AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 1/1/2005 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: michael
Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: michael

NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.

No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig.
You
seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise
floor
of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
capable of better.

I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.

I bet it is.

This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.

Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for
your
rig.

The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned.

And it varies from record to record substantially. So unless Michael is using
the quitest records available he is not reporting the limits of the medium but
the limits of *his* records.

To
suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.

I never suggested any such thing. To suggest that any old record represents the
limits of the medium is plainly false though.

Vinyl
noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus.

Agreed.

Some Lps
are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present.

That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of
it
based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits
of
the medium just your stuff.

However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III.

Really? How do you know this? Besides we ought to talk about the difference
between Michael's rig and something like the Rockport.

No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.

Please cite your evidence and then lets talk about how that relates to
Michael's measurements.

There
is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.

If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just
the
limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that
is
properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.

Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
was playing *vinyl*.

So says you. I have alsow heard substantial surface noise on SOTA rigs with
noisy records. What records were you listening to and did you actually measure
the surface noise? If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
cable sound.

I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.

I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up
with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with
SOTA
records.

Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
an *inherent* problem of vinyl.

My experience would be that you are simply wrong. Maybe you ought to clean your
records or adjust your TT. If you are hearing surface noise while music is
playing there is something substandard in the mix.