Independent View Of LP versus CD

[Arny Krueger]

Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music
groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New York in
1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP recordings for CD,
at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer
and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#). Translator (German to
English) and editorial nit-picker of technical and sales literature for
Schoeps GmbH.

Comment:

David Satz" > wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
>> Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
>> make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
>> tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
>> [ ... ]
"

"
> Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
> the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
> comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
> of.
"

"
> Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
> CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
> results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
> Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
> separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
> the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
> their LP and CD playback equipment.
"

"
> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
> audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
> But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
> the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
> factor, either.
"

[Jeff Findley]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> Author's profile:
>
> David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
> teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber
> music groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New
> York in 1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP
> recordings for CD, at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical
> Album", 1995. Programmer and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++,
> C#). Translator (German to English) and editorial nit-picker of technical
> and sales literature for Schoeps GmbH.
>
> Comment:
>
> David Satz" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> "
>
> "
>> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> "
>
> "
>>> Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
>>> make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
>>> tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
>>> [ ... ]
> "
>
> "
>> Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
>> the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
>> comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
>> of.
> "
>
> "
>> Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
>> CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
>> results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
>> Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
>> separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
>> the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
>> their LP and CD playback equipment.
> "
>
> "
>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
>> audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
>> But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
>> the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
>> factor, either.
> "

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code

Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of errors
were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed errors
which were able to be corrected by the CD player.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Keith G]

"Jeff Findley" > wrote


> A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
> from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
> plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
> pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
> meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
> additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
> might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.
>
> SPARS Code
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code
>
> Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
> end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
> report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of
> errors were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed
> errors which were able to be corrected by the CD player.



Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why a few of us (with a
higher *anxiety threshold* than some here) don't trouble too much about what
processes (D or A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get on with
getting the best out of them as an *end product* on our own kit....

(That said, I believe I can see why some of the 'pre digital/ss' stuff
commands the high prices it does from *discerning* collectors...)

[Jeff Findley]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why a few of us (with
> a higher *anxiety threshold* than some here) don't trouble too much about
> what processes (D or A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get
> on with getting the best out of them as an *end product* on our own
> kit....
>
> (That said, I believe I can see why some of the 'pre digital/ss' stuff
> commands the high prices it does from *discerning* collectors...)

Agreed.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jeff Findley" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Author's profile:
>>
>> David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England
>> Conservatory (Boston); teaching assistant to Rudolf
>> Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music groups;
>> recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New
>> York in 1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red
>> Seal LP recordings for CD, at RCA Studios; Grammy award
>> for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer and
>> instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#).
>> Translator (German to English) and editorial nit-picker
>> of technical and sales literature for Schoeps GmbH. Comment:
>>
>> David Satz" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>> "
>>
>> "
>>> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>> "
>>
>> "
>>>> Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
>>>> make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
>>>> tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
>>>> [ ... ]
>> "
>>
>> "
>>> Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
>>> the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
>>> comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
>>> of.
>> "
>>
>> "
>>> Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
>>> CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
>>> results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
>>> Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
>>> separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
>>> etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular
>>> characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment.
>> "
>>
>> "
>>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
>>> audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
>>> But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
>>> the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
>>> factor, either.
>> "
>
> A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from
> what he understands from working there, the type of media
> used to deliver the master to the CD plant could make
> some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
> pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media
> was analog, that meant that what the plant got was going
> to be an "AAD" CD with the additional possibility that
> the CD plant's analog to digital conversion might not be
> as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing
> studio.
> SPARS Code
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code
>
> Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them
> in both a "low end" and a "high end" CD player. The high
> end CD player would actually report error
> detection/correction information and a certain amount of
> errors were allowed in the final product, but I think
> they only allowed errors which were able to be corrected
> by the CD player.

That sounds similar to what I've heard from people who worked at CD plants.
The idea of people in CD plants mastering CD intended for wide-scale
distribution is a bit scary.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message

>
> Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why
> a few of us (with a higher *anxiety threshold* than some
> here) don't trouble too much about what processes (D or
> A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get on
> with getting the best out of them as an *end product* on
> our own kit....

Sometimes getting the most of of them as an end product is facilitated by
knowing about processes went into making various LPs and CDs.

[Walt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>>Chris Hornbeck wrote:

>>>Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
>>>make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
>>>tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
>>>[ ... ]
>
>>Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
>>the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
>>comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
>>of.


I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates a comparrison
between the two media at all - if the CD copy sounds just like the vinyl
it just means that the CD is a very good storage media where you get out
(almost) exactly what you put in.

Imagine going the other way - take a CD and press a vinyl record from it
(going through all the mother/master/stamping steps). Do you think that
the end result would be inidistinguishable?

Or to put a finer point on it, imagine the third generation cassette
copy of "Abba's greatest hits" that spent the summer on the back
dashboard of my car. Transfer it to CD, and you'll find that the CD
sounds just like the third-generation sun-damaged Sweedish crooning on
the tape. What conclusions would you draw from that fact?

//Walt

[Geoff]

Walt wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>
>>>> Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
>>>> make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
>>>> tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
>>>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
>>> the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
>>> comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
>>> of.
>
>
> I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates a comparrison
> between the two media at all - if the CD copy sounds just like the
> vinyl it just means that the CD is a very good storage media where
> you get out (almost) exactly what you put in.

That was, I think, the point !

geoff

[Arny Krueger]

"Geoff" > wrote in message

> Walt wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>>
>>>>> Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I
>>>>> can make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't
>>>>> really tell from the original, other than the
>>>>> cleaning rituals [ ... ]
>>>
>>>> Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up
>>>> with the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic,
>>>> practical comparison method between LP and CD that
>>>> I've ever heard of.
>>
>>
>> I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates
>> a comparrison between the two media at all - if the CD
>> copy sounds just like the vinyl it just means that the
>> CD is a very good storage media where you get out
>> (almost) exactly what you put in.
>
> That was, I think, the point !

Which begs the questions raised by people who claim that the CD format
somehow inherently makes music unacceptable for the purpose of them
listening for their enjoyment.

[Mr.T]

"Jeff Findley" > wrote in message
...
> A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
> from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
> plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
> pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
> meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
> additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
> might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

In fact many CD plants would not touch an analog tape these days. Any who do
would probably perform as good a job as the tape allows for. The only
difference being the quality of the tape machine.


> Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
> end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
> report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of
errors
> were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed errors
> which were able to be corrected by the CD player.

Unfortunately they even ADD C1 errors these days and call it copy
protection!

MrT.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Author's profile:
>
> David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
> teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music
> groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New York in
> 1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP recordings for CD,
> at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer
> and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#). Translator (German to
> English) and editorial nit-picker of technical and sales literature for
> Schoeps GmbH.
>

I'm not sure if this is an independent view - seems to me the author has
a number of vested interests.

> Comment:
>
> David Satz" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> "
>
> "
>> Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> "
>
> "
>>> Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
>>> make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
>>> tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
>>> [ ... ]
>

I'd go along with that to a point - LP-CD provides a mighty fine
rendition. LP-CD sounds particularly marked in compilations, and really
makes the case for LP IMO. I do find that the CD copy gives a flatter
sound stage.
"
>
> "
>> Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
>> the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
>> comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
>> of.
>

Um - listening to the results is a good idea?! Well, obviously :-)
"
>
> "
>> Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
>> CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
>> results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
>> Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
>> separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
>> the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
>> their LP and CD playback equipment.
>

OK, yes.
"
>
> "
>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
>> audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
>> But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
>> the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
>> factor, either.
> "

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has managed two
maxims from anecdote. This is a problem because it still doesn't explain
*why* some people prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl. It's just
another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they must not'.

Onwards and sideways ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" > wrote in
message

>> "
>>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
>>> audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
>>> But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
>>> the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
>>> factor, either.
>> "

> Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
> managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

> This is a problem
> because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer
> a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

> It's just another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they
> must
> not'.

Completely missed the point.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in
> message
>
>>> "
>>>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
>>>> audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
>>>> But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
>>>> the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
>>>> factor, either.
>>> "
>
>> Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
>> managed two maxims from anecdote.
>
> No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
in sources.

These assumptions aren't facts.

>
>> This is a problem
>> because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer
>> a similar/same recording on vinyl.
>
> That wasn't the point.
>

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no attempt is made
to explain cause. If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

>> It's just another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they
>> must
>> not'.
>
> Completely missed the point.
>

I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to: "It's another
attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would you have posted?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Rob" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>>> "
>>>>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
>>>>> audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
>>>>> But your method eliminates that variable completely,
>>>>> and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
>>>>> a factor, either.
>>>> "
>>
>>> Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
>>> managed two maxims from anecdote.
>>
>> No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.
>
> Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
> LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.

> Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
> captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.

> These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.

>>> This is a problem
>>> because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
>>> prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

>> That wasn't the point.

> Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
> attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.

> If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.

>>> It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
>>> 'They can not, they must
>>> not'.

>> Completely missed the point.


> I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
> "It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
> you have posted?

Error correction. Education.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in
> message
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Rob" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
>>>>>> audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
>>>>>> But your method eliminates that variable completely,
>>>>>> and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
>>>>>> a factor, either.
>>>>> "
>>>> Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
>>>> managed two maxims from anecdote.
>>> No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.
>> Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
>> LP music recording.
>
> Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
> considerable safety magin.
>
> But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
> both listening tests and measurements.
>
>> Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
>> captures in entirety any variance in sources.
>
> Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
> considerable margin.
>
> But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
> both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
> coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
> been done.
>

That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle about
supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you shouldn't hear, makes
the notion of 'audible' a problem for dunces like me :-)

>> These assumptions aren't facts.
>
> Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
> findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
> bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
> collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
> anywhere as near unbiased.
>

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you have a reference
to a (preferably peer reviewed) source to substantiate this?

>>>> This is a problem
>>>> because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
>>>> prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.
>
>>> That wasn't the point.
>
>> Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
>> attempt is made to explain cause.
>
> The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
> perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
> and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
> you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.
>

Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

>> If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.
>
> The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
> sensation and perception.
>

I think you're steering towards a rational/'nature'/positivist
explanation. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but you do understand
there are different ways of thinking about things?!

>>>> It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
>>>> 'They can not, they must
>>>> not'.
>
>>> Completely missed the point.
>
>
>> I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
>> "It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
>> you have posted?
>
> Error correction. Education.
>

Is that some sort of crossword clue?

[Arny Krueger]

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

>>>>>> "
>>>>>>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
>>>>>>> its audible sound quality than CD playback
>>>>>>> equipment does. But your method eliminates that
>>>>>>> variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
>>>>>>> a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
"
>>>>> Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
>>>>> has managed two maxims from anecdote.
>>>> No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

>>> Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
>>> LP music recording.

>> Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
>> and with a very considerable safety magin.

>> But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
>> can be verified with both listening tests and
>> measurements.

>>> Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
>>> captures in entirety any variance in sources.

>> Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
>> and with a considerable margin.

>> But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
>> can be verified with both listening tests and
>> measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
>> with what is known about human perception of sound. This
>> has been done.

> That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
> about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
> shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
> for dunces like me :-)

>>> These assumptions aren't facts.

>> Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
>> Properly stated they are findings of science that have
>> been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
>> take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
>> even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
>> findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

> Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
> have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
> to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.


>>>>> This is a problem
>>>>> because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
>>>>> prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.
>>
>>>> That wasn't the point.
>>
>>> Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
>>> attempt is made to explain cause.

>> The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
>> based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
>> the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
>> brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
>> the steps, you find the most variations in how different
>> people's brains work.

> Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

Robust fact.

>>> If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

>> The reason why can be easily understood if you are
>> well-informed about sensation and perception.

> I think you're steering towards a
> rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
> with that in itself, but you do understand there are
> different ways of thinking about things?!

It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley > wrote:

> A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
> from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
> plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
> pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
> meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
> additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
> might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

> SPARS Code
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.


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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Rob > wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Rob" > wrote in
> > message
> >
> >>> "
> >>>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
> >>>> audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
> >>>> But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
> >>>> the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
> >>>> factor, either.
> >>> "
> >
> >> Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
> >> managed two maxims from anecdote.
> >
> > No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

> Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.

