The Vinylizer [Archive] - AudioBanter.com

Audio Empire

July 26th 10, 10:43 PM

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:30:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Frank" > wrote in message
>
>> Il 25/07/2010 23.49, bob ha scritto:
>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl
>>> vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the
>>> various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback.
>>> Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
>>> way:
>>>
>>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>>>
>>> bob
>>>
>>
>>
>> .. various distortions?
>
> Read the web site?
>
> Mechanical Noise - The amount of turntable motor rumble and noise
> Electrical Noise - Internally generated electrical noise, such as 60 Hz
> grounding hum
> Wear Control - how worn out the record is, from brand new to played a few
> thousand times
> Dust - The amount of dust on the record
> Scratch -The number and depth of scratches on the record
> Warp -The amount of warping and the warp shape for the record - from no warp
> to the edges totally melted and warped
>
> These are all common to vinyl playback, and generally when they are reduced
> as much as the art allows by traditional means, they are still audible.
>
> Also, a number of kinds of common vinyl-related distoritons are not
> mentioned including:
>
> Tracking distortion
> Tracing distortion
> Flutter

Why would anybody want to add the BAD things about vinyl to their CD
playback? These are things that I take great care to avoid by handling my
vinyl record collection correctly and taking great care to keep them clean,
dust and warp free. I listen to records because they still give me a great
deal of listening pleasure and the the things that this "Vinylizer" brings to
the party, are those very things that I strive to avoid. How about a "CDizer"
a device that adds the harshness and a flat sound stage with poor imaging
that characterized many early CDs and players to modern CD playback? Makes no
sense.

Arny Krueger

July 27th 10, 01:03 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:30:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Frank" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Il 25/07/2010 23.49, bob ha scritto:
>>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about
>>>> vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the
>>>> various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback.
>>>> Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
>>>> way:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>>>>
>>>> bob
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .. various distortions?
>>
>> Read the web site?
>>
>> Mechanical Noise - The amount of turntable motor rumble
>> and noise Electrical Noise - Internally generated
>> electrical noise, such as 60 Hz grounding hum
>> Wear Control - how worn out the record is, from brand
>> new to played a few thousand times
>> Dust - The amount of dust on the record
>> Scratch -The number and depth of scratches on the record
>> Warp -The amount of warping and the warp shape for the
>> record - from no warp to the edges totally melted and
>> warped
>>
>> These are all common to vinyl playback, and generally
>> when they are reduced as much as the art allows by
>> traditional means, they are still audible.
>>
>> Also, a number of kinds of common vinyl-related
>> distoritons are not mentioned including:

>> Tracking distortion
>> Tracing distortion
>> Flutter

> Why would anybody want to add the BAD things about vinyl
> to their CD playback?

Sentimentality.

>These are things that I take great
> care to avoid by handling my vinyl record collection
> correctly and taking great care to keep them clean, dust
> and warp free.

That helps, but it does not completely resolve the problems.

> I listen to records because they still
> give me a great deal of listening pleasure and the the
> things that this "Vinylizer" brings to the party, are
> those very things that I strive to avoid.

The only way to totally avoid them is to avoid vinyl.

> How about a
> "CDizer" a device that adds the harshness and a flat
> sound stage with poor imaging that characterized many
> early CDs and players to modern CD playback?

That's just bad mastering, and there is no method to its madness.

> Makes no sense.

Some people do the darnedest things!

Scott[_6_]

July 27th 10, 02:29 AM

On Jul 25, 2:49=A0pm, bob > wrote:
> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs.
> digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that
> can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of
> vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
> way:
>
> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>
> bob

Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea
if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets
vinyl will make something that will actually do the job.

Arny Krueger

July 27th 10, 12:48 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Jul 25, 2:49=A0pm, bob > wrote:
>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl
>> vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the
>> various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback.
>> Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
>> way:

>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/

> Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be
> a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism.
> Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that
> will actually do the job.

What is "getting vinyl"?

The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people:

(1) Playing vinyl can be a means for accessing music that was never deemed
to be commercially worthy of rerecording on digital.

(2) Playing vinyl can be a means for obtaining a different approach to
mastering for recordings that were not treated in accordance with our
preferences when it was recorded on digital.

(3) Playing vinyl can be a sentimental act, a trip down memory lane.

The Vinylizer seems to be a heavy-handed approximation that tries to address
the third item on the list.

Audio Empire

July 27th 10, 12:49 PM

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:03:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:30:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Frank" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Il 25/07/2010 23.49, bob ha scritto:
>>>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about
>>>>> vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>>>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the
>>>>> various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback.
>>>>> Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
>>>>> way:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>>>>>
>>>>> bob
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .. various distortions?
>>>
>>> Read the web site?
>>>
>>> Mechanical Noise - The amount of turntable motor rumble
>>> and noise Electrical Noise - Internally generated
>>> electrical noise, such as 60 Hz grounding hum
>>> Wear Control - how worn out the record is, from brand
>>> new to played a few thousand times
>>> Dust - The amount of dust on the record
>>> Scratch -The number and depth of scratches on the record
>>> Warp -The amount of warping and the warp shape for the
>>> record - from no warp to the edges totally melted and
>>> warped
>>>
>>> These are all common to vinyl playback, and generally
>>> when they are reduced as much as the art allows by
>>> traditional means, they are still audible.
>>>
>>> Also, a number of kinds of common vinyl-related
>>> distoritons are not mentioned including:
>
>>> Tracking distortion
>>> Tracing distortion
>>> Flutter
>
>> Why would anybody want to add the BAD things about vinyl
>> to their CD playback?
>
> Sentimentality.

Balderdash and blarney! There are things from vinyl playback that I might
WANT to add to a CD (like musicality and warmth and a sense of real
instruments playing in real space), but the above mentioned vinyl artifacts
are not among them.

>> These are things that I take great
>> care to avoid by handling my vinyl record collection
>> correctly and taking great care to keep them clean, dust
>> and warp free.
>
> That helps, but it does not completely resolve the problems.

Of course it doesn't, but that's beside the point. The point is who would
WANT to add those things to a medium that doesn't have them?

>> I listen to records because they still
>> give me a great deal of listening pleasure and the the
>> things that this "Vinylizer" brings to the party, are
>> those very things that I strive to avoid.
>
> The only way to totally avoid them is to avoid vinyl.

Yeah, like anybody with a large record collection is dumb enough to do that!

>> How about a
>> "CDizer" a device that adds the harshness and a flat
>> sound stage with poor imaging that characterized many
>> early CDs and players to modern CD playback?
>
> That's just bad mastering, and there is no method to its madness.

That's not the point either. The point is, that just like with the
"Vinylizer", nobody is going to want to relive those days and those problems.

>> Makes no sense.
>
> Some people do the darnedest things!

Yeah, that's for sure. Many people throw babies out with bath water too.

Arny Krueger

July 27th 10, 02:03 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:03:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):

>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>

>>> Why would anybody want to add the BAD things about vinyl
>>> to their CD playback?

>> Sentimentality.

> Balderdash and blarney! There are things from vinyl
> playback that I might WANT to add to a CD (like
> musicality and warmth and a sense of real instruments
> playing in real space), but the above mentioned vinyl
> artifacts are not among them.

I never said otherwise.

If you want to add warmth, there are always equalizers. Of course equalizing
warmth into a badly-mastered recordings (and cold-sounding LPs definately
exist) takes skill and effort that many lack.

>>> These are things that I take great
>>> care to avoid by handling my vinyl record collection
>>> correctly and taking great care to keep them clean, dust
>>> and warp free.
>>
>> That helps, but it does not completely resolve the
>> problems.

> Of course it doesn't, but that's beside the point. The
> point is who would WANT to add those things to a medium
> that doesn't have them?

Like I said, sentimentality.

I still remember obtaining a MP3 of a LP transfer of a jazz number that I
used to listen to frequently back in the days of vinyl. Yes it was a little
harsh and reedy like vinyl can be and there were tics and pops, but it
brought back memories of a certain hot summer night, and enough said in
public about that one! ;-) The tics and pops even had the sharp slightly
ringy quality that one of my old cartridges, maybe an Empire 108, had.

>>> I listen to records because they still
>>> give me a great deal of listening pleasure and the the
>>> things that this "Vinylizer" brings to the party, are
>>> those very things that I strive to avoid.
>>
>> The only way to totally avoid them is to avoid vinyl.
>
> Yeah, like anybody with a large record collection is dumb
> enough to do that!

My large record collection magically transformed itself into CDs through the
magic of reselling the LPs before they lost much of their value.

>>> How about a
>>> "CDizer" a device that adds the harshness and a flat
>>> sound stage with poor imaging that characterized many
>>> early CDs and players to modern CD playback?
>>
>> That's just bad mastering, and there is no method to its
>> madness.
>
> That's not the point either.

Why not?

C. Leeds

July 28th 10, 01:54 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people:

How did you determine these so-called "facts" about vinyl?

Scott[_6_]

July 28th 10, 01:54 PM

On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob > wrote:
> >> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl
> >> vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
> >> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the
> >> various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback.
> >> Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
> >> way:
> >>http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
> > Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be
> > a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism.
> > Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that
> > will actually do the job.
>
> What is "getting vinyl"?

Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be found with
vinyl.

>
> The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people:

Sorry you don't get to speak for most people. Especially given your
well documented prejudices on vinyl. This product misses the mark IMO.
I am speaking as an audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic
value of sound and appreciates the virtues of the sound one can get
from vinyl. If *you* find some appeal with this product then feel free
to tell us what *you* find appealing about it. I'm not interested in
hearing you try to speak for "most people."

Hakim

July 29th 10, 12:21 AM

On Jul 26, 9:29=A0pm, Scott > wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob > wrote:
>
> > Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs.
> > digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that
> > can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of
> > vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
> > way:
>
> >http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>
> > bob
>
> Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea
> if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets
> vinyl will make something that will actually do the job.

I have actually used this plug on a record I've mixed: http://rpgmusic.band=
camp.com/

Arny Krueger

July 29th 10, 03:45 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob > wrote:
>>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about
>>>> vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the
>>>> various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback.
>>>> Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
>>>> way:
>>>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>>> Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be
>>> a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism.
>>> Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that
>>> will actually do the job.
>>
>> What is "getting vinyl"?

> Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be
> found with vinyl.

>> The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance
>> to most people:

> Sorry you don't get to speak for most people.

Not only most but the vast majority of people have long since forgot about
vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear.

> Especially given your well documented prejudices on vinyl.

What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my comments about vinyl
have been 100% factual, and backed by published, peer-reviewed technical
papers, statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and decades of
personal experience?

> This product misses the mark IMO.

But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In fact, you've
presented no evidence that you've ever actually listened to it. Could it be
that your opinions of it are based only on prejudice?

> I am speaking as an
> audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of
> sound

Given that you have presented no first hand information about the sound of
this product...

Audio Empire

July 30th 10, 12:43 AM

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob > wrote:
>>>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about
>>>>> vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>>>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the
>>>>> various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback.
>>>>> Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
>>>>> way:
>>>>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>>>> Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be
>>>> a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism.
>>>> Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that
>>>> will actually do the job.
>>>
>>> What is "getting vinyl"?
>
>> Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be
>> found with vinyl.
>
>>> The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance
>>> to most people:
>
>> Sorry you don't get to speak for most people.
>
> Not only most but the vast majority of people have long since forgot about
> vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear.

Yet enough people DO value vinyl that records are still pressed and hundreds
of manufacturers still make turntables, some costing a small fortune,
Cartridges are still available at all price points from $20 on the low end to
tens of thousands on the high end with new ones being introduced all the
time. Not to mention a myriad of phono preamps available, again at all price
points, as well as recently introduced preamps and integrated amps that have
phono stages either built-in as standard or available as an option.

Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated.

>> Especially given your well documented prejudices on vinyl.
>
> What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my comments about vinyl
> have been 100% factual, and backed by published, peer-reviewed technical
> papers, statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and decades of
> personal experience?

Your facts are not in question here. Your obvious and oft stated disdain for
vinyl is what gives away your prejudice.

>> This product misses the mark IMO.
>
> But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In fact, you've
> presented no evidence that you've ever actually listened to it. Could it be
> that your opinions of it are based only on prejudice?
>
>> I am speaking as an
>> audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of
>> sound
>
> Given that you have presented no first hand information about the sound of
> this product...

Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracking
distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious
consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least in my
considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and
different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digital,
and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's the
faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads from
the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops,
mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that can
plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid
those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it made
digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those
unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something.

John Nunes

July 30th 10, 02:00 PM

On 7/29/2010 4:43 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

> Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracking
> distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious
> consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least in my
> considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and
> different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digital,
> and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's the
> faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads from
> the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops,
> mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that can
> plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid
> those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
> unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it made
> digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those
> unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something.

You mention wow and flutter:

One of the strangest and neurotic quirks of the "high-end" are the many
expensive turntables that have come out in the last 25 years or so with
fancy bearings, very heavy platters and various elaborate and exotic
drive systems, of which one of the goals at least is to supposedly
reduce wow and flutter to the vanishing point, and indeed they usually
do to some extent.

Then what happens is that end users play their records that have
off-center spindle holes that swamps out in actual real world use by
very large and very audible amounts, any residual wow and flutter that
the fancy table has.

Whenever I mention this, and I've brought it up several times here in
this noisegroup, there are always the litany of replies that the
off-center holes can be fixed with a little trial and error. This is
true, although it's very difficult to get really accurate to insure the
eccentricity (and thus the highly audible effect) is eliminated. Yet to
this day, I have yet to know (other than myself, and I've been around a
LOT) anyone in "high-end" that actually goes to this trouble and they
end up listening to wow and flutter, usually seeming oblivious that it's
really happening. The effect bothers the hell out of me.

The only turntables that have addressed this in the design are the two
Nakamichi tables made in the 80's, and they never sold very well. If I
recall correctly, one reviewer called one of the models a "turkey"
despite the fact that it effectively solved one of the very worst
problems with vinyl playback.

"High-end" is obsessed with tiny "differences" to the point where there
is a lot of controversy about even the existence of some of the claimed
"differences." At the same time, there is a lot of ignoring and
ignorance of what are dramatic and highly audible faults such as this
off-center hole issue, but also something arguably more important: room
acoustics and the difficulties of getting speakers to couple to rooms
properly. To illustrate this latter point, all one has to do is go to
Audiogon in the speaker ads for private users (not dealers, although it
can often be seen in those ads too) and notice pictures of systems with
no room treatment whatsoever, or if there is some, very little of it.

I think this phenomenon is really WEIRD, and reminiscent (in a different
way of course) of the contradictions one finds in religious cults.

- John

Scott[_6_]

July 30th 10, 02:56 PM

On Jul 29, 7:45=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 4:48=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On Jul 25, 2:49=3D3DA0pm, bob > wrote:
> >>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about
> >>>> vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
> >>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the
> >>>> various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback.
> >>>> Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a
> >>>> way:
> >>>>http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
> >>> Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be
> >>> a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism.
> >>> Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that
> >>> will actually do the job.
>
> >> What is "getting vinyl"?
> > Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be
> > found with vinyl.
> >> The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance
> >> to most people:
> > Sorry you don't get to speak for most people.
>
> Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have ...

Nope. You still don't get to speak for them. Sorry. :-)

>
> > Especially given your well documented prejudices on vinyl.
>
> What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my comments about vin=
yl
> have been 100% factual, and backed by published, peer-reviewed technical
> papers, statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and decades o=
f
> personal experience?

I think it is fair to say that we disagree on many alleged actual
facts about vinyl. But I am talking about your personal opinions that
you have expressed about the quality of vinyl playback. Clearly those
aesthetic opinions are not objective facts supported by published peer
reviewed technical papers. As for your personal experience....IMO,
based on what you have told us, it is lacking when it comes to world
class vinyl playback and therefore not relevant. Also experience tends
to be affected by prejudice to some degree so it's kinda hard to point
to experience as proof of a lack of prejudice.

>
> > This product misses the mark IMO.
>
> But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way.

What details do you need Arny? How about this? Everything it says it
does....I don't want doen to the sound of my CDs. Everything. So if
you need details review the descriptions of what it does. As for
"convincing?" who do I need to convince? I am quite convinced by the
description of what it does that the product misses the mark for me.

