[Howard Davis]

I suspect that many FM stations, and some CD recordings, boost the low
frequencies to improve their perceived sound quality. Does anyone here know
for certain if this is being done? The problem is the exaggerated bass comes
through and sounds unnatural on better than typical systems

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 9:35*pm, "Howard Davis" wrote:
I suspect that many FM stations, and some CD recordings,
boost the low frequencies to improve their perceived sound
quality. Does anyone here know for certain if this is being
done? The problem is the exaggerated bass comes
through and sounds unnatural on better than typical systems

Yes, that and a lot of other processing is routinely
applied to all sorts of music media: radio, CD's and
all.

The music delivery business exists NOT to deliver
the finest music to the end users, it exists for the
purpose of making money. Period. If the people
in charge believe that boosting bass will allow
to make more money, they will most assuredly
boost the bass. If tit's their perception that severe
over compression will generate more revenue and
profit, compress and clip they shall. And if they
think they are losing market share to someone
else who is doing it, they'll do it more. Much more.

Radio, especially, is in a serious bind. For most
radio stations, their only source of revenue is selling
advertising. And one they they can sell more
advertising is to convince potential advertisers that
they will reach more vict, I mean, listeners than the
other guy. And, to many broadcasters, that means
more processing.

What I find a little surprising is that there are still
some who are shocked and surprised to learn this
is happening.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:35:42 -0800, Howard Davis wrote
(in article ):

I suspect that many FM stations, and some CD recordings, boost the low
frequencies to improve their perceived sound quality. Does anyone here know
for certain if this is being done? The problem is the exaggerated bass comes
through and sounds unnatural on better than typical systems


That type of frequency domain manipulation is generally an individual record
producer's call, and is not, generally a record company policy. It's possible
for individual producer to boost bass in preparation for a CD release, but
it's not usually done because it generally muddies up the mid bass. Radio
stations do many things to give their station's sound more "presence"
including hard limiting and large amounts of compression in order to make
their station stand out by being the loudest (marketing studies have shown
that people scanning the radio dial tend to stop on the station that sounds
the loudest). But I've never heard of anyone using bass boost toward that
goal. But it certainly is possible.

[Walt]

Howard Davis wrote:
I suspect that many FM stations, and some CD recordings, boost the low
frequencies to improve their perceived sound quality. Does anyone here know
for certain if this is being done? The problem is the exaggerated bass comes
through and sounds unnatural on better than typical systems


FM stations do all manner of processing on their signal( to the point
where on some stations I can barely hear the "music" through the
compression artifacts.) Frequency response anomalies are definitely
there as a result of multi-band limiting, which may manifest itself as
too much bass or not enough, depending on the source material. Simply
booting the bass most likely wouldn't cut it, since the object of the
game is overall perceived loudness (at all costs!).

As for CD's, *every* commercial release goes through a mastering process
where EQ may be applied (it was always applied in the case of vinyl
mastering, for CDs it's optional but usual)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

[Peter Wieck]

On Feb 15, 9:35*pm, "Howard Davis" wrote:
I suspect that many FM stations, and some CD recordings, boost the low
frequencies to improve their perceived sound quality. Does anyone here knowg
for certain if this is being done? The problem is the exaggerated bass comes
through and sounds unnatural on better than typical systems.

These sad days, 'typical' systems are built around computer speakers
and MP3 players through earbuds. So, bass will be exAggerated (at
least) so as to exist at all.

'Better than typical' systems are seldom used by (commercial) FM
listeners much - so that tiny segment of the market is sacrificed. And
considering that much popular music has a peak-to-average of 10dB or
less - it is no surprise that CDs will also be processed so as to
enhance a limited source.

Yes, I am cynical.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Howard Davis]

wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 9:35 pm, "Howard Davis" wrote:
I suspect that many FM stations, and some CD recordings,
boost the low frequencies to improve their perceived sound
quality. Does anyone here know for certain if this is being
done? The problem is the exaggerated bass comes
through and sounds unnatural on better than typical systems

Yes, that and a lot of other processing is routinely
applied to all sorts of music media: radio, CD's and
all.

The music delivery business exists NOT to deliver
the finest music to the end users, it exists for the
purpose of making money. Period. If the people
in charge believe that boosting bass will allow
to make more money, they will most assuredly
boost the bass. If tit's their perception that severe
over compression will generate more revenue and
profit, compress and clip they shall. And if they
think they are losing market share to someone
else who is doing it, they'll do it more. Much more.

Radio, especially, is in a serious bind. For most
radio stations, their only source of revenue is selling
advertising. And one they they can sell more
advertising is to convince potential advertisers that
they will reach more vict, I mean, listeners than the
other guy. And, to many broadcasters, that means
more processing.

What I find a little surprising is that there are still
some who are shocked and surprised to learn this
is happening.

Familiar with the music business, I'm not surprised at all.
I hope their serious bind becomes more so - the media in general deserves
it.
Thanks for the reply.

[Howard Davis]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Howard Davis wrote:
I suspect that many FM stations, and some CD recordings, boost the low
frequencies to improve their perceived sound quality. Does anyone here
know for certain if this is being done? The problem is the exaggerated
bass comes through and sounds unnatural on better than typical systems

FM stations do all manner of processing on their signal( to the point
where on some stations I can barely hear the "music" through the
compression artifacts.) Frequency response anomalies are definitely there
as a result of multi-band limiting, which may manifest itself as too much
bass or not enough, depending on the source material. Simply booting the
bass most likely wouldn't cut it, since the object of the game is overall
perceived loudness (at all costs!).

As for CD's, *every* commercial release goes through a mastering process
where EQ may be applied (it was always applied in the case of vinyl
mastering, for CDs it's optional but usual)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Thanks for the reply.
With all the overcompression and deliberately unflat response, as well as
multipath distortion, I think it is a waste for a real audiophile that has
invested in good equipment and proper setup to listen to FM at all.

[Peter Wieck]

On Feb 16, 9:53*pm, "Howard Davis" wrote:

With all the overcompression and deliberately unflat response, as well as
multipath distortion, I think it is a waste for a real audiophile that has
invested in good equipment and proper setup to listen to FM at all.