It's a reasonable assumption that the *audible part* of any LP is fully
captured by a decent CD transcription of it.

> Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
> in sources.

What variances in *this* souce -- would you suggest fail to be
captured?


> These assumptions aren't facts.

What data would demonstrate that they are or are not, to you?
How would you falsify Mr. Satz' claims?


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

[Jeff Findley]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley > wrote:
>
>> A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
>> from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the
>> CD
>> plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the
>> CD's
>> pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
>> meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
>> additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
>> might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.
>
>> SPARS Code
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code
>
>
> When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
> plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?
>
> I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
> redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
> mastering.

I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then delivery
of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common. Still, he still
tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going on at the plant
since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the mastering from the analog
tapes.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Karl Uppiano]

"Jeff Findley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley > wrote:
>>
>>> A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he
>>> understands
>>> from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the
>>> CD
>>> plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the
>>> CD's
>>> pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
>>> meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
>>> additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
>>> might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.
>>
>>> SPARS Code
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code
>>
>>
>> When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
>> plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?
>>
>> I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
>> redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
>> mastering.
>
> I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then
> delivery of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common.
> Still, he still tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going
> on at the plant since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the
> mastering from the analog tapes.
>
> Jeff

I always purchased CDs based on the quality of the music. The SPARS code was
irrelevant to me, but I always took comfort that if it said AAD, it meant
that the master tape ensured adequate dithering for the CD. :-)

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in
> message
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Rob" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> "Rob" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>> Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
>>>>>>>> its audible sound quality than CD playback
>>>>>>>> equipment does. But your method eliminates that
>>>>>>>> variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
>>>>>>>> a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
> "
>>>>>> Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
>>>>>> has managed two maxims from anecdote.
>>>>> No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.
>
>>>> Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
>>>> LP music recording.
>
>>> Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
>>> and with a very considerable safety magin.
>
>>> But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
>>> can be verified with both listening tests and
>>> measurements.
>
>>>> Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
>>>> captures in entirety any variance in sources.
>
>>> Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
>>> and with a considerable margin.
>
>>> But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
>>> can be verified with both listening tests and
>>> measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
>>> with what is known about human perception of sound. This
>>> has been done.
>
>> That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
>> about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
>> shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
>> for dunces like me :-)
>
>>>> These assumptions aren't facts.
>
>>> Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
>>> Properly stated they are findings of science that have
>>> been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
>>> take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
>>> even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
>>> findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.
>
>> Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
>> have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
>> to substantiate this?
>
> Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:
>
> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm
>
> The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
> audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
> player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
> modern contexts with identical results.
>

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of
(incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to:

http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological
and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. The
bibliography is rather narrow and doesn't (of course) guide the reader
towards references. What made the inventor choose that method? It didn't
just come out of the air!
>
>>>>>> This is a problem
>>>>>> because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
>>>>>> prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.
>>>>> That wasn't the point.
>>>> Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
>>>> attempt is made to explain cause.
>
>>> The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
>>> based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
>>> the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
>>> brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
>>> the steps, you find the most variations in how different
>>> people's brains work.
>
>> Is this your opinion or another robust fact?
>
> Robust fact.
>
>>>> If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.
>
>>> The reason why can be easily understood if you are
>>> well-informed about sensation and perception.
>
>> I think you're steering towards a
>> rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
>> with that in itself, but you do understand there are
>> different ways of thinking about things?!
>
> It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
> listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
> can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
> complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
> philosophical thinking can be bypassed.
>

Of course - but it's obvious to anyone looking at those tests that it's
a pretty narrow respondent sample. To turn it round and say "Well, they
are the most qualified to comment" is IMO elitist claptrap.

[Arny Krueger]

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

>>>> Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
>>>> Properly stated they are findings of science that have
>>>> been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
>>>> take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
>>>> even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
>>>> findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

>>> Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
>>> have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
>>> to substantiate this?

>> Here's an example of some people who tried to collect
>> their own data: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

>> The digital delay device being tested used the identical
>> same data format as audio CDs and was of professional
>> grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD player
>> back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to
>> time in more modern contexts with identical results.

> OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
> list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
> gets me to:
> http://www.pcabx.com/

> with an odd statement about methodology.


> What exactly is
> the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
> reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
> these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in
> message
>
>> OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
>> list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
>> gets me to:
>> http://www.pcabx.com/
>
>> with an odd statement about methodology.
>
>
>> What exactly is
>> the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
>> reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
>> these points to accept what you say.
>
> Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
> used many times before and I'm not playing.
>

Well, it's your ball :-)

[Keith G]

"Rob" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Rob" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
>>> list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
>>> gets me to:
>>> http://www.pcabx.com/
>>
>>> with an odd statement about methodology.
>>
>>
>>> What exactly is
>>> the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
>>> reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
>>> these points to accept what you say.
>>
>> Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
>> technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
>
> Well, it's your ball :-)
>


What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

[Karl Uppiano]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Rob" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
>>>> list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
>>>> gets me to:
>>>> http://www.pcabx.com/
>>>
>>>> with an odd statement about methodology.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What exactly is
>>>> the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
>>>> reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
>>>> these points to accept what you say.
>>>
>>> Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
>>> technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
>>
>> Well, it's your ball :-)
>>
>
>
> What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??
>
> :-)
>
>
> (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr
Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.

Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that
was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious
physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio, instead
of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a
dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening
denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-)

[Rob]

Karl Uppiano wrote:
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Rob" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
>>>>> list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
>>>>> gets me to:
>>>>> http://www.pcabx.com/
>>>>> with an odd statement about methodology.
>>>>
>>>>> What exactly is
>>>>> the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
>>>>> reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
>>>>> these points to accept what you say.
>>>> Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
>>>> technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
>>> Well, it's your ball :-)
>>>
>>
>> What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>
>> (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)
>
> It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr
> Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.
>

Do you mean ontology and epistemology? They're common enough words when
discussing methodology - Arny started that ball rolling. I do tend to
agree that a lot of BS accompanies philosophical 'analysis'.

> Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that
> was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious
> physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio,

Agreed. But I didn't start it :-)

instead
> of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a
> dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening
> denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-)
>

I didn't start that one either!

[Rob]

Keith G wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Rob" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
>>>> list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
>>>> gets me to:
>>>> http://www.pcabx.com/
>>>> with an odd statement about methodology.
>>>
>>>> What exactly is
>>>> the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
>>>> reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
>>>> these points to accept what you say.
>>> Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
>>> technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
>> Well, it's your ball :-)
>>
>
>
> What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??
>
> :-)
>
>
> (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)
>

Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny!

[Keith G]

"Karl Uppiano" > wrote in message
news:z6q3h.2238$Wd5.62@trnddc05...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Rob" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
>>>>> list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
>>>>> gets me to:
>>>>> http://www.pcabx.com/
>>>>
>>>>> with an odd statement about methodology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What exactly is
>>>>> the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
>>>>> reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
>>>>> these points to accept what you say.
>>>>
>>>> Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
>>>> technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
>>>
>>> Well, it's your ball :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>
>> (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)
>
> It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by
> Dr Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.



Sure, why not? It definitely says 'fight fire with fire' on page 28 of my
copy of 'How To Scrape By'.....???

Talking of which, here's a clip of a St Neots (UK) inhabitant enjoying his
fireworks display tonight:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/St%20Neots%20Fireworks.mp3

:-)

(Dual mono for technical reasons.....)

[Keith G]

"Rob" > wrote in message
...
> Keith G wrote:
>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Rob" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
>>>>> list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
>>>>> gets me to:
>>>>> http://www.pcabx.com/
>>>>> with an odd statement about methodology.
>>>>
>>>>> What exactly is
>>>>> the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
>>>>> reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
>>>>> these points to accept what you say.
>>>> Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
>>>> technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
>>> Well, it's your ball :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>
>> (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)
>>
>
> Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny!



Good sport or *a* good sport? - There's a big difference!

(I'd agree with the former....!! ;-)

[Glenn Richards]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
> same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
> really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
> (generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
> etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
> their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Glenn Richards > wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:

> > Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
> > same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
> > really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
> > (generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
> > etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
> > their LP and CD playback equipment.

> So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
> better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
> wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
> compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

> (Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

"Glenn Richards" > wrote in message
. uk...
> So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
> better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
> wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better?

That of course can be the case, but the reverse is also true, far more
often.

> (Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

Obviously.

MrT.

[Keith G]

"Glenn Richards" > wrote in message
. uk...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
>> same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
>> really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
>> (generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
>> etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
>> their LP and CD playback equipment.
>
> So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
> better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
> wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
> compressed to within an inch of its life?
>
> (Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)



Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting, there are two CD racks
full of the sort stuff I like to (and do) play. It is though they do not
exist - I *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it hasn't been - it's
still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/cellophane.jpg

It must have been there some years now and one of the *few* things I like on
Carsick FM is the 'Smooth Classics at Seven' prog..!!??

In fact, I suspect over half of them have never been played even once since
they were bought - why is that...??

(I think it's a 'natural selection' based on a genuine preference that has
bugger-all to do with technical differences!)

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G" >
wrote:

>Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
>concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
>bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
>(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

In my experience, very few. Except kids who want to scratch.

[Arny Krueger]

"Glenn Richards" > wrote in
message
. uk
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
>> CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
>> results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
>> Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
>> separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
>> etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular
>> characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment.
>
> So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is
> capable of far better quality sound than vinyl, but due
> to sloppy mastering (loudness wars anyone?) vinyl
> generally sounds better?

Huh?

My position is that CD is easily capable of far better sound quality than
vinyl, even when people work their butts off trying to make vinyl sound
good. Furthermore, since the CD has been the predominant mainstream method
of distributing music, music has in general sounded far better because it
was no longer cursed with the audible artifacts that are inherent in LPs.

>Because it hasn't been compressed to within an inch of its life?

Hypercompression is a production technique, not an inherent property of a
distribution medium. However. the LP format has historically been more
likely to use compression, because the basic dynamic range of the LP medium
is less than that of wide dynamic range music. Thing is that even the LP
format didn't need hypercompression.

The reason that so much music is hypercompressed today is because people no
longer predominately listen to music as their sole activity. Music is more
likely than ever to be listened to while the listener is doing something
else that is more important to them. Therefore, dynamic range is a detriment
to many listener's use of music.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message


> Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
> there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
> (and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I *never*
> think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
> set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it
> hasn't been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was in my house, it would
probably stay in the wrapper - on the grounds that I don't have time to
listen to boring music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is boring
music no matter what the format.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
>> there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
>> (and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I *never*
>> think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
>> set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it
>> hasn't been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!
>
> If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was in my house, it
> would probably stay in the wrapper - on the grounds that I don't have time
> to listen to boring music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
> boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

You're a recordist, aren't you?

What's the matter with you? - There's nothing here a little *unison
clapping* and tambourine overdub wouldn't fix.....

:-)


(Well worth letting him out of the ****ter for that one!!)

Tee hee.... :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
>>> there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
>>> (and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
>>> *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
>>> even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
>>> disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
>>> cellophane wrapper!!
>>
>> If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
>> in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
>> the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
>> music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
>> boring music no matter what the format.
>
>
>
> Boring?
>
> http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG
>
> ??

Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.

> You're a recordist, aren't you?

Yeah,

> What's the matter with you? - There's nothing here a
> little *unison clapping* and tambourine overdub wouldn't
> fix.....

What are you talking about? It's clear you don't know.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
>>>> there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
>>>> (and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
>>>> *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
>>>> even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
>>>> disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
>>>> cellophane wrapper!!
>>>
>>> If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
>>> in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
>>> the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
>>> music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
>>> boring music no matter what the format.
>>
>>
>>
>> Boring?
>>
>> http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG
>>
>> ??
>
> Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.



I believe the US version had a few tracks by The Osmonds on it....

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
>>>>> there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like
>>>>> to (and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
>>>>> *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
>>>>> even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
>>>>> disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
>>>>> cellophane wrapper!!
>>>>
>>>> If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
>>>> in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
>>>> the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
>>>> music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
>>>> boring music no matter what the format.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Boring?
>>>
>>> http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG
>>>
>>> ??
>>
>> Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.