> In fact, you've
> presented no evidence that you've ever actually listened to it.

That is true. I put some faith in the manufacturer's description of
what the product does.

> Could it be
> that your opinions of it are based only on prejudice?

No it is based on experience with the distortions detailed in the
manufacturer's desciption and an assumption that the manufacturer is
actually making good on the claims about what the product does.

>
> > I am speaking as an
> > audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of
> > sound
>
> Given that you have presented no first hand information about the sound o=
f
> this product...

Excuse me for assuming the product delivers as advertised. Heck maybe
it doesn't....

Scott[_6_]

July 30th 10, 03:00 PM

On Jul 29, 7:51=A0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> Audio Empire wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> > (in article >):
>
> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
> >>Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have long since forgot=
about
> >>vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear.
>
> > hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables,
>
> Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS?
>
> Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production, independent
> manufacturers of turntables.

If I name fifty to I get a prize?
http://www.stereomojo.com/TurntableManufacturersLinks.htm

>
> Can we assume you mean high-fidelity, high quality playback
> turntables, or are you including those intended for DJ
> and similar uses?
>
> I would be willing to bet that at any given time in last
> 50 years there were never HUNDREDS of turntable manufacturers
> at any one time.
>
> Now, this is entirely apart from any claims or couterclaims
> about fidelity, desirability, personal satisfaction or
> anyhting else.
>
> I just find the claim of hundreds of turntable manufacturers
> to be unjustifiably hyperbolic.

I suggest reading some of the back catalog of the old October issues
of Audio that listed all known equipment at the time of the issue.

>
> > Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated.
>
> Not in question per se, but I would assert that the claim
> of there being hundreds of turntable manufacturers to be,
> well, greatly exaggerated, with all due respect.
>

It may well be but I would bet there are well over 100. My link was
hardly to a comprehensive list and it had well over fifty. granted a
few of those cited are not currently making turntables but just
servicing existing ones. But that would be just a few out of that
list. took me less than a minute to find that many.

Audio Empire

July 30th 10, 03:00 PM

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:51:06 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>
> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
>>> Not only most but the vast majority of people have long since forgot
>>> about
>>> vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear.
>>
>>
>> hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables,
>
> Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS?
>
> Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production, independent
> manufacturers of turntables.
>
> Can we assume you mean high-fidelity, high quality playback
> turntables, or are you including those intended for DJ
> and similar uses?
>
> I would be willing to bet that at any given time in last
> 50 years there were never HUNDREDS of turntable manufacturers
> at any one time.
>
> Now, this is entirely apart from any claims or couterclaims
> about fidelity, desirability, personal satisfaction or
> anyhting else.
>
> I just find the claim of hundreds of turntable manufacturers
> to be unjustifiably hyperbolic.
>
>> Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated.
>
> Not in question per se, but I would assert that the claim
> of there being hundreds of turntable manufacturers to be,
> well, greatly exaggerated, with all due respect.
>
>

OK, I was using hyperbole, But I bet I can name 50 if I tried real hard and
did the research. And yes, I'm talking about "High Fidelity" not cheap DJ
style tables. Just off the top of my head:

Thorens
J.A. Michelle
S.M.E.
Well Tempered
Roksan
Linn
VPI
Rega
ClearAudio
Music Hall
Avid
Oracle
Pro-Ject
SOTA
Origin Live
IsoKinetik
Marantz
E.A.T. Forte
Pink Triangle
Denon
Walker
Kuzma Stabi
Voyd
Ariston
Systemdek
Wilson Benesch

Just off the top of my head, I've come up with 26, doing no research. And I
know of about 4 German tables, several Swiss tables, at least as many Italian
tables and god knows how many Chinese tables that I either don't know the
names of, or have forgotten their names. At any rate, there are a healthy
enough number of companies making tables to insure vinyl's future for a while
- naysayers notwithstanding.

UnsteadyKen

July 30th 10, 03:00 PM

Dick Pierce said...

> Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS?
>
> Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production, independent
> manufacturers of turntables.

http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/turntable.html

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

Scott[_6_]

July 30th 10, 03:01 PM

On Jul 30, 6:00=A0am, John Nunes > wrote:
> On 7/29/2010 4:43 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracki=
ng
> > distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious
> > consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least =
in my
> > considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and
> > different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digit=
al,
> > and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's t=
he
> > faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads=
from
> > the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or p=
ops,
> > mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that ca=
n
> > plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to a=
void
> > those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
> > unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it =
made
> > digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT t=
hose
> > unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something.
>
> You mention wow and flutter:
>
> One of the strangest and neurotic quirks of the "high-end" are the many
> expensive turntables that have come out in the last 25 years or so with
> fancy bearings, very heavy platters and various elaborate and exotic
> drive systems, of which one of the goals at least is to supposedly
> reduce wow and flutter to the vanishing point, and indeed they usually
> do to some extent.
>
> Then what happens is that end users play their records that have
> off-center spindle holes that swamps out in actual real world use by
> very large and very audible amounts, any residual wow and flutter that
> the fancy table has.
>
> Whenever I mention this, and I've brought it up several times here in
> this noisegroup, there are always the litany of replies that the
> off-center holes can be fixed with a little trial and error. =A0This is
> true, although it's very difficult to get really accurate to insure the
> eccentricity (and thus the highly audible effect) is eliminated. =A0Yet t=
o
> this day, I have yet to know (other than myself, and I've been around a
> LOT) anyone in "high-end" that actually goes to this trouble and they
> end up listening to wow and flutter, usually seeming oblivious that it's
> really happening. =A0The effect bothers the hell out of me.
>
> The only turntables that have addressed this in the design are the two
> Nakamichi tables made in the 80's, and they never sold very well. =A0If I
> recall correctly, one reviewer called one of the models a "turkey"
> despite the fact that it effectively solved one of the very worst
> problems with vinyl playback.
>
> "High-end" is obsessed with tiny "differences" to the point where there
> is a lot of controversy about even the existence of some of the claimed
> "differences." =A0At the same time, there is a lot of ignoring and
> ignorance of what are dramatic and highly audible faults such as this
> off-center hole issue, but also something arguably more important: room
> acoustics and the difficulties of getting speakers to couple to rooms
> properly. =A0To illustrate this latter point, all one has to do is go to
> Audiogon in the speaker ads for private users (not dealers, although it
> can often be seen in those ads too) and notice pictures of systems with
> no room treatment whatsoever, or if there is some, very little of it.
>
> I think this phenomenon is really WEIRD, and reminiscent (in a different
> way of course) of the contradictions one finds in religious cults.
>
> - John

Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And yes it is
audible depending on the severity. But IME wiht most LPs it is not an
issue and would only be noticable to those who, for whatever reason,
are very very sensitive to that sepcific problem. I don't know of
anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their
playback though.

Audio Empire

August 1st 10, 07:37 PM

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:00:02 -0700, John Nunes wrote
(in article >):

> On 7/29/2010 4:43 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracking
>> distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious
>> consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least in my
>> considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and
>> different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digital,
>> and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's the
>> faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads from
>> the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops,
>> mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that can
>> plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid
>> those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
>> unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it made
>> digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those
>> unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something.
>
> You mention wow and flutter:
>
> One of the strangest and neurotic quirks of the "high-end" are the many
> expensive turntables that have come out in the last 25 years or so with
> fancy bearings, very heavy platters and various elaborate and exotic
> drive systems, of which one of the goals at least is to supposedly
> reduce wow and flutter to the vanishing point, and indeed they usually
> do to some extent.
>
> Then what happens is that end users play their records that have
> off-center spindle holes that swamps out in actual real world use by
> very large and very audible amounts, any residual wow and flutter that
> the fancy table has.

There's very little a record player company can do about warped or eccentric
records, but there have been attempts. Some Japanese company (I forget which)
came out with a very expensive 'table in the late '80's (I believe) which
used a very strong vacuum to pull a warped record hard to the patter (of
course a badly warped record couldn't be helped because the record had to be
flat enough to begin with to be able to pull a vacuum under it) and it used
the tone arm as a "centricity" sensor. When the arm tried to play an
eccentric (off center) record it would swing too-and-fro with the
eccentricity. Using sensors in the arm itself, the spindle, itself mounted
off-center, would move, thus moving the record until the arm swing was
nulled-out. I have no idea how well these systems worked as I've never
actually seen one of these 'tables. just read about it.

> Whenever I mention this, and I've brought it up several times here in
> this noisegroup, there are always the litany of replies that the
> off-center holes can be fixed with a little trial and error. This is
> true, although it's very difficult to get really accurate to insure the
> eccentricity (and thus the highly audible effect) is eliminated. Yet to
> this day, I have yet to know (other than myself, and I've been around a
> LOT) anyone in "high-end" that actually goes to this trouble and they
> end up listening to wow and flutter, usually seeming oblivious that it's
> really happening. The effect bothers the hell out of me.

It bothers me as well. I used to take records back when I encountered this
phenomenon. But when that was impossible or impractical (I used have
traveling friends and collegues buy records for me in places like London or
Paris or Moscow and bring them back), I'd use a rat-tail file to enlarge the
hole and then put an arrow on the label with a pen to indicate where on the
periphery of the hole I should have the spindle touching. This meant that I
only had to find the venter ONCE.
>
> The only turntables that have addressed this in the design are the two
> Nakamichi tables made in the 80's, and they never sold very well. If I
> recall correctly, one reviewer called one of the models a "turkey"
> despite the fact that it effectively solved one of the very worst
> problems with vinyl playback.

Yep, that's the one I was referring to above. That it wasn't a very good
record deck (few of those Japanese direct-drive units were) doesn't surprise
me. I don't even know if it was effective at it's "selling point" tasks of
addressing warped and eccentric records.

> "High-end" is obsessed with tiny "differences" to the point where there
> is a lot of controversy about even the existence of some of the claimed
> "differences." At the same time, there is a lot of ignoring and
> ignorance of what are dramatic and highly audible faults such as this
> off-center hole issue, but also something arguably more important: room
> acoustics and the difficulties of getting speakers to couple to rooms
> properly. To illustrate this latter point, all one has to do is go to
> Audiogon in the speaker ads for private users (not dealers, although it
> can often be seen in those ads too) and notice pictures of systems with
> no room treatment whatsoever, or if there is some, very little of it.
>
> I think this phenomenon is really WEIRD, and reminiscent (in a different
> way of course) of the contradictions one finds in religious cults.

To be fair, although I've encountered warped records from all labels and
genres, but I've only encountered eccentric records with "light music" labels
(folk, rock, film soundtracks, broadway musical cast albums, etc.) I don't
ever remember getting an eccentric classical record, even from cheap labels
like Vox, RCA Victrola, CBS Odyssey, Angel Seraphim, etc. Even records made
in what were then Socialist, "Iron Curtain" countries, like "Hungarotone",
East German "Parlophone", and the Soviet "Melodya" records were generally all
pretty well made using 100% virgin vinyl, usually at least 180 grams weight
(sometimes 200 grams) and never off-center. Of course, ANY record, even the
most carefully manufactured ones, can warp AFTER manufacture. It just needs
to be poorly packed at some point and sit in a rail car on a siding for a
couple of days in 100 degree summer heat....

Arny Krueger

August 2nd 10, 02:09 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about
>>>>>> vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>>>>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of
>>>>>> the various distortions characteristic of vinyl
>>>>>> playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but
>>>>>> technology finds a way:
>>>>>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>>>>> Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would
>>>>> be a good idea if it were done right without the
>>>>> cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make
>>>>> something that will actually do the job.
>>>>
>>>> What is "getting vinyl"?
>>
>>> Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be
>>> found with vinyl.
>>
>>>> The facts about vinyl in approximate order of
>>>> importance to most people:
>>
>>> Sorry you don't get to speak for most people.

>> Not only most but the vast majority of people have long
>> since forgot about vinyl. The RIAA market share data
>> makes that quite clear.

> Yet enough people DO value vinyl that records are still
> pressed and hundreds of manufacturers still make
> turntables, some costing a small fortune, Cartridges are
> still available at all price points from $20 on the low
> end to tens of thousands on the high end with new ones
> being introduced all the time. Not to mention a myriad of
> phono preamps available, again at all price points, as
> well as recently introduced preamps and integrated amps
> that have phono stages either built-in as standard or
> available as an option.

Two words: Niche products.

> Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated.
>
>>> Especially given your well documented prejudices on
>>> vinyl.
>>
>> What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my
>> comments about vinyl have been 100% factual, and backed
>> by published, peer-reviewed technical papers,
>> statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and
>> decades of personal experience?

> Your facts are not in question here. Your obvious and oft
> stated disdain for vinyl is what gives away your
> prejudice.

That's where you've got me wrong. I have no more or less disdain for vinyl
than I have for any other audio media with similar performance levels.
Furthermore, I have repeated defended the use of vinyl based on the unique
musical content that it carries.

>>> This product misses the mark IMO.
>>
>> But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In
>> fact, you've presented no evidence that you've ever
>> actually listened to it. Could it be that your opinions
>> of it are based only on prejudice?
>>
>>> I am speaking as an
>>> audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of
>>> sound
>>
>> Given that you have presented no first hand information
>> about the sound of this product...

> Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow,
> flutter, tracking distortion, ticks and pops
> automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by
> ANY music lover?

Those very same performance problems do not diqualify vinyl itself,
according to the paragraph that forms your initial response to my post.

> People who listen to vinyl, at least in
> my considerable experience, still listen to it because of
> two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds
> that LP sounds "better" than digital, and the other
> faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's
> the faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM
> radio, tape, downloads from the internet, etc. Neither
> like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops,
> mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the
> other ills that can plague vinyl playback, and most, if
> not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid those things. The
> fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
> unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the
> point. Now if it made digital SOUND like a well recorded,
> well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those unwanted
> artifacts, then he'd have something.

I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree exists. Digital
recordings on occasion fail to sound good simply because they are accurate
reproducers of mediocre technical work. Saying that DIGITAL needs some
add-on to make it sound good rather obviously paints all forms of digital
media with the same overly-broad brush. Anybody who is familiar with the
ins and outs of the process of producing musical recordings should be
well-aware of the fact that there is no single magic box that will undo all
of the careless and slipshod work that has been recorded on digital.

Indicting DIGITAL, as we frequently see being done here is a clear case of
shooting the messenger.

Arny Krueger

August 2nd 10, 02:09 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Jul 29, 7:51=A0pm, Dick Pierce >
> wrote:
>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>
>> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>>
>>>> Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have
>>>> long since forgot= about vinyl. The RIAA market share
>>>> data makes that quite clear.
>>
>>> hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables,
>>
>> Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS?
>>
>> Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production,
>> independent manufacturers of turntables.

> If I name fifty to I get a prize?
> http://www.stereomojo.com/TurntableManufacturersLinks.htm

Scott, you still need to document that the list is composed 100% of
manufacturers who are in business and have independent products. There's
obviously some rebranding going on.

One need read only a few items on the list you linked to see that the list
may be bogus - since when is the well-known online retailer Amazon an
independent producer of turntables? Or is this a reference to "Amazon Audio
Products" (note my detective work and probable indentification of the
complete name of an actual German turntable manufacturer), thus putting the
accuracy and completeness of the list in a poor light from the standpoint of
accuracy and completeness of its entries?

Arny Krueger

August 2nd 10, 02:10 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
> yes it is audible depending on the severity.

Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl
causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as
flutter.

There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone
arms that are not linear tracking.

> But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable
> to those who, for whatever reason, are very very
> sensitive to that sepcific problem.

We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time. This suggests to me
that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that
causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton.

>I don't know of
> anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of
> their playback though.

>From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion
that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who
listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the category
of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback.

Audio Empire

August 2nd 10, 05:38 PM

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Jul 29, 7:51=A0pm, Dick Pierce >
>> wrote:
>>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>>>
>>>>> Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have
>>>>> long since forgot= about vinyl. The RIAA market share
>>>>> data makes that quite clear.
>>>
>>>> hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables,
>>>
>>> Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS?
>>>
>>> Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production,
>>> independent manufacturers of turntables.
>
>> If I name fifty to I get a prize?
>> http://www.stereomojo.com/TurntableManufacturersLinks.htm
>
>
> Scott, you still need to document that the list is composed 100% of
> manufacturers who are in business and have independent products. There's
> obviously some rebranding going on.

