[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 15, 5:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. =A0There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.
I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance.

Since when is 'general accpetance" any sort of test of the state of
the art? May as well say CD having a wider dynamic range fails the
test of "general acceptance" due to the general use of compression.

Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day. =A0Classic Records for ex=
ample
if you can believe their PR.

I think what you mean is there are still people cutting with laquer.
And it is true that a lot of cutting engineers think laquer is still
the superior medium for cutting records.



=A0as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. =A0Many experienced cutters
prefer to control the lathe manually to this day.

Forget the failed llogic of this "general acceptance" argument and
name one cutting engineer doing this manually these days. I'm not even
going to limit this hoice to top flight cutting engineers. none of
them are doing this manually. Just name one anywhere these days.



better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

How so?



My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are no quieter than w=
ell
made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

But you are using fatally flawed equipment.


and generally less 'colored' electronics all through the system.

Not really an advancement of the vinyl LP, but an advancement of the gene=
ral
audio art.

No it would be an advancement in LP production because it would lead
to better sounding LPs. Period.