> I believe the US version had a few tracks by The Osmonds
> on it....

Say no more.

There really is such a thing as too much information, you know! ;-)

[Jeff Findley]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
> concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
> bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
> (Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)
>
> Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting, there are two CD
> racks full of the sort stuff I like to (and do) play. It is though they do
> not exist - I *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is even a
> 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it hasn't
> been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!
>
> http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/cellophane.jpg
>
> It must have been there some years now and one of the *few* things I like
> on Carsick FM is the 'Smooth Classics at Seven' prog..!!??
>
> In fact, I suspect over half of them have never been played even once
> since they were bought - why is that...??
>
> (I think it's a 'natural selection' based on a genuine preference that has
> bugger-all to do with technical differences!)

I grew up in the 80's, so I'm of the Walkman generation. The first thing I
did to any album (record or CD) was to transfer it to cassette tape so I
could take it with me in my Walkman clone and in my car. It's awfully hard
to play an LP in a car. So portability became an issue early on with me
even if it did result in some loss of quality. Besides, there is so much
outside noise in a car or when "walking" that it didn't matter anyway.

Today, it's a hell of a lot easier to buy a CD, rip it and send it to my
NetMD or convert it into an MP3 for portability than it is to record an LP
on the PC and then send that to my NetMD or MP3 player.

Beyond that, while snap, crackle, and pop might be o.k. as a cereal, I
really don't want to hear it in my music. It's also *far* more annoying to
me than analog audio tape hiss, which I don't really like in my music
either. Getting away from tape hiss is why I use MD and MP3 for portable
music.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jeff Findley" > wrote in
message

> I grew up in the 80's, so I'm of the Walkman generation. The first thing I
> did to any album (record or CD) was to
> transfer it to cassette tape so I could take it with me
> in my Walkman clone and in my car. It's awfully hard to
> play an LP in a car. So portability became an issue
> early on with me even if it did result in some loss of
> quality. Besides, there is so much outside noise in a
> car or when "walking" that it didn't matter anyway.

> Today, it's a hell of a lot easier to buy a CD, rip it
> and send it to my NetMD or convert it into an MP3 for
> portability than it is to record an LP on the PC and then
> send that to my NetMD or MP3 player.

> Beyond that, while snap, crackle, and pop might be o.k.
> as a cereal, I really don't want to hear it in my music.

If snap crackel and pop were all that the LP format did to music it would be
bad enough, but it isn't.

I don't know how people can mention High Fidelity and LP in the same breath,
given how good our mainstream media formats can be.

> It's also *far* more annoying to me than analog audio
> tape hiss, which I don't really like in my music either.

Well Dolby and metal tape did a lot for the hiss thing with cassette tape,
but there are a host of other audible artifacts. In the days of cassette
walkmen, I used a Sony WM3 and metal tape.

> Getting away from tape hiss is why I use MD and MP3 for
> portable music.

Either done right can sonically outperform cassette tape and LP, quite
easily.

> Jeff

[Stephen Worth]

> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G" >
> wrote:
>
> >Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
> >concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
> >bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?

There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD. Those are valid
reasons to prefer vinyl over CD.

When it comes to sound quality, both CD and LP are capable of
reproducing high fidelity sound. Whether or not they actually do
that depends on the mastering and manufacturing.

The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage and handling
than LPs.

See ya
Steve

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of
>>> *demanding* that people concede 'CD is better' for any
>>> particular reason (??) none of the digital bigots ever
>>> seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play
>>> vinyl?
>
> There's a very good reason why people collect LP records.
> They are very inexpensive, usually about two bucks
> apiece, and there's a wide variety of music on LP that
> isn't available on CD. Those are valid reasons to prefer
> vinyl over CD.
>
> When it comes to sound quality, both CD and LP are
> capable of reproducing high fidelity sound.

I seriously question whether the low level of performance of the LP format
can be called "High Fidelity" in 2006.

> Whether or
> not they actually do that depends on the mastering and
> manufacturing.

No, the LP format has serious basic flaws that have never been resolved.

> The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage
> and handling than LPs.

The CD format has more than an order of magnitude less noise and distortion
the LP format. The LP format has audible noise and distortion. The CD
format does not.

[Keith G]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
>>concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
>>bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
>>(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)
>
> No, in the real world very few people prefer playing vinyl.



Here we go again....




The number
> of people around the world that are into hifi is a small percentage of
> the music-buying public,


So what? One percent of a million quid/bucks is still a tidy sum....



and vinyl mavens are a tiny fraction of that.
> So you're part of the fringe of a fringe. :-)



No-one's talking percentages/fractions (or both) - the word I used is
'plenty'. If you want percentages, every single local 'audio' person I know
uses vinyl, so that's 100% and most of my 'audio' visitors do - let's say
80% (four fifths)....OK?

If you do not think there are *plenty* of people using vinyl, go bid on some
of the vinyl goodies on eBay and see how hard you can get smashed on, say, a
nice MC cart or tonearm in perfect condition.....


>
> What I keep pointing out is that there are well-known and readily
> measurable problems with vinyl, problems that do not exist with CD. If
> you prefer vinyl, it's because you actually prefer added distortion.


Nope, that won't wash either - for me the LP is a longer-established music
carrier than the CD and it is my 'norm'. If you say (I don't necessarily
agree) that audible distortion has been removed with a CD then I would ask
what else has been removed with it? I would suggest a palpable sense of
'realism' for starters - for me, CD is sterile or even *fake* by
comparison...


>
> That's perfectly fine. Prefer whatever you want. However, don't then
> try to claim that vinyl is superior.


Yes, we've heard that a few times before in ukra (where I'm posting) - first
off, I don't need your permission for my preferences and I certainly don't
need your instructions as to what or what not to claim. IMO, vinyl *is*
superior, or I wouldn't use it - I don't care who disagrees with that or
what they prefer and might claim themselves...

<stands back and awaits the usual torrent of irrelevant technobabble...>

[Keith G]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
>> >concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the
>> >digital
>> >bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play
>> >vinyl?
>
> There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
> very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
> variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD. Those are valid
> reasons to prefer vinyl over CD.


Certainly some of the valid reasons - other valid reasons are actually
preferring to listen to them and handling them....


>
> When it comes to sound quality, both CD and LP are capable of
> reproducing high fidelity sound. Whether or not they actually do
> that depends on the mastering and manufacturing.


Yep, I suppose....


>
> The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage and handling
> than LPs.


Nope, try carrying a dozen of each (in turn) for any distance (assuming
jewel cases)....

[Adam Sampson]

Stephen Worth > writes:

> There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
> very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
> variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.

Quite -- that's why I'm into vinyl. It's hard to find interesting
second-hand CDs for much less than four pounds here in the UK, which
puts me off buying music "on spec"; on the other hand, I can go into a
charity shop and pick up four to eight LPs for the same amount, and
I've discovered a lot of interesting music that way. I don't expect
the quality to be anywhere near that available on CD, although I'm
occasionally pleasantly surprised by a well-pressed record in really
good condition...

There's also the historical interest angle: until 1984 or so, LP was
*the* mainstream high-fidelity medium. I can understand how CD can
produce good-quality audio -- that's just the application of
sufficient electronic magic -- but being able to get reasonable sound
quality by dragging a diamond across a sheet of plastic still strikes
me as a pretty cool trick. ;)

(Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)

--
Adam Sampson > <http://offog.org/>

[Keith G]

"Adam Sampson" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Worth > writes:
>
>> There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
>> very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
>> variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.
>
> Quite -- that's why I'm into vinyl. It's hard to find interesting
> second-hand CDs for much less than four pounds here in the UK, which
> puts me off buying music "on spec"; on the other hand, I can go into a
> charity shop and pick up four to eight LPs for the same amount, and
> I've discovered a lot of interesting music that way. I don't expect
> the quality to be anywhere near that available on CD, although I'm
> occasionally pleasantly surprised by a well-pressed record in really
> good condition...
>
> There's also the historical interest angle: until 1984 or so, LP was
> *the* mainstream high-fidelity medium. I can understand how CD can
> produce good-quality audio -- that's just the application of
> sufficient electronic magic -- but being able to get reasonable sound
> quality by dragging a diamond across a sheet of plastic still strikes
> me as a pretty cool trick. ;)
>
> (Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
> really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)




Cool trick? Is it *ever*....!!!

Adam, the record (fabulous *mint* 1972 Supraphon pressing) this track came
from cost me 50p, IIRC...

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Der%20Engel.mp3

It was playing when I read your post - I transferred it to my 'computer
setup' to grab a couple of tracks for you. (Doesn't do them any favours from
a *static* POV, believe me, so there's enough **** to keep the digital
bigots happy....!! ;-)

If you like it and want it on CD, you can get it for anything from 7.99 to
17.99 from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=sr_nr_i_0/203-3923336-2222317?ie=UTF8&keywords=wesendonck&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Awesendonck%2Ci%3Aclassical&page=1


Words here (Der Engel):

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/fss/jeaglen/operas/wesen2.htm

Not your sort of thing?

Play it over until it is.....

[Keith G]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:03:01 -0000, "Keith G" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>If you do not think there are *plenty* of people using vinyl, go bid on
>>some
>>of the vinyl goodies on eBay and see how hard you can get smashed on, say,
>>a
>>nice MC cart or tonearm in perfect condition.....
>
> So? That doesn't prove there are "plenty" of people using vinyl.
>
> And again I will point out that vinyl is the darling of a teeny, tiny
> percentage of music buyers.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What I keep pointing out is that there are well-known and readily
>>> measurable problems with vinyl, problems that do not exist with CD. If
>>> you prefer vinyl, it's because you actually prefer added distortion.
>>
>>
>>Nope, that won't wash either - for me the LP is a longer-established music
>>carrier than the CD and it is my 'norm'. If you say (I don't necessarily
>>agree) that audible distortion has been removed with a CD then I would ask
>>what else has been removed with it? I would suggest a palpable sense of
>>'realism' for starters - for me, CD is sterile or even *fake* by
>>comparison...
>
> The distortion isn't "removed" with CD, it is never there in the first
> place.
>
> Your "norm" is distorted. That "palpable sense of realism" is just
> added distortion.


??

Do you ever eat that cheese - you know, the blue mouldy one you pay extra
for....

[Jeff Findley]

"Adam Sampson" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Worth > writes:
>
>> There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
>> very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece, and there's a wide
>> variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.
>
> Quite -- that's why I'm into vinyl. It's hard to find interesting
> second-hand CDs for much less than four pounds here in the UK, which
> puts me off buying music "on spec"; on the other hand, I can go into a
> charity shop and pick up four to eight LPs for the same amount, and
> I've discovered a lot of interesting music that way. I don't expect
> the quality to be anywhere near that available on CD, although I'm
> occasionally pleasantly surprised by a well-pressed record in really
> good condition...

The lack of really cheap used CD's shows how sought after they are compared
to LP's.

Here in the US, for a used CD I typically pay 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of new
CD's (which seem to run about $15 to $20 US). If I get lucky, I'll find a
used CD I like in the "bargain bin" for maybe $1 to $3 US, which is a great
deal. In the same shops, LP's run about $0.50 to $3 US, and I do pick up
one from time to time.

> There's also the historical interest angle: until 1984 or so, LP was
> *the* mainstream high-fidelity medium. I can understand how CD can
> produce good-quality audio -- that's just the application of
> sufficient electronic magic -- but being able to get reasonable sound
> quality by dragging a diamond across a sheet of plastic still strikes
> me as a pretty cool trick. ;)

I started collecting CD's back in about 1985, years before I bought my first
CD player. I'd borrow a friend's stereo and copy the CD to cassette tape
for listening since this was the Walkman era. Finally in about 1991/1992 I
won a CD player at a Christmas/New Year party thrown by my wife's boss. By
that time I had a collection of maybe 12 to 20 CD's and two to three dozen
LP's and 45's.