I know of none. While it's true that some Rega, Music Hall, and Pro-ject
low-end tables are very similar, but if you look at them in the flesh, you
will see that they are not the same units at all.

> One need read only a few items on the list you linked to see that the list
> may be bogus - since when is the well-known online retailer Amazon an
> independent producer of turntables? Or is this a reference to "Amazon Audio
> Products" (note my detective work and probable indentification of the
> complete name of an actual German turntable manufacturer), thus putting the
> accuracy and completeness of the list in a poor light from the standpoint of
> accuracy and completeness of its entries?

That's true. Amazon does not make turntables (or any other audio products).

There are easily 50 manufacturers making so-called high-end tables today,
perhaps more, but unlike my earlier flight of hyperbole, I think you'd really
have to struggle to reach 100. Still and all, that's a lot of manufacturers
vying for a piece of what is a pretty small market. I will predict this, that
vinyl production will outlive the physical CD.

Audio Empire

August 3rd 10, 01:18 AM

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:10:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
>> yes it is audible depending on the severity.
>
> Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl
> causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as
> flutter.
>
> There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone
> arms that are not linear tracking.

Actually, the distortions caused by properly designed and set-up radial
tracking arms turns out to be negligible, and the advantages of linear
tracking turn out to be a tertiary effect.
>
>> But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable
>> to those who, for whatever reason, are very very
>> sensitive to that sepcific problem.
>
> We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time. This suggests to me
> that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that
> causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton.

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
"around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
during most concerts.

>> I don't know of
>> anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of
>> their playback though.
>
>> From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion
> that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who
> listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the category
> of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback.

Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen to records that are
warped, eccentric, of full of FM distortion. I know that I don't.

Scott[_6_]

August 3rd 10, 01:22 AM

On Aug 2, 6:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
> > yes it is audible depending on the severity.
>
> Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl
> causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as
> flutter.
>
> There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone
> arms that are not linear tracking.
>
> > But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable
> > to those who, for whatever reason, are very very
> > sensitive to that sepcific problem.
>
> We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time.

> This suggests to me
> that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that
> causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton.

It would be interesting to put your ability to the test under blind
conditions to hear all those nasty distortions on a real high end
player with a quality LP. I know that will never happen but my money
would be against you. And you wonder why some of us think you have a
severe prejudice against vinyl? Do show us the peer reviewed published
literature that supports this nonsense about those of us with this
alleged "hearing disorder."

>
> >I don't know of
> > anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of
> > their playback though.
> >From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion
>
> that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who
> listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the categor=
y
> of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback=

Audio Empire

August 3rd 10, 01:25 AM

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Occasionally, during one of our long threads about
>>>>>>> vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a
>>>>>>> "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of
>>>>>>> the various distortions characteristic of vinyl
>>>>>>> playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but
>>>>>>> technology finds a way:
>>>>>>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/
>>>>>> Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would
>>>>>> be a good idea if it were done right without the
>>>>>> cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make
>>>>>> something that will actually do the job.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is "getting vinyl"?
>>>
>>>> Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be
>>>> found with vinyl.
>>>
>>>>> The facts about vinyl in approximate order of
>>>>> importance to most people:
>>>
>>>> Sorry you don't get to speak for most people.
>
>>> Not only most but the vast majority of people have long
>>> since forgot about vinyl. The RIAA market share data
>>> makes that quite clear.
>
>> Yet enough people DO value vinyl that records are still
>> pressed and hundreds of manufacturers still make
>> turntables, some costing a small fortune, Cartridges are
>> still available at all price points from $20 on the low
>> end to tens of thousands on the high end with new ones
>> being introduced all the time. Not to mention a myriad of
>> phono preamps available, again at all price points, as
>> well as recently introduced preamps and integrated amps
>> that have phono stages either built-in as standard or
>> available as an option.
>
> Two words: Niche products.

One word: Irrelevant. MacDonalds sells more hamburgers in an hour than
Morton's or Ruth's Chris steak houses sell steaks in a year, does that make
these "high-end" restaurants "niche" restaurants? Market share is no
indication of viability in markets catering to different strata of the same
market or different markets.

>
>> Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated.
>>
>>>> Especially given your well documented prejudices on
>>>> vinyl.
>>>
>>> What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my
>>> comments about vinyl have been 100% factual, and backed
>>> by published, peer-reviewed technical papers,
>>> statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and
>>> decades of personal experience?
>
>> Your facts are not in question here. Your obvious and oft
>> stated disdain for vinyl is what gives away your
>> prejudice.
>
> That's where you've got me wrong. I have no more or less disdain for vinyl
> than I have for any other audio media with similar performance levels.

You should re-read the above. Your disdain for vinyl is palpable here and I
don't believe we've ever discussed "other audio media with similar
performance levels".

> Furthermore, I have repeated defended the use of vinyl based on the unique
> musical content that it carries.

There's a phrase that covers that. It's called "damning with faint praise".

>>>> This product misses the mark IMO.
>>>
>>> But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In
>>> fact, you've presented no evidence that you've ever
>>> actually listened to it. Could it be that your opinions
>>> of it are based only on prejudice?
>>>
>>>> I am speaking as an
>>>> audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of
>>>> sound
>>>
>>> Given that you have presented no first hand information
>>> about the sound of this product...
>
>> Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow,
>> flutter, tracking distortion, ticks and pops
>> automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by
>> ANY music lover?
>
> Those very same performance problems do not diqualify vinyl itself,

That's because those are not inherent qualities of phonograph records
themselves, they are, however, possible DEFECTS in phonograph records. I must
say that my collection exhibits very few of any of those defects. And while
they might show-up more often than any record listener might like, it does,
in no way. alter the fact that these defects are unwanted.

> according to the paragraph that forms your initial response to my post.
>
>> People who listen to vinyl, at least in
>> my considerable experience, still listen to it because of
>> two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds
>> that LP sounds "better" than digital, and the other
>> faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's
>> the faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM
>> radio, tape, downloads from the internet, etc. Neither
>> like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops,
>> mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the
>> other ills that can plague vinyl playback, and most, if
>> not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid those things. The
>> fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these
>> unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the
>> point. Now if it made digital SOUND like a well recorded,
>> well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those unwanted
>> artifacts, then he'd have something.
>
> I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree exists. Digital
> recordings on occasion fail to sound good simply because they are accurate
> reproducers of mediocre technical work.

I wish that were true. The fact is that most CD releases do not represent,
accurately, the information that is on the master tape. CD is capable, with
out being a so-called "high-resolution" format such as SACD or DVD-A or even
high-definition download formats such as 24/96 or 24/192, of much higher
levels of performance than most commercial releases put on them. Fact is,
most commercial releases, irrespective of the level of performance available
on CD or other digital media, is a pale shadow of the master. I've heard it
dozens of times. One here's a master or a copy of a master, and then buys the
CD when it's released only to find that it's been compressed and limited and
had whatever else done to it to render it extremely disappointing. This seems
to be the rule rather than the exception and I don't know why. CD can be
astonishingly good, but it rarely is - even so-called "audiophile releases"
sound nowhere as good as the digital masters from which they were cut. Hell,
I have highly touted recordings where the vinyl reissue sounds so much better
than the CD of the same performance, that it's hard to believe that both
renditions came from the same master tape.

Saying that DIGITAL needs some
> add-on to make it sound good rather obviously paints all forms of digital
> media with the same overly-broad brush.

Nothing wrong with digital. It's potentially as good as technology can
provide. There is a lot wrong with most releases, however. It's funny that a
lot of people spend a lot of money and time chasing these high-resolution
formats around the Internet, when the truth is that most of them have never
even heard a glimpse of what plain-old Redbook CD is capable of doing.

I play Redbook CDs for people made from my own digital recordings without any
signal processing whatsoever, and their jaws drop at the quality. Most have
simply never heard anything that sounded THAT real. The funny part is, it's
relatively easy to make recordings of this quality. Why commercial interests
feel that they have to water recordings down so much before releasing them is
beyond me.

> Anybody who is familiar with the
> ins and outs of the process of producing musical recordings should be
> well-aware of the fact that there is no single magic box that will undo all
> of the careless and slipshod work that has been recorded on digital.

While that is true as well, a lot of seems to me to be deliberate.

> Indicting DIGITAL, as we frequently see being done here is a clear case of
> shooting the messenger.

Well, you certainly won't find me condemning digital AS A PROCESS, but I will
condemn what most commercial record companies do with it. And increasing the
bit-rate and depth won't help much because most of those so-called
high-resolution releases are flawed in the same manner as the Redbook
releases of the same materials.

Like I have often said on this forum. Vinyl LP is NOT the end-all or the
be-all of high-fidelity listening, but it is another viable source of music
(KEY phrase here). Often, it's preferred to the digital releases of the same
recordings because it's more honest to the original master tape than are the
digital releases. It just seems that often, the processing that occurs in
vinyl mastering does less audible (or at least more musically pleasing)
damage to what was captured on the "master tape" than is the CD mastering of
the same material. Again, I don't pretend to know why this would be so. All I
know is that it's there for all to hear who want to hear it.

But again, (Another KEY phrase coming) regular old Redbook CD is capable of
astonishing levels of quality playback, but the average consumer doesn't get
to hear that quality because it's NOT transferred to the CD by the record
companies.

Harry Lavo

August 3rd 10, 01:28 AM

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> No one is denying there's a market. But you and everyone else
> have yet to show that it is not a niche market, and, by
> sheer annual unit salkes, NOT by the nu,ber of manufacturers,
> it is a very SMALL market, especially compared to what it
> was in the early to mid 1970's. If you want to dispute those
> facts, go argue with the LP equipment and media manufacturers,
> it's their numbers.
>
> Now, once again, this is not syaing LPs are bad, LPs are good,
> or LPs are anything one way or another. But the simple fact
> is that it's a very much smaller market than it used to be.
>
> --

I haven't heard anybody in years argue that it is anything but a niche
market, Dick, and certainly not Audio Empire. What he has argued, and I and
others as well, is that it is a growing market, and not just a DJ market.
It has caught on among a segment of the younger folk, and not only old vinyl
but many new recordings are being released on vinyl....and it is not just
craven pop music...Allen Toussaint's recent award-winning jazz recording
"The Bright Mississippi" has been released on vinyl, for instance. That's
all Audio Empire or anybody else who is serious has said.

But even saying that much seems to bring out a chorusline of vinyl-phobics.

bob

August 3rd 10, 01:56 AM

On Aug 2, 12:38=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> There are easily 50 manufacturers making so-called high-end tables today,
> perhaps more, but unlike my earlier flight of hyperbole, I think you'd re=
ally
> have to struggle to reach 100. Still and all, that's a lot of manufacture=
rs
> vying for a piece of what is a pretty small market.

The reason there are a lot of little manufacturers is that the market
is too small to attract a larger maker who could take advantage of
economies of scale. A healthier market might actually see fewer but
larger producers.

A better way to make the case for the continued vitality of this
(admittedly tiny) market is to look at the major retailers. Best Buy
and Crutchfield now carry Pro-Ject. J&R carries Music Hall. That's far
more significant than some guy making 5 $20,000 tables a year in his
garage.

> I will predict this, that
> vinyl production will outlive the physical CD.

And I will predict that 16/44.1 will still be the standard for
uncompressed digital audio after the last vinyl plant closes.Only the
distribution channel will change.

bob

Scott[_6_]

August 3rd 10, 02:49 AM

On Aug 2, 10:19=A0am, Dick Pierce > wrote:

>
> No one is denying there's a market. But you and everyone else
> have yet to show that it is not a niche market, and, by
> sheer annual unit salkes, NOT by the nu,ber of manufacturers,
> it is a very SMALL market, especially compared to what it
> was in the early to mid 1970's. If you want to dispute those
> facts, go argue with the LP equipment and media manufacturers,
> it's their numbers.
>
> Now, once again, this is not syaing LPs are bad, LPs are good,
> or LPs are anything one way or another. But the simple fact
> is that it's a very much smaller market than it used to be.

Yep. It is a niche market and much smaller than it used to be.
Probably a good thing for audiophiles. Not probably, definitely. The
market for hardware and vinyl is certainly in a golden age when it
comes to quality. It may not be a "big" market but it sure is a "good"
market. That is what matters to me.

Jenn[_2_]

August 3rd 10, 03:44 AM

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> What he has argued, and I and
> others as well, is that it is a growing market, and not just a DJ market.
> It has caught on among a segment of the younger folk, and not only old vinyl
> but many new recordings are being released on vinyl....and it is not just
> craven pop music...Allen Toussaint's recent award-winning jazz recording
> "The Bright Mississippi" has been released on vinyl, for instance. That's
> all Audio Empire or anybody else who is serious has said.
>
> But even saying that much seems to bring out a chorusline of vinyl-phobics.

So true. All I have said, for example, is that I like some LPs, and
that the best recorded sound that I have heard in my or anyone else's
home was from a few excellent examples of the medium and the hardware.
I have further pointed out that I believe that overall, CD is the better
medium and that I own many more CDs than LPs. For my trouble, I was
branded as a "vinyl bigot." Go figure.

ALL physical media are down in sales compared to a few years ago.
That's a fact. It's also a fact that many new releases are now released
on LP, and if one knows anything about retail, one knows that shelf
space is valuable and vendors are not likely to waste space on something
that is not going to sell.

Arny Krueger

August 3rd 10, 08:08 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):

>> I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree
>> exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to sound
>> good simply because they are accurate reproducers of
>> mediocre technical work.

> I wish that were true.

It's truth is proven fact.

> The fact is that most CD releases
> do not represent, accurately, the information that is on
> the master tape.

It takes considerable naivate about the normal production process to
consider that to be a technical flaw.

Master tapes very frequently are not commerically acceptable when they are
accurate representations of the master tape. That's why mastering engineers
are still a valuable resource.

Commerical recordings must satisfy a large number of listeners to be good
commercial products. Musical recordings often have excess dynamics and
often contain excess power at the low end of the audible spectrum to sound
acceptable in the limited environments that most consumers listen to them
in.

Greg Wormald

August 3rd 10, 08:08 PM

In article >,
Jenn > wrote:

> ALL physical media are down in sales compared to a few years ago.
> That's a fact. It's also a fact that many new releases are now released
> on LP, and if one knows anything about retail, one knows that shelf
> space is valuable and vendors are not likely to waste space on something
> that is not going to sell.

Absolutely.

I haven't been in to physical music store in years! And when they start
offering uncompressed albums, I won't be buying physical CD's either.

Greg

Arny Krueger

August 3rd 10, 08:09 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> I haven't heard anybody in years argue that it is
> anything but a niche market, Dick, and certainly not
> Audio Empire.

I just showed again that while nobody who knows what's going on can argue
that vinyl is anything but a niche market, we see plenty of examples of
where its advocates can't just leave it at that. We still get all this
rah-rah about how many manufacturers there are, and how many dozens of new
releases of media there are.

Nobody knows how big the entire digital music market is since so much
product bypasses the channels that RIAA monitors. It still takes a pressing
plant to make LPs, while anybody who can upload to UTube can move 100,000s
of copies of their latest hit in a few days after playing the music in their
bedroom.

> What he has argued, and I and others as
> well, is that it is a growing market, and not just a DJ
> market.

Nobody who knows whats going on says that LP is just a DJ market, but even
the DJ segment is suffering at the hands of digital hardware and software
that simulates scratching. The DJ maket is about quick setup and takedown,
so hauling 100's of LPs is very counter-productive.

The numerical growth of late has been in ca. $100 USB-based LP players. They
are plastic novelty items. Their sound quality is generally substandard,
even for vinyl. Frankly, many of them damage or destroy precious legacy
media with as little as one playing.

Arny Krueger

August 3rd 10, 08:09 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:10:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
>>> yes it is audible depending on the severity.

>> Yes. However another irreducable problem - the
>> non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high
>> enough frequency content to qualify as flutter.

>> There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass
>> modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking.

> Actually, the distortions caused by properly designed and
> set-up radial tracking arms turns out to be negligible,
> and the advantages of linear tracking turn out to be a
> tertiary effect.

Actually, the distortions produced by LP playback systems incorporating the
best designed
tone arms that utilize any technology turns out to be readily audible.

