soon as purchased and played with
either
a
low mass arm and cartridge (such as the ADC XLM or Shure V15) at less
than
gram, or alternately, played with a properly set-up medium mass, medium
compliance MC shibata-type stylus cartridge at under 2 grams, the record
can
be played and played and played with no noticeable audible
deterioration.
You just can't play it over and over right away. It takes some time for
the
vinyl to restore itself between plays. We're talking hours here, not
days.

I always hated not being able to listen to my favorite songs more than once in
a row. I even used to buy multiple copies of some lps to avoid that problem.
Furthermore this was more than a simple "convenience" issue it was a major
impediment in the pursuit of rational evaluation of other audio equipment.


You are simply overstating reality. All I can say is that I have records
from the mid-sixties that have been cared for as above and played several
times a year and they still sound virtually brand new. For one thing, I do
not leave records just sitting around, not even for five minutes. They come
out of their covers, go on the turntable, come off the turntable and go back
into their covers. I also try to keep my turntable mats free of free dust
before playing records. But other than that they get ordinary care. I do
not even own a record cleaning machine (although I do clean them once with
distilled water and a brush before Stylasting.)

I get a bit tired of hearing people dissing vinyl here who obviously did not
or do not care for their records. Most of the problems mentioned here can
be avoided or mitigated with care. If you cannot be bothered, and prefer CD
for its convenience, that's fine..its your choice. But people who love the
sound of vinyl are also willing to invest the energy into keeping it as
pristine as possible.

This is simply untrue in my case. I cared for my lps with unrequited love.
Never played without a cleaning. Turntable adjustments mode with rigor and
care.

Convenience was never an issue. And, initially it was a slap in the face for an
average consumer to get better sounding media without an equal devotion. But I
got over that when I could program my favorite songs in the order I preferred
and could play the sequence over and over with BETTER initial sound.


So please quit attacking vinyl for its "avoidable" flaws...its like saying
older cars are inferior because you have to wax them. They are not inferior
to the collectors who own and enjoy them and get more pleasure from them
than they do from newer machines.

"Avoidable flaws? I never got a 'playable without warpage' copy of Ry Cooder's
1978 "Bop 'Til You Drop" until it was re-released on cd a decade later. This
was in spite of 4 purchased (with 3 returns) of the initial release on my own
and three friends with warped copies.

S888Wheel wrote:

snip the previous, since what works as explanation (with an a) is so
different between the two parties.

No, you said that Steve Hoffman's forum and all it's members can be dismissed
based on his endorsement of this product. His endorsement was based on an
audition. So the issue is very much whether or not this product is an effective
room treatment since that is all that Steve Hoffman's endorsement would
support.

This is really what started this debate. Please show me where I said
that all its' members can be dismissed based on his endorsements of this
product. I actually have a lot of respect for some (former) members' views.

I said that a survey done on his forum members will not give results
representative of audio enthusiasts in the real world. I said that there
is a higher percentage of vinylphiles and subjectivists in his forum
than you will find in the real world.

How you can twist that to mean that "all its members can be dismissed"
is simply ridiculous. Now, definitively any claims by Mr Hoffman
regarding hardware should be looked at with suspicion, based on that
endorsement.


Whether it works
or not, depends on what you mean by work.

What I mean by work is whether or not it can make a noticable improvement in
the acoustics of a room. That is, after all, the only claim Steve Hoffman has
made about this product.

By that definition, that device does not work. If you do not believe
that an explanation based on the areas is good enough for you, you are
free to believe that it works.

I'm sure some people believe
they work, and if they believe it, that may be good enough for them.
Based on the dimensions on the gadget, there is no way the thing can
work as claimed.

Well then cite the math and the principles of room acoustics to support your
assertion. Please!

I already told you the relative size of the reflecting surface is
miniscule for the purpose of reflection.


Now if your question is whether it can make any measureable difference
or not, then yeah, I believe that there may be some placement of the
gadget that will make a measureable difference in the sound waves
arriving at the listening position. But I won't say that it works. It's
much more likely to screw things up than helping.

You are saying a lot about it without any citation of known laws of room
acoustics to support your assertions.