> (Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
> really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)

Clean the LP really good, record it on a PC as a WAV, then burn to a CD-R
and play the CD instead of the LP. You'll save wear and tear on the LP's
and eliminate the constant cleaning. Plus you can then easily transfer the
audio to an MP3 player or a NetMD via USB. I've done this for several dozen
LP's, mostly ones I got from my grandparents after their turntable finally
stopped working and they didn't want to repair it anymore. I gave them back
copies of the LP's on CD-R along with a little bookshelf CD player with a
remote control.

Just about any PC will do, as long as you've got a decent sound card in it.
All the software I use for this is freeware/shareware (Audacity, CD Wave,
and DePopper). Here in the US, I typically pay about $0.10 US for a blank
CD-R, which is still far cheaper than even a bargain LP. If you don't do
any noise reduction, you even preserve the "authentic LP sound". ;-)

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Glenn Richards > wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:

> > Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
> > same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
> > really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
> > (generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
> > etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
> > their LP and CD playback equipment.

> So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
> better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
> wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
> compressed to within an inch of its life?


Yes, for popular music since about 1993 or so, that *could* be the case,
*if* you find the dynamic range compression used in modern pop CD
mastering (which some find to be 'euphonic', ie good-sounding) more
objectionable than that the 'euphonic' distortions of LP. Of course even
today, not all pop CDs are so compressed, nor are all of them compressed
to the same degree. But all LP systems will display 'euphonic' distortion.

Compared to pop music, digital compression is more rarely applied to jazz
CDs, and more rarely still to classical CDs. It is unlikely you will find
classical LPs that match the dynamic range of the corresponding CD.


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

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
>
>>
> No, the LP format has serious basic flaws that have never been resolved.
>
>> The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage
>> and handling than LPs.
>
> The CD format has more than an order of magnitude less noise and
> distortion the LP format. The LP format has audible noise and distortion.
> The CD format does not.

The LP has 2 significant advantages over the CD:

1. The cover art is much more persuasive

2. You can play a neat game where you cover over the label and try to guess
what piece is recorded by looking at the velocity pattern under a bare
lightbulb. It only works with the classical canon, but with a little
practice you can get quite good at it. As I recall, the easiest one to
guess was the Pines of Rome by Respighi.

Norm Strong

[Adam Sampson]

"Jeff Findley" > writes:

>> (Speaking as a vinyl enthusiast on a student budget, though, I do
>> really wish someone made an affordable record-cleaning machine!)
> Clean the LP really good, record it on a PC as a WAV, then burn to a
> CD-R and play the CD instead of the LP.

Yep, that's what I do for anything I'm likely to play regularly --
albeit without the "burn to a CD" stage unless I'm doing it for
someone else, since all my digital audio comes straight off the PC
these days.

The problem is with the first step; I often get second-hand records
that are extremely dusty, dirty or otherwise grotty, and there's only
so much that can be done with a dry brush. I'd like some non-messy way
of wet-cleaning and vacuuming records like the Moth or Nitty-Gritty
machines do. I'm currently keeping an eye on Freecycle for a suitable
vacuum cleaner to convert into a DIY RCM along the same lines:
http://www.teresaudio.com/haven/cleaner/cleaner.html

--
Adam Sampson > <http://offog.org/>

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >Nope, that won't wash either - for me the LP is a longer-established
> >music carrier than the CD and it is my 'norm'. If you say (I don't
> >necessarily agree) that audible distortion has been removed with a CD
> >then I would ask what else has been removed with it? I would suggest a
> >palpable sense of 'realism' for starters - for me, CD is sterile or
> >even *fake* by comparison...

> The distortion isn't "removed" with CD, it is never there in the first
> place.

> Your "norm" is distorted. That "palpable sense of realism" is just
> added distortion.

You're wasting your time arguing with Mr G. He considers vinyl through
home made single driver horns with (at least) the top and bottom octaves
missing - driven by an SET amp with goodness knows how much distortion -
gives perfect results in his tiny but excessively lively listening room.
Of course at his age, his hearing is probably the true limiting factor.
Those who disagree - ie most - have no place on this, his own personal
newsgroup. ;-)

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> There's a very good reason why people collect LP records. They are
> very inexpensive, usually about two bucks apiece,

S/H, ... as are many S/H CD's. Except a S/H CD has some chance of still
being playable!
The funny thing is that new vinyl is actually more expensive than CD!

Now add in the cost of a decent turntable/cartridge and replacement
sylii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(not to mention a record cleaning machine and the requisite fluids)

Where exactly is the saving?????


> and there's a wide
> variety of music on LP that isn't available on CD.

And vice versa.

> Those are valid
> reasons to prefer vinyl over CD.

No, those are valid reasons to play whatever you want to listen to at the
time.

> When it comes to sound quality, both CD and LP are capable of
> reproducing high fidelity sound.

> The CD format is definitely more convenient for storage and handling
> than LPs.

No doubt about that.
The only benefit of vinyl IMO is the cover art :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>But all LP systems will display 'euphonic' distortion.

Not so. I find much of the distortion on vinyl records anything but
"euphonic"!

MrT.

[Keith G]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>> >Nope, that won't wash either - for me the LP is a longer-established
>> >music carrier than the CD and it is my 'norm'. If you say (I don't
>> >necessarily agree) that audible distortion has been removed with a CD
>> >then I would ask what else has been removed with it? I would suggest a
>> >palpable sense of 'realism' for starters - for me, CD is sterile or
>> >even *fake* by comparison...
>
>> The distortion isn't "removed" with CD, it is never there in the first
>> place.
>
>> Your "norm" is distorted. That "palpable sense of realism" is just
>> added distortion.
>
> You're wasting your time arguing with Mr G. He considers vinyl through
> home made single driver horns with (at least) the top and bottom octaves
> missing - driven by an SET amp with goodness knows how much distortion -
> gives perfect results in his tiny but excessively lively listening room.
> Of course at his age, his hearing is probably the true limiting factor.
> Those who disagree - ie most - have no place on this, his own personal
> newsgroup. ;-)



Oh dear......

Do stop your snivelling, Plowie - you're like a snot-nosed little kid
whining that the big boys won't let you have a kick of the ball.....

Dry yer eyes and have a look at this (I fished you out of my ****ter
specially):

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=018&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=280043025705&rd=1&rd=1


Tell me if you think it would be any good for 'out and about'
recording....??

I'm looking at things like the Edirol R-09

http://www.solidstatesound.co.uk/edirolr-09.htm


...but not sure if I want to punt 300 quid on summat that might be a bit
disappointing (or might only be a flash in the pan)....??

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >But all LP systems will display 'euphonic' distortion.

> Not so. I find much of the distortion on vinyl records anything but
> "euphonic"!


Oh, for the ability to make 'quote fingers' online.


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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >, Keith G
> wrote:
> > You're wasting your time arguing with Mr G. He considers vinyl through
> > home made single driver horns with (at least) the top and bottom
> > octaves missing - driven by an SET amp with goodness knows how much
> > distortion - gives perfect results in his tiny but excessively lively
> > listening room. Of course at his age, his hearing is probably the true
> > limiting factor. Those who disagree - ie most - have no place on this,
> > his own personal newsgroup. ;-)



> Oh dear......

> Do stop your snivelling, Plowie - you're like a snot-nosed little kid
> whining that the big boys won't let you have a kick of the ball.....



Thank you for taking the bait and proving your enormous ego insists you
reply to anything mentioning yourself - even after making a song and dance
about who's in your killfile...

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Keith G]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Keith G
> > wrote:
>> > You're wasting your time arguing with Mr G. He considers vinyl through
>> > home made single driver horns with (at least) the top and bottom
>> > octaves missing - driven by an SET amp with goodness knows how much
>> > distortion - gives perfect results in his tiny but excessively lively
>> > listening room. Of course at his age, his hearing is probably the true
>> > limiting factor. Those who disagree - ie most - have no place on this,
>> > his own personal newsgroup. ;-)
>
>
>
>> Oh dear......
>
>> Do stop your snivelling, Plowie - you're like a snot-nosed little kid
>> whining that the big boys won't let you have a kick of the ball.....
>
>
>
> Thank you for taking the bait and proving your enormous ego insists you
> reply to anything mentioning yourself - even after making a song and dance
> about who's in your killfile...



Another wasted opportunity, Plowie - did you miss this bit:

"Dry yer eyes and have a look at this (I fished you out of my ****ter
specially):"

??

I dunno, you ain't ever going to amount to anything in this life if you
can't get that rotten attitude of yours sorted....

Tsk, tsk, tsk....

<shakes head slowly....>

;-)

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

> S/H, ... as are many S/H CD's. Except a S/H CD has some chance of still
> being playable!

Shipping and Handling? As for playability, it is EASY to find LPs in
mint condition for a dollar a disk here in Los Angeles. In fact, if you
are willing to pick up, you can get whole collections for free. I have
a storage facility full of thousands of great free records to prove it.

> Now add in the cost of a decent turntable/cartridge and replacement
> sylii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's possible to put together a good sounding vinyl playback setup used
for under $250. That isn't a great deal of money.

See ya
Steve

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Stephen Worth > wrote:
> As for playability, it is EASY to find LPs in
> mint condition for a dollar a disk here in Los Angeles.

That's cool. Don't think I ever bought a mint one new. They were all
flawed in some way.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[jakdedert]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Stephen Worth > wrote:
>> As for playability, it is EASY to find LPs in
>> mint condition for a dollar a disk here in Los Angeles.
>
> That's cool. Don't think I ever bought a mint one new. They were all
> flawed in some way.
>
I *know* I never bought a mint one, new. I used to sell them. Even on
the highly-touted audiophile brands like Sheffield, I never had/heard
one without at least a couple of flaws per side....

jak

[Arny Krueger]

"jakdedert" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article >,

>> Stephen Worth > wrote:

>>> As for playability, it is EASY to find LPs in
>>> mint condition for a dollar a disk here in Los Angeles.

What is the formal definition of "mint condition LP".

If its one that is completely unused and never opened since pressed that
allows considerable latitude.

Back in the days when vinyl was all we had, I needless to say bought 100s of
LPs that were allegedly new. I think that many of them were actually
factory-fresh, simply because of the volumes in which they were sold in
those days. If someone was opening them and adding dirt, they had a
full-time job. ;-)

It wasn't all that unusual for a LP to come out of the factory-sealed liner
with some kind of foriegn material or plastic fragments associated with it.

>> That's cool. Don't think I ever bought a mint one new. They were all
>> flawed in some way.

Agreed. I never had a LP that didn't have a tic or pop by the end of playing
the first side. Discwasher, Zerostat, Dust Bug I had them all and used them
religiously. I washed records in mild soapy water, sprayed them with
propriatory cleaning elixors, and made my own mixtures of USP alcohol,
distilled water and later on added photo wetting agent. Never heard a side
play without a tic or a pop or quite a few of them.

> I *know* I never bought a mint one, new. I used to sell them. Even on
> the highly-touted audiophile brands like Sheffield, I never had/heard one
> without at least a couple of flaws per side....

That was my experience.

[jakdedert]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "jakdedert" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article >,
>
>>> Stephen Worth > wrote:
>
>>>> As for playability, it is EASY to find LPs in
>>>> mint condition for a dollar a disk here in Los Angeles.
>
> What is the formal definition of "mint condition LP".
>
> If its one that is completely unused and never opened since pressed that
> allows considerable latitude.
>
> Back in the days when vinyl was all we had, I needless to say bought 100s of
> LPs that were allegedly new. I think that many of them were actually
> factory-fresh, simply because of the volumes in which they were sold in
> those days. If someone was opening them and adding dirt, they had a
> full-time job. ;-)
>
> It wasn't all that unusual for a LP to come out of the factory-sealed liner
> with some kind of foriegn material or plastic fragments associated with it.
>
>>> That's cool. Don't think I ever bought a mint one new. They were all
>>> flawed in some way.
>
> Agreed. I never had a LP that didn't have a tic or pop by the end of playing
> the first side. Discwasher, Zerostat, Dust Bug I had them all and used them
> religiously. I washed records in mild soapy water, sprayed them with
> propriatory cleaning elixors, and made my own mixtures of USP alcohol,
> distilled water and later on added photo wetting agent. Never heard a side
> play without a tic or a pop or quite a few of them.
>
>> I *know* I never bought a mint one, new. I used to sell them. Even on
>> the highly-touted audiophile brands like Sheffield, I never had/heard one
>> without at least a couple of flaws per side....
>
> That was my experience.
>
Amen...