Whether a given person perceives these potentially audible distoritons is up
to them, but if they fail to perceive them then they are somehow missing
spurious responses that are well above the normal human thesholds for
reliable perception of linear and nonlinear distortion.

>>> But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only
>>> be noticable
>>> to those who, for whatever reason, are very very
>>> sensitive to that sepcific problem.
>>
>> We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time.
>> This suggests to me that there must be some kind of
>> highly selective hearing disorder that causes people to
>> have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distortion.

> It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of
> concert goers to listen "around" sneezes and coughs and
> program rattling that occurs constantly during most
> concerts.

Coughs and sneezes at concerts are relatively infrequent, while the
potentially audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl is
unending. It starts when the needle is dropped and it continues until it is
lifted up. To enjoy vinyl you have to listen past the ongoing racket of
potentially readily audible noise and distortion.

>>> I don't know of
>>> anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound
>>> of
>>> their playback though.

>>> From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive
>>> to FM distortion
>> that we avoid LPs playback wherever possible, we tend
>> to see those who listen to LPs that have been reissued
>> as good CDs as being in the category of people who wish
>> to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback.

> Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen to
> records that are warped, eccentric, of full of FM
> distortion. I know that I don't.

Whether you perceive this ongoing racket or not is up to you, but it is very
easy to measure this noise and distortion using legacy measurement equipment
that finds modern media to be free of distortion.

Arny Krueger

August 3rd 10, 08:10 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
> under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
> distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.

It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk.

The LP format audible mangles any music that you record on it.

Here's the challenge. Produce 2 CDs. One of the finished recording that
will be mastered to LP, and one of the best possible transcription of that
recording from a LP made from the same master as was used to make the CD. It
is easy to show that a CD can easily be a sonically transparent copy of the
original master *and* the LP playback. It is easy to show that the digital
transcription of the LP will not produce random guessing in an ABX
comparison of the two. They won't sound just a little different.

I've already come as close to doing this comparison as I could with the
resources available to me, years ago. If you want to try to reduce me to
random guessing, then its up to you to find better resources. Once you have
produced your new, improved evidence, then I will sucessfully ABX them with
an audience of witnesses.

I am confident that if you collect this evidence, you will first listen to
them yourself and you will be so disappointed that you will never send it to
me.

> I know that will never happen but my money would be
> against you.

You already lost the bet.

> And you wonder why some of us think you have
> a severe prejudice against vinyl?

I wonder about claims that are so easily falsified.

> Do show us the peer
> reviewed published literature that supports this nonsense
> about those of us with this alleged "hearing disorder."

The formal, peer-reviewed literature of the irreducable audible distortion
that inherent in vinyl was published in the JAES and IEEE proceedings back
in the days when vinyl was all we had. I've cited it here many times.

Scott[_6_]

August 3rd 10, 08:10 PM

Scott[_6_]

August 4th 10, 02:14 AM

On Aug 3, 12:10=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
> > under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
> > distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.
>
> It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk.

Please excuse my skepticism but you haven't done it with my rig and my
records. If you can identify those distortions by ear with my stuff I
will certainly concede the point. I just don't have any faith in your
alleged "slam dunk." When you "dunk on me" then you can do a little
NBA style trash talkin. Till then it's just talkin.

>
> The LP format audible mangles any music that you record on it.
>
> Here's the challenge. Produce 2 CDs. =A0One of the finished recording tha=
t
> will be mastered to LP, and one of the best possible transcription of tha=
t
> recording from a LP made from the same master as was used to make the CD.=
It
> is easy to show that a CD can easily be a sonically transparent copy of t=
he
> original master *and* the LP playback. It is easy to show that the digita=
l
> transcription of the LP will not produce random guessing in an ABX
> comparison of the two. =A0They won't sound just a little different.
>
> I've already come as close to doing this comparison as I could with the
> resources available to me, years ago. If you want to try to reduce me to
> random guessing, then its up to you to find better resources. =A0Once you=
have
> produced your new, improved evidence, then I will sucessfully ABX them wi=
th
> an audience of witnesses.
>
> I am confident that if you collect this evidence, you will first listen t=
o
> them yourself and you will be so disappointed that you will never send it=
to
> me.

How about this for a challenge. When I get the system out of storage
after I make the big move, I record several of my LPs on my rig on
24/96 and then down load some CDs. Let's say twenty samples. Then you,
by ear, identify which ones are vinyl and which ones are not. I mean
if they are as distorted as you say you should get 20 out of 20 but
I'd be willing to set the bar at 16 correct answers as proof that you
really can hear those distortions even on my system with my LPs of
choice.

>
> > I know that will never happen but my money would be
> > against you.
>
> You already lost the bet.

No we haven't got to the bet. If you want to make my challenge
interesting feel free to make me a proposition. As for now the
challenge is for bragging rights. Show me you can identify vinyl by
ear because of these distortions on my rig with my LPs and you win.
Should be easy no?

>
> > And you wonder why some of us think you have
> > a severe prejudice against vinyl?
>
> I wonder about claims that are so easily falsified.

Well my claim is you will fail in the test I am proposing. Wanna
"falsify" it?

>
> > Do show us the peer
> > reviewed published literature that supports this nonsense
> > about those of us with this alleged "hearing disorder."
>
> The formal, peer-reviewed literature of the irreducable audible distortio=
n
> that inherent in vinyl was published in the JAES and IEEE proceedings bac=
k
> in the days when vinyl was all we had. I've cited it here many times.

Sorry but that is a no show.

Audio Empire

August 4th 10, 01:52 PM

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:08:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>
>>> I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree
>>> exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to sound
>>> good simply because they are accurate reproducers of
>>> mediocre technical work.
>
>> I wish that were true.
>
> It's truth is proven fact.
>
>> The fact is that most CD releases
>> do not represent, accurately, the information that is on
>> the master tape.
>
> It takes considerable naivate about the normal production process to
> consider that to be a technical flaw.

Who said it was a "technical flaw"?
>
> Master tapes very frequently are not commerically acceptable when they are
> accurate representations of the master tape. That's why mastering engineers
> are still a valuable resource.

Whatever the reason, the reality is that commercial CD rarely, if ever, lives
up to its potential in terms of sound quality.

> Commerical recordings must satisfy a large number of listeners to be good
> commercial products. Musical recordings often have excess dynamics and
> often contain excess power at the low end of the audible spectrum to sound
> acceptable in the limited environments that most consumers listen to them
> in.

That's true. But what it means is that the CD buyer is not getting what CD is
capable of. I'm glad we agree on this point.

Arny Krueger

August 4th 10, 02:41 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Aug 3, 12:10 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
>>> under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
>>> distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.
>>
>> It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk.
>
> Please excuse my skepticism but you haven't done it with
> my rig and my records.

If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very happy to bow out.

Arny Krueger

August 4th 10, 03:20 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Aug 2, 6:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
>>> yes it is audible depending on the severity.
>>
>> Yes. However another irreducable problem - the
>> non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high
>> enough frequency content to qualify as flutter.
>>
>> There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass
>> modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking.
>>
>>> But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only
>>> be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are
>>> very very
>>> sensitive to that sepcific problem.
>>
>> We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time.
>
>> This suggests to me
>> that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing
>> disorder that causes people to have substandard levels
>> of sensitivity to FM distoriton.
>
> It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
> under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
> distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.

At this point you have admitted that you will only accept experiences
obtained on your personal audio system with recordings from your personal
collection.

For very obvious reasons, I have no interest in proceeding any further.

Arny Krueger

August 4th 10, 03:20 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:08:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>
>>>> I see a misidentification of a problem that we all
>>>> agree exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to
>>>> sound good simply because they are accurate
>>>> reproducers of mediocre technical work.
>>
>>> I wish that were true.
>>
>> It's truth is proven fact.
>>
>>> The fact is that most CD releases
>>> do not represent, accurately, the information that is on
>>> the master tape.
>>
>> It takes considerable naivate about the normal
>> production process to consider that to be a technical
>> flaw.
>
> Who said it was a "technical flaw"?
>>
>> Master tapes very frequently are not commerically
>> acceptable when they are accurate representations of the
>> master tape. That's why mastering engineers are still a
>> valuable resource.
>
> Whatever the reason, the reality is that commercial CD
> rarely, if ever, lives up to its potential in terms of
> sound quality.

It's true. Due to the sfar more audibly significant audible failings in the
rest of the audio chain, particularly rooms and transducers, CD playback
never lives up to its potential for excellent sound quality.

Audio Empire

August 4th 10, 07:47 PM

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:20:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:08:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>>> I see a misidentification of a problem that we all
>>>>> agree exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to
>>>>> sound good simply because they are accurate
>>>>> reproducers of mediocre technical work.
>>>
>>>> I wish that were true.
>>>
>>> It's truth is proven fact.
>>>
>>>> The fact is that most CD releases
>>>> do not represent, accurately, the information that is on
>>>> the master tape.
>>>
>>> It takes considerable naivate about the normal
>>> production process to consider that to be a technical
>>> flaw.
>>
>> Who said it was a "technical flaw"?
>>>
>>> Master tapes very frequently are not commerically
>>> acceptable when they are accurate representations of the
>>> master tape. That's why mastering engineers are still a
>>> valuable resource.
>>
>> Whatever the reason, the reality is that commercial CD
>> rarely, if ever, lives up to its potential in terms of
>> sound quality.
>
> It's true. Due to the sfar more audibly significant audible failings in the
> rest of the audio chain, particularly rooms and transducers, CD playback
> never lives up to its potential for excellent sound quality.
>
>

Sorry, Arny, you're putting words in my mouth (or should I say keyboard). I
said that commercial CDs do not have the information on them that would make
them sound as good as what the medium itself is capable. I said nothing about
limitations "downstream" of the CD playback itself.

Audio Empire

August 4th 10, 08:06 PM

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:20:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Aug 2, 6:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
>>>> yes it is audible depending on the severity.
>>>
>>> Yes. However another irreducable problem - the
>>> non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high
>>> enough frequency content to qualify as flutter.
>>>
>>> There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass
>>> modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking.
>>>
>>>> But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only
>>>> be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are
>>>> very very
>>>> sensitive to that sepcific problem.
>>>
>>> We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time.
>>
>>> This suggests to me
>>> that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing
>>> disorder that causes people to have substandard levels
>>> of sensitivity to FM distoriton.
>>
>> It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
>> under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
>> distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.
>
> At this point you have admitted that you will only accept experiences
> obtained on your personal audio system with recordings from your personal
> collection.
>
> For very obvious reasons, I have no interest in proceeding any further.
>
>

I believe that if you read his words more carefully, you will see that he was
merely using his playback system as an example because he knows it well. I
can say the same. Listen to MY records on MY playback system and you won't
find these artifacts that you insist are endemic to all LP playback either.
I'm afraid that your prejudice in this matter has poisoned the whole well.

If all vinyl playback were as you characterize it, no one would ever listen
to records. Obviously, the picture is not as bad as you paint it. It couldn't
be and still be considered a viable market, even for a niche one.

Audio Empire

August 4th 10, 08:06 PM

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Aug 3, 12:10 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
>>>> under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
>>>> distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.
>>>
>>> It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk.
>>
>> Please excuse my skepticism but you haven't done it with
>> my rig and my records.
>
> If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very happy to bow out.
>
>

He probably means that you haven't done such a test with a good playback
system, optimally set-up and using decently cared-for records.

Scott[_6_]

August 5th 10, 02:34 AM

On Aug 4, 6:41=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 12:10 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
> >>> under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
> >>> distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.
>
> >> It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk.
>
> > Please excuse my skepticism but you haven't done it with
> > my rig and my records.
>
> If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very happy to bow out.

It's not the only valid criteria but it was the most convenient. I
would accept anything in the same ball park. but I expect you to bow
out no matter what.

Scott[_6_]

August 5th 10, 02:34 AM

On Aug 4, 12:06=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>

> > If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very happy to bow out.
>
> He probably means that you haven't done such a test with a good playback
> system, optimally set-up and using =A0decently cared-for records.
>

You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment and LPs are
not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are up to the task. But I
don't think that I have any exclusive on that.

Audio Empire

August 5th 10, 02:54 AM

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:09:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:10:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
>>>> yes it is audible depending on the severity.
>
>>> Yes. However another irreducable problem - the
>>> non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high
>>> enough frequency content to qualify as flutter.
>
>>> There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass
>>> modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking.
>
>> Actually, the distortions caused by properly designed and
>> set-up radial tracking arms turns out to be negligible,
>> and the advantages of linear tracking turn out to be a
>> tertiary effect.
>
> Actually, the distortions produced by LP playback systems incorporating the
> best designed
> tone arms that utilize any technology turns out to be readily audible.
>
> Whether a given person perceives these potentially audible distoritons is up
> to them, but if they fail to perceive them then they are somehow missing
> spurious responses that are well above the normal human thesholds for
> reliable perception of linear and nonlinear distortion.
>
>>>> But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only
>>>> be noticable
>>>> to those who, for whatever reason, are very very
>>>> sensitive to that sepcific problem.
>>>
>>> We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time.
>>> This suggests to me that there must be some kind of
>>> highly selective hearing disorder that causes people to
>>> have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distortion.
>
>> It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of
>> concert goers to listen "around" sneezes and coughs and
>> program rattling that occurs constantly during most
>> concerts.
>
> Coughs and sneezes at concerts are relatively infrequent, while the
> potentially audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl is
> unending. It starts when the needle is dropped and it continues until it is
> lifted up. To enjoy vinyl you have to listen past the ongoing racket of
> potentially readily audible noise and distortion.
>
>>>> I don't know of
>>>> anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound
>>>> of
>>>> their playback though.
>
>>>> From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive
>>>> to FM distortion
>>> that we avoid LPs playback wherever possible, we tend
>>> to see those who listen to LPs that have been reissued
>>> as good CDs as being in the category of people who wish
>>> to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback.
>
>> Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen to
>> records that are warped, eccentric, of full of FM
>> distortion. I know that I don't.
>
> Whether you perceive this ongoing racket or not is up to you, but it is very
> easy to measure this noise and distortion using legacy measurement equipment
> that finds modern media to be free of distortion.
>
>

Then if it's not perceived, It's not important is it? Unless of course the
knowledge that it MIGHT be there ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the
music. I don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken better care of
your records, you wouldn't be complaining about "...audible noise and
distortion" starting..." "...when the needle is dropped and it continues
until it is lifted up.To enjoy vinyl you have to listen past the ongoing
racket of potentially readily audible noise and distortion." My records are
quiet, (aside from the VERY OCCASIONAL tick or pop and tape hiss on the older
recordings) as well as flat and concentric. There is no more noise than the
occasional cough or sneeze at a concert. It just is neither important nor
does it compromise my enjoyment of the music one iota.

Audio Empire

August 6th 10, 12:45 AM

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 18:34:51 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 4, 12:06=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>
>>> If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very happy to bow out.
>>
>> He probably means that you haven't done such a test with a good playback
>> system, optimally set-up and using =A0decently cared-for records.
>>
>
> You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment and LPs are
> not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are up to the task. But I
> don't think that I have any exclusive on that.

That's pretty much what I figured you meant.

Arny Krueger

August 6th 10, 12:55 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:09:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article ):

>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message

>>> Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen
>>> to records that are warped, eccentric, of full of FM
>>> distortion. I know that I don't.

You have no choice.

>> Whether you perceive this ongoing racket or not is up to
>> you, but it is very easy to measure this noise and
>> distortion using legacy measurement equipment that finds
>> modern media to be free of distortion.

> Then if it's not perceived, It's not important is it?

This would appear to be an adjunct of the McDonalds argument - if you can't
perceive the benefits of a better-made product, then it must not be better
made?

> Unless of course the knowledge that it MIGHT be there
> ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the music. I
> don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken
> better care of your records, you wouldn't be complaining
> about "...audible noise and distortion" starting..."

The distortion and noise was there on the first playing.

> My records are quiet, (aside from the VERY
> OCCASIONAL tick or pop and tape hiss on the older
> recordings) as well as flat and concentric.

You must be purchasing LPs on a different planet than I do.

> There is no
> more noise than the occasional cough or sneeze at a
> concert.

Except that the cough or sneeze is a rare event, and the snap, crackle, and
pop as well as harshness and grit that is inherent in the LP format are
there all of the time.

Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented with less audible
noise and distortion than others.

Arny Krueger

August 6th 10, 12:55 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
> > wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>
>>> If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
>>> happy to bow out.
>>
>> He probably means that you haven't done such a test with
>> a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
>> decently cared-for records.

> You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment
> and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are
> up to the task. But I don't think that I have any
> exclusive on that.

I find it interesting that these two individuals, niether of whom I have
never met in person, pretend to have such full knowlege of my livelong
listening experiences.

The improbability of their claims supports their immediate dismissal.

Arny Krueger

August 6th 10, 12:55 AM

Scott[_6_]

August 6th 10, 03:05 AM

On Aug 5, 4:55=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> You must be purchasing LPs on a different planet than I do.

What LPs have you purchased in the last 10 years?

>
> Except that the cough or sneeze is a rare event, and the snap, crackle, a=
nd
> pop as well as harshness and grit that is inherent in the LP format are
> there all of the time.

And yet you walk away when challenged to identify these and other
claimed distortions under blind conditions when real high end
equipment and high qualilty LPs are in play.

>
> Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented with less audible
> noise and distortion than others.

What music are you listening to that sounds better on the commercial
CD than any LP of the same title?

Audio Empire

August 6th 10, 03:29 AM

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:55:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
>> > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>
>>>> If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
>>>> happy to bow out.
>>>
>>> He probably means that you haven't done such a test with
>>> a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
>>> decently cared-for records.
>
>> You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment
>> and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are
>> up to the task. But I don't think that I have any
>> exclusive on that.
>
> I find it interesting that these two individuals, niether of whom I have
> never met in person, pretend to have such full knowlege of my livelong
> listening experiences.
>
> The improbability of their claims supports their immediate dismissal.

I know only what you have posted about about yourself, Arny and don't pretend
to know anything else about you. And my above comment was a clarification of
Scott's intent as I read it, and says nothing about you, one way or the
other. So, I'm not making any claims for you to dismiss.

Audio Empire

August 6th 10, 03:34 AM

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:55:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:09:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article ):
>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>
>>>> Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen
>>>> to records that are warped, eccentric, of full of FM
>>>> distortion. I know that I don't.
>
> You have no choice.
>
>>> Whether you perceive this ongoing racket or not is up to
>>> you, but it is very easy to measure this noise and
>>> distortion using legacy measurement equipment that finds
>>> modern media to be free of distortion.
>
>> Then if it's not perceived, It's not important is it?
>
> This would appear to be an adjunct of the McDonalds argument - if you can't
> perceive the benefits of a better-made product, then it must not be better
> made?

Not at all, but if you can't hear, say, the 15, 750 Hz raster on a TV, then
you wouldn't particularly care that brand "A" had a quieter horizontal
oscillator than brand "B" would you? IOW, a difference that makes no
difference is no difference at all. Or, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Take your pick from the above aphorisms.

>> Unless of course the knowledge that it MIGHT be there
>> ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the music. I
>> don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken
>> better care of your records, you wouldn't be complaining
>> about "...audible noise and distortion" starting..."
>
> The distortion and noise was there on the first playing.

Sez you. Many do not agree that this is in any way off-putting. In fact many
believe that often, the "distortions" of which you speak so eloquently, are
euphonic in nature and actually make the performance sound MORE like real
music, not less.

>> My records are quiet, (aside from the VERY
>> OCCASIONAL tick or pop and tape hiss on the older
>> recordings) as well as flat and concentric.
>
> You must be purchasing LPs on a different planet than I do.

I just take better care of the ones I have, perhaps. I don't think I've
bought a new LP in at least a decade.

>> There is no
>> more noise than the occasional cough or sneeze at a
>> concert.
>
> Except that the cough or sneeze is a rare event, and the snap, crackle, and
> pop as well as harshness and grit that is inherent in the LP format are
> there all of the time.

Speak for your own record collection, not mine.

> Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented with less audible
> noise and distortion than others.

And some of us appear to be so prejudiced against vinyl, that we can't listen
to and enjoy the music unless the media carrying it meets some self-imposed
level of technical perfection.

That's everyone's prerogative, of course. Just don't make the mistake of
denigrating others for not sharing that view of the subject.

Scott[_6_]

August 6th 10, 03:36 AM

On Aug 5, 4:55=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
> > > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> >> (in article >):
>
> >>> If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
> >>> happy to bow out.
>
> >> He probably means that you haven't done such a test with
> >> a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
> >> decently cared-for records.
> > You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment
> > and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are
> > up to the task. But I don't think that I have any
> > exclusive on that.
>
> I find it interesting that these two individuals, niether of whom I have
> never met in person, pretend to have such full knowlege of my livelong
> listening experiences.
>
> The improbability of their claims supports their immediate dismissal.

What is the improbablity of my claims? Show us the math that leads to
the assertion and the facts upon which you base the math. Again if the
distortions are as gross as you claim this one would be an easy test
to pass. Why not take the test and have life long bragging rights? You
would finally have that "slam dunk" you keep talking about and there
would be no argument. You'd have it documented to boot.

---MIKE---

August 8th 10, 02:20 AM

Back in the mid '80s, Bob Carver introduced the "Digital Time Lens"
which was supposed to make CDs sound more like Vinal (I still have one
but I don't use it). It did soften the brightness of CDs but I didn't
care for the effect.

---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Audio Empire

August 8th 10, 11:26 PM

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 18:20:54 -0700, MIKE--- wrote
(in article >):

> Back in the mid '80s, Bob Carver introduced the "Digital Time Lens"
> which was supposed to make CDs sound more like Vinal (I still have one
> but I don't use it). It did soften the brightness of CDs but I didn't
> care for the effect.
>=20
> ---MIKE---
>>> In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
> >> (44=3DB0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Mostly, the problem with early CDs was misapplication of the technology a=
nd=20
not the underlying technology itself. On the recording end, it was the=20
ubiquitous (and awful-sounding)l Sony 1610, 1620, and 1630 A/D and format=
ting=20
processors which took analog in and outputted 16-bit, 44.1 KHz digital=20
formatted as a video signal (to send to a VCR =AD usually a U-Matic beca=
use=20
that was the mastering standard of the time, but it could have been a Be=
ta=20
or a VHS recorder).

On the playback end, it was D/A converters that were not able to do a ful=
l=20
16-bits linearly (early Philips players (Magnavox) didn't even try. They =
used=20
14-bit D/A converters and the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH better=
=20
than the Japanese 16-bit units of the day). They also had really crude=20
multi-pole anti-alaising filters and produced, what would be considered=20
today, unacceptable levels of quantization error. The first generations o=
f=20
Sony CD players were just terrible and even with good, modern CDs, they s=
ound=20
simply wretched. I have an acquaintance who still uses a Sony CDP-101 (th=
e=20
first publicly available CD player, IIRC) and thinks it's just fine. Of=20
course, he's 84 and deaf as a post. Anyone would have to be to put-up wit=
h=20
that wretchedness!

Bob Carver's attempt to "fix" early CD with his "Digital Time Lens" was a=
=20
noble effort, but ultimately, no more than a band-aid. The first improvem=
ent=20
in CD sound was on the production end. When the industry moved away from =
the=20
aforementioned Sony 1600 series of processors, CD sound started to improv=
e=20
dramatically. The damned things were filled with literally a half-dozen o=
r=20
more (per channel) 741-style op-amps and cheap Japanese electrolytic coup=
ling=20
capacitors IN THE SIGNAL PATH! It didn't have a chance of producing dece=
nt=20
CDs. I have some of these early efforts, still. Even though modern playba=
ck=20
equipment makes them sound better than they did back in the day, the=20
strident, over-bright and somewhat distorted nature of early CD sound is=20
still very evident. One particularly nasty example, that still resides in=
my=20
collection is Richard Strauss' "Alpine Symphony" with Von Karajan and the=
=20
Berlin Philharmonic on DGG. One of the worst sounding orchestral recordin=
gs=20
ever released. I bring it up, because that's the CD I took to local stere=
o=20
store at the time to see what the Digital Time Lens could do for it. I re=
call=20
that it DID make the horrid thing sound "different" but I couldn't, in al=
l=20
honesty, say that it made it listenable!

I just played a bit of it on my Sony XA777ES SACD player, you know, as=20
"research" for this reply. The Sony renders it more listenable than I=20
remember, but it still has that ear-bleeding brightness that I remember s=
o=20
vividly. It's still a no thanks!=20

But thank you, Mike, anyway, for that trip down memory lane. We all need =
to=20
take that trip occasionally to show us how far we've come. It certainly=20
illustrates why so many audio hobbyists and music lovers hated CD when it=
=20
first hit the scene. Today, a modern recording hobbyist can make CDs that=
=20
sound better than this by a country mile with about $500 worth of cheap=20
Chinese condenser microphones, a small, cheap mixing console, and a digi=
tal=20
recorder like Zoom H2, as well as a cheap computer with a CD burner buil=
t-in=20
along with a free copy of a software program such as "Audacity"!=20

Arny Krueger

August 8th 10, 11:29 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Aug 5, 4:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> You must be purchasing LPs on a different planet than I
>> do.
>
> What LPs have you purchased in the last 10 years?
>
>>
>> Except that the cough or sneeze is a rare event, and the
>> snap, crackle, and pop as well as harshness and grit
>> that is inherent in the LP format are there all of the
>> time.
>
> And yet you walk away when challenged to identify these
> and other claimed distortions under blind conditions when
> real high end equipment and high qualilty LPs are in play.

The key word here is "real". I say that the evaluations I've done involved
real equipment, and the easy way out is to alleged that there is some
magical equipment kicking around that circumvents the laws of physics,

>> Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented
>> with less audible noise and distortion than others.

> What music are you listening to that sounds better on the
> commercial CD than any LP of the same title?

For openers, any music that was produced in the past 25 years, Only a
miniscule fraction of it ever made it onto LP.

Scott[_6_]

August 10th 10, 12:34 AM

On Aug 8, 3:29=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 4:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> > What LPs have you purchased in the last 10 years?

Why no answer to this question Arny?

> > And yet you walk away when challenged to identify these
> > and other claimed distortions under blind conditions when
> > real high end equipment and high qualilty LPs are in play.
>
> The key word here is "real".

Not really. It is just an adjective and has no meaning out of context.
The key "phrase is "real high end equipment" and let's not forget the
"high quality LPs."

> I say that the evaluations I've done involved
> real equipment,

Sayin it doesn't make it so. Maybe I would be less skeptical if you
were to offer something specific and varifiable. You have yet to ID
any of the equipment you have used for these undisclosed blind tests
of audible distortion you seem to be alluding to.

> and the easy way out is to alleged that there is some
> magical equipment kicking around that circumvents the laws of physics,

Strawman. I offered my own equipment as a possible source. There is
nothing "magical" about it. It is "real." It works within the laws of
physics. I also extended the parameters to any other comparable gear
which would be "real" gear. I am also saying we should use "real" LPs
only that they be top quality. I have many that meet that standard.
I'm not lookin for a way out of this challenge Arny. I think you are
though. Claiming actual real equipment that I would certainly deem
acceptable as "magical" is a pretty weak excuse to dodge the
challenge. Either the "inherent" distortions are as severe as you
claim and you can hear them and identify them under blind conditions
or they are not. If they are as severe as you assert then you should
win no matter what equipment I want to use. Like you say, there is no
magical equipment out there. It's on me to find equipment and gear
that will prove your assertions wrong. But hey, I already have it. Not
sure why you would exclude it. Are you that impressed with my gear and
LPs that you don't want to include them in such a test? We are talking
about digital rips. It's not like you would have to come to my new
house or anything like that. Heck you can pick the town and the system
for playback. the only condition I would put on that is that you do
the test by ear only and to confirm this it should be done with a
witness of my approval present.

>
> >> Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented
> >> with less audible noise and distortion than others.
> > What music are you listening to that sounds better on the
> > commercial CD than any LP of the same title?
>
> For openers, any music that was produced in the past 25 years, Only a
> miniscule fraction of it ever made it onto LP.

That is not an answer Arny. Of course any music that is available only
on one format or the other is not in consideration. The choice of
format is already made. But there are thousands of great and popular
titles that have been issued on both formats. In many cases multiple
times. So why no answer to the question? To have such a strong opinion
on the subject certainly you must have some personal examples you can
cite out of your personal collection where the commercial CD simply
sounds better than the LP.

You won't tell us what LPs you have purchased in the past 10 years and
you wont tell us what personal experience you have with comparing your
own LPs and CDs of the same title. How can I not question your
experience at this point?

Arny Krueger

August 10th 10, 12:34 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:55:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):

>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message

>>> Unless of course the knowledge that it MIGHT be there
>>> ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the music. I
>>> don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken
>>> better care of your records, you wouldn't be complaining
>>> about "...audible noise and distortion" starting..."
>
>> The distortion and noise was there on the first playing.

> Sez you.

Also so say the many JAES and IEEE technical papers about the problems
associated with vinyl playback.

It's all been known for decades.

I've posted formal references to them here on numerous occasions.

Arny Krueger

August 10th 10, 12:35 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Aug 5, 4:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>
>>>>> If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
>>>>> happy to bow out.
>>
>>>> He probably means that you haven't done such a test
>>>> with a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
>>>> decently cared-for records.
>>> You are correct. The test only has merit if the
>>> equipment and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment
>>> and LPs are up to the task. But I don't think that I
>>> have any exclusive on that.
>>
>> I find it interesting that these two individuals,
>> niether of whom I have never met in person, pretend to
>> have such full knowlege of my livelong listening
>> experiences.
>>
>> The improbability of their claims supports their
>> immediate dismissal.
>
> What is the improbablity of my claims? Show us the math
> that leads to the assertion and the facts upon which you
> base the math.

It's in the JAES amd IEEE papers I've been referencing here for years.

Apparently people have been ignoring them for years so there is no need for
me to reproduce them so that they can again be ignored.

John Nunes

August 10th 10, 12:44 AM

On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

> It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
> "around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
> during most concerts.

I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.

Arny Krueger

August 10th 10, 01:05 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On the playback end, it was D/A converters that were not
> able to do a full 16-bits linearly (early Philips players
> (Magnavox) didn't even try. They used 14-bit D/A
> converters and the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH
> better than the Japanese 16-bit units of the day).

The above account ignores the fact that oversampling was used to obtain 16
bit performance from 14 bit parts. For all practical purposes, the
converters were 16 bit.

The claim that there was a signficant and large audible difference has been
investigated with DBTs and found to be yet another audiophile myth.

> They
> also had really crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters
> and produced, what would be considered today,
> unacceptable levels of quantization error.

As a rule there are no anti-aliasing filters in playback devices. Aliasing
is only possible in ADCs and resamplers.

Quantization error and aliasing are orthogonal effects and exist
independently. Something that addresses one generally has no effect on the
other. The fix for aliasing is better filters, and the fix for quantization
error is not filtering but rather randomizing schemes such as dither.

Therefore the statement that crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters and
produced, what would be considered today,unacceptable levels of quantization
error" is a technical impossibility.

Thus the above claim must also be dismissed as an audiophile myth on the
grounds that it is a confused misuse of technical terminology.

> The first
> generations of Sony CD players were just terrible and
> even with good, modern CDs, they sound simply wretched. I
> have an acquaintance who still uses a Sony CDP-101 (the
> first publicly available CD player, IIRC) and thinks it's
> just fine. Of course, he's 84 and deaf as a post. Anyone
> would have to be to put-up with that wretchedness!

I still have an operational CDP 101 and so does a friend. They both have are
well-maintained and sound good.

I once had a CDP101 that had problems with its servo chips, and it did
indeed sound bad - it didn't track most CDs.

In the late 1980s Stereo Review used several teams of audiophiles to
investigate the sound quality of CDP 101s via DVTs and found only tiny
barely audible differences and that only with very specific program kinds
material, or artificial test signals.

Jenn[_2_]

August 10th 10, 02:40 AM

In article >,
John Nunes > wrote:

> On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
> > It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
> > "around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
> > during most concerts.
>
> I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
> basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
> aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.

If you can detect pitch instability while using any modern turntable,
you have a malfunctioning unit.

