Records again

[Audio Empire]

Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else
(like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to
vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another
and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all
night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I
want for my Alfa!

There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, hell,
I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon as
well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
experiences?

[Greg Wormald]

Yes.

I also find that I like the LPs louder, and will listen at concert level
volumes. I notice that I will often will turn the CD down until it
becomes background music, and it's like I get 'tired' with listening.

This has happened less often since I went to the H/K HD970 CD player but
it still happens.

BTW, I listen to the exact opposite sort of music that I understand you
do. I prefer rock, jazz and blues, and **love** good electric guitar. I
find most classical music bores me to sleep. :-)

Greg

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:

> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else
> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to
> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another
> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all
> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I
> want for my Alfa!
>
> There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
> can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, hell,
> I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon as
> well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
> experiences?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I
> listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn
> the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the
> restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
> to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One
> record leads to another and then another. If I had a
> dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night
> listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000
> paint job I want for my Alfa!

I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete
vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult to
compel myself to ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to a
LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing.

> There seems to be something compelling about listening to
> records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't
> know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record digitally
> and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing
> this phenomenon as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone
> on this forum has had similar experiences?

Three things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that most
of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live
events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the
process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly
finished. Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental
attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily
listen to recordings that were made in the past few years. The third problem
is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly
audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me.

I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today
were we still hobbled by analog recording technology.

[Rich Teer]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Audio Empire wrote:

> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something else
> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen to
> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to another
> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all
> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I
> want for my Alfa!

Same here, with one exception: I listen to CD so infrequently that I have
taken the player out of my system. But when I did used to listen to CD,
it never held my attention and I certainly didn't have many multi-album
listening sessions as I do now.

--
Rich Teer, Publisher
Vinylphile Magazine

www.vinylphilemag.com

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 29, 7:26=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I
> > listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn
> > the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the
> > restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
> > to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One
> > record leads to another and then another. If I had a
> > dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night
> > listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000
> > paint job I want for my Alfa!
>
> I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete
> vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult t=
o
> compel myself to ever listen to them. =A0Even when I sit down and listen =
to a
> LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing.
>

Can you describe those systems in detail? Why would you have several?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something =
else
> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen=
to
> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot=
her
> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost =
all
> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job=
I
> want for my Alfa!
>
> There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
> can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h=
ell,
> I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon=
as
> well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
> experiences?

Can't say that I have had that specific experience. For the past 7
months my system has been in storage. I've been working out of the
country and am in between houses, more or less. Things move very
slowly in real estate these days. But anyway, I have mostly been
listening to music on my i-touch with some Grado SR 80 headphones.
Some of the material is from online downloads and some ripped from my
CDs. It really is a grand equalizer (not EQ). Nothing sounds
particularly bad nor particularly great. Luckily work has not stopped
me from seeing a lot of live music. So that dichotomy is now greater
than it has been since I got into audio. I just got back from the
Santa Fe Chamber music festival. That was awesome. Got to see two
recitals with my current favorite pianist Yuja Wang. What is even
cooler is that they have open rehersals every day. And you can meet
and shoot the bull with the artists. A total classical music geek
fest. I didn't break out the i-touch the whole time I was there. The
divide is so great between the i-touch system and live music
experience that fidelity almost looses meaning with the i-touch. I
even did some comparisons between apple lossless files and some lowly
MP3s. Can't say that I actually head any difference. If I did it
really didn't matter. I promptly converted all my Apple lossless files
to MP3s just to make more room for more material. I have been
downloading more and more MP4 videos for the i-touch. That is actually
pretty cool. It's funny, with the i-touch seeing the artist perform
seems to have more impact than the sound quality, even on that little
screen. And now I have this huge stack of new LPs that havn't been
played yet. I do look forward to getting settled and setting up the
system again. I can not recomend the Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival
enough. Watching Yuja Wang, Lynn Harrell and Benny Kim first reherse
and then perform Beethoven's Archduke was definitely a 10. It even
woke up the 90 and over crowd. I can actually enjoy listening to the i-
touch/Grado SR 80 combo for extended periods of time when I am forced
into situations where I have nothing else to do. It really makes those
situations much better. It's kind of interesting to live with the non-
audiophile perspective for an extended period of time. But when I hear
people say that their MP3 player/earbud system is as good as one would
ever need or want I am more baffled than ever. It is better than
nothing.....but it aint hifi or high end. It's a private boom box.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:31:18 -0700, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article >):

> Yes.
>
> I also find that I like the LPs louder, and will listen at concert level
> volumes. I notice that I will often will turn the CD down until it
> becomes background music, and it's like I get 'tired' with listening.
>
> This has happened less often since I went to the H/K HD970 CD player but
> it still happens.
>
> BTW, I listen to the exact opposite sort of music that I understand you
> do. I prefer rock, jazz and blues, and **love** good electric guitar. I
> find most classical music bores me to sleep. :-)
>
> Greg
>
> In article >,
> Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
>> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something
>> else
>> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
>> to
>> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
>> another
>> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost
>> all
>> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I
>> want for my Alfa!
>>
>> There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
>> can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital,
>> hell,
>> I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
>> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon
>> as
>> well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
>> experiences?

Well Greg, there's no accounting for taste - or even a lack of it. 8^)

But thanks for the confirmation. It's good to hear that this phenomenon is
not restricted to any one type of music.

And for the record, I too listen to a lot of jazz as well as classical.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:38:52 -0700, Rich Teer wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
>> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something
>> else
>> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
>> to
>> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
>> another
>> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost
>> all
>> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I
>> want for my Alfa!
>
> Same here, with one exception: I listen to CD so infrequently that I have
> taken the player out of my system. But when I did used to listen to CD,
> it never held my attention and I certainly didn't have many multi-album
> listening sessions as I do now.
>
>

Well, I can't countenance going so far as to remove my digital equipment from
my system. But I do find myself listening to vinyl more and more when I
listen attentively for musical content as opposed to background music.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:26:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I
>> listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn
>> the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the
>> restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
>> to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One
>> record leads to another and then another. If I had a
>> dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night
>> listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000
>> paint job I want for my Alfa!
>
> I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete
> vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult to
> compel myself to ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to a
> LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing.

That's a shame.

>> There seems to be something compelling about listening to
>> records that CD can't match (at least for me). I don't
>> know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record digitally
>> and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
>> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing
>> this phenomenon as well, but I'm just wondering if anyone
>> on this forum has had similar experiences?

> Three things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that most
> of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live
> events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the
> process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly
> finished.

IOW, you don't listen for pleasure anyway, you listen because it's part of
your recording efforts. Quite a different thing, if I might be permitted to
say so.

> Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental
> attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily
> listen to recordings that were made in the past few years.

Since I listen for pleasure (as well as for the reasons that you say you
listen as I too record live events), and because I love classical music, I
tend to listen to older recordings. IMHO, few, if any, of the modern
conductors can hold a candle to the likes of Walter, Ormandy, Szell, Reiner,
Boult, Von Karajan, et al.

> The third problem
> is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly
> audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me.

That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the
MUSIC, man, not the media. I listen to both vinyl and digital and have huge
collections of both. The fact that I find something compelling about vinyl
that CD lacks, doesn't mean that I don't enjoy digital, it just doesn't seem
to "pull me in" the way vinyl does.

> I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today
> were we still hobbled by analog recording technology.

If you'll excuse me, that's a nonsensical premise to start with. If we still
had ONLY analog recording technology, you wouldn't know any better or any
different, for that matter. That's tantamount to saying that before digital,
you couldn't enjoy listening to recorded music. If that's true, I feel sad
for you.

[bob]

On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the
> MUSIC, man, not the media.

No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to
digital, that's the MEDIA.

Personally, I find the music to be what engages me. Somebody who tells
me they find one medium less fatiguing than the other is concentrating
on the wrong thing, methinks.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice, actually. It's the
>> MUSIC, man, not the media.
>
> No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl than to
> digital, that's the MEDIA.

You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at listening to vinyl
with that comment, I'm addressing Mr. Kruger's comment that he cannot get
pleasure from anything other than digital. You see, if the music is good, I
get pleasure from either. I was merely stating a phenomenon in which vinyl
seems to ENGAGE me more than digital does. It doesn't mean that I can't (or
don't) listen to digital.

> Personally, I find the music to be what engages me. Somebody who tells
> me they find one medium less fatiguing than the other is concentrating
> on the wrong thing, methinks.

If digital is more fatiguing to listen to than is vinyl, then it's a very
subconscious thing. I don't find myself thinking "Bah, this CD is fatiguing
to listen to, I'm going to go do something else." However I have noticed
that I'm more apt to listen to vinyl into the wee hours, than I am to have
such an extended listening session with digital. Since it's not something
that I consciously notice while listening, I have yet to ascertain if this
phenomenon is restricted only to Redbook CD or whether it also applies to
SACD, 24/96 or 192 DVD-A or high resolution downloads as well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:26:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I
>>> listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn
>>> the stereo off and go do something else (like work on
>>> the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I
>>> listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the
>>> listening. One record leads to another and then
>>> another. If I had a dollar for every time I've
>>> stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I
>>> could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for
>>> my Alfa!
>>
>> I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have
>> several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed
>> electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to
>> ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to
>> a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole
>> thing.
>
> That's a shame.

It's the high price of having demanding tastes and having grown used to
audio reproduction without audible flaws like flutter, wow, tics and pops.

>>> There seems to be something compelling about listening
>>> to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I
>>> don't know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record
>>> digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I
>>> have read articles by audio writers who have expressed
>>> experiencing this phenomenon as well, but I'm just
>>> wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
>>> experiences?
>
>> Three things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One
>> is simply that most of my music listening is related to
>> recordings that I produce of live events. Producing
>> recordings presumes a lot of listening through the
>> process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording
>> is supposedly finished.

> IOW, you don't listen for pleasure anyway, you listen
> because it's part of your recording efforts.

That's is one of three reasons.

> Quite a different thing, if I might be permitted to say so.

It makes the point that audio production as we know it today would be
impossible if we were restricted to analog media.

>> Another problem for vinyl is that other than a
>> sentimental
>> attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was
>> younger, I primarily listen to recordings that were made
>> in the past few years.

> Since I listen for pleasure (as well as for the reasons
> that you say you listen as I too record live events), and
> because I love classical music, I tend to listen to older
> recordings. IMHO, few, if any, of the modern conductors
> can hold a candle to the likes of Walter, Ormandy, Szell,
> Reiner, Boult, Von Karajan, et al.

That's an opinion that you get to hold, and pursue if you wish. I think that
the art of music is still being taught and executed with brilliance and so
contemporary performers can be worth listening to.

>> The third problem
>> is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining
>> that the clearly audible noise and distortion that is
>> inherent in vinyl bothers me.

> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
> actually.

Test equipment and the annals of audio technology support my claims. It
takes considerable attitude and prejudice to hold that they are wrong. Also,
the vast majority of all living music lovers seem to agree with me.


>It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.

Only true if the media is adequately non-intrusive.

> I listen to
> both vinyl and digital and have huge collections of both.
> The fact that I find something compelling about vinyl
> that CD lacks, doesn't mean that I don't enjoy digital,
> it just doesn't seem to "pull me in" the way vinyl does.

That speaks to your unusual (for a living music lover) prejudices and
attitudes.

>> I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy
>> music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog
>> recording technology.

> If you'll excuse me, that's a nonsensical premise to
> start with.

Calling other people's opinions nonesense is inexcusable. My position that
even minority opinions are

>If we still had ONLY analog recording
> technology, you wouldn't know any better or any
> different, for that matter.

The statement "ignorance is better than advanced knowlege" seems
anti-intellectual.

> That's tantamount to saying
> that before digital, you couldn't enjoy listening to
> recorded music.

???????????????

> If that's true, I feel sad for you.

I make no apologies for living in better days.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
>>> actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.
>>
>> No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl
>> than to digital, that's the MEDIA.
>
> You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at
> listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr.
> Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from
> anything other than digital.

Of course I never said that.

> You see, if the music is good, I get pleasure from either.

One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise
and distortion can distract from enjoyment of the music and therefore they
should be avoided whenever possible.

> I was merely stating a
> phenomenon in which vinyl seems to ENGAGE me more than
> digital does. It doesn't mean that I can't (or don't)
> listen to digital.

Again, that's your preference and of course you are entitled to hold it and
express it on public forums without being punished or demeaned.

There are other prefereces, and they at the very least deserve the privilege
of being repeated accurately when they are repeated at all.

>> Personally, I find the music to be what engages me.
>> Somebody who tells me they find one medium less
>> fatiguing than the other is concentrating on the wrong
>> thing, methinks.

> If digital is more fatiguing to listen to than is vinyl,
> then it's a very subconscious thing.

This is a false claim on the grounds that the level of consciousness of
fatique-causing influences is well known to vary.

> I don't find myself
> thinking "Bah, this CD is fatiguing to listen to, I'm
> going to go do something else."

Interestng. The other day I was testing a PC and I ripped a more-or-less
randomly selected CD as part of those tests. I immediately thought: "Bah,
this CD is fatiguing to listen to, I'm going to go do something else."
What I did is a little critical listening to it wherein I identified the
problem with the CD to be its spectral balance. I quickly worked up some
parameters for a FFT-based transformation that changed the CDs spectral
balance to be something that was more to my liking, which rendered it
non-fatiquing.

> However I have noticed
> that I'm more apt to listen to vinyl into the wee hours,
> than I am to have such an extended listening session with
> digital.

I seem to have more err, pleasurable things to do into the wee hours... ;-)

> Since it's not something that I consciously
> notice while listening, I have yet to ascertain if this
> phenomenon is restricted only to Redbook CD or whether it
> also applies to SACD, 24/96 or 192 DVD-A or high
> resolution downloads as well.

IME the major factor in fatiquing media is usually spectral balance, not
format.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Aug 29, 7:26 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I
>>> listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn
>>> the stereo off and go do something else (like work on
>>> the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I
>>> listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the
>>> listening. One record leads to another and then
>>> another. If I had a dollar for every time I've
>>> stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I
>>> could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for
>>> my Alfa!
>>
>> I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have
>> several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed
>> electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to
>> ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to
>> a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole
>> thing.

> Can you describe those systems in detail?

I could, but I know that no matter what they were composed of, they would be
second-guessed to death.

Suffice it to say that their sound quality is similar or superior to better
quality audiophile vinyl playback systems from the days of vinyl.

I understand that current vinylphile doctrine is that if you don't spend the
big bucks for the latest toys, you don't know what you are missing.

> Why would you have several?

People around me are unloading their vinyl systems and I can't pass up a
bargain.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:19:40 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 29, 7:26=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I
>>> listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn
>>> the stereo off and go do something else (like work on the
>>> restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
>>> to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One
>>> record leads to another and then another. If I had a
>>> dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost all night
>>> listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000
>>> paint job I want for my Alfa!
>>
>> I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have several compete
>> vinyl playback systems, one with tubed electronics, I find it difficult t=
> o
>> compel myself to ever listen to them. =A0Even when I sit down and listen =
> to a
>> LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole thing.
>>
>
> Can you describe those systems in detail? Why would you have several?

......And not listen to any of them!!???

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:48:08 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
>> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something =
> else
>> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen=
> to
>> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot=
> her
>> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost =
> all
>> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job=
> I
>> want for my Alfa!
>>
>> There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
>> can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h=
> ell,
>> I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
>> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon=
> as
>> well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
>> experiences?
>
> Can't say that I have had that specific experience. For the past 7
> months my system has been in storage. I've been working out of the
> country and am in between houses, more or less. Things move very
> slowly in real estate these days. But anyway, I have mostly been
> listening to music on my i-touch with some Grado SR 80 headphones.
> Some of the material is from online downloads and some ripped from my
> CDs. It really is a grand equalizer (not EQ). Nothing sounds
> particularly bad nor particularly great. Luckily work has not stopped
> me from seeing a lot of live music. So that dichotomy is now greater
> than it has been since I got into audio. I just got back from the
> Santa Fe Chamber music festival. That was awesome. Got to see two
> recitals with my current favorite pianist Yuja Wang. What is even
> cooler is that they have open rehersals every day. And you can meet
> and shoot the bull with the artists. A total classical music geek
> fest. I didn't break out the i-touch the whole time I was there. The
> divide is so great between the i-touch system and live music
> experience that fidelity almost looses meaning with the i-touch. I
> even did some comparisons between apple lossless files and some lowly
> MP3s. Can't say that I actually head any difference. If I did it
> really didn't matter. I promptly converted all my Apple lossless files
> to MP3s just to make more room for more material. I have been
> downloading more and more MP4 videos for the i-touch. That is actually
> pretty cool. It's funny, with the i-touch seeing the artist perform
> seems to have more impact than the sound quality, even on that little
> screen. And now I have this huge stack of new LPs that havn't been
> played yet. I do look forward to getting settled and setting up the
> system again. I can not recomend the Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival
> enough. Watching Yuja Wang, Lynn Harrell and Benny Kim first reherse
> and then perform Beethoven's Archduke was definitely a 10. It even
> woke up the 90 and over crowd. I can actually enjoy listening to the i-
> touch/Grado SR 80 combo for extended periods of time when I am forced
> into situations where I have nothing else to do. It really makes those
> situations much better. It's kind of interesting to live with the non-
> audiophile perspective for an extended period of time. But when I hear
> people say that their MP3 player/earbud system is as good as one would
> ever need or want I am more baffled than ever. It is better than
> nothing.....but it aint hifi or high end. It's a private boom box.
>

Well, the ipod Touch is basically "portable music" as far as I'm concerned,
and no more. I don't expect this device or the music ripped to it to be any
better than previous "portable" formats such as cassette. So without any high
expectations, I find my ability to plug my iPod into my daily-driver's car
stereo to be a boon. Car audio quality is an oxymoron at best in my
estimation because of the high background noise levels. For instance, I find
that XM/Sirius radio is quite listenable in the car, where I cannot stand it
in the house and my iPod touch sounds very good in that context.

BTW, I can hear the difference between lossless and MP3 on headphones, and
don't like the MP3 artifacts. Therefore I use ALC for all my ripped music.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> Well, the ipod Touch is basically "portable music" as far
> as I'm concerned, and no more.

The sound quality of portable audio gear has improved dramatically since the
days of portable AM (and even FM) radios.

>I don't expect this device
> or the music ripped to it to be any better than previous
> "portable" formats such as cassette.

If one listens or checks technical performance, one finds that previous
portable formats such as cassette are beneath comparison to mainstream
portable digital players.

