In article ,
Joel Tatelman wrote:

Phono preamplifier is either
the built-in phono stage in my Meitner PA6+ preamp or a rebuilt and upgraded
New York Audio Labs "Super It". The table, arm and Super It are from the
early 1980s.

The NYAL stuff sure sounded good. I used to have their larger preamp
and an amp. I really liked their sound. Whatever happened to Harry?

Joel Tatelman wrote:
You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio, etc.

Except for frequency response? Try again.

But I don't think that's why people who like or prefer vinyl say it sounds
good.

In theory, CD is a digital approximation of the original analogue signal.

In fact, both CD and vinyl are approximations of the original sound.
There is no question about which is the closer approximation, though it
is certainly true that some listeners prefer the less accurate medium.

It's something to do with the idea that the original analogue signal, even
if reproduced less than ideally, has audible qualities that the digital
source doesn't. I don't know if anyone has done any scientific research on
what this might be.

Yes. Those would be forms of distortion.

bob

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Joel Tatelman wrote:

Phono preamplifier is either
the built-in phono stage in my Meitner PA6+ preamp or a rebuilt and
upgraded
New York Audio Labs "Super It". The table, arm and Super It are from the
early 1980s.

The NYAL stuff sure sounded good. I used to have their larger preamp
and an amp. I really liked their sound. Whatever happened to Harry?

He passed away prematurely. Don't remember the cause. NYAL went out of
business for awhile....good to see them back.

On 5 Aug 2005 00:36:47 GMT, wrote:

Joel Tatelman wrote:
You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio, etc.

Except for frequency response? Try again.

If we're talking about the physical limitations of the medium, then
it's certainly *possible* for vinyl to have a frequency response more
extended than CD. Think half-speed mastered LPs, or direct-cut 45rpm
vinyl for examples, both of which I have in my collection. OTOH, it's
certainly true that the *vast* majority of commercial vinyl (well in
excess of 99%) rolls off above 12-15kHz to prevent overheating of the
cutter head during mastering.

But I don't think that's why people who like or prefer vinyl say it sounds
good.

In theory, CD is a digital approximation of the original analogue signal.

In fact, both CD and vinyl are approximations of the original sound.
There is no question about which is the closer approximation, though it
is certainly true that some listeners prefer the less accurate medium.

That is certainly true.

It's something to do with the idea that the original analogue signal, even
if reproduced less than ideally, has audible qualities that the digital
source doesn't. I don't know if anyone has done any scientific research on
what this might be.

Yes. Those would be forms of distortion.

It is readily demonstrable that 'vinyl magic' does not involve
anything mysteriously lost in digitising, but is *added* artifacts.
Just transcribe some vinyl to CD-R, and voila, all that 'vinyl magic'
is still there - aside from the cleaning and cueing ritual, of course!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 00:36:47 GMT, wrote:

Joel Tatelman wrote:
You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio, etc.

Except for frequency response? Try again.

If we're talking about the physical limitations of the medium, then
it's certainly *possible* for vinyl to have a frequency response more
extended than CD.

I usually think of frequency response as modified by the word "flat,"
at which CD excels. Granted, vinyl is capable of somewhat greater
frequency *extension* than CD, but given that this extension occurs in
a range not normally accessible to human ears, its kinda beside the
point.

bob

wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 00:36:47 GMT, wrote:

Joel Tatelman wrote:
You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio, etc.

Except for frequency response? Try again.

If we're talking about the physical limitations of the medium, then
it's certainly *possible* for vinyl to have a frequency response more
extended than CD.

I usually think of frequency response as modified by the word "flat,"
at which CD excels. Granted, vinyl is capable of somewhat greater
frequency *extension* than CD, but given that this extension occurs in
a range not normally accessible to human ears, its kinda beside the
point.

It should be pointed out that this so-called 'extension' (if it is cut onto
a particular record at all) is always shelved down from reference level to
guard against burning out the cutter head.

wrote:

In fact, both CD and vinyl are approximations of the original sound.


No. they are both approximations of the *signal* that is fed from the
mastering engineer or, in the case of direct to discs, the recording
engineer.



There is no question about which is the closer approximation,


Clearly there is a question given the *fact* that it is not agreed upon
by recording and mastering engineers. Many of the very best recording
and mastering engineers disagree with your position so your position is
hardly an unquestionable one.




though it
is certainly true that some listeners prefer the less accurate medium.


It is also true that some listeners prefer it because it seems to be
more accurate to them.



Scott Wheeler

Just a few years ago (long after I had sold my Thorens TD-125 Mk II
with Magnepan unipivot arm and Stax cartridge), I had the opportunity
to witness a 'listening session', in which some old-timers were
listening to a high-end phono system. Classical music, end-of-side
crescendo. It was (to me) horrid. They loved it. The inner-groove
distortion was enough to melt my dental fillings. They loved it. I
cannot believe they thought it sounded 'more accurate'.

My Thorens TD-125 Mk II with Magnepan unipivot arm and Stax cartridge
blew this so-called high end system system out of the water, by the
way, and I still prefer CDs.


wrote:
wrote:

In fact, both CD and vinyl are approximations of the original sound.


No. they are both approximations of the *signal* that is fed from the
mastering engineer or, in the case of direct to discs, the recording
engineer.



There is no question about which is the closer approximation,


Clearly there is a question given the *fact* that it is not agreed upon
by recording and mastering engineers. Many of the very best recording
and mastering engineers disagree with your position so your position is
hardly an unquestionable one.




though it
is certainly true that some listeners prefer the less accurate medium.


It is also true that some listeners prefer it because it seems to be
more accurate to them.



Scott Wheeler

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 5 Aug 2005 00:36:47 GMT, wrote:

Joel Tatelman wrote:
You've raised issues that lead to a lot of other
questions, which I won't
attempt to answer.

So far as I know, except for frequency response, a well
recorded CD (and
very many are not!) bests vinyl in every one of the
parameters that are
usually measured: dynamic range, distortion, s/n ratio,
etc.

Except for frequency response? Try again.

If we're talking about the physical limitations of the
medium, then
it's certainly *possible* for vinyl to have a frequency
response more
extended than CD. Think half-speed mastered LPs, or
direct-cut 45rpm
vinyl for examples, both of which I have in my collection.
OTOH, it's
certainly true that the *vast* majority of commercial
vinyl (well in
excess of 99%) rolls off above 12-15kHz to prevent
overheating of the
cutter head during mastering.

This is incorrect, as spectral analysis of any good
recording by a major label will show.

There is no roll-off at 12-15kHz to prevent
overheating of the cutter-head.
Helium is used for cooling when there
are large amounts of hf current in the cutter-head
coil. Neumann, Decca, and Westrex cutters
extend to 25kHz. I have no experience with
the Ortofon, but would expect it to be in the
same league.

Every visitor to a cutting facility asks about the two
huge helium bottles standing to the left behind the
lathe. If you had ever made such a visit, no doubt
you would have asked too.

Anyone who has worked in a studio with a cutting
facility (Decca had nine Neumann lathes when I
was there) will support my statement. A part of the
standard system test routine was to cut a sweep tone
20Hz to 20kHz. I have done this many many times.

Don't just take my word for it, there are
many many training manuals and
textbooks that will confirm the facts.


Cordially

Iain