Audio Empire

August 10th 10, 02:43 AM

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:05:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> On the playback end, it was D/A converters that were not
>> able to do a full 16-bits linearly (early Philips players
>> (Magnavox) didn't even try. They used 14-bit D/A
>> converters and the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH
>> better than the Japanese 16-bit units of the day).
>
> The above account ignores the fact that oversampling was used to obtain 16
> bit performance from 14 bit parts. For all practical purposes, the
> converters were 16 bit.

No, the D/A converters were 14-bit. They used 14-bit converters because
Philips believed (and rightly so) that the then current 16-bit DACs weren't
very linear. The fact that they used 4X oversampling to achieve 16-bit
resolution is irrelevant to my statement.

> The claim that there was a signficant and large audible difference has been
> investigated with DBTs and found to be yet another audiophile myth.

Sorry. I had both the Sony CDP-101 and The Philips-Maganvox FD-1000, and I
beg to differ. The Sony sounded awful (still does) and the little Maggie was
much more listenable (and still is). I ended-up giving the Sony to a friend -
he didn't like it either.

>> They
>> also had really crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters
>> and produced, what would be considered today,
>> unacceptable levels of quantization error.
>
> As a rule there are no anti-aliasing filters in playback devices. Aliasing
> is only possible in ADCs and resamplers.

Nyquist requires that the upper frequency response limit of the
reconstructed waveform (the Nyquist frequency) be half of the sampling rate
and the signal at the sampling rate must not have sufficient amplitude to be
quantifiable. This means that the reconstruction filter must be very steep to
avoid there being significant signal at 44.1 Khz. Meaning that above the
Nyquist frequency (in this case 22.05KHz) cutoff needs to be as absolute as
possible leading to designs of filters with as many as six poles (before the
advent of cheap digital filtering, that is).

Some players (like the aforementioned Philips) used oversampling to lessen
the burden of the reconstruction filter (which I've always heard generally
called an anti-ailasing filter, although you are right, technically.
Anti-ailasing is used to bandwidth limit an analog signal BEFORE quantization
in order to satisfy the Nyquist theorem) by allowing said filter to be less
steep.

> Therefore the statement that crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters and
> produced, what would be considered today,unacceptable levels of quantization
> error" is a technical impossibility.
>
> Thus the above claim must also be dismissed as an audiophile myth on the
> grounds that it is a confused misuse of technical terminology.

I'm afraid the confusion is on your end, my friend. My statement: "They
also had really crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters AND produced, what
would be considered today, unacceptable levels of quantization error." are
actually two statements linked by "and" . If I had meant to say what you
characterize above, I would have said: "They also had really crude multi-pole
anti-alaising filters WHICH produced, what would be considered today,
unacceptable levels of quantization error." But I clearly didn't say (or
mean) that.

>> The first
>> generations of Sony CD players were just terrible and
>> even with good, modern CDs, they sound simply wretched. I
>> have an acquaintance who still uses a Sony CDP-101 (the
>> first publicly available CD player, IIRC) and thinks it's
>> just fine. Of course, he's 84 and deaf as a post. Anyone
>> would have to be to put-up with that wretchedness!
>
> I still have an operational CDP 101 and so does a friend. They both have are
> well-maintained and sound good.

Er, it's hard to account for a reaction like that...

Audio Empire

August 10th 10, 02:44 AM

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:35:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Aug 5, 4:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>>>> If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
>>>>>> happy to bow out.
>>>
>>>>> He probably means that you haven't done such a test
>>>>> with a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
>>>>> decently cared-for records.
>>>> You are correct. The test only has merit if the
>>>> equipment and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment
>>>> and LPs are up to the task. But I don't think that I
>>>> have any exclusive on that.
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that these two individuals,
>>> niether of whom I have never met in person, pretend to
>>> have such full knowlege of my livelong listening
>>> experiences.
>>>
>>> The improbability of their claims supports their
>>> immediate dismissal.
>>
>> What is the improbablity of my claims? Show us the math
>> that leads to the assertion and the facts upon which you
>> base the math.
>
> It's in the JAES amd IEEE papers I've been referencing here for years.
>
> Apparently people have been ignoring them for years so there is no need for
> me to reproduce them so that they can again be ignored.
>

Nobody is ignoring them, Arny. They are not easily accessible or generally
available. They cost money to download from the AES site and therefore most
people will not bother to access them.

Unless you can come up with some readily available and accessible evidence,
people are going to ignore some of your claims. That's just how it is.
Nothing against you, but if you wish to debate these issues with hard
evidence, it should be evidence available to everybody.

Audio Empire

August 10th 10, 02:44 AM

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:34:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:55:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>
>>>> Unless of course the knowledge that it MIGHT be there
>>>> ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the music. I
>>>> don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken
>>>> better care of your records, you wouldn't be complaining
>>>> about "...audible noise and distortion" starting..."
>>
>>> The distortion and noise was there on the first playing.
>
>> Sez you.
>
> Also so say the many JAES and IEEE technical papers about the problems
> associated with vinyl playback.
>
> It's all been known for decades.
>
> I've posted formal references to them here on numerous occasions.
>

And they cost not an inconsiderable amount of money to access.

Also, you seem think that the fact that these artifacts exist (and can be
measured, and have been written about authoritatively) creates a prima fascia
case for the out-of-hand dismissal of any claims that many people find vinyl
records not just listenable, but actually, extremely enjoyable. As I said in
an earlier posts, it's not your facts that I dispute, it's the "universal"
conclusions that you draw from them that expose your prejudicial stand on the
subject.

Scott[_6_]

August 11th 10, 01:21 AM

On Aug 9, 4:35=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 4:55 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
> >>> On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> >>>> (in article >):
>
> >>>>> If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
> >>>>> happy to bow out.
>
> >>>> He probably means that you haven't done such a test
> >>>> with a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
> >>>> decently cared-for records.
> >>> You are correct. The test only has merit if the
> >>> equipment and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment
> >>> and LPs are up to the task. But I don't think that I
> >>> have any exclusive on that.
>
> >> I find it interesting that these two individuals,
> >> niether of whom I have never met in person, pretend to
> >> have such full knowlege of my livelong listening
> >> experiences.
>
> >> The improbability of their claims supports their
> >> immediate dismissal.
>
> > What is the improbablity of my claims? Show us the math
> > that leads to the assertion and the facts upon which you
> > base the math.
>
> It's in the JAES amd IEEE papers I've been referencing here for years.
>
> Apparently people have been ignoring them for years so there is no need f=
or
> me to reproduce them so that they can again be ignored

I have read them. I don't think they say what you are saying. I also
think they are a bit dated to say the least. So IMO they simply don't
support your position.

Scott[_6_]

August 11th 10, 01:22 AM

On Aug 9, 4:44=A0pm, John Nunes > wrote:
> On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
> > It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to li=
sten
> > "around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
> > during most concerts.
>
> I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
> basic needs of music. =A0It's called pitch stability. =A0Sneezes and coug=
hs
> aren't obviously a part of the music. =A0Screwing up the pitch stability =
is.

If you would like to take the challenge I issued to Arny and test your
ability to hear such instability of pitch with my LPs played back on
my gear we can try to make some arrangements.

Audio Empire

August 11th 10, 01:22 AM

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:44:12 -0700, John Nunes wrote
(in article >):

> On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
>> "around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
>> during most concerts.
>
> I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
> basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
> aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.

Yessssss, and...??????? Modern turntables in good working order don't have
pitch instability and while eccentric and warped records don't, they're
pretty rare and one simply doesn't play them.

Audio Empire

August 11th 10, 01:23 AM

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:40:51 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> John Nunes > wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>
>>> It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
>>> "around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
>>> during most concerts.
>>
>> I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
>> basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
>> aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.
>
> If you can detect pitch instability while using any modern turntable,
> you have a malfunctioning unit.

That's sort of my reaction as well.

Arny Krueger

August 11th 10, 02:01 AM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:05:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> On the playback end, it was D/A converters that were not
>>> able to do a full 16-bits linearly (early Philips
>>> players (Magnavox) didn't even try. They used 14-bit D/A
>>> converters and the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH
>>> better than the Japanese 16-bit units of the day).
>>
>> The above account ignores the fact that oversampling was
>> used to obtain 16 bit performance from 14 bit parts.
>> For all practical purposes, the converters were 16 bit.

> No, the D/A converters were 14-bit.

They were in an oversapling configuration. This is well known. The objective
of the oversampling was a trade off of speed which was in abundance, for
linearity which was costly.

> They used 14-bit
> converters because Philips believed (and rightly so) that
> the then current 16-bit DACs weren't very linear.

In 1972 (ten years earlier) I worked with 16 bit, 200 KHz DACs that had 1/2
bit linearity and monotonicity. The only problem with 16 bit DACs was their
price before the CD player market ramped up production.

> The
> fact that they used 4X oversampling to achieve 16-bit
> resolution is irrelevant to my statement.

Your statement was false because of the false claims that it included
including "..the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH better than the
Japanese 16-bit units of the day). In fact they both were sonically
transparent or very nearly so to the extent that they absolutely blew away
the analog equipment of the day, given proper source material to play which
was readily available from the onset.

>> The claim that there was a signficant and large audible
>> difference has been investigated with DBTs and found to
>> be yet another audiophile myth.

> Sorry. I had both the Sony CDP-101 and The
> Philips-Maganvox FD-1000, and I beg to differ. The Sony
> sounded awful (still does) and the little Maggie was much
> more listenable (and still is). I ended-up giving the
> Sony to a friend - he didn't like it either.

I don't believe that we have ever been treated to your technical
measurements or the results of proper statistically-analyzed, time-synched
level, matched comparisons of them. The extant well-controlled listennig
tests involving them tell a different story - both units were eminantely
listenable given that they were in good working order.

>>> They
>>> also had really crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters
>>> and produced, what would be considered today,
>>> unacceptable levels of quantization error.
>>
>> As a rule there are no anti-aliasing filters in playback
>> devices. Aliasing is only possible in ADCs and
>> resamplers.

> Nyquist requires that the upper frequency response limit
> of the reconstructed waveform (the Nyquist frequency) be
> half of the sampling rate and the signal at the sampling
> rate must not have sufficient amplitude to be
> quantifiable. This means that the reconstruction filter
> must be very steep to avoid there being significant
> signal at 44.1 Khz.

Now you've had a chance to review the relevant technical material and change
your story. The filters are now properly identified as "reconstruction
filters". Yet you present this all like its a correction to my statement
which was correct all along.

> Meaning that above the Nyquist
> frequency (in this case 22.05KHz) cutoff needs to be as
> absolute as possible leading to designs of filters with
> as many as six poles (before the advent of cheap digital
> filtering, that is).

If you think that the origional CD players had 6 pole filters, then you are
again not telling it like it was. If memory serves there were about 15
inductors and 15 capacitors per channel in the reconstruction filters of the
CDP 101. This was pretty typical. Any second year engineering student knows
that filters like these have about 30 poles (in pairs).

John Nunes

August 11th 10, 03:38 AM

On 8/10/2010 5:22 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Aug 9, 4:44 pm, John > wrote:
>> On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>
>>> It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
>>> "around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
>>> during most concerts.
>>
>> I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
>> basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
>> aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.
>
> If you would like to take the challenge I issued to Arny and test your
> ability to hear such instability of pitch with my LPs played back on
> my gear we can try to make some arrangements.

No thanks, I want to listen to >my< records.

http://www.regonaudio.com/NakamichiTX1000.html

Audio Empire

August 12th 10, 12:33 AM

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:01:57 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:05:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> On the playback end, it was D/A converters that were not
>>>> able to do a full 16-bits linearly (early Philips
>>>> players (Magnavox) didn't even try. They used 14-bit D/A
>>>> converters and the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH
>>>> better than the Japanese 16-bit units of the day).
>>>
>>> The above account ignores the fact that oversampling was
>>> used to obtain 16 bit performance from 14 bit parts.
>>> For all practical purposes, the converters were 16 bit.
>
>> No, the D/A converters were 14-bit.
>
> They were in an oversapling configuration. This is well known. The objective
> of the oversampling was a trade off of speed which was in abundance, for
> linearity which was costly.
>
>> They used 14-bit
>> converters because Philips believed (and rightly so) that
>> the then current 16-bit DACs weren't very linear.
>
> In 1972 (ten years earlier) I worked with 16 bit, 200 KHz DACs that had 1/2
> bit linearity and monotonicity. The only problem with 16 bit DACs was their
> price before the CD player market ramped up production.

Yes, so the ones used by many CD manufacturers weren't very linear, and those
which were were more expensive than mass-market manufacturers wanted to
spend. In the early days, numerous things were tried to get around this
problem, lower bit D/As, over sampling, single bit D/As that used the same
bit for everything (insuring the steps were absolutely the same, and
therefore linear) etc. Eventually, the D/As got better (laser trimming,
etc.) and the sound of CD players improved. Today, they're pretty close to
"perfect".
>
>> The
>> fact that they used 4X oversampling to achieve 16-bit
>> resolution is irrelevant to my statement.
>
> Your statement was false because of the false claims that it included
> including "..the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH better than the
> Japanese 16-bit units of the day). In fact they both were sonically
> transparent or very nearly so to the extent that they absolutely blew away
> the analog equipment of the day, given proper source material to play which
> was readily available from the onset.

My experience tells me otherwise. Sorry about that.
>
>>> The claim that there was a signficant and large audible
>>> difference has been investigated with DBTs and found to
>>> be yet another audiophile myth.
>
>> Sorry. I had both the Sony CDP-101 and The
>> Philips-Maganvox FD-1000, and I beg to differ. The Sony
>> sounded awful (still does) and the little Maggie was much
>> more listenable (and still is). I ended-up giving the
>> Sony to a friend - he didn't like it either.
>
> I don't believe that we have ever been treated to your technical
> measurements or the results of proper statistically-analyzed, time-synched
> level, matched comparisons of them. The extant well-controlled listennig
> tests involving them tell a different story - both units were eminantely
> listenable given that they were in good working order.

Nor have we been treated to your test results and technical measurements or
the results of proper statistically-analyzed, time-synched level, matched
comparisons of them, either.
>
>>>> They
>>>> also had really crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters
>>>> and produced, what would be considered today,
>>>> unacceptable levels of quantization error.
>>>
>>> As a rule there are no anti-aliasing filters in playback
>>> devices. Aliasing is only possible in ADCs and
>>> resamplers.
>
>> Nyquist requires that the upper frequency response limit
>> of the reconstructed waveform (the Nyquist frequency) be
>> half of the sampling rate and the signal at the sampling
>> rate must not have sufficient amplitude to be
>> quantifiable. This means that the reconstruction filter
>> must be very steep to avoid there being significant
>> signal at 44.1 Khz.
>
> Now you've had a chance to review the relevant technical material and change
> your story. The filters are now properly identified as "reconstruction
> filters". Yet you present this all like its a correction to my statement
> which was correct all along.

I was just using the standard parlance as I explained above (and you
"conveniently" snipped the part where I SAID THAT YOU WERE RIGHT, but that
these reconstruction filters are commonly called anti-alaising filters, even
though that term is not strictly correct. I'm not just addressing you in this
thread, you know? And if you're going to debate with me, I'd appreciate it if
you would try to be a little more honest in your snippage, OK?).
>
>> Meaning that above the Nyquist
>> frequency (in this case 22.05KHz) cutoff needs to be as
>> absolute as possible leading to designs of filters with
>> as many as six poles (before the advent of cheap digital
>> filtering, that is).
>
> If you think that the origional CD players had 6 pole filters, then you are
> again not telling it like it was. If memory serves there were about 15
> inductors and 15 capacitors per channel in the reconstruction filters of the
> CDP 101. This was pretty typical. Any second year engineering student knows
> that filters like these have about 30 poles (in pairs).

Even worse. I had forgotten and memory "didn't serve". It's been a long time,
so what?