> So without any high
> expectations, I find my ability to plug my iPod into my
> daily-driver's car stereo to be a boon.

If you do that via a direct connnection, then with good choices of files on
your iPod, the results will be CD quality which is to say sonically limited
by the speakers and room, etc.

> Car audio quality
> is an oxymoron at best in my estimation because of the
> high background noise levels.

Agreed.

> For instance, I find that
> XM/Sirius radio is quite listenable in the car, where I
> cannot stand it in the house and my iPod touch sounds
> very good in that context.

I did a 2 day trip in a recent GM "crossover" with a XM-based audio system.
It was clearly audibly deficient even with the vehicle in motion over rough
roads, as compared to playback of of a randomly-selected CD.

> BTW, I can hear the difference between lossless and MP3
> on headphones, and don't like the MP3 artifacts.

It is well known that properly-made MP3s are usually difficult or impossible
to reliably detect in comparisons with the CDs they were made from in
level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests.

> Therefore I use ALC for all my ripped music.

Fact of the matter is that the last digital music player I loaded was loaded
primarily with .wav files.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>> On Aug 29, 7:26 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I
>>>> listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn
>>>> the stereo off and go do something else (like work on
>>>> the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I
>>>> listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the
>>>> listening. One record leads to another and then
>>>> another. If I had a dollar for every time I've
>>>> stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I
>>>> could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for
>>>> my Alfa!
>>>
>>> I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have
>>> several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed
>>> electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to
>>> ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to
>>> a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole
>>> thing.
>
>> Can you describe those systems in detail?
>
> I could, but I know that no matter what they were composed of, they would be
> second-guessed to death.
>
> Suffice it to say that their sound quality is similar or superior to better
> quality audiophile vinyl playback systems from the days of vinyl.
>
> I understand that current vinylphile doctrine is that if you don't spend the
> big bucks for the latest toys, you don't know what you are missing.

Don't know about that, but modern cartridges track better, have better stylus
profiles,lower moving mass, and lower distortion than their predecessors.
The only exception that I know of in the distortion department was the Shure
V-15 IV. Even by modern standards, it's very low. The only caveat on the
Shure is that the stylus profile and cantilever design is pretty old
fashioned. I'll bet a modern stylus retipping with a Shibata or other modern
profile would reduce inner-groove distortion significantly. The lowest
distortion cartridge on the market today, AFAICS, is the Soundsmith line of
B&O continuation cartridges. The guy who makes them has re-engineered the
moving-iron design of the old B&O "Stereodynes" to update stylus profile,
cantilever design, and the famous push-pull B&O "moving cross" design. It's
the best cartridge I've ever heard and it measures fantastically!
>
>> Why would you have several?
>
> People around me are unloading their vinyl systems and I can't pass up a
> bargain.


I hear you there. The temptation is great.

There are good old turntables around from Garrard (301, 401) Thorens (TD-124,
TD-125), Empire (598, 698), any Linn Sondek, and others, but many tables are
just crap (like most direct drive units) especially after they have some age
on them. Most DD tables had lousy bearings to begin with (essentially the
motor bearings) and these days most are uselessly worn out. Arms have gotten
better and old ones need to be replaced (especially the mass market Japanese
arms that came attached to most DD 'tables. Of course, we've already
discussed cartridges. You can get older Vinyl equipment to perform, but you
have to have the right stuff to begin with.

If you haven't experienced a modern vinyl setup, then you really don't have
any idea how much better records sound today than they did 20 years ago.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
>>>> actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.
>>>
>>> No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl
>>> than to digital, that's the MEDIA.
>>
>> You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at
>> listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr.
>> Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from
>> anything other than digital.
>
> Of course I never said that.

You certainly implied it:

" I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy
music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog
recording technology."

Direct quote.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:26:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I
>>>> listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn
>>>> the stereo off and go do something else (like work on
>>>> the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I
>>>> listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the
>>>> listening. One record leads to another and then
>>>> another. If I had a dollar for every time I've
>>>> stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I
>>>> could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for
>>>> my Alfa!
>>>
>>> I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have
>>> several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed
>>> electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to
>>> ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to
>>> a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole
>>> thing.
>>
>> That's a shame.
>
> It's the high price of having demanding tastes and having grown used to
> audio reproduction without audible flaws like flutter, wow, tics and pops.
>
>>>> There seems to be something compelling about listening
>>>> to records that CD can't match (at least for me). I
>>>> don't know what it is. I like digital, hell, I record
>>>> digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I
>>>> have read articles by audio writers who have expressed
>>>> experiencing this phenomenon as well, but I'm just
>>>> wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
>>>> experiences?
>>
>>> Three things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One
>>> is simply that most of my music listening is related to
>>> recordings that I produce of live events. Producing
>>> recordings presumes a lot of listening through the
>>> process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording
>>> is supposedly finished.
>
>> IOW, you don't listen for pleasure anyway, you listen
>> because it's part of your recording efforts.
>
> That's is one of three reasons.
>
>> Quite a different thing, if I might be permitted to say so.
>
> It makes the point that audio production as we know it today would be
> impossible if we were restricted to analog media.
>
>>> Another problem for vinyl is that other than a
>>> sentimental
>>> attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was
>>> younger, I primarily listen to recordings that were made
>>> in the past few years.
>
>> Since I listen for pleasure (as well as for the reasons
>> that you say you listen as I too record live events), and
>> because I love classical music, I tend to listen to older
>> recordings. IMHO, few, if any, of the modern conductors
>> can hold a candle to the likes of Walter, Ormandy, Szell,
>> Reiner, Boult, Von Karajan, et al.
>
> That's an opinion that you get to hold, and pursue if you wish. I think that
> the art of music is still being taught and executed with brilliance and so
> contemporary performers can be worth listening to.

No doubt about it, but the older conductors seem closer to the composer. For
instance, Bruno Walter KNEW Mahler and knew ho he wanted his works to sound.
I like Tilson Thomas' Mahler readings, but Walter is better. Reiner knew
Richard Strauss, Boult was life-long friends with both Vaughan-Williams and
Holst, Rubinstien was a personal friend of Rachmaninoff, etc. I trust their
readings and, because, these early stereo recordings were two (or three)
track, and minimalist miked, they sound better to me than do the modern
"overproduced" recordings - a matter of taste, for sure, but it's my taste to
have the soundstage RIGHT, these early RCAs, Mercury's and Columbias did
that.

>>> The third problem
>>> is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining
>>> that the clearly audible noise and distortion that is
>>> inherent in vinyl bothers me.
>
>> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
>> actually.
>
> Test equipment and the annals of audio technology support my claims.

Yawn! That mantra again. Yes, on paper and in measurements, digital trumps
analog, but things that aren't measured and that the "annals of audio
technology" don't seem to pick-up on, seem to be at play here.


> It takes considerable attitude and prejudice to hold that they are wrong.

Wrong? No, not wrong, just incomplete.


> Also,
> the vast majority of all living music lovers seem to agree with me.

The vast majority of all music lovers have never checked-in on the issue. To
say that they agree with you is citing facts not in evidence. What they have
checked-in on is the convenience, and portability of digital, coupled with
the fact that it's what we've got. I'm not saying you're wrong on this, in
all probability, the" vast majority" of which you so glibly speak, would
choose digital over record even if everything were available on both formats
equally, but I doubt if they would agree with you for any actual sound
quality reasons, but rather they'd agree with you on practical grounds, and I
don't blame them. I agree with you on those grounds too. Fact is the
proliferation and popularity of low bit-rate MP3 and the overproduced quality
of modern pop music tells us all that convenience is far more important to
the younger generations than is any semblance of quality.
>
>
>> It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.
>
> Only true if the media is adequately non-intrusive.

Like good vinyl?

>> I listen to
>> both vinyl and digital and have huge collections of both.
>> The fact that I find something compelling about vinyl
>> that CD lacks, doesn't mean that I don't enjoy digital,
>> it just doesn't seem to "pull me in" the way vinyl does.
>
> That speaks to your unusual (for a living music lover) prejudices and
> attitudes.

And, as one who is most vocal about his own attitudes and prejudices, you
should know.

>>> I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy
>>> music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog
>>> recording technology.
>
>> If you'll excuse me, that's a nonsensical premise to
>> start with.
>
> Calling other people's opinions nonesense is inexcusable. My position that
> even minority opinions are

Your comment is like saying that you couldn't enjoy reading a book before the
advent of the electric light. How would you know that?

>> If we still had ONLY analog recording
>> technology, you wouldn't know any better or any
>> different, for that matter.
>
> The statement "ignorance is better than advanced knowlege" seems
> anti-intellectual.

The statement has nothing to do with ignorance or ant-intellectualism. it has
to do with the fact that no one can say what their attitudes would be about
anything if the basic reality of their lives were changed. You can only
speculate what your attitudes would be as influenced by CURRENT
circumstances. Your speculation about how you would react under a different
reality is fatally colored by how you react in this one.

Here's an example: I would like to say that had I lived in the South in 1850,
that I would have been anti-slavery. The 21st century ME certainly is, but if
I lived in the mid 19th century my ideals and mores would have been formed by
a totally different reality. Therefore, I cannot, with any credibility
whatsoever, tell you what a 19th Century me, living in the South would think
about slavery any more than you can say with any credibility that you
couldn't listen to recorded music with the same enjoyment that you do now if
digital hadn't been developed and we still had only analog.

That's what makes your argument nonsensical in my estimation.

>
>> That's tantamount to saying
>> that before digital, you couldn't enjoy listening to
>> recorded music.
>
> ???????????????
>
>> If that's true, I feel sad for you.
>
> I make no apologies for living in better days.

But we weren't talking about today's reality, are we? We are talking about a
"what if" scenario.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:49:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Well, the ipod Touch is basically "portable music" as far
>> as I'm concerned, and no more.
>
> The sound quality of portable audio gear has improved dramatically since the
> days of portable AM (and even FM) radios.

Really? A champion of the obvious, are we?

>> I don't expect this device
>> or the music ripped to it to be any better than previous
>> "portable" formats such as cassette.
>
> If one listens or checks technical performance, one finds that previous
> portable formats such as cassette are beneath comparison to mainstream
> portable digital players.

That's one opinion. Cassettes have DIFFERENT limitations, that's for sure,
but the end result is less than satisfactory for both.

>> So without any high
>> expectations, I find my ability to plug my iPod into my
>> daily-driver's car stereo to be a boon.
>
> If you do that via a direct connnection, then with good choices of files on
> your iPod, the results will be CD quality which is to say sonically limited
> by the speakers and room, etc.

To have all that drowned by the car noise? Not necessary, and not even
audible under the circumstances. In my home system, I use an AppleTV
connected to my outboard upsampling DAC. I agree that my ALC ripped CDs are
CD quality, But I wasn't talking about in-house, I was talking about the
convenience of using my iPod Touch in combination with my car stereo to give
me portable access to (some of) my music collection.
>
>> Car audio quality
>> is an oxymoron at best in my estimation because of the
>> high background noise levels.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> For instance, I find that
>> XM/Sirius radio is quite listenable in the car, where I
>> cannot stand it in the house and my iPod touch sounds
>> very good in that context.
>
> I did a 2 day trip in a recent GM "crossover" with a XM-based audio system.
> It was clearly audibly deficient even with the vehicle in motion over rough
> roads, as compared to playback of of a randomly-selected CD.

Then either that GM car stereo is better than my VW's or the the GM's XM
receiver is worse than mine, because I find XM/Sirius to be quite listenable
in the car and notice little difference between it and a CD played on the
same stereo.

>> BTW, I can hear the difference between lossless and MP3
>> on headphones, and don't like the MP3 artifacts.
>
> It is well known that properly-made MP3s are usually difficult or impossible
> to reliably detect in comparisons with the CDs they were made from in
> level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests.

Good for you. I hope that bit of dogma makes you happy. Personally, I don't
buy it. I can HEAR the artifacts. So can a lot of people.

>> Therefore I use ALC for all my ripped music.
>
> Fact of the matter is that the last digital music player I loaded was loaded
> primarily with .wav files.

Wave files aren't compressed at all, either content-wise or data-wise.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in >):
>
>> "Audio > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
>>> (in >):
>>>
>>>> On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
>>>>> actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.
>>>>
>>>> No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl
>>>> than to digital, that's the MEDIA.
>>>
>>> You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at
>>> listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr.
>>> Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from
>>> anything other than digital.
>>
>> Of course I never said that.
>
> You certainly implied it:
>
> " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy
> music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog
> recording technology."
>
> Direct quote.
>


And until someone invents the digital microphone and loudspeaker plus digital amp then there will
always be a lot of analogue in the chain.

Cheers

Ian

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:01:17 -0700, Ian Bell wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in >):
>>
>>> "Audio > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
>>>> (in >):
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
>>>>>> actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to vinyl
>>>>> than to digital, that's the MEDIA.
>>>>
>>>> You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at
>>>> listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr.
>>>> Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from
>>>> anything other than digital.
>>>
>>> Of course I never said that.
>>
>> You certainly implied it:
>>
>> " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy
>> music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog
>> recording technology."
>>
>> Direct quote.
>>

> And until someone invents the digital microphone and loudspeaker plus digital

> amp then there will
> always be a lot of analogue in the chain.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ian
>

Yes, that too is true. Basically human hearing is analog, the rarefaction and
compression of air between the instruments and the microphone and the speaker
and the listener's ear is also analog. Maybe someday, direct brain
stimulation will obviate these transducers, but until then, we're stuck with
them.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 30, 6:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 7:26 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
> >> message
>
>
>
> >>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I
> >>> listen to CDs, I usually listen to a couple, then turn
> >>> the stereo off and go do something else (like work on
> >>> the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I
> >>> listen to vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the
> >>> listening. One record leads to another and then
> >>> another. If I had a dollar for every time I've
> >>> stayed-up almost all night listening to records, I
> >>> could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job I want for
> >>> my Alfa!
>
> >> I have the exact opposite situation. Even though I have
> >> several compete vinyl playback systems, one with tubed
> >> electronics, I find it difficult to compel myself to
> >> ever listen to them. Even when I sit down and listen to
> >> a LP, I rarely if ever can stand to listen to the whole
> >> thing.
> > Can you describe those systems in detail?
>
> I could, but I know that no matter what they were composed of, they would=
be
> second-guessed to death.

That is simply a false claim.


>
> Suffice it to say that their sound quality is similar or superior to bett=
er
> quality audiophile vinyl playback systems from the days of vinyl.

Sorry but that does not suffice for me. Your assertions about the
sound of vinyl in "your experience" simply lack any meaningful context
so long as you choose to keep everything a secret.


>
> I understand that current vinylphile doctrine is that if you don't spend =
the
> big bucks for the latest toys, you don't know what you are missing.

Nope, not even close.


>
> > Why would you have several?
>
> People around me are unloading their vinyl systems and I can't pass up a
> bargain.

I am afraid this really doesn't make sense to me. If you really can't
get through listening to an lP why have even one system much less
several, even at "bargain" prices? I can't see how one would ever buy
any sort of high end system even second hand if one isn't going to put
it to good use. Given the health of the second hand market even second
hand rigs of any merit cost more than the change one finds in the
sofa. I'm guessing the people around you have better business sense
than to sell their stuff so far under market value that even someone
who doesn't listen to vinyl would feel compelled to buy it. That is if
it is even decent equipment.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 30, 6:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise
> and distortion can distract from enjoyment of the music and therefore the=
y
> should be avoided whenever possible.

Or it can make it better. It goes both ways. so your assertion is kind
of a half truth. The idea that it should be avoided whenever possible
is a completely is clearly an erroneous statement. even you prefer
added distortion in some cases.


> Interestng. The other day I was testing a PC and I ripped a more-or-less
> randomly selected CD as part of those tests. I immediately thought: "Bah,
> this CD is fatiguing to listen to, I'm going to go do something else."
> What I did is a little critical listening to it wherein I identified the
> problem with the CD to be its spectral balance. I quickly worked up some
> parameters for a FFT-based transformation that changed the CDs spectral
> balance to be something that was more to my liking, which rendered it
> non-fatiquing.

Ah, you see? Like I said, even you like added distortion at least some
times. Thank you for proving my point.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> Don't know about that, but modern cartridges track
> better, have better stylus profiles,lower moving mass,
> and lower distortion than their predecessors.

I know only of technical measurements that show this to not be true.

If you have reliable evidence that show that there is some cartrdige that
outtracks a V15 IV-V on real world LPs, please provide it.

One of the problems with characterizing the performance of cartriges is that
there are significant sample variations and that optimization of the
mounting of the cartrdige can have signficant effects. Therefore a
definitive study would involve more than one or two tests of each make and
model of cartrige.

> The only
> exception that I know of in the distortion department was
> the Shure V-15 IV. Even by modern standards, it's very
> low.

The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that
there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was
competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that
are competitive and only modestly priced.

It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer
the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce".

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
>>>>> actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.
>>>>
>>>> No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to
>>>> vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA.
>>>
>>> You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at
>>> listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr.
>>> Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from
>>> anything other than digital.

>> Of course I never said that.

> You certainly implied it:

> " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy
> music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog
> recording technology."

> Direct quote.

I stand by what I wrote and I renounce your self-serving misinterpretation
of it.

It is obvious to anybody who does music production these days that digital
signal processing and storage has cut hours, even days out of the production
process. Many projects that would have been too expensive or time consuming
in the days of analog-only are now feasible, even pretty easy. This means
that we can now enjoy music that would have never been produced and
distributed.

You are free to misinterpret what I wrote as you will, but I will not be
silent if you continue to do so in public.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Aug 30, 6:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea
>> that audible noise and distortion can distract from
>> enjoyment of the music and therefore the= y should be
>> avoided whenever possible.

> Or it can make it better.

You're asserting your preferences, you aren't addressing the fundamental
precept. You'd have to change any number of encyclopedias and dictionaries
if you wanted to even *start* changing the idea that "One of the basic
precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion can
distract from enjoyment of the music and therefore they should be avoided
whenever possible."


> It goes both ways.

??????????????

[Andrew Haley]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I
> believe that there were cartridges in those days or slightly later
> whose tracking was competitive with it. I believe that there are
> several modern cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly
> priced.

Really? There isn't much real technical information available for
cartridges these days, but I can't remember seeing anything as good
(distortion, frequency response) as a V15.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html

> It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to
> reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce".

Beryllium cantilever?

