[Ron]

Arny Krueger wrote:
I'm just being an asshole.

Go right ahead.

[Ron]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Well, you've made a number of far-reaching claims. Are you willing to stand
behind them, or is this all about you bragging about some questionable POS
that you happen to own?


On second thought, go **** yourself, asshole!

[Mr.T]

"Ron" wrote in message
ups.com...
Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology, sure it has
some better computers than the rockets did back then, but the basic
principal is the same.

Bad example, they have lost 2 shuttles and 14 Astronauts after all, so
not
exactly the pinnacle of engineering perfection :-(

The example is something that is being used in the yr 2006, but is
still using technology from the 60's. In other words, space travel
hasn't evolved as quickly as the automobile has in the same time
period. I guess what I wrote wasn't clear in that fact.

Yes you were, but as I said, bad example.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:M%Gch.412$R_1.356@trndny08...
I think one of the reasons today's audio gear is so "bad" has a lot to do
with the fact that hi-fi audio is not a popular hobby any more. Back in
the
70s, there were several popular stereo audio magazines, a stereo shop in
every mall, and there was a high demand for quality two-channel gear. Now,
the magazines are gone, and the stores are closed. For the same $$, mfrs.
now have to provide six or seven audio channels to six or seven speakers
using a bunch of DSP logic. The quality is spread a lot thinner. Most
people
today really only care that the sound will play loud, with big
assplosions,
and go round and round their head.

Yes, in fact when adjusted for inflation/wage growth, HiFi equipment is a
lot better now than it ever was. The problem is that people seem to get by
with equipment that costs far less in real terms than the cheapest available
crap from the 60's,70's and 80's. Most people are just not prepared to spend
the same percentage of their wage on HiFi any more.
I am always amazed at how many people insist a good $500 amp from the
70's/80's is better than any $500 amp today. Well of course, but are they
better than a good $4,000 amp today? I think not.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:UJGch.644$4p2.376@trndny07...
Columbia burned up on re-entry in part because flight management at
NASA
became complacent about "foam shedding" from the main hydrogen tank.

Seems to me the poor O-ring sealing, foam shedding, and fragile heat
tiles
are all engineering problems.
(partly caused by lack of money maybe, but everything is built to a
budget).
You can only be complacent about a problem where one already exists.

True, but engineers are paid to provide solutions and give advice. Most of
the time, we are given conflicting requirements, including cost and
schedule. It is all a trade-off. We have to find the best solution within
the given constraints. Space flight has a vary narrow solution space
within
very tight constraints.

All true, but does contradict your original claim though.

In the case of the o-rings, the engineers' advice was "don't fly". Flight
management ignored that advice with predictable results. I'd say that was
good engineering and poor management.

I'd say it was poor engineering originally, poor management, and lack of
money to fix the problem when the engineers did realise there was a problem
with their original design..

In the case of the heat shield tiles, there simply aren't many solutions
that fulfill the requirements to be heat resistant, lightweight, and
rugged.
As long as nothing hits them on take-off, they work just fine.

And as long as they don't fall off by themselves as many did with the
original adhesives.

So the only big problem is falling ice and foam. When the engineers say "we
need to
solve that" or "we're running too close to the wire" and management says
fly
anyway, that's a management problem. Risk management.

Sure, there's always a compromise between perfection and budget in the real
world.

Do we have the best engineered spacecraft possible? Probably not. Is it
poorly engineered? I don't think so. We could probably do better today,

Ah, then your original example/assertion was wrong, and irrelevant the the
original discussion anyway.
That was my point.

MrT.

[Karl Uppiano]

[snip]

Ah, then your original example/assertion was wrong, and irrelevant the the
original discussion anyway.
That was my point.

I did not make the original example/assertion. I merely responded that I did
not think the space shuttle was an example of poor engineering. Engineers
have to work within the constraints that they are given. That involves
trade-offs, compromise, prioritization, in many cases, meaning the selection
of the best option from a list of poor options. Good engineering in no way
implies perfection or safety.

I think the fact that we had many successful missions and relatively few
failures (albeit spectacular and widely publicized) in a very dangerous
field with aging equipment, is a testament to the good (note: I didn't say
perfect) engineering that went into the space shuttle program. Sending
teachers and congressmen into space was a mistake because it led people to
the conclusion that space travel is now safe and commonplace. It isn't.