Please then provide a citation that supports your theory that it works.

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

...snip to specific content ....

Beg pardon, but if Stylasted as soon as purchased and played with
either
a
low mass arm and cartridge (such as the ADC XLM or Shure V15) at less
than
gram, or alternately, played with a properly set-up medium mass,
medium
compliance MC shibata-type stylus cartridge at under 2 grams, the
record
can
be played and played and played with no noticeable audible
deterioration.
You just can't play it over and over right away. It takes some time
for
the
vinyl to restore itself between plays. We're talking hours here, not
days.

I always hated not being able to listen to my favorite songs more than
once in
a row. I even used to buy multiple copies of some lps to avoid that
problem.
Furthermore this was more than a simple "convenience" issue it was a major
impediment in the pursuit of rational evaluation of other audio equipment.


Actually, I got around that by buying the very best open real tape deck I
could afford and recording the same record selection back to back on the
tape, but hours apart in reality, changing cartridges, arms, etc. and
comparing sound. Crude but effective.


You are simply overstating reality. All I can say is that I have records
from the mid-sixties that have been cared for as above and played several
times a year and they still sound virtually brand new. For one thing, I
do
not leave records just sitting around, not even for five minutes. They
come
out of their covers, go on the turntable, come off the turntable and go
back
into their covers. I also try to keep my turntable mats free of free
dust
before playing records. But other than that they get ordinary care. I
do
not even own a record cleaning machine (although I do clean them once
with
distilled water and a brush before Stylasting.)

I get a bit tired of hearing people dissing vinyl here who obviously did
not
or do not care for their records. Most of the problems mentioned here
can
be avoided or mitigated with care. If you cannot be bothered, and prefer
CD
for its convenience, that's fine..its your choice. But people who love
the
sound of vinyl are also willing to invest the energy into keeping it as
pristine as possible.

This is simply untrue in my case. I cared for my lps with unrequited love.
Never played without a cleaning. Turntable adjustments mode with rigor and
care.


Well, since you obviously knew/know how to take care of them and not abuse
them, what kind of shape are they in now? Do you still have good equipment
to play them on? Can you still enjoy them?

Convenience was never an issue. And, initially it was a slap in the face
for an
average consumer to get better sounding media without an equal devotion.
But I
got over that when I could program my favorite songs in the order I
preferred
and could play the sequence over and over with BETTER initial sound.

I never felt that; I just didn't feel they sounded as good and held off
seven years until the Phillips 880 came along.


So please quit attacking vinyl for its "avoidable" flaws...its like
saying
older cars are inferior because you have to wax them. They are not
inferior
to the collectors who own and enjoy them and get more pleasure from them
than they do from newer machines.

"Avoidable flaws? I never got a 'playable without warpage' copy of Ry
Cooder's
1978 "Bop 'Til You Drop" until it was re-released on cd a decade later.
This
was in spite of 4 purchased (with 3 returns) of the initial release on my
own
and three friends with warped copies.

I certainly would not included your experience as an avoidable flaw, but
rather as an inexcusable manufacturing practice, which the industry
definitely turned to in the late seventies / early eighties. Perhaps being
a bit older my record buying heyday fell *before* the downgrading of LP
reproduction. I have a bunch of those Shaded Dog RCA's, some Everest's,
etc. that I bought just as a matter of routine. They still sound terrific.

This has become an purely an argument and it has passed being
interesting to the rest of the group, so this subthread on Shakti and
Steve Hoffman is ended.

From: chung
Date: 3/22/2004 10:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: tjG7c.59246$_w.919487@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:

snip the previous, since what works as explanation (with an a) is so
different between the two parties.

No, you said that Steve Hoffman's forum and all it's members can be
dismissed
based on his endorsement of this product. His endorsement was based on an
audition. So the issue is very much whether or not this product is an
effective
room treatment since that is all that Steve Hoffman's endorsement would
support.

This is really what started this debate. Please show me where I said
that all its' members can be dismissed based on his endorsements of this
product. I actually have a lot of respect for some (former) members' views.


This would be the exchange that I believe amounts tosuch a claim...