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>> The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively
>> ancient. I believe that there were cartridges in those
>> days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive
>> with it. I believe that there are several modern
>> cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced.
>
> Really? There isn't much real technical information
> available for cartridges these days, but I can't remember
> seeing anything as good (distortion, frequency response)
> as a V15.
>
> http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html
>
>> It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to
>> reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its
>> "magic sauce".
>
> Beryllium cantilever?

If materials were all that mattered, diamond might be even better. Thing is,
engineering is about more than materials. For example, do you know about
the vibration absorber *inside* the V15's shank?

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:00:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in
> message
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>> The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively
>>> ancient. I believe that there were cartridges in those
>>> days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive
>>> with it. I believe that there are several modern
>>> cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced.
>>
>> Really? There isn't much real technical information
>> available for cartridges these days, but I can't remember
>> seeing anything as good (distortion, frequency response)
>> as a V15.
>>
>> http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html
>>
>>> It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to
>>> reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its
>>> "magic sauce".
>>
>> Beryllium cantilever?
>
> If materials were all that mattered, diamond might be even better. Thing is,
> engineering is about more than materials. For example, do you know about
> the vibration absorber *inside* the V15's shank?
>

I think Shure was premature in abandoning the V-15. When I think of the
business that companies like Ortofon must be doing with their dozens of
models, I suspect that there is room in the marketplace for the V-15.

[Andrew Haley]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in
> message
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>> The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively
>>> ancient. I believe that there were cartridges in those
>>> days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive
>>> with it. I believe that there are several modern
>>> cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced.
>>
>> Really? There isn't much real technical information
>> available for cartridges these days, but I can't remember
>> seeing anything as good (distortion, frequency response)
>> as a V15.
>>
>> http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html
>>
>>> It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to
>>> reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce".
>>
>> Beryllium cantilever?
>
> If materials were all that mattered, diamond might be even better.

Well yeah, but the machining might be a challenge.

No-one said that materials were all that mattered. You said that it
would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI;
maybe not, because no-one wants to work with beryllium. It may not be
possible to duplicate the V15 without using beryllium, which has some
very nice properties for this application.

> Thing is, engineering is about more than materials. For example, do
> you know about the vibration absorber *inside* the V15's shank?

No, I don't. I'm sure we'd all be interested.

The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells has more
to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual engineering. Even if
you could come up with a very high-performance cartridge at a
reasonable price, would the "high-end" crowd buy it? I suspect they'd
still prefer expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic
wood.

Andrew.

[David[_20_]]

On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something =
else
> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen=
to
> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot=
her
> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost =
all
> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job=
I
> want for my Alfa!
>
> There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
> can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h=
ell,
> I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon=
as
> well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
> experiences?

I noticed the same effect, but I have a different explanation for it.
I thought about it and tried to analyze what is the difference.

I noticed that when I listen CD very often I am much more involved
emotionally in a listening. What I mean that there are more details
available to the ear, because of much lower noise level and (I assume)
higher quality of the recording. And it causes stronger emotional
response to the music. So after listening say Bruckner's symphony I
feel more exhausted then after listening the same piece from LP just
because it was more thrilling experience. So in some sense after
couple hours of intentional listening music from CD I feel exhausted
emotionally and cannot continue.

This is my $0.02 worth about "fatiguing" syndrome.

vlad

[David[_20_]]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:13:39 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Don't know about that, but modern cartridges track
>> better, have better stylus profiles,lower moving mass,
>> and lower distortion than their predecessors.
>
> I know only of technical measurements that show this to not be true.
>
> If you have reliable evidence that show that there is some cartrdige that
> outtracks a V15 IV-V on real world LPs, please provide it.

There aren't any. As I said, the V15 is the exception. However there are
cartridges that have better stylus profiles (or at least different ones) that
ride in a different section of the V-groove and which can track a different
portion of the groove-wall than did the standard 2 X 7 Mil elliptical and
therefore on older, slightly worn records can provide lower distortion, less
surface noise, and better high-frequency response.
>
> One of the problems with characterizing the performance of cartriges is that
> there are significant sample variations and that optimization of the
> mounting of the cartrdige can have signficant effects. Therefore a
> definitive study would involve more than one or two tests of each make and
> model of cartrige.

Quite true. Like with any transducer, there will be unit-to-unit variations.
because cartridges have tiny moving masses, these variations are likely to be
larger than with microphones or speakers.

>> The only
>> exception that I know of in the distortion department was
>> the Shure V-15 IV. Even by modern standards, it's very
>> low.

> The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that
> there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was
> competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that
> are competitive and only modestly priced.

Tracking is fairly well understood these days, and I know that many can match
the V-15 IV-V, I'm not sure that any can beat it however. I usually subject
cartridges to the Torture test track on the Shure test record (as well as the
CBS test record and the Orion test record) and every modern cartridge that
I've tried seems to have no problem there.

> It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer
> the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce".

Judging by the plethora of excellent performing MM. MC, and VR designs on the
market today many do "duplicate the Shure's magic sauce" and do so without
reverse engineering it. Being a transducer, cartridges can be designed to do
specific things that it's designer deems to be critical to HIS tastes in
playback, sometimes at the expense of other things (just like speakers). It
depends upon what the designer's design criteria are. For instance, while the
V-15s had great tracking, exceptionally low distortion, and flat, smooth
frequency response, I always felt that it didn't image very well when
compared to some others.

[David[_20_]]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:14:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
>>>>>> actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to
>>>>> vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA.
>>>>
>>>> You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at
>>>> listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr.
>>>> Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from
>>>> anything other than digital.
>
>>> Of course I never said that.
>
>> You certainly implied it:
>
>> " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy
>> music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog
>> recording technology."
>
>> Direct quote.
>
> I stand by what I wrote and I renounce your self-serving misinterpretation
> of it.

I can only interpret what I read. Seems to me that your statement is pretty
unambiguous. If you meant something else, it's up to you to clarify that
point. None of us are mind readers.

> It is obvious to anybody who does music production these days that digital
> signal processing and storage has cut hours, even days out of the production
> process.

No argument there. But that has little to do with one's ability to enjoy
music.

> Many projects that would have been too expensive or time consuming
> in the days of analog-only are now feasible, even pretty easy. This means
> that we can now enjoy music that would have never been produced and
> distributed.

I agree, and if that's what you meant by your above comment, you should have
been more clear about it. Like I said, I can only respond to your words not
your intentions.

> You are free to misinterpret what I wrote as you will, but I will not be
> silent if you continue to do so in public.

Like I said, I went by ONLY what you wrote. It's simply not my fault if what
you wrote didn't convey what you actually meant. Since we were talking about
vinyl playback in that exchange, I can only assume that you too were talking
about playback. That you were talking about commercial PRODUCTION is not made
clear. But since you have NOW clarified your meaning, I agree with you
wholeheartedly. I have new recordings of classic film soundtracks (and
releases of newly mastered archival material from film company vaults) that
would NEVER have been released were it not for digital and CD. Some
soundtracks that I have were only pressed in lots of 1000 or fewer for the
ENTIRE WORLD. If we only had analog (vinyl) it's likely that these titles
would never have been released, or if they were, they would be so expensive
(amortizing production costs over fewer copies) that most people would be
unable or unwilling to pay the price.

[David[_20_]]

On Sep 1, 9:03=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 6:17=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea
> >> that audible noise and distortion can distract from
> >> enjoyment of the music and therefore the=3D y should be
> >> avoided whenever possible.
> > Or it can make it better.
>
> You're asserting your preferences,

No Arny I used your preferences as stated by you to illustrate my
point. I don't know whay you chose to snip that part of my post.


> you aren't addressing the fundamental
> precept.

Sure I am. I am finding it to be fundamentally flawed and used your
preferences to illustrate that fact.

>=A0You'd have to change any number of encyclopedias and dictionaries
> if you wanted to even *start* changing the idea that =A0"One of the basic
> precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion c=
an
> distract from =A0enjoyment of the music and therefore they should be =A0a=
voided
> whenever possible."

Which "encyclopedias and dictionaries" would that be Arny? Citations
please. I couldn't find that precept in any of the ones I usually go
to.


>
> > It goes both ways.
>
> ??????????????

Go back and reread the part of my post that illustrates that using
your stated preferences. You will find the answer there.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 2, 8:01=A0am, Andrew Haley >
wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > "Andrew Haley" > wrote in
> >
> >> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
> >>> The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively
> >>> ancient. =A0I believe that there were cartridges in those
> >>> days or slightly later whose tracking was competitive
> >>> with it. I believe that there are several modern
> >>> cartrdiges that are competitive and only modestly priced.
>
> >> Really? =A0There isn't much real technical information
> >> available for cartridges these days, but I can't remember
> >> seeing anything as good (distortion, frequency response)
> >> as a V15.
>
> >>http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP4/NewLampsForOld.html
>
> >>> It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to
> >>> reverse-engineer the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce".
>
> >> Beryllium cantilever?
>
> > If materials were all that mattered, diamond might be even better.
>
> Well yeah, but the machining might be a challenge.
>
> No-one said that materials were all that mattered. =A0You said that it
> would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer the V-15 VI;
> maybe not, because no-one wants to work with beryllium. =A0It may not be
> possible to duplicate the V15 without using beryllium, which has some
> very nice properties for this application.
>
> > Thing is, engineering is about more than materials. For example, do
> > you know about the vibration absorber *inside* the V15's shank?
>
> No, I don't. =A0I'm sure we'd all be interested.
>
> The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells has more
> to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual engineering. =A0Even if
> you could come up with a very high-performance cartridge at a
> reasonable price, would the "high-end" crowd buy it? =A0I suspect they'd
> still prefer expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic
> wood.
>

Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what
you are speaking of. It has hand wound coils and and exotic wood body
and was pretty expensive. I do indeed prefer it to the Shure V 15. And
yes the comparisons were done blind and level matched. I prefer it by
a margin that is suprisingly in line with the price difference. Not
something one would expect with the laws of diminishing returns. Do
tell me though, what "witchcraft" are you speaking of? What "snake
oil" are you refering to? What actual engineering is missing from a
Koetsu Rosewood signature? Or perhaps you were speaking of some other
hand wound cartridge with an exotic wood body?

[David[_20_]]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 08:20:23 -0700, David wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
>> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something =
> else
>> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen=
> to
>> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot=
> her
>> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost =
> all
>> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job=
> I
>> want for my Alfa!
>>
>> There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
>> can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h=
> ell,
>> I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
>> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon=
> as
>> well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
>> experiences?
>
> I noticed the same effect, but I have a different explanation for it.
> I thought about it and tried to analyze what is the difference.
>
> I noticed that when I listen CD very often I am much more involved
> emotionally in a listening. What I mean that there are more details
> available to the ear, because of much lower noise level and (I assume)
> higher quality of the recording. And it causes stronger emotional
> response to the music. So after listening say Bruckner's symphony I
> feel more exhausted then after listening the same piece from LP just
> because it was more thrilling experience. So in some sense after
> couple hours of intentional listening music from CD I feel exhausted
> emotionally and cannot continue.
>
> This is my $0.02 worth about "fatiguing" syndrome.
>
> vlad
>

Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live concert for several hours
would be even more fatiguing, yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

[David[_20_]]

"David" > wrote in message


> Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
> concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
> yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
> exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight recording live
music, producing over 40 separately distributed recordings per day. I was
pretty thoroughly fatigued.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Sep 2, 8:01?am, Andrew Haley >
> wrote:
>>
>> The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells has more
>> to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual engineering. Even if
>> you could come up with a very high-performance cartridge at a
>> reasonable price, would the "high-end" crowd buy it? I suspect they'd
>> still prefer expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic
>> wood.
>
> Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what
> you are speaking of.

Let's be clear, I'm not talking about any particular cartridge.

> It has hand wound coils and and exotic wood body and was pretty
> expensive. I do indeed prefer it to the Shure V 15. And yes the
> comparisons were done blind and level matched. I prefer it by a
> margin that is suprisingly in line with the price difference. Not
> something one would expect with the laws of diminishing returns.

So I've heard. I wonder whether people would like it quite so much if
it wasn't expensive, hand-wound, and made from wood. (Rosewood isn't
very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.)
Of course, people *like* the idea of something lovingly made by hand
out of nice materials, and there's nothing wrong with that.

> Do tell me though, what "witchcraft" are you speaking of? What
> "snake oil" are you refering to? What actual engineering is missing
> from a Koetsu Rosewood signature? Or perhaps you were speaking of
> some other hand wound cartridge with an exotic wood body?

I would love to know why people prefer the Koetsu Rosewood signature
sound, if indeed they do. I'm not sure that any public research has
been done to find out.

Andrew.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:13:39 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Don't know about that, but modern cartridges track
>> better, have better stylus profiles,lower moving mass,
>> and lower distortion than their predecessors.
>
> I know only of technical measurements that show this to not be true.
>
> If you have reliable evidence that show that there is some cartrdige that
> outtracks a V15 IV-V on real world LPs, please provide it.

There aren't any. As I said, the V15 is the exception. However there are
cartridges that have better stylus profiles (or at least different ones) that
ride in a different section of the V-groove and which can track a different
portion of the groove-wall than did the standard 2 X 7 Mil elliptical and
therefore on older, slightly worn records can provide lower distortion, less
surface noise, and better high-frequency response.
>
> One of the problems with characterizing the performance of cartriges is that
> there are significant sample variations and that optimization of the
> mounting of the cartrdige can have signficant effects. Therefore a
> definitive study would involve more than one or two tests of each make and
> model of cartrige.

Quite true. Like with any transducer, there will be unit-to-unit variations.
because cartridges have tiny moving masses, these variations are likely to be
larger than with microphones or speakers.

>> The only
>> exception that I know of in the distortion department was
>> the Shure V-15 IV. Even by modern standards, it's very
>> low.

> The V15 IV was introduced in 1978. It is positively ancient. I believe that
> there were cartridges in those days or slightly later whose tracking was
> competitive with it. I believe that there are several modern cartrdiges that
> are competitive and only modestly priced.

Tracking is fairly well understood these days, and I know that many can match
the V-15 IV-V, I'm not sure that any can beat it however. I usually subject
cartridges to the Torture test track on the Shure test record (as well as the
CBS test record and the Orion test record) and every modern cartridge that
I've tried seems to have no problem there.

> It seems like it would be possible for any competitor to reverse-engineer
> the V-15 VI - V and duplicate its "magic sauce".

Judging by the plethora of excellent performing MM. MC, and VR designs on the
market today many do "duplicate the Shure's magic sauce" and do so without
reverse engineering it. Being a transducer, cartridges can be designed to do
specific things that it's designer deems to be critical to HIS tastes in
playback, sometimes at the expense of other things (just like speakers). It
depends upon what the designer's design criteria are. For instance, while the
V-15s had great tracking, exceptionally low distortion, and flat, smooth
frequency response, I always felt that it didn't image very well when
compared to some others.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:14:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:17:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:28:07 -0700, bob wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 29, 4:50=A0pm, Audio Empire
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not hearing acuity, it's attitude; prejudice,
>>>>>> actually. It's the MUSIC, man, not the media.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, if you get more extended pleasure listening to
>>>>> vinyl than to digital, that's the MEDIA.
>>>>
>>>> You misunderstand me. I'm not addressing my pleasure at
>>>> listening to vinyl with that comment, I'm addressing Mr.
>>>> Kruger's comment that he cannot get pleasure from
>>>> anything other than digital.
>
>>> Of course I never said that.
>
>> You certainly implied it:
>
>> " I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy
>> music as we do today were we still hobbled by analog
>> recording technology."
>
>> Direct quote.
>
> I stand by what I wrote and I renounce your self-serving misinterpretation
> of it.

I can only interpret what I read. Seems to me that your statement is pretty
unambiguous. If you meant something else, it's up to you to clarify that
point. None of us are mind readers.

> It is obvious to anybody who does music production these days that digital
> signal processing and storage has cut hours, even days out of the production
> process.

No argument there. But that has little to do with one's ability to enjoy
music.

> Many projects that would have been too expensive or time consuming
> in the days of analog-only are now feasible, even pretty easy. This means
> that we can now enjoy music that would have never been produced and
> distributed.

I agree, and if that's what you meant by your above comment, you should have
been more clear about it. Like I said, I can only respond to your words not
your intentions.

> You are free to misinterpret what I wrote as you will, but I will not be
> silent if you continue to do so in public.

Like I said, I went by ONLY what you wrote. It's simply not my fault if what
you wrote didn't convey what you actually meant. Since we were talking about
vinyl playback in that exchange, I can only assume that you too were talking
about playback. That you were talking about commercial PRODUCTION is not made
clear. But since you have NOW clarified your meaning, I agree with you
wholeheartedly. I have new recordings of classic film soundtracks (and
releases of newly mastered archival material from film company vaults) that
would NEVER have been released were it not for digital and CD. Some
soundtracks that I have were only pressed in lots of 1000 or fewer for the
ENTIRE WORLD. If we only had analog (vinyl) it's likely that these titles
would never have been released, or if they were, they would be so expensive
(amortizing production costs over fewer copies) that most people would be
unable or unwilling to pay the price.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 1, 9:03=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 6:17=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> One of the basic precepts of high fidelity is the idea
> >> that audible noise and distortion can distract from
> >> enjoyment of the music and therefore the=3D y should be
> >> avoided whenever possible.
> > Or it can make it better.
>
> You're asserting your preferences,

No Arny I used your preferences as stated by you to illustrate my
point. I don't know whay you chose to snip that part of my post.

> you aren't addressing the fundamental
> precept.

Sure I am. I am finding it to be fundamentally flawed and used your
preferences to illustrate that fact.

>=A0You'd have to change any number of encyclopedias and dictionaries
> if you wanted to even *start* changing the idea that =A0"One of the basic
> precepts of high fidelity is the idea that audible noise and distortion c=
an
> distract from =A0enjoyment of the music and therefore they should be =A0a=
voided
> whenever possible."

Which "encyclopedias and dictionaries" would that be Arny? Citations
please. I couldn't find that precept in any of the ones I usually go
to.

>
> > It goes both ways.
>
> ??????????????

Go back and reread the part of my post that illustrates that using
your stated preferences. You will find the answer there.

[vlad]

On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something =
else
> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen=
to
> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot=
her
> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost =
all
> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job=
I
> want for my Alfa!
>
> There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
> can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h=
ell,
> I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon=
as
> well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
> experiences?

I noticed the same effect, but I have a different explanation for it.
I thought about it and tried to analyze what is the difference.