Now, if a turntable injures or kills its owner, I would say that would be
the result of poor engineering. But playing records amounts to dragging a
rock through a ditch. The technology is over 100 years old, and should be
extremely well understood by now. The only engineering that goes into it
consists of extremely minor refinements and most probably esthetic and
marketing enhancements.

[Mr.T]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:SUMch.693$4p2.315@trndny07...
I did not make the original example/assertion. I merely responded that I
did
not think the space shuttle was an example of poor engineering.

Of course it was. Normally such things are fixed in due course, except when
insufficient funds are available, (or are used to pay astronomical
management wages instead :-)

Engineers
have to work within the constraints that they are given. That involves
trade-offs, compromise, prioritization,

Of course.

in many cases, meaning the selection
of the best option from a list of poor options. Good engineering in no way
implies perfection or safety.

Good is a subjective term of course, but engineers do not claim something is
good when it can be expected to fail it's design function. (even/especially
*IF* the money is insufficient to design and manufacture a more suitable
component)

I think the fact that we had many successful missions and relatively few
failures (albeit spectacular and widely publicized) in a very dangerous
field with aging equipment, is a testament to the good (note: I didn't say
perfect) engineering that went into the space shuttle program. Sending
teachers and congressmen into space was a mistake because it led people to
the conclusion that space travel is now safe and commonplace. It isn't.

True, but the congressman only went because he could, and was an ex
astronaut.
And what's the difference between a teacher being killed and an astronaut
anyway? They all went through similar training, and all knew the risks
involved.

Now, if a turntable injures or kills its owner, I would say that would be
the result of poor engineering.

Or more likely caused by poor maintenance, or user modification.

But playing records amounts to dragging a
rock through a ditch. The technology is over 100 years old, and should be
extremely well understood by now. The only engineering that goes into it
consists of extremely minor refinements and most probably esthetic and
marketing enhancements.

In fact new technological advancements are being made all the time, which
can/could be applied IF there is sufficient demand to justify it.
It is applied anyway in some cases though, which leads to the current
$100,000 TT "marvels" :-)

MrT.

[Karl Uppiano]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:SUMch.693$4p2.315@trndny07...
I did not make the original example/assertion. I merely responded that I
did
not think the space shuttle was an example of poor engineering.

Of course it was. Normally such things are fixed in due course, except
when
insufficient funds are available, (or are used to pay astronomical
management wages instead :-)

Yes it was. No it wasn't. Ok, whatever.

Engineers
have to work within the constraints that they are given. That involves
trade-offs, compromise, prioritization,

Of course.

in many cases, meaning the selection
of the best option from a list of poor options. Good engineering in no
way
implies perfection or safety.

Good is a subjective term of course, but engineers do not claim something
is
good when it can be expected to fail it's design function.
(even/especially
*IF* the money is insufficient to design and manufacture a more suitable
component)

I believe the space shuttle was operated outside of its design parameters,
especially in the case of the o-ring failure. The foam shedding problem is
harder to track, but some sources still insist that the problem was caused
by the requirement that NASA use inferior, but environmentally friendlier,
non-CFC foam. The correct engineering answer is, use the tried & tested CFC
foam. I'm sure that exceptions could be made for that, just as they are for
other life-critical applications. Do we blame this one on poor engineering
or political correctness?

I think the fact that we had many successful missions and relatively few
failures (albeit spectacular and widely publicized) in a very dangerous
field with aging equipment, is a testament to the good (note: I didn't
say
perfect) engineering that went into the space shuttle program. Sending
teachers and congressmen into space was a mistake because it led people
to
the conclusion that space travel is now safe and commonplace. It isn't.

True, but the congressman only went because he could, and was an ex
astronaut.
And what's the difference between a teacher being killed and an astronaut
anyway? They all went through similar training, and all knew the risks
involved.

It is bad when anyone dies. But putting the teacher and congressmen on board
was a symbolic gesture that sent the wrong message, IMHO.

Now, if a turntable injures or kills its owner, I would say that would be
the result of poor engineering.

Or more likely caused by poor maintenance, or user modification.

Ok fine, if they read and observed the lawyer tags, and the turntable
injures or kills its owner...