I said

" I read it carefully enough. You said the same thing you are saying here. You
are dismissing the group because of your presumptions about the forum
membership bias. their bias is an interest in better sound for the sake of
music."

You said in response

"Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Didn't Steven
Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific
opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum..."

Looks to me like instead of denying my assertion that you have dismissed the
group's opinions you are justifying it because of Steve Hoffman's endorsement
of this product.

I said that a survey done on his forum members will not give results
representative of audio enthusiasts in the real world. I said that there
is a higher percentage of vinylphiles and subjectivists in his forum
than you will find in the real world.


Yes, you said that too.


How you can twist that to mean that "all its members can be dismissed"
is simply ridiculous. Now, definitively any claims by Mr Hoffman
regarding hardware should be looked at with suspicion, based on that
endorsement.

I don't believe I teisted anything. I thought you were attyacking the
credibility of Steve Hoffman and the members of his forum as a whole and said
so. Instead of saying you were not you chose to bring up this issue as an
apparent justification for doing exactly what I asserted you were doing. Why
elese would you bring up Steve Hoffmans endorsement of this product? Was it
just a strawman to take a dig at Steve Hoffman?



Whether it works
or not, depends on what you mean by work.

What I mean by work is whether or not it can make a noticable improvement
in
the acoustics of a room. That is, after all, the only claim Steve Hoffman
has
made about this product.

By that definition, that device does not work.

Prove it. Please.

If you do not believe
that an explanation based on the areas is good enough for you, you are
free to believe that it works.

I do not believe *your* explination based on the areas proves anything since
you have continually failed to cite any reference to what the threshold of
neccessary area for any diffusor to be effective is.


I'm sure some people believe
they work, and if they believe it, that may be good enough for them.
Based on the dimensions on the gadget, there is no way the thing can
work as claimed.

Well then cite the math and the principles of room acoustics to support
your
assertion. Please!

I already told you the relative size of the reflecting surface is
miniscule for the purpose of reflection.

How do you know it is too small to be an effective diffusor. You have not cited
any reference to any valid principles of room acoustics to support this
assertion.



Now if your question is whether it can make any measureable difference
or not, then yeah, I believe that there may be some placement of the
gadget that will make a measureable difference in the sound waves
arriving at the listening position. But I won't say that it works. It's
much more likely to screw things up than helping.

You are saying a lot about it without any citation of known laws of room
acoustics to support your assertions.

Please then provide a citation that supports your theory that it works.



Why? I haven't made any claims that it works. You have made the claims that it
doesn't work and cannot work. Your assertion, your burden of proof. We have
been over this before. Your assertion looks totally unsupported and yet you
claim it is fact. If you cannot prove it it looks like an act of faith.

In article NS84c.7641$C51.58827@attbi_s52,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
snip
I'm saying that if you find SACD doesn't sound similar to vinyl at all, then
their is something wrong with either your SACD player or your vinyl, and I
would suspect the latter since you seem to disdain vinyl. People who
disdain vinyl rarely have invested in a first-class vinyl setup.
snip

Probably because the cost of first class vinyl setup, pretty much
precludes people who don't believe in the superiority of vinyl. Entry
level cartridges at thousands of dollars, then several thousand for the
arm and platter, then thousands more for a phono first stage.

In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:
SniP
There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on
that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to
manufacturing
defects and to damage.
Snip

Remember the DyanaWarp disks from RCA. Guaranteed 1/4 warp in each disk.

"Walter Bushell" wrote in message
...
In article NS84c.7641$C51.58827@attbi_s52,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
snip
I'm saying that if you find SACD doesn't sound similar to vinyl at all,
then
their is something wrong with either your SACD player or your vinyl, and
I
would suspect the latter since you seem to disdain vinyl. People who
disdain vinyl rarely have invested in a first-class vinyl setup.
snip

Probably because the cost of first class vinyl setup, pretty much
precludes people who don't believe in the superiority of vinyl. Entry
level cartridges at thousands of dollars, then several thousand for the
arm and platter, then thousands more for a phono first stage.