I noticed that when I listen CD very often I am much more involved
emotionally in a listening. What I mean that there are more details
available to the ear, because of much lower noise level and (I assume)
higher quality of the recording. And it causes stronger emotional
response to the music. So after listening say Bruckner's symphony I
feel more exhausted then after listening the same piece from LP just
because it was more thrilling experience. So in some sense after
couple hours of intentional listening music from CD I feel exhausted
emotionally and cannot continue.

This is my $0.02 worth about "fatiguing" syndrome.

vlad

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 08:20:23 -0700, David wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 28, 12:41=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
>> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something =
> else
>> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen=
> to
>> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to anot=
> her
>> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost =
> all
>> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job=
> I
>> want for my Alfa!
>>
>> There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
>> can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital, h=
> ell,
>> I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
>> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon=
> as
>> well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
>> experiences?
>
> I noticed the same effect, but I have a different explanation for it.
> I thought about it and tried to analyze what is the difference.
>
> I noticed that when I listen CD very often I am much more involved
> emotionally in a listening. What I mean that there are more details
> available to the ear, because of much lower noise level and (I assume)
> higher quality of the recording. And it causes stronger emotional
> response to the music. So after listening say Bruckner's symphony I
> feel more exhausted then after listening the same piece from LP just
> because it was more thrilling experience. So in some sense after
> couple hours of intentional listening music from CD I feel exhausted
> emotionally and cannot continue.
>
> This is my $0.02 worth about "fatiguing" syndrome.
>
> vlad
>

Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live concert for several hours
would be even more fatiguing, yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

[Arny Krueger]

"David" > wrote in message


> Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
> concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
> yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
> exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.

I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight recording live
music, producing over 40 separately distributed recordings per day. I was
pretty thoroughly fatigued.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 3, 8:23=A0am, Andrew Haley >
wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 8:01?am, Andrew Haley >
> > wrote:
>
> >> The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells has more
> >> to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual engineering. =A0Even i=
f
> >> you could come up with a very high-performance cartridge at a
> >> reasonable price, would the "high-end" crowd buy it? =A0I suspect they=
'd
> >> still prefer expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic
> >> wood.
>
> > Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what
> > you are speaking of.
>
> Let's be clear, I'm not talking about any particular cartridge.

OK. But then what are we to make of your assertion? It's based on
what? A "family" of cartridges? How many cartridges do you think are
hand wound with "exotic wood" bodies.

>
> > It has hand wound coils and and exotic wood body and was pretty
> > expensive. I do indeed prefer it to the Shure V 15. And yes the
> > comparisons were done blind and level matched. I prefer it by a
> > margin that is suprisingly in line with the price difference. Not
> > something one would expect with the laws of diminishing returns.
>
> So I've heard. =A0I wonder whether people would like it quite so much if
> it wasn't expensive, hand-wound, and made from wood.

I can't speak for others but I can say that a win is a win in any
blind shoot out. So far it has won every time.

> =A0(Rosewood isn't
> very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.)

Oh it sure does. The Rosewood for all Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are
all from the same antique rosewood chest of drawers that was over 200
years old. What do you consider to be an exotic wood? every time I
look up exotic woods I see rosewood.
http://www.exoticwoodgroup.com/
http://www.cookwoods.com/LumberPageMain.htm
http://www.woodworkerssource.com/2_latin.html

> Of course, people *like* the idea of something lovingly made by hand
> out of nice materials, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. When I get around to upgrading to the platinum version I think
I will go with the Jade body. Just because it is cool.

>
> > Do tell me though, what "witchcraft" are you speaking of? What
> > "snake oil" are you refering to? What actual engineering is missing
> > from a Koetsu Rosewood signature? =A0Or perhaps you were speaking of
> > some other hand wound cartridge with an exotic wood body?
>
> I would love to know why people prefer the Koetsu Rosewood signature
> sound, if indeed they do. =A0I'm not sure that any public research has
> been done to find out.
>

For me it simply sounds better over a broader number of LPs than any
other cartridge I have compared it with except for it's platinum big
brothers. In what ways might you ask? On the really good recordings it
simply sounds more like the real thing. On bad recordings things just
sound less bad. It gives the illusion of being very transparent yet it
clearly adds a nice sugar coating. With the Shure in in particular,
compared to the Koetsu the Shure sounds very lifeless, has a smaller
soundstage, sounds vieled, does not do as well in creating an illusion
of live music. The Koetsu sounds richer, warmer, more detailed yet not
quite as bright.

I think "public research" in preferences is pretty lacking in audio.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "David" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
>> concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
>> yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
>> exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.
>
> I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight recording live
> music, producing over 40 separately distributed recordings per day. I was
> pretty thoroughly fatigued.
>

14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting - especially WORK. I don't
see what the above comment has to do with this conversation. We're talking
about listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work days and high
stress levels.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "David" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
>>> concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
>>> yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
>>> exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.
>>
>> I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
>> recording live music, producing over 40 separately
>> distributed recordings per day. I was pretty thoroughly
>> fatigued.

> 14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
> especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
> to do with this conversation. We're talking about
> listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
> days and high stress levels.

The point is that there's no magic in live music. It gets old after a
little while, too.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 09:35:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "David" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
>>>> concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
>>>> yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
>>>> exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.
>>>
>>> I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
>>> recording live music, producing over 40 separately
>>> distributed recordings per day. I was pretty thoroughly
>>> fatigued.
>
>> 14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
>> especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
>> to do with this conversation. We're talking about
>> listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
>> days and high stress levels.
>
> The point is that there's no magic in live music. It gets old after a
> little while, too.

It's a poor example of that fact. Like I said, 14 hours/day of doing anything
would be exhausting. I love to drive fast, but after a few hours at Laguna
Seca race track, I'm exhausted! Anyone would be. Just because one "loves"
some activity, doesn't mean that it can't or doesn't get tiresome, after a
while. Especially, if what your doing requires concentration.

1) I've never heard of anybody listening attentively to music, for pleasure,
for 14-hours straight. In the background, while doing other things, maybe,
but not actually listening.

2) You weren't just "listening," you were working. Complete with all the
stress normally associated with 14-hour work days.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
> > On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> > (in article >):
> >
> >> "David" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
> >>> concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
> >>> yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
> >>> exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.
> >>
> >> I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
> >> recording live music, producing over 40 separately
> >> distributed recordings per day. I was pretty thoroughly
> >> fatigued.
>
> > 14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
> > especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
> > to do with this conversation. We're talking about
> > listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
> > days and high stress levels.
>
> The point is that there's no magic in live music. It gets old after a
> little while, too.

Under extreme conditions, of course it does.

By the way, 14 hours a day for several days straight... is the ONE
festival? If so, they are abusing you, as well as the judges!

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 09:35:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "David" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
>>>>> concert for several hours would be even more
>>>>> fatiguing, yet I never feel fatigued by live music,
>>>>> just exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've
>>>>> heard.
>>>>
>>>> I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days
>>>> straight recording live music, producing over 40
>>>> separately distributed recordings per day. I was
>>>> pretty thoroughly fatigued.
>>
>>> 14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
>>> especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
>>> to do with this conversation. We're talking about
>>> listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
>>> days and high stress levels.
>>
>> The point is that there's no magic in live music. It
>> gets old after a little while, too.
>
> It's a poor example of that fact. Like I said, 14
> hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting.

Probably the first 3 or 4 hours of the first day, and an hour of the
succeeding days are interesting.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 4, 9:35=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> > (in article >):
>
> >> "David" > wrote in message
>
>
> >>> Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
> >>> concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
> >>> yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
> >>> exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.
>
> >> I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
> >> recording live music, producing over 40 separately
> >> distributed recordings per day. =A0I was pretty thoroughly
> >> fatigued.
> > 14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
> > especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
> > to do with this conversation. =A0We're talking about
> > listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
> > days and high stress levels.
>
> The point is that there's no magic in live music. =A0It gets old after a
> little while, too

I was at the Santa Fe Chamber music festival weekend before last. I
saw three nights of performances. Each one about an hour and a half.
The coolest thing about this festival is the open rehersals. I saw
about three hours of rehersals each day. Got to see my new co-favorite
painist Yuja Wang perform twice and reherse twice. Also got to meet
and shoot the breeze with all the musicians. It may not be magic in
the literal sense but figuratively speaking it was quite magical. It
sure didn't "get old after a little while." Listener fatigue was
never an issue. I'm no expert but I think Yuja Wang may be the most
talented pianist ever. She is a pretty cool kid to boot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8alxBofd_eQ

Maybe it does get old after a while. I suppose just about everything
does. But that would be a loooooooooooong while with music and
musicians like this.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 8:23?am, Andrew Haley >
> wrote:
>> Scott > wrote:
>> > On Sep 2, 8:01?am, Andrew Haley >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells
>> >> has more to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual
>> >> engineering. Even if you could come up with a very
>> >> high-performance cartridge at a reasonable price, would the
>> >> "high-end" crowd buy it? I suspect they'd still prefer
>> >> expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic wood.
>>
>> > Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what
>> > you are speaking of.
>>
>> Let's be clear, I'm not talking about any particular cartridge.
>
> OK. But then what are we to make of your assertion? It's based on
> what?

It's based on the way high-end cartridges are marketed and talked
about. Maybe no-one cares about the exotic materials and loving care
that goes into making these things, but if they don't they sure do
talk about it a lot.

>> (Rosewood isn't
>> very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.)
>
> Oh it sure does. The Rosewood for all Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are
> all from the same antique rosewood chest of drawers that was over 200
> years old.

LOL! That's wonderful! Maybe next they'll cut up a Stradivarius and
use that. There are supposedly a few that are unplayable, so why
not...

>> Of course, people *like* the idea of something lovingly made by hand
>> out of nice materials, and there's nothing wrong with that.
>
> Agreed. When I get around to upgrading to the platinum version I think
> I will go with the Jade body. Just because it is cool.

Well, quite. Not much to do with engineering, but totally cool.

> For me it simply sounds better over a broader number of LPs than any
> other cartridge I have compared it with except for it's platinum big
> brothers. In what ways might you ask? On the really good recordings
> it simply sounds more like the real thing. On bad recordings things
> just sound less bad. It gives the illusion of being very transparent
> yet it clearly adds a nice sugar coating. With the Shure in in
> particular, compared to the Koetsu the Shure sounds very lifeless,
> has a smaller soundstage, sounds vieled, does not do as well in
> creating an illusion of live music. The Koetsu sounds richer,
> warmer, more detailed yet not quite as bright.

OK, but I still wonder if, even if some manufacturer managed to
duplicate the doubtless lovely sound of one of these things at lower
cost, it would sell without the cachet of the high-end materials.

> I think "public research" in preferences is pretty lacking in audio.

It certainly is. Imagine that someone made a circuit that would
duplicate the sound of one of these cartridges, at least to the extent
that no-one could distinguish it in a blind test. That's not entirely
infeasible, given what can be done with DSP. It might be a tremendous
cost saving. It would also go some way towards explaining why certain
cartridges are so well thought of. It might even provide some
information about what makes a recording sound like the "real thing".
Even if they tried and failed to duplicate the sound, that would still
be an interesting result. But maybe the high-end cartridge industry
is perfectly happy with things as they stand.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 5, 2:58=A0pm, Andrew Haley >
wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 8:23?am, Andrew Haley >
> > wrote:
> >> Scott > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 2, 8:01?am, Andrew Haley >
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> The problem with phono cartridges seems to be that what sells
> >> >> has more to do with witchcraft and snake oil than actual
> >> >> engineering. =A0Even if you could come up with a very
> >> >> high-performance cartridge at a reasonable price, would the
> >> >> "high-end" crowd buy it? =A0I suspect they'd still prefer
> >> >> expensive hand-wound moving coils made of some exotic wood.
>
> >> > Really? I suspect that my Koetsu Rosewood signature is exactly what
> >> > you are speaking of.
>
> >> Let's be clear, I'm not talking about any particular cartridge.
>
> > OK. But then what are we to make of your assertion? It's based on
> > what?
>
> It's based on the way high-end cartridges are marketed and talked
> about. =A0Maybe no-one cares about the exotic materials and loving care
> that goes into making these things, but if they don't they sure do
> talk about it a lot.

Well it's marketing. Marketing hype is nothing new or unique to high
end cartridges. I still don't see the alleged snake oil or
witchcraft.

>
> >> =A0(Rosewood isn't
> >> very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.)
>
> > Oh it sure does. The Rosewood for all Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are
> > all from the same antique rosewood chest of drawers that was over 200
> > years old.
>
> LOL! =A0That's wonderful! =A0Maybe next they'll cut up a Stradivarius and
> use that. =A0There are supposedly a few that are unplayable, so why
> not...

let's hope not. The idea, as I heard it, was that the aged wood would
be more stable. I don't know how true that is. I know that it's a good
idea to age wood for stability. I guess this was as close to a sure
thing as Y Sugano could get.

>
> >> Of course, people *like* the idea of something lovingly made by hand
> >> out of nice materials, and there's nothing wrong with that.
>
> > Agreed. When I get around to upgrading to the platinum version I think
> > I will go with the Jade body. Just because it is cool.
>
> Well, quite. =A0Not much to do with engineering, but totally cool.

And note that no one from Koetsu says otherwise.

>
> > For me it simply sounds better over a broader number of LPs than any
> > other cartridge I have compared it with except for it's platinum big
> > brothers. In what ways might you ask? On the really good recordings
> > it simply sounds more like the real thing. On bad recordings things
> > just sound less bad. It gives the illusion of being very transparent
> > yet it clearly adds a nice sugar coating. With the Shure in in
> > particular, compared to the Koetsu the Shure sounds very lifeless,
> > has a smaller soundstage, sounds vieled, does not do as well in
> > creating an illusion of live music. The Koetsu sounds richer,
> > warmer, more detailed yet not quite as bright.
>
> OK, but I still wonder if, even if some manufacturer managed to
> duplicate the doubtless lovely sound of one of these things at lower
> cost, it would sell without the cachet of the high-end materials.

The entry level Koetsu Black is less costly, has none of the exotic
materials (relatively speaking, they may be exotic compared to that of
a Shure V15) and does capture a good deal of that sound. I think it
is Koetsu's top selling cartridge. A lot of cartridges are marketed as
such.

>
> > I think "public research" in preferences is pretty lacking in audio.
>
> It certainly is. =A0Imagine that someone made a circuit that would
> duplicate the sound of one of these cartridges, at least to the extent
> that no-one could distinguish it in a blind test. =A0That's not entirely
> infeasible, given what can be done with DSP. =A0It might be a tremendous
> cost saving.

I'm all for it.

>=A0It would also go some way towards explaining why certain
> cartridges are so well thought of. =A0It might even provide some
> information about what makes a recording sound like the "real thing".
> Even if they tried and failed to duplicate the sound, that would still
> be an interesting result. =A0But maybe the high-end cartridge industry
> is perfectly happy with things as they stand.
>

Well I'm not sure what the motivation would be to "duplicate" that
which one has already achieved with their product by other means. I
would think this would be a project for someone who works in digital.
I think R&D is still an on going thing with cartridge manufacturers.
Ironically Y Sugao of all people was a notorious measurement and
corolation freak. Fans may like to talk about the mystique of a
product like a Koetsu but that doesn't mean it wasn't built on solid
engineering principles and careful R&D. The folks at Koetsu talk about
the magnets, the suspesion material, the stylus shape, the canteliver
material and the wire used for the coils. They don't talk all that
much about the exotic wood or magic. This is from their SE Asia
distributor
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~angmelvin/Range.html

I'm guessing what bugs you is this kind of ad copy
http://store.acousticsounds.com//s/90/Koetsu_Cartridges

"Koetsu owners decorate their homes with originals, not prints. They
smoke Cubans rather than Swisher Sweets. They drink single malt. They
favor vinyl to CDs, and their systems sound better than their
buddies'. Koetsu owners require the best. And they know the
difference."

No snaikeoil but a lot of tude. Who cares? I don't smoke cigars,
drink any liquor and I have far more LE prints than originals. I think
the ad copy is actually kind of funny. I'm pretty sure that was the
intent.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:39:28 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 4, 9:35=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:56:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>
>>>> "David" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Were that the case, I'd think that attending a live
>>>>> concert for several hours would be even more fatiguing,
>>>>> yet I never feel fatigued by live music, just
>>>>> exhilarated, uplifted, and enthused by what I've heard.
>>
>>>> I've spent over 14 hours a day for several days straight
>>>> recording live music, producing over 40 separately
>>>> distributed recordings per day. =A0I was pretty thoroughly
>>>> fatigued.
>>> 14 hours/day of doing anything would be exhausting -
>>> especially WORK. I don't see what the above comment has
>>> to do with this conversation. =A0We're talking about
>>> listening fatigue, not exhaustion caused by long work
>>> days and high stress levels.
>>
>> The point is that there's no magic in live music. =A0It gets old after a
>> little while, too
>
> I was at the Santa Fe Chamber music festival weekend before last. I
> saw three nights of performances. Each one about an hour and a half.
> The coolest thing about this festival is the open rehersals. I saw
> about three hours of rehersals each day. Got to see my new co-favorite
> painist Yuja Wang perform twice and reherse twice. Also got to meet
> and shoot the breeze with all the musicians. It may not be magic in
> the literal sense but figuratively speaking it was quite magical. It
> sure didn't "get old after a little while." Listener fatigue was
> never an issue. I'm no expert but I think Yuja Wang may be the most
> talented pianist ever. She is a pretty cool kid to boot.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8alxBofd_eQ
>
> Maybe it does get old after a while. I suppose just about everything
> does. But that would be a loooooooooooong while with music and
> musicians like this.
>

The point is that Mr. Kruger (who's opinions I respect, even if I don't
always agree with them) was WORKING 14 hour days, not MERELY listening and he
was complaining about being fatigued. My response was, essentially, who
wouldn't be?

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2:58pm, Andrew Haley >
> wrote:
>> Scott > wrote:
>> > On Sep 3, 8:23am, Andrew Haley >
>> > wrote:
>> It certainly is. Imagine that someone made a circuit that would
>> duplicate the sound of one of these cartridges, at least to the extent
>> that no-one could distinguish it in a blind test. That's not entirely
>> infeasible, given what can be done with DSP. It might be a tremendous
>> cost saving.
>
> I'm all for it.
>
>> It would also go some way towards explaining why certain
>> cartridges are so well thought of. It might even provide some
>> information about what makes a recording sound like the "real thing".
>> Even if they tried and failed to duplicate the sound, that would still
>> be an interesting result. But maybe the high-end cartridge industry
>> is perfectly happy with things as they stand.
>
> Well I'm not sure what the motivation would be to "duplicate" that
> which one has already achieved with their product by other means.