When CD's came out, I thought for some reason that they'd soon be
cheaper--or at least as cheap--as LP's.

Silly me.

I actively boycotted the format, (indeed almost all retail, recorded
music) up until the early 90's in protest. To this day, I rarely buy a
new disk. Thankfully, the industry learned their lesson when DVD became
the format of choice for video. IME, they don't cost any more than VHS
did...often less, with comparable technical advancement of Lp over CD.

I guess I taught 'em a thing or two....

jak

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> Shipping and Handling? As for playability, it is EASY to find LPs in
> mint condition for a dollar a disk here in Los Angeles. In fact, if you
> are willing to pick up, you can get whole collections for free. I have
> a storage facility full of thousands of great free records to prove it.
>
> > Now add in the cost of a decent turntable/cartridge and replacement
> > stylii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> It's possible to put together a good sounding vinyl playback setup used
> for under $250. That isn't a great deal of money.

Possibly good enough for those $1 LP's I guess, but I wouldn't play *mine*
on a crap box. Hell a new stylus costs me that much!
Not so much of a problem now that I only use a TT for transcribing to CD
though. Unfortunately the cost of a record cleaning machine still makes it
uneconomical for most people to play records, even if they are free.
There is a reason why S/H vinyl is cheap after all, nobody else wants it,
and with good reason!

MrT.

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

> Possibly good enough for those $1 LP's I guess, but I wouldn't play *mine*
> on a crap box. Hell a new stylus costs me that much!

You can get higher end turntables from the 70s used for much
less than the cost of low end new turntables. You just have to
look. Dual, Thorens, Riga... they're all out there and they're far
from being crap boxes.

As for flawless LPs... you guys are WAY too anal retentive. You
should spend more time listening to music, not a tiny click here
and there. There's a lot of great music on LPs (as well as 78s)
that will never be released on CD.

Music is what counts. LPs are perfectly capable of reproducing
music very well.

See ya
Steve

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
jakdedert > wrote:
> When CD's came out, I thought for some reason that they'd soon be
> cheaper--or at least as cheap--as LP's.

> Silly me.

> I actively boycotted the format, (indeed almost all retail, recorded
> music) up until the early 90's in protest. To this day, I rarely buy a
> new disk. Thankfully, the industry learned their lesson when DVD became
> the format of choice for video. IME, they don't cost any more than VHS
> did...often less, with comparable technical advancement of Lp over CD.

> I guess I taught 'em a thing or two....

That's the way to do it. It's a fact of life that everything is priced to
what the market can bear with no relation to manufacturing costs.

--
*Half the people in the world are below average.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Stephen Worth > wrote:
> As for flawless LPs... you guys are WAY too anal retentive. You
> should spend more time listening to music, not a tiny click here
> and there.

And the distortion. Varying quality from one end to the other. Wow and
flutter.

> There's a lot of great music on LPs (as well as 78s)
> that will never be released on CD.

Some, admittedly. Whether it's great or not is a matter of opinion. It
can't be that 'great' if it's not been released on CD.

> Music is what counts.

Then discuss that on a music newsgroup. There are hundreds covering all
sorts. This one is about audio - ie the reproduction of sounds.

> LPs are perfectly capable of reproducing music very well.

They were capable when there was nothing better. Now there is they're
relegated to second best.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> You can get higher end turntables from the 70s used for much
> less than the cost of low end new turntables. You just have to
> look. Dual, Thorens, Riga... they're all out there and they're far
> from being crap boxes.

Yes, and the S/H prices of those are far more than a new CD player.
Unfortunately a stylus from the seventies will rarely be usable either, and
a new cartridge of reasonable quality costs more than a CD player and wears
out quicker.

> As for flawless LPs... you guys are WAY too anal retentive. You
> should spend more time listening to music, not a tiny click here
> and there.

I was so glad when we got an alternative where that was not an inherent
fault that had to be put up with though.

>There's a lot of great music on LPs (as well as 78s)
> that will never be released on CD.

I know, that's the only reason why I still use a TT.
The reverse is more true these days however.

> Music is what counts. LPs are perfectly capable of reproducing
> music very well.

Yes, when that was all we had, I bought many.

MrT.

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, News
> wrote:

> It can't be that 'great' if it's not been released on CD.

78s and LPs were produced for over 8 decades. The 20th century
represents a vast ocean of music- and one of the richest periods
of musicmaking of all time. Simply cataloguing the discography
of the 20th century is a Herculean task that continues to this day.
To assume that if something hasn't been released on CD, it must
be inferior is profoundly ignorant.

See ya
Steve

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

> Unfortunately a stylus from the seventies will rarely be usable either, and
> a new cartridge of reasonable quality costs more than a CD player and wears
> out quicker.

A good cartridge can be bought for $50. I included that in the estimate
I quoted- $250 for a good vinyl playback system. ($100 turntable,
$50 shipping, $50 phono preamp, $50 cartridge) You can get a CD
player cheaper, but buy a couple of dozen CDs along with it and you
will have spent a lot more than a turntable setup and a comparable
amount of used records.

Classical music in particular is a bargain on LP. Beautiful sounding
pressings with great performances routinely sell for a dollar or two a
disk.

See ya
Steve

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

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 06:47:00 -0800, Stephen Worth >
wrote:

>78s and LPs were produced for over 8 decades. The 20th century
>represents a vast ocean of music- and one of the richest periods
>of musicmaking of all time. Simply cataloguing the discography
>of the 20th century is a Herculean task that continues to this day.
>To assume that if something hasn't been released on CD, it must
>be inferior is profoundly ignorant.


Yeah. Once we learned how to press that "record" button, or drop that
cutting stylus, we forgot how to stop :-) A LOAD of stuff got
recorded. How much of it is worth keeping is another matter.

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote:

> Yeah. Once we learned how to press that "record" button, or drop that
> cutting stylus, we forgot how to stop :-) A LOAD of stuff got
> recorded. How much of it is worth keeping is another matter.

I'm pretty familiar with just about the entire span of recording
history. My collection of records, CDs and digital files goes back 100
years, and includes music of all types from every time period since. I
can tell you that the proportion of crap to good stuff in roughly the
first half of the 20th century was much less than it has been since.
There were more varieties of quality music, a more vital musical
interchange of ideas, and much better musicians.

There are plenty of crappy records, but the idea that all of the good
music from the 20th century has already been released on CD is
completely absurd.

See ya
Steve

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mr.T
> <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>> Possibly good enough for those $1 LP's I guess, but I wouldn't play
>> *mine*
>> on a crap box. Hell a new stylus costs me that much!
>
> You can get higher end turntables from the 70s used for much
> less than the cost of low end new turntables. You just have to
> look. Dual, Thorens, Rega... they're all out there and they're far
> from being crap boxes.

Trouble is, $250 isn't what it costs to put together a credible vinyl setup,
following the instructions above.

First - a rega turntable. Looking at the current relevant closed auctions on
ebay I get the following numbers for a usable as sold Rega TT + arm:

$238
$549
$340 (composite of sep auctions for arm + TT, no arm)
$197
$768
$610
$475
$340
$448
$475
$341

We can see that just the turntable + arm alone is very likely to blow the
$250 stated budget. Eyeball average is about $350

Most people don't have good preamps of sufficient grade, so I'll throw in a
$75 allowance for a good used preamp.
Some of the turntables above included a cartrdge, some didn't, I'll throw in
a $50 allowance for half a good cartrdige.

Bottom line, it will take about $500 on the average to have a credible vinyl
playback system based on a low-mid grade Rega turntable. Strikes a chord
because that's what I have and the average prices I quote are close to what
my setup cost me.

> As for flawless LPs... you guys are WAY too anal retentive.

Sue us for being used to CD quality audio.

> You should spend more time listening to music, not a tiny click here
> and there. There's a lot of great music on LPs (as well as 78s)
> that will never be released on CD.

78s won't play on the $500 Rega setup.

> Music is what counts. LPs are perfectly capable of reproducing
> music very well.

It seems like used and bargain label CDs are the more economical way to go.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Stephen Worth > wrote:
> > It can't be that 'great' if it's not been released on CD.

> 78s and LPs were produced for over 8 decades. The 20th century
> represents a vast ocean of music- and one of the richest periods
> of musicmaking of all time. Simply cataloguing the discography
> of the 20th century is a Herculean task that continues to this day.

> To assume that if something hasn't been released on CD, it must
> be inferior is profoundly ignorant.

Is it? What is great to you may be rubbish to others. If there was a
commercial opening for this 'great' music it would have been released on
CD, in the main.

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, Mr.T
>> <MrT@home> wrote:
>>
>>> Possibly good enough for those $1 LP's I guess, but I wouldn't play
>>> *mine*
>>> on a crap box. Hell a new stylus costs me that much!
>> You can get higher end turntables from the 70s used for much
>> less than the cost of low end new turntables. You just have to
>> look. Dual, Thorens, Rega... they're all out there and they're far
>> from being crap boxes.
>
> Trouble is, $250 isn't what it costs to put together a credible vinyl setup,
> following the instructions above.
>
<snip bits about >250USD>

I recently bought a pretty decent TT/cart for 35UKP plus p&p:

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/jvcjl-a40

Rob

[Glenn Richards]

Walt wrote:

> Or to put a finer point on it, imagine the third generation cassette
> copy of "Abba's greatest hits" that spent the summer on the back
> dashboard of my car. Transfer it to CD, and you'll find that the CD
> sounds just like the third-generation sun-damaged Sweedish crooning on
> the tape. What conclusions would you draw from that fact?

That "So Long" was basically a re-hash of Waterloo, and that ABBA didn't
get really really good until 1981's "The Visitors"? ;-)

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

[Rob]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Stephen Worth > wrote:
>>> It can't be that 'great' if it's not been released on CD.
>
>> 78s and LPs were produced for over 8 decades. The 20th century
>> represents a vast ocean of music- and one of the richest periods
>> of musicmaking of all time. Simply cataloguing the discography
>> of the 20th century is a Herculean task that continues to this day.
>
>> To assume that if something hasn't been released on CD, it must
>> be inferior is profoundly ignorant.
>
> Is it? What is great to you may be rubbish to others. If there was a
> commercial opening for this 'great' music it would have been released on
> CD, in the main.
>

A friend recently gave me a bunch of LPs to put on to CD - women singers
and musicians of the 1920-40s (Victoria Spivey, Trixie Smith, Hociel
Thomas and many more). Alas there doesn't seem to be a commercial
opening for this type of music - so if you're reliant on CD you'd never
hear it. Unless you bump into a nice chap like me :-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Rob > wrote:
> > Is it? What is great to you may be rubbish to others. If there was a
> > commercial opening for this 'great' music it would have been released on
> > CD, in the main.
> >

> A friend recently gave me a bunch of LPs to put on to CD - women singers
> and musicians of the 1920-40s (Victoria Spivey, Trixie Smith, Hociel
> Thomas and many more). Alas there doesn't seem to be a commercial
> opening for this type of music - so if you're reliant on CD you'd never
> hear it. Unless you bump into a nice chap like me :-)

I'm sure there is material never released on LP too - 78 rpm only. Talking
book material on cassette, 16rpm, etc.

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Keith G]

"Rob" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >, Mr.T
>>> <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Possibly good enough for those $1 LP's I guess, but I wouldn't play
>>>> *mine*
>>>> on a crap box. Hell a new stylus costs me that much!
>>> You can get higher end turntables from the 70s used for much
>>> less than the cost of low end new turntables. You just have to
>>> look. Dual, Thorens, Rega... they're all out there and they're far
>>> from being crap boxes.
>>
>> Trouble is, $250 isn't what it costs to put together a credible vinyl
>> setup, following the instructions above.
>>
> <snip bits about >250USD>
>
> I recently bought a pretty decent TT/cart for 35UKP plus p&p:
>
> http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/jvcjl-a40


That looks better each time I see a pic of it!

