[Mr.T]

"isw" wrote in message
...
What I'm saying is what I already said: if you don't use the proper
playback EQ, you don't stand much chance of hearing what the producer
intended you to hear -- you're just guessing.

Or even if you do, considering all the other factors you prefer to ignore.

You use proper RIAA EQ to "cancel" the effects of the vinyl, to the
greatest extent possible. Afterthat, you can tweak the sound to your
taste, if you want to.

We weren't talking RIAA originally, so why change the subject anyway.

Production EQ is part of the process of *creating music*, if you will.
Cutting EQ is just attempting to correct for a poor transfer medium --
the vinyl record. Both have an effect on the sound, but their intentions
are very different. Assuming you want to hear it as the producer
intended, you have to deal properly with the cutting EQ. You have no
clue what the production EQ was.

Or what the monitor speakers and studio acoustics were like.

IF
what you want is the best possible recreation of what was on that
master
tape (so you hear what the producer heard), then you need to apply the
proper playback EQ to the signal.

What the producer heard live, or on his monitoring system? I can assure
you
they are different. I can also assure you that YOU will not hear either
case
just by using the nominal playback EQ.

On his monitors, of course. There's no possibility of reaching back
before that. But to even get close, you have to deal properly with the
cutting EQ, which is -- sort of -- the "inverse" of the playback EQ.

What a fallacy. It's a very good starting point, *when you know what it is*,
that's all.

Within the frequency range it's capable of handling, a CD can provide
very nearly perfectly flat response, with negligible distortion and
added noise. No commercial analog method can even get close to its
performance.

Seems we agree on something then. You *still* have to guess what the
producer heard though.

Again: The best you can possibly hope for, is to hear something close to
what the producer heard *from his monitors*. The best chance you have
for doing that is to "cancel out" as much of the vinyl-caused damage as
possible. To accomplish that, you have to have the proper playback EQ.

This is where we still disagree. The sound you will hear is not remotely
close to what the producer heard, just because you use RIAA or any other
standard EQ.

Have you
ever tried to check a phono preamp for "RIAA accuracy" using a
professional test record? I have. It's almost impossible.

Why on earth would you check a phono pre-amp with a test record? I check
those with a spectrum analyser. Test records are for checking
turntables/cartridges.

If your playback EQ does not include cartridge/groove mechanical
effects, and specific cartridge response (and effects), then you're
probably not very close. Using a test record for a signal source and
including the entire cartridge in the signal path is the *only way* you
can possibly do that.

You should read what I wrote, but at least you are now admitting you are NOT
checking the phono *pre-amp* then, and were thus incorrect in saying so.

You obviously need to learn good measurement practice.

Well, if nearly forty years as a designer/manager in broadcasting and
related industries hasn't done it, I'm afraid it's never going to happen.

Yes some people never learn.

In fact what you are really doing is to adjust the Pre-amp EQ to
compensate
for your cartridge response, so it matches the test record. Now *That's*
very close to what I'm suggesting all along, and what YOU are
disagreeing
with!!

I think there was some miscommunication, then, because THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

It seems that we have been vehemently agreeing with each other.

It seems you fail to read what is written, and mean things you do not write
correctly then.

MrT.

[isw]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"isw" wrote in message
...


--snipped off a lot of this because I'm tired of talking at cross
purposes about it --

If your playback EQ does not include cartridge/groove mechanical
effects, and specific cartridge response (and effects), then you're
probably not very close. Using a test record for a signal source and
including the entire cartridge in the signal path is the *only way* you
can possibly do that.

You should read what I wrote, but at least you are now admitting you are NOT
checking the phono *pre-amp* then, and were thus incorrect in saying so.

No such thing. I'm saying to use the test record as a source instead of
a signal generator and "inverse RIAA network", and adjust the response
of the phono preamp as needed for "flat" output. That gives you as close
as you're going to get to what was on the master tape. One of the things
you learn when you try that is that it's just about impossible.

-- snipped a couple more ad hominem attacks --

Isaac

[Mr.T]

"isw" wrote in message
...
You should read what I wrote, but at least you are now admitting you are
NOT
checking the phono *pre-amp* then, and were thus incorrect in saying so.

No such thing. I'm saying to use the test record as a source instead of
a signal generator and "inverse RIAA network", and adjust the response
of the phono preamp as needed for "flat" output. That gives you as close
as you're going to get to what was on the master tape. One of the things
you learn when you try that is that it's just about impossible.

As I said, you are measuring the test record/turntable/cartridge/pre-amp
response, *NOT* just the pre-amp response as you originally stated.
This is what you were apparently after however, but you didn't write that.
Also it is *not* "just about impossible" for those with the right equipment
and test procedure.

As for *actually* measuring a phono pre-amp response, I never use inverse
RIAA. That can simply be subtracted mathematically in software.
However if you do use inverse RIAA, then it is still easy to measure the
response of that network alone, and compensate for any of it's errors.

MrT.

[isw]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"isw" wrote in message
...
You should read what I wrote, but at least you are now admitting you are
NOT
checking the phono *pre-amp* then, and were thus incorrect in saying so.

No such thing. I'm saying to use the test record as a source instead of
a signal generator and "inverse RIAA network", and adjust the response
of the phono preamp as needed for "flat" output. That gives you as close
as you're going to get to what was on the master tape. One of the things
you learn when you try that is that it's just about impossible.

As I said, you are measuring the test record/turntable/cartridge/pre-amp
response, *NOT* just the pre-amp response as you originally stated.

What I said was that you *adjusted* the preamp to get the desired system
response. And *of course* you're measuring the response from the disk
through the preamp; that's the whole point.

As for *actually* measuring a phono pre-amp response, I never use inverse
RIAA. That can simply be subtracted mathematically in software.
However if you do use inverse RIAA, then it is still easy to measure the
response of that network alone, and compensate for any of it's errors.

And you still have not compensated for any of the attributes of the
disk/stylus/cartridge part of the signal path.

isw

[Mr.T]

"isw" wrote in message
...
As I said, you are measuring the test record/turntable/cartridge/pre-amp
response, *NOT* just the pre-amp response as you originally stated.

What I said was that you *adjusted* the preamp to get the desired system
response. And *of course* you're measuring the response from the disk
through the preamp; that's the whole point.

Lets see, here's a copy and paste of what you actually said, and which I
replied to.

"Have you ever tried to check a phono preamp for "RIAA accuracy" using a
professional test record? I have. It's almost impossible."

And as I keep saying, you are *NOT* just checking the phono pre-amp the way
you describe!!!!!!
It is also wrong to claim it is "nearly" impossible to measure the test
record/turntable/cartridge/pre-amp response if you have the right tools and
methodology.
Clearly you don't.

MrT.