Cost, surely. Granted, that many not be much of a motivation for a
company that already specializes in making expensive things for well-
heeled customers.

> I'm guessing what bugs you is this kind of ad copy
> http://store.acousticsounds.com//s/90/Koetsu_Cartridges
>
> "Koetsu owners decorate their homes with originals, not prints. They
> smoke Cubans rather than Swisher Sweets. They drink single
> malt. They favor vinyl to CDs, and their systems sound better than
> their buddies'. Koetsu owners require the best. And they know the
> difference."

It doesn't bug me at all, but it is very amusing.

Stuff like this, though, does: "Sugano was one of the first to use
4-nines copper, and current Koetsu production uses 6-nines copper."
Now, does 6-nines copper matter in this context? The marketroids
don't say, but want you to think it's important.

> No snaikeoil but a lot of tude. Who cares? I don't smoke cigars,
> drink any liquor and I have far more LE prints than originals. I
> think the ad copy is actually kind of funny. I'm pretty sure that
> was the intent.

Maybe. On the other hand, maybe what you call "'tude" I'd call "snake
oil"!

Andrew.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
> >> The point is that there's no magic in live music. It
> >> gets old after a little while, too.
> >
> > Under extreme conditions, of course it does.
> >
> > By the way, 14 hours a day for several days straight...
> > is the ONE festival? If so, they are abusing you, as
> > well as the judges!
>
> The judges get don't judge the whole festival stright through. They rotate
> through other positions. They take time slots and even whole days off.

Yes, I do that same sort of scene. You should get the same deal.

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

Scott > wrote:
: OK. But then what are we to make of your assertion? It's based on
: what? A "family" of cartridges? How many cartridges do you think are
: hand wound with "exotic wood" bodies.

:>
:> > It has hand wound coils and and exotic wood body and was pretty
:> > expensive.
:> =A0(Rosewood isn't
:> very exotic, so this cartridge doesn't quite match my description.)

: Oh it sure does. The Rosewood for all Koetsu Rosewood cartridges are
: all from the same antique rosewood chest of drawers that was over 200
: years old. What do you consider to be an exotic wood? every time I
: look up exotic woods I see rosewood.
: http://www.exoticwoodgroup.com/
: http://www.cookwoods.com/LumberPageMain.htm
: http://www.woodworkerssource.com/2_latin.html

Some clarification is in order. (I'm a woodworker). A lot of woods are=20
commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine, beech, cherry, birch, etc. Prett=
y=20
much any wood that isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic. =20
Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood) fall into that=20
class. Some rosewoods (particularly Indian Rosewood) are commercially=20
plnted and harvested.

But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be particularly=20
suited to musical reproduction (it's dense, but not as dense as a number=20
of other woods; it's also got wild grain, which means inconsistent=20
density), nor that it should justify the cost of=20
a $5000 cartridge. Rosewood is expensive, but the amount of wood in a=20
cartridge is something like 1-2 cubic inches maximum (I estimate, correct=
=20
me if I'm wrong). Even if you pick high-end rosewood that sells for $25-6=
0=20
a board foot (=3D 144 cubic inches), we're talking about less than a=20
dollar's worth of rosewood.

-- Andy Barss

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 8, 9:00=A0am, Andrew Barss > wrote:

>
> Some clarification is in order. =A0(I'm a woodworker). =A0A lot of woods =
are
> commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine, beech, cherry, birch, etc. =A0Pre=
tty
> much any wood that isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic. =A0
> Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood) fall into that
> class. =A0Some rosewoods (particularly Indian Rosewood) are commercially
> plnted and harvested.
>
> But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be particularly
> suited to musical reproduction (it's dense, but not as dense as a number
> of other woods; it's also got wild grain, which means inconsistent
> density),

No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a body.


> nor that it should justify the cost of
> a $5000 cartridge. =A0Rosewood is expensive, but the amount of wood in a
> cartridge is something like 1-2 cubic inches maximum (I estimate, correct
> me if I'm wrong). Even if you pick high-end rosewood that sells for $25-6=
0
> a board foot (=3D 144 cubic inches), we're talking about less than a
> dollar's worth of rosewood.
>

I'm sure more money goes into the wood working itself of a Koetsu
Rosewood body than the wood itself. But you aren't just paying for a
body when you buy a Koetsu.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 19:38:36 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 8, 9:00=A0am, Andrew Barss > wrote:
>
>>
>> Some clarification is in order. =A0(I'm a woodworker). =A0A lot of woods =
> are
>> commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine, beech, cherry, birch, etc. =A0Pre=
> tty
>> much any wood that isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic. =A0
>> Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood) fall into that
>> class. =A0Some rosewoods (particularly Indian Rosewood) are commercially
>> plnted and harvested.
>>
>> But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be particularly
>> suited to musical reproduction (it's dense, but not as dense as a number
>> of other woods; it's also got wild grain, which means inconsistent
>> density),
>
> No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a body.
>
>
>> nor that it should justify the cost of
>> a $5000 cartridge. =A0Rosewood is expensive, but the amount of wood in a
>> cartridge is something like 1-2 cubic inches maximum (I estimate, correct
>> me if I'm wrong). Even if you pick high-end rosewood that sells for $25-6=
> 0
>> a board foot (=3D 144 cubic inches), we're talking about less than a
>> dollar's worth of rosewood.
>>
>
> I'm sure more money goes into the wood working itself of a Koetsu
> Rosewood body than the wood itself. But you aren't just paying for a
> body when you buy a Koetsu.
>

The wood body on some cartridges is mere "lily gilding" . It is mostly
cosmetic. While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for woods and
exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and onyx as being somehow
beneficial to performance, the fact is that most people just think that they
look good. As far as performance is concerned, many of the better cartridges
seem to eschew cartridge bodies altogether.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Sep 8, 9:00 am, Andrew Barss
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Some clarification is in order. (I'm a woodworker). A
>> lot of woods are commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine,
>> beech, cherry, birch, etc. Pretty much any wood that
>> isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic.
>> Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood)
>> fall into that class. Some rosewoods (particularly
>> Indian Rosewood) are commercially plnted and harvested.
>>
>> But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be
>> particularly suited to musical reproduction (it's dense,
>> but not as dense as a number of other woods; it's also
>> got wild grain, which means inconsistent density),
>
> No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a
> body.

The Koetsu web site makes exactly that claim:

http://koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products.htm

"Koetsu materials go through the most rigorous testings for purity and
musical quality. Its legendary hand wound coils and meticulously carved
stone and wood bodies, transcend the boundaries of art and science."

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 9/5/2010 7:03 PM, Scott wrote:

> No snaikeoil but a lot of tude. Who cares? I don't smoke cigars,
> drink any liquor and I have far more LE prints than originals. I think
> the ad copy is actually kind of funny. I'm pretty sure that was the
> intent.

I don't collect LPs, nor CDs. I do collect music for reproduction.

But I do collect collectibles. Mine are all originals, and are
by only one artist, the greatest artist the world, or ever will know. Some are
older than others. The price of the ones I own varies between
that of a cup of coffee (in 1970) and that of a nice midrange car.

What are they?

Answer: mineral specimens.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 9/6/2010 10:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:

> It doesn't bug me at all, but it is very amusing.
>
> Stuff like this, though, does: "Sugano was one of the first to use
> 4-nines copper, and current Koetsu production uses 6-nines copper."
> Now, does 6-nines copper matter in this context? The marketroids
> don't say, but want you to think it's important.
>
>

Well, no, it does not matter. The difference is that the more
nines, the better the electrical and thermal properties. These
don't really matter for a cartridge.

But they do matter for such things as tube-amp output transformers
and speaker voice coils. The would matter for speaker cables, except
that its just as good for cables to simply use bigger wires.


Doug McDonald

[C. Leeds]

Audio Empire wrote:
> While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for woods and
> exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and onyx as being somehow
> beneficial to performance, the fact is that most people just think that they
> look good.

Please tell us how you've established this supposed "fact" to be true.

[C. Leeds]

Doug McDonald wrote:

> I don't collect LPs, nor CDs. I do collect music for reproduction.


What is it exactly that you collect? Cassettes? MP3s? Sheet music?

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:01:37 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for woods and
>> exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and onyx as being somehow
>> beneficial to performance, the fact is that most people just think that
>> they
>> look good.
>
> Please tell us how you've established this supposed "fact" to be true.
>

Because of the masses involved. It's pretty simple physics.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 9, 9:40=A0am, Doug McDonald > wrote:
> On 9/6/2010 10:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> > It doesn't bug me at all, but it is very amusing.
>
> > Stuff like this, though, does: "Sugano was one of the first to use
> > 4-nines copper, and current Koetsu production uses 6-nines copper."
> > Now, does 6-nines copper matter in this context? =A0The marketroids
> > don't say, but want you to think it's important.
>
> Well, no, it does not matter. The difference is that the more
> nines, the better the electrical and thermal properties. These
> don't really matter for a cartridge.
>
> But they do matter for such things as tube-amp output transformers
> and speaker voice coils. The would matter for speaker cables, except
> that its just as good for cables to simply use bigger wires.
>

Electrical properties do not matter for a cartridge?
Color me skeptical of this assertion.

[Andrew Barss]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
: "Scott" > wrote in message
:> On Sep 8, 9:00 am, Andrew Barss
:>>
:>> But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be
:>> particularly suited to musical reproduction (it's dense,
:>> but not as dense as a number of other woods; it's also
:>> got wild grain, which means inconsistent density),
:>
:> No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a
:> body.

: The Koetsu web site makes exactly that claim:

: http://koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products.htm

: "Koetsu materials go through the most rigorous testings for purity and
: musical quality. Its legendary hand wound coils and meticulously carved
: stone and wood bodies, transcend the boundaries of art and science."

They sure are pretty.

But "purity"? Not very hard to demonstrate that a piece of rosewood is
pure rosewood!

And several of the materials (coralstone, the woods, rhodondite) are not
going to be internally uniform -- the example of "coralstone" (whatever
that is) contains a piece of a fossilized shell. And I have no idea
what the standard for musical purity in coralstone/rosewood/jade, for
example, would be -- resonance? Lack thereof?

But, they're very pretty. Of course, for a tenth the price you could get
an entire jewelry box made of any of those materials, "meticulously
carved", and more visible from across the room.

-- Andy Barss

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 9, 9:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 9:00 am, Andrew Barss
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Some clarification is in order. (I'm a woodworker). A
> >> lot of woods are commercially grown -- oak, maple, pine,
> >> beech, cherry, birch, etc. Pretty much any wood that
> >> isn't commercially farmed is classified as exotic.
> >> Rosewood (and there are dozens of species of rosewood)
> >> fall into that class. Some rosewoods (particularly
> >> Indian Rosewood) are commercially plnted and harvested.
>
> >> But there's no particular reason that rosewood should be
> >> particularly suited to musical reproduction (it's dense,
> >> but not as dense as a number of other woods; it's also
> >> got wild grain, which means inconsistent density),
>
> > No such claims have been made by Koetsu. It is merely a
> > body.
>
> The Koetsu web site makes exactly that claim:
>
> http://koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products.htm
>
> "Koetsu materials go through the most rigorous testings for purity and
> musical quality. Its legendary hand wound coils and meticulously carved
> stone and wood bodies, transcend the boundaries of art and science."

Well not "exactly." Words, language etc. This seems to be a
translation from something. Here is another version from a different
source
"All materials must pass a stringent test for purity and musicality.
When combined with the art of hand-wound coils, innovative
construction techniques, and the centuries-old tradition of hand
craftsmanship in the arts of woodworking and painting, all become one
to create his masterpiece: the Koetsu Cartridge."
http://www.tweakshop.com/Koetsu.html

"Ultra-pure iron square plate formers were sourced for their most
predictable magnetic characteristics and lowest oxidation. Pre-aged to
the perfect consistency, rubber suspension parts are sourced under
license with a rubber damper manufacturer. Special magnetic materials,
including Alnico have been featured. Today, samarium-coblalt is used
with platinum magnets reserved for the flagship models. Japanese
craftsmen carve the rosewood bodies, lacquer coat the Urushi bodies,
or cut stone for the onyx Platinum. Styli are specially designed and
precision ground for Koetsu.

Koetsu materials go through the most rigorous testings for purity and
musical quality. Its legendary hand wound coils and meticulously
carved stone and wood bodies, transcend the boundaries of art and
science."
http://www.musicloversaudio.com/products/manufacturer.php/koetsu/

I think what is being missed here and understandably so is that there
are two things about Koetsu being squashed into limited ad copy. The
bodies are little works of art. Beutifully hand crafted gems. The
inside is where the engineering is. No doubt second and third parties
will say all kinds of things in their marketing. But this doesn't come
from Koetsu. From everything I have read of Koetsu and Y Sugano
himslef the idea was to offer the best performance AND eye candy. No
different than what you get from Lamborghini.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 21:08:52 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 9, 9:40=A0am, Doug McDonald > wrote:
>> On 9/6/2010 10:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't bug me at all, but it is very amusing.
>>
>>> Stuff like this, though, does: "Sugano was one of the first to use
>>> 4-nines copper, and current Koetsu production uses 6-nines copper."
>>> Now, does 6-nines copper matter in this context? =A0The marketroids
>>> don't say, but want you to think it's important.
>>
>> Well, no, it does not matter. The difference is that the more
>> nines, the better the electrical and thermal properties. These
>> don't really matter for a cartridge.
>>
>> But they do matter for such things as tube-amp output transformers
>> and speaker voice coils. The would matter for speaker cables, except
>> that its just as good for cables to simply use bigger wires.
>>
>
> Electrical properties do not matter for a cartridge?
> Color me skeptical of this assertion.

He's right, he just didn't express it well enough. The differences between
4-nines copper and 6-nines copper in the few turns that make-up the coil of
an MC cartridge is likely of no consequence. It won't make the coils lighter,
it won't increase the voltage output any. The resistance difference between
99.99% and 99.9999% pure copper is so miniscule that it would likely take
hundreds of feet of the stuff to even be able to measure it AT ALL.

[C. Leeds]

Audio Empire wrote:

>>> While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for woods and
>>> exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and onyx as being somehow
>>> beneficial to performance, the fact is that most people just think that
>>> they
>>> look good.

I asked:
>> Please tell us how you've established this supposed "fact" to be true.

Audio Empire answers (in full):

> Because of the masses involved. It's pretty simple physics.

I don't think you can use physics to support your claim that it's a
"fact" that "most people' think these materials just look good.

I don't think your "fact" withstands scrutiny. How do you know what
"most people" think? Please tell us.

[Dennman6[_2_]]

On Aug 29, 10:26=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> Three =A0things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that=
most
> of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live
> events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the
> process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly
> finished. =A0Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental
> attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily
> listen to recordings that were made in the past few years. The third prob=
lem
> is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly
> audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me.

> I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today
> were we still hobbled by analog recording technology.

This last sentence strikes a valid point on listening to records as a
means of "getting the music" vs. CDs. Last January while moving my
brother from Winston-Salem to Indianapolis we stopped at a friend's
house in Virginia to pick up a 1926 Victor Credenza Orthophonic
Victrola-top of the line record player in that year. Noticeable hints
at bass and treble, and LOTS of midrange! After getting the
reproducer rebuilt & settling in to listen to much classical music &
dance band 78s of the 1920s, I found it less tedious to listen to the
pop tunes. Why? Because of getting up every 4 minutes to turn over a
classical 78 to continue the experience. A dance record is done after
the 3 or 4 minutes-not so with a concerto, symphonic, or overture in
the classics.

I love using the Credenza and having that vintage musical experience a
few times a week, but Arny is spot on as regards the difficulties
music lovers went through to satisfy their cravings. Even Lps "break
the mood" for long-form works after the usual 22-28 minutes of "hi fi"
per side. Even the venerable CD format shows us to be fortunate in our
current audio age, compared to dear old Grandad and his Victrola.

Dennis Forkel

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:01:37 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>> While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for
>>> woods and
>>> exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and
>>> onyx as being somehow beneficial to performance, the
>>> fact is that most people just think that they
>>> look good.
>>
>> Please tell us how you've established this supposed
>> "fact" to be true.

> Because of the masses involved. It's pretty simple
> physics.

Only true if use of exotic materials was the only way to obtain the given
mass, and only if obtaining that particular mass was required for the best
possible performance.

Fact of the matter is that case mass is relatively non-critical, and that
lower mass could be obtained with less expensive materials.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:49:55 -0700, Dennman6 wrote
(in article >):

> On Aug 29, 10:26=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>> Three =A0things compel me to avoid listening to vinyl. One is simply that=
> most
>> of my music listening is related to recordings that I produce of live
>> events. Producing recordings presumes a lot of listening through the
>> process, and for evaluation purposes when the recording is supposedly
>> finished. =A0Another problem for vinyl is that other than a sentimental
>> attachment to recordings that I enjoyed when I was younger, I primarily
>> listen to recordings that were made in the past few years. The third prob=
> lem
>> is that I have enough of my hearing acuity remaining that the clearly
>> audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl bothers me.
>
>> I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy music as we do today
>> were we still hobbled by analog recording technology.
>
> This last sentence strikes a valid point on listening to records as a
> means of "getting the music" vs. CDs. Last January while moving my
> brother from Winston-Salem to Indianapolis we stopped at a friend's
> house in Virginia to pick up a 1926 Victor Credenza Orthophonic
> Victrola-top of the line record player in that year. Noticeable hints
> at bass and treble, and LOTS of midrange! After getting the
> reproducer rebuilt & settling in to listen to much classical music &
> dance band 78s of the 1920s, I found it less tedious to listen to the
> pop tunes. Why? Because of getting up every 4 minutes to turn over a
> classical 78 to continue the experience. A dance record is done after
> the 3 or 4 minutes-not so with a concerto, symphonic, or overture in
> the classics.

I remember a cartoon by the renown cartoonist Rodriguiz in High-Fidelty
Magazine back in the 1960's. It showed what was obviously supposed to be a
radio announcer sitting at his broadcast console, speaking into the
microphone hanging before him, with a pair of headphones on his head and a
pair of turntables flanking him. The caption read, "And now for a real treat,
the 1938 Bayreuth Festival recording of Wagner's "Die Gotterdamerung" on the
original 78's". In the background was a fork-lift truck being driven through
the studio door by an assistant with a palette stacked high with scores of
records. Yes, classical 78 albums, usually on 12" discs, were heavy and some
that I own have as many as 7 records (14-sides) in them. They had to be
changed every 4-5 minutes. That's why record changers became so popular
during 78 days.