But playing records amounts to dragging a
rock through a ditch. The technology is over 100 years old, and should be
extremely well understood by now. The only engineering that goes into it
consists of extremely minor refinements and most probably esthetic and
marketing enhancements.

In fact new technological advancements are being made all the time, which
can/could be applied IF there is sufficient demand to justify it.
It is applied anyway in some cases though, which leads to the current
$100,000 TT "marvels" :-)

Yes, but turntable enhancements are hardly on the order of magnitude in
terms of complexity and risk to put a space shuttle in orbit. There just
aren't that many options to rotating a record at a constant speed with
minimal vibration. Especially, ones that aren't just miles past the point of
diminishing returns. I've read about laser transcription of the stored
audio, but that's pretty much what we've done for the last 30 years with
optical storage. The analog nature of the recorded sound doesn't add that
much of a twist to it.

[Mark D. Zacharias]

analogman wrote in message ...

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message
t...
Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or
less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from
the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had
considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current
turntable, was this assumption wrong?

Of course it's wrong.

Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ?

Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do
try to keep up :-)

Silly me.

I'd nearly forgotten that it's all about worshipping OLD things.

Graham

The OP's modern piece of plastic junk is not a good example of modern
technology. It is not so much a turntable as a "record player".
There are some good modern turntables, yes, but not at the 100.00 price
point that the OP mentioned, not even close.

Thanks, I knew someone would understand why I did not mention the exact
models, a very cheap modern turntable and an also ran turntable from the
80's or maybe late 70's are hardly going to be widely recognised by model
name, i would be very luck indeed if someone knew the exact models, that
said I could have described the old turntable a little more, it is a
direct
drive quartz locked pll model and also I should have included a currency
reference with the value of the new player which is actually more at the
US
$60 - $70 mark.


Could be the OP's stylus just picked up a ball of fuzz playing the first
one
or 2 records...the issue of cleaning etc was not addressed, IIRC.

No this is not the issue but thanks.


Recommend a mid-70's to mid-80's direct drive and a Grado Prestige black
cartridge. Best to have it installed and aligned by someone knowledgeable
to
help eliminate this variable. Obviously, the magnetic preamp, whether a
small add-on, or from an integrated amp/receiver, should be in order, and
of
course the output to be recorded must go to the Line In of the sound
card,
and not the Mic input (common mistake - this info for the OP, not for the
regulars here...)

Mark Z.


I had no intention of connecting this to a soundcard it is to use to play
my
records on my 1989 pioneer reference amp which has mm and mc phono inputs
with equalization. I am pretty sure I have aligned it properly except for
vta which I don't know how to do as my tonearm does not appear to be
adjustable in this way although I could be wrong on this, were most
tonearms
adjustable for vta on run of the mill turntables?



The modern ones I'm thinking of, the Pioneer / Aiwa / Denon / Sony
made-in-China plastic ones which all come out of the same hole, do not have
adjustable tracking force or tracking angle.
A visual inspection should tell if the VTA is close - the underside of the
cartridge should be close to level with the record surface, and the very end
of the stylus cantilever which actually holds the diamond, should be
parallel to the record surface. Not the whole shaft mind you, just the very
end where the diamond is.

Mark Z.

[jakdedert]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:36:42 +1300, analogman wrote:

Thanks, I knew someone would understand why I did not mention the exact
models, a very cheap modern turntable and an also ran turntable from the
80's or maybe late 70's are hardly going to be widely recognised by model
name,

Try us. We asked nicely, after all.

I for one, don't understand why. Hell, I might even have one sitting on
the shelf right now. I was a hifi salesperson in the late 70's.

I'm starting to smell a troll.

jak

[jakdedert]

Mr.T wrote:
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:M%Gch.412$R_1.356@trndny08...
I think one of the reasons today's audio gear is so "bad" has a lot to do
with the fact that hi-fi audio is not a popular hobby any more. Back in
the
70s, there were several popular stereo audio magazines, a stereo shop in
every mall, and there was a high demand for quality two-channel gear. Now,
the magazines are gone, and the stores are closed. For the same $$, mfrs.
now have to provide six or seven audio channels to six or seven speakers
using a bunch of DSP logic. The quality is spread a lot thinner. Most
people
today really only care that the sound will play loud, with big
assplosions,
and go round and round their head.

Yes, in fact when adjusted for inflation/wage growth, HiFi equipment is a
lot better now than it ever was. The problem is that people seem to get by
with equipment that costs far less in real terms than the cheapest available
crap from the 60's,70's and 80's. Most people are just not prepared to spend
the same percentage of their wage on HiFi any more.
I am always amazed at how many people insist a good $500 amp from the
70's/80's is better than any $500 amp today. Well of course, but are they
better than a good $4,000 amp today? I think not.

The difference is that a good $500 amp from the 70's can often be found
at yard sale prices today. Many were built very well and still meet spec.

So the real issue becomes a $50 (used) amp WAY outperforming a modern
$500 amp...and possibly equal to a modern $4000 amp. For my money....

jak


MrT.

[Barry Mann]

Replying to the post that started all of this shouting:

Check the arm bearings. If they are loose, the arm will chatter. Not
everyone is sensitive to the result of the "chatter", but it annoys me.

The arm might also have a gross resonance. It's relatively easy to find
out by whacking the arm with a pencil and listen to the reply. If the
arm tends to "ring", there will be audible problems.

Make sure that nothing is loose on the headshell and arm.

In spite of your care, check again to be sure that you are using the
RIAA equalization.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

[MvonB]

Earth calling The Krooborg!



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ron" wrote in message
oups.com

For example, I have a Marantz 1090 integrated amp (from
the 70's) that is only 45 WPC that will blow away any of
the junk that you can buy these days with twice the
"watts".

What does "blow away" mean?

If we checked out your 1090 on the bench, would it meet original spec or
say have many of the electrolytic caps lost their value and are they now
acting as high pass filters acting at say 100 Hz?

Hell, it will almost keep up with the amp I'm using on my
main system, a B&K power amp that is 105 WPC.

Under ideal conditions there should be no audible difference between a
good 45 wpc amp and a 105 wpc amp, given that both are kept out of
clipping which is usually pretty managable. 105 watts is only 3 and a
scosh dB more than 45 watts, and 3 dB is not all that much louder. So even
if we ran the 105 watt amp just under clipping, it would not be that much
louder than the smaller amp.

Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology,
sure it has some better computers than the rockets did
back then, but the basic principal is the same.

When you're talking complexity on the level of the Space Shuttle, there
are major prices being paid in terms of increased maintenance, and loss of
function, when you compare 60s technology and Y2K technology. It is your
tax dollars at work! Trouble is, the up front costs for a major update is
more than anybody wants to step up to.

On a more practical level, compare a 500 Hp street racer from the 60s
(say, my friend's souped-up 428 1968 Cougar) to a 500 Hp street racer from
today (say the new SVU Mustang 500). No comparison. The 428 is just
barely drivable on the street, and a constand maintenace job, while the
SVU Mustang drives mild when you want it to drive mild, and still nails
the 60s Cougar on either the road course or the drag strip and runs
optimally for 10,000s of miles without a tune-up.

[Mr.T]

"jakdedert" wrote in message
.. .
I think one of the reasons today's audio gear is so "bad" has a lot to
do
with the fact that hi-fi audio is not a popular hobby any more.

The difference is that a good $500 amp from the 70's can often be found
at yard sale prices today. Many were built very well and still meet spec.
So the real issue becomes a $50 (used) amp WAY outperforming a modern
$500 amp...and possibly equal to a modern $4000 amp. For my money....

Sure, quite possible. But how does that apply to the assertion that today's
gear is "bad", simply because S/H gear might be cheaper?

MrT.

[jakdedert]

Mr.T wrote:
"jakdedert" wrote in message
.. .
I think one of the reasons today's audio gear is so "bad" has a lot to
do
with the fact that hi-fi audio is not a popular hobby any more.

The difference is that a good $500 amp from the 70's can often be found
at yard sale prices today. Many were built very well and still meet spec.
So the real issue becomes a $50 (used) amp WAY outperforming a modern
$500 amp...and possibly equal to a modern $4000 amp. For my money....

Sure, quite possible. But how does that apply to the assertion that today's
gear is "bad", simply because S/H gear might be cheaper?

In your case, for the $100 that you (the OP? I don't even remember at
this point.) spent on a crappy new turntable. From a thrift store, eBay
or a pawn shop, you could have gotten much more for your money. That
you didn't is a shame, but given that you won't divulge the details,
there's no easy way to help...or even a way to determine if you've
actually have a problem.