Audio Empire

August 12th 10, 12:34 AM

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:38:38 -0700, John Nunes wrote
(in article >):

> On 8/10/2010 5:22 PM, Scott wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 4:44 pm, John > wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to
>>>> listen
>>>> "around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
>>>> during most concerts.
>>>
>>> I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
>>> basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
>>> aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.
>>
>> If you would like to take the challenge I issued to Arny and test your
>> ability to hear such instability of pitch with my LPs played back on
>> my gear we can try to make some arrangements.
>
> No thanks, I want to listen to >my< records.
>
> http://www.regonaudio.com/NakamichiTX1000.html

You actually HAVE one of these? I read that other than it's ability to
somewhat correct eccentric records, it's not a very good turntable. Since it
doesn't correct for warp wow (as far as I remember), it only does half the
job in my opinion. Do you have any comment on the perception that it's not a
very good 'table or the fact that it doesn't correct for warps (with some
kind of vacuum hod-down)? I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of someone
who actually has one.

Jenn[_2_]

August 12th 10, 12:40 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> In 1972 (ten years earlier) I worked with 16 bit, 200 KHz DACs that had 1/2
> bit linearity and monotonicity.

I'm curious about this experience. In what way were you using this gear?

Arny Krueger

August 12th 10, 11:55 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

>>>> The claim that there was a signficant and large audible
>>>> difference has been investigated with DBTs and found to
>>>> be yet another audiophile myth.

>>> Sorry. I had both the Sony CDP-101 and The
>>> Philips-Maganvox FD-1000, and I beg to differ. The Sony
>>> sounded awful (still does) and the little Maggie was
>>> much more listenable (and still is). I ended-up giving
>>> the Sony to a friend - he didn't like it either.

>> I don't believe that we have ever been treated to your
>> technical measurements or the results of proper
>> statistically-analyzed, time-synched level, matched
>> comparisons of them. The extant well-controlled
>> listennig tests involving them tell a different story -
>> both units were eminantely listenable given that they
>> were in good working order.

> Nor have we been treated to your test results and
> technical measurements or the results of proper
> statistically-analyzed, time-synched level, matched
> comparisons of them, either.

How quickly some forget evidence that does not fit with their prejudices?

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)

I don't know how many times I've posted this reference, just in RAHE.

Arny Krueger

August 12th 10, 11:57 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> In 1972 (ten years earlier) I worked with 16 bit, 200
>> KHz DACs that had 1/2 bit linearity and monotonicity.

> I'm curious about this experience. In what way were you
> using this gear?

It was part of an EAI 680 hybrid computer system. The other major component
was an IBM 1130 computer. We used it to solve differential equations and do
simulations, some of which related directly to audio. We also used it as a
digital record/playback system for recordings of music. It sounded pretty
good!

John Nunes

August 13th 10, 12:25 AM

On 8/11/2010 4:34 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

>> http://www.regonaudio.com/NakamichiTX1000.html
>
> You actually HAVE one of these?

The less expensive one, called a Dragon CT. It doesn't tell you how
much the record is off, but it corrects to the same degree.

> I read that other than it's ability to
> somewhat correct eccentric records, it's not a very good turntable.

Did you actually read the page I posted? Centering to .01mm is not an
"ability to <somewhat> correct eccentric records." (emphasis mine)

Do you believe everything you read or hear? In the highly myth laced
audio biz, that's not very wise at all.

I "heard" that if you take this bolt, and put it on the chassis, your
car will start."

;-)

> Since it
> doesn't correct for warp wow (as far as I remember), it only does half the
> job in my opinion. Do you have any comment on the perception that it's not a
> very good 'table or the fact that it doesn't correct for warps (with some
> kind of vacuum hod-down)? I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of someone
> who actually has one.

They are both very good tables. Just because it doesn't have cult
status in the current scheme of things doesn't mean the contrary.
Current cult status is often based on ideas that have no falsifiability
and one "just has to believe" - like religion. Been there, done that,
not satisfying, not rational, and wastes a lot of money in what can be
an already expensive hobby.

I use a soft sticky mat with a clamp to help control non-flat records.
Some are not redeemable, even with vacuum hold down. Such is life with
an obsolete, highly flawed storage medium that has a lot of music to
draw from.

John Nunes

August 14th 10, 12:04 AM

On 8/12/2010 3:56 PM, Dick Pierce wrote:

> Of the several HUNDRED LP recordings I have Baroque organ and
> harpsichord music, I would say about 30% of them exhibit pitch
> instability that is audibly detectable, some almost to the point
> of annoyance, and the exhibit this no matter what turntable they
> are played on. I'm not talking warp wow, since I store can care
> for them well. I'm not even talking, in many cases, off-center
> punches, because the tone arm exhibits no detectable periodic
> horizontal movement. I'm talking audible pitch instability which
> seems to be intrinsic to the record itself.

Then what would be the mechanism for this?

> So, let me get this straight, according to you, the solution
> to the pitch instability found in records is, to quote you
> now, that "one simply doesn't play them."
>
> That's your solution to LP pitch instability?

Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against musically important
historic recordings because they aren't exciting or interesting "audio"
material. Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving about
"musicality" and so on.

Scott[_6_]

August 14th 10, 12:05 AM

On Aug 12, 3:56=A0pm, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> Audio Empire wrote:
> >>I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
> >>basic needs of music. =A0It's called pitch stability. =A0Sneezes and co=
ughs
> >>aren't obviously a part of the music. =A0Screwing up the pitch stabilit=
y is.
>
> > Yessssss, and...??????? Modern turntables in good working order don't h=
ave
> > pitch instability and while eccentric and warped records don't, they're
> > pretty rare and one simply doesn't play them.
>
> Really? What kind of *!%%* attitude is that?
>
> You're saying that the I should "simply not play" the LP I
> have of Toscanini's Beethoven 9th because it is "eccentric,
> warped and pretty rare?" The original Columbia recordings I have
> of Albert Schweitzer performing the Bach Schubler Chorales should
> as well be relegated to the dust bin?
>
> Of the several HUNDRED LP recordings I have Baroque organ and
> harpsichord music, I would say about 30% of them exhibit pitch
> instability that is audibly detectable, some almost to the point
> of annoyance, and the exhibit this no matter what turntable they
> are played on. I'm not talking warp wow, since I store can care
> for them well. I'm not even talking, in many cases, off-center
> punches, because the tone arm exhibits no detectable periodic
> horizontal movement. I'm talking audible pitch instability which
> seems to be intrinsic to the record itself.
>
> For many of them, no CD equivalent exists, for others, the
> pitch instability simply does not exist in ANY detectable fashion
> on the CD version.
>
> So, let me get this straight, according to you, the solution
> to the pitch instability found in records is, to quote you
> now, that "one simply doesn't play them."
>
> That's your solution to LP pitch instability?
>

I think you make some very valid points Dick. I really think it was a
bit of a slip there on Audio Empire's part. I don't think he meant to
suggest others not play such records only that he chooses not to and
if "one" finds those distortions intolerable *then* one can make the
same choice. This speaks to a point we can't over look in any analysis
of the variius media. *If* there is a particular title one can't live
without and it is only released in a crappy version be LP, CD or SACD
then one has no choice bu to live with problematic sound quality with
that title. The inherent sonic signatures of the various media are
only an issue when we have a choice. And even then more often than not
other factors that are not directly related to the media have greater
impact on such choices. The solution to pitch instability per se is
not really the big issue. The big issue is the solution to what is
going to give any given listener the best aesthetic experience for any
given title that person chooses to own. Even when there are options
the options will rarely offer the perfect solution. So our solutions
come in the form of best set of compramises in mosts cases. The
dismissal of any format is a self imposed limitation on these choices.

Scott[_6_]

August 15th 10, 01:28 AM

On Aug 13, 4:04=A0pm, John Nunes > wrote:

> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against musically important
> historic recordings because they aren't exciting or interesting "audio"
> material. =A0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving about
> "musicality" and so on.

Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening. I suggest you
take a look at the music being reissued by audiophile labels and then
get back to us.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/index.cfm?get=3Dlabels
Check out the following
Alto
Alto (Decca)
Alto (EMI)
Analogue Productions
Analogue Productions (Blue Note)
Analogue Productions (Fantasy)
Analogue Productions (Impulse)
Analogue Productions (Verve)
Analogue Productions Blues
Analogue Productions Jazz
Analogue Productions Revival
Athena
BoxStar (Hungaroton)
BoxStar (Liberty)
Cisco
Cisco (Capitol)
Cisco (Columbia)
Cisco (Ewe)
Cisco (King Super Analogue)
Cisco (RCA Living Stereo)
Cisco (RCA)
Cisco (Shout Factory)
Cisco (Three Blind Mice)
Cisco (Vanguard Records)
Classic Records
Classic Records (A&M)
Classic Records (Ardent)
Classic Records (Arista)
Classic Records (Atlantic)
Classic Records (Audio Fidelity)
Classic Records (Bizarre)
Classic Records (Blue Note)
Classic Records (Brunswick)
Classic Records (Capricorn)
Classic Records (Chess)
Classic Records (Colgems)
Classic Records (Columbia)
Classic Records (Decca)
Classic Records (DVD 24/96)
Classic Records (Eel Pie)
Classic Records (EMI)
Classic Records (Everest)
Classic Records (Herald Records)
Classic Records (Imperial)
Classic Records (Impulse)
Classic Records (Island)
Classic Records (Jazz Planet)
Classic Records (Mercury Living Presence)
Classic Records (Monument)
Classic Records (New World)
Classic Records (Polydor)
Classic Records (RCA Living Stereo)
Classic Records (RCA Victrola)
Classic Records (Real World)
Classic Records (Reprise)
Classic Records (Rock The House)
Classic Records (Roulette)
Classic Records (Sony)
Classic Records (Sugar Hill Records)
Classic Records (Takoma)
Classic Records (Track)
Classic Records (Transition)
Classic Records (Vanguard)
Classic Records (Vapor Records)
Classic Records (Verve)
Classic Records (Virgin)
Clearaudio (Deutsche Grammophon)
> DCC
Friday Music
King Super Analogue
Klavier
Mobile Fidelity
Music Matters (Blue Note)
Mosaic
ORG - Original Recordings Group
Pure Audiophile
Pure Pleasure Records
Pure Pleasure Records (Black & Blue)
Pure Pleasure Records (Black Lion)
Pure Pleasure Records (Blue Horizon)
Pure Pleasure Records (Blue Note)
Pure Pleasure Records (Blue Sky)
Pure Pleasure Records (Candid)
Pure Pleasure Records (Capitol)
Pure Pleasure Records (CBS)
Pure Pleasure Records (Choice)
Pure Pleasure Records (Columbia)
Pure Pleasure Records (CTI)
Pure Pleasure Records (Dara)
Pure Pleasure Records (Epic)
Pure Pleasure Records (Go Jazz)
Pure Pleasure Records (Groove Merchant)
Pure Pleasure Records (Gull)
Pure Pleasure Records (Imperial)
Pure Pleasure Records (Isabel)
Pure Pleasure Records (L & R)
Pure Pleasure Records (Liberty)
Pure Pleasure Records (Manhaton)
Pure Pleasure Records (Okeh/Epic)
Pure Pleasure Records (Pacific Jazz)
Pure Pleasure Records (RCA Victor)
Pure Pleasure Records (RCA)
Pure Pleasure Records (Roulette)
Pure Pleasure Records (Storyville)
Pure Pleasure Records (Tumi)
Pure Pleasure Records (United Artists)
Pure Pleasure Records (Vanguard)
Pure Pleasure Records (Village Life)
Pure Pleasure Records (World Pacific)
Rhino
Speakers Corner (A&M)
Speakers Corner (ABC)
Speakers Corner (Arista)
Speakers Corner (Asylum)
Speakers Corner (Bang)
Speakers Corner (Bell)
Speakers Corner (Blue Horizon)
Speakers Corner (Blue Thumb)
Speakers Corner (CBS)
Speakers Corner (Chess)
Speakers Corner (Clef)
Speakers Corner (Columbia)
Speakers Corner (Cotillion)
Speakers Corner (Decca)
Speakers Corner (Deram)
Speakers Corner (Deutsche Grammophon)
Speakers Corner (DJM)
Speakers Corner (Dot)
Speakers Corner (EmArcy)
Speakers Corner (Fontana)
Speakers Corner (Gordy)
Speakers Corner (Harmonia Mundi)
Speakers Corner (Impulse)
Speakers Corner (Kama Sutra)
Speakers Corner (Label Bleu)
Speakers Corner (London)
Speakers Corner (Mercury Living Presence)
Speakers Corner (Mercury)
Speakers Corner (Motown)
Speakers Corner (MPS)
Speakers Corner (Norgran)
Speakers Corner (Philips)
Speakers Corner (RCA Living Stereo)
Speakers Corner (RCA)
Speakers Corner (Sussex)
Speakers Corner (Tamla)
Speakers Corner (Verve)
Speakers Corner (Warner Bros.)
Speakers Corner (Westminster)
S & P Records
Sundazed
Testament
Water Lily

Arny Krueger

August 15th 10, 02:30 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Aug 13, 4:04=A0pm, John Nunes >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against
>> musically important historic recordings because they
>> aren't exciting or interesting "audio" material.
>> =A0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving
>> about "musicality" and so on.

> Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening.

Agreed.

> I suggest you take a look at the music being reissued by
> audiophile labels and then get back to us.

Information about offerings does not address the question.

Audited sales figures would address the question.

John Nunes

August 15th 10, 02:33 PM

On 8/14/2010 5:28 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Aug 13, 4:04=A0pm, John > wrote:
>
>
>> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against musically important
>> historic recordings because they aren't exciting or interesting "audio"
>> material. =A0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving about
>> "musicality" and so on.
>
> Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening. I suggest you
> take a look at the music being reissued by audiophile labels and then
> get back to us.

(snip)

You missed the point. Sorry if I was not clear. How much on your list
is stuff that sounds really lousy in strictly an audio sense, (such as
re-issued 78's for one good example) but is priceless (a metaphor)
musically and historically?

There is just one Furtwangler recording on the Acoustic Sounds site.

There is just one (called "preowned" - like used car salesman lingo for
"used" - heh) of an Albert Schweitzer Bach recording.

There are only three recordings of Caruso.

There are only two recordings of Marcel Dupre's organ playing.

There are only three recordings of Turk Murphy's jazz band.

There are zero recordings of Wanda Landowska performing. (sorry Dick
Pierce - she was a pioneer in harpsichord
revival, even if her playing or instrument isn't up "modern" standards
;-) )

There are zero recordings of Amalia Rodrigues.

There are zero recordings of Charles Tournemire's live improvisations.

There are zero recordings of Scott Joplin's piano rolls.

There are zero recordings involving Alfred Deller.

There are zero recordings of Helmut Walcha's playing.

Those are some pretty good indicators for the kind of material I was
referring to. I could sit here all night doing this, which would be a
waste of time.

There's a small, but acceptable collection of Stokowski recordings.

Ditto for some Bernard Hermann.

Bottom line: If I want a recording that is of <only> musical and
historical interest, I sure don't go to audiophile influenced sources.
It's common CD reissues, obscure used shops, ebay, Craigslist, estate
sales, friends, friends of friends, etc. Perhaps your reply is to be
expected, after all this is a "high-end" discussion group. But
high-enders often hand wave about how "the music is what's important."
But when it comes to recordings that have precious historical musical
content ONLY, they generally aren't interested.

Audio Empire

August 16th 10, 02:13 PM

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:25:30 -0700, John Nunes wrote
(in article >):

> On 8/11/2010 4:34 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>>> http://www.regonaudio.com/NakamichiTX1000.html
>>
>> You actually HAVE one of these?
>
> The less expensive one, called a Dragon CT. It doesn't tell you how
> much the record is off, but it corrects to the same degree.
>
>> I read that other than it's ability to
>> somewhat correct eccentric records, it's not a very good turntable.
>
> Did you actually read the page I posted? Centering to .01mm is not an
> "ability to <somewhat> correct eccentric records." (emphasis mine)
>
> Do you believe everything you read or hear? In the highly myth laced
> audio biz, that's not very wise at all.

Hey, don't get so hostile, I merely related what I have heard/read and wanted
to ask you (as an owner) if you agreed with that assessment. I never said or
even intimated that I had any preconceived notions about these products. Were
that true, I wouldn't have asked your opinion.
>
> I "heard" that if you take this bolt, and put it on the chassis, your
> car will start."

That's not very helpful.