> I love using the Credenza and having that vintage musical experience a
> few times a week, but Arny is spot on as regards the difficulties
> music lovers went through to satisfy their cravings. Even Lps "break
> the mood" for long-form works after the usual 22-28 minutes of "hi fi"
> per side. Even the venerable CD format shows us to be fortunate in our
> current audio age, compared to dear old Grandad and his Victrola.

I don't mind flipping an LP once, but yes, something like a Wagnerian opera
on four or five LPs did become tedious. Sometimes though, it was worth it.

> Dennis Forkel

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:21:52 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:01:37 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>>> While some manufacturers have tried to make a case for
>>>> woods and
>>>> exotic minerals such as lapis lazuli or even jade and
>>>> onyx as being somehow beneficial to performance, the
>>>> fact is that most people just think that they
>>>> look good.
>>>
>>> Please tell us how you've established this supposed
>>> "fact" to be true.
>
>> Because of the masses involved. It's pretty simple
>> physics.
>
> Only true if use of exotic materials was the only way to obtain the given
> mass, and only if obtaining that particular mass was required for the best
> possible performance.

But it isn't, is it? And in fact, increasing mass MIGHT not even be desirable
at all.

> Fact of the matter is that case mass is relatively non-critical, and that
> lower mass could be obtained with less expensive materials.

Championing the obvious again, I see. 8^)

[David[_21_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something
> else
> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
> to
> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
> another
> and then another.

Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listened to a
LOT less music.

D

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:45 -0700, David wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
>> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something
>> else
>> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
>> to
>> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
>> another
>> and then another.
>
> Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
> turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listened to a
> LOT less music.
>
> D

This seems to me to be a common experience among vinyl listeners.

Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete, wrought with
unlistenable distortions and background noise and severely limited in dynamic
range would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs?
Obviously, while many insist that CDs are capable of being damn nigh to
perfect, others suffer (and rather quickly too) from listening fatigue with
CDs that they DON'T get when they listen to LPs.

I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by them saying that CD
presents so much more musical detail than LP that the brain has to work
harder to hear it all. I say rubbish to that argument. If the mechanism at
work here were the amount of detail and clarity of presentation afforded by
CD, then a half hour's worth of live music at a concert would cause the
audience to get up and leave due to listening fatigue brought on by excessive
exposure to the musical detail and lack of distortion engendered by listening
to the REAL THING unencumbered as it is by the imperfect technology of the
recording and playback process.

Nonsense!

[vlad]

On Sep 14, 7:43=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:45 -0700, David wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
> > "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
> >> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do somethi=
ng
> >> else
> >> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I lis=
ten
> >> to
> >> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
> >> another
> >> and then another.
>
> > Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
> > turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listened=
to a
> > LOT less music.
>
> > D
>
> This seems to me to be a common experience among vinyl listeners.
>
> Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete, wrought with
> unlistenable distortions and background noise and severely limited in dyn=
amic
> range would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs?
> Obviously, while many insist that CDs are capable of being damn nigh to
> perfect, others suffer (and rather quickly too) from listening fatigue wi=
th
> CDs that they DON'T get when they listen to LPs. =A0
>
> I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by them saying that C=
D
> presents so much more musical detail than LP that the brain has to work
> harder to hear it all. I say rubbish to that argument. If the mechanism a=
t
> work here were the amount of detail and clarity of presentation afforded =
by
> CD, then a half hour's worth of live music at a concert would cause the
> audience to get up and leave due to listening fatigue brought on by exces=
sive
> exposure to the musical detail and lack of distortion engendered by liste=
ning
> to the REAL THING unencumbered as it is by the imperfecttechnologyof the
> recording and playback process.
>
> Nonsense!

A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, my
be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
bear. Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves that
reproduction from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)

I do not mean of course "live symphony in a park" type
performances, where people coming with lunch baskets and sitting on a
grass for the whole afternoon. Usually they spend more time
socializing with friends then listening to music.

vlad

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete,

It is now just a niche product.

> wrought with unlistenable distortions

That would be your story, not a general truth.

> and background noise

A problem that was never solved.

> and severely limited in dynamic range

In the end the dynamic range of the LP is almost enough for most music.

> would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs?

The error here is attributing the desire to listen to the media instead of
the humans involved.

This is a common audiophile error - many of them tend externalize their
preferences when every competent psychologist and sociologist will tell you
that our preferences are very complex things based on a lifetime of
experiences. Our preferences are in us, not in our equipment.

> Obviously, while many insist that CDs are
> capable of being damn nigh to perfect, others suffer (and
> rather quickly too) from listening fatigue with CDs that
> they DON'T get when they listen to LPs.

What you don't get from CDs is a lifetime of memories associated with
listening to LPs.

> I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by
> them saying that CD presents so much more musical detail
> than LP that the brain has to work harder to hear it all.

Sure that happens, but you are ignoring the fact that some people have been
telling you all along that its your preferences, not the hardware that is
speaking in sentences like the one above.


> I say rubbish to that argument.

A statement that many insightful people might say is rather lacking as a
reflection of self-awareness, were they to care strongly enough to say it
and pay the consequences.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 15, 7:27=A0am, vlad > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 7:43=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:45 -0700, David wrote
> > (in article >):
>
> > > "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs,=
I
> > >> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do somet=
hi=3D
> ng
> > >> else
> > >> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I l=
is=3D
> ten
> > >> to
> > >> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
> > >> another
> > >> and then another.
>
> > > Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
> > > turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listen=
ed=3D
> =A0to a
> > > LOT less music.
>
> > > D
>
> > This seems to me to be a common experience among vinyl listeners.
>
> > Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete, wrought with
> > unlistenable distortions and background noise and severely limited in d=
yn=3D
> amic
> > range would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs=
?
> > Obviously, while many insist that CDs are capable of being damn nigh to
> > perfect, others suffer (and rather quickly too) from listening fatigue =
wi=3D
> th
> > CDs that they DON'T get when they listen to LPs. =3DA0
>
> > I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by them saying that=
C=3D
> D
> > presents so much more musical detail than LP that the brain has to work
> > harder to hear it all. I say rubbish to that argument. If the mechanism=
a=3D
> t
> > work here were the amount of detail and clarity of presentation afforde=
d =3D
> by
> > CD, then a half hour's worth of live music at a concert would cause the
> > audience to get up and leave due to listening fatigue brought on by exc=
es=3D
> sive
> > exposure to the musical detail and lack of distortion engendered by lis=
te=3D
> ning
> > to the REAL THING unencumbered as it is by the imperfecttechnologyof th=
e
> > recording and playback process.
>
> > Nonsense!
>
> =A0 =A0 A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, my
> be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
> bear.

That depends on the audience. I had no trouble sitting through three
to four hours of rehersals at the Snata Fe Chamber music festival
before attending the concerts each night. OTOH I have yet to go to a
classical concert and not find audience members sound asleep at some
point in the concert. I don't think that is a result of "listener"
fatigue. With concerts, theater film and the like one finds a pretty
broad range of attendees and consideration doew have to be given to
attention spans of that broad base.


> Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves =A0that
> reproduction =A0from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)

No it really doesn't. And long live concerts are not the least bit
tiring for me unless they are...well...not up to snuff.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:27:31 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 14, 7:43=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:45 -0700, David wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
>>>> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do somethi=
> ng
>>>> else
>>>> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I lis=
> ten
>>>> to
>>>> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
>>>> another
>>>> and then another.
>>
>>> Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
>>> turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listened=
> to a
>>> LOT less music.
>>
>>> D
>>
>> This seems to me to be a common experience among vinyl listeners.
>>
>> Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete, wrought with
>> unlistenable distortions and background noise and severely limited in dyn=
> amic
>> range would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs?
>> Obviously, while many insist that CDs are capable of being damn nigh to
>> perfect, others suffer (and rather quickly too) from listening fatigue wi=
> th
>> CDs that they DON'T get when they listen to LPs. =A0
>>
>> I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by them saying that C=
> D
>> presents so much more musical detail than LP that the brain has to work
>> harder to hear it all. I say rubbish to that argument. If the mechanism a=
> t
>> work here were the amount of detail and clarity of presentation afforded =
> by
>> CD, then a half hour's worth of live music at a concert would cause the
>> audience to get up and leave due to listening fatigue brought on by exces=
> sive
>> exposure to the musical detail and lack of distortion engendered by liste=
> ning
>> to the REAL THING unencumbered as it is by the imperfecttechnologyof the
>> recording and playback process.
>>
>> Nonsense!
>
> A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, my
> be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
> bear. Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves that
> reproduction from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)

I would suspect that the cumulative effect of sitting in an auditorium seat
amongst hundreds of other concert-goers rattling their programs, coughing,
sneezing, and squirming in their seats has a lot more to do with that than
does the live music. Listening at home from the comfort of one's easy chair,
is lot less stressful.

[vlad]

On Sep 15, 11:10=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:27:31 -0700, vlad wrote
> (in article >):
>

> > =A0 =A0 A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, =
my
> > be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
> > bear. Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves =A0that
> > reproduction =A0from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)
>
> I would suspect that the cumulative effect of sitting in an auditorium se=
at
> amongst hundreds of other concert-goers rattling their programs, coughing=
,
> sneezing, and squirming in their seats has a lot more to do with that tha=
n
> does the live music. Listening at home from the comfort of one's easy cha=
ir,
> is lot less stressful.

So, live performance is full of different little noises that are
masking subtleties in a musical performance. Well documented technical
shortcomings of LP are doing the same - masking subtle nuances in a
music and it makes job for your ears and brain easier by reducing
amount of information to process. That was my point all along, that
your ears and brain do more work listening to CD - they are getting
more information to process. So, your so called "fatigue" is kind of
expected.

Also, I tend to agree with Arnie that your whole life experience
of listening LP's can create a bias in your mind.

vlad

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:54:01 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 15, 11:10=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:27:31 -0700, vlad wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>
>>> =A0 =A0 A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, =
> my
>>> be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
>>> bear. Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves =A0that
>>> reproduction =A0from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)
>>
>> I would suspect that the cumulative effect of sitting in an auditorium se=
> at
>> amongst hundreds of other concert-goers rattling their programs, coughing=
> ,
>> sneezing, and squirming in their seats has a lot more to do with that tha=
> n
>> does the live music. Listening at home from the comfort of one's easy cha=
> ir,
>> is lot less stressful.
>
> So, live performance is full of different little noises that are
> masking subtleties in a musical performance. Well documented technical
> shortcomings of LP are doing the same - masking subtle nuances in a
> music and it makes job for your ears and brain easier by reducing
> amount of information to process. That was my point all along, that
> your ears and brain do more work listening to CD - they are getting
> more information to process. So, your so called "fatigue" is kind of
> expected.

Actually, there's no evidence presented to support that assertion. Logically
speaking, if you're going to go down that path, the record noise and
especially the "horrible distortion" of LP playback should cause far more
listening fatigue than the clean purity of CD. You can't have it both ways.
Study after study, over many decades, have shown that various types of
distortion are THE primary CAUSE of listening fatigue. If you (and Mr.
Kruger) are going to go on record (no pun intended) by asserting that the
clarity and freedom from distortion in CD is what causes listener fatigue in
CD, due to the extra detail present in digital recordings, then you are
flying in the face of countless scientific studies which have found that just
the opposite should be true.

> Also, I tend to agree with Arnie that your whole life experience
> of listening LP's can create a bias in your mind.
>
> vlad

Mr. Kruger is wrong in my case. I don't dislike CD, I just don't dislike LP
the way he does. AFAIC, both are valid musical sources and both are
enjoyable. Just because I have noticed that I can listen to LP longer than I
can CD without "listening fatigue" setting in, doesn't mean that I eschew
CD, or, indeed any part of digital reproduction. On the contrary. I probably
listen to far more CDs than LPs.

OTOH, when doing location recording (another avocation of mine), I wouldn't
record any other way. I've had my fill of lugging heavy road cases full of
pro tape recorders weighing-in at 50 Kg or so and then connecting them with
huge, heavy mixing boards, along with Dolby units and outboard power-supplies
for the microphones. Then spending an hour before rolling tape making sure
that the heads are properly aligned, and the EQ is correct for the tape being
used, etc., etc., etc. So nice it is to use a mixer the size of a briefcase,
with built-in phantom power for the microphones and to use a pair of digital
recorders (the main one being DSD, the "back-up" one being 24/96 LPCM) not
much larger than a couple of packs of cigarettes, and getting absolutely
stunning recordings from both. In fact, when I compare some of my better
analog recordings with some of my recent digital work, I find the digital
recordings to be better in every way. Sure, the modern recordings are
quieter, the mixers have better S/N and certainly the dynamic range of DSD or
even 24/96 LPCM is greater than anything possible via analog, but that's not
really what I'm talking about. The recordings just SOUND better. they have
better imaging, they are smoother in frequency response, and they are a LOT
cleaner. I don't really know how much of that to attribute to the modern
microphones that I use (alas, I no longer own the Sony C37Ps that I used to
record with back in analog days, so I cannot compare those), and how much to
attribute to the modern electronics, and how much to attribute to the digital
recorders, themselves, but Modern digital recordings, even when recorded
using modest equipment, can be stunningly real and better than anything one
can buy commercially.

[vlad]

On Sep 15, 6:30=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

>
> Actually, there's no evidence presented to support that assertion.

You presented your private experience of experiencing "fatigue"
after listening of couple of CD's. I presented results of my own
analysis why CD takes more efforts from me to listen. So we are even,
so far - each of us presented his own opinion.

> Logically speaking, if you're going to go down that path, the
record noise and
> especially the "horrible distortion" of LP playback should cause
far more
> listening fatigue than the clean purity of CD.

It is not obvious, it is just your strawman :-) It is possible,
that some forms of distortion are pleasing to the ear/brain ( is it
what they call 'euphonic'?) at the same time reduce flow of
information making it easier and more pleasant for the ear/brain to
process. May be, LP distortions fall into this category. Sorry, but I
have no scientific evidence for that :-). Just my guess. I personally,
prefer CD's.

>You can't have it both ways.
> Study after study, over many decades, have shown that various types
of
> distortion are THE primary CAUSE of listening fatigue.

Care to provide reference or URL? My uninformed opinion is that
you took this from the thin air.

And even such studies exist, how did it happen that distortions
of
LP are exempt from results of these studies?

> If you (and Mr.
> Kruger) are going to go on record (no pun intended) by asserting
that the
> clarity and freedom from distortion in CD is what causes listener
fatigue in
> CD, due to the extra detail present in digital recordings, then you
are
> flying in the face of countless scientific studies which have found
that just
> the opposite should be true.

References, please. I strongly suspect that you are inventing
these studies :-) But of course it is just my private opinion.

vlad

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:58:09 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 15, 6:30=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually, there's no evidence presented to support that assertion.
>
> You presented your private experience of experiencing "fatigue"
> after listening of couple of CD's. I presented results of my own
> analysis why CD takes more efforts from me to listen. So we are even,
> so far - each of us presented his own opinion.
>
> > Logically speaking, if you're going to go down that path, the
> record noise and
> > especially the "horrible distortion" of LP playback should cause
> far more
> > listening fatigue than the clean purity of CD.
>
> It is not obvious, it is just your strawman :-) It is possible,
> that some forms of distortion are pleasing to the ear/brain ( is it
> what they call 'euphonic'?) at the same time reduce flow of
> information making it easier and more pleasant for the ear/brain to
> process. May be, LP distortions fall into this category. Sorry, but I
> have no scientific evidence for that :-). Just my guess. I personally,
> prefer CD's.
>
> >You can't have it both ways.
> > Study after study, over many decades, have shown that various types
> of
> > distortion are THE primary CAUSE of listening fatigue.
>
> Care to provide reference or URL? My uninformed opinion is that
> you took this from the thin air.
>
> And even such studies exist, how did it happen that distortions
> of
> LP are exempt from results of these studies?

Who says that they are exempt in any way or form.
>
> > If you (and Mr.
> > Kruger) are going to go on record (no pun intended) by asserting
> that the
> > clarity and freedom from distortion in CD is what causes listener
> fatigue in
> > CD, due to the extra detail present in digital recordings, then you
> are
> > flying in the face of countless scientific studies which have found
> that just
> > the opposite should be true.
>
> References, please. I strongly suspect that you are inventing
> these studies :-) But of course it is just my private opinion.

Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a number of tests
during the 1930's of these phenomenon, and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did some
in the 1940's and seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer of CBS Labs
did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in audio A LONG TIME
and have read thousands of articles on this and other subjects. But the
biggest ally for my assertion is common sense. If something sounds distorted,
or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could be subliminal) he
or she is not going to listen to it for long. Of course, gross distortions
will get an immediate reaction and people will stop listening, but more
subtle forms of distortion may not drive the listener away immediately, but
could do so over a long listening session.

One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to say:

"For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One of the main ones is
CD Red Book quality audio which has less low level information than all but
the worst analog recordings, if that. Meaning there is just less involvement
possible with the music, so the recording flaws stand out more. I was
semi-enthusiastic about SACD and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving the
low level resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book, but it
appears they are going by the wayside."

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/120847-what-causes-listening-fatigue-
14.html

Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.

Just a cursory search on Google found this description on Wikipedia:

"Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted noises and focuses
on the wanted ones. When listening to music for example, the speakers may
give off an unwanted hissing noise that the person has to focus out, causing
"Listener Fatigue".

This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological perception of sound,
adding time-variance effects.

This subject is not well covered on the internet because most of these
research papers haven't been posted.

However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses the subject and the
seminal work by Read and Welch, "From Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listener
fatigue modeling done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
tended to show that some types of distortion cause greater listening fatigue
than do others. For Instance, Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well
tolerated than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records and radio
reception, but that intermodulation distortion was poorly tolerated wherever
it occurred and very small measured amounts is clearly audible.


If you want to look for more and better cites, than I provided, be my guest,
but be advised that this information is thin on the ground.