Fact is, my Dual 601 belt drive turntable with a Shure M92ED cartridge and
Radio Shack stylus (my convenience table) sounds just about as good as my CD
setup (Sony C222ES driving a DTI Pro driving a Proceed PDP DAC) and beats my
secondary CD player (Panasonic S55). My Linn/Syrinx/Accuphase AC-2/modified
Marcof PPA2 definately ties, if it does not better, the main CD setup. The
first vinyl system costs about $225 used; the second system about $1600
used. The main CD system costs about $1000 used; the secondary Panasonic
about $130. So vinyl cost is only slightly more, and performance as
good/better.

BTW, what is definitely better: I picked up six pristine '70's records today
for $10.50. And have access to a whole bunch of RCA Living Stereo's for $10
a pop. Can't match that on CD.

In article ,
Sean Fulop wrote:
Snip
Some have said that CDs can be made which are indistinguishable from master
tapes. Vinyl afficionados will say that LPs can be pressed which sound
_better_ than the master tapes. This is only possible by means of the
distortions inherent in vinyl playback. This is why vinyl will always be
"ahead" of digital formats for those people, until an electronic "vinylizer"
is created that imitates the effects of records.


-Sean

But vinyl systems even (especially) the multi thousand dollar ones sound
different. We would have the find the correct one (there can only be
one) and and vinylize to that. That would leave the owners of other
systems unhappy.

Or maybe they swap cartridges and cables because they will not allow
tone controls in their systems.

In article , chung
wrote:
snip
Those knowledgeable know that the CD/SACD/DVD-A can reproduce music with
an accuracy that the vinyl, due to its inherent short-comings, cannot.
Those who love vinyl love certain LP recordings, or the euphonic
properties of vinyl. The digital formats can reproduce the outputs of a
phono-preamp accurately, and therefore it is the better delivery medium.
In other words, if we like, we can put in all those euphonic sound
qualities of vinyl on digital medium. It's that simple.

Snip

Adding echo to sound is a frequent audio enhancement. Given the relative
levels of the record groove and the sound how can the tonearm not pick
up the sound and feed it to the cartridge and hence to the system? At
high frequencies we are looking at signals that require UV microscopes
to pick up. We are talking movements less that a wavelength of light
here.

Anyway before I spend the money for a high end vinyl setup, I would need
measurements or at least double blind test results. No a sighted test
with me is not enough I know I can be fooled, even in ways I would not
expect.

"Walter Bushell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(S888Wheel) wrote:
SniP
There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways
on
that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to
manufacturing
defects and to damage.
Snip

Remember the DyanaWarp disks from RCA. Guaranteed 1/4 warp in each disk.

Ah, but a good test or challenge for your tonearm/cartridge combination, as
was the Telarc 1812 cannon, to see if you good keep groove contact with
minimal or no thumps.

"Walter Bushell" wrote in message
news:OGOdc.1088$wP1.6900@attbi_s54...
In article , chung
wrote:
snip
Those knowledgeable know that the CD/SACD/DVD-A can reproduce music with
an accuracy that the vinyl, due to its inherent short-comings, cannot.
Those who love vinyl love certain LP recordings, or the euphonic
properties of vinyl. The digital formats can reproduce the outputs of a
phono-preamp accurately, and therefore it is the better delivery medium.
In other words, if we like, we can put in all those euphonic sound
qualities of vinyl on digital medium. It's that simple.

Snip

Adding echo to sound is a frequent audio enhancement. Given the relative
levels of the record groove and the sound how can the tonearm not pick
up the sound and feed it to the cartridge and hence to the system? At
high frequencies we are looking at signals that require UV microscopes
to pick up. We are talking movements less that a wavelength of light
here.


The sound in your room is probably fed back to your phono assembly as well.
That's why in making tapes from vinyl it's best to turn down he volume. When
my dog barks close by y TT, it is recorded on the tape.

I would need
measurements or at least double blind test results. No a sighted test
with me is not enough I know I can be fooled, even in ways I would not
expect.

On 10 Apr 2004 05:07:40 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

BTW, what is definitely better: I picked up six pristine '70's records today
for $10.50. And have access to a whole bunch of RCA Living Stereo's for $10
a pop. Can't match that on CD.