(The Victor Company Of Japan didn't make much over the years that I wouldn't
have been very pleased to own....!! ;-)

[Jim Lesurf]

In article >, Arny
Krueger
> wrote:
[snip]

> We can see that just the turntable + arm alone is very likely to blow
> the $250 stated budget. Eyeball average is about $350

> Most people don't have good preamps of sufficient grade, so I'll throw
> in a $75 allowance for a good used preamp. Some of the turntables above
> included a cartrdge, some didn't, I'll throw in a $50 allowance for
> half a good cartrdige.

Another point which may be worth bearing in mind is that '78' recordings
may:

A) have been made using various non-RIAA pre-emphasis curves. So requiring
a rather flexible correct network for replay, and some suitable knowledge
or judgement on the part of the user. On this basis a normal 'good preamp'
may not suffice. (Unless the aim is to sample the results and then correct
them in the digital domain.)

B) may not actually be '78 rpm'. So may also require the replay speed to be
alterable, by ear. (Or, as above, be corrected once sampled.)

This also ignores questions like the choice of stylus size and tracking
angle... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

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

[Keith G]

"Jim Lesurf" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Arny
> Krueger
> > wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> We can see that just the turntable + arm alone is very likely to blow
>> the $250 stated budget. Eyeball average is about $350
>
>> Most people don't have good preamps of sufficient grade, so I'll throw
>> in a $75 allowance for a good used preamp. Some of the turntables above
>> included a cartrdge, some didn't, I'll throw in a $50 allowance for
>> half a good cartrdige.
>
> Another point which may be worth bearing in mind is that '78' recordings
> may:
>
> A) have been made using various non-RIAA pre-emphasis curves. So requiring
> a rather flexible correct network for replay, and some suitable knowledge
> or judgement on the part of the user. On this basis a normal 'good preamp'
> may not suffice. (Unless the aim is to sample the results and then correct
> them in the digital domain.)
>
> B) may not actually be '78 rpm'. So may also require the replay speed to
> be
> alterable, by ear. (Or, as above, be corrected once sampled.)
>
> This also ignores questions like the choice of stylus size and tracking
> angle... :-)



Information and equipment is readily available for people who wish to play
78s electronically:

http://sound.westhost.com/project91.htm

http://www.esotericsound.com/elect.htm

http://www.vadlyd.dk/English/RIAA_and_78_RPM_preamp.html


(That they will have 'suitable knowledge or judgement' goes without saying,
really....!! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jim Lesurf" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Arny
> Krueger
> > wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> We can see that just the turntable + arm alone is very likely to blow
>> the $250 stated budget. Eyeball average is about $350
>
>> Most people don't have good preamps of sufficient grade, so I'll throw
>> in a $75 allowance for a good used preamp. Some of the turntables above
>> included a cartrdge, some didn't, I'll throw in a $50 allowance for
>> half a good cartrdige.
>
> Another point which may be worth bearing in mind is that '78' recordings
> may:
>
> A) have been made using various non-RIAA pre-emphasis curves. So requiring
> a rather flexible correct network for replay, and some suitable knowledge
> or judgement on the part of the user. On this basis a normal 'good preamp'
> may not suffice. (Unless the aim is to sample the results and then correct
> them in the digital domain.)

I know some people who do this sort of thing. Often, they just use a RIAA
curve and then use sophisticated equalizers to restore the balance that got
lost due to the obvious mismatch.

> B) may not actually be '78 rpm'. So may also require the replay speed to
> be
> alterable, by ear. (Or, as above, be corrected once sampled.)

Mostly the latter, these days.

> This also ignores questions like the choice of stylus size and tracking
> angle... :-)

Important questions.

Mr. Worth always seems to put on his rose-colored glasses when he talks
about vinyl. ;-)

[Rob]

Keith G wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article >, Mr.T
>>>> <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Possibly good enough for those $1 LP's I guess, but I wouldn't play
>>>>> *mine*
>>>>> on a crap box. Hell a new stylus costs me that much!
>>>> You can get higher end turntables from the 70s used for much
>>>> less than the cost of low end new turntables. You just have to
>>>> look. Dual, Thorens, Rega... they're all out there and they're far
>>>> from being crap boxes.
>>> Trouble is, $250 isn't what it costs to put together a credible vinyl
>>> setup, following the instructions above.
>>>
>> <snip bits about >250USD>
>>
>> I recently bought a pretty decent TT/cart for 35UKP plus p&p:
>>
>> http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/jvcjl-a40
>
>
> That looks better each time I see a pic of it!
>
> (The Victor Company Of Japan didn't make much over the years that I wouldn't
> have been very pleased to own....!! ;-)
>

It's a cracker all told. I haven't done a big comparison with the
Project, but in a quickish A-B it didn't seem obviously different -
makes yer wonder ;-)

And the thing is - it hardly shows its age. The switches and general
feel are top notch, bearings have no play and it's mechanically silent.
I dread to think what this level of engineering would cost today ...

[Keith G]

"Rob" > wrote

>>> I recently bought a pretty decent TT/cart for 35UKP plus p&p:
>>>
>>> http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/jvcjl-a40
>>
>>
>> That looks better each time I see a pic of it!
>>
>> (The Victor Company Of Japan didn't make much over the years that I
>> wouldn't have been very pleased to own....!! ;-)
>>
>
> It's a cracker all told. I haven't done a big comparison with the Project,
> but in a quickish A-B it didn't seem obviously different - makes yer
> wonder ;-)
>
> And the thing is - it hardly shows its age. The switches and general feel
> are top notch, bearings have no play and it's mechanically silent. I dread
> to think what this level of engineering would cost today ...


Thousands, but that doesn't mean it isn't available to those suitably
endowed - start here, for an idea:

http://aca.gr/turntable.htm

[Keith G]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rob" > wrote
>
>>>> I recently bought a pretty decent TT/cart for 35UKP plus p&p:
>>>>
>>>> http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/jvcjl-a40
>>>
>>>
>>> That looks better each time I see a pic of it!
>>>
>>> (The Victor Company Of Japan didn't make much over the years that I
>>> wouldn't have been very pleased to own....!! ;-)
>>>
>>
>> It's a cracker all told. I haven't done a big comparison with the
>> Project, but in a quickish A-B it didn't seem obviously different - makes
>> yer wonder ;-)
>>
>> And the thing is - it hardly shows its age. The switches and general feel
>> are top notch, bearings have no play and it's mechanically silent. I
>> dread to think what this level of engineering would cost today ...
>
>
> Thousands, but that doesn't mean it isn't available to those suitably
> endowed - start here, for an idea:
>
> http://aca.gr/turntable.htm
>



Where you will see this, if you scroll down a bit:

"The present LP/CD ratio is 63.6% / 36.4%, among 102,000 records, owned by
A.C.A. Members."


- Tad more meaningful statistic to me than what percentage of knock-off CDs
are being bought by Chavs in pubs and at car boots, compared with the number
of dog-eared vinyl copies of Singalong Max that are being bought.....

;-)

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Arny Krueger
> wrote:

> Trouble is, $250 isn't what it costs to put together a credible vinyl setup,
> following the instructions above.

Look for Dual 1218, 1219. 1228s or 1229 if you want a good
turntable for less money. Riga and Thorens are well known and
sell for more at ebay, although you can find them at swap meets
and thrift stores for less. But there are LOTS of good 70s turntables
out there, many of them selling for $50 to $100.

See ya
Steve

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Jim Lesurf
> wrote:

> A) have been made using various non-RIAA pre-emphasis curves. So requiring
> a rather flexible correct network for replay, and some suitable knowledge
> or judgement on the part of the user. On this basis a normal 'good preamp'
> may not suffice. (Unless the aim is to sample the results and then correct
> them in the digital domain.)
>
> B) may not actually be '78 rpm'. So may also require the replay speed to be
> alterable, by ear. (Or, as above, be corrected once sampled.)

The Dual turntables I mentioned above have pitch control and
interchangable headshells. That's what I use for 78s. If you are
going to play 78s, you need a good graphic equalizer and two
or three sizes of stylii. That's a bit more expensive, but not
terribly so.

See ya
Steve

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Arny Krueger
> wrote:

> Mr. Worth always seems to put on his rose-colored glasses when he talks
> about vinyl. ;-)

Mr Worth is speaking from experience. When I first got into 78s, I
put together a great rig to play them for about $300. My audio
workstation for denoising and mastering cost a fortune to put
together, but the basic equipment to play records isn't expensive.
People just keep trying to make it more complicated than it is.

Here is an example of a low cost, good sounding system...

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

To play 78s with this turntable add...

15 band graphic equalizer ($50)
3 mil conical cartridge and headshell ($125)

This rig will play just about anything you ask it to (Except for
Pathe hill and dale records) You can add cartridges mounted
on headshells with more stylii sizes to get better sound quality
with some 78s as you can afford it, but a 3 mil conical will
play 80% of all of the 78s out there with good sound.

See ya
Steve

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, News
> wrote:

> Is it? What is great to you may be rubbish to others. If there was a
> commercial opening for this 'great' music it would have been released on
> CD, in the main.

Now you are proving to be ignorant of both music and the record
business.

See ya
Steve

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, News
> wrote:

> I'm sure there is material never released on LP too - 78 rpm only.

I can vouch for that. There are amazing treasures on 78 that you
will never hear if you only own a CD player.

See ya
Steve

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Stephen Worth > wrote:
> > I'm sure there is material never released on LP too - 78 rpm only.

> I can vouch for that. There are amazing treasures on 78 that you
> will never hear if you only own a CD player

Or 33/45 rpm only turntable - as by far the majority are.

I'm sure there's some 'treasures' on cylinders too.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Stephen Worth > wrote:
> > Is it? What is great to you may be rubbish to others. If there was a
> > commercial opening for this 'great' music it would have been released
> > on CD, in the main.

> Now you are proving to be ignorant of both music and the record
> business.

Well, there's a nice little business opening for you if you reckon the
world is just begging for all these 'treasures'.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> A good cartridge can be bought for $50.

Anybody who thinks a $50 cartridge is good, surely is not too worried about
music quality OR their records!

> Classical music in particular is a bargain on LP. Beautiful sounding
> pressings with great performances routinely sell for a dollar or two a
> disk.

I'm glad you are happy with them, and your $50 cartridge then.

MrT.

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

> Anybody who thinks a $50 cartridge is good, surely is not too worried about
> music quality OR their records!

A $50 conical/spherical tip cartridge is kinder to records than the
most expensive elliptical, and it's a lot easier to keep in proper
alignment. There are quite a few good sounding cartridges in that price
range. It's a common audiophool mistake to judge sound quality by the
price.

See ya
Steve

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

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> > Anybody who thinks a $50 cartridge is good, surely is not too worried
about
> > music quality OR their records!
>
> A $50 conical/spherical tip cartridge is kinder to records than the
> most expensive elliptical, and it's a lot easier to keep in proper
> alignment.

What crap. A mistracking cheap conical stylus does infinitely more damage to
a record groove than a high performance line contact stylus connected to a
high performance cartridge.

>There are quite a few good sounding cartridges in that price range.

I'm sure they are good enough for those $1 records you buy too.

>It's a common audiophool mistake to judge sound quality by the price.

It's a moronic mistake to consider a $50 cartridge playing a $1 record, is
better than CD quality. But if you're happy with crap, don't let me stop
you, I'm sure I don't care.

MrT.

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

> What crap. A mistracking cheap conical stylus does infinitely more damage to
> a record groove than a high performance line contact stylus connected to a
> high performance cartridge.

You're wrong. A conical/spherical stylus is much less temperamental
about alignment and mistracking than an elliptical. Just think about
the shape of the stylus and the way it contacts the groove and you'll
realize why this is. An inexpensive cartridge with reasonably good
alignment and proper tracking weight and anti skate will provide the
least groove wear. It's the difference between an everyday stylus and
one intended primarily for transcriptions.

See ya
Steve

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

> It's a moronic mistake to consider a $50 cartridge playing a $1 record, is
> better than CD quality.