Oh, I dunno.

http://www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi...ion&key=FM100B
(only one of several sources and options)

The above will let you transmit FM throughout your house and to your
nearby neighbors with as clean a signal as any commercial station.
This gives you the option doing anything from streaming from your
computer, MP3 player, CD changer or any other line-level source you
wish and then listen anywhere.

I also keep an AM transmitter ( http://www.sstran.com/ ) that allows
me to feed my old radios from the same source.

There are other options, of course. But the convenience of a clean,
stereo whole-house transmitter that can live anywhere unobtrusively
has its charms.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Codifus]

On Feb 16, 4:33*pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
.......
Yes, I am cynical.
.....
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

LOL! Think happy thoughts, man!

What's even more ironic about this audio age we live in is that, with
the perfection of digital audio, there is even less and less a need
to EQ or have tone controls on an audio system. Back in the day we
would boost the bass and treble for all the wrong reasons, be it to
get more oomph or hear more clarity, but the tone controls really did
have a reason to exist. Cassette audio had limited high frequency
extension and so could be compensated for by turning the treble up a
bit. Cassettes and records, more so with cassettes, would have limited
bottom end response. Not only that but many speakers would not measure
well into deep bass territory. To address those limitations, we could
turn up the bass to somewhat help the situation. This was by no means
the fix, just a band aid.

Now, with digital audio delivering 20Hz to 20 KHz with no dynamic
loss, we still use tone controls and EQ. iPods deliver clean
undistorted audio to our ears at ear splitting levels, yet we still
turn it up.

Funny how life is with the human condition.

CD

[Peter Wieck]

On Feb 17, 10:16*am, codifus wrote:

Now, with digital audio delivering 20Hz to 20 KHz with no dynamic
loss, we still use tone controls and EQ. iPods deliver clean
undistorted audio to our ears at ear splitting levels, yet we still
turn it up.

Yeah, yeah... but only through ear-buds, and only if you believe in
the polite fiction that the response-curve is flat across the entire
range. Otherwise, whatever the electronics might be delivering - what
arrives at your ears via even very good speakers in even a very good
room will not be anything even close to that 20/20K.

But this also politely avoids the initial question - why is (some) FM
and why are (some) recordings so blatantly processed? It is my
contention that "the Media" does it to overcome the pretty severe
limitations of the typical playback system as it exists today - all-in-
one and computer-type speakers.

I think it is somewhat difficult for the High-End denizens to
comprehend how bad it is out there. Once upon a time, every Tom/Dick/
Harry outlet from Sears to Silo to Sam Goodys sold reasonably decent
speakers, reasonably decent electronics and so forth. Today, what
comes out of the Big-Box outlets is pretty much unrelenting,
unmitigated crap focused nearly entirely on Television and the "HOME
THEATRE EXPERIENCE" and not much on decent audio. The typical
Generation X & Y haven't a clue on two-channel audio or what it means
or what it can really do. So, headbanger music on a 2" all-plastic
speaker may be processed to a fair-thee-well and make no substantial
difference to how it is heard by its intended victims. And the concept
of car base tubes pretty much puts any pretense to fidelity out of the
question.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:53:23 -0800, Howard Davis wrote
(in article ):

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Howard Davis wrote:
I suspect that many FM stations, and some CD recordings, boost the low
frequencies to improve their perceived sound quality. Does anyone here
know for certain if this is being done? The problem is the exaggerated
bass comes through and sounds unnatural on better than typical systems

FM stations do all manner of processing on their signal( to the point
where on some stations I can barely hear the "music" through the
compression artifacts.) Frequency response anomalies are definitely there
as a result of multi-band limiting, which may manifest itself as too much
bass or not enough, depending on the source material. Simply booting the
bass most likely wouldn't cut it, since the object of the game is overall
perceived loudness (at all costs!).

As for CD's, *every* commercial release goes through a mastering process
where EQ may be applied (it was always applied in the case of vinyl
mastering, for CDs it's optional but usual)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Thanks for the reply.
With all the overcompression and deliberately unflat response, as well as
multipath distortion, I think it is a waste for a real audiophile that has
invested in good equipment and proper setup to listen to FM at all.

What about digital FM? I understand that Sony has a digital tuner
(terrestrial, not satellite) that is dynamite. Its about $100 and they say it
sounds great. I dunno, never heard terrestrial digital audio broadcasts.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:16:50 -0800, codifus wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 16, 4:33*pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
......
Yes, I am cynical.
.....
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

LOL! Think happy thoughts, man!

What's even more ironic about this audio age we live in is that, with
the perfection of digital audio, there is even less and less a need
to EQ or have tone controls on an audio system. Back in the day we
would boost the bass and treble for all the wrong reasons, be it to
get more oomph or hear more clarity, but the tone controls really did
have a reason to exist. Cassette audio had limited high frequency
extension and so could be compensated for by turning the treble up a
bit. Cassettes and records, more so with cassettes, would have limited
bottom end response. Not only that but many speakers would not measure
well into deep bass territory. To address those limitations, we could
turn up the bass to somewhat help the situation. This was by no means
the fix, just a band aid.

Now, with digital audio delivering 20Hz to 20 KHz with no dynamic
loss, we still use tone controls and EQ. iPods deliver clean
undistorted audio to our ears at ear splitting levels, yet we still
turn it up.

Funny how life is with the human condition.

CD

I dunno. If digital is so perfect, why is it that I find myself more and more
pulling out LPs to play whenever I want to really listen seriously to music?
I'm finding that CDs are fine when I'm reading, but for some reason do not
satisfy when it comes to lights-out listening, when all of my attention is
focused on the music. Certainly CD has more dynamic range, flatter frequency
response, is not plagued by ticks and pops, surface noise, speed stability
issues, etc. But damn it, lately, after not listening to LP for a number of
years, I'm finding that the best LPs just plain sound better; more
involving, more real. I started to notice this the last time this subject
came up on this forum. I pulled out a couple of LPs that I remembered as
sounding somewhat better than the CD versions of he same title, and from
there, I started to "rediscover" my LP collection. Now I listen to me CD
collection (either from the discs themselves or from my music server) mostly
as background. The real listening is via LP. Strange.

[bob]

On Feb 17, 3:05*pm, Peter Wieck wrote:

comprehend how bad it is out there. Once upon a time, every Tom/Dick/
Harry outlet from Sears to Silo to Sam Goodys sold reasonably decent
speakers, reasonably decent electronics and so forth. Today, what
comes out of the Big-Box outlets is pretty much unrelenting,
unmitigated crap focused nearly entirely on Television and the "HOME
THEATRE EXPERIENCE" and not much on decent audio.

I'm not so sure I'd go that far. There's always been plenty of crap on
the market. And to the extent that recordings are optimized for
boomboxes and earbuds, that's a tragedy.

But I think a college kid with $500 in his pocket can buy much better
sound today, even in Best Buy, than he could 30 years ago—when I was a
college kid with $500 in his pocket.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:16:50 -0800, codifus wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 16, 4:33 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
......
Yes, I am cynical.
.....
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

LOL! Think happy thoughts, man!

What's even more ironic about this audio age we live in is that, with
the perfection of digital audio, there is even less and less a need
to EQ or have tone controls on an audio system. Back in the day we
would boost the bass and treble for all the wrong reasons, be it to
get more oomph or hear more clarity, but the tone controls really did
have a reason to exist. Cassette audio had limited high frequency
extension and so could be compensated for by turning the treble up a
bit. Cassettes and records, more so with cassettes, would have limited
bottom end response. Not only that but many speakers would not measure
well into deep bass territory. To address those limitations, we could
turn up the bass to somewhat help the situation. This was by no means
the fix, just a band aid.

Now, with digital audio delivering 20Hz to 20 KHz with no dynamic
loss, we still use tone controls and EQ. iPods deliver clean
undistorted audio to our ears at ear splitting levels, yet we still
turn it up.

Funny how life is with the human condition.

CD

I dunno. If digital is so perfect, why is it that I find myself more and
more
pulling out LPs to play whenever I want to really listen seriously to
music?
I'm finding that CDs are fine when I'm reading, but for some reason do not
satisfy when it comes to lights-out listening, when all of my attention is
focused on the music. Certainly CD has more dynamic range, flatter
frequency
response, is not plagued by ticks and pops, surface noise, speed stability
issues, etc. But damn it, lately, after not listening to LP for a number
of
years, I'm finding that the best LPs just plain sound better; more
involving, more real. I started to notice this the last time this subject
came up on this forum. I pulled out a couple of LPs that I remembered as
sounding somewhat better than the CD versions of he same title, and from
there, I started to "rediscover" my LP collection. Now I listen to me CD
collection (either from the discs themselves or from my music server)
mostly
as background. The real listening is via LP. Strange.

Welcome to the club. Now you know why some of us just can't accept the
conventional engineering wisdom.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:04:51 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:16:50 -0800, codifus wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 16, 4:33 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
......
Yes, I am cynical.
.....
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

LOL! Think happy thoughts, man!

What's even more ironic about this audio age we live in is that, with
the perfection of digital audio, there is even less and less a need
to EQ or have tone controls on an audio system. Back in the day we
would boost the bass and treble for all the wrong reasons, be it to
get more oomph or hear more clarity, but the tone controls really did
have a reason to exist. Cassette audio had limited high frequency
extension and so could be compensated for by turning the treble up a
bit. Cassettes and records, more so with cassettes, would have limited
bottom end response. Not only that but many speakers would not measure
well into deep bass territory. To address those limitations, we could
turn up the bass to somewhat help the situation. This was by no means
the fix, just a band aid.

Now, with digital audio delivering 20Hz to 20 KHz with no dynamic
loss, we still use tone controls and EQ. iPods deliver clean
undistorted audio to our ears at ear splitting levels, yet we still
turn it up.

Funny how life is with the human condition.

CD

I dunno. If digital is so perfect, why is it that I find myself more and
more
pulling out LPs to play whenever I want to really listen seriously to
music?
I'm finding that CDs are fine when I'm reading, but for some reason do not
satisfy when it comes to lights-out listening, when all of my attention is
focused on the music. Certainly CD has more dynamic range, flatter
frequency
response, is not plagued by ticks and pops, surface noise, speed stability
issues, etc. But damn it, lately, after not listening to LP for a number
of
years, I'm finding that the best LPs just plain sound better; more
involving, more real. I started to notice this the last time this subject
came up on this forum. I pulled out a couple of LPs that I remembered as
sounding somewhat better than the CD versions of he same title, and from
there, I started to "rediscover" my LP collection. Now I listen to me CD
collection (either from the discs themselves or from my music server)
mostly
as background. The real listening is via LP. Strange.

Welcome to the club. Now you know why some of us just can't accept the
conventional engineering wisdom.



It sure doesn't make a lot of sense, though. Digital should be perfect. Hell,
digital IS perfect, but it doesn't sound as much like music as does a good
LP. Don't ask me why........

[Peter Wieck]

On Feb 17, 6:53*pm, bob wrote:

But I think a college kid with $500 in his pocket can buy much better
sound today, even in Best Buy, than he could 30 years ago—when I was a
college kid with $500 in his pocket.

My first stereo purchased in 1973 consisted of AR4x speakers, AR
integrated amplifier, Pioneer SE10 turntable with a Rabco SL8E arm,
Shure cartridge, and a Dynaco FM5 (from kit) tuner. I paid $425 for it
all at the time - the savings from a full summer's worth of work after
paying rent and so forth. All but tuner, turntable, arm and cartridge
was purchased used - and that set came from a store that was closing
up shop (Tech HiFi) and so was pretty much remaindering everything
left on the shelves. I remember that the arm, table, tuner and
cartridge set me $225, the speakers and the amp came in at $100 each.

For that same money today, one will pretty much get amalgamated,
homogenized pacific-rim crap - just my opinion. For that same money
adjusted for inflation ($2061), one might *just* do OK - but again
likely have to get lucky and also go for legacy and used equipment. In
neither case would it happen at Best Buy or any of its clones.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[bob]

On Feb 18, 10:25*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Feb 17, 6:53*pm, bob wrote:

But I think a college kid with $500 in his pocket can buy much better
sound today, even in Best Buy, than he could 30 years ago—when I was a
college kid with $500 in his pocket.

My first stereo purchased in 1973 consisted of AR4x speakers, AR
integrated amplifier, Pioneer SE10 turntable with a Rabco SL8E arm,
Shure cartridge, and a Dynaco FM5 (from kit) tuner. I paid $425 for it
all at the time - the savings from a full summer's worth of work after
paying rent and so forth. All but tuner, turntable, arm and cartridge
was purchased used - and that set came from a store that was closing
up shop (Tech HiFi) and so was pretty much remaindering everything
left on the shelves. I remember that the arm, table, tuner and
cartridge set me $225, the speakers and the amp came in at $100 each.

For that same money today, one will pretty much get amalgamated,
homogenized pacific-rim crap - just my opinion. For that same money
adjusted for inflation ($2061), one might *just* do OK - but again
likely have to get lucky and also go for legacy and used equipment. In
neither case would it happen at Best Buy or any of its clones.

Well, you've both moved the goalposts and tilted the playing field.

You tilted the playing field by contrasting your used/remaindered
purchases of old with the price of new gear. And you've moved the
goalposts away from the Sears-to-BestBuy comparison you made
originally.

In 1978, I bought a 25w Technics receiver for $175. For that (nominal)
price today, you could buy twice the power. 100w receivers are
available for less than $300. They were practically unheard of in the
70s.

I've heard it said that the tuners in today's receivers are not as
good as the old ones, and I won't dispute that. OTOH, $100 will buy
you a pretty good unit today:
http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm

Comparisons between the disk players of yesteryear and the disk
players of today aren't even fair. :-)

That leaves speakers. Again, improvements over the decades are obvious
at every price point, and especially at the Sears/BestBuy end of the
spectrum. Big box retailers in my area have carried the Harman brands,
Paradigm and other makers designing according to principles that were
unknown in the 70s.

And consumers today aren't constrained by what local retailers carry.
Our Silo is called Crutchfield.

In 1978, I spent $500 on a system that, frankly, wasn't very good. A
kid today picking components at random enjoys better sound than I had.
I'm sure a knowledgeable consumer could pull together a modern system
that would leave your old on in the dust as well.

bob

[Bob Myers]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
Welcome to the club. Now you know why some of us just can't accept the
conventional engineering wisdom.

It sure doesn't make a lot of sense, though. Digital should be perfect.
Hell,
digital IS perfect, but it doesn't sound as much like music as does a good
LP. Don't ask me why........

Pretty simple. As much as some people like to believe otherwise,
the "audiophile" listening experience - for that matter, ANY listening
experience that is done for personal pleasure - is NOT about
accuracy in any objective sense. It is about getting something that
sounds *pleasing* to *you*.

Bob M.

[Walt]

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:53:23 -0800, Howard Davis wrote

I think it is a waste for a real audiophile that has
invested in good equipment and proper setup to listen to FM at all.

I listen to FM radio for convenience, or to hear music that's not part
of my collection. It's not an audiophile thing.


What about digital FM?

In the US, it's bit rate reduced to 10% of the CD bitrate, so it's bad
mp3 quality at best. Then you still have all the processing as before...


I understand that Sony has a digital tuner (terrestrial, not
satellite) that is dynamite.

That's a tuner that uses DSP to receive an analog signal. Supposed to
be good, but the signal will still be overprocessed - not much you can
do at receive time to fix that.


//Walt

[Peter Wieck]

On Feb 18, 11:21*pm, bob wrote:

Well, you've both moved the goalposts and tilted the playing field.

You tilted the playing field by contrasting your used/remaindered
purchases of old with the price of new gear. And you've moved the
goalposts away from the Sears-to-BestBuy comparison you made
originally.

Not really. Every item I mentioned was still in current production as
of the purchase date. Up to, and including the SL8E, albeit only by
special order. That I got it 'used' or 'remaindered' does not change
the fact that I purchased current-production items at-retail. Sears,
briefly, sold AR speakers and AR electronics (AR US, not the latter-
day Taiwan stuff). As did Silo, Allied and several others. Heath even
sold AR speaker kits.

I agree with you that *some* modern speakers are designed to
principles unknown 30 years ago. And so the costs have come down
relative to all things. But most speakers today are smaller and less
massive than in the past and are pretty thin at the bass even if
better at treble and midrange in _SOME_ cases. What really has
happened to low-end speakers is that they have become much more
efficient. Not so bad a thing if LOUD is the requirement. But, I
really doubt that there are any speakers that would allow an entire
system to fall within your arbitrary $500 price range that will match
a clean pair of AR4x for sound and dynamic range. Sure, if you go with
the $2016 - and I still think that legacy speakers generally
outperform modern speakers at every level *below* the high-end. Just
my opinion based on quite a bit of exposure.

We can agree that electronics have gotten much cheaper-per-watt than
before, and that even moderately priced electronics are pretty good
these days. This is about the single largest measurable and undeniable
improvement to the industry.

As to disc systems - yeah. The CD has changed things a bit over vinyl
and tape. No denial there.

Should we start discussing tubes? Yikes!! (Yeah, I keep three tube
systems).

Point being that while good sound is possible from typical OTC sources
today, the great unwashed is largely ignorant of it, has never been
exposed to it, and is clueless as to its implications. FM station
owners, CD manufacturers and producers cater to the great unwashed. So
they will 'colorize' their offerings to appeal to their market.

Small aside: A piece of equipment I own now (Revox A720) cost $1495 in
1973. more than 3x what I paid for my entire system at the time.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

On Feb 18, 11:21*pm, bob wrote:
Harman brands, Paradigm and other makers
designing according to principles that were
unknown in the 70s.

What principles would those be?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 19, 10:23*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
I agree with you that *some* modern speakers are
designed to principles unknown 30 years ago.

An example, please?

[Iordani]

Sonnova wrote:


It sure doesn't make a lot of sense, though. Digital should be perfect.
Hell, digital IS perfect, but it doesn't sound as much like music as does
a good
LP. Don't ask me why........

And if you compare the LP with the same one transferred to a digital media
by yourself and without any 'enhancing'. How does that come out?

[bob]

On Feb 19, 12:29*pm, wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:21*pm, bob wrote:

Harman brands, Paradigm and other makers
designing according to principles that were
unknown in the 70s.

What principles would those be?

Oh, nothing. I was just trying to get your attention.

Now that I have, Dick, do you think the consumer on a "modest" budget
today has better-quality speakers available to him than his
counterpart in the 1970s?

bob

[jwvm]

On Feb 18, 11:21*pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 18, 10:25*am, Peter Wieck wrote:



On Feb 17, 6:53*pm, bob wrote:

But I think a college kid with $500 in his pocket can buy much better
sound today, even in Best Buy, than he could 30 years ago—when I was a
college kid with $500 in his pocket.


I can remember the typical equipment that college students had 40
years ago and most of it was total junk by modern standards.

snip

In 1978, I bought a 25w Technics receiver for $175. For that (nominal)
price today, you could buy twice the power. 100w receivers are
available for less than $300. They were practically unheard of in the
70s.

Many of the $300 receivers are surround-sound capable and all offer a
much wider variety of features compared to legacy receivers.


I've heard it said that the tuners in today's receivers are not as
good as the old ones, and I won't dispute that. OTOH, $100 will buy
you a pretty good unit today:http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm

Perhaps the tuners are not as good or there may be other problems.
There is a good deal more RFI at FM frequencies in homes today given
the abundance of computers, game consoles and similar digital
electronics found in many homes. Then again, the quality of most FM
broadcasts is not what it used to be. The receiver manufacturers may
not feel compelled to worry about tuner quality. With the rise of the
internet radio stations with the vast array of programming available,
a robust future for FM music broadcasts seems unlikely.


Comparisons between the disk players of yesteryear and the disk
players of today aren't even fair. :-)

The less expensive record players of old could easily grind record to
dust in well under 100 plays. The penny on the tonearm tweak, however,
may have provided a short term tracking benefit.


That leaves speakers. Again, improvements over the decades are obvious
at every price point, and especially at the Sears/BestBuy end of the
spectrum. Big box retailers in my area have carried the Harman brands,
Paradigm and other makers designing according to principles that were
unknown in the 70s.


For the most part, lower cost speakers are much better than inflation-
adjusted comparably priced speakers of old. It is less clear what
price advantages modern speakers of equivalent quality have. It seems
unlikely that modern speakers offer less value than earlier speakers
when they were new. At the same time, however, many older speakers are
still capable of provided high quality sound today.

And consumers today aren't constrained by what local retailers carry.
Our Silo is called Crutchfield.

In 1978, I spent $500 on a system that, frankly, wasn't very good. A
kid today picking components at random enjoys better sound than I had.
I'm sure a knowledgeable consumer could pull together a modern system
that would leave your old on in the dust as well.


Certainly, advances in electronics and related technology offer the
possibility of much better value for newer sound systems.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:27:01 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 19, 10:23*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
I agree with you that *some* modern speakers are
designed to principles unknown 30 years ago.

An example, please?


I sure can't think of any. Electrostatics? No, they're more than 30 years
old. Maybe the sputtered metalized Mylar used in their diaphragms - But
that's materials technology not speaker technology, per se. Planar magnetics?
No, again, this idea is more than 30 years old (but only just). Horn
speakers? Granted that modern horns are a far cry from their ancestors, but,
again, horns are among the earliest of speaker technologies. Acoustic
suspension harks back to the late 1940's as does the concept of mass-loaded
ports. using carbon fiber and Kevlar for cones is, again, materials
technology and not new speaker "principles". Ribbons go back to the dawn of
speaker development and the concept of "Time-Alignment" or phase coherence in
driver arrangement was patented by E.M. Long in the early seventies, so
that's more than 30 years old.

Can anybody else come up with truly "new" speaker principles that were
developed after 1979? I can't.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:29:48 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 18, 11:21*pm, bob wrote:
Harman brands, Paradigm and other makers
designing according to principles that were
unknown in the 70s.

What principles would those be?


Yes, I'd like to know that too.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:13:24 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 19, 12:29*pm, wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:21*pm, bob wrote:

Harman brands, Paradigm and other makers
designing according to principles that were
unknown in the 70s.

What principles would those be?

Oh, nothing. I was just trying to get your attention.

Now that I have, Dick, do you think the consumer on a "modest" budget
today has better-quality speakers available to him than his
counterpart in the 1970s?

bob


Absolutely. Speakers have come a long way, baby. But those strides are a
result of the DEVELOPMENT of known principles using, in many instances, new
materials such as kevlar, metalized Mylar, and carbon fiber to refine designs
already known about. These new materials help speaker manufacturers more
closely approach known, theoretical ideals by lowering moving mass,
increasing stiffness, thereby reducing modal characteristics of the
transducers so that they more closely approach the ideal transducer. Each
application, when judiciously applied, improves speaker performance over what
came before. The AR3, for instance was a breakthrough speaker in the 1950's
and was a revelation to all who heard it. BUT, by today's standards it's
primitive. I have an acquaintance who has a pair that have recently been
overhauled by a guy who lives in my area who does that. He re-cones the
drivers in exactly the same way that the originals were constructed, uses new
caps in the crossover, and guarantees that the refurbished ARs meet original,
factory specs. They sound so mediocre that it's hard to imagine what all the
hullabaloo was about them at the time. Everything else must have been truly
dreadful. When I was a teen audiophile, the speakers everybody lusted over
were either Altec-Lansing A7 "Voice of the Theaters" or Klipschorns. I know
for a fact, that even with 15-inch woofers, an A7 could barely dip to 100 Hz
before rolling off steeply (it was 9 dB down at 40 Hz with a +2dB peak around
35 falling like a stone below that [-12dB at 20Hz]) and that the treble horn
rang like a bell at around 500 Hz. Klipschorns were better, with USABLE
(whatever that means) response to 25 Hz (Source for all these figures: Howard
Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia"). Of course, Klipschorns WERE 50% efficient,
meaning that an early 1960's 6-transistor AM pocket-sized radio could blast
one out of the room from the earphone jack when connected to the Klipschorn's
amp terminals (been there done that. As a teen, a friends dad had an original
Klipschorn (mono system) and we used to marvel at how loud my little
pocket-sized Realistic transistor radio would drive it!).

I'd say that we've come very far since the 50's OR the 70's.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:15:18 -0800, jwvm wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 18, 11:21*pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 18, 10:25*am, Peter Wieck wrote:



On Feb 17, 6:53*pm, bob wrote:

But I think a college kid with $500 in his pocket can buy much better
sound today, even in Best Buy, than he could 30 years ago—when I was a
college kid with $500 in his pocket.


I can remember the typical equipment that college students had 40
years ago and most of it was total junk by modern standards.

snip

In 1978, I bought a 25w Technics receiver for $175. For that (nominal)
price today, you could buy twice the power. 100w receivers are
available for less than $300. They were practically unheard of in the
70s.

Many of the $300 receivers are surround-sound capable and all offer a
much wider variety of features compared to legacy receivers.


I've heard it said that the tuners in today's receivers are not as
good as the old ones, and I won't dispute that. OTOH, $100 will buy
you a pretty good unit today:http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm

Perhaps the tuners are not as good or there may be other problems.
There is a good deal more RFI at FM frequencies in homes today given
the abundance of computers, game consoles and similar digital
electronics found in many homes. Then again, the quality of most FM
broadcasts is not what it used to be.

Boy you can say that again. I remember as a teen growing-up in a Washington
DC suburb, I could pick-up great live broadcasts of concerts from the
Watergate barge in the summer and the State Department Auditorium in the
winter of the President's Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Bands as well as
live performances of the Washington Symphony Orchestra from the rotunda of
the National Gallery. First in mono, then in stereo, these performances
sounded GREAT. No compression, no limiting, no fiddling with the frequency
response (that I knew of, anyway). I could sit in my easy chair in my room
with my Eico HFT-90 tuner (later equiped with an Allied Radio "Knight-Kit" FM
Stereo demodulator) connected to my 20-Watt/channel Knight-Kit tube
integrated amp powering a pair of 12" Electro-Voice "Wolverine" coaxial
speakers mounted in bass reflex cabinets that my dad built for me, and hear
live FM broadcasts almost any weekend. Frankly, I've had no audio experiences
SINCE that captured the magic of those live broadcasts!


The receiver manufacturers may
not feel compelled to worry about tuner quality. With the rise of the
internet radio stations with the vast array of programming available,
a robust future for FM music broadcasts seems unlikely.


Comparisons between the disk players of yesteryear and the disk
players of today aren't even fair. :-)

The less expensive record players of old could easily grind record to
dust in well under 100 plays. The penny on the tonearm tweak, however,
may have provided a short term tracking benefit.

Not all turntables and arms from yesteryear were record destroyers. I have
records that I bought as a kid in the late 1950's through the 1960's that
still play and sound fine. As a teen, I wanted an AR turntable, but could
never muster the $70 that one cost (plus the cost of a suitable phono
cartridge). I settled, finally, for a Bang & Olufsen "Beogram" unit ($40,
including cartridge). It turned out to be a better table all around than the
AR. It was belt drive like the AR (but lacked the AR's pretty, 12-inch
diameter, thick aluminum polished platter and sophisticated suspension) but
had a MUCH better arm (gimble bearing arm pivot - like a compass) and no head
shell, the then excellent B&O "Stereodyne" variable reluctance cartridge
plugged directly into the end of the arm (which was bent at exactly the right
angle for the cartridge and assured proper geometry) and required no
head-shell, so that lowered the pick-up's mass (a picture of a similar
Beogram to mine can be found at
http://www.beoworld.org/prod_details.asp?pid=264). Mine was an older model
and apparently, was not officially called a Beogram, but it had essentially
the same arm/cartridge. Anyway, I credit this excellent (for the era)
arm/cartridge combo for the good shape in which many of my older records
have traversed the years.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:27:17 -0800, Iordani wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:


It sure doesn't make a lot of sense, though. Digital should be perfect.
Hell, digital IS perfect, but it doesn't sound as much like music as does
a good
LP. Don't ask me why........

And if you compare the LP with the same one transferred to a digital media
by yourself and without any 'enhancing'. How does that come out?

I only have done that a couple of times, but the results were that I
couldn't tell the difference. I'm not sure what that result bespeaks.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 19, 3:13*pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 19, 12:29*pm, wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:21*pm, bob wrote:

Harman brands, Paradigm and other makers
designing according to principles that were
unknown in the 70s.
What principles would those be?

Oh, nothing. I was just trying to get your attention.

Just lost it.

Now that I have, Dick, do you think the consumer
on a "modest" budget today has better-quality
speakers available to him than his counterpart in
the 1970s?

There is a potential, yes, but I fear that potential
may go unrealized.

The biggest advances in loudspeakers over the
last 3 decades involve more evolutionary changes,
with very, very little revolutionary happening. Primarily,
materials science in drivers is about it.

Next to that, the largest factor contributing to the
potential of better loudspeakers at lower prices is
the reduction in labor costs involved in loudspeakers
primarily associated with most of the manufacturing
having moved to the Far East.

Unfortunately, this same factor has resulted in a
failure to realize the potential. While the price of
a given assemblage of parts is in terms of real
dollar is significantly lower than it was 20-30
years ago, and while the quality of those parts is
certainly no worse and often better than 20-30 years
ago, the net quality of the drivers is no better and
often unpredictably much worse.

The reason is sometimes difficult to accept. I'm as
much into a world view and non-prejudice view as
the next guy, but I and my clients have found that,
with very few exceptions, the mainland Chinese
driver sources suffer all from the same problem:
they simply do not care in the least whether what
they make is what you want or even what they
claim it is.

I have gone so far as specified a driver down to
specific vendors for each and every individual part,
they'll work hard to make it the way you want for
the sample approval stage, but once production is
running, they reserve the right to, at their whim and
without notice, change anything at all. They'll also
take a design that, by contract, is your specific
proprietary design, and sell it to whoever will pay
for it, and even at a price better than what you're
paying for it.

Since mainland China is one of THE major suppliers
of drivers, the fact that they simply don't give a ****
has a MAJOR impact on the entire industry.

I have even had battles where they claim they measure
one thng (say, fundamental resonance is 150 Hz), and
I consitently measure something else entirely (250 Hz),
and they simply don't care. GO buy your drivers from
the guy down the street, there's plenty of business to
go around anyway.

So, the short answer is, yes, better speakers COULD
be available at lower prices. As often as not, they
aren't.

[Peter Wieck]

On Feb 19, 2:27*pm, wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:23*am, Peter Wieck wrote:

I agree with you that *some* modern speakers are
designed to principles unknown 30 years ago.

An example, please?

Wooden diaphrams, for one thing. Shaved, plasticized, rigid wood.
Plastic diaphrams, for another. Various sorts of planar speakers that
were only barely off the drawing boards 30+ years ago.

The intent is unchanged, the processes getting to it have evolved
considerably, and the principles behind those processes have also
evolved necessarily. I am not so sure if I believe that all that
evolution is 100% worthwhile.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:15:19 -0800, Sonnova wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:15:18 -0800, jwvm wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 18, 11:21*pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 18, 10:25*am, Peter Wieck wrote:



On Feb 17, 6:53*pm, bob wrote:

But I think a college kid with $500 in his pocket can buy much better
sound today, even in Best Buy, than he could 30 years ago—when I was a
college kid with $500 in his pocket.


I can remember the typical equipment that college students had 40
years ago and most of it was total junk by modern standards.

snip

In 1978, I bought a 25w Technics receiver for $175. For that (nominal)
price today, you could buy twice the power. 100w receivers are
available for less than $300. They were practically unheard of in the
70s.

Many of the $300 receivers are surround-sound capable and all offer a
much wider variety of features compared to legacy receivers.


I've heard it said that the tuners in today's receivers are not as
good as the old ones, and I won't dispute that. OTOH, $100 will buy
you a pretty good unit today:http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm

Perhaps the tuners are not as good or there may be other problems.
There is a good deal more RFI at FM frequencies in homes today given
the abundance of computers, game consoles and similar digital
electronics found in many homes. Then again, the quality of most FM
broadcasts is not what it used to be.

Boy you can say that again. I remember as a teen growing-up in a Washington
DC suburb, I could pick-up great live broadcasts of concerts from the
Watergate barge in the summer and the State Department Auditorium in the
winter of the President's Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Bands as well as
live performances of the Washington Symphony Orchestra from the rotunda of
the National Gallery. First in mono, then in stereo, these performances
sounded GREAT. No compression, no limiting, no fiddling with the frequency
response (that I knew of, anyway). I could sit in my easy chair in my room
with my Eico HFT-90 tuner (later equiped with an Allied Radio "Knight-Kit" FM

Stereo demodulator) connected to my 20-Watt/channel Knight-Kit tube
integrated amp powering a pair of 12" Electro-Voice "Wolverine" coaxial
speakers mounted in bass reflex cabinets that my dad built for me, and hear
live FM broadcasts almost any weekend. Frankly, I've had no audio experiences

SINCE that captured the magic of those live broadcasts!


The receiver manufacturers may
not feel compelled to worry about tuner quality. With the rise of the
internet radio stations with the vast array of programming available,
a robust future for FM music broadcasts seems unlikely.


Comparisons between the disk players of yesteryear and the disk
players of today aren't even fair. :-)

The less expensive record players of old could easily grind record to
dust in well under 100 plays. The penny on the tonearm tweak, however,
may have provided a short term tracking benefit.

Not all turntables and arms from yesteryear were record destroyers. I have
records that I bought as a kid in the late 1950's through the 1960's that
still play and sound fine. As a teen, I wanted an AR turntable, but could
never muster the $70 that one cost (plus the cost of a suitable phono
cartridge). I settled, finally, for a Bang & Olufsen "Beogram" unit ($40,
including cartridge). It turned out to be a better table all around than the
AR. It was belt drive like the AR (but lacked the AR's pretty, 12-inch
diameter, thick aluminum polished platter and sophisticated suspension) but
had a MUCH better arm (gimble bearing arm pivot - like a compass) and no head

shell, the then excellent B&O "Stereodyne" variable reluctance cartridge
plugged directly into the end of the arm (which was bent at exactly the right

angle for the cartridge and assured proper geometry) and required no
head-shell, so that lowered the pick-up's mass (a picture of a similar
Beogram to mine can be found at
http://www.beoworld.org/prod_details.asp?pid=264). Mine was an older model
and apparently, was not officially called a Beogram, but it had essentially
the same arm/cartridge. Anyway, I credit this excellent (for the era)
arm/cartridge combo for the good shape in which many of my older records
have traversed the years.


The actual turntable that I had was the B&O 42V. I found it AFTER I posted
the above.

http://tinyurl.com/bksmsv

Except the blog is wrong. This table was belt drive, not rim drive. I had to
replace the belt once so I know that for sure.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 20, 6:02*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:27*pm, wrote:

On Feb 19, 10:23*am, Peter Wieck wrote:

I agree with you that *some* modern speakers are
designed to principles unknown 30 years ago.

An example, please?

Wooden diaphrams, for one thing.

1920's, thank you.

Shaved, plasticized, rigid wood.

Oh, please, these are hardly "principles." They are,
in most cases, the results of unguided hacking about,
looking for some miraculous "revolution." The fact
that this wort of quackery exists is no "revolution,"
it's merely existance proof that gullibility and
hucksterism is alive and well everywhere. Bernie
Madoff would have done quite well in the high-end
audio business

When the Japanese section of the AES became real
in the 1970's, there was a flood of articles on "revolutionary"
loudspeaker "principles." With rare exception, they were
all about new and miraculous materials and processes
used in the manufacture of loudspeaker diaphragms. Here
are just a few examples:

"High-Fidelity Loudspeakers with Boronized Titanium
Diaphragms"

"Tweeter use new structure and new material for
Diaphragm."

"Loudspeaker with Honeycomb Disk Diaphragm"

"Polymer-Graphite Composite Diaphragm"

"Reinforced Olefin Polymer Diaphragm"

"Glass-Fiber and Graphite-Flake Reinforced
Polyimide Composite Diaphragm for
Loudspeakers."

Two common attributes are shared by all these
articles: 1) They list MANY authors (an average
of 5 per article) and 2) none of these "revolutionary
principles" are in use in any product today.

Plastic diaphrams, for another.

KEF was selling them as part of their normal line
in the 1960's, among many others.

Various sorts of planar speakers that
were only barely off the drawing boards 30+ years ago.