BTW, what is definitely better: I picked up six pristine brand new
recordings today and I can buy as many as I want whenever I want. And
I have access to whole bunches of live recordings made in the last 5
years. Can't match that on LP (at least not in classical music).

Kal

In article mhYdc.112072$w54.789032@attbi_s01,
"Norman Schwartz" wrote:

"Walter Bushell" wrote in message
news:OGOdc.1088$wP1.6900@attbi_s54...
In article , chung
wrote:
snip
Those knowledgeable know that the CD/SACD/DVD-A can reproduce music with
an accuracy that the vinyl, due to its inherent short-comings, cannot.
Those who love vinyl love certain LP recordings, or the euphonic
properties of vinyl. The digital formats can reproduce the outputs of a
phono-preamp accurately, and therefore it is the better delivery medium.
In other words, if we like, we can put in all those euphonic sound
qualities of vinyl on digital medium. It's that simple.

Snip

Adding echo to sound is a frequent audio enhancement. Given the relative
levels of the record groove and the sound how can the tonearm not pick
up the sound and feed it to the cartridge and hence to the system? At
high frequencies we are looking at signals that require UV microscopes
to pick up. We are talking movements less that a wavelength of light
here.


The sound in your room is probably fed back to your phono assembly as well.
That's why in making tapes from vinyl it's best to turn down he volume. When
my dog barks close by y TT, it is recorded on the tape.

Now that is conclusive for your system at least, ambience can be heard
what 30 to 40 db down. One thousandth the level, one ten thousandth the
level?

Keeping the sound level up would preserve on tape the experience of
playing the record directly. I am going to have to visit my friend who
just got a linear TT because the inner grove distortion was killing him.
He picked the TT off of ebay for under $50. Yet audiophiles are paying
thousands just for tone arms.

See if taping at high volume and low volume produces a difference in
sound.

I would need
measurements or at least double blind test results. No a sighted test
with me is not enough I know I can be fooled, even in ways I would not
expect.

On 11 Apr 2004 15:15:44 GMT, Walter Bushell wrote:

I am going to have to visit my friend who
just got a linear TT because the inner grove distortion was killing him.
He picked the TT off of ebay for under $50. Yet audiophiles are paying
thousands just for tone arms.

Unfortunately, your friend has been misinformed, as inner-groove
distortion is a function of groove speed, and thus cannot be corrected
by a parallel-tracking tonearm. Such a tonearm can reduce *tracing*
distortion, but has its own problems due to the vast disparity in
horizontal and vertical effective masses.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article mhYdc.112072$w54.789032@attbi_s01,
"Norman Schwartz" wrote:

"Walter Bushell" wrote in message
news:OGOdc.1088$wP1.6900@attbi_s54...
In article , chung
wrote:
snip
Those knowledgeable know that the CD/SACD/DVD-A can reproduce music with
an accuracy that the vinyl, due to its inherent short-comings, cannot.
Those who love vinyl love certain LP recordings, or the euphonic
properties of vinyl. The digital formats can reproduce the outputs of a
phono-preamp accurately, and therefore it is the better delivery medium.
In other words, if we like, we can put in all those euphonic sound
qualities of vinyl on digital medium. It's that simple.

Snip

Adding echo to sound is a frequent audio enhancement. Given the relative
levels of the record groove and the sound how can the tonearm not pick
up the sound and feed it to the cartridge and hence to the system? At
high frequencies we are looking at signals that require UV microscopes
to pick up. We are talking movements less that a wavelength of light
here.


The sound in your room is probably fed back to your phono assembly as well.
That's why in making tapes from vinyl it's best to turn down he volume. When
my dog barks close by y TT, it is recorded on the tape.

Now that is conclusive for your system at least, ambience can be heard
what 30 to 40 db down. One thousandth the level, one ten thousandth the
level?

Keeping the sound level up would preserve on tape the experience of
playing the record directly. I am going to have to visit my friend who
just got a linear TT because the inner grove distortion was killing him.
He picked the TT off of ebay for under $50. Yet audiophiles are paying
thousands just for tone arms.

See if taping at high volume and low volume produces a difference in
sound.

I would need
measurements or at least double blind test results. No a sighted test
with me is not enough I know I can be fooled, even in ways I would not
expect.