My only real assertion here is that distortion on some level and of some
kinds cause listener fatigue. This is well known. CDs have LESS distortion
than analog sources and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue. That it
does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend to understand. I
don't think anybody does.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:58:09 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 15, 6:30=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>=20
> >
> > Actually, there's no evidence presented to support that assertion.
>=20
> You presented your private experience of experiencing "fatigue"
> after listening of couple of CD's. I presented results of my own
> analysis why CD takes more efforts from me to listen. So we are even,
> so far - each of us presented his own opinion.
>=20
> > Logically speaking, if you're going to go down that path, the
> record noise and
> > especially the "horrible distortion" of LP playback should cause
> far more
> > listening fatigue than the clean purity of CD.
>=20
> It is not obvious, it is just your strawman :-) It is possible,
> that some forms of distortion are pleasing to the ear/brain ( is it
> what they call 'euphonic'?)

No doubt. Many will say that why LPs sound better than CD to some people.=
LPs=20
have euphonic colorations that that please the ear. It's certainly possib=
le.=20
But here's the rub. Euphonic colorations are not PERCEIVED by the listene=
r as=20
distortion but rather as something that, for some reason, puts the liste=
ner=20
in mind of real instruments playing in a real space. Would these cause=20
listener fatigue? It seems not. But if ticks and pops and other record no=
ises=20
DO bother a listener, then those LP artifacts, would, IMHO, indeed, cause=
=20
listener fatigue in that person but probably not in someone who finds tha=
t he=20
or she can easily and handily listen "around" thos artifacts. This might=20
explain a number of things. For instance, someone who was brought-up on L=
P=20
learned early-on to ignore ticks and pops. I find that I can do so handil=
y,=20
for instance. Today's generation, OTOH, seem to mostly listen to MP3s, of=
ten=20
at really low data rates (to fit more music on their MP3 players) and see=
m=20
not to mind the compression artifacts. Now whether they actually have tra=
ined=20
their ears to listen around these artifacts, or whether it's because the=20
nature of pop music effectively masks these artifacts, I can't say. What =
I=20
can say is that even though I can listen around ticks and pops an vinyl r=
ush,=20
and tape hiss, and all of the other noises that can intrude on LP playbac=
k, I=20
simply cannot abide MP3, especially at low data rates. (although, I can=20
listen to compressed internet radio as background as long as the data rat=
e is=20
higher than 128 KB/s=20


> at the same time reduce flow of
> information making it easier and more pleasant for the ear/brain to
> process. May be, LP distortions fall into this category. Sorry, but I
> have no scientific evidence for that :-). Just my guess. I personally,
> prefer CD's.

That's fine. I do 90% of my listening via the little silver disc too (in =
all=20
it's guises =AD CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray) and haven't bought an LP in at =
least=20
decade. I mean, CD is what we've got, right? Very little new music is=20
released on LP these days, but if one reads the audio press, one would ge=
t=20
the impression that this is changing. For instance, mastering legend Stan=
=20
Ricker closed down his mastering lab in the early 1990's and put his lath=
es=20
and cutters in storage. Recently, he has set his lab up again, and is bac=
k to=20
mastering LP, and apparently, is swamped with work. It seems that the LP=20
medium is undergoing a bit of a renaissance. How big this resurgence of=20
interest in vinyl will ultimately be is anyone's guess, but for the here =
and=20
now, it's getting healthier and healthier and, apparently, the interest i=
s=20
coming from young people who don't even remember the halcyon days of viny=
l,=20
before the CD! There are some on this forum who believe that the=20
"disc-jocky"/disco market is the only market for LP outside of the "lunat=
ic=20
fringe" LP luddites and old fogies. This seems not to be true. Ricker say=
s=20
that he believes that LP will outlive CD as he sees an eventual demise of=
the=20
physical digital medium. I'm not sure that I agree and I'll tell you why.=
=20
Even though nobody can argue that downloading music via the internet is q=
uick=20
(given today's wide-band connections) and easy and even cheap, the idea o=
f=20
archiving a music collection on a hard drive is NOT a great solution. Sev=
eral=20
years ago, I read where some research institution (Gartner?) found that l=
ess=20
than one percent of all computer users bother to back-up their HDDs on a=20
regular basis. If true, this means that 99% of all computer music collect=
ions=20
are in serious danger of being completely destroyed by a hard disc failur=
e. I=20
know of at least two people who have had this happen fairly recently. The=
se=20
people now back their libraries up to CD or DVD, because these media are =
more=20
permanent (how permanent? The jury is out on that as well).=20

[vlad]

On Sep 17, 3:18=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:58:09 -0700, vlad wrote
> (in article >):

.. . .
> > =A0 =A0 =A0References, please. I strongly suspect that you are inventin=
g
> > =A0these studies :-) But of course it is just my private opinion.
>
> Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a number of tests
> during the 1930's of these phenomenon, and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did so=
me
> in the 1940's and seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer ofCBSLabs
> did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in audio A LONG TIM=
E
> and have read thousands of articles on this and other subjects. But the
> biggest ally for my assertion is common sense. If something sounds distor=
ted,
> or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could be subliminal) =
he
> or she is not going to listen to it for long. Of course, gross distortion=
s
> will get an immediate reaction and people will stop listening, but more
> subtle forms of distortion may not drive the listener away immediately, b=
ut
> could do so over a long listening session.

Exactly what I expected - "somebody, somewhere in 30's and 50's"
did research on the subject. Never mind that it was a completely
different landscape in music's recording and reproduction.

You mentioned "numerous scientific studies", I am still waiting
one or more direct references.

>
> One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to say:
>
> "For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One of the main one=
s is
> CD Red Book quality audio which has less low level information than all b=
ut
> the worst analog recordings, if that. Meaning there is just less involvem=
ent
> possible with the music, so the recording flaws stand out more. I was
> semi-enthusiastic about SACD and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving t=
he
> low level resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book, but it
> appears they are going by the wayside."
>

Sounds like one of those misguided vinyl lovers who never heard
about dithering. I am surprised he did not use step-sound-wave as an
argument :-)

> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/120847-what-causes-listening...
> 14.html
>
> Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.
>
> Just a cursory search onGooglefound this description on Wikipedia:
>
> "Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted noises and focus=
es
> on the wanted ones. When listening to music for example, the speakers may
> give off an unwanted hissing noise that the person has to focus out, caus=
ing
> "Listener Fatigue".
>
> This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological perception of soun=
d,
> adding time-variance effects.
>
> This subject is not well covered on the internet because most of these
> research papers haven't been posted.

So we don't know what they researched and what results they got.
They just used term "fatigue" and, probably, in their own way.

>
> However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses the subject and t=
he
> seminal work by Read and Welch, "From Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listene=
r
> fatigue modeling done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
> tended to show that some types of distortion cause greater listening fati=
gue
> than do others.

1933? :-) And still no exact reference.

> For Instance, =A0Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well
> tolerated than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records and rad=
io
> reception, but that intermodulation distortion was poorly tolerated where=
ver
> it occurred and very small measured amounts is clearly audible.
>
> If you want to look for more and better cites, than I provided, be my gue=
st,
> but be advised that this information is thin on the ground.
>

References, please, if you have any.

> =A0My only real assertion here is that distortion on some level and of so=
me
> kinds cause listener fatigue. This is well known. CDs have LESS distortio=
n
> than analog sources and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue. Tha=
t it
> does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend to understand. =
I
> don't think anybody does. =A0

I did offer you my explanation, did not I? I just believe (from my
own experience) that well recoded music causes more emotional response
and more "fatigue" in the listener (me). That is all.

I agree with you that distortions can cause stress and fatigue.
Strangely most of distortions inherent in LP technology do not fall
into this category :-)

I suspect that your real agenda is to rehash old "fatigue"
argument proving superiority of LP vs. CD. That is it, I am out of
this thread.

vlad

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:04:46 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article >):

> On Sep 17, 3:18=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:58:09 -0700, vlad wrote
>> (in article >):
>
> . . .
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0References, please. I strongly suspect that you are inventin=
> g
>>> =A0these studies :-) But of course it is just my private opinion.
>>
>> Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a number of tests
>> during the 1930's of these phenomenon, and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did so=
> me
>> in the 1940's and seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer ofCBSLabs
>> did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in audio A LONG TIM=
> E
>> and have read thousands of articles on this and other subjects. But the
>> biggest ally for my assertion is common sense. If something sounds distor=
> ted,
>> or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could be subliminal) =
> he
>> or she is not going to listen to it for long. Of course, gross distortion=
> s
>> will get an immediate reaction and people will stop listening, but more
>> subtle forms of distortion may not drive the listener away immediately, b=
> ut
>> could do so over a long listening session.
>
> Exactly what I expected - "somebody, somewhere in 30's and 50's"
> did research on the subject. Never mind that it was a completely
> different landscape in music's recording and reproduction.
>
> You mentioned "numerous scientific studies", I am still waiting
> one or more direct references.
>
>>
>> One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to say:
>>
>> "For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One of the main one=
> s is
>> CD Red Book quality audio which has less low level information than all b=
> ut
>> the worst analog recordings, if that. Meaning there is just less involvem=
> ent
>> possible with the music, so the recording flaws stand out more. I was
>> semi-enthusiastic about SACD and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving t=
> he
>> low level resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book, but it
>> appears they are going by the wayside."
>>
>
> Sounds like one of those misguided vinyl lovers who never heard
> about dithering. I am surprised he did not use step-sound-wave as an
> argument :-)
>
>> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/120847-what-causes-listening...
>> 14.html
>>
>> Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.
>>
>> Just a cursory search onGooglefound this description on Wikipedia:
>>
>> "Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted noises and focus=
> es
>> on the wanted ones. When listening to music for example, the speakers may
>> give off an unwanted hissing noise that the person has to focus out, caus=
> ing
>> "Listener Fatigue".
>>
>> This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological perception of soun=
> d,
>> adding time-variance effects.
>>
>> This subject is not well covered on the internet because most of these
>> research papers haven't been posted.
>
> So we don't know what they researched and what results they got.
> They just used term "fatigue" and, probably, in their own way.
>
>>
>> However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses the subject and t=
> he
>> seminal work by Read and Welch, "From Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listene=
> r
>> fatigue modeling done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
>> tended to show that some types of distortion cause greater listening fati=
> gue
>> than do others.
>
> 1933? :-) And still no exact reference.

You want the page numbers from the books I referenced?

>> For Instance, =A0Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well
>> tolerated than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records and rad=
> io
>> reception, but that intermodulation distortion was poorly tolerated where=
> ver
>> it occurred and very small measured amounts is clearly audible.
>>
>> If you want to look for more and better cites, than I provided, be my gue=
> st,
>> but be advised that this information is thin on the ground.
>>
>
> References, please, if you have any.

I gave them to you; Howard Tremaine, and Read and Welch. If you mean web
references, you are making the common mistake of many in assuming that the
sum total of man's knowledge is available on the web and can be found simply
by Googling. I assure you this is not the case.
>
>> =A0My only real assertion here is that distortion on some level and of so=
> me
>> kinds cause listener fatigue. This is well known. CDs have LESS distortio=
> n
>> than analog sources and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue. Tha=
> t it
>> does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend to understand. =
> I
>> don't think anybody does. =A0
>
> I did offer you my explanation, did not I? I just believe (from my
> own experience) that well recoded music causes more emotional response
> and more "fatigue" in the listener (me). That is all.

I don't think that follows. less distortion should result in LESS listening
fatigue.
>
> I agree with you that distortions can cause stress and fatigue.
> Strangely most of distortions inherent in LP technology do not fall
> into this category :-)

It's certainly possible. I don't pretend to know.

>
> I suspect that your real agenda is to rehash old "fatigue"
> argument proving superiority of LP vs. CD. That is it, I am out of
> this thread.

I don't have any agenda. I merely noted that I find that I can turn listening
to one record into a whole night of vinyl listening sessions and that CDs
never pull me in like that.

Since I started this thread, I have had more respondents coming down on my
side of the fence than have come down on yours. That doesn't really mean
much, but what it does show is that my experience is not an isolated case.
Given the number of people who respond on this NG, I'd say that the
phenomenon is more common than not.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a
> number of tests during the 1930's of these phenomenon,
> and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did some in the 1940's and
> seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer of CBS Labs
> did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in
> audio A LONG TIME and have read thousands of articles on
> this and other subjects. But the biggest ally for my
> assertion is common sense. If something sounds distorted,
> or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could
> be subliminal) he or she is not going to listen to it for
> long. Of course, gross distortions will get an immediate
> reaction and people will stop listening, but more subtle
> forms of distortion may not drive the listener away
> immediately, but could do so over a long listening
> session.

This is all true. The proof of it is modern life. If you know what the
technical performance of mainstream audio was like in 1930, 1960, 1990, and
2010, there has been a steady reduction of audible noise and distortion. I'm
talking about the audio heard in theatres, homes, businesses.

> One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to
> say:
>
> "For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One
> of the main ones is CD Red Book quality audio which has
> less low level information than all but the worst analog
> recordings, if that.

This is a gigantic misapprehension. In fact the inverse is true, and not by
just a little. Redbook CD audio has an average of 20-30 dB more low level
audio than the best analog recordings.

> Meaning there is just less
> involvement possible with the music, so the recording
> flaws stand out more.

The reality is that CD's don't mask recording flaws nearly as well as
analog, particularly LP recording does.


> I was semi-enthusiastic about SACD
> and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving the low level
> resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book,
> but it appears they are going by the wayside."
>
> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/120847-what-causes-listening-fatigue-
> 14.html

SACD did add another 20 dB or so of low level detail to redbook CD audio,
but due to problems with other parts of the record/playback chain, the
technical enhancement was practically moot. DVD-A added almost another 20
dB to what SACD provides, but now we are talking moot squared.


> Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.

> Just a cursory search on Google found this description on
> Wikipedia:

> "Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted
> noises and focuses on the wanted ones. When listening to
> music for example, the speakers may give off an unwanted
> hissing noise that the person has to focus out, causing
> "Listener Fatigue".

Add to hiss the incessant tics, pops, flutter, wow, inner groove distortion,
etc and the relevant question becomes "Why isn't listening to LPs more
fatiqueing?" For most of us, it is.

> This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological
> perception of sound, adding time-variance effects.

> This subject is not well covered on the internet because
> most of these research papers haven't been posted.
>
> However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses
> the subject and the seminal work by Read and Welch, "From
> Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listener fatigue modeling
> done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
> tended to show that some types of distortion cause
> greater listening fatigue than do others. For Instance,
> Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well tolerated
> than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records
> and radio reception, but that intermodulation distortion
> was poorly tolerated wherever it occurred and very small
> measured amounts is clearly audible.

The fallacy here is that there are equipment properties called "Harmonic
Distortion (THD)" and "IM Distortion" and that they are somehow distinct
from each other. Reality is that equipment has nonlinear (and linear)
distortion , and that THD and IM are abstract ways to measure nonlinear
distortion. Every real world instance, every piece of real world audio gear
that produces nonlinear distoriton will product measurable amounts of both
THD and IM, if you use appropriate measurement techniques.

The amount of nonlinear distortion in ca. 1933 phonograph records and radio
receivers was horrific. Some of the amplfiers of the day were not nearly as
bad. There were no DBTs in 1933 and what we would call clean signal sources
were practically unheard of. Perceptions of which equipment was sonically
clean and which was sonically dirty was therefore highly flawed.


> My only real assertion here is that distortion on some
> level and of some kinds cause listener fatigue.

The "human factors" contributions to fatigue are very important. Attitude,
preferences and mental circumstances have a lot to do with it.

> This is
> well known. CDs have LESS distortion than analog sources
> and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue.


This is true until you start considering the non technical human factors.

> That it
> does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend
> to understand. I don't think anybody does.

I've presented viable explanations that are based on modern human factors
reasearch. YOu've got to look at the big picture and admit that you are not
totally removed from your biases and sentimental feelings.

[KH]

On 9/17/2010 7:31 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
<snip>

> I don't have any agenda. I merely noted that I find that I can turn listening
> to one record into a whole night of vinyl listening sessions and that CDs
> never pull me in like that.
>
> Since I started this thread, I have had more respondents coming down on my
> side of the fence than have come down on yours. That doesn't really mean
> much, but what it does show is that my experience is not an isolated case.
> Given the number of people who respond on this NG, I'd say that the
> phenomenon is more common than not.

Well, you can count me on the other side of your fence on this one.
Relative to fatigue, have you ever considered the relatively simple
explanation that the care and feeding required by LP listening (cleaning
and turning, or merely turning sides) provides an intermezzo in the
performance? You simply cannot listen to LP's in the same duration
intervals that you do with CD's (unless you purposely alter your CD
listening patterns), and possibly those enforced breaks and additional
non-music related activities are what breaks up the sessions and reduces
the fatigue you seem to experience with CD?

For me, those enforced breaks simply add to the other LP characteristics
that annoy me. Interestingly enough, an audiophile friend of mine just
purchased a Pro-ject turntable and has been re-exploring vinyl for the
last couple of weeks (after listening solely to CD for 20 years). He
has been surprised that vinyl can sound as good as it does - at times.
He also bought a pair of Sonus Faber Cremona M's a couple of months ago,
having caught upgrade-itis after listening to my recently purchased
Wilson Sophia 2's. I also listened to quite a bit of vinyl to compare
with CD on the Sophia's vs the B&W M802's they replaced. The Sophia's
are much better in the mid's and upper octaves than the B&W's, and
actually LP's sound worse on them than on the B&W's, relative to the CD
version. I have yet to get fatigued listening to the Sophia, even with
some overly-bright recordings that were a problem on the B&W's. YMMV,
obviously.

Keith Hughes

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:38:03 -0700, KH wrote
(in article >):

> On 9/17/2010 7:31 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I don't have any agenda. I merely noted that I find that I can turn
>> listening
>> to one record into a whole night of vinyl listening sessions and that CDs
>> never pull me in like that.
>>
>> Since I started this thread, I have had more respondents coming down on my
>> side of the fence than have come down on yours. That doesn't really mean
>> much, but what it does show is that my experience is not an isolated case.
>> Given the number of people who respond on this NG, I'd say that the
>> phenomenon is more common than not.
>
> Well, you can count me on the other side of your fence on this one.
> Relative to fatigue, have you ever considered the relatively simple
> explanation that the care and feeding required by LP listening (cleaning
> and turning, or merely turning sides) provides an intermezzo in the
> performance? You simply cannot listen to LP's in the same duration
> intervals that you do with CD's (unless you purposely alter your CD
> listening patterns), and possibly those enforced breaks and additional
> non-music related activities are what breaks up the sessions and reduces
> the fatigue you seem to experience with CD?

You certainly have a point there. I had not considered that. Can't argue with
the logic of that hypothesis.
>
> For me, those enforced breaks simply add to the other LP characteristics
> that annoy me. Interestingly enough, an audiophile friend of mine just
> purchased a Pro-ject turntable and has been re-exploring vinyl for the
> last couple of weeks (after listening solely to CD for 20 years). He
> has been surprised that vinyl can sound as good as it does - at times.