>> Since it
>> doesn't correct for warp wow (as far as I remember), it only does half the
>> job in my opinion. Do you have any comment on the perception that it's not a
>> very good 'table or the fact that it doesn't correct for warps (with some
>> kind of vacuum hod-down)? I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of
>> someone
>> who actually has one.
>
> They are both very good tables. Just because it doesn't have cult
> status in the current scheme of things doesn't mean the contrary.
> Current cult status is often based on ideas that have no falsifiability
> and one "just has to believe" - like religion. Been there, done that,
> not satisfying, not rational, and wastes a lot of money in what can be
> an already expensive hobby.
>
> I use a soft sticky mat with a clamp to help control non-flat records.
> Some are not redeemable, even with vacuum hold down. Such is life with
> an obsolete, highly flawed storage medium that has a lot of music to
> draw from.

Thank you for your comments.

Audio Empire

August 16th 10, 02:17 PM

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 06:30:39 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Aug 13, 4:04=A0pm, John Nunes >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against
>>> musically important historic recordings because they
>>> aren't exciting or interesting "audio" material.
>>> =A0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving
>>> about "musicality" and so on.
>
>> Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I suggest you take a look at the music being reissued by
>> audiophile labels and then get back to us.
>
> Information about offerings does not address the question.

I wondered about that too. Basically, to me, speed instability problems will
remove the enjoyability of a recording faster than about anything else. That
includes restricted frequency response, high levels of background noise, and
high distortion levels.
>
> Audited sales figures would address the question.

Not really necessary in my opinion. Records are expensive to master and
manufacture these days. Were there not a large enough, sustainable market to
be profitable, there wouldn't be so many labels in the LP reissue business.
Now how long these businesses will remain viable, is another question and one
that nobody can answer, but for the here and now, vinyl seems to be enjoying
a mini renaissance.

Scott[_6_]

August 16th 10, 02:17 PM

On Aug 15, 6:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 4:04=3DA0pm, John Nunes >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against
> >> musically important historic recordings because they
> >> aren't exciting or interesting "audio" material.
> >> =3DA0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving
> >> about "musicality" and so on.
> > Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I suggest you take a look at the music being reissued by
> > audiophile labels and then get back to us.
>
> Information about offerings does not address the question.

Sure it does. Economics 101. Supply and demand. The supply wouldn't
exist were it not for the demand.

Scott[_6_]

August 16th 10, 02:17 PM

On Aug 15, 6:33=A0am, John Nunes > wrote:
> On 8/14/2010 5:28 PM, Scott wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 4:04=3DA0pm, John > =A0wrote:
>
> >> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against musically important
> >> historic recordings because they aren't exciting or interesting "audio=
"
> >> material. =3DA0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving a=
bout
> >> "musicality" and so on.
>
> > Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening. I suggest you
> > take a look at the music being reissued by audiophile labels and then
> > get back to us.
>
> (snip)
>
> You missed the point. =A0Sorry if I was not clear. =A0How much on your li=
st
> is stuff that sounds really lousy in strictly an audio sense, (such as
> re-issued 78's for one good example) but is priceless (a metaphor)
> musically and historically?

"Really lousy?" You just moved to goal posts. But there are a fair
number of titles available from that list that are anything but sonic
spectaculars. They were picked for the music not the sound.

>
> There is just one Furtwangler recording on the Acoustic Sounds site.
>
> There is just one (called "preowned" - like used car salesman lingo for
> "used" - heh) of an Albert Schweitzer Bach recording.
>
> There are only three recordings of Caruso.
>
> There are only two recordings of Marcel Dupre's organ playing.
>
> There are only three recordings of Turk Murphy's jazz band.
>
> There are zero recordings of Wanda Landowska performing. (sorry Dick
> Pierce - she was a pioneer in harpsichord
> revival, even if her playing or instrument isn't up "modern" standards
> ;-) )
>
> There are zero recordings of Amalia Rodrigues.
>
> There are zero recordings of Charles Tournemire's live improvisations.
>
> There are zero recordings of Scott Joplin's piano rolls.
>
> There are zero recordings involving Alfred Deller.
>
> There are zero recordings of Helmut Walcha's playing.
>
> Those are some pretty good indicators for the kind of material I was
> referring to. =A0I could sit here all night doing this, which would be a
> waste of time.

Of course you could sit there and cherry pick. If you consider the
percentage of *all* recordings represented by that list (which was
hardly an all inclusive list) then the fact that it had 10 that fell
within your cherry picking would be, in my view, pretty impressive.
There is an awful lot of music represented in that list that perhaps
you don't find historically important but others do.

>
> There's a small, but acceptable collection of Stokowski recordings.
>
> Ditto for some Bernard Hermann.
>
> Bottom line: =A0If I want a recording that is of <only> musical and
> historical interest, I sure don't go to audiophile influenced sources.
> It's common CD reissues, obscure used shops, ebay, Craigslist, estate
> sales, =A0friends, friends of friends, etc. =A0Perhaps your reply is to b=
e
> expected, after all this is a "high-end" discussion group. =A0But
> high-enders often hand wave about how "the music is what's important."
> But when it comes to recordings that have precious historical musical
> content ONLY, they generally aren't interested.

It seems you missed my point. I wasn't saying that these labels have
blanketed *your* concept of historically important recordings. I was
merely showing you that your assertion isn't supported by what is
offered by these audiophile labels. For every Sheffield like sonic
spectacle there are several dozen titles picked for their "musical"
content. I think the list demonstrates a pretty significant lack of
said prejudice. We could get into some debate as to what is and is not
"important." Alfred Deller? But it would be too much of a tangent.

Audio Empire

August 16th 10, 02:18 PM

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:04:07 -0700, John Nunes wrote
(in article >):

> On 8/12/2010 3:56 PM, Dick Pierce wrote:
>
>> Of the several HUNDRED LP recordings I have Baroque organ and
>> harpsichord music, I would say about 30% of them exhibit pitch
>> instability that is audibly detectable, some almost to the point
>> of annoyance, and the exhibit this no matter what turntable they
>> are played on. I'm not talking warp wow, since I store can care
>> for them well. I'm not even talking, in many cases, off-center
>> punches, because the tone arm exhibits no detectable periodic
>> horizontal movement. I'm talking audible pitch instability which
>> seems to be intrinsic to the record itself.
>
> Then what would be the mechanism for this?

I don't pretend to know what Pierce is referring to, but I've run across
records that had such ills as tape "scape" flutter, wow, low frequency
flutter as well as actual tape irregularities. How these ills made it onto
lacquer, I'll never know. Once such extreme example was the soundtrack LP to
the movie "The Blue Max". Great Jerry Goldsmith score rendered unlistenable
by terrible scrape flutter, yet the CD reissue is PERFECT and exhibits none
of the aforementioned flutter.
>
>> So, let me get this straight, according to you, the solution
>> to the pitch instability found in records is, to quote you
>> now, that "one simply doesn't play them."
>>
>> That's your solution to LP pitch instability?
>
> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against musically important
> historic recordings because they aren't exciting or interesting "audio"
> material. Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving about
> "musicality" and so on.

That's a pretty irrelevant comment. Recordings with bad wow and/or flutter,
are simply not very enjoyable. I can listen to 78's and enjoy them, but I
can't take any recording, LP or tape (or a CD for that matter) that exhibits
audible amounts of wow and/or flutter.

Audio Empire

August 16th 10, 07:06 PM

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 06:17:15 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 15, 6:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 13, 4:04=3DA0pm, John Nunes >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against
>>>> musically important historic recordings because they
>>>> aren't exciting or interesting "audio" material.
>>>> =3DA0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand waving
>>>> about "musicality" and so on.
>>> Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> I suggest you take a look at the music being reissued by
>>> audiophile labels and then get back to us.
>>
>> Information about offerings does not address the question.
>
> Sure it does. Economics 101. Supply and demand. The supply wouldn't
> exist were it not for the demand.
>

That's exactly right. Like I mentioned in another post, there are a goodly
number of businesses mastering and manufacturing phonograph records these
days. In large part, the records they make are much more carefully mastered
and manufactured than they were in vinyl's heyday. And, they are expensive;
expensive to buy, and expensive to make. If there weren't enough buyers to
maintain the market, most of these concerns would go away. The fact that they
are still here, and report that their business is good (even in this
depression) tells us pretty much all we need to know about the business as it
stands today.

Arny Krueger

August 16th 10, 07:07 PM

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Aug 15, 6:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 13, 4:04=3DA0pm, John Nunes >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against
>>>> musically important historic recordings because they
>>>> aren't exciting or interesting "audio" material.
>>>> =3DA0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand
>>>> waving about "musicality" and so on.
>>> Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> I suggest you take a look at the music being reissued by
>>> audiophile labels and then get back to us.
>>
>> Information about offerings does not address the
>> question.
>
> Sure it does. Economics 101. Supply and demand.

> The supply wouldn't exist were it not for the demand.

You can't tell that to a boy who was raised in Detroit among huge lots of
brand new cars that nobody wanted to buy.

You can't tell that to a boy who worked in a store that sold records and saw
how records that were pressed but did not sell were handled.

Audio Empire

August 17th 10, 12:34 AM

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:07:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Aug 15, 6:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 13, 4:04=3DA0pm, John Nunes >
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against
>>>>> musically important historic recordings because they
>>>>> aren't exciting or interesting "audio" material.
>>>>> =3DA0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand
>>>>> waving about "musicality" and so on.
>>>> Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the evening.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> I suggest you take a look at the music being reissued by
>>>> audiophile labels and then get back to us.
>>>
>>> Information about offerings does not address the
>>> question.
>>
>> Sure it does. Economics 101. Supply and demand.
>
>> The supply wouldn't exist were it not for the demand.
>
> You can't tell that to a boy who was raised in Detroit among huge lots of
> brand new cars that nobody wanted to buy.
>
> You can't tell that to a boy who worked in a store that sold records and saw
> how records that were pressed but did not sell were handled.
>
>

All I can say is that wrt the records, that was then , this is now. Cars? As
long as Detroit's car marketing mantra is to "offend no one" then they won't
please very many people either, and most of their over-priced,
under-engineered, and poorly made cars will continue to sell poorly against
the Japanese, Koreans, and soon, the Chinese.

Arny Krueger

August 17th 10, 02:07 PM

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:07:04 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Aug 15, 6:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 13, 4:04=3DA0pm, John Nunes
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Many (most?) audiophiles have a prejudice against
>>>>>> musically important historic recordings because they
>>>>>> aren't exciting or interesting "audio" material.
>>>>>> =3DA0Funny that, with all the purple prose and hand
>>>>>> waving about "musicality" and so on.
>>>>> Nothing like the smell of burning straw in the
>>>>> evening.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you take a look at the music being reissued
>>>>> by audiophile labels and then get back to us.
>>>>
>>>> Information about offerings does not address the
>>>> question.
>>>
>>> Sure it does. Economics 101. Supply and demand.
>>
>>> The supply wouldn't exist were it not for the demand.
>>
>> You can't tell that to a boy who was raised in Detroit
>> among huge lots of brand new cars that nobody wanted to
>> buy.
>>
>> You can't tell that to a boy who worked in a store that
>> sold records and saw how records that were pressed but
>> did not sell were handled.

> All I can say is that wrt the records, that was then ,
> this is now.

The reason that some recordings did not sell in the volumes that were
expected was a combination of optimism and human error.

If you can reliably demonstrate that optimism and human error are somehow
vastly reduced in these days, then you get your point.

> Cars? As long as Detroit's car marketing
> mantra is to "offend no one" then they won't please very
> many people either, and most of their over-priced,
> under-engineered, and poorly made cars will continue to
> sell poorly against the Japanese, Koreans, and soon, the
> Chinese.

American cars in total outsell Japanese, Korean, and German cars in total
within the US, which is their intended primary market. What *has* happened
is that Japanese, Korean, and German cars and car sales used to be a joke,
and now they are very serious competitors.

American cars as a rule are less costly than competive foreign models.
American car manufacturers have improved their designs and production
quality to the point where they are often fully competitive with foreign
products.

The shame is that American quality and design was so poor so long, and that
it took such disasterous losses to awaken american execuitives to the new
reality.

I worked for GM and Chrysler in the 60s and 70s and one word comes to mind:
Arrogance.

Scott[_6_]

August 18th 10, 01:52 AM

On Aug 17, 11:03=A0am, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> =A0> John Nunes > wrote
> =A0>> There are zero recordings of Amalia Rodrigues.
> =A0>> There are zero recordings of Charles Tournemire's live
> =A0>> improvisations.
> =A0>> There are zero recordings of Scott Joplin's piano rolls.
> =A0>> There are zero recordings involving Alfred Deller
> =A0>> There are zero recordings of Helmut Walcha's playing.
>
> How about adding to the list the works of Couperin, Roberdais,
> Sweelink, Bruhns, Kerll, in other words, almost the entire
> repertoire of Baroque keyboard music prior to Bach.

Guess I should have mentioned Hrmonia Mundi which while not purely an
audiophile label they clearly target audiophiles with their product.

>
> =A0>> Those are some pretty good indicators for the kind of material I wa=
s
> =A0>> referring to. =3DA0I could sit here all night doing this, which wou=
ld
> =A0>> be a waste of time.
> =A0>
> =A0> Of course you could sit there and cherry pick.
>
> Are you kidding? REALLY?

No

>
> Every time I have gone to buy a record or a CD, the process
> I used was "cherry picking" by nearly ANY reasonable definition
> of the word.

Yeah, OK. What does that have to do with what is being discussed? We
are talking about the musical content of historical signiicance
offered by audiophile labels. Not what you personally buy when you go
to the record store.

>
> I NEVER once bought a recording primarily because it came from
> some "audiophile" label or because it was on media or another.
> I bought it SOLELY because of its musical significance to me.

OK. Utterly irrelevant but OK.

>
> =A0> If you consider the percentage of *all* recordings represented
> =A0> by that list (which was hardly an all inclusive list) then the
> =A0> fact that it had 10 that fell within your cherry picking would
> =A0> be, in my view, pretty impressive.
>
> You keep bringing up this "cherry picking" thing like it's
> some bad,

Well it is when one is trying to make a point about the musically
historical content offered by audiophile labels. It fails to represent
the reality of what is offered by these labels that is of historical
significance. That is what we are talking about Dick. We are not
talking about what you like or what i like or any other individual.

> If that genre is NOT available on a particular media or not
> branded with some special badge, then that media or badge
> gets left in the dustbin.

Again I would have to point to Harmonia Mundi. Not sure any other
label covers that genre better than they do.

>
> Do I cherry pick? You bet your ass I do: THAT'S WHAT LISTENING
> TO MUSIC IS ABOUT.

That is great Dick but it simply isn't on topic.

>
> And, by all indications, you cherry pick at least as carefully
> as I do.

Yeah of course when picking music for me as a consumer. Not when I am
trying to make a point about offerings of the audiophile labels as a
group though.

>
> It's just, for me, the medium is of almost no significance if
> that's the only source of the music I desire.
>
> For example, there are no current (let's call 'current' within
> the last quarter century) LPs all that I can find of the music
> of Baroque keyboard composers such as Altenburg, Armsdorf, Babou,
> Banchieri, Cabanilles, Clerembault, d'Andrieu, D'Aquin, Kellner,
> Kerll, Lubeck, Marchand, Paradisi, Scheidemann, Strungk, Seixas,
> Zachau, those being some among the 90-odd composers that I have
> collections of their music. They are better represented on CD,
> and I am able to download high-quality MP3s of multiple
> performances of these works totalling some 7000 unique works
> lasting several days of first rate performances.
>
> Do I cherry pick? Damn right: I like cherries. If the best
> looking, best constructed, finest sounding fruit basket in
> the universe ain't got no cherries, I ain't interested.
>
> Yeah. I cherry pick. I just don't pick pretty cherries
> that taste like lemons.
>
> Wanna make something out of it?

LOL No Dick, I don't want to fight with you about your choice of
music.

>
> =A0> There is an awful lot of music represented in that list that perhaps
> =A0> you don't find historically important but others do.
>
> And the sword, she be versatile in her bidirectionality.
>
> It's not even "historically importanr." It's MUSICALLY important
> that's the issue.

You might want to take that up with the guy who made an issue about
"historically important" music.

>
> And even though YOUR musical interests, whatever they might be
> allow YOU to cherry pick from those labels, they don't allow
> me, so I and many others pick our musical fruit elsewhere and,
> apparently for different reasons.

I'll have to concede that point Dick. My tastes are much better served
by the audiophile labels than yours seems to be.