AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

On 3 Jan 2005 00:19:48 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 1/2/2005 12:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 2 Jan 2005 16:55:55 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

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.

Name your wager -

This old ridiculous routine? Get in line. I'm still waiting for Tom Nousaine to
make good on his offer to bet 1,001 dollars that my isolation devices make no
audible difference. I don't take such offers seriously.

I bet $10,000 that a SOTA rig is not more than 6dB
better in this regard than any basic 'entry level hi-fi' vinyl rig.

That's laughable. You are now saying that 6db is not significant.

From 60 to 66dB is not significant, when you consider that *all* CDs
have 93dB available dynamic range. Are you once again trying to
chgange the rulkes as you go along? Are you admitting that a basic
vinyl rig has a noise floor *less* than 6dB worse than a SOTA rig? If
so, then your argument collapses in hysterical laughter!

Say for instance something that you would sneer at - a Rega Planar 3
(or equivalent) with a Shure V-15 cartridge.

Why introduce something that wasn't even being discussed? Why don't we stick to
the argument on hand? How about we take Michael's rig and Michael's records and
compare them to something SOTA with SOTA pressings?

How about we use the same records on both rigs, so that wer are
comparing apples with apples?

This is easily established with *any* vinyl of your choice.

I doubt it is so easily established.

Sure it is - that's what meters and 'scopes *do*.

But the whole thing is a joke if you are
going to take the position that 6db difference is insignificant.

Actually, it's a joke if you think that a 6dB difference in total
noise floor from 'mid-fi' to SOTA *is* significant.

But please
feel free to make a proposal as to how we would do this comparison and then
tell us how you would draw the line on what is and is not a *significant*
difference. I would only insist on the following, SOTA pressings on SOTA vinyl
playback be compared to Michael's rig and Michael's records that he used for
his post. And that the measurements be made by a neutral party that has
varifaible expertise in making such measurements.

You are not then comparing only the equipment. You keep insisting that
the difference is the SOTA replay rig, but now you want to include the
records as well? Could that be because you already *know* that surface
noise is dependent on the *vinyl*, not on the replay equipment? In
other words, you're just plain *wrong*, but refuse to admit it?

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.

Oh, so now you're saying it's the *record* that matters?

I have been saying it all along. Please pay better attention.

No, you have been complaining that Michael is not using SOTA
equiopment, and hence is not qualified to comment on surface noise.
You are now backpedalling at light speed.................

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.

Sure, but that's all we have, for any given musical performance not
available on CD. To suggest that *any* vinyl has surface noise less
than 60dB below 1cm/sec is just risible.

Funny, I thought that was *exactly* what you were suggesting above.

Nope. I was expressly talking about the limits of the medium itself. There is
no question that poor pressings are noisier but poor pressings do not represent
the limits of the medium.

The medium does however have readily measured limits - never more than
60dB below 1cm/sec. Don't believe me? Get out your measuring gear.

Please get back to me when you have a *consistent* argument to offer.

Please get back to me when you reread my posts and see that there is no such
lack of consistency.

Sure there is. Youy started out with the usual sneer that Michael's
gear was the problem, now you're backpedalling furiously with no data
to back you up.

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.

I'm an engineer, and I've listened to the Sirius.

IOW you are offering an opinion as a fact. You have no hard data to support
your assertion.

Sure I do, I've built numerous phono preamps, and I've looked at their
noise floors, and noted how much that jumps when they're playing
vinyl. BTW, I have noticed less than 6dB difference between top-class
vinyl such as Sheffield direct-cuts and heavyweight JVC, and the
rattiest of '70s recycled rubbish. While the 'good stuff' is more
consistent, so lacks the cyclic 'swooshing' of poor-quality vinyl, the
basic noise level is not greatly different IME. Of course, *dirty* and
*damaged* vinyl from car boot sales is a different matter, but I trust
that you're not going to attempt to use *that* as a reference.

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.

Measure any vinyl you have on any rig you can find, then get back to
me. I won't be holding my breath.

I see you have no citations to offer. I won't be holding my breath either.

So, you admit that you have no evidence, and are simply offering an
unsubstantiated opinion?

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.

I note that you are now backpedalling rapidly from this position,
depite your denials above. Do you not even *read* your own posts
before contradicting yourself?

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?

No measurement necessary,

Actually you are wrong. Without the measurement all we have is the your biased
anecdote of a sighted listening experience.

Nice try, but blind listening is only necessary for *subtle*
differences, not for noting the existence of vinyl surface noise!

it was clearly audible on records chosen by
Andy to demonstrate the Sirius.

Just like audible differences between cables are clearly audible under sighted
conditions.

Competely different principle, since surface noise is *always* readily
audible, despite your attempts to ignore it. Cable differences don't
actually exist, but *anyone* can tell the difference between the
surface noise of an LP and the noise floor of the equivalent CD, every
time, 100%.

Besides, why are you *now* demanding
measurements?

The question is why are you now settling for anecdotes as a basis for
assertions of fact about audibility?

Seems to be what you do all the time. I note that you demand different
standards from your opponents, but I'm happy to make some measurements
any time you like.

Wasn't your point that it's not *audible* on a good rig?

No, my point was that Michael's measurements of Micheal's records on Micheal's
rig were not representative of a universal threshold for the medium itself but
just representative of performance of his rig with his records. Please read my
posts more carefully so I do not have to waste time repeating myself.

Actually, you don't repeat yourself so much as contradict yourself.
Hopwever, since you now seem to feel that 6dB is a 'significant'
difference, can we agree that subtracting 6dB from Michael's figures
will equate to your 'SOTA' surface noise? And is hence easily audible?

If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
cable sound.

Sure, so I'd be happy if *you* could supply any solid evidence in
rebuttal to what is basically common knowledge, and in accordance with
known measurements of surace noise.

I'd be happy if you could offer any solid evidence to support your assertions.

See above. What I am stating is common knowledge, proveable by anyone
with suitable measuring gear. What *you* are claiming is mere
hand-waving, with no support whatever. *You* are the one making the
extraordinary claims, so *you* need to come up with some solid
evidence to rebut the eminently reasonable figuures already provided
by Michael.

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.

No, it's an *inherent* flaw in the medium. Maybe you ought to clean or
adjust your prejudices...................

So says the guy who bases his assertions on his own sighted listening
experiences. I guess you aren't worried about your biases. I have no sympathy
for such double standards.

I base my statements about surface noise both on listening *and* on
measurements, and Michael's figures aren't unreasonable, so where is
*your* evidence in rebuttal?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering