[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 16, 5:36=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 15, 5:30=3DA0am, "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. =3DA0There 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!

It's not the words arny it's the very idea behind them that is
absurd.


Experience shows that the general acceptance or non-acceptance of an alle=
ged
technology after decades of experience is the world's most relevant
evaluation of that technology.

Experience shows no such thing. Quite the opposite. History shows that
state of the art often is a lonesome place where others often never
follow for many reasons. By your logic things like the heat shields on
the space shuttle are not state of the art because they are not widely
used.



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. =A0We've discussed this to
death, so I won't be distracted by this essentially OT comment.

I'm not conflating anything just showing how your argument fails when
applied to other things.



Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day.
=3DA0Classic Records for ex=3D 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. =A0Wikipeida says that DMM was
introduced in 1974, so the technology is now over 35 years old. =A0The
"decades of experience" criteria has been met.

It is a weak argument borne out of a lack of information. If one wants
to learn more on the subject they would be better served by talking to
mastering engineers whose opinions on the two media are based in hands
on experience not on some bizarre self serving measure dubbed "general
accpetance." If one cares to look they will find arguments that
actually are logical and based in fact and experience.



=3DA0as well as things like digital lathe control,
Again failing the test of general acceptance. =3DA0Many
experienced cutters prefer to control the lathe manually
to this day.
Forget the =A0failed 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 t=
he
control panel at the right can be used to manually regulate the number of
lines etched into the master lacquer."


LOL reallY Arny? This was the best you could come up with? "Can be?"
You know what comes with "can be" do you not Arny? I'll give a hint,
but doesn't have to be.



So what are you telling me Scott? That a robot puts its mechanical hand o=
n
that large dial and thus the cutting process is entirely computer
controlled? ;-)

A no Arny but I will tell you that an option is an option. and that is
an option on that cutting lathe. An_Option

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 e=
nd
product, as delivered, or lowered cost, or better consistency, etc.

Which is what we get with better laquers.



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 4=
0
years ago?

It's in the records themselves Arny.

My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are
no quieter than w=3D 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 you have told us what you have in the way of a turntable/arm and
cartridge. It is substandard and hardly state of the art. That is a
simple observation, nothing more nothing less. It is inadequate to
make any meaningful measurements to judge the state of the art in
vinyl production.


Please provide needle drops from the relevant recordings that support you=
r
claims.

When you agree to hear them in proctored double blind tests