Well, yes. like everything else, most vinyl is not very good. There are a
myriad of reasons for this ranging from poor master recording, to indifferent
LP mastering, to poor production materials (regrind vinyl vs virgin) to
sloppy production methods.

I recall that in the 1970's when EMI owned Capitol Records and their
classical label, Angel, they used to press Angel records in Capitol's
pressing plants. I have never been able to find out where in the process this
occurred, but Angels always sounded LOUSY. Luckily, the British pressings of
these Angel records (especially of British music - Elagr, Walton, Vaughan
Williams, etc.) were available (for a slight premium) at big record stores
like Tower. Usually they had gold "Odeon" stickers pasted over the EMI HMV
label ('Nipper' looking into the phonograph horn - the same logo that RCA
Victor used here in the states). The British pressings always sounded better.
They were quieter, they had more dynamic range and they simply had better
sound. Often the difference was spectacular - now this is on IDENTICAL titles
made from the same master tapes! I got so that I wouldn't buy an Angel unless
it was absolutely necessary. I even resorted to buying the titles from
England.

> He also bought a pair of Sonus Faber Cremona M's a couple of months ago,
> having caught upgrade-itis after listening to my recently purchased
> Wilson Sophia 2's. I also listened to quite a bit of vinyl to compare
> with CD on the Sophia's vs the B&W M802's they replaced. The Sophia's
> are much better in the mid's and upper octaves than the B&W's, and
> actually LP's sound worse on them than on the B&W's, relative to the CD
> version. I have yet to get fatigued listening to the Sophia, even with
> some overly-bright recordings that were a problem on the B&W's. YMMV,
> obviously.

I've never been impressed with B&Ws. In fact I went to a digital audio
symposium recently that had the latest "Statement" B&Ws (don't remember the
models) and some smaller B&Ws on stands. different demos used either the big
pair or the smaller. Even though the smaller B&Ws didn't have the bass of the
larger ones, everybody agreed that the smaller 2-way speaker sounded much
better and more musical than did the large three-way floor standers.

Myself, I have Martin-Logan Vistas with a pair of self-powered Paradigm
subwoofers. To me they are the most transparent speakers I've ever owned. I
simply love 'em! I used to own a pair of Magnepan Tympani IIICs (all EIGHT
panels) and a Pair of MG3.6s. I recently heard the new Maggie 1.7s and I
think that they are the best speakers Winey & Co. has ever produced, bar
none!

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:35:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a
>> number of tests during the 1930's of these phenomenon,
>> and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did some in the 1940's and
>> seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer of CBS Labs
>> did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in
>> audio A LONG TIME and have read thousands of articles on
>> this and other subjects. But the biggest ally for my
>> assertion is common sense. If something sounds distorted,
>> or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could
>> be subliminal) he or she is not going to listen to it for
>> long. Of course, gross distortions will get an immediate
>> reaction and people will stop listening, but more subtle
>> forms of distortion may not drive the listener away
>> immediately, but could do so over a long listening
>> session.
>
> This is all true. The proof of it is modern life. If you know what the
> technical performance of mainstream audio was like in 1930, 1960, 1990, and
> 2010, there has been a steady reduction of audible noise and distortion. I'm
> talking about the audio heard in theatres, homes, businesses.

Yep. In most cases, this is actual fact. If you look at network videotape
performances from the '60's and '70's, you' will notice that the audio is not
clean as it is on later video performances. Certainly modern cinema sound is
head and shoulders above that available in the past. Even really big budget,
wide-screen productions upon which was lavished every advantage that the
studios could bring to bear (Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, How The West Was
Won) had sound that is primitive by today's standards for even
run-of-the-mill "bubble-gum" productions.
>
>> One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to
>> say:
>>
>> "For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One
>> of the main ones is CD Red Book quality audio which has
>> less low level information than all but the worst analog
>> recordings, if that.
>
> This is a gigantic misapprehension. In fact the inverse is true, and not by
> just a little. Redbook CD audio has an average of 20-30 dB more low level
> audio than the best analog recordings.

Yep.

>> Meaning there is just less
>> involvement possible with the music, so the recording
>> flaws stand out more.
>
> The reality is that CD's don't mask recording flaws nearly as well as
> analog, particularly LP recording does.

Well, there are really BAD sounding LPs out there and really BAD sounding CDs
as well. But the bad CDs sound bad in a different way than do bad LPs (!)
>
>
>> I was semi-enthusiastic about SACD
>> and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving the low level
>> resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book,
>> but it appears they are going by the wayside."
>>
>> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/120847-what-causes-listening-fatigu
>> e-
>> 14.html
>
> SACD did add another 20 dB or so of low level detail to redbook CD audio,
> but due to problems with other parts of the record/playback chain, the
> technical enhancement was practically moot. DVD-A added almost another 20
> dB to what SACD provides, but now we are talking moot squared.

The DVD-A people squandered that advantage by not standardizing on one set of
sample rates and bit depths for stereo (24/192) and one set for surround.
When one bought a DVD-A, one never knew what one was getting unless one read
the label VERY carefully. Now Blu-Ray offers the record companies another
chance to screw it up once more with at least EIGHT different primary audio
specifications being supported.
>
>
>> Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.
>
>> Just a cursory search on Google found this description on
>> Wikipedia:
>
>> "Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted
>> noises and focuses on the wanted ones. When listening to
>> music for example, the speakers may give off an unwanted
>> hissing noise that the person has to focus out, causing
>> "Listener Fatigue".
>
> Add to hiss the incessant tics, pops, flutter, wow, inner groove distortion,
> etc and the relevant question becomes "Why isn't listening to LPs more
> fatiqueing?" For most of us, it is.


Well, for SOME of you it is. Remember, people don't actually make a choice
between CD and LP, they buy what's available that has THEIR music on it and
what's available are MP3 downloads and CDs.
>
>> This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological
>> perception of sound, adding time-variance effects.
>
>> This subject is not well covered on the internet because
>> most of these research papers haven't been posted.
>>
>> However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses
>> the subject and the seminal work by Read and Welch, "From
>> Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listener fatigue modeling
>> done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
>> tended to show that some types of distortion cause
>> greater listening fatigue than do others. For Instance,
>> Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well tolerated
>> than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records
>> and radio reception, but that intermodulation distortion
>> was poorly tolerated wherever it occurred and very small
>> measured amounts is clearly audible.
>
> The fallacy here is that there are equipment properties called "Harmonic
> Distortion (THD)" and "IM Distortion" and that they are somehow distinct
> from each other. Reality is that equipment has nonlinear (and linear)
> distortion , and that THD and IM are abstract ways to measure nonlinear
> distortion. Every real world instance, every piece of real world audio gear
> that produces nonlinear distoriton will product measurable amounts of both
> THD and IM, if you use appropriate measurement techniques.

That's true to a degree, but different types of distortion affect people in
different ways. Some types of distortion (I guess we should say distortion
that arises from different causes) people don't mind so much, and other types
of distortion, that even in minute amounts, cause listening distress. For
instance, it has been found that the human ear is quite insensitive to what
we call THD in amplifiers. Some amps produce as much 2% BEFORE clipping, and
yet some of these amps "listen" so well that they actually gained cult status
as the best there was in their day. I'm thinking specifically here of a
French tube amp (forget the brand) from about 10 or 15 years ago that was the
rave of the high-end set. At high-wattage, output it produced more than 2%
THD, yet even on crescendo's nobody could detect it by listening. Yet small
amounts of IM, which is mostly made up of odd harmonics is very noticeable
because it is often uncorrelated.

> The amount of nonlinear distortion in ca. 1933 phonograph records and radio
> receivers was horrific. Some of the amplfiers of the day were not nearly as
> bad. There were no DBTs in 1933 and what we would call clean signal sources
> were practically unheard of. Perceptions of which equipment was sonically
> clean and which was sonically dirty was therefore highly flawed.

No doubt, but the basic principles of what people will and won't tolerate
still apply.
>
>
>> My only real assertion here is that distortion on some
>> level and of some kinds cause listener fatigue.
>
> The "human factors" contributions to fatigue are very important. Attitude,
> preferences and mental circumstances have a lot to do with it.

Yep.
>
>> This is
>> well known. CDs have LESS distortion than analog sources
>> and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue.
>
>
> This is true until you start considering the non technical human factors.

Of course.
>
>> That it
>> does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend
>> to understand. I don't think anybody does.
>
> I've presented viable explanations that are based on modern human factors
> reasearch. YOu've got to look at the big picture and admit that you are not
> totally removed from your biases and sentimental feelings.

Oh, I Know that probably better than most. But remember Mr. Kruger, with all
due respect, that blade has two edges.

[KH]

On 9/18/2010 12:17 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:38:03 -0700, KH wrote
> (in >):
>
>> On 9/17/2010 7:31 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> <snip>

>> Relative to fatigue, have you ever considered the relatively simple
>> explanation that the care and feeding required by LP listening (cleaning
>> and turning, or merely turning sides) provides an intermezzo in the
>> performance? You simply cannot listen to LP's in the same duration
>> intervals that you do with CD's (unless you purposely alter your CD
>> listening patterns), and possibly those enforced breaks and additional
>> non-music related activities are what breaks up the sessions and reduces
>> the fatigue you seem to experience with CD?
>
> You certainly have a point there. I had not considered that. Can't argue with
> the logic of that hypothesis.

Certainly a logical possibility. Might not be the root cause, but
something to consider.

<snip>

> Well, yes. like everything else, most vinyl is not very good. There are a
> myriad of reasons for this ranging from poor master recording, to indifferent
> LP mastering, to poor production materials (regrind vinyl vs virgin) to
> sloppy production methods.

As I was just discussing with my friend, the quality of mass produced
vinyl hit a real inflection point, IME, in the early/mid 70's, and just
went downhill from there. Out here, we had Odyssey and Tower, and they
and their ilk seemed to help drive the price wars that made higher
regrind levels a necessity for producers. Not a bad marketing strategy,
really, as it was likely more profitable to market dirt cheap LP's
(Odyssey had $2.66 deals on new releases if you bought >3, in mid/late
'70s) that needed replacing often than higher cost pressings that
actually lasted. And here in Phoenix, back then, getting an LP without
any warp was very unlikely.

>
> I recall that in the 1970's when EMI owned Capitol Records and their
> classical label, Angel, they used to press Angel records in Capitol's
> pressing plants. I have never been able to find out where in the process this
> occurred, but Angels always sounded LOUSY. Luckily, the British pressings of
> these Angel records (especially of British music - Elagr, Walton, Vaughan
> Williams, etc.) were available (for a slight premium) at big record stores
> like Tower. Usually they had gold "Odeon" stickers pasted over the EMI HMV
> label ('Nipper' looking into the phonograph horn - the same logo that RCA
> Victor used here in the states). The British pressings always sounded better.
> They were quieter, they had more dynamic range and they simply had better
> sound. Often the difference was spectacular - now this is on IDENTICAL titles
> made from the same master tapes! I got so that I wouldn't buy an Angel unless
> it was absolutely necessary. I even resorted to buying the titles from
> England.

Back in the heyday, I could seldom afford UK pressings, but I did buy
several (Genesis, Gentle Giant, etc.) and they were, without exception,
vastly superior to the identical US pressings. Yes, they were much
quieter, and *stayed* that way far longer.

>
> I've never been impressed with B&Ws. In fact I went to a digital audio
> symposium recently that had the latest "Statement" B&Ws (don't remember the
> models) and some smaller B&Ws on stands. different demos used either the big
> pair or the smaller. Even though the smaller B&Ws didn't have the bass of the
> larger ones, everybody agreed that the smaller 2-way speaker sounded much
> better and more musical than did the large three-way floor standers.

Actually, I've always been a B&W fan (still have half a dozen pairs),
and I do like what their "house" sound used to be, but that's a personal
preference. The bigger B&W's (800 series) sound, IMO, very good at high
volumes, but do not do well at lower levels. When the CDM line came
out, I was surprised - never heard any of them that I really liked.
And, I've never been a Wilson fan, although I've gone and demo'd most of
their line as they've evolved over the years. Never heard a Watt-Puppy
I'd own (much less PAY the price for), and although the newer MAXX's
sound really good, they're ludicrously priced and too large for "normal"
rooms. When I heard the Sophia 2's however, I was hooked. As one
reviewer put it, they are the Wilson's for folks who don't like
Wilson's. And they still sound full when played a low volumes, as the
B&W's never did. Still over-priced, but I got a demo pair at 40% off
retail when the model 3's came out, so they were Expensive vs. "are you
crazy?"

> Myself, I have Martin-Logan Vistas with a pair of self-powered Paradigm
> subwoofers. To me they are the most transparent speakers I've ever owned. I
> simply love 'em! I used to own a pair of Magnepan Tympani IIICs (all EIGHT
> panels) and a Pair of MG3.6s. I recently heard the new Maggie 1.7s and I
> think that they are the best speakers Winey& Co. has ever produced, bar
> none!

All fine speakers IMO. One thing I think we can all agree on is that
speakers are colored. So they, at least, will subject to real sonic
preferences. Planars/dipoles just never sounded quite "right" to me.
Couldn't afford any in the "old" days, although I drooled significantly
over those big Mangneplanars when they came out, and now I have too many
box speaker years under the belt to consider changing.

Keith Hughes

[Kele]

I put my turntable away and didn't open the box for ten years. When I
did set it up it didn't work and took it to an old school stereo
repair who just cleaned it and who said that playing it is the best
thing to keep it from gumming up. So it's set-up in my system for the
first time in ten years and upon the first play, I was amazed. For
ten years I'd been listening to CDs exclusively for music. This was a
revelation; the sound of the record/turntable was so much more, I'm
going to say, "juicy". The CDs are shrill and brittle by comparison.
Everything in my system is about the same quality level, high middle-
end. I play CDs in two players a DVD combo, and a dedicated CD player
using decent patch cables (cables, even power cables do make a
difference); both players sound similar - the dedicated CD player
maybe a hair sweeter. Neither sound as rich as the turntable. I
recently replaced the turntable's cartridge (Sumiko BP from a
Denon103) and now the turntable sounds quicker and less rose colored.
There's is definitely more detail now and I have no doubt I prefer
listening to Dark Side on the turntable compared to the GoldDiskCD.
The convenience of CDs is the thing that stomps turntables.

Something I find interesting... I use the computer to transfer albums
to disc. It's odd but those rips sound better in a lot of ways than
the store bought commercial equivalent. The rips don't sound as good
as the album; the CD-R seems compressed by comparison and that makes
it less involving for me. Why I think the DVD-Rs sound different and
mostly better than the store bought might have to do with the studio
that mixes to make the CD. The commercial CDs often sound tighter
less raw and flowing than the rips to disc from album I make. I wish
I had a new music album vs CD as the recordings are better to CD than
they were back in the 80's (which is the time frame I have redundant
albums and CDs). I bet the studios could make a CD sound closer to
the "album sound" if they tried, but so far CDs just don't sound as
juicy as records. - Kele

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

> My only real assertion here is that distortion on some level and of some
> kinds cause listener fatigue. This is well known. CDs have LESS distortion
> than analog sources and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue. That
> it
> does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend to understand. I
> don't think anybody does.

I have a hunch that it lies in "listening past" the "pre-ringing" on
transients that is pretty much part and parcel of the CD listening
experience. I note that the recent Meredian players that feature an
innovative digital filter that replaces this behavior with natures own
waveform (eg. steep initial transient slopes) with any ringing after the
fact, seems to get universal acceptance as perhaps the best sounding CD
player on the market with comments upon it's "natural quality". These same
sentiments have been expressed about SACD and (to a somewhat lesser degree)
DVD-A, both of which have much less to the point of disappearing
"pre-ringing". I wrote to Robert Harley at Stereophile about this after his
article appeared dismissing the pre-ringing argument; less than two years
later Stereophile is on record as saying the filter makes a (favorable)
difference. I suspect it does, and with good reason. How is it possible
for a brain as tuned to detect "unnatural" noises (a defense mechanism and
one of hearings main functions) not to be disturbed (at least subliminally)
by a distorted transient performance not found in nature?

[David[_21_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> Very little new music is
> released on LP these days, but if one reads the audio press, one would get
> the impression that this is changing.

Every newly released album I've bought in the last 10 years, excepting very
minor labels/local bands, has been available on vinyl. You have to pay a
more (about �12 - �16 on average, compared to �8-�10 for CD) but they are
all now pressed on very good quality vinyl at 180+ grams. No you can't pop
into your local music shop and buy it, it has to be ordered, but it is
available.

Arny, just out of curiosity, what turntable(s) do you listen too?

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:13:47 -0700, David wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message=20
> ...
>> Very little new music is
>> released on LP these days, but if one reads the audio press, one would=
get
>> the impression that this is changing.
>=20
> Every newly released album I've bought in the last 10 years, excepting =
very=20
> minor labels/local bands, has been available on vinyl. You have to pay=
a=20
> more (about =EF=BF=BD12 - =EF=BF=BD16 on average, compared to =EF=BF=BD=
8-=EF=BF=BD10 for CD) but they=20

> are=20
> all now pressed on very good quality vinyl at 180+ grams. No you can't=
pop=20
> into your local music shop and buy it, it has to be ordered, but it is=20
> available.

I guess this depends on the kind of music to which one listens. I listen=20
mostly to classical, along with some jazz. While there are hundreds of ja=
zz=20
and classical titles available as LPs, AFAICS, they're mostly all reissue=
s of=20
stuff from the fifties and sixties. Yes, they are all on 180 gram vinyl (=
some=20
are on 200 gram), but I certainly haven't seen any new releases from thes=
e=20
genres of music, although they might exist.=20

>=20
> Arny, just out of curiosity, what turntable(s) do you listen too?=20
>=20
>=20

I could be wrong, but I get the impression from what Mr. Kruger has writt=
en=20
here, that has several turntables and listens to none of them.=20

[DMHenrie[_2_]]

Quite possibly, it is because we must sit there and get ready to flip sides
of the record. Causes us not to "go anywhere", so we must remain focused on
the task at hand.
I'm not complaining, I love records. I just wish they lasted 74 minutes per
side.



"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
> usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something
> else
> (like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
> to
> vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
> another
> and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost
> all
> night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job
> I
> want for my Alfa!
>
> There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
> can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital,
> hell,
> I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
> articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon
> as
> well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
> experiences?