"Scott" wrote in message
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 acceptance" any sort of test of
the state of the art?
If you want to quibble with my choice of words, then enjoy!
Experience shows that the general acceptance or non-acceptance of an alleged
technology after decades of experience is the world's most relevant
evaluation of that technology.
May as well say CD having a wider
dynamic range fails the test of "general acceptance" due
to the general use of compression.
You're conflating mastering for sitautions where dynamic range is
detrimental to listening enjoyment in say mobile or other noisy
environments, with the limiations of a medium. We've discussed this to
death, so I won't be distracted by this essentially OT comment.
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.
Hence my statement that DMM which is cutting metal and not laquer, has
failed the test of general acceptance. Wikipeida says that DMM was
introduced in 1974, so the technology is now over 35 years old. The
"decades of experience" criteria has been met.
=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.
http://www.co-bw.com/Recording_Mastering_Vinyl.htm
"FIG. 1: The Neumann AM-32 lathe at Infrasonic Sound. The large dial on the
control panel at the right can be used to manually regulate the number of
lines etched into the master lacquer."
So what are you telling me Scott? That a robot puts its mechanical hand on
that large dial and thus the cutting process is entirely computer
controlled? ;-)
better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)
Questionable benefit.
How so?
I underscored this point shortly in the post you are responding to.
The proof of any alleged technical advance is better performance in the end
product, as delivered, or lowered cost, or better consistency, etc.
Where is reliable evidence of improved performance from modern LPs as
compared to SOTA products from the golden age of the LP which was about 40
years ago?
If carefully-crafted products like the modern HFN test record are matched
by SOTA product from CBS labs in the 60s and 70s, then we have solid
evidence that no actual technical advances improving final quality have been
made. We have further proof in the absence of refereed technical papers
about verifiable technical advances from the last several decades. LP
cutting and production has "stabilized technology" written all over it.
For example, I found references to the use of the Neumann AM-32 cutting
lathe by modern LP mastering experts such as the one proudly mentioned
above, for the production of a recording that was released in 1983. That
was 28 years ago.
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.
You have thus far shown zero reliable evidence to back that up, Scott.
You're just being unecessarily insulting. :-(
But fine. Nothing I did can't be duplicated by a dedicated vinylphile such
as yourself, Scott.
Please provide needle drops from the relevant recordings that support your
claims. If Michael Fremer can provide me with needle drops, why can't you?
I obtained my CBS Labs test records from eBay. I'm sure that your resources
for finding legacy recordings exceed mine.