By the way, I never said that. I just said that you can get very good
sound and a wide variety of music for very little money with vinyl.
Both CDs and LPs are capable of high fidelity sound reproduction. The
quality of one over the other usually has more to do with mixing and
mastering than it does the format itself.

See ya
Steve

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

[Harry Lavo]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mr.T
> <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>> What crap. A mistracking cheap conical stylus does infinitely more damage
>> to
>> a record groove than a high performance line contact stylus connected to
>> a
>> high performance cartridge.
>
> You're wrong. A conical/spherical stylus is much less temperamental
> about alignment and mistracking than an elliptical. Just think about
> the shape of the stylus and the way it contacts the groove and you'll
> realize why this is. An inexpensive cartridge with reasonably good
> alignment and proper tracking weight and anti skate will provide the
> least groove wear. It's the difference between an everyday stylus and
> one intended primarily for transcriptions.
>
> See ya
> Steve

There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked. Either
the TT owner can do it, or he/she can pay to have it done. So proper
alignment and proper tracking should be a given.

Given that "given", there is no contest. A line contact stylus in a
cartridge that can track two grams or less will play a lot of reps before
there is appreciable groove damage, assuming the record is well cared for
otherwise.

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Harry Lavo
> wrote:

> There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked. Either
> the TT owner can do it, or he/she can pay to have it done. So proper
> alignment and proper tracking should be a given.

An elliptical tipped cartridge needs alignment every two to three
months. If a person can't do it themselves, they shouldn't use one.
Conical stylii are much more forgiving.

Tracking force has less of an effect on record wear than alignment. The
vast majority of worn records got that way from misaligned turntables
(and chipped stylus tips) not by tracking force. Those things may be a
given for you, but they're the main reasons records become worn,
particularly with inner groove distortion.

I'm convinced that misaligned turntables are a big reason that many
audiophiles complain about vinyl distortion and noise. They go out and
buy the most expensive elliptical stylus and then they track too light,
thinking that the lighter tracking force will reduce wear. Instead,
they destroy their records because the stylus bounces around lightly in
the groove tearing up the groove walls whenever it gets highly
modulated.

My point was, however, that you can get a very good sounding cartridge
for $50.

See ya
Steve

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Here in Ohio
> wrote:

> On the other hand, there are some very inexpensive Grado cartridges
> that are certainly more than good enough for vinyl.

I use Grado cartridges for my 78s. They make an excellent cartridge.

See ya
Steve

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

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> > What crap. A mistracking cheap conical stylus does infinitely more
damage to
> > a record groove than a high performance line contact stylus connected to
a
> > high performance cartridge.
>
> You're wrong. A conical/spherical stylus is much less temperamental
> about alignment and mistracking than an elliptical.

In fact cheap cartridges are more prone to mistracking whatever the stylus
shape. You would need to review the many years of research by Shure and
others into groove wear caused by mistracking, and the reasons for it Their
conclusions don't support yours, now who should we believe :-).

>Just think about
> the shape of the stylus and the way it contacts the groove and you'll
> realize why this is. An inexpensive cartridge with reasonably good
> alignment and proper tracking weight and anti skate will provide the
> least groove wear.

Easy to say when you provide no proof why many years of research including
microscopic photograhs, are wrong.
The only thing I would agree with is that a cheap cartridge with a conical
stylus will usually provide less groove wear than the same cheap cartridge
with an elliptical stylus, at the same tracking weight. That's a LONG way
from your unfounded assertions though.

However even you must realise there are other penalties to be paid for using
cheap cartridges!
But as I said, use whatever tin box and thorn needle you choose, it doesn't
affect MY listening enjoyment, or the majority of people who prefer CD.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
> There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked.

In fact it is easy to demonstrate cartridge mistracking on demanding records
with all but the very best cartridges.
DON'T try playing a vinyl copy of the Telarc 1812 with that cheap cartridge,
one playing will damage it. The CD version on the other hand, can be played
on any cheap CD player without damage. Cheap speakers may be another matter
though :-)

MrT.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:42:50 -0800, Stephen Worth >
wrote:

>In article >, Harry Lavo
> wrote:
>
>> There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked. Either
>> the TT owner can do it, or he/she can pay to have it done. So proper
>> alignment and proper tracking should be a given.
>
>An elliptical tipped cartridge needs alignment every two to three
>months. If a person can't do it themselves, they shouldn't use one.
>Conical stylii are much more forgiving.
>

No they don't - once aligned they stay that way unless you change
something. And of course the kind of record player that uses conical
styli (no, not stylii thank you) doesn't offer much by way of tracking
adjustment.

>Tracking force has less of an effect on record wear than alignment. The
>vast majority of worn records got that way from misaligned turntables
>(and chipped stylus tips) not by tracking force. Those things may be a
>given for you, but they're the main reasons records become worn,
>particularly with inner groove distortion.
>

Record wear is very little afflicted by misalignment. Record wear is
physical damage, to have that happen you need, as you suggest, a
chipped stylus, dust that gets ground in, too little tracking force
which allows the stylus to jump. All that misalignment will produce is
poor channel balance and distortion.

>I'm convinced that misaligned turntables are a big reason that many
>audiophiles complain about vinyl distortion and noise. They go out and
>buy the most expensive elliptical stylus and then they track too light,
>thinking that the lighter tracking force will reduce wear. Instead,
>they destroy their records because the stylus bounces around lightly in
>the groove tearing up the groove walls whenever it gets highly
>modulated.
>

Nothing to do with misalignment. The reason why audiophiles complain
about vinyl distortion and noise is that both are inherent to the
medium. I have a good system and have aligned it as well as is
possible. The distortion comes in at about -45dB on a normal level
track. Noise, of course is there on the record - a good system simply
reproduces it more clearly.

>My point was, however, that you can get a very good sounding cartridge
>for $50.
>

It is very hard to make a good cartridge for that kind of money. The
lightness and fineness needed to keep dynamic forces low aren't cheap
to achieve.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Jim Lesurf]

In article >, Stephen Worth
> wrote:
> In article >, Harry Lavo
> > wrote:

> > There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked.
> > Either the TT owner can do it, or he/she can pay to have it done. So
> > proper alignment and proper tracking should be a given.

> An elliptical tipped cartridge needs alignment every two to three
> months. If a person can't do it themselves, they shouldn't use one.
> Conical stylii are much more forgiving.

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

What you assert also includes no qualifiers wrt conditions of use, amount
of using during the "three months", etc. Again, I'd be interested in some
assessable evidence on this.

> Tracking force has less of an effect on record wear than alignment.

I would presume the relative effects would depend on the extent of the
"force" and "misalignment". As above, I'd be interested to see some
references which give evidence for the above and *quantify the levels of
force and misalignment involved*.

Can you please give, for example, some references in JAES or AES conference
reports?

Slainte,

Jim

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

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > What crap. A mistracking cheap conical stylus does infinitely more
> damage to
>> > a record groove than a high performance line contact stylus connected
>> > to
> a
>> > high performance cartridge.
>>
>> You're wrong. A conical/spherical stylus is much less temperamental
>> about alignment and mistracking than an elliptical.
>
> In fact cheap cartridges are more prone to mistracking whatever the stylus
> shape. You would need to review the many years of research by Shure and
> others into groove wear caused by mistracking, and the reasons for it
> Their
> conclusions don't support yours, now who should we believe :-).
>
>>Just think about
>> the shape of the stylus and the way it contacts the groove and you'll
>> realize why this is. An inexpensive cartridge with reasonably good
>> alignment and proper tracking weight and anti skate will provide the
>> least groove wear.
>
> Easy to say when you provide no proof why many years of research including
> microscopic photograhs, are wrong.
> The only thing I would agree with is that a cheap cartridge with a conical
> stylus will usually provide less groove wear than the same cheap cartridge
> with an elliptical stylus, at the same tracking weight. That's a LONG way
> from your unfounded assertions though.

In general, when someone makes a comparison between 2 versions of the same
thing, it is assumed that other things are held constant. Therefore, the
statement above, saying that conical stylii are less temperamental that
elliptical ones, assumes that the quality of the the stylus is the
same--only the shape of the tip is different.

I don't find any confusion at all.

Norm Strong

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Jim Lesurf
> wrote:

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

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

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

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

See ya
Steve

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

> DON'T try playing a vinyl copy of the Telarc 1812 with that cheap cartridge,
> one playing will damage it.

I don't think there's a cartridge made that will track that properly.
Telarc cut certain records WAY out of spec deliberately for the "more
is better" audiophool set.

See ya
Steve

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

[Mr.T]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> >> There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked.
> >
> >In fact it is easy to demonstrate cartridge mistracking on demanding
records
> >with all but the very best cartridges.
> >DON'T try playing a vinyl copy of the Telarc 1812 with that cheap
cartridge,
> >one playing will damage it. The CD version on the other hand, can be
played
> >on any cheap CD player without damage. Cheap speakers may be another
matter
> >though :-)
>
> I rather doubt that anything that has been pressed on a mass market LP
> is capable of damaging a cartridge (unless the LP is somehow
> defective).

Obviously I meant the *record* would be damaged!

> In the case of the Telarc 1812, you're not listening to the cannon
> shots anyway, you're listening to the limitations of the whole vinyl
> system.

Exactly.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
. ..
> In general, when someone makes a comparison between 2 versions of the same
> thing, it is assumed that other things are held constant. Therefore, the
> statement above, saying that conical stylii are less temperamental that
> elliptical ones, assumes that the quality of the the stylus is the
> same--only the shape of the tip is different.
>
> I don't find any confusion at all.

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

So, if you are not confused, do you agree?
I sure don't.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> > DON'T try playing a vinyl copy of the Telarc 1812 with that cheap
cartridge,
> > one playing will damage it.
>
> I don't think there's a cartridge made that will track that properly.

In fact I used that record to demonstrate the Shure V15VMR capabilities at
one time.
However you are partly correct, I don't know of any $50 cartridge that will
track it properly.

MrT.

[Harry Lavo]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mr.T
> <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>> DON'T try playing a vinyl copy of the Telarc 1812 with that cheap
>> cartridge,
>> one playing will damage it.
>
> I don't think there's a cartridge made that will track that properly.
> Telarc cut certain records WAY out of spec deliberately for the "more
> is better" audiophool set.
>

Actually, the ADC XLM and the Shure V15III tracked that record properly, at
the top of their recommended tracking weight ranges.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article >, Stephen Worth
> wrote:
> In article >, Jim Lesurf
> > wrote:

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

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


I have tried searching my set of AES CDROMs that contain all the issues
of JAES, etc, prior to a couple of years ago, but found no references
which relate to your assertion that:

"An elliptical tipped cartridge needs alignment every two to three months."

I found many articles which deal with other factors, but nothing on that
which I noticed.

Alas, you have not given any references, just told me to look for them,
which looks like you have none in mind when you made your assertion.
However if you do, please let me know.


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


The above strikes me as rather an over-simplification. :-) However
the issue I was questioning was the claim that the alignment changes
sigificantly in the timescale you state. I have found articles that
do deal with the geometry and wear, etc, but not seen anything on
that point as yet.

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

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

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

Slainte,

Jim

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message

> In article
> >, Mr.T
> <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>> DON'T try playing a vinyl copy of the Telarc 1812 with
>> that cheap cartridge, one playing will damage it.
>
> I don't think there's a cartridge made that will track
> that properly. Telarc cut certain records WAY out of spec
> deliberately for the "more is better" audiophool set.

Thanks to Telarc for so clearly demonstrating one of the well-known failings
of the LP format.

In contrast, playing the CD version is well within the capabilities of just
about any CD player that is operating even marginally.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u
> > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In general, when someone makes a comparison between 2
>> versions of the same thing, it is assumed that other
>> things are held constant. Therefore, the statement
>> above, saying that conical stylii are less temperamental
>> that elliptical ones, assumes that the quality of the
>> the stylus is the same--only the shape of the tip is
>> different.
>>
>> I don't find any confusion at all.
>
> You haven't been following the thread then. It was
> claimed that a $50 cartridge with a conical stylus at any
> tracking force, would cause less groove damage than the
> most expensive cartridges available using line contact or
> any other stylus shape. (use Google if you need to review
> the thread)
>
> So, if you are not confused, do you agree?
> I sure don't.