IOW, it's not that new gear is crappy (although it seems to be the case
these days for anything less than 'high end'), it's that really good
used gear is available at absolute bargain prices. The mainstream hifi
stuff sold in the 70's was *on an average* better quality...both in spec
and build quality.

IMHO, it's doubtful that much of the stuff sold today from Circuit City
or Best Buy is going to be sought after or collectible (or even still
working?) 30 years from now.

jak

MrT.

[Mike Coatham]

analogman wrote in message ...

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message
t...
Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:36:02 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Decided a few weeks ago to upgrade from my new but cheap $100 or
less turntable, I made the assumption that a basic turntable from
the 70's or 80's would be considerably better than what I had
considering the thin plastic platter etc... of my current
turntable, was this assumption wrong?

Of course it's wrong.

Is 70s auto technology a match for today's for example ?

Yeah, but vintage vinyl-playing gear is GOOD. Modern gear is BAD. Do
try to keep up :-)

Silly me.

I'd nearly forgotten that it's all about worshipping OLD things.

Graham

The OP's modern piece of plastic junk is not a good example of modern
technology. It is not so much a turntable as a "record player".
There are some good modern turntables, yes, but not at the 100.00 price
point that the OP mentioned, not even close.

Thanks, I knew someone would understand why I did not mention the exact
models, a very cheap modern turntable and an also ran turntable from the
80's or maybe late 70's are hardly going to be widely recognised by model
name, i would be very luck indeed if someone knew the exact models, that
said I could have described the old turntable a little more, it is a
direct
drive quartz locked pll model and also I should have included a currency
reference with the value of the new player which is actually more at the
US
$60 - $70 mark.

Well, Mr analogman, in view of the fact you aren't prepared to tell us the
important information -i.e. make & model , I suggest in future you direct y
our questions to rec.audio.clairvoyants. They should be able to second
guess the answers to your questions.
In other words.....go and kick someone elses tyres

[Mr.T]

"jakdedert" wrote in message
...
I think one of the reasons today's audio gear is so "bad" has a lot
to
do with the fact that hi-fi audio is not a popular hobby any more.

The difference is that a good $500 amp from the 70's can often be found
at yard sale prices today. Many were built very well and still meet
spec.
So the real issue becomes a $50 (used) amp WAY outperforming a modern
$500 amp...and possibly equal to a modern $4000 amp. For my money....

Sure, quite possible. But how does that apply to the assertion that
today's
gear is "bad", simply because S/H gear might be cheaper?

In your case, for the $100 that you (the OP? I don't even remember at
this point.) spent on a crappy new turntable. From a thrift store, eBay
or a pawn shop, you could have gotten much more for your money. That
you didn't is a shame, but given that you won't divulge the details,
there's no easy way to help...or even a way to determine if you've
actually have a problem.

I have NO problem, I simply responded to what was written.
What YOU are responding to I have no idea.


IOW, it's not that new gear is crappy (although it seems to be the case
these days for anything less than 'high end'), it's that really good
used gear is available at absolute bargain prices.

Which was never in dispute (for those who can tell what is "really good"
anyway)

The mainstream hifi
stuff sold in the 70's was *on an average* better quality...both in spec
and build quality.

And without quoting relative dollars, this statement has NO meaning
whatsoever.
The *average* hifi gear in the 70's cost FAR more than today in real terms.

IMHO, it's doubtful that much of the stuff sold today from Circuit City
or Best Buy is going to be sought after or collectible (or even still
working?) 30 years from now.

And nobody will care since they are not spending 3 months wages on it any
more!
There will be better stuff available for even less (real) money quite
probably. And by then China will probably have caught up with the rest of
the world, and the cheap gear will be made in Africa instead.

MrT.

[Barry Mann]

In , on 12/06/06
at 09:23 PM, "Mr.T" MrT@home said:

[ ... ]

There will be better stuff available for even less (real) money quite
probably. And by then China will probably have caught up with the rest
of the world, and the cheap gear will be made in Africa instead.

Eventually, we'll need to find exploitable labor on another planet. An
"off planet" support call center will take on a new dimension.

"out of this world service ... " (sorry, it just slipped out)

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------