That'd be 1979. Magnapan had already been in
business several years at that point. There is an
entire chapter on what looks remarkably like modern
magnetic planar speakers in MacLaclan's
"Loudspeakers" in the 1960 reprint. I don't know if it
was in the original published in 1934.

The intent is unchanged, the processes getting
to it have evolved considerably, and the principles
behind those processes have also evolved
necessarily.

"Necessarily?"

I am not so sure if I believe that all that
evolution is 100% worthwhile.

Look, by "principles", we're not talking the fact
that Foster is now able to pawn off the same **** they
made 40 years ago as new "revolutionary" ****.
We're talking the work of people like Thiele, Small,
Benson, Vanderkooy and many other who have done
REAL work and REAL innovation.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:27:01 -0800,
wrote (in article
):

On Feb 19, 10:23 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
I agree with you that *some* modern speakers are
designed to principles unknown 30 years ago.

An example, please?


I sure can't think of any. Electrostatics? No, they're
more than 30 years old. Maybe the sputtered metalized
Mylar used in their diaphragms - But that's materials
technology not speaker technology, per se. Planar
magnetics? No, again, this idea is more than 30 years old
(but only just). Horn speakers? Granted that modern horns
are a far cry from their ancestors, but, again, horns are
among the earliest of speaker technologies. Acoustic
suspension harks back to the late 1940's as does the
concept of mass-loaded ports. using carbon fiber and
Kevlar for cones is, again, materials technology and not
new speaker "principles". Ribbons go back to the dawn of
speaker development and the concept of "Time-Alignment"
or phase coherence in driver arrangement was patented by
E.M. Long in the early seventies, so that's more than 30
years old.

Can anybody else come up with truly "new" speaker
principles that were developed after 1979? I can't.

Mr. Pierce is a wily old critter who has had his fingers on the heart of
loudspeaker issues just about forever. His choice of 1979 is pretty
strategic, if he backed off a decade, there might be a chance. Maybe the
Heil Air Motion Transformer might fit if we went back to 1969, maybe not.
Maybe constant-directivity horns, maybe not.

While the principles haven't changed the application of materials surely
has. Your example of aluminized mylar doesn't wash because the real truth is
that the stuff that fell out of the sky in Roswell in the late 40s was made
out of aluminized mylar.

The most important materials upgrades for speakers have been in the areas of
glues and varnishes and how to use them.

Heck, even treated paper can still be SOTA!

Surprisingly enough, the newer stuff that seems high tech, like ceramics and
aerogels haven't done a lot for performance, at least not yet.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iordani" wrote in message

Sonnova wrote:


It sure doesn't make a lot of sense, though. Digital
should be perfect. Hell, digital IS perfect, but it
doesn't sound as much like music as does a good
LP. Don't ask me why........

And if you compare the LP with the same one transferred
to a digital media by yourself and without any
'enhancing'. How does that come out?

Some people are doing this experiement and posting the results on the web -
listen for yourself:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=69601

Sorry about the choice of turntables, but that's where the mainstream vinyl
market seems to be these days.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:02:31 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 19, 2:27*pm, wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:23*am, Peter Wieck wrote:

I agree with you that *some* modern speakers are
designed to principles unknown 30 years ago.

An example, please?

Wooden diaphrams, for one thing. Shaved, plasticized, rigid wood.
Plastic diaphrams, for another. Various sorts of planar speakers that
were only barely off the drawing boards 30+ years ago.

That's arguably NOT new speaker technology, but materials technology.

[Iordani[_2_]]

Sonnova wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:27:17 -0800, Iordani wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:


It sure doesn't make a lot of sense, though. Digital should be perfect.
Hell, digital IS perfect, but it doesn't sound as much like music as
does a good
LP. Don't ask me why........

And if you compare the LP with the same one transferred to a digital
media
by yourself and without any 'enhancing'. How does that come out?

I only have done that a couple of times, but the results were that I
couldn't tell the difference. I'm not sure what that result bespeaks.

If I can suggest:

1. Digital IS perfect
2. LP fans can transfer their favorites to digital and save all wear and
tear caused by playing them on the turnable.
3. A producer could choose to make a CD as both a CD version *and* an LP
version. Just produce one perfect LP copy and transfer this to digital and
sell this CD as the (more expensive?) LP-version

[[email protected]]

On Feb 20, 12:42*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:02:31 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):
An example, please?

Wooden diaphrams, for one thing. Shaved, plasticized, rigid wood.
Plastic diaphrams, for another. Various sorts of planar speakers that
were only barely off the drawing boards 30+ years ago.

That's arguably NOT new speaker technology, but materials
technology.

And in many case, it's not new and it's not even
reasonable "technology."

For example, the recent craze of "rice paper" speaker
cones is some manufacturers selling the same drivers
they sold 40 years ago, only giving them a different
name, a hype and a WAY different price.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Iordani" wrote in message
...
Sonnova wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:27:17 -0800, Iordani wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:


It sure doesn't make a lot of sense, though. Digital should be perfect.
Hell, digital IS perfect, but it doesn't sound as much like music as
does a good
LP. Don't ask me why........

And if you compare the LP with the same one transferred to a digital
media
by yourself and without any 'enhancing'. How does that come out?

I only have done that a couple of times, but the results were that I
couldn't tell the difference. I'm not sure what that result bespeaks.

If I can suggest:

1. Digital IS perfect
2. LP fans can transfer their favorites to digital and save all wear and
tear caused by playing them on the turnable.
3. A producer could choose to make a CD as both a CD version *and* an LP
version. Just produce one perfect LP copy and transfer this to digital
and
sell this CD as the (more expensive?) LP-version

I agree with 1 above, or at least, it can be. 44.1-16 bit has been shown to
be sonically transparent, so I'm happy to accept the term "perfect".

As to the other two suggestions, I think you may have misunderstood the
point of playing vinyl for some of us. It's nothing to do with better sound,
but to do with the nostalgia of cleaning and clamping, and putting the
stylus on, and turning the record over. It's the activity that's the fun
part rather than just the music, although of course that's important too.

Playing vinyl to me is much like driving a vintage MG or blown Bentley.
Great fun, hardly practical for everyday motoring, but nevertheless great
fun.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com