Sounds like posturing to me.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Jim Lesurf" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> Stephen Worth > wrote:
>> In article >, Jim
>> Lesurf > wrote:
>
>>> I'd be interested to see some references to some
>>> research/measurement reports that support the above as
>>> a generalised assertion about "elliptical tipped"
>>> cartridges.
>
>> This is info that goes back to the LP era. Do some
>> googling. You'll find it. You might try looking for
>> references to stylus shapes intended for transcription
>> as opposed to everyday use.

> I have tried searching my set of AES CDROMs that contain
> all the issues
> of JAES, etc, prior to a couple of years ago, but found
> no references which relate to your assertion that:

> "An elliptical tipped cartridge needs alignment every two
> to three months."

Indeed, there is no logical reason that this would be true.

An associated but *completely different" claim would be that the SQ of an LP
degrades more for a given misalignment with an elliptical stylus as opposed
to a conical stylus. However, if one were to test that claim there would
probably need to be some way to account for the fact that the elliptical
stylus hopefully worked better to begin with. Performance thus had further
to fall.

> I found many articles which deal with other factors, but
> nothing on that which I noticed.

> Alas, you have not given any references, just told me to
> look for them, which looks like you have none in mind
> when you made your assertion. However if you do, please
> let me know.

You are familiar with the word "posturting"? ;-)

>> Think about the shape of an elliptical stylus... imagine
>> it contacting the groove a little bit off angle. One
>> side will contact harder than the other.

Irrelevant to small misorientations of an elliptical stylus.

> A conical
>> stylus is symmetrical. It can be a little twisted one
>> way or the other and it still contacts the groove the
>> same.

More likely in either case - when you misorient a stylus you probably had to
misorient and/or misposition the cartridge. That plays hob with things like
tracking error. Unfortunately for Worth's claim, tracking error is a bad
thing, regardless.

> The above strikes me as rather an over-simplification.
> :-)

Did I hear that in a high end audio salon back in the day? It is clearly a
claim based on assertion, not theoretical or experimental results.

> However the issue I was questioning was the claim that the
> alignment changes sigificantly in the timescale you
> state. I have found articles that
> do deal with the geometry and wear, etc, but not seen
> anything on that point as yet.

Another approach might be to show that an elliptical stylus significantly
changes the forces on the arm in such a way that the arm either bent, or its
pivots wore out faster, or some such. Again, I don't see a lot of hope for
that even though I seem to recall that elliptical styli did require
different amounts of anti-skate. There is probably some difference in the
forces applied to the arm, but would they be enough to bend it? I don't
think so!

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

I don't know why the type of stylus would change how I handled the tone arm.


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

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

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

Hold that thought!

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:03:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, Mr.T
>>> <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> DON'T try playing a vinyl copy of the Telarc 1812 with
>>>> that cheap cartridge, one playing will damage it.
>>>
>>> I don't think there's a cartridge made that will track
>>> that properly. Telarc cut certain records WAY out of
>>> spec deliberately for the "more is better" audiophool
>>> set.
>>
>> Thanks to Telarc for so clearly demonstrating one of the
>> well-known failings of the LP format.
>
> The comment I had heard was that the "cannon shots" on
> that record were really the sound of the cutter head
> hitting its stops.

In the day of, photomicrographs of those grooves were published in at least
one of the audio ragazines. They did not seem to show any signs of clipping.

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

[Randy Yates]

"Arny Krueger" > writes:

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

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > writes:
>
>> The general rule of thumb is that it is far easier to
>> cut an agressive LP than to track it.
>
> Cutting doesn't have to be done in real-time.

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

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

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

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...


<snip, irrelevant to point below>

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

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

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

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

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

See ya
Steve

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

[Mr.T]

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

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

MrT.

[Mr.T]

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

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

> > Alignment does NOT stay the same. If you use your turntable regularly,
> > things move around as you handle the tonearm. Elliptical stylii need to
> > be aligned every three to six months with everyday use.
>
> Yet my experience over some decades of using LP replay systems
> with non-'conical' styli did not agree with your theory. Although
> it has been some time since I used LP on an 'everyday' basis. But
> I did do so for many years.

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

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

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

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> > You haven't been following the thread then. It was claimed that a $50
> > cartridge with a conical stylus at any tracking force, would cause less
> > groove damage than the most expensive cartridges available using line
> > contact or any other stylus shape.
>
> Sorry. You're the one who hasn't been listening. That isn't what I said
> at all. Are you trying to prop up a straw man?

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

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

MrT.

[Mark D. Zacharias]

Stephen Worth wrote:
> In article >, Jim Lesurf
> > wrote:
>
>> I'd be interested to see some references to some research/measurement
>> reports that support the above as a generalised assertion about
>> "elliptical tipped" cartridges.
>
> This is info that goes back to the LP era. Do some googling. You'll
> find it. You might try looking for references to stylus shapes
> intended for transcription as opposed to everyday use.
>
> Think about the shape of an elliptical stylus... imagine it contacting
> the groove a little bit off angle. One side will contact harder than
> the other. A conical stylus is symmetrical. It can be a little twisted
> one way or the other and it still contacts the groove the same.
>
> Alignment does NOT stay the same. If you use your turntable regularly,
> things move around as you handle the tonearm. Elliptical stylii need
> to be aligned every three to six months with everyday use.
>
> See ya
> Steve

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

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


Mark Z.

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

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

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

See ya
Steve

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

[Randy Yates]

"Arny Krueger" > writes:

> "Randy Yates" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > writes:
>>
>>> The general rule of thumb is that it is far easier to
>>> cut an agressive LP than to track it.
>>
>> Cutting doesn't have to be done in real-time.
>
> Agreed, and there weren't a lot of viable options in the day of.
>
> Today, we can playback vinyl at any speed that suits our other needs, and
> still listen to it with natural pitch and timbre.

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

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

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

[[email protected]]

Randy Yates wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > writes:
> > Unfortunately, slow playback won't help problems due to bass excursion, and
> > will make the tone arm fundamental resonance issues more intrusive because
> > they will move up the musical scale when we listen.
>
> Huh? I would think that all those things WOULD be mitigated by slowed
> playback. A resonance at 30 kHz is better than one at 15 kHz (e.g.)!

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

[Randy Yates]

writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > writes:
>> > Unfortunately, slow playback won't help problems due to bass excursion, and
>> > will make the tone arm fundamental resonance issues more intrusive because
>> > they will move up the musical scale when we listen.
>>
>> Huh? I would think that all those things WOULD be mitigated by slowed
>> playback. A resonance at 30 kHz is better than one at 15 kHz (e.g.)!
>
> The fundamental arm/stylus resonance is more like 8-12 Hz, not
> 15 kHz. Playing it at half speed then converting to normal would move
> for example, into the 16-24 Hz region.

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

[Mr.T]

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

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

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

MrT.

[Mr.T]

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

Lets see you said :

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

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

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

You also said :

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

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

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > writes:
>
>> "Randy Yates" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > writes:
>>>
>>>> The general rule of thumb is that it is far easier to
>>>> cut an agressive LP than to track it.
>>>
>>> Cutting doesn't have to be done in real-time.
>>
>> Agreed, and there weren't a lot of viable options in the
>> day of.
>>
>> Today, we can playback vinyl at any speed that suits our
>> other needs, and still listen to it with natural pitch
>> and timbre.
>
> You mean with sample rate conversion? Yes, we could, but
> there would be the problem of the delay as the buffer
> fills with enough data to go real-time.

Real-time listening is not required.

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

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

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

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

See ya
Steve

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

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > The fundamental arm/stylus resonance is more like 8-12 Hz, not
> > 15 kHz. Playing it at half speed then converting to normal would move
> > for example, into the 16-24 Hz region.
> >
> Yes, but since you are only copying to a computer, then it may not matter
> all that much. Any artefacts below 30Hz can be filtered out, (usually
> nothing below that on the record), and you needn't use monitor speakers, or
> even stay in the room, so physical vibration induced problems will not be so
> much of an issue.
> However it would require the TT/cartridge system to have a relatively flat
> response to 15 or 20 Hz, (to get 30 or 40Hz) which is not so easy to achieve
> IME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But you trade one set of problems for another.

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

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

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

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

[Mr.T]

"Stephen Worth" > wrote in message
...
> > assuming you can actually find a Dual 1228 for that price. Just add a
new
> > belt, and possibly replace motor, spindle and arm bearings :-) (assuming
you
> > can actually get them) Good S/H Duals are pretty thin on the ground
around
> > these parts though unfortunately.
>
> I've bought three myself for between $50 and $100 at ebay. They were
> all in great condition and needed no servicing. There are good Duals
> for sale at ebay all the time.

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

> > Tell us what NEW $300 turntable/arm/cartridge you consider good sounding
> > with minimal record wear?
>
> Turntables today are a very weak specialty market. They are either
> overpriced cheap decks or way overpriced well made ones. It doesn't
> make sense to buy new turntables for so much money, when there are so
> many excellent used ones from the 70s that offer so much more value for
> the money.

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

> You're just arguing for arguing's sake.

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

>You know all this stuff already.

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

MrT.

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> > > The fundamental arm/stylus resonance is more like 8-12 Hz, not
> > > 15 kHz. Playing it at half speed then converting to normal would move
> > > for example, into the 16-24 Hz region.
> > >
> > Yes, but since you are only copying to a computer, then it may not
matter
> > all that much. Any artefacts below 30Hz can be filtered out, (usually
> > nothing below that on the record), and you needn't use monitor speakers,
or
> > even stay in the room, so physical vibration induced problems will not
be so
> > much of an issue.
> > However it would require the TT/cartridge system to have a relatively
flat
> > response to 15 or 20 Hz, (to get 30 or 40Hz) which is not so easy to
achieve
> > IME.
>
> The mechanical system consisting of the tone arm
> effective mass and the stylus compliance forms a
> second order mechanical resonant system. As such,
> that means it's a second-order high-pass filter with
> the cutoff frequency corresponding to the resonant
> frequency.
>
> Pplaying an LP at half speed,a s one example, means
> that ALL the information is shifted down one octave.
> But that mechanical high-pass filter remains the same.
> Thus, the effect, once the half-speed play is compensated
> for, is to have that high-pass filter move up an octave.
>
> That means that, under the somewhat optimistic
> assumption that the resonance is damped enough
> to give a Butterworth high-pass at, oh, 12 Hz, playing
> at half speed and compensating makes it a high-pass
> at 24 Hz.
>
> In fact, the vast majority of turntable systems I examined
> over the years were seriously UNDERdamped, with effective
> Q's in the realm of 2-5, which meant a pretty sizeable peak
> (in the range of +6 to +14 dB) at resonance (12 Hz). Now,
> move that peak to 24 Hz, and we begin to see the problem.
>
> Now, for sure, the response is minimum-phase, and
> can be completely compensated for by a complementary
> equalizer, but there are several issues:
>
> 1. How many people know, with reasonablt certainty,
> precisely what the resonant frequency of the arm/
> cartridge system REALLY is, and what is REALLY
> the system Q at resonance? (hint: almost none)
>
> 2. Regardless of whether it is equalizable (it is), what
> you have done by shifting all the audio down by low-
> speed playing is that you have now placed it in the
> realm of that (likely) under-damped resonance. Now
> you face the problem that you have significantly MORE
> signal to stimulate that resonance and, being under-
> damped, increase the likelihood of potential mis-
> tracking problems, rather than decreasing it.

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

> > I also wonder just what benefits would be expected,
> > since a good system can play all the treble available
> > on any record at normal speed, and the biggest
> > problem in many cases is in the bass region.
> > Might be better to increase the playback speed instead.
>
> But you trade one set of problems for another.
<snip>

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

MrT.

[Stephen Worth]

In article >, Mr.T
<MrT@home> wrote:

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

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

See ya
Steve

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

[Mr.T]

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

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

MrT.